Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2005-03-03 Info Packet
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET March 3, 2005 CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS I IPI Tentative City Council Meetings and Work Session Agendas IP2 Agenda: Joint Meeting Iowa City City Council Area Legislators IP3 Letter from Mayor Lehman to Anne Hesse: Project Green IP4 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Proposed new Zoning Code-Moratorium IP5 Police Department Monthly Liquor License (OFF PREMISE SALES) Report: November 2004 IP6 Housing and Building Inspection Permit Information February 2005 IP7 E-mail from Len Sandier to Anissa Williams: Countdown Timer at Dubuque and Burlington Streets IP8 Memorandum from JCCOG Assistant Transportation Planner: Downtown bicycle racks IP9 Letter from Ralph Wilmoth to Chief Winkelhake: Appreciation for the Iowa City Police Department IP10 E-mail from Jason Shore: UISG Inauguration April 2, 2005 IPll Housing Authority Quick Facts IP12 Minutes [Approved]: Deer Task Force: February 15, 2005 IP13 Minutes [Approved]: Scattered Site Housing Task Force: January 24, 2005 IP14 Minutes [Approved]: Scattered Site Housing Task Force: January 31, 2005 IP15 Minutes [Approved]: Scattered Site Housing Task Force: February 14, 2005 PRELIMINARY DRAFT/MINUTES IP16 Historic Preservation Commission: February 15, 2005 I -~ I I 03'03'05 ~~,~--3~ City Council Meeting Schedule and IP1 OF ~ow^ C,*V Work Session Agendas March 3, 2005 www.icgov.org · FRIDAY, MARCH 4 Emma J. Harvat Hall 12:00p Luncheon Meeting with Area Legislators Separate Agenda Posted TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS · MONDAY, MARCH 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Council Work Session · TUESDAY, MARCH 22 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Special Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, APRIL 4 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, APRIL 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, APRIL '18 EmmaJ. HarvatHall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, APRIL 19 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27 Coralville City Hall 4:00p Joint Meeting · MONDAY, MAY 2 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, MAY 3 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · FRIDAY, MAY 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall 8:30a Special Formal Evaluations · MONDAY, MAY 16 Emma J. Ha/vat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, MAY 17 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting C~TY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 1319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org JOINT MEETING IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL AREA LEGISLATORS AGENDA Friday, March 4 Noon Harvat Hall 1. Updates Hotel Tax Condominium Taxes Property Tax Code Penalties for Alcohol Violations No Smoking 2. New Legislation 3. Other Business CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL February 25, 2005 Ernest W. Lehman Mayor Ms. Anne Hesse 3948 Stewart Road NE Ross Wilburn Iowa City, IA 52240 Mayor Pro Tern Regenia Bailey Connie Champion Dear Anne: Bob Elliott .,Nlike O'Donnell Thank you for takin§ the time to come to the City Council meetin§ the other D,ee Vanderhoef evening to report to us about the work of Project Green. While the City Council forum doesn't really permit us an opportunity to express to you our complete appreciation, I wanted to let you know, and I believe I can speak on behalf of the City Council, that the Project Green "community" is a very real example of good citizenship through the contributions you make toward the stewardship of our community's natural environment. Thanks again for all your work. Ernie Lehman Mayor cc: City Council council~iowa-city.org 410 E. Washington Street .Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (3!9) 356-5010 Fax: (319) 356-5009 Date: March 2, 2005 ~ To; City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Proposed new Zoning Code - Moratorium Questions have arisen regarding the extent to which the City Council's formal consideration of the new Zoning Code will impose a "moratorium" on development activity in Iowa City. As you know, a draft of the newly proposed Zoning Code will be presented at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and made available for public review this week. Following public open house sessions and formal meetings of the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Commission will forward the Zoning Code to Council along with its recommendations. The Council will be asked to set a public hearing on the newly proposed Zoning Code. At the same time, it is anticipated that the Council will also be asked to set public hearing on a few amendments to the zoning map to reclassify areas currently designated with zones that are proposed to be eliminated in the new code. ISSUE: What will be the effect of the automatic "moratorium" provisions of Section 14-6U-6F of the City Code when the Council sets a public hearing on the proposed new zoning code and amendments to the zoning map to reclassify areas currently designated as zones that are proposed to be eliminated in the new code? CONCLUSION: The moratorium will apply only to amendments to the zoning code and zoning map that change the zoning classification of an area on the zoning map. The moratorium will not apply to amendments to the zoning code that do not change the classification of an area on the zoning map. DISCUSSION: Section 14-6U-6F of the currently applicable zoning code governs the status of permits for buildings and uses while the City Council is considering an amendment to the zoning code and zoning map. Pursuant to section 14-6U-6F(1) and (2), for 60 days after the date the Council sets a public hearing on the question of amending the zoning code and map so as to rezone an area, no permits are issued for a building or use that would not be permitted in that area under the newly proposed zoning classification. Previously issued permits for buildings or structures which would not be permitted in the area under the newly proposed zoning classification, pursuant to which no substantial construction has been commenced, are automatically suspended for the 60-day time period. If within the 60-day time period the Council adopts the new zoning classification, the suspended applications for permits are denied and the previously issued permits are revoked and terminated. If Council does not adopt the new zoning classification within the 60-day time period, or formally rejects the new zoning classification within that time period, the suspended applications for permits are granted and construction under the previously issued permits may be commenced at that time. Last of all, pursuant to section 14-6U-6F(2) and (3), no previously issued permit may be subject to suspension under these provisions more than once, and no area within the city may be subject to suspension of permits more than once within any twelve month period. The effect of the automatic "moratorium" provisions of 14-6U-6F when the Council sets a public hearing on the newly proposed Zoning Code and corresponding amendments to the zoning map can be summarized as follows: Areas for which no new zoning classification is proposed will March 2, 2005 Page 2 not be subject to the moratorium. Only areas for which the zoning map is to be amended and a new zoning classification designated, and which have not been subject to the "moratorium" provisions of 14-6U-6F within the previous twelve months, will be subject to the suspension of permits for buildings and uses. In those areas, only permits for buildings or uses that do not comply with the newly proposed zoning classification will be subject to suspension. Permits that comply with both the currently applicable zoning classification and the newly proposed zoning classification will not be affected. cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk Karin Franklin, Director, Planning & Community Development Doug Boothroy, Director, Housing & Inspection Services Sarah Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney Mitchel T. Behr, Assistant City Attorney Iowa City Police Department license (OFF PREMISE SALES) Report Monthly liquor November 2004 YEAR 2004 Monthly Total [ [ Year to Date Totals Arrest/Visit Business Name AI I B YTD AAJAXXX LIQUOR STORE 1 0 0 ~,LDI INC. 1 ~ ~ 0 0 BIG KAMART-HOLLYWOOD BLVD. 2 0 0 CUB FOODS 0 0 )AN'S SHORT STOP CORP 1 0 0 DELIMART-E. BENTON 0 0 DELIMART-MORMON TREK 0 0 DELIMART-HWY 1 : 0 0 DELIMART-LWR MUSCATINE 0 0 DRUGTOWN 1 0 0 EL PASO MEXICAN STORE 1 ' ' 0 0 FAREWAY STORES Commerce 0 0 FAREWAY STORES Westwinds 0 0 GASBY'S- S. GILBERT 1 0 0 GASBY'S EAST-2303 MUSCAT. 2 0 0 GOOSETOWN 0 0 -IANDIMART-DUBUQUE ST. ' 0 0 o o HANDIMART-N. DODGE HANDIMART-WILLOWCREEK : 0 0 HAWKEYE CON ST-COMMERCE 0 0 HAWKEY CON ST-KIRKWOOD 0 0 HY-VEE-N. DODGE 0 0 HY-VEE-S. 1ST AVE 0 0 HY-VEE GAS 1 0 0 HY-VEE-WATERFRONT 1 0 0 JOHN'S GRQCERY INC 0 0 KUM & GQ-GILBERT/BURLI. 1 0 0 KUM & GO-MORMON TREK 0 0 KUM & GO- S. RIVERSIDE 0 0 KUM & GO- W. BURLINGTON 0 0 L&M MIGHTY SHOP INC 0 0 LIQUOUR HOUSE 1 0 0 MINI MART 0 0 NEW PIONEER COOP 0 0 NORTH DODGE ESPRESS 0 0 ON THE GO CONV. STORE INC 1 0 0 OSCO DRUG 2 0 0 Parth MINI MART- 2153 ACT CR 0 0 PETRO-N-PROVISIONS 0 0 SUBURBAN AMOCO 2 0 0 SUBURBAN AMOCO-KEOKUK 4 0 0 T&M MINI MART 1 0 0 TOBACCO OUTLET PLUS-S. RIV. 1 0 0 TOT^, 22 o o o 0 Column A is the number of times a license holder is visited specifically checking for underage sales. Solumn B is the number of people charged with possession under the legal age. Note, this is not the total number of chargess. BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION February 2005 KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS · Type of Improvement .' ADD - Addition ~ ALT- Alteration REP- Repair ~ ~, ,, FND - Foundation Only ~1'- 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 BuiMing MIX- Mixed NON- Non-residential OTH- Other Page: 2 City of Iowa City Date: 3/1/2005 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: 2/1/2005 From: 2/28/2005 Census Bureau Report Tgpe Type Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD05-00127 MICHAEL T MCLAUGHLIN 512 S DODGE ST ADD RDF 2 1 $120,000 CONVERT SFD TO DUPLEX WITH BUILDING ADDITION BLD05-00128 MICHAEL T MCLAUGHLIN 514 S DODGE ST ADD RDF 2 1 $120,000 CONVERT SFD TO DUPLEX WITH BUILDING ADDITION BLD05-00078 JACK SHULTZ 98 JEMA CT ADD RDF 2 2 $36,000 SCREEN PORCH AND ROOM ADDITION TO RDF UNIT Total ADD/RI)F permits: 3 Total Valuation: $276,000 1 BLD04-00700 JAMES A & LORETTA C CLA 522 E BURLINGTON ST ADD RMF 3 2 $6,000 EXTERIOR DECKS Total ADD/RMF permits: I Total Valuation: $6,000 ~ BLD05-00073 RANDY BRAVERMAN 330 LEE ST ADD RSF 2 2 $320,000 ADDITION AND REMODEL OF SFD BLD05-00054 STEPHEN BLOOM 416 S SUMMIT ST ADD RSF 1 1 $100,000 DECK ADDITION AND INTERIOR REMODEL OF SFD BLD05-00077 JEFF & ELLEN SEGAR 100 OAKRIDGE AVE ADD RSF 2 2 $65,000 ADDITION & ALTERATION OF SFD BLD05-00084 MYRL & DENISE HOLIDA 1417 W BENTON ST ADD RSF 1 2 $35,000 ADDITION TO SFD BLD05-00059 LU, KATHERINE 1219 TYLER CT ADD RSF 1 1 $1,100 MUDROOM ADDITION TO SFD Total AD D/RSF permits: 5 Total Valuation: $$21,1ool BLD05-00045 PROCTER&GAMBLE 2200 LOWER MUSCATINE ALT NON 1 1 $250,000 EXPAND LABEL STORAGE AREA/BUILDING INTERIOR BLD05-00055 BLICK ART MATERIAL 201 S CLINTON ST 205L ALT NON 2 1 $124,000 ART SUPPLY STORE TENANT FINISH IN MALL SPACE BLD05-00052 DAWN'S HIDE & BEAD AWA 220 -22 WASHINGTON ST ALT NON 1 1 $73,000 INTERIOR REMODEL OF STORE/STOREFRONT BLD05-00044 MERCY HOSPITAL 500 MARKET ST ALT NON 3 1 $63,000 MRI REPLACEMENT IN HOSPITAL BLD05-00058 HAWKEYE TITLE 568 HIGHWAY 1 WEST ALT NON 1 1 $28,000 LAW OFFICE REMODEL BLD05-00120 SONOCO CORRFLEX 2570 INDEPENDENCE RD ALT NON 2 1 $25,000 ALTERATION OF BREAK ROOM/CAFETERIA BLD05-00082 GYPSY MAGIC 201 S CLINTON ST 135 ALT NON 2 2 $12,000 INTERIOR TENANT ALTERATION OF MALL SPACE BLD05-00048 HY-VEE INC 1720 WATERFRONT DR ALT NON 1 1 $7,200 REMODEL SCANNER ROOM BLD05-00072 DOMINO'S PIZZA 527 S RIVERSIDE DR ALT NON 2 2 $5,500 NEW FACADE Page: 3 City of Iowa City Date: 3/1/2005 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: 2/1/2005 Census Bureau ~w~ From: 2/28/2005 Type TVp e Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD05-00083 PATRICK SEYDEL 922 MAIDEN LN ALT NON 2 2 $2,000 INTERIOR REMODEL OF PIZZA OUTLET BLD05-00053 RED POPPY 341 COLLEGE ST ALT NON 1 1 $1,000 CONVERT OFFICE SPACE TO TEA ROOM Total ALT/NON permits: 11 Total Valuation: $590,700 BLD05-00057 ALAN & PAT BALLOU 1004 MARCY ST ALT RMV ! 1 $12,000 BASEMENT FINISH AND 1ST FLOOR FIREPLACE TotaIALT/RMF permits: 1 Total Valuation: $12,000 1 BLD05-00119 WAYNE 8,; LINDA PETERSE1~ 907 N GILBERT ST ALT RSF 2 1 $59,000 BASEMENT FINISH OF SFD BLD05-00049 JIM & KERRY FEELEY 310 BLACKHAWK ST ALT RSF 1 1 $45,000 BASEMENT FINISH OF SFD BLD05-00080 GEOFF & ERIKA LAUER 741 DEARBORN ST ALT RSF 2 2 $40,000 ATTIC FINISH OF SFD BLD05-00060 DARREL & JUDY HANSEN 83 DURANGO PL ALT RSF 1 1 $29,043 BASEMENT FINISH OF SFD BLD05-00123 TIM O'CONNOR 1021 TOWER CT ALT RSF 1 1 $25,000 INTERIOR REMODEL OF SFD BLD05-00103 DENNIS SPENCER 17 QUAIL VALLEY CT ALT RSF 2 0 $13,600 Lower level finish BLD05-00092 JILL K1LAUSE 629 OAKLAND AVE ALT RSF 2 1 $13,000 BATH REMODEL IN SFD BLD05-00110 TRAVIS SHIELD 4721 DRYDEN CT ALT RSF 2 1 $10,500 BASEMENT FINISH OF SFD BLD05-00065 MATT TENTINGER 915 N GOVERNOR ST ALT RSF 2 1 $8,100 ADD DOORWAY IN SFD AND FOUNDATION REPAIR BLD05-00076 DON & JOAN ALTON 62 EALING DR ALT RSF 2 2 $4,500 ALTER TO BATH/LAUNDRY ROOM BLD05-00111 PATTY STOLLEY 1277 OAKES DR ALT RSF 2 1 $4,000 BASEMENT BATHROOM FOR SFD BLD05-00075 AHRENS CONCRETE FLOOR 1628 CALIFORNIA AVE ALT RSF 2 2 $3,000 BASEMENT FINISH OF SFD BLD05-00093 MCCREEDY, WILLIAM G 444 2ND AVE ALT RSF 2 1 $600 CONVERT BASEMENT ROOM TO BEDROOM/ADD EORESS WINDOW Total ALT/RSF permits: 13 Total Valuation: $255,343/ ! BLD05-00067 PAT FOSTER 1805 WATERFRONT DR NEW NON 1 1 $8,233 DETACHED STORAGE BUILD1NG Total NEW/NON permits: 1 Total Valuation: $8,233 Page: 4 City of Iowa City Date: 3/1/2005 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: 2/1/2005 Census Bureau From: 2/28/2005 Type Type Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD04-00215 CORY HODUPP 50 HIDDEN MEADOW LN NEW RDF 3 2 $325,698 TOWNHOUSE DUPLEX 50-52 HIDDEN MEADOW LANE BLD05-00069 SADDLEBROOK MEADOWS 138 PRIMROSE CT NEW RDF 2 2 $204,603 DUPLEX WITH ATTACHED SINGLE CAR AND 2 CAR GARAGES 138-140 PRIMROSE CT BLD05-00102 SADDLEBROOKMEADOWS 48 PRIMROSE CT NEW RDF 2 2 $204,138 DUPLEX WITH ATTACHED SINGLE CAR AND DOUBLE CAR GARAGES BLD05-00070 SADDLEBROOK MEADOWS 150 PRIMROSE CT NEW RDF 2 2 $197,130 DUPLEX WITH ATTACHED SINGLE CAR GARAGES BLD05-00071 SADDLEBROOKMEADOWS 158 PRIMROSE CT NEW RDF 2 2 $197,130 DUPLEX WITH ATTACHED SINGLE CAR AND 2 CAR GARAGES 158-160 Total NEW/RDF permits: 5 Total Valuation: $1,128,699 i BLD04-00213 CORY HODUPP 14 HIDDEN MEADOW LN NEW RMF 2 4 $750,004 4 UNIT TOWNHOUSES 14-16-18-20 HIDDEN MEADOW LANE BLD05-00105 THIRD ST PARTNERS LLC 51 MONTGOMERY PL NEW RMF 1 3 $384,826 TRIPLEX WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGES 51-55-59 MONTGOMERY PLACE Total W/ .Fpermits:2 Tota, Valuation: 1,134,8301 BLD05-00025 JEFF CLARK 918 N GILBERT ST NEW RSF 3 1 $350,000 SFD WITH ATTACHED 4 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00061 CHANDLEE BUILDING INC. 914 HONEYSUCKLE DR NEW RSF 2 1 $310,000 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00118 KEVIN KIDWELL 1007 PRAIRIE GRASS LN NEW RSF 2 1 $265,000 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00125 ARLINGTON DEV INC 4400 CUMBERLAND LN NEW RSF 1 1 $247j795 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00109 DENNIS SPENCER CONSTR[ 27 QUAIL VALLEY CT NEW RSF 2 1 $220,000 SFD WITH ATTACHE 2 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00124 ARLINGTON DEV INC 4439 CUMBERLAND LN NEW RSF 1 1 $197,138 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00104 ARLINGTON DEV INC 4401 BUCKINGHAM LN NEW RSF 1 1 $178,989 S.F.D. with two car garage BLD05-00106 SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMEN 23 CHARLES DR NEW RSF 1 1 $178,000 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00121 WALDEN WOOD ASSOCIAT 132 LINDEMANN DR NEW RSF 1 ! $175,179 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00087 GARY WERLE 1207 SWISHER ST NEW RSF 2 1 $158,131 SFD WITH DETACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00088 GARY WERLE 1227 SWISHER ST NEW RSF 2 1 $158,131 SFD WITH DETACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00089 GARY WERLE 1247 SWISHER ST NEW RSF 2 1 $1581131 SFD WITH DETACHED 2 CAR GARAGE Page: 5 City of Iowa City Date: 3/1/2005 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To: 2/1/2005 Census Bureau ~,. p,,,Lr~e-~ From: 2/28/2005 Type Type Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD05-00126 L & I-I DEVELOPMENT 2354 RUSSELL DR NEW RSF 1 1 $147,666 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00056 ARLiNGTON DEVELOPMEN 4579 YORK PL NEW RSF 1 1 $146,280 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLD05-00095 MONIOUE & RYAN HOLTIO 2221 A ST NEW RSF 1 1 $145,000 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE Total NEW/RSF permlts: 15 Total Valuation: $3,035,440/ 1 BLD05-00112 LEiN VU 1251 -53 DOLEN PL REP RDF 2 1 $3,000 DECK REPAIR FOR RDF UNIT Total REP/RDF permits: 1 Total Valuation: $3,000 l BLD05-00094 EMERGENCY HOUSiNG PR( 331 N GILBERT ST REP RMF 2 1 $8,000 REPLACE EXTERIOR STAIRS/FIRE REPAIR BLD05-00113 GARY ALBERTSON 210 DAVENPORT ST REP RMF 2 1 $5,000 FIRE REPAIR OF RENTAL UNIT BLD05-00114 JOHN O & JOELLEN S ROFFI~ 611 S CLiNTON ST REP RMF 2 1 $1,000 REBUILD WALLS FOR APARTMENT UNIT Total REP/RMF permits: 3 Total Valuation: $14,000 / 1 BLD05-00108 PAUL & KIMBERLY AUS 1611 W BENTON ST REP RSF 1 1 $61,550 FIRE REPAIR OF SFD BLD05-00079 ED & LISA LEFF 701 OAKLAND AVE REP RSF 2 2 $21,000 RESIDiNG SFD iN HISTORIC DISTRICT BLD05-00063 RICHARD STALKFLEET 1741 DOVER ST REP RSF 2 1 $9,687 FIRE REPAIR OF SFD BLD05-00096 WILLIAM D KEETTEL 343 HUTCHiNSON AVE REP RSF 1 1 $9,500 ADD STRUCTURAL BEAM IN BASEMENT BLD05-00074 BARBARA VINOGRADE 741 GRANT ST REP RSF 2 2 $8,000 FOUNDATION REPAIR OF SFD BLD05-00107 FRANK DURHAM 409 S SUMMIT ST REP RSF 1 1 $1,800 REPLACE FRONT STAIRS ON SFD BLD05-00085 PRESSLER, MARCUS E 1632 CENTER AVE REP RSF 1 2 $1,000 REPLACE DOOR AND WlNDOWS, REBUILD ENTRY STEPS Total REP/RSF permits: 7 Total Valuation: $112,537 / 1 GRAND TOTALS: PERMITS: 68 VALUATION: $7,097,882 i Marian Karr From: Len Sandier [leonard-sandler@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:12 PM To: Anissa-Williams@iowa-city.org Cc: jeff-davidson @[owa-city.org; cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Countdown Timer At Dubuque and Burlington Street March 2, 2005 Anissa Williams JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Countdown Timer at Dubuque and Burlington Streets Dear Ms. Williams: I wanted to be one of the first people to thank you, your department and the Iowa City City Council for installing the countdown timer at the intersection of Dubuque and Burlington streets. It is a welcome and critical first step in ensuring the safety of pedestrians of all ages and abilities who live in or visit Iowa City. People now know how much time, down to the second, they have to cross Burlington Street before the light changes. This simple, inexpensive solution provides information and peace of mind that is particularly important for people with limited mobility. Please let me know about other measures and actions you recommend or plan to take along Burlington Street. The University of Iowa Clinical Law Program, the Johnson County Coalition for Persons with Disabilities and other local organizations stand prepared to assist you in these efforts to improve the quality of life in Iowa City. Sincerely yours, Len Sandler Clinical Professor of Law cc: Johnson County Coalition for Persons with Disabilities Date: March 1, 2005 To: City Council From: John Yapp, JCCOG Assistant Transportation Planner Re: Downtown bicycle racks Last fall, JCCOG completed a bike rack utilization study of downtown Iowa City, including both City racks and racks maintained by the University of Iowa. The utilization study is meant to provide objective guidance for where additional bike racks may be needed. There are two indicators of when additional bicycle racks are needed in a particular area: whether bike racks are full in any part of the day, and/or if bicyclists are locking their bicycles to trees and sign posts due to a bicycle rack not being immediately available. It becomes an enforcement issue to try to discourage bicyclists from locking their bikes illegally. The only area where bike racks were consistently full was on the west side of Phillips Hall. We have communicated this to the University of Iowa. There are several areas where bicycles were locked to trees, sign posts, and other street furniture, including the south side of Washington Street near Java House and Quinton's, the south side of Iowa Avenue between Clinton Street and Dubuque Street, and in front of George's Buffet on Market Street. There is space available within the public right-of-way to add City bicycle racks to these areas. Another observation we made was the sheltered bicycle racks in the Capitol Street parking garage were seldom used. When I have fielded requests for sheltered bicycle parking downtown (usually after a rainstorm), bicyclists are unaware of the Capitol Street garage bike parking spaces. We intend to post a SHELTERED BICYCLE PARKING HERE sign near the Capitol Street ramp bicycle parking spaces to better inform bicyclists of these spaces. We are ordering bicycle racks for the south side of Washington Street east of the Pedestrian Mall, the south side of Iowa Avenue between Clinton Street and Washington Street, and on Market Street in front of George's Buffet. We will also be adding oval-lock bicycle racks to the three parking meter posts on Dubuque Street which do not yet have the oval-lock racks. The total cost of these racks is approximately $2,000. We hope to have them installed by National Bicycle Week, which begins on May 16. Let me know if you have any questions. cc: Steve Atkins Karin Franklin Jeff Davidson Terry Trueblood jccogt p/mem/cou ncil-bikeracks.doc JOHNSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH Ralph Wilmoth, MPH, MPA Director February 28, 2005 R.J. Winkelhake, Chief Iowa City Police Department 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Chief Winkelhake: I am wdting to express my appreciation for all that you and your department provide for the Iowa City community. I had some understanding of the benefit of the Iowa City Police Department to those who live and work here, but that understanding has been expanded by a first hand view of the department in action. As you are aware, I am very concerned about the excessive use of alcohol in the community and particularly the activities in and around downtown Iowa City involving young adults on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. On Saturday, February 26~ I had the opportunity to dde with Officer Todd Cheney from about 11:30 p.m. until 3:30 a.m. Officer Cheney demonstrated his knowledge, skill, and ability to address a wide vadety of situations by exercising good judgment and using sophisticated communications equipment and techniques. I also observed the interaction between the dispatch staff and Officer Cheney's fellow officers - both through communications equipment and on the scene. I was particularly impressed by the ability of a few officers to cover so many events simultaneously occurring in the downtown area. My one concern is regarding the limited number of officers during the challenging late night hours. As a member of the greater Johnson County community and the Director of the local public health agency I would like to express my confidence and appreciation in the service you and your department provide. My si~ere.thanks and-appreciation, Ralph Wilmoth -- or c: Mayor Emie Lehman Steve Atkins Captain Matt Johnson Lieutenant Rick Wyss Sergeant Kevin Hurd Officer Todd Cheney 1105 GILBERT COURT · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 · PHONE: (319)356-6040 · FAX: (319)356-6044 Marian Karr ~ From: Shore, Jason G [iason-shore@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:05 PM To: Skorton, David J; Nelson, William R; Ashby, Kelley C; Grady, David L; Nelson, William R; Marner, Belinda L; Jones,Phillip E; Hogan, Michael J; Schutte, Lindsay J; Beatty, Ryan P Cc: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Please Save The Date.2005-06 UISG Inauguration Hey Everyone, WHAT: The Inauguration of the 2005-06 University of Iowa Student Government (UISG) Executive Officers and Installation of Officers and Senators WHEN: Saturday, April 2, 2005 4:00 pm (at the conclusion of the 2005 Student Leadership Development Conference) WHERE: Richey Ballroom Third Floor, Iowa Memorial Union Please join us in celebrating the accomplishments of the 2004-05 UISG and its executives, and in introducing the 2005-06 UISG leadership. A reception will follow immediately in the Faculty/Staff Reception area adjacent to the Richey Ballroom. Sincerely, Jason Shore UISG Vice President 319 335 3859 ~ Phone: (319) $56.5400 l ~ ~ FAX: OIY) 356'5459 TDD: (319) 356.5404 UTHORIT¥ 410 [5. [Vashington Street · Ioma City . Ioma · 52240.1826 Quick Facts · Certificate of Achievement for Family Self- · Grant Funds Awarded FY05 & CY05 Sufficiency Program Success. · Certificate of Achievement for Housing Choice Public Housing (Federal) Voucher Homeownership Program Success. Capital Funds Program (CAP) = $188,422 · 96% Score & Certificate of Exemplary Operating Subsidy = $207,763 Performance in the Public Housing Assessment ROSS Grant = $83,333 System (PHAS). HCV Renewal · 100% score for Section 8 Management Annual Contributions Contract = $6,372,592 Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification. Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinator (FSS) = $63,000 · Administers: Homeownership Coordinator = $51,240 1. Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. 2. Public Housing. Total Grant Funds FY04 = $6,966,276 3. HCV Homeownership Program. 4. Tenant Ownership Program (TOP). · Payment In Lieu Of Taxes = $23,501 5. Affordable Dream Homeownership Program (ADHOP). · Active client demographics 6. Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS). 7. Resident Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency ~' Family Characteristics: (ROSS). · Service Area · 91% Elderly, Disabled & Working Families. 1. Section 8 (Vouchers) · 72% Female Head of Household. -- Johnson County MSA, portions of Iowa & · 69% White Head of Household. Washington Counties · 56% Disabled or Eldedy Families. 2. Public Housing · 54% All Families with Minor Children. -- City of Iowa City · 51% Working Families. · 29% African-American Head of Household. · Available units · 15% Disabled and/or Elderly and working. 1. Section 8 Vouchers 1,213 ~' Income Sources (All Family Members _> 18): 2. Public Housing 87 Total 1,300 · 29% Employment. · 22% Social Security (SS). · Actual funds received FY04 year end for housing assistance · 17% Supplemental Security Income (SSDI). · 9% Family Investment Program (FIP). 1. Section 8 · 7% Other Non-WageSoumes. Annual Contributions Contract = $6,568,147 · 5% Child support. · 3% Pensions. 2. Public housing · 1% Self-Employment. Rental income = $219,490 · 1% Unemployment Insurance (UI) Capital Funds Program (CAP) = $158,063 Performance Funding System · Homeownership Cumulative Totals by Program Operating Subsidy = $167,759 ROSS Grant = $55,641 ~ 12 HCV program. :~ 19 TOP program. TotaIFunds Received FY04 =$7,169,100 ~ 7 ADHOP program. )~ 30 FSSpmgram. Created on 2/25/2005 ! 1:05:00 AM MINUTES FINAL DEER TASK FORCE MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2005 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM - CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Farrant, Alan Nagel, Harold Goff, Pete Sidwell, Linda Dykstra MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Ashman, Peter Jochimsen, Martin Jones STAFF PRESENT: Kathi Johansen, Karin Franklin OTHERS: Tim Thompson (IDNR) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Farrant called the meeting to order at 5:56 PM. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: Chairperson Farrant noted that they do have an application for the biologist/scientist seat on the Task Force. Nagel briefly discussed the applicant. Sidwell moved to accept the application of Gene Szymkowiak to fill the open position; seconded by Goff. Motion passed 5 to 0. APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2005, MEETING: Chairperson Farrant asked if anyone had any observations or corrections to the minutes. Goff noted that on the 3rd page, top paragraph, that the wording does not sound right. After a brief discussion, it was decided to change this to "work best only after immediately installed" or "are most effective after...". Nagel noted one other point, on page 2, first full paragraph, "Nagel suggested that the City should keep deer management in mind when ..." and he asked for some clarity here. Johansen will make these amendments. ANNEXATION OF LAND: Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development, spoke to the members about land annexation, and used a map to show them the areas that the City plans to annex within the next five years. Members asked questions regarding new developments and whether or not the City is involved in things like fencing issues and covenants for developments. Franklin noted that the developer typically does covenants, and the City has little to do with them. The topic of not allowing fencing was discussed, with members noting that lack of fencing allows more deer into the yards of these developments. Franklin stated that the Task Force could pass on a strong recommendation to the City Council for further review of this issue. DISCUSSION OF DEER MANAGEMENT: Sharpshoot status: Johansen reported that she does not have a report yet from White Buffalo, but she does expect this within the next two weeks. Before Tony left on February 11th, he stated that they were able to shoot approximately 154 deer. Johansen stated that they did not have any complaints registered during the kill period. Bow Hunting: Nagel reported that he spoke with people in several different cities about how they are dealing with this issue. Two reports stated that deer had died in "visible places" one in Bettendorf and a questionable one in Coralville. He stated the problems were very minimal. He also spoke with Bruce Freeman about the arrow issue, and Coralville only counted one or two arrows per deer. The issue of the cost of arrows was also brought up, and how most hunters will retrieve their arrows due to cost. Goff stated that he finds this information very useful, and he feels White Buffalo has done a good job; however, he feels the time has come to use bow hunting as a compliment to the sharpshooting. Sidwell asked if the topic has ever been brought up to the voters on a ballot. Thompson stated that that was why the Task Force was created, to be the voice for the public. Nagel suggested they set a meeting just for the bow hunting issues, as he would like to see some action taken. (TAPE ENDS) Other Methods: Thompson noted that he would need to have a list of "special hunt areas" by March 1st in order to get this approved. Sidwell asked if there was a "better time" in the year to do a successful hunt, and Thompson noted that the first few weeks of October are probably best, due to the rutting season. Deer Reflectors: Johansen will add this issue to the next agenda. Handouts: Johansen briefly reviewed the handouts that the members received. She stated that she had contacted the U.S.D.A., as directed by the Task Force, and the response is included in their handouts. The discussion turned to obtaining information from the U.S.D.A. on optional kill methods and costs. It was decided that Johansen would respond to the U.S.D.A. letter and would ask for this information. Thompson reported on the recent deer count and explained his handout to the members. He stated the numbers shown were before the sharpshooting. Farrant noted that the numbers were down. Thompson noted there are approximately 45 deer per square mile. Johansen noted that the members also received a handout regarding Mr. Gary Brown and asked if they would like to have this added to the next agenda. Members agreed to this. REVIEW 2004-2005 DEER MANAGEMENT REPORT: Chairperson Farrant asked the members if they wanted to review this at this evening's meeting, or would they prefer to do their own review. Members agreed that they would review the report and make suggestions. Farrant asked that the members give her feedback by the 25th, and she will then come up with a final draft for review at the next meeting. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None. OTHER BUSINESS: Johansen reported that she spoke with Barb Coffey, Document Services Supervisor, to place notice on the City's web page pertaining to the presentation by Larry Stone on March 28, "Whitetail: Treasure, Trophy or Trouble? Johansen will follow-up with Coffey on this topic. Discussion turned to getting flyers out in public places to notify the community of this program. Johansen will bring them to the next meeting for members to post throughout the community. SET AGENDA AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING: It was decided to set an extra meeting to discuss other methods of deer kill. This meeting will be March 1st at 5:45 PM. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be March 22nd at 5:45 PM. ADJOURN: Goff moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 PM; seconded by Nagel. Deer Management Task Force Attendance Record 2005 1/18 2/15 J. Ashman X A L. Dykstra X X P. Farrant X X H. Goff X X M. Jones X A P. Sidweil A X A. Nagel X X P. Jochimsen X A Key: X = Present A = Absent NM = No Meeting UlNUTES APPROVED SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE JANUARY 24, 2005 CiTY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Left, Jan Peterson, Sally Stutsman, Joan Vandenberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Anciaux STAFF PRESENT: Karin Franklin, Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Amanda Cline, Maryann Dennis, Charles Eastham, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis Kluklenski, Luke Pelz CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 6:40 pm. Approval of the January 3, 2005 Minutes: Several revisions noted for the Minutes. MOTION: A motion was made by Left, seconded by Stutsman, to approve the January 3, 2005 Minutes as amended. Motion carried 7-0. TASKFORCE DELIBERATION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Hayek began by reviewing the key points of the previous meeting. He noted that the Taskforce reached a consensus on three items, those being as follows: 1) concentrations of poverty in the community should be avoided; 2) Iowa City needs to continue to provide affordable housing; and 3) the City should explore scattering affordable housing. He said the Taskforce now needs to think about moving to the conclusion of the process, with the goal to present to the City Council in early March. Hayek said that the UI student group had completed breaking down the data into census tract and block groups, lie suggested beginning the meeting by reviewing the census data and having the students to discuss the new tables. Left said she did not receive Table 2 in her packet. Glaesemann said Table 2 was not included as there were not revisions. Nasby said Table 2 is the same as the one previously distributed. Glaesemann said Table '1 was revised because an error was found in the data. Table 3 is data on block groups in the same format as Table 1, and includes data for both rental and owner-occupied units in separate columns. Table 4 is the percent of assisted housing units in each block group, with '100% being the number of units in all of Iowa City. Table 4 also includes information on the percent of all housing and rental units located in each block group. Hayek asked for confirmation that the data for Table 3 is a comparison of the percent of assisted housing within each block, while Table 4 is the percent compared to the whole city. Glaesemann confirmed this was correct. Hayek noted that the Taskforce had decided to set aside criteria specifically relating to schools because of disagreement about the link between assisted housing and school performance, and its significance. Leff pointed out that according to Table 4, there are two tracts with the highest percentage of assisted units in each block group. Those are tracts 4 with 33.5%, which includes Pheasant Ridge and a lot of assisted housing for elderly and disabled, and 18 with 18.9%. Vandenberg said there are several tracts with no assisted housing units, or less than '1%. She noted that zoning or land use may be a factor, but it still is a dramatic difference. Hayek agreed that Table 4 is significant. Hayek asked for confirmation that Section 8 is not included in the data. Rackis confirmed that is correct. Vandenberg asked if Section 8 housing is already scattered around the city. Rackis said yes as the tenants pick where they want to live. He added that the Section 8 vouchers follow population trends in the area with approximately 800 vouchers in Iowa City, 250 in Coralville, and 70 in North Liberty. He said that some Section 8 vouchers would be included in the tract\block data, since the only restriction on Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 2 voucher use is that they cannot be used in housing already subsidized by Section 8 project-based assistance, and that the rent has to be reasonable and affordable. As such, projects that are on the list could also be participating in the Section 8 program. Anthony said that Tables 3 and 5 show some striking data. For example according to Table 3, 15.8% of all units in tract 14 are assisted, while approximately 50% of rental units in that tract are assisted. Some block groups have a high percent of the population living below the poverty level. Block groups 1 and 2 of tract 11 have high percentages of poverty, block group 1 at 52.5% and 2 at 38.6%. In tract 16 block 2, 71.9% are below poverty level. Those numbers are very high. Hayek noted that census tracts 11 and 21 likely have a high number of students. Clausen said that tract 21 is downtown, while 11 and 16 are student areas. Hayek said that as he understands the data, the only students not included in the poverty data were those living in dormitories. Nasby and Anthony confirmed that was correct. Anthony suggested the Taskforce use the guideline discussed earlier, which was 10% above the City- wide standard, and apply that number to the block group data for both poverty levels and the percentage of assisted housing as listed in Table 3. Block groups that meet both standards would be ones where no more assisted housing should be built. Areas with 10% less than that may be places where more assisted housing should be encouraged. Hayek agreed, and suggested creating a matrix with this information. Anthony said that applying the standard to poverty and then combining it with assisted housing would help tie the data to the mission of the Taskforce. The Taskforce should also look at zoning to see what types of housing are permissible in those areas. Hayek said that the data from Tables 3 and 4 dovetail well, giving information about both the percentage within the block group, as well as how it compares to the rest of the City. Vandenberg noted that the data from those two tables does not give a clear idea of the density in the area. Anthony noted that the Taskforce does not have density information, though Table 3 indicates the number of units versus the total units. Vandenberg added that those numbers have a wide variance, from 13 to 2,600. Glaesemann said that Table 4 can help give an idea about density, though that information is not directly linked. It compares the distribution of assisted housing units versus the distribution of housing units and rental units. For example, tract 4 block group 1 houses 34% of all assisted housing units, and 10% of all rental units. Hayek asked if there ~s a way to quantify the density issue. Anthony replied that Table 3 is the closest, since it gives the number of assisted units in the block versus the total number of units. The data is given both for the number of rental units, as well as the total units. Hayek suggested that discussion of density could be addressed in the recommendations. Hayek asked if there was agreement to use Tables 3 and 4 to start comparing data. General agreement was expressed by the Taskforce. Anthony suggested including data from Table 5 as well, because of the poverty data. Hayek said he would like to account for students in the data. Left noted the Council members would be aware of some of the issues with the student population. Anthony added that the student areas are in poverty from year to year, even if there are different students living there. Peterson asked if the data could be sorted by family versus elderly or single. Hayek said that is possible, but may present fair housing problems. Anthony said the Taskforce's proposal could not distinguish between those groups. Hayek agreed, clarifying that City Policy couldn't distinguish between different groups. Vandenberg said there is a wide variation in both assisted housing and poverty levels. Hayek said that Tables 3, 4, and 5 would be used to create the matrix, which would be a more objective measure. Then the narrative that will accompany the recommendations could include other information that is not easily quantified. Vandenberg said that clarification is needed in the written recommendations about which assisted housing is being referenced in the tables, perhaps even providing a list indicating the number and type of housing in each tract. Peterson agreed that assisted housing needs to be defined, because the impacts of different types are entirely different. Hayek said a starting point could be the list of providers. Nasby said Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 3 the provider list could be inventoried by tract. Vandenberg suggested making the inventory by tract and block group as well. Hayek said that in addition to making recommendations to the City Council, the Taskforce should also serve as a provider of information to the City. Vandenberg added that defining assisted housing relates to the public relations issue, and what sort of assisted housing will be built in different areas. It would help to dispel some myths about affordable housing. Vandenberg asked how many neighborhoods have a concentration by the current definition. She asked if 13.7% would be the number to use in the comparison. Anthony said yes, if assisted housing units are included. Hayek said it would be 17.4% if rental units were used. Hayek said that Table 3 could be divided into two separate measures. Anthony agreed, noting that they would measure both owner- occupied and rental units. Vandenberg asked if the number should be greater than or equal to the comparison number, or just greater than the number. Anthony and Hayek suggested using greater than the target number. Vandenberg said tract 105 is a problem for her. Left noted that tract has 68% of its rental units as assisted. Hayek said if the Taskforce could agree on the measures to be used then a subcommittee or City Staff can create the matrix. Clausen asked if median or average numbers should be used. Anthony said average is more easily understood. Clausen suggested using average. Hayek said that poverty data is difficult to use, because almost no blocks are in poverty if applying the 28.6% target number. The ones that are in poverty include mostly students. Anthony noted that the tracts that meet the criteria are tract 6 block group 1, tract 11 blocks 1 and 2, tract 16 blocks 1 and 2, and tract 21 blocks 1 and 2. He asked which tracts are student areas. Clausen said tracts 11 and 16. Stutsman added tract 21. Hayek said that tract 6 and portions of tract 23 also have student populations. Vandenberg said that it seems like the criteria will be excluding neighborhoods that should be included. Anthony asked if there is agreement to have no more assisted housing in tract 11 if there is an option to put it elsewhere. Hayek added that the Taskforce needs to decide on how many criteria need to be met in order for a block to fall within the target group. Hayek suggested creating the matrix and seeing how the numbers work out, then evaluating the data again at the next meeting. Taskforce members expressed general agreement. He said that measures should be decided, and noted that Tables 3, 4, and 5 have been discussed so far. Tables 3 and 4 should be separated so that rental and owner-occupied are separate. Vandenberg asked that a description of the nature of the assisted units to be included as well. Anthony confirmed that if using Table 3, blocks with 10% more than the City average would be places where more assisted housing possibly would not be wanted. He asked if a similar measure could be applied to Table 4. Peterson asked if it should be equal to or greater than the number. Vandenberg said it should be greater than. Nasby confirmed that the SSHT discussion said that areas 10% above the City average is the Taskforce's definition of concentrated. So, while an area may be higher than the City average, it may not necessarily be concentrated by that definition? Hayek said that if the matrix translates into a score sheet for development applications, then for example certain incentives could be offered for building housing into areas with very little assisted housing, different or fewer incentives could be offered to put housing into gray areas, and no incentives would be offered for building in areas with high numbers of housing. Anthony suggested that recommendations should include concentrated or not, rather than having different gradations, as that is how the City has used that guideline in the past with poverty and minorities. Hayek noted that would be clearer. Anthony agreed that incentives should be in place so that developers will look outside of the tracts that the Taskforce identifies as concentrated. Anthony asked what cutoff should be used with Table 4. Hayek asked how many total block groups are in the City. Vandenberg said there are 40. Nasby said that neither housing nor population is equally divided Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes January 24, 2005 Page 4 into all the blocks. Anthony asked for confirmation that many of the zeros on the chart indicate areas where housing is not permitted. Nasby said he thought that was likely. Peterson said she would like to know the zoning for the different areas. Vandenberg agreed that it would be helpful to know whether proposing housing in certain areas would be feasible or not. Questions were raised by Taskforce members about where certain tracts are located. Glaesemann said that data from census tracts located in Coralville were not included on the tables. Clausen noted that tract 104 has no housing because it includes part of the airport. Franklin said that a mobile home park is located in that tract. Stutsman asked what the plans are for the Lake Ridge area. Franklin replied the plan is to annex it, though the owner has not yet agreed. Hayek asked if the benchmark numbers the Taskforce is using are accurate from a statistical point of view. Anthony replied that the City has used that measure in the past, and using a different one would require justification. He said he would prefer to keep to the City's existing logic. Vandenberg asked if the target number is 2.5. Hayek said it is 12.5. Peterson asked if the Taskforce would be applying the measure to census tracts or block groups. Clausen and Anthony replied it would be block groups. Franklin asked how the number 12.5 was decided. Hayek said that the City has used 10% above the City average. Anthony said the number of block groups was divided by 100% to obtain the average (100% divided by the 40 block groups). Franklin noted that some of the block groups are in the County, and asked if they should be included in the total number. If using that rationale, then some blocks should be removed. For example, block I of tract 105 look likes it includes the industrial park off of Highway 6. It also extends all the way to Interstate 80; so much of the block is not in the City. Blocks 2, 3, and 4 are not in the City at all, so should not be included in the total of 40. Franklin said in tract 104, it looks like block 4 is in the City but not the other block groups of tract 104. Hayek said those corrections can be made. Anthony said the corrections would need to be applied consistently across all the tables. Clausen said that Table I includes all units, which may pose a problem if it includes units that are not in the City. Anthony noted that Table I is not being used for the matrix. Rackis said that since the census data was collected, approximately 500 rental units have been built, which is a 3% increase and none of those units would be defined as "assisted". Clausen asked where The Lodge is located and how many units it has. Rackis said it is in tract 5. Nasby said it currently has 200+ units. Rackis added that it is still under construction, so many of its rental permits will not be issued until later in 2005. The target is to be done by August 2005. Vandenberg said she would like to know which block groups would be inappropriate for housing or not zoned for it. Hayek said examination of zoning should be included in the recommendation to the City, so the Taskforce does not need to evaluate it. Vandenberg said it would be helpful to know what areas could not be zoned for housing while developing the recommendations. Franklin said that the block groups would not have very much differentiation in zoning because of the way they are drawn. While tract 17 block 1 could be excluded because of the industrial area, there are few other places where it is defined enough to exclusively preclude housing. Most commercial areas are zoned for retail or office, but there could be residential above the business. Stutsman asked about tract 104. Franklin replied that 104 includes two mobile home parks, though the potential for more housing to be built there is Iow. Hayek asked for confirmation that it would be difficult to make zoning conclusions based on block groups. Franklin said yes, because residential zoning is widespread even in commercial areas. Vandenberg suggested that zoning may not be a large issue then. Franklin agreed, noting that tract 17 block I is a good one to remove from consideration because it is an industrial area. However, even that block has some apartments. Anthony asked whether information on undeveloped land in each block group is available. Franklin said an overlay could be done. Anthony said that would help the Taskforce see what areas are available for future development. Franklin asked whether the focus should be on rental or owner-occupied. The Taskforce members agreed that information on both would be preferred. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes Januaw 24,2005 Page 5 Hayek suggested deciding on the measures the Taskforce would like to use, and then have a group put the data together to be presented at the next meeting. Then the Taskforce will evaluate the results. Hayek said currently Tables 3, 4, and 5, plus the inventory of the types of assisted housing by block group, have been discussed so far. Vandenberg said that numbers have been decided for all but Table 4. Hayek suggested using the two columns on the right side of Table 4 for informational purposes. That means there are currently five measures. Left asked what the fifth measure is. Hayek said it may not be a measure, but is the breakdown of the type of housing and where it is located. Nasby said it would not be included in the matrix, but would be attached for additional information. Hayek said that if the matrix is acceptable to the Taskforce, then step two of the process has been completed. Impacts have already been discussed in large part, so that step will not take long to finish. The Taskforce should then be in a position to discuss recommendations. He suggested the Taskforce members discuss how to proceed from this point, and asked if having the matrix done by January 31 is feasible. Nasby said it depends on the speed of the subcommittee. The numbers are available, so it should not take long. It would need to be done by Thursday to be mailed out with the packet. Vandenberg asked if the matrix could be emailed. Hayek said it would be also be posted on the internet, so that would be permissible. Stutsman asked whether the Taskforce would meet if the matrix were not done. Hayek said it would be done in time, so to plan to meet. He said that the Taskforce would be looking at the matrix, but also that the members should come to the meeting with thoughts about the recommendations. Vandenberg added that it would be good to consider benefits of scattering housing. Peterson asked if the dates for the February meetings have been set. Hayek said no. The Taskforce members discussed availability for meeting in February. Peterson suggested tabling the discussion until the January 31 meeting. Vandenberg asked what the Taskforce's to-do list is. Hayek said that a subcommittee would need to write the proposal based on feedback from the group, when that phase is reached. Likely what the Council will want is something in writing that includes some narrative as well as the matrix, and a list of suggestions. The suggestions are not going to be for the City to do things, but rather for the City to explore or investigate various options. Anthony asked if there are any assisted owner-occupied units in the City. Nasby replied yes, between 80 and 100 units. Some are ICHA, Habitat and Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship homes, and some had down-payment assistance. Rackis added that some are subsidized on a second mortgage, and some are Section 8. Nasby noted that this matter had come up previously, but since the numbers were quite Iow the data was not collected or mapped. Nasby added that this could be done if the Taskforce wanted the data. Hayek said that in terms of a to-do list, the group should reflect on the discussion so far, as well as the group's goals, corrections, and things that could be done better in all housing areas. That could even include suggestions on landlords and maintenance of rental units. The Taskforce will meet next Monday and discuss the matrix, then embark on the discussion about recommendations. Dennis asked if the meeting on January 31st would be at 6:30. Nasby said yes. Hayek said he received a call from Heather Shank, City Staff person for the Human Rights Commission. They would like to hear about what the Taskforce is doing, so Hayek will be giving a summary at their meeting on January 25. Nasby said it would be held in Emma Harvat Hall (a.k.a. Council Chambers) at 7:00. Hayek said he thinks that group was the one that sent a letter to the Council asking for an update. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the taskforce, Anthony moved to adjourn. Clausen seconded, and the motion passed uncontested. Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm. s:/pcdlminuteslScatteredSiteHousingTaskforce12005101.24.05ssht.doc Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Attendance Record 2005 01/03 1/24 D. Anciaux X O/E J. Anthony X X D. Clausen X X M. Hayek X X J. Left X X J. Peterson X X S. Stutsman X VandenBer§ X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASK FORCE JANUARY 31,2005 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Matthew Hayek, Jan Left, Jan Peterson, Joan Vandenberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Darlene Clausen, Sally Stutsman STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Eastham, Amanda Cline, Maryann Dennis, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis Kluklenski, Luke Pelz, Patti Santangelo CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 6:40 pm. He noted that the minutes from the January 24, 2005 meeting are not yet available, and will be reviewed at the next meeting. DELIBERATIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Hayek began by summarizing points from the last meeting. Consensus was reached on criteria to use to evaluate the census tract and block groups. Anthony and Nasby then created a matrix to apply the criteria to the block groups. The matrix was adjusted several times due to some census tracts being eliminated, as they were not in Iowa City. Nasby passed out the latest draft of the matrix. Anthony explained the matrix chart, which has all the information from the past several meetings, so there is nothing new. The matrix has gone though several iterations, so the data will need to be reviewed for accuracy again before being finalized. Columns I and 2 have geographic information, columns 3-6 have information on rental housing and percentages based on rental units, columns 7-10 have information on the percentage of assisted housing that is based on ail units, columns 11-16 are based on discussions from the last meeting, columns 17-19 are based on poverty, and 20-21 are left blank and can be filled in as necessary during the discussion. Column 3 total number of rental units per block group Column 4 number of assisted rental units per block group Column 5 percent of assisted rental units per block group, with 100% equaling all rental units in the block group Column 6 needs to be evaluated in greater detail, because data may not be correct Column 7 total number of units in each block group Column 8 number of assisted rental units, which is the same as column 4 Column 9 percentage of all units that are assisted rentals, or column 8 divided by column 7 Column 10 block groups can be selected using the City criteria, which is the City average plus 10% Column 11 percent of all rental units per block group, with 100% equaling all units in the City Column 12 percent of assisted rental units per block group, 100% equaling all assisted rental units in the City Column 13 column 12 divided by the citywide average, which was 3.03 in this iteration Column 14 column 12 divided by column 11 Column 17 percentage poverty rates in each block group Column 18 block groups selected for poverty level by City average plus 10% Column 19 block groups selected for poverty level by City median plus 10% Nasby explained the calculation of column 14 as a figure of how close the percent of assisted rental units is to the percent of total rental units within each block group. The idea is that the percent of assisted rental units should be close to the percent of rental units each block group represents. For example, a block group with 1.7% of the total number of rental units in the City should also have approximately 1.7% Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes January 31, 2005 Page 2 of the total assisted rental units, per the fair share approach. The total of column 14 would therefore be compared to column 5. Vandenberg noted the calculation in column 14 only compare neighborhoods with rental units, rather than ownership. Looking ahead, when trying to decide where to put more assisted housing, it would not be wise to limit consideration to only those places that have rental units. Anthony agreed, and said that the block groups with too much assisted housing would be shown in column 16. Anthony pointed out several block groups with very Iow numbers of assisted units, due to a Iow number of units overall. Hayek said that looking at column 3 with the total number of rental units per block group would be helpful in that evaluation. Anthony agreed, though he noted some block groups would still be missed, such as tract 105 block 1. Hayek asked whether columns 14 and 16 should be deleted, based on the discussion. Vandenberg said she likes to look at the raw scores, rather than the percentages. She continued by asking what the difference is between columns 18 and 19. Anthony answered that the median is the number in the middle of a series of numbers. For example, the median of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is 3. The median of 1,2, 3, 4, 100 is still 3. The average adds all the numbers up and then divides the total by the number of items. Vandenberg asked if median is a more accurate statistical figure. Anthony replied that it depends on what it is used for, though one thing median does is remove outliers. Dennis asked whether the information on all assisted units in the matrix includes housing for the elderly. Rackis replied it includes all existing, plus more that will be completed soon. Vandenberg handed out a chart detailing the different types of assisted housing in each tract. She said it is not completely accurate, as she does not know how all of the units should be categorized, such as elderly and disabled housing. She also did not have a breakdown on single versus family units. While the data is not accurate, it is a suggestion on a possible format for the data layout, and shows the further research that would be needed to make the information accurate. Vandenberg asked how one-bedroom units at Pheasant Ridge would be categorized. Rackis said it is estimated that 221 of 248 units are occupied by students. Single units are usually students, though the multiple bedroom units could have families. The family could be any type of family that qualifies for assistance, which could be Iow-income or a disabled family, for example. Vandenberg noted that this categorization could be significant. For example, Pheasant Ridge has a large impact on tract 4 block 1. Having that data sorted would be very helpful. Peterson agreed that it is important to know what type of assisted housing is being evaluated. Dennis asked if it would be simple to remove assisted housing units with specific regulations, such as housing that requires residents to be at least 55 years of age and allows no children. Nasby replied doing that raises a concern with fair housing and policies that target certain populations. Vandenberg said that the purpose would be to see where the different types of housing are located. Nasby agreed, noting that was why a table was put together with categories such as emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent housing, and permanent supportive housing while not distinguishing what demographic they were designed to serve. He said that looking at housing according to the type of population served is a slippery slope best avoided. Hayek said that still raises the concern that though the matrix will single out certain block groups for certain measures using the raw numbers, it is still helpful to know what types of housing are in the highlighted blocks. He asked how the Taskforce would like to approach that, while keeping the fair housing concerns in mind. Peterson said that since the Taskforce was discussing the approach to encourage building housing in certain areas, rather than restricting it in others, then it may not be an issue. Hayek said that if the Taskforce will be encouraging certain development in some areas and not encouraging it in others, then the result would essentially be the same. Vandenberg said that if looking at raw numbers, there are many spaces with "x." Anthony agreed, saying that numbers that were problematic have an "x" in their spaces. Nasby said that an "x" is missing from column 6, tract 17 block 1, which is 26.09. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes January 31, 2005 Page 3 Hayek said there is also the issue of 10 percentage points above the number, and whether to use that measurement. Anthony said that he believes it would be easier to continue using the City's logic and apply the 10% to the City average, rather than using a new measure. He noted that using the 10% measure as stated catches almost all of the block groups that the Taskforce had identified as areas of concern. Hayek said that is fine as long as it is certain that approach is City policy. Anthony said it is. Hayek asked if there were any cases when that policy had been applied to very Iow percentage numbers, such as 4%. Nasby replied that this policy was applied to only two things, which were Iow-moderate income level and minority. The lower number in these two areas was 13%, as such if the Taskforce used the 10% above criteria; the target number for this would then be 23%. Hayek suggested that Vandenberg's category chart of the types of housing could serve as narrative explanation to accompany the Taskforce's recommendations. It would then be informative to the reader, though it would not be incorporated into a policy. He further suggested having the Taskforce rely on the percentages in the matrix for identifying problematic areas. Vandenberg said that there is also the question of impacts. She asked where evaluating the spaces filled with "x" on the matrix would lead the discussion, unless changing the City average would alter the results significantly. Anthony said that the City average definitely would change, since one tract had been removed from the equation. Rackis asked for clarification of what the current City average number of 3.03 represented. Anthony replied that the number represented the percent of assisted rental units each block group would have if they were evenly distributed throughout the city. Nasby said the revised number for the City average is 3.22 now that the incorrect census tracts have been removed. Anthony said that would change the numbers in column 13, though the results should not change significantly since the block groups that were identified in the earlier calculation were above the target number by a large amount. Hayek said that if columns 14 and 16 are removed, there are four ways to evaluate the block groups. Anthony said they are columns 6, 10, 15, and then either 18 or 19. He noted that the Taskforce still needs to discuss and agree to use those measures. Vandenberg asked whether the block groups need to be identified according to the measures once or more than once. Hayek said that is still to be decided. Vandenberg said that approaching the measures that way might eliminate a lot of the block groups. Hayek noted that no block groups are identified by all the measures. Hayek asked whether census blocks are determined by population. Nasby replied that while some effort is made by the census to make their populations comparable, they are not exact. It is a range. Glaesemann said that if a tract becomes overpopulated, it will be split and another block is made. Anthony said that looking at column 7 could show the variation in the number of units in each block group. Hayek asked about student data for blocks in tract 21. Nasby said that dorms and institutions are not included. Hayek suggested going through the matrix and deciding what the Taskforce wants or does not want, starting with columns 3 through 6. Peterson asked for confirmation that column 6 refers to the percent of assisted rental units. Hayek said yes, the percent of assisted rental units in that block group. Anthony said that anything above 18.26% in column 5 should be flagged in column 6. Vandenberg said that the only number that appears out of place is for the last block in tract 105. Nasby said that is because of where 105 is located, and also because much of the growth in that tract has occurred since the census data was gathered, and therefore is not included in the matrix numbers. Hayek asked for confirmation that the Taskforce is comfortable using the data from columns 3 through 6. He noted that Clausen and Stutsman still need to evaluate the data and offer their opinions. Anciaux noted tract 17 block 1 has very few rentals, and asked how blocks with such Iow numbers should be evaluated. Vandenberg asked about evaluating those blocks using all units, rather than just rental units, since that might be more representative of the neighborhood. Rackis said that since the census data was gathered, as of August 2005 an additional 2083 rental units will have been built in Iowa City, 77 of which are assisted. The number of units per tract or block group is not available, however. The number of new owner-occupied units is also not as readily available. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes January 31, 2005 Page 4 Vandenberg said that there is a wide variance in the number of units in each block group. Hayek said that a floor could be designated to help control for that variable. For example, block groups with less than a certain number of units would not have certain measures applied to them. Peterson asked whether that would work or make things too complicated. Anthony noted that it would make it more complicated. Vandenberg suggested designating a certain number of measures that each block group has to meet in order to qualify. Hayek said that was one reason the matrix was set up. Anciaux asked how many units are at Calloway (a.k.a. The Lodge). Rackis replied there are 87 units online already, and 114 are scheduled to go online by August 1. There are 558 bedrooms divided between about 200 units. Hayek asked whether the Taskforce would like to think about the four measures on the matrix and continue discussion later. Peterson asked for confirmation that the Taskforce members should be thinking about whether they are good measures. Hayek said yes, and if they are, he also asked that the members think about how many measures a block group needs to meet in order to qualify. Anthony added that consideration could also be given to whether any should be removed. Anthony said it would helpful to see a map of possible places where land is available for future development. Nasby said he cannot make a small version of the map as it would be unreadable, but there is a large one available in the Planning Department. He left to get it. Vandenberg asked what the difference is between columns 15 and 16. Anthony said 15 selects block groups based on information from column 13. Block groups with a ratio greater than one have been selected in column 15. A ratio greater than one indicates a higher percentage of assisted rental units than the citywide average. Peterson asked for clarification on what the citywide average percent of assisted rental units is. Anthony said that the city average is figured by dividing the total number of assisted rental units by the number block groups. Rackis asked whether that means each block group should theoretically have 3.22% assisted units. Anthony said yes, if they were evenly distributed. Vandenberg asked for confirmation that the Taskforce needs to decide whether to use column 15 or 16. Anthony said yes, and also a decision needs to be made between columns 18 and 19. Hayek asked whether columns 14 and 16 were the result of a miscommunication. Anthony and Nasby said no, those numbers are fine. Vandenberg asked what the difference is between columns 14 and 16. Anthony said they are different ratios. Column 14 is calculated by dividing column 12 by column 11, while column 13 equals column 12 divided by the City average, in this case 3.03. Rackis noted again the difficulties with block groups with very Iow numbers of units. Hayek asked whether establishing a floor would help control for that, though that would make things more complicated. Vandenberg noted that the recommendation as a whole would have to be explained in some way. Anthony agreed that it needs to be as simple as possible because of that. Hayek pointed out that the recommendations also will need to be understandable to providers, who will use them to base their decisions on. Anciaux asked whether students are included in the census data for the poverty percentages per block group. Nasby said the results are supposed to be based on where they are currently living. Anthony said that students above the age of 15 are included in the data. He asked if there is a way to remove students from the data. Nasby replied that a certain age cohort could be removed, such as 18-24. However, not all 18-24 year-olds are students. Vandenberg said that when looking at multiple indicators on the matrix, tract 4 block I and tract 18 block 2 are the ones that stand out. Rackis said that tract 14 block 2 appears three times, and tract 21 block 2 appears three times unless column 16 is removed. Peterson asked whether column 15 or 16 should be used. Anciaux asked whether the difference between the two columns is .10%. Peterson said no, the difference is what is being measured. Peterson asked for confirmation that column 15 is the percent of assisted rental units compared to the citywide average of assisted rental units, while column 16 is the percent of assisted rental units compared to the citywide Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes January 31, 2005 Page 5 average of all rental units in the City. Anthony said yes. He continued by saying that means, for example, that in tract I block 1 in column 12, 0.09% of the assisted rental units in the City are located in that tract. Anthony said that column 13 compares assisted rental units in each block group versus total assisted rental units. Column 14 is column 12 divided by column 11, which compares percentage of assisted rental versus percentage of rental in each block group. Column 13 is column 12 divided by 3.22. Peterson confirmed that the Taskforce needs to decide which to use between 15 and 16. Anthony said yes, and also decide between 18 and 19, then decide whether multiple criteria are needed or not. Vandenberg suggested that looking only at the percent of assisted units might help control for the fact that a large number of rental units have come online since the census data was gathered. Only comparing assisted units citywide with assisted units per block group may give more accurate results. Anthony noted that approach would be complicated by the block groups that have very Iow numbers of rental units may, which may then have a skewed percentage of assisted units. For example, a block group with 8 assisted units, but only 11 units overall would have an inflated percentage of assisted units. Peterson said column 15 is closer to what the Taskforce wants to measure. Hayek asked whether there is consensus about column 15. Leff and Peterson agreed. Anthony asked for confirmation that the Taskforce is not voting on one over the other at this point. Peterson said no, it is a recommendation for Clausen and Stutsman. Hayek said a new draft would be sent out with the new numbers for the next meeting. Peterson said next is to consider columns 18 and 19. Nasby said only one block group is affected by choosing one versus the other. Peterson agreed, but added that she would like to figure out which one is closer to what the Taskforce would like to know. Hayek asked Anthony what his argument was for using average. Anthony said it would be consistent with what the City has done in the past. Since the census definition of concentrated poverty is 40%, shifting the percentage back so far will require justification, and the citywide average has been used in the past. Also, only one block group will change by using column 18, and the concept of median is more likely to need explanation. Hayek asked if any of the Taskforce members present would prefer to use median. None expressed a preference for median. Vandenberg suggested that the poverty measure not be weighted as heavily as other measures, because of the student population skewing the numbers. Hayek asked if there was agreement to use average. Those present expressed general agreement. Hayek said that a new draft of the matrix would be completed and sent out. He asked that the Taskforce members come to the next meeting with thoughts and suggestions about the four measures, and how many are required for a block group to be considered an area of concern. Left confirmed that the four measures are 6, 10, 15, and 18. Hayek said yes. Hayek said consensus needs to be reached on whether to apply a floor to the block groups with very Iow numbers of units. Peterson suggested also including the types of units as well as the numbers. If including information about the types of units can be explained as part of the Taskforce's consideration without increasing the overall complexity, it should be included. Vandenberg asked whether Hayek has a structure in mind for the proposal. Hayek replied that it would involve the data matrix along with an explanation, as well as any accompanying soft data attached to it. Also, he is considering what a policy based on the Taskforce's recommendations would look like, and whether it is understandable. The current process for building assisted housing is that applications go through the Housing and Community Development Commission, and then based on CITY STEPS criteria are given scores, then it is all discussed. That is the system in which the Taskforce's recommendations would be implemented, and the question is how to do that in a way that makes sense and is viable. Anthony added that incentives also need to be considered. Vandenberg asked whether the Taskforce could include analysis of the data along with the recommendations. For example, even though a certain block group falls into a certain category, it should not be included for specific reasons. Hayek said that it is possible to a point. Peterson added that there Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes January 31, 2005 Page 6 would be a point where the Taskforce is not available to give special explanations for exceptions to the data. Vandenberg said that she would then advocate applying a floor to the data. Anciaux said the only discriminating factors would be hoping the City enacts incentives to build in certain areas. Vandenberg said she would like the recommendation to be as simple as possible. Rackis said that if talking about a gap in the fair-share gap, the question is how to close the gap rather than how to restrict more development. Hayek said that a new iteration of the matrix will be sent out, and everyone should think about the measures. Nasby displayed a map of developing areas in Iowa City from the Planning Department, and explained where some of the recent growth has been and the areas available for development. Next meetings were planned for February 14 at 4:15 p.m. and tentatively for February 28 at 4:30 p.m, Vandenberg asked whether the Public Hearing would be in March. Hayek suggested that enough details should be decided on by the end of the next meeting, and that a subcommittee would probably be formed to write up the recommendations. Then a Public Hearing would be planned for early March. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Attendance Record 2005 01/03 1/24 1/31 D. Anciaux X O/E X J. Anthony X X X D. Clausen X X O/E M. Hayek X X X J. Left X X X J. Peterson X X S. Stutsman X × O/E VandenBerg X X X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent 0/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES SCATTERED SITE HOUSING TASKFORCE FEBRUARY 14, 2005 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Jerry Anthony, Darlene Clausen, Matthew Hayek, Jan Peterson, Joan Vandenberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Left, Sally Stutsman STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Steve Rackis OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Eastham, Amanda Cline, Tracy Glaesemann, Alexis Kluklenski, Patti Santangelo CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Hayek called the meeting to order at 4:20 pm. He noted that there are no minutes to be reviewed. DELIBERATIONS REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL Hayek began by noting the enclosures included in the packet between the Human Rights Commission and the City. He noted that these were included for the Taskforce members' information. Hayek said that the Human Rights Commission had requested that he provide them with a status report on the Taskforce's activities. Hayek noted that Eastham was also at the Human Rights Commission meeting and the minutes will be posted on the web once they are completed. Also included in the packet was a revised list from the student group of the assisted rental units per block group and the type of housing, which was to provide secondary information to the criteria. Hayek distributed an updated version of the matrix, dated February 14. Anthony confirmed that the numbers between the latest version and the one distributed in the packets did not change and only revisions were made to correct typographical errors in the text. Hayek explained that the additional sheet of information in the packet is a condensed form of the matrix, and includes only the X's, no numbers except the total number of X's per block group. He noted that there appears to be 19 block groups out of 31 without any X's in any columns. Vandenberg asked what decision had been made about a floor for certain tracts discussed at the last meeting. Hayek said that question had not been resolved yet. Vandenberg said she is still concerned about the data in the column on poverty because of student populations. Hayek agreed, adding there appears to be no way to factor out student numbers. Peterson said she believed that issue had already been resolved, the Taskforce having decided that it would not have a large impact on the recommendations. Vandenberg noted that including the poverty column for tract 21 block group 2 puts three X's under that block group. Clausen added that the numbers for 21 block group 2 also include elderly. Peterson asked if the presence or absence of elderly and students would change the Taskforce's recommendations. Clausen said she does not think so. Anthony said that there does not appear to be correlation between the X's in the poverty, fair share, rental, and all units columns. He suggested not considering poverty data. Vandenberg said there is a credibility issue with the curve created by the student population. Also, things should be kept simple. Hayek noted that concentrated poverty, by the Taskforce's definition, is indicated only in tracts 11, 16, and 21. Clausen added that both 11 and 21 include large complexes of housing for elderly, which impacts the fair share column. Anthony asked how assisted housing units are created, if it is new construction or acquisition/conversion of existing buildings. Nasby said that both types of activities have been funded. New housing was built in the peninsula, while HACAP and Greater Iowa City have done acquisition. Rackis said that there have been no new public housing units built or acquired since 1996. The last public housing was on Whispering Prairie, which was new construction. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 2 Clausen asked if the Housing Authority had done both new and acquired. Rackis said yes, that HUD owned the housing and then made funding available for Housing Authorities to acquire existing properties. The number of available properties has been shrinking since 1999 due to houses being sold through programs or using Section 6 vouchers. Anthony asked whether Pheasant Ridge, Autumn Park, and Capitol House were new or acquired. Nasby replied they were new construction. Anciaux asked how many units are planned for the new Shelter House. Nasby said that the capacity of the new facility as proposed would be 70-75. When compiling tract data, shelters were converted into an approximate number of comparable housing units based on the average household size in Iowa City. Using that formula, the new facility would have approximately 35 "units." Clausen noted that the housing for Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship is scattered, and asked if that was a combination of new and acquired. Eastham replied it is a combination of both. Hayek said the Taskforce needs to decide what to do with the matrix. Motion: Anciaux moved to discard the poverty column on the matrix because of confounding factors in the data caused by student populations. Vandenberg suggested including the poverty data as additional information to consider, rather than as a criterion. Hayek said it could be moved to the second tier of information. Peterson noted that the second tier of information would be lost after the recommendations are submitted to the City Council. Peterson commented that evaluators of this information are going to look at the baseline numbers rather than the accompanying information. Clausen suggested that since removing the poverty information does not change the data very much, removing it is unnecessary. The information may be useful in the future. Anciaux said that removing the poverty data would reduce the number of X's in block groups 11.1, 11.2, 16.1, and 18.1 to zero. Vandenberg asked whether the question is whether housing should not be incented in those areas. Clausen said that block group 16.2 has an X and its fair share already, so housing should not be incented. Hayek said that block group 16.1 might be a better example. Vandenberg said she does not want to make the recommendations so restrictive that housing is only incented in a small number of areas. Anciaux withdrew his motion. Rackis said the question depends on what sort of housing will go into block group 16.2. Vandenberg said for that reason, she believes there is an impact on the recommendations depending on what is decided about the poverty data. Anthony suggested that the Taskforce concentrate on where more assisted housing can go, rather than where to limit certain housing, and look for consensus on that. Vandenberg agreed. Hayek said the question of where more assisted housing could go leads back to the 19 block groups without any X's. Anciaux said one benefit of discarding the poverty data would be having more areas available for additional assisted housing. Hayek added that without the poverty data, block groups 11.1, 11.2, 16.1, and 21.1 would be available. Hayek noted that the group originally thought poverty information would be helpful, but it turned out to be less so because of the student population. Anciaux asked if any areas without students are affected by removing the poverty information. Vandenberg said that tract 21 is a combination of students and elderly. Clausen added that tract 16 is also a combination of student and elderly. Hayek said that all block groups in the downtown area with X's in poverty involve students. Those would be tracts 11, 16, and 21. Vandenberg said that tract 105 is a potential growth area if a floor is established, because even though it has a high percentage of assisted units, it has a very Iow number overall. Clausen said that having that tract ultimately end up with a disproportionately high number would not be desirable either. She would like the recommendation for that tract to be revised as the tract develops. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 3 Anthony suggested that two categories of incentives could be useful, one for new development and one for acquisition. Since many tracts cannot accommodate new development, it would not be helpful to have incentives only on that type of assisted housing. Anciaux said that block group 18.1 is one area that will have new construction, most of it single-family residential housing. He would like to incent away from block group 18.2. Vandenberg asked if it is possible to have gradations in incentives. Hayek replied that it is possible to have, for example, different funding available for areas with different numbers of X's on the matrix. Anciaux said density could also be controlled. Rackis asked what is statistically insignificant in relation to the idea of "fair share." For example, for an area at 2.18% of fair share, how statistically significant is that number? It is related to the question of number of units overall and the percentages. Perhaps incentives could be provided for areas less than 5% above the fair share, for instance, while areas that are 10% and higher would have different incentives. Nasby asked Anthony if the X's in the fair share column are for block groups that are over 10% of fair share. Anthony said no. Nasby asked if it could be read as just above 1. Anthony said yes. Hayek said in Rackis' example, the block group would be 2.18 times the City average. Anthony said that fair share is a strong argument for scattering housing. It would be simple to look at tracts that are below 1 in column 12 and then look at the map to see if the incentive should be on new or acquisition. Peterson said that sounds like a logical starting point. Vandenberg said explaining fair share in terms of a number of times more or less than the City average would be a good way to explain the proposal to the public. Hayek noted that only using fair share would lose block group 17.1. Vandenberg said that area is very large. Anciaux added that it includes a large industrial area. Hayek asked if there was consensus to use fair share as the guiding criterion. Peterson confirmed that using fair share would lose block group 17.1. Hayek said yes, even though one in four units is assisted, the block group has a very Iow number of rental units overall. Anthony said it is unlikely new units could be built in tract 17. It would have to be acquisition. Rackis said that if using the fair share approach, density should also be addressed. Single-family units versus a complex of apartments will change the character of the area. Anciaux noted column 7 is the total number of rental units in a block group, without owner occupied included, and asked whether the owner-occupied should be figured into the data. Clausen said that column 3 has rental units and column 7 is all units. Anthony said that column 8 only includes rental units. Anciaux suggested that including owner-occupied assisted units would change some of the X's. Then the recommendation would be not to incent assisted housing in block groups with X's on the matrix, while using fair share to determine where more can be located. Rackis said that columns 7 through 10 identify areas of higher density. All the areas with higher percentages are where there are larger apartment complexes. Hayek said that the ease of explaining fair share is a good point. Anthony said that once areas without their fair share are identified, block groups with growth potential could also be identified. There are five block groups that can accommodate new growth: 1.1, 1.2, 4.1, 104.4, and 105.1. Anciaux added block group 18.1. Anthony said other block groups could have smaller amounts of development. Vandenberg asked whether block group 4.1 is likely to split. Anthony said the University owns much of the land, but there is also a lot available for development. Hayek said that the block groups may split, but only after reaching a certain population threshold. Peterson noted that block group has the largest number of rental units. Hayek said it could be considered an outlier, since that tract has such a large and dense apartment complexes. Anthony said that of the list of six block groups that will accommodate more growth, two of them are currently above the fair share. He suggested that an exception be made for those two that would allow for Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 4 more development of assisted housing. Hayek confirmed those two block groups that Anthony is suggesting are 4.1 and 105.1. Anciaux said block group 105.1 has a very Iow number of units overall. Clausen said that block group 18.1 also falls into that category, a growth area already above fair share. Anthony agreed. Peterson noted that Hawkeye Apartments are not included in the census data, though they still have an impact on the area. Nasby agreed that they are not counted as assisted units in the data the Taskforce has been provided. Vandenberg said that tract 4 is very large. She added that the Taskforce would need a solid rationale to make an exception. Anthony said that of the six where new growth is possible, perhaps incentives should only be given for development in the ones that are below the fair share criterion. So for example, new assisted housing in block group 1.1 would receive an incentive, but new housing in block group 4.1 would not. Hayek said that then block group 4.1 is being included with the others that are above fair share, even though it has potential for growth. Anthony replied that as long as development is not restricted, that should not be a problem. No additional incentives would be available, but development is still allowed in the tract. Anthony said that his view of incentives is that they would be additional encouragement to build in certain areas, while not restricting development. At the same time, no additional incentives would be given for building assisted housing in certain areas. Nasby asked what Anthony means by additional incentives, as in additional to what? Anthony asked what incentive developers currently receive to build assisted housing. What does the City provide to developers to build in block group 18.2, as an example? Nasby said there are none. Anthony said then developers are building in that area because of market forces. Therefore, incentives would be given to build elsewhere, which would take away the market pressure to build in block group 18.2. That can be done for both new growth and acquisition. Rackis asked if the recommendation would allow a Iow-density tax credit project in block group 18.2, and support a resolution from the City to pursue the tax credits from the state. Anthony said yes in his example, though the developers would not receive any additional incentives from the City to build there. Anciaux asked if, in terms of rental units, is there any need for additional project-based section 8 housing to be built in block group 18.2, or can it be incented elsewhere or denied. Rackis said that if the land is zoned and HUD is making funds available, it is unlikely the project could be stopped. Vandenberg said that in regards to incentives in block group 18.2, it depends on the type of housing. Housing for people who are near to being self-sufficient could be fine, but transitional housing for people who need a lot of support mechanisms would not be desirable. This aims at the stability of the families, and that tract 18 cannot handle any more unstable families. However, this likely cannot be dictated by housing, because there is a large range of housing type. Hayek asked if there is a difference in cost between building new housing versus acquisition of existing housing. Eastham said the cost of new housing is generally higher, though not by much, partly due to the fact that the quality of acquired housing can be lower. However, there is much more public money available for new construction because of the tax credit program. Anthony said that underlying the discussion is the question of where new construction can happen in the city. Very few tracts allow rental housing, so a recommendation should be to make zoning changes to increase the possibility of rental housing around the City. Vandenberg asked what size rental buildings he meant. Anthony said a range is possible. Anciaux said that he believes that most of the district plans have limits on the number of units in complexes. Vandenberg said that most neighborhoods would not welcome a building with 30 units, so the size of the complex and the terms of how the idea would sell to the neighborhoods is a consideration. It is much different to have a duplex built next door than a complex. Anciaux said that some of those zoning issues might be addressed in the code rewrite. Hayek said the issue of density has been touched on at various times during the discussion, but the matrix does not address that question. Nasby asked whether complexes of mixed assisted and market Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 5 rate housing would have the same impact. Hayek said that the focus is shifting back to the question of where certain kinds of housing are prohibited, rather than where it should be encouraged. Hayek said a final decision needs to be made regarding the matrix. Options include adopting as is, discarding the poverty information, discarding rental or all units, and focusing on only fair share. Peterson asked whether using fair share loses something important. Anciaux said rental units need to be included, since they comprise the bulk of assisted housing. Hayek suggested that fair share addresses that issue. Vandenberg said that using fair share loses only block group 17.1. Vandenberg suggested creating caveats in the recommendations for using fair share for tract 4 because it is so big, and tract 105 because it is so small. Motion: Vandenberg moved to use the fair share column for criteria in deciding how to incent future assisted housing, with consideration given for the sizes of block group 4.1 and 105.1. Anciaux seconded the motion. Anthony asked what the incentives would be. Anciaux said that could be decided later. Hayek agreed, saying that the Taskforce is still determining where concentrations are located. Clausen said that block group 17.1 is also very small. Vandenberg said it includes industrial property. Hayek said it is not on the matrix under fair share. Clausen suggested using different terminology than that the block group is small, since there are others that are very small. Hayek said that the block groups have considerable growth potential. Hayek summarized by saying that essentially the Taskforce would be asserting that block groups with an X in column 13 have a concentration, and further assisted housing should be put elsewhere. Anthony said it should be stated the other way, meaning no incentives will be provided for building in those block groups, while they will be given for building in other areas. Hayek said that one way to apply that recommendation would be to add a score based on geography to the HCDC evaluation for developers applying to build. Anthony said that he does not agree, because right now assisted housing is being built in certain areas due to market forces. Using a numbered scoring method would reduce the amount of assisted housing built in the City because of the available block groups, only two allow assisted housing with the points from CDBG. That means developers would have to go to more expensive areas of the City to build, and would therefore build fewer units. Peterson agreed that building fewer units would be a problem, and that the Taskforce needs to be very careful about how this is worked out. Rackis said that care should be taken before recommending not to incent building in large portions of tract 18, because a tax credit project with state funds may be building single-family homes, which would not be unwelcome in the tract and would help relieve some of the pressure of having enough affordable housing. Anthony said that any incentive provided per the Taskforce's recommendations should be new, rather than something that currently exists and is reclassified. So incentives in the recommendations would have nothing to do with tax credits or CDBG\HOME. Vandenberg said she would be fine with funding some things in block group 18.1. However, she is concerned that block group 18.2 has reached its limit. Anthony agreed that block group 18.2 has enough assisted housing because the numbers are very high. However, if restricting new construction of assisted housing, he would like to exclude emergency housing, both Shelter House and housing for battered women. Once the new Shelter House is built, it is unlikely a new one will be built in the next 20 years. However, the current capacity for DVIP is 12 or 14. Saying that no more emergency housing will be built would essentially say there will be no more space for battered women. Anciaux disagreed, saying that if necessary, the City should provide funding to allow the shelters to be built somewhere besides tract 18. Anthony said that until it is known whether the City can provide the funding, he does not want to restrict where it can be built. Transitional and non-emergency housing could be restricted, but emergency should not be restricted on location due to fair share criteria. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 6 Vandenberg asked whether emergency housing should be focused on locating in tract 18. Anthony said no, just that it not have restrictions on where it can be built. Emergency housing would be an exception to the recommendations. The number of battered women is very high, and for him the benefits of scattering housing do not outweigh the potential detriments of preventing additional emergency housing from being built. Santangelo said that DVIP has a larger capacity at the present location, but not enough staff to fully oversee it. Anthony asked how much it could expand in their current location. Nasby said they have capacity for 60. Vandenberg suggested getting more information from DVIP. Traditionally it has been a question of staff and funding rather than space. Anciaux noted that DVIP already has 16 units in block group 18.2, MECCA has 12 transitional units, while Four Oaks is an emergency shelter with 11 units, and HACAP has housing there as well. It seems as though that area is saturated with transitional housing already. Anthony said his suggestion is for emergency housing rather than transitional. Vandenberg said that for safety reasons it might be better for DVIP to be located somewhere other than tract 18. Anthony said he is not saying that they should be sent into block group 18.2, just that they should not be restricted from locating anywhere, wherever they can find a place. Vandenberg suggested saying that consideration should be given to DVIP, though location would not be disclosed due to security reasons. Anthony said he thinks HUD classifications should be used, which would be emergency housing. Vandenberg said that classification then includes Shelter House, more of which should not go into tract 18. Santangelo said she understood that Shelter House children were planned to go to Mann rather than Twain. Vandenberg said where they will go is currently undecided. Also, it is a neighborhood issue that goes beyond the schools. Anthony suggested that the City could identify certain areas in its comprehensive plan that would be zoned for emergency housing, and leave the classification broad. Hayek said it is good to think about what should be incented in specific terms in the future. However, that discussion could be endless. The Taskforce has gone through the process to identify where concentrations are believed to exist, represented by fair share, and can also develop some general policy goals. Some specifics could be included, but he would like to leave the details of the implementation up to the City to determine. Anciaux said he would like to exclude rental units from incentives in any areas that have X's in column 13, except those that are excluded such as block group 4.1 and block group 105.1. He suggested that raw land in block group 4.1 would be as inexpensive as the land that has been prepared for development in tract 18. Anthony said that once the land is zoned, the prices go up. Peterson said her concern is that if the Taskforce makes some well-intentioned general recommendations, then leave implementation up to the City, the negative impact of the recommendations could be greater than the good. Vandenberg said implementation should include a positive educational campaign about assisted housing to help change the mindset. She would like to challenge the Council to talk about what the vision for the future of the community is. It should be a countywide initiative to have an integrated community. Peterson agreed, but noted her concern is that the Taskforce recommendation not to build in a certain place will lead to no assisted housing being built at all, which will compound the current problems of inadequate affordable housing. Anthony agreed that if the issues are addressed, the negative ones will go forward without any of the positive ones because of political inconvenience and also the time and effort involved. If the Taskforce thinks through some of the issues, it will give the Council more options to consider. Vandenberg asked what some of the brainstormed positive ideas about scattering assisted housing are. Hayek said before discussing that, the Taskforce needs to come to a consensus, and asked if there was consensus about using fair share as the criteria. Anciaux noted there was a motion on the table. Hayek asked if the motion includes a caveat to exclude block groups 4.1 and 105. Vandenberg said yes. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 7 Hayek asked if there was consensus about the motion. Anthony said he would agree, but would like to include caveat about emergency housing. Peterson agreed that the type of housing matters, but that could be addressed later. Some general, positive recommendations can be made, but the Taskforce should review what the potential negative ramifications of those recommendations might be, and how they might be avoided. Hayek agreed that there is a campaign ahead and an educational aspect. However, he does not want to work out specifics about what the incentives should be, the dollar amount, what the source of funding should be, and so forth. Anthony agreed those dollar amounts and sources need not be discussed specifically, but other recommendations such as inclusionary zoning could be included. Hayek suggested forming a subcommittee to write a report to the City, which would set forth the specific goals and focus on the positive aspects of the recommendations. He noted that many negatives could be turned into positives. Vandenberg agreed, and said she has suggestions ready for that discussion. Rackis asked for confirmation that there is room for development in block groups 1.1, 1.2, 4.1, 18.1, 104.4, and 105.1, so if those areas have an X they are exempted with an explanation. Anthony said yes. Rackis said if the explanation to exempt block group 4.1 is because it has a lot of land available, the same argument could be made for block group 18.1. Anthony agreed that block group 18.1 is similar in size to block group 4.1 and has a lot of growth potential. He asked how that should be resolved. Rackis said that the percentage of the City's overall assisted rental housing in that block group is 1.83, which is less than two times above the City average. That is smaller than block group 105.1. Vandenberg said it depends on what type of housing is being proposed. Clausen agreed that type would be a consideration, that single-family housing would be preferable in that block group. Anciaux said larger units might be okay in block group 18.1, though it is not preferred. Rackis asked if it is more positive to put a single family into a duplex or single-family home rather than a large multi-unit complex. Nasby noted that having multiple duplexes or single-family units clustered together could have the same impact as having a single large complex. Hayek noted there are a large number of block groups with no assisted housing. Anciaux said that is why he objects to the caveat about emergency housing, and is looking for strong incentives to put it somewhere besides tract 18. Vandenberg asked if a second was needed on the motion. Hayek said it was seconded, and a vote is now needed. Anthony said that block group 18.1 has a lot of growth potential. Vandenberg said that other places should be explored first, as block group 18.1 is still on the southeast side of the city. It would also depend on the type of housing proposed. Anciaux said the current new development in that block group might start to change the area. Rackis said that block group is predominantly owner-occupied. Anciaux said if block group 18.1 is largely owner-occupied, it would help balance out block group 18.2. Anthony said that in the proposed motion, block groups 4.1 and 105.1 are being exempted because they have a lot of growth potential and the Iow number of assisted units and block group 18.1 also fits those criteria. Anciaux noted that there are 664 rental units in block group 18.1. Anthony said that only 68 are assisted, which are less than the number of assisted units in block group 105.1 and 4.1. He would like to be consistent with whatever is decided. Anciaux asked if Lakeside Apartments are in block group 18.1. Clausen said they are. Vandenberg said that there are 32 Housing Authority units in block group 18.1. Rackis said those are being sold. Vandenberg said that those are a concentration, along with HACAP units. That area should be left off of the exempt list. Rackis said Lakeside Apartments are not assisted. Vandenberg said they are still an issue, similar to Hawkeye Apartments. Anthony said that there are only 68 units, while block group 4.1 has 385 units and development will still be allowed there. The Taskforce needs to develop some logic for that decision. Rackis added that the public housing in block group 18.1 is not concentrated. The lots are not contiguous, but are located in different pads of the block group. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 8 Clausen asked regarding the growth potential on the high and Iow ends of the block group sizes, whether the decision was based on the number of rental units or the number of assisted units. Block group 18.1 should not be exempted because it has a large growth potential, but it also has a large number of rental units. Anthony disagreed, noting that block group 4.1 has 1535 rental units and is being exempted, but block group 18.1 has only 664 rental units but will not be exempted. Vandenberg said that block group 4.1 will probably split because it is so large. Anthony said whether it will split or not is unknown. Nasby added that if it splits, that will not be decided until 2010. Vandenberg said that it is a huge area with growth potential. Anthony pointed out that tract 18 could potentially split into three block groups, so that is not a good basis on which to make the decision. Vandenberg said that if development is allowed in block group 18.1, then that is where it would go. Anthony said that the Taskforce is talking again about what not to allow instead of incentives to encourage development elsewhere irrespective of market forces. Vandenberg noted that market forces are working against building housing in other parts of the city already. She said that she does think incentives should be given to build in block group 18.1. Anthony replied that new incentives are not being provided for that block group. Hayek asked if what is being said is if a block group has an X in column 13, housing will not be permitted to be built, or that incentives will not be provided. Anthony said the motion on the table is that incentives will be provided to build in places with no X's on the matrix. Vandenberg added that it should exempt block groups 4.1 and 105.1. Clausen said Anthony's question is why are those two being exempted. Anthony agreed. Vandenberg said they are being exempted because of their growth potential. Anthony asked what the basis is for that determination. Clausen added that Anthony's point is that block group 18.1 is in the same position or better as the other two being exempted. Anthony agreed. Vandenberg said the difference is that in block groups 105.1, there are only 109 total rental units, but is a growing part of the community, and is very small. However, block group 4.1 is very large, which skews the numbers there as well, and that there is growth potential even though it has large numbers of assisted units. Anthony pointed out that block group 4.1 has 1535 units already. Vandenberg suggested not exempting block group 4.1. Anthony disagreed, saying all areas of new development should be included in the list. Vandenberg said that market forces are already in favor of building in block group 18.1, and asked why incentives are needed there. Anthony said if the recommendations are specified, he could evaluate how to categorize those block groups. However, without knowing the recommendations, he does not want to treat block group 18.1 differently from block groups 4.1 and 105.1. Vandenberg pointed out that earlier Anthony had said incentives were needed to counteract the market forces driving development in tract 18. She asked why incentives would now be needed for development in block group 18.1. Anthony said incentives are not needed, but it really depends on how the recommendations are phrased. Peterson said the motion is that incentives will not be given to places with X's, so block group 18.1 will not be restricted, but no additional incentives will be given to build there because it has the existing incentive of market forces. Vandenberg agreed, saying that in block groups 4.1 and 105.1, incentives are needed to help build housing there. Eastham said incentives are needed anywhere that affordable housing is being built. He asked whether the Taskforce would be proposing new incentives, or discontinuing existing ones in certain areas. Peterson said the Taskforce is talking about new incentives. Eastham said that fact should be made very clear to the Council. Anthony said it depends on the definition of incentive. If the motion involves existing incentives such as CDBG and HOME, he does not agree, but he does agree as long as there are new incentives offered. Nasby said the Council would probably look at CDBG, HOME and tax credits as an incentive because the City does not currently put other funding into affordable housing. The recommendation can be made for new incentives, but as far as how they are viewed, it is likely the Council will see them as the same. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 9 Hayek asked if Anthony meant that the funding should not be restricted according to the X's on the matrix. Anthony said the funding would have nothing to do with geography. If existing funding is being used, it is not really an incentive. Nasby said the funding is not guaranteed, so it can be seen as an incentive. Anthony said that in the absence of additional funding, a geographically based system of restricting funding will definitely reduce the supply of affordable housing in Iowa City. Anthony said as an example, if the restriction is that CDBG funds cannot be used to build housing in block groups 18.1 or 18.2, but they can be used in Manville Heights, in tract 18 the developer can build 15 units, in Manville Heights they can build one. Hayek asked why the recommendation could not be to use CDBG or HOME funds in addition to another source of funding. Anthony said the developer will be using CDBG funds regardless of whether the Taskforce's recommendations say to use them. Including CDBG funds in any scattered site strategy would decrease the supply of affordable housing. Anthony said that if CDBG or tax credits are the incentives used, while affordable housing will be scattered, the number will also be drastically reduced. If the only incentives that will be offered are CDBG or tax credits, he is not in favor of scattering affordable housing. Vandenberg said the issues are both what the Taskforce's recommendations are, and how they will be interpreted. Anthony agreed, adding that is why the recommendations have to be very explicit in saying that new incentives are needed. Hayek said that while he agrees that using only CDBG funds will reduce the amount of affordable housing, he disagrees that those sources of funding could not be included in an incentives package for developers. The Taskforce does not have consensus on that point. Anthony said unless a definition of incentive is available, he would like to take a vote or have a motion to clarify what is being incented or restricted, or what kinds of housing are being incented. He would like to incent transitional and emergency housing into other areas of the city, but only if the incentives given are in addition to other support they are already receiving. Vandenberg said taking that approach will be even more difficult because additional funding then needs to be identified for these incentives. Inclusionary zoning will work with the developers, but the Council will have concerns about the funding and its source. Hayek agreed that funding will have to come from the currently available money. Anthony disagreed. Anciaux asked whether having the City agree to purchase land and put streets and utilities in it, using CDBG funds, would reduce the price of the land. Anthony said no, first of all because when the land is zoned, the price goes up, so it no longer is at raw land price and no longer comparable. Land that is already zoned and ready for development in block group 18.1 is still less expensive than land elsewhere in the city. Anthony said the difference between market price in the different areas of the city should be provided as an incentive for development. So if zoned land costs $100/acre in one area and $50/acre in another, the City should provide $50 or $51 for assisted housing to move into the more expensive area. Anciaux asked for confirmation that Anthony is saying the funding should not come from CDBG. Anthony agreed. Anciaux said the funding should come from CDBG, because the tradeoff is to reduce the assisted housing problem in tract 18. Anthony disagreed, explaining that given a total amount of available money in CDBG, the funding would not go as far. In other words, in one area, $1000 would fund 15 units because of lower costs, but only 1 unit in another area because of higher costs. So it would reduce the number of available units overall. Anciaux said that additional funding would be very difficult to get, so the housing will go into tract 18. Anthony said that additional funding would need to be established. Also, the federal government is proposing cutting CDBG funding by 50% this year, so those funds are not reliable. Hayek suggested forming a subcommittee to start putting together a summary of the Taskforce's decisions in written form. Nasby noted that the Taskforce has moved away from simple, defendable and understandable criteria. He suggested that if this many exceptions are needed, perhaps the Fair Share data is not the best criteria to use. Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 10 Hayek asked who would be on the subcommittee. Anthony said he is willing. Vandenberg also agreed to participate. Hayek asked about meeting dates in March, and suggested the 7th and 21st. February 28 at 4:30 is confirmed. Meeting dates available for those present in March were the 7~h and 21st at 4:30 p.m. Nasby asked whether the current motion will be withdrawn or voted upon? Anthony suggested tabling the motion. General agreement expressed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to be discussed, Anthony moved to adjourn. Anciaux seconded, and the motion was accepted unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. s:/pcd/minutesl ScatteredSiteHousingTaskforce/2005/02-14-05ssht.doc Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 11 Scattered Site Housing Taskforce Attendance Record 2005 01/03 01/24 01/31 02/14 03/07 03/21 04/04 04/18 D. Anciaux X O/E X X J. Anthony X × X X D. Clausen X X O/E X M. Hayek X X X X J. Left X X X O/E J. Peterson X X X X S. Stutsman X X O/E O/E VandenBerg X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member MINUTES DR~ ~'" HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ..~-O~ FEBRUARY 15, 2005-5:30 P.M. mp PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Justin Pardekooper, Jann Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHER PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Jill Crouse, Randy Wessiing CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: 629 Oakland Avenue. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the LongfelLow District. He said this application is for alterations to the building, including removal of the chimney. Terdalkar said that the chimney is proposed to be removed for interior alterations and that it is not a fireplace chimney. He said that the applicant also proposes to replace a window on the second floor and remove a window on the first floor. Jill Crouse, 629 Oakland Avenue, said that she likes the way her house hooks and doesn't want to change it but given the smallness of the bathrooms and the amount of space the chimney takes up, especially upstairs, she would like to remove it. Regarding removal of the first floor window, Crouse said she did not really want to alter the exterior of the house much. She said the other options include removing the built-in linen closet, which gives a lot of character to the interior of the house, or removing all of the closet space. Crouse said she saw the window removal as the lesser of the evils. She said her neighbor's side door is right outside the window, so there is a privacy issue with the window. Descriptions of the two options for replacement windows were distributed. Crouse said the Andersen window had viny~ trim so that it does not meet the guidelines. She said the Shelter window is aluminum- wrapped wood. Crouse said she would like to make the bathroom into a walk-in shower. She said that besides the privacy issue, it is very difficult to keep the woodwork dry. McCallum suggested using a circular shower curtain that circles all the way around. Maharry asked about the second floor window replacement - if two windows would be replaced with two windows. Crouse said she planned to use a twin unit with windows of the same size. She stated that one of the current windows is warped and won't open, and the ropes on the other window are broken so that it only opens slightly. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for alterations to 629 Oakland Avenue, with the stipulation that the Shelter window be used to replace the second floor window. Weitzel seconded the motion. Ponto said he is concerned about losing the bottom window. He said it looks very nice and to have that expansive space without a window there will give it a very different look. Smothers said she agreed and said there are other alternatives, such as the use of textured glass in the bathroom window. She said that she did not have a problem with removing the chimney from below to Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 15, 2005 Page 2 add space. Smothers said that it would be very difficult to stabilize the chimney on top of the roof. She said the first floor window and the chimney are identifiable features to this house. McCallum said there could be a tiled shower wall all the way around the window with perhaps an insert covering the window with a moisture-proof surface on the inside to serve as the shower wall. Maharry stated that the guidelines disallow the removal of windows and doors that contribute to the overall character of the house. Carlson said that both the chimney and the window are fairly minimal in terms of their overall contribution, but the house itself is so minimal in detail that percentage-wise, these things are more important. Ponto agreed to withdraw his motion so that the project could be considered in three separate parts. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the upper floor window with windows that meets the guidelines, for the project at 629 Oakland Avenue. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of the chimney of the house at 629 Oakland Avenue. Ponto seconded the motion. Weitzel said the Commission needs to come to a consensus as to whether the chimney is a contributing feature of the house. Carlson stated that the chimney is a contributing feature but questioned whether it is a key feature. He said the guidelines disallow "Removing prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character of the building." Carlson said it is not a prominent chimney, and it may be only marginally important to the character of the building, in his opinion. He said that even if removal of the chimney is not expressly disallowed, the Commission needs to consider whether it contributes enough to the building to warrant its preservation. Smothers said she considers the chimney part of the silhouette in terms of the neighborhood. She said one of the ways to tell an older home from a new one is the presence of a chimney like this. Carlson said that if it were even a plain brick chimney, it would be different, but the exterior has the same decorative brick as the foundation and the porch. He said this is really all of a piece. Weitzel said he hates to keep such a small feature of a building from making an adaptive reuse that will keep the building usable and modern. He said, however, that the chimney matches the columns on the porch, and that was an intentional design feature when the house was built. Ponto said he could see how taking out the chimney would really allow a decent bathroom on the second floor. Maharry said he is of the opinion that this is not a prominent chimney and that the adaptive reuse outweighs the need to have a chimney here. Weitzel said he did not feel that keeping the chimney is important enough to prevent the house from being used by someone who wants to stay in the neighborhood. The motion carried on a vote of 4-2, with Carlson and Smothers votinq no. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of the first floor window as part of the project at 629 Oakland Avenue. Ponto seconded the motion. Weitzel said it is a tougher sell to say the window is not part of a prominent elevation of the house. He said he was somewhat ambivalent because he can see that it could be a maintenance issue, but he has heard suggestions that might address that. McCallum said that if the exterior appearance is retained, then modifications could be done on the inside. Maharry said that if the window could be removed and saved so that the opening is still there for a future use, that would be acceptable to him. McCallum said that frosted glass could be used, and the exterior wood silhouette could be kept with a solid piece of glass in the middle to function as the shower wall. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 15, 2005 Page 3 Ponto said he feels that the fenestration is an important aspect of the house. Carlson said it would be a broad expanse without the window, and he thought it would look kind of odd. The motion failed on a vote of 0-6. Crouse said she did not want to lose the window but saw it as a last resort. She said she would talk to her contractor about some of the suggestions. The Commission discussed some alternatives that might be acceptable. McCallum suggested tiling all around the shower butting up to the window with no trim. Smothers discussed using a solid piece of marine glass that comes in a frame and is one finished piece. Weitzel pointed out that the Commission has no control over what is done to the interior of the building. He also said he was concerned that the Commission members might get into something they are not experts in and could recommend something that might not work. Miklo added that removal of the window is planned for 2006 so that there is time for Crouse to speak with her contractor about this and come back to the Commission with an alternative. 409 South Summit Street. Terdalkar said that this house is a contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. He said this is a two-story, gabled house of a simple design. Terdalkar said the porch steps have been removed and are to be replaced, and the owner would also like to add handrails to the steps. Maharry asked about the condition of the original stairs. Randy Wesslin,q, 1822 California Avenue, said that the original stairs were probably wood. Over the years the stairs were replaced with concrete. More recently wood stairs were built over the concrete. He said the concrete was in worse shape than the wood built over it. Wessling said the owner would like to add handrails to the stairs. Weitzel asked about the age of the house. Terdalkar responded that it would have been built around 1900. Carlson said that whether or not the porch is original, it is in keeping with the house. Wessling said the handrails would duplicate exactly what is already there, including the balusters, the style, and the spacing. Ponto asked if the width would be the full width of the opening, and Wessling confirmed this. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 409 South Summit Street. McOallum seconded the motion. The Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. OTHER: Weitzel said that the Longfellow Neighborhood Association is looking for things to do for its PIN grant this year. He said one possibility is the restoration and conservation of the obelisk. WeitzeJ said the obelisk has deteriorated a lot in the last ten years. Weitzel said neighbors have talked about conserving the obelisk where it is or putting it in a museum and replacing it with a replica. He said the obelisk is apparently located on a City right-of-way. Weitzel said he did not know what the procedure would be in that case. Weitzel said the obelisk is the marker at the location of the southeast corner of the original town plat. He said the entire commemorative text is preserved in one of Shambaugh's books so that it could be redone. Weitzel said he has spoken with various technical people, and the recommendations are to either let the obelisk go or put it in a museum. Miklo suggested having it displayed in the Old Capitol Museum. Weitzel said he would speak to the museum officials. He said that if the obelisk goes to a museum, there will need to be funding for removal costs and for the replica. Miklo said that a PIN grant is all local money. He added that since this is such Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 15, 2005 Page 4 a significant piece, rather than waiting for a PIN grant, perhaps Public Works could be approached with the case that this is just a good public project to do. Terdalkar said it would be a good idea to inventory these kinds of objects located in the City and give them some kind of designation. Weitzel said he thinks that is a great idea and said he would be willing to help document these objects. ADJ©URNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:27 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s:/pcdlminuteslHPC/20051hpcO2-15-OS,doc tistoric Preservation Commission Minutes :ebruary 15, 2005 'age 5 Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 1/8 1/13 2/10 2/15 3/10 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/9 6/23 7/14 7/28 8/11 8/25 9/8 10/13 11/10 R. Carlson 3/29/07 ........ X X J. Enloe 3/29/06 X X X O/E M. Gunn 3/29/07 O/E X O/E O/E M. Maharry 3/29/05 X X X X M. McCallum 3/29/06 X X X X J. Pardekooper 3/29/06 O/E X X O/E J. Ponto 3/29/07 X X X A. Smothers 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X J. Weissmiller 3/29/06 O/E O/E O/E O/E T. Weitzel 3/29/05 O/E O/E X X Key: X - Present O Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM - No Meeting ..... Not a Member