The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPZ Agenda Packet 08.16.2023PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, August 16, 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 Rezoning Items 4. Case No. REZ23-0006 Location: 715 N. Dodge Street An application for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RS-8) to OHD/RS-8 to designate the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Zoning Code Amendment Items 5. 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. 6. Consideration of meeting minutes: August 2, 2023 7. Planning and Zoning Information 8. 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: September 6 / September 20 / October 4 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ23-0006 715 N Dodge St. Prepared by: Melanie Comer, Planning Intern Date: August 16, 2023 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant & Co-Applicant/Owner: City of Iowa 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)-356-5230 Jennifer Glanville & Benton McCune 715 N. Dodge Street Iowa City, IA jennifer-glanville@uiowa.edu Contact Person: City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)-356-5230 Requested Action: Rezone this property to become an Iowa City Historic Landmark Purpose: To designate the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark Location: 715 N Dodge Street Location Map: Size: 3,982 Square Feet Existing Land Use and Zoning: Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) 2 South: Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) East: Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) West: Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) Comprehensive Plan: Single-Family & Duplex Residential District Plan: Central Neighborhood Open Space District: C1 Public Meeting Notification: Properties within 500’ of the subject property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. A Landmark Designation sign was posted on the site. File Date: July 28, 2023 45 Day Limitation Period: September 11, 2023 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 715 N Dodge Street was proposed as a Local Landmark by Kevin Boyd, former Commission Chair, in order to highlight an important feature in Iowa City’s history as the original location of the Emma Goldman Clinic. Staff contacted the owners of the property, Jennifer Glanville and Benton McCune, who expressed support for the designation and provided a letter requesting the designation of 715 N Dodge as a Local Historic Landmark. 715 N Dodge Street is single- family, owner-occupied home located within the Brown Street Historic District. The property itself was built in the 1920s as a Craftsman-style home. While the architectural style of the property is important, the history of the property itself is the focus of this proposal. The Emma Goldman Clinic began in this property in the year 1973 just months after the landmark ruling Roe v. Wade passed. The clinic was founded by a group of ten young women who wished to create a new kind of welcoming and untraditional feminist healthcare for the people of the Iowa City area. As the clinic expanded, they acquired the home next door to the Dodge location and eventually expanded into the clinic’s current location on North Dubuque Street – a former pediatrician’s office. This year marks the Emma Goldman Clinic’s 50-year anniversary of existence, and a Local Landmark designation would highlight the importance the clinic has had to countless individuals within that time. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Medium Density Single-Family Residential Zone with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RS-8). The purpose of RS-8 is primarily to provide for the development of small lot single-family dwellings. The purpose of the Historic District Overlay Zone is to designate local historic landmarks and historic districts. The property is currently a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. 3 Proposed Zoning: Since this property is already located within a Historic District Overlay Zone, the zoning for the property will remain OHD/RS-8. However, in order to designate the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark the rezoning process is required. As is currently the case, any exterior modifications to the building that require a regulated permit will need to go through the historic review process. In addition, the property is eligible for special exceptions (Section 14-2B- 8 of the zoning code) that allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning requirements to help support the continued use of historic buildings. The property will also continue to be eligible for financial incentives such as tax credits and the Iowa City Historic Preservation Fund to be available. Planning and Zoning Commission Review: Local landmark designation is a Historic District overlay and therefore requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. Per 14-8E-1E the Commission’s role is to review the proposed designation based on its relation to the Comprehensive Plan, as well as proposed public improvements and plans for renewal of the area involved. 715 N Dodge Street is in the Central Planning District. The Central District Plan encourages preservation of historic homes, resources, and neighborhoods, especially in areas close to the University. The plan also encourages a mix of housing types in a neighborhood (p. 2). This property is roughly 100 years old and reflects the Craftsman Style catalogue houses popular at that time. The Historic Preservation Plan highlights numerous goals, including: Goal 1: Identify historic resources to Iowa City’s Past. Under this goal the Commission is charged with continuing to research and evaluate properties and to pursue local landmark designation when appropriate (pg. 31-33). The Comprehensive Plan mentions taking opportunities to preserve historic features of a site to add character and amenity values to neighborhoods (pg. 20). Iowa City’s Historic Preservation Plan encourages pursuing local landmark designations when appropriate to provide protection for important historic resources. In the case of 715 N Dodge Street, since it is already contained within a Historic Overlay Zone, the main purpose is to tell the story of the creation of the Emma Goldman Clinic and highlight a part of the women’s reproductive rights movement within Iowa City and Iowa. SUMMARY: In summary, Staff supports the local landmark rezoning of 715 N Dodge Street from Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RS-8) to a Local Landmark Designation within a Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RS-8). The Comprehensive Plan, the Central District Plan, and the Historic Preservation Plan all contain language about protecting historic resources through regulatory measures and conserving historic neighborhoods. NEXT STEPS: At the Historic Preservation Commission’s August 10, 2023 meeting, the Commission recommended approval of designating the property at 715 N. Dodge Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. The Commission found that the property is significant for its role in our local feminist history and women’s healthcare and met the following criteria for local landmark designation: - Significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology and culture; - Possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship; - Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; and 4 - Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the rezoning will be considered for approval by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ23-0006, an application to designate 715 N Dodge Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Staff Report to the Historic Preservation Commission; August 10, 2023 Approved by: _________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map ATTACHMENT 2 Staff Report to the Historic Preservation Commission; August 10, 2023 Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 Memorandum Date: August 2, 2023 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 715 North Dodge, Original Emma Goldman Clinic In an effort to tell a more complete history of Iowa City, and in conjunction with the upcoming 50-year anniversary of the forming of the Emma Goldman Clinic, former Commission Chair, Kevin Boyd, and representatives of the Clinic have proposed local landmark designation for the property at 715 North Dodge. Staff contacted the owners of the property, Jennifer Glanville and Benton McCune, who have expressed support for the designation and have provided the attached letter. Staff has submitted the application for rezoning on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission. Designation of the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark will require Commission approval of any significant changes to the exterior of the building. Landmark status will also make the property eligible for special exceptions that would allow the Board of Adjustment to waive or modify certain zoning requirements and for State Tax Credit funding of rehabilitation work as well as funding through our Historic Preservation Fund for eligible rehabilitation projects. Since the property is already classified as a Key Property in the Brown Street Historic District, landmark designation will not change how the property relates to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Ordinance. As the attached site inventory form describes, this house is a gable-front house with some Craftsman Style detailing built between 1920 and 1926. It is very similar to catalogue houses that were popular at the time, and it may be a representative of this type. The house has a full front porch with a solid balustrade and grouped, battered columns on tall piers. The house has narrow lap siding with corner boards at the first floor. A mid-level band board at the level of the second-floor window sills demarcates a change to shingle siding with mitered corners and a ribbon coursing pattern. On the north side, the house has a single-story, square projecting bay with a shed roof. A full length shed roof dormer punctuates the main gable roof on the north side. The house has five-over-one double hung windows in pairs on the front façade and singles elsewhere. On the rear, an attached garage has a shed roof and connects to an enclosed rear porch to the south. The attached history of the home details its significance to women’s history, social history, and health and medicine at the local level. In 1973, following the landmark ruling in Roe vs Wade, a group of young women formed the Emma Goldman Clinic to provide feminist health care. They formed this clinic in a neighborhood house to provide a new kind of healthcare, one that was welcoming and unlike traditional medical offices. As they expanded, they acquired the home next door and then expanded to the location on North Dubuque Street. The house at 715 North Dodge Street is significant as the founding location for this pioneering organization in women’s healthcare. Landmark Designation The Commission should determine if the property meets criterion A. and B. and at least one of the criteria C., D., E., or F. for local designation listed below: a. Significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology and culture; b. Possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials and workmanship; c. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; d. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; e. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; f. Has yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history. Staff finds that the property is significant for its role in our local feminist history and women’s healthcare. As the location of the founding of the Emma Goldman Clinic meets local Criterion A and C. As an intact example of a Craftsman-detailed house from the 1920s, the property meets Criterion B and in Staff’s opinion, Criterion E. Staff does not find that there is enough information to consider the property meeting Criterion F at this time. Based on the information provided, staff finds that the property meets criteria A, B, C, and E, and therefore qualifies as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Attachments include Site inventory forms for the property, a history of the property as the Clinic, a location map, and photos. Recommended Motion: Move to approve the designation of 715 North Dodge Street (Original Emma Goldman Clinic) as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria A, B, C, and E. Enclosures: Letter of Support from property owners Iowa Site Inventory form Emma Goldman Clinic History 715 North Dodge Street – front façade (NE corner) 715 North Dodge Street – front façade (SE corner) 715 North Dodge Street – attached garage (NW corner) Site Inventory Form State Historical Society of Iowa 1012712005 Printed from Database Inventory #: 52-01404 Opinion Cont ri b uting in Di str i ct Listed on NRHP Source-Year Co nsultant-1981 NPS-2004 Criteria Considerations ABCD ABCDEFG YNYN NNNNNNN Contr ib uti ng in Di strict SNRC-2004 Y N Y N N N N N N N N In District: 52 : 00002 Goosetown Historic District 52 : 00007 Brown Street Historic District Review & Compliance #: 1. Name of Property NRHP Listed: 9/29/2004 Non -Extant: No Non-Extant Year: historic name : House other names: 2. Locati on street & number: 715 N Dodge St City: Iowa City Legal Descripti o n: Vicinity : No County: Johnson (If Rural) (If Urban) Subdivision: Block:32 Lot:8 5. Classification Category of Property: Building(&) Number of Re so urces within Property Contributing: Non-Con tributing : 1 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Buildings Sites Structures Objects Name of related survey or MPS 1 Q Total HADB: 52 • 012 Jacobsen, James E., 1981 • Goosetown Historic District Nomination HADB: 52 • 028 Svendsen, Marlys A., 1992 • Historic Resources of Iowa City, Iowa HADB: 52 • 029 Nash, Jan Olive, 1997 ·Survey and Eval uation of a Portion of the Original Town Plat of Iowa City, Iowa: An Intensive Level Historical and Architectural Survey and Amendment to the Mu ltiple Property Documentation Form "Hi storic Resources of Iowa City, Iowa" 6. Functi on or Use Historic Functions DOMESTIC/single dwelling Current Functions DOMESTIC/s ingle dwelling 7. Descripti on Arc hite ctural Cla ssification Late 19th & Early 20th Century American Movements: Bungalow/Craftsman Materials Fou ndation: Walls: Metal / Aluminum Roof: Asphalt Other: Asphalt 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria y A: Significa nt Events ~ B: Significa nt Persons y C: Arc hitectural Characteri stics ~ D: Archaeology (Y=Yes N=No M=More Research Recommended) Area of Significance Architecture Community Planning and Development Significant Person: Architect: 10. Geographic Data UTM Refe rences: Criteria Considerations N A: Relig io us In stit utio n N B: Moved N C: Birthplace or Grave N D: Cemetery N E: Reco nst ru cted N F: Commemo ra tive Property N G: Less t ha n 50 Years of Age Significant Dates Construction Year: 1920 D Circa Other Dates: Builder Photo/Slide: Roll/Sheet# Frame Slot 14 Year: 1981 Photo/Slide: Roll/Sheet# Frame Slot Year: f 1540 IOWA SITE INVENTORY FORM CFN 259-1357 11/26/90 catiop •nd rupgtiopal xnform&tiop Survey ID Number 5 2 -96-032 Database ID Number ------ R & c Number ------ 1. Historic Name(s) ----------------------------- 2. Cormnon Name(s) --___,.-=--...,....----=--~~-------------------- 3 . Street Address ___ . ..L_7~J 5;L.-...... N~. ~D!.lo!o~dg~e~Sclo.t..._. -~-:-:-"':"'""""':-:-----;---;--;:---::---:------:::--;----- 4. City Iowa City Vicinity [ 1 5. County Jobnson 6. Subdivision -----loU.__ ____ 7. Block(s) 32 8. Lot(s) ........_ _____ _ Section Quarter of Quarter ___ of __ _ 9. Legal Description: (if -rural) Township Range Dtag;iRtiOD 10. Historic Function ( s) _a.S1~· n~q~lJii.e_.fii.Siamiww.a.lvL...lodw..-.el ... l .... i..,.n~¥.a __________ _ ~ OlA 11. CUrrent Function ( s) _Mu~liWt ... i.;;;.-~fama.w.~i.-ly.L..ld.u~w~&e..,ll ... iw.n~q------------01B 12. OWner Address North Side Deyelonment Phone#--=~=~- 730 N Van Buren St City/State Iowa City. IA ZIP 52245 BHP Sources: Cty. Resource (] HABS (] Photo [] NR [] Tax Act [] Grants [] DOE [] R&C [] (Plat Map) ' (Sketch Map) N N •flJkl•HIIII•§IliH:;;RI~ Ill R~illlll~ ,....--ni"""1AnS z STREE ~ §I 85§1 1 W~W E!~tjiiiii~R ·III~IIIILE~ ~8 I IIB~ttHI @iiiiiiii~!DJ]§I 1~111111~ ..J CHURCH ·. > ~ II lid §lll!::lld,lllt=l := 1111 ·11 R I H I 111118§11§·§;3 -lH . §11111111111 F' AIRCHILO u.wtn ~ . Ill II R § lllH §J IOIAAt Ld S I F9 Ill R ( ~lief. ~ \J 0 ~ 0 ~ · 15~old.S ~- Source: "I.e. Planning & Community Development-1997 INTEGRITY NOTES: Good integrity. EVALUATION SHEET Address: 715 N. Dodge St., Iowa City, IA Architectural Significance and Associ~ted Context(s): Applicable National Register Criteria: [~) A [~) B [x) c [ J D National Register Eligibility: I~div~dual: ___ Yes _x_ No D ~str~ct: ___ Contributing ___ Non-Contributing Reviewed by I Date: Jan Nash I 3/14/97 ~is ~ernacul~r house is heavily. influenced by the Craftsman style. The boxy, gable-front shape Wl~ 1ts prom1nent front porch ~s ~ house form often given Craftsman details during this time per1od. Many ready-cut houses ava1lable through catalogs such as Davenport's Gordon-Van Tine Co., or Sears Ro~uck,.offer7d hous es very similar to this one. Craftsman details include the us7 of many vert~cal-~~~ht w1ndows, exposed rafter ends and purlins, and the combination wood- shlngle-over-narrow s1d1ng wall cladd1ng. Continuation Sheet [ ) Historical Significance and Associated Context(s) =----------------------------------------- Applicable National Register Criteria: [ J A [ 1 B [ ] c [ ] D National Register Eligibility: Individual: _ Yes _ No District: ___ Contributing ___ Non-Contributing Reviewed by I Date: __ ~J~anML~N~a~sh~~~~~J~/~1.4~/9~7~--------------------------------------- The entire block on which this house sits was originally deeded to John Neinner in 1846. Neinner also purchased other discontiguous lots in the +lOrth side area in 1846, but this block was his largest single holding as well as being farthest from the new state capital's downtown area. There were other nearby whole blocks still on the market in 1846 so there is no clear reason for his. choice. The lot on which this house was built is not mentioned again in the transfer records until 1913 when John Goss and his wife give a quit claim deed to Leo Goss . The land does not leave the Goss family ownership until Fred A. Goss, et al, deeded it to Fred Racine in 1921. Racine deeded the northern third of the lot on which this house sits to Peter w. Prizler in December, 1925; Prizler promptly deeded it to his wife, Florence A. Prizler, in January of 1926. The Prizlers likely had the present house built at that time and did not sell it until 1944, when ownership was transferred to Anton and Mary H. Piek. Peter Prizler was a truck driver in for Lenoch and Cilek according to the 1928 city directory. Prepared by --~Ran~d~y~C~a~rp~e~n~t~e~r~~--~~---=~~~~----------- Address ~-----9~3~1~Ma~i~d~en~~L~an~e~·~I~o~w~a~C~i&tYLL·-I~Aa-~5~2~2~4uO~----------Affiliation Tallgrass Historians L.C. Continuation Sheet [ 1 Date ~----~J~an~~·~1~9~9~7~~- Telephone --~3.1,9~/3~5~4~-~6~2w7~7-- Property Characteristic For.m RESIDENTIAL N 259-1402 Survey ID Number 52-96-032 11/27/90 Database ID Nuinber ----:----- Street Address: _.7.15~N~Po~d~q~e~-------------~---City Iowa City County Johnson Legal Description: (If Rural) Township Range Section Quarter of Quarter of Location Integrity: Original Site (OS) Moved (MV) Moved to Original Site (MO) _QS__ Endangered?: 11 or Y If ye~, why? ------------------------------------------------ Ground Plan: a. Building Shape(s) Irregular b. Width _27..._ __ by Depth _so-. __ in feet Architectural Style/Stylistic Influences vernacular/Craftsman influence Key Stylistic Attributes Materials: Foundation ~c~o~n~c.rKe~te~b~l~o~c"k~--~---------------------------- Walls ___ t~h~1~·n~w~oQo~d~C~l~a~p~b¥oa~r~d~s~-----------------------------Roof asphalt shingle Number of Stories -w.,......- Roof Shape Builder(s) Original Construction Date ------- • Architect (s) Unknown Modification/Addition Date: 10 02 08 Code 07E Continuation Sheet [ 1 Significant Interior Components: Unknown. Surveyor Conunents: Well maintained house. Sources: Field inspection 8/27/96. City Assessor records. Continuation Sheet [ 1 Continuation Sheet [ 1 Sanborn Map Co. fire insurance maps, 1920 and 1933 (updated to 1944). Johnson County Land Transfer Records. Abstract of Original Deeds (located at the Johnson County Recorder's Office). See also bibliography in project report. Needs Furtl:ler Study /Anomaly ( l Surveyor Marie Ne\Jbauer Continuation Sheet [ 1 Date August 27. 1996 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. August 11, 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 OCD zone. Table 1 provides a summary of this data. See also Attachment 3. Figure 1: Map of properties zoned RNS-12 August 11, 2023 Page 4 Table 1: Summary of Parcels Zoned RNS-12 City-wide Number of Parcels % of Parcels Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS-12) 500 100% RNS-12 with Historic or Conservation District Overlay 375 75% RNS-12 with No Historic or Conservation District Overlay 125 25% Northside Neighborhood Number of Parcels % of Parcels Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS-12) 313 100% RNS-12 with Historic or Conservation District Overlay 266 85% RNS-12 with No Historic or Conservation District Overlay 47 15% 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. August 11, 2023 Page 5 Table 2: Parcels by Building Height 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. Figure 2: Demolition of Residential Buildings in RNS-12 Zones, 1992-2003 August 11, 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. August 11, 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: _____________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Northside Neighborhood Association Petition to City Council ATTACHMENT 2 Map of RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline RNS-12 Rezoning Timeline Prepared by: Melanie Comer Date Prepared: August 2023 ATTACHMENT 3 Map of Properties Zoned RNS-12 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 2023 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA 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, Jenny 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 façade 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 façade. The goal is to make sure that these are uses or standards that keep compatibility while still allowing the mid-block duplexes. Finally is simplifying the waiver for townhome style multifamily uses, specifically as it relates to a parking setback. In the current code parking must be setback from streets through 15 feet of building depth and they cannot build parking within the first 15 feet of building depth. This poses a problem for lots that are on the corner where a unit would need additional building space between that and the side street. Currently that can be waived by minor modification, but that requires additional time and process which includes an administrative hearing notification period. The proposed amendment allows a straight waiver of that side street lot line which as a result has very limited impact. It's a very specific proposed amendment, but again is tied to facilitating those townhome style multifamily uses, especially in areas where attached single family uses are already allowed. Lehmann moved onto the third set of proposed amendment changes that are tied to providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing. Again, there are three changes in this category with the first reducing lot sizes for detached and attached single family and duplex uses. This would specifically affect some zones, mostly lower density single family zones, but does have some limited impacts on medium-density multifamily zones as well and would reduce lot width and lot size for RS-5 and RNS-12 if there is rear access and only if there's rear access, and it would reduce lot width for RM-12 and RM-20. For duplex and detached single family it would reduce both lot size and lot width. The second change would be to increase the bedroom limit for missing middle housing types outside of the University Impact Area. Lehmann explained that would specifically be looking at multifamily where there's currently a cap of three bedrooms for multifamily dwelling units and for duplexes and single family detached there's currently a cap of four bedrooms for a dwelling unit. This would increase that to four and five bedrooms respectively, specifically outside of the University Impact Area. The final change would be to allow and encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in a broader variety of contexts and to try to reduce barriers to construction. One of the reasons they’re focused ADUs is because they're a great way to increase housing supply without substantially impacting the appearance of a neighborhood. A lot of these changes are based on those that are recommended by the AARP, which has really encouraged ADUs in recent years and so has the Housing Action Committee of the Johnson County Livable Communities Group, which includes a number of stakeholders. Changes are things such as allowing these uses in any zone that allows household living uses on any lot with two or less dwelling units. It would remove the requirement that the unit be owner occupied and it would remove limits on the number of bedrooms and residents as those would be capped by other standards that are in the rental code. This change would allow increased size for these dwelling units, as long as they're less than half the size of the primary use, it would remove the requirement for an additional parking space and also simplify some design requirements. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 7 of 27 Regarding the analysis of these proposed amendments, in terms of reducing lot sizes and widths, the existing situation is there are many lots that were platted prior to 1962 that are non- conforming as that was when the most substantial zoning code changed that increased the lot sizes. Best practice is to reduce minimum lot sizes to perpetuate patterns of economic and demographic segregation and it is also a best practice to reduce or minimize non-conformities within the zoning code. In terms of the anticipated impacts, it wouldn't bring approximately 85% of non-conforming lots in the RS-5 and RNS-12 zones into compliance with the zoning code and around 300 lots would remain non-conforming in these zones but a lot of those are lots that are flagged lots in historic areas. This also provides flexibility for the arrangements of lots in new subdivisions, which includes smaller lots being allowed, especially in the RS-5 zone. For example, in terms of the cost reduction that this could bring, assuming land prices are around $5 a square foot, the proposed reduction for an RS-5 zone could reduce the cost of construction by approximately $10,000 so especially in lower price points that can be a significant factor in affordability. Another impact is that reducing lot sizes for duplexes allows them on a wider variety of existing lots. Lehmann showed some examples of areas of the City that were platted long ago with smaller lots, like the Morningside neighborhood. It’s low-density single family residential but has 50-foot lots with 7000 square feet lots. Again, approximately 300 lots wouldn't become conforming even with these changes, those are mostly in Towncrest and in the Northside neighborhoods where lot sizes are smaller than even the proposed standards, but it does bring a substantial number of these non-conforming uses into compliance. Finally, this would also bring new developments closer into alignment with what's allowed in a form-based zone since form- based zones do allow duplexes in even the lowest density residential zone. The second change would be to increase the bedroom limits outside the University Impact Area. Currently the number of bedrooms are restricted for duplexes, attached single family and multifamily uses City-wide and the problem with this is that the bedroom caps limit where large households can live and pretty much limits them to detached single family housing, which does increase housing costs for those household types and as a result the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan did recommend amendments to these standards. The impacts of the proposed amendment would be to allow the construction of units for larger families outside of the University Impact Area in a wider variety of housing types. In addition, it would retain the bedroom cap for the University Impact Area to avoid some of the situations that caused the bedroom caps to be adopted in the first place. The final change is related to encouraging accessory apartments in a variety of contexts and reducing barriers. ADUs have been allowed in Iowa City for quite some time, more than 40 years, but over the past 30 years the development has been relatively limited. The City has only 52 ADUs when there have been 13,000 eligible lots under the current code. There are barriers within the code and some of the barriers that have been identified by AARP are things like the owner occupancy requirement and additional parking standards. In the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan it recommended trying to promote or encourage where ADUs are allowed and expanding those. There is also a large demand for smaller units as approximately 36% of households in Iowa City are single person households and more than 40% of renter households are single person households. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff doesn’t anticipate that all eligible units are suddenly going to provide ADUs but the goal is really to encourage their development and reduce those barriers. The 13,000 parcels that are currently eligible will remain eligible under the proposed amendment however, there are new parcels that would be able to accommodate ADUs and they would imagine that would happen gradually, like any change. This would include up to 1400 new units allowed by expanding the zones and uses to which these Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 8 of 27 may be accessory. For example, allowing them in RNS-12 zones or allowing them in other zones that allow single family detached uses, and also allowing them accessory to duplex uses. In addition, it would allow up to 3100 new units by removing the owner occupancy requirements. With that being said many of the renter occupied detached single-family uses are located within the University Impact Area so that is something to be mindful of. With the changes proposed it would allow standalone accessory dwelling units, and it is imagined that that's how many of these would be constructed, in addition to there being other barriers to construction. Even with the City trying to remove as many barriers as possible, they still have to have conforming lot sizes and meet the other standards in the code with regards to lot area, coverage standards, and open space. Those standards wouldn't change, it's just allowing an ADU if there's room for it. In addition, staff anticipates that allowing ADUs in more areas supports the City's sustainability goals. By increasing housing supply in those areas, they anticipate that those are the most walkable areas of the community. That also ties into reducing the parking space that's required because that ties into the goals of encouraging alternative transportations. The City is really trying to encourage walkable communities. Lehmann showed a map of the areas that would be able to build ADUs and noted they are scattered throughout the community, a lot of them are located lot downtown, but the goal is to encourage ADUs throughout the community and remove as many barriers as possible. The fourth set of standards is tied to creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing, specifically focused on income restricted housing, also rent restrictions and/or sales restrictions for owner occupied housing. This is tied to increasing housing choice, diversity, supply, flexibility, and reducing cost. The income and rent levels are determined based on the current practice in the City which is generally 80% of the area median income for owner occupied and generally 60% of area median income for renter occupied. Lehmann noted rents are tied to fair housing market rents and sales limits are tied to HUD sales limits. The two proposed changes are creating a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zones and that would be a 20% density bonus, or 20% of units are affordable housing for 20 years. It would allow additional regulatory flexibility as well, specifically tied to setbacks and building height. The second standard would eliminate minimum parking requirements for affordable housing, where that housing is affordable for 20 years. It would only affect that 20% of units that are affordable, or as many units as are affordable, it doesn't affect the market rate units in that development. In terms of the impacts, a lot of these bonuses are already part of the Riverfront Crossings and form- based zones that were recently adopted, especially density bonuses and parking reductions, but they're not present in conventional zones. So, impacts would be to provide a voluntary incentive, something that can encourage the construction of those income restricted affordable units, and they'd be administered during the typical reviews. A lot of that would be site plan or building plan review or it may be an OPD plan or subdivision depending on what standard is being requested. The goal of additional units in terms of the density bonus is to provide additional rents that can help offset the costs of affordable housing and density bonuses are one of the most common affordable housing incentives seen in communities. Again, it may also provide flexibility for setback and height standards, if those are needed, depending on the circumstance. Lehmann noted there can also be a reduction in the minimum parking requirements to provide another incentive by reducing the cost of providing those affordable housing units. Design flexibility is the second most common incentive provided for affordable housing bonuses. The goal is to reduce the cost and incentivize the construction of those income restricted units. The final set of changes are related to addressing Fair Housing and are specifically focused on persons experiencing disabilities. The first is related to providing a reasonable accommodations Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 9 of 27 process that is currently handled through disparate processes throughout the zoning code. It is something that the City is required to do by Federal law, currently there just isn’t a standardized process that's clear and apparent, so this amendment is clarifying that process. It is best practice provided as an administrative process and try to require as few hoops as possible for persons experiencing disabilities so that it doesn't draw attention to their disability and doesn't become a hurdle. The impact of the proposed amendment is to create a simple, comprehensive process to evaluate all these requests and to reduce the need to call attention to the disability. The second would be to reclassify community service long term housing uses as a residential use. Currently, these uses are housing with supportive services for persons with a disability that are owned by nonprofits. Currently, they're treated as institutional uses rather than residential uses and as a result they're more restrictive in where they're allowed. Again, it is best practice to regulate housing for persons with disabilities like similarly sized household living uses. By treating these uses as residential the City would strike the community service long term housing use as a distinct category and it would be allowed as a household living use, which would simplify the process by which they're allowed and would also expand where they may be located. Group living would also no longer be allowed in intensive commercial zones as it is determined that isn't appropriate for household living uses. It would also eliminate some standards that are different for this type of use. Currently, the standards have reduced parking requirements and increased or higher density allowances for these zones. This would again treat them like any other multifamily use if it was a multifamily building or be treated like a single-family use depending on which kind of building the household use was located in. Lehmann noted currently there are only two properties that are in this category and they're both owned by Shelter House. They would become legal non-conforming uses and while it is best practice to create as few non-conformities as possible within the zoning code, the purpose of treating housing for persons with disabilities similarly to residential uses outweighs that creation of a non-conforming use in staff’s opinion. Staff did discuss this with Shelter House leadership and stated these uses would be allowed to continue as they currently are allowed, they'd just become a non-conforming use. If the use was terminated, it wouldn't be allowed to re-open. The proposed amendment also does specify the supportive services that are accessory to a use, and that only serve the residents of a building, would be allowed in a household residential zone. So, on a smaller scale, there could be a case where someone has household help that lives with them and provides assistance or in a larger use it could be a case where there's supportive services that help them live within their housing unit, whether that be employment services or other things. However, since people come from off site to use those services, it would become a broader separate use that would no longer be allowed. Lehmann explained in terms of the way that these amendments were constructed, all are based largely on national best practices. They looked at organizations that have a really broad scope in the way that they look at housing affordability and equity, one of them being the American Planning Association, they also looked at information by the National Association of Counties and then also AARP, the Association for Retired Persons. They looked at what's working throughout the nation and what's not working in terms of enhancing equity and enhancing affordability. In terms of equity, and in terms of the American Planning Association, they really focus on the equity and zoning policy guide which has a number of different recommendations with regards to zoning codes, things like allowing a broad range of housing types, reducing minimum lot sizes, allowing ADUs, treating assisted group living and housing for persons with disabilities as residential uses, allowing administrative approval of reasonable accommodations, all things to further equity within the community. The National Association of Counties provides specific recommendations for individual counties based on their characteristics. They classify Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 10 of 27 Johnson County as a high growth – high cost community so a lot of their housing policies are focused on making it easier to build small, moderately priced homes, making the development process simpler and shorter by streamlining approval processes and also expanding vouchers or income supports for low income renters, which ties into things like incentives for affordable housing. Finally, AARP is also very interested in affordable housing. A lot of the ADU standards are tied to those AARP findings and recommended policies by the Johnson County Livable Communities group. They did identify things like owner occupancy requirements, parking requirements, conditional use permits, and discretionary standards related to design or neighborhood character can really limit the use of ADUs. AARP pointed to recent changes seen especially in California and Oregon's legislation and also in Seattle's 2019 Local Code revisions, where a lot of them have moved away from rental restrictions. They have also seen this in other communities such as Ann Arbor recently. Staff is also recommending these proposed amendments because they do believe that they are currently consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. The vision statement for the Comprehensive Plan is creating attractive and affordable housing for all people that is the foundation of a healthy, safe and diverse neighborhoods throughout the City. The Plan lists strategies and goals such as ensuring a mix of housing types, encouraging development of smaller lots, ensuring a balance of housing types, and supporting infill development in areas where infrastructure is already in place. The Comprehensive Plan also has a Future Land Use Map that shows where different uses might be allowed. Within most of the community it notes that it's appropriate for two to eight dwelling units per acre and that is the lowest density future land use designation. Staff did take that into effect when looking at the proposed amendments as well. Within the Comprehensive Plan it really does stress that even with these density limits that a variety of housing types should be encouraged throughout all areas of the community. Lehmann did note staff did receive seven pieces of correspondence, three were included in the agenda packet, and four were submitted late, so those were handed out tonight and have also been emailed to the Commissioners separately. Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. In terms of next steps, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing would be scheduled for consideration by City Council. The earliest possible time that could occur is September 5, and then they would have a third consideration and possible adoption by October 3 at the earliest. Hensch asked what the date on the Comprehensive Plan was. Lehmann noted it was adopted in 2013 and the City is currently in the process of developing an RFP for a comprehensive plan update since it's been about 10 years, which is pretty standard. Hensch asked under amendment number one to increase flexibility for range of housing types, why not just think about expanding the use of RS-12 since that allows all the multiple types. Lehmann acknowledged that is a possible amendment that could happen however, the problem is that would not comply with the current Comprehensive Plan since the current Comprehensive Plan specifies that two to eight dwelling units per acre would be allowed. Staff focused on amendments that comply with the current Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 11 of 27 Hensch asked regarding the amendment to the modified design standards and having to put masonry or brick or requirement to the ground, that’s essentially the same as what it is for single family residences, meaning there's no requirement for a single family to have that. Lehmann confirmed that is correct and there is no requirement and this is just making it the same standard. Hensch noted amendment number three provides additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing. Why increase the number of bedrooms when demographics show family sizes are significantly shrinking, it seems contrary to the reality and these additional rooms are just going to be filled up with a bunch of people who are renting rooms essentially. Lehmann stated it's really tied to the fact that there's an unnecessary restriction for different housing types seen especially outside of the core. The just renting out rooms is a very real concern, especially in that University Impact Area, so that's why that area is excluded from the proposed amendment. Lehmann shared the example of Habitat for Humanity had proposed attached single family uses with five bedrooms in the South District and currently that's not allowed under the code. Lehmann noted a lot of the times it’s tied to intergenerational households and also larger families that just can't find housing in Iowa City and so a lot of those people have to either find a detached single-family home or move to a different community where that might be allowed. Hensch noted if they are increasing the number of bedrooms and decreasing the lot sizes, so where do kids play. Lehmann stated the City does have open space requirements and rear setback requirements that would continue to be in effect and those standards are intended to create room for children to play. Hensch asked regarding the University Impact Area, when was that determined, looking at the map it just looks too small and doesn't reflect the reality of where students live. Lehmann stated he believes that was adopted in 2012 and was specifically tied to parking standards, it was tied to the zoning districts at the time, specifically limited to areas that aren't lower density single family zones. Hensch asked about the accessory dwelling unit issue and isn't a real barrier to the creation of accessory dwelling units the cost of construction, particularly detached ADUs because if it is something that people had a need for constructing only 52 ADUs in 30 years is like one and a half year, so the demand clearly isn't there. His first thought is affordability because intergenerational households would jump all over this because it seems to be the answer to things. Lehmann agreed that the cost of construction and obtaining financing are barriers to ADUs but staff really has made its recommendations based on the fact that they don't want the zoning code to be that barrier to the construction of ADUs. Some of the barrier could be tied to the fact that current zoning standards are unnecessarily limiting construction. Hensch noted wouldn’t it just be an expansion of houses that are used as rentals because investors who have the deep pockets are going to be the only ones that can afford to build these and then rent them out to students. His concern is about neighborhood integrity, he has been in Iowa City since 1985 and it's pretty obvious where rentals are where they're not and neighborhoods start declining where there are lots of rental houses because they are just not maintained with the standards that people maintain their personal dwelling. He thinks it's very important to be respectful of people who want to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. If someone spends everything to buy their house and now the houses on both sides are rentals that changes the integrity of the neighborhood. He feels organizations are going to purchase Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 12 of 27 these properties and it's just another way to get another rental in there. Lehmann acknowledged that's a possibility but what staff was focused on is making sure that the zoning code is not a barrier. Hensch stated he loves the concept because he a big fan of generational housing. Padron doesn’t understand how increasing the number of bedrooms will create more affordable housing. Additionally, if they have more houses with more bedrooms is there a way to ensure that those are going to be owned by families and not just rented to multiple people. Lehmann replied it really is a matter of specifically accommodating different household arrangements within different household types. Currently, single family homes don't have a cap on the number of bedrooms that they can have but everything else that has a cap on the number of bedrooms so single-family homes are currently the only dwelling types that can accommodate larger families. However, those are also more expensive than other housing types such as multifamily and attached single family or duplex uses. The City has gotten requests for some of those larger uses in more affordable housing types but it is not allowed under the current code. Regarding restricting owner occupancy or renter occupancy, Lehmann stated the zoning code doesn't really consider owner or renter occupancy, except in the case of accessory dwelling units, the rental code tries to address those situations. Craig noted these proposed changes seem to be doing some things that provide more flexibility, similar to the form-based code. The neighborhood she thinks of is the Peninsula that was deliberately designed to include multiple living arrangements in one building. There are a lot of apartments and ADUs, that's a neighborhood that was designed specifically to have denser housing, it that the same as form-based code. Lehmann confirmed that is correct, approximately a third of the 52 ADUs are in the Peninsula neighborhood. In terms of the form-based code these standards are significantly closer to what's allowed in them. For example, the proposed minimum lot sizes for RS-5 and RS-8 are similar to what's allowed in the T3 (suburban transect, neighborhood edge and neighborhood general zones) in the form-based code. Duplexes are also allowed in all the T3 zones. both side by side and stacked. There is no corner requirement for duplexes in the form-based zones. In terms of other changes, the duplex use are still significantly larger in an RS-5 zone than is allowed in the neighborhood edge zone but uses that are allowed are similar and single-family lot sizes would be similar. Elliott noted at the July 5 meeting she had asked a question about somebody coming in and tearing down an affordable single-family house and making it higher cost and having more people living on the land. The response was something about covenants controlling that, what does that mean. Lehmann stated private covenants are another barrier to different housing types in communities. Covenants are legal restrictions that run with the land, often homeowner associations, and they often restrict what type of housing can be built, such as only single-family detached housing. That's a barrier to housing but that's something that's not considered here because they do expire after 21 years unless they're renewed, so they can change over time. Quite a few areas have private covenants that restrict to single-family detached only, mostly in outlying areas. They became common in the 60s, when there were still racial covenants that restrict where persons of color can live. Nowadays it can only restrict to type of building such as single-family detached only. Elliott asked about the neighborhoods close to downtown that have historic and conservation districts and explain more about why their lots sizes are not an issue. Russett stated in the local historic districts and local conservation districts the only place the demolition of an existing structure would be allowed if it's deteriorated beyond repair so a demolition in a historic Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 13 of 27 conservation district and a new structure being built is unlikely. Elliott clarified that there are some historic and conservation districts that are outside University Impact Area. Lehmann confirmed that is correct for Longfellow, but there are none on the west side. Elliott noted by looking at the numbers in the northside, there could possibly be over 2000 accessory units and including the University Impact Area it would be 3100. So if 75% of those units that are allowed by removing the owner occupancy requirement would be in the University Impact Area. Lehmann confirmed that is correct but they still have to meet all other regulations. noted part of what comes from the previous question about private covenants and then also about smaller lot sizes, lots do have to be conforming lots to have an ADU, they do have to meet the open space standards, setbacks, and coverage standards. There are a number of standards that are in place to ensure high quality places, and that rear yards still exists. Staff’s analysis did not look at that detail of each lot because to do so they’d have to look individual lot by individual lot basis, calculate the amount that's covered by a building, etc. Elliott asked about the percent of single-family duplex uses in areas close to the University that are rental based but not exactly in the University Impact Area. Lehmann noted it’s hard to come up with those numbers because rental units change all the time. Hektoen stated initial development of covenants usually are not put in place until after a development has been started so wouldn't it apply to the initial development of a greenfield site within a subdivision, they could potentially be implicated if someone wanted to redevelop an existing lot. Elliott stated there could be developments out there that can exist now with all the houses in the subdivision as single-family houses. Hekteon stated that is more of a historic relic and she hasn’t seen them very recently but again, the City's not involved in approving those or enforcing them, they're imposed by the developer after the developments been built, so if a developer wants to put duplexes in the middle of a block under the proposed amendments private covenants wouldn’t restrict that necessarily. Wade asked about the rear access requirements, and if there's an alleyway on a duplex, does that require that the garage access is off alleyway. Lehmann confirmed that is correct. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jim 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 staff's proposed changes, roughly 50 Iowa Citians, some of whom are here right now, attended the event at the library. Attendees asked many questions and offered many comments about the proposed amendments. The questions and comments ranged from purely technical ones like what is an ADU to the expressly political ones. The technical comments revealed that most residents do not understand the zoning processes and political comments revealed a very broad range of political views. Throgmorton commends City staff for carefully considering how to promote the development of more affordable housing through the use of zoning tools. He finds himself agreeing with and supporting most of the proposed changes. Many of them seem to Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 14 of 27 open up existing future conventional residential zoning districts, especially RS-5, to a more diverse range of housing types. Doing so is a progressive response to historical evidence that in cities all over the country conventional residential zoning has been exclusionary by design. However, the proposed amendments are the most significant alterations to the zoning code in nearly 20 years and changes of this magnitude and complexity deserve to be carefully studied and discussed by all affected stakeholders. To the best of his knowledge, there were no consultations with the general public or neighborhood associations prior to the issuance of the proposed amendments. Additionally, to the best of his knowledge there have been no reports to the local news media. The steering committee thinks it is extremely important for the Commission to defer voting on proposed amendments tonight and to think of ways to in which a broader community discussion about the proposed changes can be conducted. They strongly believe that neighborhood association meetings must be recognized as key stakeholders in this process. The Northside Association finds it difficult to fully assess how the amendments would affect the Northside and other neighborhoods in the UIA. 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 UIA 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 UIA. He noted what he has said is very consistent with the conversations he’s had with other members of the steering committee and with neighbors who attended that forum on Sunday. Lorraine Bowans (925 Barrington Drive) currently lives in Windsor Ridge but spent 30 years in the Longfellow area, along South Governor Street between Burlington and Bowery. She has served in a lot of capacities in different things. She is a member of the Johnson County Livable Communities, but is not here tonight representing them, these are her personal views. She is 100% behind the ADUs but has also lived in a historic house. Their house on South Governor was built in 1864 and there used to be a lot of duplexes and rooming houses on that section of street when they moved in there in 1985. It was 80% rental at one time then around 2000 many of those have been converted from duplexes and rooming houses back to single family homes. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 15 of 27 Their house was a duplex when they bought it, the house next door was a triplex with a unit in the garage and it was a duplex house. Bowans noted they can be made beautiful but she wants to preserve the historic buildings they left. She worked for the City engineering department in 1978 and it broke her heart to see all the historic houses on Johnson and Van Buren and all those places just demolished for housing for students. She also worked with Ann Freerks to make Longfellow, the South Governor and Lucas Street areas into the second conservation district. They put a lot of time and effort in keeping neighborhoods historic. She noted they can have ADUS and can be converted back to duplexes and things and not ruin the integrity, they have to be very careful. Bowans noted the conservation districts and the historic districts all have very strict guidelines, just to change a front porch they had to go in front of the Historic Commission to make sure they were doing the right thing. She would like to see the conservation and historic areas owner-occupied to help preserve that, because Governor Street, when they moved in, was a distressed neighborhood, their property taxes were basically nothing, and when they left they had gone up from around $700 a year in 1985 to over $6000. When the neighborhood was owner occupied, and even when they were rentals, looked nice and was taken care of. She would like to suggest part of the reason there are not more ADUs is they only had a one story-one stall garage. Their lot was a third of an acre and they wanted to build a carriage house because everybody along their alley had carriage house because they backed up to Summit Street. They couldn't build carriage house because it was non-conforming by City code so when they did build their large garage, which was 26 by 40, they thought about putting in something and were going to go in and argue about it to be the place where her parents would move into when they retire. Unfortunately, things got too pricey and they couldn't afford to build. But on larger lots one can make the carriage house and make it look beautiful for an ADU. She encourages some outside the box ideas. Bowans noted the other thing are covenants, when a subdivision is developed, they develop lots, where the roads are going to go and things like that. When a developer gets a plot of land, they subdivide it, they put in their streets and everything, and then they decide what buildings to build. Covenants usually last 20 or 22 years, and then they are renewable twice for 11 years, and then they're gone. She lives in Windsor Ridge and they no longer have covenants. Their house was built in 1996, but it's for the neighborhood to have kind of a uniform design. Additionally, she is a member of that AARP advocacy team and there are some changes to Medicaid coming and in Iowa they lost 23 nursing homes last year and six this year so far. The one in Iowa City is almost being shut down. Donald MacFarlane (620 Summit Street) was the founder of the Summit Street Historic Neighborhood Association, which is a carve out from Longfellow. He strongly endorses the thought that the Commission should not vote on this tonight until they've had a chance to talk to the neighborhoods. They should talk to the neighborhoods because the motivation for this change does not come from reality, it comes from theory. It comes from theories set 50-70 years ago, and by and large have never been proved to be either right or not right. He likes to live in this town because of its vibrancy and its vibrancy comes from young people who come to this town. They come as students and they need student housing, and how much student housing, they need enough for 26,000 students. There is also a need for married student housing, and after that young faculty housing, and after that senior faculty housing, plus all the other people in town. These constituency groups were never mentioned, students were never mentioned, neighborhoods were never mentioned, historic and conservation districts were almost never mentioned. They haven’t done a survey of X number of college towns, because college towns are very, very different than other towns. Have a look at them and see if there's something that was better than what they’ve done. Don't go to some theory, from an organization somewhere, there's never actually done this. He is not sure if there is a constituency for affordable housing. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 16 of 27 When he was young, he bought a house, it wasn't affordable, it was terrifying. It was way beyond his imagination. He couldn't think he could possibly own that house but did it because they wanted to live in a beautiful house. They did it because it was going to be a beautiful neighborhood and they thought they would invest in that and eventually it will become a family asset. And all of those things have become true, the house is in RS-5, the map shown was hard to see but this amendment is staying his street is going to be rezoned for duplexes, why convert those beautiful houses to duplexes. The answer is that young people who want to buy the best possible house that they can even though unaffordable, will not come to Iowa City, they go to Coralville, North Liberty, Solon, or wherever. They won’t want to buy a house on Summit Street, which is moderately expensive, because of the probability that house prices will decline and not rise, they will not have a family asset if they buy a house on Summit Street, because some theory tells us that our big beautiful houses should actually be duplexes. Wally Plahutnik (430 North Gilbert St) stated he is not part of any organized group, he is a Democrats and no one ever went broke overestimating the averse corporate landlords in Iowa City. He asks the Commission to keep that in mind when they're offering the possibility for them to double their money on a lot. He’d also like them to consider postponing this vote to get in touch with neighborhoods. He served on planning and zoning during the last writing of this code and during the previous development of all the district plans. What some regard as poison pills in that code was really carefully thought out and they regarded them as features rather than bugs, AARP disagrees with that, but they had a consensus of folks who did agree that they were features and not bugs. The first question is if this is indeed about affordable housing. He failed somewhere to find the numbers of results that are they're going to get from this. When they have a plan like that, that's great, he wants to see what the plans goals are to increase some affordable housing. At some point from staff it'd be great to hear if they proceed with this plan what X percent increase in affordable housing will be achieved. Like mentioned, the UI impacts zone, which he lives in, seems like it’s going to be immune from quite a few of these things, but that's not the issue. By expanding bedrooms what they're doing is expanding the UI impacts zone and not shielding the impact zone. The duplexes on the corners were really carefully worked on, thought out, talked about, discussed and again, they saw that it's a feature not a bug. He asked a theoretical question of how many duplexes on a block is okay, if they are on the corners and now in the middle, and more between the middle and the corners, well that's a whole different block, and with accessory houses in the back, it's going to make a serious impact on any neighborhood. Please consider postponing this and going through some of the processes of community engagement before a final proposal, because there's a lot of good ideas in there but there are some unintended consequences. Gregg Geerdes (890 Park Place) lives in mosquito flats but has a rental property in Goosetown and a rental property on Summit Street. He noted one of the things that apparently happened over the last 10 years been a trend away from this idea to preserve neighborhoods. He remembers when this whole controversy about conservation districts, historic districts and all those things came into play, and the idea was that they wanted to preserve the neighborhood because they were attractive to people and places for people wanting to live. Now it seems like they're getting away from that. The accessory dwelling units apparently can be built in most zones including conservation zones and historic preservation. Does Historic Preservation require construction requirements, or any other design standards, these things which are built in historic or conservation zones and the answer appears to be no because that would be an impediment or an obstruction to expanding housing. Now the overall principle here seems to be one of density. Densities now becomes good but that's a big leap for a lot of people have chosen to Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 17 of 27 leave Iowa City to build in North Liberty or Tiffin or Solon or variety of other places because they have been able to find desirable places to live and raise their family due to denisity. These owner occupiers are building in RS-5 but he asks them to keep in mind that there is competition out there. If they make this less desirable for families, they've got other places to go and that's what they will do, they're already doing that. The objective could be to bring them back not drive more out. Geerdes noted regarding group homes, two weeks or maybe months now, there were several articles in the paper about halfway houses, so what is a group home, is a halfway house or people getting out of prison home a group home. Perhaps that is something that they want to address again, they're seeking to extend a desirable community. He encourages them to note the examples in Portland and San Francisco mentioned, obviously if they read The New York Times, Washington Post, there's a great deal of coverage about how those zoning and accessible housing ordinances in those areas have failed and have given the exact opposite result. There is a bill this week where Minneapolis which famously outlawed single-family zoning in the last few years, is now rethinking its position because developers have abandoned and are going to St. Paul and adjacent suburbs that don’t have those restrictions. Tread lightly, Iowa City is a good community, it's attractive to people, that's why they come here. Don't put anything in front of them that deters that or detracts from the desirability that they all enjoy. Ellen McCabe (Housing Trust Fund in Johnson County) stated diversity in housing options can help make more housing more affordable. In addition to further incentives to add housing that is affordable need to be put in place. She works with developers everyday who want to create housing that is affordable, and they can work to lower the barriers that they face, including the design standards, it may not sound like brick on the facade is an issue but the developers expressed that every single aspect of the process adds cost. The Housing Trust Fund supports changes that will help the estimated 13,450 households with low incomes in Iowa City who are spending more than 30% of their income on their housing. That is the same cost burden by their housing. Tim Fleagle is a student at the University of Iowa and is a homeowner on the Northside, he wanted to say he believes that the proposed changes to the zoning code will benefit not just him as a homeowner and in certain neighborhoods, but him as a student. He has a young family, they're trying to grow that young family, and they may be priced out of their neighborhood because of the lack of affordable housing in that neighborhood. The zoning changes put forth today would allow for an increase in diversity of housing, whether that's renting or owning, and allow them to stay in the neighborhoods they want to be in. These are evidence-based policies that have shown through rigorous peer reviewed articles to improve outcomes in certain neighborhoods. A lot of opposition he’s heard today are people who are speaking out to continue to have exclusionary zoning for the purpose of excluding other people, mostly students, of which the City is made off of students. A lot of the comments are they don't want students in their neighborhoods. Bob Burchfield (1107 Muscatine Avenue) has owned a home on Muscatine Avenue for over 49 years, his neighbors always got a mix of students, houses that are rented as homes, and longtime homeowners. He was a student here, he loves students, they're not anti-students. He just objects to the process being used to rush these amendments through. October is just a few months away, and this is such a massive change. He objects to most of the proposals, but what he finds most objectionable is they are writing language that is being used to deceive and distract from what's really being done here. Everyone is for affordable housing but they know that in truth what this really does is allow developers to continue to make more money. He generally Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 18 of 27 doesn’t see developers living in these neighborhoods, students are living in these neighborhoods, the developers aren’t living in these neighborhoods. He doesn’t think he heard anything tonight that wasn't directed towards developers can’t do. He didn't hear anything about what those of them in their neighborhoods can do to maintain viable and stable neighborhoods. He doesn’t generally attend these meetings or speak because he doesn’t expect this City staff or Commission or City Council to be any different than the ones that throughout the years have allowed developers to profit by attacking the downtown, and their neighborhoods, he just wishes for once that they’d be honest about what they're really doing. Sharon DeGraw lives in the Northside and after the July 5 Planning and Zoning meeting took place, a few of them started to actually read what was in the code, the code changes and realized the different variables and the way that they would interact to cause so many different things that they weren't sure they could predict everything. They wondered if the people on the Planning Commission also felt the same way and if they could predict all the outcomes and staff could and if City Council will. So they put together this little meeting and called it a neighborhood forum. There was one week between announcing it and actually having it so they felt scrambled and they didn't know who would show up. But 50 people from different neighborhoods, mostly in the University Impact Areas did show up and they were responding to many of the things that people were talking about at this point. She asks that the Commission defer voting on this because there are many that would wish to meet and talk about variables. Paula 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. 7th Avenue) is a local architect who specializes in the green building. She Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 19 of 27 first wanted to say the staff did a great job putting this together, there's so much research, the maps, the data, she’s very impressed. One of the things she noticed was they said up front that affordable housing is complicated, so is climate action and those two go together very nicely. When they're increasing density of units, they’re reducing transportation and carbon from transportation. When they can do a duplex reducing the amount of carbon that is required to build that building, they’re creating a common wall so the total amount of heat that's required to heat those two dwellings is less than if it were two separate dwellings. It's a win for climate. One of the things about climate action and affordable housing is there's no one solution. There's no big idea that's going to solve the problems. This is going to be thousands of ideas cumulatively put together addressing the issue. She is very excited about many of these proposals, they have imperative to act on both housing and climate and if they're sitting here like, oh this possible bad outcome for me personally might affect me negatively, then they're never going to create change. She hears people say they are scared of density, that as a proxy for classism and she thinks they just need to call it out for what it is. The existing neighborhoods are not going to be just ransacked and she knows this because she designed her mother's house at 1618 Muscatine, after a house that had been horribly neglected was demolished, which is one of the 52 ADUs. They had to work really hard to come up with a solution to provide an apartment to a young man who's economically stressed for $500, utilities included, and her mom is still going to be able to pay for the entire construction costs of that unit in 15 years, and when she's less able, they can have someone living upstairs who can take care of her and check in on her every day. This is the reality of an aging population. Her mom's needs are what ADUs are all about, it’s been a huge success for her. Norbek is also working on a project at 724 Ronalds where a house was demolished after being neglected for many years, they are working with the Historic Preservation Commission and it has not been easy. It is $300 to $350 a square foot to build on that property so it's not like people will just waltz in, tear things down and build new, it's just not going to work. If someone pays $150,000 to $200,000 for a property that has an existing house just to tear it down and build new at $300 to $350 a square foot, no one's going to buy that house. They’re $150,000 out before they even buy one wood stud, it just doesn't make sense. Therefore, the concept that people will come in and demolish neighborhoods isn't rational, she has studied it, she has considered buying properties in those neighborhoods, she’s looked at adding ADUs, it's very difficult and it’s very expensive, epecially in historic preservation areas. Also, when they're talking about theory, let's look at ourselves and our hearts and what we're thinking and question how to they want to support those less than us, this guy who's renting from her mother for $500 a month, that's the story that they want. They have created affordable housing with that ADU. Norbek gave an example of a new house on Bloomington Street where they tore down a house on a corner lot and now they're trying to sell that house for $500,000 and guess what, no one's buying, it's been on the market for months so good luck to them to actually make their investment back. These fears about the existing neighborhoods are not based in reality, they're based in fear. Norbek is desperate to see climate action accelerate and these proposals will help make that happen. Nancy Carlson (1002 E. Jefferson Street) stated all of them want affordable housing, they want everybody to be able to afford to live and to have a living space, that isn’t the question. If they were 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. Karyl Bohnsack (Executive Officer, Greater Iowa City Area of Homebuilders Association) is also on the Johnson County Livable Community Coalition, the Johnson County Affordable Homeownership Coalition, and she has been a past board member of Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. She wants to thank the staff for taking the time to meet with and answer questions with the ABA, the Affordable Homeownership Coalition, the Affordable Livable Coalition, this is a good start but as the memo says it's not going to resolve all the issues related to housing affordability. There have been a lot of compromises that have been made about design standards, the way ADUs look, the way the duplexes look, there's been multiple moving parts to this in the eight and a half years that she’s been the executive officer and meeting with City of Iowa City staff. Bohnsack wanted to say that they support these changes and proposals that are being made to zoning code, it's the things that zoning can do to help with affordability. The Livable Community Coalition supports the accessory dwelling units, not to make neighborhoods a plethora of rental opportunities, but so people can continue living in place in their homes, so that someone can either look in on an elderly person or if you're living at home you can live in the ADU in the backyard, or someone else can take care of your family and understand the use of that whether it's aging and its abilities, so it's a good thing. As far as the group homes, three of the student build houses that were done in Iowa City were for Reach For Your Potential and there were areas that they could not build those homes and the students couldn't get that education. The zoning changes will help to be able to build those home and treat them like every other multifamily house, rather than an institution so they support that as well. Kelcey Patrick-Ferree (652 Sandusky Drive) a member of the South District Neighborhood Association but is here in her personal capacity to say she supports these changes. She also wants to specifically thank City staff for answering questions and for mentioning that they have looked at other college towns and seen what they've done with their zoning. She wants to remind everyone here that the old regulations in place have caused problems. In 2015 it was found that Iowa City was the 14th most economically segregated city in the country and they've been working on fixing that ever since. This change will finally start to make some of the bigger Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 22 of 27 changes needed in housing types in order to address these issues. The fact that Iowa City is that economically segregated areas has caused problems for the schools over and over and over. Her kids go to Alexandria Elementary in the southeast part of Iowa City but they have been assigned to go to middle school at Northwest Junior High in Coralville because of how economically segregated Iowa City is. So she appreciates that they're finally doing something about this. She has been participating in all of these meetings for almost a decade at this point, and the reports that the staff presented are not new, this is not surprising. It's not being put on people at the last minute, staff have come and talked to the South District Neighborhood Association regularly, they come and talk about zoning issues, they’ve talked about form-based code a lot when that was affecting their area. This is not something that is being dumped on people at the last minute. These are people who have not participated in this process because they didn't think that affordable housing was going to affect them until they found out that it was. The City is moving in the right direction. There's free bus service, they are reducing parking that is true, but they're adding a lot of incentives. This is going to help avoid sprawl, this is going to help be more environmentally friendly. She loves this inclusive zoning, she enjoys that this is going to make things more walkable and more bikeable, which is what a lot of young people want. It is unlike North Liberty, Tiffin and other cities in the area. She just wants to really emphasize this has been a decade long process, City staff is always accessible, they will talk to you about anything you have questions about. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) She has watched Planning and Zoning as well as the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council. She’s heard arguments for 45 years on what some of these plans are to be, she’s been on a planning committee for some of these things as well. Yet she did not know about this until Sunday and she is plugged into what's going on. She knows it's not deliberate for the City to hide this information but if it's going to impact her, she wants to have input. Therefore, she encourages the Commission to defer any vote or decision on this until they do gather input. She applauds all these progressive leaders that have come up to the podium, whether they're from Habitat for Humanity, or whatever sector that helps the disadvantaged of the community, but it sounds like the City has been in rather intimate conversation with them for quite a long time, and not with other people. She doesn’t want them to be turning their backs on 50 years of successful historic preservation activity in this town, which many dedicated people have spent an equal amount of time trying to educate and inform people about the community's history and the ties that bind us and give us a level of stability that's often lacking in other communities. Bennett acknowledged they live in stable neighborhoods but she is not classist, she resents being accused of that, and she’s not sexist, and she’s not racist. They all want affordable housing. She sat in these planning and zoning meetings and bought the bill of goods that said they need density downtown to combat urban suburban sprawl and keep things out by the Highlander as farm land but then at the same time, they're having developers come in with plans for every single square inch of this county and surrounding area. On a personal level she just had a friend who's been waiting for years to return to Iowa City, since 1985, but the market was pricing her out. Unfortunately, she paid double the value of a house over on Burlington Street. The classic example is of a former University of Iowa football player who's a millionaire who came in and brought the property and is turning it off for twice that amount. He didn’t address the drainage and sewer pipe issues in the basement, he just had the windows painted shut up and put carpeting over the hardwood floors. Now anyone coming back into that neighborhood has even higher costs trying to rehabilitate that property because of the historic building. So how does a single mom afford to rehab these houses that have been allowed by landlords to turn into blight ridden places where they haven't kept up the moisture problems and the drainage problems where they haven't addressed lead paint problems. If they want to talk Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 23 of 27 about climate change, well every time they tear down a house, where does that material end up, it ends up in the landfill. People want yards where they can step out onto the porch, they want to have gardens, they want walkability, these are all things the neighborhoods in this University Impact Zone enjoy. Bennett stated they are not elitist, they're living in mixed neighborhoods, there are students and she love students, she taught students for 45 years, students are the future. But they also have to live with old people, middle aged people, young people and children and she thinks some of this plan is very much a slap in the face to some of the older people in this community who have dedicated their lives to making it a better place to live, and enjoy the neighbors and the friends, and the things that this town has offered. She asks that they please wait and listen to them, they do support what they're trying to do. There's a lot of wisdom in the report which she appreciates and applauds, but it's also textbook oriented and it's not in humanist values embedded in it other than to use the shield of diversity and disability to again excuse what the developers are doing. They’re lining their pockets at others expense and she means those who've been below the highest income levels in this town. This has repeatedly happened her entire life in Iowa City, she has been marching up to this podium trying to encourage sensitivity among the leaders at whatever level they're at. They're investing an enormous amount of time, but she asks that they give this some time and don't always look at the bottom dollar. Mary Beth Slonneger (937 E Davenport Street) lives in Goosetown and stated she has not in any way absorbed everything in the 65 page report, but she just found out about this recently so she is in the group that says please hold off a little bit longer to listen to the neighborhoods. She thinks the value for Iowa City is that what they have that North Liberty and Tiffin and all the other areas don't have is the historic neighborhoods and beautiful houses that reflect that. In Goosetown, in the 1990s, her husband and her were given a grant by the City and so she is trying to suggest possible other ways of looking at encouraging affordable housing. Goosetown is probably at the bottom or near the bottom of the list of wealthy homes and they were given a grant, a depreciating grant, that if they put money into restoration that loan would be taken away, it was possibly 10 years, would there be a way of doing that, giving people grant money to upgrade some of these very small homes instead of getting them out to the landfill and letting developers come in. She encourages the Commission to think about creative ways of looking at some of these properties rather than just alliterating them. Martha Norbeck wanted to make clear that this is not changing historic or conservation district requirements and that none of the historic preservation or conservation district rules are being changed by any of these things. Hekteon confirmed that was correct. Sharon DeGraw wanted to clarify about the one house that was referred to at the corner of Bloomington and Union Street. What happened was the little cottage that was there was listed or valued for around $160,000 and when the new house was constructed it has three bedrooms upstairs and a bedroom in the basement, or studio or something in the basement and that house was originally listed for $590,000 and it didn't sell. Subsequently bedrooms have been rented out and they’ve seen them listed for about $900 - $1000 per bedroom, per month. If you multiply that by four, that's getting close to $4,000 a month, those are pretty expensive prices. Some people will priced out that. If one were to take the cottage in the Goosetown area cleared a lot, removed the house, would it be possible to do a duplex, have four college students in each duplex and charge again somewhere between $700 and $1,000 per person. And then do ADU in the back with two bedrooms again, that seems like it's getting close to $7000 to $10,000 per month and that's a game changer. That's more what they're worried about in terms of transforming the Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 24 of 27 neighborhoods in the Northside area. Jim Throgmorton 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. Jenny 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. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 8/3 9/7 10/19 11/2 11/16 12/7 12/21 1/4 1/18 2/15 3/1 4/5 4/19 6/21 7/5 7/19 8/2 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X NOLTE, MARK O/E O/E -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- PADRON, MARIA X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E X SIGNS, MARK X X X O/E O/E X X X X O/E O/E X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X O/E WADE, CHAD --- --- --- X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member