The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-03-06 Info Packet~ - i ~`~'.w~ ®~'~ -•ti.at~ CITY OF IOWA CITY www. icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET March 6, 2008 MARCH 11 SPECIAL WORK SESSION IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda (Revised) [Revised schedule distributed at 3/11 Work Session] IP2 Memorandum from the Associate Planner: Site Location Review for a FY08 HOME Funded Housing Project Memorandum from City Attorney: Iowa Supreme Court Decision in Shelter House Appeal [Distributed at 3/11 Work Session] MISCELLANEOUS IP3 Memorandum from the City Clerk: Revised Meeting Schedule (March-September 2008) IP4 Memorandum from the Community Development Program Assistant: HUD's Table of Income Guidelines effective February 13, 2008 IP5 Memorandum from the Community Development Coordinator: Affordable Housing Market Analysis Update IP6 Building Permit Information -February 2008 IP7 Invitation: Corridor Welcome Reception March 24, 2008 IP8 E-mail from the Director of Parks and Recreation: Boathouse Ground Breaking DRAFT MINUTES IP9 Human Rights Commission: February 26, 2008 IP10 Housing and Community Development Commission: February 12, 2008 (6:30p) IP11 Housing and Community Development Commission: February 12, 2008 (11:OOa) IP12 Task Force on Violence Against Women: February 18, 2008 IP13 Public Art Advisory Committee: February 7, 2008 IP14 Board of Adjustment: February 13, 2008 Airport Commission: March 6, 2008 [Distributed at 3/11 Work Session] ~ = 1 ~,_. ®~r~ ,~ ~n-~t1i• ,z ~~~~~ CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET -•ti.a.~ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org March 6, 2008 I MARCH 11 SPECIAL WORK SESSION I IP1 Council Meetings an Work Session Agenda IP2 Memorandum from the ssociate Planner: Site Location R view for a FY08 HOME Funded Housing Project ;~ MISCELLANEOUS IP3 Memorandum from the City Clerk: evised Meeting Schedule (March-September 2008) IP4 Memorandum from the Communit Development Prpgram Assistant: HUD's Table of Income Guidelines effective Februa 13, 2008 IP5 Memorandum from the Community velopment Coordinator: Affordable Housing Market Analysis Update i IP6 Building Permit Information -February 20 ~ IP7 Invitation: Corridor Welcome Reception M c 24, 2008 IP8 E-mail from the Director of Parks and Recr ation: athouse Ground Breaking DRA6~T MIND IP9 Human Rights Commission: Feb ary 26, 2008 IP10 Housing and Community Dev opment Commission: Fe ruary 12, 2008 (6:30p) IP11 Housing and Community D elopment Commission: Febr ry 12, 2008 (11:OOa) IP12 Task Force on Violence gainst Women: February 18, 2008 IP13 Public Art Advisory C mittee: February 7, 2008 IP14 Board of Adjustmen .February 13, 2008 ~ - _~ ~` ~ ~~~~ "'"'®'~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and -n..4_ CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas Revised Ma~~n ~, 200$ www.icgov.org • TUESDAY, MARCH 11 Emma J. Harvaf Hall 5:30p Special Formal Council Meeting -Separate Agenda posted Executive Session -Pending Litigation Special Work Session • Council Appointments • Agenda Items • Solicitation Downtown Ordinance (reference agenda item 6 & 7] • Sand Lake CAT Grant Application (reference agenda item 9J • The Housing Fellowship FY08 HOME Project -Site Location Review • Review of Shelter House Decision • Legislative Update • Council Time • Schedule of Pending Discussion Items • Upcoming Community EventslCouncil Invitations • Discussion of Meeting Schedule 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting Continue Special Work Session if necessary • THURSDAY, MARCH 13 City Manager's Conference Room 6:30p Special Formal Council Meeting -Separate Agenda Posted Executive Session -City Manager Search Special Work Session -City Manager Search • MONDAY, MARCH 31 6:30p Regular Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall • TUESDAY, APRIL 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, APRIL 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Regular Work Session 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting Continue Regular Work Session if necessary • MONDAY, APRIL 28 Emma J. Harvat.Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, APRIL 29 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp .Special Formal Council Meeting • WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session -Snow removal discussion All meetings are tentative and subject to change. 1 - 1 _ ~;= V~`'~~ IP1 City Council Meeting Schedule and CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas March 6, 2008 www.icgov.org • TUESDAY, MARCH 11 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Special Formal Council Meeting -Separate Agenda posted Executive Session -Pending Litigation Special Work Session • Council Appointments • Agenda Items • Solicitation Downtown Ordinance (reference agen a item 6 & 7] and Lake CAT Grant Application (reference agenda em 9] • Housing Fellowship FY08 HOME Project - S' e Loc ion Review • Legisla 've Update • Council e • Schedule o en • Upcoming Co ^ Discussion of M ding Discussion nunity Events/Cc Ming Schedule, I Invitations 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeti Continue Special Work Session " ecessary • THURSDAY, MARCH 13 City Manager's Conference Room 6:30p Special Formal Council M eting - Separ a Agenda Posted Executive Sessi -City Manager arch Special Work Sessio -City Manager Searc • MONDAY, MARCH 31 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular Work ssion • TUESDAY, APRIL 1 ma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular F mal Council Meeting • MONDAY, APRIL 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Regular Work Session 7:OOp special Formal Council Meeting Continue Regular Work Session if necessary • MONDAY, APRIL 28 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, APRIL 29 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting • WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session -Snow removal discussion All meetings are tentative and subject to change. o- - r IP2 !~-,~,-,~.®~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY 3- ,~ - ,..~ ,~ ~ ~_l M E M 0 RA N DuM Date: March 6, 2008 To: City Council From: Tracy Hightshoe, Associate Planner~~ Re: Site Location Review for a FY08 HOME Funded Housing Project The Housing Fellowship received $347,774 in FY08 HOME funds for the acquisition of 10 lots to build 10 two-bedroom homes for affordable rental housing. The Housing Fellowship (THF) recently submitted a letter to Council requesting site approval to purchase 16 detached single family lots in the Mount Prospect Addition, Part IX (Census Tract 18, Block Group 1) and $180,000 in uncommitted funds in the City's HOME line of credit. According to the attached letter, THF has signed purchase offers on 22 lots. These lots include 16 in the Mount Prospect Addition, Part IX, two on Chamberlain Drive and four zero lot lines on Westbury Court (Old Towne Village). The Housing Fellowship hopes to combine their FY08 HOME funds with a FY09 allocation for one Low-Income Housing Tax Credit application to be submitted in November 2008. THF is requesting $499,750 in FY09 HOME/CDBG funds. Before funding can be considered, THF must secure site approval from Council for the lots in the Mount Prospect Addition based on the Site Location Guidelines in the FY08 CDBG/HOME Application Guide. In November 2005 the City Council reached consensus on identifying areas of the community where the development of HOME and/or CDBG assisted housing would be encouraged. Census Tract 18 is not an area that was identified as underserved with affordable housing opportunities and requires that Council review the location. The Mount Prospect Addition Subdivision (parts I -VIII) currently contains approximately 305 single family homes. The area is zoned single family and is bordered roughly by Sycamore Avenue, Highway 6, Grantwood Drive and Stanwyck Drive. Of the 305 existing homes, four were previously acquired with CDBG and/or HOME funds for affordable rental housing projects. In other words, 1% of the homes in the subdivision have been assisted with public funds through the City. Staff reviewed the information submitted by the THF and makes the following recommendations: Approve the site location for the 16 homes in the Mount Prospect Addition, Part IX. The site is properly zoned and THF has purchase offers on lots throughout the community and in three school districts. THF could consider purchasing the lots in the Mount Prospect Addition and completing a development with both rental and owner- occupied homes; however, only the rental homes would be eligible under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. The uncommitted HOME funds that THF is requesting will be applied to the current FY09 application round as planned. There are 10 FY09 housing applications, including THF's affordable rental housing project, under consideration right now. The City could also explore the use of other funds such as GO Bond, TIF or other City funds to acquire the lots or to use for infrastructure improvements. March 6, 2008 Page 2 Please be prepared to consider this matter at your March 11 work session. If you would like additional information, please contact Steve Long or Tracy Hightshoe at 356-5230 or by a-mail at steve-long@iowa-city.org or tacy-hightshoe@iowa-city.org. Attachment cc: Dale Helling Jeff Davidson Steve Long Housing Fell©~shi Opening the doors of Johnson County 322 E. 2"d St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Office 319-358-9212 Fax 319-358-0053 February 29, 2008 TO: Iowa City City Council Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator FROM: Charlie Eastham, President, Board of Trustees Maryann Dennis, Executive Director ~: Proposed Sites and Costs for The Housing Fellowship's Home and Neighborhood Affordable Rental Housing Project The Housing Fellowship (THF) is requesting the Council's concurrence for the construction of 16 detached single family homes located in Mount Prospect Addition, Part IX. This 5.21 acre parcel is located in Census Tract 18 Block Group 1 and is platted for 16 single family lots. We are proposing to combine this site with 2 single family lots on Chamberlain Dr. and 4 zero lot line lots on Westbury Ct. into a single affordable rental housing scattered site project of at least 22 homes. THE has signed purchase agreements for all of these sites. Also, we are pursuing the possibility of purchasing 8 town home lots in Mackinaw Village -Part One. This fall we will apply for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits as the major source of financing for the entire project. The final number of units in this year's. Tax Credit application will be decided later as we have completed purchase agreements and have determined a feasible rent-up rate. We are also requesting that the Council allocate $180,000 in City Home funds to this project to cover projected cost overruns that may occur given total lot and infrastructure costs and the total amount of FY 08 Home funds that have been allocated to this project and the amount of FY 09 funds that are in our HOME/CDBG application for this year. Each of these requests is discussed in greater detail below. Inclusion of Mt. Prospect Addition, Part IX, in this project - Home and Neighborhood Affordable Rental Housing Proposed Sites and Costs Site No. Rental Homes Type Purchase A reement Cost Westbu Ct. 4 Zero-lot line Yes $140,000 Chamberlain Dr. 2 Detached Sin le Famil Yes $95,900 Mt. Prospect, Part IX 16 Detached Sin le Famil Yes $320,000 Mt. Prospect, Part IX, Infrastructure (estimate) $266,700 Possib le additional site Mackinaw Village, Part One 8 Townhome No $204,000 Total $1,026,500 The recently completed Affordable Housing Market Analysis shows that in Iowa City the need for rental homes affordable to households with incomes less than 50% of Median Household Income is projected to be several hundred units by 2012 at the current rate of development of affordable rental housing (figures 82, 89, 99). Considering the availability of financing from all sources and using reasonable rent-up rates, we believe that the goal for Iowa City should be to increase the rate of development of affordable rental homes to 25-30 per year. Inclusion of the Mt. Prospect site in this year's Home and Neighborhood project is essential to meeting this increased rate of development for the coming year. Mt. Prospect Addition, Part IX, is located south of Lakeside Dr., between Amber Ln. and Gable St., and immediately south of Grant Wood school. The addition is platted for 16 single family lots and is zoned RS 5. THE will construct 16 detached single family homes. All homes will be designed to be compatible with and to enhance the surrounding developments. The design, appearance, and management practices we will apply to this and all sites will result in the property values of neighboring homes being maintained and very likely improved. In the recommendations of the Scattered Site Housing Task Force as presented to the Council on October 17, 2005, Census Tract 18, Block Group 1, was designated as an "under" fair share area lacking in assisted housing opportunities. Applying that recommendation to the Mt. Prospect site is, in our view, an appropriate action for the Council to take at this time. The substance of the Scattered Site Housing Task Force reports was that there should be a good faith effort made by affordable rental housing developers to locate affordable housing throughout the City. THE has made every effort in acquiring sites for this project to obtain lots in all areas as they have been listed for sale on the MLS and as we have found lots listed privately by developers. As shown above we will have lots on Chamberlain Dr. in the Lucas attendance area and Westbury Ct. in the Lemme area. We are continuing efforts to purchase lots in Mackinaw Village in the Mann attendance area. As part of our site acquisition work on this project we made a purchase offer for six contiguous lots on Chelsea Ct. However, that offer was not accepted by the seller. Presently, there are no single or multi-family lots listed on the MLS in areas approved by the Council and meeting our requirements for access to bus service and commercial services. We also note that there are plans by the owners of two major multi-family rental developments in the south side area to begin selling apartments as condominiums for owner occupancy. As those efforts go forth they will result in reducing the number of rental opportunities for this part of the City. We would request then that Council concur in including the Mt. Prospect site in this affordable rental housing project. Allocation of additional funds to meet anticipated cost overruns - City HOME Funds Needed for This Project Year Status Amount FY 08 Allocated $347,772 FY 09 Current HCDC a lication $499,750 Cost overrun allocation re uested in this memo $180,000 Total $1,027,522 As shown above, the total land acquisition and infrastructure cost for this project is projected to be at least $1,026,500. If the project includes a full 18 detached single family, 4 zero-lot line, and 8 townhome lots the average cost per lot for 30 affordable rental homes is estimated to be approximately $34,217. THE has been allocated $347,772 in FY 08 City Home funds and has applied for $499,750 in FY 09 funds. If our FY 09 application receives the full amount applied for we will have $847,522 allocated. We would need at least an additional $178,978 in order to support a 30 home project. In FY 06, THE was allocated $175,000 in City Home funds in response to our application for $812,404 to be applied acquiring and rehabilitating 8 existing homes to be used for rental housing at scattered sites. Because the award was such a small proportion of the cost of the proposed project we determined that we could not undertake the project and last fall returned the $175,000 to the City. Also, we recently returned some $29,000 in HOME funds that had been allocated to our home ownership program. It seems reasonable at this time, in light of the opportunities we now have to acquire a significant number of lots, to seek the redirection of $180,000 from those previous allocations to this project in order to cover an estimated cost overrun. Any funds remaining from the site acquisition allocation to this project will be applied to site acquisition for a FY 10 new construction project. In order to insure that the purchase contract time frames for these sites will be met, we request that the Council act on both of the above requests as soon as possible. We would prefer that these requests be considered at the March 11 informal meeting. ~ r ..=.®~„~ ~! ~m~ ~ ,~~,.~ CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM DATE: 3/10/2008 TO: City Council FROM: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney RE: Iowa Supreme Court Decision In Shelter House Appeal (BontraQer Auto Service, et al. v. Iowa City Board Of Adjustment and Hilltop Mobile Home Court v. Iowa City Board Of Adjustment) In anticipation of the work session item that has been scheduled for tomorrow, this memo will provide a brief summary of the Iowa Supreme Court's recent decision. A copy of the decision is attached for those desiring additional detail. In July 2004, the Iowa City Board of Adjustment granted Shelter House a special exception to allow the construction of transient housing on property located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at the southeast corner of Waterfront and Southgate Drive. Plaintiffs challenged the Board's decision, asserting that the Board made inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, that the evidence before the Board was insufficient to support its finding that the requested use would not diminish and/or impair property values and that the evidence before the Board showed the use would result in increased crime contrary to the public interest. After trial, the Johnson County District Court determined that there was insufficient evidence on property values to support the Board's conclusion that they would not be affected. Additionally, the District Court concluded that "occupant" includes staff and volunteers, and therefore, 22 parking spaces are required to comply with zoning requirements. Based on these conclusions, the Court reversed the Board's grant of the special exception. The Board and Shelter House appealed the District Court decision to the Iowa Supreme Court, asserting that the District Court had applied an improper standard in assessing the evidence before the Board, substituted its judgment for that of the Board, and thus, contrary to the District Court's determination, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion. In its unanimous twenty-six (26) page decision, the Iowa Supreme Court finds that Plaintiffs did not preserve error on the parking issue (as it was not challenged before the Board), finds that the Board substantially complied with the requirement to issue written findings of fact, and finds that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that. property values would not be adversely affected. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court and remanded the matter for the issuance of an order upholding the Board's grant of the special exception to Shelter House. The Plaintiffs have fourteen (14) days from March 7, 2008 to request that the Supreme Court reconsider its decision. Importantly from the City's perspective, the Supreme Court's decision clarifies the scope of a district court's review of a challenged Board of Adjustment decision. If the alleged illegality does not appear in the record made before the board (e.g. undue influence on decision maker, ex parte communications, conflict of interest), the district court may take additional evidence and find the facts anew as to those issues. However, if the challenge is based on the lack of substantial evidence before the board, as it was in this case, the district court does not find the facts anew, but rather, applies the substantial evidence standard. If based on the evidence before it, the board's decision is open to a fair difference of opinion, the district court must uphold the decision. As the Court noted, this substantial evidence standard of review is consistent with the principle stated in a number of Iowa cases that the reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Additionally, the Supreme Court outlined what evidence a Board of Adjustment may properly consider. The Court found that a lack of expert testimony is not fatal to the question of whether substantial evidence exists on the issue of property values and that a board may consider anecdotal evidence and rely on commonsense inferences drawn from evidence relating to other issues, such as use and enjoyment, crime, safety, welfare and aesthetics to make a judgment as to whether a proposed use would substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. I'm grateful to First Assistant City Attorney Sarah Holecek for her hard work on this case. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Sarah or me. cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk Dale Helling, Interim City Manager Eleanor/memo/shelter house decision 3-10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 22 / 05-1064 Filed March 7, 2008 BONTRAGER AUTO SERVICE, INC.; SKAY AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE, INC.; BRIAN K. DeCOSTER; ROGERS RENTAL, LLC; MARLY3 BREESE; THE BREESE CO. INC.; GREGG R. REDLIN; EUGENE F. FISHER; ERIN K. FISHER; EDWARD I. SCHMUCKER; K 8s G; MICHAEL A. McNIEL, TODD DAMS, CARMEN DAMS, SAND ROAD INVESTORS; KEITH L. MILLER; DEBRA S. MILLER; PAUL M. KENNEDY, JR.; MARY FRANCES KENNEDY; WILLIAM B. KRON, JR.; and DERROLD M. FOSTER, Appellees., vs. THE IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Appellant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HILLTOP MOBILE HOME COURT, Appellee, vs. THE IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT and SHELTER HOUSE COMMUNITY SHELTER AND TRANSITION SERVICES, Appellants. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, David M. Remley, Judge. Board of Adjustment and applicant for special exception to zoning regulation appeal district court's decision sustaining obj ectorsy petitions. for writ of certiorari and reversing board's approval of special exception. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2 Sarah E. Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney, Iowa City, for appellant Iowa City Board of Adjustment. Timothy J. Krumm and Anne E. Daniels of Meardon, Sueppel 8v Downer P.L.C., Iowa City, for appellant Shelter House Community Shelter and Transition Services. Gregg Geerdes, Iowa City, for appellees Bontrager Auto Service, Inc. et al. Raymond M. Tinnian, Kalona, for appellee Hilltop Mobile Home Court. 3 TERNUS, Chief Justice. The appellant, Iowa City Board of Adjustment, approved the application of appellant, Shelter House Community Shelter and Transition Services, for a special exception to a local zoning regulation to allow Shelter House to construct transient housing in a commercial district. The appellees, opponents of Shelter House's application, successfully challenged the board's decision in district court. Although the district court rejected the objectors' contention the board had failed to make the necessary factual findings, the court ruled there was not substantial evidence to support the board's finding that the proposed transient housing would not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The court also determined the board had improperly interpreted and applied the parking- space requirements governing transient housing. The board and Shelter House appeal the district court's reversal of the board's approval of Shelter House's application. We agree with the district court that the board made sufficient factual findings, but conclude error was not preserved on the adequacy of the parking spaces. Because we think there was substantial. evidence to support the board's finding that property values would not be adversely affected, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand this case for entry of a judgment affirming the board's decision. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Shelter House is a nonprofit corporation that has operated transient housing on North Gilbert Street in Iowa City for approximately twenty years. The facility on Gilbert Street is approved for housing twenty-nine transient persons at one time. It was undisputed the shelter has to turn homeless persons away due to a lack of space. 4 In 2004 Shelter House sought to build a new two-story facility at 429 Southgate Avenue that would provide transitional housing for up fo seventy people. This site is zoned intensive commercial, which permits transient housing by special exception. In order to approve a special exception, the board must find the applicant meets the standards set forth for the specific proposed exception, as well as seven general standards to the extent they are applicable. The Iowa City Department of Planning and Community Development reviewed Shelter House's application and recommended approval. Subsequently, the board held a well-attended meeting at which approximately thirty-seven persons spoke. The main concern of objectors was the possibility of increased criminal activity in the neighborhood, a concern the proponents of the special exception attempted to refute. There was also some evidence elicited relating to property values, with the witnesses for and against the application disagreeing on whether property values would decrease due to the construction of transient housing in the affected neighborhood. Following public comments, the board approved the special exception on a vote of three to one. A written decision granting the application was filed several days later. Thereafter, neighboring landowners filed petitions for writ of certiorari in the district court, which were consolidated.l They claimed the board acted illegally for several reasons, three of which are pertinent to this appeal: a. The Board of Adjustment acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it granted the application even though the evidence before the Board was that the requested special use would substantially diminish or impair the property values in the neighborhood of the requested special exception and that the proposed special exception would be injurious to the use and 1Shelter House was permitted to intervene. 5 enjoyment of other property in the area. Under these circumstances the actions of the Board are a violation of Iowa City Ordinance 14-6W-2(B)(2)(b). f. The property which is the subject of the special exception does not comply with various provisions of Iowa City zoning law...: a) There is insufficient parking under Ordinance 14-6N- 1.... g. The Board has made inadequate findings of fact. and conclusions of law, contrary to Ordinance 14-6W-3(D). The last allegation of illegality-that the board's findings of fact were inadequate-was based on the board's alleged failure to specifically find in its written decision that the proposed exception would not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In response to the petitions, the board submitted its records to the court, including the application for special exception, the staff report recommending approval of the special exception, written materials and comments received by the board, a transcript of the public hearing, the board's minutes, and the board's written decision. In addition, at the trial on the objectors' petitions, the district court heard further testimony from Robert Miklo, city planner for the City of Iowa City. Miklo testified with respect to the staff report and the board's findings of fact. No other evidence outside the board's records was offered or received. The court subsequently issued a ruling reversing the board's decision. Although the court decided the board had sufficiently complied with the requirement for written findings of fact, it concluded Shelter House had failed to present substantial evidence the. proposed special exception would not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The court also held the board had not correctly interpreted the parking- 6 space requirements of its ordinance.2 The board had approved the special exception on the basis that eighteen parking spaces would be sufficient; whereas, under the district court's interpretation, the ordinance would require twenty-two parking spaces. The board and Shelter House filed timely appeals from the district court's- decision. For convenience, any references in this opinion to the board include Shelter House unless the context indicates otherwise. II. Issues on Appeal. On appeal, the board contends there was substantial evidence to support its determination that property values would not be substantially diminished or impaired by the location of transient housing at the proposed site. With respect to the court's ruling on the required parking spaces, the board asserts that it correctly interpreted the parking-space requirements of its ordinance. The objectors disagree, of course, with the arguments asserted by the board on appeal. In addition, they claim that, even if the district court's decision on these issues was incorrect, its ruling can nonetheless be upheld on the basis that the board did not-make an adequate factual finding on the property-values. issue. In our review of the record, we have discovered a preliminary issue that must be addressed: whether any error with respect to the board's determination of the required number of parking spaces was preserved by the objectors. See Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa 2000) (stating "this court will confider on appeal whether error ZThe city code requires that transient housing provide "one-quarter (1/a) parking space per occupant, based on the maximum number of occupants." Iowa City Code ~ 14-6N-1(J)(1)(j). The parties disagreed on whether persons working at the facility were "occupants" so as to require their inclusion in the calculation of the required number of parking spaces. 7 was preserved despite the opposing party's omission in not raising this issue at trial or on appeal"). We will address that issue first. III. Error Preservation on Parking-Spaces Objection. The objectors argued in the district court and again on appeal that the board failed to properly interpret the parking-spaces requirement of the applicable city ordinance and, consequently, acted illegally in approving a special exception that did not propose an adequate number of parking spaces. In reviewing the record certified by the board to the district court, we are unable to find any discussion of this issue before the board. The application for special exception stated that the plot plan "shows 18 spaces." The staff report also reflected this fact and stated, "Eighteen parking spaces are required ...." The petitions signed by the opponents to the special exception did not raise any concerns with respect to the parking requirements. At the board's meeting, city staff presented its report and again specifically informed the board and those present that the property would be required to have eighteen parking spaces. No one at the meeting challenged the legality of the proposed exception on the basis that it did not comply with the applicable standard for parking spaces. "Inmost jurisdictions a reviewing court will not decide an issue which was not raised in the forum from which the appeal was taken.... A reviewing court will not entertain a new theory or a different claim not asserted on the board level." 4 Kenneth H. Young, Anderson's American Law of Zoning ~ 27:37, at 633-34 (4th ed. 1996); accord 83 Am. Jur. 2d Zoning & Planning ~ 957, at 791 (2006) ("It has been held that a reviewing court will not decide an issue that was not raised in the zoning board from which an appeal has been taken.") . Our court has similarly held that "issues must first be presented to the agency in order. to be preserved for appellate review." State ex rel. Miller u. DeCoster, 608 N.W.2d 785, 789 8 (Iowa 2000); accord Licari v. Bd. of Educ., 721 N.Y.S.2d 372, 373 (App. Div. 2001); Iwan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 677 N.Y.S.2d 190, 191 (App. Div. 1998); Leoni v. Whitpain Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 709 A.2d 999, 1002 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998). Based upon this principle and the record before us, we conclude the issue concerning the alleged inadequacy of the proposed parking spaces, which was not raised at the hearing before the board of adjustment, has not been preserved for this court's review. IV. Sufficiency of Board's Factual Finding Regarding Impact on Property Values. The Iowa City Code requires the Iowa City Board of Adjustment to render its decision in writing, "including findings of fact and conclusions of law." Iowa City Code § 14-6W-3(D). It is undisputed the board failed to make a specific finding or conclusion in its written decision regarding the effect of the proposed special exception on property values. This issue was of critical importance because, before the board may approve an application for a special exception, the board must find the applicant has met several general standards. One of those standards states: "The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially .diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood." Id. ~ 14-6W-2(B)(2)(b). Notwithstanding the board's failure to specifically address this standard in its decision, the district court concluded the board had substantially complied with the requirement of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The .board urges this court to reach the .same conclusion with respect to the adequacy of its written decision. The Iowa City ordinance codifies the rule adopted by our court "that boards of adjustment shall make written findings of fact on all issues presented in any adjudicatory proceeding." Citizens Against the Lewis & 9 Clark (Mowery) Landfill v. Pottawattamie County Bd. of Adjustment, 277 N.W.2d 921, 925 (Iowa 1979). We agree with the district court that substantial-as opposed to literal-compliance with the written-findings requirement is sufficient. In Thorson v. Board of Supervisors, 249 Iowa 1088, 90 N.W.2d 730 (1958), we held a board's substantial compliance with a statutory requirement was satisfactory, noting "the requirements imposed by statute upon an inferior tribunal should not be too technically construed, lest its efficiency be wholly paralyzed." 249 Iowa at 1097, 90 N.W.2d at 735; accord Johnson v. Bd. of Adjustment, 239 N.W.2d 873, 887 .(Iowa 1976) (" `[O]nly where it clearly appears there was a failure to substantially comply with the statutory requirements will there be found jurisdiction violations."' (quoting Bd. of Educ. v. Iowa State Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 261 Iowa 1203, .1210, 157 N.W.2d 919, 923 (1968)). More recently, in Obrecht v. , Cerro Gordo County Zoning Board of Adjustment, 494 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa 1993), we held substantial compliance with a zoning ordinance was sufficient. In that case, the county zoning ordinance required that an application for special use be signed by the landowner. Obrecht, 494 N.W.2d at 703. The application at issue had been signed by the lessee of the land, not the owner. Id. at 702. The owner had, however, appeared at and participated in the hearing on the application and had voiced no opposition. Id. at 703. We held the owner's presence at the hearing was substantial compliance with the ordinance requiring the owner's signature on the application because "the owner was available to verify his support of the application and to answer any questions." Id. Therefore, "[t]he objectives of the owner filing requirement were more than satisfied." Id. As implied by this statement from Obrecht, "substantial compliance" means the statute or rule " `has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out 10 the intent for which it was adopted.' " Brown v. John Deere Waterloo Tractor Works, 423 N.W.2d 193, 194 (Iowa 1988) (quoting Smith v. State, 364 So. 2d 1, 9 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)). Thus, the reviewing court must determine based on the facts of the particular case whether the actual compliance has accomplished the purpose of the statute or rule. Id. Consequently, we begin with an examination of the purpose of the requirement at issue. This court was persuaded to adopt a rule requiring written findings by the following "compelling considerations": " `facilitating judicial review, avoiding judicial usurpation of administrative functions, assuring more careful administrative. consideration, helping parties plan their cases for rehearings and judicial review, and keeping agencies within their jurisdiction.' " Citizens, 277 N.W.2d at 925 (quoting K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise ~ 16.05 (2d ed. 1978)). Consistent with-these considerations, we noted in Citizens that a board's findings "must be sufficient fo enable a reviewing court to determine with reasonable certainty the factual basis and legal principles upon which the board acted." Id.; accord Bd. of I?irs. v. Justmann, 476 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Iowa 1991). Here, the objectors appear to claim that, because there is no mention of the property-values issue in the board's written decision, the board failed to make a decision on this issue, thereby rendering its action granting the special exception illegal. Our review of the record convinces us that neither the objectors nor the district court had to guess whether the board considered and resolved the property-values issue. The board was clearly aware of the requirement that the special exception could not be approved if it substantially impaired neighboring property values. Shelter House addressed this standard in its application, and later, at the meeting scheduled to consider the application, city planner Robert Miklo told the board it must consider, among other items, the requirement that "the proposed special exception ...will not 11 substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood." In addition, several of the numerous persons who spoke at the hearing addressed the issue of property values. After the public comment portion of the meeting concluded, the board members expressed their views. Board member Mauer was the first to speak, and he expressly focused his remarks on "the general standards." Mauer commented on several of these standards, including the matter of property values. He stated the impact on property values was "a big issue" that could not be determined for sure until someone decides to sell property in the area after Shelter House is there: Mauer was most concerned, however, regarding the impact of the facility on the comfort, safety, and health of neighboring residents (another general standard). At this point in the proceedings, board member Holecek reminded the board that the board had to "conclude each of these standards has been met." Board member Mauer then voted "no," immediately followed by board member Wright, who discussed the general standards without any specific mention of property values, and then voted "yes." Board member Leigh then commented on the impact of the current transient house on North Gilbert on the surrounding neighborhood and .concluded by saying the proposal "has met the standards as were previously mentioned and I will vote in favor of this." Board member Alexander then stated, "For the reasons already mentioned, I too am going to vote. in favor." A roll call vote was then taken, resulting in approval of the application for a special exception on a vote of three to one. The board later filed a written decision on the Shelter House application that contained findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a disposition. In its conclusions of law, the board concluded "that developing the Shelter House at [the proposed] location will not be detrimental overall to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare," as required by 12 section 14-6W-2(B)(2), but did not make specific reference to the other portion of section 14-6W-2(B)(2) dealing with property values. These facts show that with respect to the property-values aspect of general standard section 14-6W-2(B)(2), the board did not literally comply with the rule that findings of fact and conclusions of law be in writing. We think, however, that there was substantial compliance. Considering the board's written decision in the context of the meeting at which the vote memorialized in the decision .occurred, we are able "to determine with reasonable certainty the factual basis and: legal principles upon which the board acted." Citizens, 277 N.W.2d at 925. We think it is sufficiently clear that the board considered the general standards, including whether the proposed special exception would "substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood," and concluded by a majority vote that these standards were met. The board's failure to reference the entirety of the general standard appearing in section 14-6W-2(B)(2) in its written conclusions of law is not a fatal flaw that warrants reversal. V. Scope and Standard of Review of Property-Values Issue. Our standard of review of the district court's ruling on the property- values issue is dependent upon resolution of a disagreement between the parties with respect to the proper role of the district court in its review of the board's decision. Shelter House maintains that the district court must conduct asubstantial-evidence review of the board's findings. See generally Grant v. Fritz, 201 N.W.2d 188, 195 (Iowa 1972) ("The `substantial evidence rule' is utilized in judicial checking of findings of fact ...."). Under that standard of review, the board's findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence. In contrast, the opponents claim the district court is 13 entitled to find the facts anew and on appeal to this court, the district court's findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence.3 Unlike the typical certiorari case, in which the standard of review is well established, the review of decisions of boards of adjustment has always been somewhat problematic. Iowa Code chapter 414 (2003) provides the procedure for review of a decision of a city board of adjustment.4 A person aggrieved by a board decision may file a petition for writ of certiorari in the district court, .identifying the claimed illegality of the board's action. -Iowa Code ~ 414.15 (stating petition must "specify[] the grounds of the illegality" of the board's decision). Upon the filing of a petition, the board of adjustment must make a return to the writ, which includes the "papers acted upon by it" and "other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from." Id. ~ 414.17. At this point, the review process reveals its unique characteristics. Section 414.18 states: 3It is not clear that the district court made its own factual findings as contended by the opponents. The dispositive analysis from the district court's ruling seems to focus on the board's findings rather than finding the facts anew: I conclude that proponents of the Special Exception failed to present substantial evidence that the proposed Special Exception will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The minutes,of the public. hearing, the transcript of the public hearing and the decision of the Board of Adjustment, collectively, do not contain substantial evidence to support a finding by the board that the proposed Special Exception will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Adjustment granting the Special Exception must be reversed. (Emphasis added.) Although one could argue based on a reading of the court's entire discussion of this issue that the court reweighed the evidence, we need not determine whether the trial court found the facts anew, as this question does not affect our ultimate resolution of this appeal. 4Comparable statutory provisions govern review of county boards of adjustment. See Iowa Code ~~ 335.18-.21. We have said the review provisions of chapter 335 and chapter 414 should be interpreted identically.. See Bluffs Dev. Co. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 499 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Iowa 1993); Trailer City, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 218 N.W.2d 645, 647 (Iowa 1974). 14 If upon the hearing which shall be tried de novo it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report the same to the court with the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute apart of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review. Id. § 414.18 (emphasis. added). This court has attempted over the years to interpret what the legislature intended when it provided for a trial de novo and for the taking of additional necessary evidence by the district court. In our first case to interpret section 414.18,5 Anderson v. Jester, 206 Iowa 452, 221 N.W. 354 (1928), we considered "what questions may be raised on certiorari." 206 Iowa at 462, 221 N.W. at 359. Relying on section 414.15, we held only issues of illegality are a permissible basis for relief. Id. at 463, 221 N.W. at 359. We observed that "arbitrary and unreasonable action or proceedings" that are riot authorized, are contrary to the statute defining the powers of the board, or are unsupported by facts upon which the board's power to act depends are illegal. Id. These grounds of illegality track those that are raised in certiorari actions generally. See Nash Finch Co. v. City Council, 672 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Iowa 2003) (" `An illegality is established if the board has not acted in accordance with a statute; if its decision was not supported by substantial evidence; or if its actions were unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.' " (quoting Perkins v. Bd. of Supervisors, 636 N.W.2d 58, 64 (Iowa 2001)). See generally 3 Arden H. Rathkopf et al., Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning & Planning ~ 62:32, at 62-66 (2001) (noting same grounds) [hereinafter Rathkopf s Law of ZoningJ. SOver the years, the Code editor has renumbered the chapter dealing with city zoning, so some of our early cases refer to the relevant sections of chapter 414 by, a different number. For clarity, we will simply use the current section numbers in discussing these decisions. The substance of the pertinent code provisions has not changed. 15 We also considered in Anderson "the method and scope of review by the trial court permitted by [this] legislative enactment." Anderson, 206 Iowa at 454, 221 N.W. at 355. Noting that the board of adjustment is not required "to return findings of fact," this court explained the purpose of the district court's power to take additional evidence as follows: If all the material facts appear in the record, or are not disputed, or only questions arising upon the .record are presented, the taking of evidence is not necessary. Questions likely to arise in such cases are of such great importance that the Legislature appears to have had in mind that the parties should, on the question of the legality of the board's action, be entitled to a full and complete hearing before a proper court of record and according to accepted judicial method of ascertaining facts. Id. at 461-62, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). Thus, when the record is inadequate to determine the legality of the board's action, additional evidence is necessary and may properly be taken by the district court. Our discussion in Anderson of the district court's scope of review was not as clear. We said: The parties are not, on certiorari, bound by the finding or opinion of the local board on the facts, or by the evidence offered there, or by knowledge outside of the evidence on which the board may have acted, but, ordinarily at least, are entitled to take testimony when a determinative issue of fact is raised. Id. at 462, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). Later in the same opinion, this seemingly expansive de novo review is qualified: If it had been intended to give to the aggrieved party the right to remove the determination of the entire matter from the local officers and board to the court, it is reasonable to suppose that the remedy provided would have been appeal rather than certiorari... . . .The trial de novo permitted, and the determination of whether testimony is necessary, and the admission of such testimony, ...should be confined to the questions of illegality raised by the petition for the writ.... If one of the grounds of alleged illegality is arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory 16 action on the part of the board, and on the facts the reasonableness of the board's action is open to a fair difference of opinion, there is, as to that, no illegality. The court is not, in such case, authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the local board. Id. at 462-63, 221 N.W. at 359 (emphasis added). We noted that arbitrary and unreasonable action includes action that is not authorized by the statute defining the board's power or that is contrary to or unsupported by the required facts. Id. at 463, 221 N.W. at 359. Although one could argue our discussion of the statute in Anderson did not completely clarify the district court's de novo fact-finding role, our subsequent cases consistently limited the trial de novo "to the questions of illegality raised by the petition for the writ." Deardorf v. Bd. of Adjustment, 254 Iowa 380, 383, 118 N.W.2d 78, 80 (1962); accord Vogelaar v. Polk County Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 188 N.W.2d 860, 863 (Iowa 1971). Our cases also confirmed that the statute did not provide "for trial de novo by equitable proceedings." Deardorf, 243 Iowa at 383-85, 118 N.W.2d at 80 (examining sufficiency of evidence before the board on question of unnecessary hardship); accord Trailer City, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 218 N.W.2d 645, 647 (Iowa 1974) ("The term `de novo' .. .does not bear its equitable connotation."); Vogelaar, 188 N.W.2d at 863 (noting trial is de novo only "in the sense that testimony in addition to the return may be taken if it appears to the court necessary for the proper disposition of the matter"); Zilm v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 260 Iowa 787, 794-95, 150 N.W.2d 606, 611 (1967) (reversing district court's determination of boundary line location contrary to that found by the board, stating there was no basis for finding board did not act reasonably and therefore, court could not substitute its judgment). We now turn to our decision in Weldon v. Zoning Board, 250 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 1977). In that case, we considered "what effect the statutes have 17 on the mode and scope of district court review when a claim of illegality in the certiorari action involves an issue of the sufficiency of evidence to support the decision of the inferior tribunal." Weldon, 250 N.W.2d at 400. We observed that section 414.18 had "modified" the rule applicable in ordinary certiorari actions that "the findings of fact of the inferior tribunal may not be upset if they are supported by substantial evidence before that tribunal." Id. We attributed this interpretation of section 414.18 to our decision in Anderson: Therefore, the teaching of the Anderson case is that in a certiorari proceeding in a zoning case the district court finds the facts anew on the record made in the certiorari proceeding. That record will include the return to the writ and any additional evidence which may have been offered by the parties. However, the district court is not free to decide the case anew. Illegality of the challenged board .action is established by reason of the court's findings of fact if they do not provide substantial support for the board decision. If the district court's findings of fact leave the reasonableness of the board's action open to a fair difference of opinion, the court may not substitute its decision for that of the board. Id. at 401. It appears, then, that in Weldon we interpreted section 414.18 to place the entire fact-finding role on the district court even when the claimed illegality was that the evidence was not sufficient to support the board's decision.. See Giesey v. Bd. of Adjustment, 229 N.W.2d 258, 260 (Iowa 1975) (holding illegality exists when there is not substantial evidence to support the decision of the board) . Notwithstanding our attempt in Weldon to clarify what the legislature meant by the language "tried de novo," in at least two subsequent cases in which the alleged illegality of the board's decision was a lack of substantial evidence to support its decision, the district court simply reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the board's decision without making its own fact-findings. See Cyclone Sand & Gravel Co. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 351 N.W.2d 778, 783 (Iowa 1984); Jorgensen v. Bd. of Adjustment, 336 18 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Iowa 1983). These cases appear to be more in line with a case that predated Weldon, Buchholz v. Board ofAdjustment, 199 N.W.2d 73 (Iowa 1972), which considered a county zoning statute identical to the city zoning statute at issue in this case. In Buchholz, we stated that "de novo" as used in section 335.21 does no more than permit the introduction of additional evidence in district court if -the court finds that course necessary for proper disposition of the cause. With that qualification the decision of the administrative body is conclusive unless arbitrary, capricious or otherwise illegal. 199 N.W.2d at 78. In considering the scope of review in the present appeal, this court is faced with the problem of ascertaining the meaning of section 414.18 in the face of conflicting case law. It is helpful, then, to examine general authorities in this area of the law. In Rathkopf"s Law of Zoning, the authors state the review provision in the standard zoning enabling act "gives the court the power to take .evidence when there is an issue raised by the pleadings in the proceeding other than whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence."6 Rathkopf's Law of Zoning § 62:46, at 62-1.23 (emphasis added). In those cases in which the issue is whether the action of a board is based upon substantial evidence, the determination as to the validity of a board's decision should be based upon the record of the proceedings before the board as supplemented by the testimony taken before the court. It should not decide the case merely on the basis of the testimony taken before it if the facts found by the court therein are materially at variance with those found by the board. The court cannot make new findings on issues presented below. Id. at 62-129 (emphasis added). 6Section 414.18 of Iowa's zoning act is identical to the standard zoning enabling act with the exception of the additional language in the Iowa act, "which shall be tried de novo." 19 The author clarifies that, with respect to issues of substantial evidence, "[i]t is only in those extraordinary cases in which it is not clear from the record what a board considered and how it arrived at its findings that additional testimony will ordinarily be taken in order for a court to evaluate (the board's] determination." Id. § 62:46, at 62-130 to -131. According to this treatise, other claims of illegality more properly give rise to the need for additional testimony in district court: Where an issue is raised by the petition and answer as to whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, or was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, the court should take evidence with respect to the matters thus put in issue, and apply the law thereto. Since such matters would not ordinarily appear in the return and record of the respondent in the proceedings, such authority will be utilized when questions of fact are presented which cannot be summarily decided in the review proceeding on the basis of allegations in the petition, although sworn to, or in affidavits, or on the exhibits and other types of informal evidence which a board of appeals is accustomed to consider. Where the person appealing from the action of the administrative body sets forth in his petition sufficient facts to persuade the court that there were "in fact or in all likelihood, factors present, not of record which influenced the action of the council complained of," ...the court should conduct a hearing and consider evidence not of record before the administrative body since .the court could not properly have determined the question from the transcript of the proceedings at the public hearing. . Id. at 62-123 to -124, 62-128. Thus, with respect to the district court's proper role in taking additional evidence, this authority distinguishes between illegalities that appear in the record made before the board, e.g., insufficiency of the evidence to support the board's findings, and illegalities that are outside the record, e.g., a board member's conflict of interest. Only when the illegality does not appear in the record made before the board should the district 20 court take additional evidence. In addition, this authority would limit the court's fact-finding role to issues that were not before the board. Although the standard act discussed in Rathkopf admittedly does not contain the "tried de novo" language appearing in Iowa's statute, courts from other states interpreting statutory language similar to Iowa's have interpreted their statutes consistently with Rathkopf s analysis. .See Colorado Land Use Comm'n v. Bd. of County Commis, 604 P.2d 32 (Colo. 1979); People ex rel. St. Albans-Springfield Corp. v. Connell, 177 N.E. 313 (N.Y. 1931); Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Combs, 106 S.E.2d 755, 758-59 (Va. 1959) (relying on Iowa Anderson case). In Colorado Land Use Commission, the Colorado Supreme Court defined the phrase "trial de novo" as used in a statute describing review of decisions of the board to mean something less than "trial anew on the merits": "The de novo term is included to indicate that any .relevant evidence may be introduced to attempt to prove illegality such as fraud, sham, bribery, failure to comply with statutory requirements, or abuse of legislative discretion." 604 P.2d at 36. Since the appellant in that case had sought a de novo review of the merits of the board's determination, the Colorado court held the trial court had properly dismissed the appellant's complaint. Id. Similarly, in St. Albans-Springfield, the highest court in New York observed that a court having a power of review similar to that provided in chapter 414 "is not supposed to exercise it as though it were the board of standards and appeals.... The courts must not trespass upon this administrative work, but confine their review to correcting legal errors." 177 N.E. at 315. Although these decisions and Rathkopf"s discussion of the district court's role in reviewing a board. decision are contrary to our holding in Weldon, we think the analysis of these .authorities makes sense and is entirely consistent with our statutory language. Section 414.18 allows the 21 court to take evidence "[i]f ... it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter." (Emphasis added.) Ordinarily, testimony would not be necessary when the claimed illegality is insufficient evidence, at least when a record was made before the board. Our proposed interpretation of the statute also reflects our traditional deference to the fact-finding role of the local tribunal with respect to the issues of fact essential to its decision by preserving the substantial-evidence rule in the review of board decisions. We think it is simply inconsistent to define an illegality as a lack of substantial evidence to support the board's decision, a rule used to review an inferior tribunal's fact-finding, but then • place the ultimate fact-finding responsibility on the district court. In other words, asubstantial-evidence review makes more sense if the fact-finding relevant to the issues before the board remains with the board. We also think application of the substantial-evidence rule is more consistent with the principle stated in Weldon and other Iowa cases that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the board. See, e.g., Helmke v. Bd. ofAdrustment, 418 N.W.2d 346, 352 (Iowa 1988); Weldon, 250 N.W.2d at 401; Anderson, 206 Iowa at 463, 221 N.W. at 359. The existence of a particular fact is often outcome determinative, as in the present case. To allow the district court to make this crucial finding of fact necessarily allows the court to substitute its judgment for that of the board. Importantly, interpreting section 414.18 consistently with Rathkopf's explanation of the standard act does not render the Iowa statute's reference to "the hearing which -shall be tried de novo" superfluous because, for illegalities that are not based on the board's fact-finding function, the district court does find the facts pertinent to the claimed illegality. Finally, we think the Rathkopf interpretation is more understandable, more easily and consistently applied by the district courts, and more consistent with 22 the certiorari mode of review adopted by the legislature for review of board decisions. In summary, we overrule Weldon to the extent it permitted the court to make new factual findings on issues that were before the board for decision. Such fact-findings will be reviewed under the substantial- evidence test traditionally employed in certiorari reviews. VI. Substantial Evidence to Support Board's Finding That Property Values Would Not be Substantially Diminished or Impaired. As noted above, the board could not grant a special exception to Shelter House unless it was satisfied "[t]he specific proposed exception .. . will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the "' neighborhood:" Iowa City Code ~ 14-6W-2(B)(2)(b). We must determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the board's finding that this standard was met. "Evidence is substantial `when a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to reach the same findings.' " City of Cedar Rapids v. Mun. Fire & Police Ret. Sys., 526 N.W.2d 284, 287 (Iowa 1995) (quoting Norland v. Iowa Dept of Job Serv., 412 N.W.2d 904, 913 (Iowa 1987)). In concluding Shelter House "failed to present substantial evidence that the proposed Special Exception will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood," the district court observed there was no testimony or comment at the public hearing from any real estate assessor, real estate appraiser, realtor or owner of property near the current Shelter House concerning this issue, with the exception of a property manager who commented on the already existing problem of renting out property [in the vicinity of the new location]. The district court also gave little credence to the testimony of an urban planner, who referred to national research that property values located in areas of transient housing do not necessarily go down, because the speaker 23 did not provide any documentation of the research or its source. The court concluded the minutes of the board meeting, the transcript of that meeting, and the board's written decision did not collectively contain substantial evidence to support the board's finding that property values would not be impaired or substantially diminished. While the issue is close, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the board's decision. As the district court accurately observed, there was no expert testimony that property values would not be impaired by the location of the transient home. Nonetheless, the absence of such evidence is not fatal, as expert testimony concerning the valuation of property is not required by our cases or by the Iowa City Code. Cf. Petersen v. Harrison County Bd. of Supervisors, 580 N.W.2d 790, 796 (Iowa 1998) (noting no requirement under chapter 352, dealing with designation of property as an agricultural area, that expert testimony concerning reduced property values be presented at hearing before the board). See generally Norland, 323 N.W.2d at 253 (noting determination of a prevailing wage is not an exact science, and there was no statutory constraint on the type of evidence the board could consider). One person residing in the vicinity of the current transient house commented that the property values in that neighborhood had not been adversely affected. The board was certainly permitted to rely on such anecdotal evidence. See Cambodian Buddhist Soc'y v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, _ A.2d ____, _ (Conn. 2008) (noting "commission was entitled to credit the anecdotal reports that. past activities on the society's property had made neighboring properties less desirable" in determining whether proposed construction of temple would impair property values). In addition, the board may rely on commonsense inferences drawn from evidence relating to other issues, such as use and enjoyment, crime, safety, welfare, 24 and aesthetics, to make a judgment as to whether the proposed use would substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. See Miller v. Hill, 785 N.E.2d 532, 539 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (concluding testimony of neighbors of firing range that noise did not bother them and they were not concerned about safety was adequate proof that proposed firing range would not adversely affect property values); Ballas v. Town of Weaverville, 465 S.E.2d 324, 326-27 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996) (holding testimony that "bed and breakfast would bean `attribute to the community' supports an inference that it would not impair property values in the neighborhood"). We examine, then, evidence before the board that would permit an inference with respect to property values. The concern most often voiced by opponents of the special exception was the increased likelihood of criminal acts in the neighborhood. Several witnesses reviewed the statistics concerning the arrest rates for residents of the current shelter house and for residents of Hilltop Mobile Home Court, a mobile home development in the neighborhood of the new location. Although the witnesses differed in their interpretation of this data, a close inspection of these figures reveals that the arrest rate for persons giving Shelter House as their address was likely less than the arrest rate for persons giving Hilltop Mobile Home Court as their address. Moreover, there appeared to be more concern about potential crime due to the number of persons turned away by Shelter House than by the persons. who actually stay there. There was testimony that the proposed doubling of capacity at the new facility may offset this negative impact by significantly reducing the number of persons turned away for lack of room. There was also a statement from a neighbor of the current shelter house that he did not observe any "rise or change in the amount of crime in the neighborhood." 25 In addition to the evidence regarding crime, there was testimony from two persons residing in the neighborhood of the current shelter house that the establishment caused no problems in the neighborhood other than some detrimental aesthetics relating to trash cans and the lawn. These issues were to be addressed at the new transient house through a requirement that the new location have a landscape buffer and aneight-foot privacy fence. Another neighbor at the current location denied there was any increase in vehicular traffic due to the presence of the transient house. There was also evidence that it was already difficult to rent property at any price in the area of the new location, supporting an inference that transient housing would not have much of an effect on the already depressed property values. Finally, notwithstanding a lack of documentation, the board could consider the testimony of the urban planner that national research showed property values do not necessarily go down when such a use is introduced into a neighborhood. We think this evidence, considered collectively, is adequate to support the board's conclusion that the proposed special exception would not substantially diminish or impair the value of neighboring properties. Although there was evidence to the contrary, the reasonableness of the board's decision is open to a fair difference of opinion, and therefore, the board's decision should have been affirmed on that basis. See Helmke, 418 N.W.2d at 352 (stating "whether the evidence in a close case such as this one might well support an opposite finding is of no consequence, for the district court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the board of adjustment"). VII. Disposition. We conclude the board made adequate findings, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the district court erred in 26 reversing the board's grant of Shelter House's application for a special exception. We therefore reverse the district court's judgment and remand this case back to the district court for entry of an order affirming the decision of the board of adjustment. REVERSED AND REMANDED. r ~,:.®~ CITY OF lQWA CITY IP3 ~~°~~~ D E M O RA ~ D u M DATE: March 5, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council ~~ FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~. RE: Revised Meeting Schedule (March -September 2008) At your March 3 work session Council agreed to the following schedule: March 11 -Combined special work session (5:30PM) and special formal March 31, April 1 -Regular work session and formal April 14 -Combined work session (5:30PM) and special formal Apri128, 29 -Special work session and special formal Apri130 -Special Work Session (6:30 PM) Snow Removal Discussion May 5, 6 -Rescheduled May 12,13 -Special work session and special formal May 19, 20 -Cancelled May 26 -Holiday, offices closed June Z, 3- Regular work session and formal June 16,17- Regular work session and formal June 30, July 1-Cancelled July 14, 15 -Regular work session and formal August 4, 5 -Rescheduled August 11- Combined special work session (5:30PM) and special formal August 18,19 -Rescheduled August 25, 26 -Special work session and special formal September 1 -Holiday, offices closed September 1, 2 -Rescheduled September 8, 9 -Special work session and special formal September 15,16 -Rescheduled September 22, 23 -Special work session and special formal Regular meeting schedule of first and third Tuesday resumes in October. Special meetings will be called as necessary. All meetings subject to change. Cc: Department Heads Cable TV Maintenance U: schedule (March-September08) c qty of rows c qty MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 2008 TO: City of Iowa City Council Members FROM: Lizabeth Osborne, Program Assistant RE: HUD's Table of Income Guidelines effective February 13, 2008 IP4 Please find attached the current Table of Income Guidelines as established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that apply to the Iowa City area. There is no change in the income from the previous table of April 28, 2007. a n g R (D N n -~ ~,~~ ~ a ,.+ c r+ ~ y ~ v ,-. ~ m ~, ~ ~ ~, .. ,~ 3 ~. ~ ~' v `° ~ ~ n '+ m _ °- D ~ ~• C '~` ~ '+, o ~ a ~ d ~~ D ~ C° o = ~ v ~ ~ _. ~ m ~+' v ~ ~ y 01 S N O a m ~ ~ a d m ~ ~ _ ~ ~ N d 01 ~ N ~~~ _. o ~~ m m ~~a ~a~ ~~o O ~ ~ ~~~ 6 N r+ a ~* '< -o = °o ~ ~ ~N~ ~~ ~ o ~ '" m D v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~. h ~~~_ ~~_~ a ~ ~ D o~ ~ a o O ~ ~ 'mom ~ ~ ~ ~ O '+ v ~, d ~ ~ a ~ coo c _ '+ o ,~: m y ~~ 1 ~' .~ ~. .7 ,~ o m r+ ~~ -~ ~~ ~ I~ 'y' N v W ~ ~ ~ W o W W p N ~ ~_ ~ N ~ O ~ v ~ "' a_ ~~ o~ o ~° ~~ ~, ~~ V N ~ V •~•~ 0 N QO V O C31 ~ W N ~ N !D S O a W O ~ c yr N N N N N _ _ 00 ~I Cf7 W ~ CO ~I Cf1 ~ Q O O O O O O O O ~ ED C ' ~ c D ~ (it O V ~ N cfl O N Cfl U1 ~: o ~ ° ° o ° ° o ° ° a o o o o o o ~ 0 ~ ~I ~ O ~I W CD ~ O n O ?~ o ° 0 0 0 0 ° o a 0 o m 0 a° o' ~' rn N ~ N ~ rw rn o ~• fl; ~I O ~ ~ ---' , W C31 O ' n' '01 ~~ O Cs~ O C31 O O O I U O O O O O O O O ~~ n O CO CO 00 ~I V ~ C31 CJ1 U7 O ~ OJ N C31 00 O ~ o ° 0 0 0 0 ° o o a " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 ~ ~ _n _ ~~~) o f. ~_ ~" -~~I~ti ... O ®'ftl ~ ~ Y ~ '~"' .~~j~ .~ .~ ~A A O al rl u -' n WO N 0 °~ n R1 Vf i L~ L~J _~ r un O H r ~_,:.® ~!lll p~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P5 ~ ,, ~ , ~~ MEMORANDUM Date: March 5, 2008 To: City Council From: Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator Re: Affordable Housing Market Analysis Update I wanted to update you on what has happened since the release of the Affordable Housing Market Analysis and also update you on a few corrections to the document. The Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County has offered to help coordinate a process that will invite representatives from Coralville, Iowa City, North Liberty, Tiffin and University Heights along with representatives from private and non-profit developers, the Iowa City Area Association of Realtors, Homebuilders Association of Iowa City, the University of Iowa and other interested parties to consider how to use the results of the study on a regional basis. The Housing Trust Fund is in the process of contacting professional facilitators that may be willing to assist with this process. Hopefully, the results of this process will help each community work toward achieving their own goals to overcome the barriers and also determine which recommendations to proceed with to meet their affordable housing goals. The Housing Trust Fund will coordinate the regional efforts and also be a vehicle for information exchange for each individual local effort. The process of choosing a facilitator has begun and the regional effort should begin in mid-April. A few corrections have been made to the Affordable Housing Market Analysis since the initial release. The corrections are attached and they are also listed below. 1. Page 22, Figure 7--The migration data was corrected and the text preceding the chart was revised (page 21). The same changes were made to the Executive Summary on page 5. 2. Page 73, ICHA paragraphs--Minor changes made to the text based on the ICHA 2007 Annual Report. 3. Page 85, Figure 73--The maximum mortgage amounts and maximum sales prices were corrected. They inadvertently set the monthly payment:income ratio to 20% when it should have been 30%. Resetting this percentage increased the maximum sales prices and allowable mortgages across the board. The accompanying text was also modified. 4. Pages 98-103, all charts--They broke out the housing problems into physically-deficient units and cost burden. Furthermore, initially they counted 30% cost burden for renters and 30% for owners, but it should have been 50% cost burden for owners. Altogether, this lowered the total existing housing need from 4,316 to 3,095. Appropriate text changes were also made, including to the Executive Summary on page 7. 5. Page 119, Figure 99--Because the existing need decreased, so did the total need (from 3,960 to 2,739). The same changes were made to the Executive Summary on page 10. Reformatting on page 119 also changed page 118. The revised Affordable Housing Market Analysis will be available on the City's website on March 13 at www.icgov.org/affordablehousing. Copies of the report will be sent to the printer to be revised and rebound. If you would like the revised pages to be inserted into your copy, please drop it off to the City Clerk's office by March 13. Please feel free to contact me at steve-longta"~.iowa-city.org or at 356.5250 if you have any questions. Cc: Dale Helling Jeff Davidson Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis The suburban areas remain the centers of growth, accounting for 91 % of the population increase in the study area since 2000. Population estimates released annually between decennial census counts are based on the number of building permits issued. The Census Bureau takes the county-level estimates-which are based on birth, death and migration-related records-and divides the population among the municipalities based on the number of building permits issued in each community. Spurred by new residential and commercial development, the population of Coralville has increased 21.3% from 15,123 in 2000 to 18,337 in 2007. This increase is equivalent to an annual average increase of 459 residents over the past seven years. The population of North Liberty has increased 49.3% overall from 5,367 to 8,014, averaging 378 new residents annually. Tiffin, with a 2000 population of 975, is also experiencing significant growth. The population increased 50.1% since 2000 to 1,463 in 2007. Population projections for 2007 show a decrease in population for both North Liberty and Tiffin. For the first time, Iowa City experienced population decline in 2002, falling to 62,894 from 62,947 in 2001. After a couple of years of very modest growth, the population once again declined in 2005 and 2006 before rebounding to 62,971 residents in 2007. FIGURE 6 NOTE: Data includes all persons. Sources: Data for 2000-2006 from U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates; Data for 2007 for Iowa from U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates; Data for 2007 for Johnson County and all municipalities from Claritas, Inc. population projections. With the exception of 2003, University Heights has continued to lose population since 2000, falling from 987 to 874 residents in 2007. This count is approaching pre-1970 population levels. Fueled by the growth in the Iowa City metro area, Johnson County's population has continued to increase at an average annual rate of 1,043 persons since 2000. With the exception of Iowa City and University Heights, the growth rate of 8.3% in the study area is exceeding the county rate of 6.6% and the State rate of 1.3% during the same period. New residents are relocating to Johnson County from elsewhere in Iowa and from across the country. Residents are relocating from other Iowa counties, such as Polk, Scott, Story and Muscatine. They are also relocating to the Iowa City region from places Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 21 Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis like Los Angeles, Denver and Milwaukee. Most notably, more people are moving into Johnson County than are moving out. In 2000, there was a total inflow of 35,557 persons, which exceeded the outflow of 32,723 persons, resulting in a net inflow of 2,834 persons between 1995 and 2000. FIGURE 7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Where Johnson County Residents Moved to by 2000 The population of the study area is becoming more diverse. Between 1990 and 2000, white residents increased in number by 6,189 but decreased as a percent of total population from 91.6% to 88%. Blacks increased 60.7% from 1,919 to 3,083 while Asian/Pacific Islanders increased 18.4% from 3,713 to 4,398. The largest increase occurred among the Census category of "all other races" which grew 360% from 590 residents in 1990 to 2,711 in 2000. Hispanics doubled in size from 1,274 to 2,459 residents. At the municipal level, all five communities saw their populations become more diverse in 2000. Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin + University Heights 22 NOTE: Data includes all persons. Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market A New residents continue to migrate to the Iowa City region. New residents are relocating to Johnson County from contiguous counties and across the nation. In fact, more people are moving into Johnson County than are moving out. In 2000, more than 35,000 persons migrated to Johnson County from their previous residence in 1995, while almost 33,000 persons migrated out. This resulted in a net inflow of almost 3,000 persons. Housing prices have outpaced income. Real median household income in Iowa City decreased 4.5% from $42,694 in 2000 to $40,772 in 2007. In contrast, the median sales price of housing increased 8.2% from $134,000 in 2001 to $165,000 in 2006, after adjusting for inflation. Demographia, an international public policy firm specializing in urban policy and demographics, in 2000 ranked the Iowa City urbanized area as the 67~` most expensive housing market out of 451 markets across the U.S. Many cost burdened households are active members of the region's workforce whose salaries are not keeping pace with housing costs. More than half of all employed persons work in industries with the lowest entry level wages in Johnson County. Approximately 12.8% of workers are employed in industries with entry level wages of less than $15,000 annually. Another 40% work in industries with entry level wages between $15,000 and $20,000 annually. These lower wage workers are essential to the continued expansion of the region's economy and they contribute significantly to the demand for affordable sales and rental housing in the Iowa City metro area. Approximately 29% of all households in the study area have household incomes of less than $25,000. This is equivalent to 11,344 households (including student households) having household incomes of about 52% of the Johnson County median household income. Excluding households where the householder is younger than 25 years of age (i.e. student households) lowers this figure to 6,792 households, representing 17% of all households in 2007. Another 10,863 households (28%) have incomes between $25,000 and $49,999, which is equivalent to about 104% of the County median household income. In 2006, the median sales price of housing ranged from a low of $152,900 in the North Liberty/Tiffin area up to a high of $180,000 in Coralville. Based on these prices, a household would require a minimum income of $50,650 in order to afford a home selling for the median sales price within the study area. This income amount is equivalent to 106% of the median household income of $47,940 for all of Johnson County in 2007. Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis Part 7 THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKET AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS In addition to collecting hard data (household projections, housing inventories, etc.) for this report, local housing developers were interviewed. These organizations (both nonprofit and for-profit) were identified as playing critical roles in the planning, financing and development measures associated with creating new affordable housing units for low and moderate income households in the Iowa City metro area. A total of seven affordable housing developers in the area were identified. Interviews were conducted with some, and all organizations were surveyed with an extensive list of questions. The information provided below summarizes the responses from these activities. • Iowa City Housing Authority owns and manages 81 units of public housing dispersed throughout Iowa City and administers 1,213 Housing Choice Vouchers. As of February 2007, almost 1,200 households were on the waiting list for public housing with two-bedroom units in greatest demand. Another 1,600 households were on the waiting list for Housing Choice Vouchers with high demand for l- and 2-bedroom units. The Authority implements several successful programs aimed at assisting residents to become home owners. Since 1998, a total of 103 families have become home owners through participation in ICHA's four home ownership programs. The Authority is also actively engaged in creating new affordable housing opportunities for lower income households. Longfellow Place consists of 10 new single family units, the last four of which will be constructed and occupied in 2007-08. These units provide affordable housing to families at or below 80% of the area median income. Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity currently creates 5-7 housing units each year, and has constructed a total of 46 units over the past 26 years. Funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Programs are used to purchase lots of 8,000 to 10,000 square feet in the $25,000 to $58,000 range with an average cost of $40,000 per lot. However, lots are becoming more difficult to purchase due to rising land costs. Atypical 1,100 square-foot single family unit typically costs $70,000-$75,000 to construct. Amenities include 3-4 bedrooms and 1-1 %2 bathrooms. Habitat has attempted to purchase older, existing units to rehabilitate and sell. However, the cost to acquire such a unit typically exceeds $100,000. Add the cost of rehabilitation to this and new construction has proven to be more cost- effective. Households with income as low as $25,000 and up to $50,000 can qualify to purchase Habitat homes. With a 0% mortgage on the house, and a soft second mortgage on the land (which is not payable until the house is sold), a qualified family can become home owners for as little as $180/month for fifteen years. Coralville Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 73 Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis FIGURE 73 Two of the nine occupations listed (waiter and cashier) would be limited to houses selling for less than $50,000 with no realistic chance of purchasing a decent dwelling unit as a single-wage earning household. Another three occupations (retail salesperson, janitor and auto mechanic) would be limited to houses selling for less than $80,000. The four higher-wage occupations (bookkeeper, elementary school teacher, nurse and office manager) would have more options in the Iowa City metro area, being able to purchase homes in the $80,000 to $128,000 range. While the argument is made here using single-wage earning households, total household income would be used to compute the purchase price that a household could afford. Of the nine occupations listed in Figure 73, all but office manager were paid salaries less than 80% of the County median income. In other words, even the nurse and school teacher (i.e. full-time employed persons with professional degrees) were defined as lower income households with incomes less than 80% of the area median household income. Where could these lower income households find affordable homes to purchase a home? In 2000, they would have been limited to a total of 315 housing units throughout the study area (see Figure 74). This represented less than 1% of the total housing stock. There were no units vacant, for sale only and affordable to extremely low income households; only 158 units were available and affordable to very low income households. Only 8 units were available in Tiffin and University Heights. Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 85 Sources: Iowa 2006 Wage Survey, Iowa Workforce Development; Johnson County Tax Assessors Office; Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc. Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis CORALVILLE In Coralville, 101 lower income households were living in physically-deficient units. Cost burden was identified as a housing problem for 1,118 renter households with only 375 of these identified as Family Households. Among owner households, 141 were cost burdened. In summary, the existing housing demand in Coralville is 617 units (101 physically- deficient units plus 375 cost burdened family renter households plus 141 cost burdened owner households). FIGURE 81 Source: U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, State of the Cities Data System Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 98 NOTE: Data includes all households. Within "Renters", student households are included in "All Other Households." Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis IOWA CITY In Iowa City, 289 lower income households were living in physically-deficient units. Cost burden was identified as a housing problem for 6,950 renter households with only 1,358 of these identified as Family Households. Among owner households, 559 were cost burdened. In summary, the existing housing demand in Iowa City is 2,206 units (289 physically- deficient units plus 1,358 cost burdened family renter households plus 559 cost burdened owner households). FIGURE H2 Family All Other Total ,. rry Households 3 :; ° Households 551 Owners zr` 11 712 Households 144 26 AY ~ aholds Extremely Low Income Households (0% up to 30% of MHI) ' .. 1,012 9, 4,048 , 508 , 5,568 With Any Housing Problems 712 3,587. 411 4,710 Physical deficiencies to unit ~'~ ~ ~ ~~', ,, 53 , :;, , '~;.`0 67 Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) ~ =`; j 3,534 411 4,643 r Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) 575 3 024 •''" - '297 3,896 Very Low Income Households (3190 up to 50•/ of MHI) 822 2,174 750 3,748 With Any Housing Problems 532 1,650• 406 2,588 Physical deficiencies to unit ~~ ZS ' 48 ; . 4 75 Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) ~ 50T? ~, 1,604 402 2,513 Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) _ _ 110 400 ~ • ~" ° 174 684 ___m Low Income Households (51 % up to 80•/ of MHI) _ 988 1,775 ' 1,874 4,817 With Any Housing Problems . _._ 258 465 663 1,386 Physical deficiencies to unit 105 11 31 147 Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) 153 454 632 1,239 Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) 34 50 88 172 Total Lower Income Households 2,802 7,997 3,132 13,931 WRh Any Housing Problems 1,502 5,702 1,480 8,884 Physical deficiencies to unit ~ 444 11@' - • .35 289 Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) ~"~; 1,358 8,592 1,445 8,395 Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) 719 3,474 ~ =688 4,782 Other Income Households (above 80% of MHI) 1,079 1,554 8,580 11,213 With Any Housing Problems 109 50 523 682 Physical deficiencies to unit 30 25 34 _._ 89 Cost burdened 79 25 489' 593 NOTE: Data includes all households. Within "Renters", student households are included in "All Other Households." Source: U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, State of the Cities Data System Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 99 Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis NORTH LIBERTY In North Liberty, l O lower income households were living inphysically-deficient units. Cost burden was identified as a housing problem for 185 renter households with only 95 of these identified as Family Households. Among owner households, 65 were cost burdened. In summary, the existing housing demand in North Liberty is 170 units (10 physically- deficient units plus 95 cost burdened family renter households plus 65 cost burdened owner households). FIGURE 83 Eutremely Low Income Households (0% up to 30•/ of MHI) __ With Any Housing Problems Physical deficiencies to unit Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) _ Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) Very Low Income Households (31 `o up to 50% of MHI) With Any Housing Problems Physical deficiencies to unit Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) Low Income Households (51 % up to 80'/ of MHI) With Any Housing Problems Physical deficiencies to unit Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) Total Lower Income Households _ With Anv Housing Problems Total Ovmers Households ;~ 2,25E 80 180 i 30 110 40 85 115 220 25 55 80 160 0 0 10 10 25 55 70 ..150 0 10_ 35 45 75 110 400 585 25 0 155 180 1 0 Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) _ .. ..... Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) r. ~` `95 ` 30 s ••;'sz `80_ 45 255 65 440 140 Other Income Households (above 80% of MHI) 125' 125 1,020 1,270 With Any Housing Problems 0 0 75 75 Physical deficiencies to unk 0 ~ ~ 0 10 10 Cost burdened ~ 0 ~ 0 65 65 NOTE: Data inGudes all households. Within "Renters", student households are included in "All Other Households." Source. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development State of the Cities Data System Renters Family All Other Households Households 325 33 85 3: Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 100 Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis TIFFIN In Tiffin, there were no lower income households living in physically-deficient units. Cost burden was identified as a housing problem for 56 renter households with only 24 of these identified as Family Households. Among owner households, 34 were cost burdened. In summary, the existing housing demand in Tiffin is 58 units (24 cost burdened family renter households plus 34 cost burdened owner households). FIGURE 84 Extremely Low Income Households (0•/ up to 30'/0 of m.. W'th Any Housing Problems Physical deficiencies to unit Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) Very Low Income Households (31 % up to 50•/ of MHI, With Any Housing Problems Physical deficiencies to unit _.._ Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) Low Income Households (51 % up to 80% of MHI) With Any Housing Problems Physical deficiencies to unit Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) Total Lower Income Households kh Any Housing Problems Physical deficiencies to unit Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) Cost burdened (paying more than 50%) sr Income Households (above 80% of MHI) Renters Family All Other Households Households 80 4 18 24; _... 16~. 1 _ 8 ®_. 22a_ 4i 0; 12 30 18 ~1Z 4 22 8 _':~ 0 0 26 54 18 30 59 103 27 35 0 0 27 _ 3c With Any Housing Problems ~ 4 0' 18 2 Physical deficiencies to unit 4 0 0 -- --- _ -_ _ _..__.._. _ . .. _m _ .. Cost burdened 0 0 18 1 NOTE: Data includes all households. Within "Renters", student households are included in "All Other Households." Source' U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, State of the Cities Data System Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 101 Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS In University Heights, there were no lower income households living in physically- deficient units. Cost burden was identified as a housing problem for 87 renter households with only 16 of these identified as Family Households. Among owner households, 28 were cost burdened. In summary, the existing housing demand in University Heights is 44 units (16 cost burdened family renter households plus 28 cost burdened owner households). FIGURE 85 NOTE: Data includes all households. Within "Renters", student households are included in "All Other Households." Source: U.S. Dept of Housing & Urban Development.. State of the Cities Data System Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 102 Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis SUMMARY OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND, 2000 Across the study area, a total of 400 lower income households were living in physically- deficient units. Cost burden was identified as a housing problem for 8,396 renter households with only 1,868 of these identified as Family Households. Among owner households, 827 were cost burdened. In summary, the existing housing demand throughout the study area is 3,095 units (400 physically-deficient units plus 1,868 cost burdened family renter households plus 827 cost burdened owner households). These 3,095 households represent the total existing affordable housing demand in the Iowa City metro area. FIGURE 86 Source: U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, State of the Cities Data System Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 103 NOTE: Data includes all households. Within "Renters", student households are included in "All Other Households." Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housinq Market Analysis exception of Iowa City and University Heights, growth in the study area exceeded the County rate of 6.6% and the State rate of 1.0% during the same period. Existing demand for affordable housing exceeds projected demand. The demand for affordable housing is comprised of both existing demand and projected demand. Existing demand for affordable housing is based on the number of households in the study area that are experiencing housing problems. Projected demand is based on the increase in the number of lower income households expected to reside in the study area regardless of housing condition. The combination of existing demand plus projected demand provides an estimate of the overall demand for affordable housing units. To estimate existing housing demand, households with housing problems were identified utilizing 2000 data from HUD's State of the Cities Data System. Housing problems included the following two characteristics: (1) renter households who were cost burdened and paying more than 30% of gross income on housing and home owners who were cost burdened and paying more than 50% of gross income on housing, and (2) households who were living in dwelling units with physical deficiencies (overcrowded conditions and/or without complete plumbing or kitchen facilities). Across the study area, a total of 4001ower income households were living in physically- deficient units. Cost burden was identified as a housing problem for 8,396 renter households with only 1,868 of these identified as Family Households. Among owner households, 827 were cost burdened. As a result, the existing housing demand is 3,095 units (400 households living in physically-deficient units plus 1,868 cost burdened family renter households plus 827 cost burdened owner households). The total projected affordable housing demand for the Iowa City metro area consists of 2,355 dwelling units. This number consists of 924 units affordable to extremely low income households, 571 units affordable to very low income households and another 860 units affordable to low income households. As a result, existing demand for affordable housing exceeds projected demand by a ratio of 1.3 to 1. Projected housing construction activity is not expected to address affordable housing need. It is projected that an additional 5,136 housing units will be created between 2007 through 2012. The net change in the existing housing stock in the study area between 2000 and 2006 was 7,488 housing units for an average annual production rate of 1,070 units. A lower annual production rate is projected for 2007 through 2012 as a result of the current problems in the housing mortgage industry. While lending institutions may tighten their mortgage standards, this may be off-set by the vibrant and diversified economy in the Iowa City region. However, tighter mortgage standards will have a more Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin e University Heights Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis • HACAP - 22 units of transitional housing. The affordable housing supply in the "pipeline" or planned for development and occupancy between 2007 and 2012 was based on the following assumptions and information obtained from various affordable housing providers: • A total of 514 market-rate new construction single family and condominium units projected to be available for sell up to $140,000 across the Iowa City metro area (see Figure 98). • Habitat for Humanity will construct another five units annually (5 units/year x 6 years = 30 units) • Builders of Hope - 6 units of transitional rental housing • HACAP - 6 units of affordable rental housing • Iowa City's TARP housing rehabilitation program will assist another 8 units annually (8 units/year x 6 years = 48 units) • Iowa City Housing Authority: Longfellow Place - 8 units of single family sales housing for households at or below 80% of median • The Housing Fellowship: Berry Court in Iowa City, 14 units; Home and Neighborhood Scattered Sites in Iowa City, 24 units • Burns and Burns: Jefferson Point in North Liberty, 60 affordable LIHTC rental units. As stated previously, these projections are based on the assumption that current public policies impacting the creation of affordable housing remain unchanged. If, however, new policies are approved that would provide incentives for the creation of new affordable housing units, then the total affordable housing supply could be increased, thereby decreasing unmet need. Recommendations for revisions to public policies are included in Part 11, Strategic Housing Plan. Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 118 Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis FIGURE 99 A~fF©RDABLE HOUSING DEMANfl Trstal Existing Demand for Affordable Housing (2000) Households with Housing Problems 3,095 Future Demand for Affordable Housing (2000-2012) New Lower Income Households (excluding student households where possible) 2,355 Total Affordable Housing Demand 5,450 q,FFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY Total Supply of Affordable Housing Units Created between 2000 and 2012 2000-2006 New ConstructioNRehabilitated Units New construction single family and condo units (market rate units) 1,703 Habitat for Humanity (6 units/year x 7 years) 42 Iowa City TARP Program (8 units/year x 7 years) 56 Longfellow Manor 12 The Peninsula 17 Melrose Ridge 18 The Housing Fellowship 15 Concorde Terrace 30 Lexington Place 30 Extend the Dream Foundation 3 Whispering Gardens 12 MECCA 12 Successful Living 29 HACAP 22 2007-2012 New ConstructioNRehabilitated Units New construction single family and condo units (market rate units) 514 Habitat for Humanity (5 units/year x 6 years) 30 Builders of Hope 6 HACAP 6 Iowa City TARP Program (8 units/year x 6 years) 48 Iowa City Housing Authority (Longfellow Place) 8 The Housing Fellowship (Berry Court) 14 The Housing Fellowship (Home & Neighborhood Scattered Sites) 24 Bums and Bums (Jefferson Point) 60 7o~tat Affordable Housing,&uppi~f ' 2,711 AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED Total Total Demand minus Total Supply 2,739 Sources: Affordable Housing Develoi'~ers: City of Iowa pity; Iowa Ciiy Area Real*ors Assc~iat,o~,; Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc. Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty + Tiffin a University Heights 119 Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis o The ability to successfully make the transition from renting to home ownership can be daunting. Learning how to budget, allowing for home maintenance, keeping a credit history in good shape-all of these elements are key components of home ownership counseling which must be available to first time homebuyers to help them achieve long-term stability and avoid default or foreclosure. Total affordable housing need for 2007-2012 is estimated to be 2,739 units. Affordable housing need is determined by identifying the unmet affordable housing demand. The total affordable housing demand in the study area for 2000-2012 was calculated to be 5,450 housing units. The total affordable housing supply for the same period is estimated to be 2,711 units, leaving an unmet need of 2,739 affordable housing units. FIGURE 1 AfFCiiDABLE HOUSING DEMAND sagll Ewsting Demand for Affordable Housing (2000) Households with Housing Problems 3,095 Future Demand for Affordable Housing (2000-2012) New Lower Income Households (exGuding student households where possible) 2.355 Tool Atfo/'drrdle H01ri~ Demand f+,4b0 A~ FiQtlSt~6 8EIPPLY Total Supply of Affordable Housing Units Created between 2000 and 2012 2000-2006 New Construction/Rehabilitated Units New construction single family and condo units (market rate units) 1,703 Habitat for Humanity (6 unitstyear x 7 years) 42 Iowa City TARP Program (8 unitstyear x 7 years) 56 Longfellow Manor 12 The Peninsula 17 Melrose Ridge 18 The Housing Fellowship 15 Concorde Terrace 30 Lexington Place 30 Extend the Dream foundation 3 Whispering Gardens 12 MECCA 12 Successful Living 29 HACAP 22 2007-2012 New ConstructioNRehabilitated Units New construction single family and condo units (market rate units) 514 Habitat for Humanity (5 unitstyear x 6 years) 30 Builders of Hope 6 HACAP 6 Iowa Ciry TARP Program (8 unitstyear x 6 years) 48 Iowa Ciry Housing Authority (Longfellow Place) 8 The Housing Fellowship (eerty Court) 14 The Housing Fellowship (Home & Neighborhood Scattered Sites) 24 Bums and Bums (Jefferson Point) 60 Total AtfOrgaWs"tiouthq ~DpIY 2.741 FiOUSflrG NEED Tswr Totai Demand minus Total Supply 2,739 Sources: Atordable Housing Developers. City rf ,w~a ~aiy: Iowa City Area Realtors Assoclatioi~; Mullin & l_onergan Associates, Inc. Coralville • Iowa City • North Liberty • Tiffin • University Heights 10 • - us-ub-uu ,.~ IP6 1 ', ~' .~ r, .~r~~6.,,~ _ r BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION February 2008 KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS .Type of Improvement ADD -Addition ALT -Alteration REP -Repair FND -Foundation Only NEW-New OTH -Other type of construction Type of Use RSF -Residential Single Family RDF -Residential Duplex RMF -Three or more residential RAC -Residential Accessory Building MIX -Mixed NON -Non-residential OTH -Other Page : 2 City of Iowa City Date : 3/3/2008 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 2/1/2008 From : 2/29/2008 Census Bureau Report Type Tvne Permit Number Name Address Imur Use Stories Units Valuation BLD08-00034 LAB CORP 2615 NORTHGATE DR ALT NON 0 0 $136,000 4,467 SQ FT TENANT FINISH FOR MEDICAL LABS BLD08-00025 MERCY HOSPITAL 500 E MARKET ST ALT NON 0 0 $122,500 SLEEP LAB REMODEL FOR HOSPITAL BLD08-00049 FRANK GERSH & JOHN HAR 373A SCOTT CT ALT NON 0 0 $50,000 REMODEL HEALTH CARE OFFICES BLD08-00031 THE WEDGE 136 S DUBUQUE ST ALT NON 0 0 $25,000 RESTAURANT REMODEL BLD08-00061 EASTWIND 221 E COLLEGE 211 ALT NON 0 0 $5,000 TENANT DEMISING WALL TO SEPARATE EXISTING SPACE BLD08-00053 JIM SCHNOEBELEN 511 IOWA AVE ALT NON 0 0 $2,500 SUSPENDED CEILING FOR COMMERCIAL AREA BLD08-00044 CARL & ERNIE'S GOOD TI 161 HIGHWAY 1 WEST ALT NON 0 0 $1,000 DJ PLATFORM IN CORNER OF BAR/RESTAURANT BLD08-00048 SHAWN HARRIS 1021 S GILBERT CT ALT NON 1 0 $800 ADD ENTRY DOOR FOR BUSINESS Total ALT/NON permits : 8 Total Valuation : $342,800 BLD08-00042 LUKE MIZER 1218 E COLLEGE ST ALT RDF 0 0 $17,500 REMODEL BASEMENT APARTMENT FOR DUPLEX BLD08-00045 FIRST HAWK LLC 327 N JOHNSON ST ALT RDF 0 0 $2,500 ADD HALF BATH TO DUPLEX UNIT Total ALT/RDF permits : 2 Total Valuation : $20,000 BLD08-00028 HAWKEYE REAL ESTATE I 201 N 1 ST AVE ALT RMF 0 0 $6,000 ADD KITCHEN TO EFFICIENCY APARTMENT UNIT #007 BLD08-00064 CASEY J & NICOLE A BOYD 640 STUART CT ALT RMF 2 0 $1,500 ADD 3RD BEDROOM TO APARTMENT #1 FOR RMF Total ALT/RMF permits : 2 Total Valuation : $7,500 BLD08-00054 NIXON, KATHRINE M 311 3RD AVE ALT KITCHEN REMODEL FOR SFD BLD08-00029 GREG & JANE KOVACINY 521 CLARK ST ALT STEPS AND RETAINING WALLS FOR SFD BLD07-00700 WILLIAM & SUE FORDE 616 N 1 ST AVE ALT CONVERT SCREEN PORCH TO 3 SEASON PORCH FOR ZERO LOT LINE SFD BLD07-00726 CHANT A EICKE 1731 GLEASON AVE ALT KITCHEN REMODEL FOR SFD INCLUDING WALL REMOVAL BLD08-00055 JAMES E TATE 2830 STERLING DR ALT Remove two doors and fireplace and install window BLD08-00050 LUKE MASON 618 KEOKUK CT ALT EGRESS WINDOW FOR SFD RSF 0 0 $66,000 RSF 0 0 $30,000 RSF 0 0 $14,500 RSF 0 0 $6,500 RSF 0 0 $4,490 RSF 0 0 $1,200 Page : 3 City of Iowa City Date : 3/3/2008 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 2/1/2008 From : 2/29/2008 Census Bureau Report Tvpe Tvne Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation Total ALT/RSF permits : 6 Total Valuation : $122,690 BLD07-00735 JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA 855 S DUBUQUE ST NEW NON 3 0 $8,931,000 3 STORY COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING BLD07-00739 IOWA CITY AMBULATORY 2963 NORTHGATE DR NEW NON 1 0 $5,160,000 INTERIOR FINISH FOR AMBULATORY SURGICAL BUILDING BLD07-00680 JOHNSON CNTY BOARD OF 4810 MELROSE AVE NEW NON 1 0 $3,038,150 OFFICE BUILDING FOR SEATS AND SECONDARY ROADS FEES & VALUATION FOR GARAGE ON THIS PERMIT BLD08-00032 PROCTER & GAMBLE 2200 LOWER MUSCATINE NEW NON 1 0 $44,022 FRP BUILDING FOR WASTEWATER SAMPLING Total NEW/NON permits : 4 Total Valuation : $17 173 172 BLD08-00024 ARLINGTON DEVELOPMEN' 36 BRENTWOOD DR NEW RDF 1 2 $296,307 DUPLEX WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGES 32-34 BRENTWOOD DRIVE Total NEW/RDF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $296,307 BLD08-00022 FRANTZ CONSTRUCTION 11 MONTGOMERY PL NEW RMF 1 3 $642,587 TRIPLEX WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGES 11-15-19 MONTGOMERY PL.--15 &19 Basement finish--19 has 4 Season room Total NEW/RMF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $642,587 BLD08-00052 ARLINGTON DEVELOPMEN' 2 EVERSULL LN NEW RSF 2 1 $285,305 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE NO PORCH BLD08-00036 STAN STEVENS 1432 TOFTING CIR NEW RSF 1 1 $175,570 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD08-00037 STAN STEVENS 1456 TOFTING CIR NEW RSF 1 1 $175,570 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD08-00038 STAN STEVENS 1425 TOFTING CIR NEW RSF 1 1 $175,570 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD08-00001 KEN & MARYBETH SLONN>_ 611 N GOVERNOR NEW RSF 2 1 $55,000 MOVE HISTORIC SFD ONTO INFILL LOT MOVE EXISTING GARAGE ON SAME LOT Total NEW/RSF permits : 5 Total Valuation : $867,015 BLD08-00011 HILLS BANK & TRUST 803 E COLLEGE ST REP RMF 0 0 $1,500 PORCH REPAIR FOR RMF Total REP/RMF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $1,500 Page : 4 Date : 3/3/2008 To : 2/1/2008 From : 2/29/2008 Permit Number Name BLD07-00711 MIKE DOOLEY PORCH REPAIR FOR SFD City of Iowa City Extraction of Building Permit Data for Census Bureau Report Tune ~~ Address Imnr Use Stories Units Valuation 516 RONALDS ST REP RSF 0 0 $7,000 Total REP/RSF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $7,000 GRAND TOTALS : PERMITS : 31 VALUATION : $19,480,571 3-~-0$ IP7 Marian Karr From: Regenia Bailey [bailey@avalon.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:14 AM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Invitation to a Corridor Welcome Reception for Rebecca Ryan on Monday, March 24 This is the event I mentioned last night. Info packet or flyer in mail boxes, your call. ~enia From: esc1101994893947_1101992535960_173@in.constantcontact.com [mailto:esc1101994893947_1101992535960_173@in.constantcontact.com] On Behalf Of PTDN Diversity Network Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:32 AM To: regenia-bailey@iowa-city.org Subject: Invitation to a Corridor Welcome Reception for Rebecca Ryan on Monday, March 24 Corridor Welcome Reception hosted by a Corridor collaboration: PTDN Diversity Network Iowa Cultural Corridor Alliance Diversity Focus Access Iowa reception sponsor: IOWACOAST_._com WHAT: Welcome Rebecca Ryan (back) to the Cedar Rapids I Iowa City Corridor wHeN: Monday, March 24, 2008 WHERE: hotelVetro 201 South Linn Street 3/4/2008 Page 2 of 2 Iowa City Tlnrl~; 5:30 p.m. beer, wine & appetizers 6 p.m. Welcome by Dee Baird, Vice President of Continuing Education and Training Services, Kirkwood Community College 6:10 p.m. Rebecca Ryan, author of "Live First, Work Second" and founder of Next Generation Consulting, www.nextgener-ationconsulting_.com/ 7 p.m. "Live from Prairie Lights" reading featuring Rebecca Ryan's book, "Live First, Work Second," hosted by Julie Englander, WSUI - 910-AM Prairie Lights Book Store 15 South Dubuque Street Iowa City Professional & Techical Diversity Network vwvw.ptd_n._net chair@ptdn.net Forward email ®SafeUnsubscribe~ This email was sent to regenia-bailey@iowa-city.org, by ptdn-board~s_cr k_12,ia.us Upda_te_Profile/Email Address. ~ Instant removal with SafeU_ns_ub_s_.cri_be'"' ~ Privacy._Policy.. Professional & Technical Diversity Network ~ P. O. Box 45 ~ Cedar Rapids ~ IA ~ 52406 Ernail Marketing try Lens#ar~t Cnntac#` TRY IT FREE 3/4/2008 IP8 Marian Karr From: Terry Trueblood Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:41 AM To: Terry Robinson; Tammy Neumann; Dale Helling; Rick Fosse; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Regenia Bailey; Ross Wilburn; Mike O'Donnell; Amy Correia; Matt Hayek; Mike Wright; Craig Gustaveson; Dave Bourgeois; Jerry Raaz; John Watson; John Westefeld (jwestefeld@mchsi.com); Margaret Loomer; Matt Pacha; Philip Reisetter (reisetter@gwestoffice.net); Ryan O'Leary Cc: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Boathouse Ground Breaking FYI -----Original Message----- From: Meyer, Jane C [mailto:Jane-MeyerC~hawkeyesports.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:25 AM To: Terry Trueblood; harry-ostrander@uiowa.edu; Jane-meyer@hawkeyesports.com Subject: RE: Boathouse Ground Breaking Terry - thanks for your message - a postcard was sent out yesterday to all invitees that the ground breaking festivities have ALL been moved to the Levitt Center on campus. Have a great day! Jane -----Original Message----- From: "Terry Trueblood" <Terry-Trueblood@iowa-city.org> To: "harry-ostrander@uiowa.edu" <harry-ostranderc~uiowa.edu>; "jane- meyerc~hawkeyesports.com" <jane-meyerc~hawkeyesports.com> Sent: 3/5/08 6:31 PM Subject: Boathouse Ground Breaking Harry / Jane, Could either of you tell me if there are any alternative plans for the boathouse ground breaking ceremony scheduled for next Wednesday? My primary concern is with the parking . . there is still lots of snow on the ground, and will likely still be there next week. I have no idea how many people you might be expecting, but the parking lot isn't very large. With the snow (or very soft ground if the snow should miraculously melt by then), there just isn't any room for overflow parking. If you could let me know, I would appreciate it. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know that as well. Thanks. Terry MINUTES DRAFT ~ ~`~ IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TUESDAY, February 26, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Newman Abuissa, Eric Kusiak, Florence Ejiwale, Kate Karacay, Martha Lubaroff, Corey Stoglin, Dell Briggs. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Others Present: Karen Fox. Call to Order Karacay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Recommendations to Council (Become effective only after separate Council action): None. Consideration of the Minutes of the January 22, 2008 meetin Minutes approved. Community Peace Building Initiative Presentation Karen Fox presented to the Commission. Commissioners Stoglin, Abuissa and Ejiwale agreed to assist in helping to plan a future event. Human Rights Breakfast Commissioners will need to select a keynote speaker and date at the March meeting. Programming for 2008 Commissioners discussed upcoming programming. Youth Awards Commissioners will be contacting schools and organizations to spread the word about the Youth Awards. Leadership Conference Karacay would like to hold a program that focuses on leadership; she will do some further research and report back to the Commission at the next meeting. African American Youth Panel Karacay and Abuissa discussed the success of this program and possibly doing a follow-up program at a later date. Cultural Diversity Day Kusiak reported on the event and made suggestions for next year. Amicus Brief on Same Sex Marriage Kusiak will need a statement detailing the Commission and Bowers will distribute the resume of the writer in the March packet. Hate Acts Rapid Response Team Abuissa gave an update of the last meeting he and Bowers attended. Public Education Rights of International Families Abuissa will try to get the last brochure translated in Arabic by the fall of 2008. Reports of Commissioners Stoglin would like to start a youth mentoring program. Abuissa notified Commissioners of an upcoming program at Rancher (Simon Shaheem) Ejiwale enjoyed the Black History news articles in the local papers. Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Board or Commission: Human Rights ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2008 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 1/22 2/26 3/25 4/22 5/27 6/24 7/22 8/26 9/23 10/28 11/25 12/23 Florence Ejiwale 1/1/09 X X Kate Karacay 111/09 X X Martha Lubaroff 1/1/09 O X Newman Abuissa 1/1/10 X X Joy Kross 1/1/10 X O Eric Kusiak 1/1/10 X X Dell Briggs 1/1/11 O X Yolanda Spears 1/1/11 X O Corey Stoglin 1/1/11 X X KEY: X =Present NMNQ - No meeting, no quorum O =Absent NM = No meeting IP10 MINUTES DRAFT HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2008 -6:30 P.M. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFRENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Jerry Anthony, Steve Crane, Marcy DeFrance, Andy Douglas, Charles Drum, Holly Hart, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw Members Absent: None Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long Others Present: Steve Rackis, Josh Heyer, John Brenner CALL TO ORDER: Anthony called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hart made a motion to approve the December 20, 2007 minutes. DeFrance seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0 (Drum and McMurray arrived late and were unavailable to vote). PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. DISCUSSION OF FY08 PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT PERFORMED PER THE UNSUCCESSFUL OR DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY: Hightshoe reviewed two projects with the Commission that fell under the Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy. The first was The Housing Fellowship (THF), which was awarded $347,000 for an affordable rental housing project in FY08. As part of the application, THE indicated they were going to apply for low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) to make the project viable. Hightshoe said that in November 2007 they were unable to apply because they didn't have site control, a LIHTC requirement. She said during 2007 they attempted to purchase various properties, such as a lot on the north side of town, 8 lots off Foster Road, but none of the purchase agreements were accepted. Hightshoe added that THE does have two accepted purchase offers in Village Green, and THF's Director stated that they are confidant they will get enough lots to apply in the next funding round; however THE needs HCDC to recommend approval to reuse the funds for the existing project. Hightshoe said staff has no issue with THE retaining their previously granted funds for one more year, however due to HOME regulations if the application is not successful in November 2008 the funds would need to be recaptured and reallocated to a project that can proceed and be completed in less than three years. Housing and Community Development Commission February 12, 2008 Page 2 Commission members asked why purchase offers were not accepted near the Peninsula Neighborhood. Long stated THE was left with the impression that area residents were not interested in having affordable housing in the neighborhood. Anthony asked if the Fellowship met the asking price of the property in question. Hightshoe stated she didn't know what the exact purchase offer stated, except there must be contingencies for financing and environmental review requirements. Shaw asked how many properties the Fellowship planned to develop. Hightshoe stated based upon their application eight to 10. Members discussed if finding six to eight more vacant lots in a year might be difficult. Hightshoe further explained that the two lots in the Village Green area, off of Scott Blvd., are zoned RSS, and will be built as single-family homes. Discussion turned to the slow-down in the local real estate market, and the increasing likelihood that developers would be interested in working with the Fellowship. Motion: A motion was made by Richman to recommend The Housing Fellowship reuse the funds for the existing project as identified in their FY08 Housing Application. Drum seconded the motion. The motion was approved 9:0. Hightshoe then reviewed the FY08 Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (NCJC) project. She said each sub-recipient must enter an agreement for CDBG funds within 90 days of the new fiscal year (July 1). Hightshoe said the delay has not been with the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County, but rather with the City and HUD's legal process. She explained, saying based on the City's policy, a mortgage or lien must be placed on a property to ensure that during the compliance period the City's interests are secured. NCJC has a 99-year lease with Mark IV Investors for the property. Pheasant Ridge is a HUD project based housing project with 248 assisted units. Based on the land lease, NCJC must get Mark IV and HUD's consent to place a leasehold mortgage on the property. Due to the various legal parties involved a financing rider to the leasehold mortgage must be approved by HUD, Mark IV, Midland Security (Mark IV's lender) and the City. Hightshoe said she thinks the problem will be resolved soon so that the project can proceed this upcoming construction season. The City considered attaching a lien to the Broadway Center but due to the number of liens on the Broadway Center for previous CDBG applications, there is not enough security. The original lien to build the Pheasant Ridge Center was placed on the Broadway Center as well. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS COMPLETED BY MULLIN & LONERGAN ASSOCIATES, INC.: Long presented the Affordable Housing Market Analysis to Commission members. He said the City hired Mullin &Lonergan of Pittsburg, to complete the study, which began May 1, 2007, and was completed a few weeks ago. The study cost $43,000. Long said Mullin &Lonergan examined census, HUD information and reviewed population projects as provided by Claritas. The consultants also interviewed private nonprofit developers, as well as representatives of the University, Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin and University Heights to determine the affordable housing demand, barriers to it, and Housing and Community Development Commission February 12, 2008 Page 3 suggestions to deal with those issues. He noted the student population was factored out of the study. Long said the major points of the study were: 1. Household growth is outpacing population in Johnson County. In addition to increases in population, households are becoming smaller. Long said what that should mean to Commission members is that every household needs a dwelling, and the area needs more housing. 2. From 2000 to 2006, 8,700 new units were created in Johnson County. He said there were almost $500 million in residential sales, and 26,000 sales transactions, which shows the area is a very active market. 3. There are 15,000 people who commute into Johnson County from outlying areas each day. 4. The number of cost-burden households, or households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing, is on the rise. 5. The real median income in Johnson County has declined four percent since 2000, while at the same time the sales value of homes has increased 11 percent. The average median sale price for a house in Johnson County was $153,150. He added that there were only 389 homes that sold for less than $100,000 in 2006 (including condos, but excluding mobile homes). 6. The rental market is very tight in Johnson County. In a one-mile radius around the Pentacrest area, the vacancy rate is only 1.66 percent, while a healthy vacancy rate is around five percent. Four bedroom units are at a zero percent vacancy metro-wide. By comparison, North Liberty rentals were at 5.5 percent in 2007 and 7 percent in 2006. 7. About half of all HUD subsidized project-based units in the area, such as Capitol House, Pheasant Ridge, and Ecumenical Towers, will be up for renewal in the next two and a half years. Long said this is an opportunity for the Housing Authority or the City to work with the State to try to maintain those units. 8. It is projected the metro area will produce 2,711 affordable units while the projected demand is 6,671 units. Area non-profits are projected to produce 31 units a year. Long said the study identified some of the barriers for developers, which include absence of vacant land zoned for multi-family housing, the "not-in-my-back-yard syndrome," high cost of land, the scarcity of new single-family housing under $200,000, student demand keeping rental prices for the whole area high, a 35 percent decrease in federal funding in the past six years for affordable housing, and a lack of affordable housing developers. Recommendations for these problems include putting a positive face on affordable housing, increasing the supply of land zoned by right for multi-family housing to avoid the need for special exceptions and neighborhood resistance, treating affordable housing developers as a special class by perhaps waiving fees or fast-tracking affordable housing to save time and money, and creating partnerships with developers and the University. Housing and Community Development Commission February 12, 2008 Page 4 Long said there are many examples nation-wide of universities partnering with developers to create affordable housing for university employees. Another suggestion is inclusionary housing, or requiring a certain percentage of units in any proposed development to be affordable for owners or renters. More suggestions included preserving at risk affordable properties, such as Capitol House and Pheasant Ridge, expanding the capacity of local non-profits, and development of a county-wide administrative policy that is supportive of affordable housing and treats it as an asset to the community Long said the City Council is supportive and would like to get moving on the study's recommendations, and he encouraged Commission members to seize the opportunity and push to change policies in the next few months. Members discussed the findings of the study. Anthony said, that in his experience, people reject the idea of affordable housing because they perceive it as largely being used by students, and that the "evidence" for affordable housing is anecdotal and the numbers are outdated. Anthony praised the study, saying it addressed those criticisms. Another member asked if given the strong focus on affordable housing, if now would be the time for the Commission to analyze their commitment to affordable housing in the way they approach applications and if there are certain places they want to put more money. Hightshoe reminded Commission members that they still need to balance non-housing community needs when they are allocating funding. The City completed a housing study, however if we hired a consultant to perform a review ofnon-housing community development needs we would still need to balance how much we fund for housing as opposed to non-housing needs in the community. REVIEW OF THE FY09 ALLOCATION PROCESS AND PROFORMA BASICS Hightshoe handed out an allocation timeline for review. She reminded members the next meeting is on February 20`h, 2008. 27 Applicants will be present to answer HCDC questions. She said the meeting will be quite long, running from 6 p.m. to about 10 p.m., and food and breaks will be provided. Hightshoe said that at the meeting applicants will be given 5-10 minutes to answer Commission members' questions. She said Commission members would receive aone-page staff report of each application that will include any items of concern by staff. Housing applicants will be given 10 minutes to answer Commission questions. Hightshoe said at the meeting staff would give Commission members ranking sheets so members can begin ranking each application based upon the set criteria. The ranking sheets will be due February 29`x. Hightshoe said each member's ranking forms would be placed onto a spreadsheet so Commission members can see how everyone has rated and funded projects. She added that a summary of FY06-FY08 allocations would be provided in the next packet that reviews the City's actual allocations compared to the CITY STEPS goals. Housing and Community Development Commission February 12, 2008 Page 5 At the March 13 meeting, the members will review how they scored/funded projects and will review with other members any major discrepancies between how others may have ranked or funded a project. This meeting is also an opportunity to ask applicants any questions they may still have regarding a project. The applicants are encouraged to attend, but it is not a requirement. On March 27, 2008, HCDC meets again, and members will formulate their recommendations. Once the whole process is complete, the final recommendation is sent to Council. Staff completes the HUD required Annual Action Plan based on the recommendations and initiates a 30-day public comment period. On May 6, 2008, the City Council will vote on the recommendations. The Council may accept the full recommendation or make changes. Typically one or two HCDC members attend the Council meeting in case there are any questions and they also provide information about the process HCDC went through to formulate the recommendation. Hightshoe stated there had been questions previously about when a conflict of interest issue is present. If any member has a concern, she asked members to inform her of the situation and they would determine if a conflict is present. In the past, if a HCDC member was a Board member or in management (director, vice president, etc.) and that organization applied for funds it was considered a conflict of interest. If members volunteer occasionally for an organization that applies for funding, that has not typically been a problem, however if you have concerns or there are other issues please let staff know. Examples of other situations may include things like if you're an attorney and a major client of yours applies for CDBG/HOME funding, please contact staff to discuss. Hightshoe stated that if you feel there is a potential conflict, please discuss with staff before the allocation meetings. She also reminded members that, according to State lobbing laws, council appointed commission members are not allowed to accept more than $2.99 as a gift (including food) from an applicant. She stated applicants may contact them to discuss their application. HCDC members may discuss the application, however can't accept anything from the applicant. Hightshoe reviewed the rental housing proforma. All rental-housing applicants must complete this form. The form identifies expenses and revenues and allows staff to compare rental projects. The proforma will also show if the project can cover debt service and the return on investment. Staff will look through rents and expenses to determine if the project is viable and the expenses are reasonable. If staff has any concerns it will be noted on the staff reports. Staff looks at a project and tries to determine an appropriate level of subsidy. The City does not want to over subsidize a project; however wants to make sure the project is viable over the entire period of affordability. The second page of the proforma deals with tax implications. If a business is anon-profit, the second page does not apply as they do not pay taxes. Hightshoe noted that the Bank-Ability guide in the last packet also provided some guidance on how to estimate expenses for maintenance, reserves, etc. Housing and Community Development Commission February 12, 2008 Page 6 MONITORING REPORTS: Crisis Center and Community Mental Health: Drum reported that the Crisis Center had replaced their doors, and the Community Mental Health Center had spent some money on asphalt to address a paving issue in the parking lot. Iowa City Free Medical Clinic: Richman reported the Clinic has put the prescription assistance program to use, and they will have their funds spent by the end of the fiscal year. Iowa City Housing Authority: Drum and Rackis reported the Housing Authority has spent all of the FY06 funds, and the FY07 funds will be spent by June or July of 2008. He said they are spending about $25,000 a month serving 61 families with TBRA. Rackis said the Housing Authority is currently serving a total of 1,297 families with a baseline of 1,214 vouchers. Rackis reported that approximately 80 percent of all people the Housing Authority serves had a Johnson County address at the time of application, with the majority of other clients coming from other areas in Iowa. He said the remaining percentage tends to be people from Illinois, and only a few from other states. ADJOURNMENT: Crane made a motion to adjourn. Drum seconded the motion. Approved 9-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. c 0 .~ .~ O U C d O A ~' C ~~ N V~ G ~ C ~ •`n L y xc~a: c O_ ~N W .~ O U c m -a L ~. O d d ~ ~ ~ = N ?' ~ C ~ 7 ~ Q O U otf C ~N O a ~" N X X X X X ~ ~ X X QN O ~ >C ~ X X ~ O X ~ 00 0 O~ 0 O~ 0 00 0 O ..-~ ~ O .--~ \ 00 O O ~ O~ O ~~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z O '~ ~ G~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ V L ~ ~ ~ ^~ d ~ A L CC ~ ~~y w ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ rz ~c+ Tr .ti ..fir ~ m C~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ bA .~ k •~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aQQZz ~ W ~ ~xooz ; V J_~;p-Vo IP11 DRAFT MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2008 - 11:00 AM PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Douglas, Marcy DeFrance, Charles Drum, Holly Hart, Rebecca McMurray, Michael Shaw MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Anthony, Steve Crane, Brian Richman STAFF. PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action): None Call to order: Michael Shaw called the meeting to order at 11:45 a.m. Site Visits to FY09 CDBG/HOME Proposed Project Sites • Extend the Dream Foundation (2203 F. Street) -Tom Waltz provided a tour of the ecommerce center and the microenterprises at 2203 F. Street. He discussed the proposed improvements. • Iowa City Free Medical Clinic (2440 Towncrest Drive) -Sandy Pickup provided a brief tour and discussed the proposed improvements. • Arc of Southeast Iowa (2620 Muscatine Ave.) -Bill Reagan provided a tour of the facility and discussed the lighting and alarm system needs. • Dolphin International (Former Lakeside Apartments, 2401 Hwy 6E) -Arvind Thakore provided a tour of one of the units, community center and the playground area. • Twain Elementary (1355 Deforest Ave.) -Sharon Locke provided a tour of Twain's playground and discussed the proposed playground equipment. Adjournment: MOTION: Hart moved to adjourn the meeting. DeFrance seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m. c O .y N1 .~ O U c m E -~ Q- o o ~ ~ ~ °o D C w C •= w ~ Q c~ G 0 U c .N 7 O ¢N p 0 >G X X X >G ~ >C ~~ w oo o o rn 0 rn 0 0 o~ 0 o, 0 0 rn 0 oo 0 0 rn 0 o ~ 0 rn 0 o ~ 0 rn 0 oo o 0 o~ 0 o ~ 0 rn 0 rn o 0 o~ 0 ~ z O i L' ~ -~ J ~ a~ > ~ ~ ~ u ~y G~ u ti' ~ ~ ~ 7 'O Q ~ f' 0 i Cd U ,. .7, GJ C. _ ~ L L C~j ~" y ~ rz E i" .V. ~ . ~ m ad Z ~ s r ~ -v ~ ~ ~ bq .D X •~ W y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ f~ a¢¢zz ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~, w ~ x~XOOZ ; fP12 City of Iowa City DRAFT Task Force on Violence Against Woman Monday, February 18, 2008, 3:30 P.M. Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall Welcome and Introductions: Amy Correia, Iowa City Council Member, called the meeting to order at 3:55 P.M. She then asked everyone to introduce themselves. Those in attendance include: Abigail Volland, City Council Liaison Carole Peterson, Vice President, University of Iowa Student Government Chuck Green, Assistant Vice President, Director of Public Safety University of Iowa Karla Miller, Rape Victim Advocacy Program Janet Lyness, Johnson County Attorney Monique DiCarlo, Director of Women's Resource and Action Center Belinda Marner, Assistant Vice President for Student Services, Administrative Liaison/Parents Association, University of Iowa Diana Harris, Chair of Council, University of Iowa Council on the Status of Women Anne Barber, University of Iowa Student Government Senator Sam Hargadine, Iowa City Police Chief Barbara Morck, Acting Transit Manager, Iowa City (arrived at 3:55 P.M.) Sarah Milani, University of Iowa Student Government Senator and Member of the Panhellenic Community (arrived at 4:10 P.M.) Alan Cosby, University of Iowa Interfraternity Council (arrived at 4:10 P.M.) Review Minutes from January 28, 2008 Meeting: Correia asked if anyone had any comments on the minutes. Lyness moved to accept the minutes of the January 28, 2008 Task Force meeting as presented, seconded by Miller. Motion carried 11-0. (Morck, Milani, Cosby not present at time of vote.) Discussion Topics: Update on UI Ni hg t Ride -Correia asked Green to give the Task Force an update on the night ride program at the U of I. Green gave Members several handouts regarding the night ride program. Green first referred to the map that was part of his handouts, stating that they have already expanded the footprint of the first van. He explained the area to the west that they are now covering. Green next referred to the start-up costs associated with this program, as well as monthly costs, and a specific cost analysis for the time period of October 12 through December 14, 2007. He then pointed out the staff costs associated with running the night ride program. The average cost per passenger is shown at $6.41 based on the costs incurred to date. Green responded to Members' questions, stating that the costs are not exorbitant, but they are significant. He noted that they are Task Force -Violence Against Women February 18, 2008 discussing adding a second van that would be used for an academic route, primarily on the west side of the river. Green further explained some of the ideas that are being looked at, stating that they would be hiring students for this second van. Morck stated that her concern is inappropriate behavior or allegations of inappropriate behavior being made as there could be passengers who have been drinking. Green stated that this is why they typically have two people on each van, and have been considering the use of cameras, as well. Volland stated that this second van, since it's more of an academic route, hopefully wouldn't have to deal with these types of issues. Green then further explained how this second van will be somewhat different, in that people can actually get picked up at U of I academic buildings, and be taken to their residence. Peterson asked if it will just be academic buildings, or any University building, to which Green stated that it will be any University building. The discussion continued, with Members asking general questions about time frames and boundaries of the night ride program. Green explained how they have been working on not duplicating services, but they also want to make sure that enough areas are covered. Green stated that they have a meeting to finalize plans this coming Friday. He stated that they plan to continue with the first van regardless, and hopefully will be able to add the second van. Members continued to ask questions of Green regarding the night ride program, and whether there could be a summer program as well. The discussion turned to possibly making a recommendation to the City Council for funding these types of transportation programs, especially in helping the U of I with funding this second van and having asummer-time program. DiCarlo stated that if they are going to make this recommendation to the City Council, it would have to be a quick turnaround in order to get it up and going by early June. Update on UI Anti-Violence Coalition and Statewide Campus Coalition -Correia then asked DiCarlo to give an update on the UI Anti-Violence Coalition. DiCarlo stated that they are in the middle of the process for reapplication. The reapplication is to the Department of Justice, the Office on Violence Against Women. She noted that the scope of the project changed from atwo-year project to a three-year project, and the award amount changed from $200,000 to $300,000. She noted that a small group of people involved in this project has been meeting to talk about reapplication, and discussed this at the last Anti-Violence Coalition meeting. Tentatively, DiCarlo stated that it looks like the reapplication process will include the existing project, which is proposing to educate first-year students through working with Housing, requiring RA's to be trained on dating violence, stalking and sexual assault, and then requiring RA's to do programming. Some changes would be including RA's in the planning of the required training, and having more input and opportunity to help Housing plan what those four or five programs will be that RA's would then have to present to their floors, in order to assure that these programs adequately address the curriculum that is required by OBW. She noted that they would be working to train additional hearing officers, working with Security to train public safety or police officers on all three areas, and this will also include working with Lyness and the County. DiCarlo then addressed some of the other changes to this project, stating that the reapplication process forces them to look at the role that RVAP 2 Task Force -Violence Against Women February 18, 2008 and DVIP play. She stated that both of these agencies have stated that they will work towards having a Campus Advocate. DiCarlo stated that if anyone has any input or suggestions, she would like to hear them. The deadline for the reapplication is March 8th, so she would need to hear from others soon. DiCarlo then briefly addressed some of the other committees working with the Coalition and gave brief updates on those committees. She pointed out how having advocates on campus can be extremely helpful in addressing these areas. DiCarlo then briefly explained the various aspects of the Coalition projects, and the various training that will be provided through it. Questions were asked of her regarding the law enforcement training, to which she replied. The discussion then turned to stalking and DiCarlo fielded questions on this issue and gave Members information regarding stalking laws and policies. Report on Greek System efforts to create safety -Milani spoke to the Members about the petitions they submitted to the University, adding that fraternities and sororities made up approximately 50% of the 5,000 student signatures. She noted that there were several independent programs going on, such as the men of the Sigma Phi Fraternity who organized a program where they would walk women home from the downtown area. They reportedly provided this program for several weekends during the beginning of the fall 2007 semester. Cosby spoke to the Members, as well, stating that his fraternity did a similar program. He added that in their situation they did not want intoxicated females, due to liability issues, and he also spoke of some of the other issues they encountered with liability and safety. In talking about the proposed student safety efforts, Milani added that fraternities and sororities would partner up for specific nights of the week and exchange phone numbers for sober drivers. It was noted that these programs were not officially recognized by the national organizations due to liability and insurance issues. She stated that Chapters felt this was a better alternative than allowing female residents to walk home alone. It was noted that these programs have stopped with the severe winter weather. Cosby stated that he has been giving the night ride glow lights to fraternities so they can distribute them to its members. It was also noted that Student Government has distributed key chains with the night ride logo and number on them. It has a light on it, as well. It was also noted that some Chapters have increased lighting around their premises, and some have also hired security guards. Milani noted that plans .for the future include more workshops on safety. Recently the sorority community had a conference, and safety was one of the top three problems discussed that is facing the community. She further discussed what some of the partnerships between the fraternities and sororities will be this spring in helping to get people home safely on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. This would be similar to a safe-walk type program. She also mentioned a sober driver type of program, as well. Cosby stated to both Green and Hargadine that there is still a very strong passion among 3 Task Force -Violence Against Women February 18, 2008 students to be involved, and he stated that he wanted to let them know that the students want to help in any way they can. Correia asked if Green and Hargadine shouldn't meet with these students and have some type of meeting that lets the students know what to look for in possible suspects. Green stated that if these groups do plan on operating this spring, it would be helpful if they would let his office know so his officers will be aware of the students' participation. This led to a brief discussion regarding possible background checks on individuals who become involved in these night ride and safe walk type of programs. The discussion wrapped up with the possibility of having the various Chapters help to fund these safety programs. Mid-Pro rg am report & timeline for completion -Due to time running out, Correia handed out a Progress Report to members, asking them to review it before the next meeting. She stated that she would like to discuss this at the next meeting. Set Topic for Next Meeting: Correia stated that she would like to discuss the lighting issue next. She will check with Klingaman on this to see if she is ready. Also, Correia would like to review each area discussed so far, and then identify strengths, gaps and recommendations that they want to make to the City Council. Adiourn• The next Task Force meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 10, 2008, at 3:30 P.M. at Harvat Hall, City Hall. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M. 4 3- 6- iP13 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008 PCD CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Mark Seabold, Patrick Carney, Rick Fosse, Jan Finlayson Members Absent: Terry Trueblood, DaLayne Williamson Staff Present: Marcia Klingaman, Jeff Davidson Public Present: Michael Stineman with RDG Planning & Design; David Dahlquist with RDG Planning & Design (via telephone); University of Iowa Journalism students: Corey, Seasha, Morgan Olson, Jay Goods. CALL TO ORDER Seabold called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17, 2007 MEETING MOTION: Patrick moved to approve the minutes with minor corrections; Jan seconded. The motion passed 5:0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mark declared that he would be happy to continue to act as Public Art Committee Chair. Jan offered to act as Vice Chair. Each motion passed 5:0. MICHAEL STINEMAN PRESENTATION ON PUBLIC ART COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Michael Stineman and David Dahlquist had previously spoken with Marcia Klingaman and Terry Trueblood about a potential sculpture garden in the Peninsula Park. Based on this conversation, Michael Stineman pursued the idea of creating a comprehensive public art plan for Iowa City. Today he presented on the process and elements of creating such a plan as well as the expertise that RDG would provide in this process. Process of creating a comprehensive public art plan: 1. Inventory of public art. (Pieces could include architecture, pavers, plaques, etc.). 2. Determine the needs and preferences of the Public Art Committee. (To do this RDG would conduct workshops and look at trends and successes in other communities). 3. Establish a vision and draft the overall statement of goals. 4. Identify priority sites for public art. 5. Develop site concept plans. 6. Estimate the implementation and maintenance costs for each site. 7. Develop an implementation strategy. 8. Recommend public art administration and staffing. Michael Stineman stated that RDG consultant fees for developing a comprehensive plan would range from $30,000 - $50,000. After his PowerPoint presentation was completed, Stineman then opened the discussion to questions from the committee. Rick noted that Iowa City's Public Art Committee has always been opportunistic. He asked how flexibility would be built into the plan. Stineman noted that if used properly, comprehensive plans can be very flexible. At this point the committee phone David Dahlquist to continue the question and answer session. Marcia noted that in the past the committee had talked about soliciting public opinion via surveys. Dahlquist noted that a plan would act as a framework and guide future discussion about public art. Dahlquist also noted that maintenance, vandalism, security, lighting, and drainage issues would be included in the plan. Dahlquist also noted that if the committee decided to work on a sculpture garden, this type of public art project could potentially lend itself to trail enhancement or economic development. Marcia asked how far into the future the plan would cover. Michael noted that a five year plan would be logical. He also noted that the plan would be a living document that would require regular updates. David noted that plans should be implemented in phases. He also indicated that financing and fundraising should be addressed in the master plan. David stated that the plan will also act as a guide and marketing tool. The inclusion of good graphics will grab attention. It was also noted that a good master plan would help the committee insure that they maintain a level of quality. The plan could be referred to when decisions must be made regarding charitable donations of public art. It was also noted that the creation of a public art map would increase visibility of the public art program and get the public interested. Additionally, it would determine which parts of Iowa City are currently underserved. The scale of the artwork would also be included in the plan. Mike noted that creation of a comprehensive public art plan would take approximately 4-6 months to complete. This concluded the phone conversation with David Dahlquist. Mike Stineman thanked the committee for their time and exited the meeting. Rick brought to the committee's attention that at the time the Public Art Committee was formed, Karin Franklin had created a preliminary plan for the committee. It was requested that this plan be located and presented at the next meeting. Marcia noted that the creation of a comprehensive plan would take time, energy, and funding, all of which may not be budgeted for at this point. It was also noted that there is no current direction in how funding decisions are made. To now the committee had been "shooting at the hip," which has worked fine to this point. The committee agreed that before they decide on how to proceed they would like to look at Karin's original plan. Rick asked Jeff Davidson what role the planning staff, if any, could play in the creation of a master plan document. Jeff said that at this point it is best to determine exactly what the committee would like in a plan and based on that decision the would determine what resources would be available to the committee. UPDATE ON BJ KATZ POOL WALL ART PROJECT The engineer's proposal for mounting BJ's art from the ceiling of the recreation center was reviewed by the Public Works department. It was determined that the mounting mechanism would suspend the piece in a "V" which would create pivot points. This creates potential problems of the piece moving and gaining enough momentum to hit the wall. It was mentioned that the glass panes could be attached to each other to allow them to move as a unit. This would prevent them from bumping in to each other. It was also mentioned that a bumper could be attached to the back wall. The aesthetics of this solution are not desired by the committee. Marcia noted that when she last spoke with BJ she was pleased with the idea of mounting the piece to the ceiling. Rick and Marcia will ask the engineer to re-work the attachment proposal. COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES Barbara Nicknish has submitted a letter of resignation. Unfortunately she is unable to make the time commitment at this point. Anew member will be selected in the near future. Applications from the previous submission deadline will be reviewed as well as any additional applications. The committee is welcome to recommend someone to the position. The submission deadline for Poetry in Public has passed. Approximately 500 children's poems have been submitted and 70 adult poems. The selection committee will work to narrow these down in March. Marcia is working toward acquiring the sculpture piece on the pedestrian bridge at the corner of Hwy 6 and Iowa Avenue. Marcia recently sent out a request for proposals for the next artist showcase. ADJOURNMENT Rick moved to adjourn; Pat seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:15 pm. Next meeting scheduled for March 6, 2008. Minutes submitted by Brandy Howe a~ a~ ... ~ ~ O s. v V ~ ~ ,~ a .~ ~ o ~ C N "L3 ~ C L ~ Q ..Ur ~. D a ~ ~ ~ ~ N i O O ~ ~--~ O~ --+ O O~ y ~--~ O r+ ~-+ p ~., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s-, ..-~ .--, .-~ .-~ .--~ .--~ O O O O O ~ X ~ -~ ~ -~ ~ --~ ~ -.. ~ .-~ W . O . O , O , O ' O C O "" O ' ~ U z ^" 3 O ~ p ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ RS C~ _ ~ ~ V L z ~ A ~ ~ a a H "C3 N O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ Q ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~COO IP14 MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 13, 2008-5:00 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Members Present: Michelle Payne, Ned Wood, Edgar Thornton, Karen Leigh Members Excused: None Staff Present: Sara Walz, Sarah Holecek Others Present: Shawn Harris, Dave Zahradnik, Father Rudy Juarez, Rodger Riley, Kevin Monson, Greg Lacey CALL TO ORDER: Wood called the meeting order at 5:03 p.m. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Motion: Leigh nominated Wood for Chair of BOA. Payne seconded the nomination. The motion passed 4:0. Motion: Leigh nominated Payne for Vice-Chair of BOA. Thornton seconded the nomination. The motion passed 4:0. CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 12, 2007 MINUTES: Thornton noted that in the adjournment section, Wood's "mobbed" should to be corrected to read "moved." Wood noticed on page two, paragraph three, that there seemed to be too many "that's," and the passage should be reworded. He also noted an "item four" that needed to be deleted. Wood said under the motion on page three, five lines down, it read, "...the tower will inconspicuous..." and it should read, "...the tower will be inconspicuous... ". Motion: Thornton motioned to accept the December 12, 2007, minutes. Leigh seconded. Motion passed 4:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Overdrive Auto for a special exception to allow a vehicle repair use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1021 Gilbert Court. Walz reported there had been one letter from the public, which was included in the board packet. Judy Atkins of the Crisis Center wrote to request the requirement for the sidewalks be enforced. Walz reviewed the application for a special exception, noting that property to the north of the subject lot is mostly zoned for community commercial, including the adjacent property to the north. She said next door to the south there is a public zone, which is a Johnson County office, and everything further south is in the CO-1 zone, which is a "quasi-industrial" zone, and is dominated by similar vehicle repair businesses, but includes some social service uses. Walz noted that some of the social services uses in the area attract pedestrian traffic. Walz showed board members photographs of the site, noting the building was originally designed as an auto shop with tall overhead doors. She explained the applicant is only going to be renting the south portion of the building with the overhead doors, and the other part of the building will be rented out for a different purpose. She said the building has been vacant for two years, and therefore a new business is considered a "change of use" from a "vacant use." The change of use requires the property to come into compliance with all current zoning regulations. She said this is how, over time, properties come around to being in full compliance with City regulations. Walz said there are three specific standards the applicant has addressed. 1. The business is more than 100 feet from the nearest residential zone. 2. He will not be storing vehicles on the lot for me than 45 days. 3. The vehicle storage area will be screened with a solid fence. Walz said the applicant has proposed to move the fence back and run vinyl lath through the chain link. Walz said Staff believe the fence would be appropriate in this area. Walz also said S-3 landscape screening is also required outside of the fence, but the lot is currently paved over, so in order to comply, he will have to remove some of the pavement. She said the applicant is asking for the BOA to waive the S-3 requirement to the west of the site along the railroad tracks. Walz said the property owner has indicated that vegetation is difficult to grow on this portion of the property, and that the area along the railroad is has a history of vandalism and arson. The zoning code requires afive-foot setback and S-2 screening adjacent to the parking area along the south property line. Between the parking area and the public right of way the code requires aten-foot setback and S-2 screening. Walz added that in order to come into compliance with the commercial site development standards, the applicant would have to reduce the lot's curb cuts to a maximum width of 42 feet. Currently the entire front of the lot acts as an apron. The applicant will also be required to install the north- south sidewalk across the site. Walz said there might be some complicating factors near the intersection with Kirkwood Avenue--things that were difficult to see because of the snow--such a utility box and electrical pole, but she said Staff will work with the property owner and applicant to assess where the sidewalk can be established in those areas. She added that the pavement between the sidewalk and the street would also need to be removed. Walz added that in all of the meetings for Central Planning District, participants have indicated that this neighborhood is an appropriate place to have businesses such as vehicle repair shops. She said there is an interest in keeping such businesses close to central Iowa City and not only on the outskirts of town. Walz said Staff recommends Special Exception EXC08-00001: An application by Overdrive Auto for a special exception to allow a vehicle repair use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1021 Gilbert Street Ct. be approved subject to: 1. Submission of a final site plan that shows compliance with all commercial site development standards in the zoning code, including compliance with all required setbacks. 2. S-2 screening to separate parking areas, drives, and aisles from the public right- of-way and abutting property. (She said the applicant had indicated he would like to substitute a planter in one area, and she said that is an option he can work though with the building department.) 3. The applicant must also be in compliance with the five- to six-foot solid fence to screen the outdoor storage area from abutting properties to the south and west, as well as the required S-3 landscape screening outside the fence along the south property line. 4. He must also meet compliance with the access standards including curb cuts to control vehicle access to the property, construction of the required north-south sidewalk within the right-of--way, as well as a designated pedestrian access to the building from the public right-of--way, and compliance with the off-street parking compliance design standards. Walz said because the applicant wishes to begin using the facility immediately, and it will not be possible to install the required site improvements before spring, Staff recommends that a provisional occupancy permit be issued subject to a performance guarantee to ensure that all required site improvements be completed in a timely manner. Payne asked if the trees on the property will have to be removed for the sidewalk, and Walz responded that the Building Department is willing to work with the applicant on that matter. It may be possible to get an access easement across the private property to enable the sidewalk to go around the trees. Wood asked if chain link fence with lath was considered a solid fence. Walz said that it was, and given the character of the area and surrounding uses, it seemed appropriate to Staff, but the Board has discretion over the decision. Shawn Harris showed a final layout of the plan to the Board on his computer, and agreed to email a copy to Walz to have it included in the public record. Wood closed the public discussion. Motion: Thornton made a motion to approve EXC08-00001 subject to the conditions described by staff and with a performance guarantee. Leigh suggested that the motion include a waiver for the S-3 screening requirement along the railroad. Thornton agreed to amend. Payne seconded. Leigh said she thought the proposed changes met the general approval criteria, and the specific proposed exception would not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. She said a viable business is always more desirable than a vacant lot. Thornton added that the business is more than 100 feet from the nearest residential property, and they are not going to store vehicles for long periods of time. He also agreed the applicant will be making substantial improvements to the property. Payne added that putting plastic lath into the existing chair link fence would meet the requirement to screen vehicles from surrounding areas. She also said she believed the S-3 screening required along the south and east sides of the property will be adequate, improve the property, and provide a buffer between the street and the vehicle areas. Payne mentioned she wanted to make sure the 42 foot-wide curb cuts, as specified in the Staff report, were included on the record. Wood said he agreed the exception met both the specific and general standards. Holecek said someone would need to provide reasoning to support allowing the waiver for the S-3 screening on the west property line. Payne said due to the fact that it is difficult to grow any vegetation along the west side of the lot because of the railroad the Board would waive the landscaping requirement in that area. Leigh added that the area is prone to vandalism and S-3 screening on the west side may be detrimental to business in the area. The motion was approved 4:0. EXC08-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Regina High School for a special exception to allow expansion of a school facility in the Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone located at 2150 Rochester Avenue. Walz displayed an aerial map displaying Regina Catholic Education Center, the sports fields, and surrounding residential and commercial uses. The proposed expansion on the press box and restroom addition would be just over 600 square feet. She said it is within the height requirements for the zone. The nearest residence is about 300 feet away. Walz said Staff has received one letter, which was included for the board, from someone in the neighborhood who approved of the project, and she has also received one phone call from someone who was concerned about noise coming from the area during games. She said Staff did not think the proposed expansion would alter light or sound from the current structure's use. Given the size of the proposed addition and the location on such a large property, Staff did not believe there would be negative impacts. Walz said Staff recommends approval of a special exception to build a 42 x 15-foot extension at 2150 Rochester Ave. be approved. Wood asked about the structure's current size, and Walz said she believed it was about 300 square feet. Payne noted that if the structure were only 100 square feet smaller the applicant would not need a special exception. Wood closed the public hearing. Motion: Payne moved to approve EXC08-00004: An application submitted by Regina High School for a special exception to allow expansion of a school facility in the Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone located at 2150 Rochester Avenue. Leigh seconded. Thornton reviewed the proposal, noting the applicant had a very large campus, and the structure was well within compliance with zoning regulations, and that the expansion would improve accessibility to disabled patrons. He said the expansion would not create a negative impact on the community, nor would it be injurious to the community. He noted all utilities were already present, and that he would vote in favor of the motion. Payne said that the expansion would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and she said she didn't believe it would change the livability of the area. She said she would vote in favor of the exception. Leigh agreed, saying it met both the general and specific standards. She noted that she does sympathize with people bothered by noise and lights, but she didn't think the expansion would make it any worse. Wood said he planned to vote in favor of the exception, and he did not believe the expansion would increase light or sound, saying there were only five home football games a year. He said he thought the expansion would improve the facility, but not impact the number of people on the site, or their conduct. The motion carried 4:0. EXC08-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by St. Patrick's Church for a special exception to allow construction of a church for property in the Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone located at 4330 St. Patrick Drive. Walz presented the Staff report, told Board members the property was annexed into the city in 2007, and zoned for residential use. She said the Comprehensive Plan showed the area was originally planned as residential, and residents of the district had indicated they would like to see a traditional neighborhood with lots of interconnected streets. She said residents wanted a central square from which all neighborhoods would radiate out. The vision for the square was that it would provide a connection for people. She said a large use, such as a church, had not been originally contemplated for the site. Walz said Staff worked with the church to help it use the setting in a way that wouldn't detract from the concept for the central public square, and wouldn't disrupt pedestrian and vehicular traffic through the neighborhoods. She added that in the conditional zoning agreement it was required that the church dedicate a 60 foot right-of--way to the north of the property for a future street, as well as the two spokes coming down towards the square, and that they build a sidewalk across the property and allow a public access easement, so that when neighborhoods develop in the future, people cane easily get across the site. Walz said the zoning criteria for the special exception focus on whether the use is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The two main areas of focus are the required setbacks--what happens in those setbacks--and how vehicle traffic and parking areas are addressed on the site. These are the issues that have the most potential to detract from residential character since church buildings tend to be larger and are more intensely used and create more traffic on site. Walz noted the proposed church would be on a collector street that is wider than 28 feet wide. Walz said the proposed church differs from some previous exceptions the board has considered because the majority of the land surrounding the site hasn't been annexed into the City yet and is not developed. She said the Comprehensive Plan has addressed the area, and at least one of the general criteria asks Board to consider if establishment of the proposed exception will impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. She stated that board members should think about the area's future neighborhoods even though they are not yet present. Walz explained the larger required setbacks for churches because of the structures' large size and their intense use during short bursts of time. She said the larger setbacks also allow for screening to maintain a sense of privacy for surrounding residential neighbors, and it allows the distance necessary to mitigate the change in scale between large church structures and neighboring houses. Walz said the proposed St. Patrick's Church exceeded all required setbacks, especially in the front and back of the building. Along the front the structure is set back 160 feet from the public street. She said the most unusual aspect on the site it the church's proposed 113-foot bell tower. She said church bell towers and spires are exempt from height limitations in the Code, however, the Board could consider the tower in terms of the scale of the neighborhood. She said it was Staff's opinion that the site uses distance to minimize the difference in scale. Walz said the bell tower has a setback of 160 feet to the front and more than 200 feet to the side. Walz said several of the special exception criteria focus on the parking area, including the size, design, screening, and parking location on the site. She noted that parking, and the coming and going of traffic at institutional uses, are the areas that traditionally cause the most concern for neighbors. She said there are two issues that make the parking design for the site difficult. The first is because site is fronted by streets on two sides, and the second is orientation of the church on the site. Because the church had agreed to face the public square, Walz said Staff thought it would be unreasonable to ask that all parking be to the rear, forcing patrons to walk completely around the building, more than 100 feet, to use the main entrance. To counter these issues, Walz said the church has proposed the large front setback, additional tree screening. The church has also proposed the minimum number of parking spaces allowed, 160, based upon a calculation of the square footage of the main sanctuary. The site design took the number of parking spaces and split them into two heavily screened lots which were set no further forward towards St. Patrick Drive than the front plane of the building. Walz reviewed the general standards, saying Staff did not feel the proposed church would be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public because of the setbacks, screening, and safe ingress and egress from an appropriately sized street. She said the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the enjoyment or use of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor will it substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. She said establishment of the proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located, because the church had addressed cross access issues, faced the church toward the square and granted the 60-foot rights of way through the CZA. She aid adequate utilities, drainage, and access roads and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All water, sewer and necessary access roads are in place, and the additional access drive from the future north road will allow vehicles to leave the site through an alternative route. She said adequate measures have been or will be provided to provide ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Walz said the application meets all the requirements for the RS-5 zone, and a final site plan will be subject to review by the Building Official. She concluded by saying the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended, and it meets or exceeds all zoning requirements. Staff recommends that EXC08-00003 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted. 2. Dedication of the rights-of--way for pedestrian access easement as described in the conditional zoning agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Compliance with all other elements of the conditional zoning agreement. Payne noted the .Staff report seemed to use St. Patrick Drive and Lower West Branch Road interchangeably, which is not accurate. Wood and Payne asked about the location of the bell tower, and Walz pointed out its location on a map. Thornton asked about a sports field located behind the proposed building, and Walz said it is intended as some sort of open space, but if, at some point in the future, they wanted to place a structure on it larger than 500 square feet, they would need to come before the Board again. Thornton asked about the rational for only building the minimum number of parking spaces, and Walz said the number of spaces was proposed by the church, and it was part of a set of requirements for LEED certification. She said part of LEED looks at not requiring an over-abundance of parking, which is common in institutional uses. She said the Board could request more or less spaces. Payne asked for more clarification on how the number of parking spaces is determined. Walz explained it is calculated as 1/6 of the maximum capacity of the largest meeting area of the structure, in this case, the sanctuary. Payne said she didn't think having six people in each car was realistic. Walz said the calculation takes into account that the sanctuary will rarely be at full capacity, as well as the potential that some people will walk or park on surrounding public streets. Payne said she is concerned with the minimum parking provided, and questioned if the future neighborhoods would really want people parking on the streets while at church. Walz said it is important to look at the daily use of the church-most days it is not going to be extremely busy, but occasionally there will be days with overflow. Thornton asked if there was room on the footprint of the property for more parking spaces, if needed. Walz said there would be room for a parking expansion if needed later. Dave Zahrandik, representative with Neumann Monson Architects, presented a computerized rendition of the proposed church and property to the Board. He said the bell tower was designed to help create a sense of identity and space to the church and neighborhood, and he believed it would act as a landmark and help draw people to the public square. He described how the church property was designed as a plaza outdoor space, much like old European churches. He said the plaza would be used as a gathering space, and it helped the church address the public square. He described how the grade of the property allowed the ancillary uses, such as the gymnasium, to be set into the slope, keeping their scale as secondary to the main sanctuary. Zahradnik addressed the Board's parking concerns, saying the current attendance for the church is at about 400, quite a bit less than the maximum of 955. He added that in the future, as attendance grows, there is the potential of adding additional parking and connecting the two lots via a drive so one could traverse the site without meeting a dead end at the back of the parking area. Thornton asked about disability accessibility, and Zerandic pointed out several areas around the front plaza that don't have curbs. Kevin Monson, with Neumann Monson Architects, clarified the parking issue, and said just because they are only asking for the minimum number of spaces now, they don't want to have an approval by the Board that prevents any future requests for expansion as the congregation grows. He added that a church, and it's parking, is not built for Easter Sunday, and it was not their intention to pave the site over. Greg Lacey, neighbor to the west of the site, spoke to the Board about his concerns over screening because the church would be looking down on his house. He also noted that the signs on Lower West Branch Road currently don't allow public parking. Walz said the City has indicated they would allow public parking, and presumably, when the neighboring subdivisions develop, parking will be allowed on those streets, too. Lacey asked about water draining off the church parking lots, and Walz explained the Building Department would review the final site plan to be sure that the water drains appropriately. It was her understanding the stormwater would drain to the southeast of the site. Lacey asked about noise, and Walz explained how setbacks are used, and the proposed use and the kind of noises that are anticipated. She said Staff does not expect much late night noise from a church, and noise will usually be contained to select times and days. Lacey asked if the bell tower would play music, and Walz said that the applicant had indicated that it would not play music but would ring twice a day and during some services. Lacey also asked about a fence between the two properties, and Zahradnik said there were no plans for a fence to be constructed. Lacey said he was concerned about maintenance, and ease of maintenance, so the area didn't become a weed patch. Walz said the City has a weed ordinance, and that the screening is a requirement in the code-- if the church fails to maintain the screening, the City would require the shrubs be replaced. Lacey said there was an old fence along the property line, and he was concerned about its proximity to the proposed screening hedge. Father Juarez suggested the two meet to find a common solution, possibly removing the dilapidated fence. Wood closed the public discussion. Motion: Payne moved to approve EXC08-00003, an application submitted by St. Patrick's Church for a special exception to allow construction of a church for a property in the Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone located at 4330 St. Patrick Drive, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevation submitted. 2. Dedication of rights-of--way and the pedestrian access easement as described in the CZA prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Compliance with all other elements of the CZA. Leigh seconded . Leigh said she believed the general and specific standards had been met and exceeded. She said she thought the setbacks were extremely generous, the parking was adequate and gave consideration to expansion, and the required landscape screening had been provided. She added the special exception will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, general comfort, welfare, nor will it be injurious to the enjoyment of other property owners in the immediate vicinity, or substantially impair or diminish property values. Leigh said she thought the church was such a lovely facility that would enhance, rather than diminish, the area. Leigh said she did not think the church would impede the normal or orderly development of surrounding properties. She noted the site has adequate ingress and egress, drainage, and utilities. She said was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the she planed to vote in favor of the special exception. Payne added the site met the requirement for street access with its primary entrance. She said she was initially concerned the bell tower would be a distraction from the public square, but after Zahradnik's presentation, she felt it would serve as a landmark for the square, as well as serving as a marker for the east side of town. Payne said that while the church is going to increase traffic to the area, she does not feel it is going to increase adversely. She said noise from the bell tower at noon and 6 p.m. should not be a concern. Payne noted she felt the church was great for the area and she planned to vote in favor of the exception. Thornton said the applicant did a very good job in meeting the regulations and standards, and he agreed with his colleagues that the church would serve as a major anchor for the east side of Iowa City. He applauded the use of green space on the site, and said he planned to vote in favor. Wood said he was impressed with the ways in which the applicant met the specific and general standards. He said he liked the idea of the church plaza opening onto a public space, and that he planned to support the special exception. The motion was approved 4:0. OTHER: Holecek asked to meet with Board members after adjournment to compare calendars. Walz said she hopes to have another member for the BOA for the March meeting. She also said there was special training available in April for members of BOA through Iowa State Extension, and she would be sending out specific information about the training in the next few weeks. ADJOURNMENT: Leigh made a motion to adjourn at 6:53 p.m. The motion carried 4:0 0 ~ 0 = N "O '^ O ~ u =v ~ Q w a~ o v -v = L ~ O = m .~~j Q 0 .. N N .-. ..r 00 O .r O ,.r O~ M .r 0~0 O~ r .. N M ,.. ! 1~ N ~ z z z z z ~ 00 O~ O ~--~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O w 0 O O O O o ~ N w a~ ~.. ~~~ on ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ . . ~ & 3 -o o o ~ z ~ a ~ ~ 3 y L C . v L x~ ~ z ~ W , \/ ,~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.+ ~ .~ ~ O ~ a¢¢zz xoOZ MINUTES Iowa City Airport Commission March 6, 2008 Iowa City Airport Terminal - 7:30 AM DRAFT Members Present: Janelle Rettig, Secretary; John Staley; Greg Fazris; Randy Hartwig Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp, Wendy Ford Others Present: Peggy Slaughter, Randy Miller, Howard Horan, Phillip Woolford DETERMINE QUORUM: The meeting was called to order at 7:37am by Secretary Rettig. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended accepting offer on Lots 2, 3, 4 and outlots 2A, 3A, and 4A of Aviation Commerce Park by ITC Midwest LLC. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: 1. Offer by ITC Midwest LLC for the purchase of Lots 2, 3, and 4 and Outlots 2A, 3A, and 4A in Aviation Commerce Park Peggy Slaughter gave a summary of the purchase offer. Members asked questions regarding the offer to which Slaughter responded. Hartwig asked Tharp about the current debt balance on the Airport Commerce Park loan, Tharp responded that this sale should pay off the loan. Wendy Ford gave a summary of the number of jobs and wages of the jobs to be created by ITC. Rettig asked if those jobs already existed in the area to which Ford responded they were new jobs that were not currently here. Hartwig moved to recommend to city council to accept the offer as proposed, Staley Seconded. Motion Approved 4-0 Adjourn -Meeting adjourned at 7:SOam Airport Commission March 6, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2008 Meetin Date NAME TERM EXP. 1/10 2/14 3/6 3/13 Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X X Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X John Staley 3/1/10 X X X Howard Horan 3/1/08 X X --- Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member