Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-21 OrdinanceItem Number: 10.a. I i CITY OF IOWA CITY �fil COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November21, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning to reduce the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty- seven (27) feet for single-family and duplex uses. (REZ23-0005) Attachments: REZ23-0005 Memo-Deferral-Final-w-Attachments.pdf Late Correspondence to PZ.pdf Correspondence to PZ-Knote-10.18.2023.pdf PZ 8.16.23 final minutes.pdf PZ 10.18.23 prelim minutes.pdf Ordinance CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 17, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Request to reduce height requirements in RNS-12 zone (REZ23-0005) Introduction The Northside Neighborhood Association asked the City Council to consider reducing the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from 35 feet to 27 feet. At its June 6, 2023, work session, the City Council initiated the rezoning process by directing staff to prioritize the review of the proposed change. On August 16, staff presented this request to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff recommended denial. The Commission deferred the item to October 17 and requested that staff schedule another meeting with the neighborhood association to discuss the proposal. The Commission also requested additional information on the City's historic preservation program. Staff met with three representatives of the neighborhood association on September 6. During the September 6 meeting, the neighborhood association representatives noted that they were interested in reducing the maximum allowable height only for new single-family and duplex uses. Also, they originally proposed a reduction to 27', but based on our conversation it appeared they were open to other options to regulate height (e.g. 2.5 stories). Staff's understanding of their main concerns are as follows: • The existing maximum height of 35' provides a financial incentive for investors to demolish older, affordable, owner -occupied structures. • The 35' height maximum encourages redevelopment to out -of -scale buildings that can harm neighboring properties. The example given was the proposed single-family home at 319 N. Van Buren Street. Staff continues to recommend retaining the current height for the reasons set forth in the August 16 memo (Attachment 1). Analysis This section is an update to staff's original analysis included in the August 16 memo. This memo presents some additional information to consider regarding zoning code implementation, the effect of local historic and conservation districts, and redevelopment potential. Public Purpose The purpose of building height regulations is to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings. All land uses should be considered when establishing a height limit. Staff has concerns with having maximum allowable height limits that vary based on land use. First, because each zoning district may allow several different land uses, explaining the reason why they should be treated differently is necessary. For example, with the proposal, new single-family and duplex uses would be limited to 27', but other land uses allowed in the zone (e.g. religious institutions, daycares) would remain subject to the 35' maximum. If maximum allowable height varies between uses a governmental purpose for that variation October 10, 2023 Page 2 would need to be established. Staff has not identified a governmental purpose for such a change. Zoning Code Implementation The proposal also recommends that the 27' height maximum only apply to new single-family and duplex uses. The proposal also poses some challenges when it comes to implementing the zoning code. For example: • Existing single-family and duplex uses would remain subject to the 35' height maximum because the proposed change only applies to new structures — not existing ones. • New single-family and duplexes would be subject to the 27' maximum. • Other land uses, such as religious institutions, would have a maximum height of 35'. This height maximum would apply to both existing and new religious institutions. Furthermore, when the RNS-12 zoning district was created, it outlawed multi -family uses. However, there already were many such existing uses present in the area. Therefore, special provisions were created to apply to those existing multi -family uses in order to avoid creating nonconforming uses through the rezoning process. Instead, the code allows existing multi -family uses to be demolished and rebuilt to the present density, but the building would need to meet all other dimensional standards, including height. This is a difficult provision to implement because the owner would need to prove that the multi -family use was conforming with regard to use and density under the previous zoning designation. The details of decades old defunct zoning districts are not readily available to the public or staff. It would also need to be determined whether applying the height limit of 27' to new construction is or is not intended to include additions to existing single-family and duplex structures. This is another complicating factor. Any rezoning ordinance supporting this change would need to clarify the maximum allowable height for additions. The City's zoning code is already complicated, and the proposed changes would add to this complexity. The proposed amendment would mean that staff would have to implement different height requirements for different uses built at different times. This makes implementation even more complicated. Extent of the RNS-12 Zone Today, there are 500 properties city-wide zoned RNS-12. Of the 500 total city-wide properties zoned RNS-12, 375 (75%) are also regulated by a Historic District Overlay (OHD) or a Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone. These overlay zones preserve properties that have been identified as important historic resources. The impact of the overlay zone regulations will be discussed in the next section. Of the 500 properties city-wide, 313 are within the Northside neighborhood. 266 (85%) of those within the Northside are also within a Historic or Conservation Overlay zone. Only 125 (25%) of properties citywide are zoned RNS-12 and not located within a OHD or OCD zone. 47 of these properties are located within the Northside neighborhood. In summary, there are few properties that are zoned RNS-12 and not located within an OHD or OCD zone. Figure 1 illustrates the boundary of the Northside neighborhood (in red), the location of properties zoned RNS-12, and properties located within a OHD or OCD zone. Table 1 provides a summary of this data. October 10, 2023 Page 3 E Park Rd W Market St W Washington St E Figure 1: Map of properties zoned RNS-12 Properties Zoned RNS-1Z Kimball Rd A Yn 11� O v m c Brown St z 2 � L O Z Fairchild St ® fa11.LW =�_I Iti i!iiil tB inn � I e L 1 11 z Z M x L i N O O L'1 Z 3 Z m Z Z E Washington St E College St I l 1 —,. -4 CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann Date Prepared: March 2023 u E Cedar St c )avenporF St.2 ton St E Bloocri�n9 j o Rochester Ave L 2 a w Hotz Ave ¢ f 7 �E III i��y^ o 9 61ONrson '2 St J Z z E Iowa Ave c C9t E Washington St �4� Q, u•-it t t� U5 E College St 9ba N N W Burlington rn J � E Burlington St O1 St 1 :H.N.. >R c o 0' j j E Court St Legend - t 'j 'jjN Maple St o Grant Q Northside/Goosetown Boundary I.. Ct aNeighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12)3Conservation District Overlay (OCD) Center a (•••,.) Historic District Overlay (OHD) BowAve Seymour Ave October 10, 2023 Page 4 Table 1: Summary of Parcels Zoned RNS-12 City -vide Number of Parcels % of Parcels Neighborhood Stabilization 500 100% Residential Zone RNS-12 RNS-12 with Historic or 375 75% Conservation District Overlay RNS-12 with No Historic or 125 25% Conservation District Overlay Northside Neighborhood Number of Parcels % of Parcels Neighborhood Stabilization 313 100% Residential Zone (RNS-12) RNS-12 with Historic or 266 85% Conservation District Overlay RNS-12 with No Historic or 47 15% Conservation District Overlay Historic Preservation Program The Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan was adopted by City Council in 2008. The Plan carefully and thoughtfully evaluated Iowa City's historic buildings and neighborhoods and set forth a plan of action for their stewardship. Historic neighborhoods and buildings are protected by the designation of local historic districts, conservation districts, and historic landmarks. Designation provides for the careful management of these resources through the historic review process. The purpose of historic review is to preserve or conserve historic architectural resources by discouraging alterations that either destroy the unique characteristics of a building or alter the character of historic neighborhoods. Local historic and conservation districts are designated through a rezoning process that applies either a Historic or Conservation District Overlay (OHD/OCD). Historic District Overlays (OHD) are geographically cohesive areas with significant concentrations of buildings and other resources that possess a high degree of historic integrity and convey a distinct sense of time and place. The Zoning Code also outlines the OHD in section 14-3B-1 as intended to promote the educational, cultural, economic, and general welfare of the public by protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating historic landmarks and districts of historic, architectural, and cultural significance. An OHD is the City's tool to safeguard historic buildings and neighborhoods throughout the community. The Code states that overlays also ensure a historic review of new construction or alterations of all properties in these areas to assure compatibility with the existing character of historic neighborhoods and preserve the historic integrity of the resources. As described in section 14-3B-2 of the City Code, Conservation Districts Overlays (OCD) are a geographically cohesive area that is similar to a historic district in character. However, because it has fewer properties that retain a high degree of historic integrity or contribute to a distinct sense of time and place, it does not currently qualify as a historic district. Because these areas are still considered worthy of protection, the City Council may designate them for conservation. OCD is intended to conserve the unique characteristics of older neighborhoods and resources, including their architectural, historical, and aesthetic qualities. Similar to OHDs, OCDs also require historic review of new construction and exterior alterations of all buildings within the OCD to assure compatibility with the existing character of older neighborhoods and preserve the historic integrity of the resource. Table 2 outlines the adoption dates for Conservation and Historic Districts existing within RNS- 12 zoned areas. October 10, 2023 Page 5 Table 2: Local Historic & Conservation Districts in areas with RNS-12 Zoning Location Local Designation National Register Governor — Lucas Street Conservation District May 2001 East College Street Historic District May 1997 July 1997 College Hill Conservation District May 2003 Northside Historic District May 2009 April 2005 Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District June 2014 Section 14-3B-3 Historic Review in the Zoning Code lays out the requirements for historic review. The historic review process is required when a material change to the exterior of a property within an OHD or OCD designation requires a regulated permit (e.g. electrical permit, building permit). The Historic Preservation Handbook, adopted by resolution and referenced within the Zoning Code, outlines guidelines that historic review applications are reviewed to. The guidelines address specific historic preservation issues and provide additional guidance to property owners and builders for the design of their projects. Examples of projects requiring historic review include: • New siding • Construction of decks and ramps • Replacement or addition of windows • Demolition of a garage or outbuilding • Porch construction, reconstruction, or replacement • Removal of porches, trim, brackets, chimneys, or defining architectural features • Additions Although some historic review applications can be reviewed and approved by City staff, major changes, such as new construction and demolition must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. New construction requires historic review when a new principal building or outbuilding is proposed. The Historic Preservation Commission must approve the new building prior to any building permit being issued. The projects are evaluated against the guidelines in the Historic Preservation Handbook, which are intended to ensure compatibility with the character of the neighborhood where construction is to occur. The New Construction guidelines outline recommendations for many types of architectural and exterior features such as, balustrades and handrails, fagade, decks, setbacks, design, doors, windows, etc. With regards to building height the maximum allowable height is 35' pursuant to the Zoning Code; however, the Historic Preservation Handbook includes specific guidelines related to building height and mass and states that "new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height" in the Northside neighborhood. While this is a guideline, any proposal for new construction within an OHD or OCD zone would be reviewed based on the surrounding neighborhood context and the building mass and scale of adjacent buildings and require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition involves the complete removal of a building or a portion of a building. Removal of dormers, decorative trim, porches, balustrades, chimneys, and other significant features requires a building permit for demolition, and therefore historic review. The demolition must be approved by the Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. With regards to demolition, the Handbook only allows it where the building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. For non-contributing and non -historic properties requesting demolition, the Commission will consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the building. In summary, the City's historic preservation program is robust. The program helps to preserve, protect, and enhance historic and culturally significant properties throughout Iowa City. Because October 10, 2023 Page 6 most properties zoned RNS-12 are also zoned OHD or OCD (75%), it adds a large degree of protection from any future construction, demolition, or development changes in the future. Redevelopment Review Staff also reviewed demolition permits in RNS-12 zoning districts to identify redevelopment trends over time. This analysis has been updated slightly from the one presented in August to include information on when the demolitions occurred and the height of the new structures. Since 1992, the City had 17 residential demolitions in RNS-12 zones (excluding the demolition of a single-family home for a school playground that should be zoned P1). This averages approximately 1 demolition every 2 years over the past 31 years. Two of these from the 1990s are for uses that are no longer allowed. A full list of the demolitions of residential buildings can be found in Figure 2. 3 N E 2 N a c 0 E E 1 0 M Figure 2: Demolition of Residential Buildings in RNS-12 Zones, 1992-2003 I 111 161_ I " a.. m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The characteristics of these demolitions are summarized below. In addition, Figure 2 shows when demolitions occurred by year. Six of the 17 demolitions occurred prior to the land being rezoned to RNS-12. 1 single-family demo to create vacant lot in 1992; remains undeveloped 1 single-family demo to build parking 1 duplex demo to build 4-plex (no longer allowed) 1 group living demo to build 6-plex (no longer allowed) 1 duplex demo to build a church 3 demos for buildings damaged in natural disasters; one single-family redeveloped as a single-family, one single-family redeveloped as a duplex, and one multi -family redeveloped as a duplex 4 single-family demos to build single-family (includes 319 N Van Buren) 4 single-family demos to build duplexes 1 duplex demo to build a duplex Additionally, staff looked at building plans to estimate height of the redeveloped buildings. Plans were found for 11 of the buildings that have been built. 2 of the 11 are above 27' in height. Both of these are for multi -family developments that would no longer be allowed in the zone. 9 of the 11 are 27' or less in height October 10, 2023 Page 7 Based on this, it does not appear that the maximum allowable height of 35' acts an incentive for redevelopment or else more buildings would be closer to the height maximum. It may be an incentive for the development of multi -family residential, but doesn't appear to be an incentive to redevelop in zones that only allow single-family and duplex uses. Overall, it appears that development pressure in the RNS-12 zone has actually decreased over time and redeveloping small single-family homes into large single-family homes is not common. This is likely due to 75% of properties zoned RNS-12 also being located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions and involve Historic Preservation Commission review. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The Future Land Use Map of the Central District Plan includes a land use designation for Single -Family Residential Stabilization. The description for this designation is as follows: "Intended for older areas of the city where single family homes originally predominated, but due to subsequent changes in zoning have experienced an increase in housing density and some conversion to multi -family and group living uses has occurred. The intent of this designation is to preserve the single-family residential character that remains by preventing further densification and conversion of single family residences to multi -family. Development Density: varies depending on mix of single family and conforming and nonconforming multi -family and group living uses." This land use designation is applied to large areas of the Northside neighborhood, portions of E. Market and E. Jefferson Streets, and areas of Lucas and S. Governor Streets south of Burlington Street. These areas generally correspond to the areas zoned RNS-12. As described in the adopted land use designation, the purpose of the designation is to "preserve the single-family residential character" by "preventing further densification and conversion of single-family residences to multi -family". In summary, the goal of this land use category is to maintain a single-family neighborhood and restrict the number of units by limiting other housing types. The land use designation does not speak to the scale of development, but rather housing types and density. The scale of the development is regulated by height in the zoning code. There are many statements within the comprehensive plan related to infill development and ensuring that it is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum allowable height in most residential zones is 35', which implies it has already been determined that 35' is a height that ensures a complimentary scale. Conclusions • While height limits are intended to prevent domination of adjacent properties, the City has traditionally found that 3 story building heights are appropriate in all areas containing single-family uses, including the RNS-12 zone. The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character, which has been interpreted as preserving single- family uses, and preventing the spread of multi -family conversions and redevelopment. The current height limitation is consistent with other single-family residential zones, thus serving the purpose of the RNS-12 zone to maintain the predominantly single-family neighborhood character. The purpose of height regulations are to promote a reasonable scale and relationship between buildings. All land uses should be considered when establishing a height limit. October 10, 2023 Page 8 A public purpose justification must be identified for regulations, such as maximum heights, that vary based on land use. Alleviation of perceived redevelopment pressures and preservation of neighborhood character are not served by allowing uses to be constructed at varying heights. • Implementation of the zoning code must be considered. The proposed changes require staff to implement different height requirements for different uses built at different times. Staff does not recommend creating unnecessarily complicated regulations. 75% of the properties zoned RNS-12 are located within a Historic or Conservation District Overlay zone. As the staff report outlines, new construction would be subject to historic preservation guidelines, and require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. In short, 75% of properties within the RNS-12 zone are already subject to additional review processes that ensure new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Redevelopment pressures do not appear to be mounting in areas zoned RNS-12. Since 1992 there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone (six of which occurred prior to the land being rezoned to RNS-12). This is an average of approximately 1 demolition every 2 years. This may be due in part to the large number of properties that are located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions. The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is not tied to historic characteristics or the scale of the development. For that purpose, the City has adopted Historic and Conservation Overlay areas and much of the area zoned RNS-12 is subject to those additional guidelines and requirements. For these reasons, Staff does not support the requested amendment to the zoning code, even as modified from the original proposal. Next Steps Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning ordinance. Staff Recommendation Staff does not recommend approval of REZ23-0005, a proposal to change the maximum allowable building height from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty-seven (27) feet in the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) zone for new single-family and duplex structures. As was noted above, staff has not identified a governmental purpose for having the maximum allowable height vary based on land use. If the Commission wants to recommend approval they would need to identify what the governmental purpose is for regulating height differently based on use. Attachments 1. August 16, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission Memo 2. Correspondence Approved by: t� • J: ^� Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 - October 18, 2023 Memo August 16, 2023 Memo to the Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 16, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Request to reduce height requirements in RNS-12 zone (REZ23-0005) Introduction The Northside Neighborhood Association petitioned the City Council to consider reducing the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from 35 feet to 27 feet. The association's petition can be found in Attachment 1. At its June 6, 2023, work session, the City Council directed staff to prioritize the review of the proposed change. Background History of the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) Zone The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to stabilize certain existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods. Provisions in this zone prevent the conversion or redevelopment of single-family uses to multi- family uses. However, existing conforming multi -family uses retain their conforming status when rezoned to RNS-12. The RNS-12 zone allows detached single-family dwellings and duplexes, but does not allow detached zero lot line dwellings or attached single-family dwellings. The zone does not allow new multi -family developments. The existing 35' maximum height is consistent with all single-family and multi -family residential zones in Iowa City. The zone was originally created after a controversy in 1992 when a project proposed adding more than one residential structure to a single lot in a Low -Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM-12). Owners of nearby properties petitioned Council due to concerns that allowing more than one residential structure per lot in RM-12 zones would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. In response, City Council adopted what is now known as the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization Zone (RNS-12)1 on March 30, 1993, and rezoned several properties in the general vicinity of Johnson Street on the west, Clapp Street on the east, Market Street on the north, and Jefferson Street on the south from RM-12 to RNS-12. See Attachment 2. In February of 1994, Council amended the RNS-12 zone to affirm the zone's single-family character and restrict the number of principal buildings permitted on a lot. It also further clarified that the zone does not allow the construction of new multi -family structures. Over time, Council continued to rezone several additional areas to RNS-12. While the circumstances for rezoning each area were different, the overarching goals included conserving each neighborhood's single-family character and preventing new multi -family development. A summary of the creation of the zone and the multiple amendments to the zoning map that resulted in rezoning from a multi -family zone to RNS-12 are as follows: 1 This zone was originally named Neighborhood Residential Conservation Zone or RNC-12, but was renamed RNS-12 in 2005. August11,2023 Page 2 • March 30, 1993: initial adoption of the RNS-12 zone, which amended the zoning code to create a new zoning designation focused on allowing single-family dwellings and not allowing new multi -family dwellings • March 30, 1993: properties along Johnson Street to the west, Clapp Street on the east, Market Street on the north, and Jefferson Street on the south were rezoned from the RM-12 zone to the RNS-12 zone • June 21, 1994: properties along Church Street between Dubuque and N. Dodge Streets were downzoned from RM-12 to RNS-12 • January 11, 1995: Fairchild and Davenport Streets, between N. Dubuque and N. Dodge Streets, and the 200 block of Bloomington Street, excluding properties zoned RM-44 along Dubuque Street were downzoned to RNS-12 • May 16, 2000: properties along the 300-600 blocks of S. Governor and S. Lucas Streets, and a portion of the 700-800 blocks and 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street were downzoned to RNS-12 • November 21, 2000: properties in the vicinity of Iowa Avenue, Washington Street, South Summit Street, Governor Street, Muscatine Avenue, and College Street were downzoned to RNS-12. The most recent change to the boundaries of the RNS-12 zoning district occurred on May 1, 2007. Property owners in and near the South Governor and Bowery Street areas petitioned Council to rezone the neighboring area from RNS-12 to RS-8. The purpose was to preserve the balance of rental and owner -occupied housing by ensuring that additional duplex conversions would not take place. Council approved the rezoning. The boundaries for areas zoned RNS-12 have not changed since 2007. Explanation of Building Height While the application of the RNS-12 zone has expanded to various areas of the city through multiple rezonings, the height limit in the zone has not changed since it was adopted. Maximum height regulations help promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings, provide light, air, and privacy, and discourage buildings that visually dominate other nearby buildings. The maximum height in the RNS-12 zone is 35 feet, as defined in the code as measured from the average point of ground elevation 5 feet from the building (called "grade") and the roofline, which is the highest point of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the midpoint between the eaves and ridge of a saddle, hip, gable, gambrel, or ogee roof. Certain items are exempted from building height, such as chimneys, spires on institutional buildings, domes (and similar roof protrusions) without habitable floor space, parapet walls up to 3 feet, television antennas, and roof structures such as solar energy systems, stairways, ventilating fans, and similar equipment required to maintain the building. Maximum height may be increased if all setbacks are increased by an additional 2 feet for each foot of height above the height limit or through a Minor Modification process where applicable approval criteria are met. Staff estimates that almost all properties currently zoned RNS-12 conform with the current maximum height limit. Analysis Extent of the RNS-12 Zone Today, there are 500 properties city-wide zoned RNS-12. Of the 500 total city-wide properties zoned RNS-12, 375 (75%) are also regulated by a Historic District Overlay (OHD) or a Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone. These overlay zones preserve properties that have been identified as important historic resources. The impact of the overlay zone regulations will be discussed in the next section. Of the 500 properties city-wide, 313 are within the Northside neighborhood. 266 (85%) of those within the Northside are also within a Historic or Conservation Overlay zone. 125 (25%) of properties citywide are zoned RNS-12 and not located within a OHD or OCD zone. 47 of these properties are located within the Northside August 11, 2023 Page 3 neighborhood. In summary, there are few properties that are zoned RNS-12 and not located within an OHD or OCD zone. Figure 1 illustrates the boundary of the Northside neighborhood (in red), the location of properties zoned RNS-12, and properties located within a OHD or CCD zone. Table 1 provides a summary of this data. See also Attachment 3. Figure 1: Map of properties zoned RNS-12 Properties Zoned RNS-12 E z N Kimball Rd �sa E Park Rd W Market St r -■o CITY OF IOWA CITY Preparetl Ly'. Klrk Lehmann Date Prepared MarcM1 2o23 cl NE CedarSt -eni sr s o E Bloom,PAn St o Rochester Ave i E I a m Hotz Ave ¢' £ I P Jef/e St a c o i. rson f V O 0Z J z z z z z Z z E Iowa Ave I c W Washington sit E Washington St r in••u I E Washington St ^�vo 3xA yv , 1. a4�P a E College St E College St � 9L P V N r W BurlingtonM Co E Burlington St F '^ S[ N2 N a a �H E■ E Court St Legend „ „ ` u Maple Bt o Grant 0 Northside/Goosetown Boundary 1 i, Lt _ Ct n Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12) .. 3 m D N Conservation District Overlay (OCD) TLj.' 3 Center I Historic District Overlay (OHD) Bower t`,b Ave Seymour Ave August 11, 2023 Page 4 Table 1: Summary of Parcels Zoned RNS-12 City-wide Number of Parcels % of Parcels Neighborhood Stabilization 500 100% Residential Zone (RNS-12) RNS-12 with Historic or 375 75% Conservation District Overlay RNS-12 with No Historic or 125 25% Conservation District Overlay Northside Neighborhood Number of Parcels % of Parcels Neighborhood Stabilization 313 100% Residential Zone RNS-12 RNS-12 with Historic or 266 85% Conservation District Overlay RNS-12 with No Historic or 47 15% Conservation District Overlay Local Historic & Conservation Districts All properties within an overlay zone OHD or OCD are subject to historic review for exterior modifications that require a regulated permit (e.g. building permit). As a result, any new construction or demolition must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Properties in these overlay zones are also subject to the guidelines adopted in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook which are analyzed during historic review. With regards to building height the maximum allowable height is 35'; however, the Handbook includes specific guidelines related to building height and mass and notes that "new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height" in the Northside neighborhood. Any proposal for new construction within an OHD or OCD zone would be reviewed based on the surrounding neighborhood context and the building mass and scale of adjacent buildings. With regards to demolition, the Handbook only allows it where the building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. For non-contributing and non -historic properties requesting demolition, the Commission will consider the condition, integrity, and architectural significance of the building. Because most properties zoned RNS-12 are also zoned OHD or OCD, it adds a large degree of protection from any future construction, demolition, or development changes in the future. Field Work Review To identify the potential impacts of the proposed amendment, staff estimated the building height for all properties zoned RNS-12 using 2021 pictometry data from CONNECTExplorer. Staff decided to utilize this after exploring other options. One such option including using lasers and measuring distance and calculating height from the sidewalk; however, there were issues with accuracy. Furthermore, based on our conversations with both City and County GIS professionals they considered this tool to be the best option. It is important to note that without engineered drawings or the use of professional survey equipment and access to each property, it is not possible to ascertain actual building height from grade to roofline. Most buildings in this area were built before current building permitting processes, so construction drawings are not available. As such, this analysis only provides an idea of possible impacts; it should not be interpreted as a definitive count of affected properties. To adjust for potential error in measurement, staff categorized properties into groups with counts shown in Table 2. This analysis suggests that approximately (1/5) one -fifth of buildings zoned RNS-12 may become non -conforming if the height limit were reduced from 35 feet to 27 feet. Generally, these are spread throughout the area zoned RNS-12. However, the impacts of the proposed amendments could be lesser or greater depending on actual measurements. August11,2023 Page 5 Table 2: parcels by Buildingeight Building Height Number of Parcels % of Parcels Category >35' 13 2.6% Non -conforming; would continue to be non -conforming 30-35' 104 20.8% Conforming; may become non -conforming 25-29' 122 24.4% Conforming; may be conforming or non -conforming <25' 259 51.8% Conforming; may continue to be conforming Undetermined 2 0.4% Lack of data or challenging site characteristics Total 500 100.0% Source: CONNECTExplorer data collected by City staff Buildings taller than the proposed 27-foot height limit would become non -conforming. Generally, these may continue as they are so long as non -conformities are not increased or extended. In addition, buildings may only be rebuilt to the same height as an existing structure where damage to that building is less than 75% of its assessed value or it is a historic building. Other more flexible non -conforming provisions generally apply to non -conforming single-family uses. Single-family uses may be restored to the same degree of non -conforming or less if destroyed or damaged by fire or a natural disaster. As such, the proposed amendment would have two main impacts on those owning property that may become non -conforming. The first is that future expansions must comply with the new height limit, which may create situations where an addition cannot be the same height as the original building. The second is that if something happens to a structure such that it is destroyed, it may not be permitted to be rebuilt to its current dimension. This has implications for owners in the area in the event of a disaster. It is also considered best practice to minimize the number of non -conformities caused by changes to the zoning code. Redevelopment Review Staff also reviewed demolition permits in RNS-12 zoning districts to identify redevelopment trends over time. Since 1992, the City had 17 residential demolitions in RNS-12 zones (excluding the demolition of a single-family home for a school playground that should be zoned P1). This averages approximately 1 demolition every 2 years over the past 31 years. Two of these from the 1990s are for uses that are no longer allowed. A full list of the demolitions of residential buildings can be found in Figure 2. N E Z y Figure 2: Demolition of Residential Buildings in RNS-12 Zones, 1992-2003 ry m a vi m n m m m .� ry m a in m r m m o .y ry m ti ..� m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o .y .y .i .y .y .y .y .i ry ry ry ry m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .i .i ei ri ri .i e1 el N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N August11,2023 Page 6 The characteristics of these demolitions are summarized below. In addition, Figure 2 shows when demolitions occurred by year. 1 single-family demo to create vacant lot in 1992; remains undeveloped 1 single-family demo to build parking 1 duplex demo to build 4-plex (no longer allowed) 1 group living demo to build 6-plex (no longer allowed) 1 duplex demo to build a church 3 demos for buildings damaged in natural disasters; one single-family redeveloped as a single-family, one single-family redeveloped as a duplex, and one multi -family redeveloped as a duplex 4 single-family demos to build single-family (includes 319 N Van Buren) 4 single-family demos to build duplexes 1 duplex demo to build a duplex Overall, it appears that development pressure in the RNS-12 zone has actually decreased over time and redeveloping small single-family homes into large single-family homes is not common. This may be due to the fact that 75% of properties zoned RNS-12 are also located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions. Affordability & Equity Housing affordability is a common goal between both the Northside Neighborhood Association and the City of Iowa City. According to the National Association of Counties Matchmaker Tool, Johnson County is a high -cost county with a rapidly growing population. This is a common indicator that housing supply is not sufficient to meet current housing demand. In addition, the Matchmaker Tool notes that 31.6% of renters in Johnson County are severely cost -burdened, spending half or more of their income on rent alone. Recommended policy solutions include upzoning land to allow for high -density housing and low-cost housing types, flexibility in design standards, establishing an affordable housing trust fund, and relaxing dimensional requirements. This assessment of county -level metrics provides ample solutions to the high -cost housing issue in Iowa City and Johnson County as a whole. Regarding the proposed reduction in height, staff has not found adequate evidence to suggest that a height limit restriction will increase housing affordability. Instead, staff presented and the Commission recommended approval of several best practice zoning reform strategies on August 2, 2023 to increase housing supply and improve housing options. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The Future Land Use Map of the Central District Plan includes a land use designation for Single -Family Residential Stabilization. The description for this designation is as follows: "Intended for older areas of the city where single family homes originally predominated, but due to subsequent changes in zoning have experienced an increase in housing density and some conversion to multi -family and group living uses has occurred. The intent of this designation is to preserve the single-family residential character that remains by preventing further densification and conversion of single family residences to multi -family. Development Density: varies depending on mix of single family and conforming and nonconforming multi -family and group living uses." This land use designation is applied to large areas of the Northside neighborhood, portions of E. Market and E. Jefferson Streets, and areas of Lucas and S. Governor Streets south of Burlington Street. These areas generally correspondence to the areas zoned RNS-12. August11,2023 Page 7 As described in the adopted land use designation, the purpose of the designation is to "preserve the single-family residential character" by "preventing further densification and conversion of single-family residences to multi -family". In summary, the goal of this land use category is to maintain a single-family neighborhood and restrict the number of units by limiting other housing types. The land use designation does not speak to the scale of development, but rather housing types and density. The scale of the development is regulated by height in the zoning code. There are many statements within the comprehensive plan related to infill development and ensuring that it is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum allowable height in most residential zones is 35', which implies it has already been determined that 35' is a height that ensures a complimentary scale. Conclusions 75% of the properties zoned RNS-12 are located within a Historic or Conservation District Overlay zone. As the staff report outlines, new construction would be subject to historic preservation guidelines, and require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. In short, 75% of properties within the RNS-12 zone are already subject to additional review processes that ensure new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. • Redevelopment pressures do not appear to be mounting in areas zoned RNS-12. Since 1992 there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone. This is an average of approximately 1 demolition every 2 years. This may be due in part to the large number of properties that are located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions. • Lowering the maximum allowable height will unnecessarily create non -conforming situations. • While height limits are intended to prevent domination of adjacent properties, the City has traditionally found that 3 story building heights are appropriate in all areas containing single-family uses, including the RNS-12 zone. The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character, which has been interpreted as preserving single- family uses, and preventing the spread of multi -family conversions and redevelopment. • The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is not tied to historic characteristics or the scale of the development. For that purpose, the City has adopted Historic and Conservation Overlay areas and much of the area zoned RNS-12 is subject to those additional guidelines and requirements. • Reducing the height limit is not a recommended best practice for improving housing affordability, but rather increasing the diversity and density of housing would be the most appropriate methods. • The current height limitation is consistent with other single-family residential zones, thus serving the purpose of the RNS-12 zone to maintain the predominantly single-family neighborhood character. For these reasons, Staff does not support the requested amendment to the zoning code. August 11, 2023 Page 8 Next Steps Staff sent letter to owners of properties zoned Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) notifying them of the petition from the neighborhood association. The letter was mailed on July 26, 2023. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning ordinance. Staff Recommendation Staff does not recommend approval of REZ23-0005, a proposal to change the maximum allowable building height from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty-seven (27) feet in the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) zone. Attachments 1. Northside Neighborhood Association Petition to City Council 2. Map of RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline 3. Map of Properties Zoned RNS-12 Approved by: r ) • Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordine Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Northside Neighborhood Association Petition to City Council Ashley Platz From: James Throgmorton <jthrogmo@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 4:41 PM To: *City Council Cc: Bruce Teague; Megan Alter; John Thomas; Laura Bergus; Shawn Harmsen; Pauline Taylor; Andrew Dunn; Geoff Fruin; Sharon DeGraw; Susan Shullaw Subject: Strengthening Iowa City's Central Neighborhoods Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; RNS-12formalrequestNNA2023.pdf; RNS-12Northsidemap.jpg A ** 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. Dear council members, I write to you on behalf of the Northside Neighborhood Association's (NNA's) Steering Committee. For reasons documented in the attached proposal, we in the NNA believe the Zoning Code should be amended to reduce from 35 feet to 27 feet the maximum height for single-family and duplex residential structures in Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zones. This amendment would help ensure that infill development projects in RNS-12 districts contribute to a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing without compromising the character of the Northside and similar neighborhoods. Neighborhood Development Services staff have told us that either the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission must be the sponsors of requests to change the text of the Code Consequently, we ask the Council to initiate the rezoning process and direct staff to proceed in an expeditious manner. The only change being requested is to go from 35' to 27' in RNS-12 districts. We recognize that the proposed amendment would have to go through standard review by the City staff, the P&Z Commission and the City Council, and that those reviews and related discussions will influence your final decision about the merits of the proposed amendment. Thank you for considering this request and for your service to the people of Iowa City Best regards, Jim Throgmorton PROPOSAL FOR STRENGTHENING IOWA CITY CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOODS: Reduce the Height Limit in RNS-12 Districts to 27 Feet The Northside Neighborhood Association believes the Zoning Code should be amended to reduce from 35 feet to 27 feet the maximum height for single-family and duplex residential structures in residential neighborhood stabilization (RNS-12) zones.This amendment would make the height standards consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan, and it would help ensure that infill development projects in RNS-12 districts contribute to a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing without compromising the character of the Northside and similar neighborhoods.' Our Request Neighborhood Development Services staff have told us that either the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission must be the sponsors of requests to change the text of the Code.t Consequently, we ask the Council to initiate the rezoning process and direct staff to proceed in an expeditious manner. The only change being requested is to go from 35' to 27' in RNS-12 districts. We provide you with this report so that you can decide whether the Council is willing to initiate the proposed rezoning. Assuming a majority agrees to direct staff to act, we would be prepared to provide further assistance as necessary. We recognize that the proposed amendment would have to go through standard review by the City staff, the P&Z Commission and the City Council, and that those reviews and related discussions will influence your final decision about the merits of the proposed amendment. Background about the Northside Neighborhood Located within the 1839 plat of the city, the Northside neighborhood is Iowa City's oldest intact neighborhood. Located within convenient walking distance of the downtown and the main campus of the university, the neighborhood contains features that mark it as a model for inclusive and sustainable development, including: a vibrant commercial district, a thriving and recently renovated elementary school, a mixture of housing types and costs, a significant forest canopy, medical facilities and grocery stores, and many appealing components of an attractive public realm, including North Market Square Park and many others.The neighborhood is also a valuable asset for Iowa City as a whole; for example, because its residential density is considerably higher than most other neighborhoods, the property tax revenue it generates per acre are also likely to be higher. The attached zoning map shows the boundaries of RNS-12 districts relative to the Northside neighborhood and its historic and conservation district overlay zones. Most of the RNS-12 district properties are located in the Northside; however, some are located southeast of the Northside neighborhood. The two other RNS-12 districts are located in the Longfellow neighborhood along South Lucas and South Governor Streets and in the College Hill neighborhood between Burlington, Washington, Governor Streets and Muscatine Avenue. We have reached out to representatives of Longfellow and College Hill neighborhoods and invited them to join us in this request We have chosen to follow the staffs advice; however, we are confused by the staffs interpretation of Sections 14-8D-SA (Initiation) and 14-8D-5C (Submittal Requirements) of the Zoning Code. Clarification would be helpful. Goals of the Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) Zones, and Strategic Plan Our request is rooted in ambitions and purposes expressed in Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan, the Central District Plan, the RNS-12 provisions of the Zoning Code, and the recently adopted Strategic Plan for 2023-2028. Iowa City's "IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update" (2013) states,"Quality infill development plays an important role in neighborhood reinvestment and may include rehabilitating existing structures or encouraging new development of vacant, blighted, or deteriorated property. Development of infill sites should add to the diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over -burdening infrastructure, including alleys and parking" (2013, p. 21).Two of the plan's specific goals are to "Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood" (p.24), and to "create a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in all neighborhoods" (p.28). z The "Central District Plan" (2008/2012), states in part,"While there are a considerable number of smaller, modest homes in Subarea A [which includes the Northside], the competition from student renters, who often live together and pool their resources, keeps these homes out of the financial reach of many singles or families looking for affordable homes to rent or own" (p. 13). Goal 2 of this plan indicates City government will "Work to achieve a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods to promote long-term investment, affordable housing opportunities, and preservation of historic homes and neighborhoods" (p.20).And it will "Examine existing zoning rules to ensure that they support housing goals and neighborhood stabilization efforts" (p.21). x According to Iowa City's Zoning Code (Section 14-2A-I E),the purpose of the RNS-12 zone is "to stabilize certain existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods. Provisions in this zone prevent the conversion or redevelopment of single-family uses to multi -family uses." Section 14-2A-4C- I further stipulates that maximum height standards in the Code are intended "to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity." This maximum height "may be increased; provided, that for each foot of height increase above the height standard, the front, side, and rear setbacks are each increased by an additional two feet (2')." Iowa City's "Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2023-2028" summarizes the vision, strategies and key action steps for the City Council and staff through the five-year planning period. While all of the Strategic Plan has relevance to the quality of life in the Northside neighborhood —we share the three key values expressed in the Plan —several specific elements of the plan directly relate to our request' One of the Strategic Plan's three key values pertains to "partnership and engagement," It states, "Community members believe engagement and participation in local government decision -making is worthwhile and sincere .... [and] Neighborhoods are revitalized as a source of grassroots community - building, empowerment, and prosperity for all households" (p.8). 3 Those values are: 1) racial equity, social justice, and human rights; 2) climate action; and 3) partnerships and engagement The Strategic Plan also identifies five impact areas, the first of which is Neighborhoods and Housing. The vision for this impact area states: 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 I S-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 develop- ment blends with existing buildings and shapes a comfortable, human -scale pedestrian environ- ment. 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 activities" (p.9) a We in the Northside neighborhood are striving to preserve and strengthen the kind of neighborhood the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, RNS-12 code, and Strategic Plan purport to value. We ask the City Council to put those values into action by amending the maximum height provision of the RNS-12 Code. Rationale forAmending the Maximum Height Provision of the RNS-12 Code There are three RNS-12 districts in Iowa City. Roughly 500 properties are located in them.Three hundred and thirteen (313) of the properties are located within the Northside neighborhood.To date, we have been focusing our attention on the properties located within the Northside neighborhood and the neighborhood located immediately southeast of it; however, we recognize the importance of reaching out to residents who live in the other two RNS-12 districts, and we have begun doing so. 1) The 35-foot Maximum Height Undermines Affordability The existing housing stock in the Northside's RNS-12 district is quite diverse it terms of housing type, age, assessed value, and ownership. The 35-foot maximum height for new single-family and duplex structures provides a financial incentive that undermines the affordability of housing in the neighborhood. According to our preliminary analysis of 244 residential properties located in the RNS-12 district (including the part extending east outside of the Northside's boundary): ' 137 designated as single-family/owner-occupied' 51 2-family conversions or duplexes 17 rooming houses 16 3-family conversions 12 apartments 6 4-family conversions 3 5-family conversion 2 condominiums 4 To help readers envision what such a neighborhood would look like, the Plan prominently displays a photograph taken during a Northside neighborhood block party. 5 Many properties designated as single-family / owner -occupied are owned by LLCs.VVe do not understand why they are classified as "owner -occupied;' but we presume that many of them are rented. 6 Detailed information about property ownership and assessed values in the RNS-12 and other zoning districts can be found in the Johnson County Assessor's Property Information Viewer a t:https:ilgis.johnsoncounrylowa.gov/piv/. As one would expect of an older central neighborhood, the buildings tend to be quite old; they range in age from one built in 1848 to two built in 2016.The breakdown of buildings according to age is as follows: 56 built in the 1800s 157 built from 1900 to 1949 31 built after 1950 The 2023 assessed values of the single-family/owner-occupied properties ranges from to $76,410 to $544,610; a breakdown of assessed properties can be seen below: 25 properties are assessed in the $ I00,000s or less 77 properties are assessed in the $200,OOOs 26 properties are assessed in the $300,OOOs 5 properties are assessed in the $400,OOOs 4 properties are assessed in the $500,OOOs It is especially instructive to look at the mix of owners of the 313 properties. Fifty-two (52) are owned by 30 Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) or corporations. Of the 313 properties located in the Northside's portion of the RNS-12 zone, at least 40 are owned by one company. The age, assessed values, and location of housing in the Northside's RNS-12 district has important consequences. The continued demand for student housing puts pressure on housing in the Northside and other close -in neighborhoods. In light of that demand, investors have a strong financial incentive to convert existing single-family structures to rental units (especially but not exclusively) for students or else to demolish existing structures and replace them with structures housing a larger number of occupants. Lot by lot, some developers seek permission to construct structures which are incompatible in scale and character with nearby buildings.This market pressure drives up the assessed values of property, which increases property taxes and makes the neighborhood less affordable for current owner -occupants and for families and individuals who wish to rent or purchase housing in walkable neighborhoods, such as those in the RNS-12 zone.7 A related challenge concerns deterioration of older buildings due to mistreatment or a lack of investment in their maintenance or improvement. Some rental occupants can be tremendously hard on buildings.This drives up the owner's cost of routine maintenance, repair, and upkeep. Older residents who live on fixed -incomes in structures that are small and old face a related challenge. As market forces cause the assessed value of currently affordable housing to increase, such residents must pay increased property taxes and, especially if they have low or fixed incomes, find they cannot afford to invest in home improvement or energy efficiency. Over time, such properties become increasingly vulnerable to purchase by investors who see opportunities to demolish existing buildings and redevelop the properties. 7 Recent actions by the State have limited Iowa City's ability to regulate the number of occupants per dwelling, and additional state legislation restricting the City's ability to regulate short term rentals, such as A!rbnb, has put further pressure on affordable housing. 4 Our preliminary, partial analysis provides empirical evidence for this claim. We are aware of three recent demolitions: 935 East Bloomington Street 918 East Bloomington Street 319 North Van Buren Street Several other proposed demolitions are: 923 East Market Street 930 East Jefferson Street 915 East Davenport Street 923 East Davenport Street 943 East Davenport Street 1116 East Davenport Street in the RNS-12 districts and adjacent neighborhoods. Recent demolition of small home at 923 East Market Street The demolitions at 935 East Bloomington Street and 319 North Van Buren Street are especially instructive.The recent demolition at 935 East Bloomington Street transformed a property assessed at $166,410 in 2022 into a new two-story building with a finished basement into a property assessed at $536,220 in 2023. According to Zillow, it was originally listed for sale in October 2022 at $589,000. It did not sell after two reductions in price, and in March 2023 the one -bedroom basement was listed for rent at $1,000 per month. The three bedrooms on the second floor are listed at $900 each per month for rent The main floor is designed for shared use by tenants in the four bedrooms. 935 East Bloomington Street The demolition at 319 North Van Buren Street signals what can happen to the character of a neighbor- hood when the owner proposes a new structure that maximizes its possible height under the current code.The owner has tried twice to obtain a permit to build a new structure. Most recently, the owner proposed a three-story structure, which would have been 38 feet tall.' A graphic image of what that building would have looked like in relation to the building immediately to its north is shown on page 6. 8 Our focus is on amending the maximum height limits specified in the RNS-12 part of the Zoning Code. However, our concerns about the potentially adverse effects of continuing the 35-foot limit are influenced by the City staffs and the Board ofAdjustmencs recent decisions concerning that proposed building. Left Illustration of a recently proposed structure at 319 North Van Buren Street in relation to the home immediately to its north. In our view, infill development is inevitable and can have a positive impact when it complements the existing scale and character of the neighborhood. However, permitting 35-foot tall homes makes it less likely that appropriately -sized and affordable new structures will be built. 2) The 35-foot Maximum Height Compromises the Northside Neighborhood's Character Except for the South District's form -based code, which specifies 2.5 stories as the maximum height, it is our understanding that the current 35-foot height limit applies to all single-family zones across the city. This 35-foot maximum allows 3 full stories plus an attic.We understand that the intent of the 35-foot limit was to accommodate houses built on sloping lots with walk -out basements. Such houses are usually only 2 stories or approximately 25 feet tall on the street side of the property but are located on lots that slope away from the street. Consequently, the back side of the house with the walkout basement includes another floor and sometimes approaches the 35-foot height limit. Although there maybe exceptions to this house form, it is generally observed in parts of the city that have sloping lots. Very rarely, if ever, are Iowa City houses 35 feet tall when viewed from the street. In preparation of this document for Council's consideration, we examined property records and conducted visual surveys to determine the height of each single-family dwelling and duplex in the city's RNS-12 areas.We found that buildings in the Northside's RNS-12 zone typically range from approximately 15-foot tall single -story structures with an attic to 25-foot tall two-story structures with an attic; that is, they are overwhelmingly 1-, 1.5-, 2-, and 2.5-story dwellings.We found no 3- or 3.5-story houses on the Northside. Few, if any, approach the current 35-foot height limit. Even the apartment buildings (which will not be affected by the proposed change) in the RNS-12 zone are lower in height than 35 feet and 3 stories, primarily because the lower level is located partially underground in most of these buildings.When we conducted our survey, we identified the taller buildings and measured them with a laser measuring tool. One reason for the current 35-height limit in Iowa City's single-family residential zones is to allow walk -out basements on sloping Iots.There are very few if any sloping lots in the RNS-12 zones, which are located in older and Flatter parts of town.Therefore, there is no need to allow taller buildings to accommodate walk -out basements. Proposals like the recent one for 319 North Van Buren Street will not result in affordable housing. They remove existing affordable units and replace them with 4-bedroom student rentals that go for more than $1,000 per month per bedroom.They also make the neighborhood less attractive overall and may discourage households that City government has been trying to attract to support Mann Elementary School, the Northside commercial district, and downtown. One might ask why a 27-foot maximum height should be set for the RNS-12 zone if the Historic Preservation guidelines, which are overlaid on parts of the zone, recommend a maximum height of two stories in the Northside and Longfellow Historic Districts. In other words there is some indication that height is already restricted to less than the 35 feet in parts of the RNS-12 zone, so there may not be a need to amend the standard in Table 2A-2. But the guidelines are just that — guidelines, while the height limit in the zoning code is law and therefore carries more force. It is also important for the zoning law to be consistent with the guidelines to avoid confusion by having two different height limits apply to the same parcel. When the zoning law is not consistent with the guidelines, confusion can occur for both developers and the neighborhood as to what is possible to achieve.To more clearly guide investment decisions, the two should be consistent. In addition, the large parts of the RNS-12 zone that are not covered by Historic or Conservation District designations make it necessary to amend the height limit to 27 feet to achieve the community's stated goals and the purpose of the RNS-12 zone, which is to preserve the character of these neighborhoods. The RNS-12 zone was specifically drafted to preserve the existing single-family character of certain neighborhoods. The current 35-foot height limit is counter to this goal. It encourages redevelopment with out -of -scale buildings that have harmful effects on neighboring properties. Permitting new infill structures of that height would make it more difficult for the Northside neighborhood to retain a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing without causing destabilization and compromising the character of the neighborhood. The homes and duplexes in the Appendix demonstrate that a range of housing types are compatible with a 27 foot height limit. Prepared by the NNA Steering Committee May -June 2023 7 APPENDIX: Examples of Buildings that Work with a 27 Foot High Code Amendment to the RNS-12 Zone Height measures are based on the method used to measure height in the zoning code, which is from the ground to the midpoint between the eaves (where the roof starts to slope) and the peak of the roof. 801 Bowery is 24 feet tall on the street side. The lot slopes slightly towards the back where it measures 26 feet tall. This house is 24 feet tall. 816 and 818 Fast Market Street. The building is 27 feet tall. This apartment building at 534 South Lucas Street is 30 feet tall. It illustrates some of the large apartment buildings (which will not be affected by the proposed code amendment) do not even reach the 35 feet currently permitted by the RNS-12 code. E Park Rd W Market St W Washington St O C Brown St L-LA H M1�'�IF �a�f�}'�ltl��� :S I�'dEUy A�yY ftlCo }�� ���/�t i.'.sf�s E1.[ Iy MM Um a1 Mgomm FF :1EmmmprEmff n MR'% U z z in c a E N W Burlington St o M— 2. N a 3 v O wn St in Ronalds St o v z Irch St Ul c y� Cedar St c m m E Davenport St. a r E Bloomo9ton St — 01 v> , _ o Rochester Ave ZI I I! ; > arm. Hotz Ave < ILA o efferson St 9 7 N L O U C7 Z J 00 O z Z z z Z E Iowa Ave E Washington St E Washington ,cA �yy 4� i St E College St © �iGscd�°e+ n E College St E Burlington St � N n ° Vf In N� C Legend A Northside Boundary Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12) 0 Conservation District Overlay (OCD) ® Historic District Overlay (OHD) c o NI�•y(I-t°�7' j E Court St tLJJl7-F-1NG j .. Maple St O Grant n x Ct c) N d N N N J rt G F d 3 K a T N Center Ave Seymour Ave ATTACHMENT 2 Map of RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline N S w F G_ G?. 0 m — °v; E ParRtl N s z Brown St RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline Ronalds St M w =61W-M Church St m o a c J Z Z Z ]anuary3, 1995: Rezoning from RM-12 to RNS-12 Z 65 G) o w m 3 June 21, 1994: Rezoning from RM-12 to RNS-12 Ronalds St 0 u, o Fairchild St °' m J N z U - _ E Davenport St -- - o- d c E Bloomington St c 5 o O m � � 9 z 7 Pe N e e5 [-UE Market St or �o c m E Jefferson St Z Elowa Ave E Washington St E Washington St s E College St LaAzLIA L. - 1 T?1fy' YIIr®rm� CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared by: Melanie Comer Date Prepared: August 2023 March 30, 1993: Rezoning from RM-12 tb RNS-12 c e m d U Rochester Q a `M Ave z n Hotz Ave in d S w EJefferson St Woodlawn Ave E Washi St 0 v m c Or 0 0 0 m c 0 d o z 0 m Gonda/e Rd November 21, 2000: Rezoning from RNC-20 to RNS-12 s a > s N E Burlington St — sC CoJ/ U01 g cn m m m 00 o W Court E Court St E Court St E Court St U St May 16, 2000: s m Rezoning from m �, Maple St 9Pk 2 E Harrison RM-12 to RNS-12 o, `" oOa y c St E o rn May 1, Z007: Ct �i v m v Rezoning from J E RNS-12 to RUD S-8 N in E Prentiss St -oo ®® c o Bowery St g ® c CenterAve m U Wright St U SeymourAve m 0 — m U) c � `o m s Lafayette St Sheridan Ave r m R � m c' > m `° U E St U m Page St S C&y E Benton St m s 2E J Jackson Ave 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Miles St m Walnut St t t l l t�i lI ATTACHMENT 3 Map of Properties Zoned RNS-12 E Park Rd W Market St n c La O 0 � O i9 C W Washington St N O N W Burlington St Properties Zoned RNS-12 Kimna4t Rd a v 3 8 c c R N C Brown St z m C L O z N � r • MR CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann Date Prepared: March 2023 N K �� • F •'I 1® WT rChurch-StI II St HIMEm FM FT ® ®Im °' h c Cedar St N E Davenport St a JJJ 17 � er � E Blaam�n9ton L C a Rochester Ave i M. nAlil I !I :p 'I w: �I c r�j��E Market St_ RIM �� y.U�_' _ i v' J ❑ a _ Hotz Ave E ]efferson vi iii- St p Joftersou St L U �. O z L'7 Z ca z L0 z z z E Iowa Ave �i Ti Legend E Washington St Q Northside/Goosetown Boundary Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12) 0 Conservation District Overlay (OCD) ® Historic District Overlay (01-11D) •ir••ri r r� LE E College St t Burlingtol ill V N 0 d V s 2 t vY4snujyLU11 �a I St d�ryP rs E College St P E Court St Maple St o Grant x Ct n N N a of Q ED �. rn v Center Ave Seymour Ave ATTACHMENT 2 - October 18, 2023 Memo Correspondence 711 Friends of Historic Preservation P.O. Box tool, Iowa City, Iowa 52244 www.ic-fhp.org info@ic4hp.org August 14, 2023 Dear Iowa City Planning and zoning Commissioners: In June 2o23, the Iowa City Council received a request for a zoning code amendment for RNS-Iz proposed by the Northside Neighborhood Association. The Friends of Historic Preservation supports the document "Proposal for Strengthening Iowa City Central Neigh- borhoods," which requests the maximum building height for single-family homes and duplex housing to be 27 feet in RNs-Iz areas. A review of the houses in RNS-Iz shows that single-family homes range from I, L I/z, z, to z I/z stories in height. New taller infill housing would not match existing housing and would have deleterious effects in RNS-Iz: I) It would introduce housing that is out of character in height, mass, and scale. Permitting oversized buildings affects the desirability of a block and the neighborhood. z) Houses that are taller than 27 feet cast shadows and block sunlight for neighboring houses and gardens. 3) Allowing housing taller than 27 feet will hasten the loss of Iowa City's housing stock that is historic, durable, and affordable. At the same time, large quantities of high -quality lumber from old -growth forests would be added to the landfill (framing, siding, and flooring. 4) A survey of RNs-Iz areas shows that there are few if any full 3 story or 35 foot tall houses. Capping the height at 27 feet will maintain the existing residential character of the zone. ONE OF THE CITY'S GOALS IS TO IZEEP HOUSING AFFORDABLE. Housing that already exists is more affordable and environmentally green than removing old homes to construct new ones. We recommend City sponsored programs to revitalize older homes, such as the UniverCity Program. Where houses are in such poor condition that they are removed, they should be replaced with buildings that do not impose on their neighbors. Thank you for your time to review the RNS-Iz code amendment and for your work on the Planning and zoning Commission. GINALIE SwAim on behalf of the FHP Board of Directors Northside Neighborhood Association's Statement to the P&Z Commission Re: Stafrs RNS-12 Recommendation August 16, 2023 We trust you have read our proposal, so we won't go through it in detail now. We would be happy to answer your questions about it. We will instead focus on the City staffs report. That report makes a few key mistakes and misjudgments, which lead to inappropriate conclusions. We urge you defer voting on the proposed amendment, instruct the staff to correct these errors, and return to you with a revised report within a reasonable amount of time. First, we did not petition the City Council to consider reducing the maximum allowable height in the RNS-12 zone from 35 feet to 27 feet. Our request focused exclusively on reducing the maximum height for new single-family and duplex residential structures in that zone. Had the staff invited us to consult with them before writing the report, this distinction would have been clarified and any other errors corrected. We made one error ourselves. We meant our application to focus on new structures, but we accidentally omitted that word in our petition. Second, influenced by its error, the staff reports that 117 or more properties currently exceed the proposed 27 ft. height limit. They correctly observe there are 500 properties in the RNS-12 districts, 313 of which are within the Northside. But, instead of using these total numbers when determining how many properties currently exceed the proposed height limit, staffshould have used the number ofsingle-family and duplex properties when counting. 1n our petition we reported that only 188 of the 313 parcels located in the Northside are occupied by single-family structures, 2-family conversions, or duplexes. Even if 3, 4, and 5-family conversions are included, none of the 213 (188 + 25) structures are greater than 2'/2 stories and none of them exceed 27 ft in height. Third, the staff estimated building heights using 2021 pictometry data from CONNECTExplorer. Volunteers from the Northside actually measured the taller buildings. They walked or biked by every property in all of the RNS-12 zones including those outside of the Northside. They identified the taller houses and duplexes. After measuring some apartment buildings for comparison sake, they then went back to the taller buildings with a laser measurer and determined the height from the grade to the midpoint of the roof pitch. These volunteers knocked on the door of each house to tell residents the volunteers were doing research on houses in the neighborhood and asked if they could take some measurements. Every resident they asked granted permission. The volunteers then placed the laser device next to the house to obtain an accurate measurement.' 1 For buildings that were not accessible with a laser device, the volunteers used a tape measure to measure the foundation, any accessible trim, and several feet of siding to determine the number of laps of siding per foot. They then counted the laps of siding from photos. These measurements were added to determine building height. Even if this method underestimated a building's overall height, the fact that none of the measurements came close to 35 feet justified confidence in the calculations. Fourth, the staff emphasizes that that 85% of all properties in the Northside are located in Historic or Conservation Overlay Zones and that guidelines in the Historic Preservation Handbook state that "new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height." We would emphasize, however, that these guidelines do not have the force of law. The Zoning Code is what matters when it comes to heights, and it is important for the guidelines and the zoning law to be consistent with one another to avoid having two different height limits in the same zone. Fifth, the staff reports there have been only 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zones over the past 30 years. We agree. However, we note that 14 of those structures were single-family, and 14 out of 151 is 10 percent of the neighborhood's current stock of single-family / owner - occupied properties. Moreover, the relative paucity of demolitions does not necessarily reveal a lack of development pressure. Over the years, 25 properties have been converted from single- family to 3, 4, or 5-family structures. The staff also emphasizes that the Historic Preservation Handbook allows demolitions only when a building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. Yes, but years of neglect and disinvestment can make a building unsound and irretrievable. And the staff essentially dismisses our concern for the small, inexpensive, single-family structures located in the southeastern part of the Northside neighborhood outside the OHD and OCD districts. And, even more important, the past does not necessarily presage the future. Relying too heavily on past trends is like looking in the rearview mirror to know where you're headed. Just two weeks ago, you approved staff -proposed amendments to the Zoning Code which are explicitly designed to increase the supply of housing by making it easier and more profitable to build new structures. With this in mind, it is especially important to look at the mix of owners of the 363 residential properties located in the Northside neighborhood's RNS-12 district (plus the part of the district that extends east outside of the Northside's boundary). Forty-two percent (42%) are owned by 66 or more Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and other incorporated entities. LLCs owned by one individual own 13% of the 363 residential properties. One family owns at least 17 of the RNS-12's residential properties, and athird entity owns another 16. Together, these three owners possess 23% of all the residential properties in the Northside area's RNS-12 district. They are likely to have considerable influence over what gets demolished and what gets built in the RNS- 12 districts. Sixth, the staff indicates it is not aware of any evidence that the proposed height limitation would increase housing affordability. We never said it would. What we did say is that reducing the maximum permitted height of new single-family and duplex structures would reduce the pressure to demolish older, and currently very affordable, owner -occupied structures. Any new structure will be far less affordable than an existing structure. Seventh, the staff states that the existing 35' maximum height is consistent with all single-family and multi -family residential zones in Iowa City. It is our understanding that this is not true; the form -based code for the South District limits heights to 2 and'/2 stories or 30 feet at the peak of the roof (essentially 27 feet to the midpoint of a sloped roof), which is what we have asked for. Last, the staff states "it has already been determined that 35' is a height that ensures a complimentary scale." We disagree. The RNS-12 zone was specifically drafted to preserve the existing single-family character of certain neighborhoods. Section 14-2A-1E further stipulates that the maximum height standards in the Code are intended "to discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity." The current 35-foot height limit encourages redevelopment with out -of -scale buildings that can have harmful effects on neighboring properties; it is, therefore, counter to the purpose of the RNS-12 zone. Permitting new infill structures of that height would make it more difficult for the Northside neighborhood to retain a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing without compromising the character of the Northside neighborhood. Given these facts, we urge you to defer, to instruct the staff to revise its report, and to consider the proposed amendment in the near future. We would be eager to work with staff to ensure that both parties agree about the facts that matter. August 15, 2023 Dear Commissioners, I served as Senior Planner for the City of Iowa City from 1994 to my retirement in 2018. In that capacity I supervised the team that drafted the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan including the Central District Plan. Prior to being Senior Planner I was an Associate Planner from 1990 to 1994. 1 helped to draft and implement the RNS- 12 zoning district. I am therefore very familiar with the intent and application of these documents and ordinances. I believe that the Northside Neighborhood Association's proposal to limit the height of new single-family houses and duplexes to 27 feet is keeping with the intent of the RNS- 12 zone to stabilize existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods. The proposal is also supported by the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan and our community's goal to preserve affordable housing (I have attached excerpts from those documents that speak to this issue). The City adopted the RNS-12 in an attempt to maintain some of the close -in neighborhoods for individuals and families who wish to live within walking distance of downtown and the University of Iowa campus. The City Council and the Commission were concerned that proposals to redevelop existing housing with buildings marketed to University students would further displace affordable housing and change the character of the core of the city. At the same time, we recognized the need to provide a variety of housing including residences for University students. In addition to the RNS-12 zone we drafted the PRM and CB-5 zones to provide for high -density housing and mixed -use areas. We also recognized that the areas that we rezoned to RNS-12 already contained a great diversity of housing with a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, contemporary apartment buildings and older houses that had been converted to multiple dwellings. We wrote the ordinance to keep the mix of uses but not to further diminish the supply of single-family properties. In other words, the goal was to take development pressure off the existing neighborhoods north and east of downtown and the campus and encourage greater development downtown and south of Burlington Street. I believe we are now seeing the benefits of this policy with residential development in Riverfront Crossings and downtown. But there still is development pressure on the Northside and Goosetown neighborhoods where investment companies are buying up properties and making them unaffordable for individuals and families. Amending the height limit for new single-family/duplexes in the RNS-12 will help level the playing field by removing an incentive to redevelop existing houses with tall structures marketed to University students. When we rewrote the zoning code in 2005 we considered all aspects of the regulations with the goal of creating pleasant and sustainable neighborhoods. As stated in the Zoning Code, the height regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. When redrafting the dimensional regulations we considered reducing the maximum height of single-family dwellings in recognition that most houses are 1 to 2.5 stories. Even in new subdivisions it is rare to see houses taller than 2 stories on the street side of the property. After consideration, we chose not to propose a reduction in maximum height so as not to hinder walkout basements on sloping lots. As the Northside Neighborhood Association has pointed out, there are few sloping lots within the areas zoned RNS-12, and therefore 35 feet is not necessary to accommodate such structures. Although the City once maintained a uniform 35-foot height limit for single-family residential uses, the South District Form -Based Code has set a precedent for restricting houses to 2.5 stories. I believe that is a good move and should also be considered for the RNS-12 zone where the intent is to preserve the existing character. Maintaining the current 35-foot height limit invites redevelopment of much taller buildings than those that exist in the RNS-12 zone. Unlike other areas of the city which have larger lots, the Northside, College Hill and the western portion of the Longfellow Neighborhood (areas zoned RNS-12) consist of tightly packed small lots where construction of 3- to 3.5-story houses will disrupt the quality of life of their neighbors. Taller buildings cast shadows that block natural light to interiors of homes and gardens. It appears that staff made an error when calculating the number of properties that would become non -conforming if the Northside's request is granted. Table 2: Parcels by Building Height on page 5 of the staff report is based on all 500 properties in the RNS- 12 zones. This includes multi -family apartment buildings that would not be subject to the amendment. The Northside's requested amendment only applies to single-family and duplex structures, very few of which are over 2.5-stories tall. It has been indicated the historic districts have guidelines to discourage houses taller than 2.5 stories and therefore a reduction of the maximum height in the RNS-12 zone is not necessary. Does this mean we don't care about the quality of neighborhoods outside of historic districts? If you observe your own neighborhood I suspect you will find that 1- and 2-story houses are by far the most common house type and are appropriate for the smaller -sized lots found in the RNS-12 zone. To further the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan, I encourage you to recommend approval of lowering the maximum height limit for single- family and duplex structures in the RNS-12 zone. Sincerely, Robert Miklo ATTACHMENT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXCERPTS The following excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan support the Northside Neighborhood's request to lower the maximum height of single- family and duplex structures in the RNS-12 zone. As encouraged by these Plans, the Northside has identified a quality -of -life issue raised by recent development proposals for 35-foot-tall buildings and has asked the City to address this concern. Page 21 Preserve Historic Resources and Reinvest in Established Neighborhoods: Adopting strategies to assure the stability and livability of Iowa City's historic and established neighborhoods helps to preserve the culture, history, and identity of Iowa City. Investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to major employers in the city preserves opportunities for people to live close to work, school, and shopping; pro- motes walking and bicycling; and reduces vehicle miles traveled. In addition, many established neighborhoods contain affordable housing options along walkable, tree -lined streets where City services and infrastructure are already in place and where neighborhood elementary schools and parks are the focal point of neighborhood activity and identity. Page 21 Encourages Compatible Infill Development: Quality infill development plays an important role in neighborhood reinvestment and may include rehabilitating existing structures or encouraging new development of vacant, blighted, or deteriorated property. Development of infill sites should add to the diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over -burdening infrastructure, including alleys and parking. Page 24 Land Use Goals and Strategies: Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. Pages 28 and 29 Housing Goals and strategies: Strive to create a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in all neighborhoods. Preserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods and the historic nature of older neighborhoods. Develop neighborhood plans that help ensure a balance of housing types, especially in older parts of the city. Support the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts to meet its goals. Support housing rehabilitation programs and re -invest in housing in existing neighborhoods. The UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership purchases and renovates rental properties in areas near the Downtown and Campus. These homes are then resold as affordable owner -occupied housing. The goal is to achieve a healthier balance of owner -occupied and rental properties in near -campus neighborhoods that still retain a single- family character. CENTRAL DISTRICT PLAN Page 2 Describes how the plan should guide preservation of existing neighborhoods and redevelopment: The Central District Plan will be used as a general guide to future development or redevelopment within the district and for preserving valuable assets already present within established neighborhoods. It will take the efforts of City officials, area residents, businesses, and community organizations to achieve the goals and objectives in the plan. Planning staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, and the City Council will use the plan as a guide when reviewing development and rezoning requests. It will serve as a tool for neighborhood groups, community organizations, and other interested parties to advocate for improvements and form partnerships to make elements of the plan a reality. The City will refer to the plan when setting funding priorities for public projects, improvements to existing infrastructure, and public services. Property owners, business owners, and developers who are thinking of investing in the Central District will find the plan useful as a framework for their plans. The plan will also serve as a benchmark over time and continued input from the public will ensure that the plan works equitably and reliably. Preserve Historic Resources and Reinvest in Older Neighborhoods - Adopting strategies to assure the stability and livability of Iowa City's older neighborhoods helps to preserve the culture, history, and identity of Iowa City. Investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to the University and other major employers in the city provides options for people to live close to work, school and shopping, promotes walking and bicycling, and reduces vehicle miles traveled. In addition, older neighborhoods contain many affordable housing options where City services and infrastructure are already in place. Page 9 Describes zoning history and how zoning is a tool to achieve the community's goals: In the early 1960's, the City drafted a new comprehensive plan with help from an out-of- town consulting firm, which advised the City to up -zone many of the close -in neighborhoods to encourage redevelopment with higher densities and modern buildings. In response to the resulting up -zonings, rising University enrollment, and a University policy to build no new dormitories, widespread redevelopment of older neighborhoods began to take place in the 1970's in the form of the mansard-plexes (generally 12-unit apartment buildings that were nicknamed for the simplified mansard roofs). In addition, the higher densities allowed in the new zones permitted the large single-family homes typical of the area to be split into apartments and rooming houses. Given that the older neighborhoods were built with streets, yards, and parking to support single-family homes, the increasing densities put a strain on the neighborhood infrastructure. Backyards were turned into parking lots, on -street parking became more congested, and apartment buildings were constructed that were out of character with the neighborhood. Many residents objected to the unchecked transformation in neighborhood character and petitioned the City to down zone areas to preserve the single-family residential character that remained. In response, the City Council down - zoned some of the City's older neighborhoods by adopting two new zoning designations, beginning with the RNC-20 zone adopted in 1983 and followed by the RNC-12 zone in 1992. These new zones acknowledged the mix of uses that had already resulted from the re -zonings of the 1960s while preserving the character of the older neighborhoods by preventing further densification. In addition, the Central District Multi -family Residential Design Standards, adopted in 2000, ensure that new multi- family structures built in the Central District are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The City has also been successful in protecting historic resources in the Central District through the adoption of historic district and conservation district overlay zones, and by bestowing historic landmark status on the area's most significant buildings and properties. Page 13 Describes student housing and affordability: Sub Area A (ares north and east of campus and downtown, including the RNS-12 zones) There is a steady demand for housing in the neighborhoods closest to Downtown and the University campus, and the market is quite complex. The University has approximately 6,000 on -campus housing units, while student enrollment is now over 30,000, making the private housing market the primary provider of student housing. Over the years, many single-family homes in neighborhoods closest to the university have been split into apartments and rooming houses or have been replaced with apartment buildings. The demand forstudent housing in Subarea A keeps apartment rents higher than in the rest of the Iowa City metropolitan area. Homeowners also compete for the charming historic homes that are conveniently located close to employment centers. While there are a considerable number of smaller, modest homes in Subarea A, the competition from student renters, who often live together and pool their resources, keeps these homes out of the financial reach of many singles or families looking for affordable homes to rent or own. While this mix creates a vibrant and interesting living environment, it has been an ongoing challenge to maintain a balance between the different housing types and mix of residents within Subarea A. With absentee landlords and a large number of inexperienced young renters, problems with property maintenance, loud and disorderly conduct, yard upkeep, and snow removal are more prevalent. In an effort to identify and address ongoing nuisance issues in older neighborhoods, the City formed a Neighborhood Relations Task Force in 2001, which included representatives from neighborhood associations, landlord interest groups, tenant interest groups, the Association of Realtors, and various City departments, including Neighborhood Services, Housing Inspections, the City Attorney's Office, and the Police Department. Page 14: Speaks to the role of Neighborhood Associations: An important goal of the Central District Plan is to continue to monitor and enforce the Neighborhood Nuisance Ordinance and to identify any additional quality of life issues that surface so that they can be addressed in a timely fashion through targeted code enforcement, mediation, education, or additional regulation. Neighborhood associations play a critical role in monitoring neighborhood conditions, advocating for services and neighborhood amenities, and disseminating information to area residents. Neighborhood Associations should continue their efforts to be inclusive and effective partners in maintaining quality of life in the Central District. The City should continue to support these organizations and encourage formation of new associations where needed. The City should also partner with the University to find ways to ensure that young University students have access to —and maintain —safe and healthy off -campus living environments. Many Central District workshop participants asked why the University wasn't taking a more active role in providing or partnering with private developers to provide better housing options for students. Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners Neighbors have asked me to review the staff report regarding the proposed change in height for single-family and duplex uses in the Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zone. I served the City as an Associate Planner from 1990 to 1994 and then as Senior Planner from 1994 to 2018 when I retired. As a member of the staff that drafted the RNS-12 zone and the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan which the zone is intended to implement, I respectfully disagree with some of staff's conclusions and offer the following. Previously staffs principal rationale for denying the neighborhood's request was that changing the maximum height would create non -conforming structures. The Northside Neighborhood Association (NNA) pointed out there are few single-family houses or duplexes that exceed 27 feet in height located in the zone. Staff also acknowledges that there have been no recent single-family or duplexes built in the RNS-12 zone that are over 27 feet tall. So staff's rational for denying the neighborhood request is not related to existing development pattern. Two recent proposals for a house that would be 35 feet tall with a flat roof rather than a traditional pitched roof, demonstrate that development patterns are changing. As stressed in the zoning code the intent of the RNS-12 zone is to stabilize existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single- family residential character of these neighborhoods. The requested height amendment would contribute to this goal. Staffs current reasons for denying the height change are listed below with a response on behalf of the Northside Neighborhood Association. These responses are based on my years of experience drafting and implementing the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code including the RNS-12 zone. 1. Staff: While height limits are intended to prevent domination of adjacent properties, the City has traditionally found that 3 story building heights are appropriate in all areas containing single-family uses, including the RNS-12 zone. NNA Response: Although traditionally all residential zones had a 35-foot height limit, the new form -based code for the South District limits single-family height to 2.5 stories, which is generally 25 to 30 feet. Being the city's newest zoning district, this is acknowledgement that 35 feet is not always appropriate for a single-family neighborhood. The 35-feet height is largely intended to accommodate houses with walkout basements — a situation which is not present in the RNS-12 zone. Even though the code allows 35 feet throughout residential zones (except now in the South District), other than houses built on slopes, such height is rarely seen in single-family homes and duplexes . And where it is used the lots are much larger than the small compact lots found in the RNS- 12 zone. Houses on larger lots tend to have greater setbacks and do not dominate or cast excessive shadows on their neighbors. The lots in the RNS-12 are among the smallest in the city — on these small lots buildings that are taller than 2.5 stories will be counter to the intent of the height standards as stated in the zoning code, "... to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity." When the City Council adopted the code, the City acknowledged that RNS-12 neighborhood requires special consideration — that is the whole point of the zone. Having a 27-foot height limit would be consistent with this policy. 2. Staff: The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character, which has been interpreted as preserving single-family uses, and preventing the spread of multi -family conversions and redevelopment. NNA Response: This is the current staff's interpretation. For those who live in neighborhoods, single-family character means all of the things that make up quality of life: enough sunlight to allow gardens, trees and other living landscaping, light shining through windows on a winter day, a fresh summer breeze, privacy, and not having light and air blocked by a 35-foot-tall wall a few feet from one's property line. A 27-foot height limit for the small lots with one and two-story houses would be a better way to preserve the existing single-family character of the RNS-12 zone in the Goosetown, College Hill, Longfellow and Northside neighborhoods. 3. Staff: The current height limitation is consistent with other single-family residential zones, thus serving the purpose of the RNS-12 zone to maintain the predominantly single-family neighborhood character. NNA Response: Again the RNS-12 zone is a special zone that calls for special consideration to stabilize and preserve single-family residential character. It has no sloping lots that require a 35-foot height for walk -out basements. Its lots are among the smallest in the city. Continuing to allow 35-foot-tall buildings within a few feet of a neighbor's property does not promote the intent of the zone. The proposed 27-foot height would be similar to the 2.5-story limit in the South District form -based code so there is precedent to limiting residential height to less than 35 feet. 4. Staff: The purpose of height regulations are to promote a reasonable scale and relationship between buildings. All land uses should be considered when establishing a height limit. A public purpose justification must be identified for regulations, such as maximum heights, that vary based on land use. Alleviation of perceived redevelopment pressures and preservation of neighborhood character are not served by allowing uses to be constructed at varying heights. NNA Response: There are good public purpose justifications for having varying heights based on land use: The rationale for a 27-foot height limit for single-family and duplexes in the RNS-12 is to preserve the existing quality of life in these neighborhoods by ensuring that new 35-foot tall houses on these small lots do not dominate their neighbors denying them access to sunlight, breezes and privacy. The few other land uses allowed in the zone are already given special consideration to accommodate them within their neighborhoods. Consider: 1) the RNS-12 zone is a special zone where the goal is to preserve the single-family character that currently consists of 1- to 2.5-story buildings with minimal setbacks; 2) Multi -family uses are already identified for special consideration and are given special non -conforming rights in the zone; 3) The only non-residential uses allowed in the zone are religious institutions, primary and secondary schools, and day cares. These uses require approval by the Board of Adjustment ensuring a reasonable scale and relationship between buildings. If the 27-foot height limit is adopted for only single-family and duplexes, the few non- residential uses allowed in the zone would retain the potential of being up to 35 feet tall, but these uses are subject to greater setbacks that mitigate any height above 27 feet. The additional setbacks for religious institutions and schools are 20 feet on the front and sides, and 50 feet in the rear. These greater setbacks are sufficient to mitigate shadows cast by a 35-foot-tall building, and to allow sufficient air circulation and landscaping. So the code already has different dimensional requirements for different land uses in the same zone. There is good "governmental purpose" justification for treating houses and duplexes on these smaller lots differently by limiting their height to be consistent with the existing development pattern. This is consistent with the intent of the zone and the From a practical view staff's concern about having different land uses with different heights is unfounded. Even the apartment buildings in the zone do not reach 35 feet in height. For example, the apartment building pictured has three floors but the lowest is partly submerged below grade. This results in the building being shorter than the 2.5-story house next door. This technique was commonly used for the apartment buildings built in the zone. Given the restrictions of the RNS-12 zone, it is unlikely that new apartments will be built in the zone. 5. Staff: Implementation of the zoning code must be considered. The proposed changes require staff to implement different height requirements for different uses built at different times. Staff does not recommend creating unnecessarily complicated regulations. NNA Response: The Northside's request is to amend the maximum height in the RNS- 12 zone for single-family and duplex structures only. This was spelled out in communications with the City (dated May 29, 2023), which you have in your packet. In the August 11 staff report, staff apparently misread the request to apply to all uses in the RNS-12. As noted in the August staff report one of staff's major objections to the neighborhood's request was that reducing the height limit for all uses might make some existing buildings non -conforming. It has now been clarified that the neighborhood's request applies only to single-family and duplexes and would not affect existing apartment buildings and that very few non -conformities would be created. Meeting with staff in September and looking for compromise, Northside representatives floated the idea of applying the change only to new single-family and duplexes and not existing houses. As noted on page 2 of the staff report applying a different standard to new and existing houses could be complicated. The neighborhood agrees with staff that the height amendment should apply to both existing and new single-family and duplex structures. This will eliminate staffs concern about this aspect of the ordinance (third full paragraph page 2 of staff report). There are few single-family houses or duplexes in the RNS-12 zone that are over 27 feet tall, and those that exist would be legally grandfathered in. So applying the amendment to existing as well as new houses and duplexes should not be an issue. The one house that may exceed 27 feet in height is located at 225 Fairchild Street. It is designated historic so it could be rebuilt to its present height if destroyed per Section 14-4E-6:C.3 of the code. Fortunately its height comes from a steeply sloping roof and it has generous setbacks so it does not impose on its neighbors. On page 2 paragraph 2, staff raises questions about multi -family uses in the RNS-12 zone. Multi -family uses have special provisions spelled out in section 14-2A-7: C. of the code. These provisions allow legally established apartment buildings to continue and to be rebuilt if removed by disaster or the owner's choice. The issue of confirming the degree of conformity of the property already exists in the current code. This will not change if the neighborhood's request is approved. (The City Clerk has a collection of zoning codes and maps dating back to the first Iowa City zoning ordinance adopted in the 1920s — these documents may address staff's concern about determining conformity expressed at the end of paragraph 2 page 2 — but again this amendment does not apply to multi -family buildings and has no bearing on this issue of conformity.) Regarding the complexity of the proposed change: whenever a building plan is applied for in the RNS-12, the plan should be checked against the various dimensional requirements of the zoning code (Table 2A-2). Confirming that a building measures at 27 feet tall or less should be no more difficult than determining if the plan is for 35 feet. Whenever I reviewed a plan for zoning compliance I did not rely on my memory regardless how familiar I was with the tables in the zoning code — I always checked the plan against the table and text because I knew that a mistake could cause a problem for those building on the property or for their neighbors. It is not a complicated task. 6. Staff: 75% of the properties zoned RNS-12 are located within a Historic or Conservation District Overlay zone. As the staff report outlines, new construction would be subject to historic preservation guidelines, and require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. In short, 75% of properties within the RNS-12 zone are already subject to additional review processes that ensure new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. NNA Response: So is the City saying that as a community we do not care about the quality of life in the RNS-12 zone for those outside of historic/conservation districts? And what about those who live in a house in a historic/conservation district that is on the border? Should their properties in the district be restricted to 2.5 stories, while the investment company that owns the adjacent lot just outside the district can build a 3.5- story building blocking their views, airflow, privacy, and access to sunlight? A 27-foot height limit would reflect the common development pattern in the RNS-12 zone and help preserve the quality of life for neighborhood residents. It should apply regardless of historic/conservation district designation. 7. Staff: Redevelopment pressures do not appear to be mounting in areas zoned RNS- 12. Since 1992 there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone (six of which occurred prior to the land being rezoned to RNS-12). This is an average of approximately 1 demolition every 2 years. This may be due in part to the large number of properties that are located within Historic and Conservation District Overlay zones, which restrict demolitions. NNA Response: The pace of redevelopment should have no bearing on writing good zoning laws that guide whatever development will occur. Just one out -of -scale building can have a negative effect on its neighbors, making the neighborhood less desirable for the individuals and families that live there. Until recently there have been no 35-foot tall houses or duplexes proposed or built in the RNS-12 zone. Investment companies have been buying up properties in the RNS- 12 zone and have been building larger buildings like the duplex at 930 E. Jefferson Street. These new buildings are being designed to maximize the number of bedrooms. They are often marketed to college students. The rents on these dwellings far exceed the rents of the houses that they have replaced. There have been two recent proposals from an investment company to build a 35-foot- tall single family -house on N. Van Buren Street. By going up to 35-feet the developer would be able to fit more bedrooms on a small lot. This new model of development will have negative effects on the quality life of neighbors by blocking their views, air flow, privacy, and access to sunlight. A 27-foot height limit in the RNS-12 zone would remove an incentive to investment companies to buy up even more properties to replace affordable houses with more expensive dwellings. The NNA's requested change is consistent with the intent of the RNS-12 zone, the Comprehensive Plan and the City's goals for affordable housing. 8. Staff: The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is not tied to historic characteristics or the scale of the development. For that purpose, the City has adopted Historic and Conservation Overlay areas and much of the area zoned RNS-12 is subject to those additional guidelines and requirements. NNA Response: Again, because one lives in an RNS-12 outside a historic/conservation district they should not have the same quality of life — access to sunlight and summer breezes — as those who live in a district? Some RNS-12 properties within historic/ conservation districts share property lines with lots that are just outside the district. Should they be restricted to 2.5 stories while the investment company next door can build a 35-foot tall building that blocks their views and access to sunlight? Conclusion: In 1992 the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council responded to residents of east Jefferson Street, who were concerned about their neighborhood's future, by adopting the Residential Neighborhood Stabilization Zone (RNS-12). The new zone was so successful at preventing large buildings from replacing smaller affordable houses, the City expanded its application to several other neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have now identified a new threat in the form of 35-foot-tall structures that would greatly diminish their quality of life. Changing the height limit from 35 feet to 27 feet will help ensure that the existing single-family residential character of the RNS-12 zone is preserved. This is also a matter of affordable housing. The amendment will diminish an incentive for investment companies to purchase and redevelop the affordable housing stock found in these older neighborhoods. And it will help maintain the quality of life for our city's residents. As shown in Table 2A-2 from the zoning code, the neighborhood's request is not complicated — it simply requires that the figure 35 be replaced with 27 in the Maximum Height column for the rows for single-family and duplex. Sincerely, Robert Miklo Tat lI 2A.2' DI men;ional Requirement$ In TP6 $ingle.Famlly Residential Lanes ZUIWu. Ninlm"L4t Rlpll=ww Is S.[aleul 9WWIF IIYIN unimYm Ut IIlmlw1 Illmli un aw'FI4Yl lqn* I gpM wi M Ln1 An Mlnp LM F1Mbyl F,..l Side Rear RtMlmum MFlmum TOWI Flom Of @p. FI.II0 Sim l&WFLI MINIM (PLO P.) ffLl (R.I Relpht IkAdleq ■u§dkg SHb.* w�Og1' (34 IR! Null C...r Carr$ PMunpol � 7H RNS Gelecaa a� sm 46 4d 166 S 22 s- Y Xf7 ARIL 0% Na w 13 IIe9Ny tp We iWa 9 I Xplax vw SAOV 45 m 15a 5,22 ®ee pe 0 4nb 5a'X 4 S nll 1 B 97 Mw R" 5,M p,w,4 45 m le 5+22 m 203 4nb 509C 5 /IlEeA i!!e be! fd aaa Ihen 4 W od..l epaa nh 46 m m G22 m m 2t 4de IM n1e nM1 Northside Neighborhood Association's Statement to the P&Z Commission Re: REZ23-0005 RNS-12 Maximum Allowable Height Amendment October 18, 2023 One month ago the Commission began considering the Northside Neighborhood Association's request to change from 35 to 27 feet the maximum allowable height for single- family and duplex residential structures in Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zones. After hearing the staffs recommendation and related public comment, you deferred action on the proposed amendment. You urged City staff to meet with us, to revise their earlier report, and to provide you with recommendations for tonight's meeting. On September 6, three of us on the Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee met with City staff members Tracy Hightshoe and Anne Russett as you had requested. Tracy and Anne can speak for themselves, but we found it to be an enlightening and constructive conversation. During the meeting, they asked us, what are your specific concerns, and how does the proposed reduction address them? In its October 10 report recommending against approving the proposed change from 35 to 27 feet, City staff raised several concerns. But one stood out: the staff could not identify a governmental purpose for having the maximum allowable height vary based on use. Before proceeding further, let me get one of the stafl's concerns out of the way. In the September 6 meeting, looking for a mutually acceptable compromise, we floated the idea of applying the change only to new single-family and duplexes and not to existing structures. However, the staff report persuades us that applying a different standard to new and existing houses would produce unnecessary complications. Consequently, we agree with staff that the height amendment should apply both to existing and new single-family and duplex structures. Doing so is consistent with our original petition. This should eliminate staff s concern about this aspect of the proposed amendment. So what led us to propose the change in maximum allowable height? Put concisely, the current 35-foot limit encourages redevelopment with out -of -scale buildings that can have harmful effects on neighboring properties. The existing height limit provides a financial incentive for investors to demolish older, and currently very affordable, owner -occupied structures, and makes it less likely that appropriately -sized and affordable new structures will be built. This financial incentive stems from the fact that RNS-12 zones are located in the University hnpact Area and are, therefore, subject to intense demand for off -campus student housing. The recent demolition and development at 935 E. Bloomington St. exemplifies how this process works. It was this housing market pressure that stimulated City government to create the RNS-12 district and to give it a unique public purpose, namely: "to stabilize certain existing neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of certain neighborhoods." As former City planner Bob Miklo states in his most recent written advice to the Commission, "for those who live in neighborhoods, single-family character means all of the things that make up quality of life enough sunlight to allow gardens, trees and other living landscaping, light shining through windows on a winter day, a fresh summer breeze, and not having light and air blocked by a 35-foot-tall wall a few feet from one's property line." This market pressure also led City government to stipulate as a matter of public policy in the Central District Plan (p. 20) that the City will "[w]ork to achieve a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods." Continuing to permit new infill structures as tall as 35 feet in RNS-12 zones would make it more difficult to achieve that objective. The potential that out -of -scale buildings could have harmful effects on neighboring properties is also affected by the unique physical characteristics of the RNS-12 neighborhoods. Single-family and duplex structures comprise the vast majority of properties in those neighborhoods. Very few, if any, of those structures currently exceed 2'/2 stories, which is roughly equivalent to 27 feet. There are numerous multi -family structures, but new ones are prohibited. The only non-residential uses allowed in the RNS-12 zones are religious institutions, primary and secondary schools, and day cares. Moreover, the compact lots found in the RNS-12 zones are among the smallest in the city. Consequently — unlike in other residential zones with large lots and setbacks — 35-foot buildings could easily dominate or cause excessive shadows on neighboring structures. The existing 35-foot limit, therefore, runs counter to the purpose of the RNS-12 zone. Section 14-2A- lE stipulates that the maximum height standards in the Code are intended: to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. Furthermore, the current 35-foot maximum was originally adopted to allow walk -out basements on sloping lots. There are very few sloping lots in the RNS-12 zones. There are none in the Northside's RNS-12 zone. Therefore, there is no need to accommodate single-family and duplex structures on sloping lots by permitting 35-foot heights. Let me now address the staffs specific concern about having varying maximum heights based on land use. We believe there are good public purpose justifications for having varying heights. The rationale for a 27-foot height limit for single-family and duplexes in RNS-12 zones is to preserve the existing quality of life in these neighborhoods by ensuring that new 35-foot tall houses on these small lots do not dominate their neighbors and deny them access to sunlight, breezes and privacy. If the 27-foot height limit is adopted for only single-family and duplex structures, the few non-residential uses allowed in the zone — schools, religious institutions, and day cares — would retain the potential of being up to 35 feet tall, but these uses are already subject to greater setbacks that mitigate any potential harms. In the end, there is really only one question you need to answer: will changing the maximum permitted height of single-family and duplex structures from 35 to 27 feet increase the likelihood that new infill development will help achieve a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing while preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of RNS-12 neighborhoods? If you answer yes, you should vote in favor of the proposed amendment. Thank you. We would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 0 October 15, 202a Bear Commision Members, ,a The city staff reports that 75% of properties within the RNS-12 zone are already subject to additional review processes that ensure new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood." WE the undersigned support the height reduction from 35 feet to 27 feet. We are part of the 25% of the RNS-12 zone not in the historiciconservatioh districts. That doesn't mean we are not concerned about our neighborhood and;4,6allty of life. 0 It is very painful to be dismissed by the City as not worthy bf their consideration. Sincerely, �v eq 4J 4 S-U- ✓ aL( On Oct 17, 2023 Dear Commission Members, I am one of the group of neighbors who approached the City in 1993. We were concerned with a proposed development that we felt would dramatically change the character of our neighborhood. We asked for help. The city responded. Changing the zoning from RM-12 to RNS-12 was the solution the City came up with. Over the years other RM-12 zones in the University Impact Zone also requested to be rezoned to RNS-12 because of the pride and love for their neighborhood. Most of the homeowners in our neighborhood are working class.They have worked hard to own their homes and they are proud of them. At the time of the rezoning to RSN-12 the concepts of historic districts and conservation areas were foreign to them. They wanted to give new neighbors the dream of home ownership that they had experienced. They had faith the new neighbors would responsibly respect what was already here. And for years that was true. But we have now reached a point where newcomers are interested only in their rights and maximizing their investment. The investment those of us who live here have made in creating and maintaining a neighborhood is of no concern to them. Their properties become dark holes the sucking life out of the neighborhood. I am asking you to amend the height to 27 feet in the RNS-12 zone out of love and pride in my neighborhood. I believe this is needed to continue the investment made in creating and maintaining our neighborhood. Sincerely, Nancy Carlson Anne Russett From: Freerks, Ann M <ann-freerks@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 1:41 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: RNS-12 height limit A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi Anne, Below is a letter I would like shared with the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission before the meeting tonight. Please let me know you have received it and it has been distributed. Thank you, Ann Freerks Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: I am writing to request you vote in favor of the Northside Neighborhoods request to reduce the height limit in the RNS-12 zone from 35 feet or 3.5 stories to 27 feet or 2.5 stories. I do not live on the Northside, but on the far west edge of the Longfellow Neighborhood. My neighborhood is comprised of RNS-12 and RS-8 zones on the border with areas that are entirely occupied by undergraduate students. As you may know I spent many years as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I know first -had that the RNS-12 zone was created to STABALIZE these areas and maintain what is left of those single family characteristics. If you vote against this, I firmly believe it will be a green light for redevelopment by investment firms, further eroding the fragile bits of affordable housing maintained in these areas. I am also writing to tell you a bit about how I ended up in the neighborhood where we have been for over 30 years. I hope you take a few minutes to read it. I want you to feel how important it is to have these special places and that they should be protected. I want you to see how voting for this height limit will aid that protection. When we were a young family just starting out we were attracted to the charming houses of South Governor Street. We liked the proximity to Longfellow Elementary where our kids, if we t had them, could walk to grade school. It was also a very affordable option. We looked at newer structures, but in our price range they were without basements or were far from where we worked and did not have the historic houses and established trees that attracted us to the western side of the Longfellow Neighborhood. In 1993 we took the plunge and bought a 100- year old house that needed lots of work. We were welcomed by a number of elderly couples from next door and down the street who had raised their families on South Governor Street. They were happy that our house had not become a student rental like so many others in the neighborhood. We didn't know it at the time, but WE were helping to stabilize the neighborhood. In 1999 we were surprised when a charming old house across the alley from our house was torn down and a large 3-story apartment building went up. There was no care given to how the building fit in the neighborhood. All the beautiful mature oak trees were cut down. Every square inch of available space was taken up with the new building. There did not appear to be concern for the comfort of tenants. If there was, there would have been some usable yard space set aside for them. I will never see this replacement structure as an asset to the neighborhood. Although we enjoy having college kids as neighbors as it keeps us a bit youthful — we like the mix of young and older residents — we found that as more and more students moved in their habits can conflict with working families. There are those who have late -night parties, and shoot off fireworks during the summer. Some things we did not appreciate considering we had to get up early to get our kids to school and us to work. I have had many of these conversations with college neighbors and try to see them as teaching moments. There are costs and benefits in every situation. For this reason neighborhood stability is key. Increase in density on these narrow lots has great impact. We knew little about zoning before the apartment building went up. Several of our neighbors were in the same situation. We talked and then decided to approach the City. That is when we found out that Lucas and Governor Street were zoned RM-12 Multi -family and there were more plans for 3-story buildings. Investors were actively trying to buy properties. A realtor called me and said I should get out while I can. For a brief moment we considered selling and moving to a new neighborhood, but we thought of our elderly neighbors, who had welcomed us to the neighborhood, and the other young families that were also making their homes in the western streets of Longfellow. We also knew long-term renters who were drawn to the neighborhood for the same reasons we were. They were also concerned about being displaced by new more expensive student housing. We decided to stay and fight for our neighborhood. K This experience taught us that zoning can be a powerful tool affecting our daily lives. We and our neighbors petitioned the City to rezone our neighborhood to RNS-12, Residential Neighborhood Stabilization. The investment companies that were buying up houses objected to our request, but the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council agreed with us that Iowa City needs some close -in neighborhoods that are sustainable and attractive to all sorts of households — owner -occupied families as well as renters, young families, singles and retirees. After our successful rezoning effort I was asked to apply for an opening on the Planning and Zoning Commission. I felt it was my duty to give back. I served several years with the goal of using zoning to make both new and existing neighborhoods pleasant places to live for ALL residents. Recent proposals for 3-story 35-foot tall houses in the RNS-12 zone have revealed a loophole that is counter to the intent of the zone to stabilize and preserve existing neighborhoods. I urge the Commission to approve the Northside Neighborhood's request to bring the allowed building heights in line with the existing houses in the RNS-12. This will not only apply to the Northside but will be beneficial to South Lucas and Governor Streets. We have raised our family on South Governor Street. Our kids have grown - at some point we will be ready to sell and move on. We hope to sell to another young family who will send their kids to the newly renovated Longfellow School and walk to their jobs downtown. We hope you support such families with good zoning policy. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for serving on the board. Ann Freerks Former Planning and Zoning Chair 443 South Governor Street Please distribute this letter to all Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission members prior to your October 18th meeting. Thank you. 3 Images from Sharon DeGraw October 18, 2023 HEIGHT MATTERS NEW HOUSES • Only one or two stories • Can have a walkout basement • Rarely 35 feet tall APARTMENTS IN RNS- 1 2 • Most apartment buildings are less than 27 feet BETHEL AME CHURCH • Less than 27 feet — fits well in the neighborhood • Day Care is well under 27 feet tall l E I TJ i i [ Images from Dave Moore October 18, 2023 U. FUt ,r xa wrt.x, xmr m � L iw lncus a wcRY YIIN EIxY. :NFSIC��I — . r•,Ilr �.ir-u 1 NORTH ELEVATION �—i—fin v 12/21/18 8:11 AM 41 Anne Russett From: Jared Knote <jaredknote@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 9:11 PV To: Anne Russett Subject: Re: Iowa City Planning and Zoning 10/18/2023 - Public Commemnt Discussion Visual Aids A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi Anne, Thanks so much for trying to make the visuals available at tonight's meeting. Not that it will change the commissioners' votes, but if you can share these visuals and short reminder of the voiceover with them, I would appreciate it. Page 1- The circle represents the stabilization neighborhood I wanted to share perspective on. All images are public domain -- Google maps, plus the assessor's office. Page 2 - Is a sample of typical Jefferson Street housing stock in that neighborhood -- mix of small ranches and four squares and capes. Page 3 - If you were to turn around, these redevelopments evidence the type of infill. The side -by -side duplex on the left was one of the 2021 teardown-rebuilds. While it's hard to show scale, the concrete full -floor basement extends over my head. That may not count as part of the height of the building, I don't know. Perhaps that concrete "story" may qualify as "basement" even if above ground. On the right is another property redeveloped by the same developer. Again, the "basement" is higher than my head. Page 4 - In addition to out of scale height, the rebuilds are also out of scale with depth, with most green space taken up by house and parking. Trees removed. Page 5 - From the assessor's office of the property, these pictures show what was torn down and what was replaced. The original likely had a basement, but at human scale. So neighbors who pass one another might get to know one another. Page 6 - Redevelopments can destabilized a generative neighborhood of connected people. More houses are coming down. Here on the same block, facing Market St, this green house was torn down. Page 7 - This is the 1000 block of market. This is what I see every morning outside my house. This dense neighborhood is a celebration of housing choice, and many different types of neighbors -- renters, owners, students, non -students, various definitions of "family" and single and age and race. The density and variability support diversity, affordability, and stewardship. But today, on the other side of this neighborhood block, I learned another house of human scale is being torn down. On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:43 PM Jared Knote <iaredknote(cDgmail.com> wrote: Hi Anne, I hope you're doing well. Would you please be able to help me regarding the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight (10/18/23)? If there is a call for public comment, I would like the opportunity to share some perspective with the commissioners, staff, and public. Visual aids might help, as I've seen others use in the past. Would you be able to help me include the attached PDF tonight if discussion is opened to the public? (I could send PPT, but the file size is large.) Thank you in advance. Respectfully, Jared Jared Knote Market St. Iowa City, IA Jared Knote mobile:516-455-3618 Jared Knote mobile: 516-455-3618 Images from Jared Knote October 18, 2023 City of • Searth in domment CityoflowaCity > WebDocuments > Boards, commissions and committees > Planningar ...._-.. T y a >aa A O Fltwlndor 1� V 1 Q-'Plamw 9R]EJef(eeawaA Q mra Ciry.lmaa '�' • Coogle Snen Vlew N PP22 5otloka YAP a Ufa A i Goggle ..l�N-,i _ � Iowa CRy.lawa {, Ft ��� � �aaogie street wew Y Nwxan Scemaa eama ��� y}l i err R � l � 1 LA .M F�9300ee f eefffemn st a, X acr,aN. ooi.�woaoru�s uo�, a'iorzms s.oasa a,� i �. '= -� ;. 9LEAbrket& bwa City lvxa Nw 203P 9a more Cs�es � .n'lF a — � � _ _ f _` � i �.. _�___ - __ _ _ -� �;l Goggle � �"' _.� �,:: �.a.:. i'l - -- -- I -M 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 Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 6 of 18 adopted in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook and the maximum allowable height within these overlay zones is 35 feet just as it is in the base zoning district of RNS-12. However, the handbook does include specific guidelines related to height and mass. Specifically, it states that new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height in the Northside Neighborhood. New construction and demolitions must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission and with new construction, it's reviewed based on the surrounding neighborhood context, and the mass and scale of adjacent buildings. Demolition in historic districts is only considered where the building is structurally unsound or irretrievable, so very uncommon. The overlay zones provide a large degree of protection from future construction, demolition and development changes. Russett shared a table showing the breakdown of the properties that are zoned RNS-12 and whether or not they're located within a historic district or a conservation district overlay. Citywide 75% of the RNS zoned properties are located within either an historic or conservation district overlay and within the Northside Neighborhood 85% of the properties are within historic or conservation district overlay. Staff note that importance because there are additional rules and processes which add a large degree of protection for those properties. Staff also reviewed demolition permits in the RNS-12 zones since 1992 and there have been 17 demolitions within RNS-12 zone, an average of one demolition every two years over the past 31 years. The data suggests that redevelopment pressure in RNS-12 zones has decreased over time and that may in part be due to the fact that 75% of the properties are either in a historic or conservation district which would restrict demolitions. Staff also looked at conversions because it seems to be a concern of the residents of the Northside Neighborhood. Since 1992 there have been 82 conversions from single-family to duplex or duplex to single-family City wide, 38% are single- family to duplex and 62% are duplex to single-family. This data shows that more of the conversion is from duplex to single-family than the other way around. For property zoned RNS- 12 there were 10 conversions from single-family to duplex or duplex to single-family. 70% of them were from duplexes to single-family and again, Russett stated the RNS-12 zone does not allow conversions to new multifamily. Russett stated even though staff looked at conversions, height limits will have no impact on future conversions within this zone since conversions are dealing with existing structures and not new structures. Staff also did some field work and until they received the recent correspondence yesterday from the neighborhood association, they weren't aware that the Northside Neighborhoods intent was to only apply the 27-foot requirement to new buildings, specifically new single-family and duplex uses. Based on Council's direction staff was concerned with the creation of non -conforming structures and discussed this with the Northside representatives. Due to concerns about creating non -conforming situations staff estimated building height using the best tool that they had available and Russett shared a table showing the results of that work. Based on the estimate, some buildings may become non -conforming, however if the Northside Neighborhood Association wishes to only apply the height standard of 27-foot to new buildings the non- conforming analysis becomes irrelevant and won't apply to existing structures. In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan does include a land use designation for single-family residential stabilization, with the description of preserving single-family residential character, and preventing further densification and conversion of single- family residences to multifamily. The land use designation focuses on housing types and density rather than the scale of development. It maintains single-family neighborhoods and restricts the number of units by limiting housing types. Russett reiterated in all single-family residential zones Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 7 of 18 the maximum height limit is 35 feet so there's been some determination that this maximum ensures a complimentary scale within single-family neighborhoods. In terms of staff's conclusions, again 75% of the properties zoned RNS-12 are located within a historic or conservation district, which requires additional review processes to ensure that new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Based on the demolition data, redevelopment pressure is limited and staff concluded based on non -conforming situations, however that may no longer apply as this is only applying to new structures. Again, the purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character which has been interpreted as preserving single-family uses and preventing new multifamily uses. Height limits don't help preserve single-family uses or further the intent of the zone and the current height limits are consistent with other single-family residential zones and therefore consistent with the purpose of the RNS zone to maintain that predominantly single-family character. Staff did receive some additional correspondence yesterday from the Northside Neighborhood Association. They noted in the correspondence that they meant for the change to only apply to new construction and only single-family and duplex dwellings. Staff hasn't had much time to fully analyze this as they just received the correspondence yesterday but do have some initial concerns to highlight. First, if the reduced height limit only applies to new construction, it would address the concerns related to non -conforming situations, so that's a good thing. The concern is that the RNS-12 zone allows other uses besides just single-family and duplex structures, such as daycare uses and religious institutions. If the purpose of height regulations is to promote reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings, all land uses should be considered when establishing a height limit. Also, if the maximum allowable height varies between uses, a governmental purpose for that variation would need to be established. The second concern is complexity and challenges with implementation. If a governmental purpose could be identified for having different regulations for different uses, the code becomes even more complicated and difficult to administer. It not only would have different height requirements for different uses but uses that would typically be subject to non -conforming provisions would no longer be subject to them because existing structures would remain conforming. Lastly, regarding affordability, the Northside Neighborhood document states that reducing the maximum height would reduce the pressure to demolish older and currently very affordable owner -occupied structures. Height regulations don't impact the balance of owner and renter properties. Zoning codes do not regulate whether structures are owned or rented. Russett also noted that in their correspondence the Neighborhood Association has requested that this item be deferred. Staff has received two additional pieces of late correspondence which she shared with the Commissioners via email and handed out this evening, both are in support of the Northside Neighborhood's proposal in their request. Staff does not recommend approval of REZ23-0005, a proposal to change the maximum allowable building height from 35-feet to 27-feet in the Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS-12) zone. Also, staff has not identified a governmental purpose for the proposal for this only to apply to new structures and to only single-family and duplex uses. If the Commission wants to recommend approval, they will need to identify what that governmental purpose is because it is regulating height differently for different uses. Staff would also not recommend approval of a proposed change to the maximum allowable building height for new single-family and duplex structures in the RNS-12 zone to 27-feet. In terms of next steps, after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission this Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 8 of 18 would go before City Council. Hensch asked if the request for deferral had a particular reason requested other than the obvious to give staff time to come up with a governmental purpose and application of that. Russett replied she believes they wanted staff to change their analysis and to reflect on their request that it is new construction only. Hensch noted the 35-foot limit would only apply to new construction future requests, which won't result in any non -conforming status of existing buildings. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted in the South District, the form -based code that they previously passed, the height limit for that is 27 feet, correct. Russett explained the limit there is two and a half stories but there's also a feet maximum as well. Hensch stated regarding the historic district and conservation district height limits, the limit is 35- feet but the handbook guidelines they want to have one or two stories for new construction and that seems incongruent. Has there ever been thoughts about making those two things match up better. Russett stated no because a guideline clearly carries no force of law, it's just a recommendation and within the zoning code 35-feet is the maximum. There are other requirements in the zoning code such as maximum density, for example, but each property isn't always going to get to that maximum density, that's why it's maximum, it's just the cap. Hensch noted it seems that the 35-foot limitation mainly was instituted to address grade issues on site. Russett replied that's what the former senior planner noted in his correspondence, the City has had this 35-foot height limit since the 1930s. She noted walk -outs may have not been a popular housing style in the 1930s but that 35-foot maximum has been around for decades. Hensch asked in the RNS-12 zoning areas, how are those heights determined because it doesn't include steeples or spires. Russett explained typically there's an average grade that would be calculated based on elevations five feet from the proposed structure. They calculate an average grade and then measure from that all the way up to the midpoint of the roof, and in most roof types that would be the midpoint between the eaves and the peak. Quellhorst noted one of the Association's concerns is that the Historic Preservation handbook is just guidelines and are not binding, so he is curious to know what the process is for deviating from those guidelines and how often that happens. Russett stated while they are guidelines, the language in the guidelines is pretty strong, they use words like shall and must, and the guidelines are also adopted by reference within the zoning code. The guidelines include exceptions that can be considered for certain proposals within historic districts so it could be possible that the Historic Preservation Commission maybe would allow something more than two and a half stories based on the building type proposed. However, based on how the guidelines are implemented, and the Historic Preservation Program, the guidelines carry a lot of weight and are used heavily in the evaluation of the proposals for new construction, demolition or even just exterior modifications to buildings. The decision to deviate from the guidelines is determined by the Historic Preservation Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 9 of 18 Quellhorst asked if Russett is aware of any incidents where the Commission approved a substantial deviation from the guidelines. Russett explained there's exceptions within the guidelines that the Historic Preservation Commission can consider so they are limited to the exceptions outlined in the in the guidelines. Quellhorst noted one of the Association's main concerns is the potential to build incongruent really tall homes and in the analysis of structures that are 27-feet currently, is there any sense of how many of those are single-family homes. Russett is not sure but noted that could be determined. He asked how many existing single-family homes are in the conservation overlay that exceed 27-feet. Again, Russett is not sure but could find out. Elliott noted one of the issues is the different heights for different uses, could there just be a rule that says 27-feet is the maximum height in RNS-12 and not specify the use, and what would be the implications of doing that. Russett said yes, they could implement that rule, and that was staff's original concern, because they thought the original request was for a 27-foot requirement, and the concern would be the creation of non -conforming situations. Elliott asked if the height requirement was just for new buildings, what would be the concern. Russett stated then the concern is related to the complexity of how they regulate height and it only applying to new structures and only applying at certain points in time, if the ordinance is adopted that new structures are now 27-feet then previous ones would be conforming. It gets trickier to implement. Padron noted some RNS-12 could be churches so someone could build a church but if they say no more than 27-feet for everybody then the church would not be able to be taller than 27-feet. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch opened the public hearing. Susan Shullaw spoke again as a member of the steering committee of the Northside Neighborhood Association. She thanked everyone for taking some time in reading their initial proposal but just wanted to refresh their memories of some of the main points. The initial proposal had made clear that this was for new residential structures, this is really about new infill in RNS-12 districts, and specifically the Northside, which they really support as long as that infill feels appropriate, and particularly today when this is a hot topic for all when it can create affordable housing. However, they also want to preserve and strengthen the character of these neighborhoods and to quote the Plans "infill development that is compatible and complimentary to surrounding neighborhood and creates a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in all neighborhoods". Shullaw showed images of the beautiful structures in the Northside and addressed their first objection to the 35-foot height. It was their understanding that this height limit was initially designed for structures on slopes and for walkout basements, but there are a few, if any, sloping lots in the Northside. This and the other RNS-12 districts are in older and flatter areas of town, so it's a moot point and raises the question of why 35-feet is allowed in these neighborhoods. They believe that this negatively impacts affordable housing because it gives an incentive to developers to convert existing single-family structures and demolish them and replace them with larger structures with larger occupants. They've seen this happening before and have some examples in the Northside of smaller, older houses being Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 10 of 18 replaced with large single-family unable to sell and they become rentals. They are concerned about that development pressure. Shullaw acknowledged even though it's true what staff found in their research about the number of demolitions that have happened in recent years, she stated they all know that past performance is not always a predictor of what happens in the future. So that's a concern for them. Shullaw also reiterated some points they've made about driving up property values and making these neighborhoods less affordable. They believe that the 35-foot height thwarts the purpose of the zoning, which is to stabilize existing residential neighborhoods and to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings and provide options. She showed an illustration of a very tall building placed next to a very short building in the Northside. She noted an example of a structure that doesn't really allow for light and air between buildings. They have done some research on the Northside and its clear buildings in the Northside are overwhelmingly one and a half, two, and two and a half stories, they couldn't find any three story buildings on the Northside, and few of the buildings approach that 35-foot limit. Therefore, 35-foot buildings would be an aberration in this part of town and out of character of the neighborhood. It may also make the neighborhood less attractive at a time when the City is hoping to bring more people in and to patronize schools like Horace Mann. Shullaw stated they also believe that this 35-foot height limit in new construction of residential violates many of what the City is saying in its Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan about wanting to preserve central neighborhoods and the character of those neighborhoods. Jim Throqmorton stated he wanted to focus attention on the staff's report and their response to it because they have several concerns. The report makes a few key mistakes and misjudgments which leads to inappropriate conclusions. First, the Northside Neighborhood Association did not petition the City Council to consider reducing the maximum building heights in the RNS-12 zone from 35-feet to 27-feet. Those numbers are all correct, but that's not exactly what they petitioned. Their requests focused exclusively on reducing the maximum allowable height for single-family and duplex residential structures in that zone. Had the staff invited them to consult before writing their report this distinction could have been clarified and any errors corrected. Second influenced by this error, the staff reports that 117 or more properties currently exceed the proposed 27-foot height limit. They correctly observed there are 500 properties in the RNS-12 districts, 313 of which are within the Northside, but instead of using the total numbers when determining how many properties currently exceed the proposed height limit, staff should have used the number of single-family and duplex properties when counting. In their petition the Northside Neighborhood Association reported that only 188 of the 313 parcels located in the Northside are occupied by single-family structures, two family conversions or duplexes. Even a three, four and five family conversions are included. None of the 213, that is 188 plus 25, structures are greater than two and a half stories, so in their judgment, the non-conformance issue goes away. Throgmorton acknowledged staff presented some new information tonight, which they would want to take into account and might influence the collective judgment about what to do. He also wanted to note that there's a property inventory viewer available through the City Assessor's office that he has been going through in great detail and it identifies every single-family/owner- occupied property in the Northside Neighborhood and other parts of the City. The odd thing is it identifies them as single-family/owner-occupied when a large proportion of them are not occupied by owners but are occupied by renters, it's really quite puzzling. Third, the staff estimated building heights using 2021 pictometry data from Connect Explorer, which Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 11 of 18 Throgmorton admitted he has no experience with whatsoever, but volunteers from the Northside actually measured the taller buildings. They walked or biked by every property in all the RNS-12 zones, including those outside of the Northside and identified the taller houses and duplexes. After measuring some apartment buildings for comparison's sake, they then went back to the taller buildings with a laser measure and determined the height from the grade to the midpoint of the roof pitch. These volunteers knocked on the door of each house to tell residents the volunteers were doing research on houses in the neighborhood and asked if they could take some measurements. Every resident they asked granted permission. The volunteers then placed the laser device next to the house to obtain accurate measurements. Fourth, the staff emphasizes that 85% of all properties in the Northside are located in historic and conservation overlay zones and the guidelines in the Historic Preservation Handbook state that "new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height". Throgmorton emphasized however, that these guidelines do not have the force of the zoning code which is what matters when it comes to heights. He also noted it is important for the guidelines and zoning law to be consistent with one another to avoid having two different height limits in the same zone. Fifth, the staff reports there have been only 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zones over the past 30 years. He acknowledged that is correct, however 14 of those structures were single-family and 14 out of 151 is 10% of the neighborhood's current stock of single-family properties. Moreover, the relative paucity of demolitions does not necessarily reveal a lack of development pressure. Over the years 25 properties have been converted from single-family to three, four or five family structures. The staff also emphasizes that the Historic Preservation Handbook allows demolitions only when a building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. Years of neglect and disinvestment can make a building unsound and irretrievable and the staff essentially dismisses the concern for the small, inexpensive, single-family structures located in the southeastern part of the Northside Neighborhood, ones that are outside of the historic preservation and conservation districts. Even more important, the past does not necessarily predict the future, relying too heavily on past trends is like looking in the rearview mirror to know where you are headed. Just two weeks ago, this Commission approved staff proposed amendments to the zoning code which are explicitly designed to increase the supply of housing by making it easier and more profitable to build new structures. So, if in the past there's not been a large amount of development pressure, this Commission just voted to increase the pressure and need to take that into account. Throgmorton noted it is especially important to look at the mix of owners of the 363 residential properties located in the Northside Neighborhoods in RNS-12 district, plus the part that extends out on the southeastern part of the Northside. 42% are owned by 66 or more limited liability companies and other incorporated entities. One LLC owns 13% of the 363 residential properties. One family owns at least 17 of the RNS-12 residential properties and a third entity owns another 16. Together these three owners possess 23% of all the residential properties in the Northside areas RNS-12 district and they are likely to have considerable influence over what gets repaired, what gets demolished and what gets built in the RNS-12 districts. The next point, sixth, is the staff indicates it is not aware of any evidence that the proposed height limitation would increase housing affordability, the Northside Association never ever said it would, what they did say is that reducing the maximum permitted height of new single-family and duplex structures would reduce the pressure to demolish older and currently very affordable owner -occupied structures. A new structure will be far less affordable than an existing structure. Seventh, the staff states that the existing 35-foot maximum height is consistent with all single family and multifamily residential Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 12 of 18 zones in Iowa City. This is not true. The form -based code for the South District limits heights to two and a half stories, or 30-feet at the peak of the roof, essentially 27-feet to the midpoint of a sloped roof, which is what they're asking for. Staff states "it has already been determined that 35-feet is a height that ensures a complimentary scale for the RNS-12 district", they disagree. The RNS-12 zone was specifically drafted to preserve the existing single-family character of certain neighborhoods. Section 14-2A-1 E further stipulates that the maximum height standards in the code are intended to "discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity". The current 35-foot height limit encourages redevelopment without a scale building that can have harmful effects on neighboring properties. It therefore undermines the purpose of the RNS-12 zone. Permitting new infill structures at that height would make it more difficult for RNS- 12 neighborhoods to retain a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing without compromising the character of the neighborhoods. It goes to the heart of the purpose of the RNS-12 district. Given these facts, Throgmorton stated the Northside Neighborhood Association is asking the Commission to approve the request to reduce the maximum permitted height of single-family and duplex structures from 35-feet to 27-feet. However, if the Commission feels uncertain at this very moment, they urge them to defer voting to instruct staff to correct its report and to finish considering this proposal at the next meeting or maybe the one after that. Throgmorton stated the Northside Neighborhood Association would be eager to work with staff to ensure that both parties agree about the fact for that matter. Sharon DeGraw (Iowa City) stated in response to the height change request staff expressed concerned about creating non -conforming situations. DeGraw shared some images to illustrate why they believe non-conformance is not an issue. The device that they used to measure houses was a Bosch laser measure, and it's a high precision device. They can set this on the ground and point it up at something and it sends a laser and measures. There was a question earlier on how height is measured for a building so DeGraw demonstrated how they spotted the apex of the building, the highest point, and whatever that measurement is in length they divide that in half and shows the midpoint that represents the height of a building. She noted when there is a flat top roof, it is even more evident to see how much taller a 35-foot flat top roof structure would be than a typical one and a half to two and a half story structure like is found in the Northside and RNS-12 single-family or duplex structures. She showed some images that if 27-feet seems constricting there are very many tall buildings that are single-family or duplexes that already existing in the Northside. DeGraw reiterated their proposal is just to talk about single-family and duplex for infill. She showed an image of a duplex on the 900 block of Jefferson Street, its relatively new construction, and it's about 27-feet at the midpoint. If the basement level was sunk a little more, the structure would fit better with its neighbors. The picture also demonstrates that under the current 35-foot height limit, this building would be much taller compared to its neighbor. Next, she showed 225 East Fairchild noting this historic house on Fairchild is one of the tallest that they could find in the RNS-12 zone. The main part of the house is 27-feet tall to the midpoint of the gables on the front, the back and sides of the house but there is a pure middle shape roof that goes up a bit higher, so the house would likely exceed the proposed 27-foot height limit. However, this is not an issue regarding nonconformity, as the zoning code allows historic structures to be rebuilt to the previous design, even if they are totally destroyed. She next showed a single-family house on South Lucas that has a large addition that slightly exceeds the proposed 27-foot height limit. Even so, it's not clear that this would be non -conforming because Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 13 of 18 height is measured based on average grade. Regardless, they ask if this would fit into a RNS-12 neighborhood or a neighborhood you'd want to live in. The duplex on Fairchild Street is quite large compared to its neighbors, which itself is a large house. It is 35-feet tall at the peak but less tall at the midpoint. Because of the odd roofline it's difficult to give an exact height for the zoning purposes but it appears that even this large structure complies or comes close to the 27-feet proposed height limit. Next, she showed a house at 911 Washington Street, it's one of the tallest structures that they could find in the RNS-12 zone and because it's multifamily it would be exempt from the request that they have. Finally, she showed 112 and 114 North Governor, this is new construction that conforms with the height request of 27-feet and it looks good and is appropriate for Northside and RNS-12 zones. DeGraw stated they respectfully request Council to amend the zoning code by reducing the maximum building height for new single-family and duplex structures in the RNS-12 zones from 35-feet to 27-feet. Linda McGuire (Iowa City) stated she is almost a 50-year resident of the Northside and the Northside Neighborhood Association got started when they successfully prevented a heli-a-pad from being on Mercy Hospital in 1989, and they're hoping they don't have to fight that one again. She wanted to point out that this was a request from the Northside Neighborhood Association, directly to City government, to engage in planning for their neighborhood. They really appreciate the staff having to step up and do it on an expedited schedule. She wants to make two points. First, the objective measure of 27-feet is really good considering that many of the lots in the Northside are 40 feet wide. So what they're asking is that especially in the middle of the block that they don't put up needle structures. The other consideration is what they call single-family. The City cannot put occupancy limits on houses but what are called single-family houses in the Northside are packed with as many renters as possible, which drives up the value of the lot. Therefore, if they're demolished, there is a connection to affordability. McGuire noted it's a complication that is way beyond what they're talking about right now, but the main point is the failsafe that staff has said is that they already have existing processes to regulate heights in neighborhoods is insufficient and painful and expensive. If every time there is a proposal to put something in to fight the height requirement of 35 feet because it doesn't fit in the character of the neighborhood, that's an expensive process for neighbors, for staff and for Commission's. She did a fight like that next door and had to go to the Historic Preservation Commission to keep a demolition from happening at 319 North Van Buren Street. McGuire stated what they're asking is the beginning of a form -based code in the Northside with height requirements and that the Commission would support the Northside Neighborhood Association's proposal for height requirement. If they must defer, please understand that they are approaching the Commission to come up with some approach for planning for the inevitable development in the Northside neighborhood that preserves affordability, walkability, access for elders, families, whatever. Ginalie Swaim stated for several years she was a member of the Historic Preservation Commission which has participated in the City's past planning efforts regarding Downtown and Central Planning Districts. Tonight she is representing as a board member of the local nonprofit Friends of Historic Preservation and they encourage the Commission to support the Northside Neighborhood's proposal to amend the height standards for RNS-12. Historic Preservation is not about preserving every historic building, it is also about preserving the character of Iowa City neighborhoods. Even preservationists acknowledge that not all buildings can be saved, repaired Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 14 of 18 or salvageable, and may be replaced with newer structures. However, when that happens the new buildings should be compatible with their neighbors. New buildings should not be so tall as to lord over the existing streetscape. Swaim noted they have all seen in many places, streets in neighborhoods, where a new building lords over the streetscape and where a taller building sticks out like a sore thumb. Taller buildings interrupt the rhythm and the scale of nearby houses that are a consistent height and they diminish the sense of time and place that appeals to so many people. The height incentive to build taller buildings opens the door to developers willing and able to invest in tear down and build up 37-feet because taller buildings mean more units and bigger rental income or higher purchase prices. In turn such a strategy decreases the number of smaller houses that are affordable to owners. Where then does this leave the residents who call these neighborhoods home, the residents who choose not to or can't afford to tear down and build bigger, who appreciate the consistent scale, who depend on a good supply of older housing stock, and who enjoyed the natural light that could be blocked by taller buildings. As stated, the City established RNS-12 to conserve an area for folks who want to live within walking distance to downtown, the City has other areas, South Gilbert and South Burlington for taller structures. The Northside, whether the parts in a district or those that are not in historical district, is the largest older neighborhood in Iowa City and many consider it the core of older Iowa City. Why not then be proactive about protecting this older neighborhood whether it's in a historic district or not. Additionally, don't properties in neighborhoods in the Northside that are not in a district still deserve the same considerations for quality of life to those that are in districts that are subject guidelines. Perhaps they've heard the expression, the greenest building is the one that's already built. A building 60-70 or more years older is better was built by lumber from old growth forests, it's denser and more durable. Tearing down houses means that this still valuable old growth lumber ends up in the landfill. Hardly a climate action goal. Jared Knote (1021 E. Market Street) lives in a section that's not in the Northside District and is a relatively new resident and has been here since 2020. What he was most compelled about with this particular proposal was less about the character in terms of the physical character in neighborhoods, sure that's important to some people, but for him it's really about the community and the character of the place. One of the things that's so attractive to him about this particular space is that there are so many different types of people and family settings and communities. Part of the ability to preserve that community and equity is to have these diverse, sometimes littler buildings that allow people to find a place that is affordable. Families and people's situations change, as an example people have divorces or perhaps they get widowed, and finding space within that same community so kids can stay in schools is an important part about having a vibrant, diverse community. That makes Iowa City so special and makes that neighborhood so special. Some of the addendums that were made and submitted do a beautiful job of is providing nuance that perhaps was not in the initial request nor were in staff's work, were affordability. He respects that best practice might be that height restrictions aren't great for affordability, there's a reasonableness to that, but there's also reasonableness to allowing for the diverse type of housing stock to being preserved and part of a way of making that preserved, as others have said more eloquently said, is to reduce an incentive to redevelop in a way that is not going to force folks out because they can no longer afford to rent a home that has either multiple rental folks in it, and so forth. Knote acknowledged the Commission is doing the hard work of contemplating this pretty complex item, it seems relatively simple in some ways, but in some Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 15 of 18 ways there's a lot of complexity. He just asks that maybe as they're figuring out think about what would be helpful to preserve some of the diversity of the community and sustainability of the community. Consider perhaps how this height restriction might disincentivize the type of redevelopment that might force folks out who might otherwise want to stay in that community. Kevin Boyd stated he loves local history and is going to talk about history for a second. Tonight they meet in Emma J. Harvat Hall, many know that she was the first woman to become mayor of Iowa City but what they may not know is it took 37 years for a second woman to become mayor again. Thelma Lewis was the first mayor to govern in this chamber, so she sat right where they are and wielded the gavel for the first time. Thelma, more than anyone else in our history, is the reason they have professional city staff, rather than political appointees, she co-chaired the campaign, and Boyd suspects she did most of the work to get the referendum passed to get the council/manager form of government and secured professional staff here in Iowa City. Lewis was ready to retire from her term on Council but the anti-Council/manager forces were running a slate of candidates and at that time her seat would be the critical seat on the Council overriding the referendum. Thelma knew that she was a strong enough candidate to win again, and she did, securing for a second time the professionalization of staff and the council/manager form of government. At the end of her term on Council, Thelma gave a bit of a farewell address to the Pilots' Club in the ballroom at the Hotel Jefferson and she made several accurate predictions about issues that Iowa City would face over the next decades, it's really remarkable to read. She shared a vision for how staff and the City would work with this new kind of professional staff that was growing in size. She believed it was important for citizen groups, neighborhood associations, groups who cared about things in the community would come together with a thoughtful proposal, bring it to the City staff and City Council and partner with the City staff to find a workable solution. That was her vision, the vision of the woman who was responsible for having professional staff here. She, in that ballroom, reminded future decision makers in Iowa City that they, the decision makers, should listen to civic organizations, neighborhood groups, and to encourage City staff to find workable ways to try to accommodate what they're trying to achieve. So tonight, here in Emma J Harvat Hall, where Thelma Lewis once wielded her gavel, Boyd encourages the Commission to channel Thelma Lewis and support the citizen -led groups. If they are concerned that there's some details in here that still need to be worked out, channel Thelma Lewis some more and encourage staff and the neighborhood association to come together to find a reasonable solution and defer until that time could come. Hensch closed the public hearing. Elliott moved to defer this item until the second meeting in October. Townsend seconded the motion. Quellhorst wanted to make a couple of points, maybe some things to consider during the deferral process. First, he'd really like to thank everybody because it's clear that they have thought very hard about this issue, staff put together a very detailed and conscientious report and the neighborhood association also obviously put a great deal of effort into their submissions. It's evident that they care very deeply about historic preservation, which is something that's very important in the Strategic Plan, as well as the Central District Plan. He noted one thing that would be helpful to him is to understand how effectively the historic and conservation overlays Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 16 of 18 currently function. He has some concerns about carving out a unique height limit that is applicable to a unique and limited zone and is inconsistent with height limits in other residential zones. Again, historic preservation and preserving the integrity of Iowa City neighborhoods is also vitally important and is a priority in the Strategic Plan so to that end it'd be helpful to understand both how effectively the current historic preservation scheme is, as well as whether there are any alternatives to this they might consider that would get them all to the same place. The two things that he would have in mind would be strengthening the provisions that underlie the historic conservation overlay zones, or perhaps adding additional properties to those zones, if they feel it's appropriate. Wade appreciates everybody coming in and all the correspondence on this item. His position is he thinks it's demonstrated to this point all the overlays are performing their goal or intent, as demonstrated by new developments. The new developments are fitting within the goals of the existing neighborhoods so introducing a new complication or new special consideration he just wants to make sure that overall it makes sense. Also seeking to look in the rearview mirror, he'd be curious if this lower height restriction was in place generations before, what would the neighborhoods look like as a result of that. The neighborhoods now might not necessarily be the same neighborhoods if generations before implemented that. Padron stated she does not support the deferral and also doesn't support reducing the height. Staff made a very good point and within the staff report do they show the affect and the human scale of the neighborhoods. Mainly, when she reads the last point, that the current height limitation is consistent with other single family residential zones. Craig shares some of the feelings that others have already expressed that they've heard from the Northside Neighborhood, but the RNS-12 zone is actually a pretty small part of the of the Northside, not a small part of a significant part, but certainly not even half of the Northside Neighborhood and they haven't heard from anybody in an RSN-12 zone that lives outside the Northside Neighborhood. It appears from the math that there are historic protections on almost everything in the Northside Neighborhood that is currently zoned RSN-12 so why do they need this. She wants to know why they need this and she is not compelled that it is necessary to do it and still preserve the character of the neighborhood, which she is absolutely in favor of. Hensch stated he will be voting yes on this deferral for two reasons. Number one, since there's a misunderstanding about the application of this request from the Northside Neighborhood Association, he thinks that just needs to be clarified to make sure everybody's on same page. Second, overall, fundamentally, neighborhood integrity and character is a high priority of his and the whole city can't be taken over by rentals and profit motives, there has to be a place for people to live who work in this community and plan to stay here and contribute and be good neighbors over time. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Padron dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 2, 2023: Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2023 Page 17 of 18 Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from August 2, 2023. Craig seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett forwarded an email from the Corridor Community Action Network, they're hosting a community engagement festival on Sunday, August 27 and they invited boards and commissions to be part of that. If the commission is interested in having a table and talking to other volunteers in the community let her know. Hensch noted at the last meeting Craig brought up the AARP and some of the information that they had on AUDs and today he received an email about a slide presentation that talks about the benefits and what AUDs are. It's a really a great reference site for people. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, seconded by Elliott and the motion passed 7-0. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 2023-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Throgmorton, Wally Plahutnik, Susan Shullaw, Nancy Carlson, Sharon DeGraw, Charlie Thomas, Deanna Thomann, Dave Moore, Spencer Blackwell, Jared Knote RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 4-3 (Townsend, Hench and Elliott dissenting) the Commission recommends maintaining 35-feet as the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zones. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ23-0005: (continued discussion from 8116) 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 began the staff report with background information. At the August 16 meeting the Northside Neighborhood Association requested to reduce the height to 27-feet for new single family and duplex structures. Staff did not support that recommendation and the Commission deferred the item to tonight and requested that staff meet with the Neighborhood Association again, which they did on September 6. Russett noted a couple of the main concerns that the Neighborhood Association representatives mentioned to staff were that the 35-foot height maximum acts as a financial incentive for investors to demolish older, affordable owner -occupied structures and that the 35-foot height maximum encourages redevelopment of out of scale buildings that will harm neighboring properties. The example given by the Neighborhood Association was the single-family home proposed at 319 North Van Buren Street and at the meeting they were requesting the reduction in height to 27-feet for new single family and duplex structures. Staff continues to recommend retaining the current height maximum of 35-feet in the RNS-12 zone. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 2 of 14 Russett stated for the purpose of this presentation she was going to try to focus on new information and not the information that was presented on August 16. One item that was briefly discussed at the August 16 meeting was a justification for having varying height limits for varying land uses. She noted if there's an interest in modifying the height only for single-family and duplex structures, justification must be identified why those lower intensity residential uses need a lower height maximum. The main concern that's outlined in the staff report is the applicability of this only to new single-family and duplex structures which would require varying standards for varying uses as existing single-family and duplex uses would be subject to the 35-feet rule and new single-family and duplexes would be 27-feet and all other land uses would be 35-feet. This would also require staff to implement different height requirements for different uses built at different points in time. Russett noted recent correspondence from Jim Throgmorton of the Northside Neighborhood Association agrees with staff on this point and recommends applying the 27-foot height maximum to both existing and new single-family and duplex uses. Russett showed a map of all of the properties that are zoned RNS-12 in the City noting there's approximately 500 properties City-wide that are zoned RNS-12. 75% of those are within historic districts or conservation districts, and staff provided additional detail on the City's historic preservation program in the written staff report. A few highlights of key points about those districts are that they are regulated differently and are subject to historic preservation guidelines, and exterior modifications require regulated permits which require historic review. Although some modifications in the historic and conservation districts to homes can be reviewed by staff, any major changes have to go to the Historic Preservation Commission and that includes demolition and new construction. Russett validated that the City has a very robust Historic Preservation Program and those overlays add a large degree of protection from future construction, demolition and development changes. She reiterated 75% of the RNS-12 properties City-wide are in one of those overlays. Within the Northside Neighborhood specifically, 85% of those properties are in historic or conservation district overlay. Staff updated the demolition analysis that was previously presented to the Commission and since 1992 there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone. The data suggests that redevelopment is not increasing, although that can change in the future. Staff believes that part of the reason there haven't been a lot of demolitions is because of the historic preservation program and those historic and conservation districts which restrict demolition. Russett also noted that six of the 17 demolitions occurred prior to the land being rezoned to RNS-12 so those properties were demolished and redeveloped when it was a multifamily zoning district. Staff also looked at height for a few of those redevelopment projects, they were able to find height for 11 of the 17 residential demos and two of the 11 were above 27- feet and both of those were multifamily. Nine of the 11 were 27-feet or less, which suggests that the 35-foot height maximum is not an incentive for redevelopment otherwise they would be seeing those buildings constructed at 35-feet or higher than 27-feet. In conclusion, Russett stated the purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to maintain a single-family character, which has been interpreted as preserving single-family uses and restricting multifamily residential. The current height limitation is consistent with other single-family residential zones. Again, there's a need to justify why the City would have a different height limit for lower intensity residential uses, as opposed to other uses within that zone, and staff was concerned with implementation. Again, in recent correspondence from Mr. Throgmorton they're okay with applying this to both existing and new single-family and duplex structures. But again, 75% of the properties are regulated within historic and conservation district overlays, which ensure new structures are not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Lastly, the data staff looked at showing the residential demolitions that have occurred over time do not suggest 35-foot Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 3 of 14 redevelopment. Staff has received several pieces of correspondence and all of them are in support of reduction to 27-feet. All correspondence was emailed to the Commissioners and are also printed out before them at their seats. Staffs recommendation is to continue to keep the 35-foot height max in the RNS-12 zone. If the Commission wants to move forward with an amendment staff would recommend a couple of things, one that the amendment apply to both new and existing single-family and duplex structures and that a public purpose justification has identified why single-family and duplex uses need a different height limit than other uses. In teRNS of next steps, if the Commission makes a recommendation tonight City Council will likely hold their public hearing on November 21. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jim Throgmorton (814 Ronalds Street) is speaking as co-chair of the Northside Neighborhood Association Steering Committee and stated one month ago this Commission urged City staff to meet with them to revise their earlier report and to provide this Commission with recommendations for tonight's meeting. Three of them on the Northside Steering Committee met with City staff members Tracy Hightshoe and Anne Russett on September 6. They found it to be an enlightening and constructive conversation and he appreciated that very much. During the meeting staff asked them to clarify what the specific concerns were, and how the proposed height reduction addressed them. In its revised report City staff recommends against the proposed change and they offer several reasons. The one reason that stands out is the staff could not identify a governmental purpose for having the maximum allowable height vary based on use. Throgmorton wanted to call attention to and remove one of the obstacles off the table as already referred to this in the September 6 meeting, look for a mutually acceptable compromise. The Northside Neighborhood Association floated the idea of applying the change only to new single-family structures and duplexes and not to existing structures. However, the staff report persuaded them that applying a different standard to new and existing houses would produce unnecessary complications. Consequently, the Northside Neighborhood Association agreed with staff that the height amendment should apply both to existing and new single-family and duplex structures. Doing so is actually consistent with their original petition which they have not changed in writing. Therefore, it's not as if they're actually changing something here and this should eliminate staff's concern about this aspect of the proposed amendment. Throgmorton stated what led them to propose the change in maximum allowable height, put concisely is the current read 35-foot limit encourages redevelopment without of scale buildings that can have harmful effects on neighboring properties. The existing height limit provides a financial incentive for investors to demolish older and currently very affordable owner -occupied structures and makes it less likely that appropriately sized affordable new structures will be built. This financial incentive stems from the fact that the RNS-12 zones are located in the University Impact Area and therefore subject to intense demand for off -campus student housing. Throgmorton noted it was this housing market pressure that led City government to create the RNS-12 district and to give it a unique public purpose. This unique purpose is "to stabilize certain existing neighborhoods by Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 4 of 14 preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of certain neighborhoods." As former City planner Bob Miklo states in his detailed advice to this Commission, which the Northside Neighborhood Association supports and trusts they have read, "for those who live in neighborhoods single-family character means all the things that make up quality of life, enough sunlight to allow gardens, trees and other living landscaping, light shining through windows on a wintry day, a fresh summer breeze and not having light and air blocked by a 35-foot tall wall a few feet from one's property". This market pressure also led City government to stipulate as a matter of public policy in the Central District Plan that the City will "work to achieve a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods" and continuing to permit new infill structures as tall as 35-feet in RNS-12 districts would make it more difficult to achieve that objective. The potential that out of scale buildings could have harmful effects on neighboring properties is also affected by the unique physical characteristics of the RNS-12 neighborhoods. Single-family and duplex structures comprise the vast majority of properties in those neighborhoods and very few, if any, of those structures currently exceed two and a half stories, which is roughly equivalent to 27-feet. Moreover, the compact lots found in the RNS-12 zones are among the smallest in the City. Consequently, unlike in other residential zones with large lots and setbacks, 35-foot buildings could easily dominate or cause excessive shadows on neighboring structures. The existing 35-foot limit therefore runs counter to the purpose of the RNS-12 zone. Section 14-2A-1 E stipulates that the maximum height standards in the code are intended "to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings to provide options from height, air and privacy and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity." Throgmorton stated furthermore the current 35-foot maximum was originally adopted to allow walk -out basements on sloping lots. There are very few sloping lots in the RNS-12 zones and none in the Northside. Therefore, there is no need to accommodate single-family and duplex structures on sloping lots by permitting 35-foot heights. Throgmorton next addressed the staff's specific concern about varying maximum heights based on land use. The Northside Neighborhood Association believes there is a clear rationale for varying heights. The reason for changing to a 27-foot height limit for single-family and duplex structures in RNS-12 zones is to preserve the existing quality of life in these neighborhoods by ensuring that new 35-foot-tall houses on these small lots do not dominate their neighbors and deny them access to sunlight, breezes and privacy. If the 27-foot height limit is adopted for single-family and duplex structures, the few nonresidential uses allowed in the zone, schools, religious institutions and daycares, could still be up to 35-feet but those uses are already subject to greater setbacks that mitigate against any potential harm. In the end, therefore, there's really only one question the Commission needs to answer. Will changing the maximum permitted height of single-family and duplex structures from 35- to 27-feet increase the likelihood that new infill development will help achieve a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing while preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of RNS-12 neighborhoods. If the answer is yes then they should vote in favor of the proposed amendment. Wally Plahutnik (430 N. Gilbert Street) is here to speak for himself as a former person who sat on this Commission for seven years (2005-2012). During that period they rewrote the entire code and also redid all the comprehensive plans for each neighborhood. As a commissioner they are all aware that the Comprehensive Plan should guide their decisions. That's what they told the people at every meeting they had, and all the different sessions and workshops that they held. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 5 of 14 Staff's analysis to the neighborhood's request regarding the Comprehensive Plan focuses on the land use in that specific map of the residential neighborhood stabilization (RNS-12) district. The letters RNS is residential, neighborhood stabilization and there's only two that exist in the City, the rest are residential neighborhoods or RS. Staff acknowledges that there are many statements within those comprehensive plans with regard to infill, so a lot of that is already covered, but it all speaks to ensuring that it's compatible and complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff goes on to say that because the maximum allowable height in most residential zones is 35-feet, it is implied that 35-feet ensures compatibility, that's taken as a given apparently. One thing Plahutnik would like to make note of, and strongly object to, is that every time staff refers to the stabilization's wording, they say that this does not interfere with single- family uses. The stabilization was a district made not to preserve uses, they can use any houses as a single-family use, it's meant to preserve the single-family character of the neighborhoods, character and uses, those words aren't interchangeable. Uses certainly come within the broader heading of character but one can't cram character into the smaller thing of uses. This very narrow reading of the Comprehensive Plan dismisses qualitative measures of compatibility. It ignores that there are very few 35-foot houses anywhere in Iowa City. Typically, it's a walkout basement that adds that third floor, so the street level is less than 35-feet in almost every instance. Introducing a 35-foot-tall house with a flat roof, which isn't denied in this 35-foot limit, in the neighborhood of modest one- and two-story houses is certainly not compatible with the neighborhood's character. An investment company that has purchased several properties with the intent of redeveloping them has just proposed such a structure. To make it worse, the building would have a flat roof, making it appear even taller and casting even more of a shadow over its neighbors. Plahutnik urges the Commission to follow the Comprehensive Plan and really work through this to preserve the character of the neighborhood, not just the single-family use. Susan Shullaw (718 N. Johnson Street) would like to read a portion of the letter that was submitted to the Commission by Anne Freerks on the occasion of this hearing. As they may know Freerks was part of this Commission for a number of years. "I am writing to ask that you vote in favor of the Northside Neighborhood's request to reduce the height limit in RNS-12 zones. I live on the far west edge of the Longfellow neighborhood, which is comprised of RNS-12 and RS-8 zones, bordering areas that are entirely occupied by undergraduate students. When we were a young family just starting out we were attracted to the charming houses of South Governor Street. We liked the proximity to Longfellow Elementary, and it was also a very attractive and affordable option. In 1993, we took the plunge and bought 100-year-old house there. We were welcomed by a number of elderly couples who had raised their families on South Governor and they were happy that our house had not become a student rental like so many others in the neighborhood. We didn't know it at the time, but we were helping to stabilize the neighborhood. In 1999, we were surprised when a charming old house across the alley was torn down and a large three-story apartment building went up. There was no care given to how the building fit in a neighborhood. All the beautiful mature oak trees were cut down and every square inch of the available space was taken up with a new building. Although we enjoy having college kids as neighbors, we found that as more and more students moved in, their habits can conflict with working families. There are costs and benefits in every situation. For this reason neighborhood stability, and an increase in density on these narrow lots has great impact. We knew little about zoning before the apartment building went up. Several of our neighbors were in Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 6 of 14 the same situation. We talked and then decided to approach the City, which is when we found out that Lucas and Governor Streets were zoned RM-12 multifamily and more three story apartment buildings were planned. Investors were actively trying to buy properties. A realtor called me and said I should get out while I can. In a hurried moment we considered selling but we thought of the elderly neighbors who had welcomed us and the other young families that were also making their homes on the western streets of Longfellow. We also knew long term renters were drawn to the neighborhood for the same reasons we were. They too were concerned about being displaced by new and more expensive student housing. We decided to stay and fight for our neighborhood. This experience taught us that zoning can be a powerful tool affecting our daily lives. We had our neighbors petition the City to rezone our neighborhood to RNS-12. Investment companies that were buying up houses objected to our request but the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council agreed with us that Iowa City needs some close -in neighborhoods that are sustainable and attractive to all sorts of households, owner - occupied families as well as renters, young families, singles and retirees. Recent proposals for a 35-foot-tall houses in the RNS-12 zone have revealed a loophole that is counter to the intent of the zone to stabilize and preserve existing neighborhoods. I urge the Commission to approve the Northside Neighborhood's request to bring the allowed building heights in line with existing houses in the RNS-12 zone. This will not only apply to the northside but will be beneficial to South Lucas and South Governor Streets as well. We have raised our family on South Governor Street and at some point we will be ready to move on. We hope to sell to another young family who will send their kids to Longfellow and walk to their jobs downtown. We hope that you will support such families with good zoning policy. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for serving on the Commission." Nancy Carlson (1002 E. Jefferson Street) is one of the group of neighbors who approached the City in 1993 who were concerned with a proposed development that they felt would dramatically change the character of their neighborhood so they asked for help. The City responded by changing the zoning from RM-12 to RNS-12, that was the solution the City came up with. Over the years they felt that this was a serious undertaking and knew it would change the course of their neighborhood. They discussed it, they contacted all of the neighbors, they explained the differences between the RM-12 zone and the RNS-12 zone and wanted to make sure that everyone understood and was on board for this change. Their neighborhood was the first, thanks to the help of the City and over the years other RM-12 zones in the University Impact Zone also requested to be rezoned to RNS because of the pride and love for their neighborhood. Most of the homeowners in these neighborhoods are working class, they have worked hard to own their homes and they are proud of them. At the time of the rezoning to RNS-12 the concepts of historic districts and conservation areas were foreign to them, they wanted to give new neighbors the dream of home ownership that they had experienced. They had faith new neighbors would responsibly respect what was already there and for years that was true. Because of that their neighborhood is an encyclopedia of housing styles, but all the houses no matter what style have similar proportions, they are all one to two and a half stories tall. When they first were presented with this zone, they discussed all these things over and over again because they realized that this would make a big change in their neighborhood. They looked at the dimensions but were naive and not as adept as someone in construction to understand what the 35-foot height limit actually was. They looked around the neighborhood and looked at the height of all the houses in Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 7 of 14 the neighborhood and thought okay, this is a good height. Houses from the 50s and houses from the 1900s are all pretty much the same amount in height so they did not realize that they had allowed something to happen that they had no intention of having happened. Right now they have reached a point where newcomers are interested only in their rights and maximizing their investment. The investment those of them who live here and have made in creating and maintaining a neighborhood is of no concern to them. Their properties become dark holes, sucking the life out of the neighborhood. Everybody has been talking about the Comprehensive Plan and what this means and how they're supposed to follow it. The zoning code was made up to enforce the Comprehensive Plan. To quote from the zoning code on the purpose of the zoning code, "the provisions of this title are intended to implement the city of Iowa's City's Comprehensive Plan in a manner that promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City." Carlson is asking the Commission to amend the height to 27-feet which is what they thought was 35-feet when they did their thing out of love for their neighborhood. She believes this is needed to continue the investment made in creating and maintaining their neighborhood. Sharon DeGraw (519 Brown Street) lives in the Northside Neighborhood and walks a great deal. In moving to the Northside Neighborhood, it's the whole walkability factor and the experience that one gets living in the neighborhood. She showed an image not in the Northside Neighborhood but represents something that is the kind of thing that they would want to avoid in the RNS-12 neighborhoods. The image is an apartment complex on Iowa Avenue. The apartment complex is gigantic next to the single-family home. If they allow that kind of patterning that is a visual dissonance, it disrupts the neighborhood, and makes the neighborhood a place that people don't want to walk by and are less excited to live in. People don't want to live next to tall buildings that are out of character. She likens it to the experience of when you pull up to an intersection and someone has music blaring very loud, the first thing you want to do is get out of there and get away from that car. This height differential in a neighborhood is not what she would want to live in nor look at and feels other people who invested in their neighborhood and bought property there would feel the same way. The next image shows a suburban neighborhood and that's where they would find a 35-foot-tall building because in the back of the house there would be a walkout basement but the front facades are well under 27-feet. In all the RNS-12 single-family or duplex houses that are currently in the close to downtown area, the character is mostly one or two stories, they can have walkout basements that are in the back, even then they're rarely 35- feet tall for the residential dwellings. The next image shows apartments that are in the RNS-12 next to single-family homes, the ones in RNS-12 zones throughout the City are mostly under 27- feet, there are very rare instances when they're above that. She next showed four instances where there are nonresidential businesses, St. Wenceslaus, Preucil School, Bethel AME and a daycare on Fairchild Street. Only two of them are over 35-feet tall, but they're on properties that are very large and there's not the issue of keeping light and air away from the neighboring buildings. The Bethel AME Church is under 27-feet and so is the preschool. In conclusion DeGraw stated that the overwhelming character of Iowa City's RNS-12 zones consist of one- and two-story houses and a few apartment buildings with three floors, but even those apartment buildings are respectful of their neighbors in teRNS of height. There are a couple of taller historic buildings, but they have generous setbacks and do not harm their neighbors. The intent of the RNS-12 is to preserve the single-family character and the Comprehensive Plan encourages the Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 8 of 14 infill development to be compatible with the existing character. The requested change in height from 35-feet to 27-feet is consistent with those goals. The change will help preserve the quality of life of the neighborhoods and it's a valid zoning code change. DeGraw stated it's very important because of the consistency that will be brought to developers. If there's the two and a half story height that is true for historic districts and conservation districts, then if they go to 27-feet high, which is about two and a half stories tall in the RNS-12 zones that eliminates any confusion for developers and would be a safe way to proceed. Charlie Thomas (100 Currier Hall) is a student at the University and lives in a campus residence hall. He would like note a brief take on the larger scope of this endeavor. He took a walk to the northside area yesterday and while it's numerous trees, falling leaves and cozy homes he found attractive, it's clearly not sustainable. It lives on the border between a growing university and near the downtown of a city with egregious housing demand. To implement a height restriction like this legitimizes the economic enclave Northside represents. It is in the Commission's best interest to code a city that provides for the numerous kinds of people that want to live there and further cementing these low -density zones directly conflicts with that. There is no indication from the data of approved demolitions that the current height limit gives an incentive at all to demolish existing property. The fear of out of scale buildings is mitigated by the already existent and limiting historic preservation measures and it is simply redundant to give this extra measure. Deanna Thomann (208 Fairchild Street) stated she has lived in the Northside District for more than 20 years, her sister Dana and her bought the house when they were in college. The home was built in 1876 and once belonged to her great great grandparents. Today, her sister teaches at the University and she works from home as a copy editor. Dana lives upstairs in the old house and Thomann live downstairs. She likes her home and her neighborhood, she likes the vibrancy of living near the downtown and the University. From the second floor of her house she is able to gaze down at the flower beds she keeps in the front yard. Above this she sees a layered horizon to the south that includes church steeples, as well as tall new structures as the trend in Iowa City is to build up. That trend makes good sense in the right places, but historic districts are just not the right place. In 2004, she stood at this same podium and voiced her support for the creation of the Northside Historic District, a plan which included her block. Some property owners objected so much that they were left out of the district and therefore several non -protected properties sit across the alley from her house and two others are across from her on Fairchild Street. The two properties that are across the street were built in 1890 and 1900, these are solid homes and are rentals with large backyards. These structures are in the RNS-12 zone but there is no conservation overlay for these homes. Currently, they could be torn down and replaced with tall, dwarfing structures surrounding old homes and blocking sunlight and the skyline that her neighbors and she enjoy. Tall structures would undoubtedly disrupt the scale and the harmony of her block. As they all know, the RNS-12 was created to stabilize fragile residential areas. In his August 15, 2023, letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission Robert Miklo, former senior planner for the city of Iowa City, explained that the height limit of 35-feet was meant to accommodate walkout basements on sloping lots. However, they now realize few RNS-12 structures sit on sloping lots and his August letter Miklo states the limit of 35-feet is excessive and should be changed to 27-feet and that would be in keeping with the two and a half story houses that are commonplace in the neighborhood. Thomann agrees with Miklo and asks that Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 9 of 14 the Commission change the maximum height for houses and duplexes in the RNS-12 zone to 27-feet. This change will further stabilize the RNS-12 zone and protect her neighborhoods quality of life. Thomann wants to stress she is not resistant to change, she realizes they need to accommodate the growing population but tearing down good historic structures and sending materials to the landfill is not the answer. She really hopes they can continue to take pride in preserving the embodied energy of the older neighborhoods. Furthermore, she encourages City staff, City Commissioners and City Council to explore ways to shake old properties from the grips of the large rental companies. Imagine finding a way to make the old housing stock affordable so that a new wave of various people can live here. She saw this new wave of various people last night when she watched the City Council meeting. That was a long, emotional meeting, with immigrants coming to the podium and an interpreter telling about their struggles to find housing close in. Thomann would hope this new wave of various people would be included within her old neighborhood, she really would love that. She realizes they don't talk about who lives in the structures in planning and zoning but if they could integrate people like that and get more homeowners in the neighborhood, that would be the ultimate stabilization plan. Dave Moore (425 E. Davenport Street) thanked the Commission for considering the zoning amendment. He stated the amendment is really simple and it makes sense and it lines things up with the Comprehensive Plan. Moore thinks this will be good for all neighborhoods, and blocks in the RNS-12 zone or the residential neighborhood stability zone. More specifically, he's here today on behalf of himself because of a situation that has impacted his family and the people living in his immediate neighborhood in the lower north side of Davenport Street and Bloomington Street. It's an example of what can happen without this amendment. In fact, it is evidence that the current height limit is an incentive to tear down and build big. What was torn down was an 1840s Weaver's cottage at 319 North Van Buren. Formerly it was rentable and it was affordable. The biggest property owner in the Northside, Prestige Properties, has proposed a full 35-feet house with a nearly flat roof in his backyard. Moore showed images of the proposed building from the east elevation noting its nearly flat. The north elevation shows the blank wall would be what he'd be seeing over a small backyard for the next 20 years. It's huge and would block the view and sunlight from his house. He showed another image capturing the scale of the first building and then a second building was proposed which was actually taller. If the builder is successful with this new model, he could build it elsewhere, there are other vacant lots in the RNS-12 zone, just like the mansard roof apartment became a model for student housing in the 1980s. Back then the City actually created the RNS-12 zone to prevent more of them. Moore reiterated this particular three-story design is injurious to neighboring properties and is at odds with the compatibility asked for by the Comprehensive Plan and a bad precedent. At first he was not sure really how tall 35-feet was but then as he walked around and looked at buildings to get a sense it became clear this is like a tower, it is crazy and is like a monolith. How high is 35-feet, the Englert Theater building is 35-feet high. He noted he and his wife have lived in their house for 45 years, somebody called it a century neighborhood and it's a little daunting to think that they've lived there half the existence of the neighborhood, but apparently many of the houses are like that. They raised two nice daughters there and do not want to be forced out of their neighborhood because the quality of life will be diminished by a three-story house that they can see out their south window, his work room. They don't want to be driven out by someone who's trying to squeeze every dime out of one of the smallest lots in any core neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 10 of 14 Additionally, does anyone recall ever seeing any flat roof three-story houses anywhere else in Iowa City. The tenants in the house directly north of this property will lose even more sunlight. The residents on the other side of the busy alley with young grade school children will also be affected. They appealed this twice to the Board of Adjustments and got letters of support from every single owner -occupied home within 200 yards. The lower northside is a fairly moderately income -based neighborhood. The most common complaint was the height. The Board of Adjustments found that the building official made a mistake when she approved the setback reduction to allow the 35-foot-tall building to be built two feet closer to the property line. Spencer Blackwell (25 N. Lucas Street) is a renter and is concerned that this will add more complexity to the zoning code and will reduce the amount of units being built. Whether it be duplexes or single-family zoning houses, if less units are being built, everybody's rent starts going up. This does affect more than just this neighborhood and over the last year most people's rents have gone up over $100. If they limit the amount of housing they're going to build, they're going to end up with higher rents and push people further out and away. Jared Knote (1021 E. Market Street) stated on page four of the agenda packet is an image of the stabilization area and there's little carve outs relatively gerrymandered around this one little section of Market and Jefferson, he keeps coming back to it and has asked folks to get on Google and just look at the 900 block of Jefferson Street and if they look across on Jefferson, they'll see four squares. If one is familiar with the 1920s type of architecture, you will see lots of approximately 1000 square foot, single family ranches. The bar chart that showed most of the recent buildings that were built in 2021, what came down was a farmhouse with a gable on it and what was replaced there was a duplex. It is on an angled street which would explain the fact that instead of having human scale where they see their neighbors, the back to the basement is really a single story, then the second story or third story, which is a second story, but it's really quite elevated. Then they've got to the attic area for more living and it really takes up the entire lot. On the other side of Jefferson right in the middle of the block is a hole in the ground that used to be another small tutor style home. The point being that once one of these houses started to go right next to that duplex that was built is actually another duplex where it's actually two homes on a single lot. Next, that was another two homes on a single lot. It's not where his block is but if he looks out his window, and Knote brought images from Google Maps to show the lots are non- conforming lots, their houses are less than 1000 square feet. He is probably one of the people who helped stabilize the block, because it was a student rental. He is working on his house every single weekend and is concerned about destabilizing the neighborhood, in this stabilization zone where they don't have any protections or overlays. What they've seen is once one house came down and was replaced by a giant duplex and other builds, they have two houses on a single lot. His neighborhood and his block is very diverse, by income, by rental status, by type, duplex, non - duplex, students, nonstudents, families, racially diverse, and then one block over it's now gone into price insensitive, monoculture, all students and more houses being knocked down sequentially. Therefore, to say that there's no evidence that on single blocks where they're seeing houses being taken down and replaced by price insensitive monoculture that it doesn't destabilize blocks, that's just categorically in this case, not true. Knote thinks there's evidence to that once that continues there's more and more momentum. Again he asks them to go to that 900 block of Jefferson and walk around the corner, the 900 block of Market and see that these Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 11 of 14 are pretty every type of housing stock, there's so much housing choice in these neighborhoods, and at lots of different price points and lots of different types of people. But if they provide no protection to the type of development that can go in these areas or have savvy developers who can keep within the word, but push the spirit of what is described, they really will lose the stability of the neighborhood. Jim Throqmorton (814 Ronalds Street) wanted to add the houses at greatest risk from the height differential are ones located in the southeastern part of the Northside Neighborhood and in the Court Hill District. Those houses tend be on smaller lots, they tend to be occupied by structures that are valued in the $100,000s. Anyone who owns a house knows that assessed value in the $100,000s is something very affordable in this area. It didn't used to be when he first moved here, but it is now. So it's misguided to say, as a couple of speakers did, that this is sort of an effort to preserve property rights or something like that in the Northside Neighborhood. The biggest concern they have is for those properties outside of historic preservation districts and in the southeastern side of the RNS-12 district. Wally Plahutnik (430 N. Gilbert Street) wanted to add two points that he didn't get in. The first is they're talking about the RNS-12 stabilization district itself, not historical districts and overlay. He keeps hearing 75% of the RNS-12 is covered by historical district and conservation overlay. Well, 25% isn't and don't those people deserve to be spoken for as well. Secondly, this type of thing has already been done. The South District has a two and a half story limit and so just considering that this isn't out of the blue, this isn't something completely new, completely different. The South District already has this type of restriction. Dave Moore (425 E. Davenport Street) wanted to finish his thoughts about going to the Board of Adjustments. The Board of Adjustments had found that the building official made a mistake when she approved a setback reduction to allow the 35-foot-tall building to be built two feet closer to the property line and that issue prevented the building from being built. The issue that prevented the building was incorrect setback, but not the height. One of the Board of Adjustment members said a simple drive by could have cleared this whole thing up months ago, it's obvious that this doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. They had hoped the developer might come back with something that was a little bit more reasonable, but he came back with an even taller building. Once again, the Board found that the building official made a mistake about the front setback, again about the front setback, it wasn't the height, so the developer could propose another building that would be injurious to the neighborhood and to the neighbors who live close by. It's hard to believe that so much time and money was spent by citizens simply to fight off a building that the Comprehensive Plan and Central District says shouldn't even exist in the first place. This amendment would put an end to that kind of problem this amendment has broad support all the owner -occupied homes in the immediate area signed off, many people in the Northside and other neighborhoods, many organizations and very deeply experienced people who wrote letters. Moore wanted to thank the volunteers from the Northside Neighborhoods for walking the streets and doing the real measurements, finding out the real facts and putting this proposal together. Hensch closed the public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 12 of 14 Quellhorst moved to maintaining the 35-feet as the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zones. Padron seconded the motion. Quellhorst noted he lives in Longfellow in an historic home and shares a lot of the concerns that have been voiced today but this area appears to be well protected by historic and conservation district overlays. He thinks the appropriate remedy is expanding those overlays rather than pursuing a niche carve -out to the zoning code. He also doesn't see any indication of a large influx of tall homes, staff indicated that they don't have any record of homes over a 27-feet being constructed since the 1990s. Finally, he shares staffs concerns that the proposed amendment would be inconsistent with that standard in most other residential zones and would result in varying height limits based on purpose, which isn't a sufficient justification. Padron stated she read the staff proposal and it makes more sense to her. She has listened to all the neighbors, and they just don't convince her that their reasons are reason enough to lower the height. Townsend stated she can't vote in accordance with this because she thinks the 27-foot is tall enough in these residential areas. She lives in one of those areas and would hope that they wouldn't get a 35-footer and in her neighborhood. Craig asked staff if the building they saw that has galvanized a lot of this reaction, the 35-foot building, where is it in the approval process, and it isn't part of the approval that it has to fit in with the neighborhood. Russett replied it needs to meet the standards in the zoning code. Her understanding is they did have a building permit issued for it but it's not moving forward in terms of construction. It doesn't have to meet subjective character standards, it just needs to meet the height, the setbacks, and other zoning standards. Hektoen cautioned them away from focusing too much on that one example, this is a change to the text of the code that would apply in multiple situations. Craig understands but is interested in knowing what protections are in place without changing the code and if there is a protection that they have to meet some standard and some type of conformity as in fitting in with a neighborhood, that's what is important to her. Russett replied that particular property is not in a historic or conservation district so the zoning code doesn't have any design standards that it needs to meet, there's no design standards or regulations related to it fitting in with RNS-12. Craig stated another building that is often brought up as an example is the one on the Bloomington Street but she drives down that street two or three times a week for 30 years and doesn't know any big monstrous building there. She looked up the address and the building that they're talking about looks very much like a single-family home and fits in with the neighborhood. It did replace a very small decrepit house, but it's got a yard and they built a double car garage off the alley in the back. She doesn't know why anyone would complain about that being in their neighborhood. Criag noted the issue is it didn't sell as a single-family house, it's being rented by the room and so instead of having a five member family in there they have five students. However, if they had a five -member family in there, she doesn't think anyone would be Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2023 Page 13 of 14 complaining about it. That's the struggle for her when that is used as an example of what they don't want in their neighborhood and yet if it had two adults and three children, they'd be happy to have it in their neighborhood. Craig also asked staff about why in one neighborhood is the limit defined as two and a half stories and in another 27-feet or 35-feet. Russett would prefer that it would be in feet and not stories in this zone. Elliott stated walking into that neighborhood and can't imagine having a three-story structure, it just doesn't fit into the character of the neighborhood. She also feels like lowering it to 27-feet adds to the affordability of the neighborhood and is consistent with the strategic plan. Wade will be supporting the denial. He hears the concerns and lived up in the Northside Neighborhood for a long time. He is familiar with the house on Jefferson, also on the corner of Market and Jefferson, along the alleyway used to be a white house there that was torn down and replaced with the duplex up on Market Street and Rochester. Also smaller houses that were replaced with newer houses. None of these became intrusive to their neighborhood and for that reason can't support lowering it to 27-foot and will support leaving it at 35-feet. Hensch noted the difficulty always is this question of affordable housing and that's what causes him the quandary. He is extremely concerned about the proliferation of rentals throughout the City and that the whole City is just going to become rental. Additionally, he doesn't see any evidence that more rentals is reducing the price of rent, so that's not the answer to affordability. He will oppose this motion because it's reasonable and particularly what really stayed with me him was Robert Miklo's comment that the original 35-feet was just to deal with the slope on some of the lots and not for any other reason. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3 (Townsend, Hench and Elliott dissenting). PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave an update from last night's Council meeting. The Council approved the City's submission for the pro -housing grant to the Housing and Urban Development Department and matching the leveraging funds of $2.8 million from the City so that application will be submitted later this month. Elliott noted there is now a walkway on Riverside Drive which makes it so much safer. Craig stated that's been on the City's books for many years but the railroad was supposed to move their things and they refused so ultimately they took the space out of the street. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Elliott seconded by and the motion passed 7-0. � r 1 �t �r#�.�:,1�11 �`► �' City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY November 20, 2023 Information submitted between distribution of late handouts on Friday and 3:00 pm on Monday. Late Handout(s): S. Community Comment - See revised language Public comment is intended so that members of the public may be heard by Council. Because Community Comment is for items not properly noticed on the agenda, Council cannot engage in discussion or debate due to open meetings laws. Only in- person comments will be allowed for Community Comment. Public comment Lb 'fk-agenda items. which must be directly_reiated to that a-enda dem, may be made in -person or remotely. Individuals will be provided 3 minutes to speak. The Community Comment period will end at 7:00 p.m. unless an extension is needed to meet a minimum 30 minutes of total time allocated for the Community Comment period. The Mayor reserves the right to reduce the 3 minute period based on the number of individuals desiring to speak. Additional comments can be sent to the City Council via council@iowa-city.org or through the City Clerk's Office. 10. Planning & Zoning Matters Item 10.a Zoning Code Amendment - Reduction of maximum allowable height in the RNS-12 Zone - See correspondence from Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee. November 20, 2023 City of Iowa City -if/ D. CX-' Kellie Grace Late Handouts Distributed From: James Throgmorton <jthrogmo@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 17, 20234:23 PM l (— 20 Z-2 To: *City Council Cc: Bruce Teague; Megan Alter; John Thomas; Pauline Tayl4,'T)J8Pa)Bergus; Shawn Harmsen; Mazahir Salih; Anne Russett Subject: Statement from the NNA re: RNS-12 Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Northside Neighborhood Association Statement about RNS-12.docx A ** 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. Council members, Please see the attached statement from the Northside Neighborhood Association concerning the proposed amendment to the RNS-12 part of the Zoning Code (REZ23-0005). Jim Throgmorton Chair, Northside Neighborhood Association Steering Committee Northside Neighborhood Association's Statement to the City Council Re: REZ23-0005 RNS-12 Maximum Allowable Height Amendment November 21, 2023 The Northside Neighborhood Association believes the Zoning Code should be amended to reduce from 35 feet to 27 feet the maximum allowable height for single-family and duplex residential structures in Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS)-12 zones. This amendment would make the height standard consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan, and it would help ensure that infill development projects in RNS-12 zones contribute to a healthy balance of affordable rental- and owner -occupied housing without compromising the character of the Northside and similar neighborhoods. Background Six months ago, we asked the Council to initiate the rezoning process and direct staff to proceed in an expeditious manner. You did so. We thank you for taking that action, but we also recognized that initiating the rezoning did not necessarily imply commitment to approving it. As the staff has stated in its November 21 report, the Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on August 16. It quickly became clear during that meeting that there was a misunderstanding about what we had requested. After discussion, the commission suggested that City staff meet with leaders of the NNA to rectify the misunderstanding. Three of us on the Northside's Steering Committee met with City staff members Tracy Hightshoe and Anne Russett on September 6. We found it to be an enlightening and constructive conversation. During the meeting, they asked us to clarify what our specific concerns were and how the proposed height reduction addressed them. In its October 10 report, the staff recommended against the proposed change. They offered several reasons. But one stood out: the staff could not identify a governmental purpose for having the maximum allowable height vary based on use. The commission voted 4-3 to accept the staff s recommendation to keep the maximum permitted height in the RNS-12 district to 35 ft. Why the Maximum Allowable Height Should Be Reduced So what led us to propose the change in maximum allowable height? Put concisely, the current 35-foot limit encourages redevelopment with out -of -scale buildings that can have harmful effects on neighboring properties in what is already a fragile neighborhood. The existing height limit provides a financial incentive for investors to demolish older, and currently very affordable, owner -occupied structures, and makes it less likely that appropriately -sized and affordable new structures will be built. This financial incentive stems from the fact that RNS-12 zones are located in the University Impact Area (UTA) and are, therefore, subject to intense demand for off -campus student housing. It was this housing market pressure that stimulated the City Council to create the RNS-12 district and to give it a unique public purpose, namely: "to stabilize certain existing neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of certain neighborhoods." As former City planner Bob Miklo stated in written advice to the Commission, which we support and hope you have read, "for those who live in neighborhoods, single-family character means all of the things that make up quality of life," including "not having light and air blocked by a 35-foot-tall wall a few feet from one's property line." By creating the RNS-12 district, the Council was acknowledging the vulnerability of the district's neighborhoods. Step-by-step they can become so de -stabilized that they no longer retain the feel of a neighborhood. Jefferson St. resident Nancy Carlson has vividly described how her neighborhood has changed over the past twenty years. This market pressure also led City government to stipulate as a matter of public policy in the Central District Plan (p. 20) that the City will "[w]ork to achieve a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods." Continuing to permit new infill structures as tall as 35 feet in RNS-12 zones would make it more difficult to achieve that objective. The potential that out -of -scale buildings could have harmful effects on neighboring properties is intensified by the unique physical characteristics of the RNS-12 neighborhoods. Single-family and duplex structures comprise the vast majority of properties in those neighborhoods. Very few, if any, of those structures currently exceed 2 Y2 stories, which is roughly equivalent to 27 feet. There are numerous multi -family structures, but new ones are prohibited. The only non-residential uses allowed in the RNS-12 zones are religious institutions, primary and secondary schools, and day cares. Moreover, the compact lots found in the RNS-12 zones are among the smallest in the city. Consequently — unlike in other residential zones with large lots and setbacks — 35-foot buildings could easily dominate or cause excessive shadows on neighboring structures. The existing 35-foot limit, therefore, runs counter to the purpose of the RNS-12 zone. Section 14-2A- 1E stipulates that the maximum height standards in the Code are intended: to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. Furthermore, the current 35-foot maximum was originally adopted to allow walk -out basements on sloping lots. There are very few sloping lots in the RNS-12 zones. There are none in the Northside's RNS-12 zone. Therefore, there is no need to accommodate single-family and duplex structures on sloping lots by permitting 35-foot heights. Our Response to the City Staffs and the Commission Majority's Objections Let us now address the concerns expressed by the City staff s and the majority of the P&Z Commissioners. The staff emphasizes that that 85% of all properties in the Northside are located in Historic or Conservation Overlay Zones and that guidelines in the Historic Preservation Handbook state that "new structures must be one and a half or two stories in height." This strikes us as a good reason to adopt the 27 ft. height throughout the entire RNS-12 district. That way the guidelines and the zoning law would be consistent with one another and thereby avoid having two different height limits in the same zone. Moreover, having a consistent 27 ft. maximum height would protect buildings which are located in the RNS-12 district but on the outer edges of the historic/conservation districts. The building that has been proposed for 319 N. Van Buren exemplifies how properties on the outer edge can be harmed by the current 35 ft. standard. The staff reports there have been only 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zones over the past 30 years. We do not disagree. However, the relative paucity of demolitions does not necessarily reveal a lack of development pressure. Over the years, 12 properties have been converted from single-family to 2, 3, or 4-family structures. The staff also emphasizes that the Historic Preservation Handbook allows demolitions only when a building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. Yes, but years of neglect and disinvestment can make a building unsound and irretrievable. Moreover, the staffs argument seems to disregard the 15% of properties that are not located in historic or conservation overlay zones. We count 83 such properties in the southeastern comer of the Northside neighborhood. Forty-nine of them are single-family ! owner -occupied structures, and another 23 are two-family conversions, duplexes, or 2-family flats. Excluding one house built in 2021 assessed at $683,920, the average assessed value of these properties is $248,067. Eleven of the properties are assessed in the $100,000s. All of the buildings are 1- to 2-stories in height. Imagine the development pressure on these largely affordable but unprotected properties. And, even more important, the past does not necessarily presage the future. Relying too heavily on past trends is like looking in the rearview mirror to know where you're headed. Just two weeks ago, you approved staff-proposcd amendments to the Zoning Code which are explicitly designed to increase the supply of housing by making it easier and more profitable to build new structures. How many of these new structures will be 35 ft. tall, if the Code is not amended? Finally, let us address the City staff s specific concern about having varying maximum heights based on land use. We believe there are good public purpose justifications for having varying heights. The rationale for a 27-foot height limit for single-family and duplexes in RNS- 12 zones is to preserve the existing quality of life in these neighborhoods by ensuring that new single-family or duplex structures on these small lots do not dominate their neighbors.. If the 27- foot height limit is adopted for only single-family and duplex structures, it is true that the few non-residential uses allowed in the zone — schools, religious institutions, and day cares — would retain the potential of being up to 35 feet tall. But, we emphasize, the Zoning Code already subjects these uses to greater setbacks that adequately mitigate against any potential harms. Conclusion In the end, there is really only one question you need to answer: will changing the maximum permitted height of single-family and duplex structures from 35 to 27 feet help to ensure that new infill development will contribute to a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing while preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of RN5-12 neighborhoods? If you answer yes, you should vote in favor of the proposed amendment. � r k rr�®�PT City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY November 21, 2023 Information submitted between distribution of late handouts on Monday and 3:00 pm on Tuesday. Late Haqdaet - - - - - - - 10. Planning & Zoning Matters Item 10.a Zoning Code Amendment - Reduction of maximum allowable height in the RNS-12 Zone - See correspondence from Jesse Singerman November 21, 2023 City of Iowa City -4tIp.0-,- Kellie Grace From: Sent: To: Subject: A Jesse Singerman <jesse.singerman@mchsi.com> Monday, November 20, 2023 5:24 PM *City Council; Bruce Teague; Megan Alter; Shawn Harmsen; Laura Bergus; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Mazahir Salih Please support REZ23-0005 RNS-12 Maximum Allowable Height Amendment Late Handouts Distributed If—L1-23 ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra yqr ?eyning any links or attachments. ** l�"''� ��ll Dear Council member, Please support the reduction in maximum allowable height from 35 feet to 27 feet in Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS)-12 zones. The current 35-foot limit provides a financial incentive for redevelopment of out -of -scale buildings in the University Impact Area, an area that is subject to intense pressure for short-term rentals designed as student housing. This is even more of a risk with the zoning changes you have recently enacted. I live at 219 Ronalds St. in the University Impact Area, outside of any Historic or Conservation Overlays. RNS-12 zoning is meant to stabilize the character of the existing neighborhood while achieving a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner -occupied housing. Reducing the maximum allowable height in RNS-12 zones to 27 feet will help ensure that any new infill development will continue to support livable neighborhoods for both renters and property owners. Thank you, Jesse Singerman 219 Ronalds St. DEFERRED TO 12/12/2023 10, ct-" Prepared by: Melanie Comer, Planning Intern, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ23-0005) Ordinance No. Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning to reduce the maximum allowable height in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty-seven (27) feet for single-family and duplex uses. (REZ23-0005) Whereas, the Northside Neighborhood Association asked the City Council to consider amending the zoning code to reduce the maximum allowable height in the RNS-12 zone from thirty- five (35) feet to twenty-seven (27) feet; and Whereas, on June 6, 2023, City Council initiated the requested zoning code text amendment by directing City staff to consider and make a recommendation on this request; and Whereas, Staff researched the history of the RNS-12 zone and the existing height limit; and Whereas, the City Council created the RNS-12 zone in 1993 with the purpose of stabilizing certain existing residential neighborhood by preserving the predominately single-family residential character of these neighborhoods; and Whereas, with the adoption of the RNS-12 zone, Council established the maximum building height at 35 feet, consistent with other single-family residential zones; and Whereas, since 1992, there have been 17 residential demolitions in the RNS-12 zone; and Whereas, Staff found no evidence that the existing 35 feet height limit is an incentive for redevelopment and recommends denial of this zoning code text amendment; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the zoning code amendments set forth below and recommends denial. 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-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 Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements In The Single -Family Residential Zones Zone/Use Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Building Bulk Maximum Lot Maxi Minimu Setbacks Coverage mum m Open Numb Space Lot Area/Unit Lot Frontage Front Side Rear Maximu Minimu Total Front Size (Sq. Ft.) Width (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) m Heightm Building Setback er of (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) Building Bedro 10 oms Ordinance No. Page 2 (Sq. Width Coverag Coverag Per Ft.) (Ft.) e e Unit10 RNS- Detached 5,000 5,000 45 25 156 5+22 See 35 203 40% 50% n/a 500 12 Single- note 9 27 Family Duplex 6,000 3,000 45 25 156 5+22 See 35 203 40% 50% 4 300/unit note 9 27 Multi- 5,000 Existing4 45 25 156 5+22 See 35 203 40% 50% 3 10/bedr family note 9 oom, uses but no less than 400 Other 5,000 n/a 45 1 25 1 156 5+22 See 35 203 40% 50% n/a n/a uses' note 9 n/a = not applicable 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. 3A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75 percent of the building's length. 4See the special provisions of this article regarding multi -family uses. 6 The principle 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 principle 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. 10 Open space must meet standards set forth in subsection 14-2A-4E of this section. 11 Any bedroom with 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. 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. Passed and approved this day of , 2023. Mayor Ordinance No. Page 3 Approved by Attest: City Clerk City Attorney' ffice (Sara Hektoen—11/14/2023) It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Harmsen Salih Taylor Teague Thomas First Consideration Vote for passage: Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Item Number: 10.b. I i CITY OF IOWA CITY �fil COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November21, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage housing affordability by adjusting standards for Accessory Apartments. (REZ23-0001) (Second Consideration) Attachments: ADU Cover Memo REZ23-0001 ADU Memo Packet Late P&Z ADU Correspondence October 4, 2023 P&Z Minutes August 2, 2023 P&Z Minutes Ordinance City Council correspondence - Leslie Schwalm, Amy Charles, Mary Murphy CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 6. 2023 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendments related to accessory apartments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability (REZ23-0001) Introduction One of several ways the City is looking to help meet the need for additional housing is to encourage accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). ADUs are small, self-contained dwellings units located as a subordinate use on the same lot as a primary home and come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and configurations. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended proposed amendments regarding ADUs at their meeting on October 4, 2023. This memo briefly discusses the outcome of that meeting. Background Staff first presented proposed amendments to ADU standards to the Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting on August 2, but the Commission deferred the item to October 4 and requested staff to solicit more public feedback regarding those changes. After conducting additional public engagement, staff brought back the proposed amendments to ADU standards to the Commission on October 4. The full proposed amendments and public input sessions are described in the memo to the Planning & Zoning Commission dated October 4. Recommendations At the meeting on October 4, staff recommended several changes to the standards regulating ADUs, including the following: 1. Allow ADU to be accessory to attached single-family and duplex uses, in addition to detached single-family uses; 2. Allow ADUs in all zones that allow household living uses; 3. No longer require that the owner live on -site; 4. No longer require an additional off-street parking for an ADU; 5. Only limit bedrooms, occupants, and additions by rental permit requirements for single- family and duplex uses and maximum size limits; 6. Increase the maximum size limit to the lesser of 1,000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the priniciple use; 7. Allow ADUs as a standalone use; and 8. No longer restrict ADU entrance locations for buildings with an attached ADU. Staff also recommended that the term "Accessory Apartment' be replaced with "Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)" based on feedback during the public outreach process. The Commission recommended approval by a vote of 4-3 (Craig, Padron, and Quellhorst dissenting) with one modification: That the owner -occupancy requirement be retained, i.e. that one unit on a property with an ADU be occupied by an owner of the property. r �®,,CITY OF I O W A CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 4, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendments to related to accessory apartments 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 proposed several amendments to Title 14 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. Staff presented these proposed amendments to the Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting on August 2. The Commission recommended approval with the exception of standards relating to accessory apartments and directed staff to solicit more public feedback regarding those changes. After additional public engagement, staff is bringing the proposed amendments relating to accessory apartments back to the Commission for consideration with no further changes. Background One of several ways the City is looking to help meet the need for additional housing is to encourage accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), carriage houses, or in-law suites. Accessory apartments are small, self-contained dwellings units located as a subordinate use on the same lot as a primary home and come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and configurations. Possible ADU arrangements, including detached and attached units, interior lower- or upper -level units, above -garage units, and garage conversions. This allows them to fit discreetly into all sorts of locations including suburban subdivisions, walkable towns, and urban neighborhoods. The proposed changes to accessory apartment standards will encourage their construction and help meet the need for additional housing. Iowa City currently anticipates a demand for over 4,600 additional residences by 2030 but is currently only expected to meet 61% of that projected demand based on recent building permit trends. This suggests that Iowa City has a housing supply shortage which drives up the cost of housing. In addition, accessory apartments tend to have lower construction costs than other housing types that are typically larger. October 4, 2023 Page 2 Current standards appear to be a significant barrier to construction of ADUs in most areas of the city. Iowa City first allowed ADUs for the elderly and persons with disabilities in 1987 and widened occupancy to the general public in 2005. While ADU development increased after that change, construction has remained relatively muted with only 52 ADUs permitted since 1995 at an average rate of less than 2 per year (Figure 1). Of these, nearly one third (16) were constructed as part of the Peninsula neighborhood. Staff estimates that approximately 9,947 single-family dwellings are currently allowed to build an ADU. Removing barriers to ADU development allows an incremental increase in housing supply in such a way that limits impacts to the appearance of neighborhoods. Figure 1: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Permitted 1995-2023 5 5 5 a 4 4 4 3 3 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 w 2 ¢0 100 0 0 0 Io"o' 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. Over the long run, these proposed changes should help better align the supply of housing with the demand and do so in such a way that provides a greater diversity of housing types throughout the city. 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 preventing the construction of housing types that are smaller and more affordable than detached single-family homes. By implementing these strategies, the City can become a more inclusive, diverse, and equitable place that provides housing opportunities for all residents. Public Enaaaement The proposed changes are based on existing policies and goals in plans and studies reviewed and adopted by Council over the course of several years (beginning in 2016). These include the City's 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, 2019 Fair Housing Study, 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan Update, and most recently, City Council's FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan. These plans were developed after multiple rounds of outreach, including surveys, public meetings, focus groups, and interviews. They were also reviewed and adopted through public processes. Relevant policies and goals adopted by Council are discussed in the analysis section below. In addition, staff held 2 open houses on September 13 and 14 to gain additional input from the public regarding proposed changes to ADU standards. 58 people signed into the open houses, and additional members of the public attended but did not sign the sheet. Staff also distributed a survey at the open houses and online. In total, 51 people provided responses. The full responses to the survey are available in Attachment 1. Feedback obtained in these surveys include the following: October 4, 2023 Page 3 • Allowing accessory apartments on properties with a rental permit was the only proposed change about which a majority of respondents (57%) indicated concern. • A majority of respondents indicated that all other proposed changes, except for those related to allowing accessory apartments on properties with a rental permit, were not a concern. • The proposed change that provoked the second most concern in respondents (45%), though not a majority, was no longer requiring a parking space for an accessory apartment. • Only a third or less of respondents indicated concerned with other proposed changes. Staff has also received some correspondence specifically related to these amendments. Correspondence received at the time of the publishing of this packet are available in Attachment 2. The memo dated July 5, 2023 (Attachment 3) provides more detailed background regarding the including the public engagement process and rationale that lead to the proposed changes. Over the past several years, the City has made significant progress towards addressing its affordable housing goals. The proposed amendments are the next steps meant to execute these adopted policies and goals. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Proposed changes to ADU standards are based on recommendations made by Johnson County's Livable Community for Successful Aging (JCLC) Housing Action Team and align with policy efforts made by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). JCLC serves as a unifying structure that fosters effective collaboration, communication, and education to build and sustain a livable community for successful aging. Action teams, such as that on housing, focus on specific topic areas and are comprised of public, nonprofit, and private stakeholders. A summary of current and proposed standards, in addition to rationale for each change, can be found in Figure 2. Fiqure 2: Current & Proposed Regulations Current Standard Proposed Standard Rationale for Change Must be accessory to May be accessory to This change increases the supply of lots detached single-family attached or detached that may allow ADUs while maintaining uses single-family uses, in the existing character of neighborhoods. addition to du lex uses Only allowed in certain Allowed in all zones that ADUs should be treated like other zones (RS-5, RS-8, RM- allow residential uses residential uses, so they should be 12, RM-20, & RNS-20) (includes RNS-12, RM- permitted in all zones that allow single- 44, PRM, MU, and some family or duplex uses. other commercial zones Owner must live on -site; Owner is not required to ADUs should be treated like other a rental permit is live on -site; a rental residential uses. Owner occupancy is not required permit is still required regulated in any other context in the zoning code. Occupancy requirements are also a barrier because they limit how successive owners can use property (complicating sales from divorce, job transfer, or death) and make financing more difficult. Requires 1 off-street No off-street parking Requiring an off-street parking space for parking space for required for accessory an ADU is a barrier because off-street accessory apartment apartment parking adds cost, and lot characteristics and topography can create challenges for siting a new parking space. October 4, 2023 Page 4 Limited to 1 bedroom Bedrooms and ADUs should be treated like other and 2 occupants occupants limited by residential uses, so rental standards rental permit and should apply to determine maximum maximum size limits number of bedrooms and occupancy (specifically that no more than 35% of the Size limited to the lesser Size limited to the lesser of 650 square feet, 30% of 1,000 square feet or unit may consist of bedrooms). However, of the floor area if in the 50% of the floor area of the City still recommends a maximum size main building, or 50% of the main building requirements to ensure that the ADU is the floor area if in an subordinate to the principle use without accessory building being overly restrictive. An accessory apartment The square footage for ADUs should be treated like other cannot increase the an accessory apartment residential uses, so building an ADU in an floor area of the main is restricted by maximum independent building or in an addition building by over 10% size limits should be possible. Does not allow a Allows a standalone standalone accessory accessory apartment apartment Buildings with an Buildings with an ADUs should be treated like other attached accessory attached accessory residential uses, so the location of apartment must apartment must entrances should not be more restrictive appear to be a detached appear to be a use than for primary residences. In addition, single-family home, so allowed in the zone; requiring an ADU entrance on the side or new entrances must entrance locations are rear of the house can compromise the face side or rear lot line not dictated design and increase the cost. In general, the proposed changes are intended to remove barriers to the construction of ADUs and ultimately increase the supply of housing. However, they also are intended to acknowledge accessory apartments as a legitimate use, and therefore they should be treated like other residential uses on the property. Staff continues to recommend that the owner -occupancy requirement for ADUs be removed on this basis and with the understanding that policies geared towards ADUs are intended to increase the supply of housing in a meaningful way. All relevant lot standards still need to be met, including minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, maximum accessory building height, and minimum open space which ensures that they fit into the neighborhood as well as any other allowed use. Staff also proposes that lots must meet the minimum lot size to allow an accessory apartment. Analysis Overall, the proposed amendment encourages the development of ADUs by allowing ADUs in all zones that allow household living uses and by expanding the building types to which ADUs can be accessory to any lot with up to 2 dwelling units. Figure 3 shows parcels that currently allow ADUs (green) in addition to parcels that would allow ADUs under the proposed amendments (yellow). The most notable changes are that ADUs would be allowed in areas that are zoned RNS-12, that are zoned lower density multi -family, and areas that contain 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 expand the lots on which ADUs are allowed by approximately 1,400 ADUs as noted in Figure 4. The proposed amendment would also 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. This could potentially allow ADUs on just over another 3,000 new ADUs for single- family rental homes based on current estimates of single-family homes with a rental permit (Figure 4). However, removing the owner -occupancy requirement may have a larger effect near the University due to a higher number of single-family rental units in that area. In a recent analysis from June 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 October 4, 2023 Page 5 owner -occupancy requirement may allow as many as 2,333 accessory apartments (76% of those gained from removing the rental requirement) in these areas. However, 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 3: Map of Parcels That May Allow Accessory Apartments: Current and Proposed F. ure 4: Estimated Number of Lots Cit -Wide that May Accommodate ADUs Lots Lots that may currently allow ADUs 9,947 New lots that may allow ADUs by expanding permitted zones and uses 1,403 New lots that may allow ADUs by removing the owner -occupancy requirement 3,073 Total lots that may allow ADUs under proposed amendments 14,423 Encouraging accessory apartments provides several benefits in addition to increasing the housing supply and diversity throughout neighborhoods. ADUs can be used to: • Provide convenient living arrangements for families, caretakers, and/or older homeowners. • Reduce negative historical impacts created by exclusionary zoning. • Improve affordability for homeowners by creating extra income. • Provide opportunities for people seeking a wider range of homes, prices, rents, and locations. • Create compact growth which positively impacts the environment. • Enhance job opportunities by providing housing near transit and job centers. • Accommodate development in a cost-effective way. October 4, 2023 Page 6 Because of these benefits, encouraging ADUs in existing neighborhoods generally supports the City's sustainability goals by adding units in the most walkable areas of town, and reduced parking encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation. Comparable Communities Staff looked at comparable communities to identify how other local jurisdictions are regulating ADUs, including other large cities in Iowa and other college towns. Other jurisdictions use a range of different parameters. Many communities have recently reevaluated their ADU regulations to enhance their supply of housing, similar to Iowa City. These changes include things such as removing the owner -occupancy and off-street parking requirements, increasing allowed sizes, and expanding the number of ADUs allowed on a site to 2 or allowing ADUs to be accessory to lots with two units. In some cases, the maximum size and/or parking requirements are dependent on the size of the lot or unit. A summary of the ADU standards for comparable communities can be found in Figure 5. In general, many of the proposed changes are in line with other communities with similar situations to Iowa City, though each community has a unique set of regulations based on their circumstances. F. ure 5: ADU Standards for Comparable Communities Ownership Max. Size Limits Occupancy Design Parking Required Limits Required Cedar No 1,000 sq. ft. but None 2 ADUs allowed per lot, 1 space Rapids, not to exceed 1 attached & 1 Iowa footprint of detached; no other primary structure requirements Ann Arbor, No 600 sq. ft. for lots 2 No requirements No Michigan up to 7,200 sq. occupants ft; 800 sq. ft. for max. lots 7,200 sq. ft. or more Madison, Yes, i.e. 900 sq. ft. 2 Entries in a rear or side No Wisconsin must be bedrooms yard shall be connected owner- max. to a street by a paved occupied walkway or driveway; must be above a garage in certain zones Des Moines, Yes, i.e. 50% of primary Max. Must match primary 1 space Iowa must be structure floor bedrooms structure with regards to owner- area (if based on roof, materials, color, occupied detached, sq. ft. and character; only one greater of 576 entrance to a house with sq. ft. or 25% of an ADU may face a rear and) street Fayetteville, No 1,200 sq. ft. 2 2 ADUs allowed per lot, 1 space Arkansas occupants 1 attached & 1 if ADU is max. detached; 2-story ADUs larger shall limit access stairs, than 800 decks, entries & sq. ft. windows to walls facing (may be primary structure or on - alley street Durham, No 800 sq. ft. but None May be accessory to No North not to exceed single-family or duplex Carolina 50% of the uses; can only extend primary structure forward to the rear 25% floor area of the primary structure October 4, 2023 Page 7 Best Practices The proposed amendments regarding accessory apartments 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 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. 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. 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 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, the AARP has drafted an optimal Model Local ADU Ordinance, which identifies the following ways to help encourage ADUs: • ADUs should be allowed in all zones that allow single-family residential uses/ • ADUs should only require those conditions needed to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties/ • Treat ADUs like other uses in the zone; this may include removing requirements for owner - occupancy if not regulated by zoning/ • Eliminating off-street parking requirements reduces the cost and difficulty of building ADUs. • ADUs should be allowed administratively (i.e. without discretionary approvals). • Limit design requirements which increase the cost of building ADUs. • Standards relating to neighborhood character can be problematic (especially if subjective). As noted above, the proposed amendments were designed with these best practices in mind. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The vision of the Comprehensive Plan supports creating "attractive and affordable housing for all people — housing that is the foundation of healthy, safe, and diverse neighborhoods throughout our city" (IC2030 p.7). To that end, the plan discusses the need for a mix of housing types within neighborhoods to provide residential opportunities for a variety of households along with integrated affordable housing options (IC2030 p. 21), and that infill development should add to the diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over -burdening infrastructure (IC2030 p.21). 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) • Develop neighborhood plans that help ensure a balance of housing types, especially in older parts of the city. (IC2030 p. 29). October 4, 2023 Page 8 • 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) 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... [p]ermit[ing] 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 housing units at different price points within neighborhoods. (2019 Fair Housing Choice Study, Strategy 1.1) • Increase the allowable number and/ or type of dwelling unit in single-family zoning districts by right in more locations. Examples include ADUs, duplexes and zero -lot line structures. (2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan — Development Regulations 1); The plan also specifically suggests that the City should consider ADU's associated with rental housing. • 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. 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 4 to enhance land use regulations related to accessory apartments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Attachments 1. Survey Results and Open House Materials 2. Correspondence 3. July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice, increasing housing supply, and encourage affordability 4. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments 5. Enlarged Map Approved by: � • S1 � Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Survey Results and Open House Materials 1. Please identify which, if any, of the following proposed changes to City Code are a concern: Current Proposed Standards Must be accessory to detached Must be accessory to single- ❑ ❑ ❑ single-family use family or duplex use Only allowed in certain zones Allowed in any zone that allows 12, RM-12, RM- res12,'dential uses (includes RNS- ❑ ❑ ❑ 20, & RNS-20) RM-44, PRM, MU, and some other commercial zones) Owner must live on -site; a Owner is not required to live on- ❑ ❑ ❑ rental permit is required site; a rental permit is required Requires 1 off-street parking No off-street parking required ❑ ❑ ❑ space for accessory apartment for accessory apartment Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 Bedrooms and occupants ❑ ❑ ❑ occupants limited by rental permit Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq Size limited to the lesser of Ft., 30% of the floor area if in 1,000 Sq Ft. or 50%of the floor the main building, or 50%of area of the main building ❑ ❑ ❑ the floor area if in an accessory building Does not allow a standalone Allows a standalone accessory ❑ ❑ ❑ accessory apartment apartment An accessory apartment cannot The square footage for an increase the floor area of the accessory apartment is main building by over 10% restricted by max. size limits Buildings with an attached Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single- appear to be a use allowed in El El 1:1 family home, so new entrances the zone; entrance locations must face side or rear lot line are not dictated 1. Please identify which, if any, of the following proposed changes to City Code are a concern: Current Proposed Standards r . r Must be accessory to detached Must be accessory to single- ❑ ❑ ❑ single-family use family or duplex use Only allowed in certain zones Allowed in any zone that allows 12, RM-12, RM- res12,'dential uses (includes RNS- ❑ ❑ ❑ 20, & RNS-20) RM-44, PRM, MU, and some other commercial zones) Owner must live on -site; a Owner is not required to live on- ❑ ❑ ❑ rental permit is required site; a rental permit is required Requires 1 off-street parking No off-street parking required ❑ ❑ ❑ space for accessory apartment for accessory apartment Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 Bedrooms and occupants ❑ ❑ ❑ occupants limited by rental permit Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq Size limited to the lesser of Ft., 30% of the floor area if in 1,000 Sq Ft. or 50%of the floor the main building, or 50%of area of the main building ❑ ❑ ❑ the floor area if in an accessory building Does not allow a standalone Allows a standalone accessory ❑ ❑ ❑ accessory apartment apartment An accessory apartment cannot The square footage for an increase the floor area of the accessory apartment is main building by over 10% restricted by max. size limits Buildings with an attached Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single- appear to be a use allowed in El El 1:1 family home, so new entrances the zone; entrance locations must face side or rear lot line are not dictated SURVEY CONTINUES ON BACK - -SURVEY CONTINUES ON BACK - 2. What is your age? Under 18 years 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years :tEl 65 to 74 75 years and over 3. With which gender do you most identify? Male Female Non-Binary/Non- ❑ Conforming 4. What is your zip code? 5. What is your race? (select all that apply) White/Caucasian Black/African American American Indian or Alaska Native ❑ Asian or Pacific Islander Other: 6. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin? Yes No 7. How would you describe your living situation? Live in a home owned by you or someone in your household Live in a home rented by you or someone in your household Other: 2. What is your age? Under 18 years El 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 75 years and over 3. With which gender do you most identify? Male Female Non-Binary/Non- ❑ Conforming 4. What is your zip code? 5. What is your race? (select all that apply) White/Caucasian El Black/African American American Indian or Alaska Native ❑ Asian or Pacific Islander Other: 6. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin? Yes No 7. How would you describe your living situation? Live in a home owned by you or someone in your household Live in a home rented by you or someone in your El household Other: Have any questions? Please contact: Have any questions? Please contact: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner at (319) 356-5247 Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner at (319) 356-5247 or by email at klehmann@iowa-city.org or by email at klehmann@iowa-city.org Attachment 1 Summary of Survey Responses to Proposed Changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards Please identify which, if any, of the following Concerned Unsure Not Responses proposed changes to City Code are a concern: Concerned Current Standard: An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor area of the main building by over 10% 15.9% 20.5% 63.6% 44 Proposed Standard: The square footage for an accessory apartment is restricted by max. size limits Current Standard: Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single-family home, so new entrances must face side or rear lot line 19.1% 10.6% 702% 45 Proposed Standard: Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a use allowed in the zone; entrance locations are not dictated Current Standard: Does not allow a standalone accessory apartment 22 7% 9 1% 68.2% 44 Proposed Standard: Allows a standalone accessory apartment Current Standard: Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants 28.9% 6.7% 64.4% 47 Proposed Standard: Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit Current Standard: Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq Ft., 30% of the floor area if in the main building, or 50% of the floor area if in an accessory building 30.4% 13.0% 56.5% 45 Proposed Standard: Size limited to the lesser of 17000 Sq Ft. or 50% of the floor area of the main building Current Standard: Only allowed in certain zones (RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20) Proposed Standard: Allowed in any zone that allows 33.3% 11.1 % 55.6% 46 residential uses (includes RNS-12, RM-44, PRM, MU, and some other commercial zones) Current Standard: Must be accessory to detached single-family use 34.1% 4.5% 61.4% 44 Proposed Standard: Must be accessory to single- family or duplex use Current Standard: Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory apartment 44_7% 2.1% 53.2% 44 Proposed Standard: No off-street parking required for accessory apartment Current Standard: Owner must live on -site; a rental permit is required 56.8% 9.1% 34.1% 47 Proposed Standard: Owner is not required to live on -site; a rental permit is required Attachment 1 Visual Summary (ordered from highest concern to least concern) Current Standard: Owner must live on -site; a rental permit is requireclProposed Standard: Owner is not .1% required to live on -site, a rental permit is required Current Standard: Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory apartmentProposed Standard: No off- street parking required for accessory apartment Current Standard: Must be accessory to detached single-family useProposed Standard: Must be accessory to single-family or duplex use Current Standard: Only allowed in certain zones (RS- 5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, R RNS-20)Proposed Standard: Allowed in any zone that allows residential 11.1"k uses (includes RNS-12, RM-44, PRM, MU, and some other commercial zones) Current Standard: Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq Ft., 30% of the floor area if in the main building, or 50% of the floor area if in an accessory buildingProposed 13.0% Standard: Size limited to the lesser of 1,000 Sq Ft. or 50% of the floor area of the main bu Current Standard: Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants Proposed Standard: Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit Current Standard: Does not allow a standalone accessory apartmentProposed Standard: Allows a .1% standalone accessory apartment 109 Current Standard: Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single-family home, so new entrances must face side 0 6"� or rear lot IineProposed Standard: Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a use allo Current Standard: An accessory apartment cannot . increase the floor area of the main building by over 20.5% 10%Proposed Standard: The square footage for an accessory apartment is restricted by max. size limits 0% 20% 40% 60% ■Concerned Unsure ■Not Concerned 80% 100% Attachment 1 What is your age? Responses 49 total 18 to 24 years 3 25 to 34 years 6 35 to 44 years 8 45 to 54 years 5 55 to 64 years 13 65 to 74 years 11 75 years and over 3 With which gender do you most identify?- Responses 47 total Male 30 Female 17 Non-Binary/Non-Conforming 0 Zip Code Responses 47 total 52240 19 52241 1 52245 15 52246 9 52333 1 52358 1 52761 1 What is your race? select all that apply) Responses 42 total White/Caucasian 42 Black/African American 0 American Indian or Alaska Native 1 Asian or Pacific Islander 0 Other 0 Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? Responses (27 total) Yes 1 No 26 How would you describe your living situation? Responses 47 total Live in a home owned by you or someone in your household 40 Live in a home rented by you or someone in your household 6 Other: Live alone in a 55+ apartment building 1 Survey Type Res onses 51 total Paper 29 Online 22 The City of Iowa City invites you to attend an ACCESSORY APARTMENT OPEN HOUSE The City of Iowa City is considering changes to the Zoning Code to increase housing supply, improve housing choice, and encourage housing affordability. As part of this effort, the City is proposing to modify how it regulates accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), granny flats, mother-in-law suites, guest houses, or carriage houses. The City is hosting two Open Houses to provide opportunities for residents to learn more about these proposed changes and to listen to your thoughts! What are Accessory Apartments? Accessory apartments are small, self-contained dwelling units located on the same lot as a primary home. ADUs can be attached or detached and come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and configurations. Images above and on the next page show some examples of where accessory apartments may be located. Current Standards Must be accessory to detached single-family use Only allowed in certain zones (RS-5, RS-S, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20) Owner must live on -site; a rental permit is required Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory apartment Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants Size limited to the lesser of 650 Sq Ft., 30% of the floor area if in the main building, or 50% of the floor area if in an accessory building Does not allow a standalone accessory apartment An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor area of the main building by over 10% Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single-family home, so new entrances must face side or rear lot line ■NENE ■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■n ■■E ®■■n end Unit Attaehetl Unit Interior Upper Level Unit ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■ ®■■N ■■I Interior Lower Level Unit Above Garage Unit Garage Conversion Proposed Standards Must be accessory to single-family or duplex use Allowed in any zone that allows residential uses (includes RNS-12, RM-44, FIRM, MU, and some other commercial zones) Owner is not required to live on -site; a rental permit is required No off-street parking required for accessory apartment Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit Size limited to the lesser of 1,000 Sq Ft. or 50% of the floor area of the main building Allows a standalone accessory apartment The square footage for an accessory apartment is restricted by max. size limits Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a use allowed in the zone; entrance locations are not dictated Background Iowa City is considering changes to the Zoning Code to increase housing supply, improve housing choice, and encourage housing affordability. The proposed changes seek to: 1_ Increase flexibility for a range of housing types, 2 Modify design standards to reduce the cost ofconstruction, 3_ Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, including reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments, 4_ Create regulatory incentives for affordable housing, and 5_ Address fair housing concerns to help advance the Citys equity and inclusion goals. Affordable Housing Action Plan • Recommended 15 when steps, including chances AllorJahle Houzing toZMIW mulattolB mon Pian • The only d hen consist not of the completed consist of the race nuanced changes to zoning regulations 'Coru'NviPgWamryaeangesm Ory CeOe. IrcJJ@n4^re .hang ryPea erzanraa oPPe:aem�agamw afa�aaaae uaaroaeamPreaaq Pussleensry reaory�nnrz., rrenageaasrere, arc1' Introduction gN.Momoa�u Why These Updates? Iowa City has arousing supply shortage. The City is looking at encouraging accessory apartments as one of several ways to help meet the need for housing. However, current standards appear to be a significant barrier to construction. Consider • Iowa City anticipates a demand for over 4,600 additional residences by 2030 • Only 61 %of prolacted demand will be met based on recent trends, which will lead to higher housing costs • 55% of renters and 23 %of homeowners are cost -burdened (i e. spend more than 30% of their income on housing) • The City has allowed accessory apartments since 1937 but avenges fewer than 2 units permitted per year • Only —0.5% of eligible properties have an accessory apartment Fair Housing Choice Study • Lack of afforalable rental hoh�was identified as a significant fair housing Issue ._ • The study recanmadded iW �L inuma housina choice as a strategy to help turner fairhousing '. aaow a andarreneryotnea.,ta ". m areas mmugboa aeaommunry srcen ,—.arezonmbrbwaerAvrysmgx- P 1,.es, N¢wdl — emp-, ways mlrcrease thea—ty a mrypesorbortin9aewleOJ. wNan asp rauetares meareaoon or bor¢mg nam at am nt,mePaaw axMn aeThbweooe:.- Affordable Housing Action Plan Update • The update was created following mlmemua Wail mact sessipl4. in y addition to a survey targeted stake hot der meetings, and other events • Reiterates the need to explore uses allowed, including the poodiblity of allowing rental units to have ADUs 9rcreaze Ne aaowa6lenwwerarwo. ryPeotexemrg unNsll vrgc lariry orvn9 J¢m[nbY Mbtmmore k[abru'. Eaamplss mrJu0eNo1/; Jupkass mtl zereaaenem�.rioee.- FY23-FY28 City Council Strategic Plan • Priont¢es recommendations in the updated Affordable Housing Action Plan Accessory Apartments Permitted, 1995-2623 — I — NINE 11 NINIII I I IN I I I I 1 1 1 11 Elm I I I -.—a Prerazaerezorereemaanzw b ma 2022 Altai ibuvn9AcaDD%an.' Planning &Zoning Commission M • February: Introduced upcoming amendment • July Summarized the proposed amendments • August Providedcompreheraive overview of the proposed amendments Accessory Apartments AND 4omoau,Y What are they? Accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUsj, are small, self contained dwellings units located on the same lot as a pri mary home. ADUs cc me in a variety of shapes, sizes, and configurations. This allows them to fit discreetly into all sorts of locations including suburban subdivisions, walkable towns, and urban neighborhoods. Possible ADUs arrangements include all of the following Why encourage ADUs? LTo increase housing supply and diversity throughout neighborhoods O O To provide opportunities for people seeking a wider range of homes, prices, rents, and locations To reduce negative historical impacts VI/ created by exclusionary zoning To enhancejob opportunities by providing housing near transit andjob centers GARAGEADU A LOWER LEVEL ADU Can noI us mmablgq at l or pan of an attached or detached garage Can be created through the convamon of homes exce barem em moareence, may also include adding an AD C above a garage or (provided than height and safely conditions are in en, during construdi on ami ding anew unit for both people and cars, as in the example aboveof the or as pan of a foundation mpiacement To provide convenient living arrangements for families, caretakers, and/or older homeowners To create compact growth which positively impacts the environment To improve affordability for homeowners by creating extra income �® To accommodate development in a cost- / effective way DETACHEDADU A stand alone home on the same but as larger primary dwelling. Exam plaz Include backyard bungalows and converted outbulldin by Connote detached ADUs am notallowed in Iowa City but would be under the proposed amendment. Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at wrvw icgoeorgi ed single-family uses Only allowed in certain zones (RS-5, RS-8, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20) Owner must live on -site; a rental permit is required Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory apartment Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants Proposed Changes 'May be accessory to attached or detached single- 0 family uses, in addition to duplex uses in all zones that allow residenfial uses 0 'Allowed (includes RNS-12, RM44, PRM, MU, and some other commercial zones) Owner is not required to live on -site; a rental permit is required No off-street parking required for accessory apartment Q 'Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit and 0 maximum size limits Size limited to the lesser of 650 square feet, 30 % of the ' Size limited to the lesser of 1,000 square feet or 50 floor area if in the main building, or 50% of the floor area of the floor area of the main building 0 if in an accessory building An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor area The square footage for an accessory apartment is of the main building by over 10 % ' restricted by maximum size limits 0 Does not allow a standalone accessory apartment Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single-family home, so new entrances must face side or rear lot line ' Allows a standalone accessory apartment with an attached accessory apartment must 'Buildings appear to be a use allowed in the zone; entrance 0 locations are not dictated �1ND5 n oro am Guiding Principles: 0 Treat accessory apartments like other residential uses allowed on the property. 0 Remove barriers preventing the construction of accessory apartments. 0 Simplify and eliminate redundant regulations OIncrease the supply of housing Most Standards Are Not Affected Accessory apartments are only allowed where they comply with all relevant standards. This includes but is not limited to • Dimensional Standards (such as minimum lot size, minimum open space, maximum lot coverage, etc) • General Accessory Use Standards (such as setbacks and height li mits for accessory uses, etc) • Rental Permit Standards (such as maximum occupancy, minimum bedroom and unit sizes, etc) Learn more about Naigmerhak and Development Services at—icgoeori Cedar Rapids, Iowa Ownership: No requirements Size: 1,000 sqftmax but not to exceed footprint of primary structure Occupancy: No requirements Design: 2ADUs allowed per lot, 1 attached &1 detached, no other requirements Parking: 1 space required Des Moines, Iowa .n} Ownership: Must be owner occupied Size: 50% of primary structure floor area max. (if detached, greater of 576 sqft. or 25% of rear yard) Occupancy: Max bedrooms based on sq. ft. Design: Must match primary structure with regards to roof, materials, 3olof and character, only one entrance to a house with an ADU may face a street Parking: 1 space required Ann Arbor, Michigan Ownership: No requirements Size: 600 sqftmax for lots up to 7,200 sq. ft., 600 sqftmax for lots of7,200 sqft or more Occupancy: 2 occupants max Design: No requirements Parking: No requirements Fayetteville, Arkansas Ownership: No requirements Size: 1,200 sqft. max. Occupancy: 2 occupants max Design: 2ADUs allowed per lot, 1 attached & 1 detached, 2-story ADUs shall limit access stairs, decks, entries & windows to wal facing primary structure or alley Parking: 1 space required if larger than 1 600 sq. ft. (may be on street) Madison, Wisconsin Ownership: Must be owner occupied Size: 900 sq. A. max. Occupancy: 2 bedrooms max Design: Entries in a rear or side yard shall be connected to a street by a paved walkway or driveway, must be above a garage in certain zones Parking: No requirements Durham, North Carolina nr�wTxil- Ill Ownership: No requirements Size: 600 sq. A. max but not to exceed 50%ofthe primary structure floor area Occupancy: No requirements Design: May be accessory to single- family or duplex uses, can only extend forward to the rear 25% of the primary structure Parking: No requirements By the Numbers: g,grjp properties may currently construct an ADU 36% of single family and duplex properties in Iowa City are rentals 52 ADUs have been permitted since 1995 +1 400 additional properties may construct an ADU due to proposed changes that expand where ADUs are allowed +3, 070 additional properties may construct an ADU due to proposed changes that allowADUs for properties that are not owner occupied Higher % of properties are expected to construct an ADU due to proposed changes that reduce other barriers to construction Analysis �I_ N r 1 r 111 VDS Cm of lOwA CIT' Where ADUs Are Allowed: Current & Proposed Single -Family & Duplex Rental Units C yPark R Hb da Dnven, lmpapNed .r. Go-% Ds a j 3k Keyfor id on Map Ciall H !R tlantler B kl rtl m R el[ ter+ I nrw .m Bugaboo— F—Mls Er- ila g! lbw WII wt eak some: am Csy a". rmpnr Area anaysti, Jand a¢ zozz rarcal cwrentlycllows ADus p ownerbaupleag ofowaalow Aolk under Rgaml Dba,{s Regardless of occupancy Parcel currently Does NN ato. AD Us, wawa Allow ADlk under Past Danger Soma: Gt Morgesonarpn[a Jae dowaoaeeedma 14, spsz Consistency with Comprehensive Plan MEN'" Ip N In Resources dR' t D ilyd. ig tons Bhorhad xlgbb hod: Armed b gryp nbneighborhoodp as Mooing strategies 1 the Debility dlivability a antlopportunities1 variety people, lagq Iowa any ti t aestablishedneighborhoods helpssingles,couples,families Ab children, and army Ip thebSry dantiyal city. p Into di housing sees and types vesting thethat closest to throughouttb unity es the oppommmy for ply thecity preserves f people t read t the same neighborhood throughout the t work,school,tlshopping, promotes walking steel unlit and b In;antl tl vehiclemiles traveled Con amid Mlll peoelopmeM. PXaJaa.lbmig: Dualtylntgaeealopment plays an Important role In By allowing for"i housingtypes, motlealelyprlred na�ghbmhood reinvestment and maylndude rehabotarng housing an belnamoated into a nelghbmhootl, aNer And t pencouraging development of than segmented t area fN community nt,bligntd, overexposep pry. Development iownhon and duplex itanb aIthslugle as m t should dot tha ry mousug colons lamlyho within . wthow mmprom suq neghbomooa ahaatlar. Learn more about NaighbordoW and Development Shearson at wrvw icgoemgN EYS Next Steps gNMoTy,un October 4, 2023: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and Possible Recommendation November 6, 2023: Tentative City Council Public Hearing and First Reading November 21, 2023: Tentative City Council Meeting, Second Reading December 12, 2023: Tentative City Council Meeting, Third Reading and Possible Adoption The public is encouraged to express their thoughts regarding the proposed amendments to staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and City Council. To provide your input, you can do one (or more) of the following: 1. Provide comments in person at public meetings (noted above), 2. Fill out and return the survey on the proposed code changes (shown right), and/or 3.Submit written correspondence for consideration by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council (send to Kirk Lehmann at klehmann@iowa-city.org) This brief survey allows you to share your thoughts on the proposed changes. Results will be shared with the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. ,ury . OGG 000 iOGG �000 ®MIN MIN M3 �o Questions? Contact Kirk Lehmann Associate Planner klehmann@iowa-city.org 319-356-5247 Loam more about Neighborhood! and Dwelapment Sewices at mw icgovorgNDS - ATTACHMENT 2 Correspondence Kirk Lehmann From: Mark Signs <mark.signs@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 10:26 AM To: Kirk Lehmann Subject: RE: Proposed ADU changes A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Ki rk, I have purposely tried to stay out of planning and zoning discussions since resigning from the Commission. But the current discussions around zoning changes for ADUs has me itching to comment. So here you go! I agree with what appears to be the majority of folks that allowing ADUs on non -owner -occupied properties would be a big mistake. I think a lot of the concerns coming from citizens are that this would result in landlords building ADUs on rental properties they already own, and turning those new ADU's into additional rental units. I think those are VERY legitimate concerns. As many have commented, MOST off -site owners never take quite as good of care of their properties as do MOST homeowners. Allowing investors to add more units (in the form of an ADU) to their properties will most likely result in additional rental units that will then likely negatively impact the neighborhoods. For years the city has looked for ways to limit the proliferation of rental units in our neighborhoods, especially the older ones. Allowing landlords to build additional ADUs on existing properties seems to fly directly in the face of those previous efforts. I am all for changes that would promote more ADUs on Owner -Occupied properties, and would support any zoning code changes that would limit non -owner -occupied ADUs accordingly. The only other thing I would question is the elimination of parking requirements for new ADUs. As you may recall, when I was on the Commission, I was always generally opposed to zoning changes that lowered the parking requirements for new development. If the city continues to reduce or eliminate parking requirements on residential properties, we will just end up with more streets jammed with more cars - creating more safety issues and problems for street maintenance staff. Iowans (and most Americans) like their cars. Yes, there is a small subset of avid bikers and walkers. But simply eliminating parking spaces is not going to convert car drivers to bike riders - in most cases. I do not believe the "if you don't build it, they won't come" philosophy works. But that's just me. I know the bike lobby in Iowa City is strong! Please share my comments with the P&Z Commissioners, City Council and relevant city staff. And say hello to everyone. I do miss seeing all of you! t Mark Signs South District resident Kirk Lehmann From: amy.charles <amy.charles@protonmaiLcom> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:31 PM To: *City Council; Kirk Lehmann Subject: Re: ADUs and owner residency A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi, all -- A followup: as I've reflected on this, I see a major problem with Iowa City ADU changes as described by this proposal that I should've noticed earlier -- I think it can be fixed, but if it isn't, I see it exacerbating problems in our rental market and solving none. As I see it, nothing here stops developers from running away with the ADU idea and building more high-priced student housing -- especially if multi -unit ADUs are on the table, as apparently they are. In particular, if owner - residence is not part of the package for ADUs, it's just a license to build more exploitative housing for the student market in existing rental properties, and encourage developers to buy houses in stable neighborhoods for the conversion value. If you're selling a $350K house and a developer buys it to rent, with another 3 units in the backyard, say that's $100K, 150K to build, that's a huge win for an unscrupulous developer. that could be a rental income stream of $8-9K/mo, or more. In fact I don't know why developers wouldn't bid up housing prices in those neighborhoods to till yield drops to something closer to the ROI expected on rental property -- suddenly that $350K house goes for twice that, so now you've not only created more wildly expensive student housing, you've priced even more people out of homeownership. The idea driving this "more ADUs, make it easy" push seems to be a simple but, I think, wrongheaded supply - demand belief: rental housing's too expensive, build more rental housing, prices come down. While in Econ 101 terms that's true, locally it's naive to the point of being wrong, especially near the university. I'll leave the explanation to the end, so see there if you're interested. Bottom line, though, if you grant developers a license to build more student housing near the U through under -thought -through ADU changes, I see us getting more of the usual problems and the opposite of what you've been trying to do through the UniverCity program. If those changes are more carefully thought through, then given the size of ADUs, I see two target populations that could be assisted with benefit to renters, neighborhoods, and the city: 1. Small low-income households, including elderly, disabled, immigrant populations, minimum -wage workers, and others (affordable housing) 2. Small LMI university/UIHC-employee households Those in the first category have particular need of living within walking distance of jobs, hospitals, transit, shops, and other amenities of city density; affordable rentals downtown also allow people to live car -free, erasing a major expense. Those in the second category are chronically priced out of IC's housing market as prospective homeowners, but the combination of job stability and close -in, affordable, quiet, non -student -housing rentals that reduce car dependence should allow more people to save down payments -- or remain long-term renters, if they preferred that -- and could arguably be more effective than the UniverCity program itself. If ADUs went in that direction, again with owner occupancy required, you could get a really good neighborhood mix of renters and homeowners at various income levels and backgrounds, create a stable long-term renter base and more diverse neighborhoods, and do some real good in solving the chronic unaffordability of IC. You could also create some relief on the voucher side by increasing the stock of small accessible units for people with disabilities. :) And I guess that's all I have to say about it for now. best, and thanks for the consideration - amy 'The supply/demand problem: As a small landlord these last 20 years -- as well as an Iowa Citian who's been watching these efforts since I first worked for the City in '95, when vacancy rates were stuck at 2% -- I'll point out that the Econ 101 idea ignores a massive, permanent distortion in the rental market, which is the UI dorms, which are anything but a free-market exercise in real estate. The annualized dorm fees in effect set a rent floor for the areas near the university. Dorm rooms are expensive, annualized, because not only does UI need them to be, they can be: students, especially first/second-years, are highly captive and they've got convenient grant/loan/tax support for the dorm rents, which are folded into COA and help determine their financial aid. Higher COA, more fin aid. All of it goes on the U-bill, which grants/loans/etc. pay automatically, adding to the convenience of dorm life. As for private landlords, we need be attractive only in relation to dorm life in order to draw student renters. And aggressive private landlords, which is most of them, will at best price just below dorm rates per room annualized, extracting every penny they can. With rents in that range, students and their parents -- already habituated to "this is what housing costs in college' — feel it's reasonable to trade convenience for independence and a sense of growing up. They'll pay even more for more room, privacy, amenities, etc. (Two years ago, when I had my last turnover, I had people contacting me while I was mid -signing, trying to bid up the rent sight unseen to something closer to dorm level, and being pretty tenacious about it. There were plenty of other, fairly similar apartments available nearby, no actual housing scarcity. But it was a case of "I saw an apt I wanted online, normal housing here goes higher, I'm fine with throwing money to seal the deal fast.") That artificial floor for the rental market, along with UI's reservoir of potential renters, means, I think, that we'd need to see a large oversupply of student rental housing before unregulated off - campus prices budged much: I don't see that major rental companies have an incentive to back away from the dorm -level rents otherwise. And ADUs are not going to create that kind of oversupply, which I'm pretty sure we don't want anyway. Student housing expenses are a serious problem for many students, and so are their effects on the rental market for everyone else. But after 30 years of blind "just build more, supply up, price down" with prices high and rising throughout, and giant, cheaply -built, future -white -elephant off -campus dorms now dotting the town, I'd like to see us approach that problem -- and, in this instance, ADUs — more thoughtfully. ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, August 31st, 2023 at 10:53 AM, amy.charles <amy.charles@proton mail.com> wrote: Hey, all - I saw Kirk's flyer about the ADU meeting, which I won't be at, but wanted to chime in In general I think granny flats are a grand idea, but: The owner -residency requirement needs to stay. We already have chronic problems with properties and tenants left neglected because the owners live elsewhere and have no intention of keeping an eye on what goes on or keeping the place properly maintained. I just called in a neglect case a couple months ago on a SFH rental with years' worth of problems around the comer from me -- for a while they just had noise problems, but the property became dilapidated. The owners live in Florida and over the years I've called them at work repeatedly to tell them to get their property maintained and in decent condition for their tenants. This year I gave up and turned it over to city enforcement. Clearly, though, they have no intention of maintaining the property unless forced to, and that's pretty normal for absentees. Owners need to maintain neighborhood skin in the _game. Increased noise levels have to be taken into account -- something that the owner -residency requirement helps with. One backyard granny flat has the potential to be a noise nuisance for every other house on the block, and we don't have much help forthem at the moment. Given that people work and go to school remotely at high rates, we have a big hospital/restaurant population here doing shiftwork and sleeping during the day, and we also have populations sensitive to noise, we can't just shrug and tell people there's not much we can do about chronic ADU-related daytime noise after going and making quiet neighborhoods noisier while trying to solve a different social problem. Dogs left in small ADUs to bark all day, loud music, parties, etc. need to be considered, and enforcement discussed and defined before new ADU rules are passed. And, again, if owner - landlords have to live in the main dwelling units, they're more likely to regulate noise themselves. Funding should be made available for maintenance, and maintenance enforced. Commercial property in IC is generally held to a much lower standard of maintenance than private residences are on the market, and a dilapidated ADU will affect the sale price of adjacent properties. Given the goal of easing housing availability, though, low- or no -interest loans and grants for maintenance should be available for ADU owners under 110%AMI. and maintenance enforced. New ADUs should be built as efficient dwellings. Good for tenants, good for the environment. Again, funding should be made available through the City to support installation of solar panels, heat pumps, double- or triple -glazed windows, R60 attic insulation, 2xT stud walls, orientation to take advantage of solar gain, and so on. ADUs built in or above garages will need particular attention -- these spaces are often underinsulated and encourage the use of space heaters. Consider a residence -based requirement. I think we all know that any new rental units built are likely to go preferentially to students, who are the easiest tenants to find and have ready access to loan money to pay rents with. If the intention here is to create housing for non -students, consider a requirement of establishing residence in IC. Otherwise, granny -flat away — and yes, more well-built duplexes and townhouses, please, they're great and affordable; some architecture wouldn't kill us, either — thanks for all the hard work amy ATTACHMENT 3 July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code Amendments r �®,,CITY OF I O W A 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. Adiust 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 chap a 45 no chap e RM- Detached Single-family ;Current rent 5,0005,0005520 osed no chap a no chan a 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 10 I I I I I I I I I 11 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 D aoo m w 350 3 w 300 m a 2 250 c Q 200 150 100 50 0 M M M M = M = M = M M 7 M M M M M M M M = 7 M M M M 7 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 199] 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200] 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 201 ] 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 FMulti-Family 194 0 44 22 20 4 262 28 89 434 118 233 54 413 117 169 11 142 31 0 60 64 209 76 7 144 98 279 206 204 108 32 140 •Duplex 12 0 40 6 22 116 8 0 0 0 2 0 24 26 4 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 ifi 0 2 18 0 14 12 0 0 12 0 •Single -Family 75 264 167 359 205 49 89 110 46 174 92 63 281 108 300 193 173 71 65 81 0 79 111 154 254 259 169 31 105 79 56 65 18 a C CY 5 oti° 0c � � o 0 � � �a' �a° sac ¢ati °NyQ`aa, Ac• tie o�¢coQ�aJ O Pa ti y��`3 Qo �A� Pao De � O Oar. G° Attachment 2: Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 1990-2022 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 0 500 400 300 200 100 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199fi 19911998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200fi 200� 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201fi 2011 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 •Mixed Use- it 82 45 42 56 0 ifi 51 100 27 37 47 340 150 169 59 0 40 0 •Multi -Family 203 14D 312 235 335 166 218 185 97 152 267 310 402 486 220 141 138 83 85 11 80 lfi 140 488 218 499 5% 203 163 417 49 155 266 .Duplex 2 1 10 12 20 28 ifi 28 26 32 44 26 34 34 60 52 62 18 26 16 10 8 18 16 8 14 6 12 8 10 8 8 6 2 •Single -Family 136 143 214 223 206 149 90 110 154 209 139 129 148 193 149 160 137 133 114 127 108 80 143 171 176 137 172 157 109 80 97 133 95 not collected anor to 2004 °oh C C� yo Dn 5o Dom' k�°i ZC ^u CA a° aca�cm 4z °�o� v°cQ°° a�P° �Da p� ae�o aCti G�°hoc ^Qa�a 41 . J O O° 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: Community 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 2022 r 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. 31-60%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 0 [.- n3'. yyy CITY OF 10 UNESCO CITY - - IMPACT AREAS Neighborhoods & Housing 111r11:1avi1.1Is] ►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 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 ChampionAction Date Fully evaluate the feasibility and funding sources needed for a zero -fare transit Transportation FY23-24 system. Services and Finance Develop a vision statement for a singular regional transit system with metro Johnson City Council FY23-25 County entities and obtain initial commitments to study a regional system from each entity's elected officials. Install additional permanent charging stations for vehicles, bicycles, and electronic Climate Action FY23-28 devices. & Outreach Identify additional opportunities for road diets, sidewalk infill, curb cut Public Works FY23-28 enhancement, and bike lane installation with a goal of at least two such projects each construction season. Explore opportunities to utilize the CRANDIC right-of-way for passenger rail, bus City Council FY23-28 rapid transit, or pedestrian usage. Evaluate with the State of Iowa reverting Dodge and Governor to 2-way streets Public Works FY23-28 Secure federal funding for a relocated transit building that can accommodate future Transportation FY24-28 growth in service and electrification of the fleet. and City Manager's Office Consider adding or retrofitting bike pathways that are separated from streets or Public Works FY24-28 protected utilizing flexible bollards. Expand the fleet of electric buses or other low/no emission -technology vehicles each Climate Action FY25-28 time a diesel bus is due for replacement and seek grants that can expedite the & Outreach conversion. Consider an on -demand or subsidized voucher system for times and locations in Transportation FY25-28 which no fixed route service is available. Services Expand snow clearing operations at sidewalk corners in high priority pedestrian Public Works FY25-28 areas, bus stops, and bike lanes. and Parks & Recreation Initiate and promote vehicle and bike-share/scooter programs. Transportation FY26-28 Services Evaluate with the State of Iowa the possibility of a Burlington Street Road Diet Public Works FY26-28 utilizing flex zones in non -peak hours. 12 Economy FUTURE VISION Iowa City is the preferred location for businesses at all stages of development. Start-up businesses flourish and take advantage of mentoring and other resources. The vibrant arts and culture community attracts both visitors and new residents. Technologies developed through the University of Iowa are transferred to the local business sector, creating business diversity and new value within the community. Businesses pay living wages and support skill development for their employees. Support services - such as child-care and language assistance - are readily available for all, which means every person who wishes to participate in the local economy can do so. Community members support each other by spending their money locally. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Reinforce Iowa City as a premier community to locate and grow a business. • Ensure appropriate infrastructure is in place for future business growth and development. • Cultivate a strong entrepreneurial and small businesses ecosystem with a focus on creating new pathways to success for systemically marginalized populations. • Build Iowa City's image as the Greatest Small City for the Arts. • Strengthen the Iowa River's role as a signature community amenity and tourism generator. 13 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Enhance access to affordable childcare for all populations through innovative City Manager's FY23-25 partnerships with higher education, non -profits, and the business community. Office and Neighborhood & Development Services Utilizing American Rescue Act Funds, execute on agreeable recommendations in City Manager's FY23-25 the Inclusive Economic Development Plan with a particular focus on actions that Office and build long-term support and wealth -building opportunities for systemically Economic marginalized populations. Development Partner with Kirkwood Community College, Iowa City Community School District, Economic FY23-28 Iowa Labor Center, local trades, and other stakeholders to provide meaningful Development and career development opportunities, pre -apprenticeship, and apprentice Neighborhood & programs. Development Services Increase small business technical assistance to aid in the creation, success, and Economic FY24-28 growth of home-grown businesses. Development Economic FY25-28 Create flexible incentives to support the top goals of Iowa City's Self -Supporting Development and Municipal Improvement Districts and other commercial nodes, including City Manager's attaining a desired business mix that serves the surrounding neighborhood. Office Develop targeted marketing to promote Iowa City as a unique and attractive City Manager's FY26-28 place to do business. Office Develop a riverfront master plan in cooperation with the University of Iowa, City Manager's FY26-28 Think Iowa City, and other stakeholders. Office 14 Safety & Well-being FUTURE VISION Our City supports the mental and physical well-being of our community members. Public safety response, whether from the City or a non-profit partner, is nuanced depending on the specific needs of the situation. Community members receive emergency response services promptly and welcome responders as problem -solvers. Inviting spaces for social interaction, exercise, and regeneration are equitably located throughout the community and are lively with activity and use. New and long-time community members alike, especially marginalized groups, easily build networks and establish roots within our community. Community members have safe, healthy indoor spaces and are well -prepared for climate -related changes. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Implement and expand innovative public safety models and facilities to improve outcomes and relationships within the community. • Partner with non -profits to address the most emergent and foundational community safety and well-being needs. • Build community by fostering social connections and developing safe, accessible public spaces for gathering. 15 ACTION PLAN 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 ChampionAction Date Outline a municipal -wide facilities plan and initiate relevant action steps to keep City Manager's Office FY23-24 projects moving forward. Complete a City Hall and Public Safety Headquarters space needs study and City Manager's Office FY23-24 develop a plan for next steps toward implementation. Implement the asset management system and expand use for facility Public Works FY23-25 maintenance and management. Develop and implement an electric vehicle transition plan. Public Works and Climate FY23-25 Action & Outreach Pursue grant opportunities, bolster the Facility Reserve Fund, and explore City Manager's FY23-28 public/private partnerships to facilitate completion of key facility projects. Office and Finance Design replacement and renovated facilities to ensure alignment with Climate City Manager's Office FY24-28 Action goals and create safer and healthier working environments for public employees. Improve public transparency through a coordinated and centralized open data City Manager's Office FY26-28 platform. Consider resourcing a Smart City initiative that prioritizes data -driven decision- City Manager's Office FY26-28 making through technology adaptation and data analysis. 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 ChampionAction Date Complete and execute upon the results of an organization -wide classification and Human Resources FY23-25 compensation study. As part of study, review all job requirements to ensure applicability and eliminate unnecessary barriers to employment, including testing, residency requirements, education, and certification or license requirements. Monitor implementation of new telecommuting and flexible work schedule policies to City Manager FY23-25 ensure public service standards are fully met and desired employee work arrangement flexibility is pursued where possible. Balance investment in new annual initiatives with staffing levels to ensure core municipal City Manager's FY23-28 service levels are maintained and reduce instances of burnout. Office and City Council Elevate new and existing intra-organizational communication strategies to bolster City Manager's FY23-25 information sharing and improve productivity and connectiveness across the Office organization. Create more opportunities to promote inter -departmental relationships, collaboration, City 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 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 O iM e�.reir sa om UNIVERSITY IMPACT AREA y..l.i�e . s ■�■ .Elm■. f -Ixxn _s x= m xs s_ ON �nnnunii 7 � on���� x��ET�xxxxn�dil 1_�k:o'�',7=12L=1=_Ii1N�ls� 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 4 Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Attachment 4: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Underlined text indicates added language. Text with a ugh indicates deleted language. Article 14-4C: ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS 14-4C-2: SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA: 14-4C-2A. Accessory Apartments: Accessory apartments are permitted ^ the oc 5, oc sz oc 40 onn 40 onn on ^d onlc on moo^^^GWR@F ^d delma.hed ^ ^le f^mi l.y dW@Ill n^e ^na detaghed n Inf 1 Re dwell nos and in bu Id R y fo fhoso same dwells no types provided the following conditions are met: 1. Permit Required: Prior to the establishment of any accessory apartment, the owner of the principal dwell ng un t use must obtain a rental permit from thDep^^�^^' of Housing and Inspection Services according to the applicable procedures set forth in Cehapter 14-8, 'Review And Approval Procedures", ^f th6 t tie 2. Ownership And Occupancy: a Then of the property a uhi^h o aGG@66ery apartment is Ingated m isf QgGupy of L.^nf o Of the dW@111 n^ W R t6 on the pF@m 6@6 a the p rd legal r ..;aonfThe 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 dW@11 Rg use must be under the same ownership. ���� ��B The total n mhor of inrliy d cols that r side in theaGGessery apartment m not ^ @d t ). 3. Site Requirements: a. Only one accessory apartment may be established per ^'angle ffam lT lot. b In add t on f.. the r.^* Rg FeqW Fed f..r the PFRG ^I a..yol ll n^ W R t OR@ 9# GtF@@t pa4 W.... red for the aGGessery partmenf The minimum lot size area-per--�requirement of the underlying base zone must be met but d^^^ ^^f apply to aR aGG@GGGFy apaFtM@Rt,' , no additional lot area is required beyond that which is required for the principal use dwell Rg 6i yt. 4. Design Requirements: a The aGG@66GFy ^*%Rt may be !GGated .. thin the PF RG ^l dwells n^ OF .dfhin ^ aGGessery bu Id nq- b. The accessory apartment must be a complete, separate dwelling unit that functions independently from the principal ^'^^'^ fam l y `well ^^ wif 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 dweWw@, the accessory apartment must be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of an allowed use within that zone, and any ^ ^^'^ f^^ " r^^' ^^^^ ^^ new entrances should f,^o the side or ^Fd of 7mv-vrthe bwnl Id RgT and any add tion fee aR aGGesseFy ^r1m rd m ..f I RGFease the fl....r area Of the OF 0 Rai dW@111n0 by m e fh^r. tee ^ ^..f'4n0_` E-exterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must visually match the principal dwelling useaait. 5. Apartment Size: The aGGesseFy ^r1m..Rt m of be .d..^rl y subeFd Rat. I area to the th the follow no standards. a Fee aR aGGesseFy r.^rlmeRt IeGated w thir. ^ PF RG pal dwellin^ , R t tThe floor area of the accessory apartment arait may not exceed Lflythirty percent (590%) of the total floor area of the principal use dw^'�, excluding the area of an attached garage, or one thousand ^'x hundred #Iffy (1 000650) square feet, whichever is less. b. Bedrooms shall have a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of total floor area. €er an aGGesswy apartment IgGate l w thin a aGGeSSOFY bu Id nn the floor area of the aGGessery O ) of the total floor area of the annpsseFy bu Id Rg OF 6 X h6lRd F@d fifty (659) e e feet .yh Gh..yy..r Is I^ss c. Bedrooms cannot exceed thirty five percent (35%) of the finished floor area of the accessory apartment. The aGGesseFy paFtmeRt m ..rh^IR n FnRFP fh^r. o o h...L. RFn Article 14-88: ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURES: 14-88-1: ACCESSORYAPARTMENT RENTAL PERMIT. A. Permit Required: 1. Prior to the establishment of any accessory apartment, the owner of the principal dwelling unit must obtain a rental permit from the department of housing and inspection services. The permit will be effective for two (2) years. At the end of every two (2) years, renewal of the accessory apartment rental permit will be granted after completion of a routine housing inspection verifying that the propeq rema ns the PF RG pal r s r'^^^^ of the nwnpr and that all of the conditions of this section and approval criteria for accessory apartments set forth in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title have been met. 2. No rental permit for an accessory apartment will be issued unless all the requirements and standards for accessory apartments set forth in chapter 4, article C of this title have been met- B. Submittal Requirements: 1. The owner shall file an application for a rental permit with the department of housing and inspection services on application forms provided by said department- 2- oror to ssuange or al of an aggessery apartment renal perm tthe owner Must uhmit a noari;zodl a# davit to the G ty . erify nn owner 2 Prior to the issuance of an accessory apartment rental permit, the owner shall file, in the office of the county recorder, a declaration of covenants stating that the right to maintain an accessory apartment ceases upon transfer of title, and that the right to maintain an accessory apartment in no way constitutes approval of the dwelling as a different principle use 4UPlex. The owner shall provide a copy of the declaration to the department of housing and inspection services, or its successor, prior to the issuance of the accessory apartment permit. Article 14-9A: GENERAL DEFINITIONS 14-9A-1: DEFINITIONS: ACCESSORY APARTMENTS: An temporary accessory dwelling unit located within an owner essupied, single-family or duplex dwelling pomp or in an accessory building and meeting the requirements of this title. An accessory apartment may also be referred to as an accessory dwelling unit. Article 17-5: HOUSING CODE 17-5-3: DEFINITIONS: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: A t@RqPGFaFy dwelling unit that is accessory to ^^ ^ter ess61ped single-family or duplex dwelling. ATTACHMENT 5 Enlarged Map Map of Parcels That Allow Accessory Dwelling Units: Current and Ppoposed 0 Currently Allows If Owner - Occupied; Allows If Owner - or Renter -Occupied Under Proposed Amendments Currently Does Not Allow; Allows If Owner- or Renter - Occupied Under Proposed Amendments Kirk Lehmann From: Rick Mason <nyhillsidefarm@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 9:00 AM To: Kirk Lehmann Subject: Proposed zoning changes A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Kirk, I do understand the need for more affordable housing in Iowa City and I have a few comments and concerns. The idea of removing the owner occupied requirement is particularly disturbing. Allowing developers to police themselves and rent with the idea of community improvement vs monetary gain is ludicrous. I know the expected rebuttal- "There are laws and code enforcements in place." These do not work in the real world. For a healthy livable community to exist there needs to be local control to help with a harmonious existence between neighbors. We lived next door to a young man who began to work on the house he was in. He removed the front steps leaving a huge hole in the lawn, proceeded to work on vehicles leaving debris in the yard, built a fence and got several large barking dogs, played loud music late into the night and would let the dogs out into the yard in the middle of the night. Many of our neighbors complained to the police, code enforcement and animal control .We spoke with him on many occasions and, although he was a nice and decent person, things did not change. This went on for several years until he finally moved. Across the street from us the absent landlord cut his house up into many bedrooms including 5 or 6 in the basement, mattresses on the floor and no regard for who he rented to. Numerous calls to the code department were ineffective. When he was cited everyone would move out only to return later. This went on for years and one neighbor actually sold and moved out. Finally the landlord sold his house to another neighbor. I do understand the need for everyone to have affordable housing and a place to live, however some people need help and guidance on how to live peacefully within the community. This will NOT happen with absentee landlords. I have seen cities where your proposed changes have irreversibly altered the community. The construction of rental units in single family homes, splitting lots to have accessory units is a costly endeavor. A developer will need to make a profit at any cost and when tenant problems occur, as they inevitably will, adjacent properties will lose the appeal to a buyer of a single family home. Values will go down and these former single family homes will be more financially attractive to developers and will be split into units for rent. This will cause a continued downward spiral as the area (even a very local one) changes and rents go down as landlords try to cover costs. I am not just a resident of Iowa City, I was a landlord in a big eastern city for decades before retiring here. I rented to mostly low income residents and I found that making one resident the super for a building greatly diminished any problems. As I said there needs to be someone there 24/7 to maintain a civil, decent community presence. Sorry to ramble on but this is the best town we've lived in and I'd like it to stay that way. Thank you for your time Rick Mason 2127 Friendship Street 607-382-3739 Kirk Lehmann From: Pam Michaud <iowastay@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 9:53 PM To: Kirk Lehmann Subject: Accessory vs Affordable Apartments Attachments: image003.png A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Accessory apartments will not be inexpensive to retrofit plumbing, etc. or build new. So rents will be high. Instead we need affordable housing. Two large landlords pay reduced property taxes for their neglected vacant lots. 911 N. Governor - the former Health and Human Services building has been vacant for over 12 years. Zoning, Happy Hollow Park, and the 1.1 acre lot is adequate for a new 3 story apartment building. Rather than a neglected property, TSB Holdings could build affordable units for a mature population. The Historic Elks / Chamber of Commerce building at 325 E. Washington St. was razed in 2021. The lot has been a trashy eyesore for two years. The lot at Gilbert and Washington should not add to the oversupply of "luxury student housing". In the last 10 years, many dogs are now allowed in downtown and close -in apartments. If CC-1 LLC is not going to develop 325 Washington, it could become a public green space and dog park for a thousands of close -in residents. Sincerely, Pam Michaud On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 1:14 PM Kirk Lehmann <KLehmannCn@iowa-citv.org> wrote: Dear Stakeholder, Thank you for your interest in the proposed zoning code text amendment relating to accessory apartments. The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider proposed changes to accessory apartment standards and receive comments at their public meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 4 at 6:00 pm in Emma Harvat Hall at Iowa City City Hall (410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240). The agenda packet, including the staff report, is available on the City website at www.icgov.org/pz. 1 You are welcome to attend this public meeting to present your views concerning the proposed changes. You may also submit written information to me in advance of the meeting, and I will provide your comments for the consideration of the Commission. If you know of any interested party who has not received this message, we would appreciate if you would inform them of the upcoming meeting and opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact me at klehmannC@iowa-citv.org or 319-356-5247 if you have any questions or comments about this application or if you would like more information on the proposed changes or public process. Regards, x Kirk Lehmann, AICP (he/him) WWW.ICGOV.ORG I Associate Planner Ip:319-356-5247 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Transit is now FARE FREE! x Learn more at ICGOV.ORG/FAREFREE Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kirk Lehmann From: Brendan Fitzgerald<brend an.fitzgeraId@yesfitz.com> Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 6:33 PM To: Kirk Lehmann Cc: Anne Russett; Kirk Lehmann Subject: Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting on Accessory Apartments A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi Kirk and Anne, Wish we could be there, but my wife's running a pinball tournament across the street from you at SpareMe, if you want to swing by after the meeting. As a homeowner in a historic conservation district, I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to increase housing density near downtown while preserving the architectural character of the neighborhoods. Making the rules around Accessory Dwelling Units less onerous threads the needle and marries the two goals wonderfully. I'd especially like to voice support for striking the parking requirement. We have a very walkable city, and our public transit is convenient, reliable, and far-reaching. My personal goal is to add an ADU above our garage and rent it out until our parents need to be closer. This change will keep growing families in the same neighborhoods for longer, and increase housing generally in the short term. Good luck! Brendan Fitzgerald YesFitz.com Sep 29, 2023, 1:15 PM by KLehmann@iowa-city.org: Dear Stakeholder, Thank you for your interest in the proposed zoning code text amendment relating to accessory apartments. The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider proposed changes to accessory apartment standards and receive comments at their public meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 4 at 6:00 pm in Emma Harvat Hall at Iowa City City Hall (410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240). The agenda packet, including the staff report, is available on the City website at www.icgov.org/pz. You are welcome to attend this public meeting to present your views concerning the proposed changes. You may also submit written information to me in advance of the meeting, and I will provide your comments for the consideration of the Commission. If you know of any interested party who has not received this message, we would appreciate if you would inform them of the upcoming meeting and opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact me at klehmannC@iowa-citv.org or 319-356-5247 if you have any questions or comments about this application or if you would like more information on the proposed changes or public process. Regards, = IOWA CITY A UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Kirk Lehmann, AICP (he/him) WWWICGOV.ORG Associate Planner 0000 p: 319-356-5247 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Transit is now FARE FARE FREE FREE! IOWA CITY Learn more at ICGOV.ORG/FAREFREE Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kirk Lehmann From: Paula Swygard <pswygard@gmaii.com> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 10:56 AM To: Kirk Lehmann Subject: Zoning Code amendment proposal on Accessory Apartments A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Kirk - please pass my comments on to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their October 4, 2023 meeting. Thanks! Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission — ADU's, or Accessory Apartments as they are referred to in the Iowa City Zoning Code, can serve a place in Iowa City's housing market. However, given Iowa City's development history heavily led by student housing, I firmly believe as the planning staff's survey supports, that owner -occupancy must remain as a requirement. Developing more ADU's on owner -occupied properties could create a nice balance of rental units and owner -occupied housing throughout Iowa City, especially in the University Impact Area where the demand for student housing is high. Applying the trickle -down theory that with more housing rental rates and property prices will decline has not proven true in the Iowa City market as developers operate on a per student rate for housing. This prices out lower income residents and those seeking affordable housing. Giving the opportunity to developers to crowd more student housing near the University by allowing ADU's on non -owner occupied property would most likely lead to more of the same expensive housing and is counter to the City goal of neighborhood stabilization. In recommending to City Council changes to Iowa City's zoning code on Accessory Apartments, please maintain the requirement that they be owner occupied. Thanks for your consideration, and for your service, Paula Swygard CASA DEL ESCUCHA MI VOZ IOWA CATHOLICt, WORKER Fighting for Worker justice ovlA cllY and Immigration Reform OBRERO CATOLICO October 2, 2023 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, YWo-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 negatively 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, $85 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 Kirk Lehmann From: Anne Russett Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 8:29 AM To: Billie Townsend; Chad Wade, Maggie Elliott, Maria Padron; Mike Hensch; Scott Quellhorst; Susan Craig Cc: Kirk Lehmann; Sara Greenwood Hektoen; Danielle Sitzman Subject: FW: Zoning Proposed Changes Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files, City Council 10-3-23.pdf; GT%.pdf Commissioners - Please seethe attached correspondence Thanks, Anne -----Original Message ----- From: mbslonn@mchsi.com <mbslonn@mchsi.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 12:13 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Zoning Proposed Changes ** 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. Dear Anne, Yes, on passing along that message and I am also asking you to please include my statement from tonight at City Council (see attachments), plus a list of %of rentals in Goosetown, already at 30%, surely the highest in the city. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend tomorrow night's meeting but hope that the Commission members will take time to think about the impact that this new policy will have on my neighborhood and the fact that no neighbor I've talked to seems to know about it. They will be more than shocked when more cottages are razed and a 2-plex goes up next -door with more rental space behind. As I say in the statement, our neighborhood is about to be erased. The developer mentioned owns at least 7 houses in a 2-block area, two sets are contiguous. And I've been told that he may own more under other names. If you detect panic in my message, it is real. Marybeth Slonneger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Russett" <ARussett@iowa-city.org> To: "Marybeth Slonneger" <mbslonn@mchsi.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 1:40:29 PM Subject: RE: Zoning Proposed Changes Marybeth— The Planning and Zoning Commission has already recommended approval of the zoning code amendments. The only item they deferred was related to accessory apartments. Is this letter related to accessory apartments? If so, I can pass this along if you'd like me to. Thanks, Anne From: Marybeth Slonneger <mbslonn@mchsi.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 12:16 PM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Zoning Proposed Changes [cid: i mage001.j pg@ 01 D9 F2DA.81C E B420j ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Anne, Because of my concern for a 4th home that has been demolished this past year in GT, I wrote a letter to Council last week and thought it might be good to send a copy to the Committee members for their attention, in case it doesn't appear in their packets. Thank you. Dear Council Members, September 21, 2023 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 significantlly 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. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 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 didn't 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 haven't 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, LLQ 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 don't 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 umber:.... 1 aoeN Nolaer vPNC 001, ONNEN deed Hold¢. z: Mper , luouE FMP=M addmn: s35 Ei... n Imp CnY.1 TNps oP.FSS POF a.— RE5 Nf L Claae: RES N.L Map Area. 3pp1RF5 SMTwp-Mg: - Int-BIxR: OL 6 Legal desnlglan:lWYR OIY(OWNRLMN) E90'0FH 130'OVM1Of6 Ommesignam�e: xa+r..-:F.oT rs FLaam oN < x r n SL l.NPV1 ProPeM Anp N NT F9 RFl .—I Bumbv: I.I.M.m5 BSE xoMv: LFROON,wdF.A Pmy,.dre®: 9F!EMVEF S, I CLIYIMP TI POppE M. Wme: R®FN.L n Cla: PE ..L Kapp— I.D. E5 SMTwPBn9:" bt-BIx4: OL8. legal ecnpNon: IWIP C1T'(OWN& R N) E W OF 515W ONL0F8 .up.. Signature: INWFSIF Ir li¢yjM SLBM®CH In V0NAIWl MNn WB.RSIONTC Pmpedy Report: PMFFRIV PFM0.i ( 1 1/9 NRentvalue uM3anuv 01,3033- Toes",ble Septtmber SOH and Munch 2035 I Curant value as of 3anuaW 01, 3033-Taxed payable Sep@tuber 30M and March 30M �etsrl rint��f rl'elv�r�r¢frf z El; F I Z 9 4 5 zG 77i.'s c'aJu r►M. ?1fir+4rn6 pA Alho rJ AVrW l AA prs�lr�. G•t� fh.�c iy /n urrhnrw2 rtrrrnapr • A�Jt/ra io i7v be Y�/11<'lrr Y/zo;f Kirk Lehmann From: Anne Russett Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:21 PM To: Billie Townsend; Chad Wade; Maggie Elliott; Maria Padron; Mike Hensch; Scott Quellhorst; Susan Craig Cc: Kirk Lehmann; Sara Greenwood Hektoen; Danielle Sitzman Subject: FW: Letter to P & Z Commissioners — Please see the correspondence below Thanks, Anne From: Freerks, Ann M <ann-freerks@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:16 PM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Letter to P & Z 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 am writing to urge you to vote against the proposal that would allow rental properties to have accessory dwelling units in all residential zones, including the RNS-12 zone. I have lived in a near downtown Iowa City neighborhood for over 30 years. During this time, I have worked to create stable housing for all. I am not a nimby. There is a 12 plex in my back yard, duplexes, triplexes and lots of multifamily in my neighborhood. But there are also single family homes that are key the balance and fabric of the community. These are some of the most fragile portions of our neighborhoods and his proposal would threaten that balance. I spent over 15 years on the Planning and Zoning Commission here in Iowa City, many of those as chair. I did this to create positive change and a healthy community. I have worked though Comprehensive Plan updates, redrafts of the zoning code and Subdivision regulations. I have been part of the Neighborhood Housing Relations Task Force and clearly understand the concerns this will cause the University Impact Zone. Iowa City has committed a great deal of time and money to reduce density in this area through the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership. 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 the proposed changes will further tip the scale in favor of investment companies and may actually lead to the displacement of affordable housing. The goal should always be finding zoning tools that will promote the creation of as well as the preservation of affordable housing. There are endless solutions to every issue and this one does not work for the long-term benefit of Iowa City. It should never about warehousing people. People need basic amenities, greenspace, and community. This recommendation does not take into account the damage that will be done in the Neighborhood Impact Zone. The near downtown neighborhoods are already very dense and lack parking. I would ask that at the very least you remove the University Impact zone and the RNS-12 zone from this proposal. Thank you, Ann Freerks Community member and former Planning and Zoning Chair 443 South Governor Street Iowa City Please distribute this letter to all Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission members prior to your October 4th meeting. Thank you. Jim Throgmorton's Statement to the P&Z Commission Re: Case No. REZ23-0001 October 4, 2023 Good evening. My name is Jim Throgmorton. I speak to you as co-chair of the Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee. I come before you today to ask that you amend Item 3c (2) in the staff's August 2 memo. For properties located within the University hnpact Area, we urge you to continue requiring ADUs to be built only on owner -occupied properties. We further recommend that you carve out an exception to permit non-profit providers of income -restricted housing to build ADUs on properties within the UTA. Two months ago we urged you to defer voting on the proposed zoning amendments and to think of ways in which a broader community discussion about the proposed changes could be conducted. We also urged the staff and commission to recognize neighborhood associations as key stakeholders in a collaborative process of considering the proposed amendments. You deferred action on the ADU provisions. Thank you for doing that. And the City staff conducted two open houses pertaining to the ADUs. Several Northside neighbors attended, and we had several stimulating conversations with individual staff members. But these conversations did not enable shared learning on the part of all attendees. People walked in, tried to understand the poster boards, and maybe had a few fleeting conversations. But many looked puzzled. They appeared to be wondering, what do the ADU amendments mean for my neighborhood? The first challenge residents face when trying to answer that question is to understand the staffs reports. This is no easy task, partly because the technical language of zoning is so unfamiliar to most people. Adding to the difficulty is that the proposed changes vary by zoning category. My own neighborhood contains at least 12 different types of zones, plus three historical overlay districts and one overlay conservation district. The second challenge is to determine how the changes might affect neighborhoods on the ground. This is a daunting task that exceeds the capabilities of normal people trying to live their lives. It calls for collaboration and dialogue between neighborhood leaders and the City's planning staff. To help Northsiders understand how the amendments might affect our neighborhood, we focused our attention on the medium -density residential (RS-8) areas that lie outside the historic preservation districts. Zooming in, we studied one block in Goosetown. This tree -lined block currently contains 31 properties, one of which is vacant. All but one of the main buildings were built in the first half of the last century. They are all one to two stories in height. The assessed value of this block's 30 single-family properties averages a modest $216,000. Being in the University hnpact Area (UTA), the entire block is affected by the demand for off -campus student housing. Consequently, 9 of the 31 properties are owned by incorporated entities, and 14 of the 31 properties are rentals. The amendments pertaining to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) could — when combined with the amendments permitting duplexes and attached single-family structures in this and other neighborhoods in the UTA — cause some speculative investors to think of Goosetown and other comparable areas as major opportunities for financial gain.' In this scenario, market competition would drive the cost of land up. When properties go on sale, investors would outbid potential owner -occupants. They would very likely demolish older, lower -cost, owner -occupied structures and replace them with the largest possible rental duplexes or attached single-family structures coupled with a rentable ADU. All of this would make it extremely difficult for anyone to buy starter homes in these neighborhoods. Kirk Lehman tells me that 7 of the lots on this block could potentially be redeveloped with duplexes, and 24 of the lots could potentially have ADUs. We looked more closely at two lots in the southwestern corner of the block. One is currently vacant, whereas the other is occupied by a 1'/z story single-family structure. Picture an investor building a new structure and ADU on the vacant lot while that investor (or perhaps another one) purchases the existing structure on the adjacent lot and builds a new ADU in the back. Picture all of the structures being rentals. Picture this being replicated throughout Goosetown and other neighborhoods in the University Impact Area. Contrary to City staffs stated goals, the ADU amendments might increase the supply of housing in this and similar neighborhoods, but the supply of affordable owner -occupied housing would shrink. And, while diversifying housing choices, the amendments could result in the neighborhoods becoming more dominated by investor -owned rental structures. With this concern in mind, we urge you to amend Item 3c (2) in the staffs August 2 memo. For properties located within the University Impact Area, we urge you to continue requiring ADUs to be built only on owner -occupied properties. We also recommend that you carve out an exception which would permit non-profit providers of income -restricted housing to build ADUs on properties within the UTA. ' The bonuses and incentives in Items 4a and 4b should be considered as well. I asked Anne Russett whether investors in RS-8 properties could take advantage of these bonuses if they built a duplex or two attached single- family structures, one unit of which met the City's affordable housing criteria. Briefly summarized, Anne responded that they could. However, she also thinks this is unlikely on inf ll sites. City Stafrs Proposed Amendments Pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units Item 3c in the staff's August 2 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. In addition, 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. . 1911oan eon Coun]y Pm,ty Info', X 0 yunmad'-jfhragI.. % v E — C � f3 hccps:(19is.lphnspncpgntylowa,gpv/vw! * Q 5ca:ch O �j rl V rt x. ii �. In l Y . Parking in the Central Neighborhoods: for Consideration in Regard to Allowing Non -Owner Occupied ADUs in the University Impact Zone 400 block of North Gilbert Street Cars occupy every available on -street parking spot. There are already cars parked illegally on the opposing side of the road. Vehicular travel is difficult and at times dangerous. 500 block of North Gilbert Street Off-street parking is filled solid five blocks from the center of town. It is common for all on -street parking spaces to be taken. The University Impact Area has significant portions of backyards filled with parking. At the ADU Open House, I expressed my concern about the parking waiver for ADUs. In response, staff said that students will learn to leave their vehicles at home (meaning their family home). In addition, the rationale for the parking waiver has been described for seniors who don't drive. It's not logical to think that Iowa City will see an increase of seniors living in ADUs in the University Impact Zone. The driver in the white car executed a three-point turn to change course and allow the garbage truck to pass. I see this every week on garbage day on Lucas Street.The situation is com- pounded in winter with ice and snow. 300 block of North Linn Street At least three cars have yellow no parking tickets on the windshield.The right side of the street is filled solid with parked cars.When adequate parking is not provided by landlords, illegal parking occurs. Sidewalks are blocked for pedestrians including people with disabilities. 600 block of North Johnson Street When inadequate parking is provided illegal parking occurs and public sidewalks are blocked and walkability declines. Please do not allowADUs for non -owner occupied properties. Sharon DeGraw 519 Brown Street Iowa City (0/� �2-3 My name is William Gorman and I am the Chair of the Housing Action Team of the Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board. Last November we held a Forum on ADUs and invited all eleven cities in Johnson County to attend. We invited the City Councils and the Mayors as well as homebuilders and realtors. We focused on the benefits of ADUs to help seniors age in place as well as the need for affordable housing for people of all ages. One month later, in December, we submitted to all eleven cities in Johnson County what I would describe as a White Paper, providing recommendations on the elements of a potential ADU zoning code. To be clear, we reached out to Iowa City and the other cities in Johnson County. They did not reach out to us. We appreciate the fact that the city of Iowa City staff took our recommendations seriously. At your direction from the previous meeting, the staff did reach out to the community to solicit additional input, including looking at how other university towns have addressed ADUs. The results show that the university towns have utilized a variety of strategies. Some university towns do not require owner occupancy, some do. We continue to support the staff recommendations, with one caveat. Clearly, many residents have expressed genuine concerns regarding the proposed removal of the owner occupancy requirement. Even though we believe removing the owner occupancy requirement is best practice, and, removing the owner occupancy requirement is likely to more significantly increase the number of ADUs that could be developed, it is very difficult to forecast how many developers will feel there is sufficient profit margin to purchase homes and then add on an ADU in order to rent out both dwellings. Kirk Lehmann's October 4th letter to the Planning and Zoning Committee, on page 7, notes the following: "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. Since Iowa law does not allow cities to prohibit short term rentals, in the abundance of caution, we now recommend that Iowa City keep the owner occupancy requirement indicating that the lot owner must reside in the primary residence or the ADU. Then, we suggest that the City revisit this issue in 2-4 years to see if the requirement can be dropped. Lastly, we encourage the city to review its permitting process to look for ways to simplify the application process, decrease fees and eliminate any regulations that may hinder ADU development. Thank you. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2023-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Throgmorton, William Gorman, Phoebe Martin, Deanna Thomann, Andy Martin, Jared Knote, Sharon DeGraw, Jonathan Melba, Lorraine Bowans, Alex Lewis, Kelcey Patrick Ferree RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 4-3 (Craig, Quellhorst, Padron dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of Title 14 zoning be amended with elimination of the standard that the owner is not required to live on -site and that where accessory apartment is in the zoning code be replaced with the term accessory dwelling unit. 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: (continued discussion of accessory apartments from 812) Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Lehmann began the staff report with some general background reminding the Commissioners this is part of a package of proposed amendments with a goal of increasing flexibility for a range of housing types, modifying design standards, providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing, and also addressing fair housing. This package came back before the Commission on August 2 and the Commission did recommend approval of those items with the exception of the changes related to accessory apartments. At that time, staff was directed to solicit more public feedback regarding those changes. In terms of the public feedback staff solicited, they held two open houses for an opportunity for the community to learn more about the proposed changes, ask questions and talk with staff about the changes and then also provide feedback in a survey to indicate what concerns there were. The open houses were held on September 13, from 5:00 — 7:00 pm and from September 14 from 5:00 — 7:00 pm at two different locations in different parts of town. 58 folks signed in and there were some others who attended but did not sign it. Staff also received 51 surveys, both Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 2 of 22 through a combination of folks that were in the public meetings and then also online as well. A majority of survey respondents were concerned about allowing accessory apartments on rental properties which is one of the proposed changes. The majority of the survey respondents were not concerned with most of the other changes but the second most proposed change that provoked concern was not requiring a parking space for the accessory apartments. That was at 45% concern versus a 53% who were not concerned. With regards to the proposed amendments, Lehmann reiterated this is part of the section on providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, specifically as they relate to modifying the standards for accessory apartments. In terms of the proposed changes, there are quite a few of them so he will go into detail on those as a refresher. One of the changes is allowing accessory uses to be in places that are currently not allowed, such as allowing them to be accessory to single-family or duplex uses instead of only having it be allowed with detached single family uses. Second, allowing them in any zone that allows residential uses instead of specified zones. Third is that the owner not be required to live on the site, which they currently are. Lehmann noted again that was the item that was flagged as the most concern for folks. Fourth is no longer requiring an off-street parking space for accessory apartments, currently there is a standard where one space must be provided. Fifth, no longer having an additional restriction on bedrooms and occupants other than what would be required from a rental permit for single family and duplex uses. In this case, that means that no more than 35% of the floor area could be bedrooms, changing the size limitations somewhat such that it'd be the lesser of 1000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the main building. That's a change from a smaller amount that was previously required. Lehmann also stated that it used to be for a detached accessory apartment it could only be a portion of a detached accessory structure which meant that one couldn't have a standalone accessory apartment but with these changes to the way that sizes would be regulated, it'd be based off the principal use and one could have a standalone accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or could also have an attached accessory dwelling unit that would be added in an addition to a building. Finally, with regards to the design standards there currently is a standard that accessory apartments have to be entered from the side or rear lot line and this change would say that no entrance locations are dictated in the way it's designed. He also mentioned that staff are continuing to recommend the owner occupancy requirement primarily because their understanding of Council's goals with these proposed amendments are tied to increasing housing supply and housing diversity of housing types. In terms of an analysis of what the proposed changes might cause Lehmann explained currently with the existing situation the City hasn't seen much ADU development in the last 30 years, they've only seen about 52 units out of approximately 10,000 eligible properties. He noted part of the reason for that is that the current standards appear to be a barrier to construction of accessory dwelling units so as a result in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan it recommended promoting ADUs and allowing them in more situations. The Plan also recommended looking at the owner occupancy requirement as well and this does come to a special head now as more and more households are single person households where smaller units are something that are required, essentially. In terms of impacts, the parcels that are currently eligible will remain eligible, and an additional 13,000 will be eligible because that would include any properties that currently have a rental permit that are single family since that can change at any time whether it's rental or owner occupied. In addition, it would expand the number of parcels which ADUs would be allowed and up to 1400 new units would be allowed by expanding the zones and uses to which the accessory, an additional 3100 new units could potentially accommodate ADUs by removing the owner occupancy requirement as well. In Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 3 of 22 addition, staff would expect more property owners to take advantage of accessory dwelling units by trying to remove some of those other barriers such as the parking requirement, trying to increase size, trying to allow as a standalone use, and all the different things that they've heard about that act as barriers. In addition, staff does see trying to encourage accessory dwelling units as being especially compatible with the City's sustainability goals since these would be added with existing buildings, for the most part, and would tend to be in more walkable areas of the City. Therefore, staff see it as pairing nicely with some of the standards such as trying to encourage alternative modes of transportation and the free two-year transit trial the City currently has in effect. Lehmann showed a map of the parcels that would potentially be affected, noting the areas that would currently allow an ADU if they are owner occupied and the proposed amendments would continue to allow these if they're owner occupied, but it would also mean that they could have an ADU if they're renter occupied as well. He then showed the new areas that would allow ADUs that currently do not, in some cases these are zones that previously hadn't allowed them and in other cases there are areas where there are more duplexes or other uses that currently don't allow an ADU. Staff did it also look at other comparable communities and information regarding those were provided in the agenda packet. The examples of different communities are both in Iowa and are other college towns. Lehmann noted many communities have recently reevaluated their ADU regulations and have removed things like owner occupancy requirements, off street parking requirements, increasing allowable sizes, and modifying what ADUs can be accessory to. He explained part of the reason for this is that all of America is experiencing the housing crisis that Iowa City is also currently experiencing and accessory dwelling units are a way to really integrate new density while still maintaining the character of the neighborhoods as well. That being said, each community does have unique set of regulations and are all a little different. Some require owner occupancy, some don't. Some require parking, some don't. Some have more strict design requirements; it all really depends on the community. However, that being said Iowa City's proposed changes are in line with other communities that are in similar situations. Staff also looked at best practices when looking at accessory dwelling units. The American Planning Association (APA) produces an equity and zoning policy guide that Iowa City uses and within that policy guide it really recommends allowing a broader range of building forms, lot sizes and a lot widths and residential types, specifically in low density residential neighborhoods. It also recommends allowing ADUs without a public hearing and only using conditions that are needed to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties within that community, but all of these are based on national best practices. Staff really reviewed the APA guide and what works and what doesn't work in different communities and how can they further equity through the zoning code. Staff also relied on the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), which produces lots of content about accessory dwelling units, and the proposed changes that staff brought before this Commission were really the product of recommendations made by the Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Group. Lehmann noted that's a group that includes lots of folks, is staffed by a person from the County, and the goal is to try and make sure that Johnson County communities are livable for folks as they age within that community. Accessory dwelling units are really seen as a key component of allowing people to age in place. In terms of best practices they recommend things like allowing these uses in all zones that allow single family residential Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 4 of 22 uses, only requiring those conditions needed to mitigate potential impacts, treating them like they're a valid use within this zone rather than some sort of a use that is an undesirable use within the zone. Treating it like other uses is looking at owner occupancy requirements and if that's not regulated in the zoning code then they would recommend not regulating that for accessory dwelling units. They also talk about things like parking requirements which can make accessory dwelling units challenging, and limiting design requirements that can increase the cost of constructing ADUs. In addition, Lehmann stated the push towards encouraging ADUs is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Within the City's vision statement it talks about creating attractive and affordable housing for all people and housing that is the foundation of healthy, safe and diverse neighborhoods throughout Iowa City. Again, those relevant strategies and goals are things like mixing housing types throughout neighborhoods to provide household options for all types of households, whether they be singles, families, retirees, etc., ensuring a balance of housing types, promoting small lot infill development, and especially supporting that infill development in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. It also does support other policy documents that the City has adopted over the past several years including the Affordable Housing Action Plan, which was first adopted in 2016, and then updated in 2022. That Plan does talk about increasing the allowable number and type of dwelling units in single family zoning districts and specifically calls out ADUs. The Plan also specifically calls out considering ADUs associated with rental housing as something to consider. In addition the 2019 Fair Housing Study talks about exploring ways to increase density and exploring the types of housing that are allowed, especially in those low density, single family zones. In terms of public's correspondence, staff received several pieces of correspondence that have been forwarded to the Commissioners or included in the agenda packet. Lehmann noted the latest piece of correspondence that was submitted very recently has just now been provided to the Commission for consideration as well. In terms of staff recommendation, staff does recommend that Title 14, Zoning, be amended as illustrated in Attachment Four of the staff report. Lehmann noted it's similar to what was proposed before with a few small changes, but nothing substantive. Again, the goal is improving housing choice, increasing housing supply, and encouraging housing affordability. Lehmann added there is one more part of that staff recommendation that he did not include in this presentation, which is they currently call accessory dwelling units, accessory apartments, and that has been a confusing term for many. Staff has gotten lots of calls about what exactly is meant by an accessory apartment so staff would also propose changing the terminology to ADU which is also consistent with the rental code, which calls them ADUs. There could be a separate motion for that, or it could be included in the motion tonight, staff does intend on updating the motion before they bring it to Council, so the ordinance that goes before Council would reflect that language change. In terms of next steps, upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff would expect it to be scheduled for consideration by Council. The earliest it would go to Council is November 6, that would be the public hearing, and then there would be two additional readings by Council at the second meeting in November and at the first meeting in December, which would be December 12. Therefore, December 12 would be the earliest that something would be considered for adoption by Council. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 5 of 22 Quellhorst thanked staff for the thorough and thoughtful presentation and especially appreciated the comparison to regulations in comparable communities. It was mentioned that some of those communities have recently eliminated the owner occupancy requirement, so he was just wondering if they know anything about the experience of those communities and whether it was positive or negative, or a kind of mixed bag. Lehmann replied that a lot of these changes are pretty fresh in a lot of communities. When he talks about best practices that have led to or that have been incorporated in a lot of these documents, those are based on communities that made similar changes and found that it increased their development of accessory dwelling units within that community. Within the specifical comparable communities that he provided he is not sure if they have outcome data from that yet. Quellhorst asked if anybody has recently gone the other way and adopted an owner occupancy requirement when they didn't previously have one. Russett clarified Iowa City's current regulations require that the owner live on -site and what staff is proposing is that owner occupancy requirement be removed so the owner would no longer need to live on -site and both units could be rented. Quellhorst wondered if there has been a community that's had an inverse situation where they did not have an owner -occupied requirement and then adopted one. Lehmann is not aware of any, most of them have been similar changes to what Iowa City is recommending. Townsend asked with an ADU and there being two units on the property, if the owner decides to sell, are those sold separately, and if so, how do they decide what goes and what the lot line should be. Lehmann explained there's a standard in the code currently that requires both units on the lot be under common ownership so they can't sell an accessory apartment and not sell the principal use, they have to be under the same ownership. Staff is not proposing to change that standard and it would continue to be in effect. Townsend stated then, the owner doesn't have to live on the property, but whoever buys the new property has to buy both units. Lehmann confirmed that is correct. Hekteon clarified if the lot was split there'd be a subdivision and that would be a different process and in the realm of the subdivision regulations. For planning regulations as long as the units are on the same lot, then it's considered an accessory dwelling unit. Lehmann added if there was a subdivision that would have to follow all regulations within the code including street frontage, so they couldn't have a situation where there was a unit in the front and back but they're not on an alley and they split it down the middle, that's not something that would be allowed under the subdivision code. Presumably, one could have a corner lot where both units meet minimum lot size requirements and everything and that could be split. Padron noted then if there was a subdivision it wouldn't be an ADU anymore it would become a principal use. Lehmann confirmed that is correct. Townsend asked how these units would help large families, these are all smaller units that they're talking about so it's really not going to help the affordable housing problem families have. Lehmann stated for large families the way that accessory dwelling units are often used is where the parents would live in the in-law suite and have the kids live in the main unit, or vice versa, if you have young kids, he stated that's how it would be used to support larger families. Townsend stated she would not call that affordable housing, she would call that convenience for someone Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 6 of 22 with means enough to build a separate unit for in-laws, and that would not be in that affordable housing realm. Lehmann noted in the sense that an accessory dwelling unit is up to 1000 square feet, which is a relatively small unit that could be built under IRC code standards, it is more affordable than building under multifamily standards and is a more affordable housing product. Townsend stated for a single person or for two people, but not for a family, because it's not big enough for a family of four. Russett noted what Lehmann is trying to say is that with if there is a multi -generational household where there are grandparents, parents, and children, it can provide additional room for those families. Or if someone is taking care of a family member who has a disability, or who has an illness, they could be nearby and be on -site. Then in terms of the affordability concern, there's a couple of ways that they're thinking about affordability with these amendments and with the amendments to accessory dwelling units they're really thinking about it in terms of supply and ways to increase the housing supply in the community. Right now the supply is not keeping up with the demand and it's impacting price. It's also a way to encourage different types of housing. Accessory dwelling units are smaller, they're going to cost less, the price point is going to be lower than the typical detached single-family home. Wade noted one of the proposed changes is actually to remove the occupancy limit, right now only two people can live in an ADU and conceivably under these regulations they could have three people or even a potentially small family live in one. Lehmann confirmed that. Hensch noted in the packet it says that the occupancy is determined by the rental permit, can staff just discuss that briefly. Lehmann explained in single family and duplex uses to which accessory dwelling units could be accessory to under the proposed amendments there's a requirement that no more than 35% of a unit may be bedrooms, which acts as a de facto occupancy limit. There are also additional occupancy limits based on the square footage of the unit. So presumably, a three -bedroom accessory dwelling unit under the proposed standards with that 35% standard accounting for minimum bedroom sizes that are allowed. Wade noted in Fayetteville and Cedar Rapids it looks like they allow two ADUs for a lot, and Iowa City's recommendation just a single, correct. Lehmann confirmed they are recommending a single with a duplex. In some cases, they may see where it's single family and they allow two accessory dwelling units. In the case of States that have preempted local jurisdiction's ability to regulate ADUs there are situations where it's a duplex and two ADUs. There is a variety of different ways that people allow them but staff is recommending one ADU per lot. Wade acknowledged that's how the current administration will control it, with the building permit and with a change of ownership of the property and such but what's the long-term administration look like on having that restriction. Lehmann did agree it can be challenging. In some cases, a family might purchase a house that has an ADU with it and they use the ADU for storage and they don't rent it out. Staff will check in to make sure that it doesn't become occupied at some point, because once it's occupied then it needs a rental permit. There are challenges where houses are sold and then the main house is rented out and there's still an ADU on the property. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 7 of 22 That can be an administrative challenge and he doesn't know the exact answer about how they deal with it but presumes that it just doesn't count towards the occupancy of that rental permit. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jim Throqmorton (co-chair of the Northside Neighborhood Association Steering Committee) comes before the Commission tonight to ask that they amend item 3C-2 in the staff's August 2 memo for properties located within the University Impact Area (UTA). They urge the Commission to continue requiring ADUs to be built only on owner -occupied properties. They further recommend the Commission carve out an exception to permit nonprofit providers of income - restricted housing to build ADUs on properties within the UTA. Two months ago this Commission deferred action on the ADU provisions and Throgmorton thanked them for doing that. As Lehmann stated, City staff conducted two open houses pertaining to the ADUs and several Northside Neighborhood neighbors attended and some had stimulating conversations with individual staff members. But the conversations did not enable shared learning on the part of all attendees. Many attendees looked puzzled as they were studying the posters and appeared to be wondering what do the ADU amendments mean for their neighborhood. The first challenge residents face when trying to answer that question is to understand the staff's reports and that is no easy task, partly because the technical language of zoning is unfamiliar to most people. Adding to the difficulty is that the proposed changes vary by zoning category. His own neighborhood contains at least 12 different types of zones, plus three historical overlay districts and one overlay conservation district. The second challenge is to determine how the changes might affect neighborhoods on the ground. This is a daunting task that exceeds the capabilities of normal people trying to live their lives. It calls for collaboration and dialogue between neighborhood leaders and the City planning staff. To help Northsiders understand how the amendments might affect their neighborhood they focused their attention on the medium density residential that is the RS-8 areas that lie outside the historic preservation districts. Zooming in they studied one block in Goosetown, it's the long block that currently contains 31 properties, one of which is vacant. All but one of the main buildings were built in the first half of the last century, they are all one to two stories in height, and the assessed value of this block of 30 single family properties average a modest $216,000. Being in the UTA the entire block is affected by the demand for off -campus student housing. 9 of the 31 properties are owned by incorporated entities, and 14 of the 31 properties are rentals. The amendments pertaining to the ADUs could, when combined with the amendments permitting duplexes and attached single family structures, cause some speculative investors to think of Goosetown and other neighborhoods in the UTA as major opportunities for financial gain. In this scenario, market competition would drive the cost of land up when properties go on sale, investors would outbid potential owner occupants and they would very likely demolish older, lower cost owner -occupied structures and replace them with the largest possible rental duplexes or attached single family structures coupled with rentable ADUs. All of this would make it extremely difficult for anyone to buy starter homes in these neighborhoods. Staff tells him that seven of the lots on this block could potentially be redeveloped with duplexes and that 24 of the lots could potentially have ADUs. If they look more closely at two lots in the southwestern corner of the block, one is currently vacant, whereas the other is occupied by a one and a half story single family structure. Picture an investor building a new structure and ADU on the vacant lot. While that investor or perhaps another one, purchases Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 8 of 22 the existing structure on the adjacent lot and builds a new ADU in the back. Picture all of the structures being rentals and this being replicated throughout Goosetown and other neighborhoods in the UTA. The ADU amendments might increase the supply of housing in this and similar neighborhoods, but the supply of affordable owner -occupied housing would shrink and while diversifying housing choices this amendment could result in the neighborhoods becoming more dominated by investor -owned rental structures. Throgmorton requests they retain the owner -occupied requirements for properties in the UTA and carve out an exception for nonprofits. William Gorman (Chair of the Housing Action Team of the Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board) stated last November they held a forum on ADUs and invited all 11 cities in Johnson County to attend. They invited the City Councils and the Mayors as well as home builders and realtors. They focused on the benefits of ADUs to help seniors age in place, as well as the need for affordable housing for people of all ages. One month later, in December, they submitted to all 11 cities in Johnson County what he would describe as a white paper, providing recommendations on the elements of a potential ADU zoning code. To be clear, they reached out to Iowa City and the other cities in Johnson County, the cities did not reach out to them. However, they do appreciate the fact that the city of Iowa City staff took their recommendations seriously and at this Commission's direction from the previous meeting, the staff did reach out to the community to solicit additional input, including looking at how other university towns have addressed ADUs. The results show that university towns have utilized a variety of strategies, some university towns do not require owner occupancy, some do. Gorman stated they continue to support the staff recommendations with one caveat. Clearly many residents have expressed genuine concerns regarding the proposed removal of the owner occupancy requirement. Even though they believe removing the owner occupancy requirement is best practice and removing the owner occupancy requirement is likely to more significantly increase the number of ADUs that could be developed he acknowledged it is very difficult to forecast how many developers will field their sufficient profit margin to purchase homes and then add on ADUs in order to rent out both dwellings. Kirk Lehmann's October 4 letter on page seven notes the following "ADUs may support the stability of existing neighborhoods by accommodating extended families or creating an opportunity to generate revenue from the tenants but it may be necessary to limit them to properties where their primary dwelling unit is the owners primary residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when used as short-term rentals". On top of that, since Iowa law does not allow cities to prohibit short-term rentals in the abundance of caution, Gorman states they now recommend that Iowa City keep the owner occupancy requirement indicating that the lot owner must reside in the primary residence or the ADU and then suggest that the City revisit this issue in two to four years to see if the requirement can be dropped. Give it some time, monitor it and then see if they can remove that requirement later. Lastly, they encourage the City to review its permitting process to look for ways to simplify the application process, decrease fees and eliminate any regulations that may hinder ADU development. Phoebe Martin (Iowa City) stated she is speaking personally and not for all realtors but wanted to thank everyone for bringing this whole thing up, she is very excited about it. She noted she works with a lot of different types of clients and has a few different people that have been keeping an Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 9 of 22 eye on all of this, one of which is a family that has a son that cannot afford to buy their own house on their own lot. They could potentially afford to build an ADU in their backyard, but it does not have an alley, it would need to, it'd be weird to be on the side and make more sense sort of like a little compound. It's also significantly cheaper than then bringing in external care to them renting something else. So even though that seems kind of frivolous, it actually would really help them in terms of affordability. She also has a lot of clients that are looking to rent tiny houses, which is something that Iowa City has not always been a huge fan of. Every tiny house she has sold, and oddly enough she has sold quite a few of them, they go immediately and more of that would be even better, because then they're also reducing the carbon footprint a little bit. Not all people want yards, she is seeing lots of clients that are looking for studio, office and homeschooling space. The idea of owner occupied or not, she thinks it would be just fine to not have that requirement, but has also seen a lot of people, one of which is on Davenport Street, who bought their house thinking that was going to be there forever investment and would love to have an ADU on there so that they could rent out both and that's their retirement fund but they don't want to live there anymore. Deanna Thomann (208 Fairchild Street) lives in the Northside Neighborhood and tonight is just here to read a letter Ann Freerks as she couldn't make it tonight. "Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners, I'm writing to urge you to vote against the proposal that would allow rental properties to have accessory dwelling units in all residential zones, including the RNS-12 zone. I have lived in a near downtown Iowa City neighborhood for over 30 years. During this time, I have worked to create stable housing for all. I am not a NIMBY, there is a 12-Plex in my backyard, duplexes, triplexes and lots of multifamily houses in my neighborhood, but there are also single- family homes that are key to the balance and fabric of the community. These are some of the most fragile portions of our neighborhoods and this proposal would threaten that balance. I spent over 15 years on the Planning and Zoning Commission here in Iowa City, many of those as chair. I did this to create positive change and a healthy community. I have worked through Comprehensive Plan updates, re -drafts of the zoning code and subdivision regulations, I have been part of the Neighborhood Housing Relations Task Force and clearly understand the concerns this will cause the University Impact Zone. Iowa City has committed a great deal of time and money to reduce density in this area through the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership. 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 the proposed changes will further tip the scale in favor of investment companies and may actually lead to the displacement of affordable housing. The goal should always be finding zoning tools that will promote the creation as well as the preservation of affordable housing. There are endless solutions to every issue and this one does not work for the long-term benefit of Iowa City. It should never be about warehousing people. People need basic amenities, green space and community. This recommendation does not take into account the damage that will be done in the Neighborhood Impact Zone. The near downtown neighborhoods are already very dense and lack parking. I would ask that at the very least you remove the University Impact zone and the RNS-12 zone from this proposal." Thomann noted Freerks signed it as community member and former Planning and Zoning chair. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 10 of 22 Thomann want to just say a little bit about her situation as well, again she lives in the 200 block of Fairchild and that's just right down the way from Pagliai's Pizza. It's a great neighborhood and her house is in the Northside Historic District. She also serves on the Historic Preservation Commission representing the Northside Neighborhood. She agrees with what Ann Freerks has to say in her letter. Her block is unique in that she is in a historic home and a lot of her neighbors are in the District with her, but across the street they have the RNS-12 houses that could really affect the look and feel of their neighborhood. It is already dense, it's already diverse, her backyard borders a four-plex and on the other side there are multifamily houses that run along Dubuque Street. There are a lot of people there and she feels like they're doing their part as a community in just those few blocks there of creating a diverse and dense living environment. Andy Martin (member HBA and president of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) is a remodeler in town and a member of some organizations but is not speaking for those bodies. Today he is just speaking personally. He stated ADUs are something that's near and dear to him as he has had many people ask him to build ADUs over the years. Typically, the reason is because they have a family member that they'd like to have close, he has never had a rental person ask to build one. What usually happens is that they end up not building the ADU because it's too expensive and the reason is the restrictions. Martin does think if they did change the code a little bit private individuals may be able to do more ADUs, particularly with elderly parents or disabled people, and not having to have that extra space for a detached unit will be a big help because the traditional way that's done is a carriage house with the garage below and the building above. One would have to have a really big lot in order to do a side by side. But the carriage house type doesn't work for a disabled or elderly persons, climbing a full flight of stairs to get to their apartment, that just doesn't fly. Martin thinks if they can loosen these restrictions they will end up seeing that more and in that case it is truly affordable housing because it's a lot less expensive than other options such as the assisted living as those are 1000s of dollars a month. He appreciates the City looking for a way to reduce costs and in a bigger picture they're looking at choices for the future. One of the things he loves about Iowa City is that it is consistently growing every year and the traditional form of growth is out in the cornfields and this is looking at the idea of becoming more dense which he thinks is the way of the future as it is the sustainable way and the smart way to go, there's no reason to go out when they can go up or go more dense. Traditionally more dense is having huge multifamily buildings, because that's the only way it can be done under current code and if they allow a little bit more flexibility here they will see a way to gain density without getting monolithic density. Martin also stated he understands the concerns with students, because he has lived in Iowa City for 30 years, but they have the same choice with students as well, they're either going to grow more dense in the area that they're allowed, or they're going to spread out. Again if they can make the requirements more flexible and make them more inviting to people, he believes they will see an uptick in ADUs but as pointed out they've had 52 in the past 30 years, so they're not likely going to see 52 next month, it's not going to be that kind of rapid growth. Hensch asked what the price range would be to construct a 1000-foot standalone unit for an ADU. Martin stated the last ADU they built was about $180,000 and about 35% to 40% of that cost was the garage. He noted if they could knock that way down, then it's roughly about half the price of a new home. Hensch stated then without a garage it would be a range of $100,000 to Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 11 of 22 $150,000. Martin confirmed and stated that is a half or a third of the price of a new home but is it truly affordable in the definition of affordable housing, where it's going to appeal to people who are making 60% or less of median income, probably not, it's probably not that type of affordable housing but is it useful and more affordable than traditional building, yes. Jared Knote (1021 E. Market Street) asks that they maintain the owner occupancy requirement on ADUs. He lives in a RNS-12 stabilization zone and when he thinks about stabilization, it's not necessarily that there's no historic overlay, it's not about character, it's a recognition that a neighborhood was really in a situation where it's acknowledging that the diversity of the neighborhood, and the equity of the neighborhood, was being flattened out by monoculture, and frankly by a price insensitive monoculture. Frankly, it's students who are price insensitive and it's one type of people taking over that neighborhood, as well as doing a stable, diverse neighborhood. He is caring about how long can he stay in this neighborhood, he's at midlife and would like to stay there but if they open it up it to the extent of free development, which is the auspices of this report and if they just free the market, the market will crowd supply. They may think when they crowd supply, it'll fix everything and prices will fall. Good examples of where that doesn't work is in health care and it also doesn't work in housing. Last week the Federal Reserve, certainly not a socialist body, had an excellent presentation about three hours long that he would recommend everyone watch, it showed what the data said about what actually drives affordable housing and they actually do need requirements and mandates, that's what actually drives affordable housing, it's not the market and crowding in with supply. Knote also stated at one of the City Council meetings where people were speculating and imagining the wonderful things that the market will provide but they don't necessarily have to imagine what the market provides, because they have exact examples. He lives in a neighborhood but looking at maps.google.com. they can check out some of these examples and that framework was really helpful. The feedback from the mayor was really helpful because he gave first principles. What do they care about in Iowa City? It's not character, it's not necessarily historical stuff, its affordability, diversity, and environmental impact. If those are reasonable frameworks and reasonable guidance he used those as he walked around his neighborhood concerns him. For example, to focus on that 900 block of Jefferson, 942 & 944 is a duplex that was put in brand new where there once was an old home and it takes up the almost the entire lot. Did it affect affordability or prices of those rental units, it didn't and now there's three of them in a row. That's a lot of additional housing supply so presumably it should have some impact as the market is crowded but it had no impact on affordability. What did it impact, well the culture is now monoculture, there's no more diversity, it's all students on that that particular area of the block. That may be what they want but he doesn't think that creates a thriving neighborhood where people are investing in the community and in keeping this an alive and generative community. Also, what do they have in terms of environmental impact, are people really not using their cars to get around, well around the corner there are no more trees, no cover, just a heat sink that's really become a concrete jungle and that drives up air conditioning in the summer. Also on his block, at 923 Market Street, a cute little house was torn down in the middle of the block and he doesn't know what is going to go in there but can speculate that it might be another very, very large duplex. He doesn't think that will have an appreciable impact on affordability nor in terms of the environmental impact. Things will get hotter, fewer trees, more parking spaces, people are still using their cars, less diversity, so again, no real measurable impact on affordability. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 12 of 22 Sharon DeGraw (Northside Neighborhood Member) stated from where she lives she is most concerned about the University Impact Zone. She has a survey of streetscapes with what it looks like parking wise in the Northside Neighborhood, some on South Lucas Street, and it's really in the University Impact Zone the role that parking plays. Therefore, she is concerned about the waiver of the parking aspect of the ADUs. She showed an image that's the 400 block of North Gilbert Street and there are cars on the correct side of the street that they can park on all day from eight o'clock to five o'clock but once it turns five o'clock cars start showing up on the other side of the street and even though they are only supposed to park on one side, there are errant cars parking on the wrong side of the street and they just accept the ticket. She next showed the 500 block of Gilbert Street and noted these streets are not terribly wide and it's hard for a delivery driver parking a truck to go run food or packages to a house with cars just piling up on either side for about five minutes and people start to get testy because they can't back up and they're just stuck until the delivery person finds the right residence and recipient. DeGraw is imagining if they start to add ADUs to some of these lots, and don't have the parking requirement, people are still going to bring their cars and this situation is going to get worse. She next showed an area closer into the downtown, noting plenty of lots where on the alley side with very little green spaces left and are virtual parking lots. They're not supposed to be doing that as much anymore, but one can see how densely packed in the parking is. She doesn't know that these could be converted to have an ADU, but if they did where would the cars go, and students are going to bring their cars. At the ADU open house DeGraw expressed her concern about the parking waiver for ADUs and the response staff said is students will learn to leave their vehicles at home but that's not really going to happen. In addition, thinking about the AARP aspect of the recommendation for ADUs in the University Impact Zone there's really not going to be a lot of seniors looking for an accessory dwelling unit in the back of a downtown rental house. It's illogical that Iowa City will see an increase in seniors living in ADUs in the University Impact Zone, very close to the downtown. DeGraw next showed an image of after she drops her kids off at school she will often go see a friend on South Lucas Street and has been stuck behind maybe the same garbage truck many times. The image shows there's a car on the other side that can't make it through so already the streets are very packed with automobiles and the streets are narrow. If they increase the density at this point, she doesn't think that they're going to convince the students to leave their cars at home and this car did a three-point turn to get out of the way and turn around. She has been in situations where it took five minutes for people to figure out to dive into a driveway, back up or do a three-point turn to get back around. Next she showed the 300 block of North Linn Street where she actually used to live when she first moved to Iowa City as a young professional. She would strategically drive her car down to the end of the block and use that as her jogging exercise. Every morning she would try to get out there to fetch her car and try to find a new parking spot for it. She was from California and didn't have parents where she could leave a car somewhere else and then get it occasionally. She would prepay parking tickets because she knew that was the best rate and just put down $100 every month or so. Jonathan Melba (South Van Buren) wanted to add a different perspective to this conversation, which is the perspective of a student and especially as relates to the parking aspect. Just to echo the sentiments of what was just said, if the ADUs are targeted as an affordable housing mechanism for students, the basic reality with the students is that there's an expectation that they will have a car here and that whatever adverse parking requirements come from that they're Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 13 of 22 going to have their car here one way or another. For that reason, he thinks that the requirement of a parking spot per ADU should stay. Melba noted they can have an increase in density without an increase of set aside parking spots but they're still going to see the same increase in cars, provided this is being targeted towards students. If it's being targeted towards elderly residents or for extended families in a singular unit, in that case he thinks the owner occupancy requirements should probably stay. If it's the case that they're looking for affordable housing for different family situations to incorporate it onto the same house, then there's no reason to remove the owner occupancy requirement and what that does is help to prevent some of these concerns have already been expressed, and also helps to remove any possibility of the sort of speculative real estate investment from happening and keep the homes concentrated in local residents and local companies rather than allowing it to be a source of investment speculation. Melba stated depending on what the intended or imagined goal of loosening some of the restrictions from the ADU would be, it seems as though either the owner occupancy requirement should stay up and/or the parking requirements should stay. Lorraine Bowans (South Governor Street) had lived in her home for over 30 years, it's an old house built in 1864 and she is very passionate about the historic homes, the older neighborhoods and everything. Her house was a duplex when they moved in and they converted it back to a single family and built a garage at the back of the property. They put frost footings so they could build an addition up thinking at the time her parents would come to live with them. She is also on the Board of Johnson County Livable Communities, is a realtor and also works with helping seniors find services. She is becoming very active politically for seniors and living with dignity in aging. She is also an active volunteer and advocate for AARP, she is a firm believer but where she differentiates from AARP in this town is they need to keep it owner - occupied to preserve what little housing stock they have left that's historic, they don't have a lot and ADUs do not have to be an extra building. On South Governor Street, when they lived there, there was probably nine houses that used to be rooming houses or duplexes or triplexes that were converted to single family. They could be converted back. The lots were 190 feet so a small unit could be put in the back and still have a good neighborhood. With the historic and conservation districts they have to stay blended so they're not going to have an ugly thing. Right now real estate is not that great, the interest rates are high, building is expensive so they don't see as much development, taking down old homes, to build a lot of new stuff. That could change in the future but right now that's not the case. She noted trying to find housing for someone who has no money is heartbreaking and this is an opportunity for seniors or young family people that want to live in their neighborhood. For seniors to age in place, they can't live in the two-story house where the only bathroom may be on the second floor, they could but it may not be safe. Bowans noted they could build an addition on to their house, as an example on Governor Street the house caddy corner from them, they could no longer do the stairs so they built an addition of a master suite onto their home and that did not detract from the neighborhood, there is still plenty of room for parking and everything like that. Bowans stated they need to have design standards that really preserve some of the lot and the integrity of older homes. She noted they are in the infant stages now of trying to find out a way where seniors could stay in their neighborhoods and in their homes. Maybe build a smaller unit in the back, where they could either move into and rent the big house to a larger family and have them provide services for them. Or for them to stay in their home, have a small unit, either attached or separate, where they could have a student Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 14 of 22 who has been vetted, has background checks and everything, move in. It's a win win for both, less student debt for the student and services for the senior. Iowa is closing nursing homes like crazy. She has been to several meetings with the head of the Department of Human Services, the director of Medicaid services, and the director of Aging and Disability Services, and there's a lot of things going on, nothing's been set in stone, but they're shutting nursing homes because they have no care workers, they don't pay enough, Medicaid does not reimburse enough. They are going to have a crisis of there's no place for people in Iowa with lower incomes to move to so people are forced to stay in their homes. Bowans looks at this as a whole different perspective, if they could somehow benefit a teacher who's coming here to work fresh out of college, they're going to have student loans to pay back, if there is an affordable unit for that teacher to live in then it's a win win if they can also do some cares for the senior or a family that's coming in. The State is working on ways to finance ADUs for lower income people, the Iowa Finance Authority is working on some things, and the State is also going to try and work on some things to get homes modified for this particular situation. There's a lot of things in the work but people need to think outside the box. Alex Lewis stated for some background context he is currently in the middle of a research project on the way land use can increase affordability so he thought a few statistics might help couch the conversation. The Council of Economic Advisers recognize there's about 7 million market rate affordable units in the country, which means that someone at the defined poverty line could afford the rent at their current salary. Two and a half million of those are being occupied by people that could afford an up-market unit but don't because there's no supply up-market. That means that millions of units that could be affordable today aren't on the market. When they talk about market rate, versus addressing the affordability crisis, that is all the same conversation about supply. When they talk about what's happening in neighborhoods, how to stop the change of neighborhoods and where students moving, apparently students are not very well liked. Well students are going to here, there's a university here, sorry, they're coming, the demand is constant, and it's going to grow. It's only a question of whether it's inelastic student demand. Students are coming here with the money to afford any kind of rent, he worked for a few years and lived in Dallas, when he came to Iowa City his rent money was going to go where he can afford to live but that doesn't necessarily mean that students are immune to market pressure. If there's a more dense area that's more amenable to students, they can bike, they can walk, they're closer to downtown, they can go to bars, that's where they want to be. That brings up the car issue too, which he will address in a second, but to first address where that supply exists so that they don't grow out. Someone else made a great point about growing out into cornfields versus growing up. Students like more dense housing, they like being closer to other people, ADUs are a way of enabling that and making sure the students are going to stay closer to where the university is. Because as you all discuss the impact area, that where the students want to be, if you want to keep people closer to the university, if you want less and less people getting priced out of those areas, it means making sure that more students can live on one lot. If there's 10 students coming to town, either five of them can live on one lot or two of them can live on five lots so it seems like for everyone, students, homeowners, the community, it would be better to have students in more dense areas on less lots. Additionally, it removes the pressure from the historic districts and other issues like that. The car issue is another big one. The cars are the problem. Cars and density are inverse, they're against each other. There's a great saying "you're Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 15 of 22 not in traffic, you are the traffic" so when they're looking at pictures of people stuck in traffic and watching people do three-point turns, you are also the ones sitting behind the garbage truck and blocking the person in the car. Nobody wants to be in that traffic jam. The way to encourage that is by getting more people out of their cars, biking, walking to school, which everyone would all love to do. Cars are expensive, students don't have that much money. There are other policies like protected bike lanes and things like that which are part of this, but increasing density and reducing parking makes it overall more attractive. They've heard about the building cost associated with garages but there's also space constraints, cars are big and if they're requiring a place for a car on every lot, that pushes the units further out and it reduces the density of the area and it means people have to have their cars. There's a great statistic from some reform in Buffalo that showed that for the doubling of housing density, transportation emissions reduced almost 50% and household heating costs reduced by 40%. That means it's also more affordable when those units are closer together, especially in an apartment building or a multi -unit situation, they don't have five exposed sides, they have four exposed sides or three exposed sides, which means less heating, less cooling costs. All of that makes the situation more affordable. As far as the investor concerns and owner occupancy concerns even in the most aggressive markets, New York, San Francisco, LA, only about 8% of units at the high end are being owned by incorporated entities. Most of these units are local people who are just looking for another stream of income, ability to monetize their lot to retire, things of that nature, so it's good to keep those avenues open. They shouldn't be artificially constraining ability to build because that's just going to harm supply. People talked earlier about why they haven't seen changes in the market, but 52 units over 30 years isn't something anyone is going to notice, especially when the university is growing and the town is growing. They need to take serious supply side reforms seriously so that people can respond to that. There is money to be made for people in this community by monetizing their lots, by increasing density, by taking advantage of students with their inelastic demand coming here, and spending so it's good to be able to capture that and get rid of the car requirement. Kelcey Patrick -Ferree (Sandusky Drive) lives in the South District and is here because she supports these proposed changes to the zoning code to increase the availability and diversity of housing in Iowa City. She supports all of the changes that City staff have has proposed, she appreciates the students who are in the room tonight pointing out that they do need housing and it's better for them to have housing closer to the university, they've got walking opportunities. Personally, ideally, she'd love to have a few more grocery stores in that area so they don't have to be driving out to get food. She thinks if some of the homeowners who have come to object to these changes would add ADUs to their homes and rent to students some of them might find that actually like having students around more than they realize. She noted they rented a room in their house to a student a few years ago, for a brief period of time, and a few weeks ago her husband officiated at his wedding. He's a dear friend and he's part of their lives now. But all of that said, as she has listened to all of these concerns that have been raised and read all of the reports and everything, she thinks that one potential solution for the University Impact Zone presents itself. Part of it is what Jim Throgmorton mentioned before which is only allowing ADUs to be built on properties that are owner occupied, except for also allowing ADUs of nonprofits too. But then the second part of that is to divorce that ownership requirement from future ownership of the property. Reading through the packet, her understanding from some of the Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 16 of 22 things that were in there that the staff said is that the owner occupancy requirement presents a big problem for future uses of that dwelling unit, both the main house and the dwelling unit. Patrick -Ferree thinks that if they can separate those two requirements, the building requirement and the renting requirement, that would be a good way forward just within the University Impact Zone. What that could look like is either a general lack of requirement of owner occupancy to get a rental permit for an ADU or it can be a provision that says that once the house plus ADU has been sold to someone else, or otherwise transferred, like a transfer on death deed, the owner occupancy requirement no longer applies to that property. Patrick thinks that would solve a lot of the problems that they're seeing raised here today. However, she wants to be clear, this isn't actually what she's advocating for, she likes the City staff's recommendations, she just wanted to put that out there because it might be helpful if they need to find a compromise position. Jared Knote wanted to make a point of clarification, he doesn't think anyone wants this being a false antagonism, which he doesn't think is generative, nor is it representative, he thinks what anyone is saying here is they want stable communities that are diverse, that are affordable, and that are environmentally responsible and that is what might be unlocked by having ADUs available to owner -occupied buildings, where they could have as opposed to having hollowing out diverse communities, and rebuilding a monoculture. They have existing examples of where that happens, in particular in the stabilization area of RNS-12 as one example. Other areas of the University Impact Zone might also be relevant here. He thinks a false antagonism or an interpretation of antagonism is not representative, many of the opinions are those principles, of affordability, diversity and environmental and having a generative community. Jim Throqmorton clarified that nothing he or anyone else affiliated within Northside Neighborhood Association has said should be understood as being opposed to rental units in the neighborhood. As noted from previous presentations a very large proportion of the housing in the Northside Neighborhood already is rental, apartment buildings, rooming houses, single family structures that have been converted to 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 family structures. The problem for many people in the Northside is not that there are renters in the neighborhood, it's that pressure exists and the amendments they're considering would increase the pressure exist to convert pretty much all of the Northside to rental units. The challenge is to make it possible for owner - occupants to actually live in the neighborhood instead of feeling pressured by market forces to move out. It's not hostility toward renters, not hostility towards students. Andy Martin wanted to talk quickly about the parking requirement. He was talking to a guy who lives in Solon and apparently they have regressed in their parking requirements there and they're requiring more parking or something. Martin doesn't know the details but basically they're requiring more parking per unit now and are the only town in the country that is trying to create more rights for cars. He noted if they've got a street, that's where the car belongs, put the car on the street, they don't need to create more parking lots for cars. Martin thinks that's something they should consider that they want to build for people and not for cars. That's the way they've kind of been heading in the last few years and he thinks it's great. When they went to two lanes on Mormon Trek he thought it was crazy but now loves it. So, he would encourage them not to try and build to allow more room for cars in the future. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 17 of 22 Sharon DeGraw added that she does love where she lives because of the number of students that live all around, it's just the density is quite great and she is not sure how much more they can go. There was a report that Jerry Anthony help compiled along with graduate students, and it has an interesting statistic about tax revenue, but then think of tax revenue translated as density. For the Northside they have 91 cents per square foot of tax revenue created out of the Northside Neighborhood and that's translated as density. For the Weber neighborhood, it's 31 cents per square foot of space. And for Windsor Ridge, it is 24 cents. So if other areas took on a little density, and if the ADU component works well outside the University Impact Zone, with or without parking requirement, with or without landlord or owner -occupied, she sees more possibility there. But just within the University Impact Area they're doing quite well right now. Hensch closed the public hearing. Elliott moved that Title 14 zoning be amended with elimination of the standard that the owner is not required to live on -site and that where accessory apartment is in the zoning code be replaced with the term accessory dwelling unit. Craig asked if the motion will limit the owner occupancy to the University Impact Zone. Elliott replied she is not. Motion seconded by Wade. Elliott appreciates the extra work that the staff has gone to and the people who came to the forum and the people here tonight. She does believe that loosening the current regulations on ADUs will contribute to the strategic goal of attractive affordable housing for all people. Her concern is with a proposed standard to eliminate the requirement for owner occupancy, the majority of attendees at the forum and tonight had concerns about removing the owner -occupied requirement. Removing the requirement places a greater burden on the University Impact Zone and also likely the Longfellow zone, which is not in the University Impact Zone, but are older neighborhoods where there are more rental units in the area. If one of the goals is to stabilize and preserve the character of older neighborhoods, than allowing for ADUs with the owner on - site helps to preserve the character of those neighborhoods. Hensch stated he is a big fan of ADUs because he believes strongly in intergenerational housing and that's why he supports ADUs. Interestingly, in the last issue of Planning magazine that just came out, there was a discussion, as was referenced in the presentation, AARP and the American Planning Association have collaborated to come up with these standards and they issued a report for that. He found it interesting in this article that the main justification they give for these new standards actually validate what the motion is, and to quote it says "we can point out that by creating an accessory dwelling unit ordinance in your town might allow you to build a unit in the backyard of your mother's house for a caregiver if you need care, or can act as an income generating source for you". So in their own justifications they're saying that the reason you should have these ADUs is because you're occupying that place and this is for caregivers for you or intergenerational housing, or for income generation for you. He found it interesting that they specifically in their recommendations say there shouldn't be requirement about the owner Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 18 of 22 on -site, but their justification says that's exactly what it actually should be. There should bean owner on -site and he agrees 100% with that. Quellhorst stated he would generally be in favor of removing the owner occupancy requirement because doing that encourages investment in ADUs, which does a really nice job of balancing these concerns of bringing down the cost of housing while also avoiding excessive density. When they talk about people creating ADUs on their property, one thing that staff noted is these folks are having trouble getting financing because they go to the bank and the bank says they're not going to give a mortgage because if something were to happen to them they wouldn't necessarily or their successor wouldn't be able to continue to rent out this ADU. He thinks that removing owner occupancy requirements is in the best interest not only of developers, but also in the interest of normal people that would want to build ADUs on their property but might not have the funds to do so. Padron is also in favor of removing the requirement and would support the motion with all of these recommendations. Craig is in favor of removing the requirement too but as a compromise could support a position that left that requirement in the University Impact Zone and removed it elsewhere. Hensch understands that the impetus for a lot of this is to decrease the cost of housing and he honestly don't think this will have anything other than a marginal impact, even if they allowed unrestricted ADU growth. That's not the driver of the housing costs in Iowa City. Criag stated she doesn't think growth of ADUs is going to run rampant in any case, in any neighborhood, in the next two years, but it's hard to predict the future. Hensch noted it's a pretty strong statistic that in the last 30 years there has been 52 units, which is 1.7 ADUs per year. He understands there's more restrictions on that but as Mr. Martin stated at $100,000 to $150,000 for an ADU, a very limited number of people that have affordability for that. His fear is that limited number of people are in the investor class, or people who are not going to live in the neighborhood but will spend the money because they know they can rent that out for the next 40 years so they can afford to build that ADU. He is really concerned about neighborhood integrity. Townsend stated her concern is when she thinks of affordable housing she thinks of housing for families that are going to remain in the communities. She thinks the ADU is a good idea for seniors and for people who want to keep their families together but would like to see that uncoupled from calling it affordable housing because it's a whole different entity than just affordable housing. If they take out that owner occupancy piece it just becomes another moneymaker for whoever, they're going to rent out the big unit and rent out the small unit. What's it going to do to the neighborhood. Townsend stated she lives up from the Mayflower and there's lots of big yards in that area but its still a community, it's a nice neighborhood. She can see building ADUs that are not on the land with the owner becoming just rentals and there are a lot of rental homes in that neighborhood, but their owners live across the street. So they've bought Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 19 of 22 units on the other side of the street and they're kept up. But she has also seen properties in the Iowa City area where that's not happening, especially around the University where some of those places are just run-down and they tack them up just enough to get students in and then they're falling apart. Therefore she thinks they need to keep the owner -occupied piece in there. Wade stated the reason he seconded the motion with the owner occupancy requirement is really an incremental approach to it. He has the same concerns he raised last time, it does become an opportunity for a private owner on premises to make that property more affordable as their ownership for creating a rental unit to help supplement the cost of the house. As everyone is aware the cost of housing is expensive right now and anything to help that or level the playing field is good. However, he has the same concerns that requirement is not going to get them any closer to walkability from being close to downtown as far as getting more housing on the market. If this doesn't promote or show results in increased utilization or development of ADUs then he would look to revisit that requirement after a year to see if that needs to be lifted. Padron asked staff if she wanted to rent a property for her family with an ADU for her parents, for example, she couldn't do that because she wouldn't be the owner. Lehmann confirmed she could not do that, if she bought the property with the ADU then it would be okay. Quellhorst stated he is supportive of ADUs and looking at the statistics that staff presented, he thought was pretty compelling in terms of just how few of these properties have been constructed. Therefore, to the extent they favor an incremental approach, eliminating the owner occupancy requirement isn't likely to result in dozens or hundreds of ADUs overnight. He thinks that's a process that would happen fairly slowly. He also thinks that ADUs are still subject to other zoning requirements so they're not just packing places onto tiny lots that are not suitable for them. They still have to meet setback requirements and there's still a variety of provisions in the zoning code that ensure that ADUs are consistent with the character of the community. He strongly supports ADUs and thinks that they can eliminate the owner occupancy requirements and wouldn't see drastic change. And in the very unlikely event that they did start seeing diverse impact the community there's nothing stopping them from coming back and revisiting that regulation and making further recommendations to Council. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3 (Craig, Quellhorst, Padron dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 16, 2023: Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes from August 16, 2023. Quellhorst seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave an updated on a few development projects. First the rezoning across from the fire station on Dodge and Scott with the proposed coffee shop/mixed-use building and townhomes was recently subdivided and approved by Council and the site plan was also recently approved. 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 RIM-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 Throgmorton (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. Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ23-0001) Ordinance No. 23-4917 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage housing affordability by adjusting standards for Accessory Apartments. (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 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; 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 the number and/or type of dwelling units allowed by right in single-family residential zones, including Accessory Dwelling Units; 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 and promotes identifying and supporting infill development 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 provide flexibility to Accessory Dwelling Unit standards to enhance the supply of housing; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the zoning code amendments set forth below and recommended approval by a vote of 4-3 at its meeting on October 4, 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: Ordinance No. 23-4917 Page 2 A. Amend Table 14-2H-3B-2: Accessory Uses in Section 14-2H-3: Form -based Zones and Standards, Use Standards, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Table 14-2H-313-2: Accessory Uses Use Categories T3NE T3NG T3NG- O T4NS T4NS- O T4NM T4NM- O TOMS Specific Standards Accessory PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR Dwelling Units ADUs Ala e4#s' ADUs nnnnccnry apartment attached to the primary building must comply with sub- section 14-4C-2A. ADUs ^ ^cessery apartMeRtS that are detached from the primary building units must comply with the carriage house requirements, see sub -section 14-2H-6C. B. Amend 14-2H-6C: Form -based Zones and Standards, Building Type Standards, Carriage House, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: 1. Description: a. An accessory structure located at the rear of a design site, above the garage, that provides a small residential unit (accessory dwelling unit fit), home office space, or other small commercial or service use, as allowed by the zone. The carriage house is an accessory building type, not a primary building type. 3. Building Size And Massing: c. Standards: (2) Carriage house must comply with the ownership and occupancy standards of sub -section 14-4C-2A (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ^pests). C. Amend 14-4A-3A-4: Residential Use Categories, Household Living Uses, Exceptions, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: c. Single family uses that contain accessory dwelling units aps are not considered a two family use. D. Amend 14-4C-2: Accessory Uses and Buildings, Specific Approval Criteria, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: A. Accessory Dwelling Units ADUs ADUs "n^nccpr„ apartmontc are permitted OR the R6 51 RS 3, RS 12, RRo1-1''�"'1 20, and RNS 20 Ze;es ii buildiRgs aesesseFY tG these same weltRg-type-, provided the following conditions are met: 1. Applicability: The ADU shall be located in a zone that allows household living uses and shall be accessory to a principal use that consists of no more than two (2) dwelling units on a lot. Permit Reg aired: Drier to the establishment pf any aGGeSSGFy apaFtmn t the Ordinance No. 23-4917 Page 3 ehapter 8, "Review And Apnprvval rPrecedurns" Gf this 2. Ownership And C)GGUPaRC-Y: a. The owner of the property on which an ADU '^^eCsor„ anartmen+ is located must occupy at least one of the dwelling units on the premises as the permanent legal resident. b. The ADU a^^eCseFy anartmen+ and the principal dwelling use must be under the same ownership. G. The fetal numberfindividuals that reside in the ao^escnry apartment may not e,�rrZrrarTc�vc�crcccarvry-ta percrrrcnr-rrnxy��vc evoeerd twE) /-, 3. Site Requirements: a. Only one ADU acvcnssnr„ apartmen+ may be established per Single- f�'Y lot. b. In addition to the narking required fnr the nrinnlnal dwelling unit, one off treet i nI&rking spare is required fnr the a^nessnni apartment G. The minimum lot size and area per unit requirements of the underlying base zone must be met, but deeS ref apply te an aGGessery apartmeRt, i.e., no additional lot area is required beyond that which is required for the principal dwelling unit use. 4. Design Requirements: a. an annessery building. — . The ADU annesser„ apartmen+ must be a complete, separate dwelling unit that functions independently from the principal single- family dwelling � ,ni+ use. It must contain its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, in addition to a separate entrance from the exterior. c. When located within a building with an existing the principal use dwe�, the ADU aGGeGS9FY apaFtMGRt must be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of an allowed use within that zone, and any Single family residenGe. new entrances, sheuld-faee-the side eF Feap yaFd of the building, and an„ ardrditinn fnr an ten percent (10%—). exterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must visually match the principal use dwelling Unit. 5. Apartment Size: The accessery apartment must he nlearly si berrdinate in area to , it MUSt gomnhi with the fnlleWiRg standards: a. FeF an aGGeSGeFY apartMeR Gated within a nrinnin � Ili �„R��The floor area of the ADU accesseFy „ni+ may not exceed fi�#*ty percent (530%) of the total floor area of the principal use dwelling, excluding the area of an attached garage, or one thousand six hundred (1,000 5-50) square feet, whichever is less. h an accessoraarment It gnaerd wn an accessory b iilyding the floor area ., . For u y pt ithi , For an , 0 ) of the total f!E)Gr area G G. The accessary apartment May GGnta;^ i G ,m, vre than 9ne bedrnem E. Amend 14-813-1: Administrative Approval Procedures, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Reserved AGGesseFy Apartment Rental Permit PermitA. •- -- . , -- - dwelling unit must obtain a FeRtal peprnit fFGrn the department Of hE)USO-99 2ad inspectilivA., An .. Ordinance No. 23-4917 Page 4 A A - - - .. . r - .. iA. A_ 1 _ 211M_ _ _ F. Amend 14-9A-1: General Definitions, Definitions, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) APARTMENTS: An tempera accessory dwelling unit located within an owner occupied, single-family or duplex use fame or in an accessory building and meeting the requirements of this title. G. Amend 17-5-3: Housing Code, Definitions, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT A( DU): A tempepar dwelling unit that is accessory to an owner -occupied single-family or duplex use -dwelling. H. Amend 17-5-18: Housing Code, Minimum Structure Standards for All Rental Housing, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: L. Bedrooms; Maximum Allowed: Bedrooms cannot exceed thirty five percent (35%) of the finished floor area of a single-family dwelling, er duplex unit, or accessory dwelling unit, not including floor area of a recreation room in the basement. Any existing single family or duplex unit that contained lawful bedroom space that exceeded this percentage cap prior to January 1, 2018 may continue to be used as bedroom space. However, additional bedroom space may not be added unless the unit is brought into full compliance with this standard. This dimensional standard is subject to administrative review. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Ordinance No. 23-4917 Page 5 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. Passed and approved this 21st day of November , 2023. e--- 1 M Attest: t ,q n Approved by ' City Clerk City Attorney' ice (Sara Hektoen—11/02/2023) Ordinance No. 23-491 Page 6 It was moved by _AI t., and seconded by Thomas that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Alter R Bergus X Salih % Harmsen X Taylor X Teague X Thomas First Consideration 11/06/2023 Vote for Passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration ---- Date Published: 11 /30 / 2023 Moved by Taylor, seconded by Salih, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at 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, Harmsen, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Kellie Grace From: Schwalm, Leslie A <leslie-schwalm@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 11:02 AM To: *City Council Subject: ADUs A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear members of the city council, I am writing as a Longtime resident of the Northside to ask that you RETAIN the owner -occupant requirement for ADUS in the University Impact Area. Without that restriction, you will, allow realtors and landlords to transform our neighborhood (with its mix of owner -occupied and rented homes) into an unsustainably densely -populated area. Furthermore, there wilt be great motivation by those who seek profit over neighborhood to purchase and level older homes in order to build multiple dwellings on Lots that once housed far fewer people. Our older housing stock makes our neighborhood more affordable, but also vulnerable to developers who do not have an investment beyond profitability. even now, we see developers both packing in more dwellings whereever possible (Jefferson & Jonhson Streets) and rebuilding lots with homes that are extravagantly priced (Bloomington). By keepingthe owner -occupied restriction, you help maintain the character and density of our neighborhood, and assure the city's future residents of more affordable housing options. Leslie A. Schwalm 819 East Market St. Kellie Grace From: amy.charles <amy.charles@protonmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 9:55 AM To: *City Council Cc, James Throgmorton; Kirk Lehmann Subject: public outreach for ADU amendment ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hey folks -- I just caught up with the last City Council meeting and am glad to see some movement. Now you also have a chance to rectify the public -outreach part of the process, which wasn't done effectively before, and needs to be done now, as this is a major change affecting the entire city. Laura, Pauline, I notice that when you guys really want to find us to tell us about something, you're fully capable of doing it. I had mailings from both of you leading up to the election. Right there in my mailbox, and I imagine that means that just the two of you mailed to all of District A, a third of the city. I expect no less when it comes to the City's ability to inform residents of this proposed amendment removing the owner -occupancy requirement for ADUs across all but the UTA, which has potential to affect people's daily lives across most of the city. I am glad that you have this opportunity and are also intending to adopt John's ideas when it comes to protecting the UTA, because -- assuming there is effective outreach that does reach people, even those who don't hang out watching Council meetings, tracking down department notices, and maintaining friendships with City employees and officials -- at least temporarily, it saves me the trouble of writing to the cognizant program officer for the HUD grant Planning put in on 10t29 to give more context and color for the application as relates to ADUs. I had been quite disturbed by the characterization of public support for the ADU plan in that application: there had been good outreach among housing professionals, advocates, and City staff, but as the Northside and other turnout has shown, almost no outreach to residents whose lives are in line to be affected by the changes. Similarly, I was disturbed by the absence of description of past actions to increase density in IC, and why they have had so little effect on housing affordability. (Unfortunately, because there was no effective outreach for public comment on this proposal, I did not know about it until the week before it went in, by which time Kirk was on vacation till after the expected submission date -- otherwise I'd have directed these comments to Planning then.) Since this amendment is apoarently meant to be fast -tracked. I am hoping to see a serious and rapid effort at outreach cltVwIde to engage residents in discussion of the proposed changes to owner -occupancy when it comes to ADUs. I am aware that from Planning's perspective, ADU policy fails if it requires owner -occupancy, because, as Kirk's pointed out, not enough people are interested in building ADUs otherwise; in other words, you need offsite developers to build and manage the ADUs. And that is precisely the point that people across town should have the opportunity to engage with, even if it turns out to be inconvenient for this initiative. For all you know, people will come out in strong support. But this is a democracy -- responsible representative democracy does not mean, Laura, that we vote for you and then go away, enjoy the vacation from thinking about governance, and simply trust that you'll take care of all our needs -- and you do need to have an open discussion with the public who will be living with this new rule, and engage them well enough to have that discussion. Again, I refer you to both Darian Nagle-Gamm in Transit and Bob Miklo, who have excellent experience in conducting effective City outreach that does actually manage to engage thousands of people on citywide matters. Or I suppose you could ask your own excellent election campaign managers. Finally, I think it is time to drop the word "affordable" from these efforts. Council appears to be agreed that affordability is not the point, at least not now, and indeed is unlikely to occur in any area where student housing can be built preferentially, which is a large part of the city. In the absence of timely, effective outreach on a proposed amendment re owner -occupancy for ADUs, I still intend to make the effort timely to correct for HUD the view of public outreach/support and local rental economics given in Planning's proposal. thanks, amy Kellie Grace From: Mary Murphy <mg9425@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 5A6 PM To: *City Council; joshua.james.moe@gmail.com; mazahirforcouncil@gmail.com Subject: ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) & Housing Code Changes RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Council Members, 1 recently read the Press -Citizen article entitled "Iowa City Council's affordable housing -based code changes" (I've copied and pasted the relevant portion in below), which included John Thomas comment that "We're hearing that, outside the University Impact Zone, we're not hearing any objection to that concept [owner -occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units known as ADUs. Please be advised that I object to eliminating the owner -occupancy requirement for ADUs outside the University Impact Zone and had emailed the council my concerns about ADUs on August 1, 2023, among other housing changes. My family and I live behind an unregulated 12 person Air Bnb and some of my neighbors have had to deal with an excessive number of cars when it is occupied. As our neighborhood and this Air Bnb is close to the downtown and University of Iowa, it is occupied quite a bit, especially on football game weekends. In fact this property is advertised as being close the University, suggesting it should be part of the University Impact Area. Below is what 1 wrote the Council on August 1, 2023. Since the Iowa Code does not permit Iowa City to regulate Airbnbs, Iowa City should not promote increased density that results in Airbnbs and temporary housing uses running amok. For example, the single-family non -owner occupied four bedroom home behind my home is an Airbnb that advertises itself as being available to 10+ individuals (and if one scrolls down on its ad, caps the number at 12). Letting non -owner -occupied investment property owners build accessory dwelling units behind their investment properties they can Airbnb has the potential to dramatically and negatively impact the character of neighborhoods, including in historic and conservation areas where there has been a past effort to maintain their character. The proposed 1,000-foot accessory apartment is the size of a house and under the proposal an investor can put one behind a rental property --owner occupants might be willing to live next door to one rental house, but do they want to live next door to two (e.g., a rental property with an accessory dwelling unit occupied by more renters)? Especially when there are minimal to no setback requirements and little regulation? The Iowa Code provides in Section 414.1 that 'A city shall not adopt or enforce any regulation, restriction, or other ordinance, including a conditional use permit requirement, relating to short-term rental properties within the city. A short-term rental property shall be classified as a residential land use for zoning purposes." It also looks like an investor can rent an accessory dwelling to a one or more individuals at 80% of the medium income level and get an increase in size. is this accurate? The zoning code changes were not overly publicized to Iowa City neighborhoods and these changes would be unwieldly for a lay person to read, so it is likely many people do not realize Iowa City is contemplating removing the owner -occupancy requirement for ADUs and what the implications of doing so would be over time. I request the following' '1) Maintain the the owner -occupancy requirement requirement for ADUs and their primary dwellings; and 2) Consider including the Parkview Terrace Neighborhood in the University Impact Area. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Mary Murphy Press -Citizen City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission nearly agreed on recommendations to the council — except on the owner -occupancy requirement. The commission voted that the owner -occupancy requirement remain in place by a 4-3 tally. Councilors, led by a proposal from Laura Bergus, suggested they agree to pass the amendments — with the owner -occupancy requirement intact — and return to amend the passed changes and remove that requirement after consulting with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Any "substantive" alterations to the code proposed by the council would require the council to confer with the Planning and Zoning Commission and delay the passage of the changes entirely. Bergus and Megan Alter wanted to pass the amendments as soon as possible while eliminating the owner -occupancy requirement outside of the University Impact Area. inside the zone, the requirements would remain, except for non-profit landlords who provide income -restricted affordable housing. "This would continue the process so that we can get this through,"Alter said. "And then we can expand it," Shawn Harmsen added, with nods of approval across the council. The council approved the changes with a note to meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission to tweak the amendments further. "i think that's a really good compromise, based on what we're hearing from the public," John Thomas said. "We're hearing that, outside the University Impact Zone, we're not hearing any objection to that concept. Within the University Impact Zone, we've had serious concerns about [owner -occupancy requirements]. And, 1 think, as i've been trying to emphasize, within the University impact Zone, it's difficult to create deep affordable housing and this would be one way to do that."