Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-06 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.a. I i CITY OF IOWA CITY �fil COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage housing affordability. (REZ23-0001) (Pass & Adopt) Attachments: Email from the City Attorney regarding the attached Memo from Associate Planner REZ23-0001 P&Z Packet 08-02-2023 REZ23-0001 P&Z Final Minutes 08-02-2023 Late P&Z Correspondence Correspondence to staff from Cheryl Cruise Ordinance City Council correspondence - Caitlin Owens e, a. Kellie Grace From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Councilors, Eric Goers Tuesday, October 3, 2023 2:15 PM Bruce Teague; Megan Alter, Shawn Harmsen; Laura Bergus; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Andrew Dunn Kellie Grace Late Handouts Distributed Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability item (8.a.) 2023-10-03 Late Council Memo Final.docx (Date) One Council member contacted planning staff with questions regarding one of tonight's zoning matters —the Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability item (8.a.) So as to ensure all Council members benefit from planning staff's answers, I asked them to provide me with a memo which I could in turn share with you. It is not confidential, so you are free to share the contents. Planning staff also plans to attend the meeting tonight and will be available to answer Council questions should that be desired. See you shortly. Eric R. Goers (hejhim/his)* City Attorney 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5030 egoers@ iowa-citv.ora i t , -- -82 �m rUX mom -at; CITY' OF IO4'd;1 C17t ra y.x, crr Cc t n izr.i, a t *1 include my pronouns in my email signature so people know how they should refer to me and so those who receive my email know I am interested in how I should refer to them. FARE FREE Iowa Cityv Transit is now FARE FREEI �- I O W A CITY Learn more at 1CGOV.ORG(FAREFREE Notice Since e-mail messages sent between you and the City Attorney's Office and its employees are transmitted over the Internet, the City Attorney's Office cannot assure that Such messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting information to the City Attorneys Office that you consider confidential If you are uncomfortable with such risks, you may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with the City Attorneys Office. Without written notification that you do not wish to communicate with the City Attorney's Office via e-mail communication, the City Attorneys Office will assume you assent to such communication. This rnessage is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2515. is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain Information that is confidential and subject to the attorney -client privilege. It should not be forwarded to anyone else without consultation with the originating attorney. If you received this message and are not the addressee, you have received this message in error_ Please notify the person sending the message and destroy your copy, Thank you. r CITY OF IOWA CITY '� "m�� MEMORANDUM Date: October 3, 2023 To: Eric Goers, City Attorney From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner Re: Proposed Change to the Zoning Code Amendments — Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability (Agenda Item 8.a) Introduction Staff received a call yesterday from a member of Council about the zoning code amendments related to housing choice, supply, and affordability. Specifically, the call discussed the proposed amendment which would allow duplexes in RS-5 and RS-8 zones to be located anywhere on a block instead of restricting them to corner lots. The Council member noted a possible change may be proposed whereby duplexes would be allowed on non -corner lots in RS-5 and RS-8 zones only if one of those units is affordable. The Council member asked for a written answer about what kinds of effects such a change may have. Nationally, most programs that require affordable housing mandate that 10% to 20% of units be affordable. Providing a small number of affordable units compared to the overall number of market rate units helps allow rents or sale prices for market rate units to somewhat cross - subsidize the affordable units, though additional government subsidy is still often required. At the same time, most affordable housing requirements also place a minimum threshold number of units that must be in a development before affordable units are mandated. For example, 10 units must be part of a development in the Riverfront Crossings District before the affordable housing requirement is triggered. This is because it is difficult to make small projects with affordable units work financially. The possible change to the affordable housing amendment would be akin to creating another voluntary program. With voluntary programs, an incentive must be provided that is high enough to entice builders to opt into the program to produce affordable units. Analysis In the case of the possible change, allowing duplexes in mid -block locations in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones would be considered the incentive. In return, one unit in a two -unit project (50% of dwelling units in a duplex) would need to be provided as affordable housing. Staff believes the possible change would likely cause the provision to go unused. This is because one additional unit in exchange for a 50% affordability requirement for mid -block duplexes in lower density single-family zones would likely not support the cost of building the duplex. This is true City-wide but would be especially true in the University Impact Area (UTA) where each unit is capped at 4 bedrooms (note that duplexes outside of the UTA could have 5 bedrooms under the proposed amendments). While there is a small chance an affordable housing provider that receives additional funding may utilize the provision, staff anticipates it would be infrequent due to capacity limitations for affordable housing providers. In addition, it may be challenging to justify such a change from a policy perspective. Two units, a single-family unit and accessory dwelling unit, are already allowed in mid -block locations on October 3, 2023 Page 2 lots in RS-5 and RS-8 zones. On corner lots, the City already allows duplexes as well. It seems inconsistent to specifically require that 50% of units in duplexes in certain zones in mid -block locations must be affordable but that it is not be required in these other contexts (or other zones allowing duplexes). Conclusion The practical result of the possible change would be to not expand the areas of the City in which duplexes are allowed because the requirement would prevent the construction of most new duplexes. As such, the proposed amendment would do little to encourage housing diversity and increase the supply of housing. To reiterate: The affordability requirement (50%) for duplexes in mid -block locations in IRS-5 and RS- 8 zones is high enough to act as a barrier to the construction of this housing type. The incentive offered (one additional unit) is not enough to actually encourage the construction of affordable housing. Justifying the proposal would be difficult as two units are allowed in mid -block locations already in RS-5 and IRS-8 zones, and duplexes are allowed in midblock locations in other single-family zones as well (i.e. RS-12 and RNS-12). r �®r,CITY OF I O W A CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 2, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability (REZ23-0001) Introduction Iowa City has a uniquely expensive housing market in Iowa. The City has focused on facilitating the creation of affordable housing opportunities and on enhancing housing choice within neighborhoods with a special focus on equity and low-income households. The City's Zoning Code (Title 14) impacts housing choice and supply, which can affect affordability. To further goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing, staff proposes several amendments to Title 14 (Attachment 2) to continue to enhance housing choice, increase housing supply, and support a more inclusive, equitable city. These include: 1. Increasing flexibility for a range of housing types to facilitate diverse housing choices; 2. Modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods; 3. Providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing by modifying dimensional standards and reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments; 4. Creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing (e.g., density bonuses and parking reductions) that would encourage income -restricted units throughout the community; and 5. Address fair housing concerns to help ensure that housing within neighborhoods can support a range of living situations and advance the City's equity and inclusion goals. Overall, the proposed zoning code changes are those supported by the City's current Comprehensive Plan. Consequently, they can be implemented with only modifications to existing code provisions, with the exception of the regulatory incentives for affordable housing and the reasonable accommodations process. Other more substantial changes in support of affordable housing have also been discussed previously, but they would likely require Comprehensive and/or District Plan amendments along with a robust public engagement process. The memo dated July 5, 2023 (Attachment 1) provides background regarding the proposed amendments, including the public engagement process and rationale that lead it. In summary, these amendments are the culmination of a series of efforts which began with the City's 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan and were reinforced through the City's 2019 Fair Housing Study, 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan, and most recently, City Council's FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan. Over the past several years, the City has made significant progress towards addressing its affordable housing goals. The proposed amendments are the next steps. The amendments will not solve all issues related to housing affordability or equity, but they can help improve housing choice, increase housing supply, encourage affordability, and more generally reduce barriers that prevent the construction of more affordable housing options as part of the larger effort to facilitate affordability. By implementing these strategies, the City can become a more inclusive, diverse, and equitable place that provides housing opportunities for all residents. August 2, 2023 Page 2 Proposed Zoning Code Amendments and Analysis This section discusses current and proposed regulations and analyzes their impacts. It is organized by into 5 general topic areas with a separate analysis for each proposed amendment. More detailed background on the rationale of each proposed amendment can be found in Attachment 1. Proposed Amendments: 1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types Iowa City's zoning code has increased in complexity over time. Iowa City's first zoning code in 1925 simply distinguished between residential, business, and industrial uses and zones and made no distinction between the types of buildings in which people lived. Today, there are 14 residential zones along with mixed use and commercial zones that regulate a wide variety residential of uses. While new zones and uses add specificity to development, it often does so in a way that separates and/or restricts housing types that are typically more affordable to lower income households. This has typically led to conventional development patterns with segregated land uses and housing types. The first set of proposed changes to the code allows a greater variety of housing types throughout Iowa City. A more specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 1. is Lurrenr a 7a. Allow duplex and attached single-tamily uses throughout single-tami/y residential zones Duplexes and attached single-family uses in Allow duplexes and attached single-family RS-5 and RS-8 zones are only allowed on uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones to be anywhere corner lots. f14-48-4A-2 & -57 in a block. Up to 6 side -by -side, attached dwelling units on individual lots are allowed in RS-12 zones, but they are not allowed if they are on a single lot because it is considered a multi -family use. uses on In most commercial zones, multi-tamily uses are only allowed above the ground floor (except under very specific circumstances in a few Central Business zones). Multi -family uses in CC-2 zones must be located above the ground floor and require a special exception. [14-2C-2, 14-48-4A-7] Provisionally allow up to 6 side -by -side, attached dwelling units on a single lot in RS- 12 zones (i.e. townhome-style multifamily). zones Provisionally allow multi-tamuy uses in GG2 zones and allow multi -family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special exception with the following specific approval criteria: 1. If in an existing building in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone, a rehabilitation plan approved by the Historic Preservation Commission must be completed prior to occupancy. 2. The units cannot significantly alter the overall commercial character of the zone. 3. For existing buildings in an OHD zone, dwellings are prohibited on or below street level where 3 or more of the following commercial storefront characteristics are present: August 2, 2023 Page 3 Assisted group living uses are provisionally allowed in RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, PRM, and CO-1 zones and allowed by special exception in RM-12 and CO-1 zones. Multi -family uses are allowed by right in all multi -family and MU zones, provisionally in CO-1, CN-1, and most CB zones and by special exception in CC-2 and sometimes CB-10 zones. [14-28-2, 14-2C-2, 14-48-4A-8] b.The front facade of the building is within 10' of the front property line, c.The front facade contains ground floor storefront or display windows, and d.The street level floor of the building was originally constructed to accommodate sales oriented and personal service oriented retail uses and/or has historically been used for these ourooses. Kegulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses by allowing it provisionally in RM-12, CN-1, MU, and CB zones and by not allowing it in CI-1 zones. For CC-2 zones, allow it to the same extent as multi -family (i.e. provisionally if amendment 1c is approved or by special exception if it is not approved). Analysis: 1. increase flexibility for a range of housing types These proposed changes would enhance housing diversity especially for missing middle housing types like duplexes, attached single-family uses, and townhome-style multi -family uses. They also permit a wider variety of living arrangements and better accommodates residential uses near commercial areas. These in turn benefit housing affordability and equity by removing some barriers to housing types that tend to be more affordable, leading to more compact neighborhoods, and reducing the potential for racial and class segregation caused by exclusionary practices such as single-family only zoning. These are possible with relatively limited impact to neighborhood character by focusing on uses and building types similar to what is currently allowed in those zones. 1a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential zones Existing Comprehensive and District Plans consider duplex and attached single-family uses to be compatible with detached single-family homes in most contexts. These uses are typically more affordable than detached single-family homes. However, the number of these units permitted over the past 30 years dropped from an annual average of 33 duplex and 13 attached single-family units from 1992 to 2005 to an annual average of 11 duplex units and 8 attached single-family units from 2006 to 2022 (Figure 2). This change corresponds to the adoption of a new zoning code in 2005 which opened these uses to corner lots in RS-5 zones but restricted them from mid - block locations in RS-8 zones. It also established more stringent design standards. August 2, 2023 Page 4 Figure 2: Duplex and Attached Single -Family Units Permitted by Year 70 60 50 40 49 30 30 28 4 6 20 26 I ' 28 10 0 ■ ■ T T T T T T T 7 m T m 6 10 N M V N O O O O O O O O N N N N 14 19 14 12 23 1100N96 z■.� O O O O O N M V O O ON N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ■Duplex Unis Permitted Single -Family Attached Units Permitted Lower density single-family residential zones (RS-5 and RS-8) constitute much of the City's land and often act as a default zone for new development. Figure 3 shows where duplexes and attached single-family uses are currently allowed. Areas that currently allow duplexes or attached single-family uses provisionally throughout a block are relatively limited (green), while areas zoned Riverfront Crossings allow these uses if they meet a valid building type (yellow). On the other hand, most neighborhoods are zoned RS-5 and RS-8 which currently allows these uses only on corner lots (orange). This limits their production unless a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) zone is utilized. August 2, 2023 Page 5 The proposed amendment would expand the potential number of existing lots in RS-5 and RS-8 zones that could contain a duplex use, as shown in Figure 4 (attached single-family uses would likely require a re -subdivision). Lots that allow duplexes currently (green) are generally scattered throughout the city. Lots that may contain duplex uses under the proposed amendment (yellow) are generally located outside of the city's central core. Lots that do not meet the minimum dimensional standards (e.g. lot size or width) for duplex uses under proposed amendments (gray) are primarily located in older portions of the City, including the Northside, Morningside, Twain, and Longfellow neighborhoods. However, some additional lots concentrated in other areas of the city may also allow these uses if this amendment and the proposed lot dimension reduction amendment (3a) occur (orange). Areas zoned with an OPD are excluded as they must be evaluated on a case -by -case basis to determine if the new use constitutes a significant change to an approved OPD Plan. Figure 4: Map of Parcels Zoned RS-51RS-8 That Allow Duplexes Under Proposed Amendments Approximately 12,000 existing parcels may be impacted by the proposed amendment because they are zoned RS-5 or RS-8 and are outside of an OPD zone (Figure 5). Of these, around 2,900 lots may allow duplex uses with the proposed amendment, while another 2,200 may accommodate duplexes if minimum lot dimensions are also reduced as proposed in Amendment 3a. The remainder can either currently contain a duplex use or cannot accommodate duplexes even with the proposed amendments due to insufficient lot dimensions. Note that these numbers only indicate lots that could accommodate duplex uses under the proposed amendments. This analysis does not account for the fact that some lots already contain such uses, some may be non-residential, or some may retain their current use. Allowing a use does not mean it will be established, and staff cannot estimate where these uses may be added. If conversions or redevelopment does occur, it will likely happen gradually which provides time to adjust standards if needed. This is especially true given current market conditions where loan rates and construction costs are high which limits incentives to redevelop lots on which a structure already exists. August 2, 2023 Page 6 Figure 5: Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 That Allow Duplexes Under Proposed Amendments RS-5 RS-8 Total Does Not and Would Not Allow Duplex 4,679 1,490 6,169 (does not meet current or proposed standards) (48.8%) (61.3%) (51.3%) Allows Duplex Under Current Standards 632 100 732 on corner, meets current min. lot requirements) 6.6% 4.1 % 6.1 Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a 2,375 498 2,873 not on corner, meets current min. lot requirements) 24.8% 20.5% 23.9% Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a and 3a 1,905 342 2,247 not on corner, meets proposed min. lot requirements) 19.9% 14.1 % 18.7% Total RS-5 and RS-8 Parcels w/o an OPD 1 9,591 1 21430 1 12,021 Staff also reviewed the potential impact of the proposed amendment on parcels in the University Impact Area (Figure 6), which includes neighborhoods close to the University of Iowa Campus. This area is subject to additional zoning standards to help prevent some negative effects associated with concentrations of dormitory -style apartments. Staff identified 166 parcels zoned RS-5 and RS-8 in the University Impact Area that would be able to accommodate a duplex use with the proposed amendment, and an additional 93 parcels may become duplexes if dimensional standards are reduced as proposed in amendment 3a. Of these 259 parcels, 66 are within an Historic or Conservation Overlay zone, which strictly regulates the demolition of historic homes and the appearance of any conversions. The remaining lots could either become a duplex use under current rules (37), were already previously converted into a duplex, multi- family, group living, or commercial use (67), or would be ineligible for a duplex use due to lot characteristics, even with other proposed changes (614). Most other zones in the University Impact Area already allow duplexes throughout a block. As such, impacts to the University Impact Area should be relatively limited. Figure 6: Parcels Zoned RS-5/RS-8 in the University Impact Area That Allow Duplexes Under Proposed Amendments Non-OCD/ OCD/ Total Non-OHD OHD Does Not and Would Not Allow Duplex 357 257 614 does not meet current or proposed standards 57.3% 72.6% 62.8% Contains a Legal Non -Conforming Duplex, Multi- 51 16 67 family, Group living, or Commercial use 8.2% 4.5% 6.9% Allows Duplex Under Current Standards 22 15 37 on corner, meets current min. lot requirements) 3.5% 4.2% 3.8% Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a 128 38 166 not on corner, meets current min. lot requirements) 20.5% 10.7% 17.0% Allows Duplex Under Proposed Changes in 1a and 3a 65 28 93 not on corner, meets proposed min. lot requirements) 10.4% 7.9% 9.5% Total RS-5/RS-8 Parcels in University Impact Area 623 354 977 In summary, if the proposed amendments are adopted, it may allow an additional 5,120 new duplex units in the community, of which 259 may be in the University Impact Area. However, the number of units added would likely be significantly smaller. Staff anticipates that the effects of the proposed amendment would be more pronounced on the edge of the community where it is easier to meet the relevant lot standards through the creation of new lots in green field development. It would also reduce the need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or OPD process for these housing types, which will streamline approvals. August 2, 2023 Page 7 1b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS-12 zone From the exterior, townhome-style multi -family uses are virtually indistinguishable from attached single-family uses. The primary difference is the lot configuration where attached single-family uses are located on individual lots and townhome-style multi -family uses are located on one lot (see Figure 7). While the proposed amendment would likely have limited impact in the number of new units added, it would increase flexibility in terms of housing types within the RS-12 zone by allowing limited multi -family uses that look like single-family uses in a single-family zone. Figure 8 illustrates areas zoned RS-12 that do not currently allow townhome-style multi -family with up to 6 attached units but would with the proposed amendment (orange). Figure 7: Street View and Lot View of Attached Single -Family at 1101-1117 Mormon Trek Blvd 723 Herbert Hoover Highway SE (right) August 2, 2023 Page 8 1c. Allow multi -family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special exception and provisionally allow multi -family uses in the CC-2 zone Figure 8 illustrates areas that currently allow multi -family uses, and areas that would allow multi- family uses under the proposed amendments. Multi -family uses today are allowed by right in the center of the city and in defined nodes which are zoned multi -family, Riverfront Crossings, and MU (blue). Commercial zones that currently allow multi -family uses provisionally above the ground floor (green) include CO-1, CN-1, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10. Areas zoned OPD may allow multi -family uses based on an approved OPD plan. CC-2 is the only commercial zone that currently requires a special exception for multi -family uses (yellow), but the proposed amendment would remove this procedural barrier. This code change would streamline the process for providing mixed use buildings along important corridors and in other nodes missed by current zoning. This would also help support commercial activity in those areas by encouraging more people to live in closer proximity to the goods and services available there. Additionally, allowing residential uses on the ground floor in commercial zones by special exception opens the possibility for horizontally mixed -use projects where there are separate commercial and residential buildings on a single site. Currently, most horizontally mixed -use projects require an OPD or a subdivision and multiple zones; only vertically mixed -use buildings are allowed (i.e. ground floor commercial with residential uses above). The proposed amendment could lead to a greater mix of uses on under-utilized parcels, such as former big box sites, but Board of Adjustment review will also ensure that existing and historic buildings are appropriately protected and that the commercial character of these zones is maintained. 8: Map of Zones That Allow Multi -Family Uses: Current and Proposed August 2, 2023 Page 9 1d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses Assisted group living uses include group care facilities such as nursing and convalescent homes and assisted living facilities. They are considered a group living use rather than a household living use, even though they appear similar to other multi -family uses. Figure 9 illustrates where assisted group living uses are currently allowed and where they would be allowed under the proposed amendment. Currently, assisted group living uses are allowed provisionally in higher intensity multi -family residential zones (RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, and CO- 1 shown in green) and allowed by special exception in the RM-12 zone (yellow). They are also allowed in Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zones (red) but not in any commercial zones that allow multi -family uses (CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, CB-10, and MU, shown in orange). Areas zoned OPD may allow assisted group living uses based on an approved OPD plan. Figure 9: Map of Zones That Allow Assisted Group Uses: Current and Proposed The primary impact of the proposed amendment would be to allow assisted group living more readily in commercial zones that already allow multi -family residential uses and to streamline approvals for assisted group living in RM-12 zones. However, the amendment would also prohibit assisted group living in areas zoned CI-1 as residential uses are not generally considered compatible with these areas. Overall, the proposed amendment would provide for a greater variety of living arrangements while maintaining a similar character for each zone involved. August 2, 2023 Page 10 Proposed Amendments: 2. Modify Design Standards Encouraging an enhanced standard of design helps maintain the high quality of life present in Iowa City. To that end, the zoning code has a number of regulations regarding the building and site design based on zone, use, and location to promote safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. The second set of proposed amendments includes several recommendations to help reduce the cost of compliance and streamline implementation without impacting the purpose of these standards. A more specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 10. Fiqure 10: Current & Proposed Regulations MODIFY2. Current Proposed 2a. Eliminate some multi -family site deve/o ment standards to row a flex/b/lit Most multi -family and group living uses in Eliminate those two requirements from the buildings not built of masonry or stucco must multi -family site development standards. have a 2-foot base of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete. Where wall materials change around the corner of a building, the material must wrap 3 feet around the corner. [14-28-6G-5 & -8 and 14-2C-91-3 & -6] 2b. Adjust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid -block locations Attached single-family and duplex uses in RS- Modify standards for attached single-family 5 and RS-8 zones must have each unit's main and duplex uses to allow entrances and entrance and garage facing a different street. garages to face one street, but limit garage [14-48-4A-2, -3, & -5] frontage to 60% of the building wall and limit vehicular access to 1 doublewide (20) or 2 singlewide (10) garage doors facing each street unless they are set back at least 15' from the building fagade. In addition, require alley access to be used where present. 2c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-st le multi -family use Buildings in multi -family zones cannot have Allow the Building Official to waive this parking within the first 15 feet of building requirement for townhome-style multi -family depth. This may be waived by minor uses without a minor modification. This would modification which requires a mailing and be for streets not faced by main entrances to administrative hearing. dwelling units. 14-5A-5F-1b Analysis: 2. Modify Design Standards These proposed changes to design standards are intended to reduce the cost and time required to ensure attractive, visually interesting buildings that remain compatible with surrounding uses. They will also facilitate mid -block duplexes and attached single-family uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones in conjunction with proposed amendment 1a and allow for more flexibility with regards to building placement and architectural elements. For the most part, new structures are expected to look similar to those built under current standards. August 2, 2023 Page 11 2a. Eliminate some multi -family site development standards to provide flexibility This proposed amendment would affect multi -family, group living, and institutional/civic uses in residential zones and the Central Planning - District. However, it is not expected to— substantially impact the quality of A esign or appearance of buildings 1 = -- — r -- because other multi -family site development standards that more directly affect visual interestwill remain in effect. These include standards addressing building entrances and scale, balconies and exterior stairways, building materialsIL mechanical equipment, and in the Central Planning District, architectural style. The image to the right is an example of a building because it does not meet the durable base standard. that would currently not be allowed 2b. Adjust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid -block locations The implications of allowing duplexes and attached single-family uses throughout RS-5 and RS- 8 zones is explored in more detail above (proposed amendment 1a). However, this proposed amendment helps mitigate the impacts of allowing duplex and attached single-family uses in lower density residential neighborhoods by limiting blank garage walls facing the street. Limiting the garage wall openings to a maximum of 20 feet facing a street continues to allow units on corner lots to each have a doublewide (2-car) garage facing a different street, or if they both face a single street frontage, they could share one doublewide garage or have two separate single -wide garages. Where additional parking is desired, garages could face away from a street or be set back 15 feet from the front fagade. 2c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi -family uses The impacts of this proposed amendment are very limited. The diagram to the right illustrates the 15' building depth line behind which parking must be located in the current code. The intent is that parking be located behind occupied building space so that it is not visible from the front of the building. The proposed amendment allows an administrative waiver from this standard for townhome-style multi -family uses on a corner lot. The waiver could only be applied to the side street, not the front street. The proposed amendment maintains the intent of the current regulation and would no longer require a minor modification that triggers neighbor notification and an administrative hearing, both of which add time to a project. August 2, 2023 Page 12 Proposed Amendments: 3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing Another way to enhance the supply of housing and provide flexibility in the design of new subdivisions is through modifying dimensional standards (e.g. minimum lot size) and allowing different types of housing that can provide additional housing choices for a variety of households. This includes removing barriers to the construction of accessory apartments, also called accessory dwelling units (ADUs), granny flats, or mother-in-law suites. Proposed changes to ADU standards are based on recommendations made by the Johnson County's Housing Action Team of the Livable Community for Successful Aging and align with those from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). This third set of proposed amendments is intended to reduce the cost of land as a portion of the total housing cost on a per unit and per person basis. A more specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 11. i t: Lurrenr a, and to ensure Size Area/ Unit Width Front. RS-5 8,000 8,000 60 45 RS-5' 6,000 6,000 50 30 RNS-12' 5,000 5,000 45 25 RM-12 55 RM-20 55 Only where rear access is provided Min. duplex lot standards: Size Area/ Unit Width Front. RS-5 12,000 16,000 80 80 RS-8 18,700 14,350 170 170 Min. attached single-family lot standards Size Area/ Unit Width I Front. RS-5 6,000 6,000 40 40 RS-8 4,350 4,350 135 135 outside of the Area newer [/6Ya Size Area/ Unit Width Front. RS-5 6,000 6,000 50 40 RS-5' 5,000 5,000 45 30 RNS-12` 3,000 3,000 30 20 RM-12 45 RM-20 45 Only where rear access is provided Min. duplex lot standards: Size Area/ Unit Width Front. RS-5 10,000 5,000 70 70 RS-8 8,000 4,006 60 60 Min. attached single-family lot standards: Size Area/ Unit Width Front. RS-5 5,000 5,000 35 35 RS-8 4,000 4,000 30 30 uses Multi -family dwelling units are limited to 3 Increase the number of bedrooms allowed bedrooms and duplex and attached single- outside of the University Impact Area to 4 family dwelling units are limited to 4 bedrooms. bedrooms for multi -family units and to 5 for 14-2B-4, 14-2C-4, 14-5A-4 duplex and single-family attached units. 3c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce barriers to construction Accessory apartments are only allowed in the Modify the standards to reduce barriers, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, and RNS- including the following changes: 12 zones and must: 1.Allow accessory apartments in any zone that 1.Be a separate dwelling unit accessory to a allows household living uses (including detached single-family use; one per lot. RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow on any lot that contains up to 2 dwelling units. August 2, 2023 Page 13 2. Be under the same ownership as the single- family use; one unit must be owner - occupied. 3.Only have up to 2 residents and 1 bedroom. 4.Be no larger than 650 square feet, 30% of the floor area of the principal dwelling if in a principal dwelling, or 50% of the floor area of an accessory building if in an accessory building, whichever is less. 5.Provide one extra off-street parking space. 6.When located within the principal dwelling, must be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family residence. Any new entrances should face the side or rear yard, and any addition may not increase the floor area of the original dwelling by more than 10%. Exterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must visually match the principal dwelling unit. one owner -occupied. Remove limits on the number of bedrooms and residents. Increase the size limit to 1,000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. Also, allow stand-alone accessory apartments. Remove the requirement for an additional parking space. Remove requirements limiting additions to 10% of a building and limiting entrances to side or rear yards so long as it appears to be a use allowed in the zone. Analysis: 3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing These proposed changes share the goal of reducing the costs associated with housing and allowing flexibility for a variety of living arrangements. Reducing minimum lot sizes and lot widths can help lower the land costs associated with each dwelling unit, especially in lower density zones such as RS-5. It would also bring the lot sizes of many areas developed before 1962 into conformance with the zoning code. Increasing the bedroom cap would allow the City to accommodate larger households in a wider variety of housing types outside of the University Impact Area while retaining a lower bedroom cap where the demand for student rentals is highest. Removing barriers to the development of ADUs allows an incremental increase in housing supply in such a way that limits impacts to the appearance of a neighborhood. 3a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form -based standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use By reducing lot standards for single-family and duplex uses and allowing detached single-family homes in RNS-12 zones with rear alley access to have reduced minimum lot sizes and widths, the proposed amendment brings a number of detached single-family lots zoned RS-5 and RNS- 12 into conformance with the zoning code. Figure 12 illustrates the conformance or non- conformance of detached single-family lots zoned RS-5 and RNS-12 under the proposed amendment, excluding areas with Planned Development Overlays that can receive waivers from lot requirements. As expected, most lots currently conform to the zoning code (green), but a number of non -conforming lots would become conforming due to the proposed reduction in lot size and lot width (yellow). These areas are primarily located in older areas of the City, including the Morningside, Twain, Plum Grove, and Manville Heights neighborhood, among others. However, a number of lots would remain non -conforming even with the proposed amendment (red), especially near Towncrest and the Northside. Bringing lots into conformance with the zoning code simplifies occupancy on the lot. Minimizing non -conformities is also considered best practice. Figure 13 provides the number of lots affected by the proposed amendment. There are approximately 9,500 single-family detached lots zoned RS-5 outside of areas with an OPD, of which nearly 1,750 or 18% are currently non -conforming. Another 278 single-family detached lots are zoned RNS-12, of which 184 or 66% are non -conforming. The proposed amendments August 2, 2023 Page 14 would bring nearly 1,550 lots zoned RS-5 and 91 lots zoned RNS-12 into compliance with the zoning code, which reduces the total number of remaining non -conforming lots in these zones to 296. Many remaining lots are 50-foot by 80-foot reversed corner lots which have trouble meeting parking and other dimensional and site requirements. Figure 12: Map of Detached Single -Family Parcels Zoned RS-5/RNS-12 by Conforming Status: Figure 13: Detached Single -Family Parcels Zoned RS-5/RNS-12 by Conforming Status: Current and Proposed RS-5 RNS-12 Total Currently Conforming Lots; Remain Conforming Under Proposed Amendments 7,756 81.6% 94 33.8% 7,850 80.2% Currently Non -Conforming Lots; Made Conforming Under Proposed Amendments 1,545 16.3% 91 32.7% 1,636 16.7% Currently Non -Conforming Lots; Remain Non- Conforming Under Proposed Amendments 203 2.1% 93 33.5% 296 3.0% Total SFD Parcels zoned RS-5/RNS-12 w/o an OPD 9,504 278 9,782 The impact of the proposed amendment would be larger for new subdivisions containing single- family and duplex uses because it allows a more flexible arrange of lots with reduced lot widths and frontages. However, many lots in new subdivisions are larger than the minimum lot size required. As such, the proposed change enables the creation of smaller lots but does not mandate it as developers choose lot sizes based on the target market and subdivision. Another impact is that reducing lot sizes for duplexes allows them on a wider variety of existing lots. The implications are discussed under the analysis for proposed amendment 1a. August 2, 2023 Page 15 3b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi -family uses outside of the University Impact Area This proposed amendment accommodates a wider range of household types outside of the University Impact Area. Current standards make it difficult to accommodate larger families in any dwelling units that are not detached single-family. This creates higher housings costs for larger families, especially those that are lower income. For example, Habitat for Humanity has built 5- bedroom attached single-family units for families in the past, but that is no longer possible. The proposed amendment will positively impact the ability of those household types, including intergenerational households, to find dwellings that meet their housing needs. The proposed amendment will not apply to the University Impact Area (Figure 14). Bedroom caps for multi -family units were implemented due to a proliferation of large dwellings near downtown that effectively functioned as rooming units. Bedrooms for duplex and attached single-family units were capped after the City lost the ability to limit the number of unrelated individuals living in a household to 3. Maintaining a lower bedroom cap in the University Impact Area helps maintain a balance of owner- renter -occupied units in neighborhoods in and around the University. Numerous other rental permit standards will also remain in effect, such as minimum open space standards, restrictions on the percentage of dwelling units that can be bedrooms, and paving restrictions for rear yards. Figure 14: Map of University Impact Area August 2, 2023 Page 16 3c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce barriers to construction Removing barriers to the construction of ADUs can increase the supply of housing and help older homeowners, single parents, young home buyers, and renters in seeking a wider range of homes, prices, rents and locations. Iowa City first allowed ADUs for elderly or persons with disabilities in 1987, and widened it to the general public in 2005. While ADU development increased after that change, development has remained relatively muted with only 52 ADUs permitted since 1995 at an average rate of less than 2 per year (Figure 15). Of these, 16 (31 %) were constructed as part of the Peninsula development. Current standards constitute a significant barrier to new ADUs in most areas of the city. Figure 15: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Permitted 1995-2023 a a� E 5 ' 0 ' 0 0 0 ' Comparing the properties that could currently have an ADU to the number that do further highlights the issue. Based on building characteristics alone, there are approximately 13,020 single-family detached dwelling units in zones that currently allow an accessory apartment. However, renter -occupied properties are currently not allowed to have an ADU. The 2021 5-year American Community Survey estimates that approximately 76.4% of single-family detached units are owner -occupied. This suggests that 9,947 single-family dwellings may have an ADU, of which only 52 (0.5%) actually have a permitted ADU. The proposed amendment encourages the development of ADUs by expanding the zones in which ADUs are allowed to any zone that allows household living uses and by expanding the building types to which ADUs can be accessory to any lot with 2 or less dwelling units. Figure 16 shows parcels that currently allow ADUs (green) in addition to parcels that would allow ADUs under the proposed amendments (yellow). The most notable areas ADUs would be allowed are the RNS-12 zone, the lower density multi -family zones, and areas that contain a concentration of duplexes. Note that the map does not account for properties with a current rental permit as properties can switch between owner- or renter -occupied at any time. In total, staff anticipates that this could allow for an additional 1,403 ADUs. In addition, this proposed amendment would remove the requirement that the owner of the property must live either in the primary home or ADU, i.e. ADUs could be accessory to properties with a rental permit under the proposed amendment. This could potentially add 3,073 new ADUs for single-family rental homes based on current estimates of single-family homes with a rental permit. However, removing the owner -occupancy requirement may have a larger effect near the University due to a higher number of rental permits in that area. In a recent analysis from June August 2, 2023 Page 17 30, 2022, the City estimated that approximately 32.5% of single-family and duplex units in select neighborhoods near downtown have a rental permit. This would mean removing the owner - occupancy requirement may allow as many as 2,333 accessory apartments (76% of those gained from removing the rental requirement) in these areas. This generally supports the City's sustainability goals by adding units in the most walkable areas of town, but there are also additional constraints in this area that make it challenging to add ADUs including smaller lot sizes and additional design considerations from Historic and Conservation District zones. As such, it is difficult to fully anticipate the number of new units that may be added. Figure 16: Map of Parcels That May Allow Accessory Dwelling Units: Current and Proposed Proposed Amendments: 4. Create Regulatory incentives for Affordable Housing Staff also recommends new regulatory incentives including density bonuses, flexibility from dimensional standards, and parking reductions that are tied directly to producing income - restricted, affordable housing. The proposed amendments are similar to recently adopted regulatory incentives for income -restricted affordable housing in Form -Based Zones. A more specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 17. Figure 17: Current & Proposed Regulations • •- •-� • ..• -• 4a. Create a density bonus for affordable h using units in conventional zoning districts Affordable housing projects can receive height For conventional zones, create a 20% density bonuses in the Riverfront Crossings zones bonus where 20% of units in a development and density bonuses in Form -Based zones, are income -restricted affordable housing for but conventional zoning districts only provide 20 years, to be administered through existing density bonuses for alleys serving single- processes. In addition, provide additional family detached housing, for multi-famil elder flexibility from dimensional standards August 2, 2023 Page 18 housing, for quality design elements in certain zones, and for features promoting sustainability. [14-2A-7, 14-28-7, 14-2C-11, 14-2G-8, 14-2H-8, 14-4F including allowing an increase in the maximum height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction. 4b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones There is no minimum parking requirement for Income -restricted affordable housing units in affordable housing units in the Riverfront all zones would not be required to have on -site Crossings District or Form -Based Zones, and parking if they provide affordable housing for a minor modification is available in CB-5 and at least 20 years in compliance with the City's CB-10 zones which allows up to 30% of units new affordable housing requirements. in an affordable housing project to be exempted from minimum parking requirements. 14-5A-4F-4 Analysis: 4. Create Regulatory Incentives for Affordable Housing The goal of these proposed amendments is to encourage developers to voluntarily provide income -restricted affordable housing units. They do so by helping off -set the financial costs of affordable housing through an increased number of units which improves revenues and reduced parking space requirements which decreases the cost of construction. In addition, flexibility from other standards can be provided where it is needed to make an affordable housing project work. Both regulatory incentives would be administered by staff through the site plan or building permit process, although the density bonus may also be reviewed by City Council during approval of a subdivision or Planned Overlay Development (OPD) Plan. 4a. Create a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts In a 2020 study, Fannie Mae identified just over 1,000 inclusionary housing programs throughout the United States.' The most common incentive to provide is a density bonuses (57%), and the most common program requirements are that 10 to 19% of units are affordable, units are available to households making 51 to 80% of the area median income, and that units are affordable for a period of 30 to 39 years. Finding a balance between the incentive and the requirements to be eligible for the incentive is an important factor in whether developers utilize voluntary bonuses. Overall, the proposed amendmentwill help encourage new affordable housing units throughout Iowa City by increasing the density of development that includes income - restricted affordable units. 4b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones Fannie Mae's 2020 study also found that other zoning variances such as parking reductions and design flexibility was the next most common incentive, active in 24% of jurisdictions with inclusionary housing policies. The City's affordable housing requirement in the Riverfront Crossings District is one such example, as are the parking reductions available to voluntary affordable housing projects in the form -based, CB-5, and CB-10 zones. The impact of this proposed amendment will be to reduce the minimum number of required on -site parking to zero (0) spaces for income -restricted, affordable units. This also provides more flexibility in site design and allows the affordable housing development to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces for their future residents. 1 Inclusionary Housing in the United States: Prevalence, Practices, and Production in Local Jurisdictions as of 2019, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), December 2020. August 2, 2023 Page 19 Proposed Amendments: 5. Address Fair Housing In addition to focusing on housing affordability, the City also works to make Iowa City a more equitable place to live. Consequently, staff proposes two amendments to help enhance fair housing as recommended by the City's 2019 Fair Housing Study. A more specific description of each amendment is provided in Figure 18. Fi ure 18: Current & Proposed Regulations 5. ADDRESS HOUSING 5a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code Per Federal Fair Housing law, the City must Create an administrative "Reasonable provide reasonable accommodations from Accommodations Request" process with a land use or zoning policies where they may be defined approval procedure. Applications necessary to allow persons with disabilities to must be reviewed within 30 working days. have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a Proposed approval criteria include: dwelling. The code has a few specific waivers, 1.The housing will be used by an individual but they do not cover every accommodation with disabilities; and are not easily identified. 2.The accommodation is necessary to make [14-8B] housing available for the use and enjoyment of an individual with disabilities; 3.The accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the jurisdiction; and 4.The accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the Cit 's zoning program. 5b. Reclassify community service — long term housing uses as a residential use Long-term housing operated by a public or Eliminate the Community Service — Long Term nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities is Housing use as a distinct use category and classified as a Community Service — Long instead regulate it as a residential use. Term Housing use, which is considered an institutional use and is regulated differently Create a definition for permanent supportive from residential uses. As a result, this use is housing and specify that it is considered to be only allowed in a few commercial zones a residential use. (including the CI-1 zone which does not allow household living uses), but it is not allowed in Specify that supportive services for residents residential, CN-1, CB-10 or MU zones. Long of a development may be considered Term Housing uses allow higher densities and accessory to a residential use. less parking than residential uses and typically have on -site supportive services, but they also trigger additional process where it is near single-family residential zones. They also require a neighborhood meeting and management plan which are not required for other residential uses that house persons with disabilities. [14-2C-2, 14-4A-3A, 14-4A-6C, 14-48-4D-6, 14-5A-4, 14-9A August 2, 2023 Page 20 Analysis: 5. Address Fair Housing The goal of these proposed amendments is to enhance equity by clarifying the process to request reasonable accommodations and to treat housing for persons with disabilities as a residential use rather than an institutional use. They are designed to be consistent with best practices. 5a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code The new process would ensure a systemic way to provide reasonable accommodations from zoning regulations and processes consistent with best practices and federal law. The primary impacts would be streamlining how grant reasonable accommodations requests are granted and providing a clear set of criteria to evaluate such requests. While the City currently has a number of provisions that allow persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, these provisions can require administrative hearings (as a Minor Modification), and there is no systemic way to address all requests. Finally, this proposed amendment provides clarity for those who wish to utilize such requests. In total, it will help avoid calling attention to the disability of the applicant and placing additional burdens on the person experiencing disability. 5b. Reclassify community service — long term housing uses as a residential use This proposed amendment would have a number of impacts by ensuring housing with supportive services for people with disabilities is treated like any other similarly sized residential use, specifically household living use. Generally, reclassifying the use would reduce the density allowed and increase the minimum parking requirement, but it would also eliminate additional required processes such as a neighborhood meeting, a management plan, and a special exception when located near single-family residential zones. The proposed amendment also would allow housing with supportive services for persons experiencing disabilities into any zone that allows household living uses in single-family, duplex, or multi -family contexts, though it would also no longer allow such uses in the CI-1 zone. Finally, it would allow supportive services to be accessory to household living uses like any other amenities provided to residents of a housing complex. This also applies to other assistance for a residents of a property, such as a live-in aid. Overall, the proposed amendment will expand where and how these uses are allowed, but its intensity would be regulated by residential use standards. To date, 2 properties are classified as Community Service — Long Term Housing under the zoning code. They are 820 Cross Park Place and 501 Southgate Avenue. Both are operated by Shelter House, a non-profit agency, as permanent supportive housing for persons experiencing disabilities who previously experienced homelessness. The proposed amendment would make both uses non -conforming. The first would become non -conforming because the density of dwelling units is higher than what is allowed for multi -family uses. The second would become non -conforming because it is zoned CI-1 which does not allow household living uses. Staff discussed the proposed amendment with Shelter House leadership, and generally there was little concern so long as the current uses would be able to continue operating. As a non- conforming use, both facilities could continue as they are, but they would not be allowed to expand. Zoning Code Best Practices Related to Housing All of the proposed amendments discussed above were developed by staff to reflect best practice supported by a variety of organizations. The American Planning Association's (APA) Equity in Zoning Policy Guide provides valuable insight into how to amend zoning codes to improve equity, which in turn assists with affordability. Recommendations include: • Allow a broader range of building forms, lot sizes, lot widths, and residential types in low -density residential neighborhoods and avoid zones limited to only single - household detached dwellings. Evidence shows that single -household only residential August 2, 2023 Page 21 zoning has a disproportionate impact on the ability of historically disadvantaged and vulnerable groups to access attainable housing and quality schools and services. In addition, allowing a wider mix of residential and non-residential uses in existing zoning districts can increase opportunities for historically disadvantaged and vulnerable populations to live closer to sources of quality employment, goods, and services. • Reduce single -household minimum lot size requirements for different types of housing and standards that effectively require construction of more expensive homes that are less affordable to historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. While large minimum lot sizes are often defended on the basis of preserving neighborhood character or property values, their impact has been to perpetuate patterns of economic and demographic segregation of historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. Many neighborhoods with broad mixes of lot sizes and housing maintain high qualities of life without perpetuating exclusionary impacts. • Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) without the need for a public hearing, subject to only those conditions needed to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties. ADUs may support the stability of existing neighborhoods by accommodating extended families or creating an opportunity to generate revenue from tenants, but it may be necessary to limit them to properties where the primary dwelling unit is the owner's primary residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when used as short-term rentals. • Treat assisted living facilities, retirement villages, and supportive housing types as residential (not commercial) uses and allow them in a wide variety of residential zoning districts where the scale of the facility is similar to other permitted uses in the district. Classifying supportive housing types as residential uses and reducing the need for conditional approvals expands opportunities for older adults to "age in place." • Allow administrative approval of "Reasonable Accommodations" for persons experiencing disabilities. This avoids a public hearing that will call attention to the disability of the applicant and avoids placing additional burdens on the person experiencing disability. • Treat housing with supportive services for people with disabilities the same as similarly sized residential uses. Ensure that the zoning regulations allow small group homes wherever single -household homes are permitted and allow large group homes wherever multi - household buildings of the same size are permitted. In addition, the National Association of Counties' Matchmaker Tool provides customized housing policy recommendations based on the trends in each county. Recommended policy solutions for Johnson County, a "high -cost county with a rapidly growing population" include: Make it easier to build small, moderately priced homes. In expensive metro areas, the size of homes and the amount of land used per home are major factors in the price of individual homes. Single-family detached homes on large lots are the most expensive structure type. Rowhouses, townhomes, two -to -four family homes, and low-rise apartment buildings have lower per -unit development costs than detached homes. Relaxing dimensional requirements and allowing flexibility in housing design can help reach this goal. Make the development process simpler and shorter. The length of time required to complete development projects, combined with the complexity of the process, are significant factors in the price of newly built housing. Development processes that make decisions on a case -by -case basis, rather than following consistent, transparent rules, increase the uncertainty and risk of development, which translates into higher costs. Allowing more development by right can help with this issue. Expand vouchers or income supports for low-income renters. Even in communities where enough housing is built to accommodate increased demand, market -rate housing remains unaffordable to many low-income households. Jurisdictions should support the construction of affordable housing. Additionally, groups such as the AARP have begun strongly supporting ADUs because they can assist older homeowners maintain their independence by providing additional income to offset August 2, 2023 Page 22 taxes and maintenance costs or by providing housing for a caregiver. ADUs can also become the residents' home if they wish to downsize, allowing them to rent out the main house or to have family move into it. As part of this effort, they drafted an optimal Model Local ADU Ordinance, which identifies "poison pills" that substantially restrict construction including: Owner -occupancy requirements (because they give pause to homeowners and financial institutions due to the limits they place on successive owners); and Parking requirements (because of the cost of building parking spaces and lot size, location of the primary residence, and topography may make the construction impossible). As noted, the proposed amendments were designed with these best practices in mind Consistencv with Comprehensive Plan The vision of the Comprehensive Plan supports creating "attractive and affordable housing for all people — housing that is the foundation of healthy, safe, and diverse neighborhoods throughout our city" (IC2030 p.7). To that end, the plan discusses the need for a mix of housing types within neighborhoods to provide residential opportunities for a variety of households along with integrated affordable housing options (IC2030 p. 21), that infill development should add to the diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over -burdening infrastructure (IC2030 p.21), and that narrower lot frontages and smaller lots sizes are important to create opportunities for more moderately priced housing (IC2030 p. 23). The plan also discusses strategies that support goals related to affordable housing including the following: • Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes. (IC2030 p. 28) • Encourage development on smaller lots that conserve land and allow for more affordable single-family housing options. (IC2030 p. 28) • Develop neighborhood plans that help ensure a balance of housing types, especially in older parts of the city. (IC2030 p. 29). • Discourage sprawl by promoting small -lot and infill development. (IC2030 p. 42) • Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. (IC2030 p. 28) Reinforcing these policies, the Comprehensive Plan's future land use category with the lowest density (aside from rural residential) allows up to 8 dwelling units per acre. Proposed changes to allowable uses and minimum lot requirements support that vision. The plan also mentions that when interpreting the future land use map, a diversity of housing types should be considered as one of the neighborhood design principles that applies to all developments. In addition, many of the proposed amendments have been identified in recent planning efforts to help further affordable housing, including the 2016 and 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plans, the 2019 Fair Housing study, and the City Council's most recent Strategic Plan. Specific recommendations from these plans incorporated in the proposed amendments include: Consider regulatory changes to City Code, including: • Waive parking requirements for affordable housing units. • Review possible changes to the multi -family design standards for all units in an effort to reduce cost and expedite approvals. • Increase allowable bedrooms from 3 to 4 outside the University Impact Area • Permit more building types by right as opposed to requiring a PUD process (density, multiplex units, cottage clusters, etc.) (2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, Step 9) ...allow a wider variety of development types in areas throughout the community. Since most areas are zoned for low density, single family homes, this will require exploring ways to increase the density and types of housing allow[ed]... which also facilitates the creation of August 2, 2023 Page 23 housing units at different price points within neighborhoods. (2019 Fair Housing Choice Study, Strategy 1.1) ... remove restrictions on housing sizes for units that are not detached single family units (i.e. attached single family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings). Specifically... explore expanding the number of bedrooms from three to four in multi -family units and consider when this would be allowed to better accommodate larger families throughout the City. (2019 Fair Housing Choice Study, Strategy 1.1) In some cases, appropriate units are not... available, especially for those with disabilities. In such cases, it becomes important to allow owners and renters to make housing units accessible so that they have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling... To facilitate this need, the City should adopt a Reasonable Accommodation or Modification procedure to their zoning ordinances and other policies. (2019 Fair Housing Choice Study, Strategy 1.4) ...One simple change is to reclassify community service — long term shelter as a multi- family/mixed use, since it is a long-term residence rather than a public service shelter use. (2019 Fair Housing Choice Study, Strategy 4.2) Increase the allowable number and/ or type of dwelling unit in single-family zoning districts by right in more locations. Examples include ADUs, duplexes and zero -lot line structures. (2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan — Development Regulations 1) Increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero -lot line structures in single family zoning districts (2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan — Development Regulations 2) Allow multi -family units with more than three bedrooms when required to meet local, state or federal affordable housing funding parameters such as the LIHTC program (2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan — Development Regulations 5) Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. (FY23- FY28 Strategic Plan, Neighborhoods & Housing Action 4) Overall, the proposed amendments are consistent with the City's current policy direction, including the Comprehensive Plan. Correspondence Staff has received 3 pieces of correspondence related to these amendments at the time of the publishing of this packet. They are available in Attachment 3. Next Steps Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Attachments 1. July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice, increasing housing supply, and encourage affordability 2. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments including Summary Table 3. Correspondence 4. Enlarged Maps Approved by: Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code Amendments r �®,,CITY OF I O W A CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 5, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability (REZ23-0001) Introduction Iowa City has a uniquely expensive housing market in Iowa. As a result, the City has increasingly focused on facilitating the creation of affordable housing opportunities and on enhancing housing choice within neighborhoods with a special focus on equity and low-income households. The City's Zoning Code (Title 14) impacts housing choice and supply, which can affect affordability. To further goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing, staff proposes several amendments to Title 14 to enhance housing choice and support a more inclusive, equitable city. These include: • Increasing flexibility for a range of housing types to facilitate diverse housing choices; • Modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods; • Providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing by modifying dimensional standards and reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments; and • Creating incentives (e.g., density bonuses and parking reductions) to encourage income - restricted affordable housing throughout the community. The proposed amendments also include provisions to improve fair housing. This will help ensure that housing within neighborhoods can support a range of living situations and advance the City's equity and inclusion goals. At your meeting on July 5, staff will provide an overview of the proposed amendments, answer questions, and request feedback from the Commission. These amendments will not solve all issues related to housing affordability or equity, but they can help improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Consequently, they are just one part of the larger effort to encourage affordability. By implementing these strategies, the City can become a more inclusive, diverse, and equitable place that provides housing opportunities for all residents. Background Affordable housing is complicated because it depends on a variety of factors including income, household characteristics, education, the cost of necessities such as child and health care, and the cost of housing itself. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers housing to be affordable if a household pays no more than 30% of its gross income on housing costs, including rent or mortgage payments, other fees, and utilities. Most publicly subsidized housing is targeted to households that make less than a certain percentage of the area median income (AMI) based on household size and housing tenure, as noted in Table 1. HUD defines households making less than 80% AMI as low income. For households with lower incomes, it is often the case that the housing families can afford may not meet their needs, such as a large family in a one -bedroom apartment, or they simply can't find housing that is affordable. July 5, 2023 Page 2 Table 1: Household Income Limits Based on Household Size and Area Median Income AMI Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 Owner Households $64,650 $73,850 $83,100 $92,300 $99,700 $107,100 (80% AM 1) Renter Households $48,480 $55,440 $62,340 $69,240 $74,820 $80,340 60% AM I Effective June 15, 2023, and updated annually One of the primary factors affecting housing affordability in Iowa City is continued growth. The metro provides a great quality of life and the University of Iowa and University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics helps provide a strong economic base. These in turn draw new residents. However, continued growth has also strained housing affordability, especially for lower income households, because the demand for housing is not being met by an adequate housing supply of new construction as noted in the City's recent residential development analysis (Attachment 1). This leads to increased competition, rising rental prices (especially in neighborhoods near the university), and higher sales prices. As a result, certain households can be priced out of the city. Another factor that influences housing choice and supply, and therefore the cost of housing, is the Zoning Code. Zoning is a tool used by the City to implement its Comprehensive and District Plans by providing rules for how land can be developed and used, including what structures can be built where and how they may be designed. The code must balance multiple goals, including protecting property values, encouraging appropriate uses of land, providing for a variety of housing types, promoting economic stability of existing and future land uses, lessening congestion and promoting access, preventing overcrowding of land, avoiding undue concentration of population, and conserving open space and natural, scenic, and historic resources. Given this context, it is crucial to continually assess whether the code is addressing the policy goals of the City as identified through public input processes and adopted plans. Public Engagement City Council adopted its first Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2016. The Plan identified 15 action steps based on goals in long-term planning documents and on previous public input about how the City could help address housing affordability. Since then, the City completed 14 of the action steps in the plan with the exception of regulatory changes to the code in support of affordable housing. In addition, the City continued engaging stakeholders during and after this process to identify additional solutions and barriers preventing the construction of affordable housing. In 2019, the City adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study which comprehensively reviewed impediments to accessing housing because of protected class such as race, gender, or disability as codified in the federal Fair Housing Act. This Study included recommended actions to affirmatively further fair housing based on extensive public input such as targeted feedback from stakeholder interviews and focus groups, a fair housing survey, public events, and a public adoption process. One of the most significant fair housing issues identified was lack of affordable rental housing, and improving housing choice was one of many strategies recommended to help address this issue. The full list of recommendations is included in Attachment 2. The City updated its Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2022 to build off previous efforts in support of affordable housing. Its recommendations, included in Attachment 3, were developed following nearly a year of data review and community engagement. Public input included the following: • American Rescue Plan Act citywide survey with over 1,800 responses and listening posts; • General outreach activities at Wetherby National Night Out, Fairmeadows Party in the Park, and CommUnity Crisis Services and Iowa City Compassion Food Bank distributions; • Meetings with targeted stakeholders such as the Disability Services Coordinating Committee, University of Iowa Student Government leadership, Catholic Worker House, July 5, 2023 Page 3 Agency Impact Coalition, Open Heartland, and community and economic development organizations; and Comments from the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association and Iowa City Area Association of Realtors regarding development regulations and from the Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. City Council drew upon previous planning work, studies, and community conversations to refine strategies, determine action steps, and establish priorities for their FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan. A summary of the action steps, which includes advancing prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan, is included in Attachment 4. While the City has made significant progress since 2016, the proposed amendments are another step towards achieving the City's goals as the culmination of these extended efforts. Zoning Code Amendment Summary & Justification The proposed amendments to Title 14 Zoning are intended to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability while also enhancing equity in Iowa City. The following list describes current and proposed regulations, organized by topic. A future memo will include specific language and more detailed analysis. 1. increase flexibility for a range of housing types The City of Iowa City has regulated uses since the adoption of its first zoning code in 1925. Over time, the ordinance expanded from simply distinguishing between residential, business, and industrial uses and zones to more complex structures regulating housing types and household arrangements, in addition to where they may be located. This has often resulted in zones that segregate and discourage housing types which are more financially accessible to lower income households in much of the community, even if they would not create substantial impacts. Consequently, the City has identified the need to expand the range of housing types allowed, especially in single-family zoning districts, in its 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, its 2019 Fair Housing Study, and again in its 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. The following changes are intended to create flexibility and streamline processes for a variety of more affordable housing types that would have limited impacts on neighborhood character. a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential zones. Currently duplexes and attached single-family homes are only allowed on corner lots in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones. The proposed amendment would allow such uses to be located anywhere in a block. This provides additional flexibility to facilitate the inclusion of these housing types in more neighborhoods compared to current requirements. b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS-12 zone. Currently up to 6 attached single-family dwelling units (i.e., one unit per lot) can be located in the RS-12 zone. The proposed amendment would allow up to 6 side -by -side, attached dwelling units to be located on one lot. Generally, these two uses are indistinguishable from the street since the only difference is the composition of lots. As such, this provides an additional method to provide housing without affecting the appearance of the neighborhood. c. Allow multi -family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special exception and provisionally allow multi -family uses in the CC-2 zone. Currently, the code only allows multi -family uses on the ground floor in a few Central Business zones under very specific circumstances. In most commercial zones, multi -family uses are only allowed above the ground floor. Additionally, multi -family uses in the CC-2 zone require a special exception which must be approved by the Board of Adjustment. The proposed change would allow multi -family uses provisionally in the CC-2 zone and would also allow multi -family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones through a special exception. This would mean a ground floor multi -family use must be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment to ensure all July 5, 2023 Page 4 approval criteria are met while multi -family uses on upper floors would be allowed provisionally in most commercial zones. This simplifies the process in most mixed -use contexts while permitting ground floor multi -family uses only where they are appropriate. d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses in RM-12, CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 zones. Assisted group living uses, which include assisted living facilities and group care facilities such as nursing homes, are currently allowed in many but not all zones where multi -family uses are allowed. In some cases, additional approval processes are also required. The proposed amendment would regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses by allowing it in more commercial zones, eliminating the need for a special exception in the RM-12 zone, and removing it as an allowable use in the CI-1 zone. The CI-1 zone is an intensive commercial zone where residential uses are typically not allowed. This provides for a greater variety of living arrangements without impacting the character of each zone. 2. Modify design standards Standards regarding building and site design based on zone, use, and location help ensure safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. However, the 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan identified a need to review the multi -family site development standards to reduce cost and expedite approvals, which has been supported by ongoing feedback from the Affordable Housing Coalition and Homebuilders Association. Design standards continue to be important, but staff recommends some adjustments to help reduce the cost and timing of compliance without impacting the purpose of the standards. a. Eliminate some multi -family site development standards to provide flexibility. Buildings containing multi -family or group living uses not built of masonry or stucco must have a 2- foot base of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete, and where wall materials change, they must wrap 3' around the corner. This often requires additional material which has cost and design implications. Removing these provisions will improve affordability and flexibility while continuing to meet the intent of the multi -family site development standards. b. Adiust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid -block locations. Attached single-family and duplex uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones are only allowed on corner lots, and each unit's main entrance and garage must face a different street to appear like a single-family home. The proposed amendment would allow attached single- family and duplex uses in mid -block locations which would require different standards. Staff proposes amending the use standards in such a way to facilitate mid -block duplex and attached single-family uses consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood. c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi -family uses. Currently, townhome-style multi -family uses cannot have parking for the first 15' of building depth. This makes sense for the front, but parking for end units must be set back 15' where they abut a street. While this standard may be waived by minor modification, it requires additional process and there is no similar requirement for attached single-family uses. The proposed amendment would allow the Building Official to simply waive this requirement for townhome-style multi -family uses without a minor modification. 3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing Iowa City is always balancing the demand for student rentals near downtown with concerns regarding quality of life for long-term residents and redevelopment in older neighborhoods. Residents near the edge of the city are also often wary of new development. As a result, single- family zones with lower densities, specifically RS-5 and RS-8, often become a default to try and minimize neighborhood opposition. This has several impacts including more conventional development patterns at the edge of the city that are often at odds with the City's sustainability and equity goals. In some areas, RS-5 was also applied to historic small lot areas near downtown July 5, 2023 Page 5 which created non -conforming lots. In addition, planned development overlays are often required to recreate neighborhoods like those in the core of the city. Additionally, standards like bedroom caps for non -single-family detached units and policies on accessory apartments (a.k.a. accessory dwelling units) limit what housing types can serve households throughout the City. a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form -based standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use. Current and proposed dimensional standards are noted in the table below. In some older neighborhoods, lot sizes and widths do not conform to current zoning requirements, and standards for missing middle housing types are well above those in recently adopted for form -based zones (14-2H). The proposed amendment would reduce the minimum lot size and width for detached single- family uses in RS-5 zones and allow the RNS-12 zone to utilize the single-family density bonus which together align standards more closely to historic lot requirements. In addition, it would reduce lot widths for detached single-family uses in RM zones to match those for single-family uses in other zones. Finally, it would reduce minimum standards for duplex and attached single-family uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones to be closer to those in the recently adopted form -based zones. These updates provide additional flexibility and enhance the supply of housing in a way that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Zone Use Lot Size (Sq. Ft. Area/ Unit (Sq. Ft. Lot Width Ft. Frontage Ft. RS-5 Detached Single-family Current 8,000 (6,000 w/ rear access 8,000 (6,000 w/ rear access 60 (50 w/ rear access) 45 (30 w/ rear access) Proposed 6,000 (5,000 w/ rear access 6,000 (6,000 w/ rear access 50 (45 w/ rear access) 40 (30 w/ rear access) Duplex Current 12,000 6,000 80 80 Pro osed 10,000 5,000 70 70 Attached Single -Family Current 6,000 6,000 40 40 Proposed 5,000 5,000 35 35 Other Uses Current 8,000 n/a 60 45 Proposed 6,000 n/a 50 40 RS-8 Duplex Current 8,700 4,350 70 70 Proposed 8,000 4,000 60 60 Attached Single -Family Current 4,350 4,350 35 35 Proposed 4,000 4,000 30 30 RNS- 12 Detached Single-family Current 5,000 5,000 45 25 Proposed 5,000 (3,000 w/ rear access 5,000 (3,000 w/ rear access 45 (30 w/ rear access) 25 (20 w/ rear access) RM- 12 Detached Single-family 5,000 5,000 55 40 osed nochan a no chap a 45 no chap e RM- Detached Single-family ;Current rent 5,0005,0005520 osed no chap a no chan a 45 no chap e b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached sinale-familv. duplex and multi-familv uses outside of the University Impact Area. The code limits multi -family uses to 3 bedrooms and duplex and attached single-family uses to 4 bedrooms. Staff recommends increasing the number of bedrooms allowed outside of the University Impact Area (see map in Attachment 5) to 4 bedrooms for multi -family uses and to 5 for duplex and single-family attached uses. This allows these uses to accommodate a wider range of family types in areas where development pressure for student rentals is less than near downtown. c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce barriers to construction. Currently, accessory apartments are only allowed in conjunction with owner- July 5, 2023 Page 6 occupied, detached single-family homes in a limited number of zones. The proposed amendment would make several changes generally based on recommendations by the Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board (Attachment 6). Proposed changes include allowing accessory apartments on any lot that allows household living uses and does not contain more than two dwelling units as a principal use (including all single-family and duplex lots). In addition, the amendment would remove barriers such as requirements for owner -occupancy, an additional parking space, that additions not exceed 10% of an existing building's floor area, that the unit only have one bedroom, and that detached accessory apartments not exceed 50% of an accessory building's floor area. It would also increase the allowable size of a detached accessory apartment to 1,000 square feet, though it still must be smaller than a percentage of the principal use. These changes help increase the supply of housing by encouraging the development of accessory apartments. 4. Create regulatory incentives for affordable housing The proposed amendments above help enhance housing diversity and increase housing supply, but they do not specifically create income -restricted affordable units for low-income households. As such, staff also recommends creating new regulatory incentives (i.e., density bonuses, flexibility, and parking reductions) for affordable housing in conventional zones. This would help reduce the cost of units in exchange for providing housing for low-income households in ways similar to other programs that directly subsidize affordable housing. As part of these changes, staff recommends consolidating multiple sections that encourage the provision of affordable housing into one section. This should enhance understanding and streamline administration. a. Create a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts. Currently the City offers height bonuses for affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings and density bonuses in Form -Based zones, but conventional zones only provide density bonuses for alleys serving single-family detached housing, for multi -family elder housing, for quality design elements in certain zones, and for features promoting sustainability. Staff proposes adding a 20% density bonus in exchange for 20% of units in a development being regulated as affordable housing for 20 years. The bonus would be administered through existing processes, primarily during site plan, subdivision, or OPD rezoning review depending on the project. This would help off -set the financial costs of providing affordable housing by increasing the allowable number of dwelling units. The proposed change may also include additional flexibility from dimensional and site development standards and would consolidate multiple sections of the zoning code that address affordable housing into a common set of definitions, requirements, and incentives. b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones. Currently in the Riverfront Crossings District and Form -Based Zones, no minimum amount of parking is mandated for affordable housing. The code also allows a minor modification in CB-5 and CB-10 zones to exempt up to 30% of dwelling units in an affordable housing project from the minimum parking requirements. These should be consolidated into a single requirement exempting income -restricted affordable housing from minimum parking requirements in all zones if it serves that purpose for 20 years. This requirement will help offset the cost of providing affordable housing through an indirect subsidy equal to the cost of building parking areas. 5. Address fair housing In order to make Iowa City a more equitable place to live, staff also proposes amendments to help enhance fair housing as recommended by the City's 2019 Fair Housing Study. a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code. By federal law, cities are obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to land use or zoning policies when they may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities to have an equal July 5, 2023 Page 7 opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Currently, the zoning code has some specific waivers (such as a minor modification to allow a ramp in the front setback), but they do not cover every accommodation and are not easily found. Adding a "Reasonable Accommodations Request" process would streamline the ability to grant reasonable accommodations with a defined approval procedure. b. Reclassify community service — long term housing uses as a residential use. Currently, long-term housing operated by a public or nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities is classified as a community service — long term housing use, which is considered an institutional use and is regulated differently from residential uses. Major differences include that community service — long term housing is only allowed in a few commercial zones (including the CI-1 zone which does not allow household living uses), but it is not allowed in residential or the CN-1, CB-10 or MU zones. On one hand, long term housing uses allow higher densities and less parking than residential uses in the zones in which it is allowed, and it is typically accompanied by on -site supportive services. On the other, it can trigger additional process where it is near single-family residential zones, and it requires a neighborhood meeting and management plan which are not required for any other residential use that houses persons with disabilities. To date, only two properties are classified as community service — long term housing uses. The proposed amendment would reclassify community service — long term housing as a residential use, and it would specify that supportive services only for residents are considered an accessory use. Where supportive services are provided for a population outside of a development, they would be considered a separate use. The proposed amendment would allow housing with supportive services for persons with disabilities more widely in the community while addressing a potential fair housing issue. Next Steps At the Planning & Zoning Commission's first meeting in August, staff will present proposed changes to zoning code. A future memo to the Commission will provide a more detailed outline of the proposed Zoning Code amendments, along with additional analyses. Draft code language will also be available for public review, and staff will accept comments throughout the adoption period. Attachments 1. Memo Regarding Iowa City Residential Development in 2022 2. Excerpt of Recommendations from the Fair Housing Choice Study, 2019 3. Excerpt of Recommendations from the Affordable Housing Action Plan Update, 2022 4. Excerpt of the Action Plan from the FY23-FY28 City Council Strategic Plan 5. Map of the University Impact Area 6. Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board Recommendations for Code/Ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Approved by: t� • % ^� Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 15, 2023 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner Re: Iowa City Residential Development in 2022 Introduction: Every year, the City of Iowa City analyzes residential subdivision and building permit data to track development patterns and to compare recent and long-term trends. The goal is to provide accurate information that can be used during land use and planning decision -making processes, and to provide a discussion on implications for future growth. Key takeaways in 2022 include: - 2022 continued the trend of low levels of residential lot creation from the past few years. - The number of dwellings units permitted increased slightly from 2021, but the City is still seeing fewer units permitted than before the pandemic. - Permit activity continues to outpace the creation of new lots, which diminishes the supply. - If residential growth continues its recent pace, the City will only be able to accommodate less than 6,300 new residents by 2030, compared to a projected demand of 10,240. - While redevelopment can provide some additional housing, the City is still on track to experience unmet demand and deplete its supply of all vacant lots. Where housing demand remains unmet, the City may see impacts to its population growth and the growth of surrounding communities, which has implications on the City's sustainability and housing affordability goals. One of the fundamental aspects of planning is being able to accommodate new growth. Staff believes it is important to continue encouraging residential development in areas with access to City services, as well as in the City's planned growth areas. Background: Residential development is the process by which land is prepared for new dwellings, either as new construction on vacant land or redevelopment on land that was previously developed. It includes a series of steps with each step provides more clarity to the size, type, and appearance of the development. However, it is the final two steps of the land development process that provide the best understanding of how many new dwelling units are expected in the next few years: - Final Plats: A subdivision permanently delineating the location and dimensions of features such as lots, streets, easements, and other elements pertinent to the transfer of property. - Building Permits: The final administrative approval of building plans to allow construction. In general, the City distinguishes between three types of development. Single-family development includes one principal dwelling unit on a lot, which may be detached or attached to adjacent units (such as townhomes) and which may include accessory dwelling units. Duplex development includes two principal units on a single lot. Multi -family development includes three or more principal dwelling units on a single lot, which may include apartments or condominiums. In buildings with a mix of residential and non-residential uses, all dwellings are considered multi- family. March 15, 2023 Page 2 Analysis: This section reviews short-term and long-term trends on the approval of final plats, the issuance of building permits, and the number of vacant lots. This is used to estimate how long the supply of lots will last given recent development activity. Final Plat Activity In 2022, City Council approved two final plats with residential components: Sandhill Estates Part 5 in the south and Hickory Trail Estates in the northeast. While they encompass 57.63 acres, only 18.65 will be developed with 38.98 acres dedicated as parkland. In total, these subdivisions created lots that can accommodate 18 single-family units and an assisted living use with an estimated 140 beds (which are counted as dwelling units in Figure 1). Both properties were zoned Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). In 2022, the residential lots platted will accommodate the lowest number of single-family dwelling units since at least 1990 with the exception of 2010 (long-term trends are in Attachment 1). This is somewhat offset by the multi -family lot with a proposed 140-bed assisted living facility. While beds typically do not count as dwelling units, they do help accommodate some residential growth. Overall, the number of lots produced were below the average lots platted from 2012 to 2021, which would have accommodated an average of 128 single-family, 7 duplex, and 136 multi -family units annually. Figure 1 shows residential lots subdivided by type from 2012 to 2022. Figure 1: Residential Lots Subdivided by Housing Type (in Anticipated Dwelling Units), 2012-2022 450 400 350 a 300 m 250 0- 200 150 50 10 I I I I I I I I I 11 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 ■Multi -Family 209 76 7 144 98 279 206 204 108 32 140 ■Duplex 16 0 2 18 0 14 12 0 0 12 0 ■Single Family 111 154 254 259 169 31 105 79 56 65 18 Over the previous 30 years, enough lots were created to accommodate an average of 133 single- family units, 11 duplex units, and 123 multi -family units each year. This indicates that the production of single-family and duplex lots has somewhat decreased over time, while the production of lots accommodating multi -family units has increased. However, lot creation tends to occur in cycles lasting about 10 years with a recent peak in 2015. The City appears to be near the low point of its development cycle, though staff had hoped to see a larger rebound in development trends after last year. If past trends hold, development may increase over the next few years to peak around 2026. Several final plat applications are currently under review this year, which should help numbers in 2023. March 15, 2023 Page 3 Building Permit Activity With regards to building activity, the City issued permits for approximately 363 dwelling units in 2022. Figure 2 shows residential building permits issued by type from 2012 to 2022. Trends for building permits include the following: - Single -Family: The number of single-family building permits sunk to 95 units from a brief uptick during 2021 and is now well below the 10-year (138) and 30-year (145) averages. Since 1990, 358 more single-family building permits were issued compared to lots created, which has decreased the supply of vacant single-family lots over time. - Duplex: Only 2 duplex units were permitted in 2022, which is lower than the 10- and 30- year annual averages of 10 and 22 respectively. However, relatively few duplexes are permitted annually, which causes greater variation in numbers. Prior to the 2005 zoning code update, duplexes were about twice as common. The supply of duplex lots also decreased over time with 166 more duplexes permitted than lots created since 1990. - Multi -Family: Permits for multi -family units increased to 266 units in 2022, but the number is still slightly below both the 10-year average (386) and 30-year average (274). Of the units permitted this year, 249 are due to a single building in the Riverfront Crossings District. Notably, no multi -family units were in mixed use buildings this year. Figure 2: Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 2012-2022 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 (Multi -Family, Mixed Use ■ Multi -Family ■ Duplex ■Single Family 2012 2013 100 27 140 488 16 8 143 171 2014 37 218 14 176 2015 2016 2017 47 340 150 499 556 203 6 12 8 137 172 157 11011 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 169 59 0 40 0 163 417 49 155 266 10 8 8 6 2 109 80 97 133 95 Attachment 2 shows long-term trends in building permit activity. Similar to platting patterns, single- family and duplex building permits occur in cycles, but they have trended downward the past 30 years. However, multi -family construction has increased over time, especially following the adoption of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan in 2012. This has led to redevelopment in the Riverfront Crossings District, which is reflected in the recent peak in multi- family activity that culminated in nearly 900 multi -family units permitted in 2016 alone. As a result, the total number of units permitted has trended upward over the past 30 years. March 15, 2023 Page 4 Development Potential In general, the number of new building permits exceeded the creation of new lots for all development types since at least 1990. Because multi -family development often occurs on infill sites, it is less dependent on the creation of new lots compared to single-family and duplex development. Figure 3 notes the number of vacant lots in Iowa City, the number of dwelling units they can accommodate, and whether they still require infrastructure for a building permit to be issued. This year's memo provides a more complete understanding than last year's because it includes all vacant lots in Iowa City rather than just those in subdivisions platted since 1990. Figure 3: Number of Vacant Lots by Type of Dwelling and Provision of Infrastructure Dwelling InfrastructureRequiredl Infrastructure Provided Total Type Lots Units Lots Units Lots Units Single -Family 124 124 270 270 394 394 Duplex 0 0 12 24 12 24 Multi -Family 4 56 16 709 20 765 At the end of 2022, the City had approximately 394 vacant single-family lots, of which 270 are currently served by infrastructure. The City also contained 12 vacantduplex lots with infrastructure provided. With regards to lots that still require infrastructure to be built, the City anticipates 18 single-family lots will become buildable next year in Sandhill Estates Pt. 5 which was recently platted. The other 106 single-family lots that still require infrastructure are from older subdivisions that are not likely to be built out anytime soon. Note that residential lots owned by adjacent property owners and used as a single lot are excluded from these numbers because they are unlikely to develop. Most vacant single-family lots available for development are in the Northeast, South, or Southeast Planning Districts. Multi -family development depends less on new lot creation because many new units are part of redevelopment projects on existing lots. At the end of 2022, the City had around 20 vacant multi- family lots, of which 16 had infrastructure provided. 14 of these lots are on greenfield sites and are expected to accommodate at least 483 dwelling units (including the assisted living facility with 140 beds). The other 2 lots are on infill sites and concepts show them accommodating at least 226 units. The 4 multi -family lots that do not yet have infrastructure constructed are expected to accommodate at least another 56 dwellings units. Vacant developable multi -family lots are spread throughout the City, including the North (52 units), Northeast (70 units + 140 beds), Southeast (75 units), South (36 units), Northwest (110 units), and Central/Downtown (226 units) Planning Districts. Undevelopable lots are currently located exclusively in the South District. There is also some capacity for additional units on partially developed lots that are not included. Based on development trends from 2012 through 2021, the supply of vacant lots with infrastructure would last as follows: - 2.0 years for single-family units (down from 2.7 in 2021), - 2.4 years for duplex units (down from 3.7 om 2021) - 1.8 years for multi -family units (up from 1.7) — note redevelopment extends this timeframe. Because this analysis is more complete than that conducted last year, the decrease in the supply of vacant single-family and duplex lots points to an even larger deficit than previously understood. March 15, 2023 Page 5 Discussion: The year 2022 marks one of the lowest levels of residential lot creation in at least 30 years, especially as it relates to single-family lots. It also reflects broader trends such as building permit activity outpacing the creation of new lots. This has resulted in a diminishing lot supply which is not meeting the demand. Ripple effects include increased competition for a limited supply of residential lots, which can increase lot prices. Despite this, the number of dwelling units developed has increased over the past 30 years, primarily due to multi -family redevelopment which does not depend as heavily on the creation of new lots. Looking forward, the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPO) projects a demand for 10,240 new residents in Iowa City by 2030. However, if recent trends continue through 2030, the City would only be able to accommodate new population as follows: 2,626 new residents based on the development of all vacant residential lots (in 394 single-family units, 24 duplex units, and 765 multi -family units); or - 3,189 new residents based on average annual residential lot creation trends from 2020 through 2022 (in 463 single-family units, 40 duplex units, and 933 multi -family units); or - 6,297 new residents based on average annual building permit trends from 2020 through 2022 (in 1,083 single-family, 53 duplex, and 1,700 multi -family dwelling units) Based on the most optimistic scenario, the City stills need to develop and build out all currently platted vacant lots, and add lots accommodating an additional 689 single-family, 30 duplex, and 935 multi -family dwelling units over the next 7 years. This would still only accommodate 61 % of the projected demand for new housing and would leave the City with no available lots for the next decade. To meet the full demand projected by the MPO, the City would need to construct approximately 3,430 dwelling units, on top of developing all existing vacant lots. Staff anticipates the completion of several final plat and redevelopment applications this year which will help next year's outlook. However, these trends continue to highlight a significant deficit. If Iowa City cannot meet its demand for housing, it may see slower population growth along with other repercussions. First, excess demand may locate in nearby cities, such as Tiffin or North Liberty, which have seen a proliferation of new residential lots. This can create negative environmental impacts as homes shift further from employment centers and car dependence and traffic congestion increases. Other impacts include rising housing prices - when supply cannot meet the demand for housing, Iowa City becomes less affordable. Regardless of the cost when built, new homes are needed to help the City meet its demand for housing to achieve affordability. Accommodating new residential growth is a fundamental aspect of planning for the future of Iowa City. Staff believes it is important to continue to encourage residential growth in areas that have access to City services, such as in infill locations, as well as in the City's designated growth areas which are anticipated to become part of the City in the future. Attachments 1. Residential Lots Subdivided by Housing Type (in Anticipated Dwelling Units), 1990-2022 2. Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 1990-2022 N N O � N O N N M N N (O Joe o 0 N o m r 4P S� d PS r N m � N W m N V N N I-, ss 02 paI t�'o,pp'Ob ry m r O N £1Z �iP/ £2 4'C a�,d' appJ N N p'ilia �`t'P Aalry 111d, �Gsh, p,Jb N Jb �S S %p14 o N W O W N W N 6O 4p 02 . N O n 0o N m W o M m 9 0, a 2 Qo ry r � Q o M 'oo J6, O ��4p balp. N O N O O N Q N Q N m N SSaJ O�� O ry W N N m a� LO, O� IP 'Y W W W W W O W Q r W N o m N W N W m N W � Q W N N N M W W N N W m N M N W W Q Q O Q r W m m O O (Qp N O W Q N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� v v r`pi M N N o =' l4P''' S IUn 6U1aM a � n aP�edia_ u nv ii 1 � 3 0 4Qis O O 0 N 0 N N N -No o N ry r 0 ry O O o umi o N M W (O N N r M O N N W W W m M m m r N 020 a'64E, � S'li ESL. PLS QJ o M p�J�40Aa��0/J v 02 a/ici' poJ ry 4PL GP o in cro W oW a7i �S. BOA 'ci'�4 h4,S b W o W �o�4Ri p-'J W o_ m 0 N o _ r o r - O N in W cO a 6O Gp �2 . N W o v W M `° r M aJ O LP 4- - N N O O ,ppJsoaO 0 N J O N O � M Q O N O W T m r m N M C N m N W o W T N N W N -° W W ° m v m N M W W N m M N N N N m N N C2 N p O O O o 0 o O O o O a O a 14 a4 !a x 4PJ� 1 silun 6UIiiaMQ a LL m o g 2 Cl m S ■ ■ ■ ■ o c I CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 112r EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY Neighborhood Et Development Services 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Adopted August 20, 2019 Chapter 5: Impediments &t Recommendations This Chapter analyzes factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, and increase the severity of fair housing issues. Identifying contributing factors is important in assessing why members of protected classes may experience restricted housing choice due to various reasons including, but not limited to, segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, or other issues. Some contributing factors are outside of the ability of the City to control or influence; however, such factors should still be identified and recognized. After discussing and identifying barriers to fair housing choice in Iowa City, it is important to lay out strategies to overcome those barriers. These strategies can then be prioritized and incorporated into subsequent planning processes such as the Consolidated Plan. Ultimately, the City is responsible for taking meaningful actions to move towards completing the strategies identified. Meaningful actions are designed and can be reasonably expected to achieve a material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing by, for example, increasing fair housing choice or decreasing disparities in access to opportunity. The City of Iowa City is committed to providing fair housing choices for all its residents. The City Code has a broad definition of discriminatory behavior, an inclusive definition of protected classes, and is clear in its lack of tolerance for discriminatory behavior in the housing market. The City's Comprehensive Plan envisions a city with a variety of housing options for the city's diverse population. The City's Zoning Ordinance allows for construction of a variety of housing types at difference price points. And the City's Building Code does not impose conditions that could restrict fair housing choice for protected classes. However, policies and practices can be improved upon and the City can take additional steps to assure that all protected classes have fair access to housing in Iowa City. These identified impediments to fair housing choice and some strategies to address them comprise the rest of this Chapter. 171 1: Improving Housing Choice One of the primary barriers identified is the lack of adequate housing choices throughout neighborhoods in Iowa City for residents with protected characteristics, who tend to have disproportionately lower incomes. This includes a lack of availability in addition to diversity in price points, housing types, and locations that would facilitate equal access to housing across the City. While many low-income households in Iowa City are nonfamily student renters, 21% are small families (including single parents) and 15% are elderly. 31% of low-income households have a member with a disability. Many are people of color. Large families face additional challenges in finding appropriate units with the proper price points. Coupled with the City's expensive housing, this has negatively impacted fair housing choice within Iowa City. Ensuring a diversity of affordable housing is available in a range of locations and types to promote fair housing choice, especially in areas that promote access to opportunity. This means encouraging the provision of affordable housing for households of all types in Iowa City, including larger units for families with children, smaller accessible units with supportive services for the elderly and persons with disabilities, and adequate housing for students. When considering housing choice, transportation, supportive services, school quality, and other important factors must also be considered. The City should continue to support and encourage a diversity of housing types in areas of opportunity. The following strategies assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice: Strategv 1: Facilitate a Range of Housing TvDes One strategy to overcome this barrier is to allow a wider variety of development types in areas throughout the community. Since most areas are zoned for low density, single family homes, this will require exploring ways to increase the density and the types of housing allowable in order to further fair housing goals. This strategy includes promotion of more types of housing in more varied locations, which also facilitates the creation of housing units at different price points within neighborhoods. Many non -single family residential developments require rezonings to increase density. The City can proactively increase the amount of land available for development by -right for higher densities, as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan along major arterials, intersections, and commercial centers. This may be especially helpful where undeveloped land is zoned for single family and would allow a variety of housing types as the land is developed. Staff could proactively look for areas intended for higher densities and initiate a rezoning with the City as the applicant. Eliminating the distinction between single family and multi -family residential zoning districts would have a similar effect, thereby regulating by density rather than type of housing. Similarly, the City could make flexible zoning arrangements, such as OPD overlays, provisional rather than negotiated. This would encourage its use while simultaneously promoting a range of housing. Another way to increase housing variety is to remove restrictions on housing sizes for units that are not detached single family units (i.e. attached single family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings). Specifically, the code places a bedroom cap on these types of units, which may negatively affect the ability of certain protected classes to find appropriate units, such as large families. The City should explore expanding the number of bedrooms from three to four in multi -family units and consider when this would be allowed to better accommodate larger families throughout the City. While this does not necessarily change the type of housing, it does allow a greater diversity of units within a specific type of housing. 1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice StrateQv 2: Lower the Cost of Housin In addition to facilitating a wider range of housing types throughout Iowa City, reducing the cost of housing can also help ensure more varied price points, especially in the more affordable rental and owner markets. The City is already in the process of working with the Home Builders Association to explore ways of reducing costs through modifications to the zoning and development codes. One way to lower the cost of housing is to evaluate building and housing permit fees and their effects on housing costs. Given that these fees have a higher relative impact on lower cost units, it is recommended that the City explore reducing or waiving fees for properties which are operated for affordable housing by non-profit housing organizations to offset negative disproportionate impacts. This could be used for properties in the private market receiving City assistance for a period of time for affordable housing as well. It may also be possible to use property tax policies to lower the cost of housing. While there are already several such programs for the most vulnerable populations, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and affordable rental housing providers, broadening property tax relief could further help preserve lower -income homeownership opportunities for the more than 4,000 low income homeowners in the City. For example, tax exemption policies could be used to increase the affordability of housing. The ongoing viability of the existing housing stock becomes increasingly important as the cost of new housing continues to rise. Continued improvement and maintenance of the current stock is vital. Efforts towards energy conservation can also reduce heating and cooling costs when rehabilitating older homes. All these factors can help lower the cost of housing. Due to the number of student households in the community, the City should explore ways to increase affordability and housing choice for this demographic. Incentives for housing programs should remain available for students from low income families and students who are financially independent. Strategy 3: Continue investment in affordable housing There is a growing gap in the number of affordable homes for those with lower incomes. Continuing affordable housing activities is crucial to creating a variety of housing types and price points within the community. This can include new construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of rental and owner properties. These provide a valuable opportunity to improve housing choice for members of the protected classes who are often low- and moderate -income households. This also includes leveraging City funds to obtain additional affordable housing investment in the community through LIHTC or other programs that assist with the construction of affordable housing opportunities. Assisting renters' transition to homeownership, in certain cases, may also help stabilize housing payments through fixed rate mortgages in a market experiencing increasing rental rates. StrateQv 4: Retrofit Housing for Equal Access In some cases, appropriate units are not be available, especially for those with disabilities. In such cases, it becomes important to allow owners and renters to make housing units accessible so that they have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Access may include physical access for individuals with different types of disabilities. For example, installing ramps and other accessibility features for individuals with mobility impairments, visual alarms and signals for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, and audio signals, accessible signage, and other accessibility features for individuals who are blind or have low vision. To facilitate this need, the City should adopt a Reasonable Accommodation or Modification procedure to their zoning ordinances and other policies. This would allow persons with disabilities to request a reasonable accommodation/modification to 173 regulatory provisions, including land use and zoning requirements to facilitate the retrofitting of existing housing. In addition, because many low-income households are elderly and/or disabled, continuing to provide assistance to allow those households to age in place is also important, as is continuing to invest in their housing to ensure it remains safe, decent and affordable. 1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2: Facilitating Access to Opportunity Housing that affords access to opportunities, such as high -performing schools, public transportation, employment centers, low poverty, and environmentally healthy neighborhoods may be cost prohibitive or non-existent for persons in certain protected classes, especially for those with lower incomes. High costs can have a greater effect on families with children who need multiple bedrooms and individuals with disabilities who need accessible housing or housing located close to accessible transportation. Currently, Iowa City appears to have some disparate access to opportunity, especially when it comes to access to jobs and other quality of life factors such as affordable childcare. The geographic relationship of employment centers, housing, and schools, and the transportation Linkages between them, are important components of fair housing choice. The quality of schools and economic opportunities are often major factors in deciding where to live. Job and school quality are also key components of economic mobility. Ensuring affordable units are available in a range of sizes, Locations, and types is essential to providing equal access to opportunities by meeting the needs of individuals with protected characteristics. In Iowa City, ensuring the availability and accessibility of a variety of jobs and training opportunities, is also vital. In addition, affordable childcare should be available and close to a range of housing opportunities, and facilities should be fully accessible to individuals with different types of disabilities to avoid further barriers. As such, siting as it relates to the placement of new housing developments, especially those that are affordable, becomes crucial. This includes new construction or acquisition with rehabilitation of previously unsubsidized housing. Local policies and decisions significantly affect the location of new housing. In addition, the availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation including buses and paratransit for persons with disabilities also affect which households are connected to community assets and economic opportunities. As such, it is important to connect individuals to places they need to go such as jobs, schools, retail establishments, and healthcare. This study proposes a balanced approach to address disparities in access to provide for both strategic investment in areas that lack key opportunity indicators, while opening housing opportunities in areas with existing opportunity through effective mobility options and the preservation and development of a variety of housing in high opportunity areas. Several strategies can assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice: StrateQv 1: Emphasize Variety in HousinQ in Areas of Opportunity Areas of opportunity are places where jobs are relatively plentiful and access to education, healthcare, and other amenities is close at hand. Iowa City generally ranks highly when it comes to quality of life. However, some areas of town have less access to opportunity as identified within this Study, especially as it relates to affordable childcare and job access. Analysis suggests there are some discrepancies in services and access to opportunity by race, income, and area. To some extent, this is likely due to clustering of racial and ethnic groups. All protected classes should have an equal opportunity to live throughout Iowa City. Increasing housing variety for a range of household types and price points, in areas with affordable childcare and near job centers is one way to achieve fair housing choice while improving access to opportunities. This strategy complements those related to increasing the variety of available types and prices of housing. The placement of the City's subsidized housing is governed by the Affordable Housing Location Model (AHLM). The model serves to not place additional subsidized housing in areas that already have a concentration of City -assisted housing and lower incomes as determined by elementary school catchment areas. The model does not apply to housing for persons with disabilities, seniors, the rehabilitation of existing rental housing or for homeownership. The AHLM does not necessarily promote greater variety of price points in areas of opportunity. As such, the City could explore ways to use the 175 model or another policy to promote city -assisted housing in low poverty neighborhoods or neighborhoods that provide good access to opportunity. The goal of fair housing choice is to provide sufficient, comparable opportunities for housing for all types of households in a variety of income ranges. Comparable units should have the same household (elderly, disabled, family, large family) and tenure (owner/renter) type; have similar rents/prices; serve the same income group; in the same housing market; and in standard condition. The goal is not to necessarily have an equal number of assisted units within each neighborhood, but rather that a reasonable distribution of assisted units should be produced each year to approach an appropriate balance of housing choices within and outside neighborhoods over several years. An appropriate balance should be based on local conditions affecting the range of housing choices available for different types of households as they relate to the mix of the City's population. StrateQv 2: Community Investment It is recommended that the City pursue additional investment in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of low income families, especially those with concentrations of persons with protected characteristics, to improve the quality of life for existing residents. This may include a range of activities such as improving housing, attracting private investment, creating jobs, expanding educational opportunities, and providing links to other community assets. The quality and maintenance of housing is especially important to community investment as survey respondents rank it as one of the factors that varies most widely between areas of the City. As a result, the City should continue targeted investment in infrastructure, amenities, community facilities, and public services serving lower income households and in low income areas. Amenities such as recreational facilities, grocery stores, pharmacies, and banks are especially important in maintaining a higher quality of life. Housing rehabilitation is also important in maintaining the housing stock and appearance, while new construction in areas that have not received as much recent investment can also be beneficial. Special attention should be given to investments that increase access to housing or that lower housing costs generally, such as energy efficiency improvements. Economic development support near low-income neighborhoods also can create jobs, increase wages, and increase access to amenities. This strategy in conjunction with providing a diversity of housing types in all new neighborhoods creates opportunities of access throughout the City. Preserving the City's existing affordable housing is also important as part of a balanced approach to affirmatively further fair housing. This can include funding and indirect subsidies for rehabilitation to maintain physical structures, refinancing, affordable use agreements, and incentives for owners to maintain affordability. Similarly, efforts to repair and maintain the infrastructure of existing affordable housing should be part of concerted housing preservation and community investment effort. The City should continue encouraging private investment to advance fair housing from homeowners, developers, and other nonprofit or business initiatives. Securing financial resources (public, for -profit, and nonprofit) from sources inside and outside the City to fund housing improvements, community facilities and services, and business opportunities in neighborhoods will help ensure access to opportunities for all residents. StrateQv 3: Enhance Mobility Linkages Throughout the Community Non -automotive transportation is an important part of ensuring equal access from housing to jobs and other amenities in Iowa City. Transportation improvements could significantly improve access to opportunity for employment and other services and amenities for those who rely on public or active transportation. This complements policies to increase the range of housing opportunities near opportunity and employment areas which can reduce spending on transportation -related expenses. 1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Strategies to enhance both active and public transportation linkages may include improved coordination with service providers, expansion of active and public transportation to provide access to jobs through improved infrastructure, providing late night/ weekend service, or ensuring adequate coverage to assist with access to opportunities. Investment across the City can also include improved transit facilities and equipment, including bus shelters, and expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Prioritizing ADA access is especially important to further fair housing purposes. 177 3: Increasing Education and Outreach Based on public input, many residents of Iowa City lack awareness about rights under fair housing and civil rights laws, which can lead to under -reporting of discrimination, failure to take advantage of remedies under the law, and the continuation of discriminatory practices. Even those who do know their rights do not always act on them due to feeling it would not be productive or fear of reprisal. This suggests a lack of knowledge and awareness regarding fair housing rights is a major barrier to fair housing choice. Ensuring access to information about housing programs and neighborhoods can also facilitate fair housing goals. This is because individuals and families attempting to move to a neighborhood of their choice, especially areas of opportunity, may not be aware of potential assistance or support. In those cases, having quality information related to housing and affordability, available services, and organizations that serve potential tenants, can help those moves be successful. Other relevant info may include listings of affordable housing opportunities or local landlords; mobility counseling programs; and community outreach to potential beneficiaries. Several strategies can assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice. StrateQv 1: Improve Demand -Side Awareness The demand -side of the housing market includes tenants, homeowners, borrowers, mobile home park residents, and other who need and/or use housing. Generally, these groups do not have any formal training or education regarding their fair housing rights, nor are they formally organized in most cases. This makes it important to raise awareness through advocacy campaigns, education and outreach activities geared toward the general public, and fair housing informational materials for both homebuyers and tenants. Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders should especially be informed of their rights, including the right to be free from discrimination based on source of income. In addition to fair housing rights, this should include how to report violations of those rights. It is recommended that the City explore the development of new outreach, education, or informational programs and activities to promote housing opportunities for segments of the community such as persons of color, those not as fluent in English, and for the elderly and persons with disabilities. This should be done in cooperation with other organizations working on furthering fair housing. Ideally, this will increase knowledge of the laws, reduce discriminatory behavior, achieve a better understanding, and reduce negative attitudes concerning people who are racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse or who are disabled. A comprehensive program would help ensure that there is broad knowledge of legal protections for all residents. Beyond fair housing information, providing more generalized information about housing can be beneficial. For example, information for tenants about leasing can improve rental outcomes and homebuyer education can help those less familiar with homeownership, such as long-term renters, overcome challenges as first time homebuyer. Those new to the HCV program can also benefit from additional information about facilities and services available in each neighborhood to assist them with their housing search. This may encourage voucher holders to look for housing in neighborhoods with more access to opportunity. This information can also assist residents moving from high -poverty to low - poverty neighborhoods that have greater access to opportunity assets appropriate for their family. It is important that information is comprehensive (e.g. that the information provided includes a variety of neighborhoods, including those with access to opportunity indicators) and up-to-date (e.g. that the information is actively being maintained, updated and improved). The information should also alleviate fears of retaliation and should showcase the process and concrete outcomes to address those who "didn't know what good it would do" to report discrimination. 1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice StrateQv 2: Increase Suooly-Side Awareness The supply-side of housing includes lenders, appraisers, mortgage insurers, realtors, landlords, and management companies. Unlike the demand -side, these groups are often provided formal training regarding fair housing rights through industry groups or employee training. As such, they require less guidance than the demand -side of housing. However, it is still important that they understand fair housing rights and responsibilities as well, especially small landlords or others who may be less formally integrated within the industry. As such, technical training for housing industry representatives remains an important component of the City's efforts to affirmatively further fair housing in the community. In addition to general fair housing rights, those on the supply-side of housing should also be made aware of best practices and efforts to affirmatively further fair housing through equity, inclusion, fairness, and justice. This could involve providing education regarding marketing in targeted neighborhoods or for protected classes and encouraging advocacy groups to share opportunities for their products and services. Similarly, additional technical training regarding civil rights may include fair housing issues such as the appropriate application of arrest and criminal conviction records, credit policies, prior evictions, leasing and lease termination decision making; and fair housing issues affecting LGBTQ individuals. Pro -active outreach can widen the pool of participating rental housing providers, including both owners of individual residences and larger rental management companies. Meanwhile, the City should encourage these groups to regularly examine and update their policies, procedures, and practices to avoid differential treatment of residents and applicants based on protected characteristics. Similarly, supply-side providers should also be encouraged to examine their clientele profiles to determine whether there are neighborhoods or groups that are underrepresented or unrepresented. Doing so will help supply-side providers to go beyond just understanding fair housing issues towards meaningfully furthering fair housing. StrateQv 3: Increase Regulator Awareness The City must ensure those who make decisions regarding public policies and regulations, including public officials, Commission and Board members, and staff, have adequate fair housing training. While this will further fair housing, it may also help inspire confidence in the City's processes. In addition to general training, one potential method of educating decision -makers would be to train them as fair housing ambassadors who can then help spread the word about fair housing to both demand- and supply-side groups. Strategy 4: Provide meaninQfullanguaQe access Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) includes anyone who does not speak English as their primary language and who has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. Often, this is tied to foreign -born populations who may not understand English. Increasing meaningful language access regarding fair housing information and housing programs would facilitate housing choice for LEP individuals seeking housing. It is important that housing providers and policy makers ensure that all individuals have access to information regarding fair and affordable housing, regardless of language. In Iowa City, this is particularly salient due to the higher prevalence of foreign -born populations. Relevant City departments maintain Limited English Proficiency (LEP) plans to ensure equal access to knowledge of fair housing and housing assistance. However, the LEP plan likely needs to be updated, especially as the number of foreign -born residents has rapidly grown in recent years. In addition, the City should explore what housing documents are most important to translate to achieve a better understanding of fair housing choice by LEP speakers and to improve communication through language access. 179 4: Operational Improvements Several other barriers to fair housing choice in Iowa City included smaller operational and planning changes that could help affirmatively further fair housing. These include impediments such as administrative processes and regulations which can slow down and/or stop projects that would benefit protected classes, a need for increased regional cooperation for issues that affect housing, a lack of information that could help identify or address other barriers, and a need to improve the transparency of fair housing enforcement. Most of these barriers can be addressed through operational improvements at the City level, though accomplishing in cooperation with others may improve their effectiveness. StrateQv 1: Improve Fair HousinQ Enforcement and Transparency In addition to ensuring awareness of fair housing rights and process, the City needs to improve enforcement and increase transparency in the process, so the public can be aware that complainants obtain relief in a timely and effective manner. Doing so would fight feelings of helplessness and provide certainty to complainants that filing a report helps combat fair housing violations. This may include actively monitoring the outcomes of complaints, in addition to making fair housing complaint information more easily visible to the public. Fair housing testing may also assist with transparency and fair housing enforcement. Doing so allows the City to identify whether landlords or realtors, and others involved in the housing market are abiding by fair housing laws. In addition, these tests help the City to better identify and target fair housing outreach. StrateQv 2: Review implementing procedures and regulations The City has several new programs, administered by various staff and departments, with various rules that can be confusing to understand, implement and enforce. This problem is exacerbated when the program is combined with federal programs that have rigid, complex rules. This creates a challenging regulatory environment, especially for affordable housing and public service programs. As such, there are opportunities to harmonize, coordinate, streamline, and define administration and planning. Possibilities include centralizing processes for affordable housing and ensuring they are online; reducing uncertainty for service providers in allocating funds; and harmonizing rules between programs. Similarly, the zoning ordinance has been updated in fragmented ways since its initial adoption. While it generally accommodates the City's fair housing goals, codes frequently updated can indicate a need for a comprehensive reevaluation. This is a long-term effort. In the meantime, incremental improvements can make the code easier to follow yet still comprehensive and flexible. One simple change is to reclassify community service - long term shelter as a multi-family/mixed use, since it is a long-term residence rather than a public service shelter use. Another similar change is to clarify the definition of nonfamily households; the current City definition is a holdover from before the State modified law to prohibit regulating use based on familial characteristics. In addition, administrative procedures may better promote fair housing choice as compared to some decision -making processes. Updating administrative policies and practices may help support Council objectives in ways that produce more impartial, predictable outcomes. The City should promote funds to organizations committed to affordable housing and who have the capacity to administer long term housing projects. Agencies receiving funds should have the capacity to administer the project for the entire compliance period while enhancing fair housing. By doing so, the City increases the likelihood of maintaining the units as affordable housing after City and federal restrictions are released. 1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Regardless, all changes to administrative, zoning, or other public policies and practices should be preemptively evaluated through the lens of fair housing. This is also true as new policy continues to develop, including potential changes to the housing and zoning following the State's disallowing the use of a rental permit cap. StrateQv 3: Improve regional cooperation Regional cooperation includes networks or coalitions of organizations, people, and entities working together to plan for regional development. Cooperation in regional planning can help coordinate responses to identified fair housing issues that cross multiple sectors —including housing, education, transportation, and commercial and economic development —and multiple political and geographic boundaries. As such, encouraging regional cooperation can further fair housing not only for Iowa City, but the entire region. This was also mentioned as a need in many stakeholder meetings. While the City and surrounding jurisdictions cooperate through regional transportation planning and through the Fringe Area Agreement, there are still additional opportunities to better coordinate housing and fair housing planning on a regional level. Projecting development and demand for different types of housing and price points is one way to approach the issue. Doing so can start a discussion about how to facilitate housing choice in each of the communities. Communication between staff can also facilitate coordination between jurisdictions. StrateQv 4: Improved Data Collection Another impediment is the need for increased data, analysis and reporting. While improving data collection and analysis does not directly overcome a barrier to fair housing choice, it will help identify potential barriers in the future. All of these can also be paired with equity mapping to identify areas of opportunity using factors relevant to fair housing choice. Currently, many of the City's local housing programs do not require the same level of tracking and reporting regarding protected characteristics of beneficiaries as federal programs. As part of its annual monitoring of these projects, the City should begin tracking and reporting the race, ethnicity, and other protected characteristics of beneficiaries to allow finer levels of analysis and reporting regarding fair housing choice. This will also allow better measurement regarding the extent to which policy and practice changes are impacting outcomes and reducing disparities. In addition, the City should regularly monitor HMDA reports of financial institutions and obtain information on the location of properties that are the subject of loan applications. HMDA data can be used to develop policies to act upon this information such as incentivizing banks with good performance records by only depositing public funds in banks that meet threshold scores. Similarly, Location information can help the City guide lender education activities to promote fair housing. Finally, ICHA should regularly analyze its beneficiary and waithst data to ensure its preferences do not have a disparate impact on those in protected classes and that it is serving the people most in need as determined by the City's Consolidated Plan. As part of this, ICHA should periodically update an equity analysis to identify if any disparate impacts are identified. 181 vi 2022 r Iowa City Affordable Housing ACTION PLAN CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITIES/GOALS The City Council's Strategic Plan objectives include fostering healthy neighborhoods and affordable housing throughout the City. The City strives to do this through: 1. Investing City and federal CD6G/HOME funds to create and/or preserve affordable homes, both rental and owner -occupied housing throughout the City; 2. Supporting our most vulnerable residents, especially those experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, maintain safe, affordable housing; 3. Ensuring equitable growth for all Iowa City residents and minimizing displacement; and 4. Supporting innovation in housing and streamlining processes. 2022 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS The City has broad powers to support affordable housing through various requirements and funding mechanisms. The City is willing to pursue courses of action to support affordable housing, except when legally prohibited. For example, in the state of Iowa, cities cannot institute rent control. Cities are also preempted by state law from regulating the provisions in a lease between a landlord and a tenant. In 2016 the City of Iowa City adopted an ordinance to protect source of income. The measure prohibited landlords from rejecting housing applicants based solely on their use of housing vouchers or other rental subsidies. The purpose of the Iowa City Human Rights ordinance amendment was to reduce housing discrimination and give all tenants the same consideration for housing, In 2021 the state prohibited cities from passing or enforcing "source of income" ordinances. Any city who adopted a source of income protection may not enforce it after January 1, 2023. The City will continue to work with our various partners to support and encourage affordable housing with the mechanisms and funding sources available to municipalities in Iowa. The Committee's recommendations for City Council consideration are broken down into three sections: Recommendations for existing policies and programs, recommendations for development regulations and recommendations for programs or policies based on household income. Existing Policies and Programs The Affordable Housing Steering Committee reviewed the City's current policies and programs. Most programs were found to be effectively increasing or preserving the supply of affordable housing; CITY OF IOWA CITY 28 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan however, six recommendations were made to either enhance or make the policy or program more effective. 1. Affordable Housing Location Model The model currently aims to distribute subsidized affordable housing more evenly throughout the community and avoid overconcentration in any one neighborhood. While the intent of the model is a worthy goal, the model can restrict supply for much needed affordable housing projects. The committee recommends shifting from a restrictive model to one that incentivizes or prioritizes affordable housing projects in all neighborhoods, especially those neighborhoods with a lack of affordable housing options but does not go so far as to restrict supply of potential locations. If the model is discontinued, it is recommended that there be close monitoring of changes in affordable housing locations within the community. Achieving mixed -income neighborhoods throughout the City should continue to be an overall goal. Recommendation: Discontinue Affordable Housing Location Model and consider incentives or prioritization policies that encourages affordable housing in all neighborhoods. 2. Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDQ Funding Allocation Process The Committee observed that the current funding process for housing projects does not involve detailed staff analysis of applications. Staff have years of professional experience and often understand the funding sources and regulatory environment much more comprehensively than volunteer commissioners. The Committee recommends that the funding process be restructured to ensure staff scoring recommendations are provided upfront to the HCDC. Their recommendations should be considered during the review process to ensure the City is supporting viable, federally compliant projects that meet the City's priorities for the entire length of the required affordability period. Ultimately, the HCDC can still make alternate recommendations to the City Council but the process will be enhanced by inviting this input from the outset. Furthermore, policy should be developed upfront as to how funds will be allocated to further improve transparency in decision -making (e.g., full funding to top -rated applications, or applications will be pro- rated, or partial funding to applicants based on scores, etc.). The Commission's final review and ranking should be based on objective and established criteria, priorities, and data. Discrepancies with staff scores should be included in the final recommendations to the City Council. CITY OF IOWA CITY 29 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Recommendation: 1) Require staff analysis and funding recommendations before i review; and 2) Further define how funds will be allocated to improve transparency (e.g. full funding for top -rated applications, partial funding based on scores, etc.) 3. Affordable Housing Fund Distribution The overall funding should be increased with consideration given to the budget with a goal of a 3% increase each year. • Allow for greater flexibility in targeted use of funds, for example: o Prioritize deeply affordable housing (0-30%) but do not restrict to only those at that income. o Include Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC) allocation. However, set as a preferred use but not restricted/required. If funding is awarded to a LIHTC project and the project does not get funding from the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA), allow HTFJC to withdraw the award and make those funds available for general applications rather than waiting forthe next LI HTC cycle. • Maintain Security Deposit Assistance and implement a Risk Mitigation Fund. Typically, Risk Mitigation Funds cover landlord losses, up to a certain value, but may also include a connection to resources such as tenant/landlord education, credit repair, etc. to increase rental opportunities for households who have difficulty finding a landlord who will accept them due to criminal history, bad credit, bad landlord references, and/or a prior eviction history. • Increase marketing and communications of availability of the different funds. • Periodically review (every 5 years as part of the Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs and Services for Low -Income Residents) the affordable housing fund distribution to ensure the set -asides produce/contribute to the desired policy outcomes. • Prioritize partnerships with not -for -profit affordable housing developers to preserve affordable units as their mission is centric to preserving affordability. Recommendation: 1) Allocate funds to the Affordable Housing fund with a goal of a 3% annual increase; 2) Include the LIHTC reservation with the HTFJC allocation. If no LIHTC projects apply during the annual allocation or if an approved LIHTC project does not get IFA funding, allow the HTFJC to make those funds available for general applications; 3) Implement the Risk Mitigation Fund; and 4) Enact policy that prioritizes partnerships with not -for -profit affordable housing developers/organizations to preserve affordable housing units. 4. Support of Non -Profit Housing Provider Capacity CITY OF IOWA CITY 30 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Typically, developers receive a developer fee to build or rehabilitate housing projects. This fee is only received if a project is funded. Funds, including operational funds and developer fees, should be provided on a regular basis to non-profit affordable housing providers who build and/or rehabilitate residential housing as long-term investments to build the capacity of local providers. This could include technical assistance in various areas such as housing finance, market analysis, legal issues, property management, green and/or sustainable building practices and affordable housing design. Financial assistance for architectural and engineering expenses for the development of multi -family affordable development, outside of LIHTC projects, is needed to support the development of townhomes, small apartment buildings, and the rehabilitation of existing multi -family developments. The City should increase access by non-profit affordable housing developers to various funding opportunities to incorporate green or sustainable housing practices. Recommendation: Allow non-profit affordable housing developers who build or rehabilitate residential housing to apply for additional funds to support ongoing operations; and 2) Allow developers of affordable housing to apply for technical assistance needs from a variety of City programs, including but not limited to, the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund and Climate Action grants. 5. Annexation Policy The current policy has only applied to one annexation and thus drawing conclusions is difficult. Staff and some committee members have concerns about the cost implications and viability of requiring permanent affordable housing or greater percentages and compliance periods. This is particularly a concern in a regional housing market where outlying communities that are experiencing robust growth do not have similar policies. Too stringent requirements could have an unintended impact of pushing development into other jurisdictions and thus forgoing any affordable housing requirements and constraining supply in Iowa City. The Committee does believe that permanent affordable housing achieved through dedication of lots to the City or a non-profit housing provider is a goal that should be vigorously pursued with future annexations. If needed, the City should consider contributing funding or exploring unique partnerships such as tax increment financing or tax abatement to achieve the goal of permanent affordable housing in new residential annexations. CITY OF IOWA CITY 31 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Recommendation: Encourage, but not mandate permanent affordable housing in new residential annexations. With future annexations explore partnerships and funding opportunities to secure permanent affordability when possible. 6. General Education Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and how to address housing code problems, perceived discrimination, or other matters most effectively. Recommendation: Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and how to address housing issues. Development Regulations Development regulation is an umbrella term for rules that govern land development. At the local level, zoning is the way the government controls the physical development of land and the kinds of uses to which each individual property may be put. This includes the use, size, height, and design of buildings, and historic preservation requirements. These regulations are contained in the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City as laws adopted by the City's Legislative body the Iowa City Council. The following are recommended changes to the current land -development regulations to increase the diversity and supply of housing throughout the City: 1. Increase the allowable number and/or type of dwelling units in zoning districts previously limited to only free-standing single-family dwellings. For example: • In Single -Family zoning districts, expand by -right building allowances to permit attached single-family dwellings, such as duplexes and zero -lot line structures, in more locations. • Allow accessory dwelling units in more circumstances and locations. To support student housing, consider Al associated with rental housing (expand from owner -occupied). • Increase the allowable number of bedrooms per dwelling (duplex and attached single- family). 2. Facilitate multi -family dwelling development. For example: Continue to look for opportunities to purchase land for future resale/development. CITY OF IOWA CITY 32 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan • Conduct a City -initiated rezoning to allow multi -family housing or mixed use in areas supported by the Comprehensive Plan and served bytransit. • Reduce the minimum amount of land needed to qualify for a planned overlay district/planned development. 3. Increase the allowable number of bedrooms per dwelling in multi -family dwellings outside of the University Impact Area. Various state and federal housing programs incentivize housing developments that include units with more than three bedrooms to accommodate large families. Allow larger bedroom sizes to accommodate local, state and federal funding parameters. 4. Create Form Based Code regulations for additional neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first and then infill locations. Recommendation: 1) Increase the allowable number and/or type of dwelling unit in single family zoning districts by right in more locations. Examples include ADi duplexes and zero -lot line structures. 2) Increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero -lot line structures in single family zoning districts; 3) Facilitate multi -family development by purchasing land to be developed; 4) Conduct a City initiated rezoning to allow multi -family housing or mixed use in areas supported by the Comprehensive Plan; 5) Allow multi -family units with more than three bedrooms when required to meet local, state or federal affordable housing funding parameters such as the LIHTC program; 6) Encourage infill development Flexibility by reducing the minimum amount to land eligible to apply for a planned overlay zoning; and 7) Create form based code regulations for additional neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first and then infill locations. Programs and Policies Based on Household Income If additional funding is made available, the priority should be on housing for those with the lowest income. In recognizing housing is needed to support a healthy housing market and there needs to be housing options for all incomes and ages throughout the City, recommendations are made for housing for households up to 100% of area median income. 0-30% Median Income Recommendations 1. Support a Landlord Risk Mitigation Fund for hard to house tenants. Landlord risk mitigation programs are intended to add protection to landlords willing to rent to someone with limited income, a poor rental history, or a criminal history. The funds can cover items CITY OF IOWA CITY 33 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan such as excessive damages to the rental unit, lost rent, or legal fees beyond the security deposit. The Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board plans to develop a program working in collaboration with the City. These programs are most effective at a regional level for expanded housing options and landlord participation. Recommendation: Seek proposals for a local landlord risk mitigation fund for hard to house tenants and secure funding to operationalize it annually. Encourage proposals that seek partnerships with regional entities (Johnson County, Coralville, and North Liberty) to expand housing options and landlord participation. 2. Support non-profit housing providers develop and maintain permanent supportive housing/Housing First models. The Housing First model is a homeless assistance approach that prioritizes providing permanent housing to people experiencing chronic homelessness. The subsidized housing is provided with the ongoing option to participate in supportive services but does not place conditions on the housing. Permanent supportive housing is permanent housing in which housing assistance and supportive services are provided to assist households with at least one member with a disability in achieving housing stability. The City supported Shelter House in the development of Cross Park Place, a Housing First project, that opened in January of 2019. The project houses 24 one -bedroom apartments with on -site offices and an exam room for case managers and partners with health and behavioral health clinicians. The City converted 24 tenant based rental vouchers to project -based vouchers so that those renting at Cross Park Place have a voucher to assist with rent. Due to the success of Cross Park Place, plans are underway for the second housing First project, "The 501 Project;' for persons facing chronic homelessness. Construction started in 2021. The building will have 36 apartments with a clinic for partnering health clinicians, computer workstations, laundry facilities and a multi -purpose room for tenants. Like Cross Park Place, housing choice vouchers will be converted to project -based vouchers to assist tenants pay rent. The City should continue to provide support for existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects as well as additional efforts to produce additional housing through acquisition, new construction, or rehabilitation. The City should expand efforts to include permanent supportive/Housing first projects to families experiencing chronic homelessness. CITY OF IOWA CITY 34 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Recommendation: Continue to support existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects, expanding into projects forfamilies experiencing chronic homelessness. 3. Support major investments. Support non-profit housing providers to significantly increase their supply of permanent supportive housing when granted an opportunity, either through acquisition, new construction or by assisting through creative approaches such as a master lease between non-profit providers and landlords. Under a master lease scenario, a non-profit service provider enters a lease with one or more landlords to secure housing for their participants. The participants in the program pay rent to the non-profit service provider based on the requirements of the program. Consider converting housing choice vouchers to project -based vouchers for projects assisting those experiencing or with a history of homelessness. The City is currently collaborating with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County for the allocation of ARPA funds. Funds will be dedicated to support larger investments in affordable housing for acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction. The goal for the projects selected will be permanent affordability through deed restrictions, land leases or ownership by non-profit entities whose core mission is to provide affordable housing. Recommendation: Allocate ARPA funds and future City funds to support larger investments in affordable housing assisting those up to 60% median income, prioritizing permanent affordability and households with lower incomes. 4. Maintain affordable housing through rehabilitation. Efforts should include grant funds for those improvements that improve energy efficiency and lower tenant utility costs. In all housing, support aging in place initiatives that supports the ability to live in one's own home safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age or ability level. Support safety improvements and emergency repairs to homes, including mobile/manufactured homes. Recommendation: Increase funding for those improvements that improve energy efficiency, lower utility costs, supports aging in place initiatives and improves home safety. Provide grants where feasible. 31-60% Median Income Recommendations 1. Support security deposit assistance. CITY OF IOWA CITY 35 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance that allows up to 2 months for those with poor rental history to get housed. The City allocated $70,000 to security deposit assistance in Fy22. The amount has been increased twice due to demand to a total of $148,000, Previously, the program allowed up to 2 months of assistance, but due to limited funds available for the remainder of the fiscal year, assistance was limited to $1,000 in a twelve-month period with a preference for tenants referred by Shelter House and the Domestic Violence Intervention Program. Recommendation: Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance. 2. Support and Expand Eviction Prevention Programs. Due to the pandemic, housing instability has increased dramatically. Evictions are a destabilizing event that can send a family into a cycle of financial and emotional upheaval and affect their current and future prospect for residential stability. The City has allocated over $850,000 to our community partners to maintain housing for those impacted by the pandemic for eviction prevention and eviction diversion. It is anticipated that additional funds through the American Rescue Plan Act (All will be dedicated for this purpose. Efforts should expand community outreach, especially to landlords, to make more tenants and landlords aware of eviction diversion and prevention programs. Increase efforts to intervene earlier before evictions are necessary with opportunities to mediate, work out payment arrangements and file for rental assistance programs. Recommendation: Support and expand eviction prevention programs. 3. Energy Efficiency Improvements Provide grant funding to complete energy efficiency improvements that reduce a low-income tenant or homeowners monthly utility cost. Increase partnerships with non-profit housing providers, including public housing, to complete energy efficiency improvements. Recommendation: Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower utility costs. CITY OF IOWA CITY 36 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan 4. Downpayment Assistance Support financial assistance to purchase an affordable home. Ensure affordable financing to owner, such as 30-year fixed loans with area lenders. Assistance also includes credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers or those wanting homeownership. Recommendation: Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers. 61-100% Median Income Recommendations 1. Downpayment Assistance Support financial assistance to purchase an affordable home. Ensure affordable financing to owner, such as 30-year fixed loans with area lenders. Assistance also includes credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers or those wanting homeownership. Recommendation: Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers. 2. Energy Efficiency Improvements Provide grant funding to complete energy efficiency improvements that reduce a low-income tenant or homeowner's monthly utility cost. Recommendation: Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements. CITY OF IOWA CITY 37 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Summary Tables Recommendations and Actions Required for Existing Policies and Programs Recommendation Discontinue Affordable Housing Location Model and consider incentives or prioritization policies that encourages affordable housing in all neighborhoods. Require staff analysis and funding recommendations of CDBG/HOME housing applications before HCDC review. Further define how CDBG/HOME funds will be allocated to improve transparency (e.g. full funding for top -rated applications, partial funding based on scores, etc.). Allocate funds to the Affordable Housing Fund with a goal of a 3%annual increase. Affordable Housing Fund: Include the LIHTC reservation with the HTFJC allocation. If no LIHTC projects apply during the annual allocation or if an approved LIHTC project does not get IFA funding, allow the HTFJC to make those funds available for general applications. Implement the Risk Mitigation Fund. Enact policy that prioritizes partnerships with not -for -profit affordable housing developers/organizations to preserve affordable housing units in all housing programs. Allow non-profit affordable housing developers to apply for additional funds to support ongoing operations (Opportunity Fund, HOME CHDO funds, etc.). Allow developers of affordable housing to applyfor technical assistance needs from a variety of city programs, including but not limited to, the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund and Climate Action grants. Encourage, but not mandate permanent affordable housing in new residential annexations. With future annexations explore partnerships and funding opportunities to secure permanent affordability when possible. Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and how to address housing issues. Type of Action Required Policy Increased Change Funding Education X x X X �i X X X CITY OF IOWA CITY 38 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Recommendations and Actions Required for Development Regulations Applicable to Both Single- and Multi -Family Recommendation Encourage infill development flexibility by reducing the minimum amount of land eligible to apply for a planned overlay zoning. Create form -based code regulations for additional neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first and then infill locations. Type of Action Required Policy Increased Change Funding Education X 11 Recommendations and Required Actions for Development Regulations Applicable to Single -Family Recommendation Allow by right more types of dwelling units in single family zoning districts such as duplexes and zero -lot line structures in more locations. (Note: Comprehensive Plan amendment may be quired. Possible consultant.) increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero - lot line structures in single family zoning districts. Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) under more circumstances and in more locations. Type of Action Required Policy Increased Change Funding Education x x X X Recommendations and Required Actions for Development Regulations Applicable to Multi -Family Recommendation Facilitate multi -family development by purchasing land to be developed. Conduct a City initiated rezoning to allow multi -family housing or mixed use in areas supported by the Comprehensive Plan. (Note: Comprehensive Plan amendment may be quired. Possible consultant.) Allow multi -family dwelling units with more than three bedrooms when required to meet local, state, or federal affordable housing funding parameters such as the LIHTC program. Type of Action Required Policy Increased Change Funding Education X X X X X CITY OF IOWA CITY 39 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan If additional funds are allocated/reserved for affordable housing, recommendations based on household income are below. 0-30% Median Income Recommendations Seek proposals for a local landlord risk mitigation fund for hard to house tenants and secure funding to operationalize it annually. Encourage proposals that seek partnerships with regional entities (Johnson County, Coralville, and North Liberty) to expand housing options and landlord participation. Continue to support existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects, expanding into projects for families experiencing chronic homelessness. Allocate ARPA funds and future City funds to support larger investments in affordable housing assisting those up to 60% median income, prioritizing permanent affordability and households with lower incomes. Increase funding for those improvements that improve energy efficiency, lower utility costs, supports aging in place initiatives and improves home safety. Provide grants where feasible. 31-60%Median Income Recommendations Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance. Support and expand eviction prevention programs. Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower utility costs. Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers. 61-100% Median Income Recommendations Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower utility costs. Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers. CITY OF IOWA CITY 40 Strategic Plan FISCAL YEARS 2023-2028 Adopted December 2022 0 [.- n3'. yyy CITY OF 10 UNESCO CITY - - IMPACT AREAS Neighborhoods & Housing 111r11:1avi1.1Is] ►1 Iowa City is a collection of authentic, vibrant neighborhoods and districts. By way of internal and external streets and trails, each community member has safe, easy access to everyday facilities and services within a 15-minute walk or bike ride. Neighborhoods are compact and socially diverse, with a variety of housing choices and at least one place serving as its center. Permanent affordable housing choices are dispersed throughout the community. New higher density development blends with existing buildings and shapes a comfortable, human -scale pedestrian environment. Public spaces are inviting and active with people recreating and socializing in parks, natural areas, and tree -lined streetscapes, all enhanced with public art and placemaking initiatives. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Update City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to encourage compact neighborhoods with diverse housing types and land uses. • Partner in projects that serve as models for desired future development. • Create inviting and active outdoor spaces with unique and engaging recreation offerings. • Address the unique needs of vulnerable populations and low -to -moderate income neighborhoods. ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Explore legal steps to discourage or prevent bad faith and predatory property City Attorney FY23-24 investors. Act on building regulation recommendations outlined in the Accelerating Iowa Climate Action & FY23-25 City's Climate Actions Report; including TIF energy efficiency incentives, energy Outreach and standards for height and density bonuses, and a climate action building permit Neighborhood & rebate program. Development Services Revamp the neighborhood PIN grant program and evaluate discretionary funding Communications FY23-25 for district/neighborhood grassroots projects. Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. Neighborhood & FY23-28 Work with partners to undertake significant -scale affordable housing efforts. Development Services Seek out and approve residential TIF applications for infrastructure when the City Manager's FY24-25 project provides community benefit such as permanent affordable housing, Office expansive public open space, or advancement toward stated climate action goals. Consider a standard application of residential TIF for all new annexations to meet permanent affordable housing goals. Initiate a Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent Zoning Code review to more Neighborhood & FY24-28 broadly incorporate form -based principles with emphasis on growth areas first and Development infill areas next, expanded missing middle housing allowances, minimum density Services requirements, and streamlined approval processes Explore pilot housing projects utilizing tiny homes, 3D printed homes, Neighborhood & FY24-28 prefabricated or manufactured homes, net -zero homes, or other innovative Development options. Services Bolster financial support for homeless services and evaluate shiftingtowards City Manager's FY25-28 shelter as service model. Office Expand the South District Homeownership Program to other targeted Neighborhood & FY26-28 neighborhoods and consider allowing relocation assistance to expedite Development completion. Services Provide all residents with public open space within a 15-minute walk or bike ride by Parks and FY26-28 strategically executing agreements with local schools or other partners. Recreation 10 Mobility FUTURE VISION Community members of all socioeconomic statuses easily, safely, and comfortably travel using multiple modes of transportation year-round. Commuters choose to walk, bike, or bus at least half of the time, and an increasing number of trips are fueled by clean energy. Regional collaboration has created a strong multi -modal network that links Iowa City to neighboring communities. Highly traveled corridors have separated trails or comfortable, safe lanes for bicyclists. When prioritizing, the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and other emerging forms of transportation are weighted greater than those of automobile drivers and adjacent property owners. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Expand the access and convenience of environmentally friendly and regionally connected public transit. • Design and maintain complete streets that are comfortable and safe for all users. • Grow and prioritize bike and pedestrian accommodations. 11 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Fully evaluate the feasibility and funding sources needed for a zero -fare transit Transportation FY23-24 system. Services and Finance Develop a vision statement for a singular regional transit system with metro Johnson City Council FY23-25 County entities and obtain initial commitments to study a regional system from each entity's elected officials. Install additional permanent charging stations for vehicles, bicycles, and electronic Climate Action FY23-28 devices. & Outreach Identify additional opportunities for road diets, sidewalk infill, curb cut Public Works FY23-28 enhancement, and bike lane installation with a goal of at least two such projects each construction season. Explore opportunities to utilize the CRANDIC right-of-way for passenger rail, bus City Council FY23-28 rapid transit, or pedestrian usage. Evaluate with the State of Iowa reverting Dodge and Governor to 2-way streets Public Works FY23-28 Secure federal funding for a relocated transit building that can accommodate future Transportation FY24-28 growth in service and electrification of the fleet. and City Manager's Office Consider adding or retrofitting bike pathways that are separated from streets or Public Works FY24-28 protected utilizing flexible bollards. Expand the fleet of electric buses or other low/no emission -technology vehicles each Climate Action FY25-28 time a diesel bus is due for replacement and seek grants that can expedite the & Outreach conversion. Consider an on -demand or subsidized voucher system for times and locations in Transportation FY25-28 which no fixed route service is available. Services Expand snow clearing operations at sidewalk corners in high priority pedestrian Public Works FY25-28 areas, bus stops, and bike lanes. and Parks & Recreation Initiate and promote vehicle and bike-share/scooter programs. Transportation FY26-28 Services Evaluate with the State of Iowa the possibility of a Burlington Street Road Diet Public Works FY26-28 utilizing flex zones in non -peak hours. 12 Economy FUTURE VISION Iowa City is the preferred location for businesses at all stages of development. Start-up businesses flourish and take advantage of mentoring and other resources. The vibrant arts and culture community attracts both visitors and new residents. Technologies developed through the University of Iowa are transferred to the local business sector, creating business diversity and new value within the community. Businesses pay living wages and support skill development for their employees. Support services - such as child-care and language assistance - are readily available for all, which means every person who wishes to participate in the local economy can do so. Community members support each other by spending their money locally. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Reinforce Iowa City as a premier community to locate and grow a business. • Ensure appropriate infrastructure is in place for future business growth and development. • Cultivate a strong entrepreneurial and small businesses ecosystem with a focus on creating new pathways to success for systemically marginalized populations. • Build Iowa City's image as the Greatest Small City for the Arts. • Strengthen the Iowa River's role as a signature community amenity and tourism generator. 13 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Enhance access to affordable childcare for all populations through innovative City Manager's FY23-25 partnerships with higher education, non -profits, and the business community. Office and Neighborhood & Development Services Utilizing American Rescue Act Funds, execute on agreeable recommendations in City Manager's FY23-25 the Inclusive Economic Development Plan with a particular focus on actions that Office and build long-term support and wealth -building opportunities for systemically Economic marginalized populations. Development Partner with Kirkwood Community College, Iowa City Community School District, Economic FY23-28 Iowa Labor Center, local trades, and other stakeholders to provide meaningful Development and career development opportunities, pre -apprenticeship, and apprentice Neighborhood & programs. Development Services Increase small business technical assistance to aid in the creation, success, and Economic FY24-28 growth of home-grown businesses. Development Economic FY25-28 Create flexible incentives to support the top goals of Iowa City's Self -Supporting Development and Municipal Improvement Districts and other commercial nodes, including City Manager's attaining a desired business mix that serves the surrounding neighborhood. Office Develop targeted marketing to promote Iowa City as a unique and attractive City Manager's FY26-28 place to do business. Office Develop a riverfront master plan in cooperation with the University of Iowa, City Manager's FY26-28 Think Iowa City, and other stakeholders. Office 14 Safety & Well-being FUTURE VISION Our City supports the mental and physical well-being of our community members. Public safety response, whether from the City or a non-profit partner, is nuanced depending on the specific needs of the situation. Community members receive emergency response services promptly and welcome responders as problem -solvers. Inviting spaces for social interaction, exercise, and regeneration are equitably located throughout the community and are lively with activity and use. New and long-time community members alike, especially marginalized groups, easily build networks and establish roots within our community. Community members have safe, healthy indoor spaces and are well -prepared for climate -related changes. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Implement and expand innovative public safety models and facilities to improve outcomes and relationships within the community. • Partner with non -profits to address the most emergent and foundational community safety and well-being needs. • Build community by fostering social connections and developing safe, accessible public spaces for gathering. 15 ACTION PLAN Champion Date Work collaboratively with Johnson County and other stakeholders to launch a City Council and Police FY23-24 community violence intervention effort in close cooperation with local law Department enforcement. Leveraging American Rescue Plan Act funds, build capacity in local non -profits Neighborhood & FY23-26 that will help ensure they are able to meet future community demands. Development Services Build on the relationship with the University of Iowa College of Nursing to Neighborhood & FY23-26 increase participation in the Healthy Homes program. Development Services Expand the Mental Health Liaison program with CommUnity Mobile Crisis with a Police Department FY23-28 goal of 24-hour coverage by the end of FY28. Actively promote 988 throughout the year and ensure that CommUnity Mobile City Manager's Office and FY23-28 Crisis has resources to meet community demands. Communications Continue critical exterior renovations to the Senior Center and continue Senior Center FY23-28 progress on Senior Center Facility Master Plan recommendations. Integrate CommUnity Mobile Crisis into the 911 dispatch protocols. Police Department FY24-26 Consider and, where feasible, implement alternatives to routine non -emergent Police Department FY24-26 traffic stops. Expand neighborhood -based programs such as mobile community Parks & Recreation FY26-28 social/recreation resources (fun patrol), nests or micro -hubs for kids/teens. 16 RESOURCES Facilities, Equipment and Technology FUTURE VISION Municipal facilities are modernized and designed for operational efficiency, capacity for growth, employee safety and health, resilience, alignment with Climate Action goals, and civic pride. Funding of equipment and facility replacement funds and partnerships with other entities result in joint facilities, technology, and equipment that improve access and services. City staff are encouraged to be entrepreneurial in their approach and actively seek to innovative and streamline processes while improving service levels to the community. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Invest in the next generation of public facilities and equipment to create immediate operational efficiencies, boost workplace safety, health, and morale, and improve cross -department collaboration. • Promote high-performance governance leveraging technology, partnerships, and innovation. 17 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Outline a municipal -wide facilities plan and initiate relevant action steps to keep City Manager's Office FY23-24 projects moving forward. Complete a City Hall and Public Safety Headquarters space needs study and City Manager's Office FY23-24 develop a plan for next steps toward implementation. Implement the asset management system and expand use for facility Public Works FY23-25 maintenance and management. Develop and implement an electric vehicle transition plan. Public Works and Climate FY23-25 Action & Outreach Pursue grant opportunities, bolster the Facility Reserve Fund, and explore City Manager's FY23-28 public/private partnerships to facilitate completion of key facility projects. Office and Finance Design replacement and renovated facilities to ensure alignment with Climate City Manager's Office FY24-28 Action goals and create safer and healthier working environments for public employees. Improve public transparency through a coordinated and centralized open data City Manager's Office FY26-28 platform. Consider resourcing a Smart City initiative that prioritizes data -driven decision- City Manager's Office FY26-28 making through technology adaptation and data analysis. LU FUTURE VISION The City is an employer of choice in the region and viewed as a rewarding, long-term career choice. Valuable benefits, flexible schedules, energizing workspaces, remote and hybrid work arrangements, and professional development and advancement opportunities improve productivity, service to the public, and morale. Employees enter an inclusive, fun, and engaging environment each workday. City staff, board and commission members, and volunteers are demographically representative of the City population at -large and every employee is continuously building cultural awareness. Leadership and elected officials ensure sufficient staff levels to maintain baseline services, weather vacancies or emergencies, protect against employee burnout, and add capacity to act on special assignments and strategic, long-term initiatives. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Establish the City of Iowa City as an employer of choice in the region with a pay plan, benefits package, and flexible work options that attract and retain high -quality and motivated public service employees. • Carry out a multi -dimensional staff engagement initiative to ensure every City employee feels welcome, informed, involved, and engaged at work. • Build a diverse talent pipeline. 19 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Complete and execute upon the results of an organization -wide classification and Human Resources FY23-25 compensation study. As part of study, review all job requirements to ensure applicability and eliminate unnecessary barriers to employment, including testing, residency requirements, education, and certification or license requirements. Monitor implementation of new telecommuting and flexible work schedule policies to City Manager FY23-25 ensure public service standards are fully met and desired employee work arrangement flexibility is pursued where possible. Balance investment in new annual initiatives with staffing levels to ensure core municipal City Manager's FY23-28 service levels are maintained and reduce instances of burnout. Office and City Council Elevate new and existing intra-organizational communication strategies to bolster City Manager's FY23-25 information sharing and improve productivity and connectiveness across the Office organization. Create more opportunities to promote inter -departmental relationships, collaboration, City Managers FY23-25 and problem -solving. Office Upskill City staff in implicit bias, cultural awareness, and inclusion. Equity & Human FY23-28 Rights Develop recruitment network with local minority institutions. City Manager's FY23-28 Office Take steps to promote more diverse representation on Boards, Commissions, and City Council FY23-28 Committees. Ensure every single employee knows the City's strategic vision and can connect their role City Manager's FY23-28 accordingly. Office Strengthen volunteer engagement, management, and appreciation efforts. City Council and City FY23-28 Manager's Office Implement increasingly relevant organization -wide training opportunities such as conflict City Manager's FY24-28 resolution and de-escalation training. Office Conduct comprehensive benefits review and implement changes based upon best City Manager's FY25-28 practices and modern expectations, exploring benefits such as paid volunteer time, Office wellness offerings, and flexible stipends for challenges such as childcare, transportation, higher education and more. Launch targeted apprenticeship program(s) in partnership with local education and City Managers FY26-28 workforce institutions. Office 20 Financial FUTURE VISION City residents believe property taxes and utility fees are fair and commensurate to service levels, and do not experience erratic changes in rates and fees. The City maintains sufficient financial resources to proactively maintain and replace assets, carry out strategic plan initiatives, and be insulated from unanticipated financial stressors. Partnerships, grant funding, and other creative financing mechanisms are routinely part of program and project financing structure. The City maintains a AAA bond rating, resulting in lower borrowing costs for residents and businesses. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Grow the tax base, consider alternative revenue sources, and leverage outside funding to maintain core services and pursue community priorities while maintaining equitable property tax rates. • Exercise fiscal responsibility by maintaining and growing assigned and emergency reserve funds and prudent debt management. 21 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Ensure Enterprise Funds are well supported through incremental rate and fee Finance FY23-28 increases and do not become reliant on large rate spikes, property taxes, or unplanned debt issuance. Coordinate with Iowa League of Cities, Metro Coalition, and the City's contracted City Manager's Office FY23-28 state lobbyist to oppose unfunded state mandates and detrimental tax reforms. Maintain the City's AAA bond rating. Finance FY23-28 Increase the Emergency Fund balance by an annual target of 5%. Finance FY23-28 Significantly bolster the Facility Reserve Fund and develop an implementation plan Finance FY23-28 for use of funds that minimizes large debt issuances. Create a centralized grant management initiative that will focus on securing City Manager's Office FY24-28 additional private, state, and federal funding opportunities, while ensuring proper oversight and compliance. Develop and maintain cost recovery guidelines for programs and services that City Manager's Office FY26-28 balance fiscal responsibility and equity. Consider financial incentives and land use policies that aim to grow and diversify the City Manager's Office FY26-28 tax base (commercial, industrial, and residential). Consider alternative revenue sources such as a Local Option Sales Tax that can help City Manager's Office FY26-28 achieve strategic plan goals, fund infrastructure and facility needs, and reduce and City Council reliance on property tax. 22 FROM: Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board TO: Cities in Johnson County and Johnson County SUBJECT: Recommendations for Code/Ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) DATE: December 21, 2022 The Housing Action Team believes that there are many benefits associated with the creation of legal accessory dwelling units on lots in single family zones and in other districts. These include: 1. Increasing the supply of a more affordable type of housing not requiring government subsidies; 2. Helping older homeowners, single parents, young home buyers, and renters seeking a wider range of homes, prices, rents and locations; 3. By increasing housing diversity and supply, provide opportunities to reduce the segregation of people by race, ethnicity and income that resulted from decades of exclusionary zoning; 4. Providing homeowners with extra income to help meet rising home ownership costs; 5. Providing a convenient living arrangement for family members or other persons to provide care and support for someone in a semi-independent living arrangement while remaining in their community; 6. Providing an opportunity for increased security, home care, and companionship for older and other homeowners; 7. Reducing burdens on taxpayers while enhancing the local property tax base by providing a cost-effective means of accommodating development without the cost of building, operating and maintaining new infrastructure; 8. Promoting more compact urban and suburban growth, a pattern which reduces the loss of farm and forest lands, natures areas and resources, while reducing the distances people must drive and thereby reducing pollution that contributes to climate instability; and 9. Enhancing job opportunities for individuals by providing housing closer to employment centers and public transportation. Some cities in Johnson County already have code for ADUs (Iowa City and Solon). Johnson County has code that covers the unincorporated areas of the County. Oxford utilizes the Johnson County code. Swisher, Shueyville, Hills and North Liberty do not have code for ADUs. At present, Coralville, Lone Tree and Tiffin do not allow ADUs. The codes that do exist, vary among jurisdictions. The Housing Action Team would like to provide our recommendations that minimize lengthy application processes, high fees and harsh regulations that will prevent the development of ADUs or encourage illegal ADUs. Our recommendation or specific recommended language for each policy question is underlined and then followed by a rationale, if deemed necessary. Recommendations for the Elements of an ADU Code/Ordinance A. Definition- Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) means a residential living unit on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling or a parcel of which a single-family dwelling is present or may be constructed, that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It may take various forms: a detached unit, a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such as a detached garage, or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled dwelling. [Rationale Two common circumstances in which an ADU might be built before the primary residence are (1) when a homeowner wishes to stage construction expenses and living arrangements; and (2) when the homeowner owns an adjacent legal lot (typically used as a side or backyard) and would prefer to site an ADU there rather than on the lot with the primary residence.] B. Authorization of ADUs by Zoning District*- Accessory dwelling units are allowed in all zoning districts which allow residential use, including mixed -use zones, townhouse zones and single-family zones, subject to the requirements of the ordinance. C. Number of ADUs Allowed per Lot in Single -Family Zones- Any lot with, or zoned for, a Principal single-family dwelling unit, may have up to two accessory dwelling units. [Rationale There are many ways to accommodate more than one ADU that are sensitive to concerns about neighbor appearance. For example, two internal ADUs can be accommodated by remodeling a large home, without increasing height or bulk. An internal unit can be allowed along with an ADU over an attached garage, without increasing the area of the lot occupied by structures.] D. Minimum Lot Size in Single -Family and Townhouse Zones- Accessory dwelling units may be created on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for a single-family dwelling or townhouses. Attached and internal accessory dwelling units may be built on any lot with a single-family dwelling or townhouse that is nonconforming solely because the lot is smaller than the minimum size, provided the accessory dwelling units would not increase the nonconformity of the residential use with respect to building height, bulk or lot coverage. [Rationale- As a policy matter, it should not be necessary to establish a separate qualifying lot size for ADUs if the purpose is to assure the retention of landscaping and privacy between homes, because the setback and lot coverage standards can achieve those objectives.] E. Minimum / Maximum Size Area: The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be no more than the footprint of the primary structure or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. [Rationale- We recommend eliminating minimum size since the basic requirements for a living space (kitchen, bathroom, living/sleeping space) and the housing market will establish a minimum size. For situations in which the existing residence is very small, local governments might consider authorizing ADUs up to 800 square feet when the primary dwelling is smaller than 800 feet.] F. Types of Structures- A manufactured or modular dwelling unit may be used as an accessory dwelling unit in any zone in which dwelling units are permitted. Rationale In recent years, many off -site manufactured and modular ADUs are being produced; old conceptions of what constitutes a manufactured or modular home are outdated. This language maximizes the opportunities for ADUs by allowing any type of structure to be an ADU if that structure is allowed as a principal unit in the zoning district.] G. Lot Coverage Limits- An accessory dwelling unit (detached, attached, or built by expanding the footprint of an existing dwelling) on a lot of 4,000 square feet or larger shall not occupy more than 15% of the total lot area. For single family lots of less than 4,000 square feet, the combined lot coverage of the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling shall not exceed 60%. Accessory dwelling units built within the footprint of existing, legal, accessory structures are considered not to have changed existing lot coverage. Rationale- Lot coverage allowances and limits intersect with setback requirements, floor -area ratio limits and height limits. If detached or attached ADUs are significantly constrained by a lot coverage limit, then the possibility of having a two-story ADU may determine whether the investment in an ADU will generate a sufficient return to justify its construction.] H. ADU Setbacks- 1. A setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions as an existing structure. 2. No setback shall be required for an existing garage living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit; and 3. A detached accessory dwelling unit is not permitted on the front half of a lot, except when located a minimum of 30 feet from the front line or it falls within the provision of subsection 2. I. ADU Height Limit- The maximum height of an accessory dwelling unit is 25 feet or the height of the primary residence, based on the highest point of its roof compared with the lowest point of ground level at the foundation, whichever is less. J. Architectural Consistency and Design Review- We recommend against establishing separate architectural or design standards for ADUs. Rationale- Highly discretionary standards based on neighborhood "character" or "quality' can be serious obstacles to the construction of ADUs. Vague standards hamper homeowners and decision -makers alike. They can become an avenue for channeling neighborhood objections to ADUs in general. In some cases, the prescriptions for particular designs and materials can also add considerably to the cost of an ADU. A better approach is to reduce key design elements to a set of objective standards governing roof pitches, window orientation and siding. In some cases, design standards should only apply in certain districts or when the ADU is larger than a specified height or taller than one story.] K. Orientation of Entrance- Regulations governing the location, type and number of entrances into primary dwellings apply to accessory dwelling units. [Rationale- Not allowing an ADU entrance on the same side of the house as the primary dwelling can compromise the design and increase the cost of an ADU, substituting a more awkward and expensive entrance. Following the general principal of treating ADUs like the primary dwelling, the authorization and location of access doors and stairs for detached and attached ADUs should be the same as for primary residences.] L. ADU Screening, Landscaping and Orientation- We do not have a specific recommendation on this subject because a privacy regulation that is not applied to primary dwellings should not be applied to ADUs. ADU regulations addressing privacy as a separate subject seem to be rare. M. Parking Requirements- No additional off-street parking is required for construction of an ADU. If the ADU removes one of the existing off-street parking spaces it must be replaced on site if required by the underlying zoning. In lieu of an on -site parking space, an additional on -street parking space may be substituted if there's already sufficient curb area available along the frontage for a parking space or by removing the parking space access ramp and reinstalling the curb. [Rationale Requiring an off-street parking space for each ADU is a serious inhibition to the construction of ADUs for two reasons. First, the cost of creating off- street parking spaces. Second, the lot size, location of the primary residence and topography may make the creation of the space impossible.] N. Short -Term Rentals- We recommend that jurisdictions do not adopt a limitation on short- term rentals unless rental regulations or prohibitions exist for all housing in the jurisdiction or zone. Rationale- Many ordinances already have such limitations or prohibitions on the use of homes as transient lodging in their land use regulations, and those could be extended to ADUs.] O. Separate Sale of ADUs- We do not have a specific recommendation regarding this subject since most ADU ordinances are silent on the separate sale of the units as condominiums. We leave this policy question to the discretion of local jurisdictions. P. Owner Occupancy (Residency) Standards- There should be no requirement that the owner live on the same property (whether in the primary dwelling or the ADU) if there is no owner occupancy requirement for primary residences. [Rationale The practical impact of the occupancy requirement is to inhibit construction of most ADUs. This requirement gives pause to homeowners or institutions financing home purchases because of the limits they place on successive owners who will not be able to rent out or lease their main house, which might be necessary as a result of a divorce, job transfer or death. It can also make financial institutions reluctant to provide financing for construction of an ADU and because it acts as a restriction on a mortgage lender's security interest in the property.] Standards and Conditions Not Recommended for Application to ADUs The following standards and conditions are not recommended for inclusion in ADU ordinances: • Density limits on ADUs in a zone or district • Age of principal dwelling • Size of principal dwelling • Tenure of current owner • Limits on persons who can live in ADUs (age, relationship, disability) • Annual renewal and monitoring of permits for ADUs *Note on Historic Districts: Even historic districts can accommodate ADUs. Denver, Colorado and Pasadena, California provide useful examples. A city may require a simplified pre -application process utilizing a Design Review Committee to provide recommendations to a Landmark Preservation Commission. The most common issues pertain to the massing, building material and historic detailing on the elevations that face the street. The secondary elevations that face away from the street only need to complement the primary structure. In some cases, the roof treatment of an ADU's primary elevation is reminiscent of the primary building; while its secondary elevations, which face the alley, may be flat to maximize interior space. This allows homeowners the flexibility to create more usable spaces while still blending with historical forms and traditions. Incentives: Some cities around the country, recognizing the benefits of ADUs, have initiated various forms of incentives to foster ADU development. Assistance with rent, down payments and mortgages along with tax abatements have been utilized. The city of Des Moines, in January 2022, implemented a 10 year, 100% tax abatement for new ADUs. We hope that the cities that already have an ADU ordinance will review these recommendations and consider making revisions to be more in alignment with our advice. For those cities without an ADU ordinance/code, we encourage you to utilize/consider these recommendations as a template for the drafting of your ordinance/code. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you how ADUs can be a useful strategy to support seniors and also provide affordable housing in your city and across the county. ATTACHMENT 2 Proposed Zoning Code Amendments including Summary Table Attachment 2: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Summary Table 1. INCREASE FLEXIBILITY FOR OF • 1a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential zones Duplexes and attached single-family uses in Allow duplexes and attached single-family RS-5 and RS-8 zones are only allowed on uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones to be anywhere corner lots. 14-4B-4A-2 & -5 in a block. 1b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS-12 zone Up to 6 side -by -side, attached dwelling units Provisionally allow up to 6 side -by -side, on individual lots are allowed in RS-12 zones, attached dwelling units on a single lot in RS- but they are not allowed if they are on a single 12 zones (i.e. townhome-style multifamily). lot because it is considered a multi -family use. [14-2A-2 & -4, 14-4B-4A] 1c. Allow multi -family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special exception and provisionally allow multi -family uses in the CC-2 zone In most commercial zones, multi -family uses Provisionally allow multi -family uses in CC-2 are only allowed above the ground floor zones and allow multi -family uses on the (except under very specific circumstances in a ground floor in most commercial zones by few Central Business zones). special exception with the following specific approval criteria: Multi -family uses in CC-2 zones must be 1. If in an existing building in a Historic located above the ground floor and require a District Overlay (OHD) zone, a special exception. [14-2C-2, 14-4B-4A-7] rehabilitation plan approved by the Historic Preservation Commission must be completed prior to occupancy. 2.The units cannot significantly alter the overall commercial character of the zone. 3. For existing buildings in an OHD zone, dwellings are prohibited on or below street level where 3 or more of the following commercial storefront characteristics are present: a.The main entrance is at or near grade; b.The front facade of the building is within 10' of the front property line; c.The front facade contains ground floor storefront or display windows; and d.The street level floor of the building was originally constructed to accommodate sales oriented and personal service oriented retail uses and/or has historically been used for these purposes. 1d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with mufti -family uses Assisted group living uses are provisionally Regulate assisted group living uses more allowed in RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, PRM, and consistently with multi -family uses by allowing CO-1 zones and allowed by special exception it provisionally in RM-12, CN-1, MU, and CB in RM-12 and CO-1 zones. Multi -family uses zones and by not allowing it in CI-1 zones. For are allowed by right in all multi -family and MU CC-2 zones, allow it to the same extent as zones, provisionally in CO-1, CN-1, and most multi -family (i.e. provisionally if amendment 1c CB zones and by special exception in CC-2 so zones. 2a. Eliminate some multi -family site develo Multi -family or group living uses in buildings not built of masonry or stucco must have a 2- foot base of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete. Where wall materials change around the corner of a building, the material must wrap 3' around the corner. rl4-2B-6G-5 & -8 and 14-2C-91-3 & -67 locations Attached single -tamely and duplex uses in KS- 5 and RS-8 zones must have each unit's main entrance and garage facing a different street. [14-4B-4A-2, -3, & -5] buildings in multi -tamely zones cannot have parking within the first 15' of building depth. This may be waived by minor modification which requires a mailing and administrative to and to ensure Size Area/ Unit Width Front. RS-5 8,000 8,000 60 45 RS-5' 6,000 61000 50 30 RNS-12' 53000 53000 45 25 RM-12 55 RM-20 55 Only allowed with rear access Min. duplex lot standards: Size Area/ Unit Width Front. RS-5 12,000 16,000 80 80 RS-8 18,700 14,350 170 170 is approved or by : approved). Aso 'I nent standards to ruminate mose iwo requiremems rrom multi -family site development standards. uses and duplex uses to allow entrances and garages to face one street, but limit garage frontage to 60% of the garage wall and limit vehicular access to 1 doublewide (20') or 2 singlewide (10') garage doors facing each street unless they are set back at least 15' from the building fagade. In addition, require allev access to be used where present. requirement for townhome-style multi -family uses without a minor modification. This would be for streets not faced by main entrances to use newer sta Size Area/ Unit Width Front. RS-5 6,000 6,000 50 40 RS-5' 5,000 5,000 45 30 RNS-12' 3,000 3,000 30 20 RM-12 45 RM-20 45 Only allowed with rear access Min. duplex lot standards: Size Area/ Unit Width Front. RS-5 10,000 5,000 70 70 RS-8 8,000 4,000 60 60 Min. attached single-familv lot standards: I Min. attached single-familv lot standards: Unit I I I I I I I Unit 3b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached single-family, duplex and multi -family uses outside of the UniversitV Impact Area swum-Tamuy awewng units are umnea to a bedrooms and duplex and attached single- family dwelling units are limited to 4 bedrooms. [14-28-4, 14-2C-4, 14-5A-4] 3c. Encourage accessory apartments in barriers to construction Accessory apartments are only allowed in the RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RIM-20, and RNS- 12 zones and must: 7.Be a separate dwelling unit accessory to a detached single-family use; one per lot. 8. Be under the same ownership as the single- family use; one unit must be owner - occupied. 9.Only have up to 2 residents and 1 bedroom. 10. Be no larger than 650 square feet, 30% of the floor area of the principal dwelling if in a principal dwelling, or 50% of the floor area of an accessory building if in an accessory building, whichever is less. 11. Provide one extra off-street parking space. When located within the principal dwelling, must be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family residence. Any new entrances should face the side or rear yard, and any addition may not increase the floor area of the original dwelling by more than 10%. Exterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must visually match the principal dwellina unit. r14-4C-2A7 4a. Create a density bonus for affordable h Affordable housing projects can receive height bonuses in the Riverfront Crossings zones and density bonuses in Form -Based zones, but conventional zoning districts only provide density bonuses for alleys serving single- family detached housing, for multi -family elder housing, for quality design elements in certain zones, and for features promoting sustainability. (14-2A-7, 14-28-7, 14-2C-11, 14-2G-8, 14-2H-8, 14-4F7 i nere is no minimum parking requirement Tor affordable housing units in the Riverfront Crossings District or Form -Based Zones, and a minor modification is available in CB-5 and CB-10 zones which allows up to 30% of units in an affordable housing project to be exempted from minimum parking requirements. [14-5A-4F-4] Increase the number oT Dearooms aiiowea outside of the University Impact Area to 4 bedrooms for multi -family units and to 5 for duplex and sinale-familv attached units. a Modity the standards to reduce barriers, including the following changes: 7.Allow accessory apartments in any zone that allows household living uses (including RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow for any lot that contains up to 2 dwelling units. 8.Remove the requirement that one unit be owner -occupied. 9.Remove limits on the number of bedrooms and residents. 10. Increase the size limit to 1,000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the principal use, whichever is less. Also, allow stand- alone accessory apartments. 11. Remove the requirement for an additional parking space. 12. Remove requirements limiting entrances to side or rear yards so long as it appears to be a use allowed in the zone and limiting additions to 10% of building. For conventional zones, create a 20% density bonus where 20% of units in a development are income -restricted affordable housing for 20 years, to be administered through existing processes. In addition, provide additional flexibility from dimensional standards including allowing an increase in the maximum height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction. all zones would not be required to provide a minimum amount of on -site parking if they provide affordable housing for at least 20 years in compliance with the City's new affordable housing requirements. 15a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoninq code I provide reasonable accommodations from land use or zoning policies where they may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The code has specific waivers, but they do not cover every accommodation and are not user friendly. [14-8B] ou. rtawaaauy cuiuiuuivay acr vices — iuny ac Long-term housing operated by a public or nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities is classified as a community service — long term housing use, which is considered an institutional use and is regulated differently from residential uses. As a result, the use is only allowed in a few commercial zones (including the CI-1 zone which does not allow household living uses), but it is not allowed in residential or the CN-1, CB-10 or MU zones. Long term housing uses allow higher densities and less parking than residential uses and typically has on -site supportive services, but it also triggers additional process where it is near single-family residential zones and requires a neighborhood meeting and management plan which are not required for other residential uses that house persons with disabilities. [14-2C-2, 14-4A-3A, 14-4A-6C, 14-48-4D-6, 14-5A-4, 14-9A] creme an aaminisiranve r<easonaoie Accommodations Request' process with a defined approval procedure. Applications must be reviewed within 30 working days. Proposed approval criteria include: 5.The housing will be used by an individual with disabilities; 6.The accommodation is necessary to make housing available for the use and enjoyment of an individual with disabilities; 7.The accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the jurisdiction; and 8.The accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the ung program. uses as a residential use Eliminate the community service — long term housing use as a distinct use category and instead regulate it as a residential use. Create a definition for permanent supportive housing. Specify that supportive services for residents of a development may be considered accessory to a residential use. Proposed Changes Underlined text indicates added language. Text with a s'•°�, ugh indicates deleted language. Article 14-2A: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES 14-2A-2: LAND USES ALLOWED: Table 2A-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Sin le-Famil Residential Zones USE SUBGROUPS RR-1 I RS-5 I RS-8 RS-12 RNS-12 CATEGORIES Residential Uses Household I Detached single- family I P I P P I P I P living uses dwellings Detached zero lot line dwellings PR PR PR PR Attached single- family dwellings PRz PR PR Two-family uses (duplexes) PRz PR PR PR Group households PR PR PR PR PR Multi -family uses Group living uses Assisted group living Independent group living Fraternal group living P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions.) 14-2A-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 14-2A-4E. Minimum Open Space Requirements: 1. Purpose: The minimum open space requirements are intended to ensure a minimum amount of private, usable open space is provided to support the health, well-being and enjoyment of the residents of the dwelling. The intent of the open space is to support passive recreation, leisure activities, informal gathering, and opportunities for interaction with nature. 2. Minimum Requirements: a. On lots that contain multi -family uses or group living uses, usable open space shall be provided on each lot at a ratio of ten (10) square feet per bedroom, but not less than four hundred (400) square feet, located in one or more clearly defined, compact areas, with each area not less than two hundred twenty five (225) square feet with no dimension less than fifteen feet (15'). On lots that contain multi -family uses in the RS-12 zone, a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet of usable open space per unit shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension less than ten feet (10'). b. On lots that contain detached single family uses, a minimum of five hundred (500) square feet of usable open space shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension less than twenty feet (20'). c. On lots that contain attached single family uses, a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet of usable open space shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension less than ten feet (10'). d. On lots that contain two family uses, a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit shall be provided, located in one or more clearly defined, compact areas, with each area not less than three hundred (300) square feet with no dimension less than twelve feet (12'). 3. Standards: a. For multi -family uses and group living uses, open space shall meet the standards asset forth in subsections 14-2G-7E1 through E7 of this chapter, except multi -family uses in the RS-12 zone shall comply with the standards in subsection 14-2A-4E-3b. b. For single family uses and two family uses open space shall be located behind the principal dwelling in an area visible and easily accessible from the principal dwelling and shall consist of open planted green space, which may include trees, planters, gardens, and other amenities that support passive recreation or leisure activities. Paved areas shall not be counted toward usable open space. For attached single family uses, rooftop or upper floor open air terraces or rear yard -facing porches, including screened -in porches (non -habitable space only) may count toward the open space requirement- 4- Minor Modification: A minor modification may be requested according to the provisions and approval criteria of section 14-413-1, "Minor Modifications", of this title, to reduce the required open space for single family and two family uses in the following circumstances, provided the additional approval criteria stated in subsection E4e of this section, are satisfied. Note that reducing the open space may reduce the allowed occupancy of a rental property (see title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code): a. In order to establish up to two (2) off-street parking spaces (surface parking or in a garage) on a lot that currently has fewer than two (2) off-street parking spaces; or b. If the lot is a corner lot, is irregular in shape, substandard in size, or contains severe topography, or other unique circumstance, such that there is practical difficulty meeting the standard; or c. The lot contains a manufactured home, where due to the shape/dimensions of the home there is practical difficulty meeting the standard; or d. The lot contains a detached zero lot line dwelling, where the side yard is designed to serve as usable open space for the dwelling; e. Approval criteria- (1) The applicant has demonstrated that every effort has been made to design buildings, paved areas, and vehicular use areas to meet the open space requirement. Such efforts may include but are not limited to reducing the width of driveways, reducing paved areas and size of new buildings or additions, and providing alternative means of vehicular access to the property; and (2) The open space requirement will be satisfied to the extent possible in another location on the lot, such as a side yard; and (3) Any potential negative effects resulting from the exception are mitigated to the extent possible. Table 2A-2: Dimensional Re uirements In The Single -Family Residential Zones Zone/Use Minimum Lot Requirements Maximum Number Lot Size Area/Unit Lot Width Frontage (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) of Bedroom s Per Unit RS-5 Detached 6 000 4,9998 6. 00019,499 50 698 8 n/a single- family, including zero lot line Duplexes 10422,000 5 000 "W 70 89 70 89 4" Attached single- 5 000 &,,999 5 000 &,,999 1540 3549 4 family Other uses' 6 000 8-,OW n/a 5060 4045 n/a RS-8 Detached 5,0008 5,0008 451 401 n/a single- family, including zero lot line Duplex 8 000 8,799 4 000 4,950 60 70 60 70 41-1 Attached single- 4 000 4,k59 4 000 44�59 30 35 30 35 41-1 family Other uses' 5,000 n/a 45 40 n/a RS- Detached 5,0008 5,000 458 401 n/a 12 single-family, including zero lot line Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 Attached single- 3,000 3,000 20/287 20 family Other uses' 5,000 n/a 45 40 n/a Multi -family uses (insert standards from reoriented table below] Detached 5,0008 5,0008 45a 25a n/a RNS- single-family 12 Duplex 1 6,000 13,000 145 125 Multi -family uses 5,000 1 Existing^ 145 125 Other uses' Other uses' 15,000 1 n/a 145 Table 2A-2., REORIENTED FOR CLARITY] Zone/Use RS-12 Multi -family uses Minimum Lot Requirements Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) 9 000 Area/ Unit (Sq. Ft.) 3 000 Lot Width (Ft.) 76 Frontage (Ft.) 60 Minimum Setbacks Front (Ft.) 156 Side (Ft.) 10 Rear (Ft.) 20 Building Bulk Max. Height (Ft.) 35 Min. Building Width (Ft.) 54' Maximum Lot Coverage Total Building Coverage 50% Front Setback Coverage 50% Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit'} 411 Minimum Open Space (Sq. Ft.)10 150 / unit n/a = not applicable Notes- 1- Other uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in chapter 4. article B of this title. 2. Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story. Detached zero lot line dwellings must comply with the applicable side setback standards in chapter 4, article B of this title- 3- A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75 percent of the building's length- 4- See the special provisions of this article regarding multi -family uses- 5- See applicable side setbacks for attached single-family as provided in chapter 4. article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title- 6- The principal dwelling must be set back at least 15 feet, except on lots located around the bulb of a cul-de-sac; on such lots the principal dwelling must be set back at least 25 feet. On all lots, garages, both attached and detached, must be set back as specified in chapter 4. article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title- 7- Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only 2 units are attached, lots must be 28 feet wide- 8- If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly. (See section 14-2A- 7 of this article.) 9. The principal building rear setback is 20 feet, except in the Central Planning District and Downtown Planning District, where the rear setback is dependent on the depth of the lot. For lots equal to or less than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = 20 feet. For lots greater than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = lot depth less 80 feet. For purposes of this provision, garages located in the rear yard and attached to the principal dwelling with a (non -habitable) breezeway (8 feet or narrower in width) will be considered detached accessory buildings and, therefore, are subject to the setback requirements for detached accessory buildings, rather than principal building setback requirements. Similarly, subject breezeways shall be treated as detached accessory structures/buildings. 10. Open space must meet standards set forth in subsection 14-2A-4E of this section. 11. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6), the maximum number of bedrooms maybe increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached single family or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. FE&I biF9;iXtif-TAIl l►/69P151. 14-2A-7A. Single -Family Density Bonus Options: For detached single-family dwellings and detached zero lot line dwellings, the following density bonuses are allowed in the following zones and under the following conditions: 1. RS-5 zone: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed: a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to forty-five fAy feet (450') and the minimum lot frontage may be reduced to thirty feet (30'); b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit maybe reduced to five 64 thousand (56,000) square feet; and c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk- 2- RS-8 zone: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed: a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to forty feet (40') and the minimum frontage to twenty five feet (25'); b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit maybe reduced to four thousand (4,000) square feet; and c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk- 3- RS-12 & RNS-12 zones: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed: a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to thirty feet (30') and the minimum frontage to twenty feet (20'); b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to three thousand (3,000) square feet; and c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk. 14-2A-7F. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F, "Affordable Housing". Article 14-2B: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES 14-2B-2: LAND USES ALLOWED Table 213-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Multi-Familv Residential Zones Use Categories I Subgroups I RM-12 I RM-20 RNS-20 RM-44 PRM Residential uses: Household living uses Detached single-family dwellings P P P Detached zero lot line dwellings PR PR PR Attached single-family dwellings PR PR PR Duplexes PR PR PR Group households PR PR PR PR PR Multi -family dwellings P P P P P Group living uses Assisted group living PRE PR PR PR PR Independent group living PR PR PR Fraternal group living PR S PR PR P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions.) 14-2B-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Table 2B-2: Dimensional Requirements For Multi -Family Residential Zones Zone/Use Minimum Lot Requirements Maximum Number Of Total Area/ Unit Width Minimum Area (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) Frontage Bedrooms Per (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) Unit RM- Detached 5,0007 5,0007 45 `a57 n/a 12 single-family 407 and detached zero lot line Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 13 Attached single- 3,000 3,000 20/286 20 13 family Multi -family 8,175 See table 213- 60 40 313 3 of this section Group living 8,175 See GhapteF 60 40 See GhapteF4, 4 article 14- article 14-4B-G# 4Q of th 6; .,. Non-residential' 5,000 5,000 60 40 n/a RM- Detached 5,0007 5,0007 45 5 7 401 n/a 20 single-family and detached zero lot line Duplex 3,600 1,800 45 35 413 Attached single- 1,800 1,800 20/281 20 13 family Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- 60 40 313 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See chapter 60 40 See chapter 4, 4, article 14- article 14-4B-Gf 4R of th 6 rairaio Non-residential' 5,000 n/a 60 40 n/a RNS- Detached 5,0007 5,0007 407 257 n/a 20 single-family and detached zero lot line Duplex 5,000 2,500 40 25 3 Attached single- 2,500 2,500 20/286 20 13 family Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- 40 25 31-1 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See chapter 40 25 See chapter 4, 4 article 14- article 14-4B-ef 4R of+..o �i� +i+lo Non-residential' 5,000 n/a 40 25 n/a RM- Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- None 35 311 44 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See chapter None 35 See chapteF 4 4 article 14- article 14-4B-G# . 4R S❑ Ile ti41..IHL. Non-residential' 5,000 n/a None 35 n/a PRM Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- None 35 311 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See chapter None 35 See chapter 4 4 article 14- article 14-4B-Gf 4R of of th s; t t1ot t10 Non-residential' 5,000 n/a None 35 n/a n/a = not applicable Notes- 7- If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly. (See subsection 14- 2B4A, "Minimum Lot Requirements", of this section.) 13. Outside of the Universitv ImoactArea (see maD 213.1 in Section 14-213-6). the maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. Table 213-3: Maximum DensityStandards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Multi -Family Zone Zone RM-12 RM-20 And RNS-20 RM-44 PRM Minimum lot area per unit (in square feet): Efficiency or 1-bedroom unit 2,725 1,800 500 435 2-bedroom unit 2,725 1,800 1,000 875 3-bedroom unit 2,725 2,700 1,500 1,315 Ma....,UM RI-i .,ti,.r efef. beelF..ems p ult fam ly a 13 13 13 Minimum bedroom size' (square feet) 100 100 100 100 Note: 1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. RedFgnms that ^x^^^d "F 696iaF@ feet R GZ@ 9F have a RY h9FZ9Rta I El M@RG OR 9F@atPFthaR 46 feet A hall A914 a6; P OF FPAFG 14-2B-6: MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 14-2B-6E. Building Scale: 1 ono 17 ono 20Role 20ono nn and PRM Zones Outside the Central Planning District - Street -facing walls that are greater than fifty feet (50') in length must be articulated with bays, projections, or recesses (see figure 2B.7 of this section) according to the following standards: a. Bays and projections must be at least six feet (6) in width and at least sixteen inches (16") but not more than six feet (6) in depth. Recesses must be at least six feet (6) in width and have a depth of at least sixteen inches (16"). b. The bays, projections, and recesses must have corresponding changes in the roofline or, alternatively, must be distinguished by a corresponding change in some other architectural element(s) of the building, such as a change in exterior wall materials, a change in window pattern, the addition of balconies, variation in the building and/or parapet height; or variation in architectural details, such as decorative banding, reveals, stone or tile accents. Figure 213.7 - Building Articulation :.1.:::: ::I : r.nllh] 1M Unacceptable Acceptable Acoeptable Acceptable 14-2B-6G. Building Materials: 1. In the central planning district, the exterior wall material of a building must consist of clapboard style siding, wall shingles, brick, stone, or stucco- 2- In the PRM zone, the exterior walls of the ground level floor of a building must be constructed with a masonry finish, such as fired brick, stone, or similar material, not including concrete blocks and undressed poured concrete. Masonry may include stucco or like material when used in combination with other masonry finish- 3- In the central planning district and in the PRM zone, buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco must have the following trim elements incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building: a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (3") wide- b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (3") wide, unless wood clapboards are used and mitered at the corners. c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5") wide, located below the eaves. Figure 213.70 - Building Materials 4. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be constructed using similar materials and design as the front facade. 5 Pxteri oryiellc of bu laings that are not nrede ntl y masonry or stuGre must have e durable base n inti ng of masonry, StUGGG OF dF@6 @d GQR9FGtG that evt@Rdr of leeot two foot (2') in height above grade If the here GORS intn of nonnrete it must have a rlenoreti ve fare 6 Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that faces a street side lot line. 67-. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the change must occur on an inside corner of the building. gd the C a to the .. Ltge of the 161 El ng for at Igaet thF@e feet (Q') 79. Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band board or other trim to provide a transition from one material to the other. Figure 2B.11 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials T- f r L A=p"a AaeFY * unmeetpu6m 14-28-8: SPECIAL PROVISIONS: 14-213-8E. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F. "Affordable Housing'. Article 14-2C: COMMERCIAL ZONES 14-2C-2: LAND USES ALLOWED: Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Commercial Zones P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special exception (see chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions) Use Categories Subgroups CO-1 CN-1 CH-1 CI-1 CC-2 CB-2 CB-5 CB- MU 10 Residential uses: Group living Assisted group PR PR F� PR PR PR PR PR uses living Fraternal group living Independent group living Household living Attached single- PR uses family dwellings Detached single- P family dwellings Detached zero PR lot line dwellings Duplexes PR Group PR PR PR PR PR PR PR households Multi -family PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ P dwellings S S S S S S Institutional and civic uses: Community P44 P--4 PRl PR PR Community service uses tl ,n Community service - shelter S S S PR PR S S General commu P S S P P P P S nity service 14-2C-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Table 2C-2(a): Dimensional Requirements For All Commercial Zones, Except The MU Zone' Zone Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit CO-1 310 CN-1 310 CH-1 n/a CIA n/a CC-2 310 CB-2 310 CB-5 310 CB-10 310 n/a = Not applicable Notes: 10. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 2B.1 in Section 14-2B-6), the maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. Table 2C-2(b): Dimensional Requirements For The Mixed Use Zone (MU)' Zone Use Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit MU Detached single-family and detached zero lot line n/a Two-family (duplex) 48 Attached single-family 48 Multi -family 38 Group living See article 14-413 Nonresidential' n/a n/a = Not applicable Notes- 8- Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6). the maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family. attached Table 2C-2(c): Maximum Density Standards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Commercial Zones Zone Minimum lot area per unit (in square feet): CO-1, CC-2, CN-1 And MU C13-2 C13-5 And CB-10 There is no minimum lot area per unit standard. However, the number of 3- and 4- bedroom units per lot may not exceed 30% of the total number of units on the lot Efficiency or 1-bedroom unit 2,725 435 2-bedroom unit 2,725 875 3-bedroom unit 2,725 1,315 n naX m��m�ml.,.r R bedreems n ult farm ly rl.iollinn ni4 3 a a Minimum bedroom size' (square feet) 100 100 100 1- New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Red;:noml; that @XGG@ 1225 14-2C-9: SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN MU ZONE: 14-2C-91. Building Materials For Multi -Family, Group Living, Commercial, And Civic/Institutional Buildings: 1. Buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco must have the following trim elements incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building: a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (3") wide- b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (3") wide, unless wood clapboards are used and mitered at the corners. c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5") wide, located below the eaves. Figure 2C.6 - Building Materials 2. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be constructed using similar materials and design as the front facade. 3 Cvferi or,.,fllc of bu Id nos; that are not nredo nfl„ marnnry nr stuppn must have 4 Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that faces a street -side lot line. 45. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the change must occur on an inside corner of the building- 7- 5 Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band board or other trim, to provide a transition from one material to the other. Figure 2C.6 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials Ampbbie kopu le uhaCt mwe 14-2C-11: SPECIAL PROVISIONS: 14-2C-11 F. Affordable housing dwelling units are eligible for regulatory bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F. "Affordable Housing". Article 14-2G: RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS AND EASTSIDE MIXED USE DISTRICTS FORM BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 14-2G-8: AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT. ADi hence. Then of fhiA confine is fe. 1 Gppatp a meFe G1us ve, ref and a eta Rahl.. la;.ya G ty; '� O...L'...... Rt Fati or.n .S IRV• and m..dPFaf.. .. hQ1 m..h Q1d1; In IQ;.ya (; ty - -------------------------------------------------- - . - . - - - - - -- - mom -- -- -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - --- - - -- . . - - - ---- - - - - --- - --- - - - --- - - - . Is Is .. total number of dwe ouldtenie enitihOW of the total number of we na un s result .. .. 1141 11 41 .. - MIM .... ----- - .. ----- - - - --- --- - - - - -- Table 14-2H-313-1: Uses Use Categories T4NS T4NS- O T4NM I T4NM- O T4MS I Specific Standards Institutional And Civic Uses Community Service Uses ter, FPFP U.. yRep, AP, Long Term WOU&mg 9 92a 4n nonn gr-0-44 Community Service - Shelter S S S S Sz 14-4B-4D- 5(RM-44) General Community Service S S S S PR 14-4B-4D- 3(CN-1) Day-care Uses I PR PR PR PR PR I 14-4B-4D-7 14-2H-10: AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES: I_1 R7:1�1[7r.7CtC�.�i7:7lSS-TSirT.tJ:L71FT.T.1l�11:Z71 • ' • • • •' • • ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ cifn .... .. . .... . . . ... . . .. . �. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,I _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ •_ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . Article 14-3A: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (OPD) 14-3A-4: APPROVAL CRITERIA: 14-3A-4D-1. The city will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value specified in table 3A-1, located at the end of this subsection, except as allowed by subsection 14-3A-4D-3 or Section 14-4F. Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the property, the scale of the project relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements of this title. Article 14-4A: USE CATEGORIES 14-4A-3: RESIDENTIAL USE CATEGORIES: 14-4A-3A. Household Living Uses: 1. Characteristics: The residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a single household or group household, who are living together as a single housekeeping unit. The principal use of the property is for long term residential living, with each dwelling unit containing its own facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals, and with all spaces within the unit open to the entire household. The dwelling or dwelling units are designed for residential living which includes Permanent Supportive Housing and any accessory use shall be secondary to the use of the property as a residence. 2. Examples: Examples include uses from the subgroups listed below. The single family uses are further divided into various dwelling types, because these dwelling types have distinct dimensional and development standards based on the zone in which they are located. Group households, given that they are a type of "household" rather than a type of dwelling, are permitted in any type of dwelling listed in the three (3) other subgroups, as is Permanent Supportive Housing. a. Group Households: Group households include only the following specific uses: elder family homes, elder group homes, parental group homes, and family care homes, all as defined in chapter 9, article A, "General Definitions", of this title- b. Single Family Uses: A single family use is a household living use where there is no more than one principal dwelling unit per lot. Single family uses include the following dwelling types- (1) Detached single family dwellings. Farm dwellings; detached single family houses; manufactured homes; modular homes; and mobile homes, if converted to real property and taxed as a site built dwelling, as provided in the Code of Iowa, as amended. (See exceptions, below.) (2) Detached zero lot line dwellings. (3) Attached single family dwellings. Attached zero -lot -line dwellings; townhouse dwellings. c. Two Family Uses: Two family uses are household living uses in which there are two (2) principal dwelling units within a single building and both dwelling units are located on the same lot. These uses are often referred to as duplexes. d. Multi -Family Uses: Multi -family uses are household living uses where there are three (3) or more principal dwelling units within a single building and all dwelling units within the building are located on the same lot. These uses include apartments, condominium apartments, elder apartments, assisted living apartments, townhouse -style apartments and condominiums, efficiency apartments, and dwelling units located within mixed -use buildings. 3. Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses; storage buildings; parking for residents' vehicles: supportive services that assist Permanent Supportive Housing residents in retaining housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and when possible work in the community. Home occupations, accessory dwelling units, childcare homes, mechanical structures such as solar energy systems, and bed and breakfasts are accessory uses that are subject to additional regulations outlined in article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this chapter- Any accessory use of the property shall remain secondary to the principal use of the property for residential living- 14-4A-6: INSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIC USES: 144A-6C Community Service Uses: 1- Characteristics: Uses of a public, nonprofit, or charitable nature providing a local service to people of the community- Generally, they provide the service on the site or have employees at the site on a regular basis- The service is ongoing, not just for special events- Included are community centers or facilities that have membership provisions that are open to the general public to join at any time, a-g-, a senior center that allows any senior to join- The use may provide shelter or short- term housing when operated by a public or nonprofit agency- The use may prny de tenann., fnr Inns .,.rr•, h9,,6,R0 f4.r P@FGGRG W th a;..ab 1 t,,.6 wh, opeFated 4 , „Lr,. , RGRpF94 , The use may also provide special counseling, education, or training of a public, nonprofit or charitable nature- 2- Examples: Examples include uses from the following three (3) subgroups: a- General Community Service: Libraries-, museums-, transit centers-, park and ride facilities-, senior centers-, community centers-, neighborhood centers-, youth club facilities-, some social service facilities-, vocational training facilities for the physically or mentally disabled-, soup kitchens-, surplus food distribution centers-, public safety facilities, such as police and fire stations- b- Community Service -Shelter: Transient housing operated by a public or nonprofit agency- r..r•.rP1_1R h, C...•. G@ I .. .. TeFFA W9616 Rg. I .. g to FFA 1961el Rg f..r PeFGGRG .dth ad Gab! hy operated by a Ublin or nonprof a 3- Accessory Uses: Offices-, meeting areas-, food preparation areas-, parking-, health and therapy areas-, daycare uses-, athletic facilities- 4- Exceptions: a- Religious institutions and private clubs and lodges are classified as religious/private group assembly uses- b- Group care facilities where patients are residents of the facility are classified as assisted group living- c- Private, for profit athletic or health clubs are classified as indoor commercial recreational uses- d- Private, for profit art galleries are classified as sales oriented retail- e- Social service agencies that consist primarily of office and counseling functions and operate in a similar fashion to other office uses are classified as general office- f- Parks and cemeteries are classified as parks and open space- g- Uses where tenancy is arranged on a non -transient basis are residential and are classified as household living or group living- h- Alternatives to incarceration, such as halfway houses, where residents of the facility are under supervision of sworn officers of the court are classified as detention facilities - Article 14-4B: MINOR MODIFICATIONS, VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND PROVISIONAL USES 14-4B-4: SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR PROVISIONAL USES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 14-4B-4A-2- Attached Single -Family Dwellings'^ oC G ARd oC 4 Z,.ReG N'_,Fnl;PFQfLJR1t&QR1Y0ReF e peFmtted .. r LS A m m, im a h I .. at OR- (1r•...S the attashed dwell r•.. U R tS must be Insat d .. a AAFRP-F LS Cptba ks- MURir1.T.1'Li OIKI rItIn MOnly one principal dwelling unit is permitted per lot- (2) In RS-5 and RS-8 zones: A maximum of two (2) dwelling units may be attached unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning- (3) In all other zones: A maximum of six (6) dwellings units may be attached unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning- b. Setbacks- (1) Interior Lots: The side setbacks for the attached dwellings maybe reduced to zero along the common wall side of the units. Each end unit in a row of attached single-family dwellings shall have one side setback that is a minimum of ten feet (10'), unless the end unit is on a corner lot. 1aL1f �^ ^^ ^ ^ orner Llots:-Either the rear setback or nonstreet side setback may be reduced to zero feet (0'l. The t is remaining nonstreet setback must be at least ten feet (10') if it is a side setback and twenty feet (20') if it is a rear setback. (See figure 413.2 below.) Figure 413.2 - Setbacks For Attached Single -Family Dwellings c. Entrances: (1) Each dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that v r ble #nm and or ontpd tovi,.a the street To rnppt th s standard the . n Pntrangp must faces the street, is be at an angle of up to forty five degrees (450) from the street, or opens onto a porch. The main entrance may not face an alley- (2) Each dwelling must have a paved connection between the main pedestrian entrance and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is not provided- (3) If parking is located at the rear of a dwelling, a second entrance to the dwelling must be provided within twenty feet (20') of the rear facade of the dwelling on either the rear or side facade of the dwelling. d. Design Features- (1) All windows, doors, and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must be demarcated with trim. The city may waive this requirement in cases where the building has an exterior material of stucco or masonry such that trim is impractical or inappropriate to the design of the building- (2) All roof eaves must project at least twelve inches (12") from the building wall- (3) Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any building wall that faces a street -side lot line- (4) If four (4) or more dwelling units are attached, the units must be articulated by at least one of the following means in order to prevent monotony, but the units should be consistent in architectural style and proportion. Figure 413.3, located at the end of this subsection A3d, provides some examples of acceptable building articulation. However, other designs meeting the standards listed below are acceptable. (A) Construct front and side elevations of the building of at least fifty percent (50%) brick, stone, or other masonry product. For the purpose of this provision, masonry shall not include concrete block or poured concrete materials, except when rusticated concrete block or decorative concrete is used as a base or exposed foundation material- (B) Construct front and side elevations of the end units of one hundred percent (100%) brick, stone, or other masonry product. For the purpose of this provision, masonry shall not include concrete block or poured concrete materials, except when rusticated concrete block or decorative concrete is used as a base or exposed foundation material- (C) Distinguish each unit architecturally through a change in the roofline and a jog in the street -facing wall plane. The jog must be at least eighteen inches (18") deep and a minimum of eight feet (8') wide; the change in the roofline must be in concert with the jog in the wall plane, which may be accomplished by the addition of a gable, hip or similar roof that is perpendicular to the primary roof. Figure 413.3 - Examples Of Facade Articulation For Attached Single -Family Dwellings •a Li _Fl 19 Ali ruill- Ax,ptabla AO rdable Ac gAable Altemative Facade Arfl"Iatlons Aae atz b c Acceptable AltemaM Facade Alfidllatlons e. Garages (1) In the RS-5 and RS-8 zones, there maybe no more than one doublewide or two singlewide garage openings facing any street unless the parking is set back at least fifteen feet (15') from the front of the building facade. For the purposes of this section, a porch is considered On (1) Vehicular access points and garage entrances must comply with the provisions of article 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title and the single-family site development standards as set forth in chapter 2, article A of this title. Attached single-family dwellings located in the MU zone are also subject to the standards of subsection 14-2C-9N, "Single -Family And Two -Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title- (2) If the lot width is less than forty five feet (45'), vehicular access is restricted to an alley or private rear lane. Corner lots are exempt from this standard if vehicular access faces a lot line that is at least forty five feet (45') in length. (3) Where a private rear lane or public alley is present, garage entrances/exits must be accessed from said private rear lane or public alley. g#. Utilities: Each dwelling unit must have a separate utility service from the street or rear lot line. hg. Maintenance: A permanent access and maintenance easement must be secured from the owner of the lot that abuts the zero lot line side of the dwelling. The easement must ensure access for maintenance of the exterior portion of the building wall located on the lot line and other common elements, such as drives and aisles. This easement must be recorded as a covenant on the applicable lots. Proof of such recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a building or occupancy permit. 14-4B-4A-3. Multi -Family Uses In The RS-12 Zone: a. Number Of Units: No more than six (6) principal dwelling units may be located on a lot in an RS-12 zone unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning- b. Principal dwelling units must be arranged as a townhouse -style multi -family building such that each unit has frontage on the same street. c. Principal dwelling units may not be stacked where one unit is located above or below another. d. Entrances- (1) Each principal dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that faces the street, is at an angle of up to forty five degrees (450) from the street, or opens onto a porch. The main entrance may not face an alley- (2) Each principal dwelling must have a paved connection between the main pedestrian entrance and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is not provided- (3) A second entrance to the dwelling must be provided within twenty feet (20') of the rear facade of each dwelling on either the rear or side facade of the dwelling. e. Design Features and vehicular access: The multi -family use must meet all requirements in Section 14-213-6 "Multi -Family Site Development Standards". 14-4B-4A-5. Two -Family Uses in oe G oe Q oe 10 once 19 onn 10 onn on once on nn.I Mll Zones a. i ogat on i ..,�tat on In oe 5.4nd oe Q pones- In the oe 5 and oe Q zones, two fam4 uses are only allowed on gornpr Info b Central Planning District: Two-family uses located in the central planning district must comply with the provisions of subsection 14-213-61, "Additional Standards In Central Planning District", of this title, which will be administered through the design review process as set forth in chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title. bs. Entrances: (2) The main entrance(s) must be V 1; 131P fFRM ^^a n ^f^a fn,.,^ra^ the ^fr^^f TQ et th s standara the MR n^fr^^^n must face the street, be at an angle of up to forty five degrees (450) from the street, or open onto a porch. The main entrance(s) may not face an alley or private rear lane. (23) The duplex EaGh-d e4 g must have a paved connection between the main pedestrian entrance(s) and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is not provided. (34) If parking is located at the rear of a dwelling, a second entrance to the dwelling must be provided within twenty feet (20') of the rear facade of the dwelling on either the rear or side facade of the dwelling. d. Design Features- (1) All windows, doors, and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must be demarcated with trim. The city may waive this requirement in cases where the building has an exterior material of stucco or masonry such that trim is impractical or inappropriate to the design of the building- (2) All roof eaves must project at least twelve inches (12") from the building wall- (3) Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any building wall that faces a street -side lot line. e. Garages- (1) In the RS-5 and RS-8 zones, the there may be no more than one doublewide or two singlewide garage openings facing any street unless the parking is set back at least fifteen feet N 5') from the front of the building facade. For the purposes of this section, a porch is considered part of the building facade. Doublewide openings may not exceed twenty feet (20') in width: singlewide openings may not exceed ten N 0') in width. fer ^ ' ^" ^^ ^^' ^ ^^' � (2) The length of any garage wall that faces a street -side lot line may not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the total length of the building facade that faces the same street -side lot line. On corner lots, only the garage wall(s) containing a garage door must meet this standard. In the MU zone, garages are exempt from this standard, but are subject to the standards of subsection 14- 2C-9N, "Single -Family Uses And Two -Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title. f. Vehicular Access- (1) Vehicular Access points and garage entrances must comply with the provisions of chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title and the single-family site development standards as set forth in chapter 2, article A of this title. Two-family uses located in the MU zone are also subject to the standards of subsection 14-2C-9N, "Single -Family And Two - Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title. (2) If the lot width is less than eighty feet (80'), vehicular access is restricted to an alley or private rear lane. Corner lots and double frontage lots are exempt from this standard if the vehicular access for one of the dwelling units is located along a different street than the vehicular access of the other dwelling unit, or if vehicular access for both dwelling units is located along a street where the front setback line is at least eighty feet (80') in length. (See definitions of "lot width" and "setback line, front" in section 14-9A-1 of this title.) (3) Where a private rear lane or public alley is present, garage entrances/exits must be accessed from said private rear lane or public alley. Cvemnles Of Two Family I Ices In The QC 5 ARd QC R 70nec- 14-4B-4A-7. Multi -Family Uses In Commercial Zones a. Location: The proposed dwelling units must be located above the street level floor of a building, except as provided in subsections A7e and Alf of this section- b. Maximum Density: The residential density standards for multi- family uses in commercial zones are stated in section 14-2C-4, "Dimensional Requirements", table 2C-2(c) of this title. c. Residential Entrances- (1) To provide safe access for residents VAII ^ ^ FP X@d HAP 13W Id ^^ any building containing a residential use must have at least one door AR the ...,f.. AF Af the h,,;Ia;^^ that provides pedestrian access to the dwelling units within the building. Said entrance must be located on an exterior building wall that faces a street, public sidewalk, or pedestrian plaza and is visible from and easily accessed from said street, sidewalk, or plaza. Access to dwelling units must not be solely through a parking garage or from an alley. (2) Access to entrance doors of any individual dwelling units located above the ground level floor of a building must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairway. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairways are prohibited. However, the city may allow exterior fire egress structures on existing buildings that cannot otherwise reasonably meet code requirements, provided the fire egress structure is not located on a wall of a building that faces a street. (3) To facilitate commercial uses at the street level, the ground level floor height should be no more than one foot (T) above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. The City may adjust this requirement for 9a sloping building sites, for multi -family buildings with no commercial component, a444-or for existing buildings, the ^ tY may aobift th;6 ro^,,;romont However, on sloping sites at least a portion of the ground level floor height of any new building must be located no more than one foot (T) above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza; and the floor height of the ground level floor of the building must be no more than three feet (3) above the level of the abutting public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point along a street -facing building facade. d. Standards For Ground Level Floor Of Building: (1) On the ground level floor 'The floor to ceiling height must beat least fourteen feet (14'), except it may be reduced for existing buildings or where dwelling units are permitted on the ground level floor of the building- (2) For the ground level floor of the huiId nn ^Construction must meet the building code specifications for commercial uses, except where dwelling units are permitted on the ground level floor of the building. [duplication Of 14-2C-8L-2] (3) in the GR 10 zone, for the first two (2) floors of o 1961 Idln^ R6#61At RR m et Meet the 16 uId r... GOEIG a G f Aat or.e f49F ARMMP-FA aI i e ro C AREI ro 40 F=XG Pt or.- In the ro 5 ^na ro 49 Z pt a IaFek, ded I hn..nti OR A7.JA\ of thl6 6@Gt OR ^na o pt ^ allowed IDY 661I36 .. t OR � UAlf of thle e....tle.. tThe board of adjustment may grant a special exception for multi -family dwellings to be located on or below the rg ound street level floor of a building, provided that the following criteria are met: (1) Where tT-he proposed dwelling will be located in an existing building in a Historic District Overlay (CHID) zone en ^ prepeqdeC g noted as an Iowa r ty historin landmark, aA rehabilitation plan for the property must be haCvvoeerreen reviewed and approved by the Iowa City historic preservation commission. The rehabilitation of the property must be completed according to this plan before an occupancy permit is granted- (2) The proposed dwellings will not significantly alter the overall commercial character of the subjectGR 5nr GR 10 zone. (3) There We site o nrlitions or IDU Id no ohorooteri St i os that make the street level of the Uhient IDU Id no or IDU Id cos unsu table for other uses ollou,Pd in the GR 5 or GR U) 7 (34) If an existing building located in a Historic District Overlay (CHID) zone ewa ladmafk preeppee.q includes three (3) or more of the following commercial storefront characteristics, dwellings are prohibited on or below the street level floor of that building: (A) The main entrance to the building is at or near grade; (B) The front facade of the building is located within ten feet (10') of the front property line; (C) The front facade of the building contains ground floor storefront or display windows; and (D) The street level floor of the building was originally constructed to accommodate sales oriented and personal service oriented retail uses and/or has historically been used for these purposes. f. CB-5 Form Based Code Exception: For properties zoned CB-5 located within the area bounded by Gilbert Street, Van Buren Street, Burlington Street and the midblock alley south of Jefferson Street, residential uses are allowed on the ground level floor of buildings, provided the following conditions are met: (1) In lieu of the standards in subsections A7c and A7d of this section, the proposed ground level dwelling units must be located within one of the following building types, as described in the form based zoning standards in section 14-2G-5, "Building Type Standards", of this title: (A) Apartment building; (B) Multi -dwelling building; (C) Liner building; (D) Townhouse- (2) Building frontage(s) must be designed to meet the requirements of section 14-2G-4, "Frontage Type Standards", of this title, as applicable for the chosen building type. (3) In lieu of the dimensional requirements and central business site development standards that generally apply in the CB-5 zone, buildings must comply with the same zoning standards that apply in the south Gilbert subdistrict of riverfront crossings as set forth in chapter 2, article G, "Riverfront Crossings And Eastside Mixed Use Districts Form Based Development Standards", of this title, including all general requirements in section 14-2G-7 of this title. If the ground level dwelling units are proposed as an integral part of a larger project on the same property that includes a mix of building types, the standards that apply in the south Gilbert subdistrict shall apply to the entire project in lieu of the dimensional requirements and central business site development standards of the CB-5 zone- (4) Buildings are subject to design review. Minor adjustments maybe allowed by the design review committee as warranted according to the provisions of subsection 14-2G-7H of this title. 14-4B-4A-8. Assisted Group Living: a. Maximum Density: Maximum density within an assisted group living use is as follows. For purposes of calculating maximum density, staff and live-in staff of a facility are not considered roomers- (1) In the RM-12 zone: One roomer per seven hundred fifty (750) square feet of lot area- (2) In the RM-20, RNS-20, CN-1, CC-2, and MU zones: One roomer per five hundred fifty (550) square feet of lot area- (3) In the RM-44, PRM, CO-1, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 and Cl 1 zones: One roomer per three hundred (300) square feet of lot area- b. Facilities: The group living use must have bath and toilet facilities available for use by roomers in such numbers as specified in title 17, "Building And Housing", of this code. In addition, the occupants may have access to a communal kitchen, dining room, and other common facilities and services. Article 14-4C: ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS 14-4C-2: SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA: 144C-2A- Accessory Apartments: Accessory apartments are permitted n the oc 5, oc sz oc 10 onn 19' nn o20 and DAIS 20 Zones i owner eGrup ed detached s gle family dwellings and .. delahed ;Zo lot IIRe d..,elll nge and In hi Jldin96 , to these e e d..,elll ng t„eee provided the following conditions are met: 1- Permit Required: Prior to the establishment of any accessory apartment, the owner of the principal EIW@11 R9 61Rmf use must obtain a rental permit from the Pep ^�^^' 9 Housing and Inspection Services according to the applicable procedures set forth in Cehapter 14-8, "Review And Approval Procedures", of fhs f fle 2- Ownership And Occupancy: a owner of the property o uhieh a aGGessery apartments; legated mustogGUpy at least one of the dwelling u ^Its on the prem ses s the permanent legal Fes dentThe lot shall contain no more than two (2) dwelling units as a principal use and shall be located in a zone that allows household living activities- b- The accessory apartment and the principal dwell ng use must be under the same ownership- 9- � The total n ether of individuals that r side in the aGGessory artme^t m note ed two (2)- 3- Site Requirements: a- Only one accessory apartment may be established per so ngle ffam ly lot- h In addition to the parking requ red for the n RG al dwelling u ni4 one off street pa*ng Fed for the aGGeGGeFy artment The minimum lot size Trequirement of the underlying base zone must be met, but does not apply to a aGGessery apartment, , no additional lot area is required beyond that which is required for the principal use EIW@1 t- 4- Design Requirements: a The aGGesseFy artment may he Iosated .. dthln the al dwell) ng a .dthln a b- The accessory apartment must be a complete, separate dwelling unit that functions independently from the principal 6 ^^I^ fam ly dwell '^^ u ^4t use- It must contain its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, in addition to a separate entrance from the exterior- be- When located within the a building with an existing principal use dwe4 ;g, the accessory apartment must be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of an allowed use within that zone, and any ^ ^^I^ far"° r^^ d^^^^ ^^ new entrances shg^Id fa^e the ^.de and of the bu ld and any addton for an aGGessery ailment m not nGrease the Veer area of the OF g Rai dwell ng by m e than ten g ent (10 Eexterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must visually match the principal dwelling useUR 4- 5- Apartment Size: The aGGessery ailment must he nlearl„ suberdnate n area to the .dth the f.. ollod ng standards- , Foran aGGessory ailment located w thin a prnG pal dwell ng , nit, 4The floor area of the accessory apartment un 4 may not exceed Lflyt" percent (530%) of the total floor area of the principal use dwelkag, excluding the area of an attached garage, or one thousand ^'X h4dred^dr^d # (1 000650) square feet, whichever is less- ( Cer a aGGesseFy artment Iosated Vi thin a R.GGesseFy bu ldl.... the flogr apea of the aGGeGGeFy artment may of a ed f4 n nt (59%) of the total fleer @Fea of the a bu lding or s v hundred fifty (650) square feet, whichever is less The RGGesseFy ailment may ntaln n e thane a hedroom Article 144F. AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTION: 14-4F-1: Purpose 14-4F-2: Eligibility 14-4F-3: Definitions 14-4F-4: Regulatory Incentives 14-4F-5: General Requirements 14-4F-6: Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing 14-4F-7: Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing 14-4F-8: Alternative Methods Allowed in the Riverfront Crossings District 14-4F-9: Administrative Rules 14-4F-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to: A. Create a more inclusive, lust and sustainable Iowa City: B. Reduce concentrations of low and moderate income households in Iowa City: C. Increase the multi -family housing stock near the university and the City's urban core: D. Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce: E. Increase opportunities for people of all income levels to work and live near key employment centers F. Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse income levels G. To reduce the number of housing cost burdened households: and H. Promote household stability and reduce the threat of homelessness. 14-4E-2: ELIGIBILITY Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in this Title, the provisions of this section shall voluntarily apply in all zones that allow residential uses, with the exception of developments on land zoned a riverfront crossings zoning designation which shall be required to provide affordable housing dwelling units in an amount established pursuant to Article 14-2G-8. 14-4E-3: DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The collective reference to "owner -occupied affordable housing' and/or "renter -occupied affordable housing', as those terms are defined herein. HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible household for purposes of purchasing an owner -occupied affordable housing dwelling unit located in the Riverfront Crossings District shown in Section 14-2G-2, Figure 2G-1 if that household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City. as adjusted annually. or if not located in the Riverfront Crossings District, if that household has an annual income equal to or less than eighty percent (80%) of the (AMI) for Iowa City. as adjusted annually. Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City. as adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100.000) in assets. excluding Retirement Assets, are not income eligible households - OWNER -OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than the most current published HUD homeownership sale price limit for existing and new homes to an income eligible household - RENTER -OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market rent for the Iowa City. Iowa. HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually. and rented to an income eligible household, or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and rented for no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County. as adjusted annually. and rented to an income eligible household. RETIREMENT ASSETS: Financial assets whose liquidity is limited or penalized until a person reaches retirement age, including, but not limited to 401(k)s. IRAs, pension accounts. IPERS. and TIAA-CREF, not including distribution of or income from the assets. 14-4F-4: REGULATORY INCENTIVES Owners that provide affordable housing may utilize the following incentives: A. Parking Reduction: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be exempt from providing the parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning code, pursuant to Section 14-5A-4F-4. "Affordable Housing Parking Reduction". B. Riverfront Crossings District: Affordable housing in zones established by Article 14-2G may be eligible for additional floors of building height, pursuant to Section 14-2G-7G "Building Height Bonus Provisions." C. Form -based zones established by Article 14-2H 1. For building types that allow four (4) or more dwelling units, the maximum number of dwelling units may be increased by twenty-five percent (25%) if all additional units are affordable housing- 2- Minor adjustments to certain "Zone Standards" (14-2H-2). One of the following adjustments may be administratively approved in buildings that contain affordable housing units where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans: a. Building type design site depth standards may be adjusted by up fifteen feet (15'). This provision may be combined with reductions for relocation of utility easement or addition of new civic space not shown in the future land use map up to a combined maximum of twenty-five feet u b. Building type design site width may be adjusted by up to fifteen percent (15%). c. Minimum amount of facade required within the facade zone may be reduced by up to twenty percent (20%). 3. Minor adjustments to certain "Building Type Standards" (14-2H-6). One of the following adjustments may be administratively approved for buildings that contain affordable housing units where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans: a. Building main body and wing standards may be adjusted by up to fifteen percent (15%). b. Maximum building height may be increased by up to 0.5 stories. This bonus allows the building height to exceed the maximum standards for primary buildings found in Item 4a (Building Form: Height) of section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by five feet (5'). 4. Additional Minor Adiustments: An additional minor adjustment each to "Zone Standards" described in subsection C2 and "Building Type Standards" described in subsection C3 may be administratively approved where affordable housing units are income restricted to households making fifty percent (50%) or less of the area median Income. All Other Zones- D. All Other Zones 1. Density Bonus. Whereat least twenty percent (20%) of dwelling units within a development are affordable housing, the minimum lot area and minimum lot area per units is reduced by twenty percent (20%). Alternatively. where at least twenty percent (20%) of dwelling units within a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) zone are affordable housing, the maximum residential density is increased by twenty percent (20%). 2. Minor Adiustments to Certain Dimensional Standards. Whereat least twenty percent (20%) of dwelling units within a development are affordable housing, one of the following adjustments may be administratively approved where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans: a. Front, rear, or side setbacks maybe reduced by up to fifteen percent (15%). b. Maximum building height may be increased by up to five feet (5'). 14-4F-5: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Methods Of Achieving Affordable Housing: Affordable housing may be provided through one or more of the following methods: 1. Onsite owner -occupied affordable housing: 2. Onsite affordable rental housing: a 3. Alternative methods allowed in the Riverfront Crossings District, including a fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund, off site affordable housing: and/or contribution of land- B. Affordable Housing Agreement And Deed Restriction- 1- Riverfront Crossings District. a. Upon rezoning to a riverfront crossings zoning designation pursuant to Article 14-2G, the property owner shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city establishing which method or methods it will utilize. This agreement must be executed prior to the close of the public hearing on the rezoning ordinance. Upon application for a building permit to construct any development for which affordable housing is required, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the city detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, which shall include details of the programming and development requirements if applicable. The City Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the records of the Johnson County. Iowa recorder's office at owner's expense- b. A deed restriction documenting the affordable housing requirements, selected method of achieving affordability, term, applicable resale restrictions, and applicable occupancy and rental restrictions shall be placed upon the owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit or, in the case of the affordable rental housing, shall be placed upon the land being developed contemporaneously with the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. This deed restriction shall be recorded with the Johnson County. Iowa recorder and referenced in any deed convening title of any such unit or land during the term of affordability. This deed restriction shall automatically expire upon the expiration of the term of affordability. The City Manager is hereby authorized to issue any release of this deed restriction, as may be necessary and appropriate, in a form approved by the city attorney- 2- All Other Zones. Upon approval of an affordable housing regulatory incentive, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City establishing which method(s) it will utilize and detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, including details of the applicable programming and development requirements. This agreement must be executed prior to issuance of a building permit for the project receiving the affordable housing regulatory incentive. The City Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the Office of the Johnson County Recorder at owner's expense. A deed restriction memorializing these obligations and limitations shall be recorded contemporaneously therewith at the owner's cost. C. Term Of Affordability: Depending on the zone, an affordable housing dwelling unit shall remain so for no less than the following number of years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit and recording of the deed restriction described below- 1- Riverfront Crossings Zone established pursuant to Article 14-2G: Ten (10) years 2. All other zones: Twenty (20) years D. Remedy: Failure by the owners to verify income in accordance with the provisions and rules of this Article is a violation of this Article. It may also result in immediate suspension of any rental permit issued for a renter -occupied affordable housing unit. 144F--6: OWNER -OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING Owner -occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14- 4F-5 and the following requirements. A. Development Requirements: 1. Dwelling Unit Types: In the Riverfront Crossings District, the affordable housing dwelling units shall be comprised of the same mix of dwelling unit types in proportion to the market rate dwelling units within the development. 2. Dwelling Unit Size And Quality: The affordable housing dwelling unit size shall be at least eighty percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type. shall have the same number of bedrooms, and shall be of similar quality. or as approved by the City Manager or designee. Outside of the Riverfront Crossings District, where a housing development contains a variety of bedroom counts per dwelling unit, the percentage of affordable dwelling units with a particular number of bedrooms shall be equal to the percentage of non -set -aside dwelling units with the same number of bedrooms- 3- Location: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable housing dwelling units, unless approved by the City Manager or designee- 4- Timing Of Construction: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwelling units in the development. B. Program Requirements: 1. Occupancy: An affordable housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the term of affordability, be occupied by an income eligible household as the household's primary residence. 2. Income Verification: The annual household income shall be determined according to the HUD part 5. section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and verified by the city prior to close of the sale- 3- Rental Restriction: An owner occupied affordable housing unit may not be rented, except an owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit. 4. Sale Restrictions: The following sales restrictions apply to all owner -occupied affordable housing, compliance with which shall be verified by the City Manager, or designee, prior to closing on the sale. a. Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to an income -eligible household. Seller shall determine a potential buyer's annual household income according to the HUD part 5. section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended- b. Sale Price: The sale price of any affordable housing dwelling unit shall not exceed the purchase price paid by the original income eligible household purchaser or the HUD homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions: (1) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale. (2) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a licensed real estate agent. (3) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant to a properly issued building permit. (4) Special Fees: The seller shall not levy or charge any additional fees or any finder's fee, nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this Article. 14-4F-7. RENTER -OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING Renter -occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14-4F-5 and the following requirements- 1- Development Requirements: Renter -occupied affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements for owner -occupied affordable housing set forth in Section 14-4F-6A. 2. Program Requirements: a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either- (1) no more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City. Iowa. HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually: or (2) for projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority. no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County. as adjusted annually- b. Occupancy: Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households- (1) in the Riverfront Crossings District, if a tenant initially deemed an income eligible household for purposes of occupying an affordable housing dwelling unit pursuant to this Article, but is subsequently deemed no longer income eligible upon annual examination of household income, that tenant's unit shall not be considered an affordable housing dwelling unit and the rent can be adjusted to market rate. To maintain compliance with the affordable housing requirement, the next available rental unit in the project of comparable size or larger must be rented to an income eligible household. To that end, the affordable rental units need not be specifically designated in a fixed location, but may be floating throughout the development. (2) In all other zones, if a tenant household is initially deemed an income -eligible household, but is subsequently deemed to no longer be income -eligible upon annual examination of household income, that tenant household shall still be considered an income -eligible household until they vacate that unit. However, upon the vacation of that unit, the subsequent tenant must be an income -eligible household. c. Income Verification: The property owner shall annually verify that the renter -occupied affordable housing dwelling units are occupied by income eligible households. Prior to the commencement of a lease, the owner shall determine a potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD part 5. section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. Upon extension or renewal of a lease, the owner may determine a tenant's annual household income based upon federal income tax returns for all adults in the household. d. Owner Verification Of Compliance: The owner must annually verify to the city that it is in compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed necessary by the city to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate suspension of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit. 14-4F-8: ALTERNATIVE METHODS ALLOWED IN THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS DISTRICT If the owner desires to provide off -site affordable housing and/or contribution of land, the owner must establish that on -site affordable housing or a fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund cannot feasibly be satisfied, as reasonably determined by the city. A. Fee In Lieu Contribution: In lieu of providing affordable housing dwelling units, an owner may contribute a fee to a riverfront crossings district affordable housing fund to be established by the city. The contribution per dwelling unit shall be determined biennially by resolution of the city council based upon a formula that analyzes the difference between renting a market rate unit for the term of affordability and renting a dwelling unit affordable to an income qualified household. The fund shall be utilized solely for affordable housing purposes, which may include administration costs, in the riverfront crossings district. B. Transfer Of Affordable Dwelling Units Off Site: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing requirements cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the city. it may be satisfied by designating off site existing or newly constructed dwelling units in the housing, those units shall comply with the programming requirements for owner occupied affordable housing set forth in Section 14-4F-6. b. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be renter -occupied affordable housing, they shall comply with the programming requirements for affordable rental housing set forth in Section 14-4F-7. C. Land Dedication: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing requirements cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the city. it may be satisfied by the dedication of land to the city of Iowa City or an entity designated by the city of Iowa City for construction of affordable dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of this section, upon consideration of the following factors: 1. Location: The land shall be located in the riverfront crossings district, in an area appropriate for residential redevelopment, as determined by the city: 2. Number Of Affordable Units: The total dwelling units possible on the land shall be equal to or greater than the number of required affordable housing dwelling units: 3. Dwelling Type: The land shall allow for the provision of affordable units of equivalent type (single-family, multi -family, townhome, etc.), floor area, and number of bedrooms to that which would have been otherwise required: 4. Land Value: The value of land to be dedicated shall be determined at the cost of the developer. by an independent appraiser, who shall be selected from a list of certified appraisers Provided by the city. or by such alternative means of valuation to which a developer and the city agree: and 5. Right To Refuse: The city reserves the right to refuse dedication of land in satisfaction of the affordable housing requirement if it determines, in its sole discretion, that such a dedication is not in the best interests of the public for any reason, including a determination that the city is not likely to construct or administer an affordable housing development project in a timely manner due to the unavailability of funds or other resources. Additionally, where the value of the land proposed to be dedicated is less than the value of the fee in lieu contribution established in accordance with the provisions above, the city reserves the right to require an owner to contribute a fee making up this difference in values. 14-4F-9: ADMINISTRATIVE RULES The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish administrative rules deemed necessary to assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy of the rules shall be on file with the City Clerk and available on the City website. Article 14-5A: OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS 14-5A-4: MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Table SA-1: Minimum Parking Requirements In The CB-6 And CB-10 Zones, Except As Otherwise Set Forth In Subsection 14-SA-4132 Of This Section Use Categories Subgroups Parking Requirements Household living uses Multi -family dwellings CB-5 Zone Efficiency, 1 bedroom units: 0.5 space per dwelling unit- 2 bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit- 3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit. Elder apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. CB-10 Zone For buildings built on or before December 31, 2008: Bedrooms 1-10: No parking required. All additional bedrooms: 0.5 space per bedroom. (For purposes of this standard an efficiency apartment will be counted as 1 bedroom.) For buildings built on or after January 1, 2009: Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.5 space per dwelling unit- 2 bedroom unit: 1 space per dwelling unit- 3 bedroom unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit. Elder apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. Table 5A-2: Minimum Parking Requirements For All Zones, Except The CB-5, CB-10, Riverfront Crossings Zones And Eastside Mixed Use District Use Subgroups Parking Requirement Categories Household Single family and two For 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units: 1 parking living family uses space, plus 1 additional parking space for each adult occupant beyond 3. For units with 3 or more bedrooms: 2 parking spaces plus 1 additional parking space for each adult occupant beyond 3. Multi- All zones, Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 1 space per family except dwelling unit. uses PRM and 2 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. CB-2 3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit- 4 bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit- 5 bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit. University impact area: 1 space per bedroom (see section 14-213-6, map 213.1 nef'�or �„s-�,'�"^). PRM & Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.75 space per C13-2 Zone dwelling unit- 2 bedroom units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit- 3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit. University impact area in the PRM zone: 1 space per bedroom (see section 14-213-6, map 213.1 of th s Hrie). CR 2 7ene E#G GRGy and 1 bedroom u n t& 075 spaG@ e+ P@F 2 tied...om u nt& 15 spaG@6 e4+ per z tied...om nit& 25 s per n4 Elder 1 space per dwelling unit for independent living units apartments and 1 space for every 2 dwelling units for assisted living units, except in the PRM and C13-2 Zones. In the PRM and C13-2 Zones, 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. Use Subgroups Parking Requirement Bicycle Categories Parkin Community General community 1 space per 300 square feet of floor 10 percent service service area. Community service - 0.1 space per temporary resident 25 percent shelter based on the maximum number of temporary residents staying at the shelter at any 1 time, plus 1 space per employee based on the maximum number of employees at the site at any 1 time. 14-5A-4F-4. M nor Mod f gat on Fer Affordable Housing Parking Reduction In The grentral Res nessZones: Affordable housina dwellina units. as defined in Article 14-4F. shall be ex( regulated as affordable housing for a period of at least twenty (20) years pursuant to Article 14- 4F. I^ the ro 5 RREI ro 40;49R@e a Gdlf1..a11OR . be Rt@d G fl@d I14 14-5A-5: CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN STANDARDS: 14-5A-5F-1 b. In Multi -Family Zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first fifteen feet (15') of building depth as measured from the street -facing building wall. On lots with more than one street frontage this parking setback must be met along each street frontage, unless reduced or waived by minor modification. The Building Official may also waive this requirement along a side street for townhome-style multi -family units. When considering a minor modification request, the City will consider factors such as street classification, building orientation, location of primary entrance(s) to the building, and unique site constraints such as locations where the residential building space must be elevated above the floodplain. Article 14-8B: ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURES 14-8B-11: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS REQUEST: A. Applicability: A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a regulation. policy. practice. or procedure in Title 14 acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities- B. Submittal Requirements: 1. The applicant must file a written application for a reasonable accommodations request with the Department of Neighborhood and Development services on application forms provided by the C 2. Supporting materials must be submitted as specified on the application form or as requested by staff to allow a full review of the request- 3- If an individual needs assistance in making the request for reasonable accommodation. the City will assist to ensure that the process is accessible. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection unless otherwise required by law- C. Approval Procedure- 1- Upon receipt of a complete application, staff will review said application for compliance with the following approval criteria: a. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be used by an individual with disabilities protected under fair housing laws: b. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available for the use and enjoyment of an individual with disabilities protected under the fair housing laws: c. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the jurisdiction: and d. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. 2. Wthin thirty (30) working days of the date a complete application is submitted to the City. the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services will approve, approve with modifications agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove the application consistent with fair housing laws- 3- If the Director does not act within thirty (30) working days and the applicant does not agree to an extension of time, the application will be deemed approved- 4- The Director's findings on each application shall be set forth in a written decision, which will be fled in the respective property file in the Department of Neighborhood and Development services. A copy of said decision will be sent to the applicant atthe time of filing. All written decisions shall give notice of the applicant's right to appeal and to request reasonable accommodation in the appeals process as set forth below- Q. Appeals: 1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the reviewing authority's written decision, an applicant may appeal an adverse decision to the Board of Adiustment. Appeals from the adverse decision shall be made in writing pursuant to the procedures in Section 14-8C-3, "Appeals". 2. If an individual needs assistance in filing an appeal on an adverse decision. the City will assist to ensure that the appeals process is accessible. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection unless otherwise required by law- 3- In deciding such appeal. the Board of Adiustment shall consider the approval criteria in Section 14-8B-11C-1. 4. In exercising the above mentioned powers. the Board of Adiustment may. inconformity with the provisions of this article or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the Director- 5- Nothing in this procedure shall preclude an aggrieved individual from seeking any other state or federal remedy available. Article 14-9A: GENERAL DEFINITIONS 14-9A-1: DEFINITIONS: DISABILITY/HANDICAP: With respect to an individual person, someone who has aypw fable iysical or mental impairment that substant ally limits one or more of such person's major life PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: Wth respect to land use and zoning, it means providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities. flexibility in the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures, or waiving certain requirements, when it is necessary to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities. TARGET POPULATION: Persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions, and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system. individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people. ATTACHMENT 3 Correspondence From: william aorman To: Tracy Hiahtshoe; Kirk Lehmann; Anne Russett Cc: Jeff Kellbach; Jessica Andino; Scott Hawes; Leonard Sandler; Bob Untiedt Subject: P&Z Committee Meeting- July Sth Date: Sunday, July 2, 2023 10:00:10 AM A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Tracy/Kirk/Anne, I reviewed the draft proposed revisions to the city's zoning code and I want to thank you for your willingness to listen to and seriously consider the input of local organizations. I just have two questions. 1. Is there an option to attend the P&Z Committee via Zoom? I want to attend the meeting but I recently had surgery for a detached retina and it is advisable for me to remain home. I currently cannot drive. 2. I have noted that a number of the Housing Action Team recommendations regarding the city's ADU code have been integrated into the proposed amendments to the current code. One recommendation that does not appear to have been accepted pertains to the current requirement that "exterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must visually match the principal dwelling unit". Is that correct? If that is so, we would hope you would reconsider and propose the removal of this requirement since it limits options for homeowners and can drive up construction cost. Thank you for all the time and effort your staff have put into these proposed zoning amendments, not only pertaining to ADUs but more broadly for improving housing choice, increasing the housing supply and encouraging affordability. William Gorman Chair, Housing Action Team Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Team The easiest thing of all is to deceive oneself, for we believe whatever we want to believe. Demosthenes From: Freerks. Ann M To: Anne Russett Subject: Proposed Iowa City Zoning changes Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 1:01:55 PM A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: I served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for several years, including time as chairperson. I was a member of the Commission when we updated the Comprehensive Plan including the Central District Plan. I also participated in the redrafting of the Zoning and Subdivision regulations. I understand and appreciate the your work and I applaud the City's efforts to use zoning tools in an effort to promote the development of more affordable housing. I believe that some of the proposed changes before you have merit and may help our community achieve more affordable and equitable housing opportunities. I am however concerned that some of the proposed changes will have unintended consequences in the older neighbors, such as Longfellow, Goosetown, the Northside, College Hill and Green. and Miller Orchard. Having older houses, many of which are "fixer uppers", these neighborhoods provide opportunities for individuals and families to purchase homes. There is however stiff competition for these properties from investment owners who market their holdings as rentals to University students. A group of students can pool their funds and pay far more for housing than an individual or a family. When the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan it recognized this concern and created the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership to help level the playing field. I and other residents of older neighborhoods are concerned that some of the proposed changes to the zoning code will further tip the scale in favor of investment companies and may actually lead to the displacement of affordable housing. With the goal of finding zoning tools that will promote the creation of as well as the preservation of affordable housing, I ask the neighborhood associations be added to the stake holders involved in this process and be given an opportunity to meet with staff to discuss our concerns and to offer solutions. Sincerely, Ann Freerks 443 South Governor Street Iowa City Please distribute this letter to all Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission members prior to your July 5th meeting. Thank you. To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council From: Tim Weitzel Re: Zoning Code Amendments to Improve Housing Choice (REZ23-0001) July 25, 2023 I am writing as a resident of Iowa City and past member of Iowa City's Planning and Zoning Commission and past chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. As stated in Mr. Lehaman's memo of July S, affordable housing initiatives are not only desirable but also important to the future of a diverse and inclusive Iowa City. Iowa City is relatively expensive for Iowa. Despite being cheaper than many metro areas, the salaries are also lower here for many people. Along those same lines, poverty is higher in Iowa City than surrounding communities. The disparity in incomes also has an ethnic element. Minorities earn less in Iowa City compared to their counterparts in other nearby communities, which places a greater burden on their ability to find housing. [Source: Datacommons.org] At the same time, Iowa City has a number of fairly unique factors. Iowa City has a large Big Ten university, but is relatively small in size compared to other host cities such as Minneapolis, Madison, Chicago, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Columbus and so on. Most of these communities have large scale commercial and industrial sectors in addition to the university. This allows for a more diverse revenue stream that in turn could support more city -funded initiatives for affordable housing. Additionally, larger communities generally can count on a larger portion of HUD funding per year. In my reading, the proposed amendments are actually fairly conservative. They are not the sweeping land zoning reform. Instead, the proposed amendments seek to increase opportunities to make more affordable housing units while being responsive to the existing provisions of the zoning code. Many existing provisions of code, such as setbacks, most design standards including building height, and I presume requirements for runoff, such as maximum lot coverage and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, will remain as they are. If so, the proposed changes would strike a balance between incentives to increase the stock of affordable housing while retaining important regulations that support quality of life and environmental concerns. I did want to bring up a final comment and this is regarding our local preservation districts, both historic and conservation districts. If the amendments are successful, I would recommend a directive to the Historic Preservation Commission to develop specific standards for review of exterior design on ADUs. There is no specific reason an ADU or other outbuilding needs to match the roofline of the primary residence. Rather consistency with the time period for which the building is significant should be the guide for the design. A contextual design will be more likely to be a good match for the existing neighborhood. First preference should be given to existing outbuildings (garage, carriage house, etc.) and the current regulations should cover that. However, when there is new construction that would not eliminate a historic outbuilding I suggest a process to maximize the number of affordable units allowed that remains smaller than the principal building. So, allow some increase in footprint provided all the other conditions already mentioned and included in the zoning code are met. TW/tw ATTACHMENT 4 Enlarged Map rLr. !: OU y �iI ff4= FEE 10 MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 2023-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Billie Townsend STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Throgmorton, Lorraine Bowans, Donald MacFarlane, Wally Plahutnik, Gregg Geerdes, Ellen McCabe, Tim Fleagle, Bob Burchfield, Sharon DeGraw, Paula Swygard, Martha Norbek, Nancy Carlson, Ross Nusser, Scott Hawes, Rebecca Kushner, Karyl Bohnsack, Kelcey Patrick -Ferree, Mary Bennett, Mary Beth Slonneger, Ginnie Blair RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Title 14 Zoning as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability with the exception of the proposed amendments related to accessory apartments. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommend deferral of the proposed amendments related to accessory apartments to the first meeting in October and requested that neighborhood associations to be conferred prior to that meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ23-0001: Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Elliott stated she had a conversation with Bob Miklo, former planning staff member, regarding these zoning changes on Friday, July 21, the conversation centered on the implications these new rules may have on older neighborhoods but she can be impartial regardless of conversation. Russett began the staff report providing some background information and noted this process started with City Council adopting its first Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2016. The Plan identified 15 action steps including changes to zoning regulations and the changes to the zoning regulations were the only action items that were not completed after its adoption. In 2019 the City adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study which reviewed impediments to accessing housing Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 2 of 27 because of protected class, such as race, gender, or disability, as codified in the Federal Fair Housing Act. This study included recommended actions to affirmatively further Fair Housing based on extensive public inputs such as targeted feedback from stakeholder interviews, focus groups, a Fair Housing Survey, public events and a public adoption process. One of the most significant Fair Housing issues identified was a lack of affordable rental housing and improving housing choice was one of the many strategies recommended to help address this issue. In 2022 the Affordable Housing Action Plan was updated to build off of previous efforts in support of affordable housing. A number of public input sessions were held including a City-wide survey, general outreach activities, targeted stakeholder meetings and other events. Later in 2022, the City Council adopted the Strategic Plan, which drew upon previous planning work, studies and community conversations. One of the action steps included in the Strategic Plan is advancing prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. In addition to these adopted plans and public engagements, there's been several meetings with this Commission. In February 2023 staff from Neighborhood and Development Services provided a comprehensive overview to the Commission of how the City works to address housing affordability and staff discussed its efforts to support housing through financial incentives. Staff also presented an initial summary of the proposed amendments that will be detailed tonight. In April, staff presented the results of the 2022 Residential Development Analysis, which looked at housing development over the course of the 2022 calendar year. This analysis determined that if residential growth continues at its recent pace, the City will only be able to accommodate less than 6300 new residents by 2030 when the projected demand is over 10,000 new residents. At the same meeting, Councilmember Thomas presented the City Council Strategic Plan. Last month, staff provided a comprehensive summary of the proposed zoning code amendments this Commission will be considering tonight. Russett stated housing affordability is a complex issue, there is no one solution and there are many factors that influence housing affordability. The continued growth within the community driven by the quality of life and strong economic base, in addition to a housing supply that is not meeting the demand generated by this growth can result in continued high prices and rents, which indicate there's an unmet demand for housing. When thinking about housing affordability, there is a role for zoning. Zoning regulations can restrict development and act as a barrier to create a diverse housing stock, or they can support and allow a diversity of housing options for a community. Staff are proposing amendments to the code that help to ensure that zoning regulations don't act as a barrier but instead allow and encourage a diversity of housing types. The goals of the proposed zoning code amendments include increasing housing supply to meet the current demand and increasing housing diversity to improve housing choice by removing barriers for housing types that generally cost less than detached single family. Those can include townhomes, duplexes, and accessory apartments. The City wants to incentivize income restricted affordable housing through density bonuses and other tools, they want to address Fair Housing issues to ensure persons with disabilities have equal access to housing and want to implement the adopted Plans in place. Russett presented a slide that showed the variety of Plans. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed amendments align with the adopted Land Use Policy direction as well as the other plans already mentioned. Again referencing the Strategic Plan, the proposed amendments are tied to the City's core value for racial equity, social justice and human rights. They're aimed at removing and addressing systemic barriers present in all facets of City government, including land use decisions, and also aligns with the Housing and Neighborhood impact areas which encourages updating the zoning code to encourage compact neighborhoods and ensure a Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 3 of 27 diverse housing stock and addressing the unique needs of vulnerable populations in low to moderate income neighborhoods. Finally, the Strategic Plan recommends advancing the prioritized recommendations of the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. Lehmann presented the proposed amendments, noting in the staff report they received was a very technical description and in this oral report he will try and describe them in more generally understandable terms. Again, the way they are reviewing these proposed amendments is that generally they are a prerequisite to enable the construction of housing units that tend to be more affordable within the community than what's currently allowed. Again, this really complements other programs that more directly subsidize low- and moderate -income households and affordable housing that is rent and sale price restricted. But with that being said, it does also include incentives to produce affordable housing that is income restricted and rent and sales price restricted. Lehmann acknowledged there will still be barriers to affordable housing within the community as this isn't something that will solve affordable housing, but rather trying to make sure the zoning code is not one of those barriers to affordable housing within the community. The proposed amendments are organized under five general categories; increasing flexibility for a range of housing types, modifying design standards, providing flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing, and then also more generally addressing fair housing. The first set of standards related to increasing flexibility for a range of housing types includes four different proposed amendments with the purpose of providing for flexibility of housing types to help increase the supply of housing and also increase the diversity of housing types available with a focus on housing types that tend to be more affordable to lower income households, especially in standard detached single-family zones. Lehmann gave a summary of the proposed amendments, the first change would be to allow duplexes and up to two attached single family uses more widely in lower density single family zones, specifically RS- 5 and RS-8 zones. Currently these uses are only allowed on corner lots. The second change is to allow townhome style multifamily uses in higher density single family zones, which would be RS-12 zones. Currently the code allows for up to six side by side single family townhomes but if they're on a common lot it is currently not allowed. This would be allowing up to six side by side multifamily townhomes on a single lot. The third change would be to allow second story multifamily through a simpler process in certain commercial zones, specifically the CC-2 or community commercial zone, and then also to enable the Board of Adjustment to allow ground floor residential uses in commercial zones through a special exception which requires a certain set of specific and general approval criteria are met. Generally the approval criteria are intended to make sure that the commercial intent of the zone is maintained even with residential uses and also to provide protections for historic properties. With a special exception, the general criteria are generally related to impacts the surrounding property owners, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, making sure there are utilities, etc. The fourth change would be to treat assisted group living more similarly to multifamily uses. Assisted group living are things like congregate or nursing homes, generally they look similar to multifamily uses and act similar to multifamily uses. This would allow these uses in more zones then currently allowed and in some cases streamlines the approval for these uses in those zones, specifically in the low density multifamily (RM-12) zone. Additionally, this change would no longer allow this use in the intensive commercial zone, which is generally a zone that shouldn't accommodate household living uses. Lehmann then went into more analysis of each change. For allowing duplexes and up to two attached single family uses more widely in lower density zones, the existing situation is that Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 4 of 27 these uses are only allowed on corner lots, but they do tend to be more affordable than the detached single-family homes. The 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan recommends expanding where these uses are allowed from just corner lots to additional lots in lower density zones. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff started by looking at existing parcels and although they believe the primary impact will be in greenfield sites this is going to allow these uses more readily and in more locations. Again, they would expect the primary impact to be greenfield sites, but for existing areas it would allow some existing lots to possibly accommodate duplex uses. If the use would be allowed in existing parcels will be based on lot size and lot characteristics. This proposed change would allow up to a maximum of 2900 lots around the community to accommodate duplex uses. In addition to this amendment being adopted, there is a lot size reduction proposed later in the code that would decrease the minimum lot size required for duplex use in a RS-5 zone from 12,000 sf to 10,000 sf which could allow up to an additional 2200 lots that could accommodate these uses. However, based on experience in zones that already allow duplex uses within the zone, specifically the RNS-12 zone (a zone located predominantly near downtown that does allow duplex uses already) they haven't seen substantial redevelopment in that area over the past 30 years. Since 1992, five single family homes have been demolished to build a duplex and that's only about 1% of current parcels. Lehmann noted what they've also seen over that time are more units converted from duplex to single family units rather than vice versa. Again, staff believes this would be a modest change on existing parcels with the primary impact being in newly developing areas. This change would also make it similar to the new form -based zones the City has recently adopted. Lehmann showed a map of the primary impact areas for those duplex uses, particularly where there could be new subdivisions in greenfield sites but also some scattered through a number of areas located in older portions of the City including areas near the Northside, Morningside, Twain, Longfellow, and Oak Woods neighborhoods, as well as a substantial portion in the South District. The second change is looking at townhome style multifamily uses in higher density single family zones. Lehmann reiterated up to six attached single-family townhomes are already allowed but this change will just allow it on a single lot. Reasons for this change are because it does facilitate a flexibility in a range of housing types, it also can be more affordable while providing a similar look from the street. He showed two images, one an attached two single family townhome and another multifamily style townhome noting they look very similar from the street with the main difference being the lot arrangement. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff doesn't anticipate this would have a large impact on the number of units produced but does add that flexibility in which can make that cost of construction a little more affordable. The third change is looking at multifamily uses in commercial zones. Currently second story commercial in the Community Commercial zone requires Board of Adjustment approval which requires additional time and resources. Also, currently multifamily uses are not allowed on the ground floor in most commercial zones (that is mainly restricted to Central Business zones). In terms of the anticipated impacts of the proposed changes, it would simplify the process to allow mixed -use buildings where there is commercial on the ground floor and residential above which is called a vertically mixed -use building in important commercial centers. This would allow the Board of Adjustment to approve multifamily buildings in most commercial areas as long as the approval criteria mentioned in the packet are met, and that in turn facilitates what is called horizontally mixed -use development, where they might have a single lot with a multifamily building and a commercial building on it. In the past to allow those would require an OPD rezoning or would require different zones with different parcels, so this simplifies that process as well. Again, he showed on a map where these proposed amendment would be allowed as long Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 5 of 27 as they met the certain standards The final change in this category is to treat assisted group living uses more similarly to multifamily uses. Lehmann reiterated assisted group living includes group care facilities like nursing homes and assisted group living facilities. The standards for assisted group living uses are generally more restrictive, but a best practice is to treat them similar to similarly sized household living uses, which in this case that's multifamily. For example, Hickory Trails Estates is a new assisted living use that's being built, it looks very similar to multifamily and has similar impacts. In terms of the anticipated impacts, this would simplify the process to allow these uses in lower density multifamily zones, specifically the RM-12 zone, and would allow group living in all zones that allow multifamily which primarily expands it to commercial zones. This change would also no longer allow group living uses in the intensive commercial zone. Lehmann next reviewed the second set of proposed amendments related to modifying design standards. In this category they have three different standards, the first is to eliminate two multifamily site development standards to provide flexibility. He noted these are specifically material standards such as currently multifamily uses must have a two -foot masonry and/or brick base or it could be a dressed concrete base. The second is that facade materials must wrap three feet around the corner of a unit. Reducing those material standards would increase the flexibility allowed and would help reduce the cost of construction for those uses. The second standard would be to adjust the design standard of duplex and up to two attached single-family units in midblock locations, again specifically in those lower density residential zones. The standard is the dwelling must be designed such that it would do so without having garages that dominate the streetscape limiting garages to 60% of the fagade and also limit to 20 feet combined of garage face. Lehmann explained this would allow either one double wide garage with two parking spaces or two independent single wide garages. He did note the garages could be wider if they're setback 15 feet, similar to what is required in form -based zones, but that does prevent them from dominating the streetscape. Additionally, if there is a rear alley they must utilize it. The third/final standard is related to townhome style multifamily uses, again this is to simplify the process by which a setback is reduced and replace a minor modification process with just an administrative process, and that's tied to allowing those uses more liberally in the RS-12 zone especially. Lehmann stated this proposed amendment would affect multifamily group living and institutional and civic uses in residential zones in the Central Planning District having to meet certain design standards. However, the 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan did recommend amending some of these standards and as a result the two standards of the two feet of masonry or brick must be around the base of the building, and that materials must wrap three feet around the corner of a building would no longer be required. However, it does retain other standards that more directly address the visual interest in a building which includes things like ensuring visible entrances, affecting the scale of the building, standards related to balconies and exterior stairways. Other standards related to building materials, standards related to mechanical equipment, and also architectural style standards in the Central Planning District would continue to apply. Again, the goal is to decrease the cost of construction and increase design flexibility without substantially impacting visual interest. The second standard is related to allowing duplexes and up to two attached single family uses in midblock locations, specifically in lower density single family zones. The current requirement is that each unit's main entrance and garage are restricted to different streets, built around the idea Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 6 of 27 that these uses have to be on corners. This proposed amendment is to change that and have a mid -block location while achieving a goal to prevent garages from dominating the street. If it were to have rear access, which is required if there was an alley, the garage size wouldn't be restricted as it wouldn't dominate the streetscape in that case. Also, if it's setback 15 feet it could have more than 20 feet of combined garage face however would still be restricted to 60% of the total width of the fagade. The goal is to make sure that these are uses or standards that keep compatibility while still allowing the mid -block duplexes. Finally is simplifying the waiver for townhome style multifamily uses, specifically as it relates to a parking setback. In the current code parking must be setback from streets through 15 feet of building depth and they cannot build parking within the first 15 feet of building depth. This poses a problem for lots that are on the corner where a unit would need additional building space between that and the side street. Currently that can be waived by minor modification, but that requires additional time and process which includes an administrative hearing notification period. The proposed amendment allows a straight waiver of that side street lot line which as a result has very limited impact. It's a very specific proposed amendment, but again is tied to facilitating those townhome style multifamily uses, especially in areas where attached single family uses are already allowed. Lehmann moved onto the third set of proposed amendment changes that are tied to providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing. Again, there are three changes in this category with the first reducing lot sizes for detached and attached single family and duplex uses. This would specifically affect some zones, mostly lower density single family zones, but does have some limited impacts on medium -density multifamily zones as well and would reduce lot width and lot size for RS-5 and RNS-12 if there is rear access and only if there's rear access, and it would reduce lot width for RM-12 and RIM-20. For duplex and detached single family it would reduce both lot size and lot width. The second change would be to increase the bedroom limit for missing middle housing types outside of the University Impact Area. Lehmann explained that would specifically be looking at multifamily where there's currently a cap of three bedrooms for multifamily dwelling units and for duplexes and single family detached there's currently a cap of four bedrooms for a dwelling unit. This would increase that to four and five bedrooms respectively, specifically outside of the University Impact Area. The final change would be to allow and encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in a broader variety of contexts and to try to reduce barriers to construction. One of the reasons they're focused ADUs is because they're a great way to increase housing supply without substantially impacting the appearance of a neighborhood. A lot of these changes are based on those that are recommended by the AARP, which has really encouraged ADUs in recent years and so has the Housing Action Committee of the Johnson County Livable Communities Group, which includes a number of stakeholders. Changes are things such as allowing these uses in any zone that allows household living uses on any lot with two or less dwelling units. It would remove the requirement that the unit be owner occupied and it would remove limits on the number of bedrooms and residents as those would be capped by other standards that are in the rental code. This change would allow increased size for these dwelling units, as long as they're less than half the size of the primary use, it would remove the requirement for an additional parking space and also simplify some design requirements. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 7 of 27 Regarding the analysis of these proposed amendments, in terms of reducing lot sizes and widths, the existing situation is there are many lots that were platted prior to 1962 that are non- conforming as that was when the most substantial zoning code changed that increased the lot sizes. Best practice is to reduce minimum lot sizes to perpetuate patterns of economic and demographic segregation and it is also a best practice to reduce or minimize non -conformities within the zoning code. In terms of the anticipated impacts, it wouldn't bring approximately 85% of non -conforming lots in the RS-5 and RNS-12 zones into compliance with the zoning code and around 300 lots would remain non -conforming in these zones but a lot of those are lots that are flagged lots in historic areas. This also provides flexibility for the arrangements of lots in new subdivisions, which includes smaller lots being allowed, especially in the RS-5 zone. For example, in terms of the cost reduction that this could bring, assuming land prices are around $5 a square foot, the proposed reduction for an RS-5 zone could reduce the cost of construction by approximately $10,000 so especially in lower price points that can be a significant factor in affordability. Another impact is that reducing lot sizes for duplexes allows them on a wider variety of existing lots. Lehmann showed some examples of areas of the City that were platted long ago with smaller lots, like the Morningside neighborhood. It's low -density single family residential but has 50-foot lots with 7000 square feet lots. Again, approximately 300 lots wouldn't become conforming even with these changes, those are mostly in Towncrest and in the Northside neighborhoods where lot sizes are smaller than even the proposed standards, but it does bring a substantial number of these non -conforming uses into compliance. Finally, this would also bring new developments closer into alignment with what's allowed in a form -based zone since form - based zones do allow duplexes in even the lowest density residential zone. The second change would be to increase the bedroom limits outside the University Impact Area. Currently the number of bedrooms are restricted for duplexes, attached single family and multifamily uses City-wide and the problem with this is that the bedroom caps limit where large households can live and pretty much limits them to detached single family housing, which does increase housing costs for those household types and as a result the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan did recommend amendments to these standards. The impacts of the proposed amendment would be to allow the construction of units for larger families outside of the University Impact Area in a wider variety of housing types. In addition, it would retain the bedroom cap for the University Impact Area to avoid some of the situations that caused the bedroom caps to be adopted in the first place. The final change is related to encouraging accessory apartments in a variety of contexts and reducing barriers. ADUs have been allowed in Iowa City for quite some time, more than 40 years, but over the past 30 years the development has been relatively limited. The City has only 52 ADUs when there have been 13,000 eligible lots under the current code. There are barriers within the code and some of the barriers that have been identified by AARP are things like the owner occupancy requirement and additional parking standards. In the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan it recommended trying to promote or encourage where ADUs are allowed and expanding those. There is also a large demand for smaller units as approximately 36% of households in Iowa City are single person households and more than 40% of renter households are single person households. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff doesn't anticipate that all eligible units are suddenly going to provide ADUs but the goal is really to encourage their development and reduce those barriers. The 13,000 parcels that are currently eligible will remain eligible under the proposed amendment however, there are new parcels that would be able to accommodate ADUs and they would imagine that would happen gradually, like any change. This would include up to 1400 new units allowed by expanding the zones and uses to which these Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 8 of 27 may be accessory. For example, allowing them in RNS-12 zones or allowing them in other zones that allow single family detached uses, and also allowing them accessory to duplex uses. In addition, it would allow up to 3100 new units by removing the owner occupancy requirements. With that being said many of the renter occupied detached single-family uses are located within the University Impact Area so that is something to be mindful of. With the changes proposed it would allow standalone accessory dwelling units, and it is imagined that that's how many of these would be constructed, in addition to there being other barriers to construction. Even with the City trying to remove as many barriers as possible, they still have to have conforming lot sizes and meet the other standards in the code with regards to lot area, coverage standards, and open space. Those standards wouldn't change, it's just allowing an ADU if there's room for it. In addition, staff anticipates that allowing ADUs in more areas supports the City's sustainability goals. By increasing housing supply in those areas, they anticipate that those are the most walkable areas of the community. That also ties into reducing the parking space that's required because that ties into the goals of encouraging alternative transportations. The City is really trying to encourage walkable communities. Lehmann showed a map of the areas that would be able to build ADUs and noted they are scattered throughout the community, a lot of them are located lot downtown, but the goal is to encourage ADUs throughout the community and remove as many barriers as possible. The fourth set of standards is tied to creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing, specifically focused on income restricted housing, also rent restrictions and/or sales restrictions for owner occupied housing. This is tied to increasing housing choice, diversity, supply, flexibility, and reducing cost. The income and rent levels are determined based on the current practice in the City which is generally 80% of the area median income for owner occupied and generally 60% of area median income for renter occupied. Lehmann noted rents are tied to fair housing market rents and sales limits are tied to HUD sales limits. The two proposed changes are creating a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zones and that would be a 20% density bonus, or 20% of units are affordable housing for 20 years. It would allow additional regulatory flexibility as well, specifically tied to setbacks and building height. The second standard would eliminate minimum parking requirements for affordable housing, where that housing is affordable for 20 years. It would only affect that 20% of units that are affordable, or as many units as are affordable, it doesn't affect the market rate units in that development. In terms of the impacts, a lot of these bonuses are already part of the Riverfront Crossings and form - based zones that were recently adopted, especially density bonuses and parking reductions, but they're not present in conventional zones. So, impacts would be to provide a voluntary incentive, something that can encourage the construction of those income restricted affordable units, and they'd be administered during the typical reviews. A lot of that would be site plan or building plan review or it may be an OPD plan or subdivision depending on what standard is being requested. The goal of additional units in terms of the density bonus is to provide additional rents that can help offset the costs of affordable housing and density bonuses are one of the most common affordable housing incentives seen in communities. Again, it may also provide flexibility for setback and height standards, if those are needed, depending on the circumstance. Lehmann noted there can also be a reduction in the minimum parking requirements to provide another incentive by reducing the cost of providing those affordable housing units. Design flexibility is the second most common incentive provided for affordable housing bonuses. The goal is to reduce the cost and incentivize the construction of those income restricted units. The final set of changes are related to addressing Fair Housing and are specifically focused on persons experiencing disabilities. The first is related to providing a reasonable accommodations Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 9 of 27 process that is currently handled through disparate processes throughout the zoning code. It is something that the City is required to do by Federal law, currently there just isn't a standardized process that's clear and apparent, so this amendment is clarifying that process. It is best practice provided as an administrative process and try to require as few hoops as possible for persons experiencing disabilities so that it doesn't draw attention to their disability and doesn't become a hurdle. The impact of the proposed amendment is to create a simple, comprehensive process to evaluate all these requests and to reduce the need to call attention to the disability. The second would be to reclassify community service long term housing uses as a residential use. Currently, these uses are housing with supportive services for persons with a disability that are owned by nonprofits. Currently, they're treated as institutional uses rather than residential uses and as a result they're more restrictive in where they're allowed. Again, it is best practice to regulate housing for persons with disabilities like similarly sized household living uses. By treating these uses as residential the City would strike the community service long term housing use as a distinct category and it would be allowed as a household living use, which would simplify the process by which they're allowed and would also expand where they may be located. Group living would also no longer be allowed in intensive commercial zones as it is determined that isn't appropriate for household living uses. It would also eliminate some standards that are different for this type of use. Currently, the standards have reduced parking requirements and increased or higher density allowances for these zones. This would again treat them like any other multifamily use if it was a multifamily building or be treated like a single-family use depending on which kind of building the household use was located in. Lehmann noted currently there are only two properties that are in this category and they're both owned by Shelter House. They would become legal non -conforming uses and while it is best practice to create as few non -conformities as possible within the zoning code, the purpose of treating housing for persons with disabilities similarly to residential uses outweighs that creation of a non -conforming use in staff's opinion. Staff did discuss this with Shelter House leadership and stated these uses would be allowed to continue as they currently are allowed, they'd just become a non -conforming use. If the use was terminated, it wouldn't be allowed to re -open. The proposed amendment also does specify the supportive services that are accessory to a use, and that only serve the residents of a building, would be allowed in a household residential zone. So, on a smaller scale, there could be a case where someone has household help that lives with them and provides assistance or in a larger use it could be a case where there's supportive services that help them live within their housing unit, whether that be employment services or other things. However, since people come from off site to use those services, it would become a broader separate use that would no longer be allowed. Lehmann explained in terms of the way that these amendments were constructed, all are based largely on national best practices. They looked at organizations that have a really broad scope in the way that they look at housing affordability and equity, one of them being the American Planning Association, they also looked at information by the National Association of Counties and then also AARP, the Association for Retired Persons. They looked at what's working throughout the nation and what's not working in terms of enhancing equity and enhancing affordability. In terms of equity, and in terms of the American Planning Association, they really focus on the equity and zoning policy guide which has a number of different recommendations with regards to zoning codes, things like allowing a broad range of housing types, reducing minimum lot sizes, allowing ADUs, treating assisted group living and housing for persons with disabilities as residential uses, allowing administrative approval of reasonable accommodations, all things to further equity within the community. The National Association of Counties provides specific recommendations for individual counties based on their characteristics. They classify Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 10 of 27 Johnson County as a high growth — high cost community so a lot of their housing policies are focused on making it easier to build small, moderately priced homes, making the development process simpler and shorter by streamlining approval processes and also expanding vouchers or income supports for low income renters, which ties into things like incentives for affordable housing. Finally, AARP is also very interested in affordable housing. A lot of the ADU standards are tied to those AARP findings and recommended policies by the Johnson County Livable Communities group. They did identify things like owner occupancy requirements, parking requirements, conditional use permits, and discretionary standards related to design or neighborhood character can really limit the use of ADUs. AARP pointed to recent changes seen especially in California and Oregon's legislation and also in Seattle's 2019 Local Code revisions, where a lot of them have moved away from rental restrictions. They have also seen this in other communities such as Ann Arbor recently. Staff is also recommending these proposed amendments because they do believe that they are currently consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. The vision statement for the Comprehensive Plan is creating attractive and affordable housing for all people that is the foundation of a healthy, safe and diverse neighborhoods throughout the City. The Plan lists strategies and goals such as ensuring a mix of housing types, encouraging development of smaller lots, ensuring a balance of housing types, and supporting infill development in areas where infrastructure is already in place. The Comprehensive Plan also has a Future Land Use Map that shows where different uses might be allowed. Within most of the community it notes that it's appropriate for two to eight dwelling units per acre and that is the lowest density future land use designation. Staff did take that into effect when looking at the proposed amendments as well. Within the Comprehensive Plan it really does stress that even with these density limits that a variety of housing types should be encouraged throughout all areas of the community. Lehmann did note staff did receive seven pieces of correspondence, three were included in the agenda packet, and four were submitted late, so those were handed out tonight and have also been emailed to the Commissioners separately. Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. In terms of next steps, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing would be scheduled for consideration by City Council. The earliest possible time that could occur is September 5, and then they would have a third consideration and possible adoption by October 3 at the earliest. Hensch asked what the date on the Comprehensive Plan was. Lehmann noted it was adopted in 2013 and the City is currently in the process of developing an RFP for a comprehensive plan update since it's been about 10 years, which is pretty standard. Hensch asked under amendment number one to increase flexibility for range of housing types, why not just think about expanding the use of RS-12 since that allows all the multiple types. Lehmann acknowledged that is a possible amendment that could happen however, the problem is that would not comply with the current Comprehensive Plan since the current Comprehensive Plan specifies that two to eight dwelling units per acre would be allowed. Staff focused on amendments that comply with the current Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 11 of 27 Hensch asked regarding the amendment to the modified design standards and having to put masonry or brick or requirement to the ground, that's essentially the same as what it is for single family residences, meaning there's no requirement for a single family to have that. Lehmann confirmed that is correct and there is no requirement and this is just making it the same standard Hensch noted amendment number three provides additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing. Why increase the number of bedrooms when demographics show family sizes are significantly shrinking, it seems contrary to the reality and these additional rooms are just going to be filled up with a bunch of people who are renting rooms essentially. Lehmann stated it's really tied to the fact that there's an unnecessary restriction for different housing types seen especially outside of the core. The just renting out rooms is a very real concern, especially in that University Impact Area, so that's why that area is excluded from the proposed amendment. Lehmann shared the example of Habitat for Humanity had proposed attached single family uses with five bedrooms in the South District and currently that's not allowed under the code. Lehmann noted a lot of the times it's tied to intergenerational households and also larger families that just can't find housing in Iowa City and so a lot of those people have to either find a detached single-family home or move to a different community where that might be allowed. Hensch noted if they are increasing the number of bedrooms and decreasing the lot sizes, so where do kids play. Lehmann stated the City does have open space requirements and rear setback requirements that would continue to be in effect and those standards are intended to create room for children to play. Hensch asked regarding the University Impact Area, when was that determined, looking at the map it just looks too small and doesn't reflect the reality of where students live. Lehmann stated he believes that was adopted in 2012 and was specifically tied to parking standards, it was tied to the zoning districts at the time, specifically limited to areas that aren't lower density single family zones. Hensch asked about the accessory dwelling unit issue and isn't a real barrier to the creation of accessory dwelling units the cost of construction, particularly detached ADUs because if it is something that people had a need for constructing only 52 ADUs in 30 years is like one and a half year, so the demand clearly isn't there. His first thought is affordability because intergenerational households would jump all over this because it seems to be the answer to things. Lehmann agreed that the cost of construction and obtaining financing are barriers to ADUs but staff really has made its recommendations based on the fact that they don't want the zoning code to be that barrier to the construction of ADUs. Some of the barrier could be tied to the fact that current zoning standards are unnecessarily limiting construction. Hensch noted wouldn't it just be an expansion of houses that are used as rentals because investors who have the deep pockets are going to be the only ones that can afford to build these and then rent them out to students. His concern is about neighborhood integrity, he has been in Iowa City since 1985 and it's pretty obvious where rentals are where they're not and neighborhoods start declining where there are lots of rental houses because they are just not maintained with the standards that people maintain their personal dwelling. He thinks it's very important to be respectful of people who want to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. If someone spends everything to buy their house and now the houses on both sides are rentals that changes the integrity of the neighborhood. He feels organizations are going to purchase Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 12 of 27 these properties and it's just another way to get another rental in there. Lehmann acknowledged that's a possibility but what staff was focused on is making sure that the zoning code is not a barrier. Hensch stated he loves the concept because he a big fan of generational housing. Padron doesn't understand how increasing the number of bedrooms will create more affordable housing. Additionally, if they have more houses with more bedrooms is there a way to ensure that those are going to be owned by families and not just rented to multiple people. Lehmann replied it really is a matter of specifically accommodating different household arrangements within different household types. Currently, single family homes don't have a cap on the number of bedrooms that they can have but everything else that has a cap on the number of bedrooms so single-family homes are currently the only dwelling types that can accommodate larger families. However, those are also more expensive than other housing types such as multifamily and attached single family or duplex uses. The City has gotten requests for some of those larger uses in more affordable housing types but it is not allowed under the current code. Regarding restricting owner occupancy or renter occupancy, Lehmann stated the zoning code doesn't really consider owner or renter occupancy, except in the case of accessory dwelling units, the rental code tries to address those situations. Craig noted these proposed changes seem to be doing some things that provide more flexibility, similar to the form -based code. The neighborhood she thinks of is the Peninsula that was deliberately designed to include multiple living arrangements in one building. There are a lot of apartments and ADUs, that's a neighborhood that was designed specifically to have denser housing, it that the same as form -based code. Lehmann confirmed that is correct, approximately a third of the 52 ADUs are in the Peninsula neighborhood. In terms of the form -based code these standards are significantly closer to what's allowed in them. For example, the proposed minimum lot sizes for RS-5 and RS-8 are similar to what's allowed in the T3 (suburban transect, neighborhood edge and neighborhood general zones) in the form -based code. Duplexes are also allowed in all the T3 zones. both side by side and stacked. There is no corner requirement for duplexes in the form -based zones. In terms of other changes, the duplex use are still significantly larger in an RS-5 zone than is allowed in the neighborhood edge zone but uses that are allowed are similar and single-family lot sizes would be similar. Elliott noted at the July 5 meeting she had asked a question about somebody coming in and tearing down an affordable single-family house and making it higher cost and having more people living on the land. The response was something about covenants controlling that, what does that mean. Lehmann stated private covenants are another barrier to different housing types in communities. Covenants are legal restrictions that run with the land, often homeowner associations, and they often restrict what type of housing can be built, such as only single-family detached housing. That's a barrier to housing but that's something that's not considered here because they do expire after 21 years unless they're renewed, so they can change over time. Quite a few areas have private covenants that restrict to single-family detached only, mostly in outlying areas. They became common in the 60s, when there were still racial covenants that restrict where persons of color can live. Nowadays it can only restrict to type of building such as single-family detached only. Elliott asked about the neighborhoods close to downtown that have historic and conservation districts and explain more about why their lots sizes are not an issue. Russett stated in the local historic districts and local conservation districts the only place the demolition of an existing structure would be allowed if it's deteriorated beyond repair so a demolition in a historic Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 13 of 27 conservation district and a new structure being built is unlikely. Elliott clarified that there are some historic and conservation districts that are outside University Impact Area. Lehmann confirmed that is correct for Longfellow, but there are none on the west side. Elliott noted by looking at the numbers in the northside, there could possibly be over 2000 accessory units and including the University Impact Area it would be 3100. So if 75% of those units that are allowed by removing the owner occupancy requirement would be in the University Impact Area. Lehmann confirmed that is correct but they still have to meet all other regulations. noted part of what comes from the previous question about private covenants and then also about smaller lot sizes, lots do have to be conforming lots to have an ADU, they do have to meet the open space standards, setbacks, and coverage standards. There are a number of standards that are in place to ensure high quality places, and that rear yards still exists. Staff's analysis did not look at that detail of each lot because to do so they'd have to look individual lot by individual lot basis, calculate the amount that's covered by a building, etc. Elliott asked about the percent of single-family duplex uses in areas close to the University that are rental based but not exactly in the University Impact Area. Lehmann noted it's hard to come up with those numbers because rental units change all the time. Hektoen stated initial development of covenants usually are not put in place until after a development has been started so wouldn't it apply to the initial development of a greenfield site within a subdivision, they could potentially be implicated if someone wanted to redevelop an existing lot. Elliott stated there could be developments out there that can exist now with all the houses in the subdivision as single-family houses. Hekteon stated that is more of a historic relic and she hasn't seen them very recently but again, the City's not involved in approving those or enforcing them, they're imposed by the developer after the developments been built, so if a developer wants to put duplexes in the middle of a block under the proposed amendments private covenants wouldn't restrict that necessarily. Wade asked about the rear access requirements, and if there's an alleyway on a duplex, does that require that the garage access is off alleyway. Lehmann confirmed that is correct. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jim Throgmorton (814 Ronalds Street) stated he is co-chairing the Northside Neighborhood Association steering committee and began by distributing a written statement. City staff proposed a series of major amendments designed to improve housing choice, increase housing supply and encourage affordability. Just on Friday staff issued the long complicated supplement to the initial report and he has spent much of the last couple of days reading it and trying to digest it. On Sunday his co-chair Sherry McGraw and he guided a zoning matters community forum about staffs proposed changes, roughly 50 Iowa Citians, some of whom are here right now, attended the event at the library. Attendees asked many questions and offered many comments about the proposed amendments. The questions and comments ranged from purely technical ones like what is an ADU to the expressly political ones. The technical comments revealed that most residents do not understand the zoning processes and political comments revealed a very broad range of political views. Throgmorton commends City staff for carefully considering how to promote the development of more affordable housing through the use of zoning tools. He finds himself agreeing with and supporting most of the proposed changes. Many of them seem to Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 14 of 27 open up existing future conventional residential zoning districts, especially RS-5, to a more diverse range of housing types. Doing so is a progressive response to historical evidence that in cities all over the country conventional residential zoning has been exclusionary by design. However, the proposed amendments are the most significant alterations to the zoning code in nearly 20 years and changes of this magnitude and complexity deserve to be carefully studied and discussed by all affected stakeholders. To the best of his knowledge, there were no consultations with the general public or neighborhood associations prior to the issuance of the proposed amendments. Additionally, to the best of his knowledge there have been no reports to the local news media. The steering committee thinks it is extremely important for the Commission to defer voting on proposed amendments tonight and to think of ways to in which a broader community discussion about the proposed changes can be conducted. They strongly believe that neighborhood association meetings must be recognized as key stakeholders in this process. The Northside Association finds it difficult to fully assess how the amendments would affect the Northside and other neighborhoods in the UTA. However, they think some of the effects might be harmful. This concern largely stems from the fact that the housing market in these neighborhoods is profoundly affected by the intense demand for off -campus student housing. Although all of the UTA neighborhoods are affected by this demand, the particular effects vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. In each case, it is important to account for the social and material realities. They have recently completed an inventory of property of the Northside Neighborhood. This inventory of 994 properties reveals that the Northside is already quite diverse in housing types, ages, ownership and assessed values. The written statement provides more details. The most important the 2023 assessed values of the 467 single family homes. The single-family owner -occupied properties range from $76,000 to $1.1 million. Almost 14% of the single-family properties are assessed in the $100,000 range or below, 46 are assessed in $200,000 range. Moreover, the inventory reveals that 175 Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and other incorporated entities own property in the Northside. These private enterprises own and presumably rents 27% of the properties classified as being single-family owner. One individual's various LLC owns at least 56 properties in the neighborhood. Again, the details are available on the written statement. As he read the staff's August 2 supplementary memo, the possibility of perverse effects applies primarily to the proposals concerning accessory dwelling units, especially items 3C, 4A and 4B in combination. With this mix of amendments and incentives, especially the removal of the requirement that one unit be owner occupied, private investors are likely to sweep up properties in the RNS-12 parts of the Northside and Goosetown, they are likely to demolish older, lower cost, owner -occupied structures and replace them with larger rental structures coupled with rentable ADUs. The overall supply of housing increases the supply of affordable owner -occupied housing would shrink. Throgmorton strongly opposes applying the staffs proposed ADU changes to the RS-8 and RNS-12 parts of the Northside for the unique reasons associated with neighborhoods in the UTA. He noted what he has said is very consistent with the conversations he's had with other members of the steering committee and with neighbors who attended that forum on Sunday. Lorraine Bowans (925 Barrington Drive) currently lives in Windsor Ridge but spent 30 years in the Longfellow area, along South Governor Street between Burlington and Bowery. She has served in a lot of capacities in different things. She is a member of the Johnson County Livable Communities, but is not here tonight representing them, these are her personal views. She is 100% behind the ADUs but has also lived in a historic house. Their house on South Governor was built in 1864 and there used to be a lot of duplexes and rooming houses on that section of street when they moved in there in 1985. It was 80% rental at one time then around 2000 many of those have been converted from duplexes and rooming houses back to single family homes. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 15 of 27 Their house was a duplex when they bought it, the house next door was a triplex with a unit in the garage and it was a duplex house. Bowans noted they can be made beautiful but she wants to preserve the historic buildings they left. She worked for the City engineering department in 1978 and it broke her heart to see all the historic houses on Johnson and Van Buren and all those places just demolished for housing for students. She also worked with Ann Freerks to make Longfellow, the South Governor and Lucas Street areas into the second conservation district. They put a lot of time and effort in keeping neighborhoods historic. She noted they can have ADUS and can be converted back to duplexes and things and not ruin the integrity, they have to be very careful. Bowans noted the conservation districts and the historic districts all have very strict guidelines, just to change a front porch they had to go in front of the Historic Commission to make sure they were doing the right thing. She would like to see the conservation and historic areas owner -occupied to help preserve that, because Governor Street, when they moved in, was a distressed neighborhood, their property taxes were basically nothing, and when they left they had gone up from around $700 a year in 1985 to over $6000. When the neighborhood was owner occupied, and even when they were rentals, looked nice and was taken care of. She would like to suggest part of the reason there are not more ADUs is they only had a one story -one stall garage. Their lot was a third of an acre and they wanted to build a carriage house because everybody along their alley had carriage house because they backed up to Summit Street. They couldn't build carriage house because it was non -conforming by City code so when they did build their large garage, which was 26 by 40, they thought about putting in something and were going to go in and argue about it to be the place where her parents would move into when they retire. Unfortunately, things got too pricey and they couldn't afford to build. But on larger lots one can make the carriage house and make it look beautiful for an ADU. She encourages some outside the box ideas. Bowans noted the other thing are covenants, when a subdivision is developed, they develop lots, where the roads are going to go and things like that. When a developer gets a plot of land, they subdivide it, they put in their streets and everything, and then they decide what buildings to build. Covenants usually last 20 or 22 years, and then they are renewable twice for 11 years, and then they're gone. She lives in Windsor Ridge and they no longer have covenants. Their house was built in 1996, but it's for the neighborhood to have kind of a uniform design. Additionally, she is a member of that AARP advocacy team and there are some changes to Medicaid coming and in Iowa they lost 23 nursing homes last year and six this year so far. The one in Iowa City is almost being shut down. Donald MacFarlane (620 Summit Street) was the founder of the Summit Street Historic Neighborhood Association, which is a carve out from Longfellow. He strongly endorses the thought that the Commission should not vote on this tonight until they've had a chance to talk to the neighborhoods. They should talk to the neighborhoods because the motivation for this change does not come from reality, it comes from theory. It comes from theories set 50-70 years ago, and by and large have never been proved to be either right or not right. He likes to live in this town because of its vibrancy and its vibrancy comes from young people who come to this town. They come as students and they need student housing, and how much student housing, they need enough for 26,000 students. There is also a need for married student housing, and after that young faculty housing, and after that senior faculty housing, plus all the other people in town. These constituency groups were never mentioned, students were never mentioned, neighborhoods were never mentioned, historic and conservation districts were almost never mentioned. They haven't done a survey of X number of college towns, because college towns are very, very different than other towns. Have a look at them and see if there's something that was better than what they've done. Don't go to some theory, from an organization somewhere, there's never actually done this. He is not sure if there is a constituency for affordable housing. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 16 of 27 When he was young, he bought a house, it wasn't affordable, it was terrifying. It was way beyond his imagination. He couldn't think he could possibly own that house but did it because they wanted to live in a beautiful house. They did it because it was going to be a beautiful neighborhood and they thought they would invest in that and eventually it will become a family asset. And all of those things have become true, the house is in RS-5, the map shown was hard to see but this amendment is staying his street is going to be rezoned for duplexes, why convert those beautiful houses to duplexes. The answer is that young people who want to buy the best possible house that they can even though unaffordable, will not come to Iowa City, they go to Coralville, North Liberty, Solon, or wherever. They won't want to buy a house on Summit Street, which is moderately expensive, because of the probability that house prices will decline and not rise, they will not have a family asset if they buy a house on Summit Street, because some theory tells us that our big beautiful houses should actually be duplexes. Wally Plahutnik (430 North Gilbert St) stated he is not part of any organized group, he is a Democrats and no one ever went broke overestimating the averse corporate landlords in Iowa City. He asks the Commission to keep that in mind when they're offering the possibility for them to double their money on a lot. He'd also like them to consider postponing this vote to get in touch with neighborhoods. He served on planning and zoning during the last writing of this code and during the previous development of all the district plans. What some regard as poison pills in that code was really carefully thought out and they regarded them as features rather than bugs, AARP disagrees with that, but they had a consensus of folks who did agree that they were features and not bugs. The first question is if this is indeed about affordable housing. He failed somewhere to find the numbers of results that are they're going to get from this. When they have a plan like that, that's great, he wants to see what the plans goals are to increase some affordable housing. At some point from staff it'd be great to hear if they proceed with this plan what X percent increase in affordable housing will be achieved. Like mentioned, the UI impacts zone, which he lives in, seems like it's going to be immune from quite a few of these things, but that's not the issue. By expanding bedrooms what they're doing is expanding the UI impacts zone and not shielding the impact zone. The duplexes on the corners were really carefully worked on, thought out, talked about, discussed and again, they saw that it's a feature not a bug. He asked a theoretical question of how many duplexes on a block is okay, if they are on the corners and now in the middle, and more between the middle and the corners, well that's a whole different block, and with accessory houses in the back, it's going to make a serious impact on any neighborhood. Please consider postponing this and going through some of the processes of community engagement before a final proposal, because there's a lot of good ideas in there but there are some unintended consequences. Grego Geerdes (890 Park Place) lives in mosquito flats but has a rental property in Goosetown and a rental property on Summit Street. He noted one of the things that apparently happened over the last 10 years been a trend away from this idea to preserve neighborhoods. He remembers when this whole controversy about conservation districts, historic districts and all those things came into play, and the idea was that they wanted to preserve the neighborhood because they were attractive to people and places for people wanting to live. Now it seems like they're getting away from that. The accessory dwelling units apparently can be built in most zones including conservation zones and historic preservation. Does Historic Preservation require construction requirements, or any other design standards, these things which are built in historic or conservation zones and the answer appears to be no because that would be an impediment or an obstruction to expanding housing. Now the overall principle here seems to be one of density. Densities now becomes good but that's a big leap for a lot of people have chosen to Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 17 of 27 leave Iowa City to build in North Liberty or Tiffin or Solon or variety of other places because they have been able to find desirable places to live and raise their family due to denisity. These owner occupiers are building in RS-5 but he asks them to keep in mind that there is competition out there. If they make this less desirable for families, they've got other places to go and that's what they will do, they're already doing that. The objective could be to bring them back not drive more out. Geerdes noted regarding group homes, two weeks or maybe months now, there were several articles in the paper about halfway houses, so what is a group home, is a halfway house or people getting out of prison home a group home. Perhaps that is something that they want to address again, they're seeking to extend a desirable community. He encourages them to note the examples in Portland and San Francisco mentioned, obviously if they read The New York Times, Washington Post, there's a great deal of coverage about how those zoning and accessible housing ordinances in those areas have failed and have given the exact opposite result. There is a bill this week where Minneapolis which famously outlawed single-family zoning in the last few years, is now rethinking its position because developers have abandoned and are going to St. Paul and adjacent suburbs that don't have those restrictions. Tread lightly, Iowa City is a good community, it's attractive to people, that's why they come here. Don't put anything in front of them that deters that or detracts from the desirability that they all enjoy. Ellen McCabe (Housing Trust Fund in Johnson County) stated diversity in housing options can help make more housing more affordable. In addition to further incentives to add housing that is affordable need to be put in place. She works with developers everyday who want to create housing that is affordable, and they can work to lower the barriers that they face, including the design standards, it may not sound like brick on the facade is an issue but the developers expressed that every single aspect of the process adds cost. The Housing Trust Fund supports changes that will help the estimated 13,450 households with low incomes in Iowa City who are spending more than 30% of their income on their housing. That is the same cost burden by their housing. Tim Fleagle is a student at the University of Iowa and is a homeowner on the Northside, he wanted to say he believes that the proposed changes to the zoning code will benefit not just him as a homeowner and in certain neighborhoods, but him as a student. He has a young family, they're trying to grow that young family, and they may be priced out of their neighborhood because of the lack of affordable housing in that neighborhood. The zoning changes put forth today would allow for an increase in diversity of housing, whether that's renting or owning, and allow them to stay in the neighborhoods they want to be in. These are evidence -based policies that have shown through rigorous peer reviewed articles to improve outcomes in certain neighborhoods. A lot of opposition he's heard today are people who are speaking out to continue to have exclusionary zoning for the purpose of excluding other people, mostly students, of which the City is made off of students. A lot of the comments are they don't want students in their neighborhoods. Bob Burchfield (1107 Muscatine Avenue) has owned a home on Muscatine Avenue for over 49 years, his neighbors always got a mix of students, houses that are rented as homes, and longtime homeowners. He was a student here, he loves students, they're not anti -students. He just objects to the process being used to rush these amendments through. October is just a few months away, and this is such a massive change. He objects to most of the proposals, but what he finds most objectionable is they are writing language that is being used to deceive and distract from what's really being done here. Everyone is for affordable housing but they know that in truth what this really does is allow developers to continue to make more money. He generally Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 18 of 27 doesn't see developers living in these neighborhoods, students are living in these neighborhoods, the developers aren't living in these neighborhoods. He doesn't think he heard anything tonight that wasn't directed towards developers can't do. He didn't hear anything about what those of them in their neighborhoods can do to maintain viable and stable neighborhoods. He doesn't generally attend these meetings or speak because he doesn't expect this City staff or Commission or City Council to be any different than the ones that throughout the years have allowed developers to profit by attacking the downtown, and their neighborhoods, he just wishes for once that they'd be honest about what they're really doing. Sharon DeGraw lives in the Northside and after the July 5 Planning and Zoning meeting took place, a few of them started to actually read what was in the code, the code changes and realized the different variables and the way that they would interact to cause so many different things that they weren't sure they could predict everything. They wondered if the people on the Planning Commission also felt the same way and if they could predict all the outcomes and staff could and if City Council will. So they put together this little meeting and called it a neighborhood forum. There was one week between announcing it and actually having it so they felt scrambled and they didn't know who would show up. But 50 people from different neighborhoods, mostly in the University Impact Areas did show up and they were responding to many of the things that people were talking about at this point. She asks that the Commission defer voting on this because there are many that would wish to meet and talk about variables. Paula Swygard (426 Douglass Street) noted they've heard a lot of general comments, she comes with some specific comments about how this might impact particularly her. Maybe the answers are somewhere in all that documentation, but she couldn't find them. At the end, they have an appendix with lots of red strikeouts and little bit of black with all the amendments in there. Her questions pertain specifically to stand-alone accessory apartments and is there specific approval criteria for a standalone accessory apartments, do the setback requirements for those conform to the underlying zone, what is the setback between the principal dwelling and the stand-alone, what is the height limit for the stand-alone. Swygard gave the example of her little single family three -bedroom house, in an RS-8 zone, it is only 832 square feet and her neighbor's home, in the same zone right next door, is 672 square feet. Many apartments are larger than her house, but there are also many small homes like hers in older parts of Iowa City. So calculating the dimensions of the house behind her, at the current 30%, a detached unit of 368 or 468 could be built, depending how the square footage of the four seasons porch is considered. At 50%,under a new proposal, either a 613 square foot or a nice 781 square foot home could be built on her lot, both of those are comparable to her house and her neighbor's house that are considered single family homes. So given the size of her house, she has a hard time thinking of a detached apartment of nearly 800 square feet as a separate apartment and not two single family homes on the same lot. Investors alike find this to be a way to increasing housing on their properties. However, the cost of building a detached unit, the size of a small house, and therefore the rent to make it a good investment, won't make it affordable. One other comment on page 21 of the staff memo sites the APA equity and zoning policy guide regarding ADUs it states quote "but it may be necessary to limit them to properties where the primary dwelling unit is the owners primary residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when used as short term rentals" and that is Iowa City in a nutshell. The best practice of requiring that one unit be owner occupied should remain especially when it comes to detached accessory homes. Martha Norbek (906 S. 7'" Avenue) is a local architect who specializes in the green building. She Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 19 of 27 first wanted to say the staff did a great job putting this together, there's so much research, the maps, the data, she's very impressed. One of the things she noticed was they said up front that affordable housing is complicated, so is climate action and those two go together very nicely. When they're increasing density of units, they're reducing transportation and carbon from transportation. When they can do a duplex reducing the amount of carbon that is required to build that building, they're creating a common wall so the total amount of heat that's required to heat those two dwellings is less than if it were two separate dwellings. Its a win for climate. One of the things about climate action and affordable housing is there's no one solution. There's no big idea that's going to solve the problems. This is going to be thousands of ideas cumulatively put together addressing the issue. She is very excited about many of these proposals, they have imperative to act on both housing and climate and if they're sitting here like, oh this possible bad outcome for me personally might affect me negatively, then they're never going to create change. She hears people say they are scared of density, that as a proxy for classism and she thinks they just need to call it out for what it is. The existing neighborhoods are not going to be just ransacked and she knows this because she designed her mother's house at 1618 Muscatine, after a house that had been horribly neglected was demolished, which is one of the 52 ADUs. They had to work really hard to come up with a solution to provide an apartment to a young man who's economically stressed for $500, utilities included, and her mom is still going to be able to pay for the entire construction costs of that unit in 15 years, and when she's less able, they can have someone living upstairs who can take care of her and check in on her every day. This is the reality of an aging population. Her mom's needs are what ADUs are all about, it's been a huge success for her. Norbek is also working on a project at 724 Ronalds where a house was demolished after being neglected for many years, they are working with the Historic Preservation Commission and it has not been easy. It is $300 to $350 a square foot to build on that property so it's not like people will just waltz in, tear things down and build new, it's just not going to work. If someone pays $150,000 to $200,000 for a property that has an existing house just to tear it down and build new at $300 to $350 a square foot, no one's going to buy that house. They're $150,000 out before they even buy one wood stud, it just doesn't make sense. Therefore, the concept that people will come in and demolish neighborhoods isn't rational, she has studied it, she has considered buying properties in those neighborhoods, she's looked at adding ADUs, it's very difficult and it's very expensive, epecially in historic preservation areas. Also, when they're talking about theory, let's look at ourselves and our hearts and what we're thinking and question how to they want to support those less than us, this guy who's renting from her mother for $500 a month, that's the story that they want. They have created affordable housing with that ADU. Norbek gave an example of a new house on Bloomington Street where they tore down a house on a corner lot and now they're trying to sell that house for $500,000 and guess what, no one's buying, its been on the market for months so good luck to them to actually make their investment back. These fears about the existing neighborhoods are not based in reality, they're based in fear. Norbek is desperate to see climate action accelerate and these proposals will help make that happen. Nancy Carlson (1002 E. Jefferson Street) stated all of them want affordable housing, they want everybody to be able to afford to live and to have a living space, that isn't the question. If they were I Dream of Jeanie or whatever TV program from back in the 50s where the genie or the whatever could wiggle her nose and everything would turn out perfectly. It's too bad they don't live in a city like that, where they could wiggle their noses and go poof and it was all be solved, it would be wonderful, unfortunately that was a TV program and this is reality and if they are going to deal with living here they need to live in the situation that they are in. She has lived in her house on Jefferson Street for 40 years. It was a working-class neighborhood and she has Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 20 of 27 watched structure after structure, whether is was house owned by a working class person, or if it was rented out to a lower class person, she has watched over the years these houses either being changed into rent -by bedrooms or torn down and turned into a rent -by bedroom situations. It's it has been sad to watch her neighborhood disappear so that these people could do structures with rent -by bedroom structures. Carlson has nothing against students, they need a place to live affordable just like others do. The problem is that they acquired the neighborhood and that doesn't allow anybody else to live in the neighborhood and have access to housing and that's why she is very much afraid of these ADUs because she is afraid it's going to be another rent -by bedroom thing developers will do. Regarding the expense, developers have other developments and write those things off. The individual person who lives in their house and does an ADU does not have that. A developer can depreciate it out over 20 years. So she is asking them to please stop and think about not how wonderful the idea of having all these ADUs are and what they could do for the community because while they could she thinks they need to stop and think about what is the reality of the places where they live. They need to take into consideration not only providing housing for people but to make sure that by these actions they are not decreasing that. Ross Nusser (202 N. Linn Street) is a local real estate agent and developer and also a resident of the Northside. He commends the City's attempt to try and help assuage the problem of affordable housing and trying to do something. He thinks the density is what happens when density can come affordable housing. He also respects the right to comment and to engage the public and is in total support of his fellow neighborhoods wanting to have more of an input on this. But by and large, he thinks that if they want to address a problem, they have to do something. Nusser thinks that this code amendment shows that they can do something, this is substantive change that can entice affordable housing and can entice different types of developers. He doesn't buy into the slippery slope fallacy as allowing ADUs will create a boon for developers investing in. Construction prices are too high, it's too expensive and cost prohibitive to remodel some of these older structures and then to build in the rear of the lot, assuming that they have the appropriate setbacks, it doesn't seem like it would likely work out financially. Scott Hawes (Executive Director, Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity) stated Habitat for Humanity focuses on home ownership, specially affordable homeownership. He thinks this is an idea that everybody understands but wanted to bring it to the forefront of how impactful homeownership can be specifically for children and for families. In addition to being an asset, actually owning a home allows children to stay in the same school district, allows them to get to know their teachers, allows them to get to go to school with their peers for as long as they live there. There are other benefits in addition to actually the financial ones that come with owning a home. The way he looks at these amendments is that it improves the opportunity for people who are of low income to purchase a home, specifically, the amendments to the zero lots or attached single- family amendments. It is cheaper, especially at Habitat, if they can build a zero -lot line, it is much cheaper than a detached single-family house. Because those costs are lower it makes it more affordable for folks to purchase and provides more opportunities. Hawes supports especially the provisions that would allow more diverse housing. In response to a question that Mr. Hensch said, specifically about increasing the size of bedrooms in a home, it might be true that families are starting to decrease in size, but there's still going to be larger families and they're going to need housing and all that's available is smaller homes, then they're not going to have a house. Hawes asks that they just consider that. Yes, there might be some demographic changes or trends going one direction, but it won't be the end of larger families with multi generations. The Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 21 of 27 last thing that he has to say is that great neighborhoods come in a lot of different shapes and different sizes, and they look very different. You can have a great neighborhood with a duplex or a zero -lot on the corner and mid -block. You can have a great neighborhood with an ADU, you can have a great neighborhood with a smaller lot where the children play in a common space or at the park. He likes that the City is making an effort to recognize that neighborhoods look different and they can be great no matter what they look like and that zoning won't be a barrier to having a great neighborhood. Rabbi Rebecca Kushner (325 Ferson Avenue) stated she fails to be convinced that density bonus benefits a neighborhood necessarily, especially with traffic concerns, she lives in Manville Heights and they've had an extreme increase in traffic density since the building the construction in North Liberty. Some streets are almost impassable, she doesn't even walk them anymore. Also, Manville Heights has no grocery stores, no convenience stores, why are they packing so many people in position whether it's no bus route, no way to walk downtown, it's pretty far. She is also not understanding why diversity and divisive come in balance and it's balancing one against the other. Of course everybody wants housing for everybody. Everybody wants the world to be Kumbaya and function and yet she would have really welcomed if the decision had been transparent for the neighborhood associations. She learned of this just by chance and that seems like something is being kind of bowled over against or despite the neighborhood's development. Karel Bohnsack (Executive Officer, Greater Iowa City Area of Homebuilders Association) is also on the Johnson County Livable Community Coalition, the Johnson County Affordable Homeownership Coalition, and she has been a past board member of Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. She wants to thank the staff for taking the time to meet with and answer questions with the ABA, the Affordable Homeownership Coalition, the Affordable Livable Coalition, this is a good start but as the memo says it's not going to resolve all the issues related to housing affordability. There have been a lot of compromises that have been made about design standards, the way ADUs look, the way the duplexes look, there's been multiple moving parts to this in the eight and a half years that she's been the executive officer and meeting with City of Iowa City staff. Bohnsack wanted to say that they support these changes and proposals that are being made to zoning code, it's the things that zoning can do to help with affordability. The Livable Community Coalition supports the accessory dwelling units, not to make neighborhoods a plethora of rental opportunities, but so people can continue living in place in their homes, so that someone can either look in on an elderly person or if you're living at home you can live in the ADU in the backyard, or someone else can take care of your family and understand the use of that whether it's aging and its abilities, so it's a good thing. As far as the group homes, three of the student build houses that were done in Iowa City were for Reach For Your Potential and there were areas that they could not build those homes and the students couldn't get that education. The zoning changes will help to be able to build those home and treat them like every other multifamily house, rather than an institution so they support that as well. Kelcey Patrick -Ferree (652 Sandusky Drive) a member of the South District Neighborhood Association but is here in her personal capacity to say she supports these changes. She also wants to specifically thank City staff for answering questions and for mentioning that they have looked at other college towns and seen what they've done with their zoning. She wants to remind everyone here that the old regulations in place have caused problems. In 2015 it was found that Iowa City was the 14th most economically segregated city in the country and they've been working on fixing that ever since. This change will finally start to make some of the bigger Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 22 of 27 changes needed in housing types in order to address these issues. The fact that Iowa City is that economically segregated areas has caused problems for the schools over and over and over. Her kids go to Alexandria Elementary in the southeast part of Iowa City but they have been assigned to go to middle school at Northwest Junior High in Coralville because of how economically segregated Iowa City is. So she appreciates that they're finally doing something about this. She has been participating in all of these meetings for almost a decade at this point, and the reports that the staff presented are not new, this is not surprising. It's not being put on people at the last minute, staff have come and talked to the South District Neighborhood Association regularly, they come and talk about zoning issues, they've talked about form -based code a lot when that was affecting their area. This is not something that is being dumped on people at the last minute. These are people who have not participated in this process because they didn't think that affordable housing was going to affect them until they found out that it was. The City is moving in the right direction. There's free bus service, they are reducing parking that is true, but they're adding a lot of incentives. This is going to help avoid sprawl, this is going to help be more environmentally friendly. She loves this inclusive zoning, she enjoys that this is going to make things more walkable and more bikeable, which is what a lot of young people want. It is unlike North Liberty, Tiffin and other cities in the area. She just wants to really emphasize this has been a decade long process, City staff is always accessible, they will talk to you about anything you have questions about. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) She has watched Planning and Zoning as well as the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council. She's heard arguments for 45 years on what some of these plans are to be, she's been on a planning committee for some of these things as well. Yet she did not know about this until Sunday and she is plugged into what's going on. She knows it's not deliberate for the City to hide this information but if it's going to impact her, she wants to have input. Therefore, she encourages the Commission to defer any vote or decision on this until they do gather input. She applauds all these progressive leaders that have come up to the podium, whether they're from Habitat for Humanity, or whatever sector that helps the disadvantaged of the community, but it sounds like the City has been in rather intimate conversation with them for quite a long time, and not with other people. She doesn't want them to be turning their backs on 50 years of successful historic preservation activity in this town, which many dedicated people have spent an equal amount of time trying to educate and inform people about the community's history and the ties that bind us and give us a level of stability that's often lacking in other communities. Bennett acknowledged they live in stable neighborhoods but she is not classist, she resents being accused of that, and she's not sexist, and she's not racist. They all want affordable housing. She sat in these planning and zoning meetings and bought the bill of goods that said they need density downtown to combat urban suburban sprawl and keep things out by the Highlander as farm land but then at the same time, they're having developers come in with plans for every single square inch of this county and surrounding area. On a personal level she just had a friend who's been waiting for years to return to Iowa City, since 1985, but the market was pricing her out. Unfortunately, she paid double the value of a house over on Burlington Street. The classic example is of a former University of Iowa football player who's a millionaire who came in and brought the property and is turning it off for twice that amount. He didn't address the drainage and sewer pipe issues in the basement, he just had the windows painted shut up and put carpeting over the hardwood floors. Now anyone coming back into that neighborhood has even higher costs trying to rehabilitate that property because of the historic building. So how does a single mom afford to rehab these houses that have been allowed by landlords to turn into blight ridden places where they haven't kept up the moisture problems and the drainage problems where they haven't addressed lead paint problems. If they want to talk Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 23 of 27 about climate change, well every time they tear down a house, where does that material end up, it ends up in the landfill. People want yards where they can step out onto the porch, they want to have gardens, they want walkability, these are all things the neighborhoods in this University Impact Zone enjoy. Bennett stated they are not elitist, they're living in mixed neighborhoods, there are students and she love students, she taught students for 45 years, students are the future. But they also have to live with old people, middle aged people, young people and children and she thinks some of this plan is very much a slap in the face to some of the older people in this community who have dedicated their lives to making it a better place to live, and enjoy the neighbors and the friends, and the things that this town has offered. She asks that they please wait and listen to them, they do support what they're trying to do. There's a lot of wisdom in the report which she appreciates and applauds, but it's also textbook oriented and it's not in humanist values embedded in it other than to use the shield of diversity and disability to again excuse what the developers are doing. They're lining their pockets at others expense and she means those who've been below the highest income levels in this town. This has repeatedly happened her entire life in Iowa City, she has been marching up to this podium trying to encourage sensitivity among the leaders at whatever level they're at. They're investing an enormous amount of time, but she asks that they give this some time and don't always look at the bottom dollar. Mary Beth Slonnecler (937 E Davenport Street) lives in Goosetown and stated she has not in any way absorbed everything in the 65 page report, but she just found out about this recently so she is in the group that says please hold off a little bit longer to listen to the neighborhoods. She thinks the value for Iowa City is that what they have that North Liberty and Tiffin and all the other areas don't have is the historic neighborhoods and beautiful houses that reflect that. In Goosetown, in the 1990s, her husband and her were given a grant by the City and so she is trying to suggest possible other ways of looking at encouraging affordable housing. Goosetown is probably at the bottom or near the bottom of the list of wealthy homes and they were given a grant, a depreciating grant, that if they put money into restoration that loan would be taken away, it was possibly 10 years, would there be a way of doing that, giving people grant money to upgrade some of these very small homes instead of getting them out to the landfill and letting developers come in. She encourages the Commission to think about creative ways of looking at some of these properties rather than just alliterating them. Martha Norbeck wanted to make clear that this is not changing historic or conservation district requirements and that none of the historic preservation or conservation district rules are being changed by any of these things. Hekteon confirmed that was correct. Sharon DeGraw wanted to clarify about the one house that was referred to at the corner of Bloomington and Union Street. What happened was the little cottage that was there was listed or valued for around $160,000 and when the new house was constructed it has three bedrooms upstairs and a bedroom in the basement, or studio or something in the basement and that house was originally listed for $590,000 and it didn't sell. Subsequently bedrooms have been rented out and they've seen them listed for about $900 - $1000 per bedroom, per month. If you multiply that by four, that's getting close to $4,000 a month, those are pretty expensive prices. Some people will priced out that. If one were to take the cottage in the Goosetown area cleared a lot, removed the house, would it be possible to do a duplex, have four college students in each duplex and charge again somewhere between $700 and $1,000 per person. And then do ADU in the back with two bedrooms again, that seems like it's getting close to $7000 to $10,000 per month and that's a game changer. That's more what they're worried about in terms of transforming the Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 24 of 27 neighborhoods in the Northside area. Jim Throqmorton stated they have to ask if they really understand what staff has recommended. Are they confident that they understand how these proposals will actually affect development in this City. If the answer's no, then they should not vote tonight. Another thing he'd like to say is they have a council election in November and there are four seats up for election. A large part of this particular proposal, technically good though a key part of it is the politic aspect. He knows this Commission is not making political decisions but are they confident of the political will in the City to make the biggest change in the zoning code in 20 years and to make it before the council elections. Nancy Carlson stated at this point, their area, the impact area, has the highest land property taxes per square foot of any area in the City. One of her fears is if they continue to allow more and more development on each of these lots, does this make each of these lots more valuable and does that mean that the people who are live in this area will see their property taxes go up. If it does, and these changes are allowed, and there is more development they are going to price out some of the people who don't have a lot of money who are trying to stay in the neighborhood because of the rise of property taxes. Ginnie Blair agrees with a lot of what has been said, she is all for affordable housing and is very fond of the idea of ADUs, which originally she thought meant accessible dwelling units and they were supposed to be the granny flat version of the back of a lot to help people age in place, and it was important that was for owner occupied as an extra dwelling, that all makes perfect sense. Affordable housing is important but she doesn't understand how extra housing is necessarily going to make them affordable, because there's this voluntary part. Developers can build a certain way and get a deal, but they don't have to. She is also wondering if all the townhouses that are being built up around town, are those less expensive places to live because it doesn't seem so. She loves Habitat, and The Housing Fellowship and is in favor of climate change but doesn't see any regulations for any of that. She wishes the City would work with those people for the greater good. Hensch closed the public hearing. Craig moved to recommend approval of Title 14 Zoning to be amended as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Padron seconded the motion. Craig noted as everyone has said tonight this is a very complicated issue but when they look at what started all this five years ago, there was a charge to look at the zoning code and it's taken that long and worked through many housing affiliated organizations to get to where we are today. She thinks the staff has done an outstanding job and they're here to find solutions, to improve housing choice, increase the housing supply, and encourage affordability. Will any of these things actually happen, they don't know because they're not in charge of that, someone has to build these places. She also thinks there are bad landlords and bad developers and there are good landlords and good developers and people who want to preserve the feel of community in Iowa City but just can't afford to do it right now. The City has to give them the tools that let the Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 25 of 27 good people do the good stuff. She thinks staff has brought forward a proposal well researched that is trying to give people the tools that we think they need. People want absolutes, they want predictions, but no one can predict what's going to happen. There's no assurance that it's going to work, they are just doing their best to give the good people the right tools to do the good things and that's why she supports this. Padron doesn't have much to say, she likes the proposal and her main reason for supporting it would be the sustainability part that was mentioned, mainly reducing carbon emissions and sees density as less transportation and more ways of walking. She wants to give it a shot and it may not work out but it may. Hensch stated he is in favor with the majority of this, but like others have said tonight, he'd like some more discussion and an opportunity to vote on these separately. He thinks he would vote no on this because he really wants to vote on them separately. He might be able to be persuaded on a couple of things. Hensch asked if this motion is voted down, is this just it, if this motion fails then is this done tonight. Hekteon stated the Commission could ask for it to be presented again at a future meeting or it could just go to City Council without Commission recommendations. Additionally, the amendment on the floor could be amended. Hensch stated he would support this motion if he could make some amendments to it because his big concern is there should be an ownership requirement for the ADUs, particularly for the attached ADUs. He would support this if they could have an amendment to allow that. Wade wanted to share a little bit from where he is coming from and then the second part on the ADU. He agrees there's no single solution, looking to bring back people to the community that couldn't afford originally and also retain people in the community, from affordability. As far as the ADU portion, he looks at that in two ways, from private ownership that was a good example of the age in place and having somebody living on the same property that helps later in life but also for private ownership, that's the owner occupied and provides a pathway for private owner to essentially build value within their existing property to make it more affordable for their personal ownership. That's the reason he's leaning towards private ownership on ADUs. Elliott first wanted to thank everybody who's been here, it's been very helpful to hear everybody's opinions to help them understand the issues. She was really impressed with the packet, all the information was very helpful. She remains somewhat up in the air, she comes from one of those historic district situations and really values the neighborhoods there. She doesn't want to upset the neighborhood feel but does feel they need to move forward. With hesitation she will support this. Craig stated if they can pass majority of this tonight, she is willing to amend her motion to take out 3C. Craig amended her motion to recommend approval of everything except the language related to accessory apartments, which should be discussed more. Craig stated she is not in favor of the owner occupancy requirement and feels like concerns have been concerns that the neighborhood associations should have been involve. She would like the staff to give the neighborhood associations an opportunity to discuss and then based on that discussion bring this back at a later time. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 26 of 27 Padron seconded the amendment to remove the section of proposed amendment 3C regarding accessory apartments and talk about it later. A vote was taken supporting the passage of all proposed amendments except the proposed amendment regarding accessory apartments (3C). The motion passes 5-0. Craig moved to defer the proposed amendments related to accessory apartments (3C) to the first meeting in October and requested that neighborhood associations to be conferred prior to that meeting. Padron seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 19, 2023: Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from July 19, 2023. Craig seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett announced that a new commissioner was voted in last night by Council so hopefully they will be joining the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Elliott moved to adjourn, seconded by Wade and the motion passed 5-0. Congratulations: "Affordable" Iowa City Life in a University town is expensive, and Iowa City is no exception. However, the latest move on the part of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission is not designed to really address the deeper issue. Based on the argument that Iowa City needs more "affordable housing," a widespread rezoning is to be implemented within a very short time frame. However, there is really no such thing as "affordable housing," which is really a convenient, misleading buzzword. Affordability is not, and has never been, an intrinsic quality of a building. We rally to our most noble of intentions when we talk about it as though it is, however: Developers don't build affordable apartments or unaffordable apartments. They build apartments. Some are, no doubt, nicer than others, but this alone doesn't make them expensive or inexpensive. That only happens when those apartments are sold or rented. At that point, the price is determined in a transaction that is influenced by market forces, public policy, or both. Construction and borrowing costs have substantially escalated in Iowa City. The costs for construction will necessarily be passed on to owners or renters, given that the LLCs will be the only groups that will be able to afford the building costs. No wonder so many people are moving to North Liberty, Solon, Tiffin and Coralville. How does Iowa City intend to provide the infrastructure necessary to support high density neighborhoods? No bus route, no grocery stores, no play areas for children? It seems to me that the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission is overly eager to distribute a "density bonus" to developers (as was mentioned in the meeting August 2na) without considering many of the variables that make a desirable, successful neighborhood: Walkability, (meaning less, not more vehicle traffic) schools, accessible green spaces and the tradition of a part of town that has grown with a characteristic history and flavor. This sweeping rezoning threatens to inevitably disrupt many established neighborhoods, also given the planned timeline: September 5a' City Council Public hearing. September 19a' second consideration by City Council. October 3rd action being taken by City Council. This timeline seems indeed very hurried, given the magnitude of the changes. Neighborhood associations have not been contacted, nor has there been any media coverage of this proposed major change. It did not escape my attention that at the meeting on August 2na, developers and real estate agents seemed quite familiar and obviously comfortable with the particulars of the proposed plans. The impression many were left with after the meeting was that the Commission was systematically pursuing rezoning efforts with a minimum of publicity, as well as a lack of transparency and involvement with those whose neighborhoods and property values will be adversely affected. I strongly urge the Iowa City Council to postpone voting on these critical issues until a robust public conversation with all neighborhood associations can be initiated. Sincerely, Rabbi Rebecca Kushner Jim Throgmorton's Statement to the P&Z Commission August 2, 2023 Good evening. My name is Jim Throgmorton, and I live at 814 Ronalds Street in the Northside neighborhood. I speak to you as a retired professor of urban and regional planning, as a former city council member and mayor, as a 28-year resident of the Northside, and as a co- chair of the Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee. My comments have been shaped by those experiences as well as by many conversations with Northside neighbors and other members of the steering committee. At the July 5 meeting of the P&Z Commission, City staff proposed a series of major amendments to the Zoning Code. The amendments are designed "to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability." On Friday the staff issued a longer, more detailed, and more complicated supplement to that initial report. I have spent much of the last two days reading that document. And on Swiday, Shari DeGraw and I guided a "Zoning Matters" community forum about the staffs proposed changes. Roughly 50 Iowa Citians attended the event at Iowa City's Free Public Library. Attendees asked many questions and offered many comments about the proposed amendments. The questions and comments ranged from the purely technical (e.g. what is an ADU7) to the expressly political. The technical comments revealed that most residents do not understand zoning processes and language. The political comments revealed a very broad range of political views. The proposed amendments are the most significant alterations to the Zoning Code in nearly 20 years. The changes address everything from the placement of duplexes and other multi -family housing, to reducing multi -family parking requirements, to providing incentives for the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). And more. I commend the City staff for carefully considering how to promote the development of more affordable housing through the use of zoning tools. I find myself agreeing with, and supporting, most of the proposed changes. Many of the proposals seek to open up existing and future conventional residential zoning districts, especially RS-5, to a more diverse range of housing types.' Doing so is a progressive response to historical evidence that, in cities all over the country, conventional residential zoning has been exclusionary by design. However, changes of this magnitude and complexity deserve to be carefully studied and discussed by all affected stakeholders. In its initial report, the staff identified a series of reports and public engagement processes which provided background for the current proposal. To the best of my knowledge, there were no consultations with the general public or neighborhood associations prior to issuance of the proposed amendments. And, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no reports about them in the local news media. We on the NNA's Steering Committee think it is extremely important for the P&Z Commission to defer voting on the proposed amendments tonight and to think of ways in which a broader community discussion about the proposed changes can be conducted. And we strongly believe the City staff, the commission, and the city council must recognize neighborhood ' The staff's proposed amendments could have a major effect on future neighborhoods, but it is not clear how the amendments might affect existing low -density residential neighborhoods; an unknown number of them impose private rules through restrictive covenants. I. associations as key stakeholders in a collaborative process of considering the proposed. amendments. Here's one possibility: you could spread your consideration of the staff s proposal over your next four meetings. That way you could focus your attention on, one by one, each of the four major categories of proposed amendments. This would provide an opportunity for interested stakeholders to understand better the meaning and consequences of what the staff is proposing. Meanwhile, candidates for city council could be interacting with likely voters about the political merits of the staffs proposals. Let me turn now from process to substance. The staffs July 5 memo articulated how the staff trained the topic. The memo reported that economic growth has been attracting new residents to the region. However, the supply of housing in Iowa City has not been keeping pace with demand. This has been driving up housing prices and rents. In response, the staff argued we need to increase the supply of housing and the diversity of housing choices in Iowa City. Doing so would alleviate increases in residential prices and rents. Basically, the staff s proposed amendments seek to "encourage affordability." Based on numerous conversations, I would say that we in the NNA find it difficult to fully assess how these amendments would affect the Northside and other neighborhoods in the University Impact Area (UTA). However, we think some of the amendments might produce multiple harmful effects. The potential adverse effects largely stem from the fact that the housing market in these neighborhoods is profoundly affected by the intense demand for off -campus student housing. Although all of the UTA neighborhoods are affected by this demand, the particular effects vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. In each case, it is important to account for the social and material reality of the neighborhoods and not think solely in terms of what low -density single-family residential zones are like in the abstract. Let me connect this directly to the Northside. We have recently completed an inventory of property in the neighborhood? This inventory reveals that the Northside is already is quite diverse in housing types, ages, ownership, and assessed values. Of the 994 properties in the Northside, 48% are classified as "single-family / owner - occupied."' Another 19% of the properties in the neighborhood are duplexes or single-family structures that have been converted to 2-fanrily, 3-family, etc., up to 9-family occupancies. Thirteen percent (13%) of the properties are condominums. There are at least 29 stand-alone apartment buildings and another 29 rooming houses. And so on. Structures in the Northside are also quite diverse in terms of age. The 600 single-family and 2-family structures range in age from one built in 1845 to one built in 2011. Almost 20% of the structures were built in the 1800s. Seventy-two percent (72%) were built in the first half of the 20a' century. This inventory is derived from information contained in the Johnson County Assessor's Property Information Viewer (PIV) at: https://gis.johnsoncountyiowa.gov/piv/. It is a great resource. But it can also be tricky to use. This is especially true for counting condominiums. 3 Many properties designated as "single-family / owner -occupied" (SF/OOs) are owned by LLCs and presumably are rented. Consequently, I have not been able to determine which SF/OOs are actually occupied by their owners. When I asked the City Assessor about this, he responded, "Our office does not have direct computer access to the city rental permits, so in general we have not entered most properties as rentals when they are rented out. This classification does not impact the assessment, credits, or exemptions in any way. The owner occupant is a default in our computer system and we had not considered editing that up to this point." The 2023 assessed values of the single-family properties range from $76,000 to $1.1 million. Almost 14% of the single-family properties are assessed in the I00,000s or below. 46% are assessed in the $200,OOOs. The single-family properties containing old, one-story structures assessed in the $100,000s or less are susceptible to being demolished and transformed into larger and more expensive rental units unless steps are taken to guide their transformation. Property ownership is quite diverse as well. 175 Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and other incorporated entities own property in the Northside. These private enterprises own (and presumably rent) 27% of the properties classified as being "single-family / owner -occupied." One individual's various LLCs own at least 56 properties in the neighborhood. Given this existing diversity, it is difficult for us to see how the staff s proposed amendments would have beneficial effects in the Northside neighborhood. To the contrary, when combined, several of the proposed incentives are likely to have perverse negative effects. As I read the staffs August 2 supplementary memo, this possibility applies primarily to the proposals concerning Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Item 3c in the staffs supplementary memo (pp. 12-13) would: (1) allow accessory apartments in any zone that allows household living uses (including RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow them on any lot that contains up to 2 dwelling units; (2) remove the requirement that one unit be owner -occupied; (3) remove limits on the number of bedrooms and residents; (4) increase the size limit to 1,000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the principal use, whichever is less, and allow stand-alone accessory apartments; (5) remove the requirement for an additional parking space; and (6) remove requirements limiting additions to 10% of a building and limiting entrances to side or rear yards so long as it appears to be a use allowed in the zone. Items 4a and 4b (pp. 17 and 18) would: (1) for conventional zones, create a 20% density bonus where 20% of units in a development are income -restricted housing for 20 years, to be administered through existing processes; (2) would provide additional flexibility from dimensional standards, including allowing an increase in the maximum height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction; and (3) income -restricted affordable housing units in all zones would not be required to have on -site parking if they provide affordable housing for at least 20 years in compliance with the City's new affordable housing requirements. With this mix of amendments and incentives — especially the removal of the requirement that one unit be owner -occupied —private investors are likely to sweep up properties in the RNS-12 parts of the Northside and Goosetown, demolish older, lower -cost, owner -occupied structures, and replace them with larger rental structures coupled with a rentable ADUs. The overall supply of housing would increase, but the supply of affordable owner -occupied housing would shrink. In sum, I urge you to slow down and give yourselves and the public a couple months to understand and consider the details of the staff's proposal. At the moment, I generally support most of the changes the staff has proposed, including many of the ones pertaining to ADUs. However, we in the Northside are quite worried that the amendments would have perverse negative effects in the neighborhood. I strongly oppose applying the staffs proposed ADU changes to the RS-8 and RNS-12 parts of the Northside neighborhood. I would, however, like to learn whether several of the ADU amendments could be used in those districts when the entity wanting to build an ADU is a non-profit provider of income -restricted housing. Navigate HOMES August 2, 2023 City of 1 owe City Attn: Tracy Hightshoe Iowa City City Hall 410E Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Subject: Support thr Proposed Housing Code Amendments Dear Ms. Hightshoe, I am writing on behalf of Navigate Homes, a community -driven real estate development company committed to enhancing housing options for residents in Iowa City. I am writing this letter to express our wholehearted support for the proposed housing code amendments put forth by the city. We commend the City of Iowa City for recognizing the need to address the current housing challenges and taking the initiative to propose amendments that foster increased housing options, reasonably priced new construction homes, and less stringent design requirements. These changes represent a significant step forward in ensuring a more vibrant and inclusive community for all residents. Firstly, we wholeheartedly endorse the efforts to increase housing options in the city. As the demand for housing continues to rise, it is crucial to provide diverse housing options that cater to the varied needs of our community members. By accommodating different housing types, from single-family homes to townhouses, duplexes, condos, and apartments in all areas of town, we can create a more inclusive city that welcomes individuals and families from all walks of life. Secondly, we are enthusiastic about the proposal to encourage reasonably priced new construction homes. The availability of affordable housing is a pressing concern in Iowa City, and these amendments represent an opportunity to address this issue proactively. By removing barriers for builders and developers who offer attainable housing options, we can begin to alleviate the burden on low and moderate -income families, making the dream of homeownership a reality for more individuals. 733 Mai gion Trek Blvd Iowa CRY, IA 52246 (314)466-43UO Navigatehomeslowa.co m Lastly, we fully support the idea of easing design requirements. While quality and safety should never be compromised, excessive design restrictions can stifle creativity and increase construction costs, ultimately impacting housing affordability. By striking a balance between preserving the city's unique character and allowing for innovative design, we can create a dynamic urban environment that reflects the values and aspirations of its residents. In conclusion, Navigate Homes stands firmly behind the proposed housing code amendments and encourages the City of Iowa City to move forward with their implementation. These changes are essential for cultivating a vibrant and diverse community, providing affordable homeownership opportunities, and nurturing a sense of pride and belonging among residents. Thank you for your dedication to making Iowa City a better place to live, work, and raise a family. This is a great first step in achieving the stated goals, and we look forward to working together on further code revisions that can take us to the next level of more attainable housing. We are eager to collaborate with the city and other stakeholders to help shape a future that benefits us all. Sincerely, Dave Oyl President Navigate Homes From: Diana H. To: Anne Russett Subject: Please forward to Planning and Zoning Commission Date: Monday, July 31, 2023 12:31:36 PM * * This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** To Plamung and Zoning Commission, Because I cannot attend your meeting on Wednesday, August 2, I am sending this email. I request that you postpone consideration of the proposed zoning changes as drafted by city staff. Neighborhood organizations as well as the wider population should have a chance to read, understand, and comment on those proposed changes. Thank you, Diana Harris, 523 Brown St., IC From: Kirk Lehmann To: "Cheryl Cruise" Cc: Anne Russett Subject: RE: August 2 memo to P&Z Date: Monday, July 31, 2023 7:44:07 AM Thanks Cheryl, we'll pass along your comments to the Commission. Regards, Kirk Lehmann, AICP Associate Planner City of Iowa City 319-356-5247 -----Original Message ----- From: Cheryl Cruise <cherylcrmise@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 1:01 PM To: Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org> Subject August 2 memo to P&Z * * This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Kirk, In Analysis 4a of this memo you go into a Fannie Mae "study" but I think it may lead to erroneous conclusions about current policies. It was Grounded Solutions that did the study of 1,019 IZ programs and Fannie Mae summarized results. Many programs are combinations or choices of AMI levels. For the one choice AMI level, 75% of programs are at 80% AMI paying 30% of income. Iowa City is a complete outlier using Fair Market Rent (which is 40-45% AMI) for our income restricted, rent controlled units. Grounded Solutions thinks we are 60% AMI paying 30% of income. Our practice since 2016 is no where near the averages found in the study. If 50 new construction units are increased to 60 then 12 will be required to be income restricted. Average real world income losses are now $500/unit/month. Even our flawed fee in lieu formula shows a loss of $5000/year/affordable unit. With current vacancy rates, increased interest costs, increased insurance costs, and increasing labor and supply costs, there is no incentive in this plan. Inclusionary zoning only works in a high development scenario. Feasibility is the most important word in the equation. This is also why the AH committee recommended to drop the mandatory affordable housing requirement from annexations. Cheryl Cruise Iowa City IA Sent from my iPad From: Rod Sullivan To: Anne Russett; *City Council Subject: Upcoming Planning and Zoning consideration of changes to the Zoning Code Date: Sunday, July 30, 2023 5:39:16 PM A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** 7/30/23 Dear Iowa City Planning Staff, Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, and Iowa City Council: My name is Rod Sullivan, and I am a 39-year resident of Iowa City. Nineteen months ago my family and I moved from the Court Hill neighborhood to the Northside neighborhood. I am writing to you today regarding the proposed changes to the Iowa City Zoning Code. Please allow me to begin by stating that I am very glad we have a City Council that is committed to increasing the amount of affordable housing available in this community. That has not been the case for the majority of my time in this city, and I truly do appreciate the current status. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code come to you with some commentary about affordable housing; this change "might" result in more affordable housing; this change "could" lead to more affordable housing. I want to challenge those assumptions. Let's begin by looking at some raw numbers. The Iowa City Housing Authority has a waiting list of almost 3,000 households. There are undoubtedly a few hundred households who do not even bother to apply. Let's call this number 3,300 units. Iowa City grows by about half a percent each year. That amounts to about 400 people. Assuming 2.5 people per household, that is another 160 units that need to be added each year just to keep up with demand. Added to the 3,300 units above, we are at 3,460 units needed. I have heard numerous realtors claim that Johnson County is short "hundreds" of units. Let's call that 500. Half of Johnson County's population is in Iowa City, so let's add 250 units to our number above. We are now at 3,710 units of housing needed, with 3,500 or more of that need for affordable housing. And remember, we need a few hundred more units every year just to keep up. We will not affect the current supply and demand imbalance with these changes. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code will not create 3,500 affordable housing units. They simply will not. So we need to be very careful when we hear that these changes "could" or "might" make an impact. The odds are good that they will make virtually no impact at all. If I may make an analogy: I could stand to lose a few pounds. I could go up and down my stairs an extra two times per day. I would burn a few more calories. It "could" or "might" make an impact on my weight. On the other hand, I could instead focus on things that are proven to help one lose weight. I would like to see Iowa City focus on the proven methods of creating and maintaining affordable housing. What are the proven methods of creating and maintaining affordable housing? There are two — carrots and sticks. You can pay people to create affordable housing, you can require people to create affordable housing, or you can do both. I would urge you to do both. Meanwhile, please do not consider these proposed Zoning changes as even a partial solution to our affordable housing crisis. They are not that, and they should not be sold as such. Sincerely, Rod Sullivan 514 N. Linn Street Iowa City, IA 52245 319-354-7199 Rodsullivan29 gmail.com Kellie Grace From: Kirk Lehmann Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 8:49 AM To: Kellie Grace Cc: Anne Russett; Danielle Sitzman Subject: FW: Affordable housing mandates Kellie, Just got the following correspondence. Thanks, Kirk Lehmann, AICP (he/him) Associate Planner P:319-356-5247 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 -----Original Message ----- From: Cheryl Cruise <cheryleruise@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 8:2o AM To: Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org>; Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org> Subject: Affordable housing mandates ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Kirk, If mandates are added to the zoning changes, there will be no increased housing. Losing money cannot be mandated. One option: Change the rent ceiling definition to low income, 8o% AMI x 30%. This would be the same definition as HUD, Johnson County Housing Trust Fund, JCAHC, and 75% of all IZ programs in the country. Second option: Change the definition to 6o% AMI x 30% plus a t00% property tax exemption. Third option: Ask Grounded Solutions to do a feasibility study to advise us. People are vastly overestimating profit margins and vastly underestimating expenses especially property tax, insurance, and building costs. Builders cannot build to <5o% AMI without subsidies. Use 724 Ronalds as an example. Fair Market Rent will be $1127 with no property tax paid on this $375,000 project. A private developer would have monthly expenses of $go for management, $18o for insurance, $230 for utility allowance, $300 for repair and maintenance, and $550 for property tax plus a 7% bank loan to pay off for thousands of dollars a month. If we really want an increase in housing supply then we will need to have real incentives. Cheryl Cruise Iowa City IA Sent from my iPad -:0 cl , cc. Kellie Grace From: Kellie Grace Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 8:50 AM Cc: Geoff Fruin; Eric Goers Subject: FW: City Council Meeting - Monday 11.6.2023 Attachments: Knote_IowaCity_PlanningZoning_20231106.pptx There was some confusion with a member of the public (Jared Knote) on Zoom regarding a presentation during item 9.a. The presentation was loaded on the laptop at the podium but I was unaware that he would be participating via Zoom. Attached is the presentation that was sent. The attached will be archived with the meeting packet. Again apologies for the confusion. Thank you =aIZWACITY A UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Xeflie C7race, CVC City Clerk office: 319-356-5041 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 WWW.I000V ORG 0000 Iowa City Transit is now FARE FARE FREE FREE! I O W A CITY Learn more at ICGOV.ORG/FAREFREE From: Jared Knote <jared knote@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 6:49 PM To: Kellie Grace <KGrace@iowa-city.org> Subject: City Council Meeting - Monday 11.6.2023 ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear City Clerk, X ; - _Knote_IowaCity_PlanningZoning_20231106.pptx r= I am sending a powerpoint (PPT) that I would like to use to support comments during public comment for issue 9.A. Housing Choice Amendment. 1 Could you please confirm that you have received it, can open it, and that it can be projected? The PPT is large, but I understand now that it is the only format of document that can be projected. Hopefully the size doesn't cause any troubles. Thank you kindly, Jared Knote Iowa Clty, IA 52245 2 Item: 9.a PRESENTATION TO FOLLOW: By: Jared Knote • wr®��� -•...� CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX WWW.icgov.org ,�Pz �III '�11 IIIIIn �r� m� IQEi: :1311: -:E31: :1E:11 �IE2M !EINI .11:1: IiZ11: IIQl1 A N �'�I��bb d1=:IIE1111 We�1 ItElE'� IEI11 _E�: M Im 111E�n 11EI11 IIECII �� Redevelopment ► . d r g ,ii"6EMMM a -•��EEEEA RAEl1 _ IIIIa1111 ��EI _fi . :FG311 :CIE>iE! =CIES. _I � l,rr • .EE f EI��: 1111311117131 •� Displacement, m;aI C9aEE: 113Iie :gin;#,; lERrl '13Eln •:1111:11111 IIII: __ " "t9 ■ _Elle riuy"' :'EI3Em'tmE%`: ss�E3. =tIIIlY71111: ItE:311 ., and :EEE: -E3' 11 X3;1: IR�E,rt EIIE K ■IIIII�...... �EEEII . HIKals 1 31 11 Gentrification '_ll•��_l"l� l;o"ll" no 111111! E1111022- i1 �.R,�: -1aE= t,E9EtEE IEa3E. ■II NON nom, MIM Reject Agenda Item 9a: Housing Choice Zoning Amendment E� ii �' 3] ����Ir! ���♦, ��' � "' iii9n E1�� �i1!r uawgssE�Elna u 11 I' Protect housing affordability and diversity in the University Impact Zone. u, '� " ' j;t; }k- k 'i : ' �VIP _ o t Estimate community displacement from market liberalization and redevelopment. •, 0 � nn1,.5 Identify credible mitigants. t. 1 E Burlin 'm .. 1C 1 iEl�;- a DIISI.IIII �� E3l v EE ��9F• ��il : �11t13F11111 a1� W� a 1: 1 . :IrE: Ill�m r��11! � t• , Stabilization neighborhoods lost affordable housing to redevelopment More units, richer with amenities like number of bathroom, have repriced markets higher. Gentrification • "reinvestment of real estate capital into disinvested and devalued communities in order to create a new residential and commercial infrastructure for middle- and high- income inhabitants" • - Dr. John Joe Schlichtman, Professor, DePaul University, author of Gentrifier Johnson County Property Information Viewer GISlnformationj CountyHomel ! q� �� ® 7J A 0 i ��weW®���� a I'Ilf� 1� me•tr-r>• "I • L M� r ria ■,f {I{I illlln ire In ■ �� 4 e ©_ ,.i -!?'J 116P. :tilyt sQllo !lia: =E91-e IL'rll °`F"�CeNT Txe ary ov tows cm + �-�' 6a nl3r■ ®Ey " -1311 11'1- 113�e ILEIl1 uV-mMown" s ■ t r I� � _ �+■ �� •7 ��a'Iv rp�9s� �+"�= It3�n .W®�1 1111>!� 1�>II .E�: ��■ �' " ` :Q99E1 gW�llll VIII »I E1_ I Ii3a;; ILEIII IIEEIII ' �,., ` d y g gpgQQ 11�>111116 11 — ���i,®► — f<WI� I e� 3991 iftll- 'T"� all A RRlll 1111.31111 SII T�®I �Or��l{ 11 :191! .131+a = Rim ":Eiri 31i1 R IIIIaI11111L311 SIM liiwI Ml�� 4� -�" . =,1I © '1911: 811ie :�nl5jo I��� : 1111*f !1311"n 1111:111111 ILE1: 3.i IIIIIIII����i •:■ �� In SUN WIN 111111 All�lll ��� ■ ��� . "�EIlii�'* 1113�� II i;• 1111: IL311 �—.IIIIIIr+N�.• � � F�,!�, i N-" MEI - ■ "�11ip= »II�R ;11_-II.l61 -■ OCR i1I11111�1i���{{� IIIIf�11 ■I$9 ��i"1[3 klr3 1mI -1 ;13� gA naC1` �GEIE �t;; �I3d1 3MO■ :1 �0 11 r = ��l3I: .IIE� qq .IIIIIII! :IIIE_ �t 9111 11111111 ' rl t1Cli 91E ® -3111: ss391111 13 E31 :II�i01�■ IE. me VIII X111 - MOM ■11e!� �L93® m ■Ill- ....._ mow. �' - \��� �� i-�� 1m4L x : �NWi II ,Y 91 la� .t II�� ��r■ ■NI�1 _,�. <�IIII �$�� ��t� 11 ►! '09� 111 .711111 .���, � � •♦��� 11111111111/�� s ii :111 i 11 Ci] ;� Lm:;�Sim•• �!` - - ti�i X11 til`i6�u � d`�Elalstl - -ii�_rlillfll{ l�� ,�I�� r111111-�j 1_, • 609,938.83 52,178330.5879 Feet LGtlD ` j fes[.T� - � tlLlil m .�� 1 Rlil� •I ���� �I �� __ -• • r Residential Neighborhood Stabilization ( RNS ) areas The City of Iowa City commissioned Housing and Equity in 2016. The report highlights the University Impact Area and quotes developers as saying building affordability without government subsidies is not possible. • Transportation corridors for many. Neighborhoods to those who live there. RNS12 lies along streets with with relatively more car traffic (Market Jefferson, Church) or near commercial zones (Mercy Hospital). These properties, owner occupied and rented, tend to be more affordable. • Neighborhood direct action: Residents of "RNS12" have shared an oral history during community comment. • Through the 1990s, RNS12 residents were not afforded the protections of re-development overlays, e.g. "historic." • In the 1990s, community members facing redevelopment pressure began to organize for protections. • City of Iowa City commissioned report (2016): Housing and Equity in Iowa City • Stabilization from redevelopment 'A 1962 Iowa City zoning map shows that most of the properties in the University Impact Area were zoned for R3A and R3B. These zones allowed up to 44 to 58 dwelling units per acre, respectively. Bob Miklo, Senior Planner for the City of Iowa City said that most of these areas were developed with approximately 12 units per acre, and "the high density zoning encouraged the demolition of the existing housing for replacement with apartment buildings."20 This began to change the make-up of the nei hborhoods within the University Impact Area. In response, the City began to implement zoning changes that reduce density of those neighborhoods. Most recently, in 2005 the City adopted a RNS- 12 zone to limit conversions of single family homes into rental units." • Developers will not build affordable housing "Still, housing advocates in Iowa City agree that there is still not enough supply of affordable housing to fulfill the growing need. High costs in land acquisition and construction places new housing development beyond the financial budgets of most affordable housing developers. This is something that Iowa City developers view as a major barrier to the creation of affordable housing. Developers Joe Hughes from Southgate, Steve Gordon from AM Management, and Jesse Allen from Allen Homes all agreed in interviews that the cost of land in Iowa City has been increasing, especially in the downtown and campus area. "It's the demand for land and the price of land that is really making it really difficult to build affordable housing downtown," Hughes said. "The numbers don't really work out without subsidies from the government to build affordable housing." Source: Iowa Initiative for Sustainable Communities. Eric Hawking and Kevin Garza. University of Iowa, 2016 Oct +0.2023 P.m3 Case Study F9u,1 M,OdAW,Metaro0 FF512 �.,,.- DropertiPs Zaied RNS-17 ! � Redevelopment in a residential neighborhood stabilization zone 0 4 " Ij IffL MR Hit it { r- Source: Planning and Zoning Agenda Packet 10.18.2023 Iowa City,Iowa • Gaogle Street Yew Nm2022 Seern r dates y. In � b Welcome toth neighborhoodCorng - Aft Or fl _ fent1st MM HCf Google 3'"� . 1 •� Ime ec ..Nov= 020230a le UnIte03tates Teans Privet R rte roLlem Redevelop up . EBlo inWan St Rents way up . iso— 9„ r �- 13513 'I�i '°6 0,6 ,026 +�� s 2U.S. average monthly earnings: $4,662 r 915'° 1 a R — r - I ,00z ,020 w rine 1zz nza n28 I+' 1. $4,550 currently, up from $1,100 in April 2019 a 1. 2020 redeveloped;7 bed, 8 bath single family zoa— r r r— `o_ RmhesterA 2. 938 E.Jefferson St r_ r RNS 3 1025 — / r— 1011— I 10n 7a3 1705 2. $2,800 currently, 25% more than older and 9� 918 92a 926 972 r R _ 03112 _ maintained comp $2,440 °09 014 ,0z0 r,021 a' R t2 1. 2022 Tear down and rebuild into duplex r 2. 930, 932 E.Jefferson St 4 E Market St 3. 930: 4 bedroom,5 bath: Current$2800 —r- 1013 1019',0n 031 4. Comparison at$2,440: 947 E. Market, 4 bed, 2 130 91 919 /9231 931 937 943 yap bath1 a RNS12 1 RN 12 a 1 �1n 1zz �iz1 12 na 1n 120 ' 1 r 11 120 3. $3,500 as of July 2023 1 N 1. 2022:Tear down and rebuild single family g 2. 935 E Bloomington St, 3 bedroom/2bath iia r 1j 1 w ' n< aj�1211 rnz ,1°9 4. 2023 tear down 1� 1 _ r 1. Marketed as possible tear down, sold 1/2023 a6 9 9,8 yu 972 1�`s+2 ooz 030 RNstz 2. 923 E. Market St 5. 2023 tear down pending 2 1 5 [Til °° 1-176 -r 1. 1012 E.Jefferson St — XOFsX Source: Johnson County Property Information Viewer, Monthly rents from Zillow accessed October 2023, CEIC Data Redevelopment can create beautiful buildings, particularly when viewed through a car window Scale can impact the lived community. Concrete elevation of front door from sidewalk exceeds human eye level (6 feet). Jefferson St. neighborhood... ... and redevelopment a IL E - • Source: Google Maps More units # affordability Redevelopment replaced existing affordable housing with more higher rent units that may only be available to those with higher collective incomes. Redevelopment... ... and reference home on Market St. =HIOW o=a� �=dae a.ae ..ranre L9sz,2ao,n, .da � izeait.srrfi . '-"I/t NarF.SC Iom Cityi lP SRdS .. H hrreM �I ntal on Zillwr ■i m ■ ■ �0 i npplrna. Mrrvlrry FncrcnM leooirrv' Mcrit"'s, NoafiyecMrJ 2011 2021 2022 _ u&easY�llaw appl"cat a6'.Ak prope.y accepts311ow pp cauors.Click 'Ahi nrn^/to fi 11 out the online form once and applets az mziry Participatingprope�lez as ...,.a.. rate z yn�e,.,n:J-1ii rnr goaayz. n Type Single Phonily Q}Par, Cali,Small q Peecince Doge . y Cooing cancel An pParkin, oTsveet —� 6"eating cnmatt ®l..nery mune `ran.ye` ©oepnellaaZ,]ao L nee OF Source: Johnson County Assessor Parcel Search. Zillow. Amenity- rich redevelopment decreases affordability Redevelopment added baths, e.a vs. the reference house increasing rent 25%, i.e. $550+... =illow o=-,r r F1.,m OHr, ...1dn,.. SZillow o11r rotl1h., e.de ..ldnre I $2,800ymo add a,, I,zel rete : $212401.o 4Eu lata l vsn ezn WO Elelkarson sc owe Clm.wszzns e 'V e Narkrswowa Ory,IP Snns •xueseb.rtnt Nsuae hire. -" r—alon Zillwr ■■ " ■ � � � npplrn roper no. ■■ ■ vennew Hasantl`co—, pare llnory Xeerb/xM1or) - Mr .,cah 'rMn) Fml6easy Dlidwappllwtlon _ Hse&easy 311—applicat n �Y Th s propeTyaaepss Z Icw.?pl¢allonz Click a6 AIs property accepu311Cw pp taucrs.Click '',py_W o 1111 out 111e online fun and 'Applyr to"11out the online fcr and appNm az ma"oartlupaulg prvymlgas applyb as many paindpaung propelles as you n'anL1ua VS for 3C tlayi you wan:f rel$111,.do,,. B Dale Tr.Aug1 Pets No Pets nType Single Firmly Q}Pairs Cali,Small A skawilahle fe16 Issuance Dogs ©Patklnp DHarM1eu.Okf O type 111,lamely Street m xe.menreeno-al gonro cental au �p Parkin, D+sweet ®buna.r I.i umt 6 Heating Cons— ®laundry mums #peamg nn _ 1 ©Dego.s sz,auo manager ®xearng Cnn 1­1 as ©oepnnlm aS,OaC fires OF 1 Source: Zillow. Redevelopment can meet a market need , but can displace affordability So many baths added in ...and such a big rent increase -- 250% redevelopment... ..,....m,e.e r,ee.n.,,_eI I Q 31-iza re Or 4, 4 3 n -n✓ ..e_ - --....uM+ru+ays3tams.apv p d o a o o,a, asl,a. 0xma —.I 2.Zillow vFa.e �.hme 0 t', ..rye, _ $4,550 $4r55011n. se,11" Zt.al le,...n 5l Iowa In, a53365 _ tan Ill,., N Ha­karrem —al an Llbw It win reall m New ® wPlY as ® LPPIY new Orm ttsantlhertrti Pri Wnory N,am,,h.., ....... Factsane I-uie_ Pxe HiYo,, NearoYal> e t Y waPP.a n — _ �a s6.zao +r.Ill 11 ew....r. Y1pi 'nVFly elntrell a,w[[Neral,Ptoreon[eanE � F.I.. as at<Y Par111P gp CP I 11 s 1 [335N 1 o II'019 PI[e Table 8630[e2i0k a'iryt OryPe IVedtl n[eM ®Vunery nllntt \ PI s1.300 X91$ _ n, Central Alr Oo.Pml<[s6sso 'AolCu¢ted ror rtm sllao He lallat r gr �nuat y _a i Source: Zillow. To reprice the market higher, redevelopment can flex to appeal to higher collective income individuals Larger home redevelopment adds beds, ...more close-by, smaller, affordable homes rents, and momentum to tear downs are marketed for "complete tear down" azivaw BEd. o < p=alm ._Ma d] uZillow ov.< ti.aaare Zea zea 1,.,ft !Y vs[oloonln¢onSUowa ary,a s¢ws ,e ��� . a — ' � .13_Mz'krt 3�IwaC1YlA5}313 •OR k :5.. A YOY Stla St]6,OYO SM91� N [T lot,�� - _ x .raw< o«nr mos x a<me rvngxaorrooa a<vue � - "'°^wYma - .r ' " I a aa�al sn n tla i C� asPriu history - onP -v- hl[e hl hm tl b M rko . pl rearPtlo.wr.Allrygaaeam 11 r pann ne _ Ilk a,4. ull( yurtan areRaIE eCraaor Ls[ foment ASOo-z9es% f3/v�h 5 I a<Y^+ OF MISN'.3012063i] ruawb, h,rea'.znoursaga [:tngmmwea - Tsang opal[a.l rv3t aoxaavo�'.c3am rrlw manse Ss1%.osda L[plc xmegec 11.1.16 VM,q r-- R le Lepl[-xmeger,FEt,L]O11 �2 1120. L.rcrorsale 1131 110 1W sanw„In Facts and features cart e� °pP°L Q Tyw: shoe ramly ®x.ennp: rvone Source: Zillow. Coralville's gateway to the University displaced 34 affordable housing units, minority owned business Another area many folks used to just drive through is now valuable. Dallas-based developer has yet to secure tax-payer supported workforce housing subsidies of $1,000/month/unit. "Phase 2" affordable biz. + resi. unclear. r -Ilk If r 10 1, y: A collection of restaurants sits near second street in Cora lvil l e,Iowa on Friday,August 19,2022.The city of Coralvillei looking to transform the area and make it a place that offers new businesses and housing opportunities.(Savannah elakeahe Gazette( Ten acres at the corner of First Avenue and Second Street in Coralvillewill include restaurant retai I,commercia l and multifamily housing as part of the Gather Iowa redevelopment project from Rayl Development Corporation.Renderings created by Dwell Design Studio.(Provided by city of Coralville) Source: Iowa City Press-Citizen, George Shillcock, August 25, 2022 The Gazette Izabela Zaluska May, 24, 2023 WUFT � University towns struggle OPBS. with affordability and D gentrification . A Home/Heard It On W U Fr-FM/Gainesville commissioners bring back single-family zoning Charlottsville, Austin, Gainesville, Boston, Los Angeles. Gainesville commissioners bring back single- The initial request from stabilization zone family zoning and other University Impact Zone residents to allow for more time to understand the 0june Loizzo O une 2,2023 r Heard l[On WUFbFM details of implementation was denied and The City of Gainesville has gone back to Exclusionary Zoning. dismissed. The move by city commissioners,on a four to three vote,does away with the short-lived This high density, relatively affordable area policy of allowing multi-family housing anywhere in the city.That was just put in place exemplifies many of the attributes Iowa City last October by a previous city commission.The effort to reverse course began earlier may want to replicate elsewhere in the city this year after many residents in single-family zoning districts pushed back on the to expand these benefits. change. Rushed actions that ignore community voices Commissioner Casey Willits voted against going back to Exclusionary Zoning.He said it does not help increase the supply of much needed affordable housing in the city,which lead to redevelopment and displacement could fit next to single-family homes. that cannot be undone. "Two,two-bedroom duplexes—those duplexes are something that small families,single parents,started families,or retirees—that's something that's possibly attainable for them,"Willits said. Source: NPR �iComrnissioner Desmon Duucan-walker voted with the majority,in part,to prevenY'_1` gentrification of neighborhoods.She said she is glad the city is hitting reset oil this t Students in university towns seek equitable solutions Students in Boston, Charlottesville (UVA), Los Angeles (USC), Austin (UT) share a need for housing. Some also seek justice and solidarity. Support 1 1 1 Fund independentjournatism with$5 per month The GilirSupport us I ian 'News I opinion 1 Education 0-schools Teachers universities students Students,consider gentrification when making housing decisions Gentrifiedworld eThis article ismorethan 7years old THE DAILY TEXAN Cities A student view of Boston's gentrification: 'We are ruining the lives of city residents' 'SemISThe nnNosltt'aTens ntnuvNn COMMUOrySime IWO. NEWS - SPORTS - IIFE&ARTS - OPINION - MULTIMEDIA - TEXANENESPANOL MORE - Paige Smith of the Daily Free Press National Association of ARlcan American 3tutllea - vvpers- Sat r Oct 20160916 EDT Asthenewacademic earstarts a i editorial writtenb 1----------y----�--L Ite —Y_ * umverslLysiuden Lsm Bosionadmts LhaL,as Lemporary 1 f IF 0 1201 residents willing to pay high rents,they should take _ I MR." L responsifirRy orspceoing77cgenGGcZlonoTsomc neighbourhoods Students, consider gentrification when making housing decisions PRESENTATION CONCLUDED CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org r � City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY November 6, 2023 Information submitted between distribution of late handouts on Friday and 3:00 pm on Monday. Late Is 9. Planning & Zoning Matters Item 9.a Zoning Code Amendment - Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability - See correspondence from Susan Shullaw. Item 9.b Zoning Code Amendment - Encouraging accessory dwelling units to improve housing choice, supply and affordability - See correspondence from Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee and Chad Millbrook. I November 6,2023 City of Iowa City Kellie Grace From: Susan Shullaw Csmshullaw@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 4:23 PM Late Handouts Distributed To: *City Council Subject: Re: Nov. 6 zoning amendments discussion A (Date) **This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** To the Iowa City City Council: I applaud Council and staff for their hard work on the currently proposed zoning code amendments intended to increase housing choice, supply, and affordability— all of which are critical issues facing neighborhoods throughout the city. Council has heard many passionate voices expressing both support for and objection to various aspects of these amendments. In the spirit of "perfect is the enemy of good," I fully appreciate Council's vote to approve the amendment package largely as written, which you are likely to do at your November 6 meeting. I would ask, however, that a year from now, in November 2024, Council request that staff prepare a follow-up report for release to public and the media, with a summary of what has taken place since the zoning amendments were approved. More specifically: How many more housing units were created since November 2023, in what parts of the city, in what price range, of what type, e.g., rental vs. owner-occupied, single family vs. multi-family, etc.? In other words, has meaningful progress been made toward each of the three goals of increasing housing choice, supply, and affordability? If so, then Council and staff can take pride in having done the right thing. But if progress on one or more of those goals has been negligible — if the number of income-based affordable housing units has not increased, for example —then further discussions among Council, staff, and the community must be held to identify remaining barriers and devise possible solutions. Those discussions and actions can only happen when the public is made aware of the outcomes, a year hence and thereafter, of the decisions you will make tonight. Thank you for your consideration and your work on our behalf. Susan Shullaw 718 N. Johnson St. Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ23-0001) Ordinance No. 23-4914 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage housing affordability (REZ23-0001) Whereas, the City first adopted an Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2016; and Whereas, the Action Plan recommended considering regulatory changes to the Zoning Code, including waiving parking requirements for affordable housing units, reviewing changes to the multi- family design standards to reduce cost and expedite approvals, increasing allowable bedrooms outside the University Impact Area, and permitting more building types by right; and Whereas, City Council adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study in 2019 (Resolution 19-225) after disseminating information, soliciting public input, and holding a public meeting on its analysis, identified impediments, and recommendations; and Whereas, the Study recommended exploring ways to increase the density and types of housing allowed especially in low density, single-family residential zones, to expand the number of bedrooms allowed in attached single-family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings, to adopt a Reasonable Accommodations procedure for the zoning ordinance, and to reclassify community service - long term shelter as a multi -family or mixed use category; and Whereas, City Council adopted an updated Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2022 after reviewing new data and engaging the community to build off efforts in support of affordable housing; and Whereas, the 2022 Action Plan recommended increasing number and/or type of dwelling units allowed by right in single-family residential zones, increasing the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero -lot line structures, and allowing multi -family units with more than three bedrooms when required to meet affordable housing funding requirements; and Whereas, City Council further drew upon previous analysis and community engagement to establish priorities in its FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan (Resolution 22-304), which includes advancing prioritized recommendations from the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan; and Whereas, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan encourages a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and people of all incomes, encourages development on smaller lots that conserve land and allows for more affordable single-family housing options, and promotes identifying and supporting infilf development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place; and Whereas, the City's zoning code implements the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the adopted policy direction, adopted actions, and recommendations of the Fair Housing Choice Study, Affordable Housing Action Plan, and Iowa City Strategic Plan; and Whereas, the proposed amendments increase flexibility for a range of housing types and facilitate housing choice, modify design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe and attractive neighborhoods, provide flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, create Ordinance No. _[�g L 4 Page 2 regulatory incentives for income -restricted affordable housing, and address fair housing concerns to support a range of living situations and advance the City's equity and inclusion goals; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the zoning code amendments set forth below and recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 at its meeting on July 5, 2023. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Amend Table 2A-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Single -Family Residential Zones in Section 14-2A-2: Single -Family Residential Zones, Land Uses Allowed, by adding the following underlined text: USE CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS RR-1 RS-5 RS-8 RS-12 �RNS-12 Residential Uses Household living uses Detached single- family dwellings P P P P P Detached zero lot line dwellings PR PR PR PR Attached single- family dwellings PR PR PR Two-family uses (duplexes) PR PR PR PR Group households PR PR PR PR PR Multi -family uses PR Group living Assisted group living uses Independent group living Fraternal group living P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions.) B. Amend 14-2A-4E: Single -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional Requirements, Minimum Open Space Requirements by adding the following underlined text: 2. Minimum Requirements: a. On lots that contain multi -family uses or group living uses, usable open space shall be provided on each lot at a ratio of ten (10) square feet per bedroom, but not less than four hundred (400) square feet, located in one or more clearly defined, compact areas, with each area not less than two hundred twenty five (225) square feet with no dimension less than fifteen feet (15'). On lots that contain multi -family uses in the RS-12 zone. a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) sauare feet of usable open space per unit shall be provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension less than ten feet (10'). Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 3 3. Standards: a. For multi -family uses and group living uses, open space shall meet the standards as set forth in subsections 14-2G-7E1 through E7 of this chapter, except that multi -family uses in the RS-12 zone shall comply with the standards below. b. For single family uses, and two family uses, and multi -family uses in RS-12 zones, open space shall be located behind the principal dwelling in an area visible and easily accessible from the principal dwelling and shall consist of open planted green space, which may include trees, planters, gardens, and other amenities that support passive recreation or leisure activities. Paved areas shall not be counted toward usable open space. For attached single family uses, rooftop or upper floor open air terraces or rear yard -facing porches, including screened -in porches (non -habitable space only) may count toward the open space requirement. C. Amend Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements In The Single -Family Residential Zones in Section 14-2A-4: Single -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Building Bulk Maximum Lot Maximum Minimum Coveracie Number Of Open Zone/Use Bedrooms Space Lot Size Area/ Lot r(Ft Front Side Rear Maximum Minimum Total Front (Sq. Ft.) Unit ' Width (Ft.) (Ft) (Ft.) (Ft.) Height (Ft) Building Building Setback Per Unit" (Sq Ft.)10 S Ft Ft. Width Ft Covera e Coverage Detached single- 6,000 6,000 50 family, including I� 8g86 �� 40 4V 156 5+22 20 35 203 45% 50% nla 500 99AB zero lot line Duplexes 7049 70 8A 156 5+22 20 35 - _ 45% 50%411 300/unit �00 RS-5 Attached single- 5,000 5,000 35 4.4 3549 156 0 or 20 35 45% 50% 41—' 150 6-099 family 6�89 — — 105 Other uses' "00 n/a 5060 4045 20 5+22 20 35 203 45% 50% n/a n/a Detached single- family including family35 5,OOO1 5,000 456 400 156 5+22 See 203 45% 50% n/a 500 zero lot line not RS-8 Duplex 449.Q4 9 44.4 6074 60 7A 156 5+22 e9 35 203 45% 50% 0300/unit not Attached single- 4.000 4'000 30 3a 30 156 0 or 20 35 203 45% 50% 411 F0 438 family 4,358 — — 105 Other uses' 5,000 n/a 45 40 20 5+22 20 35 203 45% 50% n/a n/a Detached single- See family, including 5,OOOR 5 000 4511 408 156 5+22 203 50% 50% n/a 500 zero lot line note 9 RS Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 4C 156 5+22 notee9 ?D3 50% 50%4u 300/unit 12 Attached single- 1,000 3,000 20/ ? ', 156 0 or 20 35 1 qs 50% fin'/: 4u 150 family287 10-5 Mufti -family uses 9,000 3,000 76 60 156 10 20 35 543 50% 50% 411 150/unit Other uses' 5,000 nla 45 4C ?0 5+22 20 35 203 50% 50% n 1 n/a Detached single- 5,000A 5 Onn- 45A 25-0 156 5+22 See 35 203 40% 50% n/a 900 familynote 9 Duplex 6,000 3,000 45 25 .156 5+22 e9 35 203 40% 50% 4u 3001unit RNS- not 12 10/bed roo m, Multi -family uses 5,000 Fxisting4 25 156 5+22 20 35 203 40% 50% 3u but no less than 400 Other uses' 5,000 n/a 45 ' 20 5+22 20 35 203 40% 509/6 nla n/a n/a _ not applicable Notes 11 Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 2B.1 in Section 14-2B-6) the maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi family, attached single family or duplex that exceeds 225 square teet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 1 % chapter 5, "Housing Code", of tt-,is Code. Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 5 D. Amend 14-2A-7: Single -Family Residential Zones, Special Provisions, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: A. Single -Family Density Bonus Options: For detached single- family dwellings and detached zero lot line dwellings, the following density bonuses are allowed in the following zones and under the following conditions: 1. RS-5 zone: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed: a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to forty-five 44y feet (450') and the minimum lot frontage may be reduced to thirty feet (30'); b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to five s+x thousand (56,000) square feet; and c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk. 2. RS-8 zone: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed: a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to forty feet (40') and the minimum frontage to twenty five feet (25'); b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to four thousand (4,000) square feet; and c. The minimum front.setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk. 3. RS-12 and RNS-12 zones: If vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces is restricted to an alley or private rear lane, then the following modifications to dimensional requirements are allowed. a. The minimum lot width may be reduced to thirty feet (30') and the minimum frontage to twenty feet (20'); b. The minimum lot size and lot area per unit may be reduced to three thousand (3,000) square feet; and c. The minimum front setback may be reduced to ten feet (10'), if utilities are also located along the alley or private rear lane and the first floor elevation is at least thirty inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk. F. Affordable Housing Bonus. Residential uses are eligible to utilize affordable housing bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F, `Affordable Housing". E. Amend Table 2B-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Multi -Family Residential Zones in Section 14-213-2: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Land Uses Allowed, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Use Subgroups RM-12 RM-20 RNS- RM-44 PRM Categories 20 Residential uses: Household I tP Detached single-family I P I P living uses dwellings Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 6 Detached zero lot line dwellings PR PR PR Attached single-family dwellings PR PR PR Duplexes PR PR PR Group households PR PR PR PR PR Multi -family dwellings P P P P P Group living uses Assisted group living PRS PR PR PR PR Independent group living PR PR PR Fraternal group living PR S PR PR P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special exception (See chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions.) F. Amend Table 2B-2: Dimensional Requirements For Multi -Family Residential Zones in Section 14-2B-4: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Zone/Use Minimum Lot Requirements Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit Total Area/ Unit (Sq. Width Minimum ... Area Ft.) (Ft.) Frontage (Sq. (Ft.) Ft.) .. RM- Detached 5,000' 5,000' 45 5-5' n/a 12 single- family and detached 40 zero lot line .. Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 413 .. Attached 3,000 3,000 20/286 20 413 single- family Multi -family 8,175 See table 2B- 60 40 V33 .. 3 of this section Group living 8,175 See GhapteF 4, 60 40 See GhapteF .. article 14-4B-ef 4, article 14- th+s t tie 4B of this �t;e Non- 5,000 5,000 60 40 n/a .. residential' .. RM- Detached 5,0007 5,0007 45 r*5' 40' n/a 20 single- family and detached zero lot line Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 7 Duplex 3,600 1,800 45 35 Attached 1,800 1,800 20/286 20 single- family Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- 60 40 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See Ghchapter 4, 60 40 article 14-46-ef this Non- 5,000 n/a 60 40 residential' RNS- Detached 5,0007 5,0007 407 257 20 single- family and detached zero lot line Duplex 5,000 2,500 40 25 Attached 2,500 2,500 20/286 20 single- family Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- 40 25 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See GhapteF 4, 40 25 article 14-4B-af this title Non- 5,000 n/a 40 25 residential' RM- Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- None 35 44 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See Ghapter 4, None 35 article 14-46-9# this Non- 5,000 n/a None 35 residential' PRM Multi -family 5,000 See table 213- None 35 3 of this section Group living 5,000 See Ghapter 4, None 35 article 14-413-of this title Non- 5,000 n/a None 35 residential' n/a = not applicable Notes: 4'= 413 3, 3 See Ghapte 4, article 14- 4B of this title n/a n/a 4, 3 413 3, 3 See rho 4, article 14- 4 B of this title n/a 313 See chapter 4, article 14- 4B of tale n/a 3, 3 See ehaptef 4, article 14- 4B ofof th-vrzr- is title n/a 13. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6), the maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 8 determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. G. Amend Table 213-3: Maximum Density Standards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Multi - Family Zone in Section 14-213-4: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Zone RM-12 RM-20 And RNS-20 RM-44 PRM Minimum lot area per unit (in square feet): Efficiency or 1-bedroom unit 2,725 1,800 500 435 2-bedroom unit 2,725 1,800 1,000 875 3-bedroom unit 2,725 2,700 1,500 1,315 bedreems multi family 3 3 3 3 peF Minimum bedroom size' (square feet) 100 T 00 100 100 Note: 1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedmems that eXGeed 225 square foot insize or have nnv hnr' eRt I title 17, Ghapter 5, "WGUSiRg Cede", c)f this Code. H. Amend 14-213-66: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Multi -Family Site Development Standards, Applicability, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough: 3. For properties subject to these standards located ire the RM-12, p^S20—RM 20, and RM nn Zones outside the Central Planning District, the standards in this section will be administered through the site plan review process, as set forth in title 18 of this Code. For properties located in the Central Planning District and the PRM Zone, the regulations of this section will be administered through the design review process as set forth in chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title. Amend 14-2B-6E: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Multi -Family Site Development Standards, Building Scale, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: 1 RM 12 RM 20RNS 29RM nn Ar d DRNA Zones Outside the Central Planning District: Street -facing walls that are greater than fifty feet (50') in length must be articulated with bays, projections, or recesses (see figure 2B.7 of this section) according to the following standards: Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 9 a. Bays and projections must be at least six feet (6') in width and at least sixteen inches (16") but not more than six feet (6') in depth. Recesses must be at least six feet (6') in width and have a depth of at least sixteen inches (16"). b. The bays, projections, and recesses must have corresponding changes in the roofline or, alternatively, must be distinguished by a corresponding change in some other architectural element(s) of the building, such as a change in exterior wall materials, a change in window pattern, the addition of balconies, variation in the building and/or parapet height: or variation in architectural details, such as decorative banding, reveals, stone or tile accents. J. Amend 14-2B-6G: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Multi -Family Site Development Standards, Building Materials, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: 5. have a durable base GGRS'St'Rg ef rnasenFy, StUGGE), eF dFessed GeRGrete that exteRds at least two feet (2') in height above grade. if the base GeRS'StS Of GGRGFete, it must have -a rieGerative faGe Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that faces a street side lot line. 67. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the change must occur on an inside corner of the building. 79. Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band board or other trim to provide a transition from one material to the other. Figure 2B.11 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials K. Amend 14-213-8: Multi -Family Residential Zones, Special Provisions, by adding the following underlined text: E. Affordable Housing Bonus. Residential uses are eligible to utilize affordable housina bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F. "Affordable Housina". Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 10 L. Amend Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed In Commercial Zones in Section 14-2C-2: Commercial Zones, Land Uses Allowed, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special exception (see chapter 4, article B of this title for requirements for provisional uses and special exceptions) Use Subgroups CO-1 CH-1 CI-1 CC-2 CB-2 CB-5 CB- MU Categories ICN-1 I 10 Residential uses: Group living Assisted group PR PR S PR PR PR PR PR uses living Fraternal group living Independent group living Household Attached PR living uses single-family dwellings Detached P single-family dwellings Detached zero PR lot line dwellings Duplexes PR Group PR PR PR PR PR PR PR households Multi -family PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ P S dwellings S S S S S Institutional and civic uses: GGMMWR+ty PR/ - PR/ PP/ PR PR seFV*ro _ [llY Is Is te�� Community Community S S S PR PR S S service uses service - shelter General comm P S S P P P P S unity service Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 11 M. Amend Table 2C-2(a): Dimensional Requirements For All Commercial Zones, Except The MU Zone in Section 14-2C-4: Commercial Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by adding the following underlined text: Zone CO-1 CN-1 CH-1 CI-1 CC-2 CB-2 CB CB-10 Maximum Number of Bedrooms Per Unit 310 310 n/a n/a 310 310 310 310 n/a = Not applicable Notes: 10. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 2B.1 in Section 14-213-6), the maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the Citv. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. N. Amend Table 2C-2(b): Dimensional Requirements For The Mixed Use Zone (MU) in Section 14-2C-4: Commercial Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by adding the following underlined text: Zone Use MU Detached single-family and detached zero lot line Two-family (duplex) Attached single-family Multi -family Group living Nonresidential' n/a = Not applicable Notes: Maximum Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit n/a 48 4P, 38 See article 14-413 n/a 8. Outside of the University Impact Area (see map 213.1 in Section 14-213-6), the maximum number of bedrooms may be increased by one (1). Any bedroom within a multi -family, attached single family, or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall count as 2 or more bedrooms, as Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 12 determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of the title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code. O. Amend Table 2C-2(c): Maximum Density Standards For Multi -Family Dwellings In Commercial Zones in Section 14-2C-4: Commercial Zones, Dimensional Requirements, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Zone Minimum lot area per unit (in square feet): CO-1, CC-2, CN-1 And MU CB-2 CB-5 And CB-10 There is no minimum lot area per unit standard. However, the number of 3- and 4- bedroom units per lot may not exceed 30% of the total number of units on the lot Efficiency or 1-bedroom unit 2,725 435 2-bedroom unit 2,725 875 3-bedroom unit 2,725 1,315 bedreems famil�y 3 3 3 per multi Minimum bedroom size' (square feet) 100 100 100 Note: 1. New bedrooms must be a minimum of 100 square feet in size. However, for purposes of the provisions within this table, any existing habitable room that is larger than 70 square feet in size with a horizontal dimension of at least 7 feet, that meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom will be considered a bedroom. Bedrooms that eXGee l 225 square foot in size nr have aRY hnrlZnntal P. Amend 14-2C-91: Commercial Zones, Site Development Standards In MU Zone, Building Materials For Multi -Family, Group Living, Commercial, And Civic/Institutional Buildings, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: 1. Buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco must have the following trim elements incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building: a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (Y) wide. b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (Y) wide, unless wood clapboards are used and mitered at the corners. c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5") wide, located below the eaves. Figure 2C.5 - Building Materials... 2. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be constructed using similar materials and design as the front facade. 3. Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 13 . Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any facade that faces a street -side lot line. 45. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the change must occur on an inside corner of the building. 6. FeF buddiRgs where the exteFier wall FnateFial used on the side of a building 66 a daffereRt MateFial thaR what is used en the stFeet faGiRg wall, the StFe8t faGiRg Wall mateFial must wrap aFeURd the GOFRers te the sides ef the buildiRg f9F at least three feet Oiy — .5 Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band board or other trim, to provide a transition from one material to the other. Figure 2C.6 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials i �cc�*sfhl�� ,�cc�ptakie � a�tp,a�ble Q. Amend 14-2C-11: Commercial Zones, Special Provisions, by adding the following underlined text: F. Affordable Housing Bonus. Residential uses are eligible to utilize affordable housing bonuses pursuant to Article 14-4F, "Affordable Housing'. R. Amend 14-2G-8: Riverfront Crossings And Eastside Mixed Use Districts Form Based Development Standards, Affordable Housing Requirement, by deleting the existing provisions and replacing it with the following: A. Riverfront Crossinas Affordable Housina Reauirement: Exceot for developments providing affordable housing pursuant to a development agreement with the City executed prior to June 6, 2016, and except for developments exclusively providing elder apartment housing, residential uses on land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation are required to provide affordable housing pursuant to Article 144F "Affordable Housing." S. Amend Table 14-2H-3B-1: Uses in Section 14-2H-3: Form -Based Zones and Standards, Use Standards, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Use Categories T4NS T4NS- O T4NM T4NM- O T4MS Specific Standards Institutional And Civic Uses Community Service Uses Ordinance No. 2i-4911, Page 14 d Is S S 1 ^�-4 413-4cr Community Service - Shelter S S S S S2 14-4B-4D- 5(RM-44) General Community Service S S S I S PR 14-4B-4D- I 3(CN-1) Day-care Uses PR PR PR PR PR 14-4B-4D-7 T. Amend 14-2H-10: Form -Based Zones And Standards, Affordable Housing Incentives, by deleting the existing provisions and replacing it with the following: A. Affordable Housing Bonus. Residential uses in Form -Based Zones are eligible to utilize affordable housing bonuses pursuant in Article 14-4F "Affordable Housing.° U. Amend 14-3A-4D-1: Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD), Approval Criteria, by adding the following underlined text: 1. The CEity will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value specified in table 3A-1, located at the end of this subsection, except as allowed by subsection 14-3A-4D-3 or Section 14-4F. Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the property, the scale of the project relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements of this title. V. Amend 14-4A-3A: Use Categories, Residential Use Categories, Household Living Uses, by adding the following underlined text: 1. Characteristics: The residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a single household or group household, who are living together as a single housekeeping unit. The principal use of the property is for long term residential living, with each dwelling unit containing its own facilities for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals, and with all spaces within the unit open to the entire household. The dwelling or dwelling units are designed for residential living and any accessory use shall be secondary to the use of the property as a residence. 2. Examples: Examples include uses from the subgroups listed below. The single family uses are further divided into various dwelling types, because these dwelling types have distinct dimensional and development standards based on the zone in which they are located. Group households, given that they are a type of "household" rather than a type of dwelling, are permitted in any type of dwelling listed in the three (3) other subgroups, as is permanent supportive housing. 3. Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses; storage buildings; parking for residents' vehicles: supportive services that assist permanent supportive housina residents in retainina housina. improvina their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and when possible work in the community. Home occupations, accessory dwelling units, childcare homes, mechanical structures such as solar energy systems, and bed and breakfasts are accessory uses that are subject to additional regulations outlined in article Ordinance No. 23_1,91 4 Page 15 C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this chapter. Any accessory use of the property shall remain secondary to the principal use of the property for residential living. W. Amend 14-4A-6C: Use Categories, Institutional And Civic Uses, Community Service Uses, by deleting the following text with a strikethrough: 1. Characteristics: Uses of a public, nonprofit, or charitable nature providing a local service to people of the community. Generally, they provide the service on the site or have employees at the site on a regular basis. The service is ongoing, not just for special events. Included are community centers or facilities that have membership provisions that are open to the general public to join at any time, e.g., a senior center that allows any senior to join. The use may provide shelter or short-term housing when operated by a public or nonprofit agency. The use may also provide special counseling, education, or training of a public, nonprofit or charitable nature. 2. Examples: Examples include uses from the following three (3) subgroups: a. General Community Service: Libraries; museums; transit centers; park and ride facilities; senior centers; community centers; neighborhood centers; youth club facilities; some social service facilities; vocational training facilities for the physically or mentally disabled; soup kitchens; surplus food distribution centers; public safety facilities, such as police and fire stations. b. Community Service - Shelter: Transient housing operated by a public or nonprofit agency. X. Amend 14-4B-4A: Specific Approval Criteria For Provisional Uses And Special Exceptions, Residential Uses, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: 2. Attached • -Dwellings a. Number Of UR tS� O. O. G. SetbaGks: O. iRteFier lets, the side setbaGk OR the Side GGRtaiRdRg the O. GGFReF lets, eit�erl the Irear setbaGk OF RORstreet ssetback may be -educed to -Zero. "owever, tAe Femnaio&,,i�,­ �it�,stFeet 6GtMGk must - Last teR feet • • .. Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 16 Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 17 14 nQ nn 3 nttaGhed Single Family Dwellings In IRS 12, RM-12, RNS 20RM 20 n^� MU s: a. Number Of Units: Only one principal dwelling unit is permitted per lot. (2) In RS-5 and RS-8 zones: A maximum of two (2) dwelling units may be attached unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning. (3) In all other zones: A maximum of six (6) dwellings units may be attached unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning. b. Setbacks: (1) Interior Lots: The side setbacks for the attached dwellings may be reduced to zero along the common wall side of the units. Each end unit in a row of attached single- family dwellings shall have one side setback that is a minimum of ten feet (10'), unless the end unit is on a corner lot. _a-'f ^^ e�� ^ ^Corner Llots:,-Either the rear setback or nonstreet side setback may be reduced to zero feet (0'). The t4e remaining nonstreet setback must be at least ten feet (10') if it is a side setback and twenty feet (20') if it is a rear setback. (See figure 413.2 below.) Figure 413.2 - Setbacks For Attached Single -Family Dwellings c. Entrances: (1) Each dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that is visible frem and erented teward the street. Te meet this standard, the M2 R eRtFaRG8 MUG faces the street, is be at an angle of up to forty five degrees (45°) from the street, or opens onto a porch. The main entrance may not face an alley. e. Garages (1) In the RS-5 and RS-8 zones, there may be no more than one doublewide or two singlewide garage openings facing any street unless the parking is set back at least fifteen feet (15') from the front of the building facade. For the purposes of this section, a porch is considered part of the building facade. Doublewide openings may not exceed twenty feet (201 in width; singlewide openings may not exceed ten (10) in width. (2) The length of any garage wall that faces a street -side lot line may not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the total length of the building facade that faces the same street -side lot line. On corner lots, only the garage wall(s) containing a garage door must meet this standard. f. Vehicular Access: (1) Vehicular access points and garage entrances must comply with the provisions of article 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title and the single-family site development standards as set forth in chapter 2, article A of this title. Attached single-family dwellings located in the MU zone are also subject to the standards of subsection 14-2C-9N, "Single -Family And Two -Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title. (2) If the lot width is less than forty five feet (45'), vehicular access is restricted to an alley or private rear lane. Corner lots are exempt from this standard if vehicular access faces a lot line that is at least forty five feet (45') in length. (3) Where a private rear lane or public alley is present, garage entrances/exits must be accessed from said private rear lane or public alley. gf. Utilities: Each dwelling unit must have a separate utility service from the street or rear lot line. hg. Maintenance: A permanent access and maintenance easement must be secured from the owner of the lot that abuts the zero lot line side of the dwelling. The Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 18 easement must ensure access for maintenance of the exterior portion of the building wall located on the lot line and other common elements, such as drives and aisles. This easement must be recorded as a covenant on the applicable lots. Proof of such recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a building or occupancy permit. 3. Multi -Family Uses In The RS-12 Zone: a. Number Of Units: No more than six (6) principal dwelling units may be located on a lot in an RS-12 zone unless approved through a planned development overlay rezoning. b. Principal dwelling units must be arranged as a townhouse -style multi -family building such that each unit has frontage on the same street. c. Principal dwelling units may not be stacked where one unit is located above or below another. d. Entrances: (1) Each principal dwelling unit must have a separate main entrance that faces the street, is at an angle of up to forty five degrees (45°) from the street, or opens onto a porch. The main entrance may not face an alley. (2) Each principal dwelling must have a paved connection between the main pedestrian entrance and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is not provided. (3) A second entrance to the dwelling must be provided within twenty feet (20') of f the rear facade of each dwelling on either the rear or side facade of the dwelling. e. Design Features and vehicular access: The multi -family use must meet all requirements in Section 14-213-6 "Multi -Family Site Development Standards". 5. Two -Family Uses In IRIS.5, IRS 8, IRS-12, RNS-12, RIN^ 12, aM 20RNS-0, nd CAI I 7enes• I ena+inn Limitation In IRS ! Onri IRS 8 %one : In the DC 5 Rd RS 8 Zene a. � v ca ci v r T r= r i r i i rcr ci v i i r i i rTv���rrv�-c�v-cvrrc�� rrnTc-�-T�v-terra-rcvvcrn s , Central Planning District: Two-family uses located in the central planning district must comply with the provisions of subsection 14-213-61, "Additional Standards In Central Planning District", of this title, which will be administered through the design review process as set forth in chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title. be. Entrances: (1) different street than the main entrance of the ether dwelling unit. 2) The main entranced must be visible4emr and erieRttE)waF s the street. To meet this standard the m entFaRGe m s+ face the street, be at an angle of up to forty five degrees (45°) from the street, or open onto a porch. The main entrance(s) may not face an alley or private rear lane. (23) The duplex must have a paved connection between the main pedestrian entranced and the public sidewalk or the fronting street in cases where a sidewalk is not provided. (34) If parking is located at the rear of a dwelling, a second entrance to the dwelling must be provided within twenty feet (20') of the rear facade of the dwelling on either the rear or side facade of the dwelling. d. Design Features: (1) All windows, doors, and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must be demarcated with trim. The city may waive this requirement in cases where the Ordinance No, 23-4914 Page 19 —� building has an exterior material of stucco or masonry such that trim is impractical or inappropriate to the design of the building. (2) All roof eaves must project at least twelve inches (12") from the building wall. (3) Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any building wall that faces a street -side lot line. e. Garages: (1) In the RS-5 and RS-8 zones, the garage eRtFaRGe there may be no more than one doublewide or two singlewide garage openings facing any street unless the parking is set back at least fifteen feet (15') from the front of the building facade. For the purposes of this section, a porch is considered part of the building facade. Doublewide openings may not exceed twenty feet (20') in width: singlewide openings may not exceed ten (101) in width. fer a dwel!'Rg URit must beGPieRted towards the same street as the dwel!*Rg 61Rit'S main eRtFaRGG, unless the garage is eFieRted tewaFd an alley e private roar laR8 (2) The length of any garage wall that faces a street -side lot line may not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the total length of the building facade that faces the same street -side lot line. On corner lots, only the garage wall(s) containing a garage door must meet this standard. In the MU zone, garages are exempt from this standard, but are subject to the standards of subsection 14-2C-9N, "Single -Family Uses And Two -Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title. f. Vehicular Access: (1) Vehicular aAccess points and garage entrances must comply with the provisions of chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title and the single-family site development standards as set forth in chapter 2, article A of this title. Two-family uses located in the MU zone are also subject to the standards of subsection 14-2C-9N, "Single -Family And Two -Family Uses In MU Zone", of this title. (2) If the lot width is less than eighty feet (80'), vehicular access is restricted to an alley or private rear lane. Corner lots and double frontage lots are exempt from this standard if the vehicular access for one of the dwelling units is located along a different street than the vehicular access of the other dwelling unit, or if vehicular access for both dwelling units is located along a street where the front setback line is at least eighty feet (80') in length. (See definitions of "lot width" and "setback line, front" in section 14-9A- 1 of this title.) (3) Where a private rear lane or public alley is present garage entrances/exits must be accessed from said private rear lane or public alley. p Figure 46.5 Examples Of Twe Family Uses In The IRS 5 Anr1 RS 8 GRes: i Ordinance No. 23_491 Page 20 7. Multi -Family Uses In Commercial Zones CC) , GN , CC 2 GB 2, GB 5 a. Location: The proposed dwelling units must be located above the street level floor of a building, except as provided in subsections A7e and Alf of this section. b. Maximum Density: The residential density standards for multi- family uses in commercial zones are stated in section 14-2C-4, "Dimensional Requirements", table 2C- 2(c1 of this title. c. Residential Entrances: (1) To provide safe access for residents within a mixed use buildip1g, any building containing a residential use must have at least one door eR the exterior of the bu+IdiRg that provides pedestrian access to the dwelling units within the building. Said entrance must be located on an exterior building wall that faces a street, public sidewalk, or pedestrian plaza and is visible from and easily accessed from said street, sidewalk, or plaza. Access to dwelling units must not be solely through a parking garage or from an alley. (2) Access to entrance doors of any individual dwelling units located above the ground level floor of a building must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairway. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairways are prohibited. However, the city may allow exterior fire egress structures on existing buildings that cannot otherwise reasonably meet code requirements, provided the fire egress structure is not located on a wall of a building that faces a street. (3) To facilitate commercial uses at the street level, the ground level floor height should be no more than one foot (1') above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. The City may adjust this requirement for 9R sloping building sites for multi -family buildings with no commercial component, a+4d-or for existing buildings —,the However, on sloping sites at least a portion of the ground level floor height of any new building must be located no more than one foot (1') above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza; and the floor height of the ground level floor of the building must be no more than three feet (3') above the level of the abutting public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point along a street -facing building facade. d. Standards For Ground Level Floor Of Building: (1) The floor to ceiling height must be at least fourteen feet (14% except it may be reduced for existing buildings or where dwelling units are permitted on the ground level floor of the building. (2) Construction must meet the building code specifications for commercial uses, except where dwelling units are permitted on the ground level floor of the building. e. ^tom -Ground Floor Residential Exception: The board of adjustment may grant a special exception for multi -family dwellings to be located on or below the ground street level floor of a building, provided that the following criteria are met: (1) Where tThe proposed dwelling will be located in an existing building in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone landmark,aA rehabilitation plan for the property must be has bee; reviewed and approved by the Iowa City historic preservation commission. The rehabilitation of the property must be completed according to this plan before an occupancy permit is granted. Ordinance No. ?3_4gi 4 Page 21 (2) The proposed dwellings will not significantly alter the overall commercial character of the subject zone. (3) There aF8 Sete GE)Rdit!E)RS er buildiRg GharaGteFiStiGs that Make the stFee (34) If an existing building located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone OR a includes three (3) or more of the following commercial storefront characteristics, dwellings are prohibited on or below the street level floor of that building: (A) The main entrance to the building is at or near grade; (B) The front facade of the building is located within ten feet (10') of the front property line; (C) The front facade of the building contains ground floor storefront or display windows; and (D) The street level floor of the building was originally constructed to accommodate sales oriented and personal service oriented retail uses and/or has historically been used for these purposes. 8. Assisted Group Living: a. Maximum Density: Maximum density within an assisted group living use is as follows. For purposes of calculating maximum density, staff and live-in staff of a facility are not considered roomers. (1) In the RM-12-zone: One roomer per seven hundred fifty (750) square feet of lot area. (2) In the RM-20, RNS-20, CN-1, CC-2, and MU zones: One roomer per five hundred fifty (550) square feet of lot area. (3) In the RM-44, PRM, CO-1, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 aad Q 1 zones: One roomer per three hundred (300) square feet of lot area. b. Facilities: The group living use must have bath and toilet facilities available for use by roomers in such numbers as specified in title 17, "Building And Housing", of this code. In addition, the occupants may have access to a communal kitchen, dining room, and other common facilities and services. Y. Amend 14-4A-6D: Use Categories, Institutional And Civic Uses, Community Service Uses, Community Service — Long -Term Housing by deleting the existing provision and replacing it with the following: 6. Reserved Z. Amend Chapter 14-4, Use Regulations, by adding Article F. Affordable Housing as follows: 14-4F-1: Purpose: The purpose of this Article is to: A. Create a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City; B. Reduce concentrations of low and moderate income households in Iowa City; C. Increase the multi -family housing stock near the university and the City's urban core; Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 22 D. Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce; E. Increase opportunities for people of all income levels to work and live near key employment centers; F. Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse income levels; G. To reduce the number of housing cost burdened households; and H. Promote household stability and reduce the threat of homelessness. 14-4F-2: Definitions: For purposes of this Article, the following definitions shall apply: Affordable Housing: The collective reference to "Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing" and/or "Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing", as those terms are defined herein. HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Income Eligible Household: Except as set forth herein, a household is an Income Eligible Household for purposes of purchasing an Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing dwelling unit located on land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation pursuant to 14-2G if that household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually, or if not located on land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation, if that household has an annual income equal to or less than eighty percent (80%) of the (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Except as set forth herein, a household is an income eligible household for leasing Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing if that household has an annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in assets, excluding Retirement Assets, are not income eligible households. Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than the most current published HUD homeownership sale price limit for existing and new homes to an income eligible household. Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household, or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and rented for no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, and rented to an Income Eligible Household. Retirement Assets: Financial assets whose liquidity is limited or penalized until a person reaches retirement age, including, but not limited to 401(k)s, IRAs, pension accounts, IPERS, and TIAA-CREF, not including distribution of or income from the assets. 14-4F-3: Required Affordable Housing: A. Riverfront Crossings Affordable Housing Requirement. Except for developments providing Affordable Housing pursuant to a development agreement with the City executed prior to June 6, 2016, and except for developments exclusively providing elder apartment housing, any development containing ten (10) or more dwelling units on land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation is required to provide Affordable Housing dwelling units in an amount equal to or greater than ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units. Should ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units result in a fractional number, this fraction shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number for any fraction over fifty percent (50%) to establish the required number of Affordable Housing dwelling units. Any exempt elder apartment housing developments Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 23 shall be subject to periodic inspection to ensure compliance with the zoning code regulations of this title of such use. Affordable Housing shall be regulated pursuant to this Article. B. Parking Reduction. Affordable Housing dwelling units required on land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation in accordance with this Article shall be exempt from providing the minimum number of parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning code. 14-4F-4: Incentivized Affordable Housing: A. Form -Based Zones. Owners of land zoned a Form -Based Zone pursuant to Article 14-2H "Form -Based Zones and Standards" who voluntarily provide Affordable Housing in accordance with this Article may utilize the following incentives: 1. Parking Reduction. Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be exempt from providing the minimum number of parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning code. 2. Density Bonus. For building types that allow four (4) or more dwelling units, the maximum number of dwelling units may be increased by twenty-five percent (25%) if all additional units are Affordable Housing. 3. Minor Adjustments to Certain Zone Standards Set Forth in 14-2H-2 "Zones". Where at least twenty-five percent (25%) of dwelling units within a development are Affordable Housing, one of the following adjustments may be administratively approved on lots that contain Affordable Housing units where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans: a. Up to a fifteen feet (15') adjustment for the building type design site depth standards. This provision may be combined with reductions for relocation of utility easement or addition of new civic space not shown in the future land use map up to a combined maximum of twenty-five feet (25'). b. Up to a fifteen percent (15%) adjustment for the building type design site width standards. c. Up to a twenty percent (20%) reduction for minimum amount of facade required within the facade zone. 4. Minor Adjustments to Certain Standards Set Forth in 14-2H-2 "Zones" or 14-2H-6 "Building Type Standards". Where at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the dwelling units within a development are Affordable Housing, one of the following adjustments may be administratively approved for buildings that contain Affordable Housing units where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans: a. Up to a fifteen percent (15%) adjustment for building main body and wing standards. b. Up to a 0.5 stories increase to maximum building height. This bonus allows the building height to exceed the maximum standards for primary buildings found in Item 4a (Building Form; Height) of section 14-2H-2 "Zones" by 0.5 stories and by five feet (5'). 5. Additional Minor Adjustments. An additional minor adjustment allowed above may be administratively approved where Affordable Housing units are rented or sold to households making fifty percent (50%) or less of the Area Median Income. B. All Other Zones. Owners of land that are not zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation pursuant to Article 14-2G "Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts Form Based Development Standards" or a Form -Based Zone pursuant to Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 24 Article 14-2H "Form -Based Zones and Standards" who voluntarily provide Affordable Housing in accordance with this Article may utilize the following incentives: 1. Parking Reduction. Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be exempt from providing the minimum number of parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning code. 2. Density Bonus. Where at least twenty percent (20%) of dwelling units within a development are Affordable Housing, the minimum lot area and minimum lot area per unit may be reduced by twenty percent (20%). Alternatively, where at least twenty percent (20%) of dwelling units within a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) zone are affordable housing, the maximum residential density may be increased by twenty percent (20%). 3. Additional Incentives. Where at least twenty percent (20%) of the dwelling units within a development are Affordable Housing, one of the following adjustments to the standards set forth in 14-2A-4, 14-213-4, or 14-2C-4 "Dimensional Requirements" may be administratively approved in principle buildings that contain Affordable Housing units where the proposed adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and is consistent with the intent of the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans: a. Up to a fifteen percent (15%) reduction for any individual front, rear, or side setback. b. Up to a five foot (5) increase to the maximum principle building height. 14-4F-5: General Administrative and Programming Requirements: A. Methods of Achieving Affordable Housing. 1. Required Affordable Housing may be provided through one or more of the following: a. Onsite Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing; b. Onsite Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing; c. Contribution to an affordable housing fund pursuant to 14-4F-8A; d. Offsite Affordable Housing pursuant to 14-4F-8B; and/or e. Contribution of land pursuant to 14-4F-8C. 2. Incentivized Affordable Housing may be provided through onsite Owner - Occupied Affordable Housing and/or onsite Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing. B. Affordable Housing Agreement and Deed Restriction. 1. Agreement. Upon rezoning to a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation pursuant to Article 14-2G, the property owner shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City establishing which method(s) it will utilize. Upon application for a building permit to construct any development in which Required or Incentivized Affordable Housing is provided, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City detailing which how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, including details of the applicable programming and development requirements. This agreement must be executed prior to issuance of a building permit for the project containing Affordable Housing dwelling units. The City Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the Office of the Johnson County Recorder at owner's expense. 2. Deed Restriction. A deed restriction documenting the Required and/or Incentivized Affordable Housing dwelling units, selected method(s) of achieving affordability, term, applicable resale restrictions, and applicable occupancy and rental restrictions shall be placed upon the Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing dwelling unit(s) or, in the case of the Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing, shall be placed upon the land being developed contemporaneously with the issuance of the certificate of Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 25 occupancy. This deed restriction shall be recorded with Office of the Johnson County Recorder at owner's expense and referenced in any deed conveying title of any such unit or land during the Term of Affordability. This deed restriction shall automatically expire upon the expiration of the term of affordability. The City Manager is hereby authorized to issue any release of this deed restriction, as may be necessary and appropriate, in a form approved by the City Attorney. C. Term of Affordability. An Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall remain so for no less than the following number of years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Affordable Housing dwelling unit: 1. Required Affordable Housing. Ten (10) years 2. Incentivized Affordable Housing. Twenty (20) years D. Remedy: Failure by the owners to verify income in accordance with the provisions and rules of this Article is a violation of this Article and may result in the immediate suspension of any rental permit issued for a Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing unit. 14-4F-6: Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14-4F-5 and the following requirements. A. Development Requirements: 1. Dwelling Unit Types: Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be comprised of the same mix of dwelling unit types in proportion to the market rate dwelling units within the development. 2. Dwelling Unit Size And Quality: The Affordable Housing dwelling unit size shall be at least eighty percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type, shall have the same number of bedrooms, and shall be of similar quality, or as approved by the City Manager or designee. Housing developments with Incentivized Affordable Housing dwelling units that contain a variety of bedroom counts per dwelling unit shall provide a percentage of Affordable Housing dwelling units with a particular number of bedrooms that is similar to the percentage of non -set -aside dwelling units with the same number of bedrooms. 3. Location: Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the Affordable Housing dwelling units, unless approved by the City Manager or designee. 4. Timing of Construction: Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwelling units in the development. B. Program Requirements: 1. Occupancy: An Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the Term of Affordability, be occupied by an Income Eligible Household as the household's primary residence. 2. Income Verification: The annual household income shall be determined according to the HUD part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and verified by the city prior to close of the sale. 3. Rental Restriction: An Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing unit may not be rented, except an owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit. 4. Sale Restrictions: The following sales restrictions apply to all Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing, compliance with which shall be verified by the City Manager, or designee, prior to closing on the sale. a. Approved Purchasers: A seller of an Affordable Dwelling unit must sell the unit only to an Income Eligible Household. Seller shall determine a potential buyer's annual Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 26 household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. b. Sale Price: The sale price of any Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall not exceed the purchase price paid by the original Income Eligible Household purchaser or the HUD homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions: (1) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale. (2) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a licensed real estate agent. (3) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant to a properly issued building permit. (4) Special Fees: The seller shall not levy or charge any additional fees or any finder's fee, nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this Article. 14-4F-7: Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in Section 14-4F-5 and the following requirements: 1. Development Requirements: Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements for Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing set forth in Section 14-4F-6A. 2. Program Requirements: a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either: (1) no more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually; or (2) for projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority, no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually. b. Occupancy: Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing units must be rented to Income Eligible Households. If a tenant initially deemed an Income Eligible Household for purposes of occupying an Affordable Housing dwelling unit pursuant to this Article, but is subsequently deemed no longer income eligible upon annual examination of household income, that tenant's unit shall not be considered an Affordable Housing dwelling unit and the rent can be adjusted to market rate. To maintain compliance with the Affordable Housing requirement, the next available rental unit in the project of comparable size or larger must be rented to an Income Eligible Household. To that end, the Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing units need not be specifically designated in a fixed location, but may be floating throughout the development. c. Income Verification: The property owner shall annually verify that the Renter - Occupied Affordable Housing dwelling units are occupied by Income Eligible Households. Prior to the commencement of a lease, the owner shall determine a potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. Upon extension or renewal of a lease, the owner may determine a tenant's annual household income based upon federal income tax returns for all adults in the household. d. Owner Verification of Compliance: The owner must annually verify to the City that it is in compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed necessary by the City to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate suspension of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit. Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 27 14-4F-8: Alternative Methods to Provide Required Affordable Housing. For Required Affordable Housing, the owner may use one or more of the following methods to meet the Affordable Housing Requirement. If the owner desires to provide offsite Affordable Housing and/or a contribution of land, the owner must establish that onsite Affordable Housing or a fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund cannot feasibly be satisfied, as reasonably determined by the City. A. Fee In Lieu Contribution: In lieu of providing Affordable Housing dwelling units, an owner of land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation pursuant to 14-2G may contribute a fee to a Riverfront Crossings District affordable housing fund to be established by the City. The contribution per dwelling unit shall be determined biennially by resolution of the City Council based upon a formula that analyzes the difference between renting a market rate unit for the Term of Affordability and renting a dwelling unit affordably to an Income Eligible Household. The fund shall be utilized solely for affordable housing purposes, which may include administration costs, in the Riverfront Crossings District. B. Transfer Of Affordable Housing Dwelling Units Off Site: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing requirement cannot be satisfied onsite, as reasonably determined by the City, it may be satisfied by designating offsite existing or newly constructed dwelling units in the Riverfront Crossings District as Affordable Housing dwelling units. Any transferred Affordable Housing units shall in no way waive or reduce any obligation to provide Affordable Housing units within the development to which the obligation is transferred. In addition to satisfying the general requirements set forth in Section 14-4F-5, these units must satisfy the following requirements: 1. Development Requirements: a. Provision Of Units: Offsite Affordable Housing dwelling units, whether they are owner- or renter -occupied, shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements for Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing set forth in Section 14-4F-6. The City reserves the right to deny a request to transfer Affordable Housing units to a particular development if it would result in an undue concentration of Affordable Housing units within that development. b. Timing: Where the affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of newly constructed dwelling units, such units shall be constructed and pass final inspection no later than the date the occupancy permit is issued for the development creating the need for the Affordable Housing, unless otherwise agreed upon by the City Manager, or designee. Where the affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of existing offsite dwelling units, they shall be established as Affordable Housing dwelling units prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the development creating the need for the affordable housing. The marketing of the Affordable Housing dwelling units should occur no later than one (1) year after the first market rate dwelling unit in the site that generated the requirement passes final inspection, unless otherwise agreed upon by the City Manager. The affordable housing agreement pursuant to Subsection 14-4F-5B-1 shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for the development creating the need for the Affordable Housing. 2. Programming Requirements: a. Where the offsite Affordable Housing dwelling units are to be Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing, those units shall comply with the programming requirements for Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing set forth in Section 14-4F-6. b. Where the offsite Affordable Housing dwelling units are to be Renter -Occupied Affordable Housing, they shall comply with the programming requirements for Renter - Occupied Affordable Housing set forth in Section 14-4F-7. Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 28 C. Land Dedication: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing requirements cannot be satisfied onsite, as reasonably determined by the City, it may be satisfied by the dedication of land to the City of Iowa City or an entity designated by the City of Iowa City for construction of Affordable Housing dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of this section, upon consideration of the following factors: 1. Location. The land shall be located in the Riverfront Crossings District, in an area appropriate for residential redevelopment, as determined by the City; 2. Number Of Affordable Housing Units. The total Affordable Housing dwelling units possible on the land shall be equal to or greater than the number of required Affordable Housing dwelling units; 3. Dwelling Type. The land shall allow for the provision of Affordable Housing units of equivalent type (single-family, multi -family, townhome, etc.), floor area, and number of bedrooms to that which would have been otherwise required; 4. Land Value. The value of land to be dedicated shall be determined, at the cost of the developer, by an independent appraiser, who shall be selected from a list of certified appraisers provided by the City, or by such alternative means of valuation to which a developer and the City agree; and 5. Right To Refuse. The City reserves the right to refuse dedication of land in satisfaction of the affordable housing requirement if it determines, in its sole discretion, that such a dedication is not in the best interests of the public for any reason, including a determination that the City is not likely to construct or administer an Affordable Housing development project in a timely manner due to the unavailability of funds or other resources. Additionally, where the value of the land proposed to be dedicated is less than the value of the fee in lieu contribution established in accordance with the provisions above, the City reserves the right to require an owner to contribute a fee making up this difference in values. 14-4F-9: Administrative Rules The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish administrative rules deemed necessary to assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy of the rules shall be on file with the City Clerk and available on the City website. AA.Amend Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements In The CB-5 And CB-10 Zones, Except As Otherwise Set Forth In Subsection 14-5A-4B2 Of This Section, in Section 14- 5A-4: Off Street Parking And Loading Standards, Minimum Parking Requirements, by adding the following underlined text: Use Subgroups Parking Requirements Categories Household Multi- CB-5 Efficiency, 1 bedroom units: 0.5 space per living uses family Zone dwelling unit. 2 bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit. dwellings 3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit. Elder apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. CB-10 For buildings built on or before December 31, �2008: Zone Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 29 Bedrooms 1-10: No parking required. All additional bedrooms: 0.5 space per bedroom. (For purposes of this standard an efficiency apartment will be counted as 1 bedroom.) For buildings built on or after January 1, 2009: Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.5 space per dwelling unit. 2 bedroom unit: 1 space per dwelling unit. 3 bedroom unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces oer dwellina unit. Elder apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. BB.Amend Table 5A-2: Minimum Parking Requirements For All Zones, Except The CB-5, CB- 10, Riverfront Crossings Zones And Eastside Mixed Use District in Section 14-5A-4: Off Street Parking And Loading Standards, Minimum Parking Requirements, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Use Subgroups Parking Requirement Categories Household Single family and two For 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units: 1 parking living family uses space, plus 1 additional parking space for each adult occupant beyond 3. For units with 3 or more bedrooms: 2 parking spaces plus 1 additional parking space for each adult occupant beyond 3. Multi- All zones, Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 1 space per family except dwelling unit. uses PRM and 2 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. CB-2 3 bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. 4 bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit. 5 bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit. University impact area: 1 space per bedroom (see section 14-213-6, map 2B.1 of +o m;��t;�). PRM & Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.75 space CB-2 Zone per dwelling unit. 2 bedroom units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. 3 bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit. University impact area in the PRM zone: 1 space per bedroom (see section 14-2B-6, map 2B.1 of this) Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 30 G13 2 ZeRe EffiGieRGY and 1 bedrnnm i RitS: fl 75. spa Ge peF t. orirnnm i inifc: 1-5 spa Ges per unit. odreGm i Rits: 2.5 SpaGes per Unit. Elder 1 space per dwelling unit for independent living apartments units and 1 space for every 2 dwelling units for assisted living units, except in the PRM and CB-2 Zones. In the PRM and CB-2 Zones, 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. Use Subgroups Parking Requirement Bicycle Cate orie_s Parkin Community General community 1 space per 300 square feet of 10 percent service service floor area. Community service - 0.1 space per temporary 25 percent shelter resident based on the maximum number of temporary residents staying at the shelter at any 1 time, plus 1 space per employee based on the maximum number of employees at the site at any 1 time. 3 beds, 75 PeFGeRi , er CC. Amend 1 4-5A-4F-4: Off Street Parking And Loading Standards, Minimum Parking Requirements, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: DD. Amend 14-5A-5F-1 b: Off Street Parking And Loading Standards, Construction And Design Standards, Standards For Structured Parking In Multi -Family, Commercial Zones, The Eastside Mixed Use District, And The Riverfront Crossings Zones, Parking Within Building, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: b. In Multi -Family Zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first fifteen feet (15') of building depth as measured from the street -facing building wall. On lots with more than one street frontage this parking setback must be met along each street frontage, unless reduced or waived by minor modification. Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 31 The Building Official may also waive this requirement where a townhome-style multi -family unit has parking along a side street. When considering a minor modification request, the City will consider factors such as street classification, building orientation, location of primary entrance(s) to the building, and unique site constraints such as locations where the residential building space must be elevated above the floodplain. EE.Amend Article 14-813: Administrative Approval Procedures by adding Section 14-813-11: Reasonable Accommodations Request, as follows: A. Applicability: A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any individual with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities, when the application of a regulation, policy, practice, or procedure in Title 14 acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. B. Submittal Requirements: 1. The applicant must file a written application for a reasonable accommodations request with the Department of Neighborhood and Development services on application forms provided by the City. 2. Supporting materials must be submitted as specified on the application form or as requested by staff to allow a full review of the request. 3. If an individual needs assistance in making the request for reasonable accommodation, the City will assist to ensure that the process is accessible. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection unless otherwise required by law. C. Approval Procedure: 1. Upon receipt of a complete application, staff will review said application for compliance with the following approval criteria: a. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation, will be used by an individual with disabilities protected under fair housing laws; b. The requested accommodation is necessary to make housing available for the use and enjoyment of an individual with disabilities protected under the fair housing laws; c. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the jurisdiction; and d. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program. 2. Within thirty (30) working days of the date a complete application is submitted to the City, the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services will approve, approve with modifications agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove the application consistent with fair housing laws. 3. If the Director does not act within thirty (30) working days and the applicant does not agree to an extension of time, the application will be deemed approved. 4. The Director's findings on each application shall be set forth in a written decision, which will be filed in the respective property file in the Department of Neighborhood and Development services. A copy of said decision will be sent to the applicant at the time of filing. All written decisions shall give notice of the applicant's right to appeal and to request reasonable accommodation in the appeals process as set forth below. D. Appeals: 1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the reviewing authority's written decision, an applicant may appeal an adverse decision to the Board of Adjustment. Appeals from the adverse decision shall be made in writing pursuant to the procedures in Section 14-8C-3, "Appeals". 2. If an individual needs assistance in filing an appeal on an adverse decision, the City will assist to ensure that the appeals process is accessible. Any information identified Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 32 by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection unless otherwise required by law. 3. In deciding such appeal, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the approval criteria in Section 14-813-11 C-1. 4. In exercising the above mentioned powers, the Board of Adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this article or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the Director. 5. Nothing in this procedure shall preclude an aggrieved individual from seeking any other state or federal remedy available. FF. Amend 14-9A-1: General Definitions, Definitions, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: DISABILITY/HANDICAP: With respect to an individual person, someone who has a verifiable physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities; anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or anyone with a record of such impairment. PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. The target population is defined as persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions, and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: With respect to land use and zoning, it means providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities, flexibility in the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices and procedures, or waiving certain requirements, when it is necessary to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Ordinance No. 23-4914 Page 33 Passed and approved this 6th day of November yr Attest: City Clerk 2023. Approved by City Attorney' O ice — 09/14/2023 It was moved by Harmsen and seconded by Bergus that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: x x x x x x x First Consideration Vote for passage NAYS: Thomas, ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas 09/19/2023 AYplS: bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor,Teague ABSENT: Alter Second Consideration 10/17/2023 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Teague NAYS: Taylor, Thomas ABSENT: None Date published 11/16/2023 Kellie Grace From: Caitlin Owens <firstmatelin@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 4:04 PM To: *City Council Subject: Zoning Code Amendments RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello, I realize this email may be too late to be considered before the 10/17/23 City Council meeting but wanted to share my thoughts regardless. I live on Reno Street in the RSS zone. I join many of my neighbors in feeling distraught at the idea of our neighborhood becoming a college rental hot spot. However, I am even more concerned about the ongoing and serious lack of affordable housing that has plagued our city for years and I do not believe we will be able to address it in earnest if we are anti -development. I would love to see our neighborhood be an example of how thoughtful and innovative development can create opportunities for low income families and others to live in a near downtown area and enjoy the walkability, nearby schools and businesses, parks, and peaceful neighborhood as much as I do. So while I do hope zoning changes don't make it attractive for developers to build housing geared toward students, I would hate for an unintended consequence of opposing zoning changes for that one reason to make it difficult or impossible for community members looking for affordable housing to continue to not find it in my neighborhood. Thank you for all you do! Sincerely, Caitlin Owens Item Number: 9.b. I i CITY OF IOWA CITY �fil COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage housing affordability by adjusting standards for Accessory Apartments. (REZ23-0001) Attachments: ADU Cover Memo REZ23-0001 ADU Memo Packet Late P&Z ADU Correspondence October 4, 2023 P&Z Minutes August 2, 2023 P&Z Minutes Ordinance CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 6. 2023 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendments related to accessory apartments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability (REZ23-0001) Introduction One of several ways the City is looking to help meet the need for additional housing is to encourage accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). ADUs are small, self-contained dwellings units located as a subordinate use on the same lot as a primary home and come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and configurations. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended proposed amendments regarding ADUs at their meeting on October 4, 2023. This memo briefly discusses the outcome of that meeting. Background Staff first presented proposed amendments to ADU standards to the Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting on August 2, but the Commission deferred the item to October 4 and requested staff to solicit more public feedback regarding those changes. After conducting additional public engagement, staff brought back the proposed amendments to ADU standards to the Commission on October 4. The full proposed amendments and public input sessions are described in the memo to the Planning & Zoning Commission dated October 4. Recommendations At the meeting on October 4, staff recommended several changes to the standards regulating ADUs, including the following: 1. Allow ADU to be accessory to attached single-family and duplex uses, in addition to detached single-family uses; 2. Allow ADUs in all zones that allow household living uses; 3. No longer require that the owner live on -site; 4. No longer require an additional off-street parking for an ADU; 5. Only limit bedrooms, occupants, and additions by rental permit requirements for single- family and duplex uses and maximum size limits; 6. Increase the maximum size limit to the lesser of 1,000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the priniciple use; 7. Allow ADUs as a standalone use; and 8. No longer restrict ADU entrance locations for buildings with an attached ADU. Staff also recommended that the term "Accessory Apartment' be replaced with "Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)" based on feedback during the public outreach process. The Commission recommended approval by a vote of 4-3 (Craig, Padron, and Quellhorst dissenting) with one modification: That the owner -occupancy requirement be retained, i.e. that one unit on a property with an ADU be occupied by an owner of the property. r �®,,CITY OF I O W A CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 4, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendments to related to accessory apartments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability (REZ23-0001) Introduction Iowa City has a uniquely expensive housing market in Iowa. The City has focused on facilitating the creation of affordable housing opportunities and on enhancing housing choice within neighborhoods with a special focus on equity and low-income households. The City's Zoning Code (Title 14) impacts housing choice and supply, which can affect affordability. To further goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing, staff proposed several amendments to Title 14 to continue to enhance housing choice, increase housing supply, and support a more inclusive, equitable city. These include: 1. Increasing flexibility for a range of housing types to facilitate diverse housing choices; 2. Modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods; 3. Providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing by modifying dimensional standards and reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments; 4. Creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing (e.g., density bonuses and parking reductions) that would encourage income -restricted units throughout the community; and 5. Address fair housing concerns to help ensure that housing within neighborhoods can support a range of living situations and advance the City's equity and inclusion goals. Staff presented these proposed amendments to the Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting on August 2. The Commission recommended approval with the exception of standards relating to accessory apartments and directed staff to solicit more public feedback regarding those changes. After additional public engagement, staff is bringing the proposed amendments relating to accessory apartments back to the Commission for consideration with no further changes. Background One of several ways the City is looking to help meet the need for additional housing is to encourage accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), carriage houses, or in-law suites. Accessory apartments are small, self-contained dwellings units located as a subordinate use on the same lot as a primary home and come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and configurations. Possible ADU arrangements, including detached and attached units, interior lower- or upper -level units, above -garage units, and garage conversions. This allows them to fit discreetly into all sorts of locations including suburban subdivisions, walkable towns, and urban neighborhoods. The proposed changes to accessory apartment standards will encourage their construction and help meet the need for additional housing. Iowa City currently anticipates a demand for over 4,600 additional residences by 2030 but is currently only expected to meet 61% of that projected demand based on recent building permit trends. This suggests that Iowa City has a housing supply shortage which drives up the cost of housing. In addition, accessory apartments tend to have lower construction costs than other housing types that are typically larger. October 4, 2023 Page 2 Current standards appear to be a significant barrier to construction of ADUs in most areas of the city. Iowa City first allowed ADUs for the elderly and persons with disabilities in 1987 and widened occupancy to the general public in 2005. While ADU development increased after that change, construction has remained relatively muted with only 52 ADUs permitted since 1995 at an average rate of less than 2 per year (Figure 1). Of these, nearly one third (16) were constructed as part of the Peninsula neighborhood. Staff estimates that approximately 9,947 single-family dwellings are currently allowed to build an ADU. Removing barriers to ADU development allows an incremental increase in housing supply in such a way that limits impacts to the appearance of neighborhoods. Figure 1: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Permitted 1995-2023 5 5 5 a 4 4 4 3 3 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 w 2 ¢0 100 0 0 0 Io"o' Removing barriers to the construction of ADUs can increase the supply of housing and help older homeowners, single parents, young home buyers, and renters in seeking a wider range of homes, prices, rents and locations. Over the long run, these proposed changes should help better align the supply of housing with the demand and do so in such a way that provides a greater diversity of housing types throughout the city. The amendments will not solve all issues related to housing affordability or equity, but they can help improve housing choice, increase housing supply, encourage affordability, and more generally reduce barriers preventing the construction of housing types that are smaller and more affordable than detached single-family homes. By implementing these strategies, the City can become a more inclusive, diverse, and equitable place that provides housing opportunities for all residents. Public Enaaaement The proposed changes are based on existing policies and goals in plans and studies reviewed and adopted by Council over the course of several years (beginning in 2016). These include the City's 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, 2019 Fair Housing Study, 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan Update, and most recently, City Council's FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan. These plans were developed after multiple rounds of outreach, including surveys, public meetings, focus groups, and interviews. They were also reviewed and adopted through public processes. Relevant policies and goals adopted by Council are discussed in the analysis section below. In addition, staff held 2 open houses on September 13 and 14 to gain additional input from the public regarding proposed changes to ADU standards. 58 people signed into the open houses, and additional members of the public attended but did not sign the sheet. Staff also distributed a survey at the open houses and online. In total, 51 people provided responses. The full responses to the survey are available in Attachment 1. Feedback obtained in these surveys include the following: October 4, 2023 Page 3 • Allowing accessory apartments on properties with a rental permit was the only proposed change about which a majority of respondents (57%) indicated concern. • A majority of respondents indicated that all other proposed changes, except for those related to allowing accessory apartments on properties with a rental permit, were not a concern. • The proposed change that provoked the second most concern in respondents (45%), though not a majority, was no longer requiring a parking space for an accessory apartment. • Only a third or less of respondents indicated concerned with other proposed changes. Staff has also received some correspondence specifically related to these amendments. Correspondence received at the time of the publishing of this packet are available in Attachment 2. The memo dated July 5, 2023 (Attachment 3) provides more detailed background regarding the including the public engagement process and rationale that lead to the proposed changes. Over the past several years, the City has made significant progress towards addressing its affordable housing goals. The proposed amendments are the next steps meant to execute these adopted policies and goals. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Proposed changes to ADU standards are based on recommendations made by Johnson County's Livable Community for Successful Aging (JCLC) Housing Action Team and align with policy efforts made by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). JCLC serves as a unifying structure that fosters effective collaboration, communication, and education to build and sustain a livable community for successful aging. Action teams, such as that on housing, focus on specific topic areas and are comprised of public, nonprofit, and private stakeholders. A summary of current and proposed standards, in addition to rationale for each change, can be found in Figure 2. Fiqure 2: Current & Proposed Regulations Current Standard Proposed Standard Rationale for Change Must be accessory to May be accessory to This change increases the supply of lots detached single-family attached or detached that may allow ADUs while maintaining uses single-family uses, in the existing character of neighborhoods. addition to du lex uses Only allowed in certain Allowed in all zones that ADUs should be treated like other zones (RS-5, RS-8, RM- allow residential uses residential uses, so they should be 12, RM-20, & RNS-20) (includes RNS-12, RM- permitted in all zones that allow single- 44, PRM, MU, and some family or duplex uses. other commercial zones Owner must live on -site; Owner is not required to ADUs should be treated like other a rental permit is live on -site; a rental residential uses. Owner occupancy is not required permit is still required regulated in any other context in the zoning code. Occupancy requirements are also a barrier because they limit how successive owners can use property (complicating sales from divorce, job transfer, or death) and make financing more difficult. Requires 1 off-street No off-street parking Requiring an off-street parking space for parking space for required for accessory an ADU is a barrier because off-street accessory apartment apartment parking adds cost, and lot characteristics and topography can create challenges for siting a new parking space. October 4, 2023 Page 4 Limited to 1 bedroom Bedrooms and ADUs should be treated like other and 2 occupants occupants limited by residential uses, so rental standards rental permit and should apply to determine maximum maximum size limits number of bedrooms and occupancy (specifically that no more than 35% of the Size limited to the lesser Size limited to the lesser of 650 square feet, 30% of 1,000 square feet or unit may consist of bedrooms). However, of the floor area if in the 50% of the floor area of the City still recommends a maximum size main building, or 50% of the main building requirements to ensure that the ADU is the floor area if in an subordinate to the principle use without accessory building being overly restrictive. An accessory apartment The square footage for ADUs should be treated like other cannot increase the an accessory apartment residential uses, so building an ADU in an floor area of the main is restricted by maximum independent building or in an addition building by over 10% size limits should be possible. Does not allow a Allows a standalone standalone accessory accessory apartment apartment Buildings with an Buildings with an ADUs should be treated like other attached accessory attached accessory residential uses, so the location of apartment must apartment must entrances should not be more restrictive appear to be a detached appear to be a use than for primary residences. In addition, single-family home, so allowed in the zone; requiring an ADU entrance on the side or new entrances must entrance locations are rear of the house can compromise the face side or rear lot line not dictated design and increase the cost. In general, the proposed changes are intended to remove barriers to the construction of ADUs and ultimately increase the supply of housing. However, they also are intended to acknowledge accessory apartments as a legitimate use, and therefore they should be treated like other residential uses on the property. Staff continues to recommend that the owner -occupancy requirement for ADUs be removed on this basis and with the understanding that policies geared towards ADUs are intended to increase the supply of housing in a meaningful way. All relevant lot standards still need to be met, including minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, maximum accessory building height, and minimum open space which ensures that they fit into the neighborhood as well as any other allowed use. Staff also proposes that lots must meet the minimum lot size to allow an accessory apartment. Analysis Overall, the proposed amendment encourages the development of ADUs by allowing ADUs in all zones that allow household living uses and by expanding the building types to which ADUs can be accessory to any lot with up to 2 dwelling units. Figure 3 shows parcels that currently allow ADUs (green) in addition to parcels that would allow ADUs under the proposed amendments (yellow). The most notable changes are that ADUs would be allowed in areas that are zoned RNS-12, that are zoned lower density multi -family, and areas that contain duplexes. Note that the map does not account for properties with a current rental permit as properties can switch between owner- or renter -occupied at any time. In total, staff anticipates that this expand the lots on which ADUs are allowed by approximately 1,400 ADUs as noted in Figure 4. The proposed amendment would also remove the requirement that the owner of the property must live either in the primary home or ADU, i.e. ADUs could be accessory to properties with a rental permit. This could potentially allow ADUs on just over another 3,000 new ADUs for single- family rental homes based on current estimates of single-family homes with a rental permit (Figure 4). However, removing the owner -occupancy requirement may have a larger effect near the University due to a higher number of single-family rental units in that area. In a recent analysis from June 30, 2022, the City estimated that approximately 32.5% of single-family and duplex units in select neighborhoods near downtown have a rental permit. This would mean removing the October 4, 2023 Page 5 owner -occupancy requirement may allow as many as 2,333 accessory apartments (76% of those gained from removing the rental requirement) in these areas. However, there are also additional constraints in this area that make it challenging to add ADUs including smaller lot sizes and additional design considerations from Historic and Conservation District zones. As such, it is difficult to fully anticipate the number of new units that may be added. Figure 3: Map of Parcels That May Allow Accessory Apartments: Current and Proposed F. ure 4: Estimated Number of Lots Cit -Wide that May Accommodate ADUs Lots Lots that may currently allow ADUs 9,947 New lots that may allow ADUs by expanding permitted zones and uses 1,403 New lots that may allow ADUs by removing the owner -occupancy requirement 3,073 Total lots that may allow ADUs under proposed amendments 14,423 Encouraging accessory apartments provides several benefits in addition to increasing the housing supply and diversity throughout neighborhoods. ADUs can be used to: • Provide convenient living arrangements for families, caretakers, and/or older homeowners. • Reduce negative historical impacts created by exclusionary zoning. • Improve affordability for homeowners by creating extra income. • Provide opportunities for people seeking a wider range of homes, prices, rents, and locations. • Create compact growth which positively impacts the environment. • Enhance job opportunities by providing housing near transit and job centers. • Accommodate development in a cost-effective way. October 4, 2023 Page 6 Because of these benefits, encouraging ADUs in existing neighborhoods generally supports the City's sustainability goals by adding units in the most walkable areas of town, and reduced parking encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation. Comparable Communities Staff looked at comparable communities to identify how other local jurisdictions are regulating ADUs, including other large cities in Iowa and other college towns. Other jurisdictions use a range of different parameters. Many communities have recently reevaluated their ADU regulations to enhance their supply of housing, similar to Iowa City. These changes include things such as removing the owner -occupancy and off-street parking requirements, increasing allowed sizes, and expanding the number of ADUs allowed on a site to 2 or allowing ADUs to be accessory to lots with two units. In some cases, the maximum size and/or parking requirements are dependent on the size of the lot or unit. A summary of the ADU standards for comparable communities can be found in Figure 5. In general, many of the proposed changes are in line with other communities with similar situations to Iowa City, though each community has a unique set of regulations based on their circumstances. F. ure 5: ADU Standards for Comparable Communities Ownership Max. Size Limits Occupancy Design Parking Required Limits Required Cedar No 1,000 sq. ft. but None 2 ADUs allowed per lot, 1 space Rapids, not to exceed 1 attached & 1 Iowa footprint of detached; no other primary structure requirements Ann Arbor, No 600 sq. ft. for lots 2 No requirements No Michigan up to 7,200 sq. occupants ft; 800 sq. ft. for max. lots 7,200 sq. ft. or more Madison, Yes, i.e. 900 sq. ft. 2 Entries in a rear or side No Wisconsin must be bedrooms yard shall be connected owner- max. to a street by a paved occupied walkway or driveway; must be above a garage in certain zones Des Moines, Yes, i.e. 50% of primary Max. Must match primary 1 space Iowa must be structure floor bedrooms structure with regards to owner- area (if based on roof, materials, color, occupied detached, sq. ft. and character; only one greater of 576 entrance to a house with sq. ft. or 25% of an ADU may face a rear and) street Fayetteville, No 1,200 sq. ft. 2 2 ADUs allowed per lot, 1 space Arkansas occupants 1 attached & 1 if ADU is max. detached; 2-story ADUs larger shall limit access stairs, than 800 decks, entries & sq. ft. windows to walls facing (may be primary structure or on - alley street Durham, No 800 sq. ft. but None May be accessory to No North not to exceed single-family or duplex Carolina 50% of the uses; can only extend primary structure forward to the rear 25% floor area of the primary structure October 4, 2023 Page 7 Best Practices The proposed amendments regarding accessory apartments were developed by staff to reflect best practice supported by a variety of organizations. The American Planning Association's (APA) Equity in Zoning Policy Guide provides valuable insight into how to amend zoning codes to improve equity, which in turn assists with affordability. Recommendations include: Allow a broader range of building forms, lot sizes, lot widths, and residential types in low -density residential neighborhoods and avoid zones limited to only single - household detached dwellings. Evidence shows that single -household only residential zoning has a disproportionate impact on the ability of historically disadvantaged and vulnerable groups to access attainable housing and quality schools and services. In addition, allowing a wider mix of residential and non-residential uses in existing zoning districts can increase opportunities for historically disadvantaged and vulnerable populations to live closer to sources of quality employment, goods, and services. Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) without the need for a public hearing, subject to only those conditions needed to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties. ADUs may support the stability of existing neighborhoods by accommodating extended families or creating an opportunity to generate revenue from tenants, but it may be necessary to limit them to properties where the primary dwelling unit is the owner's primary residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when used as short-term rentals. Additionally, groups such as the AARP have begun strongly supporting ADUs because they can assist older homeowners maintain their independence by providing additional income to offset taxes and maintenance costs or by providing housing for a caregiver. ADUs can also become the residents' home if they wish to downsize, allowing them to rent out the main house or to have family move into it. As part of this effort, the AARP has drafted an optimal Model Local ADU Ordinance, which identifies the following ways to help encourage ADUs: • ADUs should be allowed in all zones that allow single-family residential uses/ • ADUs should only require those conditions needed to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties/ • Treat ADUs like other uses in the zone; this may include removing requirements for owner - occupancy if not regulated by zoning/ • Eliminating off-street parking requirements reduces the cost and difficulty of building ADUs. • ADUs should be allowed administratively (i.e. without discretionary approvals). • Limit design requirements which increase the cost of building ADUs. • Standards relating to neighborhood character can be problematic (especially if subjective). As noted above, the proposed amendments were designed with these best practices in mind. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The vision of the Comprehensive Plan supports creating "attractive and affordable housing for all people — housing that is the foundation of healthy, safe, and diverse neighborhoods throughout our city" (IC2030 p.7). To that end, the plan discusses the need for a mix of housing types within neighborhoods to provide residential opportunities for a variety of households along with integrated affordable housing options (IC2030 p. 21), and that infill development should add to the diversity of housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over -burdening infrastructure (IC2030 p.21). The plan also discusses strategies that support goals related to affordable housing including the following: • Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes. (IC2030 p. 28) • Develop neighborhood plans that help ensure a balance of housing types, especially in older parts of the city. (IC2030 p. 29). October 4, 2023 Page 8 • Discourage sprawl by promoting small -lot and infill development. (IC2030 p. 42) • Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. (IC2030 p. 28) The plan also mentions that when interpreting the future land use map, a diversity of housing types should be considered as one of the neighborhood design principles that applies to all developments. In addition, many of the proposed amendments have been identified in recent planning efforts to help further affordable housing, including the 2016 and 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plans, the 2019 Fair Housing study, and the City Council's most recent Strategic Plan. Specific recommendations from these plans incorporated in the proposed amendments include: • Consider regulatory changes to City Code, including... [p]ermit[ing] more building types by right as opposed to requiring a PUD process (density, multiplex units, cottage clusters, etc.) (2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, Step 9) • ...allow a wider variety of development types in areas throughout the community. Since most areas are zoned for low density, single family homes, this will require exploring ways to increase the density and types of housing allow[ed]... which also facilitates the creation of housing units at different price points within neighborhoods. (2019 Fair Housing Choice Study, Strategy 1.1) • Increase the allowable number and/ or type of dwelling unit in single-family zoning districts by right in more locations. Examples include ADUs, duplexes and zero -lot line structures. (2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan — Development Regulations 1); The plan also specifically suggests that the City should consider ADU's associated with rental housing. • Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. (FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan, Neighborhoods & Housing Action 4) Overall, the proposed amendments are consistent with the City's current policy direction, including the Comprehensive Plan. Next Steps Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended as illustrated in Attachment 4 to enhance land use regulations related to accessory apartments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Attachments 1. Survey Results and Open House Materials 2. Correspondence 3. July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice, increasing housing supply, and encourage affordability 4. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments 5. Enlarged Map Approved by: � • S1 � Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Survey Results and Open House Materials 1. Please identify which, if any, of the following proposed changes to City Code 1. Please identify which, if any, of the following proposed changes to City Code are a concern: are a concern: Must be accessory to detached single-family use Must be accessory to single- family or duplex use ❑ ❑ ❑ Only allowed in certain zones Allowed in any zone that allows 20, & RNS-20) 12, RM-12, RM- 12,residential (includes NS RM44, PRM, MU and ❑ ❑ ❑ some other commercial zones) Owner must live on -site; a rental permit is required Owner is not required to live on- site; a rental permit is required ❑ ❑ ❑ Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory apartment No off-street parking required for accessory apartment ❑ ❑ ❑ Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit ❑ ❑ ❑ Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq Size limited to the lesser of Ft., 30% of the floor area if in the main building, or 50%of 1,000 Sq Ft. or 50%of the floor area of the main building ❑ ❑ ❑ the floor area if in an accessory building Does not allow a standalone accessory apartment Allows a standalone accessory apartment ❑ ❑ ❑ An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor area of the The square footage for an accessory apartment is main building by over 10% restricted by max. size limits Buildings with an attached Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single- accessory apartment must appear to be a use allowed in family home, so new entrances the zone; entrance locations must face side or rear lot line are not dictated Must be accessory to detached single-family use Must be accessory to single- family or duplex use ❑ ❑ ❑ Only allowed in certain zones Allowed in any zone that allows 12, RM-12, RM- residential (includes NS ❑ ❑ ❑ 20, & RNS-20) 12,RM44, PRM, MU and some other commercial zones) Owner must live on -site; a Owner is not required to live on- ❑ ❑ ❑ rental permit is required site; a rental permit is required Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory apartment No off-street parking required for accessory apartment ❑ ❑ ❑ Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit ❑ ❑ ❑ Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq Size limited to the lesser of Ft., 30% of the floor area if in the main building, or 50%of 1,000 Sq Ft. or 50%of the floor area of the main building ❑ ❑ ❑ the floor area if in an accessory building Does not allow a standalone Allows a standalone accessory ❑ ❑ ❑ accessory apartment apartment An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor area of the The square footage for an accessory apartment is main building by over 10% restricted by max. size limits Buildings with an attached Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single- accessory apartment must appear to be a use allowed in family home, so new entrances the zone; entrance locations must face side or rear lot line are not dictated SURVEY CONTINUES ON BACK - - SURVEY CONTINUES ON BACK - 2. What is your age? Under 18 years ❑ 18 to 24 years ❑ 25 to 34 years ❑ 35 to 44 years ❑ 45 to 54 years ❑ 55 to 64 years ❑ 65 to 74 ❑ 75 years and over ❑ 3. With which gender do you most identify? Male ❑ Female ❑ Non-Binary/Non- Conforming 4. What is your zip code? 5. What is your race? (select all that apply) White/Caucasian ❑ Black/African American ❑ American Indian or Alaska Native ❑ Asian or Pacific Islander ❑ Other: 6. Are you of Hispanic, Latina, or Spanish Origin? Yes ❑ No ❑ 7. How would you describe your living situation? Live in a home owned by you or someone in your household ❑ Live in a home rented by you or someone in your household ❑ Other: 2. What is your age? Under 18 years ❑ 18 to 24 years ❑ 25 to 34 years ❑ 35 to 44 years ❑ 45 to 54 years ❑ 55 to 64 years ❑ 65 to 74 ❑ r75 years and over ❑ 3. With which gender do you most identify? Male ❑ Female ❑ Non-Binary/Non- Conforming ❑ 4. What is your zip code? 5. What is your race? (select all that apply) White/Caucasian ❑ Black/African American ❑ American Indian or Alaska Native ❑ Asian or Pacific Islander ❑ Other: 6. Are you of Hispanic, Latina, or Spanish Origin? Yes ❑ No ❑ 7. How would you describe your living situation? Live in a home owned by you or someone in your ❑ household Live in a home rented by you or someone in your ❑ household Other: Have any questions? Please contact: Have any questions? Please contact: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner at (319) 356-5247 Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner at (319) 356-5247 or by email at klehmann@iowa-city.org or by email at klehmann@iowa-city.org Attachment 1 Summary of Survey Responses to Proposed Changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards Please identify which, if any, of the following Concerned Unsure Not Responses proposed changes to City Code are a concern: Concerned Current Standard: An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor area of the main building by over 10% 15.9% 20.5% 63.6% 44 Proposed Standard: The square footage for an accessory apartment is restricted by max. size limits Current Standard: Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single-family home, so new entrances must face side or rear lot line 19.1% 10.6% 702% 45 Proposed Standard: Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a use allowed in the zone; entrance locations are not dictated Current Standard: Does not allow a standalone accessory apartment 22 7% 9 1% 68.2% 44 Proposed Standard: Allows a standalone accessory apartment Current Standard: Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants 28.9% 6.7% 64.4% 47 Proposed Standard: Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit Current Standard: Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq Ft., 30% of the floor area if in the main building, or 50% of the floor area if in an accessory building 30.4% 13.0% 56.5% 45 Proposed Standard: Size limited to the lesser of 17000 Sq Ft. or 50% of the floor area of the main building Current Standard: Only allowed in certain zones (RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20) Proposed Standard: Allowed in any zone that allows 33.3% 11.1 % 55.6% 46 residential uses (includes RNS-12, RM-44, PRM, MU, and some other commercial zones) Current Standard: Must be accessory to detached single-family use 34.1% 4.5% 61.4% 44 Proposed Standard: Must be accessory to single- family or duplex use Current Standard: Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory apartment 44_7% 2.1% 53.2% 44 Proposed Standard: No off-street parking required for accessory apartment Current Standard: Owner must live on -site; a rental permit is required 56.8% 9.1% 34.1% 47 Proposed Standard: Owner is not required to live on -site; a rental permit is required Attachment 1 Visual Summary (ordered from highest concern to least concern) Current Standard: Owner must live on -site; a rental permit is requireclProposed Standard: Owner is not .1% required to live on -site, a rental permit is required Current Standard: Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory apartmentProposed Standard: No off- street parking required for accessory apartment Current Standard: Must be accessory to detached single-family useProposed Standard: Must be accessory to single-family or duplex use Current Standard: Only allowed in certain zones (RS- 5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, R RNS-20)Proposed Standard: Allowed in any zone that allows residential 11.1"k uses (includes RNS-12, RM-44, PRM, MU, and some other commercial zones) Current Standard: Size limited to lesser of 650 Sq Ft., 30% of the floor area if in the main building, or 50% of the floor area if in an accessory buildingProposed 13.0% Standard: Size limited to the lesser of 1,000 Sq Ft. or 50% of the floor area of the main bu Current Standard: Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants Proposed Standard: Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit Current Standard: Does not allow a standalone accessory apartmentProposed Standard: Allows a .1% standalone accessory apartment 109 Current Standard: Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single-family home, so new entrances must face side 0 6"� or rear lot IineProposed Standard: Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a use allo Current Standard: An accessory apartment cannot . increase the floor area of the main building by over 20.5% 10%Proposed Standard: The square footage for an accessory apartment is restricted by max. size limits 0% 20% 40% 60% ■Concerned Unsure ■Not Concerned 80% 100% Attachment 1 What is your age? Responses 49 total 18 to 24 years 3 25 to 34 years 6 35 to 44 years 8 45 to 54 years 5 55 to 64 years 13 65 to 74 years 11 75 years and over 3 With which gender do you most identify?- Responses 47 total Male 30 Female 17 Non-Binary/Non-Conforming 0 Zip Code Responses 47 total 52240 19 52241 1 52245 15 52246 9 52333 1 52358 1 52761 1 What is your race? select all that apply) Responses 42 total White/Caucasian 42 Black/African American 0 American Indian or Alaska Native 1 Asian or Pacific Islander 0 Other 0 Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? Responses (27 total) Yes 1 No 26 How would you describe your living situation? Responses 47 total Live in a home owned by you or someone in your household 40 Live in a home rented by you or someone in your household 6 Other: Live alone in a 55+ apartment building 1 Survey Type Res onses 51 total Paper 29 Online 22 The City of Iowa City invites you to attend an ACCESSORY APARTMENT OPEN HOUSE The City of Iowa City is considering changes to the Zoning Code to increase housing supply, improve housing choice, and encourage housing affordability. As part of this effort, the City is proposing to modify how it regulates accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), granny flats, mother-in-law suites, guest houses, or carriage houses. The City is hosting two Open Houses to provide opportunities for residents to learn more about these proposed changes and to listen to your thoughts! What are Accessory Apartments? Accessory apartments are small, self-contained dwelling units located on the same lot as a primary home. ADUs can be attached or detached and come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and configurations. Images above and on the next page show some examples of where accessory apartments may be located. Current Standards Must be accessory to detached single-family use Only allowed in certain zones (RS-5, RS-S, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20) Owner must live on -site; a rental permit is required Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory apartment Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants Size limited to the lesser of 650 Sq Ft., 30% of the floor area if in the main building, or 50% of the floor area if in an accessory building Does not allow a standalone accessory apartment An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor area of the main building by over 10% Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single-family home, so new entrances must face side or rear lot line ■NENE ■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■n ■■E ®■■n end Unit Attaehetl Unit Interior Upper Level Unit ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■ ®■■N ■■I Interior Lower Level Unit Above Garage Unit Garage Conversion Proposed Standards Must be accessory to single-family or duplex use Allowed in any zone that allows residential uses (includes RNS-12, RM-44, FIRM, MU, and some other commercial zones) Owner is not required to live on -site; a rental permit is required No off-street parking required for accessory apartment Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit Size limited to the lesser of 1,000 Sq Ft. or 50% of the floor area of the main building Allows a standalone accessory apartment The square footage for an accessory apartment is restricted by max. size limits Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a use allowed in the zone; entrance locations are not dictated Background Iowa City is considering changes to the Zoning Code to increase housing supply, improve housing choice, and encourage housing affordability. The proposed changes seek to: 1. Increase flexibility for a range of housing types, 2. Modify design standards to reduce the cost of construction, 3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, including reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments, 4. Create regulatory incentives for affordable housing, and 5. Address fair housing concerns to help advance the City's �_ 3 _s' - ti Introduction �fNosOil OF 1i Gil Why These Updates? Iowa City has a housing supply shortage. The City is looking at encouraging accessory apartments as one of several ways to help meet the need for housing. However, current standards appear to be a significant barrier to construction. Consider: • Iowa City anticipates a demand for over 4,600 additional residences by 2030 • Only 61% of projected demand will be met based on recent trends, which will lead to higher housing costs • 55% of renters and 23% of homeowners are cost -burdened (i.e. spend more than 30% of their income on housing) • The City has allowed accessory apartments since 1987 but averages fewer than 2 units permitted per year equity and inclusion goals. • Only —0.5% of eligible properties have an accessory apartment Affordable Housing Action Plan • Recommended 15 action steps, including chaff Affordable Housing to zonlna mutations Action Plan - • The only action step not yet completed consists of the recommended changes to zoning regulations "Combdcrregull changes to Dry Code, including.. more budding types bydght as opposed to requiring a [Panned Hut Development) process god sty mutllplex units, cottage clusters, etc)" Fair Housing Choice Study • Lack of affordable rental housing was identified as Air 1196 a significant fair housing issue • The study recommended {—� improving housing choice _-_ as a strategy to help further fair housing allow a wider variety oPoevelopmenf types In areas throughout the commudlfy, Since mast areas are zoned rorlow-0en&fy sbglo- ramllyhomes, fbls will require exploring ways fo Increase the density and types orhousbg allowlcip wblch also bukrafes the creation or hou&rig volts of dlgemnf price poldfs wlfhln neighborhoods" a d 5 E 4 3 2 0 Affordable Housing Action Plan Update • The update was created following numerous public input sessions addition to a survey, targeted stak ® holder meetings, and other event ArnoPm • Reiterates the need to explore use PLAN allowed, including the possiblity o allowing rental units to have ADU "Increase the allowable number and/orfype ordwelling unti in single zoning thaduts bynght In more locations Examples Include ADi dup zero- lot line structures" FY23-FY28 City Council Strategic Plan f s Accessory Apartments Permitted, 1995 - 2023 in e- a Prioritizes recommendations in the updated Affordable Housing Action Plan 'Advanceptortrzedrecommendaflonsld the 2022Agordablc Housing Action Plan." Planning & Zoning Commission r • February: Introduced upcoming amendments • July: Summarized the proposed amendments • August: Provided comprehensive overview of the proposed amendments Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at evetevicgovorgi Accessory Apartments What are they? Accessory apartments, also known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), are small, self-contained dwellings units located on the same lot as a primary home. ADUs come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and configurations. This allows them to fit discreetly into all sorts of locations including suburban subdivisions, walkable towns, and urban neighborhoods. Possible ADUs arrangements include all of the following: ■ No Detached Unit Attached Unit Interior Upper Level Unil rldorolowejrLeyelUnitAUG Unit Gerege Con GARAGEADU Can include convecting all or pad man attached or detached garage into a residence, may also include adding anADU above a garage or building a new unit for both people end cars, as inthe example above. Why encourage ADUs? LTo increase housing supply and diversity throughout neighborhoods O O To provide opportunities for people �� seeking a wider range of homes, prices, rents, and locations To reduce negative historical impacts Icreated by exclusionsary zoning To enhance job opportunities by providing housing near transit and job centers LOWER LEVEL ADU Can be Greeted through the conversion m a homes excreting basement (provided that height and safety conditions are met), during construction of the house, ores pact of a foundation replacement. gNPS �O To provide convenient living arrangements for families, caretakers, U�J and/or older homeowners pk1 To create compact growth which positively impacts the environment To improve affordability for homeowners by creating extra income �MTo accommodate development in a cost- / IA effective way DETACHEDADU Aboard alone home on the same lot as a larger primary dwelling. Samples include backyard bungalows end convected outbuildings. Cunently, detached ADUs ere not allowed in Iowa City but would be underthe proposed amendments. (photo opudesty burerkyartl Anus Na the Ametican Planning Asseraahon) Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at vuvuvuicgov. org/NDS Must be accessory to detached single-family uses Only allowed in certain zones (RS-5, RS-8, RM-12, RM-20, & RNS-20) Owner must live on -site, a rental permit is required Requires 1 off-street parking space for accessory apartment Limited to 1 bedroom and 2 occupants Size limited to the lesser of 650 square feet, 30% of the floor area if in the main building, or 50% of the floor area if in an accessory building An accessory apartment cannot increase the floor area of the main building by over 10% Does not allow a standalone accessory apartment Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a detached single-family home, so new entrances must face side or rear lot line Proposed Changes 'May be accessory to attached or detached single- O family uses, in addition to duplex uses 'Allowed in all zones that allow residential uses O (includes RNS-12, RM-44, PRM, MU, and some other commercial zones) 'Owner is not required to live on -site, a rental permit is required No off-street parking required for accessory apartment Bedrooms and occupants limited by rental permit and O maximum size limits Size limited to the lesser of 1,000 square feet or 50% O of the floor area of the main building The square footage for an accessory apartment is restricted by maximum size limits O Allows a standalone accessory apartment 'Buildings with an attached accessory apartment must appear to be a use allowed in the zone, entrance locations are not dictated Am fNDDS 3 Cin or lowA CJn Guiding Principles: OTreat accessory apartments like other residential uses allowed on the property. © Remove barriers preventing the construction of accessory apartments. © Simplify and eliminate redundant regulations. OIncrease the supply of housing. Most Standards Are Not Affected Accessory apartments are only allowed where they comply with all relevant standards. This includes but is not limited to: • Dimensional Standards (such as minimum lot size, minimum open space, maximum lot coverage, etc.) • General Accessory Use Standards (such as setbacks and height limits for accessory uses, etc.) tal Permit Standards um bedroom Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at wwwicgov. org/NDS Cedar Rapids, Iowa R Ownership: No requirements Size: 1,000 sq. ft. max. but not to exceed footprint of primary structure Occupancy: No requirements Design: 2ADUs allowed per lot, 1 attached & 1 detached, no other requirements Parking: 1 space required Des Moines, Iowa Ownership: Must be owner -occupied Size: 50% of primary structure floor area max. (if detached, greater of 576 sq. ft. or 25% of rear yard Occupancy: Max. bedrooms based on sq. ft. Design: Must match primary structure with regards to roof, materials, color, and character, only one entrance to a house with an ADU may face a street Parking: 1 space required Ann Arbor, Michigan Ownership: No requirements Size: 600 sq. ft. max. for lots up to 7,200 sq. ft., 800 sq. ft. max. for lots of 7,200 sq. ft. or more Occupancy: 2 occupants max. Design: No requirements Parking: No requirements Fayetteville, Arkansas Ownership: No requirements Size: 1,200 sq. ft. max. Occupancy: 2 occupants max. Design: 2ADUs allowed per lot, 1 attached & 1 detached, 2-story ADUs shall limit access stairs, decks, entries & windows to wal facing primary structure or alley Parking: 1 space required if larger than 1 800 sq. ft. (may be on -street) , Madison, Wisconsin Ownership: Must be owner -occupied Size: 900 sq. ft. max. Occupancy: 2 bedrooms max. Design: Entries in a rear or side yard shall be connected to a street by a paved walkway or driveway, must be above a garage in certain zones Parking: No requirements Durham, North Carolina Ownership: No requirements Size: 800 sq. ft. max. but not to exceed 50% of the primary structure floor area Occupancy: No requirements Design: May be accessory to single- family or duplex uses, can only extend forward to the rear 25% of the primary structure Parking: No requirements By the Numbers: 9,950 Properties may currently construct an ADU 36% of single-family and duplex properties in Iowa City are rentals 52 ADUs have been permitted since 1995 +1 400 additional properties may construct an ADU due to proposed changes that expand where ADUs are allowed +39070 additional properties may construct an ADU due to proposed changes that allow ADUs for properties that are not owner -occupied Higher % of properties are expected to construct an ADU due to proposed changes that reduce other barriers to construction Single -Family & Duplex Rental Units City Park Renter III Total'. 500 Pemend 18% Roosevelt Rental. 172 Tmal 292 Emerald Rental 3s Total zz] Willow Creek Miller Orchard Rental. 166 R ntal8l Total .]87 T to 1.3W Percenf. 21% .-r✓ Percent 26% Analysis �fNDS Where ADUs Are Allowed: Current & Proposed Northsitle University Impact Area Goosetown _ Ramat 631 i Rental Districts Tota1.118] ___• Percenf 53% - Key for Tab on Map _ ' ',+ Cily High Name of Rental District Rental. lss Rental. Single lamily 6tluplex units e Total.1 136 Th oral peat Percenf l4% Tot IAll singlefamily&duplex a nits Percent P t of sing Is family duplex units with a rental perms College Green Rama[ z13 �A Tota1.3]s Peroem. s]% 1„ { Lon 9 Beni '[k ` Total s02 Paamt 26% Mark Twain Bowe ry Rental.135 . T 43 Top1 243 Pa28% ce285 ercen Pt 76% Sovice: Iowa Div postal l cl Impact Area Analysis, June 30, 2022 Parcel CerrentYAllows ADUs Of owneroccupied); Would Allow ADUs Under Proposed Charges Regamless of occupancy Parcel Currently Does Not Allow ADUs; Would Allow ADUs Under Proposed Changes Sorvice: ClfyAsseesorparceldafa downloaded June 14, 2023 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Excerpt 'We will growth from the Community Vision strive to preserve and build upon these aspects and investment that contributes to the overall sustainability Statement: our community while supporting compatible of Iowa City by Creating attractive and affordable neighborhoods housing for all people — housing that is the throughout our city' Preserve Historic Resources and Reinvest in foundation of healthy, safe, and diverse Diversity of Housing Types: Established Neighborhoods: A mix of housing types within a neighborhood provides Adopting strategies to assure the stability and livability of residential opportunities for a variety of people, including Iowa City s historic and established neighborhoods helps singles, couples, families with children, and eldedy to Preserve the culture, history. and identity of Iowa City Persons. Integrating diverse housing sizes and types Investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to major throughout the community increase the opportunity for employers in the city Preserves opportunities for People to People to live in the same neighborhood throughout the live close to work,school, and shopping, Promote walking stages of life. and bicycling and reduces vehicle miles traveled. Compatible lnfill Development: Qualityinfill development la an important role in P plays P neighborhood reinvestment and may include rehabilitating 9 9 existing structures or encouraging new development of vacant blighted, ordeteriorated property Development of infll sites should adde the diversity, of housing options without compromising neighborhood character Affordable Housing: H allowing for a mix of housing types, moderate) priced Y v g into housing can be incorporated into a neighborhood, rather 9 P 9 than segregated in one or two areas of the community Townhouses and duplex units can be mixed with single family homes within a neighborhood Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services absence cgov.orgl Next Steps NDS 1_p.DS CITY OF lows Grr October 4, 2023: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and Possible Recommendation November 6, 2023: Tentative City Council Public Hearing and First Reading November 21, 2023: Tentative City Council Meeting, Second Reading December 12, 2023: Tentative City Council Meeting, Third Reading and Possible Adoption M The public is encouraged to express their thoughts regarding the proposed amendments to staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and City Council. To provide your input, you can do one (or more) of the following: 1. Provide comments in person at public meetings (noted above); 2. Fill out and return the survey on the proposed code changes (shown right); and/or 3.Submit written correspondence for consideration by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council (send to Kirk Lehmann at klehmann@iowa-city.org) This brief survey allows you to share your thoughts on the proposed changes. Results will be shared with the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. Accessory Apartment Open House Survey 03 —'se GGG aoo 000 000 GGG 000 ®GGG Accessory Apartment Open House Survey �o �a �G o �G �o ®o ®G �o o p G Questions? Contact Kirk Lehmann Associate Planner klehmann@iowa-city.org 319-356-5247 Learn more about Neighborhood and Development Services at wwwicgov. org/NHS - ATTACHMENT 2 Correspondence Kirk Lehmann From: Mark Signs <mark.signs@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 10:26 AM To: Kirk Lehmann Subject: RE: Proposed ADU changes A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Ki rk, I have purposely tried to stay out of planning and zoning discussions since resigning from the Commission. But the current discussions around zoning changes for ADUs has me itching to comment. So here you go! I agree with what appears to be the majority of folks that allowing ADUs on non -owner -occupied properties would be a big mistake. I think a lot of the concerns coming from citizens are that this would result in landlords building ADUs on rental properties they already own, and turning those new ADU's into additional rental units. I think those are VERY legitimate concerns. As many have commented, MOST off -site owners never take quite as good of care of their properties as do MOST homeowners. Allowing investors to add more units (in the form of an ADU) to their properties will most likely result in additional rental units that will then likely negatively impact the neighborhoods. For years the city has looked for ways to limit the proliferation of rental units in our neighborhoods, especially the older ones. Allowing landlords to build additional ADUs on existing properties seems to fly directly in the face of those previous efforts. I am all for changes that would promote more ADUs on Owner -Occupied properties, and would support any zoning code changes that would limit non -owner -occupied ADUs accordingly. The only other thing I would question is the elimination of parking requirements for new ADUs. As you may recall, when I was on the Commission, I was always generally opposed to zoning changes that lowered the parking requirements for new development. If the city continues to reduce or eliminate parking requirements on residential properties, we will just end up with more streets jammed with more cars - creating more safety issues and problems for street maintenance staff. Iowans (and most Americans) like their cars. Yes, there is a small subset of avid bikers and walkers. But simply eliminating parking spaces is not going to convert car drivers to bike riders - in most cases. I do not believe the "if you don't build it, they won't come" philosophy works. But that's just me. I know the bike lobby in Iowa City is strong! Please share my comments with the P&Z Commissioners, City Council and relevant city staff. And say hello to everyone. I do miss seeing all of you! t Mark Signs South District resident Kirk Lehmann From: amy.charles <amy.charles@protonmaiLcom> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:31 PM To: *City Council; Kirk Lehmann Subject: Re: ADUs and owner residency A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi, all -- A followup: as I've reflected on this, I see a major problem with Iowa City ADU changes as described by this proposal that I should've noticed earlier -- I think it can be fixed, but if it isn't, I see it exacerbating problems in our rental market and solving none. As I see it, nothing here stops developers from running away with the ADU idea and building more high-priced student housing -- especially if multi -unit ADUs are on the table, as apparently they are. In particular, if owner - residence is not part of the package for ADUs, it's just a license to build more exploitative housing for the student market in existing rental properties, and encourage developers to buy houses in stable neighborhoods for the conversion value. If you're selling a $350K house and a developer buys it to rent, with another 3 units in the backyard, say that's $100K, 150K to build, that's a huge win for an unscrupulous developer. that could be a rental income stream of $8-9K/mo, or more. In fact I don't know why developers wouldn't bid up housing prices in those neighborhoods to till yield drops to something closer to the ROI expected on rental property -- suddenly that $350K house goes for twice that, so now you've not only created more wildly expensive student housing, you've priced even more people out of homeownership. The idea driving this "more ADUs, make it easy" push seems to be a simple but, I think, wrongheaded supply - demand belief: rental housing's too expensive, build more rental housing, prices come down. While in Econ 101 terms that's true, locally it's naive to the point of being wrong, especially near the university. I'll leave the explanation to the end, so see there if you're interested. Bottom line, though, if you grant developers a license to build more student housing near the U through under -thought -through ADU changes, I see us getting more of the usual problems and the opposite of what you've been trying to do through the UniverCity program. If those changes are more carefully thought through, then given the size of ADUs, I see two target populations that could be assisted with benefit to renters, neighborhoods, and the city: 1. Small low-income households, including elderly, disabled, immigrant populations, minimum -wage workers, and others (affordable housing) 2. Small LMI university/UIHC-employee households Those in the first category have particular need of living within walking distance of jobs, hospitals, transit, shops, and other amenities of city density; affordable rentals downtown also allow people to live car -free, erasing a major expense. Those in the second category are chronically priced out of IC's housing market as prospective homeowners, but the combination of job stability and close -in, affordable, quiet, non -student -housing rentals that reduce car dependence should allow more people to save down payments -- or remain long-term renters, if they preferred that -- and could arguably be more effective than the UniverCity program itself. If ADUs went in that direction, again with owner occupancy required, you could get a really good neighborhood mix of renters and homeowners at various income levels and backgrounds, create a stable long-term renter base and more diverse neighborhoods, and do some real good in solving the chronic unaffordability of IC. You could also create some relief on the voucher side by increasing the stock of small accessible units for people with disabilities. :) And I guess that's all I have to say about it for now. best, and thanks for the consideration - amy 'The supply/demand problem: As a small landlord these last 20 years -- as well as an Iowa Citian who's been watching these efforts since I first worked for the City in '95, when vacancy rates were stuck at 2% -- I'll point out that the Econ 101 idea ignores a massive, permanent distortion in the rental market, which is the UI dorms, which are anything but a free-market exercise in real estate. The annualized dorm fees in effect set a rent floor for the areas near the university. Dorm rooms are expensive, annualized, because not only does UI need them to be, they can be: students, especially first/second-years, are highly captive and they've got convenient grant/loan/tax support for the dorm rents, which are folded into COA and help determine their financial aid. Higher COA, more fin aid. All of it goes on the U-bill, which grants/loans/etc. pay automatically, adding to the convenience of dorm life. As for private landlords, we need be attractive only in relation to dorm life in order to draw student renters. And aggressive private landlords, which is most of them, will at best price just below dorm rates per room annualized, extracting every penny they can. With rents in that range, students and their parents -- already habituated to "this is what housing costs in college' — feel it's reasonable to trade convenience for independence and a sense of growing up. They'll pay even more for more room, privacy, amenities, etc. (Two years ago, when I had my last turnover, I had people contacting me while I was mid -signing, trying to bid up the rent sight unseen to something closer to dorm level, and being pretty tenacious about it. There were plenty of other, fairly similar apartments available nearby, no actual housing scarcity. But it was a case of "I saw an apt I wanted online, normal housing here goes higher, I'm fine with throwing money to seal the deal fast.") That artificial floor for the rental market, along with UI's reservoir of potential renters, means, I think, that we'd need to see a large oversupply of student rental housing before unregulated off - campus prices budged much: I don't see that major rental companies have an incentive to back away from the dorm -level rents otherwise. And ADUs are not going to create that kind of oversupply, which I'm pretty sure we don't want anyway. Student housing expenses are a serious problem for many students, and so are their effects on the rental market for everyone else. But after 30 years of blind "just build more, supply up, price down" with prices high and rising throughout, and giant, cheaply -built, future -white -elephant off -campus dorms now dotting the town, I'd like to see us approach that problem -- and, in this instance, ADUs — more thoughtfully. ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, August 31st, 2023 at 10:53 AM, amy.charles <amy.charles@proton mail.com> wrote: Hey, all - I saw Kirk's flyer about the ADU meeting, which I won't be at, but wanted to chime in In general I think granny flats are a grand idea, but: The owner -residency requirement needs to stay. We already have chronic problems with properties and tenants left neglected because the owners live elsewhere and have no intention of keeping an eye on what goes on or keeping the place properly maintained. I just called in a neglect case a couple months ago on a SFH rental with years' worth of problems around the comer from me -- for a while they just had noise problems, but the property became dilapidated. The owners live in Florida and over the years I've called them at work repeatedly to tell them to get their property maintained and in decent condition for their tenants. This year I gave up and turned it over to city enforcement. Clearly, though, they have no intention of maintaining the property unless forced to, and that's pretty normal for absentees. Owners need to maintain neighborhood skin in the _game. Increased noise levels have to be taken into account -- something that the owner -residency requirement helps with. One backyard granny flat has the potential to be a noise nuisance for every other house on the block, and we don't have much help forthem at the moment. Given that people work and go to school remotely at high rates, we have a big hospital/restaurant population here doing shiftwork and sleeping during the day, and we also have populations sensitive to noise, we can't just shrug and tell people there's not much we can do about chronic ADU-related daytime noise after going and making quiet neighborhoods noisier while trying to solve a different social problem. Dogs left in small ADUs to bark all day, loud music, parties, etc. need to be considered, and enforcement discussed and defined before new ADU rules are passed. And, again, if owner - landlords have to live in the main dwelling units, they're more likely to regulate noise themselves. Funding should be made available for maintenance, and maintenance enforced. Commercial property in IC is generally held to a much lower standard of maintenance than private residences are on the market, and a dilapidated ADU will affect the sale price of adjacent properties. Given the goal of easing housing availability, though, low- or no -interest loans and grants for maintenance should be available for ADU owners under 110%AMI. and maintenance enforced. New ADUs should be built as efficient dwellings. Good for tenants, good for the environment. Again, funding should be made available through the City to support installation of solar panels, heat pumps, double- or triple -glazed windows, R60 attic insulation, 2xT stud walls, orientation to take advantage of solar gain, and so on. ADUs built in or above garages will need particular attention -- these spaces are often underinsulated and encourage the use of space heaters. Consider a residence -based requirement. I think we all know that any new rental units built are likely to go preferentially to students, who are the easiest tenants to find and have ready access to loan money to pay rents with. If the intention here is to create housing for non -students, consider a requirement of establishing residence in IC. Otherwise, granny -flat away — and yes, more well-built duplexes and townhouses, please, they're great and affordable; some architecture wouldn't kill us, either — thanks for all the hard work amy ATTACHMENT 3 July 5, 2023 Memo Regarding Zoning Code Amendments r �®,,CITY OF I O W A CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 5, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendments to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability (REZ23-0001) Introduction Iowa City has a uniquely expensive housing market in Iowa. As a result, the City has increasingly focused on facilitating the creation of affordable housing opportunities and on enhancing housing choice within neighborhoods with a special focus on equity and low-income households. The City's Zoning Code (Title 14) impacts housing choice and supply, which can affect affordability. To further goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing, staff proposes several amendments to Title 14 to enhance housing choice and support a more inclusive, equitable city. These include: • Increasing flexibility for a range of housing types to facilitate diverse housing choices; • Modifying design standards to reduce the cost of construction while creating safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods; • Providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing by modifying dimensional standards and reducing regulatory barriers to accessory apartments; and • Creating incentives (e.g., density bonuses and parking reductions) to encourage income - restricted affordable housing throughout the community. The proposed amendments also include provisions to improve fair housing. This will help ensure that housing within neighborhoods can support a range of living situations and advance the City's equity and inclusion goals. At your meeting on July 5, staff will provide an overview of the proposed amendments, answer questions, and request feedback from the Commission. These amendments will not solve all issues related to housing affordability or equity, but they can help improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Consequently, they are just one part of the larger effort to encourage affordability. By implementing these strategies, the City can become a more inclusive, diverse, and equitable place that provides housing opportunities for all residents. Background Affordable housing is complicated because it depends on a variety of factors including income, household characteristics, education, the cost of necessities such as child and health care, and the cost of housing itself. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers housing to be affordable if a household pays no more than 30% of its gross income on housing costs, including rent or mortgage payments, other fees, and utilities. Most publicly subsidized housing is targeted to households that make less than a certain percentage of the area median income (AMI) based on household size and housing tenure, as noted in Table 1. HUD defines households making less than 80% AMI as low income. For households with lower incomes, it is often the case that the housing families can afford may not meet their needs, such as a large family in a one -bedroom apartment, or they simply can't find housing that is affordable. July 5, 2023 Page 2 Table 1: Household Income Limits Based on Household Size and Area Median Income AMI Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 Owner Households $64,650 $73,850 $83,100 $92,300 $99,700 $107,100 (80% AM 1) Renter Households $48,480 $55,440 $62,340 $69,240 $74,820 $80,340 60% AM I Effective June 15, 2023, and updated annually One of the primary factors affecting housing affordability in Iowa City is continued growth. The metro provides a great quality of life and the University of Iowa and University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics helps provide a strong economic base. These in turn draw new residents. However, continued growth has also strained housing affordability, especially for lower income households, because the demand for housing is not being met by an adequate housing supply of new construction as noted in the City's recent residential development analysis (Attachment 1). This leads to increased competition, rising rental prices (especially in neighborhoods near the university), and higher sales prices. As a result, certain households can be priced out of the city. Another factor that influences housing choice and supply, and therefore the cost of housing, is the Zoning Code. Zoning is a tool used by the City to implement its Comprehensive and District Plans by providing rules for how land can be developed and used, including what structures can be built where and how they may be designed. The code must balance multiple goals, including protecting property values, encouraging appropriate uses of land, providing for a variety of housing types, promoting economic stability of existing and future land uses, lessening congestion and promoting access, preventing overcrowding of land, avoiding undue concentration of population, and conserving open space and natural, scenic, and historic resources. Given this context, it is crucial to continually assess whether the code is addressing the policy goals of the City as identified through public input processes and adopted plans. Public Engagement City Council adopted its first Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2016. The Plan identified 15 action steps based on goals in long-term planning documents and on previous public input about how the City could help address housing affordability. Since then, the City completed 14 of the action steps in the plan with the exception of regulatory changes to the code in support of affordable housing. In addition, the City continued engaging stakeholders during and after this process to identify additional solutions and barriers preventing the construction of affordable housing. In 2019, the City adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study which comprehensively reviewed impediments to accessing housing because of protected class such as race, gender, or disability as codified in the federal Fair Housing Act. This Study included recommended actions to affirmatively further fair housing based on extensive public input such as targeted feedback from stakeholder interviews and focus groups, a fair housing survey, public events, and a public adoption process. One of the most significant fair housing issues identified was lack of affordable rental housing, and improving housing choice was one of many strategies recommended to help address this issue. The full list of recommendations is included in Attachment 2. The City updated its Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2022 to build off previous efforts in support of affordable housing. Its recommendations, included in Attachment 3, were developed following nearly a year of data review and community engagement. Public input included the following: • American Rescue Plan Act citywide survey with over 1,800 responses and listening posts; • General outreach activities at Wetherby National Night Out, Fairmeadows Party in the Park, and CommUnity Crisis Services and Iowa City Compassion Food Bank distributions; • Meetings with targeted stakeholders such as the Disability Services Coordinating Committee, University of Iowa Student Government leadership, Catholic Worker House, July 5, 2023 Page 3 Agency Impact Coalition, Open Heartland, and community and economic development organizations; and Comments from the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association and Iowa City Area Association of Realtors regarding development regulations and from the Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. City Council drew upon previous planning work, studies, and community conversations to refine strategies, determine action steps, and establish priorities for their FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan. A summary of the action steps, which includes advancing prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan, is included in Attachment 4. While the City has made significant progress since 2016, the proposed amendments are another step towards achieving the City's goals as the culmination of these extended efforts. Zoning Code Amendment Summary & Justification The proposed amendments to Title 14 Zoning are intended to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability while also enhancing equity in Iowa City. The following list describes current and proposed regulations, organized by topic. A future memo will include specific language and more detailed analysis. 1. increase flexibility for a range of housing types The City of Iowa City has regulated uses since the adoption of its first zoning code in 1925. Over time, the ordinance expanded from simply distinguishing between residential, business, and industrial uses and zones to more complex structures regulating housing types and household arrangements, in addition to where they may be located. This has often resulted in zones that segregate and discourage housing types which are more financially accessible to lower income households in much of the community, even if they would not create substantial impacts. Consequently, the City has identified the need to expand the range of housing types allowed, especially in single-family zoning districts, in its 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan, its 2019 Fair Housing Study, and again in its 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. The following changes are intended to create flexibility and streamline processes for a variety of more affordable housing types that would have limited impacts on neighborhood character. a. Allow duplex and attached single-family uses throughout single-family residential zones. Currently duplexes and attached single-family homes are only allowed on corner lots in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones. The proposed amendment would allow such uses to be located anywhere in a block. This provides additional flexibility to facilitate the inclusion of these housing types in more neighborhoods compared to current requirements. b. Allow townhome-style multifamily provisionally in the RS-12 zone. Currently up to 6 attached single-family dwelling units (i.e., one unit per lot) can be located in the RS-12 zone. The proposed amendment would allow up to 6 side -by -side, attached dwelling units to be located on one lot. Generally, these two uses are indistinguishable from the street since the only difference is the composition of lots. As such, this provides an additional method to provide housing without affecting the appearance of the neighborhood. c. Allow multi -family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones by special exception and provisionally allow multi -family uses in the CC-2 zone. Currently, the code only allows multi -family uses on the ground floor in a few Central Business zones under very specific circumstances. In most commercial zones, multi -family uses are only allowed above the ground floor. Additionally, multi -family uses in the CC-2 zone require a special exception which must be approved by the Board of Adjustment. The proposed change would allow multi -family uses provisionally in the CC-2 zone and would also allow multi -family uses on the ground floor in most commercial zones through a special exception. This would mean a ground floor multi -family use must be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment to ensure all July 5, 2023 Page 4 approval criteria are met while multi -family uses on upper floors would be allowed provisionally in most commercial zones. This simplifies the process in most mixed -use contexts while permitting ground floor multi -family uses only where they are appropriate. d. Regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses in RM-12, CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 zones. Assisted group living uses, which include assisted living facilities and group care facilities such as nursing homes, are currently allowed in many but not all zones where multi -family uses are allowed. In some cases, additional approval processes are also required. The proposed amendment would regulate assisted group living uses more consistently with multi -family uses by allowing it in more commercial zones, eliminating the need for a special exception in the RM-12 zone, and removing it as an allowable use in the CI-1 zone. The CI-1 zone is an intensive commercial zone where residential uses are typically not allowed. This provides for a greater variety of living arrangements without impacting the character of each zone. 2. Modify design standards Standards regarding building and site design based on zone, use, and location help ensure safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. However, the 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan identified a need to review the multi -family site development standards to reduce cost and expedite approvals, which has been supported by ongoing feedback from the Affordable Housing Coalition and Homebuilders Association. Design standards continue to be important, but staff recommends some adjustments to help reduce the cost and timing of compliance without impacting the purpose of the standards. a. Eliminate some multi -family site development standards to provide flexibility. Buildings containing multi -family or group living uses not built of masonry or stucco must have a 2- foot base of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete, and where wall materials change, they must wrap 3' around the corner. This often requires additional material which has cost and design implications. Removing these provisions will improve affordability and flexibility while continuing to meet the intent of the multi -family site development standards. b. Adiust standards to allow attached single-family and duplex uses in mid -block locations. Attached single-family and duplex uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones are only allowed on corner lots, and each unit's main entrance and garage must face a different street to appear like a single-family home. The proposed amendment would allow attached single- family and duplex uses in mid -block locations which would require different standards. Staff proposes amending the use standards in such a way to facilitate mid -block duplex and attached single-family uses consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood. c. Simplify the process to reduce parking setbacks for townhome-style multi -family uses. Currently, townhome-style multi -family uses cannot have parking for the first 15' of building depth. This makes sense for the front, but parking for end units must be set back 15' where they abut a street. While this standard may be waived by minor modification, it requires additional process and there is no similar requirement for attached single-family uses. The proposed amendment would allow the Building Official to simply waive this requirement for townhome-style multi -family uses without a minor modification. 3. Provide additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing Iowa City is always balancing the demand for student rentals near downtown with concerns regarding quality of life for long-term residents and redevelopment in older neighborhoods. Residents near the edge of the city are also often wary of new development. As a result, single- family zones with lower densities, specifically RS-5 and RS-8, often become a default to try and minimize neighborhood opposition. This has several impacts including more conventional development patterns at the edge of the city that are often at odds with the City's sustainability and equity goals. In some areas, RS-5 was also applied to historic small lot areas near downtown July 5, 2023 Page 5 which created non -conforming lots. In addition, planned development overlays are often required to recreate neighborhoods like those in the core of the city. Additionally, standards like bedroom caps for non -single-family detached units and policies on accessory apartments (a.k.a. accessory dwelling units) limit what housing types can serve households throughout the City. a. Modify dimensional standards to better align with existing lots and newer form -based standards, and to ensure greater consistency by use. Current and proposed dimensional standards are noted in the table below. In some older neighborhoods, lot sizes and widths do not conform to current zoning requirements, and standards for missing middle housing types are well above those in recently adopted for form -based zones (14-2H). The proposed amendment would reduce the minimum lot size and width for detached single- family uses in RS-5 zones and allow the RNS-12 zone to utilize the single-family density bonus which together align standards more closely to historic lot requirements. In addition, it would reduce lot widths for detached single-family uses in RM zones to match those for single-family uses in other zones. Finally, it would reduce minimum standards for duplex and attached single-family uses in RS-5 and RS-8 zones to be closer to those in the recently adopted form -based zones. These updates provide additional flexibility and enhance the supply of housing in a way that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Zone Use Lot Size (Sq. Ft. Area/ Unit (Sq. Ft. Lot Width Ft. Frontage Ft. RS-5 Detached Single-family Current 8,000 (6,000 w/ rear access 8,000 (6,000 w/ rear access 60 (50 w/ rear access) 45 (30 w/ rear access) Proposed 6,000 (5,000 w/ rear access 6,000 (6,000 w/ rear access 50 (45 w/ rear access) 40 (30 w/ rear access) Duplex Current 12,000 6,000 80 80 Pro osed 10,000 5,000 70 70 Attached Single -Family Current 6,000 6,000 40 40 Proposed 5,000 5,000 35 35 Other Uses Current 8,000 n/a 60 45 Proposed 6,000 n/a 50 40 RS-8 Duplex Current 8,700 4,350 70 70 Proposed 8,000 4,000 60 60 Attached Single -Family Current 4,350 4,350 35 35 Proposed 4,000 4,000 30 30 RNS- 12 Detached Single-family Current 5,000 5,000 45 25 Proposed 5,000 (3,000 w/ rear access 5,000 (3,000 w/ rear access 45 (30 w/ rear access) 25 (20 w/ rear access) RM- 12 Detached Single-family 5,000 5,000 55 40 osed nochan a no chap a 45 no chap e RM- Detached Single-family ;Current rent 5,0005,0005520 osed no chap a no chan a 45 no chap e b. Allow additional bedrooms for attached sinale-familv. duplex and multi-familv uses outside of the University Impact Area. The code limits multi -family uses to 3 bedrooms and duplex and attached single-family uses to 4 bedrooms. Staff recommends increasing the number of bedrooms allowed outside of the University Impact Area (see map in Attachment 5) to 4 bedrooms for multi -family uses and to 5 for duplex and single-family attached uses. This allows these uses to accommodate a wider range of family types in areas where development pressure for student rentals is less than near downtown. c. Encourage accessory apartments in a broader variety of contexts and reduce barriers to construction. Currently, accessory apartments are only allowed in conjunction with owner- July 5, 2023 Page 6 occupied, detached single-family homes in a limited number of zones. The proposed amendment would make several changes generally based on recommendations by the Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board (Attachment 6). Proposed changes include allowing accessory apartments on any lot that allows household living uses and does not contain more than two dwelling units as a principal use (including all single-family and duplex lots). In addition, the amendment would remove barriers such as requirements for owner -occupancy, an additional parking space, that additions not exceed 10% of an existing building's floor area, that the unit only have one bedroom, and that detached accessory apartments not exceed 50% of an accessory building's floor area. It would also increase the allowable size of a detached accessory apartment to 1,000 square feet, though it still must be smaller than a percentage of the principal use. These changes help increase the supply of housing by encouraging the development of accessory apartments. 4. Create regulatory incentives for affordable housing The proposed amendments above help enhance housing diversity and increase housing supply, but they do not specifically create income -restricted affordable units for low-income households. As such, staff also recommends creating new regulatory incentives (i.e., density bonuses, flexibility, and parking reductions) for affordable housing in conventional zones. This would help reduce the cost of units in exchange for providing housing for low-income households in ways similar to other programs that directly subsidize affordable housing. As part of these changes, staff recommends consolidating multiple sections that encourage the provision of affordable housing into one section. This should enhance understanding and streamline administration. a. Create a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zoning districts. Currently the City offers height bonuses for affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings and density bonuses in Form -Based zones, but conventional zones only provide density bonuses for alleys serving single-family detached housing, for multi -family elder housing, for quality design elements in certain zones, and for features promoting sustainability. Staff proposes adding a 20% density bonus in exchange for 20% of units in a development being regulated as affordable housing for 20 years. The bonus would be administered through existing processes, primarily during site plan, subdivision, or OPD rezoning review depending on the project. This would help off -set the financial costs of providing affordable housing by increasing the allowable number of dwelling units. The proposed change may also include additional flexibility from dimensional and site development standards and would consolidate multiple sections of the zoning code that address affordable housing into a common set of definitions, requirements, and incentives. b. Expand existing parking reductions for affordable housing to all zones. Currently in the Riverfront Crossings District and Form -Based Zones, no minimum amount of parking is mandated for affordable housing. The code also allows a minor modification in CB-5 and CB-10 zones to exempt up to 30% of dwelling units in an affordable housing project from the minimum parking requirements. These should be consolidated into a single requirement exempting income -restricted affordable housing from minimum parking requirements in all zones if it serves that purpose for 20 years. This requirement will help offset the cost of providing affordable housing through an indirect subsidy equal to the cost of building parking areas. 5. Address fair housing In order to make Iowa City a more equitable place to live, staff also proposes amendments to help enhance fair housing as recommended by the City's 2019 Fair Housing Study. a. Create a process to request reasonable accommodations from the zoning code. By federal law, cities are obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to land use or zoning policies when they may be necessary to allow persons with disabilities to have an equal July 5, 2023 Page 7 opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Currently, the zoning code has some specific waivers (such as a minor modification to allow a ramp in the front setback), but they do not cover every accommodation and are not easily found. Adding a "Reasonable Accommodations Request" process would streamline the ability to grant reasonable accommodations with a defined approval procedure. b. Reclassify community service — long term housing uses as a residential use. Currently, long-term housing operated by a public or nonprofit agency for persons with disabilities is classified as a community service — long term housing use, which is considered an institutional use and is regulated differently from residential uses. Major differences include that community service — long term housing is only allowed in a few commercial zones (including the CI-1 zone which does not allow household living uses), but it is not allowed in residential or the CN-1, CB-10 or MU zones. On one hand, long term housing uses allow higher densities and less parking than residential uses in the zones in which it is allowed, and it is typically accompanied by on -site supportive services. On the other, it can trigger additional process where it is near single-family residential zones, and it requires a neighborhood meeting and management plan which are not required for any other residential use that houses persons with disabilities. To date, only two properties are classified as community service — long term housing uses. The proposed amendment would reclassify community service — long term housing as a residential use, and it would specify that supportive services only for residents are considered an accessory use. Where supportive services are provided for a population outside of a development, they would be considered a separate use. The proposed amendment would allow housing with supportive services for persons with disabilities more widely in the community while addressing a potential fair housing issue. Next Steps At the Planning & Zoning Commission's first meeting in August, staff will present proposed changes to zoning code. A future memo to the Commission will provide a more detailed outline of the proposed Zoning Code amendments, along with additional analyses. Draft code language will also be available for public review, and staff will accept comments throughout the adoption period. Attachments 1. Memo Regarding Iowa City Residential Development in 2022 2. Excerpt of Recommendations from the Fair Housing Choice Study, 2019 3. Excerpt of Recommendations from the Affordable Housing Action Plan Update, 2022 4. Excerpt of the Action Plan from the FY23-FY28 City Council Strategic Plan 5. Map of the University Impact Area 6. Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board Recommendations for Code/Ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Approved by: t� • % ^� Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 15, 2023 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner Re: Iowa City Residential Development in 2022 Introduction: Every year, the City of Iowa City analyzes residential subdivision and building permit data to track development patterns and to compare recent and long-term trends. The goal is to provide accurate information that can be used during land use and planning decision -making processes, and to provide a discussion on implications for future growth. Key takeaways in 2022 include: - 2022 continued the trend of low levels of residential lot creation from the past few years. - The number of dwellings units permitted increased slightly from 2021, but the City is still seeing fewer units permitted than before the pandemic. - Permit activity continues to outpace the creation of new lots, which diminishes the supply. - If residential growth continues its recent pace, the City will only be able to accommodate less than 6,300 new residents by 2030, compared to a projected demand of 10,240. - While redevelopment can provide some additional housing, the City is still on track to experience unmet demand and deplete its supply of all vacant lots. Where housing demand remains unmet, the City may see impacts to its population growth and the growth of surrounding communities, which has implications on the City's sustainability and housing affordability goals. One of the fundamental aspects of planning is being able to accommodate new growth. Staff believes it is important to continue encouraging residential development in areas with access to City services, as well as in the City's planned growth areas. Background: Residential development is the process by which land is prepared for new dwellings, either as new construction on vacant land or redevelopment on land that was previously developed. It includes a series of steps with each step provides more clarity to the size, type, and appearance of the development. However, it is the final two steps of the land development process that provide the best understanding of how many new dwelling units are expected in the next few years: - Final Plats: A subdivision permanently delineating the location and dimensions of features such as lots, streets, easements, and other elements pertinent to the transfer of property. - Building Permits: The final administrative approval of building plans to allow construction. In general, the City distinguishes between three types of development. Single-family development includes one principal dwelling unit on a lot, which may be detached or attached to adjacent units (such as townhomes) and which may include accessory dwelling units. Duplex development includes two principal units on a single lot. Multi -family development includes three or more principal dwelling units on a single lot, which may include apartments or condominiums. In buildings with a mix of residential and non-residential uses, all dwellings are considered multi- family. March 15, 2023 Page 2 Analysis: This section reviews short-term and long-term trends on the approval of final plats, the issuance of building permits, and the number of vacant lots. This is used to estimate how long the supply of lots will last given recent development activity. Final Plat Activity In 2022, City Council approved two final plats with residential components: Sandhill Estates Part 5 in the south and Hickory Trail Estates in the northeast. While they encompass 57.63 acres, only 18.65 will be developed with 38.98 acres dedicated as parkland. In total, these subdivisions created lots that can accommodate 18 single-family units and an assisted living use with an estimated 140 beds (which are counted as dwelling units in Figure 1). Both properties were zoned Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). In 2022, the residential lots platted will accommodate the lowest number of single-family dwelling units since at least 1990 with the exception of 2010 (long-term trends are in Attachment 1). This is somewhat offset by the multi -family lot with a proposed 140-bed assisted living facility. While beds typically do not count as dwelling units, they do help accommodate some residential growth. Overall, the number of lots produced were below the average lots platted from 2012 to 2021, which would have accommodated an average of 128 single-family, 7 duplex, and 136 multi -family units annually. Figure 1 shows residential lots subdivided by type from 2012 to 2022. Figure 1: Residential Lots Subdivided by Housing Type (in Anticipated Dwelling Units), 2012-2022 450 400 350 a 300 m 250 0- 200 150 50 10 I I I I I I I I I 11 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 ■Multi -Family 209 76 7 144 98 279 206 204 108 32 140 ■Duplex 16 0 2 18 0 14 12 0 0 12 0 ■Single Family 111 154 254 259 169 31 105 79 56 65 18 Over the previous 30 years, enough lots were created to accommodate an average of 133 single- family units, 11 duplex units, and 123 multi -family units each year. This indicates that the production of single-family and duplex lots has somewhat decreased over time, while the production of lots accommodating multi -family units has increased. However, lot creation tends to occur in cycles lasting about 10 years with a recent peak in 2015. The City appears to be near the low point of its development cycle, though staff had hoped to see a larger rebound in development trends after last year. If past trends hold, development may increase over the next few years to peak around 2026. Several final plat applications are currently under review this year, which should help numbers in 2023. March 15, 2023 Page 3 Building Permit Activity With regards to building activity, the City issued permits for approximately 363 dwelling units in 2022. Figure 2 shows residential building permits issued by type from 2012 to 2022. Trends for building permits include the following: - Single -Family: The number of single-family building permits sunk to 95 units from a brief uptick during 2021 and is now well below the 10-year (138) and 30-year (145) averages. Since 1990, 358 more single-family building permits were issued compared to lots created, which has decreased the supply of vacant single-family lots over time. - Duplex: Only 2 duplex units were permitted in 2022, which is lower than the 10- and 30- year annual averages of 10 and 22 respectively. However, relatively few duplexes are permitted annually, which causes greater variation in numbers. Prior to the 2005 zoning code update, duplexes were about twice as common. The supply of duplex lots also decreased over time with 166 more duplexes permitted than lots created since 1990. - Multi -Family: Permits for multi -family units increased to 266 units in 2022, but the number is still slightly below both the 10-year average (386) and 30-year average (274). Of the units permitted this year, 249 are due to a single building in the Riverfront Crossings District. Notably, no multi -family units were in mixed use buildings this year. Figure 2: Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 2012-2022 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 (Multi -Family, Mixed Use ■ Multi -Family ■ Duplex ■Single Family 2012 2013 100 27 140 488 16 8 143 171 2014 37 218 14 176 2015 2016 2017 47 340 150 499 556 203 6 12 8 137 172 157 11011 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 169 59 0 40 0 163 417 49 155 266 10 8 8 6 2 109 80 97 133 95 Attachment 2 shows long-term trends in building permit activity. Similar to platting patterns, single- family and duplex building permits occur in cycles, but they have trended downward the past 30 years. However, multi -family construction has increased over time, especially following the adoption of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan in 2012. This has led to redevelopment in the Riverfront Crossings District, which is reflected in the recent peak in multi- family activity that culminated in nearly 900 multi -family units permitted in 2016 alone. As a result, the total number of units permitted has trended upward over the past 30 years. March 15, 2023 Page 4 Development Potential In general, the number of new building permits exceeded the creation of new lots for all development types since at least 1990. Because multi -family development often occurs on infill sites, it is less dependent on the creation of new lots compared to single-family and duplex development. Figure 3 notes the number of vacant lots in Iowa City, the number of dwelling units they can accommodate, and whether they still require infrastructure for a building permit to be issued. This year's memo provides a more complete understanding than last year's because it includes all vacant lots in Iowa City rather than just those in subdivisions platted since 1990. Figure 3: Number of Vacant Lots by Type of Dwelling and Provision of Infrastructure Dwelling InfrastructureRequiredl Infrastructure Provided Total Type Lots Units Lots Units Lots Units Single -Family 124 124 270 270 394 394 Duplex 0 0 12 24 12 24 Multi -Family 4 56 16 709 20 765 At the end of 2022, the City had approximately 394 vacant single-family lots, of which 270 are currently served by infrastructure. The City also contained 12 vacantduplex lots with infrastructure provided. With regards to lots that still require infrastructure to be built, the City anticipates 18 single-family lots will become buildable next year in Sandhill Estates Pt. 5 which was recently platted. The other 106 single-family lots that still require infrastructure are from older subdivisions that are not likely to be built out anytime soon. Note that residential lots owned by adjacent property owners and used as a single lot are excluded from these numbers because they are unlikely to develop. Most vacant single-family lots available for development are in the Northeast, South, or Southeast Planning Districts. Multi -family development depends less on new lot creation because many new units are part of redevelopment projects on existing lots. At the end of 2022, the City had around 20 vacant multi- family lots, of which 16 had infrastructure provided. 14 of these lots are on greenfield sites and are expected to accommodate at least 483 dwelling units (including the assisted living facility with 140 beds). The other 2 lots are on infill sites and concepts show them accommodating at least 226 units. The 4 multi -family lots that do not yet have infrastructure constructed are expected to accommodate at least another 56 dwellings units. Vacant developable multi -family lots are spread throughout the City, including the North (52 units), Northeast (70 units + 140 beds), Southeast (75 units), South (36 units), Northwest (110 units), and Central/Downtown (226 units) Planning Districts. Undevelopable lots are currently located exclusively in the South District. There is also some capacity for additional units on partially developed lots that are not included. Based on development trends from 2012 through 2021, the supply of vacant lots with infrastructure would last as follows: - 2.0 years for single-family units (down from 2.7 in 2021), - 2.4 years for duplex units (down from 3.7 om 2021) - 1.8 years for multi -family units (up from 1.7) — note redevelopment extends this timeframe. Because this analysis is more complete than that conducted last year, the decrease in the supply of vacant single-family and duplex lots points to an even larger deficit than previously understood. March 15, 2023 Page 5 Discussion: The year 2022 marks one of the lowest levels of residential lot creation in at least 30 years, especially as it relates to single-family lots. It also reflects broader trends such as building permit activity outpacing the creation of new lots. This has resulted in a diminishing lot supply which is not meeting the demand. Ripple effects include increased competition for a limited supply of residential lots, which can increase lot prices. Despite this, the number of dwelling units developed has increased over the past 30 years, primarily due to multi -family redevelopment which does not depend as heavily on the creation of new lots. Looking forward, the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPO) projects a demand for 10,240 new residents in Iowa City by 2030. However, if recent trends continue through 2030, the City would only be able to accommodate new population as follows: 2,626 new residents based on the development of all vacant residential lots (in 394 single-family units, 24 duplex units, and 765 multi -family units); or - 3,189 new residents based on average annual residential lot creation trends from 2020 through 2022 (in 463 single-family units, 40 duplex units, and 933 multi -family units); or - 6,297 new residents based on average annual building permit trends from 2020 through 2022 (in 1,083 single-family, 53 duplex, and 1,700 multi -family dwelling units) Based on the most optimistic scenario, the City stills need to develop and build out all currently platted vacant lots, and add lots accommodating an additional 689 single-family, 30 duplex, and 935 multi -family dwelling units over the next 7 years. This would still only accommodate 61 % of the projected demand for new housing and would leave the City with no available lots for the next decade. To meet the full demand projected by the MPO, the City would need to construct approximately 3,430 dwelling units, on top of developing all existing vacant lots. Staff anticipates the completion of several final plat and redevelopment applications this year which will help next year's outlook. However, these trends continue to highlight a significant deficit. If Iowa City cannot meet its demand for housing, it may see slower population growth along with other repercussions. First, excess demand may locate in nearby cities, such as Tiffin or North Liberty, which have seen a proliferation of new residential lots. This can create negative environmental impacts as homes shift further from employment centers and car dependence and traffic congestion increases. Other impacts include rising housing prices - when supply cannot meet the demand for housing, Iowa City becomes less affordable. Regardless of the cost when built, new homes are needed to help the City meet its demand for housing to achieve affordability. Accommodating new residential growth is a fundamental aspect of planning for the future of Iowa City. Staff believes it is important to continue to encourage residential growth in areas that have access to City services, such as in infill locations, as well as in the City's designated growth areas which are anticipated to become part of the City in the future. Attachments 1. Residential Lots Subdivided by Housing Type (in Anticipated Dwelling Units), 1990-2022 2. Residential Building Permits Issued by Housing Type (in Dwelling Units), 1990-2022 N N O � N O N N M N N (O Joe o 0 N o m r 4P S� d PS r N m � N W m N V N N I-, ss 02 paI t�'o,pp'Ob ry m r O N £1Z �iP/ £2 4'C a�,d' appJ N N p'ilia �`t'P Aalry 111d, �Gsh, p,Jb N Jb �S S %p14 o N W O W N W N 6O 4p 02 . N O n 0o N m W o M m 9 0, a 2 Qo ry r � Q o M 'oo J6, O ��4p balp. N O N O O N Q N Q N m N SSaJ O�� O ry W N N m a� LO, O� IP 'Y W W W W W O W Q r W N o m N W N W m N W � Q W N N N M W W N N W m N M N W W Q Q O Q r W m m O O (Qp N O W Q N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� v v r`pi M N N o =' l4P''' S IUn 6U1aM a � n aP�edia_ u nv ii 1 � 3 0 4Qis O O 0 N 0 N N N -No o N ry r 0 ry O O o umi o N M W (O N N r M O N N W W W m M m m r N 020 a'64E, � S'li ESL. PLS QJ o M p�J�40Aa��0/J v 02 a/ici' poJ ry 4PL GP o in cro W oW a7i �S. BOA 'ci'�4 h4,S b W o W �o�4Ri p-'J W o_ m 0 N o _ r o r - O N in W cO a 6O Gp �2 . N W o v W M `° r M aJ O LP 4- - N N O O ,ppJsoaO 0 N J O N O � M Q O N O W T m r m N M C N m N W o W T N N W N -° W W ° m v m N M W W N m M N N N N m N N C2 N p O O O o 0 o O O o O a O a 14 a4 !a x 4PJ� 1 silun 6UIiiaMQ a LL m o g 2 Cl m S ■ ■ ■ ■ o c I CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 112r EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY Neighborhood Et Development Services 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Adopted August 20, 2019 Chapter 5: Impediments &t Recommendations This Chapter analyzes factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, and increase the severity of fair housing issues. Identifying contributing factors is important in assessing why members of protected classes may experience restricted housing choice due to various reasons including, but not limited to, segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, or other issues. Some contributing factors are outside of the ability of the City to control or influence; however, such factors should still be identified and recognized. After discussing and identifying barriers to fair housing choice in Iowa City, it is important to lay out strategies to overcome those barriers. These strategies can then be prioritized and incorporated into subsequent planning processes such as the Consolidated Plan. Ultimately, the City is responsible for taking meaningful actions to move towards completing the strategies identified. Meaningful actions are designed and can be reasonably expected to achieve a material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing by, for example, increasing fair housing choice or decreasing disparities in access to opportunity. The City of Iowa City is committed to providing fair housing choices for all its residents. The City Code has a broad definition of discriminatory behavior, an inclusive definition of protected classes, and is clear in its lack of tolerance for discriminatory behavior in the housing market. The City's Comprehensive Plan envisions a city with a variety of housing options for the city's diverse population. The City's Zoning Ordinance allows for construction of a variety of housing types at difference price points. And the City's Building Code does not impose conditions that could restrict fair housing choice for protected classes. However, policies and practices can be improved upon and the City can take additional steps to assure that all protected classes have fair access to housing in Iowa City. These identified impediments to fair housing choice and some strategies to address them comprise the rest of this Chapter. 171 1: Improving Housing Choice One of the primary barriers identified is the lack of adequate housing choices throughout neighborhoods in Iowa City for residents with protected characteristics, who tend to have disproportionately lower incomes. This includes a lack of availability in addition to diversity in price points, housing types, and locations that would facilitate equal access to housing across the City. While many low-income households in Iowa City are nonfamily student renters, 21% are small families (including single parents) and 15% are elderly. 31% of low-income households have a member with a disability. Many are people of color. Large families face additional challenges in finding appropriate units with the proper price points. Coupled with the City's expensive housing, this has negatively impacted fair housing choice within Iowa City. Ensuring a diversity of affordable housing is available in a range of locations and types to promote fair housing choice, especially in areas that promote access to opportunity. This means encouraging the provision of affordable housing for households of all types in Iowa City, including larger units for families with children, smaller accessible units with supportive services for the elderly and persons with disabilities, and adequate housing for students. When considering housing choice, transportation, supportive services, school quality, and other important factors must also be considered. The City should continue to support and encourage a diversity of housing types in areas of opportunity. The following strategies assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice: Strategv 1: Facilitate a Range of Housing TvDes One strategy to overcome this barrier is to allow a wider variety of development types in areas throughout the community. Since most areas are zoned for low density, single family homes, this will require exploring ways to increase the density and the types of housing allowable in order to further fair housing goals. This strategy includes promotion of more types of housing in more varied locations, which also facilitates the creation of housing units at different price points within neighborhoods. Many non -single family residential developments require rezonings to increase density. The City can proactively increase the amount of land available for development by -right for higher densities, as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan along major arterials, intersections, and commercial centers. This may be especially helpful where undeveloped land is zoned for single family and would allow a variety of housing types as the land is developed. Staff could proactively look for areas intended for higher densities and initiate a rezoning with the City as the applicant. Eliminating the distinction between single family and multi -family residential zoning districts would have a similar effect, thereby regulating by density rather than type of housing. Similarly, the City could make flexible zoning arrangements, such as OPD overlays, provisional rather than negotiated. This would encourage its use while simultaneously promoting a range of housing. Another way to increase housing variety is to remove restrictions on housing sizes for units that are not detached single family units (i.e. attached single family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings). Specifically, the code places a bedroom cap on these types of units, which may negatively affect the ability of certain protected classes to find appropriate units, such as large families. The City should explore expanding the number of bedrooms from three to four in multi -family units and consider when this would be allowed to better accommodate larger families throughout the City. While this does not necessarily change the type of housing, it does allow a greater diversity of units within a specific type of housing. 1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice StrateQv 2: Lower the Cost of Housin In addition to facilitating a wider range of housing types throughout Iowa City, reducing the cost of housing can also help ensure more varied price points, especially in the more affordable rental and owner markets. The City is already in the process of working with the Home Builders Association to explore ways of reducing costs through modifications to the zoning and development codes. One way to lower the cost of housing is to evaluate building and housing permit fees and their effects on housing costs. Given that these fees have a higher relative impact on lower cost units, it is recommended that the City explore reducing or waiving fees for properties which are operated for affordable housing by non-profit housing organizations to offset negative disproportionate impacts. This could be used for properties in the private market receiving City assistance for a period of time for affordable housing as well. It may also be possible to use property tax policies to lower the cost of housing. While there are already several such programs for the most vulnerable populations, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and affordable rental housing providers, broadening property tax relief could further help preserve lower -income homeownership opportunities for the more than 4,000 low income homeowners in the City. For example, tax exemption policies could be used to increase the affordability of housing. The ongoing viability of the existing housing stock becomes increasingly important as the cost of new housing continues to rise. Continued improvement and maintenance of the current stock is vital. Efforts towards energy conservation can also reduce heating and cooling costs when rehabilitating older homes. All these factors can help lower the cost of housing. Due to the number of student households in the community, the City should explore ways to increase affordability and housing choice for this demographic. Incentives for housing programs should remain available for students from low income families and students who are financially independent. Strategy 3: Continue investment in affordable housing There is a growing gap in the number of affordable homes for those with lower incomes. Continuing affordable housing activities is crucial to creating a variety of housing types and price points within the community. This can include new construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of rental and owner properties. These provide a valuable opportunity to improve housing choice for members of the protected classes who are often low- and moderate -income households. This also includes leveraging City funds to obtain additional affordable housing investment in the community through LIHTC or other programs that assist with the construction of affordable housing opportunities. Assisting renters' transition to homeownership, in certain cases, may also help stabilize housing payments through fixed rate mortgages in a market experiencing increasing rental rates. StrateQv 4: Retrofit Housing for Equal Access In some cases, appropriate units are not be available, especially for those with disabilities. In such cases, it becomes important to allow owners and renters to make housing units accessible so that they have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Access may include physical access for individuals with different types of disabilities. For example, installing ramps and other accessibility features for individuals with mobility impairments, visual alarms and signals for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, and audio signals, accessible signage, and other accessibility features for individuals who are blind or have low vision. To facilitate this need, the City should adopt a Reasonable Accommodation or Modification procedure to their zoning ordinances and other policies. This would allow persons with disabilities to request a reasonable accommodation/modification to 173 regulatory provisions, including land use and zoning requirements to facilitate the retrofitting of existing housing. In addition, because many low-income households are elderly and/or disabled, continuing to provide assistance to allow those households to age in place is also important, as is continuing to invest in their housing to ensure it remains safe, decent and affordable. 1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2: Facilitating Access to Opportunity Housing that affords access to opportunities, such as high -performing schools, public transportation, employment centers, low poverty, and environmentally healthy neighborhoods may be cost prohibitive or non-existent for persons in certain protected classes, especially for those with lower incomes. High costs can have a greater effect on families with children who need multiple bedrooms and individuals with disabilities who need accessible housing or housing located close to accessible transportation. Currently, Iowa City appears to have some disparate access to opportunity, especially when it comes to access to jobs and other quality of life factors such as affordable childcare. The geographic relationship of employment centers, housing, and schools, and the transportation Linkages between them, are important components of fair housing choice. The quality of schools and economic opportunities are often major factors in deciding where to live. Job and school quality are also key components of economic mobility. Ensuring affordable units are available in a range of sizes, Locations, and types is essential to providing equal access to opportunities by meeting the needs of individuals with protected characteristics. In Iowa City, ensuring the availability and accessibility of a variety of jobs and training opportunities, is also vital. In addition, affordable childcare should be available and close to a range of housing opportunities, and facilities should be fully accessible to individuals with different types of disabilities to avoid further barriers. As such, siting as it relates to the placement of new housing developments, especially those that are affordable, becomes crucial. This includes new construction or acquisition with rehabilitation of previously unsubsidized housing. Local policies and decisions significantly affect the location of new housing. In addition, the availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation including buses and paratransit for persons with disabilities also affect which households are connected to community assets and economic opportunities. As such, it is important to connect individuals to places they need to go such as jobs, schools, retail establishments, and healthcare. This study proposes a balanced approach to address disparities in access to provide for both strategic investment in areas that lack key opportunity indicators, while opening housing opportunities in areas with existing opportunity through effective mobility options and the preservation and development of a variety of housing in high opportunity areas. Several strategies can assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice: StrateQv 1: Emphasize Variety in HousinQ in Areas of Opportunity Areas of opportunity are places where jobs are relatively plentiful and access to education, healthcare, and other amenities is close at hand. Iowa City generally ranks highly when it comes to quality of life. However, some areas of town have less access to opportunity as identified within this Study, especially as it relates to affordable childcare and job access. Analysis suggests there are some discrepancies in services and access to opportunity by race, income, and area. To some extent, this is likely due to clustering of racial and ethnic groups. All protected classes should have an equal opportunity to live throughout Iowa City. Increasing housing variety for a range of household types and price points, in areas with affordable childcare and near job centers is one way to achieve fair housing choice while improving access to opportunities. This strategy complements those related to increasing the variety of available types and prices of housing. The placement of the City's subsidized housing is governed by the Affordable Housing Location Model (AHLM). The model serves to not place additional subsidized housing in areas that already have a concentration of City -assisted housing and lower incomes as determined by elementary school catchment areas. The model does not apply to housing for persons with disabilities, seniors, the rehabilitation of existing rental housing or for homeownership. The AHLM does not necessarily promote greater variety of price points in areas of opportunity. As such, the City could explore ways to use the 175 model or another policy to promote city -assisted housing in low poverty neighborhoods or neighborhoods that provide good access to opportunity. The goal of fair housing choice is to provide sufficient, comparable opportunities for housing for all types of households in a variety of income ranges. Comparable units should have the same household (elderly, disabled, family, large family) and tenure (owner/renter) type; have similar rents/prices; serve the same income group; in the same housing market; and in standard condition. The goal is not to necessarily have an equal number of assisted units within each neighborhood, but rather that a reasonable distribution of assisted units should be produced each year to approach an appropriate balance of housing choices within and outside neighborhoods over several years. An appropriate balance should be based on local conditions affecting the range of housing choices available for different types of households as they relate to the mix of the City's population. StrateQv 2: Community Investment It is recommended that the City pursue additional investment in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of low income families, especially those with concentrations of persons with protected characteristics, to improve the quality of life for existing residents. This may include a range of activities such as improving housing, attracting private investment, creating jobs, expanding educational opportunities, and providing links to other community assets. The quality and maintenance of housing is especially important to community investment as survey respondents rank it as one of the factors that varies most widely between areas of the City. As a result, the City should continue targeted investment in infrastructure, amenities, community facilities, and public services serving lower income households and in low income areas. Amenities such as recreational facilities, grocery stores, pharmacies, and banks are especially important in maintaining a higher quality of life. Housing rehabilitation is also important in maintaining the housing stock and appearance, while new construction in areas that have not received as much recent investment can also be beneficial. Special attention should be given to investments that increase access to housing or that lower housing costs generally, such as energy efficiency improvements. Economic development support near low-income neighborhoods also can create jobs, increase wages, and increase access to amenities. This strategy in conjunction with providing a diversity of housing types in all new neighborhoods creates opportunities of access throughout the City. Preserving the City's existing affordable housing is also important as part of a balanced approach to affirmatively further fair housing. This can include funding and indirect subsidies for rehabilitation to maintain physical structures, refinancing, affordable use agreements, and incentives for owners to maintain affordability. Similarly, efforts to repair and maintain the infrastructure of existing affordable housing should be part of concerted housing preservation and community investment effort. The City should continue encouraging private investment to advance fair housing from homeowners, developers, and other nonprofit or business initiatives. Securing financial resources (public, for -profit, and nonprofit) from sources inside and outside the City to fund housing improvements, community facilities and services, and business opportunities in neighborhoods will help ensure access to opportunities for all residents. StrateQv 3: Enhance Mobility Linkages Throughout the Community Non -automotive transportation is an important part of ensuring equal access from housing to jobs and other amenities in Iowa City. Transportation improvements could significantly improve access to opportunity for employment and other services and amenities for those who rely on public or active transportation. This complements policies to increase the range of housing opportunities near opportunity and employment areas which can reduce spending on transportation -related expenses. 1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Strategies to enhance both active and public transportation linkages may include improved coordination with service providers, expansion of active and public transportation to provide access to jobs through improved infrastructure, providing late night/ weekend service, or ensuring adequate coverage to assist with access to opportunities. Investment across the City can also include improved transit facilities and equipment, including bus shelters, and expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Prioritizing ADA access is especially important to further fair housing purposes. 177 3: Increasing Education and Outreach Based on public input, many residents of Iowa City lack awareness about rights under fair housing and civil rights laws, which can lead to under -reporting of discrimination, failure to take advantage of remedies under the law, and the continuation of discriminatory practices. Even those who do know their rights do not always act on them due to feeling it would not be productive or fear of reprisal. This suggests a lack of knowledge and awareness regarding fair housing rights is a major barrier to fair housing choice. Ensuring access to information about housing programs and neighborhoods can also facilitate fair housing goals. This is because individuals and families attempting to move to a neighborhood of their choice, especially areas of opportunity, may not be aware of potential assistance or support. In those cases, having quality information related to housing and affordability, available services, and organizations that serve potential tenants, can help those moves be successful. Other relevant info may include listings of affordable housing opportunities or local landlords; mobility counseling programs; and community outreach to potential beneficiaries. Several strategies can assist in addressing this impediment to fair housing choice. StrateQv 1: Improve Demand -Side Awareness The demand -side of the housing market includes tenants, homeowners, borrowers, mobile home park residents, and other who need and/or use housing. Generally, these groups do not have any formal training or education regarding their fair housing rights, nor are they formally organized in most cases. This makes it important to raise awareness through advocacy campaigns, education and outreach activities geared toward the general public, and fair housing informational materials for both homebuyers and tenants. Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders should especially be informed of their rights, including the right to be free from discrimination based on source of income. In addition to fair housing rights, this should include how to report violations of those rights. It is recommended that the City explore the development of new outreach, education, or informational programs and activities to promote housing opportunities for segments of the community such as persons of color, those not as fluent in English, and for the elderly and persons with disabilities. This should be done in cooperation with other organizations working on furthering fair housing. Ideally, this will increase knowledge of the laws, reduce discriminatory behavior, achieve a better understanding, and reduce negative attitudes concerning people who are racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse or who are disabled. A comprehensive program would help ensure that there is broad knowledge of legal protections for all residents. Beyond fair housing information, providing more generalized information about housing can be beneficial. For example, information for tenants about leasing can improve rental outcomes and homebuyer education can help those less familiar with homeownership, such as long-term renters, overcome challenges as first time homebuyer. Those new to the HCV program can also benefit from additional information about facilities and services available in each neighborhood to assist them with their housing search. This may encourage voucher holders to look for housing in neighborhoods with more access to opportunity. This information can also assist residents moving from high -poverty to low - poverty neighborhoods that have greater access to opportunity assets appropriate for their family. It is important that information is comprehensive (e.g. that the information provided includes a variety of neighborhoods, including those with access to opportunity indicators) and up-to-date (e.g. that the information is actively being maintained, updated and improved). The information should also alleviate fears of retaliation and should showcase the process and concrete outcomes to address those who "didn't know what good it would do" to report discrimination. 1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice StrateQv 2: Increase Suooly-Side Awareness The supply-side of housing includes lenders, appraisers, mortgage insurers, realtors, landlords, and management companies. Unlike the demand -side, these groups are often provided formal training regarding fair housing rights through industry groups or employee training. As such, they require less guidance than the demand -side of housing. However, it is still important that they understand fair housing rights and responsibilities as well, especially small landlords or others who may be less formally integrated within the industry. As such, technical training for housing industry representatives remains an important component of the City's efforts to affirmatively further fair housing in the community. In addition to general fair housing rights, those on the supply-side of housing should also be made aware of best practices and efforts to affirmatively further fair housing through equity, inclusion, fairness, and justice. This could involve providing education regarding marketing in targeted neighborhoods or for protected classes and encouraging advocacy groups to share opportunities for their products and services. Similarly, additional technical training regarding civil rights may include fair housing issues such as the appropriate application of arrest and criminal conviction records, credit policies, prior evictions, leasing and lease termination decision making; and fair housing issues affecting LGBTQ individuals. Pro -active outreach can widen the pool of participating rental housing providers, including both owners of individual residences and larger rental management companies. Meanwhile, the City should encourage these groups to regularly examine and update their policies, procedures, and practices to avoid differential treatment of residents and applicants based on protected characteristics. Similarly, supply-side providers should also be encouraged to examine their clientele profiles to determine whether there are neighborhoods or groups that are underrepresented or unrepresented. Doing so will help supply-side providers to go beyond just understanding fair housing issues towards meaningfully furthering fair housing. StrateQv 3: Increase Regulator Awareness The City must ensure those who make decisions regarding public policies and regulations, including public officials, Commission and Board members, and staff, have adequate fair housing training. While this will further fair housing, it may also help inspire confidence in the City's processes. In addition to general training, one potential method of educating decision -makers would be to train them as fair housing ambassadors who can then help spread the word about fair housing to both demand- and supply-side groups. Strategy 4: Provide meaninQfullanguaQe access Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) includes anyone who does not speak English as their primary language and who has a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. Often, this is tied to foreign -born populations who may not understand English. Increasing meaningful language access regarding fair housing information and housing programs would facilitate housing choice for LEP individuals seeking housing. It is important that housing providers and policy makers ensure that all individuals have access to information regarding fair and affordable housing, regardless of language. In Iowa City, this is particularly salient due to the higher prevalence of foreign -born populations. Relevant City departments maintain Limited English Proficiency (LEP) plans to ensure equal access to knowledge of fair housing and housing assistance. However, the LEP plan likely needs to be updated, especially as the number of foreign -born residents has rapidly grown in recent years. In addition, the City should explore what housing documents are most important to translate to achieve a better understanding of fair housing choice by LEP speakers and to improve communication through language access. 179 4: Operational Improvements Several other barriers to fair housing choice in Iowa City included smaller operational and planning changes that could help affirmatively further fair housing. These include impediments such as administrative processes and regulations which can slow down and/or stop projects that would benefit protected classes, a need for increased regional cooperation for issues that affect housing, a lack of information that could help identify or address other barriers, and a need to improve the transparency of fair housing enforcement. Most of these barriers can be addressed through operational improvements at the City level, though accomplishing in cooperation with others may improve their effectiveness. StrateQv 1: Improve Fair HousinQ Enforcement and Transparency In addition to ensuring awareness of fair housing rights and process, the City needs to improve enforcement and increase transparency in the process, so the public can be aware that complainants obtain relief in a timely and effective manner. Doing so would fight feelings of helplessness and provide certainty to complainants that filing a report helps combat fair housing violations. This may include actively monitoring the outcomes of complaints, in addition to making fair housing complaint information more easily visible to the public. Fair housing testing may also assist with transparency and fair housing enforcement. Doing so allows the City to identify whether landlords or realtors, and others involved in the housing market are abiding by fair housing laws. In addition, these tests help the City to better identify and target fair housing outreach. StrateQv 2: Review implementing procedures and regulations The City has several new programs, administered by various staff and departments, with various rules that can be confusing to understand, implement and enforce. This problem is exacerbated when the program is combined with federal programs that have rigid, complex rules. This creates a challenging regulatory environment, especially for affordable housing and public service programs. As such, there are opportunities to harmonize, coordinate, streamline, and define administration and planning. Possibilities include centralizing processes for affordable housing and ensuring they are online; reducing uncertainty for service providers in allocating funds; and harmonizing rules between programs. Similarly, the zoning ordinance has been updated in fragmented ways since its initial adoption. While it generally accommodates the City's fair housing goals, codes frequently updated can indicate a need for a comprehensive reevaluation. This is a long-term effort. In the meantime, incremental improvements can make the code easier to follow yet still comprehensive and flexible. One simple change is to reclassify community service - long term shelter as a multi-family/mixed use, since it is a long-term residence rather than a public service shelter use. Another similar change is to clarify the definition of nonfamily households; the current City definition is a holdover from before the State modified law to prohibit regulating use based on familial characteristics. In addition, administrative procedures may better promote fair housing choice as compared to some decision -making processes. Updating administrative policies and practices may help support Council objectives in ways that produce more impartial, predictable outcomes. The City should promote funds to organizations committed to affordable housing and who have the capacity to administer long term housing projects. Agencies receiving funds should have the capacity to administer the project for the entire compliance period while enhancing fair housing. By doing so, the City increases the likelihood of maintaining the units as affordable housing after City and federal restrictions are released. 1 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Regardless, all changes to administrative, zoning, or other public policies and practices should be preemptively evaluated through the lens of fair housing. This is also true as new policy continues to develop, including potential changes to the housing and zoning following the State's disallowing the use of a rental permit cap. StrateQv 3: Improve regional cooperation Regional cooperation includes networks or coalitions of organizations, people, and entities working together to plan for regional development. Cooperation in regional planning can help coordinate responses to identified fair housing issues that cross multiple sectors —including housing, education, transportation, and commercial and economic development —and multiple political and geographic boundaries. As such, encouraging regional cooperation can further fair housing not only for Iowa City, but the entire region. This was also mentioned as a need in many stakeholder meetings. While the City and surrounding jurisdictions cooperate through regional transportation planning and through the Fringe Area Agreement, there are still additional opportunities to better coordinate housing and fair housing planning on a regional level. Projecting development and demand for different types of housing and price points is one way to approach the issue. Doing so can start a discussion about how to facilitate housing choice in each of the communities. Communication between staff can also facilitate coordination between jurisdictions. StrateQv 4: Improved Data Collection Another impediment is the need for increased data, analysis and reporting. While improving data collection and analysis does not directly overcome a barrier to fair housing choice, it will help identify potential barriers in the future. All of these can also be paired with equity mapping to identify areas of opportunity using factors relevant to fair housing choice. Currently, many of the City's local housing programs do not require the same level of tracking and reporting regarding protected characteristics of beneficiaries as federal programs. As part of its annual monitoring of these projects, the City should begin tracking and reporting the race, ethnicity, and other protected characteristics of beneficiaries to allow finer levels of analysis and reporting regarding fair housing choice. This will also allow better measurement regarding the extent to which policy and practice changes are impacting outcomes and reducing disparities. In addition, the City should regularly monitor HMDA reports of financial institutions and obtain information on the location of properties that are the subject of loan applications. HMDA data can be used to develop policies to act upon this information such as incentivizing banks with good performance records by only depositing public funds in banks that meet threshold scores. Similarly, Location information can help the City guide lender education activities to promote fair housing. Finally, ICHA should regularly analyze its beneficiary and waithst data to ensure its preferences do not have a disparate impact on those in protected classes and that it is serving the people most in need as determined by the City's Consolidated Plan. As part of this, ICHA should periodically update an equity analysis to identify if any disparate impacts are identified. 181 vi 2022 r Iowa City Affordable Housing ACTION PLAN CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITIES/GOALS The City Council's Strategic Plan objectives include fostering healthy neighborhoods and affordable housing throughout the City. The City strives to do this through: 1. Investing City and federal CD6G/HOME funds to create and/or preserve affordable homes, both rental and owner -occupied housing throughout the City; 2. Supporting our most vulnerable residents, especially those experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, maintain safe, affordable housing; 3. Ensuring equitable growth for all Iowa City residents and minimizing displacement; and 4. Supporting innovation in housing and streamlining processes. 2022 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS The City has broad powers to support affordable housing through various requirements and funding mechanisms. The City is willing to pursue courses of action to support affordable housing, except when legally prohibited. For example, in the state of Iowa, cities cannot institute rent control. Cities are also preempted by state law from regulating the provisions in a lease between a landlord and a tenant. In 2016 the City of Iowa City adopted an ordinance to protect source of income. The measure prohibited landlords from rejecting housing applicants based solely on their use of housing vouchers or other rental subsidies. The purpose of the Iowa City Human Rights ordinance amendment was to reduce housing discrimination and give all tenants the same consideration for housing, In 2021 the state prohibited cities from passing or enforcing "source of income" ordinances. Any city who adopted a source of income protection may not enforce it after January 1, 2023. The City will continue to work with our various partners to support and encourage affordable housing with the mechanisms and funding sources available to municipalities in Iowa. The Committee's recommendations for City Council consideration are broken down into three sections: Recommendations for existing policies and programs, recommendations for development regulations and recommendations for programs or policies based on household income. Existing Policies and Programs The Affordable Housing Steering Committee reviewed the City's current policies and programs. Most programs were found to be effectively increasing or preserving the supply of affordable housing; CITY OF IOWA CITY 28 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan however, six recommendations were made to either enhance or make the policy or program more effective. 1. Affordable Housing Location Model The model currently aims to distribute subsidized affordable housing more evenly throughout the community and avoid overconcentration in any one neighborhood. While the intent of the model is a worthy goal, the model can restrict supply for much needed affordable housing projects. The committee recommends shifting from a restrictive model to one that incentivizes or prioritizes affordable housing projects in all neighborhoods, especially those neighborhoods with a lack of affordable housing options but does not go so far as to restrict supply of potential locations. If the model is discontinued, it is recommended that there be close monitoring of changes in affordable housing locations within the community. Achieving mixed -income neighborhoods throughout the City should continue to be an overall goal. Recommendation: Discontinue Affordable Housing Location Model and consider incentives or prioritization policies that encourages affordable housing in all neighborhoods. 2. Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDQ Funding Allocation Process The Committee observed that the current funding process for housing projects does not involve detailed staff analysis of applications. Staff have years of professional experience and often understand the funding sources and regulatory environment much more comprehensively than volunteer commissioners. The Committee recommends that the funding process be restructured to ensure staff scoring recommendations are provided upfront to the HCDC. Their recommendations should be considered during the review process to ensure the City is supporting viable, federally compliant projects that meet the City's priorities for the entire length of the required affordability period. Ultimately, the HCDC can still make alternate recommendations to the City Council but the process will be enhanced by inviting this input from the outset. Furthermore, policy should be developed upfront as to how funds will be allocated to further improve transparency in decision -making (e.g., full funding to top -rated applications, or applications will be pro- rated, or partial funding to applicants based on scores, etc.). The Commission's final review and ranking should be based on objective and established criteria, priorities, and data. Discrepancies with staff scores should be included in the final recommendations to the City Council. CITY OF IOWA CITY 29 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Recommendation: 1) Require staff analysis and funding recommendations before i review; and 2) Further define how funds will be allocated to improve transparency (e.g. full funding for top -rated applications, partial funding based on scores, etc.) 3. Affordable Housing Fund Distribution The overall funding should be increased with consideration given to the budget with a goal of a 3% increase each year. • Allow for greater flexibility in targeted use of funds, for example: o Prioritize deeply affordable housing (0-30%) but do not restrict to only those at that income. o Include Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County (HTFJC) allocation. However, set as a preferred use but not restricted/required. If funding is awarded to a LIHTC project and the project does not get funding from the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA), allow HTFJC to withdraw the award and make those funds available for general applications rather than waiting forthe next LI HTC cycle. • Maintain Security Deposit Assistance and implement a Risk Mitigation Fund. Typically, Risk Mitigation Funds cover landlord losses, up to a certain value, but may also include a connection to resources such as tenant/landlord education, credit repair, etc. to increase rental opportunities for households who have difficulty finding a landlord who will accept them due to criminal history, bad credit, bad landlord references, and/or a prior eviction history. • Increase marketing and communications of availability of the different funds. • Periodically review (every 5 years as part of the Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs and Services for Low -Income Residents) the affordable housing fund distribution to ensure the set -asides produce/contribute to the desired policy outcomes. • Prioritize partnerships with not -for -profit affordable housing developers to preserve affordable units as their mission is centric to preserving affordability. Recommendation: 1) Allocate funds to the Affordable Housing fund with a goal of a 3% annual increase; 2) Include the LIHTC reservation with the HTFJC allocation. If no LIHTC projects apply during the annual allocation or if an approved LIHTC project does not get IFA funding, allow the HTFJC to make those funds available for general applications; 3) Implement the Risk Mitigation Fund; and 4) Enact policy that prioritizes partnerships with not -for -profit affordable housing developers/organizations to preserve affordable housing units. 4. Support of Non -Profit Housing Provider Capacity CITY OF IOWA CITY 30 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Typically, developers receive a developer fee to build or rehabilitate housing projects. This fee is only received if a project is funded. Funds, including operational funds and developer fees, should be provided on a regular basis to non-profit affordable housing providers who build and/or rehabilitate residential housing as long-term investments to build the capacity of local providers. This could include technical assistance in various areas such as housing finance, market analysis, legal issues, property management, green and/or sustainable building practices and affordable housing design. Financial assistance for architectural and engineering expenses for the development of multi -family affordable development, outside of LIHTC projects, is needed to support the development of townhomes, small apartment buildings, and the rehabilitation of existing multi -family developments. The City should increase access by non-profit affordable housing developers to various funding opportunities to incorporate green or sustainable housing practices. Recommendation: Allow non-profit affordable housing developers who build or rehabilitate residential housing to apply for additional funds to support ongoing operations; and 2) Allow developers of affordable housing to apply for technical assistance needs from a variety of City programs, including but not limited to, the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund and Climate Action grants. 5. Annexation Policy The current policy has only applied to one annexation and thus drawing conclusions is difficult. Staff and some committee members have concerns about the cost implications and viability of requiring permanent affordable housing or greater percentages and compliance periods. This is particularly a concern in a regional housing market where outlying communities that are experiencing robust growth do not have similar policies. Too stringent requirements could have an unintended impact of pushing development into other jurisdictions and thus forgoing any affordable housing requirements and constraining supply in Iowa City. The Committee does believe that permanent affordable housing achieved through dedication of lots to the City or a non-profit housing provider is a goal that should be vigorously pursued with future annexations. If needed, the City should consider contributing funding or exploring unique partnerships such as tax increment financing or tax abatement to achieve the goal of permanent affordable housing in new residential annexations. CITY OF IOWA CITY 31 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Recommendation: Encourage, but not mandate permanent affordable housing in new residential annexations. With future annexations explore partnerships and funding opportunities to secure permanent affordability when possible. 6. General Education Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and how to address housing code problems, perceived discrimination, or other matters most effectively. Recommendation: Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and how to address housing issues. Development Regulations Development regulation is an umbrella term for rules that govern land development. At the local level, zoning is the way the government controls the physical development of land and the kinds of uses to which each individual property may be put. This includes the use, size, height, and design of buildings, and historic preservation requirements. These regulations are contained in the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City as laws adopted by the City's Legislative body the Iowa City Council. The following are recommended changes to the current land -development regulations to increase the diversity and supply of housing throughout the City: 1. Increase the allowable number and/or type of dwelling units in zoning districts previously limited to only free-standing single-family dwellings. For example: • In Single -Family zoning districts, expand by -right building allowances to permit attached single-family dwellings, such as duplexes and zero -lot line structures, in more locations. • Allow accessory dwelling units in more circumstances and locations. To support student housing, consider Al associated with rental housing (expand from owner -occupied). • Increase the allowable number of bedrooms per dwelling (duplex and attached single- family). 2. Facilitate multi -family dwelling development. For example: Continue to look for opportunities to purchase land for future resale/development. CITY OF IOWA CITY 32 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan • Conduct a City -initiated rezoning to allow multi -family housing or mixed use in areas supported by the Comprehensive Plan and served bytransit. • Reduce the minimum amount of land needed to qualify for a planned overlay district/planned development. 3. Increase the allowable number of bedrooms per dwelling in multi -family dwellings outside of the University Impact Area. Various state and federal housing programs incentivize housing developments that include units with more than three bedrooms to accommodate large families. Allow larger bedroom sizes to accommodate local, state and federal funding parameters. 4. Create Form Based Code regulations for additional neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first and then infill locations. Recommendation: 1) Increase the allowable number and/or type of dwelling unit in single family zoning districts by right in more locations. Examples include ADi duplexes and zero -lot line structures. 2) Increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero -lot line structures in single family zoning districts; 3) Facilitate multi -family development by purchasing land to be developed; 4) Conduct a City initiated rezoning to allow multi -family housing or mixed use in areas supported by the Comprehensive Plan; 5) Allow multi -family units with more than three bedrooms when required to meet local, state or federal affordable housing funding parameters such as the LIHTC program; 6) Encourage infill development Flexibility by reducing the minimum amount to land eligible to apply for a planned overlay zoning; and 7) Create form based code regulations for additional neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first and then infill locations. Programs and Policies Based on Household Income If additional funding is made available, the priority should be on housing for those with the lowest income. In recognizing housing is needed to support a healthy housing market and there needs to be housing options for all incomes and ages throughout the City, recommendations are made for housing for households up to 100% of area median income. 0-30% Median Income Recommendations 1. Support a Landlord Risk Mitigation Fund for hard to house tenants. Landlord risk mitigation programs are intended to add protection to landlords willing to rent to someone with limited income, a poor rental history, or a criminal history. The funds can cover items CITY OF IOWA CITY 33 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan such as excessive damages to the rental unit, lost rent, or legal fees beyond the security deposit. The Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board plans to develop a program working in collaboration with the City. These programs are most effective at a regional level for expanded housing options and landlord participation. Recommendation: Seek proposals for a local landlord risk mitigation fund for hard to house tenants and secure funding to operationalize it annually. Encourage proposals that seek partnerships with regional entities (Johnson County, Coralville, and North Liberty) to expand housing options and landlord participation. 2. Support non-profit housing providers develop and maintain permanent supportive housing/Housing First models. The Housing First model is a homeless assistance approach that prioritizes providing permanent housing to people experiencing chronic homelessness. The subsidized housing is provided with the ongoing option to participate in supportive services but does not place conditions on the housing. Permanent supportive housing is permanent housing in which housing assistance and supportive services are provided to assist households with at least one member with a disability in achieving housing stability. The City supported Shelter House in the development of Cross Park Place, a Housing First project, that opened in January of 2019. The project houses 24 one -bedroom apartments with on -site offices and an exam room for case managers and partners with health and behavioral health clinicians. The City converted 24 tenant based rental vouchers to project -based vouchers so that those renting at Cross Park Place have a voucher to assist with rent. Due to the success of Cross Park Place, plans are underway for the second housing First project, "The 501 Project;' for persons facing chronic homelessness. Construction started in 2021. The building will have 36 apartments with a clinic for partnering health clinicians, computer workstations, laundry facilities and a multi -purpose room for tenants. Like Cross Park Place, housing choice vouchers will be converted to project -based vouchers to assist tenants pay rent. The City should continue to provide support for existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects as well as additional efforts to produce additional housing through acquisition, new construction, or rehabilitation. The City should expand efforts to include permanent supportive/Housing first projects to families experiencing chronic homelessness. CITY OF IOWA CITY 34 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Recommendation: Continue to support existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects, expanding into projects forfamilies experiencing chronic homelessness. 3. Support major investments. Support non-profit housing providers to significantly increase their supply of permanent supportive housing when granted an opportunity, either through acquisition, new construction or by assisting through creative approaches such as a master lease between non-profit providers and landlords. Under a master lease scenario, a non-profit service provider enters a lease with one or more landlords to secure housing for their participants. The participants in the program pay rent to the non-profit service provider based on the requirements of the program. Consider converting housing choice vouchers to project -based vouchers for projects assisting those experiencing or with a history of homelessness. The City is currently collaborating with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County for the allocation of ARPA funds. Funds will be dedicated to support larger investments in affordable housing for acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction. The goal for the projects selected will be permanent affordability through deed restrictions, land leases or ownership by non-profit entities whose core mission is to provide affordable housing. Recommendation: Allocate ARPA funds and future City funds to support larger investments in affordable housing assisting those up to 60% median income, prioritizing permanent affordability and households with lower incomes. 4. Maintain affordable housing through rehabilitation. Efforts should include grant funds for those improvements that improve energy efficiency and lower tenant utility costs. In all housing, support aging in place initiatives that supports the ability to live in one's own home safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age or ability level. Support safety improvements and emergency repairs to homes, including mobile/manufactured homes. Recommendation: Increase funding for those improvements that improve energy efficiency, lower utility costs, supports aging in place initiatives and improves home safety. Provide grants where feasible. 31-60% Median Income Recommendations 1. Support security deposit assistance. CITY OF IOWA CITY 35 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance that allows up to 2 months for those with poor rental history to get housed. The City allocated $70,000 to security deposit assistance in Fy22. The amount has been increased twice due to demand to a total of $148,000, Previously, the program allowed up to 2 months of assistance, but due to limited funds available for the remainder of the fiscal year, assistance was limited to $1,000 in a twelve-month period with a preference for tenants referred by Shelter House and the Domestic Violence Intervention Program. Recommendation: Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance. 2. Support and Expand Eviction Prevention Programs. Due to the pandemic, housing instability has increased dramatically. Evictions are a destabilizing event that can send a family into a cycle of financial and emotional upheaval and affect their current and future prospect for residential stability. The City has allocated over $850,000 to our community partners to maintain housing for those impacted by the pandemic for eviction prevention and eviction diversion. It is anticipated that additional funds through the American Rescue Plan Act (All will be dedicated for this purpose. Efforts should expand community outreach, especially to landlords, to make more tenants and landlords aware of eviction diversion and prevention programs. Increase efforts to intervene earlier before evictions are necessary with opportunities to mediate, work out payment arrangements and file for rental assistance programs. Recommendation: Support and expand eviction prevention programs. 3. Energy Efficiency Improvements Provide grant funding to complete energy efficiency improvements that reduce a low-income tenant or homeowners monthly utility cost. Increase partnerships with non-profit housing providers, including public housing, to complete energy efficiency improvements. Recommendation: Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower utility costs. CITY OF IOWA CITY 36 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan 4. Downpayment Assistance Support financial assistance to purchase an affordable home. Ensure affordable financing to owner, such as 30-year fixed loans with area lenders. Assistance also includes credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers or those wanting homeownership. Recommendation: Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers. 61-100% Median Income Recommendations 1. Downpayment Assistance Support financial assistance to purchase an affordable home. Ensure affordable financing to owner, such as 30-year fixed loans with area lenders. Assistance also includes credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers or those wanting homeownership. Recommendation: Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers. 2. Energy Efficiency Improvements Provide grant funding to complete energy efficiency improvements that reduce a low-income tenant or homeowner's monthly utility cost. Recommendation: Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements. CITY OF IOWA CITY 37 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Summary Tables Recommendations and Actions Required for Existing Policies and Programs Recommendation Discontinue Affordable Housing Location Model and consider incentives or prioritization policies that encourages affordable housing in all neighborhoods. Require staff analysis and funding recommendations of CDBG/HOME housing applications before HCDC review. Further define how CDBG/HOME funds will be allocated to improve transparency (e.g. full funding for top -rated applications, partial funding based on scores, etc.). Allocate funds to the Affordable Housing Fund with a goal of a 3%annual increase. Affordable Housing Fund: Include the LIHTC reservation with the HTFJC allocation. If no LIHTC projects apply during the annual allocation or if an approved LIHTC project does not get IFA funding, allow the HTFJC to make those funds available for general applications. Implement the Risk Mitigation Fund. Enact policy that prioritizes partnerships with not -for -profit affordable housing developers/organizations to preserve affordable housing units in all housing programs. Allow non-profit affordable housing developers to apply for additional funds to support ongoing operations (Opportunity Fund, HOME CHDO funds, etc.). Allow developers of affordable housing to applyfor technical assistance needs from a variety of city programs, including but not limited to, the Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund and Climate Action grants. Encourage, but not mandate permanent affordable housing in new residential annexations. With future annexations explore partnerships and funding opportunities to secure permanent affordability when possible. Increase efforts to educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and how to address housing issues. Type of Action Required Policy Increased Change Funding Education X x X X �i X X X CITY OF IOWA CITY 38 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan Recommendations and Actions Required for Development Regulations Applicable to Both Single- and Multi -Family Recommendation Encourage infill development flexibility by reducing the minimum amount of land eligible to apply for a planned overlay zoning. Create form -based code regulations for additional neighborhoods, focusing on growth areas first and then infill locations. Type of Action Required Policy Increased Change Funding Education X 11 Recommendations and Required Actions for Development Regulations Applicable to Single -Family Recommendation Allow by right more types of dwelling units in single family zoning districts such as duplexes and zero -lot line structures in more locations. (Note: Comprehensive Plan amendment may be quired. Possible consultant.) increase the allowable number of bedrooms in duplex and zero - lot line structures in single family zoning districts. Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) under more circumstances and in more locations. Type of Action Required Policy Increased Change Funding Education x x X X Recommendations and Required Actions for Development Regulations Applicable to Multi -Family Recommendation Facilitate multi -family development by purchasing land to be developed. Conduct a City initiated rezoning to allow multi -family housing or mixed use in areas supported by the Comprehensive Plan. (Note: Comprehensive Plan amendment may be quired. Possible consultant.) Allow multi -family dwelling units with more than three bedrooms when required to meet local, state, or federal affordable housing funding parameters such as the LIHTC program. Type of Action Required Policy Increased Change Funding Education X X X X X CITY OF IOWA CITY 39 20221owa City Affordable Housing Action Plan If additional funds are allocated/reserved for affordable housing, recommendations based on household income are below. 0-30% Median Income Recommendations Seek proposals for a local landlord risk mitigation fund for hard to house tenants and secure funding to operationalize it annually. Encourage proposals that seek partnerships with regional entities (Johnson County, Coralville, and North Liberty) to expand housing options and landlord participation. Continue to support existing permanent supportive/Housing First projects, expanding into projects for families experiencing chronic homelessness. Allocate ARPA funds and future City funds to support larger investments in affordable housing assisting those up to 60% median income, prioritizing permanent affordability and households with lower incomes. Increase funding for those improvements that improve energy efficiency, lower utility costs, supports aging in place initiatives and improves home safety. Provide grants where feasible. 31-60%Median Income Recommendations Provide additional funds to support security deposit assistance. Support and expand eviction prevention programs. Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower utility costs. Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers. 61-100% Median Income Recommendations Provide additional grant funding for energy efficiency improvements that lower utility costs. Support downpayment assistance, including credit and financial counseling to potential homebuyers. CITY OF IOWA CITY 40 Strategic Plan FISCAL YEARS 2023-2028 Adopted December 2022 0 [.- n3'. yyy CITY OF 10 UNESCO CITY - - IMPACT AREAS Neighborhoods & Housing 111r11:1avi1.1Is] ►1 Iowa City is a collection of authentic, vibrant neighborhoods and districts. By way of internal and external streets and trails, each community member has safe, easy access to everyday facilities and services within a 15-minute walk or bike ride. Neighborhoods are compact and socially diverse, with a variety of housing choices and at least one place serving as its center. Permanent affordable housing choices are dispersed throughout the community. New higher density development blends with existing buildings and shapes a comfortable, human -scale pedestrian environment. Public spaces are inviting and active with people recreating and socializing in parks, natural areas, and tree -lined streetscapes, all enhanced with public art and placemaking initiatives. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Update City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to encourage compact neighborhoods with diverse housing types and land uses. • Partner in projects that serve as models for desired future development. • Create inviting and active outdoor spaces with unique and engaging recreation offerings. • Address the unique needs of vulnerable populations and low -to -moderate income neighborhoods. ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Explore legal steps to discourage or prevent bad faith and predatory property City Attorney FY23-24 investors. Act on building regulation recommendations outlined in the Accelerating Iowa Climate Action & FY23-25 City's Climate Actions Report; including TIF energy efficiency incentives, energy Outreach and standards for height and density bonuses, and a climate action building permit Neighborhood & rebate program. Development Services Revamp the neighborhood PIN grant program and evaluate discretionary funding Communications FY23-25 for district/neighborhood grassroots projects. Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. Neighborhood & FY23-28 Work with partners to undertake significant -scale affordable housing efforts. Development Services Seek out and approve residential TIF applications for infrastructure when the City Manager's FY24-25 project provides community benefit such as permanent affordable housing, Office expansive public open space, or advancement toward stated climate action goals. Consider a standard application of residential TIF for all new annexations to meet permanent affordable housing goals. Initiate a Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent Zoning Code review to more Neighborhood & FY24-28 broadly incorporate form -based principles with emphasis on growth areas first and Development infill areas next, expanded missing middle housing allowances, minimum density Services requirements, and streamlined approval processes Explore pilot housing projects utilizing tiny homes, 3D printed homes, Neighborhood & FY24-28 prefabricated or manufactured homes, net -zero homes, or other innovative Development options. Services Bolster financial support for homeless services and evaluate shiftingtowards City Manager's FY25-28 shelter as service model. Office Expand the South District Homeownership Program to other targeted Neighborhood & FY26-28 neighborhoods and consider allowing relocation assistance to expedite Development completion. Services Provide all residents with public open space within a 15-minute walk or bike ride by Parks and FY26-28 strategically executing agreements with local schools or other partners. Recreation 10 Mobility FUTURE VISION Community members of all socioeconomic statuses easily, safely, and comfortably travel using multiple modes of transportation year-round. Commuters choose to walk, bike, or bus at least half of the time, and an increasing number of trips are fueled by clean energy. Regional collaboration has created a strong multi -modal network that links Iowa City to neighboring communities. Highly traveled corridors have separated trails or comfortable, safe lanes for bicyclists. When prioritizing, the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and other emerging forms of transportation are weighted greater than those of automobile drivers and adjacent property owners. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Expand the access and convenience of environmentally friendly and regionally connected public transit. • Design and maintain complete streets that are comfortable and safe for all users. • Grow and prioritize bike and pedestrian accommodations. 11 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Fully evaluate the feasibility and funding sources needed for a zero -fare transit Transportation FY23-24 system. Services and Finance Develop a vision statement for a singular regional transit system with metro Johnson City Council FY23-25 County entities and obtain initial commitments to study a regional system from each entity's elected officials. Install additional permanent charging stations for vehicles, bicycles, and electronic Climate Action FY23-28 devices. & Outreach Identify additional opportunities for road diets, sidewalk infill, curb cut Public Works FY23-28 enhancement, and bike lane installation with a goal of at least two such projects each construction season. Explore opportunities to utilize the CRANDIC right-of-way for passenger rail, bus City Council FY23-28 rapid transit, or pedestrian usage. Evaluate with the State of Iowa reverting Dodge and Governor to 2-way streets Public Works FY23-28 Secure federal funding for a relocated transit building that can accommodate future Transportation FY24-28 growth in service and electrification of the fleet. and City Manager's Office Consider adding or retrofitting bike pathways that are separated from streets or Public Works FY24-28 protected utilizing flexible bollards. Expand the fleet of electric buses or other low/no emission -technology vehicles each Climate Action FY25-28 time a diesel bus is due for replacement and seek grants that can expedite the & Outreach conversion. Consider an on -demand or subsidized voucher system for times and locations in Transportation FY25-28 which no fixed route service is available. Services Expand snow clearing operations at sidewalk corners in high priority pedestrian Public Works FY25-28 areas, bus stops, and bike lanes. and Parks & Recreation Initiate and promote vehicle and bike-share/scooter programs. Transportation FY26-28 Services Evaluate with the State of Iowa the possibility of a Burlington Street Road Diet Public Works FY26-28 utilizing flex zones in non -peak hours. 12 Economy FUTURE VISION Iowa City is the preferred location for businesses at all stages of development. Start-up businesses flourish and take advantage of mentoring and other resources. The vibrant arts and culture community attracts both visitors and new residents. Technologies developed through the University of Iowa are transferred to the local business sector, creating business diversity and new value within the community. Businesses pay living wages and support skill development for their employees. Support services - such as child-care and language assistance - are readily available for all, which means every person who wishes to participate in the local economy can do so. Community members support each other by spending their money locally. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Reinforce Iowa City as a premier community to locate and grow a business. • Ensure appropriate infrastructure is in place for future business growth and development. • Cultivate a strong entrepreneurial and small businesses ecosystem with a focus on creating new pathways to success for systemically marginalized populations. • Build Iowa City's image as the Greatest Small City for the Arts. • Strengthen the Iowa River's role as a signature community amenity and tourism generator. 13 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Enhance access to affordable childcare for all populations through innovative City Manager's FY23-25 partnerships with higher education, non -profits, and the business community. Office and Neighborhood & Development Services Utilizing American Rescue Act Funds, execute on agreeable recommendations in City Manager's FY23-25 the Inclusive Economic Development Plan with a particular focus on actions that Office and build long-term support and wealth -building opportunities for systemically Economic marginalized populations. Development Partner with Kirkwood Community College, Iowa City Community School District, Economic FY23-28 Iowa Labor Center, local trades, and other stakeholders to provide meaningful Development and career development opportunities, pre -apprenticeship, and apprentice Neighborhood & programs. Development Services Increase small business technical assistance to aid in the creation, success, and Economic FY24-28 growth of home-grown businesses. Development Economic FY25-28 Create flexible incentives to support the top goals of Iowa City's Self -Supporting Development and Municipal Improvement Districts and other commercial nodes, including City Manager's attaining a desired business mix that serves the surrounding neighborhood. Office Develop targeted marketing to promote Iowa City as a unique and attractive City Manager's FY26-28 place to do business. Office Develop a riverfront master plan in cooperation with the University of Iowa, City Manager's FY26-28 Think Iowa City, and other stakeholders. Office 14 Safety & Well-being FUTURE VISION Our City supports the mental and physical well-being of our community members. Public safety response, whether from the City or a non-profit partner, is nuanced depending on the specific needs of the situation. Community members receive emergency response services promptly and welcome responders as problem -solvers. Inviting spaces for social interaction, exercise, and regeneration are equitably located throughout the community and are lively with activity and use. New and long-time community members alike, especially marginalized groups, easily build networks and establish roots within our community. Community members have safe, healthy indoor spaces and are well -prepared for climate -related changes. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Implement and expand innovative public safety models and facilities to improve outcomes and relationships within the community. • Partner with non -profits to address the most emergent and foundational community safety and well-being needs. • Build community by fostering social connections and developing safe, accessible public spaces for gathering. 15 ACTION PLAN Champion Date Work collaboratively with Johnson County and other stakeholders to launch a City Council and Police FY23-24 community violence intervention effort in close cooperation with local law Department enforcement. Leveraging American Rescue Plan Act funds, build capacity in local non -profits Neighborhood & FY23-26 that will help ensure they are able to meet future community demands. Development Services Build on the relationship with the University of Iowa College of Nursing to Neighborhood & FY23-26 increase participation in the Healthy Homes program. Development Services Expand the Mental Health Liaison program with CommUnity Mobile Crisis with a Police Department FY23-28 goal of 24-hour coverage by the end of FY28. Actively promote 988 throughout the year and ensure that CommUnity Mobile City Manager's Office and FY23-28 Crisis has resources to meet community demands. Communications Continue critical exterior renovations to the Senior Center and continue Senior Center FY23-28 progress on Senior Center Facility Master Plan recommendations. Integrate CommUnity Mobile Crisis into the 911 dispatch protocols. Police Department FY24-26 Consider and, where feasible, implement alternatives to routine non -emergent Police Department FY24-26 traffic stops. Expand neighborhood -based programs such as mobile community Parks & Recreation FY26-28 social/recreation resources (fun patrol), nests or micro -hubs for kids/teens. 16 RESOURCES Facilities, Equipment and Technology FUTURE VISION Municipal facilities are modernized and designed for operational efficiency, capacity for growth, employee safety and health, resilience, alignment with Climate Action goals, and civic pride. Funding of equipment and facility replacement funds and partnerships with other entities result in joint facilities, technology, and equipment that improve access and services. City staff are encouraged to be entrepreneurial in their approach and actively seek to innovative and streamline processes while improving service levels to the community. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Invest in the next generation of public facilities and equipment to create immediate operational efficiencies, boost workplace safety, health, and morale, and improve cross -department collaboration. • Promote high-performance governance leveraging technology, partnerships, and innovation. 17 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Outline a municipal -wide facilities plan and initiate relevant action steps to keep City Manager's Office FY23-24 projects moving forward. Complete a City Hall and Public Safety Headquarters space needs study and City Manager's Office FY23-24 develop a plan for next steps toward implementation. Implement the asset management system and expand use for facility Public Works FY23-25 maintenance and management. Develop and implement an electric vehicle transition plan. Public Works and Climate FY23-25 Action & Outreach Pursue grant opportunities, bolster the Facility Reserve Fund, and explore City Manager's FY23-28 public/private partnerships to facilitate completion of key facility projects. Office and Finance Design replacement and renovated facilities to ensure alignment with Climate City Manager's Office FY24-28 Action goals and create safer and healthier working environments for public employees. Improve public transparency through a coordinated and centralized open data City Manager's Office FY26-28 platform. Consider resourcing a Smart City initiative that prioritizes data -driven decision- City Manager's Office FY26-28 making through technology adaptation and data analysis. LU FUTURE VISION The City is an employer of choice in the region and viewed as a rewarding, long-term career choice. Valuable benefits, flexible schedules, energizing workspaces, remote and hybrid work arrangements, and professional development and advancement opportunities improve productivity, service to the public, and morale. Employees enter an inclusive, fun, and engaging environment each workday. City staff, board and commission members, and volunteers are demographically representative of the City population at -large and every employee is continuously building cultural awareness. Leadership and elected officials ensure sufficient staff levels to maintain baseline services, weather vacancies or emergencies, protect against employee burnout, and add capacity to act on special assignments and strategic, long-term initiatives. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Establish the City of Iowa City as an employer of choice in the region with a pay plan, benefits package, and flexible work options that attract and retain high -quality and motivated public service employees. • Carry out a multi -dimensional staff engagement initiative to ensure every City employee feels welcome, informed, involved, and engaged at work. • Build a diverse talent pipeline. 19 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Complete and execute upon the results of an organization -wide classification and Human Resources FY23-25 compensation study. As part of study, review all job requirements to ensure applicability and eliminate unnecessary barriers to employment, including testing, residency requirements, education, and certification or license requirements. Monitor implementation of new telecommuting and flexible work schedule policies to City Manager FY23-25 ensure public service standards are fully met and desired employee work arrangement flexibility is pursued where possible. Balance investment in new annual initiatives with staffing levels to ensure core municipal City Manager's FY23-28 service levels are maintained and reduce instances of burnout. Office and City Council Elevate new and existing intra-organizational communication strategies to bolster City Manager's FY23-25 information sharing and improve productivity and connectiveness across the Office organization. Create more opportunities to promote inter -departmental relationships, collaboration, City Managers FY23-25 and problem -solving. Office Upskill City staff in implicit bias, cultural awareness, and inclusion. Equity & Human FY23-28 Rights Develop recruitment network with local minority institutions. City Manager's FY23-28 Office Take steps to promote more diverse representation on Boards, Commissions, and City Council FY23-28 Committees. Ensure every single employee knows the City's strategic vision and can connect their role City Manager's FY23-28 accordingly. Office Strengthen volunteer engagement, management, and appreciation efforts. City Council and City FY23-28 Manager's Office Implement increasingly relevant organization -wide training opportunities such as conflict City Manager's FY24-28 resolution and de-escalation training. Office Conduct comprehensive benefits review and implement changes based upon best City Manager's FY25-28 practices and modern expectations, exploring benefits such as paid volunteer time, Office wellness offerings, and flexible stipends for challenges such as childcare, transportation, higher education and more. Launch targeted apprenticeship program(s) in partnership with local education and City Managers FY26-28 workforce institutions. Office 20 Financial FUTURE VISION City residents believe property taxes and utility fees are fair and commensurate to service levels, and do not experience erratic changes in rates and fees. The City maintains sufficient financial resources to proactively maintain and replace assets, carry out strategic plan initiatives, and be insulated from unanticipated financial stressors. Partnerships, grant funding, and other creative financing mechanisms are routinely part of program and project financing structure. The City maintains a AAA bond rating, resulting in lower borrowing costs for residents and businesses. STRATEGIES To advance the Vision the City will pursue the following strategies: • Grow the tax base, consider alternative revenue sources, and leverage outside funding to maintain core services and pursue community priorities while maintaining equitable property tax rates. • Exercise fiscal responsibility by maintaining and growing assigned and emergency reserve funds and prudent debt management. 21 ACTION PLAN ChampionAction Date Ensure Enterprise Funds are well supported through incremental rate and fee Finance FY23-28 increases and do not become reliant on large rate spikes, property taxes, or unplanned debt issuance. Coordinate with Iowa League of Cities, Metro Coalition, and the City's contracted City Manager's Office FY23-28 state lobbyist to oppose unfunded state mandates and detrimental tax reforms. Maintain the City's AAA bond rating. Finance FY23-28 Increase the Emergency Fund balance by an annual target of 5%. Finance FY23-28 Significantly bolster the Facility Reserve Fund and develop an implementation plan Finance FY23-28 for use of funds that minimizes large debt issuances. Create a centralized grant management initiative that will focus on securing City Manager's Office FY24-28 additional private, state, and federal funding opportunities, while ensuring proper oversight and compliance. Develop and maintain cost recovery guidelines for programs and services that City Manager's Office FY26-28 balance fiscal responsibility and equity. Consider financial incentives and land use policies that aim to grow and diversify the City Manager's Office FY26-28 tax base (commercial, industrial, and residential). Consider alternative revenue sources such as a Local Option Sales Tax that can help City Manager's Office FY26-28 achieve strategic plan goals, fund infrastructure and facility needs, and reduce and City Council reliance on property tax. 22 FROM: Housing Action Team of Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board TO: Cities in Johnson County and Johnson County SUBJECT: Recommendations for Code/Ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) DATE: December 21, 2022 The Housing Action Team believes that there are many benefits associated with the creation of legal accessory dwelling units on lots in single family zones and in other districts. These include: 1. Increasing the supply of a more affordable type of housing not requiring government subsidies; 2. Helping older homeowners, single parents, young home buyers, and renters seeking a wider range of homes, prices, rents and locations; 3. By increasing housing diversity and supply, provide opportunities to reduce the segregation of people by race, ethnicity and income that resulted from decades of exclusionary zoning; 4. Providing homeowners with extra income to help meet rising home ownership costs; 5. Providing a convenient living arrangement for family members or other persons to provide care and support for someone in a semi-independent living arrangement while remaining in their community; 6. Providing an opportunity for increased security, home care, and companionship for older and other homeowners; 7. Reducing burdens on taxpayers while enhancing the local property tax base by providing a cost-effective means of accommodating development without the cost of building, operating and maintaining new infrastructure; 8. Promoting more compact urban and suburban growth, a pattern which reduces the loss of farm and forest lands, natures areas and resources, while reducing the distances people must drive and thereby reducing pollution that contributes to climate instability; and 9. Enhancing job opportunities for individuals by providing housing closer to employment centers and public transportation. Some cities in Johnson County already have code for ADUs (Iowa City and Solon). Johnson County has code that covers the unincorporated areas of the County. Oxford utilizes the Johnson County code. Swisher, Shueyville, Hills and North Liberty do not have code for ADUs. At present, Coralville, Lone Tree and Tiffin do not allow ADUs. The codes that do exist, vary among jurisdictions. The Housing Action Team would like to provide our recommendations that minimize lengthy application processes, high fees and harsh regulations that will prevent the development of ADUs or encourage illegal ADUs. Our recommendation or specific recommended language for each policy question is underlined and then followed by a rationale, if deemed necessary. Recommendations for the Elements of an ADU Code/Ordinance A. Definition- Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) means a residential living unit on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling or a parcel of which a single-family dwelling is present or may be constructed, that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It may take various forms: a detached unit, a unit that is part of an accessory structure, such as a detached garage, or a unit that is part of an expanded or remodeled dwelling. [Rationale Two common circumstances in which an ADU might be built before the primary residence are (1) when a homeowner wishes to stage construction expenses and living arrangements; and (2) when the homeowner owns an adjacent legal lot (typically used as a side or backyard) and would prefer to site an ADU there rather than on the lot with the primary residence.] B. Authorization of ADUs by Zoning District*- Accessory dwelling units are allowed in all zoning districts which allow residential use, including mixed -use zones, townhouse zones and single-family zones, subject to the requirements of the ordinance. C. Number of ADUs Allowed per Lot in Single -Family Zones- Any lot with, or zoned for, a Principal single-family dwelling unit, may have up to two accessory dwelling units. [Rationale There are many ways to accommodate more than one ADU that are sensitive to concerns about neighbor appearance. For example, two internal ADUs can be accommodated by remodeling a large home, without increasing height or bulk. An internal unit can be allowed along with an ADU over an attached garage, without increasing the area of the lot occupied by structures.] D. Minimum Lot Size in Single -Family and Townhouse Zones- Accessory dwelling units may be created on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for a single-family dwelling or townhouses. Attached and internal accessory dwelling units may be built on any lot with a single-family dwelling or townhouse that is nonconforming solely because the lot is smaller than the minimum size, provided the accessory dwelling units would not increase the nonconformity of the residential use with respect to building height, bulk or lot coverage. [Rationale- As a policy matter, it should not be necessary to establish a separate qualifying lot size for ADUs if the purpose is to assure the retention of landscaping and privacy between homes, because the setback and lot coverage standards can achieve those objectives.] E. Minimum / Maximum Size Area: The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit may be no more than the footprint of the primary structure or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. [Rationale- We recommend eliminating minimum size since the basic requirements for a living space (kitchen, bathroom, living/sleeping space) and the housing market will establish a minimum size. For situations in which the existing residence is very small, local governments might consider authorizing ADUs up to 800 square feet when the primary dwelling is smaller than 800 feet.] F. Types of Structures- A manufactured or modular dwelling unit may be used as an accessory dwelling unit in any zone in which dwelling units are permitted. Rationale In recent years, many off -site manufactured and modular ADUs are being produced; old conceptions of what constitutes a manufactured or modular home are outdated. This language maximizes the opportunities for ADUs by allowing any type of structure to be an ADU if that structure is allowed as a principal unit in the zoning district.] G. Lot Coverage Limits- An accessory dwelling unit (detached, attached, or built by expanding the footprint of an existing dwelling) on a lot of 4,000 square feet or larger shall not occupy more than 15% of the total lot area. For single family lots of less than 4,000 square feet, the combined lot coverage of the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling shall not exceed 60%. Accessory dwelling units built within the footprint of existing, legal, accessory structures are considered not to have changed existing lot coverage. Rationale- Lot coverage allowances and limits intersect with setback requirements, floor -area ratio limits and height limits. If detached or attached ADUs are significantly constrained by a lot coverage limit, then the possibility of having a two-story ADU may determine whether the investment in an ADU will generate a sufficient return to justify its construction.] H. ADU Setbacks- 1. A setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions as an existing structure. 2. No setback shall be required for an existing garage living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit; and 3. A detached accessory dwelling unit is not permitted on the front half of a lot, except when located a minimum of 30 feet from the front line or it falls within the provision of subsection 2. I. ADU Height Limit- The maximum height of an accessory dwelling unit is 25 feet or the height of the primary residence, based on the highest point of its roof compared with the lowest point of ground level at the foundation, whichever is less. J. Architectural Consistency and Design Review- We recommend against establishing separate architectural or design standards for ADUs. Rationale- Highly discretionary standards based on neighborhood "character" or "quality' can be serious obstacles to the construction of ADUs. Vague standards hamper homeowners and decision -makers alike. They can become an avenue for channeling neighborhood objections to ADUs in general. In some cases, the prescriptions for particular designs and materials can also add considerably to the cost of an ADU. A better approach is to reduce key design elements to a set of objective standards governing roof pitches, window orientation and siding. In some cases, design standards should only apply in certain districts or when the ADU is larger than a specified height or taller than one story.] K. Orientation of Entrance- Regulations governing the location, type and number of entrances into primary dwellings apply to accessory dwelling units. [Rationale- Not allowing an ADU entrance on the same side of the house as the primary dwelling can compromise the design and increase the cost of an ADU, substituting a more awkward and expensive entrance. Following the general principal of treating ADUs like the primary dwelling, the authorization and location of access doors and stairs for detached and attached ADUs should be the same as for primary residences.] L. ADU Screening, Landscaping and Orientation- We do not have a specific recommendation on this subject because a privacy regulation that is not applied to primary dwellings should not be applied to ADUs. ADU regulations addressing privacy as a separate subject seem to be rare. M. Parking Requirements- No additional off-street parking is required for construction of an ADU. If the ADU removes one of the existing off-street parking spaces it must be replaced on site if required by the underlying zoning. In lieu of an on -site parking space, an additional on -street parking space may be substituted if there's already sufficient curb area available along the frontage for a parking space or by removing the parking space access ramp and reinstalling the curb. [Rationale Requiring an off-street parking space for each ADU is a serious inhibition to the construction of ADUs for two reasons. First, the cost of creating off- street parking spaces. Second, the lot size, location of the primary residence and topography may make the creation of the space impossible.] N. Short -Term Rentals- We recommend that jurisdictions do not adopt a limitation on short- term rentals unless rental regulations or prohibitions exist for all housing in the jurisdiction or zone. Rationale- Many ordinances already have such limitations or prohibitions on the use of homes as transient lodging in their land use regulations, and those could be extended to ADUs.] O. Separate Sale of ADUs- We do not have a specific recommendation regarding this subject since most ADU ordinances are silent on the separate sale of the units as condominiums. We leave this policy question to the discretion of local jurisdictions. P. Owner Occupancy (Residency) Standards- There should be no requirement that the owner live on the same property (whether in the primary dwelling or the ADU) if there is no owner occupancy requirement for primary residences. [Rationale The practical impact of the occupancy requirement is to inhibit construction of most ADUs. This requirement gives pause to homeowners or institutions financing home purchases because of the limits they place on successive owners who will not be able to rent out or lease their main house, which might be necessary as a result of a divorce, job transfer or death. It can also make financial institutions reluctant to provide financing for construction of an ADU and because it acts as a restriction on a mortgage lender's security interest in the property.] Standards and Conditions Not Recommended for Application to ADUs The following standards and conditions are not recommended for inclusion in ADU ordinances: • Density limits on ADUs in a zone or district • Age of principal dwelling • Size of principal dwelling • Tenure of current owner • Limits on persons who can live in ADUs (age, relationship, disability) • Annual renewal and monitoring of permits for ADUs *Note on Historic Districts: Even historic districts can accommodate ADUs. Denver, Colorado and Pasadena, California provide useful examples. A city may require a simplified pre -application process utilizing a Design Review Committee to provide recommendations to a Landmark Preservation Commission. The most common issues pertain to the massing, building material and historic detailing on the elevations that face the street. The secondary elevations that face away from the street only need to complement the primary structure. In some cases, the roof treatment of an ADU's primary elevation is reminiscent of the primary building; while its secondary elevations, which face the alley, may be flat to maximize interior space. This allows homeowners the flexibility to create more usable spaces while still blending with historical forms and traditions. Incentives: Some cities around the country, recognizing the benefits of ADUs, have initiated various forms of incentives to foster ADU development. Assistance with rent, down payments and mortgages along with tax abatements have been utilized. The city of Des Moines, in January 2022, implemented a 10 year, 100% tax abatement for new ADUs. We hope that the cities that already have an ADU ordinance will review these recommendations and consider making revisions to be more in alignment with our advice. For those cities without an ADU ordinance/code, we encourage you to utilize/consider these recommendations as a template for the drafting of your ordinance/code. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you how ADUs can be a useful strategy to support seniors and also provide affordable housing in your city and across the county. ATTACHMENT 4 Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Attachment 4: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Underlined text indicates added language. Text with a ugh indicates deleted language. Article 14-4C: ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS 14-4C-2: SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA: 14-4C-2A. Accessory Apartments: Accessory apartments are permitted ^ the oc 5, oc sz oc 40 onn 40 onn on ^d onlc on moo^^^GWR@F ^d delma.hed ^ ^le f^mi l.y dW@Ill n^e ^na detaghed n Inf 1 Re dwell nos and in bu Id R y fo fhoso same dwells no types provided the following conditions are met: 1. Permit Required: Prior to the establishment of any accessory apartment, the owner of the principal dwell ng un t use must obtain a rental permit from thDep^^�^^' of Housing and Inspection Services according to the applicable procedures set forth in Cehapter 14-8, 'Review And Approval Procedures", ^f th6 t tie 2. Ownership And Occupancy: a Then of the property a uhi^h o aGG@66ery apartment is Ingated m isf QgGupy of L.^nf o Of the dW@111 n^ W R t6 on the pF@m 6@6 a the p rd legal r ..;aonfThe lot shall contain no more than two (2) dwelling units as a principal use and shall be located in a zone that allows household living activities. b. The accessory apartment and the principal dW@11 Rg use must be under the same ownership. ���� ��B The total n mhor of inrliy d cols that r side in theaGGessery apartment m not ^ @d t ). 3. Site Requirements: a. Only one accessory apartment may be established per ^'angle ffam lT lot. b In add t on f.. the r.^* Rg FeqW Fed f..r the PFRG ^I a..yol ll n^ W R t OR@ 9# GtF@@t pa4 W.... red for the aGGessery partmenf The minimum lot size area-per--�requirement of the underlying base zone must be met but d^^^ ^^f apply to aR aGG@GGGFy apaFtM@Rt,' , no additional lot area is required beyond that which is required for the principal use dwell Rg 6i yt. 4. Design Requirements: a The aGG@66GFy ^*%Rt may be !GGated .. thin the PF RG ^l dwells n^ OF .dfhin ^ aGGessery bu Id nq- b. The accessory apartment must be a complete, separate dwelling unit that functions independently from the principal ^'^^'^ fam l y `well ^^ wif use. It must contain its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, in addition to a separate entrance from the exterior. be. When located within the a building with an existing principal use dweWw@, the accessory apartment must be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of an allowed use within that zone, and any ^ ^^'^ f^^ " r^^' ^^^^ ^^ new entrances should f,^o the side or ^Fd of 7mv-vrthe bwnl Id RgT and any add tion fee aR aGGesseFy ^r1m rd m ..f I RGFease the fl....r area Of the OF 0 Rai dW@111n0 by m e fh^r. tee ^ ^..f'4n0_` E-exterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must visually match the principal dwelling useaait. 5. Apartment Size: The aGGesseFy ^r1m..Rt m of be .d..^rl y subeFd Rat. I area to the th the follow no standards. a Fee aR aGGesseFy r.^rlmeRt IeGated w thir. ^ PF RG pal dwellin^ , R t tThe floor area of the accessory apartment arait may not exceed Lflythirty percent (590%) of the total floor area of the principal use dw^'�, excluding the area of an attached garage, or one thousand ^'x hundred #Iffy (1 000650) square feet, whichever is less. b. Bedrooms shall have a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of total floor area. €er an aGGesswy apartment IgGate l w thin a aGGeSSOFY bu Id nn the floor area of the aGGessery O ) of the total floor area of the annpsseFy bu Id Rg OF 6 X h6lRd F@d fifty (659) e e feet .yh Gh..yy..r Is I^ss c. Bedrooms cannot exceed thirty five percent (35%) of the finished floor area of the accessory apartment. The aGGesseFy paFtmeRt m ..rh^IR n FnRFP fh^r. o o h...L. RFn Article 14-88: ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURES: 14-88-1: ACCESSORYAPARTMENT RENTAL PERMIT. A. Permit Required: 1. Prior to the establishment of any accessory apartment, the owner of the principal dwelling unit must obtain a rental permit from the department of housing and inspection services. The permit will be effective for two (2) years. At the end of every two (2) years, renewal of the accessory apartment rental permit will be granted after completion of a routine housing inspection verifying that the propeq rema ns the PF RG pal r s r'^^^^ of the nwnpr and that all of the conditions of this section and approval criteria for accessory apartments set forth in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title have been met. 2. No rental permit for an accessory apartment will be issued unless all the requirements and standards for accessory apartments set forth in chapter 4, article C of this title have been met- B. Submittal Requirements: 1. The owner shall file an application for a rental permit with the department of housing and inspection services on application forms provided by said department- 2- oror to ssuange or al of an aggessery apartment renal perm tthe owner Must uhmit a noari;zodl a# davit to the G ty . erify nn owner 2 Prior to the issuance of an accessory apartment rental permit, the owner shall file, in the office of the county recorder, a declaration of covenants stating that the right to maintain an accessory apartment ceases upon transfer of title, and that the right to maintain an accessory apartment in no way constitutes approval of the dwelling as a different principle use 4UPlex. The owner shall provide a copy of the declaration to the department of housing and inspection services, or its successor, prior to the issuance of the accessory apartment permit. Article 14-9A: GENERAL DEFINITIONS 14-9A-1: DEFINITIONS: ACCESSORY APARTMENTS: An temporary accessory dwelling unit located within an owner essupied, single-family or duplex dwelling pomp or in an accessory building and meeting the requirements of this title. An accessory apartment may also be referred to as an accessory dwelling unit. Article 17-5: HOUSING CODE 17-5-3: DEFINITIONS: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT: A t@RqPGFaFy dwelling unit that is accessory to ^^ ^ter ess61ped single-family or duplex dwelling. ATTACHMENT 5 Enlarged Map Kirk Lehmann From: Rick Mason <nyhillsidefarm@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 9:00 AM To: Kirk Lehmann Subject: Proposed zoning changes A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Kirk, I do understand the need for more affordable housing in Iowa City and I have a few comments and concerns. The idea of removing the owner occupied requirement is particularly disturbing. Allowing developers to police themselves and rent with the idea of community improvement vs monetary gain is ludicrous. I know the expected rebuttal- "There are laws and code enforcements in place." These do not work in the real world. For a healthy livable community to exist there needs to be local control to help with a harmonious existence between neighbors. We lived next door to a young man who began to work on the house he was in. He removed the front steps leaving a huge hole in the lawn, proceeded to work on vehicles leaving debris in the yard, built a fence and got several large barking dogs, played loud music late into the night and would let the dogs out into the yard in the middle of the night. Many of our neighbors complained to the police, code enforcement and animal control .We spoke with him on many occasions and, although he was a nice and decent person, things did not change. This went on for several years until he finally moved. Across the street from us the absent landlord cut his house up into many bedrooms including 5 or 6 in the basement, mattresses on the floor and no regard for who he rented to. Numerous calls to the code department were ineffective. When he was cited everyone would move out only to return later. This went on for years and one neighbor actually sold and moved out. Finally the landlord sold his house to another neighbor. I do understand the need for everyone to have affordable housing and a place to live, however some people need help and guidance on how to live peacefully within the community. This will NOT happen with absentee landlords. I have seen cities where your proposed changes have irreversibly altered the community. The construction of rental units in single family homes, splitting lots to have accessory units is a costly endeavor. A developer will need to make a profit at any cost and when tenant problems occur, as they inevitably will, adjacent properties will lose the appeal to a buyer of a single family home. Values will go down and these former single family homes will be more financially attractive to developers and will be split into units for rent. This will cause a continued downward spiral as the area (even a very local one) changes and rents go down as landlords try to cover costs. I am not just a resident of Iowa City, I was a landlord in a big eastern city for decades before retiring here. I rented to mostly low income residents and I found that making one resident the super for a building greatly diminished any problems. As I said there needs to be someone there 24/7 to maintain a civil, decent community presence. Sorry to ramble on but this is the best town we've lived in and I'd like it to stay that way. Thank you for your time Rick Mason 2127 Friendship Street 607-382-3739 Kirk Lehmann From: Pam Michaud <iowastay@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 9:53 PM To: Kirk Lehmann Subject: Accessory vs Affordable Apartments Attachments: image003.png A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Accessory apartments will not be inexpensive to retrofit plumbing, etc. or build new. So rents will be high. Instead we need affordable housing. Two large landlords pay reduced property taxes for their neglected vacant lots. 911 N. Governor - the former Health and Human Services building has been vacant for over 12 years. Zoning, Happy Hollow Park, and the 1.1 acre lot is adequate for a new 3 story apartment building. Rather than a neglected property, TSB Holdings could build affordable units for a mature population. The Historic Elks / Chamber of Commerce building at 325 E. Washington St. was razed in 2021. The lot has been a trashy eyesore for two years. The lot at Gilbert and Washington should not add to the oversupply of "luxury student housing". In the last 10 years, many dogs are now allowed in downtown and close -in apartments. If CC-1 LLC is not going to develop 325 Washington, it could become a public green space and dog park for a thousands of close -in residents. Sincerely, Pam Michaud On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 1:14 PM Kirk Lehmann <KLehmannCn@iowa-citv.org> wrote: Dear Stakeholder, Thank you for your interest in the proposed zoning code text amendment relating to accessory apartments. The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider proposed changes to accessory apartment standards and receive comments at their public meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 4 at 6:00 pm in Emma Harvat Hall at Iowa City City Hall (410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240). The agenda packet, including the staff report, is available on the City website at www.icgov.org/pz. 1 You are welcome to attend this public meeting to present your views concerning the proposed changes. You may also submit written information to me in advance of the meeting, and I will provide your comments for the consideration of the Commission. If you know of any interested party who has not received this message, we would appreciate if you would inform them of the upcoming meeting and opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact me at klehmannC@iowa-citv.org or 319-356-5247 if you have any questions or comments about this application or if you would like more information on the proposed changes or public process. Regards, x Kirk Lehmann, AICP (he/him) WWW.ICGOV.ORG I Associate Planner Ip:319-356-5247 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Transit is now FARE FREE! x Learn more at ICGOV.ORG/FAREFREE Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kirk Lehmann From: Brendan Fitzgerald<brend an.fitzgeraId@yesfitz.com> Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 6:33 PM To: Kirk Lehmann Cc: Anne Russett; Kirk Lehmann Subject: Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting on Accessory Apartments A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi Kirk and Anne, Wish we could be there, but my wife's running a pinball tournament across the street from you at SpareMe, if you want to swing by after the meeting. As a homeowner in a historic conservation district, I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to increase housing density near downtown while preserving the architectural character of the neighborhoods. Making the rules around Accessory Dwelling Units less onerous threads the needle and marries the two goals wonderfully. I'd especially like to voice support for striking the parking requirement. We have a very walkable city, and our public transit is convenient, reliable, and far-reaching. My personal goal is to add an ADU above our garage and rent it out until our parents need to be closer. This change will keep growing families in the same neighborhoods for longer, and increase housing generally in the short term. Good luck! Brendan Fitzgerald YesFitz.com Sep 29, 2023, 1:15 PM by KLehmann@iowa-city.org: Dear Stakeholder, Thank you for your interest in the proposed zoning code text amendment relating to accessory apartments. The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider proposed changes to accessory apartment standards and receive comments at their public meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 4 at 6:00 pm in Emma Harvat Hall at Iowa City City Hall (410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240). The agenda packet, including the staff report, is available on the City website at www.icgov.org/pz. You are welcome to attend this public meeting to present your views concerning the proposed changes. You may also submit written information to me in advance of the meeting, and I will provide your comments for the consideration of the Commission. If you know of any interested party who has not received this message, we would appreciate if you would inform them of the upcoming meeting and opportunity to comment. Please do not hesitate to contact me at klehmannC@iowa-citv.org or 319-356-5247 if you have any questions or comments about this application or if you would like more information on the proposed changes or public process. Regards, = IOWA CITY A UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Kirk Lehmann, AICP (he/him) WWWICGOV.ORG Associate Planner 0000 p: 319-356-5247 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City Transit is now FARE FARE FREE FREE! IOWA CITY Learn more at ICGOV.ORG/FAREFREE Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kirk Lehmann From: Paula Swygard <pswygard@gmaii.com> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 10:56 AM To: Kirk Lehmann Subject: Zoning Code amendment proposal on Accessory Apartments A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Kirk - please pass my comments on to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their October 4, 2023 meeting. Thanks! Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission — ADU's, or Accessory Apartments as they are referred to in the Iowa City Zoning Code, can serve a place in Iowa City's housing market. However, given Iowa City's development history heavily led by student housing, I firmly believe as the planning staff's survey supports, that owner -occupancy must remain as a requirement. Developing more ADU's on owner -occupied properties could create a nice balance of rental units and owner -occupied housing throughout Iowa City, especially in the University Impact Area where the demand for student housing is high. Applying the trickle -down theory that with more housing rental rates and property prices will decline has not proven true in the Iowa City market as developers operate on a per student rate for housing. This prices out lower income residents and those seeking affordable housing. Giving the opportunity to developers to crowd more student housing near the University by allowing ADU's on non -owner occupied property would most likely lead to more of the same expensive housing and is counter to the City goal of neighborhood stabilization. In recommending to City Council changes to Iowa City's zoning code on Accessory Apartments, please maintain the requirement that they be owner occupied. Thanks for your consideration, and for your service, Paula Swygard CASA DEL ESCUCHA MI VOZ IOWA CATHOLICt, WORKER Fighting for Worker justice ovlA cllY and Immigration Reform OBRERO CATOLICO October 2, 2023 Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Iowa City City Council Attn: Geoff Fruin, Kirk Lehmann Iowa City City Hall 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Subject. Support for Proposed Affordable Housing Code Amendments to Expand Permanent Supportive Housing, Accessory Dwelling Units, YWo-Family, and Multifamily Construction City Manager Geoff Fruin, Associate Planner Kirk Lehmann, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Iowa City City Councilors: We write in support of the proposed amendments to simplify the housing code, expand the use of permanent supportive housing services, and encourage the construction of new affordable housing. Although we support the proposed zoning code changes as written, including the provisions on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's), the concerns many in our community have are valid about the negative impact the changes will have on Iowa City's remaining historic homes. Without more public investment in affordable housing and permanent supportive housing, real estate developers and landlords stand to benefit the most. Iowa City's remaining historic homes will continue to be demolished and replaced over time by rows of cookie -cutter townhouses and luxury skyscrapers. To best address community concerns, we recommend the city of Iowa City pass the housing code changes as written AND invest an additional $10 million in innovative, deeply affordable housing and permanent supportive housing projects. Background Escucha Mi Voz Iowa and the Iowa City Catholic Worker are member -led, housing and health services organizations. Together, we address the structural determinants of health through permanent supportive housing, community organizing, transformative education, and innovative public policy. Our joint mission is to win whole worker health equity by building the power of immigrant and refugee workers, leaders, volunteers, and advocates to achieve dignity and justice in society. In 2023, our housing and relief programs combined for over $7 million in impact. The five signers of this letter attended three public information and input sessions and interviewed dozens of directly impacted immigrant and refugee members of our organizations about the proposal. As part of our discernment process, we also read the original source of these proposed changes, the Biden-Harris Administration's 2022 Housing Supply Action Plan. The Administration's plan recommended local governments adopt zoning changes because restrictive and costly land use rules are a structural barrier to the construction of new, green, and affordable housing. "Local land use laws and zoning regulations limit where, and how densely, housing can be built. This constrains housing supply, perpetuates historical patterns of segregation, prevents workers from accessing jobs, and increases energy costs and climate risk," the 2022 White House action plan stated. The White House's action plan also tied the zoning changes cities like Iowa City are adopting to new eligibility requirements for federal transportation funding. Cities who do not pass the land use changes the White House wants risk their future competitiveness for future grants. The Administration's action plan also recommended pairing zoning deregulation with additional public investments in affordable housing through the American Rescue Plan Act and other government agency programs such as HUD, CBDG, HOME, and PRO Housing. The $85 million Pro Housing includes among its eligible uses funding for cities to adopt zoning changes. `Every home should have a Christ room in it, so that hospitality may be practiced.' The Catholic Worker Movement has promoted the "Housing First" model since movement co-founder Dorothy Day opened her first house of hospitality in New York City in 1933, during the height of the Great Depression. One of her inspirations came from St. John Chrysostom, who wrote, "Therefore, set aside a room in your house, to which Christ may come; say, "This is Christ's room; this is set apart for him. " Even if it is very simple, he will not disdain it. Christ goes about "naked and a stranger"; he needs shelter: do not hesitate to give it to him. " Single families who want to create a "Christ Room" of affordable housing in their home could potentially construct a new ADU to do so. If 4,000 homeowners built an affordable housing "Christ Room" ADU, the city's housing supply would actually begin to meet demand. However, zoning policy changes alone will not make the construction of new ADU's affordable for most young working families. First-time homeowners are already saddled with student loan and mortgage debt and struggle with the rising costs of pandemic -related inflation to bread-and-butter, kitchen table products like food, gas, water, and electricity. Even assuming a relatively cheap construction cost of $100,000 for a 1,000 sq-ft ADU, construction to the scale of 4,000 new units would cost $400 million, excess wealth young working families and first-time homeowners simply do not have. The real cost could be double. The free market and private sector cannot marshall these kinds of resources alone. More public investment in affordable housing is also necessary if the ambitious goals of the proposed zoning changes are to be met. Affordable Permanent Supportive Housing, Two -Family Homes, and the Migrant Housing Crisis The lack of affordable housing negatively impacts immigrant and refugee workers, their families, and all of society. Record high border crossings are the new normal, and big cities like Chicago are overwhelmed with an influx of refugees arriving by bus everyday from Texas and Florida. Recently arrived refugees from war zones like Colombia, Honduras, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have up to one year to apply for asylum and then have to wait six more months for their work authorizations to arrive. Both cost hundreds of dollars in fees to file. Many families report having to wait almost two years before they can first work legally. In the meantime, where will they live? How will they survive? The national migrant housing crisis is not just confined to big cities. It is here in Eastern Iowa. In Cedar Rapids, refugee resettlement agencies are filling entire hotels with recently arrived families. In Iowa City, long-standing permanent supportive housing groups like Escucha Mi Voz and the Catholic Worker House - who devote 100 percent of their units to free low-income housing - are filled to capacity even as more properties are purchased to meet the growing need. Many newly arrived refugee families report they are sleeping in their cars, or are forced to live in overcrowded, unsanitary, and substandard housing, all while paying exorbitant amounts in rent. The city's proposed changes will permit the new construction of two-family and multifamily dwellings for permanent supportive housing and the accessory use of space for related services. We wholeheartedly support these changes. But frontline community organizations with the demonstrated capacity to scale up their own housing supply need more public investment in order to take advantage of the proposed zoning changes as much as developers and landlords. Financial Analysis: Iowa City Has Up to $10 Million of APRA for Affordable Housing, May Have Already Applied for $85 Million PRO Housing Fund Iowa City has committed $6 million of its ARPA allotment to the development of undefined future affordable housing projects. The city also has more than $4 million of APRA still uncommitted towards any project. The Biden-Harris Administration's 2022 Housing Supply Action Plan tying transportation funding to housing code deregulation also called for increased public funding in affordable housing through HUD, CBDG, HOME, and PRO Housing. PRO Housing is a new, $85 million program to assist cities in making the housing code changes. Conclusion The city of Iowa City was not completely transparent with the public about the White House's role influencing the code changes with the carrot of PRO Home funding and the stick of decreased competitiveness for transportation grants. Despite this, the proposed housing code changes are welcome and necessary to expand housing supply in Iowa City. But free market changes to the housing code will not be enough on their own to reach the scale we need to solve the housing crisis. More public investment in deeply affordable housing and dynamic, base -building housing organizations is also needed. Recommendations We recommend the city of Iowa City: 1) Pass the housing code changes as written, including the sections expanding the use of Accessory Dwelling Units, 2) Invest an additional $10 million of American Rescue Plan funding in deeply affordable housing projects and permanent supportive housing organizations that can guarantee 100 percent of their units are affordable for Income -eligible Households. 3) Work with permanent supportive housing organizations who have the demonstrated capacity and community support to reach scale to jointly identify and fully fund deeply affordable housing construction projects. Thank you for your commitment to affordable housing and permanent supportive housing. We look forward to continuing to work with you and other community stakeholders on this issue. Sincerely, David Goodner and Daniana Trigoso-Kukulski Co -Directors, Escucha Mi Voz Iowa Clinton Dimambu and Ninoska Campos Escucha Mi Voz members and Iowa City residents Dr. Emily Sinnwell Trustee, Iowa City Catholic Worker Kirk Lehmann From: Anne Russett Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 8:29 AM To: Billie Townsend; Chad Wade, Maggie Elliott, Maria Padron; Mike Hensch; Scott Quellhorst; Susan Craig Cc: Kirk Lehmann; Sara Greenwood Hektoen; Danielle Sitzman Subject: FW: Zoning Proposed Changes Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files, City Council 10-3-23.pdf; GT%.pdf Commissioners - Please seethe attached correspondence Thanks, Anne -----Original Message ----- From: mbslonn@mchsi.com <mbslonn@mchsi.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 12:13 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Zoning Proposed Changes ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Dear Anne, Yes, on passing along that message and I am also asking you to please include my statement from tonight at City Council (see attachments), plus a list of %of rentals in Goosetown, already at 30%, surely the highest in the city. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend tomorrow night's meeting but hope that the Commission members will take time to think about the impact that this new policy will have on my neighborhood and the fact that no neighbor I've talked to seems to know about it. They will be more than shocked when more cottages are razed and a 2-plex goes up next -door with more rental space behind. As I say in the statement, our neighborhood is about to be erased. The developer mentioned owns at least 7 houses in a 2-block area, two sets are contiguous. And I've been told that he may own more under other names. If you detect panic in my message, it is real. Marybeth Slonneger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Russett" <ARussett@iowa-city.org> To: "Marybeth Slonneger" <mbslonn@mchsi.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 1:40:29 PM Subject: RE: Zoning Proposed Changes Marybeth— The Planning and Zoning Commission has already recommended approval of the zoning code amendments. The only item they deferred was related to accessory apartments. Is this letter related to accessory apartments? If so, I can pass this along if you'd like me to. Thanks, Anne From: Marybeth Slonneger <mbslonn@mchsi.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 12:16 PM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Zoning Proposed Changes [cid: i mage001.j pg@ 01 D9 F2DA.81C E B420j ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Anne, Because of my concern for a 4th home that has been demolished this past year in GT, I wrote a letter to Council last week and thought it might be good to send a copy to the Committee members for their attention, in case it doesn't appear in their packets. Thank you. Dear Council Members, September 21, 2023 Last August, just before leaving on an extended vacation, as many do this time of year, I became aware of the P &Z Commission's new proposed changes to procedures —a dense and very lengthly document. Others may have missed it. There wasn't time to digest it all but a few things stood out. It was worrisome to me, as within this past year I've already seen two houses disappear, plus one turn -around, all within one block of my house in Goosetown on Davenport St. —all the work of a local developer; a fourth house is in the process of being torn down by its owner. So, starting with the two that were removed... both were small cottages. I believe this is the cat- egory that you are encouraging. They were both replaced by significantlly more expensive single family houses, one I was told was being offered initially in the $500,000 range, lowered to $300,00. Is that what you really mean by affordable housing? I support the effort to provide more housing for lower -income people but I hesitate when it translates into increasing profits for developers in this rapacious way. I don't see the benefit to low income families. I live among a wonderful cluster of modest homes, some with historic value. But Goosetown is probably the most threatened neighborhood in the city because the houses are small —the urge to tear down huge. We regularly get solicitations through the mail: letters, postcards and on the Neighborhood website to sell to developers who have vocally expressed in public meetings how Goosetown will be changed in two years. One particular developer owns multiple properties within sight of my house. He has plans. My sense is that you are not taking into account that these people are not about community val- ues, but only profit. If this isn't somehow regulated, a lot of building material is going to end up in the landfill, Goosetown as we know it will have disappeared, and you will end up with blocky buildings with very high prices attached to them. Would it make more sense to incentivise low income families to own and maintain an already existing property with the use of a decreasing loan? or some such way to utilize what's already built? Also at issue here are concerns for the environment, for the waste of building materials, for the need for a bigger landfill. This is a hugely complex issue. Would you not slow down the voting process to really think out the impact on my neighborhood? It feels like another round of "urban renewal" with similar consequenses... obliteration. Finally, I don't know whether this is true or not, but I've heard from several realtors that Goo- setown is a highly sought after place to live, perhaps the most sought after. If you encourage the destruction of these modest homes, you are also destroying a popular destination. People will not be able to afford to live here. Marybeth Slonneger 1109 E Davenport St. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. At the end of July, I was informed that a 40-some page packet of proposed changes to zoning was under- way. I was leaving on a 3-week vacation so didn't have time to read through this quite dense document but a number of items stood out that raised concern. When I got back, I took time to speak with some neighborbors on both sides of Davenport St. None of them were aware of the document or of the proposed changes, some probably still aren't. It concerns me that this will impact homeowners in a big way and they haven't received a notification letter from the city. The other concern is that it is happening very fast. Per- sonally, I think the process should be slowed down to be absorbed by those who will be impacted. Secondly, because I recall no letter from the city, I felt I had to find out on my own who owned properties, who rented properties and who held them in some company's name. I came up with the following num- bers for Goosetown including Dodge to Reno, Bloomington to Ronalds. By my count, there are 269 homes owned by 52 LC, LLQ management companies, trusts, and 2 Housing Fellowships for a total of about 30% of GT already being rented and that doesn't count unknown rentals by individual owners. That means that about every third house is a rental, creating great turnover, not knowing neighbors, lack of stability and a fear that some developer is coming in to replace the house next door with a possible 2-unit & a 3rd be- hind ... please try to imagine this happening in your own neighborhood. One neighbor told me that she had meant to build a lovely matching garage to her home, but found out a developer had bought next door and was reluctant to invest now, not knowing what he would build. Her concern is correct, in the last year, 4 nearby houses have been demolished. A small, historic cottage at 935 Bloomington was one of those, its rebuild sold recently for $536,220. Is this what is meant by afford- able housing? Please consider the profits for developers that this is creating. GT is at their mercy and we have been forewarned. At a P & Z meeting last Oct 19th—I quote a developer who spoke —he said "In the next 2 years, GT will change & it will change quickly." He said he has 7 projects underway around our cottage (given Landmark status in October) and 2 properties that are slated to be demolished. I remind you, about 30% of GT is not owned by homeowners. We are in the process of erasing this neighborhood, similar to what happened during Urban Renewal. The city has expressed interest in providing low-income housing. It's already here, if we don't let it slip away to the $500,000+ bracket. GT has renters everywhere including many, many students who daily walk by my house or live across the street. Those who own their homes like living in GT. I've been told by 2 realtors that it is a very popular destination for young families just getting started. It is a neighborhood of creative people, of a distinct culture, and an historic past. It was a neighborhood of immigrants, and, if you look at the names of home owners today, it still is. The answer is here, please don't let it slip away to those whose interest is in huge profits. More than every 3rd house is now a rental, how many more are we going to be asked to carry? Marybeth Slonneger umber:.... 1 aoeN Nolaer vPNC 001, ONNEN deed Hold¢. z: Mper , luouE FMP=M addmn: s35 Ei... n Imp CnY.1 TNps oP.FSS POF a.— RE5 Nf L Claae: RES N.L Map Area. 3pp1RF5 SMTwp-Mg: - Int-BIxR: OL 6 Legal desnlglan:lWYR OIY(OWNRLMN) E90'0FH 130'OVM1Of6 Ommesignam�e: xa+r..-:F.oT rs FLaam oN < x r n SL l.NPV1 ProPeM Anp N NT F9 RFl .—I Bumbv: I.I.M.m5 BSE xoMv: LFROON,wdF.A Pmy,.dre®: 9F!EMVEF S, I CLIYIMP TI POppE M. Wme: R®FN.L n Cla: PE ..L Kapp— I.D. E5 SMTwPBn9:" bt-BIx4: OL8. legal ecnpNon: IWIP C1T'(OWN& R N) E W OF 515W ONL0F8 .up.. Signature: INWFSIF Ir li¢yjM SLBM®CH In V0NAIWl MNn WB.RSIONTC Pmpedy Report: PMFFRIV PFM0.i ( 1 1/9 NRentvalue uM3anuv 01,3033- Toes",ble Septtmber SOH and Munch 2035 I Curant value as of 3anuaW 01, 3033-Taxed payable Sep@tuber 30M and March 30M �etsrl rint��f rl'elv�r�r¢frf z El; F I Z 9 4 5 zG 77i.'s c'aJu r►M. ?1fir+4rn6 pA Alho rJ AVrW l AA prs�lr�. G•t� fh.�c iy /n urrhnrw2 rtrrrnapr • A�Jt/ra io i7v be Y�/11<'lrr Y/zo;f Kirk Lehmann From: Anne Russett Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:21 PM To: Billie Townsend; Chad Wade; Maggie Elliott; Maria Padron; Mike Hensch; Scott Quellhorst; Susan Craig Cc: Kirk Lehmann; Sara Greenwood Hektoen; Danielle Sitzman Subject: FW: Letter to P & Z Commissioners — Please see the correspondence below Thanks, Anne From: Freerks, Ann M <ann-freerks@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:16 PM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Letter to P & Z A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: I am writing to urge you to vote against the proposal that would allow rental properties to have accessory dwelling units in all residential zones, including the RNS-12 zone. I have lived in a near downtown Iowa City neighborhood for over 30 years. During this time, I have worked to create stable housing for all. I am not a nimby. There is a 12 plex in my back yard, duplexes, triplexes and lots of multifamily in my neighborhood. But there are also single family homes that are key the balance and fabric of the community. These are some of the most fragile portions of our neighborhoods and his proposal would threaten that balance. I spent over 15 years on the Planning and Zoning Commission here in Iowa City, many of those as chair. I did this to create positive change and a healthy community. I have worked though Comprehensive Plan updates, redrafts of the zoning code and Subdivision regulations. I have been part of the Neighborhood Housing Relations Task Force and clearly understand the concerns this will cause the University Impact Zone. Iowa City has committed a great deal of time and money to reduce density in this area through the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership. When the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan it recognized this concern and created the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership to help level the playing field. I and other residents of older neighborhoods are concerned the proposed changes will further tip the scale in favor of investment companies and may actually lead to the displacement of affordable housing. The goal should always be finding zoning tools that will promote the creation of as well as the preservation of affordable housing. There are endless solutions to every issue and this one does not work for the long-term benefit of Iowa City. It should never about warehousing people. People need basic amenities, greenspace, and community. This recommendation does not take into account the damage that will be done in the Neighborhood Impact Zone. The near downtown neighborhoods are already very dense and lack parking. I would ask that at the very least you remove the University Impact zone and the RNS-12 zone from this proposal. Thank you, Ann Freerks Community member and former Planning and Zoning Chair 443 South Governor Street Iowa City Please distribute this letter to all Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission members prior to your October 4th meeting. Thank you. Jim Throgmorton's Statement to the P&Z Commission Re: Case No. REZ23-0001 October 4, 2023 Good evening. My name is Jim Throgmorton. I speak to you as co-chair of the Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee. I come before you today to ask that you amend Item 3c (2) in the staff's August 2 memo. For properties located within the University hnpact Area, we urge you to continue requiring ADUs to be built only on owner -occupied properties. We further recommend that you carve out an exception to permit non-profit providers of income -restricted housing to build ADUs on properties within the UTA. Two months ago we urged you to defer voting on the proposed zoning amendments and to think of ways in which a broader community discussion about the proposed changes could be conducted. We also urged the staff and commission to recognize neighborhood associations as key stakeholders in a collaborative process of considering the proposed amendments. You deferred action on the ADU provisions. Thank you for doing that. And the City staff conducted two open houses pertaining to the ADUs. Several Northside neighbors attended, and we had several stimulating conversations with individual staff members. But these conversations did not enable shared learning on the part of all attendees. People walked in, tried to understand the poster boards, and maybe had a few fleeting conversations. But many looked puzzled. They appeared to be wondering, what do the ADU amendments mean for my neighborhood? The first challenge residents face when trying to answer that question is to understand the staffs reports. This is no easy task, partly because the technical language of zoning is so unfamiliar to most people. Adding to the difficulty is that the proposed changes vary by zoning category. My own neighborhood contains at least 12 different types of zones, plus three historical overlay districts and one overlay conservation district. The second challenge is to determine how the changes might affect neighborhoods on the ground. This is a daunting task that exceeds the capabilities of normal people trying to live their lives. It calls for collaboration and dialogue between neighborhood leaders and the City's planning staff. To help Northsiders understand how the amendments might affect our neighborhood, we focused our attention on the medium -density residential (RS-8) areas that lie outside the historic preservation districts. Zooming in, we studied one block in Goosetown. This tree -lined block currently contains 31 properties, one of which is vacant. All but one of the main buildings were built in the first half of the last century. They are all one to two stories in height. The assessed value of this block's 30 single-family properties averages a modest $216,000. Being in the University hnpact Area (UTA), the entire block is affected by the demand for off -campus student housing. Consequently, 9 of the 31 properties are owned by incorporated entities, and 14 of the 31 properties are rentals. The amendments pertaining to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) could — when combined with the amendments permitting duplexes and attached single-family structures in this and other neighborhoods in the UTA — cause some speculative investors to think of Goosetown and other comparable areas as major opportunities for financial gain.' In this scenario, market competition would drive the cost of land up. When properties go on sale, investors would outbid potential owner -occupants. They would very likely demolish older, lower -cost, owner -occupied structures and replace them with the largest possible rental duplexes or attached single-family structures coupled with a rentable ADU. All of this would make it extremely difficult for anyone to buy starter homes in these neighborhoods. Kirk Lehman tells me that 7 of the lots on this block could potentially be redeveloped with duplexes, and 24 of the lots could potentially have ADUs. We looked more closely at two lots in the southwestern corner of the block. One is currently vacant, whereas the other is occupied by a 1'/z story single-family structure. Picture an investor building a new structure and ADU on the vacant lot while that investor (or perhaps another one) purchases the existing structure on the adjacent lot and builds a new ADU in the back. Picture all of the structures being rentals. Picture this being replicated throughout Goosetown and other neighborhoods in the University Impact Area. Contrary to City staffs stated goals, the ADU amendments might increase the supply of housing in this and similar neighborhoods, but the supply of affordable owner -occupied housing would shrink. And, while diversifying housing choices, the amendments could result in the neighborhoods becoming more dominated by investor -owned rental structures. With this concern in mind, we urge you to amend Item 3c (2) in the staffs August 2 memo. For properties located within the University Impact Area, we urge you to continue requiring ADUs to be built only on owner -occupied properties. We also recommend that you carve out an exception which would permit non-profit providers of income -restricted housing to build ADUs on properties within the UTA. ' The bonuses and incentives in Items 4a and 4b should be considered as well. I asked Anne Russett whether investors in RS-8 properties could take advantage of these bonuses if they built a duplex or two attached single- family structures, one unit of which met the City's affordable housing criteria. Briefly summarized, Anne responded that they could. However, she also thinks this is unlikely on inf ll sites. City Stafrs Proposed Amendments Pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units Item 3c in the staff's August 2 memo (pp. 12-13) would: (1) allow accessory apartments in any zone that allows household living uses (including RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow them on any lot that contains up to 2 dwelling units; (2) remove the requirement that one unit be owner -occupied; (3) remove limits on the number of bedrooms and residents; (4) increase the size limit to 1,000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the principal use, whichever is less, and allow stand-alone accessory apartments; (5) remove the requirement for an additional parking space; and (6) remove requirements limiting additions to 10% of a building and limiting entrances to side or rear yards so long as it appears to be a use allowed in the zone. In addition, Items 4a and 4b (pp. 17 and 18) would: (1) for conventional zones, create a 20% density bonus where 20% of units in a development are income -restricted housing for 20 years, to be administered through existing processes; (2) would provide additional flexibility from dimensional standards, including allowing an increase in the maximum height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction; and (3) income -restricted affordable housing units in all zones would not be required to have on - site parking if they provide affordable housing for at least 20 years in compliance with the City's new affordable housing requirements. Johnson County Property Information Viewer GISInfonnationj County Home I a -t oAM �o y.. ..3 ve i q 8 ' LK, a" ' - !I 'i b Win.. 1106 1}(IS 77XJ ti t S;.A t.�� _. ...._ ice•'' i .,— ,Y. ._ �}!: f r"i.• '�i � � a1As_� J �� :^,: • ..'wry 1. ���'• .Y: y' — .pf.. .. 0.._ R}Z '.� �. y .ter Parking in the Central Neighborhoods: for Consideration in Regard to Allowing Non -Owner Occupied ADUs in the University Impact Zone 400 block of North Gilbert Street Cars occupy every available on -street parking spot. There are already cars parked illegally on the opposing side of the road. Vehicular travel is difficult and at times dangerous. 500 block of North Gilbert Street Off-street parking is filled solid five blocks from the center of town. It is common for all on -street parking spaces to be taken. The University Impact Area has significant portions of backyards filled with parking. At the ADU Open House, I expressed my concern about the parking waiver for ADUs. In response, staff said that students will learn to leave their vehicles at home (meaning their family home). In addition, the rationale for the parking waiver has been described for seniors who don't drive. It's not logical to think that Iowa City will see an increase of seniors living in ADUs in the University Impact Zone. The driver in the white car executed a three-point turn to change course and allow the garbage truck to pass. I see this every week on garbage day on Lucas Street.The situation is com- pounded in winter with ice and snow. 300 block of North Linn Street At least three cars have yellow no parking tickets on the windshield.The right side of the street is filled solid with parked cars.When adequate parking is not provided by landlords, illegal parking occurs. Sidewalks are blocked for pedestrians including people with disabilities. 600 block of North Johnson Street When inadequate parking is provided illegal parking occurs and public sidewalks are blocked and walkability declines. Please do not allowADUs for non -owner occupied properties. Sharon DeGraw 519 Brown Street Iowa City (0/� �2-3 My name is William Gorman and I am the Chair of the Housing Action Team of the Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board. Last November we held a Forum on ADUs and invited all eleven cities in Johnson County to attend. We invited the City Councils and the Mayors as well as homebuilders and realtors. We focused on the benefits of ADUs to help seniors age in place as well as the need for affordable housing for people of all ages. One month later, in December, we submitted to all eleven cities in Johnson County what I would describe as a White Paper, providing recommendations on the elements of a potential ADU zoning code. To be clear, we reached out to Iowa City and the other cities in Johnson County. They did not reach out to us. We appreciate the fact that the city of Iowa City staff took our recommendations seriously. At your direction from the previous meeting, the staff did reach out to the community to solicit additional input, including looking at how other university towns have addressed ADUs. The results show that the university towns have utilized a variety of strategies. Some university towns do not require owner occupancy, some do. We continue to support the staff recommendations, with one caveat. Clearly, many residents have expressed genuine concerns regarding the proposed removal of the owner occupancy requirement. Even though we believe removing the owner occupancy requirement is best practice, and, removing the owner occupancy requirement is likely to more significantly increase the number of ADUs that could be developed, it is very difficult to forecast how many developers will feel there is sufficient profit margin to purchase homes and then add on an ADU in order to rent out both dwellings. Kirk Lehmann's October 4th letter to the Planning and Zoning Committee, on page 7, notes the following: "ADUs may support the stability of existing neighborhoods by accommodating extended families or creating an opportunity to generate revenue from tenants, but it may be necessary to limit them to properties where the primary dwelling unit is the owner's primary residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when used as short term rentals. Since Iowa law does not allow cities to prohibit short term rentals, in the abundance of caution, we now recommend that Iowa City keep the owner occupancy requirement indicating that the lot owner must reside in the primary residence or the ADU. Then, we suggest that the City revisit this issue in 2-4 years to see if the requirement can be dropped. Lastly, we encourage the city to review its permitting process to look for ways to simplify the application process, decrease fees and eliminate any regulations that may hinder ADU development. Thank you. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 2023-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Throgmorton, William Gorman, Phoebe Martin, Deanna Thomann, Andy Martin, Jared Knote, Sharon DeGraw, Jonathan Melba, Lorraine Bowans, Alex Lewis, Kelcey Patrick Ferree RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 4-3 (Craig, Quellhorst, Padron dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of Title 14 zoning be amended with elimination of the standard that the owner is not required to live on -site and that where accessory apartment is in the zoning code be replaced with the term accessory dwelling unit. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ23-0001: (continued discussion of accessory apartments from 812) Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Lehmann began the staff report with some general background reminding the Commissioners this is part of a package of proposed amendments with a goal of increasing flexibility for a range of housing types, modifying design standards, providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing, and also addressing fair housing. This package came back before the Commission on August 2 and the Commission did recommend approval of those items with the exception of the changes related to accessory apartments. At that time, staff was directed to solicit more public feedback regarding those changes. In terms of the public feedback staff solicited, they held two open houses for an opportunity for the community to learn more about the proposed changes, ask questions and talk with staff about the changes and then also provide feedback in a survey to indicate what concerns there were. The open houses were held on September 13, from 5:00 — 7:00 pm and from September 14 from 5:00 — 7:00 pm at two different locations in different parts of town. 58 folks signed in and there were some others who attended but did not sign it. Staff also received 51 surveys, both Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 2 of 22 through a combination of folks that were in the public meetings and then also online as well. A majority of survey respondents were concerned about allowing accessory apartments on rental properties which is one of the proposed changes. The majority of the survey respondents were not concerned with most of the other changes but the second most proposed change that provoked concern was not requiring a parking space for the accessory apartments. That was at 45% concern versus a 53% who were not concerned. With regards to the proposed amendments, Lehmann reiterated this is part of the section on providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, specifically as they relate to modifying the standards for accessory apartments. In terms of the proposed changes, there are quite a few of them so he will go into detail on those as a refresher. One of the changes is allowing accessory uses to be in places that are currently not allowed, such as allowing them to be accessory to single-family or duplex uses instead of only having it be allowed with detached single family uses. Second, allowing them in any zone that allows residential uses instead of specified zones. Third is that the owner not be required to live on the site, which they currently are. Lehmann noted again that was the item that was flagged as the most concern for folks. Fourth is no longer requiring an off-street parking space for accessory apartments, currently there is a standard where one space must be provided. Fifth, no longer having an additional restriction on bedrooms and occupants other than what would be required from a rental permit for single family and duplex uses. In this case, that means that no more than 35% of the floor area could be bedrooms, changing the size limitations somewhat such that it'd be the lesser of 1000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the main building. That's a change from a smaller amount that was previously required. Lehmann also stated that it used to be for a detached accessory apartment it could only be a portion of a detached accessory structure which meant that one couldn't have a standalone accessory apartment but with these changes to the way that sizes would be regulated, it'd be based off the principal use and one could have a standalone accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or could also have an attached accessory dwelling unit that would be added in an addition to a building. Finally, with regards to the design standards there currently is a standard that accessory apartments have to be entered from the side or rear lot line and this change would say that no entrance locations are dictated in the way it's designed. He also mentioned that staff are continuing to recommend the owner occupancy requirement primarily because their understanding of Council's goals with these proposed amendments are tied to increasing housing supply and housing diversity of housing types. In terms of an analysis of what the proposed changes might cause Lehmann explained currently with the existing situation the City hasn't seen much ADU development in the last 30 years, they've only seen about 52 units out of approximately 10,000 eligible properties. He noted part of the reason for that is that the current standards appear to be a barrier to construction of accessory dwelling units so as a result in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan it recommended promoting ADUs and allowing them in more situations. The Plan also recommended looking at the owner occupancy requirement as well and this does come to a special head now as more and more households are single person households where smaller units are something that are required, essentially. In terms of impacts, the parcels that are currently eligible will remain eligible, and an additional 13,000 will be eligible because that would include any properties that currently have a rental permit that are single family since that can change at any time whether it's rental or owner occupied. In addition, it would expand the number of parcels which ADUs would be allowed and up to 1400 new units would be allowed by expanding the zones and uses to which the accessory, an additional 3100 new units could potentially accommodate ADUs by removing the owner occupancy requirement as well. In Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 3 of 22 addition, staff would expect more property owners to take advantage of accessory dwelling units by trying to remove some of those other barriers such as the parking requirement, trying to increase size, trying to allow as a standalone use, and all the different things that they've heard about that act as barriers. In addition, staff does see trying to encourage accessory dwelling units as being especially compatible with the City's sustainability goals since these would be added with existing buildings, for the most part, and would tend to be in more walkable areas of the City. Therefore, staff see it as pairing nicely with some of the standards such as trying to encourage alternative modes of transportation and the free two-year transit trial the City currently has in effect. Lehmann showed a map of the parcels that would potentially be affected, noting the areas that would currently allow an ADU if they are owner occupied and the proposed amendments would continue to allow these if they're owner occupied, but it would also mean that they could have an ADU if they're renter occupied as well. He then showed the new areas that would allow ADUs that currently do not, in some cases these are zones that previously hadn't allowed them and in other cases there are areas where there are more duplexes or other uses that currently don't allow an ADU. Staff did it also look at other comparable communities and information regarding those were provided in the agenda packet. The examples of different communities are both in Iowa and are other college towns. Lehmann noted many communities have recently reevaluated their ADU regulations and have removed things like owner occupancy requirements, off street parking requirements, increasing allowable sizes, and modifying what ADUs can be accessory to. He explained part of the reason for this is that all of America is experiencing the housing crisis that Iowa City is also currently experiencing and accessory dwelling units are a way to really integrate new density while still maintaining the character of the neighborhoods as well. That being said, each community does have unique set of regulations and are all a little different. Some require owner occupancy, some don't. Some require parking, some don't. Some have more strict design requirements; it all really depends on the community. However, that being said Iowa City's proposed changes are in line with other communities that are in similar situations. Staff also looked at best practices when looking at accessory dwelling units. The American Planning Association (APA) produces an equity and zoning policy guide that Iowa City uses and within that policy guide it really recommends allowing a broader range of building forms, lot sizes and a lot widths and residential types, specifically in low density residential neighborhoods. It also recommends allowing ADUs without a public hearing and only using conditions that are needed to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties within that community, but all of these are based on national best practices. Staff really reviewed the APA guide and what works and what doesn't work in different communities and how can they further equity through the zoning code. Staff also relied on the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), which produces lots of content about accessory dwelling units, and the proposed changes that staff brought before this Commission were really the product of recommendations made by the Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Group. Lehmann noted that's a group that includes lots of folks, is staffed by a person from the County, and the goal is to try and make sure that Johnson County communities are livable for folks as they age within that community. Accessory dwelling units are really seen as a key component of allowing people to age in place. In terms of best practices they recommend things like allowing these uses in all zones that allow single family residential Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 4 of 22 uses, only requiring those conditions needed to mitigate potential impacts, treating them like they're a valid use within this zone rather than some sort of a use that is an undesirable use within the zone. Treating it like other uses is looking at owner occupancy requirements and if that's not regulated in the zoning code then they would recommend not regulating that for accessory dwelling units. They also talk about things like parking requirements which can make accessory dwelling units challenging, and limiting design requirements that can increase the cost of constructing ADUs. In addition, Lehmann stated the push towards encouraging ADUs is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Within the City's vision statement it talks about creating attractive and affordable housing for all people and housing that is the foundation of healthy, safe and diverse neighborhoods throughout Iowa City. Again, those relevant strategies and goals are things like mixing housing types throughout neighborhoods to provide household options for all types of households, whether they be singles, families, retirees, etc., ensuring a balance of housing types, promoting small lot infill development, and especially supporting that infill development in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. It also does support other policy documents that the City has adopted over the past several years including the Affordable Housing Action Plan, which was first adopted in 2016, and then updated in 2022. That Plan does talk about increasing the allowable number and type of dwelling units in single family zoning districts and specifically calls out ADUs. The Plan also specifically calls out considering ADUs associated with rental housing as something to consider. In addition the 2019 Fair Housing Study talks about exploring ways to increase density and exploring the types of housing that are allowed, especially in those low density, single family zones. In terms of public's correspondence, staff received several pieces of correspondence that have been forwarded to the Commissioners or included in the agenda packet. Lehmann noted the latest piece of correspondence that was submitted very recently has just now been provided to the Commission for consideration as well. In terms of staff recommendation, staff does recommend that Title 14, Zoning, be amended as illustrated in Attachment Four of the staff report. Lehmann noted it's similar to what was proposed before with a few small changes, but nothing substantive. Again, the goal is improving housing choice, increasing housing supply, and encouraging housing affordability. Lehmann added there is one more part of that staff recommendation that he did not include in this presentation, which is they currently call accessory dwelling units, accessory apartments, and that has been a confusing term for many. Staff has gotten lots of calls about what exactly is meant by an accessory apartment so staff would also propose changing the terminology to ADU which is also consistent with the rental code, which calls them ADUs. There could be a separate motion for that, or it could be included in the motion tonight, staff does intend on updating the motion before they bring it to Council, so the ordinance that goes before Council would reflect that language change. In terms of next steps, upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff would expect it to be scheduled for consideration by Council. The earliest it would go to Council is November 6, that would be the public hearing, and then there would be two additional readings by Council at the second meeting in November and at the first meeting in December, which would be December 12. Therefore, December 12 would be the earliest that something would be considered for adoption by Council. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 5 of 22 Quellhorst thanked staff for the thorough and thoughtful presentation and especially appreciated the comparison to regulations in comparable communities. It was mentioned that some of those communities have recently eliminated the owner occupancy requirement, so he was just wondering if they know anything about the experience of those communities and whether it was positive or negative, or a kind of mixed bag. Lehmann replied that a lot of these changes are pretty fresh in a lot of communities. When he talks about best practices that have led to or that have been incorporated in a lot of these documents, those are based on communities that made similar changes and found that it increased their development of accessory dwelling units within that community. Within the specifical comparable communities that he provided he is not sure if they have outcome data from that yet. Quellhorst asked if anybody has recently gone the other way and adopted an owner occupancy requirement when they didn't previously have one. Russett clarified Iowa City's current regulations require that the owner live on -site and what staff is proposing is that owner occupancy requirement be removed so the owner would no longer need to live on -site and both units could be rented. Quellhorst wondered if there has been a community that's had an inverse situation where they did not have an owner -occupied requirement and then adopted one. Lehmann is not aware of any, most of them have been similar changes to what Iowa City is recommending. Townsend asked with an ADU and there being two units on the property, if the owner decides to sell, are those sold separately, and if so, how do they decide what goes and what the lot line should be. Lehmann explained there's a standard in the code currently that requires both units on the lot be under common ownership so they can't sell an accessory apartment and not sell the principal use, they have to be under the same ownership. Staff is not proposing to change that standard and it would continue to be in effect. Townsend stated then, the owner doesn't have to live on the property, but whoever buys the new property has to buy both units. Lehmann confirmed that is correct. Hekteon clarified if the lot was split there'd be a subdivision and that would be a different process and in the realm of the subdivision regulations. For planning regulations as long as the units are on the same lot, then it's considered an accessory dwelling unit. Lehmann added if there was a subdivision that would have to follow all regulations within the code including street frontage, so they couldn't have a situation where there was a unit in the front and back but they're not on an alley and they split it down the middle, that's not something that would be allowed under the subdivision code. Presumably, one could have a corner lot where both units meet minimum lot size requirements and everything and that could be split. Padron noted then if there was a subdivision it wouldn't be an ADU anymore it would become a principal use. Lehmann confirmed that is correct. Townsend asked how these units would help large families, these are all smaller units that they're talking about so it's really not going to help the affordable housing problem families have. Lehmann stated for large families the way that accessory dwelling units are often used is where the parents would live in the in-law suite and have the kids live in the main unit, or vice versa, if you have young kids, he stated that's how it would be used to support larger families. Townsend stated she would not call that affordable housing, she would call that convenience for someone Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 6 of 22 with means enough to build a separate unit for in-laws, and that would not be in that affordable housing realm. Lehmann noted in the sense that an accessory dwelling unit is up to 1000 square feet, which is a relatively small unit that could be built under IRC code standards, it is more affordable than building under multifamily standards and is a more affordable housing product. Townsend stated for a single person or for two people, but not for a family, because it's not big enough for a family of four. Russett noted what Lehmann is trying to say is that with if there is a multi -generational household where there are grandparents, parents, and children, it can provide additional room for those families. Or if someone is taking care of a family member who has a disability, or who has an illness, they could be nearby and be on -site. Then in terms of the affordability concern, there's a couple of ways that they're thinking about affordability with these amendments and with the amendments to accessory dwelling units they're really thinking about it in terms of supply and ways to increase the housing supply in the community. Right now the supply is not keeping up with the demand and it's impacting price. It's also a way to encourage different types of housing. Accessory dwelling units are smaller, they're going to cost less, the price point is going to be lower than the typical detached single-family home. Wade noted one of the proposed changes is actually to remove the occupancy limit, right now only two people can live in an ADU and conceivably under these regulations they could have three people or even a potentially small family live in one. Lehmann confirmed that. Hensch noted in the packet it says that the occupancy is determined by the rental permit, can staff just discuss that briefly. Lehmann explained in single family and duplex uses to which accessory dwelling units could be accessory to under the proposed amendments there's a requirement that no more than 35% of a unit may be bedrooms, which acts as a de facto occupancy limit. There are also additional occupancy limits based on the square footage of the unit. So presumably, a three -bedroom accessory dwelling unit under the proposed standards with that 35% standard accounting for minimum bedroom sizes that are allowed. Wade noted in Fayetteville and Cedar Rapids it looks like they allow two ADUs for a lot, and Iowa City's recommendation just a single, correct. Lehmann confirmed they are recommending a single with a duplex. In some cases, they may see where it's single family and they allow two accessory dwelling units. In the case of States that have preempted local jurisdiction's ability to regulate ADUs there are situations where it's a duplex and two ADUs. There is a variety of different ways that people allow them but staff is recommending one ADU per lot. Wade acknowledged that's how the current administration will control it, with the building permit and with a change of ownership of the property and such but what's the long-term administration look like on having that restriction. Lehmann did agree it can be challenging. In some cases, a family might purchase a house that has an ADU with it and they use the ADU for storage and they don't rent it out. Staff will check in to make sure that it doesn't become occupied at some point, because once it's occupied then it needs a rental permit. There are challenges where houses are sold and then the main house is rented out and there's still an ADU on the property. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 7 of 22 That can be an administrative challenge and he doesn't know the exact answer about how they deal with it but presumes that it just doesn't count towards the occupancy of that rental permit. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jim Throqmorton (co-chair of the Northside Neighborhood Association Steering Committee) comes before the Commission tonight to ask that they amend item 3C-2 in the staff's August 2 memo for properties located within the University Impact Area (UTA). They urge the Commission to continue requiring ADUs to be built only on owner -occupied properties. They further recommend the Commission carve out an exception to permit nonprofit providers of income - restricted housing to build ADUs on properties within the UTA. Two months ago this Commission deferred action on the ADU provisions and Throgmorton thanked them for doing that. As Lehmann stated, City staff conducted two open houses pertaining to the ADUs and several Northside Neighborhood neighbors attended and some had stimulating conversations with individual staff members. But the conversations did not enable shared learning on the part of all attendees. Many attendees looked puzzled as they were studying the posters and appeared to be wondering what do the ADU amendments mean for their neighborhood. The first challenge residents face when trying to answer that question is to understand the staff's reports and that is no easy task, partly because the technical language of zoning is unfamiliar to most people. Adding to the difficulty is that the proposed changes vary by zoning category. His own neighborhood contains at least 12 different types of zones, plus three historical overlay districts and one overlay conservation district. The second challenge is to determine how the changes might affect neighborhoods on the ground. This is a daunting task that exceeds the capabilities of normal people trying to live their lives. It calls for collaboration and dialogue between neighborhood leaders and the City planning staff. To help Northsiders understand how the amendments might affect their neighborhood they focused their attention on the medium density residential that is the RS-8 areas that lie outside the historic preservation districts. Zooming in they studied one block in Goosetown, it's the long block that currently contains 31 properties, one of which is vacant. All but one of the main buildings were built in the first half of the last century, they are all one to two stories in height, and the assessed value of this block of 30 single family properties average a modest $216,000. Being in the UTA the entire block is affected by the demand for off -campus student housing. 9 of the 31 properties are owned by incorporated entities, and 14 of the 31 properties are rentals. The amendments pertaining to the ADUs could, when combined with the amendments permitting duplexes and attached single family structures, cause some speculative investors to think of Goosetown and other neighborhoods in the UTA as major opportunities for financial gain. In this scenario, market competition would drive the cost of land up when properties go on sale, investors would outbid potential owner occupants and they would very likely demolish older, lower cost owner -occupied structures and replace them with the largest possible rental duplexes or attached single family structures coupled with rentable ADUs. All of this would make it extremely difficult for anyone to buy starter homes in these neighborhoods. Staff tells him that seven of the lots on this block could potentially be redeveloped with duplexes and that 24 of the lots could potentially have ADUs. If they look more closely at two lots in the southwestern corner of the block, one is currently vacant, whereas the other is occupied by a one and a half story single family structure. Picture an investor building a new structure and ADU on the vacant lot. While that investor or perhaps another one, purchases Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 8 of 22 the existing structure on the adjacent lot and builds a new ADU in the back. Picture all of the structures being rentals and this being replicated throughout Goosetown and other neighborhoods in the UTA. The ADU amendments might increase the supply of housing in this and similar neighborhoods, but the supply of affordable owner -occupied housing would shrink and while diversifying housing choices this amendment could result in the neighborhoods becoming more dominated by investor -owned rental structures. Throgmorton requests they retain the owner -occupied requirements for properties in the UTA and carve out an exception for nonprofits. William Gorman (Chair of the Housing Action Team of the Johnson County Livable Community for Successful Aging Policy Board) stated last November they held a forum on ADUs and invited all 11 cities in Johnson County to attend. They invited the City Councils and the Mayors as well as home builders and realtors. They focused on the benefits of ADUs to help seniors age in place, as well as the need for affordable housing for people of all ages. One month later, in December, they submitted to all 11 cities in Johnson County what he would describe as a white paper, providing recommendations on the elements of a potential ADU zoning code. To be clear, they reached out to Iowa City and the other cities in Johnson County, the cities did not reach out to them. However, they do appreciate the fact that the city of Iowa City staff took their recommendations seriously and at this Commission's direction from the previous meeting, the staff did reach out to the community to solicit additional input, including looking at how other university towns have addressed ADUs. The results show that university towns have utilized a variety of strategies, some university towns do not require owner occupancy, some do. Gorman stated they continue to support the staff recommendations with one caveat. Clearly many residents have expressed genuine concerns regarding the proposed removal of the owner occupancy requirement. Even though they believe removing the owner occupancy requirement is best practice and removing the owner occupancy requirement is likely to more significantly increase the number of ADUs that could be developed he acknowledged it is very difficult to forecast how many developers will field their sufficient profit margin to purchase homes and then add on ADUs in order to rent out both dwellings. Kirk Lehmann's October 4 letter on page seven notes the following "ADUs may support the stability of existing neighborhoods by accommodating extended families or creating an opportunity to generate revenue from the tenants but it may be necessary to limit them to properties where their primary dwelling unit is the owners primary residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when used as short-term rentals". On top of that, since Iowa law does not allow cities to prohibit short-term rentals in the abundance of caution, Gorman states they now recommend that Iowa City keep the owner occupancy requirement indicating that the lot owner must reside in the primary residence or the ADU and then suggest that the City revisit this issue in two to four years to see if the requirement can be dropped. Give it some time, monitor it and then see if they can remove that requirement later. Lastly, they encourage the City to review its permitting process to look for ways to simplify the application process, decrease fees and eliminate any regulations that may hinder ADU development. Phoebe Martin (Iowa City) stated she is speaking personally and not for all realtors but wanted to thank everyone for bringing this whole thing up, she is very excited about it. She noted she works with a lot of different types of clients and has a few different people that have been keeping an Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 9 of 22 eye on all of this, one of which is a family that has a son that cannot afford to buy their own house on their own lot. They could potentially afford to build an ADU in their backyard, but it does not have an alley, it would need to, it'd be weird to be on the side and make more sense sort of like a little compound. It's also significantly cheaper than then bringing in external care to them renting something else. So even though that seems kind of frivolous, it actually would really help them in terms of affordability. She also has a lot of clients that are looking to rent tiny houses, which is something that Iowa City has not always been a huge fan of. Every tiny house she has sold, and oddly enough she has sold quite a few of them, they go immediately and more of that would be even better, because then they're also reducing the carbon footprint a little bit. Not all people want yards, she is seeing lots of clients that are looking for studio, office and homeschooling space. The idea of owner occupied or not, she thinks it would be just fine to not have that requirement, but has also seen a lot of people, one of which is on Davenport Street, who bought their house thinking that was going to be there forever investment and would love to have an ADU on there so that they could rent out both and that's their retirement fund but they don't want to live there anymore. Deanna Thomann (208 Fairchild Street) lives in the Northside Neighborhood and tonight is just here to read a letter Ann Freerks as she couldn't make it tonight. "Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners, I'm writing to urge you to vote against the proposal that would allow rental properties to have accessory dwelling units in all residential zones, including the RNS-12 zone. I have lived in a near downtown Iowa City neighborhood for over 30 years. During this time, I have worked to create stable housing for all. I am not a NIMBY, there is a 12-Plex in my backyard, duplexes, triplexes and lots of multifamily houses in my neighborhood, but there are also single- family homes that are key to the balance and fabric of the community. These are some of the most fragile portions of our neighborhoods and this proposal would threaten that balance. I spent over 15 years on the Planning and Zoning Commission here in Iowa City, many of those as chair. I did this to create positive change and a healthy community. I have worked through Comprehensive Plan updates, re -drafts of the zoning code and subdivision regulations, I have been part of the Neighborhood Housing Relations Task Force and clearly understand the concerns this will cause the University Impact Zone. Iowa City has committed a great deal of time and money to reduce density in this area through the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership. When the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan it recognized this concern and created the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership to help level the playing field. I and other residents of older neighborhoods are concerned the proposed changes will further tip the scale in favor of investment companies and may actually lead to the displacement of affordable housing. The goal should always be finding zoning tools that will promote the creation as well as the preservation of affordable housing. There are endless solutions to every issue and this one does not work for the long-term benefit of Iowa City. It should never be about warehousing people. People need basic amenities, green space and community. This recommendation does not take into account the damage that will be done in the Neighborhood Impact Zone. The near downtown neighborhoods are already very dense and lack parking. I would ask that at the very least you remove the University Impact zone and the RNS-12 zone from this proposal." Thomann noted Freerks signed it as community member and former Planning and Zoning chair. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 10 of 22 Thomann want to just say a little bit about her situation as well, again she lives in the 200 block of Fairchild and that's just right down the way from Pagliai's Pizza. It's a great neighborhood and her house is in the Northside Historic District. She also serves on the Historic Preservation Commission representing the Northside Neighborhood. She agrees with what Ann Freerks has to say in her letter. Her block is unique in that she is in a historic home and a lot of her neighbors are in the District with her, but across the street they have the RNS-12 houses that could really affect the look and feel of their neighborhood. It is already dense, it's already diverse, her backyard borders a four-plex and on the other side there are multifamily houses that run along Dubuque Street. There are a lot of people there and she feels like they're doing their part as a community in just those few blocks there of creating a diverse and dense living environment. Andy Martin (member HBA and president of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) is a remodeler in town and a member of some organizations but is not speaking for those bodies. Today he is just speaking personally. He stated ADUs are something that's near and dear to him as he has had many people ask him to build ADUs over the years. Typically, the reason is because they have a family member that they'd like to have close, he has never had a rental person ask to build one. What usually happens is that they end up not building the ADU because it's too expensive and the reason is the restrictions. Martin does think if they did change the code a little bit private individuals may be able to do more ADUs, particularly with elderly parents or disabled people, and not having to have that extra space for a detached unit will be a big help because the traditional way that's done is a carriage house with the garage below and the building above. One would have to have a really big lot in order to do a side by side. But the carriage house type doesn't work for a disabled or elderly persons, climbing a full flight of stairs to get to their apartment, that just doesn't fly. Martin thinks if they can loosen these restrictions they will end up seeing that more and in that case it is truly affordable housing because it's a lot less expensive than other options such as the assisted living as those are 1000s of dollars a month. He appreciates the City looking for a way to reduce costs and in a bigger picture they're looking at choices for the future. One of the things he loves about Iowa City is that it is consistently growing every year and the traditional form of growth is out in the cornfields and this is looking at the idea of becoming more dense which he thinks is the way of the future as it is the sustainable way and the smart way to go, there's no reason to go out when they can go up or go more dense. Traditionally more dense is having huge multifamily buildings, because that's the only way it can be done under current code and if they allow a little bit more flexibility here they will see a way to gain density without getting monolithic density. Martin also stated he understands the concerns with students, because he has lived in Iowa City for 30 years, but they have the same choice with students as well, they're either going to grow more dense in the area that they're allowed, or they're going to spread out. Again if they can make the requirements more flexible and make them more inviting to people, he believes they will see an uptick in ADUs but as pointed out they've had 52 in the past 30 years, so they're not likely going to see 52 next month, it's not going to be that kind of rapid growth. Hensch asked what the price range would be to construct a 1000-foot standalone unit for an ADU. Martin stated the last ADU they built was about $180,000 and about 35% to 40% of that cost was the garage. He noted if they could knock that way down, then it's roughly about half the price of a new home. Hensch stated then without a garage it would be a range of $100,000 to Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 11 of 22 $150,000. Martin confirmed and stated that is a half or a third of the price of a new home but is it truly affordable in the definition of affordable housing, where it's going to appeal to people who are making 60% or less of median income, probably not, it's probably not that type of affordable housing but is it useful and more affordable than traditional building, yes. Jared Knote (1021 E. Market Street) asks that they maintain the owner occupancy requirement on ADUs. He lives in a RNS-12 stabilization zone and when he thinks about stabilization, it's not necessarily that there's no historic overlay, it's not about character, it's a recognition that a neighborhood was really in a situation where it's acknowledging that the diversity of the neighborhood, and the equity of the neighborhood, was being flattened out by monoculture, and frankly by a price insensitive monoculture. Frankly, it's students who are price insensitive and it's one type of people taking over that neighborhood, as well as doing a stable, diverse neighborhood. He is caring about how long can he stay in this neighborhood, he's at midlife and would like to stay there but if they open it up it to the extent of free development, which is the auspices of this report and if they just free the market, the market will crowd supply. They may think when they crowd supply, it'll fix everything and prices will fall. Good examples of where that doesn't work is in health care and it also doesn't work in housing. Last week the Federal Reserve, certainly not a socialist body, had an excellent presentation about three hours long that he would recommend everyone watch, it showed what the data said about what actually drives affordable housing and they actually do need requirements and mandates, that's what actually drives affordable housing, it's not the market and crowding in with supply. Knote also stated at one of the City Council meetings where people were speculating and imagining the wonderful things that the market will provide but they don't necessarily have to imagine what the market provides, because they have exact examples. He lives in a neighborhood but looking at maps.google.com. they can check out some of these examples and that framework was really helpful. The feedback from the mayor was really helpful because he gave first principles. What do they care about in Iowa City? It's not character, it's not necessarily historical stuff, its affordability, diversity, and environmental impact. If those are reasonable frameworks and reasonable guidance he used those as he walked around his neighborhood concerns him. For example, to focus on that 900 block of Jefferson, 942 & 944 is a duplex that was put in brand new where there once was an old home and it takes up the almost the entire lot. Did it affect affordability or prices of those rental units, it didn't and now there's three of them in a row. That's a lot of additional housing supply so presumably it should have some impact as the market is crowded but it had no impact on affordability. What did it impact, well the culture is now monoculture, there's no more diversity, it's all students on that that particular area of the block. That may be what they want but he doesn't think that creates a thriving neighborhood where people are investing in the community and in keeping this an alive and generative community. Also, what do they have in terms of environmental impact, are people really not using their cars to get around, well around the corner there are no more trees, no cover, just a heat sink that's really become a concrete jungle and that drives up air conditioning in the summer. Also on his block, at 923 Market Street, a cute little house was torn down in the middle of the block and he doesn't know what is going to go in there but can speculate that it might be another very, very large duplex. He doesn't think that will have an appreciable impact on affordability nor in terms of the environmental impact. Things will get hotter, fewer trees, more parking spaces, people are still using their cars, less diversity, so again, no real measurable impact on affordability. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 12 of 22 Sharon DeGraw (Northside Neighborhood Member) stated from where she lives she is most concerned about the University Impact Zone. She has a survey of streetscapes with what it looks like parking wise in the Northside Neighborhood, some on South Lucas Street, and it's really in the University Impact Zone the role that parking plays. Therefore, she is concerned about the waiver of the parking aspect of the ADUs. She showed an image that's the 400 block of North Gilbert Street and there are cars on the correct side of the street that they can park on all day from eight o'clock to five o'clock but once it turns five o'clock cars start showing up on the other side of the street and even though they are only supposed to park on one side, there are errant cars parking on the wrong side of the street and they just accept the ticket. She next showed the 500 block of Gilbert Street and noted these streets are not terribly wide and it's hard for a delivery driver parking a truck to go run food or packages to a house with cars just piling up on either side for about five minutes and people start to get testy because they can't back up and they're just stuck until the delivery person finds the right residence and recipient. DeGraw is imagining if they start to add ADUs to some of these lots, and don't have the parking requirement, people are still going to bring their cars and this situation is going to get worse. She next showed an area closer into the downtown, noting plenty of lots where on the alley side with very little green spaces left and are virtual parking lots. They're not supposed to be doing that as much anymore, but one can see how densely packed in the parking is. She doesn't know that these could be converted to have an ADU, but if they did where would the cars go, and students are going to bring their cars. At the ADU open house DeGraw expressed her concern about the parking waiver for ADUs and the response staff said is students will learn to leave their vehicles at home but that's not really going to happen. In addition, thinking about the AARP aspect of the recommendation for ADUs in the University Impact Zone there's really not going to be a lot of seniors looking for an accessory dwelling unit in the back of a downtown rental house. It's illogical that Iowa City will see an increase in seniors living in ADUs in the University Impact Zone, very close to the downtown. DeGraw next showed an image of after she drops her kids off at school she will often go see a friend on South Lucas Street and has been stuck behind maybe the same garbage truck many times. The image shows there's a car on the other side that can't make it through so already the streets are very packed with automobiles and the streets are narrow. If they increase the density at this point, she doesn't think that they're going to convince the students to leave their cars at home and this car did a three-point turn to get out of the way and turn around. She has been in situations where it took five minutes for people to figure out to dive into a driveway, back up or do a three-point turn to get back around. Next she showed the 300 block of North Linn Street where she actually used to live when she first moved to Iowa City as a young professional. She would strategically drive her car down to the end of the block and use that as her jogging exercise. Every morning she would try to get out there to fetch her car and try to find a new parking spot for it. She was from California and didn't have parents where she could leave a car somewhere else and then get it occasionally. She would prepay parking tickets because she knew that was the best rate and just put down $100 every month or so. Jonathan Melba (South Van Buren) wanted to add a different perspective to this conversation, which is the perspective of a student and especially as relates to the parking aspect. Just to echo the sentiments of what was just said, if the ADUs are targeted as an affordable housing mechanism for students, the basic reality with the students is that there's an expectation that they will have a car here and that whatever adverse parking requirements come from that they're Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 13 of 22 going to have their car here one way or another. For that reason, he thinks that the requirement of a parking spot per ADU should stay. Melba noted they can have an increase in density without an increase of set aside parking spots but they're still going to see the same increase in cars, provided this is being targeted towards students. If it's being targeted towards elderly residents or for extended families in a singular unit, in that case he thinks the owner occupancy requirements should probably stay. If it's the case that they're looking for affordable housing for different family situations to incorporate it onto the same house, then there's no reason to remove the owner occupancy requirement and what that does is help to prevent some of these concerns have already been expressed, and also helps to remove any possibility of the sort of speculative real estate investment from happening and keep the homes concentrated in local residents and local companies rather than allowing it to be a source of investment speculation. Melba stated depending on what the intended or imagined goal of loosening some of the restrictions from the ADU would be, it seems as though either the owner occupancy requirement should stay up and/or the parking requirements should stay. Lorraine Bowans (South Governor Street) had lived in her home for over 30 years, it's an old house built in 1864 and she is very passionate about the historic homes, the older neighborhoods and everything. Her house was a duplex when they moved in and they converted it back to a single family and built a garage at the back of the property. They put frost footings so they could build an addition up thinking at the time her parents would come to live with them. She is also on the Board of Johnson County Livable Communities, is a realtor and also works with helping seniors find services. She is becoming very active politically for seniors and living with dignity in aging. She is also an active volunteer and advocate for AARP, she is a firm believer but where she differentiates from AARP in this town is they need to keep it owner - occupied to preserve what little housing stock they have left that's historic, they don't have a lot and ADUs do not have to be an extra building. On South Governor Street, when they lived there, there was probably nine houses that used to be rooming houses or duplexes or triplexes that were converted to single family. They could be converted back. The lots were 190 feet so a small unit could be put in the back and still have a good neighborhood. With the historic and conservation districts they have to stay blended so they're not going to have an ugly thing. Right now real estate is not that great, the interest rates are high, building is expensive so they don't see as much development, taking down old homes, to build a lot of new stuff. That could change in the future but right now that's not the case. She noted trying to find housing for someone who has no money is heartbreaking and this is an opportunity for seniors or young family people that want to live in their neighborhood. For seniors to age in place, they can't live in the two-story house where the only bathroom may be on the second floor, they could but it may not be safe. Bowans noted they could build an addition on to their house, as an example on Governor Street the house caddy corner from them, they could no longer do the stairs so they built an addition of a master suite onto their home and that did not detract from the neighborhood, there is still plenty of room for parking and everything like that. Bowans stated they need to have design standards that really preserve some of the lot and the integrity of older homes. She noted they are in the infant stages now of trying to find out a way where seniors could stay in their neighborhoods and in their homes. Maybe build a smaller unit in the back, where they could either move into and rent the big house to a larger family and have them provide services for them. Or for them to stay in their home, have a small unit, either attached or separate, where they could have a student Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 14 of 22 who has been vetted, has background checks and everything, move in. It's a win win for both, less student debt for the student and services for the senior. Iowa is closing nursing homes like crazy. She has been to several meetings with the head of the Department of Human Services, the director of Medicaid services, and the director of Aging and Disability Services, and there's a lot of things going on, nothing's been set in stone, but they're shutting nursing homes because they have no care workers, they don't pay enough, Medicaid does not reimburse enough. They are going to have a crisis of there's no place for people in Iowa with lower incomes to move to so people are forced to stay in their homes. Bowans looks at this as a whole different perspective, if they could somehow benefit a teacher who's coming here to work fresh out of college, they're going to have student loans to pay back, if there is an affordable unit for that teacher to live in then it's a win win if they can also do some cares for the senior or a family that's coming in. The State is working on ways to finance ADUs for lower income people, the Iowa Finance Authority is working on some things, and the State is also going to try and work on some things to get homes modified for this particular situation. There's a lot of things in the work but people need to think outside the box. Alex Lewis stated for some background context he is currently in the middle of a research project on the way land use can increase affordability so he thought a few statistics might help couch the conversation. The Council of Economic Advisers recognize there's about 7 million market rate affordable units in the country, which means that someone at the defined poverty line could afford the rent at their current salary. Two and a half million of those are being occupied by people that could afford an up-market unit but don't because there's no supply up-market. That means that millions of units that could be affordable today aren't on the market. When they talk about market rate, versus addressing the affordability crisis, that is all the same conversation about supply. When they talk about what's happening in neighborhoods, how to stop the change of neighborhoods and where students moving, apparently students are not very well liked. Well students are going to here, there's a university here, sorry, they're coming, the demand is constant, and it's going to grow. It's only a question of whether it's inelastic student demand. Students are coming here with the money to afford any kind of rent, he worked for a few years and lived in Dallas, when he came to Iowa City his rent money was going to go where he can afford to live but that doesn't necessarily mean that students are immune to market pressure. If there's a more dense area that's more amenable to students, they can bike, they can walk, they're closer to downtown, they can go to bars, that's where they want to be. That brings up the car issue too, which he will address in a second, but to first address where that supply exists so that they don't grow out. Someone else made a great point about growing out into cornfields versus growing up. Students like more dense housing, they like being closer to other people, ADUs are a way of enabling that and making sure the students are going to stay closer to where the university is. Because as you all discuss the impact area, that where the students want to be, if you want to keep people closer to the university, if you want less and less people getting priced out of those areas, it means making sure that more students can live on one lot. If there's 10 students coming to town, either five of them can live on one lot or two of them can live on five lots so it seems like for everyone, students, homeowners, the community, it would be better to have students in more dense areas on less lots. Additionally, it removes the pressure from the historic districts and other issues like that. The car issue is another big one. The cars are the problem. Cars and density are inverse, they're against each other. There's a great saying "you're Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 15 of 22 not in traffic, you are the traffic" so when they're looking at pictures of people stuck in traffic and watching people do three-point turns, you are also the ones sitting behind the garbage truck and blocking the person in the car. Nobody wants to be in that traffic jam. The way to encourage that is by getting more people out of their cars, biking, walking to school, which everyone would all love to do. Cars are expensive, students don't have that much money. There are other policies like protected bike lanes and things like that which are part of this, but increasing density and reducing parking makes it overall more attractive. They've heard about the building cost associated with garages but there's also space constraints, cars are big and if they're requiring a place for a car on every lot, that pushes the units further out and it reduces the density of the area and it means people have to have their cars. There's a great statistic from some reform in Buffalo that showed that for the doubling of housing density, transportation emissions reduced almost 50% and household heating costs reduced by 40%. That means it's also more affordable when those units are closer together, especially in an apartment building or a multi -unit situation, they don't have five exposed sides, they have four exposed sides or three exposed sides, which means less heating, less cooling costs. All of that makes the situation more affordable. As far as the investor concerns and owner occupancy concerns even in the most aggressive markets, New York, San Francisco, LA, only about 8% of units at the high end are being owned by incorporated entities. Most of these units are local people who are just looking for another stream of income, ability to monetize their lot to retire, things of that nature, so it's good to keep those avenues open. They shouldn't be artificially constraining ability to build because that's just going to harm supply. People talked earlier about why they haven't seen changes in the market, but 52 units over 30 years isn't something anyone is going to notice, especially when the university is growing and the town is growing. They need to take serious supply side reforms seriously so that people can respond to that. There is money to be made for people in this community by monetizing their lots, by increasing density, by taking advantage of students with their inelastic demand coming here, and spending so it's good to be able to capture that and get rid of the car requirement. Kelcey Patrick -Ferree (Sandusky Drive) lives in the South District and is here because she supports these proposed changes to the zoning code to increase the availability and diversity of housing in Iowa City. She supports all of the changes that City staff have has proposed, she appreciates the students who are in the room tonight pointing out that they do need housing and it's better for them to have housing closer to the university, they've got walking opportunities. Personally, ideally, she'd love to have a few more grocery stores in that area so they don't have to be driving out to get food. She thinks if some of the homeowners who have come to object to these changes would add ADUs to their homes and rent to students some of them might find that actually like having students around more than they realize. She noted they rented a room in their house to a student a few years ago, for a brief period of time, and a few weeks ago her husband officiated at his wedding. He's a dear friend and he's part of their lives now. But all of that said, as she has listened to all of these concerns that have been raised and read all of the reports and everything, she thinks that one potential solution for the University Impact Zone presents itself. Part of it is what Jim Throgmorton mentioned before which is only allowing ADUs to be built on properties that are owner occupied, except for also allowing ADUs of nonprofits too. But then the second part of that is to divorce that ownership requirement from future ownership of the property. Reading through the packet, her understanding from some of the Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 16 of 22 things that were in there that the staff said is that the owner occupancy requirement presents a big problem for future uses of that dwelling unit, both the main house and the dwelling unit. Patrick -Ferree thinks that if they can separate those two requirements, the building requirement and the renting requirement, that would be a good way forward just within the University Impact Zone. What that could look like is either a general lack of requirement of owner occupancy to get a rental permit for an ADU or it can be a provision that says that once the house plus ADU has been sold to someone else, or otherwise transferred, like a transfer on death deed, the owner occupancy requirement no longer applies to that property. Patrick thinks that would solve a lot of the problems that they're seeing raised here today. However, she wants to be clear, this isn't actually what she's advocating for, she likes the City staff's recommendations, she just wanted to put that out there because it might be helpful if they need to find a compromise position. Jared Knote wanted to make a point of clarification, he doesn't think anyone wants this being a false antagonism, which he doesn't think is generative, nor is it representative, he thinks what anyone is saying here is they want stable communities that are diverse, that are affordable, and that are environmentally responsible and that is what might be unlocked by having ADUs available to owner -occupied buildings, where they could have as opposed to having hollowing out diverse communities, and rebuilding a monoculture. They have existing examples of where that happens, in particular in the stabilization area of RNS-12 as one example. Other areas of the University Impact Zone might also be relevant here. He thinks a false antagonism or an interpretation of antagonism is not representative, many of the opinions are those principles, of affordability, diversity and environmental and having a generative community. Jim Throqmorton clarified that nothing he or anyone else affiliated within Northside Neighborhood Association has said should be understood as being opposed to rental units in the neighborhood. As noted from previous presentations a very large proportion of the housing in the Northside Neighborhood already is rental, apartment buildings, rooming houses, single family structures that have been converted to 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 family structures. The problem for many people in the Northside is not that there are renters in the neighborhood, it's that pressure exists and the amendments they're considering would increase the pressure exist to convert pretty much all of the Northside to rental units. The challenge is to make it possible for owner - occupants to actually live in the neighborhood instead of feeling pressured by market forces to move out. It's not hostility toward renters, not hostility towards students. Andy Martin wanted to talk quickly about the parking requirement. He was talking to a guy who lives in Solon and apparently they have regressed in their parking requirements there and they're requiring more parking or something. Martin doesn't know the details but basically they're requiring more parking per unit now and are the only town in the country that is trying to create more rights for cars. He noted if they've got a street, that's where the car belongs, put the car on the street, they don't need to create more parking lots for cars. Martin thinks that's something they should consider that they want to build for people and not for cars. That's the way they've kind of been heading in the last few years and he thinks it's great. When they went to two lanes on Mormon Trek he thought it was crazy but now loves it. So, he would encourage them not to try and build to allow more room for cars in the future. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 17 of 22 Sharon DeGraw added that she does love where she lives because of the number of students that live all around, it's just the density is quite great and she is not sure how much more they can go. There was a report that Jerry Anthony help compiled along with graduate students, and it has an interesting statistic about tax revenue, but then think of tax revenue translated as density. For the Northside they have 91 cents per square foot of tax revenue created out of the Northside Neighborhood and that's translated as density. For the Weber neighborhood, it's 31 cents per square foot of space. And for Windsor Ridge, it is 24 cents. So if other areas took on a little density, and if the ADU component works well outside the University Impact Zone, with or without parking requirement, with or without landlord or owner -occupied, she sees more possibility there. But just within the University Impact Area they're doing quite well right now. Hensch closed the public hearing. Elliott moved that Title 14 zoning be amended with elimination of the standard that the owner is not required to live on -site and that where accessory apartment is in the zoning code be replaced with the term accessory dwelling unit. Craig asked if the motion will limit the owner occupancy to the University Impact Zone. Elliott replied she is not. Motion seconded by Wade. Elliott appreciates the extra work that the staff has gone to and the people who came to the forum and the people here tonight. She does believe that loosening the current regulations on ADUs will contribute to the strategic goal of attractive affordable housing for all people. Her concern is with a proposed standard to eliminate the requirement for owner occupancy, the majority of attendees at the forum and tonight had concerns about removing the owner -occupied requirement. Removing the requirement places a greater burden on the University Impact Zone and also likely the Longfellow zone, which is not in the University Impact Zone, but are older neighborhoods where there are more rental units in the area. If one of the goals is to stabilize and preserve the character of older neighborhoods, than allowing for ADUs with the owner on - site helps to preserve the character of those neighborhoods. Hensch stated he is a big fan of ADUs because he believes strongly in intergenerational housing and that's why he supports ADUs. Interestingly, in the last issue of Planning magazine that just came out, there was a discussion, as was referenced in the presentation, AARP and the American Planning Association have collaborated to come up with these standards and they issued a report for that. He found it interesting in this article that the main justification they give for these new standards actually validate what the motion is, and to quote it says "we can point out that by creating an accessory dwelling unit ordinance in your town might allow you to build a unit in the backyard of your mother's house for a caregiver if you need care, or can act as an income generating source for you". So in their own justifications they're saying that the reason you should have these ADUs is because you're occupying that place and this is for caregivers for you or intergenerational housing, or for income generation for you. He found it interesting that they specifically in their recommendations say there shouldn't be requirement about the owner Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 18 of 22 on -site, but their justification says that's exactly what it actually should be. There should bean owner on -site and he agrees 100% with that. Quellhorst stated he would generally be in favor of removing the owner occupancy requirement because doing that encourages investment in ADUs, which does a really nice job of balancing these concerns of bringing down the cost of housing while also avoiding excessive density. When they talk about people creating ADUs on their property, one thing that staff noted is these folks are having trouble getting financing because they go to the bank and the bank says they're not going to give a mortgage because if something were to happen to them they wouldn't necessarily or their successor wouldn't be able to continue to rent out this ADU. He thinks that removing owner occupancy requirements is in the best interest not only of developers, but also in the interest of normal people that would want to build ADUs on their property but might not have the funds to do so. Padron is also in favor of removing the requirement and would support the motion with all of these recommendations. Craig is in favor of removing the requirement too but as a compromise could support a position that left that requirement in the University Impact Zone and removed it elsewhere. Hensch understands that the impetus for a lot of this is to decrease the cost of housing and he honestly don't think this will have anything other than a marginal impact, even if they allowed unrestricted ADU growth. That's not the driver of the housing costs in Iowa City. Criag stated she doesn't think growth of ADUs is going to run rampant in any case, in any neighborhood, in the next two years, but it's hard to predict the future. Hensch noted it's a pretty strong statistic that in the last 30 years there has been 52 units, which is 1.7 ADUs per year. He understands there's more restrictions on that but as Mr. Martin stated at $100,000 to $150,000 for an ADU, a very limited number of people that have affordability for that. His fear is that limited number of people are in the investor class, or people who are not going to live in the neighborhood but will spend the money because they know they can rent that out for the next 40 years so they can afford to build that ADU. He is really concerned about neighborhood integrity. Townsend stated her concern is when she thinks of affordable housing she thinks of housing for families that are going to remain in the communities. She thinks the ADU is a good idea for seniors and for people who want to keep their families together but would like to see that uncoupled from calling it affordable housing because it's a whole different entity than just affordable housing. If they take out that owner occupancy piece it just becomes another moneymaker for whoever, they're going to rent out the big unit and rent out the small unit. What's it going to do to the neighborhood. Townsend stated she lives up from the Mayflower and there's lots of big yards in that area but its still a community, it's a nice neighborhood. She can see building ADUs that are not on the land with the owner becoming just rentals and there are a lot of rental homes in that neighborhood, but their owners live across the street. So they've bought Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2023 Page 19 of 22 units on the other side of the street and they're kept up. But she has also seen properties in the Iowa City area where that's not happening, especially around the University where some of those places are just run-down and they tack them up just enough to get students in and then they're falling apart. Therefore she thinks they need to keep the owner -occupied piece in there. Wade stated the reason he seconded the motion with the owner occupancy requirement is really an incremental approach to it. He has the same concerns he raised last time, it does become an opportunity for a private owner on premises to make that property more affordable as their ownership for creating a rental unit to help supplement the cost of the house. As everyone is aware the cost of housing is expensive right now and anything to help that or level the playing field is good. However, he has the same concerns that requirement is not going to get them any closer to walkability from being close to downtown as far as getting more housing on the market. If this doesn't promote or show results in increased utilization or development of ADUs then he would look to revisit that requirement after a year to see if that needs to be lifted. Padron asked staff if she wanted to rent a property for her family with an ADU for her parents, for example, she couldn't do that because she wouldn't be the owner. Lehmann confirmed she could not do that, if she bought the property with the ADU then it would be okay. Quellhorst stated he is supportive of ADUs and looking at the statistics that staff presented, he thought was pretty compelling in terms of just how few of these properties have been constructed. Therefore, to the extent they favor an incremental approach, eliminating the owner occupancy requirement isn't likely to result in dozens or hundreds of ADUs overnight. He thinks that's a process that would happen fairly slowly. He also thinks that ADUs are still subject to other zoning requirements so they're not just packing places onto tiny lots that are not suitable for them. They still have to meet setback requirements and there's still a variety of provisions in the zoning code that ensure that ADUs are consistent with the character of the community. He strongly supports ADUs and thinks that they can eliminate the owner occupancy requirements and wouldn't see drastic change. And in the very unlikely event that they did start seeing diverse impact the community there's nothing stopping them from coming back and revisiting that regulation and making further recommendations to Council. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3 (Craig, Quellhorst, Padron dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 16, 2023: Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes from August 16, 2023. Quellhorst seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave an updated on a few development projects. First the rezoning across from the fire station on Dodge and Scott with the proposed coffee shop/mixed-use building and townhomes was recently subdivided and approved by Council and the site plan was also recently approved. MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 2023-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Billie Townsend STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Throgmorton, Lorraine Bowans, Donald MacFarlane, Wally Plahutnik, Gregg Geerdes, Ellen McCabe, Tim Fleagle, Bob Burchfield, Sharon DeGraw, Paula Swygard, Martha Norbek, Nancy Carlson, Ross Nusser, Scott Hawes, Rebecca Kushner, Karyl Bohnsack, Kelcey Patrick -Ferree, Mary Bennett, Mary Beth Slonneger, Ginnie Blair RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Title 14 Zoning as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability with the exception of the proposed amendments related to accessory apartments. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommend deferral of the proposed amendments related to accessory apartments to the first meeting in October and requested that neighborhood associations to be conferred prior to that meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ23-0001: Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Elliott stated she had a conversation with Bob Miklo, former planning staff member, regarding these zoning changes on Friday, July 21, the conversation centered on the implications these new rules may have on older neighborhoods but she can be impartial regardless of conversation. Russett began the staff report providing some background information and noted this process started with City Council adopting its first Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2016. The Plan identified 15 action steps including changes to zoning regulations and the changes to the zoning regulations were the only action items that were not completed after its adoption. In 2019 the City adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study which reviewed impediments to accessing housing Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 2 of 27 because of protected class, such as race, gender, or disability, as codified in the Federal Fair Housing Act. This study included recommended actions to affirmatively further Fair Housing based on extensive public inputs such as targeted feedback from stakeholder interviews, focus groups, a Fair Housing Survey, public events and a public adoption process. One of the most significant Fair Housing issues identified was a lack of affordable rental housing and improving housing choice was one of the many strategies recommended to help address this issue. In 2022 the Affordable Housing Action Plan was updated to build off of previous efforts in support of affordable housing. A number of public input sessions were held including a City-wide survey, general outreach activities, targeted stakeholder meetings and other events. Later in 2022, the City Council adopted the Strategic Plan, which drew upon previous planning work, studies and community conversations. One of the action steps included in the Strategic Plan is advancing prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. In addition to these adopted plans and public engagements, there's been several meetings with this Commission. In February 2023 staff from Neighborhood and Development Services provided a comprehensive overview to the Commission of how the City works to address housing affordability and staff discussed its efforts to support housing through financial incentives. Staff also presented an initial summary of the proposed amendments that will be detailed tonight. In April, staff presented the results of the 2022 Residential Development Analysis, which looked at housing development over the course of the 2022 calendar year. This analysis determined that if residential growth continues at its recent pace, the City will only be able to accommodate less than 6300 new residents by 2030 when the projected demand is over 10,000 new residents. At the same meeting, Councilmember Thomas presented the City Council Strategic Plan. Last month, staff provided a comprehensive summary of the proposed zoning code amendments this Commission will be considering tonight. Russett stated housing affordability is a complex issue, there is no one solution and there are many factors that influence housing affordability. The continued growth within the community driven by the quality of life and strong economic base, in addition to a housing supply that is not meeting the demand generated by this growth can result in continued high prices and rents, which indicate there's an unmet demand for housing. When thinking about housing affordability, there is a role for zoning. Zoning regulations can restrict development and act as a barrier to create a diverse housing stock, or they can support and allow a diversity of housing options for a community. Staff are proposing amendments to the code that help to ensure that zoning regulations don't act as a barrier but instead allow and encourage a diversity of housing types. The goals of the proposed zoning code amendments include increasing housing supply to meet the current demand and increasing housing diversity to improve housing choice by removing barriers for housing types that generally cost less than detached single family. Those can include townhomes, duplexes, and accessory apartments. The City wants to incentivize income restricted affordable housing through density bonuses and other tools, they want to address Fair Housing issues to ensure persons with disabilities have equal access to housing and want to implement the adopted Plans in place. Russett presented a slide that showed the variety of Plans. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed amendments align with the adopted Land Use Policy direction as well as the other plans already mentioned. Again referencing the Strategic Plan, the proposed amendments are tied to the City's core value for racial equity, social justice and human rights. They're aimed at removing and addressing systemic barriers present in all facets of City government, including land use decisions, and also aligns with the Housing and Neighborhood impact areas which encourages updating the zoning code to encourage compact neighborhoods and ensure a Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 3 of 27 diverse housing stock and addressing the unique needs of vulnerable populations in low to moderate income neighborhoods. Finally, the Strategic Plan recommends advancing the prioritized recommendations of the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. Lehmann presented the proposed amendments, noting in the staff report they received was a very technical description and in this oral report he will try and describe them in more generally understandable terms. Again, the way they are reviewing these proposed amendments is that generally they are a prerequisite to enable the construction of housing units that tend to be more affordable within the community than what's currently allowed. Again, this really complements other programs that more directly subsidize low- and moderate -income households and affordable housing that is rent and sale price restricted. But with that being said, it does also include incentives to produce affordable housing that is income restricted and rent and sales price restricted. Lehmann acknowledged there will still be barriers to affordable housing within the community as this isn't something that will solve affordable housing, but rather trying to make sure the zoning code is not one of those barriers to affordable housing within the community. The proposed amendments are organized under five general categories; increasing flexibility for a range of housing types, modifying design standards, providing flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing, and then also more generally addressing fair housing. The first set of standards related to increasing flexibility for a range of housing types includes four different proposed amendments with the purpose of providing for flexibility of housing types to help increase the supply of housing and also increase the diversity of housing types available with a focus on housing types that tend to be more affordable to lower income households, especially in standard detached single-family zones. Lehmann gave a summary of the proposed amendments, the first change would be to allow duplexes and up to two attached single family uses more widely in lower density single family zones, specifically RS- 5 and RS-8 zones. Currently these uses are only allowed on corner lots. The second change is to allow townhome style multifamily uses in higher density single family zones, which would be RS-12 zones. Currently the code allows for up to six side by side single family townhomes but if they're on a common lot it is currently not allowed. This would be allowing up to six side by side multifamily townhomes on a single lot. The third change would be to allow second story multifamily through a simpler process in certain commercial zones, specifically the CC-2 or community commercial zone, and then also to enable the Board of Adjustment to allow ground floor residential uses in commercial zones through a special exception which requires a certain set of specific and general approval criteria are met. Generally the approval criteria are intended to make sure that the commercial intent of the zone is maintained even with residential uses and also to provide protections for historic properties. With a special exception, the general criteria are generally related to impacts the surrounding property owners, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, making sure there are utilities, etc. The fourth change would be to treat assisted group living more similarly to multifamily uses. Assisted group living are things like congregate or nursing homes, generally they look similar to multifamily uses and act similar to multifamily uses. This would allow these uses in more zones then currently allowed and in some cases streamlines the approval for these uses in those zones, specifically in the low density multifamily (RM-12) zone. Additionally, this change would no longer allow this use in the intensive commercial zone, which is generally a zone that shouldn't accommodate household living uses. Lehmann then went into more analysis of each change. For allowing duplexes and up to two attached single family uses more widely in lower density zones, the existing situation is that Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 4 of 27 these uses are only allowed on corner lots, but they do tend to be more affordable than the detached single-family homes. The 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan recommends expanding where these uses are allowed from just corner lots to additional lots in lower density zones. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff started by looking at existing parcels and although they believe the primary impact will be in greenfield sites this is going to allow these uses more readily and in more locations. Again, they would expect the primary impact to be greenfield sites, but for existing areas it would allow some existing lots to possibly accommodate duplex uses. If the use would be allowed in existing parcels will be based on lot size and lot characteristics. This proposed change would allow up to a maximum of 2900 lots around the community to accommodate duplex uses. In addition to this amendment being adopted, there is a lot size reduction proposed later in the code that would decrease the minimum lot size required for duplex use in a RS-5 zone from 12,000 sf to 10,000 sf which could allow up to an additional 2200 lots that could accommodate these uses. However, based on experience in zones that already allow duplex uses within the zone, specifically the RNS-12 zone (a zone located predominantly near downtown that does allow duplex uses already) they haven't seen substantial redevelopment in that area over the past 30 years. Since 1992, five single family homes have been demolished to build a duplex and that's only about 1% of current parcels. Lehmann noted what they've also seen over that time are more units converted from duplex to single family units rather than vice versa. Again, staff believes this would be a modest change on existing parcels with the primary impact being in newly developing areas. This change would also make it similar to the new form -based zones the City has recently adopted. Lehmann showed a map of the primary impact areas for those duplex uses, particularly where there could be new subdivisions in greenfield sites but also some scattered through a number of areas located in older portions of the City including areas near the Northside, Morningside, Twain, Longfellow, and Oak Woods neighborhoods, as well as a substantial portion in the South District. The second change is looking at townhome style multifamily uses in higher density single family zones. Lehmann reiterated up to six attached single-family townhomes are already allowed but this change will just allow it on a single lot. Reasons for this change are because it does facilitate a flexibility in a range of housing types, it also can be more affordable while providing a similar look from the street. He showed two images, one an attached two single family townhome and another multifamily style townhome noting they look very similar from the street with the main difference being the lot arrangement. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff doesn't anticipate this would have a large impact on the number of units produced but does add that flexibility in which can make that cost of construction a little more affordable. The third change is looking at multifamily uses in commercial zones. Currently second story commercial in the Community Commercial zone requires Board of Adjustment approval which requires additional time and resources. Also, currently multifamily uses are not allowed on the ground floor in most commercial zones (that is mainly restricted to Central Business zones). In terms of the anticipated impacts of the proposed changes, it would simplify the process to allow mixed -use buildings where there is commercial on the ground floor and residential above which is called a vertically mixed -use building in important commercial centers. This would allow the Board of Adjustment to approve multifamily buildings in most commercial areas as long as the approval criteria mentioned in the packet are met, and that in turn facilitates what is called horizontally mixed -use development, where they might have a single lot with a multifamily building and a commercial building on it. In the past to allow those would require an OPD rezoning or would require different zones with different parcels, so this simplifies that process as well. Again, he showed on a map where these proposed amendment would be allowed as long Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 5 of 27 as they met the certain standards The final change in this category is to treat assisted group living uses more similarly to multifamily uses. Lehmann reiterated assisted group living includes group care facilities like nursing homes and assisted group living facilities. The standards for assisted group living uses are generally more restrictive, but a best practice is to treat them similar to similarly sized household living uses, which in this case that's multifamily. For example, Hickory Trails Estates is a new assisted living use that's being built, it looks very similar to multifamily and has similar impacts. In terms of the anticipated impacts, this would simplify the process to allow these uses in lower density multifamily zones, specifically the RM-12 zone, and would allow group living in all zones that allow multifamily which primarily expands it to commercial zones. This change would also no longer allow group living uses in the intensive commercial zone. Lehmann next reviewed the second set of proposed amendments related to modifying design standards. In this category they have three different standards, the first is to eliminate two multifamily site development standards to provide flexibility. He noted these are specifically material standards such as currently multifamily uses must have a two -foot masonry and/or brick base or it could be a dressed concrete base. The second is that facade materials must wrap three feet around the corner of a unit. Reducing those material standards would increase the flexibility allowed and would help reduce the cost of construction for those uses. The second standard would be to adjust the design standard of duplex and up to two attached single-family units in midblock locations, again specifically in those lower density residential zones. The standard is the dwelling must be designed such that it would do so without having garages that dominate the streetscape limiting garages to 60% of the fagade and also limit to 20 feet combined of garage face. Lehmann explained this would allow either one double wide garage with two parking spaces or two independent single wide garages. He did note the garages could be wider if they're setback 15 feet, similar to what is required in form -based zones, but that does prevent them from dominating the streetscape. Additionally, if there is a rear alley they must utilize it. The third/final standard is related to townhome style multifamily uses, again this is to simplify the process by which a setback is reduced and replace a minor modification process with just an administrative process, and that's tied to allowing those uses more liberally in the RS-12 zone especially. Lehmann stated this proposed amendment would affect multifamily group living and institutional and civic uses in residential zones in the Central Planning District having to meet certain design standards. However, the 2016 Affordable Housing Action Plan did recommend amending some of these standards and as a result the two standards of the two feet of masonry or brick must be around the base of the building, and that materials must wrap three feet around the corner of a building would no longer be required. However, it does retain other standards that more directly address the visual interest in a building which includes things like ensuring visible entrances, affecting the scale of the building, standards related to balconies and exterior stairways. Other standards related to building materials, standards related to mechanical equipment, and also architectural style standards in the Central Planning District would continue to apply. Again, the goal is to decrease the cost of construction and increase design flexibility without substantially impacting visual interest. The second standard is related to allowing duplexes and up to two attached single family uses in midblock locations, specifically in lower density single family zones. The current requirement is that each unit's main entrance and garage are restricted to different streets, built around the idea Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 6 of 27 that these uses have to be on corners. This proposed amendment is to change that and have a mid -block location while achieving a goal to prevent garages from dominating the street. If it were to have rear access, which is required if there was an alley, the garage size wouldn't be restricted as it wouldn't dominate the streetscape in that case. Also, if it's setback 15 feet it could have more than 20 feet of combined garage face however would still be restricted to 60% of the total width of the fagade. The goal is to make sure that these are uses or standards that keep compatibility while still allowing the mid -block duplexes. Finally is simplifying the waiver for townhome style multifamily uses, specifically as it relates to a parking setback. In the current code parking must be setback from streets through 15 feet of building depth and they cannot build parking within the first 15 feet of building depth. This poses a problem for lots that are on the corner where a unit would need additional building space between that and the side street. Currently that can be waived by minor modification, but that requires additional time and process which includes an administrative hearing notification period. The proposed amendment allows a straight waiver of that side street lot line which as a result has very limited impact. It's a very specific proposed amendment, but again is tied to facilitating those townhome style multifamily uses, especially in areas where attached single family uses are already allowed. Lehmann moved onto the third set of proposed amendment changes that are tied to providing additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing. Again, there are three changes in this category with the first reducing lot sizes for detached and attached single family and duplex uses. This would specifically affect some zones, mostly lower density single family zones, but does have some limited impacts on medium -density multifamily zones as well and would reduce lot width and lot size for RS-5 and RNS-12 if there is rear access and only if there's rear access, and it would reduce lot width for RM-12 and RIM-20. For duplex and detached single family it would reduce both lot size and lot width. The second change would be to increase the bedroom limit for missing middle housing types outside of the University Impact Area. Lehmann explained that would specifically be looking at multifamily where there's currently a cap of three bedrooms for multifamily dwelling units and for duplexes and single family detached there's currently a cap of four bedrooms for a dwelling unit. This would increase that to four and five bedrooms respectively, specifically outside of the University Impact Area. The final change would be to allow and encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in a broader variety of contexts and to try to reduce barriers to construction. One of the reasons they're focused ADUs is because they're a great way to increase housing supply without substantially impacting the appearance of a neighborhood. A lot of these changes are based on those that are recommended by the AARP, which has really encouraged ADUs in recent years and so has the Housing Action Committee of the Johnson County Livable Communities Group, which includes a number of stakeholders. Changes are things such as allowing these uses in any zone that allows household living uses on any lot with two or less dwelling units. It would remove the requirement that the unit be owner occupied and it would remove limits on the number of bedrooms and residents as those would be capped by other standards that are in the rental code. This change would allow increased size for these dwelling units, as long as they're less than half the size of the primary use, it would remove the requirement for an additional parking space and also simplify some design requirements. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 7 of 27 Regarding the analysis of these proposed amendments, in terms of reducing lot sizes and widths, the existing situation is there are many lots that were platted prior to 1962 that are non- conforming as that was when the most substantial zoning code changed that increased the lot sizes. Best practice is to reduce minimum lot sizes to perpetuate patterns of economic and demographic segregation and it is also a best practice to reduce or minimize non -conformities within the zoning code. In terms of the anticipated impacts, it wouldn't bring approximately 85% of non -conforming lots in the RS-5 and RNS-12 zones into compliance with the zoning code and around 300 lots would remain non -conforming in these zones but a lot of those are lots that are flagged lots in historic areas. This also provides flexibility for the arrangements of lots in new subdivisions, which includes smaller lots being allowed, especially in the RS-5 zone. For example, in terms of the cost reduction that this could bring, assuming land prices are around $5 a square foot, the proposed reduction for an RS-5 zone could reduce the cost of construction by approximately $10,000 so especially in lower price points that can be a significant factor in affordability. Another impact is that reducing lot sizes for duplexes allows them on a wider variety of existing lots. Lehmann showed some examples of areas of the City that were platted long ago with smaller lots, like the Morningside neighborhood. It's low -density single family residential but has 50-foot lots with 7000 square feet lots. Again, approximately 300 lots wouldn't become conforming even with these changes, those are mostly in Towncrest and in the Northside neighborhoods where lot sizes are smaller than even the proposed standards, but it does bring a substantial number of these non -conforming uses into compliance. Finally, this would also bring new developments closer into alignment with what's allowed in a form -based zone since form - based zones do allow duplexes in even the lowest density residential zone. The second change would be to increase the bedroom limits outside the University Impact Area. Currently the number of bedrooms are restricted for duplexes, attached single family and multifamily uses City-wide and the problem with this is that the bedroom caps limit where large households can live and pretty much limits them to detached single family housing, which does increase housing costs for those household types and as a result the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan did recommend amendments to these standards. The impacts of the proposed amendment would be to allow the construction of units for larger families outside of the University Impact Area in a wider variety of housing types. In addition, it would retain the bedroom cap for the University Impact Area to avoid some of the situations that caused the bedroom caps to be adopted in the first place. The final change is related to encouraging accessory apartments in a variety of contexts and reducing barriers. ADUs have been allowed in Iowa City for quite some time, more than 40 years, but over the past 30 years the development has been relatively limited. The City has only 52 ADUs when there have been 13,000 eligible lots under the current code. There are barriers within the code and some of the barriers that have been identified by AARP are things like the owner occupancy requirement and additional parking standards. In the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan it recommended trying to promote or encourage where ADUs are allowed and expanding those. There is also a large demand for smaller units as approximately 36% of households in Iowa City are single person households and more than 40% of renter households are single person households. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff doesn't anticipate that all eligible units are suddenly going to provide ADUs but the goal is really to encourage their development and reduce those barriers. The 13,000 parcels that are currently eligible will remain eligible under the proposed amendment however, there are new parcels that would be able to accommodate ADUs and they would imagine that would happen gradually, like any change. This would include up to 1400 new units allowed by expanding the zones and uses to which these Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 8 of 27 may be accessory. For example, allowing them in RNS-12 zones or allowing them in other zones that allow single family detached uses, and also allowing them accessory to duplex uses. In addition, it would allow up to 3100 new units by removing the owner occupancy requirements. With that being said many of the renter occupied detached single-family uses are located within the University Impact Area so that is something to be mindful of. With the changes proposed it would allow standalone accessory dwelling units, and it is imagined that that's how many of these would be constructed, in addition to there being other barriers to construction. Even with the City trying to remove as many barriers as possible, they still have to have conforming lot sizes and meet the other standards in the code with regards to lot area, coverage standards, and open space. Those standards wouldn't change, it's just allowing an ADU if there's room for it. In addition, staff anticipates that allowing ADUs in more areas supports the City's sustainability goals. By increasing housing supply in those areas, they anticipate that those are the most walkable areas of the community. That also ties into reducing the parking space that's required because that ties into the goals of encouraging alternative transportations. The City is really trying to encourage walkable communities. Lehmann showed a map of the areas that would be able to build ADUs and noted they are scattered throughout the community, a lot of them are located lot downtown, but the goal is to encourage ADUs throughout the community and remove as many barriers as possible. The fourth set of standards is tied to creating regulatory incentives for affordable housing, specifically focused on income restricted housing, also rent restrictions and/or sales restrictions for owner occupied housing. This is tied to increasing housing choice, diversity, supply, flexibility, and reducing cost. The income and rent levels are determined based on the current practice in the City which is generally 80% of the area median income for owner occupied and generally 60% of area median income for renter occupied. Lehmann noted rents are tied to fair housing market rents and sales limits are tied to HUD sales limits. The two proposed changes are creating a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventional zones and that would be a 20% density bonus, or 20% of units are affordable housing for 20 years. It would allow additional regulatory flexibility as well, specifically tied to setbacks and building height. The second standard would eliminate minimum parking requirements for affordable housing, where that housing is affordable for 20 years. It would only affect that 20% of units that are affordable, or as many units as are affordable, it doesn't affect the market rate units in that development. In terms of the impacts, a lot of these bonuses are already part of the Riverfront Crossings and form - based zones that were recently adopted, especially density bonuses and parking reductions, but they're not present in conventional zones. So, impacts would be to provide a voluntary incentive, something that can encourage the construction of those income restricted affordable units, and they'd be administered during the typical reviews. A lot of that would be site plan or building plan review or it may be an OPD plan or subdivision depending on what standard is being requested. The goal of additional units in terms of the density bonus is to provide additional rents that can help offset the costs of affordable housing and density bonuses are one of the most common affordable housing incentives seen in communities. Again, it may also provide flexibility for setback and height standards, if those are needed, depending on the circumstance. Lehmann noted there can also be a reduction in the minimum parking requirements to provide another incentive by reducing the cost of providing those affordable housing units. Design flexibility is the second most common incentive provided for affordable housing bonuses. The goal is to reduce the cost and incentivize the construction of those income restricted units. The final set of changes are related to addressing Fair Housing and are specifically focused on persons experiencing disabilities. The first is related to providing a reasonable accommodations Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 9 of 27 process that is currently handled through disparate processes throughout the zoning code. It is something that the City is required to do by Federal law, currently there just isn't a standardized process that's clear and apparent, so this amendment is clarifying that process. It is best practice provided as an administrative process and try to require as few hoops as possible for persons experiencing disabilities so that it doesn't draw attention to their disability and doesn't become a hurdle. The impact of the proposed amendment is to create a simple, comprehensive process to evaluate all these requests and to reduce the need to call attention to the disability. The second would be to reclassify community service long term housing uses as a residential use. Currently, these uses are housing with supportive services for persons with a disability that are owned by nonprofits. Currently, they're treated as institutional uses rather than residential uses and as a result they're more restrictive in where they're allowed. Again, it is best practice to regulate housing for persons with disabilities like similarly sized household living uses. By treating these uses as residential the City would strike the community service long term housing use as a distinct category and it would be allowed as a household living use, which would simplify the process by which they're allowed and would also expand where they may be located. Group living would also no longer be allowed in intensive commercial zones as it is determined that isn't appropriate for household living uses. It would also eliminate some standards that are different for this type of use. Currently, the standards have reduced parking requirements and increased or higher density allowances for these zones. This would again treat them like any other multifamily use if it was a multifamily building or be treated like a single-family use depending on which kind of building the household use was located in. Lehmann noted currently there are only two properties that are in this category and they're both owned by Shelter House. They would become legal non -conforming uses and while it is best practice to create as few non -conformities as possible within the zoning code, the purpose of treating housing for persons with disabilities similarly to residential uses outweighs that creation of a non -conforming use in staff's opinion. Staff did discuss this with Shelter House leadership and stated these uses would be allowed to continue as they currently are allowed, they'd just become a non -conforming use. If the use was terminated, it wouldn't be allowed to re -open. The proposed amendment also does specify the supportive services that are accessory to a use, and that only serve the residents of a building, would be allowed in a household residential zone. So, on a smaller scale, there could be a case where someone has household help that lives with them and provides assistance or in a larger use it could be a case where there's supportive services that help them live within their housing unit, whether that be employment services or other things. However, since people come from off site to use those services, it would become a broader separate use that would no longer be allowed. Lehmann explained in terms of the way that these amendments were constructed, all are based largely on national best practices. They looked at organizations that have a really broad scope in the way that they look at housing affordability and equity, one of them being the American Planning Association, they also looked at information by the National Association of Counties and then also AARP, the Association for Retired Persons. They looked at what's working throughout the nation and what's not working in terms of enhancing equity and enhancing affordability. In terms of equity, and in terms of the American Planning Association, they really focus on the equity and zoning policy guide which has a number of different recommendations with regards to zoning codes, things like allowing a broad range of housing types, reducing minimum lot sizes, allowing ADUs, treating assisted group living and housing for persons with disabilities as residential uses, allowing administrative approval of reasonable accommodations, all things to further equity within the community. The National Association of Counties provides specific recommendations for individual counties based on their characteristics. They classify Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 10 of 27 Johnson County as a high growth — high cost community so a lot of their housing policies are focused on making it easier to build small, moderately priced homes, making the development process simpler and shorter by streamlining approval processes and also expanding vouchers or income supports for low income renters, which ties into things like incentives for affordable housing. Finally, AARP is also very interested in affordable housing. A lot of the ADU standards are tied to those AARP findings and recommended policies by the Johnson County Livable Communities group. They did identify things like owner occupancy requirements, parking requirements, conditional use permits, and discretionary standards related to design or neighborhood character can really limit the use of ADUs. AARP pointed to recent changes seen especially in California and Oregon's legislation and also in Seattle's 2019 Local Code revisions, where a lot of them have moved away from rental restrictions. They have also seen this in other communities such as Ann Arbor recently. Staff is also recommending these proposed amendments because they do believe that they are currently consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. The vision statement for the Comprehensive Plan is creating attractive and affordable housing for all people that is the foundation of a healthy, safe and diverse neighborhoods throughout the City. The Plan lists strategies and goals such as ensuring a mix of housing types, encouraging development of smaller lots, ensuring a balance of housing types, and supporting infill development in areas where infrastructure is already in place. The Comprehensive Plan also has a Future Land Use Map that shows where different uses might be allowed. Within most of the community it notes that it's appropriate for two to eight dwelling units per acre and that is the lowest density future land use designation. Staff did take that into effect when looking at the proposed amendments as well. Within the Comprehensive Plan it really does stress that even with these density limits that a variety of housing types should be encouraged throughout all areas of the community. Lehmann did note staff did receive seven pieces of correspondence, three were included in the agenda packet, and four were submitted late, so those were handed out tonight and have also been emailed to the Commissioners separately. Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. In terms of next steps, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing would be scheduled for consideration by City Council. The earliest possible time that could occur is September 5, and then they would have a third consideration and possible adoption by October 3 at the earliest. Hensch asked what the date on the Comprehensive Plan was. Lehmann noted it was adopted in 2013 and the City is currently in the process of developing an RFP for a comprehensive plan update since it's been about 10 years, which is pretty standard. Hensch asked under amendment number one to increase flexibility for range of housing types, why not just think about expanding the use of RS-12 since that allows all the multiple types. Lehmann acknowledged that is a possible amendment that could happen however, the problem is that would not comply with the current Comprehensive Plan since the current Comprehensive Plan specifies that two to eight dwelling units per acre would be allowed. Staff focused on amendments that comply with the current Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 11 of 27 Hensch asked regarding the amendment to the modified design standards and having to put masonry or brick or requirement to the ground, that's essentially the same as what it is for single family residences, meaning there's no requirement for a single family to have that. Lehmann confirmed that is correct and there is no requirement and this is just making it the same standard Hensch noted amendment number three provides additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing. Why increase the number of bedrooms when demographics show family sizes are significantly shrinking, it seems contrary to the reality and these additional rooms are just going to be filled up with a bunch of people who are renting rooms essentially. Lehmann stated it's really tied to the fact that there's an unnecessary restriction for different housing types seen especially outside of the core. The just renting out rooms is a very real concern, especially in that University Impact Area, so that's why that area is excluded from the proposed amendment. Lehmann shared the example of Habitat for Humanity had proposed attached single family uses with five bedrooms in the South District and currently that's not allowed under the code. Lehmann noted a lot of the times it's tied to intergenerational households and also larger families that just can't find housing in Iowa City and so a lot of those people have to either find a detached single-family home or move to a different community where that might be allowed. Hensch noted if they are increasing the number of bedrooms and decreasing the lot sizes, so where do kids play. Lehmann stated the City does have open space requirements and rear setback requirements that would continue to be in effect and those standards are intended to create room for children to play. Hensch asked regarding the University Impact Area, when was that determined, looking at the map it just looks too small and doesn't reflect the reality of where students live. Lehmann stated he believes that was adopted in 2012 and was specifically tied to parking standards, it was tied to the zoning districts at the time, specifically limited to areas that aren't lower density single family zones. Hensch asked about the accessory dwelling unit issue and isn't a real barrier to the creation of accessory dwelling units the cost of construction, particularly detached ADUs because if it is something that people had a need for constructing only 52 ADUs in 30 years is like one and a half year, so the demand clearly isn't there. His first thought is affordability because intergenerational households would jump all over this because it seems to be the answer to things. Lehmann agreed that the cost of construction and obtaining financing are barriers to ADUs but staff really has made its recommendations based on the fact that they don't want the zoning code to be that barrier to the construction of ADUs. Some of the barrier could be tied to the fact that current zoning standards are unnecessarily limiting construction. Hensch noted wouldn't it just be an expansion of houses that are used as rentals because investors who have the deep pockets are going to be the only ones that can afford to build these and then rent them out to students. His concern is about neighborhood integrity, he has been in Iowa City since 1985 and it's pretty obvious where rentals are where they're not and neighborhoods start declining where there are lots of rental houses because they are just not maintained with the standards that people maintain their personal dwelling. He thinks it's very important to be respectful of people who want to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. If someone spends everything to buy their house and now the houses on both sides are rentals that changes the integrity of the neighborhood. He feels organizations are going to purchase Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 12 of 27 these properties and it's just another way to get another rental in there. Lehmann acknowledged that's a possibility but what staff was focused on is making sure that the zoning code is not a barrier. Hensch stated he loves the concept because he a big fan of generational housing. Padron doesn't understand how increasing the number of bedrooms will create more affordable housing. Additionally, if they have more houses with more bedrooms is there a way to ensure that those are going to be owned by families and not just rented to multiple people. Lehmann replied it really is a matter of specifically accommodating different household arrangements within different household types. Currently, single family homes don't have a cap on the number of bedrooms that they can have but everything else that has a cap on the number of bedrooms so single-family homes are currently the only dwelling types that can accommodate larger families. However, those are also more expensive than other housing types such as multifamily and attached single family or duplex uses. The City has gotten requests for some of those larger uses in more affordable housing types but it is not allowed under the current code. Regarding restricting owner occupancy or renter occupancy, Lehmann stated the zoning code doesn't really consider owner or renter occupancy, except in the case of accessory dwelling units, the rental code tries to address those situations. Craig noted these proposed changes seem to be doing some things that provide more flexibility, similar to the form -based code. The neighborhood she thinks of is the Peninsula that was deliberately designed to include multiple living arrangements in one building. There are a lot of apartments and ADUs, that's a neighborhood that was designed specifically to have denser housing, it that the same as form -based code. Lehmann confirmed that is correct, approximately a third of the 52 ADUs are in the Peninsula neighborhood. In terms of the form -based code these standards are significantly closer to what's allowed in them. For example, the proposed minimum lot sizes for RS-5 and RS-8 are similar to what's allowed in the T3 (suburban transect, neighborhood edge and neighborhood general zones) in the form -based code. Duplexes are also allowed in all the T3 zones. both side by side and stacked. There is no corner requirement for duplexes in the form -based zones. In terms of other changes, the duplex use are still significantly larger in an RS-5 zone than is allowed in the neighborhood edge zone but uses that are allowed are similar and single-family lot sizes would be similar. Elliott noted at the July 5 meeting she had asked a question about somebody coming in and tearing down an affordable single-family house and making it higher cost and having more people living on the land. The response was something about covenants controlling that, what does that mean. Lehmann stated private covenants are another barrier to different housing types in communities. Covenants are legal restrictions that run with the land, often homeowner associations, and they often restrict what type of housing can be built, such as only single-family detached housing. That's a barrier to housing but that's something that's not considered here because they do expire after 21 years unless they're renewed, so they can change over time. Quite a few areas have private covenants that restrict to single-family detached only, mostly in outlying areas. They became common in the 60s, when there were still racial covenants that restrict where persons of color can live. Nowadays it can only restrict to type of building such as single-family detached only. Elliott asked about the neighborhoods close to downtown that have historic and conservation districts and explain more about why their lots sizes are not an issue. Russett stated in the local historic districts and local conservation districts the only place the demolition of an existing structure would be allowed if it's deteriorated beyond repair so a demolition in a historic Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 13 of 27 conservation district and a new structure being built is unlikely. Elliott clarified that there are some historic and conservation districts that are outside University Impact Area. Lehmann confirmed that is correct for Longfellow, but there are none on the west side. Elliott noted by looking at the numbers in the northside, there could possibly be over 2000 accessory units and including the University Impact Area it would be 3100. So if 75% of those units that are allowed by removing the owner occupancy requirement would be in the University Impact Area. Lehmann confirmed that is correct but they still have to meet all other regulations. noted part of what comes from the previous question about private covenants and then also about smaller lot sizes, lots do have to be conforming lots to have an ADU, they do have to meet the open space standards, setbacks, and coverage standards. There are a number of standards that are in place to ensure high quality places, and that rear yards still exists. Staff's analysis did not look at that detail of each lot because to do so they'd have to look individual lot by individual lot basis, calculate the amount that's covered by a building, etc. Elliott asked about the percent of single-family duplex uses in areas close to the University that are rental based but not exactly in the University Impact Area. Lehmann noted it's hard to come up with those numbers because rental units change all the time. Hektoen stated initial development of covenants usually are not put in place until after a development has been started so wouldn't it apply to the initial development of a greenfield site within a subdivision, they could potentially be implicated if someone wanted to redevelop an existing lot. Elliott stated there could be developments out there that can exist now with all the houses in the subdivision as single-family houses. Hekteon stated that is more of a historic relic and she hasn't seen them very recently but again, the City's not involved in approving those or enforcing them, they're imposed by the developer after the developments been built, so if a developer wants to put duplexes in the middle of a block under the proposed amendments private covenants wouldn't restrict that necessarily. Wade asked about the rear access requirements, and if there's an alleyway on a duplex, does that require that the garage access is off alleyway. Lehmann confirmed that is correct. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jim Throgmorton (814 Ronalds Street) stated he is co-chairing the Northside Neighborhood Association steering committee and began by distributing a written statement. City staff proposed a series of major amendments designed to improve housing choice, increase housing supply and encourage affordability. Just on Friday staff issued the long complicated supplement to the initial report and he has spent much of the last couple of days reading it and trying to digest it. On Sunday his co-chair Sherry McGraw and he guided a zoning matters community forum about staffs proposed changes, roughly 50 Iowa Citians, some of whom are here right now, attended the event at the library. Attendees asked many questions and offered many comments about the proposed amendments. The questions and comments ranged from purely technical ones like what is an ADU to the expressly political ones. The technical comments revealed that most residents do not understand the zoning processes and political comments revealed a very broad range of political views. Throgmorton commends City staff for carefully considering how to promote the development of more affordable housing through the use of zoning tools. He finds himself agreeing with and supporting most of the proposed changes. Many of them seem to Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 14 of 27 open up existing future conventional residential zoning districts, especially RS-5, to a more diverse range of housing types. Doing so is a progressive response to historical evidence that in cities all over the country conventional residential zoning has been exclusionary by design. However, the proposed amendments are the most significant alterations to the zoning code in nearly 20 years and changes of this magnitude and complexity deserve to be carefully studied and discussed by all affected stakeholders. To the best of his knowledge, there were no consultations with the general public or neighborhood associations prior to the issuance of the proposed amendments. Additionally, to the best of his knowledge there have been no reports to the local news media. The steering committee thinks it is extremely important for the Commission to defer voting on proposed amendments tonight and to think of ways to in which a broader community discussion about the proposed changes can be conducted. They strongly believe that neighborhood association meetings must be recognized as key stakeholders in this process. The Northside Association finds it difficult to fully assess how the amendments would affect the Northside and other neighborhoods in the UTA. However, they think some of the effects might be harmful. This concern largely stems from the fact that the housing market in these neighborhoods is profoundly affected by the intense demand for off -campus student housing. Although all of the UTA neighborhoods are affected by this demand, the particular effects vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. In each case, it is important to account for the social and material realities. They have recently completed an inventory of property of the Northside Neighborhood. This inventory of 994 properties reveals that the Northside is already quite diverse in housing types, ages, ownership and assessed values. The written statement provides more details. The most important the 2023 assessed values of the 467 single family homes. The single-family owner -occupied properties range from $76,000 to $1.1 million. Almost 14% of the single-family properties are assessed in the $100,000 range or below, 46 are assessed in $200,000 range. Moreover, the inventory reveals that 175 Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and other incorporated entities own property in the Northside. These private enterprises own and presumably rents 27% of the properties classified as being single-family owner. One individual's various LLC owns at least 56 properties in the neighborhood. Again, the details are available on the written statement. As he read the staff's August 2 supplementary memo, the possibility of perverse effects applies primarily to the proposals concerning accessory dwelling units, especially items 3C, 4A and 4B in combination. With this mix of amendments and incentives, especially the removal of the requirement that one unit be owner occupied, private investors are likely to sweep up properties in the RNS-12 parts of the Northside and Goosetown, they are likely to demolish older, lower cost, owner -occupied structures and replace them with larger rental structures coupled with rentable ADUs. The overall supply of housing increases the supply of affordable owner -occupied housing would shrink. Throgmorton strongly opposes applying the staffs proposed ADU changes to the RS-8 and RNS-12 parts of the Northside for the unique reasons associated with neighborhoods in the UTA. He noted what he has said is very consistent with the conversations he's had with other members of the steering committee and with neighbors who attended that forum on Sunday. Lorraine Bowans (925 Barrington Drive) currently lives in Windsor Ridge but spent 30 years in the Longfellow area, along South Governor Street between Burlington and Bowery. She has served in a lot of capacities in different things. She is a member of the Johnson County Livable Communities, but is not here tonight representing them, these are her personal views. She is 100% behind the ADUs but has also lived in a historic house. Their house on South Governor was built in 1864 and there used to be a lot of duplexes and rooming houses on that section of street when they moved in there in 1985. It was 80% rental at one time then around 2000 many of those have been converted from duplexes and rooming houses back to single family homes. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 15 of 27 Their house was a duplex when they bought it, the house next door was a triplex with a unit in the garage and it was a duplex house. Bowans noted they can be made beautiful but she wants to preserve the historic buildings they left. She worked for the City engineering department in 1978 and it broke her heart to see all the historic houses on Johnson and Van Buren and all those places just demolished for housing for students. She also worked with Ann Freerks to make Longfellow, the South Governor and Lucas Street areas into the second conservation district. They put a lot of time and effort in keeping neighborhoods historic. She noted they can have ADUS and can be converted back to duplexes and things and not ruin the integrity, they have to be very careful. Bowans noted the conservation districts and the historic districts all have very strict guidelines, just to change a front porch they had to go in front of the Historic Commission to make sure they were doing the right thing. She would like to see the conservation and historic areas owner -occupied to help preserve that, because Governor Street, when they moved in, was a distressed neighborhood, their property taxes were basically nothing, and when they left they had gone up from around $700 a year in 1985 to over $6000. When the neighborhood was owner occupied, and even when they were rentals, looked nice and was taken care of. She would like to suggest part of the reason there are not more ADUs is they only had a one story -one stall garage. Their lot was a third of an acre and they wanted to build a carriage house because everybody along their alley had carriage house because they backed up to Summit Street. They couldn't build carriage house because it was non -conforming by City code so when they did build their large garage, which was 26 by 40, they thought about putting in something and were going to go in and argue about it to be the place where her parents would move into when they retire. Unfortunately, things got too pricey and they couldn't afford to build. But on larger lots one can make the carriage house and make it look beautiful for an ADU. She encourages some outside the box ideas. Bowans noted the other thing are covenants, when a subdivision is developed, they develop lots, where the roads are going to go and things like that. When a developer gets a plot of land, they subdivide it, they put in their streets and everything, and then they decide what buildings to build. Covenants usually last 20 or 22 years, and then they are renewable twice for 11 years, and then they're gone. She lives in Windsor Ridge and they no longer have covenants. Their house was built in 1996, but it's for the neighborhood to have kind of a uniform design. Additionally, she is a member of that AARP advocacy team and there are some changes to Medicaid coming and in Iowa they lost 23 nursing homes last year and six this year so far. The one in Iowa City is almost being shut down. Donald MacFarlane (620 Summit Street) was the founder of the Summit Street Historic Neighborhood Association, which is a carve out from Longfellow. He strongly endorses the thought that the Commission should not vote on this tonight until they've had a chance to talk to the neighborhoods. They should talk to the neighborhoods because the motivation for this change does not come from reality, it comes from theory. It comes from theories set 50-70 years ago, and by and large have never been proved to be either right or not right. He likes to live in this town because of its vibrancy and its vibrancy comes from young people who come to this town. They come as students and they need student housing, and how much student housing, they need enough for 26,000 students. There is also a need for married student housing, and after that young faculty housing, and after that senior faculty housing, plus all the other people in town. These constituency groups were never mentioned, students were never mentioned, neighborhoods were never mentioned, historic and conservation districts were almost never mentioned. They haven't done a survey of X number of college towns, because college towns are very, very different than other towns. Have a look at them and see if there's something that was better than what they've done. Don't go to some theory, from an organization somewhere, there's never actually done this. He is not sure if there is a constituency for affordable housing. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 16 of 27 When he was young, he bought a house, it wasn't affordable, it was terrifying. It was way beyond his imagination. He couldn't think he could possibly own that house but did it because they wanted to live in a beautiful house. They did it because it was going to be a beautiful neighborhood and they thought they would invest in that and eventually it will become a family asset. And all of those things have become true, the house is in RS-5, the map shown was hard to see but this amendment is staying his street is going to be rezoned for duplexes, why convert those beautiful houses to duplexes. The answer is that young people who want to buy the best possible house that they can even though unaffordable, will not come to Iowa City, they go to Coralville, North Liberty, Solon, or wherever. They won't want to buy a house on Summit Street, which is moderately expensive, because of the probability that house prices will decline and not rise, they will not have a family asset if they buy a house on Summit Street, because some theory tells us that our big beautiful houses should actually be duplexes. Wally Plahutnik (430 North Gilbert St) stated he is not part of any organized group, he is a Democrats and no one ever went broke overestimating the averse corporate landlords in Iowa City. He asks the Commission to keep that in mind when they're offering the possibility for them to double their money on a lot. He'd also like them to consider postponing this vote to get in touch with neighborhoods. He served on planning and zoning during the last writing of this code and during the previous development of all the district plans. What some regard as poison pills in that code was really carefully thought out and they regarded them as features rather than bugs, AARP disagrees with that, but they had a consensus of folks who did agree that they were features and not bugs. The first question is if this is indeed about affordable housing. He failed somewhere to find the numbers of results that are they're going to get from this. When they have a plan like that, that's great, he wants to see what the plans goals are to increase some affordable housing. At some point from staff it'd be great to hear if they proceed with this plan what X percent increase in affordable housing will be achieved. Like mentioned, the UI impacts zone, which he lives in, seems like it's going to be immune from quite a few of these things, but that's not the issue. By expanding bedrooms what they're doing is expanding the UI impacts zone and not shielding the impact zone. The duplexes on the corners were really carefully worked on, thought out, talked about, discussed and again, they saw that it's a feature not a bug. He asked a theoretical question of how many duplexes on a block is okay, if they are on the corners and now in the middle, and more between the middle and the corners, well that's a whole different block, and with accessory houses in the back, it's going to make a serious impact on any neighborhood. Please consider postponing this and going through some of the processes of community engagement before a final proposal, because there's a lot of good ideas in there but there are some unintended consequences. Grego Geerdes (890 Park Place) lives in mosquito flats but has a rental property in Goosetown and a rental property on Summit Street. He noted one of the things that apparently happened over the last 10 years been a trend away from this idea to preserve neighborhoods. He remembers when this whole controversy about conservation districts, historic districts and all those things came into play, and the idea was that they wanted to preserve the neighborhood because they were attractive to people and places for people wanting to live. Now it seems like they're getting away from that. The accessory dwelling units apparently can be built in most zones including conservation zones and historic preservation. Does Historic Preservation require construction requirements, or any other design standards, these things which are built in historic or conservation zones and the answer appears to be no because that would be an impediment or an obstruction to expanding housing. Now the overall principle here seems to be one of density. Densities now becomes good but that's a big leap for a lot of people have chosen to Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 17 of 27 leave Iowa City to build in North Liberty or Tiffin or Solon or variety of other places because they have been able to find desirable places to live and raise their family due to denisity. These owner occupiers are building in RS-5 but he asks them to keep in mind that there is competition out there. If they make this less desirable for families, they've got other places to go and that's what they will do, they're already doing that. The objective could be to bring them back not drive more out. Geerdes noted regarding group homes, two weeks or maybe months now, there were several articles in the paper about halfway houses, so what is a group home, is a halfway house or people getting out of prison home a group home. Perhaps that is something that they want to address again, they're seeking to extend a desirable community. He encourages them to note the examples in Portland and San Francisco mentioned, obviously if they read The New York Times, Washington Post, there's a great deal of coverage about how those zoning and accessible housing ordinances in those areas have failed and have given the exact opposite result. There is a bill this week where Minneapolis which famously outlawed single-family zoning in the last few years, is now rethinking its position because developers have abandoned and are going to St. Paul and adjacent suburbs that don't have those restrictions. Tread lightly, Iowa City is a good community, it's attractive to people, that's why they come here. Don't put anything in front of them that deters that or detracts from the desirability that they all enjoy. Ellen McCabe (Housing Trust Fund in Johnson County) stated diversity in housing options can help make more housing more affordable. In addition to further incentives to add housing that is affordable need to be put in place. She works with developers everyday who want to create housing that is affordable, and they can work to lower the barriers that they face, including the design standards, it may not sound like brick on the facade is an issue but the developers expressed that every single aspect of the process adds cost. The Housing Trust Fund supports changes that will help the estimated 13,450 households with low incomes in Iowa City who are spending more than 30% of their income on their housing. That is the same cost burden by their housing. Tim Fleagle is a student at the University of Iowa and is a homeowner on the Northside, he wanted to say he believes that the proposed changes to the zoning code will benefit not just him as a homeowner and in certain neighborhoods, but him as a student. He has a young family, they're trying to grow that young family, and they may be priced out of their neighborhood because of the lack of affordable housing in that neighborhood. The zoning changes put forth today would allow for an increase in diversity of housing, whether that's renting or owning, and allow them to stay in the neighborhoods they want to be in. These are evidence -based policies that have shown through rigorous peer reviewed articles to improve outcomes in certain neighborhoods. A lot of opposition he's heard today are people who are speaking out to continue to have exclusionary zoning for the purpose of excluding other people, mostly students, of which the City is made off of students. A lot of the comments are they don't want students in their neighborhoods. Bob Burchfield (1107 Muscatine Avenue) has owned a home on Muscatine Avenue for over 49 years, his neighbors always got a mix of students, houses that are rented as homes, and longtime homeowners. He was a student here, he loves students, they're not anti -students. He just objects to the process being used to rush these amendments through. October is just a few months away, and this is such a massive change. He objects to most of the proposals, but what he finds most objectionable is they are writing language that is being used to deceive and distract from what's really being done here. Everyone is for affordable housing but they know that in truth what this really does is allow developers to continue to make more money. He generally Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 18 of 27 doesn't see developers living in these neighborhoods, students are living in these neighborhoods, the developers aren't living in these neighborhoods. He doesn't think he heard anything tonight that wasn't directed towards developers can't do. He didn't hear anything about what those of them in their neighborhoods can do to maintain viable and stable neighborhoods. He doesn't generally attend these meetings or speak because he doesn't expect this City staff or Commission or City Council to be any different than the ones that throughout the years have allowed developers to profit by attacking the downtown, and their neighborhoods, he just wishes for once that they'd be honest about what they're really doing. Sharon DeGraw lives in the Northside and after the July 5 Planning and Zoning meeting took place, a few of them started to actually read what was in the code, the code changes and realized the different variables and the way that they would interact to cause so many different things that they weren't sure they could predict everything. They wondered if the people on the Planning Commission also felt the same way and if they could predict all the outcomes and staff could and if City Council will. So they put together this little meeting and called it a neighborhood forum. There was one week between announcing it and actually having it so they felt scrambled and they didn't know who would show up. But 50 people from different neighborhoods, mostly in the University Impact Areas did show up and they were responding to many of the things that people were talking about at this point. She asks that the Commission defer voting on this because there are many that would wish to meet and talk about variables. Paula Swygard (426 Douglass Street) noted they've heard a lot of general comments, she comes with some specific comments about how this might impact particularly her. Maybe the answers are somewhere in all that documentation, but she couldn't find them. At the end, they have an appendix with lots of red strikeouts and little bit of black with all the amendments in there. Her questions pertain specifically to stand-alone accessory apartments and is there specific approval criteria for a standalone accessory apartments, do the setback requirements for those conform to the underlying zone, what is the setback between the principal dwelling and the stand-alone, what is the height limit for the stand-alone. Swygard gave the example of her little single family three -bedroom house, in an RS-8 zone, it is only 832 square feet and her neighbor's home, in the same zone right next door, is 672 square feet. Many apartments are larger than her house, but there are also many small homes like hers in older parts of Iowa City. So calculating the dimensions of the house behind her, at the current 30%, a detached unit of 368 or 468 could be built, depending how the square footage of the four seasons porch is considered. At 50%,under a new proposal, either a 613 square foot or a nice 781 square foot home could be built on her lot, both of those are comparable to her house and her neighbor's house that are considered single family homes. So given the size of her house, she has a hard time thinking of a detached apartment of nearly 800 square feet as a separate apartment and not two single family homes on the same lot. Investors alike find this to be a way to increasing housing on their properties. However, the cost of building a detached unit, the size of a small house, and therefore the rent to make it a good investment, won't make it affordable. One other comment on page 21 of the staff memo sites the APA equity and zoning policy guide regarding ADUs it states quote "but it may be necessary to limit them to properties where the primary dwelling unit is the owners primary residence to avoid speculative investment, particularly when used as short term rentals" and that is Iowa City in a nutshell. The best practice of requiring that one unit be owner occupied should remain especially when it comes to detached accessory homes. Martha Norbek (906 S. 7'" Avenue) is a local architect who specializes in the green building. She Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 19 of 27 first wanted to say the staff did a great job putting this together, there's so much research, the maps, the data, she's very impressed. One of the things she noticed was they said up front that affordable housing is complicated, so is climate action and those two go together very nicely. When they're increasing density of units, they're reducing transportation and carbon from transportation. When they can do a duplex reducing the amount of carbon that is required to build that building, they're creating a common wall so the total amount of heat that's required to heat those two dwellings is less than if it were two separate dwellings. Its a win for climate. One of the things about climate action and affordable housing is there's no one solution. There's no big idea that's going to solve the problems. This is going to be thousands of ideas cumulatively put together addressing the issue. She is very excited about many of these proposals, they have imperative to act on both housing and climate and if they're sitting here like, oh this possible bad outcome for me personally might affect me negatively, then they're never going to create change. She hears people say they are scared of density, that as a proxy for classism and she thinks they just need to call it out for what it is. The existing neighborhoods are not going to be just ransacked and she knows this because she designed her mother's house at 1618 Muscatine, after a house that had been horribly neglected was demolished, which is one of the 52 ADUs. They had to work really hard to come up with a solution to provide an apartment to a young man who's economically stressed for $500, utilities included, and her mom is still going to be able to pay for the entire construction costs of that unit in 15 years, and when she's less able, they can have someone living upstairs who can take care of her and check in on her every day. This is the reality of an aging population. Her mom's needs are what ADUs are all about, it's been a huge success for her. Norbek is also working on a project at 724 Ronalds where a house was demolished after being neglected for many years, they are working with the Historic Preservation Commission and it has not been easy. It is $300 to $350 a square foot to build on that property so it's not like people will just waltz in, tear things down and build new, it's just not going to work. If someone pays $150,000 to $200,000 for a property that has an existing house just to tear it down and build new at $300 to $350 a square foot, no one's going to buy that house. They're $150,000 out before they even buy one wood stud, it just doesn't make sense. Therefore, the concept that people will come in and demolish neighborhoods isn't rational, she has studied it, she has considered buying properties in those neighborhoods, she's looked at adding ADUs, it's very difficult and it's very expensive, epecially in historic preservation areas. Also, when they're talking about theory, let's look at ourselves and our hearts and what we're thinking and question how to they want to support those less than us, this guy who's renting from her mother for $500 a month, that's the story that they want. They have created affordable housing with that ADU. Norbek gave an example of a new house on Bloomington Street where they tore down a house on a corner lot and now they're trying to sell that house for $500,000 and guess what, no one's buying, its been on the market for months so good luck to them to actually make their investment back. These fears about the existing neighborhoods are not based in reality, they're based in fear. Norbek is desperate to see climate action accelerate and these proposals will help make that happen. Nancy Carlson (1002 E. Jefferson Street) stated all of them want affordable housing, they want everybody to be able to afford to live and to have a living space, that isn't the question. If they were I Dream of Jeanie or whatever TV program from back in the 50s where the genie or the whatever could wiggle her nose and everything would turn out perfectly. It's too bad they don't live in a city like that, where they could wiggle their noses and go poof and it was all be solved, it would be wonderful, unfortunately that was a TV program and this is reality and if they are going to deal with living here they need to live in the situation that they are in. She has lived in her house on Jefferson Street for 40 years. It was a working-class neighborhood and she has Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 20 of 27 watched structure after structure, whether is was house owned by a working class person, or if it was rented out to a lower class person, she has watched over the years these houses either being changed into rent -by bedrooms or torn down and turned into a rent -by bedroom situations. It's it has been sad to watch her neighborhood disappear so that these people could do structures with rent -by bedroom structures. Carlson has nothing against students, they need a place to live affordable just like others do. The problem is that they acquired the neighborhood and that doesn't allow anybody else to live in the neighborhood and have access to housing and that's why she is very much afraid of these ADUs because she is afraid it's going to be another rent -by bedroom thing developers will do. Regarding the expense, developers have other developments and write those things off. The individual person who lives in their house and does an ADU does not have that. A developer can depreciate it out over 20 years. So she is asking them to please stop and think about not how wonderful the idea of having all these ADUs are and what they could do for the community because while they could she thinks they need to stop and think about what is the reality of the places where they live. They need to take into consideration not only providing housing for people but to make sure that by these actions they are not decreasing that. Ross Nusser (202 N. Linn Street) is a local real estate agent and developer and also a resident of the Northside. He commends the City's attempt to try and help assuage the problem of affordable housing and trying to do something. He thinks the density is what happens when density can come affordable housing. He also respects the right to comment and to engage the public and is in total support of his fellow neighborhoods wanting to have more of an input on this. But by and large, he thinks that if they want to address a problem, they have to do something. Nusser thinks that this code amendment shows that they can do something, this is substantive change that can entice affordable housing and can entice different types of developers. He doesn't buy into the slippery slope fallacy as allowing ADUs will create a boon for developers investing in. Construction prices are too high, it's too expensive and cost prohibitive to remodel some of these older structures and then to build in the rear of the lot, assuming that they have the appropriate setbacks, it doesn't seem like it would likely work out financially. Scott Hawes (Executive Director, Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity) stated Habitat for Humanity focuses on home ownership, specially affordable homeownership. He thinks this is an idea that everybody understands but wanted to bring it to the forefront of how impactful homeownership can be specifically for children and for families. In addition to being an asset, actually owning a home allows children to stay in the same school district, allows them to get to know their teachers, allows them to get to go to school with their peers for as long as they live there. There are other benefits in addition to actually the financial ones that come with owning a home. The way he looks at these amendments is that it improves the opportunity for people who are of low income to purchase a home, specifically, the amendments to the zero lots or attached single- family amendments. It is cheaper, especially at Habitat, if they can build a zero -lot line, it is much cheaper than a detached single-family house. Because those costs are lower it makes it more affordable for folks to purchase and provides more opportunities. Hawes supports especially the provisions that would allow more diverse housing. In response to a question that Mr. Hensch said, specifically about increasing the size of bedrooms in a home, it might be true that families are starting to decrease in size, but there's still going to be larger families and they're going to need housing and all that's available is smaller homes, then they're not going to have a house. Hawes asks that they just consider that. Yes, there might be some demographic changes or trends going one direction, but it won't be the end of larger families with multi generations. The Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 21 of 27 last thing that he has to say is that great neighborhoods come in a lot of different shapes and different sizes, and they look very different. You can have a great neighborhood with a duplex or a zero -lot on the corner and mid -block. You can have a great neighborhood with an ADU, you can have a great neighborhood with a smaller lot where the children play in a common space or at the park. He likes that the City is making an effort to recognize that neighborhoods look different and they can be great no matter what they look like and that zoning won't be a barrier to having a great neighborhood. Rabbi Rebecca Kushner (325 Ferson Avenue) stated she fails to be convinced that density bonus benefits a neighborhood necessarily, especially with traffic concerns, she lives in Manville Heights and they've had an extreme increase in traffic density since the building the construction in North Liberty. Some streets are almost impassable, she doesn't even walk them anymore. Also, Manville Heights has no grocery stores, no convenience stores, why are they packing so many people in position whether it's no bus route, no way to walk downtown, it's pretty far. She is also not understanding why diversity and divisive come in balance and it's balancing one against the other. Of course everybody wants housing for everybody. Everybody wants the world to be Kumbaya and function and yet she would have really welcomed if the decision had been transparent for the neighborhood associations. She learned of this just by chance and that seems like something is being kind of bowled over against or despite the neighborhood's development. Karel Bohnsack (Executive Officer, Greater Iowa City Area of Homebuilders Association) is also on the Johnson County Livable Community Coalition, the Johnson County Affordable Homeownership Coalition, and she has been a past board member of Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. She wants to thank the staff for taking the time to meet with and answer questions with the ABA, the Affordable Homeownership Coalition, the Affordable Livable Coalition, this is a good start but as the memo says it's not going to resolve all the issues related to housing affordability. There have been a lot of compromises that have been made about design standards, the way ADUs look, the way the duplexes look, there's been multiple moving parts to this in the eight and a half years that she's been the executive officer and meeting with City of Iowa City staff. Bohnsack wanted to say that they support these changes and proposals that are being made to zoning code, it's the things that zoning can do to help with affordability. The Livable Community Coalition supports the accessory dwelling units, not to make neighborhoods a plethora of rental opportunities, but so people can continue living in place in their homes, so that someone can either look in on an elderly person or if you're living at home you can live in the ADU in the backyard, or someone else can take care of your family and understand the use of that whether it's aging and its abilities, so it's a good thing. As far as the group homes, three of the student build houses that were done in Iowa City were for Reach For Your Potential and there were areas that they could not build those homes and the students couldn't get that education. The zoning changes will help to be able to build those home and treat them like every other multifamily house, rather than an institution so they support that as well. Kelcey Patrick -Ferree (652 Sandusky Drive) a member of the South District Neighborhood Association but is here in her personal capacity to say she supports these changes. She also wants to specifically thank City staff for answering questions and for mentioning that they have looked at other college towns and seen what they've done with their zoning. She wants to remind everyone here that the old regulations in place have caused problems. In 2015 it was found that Iowa City was the 14th most economically segregated city in the country and they've been working on fixing that ever since. This change will finally start to make some of the bigger Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 22 of 27 changes needed in housing types in order to address these issues. The fact that Iowa City is that economically segregated areas has caused problems for the schools over and over and over. Her kids go to Alexandria Elementary in the southeast part of Iowa City but they have been assigned to go to middle school at Northwest Junior High in Coralville because of how economically segregated Iowa City is. So she appreciates that they're finally doing something about this. She has been participating in all of these meetings for almost a decade at this point, and the reports that the staff presented are not new, this is not surprising. It's not being put on people at the last minute, staff have come and talked to the South District Neighborhood Association regularly, they come and talk about zoning issues, they've talked about form -based code a lot when that was affecting their area. This is not something that is being dumped on people at the last minute. These are people who have not participated in this process because they didn't think that affordable housing was going to affect them until they found out that it was. The City is moving in the right direction. There's free bus service, they are reducing parking that is true, but they're adding a lot of incentives. This is going to help avoid sprawl, this is going to help be more environmentally friendly. She loves this inclusive zoning, she enjoys that this is going to make things more walkable and more bikeable, which is what a lot of young people want. It is unlike North Liberty, Tiffin and other cities in the area. She just wants to really emphasize this has been a decade long process, City staff is always accessible, they will talk to you about anything you have questions about. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) She has watched Planning and Zoning as well as the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council. She's heard arguments for 45 years on what some of these plans are to be, she's been on a planning committee for some of these things as well. Yet she did not know about this until Sunday and she is plugged into what's going on. She knows it's not deliberate for the City to hide this information but if it's going to impact her, she wants to have input. Therefore, she encourages the Commission to defer any vote or decision on this until they do gather input. She applauds all these progressive leaders that have come up to the podium, whether they're from Habitat for Humanity, or whatever sector that helps the disadvantaged of the community, but it sounds like the City has been in rather intimate conversation with them for quite a long time, and not with other people. She doesn't want them to be turning their backs on 50 years of successful historic preservation activity in this town, which many dedicated people have spent an equal amount of time trying to educate and inform people about the community's history and the ties that bind us and give us a level of stability that's often lacking in other communities. Bennett acknowledged they live in stable neighborhoods but she is not classist, she resents being accused of that, and she's not sexist, and she's not racist. They all want affordable housing. She sat in these planning and zoning meetings and bought the bill of goods that said they need density downtown to combat urban suburban sprawl and keep things out by the Highlander as farm land but then at the same time, they're having developers come in with plans for every single square inch of this county and surrounding area. On a personal level she just had a friend who's been waiting for years to return to Iowa City, since 1985, but the market was pricing her out. Unfortunately, she paid double the value of a house over on Burlington Street. The classic example is of a former University of Iowa football player who's a millionaire who came in and brought the property and is turning it off for twice that amount. He didn't address the drainage and sewer pipe issues in the basement, he just had the windows painted shut up and put carpeting over the hardwood floors. Now anyone coming back into that neighborhood has even higher costs trying to rehabilitate that property because of the historic building. So how does a single mom afford to rehab these houses that have been allowed by landlords to turn into blight ridden places where they haven't kept up the moisture problems and the drainage problems where they haven't addressed lead paint problems. If they want to talk Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 23 of 27 about climate change, well every time they tear down a house, where does that material end up, it ends up in the landfill. People want yards where they can step out onto the porch, they want to have gardens, they want walkability, these are all things the neighborhoods in this University Impact Zone enjoy. Bennett stated they are not elitist, they're living in mixed neighborhoods, there are students and she love students, she taught students for 45 years, students are the future. But they also have to live with old people, middle aged people, young people and children and she thinks some of this plan is very much a slap in the face to some of the older people in this community who have dedicated their lives to making it a better place to live, and enjoy the neighbors and the friends, and the things that this town has offered. She asks that they please wait and listen to them, they do support what they're trying to do. There's a lot of wisdom in the report which she appreciates and applauds, but it's also textbook oriented and it's not in humanist values embedded in it other than to use the shield of diversity and disability to again excuse what the developers are doing. They're lining their pockets at others expense and she means those who've been below the highest income levels in this town. This has repeatedly happened her entire life in Iowa City, she has been marching up to this podium trying to encourage sensitivity among the leaders at whatever level they're at. They're investing an enormous amount of time, but she asks that they give this some time and don't always look at the bottom dollar. Mary Beth Slonnecler (937 E Davenport Street) lives in Goosetown and stated she has not in any way absorbed everything in the 65 page report, but she just found out about this recently so she is in the group that says please hold off a little bit longer to listen to the neighborhoods. She thinks the value for Iowa City is that what they have that North Liberty and Tiffin and all the other areas don't have is the historic neighborhoods and beautiful houses that reflect that. In Goosetown, in the 1990s, her husband and her were given a grant by the City and so she is trying to suggest possible other ways of looking at encouraging affordable housing. Goosetown is probably at the bottom or near the bottom of the list of wealthy homes and they were given a grant, a depreciating grant, that if they put money into restoration that loan would be taken away, it was possibly 10 years, would there be a way of doing that, giving people grant money to upgrade some of these very small homes instead of getting them out to the landfill and letting developers come in. She encourages the Commission to think about creative ways of looking at some of these properties rather than just alliterating them. Martha Norbeck wanted to make clear that this is not changing historic or conservation district requirements and that none of the historic preservation or conservation district rules are being changed by any of these things. Hekteon confirmed that was correct. Sharon DeGraw wanted to clarify about the one house that was referred to at the corner of Bloomington and Union Street. What happened was the little cottage that was there was listed or valued for around $160,000 and when the new house was constructed it has three bedrooms upstairs and a bedroom in the basement, or studio or something in the basement and that house was originally listed for $590,000 and it didn't sell. Subsequently bedrooms have been rented out and they've seen them listed for about $900 - $1000 per bedroom, per month. If you multiply that by four, that's getting close to $4,000 a month, those are pretty expensive prices. Some people will priced out that. If one were to take the cottage in the Goosetown area cleared a lot, removed the house, would it be possible to do a duplex, have four college students in each duplex and charge again somewhere between $700 and $1,000 per person. And then do ADU in the back with two bedrooms again, that seems like it's getting close to $7000 to $10,000 per month and that's a game changer. That's more what they're worried about in terms of transforming the Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 24 of 27 neighborhoods in the Northside area. Jim Throqmorton stated they have to ask if they really understand what staff has recommended. Are they confident that they understand how these proposals will actually affect development in this City. If the answer's no, then they should not vote tonight. Another thing he'd like to say is they have a council election in November and there are four seats up for election. A large part of this particular proposal, technically good though a key part of it is the politic aspect. He knows this Commission is not making political decisions but are they confident of the political will in the City to make the biggest change in the zoning code in 20 years and to make it before the council elections. Nancy Carlson stated at this point, their area, the impact area, has the highest land property taxes per square foot of any area in the City. One of her fears is if they continue to allow more and more development on each of these lots, does this make each of these lots more valuable and does that mean that the people who are live in this area will see their property taxes go up. If it does, and these changes are allowed, and there is more development they are going to price out some of the people who don't have a lot of money who are trying to stay in the neighborhood because of the rise of property taxes. Ginnie Blair agrees with a lot of what has been said, she is all for affordable housing and is very fond of the idea of ADUs, which originally she thought meant accessible dwelling units and they were supposed to be the granny flat version of the back of a lot to help people age in place, and it was important that was for owner occupied as an extra dwelling, that all makes perfect sense. Affordable housing is important but she doesn't understand how extra housing is necessarily going to make them affordable, because there's this voluntary part. Developers can build a certain way and get a deal, but they don't have to. She is also wondering if all the townhouses that are being built up around town, are those less expensive places to live because it doesn't seem so. She loves Habitat, and The Housing Fellowship and is in favor of climate change but doesn't see any regulations for any of that. She wishes the City would work with those people for the greater good. Hensch closed the public hearing. Craig moved to recommend approval of Title 14 Zoning to be amended as illustrated in Attachment 2 to enhance land use regulations related to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability. Padron seconded the motion. Craig noted as everyone has said tonight this is a very complicated issue but when they look at what started all this five years ago, there was a charge to look at the zoning code and it's taken that long and worked through many housing affiliated organizations to get to where we are today. She thinks the staff has done an outstanding job and they're here to find solutions, to improve housing choice, increase the housing supply, and encourage affordability. Will any of these things actually happen, they don't know because they're not in charge of that, someone has to build these places. She also thinks there are bad landlords and bad developers and there are good landlords and good developers and people who want to preserve the feel of community in Iowa City but just can't afford to do it right now. The City has to give them the tools that let the Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 25 of 27 good people do the good stuff. She thinks staff has brought forward a proposal well researched that is trying to give people the tools that we think they need. People want absolutes, they want predictions, but no one can predict what's going to happen. There's no assurance that it's going to work, they are just doing their best to give the good people the right tools to do the good things and that's why she supports this. Padron doesn't have much to say, she likes the proposal and her main reason for supporting it would be the sustainability part that was mentioned, mainly reducing carbon emissions and sees density as less transportation and more ways of walking. She wants to give it a shot and it may not work out but it may. Hensch stated he is in favor with the majority of this, but like others have said tonight, he'd like some more discussion and an opportunity to vote on these separately. He thinks he would vote no on this because he really wants to vote on them separately. He might be able to be persuaded on a couple of things. Hensch asked if this motion is voted down, is this just it, if this motion fails then is this done tonight. Hekteon stated the Commission could ask for it to be presented again at a future meeting or it could just go to City Council without Commission recommendations. Additionally, the amendment on the floor could be amended. Hensch stated he would support this motion if he could make some amendments to it because his big concern is there should be an ownership requirement for the ADUs, particularly for the attached ADUs. He would support this if they could have an amendment to allow that. Wade wanted to share a little bit from where he is coming from and then the second part on the ADU. He agrees there's no single solution, looking to bring back people to the community that couldn't afford originally and also retain people in the community, from affordability. As far as the ADU portion, he looks at that in two ways, from private ownership that was a good example of the age in place and having somebody living on the same property that helps later in life but also for private ownership, that's the owner occupied and provides a pathway for private owner to essentially build value within their existing property to make it more affordable for their personal ownership. That's the reason he's leaning towards private ownership on ADUs. Elliott first wanted to thank everybody who's been here, it's been very helpful to hear everybody's opinions to help them understand the issues. She was really impressed with the packet, all the information was very helpful. She remains somewhat up in the air, she comes from one of those historic district situations and really values the neighborhoods there. She doesn't want to upset the neighborhood feel but does feel they need to move forward. With hesitation she will support this. Craig stated if they can pass majority of this tonight, she is willing to amend her motion to take out 3C. Craig amended her motion to recommend approval of everything except the language related to accessory apartments, which should be discussed more. Craig stated she is not in favor of the owner occupancy requirement and feels like concerns have been concerns that the neighborhood associations should have been involve. She would like the staff to give the neighborhood associations an opportunity to discuss and then based on that discussion bring this back at a later time. Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 2023 Page 26 of 27 Padron seconded the amendment to remove the section of proposed amendment 3C regarding accessory apartments and talk about it later. A vote was taken supporting the passage of all proposed amendments except the proposed amendment regarding accessory apartments (3C). The motion passes 5-0. Craig moved to defer the proposed amendments related to accessory apartments (3C) to the first meeting in October and requested that neighborhood associations to be conferred prior to that meeting. Padron seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 19, 2023: Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from July 19, 2023. Craig seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett announced that a new commissioner was voted in last night by Council so hopefully they will be joining the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Elliott moved to adjourn, seconded by Wade and the motion passed 5-0. r City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY November 3, 2023 Information submitted between distribution of packet on Thursday and 4:00pm on Friday, Late Han 9. Planning &Zoning Matters Item 9.b Zoning Code Amendment- Encouraging accessory dwelling units to improve housing choice, supply and affordability- See correspondence from Kelcey Patrick- Ferree November 3,2023 City of Iowa City Kellie Grace From: Kelcey Patrick-Ferree <kelcey.patrickferree@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 7:50 AM Late Handouts Distributed To: *City Council Cc: Anne Russett; Kirk Lehmann Subject: Zoning Ordinance Changes (Date) A **This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Councilors: I will not be able to make it to the meeting on Monday,so I am writing instead. First, the ADU changes specifically: I support all of the changes that the city staff recommended, including removing the owner-occupancy requirement.The fact that the owner-occupancy requirement makes it difficult to obtain bank financing for building an ADU means that ADUs will continue to not be built in Iowa City.The goal of these ordinance changes is to make it easier to build housing in Iowa City. It's clearly necessary to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement in order to meet that goal. More generally, I have already shared several stories with you about why we need to make every change, incremental or not, that will improve the housing stock and economic segregation situation in Iowa City. Here are two more. When the school district underwent its major rezoning effort about a decade ago, it was considering two competing values: economic integration and having kids at schools near their homes. one woman's comment during the public hearings is burned into my memory.She stood up and read from a paper, "We don't always have diversity in our neighborhoods. Please give our children the gift of diversity in their schools."The current zoning code is a great deal of the reason that she lacked diversity in her own neighborhood.You have the opportunity to make it possible to give her the gift of diversity in her own neighborhood. Do take it. The second story is this: I participate in a lot of groups locally.Almost none of them are specifically intended as social welfare organizations. But through my involvement with these groups, I have seen more people in need of housing in the past year than I have in the rest of my decade living in Iowa City combined. People who were about to be evicted if they couldn't get money to pay back rent. People who were already evicted and in need of funds for hotel rooms. People who were living out of cars with their kids.And you heard from Escucha Mi Voz at the last meeting. The need is real and urgent, and recognizing this,you have taken on the obligation to do what you can to fill it.Voting in favor of all of the zoning ordinance changes before you Monday is a small step, yes, but it is part of what you can do to fill it. Please vote in favor of both the zoning ordinance changes, and of eliminating the owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs. Warm regards, Kelcey South District resident And biannual time changes must be abolished.#LockTheClock I City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY November 6, 2023 Information submitted between distribution of late handouts on Friday and 3:00 pm on Monday. Late Handout(s)' 9. Planning & ZQning Matters Item 9.a Zoning Code Amendment- Housing Choice, Supply, and Affordability - See corres deer m usan Shullaw. Item 9.b Zoning Code Amendment - Encouraging accessory dwelling units to improve housing choice, supply and affordability - See correspondence from Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee and Chad Millbrook. November 6,2023 City of Iowa City -*q , b Kellie Grace From: James Throgmorton <jthrogmo@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2023 12:06 PM To: *City Council Cc: Bruce Teague; Megan Alter; Laura Bergus;John Thomas; Pauline Taylor; Shawn Harmsen; Andrew Dunn;Anne Russett; Susan Shullaw; Sharon DeGraw;Jim Thibodeau Subject: Northside Steering Committee statement re: REZ23-001 Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Statement by the Northside Neighborhood Assn's Steering Committee Re REZ23-0001.docx RISK **This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Council members, Please consider the attached statement from the Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee concerning the proposed ADU amendments. Best regards, Late Handouts Distributed Jim Throgmorton Chair, Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee z-3 (Date) t Statement by the Northside Neighborhood Association's Steering Committee Re: REZ23-0001 November 6, 2023 On November 6 the City Council will be holding a public hearing and, possibly, first reading of an ordinance pertaining to the use of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in residential zones. When it does so, it will be taking the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation into account. At its formal meeting on October 4, the commission recommended that the Council approve the amendments contained in Item 3c(2) of the City staff's August 2 memo,minus the provision which would have eliminated the requirement that owners live on the property that would be eligible to include an ADU. This requirement would be eliminated for all residential zones in the city. In part, we support the commission's recommendation. With regard to properties located within the University Impact Area(UTA), we strongly agree with the commission that the Council should continue permitting ADUs only on owner-occupied properties. But we do not object to eliminating the requirement in areas outside the UTA. We further recommend that you carve out an exception to permit non-profit providers of income-restricted affordable housing to build ADUs on properties within the University Impact Area. We make these two recommendations because we want to ensure that affordable owner- occupant housing remains viable in the UTA, and we want to facilitate the construction of housing that is affordable to people who need it the most. Contrary to City staff's stated goals, eliminating the owner-occupant requirement for ADUs might increase the supply of housing in the Northside and other UTA neighborhoods, but it would also cause the supply of affordable owner-occupied housing to shrink. And, given the way the housing market works in neighborhoods close to the University, eliminating the owner- occupant requirement would result in the neighborhoods becoming more dominated by investor- owned rental structures. Carving out the exception for non-profit providers would enable them to increase the supply of housing that is affordable to households that need it the most. If you prefer not to adopt our two recommendations, we urge you to support the commission's recommendation that the owner-occupant requirement be retained for ADU properties throughout the city. The following few paragraphs explain our rationale in greater detail. In its August 2 report, City staff presented a comprehensive and complicated set of amendments to the zoning code. You have already acted on most of the proposed amendments; however, the P&Z Commission pulled out the amendments pertaining to ADUs for separate consideration. Subsequent to that meeting, the City staff conducted two open houses pertaining to the ADUs. Several Northside neighbors attended, and we had several stimulating conversations with individual staff members. But these conversations did not enable shared learning on the part of all attendees. People walked in, tried to understand the poster boards, and maybe had a few fleeting conversations. But many looked puzzled. They appeared to be wondering, what do the ADU amendments mean for my neighborhood? The first challenge residents face when trying to answer that question is to understand the staff s reports. This is no easy task,partly because the technical language of zoning is so 1 unfamiliar to most people. Adding to the difficulty is that the proposed changes vary by zoning category. My own neighborhood contains at least 12 different types of zones, plus three historical overlay districts and one overlay conservation district. The second challenge is to determine how the changes might affect neighborhoods on the ground. This is a daunting task that exceeds the capabilities of normal people trying to live their lives. It calls for collaboration and dialogue between neighborhood leaders and the City's planning staff. To help Northsiders understand how the amendments might affect our neighborhood, we focused our attention on the medium-density residential (RS-8) areas that lie outside the historic preservation districts. Zooming in, we studied one block in Goosetown. This tree-lined block currently contains 31 properties, one of which is vacant. All but one of the main buildings were built in the first half of the last century. They are all one to two stories in height. The assessed value of this block's 30 single-family properties averages a modest $216,000. Being in the UTA, the entire block is affected by the demand for off-campus student housing. Consequently, 9 of the 31 properties are owned by incorporated entities, and 14 of the 31 properties are rentals. The amendments pertaining to ADUs could—when combined with the amendments permitting duplexes and attached single-family structures in this and other neighborhoods in the UTA —cause some speculative investors to think of Goosetown and other comparable areas as major opportunities for financial gain. In this scenario, market competition would drive the cost of land up. Assessed values and property taxes would increase, and people on low or fixed incomes would find it difficult to continue paying the bills. The prospect of selling their homes would become more and more appealing. When properties go on sale, investors would outbid potential owner-occupants. They would very likely demolish older, lower-cost, owner-occupied structures and replace them with the largest possible rental duplexes or attached single-family structures coupled with a rentable ADU. All of this would make it extremely difficult for anyone to buy starter homes in these neighborhoods. Kirk Lehman told a member of our Steering Committee that 7 of the lots on this block could potentially be redeveloped with duplexes, and 24 of the lots could potentially have ADUs. The bonuses and incentives in Items 4a and 4b of the staff s original report should be considered as well. One member of our committee asked Anne Russett whether investors in RS- 8 properties could take advantage of these bonuses if they built a duplex or two attached single- family structures, one unit of which met the City's affordable housing criteria. Anne indicated that they could. However, she also thinks this is unlikely on infill sites. We looked more closely at two lots in the southwestern corner of the block. One is currently vacant, whereas the other is occupied by a 1'/2 story single-family structure. Picture an investor building a new structure and ADU on the vacant lot while that investor(or perhaps another one) purchases the existing structure on the adjacent lot and builds a new ADU in the back. Picture all of the structures being rentals. Picture this being replicated throughout Goosetown and other neighborhoods in the University Impact Area. As noted above, contrary to City staff s stated goals, the ADU amendments might increase the supply of housing in this and similar neighborhoods, but the supply of affordable owner-occupied housing would shrink. And,while diversifying housing choices, the amendments would result in the neighborhoods becoming more dominated by investor-owned rental structures. 2 With this concern in mind, we urge you to approve the proposed motion with the following modifications. For properties located within the University Impact Area, we urge you to continue requiring ADUs to be built only on owner-occupied properties. We also recommend that you carve out an exception which would permit non-profit providers of income-restricted housing to build ADUs on properties within the UTA. If you prefer not to adopt our two recommendations,we urge you to support the commission's recommendation that the owner-occupant requirement be retained for ADU properties throughout the city. 3 City Staff s Proposed Amendments Pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units Item 3c in the staff's August 2 memo (pp. 12-13) would: (1) allow accessory apartments in any zone that allows household living uses (including RNS-12 and MU zones) and allow them on any lot that contains up to 2 dwelling units; (2) remove the requirement that one unit be owner-occupied; (3) remove limits on the number of bedrooms and residents; (4) increase the size limit to 1,000 square feet or 50% of the floor area of the principal use, whichever is less, and allow stand-alone accessory apartments; (5) remove the requirement for an additional parking space; and (6) remove requirements limiting additions to 10% of a building and limiting entrances to side or rear yards so long as it appears to be a use allowed in the zone. In addition, Items 4a and 4b (pp. 17 and 18)would: (1) for conventional zones, create a 20%density bonus where 20°% of units in a development are income-restricted housing for 20 years,to be administered through existing processes; (2) would provide additional flexibility from dimensional standards, including allowing an increase in the maximum height by 5 feet or a 15% setback reduction; and (3) income-restricted affordable housing units in all zones would not be required to have on- site parking if they provide affordable housing for at least 20 years in compliance with the City's new affordable housing requirements. 4 --�4 q, b Kellie Grace Late Handouts Distributed From: Chad Millbrook <wandering.not.drifting@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:24 AMTo: *City Council Subject: Title 14 Zoning Update - ADU Consideration (Date) Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Reaching_Californias ADU-Potential_2020.pdf; ABCs of ADUs-web-spreads-082222.pdf RISK **This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Chad Millbrook 1702 Gleason Ave Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City City Council November 6, 2023 1 am writing to share some thoughts about the current consideration of the Title 14 ADU amendment. I support all the amendments proposed by staff and was disappointed that P&Z decided to drop eliminating the owner-occupancy requirement. While I understand the concern some have over predatory investment and landlords, the owner-occupancy requirement mostly inhibits the ability of homeowners to secure financing for the construction of ADUs on their lots. Without the ability to receive financing, only homeowners with significant assets will have the ability to construct ADUs. This is an issue of equity, as ADUs will be concentrated in wealthier neighborhoods and less likely to be a housing option for the broader community. California legalized ADUs statewide a few years back with no owner-occupancy requirement and the attached UC Berkeley study found that only 8% of permits for ADUs were issued for rental property investors. The state saw ADU permits more than double in the first few years of the policy from 6,000 a year to 16,000. A similar study in Oregon found that over two-thirds of ADUs were on owner-occupied lots regardless of requirements. Some lawsuits have even resulted in occupancy requirements being unenforceable (Page 17 of attached AARP ADU guide). Few other elements of zoning codes regulate occupancy as such, and there already exits the rental permitting process to regulate rental properties. In the end, it's an issue of equity for renters and homeowners without deep cash assets. As indicated in the UC Berkeley study, financing construction of ADUs through traditional bank loans is incredible difficult. Very few established loan products exist and banks often do not understand how to underwrite the risk of such loans. Including an occupancy requirement on top of the existing difficulty is a poison pill that makes financing next to impossible. One benefit of ADUs that is often cited is that they can allow for multi-generational households where aging parents can have a separate space while still receiving care from their children. As P&Z member Padron may have alluded to, I think it is important to allow renters to have access to these benefits as well as homeowners who cannot afford ADU construction without financing. s If broader support can be found to pass the elimination of the occupancy requirement against P&Z recommendation, it would vastly improve the ability for ADUs to be constructed in Iowa City and increase the likelihood of achieving affordable housing goals. Further, exploring the creation of a grant or public-private partnership for the financing of ADUs could be a means of encouraging construction for those who cannot fund on their own assets alone. I appreciate you receiving my comments and your service to the city. Best, Chad Millbrook 1702 Gleason Ave 2 TE RN E R . Termer C mit rand Centerfor Community Innovation Reparl.August 2020 CENTER rayd o HOUSING r= INNOVATION UCBERKELEY CENTE RFOR U C B E R K E L E Y COMMUNITYINNOVATION Reaching Californias ADU Potential: Progress to Date and the Need for ADU Finance Karen Chapple, Faculty Director, Center for Community Innovation David Garcia, Policy Director, Terner Center for Housing Innovation Eric Valchuis,Graduate Student Researcher Julian Tucker, Graduate Student Researcher Executive Summary_ recommend that the federal government create an ADU-specific construction lending programs.Similarly, Following a series of legislative changes, the permitting California could also lead on this issue by creating a and construction of accessory dwelling units (ADU&) program to assist homeowners in qualifying for ADU in California has increased significantly in recent years. construction loans. Between 2018 and 2019,permits increased from almost 6,000 to almost 16,000. During that same period, ADU Introduction completions more than tripled from 2,000 to almost 7,000. This activity is concentrated in the state's major California is in the midst of a dire housing crisis due in population centers- Los Angeles, San Diego, and the part to decades of underbuilding. As a result, the cost San Francisco Bay Area- but other areas of the state of housing remains out of reach for many, and the gap are also experiencing meaningful increases in ADU between the state's existing housing stock and what is development. Most of this activity is taking place in needed to satisfy demand continues to grow. This calls areas with high home values and rents, though there is fora broad,innovative set of strategies to close the supply regional variation. In particular, ADU development in gap. ADUs are one form of relatively low-cast housing Los Angeles is more likely in low resource areas. that can help improve the housing landscape. In recent To build upon the early success of ADU legislation, years, California lawmakers have passed numerous more financial tools are needed to facilitate greater p1eces of legislation that have loosened restrictions on ADU development amongst low to moderate income constructing ADUs,resulting in a proliferation of ADUs homeowners who do not have access to cash savings statewide. A recent study confirmed that existing state and cannot leverage home equity. '1'o that end, we ADU legislation has created market-feasible potential to build close to 1.5 million new housing units.' Opyrigh12020.TffWF CkMW*HQ"Mg tlInn�ffnn and Cam *COm Pnvy tnnn✓Plfnn 7 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 In this brief, we show that California has experienced to state-level guidelines, such as requiring ministerial rapid growth in ADU permitting and construction, approval of ADUs, limiting parking requirements, and particularly in its major metropolitan areas. In high- other key changes. This bill's passage had a significant wealth areas, ADU construction is providing new impact on ADU production across many municipali- housing supply, and in lower-income areas, new ADUs ties. The number of ADUs permitted across Californias are helping to reduce overcrowding,provide new rental largest metro areas increased from 654 in 2016 to 3,126 income, and build home equity. Despite this growth, in 2017, and Los Angeles experienced a particularly challenges in scaling ADU development remain. large increase (from just 80 permits in 2016 to 1,980 in Specifically,homeowners often find it difficult to obtain 2017)' 2019 saw three key bills—AB 68, AB 881, and financing to build their ADUs, as banks have been slow AB 670—passed to address additional barriers to devel- to design appropriate types of loans while construction opment and continue the momentum for ADU and costs continue to escalate. This can pose a particular junior ADU (JADU) production,' These reforms took barrier for lower-income households who are less likely cues from cities in the Cascadia region(Portland,Seattle to have the assets needed to fund the construction of and Vancouver) that have eliminated restrictive zoning an ADU. Indeed, we find that although ADUs tend to provisions,waived impact fees, and implemented addi- be built in areas with higher home values, they are built tional mortgage- or government-sponsored loan prod- in many different types of neighborhoods; almost 3,800 ucts, all of which have spurred significant growth in ADUs were completed statewide in 2018 and 2019 in ADUs.s higher resource areas in terms of access to opportunity, However, despite this legislative progress, constructing compared with over 5,000 ADUs built in lower resource an ADU in California remains prohibitively expen- areas. In the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, ADUs are disproportionately built in higher resource sive for many. analysis of ADU construction data neighborhoods. Los Angeles County leads the state in suggests that thhee average ADU cast in California is $167,000, though the cost varies by region and the size/ ADU construction within lower resource areas, likely in part due to higher homeownership rates and lower quality of the ADU.6 In Los Angeles, the average cost construction costs there compared with the Bay Area, estimate is $148,000 while the average cost in the Bay Area is $237,000, a gap that is driven largely by differ- To see broader expansion of ADUs across the state, new ences in labor costs between the two regions. In fact, and improved financial tools are needed to support ADU ADU construction costs in the Bay Area can exceed development, especially in lower-income areas within $800 per square foot,equaling$440,000 for a 500 square high-cost regions. Thus,this brief provides background foot ADU. information on recent ADU legislation in California and the limitations of existing financial mechanisms in Options to finance the significant expense of an ADU remain limited. This is an issue for households wanting facilitating the construction of ADUs. We demonstrate that recent ADU production is not distributed equally to build an ADU, as they are often motivated to add an across communities of varying types in California. additional housing unit for financial reasons.According Finally, we conclude with recommendations on how to to a survey of ADU owners in Portland, OR, obtaining improve ADU financing options, specifically for lower- supplemental income was the biggest motivating factor and moderate-income households. in their decision to build an ADU, and obtaining financing, paying for construction, and permitting fees Bac round were their most common obstacles. Most funded their g ADU developments with either cash, a home equity California has recently passed several bills to enable line of credit, or cash-out refinancing. Many owners more ADU production. Among the earliest of these reported needing to use multiple sources of financing, statewide laws was SB 1059, which was passed in 2016 which indicates a lack of mainstream financial prod- and requires cities to adopt ADU ordinances that adhere ucts available to assist them in ADU construction.' 2 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 Table 1. ADU Financing Methods and Homeowners Best Served Financing Method Who is best served by this method? Owners with sufficient cash saved outside the value of Existing Cash Savings or Support their home or who have cash support from family and friends, and do not wish to take on debt. Owners with significant home equity who are refi- Cash-Out Refinance Loan nancing to take advantage of lower interest rates or to extend the length of their repayment term. Owners with significant home equity who do not want Home Equity Loan or Home Equity Line of Credit to refinance with higher interest rates. When interest (HELOC) rates are high, taking out a smaller second mortgage through a HELOC may make more sense than refi- nancing the first mortgage at a higher rate. Owners with high income but without significant home Renovation Loan equity,buyers looking to purchase"fixer-uppers;' or those who wish to leverage financing without liqui- dating savings. Source: Adapted from UC Berkeley Center for Community Inno tion, 2017. Previous Terner Center research on ADU owners in financing. Gash-out refinancing and home equity loans Cascadia similarly demonstrated that most ADUs are let a homeowner tap into the existing equity of their built to create extra income or provide housing for a home. However, Government-Sponsored Enterprises close family member or helper. This study found that a (GSEs) limit these loans to only part of the equity that majority of ADUs are used for long-term housing solu- an owner has on their home. The resulting amount is tions, and in some cases the additional rental income often not enough to fully finance an ADU, especially would allow individuals to purchase their entire prop- when the homeowner already has a mortgage on their erty. Zoning reforms and an owner's ability to obtain property. In the current financial climate, private bank cash were the top factors cited in decisions to build, a lenders tend to be unwilling to lend beyond these estab- finding that supports legislative efforts to facilitate ADU lished benchmarks and only make exceptions for very development and financing." high-net worth borrowers or those with pristine credit scores, further restricting the usefulness of these loan Unfortunately, few loan products exist to finance ADU products. The third option, renovation financing, is construction, and those that are available often do not limited by the length of time of the construction project go far enough in assisting property owners to build and the area where the project occurs. Therefore, an them. Traditional loan products are not designed for ADU project timeframe that is too narrow or in a loca- ADU financing,as most lenders are unwilling to expose tion with few or no ADUs does not provide an adequate themselves to additional risk. The mainstream tools benchmark for lending,'Table 1 outlines the conditions currently available are a cash-out refinancing, a home under which each financing option is most ideal for equity loan or line of credit (HELOC), or renovation homeowners. 3 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 20A Table 2. Households by Income and Equity in Comparing Existing- Mortgage-Products High-Income Low-Income High Home Equity sh-Out Refinance or Home Special FHA, Reverse Mortgage, Equity Loan/HELOC or Fannie Mae Loan Products POM I Low Home Equity Renovation Loan Cash Savings and Personal Resources Level of Difficulty Finding and Qualifying for Loan Products: Least Difficult Most Difficult Source: Adapted from UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, 2017. In addition to these limitations, the existing array of to cobbling together a variety of funding sources or financial products is incompatible with ADUs because using cash savings to finance an ADU on their own, they solely take into account the current value of a making ADUs less accessible for many lower-income property and prevent owners from borrowing against owners who could stand to benefit the most from a the expected rental income that an ADU will generate.`P supplemental stream of rental income. Lower-income There are some tightly-constrained exceptions to this households with and without significant amounts of rule related to GSE construction loans. For the most home equity are the most underserved by traditional part, however, this standard stems from longstanding mortgage lending when attempting to finance an and outdated perceptions of properties with ADUs. ADU, despite the fact that these households could gain Institutions like Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac, and the U.S. meaningful resources through an ADUs supplemental Department of Housing& Urban Development (HUD) rental income (Table 2). continue to drive lenders and appraisers to assess In response to growing interest and demand For ADUs, ADUs in very conservative ways that do not account for their income generation potential.' Additional various jurisdictions across California are providing structural issues prevent large-scale lending for ADUs. creative financing options. For example, Los Angeles The smaller size of these types of loans compared with has piloted two programs to promote ADUs. The Back- traditional home loans means that they are more costly yard Homes Project provides ADU construction loans for lenders. Private lenders are also unwilling to create for homeowners that rent them to low-income Housing new loan products specifically designed for ADUs Choice Voucher recipients for at least five years after without assurance that they will be insured or backed completion. The program is coordinated by LA Mas, by GSEs.12 This makes it nearly impossible for owners a nonprofit design group, and includes support from to receive the proper capital necessary to fully finance local community development financial institutions their prospective ADU projects. Many must resort and larger corporate lenders. Similarly, the Secon 4 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August tam Dwelling Unit(Accessory Dwelling Unit) Pilot Program A number of private firms on the West Coast have also aims to provide housing for homeless people in Los begun specializing in ADU lending or construction. Angeles through direct subsidies toward building new companies like Dweller, United Dwelling, and Rent ADUs or preserving unpermitted ADUs. Santa Cruz the Backyard help homeowners build an ADU with no County offers an ADU Forgivable Loan Program that upfront cost to the homeowner. The companies retain provides loans of up to $40,000 to homeowners who ownership of the unit and a portion of the rent received. rent an ADU to a low-income household at an afford- Equity-sharing companies provide another financing able rent for up to 20 years.The loan is forgiven after 20 option by purchasing a portion of the equity of an years if the ADU has been rented with the low-income owner's home. The owner can then use the proceeds to restriction for the entire 20-year term. The My House build an ADU. My Home Program is a partnership between Habitat for Humanity Monterey Bay, the City of Santa Cruz, While more municipalities and private firms are recog- Santa Cruz County, and Senior Network Services that nixing the new market for ADUs, the aforementioned helps build and renovate affordable ADUs for low-in- Programs are limited in scope and do not address the came senior homeowners in the area.The City of Napa's overall dearth of ADU financing options. Specifically, Junior Unit Initiative Program provides homeowners programs highlighted in this section rely on small with technical assistance and up to $50,000 of below- amounts of public and private funding relative to what market forgivable financing for converting or creating is needed to create large-scale ADU feasibility. The aforementioned Brooklyn pilot program was capped at a ]ADU and renting it to a low-income tenant at an affordable rate. The Silicon Valley Housing Trust spon- serving 40 local households. The Las Angeles Second sors the Small Hames, Big Impact initiative, which Dwelling Unit Pilot Program only provided funding to provides a three-year construction loan at a competitive build or preserve a maximum of six ADUs. Although it rate. Eligible expenses include hard and soft casts, and assists lower-income households with ADU financing, any ADU built using these funds is subject to a two-year the CalHome program has only one funding stream minimum affordability restriction (tenant must have focused on ADUs for the entire state. income below 120% AMI). In addition, the California Thus, not surprisingly, a 2020 survey by the Center for Department of Housing and Community Development Community Innovation found that among California (HCD)'s CalHome program helps low- and very low-in- jurisdictions, lack of financing is now the number one come homeowners fund ADUs. barrier to more widespread ADU construction—almost Municipalities outside of California have also attempted twice as influential as physical site limitations and lack to facilitate ADU construction by offering creative of desire or awareness among homeowners." Financial financing options. In Brooklyn, NY, the NYC Depart- barriers are particularly daunting in San Francisco Bay ment of Housing Preservation and Development and Area and Inland Empire jurisdictions." the Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation have partnered to launch the Basement Apartment Conver- Methodology sion Pilot Program, which provides homeowners living To analyze recent growth trends in ADU production in the Cypress Hills/East New York community with in California, we compiled data from HCD's Annual low-interest, no-interest, or forgivable loans and tech- production Reports for 2018 and 2019, which include nical assistance to convert their basements into safe statistics from California jurisdictions on permitted apartment-style ]ADUs that can be rented for supple- and completed ADUs (Le., those with a certificate mental income.In Boston,the city government set aside of occupancy). We then linked this data to parcel-, $550,000 to create an ADU Loan Program to promote tract- and zip code-level characteristics from multiple construction of ADUs based on the success of a previous sources. We used tax assessor datasets of Californias pilot initiative. The program grants no-interest loans of 12.5 million parcels to draw out data on the physical up to $30,000. characteristics of parcels (e.g., lot size and built area), s Terner Center and C:enterfor Community Innovation Reparl.August 2020 the characteristics of homeowners (e.g., corporate Findings versus individual), and the years since sale. From the American Community Survey (ACS), we linked data ADU permits and completions have on race and ethnicity, income and rent, household increased significantly in recent years. structure, and tenure type. For the ACS data, we eliminated all unreliable data (i.e., data with a large ADU construction in California has surged with the margin of error). We then added home values from the Passage of new legislation. Jurisdictions went from Zillow Home Value Index, employment information issuing 5,911 permits in 2018 to 15,571 in 2019. from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Although ADU completions tend to lag behind permits program (LEHD), and distance to transit from the due to construction timelines and the time it takes a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Smart homeowner to secure financing, these completions Location dataset. To identify low and high resource more than tripled from 1,984 to 6,668 over this period areas, we relied on the TCAC Opportunity Area maps, (Figure 1). The highest producing counties are Los which use a compound indicator based on many of the Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Diego, though ADU same economic characteristics, but also including data production has also spread to the Inland Empire, the on education and health. greater Sacramento region,the Central Coast,and other areas (Figure 2). Comparing progress year-aver-year in the state's major cities and regions, Figure 3 reveals continued growth, with I.os Angeles producing the largest number of units. Figure 1. ADU Permits and Completions in California, 2018 and 2019 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Permits Completions 2018 ■2019 Source: Calculated by the authors fmm Annual Production Report data (California Department of Housing and Community Development). 6 Terner C:errfer and C:enterfor Communily lnnam6on Reparl.August 2020 Figure 2. ADUs Permitted in 2418 and 2019 by County ADU Permits - Counties (2018-2019) ADUs Permitted 2018-2019 El 0 . 10 10 - 100 . 1,00 - 1,000 . 1,000 - 10,000 . 10,000+ ADU Permits ! 10,000 People - Counties (2018-2019) ADUs Permitted 110,00 People 11 0.2 - 2.9 2,9 - 53 ■ 5.5 8.1 ■ 8.1 - 10.8 ■ 10.8+ S' a 1 t Source: Calculated by the authors from Annual Production Report data [California Department of Housing and Community De Iopment) and 2018 American Community Survey data(U.S. Bureau of the Census). 7 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 While overall ADU growth is significant, there is an the differences are much more dramatic. As shown in imbalance in who is building ADUs and where ADUs Figure 5, which compares property owners by quartile are built. Specifically, property owners living in more of home value across the state, just two percent of affluent areas are more likely not only to obtain ADU property owners in the lowest quartile have permitted permits, but also to complete their ADU building or completed ADUs, compared with about 40 percent projects. The following figures examine permitting and in the top two quartiles (or neighborhoods with above- completions relative to share (quartile) of the California median home values). These patterns vary by region parcels to reveal where a disproportionate share of across the state. Figure 6 shows the concentration of ADU activity has taken place. Figure 4 shows that in ADU permitting and construction in California's high- neighborhoods (census tracts) in the lowest quartile cost coastal regions. Figure 7 reveals that most of the of median income for the state, ADU permitting and Bay Areas ADU activity has been taking place in high- completions have lagged, while the highest quartile cost zip codes, while Figure 8 shows that in Southern has seen a disproportionate share of permitting and California, some lower-cost zip codes have seen completions.Looking at neighborhoods by home value, significant permitting and construction as well. Figure 3. ADUs Permitted in Californias Major Metropolitan Regions, 2015-2019 16,660 s.;ss 9,006 _ 6,006 5,243 � .Sacnmen[o ■San Diego 4,060 ■Bay Area 3,126 mLA 2,006 225654 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ymr Sources: 2015.2017 data: `ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of Californias State and Local Policy Changes". 2018-2019 data: Calculated by the authors from Annual Production Report data (California Department of Housing and Community Development). Note: 'LA' includes the cities of LDs Angeles and Long Beach. "Bay Area" includes the cities of San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco. "Sacramento'and"San Diego" include their namesake cities only. a Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August tam Figure 4. ADU Permits and Completions by Tract Median Income Quartile 30% 28% 29% 29% 25% 24% 24% 22% 20% 20M a `o � •State ■Permits a 10% ■Completions 0% r$61k 361-84k $84- 117k S117k+ Cow Low-Middle Middle-High High Median Income Source: Calculated by the authors from Annual Production Report data (California Department of Housing and Community Development) and 2014-18 American Community Survey data (U.& Bureau of the Census). Figure 5. ADU Permitting and Completions by Home Values in Zip Code 50% qp%, 39% 40% 3946 41% 30%i 25% 25% 75% 2596 ■State 20% 20% ■pcnnits 18% ■Completions 10% 2% 2% 0% S339k $339-527k 3527-775k $775k+ Low Low-middle High-Middle High Zillow Home Value by Zip Code Source: Calculated by the authors from Annual Production Report data (California Department of Housing and Community Development) and ZiIIow Home Value Index data. 9 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 Figure d. ADU Permits and Completions with Zillow Home Value by Zip Code Accessory Dwelling Units and Zillow Home Value ..t Permits and Completions 2018- 19 Legend I ASU Points Completed Permitted 2HV1 12/31/18 4 w .Above$1,000,000 .� N,OD� •51,000,000 � 'i.r'f'� .-:i:�' '�i .5100,000 -5000,000 ' `'_ .$250,000 -$40,000 + 7 under52so,000 ` H Ao u 70 140 Man Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 Figure 7. ADU Permits and Completions with Zillow Home Value: San Francisco Bay Area % 4 Legend } ADU Paints Completed Permitted - 2HVI 12/31/18 .Above$1,000,000 .$600,000 • $1,000,000 $400,000- $600,000 S250,000- $400,000 ` Under$250,000 H A ^ A. !f Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2024 Figure S. ADU Permits and Completions with Zillow Home Value: Southern California A •Y .. Legend ARU Points 2HVI 12/31/18 a Completed .Above 51,000,000 permitted .$500.000- S1,OW, •, • : }�" t .54W,000- S&W,ODO .5250.000- $400.000 M Under 5250,W0 o ss 'm series I2 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 Exploring other variables presents a more nuanced Mapping ADU permits and completions against the picture. In particular, neighborhoods with ADU TCAC opportunity areas provides another way to permitting are diverse in terms of race and ethnicity. analyze ADU production in relation to income and Looking at ADU patterns by tract share of non-Latinx racial inequality. As Figure 11 shows, Los Angeles and Whites, Figure 9 shows that majority non-White areas Orange County experience most of their building in are disproportionately likely to permit and complete low resource areas,while moderate and higher resource ADUs. This finding is perhaps not surprising given areas see most ADU construction in other regions. how ADU production in Los Angeles, Californias most In other words, though all types of communities are diverse region, dominates the rest of the state. Looking embracing ADUs,exclusive areas in Southern California at ADU patterns by tract median rent quartile, Figure are less likely to produce ADUs, while elsewhere, low 10 confirms that ADU permitting and completions have resource areas lag behind. These low resource areas in lagged in the neighborhoods in the lowest quartile of regions like the Bay Area and San Diego are the areas median rent For the state, but shows that the two middle where homeowners are most likely to require assistance quartiles have outperformed the highest quartile in in procuring ADU Finance. ADU production. Figure 9. ADU Permits and Completions by Tract Share of Non-Latinx Whites 40% 31% 30%, 29% 2545 25% 2496 2596 25% 24% 271K 23% 22% 21% 20% ■State ■Permits ■Completions 10% 096 Majority Non-White Majority Non-Latinx White r29% 28-51% 51-69% 69%+ Percent Non-Latinx White in Census Tract Source: Calculated by the authors from Annual Production Report data (California Department of Housing and Community Development) and 2014-18 American Community Survey data (U.& Bureau of the Census). 13 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 Figure 10. ADU Permits and Completions by Tract Median Rent Quartile 40% 35% 35% 31% 31% 30% 28% 25% 20% Estate ■Permits ■Completions 10% 6% 0% >S998 $998• $1,366 $1,366-$1,794 $1,714+ Low Low-Middle High-Middle High Median Rent Source: Calculated by the authors from Annual Production Report data (California Department of Housing and Community Development) and 2014-18 American Community Survey data (U.& Bureau of the Census). Figure 11. ADU Completions by Resource Level and Region 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% S pEp 50% C] O 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% WmCWSacramLosAe4,982) SF6a937) Orange n=2901 San 277) ll7] ■Low Rrwumc ■Moderate Rrso mr ■High Rnouror ■Highest Resource Source: Calculated by the authors from Annual Production Report data (California Department of Housing and Community Development) and TCACIIICD Opportunity Area Maps downloaded from: hdp&-//www.tremurer.c&go /ctcac/opportunity.mp. "Low Resource" includes "Low Resource" and `High Segregation and PoreW designations. "Moderate Resource" includes "Moderate Resource" and 'Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing)" designations. 14 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 Who is permitting and building ADUs in recently purchased homes. Irk the Bay Area and San California? Diego, only the non-Latinx White variable is consis- tently significant and positive. In San Diego, home- Data on individual property characteristics and owner- owners with smaller lots are more likely to build AD US, ship shed light on the specific conditions under which but in contrast to Los Angeles, the likelihood is greater ADUs are being built. The median lot size for ADUs in when there are fewer people per room. Overall in Cali- California is 6,930 square feet, and most ADUs (about forma, ADU production is occurring in diverse, tran- SQ percent) are built on lots ranging From 3,000 to sit-accessible neighborhoods where a greater share of 14,000 square feet. Just five percent of completions are homeowners still have a mortgage, and specific proper- on lots less than 3,000 square feet. Likewise,most ADUs ties are more likely to gain an ADU if owned by a home- are completed on lots in the medium range in terms of owner than by a company.A separate regression reveals the ratio of existing built square footage to lot size (floor that ADU permitting and construction in Los Angeles, area ratio). The median ADU is built on a lot with a similar to the state, is less likely in high resource areas ratio of floor area to lot size of just 20 percent, and just and more likely in low resource areas.Meanwhile,in the 17 percent of ADUs have been completed on lots with Bay Area, high resource areas are both permitting and either a very low or high floor area ratio. Homeowners building ADUs, while low resource areas are slower to who permit and construct ADUs are disproportionately actually complete ADU construction. likely to have bought their property in the last five years, and long-term homeowners (owning for more than ten mese findings have important implications for how years) are slightly less likely to build them. In general, California should approach ADU finance. Although properties held by individuals, rather than compa- there is some variation across California, in general, nies, are disproportionately more likely to permit and areas with higher home values see more ADU produc- construct ADUs; although some 17 percent of residen- tion,suggesting that high home equity is enabling many tial property in the state is owned by companies and to build. In many cases, it seems that homeowners are organizations, they construct eight percent of ADU& building within the first few years after they acquire the home and/or building while they have a mortgage, To examine which property owners are more likely to suggesting that financing may be easier in conjunction build an ADU while controlling for other factors, we with a new home purchase and mortgage. The surge in ran logit regression models predicting the likelihood of ADU production is led by homeowners,not companies. a parcel obtaining an ADU permit or completion.Table Institutions seeking to finance ADUs should note that 3 displays the results for several regions and the state, the sweet spot For building seems to be medium-size lots showing the direction of the effect only where variables with significant existing built square footage. Though were significant.' Because Los Angeles produces most a great variety of Los Angelenos are finding a way to of the state's ADUs (in part because of lower construc- build ADUs, homeowners building in the Bay Area and tion costs), it has more significant results that dominate San Diego tend to live in higher-opportunity areas. This the overall picture in Cal ifornia.'L The table clarifies that suggests a particular need for ADU Finance for low-and the response to the new ADU regulations has varied moderate-income homeowners in these regions. widely across the state. Homeowners in high home value areas across the state are more likely to construct Recommendations ADUs, but those in lower-income, lower-rent areas are also more likely to build (with the exception of the Bay To increase low- and moderate-income homeowners' Area).The other significant variables in the Los Angeles access to ADUs, better financing tools and increased case reveal further nuance; here, neighborhoods with homeowner education are necessary. higher proportions of non-Latinx White, Latinx, and/ or Black populations are all more likely to build ADUs, Today, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal controlling for all else, as are those with high over- Housing Administration (FHA) are responsible for the lar crowding (people per room), smaller lots, and more ge majority es for 1-4 unit structures. of the mortgages 15 Tearer Center and Center for Communify Innovation Reparf.August 2020 Table 3. Analyzing the Factors behind Permitting and Building- ADUs in 2018 and 2019 Los Angeles County SF Bay Area Cipilall Region Variable Type Permits Completions Permits Completions Permits Completions Property Homeowner as resident + + Company owned Lot square footage + + Years owned Neighborhood Population density + Transit accessibility + + + Average household size Median age of residents + + + + Number of jobs Median family income + Median rent Home value + + + + Percent non-Latinx White residents + + + + Percent Black residents + + + Percent Latinx residents + + + Percent of homes with a mortgage Average people per + + roam �r Tearer Cenw and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 Table 3 Cont. San Diego County California Variable Type Permits Completions Permits Completions Property Homeowner as resident + + Company owned Lot square footage Years owned Neighborhood Population density + + Transit accessibility NIA NIA + + Average household size + Median age of residents + + Number of jobs Median family income Median rent Home vat + + + Percent non-Latinx White residents + + + Percent Slack residents + Percent Latinx residents + + Percent of homes with a mortgage Average people per roam + + Note- If the coefficient for a given independent variable is greater than zero, meaning that the independent variable has a positive effect on the dependent variable, a(+) is shown above. If the euefl'icient is negative,then a (-) is shown. Dataset includes California's 10.1 million residential parcels, excluding other types. Two logistic regressioms are performed for each region--one with a dependent variable of whether or not each parcel has obtained a permit to build an AD (°Permits") and another with a dependent variable of whether or not each parcel has obtained a certificate of occupancy(`Completions"). Independent variables with a p-value of less than 0.05 are deemed nonsignificant and are not included in the table above. Data on transit accessibility is not available for San Diego. 17 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 Homeownership purchase and refinance has remained In addition to the availability of financial tools, ADU relatively healthy during the recent economic downturn adoption is also predicated on homeowners under- due to the Federal Reserve Bank% unprecedented infu- standing of the resources available to them to facilitate sion of capital into the mortgage markets,enabling histor- their application, design, and construction. However, ically low interest rates. Yet, absent a homeowner being lower- and moderate-income homeowners may be less able to document an existing ADU with a year or more likely than their wealthier counterparts to have knowl- of rental income,current government-backed mortgage edge of how to make the process work to their advan- programs do not allow underwriting against unreal- tage. Public interest campaigns to educate homeowners ized rents. In the context of some very limited pilots, about the advantages of investing in ADUs could help Fannie Mae has offered to waive their requirement for address this knowledge gap. Local jurisdictions can also in-place ADU tenants in exchange for a variety of fairly advertise their ADU programs and make their zoning onerous risk-mitigants, including third-party corpo- and permitting processes more user-friendly. To that rate guarantees and/or professional property manage- end, we recommend that both local jurisdictions and ment. Expanding these kinds of waivers—or enabling regional governments take advantage of recent state- ADU-specific construction lending programs—will level housing technical assistance funding to stand up require leadership from Fannie and Freddie's regulator, local homeowner education and outreach programs, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which and to help overhaul their ADU websites and stream- has typically focused on restraining the scope of Fannie line their permit processing. These ADU programs and Freddie's innovation. And while HUD Secretary should also be incorporated into city and county sixth- Sen Carson has publicly expressed interest in making cycle Housing Elements as explicit strategies to over- FHAs programs work better for ADUs,little has materi- come existing housing constraints and ensure sufficient alined to date in terms of substantive reforms to existing zoned sites to achieve state-mandated targets for new programs. This needs to become a priority, either for a housing under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation new administration or for a new HUD Secretary and (RHNA) process. FHFA Regulator. In addition to creating new financial tools specifically Absent changes at the federal level, the state of Cali- for ADUs, allowing for single-family parcels to be split fornia can also lead on this issue. To do so, we recom- in order to sell a newly constructed ADU would also mend that the state consider providing support or help facilitate more ADU development. By creating a incentives for ADU construction financing provided by separate parcel entirely for new ADUs, a prospective private lenders, which could act as a bridge to GSE refi- resident of that ADU could purchase the lot with or nance products. For example, this could mean creating without the improvements and secure conventional a financial product through the California Housing financing via a home construction or purchase loan, Finance Agency(Cal HFA) and/or Ioral housing finance and take advantage of historically low interest rates to agencies to cover a portion of losses to private lenders do so. SB 1120 currently proposes to allow for minis- resulting from default,prior to ahomeowner refinancing terial single-family lot splits for the purpose of facili- into a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or FHA product. tating up to two newly constructed units on existing California policymakers are actively exploring other single-family parcels. However, as we have noted here, the bill's uptake may be significantly constrained by its financing options.AB 69 by Assemblymember Phil Ting deference to local design and zoning guidelines. More- would create the Help Homeowners Add New Housing over, the success of this legislation will also likely hinge Program to assist homeowners in qualifying for loans on the degree of public awareness of this new law and to construct additional housing units an their property, the degree to which it is embraced by city officials and including ADUs and JADUs. However, few details have housing advocates. been incorporated into the hill and subsequent legisla- tion and/or funding from the state legislature to expand the initiative may be required in future years. is Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August_7dW Endnotes 1. Monkkonen, P., Carlton, I., and MacFarlane, K. (2020). "One to Four: The Market Potential of Fourplexes in Californias Single-Family Neighborhoods"Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, UCLA. Retrieved from: https:llescholarship.orglucl iteml8gh2xotj. 2. This analysis relies on the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee's Opportunity Area Maps, which assign each Census tract in the state to one of five opportunity categories based on an index of economic, educational, and environmental characteristics that research has shown to be important for improving outcomes for low-income children and adults. For more information, see https:llbelonging. berkeley.edultcac-opportunity-map-2020. 3. Garcia, D. (2017). ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California's State and Local Policy Changes" Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: https:Iltemercenter.berkeley..eduluploads/ADV—Update_Brief_ December_2017_.pdf. 4, AB 68 set out minimum design standards for ADUs in terms of their size and space. It also shortened the application review period for ADUs, prevented local munic- ipalities from imposing strict design or parking requirements, and expanded the options for ADU construction by allowing IADUs to be built. AB 881 prohibited local jurisdictions from requiring that an owner occupy any new housing built on his or her plot. This allows more owners to build ADUs for purposes like renting for supplemental income or providing a living space for a family member. AB 670 stopped often powerful homeowners' associations from restricting ADU develop- ment in subdivisions. S. Chapple, K., Wegmann, J., Mashhood, F, and Coleman, R. (2017), "Jumpstarting the Market for Accessory Dwelling Units: Lessons Learned from Portland, Seattle and Vancouver." Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: http:/Iternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/ADU_report_4.18.pdf. 6. Valchuis, Eric (2020). "HomeOn: Providing Loans to Homeowners to Construct Accessory Dwelling Units" Professional Report submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of City Planning at the University of Cali- fornia,Berkeley. 7. Brown, M. J. and Palmeri, J. (2014). Accessory dwelling units in Portland, Oregon: evaluation and interpretation of a survey of ADU owners" State of Oregon Depart- ment of Environmental Quality. Retrieved from: https:llaccessorydwellings.files. wordpress.com/2014/06/adtisurveyinterpret.pdf. 8. Chapple, K., Wegmann, 1., Mashhood, F., and Coleman, R. (2017). "Jumpstarting the Market for Accessory Dwelling Units: Lessons Learned from Portland, Seattle and Vancouver." Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: http:llternercenter.berkelq.edu/uploadslADU_report_4.18.pdf. I9 Termer Center and Center for Community Innovation Report.August 2020 9. Goodman, L., and Greene, S. (2020). "To Unleash Housing Supply, Allow and Finance Accessory Dwelling Units" Urban Institute. Retrieved from: https:ll www.urb an.org/urban-wire/unleash-housing-supply-allow-and-finance-accesso- ry-dwelling-units. 10. Wegmann, J. (2015). "Financing Ancillary Apartments on Residential Proper- ties: Challenges and Solutions:' Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: https:llescholarship.org/content/gt92c442to/gt92c442to.pdf. 11. Brown, M. J., and Watkins, T. (2012). "Understanding and Appraising Properties with Accessory Dwelling Units' The Appraisal Journal. Retrieved from: https:ll accessorydwellings.files.wordpress.coml2 012/12/appraisingprop ertieswithadus- brownwatkinsnov2012.pdf. 12. Chapple, K., Abdelgany, S., Ecker, A., and Cooper, S. (2017). "A Solution on the Ground: Assessing the Feasibility of Second Units in Unincorporated San Mateo County" Center for Community Innovation, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: htips:ll escholarship.org/uc/iwm/42f4r53C 13. Source: Center for Community Innovation, UC Berkeley, forthcoming. Respon- dents to this question included 233 jurisdictions (cities and counties). 14. Ibid. 15. Note that because of the unreliability of race/ethnicity data for most regions outside of Los Angeles, these variables are not significant. 15. Valchuis, 2020. Ibid. 20 Termer Center and Center for Community lnnavation Report.August 2020 Acknowledgements We are grateful to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the Funding that helped to support this research. We are grateful to Isaac Schmidt, Jenny I.iang, Jen Hu, and Lauren Horn for invaluable research assistance; Carolina Reid, Elizabeth Kneebone, and Ben Metcalf for thoughtful comments; and Cora Johnson-Grau and Anna Driscoll for assistance with layout. 21 A 1 c i u Tlh ASSN 0 El -r I r � y� i �' AARP Is the dodi.5largestnopower nonpartisan Welcome! Come On In organization they I..a may.,With people8 dower to members and offices ces In every Adds,th heady 38millionColo Accessory dwelling units are a needed housing option for people of all es embersoadthe US Virystace.the BART ame Columbia, 9 B 8 P P P ages Ee l:LNRbbVeorgand AARPorghivable puerto Rico adihe LLtere,fnlwhat drag RP most to Emaboike/AARAARPmg umbesan0 advocatesforand maaers mostto families: Weknew rtyfrom of ricansreer RP and nvvilthata Infatderes the S20j1AaWPHage and Comm unity Facebooago AAAARPLivableCommunkies healtAARP ivablerommusaides initiative worst nations fulfillment.The neighborhoods that offer preform llvelnwnlkand Prifeaabroad,e ath,anurvey,adultADDdridteor older whowould ,to FreeNeandletter,Able AARPLivable Communities'mieffroo towaratiomrideto neighborough, prionsand mu of dead Irish,school considvide a hon an ADD saionein need ocre(86%: Frees Newsletter.AARpo�Ivable5ubscribe supportthe efhr[s btl nelghborlroods,[owns,titles,counties, transportation options and are close to job;scM1ools, • provideaM1Gmefor aloved one In need of care(86%) rural areas and entirestates he be livable for people of all ages. shopping,entertainment and parks. • provide forcing nd far for great a[Ives or friends(86%) These preferences—coupled with[M1e rapid aging • have aspaw far greats(82°6) of the United States population overall,the decrease Orange Spot LLC is a development,general contracting and in households with children and the national housing • creates place forataregiverto Via,O4%) comoultng company with a mission to pioneer new models of hortage—will continue to boost the demand for ; 'increase thevaIn.of Noir home(69%) community oriented,affordable green housing developments. smaller homes and affordable,quality rental housing • feel safer by having someone living nearby(67%) Orange Splat projects have been haunted in the New York As small houses or apartments that exist on Me am letramcome form renting to atenart(63%) Times,Sunset maganne and on NBC's Today show.(The Sam property lot as a single-family rwwtle , Cliangf Splot LLC detachedAlintra murder and the back ha mvarm the Orange ° _ Since ADUs make use of the exiting'mfmrtrucmre and Spancingmparyfounder EllfSprook more ehan 300 units arcendury malonas in seling ion,a1ts nutfonal M1ousing per housingstock,they're also encronmentally fooddly and financing and m construction ethan 300 units of respectful of a neighborhood's pace and style.An Watelte:DrzngeSplo[net affordable housing,was awarded a Loeb Fellowship by the This traditional home type is reemerging as an increasing number of towns,tlno,,counties and entire Email:eli@Orangebeptnet Harvard University Graduate School of Design,cofrridedthe affordable and flexible housing option that meets the states have aper adapting their zoning or housing laws to website AccesoryOunforngs.otg and serves as chair of needs of older addles and young hinnies alike, make It easier for M1omeowners to create ADUs.a Portland,Oregon's Planning and Sustarroadry Commission. AARP and Accessory Dwelling Units Visit AARl.org/ADUro order or download our free publications and end more resources about ADUz. AMP The ABCs of ADUs 7ACCESs Rv Awdo DWELLING ..�,.,w...,....U.... manenu.srPI ,vc,=o..e.. uxls n.rw,l.«s�m., ..ma.a.am. x — _._ Angles ADD publtooiens • A Soreswy tlumllnry unto loi tam,in ares,users and arytrc (fromm` 1 pider¢id:nciz bout crttory And odelsatance aboutcreating an '%'"��""'- ADU model state act or local ordinance:a damped guide or The ABCs ofADUs isor for elected officials,policymakers,local leaders,hmow oeners, design and development. prime consumers and others to learn what accessory dwelling units are and how and why they are built. The guide also suggests best practices for how towns,cities,counties and states can support the Norms VAA11.1.armense0knee.n puanad in beat l nnm.—dmrem.mdnam l All rear assere.e.1.1 amt warssn." nation of ADUs asaw to ex nd and diversi housin Notions. w.id�nmr m.m..y.mm..mwlm.win:p,m..,.i�ren...n«ni..anAxa...r.we..ra.auian.i.rw,na�mn.0 rs,e.a fie Pa fY B P whonw•=air for rd—�mwork,noowastrnmdn,..rnmtedownpoo,orrmrcmcn.l mr. The ABCsof ADUs I AARP 1 What ADUS Are — ADUs Come in Many Shapes and Styles And What They Can Do SigiVed and cnce ADUs am reated, v(AOETACNEDADII aesigaea and creates, AUUs are a family-triendy,snmmunitycrndig type of housing the nation needs more of they're able to fit j etm DADJi ne M1omeon discreetly into all sorts of thesame lot as ali Although many people have never heard the term,accessory dwelling units have been around for centuries locations,Including _ pnmaryissa g (see page 6)and are identified by many different names.To be dear about wha9 being discussedsuburban subdivision, it Evemplenumude • An ADU is a small redder[hatshares a single family lotwrtb a larger pnnmrytlwelling — walkable towns,urban backyard bungalows ���— and mmarted • Asan Independent H-m living a,—,an ABU,,sentainsi will're own Mahen or neighborhoods—and, outbi. cirri hathr0om and stepping area �a-I + of course,large lots and • An ADU can be located wlMlq atrachpd to or dalsoned from In,no.residence rural reglees. ovinceso e�om0^ • An ADU can reconvened from frokohng structure such as sprain)or bulltanew • ADUSare found in cities,In suburbs and In rurelareas,yigive often invisible fromvrew l because inches performed behind crane tucked within a larger home • Because ADUS are full angle-family ld[sasa secondaryceep ling,they typically cannot R be carthioned off ro be said separately "y • An ADU a an enable family mem dome in closing family nregiome)to made on the uma property while having in or own living spaces ®, dealinggenera edi, . An ADU can prvome hnnsmg mra[vred caregiver enowupmmi.....B — • An ADU can p rwme rentarncn me m Inner shers andnaml tb mlea er ne n th. ♦AMTIMHEC RCUly thmu h t • ADuzarea praaiml opuonfar mount seeking small,affokaplyprio-d renal nousmg ®'npI^mweeuen'" o nstrtmghousa rydditio tarongh[M1e xepa d areepoirks. e) construction ade or oan f Such Ialongthe ♦AedordeateepressI alto r part nfan • For ng an apartmenng mdownriet an an ananhearmred comiwoption[Fan ADUforanthe actin h...a,ddeocrean r unitram Caad,.1tede[add'.press ho aresitlenow r,, mon int an cif Neyre oNer an age-r restricted mmmunrty Foulrepreas—ingaam Favp aratt or Faredenbance,In O[M1e 0 into m e knave lutzsoo-•r• asep S roptl0w anis for nAOVople an cam. or . ADUscan M1elp oltlerreslden¢remainlntlepentlent and"age Inplace' ulMaukee,whennua bas ectione,the owners hurt house buAtlinganew um[rorboth people and cam. connection between the house and • As an adaptable form of bouzing,ApUs provide flexible 5oludorrs for charging neetl5.• what wasa de[acFN garagp.The rmm C•Po'IAa3s—tansy wo eyuflhssa anon aamdnn and me space above me ADUS Are Also Known As... • adessomapartment overage contain the Ago,whim has as • backyard bungalow entrance(pictured at right), Although mon local governments,zoning codes and planners In the Unfired 'frover r,a.,.m.my,aa,Aaa States use the farm accessory dwelling unit or AOU,these small homes and • basement apartment g—ytene.oa.,wap apartments are known by dozens of he,names The different terms conjure • airs up diffeartmages,(Who . Cno.coa,M10eA."to an —ddn bather true inscoach house UPPEWL LMU acrriage home"than In an a Englksh basement y an be ordeded moved A— _ cessry or analaryc uf) amen[ d aaairay lnsde me Even ifyou've ve h are ".,flat mass home or front ,1of accessory dwelling units na . from an enemr naiveese. or ADUi you have llkels gues[co[tage This 500`quare-fmd ♦A LOWEe-LEVELAOUIs[ynpiec t st a[edhears of—and perhap • guest hour ADis pa ofd . broug(providedonofah 'eekdng know the locations of— -law suite p i90osgoarling base ns can hoghte of the home types • way houseOdmary eweling rt ondieo an be met)dudngm not noted In the list at right.a • multi-generatiorwl house the house or(above and on page])as part of ring our chis 350aquaeunki caregnwnvereion And in Portland,Oregon,helpa[he • Ohanaumtambeh mare' 'are°" .? fountlabon realscemen[antl house IT property owner.wM give In e brY primry amindere.pry, m her hae mortgage. activists dwelling unit P mervpbSrtwics toosmn.PortkM,Oregm l Priam ICna of-rano 3 AARP I The ABCSof ApUs TFe ABCsof ADUS I AARP 3 JJY6' - F8=11 ADUS Are Good for Peo le and Places AttNOMached I� Attff�ADU Addition Communities that understand the benefits of ADUs allow homeowners to create them Santa Case,Camamla "e:t ACUS are an economical ADUS are Community- ADUa are Sf .500 square fear iYst the right slSQ �f housingoption compatible in Generally measuring between • ADUS can generate rental • ADUS offer a way to include 600 and 1,000 square feet, e to help homeowners smaller relatively affordable ADUswOrkwellfntheone ■ income ov mortP ends paytments or homes" established and two bedroom homes aneighborhoods -� WI mply k dThe negM1boh d '[M1 needed by today's smaller presidentincome � f - � ADU usual Imp d 'A f carriers hp h Ids,which RRRilll ] - them an b ."'only adding m an areas sprawl new as ountf early two important for older people on • ADI presence A more aspersed thirds of all households in the `t, — fired Income. and maer n[al o g ovaYof United 5[a[es. • 9nw the alrend on ady bewhkhan ADU hOreother pPacpmuch as [Asn 'sbuhward,the expense the other options, h ACUS are able to house @ ad...A Sale area with othe ofcade road SaA4g es lrtM And ms wu homeowcondar response multistoryapartmentb'Itl'gs people of all ages + asses ams me raw of vrnuna stedlrg andhey bNeazewstrucure only. 4Y The wxtleys IDU Qhat4 Carrie Showing Saahefrvne (orthe new structure only. • homeowADUS are tYpchYl gen by • ADUzoffer Young people a rardhaw pant:ane pleating:)ban pre wheys...se N• entry level hous ng thr cos. sbe MMe home and Is Leing rented W the wup Es aamenor • Marry ADlle in dsoared for premsea.Such landlords are 4 Q`�M'P m are can help recall ly amoreanban wandl Letting members or friends 10 less likely I tolerate a • ADUzenable families as expand wide in for fl,, destructive tenant. beyond their primary home. When Carre and Sterling Whitley bought their house in 1971,they paid dlscounced Are In fad,when a ADUS are good for the • ADUS provide empty nesters leszthan$15,000.Nearly So years later,similar homes on their street loved d f eor have sold form m $1 11' an ADU n be environment antl others [h N pd f \ �- moving'nto h pa THE PROBLEM Th Whitley,, h their Bo own the house r-1 avebl t costly . AD Us require rthan cos while hour mtH' 1 assn dlgf Facility to bald dmantra" than g ger oulrlved and don't want B[a fr dpM1ys cal demands J 6 •Altho M1 market t rents for (all sxedh andhoue or lettinghis adultstaidIn involved lnma maintaining sareachalle:rge, � .- g and hz orh barely reside In h. ASOLUTION:T M1 me homeowners 62 or older live Aanfor dmbe sicad more •ADUsux g di flyless p age than for su0 (murrOr Of all heading g and cooling •An ADUSu eh ld types, indHabitat for Hy dkeep m' homes the Monterey Baha My Hou - apamm�ttheieyohen (Ofall the ADU types,Internal for meeren[hemploymenpes, Home for Humanity and the City of SantaThe pilot program still My represent the onlyaROMable nedingam have he lowest melevels,employment Home:A dwelling gu her Agingerhplace.TM1epilotprogrambuilds rental Single-family buildingand operating costs) situations and stages Yflife.• accessgg,-orydwelllnomeandnits earn rental incoers fcan downsirene house i neighborhoods,which typically s agingchho lierhome can remain int'mcome hom[heir original hoax. contain taw or no small or or:urn homeowners can remam'lnmev house and rent out Big houses are being built,small houses are needed smaller residence.Participating homeowners are re e ro cna rental housing options stall. 4 affallerrsidearitable nce.al Pa. paling qure rge an a The state of California and DP we really need 1950 2020 dome Tonalities are more Nan three "A REALITY CHECK:When the WM1itleyS project broke ground inApril boronuADU b Ovid Hmes as much - _ 2017,they were the first homeowners to receive an ADU through the 6 z by m 983 3,261 grants and other Incentives as living space per ¢ program,which worked with[hem to dram me ADU ars an addition to part of affordable housing and Person az was did their edsting home.Since the dwelling was built with accessibility anti displacement strategies to In 1950?Carl w features,Came and Sterling know they can tlownso,Into it if tfiry ever help low me households afford to buy or 3.E 2.5 s need[o.Un[O dren,meirdaugMep Brenda.resides in me atldidon. build ADI oro reside in mem at re::L heat,cool reliable rents. and care for Such - - 292 9dl u` REAL LIFE:Tm right nest door to my parents In case they need me or „ large homes? need arty help;'Brenda says. s ark,- meas I di searaw A l mem leas ema000 1.1(-:wadxg andso a novae orepa lep..aw.^maor ni .aa:enamge-famtrlmm.aaa. g so-cr'.1ion'se,wkiunoeale11.mao.aaaom wove win uve.tmnwnana € heola e:paapzen d AAPp I The AeO. A00z The ABCzof ApUz I PAPP 5 ADUs Are an American Tradition HOME VIe "I see our ADU a,ompethng invesit in theFutustudent woh itsays Garage Apartment ADU Mara Owen,"¢s y0me[ningyDe m�eyrn me mare wrznttway While today's interest in All may he new,the housing type is Celduries old Denier,Colorado theam,man buying a house for Mom,audit lets her have Size:360 square feet Independence.It's great knowing we can check In on her whenever" Early Settlers often built a small home to live In while converted Into rental home,.By becoming landlords, AH-PoI MOMENT-.Owen,her partner,Andrew,and their three constructing th" larger,printer,h byfire owners gained income form their" often unused dog wer,ah N g a ar-lbeedround, ne bath house wish her buildings. When(a g f If ost of th t ' [M1 D' When0 learned that ADUs were allowed in nation shouseholds,Families' f rutted Amended M1 'I h 3 Ih h h d Edm b e ay[ogee removeom tefofher Y il g ry Inc m} y G anewt bet.remove they leaky and People lF nM1 l tl M1 tld gi Ily ara It er h g t of O on df tgaag dbu Ida new two rar garage wl[n an people tM1 alth secontl ry ma g ld a palated Yg ge t d(f ll g into small Ily der aphroWISE ADVICE;:GeMeir Ings indpndenof manourford anular zonrg codes espacrapplcable[ore v)uablefr .ready Yyhomes peoplees became more valuable forWISE ADVICE: ing architect real builder and o a first ons,zags bulltlln de dent of the main estate M1ouze. pacesgzdi pen hauzin le than veFldes. Owen."Iyoufo emancted mitr That'sI porta t,but etasita [ g VeoG carr. feel corrode st so.ee 0 yu stent but ItoNfact until[M1e 30mwn[ury,people who owne0lan0 Wi[F[he rise of suburban sings¢-famlyhome uz you po geexterasmany Fomesarloo,wierro erefewftet r woris.tt ADITM1efore,becasee DUs re Intl someoneyorwo develoallyagfoll to he World War lh ADUsex[entledhmil n;ers,therewerefewor no whahas both ADUs hefore,because ADUs arealittle different" zoning rules,municipal services or infrastructure Stater Th nas asn w rebuilt legalyin co United needs(utilnder)to consider [rash[olec[iog States. on"reho residertial zoning cssof typically FUTURE PLANS:The5t'eveir,In Diane',apartment The as widE first-respondersrea consider. allowed only one home per lop regardless of the thecorect For thair lift, :ever needed.The of able panel, t a acreage and with no exceptions.Attached and the correct slope for the eventual Installation of color panels. A historic precedent for the modern day accessory detached garages occupied yard space that might •rne.p..rmenubovethe ge....ran or coma wu,Armemmr.I emden AMaFnemwa l amts,what"'hawdwelling unitisthe"carriage house;'or"teach otherwise have been available for ADU,. revered from sed,1.ge.age n,hoe to 2D 16 1 eroeyetem aen l ace,seated mme,'wu cettsmdwby Lot severe hone^Originally built for Ferre drawn catnaps,the ntMdr sae emran[e excesea from Meyaa A mvemo.wfn"wo'erewm:e,waweenda«ywagnyvnl structures associated with grander homes were Some cities,including Chicago,grandfathered in .horm with the primarycold..... ,neaa.umrmaroa frequently lar h to double az living driers pre existing"coach houses ADUs—but only if they query geenoug 69U fined consistently occupied,In Houston§historic for workers mcM1azztable Hands. and troody Heights neighborhood,old and new HOME VISR#3 petax,late,in response to noosing shortages and garage apar[mesas are common and desired. Basement ADU economic needs,many surviving carnage houses were Many communities Fort allow new ADUs,even if they Portland Oregon Y Thr Fred,how—hro.im„e.—legroom,oeebNh did d In the pa E [h ample0 SWet :796 square fe ADU abo.eaa w-m,g.age rleb.hud—lilr..t,oulexAm, property owners are oftenprohibited Fr [g mines,new AmartwMome no wat lac In 1M3.Teecondary dwellings or continuing W live in preexisting The tmnsforma[on of all colorful ani,ezmenaproperrywasanmeme,ldtinmtewSmewn, es.Countless units in single-family homes oryards Victorian was both a preservation and are technically illegal simply because they date from expansion project. when such alit,were net staged. TEACHING MOMENT:"Here's a very _ ADUs began making a comeback in To 19805 as ceire welcome breath of fresh ar,especially In explored ways to support smaller and more affordable the face of so much Fortification that is housing.,[ions vnthin dingle dwelling neighborhood, going on in Portland!"declared mark A By Mengthe home and alg#ng brusih 1p designers.entrance ata In 2000,In response a a growing demand for ADU Lakemdn,principal of C.mmunicecture,an besides,wmei awo-rtore single-foot,force labor a-srory, [ ares,AARP and the American architectural,planning and design'ard, mulBfamJy smallOde ADV.term¢n pillared on page 3.) supportive g Planning Associatand local on DT,od to release a An updated modal his ut the company wedateremodel.Wnting pon THE ACHIEVEMENh Adds Lakema:"Unlike the reate actmorre and localmde by ADUs. 2021 d(ted hlzm.here website,nd add m ams the use Itject eciouprovides a n dle seemingly Pervasive method of simply rearing down image. az published bynt cove OfthisSeea 3 had Innowt.Teryand accommodate existing buildings that new, rant ones can be buil, imageof it anmeialide overnment are thisaid,a7 r people Euless.mey can mance moue a B B Benergy Many state and local governments are legalhingand p the e whine Providing m re mmmemsupport this opproach ens,and adds densityupgrades whin mature a tuethen[ ouraging the creation of ADUe(see page 07, a Ne existing home." o living places and adds density while retaningthe % continuity of our beloved historical urban environment" dfiven by high Fp.9ng csfy and,lee gue,shoothe NOW'D THEY OO IT?To add abasement rental rtaure nom,Yk Fmmo:Inttvna.Me belief[has homeowners with suitable space shouldn't unit,engineers lifted the house.The resulting ADU'Isface,for�ponl an w rime:arts,.,.a""l prem:as bew.northeast in the use of[heir property.a d roughly four feet underground and four feet above. mmmvmma�e(bekre)-1.xammeeo pawl TFe ABCe.f ADUs I AARP HOM The Time Is Now Incernnalal e - ntADU(Main Level) Rules for ADUs continue to evolve and frequently differ from one town to the next Portland,Cooper Size:220 square feet Some communities allow almost any home to be set up with an ADU—so long as size lints,property To Encourage ADUs Even small homes an have enough space form n l line setbacks and placement caveats In relation to LOCAL OFFICIALS can... ADU.An underused main floor bedroom In this the primary dwelling are met Other,start with t5-emry,1,SODzquare-foot bun,irviv as those basic standards and then layer on extra aallow all ADU types(detached,attached,loterior) transformed into a studio apartment. requirements that can make it challenging to create simplify the bellENg permit process for ADUS AH-NA MOMENT.According to Joan Grimm, an Pick.(Learn more on pages 14 and 15) a waive or reduce permit and impact fees Who owns the home win Rita Haberman;"What Municipalities nationwide have been relaxingthey • sm edlish funding Urograms to rep homeowner were looking for in terms of a community restrictions against ADUS,and several states now create ADUS and aging in place was right under our nose, require communities to allow them.Some examples: • let garages be converted Into ADUs without Remove a fence and create a shared open space. AThecks,wed.I&-mem•lad his the n.dio.p.rtmaut ante, is New Hampshire and Vermont allow ADUs nearly requiring replacement offstreet parking Build event and create a second dwelling unit It wmm was crated-1 ofanmisdrppam.Tee—wd Now everywhere S Inge family housing i5 permitted, allow for the creation a a5...it ADU.Subject doxi have to be eOmplleated." the rot sleads mellchill tdue pimary residenmMalm t¢.The ADU a iflaver hing am,aeeping area,batnmes, ad New Hampshire's 2017legislatin stemmed'm to a combined size sip REAL LIFE:`Createss,carving out an ADU from I...dryaw.(seetwo imarwrpeoempnpagvllwacarJ large part from the frustration of builders who die main Floor of our house saved on designand COMMUNITY PLANNERS can... couldn't apartment their backyard cottages and roperuttloncr ramalGrimm adds.with provides an oezgn.N wOemw11 l calk pays Walk o C,"" gaage apartments their clients desired • adopt slmDls Flaghle butnondlscredonary ADU oDDortunity(omental Income,wl[M1 no significant ,nesto--haat'; sproiIAr"a�reanom too new 1.ci�yi es about setbacks,square footage and design compromise 1.the livabnity of our M1ome." erakemmoeaamaeryoenore • In 2020,the California legislature declared that compatibility with the primary dwelling 'allowing accessory dwelling units in Anes that allow single family and multifamily uses provides LENDERS can... additional rental housing,and,,an essentialwed with homeowners to finance[he conetmdion NOMEw51Tp5 TThe deal to the rightsir theprose taxes Noaground-floor component in addressing Califomia's housing • of ADUs by using renovation loans Internal ADU(Lower level) Alto won wi.c.-adin,the bulk and site well This needs"The state allows up to one ADu arN one .ppm-level vdmows are worm wmain reader. JpW per lot(WM1aPsa IADLLS page 14,) ADVOCATES can Portland,Oregon -1 • organze tours of completed XXAin order to Size:795 square feet ti@ll 9�H • Oregon requiresles and assumpas ofcertain Inform and nspre the community 0 cost II ADUTnallsigl f ily reaswithin 'We were looking for a way to live in our home for - a - • educate m hoeowners,real estate agents, the rest of our Ivies and de urban growth boundaries.In 2021,the state architects and builders abouIdeal mining generate st least some - extended ADU rights to rural residential areas. regulations and the permit pm ass Income In the process;'Robert Mercer and Jim Heuer wrote for the program guide of the annual Portland • Other states slower ADDS Include Connecticut, REAL ESTATE AGENTS can.., ADU Tour when their home was part of the lineup. __ Rhode Island and man.Many colas now allow xx etluate themselves and[heir clients about rules "An ADU offers the possibility of caregiver lodging'm 'It Arms. d 'muding gnchorage,Naska;Atlanta, for the construction of ADW the future or even a place for us to live while we rent — Georgie,Ammons,Maryland;Asheville,North out the an house if we Net to the point where we — Cur.lifly,e b T% ;Denver Cited raft LOCAL MEDIA ran cant handle the stalls any longer.' Honolulu,Hawaii;Houston Teras Loulsvlll¢ r¢port on how antl WFy homeowners buJd PDUs - — Kentucky;Philadelphia,Pen eyvania;Phoenix THE SOUND OF SILENCE Internal ADU,often and Tucson,Ancients Seattle,Washington;and require Mat soundproofing insulation be installed you an and cant do with your space and what Washington,Oct. between the primary dwellmgand Me accessory unit nvestment you are prepared to make in sound that's below,above or beside It In Portland, he nsuladon" building code for duplex residences requires a sound Or Located on the lowest floor as town M1eum,an d Insulatlon adng of a[Ieast STCC45.Improperly AN ADDED BONUS:"We are pleased that we have Arenas answers lz a m.tiatb Lesson,e..d•p•mrem E owners thinking about a similar ADU setup,the duo been able 1. .do more housing density on our IN.,has In own memlm.....are a advise"Think about how you live in your home and property and still be in keeping with the historic round N older cines such as New Near or flacruree) how having downstairs neighbors will chap hat character of our homey weanignoq pant lame Wst,p..peny.wners.eedthe p' g gh change epewwasrvantquMtra.Tea,haves wasntialy exi dA, eel e. y Inerm.Atemsem ul51 meaty eaqu tun'-,cm, hu0t-In Anne—often.,ad.,mntal apartments. a 11,11 1 lAm naeluranoe rzu,sapmnkzre stowar,r-opmaeq.. B AARP I The AflGii Us The ABCsof ADUi I AARP 9 3 1 �� gr . Irl s rt Bringing Back ADUs =� \ The reasons for creating or living in an ADU are as varied as the potential uses Alut5arrafkable.O t -gl ADU mightb sed in many y,as an owner's needs andlfe circumstances 'lMost near homes are built - created and b"Irmn earifire subdivisions At a time.ApartmentsIII �' ut EMPTYt the NESTERS bile Ad vein[ it, [Fevre ou [ ttM1 h for supupplemen[alincomeor gy.• � make'[ variable to their adult childreng _ \ _ FAMILIES sing WRHYOUNG pair or EN can useanADU as two,ngfor a thenyor an pair raakid,and o� - - ortwgwhocanthen the,ase Nergrandkids and be asSrtPd thPmselVPz as[hey age INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF CANE can redde In an AM teal[Drake'sound I cha Lobe live in aide tubers rthey anew NPADUto uns utl rIn I. en bevo nM mMom wnpw n pn n o n housena liveinaidee(In fact.ADUs can be an afloNable HOME VISR pa usinguq.TheEeslgne In YeepingwltX atger Eull<Ingsln and more omforting alternative W an assisted-living the neignbomaaa. facility nursing home) Detached ADU(one-story) OecataA Georgia NOME BUYERS Medhall,pay aytheiook r ardmor to the rental Income sh.Bo0 square feet from an ADU s,help pay[M1eir mortgage or ng forms,home o, Improvements,especially in expensive housing markets. When Wait Drake decided up tlowns@e,his son Scott HOME-BASED WORKERS can use an ADD as theirpurchased his dad's house Por himwlf and his horbi an l office or workshop. built a detached ADU(or DAM)for Walt. HOMEOWNERS can use an ADD for posts or as "From not Inding what we wanted for Dud,we dooded eo`" housing for friendsor loved ones who to creme it,"says Ran,"Neighborhoods built in the en'tyet finandally independent,such as new high 1920,have mode nil carriage versian header,Buinding an ADJwbeen • school or college graduates doing ontl Plr property in this area for a hundred Wars:' • need Compost,housing due W an Pmergeney or while NEAR AND Fall wanted the houses to be -_ renovating their own home separate and to feel like were each on our own e have disabilities but can llvelndependentlyrfamily Favored through some combination ofproperty,butwe're there for etch other;'sayz Scott. reside nearby lines of credit andlor funds froam family AGING-FRIENDLY:Building the ADU meant Wal[ ------- "" — didn't have m leave his M1ome and neighborhood."He up living in it). was ablem keep his ffard turn over what he didn't ,ad to us: y5od,"It kept my bad In place OLL which I thinkw p franc ggglllFUTURE PLANS:SCD[t says the ADD is servng its armartiel I.-.. a before undertaking an AIM prossalIntended puryose bu[[M1at someday down the mad[ fla could be used as a long or short term rental TM1e ADU - - fork cities,reserves. ad scaftl am [ could turn into lots of different doll cverthe course Mistreated,with creative,Breaking 12 offs lficti " b clarions that could put ADUS within reach a A TheaoniocWe in Fvansmn,l llinoh, —it,anneory a r n000-nordrier,waX l Bonar.vII 1 sulk; tlneNp can,mYingenepgnunity for the eanvs re me d, p om"I"I onoerl door Nen M11 Wall loll FamewlN an oulbunEingN the Eackyar6 - rosw,wdlllmo.ra arAm'nouc:re xueres by uu+n 10 AARP I TM1e AB6of ApUs The ABCsof ADUz I AARP 11 ADUs Are Age-Friendly Housing _ New-construction ADUs can be created with wunhearsal design"features HOME VISIT k8 An"agelefor peplme wiM1as a youttF-steprences Condneddaxges ways(such as the nenabared on paget are 2)a Detached Bedroom areaccessible a amod indllMmobilinsive rences.Cofor anverted ging nplace sine Leone pic[uretl gstrucuresu St.Fetersburg�Florida monglyhave no dip,least expensive more DU foraging iomeagisincethey'rdownloiad or order the antl generally have no-ste at AAes,Tolearn more abou[making aM1ome aging-Friendly,download or order the Size:Tao square fee[ - J AARP NomeFi[G W de at AAFP orgAlomeFi[. Berthaantlherson John talkedacudoutsomeno day boxing - someonwitd a mo[ber-in-law ted:of hou nodayI u ozone longand wantedmyhouse,so up HOME VISIT An and sold el[;'she exphlns."BUI that left me homeless.I Detached ADU(Two-Story) - - _ asked John in cobra build a small house In his - backyard ane he agreed" Seattle.Washingtw CREATIVE THINKING:A detached bed Size:See square fee[ a ♦ tl htlb awmi M1kaaoemlmabMroombut no I la geir Buttht,what Akeoad, es AD05, kiW p ..eugng(en bvetlenew.­ Evelyn veva Evelyntit rreout plan wasld Mild backyardinher �I lack, nem,a.ord.bltan what Uk end M1 oM gueztm[Nge and ren[tout.She would keep I kgin her two h houses rdable to lou ld than yADV and REAL LIFE. Ravin tom house makes bedroom M1ome. even tiny M1ouses. .access. wamid - it livable.oMerming Ipersonally wouldnotbe happy AH-HA MOMENT:As theted 1.desIne In he stunnidg = WHAT'S INSIDE:Bfullbo ncri mn[ainsarthe ng It's very Comfortingtoknow that oremJohn"dose by rood-athat shs wanted tollveiod dectiour A - and lhousearea and onmya hf',om."I paid for[be H.odupulmllythis wall beory,ru" forldie wearand-glass ADW[won aid ff from on.Aweek If tle I'm conscr I h's on my smar...opikode'o lflgured, mososoudo 11 before LIFEn clue Rrom wa month Bffmmeei qi = If I'm heard,1 candotatmys house) sM1e says. wanty smy� aaaWaalC aouca><smm" REAL LIFE TM1e$3p00a monN Bmmreceives n - T' — (Herlaundry l5 aka done at Ms house) [Awa pwe- w rent for the main house(which is occupied by a three generation family)province a d'income. "Being laid offh tl this g t Spaces rfesave B y.lfth t ' th tt g _ Trading ever resume t hard[ g[ h always the smaller of two dandifings on a property,bad It's possible for an existing home to back Into her original onestoryh d rent cotbecame - ,heco[ties,roeatl Now l have optima she says. hzp�akzm!Tired of tradrall in an after house that didn't get a IM a maturnal lighn,the home's matters built and_ moved!trim the bright,afty,modern and very laccessible ADU they created in their pard.The original T — Mopen listu � mom m wad Y wins oneMfimn flw(wlN anwes- - anE brtllmamupRilrs. .... w g alJud gF ernma "yam... J Proanoth no i afroxxim bacce� aaeol Yl rge vv" Ir m tl.re �! I r hm aPaUe.lawnAnda garge Asa[ttE it.—w.apttcy" Jwass,h apa[e ® - le en the two houaa and provides prHa[y. �Afthi fles,Age)Me eky"I I.fia.a Has,gands,ki he ma..istai hit red..it nionso pends wry.eMe,Cias mourn Nerva,v cow,l Bullae,nnoxi eemnucco"R"m N.loam Coaro6w#8unwoinmlel+rtrtkziapW hem WlrereweLve: moeerroklAxoro comity 13 AARP I TM1e ABCsof ADUx Practical Solutions for ADUs Creating (or Understanding) Local laws can both allow and appropriately control the creation of accessory dwellings an ADU Zoning Code -there are more than 19,000 cities,16000 towns and well-Intentioned but burdensome rales can stymie 31000 commies is the United States.ADU regulations thecretheir of ADUs.ADU-related zoning codes The ADU section of a community's zoning rode needn't be overly complicated. No typically adopted at the local veral level,although seshould be restrictive enough to incisor[undesirable It just needs to establish clear,objective and fair rules for the following: state 1121,11 base required cities to I them, development but Flexible enough that ADUs get built 1.A oaankbm A good zoning coredeany defines its 7.Devgn 6bndarda: Wherei['s III to build ADU,,homeowners sell need When a community is worried about a potentially arnmenUff,ril for esompleiz a meol skin for what a Sha and well Atoning code might zpedty costly to follow rules about where it can be done,how many undesirable outcome,it ban—and many do—craft Ih,herealworld,lsaveryfinldterm:"An Aorre—manor, now large and III an ADV is allowed to be.For square feet they can contain,how they can be used. regularIons to prevent panicuar building types, secondary home on the same Iotas a primary dwel6ng,ADUs Idower,sm ADU may not e,cold moa spire feet These holes con be found in me local across oncelocations or uses.A city concerned about the eindependently habitable and provide the basic or the size of the primary dwelling,whichever is ental impact of new might requirements of shelter,heat rookbg and sammbon" There is abalanra tike researcher.Ftween or prvironm malleoighwat ftnexmadeoffad ADUur terra prohibit Ia<m dmameanouz- aftelaws andeand,Oregon, theirresearcher.cho^.Por instance, p 1p g In precarious yTbepacomm:Thlz allows codedescrib¢sk les in M1eiigt An example ofetahnoodge chedADUathe aper Portland,ore g wary of ADUal asofNearby o Sinping ance,o campus reasons acomm key s goq relaxed its ADV f up to$122010 student ADUz becoming,hush ccupa,offules a community o hous.Tnrys while mazlmumheeseratloepeakfdetached ADViheig and waived ie r of act ADUees(aosefromabot 30 her yehe adds an number the rasin units [In lesser of 25 done, othe peak of the roof or the height rtudent M1Dusing can establish occupancy rules. housing respecting the 2000 and 2 U9F infrosefmone a da i,0015, he style and scale dedofesxam, ase,sock ood of the primostzon0ngl' between 2000 and 20U9 AD rrarly lxoneadangeles g andEverythe 'saWits has its raown e orieguand torycotconcerns, • bgfrostround dent use of existing Fousingzroc4 and oadenPMortmning code can't ss the require sell nd and MereSawitle enough range ohegula[ory controls I nlof k .Some don't tltllti^nal Changes in Californias ADU rules saw los Angeles provide oust raceme par Ing equina from 6o applications in 2016[o nearly 3,00om201Z that communities can write appropriate ADU rules. • provide M1ousingtnat5 affordable and responds rat the Parking for ADVs,some do,and others find amixed Albwing Sonoma County herniers[o add both an This'mh,..t feature.,the from and function of needs of smaller changing households roccu e.g,idipanngondemparkinginthe ADU and a UADU(see the green box below)were ADU,allows[here to pass soll[ical master and get driveway and/or on-street parking.(Seepage,l6 for essible M1ommg forolderadultsarid people among be polkles adopted In the wake of the area's adopted inaw,do range of places(See page 16 for • serve azacc more about parking,) any devastating fires. more cook[use,and mllis with disabilldes • Awarowe w:Standards can specify how an ADU's 3.EllgiW.k,..Whoea build an ADU and on what tape of actresses cam,type and.,her feature'area to lo[?A statement's this part of[M1e cad,dmibee that an match[he pdmary dwelling w neighborhood norms. Rules that discourage ADUs Are ADUs allowed? ADU can be placed only on a adereauyaoned tot" somecodes exempt one-story and lntemaln0u5fmm (Som cnmmkn.wez IF mod,lot sed standards) such regmrementz.(See page 16 for more) of.ADUimarydffic relfirp tat penrift ooret alza ly Find out ch calling land doneand permity or s county 4.Creazbn:The code sets out how an ADU can be bull. Notlimakings) longs(4 g.,owrrer-occupancy shop innFarg¢d landdonepermit,—or B.AhfftIUal Dedgn smMards for netaohed ADue rt ocode through search for antl a For lnstatrea"An ADU may beoeatostothrough new remplex design shop g addition ctio^,[nemmrsio^of a^a,Aioweraaure,as an • detached ADLI to s:Marry[ocated behind require • Need Nine z ing[otl¢tnrougF the local a tleeached A011s to either be located behind[M1e complex design compstibilityni[erla and is webshe. quesfonmanea¢dngse dunngorasaconvereonofa gavernmen tlwellln g approval steps R gkalifyingexisCing hoax tluringtheconstruction afanm primary soder encu hhhoolonneetmbe • If ADUs are allowed,ask what conditions, E pdmary dwelling on she site" dlzcreec(A rode mighe exemp[preulztingdetach¢d • offstreet paM1ing requirements beyontl those its that deal meet that standard.)Although such a required bar the primary tlwelling permit needs and impact fees apply. ' as Quantity:Most municipalities that permit ADUs allow rulework well for nemo ighbood5 of large • restrictions that limit ADUs to refund areas, • If ADUsa not allowed and you ant them he one per It These allowing two typically permit one properties with large rear yards,communMes wont particular zoning categfres or to large lots be,ask an elected official or you community's 4 Internal and one rental Some al Few duplexes or mater lot size may need m emplq amore Flexible it of zoning and planning how the C townheman to have an ADD,either in the backyard or on setbackand pbcementmn rd. cases on square footage rela[iveat^the primary codes can be uptlated. g the ground Floor. • house[hat makeit easy beadd ADU toe It • Building sou e:A code will 11"can one larhome but hard or ble to add one •Then for d and start ativocatin 6.Derogatryantl wv.A CWe should st.In.the combined lot cove f a detached ADu and on large impossi ge ganize g raged toazfuel name 3 and safety ADUs match[hoxmetlforme all cific E primary groasp[ per¢n[age. g malndwellingon[hepmperry(See page Viennese) in • Yaraxebazke:Most communitiesperaulW M1uer ., JUNIOR ACCESSORN DWELLING UNITS(or cause)arearrafler man 501 square feet and have.separate „minimum dhes m [ancpmper[yes foand betweenn Vrsi[AARPog/MurodownloadAneusoryDwNlMg buentrance but are,created Within the exisaffig dwelling A JADU cons shere a�ffimm wish are Main house ildin Ihezamelo[.AOUs are II red -_ Mifs:Model SMWARandtocal Draimr afree 8son tapirs yrequi the contain a basic kitchen equipped Wish small plug-in appliances. a publ'ca[on[M1azcan be uxd by sv[eand local officials P,allow the Same rules.a j; todevelap ADUpofces 14 AARP I The ABCs of ADUz The ABCs ce ADUi I AARP 15 ADU "Hot Topics" Allowing and Restricting Uses Communities get[o deckle whether[o le[ADUS be used just like any other housing type or[o create specwl As communities allow ADUS or update existing zoning codes and rules to be more rules for them.Some municipalities prefer the simple approachnegnitude,cobs like other homes.5o If. ADU-fdondly,they, Inevitably wrestle with some or all of the following issues: home-based child-care service is allowed to operate in the primary dwelling,it is also allowed in an Bob. Conversely,communities sometimes adopt ADU-spec c regulations In order to avoid undesirable Impacts Adding ADUS to neighborhoods Providing places to park on neighbors.examples of thou regulations include: Recognizing that ADU,may represent A new housing ADU nightshirt,often'mdede off......arking type for existing neighborhood,communities often minimums on top of what's already required for.the Limiting short-term rentals ADU Flexibly For mi an Owner-oaupancy rules are usually writes Irides to ensure they'll fit in well.These ADU tan be reined nightly to implemented through a deed lotto y primary dwelling.Such can prevent homeowners ADUS tend to work well as short- tourists then somaday rented[o a restriction and/or by requiring that ,ndelines typically address visual compatibill[y with from building ADUS a there's nomadism space for added [ermren[als.They're small add the Ion t tenant,then used to annual statement confirming the primary dwelling,appeamtce from the street(if parking.However the extra parking often Bn't needed. owner usually lives on-site,making house zna' Parent resident the ADU can be seen)and privacy for neighbors, it comeoiem to serve as host ipares y be filed.Some cities 80 We,chat help achieve thezegoals reduce sMtlies of Portland,Oregon,and the son Francisco intended primarily for vining methe,,se,i ADlk can he occupied Day area found that ADU households own an average HDweveeif ADUS primarily serve family are sometimes used az only by family members,child or • height and site taps mandadngthar ADU,be of 09 cars.Thal half the national average of 18 cars se short-term rentals,such as for short-term rentals between visits- adulocare p.dc,,,or.,her shorter and smaller than the lancer,dwelling per household,wbh just over 2 percent of Portland Alrbnb and similar services,it employees'm served of[he fatuity. • requirements that detached Audi be behind the homes having an ADO(the highest percentage of arty undermines the objective of Cayes roncerned about zhoreterm main house or a minimum distance from the street large cdy'm the country).there's roughly one extra adding small homes to the local rentals can regulate them across Owner-acepricy requirements Tani that me deli and More,of decoded car parked On the Street every six blocks.Thy Suggests housing supply and creating all housingtyped.Doing so might make the financing of ADU,more grthat,even in booming AOU cities,an housingthe's affordable. mean that special rules are not diffimtq just az they w.i AOU,be managed Mezamewryazotherdetadred 8 any street sbucturs,P,garages)on the k% parking from ADO.,likely to be very small and needed,An OreproacM1 employed in applied[D single-faintly homes. dispersed.More-rhotic parking rules might. In popular markets,short-term Portland,Oregon,rstotreat ADUS But as ADW have become more • design standards for larger or two-story ADUS so rentals can be more profnabte the same az other residences they architecturally match the primary dwelling or r irethe creation of new parking only if the ADU than long-term ones,allowing except that an financial Incentives common,owner occupancy reflect me y restch is go d.Such requirements It,,nt and of internal displaces street a*I,,reingsments parking homeowners to recoup their ADO them(such are fee waivers)Mcer, whichegood.Sed vacuirements <buregemeebar the ideble creation somal pDUs, sive off-street- fejt requirements expenses morequican In addition, them available only if[be limit Mea • which ad often unnodo:able hum[he street w pa grequiremen appraised value of within welkin distance of transit short-term rentals can pmvitle property owner agreesnmMuse g pinions for wind ADUS dna reduce Each ween enough income that [he ADO asashort-term rental for betweencompt ccan ommunity einsure own uniquebalanceall be parking requirememsfor ation of uaee ADU owners options for lenders should they y usinga mm they can afford to occasionally use at least loyears. be[walimpatanntDhborh that and moavea to bemetb combination needtoforedose. me ADU for mends and family mal impact them moreflexible parking Curb swungin aking ctandem(one carinfront Requiring owner occupancy Enfordng owner-occupancy laws rules that make Mem eazierfo bulltl. of the o[Fer)parkinglnatlriveway Patric Northwest ADO owners in those Some Imported,require the can be tricky,and the rules have Pacific N Doan short Serm t to live on-site, been challengedln courts, Dealing with unpermit[ed ADVs mature ADOand60 percent of Property in pre markets found that 60 percent of ADO This primaryhouseorinmmedme1.a However portion uncommon for ehomeowners ADO in nverta am AOU.This lsa Common way of according[Oas[udy by[he Oregon ADUsgad co foredwith1 portisiffi ornot)ofzon roman Ar without peen ladlordsgconcemsnats will ane Department more Envlmnmends or,poper housing ad compared with 12 (knowingly Dr not)of zoning laws Or without permits. landlords and[heirtenams will Quality,more Man two-thirds of percent for short-term contain. allow homes and ADUS to fall into properties with ADUS are owner - suchngmarketsandslogan ADUa are commonInciDObas.s with lige Respondents shared that they disrepair and negatively impact the ccupiedevenwithoutanDwner- example and of is New York City,which gained»a,Doo "8rea[ly value the ability to use an neghborhood, occupancy mandate.as apartments between 1990 and 2000 that ArentIl The miningwNorthas oferen ,Nh Carolire,acity reflected In certificates of occupancy or by safety :�al afe reraen lops consents,awws Audi whim inspections.Badly,In 2021,several city residents living p .r•ferr.e cou-sxwna.ryew•Ilmg.nin••ne•a in unsafe baument statement est drowned in their ..M^Mmm rclae earymnMampe-famrry homes due to floodingcaused Hurricane Ida and delve.Toni code stares chat 1.1 homes �au by •xk,1I se.nwer.you won eeJgnm to meet wasting Some cities nave loured that) iin ADO,,1,m - n•eay'adding Is.-[geemee.y aneftie viw sh•II fsmce,,nice costa,ha:mam twin:<Iutw•.. egal g DgY'ng be accessory and suwommate b 6. .s,,half, buIN az or lin M Into muMaweifin Ns. ADU rules and/or waiving fees can be effective at quanersl agent yaware NJ he two from dein.A M1imrowneca rause in we getting the owners Of illegal In le(F.Mwnt above (,rdoe ) ge g ga housing logo" a naw.Pam howe1,he.—it mrem•bev.elre ap..emomwhtl.rtmingair m.end... —dna add resssafety problems in the Drocess.a aetaeh.egange lsueaawnaaryawelling. 16 AARP I The ABCz of ADUe The AS Ce of ADUe I AARP 17 Inside Spaces ADUs vary from studio apartment-like spaces to multi-bedroom,multi-story ., structures.Regardless of size,the result is a needed residence e / .. Wall Mal id j v ♦Kan independent ndsometlmes on the eloc ADU numown Malcom and Lrc@eaaind uningontnectionsm a an In.- heaven, ire footagersandsomerimesan the local aping code or cesand a the are (Wp)oia smalltilbutfunnettions—an ADU might derhorefrkitchen with drenched A.0 appliances and a dining area(bp)or umalierbutfun<tional kitchenette. g TM1Ia LRerior(afrom MedMacM1¢d PDU plttur¢d below rlgMand on[M1abe<L COven Fun faRgcaM cloattand ♦Atopfloor ADU can be asuitable rental tura student or someone wbotravels a lot rorwork.ADU expert he ours kltcnensM1elvingarebulltlnathebase ofthe<ircular stalrctus.In asmall M1amq everybit ofspece counts! pet¢nongrew up in a home with an Met,ADU that wacusu011y r¢ncetl to law school opd¢nts.'They fee.Walk up the primary house's interior seams in order to access theaffordable otic unft"he writes in sacWwr I Reuolutioa The Defininre Guide to ADU Deubpment ye "Over the ars that each of them lived there,are pounds becamn epaofmarfamlly." £ B r Lq ,' f 8 g /g, E L 3 p s � s ♦TM1e k,v l9 and this internal ADU(also seen atthe ♦are se<ontlstory lrows thistl Int the ADU is xcesetl topof pag¢9mdlneM1ebMroom Image atlef[)has a by Meapinlsuirc0seshown mtbelmage at top.The ♦lfie alcoves lntMADU areaabore agange pmvidea ♦TM1h#udb ap0r[men[iMemal ApU useaawvdrobe U full-shetl range but mini-refrlgerao.some ADU space feat abedra and a string moss Mx aultl light-11ledworkspace In one,and a readingnook in the cabinetmseparau NebetlrmmfromthellWnguea sollaoneaarrno-bumerelectriaookrop be metl aaanursery,aKcear den.Arull-siutl, otM1ec(SutM1e rttazM1etl ADUYeuerbran page 3J and krt<Fen been on page l9). - t and.comettion mic'.in Hessian own, stacked washer-dryer is hidden pubind a cbset door. 18 AARP I TM1e ABCsof ADUs The ABCsof ADUs I PAPP 19 Just One More While not technically ADUs,tiny houses can serve a similar purpose Because tiny houses analytically built on a tralerwith wheels rather than afixed foundatian,Mey are usually treated by zoning as nonmedical afthicles(RVs)or manufactured(aka mobile)homes.In Portland,Oregon,and agrewing number of smaller cities,tiny houses can be legally Occupied on any residentially-toned lot.Since they're small—typically under 400 squarefeet—tiny houses can Flt in a space too small for an Allo Many include a kitchen and bathroom.Some function more like a detached bedroom.A unique plus:Unlike ADUS,tiny houses can move to a new location as needed. age . Th L ckyP y y a'enwenceftanson g fif a smash The ABCs of ADUS P Dd q ie ff g pea. Agu1&1.Accessory Dwelling Units and haw they —- The home,which is located in the expand housing Blvd.—for People of all no. n. backyard of a s ndr mon ly features a a shower,lout bed, aV ElSpeed.ownw Orange Sp of LLC Me 55a5tanton,APPPLIvebk Communitles AftOIRE� a storage, Pro a Name built-in Phater,crown Pah,mc atorags antl three large wintlows capVEanoa.car Pm¢nomAPT maaYG}Iarv:Strve Walkmrlak plusskylight to Provide lob of n mlight oreal,A^igomEOireRor lrvdbleaC1tmmunine,PAF P Daemment affeet -- farm Chappl,p.oreasoc on 1 of cnuomla Beleky - eT ADus are sometimes used as Lim au—nd,numus,Mal,co,selma shoe rental is for earner vng and m onih Ow ellecl Pole,a rss, nntg Clift,. _ naveitres.TM1el"KangaElue,"is Romelarwqcola,net,l—lyowanpgs.cgla+ ,A¢eaaoryDwelung Strmegi¢LX.PonlMd,oregw �2 of several units At G,—n,tM1�e 0<n^ee Pinkson,Parmen TMH Partners IE mdd'sNrt tiny house realA[ TrYpning,(Pas)Prinel l March Anotat Settawry,U 5,H...to and Yrban Development 170 Square feet,the home Is the Ake cagmann,Assstam PMen,ynlnnity of Teves at Austin largest tiny house on the lots—'PrnMssa..on,an located 1.the cull,nelgnbmir Ifteat AssidweenI cammunxe : l< mng"Al l Fawe"Y"YAFgs crg l a+ n aP l aenamMaere•gs.nq .Pn Y'd"Y,anm m !S of Portland,Oregtn.The tiny aasW ktlV NNMAou¢mlFnSp<v+M,o:mgzpbe cI RIVYI<rSmu,Polp en ort&ovgn LLc spec includes a k itcn¢n,Rvmg Er canymafine mowareaa and pmleat Yor lain 11.A mouwnne film amark.,,ere.Year Ye-Itnmm Jm'T mnmpr�e<.Inuamatn aim.am<.<tinaga:a<mmmnma«antnewamnnln. aabken)a m slnn kaft.YAYer anetoilat)altd asleep loft To learn more about ADUS—And to ortler or download this guitle—visit AgUnoorglUesuble. Other useful resources lnci d: . A Acassory0welengs,org Bmfdingaeapucam aekoaar • Phnnill$org(tn¢Websi[¢gf[he Ameriean Plmning ASSociaHon) mlrom:w,yn..ewue..w.nromlwww y+u*n.<.nmwws.Ws And me websitesl stEmc cities and towns mentioned in this guitle as allowing and encouraging the cr¢ationofacmuorydwellingunits. ill AARP I The ABCSo{ApUs ( \ F 1 �a r i ABOVE-GARAGE ADU DETACHED-BEDROOM ADU DETACHED ADU • An accessory dwelling unit is a small residence that shares a single-family lot with a larger primary dwelling. earn more about ADUs and • As an independent living space,an ADU is self-contained, with its own kitchen or kitchenette, bathroom and The ABCs of ADUs living/sleeping area. (Garage apartments and backyard cottages are each a type of ADU.) • ADUs can enable homeowners to provide needed housing for their parents,adult children,grandchildren or other loved ones. Sign u eekly • An ADU can provide older adults a way to downsize on their own property while a tenant or family member resides in the larger house. Be am` h whd • Since homeowners can legally rent out an ADU house or AARP releases more livability apartment,ADUs are an often-essential income source. ides an • ADUs help to improve housing affordability and diversify W a community's housing stock without changing the physical character of a neighborhood. • ADUs are a beneficial —and needed — housing option for people of all ages. Dzo473 �, b Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ23-0001) Ordinance No. Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage housing affordability by adjusting standards for Accessory Apartments. (REZ23-0001) Whereas, the City first adopted an Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2016; and Whereas, the Action Plan recommended considering regulatory changes to the Zoning Code, including permitting more building types by right; and Whereas, City Council adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study in 2019 (Resolution 19-225) after disseminating information, soliciting public input, and holding a public meeting on its analysis, identified impediments, and recommendations; and Whereas, the Study recommended exploring ways to increase the density and types of housing allowed especially in low density, single-family residential zones; and Whereas, City Council adopted an updated Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2022 after reviewing new data and engaging the community to build off efforts in support of affordable housing; and Whereas, the 2022 Action Plan recommended increasing the number and/or type of dwelling units allowed by right in single-family residential zones, including Accessory Dwelling Units; and Whereas, City Council further drew upon previous analysis and community engagement to establish priorities in its FY23-FY28 Strategic Plan (Resolution 22-304), which includes advancing prioritized recommendations from the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan; and Whereas, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan encourages a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and people of all incomes and promotes identifying and supporting infill development opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place; and Whereas, the City's zoning code implements the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the adopted policy direction, adopted actions, and recommendations of the Fair Housing Choice Study, Affordable Housing Action Plan, and Iowa City Strategic Plan; and Whereas, the proposed amendments provide flexibility to Accessory Dwelling Unit standards to enhance the supply of housing; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the zoning code amendments set forth below and recommended approval by a vote of 4-3 at its meeting on October 4, 2023. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: Ordinance No. Page 2 A. Amend Table 14-2H-3B-2: Accessory Uses in Section 14-2H-3: Form -based Zones and Standards, Use Standards, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Table 14-2H-3113-2: Accessory Uses Use T3NE T3NG T3NG- T41NIS T4NS- T4NM T4NM- T4MS Specific Categories O O O Standards Accessory PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR Dwelling Units ADUs ADUs AGGeSseFy apaFtmeRts attached to the primary building must comply with sub- section 14-4C-2A. ADUs that are detached from the primary building units must comply with the carriage house requirements, see sub -section 14-2H-6C. B. Amend 14-2H-6C: Form -based Zones and Standards, Building Type Standards, Carriage House, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: 1. Description: a. An accessory structure located at the rear of a design site, above the garage, that provides a small residential unit (accessory dwelling unit fit), home office space, or other small commercial or service use, as allowed by the zone. The carriage house is an accessory building type, not a primary building type. 3. Building Size And Massing: c. Standards: (2) Carriage house must comply with the ownership and occupancy standards of sub -section 14-4C-2A (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) A ents). C. Amend 14-4A-3A-4: Residential Use Categories, Household Living Uses, Exceptions, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: c. Single family uses that contain accessory dwelling units a^s are not considered a two family use. D. Amend 14-4C-2: Accessory Uses and Buildings, Specific Approval Criteria, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: A. Accessory Dwelling Units ADUs : ADUs are permitted iR the —RS-5, RS 9, RS 12,RM 12, R20 RNIR 29 Zne-r eGGHp ed detaGhed single family dwelliRgs and ZeFo let line dwellings and iR buildings aGsesserT-te these cane dwelling typ , provided the following conditions are met: 1. Applicability: The ADU shall be located in a zone that allows household living uses and shall be accessory to a principal use that consists of no more than two (2) dwelling units on a lot. Ordinance No. Page 3 2. Ownership And OssUpaney: a. The owner of the property on which an ADU aGGe6sery apaFtmen is located must occupy at least one of the dwelling units on the premises as the permanent legal resident. b. The ADU aGGGssery apaFtMeR and the principal dwelling use must be under the same ownership. eX 3. Site Requirements: a. Only one ADU aGGe66GFY apartmen may be established per single-family lot. b. G. The minimum lot size and area per unit requirements of the underlying base zone must be met, but no additional lot area is required beyond that which is required for the principal dwelling URit use. 4. Design Requirements: a. — — . The ADU must be a complete, separate dwelling unit that functions independently from the principal SiRgle family dwelliRg 61 use. It must contain its own kitchen and bathroom facilities, in addition to a separate entrance from the exterior. c. When located within a building with an existing t#e principal use dwelling, the ADU must be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of an allowed use within that zone, and any new entrances) teR nornont 1,1not Eexterior finish materials, trim, windows, and eaves must visually match the principal use dwelling ae+t. 5. Apartment Size: The floor area of the ADU assessery URi may not exceed fiftyr t# q percent (530%) of the total floor area of the principal use dwelling, excluding the area of an attached garage, or one thousand six "„mired (1,000 659) square feet, whichever is less. 0 E. Amend 14-86-1: Administrative Approval Procedures, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: Reserved • ApartmeRt ReRtal '- Ordinance No. Page 4 . r101011011 IN WO 1P I . . F1 • . R 1 IL . r I • . F. Amend 14-9A-1: General Definitions, Definitions, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) APARTMENTS: An temperaFy accessory dwelling unit located within an owner occupied, single-family or duplex use #tee or in an accessory building and meeting the requirements of this title. G. Amend 17-5-3: Housing Code, Definitions, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU): A ternperaFy dwelling unit that is accessory to an owner -occupied single-family or duplex use dwelling. H. Amend 17-5-18: Housing Code, Minimum Structure Standards for All Rental Housing, by adding the following underlined text and deleting the following text with a strikethrough: L. Bedrooms; Maximum Allowed: Bedrooms cannot exceed thirty five percent (35%) of the finished floor area of a single-family dwelling, of duplex unit, or accessory dwelling unit, not including floor area of a recreation room in the basement. Any existing single family or duplex unit that contained lawful bedroom space that exceeded this percentage cap prior to January 1, 2018 may continue to be used as bedroom space. However, additional bedroom space may not be added unless the unit is brought into full compliance with this standard. This dimensional standard is subject to administrative review. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Ordinance No. Page 5 Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2023. Approved by ' City Attorney' iice— (Sara Hektoen—11/02/2023) Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas First Consideration 11/06/2023 Vote for Passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration Date Published: Item Number: 10.c. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled "Rules of the Road," Section 6, entitled "Speed Restrictions," Subsection C, entitled "School Speed Zones," to modify the 20 MPH school speed zone for Dodge Street. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Sarah Walz, Associate Transportation Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner Jason Havel, City Engineer Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director Fiscal Impact: None. Staff Recommendation: Approval Commission Recommendations: N/A Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: The existing 20 MPH school speed zone on Dodge Street extends from 350 feet north of Church Street to a point 250 feet south of Church Street, which is at the intersection of Dodge Street and Fairchild Street. At the request of Horace Mann Elementary School, a new marked school crossing was recently established at the Dodge Street / Fairchild Street intersection. Moving the southern terminus of the school speed zone to a place further south of the new school crossing at Fairchild Street will better ensure the safety of pedestrians using the crossing. Background / Analysis: The attached ordinance reflects the change to the terminus of the school speed zone from a point 250 feet south of Church Street to a point 200 feet south of Fairchild Street. Ordinance No. 23-4915 Ordinance amending Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled "Rules of the Road," Section 6, entitled "Speed Restrictions," Subsection C, entitled "School Speed Zones," to modify the 20 MPH school speed zone for Dodge Street. Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to define maximum allowable speeds for vehicles on public streets and highways; Whereas, the current school speed zone on Dodge Street ends 250 feet south of Church Street; and Whereas, at the request of Horace Mann Elementary School, a new school crossing was recently established at the Fairchild Street and Dodge Street intersection; and Whereas, relocating the terminus of the 20 MPH school speed zone further south of the newly established marked crossing will provide a safer area of crossing for children traveling to and from school; and Whereas, in order to correct a typo in the current ordinance, the word "effect" should be amended to "effective". Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendment 1. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled "Rules of the Road," Section 6, entitled "Speed Restrictions," Sub -Section C, entitled "School Speed Zones" is hereby amended as follows: Name of Street Where Limit Applies Dodge Street From 350 feet north of Church Street to a point 250 200 feet south of Spars# Fairchild Street effective.... Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication. Page 1 of 2 Ordinance No. 23-4915 Page 2 Passed and approved this 6t1 day of Nnkipmhpr , 2023. C Ma or CS l Attest: I� A i o � LCC C City Clerk Approved by G�� City Attorney's ffice — 10/10/2023 Page 2 of 2 Ordinance No. 23-4915 Page 3 It was moved b) Bergus and seconded by Alter Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas that the First Consideration 10 / 17 / 2023 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration ------ Date Published: 11 / 16 / 2023 Moved by Taylor, seconded by Dunn, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived, and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Item Number: 10.d. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT November 6, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 16, entitled "Public Works", Chapter 3, "City Utilities", Article C, "Potable Water Use and Service", Section 1, "Definitions", and Section 3, "Connection to Distribution Water Main". (Pass & Adopt) Prepared By: Reviewed By: Fiscal Impact: Staff Recommendation: Commission Recommendations: Attachments: Ordinance Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Jon Durst, Water Superintendent Liz Craig, Assistant City Attorney Sara Greenwood-Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney Geoff Fruin, City Manager None Approval N/A Executive Summary: Water service lines are privately owned underground water pipes that connect homes or buildings to the City's drinking water distribution main. Some service lines are made of lead or galvanized iron that have been exposed to lead, which leads to lead deposits. The EPA has found that lead in drinking water is known to cause health problems. The proposed ordinance amendment will amend the City Code to promote the removal of lead and galvanized iron contaminated by lead from water service lines connected to the potable water system by prohibiting the repair of lead service lines and requiring full replacement of lead service lines when they develop a leak or other defect. Background / Analysis: Lead is naturally occurring metal and is known to be toxic. Lead and lead -containing materials exist in some Iowa City water service lines due to the materials used at the time of construction. Additionally, when water service lines are made of galvanized iron, the line may become contaminated by lead that is upstream in the water distribution system. Iowa City's current ordinances require property owners to maintain their water service lines at their own expense from the water meter on private property to the point of connection to the City's drinking water distribution main. This includes repairing leaks or defects in the service line. A partial repair of a lead service line causes a disturbance in the line that has been shown to increase lead levels in drinking water. The drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan highlighted the importance of lead abatement at the local level. In 2021 the EPA passed revisions to federal drinking water regulations that require drinking water systems to implement methods for lead service line removal and educating residents on the sources of lead in drinking water. In the interest of public health and to adhere to the EPA's new drinking water regulations, this proposed ordinance amendment will prohibit the repair, partial replacement, or reconnection of a lead service line to a distribution water main. Any lead service line that develops a leak or other defect must be fully replaced with lead-free materials in lieu of repair. The owner is required to report the replacement prior to commencing work, and the cost of the replacement is the responsibility of the property owner. The effective date of this ordinance amendment is January 1, 2024. Staff is cognizant of the expense that property owners bear when replacing a lead service line, whether that replacement is voluntary or involuntary. Some homeowners' insurance policies cover this cost in certain situations. As part of the City's efforts to reduce the financial impact on property owners, staff will be presenting Council with a related agenda item at this meeting asking Council to consider authorizing an agreement with Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc. for the marketing of service line protection plans. These plans offer property owners the opportunity to purchase optional service line repair plans from a third -party service provider. An exterior water service line plan covers the cost of the replacement of a leaking or defective lead service line up to $8500 per service call. Additionally, at the third reading of this proposed ordinance amendment, staff will ask Council to consider a resolution authorizing the use of ARPA funds to fund a Lead Reduction Program that will offer cost -sharing assistance to help property owners pay for the replacement of lead service lines. Prepared by: Ronald Knoche, Public Works Director, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5138 Ordinance no. 2-1_4Ai h Ordinance amending Title 16, entitled "Public Works", Chapter 3, "City Utilities", Article C, "Potable Water Use and Service", Section 1, "Definitions", and Section 3, "Connection to Distribution Water Main" Whereas, water service lines are privately owned underground water pipes that connect homes or buildings to the City's drinking water distribution main; and Whereas, water service lines. also include stop boxes, pipes, tapping saddles, sleeves, connectors, and valves between the distribution water main and the point of service or building served; and Whereas, under Iowa City Code Section 16-3C-3(C), water service lines are to be maintained at the expense of the private property owner from the point of connection on private property to the City's drinking water distribution main; and Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found there is no safe level of exposure to lead, and lead in drinking water has been determined to cause health problems in young children, pregnant women and their unborn children, and is also potentially harmful to adults; and Whereas, when water service lines are made of lead, they may become significant contributors to lead contamination of drinking water or create lead deposits within galvanized iron pipes; and Whereas, the disturbance of lead water service lines, particularly partial lead service line replacement, has been shown to increase lead levels in drinking water; and Whereas, full replacement of lead service lines, as opposed to partial replacement, can reduce exposure to lead in drinking water; and Whereas, it is in the public interest and for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare to prohibit the repair, partial replacement, or reconnection of existing lead services lines or lead contaminated galvanized iron service lines, and instead require full replacement of any lead service line that is requiring repair; and Whereas, the City desires to amend the City Code to promote the removal of lead and galvanized iron contaminated by lead connected to the potable water system. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendment. Title 16, Chapter 3, Article C, Section 1 entitled "Definitions", is amended by adding the underlined text as follows: Lead Service Line: A lead service line is a pipe laid from the distribution water main to the point of service or building served that contains any lead piping, fittings, fixtures, solder, connectors, goosenecks, pigtails, or galvanized iron pipes that are or were downstream of a lead service line. Ordinance No. 23-4916 Page 2 Full Lead Service Line Replacement: The replacement of the entire length of the lead service line such that the service line is lead-free, as defined by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 40 CFR 143.12. Title 16, Chapter 3, Article C, Section 3 entitled "Connection to Distribution Water Main", is amended by adding the underlined text and deleting the strike -through text as follows: C. Maintenance Of Service: All service lines shall be maintained at the expense of the owner of the property. Any leak or other defect in the service line shall be promptly repaired or replaced by the owner, as set forth in this section. If not repaired or replaced promptly, the water may, after written notice to the owner, be turned off by the city until such repairs or replacement have been made. E. Repair or reconnection prohibited: Repair, partial replacement, or reconnection of a lead service line to a distribution water main is prohibited. F. Lead service line replacement requirement: Any lead service line that develops a leak or other defect shall require a full lead service line replacement in lieu of repair. The method of connection at the distribution water main shall comply with the City's adopted tapping policies and approved materials. The owner shall report to the Iowa City Water Division any planned lead service line replacement prior to commencing work. The cost of such replacement shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. The effective date of this ordinance is January 1, 2024. Passed and approved this 6th day of November Mayr r 1 Attest: o Cit Clerk 2023. Approved by City Attor y's Office (Liz Craig - 09/27/2023) Ordinance No. 23-4916 Page 3 It was moved by Harmsen and seconded by Dunn Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: rI NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas that the First Consideration 10/03/2023 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: Harmsen Second Consideration 10 / 17 / 2023 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Date published 11 / 16 / 2023