Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 07.19.2023PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 19, 2023 Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street Agenda: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda Development Items 4. Case No. REZ23-0004 Location: 614, 622, and 630 Orchard Court An application for a rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres of land from Low Density Single- Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-O) Zone. 5. Consideration of meeting minutes: July 5, 2023 6. Planning and Zoning Information 7. Adjournment If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: August 2 / August 16 / September 6 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ23-0004 Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: July 19, 2023 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: M&W Properties P.O. Box 5152 Coralville, IA 52241 319-430-5991 Ryanwade1000@gmail.com Contact Person: Michael Welch Welch Design and Development PO Box 679 North Liberty, IA Requested Action: Rezoning of 614, 622, and 630 Orchard Court from Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard zone (RFC-O). Purpose: Rezone the area consistent with surrounding properties to align with the adopted land use policy direction of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Location: North of W Benton Street and west of Orchard Street/Court Location Map: Size: 1.63 Acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Residential buildings, Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay 2 (OPD/RS-5) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential Zone RFC-WR, Riverfront Crossings - West Riverfront South: RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential Zone RFC-O, River Front Crossing-Orchard Subdistrict West: RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential Zone East: RFC-WR, Riverfront Crossings - West Riverfront Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use District Plan: Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, Orchard District Neighborhood Open Space District: SW3 Public Meeting Notification: Properties within 500’ of the subject property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. A rezoning sign was posted on the site on July 3, 2023. File Date: June 12, 2023 45 Day Limitation Period: July 27, 2023 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2016, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan (Master Plan) creating the Orchard District, which included properties along Orchard Street and Orchard Court north of Benton Street. The purpose of the District was to encourage residential redevelopment that would serve as a transition between the higher intensity mixed-use area along S. Riverside Drive and the lower intensity single-family residential neighborhood to the west. To implement the land use vision of the Orchard District adopted as part of the Master Plan, the City Council adopted an amendment to the zoning code to create a new Orchard zoning district (RFC-O) with associated standards into the Riverfront Crossings Form-Based Code. The zoning standards were adopted to ensure that buildings are complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. This zoning code amendment also included the addition of the Orchard District to the Regulating Plan. 3 In 2017, the property located at 627 Orchard Court was rezoned to RFC-O (REZ17-00003) to align with the vision of the Master Plan. A new 45-unit, 3-story building was constructed in conformance with the regulations of the Riverfront Crossings Form-Based Code. The project includes five income-restricted, affordable housing units on-site. In 2018, the area within the Orchard District to the south of the subject property was rezoned to RFC-O (REZ18-00019) to align with the vision of the Master Plan. This included 224, 226, 330, 650, and 652 Orchard Court; 711, 725, 727, 741, and 743 Orchard Street; and 204 W. Benton Street and included the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall: i. Dedicate 15’ of right-of-way along the north side of the Benton St. frontage to the City; ii. Dedicate a 30’ wide access easement running in a north-south direction generally along the western 30’ of the vacated Orchard Court right-of-way south across the property locally known as 330 Orchard Ct., to the southern property line of 330 Orchard Ct., in a location approved by the City Engineer; iii. Dedicate a 30’ wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street; iv. Design and obtain approval from the City Forrester of a landscaping plan for the subject property. The landscaping plan shall include, among other plantings, street trees in the Orchard St. right-of-way; and v. Execute an affordable housing agreement to satisfy the affordable housing obligations imposed pursuant to Iowa City Code of Ordinances 14-2G-8 through the provision of on-site owner-occupied dwelling units, on-site rental dwelling units, and/or the payment of a fee in lieu of the remaining dwelling units not provided on- site or as otherwise agreed to between Owner and the City. b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Owner shall: i. Construct a 6’ wide sidewalk along the Benton St. frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer; ii. Construct a 5’ wide sidewalk along the Orchard St. frontage of the subject property; iii. Construct a pedestrian street as shown in the concept plan; and iv. Install all plantings shown on and required by the approved landscaping plan. In 2022, a developer requested to rezone the subject property to RFC-O (REZ22-0015) in order to facilitate a specific development concept presented with the rezoning. This rezoning not only included the subject property, but the land to the south (which was already rezoned RFC-O (REZ18-00019)). Property addresses for this proposed rezoning included 224, 226, 330, 614, 622, 630, 650, and 652 Orchard Court; 711, 725, 727, 741, and 743 Orchard Street; and 204 W. Benton Street. The rezoning failed at City Council by a vote of 4-3 since a supermajority was needed due to the submittal of a valid protest petition from neighbors. The rezoning application being considered now is for the last remaining 1.63 acres of the Orchard District that have yet to be rezoned to RFC-O to align with land use policy direction of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. This rezoning will complete the land use vision adopted in the Master Plan. A good neighbor meeting was not held for this rezoning application. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property was zoned Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) in 1981 (Ordinance No. 81-3038). 4 The RS-5 zone is primarily intended for the development of single-family residential although some other uses such as duplexes and daycares are allowed in the zone. This conventional zoning district was created prior to the establishment of the Master Plan and is not consistent with the current vision for the area. The Planned Development Overlay allows flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may be inappropriate and where modification to requirements of the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, as amended, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood. Proposed Zoning: The Riverfront Crossing - Orchard zone (RFC-O) was created to implement the land use vision adopted with the Orchard District in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The standards incorporated into the zone were designed to ensure that redevelopment would result in a transition between the higher intensity development along S. Riverside Dr. and the single-family neighborhood to the west. The RFC-O zone restricts building height to three stories. Furthermore, unlike the other RFC zones, the Orchard zone has no bonus height provisions and does not allow building heights to exceed the base maximum of three stories. The RFC-O also includes standards related to stepbacks intended to help with the perceived scale of the building. Multi-family buildings that are two stories or greater are required to have a 10’ stepback. Additionally, development must be setback at least 30’ from adjacent single-family residential intended to mitigate the visual impact of larger buildings. The RFC-O zone also requires the provision of affordable housing, as defined in the Zoning Code. This requirement mandates the provision of affordable housing units in the amount of 10 or more percent of all dwelling units in the development. This requirement may also be satisfied through a fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund. Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezoning: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan includes several objectives related to the development of the Orchard District: 1. Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single- family neighborhood 2. Create a transition from larger- scale mixed-use and commercial building along Riverside Drive to single family 3. Improve design quality of development 4. Create better and more visible street access. 5 The plan further notes that development should be restricted to building typologies, such as cottage clusters, townhomes, live -work townhomes and multi-dwelling buildings that are designed and scaled in a manner that is complementary to the rhythm and scale of the single- family neighborhood located to the south and west, where the goal is to preserve the existing housing stock. The figure above shows an excerpt from the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan that lists the plan objectives, desired development character for the district, and the types of development envisioned for this area. The proposed rezoning to RFC-O would therefore allow redevelopment that creates a transition from larger-scale mixed use and commercial buildings along S. Riverside Drive to single family housing to the west of the district. Development would be required to go through the staff Design Review Committee and comply with the Riverfront Crossings Form-Based Code, which incorporates standards that implement the vision and objectives of the adopted policy direction for this area. Rezoning the property to RFC-O aligns with the Master Plan and facilitates the type of redevelopment envisioned for this area. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The Orchard form-based zoning provisions are specifically intended to ensure neighborhood compatibility. The form- based provisions were deliberately and expressly created for this area to provide a transition between the more intensive development allowed in the Riverfront Crossings – West Riverfront (RFC-WR) zone to the east and the existing Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to the west. To ensure neighborhood compatibility the zone restricts height to three stories and requires an increased setback of 30’ from adjacent residential uses. In addition, the Regulating Plan (see figure at right) includes a north/south pedestrian street that ensures more than one building, which helps to break up the mass and scale of any redevelopment. This pedestrian street is already a required feature for the land rezoned to RFC-O in 2018. Transportation and Access: During the 2018 rezoning of adjacent property, utilizing the same street network, the applicant submitted a traffic study to evaluate how the 2018 proposed development might impact traffic in the area. The study examined the two intersections immediately adjacent to the project: Benton Street and Orchard Street and Benton Street and S. Riverside Drive. The analysis indicated that while the S. Riverside Drive and Benton Street intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) with the estimated increased vehicle trips, southbound vehicles queueing on Orchard Street at Benton Street would not. The operating LOS during the AM peak hour and a PM peak hour would be E and F, respectively. The parcel rezoned in the 2018 rezoning was anticipated to create an additional 20-30 peak 6 hour trips during AM and PM peak hours (approximately 7:30 A.M. to 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. to 5:30 P.M.). The proposed rezoning being considered now would likely result in substantially more traffic generation than previously contemplated, resulting in an unacceptable LOS for the Benton and Orchard Street intersection. Engineering and transportation planning staff find that signalization is the best way to maintain an acceptable level-of-service and safety at the intersection. Staff recommends as a condition of the rezoning that the owner be required to signalize the intersection of Benton Street and Orchard Street and construct any necessary intersection improvements, such as turn lanes. Staff is also recommending a condition that Orchard Street north of Benton Street be reconstructed in a manner approved by the City Engineer because it is likely that any redevelopment will substantially impact the street. The 2018 rezoning already requires the installation of a 6-foot wide sidewalk along W. Benton Street and a 5-foot sidewalk along Orchard Court. The City has adopted a Complete Streets policy to encourage a connected sidewalk network. In furtherance of that policy, Staff is recommending a condition that the 5-foot sidewalk along Orchard Court be extended north along the subject property frontage. 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 recommends approval of REZ23-0004, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.63 acres of property located at 614, 622, and 630 Orchard Court from Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard zone (RFC-O), subject to the following conditions: 1.Prior to site plan approval for any development on the property, Owner shall: a.Enter into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of public improvements, which may allow for the provision of an improvements escrow, prior to issuance of a building permit. In all cases, however, the public improvements shall be constructed prior to the issues of any certificate of occupancy. The public improvements shall include, but not be limited to: i. 5’ wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. ii. Traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. iii. Reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Location Map 2.Zoning Map 3.Rezoning Exhibit Approved by: _________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services PROJECT AREA 1.63 Ac 71,196 SF S88°45'11"W 309.37 N0 0 ° 4 1 ' 2 2 " W 2 5 4 . 8 2 C4 S0 7 ° 4 0 ' 2 8 " W 1 1 4 . 7 3 C1 C 2 C 3 CURVE SEGMENT TABLE CURVE NUMBER C1 C2 C3 C4 DELTA 159°09'14" 041°15'37" 034°08'33" 008°24'25" RADIUS 50.00' 15.00' 125.00' 2100.00' ARC LENGTH 138.88' 10.80' 74.49' 308.13' CHORD LENGTH 98.34' 10.57' 73.39' 307.86' CHORD BEARING S18°04'47"W S40°56'35"E S37°18'05"E N85°15'08"E SHEET NUMBER: PAGE 1 PROJECT NO: 1028.1 ISSUED DATE: 06/13/2023 PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH REVISION: --- IOWA CITY PROPERTIES ORCHARD COURT PROJECT NAME: M&W PROPERTIES, LLC CLIENT: REZONING EXHIBIT SHEET NAME: ENGINEER: REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE --CITY SUBMITTAL #1 06-13-23 =1" WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 0 25 50 10075 50' O R C H A R D S T R E E T APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER M&W PROPERTIES, LLC 2312 DEMPSTER DRIVE CORALVILLE, IA 52241 APPLICANT M&W PROPERTIES, LLC 2312 DEMPSTER DRIVE CORALVILLE, IA 52241 CIVIL ENGINEER WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE PO BOX 679 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 (319) 214-7501 REZONING EXHIBIT ORCHARD COURT IOWA CITY, IOWA LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING:RS-5 PROPOSED ZONING RFC-O POINT OF BEGINNING ALL OF LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 OF ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, ALL IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 S08°00'47"W, 114.47 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE 138.88 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE ON A 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY (CHORD BEARING S18°04'47"W, 96.34 FEET) TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE 10.80 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE ON A 15.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARING S40°56'35"E, 10.57 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE 74.49 FEET ON A 125.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARING S37°18'05"E, 73.39 FEET) TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE S88°45'11"W, 309.37 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE N00°41'22"W, 254.82 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE 318.13 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION ON A 2,100.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING N85°15'08"E, 307.86 FEET) TO THE POINT OF BEGINING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 1.63 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. G I B L I N D R I V E ORCHARD COURT W. BENTON STREET OL I V E S T R E E T S. RIVERSIDE COURT IOWA INTERSTATE R A I L R O A D MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 5, 2023 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Maria Padron, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Hensch STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Jessica Andino, Jim Throgmorton, James Carey, Debbie Ackerman, Kathryn Davis, Dave Moore CALL TO ORDER: Craig called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ23-0001: Presentation and discussion on proposed zoning code amendments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Lehmann began the staff report with background on the need for this amendment noting as the planning commission they often see that Iowa City's housing market is uniquely expensive and as a result the City has taken increasing steps to try and facilitate the creation of affordable housing, especially for low income households. When it comes to creating affordable housing opportunities sometimes it comes in the form of trying to create housing types that might be more affordable, sometimes it's a matter of a decrease in lot sizes, or other things to try and increase density that can provide more affordable housing options. Lehmann acknowledged one of the first questions that they often get when bringing up this topic is just what affordable housing is and who are low-income folks. Iowa City uses the standards that the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses, and they generally hold that affordable housing is a household paying less than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. Lehmann explained that includes not just rent and mortgage payments, but also includes any taxes or fees that are part of that as well as utilities. Low-income households are defined as those who make less than 80% of the area median income. To put that into context, for a family of four in Iowa City that would be $92,000. In Iowa City there is a relatively high household income that qualifies and so depending on programs different standards may be used as well. Additionally, they often distinguish between owner occupied and renter occupied households, because renter occupied households tend to have somewhat lower incomes. Therefore, renter occupied might be at less than 60% of the area median income, or just shy of $70,000 for a family of four in Iowa City. Lehmann stated while those are the definitions that they use, often housing that's available for lower income households may not be affordable for them and sometimes housing that is affordable for those families might not meet their needs. For example, there might be a family of five living in a one-bedroom apartment because that's all they can afford. He also noted there are related complex issues such as incomes, employment opportunities, education and a number of other factors, including the cost of housing. What they're focusing on for this amendment is Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 2 of 17 primarily on the supply of housing because that's primarily what the zoning code has the most impact on. However, they do also try to encourage income restricted affordable housing as part of this amendment as well. Lehmann next reviewed some factors affecting housing affordability in Iowa City and the fact that Iowa City is a desirable place to live. It's been continually growing due to the high quality of life here but also due to strong job opportunities with the University of Iowa and with the University of Iowa Health Care and Clinics which provide a strong economic base for the area. Additionally, the growth by students at the University has expanded and while things like that might change in the future, they anticipate continued growth due to those desirable characteristics of living in Iowa City. Being a desirable location does create challenges like housing affordability when the supply of housing doesn't quite meet the demand. Staff presented that supply/demand analysis to this Commission a few months ago and that the supply of housing that's been added to the market recently still doesn’t quite meet up with the anticipated demand for Iowa City over the next 10 years. The zoning code can also influence housing choice and supply because the zoning code is the way that the City implements its Comprehensive Plan and District Plans which describes what uses go where, how land can be used and how land can be developed. The Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code are living documents and are updated to make sure that they comply with current plans and policies and policy decisions. The City has been engaged in the public in earnest, especially since 2016, when they adopted the first Affordable Housing Action Plan and part of that did include some regulatory changes that are being rolled into this amendment. Also in 2019 the City adopted the Fair Housing Choice Study which did find the lack of affordable rental housing was a significant fair housing issue within the City. Then in 2022 the City updated the Affordable Housing Action Plan to include additional regulatory changes which some of are again included in this amendment. Finally, City Council has just adopted the Strategic Plan for the next five years which also supports the implementation of this amendment. The goal tonight is an introduction to the topic because it's such a broad topic staff wanted to present an idea of the code amendments and provide general descriptions. Staff will take Commission feedback over the next month or so and then finalize the analysis and the text of the zoning code amendment and bring that back to the Commission for a decision in August. Lehmann noted the amendment has five sub-parts to it, a lot of which are related with perhaps some overlap, but all are related to try and increase affordable housing choices, increase the supply of housing and generally increase housing affordability. This includes things like increasing flexibility for a range of housing types to improve housing choice, to modify some design standards to reduce the cost of construction, with a goal of not substantially impacting the goals of the multifamily site development standards which is to create safe, attractive and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. They're looking at providing additional flexibility and enhancing the supply of housing by modifying some dimensional standards and by looking at regulatory barriers to accessory apartments. They're also looking at creating a set of incentives for income restricted affordable housing so there's incentives in the form of density bonuses and parking reductions, similar to what they've seen with the solar amendment recently adopted. Finally, a related goal is to further fair housing choice within Iowa City and including some recommendations from the 2019 Fair Housing Study. Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 3 of 17 The first sub-part is looking at increasing flexibility for a range of housing types. Lehmann explained this is partially in response to some of the recent efforts with form-based zones which try to encourage a diversity of housing types within each neighborhood. This also creates life cycle housing, where one can grow up in a neighborhood and then live in that neighborhood as an adult and retire in that same neighborhood. They are also looking at trying to encourage housing types that might be more financially accessible to low-income households with the goal to produce more affordable housing and increase the housing supply, which can help bring down the cost of housing overall. The first standard proposed is to allow duplex and attached single family (zero-lot line) uses throughout single family residential zones. Currently, in the lowest density, single family residential zones, RS-5 and RS-8, duplexes and attached single family uses are only allowed on corner lots but this amendment would allow those uses throughout the RS-5 and RS-8 zones and provide additional flexibility to include these housing types in more neighborhoods. Allowing duplex and attached single family housing types in RS-5 and RS-8 would encourage diversity of housing types within each neighborhood. Second is to allow townhome style multifamily provisionally in an RS-12 zone. The RS-12 zone is the high-density single family residential zone and currently does allow up to six attached single- family townhomes, but it does not allow townhome style multifamily. Again, single-family is where they're on independent lots, but have multiples in a row. This proposal is to allow up to six side by side townhome style multifamily uses on one lot in an RS-12 zone, again with the goal of providing flexibility in the types of housing. Third is to allow ground floor multifamily uses in most commercial zones by special exception but then also to provisionally allow multifamily uses in the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2). Currently multifamily uses are only allowed on the ground floor in very specific examples in the Central Business District zones, thy require a special exemption and have to meet some standards reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Multifamily uses in the Community Commercial Zone on the second story is only allowed by special exception, even where it might look like a standard town square area. This amendment is proposing to provisionally allow multifamily in the CC-2 zone and to also provide a path for multifamily on the ground floor uses by special exception for multifamily. The rationale is it simplifies approvals for vertically mixed-use buildings with commercial on the ground floor and residential above because that's something typically encouraged in most commercial zones but there are additional barriers in the current processes for CC-2 zones. This would be simplifying that to match other commercial zones and also providing an opportunity for horizontally mixed-use developments with a multifamily building and a commercial building on one lot that would not be otherwise allowed under the current zones. Craig asked about the development that's going in across from the fire station off Dodge Street, that includes a commercial building with residential above it. Lehmann confirmed they received a special exception for that development. This amendment would then allow those to be allowed administratively rather than have to go through a special exception. Additionally, where there's ground floor commercial they want to make sure there are some standards to ensure that it's a good fit as not all commercial areas are going to be a good fit for multifamily uses. In those cases a special exception with approval criteria would be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment with specific approval criteria to make sure that they're not harming the character of a commercial area. Again, they are trying to provide additional flexibility. Craig noted she has read about cities who are trying to reimagine areas because they have a lot of vacant office space now because so many people are working from home. If they don't need Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 4 of 17 all those offices can they take a floor and turn it into apartments. Would that have been allowed before and would it be allowed under one of these changes. Lehmann said if it was above the ground floor it would potentially be allowed if it met the right standards. They would need independent entrances and a number of other things so there are other barriers but the goal is to simplify the process for some. Lehmann stated if thinking of a place like the Sycamore Mall if they wanted to do multifamily would they need a special exception. Currently, this might allow multifamily above ground level, for example, or with the proposed amendment by special exception they could maybe put a multifamily building in part of the parking lot with the commercial use being the rest of this space. Or if Kirkwood or Pepperwood Plaza wanted to put in multifamily, they'd currently have to rezone and some other things, it depends on how they structure it. Finally, Lehmann stated they are looking at regulating assisted group living uses consistently with multifamily uses in RM-12, or low-density multifamily zones but also in commercial zones. Compared to multifamily uses, assisted group living is like nursing homes or homes where folks live not independently and have assistance in their life chores, it's a group living use and does require additional approvals and is generally allowed in fewer zones than multifamily uses. The goal of the proposed amendment would be to treat those more similarly to multifamily uses in where and how it is allowed. That would include things like allowing it in the same zones as multifamily zones and allowing it provisionally in the RM-12 zone instead of requiring special exception. Additionally, the amendment would stop allowing it in the intensive commercial zone, which is a zone that doesn't allow residential uses because they generally aren't compatible and not allowing assisted group living in that is part of the rationale. Another rationale is providing a greater variety of living arrangements without really impacting the character of zones. Townsend asked how they figure out what low income is because a medium income of $90,000 is not low income, a family of four that considers themself low income are nowhere near $90,000. Even 30% of that is still way out of anything being affordable. She asked if there is any way that can be revisited to make it more affordable for people that need it. Lehmann stated in terms of this first set of amendments they are not really considering that, that is more to encourage affordable housing specifically, that's income restricted, and rent and or sales price restricted. Townsend stated in her opinion they need to talk about what is low income before they can talk about anything being affordable for low income. Padron had the same comment and wanted to make a note that there's a difference between median income and mean income and that's where they all get confused. The median income is right in the middle so if there is one person in the city making $10 million a year as a salary, then that person would bring up the whole median income of the whole city, and the average is more reflective of the economy. Lehmann explained the median is the one where it's the middle value, so if there are outliers at the top they don't affect the average or the mean. He noted HUD calculates it based on family income. Padron noted when she Googles it states it's like $30,000 or sometimes $48,000, per household as low-income, so how did they come up with $92,000. Lehmann stated HUD calculates it based on the surveys that they put out and they get surveys of the median family income and use it to extrapolate for different sizes of households. They have a very detailed methodology based on sampling within a given area. Padron doesn’t believe it is reflective of the City's economy. Russett acknowledged they heard a lot of the same concerns when they met with the neighborhood services staff who deal with the financial side of the affordable housing problem. However, for the amendments that are being proposed tonight Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 5 of 17 they are really trying to think about what's in their purview as planners, what can they do in terms of land use and zoning that can impact housing in the community. The amendments they are proposing aren't going to be for income restricted units where someone has to qualify, they are more thinking about ways to diversify the housing supply and increase the housing supply by changing the zoning regulations. Those are changes within their purview. Elliott stated that her understanding is that if an owner or household of four makes 80% or less of $92,000 they qualify for low-income housing. Lehmann confirmed that was correct for owner occupied. Russett noted for most of the things that they're discussing tonight that's not going to factor into this. That will be a factor when they're talking about income restricted units such as a low-income housing tax credit project, or a Habitat project where there's income qualifiers, and then one could get a bonus or parking reduction for the project, or some type of benefit, or affordable housing incentive. However, most of the housing that gets built in the community is not income restricted and not subject to those rules. There are other things that affect affordability and one of those is housing supply so staff is trying to identify ways in the zoning code that they could increase supply and diversity to help with affordability in some way. Craig asked if most of these things, if not all of them, are allowed under the form-based code. Lehmann replied most are but he is not sure about the assisted group living because that's not a missing housing type use. However, allowing duplexes and attached single family throughout a neighborhood is in the form-based code and in fact is required within blocks. Regarding the townhome style multifamily, the form-based code doesn't distinguish between the attached single family versus multifamily, it just looks at building types. Overall, with these amendments this is the direction they're trying to move with this. Craig stated realistically speaking it's unlikely the townhome style multifamily is going to happen with either a single lot or multiple lots in an already developed neighborhood because it takes so much land and they’d have to tear down a lot of houses to create that. Russett noted that amendment is only for one zone, the RS-12 zone so it wouldn’t apply in most of the residential areas. Craig stated she is personally in favor of more duplexes in Iowa City and thinks it's affordable way to get housing built. Elliott asked if there is any concern that single family homes will be torn down to make more money where one can rent to two people instead of one. Lehmann acknowledged that's a possibility and it's something that they’ve seen even in existing zones where occasionally a home gets torn down and duplexes are built on a corner lot. Again, the positive is this would expand the range of houses available. He noted it’s also important to note a barrier to that is private covenants, and lots of parts of town have covenants that state that area can only be a single-family area so in those cases the private covenants would still prevent houses from being torn down and being rebuilt as a duplex. Russett added especially in the neighborhoods close to downtown there are a lot of historic and conservation districts which would limit or not allow the tear downs and rebuilds into duplexes. Wade asked if building duplexes anywhere in a block, not just on corners, does that going to trigger any different design standards or setbacks, etc. Lehmann confirmed they would be looking at changing the design standards to facilitate midblock duplexes and looking at some way to still try to maintain an appearance that's compatible with surrounding homes. That may be limiting the number of garages on a street frontage or setting back garage frontages or limiting Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 6 of 17 the number of entrances or how those entrances are constructed. There are a number of standards that they are considering trying and make sure that it's still compatible, but it will require different design standards. Wade asked regarding the multifamily townhomes on a single lot, what does that ownership model look like. Lehmann replied it would be like any condo situation with some sort of condo regime that maintains the lot and the exterior and then different individuals own different individual units. Wade stated regarding the group living outside of a CI-1 zone, using Systems Unlimited on Scott as an example, typically that'd be a CI-1 zone but future state that would not fit that and would have to go through a rezoning. Lehmann stated his understanding of that property is that it's not assisted group living because folks aren't living there, it's classified as a special education use or something like that, so that wouldn't be affected by this. Wade wasn't aware of that, but just using it as an example if it was a permanent resident site, in a future state that would not be allowed correct. Lehmann stated if it's an existing use that's allowed under the zoning code, it could continue as a non-conforming use. If it isn't allowed in the zoning code, it wouldn't be allowed, and would just be a violation of the zoning code. If there is a nursing home that's in a CI-1 zone that could continue under its current use. Wade noted there's a cost factor, so what was the reason for removing it. Lehmann explained that it's mostly because in the past they’ve determined that assisted group, or group household living uses aren't appropriate within an intensive commercial zone and it raises some fair housing concerns. Lehmann moved onto the second set of criteria related to modifying design standards. These are things implemented in the code to ensure that they create safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, and that goal is still first and foremost when it comes to these standards. What they have realized however is balancing the cost of compliance with some of these standards, with the outcomes that don't really elevate a design necessarily but do require additional costs that has impacted the approval of the multifamily uses. Additionally, it limits flexibility in terms of the design that a house might have. Therefore, the first standard they are looking at changing is modifying some multifamily site development standards such as currently the City requires a two foot base of masonry, stucco or dress concrete, if there is a wood building or a building that's not predominantly built of stone or stucco. It is also required that where wall material changes from the front to the side of a building and that it wrap three feet around the side of the building. Staff has heard that these requirements can be challenging and require additional costs so they are looking at removing these two standards to increase flexibility and try to reduce some costs associated with multifamily site development standards while still accomplishing a high quality design that’s attractive. The second standard is tied to allowing attached single family and duplex uses in midblock locations. Because these housing types are only allowed on corner lots currently, they are looking at creating different standards to allow midblock locations. They are currently considering things such as limits on the number of garages that face certain streets, or to set back the garages a certain amount from the front of the building so that they don't dominate the streetscape, trying to ensure that those entrances are compatible and provide an attractive entrance. Finally, they want to simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome style multifamily. Lehmann stated this is a very specific standard and only applies in a handful of Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 7 of 17 contexts. Currently if there is a townhome style multifamily use, there can’t be parking for the first 15 feet of building depth, which makes a lot of sense for the front of the building to make sure that the front of the unit is living space and that it provides an attractive and engaging street frontage. What they're proposing is that for townhome style multifamily is that the building official could waive the additional 15 feet of building area without a minor modification for the corner lot end unit, this makes it look more similar to the attach single family homes and to streamline requirements. Lehmann then showed some examples of what it would look like again noting that this amendment would be allowing that administratively without public notification or an administrative hearing, which are required currently, to make the costs more reasonable and more affordable. Builders always say anything the City can do to make the process move faster helps in keeping costs down. He assured that there are still boundaries and staff still want to ensure that they have appropriate designs and appropriate review time. Elliott asked why the durable base was part of the code. Lehmann believes it was included because it was something people find attractive. They were initially designed for the Central Planning District where they have a foundation lifted off the ground, that might count as a durable base, so having a patterning on it was for design purposes. He noted the building code also has standards about how far siding has to be off the ground to ensure that it's not going to be damaged by mold, or termites and so it was his understanding the multifamily side development standards were adopted as a package. Craig had a question about duplexes and that they are not just side by side, but could also be vertical, correct. Lehmann confirmed that is correct. Craig noted there are many older homes in Iowa City that had been turned into multi-unit rentals and asked when multi-units are not considered duplexes and Russett explained if it's two units, it would be considered a duplex. If it's one unit with multiple bedrooms, it's still single family and if it’s converted to multiple units of three or more, then it would be multifamily. Lehmann noted there are examples in the Peninsula where they have some top/bottom duplexes and also the form-based zones also allow top/bottom duplexes. A duplex is just two principal dwelling units that can be top/bottom or side by side. The rental code does have additional standards such as requiring permanent separation between units but there could be a situation where one walks into a vestibule of a house and then there are two doors leading into two separate units, that is a duplex because they are fire separated and independent of each other. Lehmann moved onto amendment three which is looking at providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing. He noted a lot of the things that they're proposing are in the lower density single family zones and they're focusing on those zones because those tend to be the default zones within the City, that's a density that people like to live at. Lower densities do have some impacts on affordability within the City, especially at the lower impact zones at the edge of the City where there are segregated single family uses. Having all single family is at odds with the City's sustainability and equity goals. However, in some cases there is also RS-5 that was retro actively applied to historic areas and a number of non-conforming single-family lots within the center of the City that don't comply with the zone that it is classified as. He explained in number of cases it does limit flexibility and they see a lot of planned development overlays that are required to create neighborhoods like near downtown, which are desirable neighborhoods to live in. Staff is looking at ways to try and expand the supply of housing both in new areas and existing areas and at the same time looking at things like accessory apartments, bedroom caps, and things that limit the types and the number of family arrangements that can Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 8 of 17 live within a single dwelling unit therefore reducing the barriers to some of those different types of housing arrangements. First is to look at dimensional standards. Again, they're trying to align these with existing lots and trying to align them somewhat better with the new form-based zones. In terms of the RS-5 single family detached and other lots, the current standards are an 8000 square foot minimum lot size with a 60-foot lot width. If there is rear access it’s reduced to 6000 square feet with a 50-foot lot width. The proposed standard would be to reduce the front access for RS-5 single family detached to a 6000 square foot lot and 50-foot lot width and reduce the rear access density bonus to 5000 square feet with a 45-foot lot width. This proposal aligns more closely with some of the non-conforming historic lots in the downtown area. Lehmann stated even with this amendment there are still some lots that be non-conforming and have narrower lots, such as the classic bungalow homes, but this would get the vast majority of non- conforming single-family lots to conform. Duplexes in the RS-5 are currently 12,000 square foot lots with 80-foot lot width and the proposal is to change that to 10,000 square foot lots with a 70-foot lot width. For the RS-8 zones it's currently a 8700 square foot lot with a 70-foot lot width for duplexes and they propose reducing that to 8000 square foot with a 60-foot lot width. For attached single-family they propose a 4000 square foot lot with a 30-foot lot width, slightly reduced from 4350 square feet and 35-foot lot width. Lehmann explained again that at the end of the day they are trying to get these somewhat closer to what is in form-based zones, understanding it does not have it completely match. Overall these changes allow for slightly more units per acre and neighborhood stabilization. In the RNS-12 zone the lot sizes would stay the same but developers would be allowed to access a density bonus and the 55-foot lot width would be reduced to 45-foot. This is similar to other RS-12 and RS-8 zones and again allows some lots that are currently non- conforming to become conforming and to create a greater supply of lots and more flexibility in the arrangement of new subdivisions. Back to the RS-5 lots, Lehmann noted another proposal is to allow additional bedrooms for attached single family duplex and multifamily uses outside of the University impact area. Currently there are caps on the number of bedrooms allowed for multifamily uses throughout the City which are three bedrooms for multifamily use and four bedrooms for duplexes and attached single-family uses. The proposal is increase those outside of the University impact area by one each so allowing four bedrooms for multifamily and five for duplex or single-family attached. This change was created due to concerns with a proliferation of large multifamily residential units downtown where they became essentially rooming houses for students but classified as apartments. Over time the City has added a number of different requirements through the zoning code and rental code noting only a certain percentage of the unit can be bedrooms and other standards related to the minimum size of bedrooms. Again this is just for units outside of the University impact area to try and accommodate a wider variety of housing types because one of the complaints staff gets, especially with townhouse style multifamily, is they are only three bedrooms but a lot of people want four bedroom. Lehmann noted single family detached uses don't have bedroom caps, so currently those large households have to live in single family and that is not always cost effective. Finally, this proposal is looking at trying to encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and to reduce the barriers to construction for those accessory apartments. Currently, accessory apartments are only allowed in owner-occupied detached single-family homes in certain zones and there are additional standards that can create barriers to allowing those (such as the number of people that can occupy it, number of bedrooms, barriers if it's in a detached Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 9 of 17 accessory building, then it can only be 50% of the floor area). Staff is proposing to try and more widely allow these uses and reduce those barriers, based on recommendations by the Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Team (their memo was provided within the agenda packet). In their memo they asked that all communities in Johnson County take some of these amendments to mind and try to incorporate them into their code with the goal really to provide these accessory apartments as more affordable housing types and to reduce the barriers to them. Specifically, staff is proposing to change to allow them on any lot that allows a household living use and does not contain more than two dwelling units as a principal use. So that would be single family lots and duplex lots. It would also remove barriers such as requirements for owner occupancy, the requirement for an additional parking space and eliminate the requirement that it has to be within an existing building. The proposal would eliminate the requirement that there only be one bedroom allowed and that they not exceed 50% of the accessory buildings floor area and would also increase the allowable size to 1000 square feet. However, they would keep caps on the size of the unit based on the size of the principal use on the site to make sure that it does remain an accessory use and not become an independent principal use. They would cap the size of an accessory apartment that's in its own building to 50% of the principal use or if it's in the building with the principal use, it'd be 30%. Craig had a question about reducing the size of lots but then also giving people permission to build another building, or accessory unit, on that lot. Lehmann stated they would still be required to comply with all of the dimensional standards and that would include maximum lot coverage, setbacks, building heights, etc. So while they are allowing accessory uses, in addition to reduced lot sizes for principal uses, they would need to comply with standards that any principal use would have to comply with. Craig asked if an accessory apartment can be two stories. Lehmann confirmed it could but would be limited to if there was a two-story house on the lot. Padron noted all these changes seem to be favoring the developers but what will happen if these are all adopted, and the prices of housing don't really go down. Lehmann acknowledge there is not an assurance and that's a possibility but at the end of the day these changes do rely on additional housing supply to try and align it with demand, and while it may not be decreasing housing prices, they will hopefully see housing prices stabilize rather than increasing as dramatically as they have in recent years. Townsend stated it's all about density and more housing options. Lehmann added also if they reduce lot sizes and have less square footage, presumably that decreases the price of the lot itself. Townsend just doesn’t want to encourage developers to dare tear down what is existing low-income housing and build multi-unit things that cost more. Padron asked how they can somehow protect low-income housing that is already built. Townsend stated when they had the conversation about the development on Riverside Drive they expressed a lot of similar concerns and one reason that this group did not approve that rezoning is that it would mean tearing down number of units that would be considered affordable rent. Lehmann agreed and acknowledged that one of the things they focused on with a lot of these amendments are tied to duplex or attached single family areas and maybe some of the smaller Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 10 of 17 missing middle housing types such as the townhome style with the hope that they won’t see as much demolition of more affordable units because units that could accommodate additional space aren't really included in this. For example, they are likely not going to demolish an affordable housing apartment complex to put in duplexes. Townsend noted regarding the accessory units, they could in essence take up the yard space. Lehmann stated the City does have open space standards for a minimum amount of open space within the rear yard so someone couldn't just have a house with an accessory apartment and no yard, they'd have to provide a yard in compliance with standards. Russett added additionally, any new development would have to abide by the standards to protect sensitive areas, slopes, woodlands and habitat areas as well as areas protected by conservation easements. Craig noted Des Moines and Cedar Rapids have recently adopted similar amendments and was wondering if Iowa City has any kind of feedback on what the result has been in in those areas. Russett suspects not because those ordinances for Des Moines and Cedar Rapids are very new and Iowa City has actually allowed accessory apartments for a much longer period of time than those two jurisdictions. Craig asked about the owner-occupied part and currently if the main dwelling on the lot is owner- occupied then anyone be in the accessory dwelling unit, but now also if the main dwelling is a rental they could still build an accessory dwelling unit and put someone entirely unrelated to the rental customer in the accessory dwelling unit. Lehmann confirmed that is correct. Russett explained currently the code requires one of the owners of the property to live on site, either in the accessory apartment or the main home. What staff is proposing now is to get rid of that requirement so both units could be rented and the owner wouldn't have to live on site. Lehmann stated the rationale is people that might otherwise build an accessory dwelling unit just won't do it because they may sell their house in the future and would need a buyer who wants to live there and also rent it out in the future. Again it's really a matter of trying to encourage the construction and remove those barriers to construction for an accessory dwelling unit. Wade asked about design standards for an accessory dwelling unit. Lehmann noted the way that they are proposing to do it is that if the accessory dwelling unit is in an existing building, then it be designed to match that existing building. However, if it is independent, a small accessory dwelling unit in the back of the yard, not part of that building, it wouldn't be required to match it. Wade noted accessory dwelling unit use has been in the code for a while so has there been any feedback on what prohibited those from really being leveraged. On the West Coast accessory dwelling units are very common however here they haven’t been adopted as much. Lehmann replied the feedback he has heard when working with the accessory dwelling unit code is that it can be challenging to get an accessory dwelling unit that meets the current standards of the accessory dwelling unit only being 50% of an accessory building, and has to be above a garage and the parking requirement barrier. This proposal removes those barriers and hopefully will help seen an increase in accessory dwelling units. Wade asked if there is a concern about the common use of an accessory dwelling unit to be used as Airbnb or short-term rental. The push towards making sure that accessory dwelling unit was related to the owner-occupied unit was so it would not turn it into a party house or otherwise. Does the City have regulations on Airbnb uses. Lehmann said the City does, but the State preempted most of the ability to regulate and the City can't say that they can't use it for a short- Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 11 of 17 term rental. The City does require rental permits to check life and safety things. Wade asked regarding the maximum bedrooms in rentals, does a bedroom over 225 square foot count towards two bedrooms of the four-bedroom max. Lehmann confirmed it does. A single bedroom is 15’ by 15’ by default and that was passed along with a suite of changes to the code when the City lost the ability to regulate by household size. Wade noted with increasing the density in the RS-8, how will that affect the green space required, is there a new development green space requirement for a centrally located park, like in the Peninsula. Lehmann stated with new developments there is an open space requirement and it's calculated based on the allowable density of the zone, based on the household size at the given time, and then based on demand for park space which they calculate as three acres per 1000 residents. Sometimes green space is substituted with fee in lieu payment which Parks uses to provide new parkland and sometimes it's provided as a dedication of land within a development. Lehmann moved onto the fourth amendment and stated this one is specifically tied to regulatory incentives for affordable housing. The goal for the other ones was to increase housing diversity, and to try and provide a greater supply of housing to bring down affordability. This amendment is specifically targeted to income restricted affordable units for low-income households, so it does have rent limits, sales limits, and income restrictions. The rationale for this amendment is largely that a lot of these are allowed in form-based zones and Riverfront Crossings and want to encourage this in other parts of the City. The first is a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts. Staff is proposing creating a 20% density bonus, where 20% of units are affordable housing for 20 years, and then also looking at additional regulatory flexibility within some bounds that would be allowed as well if there are challenges with the sites and they would be administering this through the existing processes they have, most likely site plan review, but could be subdivision or an OPD. Again, the goal is to help offset the financial costs of providing affordable housing by providing additional density and additional rent to help cover those costs, essentially cross subsidizing within the development. Lehmann stated the other thing they are looking at is parking reductions for affordable housing in all zones if it serves that purpose for 20 years. Reducing the minimum parking requirement doesn't mean that they can't provide additional parking, but they don't have to provide the parking if they don't think there's the demand within their affordable housing development. Again, the goal is to offset that cost for providing affordable housing through an indirect subsidy of parking, which can be an expensive component of developments. Townsend noted again this is only talking about affordability for 20 years, which limits the time a person is going to be there. Lehmann stated they are basing it off of similar requirements for other similar programs and it’s also similar to subsidized HOME Federal funds that are also 20 years for new construction. Townsend stated they are really not coming any closer to solving the problem of affordable housing, they are only putting it off for 20 years. Lehmann would argue that increasing the supply of affordable housing and the density generally would help offset the supply or offset affordability over the long term. Townsend asked if someone lives in an affordable unit for 10 years and then moves out would the new tenant have the additional 10 years. Lehmann stated that was correct. Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 12 of 17 Elliott asked if there had been any discussion on having the affordable units not having a limit and being affordable in perpetuity. Lehmann replied that some cities do in perpetuity standards but Iowa City cannot mandate rent restrictions on units due to State code so they incentivize affordable housing. In perpetuity poses some challenges for developers with their profit so the goal is to find the right balance with incentives to get the housing to actually occur. Whether or not this is enough incentive, it's hard to say, but this seems like a reasonable request. Lehmann noted as a Commission they can recommend different combinations, like 40% or in perpetuity but someone has to be willing to build it. Craig understands but thinks 20% is low and going back to what is affordable is $90,000. Lehmann stated that is if it were owner-occupied, if renter-occupied it would be 60% AMI, so a family of four with a $70,000 income could presumably qualify for income restricted housing. Wade asked if these would be based on market-based rates. Lehmann stated 20% of units that are considered affordable housing would be rent restricted. Wade asked if there will be a fee in lieu option for the affordable housing and Lehmann replied no, the affordable housing must be provided onsite. The fee in lieu option is only for Riverfront Crossings because that's an existing exemption. Elliott asked regarding parking reductions, is there a concern about there not being enough parking. Russett noted the one project where it came up is on South Dubuque Street where The Housing Fellowship did a low-income housing tax credit project that is 100% affordable so they didn't have to provide any onsite parking, but they did provide some. Parking on site is still required for the market rate units, so it shouldn’t be an issue. Lehmann added because they're looking at applying this outside of the downtown area, more on street parking is readily available. Padron noted if there is no minimum parking standard for affordable housing what happens after the 20 years. Lehmann stated the City would essentially review it for the same period of time that they would review for income and rent restrictions. Number five is tied to fair housing, which is related to affordable housing, but it's not the same thing. Lehmann stated however staff wanted to incorporate some recommendations from the Fair Housing Study and the first is to create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code. Cities have to provide reasonable accommodations, from policies and regulations for persons with disabilities but don't really have a separate established process for it. So, this creates a reasonable accommodations request process which makes it clear that someone can request it, that there's a defined approval process for it that follows fair standards, and to try and streamline the ability to grant the request. Lehmann noted currently they have workarounds like getting a minor mod for a wheelchair ramp in the front setback but this would change that and they wouldn’t have to go through an additional, very public process about their disability. A citizen would apply directly to the department and staff can review it and give feedback or grant the request. The other is to reclassify community service long term housing uses as a residential use. Community service long term housing is currently defined as long term housing operated by a public or nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities and its classified as an institutional use and is only allowed in mostly commercial zones. It's regulated differently than residential uses Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 13 of 17 despite the fact that it is a place people live long term. Staff is proposing to eliminate it as an independent use and regulate it instead as a residential use with the understanding that accessory supportive services as long as they're serving those that live within this development would be considered an accessory use. This would allow these uses in multifamily zones where they're not currently and with supportive services provided to residents. If the supportive services are open to the public, that becomes a zoning code violation because it becomes a general community services use, because other people are coming on site. Lehmann explained it's similar to the way they would look at a fitness facility that is only available to residents of a building, but in this case it's supportive services for those living there to ensure that that those who have needs are getting the needs met. The goal is again to treat groups of persons with disabilities like anyone else, instead of creating a separate class for them, and making sure that they can be integrated through the entire community. Lehmann noted this one does create a few challenges because it would also include removing this use from CI-1 zones and there are also some other differences between the way this is regulated and other residential uses allowed within zones. Those currently in a CI-1 zone could continue as a non-conforming use. Primarily, it would just mean that it couldn't expand or if it ended its use it would have to be brought into compliance with the zoning code if not reoccupied within a year. The other situation is in a zone where residential uses are allowed but this use is at a density that is higher than would be allowed by residential uses so that would also become a non-conforming use. The challenge is that it does create two non-conforming uses but it would allow these uses more generally and would treat this group as any other residential use that might occupy a neighborhood. With that Lehmann concluded the staff presentation. He noted staff did get some public comments which were shared with the Commissioners via email, staff will continue to take public comments as today is just a background introductory discussion. Next steps are discussion at the August 2 meeting and for the Commission to make a recommendation to Council. Padron asked who was on the Housing Action team. Lehmann was when he was a community development planner, there's representative representation from the County, it does include some developers, affordable housing providers and folks interested in fair housing. Craig opened the public hearing. Jessica Andino (Executive Director, Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) took this position in February and is on the Housing Action Team for Johnson County Community Livable Communities. She is happy to answer any questions, she is happy they are considering anything that is related to affordable housing, it is definitely needed in the community, not just in Iowa City, but beyond. Jim Throgmorton (814 Ronalds Street) is the co-chair of the Northside Neighborhood Association and wanted to note they are paying close attention to what is happening in this particular endeavor and will surely have comments come August 2. He has been taking notes and trying to absorb what has been mentioned and there are two things he wants to emphasize. First, the rising cost of housing in Iowa City clearly is a problem, it needs to be addressed. Increasing supply as part of that, there's no doubt about that but he doesn’t think it's going to solve the affordable housing problem, but it's an important component of trying to address the problem. Beyond that, he would say in the Northside Neighborhood they already have a great deal of diversity in housing. Approximately 1/4 of all the “single-family owner-occupied buildings” in the Northside Neighborhood cost in the $100,000 range, or even less. One concern he has is that a Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 14 of 17 developer might have a strong incentive to come in and tear down existing single-family houses which are already very affordable to the people who live in them and replace them with housing that's more expensive. Beyond that single-family owner-occupied housing is a term that's used and the property inventory viewer that tells all about who owns property, but they don't really mean owner-occupied. They have almost 500 single-family owner-occupied units properties in the northside but at least a quarter of them or probably more are rental units owned by LLCs and corporations so there's a problem with the categorization there. Again, he thinks this is an important initiative they are paying close attention to and do have concerns. James Carey (721 Brown Street) is also in the Northside Neighborhood. He first thanked all of the Commission members for their time, he knows they don't get paid for it and any decisions they make will probably make someone happy and someone unhappy. One of the things he thought about when he got this information, and tried to read through it and educate himself, was it's a pretty big ask, they're being asked to make some big changes, and to some extent a 180- degree change from what has been followed for the last couple of decades. Regarding the density issue, one of the things he didn't hear was any statistics on projections if this change came how much housing would be created. That seems like something that's a reasonable ask for the Commission. Not only how much square footage or many units these changes will actually create, but a projection that this will actually bring down costs, particularly in rentals. He struggles with the idea that this will actually be impactful. He is not talking about points four and five, but one, two, and three, actually bringing down rents. One of the questions asked was why there aren’t more accessory dwelling units in neighborhoods. Well to do a detached accessory dwelling unit that is 1000 square foot, at $175 to $200 a square foot, is a $200,000 house being built from scratch in the backyard. Doing that for a family member is a lot. So the other option is to rent, and become a landlord. Carey has no issue with landlords, that's what they do and they have every right to do and it's legal and that's how they build housing for people. But if he’s a landlord and has multiple homes, this is very attractive because if he’s going to add that structure in the backyard because he can make that pay over years and also has the ability to deduct it whereas homeowners don't. So it's a real incentive for landlords to pursue all these options that are put forward. The problem is if he builds a $200,000 accessory apartment in his backyard on Brown Street, he’s not going to charge $500 for that apartment, that's going to be a $2,000 apartment. That's someplace people want to live and that's a nice sized apartment, and it's brand-new construction. Some of the other things that were shown earlier, the new housing, the condos, yes this is sort of a long-term look but on the short end, no new building will probably result in housing for lower income individuals and be reasonable. They just said that at the City Council, they turned down that potential project they were going to build over by Twin Image and Councilwoman Burgess said “you can't build low income housing, it's just not the way it works” and she was absolutely right. That could have been an impactful build, it was going to be a large development, but it was turned down. One of the other things Carey want to talk about is the focus on the economics. If he’s a landlord and they make it more attractive for him to buy one of these properties and add properties to his investment, it is more attractive now, because he is going to get income, which are the bodies, if he can add an accessory building or get 12 apartments instead of six, he’s going to do that. The problem is that's going to drive the cost of homes up and there is going to be a real competition against people who want to buy homes and want to be owner-occupied homes. He knows planning and zoning can't control that but it's incredibly unfortunate that this whole conversation is really driven by rentals and not ownership. When this thing goes into effect, it's going to be a very strong incentive for landlords to buy more homes and pay more for them because they can spread it across multiple properties. At the end of the day they’re going to actually push the price of homes up in Iowa City, and take homes out Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 15 of 17 of the reach of people who should be buying them. There are two things that bring people out of poverty besides work, it's education and homeownership. Maybe everybody doesn't pursue education, but homeownership is definitely one of those things and it works for everybody. He doesn’t see how that's going to be possible going forward, considering the fact that $2,000 for a single-family home rental would cover a mortgage, property taxes, and home insurance on a $250,000 to $300,000 home. But they're not talking about that, instead, they're talking about trying to just bring the rents down and he thinks this will have a very adverse effect and put homeownership out of the reach of a lot of people. Debbie Ackerman (Johnson County Coordinator for Hawkeye Area Community Action Program) stated the mission of HACAP is to build strong communities and help people build the skills that they need to become successful. They see home ownership and just living in safe affordable housing as a primary way to build those strong communities and live lives that people want to live in the communities. She is not going to pretend to stand up here and say that she understands all of this but just want to applaud everyone for talking so passionately about increasing affordable housing in Johnson County and in Iowa City. Time and time again, day in and day out that is one of the huge needs that they see people coming for assistance. People need safe, stable housing, where they can raise their families and build those strong communities. Kathryn Davis (845 Dover Street) just learned she lives in a single occupancy zero lot duplex, and she wanted to thank them all for their time tonight. She is also with domestic violence intervention here in town and help people who have been displaced due to domestic violence find a new place to live here in the area, so she is very impacted by the housing scene in this town. She is also part of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Committee as well as the local homeless coordinating board. Reading through all of the points of the proposal and looking through all the points today, it seems like everything that is being proposed is not going to be enough to solve homelessness in this town but it seems like each step is a step in the right direction. Dave Moore (425 Davenport Street) has lived in his house half as long as most of the buildings in that neighborhood have existed and he lives there because the home that they are in was affordable a long time ago. Most of what he had thought to say has been covered by Jim Carey and Jim Throgmorton. Moore stated it's still a great neighborhood to be but Brown Street, Ronalds Street, Davenport Street is not the neighborhood they remembered when it was all owner occupied and they all had young children and they all held hands and played all the way to Horace Mann every morning. Now there's one large investment owners, LLC, that owns over 100 properties in that neighborhood and every month they acquire another one. He came here to draw attention to this and to say he doesn’t think this is moving in the right direction for affordable housing, it's moving in the opposite direction for affordable housing. He hadn’t intended to say anything until he read Anne Freerks’ letter, he worked for her when she was running for city council, unfortunately, she didn't win because he really wanted somebody on city council who really knew planning and zoning. In the last paragraph of her letter she says “I ask the neighborhood associations to be added to the stakeholders involved in this process” and Moore agrees, he hopes they add the neighborhood associations. In the third paragraph, she's concerned about proposed changes that can negatively affect fixer uppers in the small neighborhoods. She's drawn a line between these amendments and a negative effect on fixer uppers and he just wants to testify that she's right, all over the place these small, slightly in disrepair, fixer uppers, especially in Goosetown, and Lucas Farms, get bought by the LLCs and Planning and Zoning Commission July 5, 2023 Page 16 of 17 they take them down and build big replacements, and those places are not cheap. The second thing she cites in her letters is investment owners and a group of students can pool their funds and pay far more in housing than an individual or a family and this is happening all the time. Just on his block, just right around the corner the two houses directly north of the auto shop on Gilbert and Bloomington were apartment houses and they were bought by this LLC and are now four- or five-bedroom single family homes. Guess which is more affordable, Moore stated his friend Jim Ellis was paying $450 for his ground floor apartment before he had to leave. Now that might not have been sustainable forever, but it was definitely low-income housing. Now those four bedrooms, if Moore had to guess based on what he hears from students in his neighborhood are around $900 a room. So that house went from a couple apartments going for $400 or $500 to four or five single bedrooms going for $800 or $900 apiece. That is moving in the wrong direction. He hopes they move slow and listen to what Anne Freerks said which is to fold the neighborhood associations into this. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 21, 2023: Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from June 21, 2023. Padron seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None ADJOURNMENT: All moved to adjourn and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 6/21 7/5 CRAIG, SUSAN X X ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X HENSCH, MIKE X O/E PADRON, MARIA X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X WADE, CHAD X X Vacancy KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member