HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-2016 Planning and Zoning Commissionc
Iowa City
Planning & Zoning Commission
Informal Meeting
Monday, May 16, 2016
S:00 PM
Helling Conference Room - City Hall
Formal Meeting
Thursday, May 19, 2016
7:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall - City Hall
I-
��
J � !
_ -MI'- a ;� awal ■ �1! irk ._. SB f
Department of Neighborhood
and
Development Services
I
i �•r
ry. ca; $1
l �
P
� r �
EM
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, May 16, 2016 - 5:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Helling Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
Thursday, May 19, 2016 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Comprehensive Plan Item
A public hearing for discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for property
located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street to be included in the Downtown and
Riverfront Front Crossings Master Plan.
(Applicant has requested this item be deferred to the June 2 meeting.)
E. Code Amendments Items
1. Discussion of amendments to City Code Section 14-2G to adopt a Riverfront Crossings
Inclusionary Housing (IH) Ordinance.
2. Discussion of amendments to City Code Title 14 to adopt amendments related to
establishing a Community Service — Long Term Housing use, and establishing parking,
density, and provisional and special exception criteria for said use
F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 5, 2016
G. Planning & Zoning Information
H. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal; June 2 / June 16 1 July 7
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
- '�� MEMORANDUM
Date: May 12, 2016
To: Planning & Zoning
From: Douglas Boothroy, Director of
Re: Riverfront Crossings (RFC) Inclus
Services
Affordable Housing (IH) Ordinance
Staff has prepared a draft of an IH ordinance for Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z)
consideration. The ordinance was drafted at the direction of the City Council with the
requirements to be applicable only to -the RFC area and to be based on the seven fundamental
principles of an IH regulation that are attached to this memo. The 'Fundamental IH Principles'
were recommended to City Council by an ad -hoc work committee composed of developers, a
banker and affordable housing advocates.
Background
The City's recent adoption of the RFC Plan and Form -Based Code has created a
"Neighborhood of Opportunity" in RFC. All parties (private and public) will benefit from these
City actions. Because RFC upzonings provide a significant increase in the development
capacity of this area, a favorable IH environment, unique to this time and place, has been
created. The potential now exists for the public benefit of mixed incoming housing to become a
reality in this area.
The basic purpose of the IH requirement for the RFC area is to provide a minimum number of
affordable housing units as an integral part of the RFC area, and to further the goals of the RFC
Master Plan for a walkable and sustainable mixed -use urban neighborhood
At the January 6, 2015 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to convene an ad -hoc work
committee to study IH and to develop 'Fundamental IH Principles' that would be the basis for an
IH requirement for the RFC area. The following individuals volunteered to work with staff as
members of an ad -hoc work committee.
Tracey Achenbach, Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County
Maryann Dennis, Housing Fellowship
Chad Keune, Homebuilders Association President, 2014
Brad Langguth, Hills Bank & Trust
Scott McDonough, Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity Chair, 2015
Sally Scott, Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition
Glenn Siders, Siders Development
In August 2015, the ad -hoc work committee recommendations, including the 'Fundamental IH
Principles,' were presented to Council. The committee unanimously recommended that IH
regulations, based on the 'Fundamental IH Principles,' be developed for the RFC area. The
May 12, 2016
Page 2
Council agreed with all of the ad -hoc committee's recommendations and unanimously directed
staff to develop an IH ordinance for their consideration.
Highlights of Proposed IH Ordinance
Affordable Housing Reaulrement
All residential projects (without public financing) with 10 or more residential units that are
located within the RFC area are required at the time of upzoning to RFC form -based code to
provide 10% of the dwelling units as affordable units for a period of 10 years. Elder apartment
housing developments are excluded from this affordability requirement.
The proposed IH ordinance defines affordable rental housing as housing rented to a household
with income not exceeding 60% of the area median income (AMI). Affordable owner -occupied
housing is defined as housing sold at a price no greater than the most current published HUD
HOME Homeownership value limits to a household with income not exceeding 110% AMI.
Options for Achieving_ Affordability
The committee had originally recommended that residential projects without public financing be
required to designate 10% of the units as affordable rental units (see Principle #4). However,
because Iowa Code (section 364.3(9)) prohibits cities from adopting or enforcing "any ordinance
imposing any limitation on the amount of rent that can be charged for leasing private residential
or commercial property," the proposed ordinance was drafted to give the property
owner/developer several options for meeting the affordable housing requirement.
If a property owner/developer chooses to take advantage of the significant upzoning provided by
the RFC form -based code, that property owner/developer must provide affordable housing by
choosing one of the options provided in the ordinance:
1. on -site owner occupied affordable housing;
2. on -site rental affordable housing;
3. fee -in -lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund for RFC;
4. off -site affordable housing in RFC; and/or
5. contribution of land in RFC.
Use of the last two options (4 and/or 5) requires a City determination that the affordability
requirement cannot be accomplished on -site.
The option(s) selected by the property owner/developer will be documented in an affordable
housing agreement with the City at the time of upzoning to the RFC zone. For property zoned
RFC prior to the effective date of the ordinance and on which no substantial part of construction
has begun, the affordability option(s) will be documented by an agreement with the City at the
time the building permit is issued.
May 12, 2016
Page 3
Affordable Rental Housing
Affordable rental units would be required to be affordable to households with incomes that do
not exceed 60% AMI (see Table 1). If the property ownerldeveloper chooses to provide
affordable rental housing as the method to meet the IH affordability requirement, then
households for these units will need to be income -qualified by the landlord and verified by the
City. This income verification process would be consistent with the process followed in the
HOME/CDBG programs. Because households have different income levels, the maximum rents
are also being defined as HUD's HOME Fair Market Rents. Table I below shows the maximum
rent a household at 60% AMI would be expected to pay for housing based on the criterion that a
household, to avoid being 'cost -burdened' by housing costs, should not pay more than 30% of
their income toward housing. Table II shows HUD's HOME Fair Market Rents, which are
recommended as the maximum rents permitted for affordable rental units. These HOME rents
are adjusted annually by HUD.
Table is Maximum rent for 60% AMI Households(using 30% of income threshold
Household Size
1-person
household
2-person
household
3-person
household
4-person
household
60% Median
$34,620
$39,540
$44,460
$49,380
Income
Max monthly
$866
$989
$1,112
$1,235
rent (30% of
monthly income)
Table Il. HOME Fair Market Rents - anticipated 6-1-16
Unit Type
Efficiency
1-bedroom
2-bedroom
3-bedroom
Fair Market
Rent
$552
$665
$863
$1,258
Affordable Owner -occupied Housing
Affordable for -sale units would be required to be affordable to households whose income does
not exceed 110% AMI (see Table III). The 110% AMI was based on the experience of
affordable housing providers who have had difficulty qualifying low income households with
lower than 110% AMI for mortgages. Additionally, they found that when these households did
qualify, homeownership expenses often lead to failure. The proposed ordinance sets the
maximum unit sale price not to exceed the HOME Homeownership value limit ($218,000). This
sale price is adjusted annually by HUD. The purpose of these requirements is to increase the
likelihood that homeownership is a successful experience for low- and middle -income families,
and to avoid putting low-income households at risk of failure.
Table III. 110% Median Income by Household Size(using 2015 median income data
Household
1-person household
2-person household
3-person household
4-person household
Size
110% Median
$63,470
$72,490
$81,510
$90,530
Income
May 12, 2016
Page 4
Fee -in -Lieu (FIL)
The ordinance provides a fee -in -lieu (FIL) option as a method to accomplish the City's land use
objectives in RFC. This option is not a fee imposed by the City, but rather an option that is
available to the property owner/developer. Any FIL contribution must be used within the RFC.
Staff has done considerable research to determine a reasonable amount for the FIL provision.
The National Development Council created a model using assumptions based on: local market
conditions, including the vacancy rate; expense ratio; market rents for near -downtown
properties; capitalization rate; and HOME Fair Market Rents for affordable units. Using these
factors, the model then determines project value with and without the affordable housing
requirement, which is used to determine a per -unit FIL. The model determines the difference
between a typical project with 100% market rate housing and a project with 10% affordable
housing and uses this difference to determine a per -unit FIL. Using the model, the per -unit FIL
in RFC would be $80,872. The ordinance provides that the FIL would be adopted by the City
Council biennially (every two years) by resolution,
Dwelling Unit Types. Size and Quality
The affordable units must be of comparable size to market -rate units. The proposed ordinance
requires that affordable units be no less than 80% of the average size of market -rate units of the
same type, or similar quality, as approved by the City. This provision allows some design
flexibility in the size of affordable units while maintaining comparability with the market -rate
units.
The mix of affordable units, in terms of number of bedrooms, must be consistent with the
number of bedrooms for market -rate units. This ensures that income -qualified households of
various sizes will be served.
The affordable units must be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration and
avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable units.
Income Verification
The regulations require the property owner/landlord to annually verify household income with
the City. This verification process is consistent with current City practice for monitoring
compliance with residential projects receiving CDBG or HOME assistance. The property owner I
landlord must compute income based on the HUD Part 5 definition as described in 24 CFR
5.609, formerly referred to as the "Section 8" definition of income. Staff believes that by using
current and familiar practices for income verification, the proposed IH program can be
implemented without adding City staff, at least in the near term. Training will be made available
for landlords not familiar with this income verification process.
Flexibility is built into provisions of the proposed ordinance to accommodate situations in which
tenant income increases and the tenant is no longer income -eligible. In these situations, tenants
are not required to move, and the rent can be adjusted to market -rate at the end of the lease
term. As a result, the unit is no longer considered an affordable unit. To maintain compliance,
the property owner/landlord is required to provide the next comparable rental unit In the project
to an income -eligible household.
May 12, 2016
Page 5
Elimination of Parkins for Reauired Affordable Housin
The proposed ordinance amends the zoning code so that there is no parking requirement for the
required affordable housing units in the RFC area. This is consistent with the RFC Plan that
encourages a pedestrian -oriented, mixed -use neighborhood. The RFC neighborhood is centrally
located in the community, walkable to downtown, University, employment centers, community
services, and public transit stops. Development density is limited to number of parking spaces
provided. The affordable housing requirement can be more easily achieved with the elimination
of the parking requirement because it enables a developer to add residential units without
adding additional required parking. The elimination of the parking requirement also helps
contain development costs, making the affordable housing requirement more attractive to
developers.
Economic Development Policy Amendments
On 5/17/16 Council amended its Economic Development Policy to include an affordable IH
housing requirement as a condition of TIF financing (notwithstanding the zoning district). This
amendment is consistent with the ad -hoc committee's recommendations:
1. When the City participates financially (e.g. TIF) in a development that includes residential
units, a minimum of 15% of the units must be affordable for a minimum of 20 years. The City
may negotiate a higher minimum set -aside and a longer affordability term.
2. For affordable rental housing, dwelling units must be targeted to households whose income
is not more than 60% AM]. The City may negotiate a lower AMI.
3. For affordable owner -occupied housing, dwelling units must be targeted to households
whose income is not more than 110% AMI. The City may negotiate a lower AMI.
Recommendation
The ad -hoc work committee unanimously recommends that the attached 1H ordinance be
adopted.
Requiring IH affordable housing to be tied to RFC upzonings and/or public financial assistance
(TIF) should be considered a quid pro quo for recapturing some of the public benefits/value
assigned to the land in RFC. The adoption of the Riverfront Crossing IH ordinance will, in
combination with other local, state and federal affordable housing programs, make a difference
in the supply of affordable housing, and will further the RFC plan goal of creating a new mixed -
income, pedestrian friendly, sustainable neighborhood located near downtown.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission take action to recommend
approval of the I ordinance to the City Council.
Attachment
CC: Members of the ad -hoc Riverfront Crossings Inclusionary Housing Committee
Ad -Hoc Work Committee Recommended Fundamental Principles of an Inclusionary
Housinq Regulation
PRINCIPLE 91 - Provision of incluslonary housing should be mandatory, not voluntary.
Inclusionary Housing is mandatory:
• When the City participates financially (e.g. TIF) in a development that includes residential
units regardless of zoning designation.
• When property is zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation.
Comment
These mandatory requirements guarantee that affordable housing is created with new
residential development. The affordable housing requirement applies only when the City
participates financially and/or when a property is zoned to a Riverfront Crossings designation
(allows higher densities and mixed uses).
PRINCIPLE #2 - A percentage of units in a development should be set aside for housing that
is affordable for an established period of time.
Set -aside percentage and term of affordability:
• When the City participates financially in a development, 15% of the residential units must be
affordable for a minimum term of 20 years, or the life of the TIF, or term of developer's
agreement, whichever is longer.
• When the City is not participating financially in a development, 10% of the residential units
must be affordable for a minimum term of 10 years.
Comment
Set -aside percentage is the requirement that a portion (percentage) of the total number of
residential units be affordable. The set -aside strongly impacts development revenues possible
financial viability of a project. Set -aside percentages generally range from 10 to 20 percent in IH
ordinances. The committee recommends a 15% set -aside if the City provides financing and a 10%
set -aside if no public financing is involved.
Term of affordability is the length of time residential units must stay affordable. Affordability terms
range from 10 to 99 years in IH ordinances. To protect the public's investment in affordable
housing, the committee recommends a minimum of 20 year term of affordability when TIF is used.
PRINCIPLE # 3 - Project size should be considered and a threshold established for a set -
aside requirement.
Development size threshold
Developments that include 10 or more residential units are subject to the set -aside
requirement.
Comment
Threshold size is the number of units that "trigger" the affordable housing set -aside requirement.
The 10-unit threshold will require most new developments to include affordable housing while
also recognizing that an inclusionary housing requirement for small projects is often not practical
or financially feasible.
PRINCIPLE #4 - Requirements should be appropriate for the type of development (rental
vs. owner -occupied housing).
Type of development:
Rental projects are required to provide affordable units within the development unless the
developer qualifies for a hardship exemption to provide a 'fee -in -lied.
Owner -occupied protects, may choose to pay a 'fee -in -lieu' for their affordable housing obligation,
or may offer affordable for -sale units to non -profits for management and re -sale to income -
qualifying owners. Proceeds from the 'fee -in -lieu' fund may be used for down payment
assistance for income -qualifying households purchasing owner -occupied units.
Comment
Affordable rental housing is the community's greatest housing need. Affordable rental units must
be developed on -site unless the development qualifies for a hardship exemption to provide a
'fee -in -lieu' (see below). To create economically integrated neighborhoods, affordable housing
units must be built within each development. This on -site requirement prevents affordable
housing from being clustered and prevents income -based concentrations within the Riverfront
Crossings area.
Developments designed for owner -occupied units are allowed to provide either a 'fee -in- Lieu' or
provide units on -site. This flexibility is provided because it is more difficult for low income families
to qualify for mortgages. If the City participates financially, owner -occupied units could be
required to be on -site through the developer's agreement.
PRINCIPLE #5 - Alternatives to the on -site affordable housing set -aside should be
provided.
Alternatives:
• 'Fee -in -lieu' contributions. These contributions may include money, land or other in -kind
contributions. Rental projects may appeal on site requirement in exchange for a 'fee -in -
lieu' option. This may be provided off -site but only within the Riverfront Crossings Area.
Comment
A Yee -in -lieu' contribution allows a developer to make a cash payment instead of constructing the
required affordable housing units. The fee is to be based on the financial -gap between market
rate units and affordable units. These payments are deposited into an affordable housing fund or
managed by the City to fund/assist other affordable housing opportunities. Fee -in -lieu provisions
are common in IH ordinances to provide flexibility and to acknowledge that affordable housing
may not be practical (e.g. a development loses money as an unavoidable consequence of the IH
requirement). Fees allow for the creation of an affordable housing fund to provide housing in
other locations, fund non -profits, provide down -payment assistance for home ownership, or other
similar types of affordable housing funding.
PRINCIPLE #6 - Funds created from 'fee -in -lieu' contributions should be used to create an
Affordable Housing Fund for the sole purpose of supporting affordable housing in the
Riverfront Crossings area.
Use of funds:
• Funds can only be utilized for affordable housing located within the Riverfront Crossings
Area.
• Funds may be used for down payment assistance for owner -occupied households.
i. Down payment assistance made available for income -qualifying households must be
repaid upon resale of the unit. Down payment assistance may then be recycled to
another income -qualifying household. Owner is able to keep any equity over and
above the down payment assistance.
• Funds may be used to provide grants/low interest and/or forgivable loans to local
non-profit affordable housing agencies (e.g. Fellowship, Trust Fund, Habitat, other) for
affordable housing development.
Oversight of funds
• A third party agency should manage the Affordable Housing Fund. A third party (e.g. the
Housing Trust Fund or similar agency) has the expertise and staff to administer this fund
without having to add a City staff. The City may provide criteria by which the funds may
be used and request annual reports on use of the funds.
Comment
City legal staff advise that fees acquired as part of the development process in Riverfront
Crossings must be used solely for affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings.
PRINCIPLE #7 — Affordable housing should be provided to households of a qualifying
income level.
Income Target
Renters: Not to exceed 60% of Area Median Income (AMI). With a TIF project, the City may
negotiate affordability level (i.e, some units at a lower percentage than 60% AMI).
Owners: Not to exceed 110% AMI. With a TIF project, the City may negotiate affordability level
(i.e, some units at a lower percentage than 110% AMI).
Elderly/Disabled: Developments designed and utilized for elderly/disabled are not required to
provide an affordable housing set -aside.
Comment
The AMI for a 3 person household is $74,100, Affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings is
being defined at 60% AMI for rental housing ($44, 460 for 3 person household and is the funding
level for federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects) and 110% AMI for owner occupied
units ($81,510 for 3 person household). The greatest need is for affordable rental housing
because almost 213 of all renters in the community are cost -burdened (i.e. pay more than 30%
of adjusted income for rent).
fnclusionary Housing Ordinance
Riverfront Crossings District
Sub -Committee Draft
April 7, 2016
Findings.
• 2008 & 2013 Iowa City Area Housing Market Analysis findings
• Impediments to Fair Housing Choice findings
• City Steps 2016-2020 goals
• Iowa City Comprehensive Plan goals
• Based upon the review and consideration of these recent housing studies, reports, and analysis,
it is clear that the provisions of this chapter are necessary in order to preserve and increase
diversity of housing opportunities for the city's residents.
• A diverse housing stock is necessary in the Riverfront Crossings District to serve people of all
income levels so that they may have increased access to employment centers, educational
institutions, and community services and amenities.
• The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan provides a vision, goals and objectives
encouraging pedestrian -oriented, mixed use redevelopment within the Riverfront Crossings
District.
• The City adopted a form -based code as a primary tool to implement the Master Plan's vision for
this District as a walkable and sustainable urban neighborhood.
• This District is ripe for redevelopment for a mix of uses, including residential uses, because the
City has recently adopted a form based zoning code and historically rents in this area have been
higher than typical apartment rental rates in the City due to the high land prices and low vacancy
rates reflective of the desirable close proximity to downtown and campus.
• The mix of uses allowed under the Riverfront Crossing form based code is intended to encourage
a walkable, pedestrian -friendly area where residents can work, live and play, and will increase the
need for housing that is affordable to the workforce.
• The Riverfront Crossings form based zoning code allows for redevelopment at higher densities
than currently is allowed under existing zoning, and such increase in density will exacerbate the
market factors that have limited the availability of affordable housing in areas close to the center
of town.
• The Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning code provides up to five floors of additional building
height bonus incentive for reserving a minimum of 16% of the dwelling units as affordable or
workforce housing.
• Market factors would not likely result in the creation of affordable housing without the City
providing incentives and requiring the creation of affordable housing in new developments within
this District to mitigate the deleterious effects of high levels of economic development.
Page 1
• There is a public health, safety, moral and general welfare need for affordable housing in the
Riverfront Crossings District.
• Affordable housing is most effective at providing socioeconomic integration when it is distributed
throughout each development and throughout the Riverfront Crossings District, is not
concentrated in certain areas, and the affordable units are indistinguishable from the surrounding
market -rate housing in quality, design, and general appearance.
• Permanent and long-term housing in proximity to the source of employment serves to stabilize
the community, reduce regional traffic congestion, and minimize impacts on adjacent
communities.
• The City has been granted the power to adopt regulations and restrictions on the density of
population, the location and use of buildings, structures and land.
• The City has divided the city into districts it has deemed best suited to carry out the purposes of
the state and municipal zoning codes and has adopted specific regulations and restrictions on the
construction and use of buildings, structures and land within the distinct districts.
• The City has furthermore adopted a Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and zoning code designed to
preserve the availability of agricultural land; to encourage efficient urban development patterns, to
lessen congestion in the street; to promote health and the general welfare; to prevent the
overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentrations of population; to promote the conservation of
energy resources; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage,
schools, parks and other public requirements.
• The Iowa Legislature has adopted "Iowa Smart Planning Principles", codified in Iowa Code
Section 18B.1, which principles include, among others, efforts to facilitate the revitalization of
established town centers and neighborhoods by promoting development that conserves land,
protects historic resources, promotes pedestrian accessibility, and integrates different uses of
property, encouraging diversity in the types of available housing, and promoting the location of
housing near public transportation and employment centers.
• The Iowa Legislature has evidenced support for mixed income neighborhoods by requiring that all
cities consider the residence of a recipient of services under a home or community -based
services waiver as a permitted residential use of property for the purposes of zoning; prohibiting
cities from requiring a special exception or variance for such a use; and prohibiting cities from
establishing limitations regarding the proximity of one such residence to another (Iowa Code
Section 414.32).
• The City Council Strategic Plan intends to foster a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City,
and sets among its top priorities the encouragement of a vibrant and walkable urban core with
diverse housing types and price points for a variety of income levels, and the advancement of
social justice and racial equity affordable housing programs.
Purpose.
The purposes of this chapter are to:
(a) Implement the housing goals of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, and 2016-2020 City Steps;
{b) Implement the housing goals of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan;
(c) Implement the Strategic Plan's intention for a more inclusive, just and sustainable Iowa City;
Page 2
(d) Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce;
(a) Increase opportunities for people to work and five in the city;
(f) Implement a recommendation of the 2014 Analysis to Impediments to Fair Housing, which
recommended an Inclusionary Housing program for the Riverfront Crossings District as an approach
for making diverse housing available; and
(g) Promote a balanced community that provides housing for people with diverse income levels.
Definitions.
Affordable Housing: The collective reference to Owner -occupied Affordable Housing and/or Affordable
Rental Housing.
Affordable Rental Housing is housing that is rented for no more than the HUD Fair Market Rent for the
Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area, as adjusted annually, and rented to households whose income
is equal to or less than 60% of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually.
Owner -occupied Affordable Housing is housing that is sold at a price no greater than the most current
published Housing and Urban Development (HUD) homeownership sale price limit for existing and
new homes for households with an annual household income equal to or less than 110% of the area
median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually.
Income -eligible Household: A household is an income -eligible household for purposes of purchasing an
Owner -occupied Affordable Housing dwelling unit if that household has an annual income equal to or
less than 110% of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. A household is
an income -eligible household for leasing an Affordable Rental Housing dwelling unit if that household
has an annual income equal to or less than 60% of the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted annually.
General Requirements,
(a) Affordable Housing Requirement:
Except for Elder Apartment Housing developments, any development containing ten or more
dwelling units on land zoned a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation is required to provide
Affordable Housing dwelling units in an amount equal to or greater than ten percent of the total
number of dwelling units. Should ten percent of the total number of dwelling units result in a
fractional number, this fraction shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number for any fraction over
fifty percent to establish the required number of Affordable Housing dwelling units.
(b) Methods of Achieving Affordability:
The Affordable Housing Requirement may be satisfied through the provision of i) on -site owner -
occupied affordable housing, 11) on -site Affordable Rental Housing, iii) a fee in -lieu contribution to an
affordable housing fund; iv) off -site affordable housing, and/or v) contribution of land. If the owner
desires to utilize methods iv or v, the owner must establish that methods 1, ii, and iii cannot feasibly
be satisfied on -site, as reasonably determined by the City. Upon rezoning to a Riverfront Crossings
zoning designation, the property owner shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the
City establishing which method or methods it will utilize, which must be executed prior to the close of
the public hearing on the rezoning application. Upon application for a building permit, the property
owner shall enter into an agreement with the City detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this
code, which shall include details of the programming and development requirements if applicable.
The City Manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be
recorded in the records of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder's Office at owner's expense.
(c) Term of Affordability:
Page 3
The Affordable Housing dwelling units shall remain so for no less than ten years from the issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling unit.
(d) Occupancy:
No Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall be occupied by anyone other than an Income -eligible
Household. Households that wish to purchase or rent Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be
subject to verification of their eligibility in accordance with the applicable Income Verification
provisions set forth below, and reasonable asset limitations set by the City Manager or designee in
order to accomplish the purposes of this chapter.
(e) Deed Restriction:
A deed restriction documenting the Affordable Housing requirements, selected method of achieving
affordability, term, applicable resale restrictions, and applicable occupancy and rental restrictions
shall be placed upon the Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing dwelling unit or, in the case of the
Affordable Rental Housing, shall be placed upon the land being developed. This deed restriction
shall be recorded with the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder. and lawfully referenced in any deed
conveying title of any such unit or land during the Term of affordability.
(f) Parking:
Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be exempt from the parking otherwise required by the zoning
code -
Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing
In addition to satisfying the General Requirements set forth above, Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing
must satisfy the following requirements:
t. Development Requirements.
(a) Dwelling Unit Types:
The Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be comprised of the same mix of dwelling unit types in
proportion to the market rate dwelling units within the development.
(b) Dwelling Unit Size and Quality:
The Affordable Housing dwelling unit size shall be at least eighty percent of the floor area for the
market rate dwelling units of the same type, and shall be of similar quality, or as approved by the
City Manager or designee.
(c) Location:
The Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the development to achieve
integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the Affordable Housing dwelling units, unless a
different distribution will result in the provision of additional Affordable Housing dwelling units than
that which is required by this Code, as approved by the City Manager or designee.
(d) Timing of Construction:
The Affordable Housing dwelling units shall be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy
concurrently with or prior to the market -rate dwelling units in the development.
2. Program Requirements.
(a) Occupancy: An Affordable Housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the Term of Affordability, be
occupied by an income -eligible household as the household's primary residence,
(b) Income Verification: The annual household income shall be determined according to the HUD Part 5,
Section 8 regulations on Annual Income coded in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and verified by the
City prior to close of the sale.
Page 4
(c) Rental Restriction:
An Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing unit may not be rented, except an owner may rent or lease
a bedroom in the unit.
(d) Sale Restrictions:
In addition to the deed restrictions required above, all required Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing
dwelling units shall be subject to the following sale restrictions during the Term of Affordability,
compliance with which shall be verified by the City Manager, or designee, prior to closing on the
safe.
(1) Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to an
income -eligible household.
(2) Sale Price: The sale price of any Affordable Housing dwelling unit shelf not exceed the
purchase price paid by the original income -eligible household purchaser, with the following
exceptions:
(A) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale.
(8) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a
licensed real estate agent.
(C) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due to
permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant to a
properly issued building permit.
(D) Inflation: The resale price may include a reasonable inflationary factor or shared
appreciation factor.
(3) Special Fees: The seller of an affordable dwelling unit shall not levy or charge any additional
fees or any finder's fee nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in
this chapter.
Affordable Rental Housing
In addition to satisfying the General Requirements set forth above, Affordable Rental Housing must
satisfy the following requirements.
1. Development Requirements.
(a) Affordable rental units shall be provided in accordance with the Development Requirements for
owner -occupied Affordable Housing set forth above.
(b) If a tenant initially deemed an income -eligible household for purposes of occupying an Affordable
Housing dwelling unit pursuant to this chapter, but is subsequently deemed no longer income -eligible
upon annual examination of household income, that tenant's unit shall not be considered an
Affordable Housing dwelling unit and the rent can be adjusted to market rate. To maintain compliance
with the Affordable Housing Requirement, the next available rental unit in the project of comparable
size or larger must be rented to an Income -Eligible Household. To that end, the Affordable Rental
Units need not be specifically designated in a fixed location, but may be floating throughout the
development.
2. Program Requirements.
(a) Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be no more than the Fair Market rents as published by
HUD for the Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area, as adjusted annually.
(b) Occupancy: Affordable rental units must be rented to income -eligible households.
(c) Income Verification: The landlord shall annually verify to the City that the Affordable Rental
Housing units are occupied by income -eligible households. Prior to the commencement of a lease,
the landlord shall determine a potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD Part
Page 5
5, Section 8, regulations on Annual Income codified in 24 CFR 5,609, as amended. Upon extension
or renewal of a lease, the landlord may determine a tenants annual household income based upon
federal income tax returns for all adults in the household.
(d)The owner must annually verify to the City that it is in compliance with these Program
Requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed necessary by the City to determine
compliance, which may include examination the documents used to verify tenant income. Any
violation of this requirement may result in immediate suspension of any rental permit issued for the
applicable unit.
Fee -in -Lieu Contribution
In lieu of providing Affordable Housing dwelling units, an owner may contribute a fee to a Riverfront
Crossings District affordable housing fund to be established by the Clly. The contribution per dwelling unit
shall be determined biennially by resolution of the City Council based upon a formula that analyzes the
difference between renting a market rate unit for the Term of Affordability and renting a dwelling unit
affordable to an income -qualified household. The fund shah be utilized solely for affordable housing
purposes, which may include administration costs, in the Riverfront Crossings District.
Transfer of Affordable Dwelling Units Off -Site
Upon the Owner establishing that the Affordable Housing Requirements cannot be satisfied on -site, as
reasonably determined by the City, it may be satisfied by designating off -site existing or newly
constructed dwelling units in the Riverfront Crossings District as Affordable Housing dwelling units. Any
transferred Affordable Housing units shall in no way waive or reduce any obligation to provide Affordable
Housing units within the development to which the obligation is transferred. In addition to satisfying the
General Requirements set forth above, these units must satisfy the following requirements.
(a) Development Requirements,
(1) Off -Site Affordable Dwelling Units, whether they are owner -occupied or rental units, shall be
provided in accordance with the Development Requirements for owner -occupied Affordable
Housing set forth above. The City reserves the right to deny a request to transfer affordable
housing units to a particular development if it would result in an undue concentration of
Affordable Housing units within that development.
(2) Timing: Where the Affordable Housing Requirement Is to be met through the provision of newly
constructed dwelling units, such units shall be constructed and pass final inspection no later
than the date the occupancy permit is issued for the development creating the need for the
Affordable Housing, unless otherwise agreed upon by the City Manager, or designee. Where
the Affordable Housing Requirement is to be met through the provision of existing off -site
dwelling units, they shall be established as Affordable Housing dwelling units prior to issuance
of any occupancy permit for the development creating the need for the Affordable Housing. The
marketing of the Affordable Housing dwelling units should occur no later than one year after the
first market -rate dwelling unit in the site that generated the requirement passes final inspection,
unless otherwise agreed upon by the City Manager. The deed restriction for the off -site
Affordable Housing shah be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for the development
creating the need for the Affordable Housing.
(b) Programming Requirements:
(1) Where the Off -Site Affordable Dwelling Units are to be Affordable Rental Housing, they shall
comply with the programming requirements for Affordable Rental Housing set forth above.
(2) Where the Off -Site Affordable Dwelling Units are to be Owner -Occupied Affordable Housing,
those units shall comply with the programming requirements for Owner -Occupied Affordable
Housing set forth above.
Land Dedication
Upon the Owner establishing that the Affordable Housing Requirements cannot be satisfied on -site, it
may be satisfied by the dedication of land to the City of Iowa City, or an entity designated by the City of
Page 6
Iowa City, for construction of affordable dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of this chapter,
upon consideration of the following factors.
(a) Location: The land shall be located in the Riverfront Crossings District, in an area appropriate for
residential redevelopment, as determined by the City;
(b) Number of Affordable Units: The total dwelling units possible on the land shall be equal to or greater
than the number of required Affordable Housing dwelling units-
(c) Dwelling Type: The land shall allow for the provision of affordable units of equivalent type (single-
family, multifamily, town home, etc.), floor area, and number of bedrooms to that which would have
been otherwise required;
(d) Land Value: The value of land to be dedicated shall be determined, at the cost of the developer, by
an independent appraiser, who shall be selected from a list of certified appraisers provided by the
City, or by such alternative means of valuation to which a developer and the City agree.
(a) The City reserves the right to refuse dedication of land in satisfaction of the Affordable Housing
Requirement if it determines, in its sole discretion, that such a dedication is not in the best interests of
the public for any reason, including a determination that the City is not likely to construct or administer
an affordable housing development project in a timely manner due to the unavailability of funds or
other resources. Additionally, where the value of the land proposed to be dedicated is less than the
value of the fee in lieu contribution established in accordance with the provisions above, the City
reserves the right to require an owner to contribute a fee making up this difference in values.
Note: Changes will be necessary to the rental permit code, including but not limited to. Sections 17-5-14,
17-5-16(c). Changes will be necessary to the height bonus provisions in 14-2G-7G(10). Changes will
be necessary to the "alternatives to minimum parking requirements"set forth in 14-5A-4F(4).
Administrative Regulations
To the extent the City Manager, or designee, deems necessary, rules and regulations pertaining to this
chapter will be developed, maintained, and enforced in order to assure that the purposes of this chapter
are accomplished. Included in these administrative regulations shall be details regarding how the City will
determine whether a unit is "comparable" for occupancy as an Affordable Rental Housing unit. No person
shall violate any rule or regulation issued under this section.
Monitoring Practice.
The City will adopt a practice of periodically having the City Manager or designee present sufficient
information to the City Council so that it can effectively review the operation of this chapter and determine
whether any of the provisions of this chapter should be amended, adjusted, or eliminated. Such
information should be sufficient to allow the City Council to evaluate the following:
(a) Effectiveness: The effectiveness of this chapter in Contributing to the purposes of this chapter, which
may include information on the net increase in affordable housing for the Riverfront Crossing District;
(b) Trends: Any demographic trends affecting housing affordability indicating the need for amendments
or alterations to the provisions of this chapter;
(c) Integration: The level of integration of the provisions of this chapter with other tools being utilized by
the city as part of a comprehensive approach toward obtaining the goals of this chapter.
Page 7
Additional Information Submitted by Cheryl Cruse May 16,
2016
The University of Iowa Initiative for Sustainable Communities will soon be presenting
information on their 2015-2016 project looking at housing and equity.
They will compare Iowa City with 5 other locations that they consider similar because of having
a large University presence and related housing affordability problems. The 5 locations are
Lawrence KS, Chapel Hill NC, Ann Arbor MI, Portland OR, and Burlington VT.
Looking at Inclusionary Zoning in these 5 towns we find:
Lawrence KS- No IZ yet. (Fair Market Rent went up 17,17% in 2013 and down 9.42% in 2014.)
Chapel Hill NC- Uses 65%AMI paying 30% income for gross rent.
Ann Arbor MI- No IZ but defines affordable as 30% income on housing.
Portland OR -Just got legal right to have IZ. For 20+ units uses 80% AMI and 30% income on
housing.
Burlington VT- Oldest IZ ordinance. 80%AMI to qualify. Rent set at the 65%AMI level paying
30% income for gross rent.
The University of Iowa Initiative for Sustainable Communities states
"Affordable housing is defined as housing units paying no more than 30% of
income toward housing, and also with incomes under 80% AMI:"
If income of affordable housing tenant rises above the cutoff:
Inclusionary housing draft currently says on first income verification to fail to meet set level, the
tenant goes to market rate rent and is not counted as affordable unit. See "Affordable Rental
Housing" 1b.
Some other communities allow an extra year in order to see if the raise in income holds steady.
Incomes can often rise and then fall again.
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programs allow households that exceed 140% of
AM] to be redesignated as a Market Rate Unit.
Public Housing, which can be 80% AM], currently does not ask people to leave if income rises.
However in Spring 2016 HUD is now proposing that a tenant above 80%AMI must be evicted.
This proposal is meeting with opposition as some want to have "mixed income " in Public
Housing. Others see how long the waiting lists are and feel that higher income households
should move on.
FY 2016 FAIR MARKET RENT
DOCUMENTATION SYSTEM
The Final FY 2016 Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area
FMRs for All Bedroom Sizes
Final FY 2016 FMRs By Unit Bedrooms
j iEfficiency- 2ne-Be4ro M Two -Bedroom Three-Bedraom F our-Bedroorz
$552
$665
$863
$1,258 $1,507
The Office of Management and Budget release new Core Based Statistical Area
definitions in February 2013. The Census American Community Survey
incorporated these definitions in the ACS2013 release, which are the basis for
FY2016 Fair Market Rents. HUD has elected to continue use of the pre-2013
definitions except where the post-2013 definitions result in a smaller FMR area.
This is consistent with HUD's objective to maximize tenant choice by allowing
FMRs to vary locally.
The Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area consists of the following counties: Johnson
County, Iowa. All information here applies to the entirety of the Iowa City, IA HUD
Metro FMR Area,
Fair Market Rent Cak elation Methodology
Show/Hide Methodology Narrative
Fair Market Rents for metropolitan areas and non -metropolitan FMR areas are
developed as follows:
1. 2009-2013 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) estimates of 2-
bedroom adjusted standard quality gross rents calculated for each FMR area
are used as the new basis for FY2016 provided the estimate is statistically
reliable. The test for reliability is whether the margin of error for the estimate
is less than 50% of the estimate itself.
If an area does not have a reliable 2009-2013 5-year, HUD checks whether
the area has had a reliable estimate in any of the past 5 years. If so, the
most recent reliable estimate is updated by the change in the area's
corresponding State metropolitan or non -metropolitan area from the year of
the most recent reliable estimate to 2009. This update value becomes the
httprj!svauu.hudueecgov/uortal!dataGets/fmdfinrs/FY2418_code!?Dt6summary.odr. 319!76. 9:79 AM1."
Page 1 of e
basis for FY2016.
If an area has not had a reliable estimate in the past 5 years, the estimate
State for the area's corresponding metropolitan area (if applicable) or State
non -metropolitan area is used as the basis for FY2016.
2. HUD calculates a recent mover adjustment factor by comparing a 2013 1-year
40th percentile recent mover 2-bedr000m rent to the 2009-2013 5-year 40th
percentile adjusted standard quality gross rent. If either the recent mover and
non -recent mover rent estimates are not reliable, HUD uses the recent mover
adjustment for a larger geography. For metropolitan areas, the order of
geographies examined is: FMR Area, Entire Metropolitan Area (for Metropolitan
Sub -Areas), State Metropolitan Portion, Entire State, and Entire US; for non -
metropolitan areas, the order of geographies examined is: FMR Area, State Non -
Metropolitan Portion, Entire State, and Entire US. The recent mover adjustment
factor is floored at one.
3. HUD calculates the appropriate recent mover adjustment factor between the 5-
year data and the 1-year data and applies this to the 5-year base rent estimate.
4. Rents are calculated as of 2014 using the relevant (regional or local) change in
gross rent Consumer Price Index (CPI) from annual 2013 to annual 2014.
5. All estimates are then inflated from 2014 to FY2016 using a trend factor based on
the forecast of gross rent changes through FY2016.
6. FY2016 FMRs are then compared to a State minimum rent, and any area whose
preliminary FMR falls below this value is raised to the level of the State minimum.
The results of the Fair Market Rent Step -by -Step Process
1. The following are the 2013 American Community Survey 5-year 2-Bedroom
Adjusted Standard Quality Gross Rent estimate and margin of error for Iowa City,
IA HUD Metro FMR Area.
ACS2013 5-
Year 2-
ACS201.3 5-Year 2-
Bedroom
Bedroom Adjusted
Area Adjusted
Standard Quality Ratio Result
Standard
Cross Rent Margin
Quality Gross
of Error
Rent
j
Iowa
City,
IA
HUD
Metro
FMR
$7$3
0.017 < .5 Use
ACS2013 5-Year
Iowa City, IA HUD
$13 / Metro FMR Area
$783=0.017 2-Bedroom
Adjusted
nttns:r'fivviw.hudusar.gaviPorfai;d5tasats/fmrlfmrs)PY2Q16_co4aj2016summarY-adn 819116, 9:19 AM
Papa 2 of 6
Area Standard Quality
G ross i Rent
Since the ACS2013 Margin of Error Ratio is less than .5, the ACS2013 Iowa :City, IA
HUD Metro FMR Area value is used for the estimate of 2-Bedroom Adjusted
Standard Quality Gross Rent:
Area ACS2013 Rent
i Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area $783
2. A recent mover adjustment factor is applied based on the smallest area of
geography which contains Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area and has an ACS2013
1-year Adjusted Standard Quality Recent -Mover estimate with a Margin of Error
Ratio that is less than .5.
ACS2013 1-Year
2-Bedroom
Area Adjusted
Standard Quality
Recent -Mover
Gross Rent
ACS2013 1-Year 2-
Bedroom Adjusted
Standard Quality Ratio
Recent -Mover Gross
Rent Margin of Error
Result
Iowa
0.123 ¢ .5
City,
Use ACS2013 1-Year
IA
Iowa City, IA HUD
HUD $806
$99 0.123 Metro FMR Area 2-
Metro
Bedroom Adjusted
FMR
Standard Quality
Area
Recent -Mover Gross
Rent
The smallest area of geography which contains Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR
Area and has an ACS2013 1-year Adjusted Standard Quality Recent -Mover
estimate with a Margin of Error Ratio that is less than .5 is Iowa City, IA HUD
Metro FMR Area.
3. The calculation of the relevant Recent -Mover Adjustment Factor for Iowa City, IA
HUD Metro FMR Area is as follows:
ACS2013 ACS2013 5-Year 40th ACS2013 1-Year 40th Percentile
5-Year Percentile 2-Bedroom 2-Bedroom Adjusted Standard
Area Adjusted Standard Quality Quality Recent --Mover Gross
Gross Rent Rent
Iowa City,
11ttps:1/vrn.r.huduser.goviportaifdatasetsftr1fmrs/FY2016 code/2016summ ary.odn 319116, 9:19 Abi
Page 3 of ,
IA HUD $783 $886
Metro FMR
Area
Area Ratio Recent -Mover Adjustment Factor!
Iowa City, IA HUD $806 / 1.029 >_ 1.0 Use calculated Recent -Mover I
Metro FMR Area $783 Adjustment Factor of 1.029
=1.029
4. The calculation of the relevant CPI Update Factors for Iowa City, IA HUD Metro
FMR Area is as follows: HUD updates the 2013 intermediate rent with the ratio of
the annual 2014 local or regional CPI to the annual 2013 local or regional CPI to
establish rents as of 2014.
Update Factor Type l
CPI Update Factor 1.0238 Region CPI
5. The calculation of the Trend Factor is as follows: HUD uses the forecasted change
in national gross rents from 2014 to 2016. This makes Fair Market Rents "as of"
FY2016. For more information on the calculation of the trend factor, please see
here.
Trend Factor j
1.0457
6. The FY 2016 2-Bedroom Fair Market Rent for Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area is
calculated as follows:
4
Recent-
�2ox3
Annual 2013
Trer�dinc�
FY 2016 2-
Area
5-Year doer
to 2014 CPI
1'0457
Bedroom
Adjustment
Estimate
Adjustment
jQ
FMR
.Factor
FY2016
Iowa City,
$783 * 1.029
IA HUD
$783 1.029
1.0238
1.0457
* 1.0238 * `
Metro FMR
1.0457=$863
J Area
7. In keeping with HUD policy, the preliminary FY 2016 FMR is checked to
ensure that is does not fall below the state minimum.
j Preliminary FY 2016 Final FY2016 2-Bedroom
I Area FY2016 2- Iowa State
h ttPs:lptdwW.hudusergov/portaljdatasets; fmrlfmrs/FY2016_code12016summary.odn 3/9!16, 9:19 AN
Page 4 of 6
Bedroom FMR Minimum
FMR
Iowa City, IA
HUD Metro
FMR Area
$863 >_ $619 Use Iowa City,
$863 $ 19 IA HUD Metro FMR Area FMR
of $863
Final FY2016 Rents for All Bedroom Sizes for Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area
The following table shows the Final FY 2016 FMRs by bedroom sizes.
Click on the links in the table to see how the bedroom rents were derived.
Final FY 2016 FMRs By Unit Bedrooms
Cff1c€ency_ One- Two-' Three- Foie
Bedroom Bedroom 3edroom g-drooin
Final FY 2016 _T $552
FMR $665 $863 $1,258 $1,507
The FMRs for unit sizes larger than four bedrooms are calculated by adding 15
percent to the four bedroom FMR, for each extra bedroom. For example, the FMR
for a five bedroom unit is 1.15 times the four bedroom FMR, and the FMR for a six
bedroom unit is 1.30 times the four bedroom FMR. FMRs for single -room
occupancy units are 0.75 times the zero bedroom (efficiency) FMR.
Permanent link to this page: http://www.huduser.gov/portal/data
sets/fm r/fm rs/FY2016_code/2016su m mary, odn?
8tyear=2016&fmrty_pe=Final&cbsasub= METR0269ROMM 3500
Other HUD Metro FMR Areas in the Same MSA
Select another Final FY 2016 HUD Metro FMR Area that is a part of the Iowa City, IA
Washington County, IA HUD Metro FMR Area Select Metropolitan FMR Area
Select a different area
Press below to select a different county within the
same state (same primary state for metropolitan
areas):
Adair County, IA Select a new county
Press below to select a different state:
Select a new state
httosj/w+nve.hudusengor/portaVdatasets Ifmgfmrs/FY2016 code/2016summary.0dr
319/16, 9:19 APo1
Page 5 of oa
Select a Final FY 2016 Metropolitan FMR Area:
Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area
Select Metropolitan FMR Area
HUD Home Page I HUD User Home I Data Sets ( Fair Market Rents I Section 8 Income
Limits FMRJIL Summary System f Multifamily Tax Subsidy Proje t. M7 P) Income Lim!
I HUD LIHTC Database
Prepared by the Economic and Market Analysis Division, HUD. Technical problems or questions?
Contact Us.
ttps://Wmlj.huduscr.aayportal)datasets(tmr)imrs/Ft2016_codef2016simimary.odn 3)9(i 6, 9:19 ANA
pace 6 of 6
Information submitted by Cheryl Cruise
May 13, 2016
Planning and Zoning Commission,
You will be receiving a draft of the inclusionary housing ordinance for Riverfront Crossings.
I have followed the work of the committee on this draft and have some comments about the
ordinance related to affordable rental units.
The draft recommends that affordable housing rental units be reserved for households with
Income of 60%AMI as defined by HUD for Median Family Income from the American
Community Survey. (All data from this Census Bureau survey comes with caveats about
sampling errors, non sampling errors, and large margin of error to be taken into account which
are too often ignored.) AMI, or Area Median Income, is reported by Census Bureau as Johnson
County Household AMI, Family Median Income, and Non -family Median Income. Each category
has large differences between these groups.
Compare the draft 60%AMI recommendation with other documents and groups:
* Iowa City Public Housing: 80% AMI and no move needed if income rises.
* CDBG taxpayer purchased rental units: 80% AMI.
* 2007 Iowa City Metro Affordable Market Analysis: 80% AMI.
* 2014 Update to the 2007 Market Analysis: low/moderate income or 80% to 120% AMI.
* "Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice: Iowa City", February 2014: 80% AMI.
* "Increasing Affordable Housing in Iowa City" by affordable housing experts, September
2013: 80% AMI.
* City Steps 2016-2020: focus on low/moderate income, 80+%AMI.
* "Workforce Housing": 80% AMI to 120%AMI.
* Andy Johnson, administrative assistant to Johnson County, former director of Johnson
County Housing Trust Fund: " 80% AMI paying 30% of income for housing."
The committee thought the ordinance should be like Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
projects which are currently aimed at 60% AMI but also have large tax credits to make the
project work. This local ordinance is intended to cover newly constructed units with no TIF
subsidy.
HUD publishes yearly a maximum income for LIHTC units. HUD also publishes the maximum
rent for each size of unit. HUD defines affordable rental housing as costing 30% of income for
rent and utilities,
The maximum gross rent= 30% of the income for the household size that is derived from the
bedroom count for the AMI that matches the unit's set aside such as 60%AMI. HUD defines
units by persons in household this way:
* Studio= 1 person income limit
* 1 bedroom = 1.5 persons
* 2 bedroom = 3 persons
* 3 bedroom = 4.5 persons
Inclusionary housing ordinances are intended to provide a set percentage of new units as
"affordable housing." Affordable housing is consistently defined in the nation as not being "cost
burdened" which is defined as not paying more than 30% of Income for housing costs.
Instead of using the 30% of income, the draft ordinance defines affordable housing as not
paying more than the HUD calculated yearly Fair Market Rent as a maximum rent. Fair Market
Rent is calculated for use with the Section 8 program and is neither "fair" nor "market".
The national association of directors of all the public housing authorities (PHADA) tells HUD
every year that Fair Market Rent is "flawed, not credible, inaccurate, and volatile, showing wild
swings from year to year."
Here is how to get Fair Market Rent:
Start with the annual American Community Survey. There were 918 households In the 2014
sample. This was about one and a half percent of all households in Johnson County in 2014.
Take out the renters, about 38% of the 2014 sample.
That makes about 350 renter households out of about 21,200 rental units in Johnson County.
From that, take out just the 2 bedroom units of people that moved recently.
From that tiny sample, combine with the previous 4 years of tiny samples.
Make some mathematical adjustments to find the 401" percentile and then add a cost of living
escalator.
This answer will be fair market rent of 2 bedrooms for 2017. Make percent calculations to
decide what studio, 1 bedroom, 3 bedroom will be.
Because of the small survey sample Fair Market Rent often goes down instead of up. It is
unpredictable and inconsistent. Right now Fair Market Rent approximates 40% to 55% AMI for
small units and 80% AM] for 3 bedroom units.
If the goal is to relieve cost burden, then the maximum rent for affordable housing should use
the 30% of income threshold; not less than that. It is easy to do the math but HUD also
provides the 300A of income calculation each year.
Publicly subsidized housing assists households with very low income (50%AMI) and extremely
low income (30%AMI). This is now about 13%of Johnson County rentals.
Mortgage interest is tax deductible for people who can buy housing.
Inclusionary housing is intended for those in the middle.
Since the Riverfront Crossings ordinance could be a model for the county, I suggest that our
definition of affordable housing be similar to the rest of the country and HUD.
Best regards,
Cheryl Cruise
Iowa City, Iowa
Attachments:
Johnson County definition of affordable housing
American Community Survey raw data for Area Median Income
ACS raw data on cost burden by age
HUD income limits for LIHTC projects 2016
HUD calculated maximum gross rent for LIHTCs 2015
Johnson County definition of affordable housing
Affordable Housing: Housing is affordable for households with incomes at or
below 80% of the HUD established Area Median Income if residents pay no more
than 30% of their gross monthly income for either; rent, insurance, and utilities or
mortgage, principal, interest, insurance and homeowner fees.
S1903 MEDIAN INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2014 INFLATION -ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, His the Census Bureau s
Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and
towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties_
Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found an the American Community
Survey website in the Data and Documentation section.
Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American
Community Survey website in the Methodology section.
Versions of this
table are available
for the following
years:
2014 D
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2006
Subject
1
30
of
30 _.
Households
One race-
Vuhite
Black or A6ican American
- American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Some Omar race
Two or more races
Hispanic or Latino origin {of any race)
While alone. not Hispanic or Latino
HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF
HOUSEHOLDER
15 to 24 Years
25 to 44 years
45 to 64 years_
65 years and over
Johnson County, loin
Total
Modian inoorrio (dallarsi
Margin of
Margin of
Estimate
Error
Estimate
Error
55.574 -
+/-1,409 ;
60.254
+1-4,974
W.A.1
+/-1.7
65107-
+1-5,373
N
- - - N
33.677
-1-6.116
N1
v_IN
N,
N
N
38,560
_N�
+1-18,182
N'
N
N
N
54,598
+I-IbAli!
N
_ N.
N
- _. _ N
N ,
N71
80,325
+1J0,S D1
84 7v1
+1-1.7
64.886
+/-5,442
14.2%
+/-9.8
14,529
!
+7-5,5-0-01
38.214.
+;,2.0
62.357
+/-11,398
32.1%'
_,- +/-1.9 i79.818.
15.4%
+1-1.2
59.390
+l-11.764
FAMILIES
Families
W1th own Children under 18 years
With no own children under 18 years
Married couple families
Female householder, nc husband present�r
Male householder, no wife present
NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS
Nonfamily, households
Female househader
Living alone
Not living alone -- --
Male householder
Living alone
Not living alone
:PERCENT €MPU7ED
31,5201
+1-1,9651
84,137
+1-2,935
N
N
7913n
H-5.379
N !
N I,
+/-8,550
N
N
96.776
_ N 1
N
F6,555
+1-7,079
N _
N
4-8.3660
+�1-19,7477
}'
{
24,054 1
53.5%
35.0°/
Household income in the past 12 months 1 222%
Family income in the past 12 months 1 22.4
Nonfamily income in the past 12 months 21.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
+1-1.972 ! 28,932E
+14.3 28.978
--+14,5 28,772
+)-4.0 29,309
.3, -__+1-425,294I_..
+1-4.8 22,359
+f-3.81 31,60B
Explanation of Symbols:
Ai entry in the margin of Offer column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample Observations were available to compute
a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.
http:(lfactfindor.cenau s.9oalfacesltahlesew1ce sfl sflpagesfp rod uctvieW.xhtml?pid=AC524_iYR_51903&prod Type=table
v.n - entry in me estimate crnumn maicams mar eerier no sample ooservauons or too raw sample oaservavons wereavasame m compute an
estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates fags in the lowest interval or upper interval of
an open-ended distribution.
An'= following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.
An'+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution -
An' —'entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A
statistical test Is not appropriate.
An entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is Controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
An Wentry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of
sample cases is too small.
An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is
represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown hen: is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted
roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin
of error fine tower and upper camidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition 10 sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to
nonsampling error (fora discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in
these tables.
While the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
definitions of metropolitan and mioropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown
rn ACS tables may difierfrom the OMB definitions due to differences in the oHective dates of the geographic entities.
Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010
data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the resutls of ongoing urbanization.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau I American FactFiader
http:Rtactfinder.census.govtfacesttah7eservicesijsf1pageslproductview.xhtml?pid=ACS_i4 JYR_S1903&prodType=table 10118/16, 1:33 piA
Page 2 of 2
B26072 AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF
HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS
Universe: Renter -occupied housing units
2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the
Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population
for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.
Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the
American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section.
Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on
the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.
Versions of this
table are available
for the follovAng
years:
2014 ►
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2006
29
of
29
Johnson Coutriy, Iowa
Estimate Margin of Error
Total: -- -L _21,241 +/-1,872
Householder 15 to 24 years: 7,688 - - +1-1,095
Less than 20.0 percent I 864 +I-612
20.6 to 24.9 percent 314 +1-234
25.0 to 29,9 percent _ _172
Po 30.0 34.9 percent 399
35.0 percent or more 4,686
Not computed -- - --- - - 1,253
Householder 25 to 34 years: 6,312
Lessthart 20.0 percent 1,693
20.0 to 24.9 percent 672
+1-207
+I� 10
+1-1,111
+N217,
+/-1,200
+1-666
+/-469�
+/-454
_
25.0 to 29.9 percent
637
30.0 to 34.9 percent_
35.0 percent or more
358
+/-292
2,881
+/-986
Not computed
71
+1-100
Householder 35 to 64 years,
5.740
+1-1,015
_ Less than 20.0 percent
1,6_91
+1-533
20.0 to 24.9 percent
644
+1-5134
25.0 to 29.9 percent
589
+1-369
30.0 to 34.9 percent
114
+1-158
35.0 percent or more
2,216
+1-831
Not computed
286
+/-259
Householder 65 years and over,
1,501
+/-479
Less than 20.0 percent
97
+1-90
20.0 to 24.9 percent
84
74
+1-96
25.0 io 29.9 percent
_
30.0 to 34.9 percent
S1
1,054
131
+1-99
+1-464
+1-133
35.0 percent or more
Not computed
Source. U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
Explanation of Symbols:
An " entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations
were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.
An'-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were
available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median
estimates falls in the lowest interva€ or uooer interval of an ooen-ended distribution,
http:llfactfindecconsus.goVlfaCesltables2rViteelj SffPageslproductview.xhtml?pid=ACS 141YR_625072&prodType=tab1e 10129115, 3:38 PM
Page 1 of 2
FY 2016 MULTIFAMILY TAX SUBSIDY PROJECT INCOME
LIMITS SUMMARY
Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area was subject to HUD's Hold Harmless Policy in 2007 and 2008.
Section 3009fa)(L)(ii & f iii) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Fulblic Law 110- 89
defines projects within Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area as "HUD hold harmless impacted project" if
the project was subject to a policy similar to the rules outlined in section 3009(a)(E)(i) to prevent
income limits from declining. These projects are given special income limits as defined in part (a)(E)(ii)
(II) of section 3009. Income limits and their associated rents are defined by HERA Specified in the
tables below.
Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area
FY
2016 FY 2016
MTSP
MTSP Median
Income I 2 3 4 Person 5 6 7 8
Income Incom Person Person Person Person Person Person Person
Limit Limit
Area
Category
Iowa
City, IA
HUD
Metro
FMR
Area
$86,900
50
Percent
HER
Specia
Income
Limits
60
Percent
HERA
ecial
Income
Limits
$30,700 $35,100 $39,500 $43,850 $47,400 $50,900 $54,400 $57,900
$36,340 $42,120 $47,400 $52,620 $56,880 $61,080 $65,280 $69,480
Projects which have not used Income Limits prior to the publication of FY2016 Income Limits for
determining income eligibility and maximum rents use the following income limits
Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area
FY
2016 FY 2016
MTSP Median MTSP 1 2 3 5 6 7 8
Income Income Income Person Person Person 4 Person Person Person Person Person
Limit Limit
Area Category
https;llwww.huduser.govlportalJdatasetslillii2Ol6/2Ol$Sum_mts... y%2C+IA+HUD+Metro+FMR+Area&area choice=hmfa&year=201e 5M/16, 7:35 AM
Page 1 of 3
Iowa
City, IA
HUD
Metro $86,900
FMR
Area
U
Percent $30,250 $34,600 $38,900 $43,200 $46,700 $50,150 $53,600 $57,050
Income
i imitc
1Q
Percent
Income $36,300 $41,520 $46,680 $51,840 $56,040 $60,180 $64,320 $68,460
Limit
NOTE: Official MTSP Income limits, available in pdf and excel formats at this Li1t)s, may differ
slightly from those calculated in the documentation system and should be used for ALL
official purposes. Underlined headings in both the IL table link to detailed documentation
concerning the calculations of the parameters listed here.
NOTE: Based on paragraph (a)(E)(i) of section 3009 of the Housing and Economic Recovery
Act (HERA) of 2008 (Public Law 110-289), projects that used income limits based on the
FY2009 publication should use the higher of the FY2009 or FY2011 income limits.
Determination of Maximum Income Limits
The Following table outlines the maximum set of Income Limits for existing projects within Iowa City, IA
HUD Metro FMR Area to use based on the projects Placed in Service Date:
F-- --
Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area
Vintage of Maximum Income Limits
Placed In Service Date Maximum Income Limits
On or before 12/31/2008 FY2015 HERA Special
1/1/2009to 5/13/2010 FY2016
5/14/2010to 5/31/2011 FY2016
6/1/2011 to 11/30/2011 FY2016
12/01/2011to 12/10/2012 FY2016
12/11/2012 to 12/17/2013 FY2016
12/18/2013 to 3/05/2015 FY2016
3/06/2015to 3/27/2016 FY2016
3/28/2016to Present EY2016
NOTE: Official determinations of maximum income limits and all compliance issues are the purview of
the State Housing Finance Agencies and the Internal Revenue Service. A list of state allocating agencies
and their internet contact information is available here.
https; iIw ww.hudu se r.g oviportaI)datasetsli102016120151, mts... Y%2C+IA+HUD +Metro +F MR+Area&area choice=h mfa&year=2016 5i12r[5, 7:35 AM
Page 2 of 3
c i s
Ilnr Services
MarkcLEsasibdiq
'rac C'rediyLTHTC'
Suidem Housin¢
At1ar11 UR_,mL,
�slcSrmily
I 1 nean
i2llta
61riEdine rtmuls
gawr Honsinx Dn[a
VA,. We,x Aria
Tax Ctedit
Mani Paee
Max Aeocs'Inenmes
fair Market Rents
4(3: Datawu
Dirt' 0n'A,c n
Acfides
Ncwsleaer Archive
Sonia Recoils
• Ring
Contact Its
Press
Subscribe to
Mailine Dist
Links
IiMp oyraent
• rch
Staff
M N17 FEASSUITY FOR THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY 1
Query Results (Non New Enaland Counties)
For some areas, dLID ad usts rents for low and high housing costs or uses the state
nonmetro a ea median income. If you notice an incongruity between the county
median income and the reported maximum incomes and rents, it is likely that HUD
has adjusted these figures.
The following results cover two situations. Our first set of rents and incomes is for
existing properties. Such properties may be subject to the "hold harmless" policy in
which rents and incomes are not subject to decreases according to the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act (HERA). The second set of tables illustrates rents and
incomes for properties which have not yet been placed in service. The "hold
harmless" policy does not apply to these properties per HERA. Please visit the HUD
User website to determine which set of income limits apply to your property
2015 Income limits and rents have an as -of date of 3/06/2015
Is this area subject to the Hold Harmless Policy per HERA? Yes
2016 Income Limits for existing properties to which the Hold Harmless Limits
apply per HERA.
State, IA 2015 State Nonmetro Median: $61800
County: Johnson 2015 County Median Income: $82300
MSA name: Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area
HOU$rNQ DDSSLZE
30%
800/0
One Person:
$29100
$34920
Two Persons:
$33250
$39900
Three Persons:
$37400
$44880
Four Persons:
S41550
$49860
Five Persons:
$44900
$53880
Six Persons:
S48200
$57a40
MAXIMUM
RENTS*
UNIT SIZE
600/6
60%
Studio
$727.6
$873
One -bedroom:
$779.375
$935.25
Two -bedroom:
$935
$1122
Three -bedroom:
$1080.625
$1296.75
Four -bedroom:
$1205
$1446
2016 Income Limits for properties to which the Hold Harmless Limits do not
apply per HERA.
State: IA 2015 State Nonmetro Median: $61800
County: Johnson 2015 County Median Income: $82300
http:fJW WW ctanter.comlTAXCREDITIgetrents.asp?state—IA&county=Johnson 5113116, 7:35 AM
Page I of 3
MSAname: Iowa City, IA HUD Metro FMR Area
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
=2
¢Q!y
One Person:
$28850
$34620
Two Persons:
$32950
$39540
Three Persons:
$37050
$44460
Four Persons:
$41150
$49380
Five Persons:
$44450
$53340
Six Persons:
$47750
$57300
MAXIMUM
RENTS"
UNIT SIZE
600%
eel
Studio
$721.26
$865.5
One -bedroom:
$772.5
$927
Two-beciroom:
$926.25
$1111.5
Three -bedroom:
$1070
$1284
Four -bedroom:
$1193.75
$1432.5
The following Maximum Income Trends table is for all
properties regardless of Placed In Service Date
Maximum Income Trends (10 mrsl
2005 Median Income: $68000
2007 Median Income: $68200
2008 Median Income: $71900
2009 Median Income: $76000
2010 Median Income: $77800
2011 Median Income: $79200
2012 Median Income: $80300
2013 Median Income: $75800
2014 Median Income: $79500
2015 Median Income: $82300
'Ali rents are gross rents (including utilities). Utility allowances must be deducted from these rents to
determine net or street rents.
"For nonmetro counties, if the county median income is lower than the state nonmetro income, the
incomes and rents provided here have already been adjusted by HUD to the state nonmetro income levels
and no further adjustments are necessary.
See here for Fair Market Rents
un another analysis
Quick Navigation: Go to Danter ....
What's Nela I Search I Tax Credit 1 StartsWatch I Free Newsletterv' Methodolog}�
Our Scnicea I Staff I Been flierc I Home I 1-m-i9p i ew
1YgNAlmLmA
All in6.6oa on this web site *The Daoter Company,
lawrponW
onfogdantercom
I Dancer Company, 2760 Airport Dn z, Suite 135 Columbus,
OH 43219
i 14 221 1-91196
http:liwww.danter.com/TAXCREnITigetrents.asp?state=[A&county=Johnson 5)73116, 7:35 AM
Gage 2 of 3
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
` �Na
Am
0 MEMORANDUM
Date: May 13. 2016
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
Re: Discussion of amendments to City Code Title 14 to adopt amendments related to
establishing a Community Service — Long Term Housing use, and establishing
parking, density, and provisional and special exception criteria for said use
INTRODUCTION: Staff has been discussing the potential for a FUSE i Housing First project
with local human services agencies. 'FUSE' stands for Frequent User System Engagement, in
layman's terms it is a reference to the chronically homeless who are frequent users of local
institutions such as the justice system, hospitals ! medical clinics, and human services agencies.
A significant component of FUSE is to provide housing in a model referred to as Housing First.
Housing First is a treatment model that emphasizes, instead of moving households through
levels of housing (street to shelter to transitionalitemporary to independent housing), providing
chronically homeless persons secure housing as a first step. This approach is based on the
concept that for many of the chronically homeless, the first and primary need is to obtain stable
housing; and that once stable housing is secured, other issues can be addressed. The attached
articles help explain in greater detail the goals of a Housing First program.
One of the things local human services agencies have struggled with, in trying to find an
appropriate location for a Housing First use, are criteria in the Iowa City Zoning Code. Iowa City
currently has no appropriate definition for a 'Housing First' multi -family use other than regulating
it as a standard multi -family development; density and parking requirements for multi -family
developments are designed for typical households and not FUSE clients.
In reviewing the Zoning Code for this use, staff realized that we currently do not have a land use
that refers to a community service use for long-term multi -family housing operated by a public or
non-profit agency. While the Zoning Code does have land use definitions for 'Group Care
Facilities' such as Assisted Living Facilities and Group Homes; and short-term Transient
Housing such as a housing shelter, the Housing First or similar initiatives are designed to be
long-term housing with supportive services and staff on -site.
Supporting the FUSE program is a goal of the City Council Strategic Plan.
FUSE CLIENTS: FUSE clients are the chronically homeless who are frequent users of local
institutions. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines a chronically
homeless person as someone who has a disability and has been living in a place not meant for
human habitation, in an emergency shelter or a safe haven for the last 12 months continuously
or on at least four occasions in the last three years where those occasions cumulatively total at
least 12 months.
USE CATEGORY: The Zoning Code currently has a use category titled Community Service
Uses. Long-term supportive housing such as a Housing First use would clearly be a community
May 13, 2016
Page 2
service use as it would be providing a local service to people of the community and would be
operated by a non-profit agency, it does not fit with the definition of a shelter or short term
housing. Staff proposes amending this section of the Zoning Code as shown to allow long-term
supportive housing under the use category of a Community Service Use:
14-4A-6C. Community Service Uses:
1. Characteristics: Uses of a public, nonprofit, or charitable nature providing a local
service to people of the community. Generally, they provide the service on the site or
have employees at the site on a regular basis. The service is ongoing, not just for
special events. Included are community centers or facilities that have membership
provisions that are open to the general public to join at any time, e.g., a senior center
that allows any senior to join. The use may provide shelter or short term housing where
tenancy may be arranged for periods of less than one month when operated by a public
or nonprofit agency. The use may provide tenancy for Iona -term housina for persons
with disabilities when operated by a public or nonprofit agency. The use may also
provide special counseling, education, or training of a public, nonprofit or charitable
nature.
2. Examples: Examples include uses from the following twe (-2) three 3 subgroups:
a. General Community Service: Libraries; museums; transit centers; park and ride
facilities; senior centers; community centers; neighborhood centers; youth club facilities;
some social service facilities; vocational training facilities for the physically or mentally
disabled; soup kitchens; surplus food distribution centers; public safety facilities, such as
police and fire stations.
b. Community Service - Shelter: Transient housing operated by a public or nonprofit
agency.
c. Community Service — Long term housing: Long term housing for persons with a
disability operated by a public or non-profit agency.
DENSITY: One of the difficulties local agencies have had in trying to locate a Housing First
structure is Iowa City's density requirements for multi -family residential uses. In the Commercial
Office (CO-1) and Community Commercial (CC-2) zones, residential density Is limited to one
unit per 2,725 SF of lot area regardless of unit size or number of bedrooms. For a'/z acre lot,
for example, this would mean that only 8 units could be on the property.
As proposed, the Housing First project would be using efficiency or one -bedroom units, and
would have on -site management. Staff recommends allowing an increase in unit density for a
Community Service — Long Term Housing Use. Staff recommends 1 unit / 900 square feet of lot
area be permitted for efficiency and/or 1-bedroom units; This density recognizes the smaller
size of individual units and the unique use, while still limiting the density to less than what would
be permitted in the highest density residential zones. The table below provides some
comparisons for density in different zones, and how many units would be permitted on a % acre
lot:
May 13, 2016
Page 3
Table 1: Comparison of densities allowed in selected zones
Zone
Lot Area per Unit
# of units based on '/2 acre
property
CO-1 / CC-2 — all units
2,725 SF
8
RM-12 —1 bedroom units
2,725 SF
8
RM-20 —1 bedroom units
1,800 SF
12
RM-20 — Rooming house units
900 SF per roomer
24
RM-44 — 1 bedroom units
500 SF
43
RM-44 — Rooming house units
300 SF per roomer
72
PRM —1 bedroom units
435 SF
50
Recommended for
Community Service — Long
Term Housing
900 SF
24
PARKING: In discussions with staff, local agencies have made the point that for FUSE clients
or other individuals with disabilities, most if not all of them will not have a vehicle upon moving
into a Housing First project, and that current City parking requirements do not take this into
account. Longer term, agency representatives have estimated that one out of every five
residents may acquire a vehicle as their lives stabilize, but that most residents will never own a
vehicle. In most zones, parking requirements are 1 parking space per unit for efficiency and 1-
bedroom units. In Riverfront Crossings Zones, parking requirements are between 0.5 and 0.75
parking spaces per unit depending on the subdistrict.
While staff recognizes that current minimum parking requirements are high for this particular
use, and would result in the need to provide parking that may be un-used, staff also notes that
City Code already has a provision to allow for a reduction in required parking. The Board of
Adjustment may approve a special exception to reduce the minimum parking requirement by up
to 50% for `unique circumstances.'
A concern with reducing the parking requirement too much is that it will make the property
functionally obsolete for other uses, if and when Housing First moves on to another site. A
change in use in the building in the future would trigger the need to meet parking and other site
development standards.
Staff recommends the parking requirement be consistent with requirements for Assisted Group
Living uses, which is one parking space for every three beds. Assisted Group Living is similar
to the proposed 'Community Service — Long Term Housing' use in that both serve persons with
needs for support and services. This parking requirement also sets a minimum amount of
parking for the property in anticipation of future uses in the building. If the owner of the property
has a desire to reduce the parking requirement further, there is the option of applying to the
Board of Adjustment for a further reduction in the minimum parking requirement.
Local agencies have also noted they will have community and office space in the Housing First
structure. Staff does not recommend any changes to current parking requirements for office or
community room space. In commercial zones, parking for office uses and for general
community service uses is 1 parking space per 300 square feet.
May 13, 2016
Page 4
WHERE PERMITTED: The proposed Community Service — Long Term Housing is a residential
use with supportive services, and it has office & community room components. Given the
mixed -use nature of the use, staff finds it is appropriate in commercial and mixed -use zones, as
opposed to purely residential zones. The table below identifies commercial zones in which
community service uses are currently permitted. For comparison, the table also identifies zones
in which Assisted Group Housing and Multi -family uses are permitted.
Table 2: Community Service, Assisted Group Living and Multi -family Uses —Where Permitted
CO-1
CN-1
CH-1
Cf-1
CC-2
CB-2
CB-5
CB-10
MU
General Community
Service
P
S
S
P
P
P
P
S
Community Service -
Shelter
S
S
S
PR
PR
S
S
Assisted group living
PR
S
PR
Mufti -family dwellings
PR
PR
S
PR
PR
PRIS
P
Note: P = Permitted. S = Special exception required; PR = Provisional Use (allowed if criteria are met)
Note: Riverfront Crossings Uses are generally consistent with the CB-5 Zone
For the proposed Community Service — Long Term Housing Use, we considered that the
proposed use has elements consistent with community service uses (supportive services,
community room), multi -family uses (apartments), and with assisted living uses (occupants will
be persons with disabilities). Staff recommends it be permitted as a provisional use in the
Commercial Office (CO-1), Intensive Commercial (CI-1), Community Commercial (CC-2),
Central Business Service (CB-2) and Central Business Support (CB-5) zones. The proposed
provisions to apply to the use are outlined in the next section of this memo.
Staff considered whether or not the use should be permitted only by special exception. Local
agency representatives have raised the point that the occupants of this type of project will be
persons with disabilities, and are a protected class. Staff concurs that if site development
standards, and the other provisions as proposed for the code are met, causing this use to
require a special exception raises concerns that the project may be unduly delayed or litigated
based on the occupancy. Staff recommends the owner or operator of the proposed use host a
neighborhood meeting prior to the use being established (as outlined in proposed Provisional
Use Criteria below).
However, because the proposed use has a multi -family residential component of a higher
density than would be permitted for typical multi -family uses in these zones, staff recommends
that if the property proposed for this project is located in a CO-1, CI-1 or CC-2 ,Zone adjacent to
or across the street from a single family residential zone, a special exception be required. Table
3 outlines the staff recommendations for which zones the Community Service — Long Term
Housing use be permitted in.
May 13, 2016
Page 5
Table 3: Proposed Zones for Community Service — Long Term Housing Use
CO-1
CN-1
CH-1
CI-1
CC-2
C13-2
CB-5
CB-10
MU
Community Service —
Long Term Housing
PRIS
PR/S
PR/S
PR
PR
PROVISIONAL USE CRITERIA: For Community Service - Shelter Uses, the Zoning Code
(Section 14-4B-4D(5)) contains density standards, standards for addressing potential nuisances
such as loitering, lights, noise etc., a requirement for a management plan to be on file with the
City, and site development standards. Staff proposes to use similar criteria for the proposed
Community Service — Long Term Housing use as follows:
Community Service — Long Term Housing:
a. Maximum Density:
1. In the CO-1. CI-1 and CC-2 Zones: A_minimum of 900 square feet of lot area per
dwelling unit is required. Dwelling units must be efficiency and/or 1-bedroom units.
2. In the CB-2 and CB-5 Zones: Density standards for multi -family dwellings in commercial
zones in Section 14-2C of this title.
b. Mang ement Plan Required: The applicant must submit a site plan and a management plan
that addresses potential nuisances such as loitering, noise, lighting, late night operations,
odors, outdoor storage and litter. The management plan must include plans for controlling
litter, loitering and noise: provisions for 2417 on -site management and/or security, and a
conflict resolution procedure to resolve nuisances if they occur.. The site plan and
management plan must be submitted concurrently to the City, or if permitted as a special
exception said plans must be submitted with the special exception application.
c. Special Exception Required: A special exception is required if the proposed use is in a CO-
1, CI-1 or CC-2 Zone and is across the street from or adjacent to a single family residential
zone.
d. Neighborhood Meeting Required: Prior to a building permit being. issued, the owner or
operator of the Community Service — Long Term Housing Use must hold a neighborhood
meeting inviting all property owners within 200 feet of the proposed use. At the
neighborhood meeting, the owner or operator must provide copies of the Management Plan
and contact information for the management team of the proposed use
e. Site and Building Development Standards:
1. If the proposed use is located in the Central Planning District it must comply with the
multi -family site development standards as set forth in Section 14-213-6 of this title
2. In the CB-2 and CB-5 Zones, Community Service — Long Term Housing uses must be
located above the street level floor of a building.
3. The proposed facility must comply with the minimum standards as specified in the Iowa
City Housing Code, as amended, and maintain a rental permit. ry
4. In the CO-1 CI-1 and CC-2 Zones up to 50% of the first floor of the building maybe
occupied by residential uses.
May 13, 2016
Page 6
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The proposed use, long-term multi -family housing to be managed by a non-profit or public entity
for persons with disabilities, does not fit within any existing Iowa City use classifications due to
density standards, parking standards, the fact that it will have on -site management and security,
and that it will have an office and community room component. As such, staff is recommending
a new use - Community Service - Long Term Housing - be created, with related parking,
density and provisional use criteria.
Staff recommends amending City Code Title 14 as follows (proposed additions underlined]:
144A-6C. Community Service Uses:
1. Characteristics: Uses of a public, nonprofit, or charitable nature providing a local
service to people of the community. Generally, they provide the service on the site or
have employees at the site on a regular basis. The service is ongoing, not just for
special events. Included are community centers or facilities that have membership
provisions that are open to the general public to join at any time, e.g., a senior center
that allows any senior to join. The use may provide shelter or short term housing where
tenancy may be arranged for periods of less than one month when operated by a public
or nonprofit agency. The use may provide tenancy for long-term housing for persons
with disabilities when operated by a public or nonprofit agency. The use may also
provide special counseling, education, or training of a public, nonprofit or charitable
nature.
2. Examples: Examples include uses from the following two (2) three 3 subgroups:
a. General Community Service: Libraries; museums; transit centers; park and ride
facilities; senior centers; community centers; neighborhood centers; youth club facilities;
some social service facilities; vocational training facilities for the physically or mentally
disabled; soup kitchens; surplus food distribution centers; public safety facilities, such as
police and fire stations.
b. Community Service - Shelter: Transient housing operated by a public or nonprofit
agency.
c. Community Service - Long term housing: Long term housing for persons with a
disability operated by a public or non-profit agenck
Table 14-2C-1: Principal Uses allowed in Commercial Zones
CO-1
CNA
CH-1
CIA
CC-2
CB-2
CB-6
CB-10
Mu
Community
Service
General
Community
Service
P
S
S
P
P
P
P
S
Community
Service - Shelter
S
S
S
PR
PR
S
S
Community
Service - Long
PRIS
PR/S
PRIS
PR
PR
Term Housing
May 13, 2016
Page 7
Table 14-5A-2. Minimum Parking Requirements for All Zones, Except the CB-5, CB-10 and
Riverfront Crossings Zones
Use Category
Subgroups
Parking Requirement
Bicycle Parking
General
1 space per 300 square feet of
10 percent
Community Service
Community Service
floor area
Community Service
0.1 space per temporary
25 percent
— Shelter
resident based on the maximum
number of temporary residents
staying at the shelter at any 1
time, plus 1 space per employee
based on the maximum number
of employees at the site at any 1
time
Community Service
1 space per three units, or three
25 percent
Lana Term
beds whichever is greater
Housina
14-415-4: Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions; Subsection D:
Institutional and Civic Uses
Community Service — Long Term Housing:
a. Maximum Density:
1. In the CO-1. CI-1 and CC-2 Zones: A minimum of 900 square feet of lot area per
dwelling unit is required. Dwelling units must be efficient and/or 1-bedroom units.
2. In the C13-2 and CB-5 Zones: Density standards for multi -family dwellings in commercial
zones in Section 14-2C of this title-
b. Management Plan Required: The applicant must submit a siteplan and a m_ anage_ment plan
that addresses Potential nuisances such as loitering, noise lighting, late night operations,
odors outdoor storage and litter. The management plan must include plans for controlling
litter loitering and noise provisions for 2417 on -site management and/or security, and a
conflict resolution procedure to resolve nuisances if they occur. The site plan and
management plan must be submitted concurrently to the City, or if permitted as a special
exception said plans must be submitted with the special exception application.
c. Special Exception Required: A special exception is required if the roposed use is in a CO-
1. CI-1 or CC-2 Zone and is across the street from or adjacent to a sinale family residential
zone
Neighborhood Meeting Required: Prior to a building permit being issued, the owner or
operator of the Community Service — Long Term Housing Use must hold a neighborhood
meeting inviting all property owners within 200 feet of the proposed use. At the
neighborhood meeting, the owner or operator must provide copies of the Management Plan
and contact information for the management team of the proposed use
e. Site and Building Development Standards:
May 13, 2016
Page 6
1. If the proposed use is located in the Central Planning District, it must comply with the
multi -family site development standards as set forth in Section 14-213-6 of this title.
2. In the CB-2 and CB-5 Zones Community Service — Long Term Housing uses must be
located above the street level floor of a building.
3. The proposed facility must comRly with the minimum standards asspecified in the Iowa
City Housing Code, as amended, and maintain a rental permit.
4. In the CO-1 CI-1 and CC-2 Zones up to 50% of the first floor of the buildinq may be
occupied by residential uses.
Approved by:
Doug Batt , Director V
Department Neighborhood and Dev opment Services
Attachments
1. March 6, 2008 Wall Street Journal Article Homeless Study Looks at 'Housing First'
2. November 9, 2006 National Alliance to End Homelessness Report What is Housing First?
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
Homeless Study
Shifting Policies to Get
Chronically III in Homes
May Save Lives, Money
By JOE BARRETT
March 6. 2008; Page.110
Looks at 'Housing First'
A four-year study of homeless people with chronic medical problems in Chicago offers
fresh evidence that efforts to move the homeless into permanent housing quickly can
improve their lives and save taxpayer money.
The study was put together by a coalition of hospitals and housing groups seeking
hard evidence supporting this approach to dealing with homelessness. Results of the
study, which was financed by housing grants from the federal Housing and Urban
Development Department and private charities, will be presented today at the National
Housing and H1VlA1DS Research Summit in Baltimore.
The study, called the Chicago Housing for Health Partnership, or CHHP, is among the
first to use a scientific approach in a housing study of homeless people with problems
other than mental illness, according to Dennis Culhane, a professor at the University
of Pennsylvania and leading researcher in the field who has followed the study's
progress.
Arturo V Bend;xen One group of homeless people that received housing and intensive follow-up by a case
manager consumed fewer public resources than a separate group that received "usual
care" -- the piecemeal system of emergency shelters, family and recovery programs --
according to a preliminary review of data by the researchers.
Members of the study group, such as Claude Ousley, a 60-year-old with congestive heart
failure who had been homeless about five years, spent half as many days in hospitals and
nursing homes and went to emergency rooms half as often as the usual -care group over
18 months. The savings more than made up for the $12,000-per-person annual cost of
providing housing and a case manager, according to the preliminary findings.
Some homeless advocates remain skeptical of 'housing first," the rapid placement of the
long-term homeless in apartments where they can work on the underlying causes of their
homelessness. "Taking somebody quickly off the street and moving them to housing
without building the right steps" can be a recipe for failure, said the Rev. John Samaan,
who runs the 176-bed Boston Rescue Mission. He said homeless people, particularly
those struggling with substance abuse, need the community of support and the structure
that a residential treatment facility can provide.
Arturo Bendixen, director of the study and a vice president at the AIDS Foundation of
Chicago, said housing first works only with the kind of intensive follow-up the study
group was given.
The study is likely to add a push to an increasing national shift in homeless policy.
Spurred in part by a Bush administration drive to end chronic homelessness over 10
years, many cities are moving to a housing -first policy.
The Chicago study "takes us another deeper step into what we know in the field," said
Philip Mangano, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness,
who has pushed the housing -first model since President Bush appointed him in March
2002. "The old status quo responses of ad hoc crisis intervention are more expensive."
The Chicago study emerged from the experience in the 1990s of several people working
at Interfaith House, a respite center on Chicago's West Side for homeless people
recovering from illnesses. "If they went into housing, many of them stabilized their lives
and became productive," said Mr. Bendixen, a former head of Interfaith House. If they
were sent to shelters or other nonpermanent programs, many cycled back through the
system after their next hospital stay, he said,
To attack the problem, Mr. Bendixen helped put together a coalition of three hospitals
and a dozen housing groups. Around this time, the group heard about a study by Prof.
Culhane that stressed the fiscal benefits of quickly taking mentally ill homeless people
off the streets of New York. Other studies looked at homeless people who were the
biggest users of emergency services, but few were scientifically designed.
To win funding and make a scientific case for the housing -first model, the Chicago group
set up a rigorous study. Beginning in 2003, researchers recruited homeless people
admitted to Cook County Hospital, Stroger Hospital Medical Center and Mount Sinai
Hospital Medical Center. Participants had to have a chronic medical condition such as
HIV/AIDS, hypertension, or heart or liver problems. A total of 407 were enrolled and
selected at random for either housing or usual care.
The housed group showed improved health, including important benchmarks among
HIV -positive subjects. About 60% of the intervention group was in permanent housing at
the end of their 18-month study period, compared with 15% of the usual -care group.
The cost of housing and case management for the housed group was a cumulative $1.6
million over the 18 months that each person was tracked, Mr. Bendixen said. The savings
add up quickly when comparing the two groups. For instance, the 20 t members of the
housed group spent 5,500 days in nursing homes, while the 206 usual -care patients spent
10,023 days there. The estimated cost difference for that service alone was nearly
$500,000.
Mr. Ousley, who got a housing voucher, had been suffering for years with congestive
heart failure, degenerative joint disease and severe arthritis. Unable to afford housing, he
would sleep for a few hours before and after his shift loading newspapers until a hand
injury ended that job.
In January 2004, he was treated for pneumonia at Stroger Hospital, where he was
approached by researchers for the study. His CHHP voucher got him his own apartment
and a case manager who helps him stay on top of his medical problems. "Without it, I
wouldn't be here," he says.
Healthy Homes
A study of in homple55 people in Chicago found that those who received housing
required fewer public services than those who received usual care
Estimated costs over 18 months,
In millions
Hospitalizations
83.I
5.3
Nursing home stays
0.5
'fi 1.0
Emergency room visits
■ 0.3 Housed group
0.6 F_ Usual care
Estimated total costs Mary Pelts, In her kitchen. She was in the usual
Group given housing - $5.5 million care group, but got an apartment through CHHP
Usual care $6.9 million after the study ended.
"Includes hou5iny and case manu9e.eht casts
Sa rce: Chiw90 H"nq for Health Pannership
Mary Pelts, 43, an HIV -positive heroin addict, was in the hospital recovering from a
suicide attempt in September 2005 when she was contacted by CHHP. She didn't want to
be part of any study, she says, but the researcher was persistent.
She was selected for "usual care," but it didn't much matter. After she revived from her
suicide attempt, police charged her with possession of heroin, and she was sentenced to a
year in prison. She said she was surprised when a CHHP worker visited her there twice
for follow-up interviews.
After her release, Ms. Pelts spent several months in a drug -treatment center run by the
Sisters of Sobriety. Since her 18-month study period was over and CHHP was
transitioning into a permanent program, her caseworker was able to arrange housing for
her last April.
Ms. Pelts now lives in a one -bedroom apartment near a racetrack in Cicero, Ill. Her walls
are decorated with pictures of her children, with whom she is reconnecting, and
certificates to her sobriety. She is working on her high -school -equivalency degree and
hopes to be a motivational speaker one day.
"They didn't give up on me, even when I gave up on myself," she says.
joseph.barrett@wsj.com
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
rENational Alliance to
DNA HOMELESSNESS
xww.endhomelessness.org
I41'NMIN41YIL1C� I tl,l0.tllnG [wYA[,1 V , uu,:Atuvc m"n,uu ��no[rcf
o+sK 51,nL%Nw,SNim 4.01 N. hiq,..,Nr'a..,
TN wausd9l01 F t 203.61tl.446/
What is Housing First?
Revised November 9, 2006
Housing First is an approach that centers on providing homeless people with housing
quickly and then providing services as needed. What differentiates a Housing First
approach from other strategies is that there is an immediate and primary focus on helping
individuals and families quickly access and sustain permanent housing. This approach
has the benefit of being consistent with what most people experiencing homelessness
want and seek help to achieve. Housing First programs share critical elements:
• There is a focus on helping individuals and families access and sustain rental
housing as quickly as possible and the housing is not time -limited;
• A variety of services are delivered primarilyfollowing a housing placement to
promote housing stability and individual well-being;
• Such services are time -limited or long-term depending upon individual need;
and
• Housing is not contingent on compliance with services — instead, participants
must comply with a standard lease agreement and are provided with the
services and supports that are necessary to help them do so successfully.
A Housing First approach rests on the belief that helping people access and sustain
permanent, affordable housing should be the central goal of our work with people
experiencing homelessness. By providing housing assistance, case management and
supportive services responsive to individual or family needs (time -limited or long-term)
after an individual or family is housed, communities can significantly reduce the time
people experience homelessness and prevent further episodes of homelessness. A central
tenet of the Housing First approach is that social services to enhance individual and
family well-being can be more effective when people are in their own home.
While there are a wide variety of program models, Housing First programs all typically
include:
0 Assessment -based targeting of Housing First services
• Assistance locating rental housing, relationship development with private
market landlords, and lease negotiation
Housing assistance — ranging from security deposit and one month's rent
to provision of a long-term housing subsidy
0 A housing placement that is not time -limited
Case management to coordinate services (time -limited or long- term) that
follow a housing placement
Housing First is an approach used for both homeless families and individuals and for
people who are chronically homeless. Program models vary depending on the client
population, availability of affordable rental housing and/or housing subsidies and services
that can be provided. Housing First programs often reflect the needs and preferences of
each community, further contributing to the diversity of models,
What are some examples of Housing First programs?
Beyond Shelter, Los Angeles, CA
Community Care Grant Program, Washington, DC
Direct Access to Housing, San Francisco, CA
Family Housing Collaborative, Columbus, OH
HomeStart, Boston, MA
Pathways to Housing, New York City, NY and Washington, DC
Project Coming Home, Contra Costa County, CA
Rapid Exit Program, Hennepin County, MN
Shelter to Independent Living, Lancaster, PA
What does a Housing First approach entail?
Assessment and Targeting
Individuals and families receive an in-depth, upfront assessment before being referred to
or receiving services from a Housing First provider. This allows providers to ascertain
whether the community's Housing First approach is feasible given the providers'
capacity to provide housing assistance and services tailored to their clients' needs. The
level of assistance programs are able to provide most often shapes who is targeted for
Housing First services.
Families
Chronically Homeless Individuals
Some Housing First programs serving homeless
Some Housing First programs serving chronically
families can only offer short-term rent assistance.
homeless individuals are able to provide very rich,
As a result, these programs target families who can
intensive wraparound services and supports to
be expected to assume the rental payments in the
promote a successful housing outcome. Because of
short-term. However, some families with very
the level of services they are able to deliver, these
minimal incomes can also be served because the
providers typically prioritize those individuals who
delivered intensive case management services help
have failed to use or succeed in other program
families maximize their income through
models — some intentionally identifying their
employment services and access to public benefits.
community's "high system users" - those who have
heavily relied on shelters, jails, and emergency
rooms.
Evidence indicates Housing First is appropriate for most, if not all, homeless persons.
The combination of housing linked to services can help a wide variety of people exit
homelessness more rapidly, This is supported by research that demonstrates that most
formerly homeless families, including those with significant challenges, will retain
housing with the provision of a long term housing subsidy. It is also supported by
evaluations of Housing First interventions with chronically homeless individuals that
have found that many who have remained outside of housing for years can retain housing
with a subsidy and provision of wraparound supports. In short, while most communities
are targeting Housing First services to a subset of their homeless population, the approach
can be tailored to end homelessness for many more.
Permanent Housing
There is substantial variation in how Housing First providers help meet the housing needs
of the individuals and families they serve.
Some Housing First programs provide only minimal financial assistance,
for example assistance with security deposits and application fees. Other
programs are able to rely on federal housing subsidies or move
individuals/families into public or subsidized housing,
Some Housing First programs rely solely on apartments in the private
rental market. Others master -lease or develop multi -family units and then
sublease those units to program participants. And still others seek out
many different permanent housing options, in order to maximize the
availability of permanent, affordable housing for the people they serve.
Some Housing First programs hold the individual or family's lease while
they are involved with the program; individuals and families then often
take on the lease when the "program" services end (time -limited case
management). In other program models, the family or individual holds a
lease with a public or private landlord from the onset.
All Housing First providers focus on helping individuals and families move into
permanent housing as quickly as possible, based on the premise that social service needs
can best be addressed after they move in to their new home.
Assistance Locating & Sustaining Housing
Housing First programs all typically invest time and resources in helping homeless
individuals and families overcome barriers to accessing permanent housing. This includes
reaching out to landlord organizations, housing management companies, public housing
authorities, civic organizations and congregations. Developing strong relationships helps
improve Housing First providers' capacity to relocate individuals and families into
permanent housing arrangements.
All Housing First programs are responsive to the concerns of landlords, housing
operators and developers. Many Housing First programs develop strategies to overcome
concerns expressed by landlords. This is a critical investment to help facilitate access to
housing and promote successful housing outcomes. As a result, these programs are able
to find housing for individuals and families who have extensive housing barriers.
Successful housing placements often result in landlords and management companies
increasing the number of units they are willing to lease to individuals and families served
by Housing First programs,
Chronically Homeless Individuals
Families
One Housing First operator provides additional
A Housing First program that serves high -risk families
deposits/reserve funds to developers of a multi -family
offers landlords an "eviction guarantee." If a family fails
building. He reports that the developers and owners
to comply with the terms of the lease, the program will
he contracts with to house chronically homeless
assist the landlord and reimburse any costs he incurs.
individuals have all insisted on the additional deposits
The program markets the services it provides to the
and reserve funds as they anticipate the population
families and its willingness to intervene with any problem
will put significant wear and tear on the building, The
behavior that arises. The Housing First program,
Housing First program operator reports in every
landlords, and families are jointly committed to
instance he has been able to recapture those funds
promoting a successful housing outcome, The program
during contract renewal as owners have been satisfied
has greatly expanded the roster of landlords that it
with the light wear on the building.
successfully works with. And, even if families lose their
housing, the Housing First program continues to work
with them to find and sustain suitable housing so they do
not re-experience homelessness.
Low, Moderate or High Intensity Supportive Services
Housing First programs offer services with varying levels of intensity following a
housing placement to ensure successful tenancy and promote the economic and social
well-being of individuals and families. These services are typically offered for only as
long as they are needed. In many instances, services are transitional to help stabilize the
individual or family in housing. A focus of the transitional supports is to help the
individual or family develop a support network that includes other local or community
mainstream resources and/or social service agencies that can be responsive and attentive
to the individual's or family's long term goals and any subsequent crisis. In other cases,
on -going, intensive supports will be needed to ensure that the individual or family will be
able to remain stably housed. The capacity of programs to provide supportive services
following a housing placement is largely determined by, and determines, who is targeted
for Housing First services.
Families
IChronically Homeless Individuals
Housing First programs serving homeless families
Housing First programs serving chronically
typically provide transitional, case management services
homeless individuals typically provide
lasting 6.12 months, often intensive at the beginning,
intensive case management services coupled
Most programs prioritize helping the families link up
with providers in the community who are able
with community -based, mainstream social service
to address individuals' substance abuse and
providers that are able to meet their long-term social
support and service needs. Case management services
for families tend to phase out as families stabilize in
their housing and new networks of supportive services
are in place.
mental health treatment needs over the long
term. Programs serving chronically homeless
individuals can typically provide very intensive
services because case managers have small
client -to -worker ratios.
Outcome Measures
Determining the effectiveness of Housing First programs relies on capturing outcome
data. Among the primary outcomes that should be assessed in a Housing First program
are individual or family housing outcomes. How rapidly are families being re -housed?
Are individuals and families remaining housed? Do families or individuals re-enter
shelter?
Programs may want to capture outcomes on family or individual well-being. Programs
serving families may include employment and earning outcomes and school performance
of children. Programs serving chronically homeless individuals might examine increases
or decreases in hospital stays.
In communities where there is widespread implementation of a Housing First approach,
one outcome measurement that should be captured is the average length of stay in
homelessness of the target population. This outcome measurement allows communities
to assess whether they are reducing the length of homeless episodes overall through their
Housing First initiatives.
Examples of Client Level Performance Measures
Length of Stay in Shelters
Length of stay in shelter, outdoors or other
homeless programs before accessing permanent
housing
-Housing Placement
Successful placements in permanent housing
Housing Stability
Retains permanent housing (typically measured at 6
months, 1 year, 18 months or 2 ears
Recidivism
Subsequent homeless episodes (typically measured
by identifying re-entry into sheltersystem).
Housing Outcome
Type ofhousing individual/family moved into
(permanent supportive housing, public housing, and
private sector rental units with or without assisted
through short term or long term housing subsidy)
and whether placement was successful
Health and well-being
Changes in individual and family members' health
and well-being.
Increase economic well-being
Increased income from access to benefits and/or
employment
Where can I learn more about Housing First?
We have developed resources on Housing First for homeless families and for chronically
homeless individuals. As the Housing First approach continues to take hold, there may
soon be resources for other populations — including homeless youth and single, non -
disabled adults. Visit www.endhomelessness.ore for more information.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 5, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA HARVAT HALL — CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Seabold, Ken Rew, Paula Swygard, Howard Field
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
A public hearing for discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for property
located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street to be included in the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
Miklo began the presentation showing illustrations to put the proposal into context. The property
in question is on the west side of Orchard Street, it abuts the current district line for the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings area, and the proposal is to add the Orchard Street
properties to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Miklo explained there is a
transition from the more intense commercial uses on Riverside Drive to the residential uses on
Orchard Street. Miklo noted some of the new developments in process in the area. First being
the 90 unit apartment complex being built on Riverside Drive, second is the plans for a
convenience store with gas pumps to be built on the corner of Riverside Drive and Benton
Street.
The current Comprehensive Plan for this area is the Southwest District Plan, which was adopted
in 2002, and it addressed this part of the neighborhood specifically and showed the properties
on the west side of Orchard Street as appropriate for mixed -use development similar to what is
proposed for Riverfront Crossings. The Southwest District Plan indicates that there are small
apartment buildings and one single-family house at the end of Orchard Street which is
appropriate for low -density multifamily. There are also some other single-family or duplex
properties in this area. Two of the single family homes to be included in this amendment area
are owned by the applicant. There are a few buildings that were moved into the area in the
1960's and they do not have street frontage, the only access to those buildings are from a
gravel lane to the rear.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 7
Miklo stated the zoning ordinance specifies items to consider when a comprehensive plan
amendment is being proposed. One is that since the current plan was adopted that
circumstances have changed or new information or factors have come to light that would
indicate that an amendment is warranted or in the public interest. Staff believes that is the case
here, since this plan was adopted showing this area as mixed -use the Riverfront Crossings Plan
has been developed directly to the east and there is extensive redevelopment in that area.
Next, the proposed amendment must be compatible with the policies or provisions of the larger
Comprehensive Plan including the District Plans. Miklo noted the Southwest District Plan does
have some policies that Staff believes apply and are compatible. One policy is to encourage
better quality of development and design and that could be achieved with the form -based code
that is part of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. However that must also be balanced with
other goals of the Southwest District Plan, so that is why it is important to note where the
boundary should be drawn. The District Plan recognizes that this neighborhood provides
affordable smaller single family housing, both rental and owner -occupied. That form of housing
is rare this close to downtown and the University. Because of that concern, the boundary line is
drawn as shown so that the potential redevelopment area does not move farther west into the
neighborhood.
Miklo explained that the applicant has submitted some concepts of how this area might develop
if the amendment is approved and the area is rezoned. Staff has addressed some concerns,
noting that the scale should be appropriate to the neighborhood, and the applicant has
answered those concerns with appropriate third floor setbacks and pedestrian streets. Miklo
shared the text Staff drafted based on some of the other subdistricts in the Riverfront Crossings
Plan.
Staff is recommending approval of CPA16-0002 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to
include the area north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street in the Riverfront Crossing
Plan and the addition of the attached text describing the desired character of development to be
approved, that may need to be edited.
Parsons asked about the Metropolitan Planning Organization traffic study and if that has been
completed yet. Miklo replied that they did complete a study of the area, both with the existing
conditions and what might occur if this develops at a higher density. The preliminary
conclusions are that there may need to be some improvements to the intersection of Orchard
Street and Benton Street, perhaps adding turn lanes, and that would need to be negotiated in
the future with a possible rezoning.
Parson shared concern about the history of the area, and the three houses with no street
frontage. Miklo confirmed that would not be allowed today in the city. It is something that would
need to be resolved and need to find some mechanism for access if that area is not all
completely redeveloped.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Mark Seabold (Shive Hattery Engineering) is working with M&W Properties who is the applicant
of this proposal. Seabold mentioned that while going through this process they worked very
closely with City Staff on what is appropriate for this zone and feels this comprehensive plan
amendment will create a buffer zone from the commercial properties to the smaller scale
residential. Seabold noted they did hold a neighborhood meeting last February and had four
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 7
people show up. The comments in general were very positive about the project, the biggest
concern was the traffic study. Seabold believes this project will give Riverfront Crossings
another type of housing, a smaller townhome style of housing. The concept also has a lot of
pedestrian traffic built into it, and Seabold recognizes there is more work that needs to go into
the concept.
Ken Rew (302 West Benton Street) stated he has lived in this location for almost 40 years. His
concern is while they say they are creating a buffer zone from the commercial to the residential
on Orchard Street, where is his buffer from this development of multi -family high -density units.
This development will be directly in his backyard. It feels like this project is just to tear down the
older homes so big massive new structures can be built and more money can be made on the
new units. Rew noted he was not aware of the good neighbor meeting that was held in
February. He questions how it will really be a buffer, when these new townhomes will not be
seen by Riverside Drive, nor by Benton Street, so what is it buffering.
Paula Swyaard (426 Douglass Street) lives in the neighborhood, but is not directly affected by
this amendment, but it does affect the area she lives in. She did attend the neighborhood
meeting, and one of her biggest concerns is the traffic. She is aware they have done a traffic
study of that little area, but to get the whole picture they need to understand how the traffic flows
through the whole neighborhood. Swygard shared a map of the area that highlighted the traffic
"cut throughs" of the area. There won't just be the congestion on Benton Street and Orchard
Street with an increase in density, but people will continue through on Orchard Street to the
highway, and also cut through Hudson Street or Miller Avenue to get to the highway. There was
a traffic study done on those two streets several years ago which showed they already had high
traffic at that time. In addition Swygard noted that along Orchard Street, to the south of this
proposed area, is included in Riverfront Crossings, so there is potential for dense development
there (up to four stories) which will also add to the increased traffic of the area.
Swygard questioned when Miklo said that Orchard Court would probably be a pedestrian
walkway, so how would anyone who lived in that separate apartment building to the back have
access. Miklo noted that the concept plan shows a driveway that goes up to parking lot of that
apartment building. Swygard asked how many units would be in the new development, Miklo
was not sure and the applicant would have to address that.
Swygard noted the design is a very upscale design and is concerned if the design is fitting for
this neighborhood and the transition to the older homes in the area. Additionally this new
building would overlook a Kum & Go and those lights and that could affect any buyers or
potential residents of the building. Also Swygard wanted to mention that since Kum & Go will
only be one story, this building is not needed to create a buffer, maybe for the 90 unit building to
the north. Finally Swygard noted she was pleased with the mention of affordable housing for this
area as that is so necessary in Iowa City, but when people see this type of development
encroaching into neighborhoods they feel very threatened. In her neighborhood, which is
adjacent to this neighborhood, feel threatened by the power of the developers over the smaller
areas.
Howard Field (614 & 630 Orchard Court) noted that there are four four -unit apartments plus the
single family homes on Orchard Court. Field noted his concern is the development of 90 units
on the east side of Orchard Street and the ingress and egress of vehicles from that complex.
Miklo replied there will be an entrance on Orchard Street as well as one on Riverside Drive.
Field asked about the traffic flow to the new concept being proposed and Miklo said that would
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 7
be off Orchard Street, and also directly to Benton Street. Freerks noted that this concept is just
preliminary at this time, when a change is proposed for a comprehensive plan, the Commission
likes to see why and what the change could allow for in the future. Field stated the issue will be
the number of cars and traffic with all these new units on Orchard Street.
Field asked about the area his four unit apartment building is in. Miklo said it is currently zoned
low -density single-family with a planned development overlay which allowed the clustering of
units into buildings of four. If this comprehensive plan amendment is approved and then there is
a later zoning change, it is possible those buildings could be removed and redeveloped at a
higher density.
Field also noted he was not informed of the meeting that was held in February.
Seabold stated they used the City Assessor's listing of all the addresses in a 300 foot radius to
send letters out for the good neighbor meeting. With regards to the proposed concept and the
number of units in the concept they are thinking 60 units between the two buildings. 34 in one
building and 26 in the other. With regards to the scale of the building, in comparison to the four
story building going up on Riverside Drive, the scale of this building would be two story with a
step -back third story which makes the building not much taller than some of the other rooftops
along Benton Street. Perhaps buffer is not the right word, but it is to help the transition from the
commercial properties to the neighborhood.
Rew reiterated whether you call it a buffer or transition it is an infringement on the
neighborhood. Rew asked if the City would just take the houses so this new development could
be built. Hektoen said that is not what happens, it would all be a private transaction that the City
would not be involved in. Rew also noted concern about traffic in the area, and the increased
concern with these developments.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Dyer moved to defer CPA16-0002 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include
the area north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street in the Riverfront Crossing
Plan to the next formal meeting on May 19.
Theobald seconded the motion.
Freerks noted it is not uncommon for the Commission to take two or more meetings when
deciding on a comprehensive plan amendment.
Hensch said the reasons for the deferral and the issues that need to be addressed should be
noted.
Freerks noted the rationale that this is a buffer or transition, the new concept building appears to
be very nice but the scale of that concept questions the buffer or transition. In addition to scale
there needs to be discussion on setback, green space, landscaping, and the true transition or
buffer and if a building of this size addresses those concerns.
Theobald shared those concerns stating that in the proposed text for the amendment it
discusses "cottage clusters, townhomes, live -work townhomes..." and that does not translate
into a building of this scale. She also noted that perhaps there needs to be a buffer between the
Kum & Go and this project as well. It doesn't seem to be enough of a transition to the single
family neighborhood.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 7
Martin asked if in the Riverfront Crossings it mandates any development to have affordable
housing. Miklo noted that not currently, but there is a proposal that Staff will be presenting in
the future to discuss inclusionary zoning in Riverfront Crossings.
Freerks stated another concern is the large parking lot and how it will be viewed from
neighboring areas. There will need to be good solutions to lighting and screening.
Hensch stated since this is a comprehensive plan amendment and not a rezoning and since this
is a conceptual plan and not an actual plan, it appears all the language to cover the concerns
mentioned is in the proposed text. Freerks stated that she feels the proposed language needs
to be more specific and she is not comfortable approving it as is.
Miklo said something to consider is when looking at the Riverfront Crossings Plan it has
illustrations and perhaps the illustrations in this amendment could be updated to reflect the
concerns and show more detail.
Signs asked if a sign was posted for this amendment. Miklo said that signs are not posted for
comprehensive plan amendments, but they did notify all property owners within 300 feet. Signs
commented that he expected a larger neighborhood turnout given some of the other
developments that have previously been approved in that area, and the traffic issue keeps
coming up. Signs also noted he is troubled with the buffer/transition concept, he feels what is
already there is a perfect buffer/transition. It is a street full of two-story multi -family units, and
then everything to the west is one story houses. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to possible
mixed -use in this area, but the concept proposed is not mixed -use. Additionally to the south of
Benton Street there have been new homes built and others remodeled so one would not
anticipate any change in that area in the future as well. This proposal appears to be taking an
area that now houses 10 units and constructing 60 units, but is unclear of the logic for that.
Martin stated that even if the amendment is adopted, nothing has to happen to the area.
Freerks confirmed that however it becomes a green light for redevelopment.
Dyer noted that although they are not approving the concept, the shown concept does not have
much green space for the tenants and in Riverfront Crossings the townhomes should face a
pedestrian walkway with green space in the middle. There is also no other public parks nearby.
Signs stated he did like the idea of putting the parking in the buildings, and agrees with the
concern of lack of green space.
Parsons agreed and would be interested to see if some of the parking for the western building
could be underground and that area turned into green space.
Dyer also shared concern about this concept and keeping affordable housing in this area.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
X6101RyU]:L'r1I[Q 01Kola iv, I=1 =kII0"ivill01 I'll O& -AWNIW7i '111[•
Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 21, 2016.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 7
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Miklo shared a memo that went to City Council explaining the topsoil policy
Staff does have a draft proposal for consideration for inclusionary zoning for the Riverfront
Crossings area and would like to schedule an informal meeting to present the proposal and start
the discussion. They would like to have the meeting on May 16 at 5:00 pm or 5:30 pm. It was
decided to meet at 5:00 pm on Monday, May 16.
ADJOURNMENT:
Martin moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2015 - 2016
FORMAL MEETING
6/4
7/2
7/16
8/6
8/20
9/3
9/17
10/1
10/15
11/5
11/19
12/3
1/7
1/21
2/19
3/3
3/17
4/7
4/21
5/5
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
X
X
I X
I O/E
I X
I X
I X
X
X
I X
I X
X
I X
I X
I X
I X
I X
I X
X
X
INFORMAL MEETING
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
5/18
DYER, CAROLYN
O5/16
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
O5/16
X
FREERKS, ANN
O5/18
X
HENSCH, MIKE
O5/19
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
O5/17
X
PARSONS, MAX
O5/19
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
O5/18
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member