Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2016 Planning and Zoning Commissioni Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Formal Meeting Thursday, June 2, 2016 7:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall - City Hall _ R r `+ IEif112 ' C11 - ti cik CC.i c . J..r w f-� � r Department of Neighborhood ttt andYItl®'� I i jCITY OFIOWAcl l Development Services I n UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE i� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, June 2, 2016 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call 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. E. Vacation Item Discussion of an application submitted by Judith Crossett for a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way east of Yewell Street, a 7,441 square foot area located immediately south of 1420 Yewell Street. (VAC16-00001) F. County Rezoning Item Discussion of an application submitted by Pleasant Valley LP for a rezoning from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) for approximately 5.51-acres of property located in Johnson County at 4394 Sand Road SE in Fringe Area B. (CZ16-00001) G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 16 and May 19, 2016 H. Planning & Zoning Information I. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: June 16 / July 7 / July 21 Informal: Scheduled as needed. r -rrpir CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: May 27, 2016 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: CPA16-00002 Orchard Street The applicant has submitted a revised concept plan in response to concerns raised at the May 5 public hearing regarding adding area located north of Benton Street west of Orchard Street to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Significant changes to the concept plan include: The driveway for the northwestern building has been moved from Benton Street to Orchard Court. This will move traffic away from existing single-family homes and will provide more open space and landscaped area. The parking for the northwestern building is shown within the building rather than in a surface parking lot. The plan includes a concept for landscape on the west side of Orchard Street to enhance the buffer between the convenience store and proposed residential development. The applicant has also indicated that they have reached an agreement to purchase the house at 330 Orchard Court. This will allow the removal of the gravel driveway, more flexibility for the location of the northwestern building and creation of more open space where the existing house stands. Although staff has not had sufficient time to review the revised concept plan it does appear to address issues raised at the May 5 public hearing. Staff anticipates having additional comments at the June 2 meeting. plaza space between �rl .1 screened parking under building space for community gardens work with owner of 330 to remove gravel drive to increase green space between properties } pedestrian street - neighborhood park setting 1� � Ilw� �TI•Il, lit't �F ' ■ -a Pi! -.;� _..urn 7. � ML increased front y "ack Street widening I To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: VAC16-00001 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern Date: June 2, 2016 Judith H.W. Crossett 1504 Grand Avenue University Heights, IA 52246 319-331-7696 Laura Crossett 1420 Yewell Iowa City, IA 52240 319-389-0449 (same as applicant) Vacation of a right-of-way To allow vacated right of way to be acquired by abutting property owners Cottonwood Avenue, east of Yewell Street Approximately 7,441 square feet (0.17 acres) Vacant right-of-way North: Residential (RS-5) South: Residential (RS-5) East: Residential (RS-5) West: Public Right -of -Way (Yewell Street) Central District Plan May 3, 2016 the applicant, Judith H.W. Crossett is applying for a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of- way east of Yewell Street, a 7,441 square feet area located immediately south of 1420 Yewell Street. The applicant is requesting this vacation to release the right-of-way designation from the area, to allow it to be acquired. The applicant discovered this area was right-of-way when planning for an addition to the house at 1420 Yewell Street. The right-of-way is unimproved, and appears to have functioned as a shared driveway for the properties at 1420 and 1502 Yewell Street for decades. 2 This portion of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way appears to have been designated as such to allow for future extension through to Franklin Street. However, directly to the east, the Highlander Development Addition subdivision plat, submitted in 1953, does not include a right-of-way to allow for the extension of Cottonwood Avenue. An aerial map sent by the property owner at 1502 Yewell Street shows a shared driveway in the right-of-way area, providing access to rear garages at both abutting properties. The dead-end right-of-way area requested to be vacated currently includes a gravel drive that provides access to the property at 1502 Yewell St. and the applicant's property. ANALYSIS: a) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access to private property: The right-of-way has never been developed and does not currently allow vehicular traffic, as it currently dead -ends at the rear parcel line for 1421 Franklin Street and is not used for general traffic or pedestrian circulation. As a result, it has been determined that the right-of-way is not required for current or future vehicular circulation. b) Emergency and utility and service access: Emergency, utility, and service access to this right-of-way will not be impacted by the vacation. The right-of-way does not currently provide access to any parcels or properties that cannot be directly accessed from a street. Staff has contacted private utility companies for their easement needs. To date, private utility companies have not responded. Staff will recommend easements for any private utilities in the right- of-way. It appears MidAmerican Energy (electric utility) occupies a portion of the right-of-way. c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties The Cottonwood Avenue right-of-way provides access to the adjacent private properties at 1420 and 1502 Yewell Street. It appears residents 1502 Yewell Street and 1420 Yewell Street are utilizing the right-of-way area as a shared driveway and for parking. Persons associated with 1502 and 1420 Yewell Street have expressed interest in acquiring this segment of the Cottonwood Avenue right-of-way. It has been the City's practice that if both abutting property owners are interested, half of the right-of-way be offered to each abutting property owner (pending City Council approval of a purchase offer). d) Desirability of right of way for access or circulation needs The right-of-way was likely designated as such for future extension of Cottonwood Avenue to connect to Franklin Street, which never came to fruition. Since the existing property at 1421 Franklin Street would prevent a future connection to Franklin street, this section of the Cottonwood Avenue right-of-way has little desirability, and since the right-of-way does not provide any public access or circulation, the right-of- way designation is not necessary. 3 e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property Letters have been sent to private utility providers to determine any easement needs. Property owners have reported a utility pole existing in the right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of VAC16-00001, a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way, 7,741 square feet east of Yewell Street, subject to an access easement being created for the shared driveway, and creation of any necessary utility easements. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Location maps 2.Photographs Approved by: -7 ! John Yapp, Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services +yu- ft�f _' x W s 0 01005 0.01 0,02 mlle4 fida r' or rP� City of Iowa city VAC16-00001 Cottonwood Avenue Vacation Prepared By: Marti Waif Date Prepared: May 2016 746 Z, +s S cation of !' • ! � Y WF ! . sawa. i -S ft� Ov w------------------ Law y ^� /�f��� � •�y/-,`may►Jry` i Y\L141 41 .._.-- j � 1 OTC' 1 1 s V2 ,m' 76 1 p ILf 5 COTTONWOOD AVENUE I COTTONWOOD AVENU AREA = 0.17 ACRE (7,441 SQ. FT.) n� �.e A lm TO MN 61.Y A ftAr d'1�( 1, PA A7 M M aeca,vs of me .psr�ru caMrr aFitacEK5 LPwYC I LOf � KIRItWp.9 tpl&Ir5 ASpITyA, IAf T TO MA OT , MA ( RAT MO( 1,, PK N+I IN M RELLR(' Or M ,l'kN'_AJ L41MY I RELORL£A'S G£U£ 1 iLOf I 99 � IDf B City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 20, 2016 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Marti Woif, Pianning intern RE: item CZ16-00001 Pleasant Valley Rezoning 4394 Sand Road SE BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant, Pleasant Valley LP, is requesting a rezoning from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) for approximately 5.51 acres of property located in Johnson County at 4394 Sand Road SE in Fringe Area B. Because the property is within Iowa City's two- mile Fringe Area, the Fringe Area Agreement specifies that the City will make a recommendation to the County Planning and Zoning Commission before the County Commission considers the application. City approval will be required if the property is subdivided. If this rezoning is approved Pleasant Valley intends to relocate their existing business from the site at 1301 South Gilbert Street. The new facility is proposed to contain a two-story main building, two 2,000 square foot hoop houses, and three 1,500 square foot green houses. The new facility would have access from the existing driveway to the Pleasant Valley Golf Course at 4390 Sand Road SE. The public well for the golf course would provide water to the property and the existing septic system would be enlarged to service the new facility. Although this property is not within the current growth area of the city, it is on the edge of the growth area. As Iowa City's South District develops this area may have an impact on neighborhoods that are planned for possible annexation into the city. ANALYSIS Existing Land Use and Zoning The subject property is zoned County Residential (R) for residential uses, but is currently vacant. Properties to the north are zoned County Residential (R) and are developed as a thirty -six -lot residential subdivision. Pleasant Vaiiey Golf Course and its club house are also zoned County Residential with a Conditional Use Permit. Property to the south is zoned County Agricultural (A) and is used for row crops. The property to the west of Sand Road are zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) and is also used for row crops. Proposed Zoning In addition to the proposed green houses and retail florist, the County Commercial (C) regulations allow a wide variety of commercial uses including: repair shops, outdoor storage of boats and recreational vehicle, taverns, nightclubs, mini storage warehousing and other uses May 27, 2016 Page 2 that may not be compatible with nearby residential properties. Although the proposed used may be compatible with the existing neighborhood, consideration should be given to what may happen in the future if the greenhouse and nursery business vacates the property. If the rezoning is approved by the County, it would be appropriate that conditions be placed on the property through a Conditional Zoning Agreement to help assure that future commercial uses do not have negative effects on the residential and agricultural uses in the area. As an alternative to the Commercial (C) zone, the County Agri -Business (C-AG) Zone may be an appropriate zone in this location. The (C-AG) zone allows nurseries and greenhouses as permitted uses, with retail use requiring a conditional use permit. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan The Fringe Area Agreement, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, is intended to provide guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City's corporate limits. The agreement's stated purpose is to provide for orderly and efficient development patterns appropriate to a non -urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development. For property located in the fringe area B outside of the City's growth area, the Fringe Area Agreement states that any rezoning will be considered on the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan. The Johnson County Land Use Plan designates this area as appropriate for residential or agricultural use. The proposed Commercial zone would appear to be inconsistent with this designation. The County Agri -Business Zone would be more consistent with the plan and the existing uses in the surrounding area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the requested rezoning from Residential to Commercial be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County Land Use Plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the residential and agricultural uses. As an alternative to Commercial zoning staff would recommend that the County consider rezoning the property to Agri -Business (C-AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Aerial photograph 3. Applicant's letter Approved by: -7...,1, X John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services City of Iowa City W E s 0 0.0275 0.055 0.11 Miles 5/5/r "4 FOUNTAIN CT SE CZ16-00001 Pleasant Valley �-� law a I Prepared By: Marti Date Prepared: May 1 f IL REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE SOUTH } OF THE SW j OF THE SW } OF SECTION 26-T79N-R6W-STH P.M JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA PLAT PREPARED BY: OWNEWAPPLCANT: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. PLEASANT VALLEY LP 191T S. MBERT STREET IMI& GILSM STREET IOWACITY, IA 61240 MA CRY, R5M40 i 1a 17 I 1a I 1a 14 td 92 f9 ea PLAT BOOK AT PACE 6 25 f 22 24_L-- - — - — - - — LLOVO AVENUE BE LOCATION MAP- NOT TO SCALE 1 qIV w� • 4 R P ! k f� t R k k I• k O! 1 ' 0.09kpkR FO k kPRlltk Rp p� :a ejt • R ))11 s�rn+ e - n kl PO$l7J RE IN rwwwaa+ tl I I I 89 �26� 2a �Zt a8 $� I- _l SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF RN MVA ® SECIOM 25-TOWNSHIP 79 MONTH - R-ft% I3 WEST OR 7HE 5TH P.M. 4ii emwur ..mw.e /m nRMm' \ I i I 1 1 I I I It I RfMYIx' vAur v I A PNittkl CF df S•11N Qwxur tt dE •YJTW.IRIFA fF soumersT mwm, v sEemw m, mwsliP m aaem. kwn: a Y6T, m a •c FlVIH Pm�N. IEMId.W m'91R60) K FplONS CwnmtlgYN l Ns BouMwe[ Cuw M S,e+w m. TamnYW R HaN, Raigm k IY+I. N tlx iM MI^eYy YMeMua Ths'M �9s'W G tl IAe wk T,meP 19AM ww4 Pww HwMewla?f1SBB fx[Yan Ma..W bo[RmW aIK xmiexnmw .xow ,Nan atl mora e.:. xeemroYk; nww Nt. mss m.F. swn.wmnY m.N mY Yay a.wlao row ia. w+e soRn...l.nn ww. aa.R ma awe ew. smsYlYr; iwn ssam'ae'C exN wt mwcs munwmxY a.ae ,� tlwP o aam mw nr awm.+•,«In .m.. a].m nm aim ma sm,s'u'S Them aIi]p'µ^l5 SI.Tv w� Thxsv LutlMw'MY ISSN bel da,p a 3+]bl root now oww. ooww 4wmm+,YF coax +m.aa mot ww ewn NY'a9'N'15 BwMn' ]n.w mnk'm's, ,ay.n wY mRwe aNmaew, eN.ea m.t m ro. xw, w aSwnYIXye.Porw ammiro S51 Avn oM u Wpat to uwnnY Fa xawr R1V111 Pxxn9 m•w y�y 49ra �.wRaa. ewnio P yam-na-mk-sw w. nm wR� to l0..i PKE IRm� I w4 sib M M s CIVILENGIRM LMUPUANFRS LANOSURVEYORS LANO�APEARCWIITS ENVRONAEtRAt SPECWISTS N,]sw�arsr. IOWRg1Y.pWA61H0 Ialal ss+a:@ +nw+m 0&IEmH PPRm RY-RLw REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE SOUTH IOF THE SW}OFTHESW} OF SECTION 26-T79N-R6W-5TH P.M JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. 05-12 20i6 n4137-OO9 w, , u, E r c 9 a v 4' 9 t5 3 UMMS Consultants, Inc. Experts 1n Ptannhtgand Development SHrce I97.5 May 12, 2016 Mr. Josh Busard Johnson County Planning Development & Sustainability Dept. 913 S Dubuque St, Suite 204 Iowa City, IA 52240 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City: Iowa W40 Y9.351.8282 mmsconsultants.net mmsommsconsultantsnet RE: Letter of Intent for the Rezoning Application for Pleasant Valley, Johnson County, Iowa Dear Josh: Pleasant Valley intends to relocate a portion of their existing business to this site from 1301 S. Gilbert Street in Iowa City, Iowa. The new facility will contain the main two story building, two hoop houses being 2000 S.F. and 3000 S.F. and three 1500 S.F, green houses. The new facility will access the existing driveway to the existing Pleasant Valley Golf Course at 4390 Sand Road SE. The existing driveway will be located within a private roadway easement which will connect to Sand Road SE - The public well for the golf course will provide water and the existing septic system will be enlarged to service the new facility. This rezoning application will be submitted to the City of Iowa City for their review. Upon a successful rezoning application, a subdivision and a site plan will be submitted to Johnson County and Iowa City for approval. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, Glen D, Meisner, P.E. & P.L.S. Tt\4137\4137-009-\4137009L1:docx MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2016 — 5:00 PM — INFORMAL MEETING HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Doug Boothroy, Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, John Yapp CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. 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 stated that the applicant has requested to defer this item until the June 2 meeting. Staff has met with the applicant and gone over the questions and concerns raised at the last meeting. The applicant is revising their plans to address those concerns. At Thursdays meeting the Commission will open the public hearing and then defer this item until the June 2 meeting. CODE AMENDEMENT ITEMs: 1. Discussion of amendments to City Code Section 14-2G to adopt a Riverfront Crossings Inclusionary Housing (IH) Ordinance. Boothroy stated they have been working on this ordinance for a while and noted that when the City adopted the Riverfront Crossings area they created a "Neighborhood of Opportunity" by significantly raising the residential density and by allowing residential where previously it was not allowed. The City is also creating a major city park and doing infrastructure upgrades so the City is taking a significant interest and investment in this area. One of the goals of the Riverfront Crossings area is for it to be a walkable area and an inclusive environment with regards to housing. At the time the Council adopted this overlay there was the conversation regarding inclusionary housing and rather than suggesting affordable housing in this area, make it a mandatory requirement. The Council asked Staff to put together an ad -hoc work committee of various stakeholders to see if there was common ground between these various interests. Staff knew they needed the support of those who work in the housing industry, for -profit and not -for - profits developers, and advocates, to come to an agreement to the principles would be the basis for the inclusionary housing requirement. Boothroy said the committee came up with seven Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2016 — Informal Meeting Page 2 of 8 principles (included in the memo that was in the Commissioners packets) that were recommended to the City Council to serve as a basis for the development of a Riverfront Crossings Inclusionary Housing requirement. What was critical to the requirement was that this inclusionary housing requirement only apply to the Riverfront Crossings area which is appropriate because it is the area of the city where there is the most potential for housing growth. The Council was pleased to see that there was unanimous agreement amongst the committee and directed Staff to move forward with the ordinance that is being presented now. Boothroy said the committee spent a lot of time looking at all the parameters and principles and those on the committee have considerable amount of experience in the community producing affordable housing, working with affordable housing, and understanding affordable housing, what works and what doesn't work. Boothroy noted that out of this process came two recommendations: one regarding TIF (tax increment financing) of affordable housing and the committee recommends that on TIF projects the set -aside would be 15% of the number of units being provided be affordable and would have to be so for 20 years. What is important about that recommendation is it is the floor, the Council will have the ability depending on a project to perhaps do a 20% for 30 years TIF if desired. The Council has now adopted the committee's recommendation with regards to financing of public projects, so every project that comes before Council now that has public money in it must provide a minimum of 15% of number of units being affordable for a minimum of 20 years. With regards to the second recommendation for the Riverfront Crossings area, it is that only developments that do not use public financing (TIF) would have a requirement that 10% of the units must be affordable for 10 years. Because of the scale of projects that will be in the Riverfront Crossings area, the City is expecting a number of them to ask for TIF funding and those will be handled by a developer's agreement and approved by the Council and must include the minimum of 15% of affordable housing for 20 years. For other projects that will not be publicly subsidized 10% of the units must be affordable for 10 years, which is a compromise between the developers and the non -for -profits on the committee. One of the concerns was if we set aside too high a percentage of units or too high number of years it could have a chilling effect on development in the Riverfront Crossings area. The committee did not want to discourage development of affordable housing for projects that did not have public funding. The other realization was that a lot of projects will have public funding. Signs discussed the points of contention and wondered about a project that has less than 10 units not being included in the inclusionary housing ordinance. Boothroy said part of the challenge is if the amount is less than 10% it becomes more of a challenge to meet that affordability. In other ordinance situations this formula has worked well. With 10 units, the 10% would be 1 unit, which is reasonable. Having Brad Langguth from Hills Bank on the committee was helpful because he knew the numbers of a project's profitability. Everyone is aware that all projects must make a profit, in the TIF projects the City is financing the affordable housing portion, but in the other projects if the developer can't make a profit, they can't build the units, and then they can't provide the affordable housing. Hensch asked about some of the incentives for the developer, such as the parking requirements being waived. Also if a developer includes inclusionary housing they can get a height bonus up to five stories. Boothroy said the height bonus was already in the Riverfront Crossings zoning. Boothroy said the only significant incentive was the reduction in parking which will allow for greater density and to maximize the cost on the project which will provide for more affordable housing. Hensch noted that while one of the goals of Riverfront Crossings is to make it a Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2016 — Informal Meeting Page 3 of 8 walkable community but the truth is there is an overabundance of automobiles in Iowa City and not having parking available may be an issue. Boothroy said the reduction in parking is for the affordable units only and the hope is that over time since this is a mixed -use area close the downtown and campus there will be employment opportunities in this neighborhood so the automobile won't be as important for the occupants because they will be able to stay within the area for all their needs. Theobald noted that the grocery stores in this area (Bread Garden, Pioneer Co-op) are not necessarily affordable for someone who is living in this area for the affordable housing. Boothroy agreed they might not be but as the flavor of the neighborhood changes and more mixed -use is in the area there will be more types of uses they can benefit from. Boothroy stated that when the committee made their initial recommendation they were not aware that the State Code prohibits rent control. So the committee had to revise their recommendation (as discussed on page 2 of his memo) and list options for achieving affordable housing. So instead of requiring a rental property, the developer is allowed to choose how they meet the affordable housing requirement at the time of upzoning. By requiring these options the City is not requiring the developer to have rental housing, it is their choice. Not every developer will want to do upzoning, but for those that do they will have to choose how they will achieve affordable housing. There are three options they can do without having to go to the City and ask for a special determination. 1. On -site owner occupied affordable housing; 2. On -site rental affordable housing; or 3. Fee -in -lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund Hensch asked if someone wishes to upzone a particular parcel but were unwilling to do any inclusionary housing the zoning would be denied. Boothroy confirmed that was correct. Hektoen noted that which method of affordability the developer chooses to pursue is their option Boothroy noted that anytime a developer does not comply with the zoning parameters set forth in the Code they are not granted building permits. This inclusionary housing will be a parameter in this zone. He also noted that because of the form -based code of Riverfront Crossings there will be many options for developers as well as since the area was formally zoned for more industrial and commercial uses, the ability now to upzone to high density residential and mixed -uses is a benefit for developers. Dyer asked for the reason for excepting elder apartments regardless of income. Boothroy said just to encourage more elderly housing close to downtown where more services are. Theobald asked for more information on how the 10 years was agreed upon. Boothroy said it was similar to how the 10% was agreed upon, the financial feasibility of the project. The longer the period of time, the more it costs the developer over lost revenue. However near the end of the time frame of the ordinance there is a monitoring clause that will allow the City to see if there is a need for a change in the parameters. Parsons asked if this was the first in the State for requiring inclusionary housing. Boothroy confirmed that it is. Parsons asked if there were other areas of the Country that have done this. Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2016 — Informal Meeting Page 4 of 8 Boothroy said there are quite a few areas along the east and west coasts that have done it, some areas of Chicago, and in Colorado such as Boulder. Parsons noted he would be interested in learning what these other Cities have learned from putting such ordinances in place. Signs noted he was a member of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition and is concerned because Iowa City is the most expensive market in the state, and why other communities don't do inclusionary housing is because they have plenty of affordable housing available. Additionally with regards to senior housing, he is aware of several senior housing projects in development right now and they are all high -end senior housing, so where will the affordable senior projects be. Boothroy noted there is an affordable senior housing project being built in Towncrest now. Signs asked about the 60% AMI for rentals and the 110% for the owner -occupied housing will be used versus not having the 30% of income be the threshold. Boothroy said 60% was chosen because 80% doesn't really address the low-income rental housing market in Johnson County. 80% AMI is almost market rate. 60% or less is the standard the committee decided upon to address low-income. The committee did not like the idea of blending, or allowing individuals that were not considered low-income to benefit from this type of housing. With regards to the affordable owner -occupied the Homebuilders Association were adamant about a minimum of 110% as based on experience of affordable housing providers who have had difficulty qualifying low income households with lower than 100% AMI for mortgages. Hensch noted that upkeep to a home can be an issue for low-income homeowners. Boothroy agreed that there can be difficulty maintaining a home as well as paying property taxes, which will go up and incomes may not. Dyer asked about these owner -occupied units, they will likely be condos and therefore have a condo association fee. Boothroy stated that was taken into consideration when the 110% AMI was agreed upon. Parsons asked who would manage these apartments, the non-profit or the City. Hektoen said they would be managed like any other rental, the non-profit may enter into a lease agreement with the apartment management company or landlord and assist with verifying the income qualifications. Boothroy acknowledged that every year the HUD qualifications for income verification are reviewed through tenants income tax returns. Boothroy discussed the Fee -in -Lieu option and pointed out it is an equal option to rental or home ownerships and because it is part of the upzoning the fee would have to be used to subsidize affordable housing only in the Riverfront Crossings area. The consultant that reviews all the City's development projects for TIF agreements created the model for the fee structure. It is not a replacement cost, but rather the difference between affordable and market. Using that model the fair market value in the Riverfront Crossings area for a Fee -in -Lieu will be $80,872 per unit. The fee is reviewed biennially by the Council. Boothroy explained the rest of the memo discusses some details that state the units must be comparable to those at market rate. There is discussion on the income verification, and how the goal was to make this process similar to how the City administers HOME/CDBG funds with procedures and staffing that is already in place. Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2016 — Informal Meeting Page 5 of 8 Boothroy noted there is a typo in the memo, City Council amended the Economic Development Policy on May 3 not on May 17. 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. Yapp explained that this item came to the City from staff at the Shelter House and for the past year or so they have been pursuing the idea of a project of a FUSE (Frequent User System Engagement) or Housing First project. FUSE refers to people who are chronically homeless (homeless for a year or more and in and out of local institutions frequently). Other parts of the Country have taken a Housing First approach which is instead of trying to deal with these people in the separate institutions (justice system, medical, human service agencies) the philosophy was housing first, provide them with a safe, stable place to live then start to deal with the other aspects that are going on in their life that have caused them to be homeless with the goal that eventually they would be able to move on into their own apartment. What was found was providing the housing first was much more economical than the costs incurred with hospitals, justice systems, and other human service agencies. Therefore, led by the Shelter house, along with other human service agencies and medical fields, they have been developing a project to provide multi -family housing and efficiency apartments for the chronically homeless in Iowa City and Johnson County. One of the struggles with this project was finding a location. When the City Staff began looking through zoning codes and standards, they found that the codes and standards were not appropriate for what Shelter House wanted to do, including density and parking. None of the individuals will have a car upon moving into this facility, and estimate maybe one in five might own a vehicle once their lives stabilize. The other factor was density, currently in the commercial zones there is a one unit per 2,725 square foot of lot area. What Shelter House would like to do is efficiencies, so a higher density than the Code currently allows. Additionally the City did not have a description of this type of use in the Zoning Code. There is a description for standard multi -family development, for a rooming house (but this is not a rooming house), and for assisted living and group housing. This use would be individual efficiency apartments but in a setting with management and security and community and office space for the residents and other community members. Staff is proposing a new use category. Currently the General Code does have a category called Community Service Uses (where shelters are defined in the Zoning Code). Shelters are defined as short-term housing where tenancy may be arranged for periods of less than one month when operated by a public or nonprofit agency. So Staff is proposing adding to the Community Service Uses the following 'The use may provide tenancy for long-term housing for persons with disabilities when operated by a public or nonprofit agency." The parking standard and the density standard would only apply when it is a community service use operated by a public or nonprofit agency, in other words this would not apply to any private multi -family apartments. Yapp noted that the phrase "for persons with disabilities" means that the chronically homeless that enter into this facility must have a diagnosed disability, in other words they are not people who are homeless by choice. The name of the use that is proposed would be: Community Service - Long term housing. Staff chose not to call this Housing First because that is just one type of model and other models may come forth in the future that also provide long term housing for homeless or persons with disabilities. Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2016 — Informal Meeting Page 6 of 8 Yapp explained that regarding density, as he mentioned in commercial zones residential density is currently limited to one unit per 2,275 square feet of lot area regardless of unit size, regardless of number of bedrooms. Yapp referenced the memo in the Commissioner's' packets where there is a table showing the comparisons of densities that currently exist in the community. Staff is recommending one unit per 900 square foot of lot area. For a Yz acre lot that would result in 24 units, which is consistent with rooming house density in the medium multi -family zones. Yapp noted regarding parking, initially people moving into this facility would not have vehicles and discussed exempting residential units from parking all together, but the concern is that the building will likely be there longer than the use and didn't want to create a functionally obsolete building or property if this FUSE/Housing First program fails or is wildly successful and move on to bigger properties. Therefore to ensure there will be some minimum amount of parking on the property they used the guidelines they use for assisted living facilities with one parking spot per three beds. That ensures there is some parking on the property. There is a process in the City Code where a group can request a special exception from the Board of Adjustment to reduce the minimum parking requirement by up to 50%for'unique circumstances.' The use will also have community space and offices and Staff is not recommending any parking reduction for those particular uses and that requirement is one parking space per 300 square feet. Yapp then discussed where such a Community Service — Long Term Housing facility should be permitted. He noted this type of use has elements consistent with community service uses (supportive services, and it has office & community room components); it has elements that are consistent with multi -family uses (the apartments themselves); and it has elements consistent with assisted living in that the occupants must have a disability. In the memo there is a table showing the commercial zones where these types of uses are permitted. Staff is recommending that the Community Service — Long Term Housing facility be allowed as a provisional use in the Commercial Office, Intensive Commercial, and Community Commercial zones as well as the CB- 2 and CB-5 zones. Additionally staff is recommending if the facility is adjacent to or across the street from a single family residential zone, a special exception be required. It was discussed that perhaps a special exception was needed regardless of the zone or zone adjacent but because this use is geared towards people with disabilities, who are a protected class, making the use subject to a public hearing and a Board of Adjustment decision was troublesome. Hensch asked about the definition of disability. Yapp said they must be diagnosis with a disability and they follow the federal definition of disability. Dyar asked if there was an estimate of what number of people would be in need of this service have a diagnosis of a disability. Yapp was uncertain, but said people from Shelter House would be at the meeting on Thursday and could help answer such questions. Yapp next discussed the proposed provisional use criteria, this use (Community Service — Long Term Housing) would be added to the provisional use chapter. It would be stated that in the Commercial Office, Intensive Commercial, and Community Commercial zones a minimum of 900 square feet per lot area and the dwellings must be efficiency or one -bedroom units. For the CB- 2 and CB-5 zones they propose the same density that exists for dwellings currently in those zones. In regards to management plan required, Yapp said this is similar language to what is in the code currently for shelters in that 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 those Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2016 — Informal Meeting Page 7 of 8 potential nuisances, provisions for onsite 24/7 management and/or security, and a conflict resolution procedure to resolve nuisances if they occur. For example, if a neighbor complains about something, there needs to be a conflict resolution procedure written into their management plan for how to address any concerns. The site plan/management plan must be submitted concurrently to the City or if a special exception is required with the special exception application. A special exception is required if the property is across the street or adjacent to a single family residential zone. With regards to neighborhood meetings, in this situation it is recommended to be required. For other rezoning and special exception situations the City encourages but does not require a good neighbor meeting, but because of the type of project it would be required in this situation and the owner/operator must provide copies of their management plan and contact information for the management team. Yapp stated that the site and building material standards follow what is in the Code now for shelter uses, with the addition that up to 50% of the first floor may be occupied by residential use. The primary use of the first floor should still be office and community space, consistent with the commercial zone. Yapp included some articles in the Commissioner's packets regarding Housing First project for review. Yapp said Staff would be prepared to answer the disability questions on Thursday. Dyer asked if this was being listed as multi -family because that is what is anticipated to being built, because in other parts of the country smaller houses have been used. Yapp confirmed it is multi -family because that is what is proposed at this time, but added that if a small house was owned by a nonprofit agency it could be occupied by this population without having to make any code amendments, it would just be considered a rental house and be required to maintain a rental permit. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Yapp noted that Dan Perolek, a form -based code expert, will be here on May 24. When the City developed the South District Plan there was conversation about the "missing middle". Dan Perolek is the person that coined the term "missing middle". Yapp noted that the public session with Dan Perolek at the library will be videotaped. He will be doing a workshop with Staff and the Homebuilders Association at 1:30 on Tuesday and the public presentation will be at the library at 7:00. ADJOURNMENT: Dyer moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 19, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL — CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Doug Boothroy, Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: Cheryl Cruise, Charlie Eastham, Maryann Dennis, Crissy Canganelli RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommended adoption of amendments to City Code Section 14- 2G to adopt a Riverfront Crossings Inclusionary Housing (IH) Ordinance. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommended 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. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch 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. Hensch stated that the applicant has requested this item be deferred until June 2. Theobald moved to defer this item until the June 2 meeting. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CODE AMENDEMENT ITEMS: 1. Discussion of amendments to City Code Section 14-2G to adopt a Riverfront Crossings Inclusionary Housing (IH) Ordinance. Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 10 Boothroy began with some history of how this amendment proposal came to be. This amendment would apply Inclusionary Housing only to the area of Riverfront Crossings, no other areas of the City. When the City adopted the Riverfront Crossings District several years ago there was some discussion at the Council of having a requirement for affordable housing that would be required as a part of proposed developments. So as developments come before the City for approval, they would be responsible as part of the upzoning to include some affordable housing. Each development of 10 units or more would be required to provide some affordable housing. At the Council meeting there was discussion on whether there was support in the community for this. Therefore an ad -hoc work committee was created made up of stakeholders that are involved in the development process and affordable housing advocates and providers. The committee consisted of a couple of representatives from the Homebuilders Association, a member from Hills Bank for a financial perspective, affordable housing advocates from the Housing Fellowship and the Housing Trust Fund. All these parties were brought together to use their knowledge to see if common ground could be found and it was important from the Council's point of view that all decisions were unanimous regarding an affordable housing inclusionary ordinance. This group met over a period of six months and did reach a unanimous position of seven principles everyone felt the affordable housing ordinance should be based on. The seven principles were shared with City Council who accepted the recommended seven principles and unanimously directed Staff to proceed with developing an affordable housing ordinance based on those seven principals only for the Riverfront Crossings District. Boothroy explained that in the area that became the Riverfront Crossings District, what the City did was change the capacity potential of this area. The area is central to the City, close to downtown, and is designated to develop under a form -based code as a walkable, mixed -use and (if the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is adopted) a mixed -income area. Therefore one of the provisions was that in the Riverfront Crossings area when property is upzoned to a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation the potential development capacity is greater. This area is now allowing residential uses where they were once not permitted. This area will also include a new park and improvements of streets in the area to make the area more attractive to development. Because the City believes this area has such growth potential they want to tap into that potential and capacity and provide affordable housing. Boothroy stated the other thing that has happened in this area is land values have gone up so it is important to have some housing that is affordable because otherwise it would all be more expensive. Boothroy then discussed the seven principles guiding this proposed ordinance. The first is provision of inclusionary housing should be mandatory, notvoluntary noting that when property is upzoned to the Riverfront Crossings Zone that is when a developer would have to choose how they would meet the affordable housing requirement. The second principle, which was already adopted by the Council at their May 3 meeting, a percentage of units in development should beset aside for housing that is affordable for an established period of time. 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. This policy is in effect for any development in the City where TIF funds are used. This is the floor, the percentage or years can be greater. 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. This recommendation by the committee seemed fair because the higher the number of years, or the percentage, the more difficulty it would to finance the project. Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 2016 - Formal Meeting Page 3 of 10 Boothroy noted that most of the development in Riverfront Crossings will be more expensive larger buildings with more units. The third principle project size should be considered and a threshold established for a set- aside requirement. The Committee decided upon a development size threshold that developments that include 10 or more residential units are subject to the set -aside requirement. Again due to the development forecast of Riverfront Crossings it is expected that most developments will be larger than 10 units. If a development is below 10 units it is more difficult to meet an affordable housing requirement because the project is just too small to support that kind of requirement. Boothroy noted that at the time of upzoning the developer will have three options that are defined in the fourth principle the method used to meet the affordability requirement is the developers option. The options are: Option one is on -site rental affordable housing, option two is on -site affordable owner -occupied affordable housing, or option three is to pay a fee in lieu of offering on -site affordable housing for the purposes of providing affordable housing support elsewhere in the Riverfront Crossings area. Boothroy explained that these options are necessary due to the State's preemption of rent control. Boothroy said the fifth option is Alternatives to on -site affordable housing and/or fee -in - lieu should be provided. If the developer can show that on -site affordable housing cannot be accommodated, there are alternatives including donation of land or provision of affordable housing at another location in the Riverfront Crossings District. The sixth principle is 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). The fee -in -lieu can be used for down payment assistance, or other grants/low interest/or forgivable loans to local nonprofit affordable housing agencies to assist with affordable housing in Riverfront Crossings. Finally, the seventh principle discusses qualifying income levels (affordable housing should be provided to households of qualifying income level). It was decided upon that Income Target would be: 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 ata lower percentagethan 110%AMI). Elderly/Disabled: Developments designed and utilized for elderly/disabled are not required to provide an affordable housing set -aside. Boothroy explained inclusionary housing must be comparable in style and size of other housing in the area. It must also be distributed throughout a development, not clustered in one area or floor. An incentive that is also included in the ordinance is that for the affordable units there will be no parking requirement would be required under the Code. Parsons asked about rental units and if the existing tenants would be grandfathered in once their affordable housing term expires (at year 10). Boothroy said that there is no control on that so after the 10 year affordable term the rents could then go up to market value. Theobald asked about the no parking requirement, and if after 10 years there is a number of units that become market rate housing what impact with the no parking have. Boothroy said because the Riverfront Crossings is a planned area that hopefully will be sustainable with commercial mixed in with residential there won't be a need for vehicles. Yapp confirmed that the goal is for this to be a walkable neighborhood where people do not rely on their vehicles. However if someone is in a unit without a parking space, and desires storage for a Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 4 of 10 vehicle, there is a City parking facility in Riverfront Crossings already and another is being constructed. Theobald asked about the fee -in -lieu and if a developer chooses a fee -in -lieu why the fees must be used in Riverfront Crossings. Boothroy explained it is much like park land dedication fees, the fee is being generated for that particular area. The fee is for affordable housing and a goal of that particular zoning classification. Theobald feels that the fee could be used to encourage more development of affordable housing in other parts of town. Boothroy said there are other funds that can be used within the City to encourage affordable housing throughout, this ordinance is to keep the affordable housing in this District. Hektoen confirmed that one of the functions of the Riverfront Crossings Zone is to create affordable housing so the monies need to be reinvested in that neighborhood. Boothroy did note that the fee piece would be a resolution approved by Council and reviewed on a regular basis. Dyer asked for an example of an inability of a developer to provide affordable housing. Boothroy said it is set up to be a tough standard to meet. Yapp said there could be a developer that will not request TIF financing and can show through their financials that they just cannot make the project work with that affordable housing requirement — in that case the ordinance provides alternatives. Signs asked why high -end senior living is excluded from this ordinance. Boothroy said the Riverfront Crossings Code already encourages affordable senior housing. Hensch opened the public hearing. Cheryl Cruise (905 Bluffwood Drive) is a retired child psychiatric nurse practitioner but is also involved in a small family business that rents apartments. She has been around rental housing in Iowa City since the 1970's. She started reading extensively about affordable housing and inclusionary housing and what is the AMI and where does it come from. When reading Census.gov she became alarmed they are only getting 1.5% of people surveyed. Cruise shared with the Commission data that shows the Johnson County medium income is $55,000 to $65,000 and there is a range with a margin of error. HUD gets median family incomes from separating out the people that are related to each other, families, and that is why the number is so high. HUD takes the family number from two years ago for a family of four and adds a cost of living escalator. HUD then says 90% of that number is a family of three, 80% is a family of two and 70% is a family of one. However there really are no families of one, they are all non -families. Cruise feels when setting policies it is important to note how few numbers are available in which to use to set the policy. Cruise also shared with the Commission the Cost Burden data because cost burden is important to inclusionary and affordable housing. The definition of affordable housing is to not pay more than 30% of your income for housing. From this data it shows that almost half of the people of Johnson County are 18-24 years old. Another 27% are graduate students, young professions, and young people just starting out and about 27% of them are cost burden. The numbers are skewed by the large number of 18-24 year olds. The committee thought the 60% AMI was a better number because it was lower and that is true and it is the number low-income tax projects use. Cruise believes that 30% of income is the better number to use rather than fair -market rent. Fair - market rents are calculated from about 100 units in any given year, and only two -bedroom units, it doesn't represent any one -bedroom or studio units. Charlie Eastham (953 Canton Street) suggests to the Commission to approve the recommendation for this ordinance. He has a lot of respect for the members of the ad -hoc committee that created this recommendation. He also agrees with Cruise regarding the proper way to calculate an Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 10 affordable rent. Eastham is concerned about the period of time for the non -subsidized developments, feeling it should be a permanent term of affordability. Cruise wanted to clarify using the 30% versus fair -market rent and stated this needs to be set up to be a model for other parts of the City and the County. The University of Iowa Institute for Sustainable Communities is working with Council now as well and having consistency amongst all constituencies would make sense. Maryann Dennis (1307 Rochester Avenue) works for the Housing Fellowship and was on the ad - hoc committee that created this proposed ordinance. Dennis appreciates what Cruise is saying and agrees they don't want anyone to pay more than 30% of their income for housing costs. For affordable homeownership that is figured into mortgage and lending policies. As a landlord, if they don't know what the income is then it is hard to cash -flow a rental project. The Housing Fellowship owns a 171 units scattered around Johnson County and tenants must be under a certain income level depending on funding source (some are 80% some are 60% and some are 40%) last year the average for incomes for all of their tenants in 2015 was $22,019 per year. Now if those folks pay only 30% of their income for rent they cannot cash -flow the project. So in order to do her proforma she needs to know how much rent she will get. Dennis closed by saying she appreciates the work her colleagues and Staff have done on this proposal and hopes the Commission will support the ordinance. Hensch closed the public hearing. Dyer moved to recommend adoption of amendments to City Code Section 14-2G to adopt a Riverfront Crossings Inclusionary Housing (IH) Ordinance. Parsons seconded the motion. Dyer noted that she feels this is something that has been needed in Iowa City for quite some time and this is a great beginning. Perhaps some point in the future the discussion of extending the duration of affordability can happen, but permanent affordably might just be too big of a bite to take at this time. Dyer also stated that the 30% issues seems to have to do with the occupant of a property and specific rental rates are what the landlord or owner deals with. Theobald is happy to see this proposal but also shares concern about what will happen after 10 years. However agrees this is a start and the committee has put in a lot of hard work. She also hopes this will someday expand to the entire community. Martin shared her concern about possible subpar or cheaper built projects due to this ordinance, but does support it. Hensch said he is a big fan of Riverfront Crossings and form -based zoning of mixed -use and walkability. Adding in this mixed -income just rounds out the area and hope it does become a model for other areas and cities. Signs noted his appreciation of all the data provided but perhaps has a different interpretation. He feels the data shows the need for housing at the 30% or below level of AMI. Looking specifically at the age householder by rent chart and looking at the 30 to 30.9 group and the 35+ group are the largest in each group of rents paid. That just reinforces the need to address the 60% group. Parsons agreed this is a great starting point and because it is the first in the State it will need to be Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 6 of 10 open for changes and adjustments. He is ready to support this and thanks City Staff and the ad - hoc committee for their work on this proposal. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. 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. Yapp explained that over the past year or so there have been a group in the community meeting to put together what is called a Housing First project for FUSE (Frequent Users System Engagement) clients. FUSE refers to chronically homeless individuals who are frequent uses of local institutions, including the justice system, human service agencies, and medical services including emergency rooms. Housing First refers to a model that has started in other parts of the country where instead of treatment model that emphasizes treating the symptoms and moving individuals from being homeless to a housing shelter and then eventually to transitional housing and then hopefully to independent housing, Housing First emphasizes as a very first step providing safe and secure housing for these individuals. One of the things the local human service agencies have struggled with is trying to find an appropriate location for such a use. In meeting with those agencies and looking through the Iowa City Zoning Code it became clear that there is not a clear use classification for such a use and that the density and parking requirements are designed more for typical households not for FUSE clients. So Staff has been working to develop a Code Amendment. FUSE clients are the chronically homeless. The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines the chronically homeless as someone who has a disability and has been living in a place not meant for human habitation, in an emergency shelter or safe haven for the last 12 months continuously or at least on four occasions in the last three years totally 12 months. Yapp addressed of the questions the Commission had at the work session Monday which was the definition of disability. Federal laws define a person with a disability as "any person that has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities, has a record of such impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment'. Yapp noted the definition goes on to say that these impairments include hearing, mobility, visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS or AIDS related complex, and mental retardation. He explained that the HUD definition of a chronic homeless person does note that the person has a disability. Yapp next discussed the proposal. What Staff is proposing is establishing a new use category called Community Service — Long Term Housing. The Zoning Code currently has a broad category called Community Service Uses and refers to a typical community service use like a community center or a housing center, which is defined as short-term housing. So Staff proposes adding a definition for Community Service — Long Term Housing which would be "long term housing for persons with a disability operated by a public or nonprofit agency". So a private multi -family housing complex would not be able to take advantage of the density or parking exceptions, it would have to be owned by a nonprofit agency and serve persons with disabilities. Yapp explained with regards to density, currently in commercial zones residential density is limited to one unit per 2,725 square feet of lot area regardless of the size of the unit. Staff reviewed densities in other Iowa City Zones and is recommending a density of one unit per 900 square feet of lot area and that the units be efficiency and/or one -bedroom units. The one unit per 900 square feet lot area is consistent with rooming house density in a medium -density multi -family zone. So this would not be the highest density residential uses the City has nor is it the lowest. Yapp explained that with regards to parking Staff recommends one parking space per three units, or three beds. That is consistent with the parking requirement for assisted living facilities. The use would also have some office Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 10 space and community room space in the building. Staff does not recommend any parking reduction for that part of the use. The parking requirement for office space and community room space is one parking space per 300 square feet. Staff did not want to recommend reducing the parking requirement too much due to concerns that it would make the property functionally obsolete for other uses in the future. Yapp noted that because the proposed use would have qualities in it of multi -family residential housing, community room and office space, and similar to an assisted living facility Staff recommends this use be allowed in certain commercial zones. It is recommended to be allowed as a provisional use in the Commercial Office, Intensive Commercial, and Community Commercial zones as well as the CB-2 and CB-5 zones. Originally staff was recommending if the facility is adjacent to or across the street from a single family residential zone, a special exception be required. After some conversations with Staff they are now proposing a special exception be required if it is within 200 feet of a single family zone. The 200 feet is more consistent with other similar uses in the Code and it is also consistent with the minimum distance under State Code for notification requirements. Yapp explained that as proposed it would be a provisional use meaning that certain provisions would need to be met before the use could be established. Those provisions include a requirement for a management plan that is consistent with management plans that are required for shelter uses. The management plan would need to include a plan to address any potential nuisances such as loitering, littering, noise, etc. Staff is also recommending that a neighborhood meeting be required prior to the site plan being approved. He explained that with most rezoning applications and special exception applications the City encourages but does not require a neighborhood meeting. Due to the particular unique use of this living they are recommending a neighborhood meeting be required both to share the management plan and to set up the lines of communication. Yapp stated that the facility must maintain a rental permit, as it would be considered rental housing. With the rental permit it would be subject to periodic inspections by City Staff. Staff also recommends that up to 50% of the first floor be able to be occupied by residential uses. That gives the managers of the facility a little more flexibility of where they put residential uses and then can have some residential uses adjacent to the community space and office spaces. Martin asked about the definition of disability and that it states chronic alcoholism but no other substances. Hektoen said for the Commission to not get distracted by the definition, that will be a decision that the operator of this type of facility will make and if tenants qualify for their services. Yapp noted there was a question at the work session Monday night regarding the percentage of the homeless population that may have a disability and the Human Agency Staff will be able to address that question. Hensch opened the public hearing. Crissy Canganelli (2307 E. Washington Street) is the Executive Director of Shelter House wanted to be available to answer any questions the Commission had. Dyer asked if there was a specific plan for developing such a facility. Canganelli said that they have been working on a plan for about two years. They took a site visit of a facility in Charlotte South Carolina and were positively impacted by the facility there. They have met with Neumann Monson who have agreed to donate 100% of the architectural services for the project. HBK will be providing the civil engineering services. They are still developing a design for the project, but are anticipating a two-story building that will include the efficiency apartments. Canganelli said they had to wait until the Commission and Council approve this amendment before they could confirm the number of units because they need to know their ability to develop the piece of Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 10 property they are looking at. The facility would include community spaces, a library, a computer room, meeting room, offices spaces, a nurse's station, and accommodations like that. Canganelli also noted it would be a secure facility; their intention is to have onsite security as a safe guard for the residents. Hensch asked if there are other facilities in Iowa that are similar to this. Canganelli said there may be facilities because this is a model of supportive housing, what is different about this project and what would be unique for the State of Iowa is that it is made available on a Housing First approach. The Housing First approach represents a paradigm shift that is slow to appear in the Midwest and has not been implemented in the State of Iowa, we would be the first and a model for the State. Dyer asked about families, would studios and one -bedroom units be adequate to house a family. Canganelli said they are not intending to make these units or building available to families. With this being the first foray into Housing First the Housing Coalition providers agreed to prioritize chronically homeless and specifically people who are qualifying in that cohort known as frequent users of public services as jail or emergency rooms only to end up back on the street. Canganelli said they did a case study of four individuals and that they are averaging about $139,000 in unreimbursed expenditures to live and die on the streets of our community. Theobald noted that it was presented that the individuals have to have an actual diagnosis and wondered if it was known how many people are out on the streets that wouldn't have a diagnosis. Canganelli said she does not have an exact percentage but it is substantial and they have the resources to help establish the diagnosis. Yapp added that overall about 40% of the adult clients at Shelter House suffer from a disability; about 26% of the adult clients were chronically homeless. Martin asked what those number actually look like. 40% is how many people. Canganelli said the 40% of adults that Shelter House has served is 40% of about 650 people. Hensch asked if there was an estimate of how many chronically homeless there are in this area. Canganelli said she knows there are 20-25 people living on the streets at any point in time, the low barrier shelter in the winter averaged 32 people per night, and almost without exception those people are chronically homeless. It can be a moving target. Hensch asked how many units are in their proposed project. Canganelli said they hope to have up to 24 units. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to approve the 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. Theobald seconded the motion. Theobald expressed her gratitude to see a possibility of such a project. Signs agreed, noting that he once worked with the homeless youth center in Des Moines and providing that initial stability is very important. Dyer noted she has followed report from other communities where this approach has been taken and they seem to be almost universally successful. Hensch echoed Dyer's comments and sees the need for this dramatically A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 10 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 5, 2016 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 5, 2016. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Yapp noted that Dan Perolek, a form -based code expert, and will be here on May 24. When the City developed the South District Plan there was conversation about the "missing middle". Dan Perolek is the person that coined the term "missing middle". Yapp noted that the public session with Dan Perolek at the library will be videotaped. He will be doing a workshop with Staff and the Homebuilders Association at 1:30 on Tuesday and the public presentation will be at the library at 7:00. ADJOURNMENT: Parsons moved to adjourn. Theobald seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015 - 2016 FORMAL MEETING 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 5/19 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E 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 O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X X SIGNS, MARK I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 5/16 DYER, CAROLYN 05/21 X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 O/E HENSCH, MIKE 05/20 X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X PARSONS, MAX 05/20 X SIGNS, MARK 05/21 X THEOBALD, JODIE O5/18 X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member