Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-01 TranscriptionSeptember 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page I Council Present: Staff Present: Others Present: Botchway, Dickens, Dobyns (arrived 5:25 P.M.), Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton Markus, Fruin, Moran, Dilkes, Karr, Andrew, Bockenstedt, Boothroy, Morris, Hightshoe, Ford, Yapp, Howard, Ralston, O'Brien Neal (UISG) Questions from Council re: Agenda Items: Hayek/ Okay, it's 5:00. I want to welcome everyone to City Hall. We'll start our September 1, 2015 work session. First bullet point is questions regarding agenda items. ITEM 3f(10) Traffic Engineering Planner: Installation of 5 on -street metered parking spaces and establishment of parking meter terms on the east side of the 300 block of North Linn Street, and installation of 2 on -street metered parking spaces on north side of the 200 block of East Bloomington Street. Establish a 2 AM — 6 AM TOW AWAY ZONE for both banks of metered parking spaces. (deferred from August 18 meeting) Karr/ Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to note that Consent Calendar Item 3f(10), uh, on the (mumbled) regarding parking meters on Bloomington Street will be pulled off the Consent Calendar and deferred indefinitely, and come back to Council at a later time. Hayek/ All right. That's 3f(10). I will, uh, tee up the motion... Karr/ Thank you. Hayek/ ...in that respe... in that way. ITEM 3d(2) SENIOR CENTER FIRE ALARM - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY: SENIOR CENTER FIRE ALARM SYSTEM PROJECT. Payne/ I have a question on 3d(2). It's the Senior Center fire alarm. It has the project bid, but it doesn't say the cost. Is the cost the bid? Morris/ Yes it is. Payne/ Okay. Thanks! ITEM 3f(4) Andy Johnson, Johnson County Executive Assistant: Minimum Wage — Ordinance Establishing Local Minimum Wage — Draft 8-19-15 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 2 Hayek/ So ... 3f(4) is the memo from Andy Johnson, um, minimum wage. So looks, you know, we've talked about this briefly without getting into it as a Council. Looks like the County is going to complete its readings of the ... of the ordinance, um, which as I understand it will apply to the entire county, except any municipalities that take other action. Um, and I think we need to get that scheduled for some work session, uh, discussion here. Urn ... I would suggest we do that, but I ... I think I ... what I'd also like to see ... I mean given the ... you know, in light of the County Attorney memo, and then the commentary we're hearing from the State, at least as far as I've read through the, um ... through the media, I ... I think the ... the legality or the perceived legality of this ordinance is in question ... and I think, uh, I mean I would recommend that in advance of whenever we talk about this we get from our ... from Eleanor's office, uh, an opinion as to, uh, their assessment of the likelihood that this County ordinance would be upheld if it's challenged. Mims/ I would agree. (noises on mic) Botchway/ Me too. Throgmorton/ Well, clearly it's going to be contested. Uh, and ... I assume that Eleanor could provide, uh, very useful legal feedback. Uh, I'd be surprised if that feedback said it's unclear what (mumbled) the, uh, contestation would work out legally. Depends on the judges, etc., and the decisions they render, but ... I'm not the attorney. Mims/ You say, Jim, that clearly it's going to be contested. Have you, I mean, have you heard of (both talking) businesses (both talking) Throgmorton/ Well, you know, colloquially I would say dollars ... I'd bet dollars to donuts ... that it wou... that it'll be contested in the courts. Do I know that as a fact? No. Botchway/ Well and ... I won't speak to that point, but kind of (mumbled) related ... I .... I received communication from I know one business that wanted to talk to me and I didn't have a chance just because the ... the start of school and everything. Urn ... so I mean (clears throat) as we think about it, you know ... I know that they didn't necessarily have any conversations with any area businesses, along those lines, and so ... I ... I think it would behoove me (both talking) Hayek/ I think you all need to speak louder (both talking) picking us up. Is it all of us or just Kingsley? Karr/ No, it's all of it coming through the speaker. I can ... record it but we can't hear it within the room. (several talking, noises on mic) Markus/ I think Kingsley's was working (several talking) Botchway/ ...pretty loud right there! Hayek/ Sorry! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 3 Karr/ We're adjusting it right now. Botchway/ Oh! Okay. I ... I just think it would behoove us a little bit to have some type of conversation, at least, I mean I don't know where the Chamber stands on this, and again, I just want to kind of...since they would be directly affected, I mean, I would want to kind of know their... feelings on the matter, along those lines. Again, this is just from the email, you know, I received and ... and I read it. I haven't responded to it, but ... Urn, it just brought up some good points that I ... I know publicly from just the reports haven't been considered. So... Throgmorton/ I received a similar email and I assume it's from the same business person. I don't know that, but uh... uh, I replied something like, um, we have not had any substantive discussion about it, uh....it...it seems to me that we would benefit from hearing your particular views, and uh.... the ... the business owner conveyed his general views pretty clearly, I thought, in that email, but not the particulars, so... Hayek/ Yeah. Throgmorton/ Yeah, I think course we'd want to hear particular details. Botchway/ In one of the points that was brought up in some of the public discussion, urn ... that I, and I don't know if it got past over or whatever the case may be, um, was in working with people with disabilities and the Medicaid requirements and along those lines, and ... there's a couple of organizations and one that I (mumbled) particular 'Reach Your Potential' that, um, you know, there's ... I ... there, I don't know if there was a lack of consideration in ... in talking with those... Systems Unlimited, uh, Reach Your Potential, those organizations that would have ... a ... a detrimental effect with people with disabilities, and so you know there's.... there's different levels of it and you know, um... Hayek/ Uh huh. Botchway/ ...I just want to make sure that we're, you know again because it's within our city limits, we're making sure that we're paying attention to those things, especially when it comes to ... well, obviously because I had a job there, I feel personally biased in that way, but .... there's some considerations there that ... I just ... I just would hope that ... I just ... I wish would hope that (mumbled) wouldn't have to close down or we would have to have other people ... there would be people with disabilities that wouldn't necessarily have the, um ... um ... supervision, whatever... whatever comes from that, in that part. Dilkes/ Well... there... there are a number of...the ... the County ordinance adopts the State code provision, which adopts essentially the federal, uh, exemptions from the Minimum Wage Act and then lowers some of the requirements. So I thought as part of my memo I would give ... I would explain what those exceptions are. Botchway/ Great! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 4 Dilkes/ Um, cause that may handle a lot of the conversation, and then just ... one clarification. I mean I .... I don't have to do a memo to tell you I think an argument can be made. I'm assuming you want an opinion from me as to how ... likely I think it is... Hayek/ Yeah! Dilkes/ ...will succeed. Mims/ Yeah. Hayek/ I think it'd be helpful. Mims/ I do too. Hayek/ (mumbled) (several responding) Okay! Other ... agenda items? ITEM 5a REZONING BENTON ST / RIVERSIDE DRIVE — ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.45 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) TO RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS - WEST RIVERFRONT (RFC -WR) ZONE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BENTON STREET AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE (REZ15-00015) Payne/ I had a question on 5a, which is the Kum n' Go. Can I ask about that or ... (both talking) Hayek/ Uh, that's ... uh, that's formal only. Payne/ Okay! I can ask at the formal. It's not a big deal. It's not a huge question. Hayek/ Stop talking about 5a please! (laughter) Other agenda items? Mims/ No. Really short! Hayek/ Well we've whittled away some of our, uh, vacancies on those commissions, which is nice to see. Throgmorton/ Except for the Airport, which now has a new vacancy I guess. (several responding) Hayek/ And... Jefferson Street, which... Payne/ Never has been (laughter) Hayek/ I'm not even going to ask how long that's been open! Throgmorton/ Sorry, I ... I don't know whether to speak loudly ... or speak in normal voice to you? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 5 Markus/ That's pretty good right now. (several talking) Throgmorton/ So project some, right? Yeah, okay. Review recommendations from the Ad Hoc Riverfront Crossings Inclusionary Housing Work Committee. Hayek/ Okay, let's move on to, uh, the second item, review recommendations from the Ad Hoc Riverfront Crossings Inclusionary Housing Work Committee. Boothroy/ (mumbled) ...icon up there. (noises on mic) Well tonight we're gonna be talking, uh, two items on your agenda about affordable housing. The first is the inclusionary housing piece, uh, and the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Work Committee. Just as a little bit of background, if you'll recall back in January (clears throat) excuse me! Back in January, uh, you gave direction to staff to proceed, uh, to look at, study the possibility of...of, uh, inclusionary housing, as a requirement, uh, in only the Riverfront Crossing area, uh, and the recommendation that has come back from the Committee is a unanimous recommendation, uh, and it is only for the Riverfront Crossing area, and that was important to, uh (mumbled) to a consensus that it be limited to only that particular area. Urn ... the, um ... one of the things I wanted to point out is the membership of the Committee again. Uh, it was a diver ... it's a diverse group. Uh, we had representatives from various, urn ... uh.... individuals that are both in the for-profit and non -for, uh, profit, uh, construction of residential, development of residential, uh, properties. Tracy Achenbach with the Trust Fund; Maryann Dennis is a non-profit with the Fellowship; uh, Chad is a representative of the Home Builders Association, past President. We had somebody from a ... a banker involved so that we could deal with the aspects of financing, because this all comes down to money at the end of the day in terms of whether you can afford to provide the affordable housing, and Brad has worked with the City, as well as some of these other, uh, folks in the past with regard to, uh, tax credits and different types of projects that have affordable housing, he had a good understanding. Scott with the Iowa Valley Habitat Humanity Chair. Sally Scott with the Affordable Homes Coalition, and Glenn Siders, uh, now with Siders Development, but ... before that for ... decades with, uh, Southgate Development and, uh, they have experience, uh, with various types of affordable housing, and we've worked with them on Broadway and some other places in town, uh... where they've done some development. So this was a very good group, with lots of experience, lots of expertise. We came together, uh, we had about six or seven meetings and we came, as I said, uh... uh, to a unanimous decision about the principles we're going to talk about in just a moment. I wanted to start tonight by giving a, uh, for the record a little background about, uh, we have documented the need for affordable housing. We have documented the need that, or the idea that inclusionary housing is one option for, uh, beginning to develop and meet that need for affordable housing, and for the record, uh, the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and the Riverfront Crossing Plan both support measures to increase the supply of affordable housing. So this discussion tonight is consistent with some of that. Those recommendations and those findings. It's also consistent with the 2016-2020 City STEPS. Um, it's also what 2014 analysis, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 6 'Impediments to Fair Housing,' and the, uh, 2014 Metropolitan Planning Organization update to 2007 market analysis. So there's been a lot of studies, recent studies, that have supported that we ... that affordable housing is a growing need and that there are different options to get there and the option we're talking about tonight is one of those options. Uh... in getting to the recommendation, I just wanted to mention also the fact when the Committee was getting in ... prepared to have their conversation, uh, I think everybody recognized it was important to increase the production of affordable housing and that it be relatively permanent, and you'll see that in the recommendation, that it be as achievable, uh, and that, uh... uh, that it be achievable in a way that would be, uh, no significant net increase in cost to the developer. So the recommendations are ... are a consensus that we believe, as a group, are, uh, workable and uh, make sense. I also wanted to go back to the staff ...the staffing of this also. This Committee included Sara Hektoen from the Legal Department and John Yapp, so we had legal counsel, uh, at the meetings as well, so I wanted to make sure you knew that. So let's ... step through these principles and, uh, if you have any, uh, questions, uh... we'll talk about them as we go through them. Uh, the Committee has recommended that ... that you move forward with the inclusionary housing provision in the Riverfront Crossing area only, and that it be based on the principles that they've recommended. This, uh, there are other things that can be done. These are general principles. As we get into writing the ordinance, a lot of detail is going to have to be flushed out, uh, getting to some, you know, getting these in place, uh, so that they can work. So first principle is ... is that it ... uh, we already have a policy that, uh, when we use public financing, TIF, that we require a 10%. This would, uh, make it, uh, official in the sense that there would be a document, uh, memorializing that when TIF is being used for developments, any development — whether it's student development or elderly housing development or any development in the Riverfront Crossing area, where the City is providing public dollars, there will be a requirement for inclusionary housing. So, all residential development, uh, is covered, and then the other thing is that when property is zoned to Riverfront Crossing designation, uh, that ... at that point in time if there's any development under that designation, cause not all the property in the Riverfront Crossing is zoned Riverfront Crossing at this point. Some of it's still CI -1. Some of it's still ... maybe CC -2, but when they rezone to take advantage of the density, and advantage of the uses allowed in the Riverfront Crossing and some of the other setback and flexibility, at that point in time one of the requirements would be that part of that zone is that they have inclusionary housing, uh, as....as a standard they have to meet. Payne/ (several talking) I have a question (several talking and laughing) Boothroy/ One at a time (laughs) Mims/ My guess is we might all be the same one! (laughs) Um ... as a Council we rezoned ... part of that area already to Riverfront Crossings. Boothroy/ And this would apply to that area as well. Mims/ Okay! That was my question. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 7 Payne/ My question is ... the first bullet up there, does it mean if it's in the Riverfront Crossings area, or is it apply to the entire city? Boothroy/ We were just dealing with the Riverfront Crossing area. Payne/ Okay. Boothroy/ That's the ... that was our charge. It was only ... now we have I think as a policy, uh, have... expanded it outside, such as the project across the street, but ... but, uh, in general it ... uh, we were just looking at the Riverfront Crossing area. That's what the recommendation is dealing with. Payne/ My question is is will somebody read this in five years and not be able to interpret it because it doesn't say... Boothroy/ Well, we're going to codify this and so it's going to get more specific. Payne/ Okay! Boothroy/ Yeah. Dilkes/ Just one note in response to your question, Susan. It'll apply if there's been no, you know (both talking) Boothroy/ ....yeah, if you've already approved something, it won't be retroactive. Yeah. Throgmorton/ There was a third question, Doug. Boothroy/ (both talking) Well Susan said you were all (both talking) Mims/ I thought we might have the same one! (laughs) Throgmorton/ No, turns out we don't! (laughs) Uh, you ... you mentioned, I don't know, housing for disabled people or whatever in your statement, and you said ... uh, this applies to all forms of residential housing, but it....later in the document there's an explicit exemption of disabled and elderly housing. Boothroy/ That would be for non -financed, uh, publicly financed. Throgmorton/ For just rezoning? Boothroy/ Uh, yes. If there were no public dollars involved, that's where that exception... and we'll talk about that when we get to it, but... Throgmorton/ Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 8 Boothroy/ ...but any time the City is giving dollars... providing financing to make up that gap, and having a Developer's Agreement, there's going to be a requirement. Okay? Regardless of the type of residential use. And we expect a lot of the density, uh... uh, that's how a lot of people are going to get to some of their ... being able to build some of this density down there because they're going to be bigger buildings, taller buildings, and they're going to be seeking some kind of, uh, gap financing ... in many areas. So one of the things ... our policy now is 10%. One of the things that the Committee looked at is ... is, uh... uh, that, uh, as a floor, uh, for-uh, that would be in the ordinance, that when the City, uh, is involved in doing any kind of financing, that instead of a 10% floor or ... or standard, we'd have a no less than 15% of the residential units must be affordable and for not less than 20 years. The idea was that, uh... exactly what I said — it's a floor during the Developer's Agreement or as you look at each project on a very specific base, and look at the financial cap ... capacity of that project, you could go more than 20 years. You could go 30. You could go like we did with The Rise, uh... uh... for an indefinite period of time, but the feeling was that ... that flexibility should be built in and it would be up to the Council at the time to negotiate the Developer Agreement if they wanted to go beyond these minimums. So these are just minimums, uh, to get us to (mumbled) 15% is ... is a number that, uh, we came up with that ... which is a number that's not uncommon throughout the country for requiring affordable housing. Uh, and that ... that's kinda how that number came about. Dickens/ If the TIF's paid off ahead of time, it still goes back to the minimum of 20 years then? Boothroy/ It can't be less than 20. Payne/ (several talking) ...whichever is longer. (several talking) Boothroy/ Or if you... negotiate something longer than that, uh, it could be...it could be even longer than that, depending on what the Developer's Agreement looks like. Hayek/ Was there any analysis done of...of what, you know, any financial forecasting of...of the TIF, uh, cost to us or the subsidy required to get ... to a 15% versus a 10 or a 20? (both talking) Boothroy/ Uh, Tom Jackson was ... was in our meetings to look at some of the ... we did look at numbers and stuff like that. It is going to cost you more, uh... I, you know, my recollection is that it...it...we believe that the gap, the City was just going to have to pay ... make up that difference, uh, for that 15% if a TIF is involved. I don't have any numbers for you to talk about, but we did talk about, you know, the longer it goes and uh, in particular, even the percentage's is maybe not as critical as the length of time, uh, then that gap is going to increase... significantly. So, uh... that ... that I think becomes part of the Developer's Agreement and your negotiation at the time, in terms of, you know, if you're going to require indefinite period of time, then that cost for that unit is going to go up and you're going to have to pay for it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 9 Hayek/ I'm just suggesting that, you know, whatever percentage is selected will have an impact on (both talking) on the cost and the viability of.. of projects we hope to incent. Boothroy/ Right. Hayek/ Um ... and so I would hope there's... sort ... an ... an intelligent calculus of what those factors might (both talking) Boothroy/ All I can say is it was ... with him involved and Brad involved, I think the feeling was that that is a ... that is a reasonable number and it can be done. And that's how we got there. We didn't ... there was discussion of going higher, uh, and, uh... uh, the conclusion was that this was a number that we could work with. I just don't have those ... those numbers in front of me tonight. Throgmorton/ This raises a general concern that I have, which we can come back to later, but it has to do with the interaction of density bonuses, TIF, and the affordable housing fee in lieu of. I ... I see it, the possibility of, kind of like, um ... shifting peas around under a pod, so to speak. Um ... moving ... moving the pea (laughs) I'm trying to think of the right analogy or ... moving the pea around? You know, so hide the pea, hide the bean — that's what I'm after — hide the bean. Boothroy/ Sounds better! (laughs) Throgmorton/ Yeah, it...it (laughter) Thank you, it does sound better, doesn't it? (laughter) Uh, so um ... uh, I ... I worry that with a density bonus for affordable housing, that will induce developers to build more, higher density, taller, etc., which will lead them to ask for a TIF, which ... they will then use as just ... and they'll use the affordable housing fee in lieu of or committing themselves to, uh, building affordable units, as further justification for, uh, a TIF, uh, and ... and then they ... or they may end up making a payment in lieu of, uh, affordable housing units, which in the end we would be paying for full stop! Boothroy/ Well I think it's fair to say that ... that, uh, in our discussions, uh, the expectation is that, uh, in many cases, uh, the City'll probably pay for the affordable housing. Throgmorton/ So when one talks about a developer making a payment in lieu of affordable units ... there is the risk that that will sound as if the developer's making a payment, but in fact the City would be making a payment that in turn would become a payment in lieu of. Hayek/ And I had that concern. I'm looking at the note I made. It's, you know, if pay fee in lieu and get TIF, is that an efficient approach, because we're essentially... Boothroy/ (several talking) Hayek/ ...potentially supplying the money with which they make the pay (both talking) Markus/ It fall ... it falls into the gap potentially (both talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 10 Boothroy/ Yes! Markus/ ...there's a way to address that. You ... this is just a discussion item at this point. We still have an ordinance to pass. Throgmorton/ Right. Markus/ One thing you could do is you could control how much of that payment in lieu thereof would be eligible for gap. Pay a percentage of that. As a part of your ordinance. Throgmorton/ Well, I raise it as a concern, not ... not something we can resolve right here and right now. Boothroy/ And remember that the ... the, uh, the way this is set up. The rental is ... is (several talking) is required to provide on site, uh, whereas the owner -occupied, uh, have the option, and so, uh... Hayek/ Right. Boothroy/ ...it's not all residential, uh, construction in that area. Throgmorton/ Right. Boothroy/ Then number two, and we had a long ... we had discussion about this is ... if there's no public financing or anything like that, uh, then the ... then the 10%, 10 years was considered to be something that could be worked into the, uh.... uh, financial analysis of a private project, but to go more than that, uh, it may ... it may make the project financial... financially infeasible. And so that's how we came up with that. Payne/ Expanding on that infeasibility, so let's say that putting in the... residential affordable units, the 10% then creates the need for TIF. Now they could jump up into the 15% so we could have people say that this isn't feasible for me to do because ... I can't go up to here and this doesn't make sense financially. Boothroy/ And we have to ... we have to develop the standards for what is fina... there ... there would be criteria by which they could either opt out for fee in lieu of, or even maybe possibility, if it's not financially feasible on the site itself, but those are details that we'll have to work out when we draft the ordinance. I mean we ... those are common issues in communities that have this, to make sure that people aren't double-dipping or taking advantage of the system, and uh, inclusionary housing has been in place for ... I don't know, maybe 20, 30 years and so there's a lot of experience out there. Throgmorton/ Uh huh. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 11 Boothroy/ And I think we can get the right kind of language to fit the community, and to ... to deal with these issues. Dilkes/ I think also, I mean I wasn't ... I didn't sit in at the Committee — Sarah did — but I don't see the TIF requirements being included in an ordinance. I mean that's a ... that's a policy that the City, um, follows with respect to ... to TIF financing. An ordinance is a policy that governs the behavior of third parties and so that's where the .... where the up ... or the, you know, up -zone (both talking) Boothroy/ ...it's an option ... (both talking) Dilkes/ Yeah, but I don't... but ... I don't see us leg ... requiring ourselves to ... in an ordinance to adhere (both talking) Boothroy/ ...we weren't suggesting that. Dilkes/ ...standards, so... Boothroy/ We weren't suggesting that TIF would be codified or anything like that. Dilkes/ Right, I assume not. Boothroy/ Yeah. Next principle, this is fairly straightforward, uh, you have to have a threshold size, uh, 10 or more units would be the trigger, uh, based on, you know, the feasibility of actually making it work. Uh, and it's actually a pretty common standard nationally, uh, for getting the units, and we expect because of the density changes in the ... in this area, uh, that 10 is not going to be an area ... people aren't going to be building nine units. They're going to be trying ... the land values are going to go up; they're going to be trying to maximize. So I don't think this is an issue, but we have to start somewhere. Um ... this is, uh, requirements should be appropriate to the type of rental versus owner -occupied. Rental projects are required, and I mentioned this earlier, provide affordable units within the development unless they can come up with a (mumbled) exemption, which we'll have to figure out what that looks like. You'll have a chance to review it and we'll ... we'll, I'm sure, have a ... a discussion about that. Owner -occupied may choose to pay fee in lieu of, uh, for their affordable housing obligation or may offer for -sale units to non -profits or etc. Uh, the proceeds from the fees can be used for such things as downpayment assistance or other types of...of assistance type programs, uh, as we create a pot of money that can be used for affordable housing. One thing it's important to know and we'll see this later is that legal counsel stated that ... that all of the money that was generated from fees in lieu of must be reinvested within the district or the area where it came from. Much like our parkland, uh, fees. So we can't collect money here and go to east Iowa City and use the funds. That's not legal or advised. Neal/ Do students qualify for affordable housing in the rental projects? Boothroy/ They could. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 12 Neal/ Okay, and how would they go about that? Boothroy/ Well I think ... well, they'd have to be income -qualified, and ... and uh, we would qualify them under the same, uh, rules and regulations that we use for Section 8 or that type of existing programs. Throgmorton/ So would it be the students, or would it be the students' parents? Boothroy/ Well ... in the Section 8 program, uh...it...it depends.... they could qualify if the student's parents were low-income, but if the ... if the student parents were, uh, wealthy, uh, and the students were still living at home, they would not qualify... under the Section 8 program. Dilkes/ And we ... in our development agreements to date we've incorporated that... Boothroy/ Yeah we've got some (both talking) Dilkes/ ...qualification language so ... it ... if the student because they get .... are getting income from (both talking) Boothroy/ Their parents. Dilkes/ ...their parents, would be disqualified for Section 8. It would be the same thing. Boothroy/ So they come from a low-income family, yes. If they come from a wealthy family, probably not. Dilkes/ And that's why there's a fee in lieu option for students because your ... a lot of typical undergraduate students are not going to qualify. Boothroy/ Right. Um ... this just explains this and we'll have to get more detail on that, uh, the last sentence is that this may be provided off-site, but only within the Riverfront Crossing area, and we ... you know, there's a lot of different ways you can use this pot of money as it grows, uh, downpayment assistance was mentioned earlier. it's ... it's an opportunity, uh, to do some more creative things, uh, in the area, uh, even than maybe, uh, buy some housing in a, uh, a project that may have already met the 15% but you want to have more affordable housing in there for some reason. So ... there's a lot of things you can do with those fees. Botchway/ Question. Boothroy/ Yeah? Botchway/ Downpayment assistance wouldn't be able to be used in other areas. You'd have to use (both talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 13 Boothroy/ Yep. Uh, funds (mumbled) create an affordable housing fund for the sole purpose of supporting affordable housing in the Riverfront Crossing area. It's kind of a repeat of...what I've covered already. Um, and a number of different ways that that can be. Uh, I think it would really be a good source of funds for owner -occupied households. Uh, it's more difficult to make owner -occupied units affordable, and uh, I think that'd be a good ... uh, great use of those funds. Payne/ I have a question on that. Boothroy/ Yeah! Payne/ Um, in discussions with the School District we've talked a lot about concentrating low- income in the same area. Boothroy/ Uh huh. Payne/ Isn't this doing just that? Boothroy/ I don't think so. I think it ... it's a different model. It's ... it ... what it's saying is that in these ... these high-density, and this is going to be a high-density area we're talking... you've seen some projects already. We've seen some others that are on the drawing board that have, uh, you know the development itself is ... is a community in and of itself, and I don't think a 10 or 15% requirement is a concentration that is going to be a problem. Payne/ But if you have it in building after building after building after building, and there's lots of families with K through 12... Boothroy/ But the overall dens ... well, I don't know that they're gonna ... I mean that's the thing that we haven't worked out, whether there'll be a lot of family housing in this area anyway because it's going to be vertical versus, you know, single-family detached. That's not the housing you're going to get down here. This is all going to be apartment/condo type of housing. Payne/ But don't low-income people live in that kind of housing? Boothroy/ (both talking) They do. It may not be quite at the same as the area that you're thinking about, the South District, uh, but overall (both talking) the ... the thought is with inclusionary zoning, the overall area would not exceed a 10 to 15% range, and I think that's a very reasonable range for mixed housing, mixed income housing in this area. Throgmorton/ Doug, wouldn't you say (both talking) Boothroy/ And I think this is like three different elementary districts, as well. (both talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 14 Payne/ Well, across the river is one, but then on ... on this side, on the east side (several talking) is two (both talking) Boothroy/ ...two and then one on the other side, is that the way it was or ... yeah. Hayek/ On the... Payne/ ...west side... Hayek/ What are they? Payne/ Do you remember, Geoff, when you sent it to me? Fruin/ Uh, it's Horn on the west side of the river and then it splits between Longfellow and Twain. Payne/ Yeah. And most of it was Twain, wasn't it? If I remember right. Boothroy/ But those boundaries are never static. Payne/ Well, unless you live in Iowa City! (laughs) Then ... then for 20 years they're static! Boothroy/ Could be! I mean they're not ... they're not, you know, I understand they're politically static but they're not really... Markus/ At the end of the day it's still (both talking) Boothroy/ 10 to 15%. Markus/ ...10 to 15%! Payne/ Right. Boothroy/ It's minimal. Throgmorton/ Yeah, so wouldn't you say... Payne/ It's (several talking) Throgmorton/ If I understand Doug correctly, he's saying that the consequence would be precisely the opposite of...of what Michelle is concerned about. Instead of concentrating lower income people in one part of the city, it would enhance dispersion and ... and, uh, and ... in a more equitable kind of (both talking) Boothroy/ Every property would share the same responsibility. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 15 Hayek/ But, uh... but doesn't that assume you're starting from scratch? Boothroy/ We are here. Hayek/ Well, but you already have levels of poverty anywhere, including within Riverfront Crossings. Now my understanding is that the census tract data we have for that area is probably skewed... Boothroy/ It is! Hayek/ ...by student data. Boothroy/ Right. Hayek/ Right? So I don't know what it looks like if you can (both talking) Boothroy/ But you've driven around that area. It's pretty much a blank pallet at this point because of the way the zoning and the development has occurred in the past ... over the last 20 or 30 years. Hayek/ Yeah. Boothroy/ What we've done is we've... through the improvements we're going to put in place, the park and the ... the form based code, as well as ... we're creating a whole new neighborhood. We're bringing back a neighborhood that existed in 68, except at a higher density. Uh, and you don't have, uh, the families that were living down there, the HyVee goo ... food store, the AP ... A&P grocery store that was there on ... there were two grocery stores there. There was a neighborhood park where the County building is sitting. There was a neighborhood there back in the 60s. We don't have that anymore down there. Hayek/ So is that the distinction though, or one of the distinctions, that... that... and you know, this leads us to the affordable housing location model (both talking) Boothroy/ We'll get there in a minute. Hayek/ But ... but that... that... levels of poverty within this area are... are... are more attenuated, visa vie the School District, because they are ... they tend to be college la..college-age students (both talking) Boothroy/ That's part of it. Hayek/ ...that's what drives the numbers. Boothroy/ Plus we're bringing in a whole new... we're... we're creating a whole new population base here too. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 16 Hayek/ Yeah. Boothroy/ We're starting, I think, almost from scratch in terms of building a neighborhood, and so you don't have some of those issues that you have in some of the existing neighborhoods. Payne/ But ... if I understand right, the idea is to bring ... all kinds of diversity (both talking) Boothroy/ Absolutely! Payne/ And I'm not saying that I'm suggesting that it will happen. I just want to make sure that we've thought about it and tried to alleviate it from happening, that we have a concentration in this area. Markus/ You know, I think you have to remember (difficult to hear, noises on mic) as to how we shifted to Riverfront Crossing in terms of this inclusionary zoning. We've been having this debate as long as I've been around here about inclusionary zoning across the entire community. And so we talked about this area as kind of a test area to look at it in that fashion. And so like ... and I ... one of the things that I've kind of known throughout my career is people get into ordinances. They think an ordinance is forever, and legal counsel and the staff will tell you that ordinances get tweaked and changed constantly. So if we see some aberration, you know, that goes to your kind of concern, we can move back into this ordinance and deal with it. Um ... but I think we're trying to test this area, not just for ourselves but the whole metropolitan area and see if this works. Payne/ Yeah, I ... I'm not saying that it's a poor idea. I'm just trying to point out that, you know, everything has unintended consequences and that's exactly why everything's a living document and you have to tweak as you go. Hayek/ And it's a legitimate concern, I mean, Twain is one of our higher FRI, schools. You know, and...and...but I .... I gather the anticipation is ... you're not gonna ... you're just not going to get that many families, probably, because of the type of housing and the location. Markus/ I suppose where a problem could occur ... is if your ... you know if the affordable units were to attract a concentration of school kids, and the balance of units attracted young professionals and students only that that could create a number beyond 15%. So... Payne/ Yes! Yes, that's... Boothroy/ Just by market along (both talking) Markus/ So I think you have to kind of watch, you know, the demographic of this area to see how it evolves, and that's why you can move back into this ordinance. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 17 Botchway/ I'm interested in the fee in lieu of, and so ... for the fee in lieu of you're only allowed to use in the particular area and is there a minimum, um... Boothroy/ It would be based on the gap between the ... for market and the low market rate, uh, value, and so, uh.... that would be adjusted on a regular basis, based on cost of construction and things of that nature. So, one of the things we have to do is figure out what that's.. looked at .... gonna look like. What we did was in our conversations, Tom Jackson took a number of projects that were being built in the near downtown area, looked at the cost of construction, and....and what it would be at 60%, 80%, or 120% area median income in terms of what that gap would look like and, uh, and we got some numbers. It could be 50,000, it could be more, it could be a little bit less depending on how affordable you were making the unit. Uh, at the end of the day, that's a discussion that you all will have when we start putting the ordinance together in terms of what that fee's going to look like, uh, and what that gap ... how that gap is going to be ... uh, I mean, even if it were let's say hypothetically we ... we're looking at 60%, which is what we're proposed here, and the gap ended up being let's say 65,000, you could always adjust it to a lower number if you felt that was too high or whatever, but uh, we will have a methodology, we will have a recommendation, and like we do with our parking fees and stuff like that, we will have a process by which it can be adjusted based on the market. Throgmorton/ Doug, I want to ask a question (both talking) Boothroy/ ...but the... that's... Throgmorton/ Oh, sorry! Boothroy/ Go ahead! Throgmorton/ I ... I think the previous one referred to 60%, uh, area median income (both talking) Boothroy/ This is ... this also does too. Throgmorton/ Oh this ... yeah. So if I remember right ... rightly that's equivalent to about $44,000 a year? Boothroy/ Um... Throgmorton/ 60% is, uh, and I was just remembering (both talking) Boothroy/ I can look that up here in a minute. Go ahead. Mims/ (several talking) That's what it says for three person, yeah. Throgmorton/ I'm just remembering a fact that came out of the, um, affordable housing update that Tracy and others put together for us a year or whatever ago, and if I remember rightly, it said that approximately 36% of Iowa City households headed by individuals 25 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 18 or older had incomes below $44,000 a year. So there's a big swath of people in Iowa City who are in this 60% area median income or below. Uh, and I just want to draw attention to that. There's a ... a big group of people who need, uh... uh, housing that they can afford to live in. Boothroy/ And we thought the 60% would make a real difference, uh, we did talk about whether it should be 80% and the conclusion was that that doesn't really address the need like it should, particularly for rental property, and to that ... that's how we came to 60, and again we did an analysis of that with Tom Jackson in terms of what that looked like. Uh, it was his recommendation as well that it be set at 60%, um, because it was felt that that was a number that ... that the development community and the City could work with. Payne/ And is that net or gross? Can you remind me? Boothroy/ Uh, 60% ... well there are some ... I think there are some exceptions in terms of how you compute that, but it's gross. Payne/ So the median ... AMI is the gross and then the 60% is off of the gross, so obviously these people... there's still a net income here, not a gross ... the gross income. So when the ... so when you're figuring the 30%, do you figure that off net or gross? (several talking) Okay, but do you figure the 30% off net or gross? Boothroy/ Off gross. Payne/ You figure the 30% off gross also. Boothroy/ Right! Payne/ Okay. Boothroy/ But when you ... well, like for the Section 8 program, there are some things that don't count as income, even though you might think of it as income. Payne/ Right. Okay. Boothroy/ So the... Payne/ I just could never .... I never can remember if it's net or gross. Boothroy/ No, it's gross. Payne/ Okay. Mims/ Doug, going back to, um ... on principle #4, just if...since we've gotten through all of 'em. How are we going to ... the difference in terms of the fee in lieu of, we're saying that the rental properties... rental projects cannot do that, owner -occupied can. We've worked with This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 19 some projects where we have not necessarily known ... if they're going to be rental or owner -occupied, um, or they might plan to be owner -occupied but they're going to hold some of them off the market for a while. I'm assuming there's going to have to be something in the ordinance to address this uncertainty (several talking) Hayek/ Some may be commercial on the ... and some may be residential on the ground level. Boothroy/ (several talking) We're going to have to figure out how we ... how we nail that down. Mims/ Okay! Boothroy/ It's to their advantage, uh, to try to be owner -occupied if they want to pay a fee obviously. Mims/ Right! Boothroy/ Um, and we'll have to make sure we figure out how to make that... Mims/ Okay. Boothroy/ You know it ... again I'll look to other models to figure out what that language might look like. It may ... it probably isn't going to be perfect. There's always a way ... I've been in the enforcement business for 40 years. There's always (both talking) Mims/ There's always loopholes! (laughs) Boothroy/ There's always a way to find the crack in the wall, let me tell ya! Throgmorton/ This is where my concern about the fee in lieu of relative to TIF comes in. Boothroy/ Uh huh. Throgmorton/ If developers are able to say they want to make a fee in lieu of, pay a fee in lieu of, and pay it with the TIF they get from the City, then they're just moving around. Boothroy/ Yeah, but that's a developer's agreement that you have, and like Tom was saying earlier, you've got control of the developer's agreement and we can also write in the ordinance how much they can use of that. So I think where the City's financially involved, I think that's pretty controlled. Payne/ Well and now that we're doing rebates, I think it might be more difficult because they're really paying and then getting a rebate. So it's not like we'd be giving them money (both talking) Boothroy/ Yeah! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 20 Payne/ ...and then they'd be taking that and putting it over here, but it ... you could still play games with it, you would .... you would think! (laughs) Boothroy/ Well, these are the concepts, these are the basic fundamentals. The ... the real work is in drawing up the ordinance (laughter) let me tell ya! So (laughs) uh, if it was this easy (several talking) it would be...it would be...it would be great. Now I ... I should address the last one again cause it could come up as an email. Remember if it's a TIF project or a City, it would be required to, uh, have, uh, affordable housing, even if it's elderly or disabled. We didn't really talk about this in great detail. Um, you know, most of what I see or Tracy sees that comes in with elderly housing, there's usually tax credits and so a lot of it is subsidized. There aren't many Oaknolls around that ... that are ... that are for profit. Urn ... I get the principle of the thing, that, uh, just as a matter of principle, maybe they shouldn't be accepted, uh... uh, but as a practical matter, I don't think there's a lot of elderly projects that would ... that would slip through the cracks on this. Urn ... so ... it was part of the recommendations, urn ... you know I don't know that the Committee feels that strongly about this one, uh, and I think that's one that we could .... we could negotiate maybe as we go forward. So let me get to the recommendations. Botchway/ Wait a minute. So you're saying that you would ... you could possibly change that one to be required? Boothroy/ Yeah, I think we need to talk about that. I can talk ... I can do a telephone thing (mumbled) so... Botchway/ Okay. Hayek/ But the ... yeah, but...you need to make a recommendation ultimately that you think is best, you know, I mean it's clear that the Committee either didn't discuss it or did to the extent of reaching that conclusion. Boothroy/ Well I think (both talking) here's my gut feeling about it, I guess, is that ... and it was in my initial, um, memorandum to the Committee about talking points is that, uh, we were covering it with TIF cause a lot of the more expensive projects with elderly... elderly can be an expensive project because of the design considerations, it most likely would probably have a density that would justify a gap that would end up having to TIF or they would come in as tax credit, and so what I didn't want to have happen is to discourage a for-profit, uh, middle-income, uh, elderly project from going ... going into the Riverfront Crossing area cause I thought it was critical that we have that nice mix of...of individuals and so ... given the fact that you have, uh... uh, a project that takes more planning and more expense to develop to meet the needs of elderly, disabled, uh, I thought we were covered under the existing situation. So I would leave it in, frankly, but I don't think it's a deal - breaker one way or the other. Hayek/ And all I would suggest is in response to one email, you know... Boothroy/ Yeah. We let the process (both talking) unfold. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 21 Hayek/ ...would recommend ultimately... this as well as any other item what you think or what the Committee thinks is ... or staff thinks is the best approach and it may or may not change this, I have no idea. Boothroy/ Well I want the ... would like the Council, number one, I'd like the Council to ... to, I mean this is ... this is a ... to bring this group of people together and to have us all agree, uh, with different points of view and different passions about this I think is remarkable and so, you know, I think we should take this moment in time and move forward, uh, with drafting an ordinance that's applicable only to the Riverfront Crossing area and based on these fundamental design principles. Um, and the second one, of course, is to look at the affordable housing location model and what we're suggesting is that in this area, uh, because of the way it's ... we think it's going to develop, uh, there's going to be high, expensive type of buildings that are going to have a gap and TIF is going to be requested. Uh, we think that TIF should be an exemption from the affordable housing location model. It doesn't really impact other areas of the community. You look at the South District area. I can't imagine there would be projects down there that would generate a gap that would justify you extending TIF into this area. I don't think it opens the door, uh, to, uh, significantly changing the affordable housing location model, just based on the exemption for TIF, and so I would strongly recommend that you do that, otherwise I'm ... I'm concerned that you get a project, uh... that has two units of affordable housing in it and then somebody comes in within 500 -feet and they can't ... they can't do anything. Uh... and I don't want to go down that road if we don't have to. Mims/ Why not take a different approach and maybe a simpler approach and simply exempt the Riverfront Crossings area from the affordable housing location model? Boothroy/ Well that's good for me too! (laughter) I like that approach. Mims/ 1, I mean I ... to me that is just simpler. It doesn't get into the different funding streams or anything else. It's simply Riverfront, you know, the affordable housing location model does not apply to the Riverfront Crossings area (both talking) Boothroy/ I agree with you 100V Mims/ Did the Committee talk about that? Was there disagreement within the Committee? Boothroy/ (both talking) No, we didn't get into the, uh, affordable housing location model (both talking) Mims/ Okay. Boothroy/ ...in details. This is at a staff level. Uh, the...it...it was recognized that this could be a problem, but our ... our charge was to deal only with inclusionary housing... Mims/ Sure! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 22 Boothroy/ ...not to talk about the merits of...of this model. Mims/ Okay. Dilkes/ Susan, I think it's really six of one, half a dozen of another, because the ... the affordable housing model only applies to City funding. So... Mims/ I just wonder from a public standpoint and an understanding of what it is we're trying to do, because when I was reading through this and I was, you know, I was reading Tracy's memo, which you know I appreciate all the detail, and then I'm trying to figure out, okay, what are ... what are the different funding models, what are the different funding sources, so what does this really mean, and so if it doesn't jump off the page to me, in terms of what it means, when I have at least some semblance of understanding, I can't imagine somebody in the general public... understanding it, whereas if you simply said ... the affordable housing location model does not apply to Riverfront Crossings ... I mean if there's reasons that doesn't work I'm happy to ... to listen to that and understand, and (both talking) Boothroy/ That's kind of what we're saying whether it's exempt (both talking) Dilkes/ So in other words why would you ... you would apply it to everything, CDBG and Home, as well, which is what they (both talking) Boothroy/ Right. Dilkes/ I think Tracy needs to explain that. Hayek/ (several talking) Hey, Tracy! Mims/ Thank you, Tracy! Hightshoe/ I have no problem exempting Riverfront Crossings from the whole affordable housing location model, just because it'd be easier. Um, what we were trying to do is some people still had a concern that ... um ... that the model still had to play citywide, so we wanted to try to find a way that, you know, to be honest, River... inclusionary housing and the affordable housing location model do not work well together. Mims/ Agreed! Hightshoe/ So we were trying to figure out a way that we could still ... have the model citywide, but ... but allow inclusionary housing zoning to work. Do you know what I mean? Mims/ Yep. I hear ya! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 23 Hightshoe/ I have no problem with exempting the model from the Riverfront Crossings (both talking) Mims/ And that is my preference. Throgmorton/ Well it sounds like (both talking) Mims/ ...cleaner. Throgmorton/ ...suggestion tome. I ... I don't know if there are any ramifications that we can't think of at the moment, but in principle I think that's a pretty good suggestion. Boothroy/ And we would ... we would of course, when we come back with, if...if you agree to go forward with the ordinance, then we would bring up this conversation at the same time. Mims/ Sure! Hayek/ I'm ... I'm with you, I mean, you know the ... there are individuals, some individuals and some groups who don't like that model. I think it's an important model. Two of the three components are goals, were to alleviate the pressure on the school system, um, and from my perspective, the source of funding for a subsidized housing project is ... is not ... entirely relevant to ... to my concern of...of where it might be going, whether it's TIF or ... or through Home funding or ... or something like that, and ... and it...it seems to me that the ... that the reason we're talking about this pilot project in this particular part of town is because... among other things, the ... the higher poverty levels we see now at our ... as we just talked about five minutes ago, associated with students, college-age students or graduate level students, and not ... students or families who are attending the ... the school district. Hightshoe/ Yeah, my concerns were not huge in the Riverfront Crossings because historical development with the vertical development. What we've seen in the past economic development or TIF projects are efficiency, one -bedrooms, and very few two bedrooms. This is not the type of housing that families with a lot of children, so you're not gonna have a huge concentration of families with children, based on high-rise development that I've seen so far in any of our economic development projects. So I wasn't worried so much about the concentration and ... in this neigh ... in the Riverfront Crossings. Mims/ Well, certainly this is not all gonna develop overnight, that this is a living document. So if we were to start seeing that happening, I'm assuming we could come back and try (both talking) Boothroy/ Well that's what number 3 is, is that the Committee felt very strongly that ... that, uh... course not knowing when it would start it's hard to know, but that at least on an annual basis or some regular basis as determined by the Council, that you look at it to see if it's having the intended consequences, or if there are unintended consequences you don't like that we take care of it. So... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 24 Botchway/ I'm a little bit confused, because it feels like a lot of the conversation has been focused on the fact that this area won't necessarily have the, um, potential for growth that would incorporate families, but before when we were talking about the Riverfront Crossings District, that was one of the things that we were talking about it ... looking for, I mean obviously there's a student component. I think we addressed that in some of the buildings that are closer to the University and closer to downtown, but I ... I believe, and I could be wrong so that's why I'm (mumbled) help me out, that we were thinking that further along that there would be the potential for, you know, developments that would include more families, but I'm hearing more differently now. Boothroy/ We're not precluding that. I think we're just speculating that ... that, uh, with one and two bedroom apartments that the number of, uh, school age, elementary kids, is going to be less than if you have, you know, standalone, single-family houses. Uh, we expect families to be in here. I think certainly new families, people that are getting started, trying to get a home of their own. I think the goal is still out there, at least I hear, is that, you know, even if you start in an apartment, the goal is to be able to move to a suburb or some place in town where you can have your own lot and yard, uh, that's a very common, uh... uh, reference for families cause they have a place for the kids to play. So, I do think there will be kids down here, but they may not ... they may not, it may be different than some of the like Windsor Ridge and some of the other places in town, because it'll be a different development style. Throgmorton/ (coughing, difficult to hear speaker) ...referring to the whole Riverfront Crossings District, which is a fairly large area (both talking) Boothroy/ ...there are some places where you can have (both talking) Throgmorton/ So closer to downtown is more likely that we're going to see the student, influx of students or you know preponderance of students. Farther south, it's more likely that we'll see a greater mix, right? Hightshoe/ Or assuming smaller families. I mean, by historical growth (mumbled) Botchway/ Also to go back to the point about the elderly. So ... and you used that example as far as, you know, you weren't trying to, um, have a situation where kind of a middle-income, elderly development would be built, or would not be built, for that ... for the particular point that you had the requirement, but isn't that why we're doing what we're doing? So in theAn the event that we do have a middle-income development that they do still have affordable housing ... 10%, 15% (both talking) Boothroy/ Well, keep in mind that ... that, uh... uh, all residential development in this area is required to, uh, have affordable housing. So just because ... not everybody wants to live in an elderly housing facility. Personally I don't. And um.... Hayek/ You're a young, happenin' guy, Doug! (laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 25 Boothroy/ I know! Well 69 might be defined as elderly, but uh... I ... so I think that, you know, you can live in lots of different places. You could live near the park. You ... so what..what I was saying earlier was that ... that elderly housing is usually designed to meet a lot of different... it's designed differently than ... than multi -family, market -rate housing and it costs more to design it and so I think we've covered through TIF. I think we've covered it through some other requirements in there because lot of times they are looking for tax exempt status and so I think this just gives a break to ... to a project that might want to come in and not go to that additional expense of providing affordable housing. Payne/ But (both talking) Boothroy/ You know it's a ... I understand the principle of it. I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other. I think what we can do is work through the process. If it's a huge issue, I don't think this would be an issue for the Committee. That's all I'm saying. Payne/ But ... even if it's elderly housing and it's zoned Riverfront Crossings, they still have to provide 10%. Are you saying they would be exempted period? Boothroy/ Unless they're getting TIF or ... or they're getting other public dollars ... like tax inc ... tax credits. Payne/ Because I thought originally it said on ... on principle I ... inclusionary zoning is mandatory when property is zoned at Riverfront Crossings zoning designation. Boothroy/ It is mandatory, but... it's... but they have an exemption for that ... from that ... that one, part two there. That's what that last bullet is, #7. So... Payne/ That's hard to follow. Dilkes/ I ... I think when the drafting of the ordinance is going on we can look at accomplishing, you know it sounds like Doug is saying if they're getting tax credits and that kind of thing, they've already got that then ... I mean we can do some kind of middle, you know. Boothroy/ Yeah. I think as a practical matter, all elderly housing will probably have, uh... uh, affordable housing in it because in this area I don't think you can afford to build it without some kind of tax credits or TIF financing, but ... you never know. Mims/ I would just say ... number one, thank you to all the Committee members, um (both talking) Boothroy/ That's my next ... (both talking) Mims/ I cannot imagine, you know, the amount of time that was put in and people with such diverse backgrounds and opinions coming together, and coming up with what I think are This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 26 seven really, really good principles on which to base an ordinance, and obviously, um, now legal staff will have the fun (laughs) probably (both talking) Dilkes/ Planning first. Mims/ Planning first? Um, in putting together, um ... the ordinance and, you know, I ... I just look forward to seeing that. I think we've asked ... it's been a lot of good questions and concerns brought up, but in general it certainly sounds to me like Council is very supportive of...of the seven principles. Boothroy/ Do we have four? (several talking) Okay, just wanted to make sure before I walk out of here! (laughs) Hayek/ I would ... (several talking) Dobyns/ What about the exemption? Uh (both talking) Boothroy/ Well I think we'll address it as we go through the process (several talking) Mims/ Yeah, let's see the ordinance. Botchway/ I would echo those comments as well, I mean, this is obviously something I'm really excited about. Not saying that I'm not excited about all the other wonderful things that we do as well, but um, you know, just at least testing this out and you know there... there's been a lot of discussion about affordable housing (coughs) Sorry! Not only in, um, Iowa City but just Johnson County as a whole, so knowing that we're taking these steps is I think a really good step in the right direction. Hayek/ I will say, cause I can see their faces out in the crowd, I hope (both talking) Botchway/ (mumbled) Hayek/ ...that the proponents of...of affordable housing continue to make the case on a regional basis because ... uh, this is another example of Iowa City taking unilateral action, which I think we historically have done on this and other issues, not just in the area of housing, um, housing is a .... affordable housing is a regional issue. It requires regional solutions. Uh, I have yet to see a lot of movement outside of our community on this issue, and I hope we do! Boothroy/ Well this will be the only inclusionary housing ordinance in the state of Iowa. Hayek/ Anyway, but thank you. This is a lot of work. Throgmorton/ 1'd like to echo what Susan and Kingsley said, uh, I'm really ... as you stated, really pleased to see, uh, what the Committee's come up with. I'm especially happy to see the mix of people involved. It's a really terrific mix of people, uh, and ... and I think ... it's the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 27 kind of collaborative work that I personally really admire and would like to see more of with regard to ... the most controversial kind of topics we face. So bravo to, uh, the development community that was involved, Glen and others, and to Sarah and others within the not for profit group, and uh, you Doug and Sarah and so on. Boothroy/ Thank you! Hayek/ Thanks, Doug. Mims/ Thank you. Hayek/ So let's move on. It's already 6:00. Uh, I don't know how much time (both talking) Throgmorton/ Sarah ... I said Tracy, I mean I said Sarah — I meant Tracy. I apologize! (laughs) Hayek/ Next item is, uh, follow up presentation on regulations impacting lot and housing unit sizes. Staff follow-up presentation on rep-ulations impacting lot and housinp, unit sizes UP # 4 Info Packet of 8/27 info packet]: Yapp/ Uh, good evening. Karen Howard, uh, will lead this discussion and it's a follow up to a discussion you had earlier this summer, uh, on small lots and small houses, and what opportunities currently exist in Iowa City, uh, and some suggestions for, uh... future improvements. Howard/ Uh, this is a really interesting conversation cause I think it's a continuation of a conversation that we had about 10 yeas ago when we adopted the new, uh, zoning ordinance. I guess it's not new (noise on mic) new so much anymore since it's about 10 years old. Um ... uh, but we did a bunch of things and I just wanted to go ... remind, uh, I actually pulled some slides from the presentations at that time about how we were trying to create more opportunities for, uh, lower cost housing, using some of our single-family zoning strategies. Um, and you know, as it pointed out in the memo, from the Council Members, one way to do that is to lower the lot sizes, uh, lower the house sizes to get that lower cost housing. Um, you can always go larger than the minimum lot sizes, but, um, by lowering our lot sizes, we do provide that opportunity for lower cost housing. And this just is an illustration from a group in Minnesota, an affordable housing group in Minnesota, to show, you know, this is 15 years old now, but that relative lot, the infrastructure costs for different sized lots, an analysis that they did showing how much infrastructure costs you could save by, um ... by lowering the lot sizes and the lot widths. So you can see that as you lower those lot widths down to a 40 -foot lot, um, even with the cost of an alley, it's considerably ... and this is just the infrastructure costs that goes into development. Mims/ (both talking) Karen, is that a paved alley? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 28 Howard/ Right, that's a paved alley. They did an analysis in Minnesota for ... for this affordable housing group to show that (mumbled) as you lower those lot withs, you know (both talking) Mims/ ...water, sewer (both talking) Howard/ ...garages and all that, that uh... um... Mims/ Well I find it interesting because it goes to a flipside of...I read, was reading something not too long ago, people starting to criticize that model from an environmental standpoint because of putting down more concrete, and so (both talking) Howard/ ...you can see the driveways there, how much concrete do you put in the driveways when they're in the front versus having the garages right on the alley in the back. So an analysis we did 10 years ago, we did quite an analysis even in our community and I didn't put those slides in there (both talking) they got pretty complicated but we did land costs. We did infrastructure costs. We compared the alleys and um, even without calculating the, um, the dri ... the cost to pave the driveways... Mims/ Uh huh. Howard/ ...you know, which is a considerable pavement cost as well, urn ... it came out about similar to this. Mims/ Okay! That's good just to know then! Howard/ So ... of course the benefits of compact development, we've touted this for years in our Comprehensive Plan. The developer has more lots to sell, the housing consumer has lower cost housing, um, uses less land, um, so it slows the outward growth of the city, and then it also provides that opportunity to cluster housing to, uh, preserve sensitive areas or open space for the community. So our charge in 2005, and this was from the Duncan Associates, the consultant hired to analyze our zoning code at the time for affordable housing opportunities has said one possible barrier is that we had relatively little, uh, land, vacant land, zoned for higher density, single-family and multi -family development, but in Iowa City, as in many communities, there's often strong resistance to that zoning, and so what we looked at that time was ... why is there this community resistance to the higher density housing and urn ... that analysis, really the private spaces in the community, um ... we have parts of the neighborhood. You have the private spaces and you have the public spaces, which are the public streets and the ... and the parks ... and then just to acknowledge that the neighborhood streets are really some of the most important and well -used public spaces in our neighborhoods, and the private market doesn't always do a great job of respecting those public spaces. So what people are reacting to in a lot of cases when they see higher density housing, these are the kinds of concerns is that you have these narrow frontages, which allows less room for the residential home, aspects of the home, there's little space on each lot for pedestrian entrances, street trees or fro ... front yard landscaping, um, it interrupts the public sidewalk This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 29 so you have these wide driveways and a lot of paving in the front. Um, also that means you have the loss of on -street parking. Um, so the need to widen our streets in order to have, you know, lot of paving. So it...it has a lot of unintended consequences. Um, so what we tried to do in 2005 is to reduce that community resistance to higher density housing, um ... uh, to address our goals in our Comprehensive Plan and now here's... here's examples of higher density housing where you have, uh, neighborhoods that respect that residential character. This is what we want. This is what we wan to achieve, and I think that's some of the things that were in the memo is that we need to be careful about how we achieve the affordable housing, um, so that we maintain, uh, that good neighborhood quality. Uh, we want that room for front yard landscaping. We want homes that address the street. We want, uh, unin ... uninterrupted sidewalks. So ... instead of the picture on the left, what we really ... on the right, what we really want is the picture on the left. So it's not all about reducing costs, but also about ensuring that long-term value in those neighborhoods. So we took sort of a two-pronged approach in 2005, um, we found some strategies to reduce the community resistance, um, but then lowered some of our lot sizes. One of the things that was mentioned in 2005 as well as ... as today is we have that planned development option for developers to go through, to master plan in communities, um, to do small ... small lots and townhouses and cluster development, but those plans are subject to review by the public at rezoning hearings before... before you all and the Planning and Zoning Commission and so it...it really, there's a lot of developer upfront costs that they incur in design and engineering costs, upfront, without really the assurance that the planned development will be approved through that legislative process. So the developers have used that as a ... as a con really to the planned development process. Um ... so sometimes that process is longer and lengthier and it's not always approved. Um, and then the give and take of the upfront design process does sometimes result in a higher quality development and then you also have the master plan, which becomes the zoning. So there's a real assurance from the public's perspective that what you see is what you get ... when it's all said and done. So there's pros and cons to the planned development process, but we wanted to streamline that and so we ... we did some things to our single- family zones to allow by right without having to go through that planned development process. So ... um ... in the single-family zones we did, um, propose bonus provisions, density prov... provisions and those are typically if there's an alley available, this could apply in an in -fill situation in some of our existing neighborhoods. It also can, uh, apply in new developments, so that you can actually have more density, and here's ... I think there was ... this was in the memo that we sent to you. So standard lot size in our low density RS -5 zone is 8,000 square feet. If you put in an alley, you can go that ... that much further. So you can see the differences in the lot sizes and the lot widths. So you can substantially increase the number of lots you can achieve if you put in that ... that rear access. So that's allowed by right in those zones, um ... as a density bonus without having to go through that rezoning process. The other thing we did was we allowed duplexes on the corner lots in the ... in all our single-family zones. So to provide more of a mix, and then we also liberalized the rules for ... for encouraging accessory apartments in owner - occupied, single-family homes, and then we established some standards to help those duplexes blend in better with ... a single-family neighborhood. So for example, the reason we say corner lots is so, um, the units ... here's a duplex where the front door and the garage face one street, one unit, and the other one faces the other street. So it...it really This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 30 blends better into a single-family character neighborhood. Here's one where there's actually an alley and the front door faces this street, and the front door of this unit faces the other street. Um, and that's a model that's used in a number of communities where they have corner -lot duplexes. So these are all things that we allow currently. Um ... we have had some accessory apartments built. The Peninsula's a good example of that. Um, and this ... these are allowed in any single-family zone in the city. And then we did establish a small lot, single-family zone, the RS -8 zone is our... considered our small lot, single-family zone, which also allows duplexes on the corners in the same fashion the RS -5 does but smaller lots. And then, um ... so basically it's similar to the RS -5 except it's ... it's basically smaller. And then with our, um ... uh... what do we have here? So in our high density single-family zone, this is the RS -12 zone. We have three ... three single- family zones and this zone, this is where we allow duplexes, townhouses, and single- family homes, um, they all ... it is a single-family zone, so they're all on separate lots, except for the duplexes. It's two units on one lot. So what we did in this zone ... before there was un ... unreasonable lot sizes required, so we reduced those down to make it easier for people to develop those housing types in the RS -12 zone without having to go through a planned development process. So ... instead of, um, the units on the right, the standards will require, uh, rear access alleys for townhomes and you see those going up all over town. Hayek/ What is our approach to the alley cost and then on-going maintenance? I mean those ... those are not... Howard/ Well, a lot of the ... a lot of the developments, the newer developments are on private property and a lot of 'ern they want to do the condominium regime instead of...and I think that's why we're continuing to see planned developments. It's more of an ownership thing than it is, um ... uh... it reduces, helps reduce the cost for maintaining the whole property and also for, um, maintain those shared spaces. So the ... they're not actually public alleys in those ... in those cases they're private. So they're treated more like driveways. So the next steps and ... and to the memo that we received, um, there are some things that we can do ... to improve what we already have on the books. Um ... we've looked at, uh, our ordinance. We can eliminate the 2 -acre minimum size requirement for our planned development process. We have currently a 2 -acre minimum, so that would allow more in -fill situations to occur, and we don't see a big downsize to that. That's a simple code amendment that we could do. Um ... it, the planned development would still be required to go through that legislative process, but it would allow it (noises on mic) in -fill sites. And then adopt, uh... there is an idea about adopting a new zoning or subdivision standards for cottage clusters. Something that's called cottage clusters, cottage (mumbled), cottage housing. Different communities have adopted ordinances and I'll ... I'll describe that in just a moment. The third item listed in our memo was to adopt a form based zoning code and a regulating plan citywide. And you're all familiar with Riverfront Crossings, what we've done there. The Peninsula development's also regulated by a form based zoning ordinance. Cities have ... more and more cities are doing form based ordinances citywide, um ... the entire city of Miami is under a form based code. Um, there's a lot of smaller towns too that are ... have adopted it citywide. Um, there's a lot of smaller towns too that are ... have adopted it citywide, but it is a ... it is a ... a major legislative, um, process to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 31 accomplish that. I mean with Riverfront Crossings, and with the Peninsula, there was ... there was planning that went on originally to talk about how we wanted that, the neighborhood to be ... uh, formed, where the streets should be. Everything is dictated in a form based code ahead of time, including the placement of the streets and the lots, urn ... uh, the block sizes, everything, and that's all dictated through the regulating plan. So, if...if you wanted to go that direction, it would certainly be a much more involved process. Mims/ How ... do you know, Karen, with places who've had a city like Iowa City where you've got the bulk of the city's already developed, under a more traditional zoning code, and then you go in and try to apply a form based code to the entire city, I mean ... how well does that work, how ... how much does it change what can happen say in a standard single- family development, I mean... Howard/ So ... I would guess that, I mean that would be something we'd have to investigate how you retrofit, um, or whether that even needed to occur. I mean a lot of our older neighborhoods of course look very similar to what a form based code would ... would dictate. You know, a lot of the older neighborhoods built before 19 (noises on mic, unable to hear speaker) urn ... in ... so the code would apply then to new ... new subdivisions and new areas of the city as it developed, going forward, but we would do a lot of upfront work, just like we did in Riverfront Crossings, um, well Riverfront Crossings is actually a pretty good example. We already had the street network in place. We already had the gridded street pattern. So it was fairly easy to overlay a form based code in that area because we didn't have to create the street system and the street network. It would be more ... even more involved than a greenfield site where, like the Peninsula where we really had to figure out the lots and block sizes and it dictates, you know, which type of housing is allowed on which blocks, and can get pretty prescriptive, um, but then you really do know what you're getting in the end. Um ... so ... so it's just a different approach. Throgmorton/ (several talking) Sorry! I didn't mean to interrupt ya! I ... I would guess that a form based code should also apply to built-up neighborhoods, because there are, especially in older neighborhoods, situations where somebody buys a piece of property. They want to tear a particular building down, replace it with something else. So ... that's a design kind of thing the form based code would address. Howard/ Exactly. Throgmorton/ Yeah, so ... and ... and then there are other developments kind of on the edge, uh, of, uh, those kinds of neighborhoods, like Jessie Allen's building up there on north, uh, north Linn Street, uh, that ... could be part of a form base code. So anyhow I ... I .... (both talking) Howard/ Yeah, I think (both talking) Throgmorton/ You know, they're kinda like...it...it could in principle apply to both new areas and existing ones. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 32 Howard/ Right. Just like we did in Riverfront Crossings. It's an old area that already has some of the infrastructure in place. So I think definitely you would just have to take the .... city by areas and say what's going to work as far as codifying the form based zoning standards and create a regulating plan, whether it's based on the existing street pattern of blocks or whether it's something created new. Um, in the form based code dictates, you know, streets, blocks. It dictates, you know, where the open spaces are, urn ... you know, everything has to be within a certain walking distance of a, you know, public open space, for example, but you'd ... you'd come up ... you'd go through that process ahead of time with the whole community to figure out where the density should be, you know, this is the downtown area. The buildings look much different than out on the edge of town where you're expecting... still expecting single-family neighborhoods. It's just that it's, uh, it's arranged ahead of time rather than having the streets and lots and blocks dictated through the sub ... the regular subdivision process. Hayek/ You know there's... there's definitely some appeal to ... to this. Uh, I agree with you with respect to existing neighborhoods. I mean, often you see new housing in older neighborhoods that is completely inconsistent with the ... the theme or the feel of that neighborhood and it would be great to have lots of neighborhoods that look like the Peninsula, quite frankly, but ... that was a huge undertaking. It was ... it took years to ... to really catch some steam, urn ... and it'd be a big undertaking for the City to get into this, and I ... and I would worry about... perception of difficulty of developing property. Um, I think we're making progress back toward a ... a reputation of being a place where things can get done. I ... I can see a criticism of this, but on the other hand there are ... I ... you know, the Peninsula (both talking) Howard/ It provides some certainty to the market, yeah, and uh, I think even ... there's been enough of these new developments that have occurred across the country that there's been an analysis about, that some ... like the Peninsula it takes a while to take off because until people kind of see what the general character of the neighborhood is, um, once they do, um, the analysis of all these kinds of new development is that it...it takes off and then increases in value and has a premium over standard subdivisions. Payne/ I mean what started this whole thing was affordable housing. The Peninsula is not what I would call affordable housing. (several responding) There may be some affordable units, but it's not affordable overall. Um... Hayek/ They're subsidized. Payne/ Yes. So, I ... I think that yes it sounds very, urn ... interesting to have that plan and everybody knows (coughing, difficult to hear speaker) be where, um ... specifically rather than generally like we have with our, um ... why can't I think of the name of it? What governs what goes where. (several responding) No, not zoning, the other thing. The Comprehensive Plan, that's what I'm thinking of (laughs) Thank you (laughs) Um, you know, I mean that's more general. Then this would be very specific, um, it sounds like from your description. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 33 Howard/ Right and then you could dictate, for example, in other words you can put a large house on a small lot. So just making small lots doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to get affordable housing either. (both talking) So ... so, um ... in the case of a form based code, you can develop building types that are more affordable and basically dictate where those might go or how they might be mixed in to a neighborhood, so... Payne/ I think the first two bullet points seem very ... to me, let's see what we can do to pursue those, in my mind, um, as it ... as it looks at affordable housing. One of...one of the things I thought was interesting about tonight is we're talking about affordable housing with two very different things — Riverfront Crossings and this, and ... I mean, one of the, um, Comm ... things the Committee talked about for Riverfront Crossings was to ensure the amount of below market -rate housing leverage results with no net cost to the developer and I think part of your memo indicated that, you know, this really hasn't gone anywhere, even though we already have this stuff in our zoning code that people can do this, but I think it's because ... we don't have an incentive. Riverfront Crossings we're making an incentive, and that's probably the biggest thing is developers want to make money. They're not going to do something that's going to make them less money. So what can we do to incent them to do some of this stuff? Throgmorton/ So I'd like to echo a little bit of what Michelle just said, uh, the initiative behind this, the thing that Kingsley, Michelle, and I put together really was about stimulating the production of, uh, more housing that people can afford to live in. So I agree also that the ... the first two items looked to me like ones that we could act on and should move ahead with. I'm really excited, actually, about the cottage... thing. Uh, the form based code, you know, I ... in general I like moving in that direction, uh, but I ... I don't see how it's going to help us with affordable housing in the short -run, but I do want to mention something that, uh, goes back to the memo that we wrote. There were a couple items in that memo that, uh, the memo you and John wrote, does not address. Uh, and ... and those really have to do with the City identifying privately owned land that is for sale, uh, the City buying that land using City funds to buy the land ... issuing an RFP to a ... to, uh, potential developers, potential private developers, that clearly indicates how we want that property redeveloped. This is what we did with regard to the Peninsula, uh, and then choosing the best developer and moving ahead, and ... and doing that ... largely to increase the supply of affordable units and provide a model for how such things can be done. So... Howard/ And I think the reason we didn't put it in our memo is that really is a policy decision for you all to make as far as purchasing land and making those commitments in our capital budgets to ... to do that sort of thing. Um ... and then as far as how that's developed after you would purchase such a piece of land, we can help with, but... ultimately that decision lies ... lies with the Council (both talking) Throgmorton/ Of...of course, uh, and so that's why I'm mentioning it, uh, it is a policy decision and it's one I think we should consider, uh, because it would enable us to ... to do something concretely in one particular part of the city, wherever that might be. I don't know where, uh, and to do it by working with private developers and by ... and doing it in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 34 a way that would produce a model for how we think more affordable, uh, how ... how we think the supply of affordable units could be increased, in ... in a well-designed way. So I ... so I can imagine that being done in accord with the far ... with a form based code. So (laughs) there's a linkage there but uh... you know, without going to the city as a whole immediately. Payne/ I was a little disappointed the in lieu of for Riverfront Crossings couldn't be used someplace else because I thought there was ... I was hoping there was some way it could be incorporated into this. Throgmorton/ Uh huh. Dobyns/ You mean a buy out? They could actually buy out to another part of the city and actually put in some cottage clusters? Payne/ Yeah. Howard/ So I do have some slides of the cottage cluster, but maybe you all already know what that kind of is. It basically is an incentive so you would take maybe several standard single-family lots in an RS -5 zone and you would basically double... double the density that you could achieve because you'd have two cottages instead of one house. And so you'd set up the ordinance and ... to ... to double whatever the base zoning density would allow, but then there would be these standards that would apply, um, and there's been a number of communities that have adopted these kind of cluster, uh, housing ordinances, with the same kind of concerns that you would probably likely get from ... from neighbors, which is how does this fit into our neighborhood, you know, concerns about, um, the design and, um, the clustering and how it affect, you know, if you're ... you have your single-family house right next to one of these clusters and I think ... so all the standards that would be developed would have to be kind of addressing that, but the idea is that the ... the housing, the cottages, are clustered around a shared open space or courtyard and then the parking, of course, is tucked behind, so it's not, um, right out front of the street. Um, so it sort of fits into then, right into a single-family neighborhood so it could be right along a street, and you have a couple lots that are then developed with these cottages, um, clustered around, uh, that space. Um, usually they're a smaller footprint, smaller square footage, so you control the density of those so you're not really getting ... like I said, you can always build a big lot on a small lot. That's not what we're trying to achieve here. We're (mumbled) trying to achieve something smaller and more affordable. So that's all dictated by the ordinance itself and here's some cottage developments that were, some photos from other places, uh, that were developed in cottage ordinances. Lot on the west coast (several responding) northwest, Seattle, some of the areas that have really affordable problems, um, with affordability, uh... some of those neighborhoods are extremely unaffordable. Silicone Valley and some of that, uh... and then there's also ... it's modeled based on older cottage clustering that happened years ago. So here's an older development with that same idea. And again, something that was built some time ago. So that idea of clustering the cottages around a courtyard has ... has been done in other places in ... in eras past as well. And I think that is something because we have a lot of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 35 model ordinances out there, something more doable for staff as far as our, uh, resources and time, um ... if you get into the form based zoning for citywide, that would... require quite a bit of extra work that we'd probably need a consultant to help us with. So with that, I mean, I can answer any other questions you have. Botchway/ So ... Matt had mentioned the process, um ... kind of the process before had been that, um, you know, maybe coming to develop here, and maybe you weren't saying this. Maybe you alluded to something else. Maybe coming to Iowa City and developing (mumbled) labor intensive process, um ... has ... was there any ... I mean, was there any consideration where we could ... figure out some ways so the,developer doesn't have to put as much money forward so ... they can save costs on that end so they can then apply the costs later on to the renter or owner, whatever the case may be (mumbled) later on in the process? So for example (both talking) Mims/ I mean I think we've already done quite a bit of that, Kingsley, just with ... I mean they're meeting, they're coming in and meeting with all the staff from different areas now — Engineering and Planning and stuff in one group — so they're, you know, they're not going so far down the road and then like Engineering comes in and says, 'Oh, time out, can't do that.' So I mean we've done that. Uh, they're doing the electronic submission of plans and stuff now, so they're not having to have all that stuff printed up, so I mean ... I think staff ..I'm not saying there's not more that can't be done, but I think staff has already been working on a lot of those things to take some of those roadblocks, or at least perceived roadblocks, out of the way and make it much ... either quicker, easier, less expensive to do some of those planning things but I mean I think when Tom came in one of the things that we, you know, really encouraged him to do and he ... and maybe is still doing, was to have a developer roundtable where he was meeting just with developers, without staff, so he could get very candid input on things that they were seeing and things that they'd like to get changed and I know a lot of those have, you know, been implemented since then. Markus/ To the point where we don't need that roundtable any more. (several talking) Howard/ And I think to the extent that you should realize too that Iowa City has some of the smallest lot sizes in the state. I think we have the smallest lot size in the state of Iowa. So I think comparing it to ... North Liberty and Coralville and some of those other places, which is our regional area where housing is getting built, when you do the really narrow stuff you do the really small things. You have to think more about how those are developed and how they integrate into the neighborhood. So we have some standards that Coralville and North Liberty don't have, but they also don't allow those lots at all. So ... um, you know, they're not allowing, uh, single-family homes on lots that are as narrow as 30 -feet wide. Hayek/ Okay. So, John, you're circling here. Yapp/ Uh (laughter) lurking! Uh, to follow up on Kingsley's question with the, uh, idea of the cottage design subdivision. The goal there would be to create standards where a developer did not have to go through the planned development process. Uh, and would This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 36 be able to do that, by right ... uh... without all the upfront design costs. The key is developing the criteria and the standards ahead of time. Which would fall on staff, uh, to do that. Uh, is there consensus to proceed with numbers 1 and 2? Hayek/ I think so. (several responding) Yapp/ Amendment to the planned development and the cottage design subdivision. (several talking) Okay. Thank you. (several talking) Hayek/ Thanks! It's a very interesting presentation, Karen. Throgmorton/ So, uh, at the risk of. ... seeing what time it is and running out of time, uh, I did raise a question, uh, a policy -oriented question about... potentially purchasing some land, etc. And it was in the original memo, but for reasons Karen articulated was not directly addressed. Payne/ I think that's something we could put on a work session agenda to talk about ... in a future meeting or something? Dickens/ (several talking) ..sooner than later if we're gonna consider it in the next budget year too. Mims/ And I would just throw something out — the only ... I would be interested if we were going to do anything on it and getting some input from staff in that ... if we were to try and do that, I would like to see it done where we potentially optioned property ... um ... subject to getting a successful response to an RFP, so we're not going out and spending, you know, a million or $2 million on property and then can't get a successful response to an RFP to get somebody to develop it and we were ... we've spent this money and ... we're sitting on bare land. Dobyns/ Like an industrial park, yeah (laughter and several talking) Mims/ So I mean, if...if we were to do it at all... Hayek/ I wouldn't mind maybe getting some staff input in the form of a memo or something... Mims/ Yeah! Hayek/ ...just on this issue generally, I mean ... you know, you ... you can maybe make that case in the residential area, but ... but you can also in terms of commercial development and ... and other communities in our area play master developer, uh, and ... and buy up land and ... and rack up a lot of debt to do so and ... and approach development in a very different way than ... than we do. We're, for example, with Riverfront Crossings trying to incent it through zoning and other, uh, measures, as opposed to buying it, but I think if we're going to open up this conversation, it really ought to include that analysis as well, but This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 37 before we kick into gear a bunch of machinery on this, you know, maybe we ought to hear from you guys generally speaking. Markus/ Well, I can give you my initial reaction (laughter) That's just not my style, uh, or my history in terms of management anywhere, um, and ... and you see that happening ... in other jurisdictions and I think that that is ... a risk best born by the private sector, uh, not necessarily us and I think if you write your ordinances, um ... with the input of developers, you would hope that developers would respond (mumbled) and make the investments that the private sector (mumbled) should be making to begin with. (noises on mic) Botchway/ Tom, the difference I see in other jurisdictions doing it, I mean it's almost ... I mean, I mean, it's almost like ... the stars in which they're thinking about it and economic development, and I feel like we're moving more towards the residents — that people are here, more to the affordable housing element, where we're looking at it particularly to ... change the dynamics of it and without ... I feel like without our input in those particular areas, um, the developers have not wanted to do affordable housing. So without us having the RFPs or changing our particular policy focus, I mean, we ... we would be, you know, we wouldn't have the discussion we were having about Riverfront Crossings. We wouldn't have the discussion that we're having with some of the buildings that we're building, where there's going to be affordable housing, um, put in. Markus/ So I responded to a specific suggestion. Us as a city buying property for the purposes of cottage or affordable. And I'm saying to you that I think what you did tonight, giving direction in terms of inclusionary zoning, um, and ... and some of the direction you gave on the smaller lot size and the form based, that sort of thing, I think that should create plenty of incentive to accomplish what you want to do, and those things aren't being done in our neighboring jurisdictions or the majority of communities across the state. So, if there is an ... you know, it ... I don't know what else you can do at this point, um, besides buying land and then giving it away and I'm not sure that that's ... a path you really want to fall down. Payne/ Is ... is there a way to give incentives... for this affordable housing in other areas than Riverfront Crossings? I mean, is there a way to explore doing that, so that it makes it that ... more realistic for a developer to do it? I mean, we obviously said it doesn't make sense for them to do it in Riverfront Crossing without an incentive. Well why would it make sense for 'em to do it someplace else without an incentive? Hayek/ Let me jump in here. It's 6:35. Payne/ Sorry! Hayek/ Um, I really think we've gotta ... we've got five more minutes then we have to disband and ... and set up (several talking) We're getting... we're drilling into a lot of content here, it seems tome. So ... all right! (several talking) Uh... Info Packets. We've got August 20`1' is the first one. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 38 Information Packets: Mims/ KXIC is on there, Marian. I'll take, uh, October 28th. (mumbled) Hayek/ Uh, four. Payne/ Four. Karr/ I put that in more as an update to what you decided last time. I'll be happy to populate more dates, um, as need be. So, and Matt took October 14th (mumbled) Hayek/ Thanks, Dennis, for the quarterly investament ... investment report. Mims/ Yeah! Hayek/ We need to be reading these things. (several talking) ...but we need to be reading them. (several talking) Okay, Info, uh, Packet from the 27th. Dickens/ (mumbled) Payne/ Yeah, we did! Hayek/ Yeah (several talking) Dilkes/ I had just a comment on IP ... 7, the invitation from, uh, Susan Craig ... to the discussions that are going on about, um..."Just Mercy" and Bryan Stevenson. I don't think there are any open meetings' issues with his talk, Brian Stevenson's presentation, but that smaller discussion, um ... given the issues that are going on in our community, I think we prob... we don't want a quorum there and ... or if we have a quorum there, you're gonna have to kind of sit mute. Throgmorton/ So for three of us it won't matter cause there's a candidate's forum that night. Dilkes/ Well that leaves four. Throgmorton/ That leaves four, so I just mean for three of us it doesn't matter, right? Dilkes/ So just... Hayek/ Thanks! Dilkes/ ...keep track of it I guess (mumbled) if you're gonna attend. That's the way to go! Meeting Schedule: Hayek/ Um, thank you. Um, meeting schedule. Anything on that? Council time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015. September 1, 2015 Iowa City City Council Work Session Page 39 Council Time: Throgmorton, Uh, well, Susan and I had an excellent meeting with members of Black Kids Play Too, and maybe some of you also met, but (coughing, difficult to hear speaker) but it went really well on August 20t. So I was very happy about that. I have lots of other things on here, but I'll just say one other thing. I also had a chance to staff a City table at the Soul Festival, and I just wanted to express my admiration for Evette Doazal, Shannon McMahon, and Serena Moore, uh, who I worked with that night, and Geoff too but I don't need to ... Geoff s kids! They were great! (laughs) So it was really fun to do that. Botchway/ Can they do that? Can they work? (laughter) Payne/ The baby too, I'm sure! (several talking and laughing) Hayek/ Uh, okay! Pending work session topics. Got that. And ... upcoming events or invites. Mims/ (mumbled) Hayek/ Yeah! (several talking) Okay! Good meeting. We'll break and see you back here at 7:00. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of September 1, 2015.