The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-09-02 Info Packet1 - 1 ~t X111 +p~~~ -n...~_ CITY OF IOWA CITY vrww.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET September 2, 2010 SPECIAL WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 7 IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda IP2 Summary of Pending Work Session Issues MISCELLANEOUS IP3 Memorandum from the City Clerk: City Manager Interviews IP4 Memorandum from the Personnel Administrator: Updated Employee Handbook is now available online IP5 Email from Peter Anderson to Doug Boothroy: 817 Melrose Avenue IP6 Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development: Update: Flood- related activities IP7 Building Permit Information -August 2010 IP8 P.A.U.L.A Report -July 2010 IP9 The Longview Newsletter -September 2010 IP10 The Planner -August 30, 2010 Article Office of Neighborhood Services: Partying in Iowa City [Distributed at 9/7 Council Meeting] DRAFT MINUTES IP11 Board of Adjustment: August 11, 2010 IP12 Planning and Zoning Commission: August 16, 2010 IP13 Planning and Zoning Commission: August 19, 2010 IP14 Housing and Community .Development Commission: August 19, 2010 ~^~~ ~~~ -•ti.as~_ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET September 2, 2010 SPECIAL WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 7 IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda IP2 Summary of Pending Work Session Issues MISCELLANEOUS IP3 Memorandum from the City Clerk: City Manager Interview IP4 Memorandum from the Personnel Administrator: Up ated Employee Handbook is now available online IP5 Email from Peter Anderson to Doug Boothroy: 817 elrose Avenue IP6 Memorandum from the Director of'Planning an Community Development: Update: Flood- related activities IP7 Building Permit Information - August`~01 `; IP8 P.A.U.L.A Report -July 2010 IP9 The Longview Newsletter -Septe er 201 IP10 The Planner -August 30, 2010 DRAFT MINUI~S IP11 Board ofAdjustmen~ August 11, 2010 IP12 Planning and Zon,~ng Commission: August 16, 2010 IP13 Planning and Z Wing Commission: August 19, 2010 IP14 Housing and ommunity Development Commission: Augu t 19, 2010 ~ i ~._.®~~ ~~~ ~i ~~ ,~ City Council Meeting Schedule and p9_02.~0 CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas ~Q1 www.icgov.org • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 6 Labor Day Holiday -City Offices Closed • TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session ^ Fire Department Strategic Plan (Agenda #3b(1)] • Agenda Items ^ Information Packet Discussion (9/2] • Council Time ^ Budget Priorities ^ Summary of Pending Work Session Issues (IP2] • Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations • Discussion of Meeting Schedules 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting Continue Council Work Session if necessary] TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY-WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27-29 Emma J. Harvat Hall TBD Hold dates for City Manager Interviews/Meet & Greet • MONDAY, OCTOBER 11 Emma J. Harvat Hall TBD Special Work Session Special Formal • WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20 Room 8/C /CPL 4:30p Joint Meeting (Separate Agenda Posted) • MONDAY, OCTOBER 25 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting ~ = 1 ~.~.®a7~ ~~~m~~`t City Council Meeting Schedule and CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas September 2, Zo,o www.icgov.org • MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting • WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • MONDAY, DECEMBER 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting IP2 SUMMARY OF PENDING WORK SESSION ISSUES 9/2/ 10 Location of Affordable Housing (SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER) Brick Streets Repair/Funding Strategy (SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER) Alley Inventory (FALL `10) Review Function of Boards/Commissions: Explore Possible Consolidations Economic Development Projects Update (NOVEMBER) Flood Response & Mitigation Update (PERIODIC) Sept. 20 - 21 Oct. 11-Combined Oct. 25 - 26 Nov. 15 -16 Nov. 29 - 30 Dec. 6 - 7 r IP3 ^~„_,®,~~ CITY (~F 14WA CIT .~~ A~~u~ .. ~E~C~R ~~ Date: September 2, 2010 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~~ Re: City Manager Interviews Due to scheduling conflicts City Manager interviews will not be scheduled for Monday, September 20, as previously discussed. All interviews, including a public Meet and Greet, will be held the last week in September. More information and final scheduling will be confirmed later in the month. ~~~.®~i' ~ ~~o~~~ .~®.~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P4 MEMORANDUM, Date: September 1, 2010 To: All Permanent Employees From: Karen Jennings, Personnel Administrator Re: Updated Employee Handbook is now available online Y p~_ Q~ In an effort to provide all employees easy, continuous access to the most current version of the Employee Handbook in an environmentally-responsible manner, the Handbook for all permanent employees is now available online. To access the Handbook: 1. Go to www.icgov.org 2. Click on City Employee Resources (located at the bottom of the page) 3. Click on Employee Handbook The Handbook has been updated and reorganized for easier use. By posting future revisions to the online Handbook, employees will always have access to the most current information. Under the Policies tab, you will find the recently updated Substance Abuse Policy. A link to frequently used forms has also been added to the City Employee Resources webpage. Please contact Personnel with questions or suggestions regarding other resources to be considered for the City Employee Resources webpage. ~~~ Thank you. IP5 Marian Karr From: Pete Anderson [pdanders@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:55 PM To: Doug Boothroy Cc: Council Subject: 817 Melrose Ave Mr Boothroy, I just wanted to say I appreciate the tone you have taken with the possible return of the Magic Bus to 817 Melrose Ave. I know the ball is not in your court yet until the two sides reach an agreement (which may not happen) but your comments that the Bus would have a chance to return is encouraging after all the exaggerated bashing the the Magic Bus has taken over the last several weeks. If the sides do reach an agreement and a permit request comes to your desk, I hope you will give the Bus the opportunity to return. I think the city has done enough for now to curb underage drinking and enforcing the laws on gamedays (IE open container). I think it would be best to see how these measures effect the game day atmosphere. It is only 7 days a year and I assume the city as a whole profits nicely from football weekends. Lets not let minority of trouble makes on game day ruin things for rest of us who enjoy a tailgate and a football game. Regards, Peter Anderson Marion, IA 8/30/2010 ~ r ~~ ~ ~~.:.®~r :rmli. ~ ,~®,.~ 09A2-10 CITY OF IOWA CIT IP6 MEMORANDU1Vl Date: September 1, 2010 To: City Council From: Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development Re: Update: Flood-related activities The City has acquired a total of 56 residential properties and 16.5 acres of property from Parkview Church along Taft Speedway with Federal and State funds. Of the 56 properties, 32 of the properties have been acquired through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), 18 with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and six with Community Disaster Grant (CDG) funds. A total of 38 properties have been demolished in the Parkview Terrace and Taft Speedway neighborhoods. All structures in the Showers Addition have been demolished and cleared. • Staff will be attending the I-JOBS Board Review Committee meeting on September 2"d. Iowa City has submitted a $2.1 million grant application for the Westside Levee project that would protect Thatcher and Baculis Mobile Home Parks, and the Commercial Court area. The City's 2011 Action Plan for City Steps has been amended to allow CDBG funds to be used for the local match for the Westside Levee Project. • At its September 2"d meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider making a recommendation to the City Council on revisions to the City's floodplain management standards. • On August 31st, planning staff attended a joint meeting with the University of Iowa, Coralville, and Mid-American. Participants outlined current and future flood recovery projects in the area and how they could work together to coordinate schedules and efforts. • Staff is working with the EPA Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization on a design plan for a subarea of Riverfront Crossings. • Staff is continuing to work on an HMGP application for a tornado safe room near the Public Works building in Napoleon Park. The park is heavily used during the summer. The safe room would protect park users against high winds and tornados. • Staff continues to review Jumpstart applications for disbursing State Jumpstart 2 and State Jumpstart 3 funding for housing rehab/repair, down payment assistance and interim mortgage assistance. A total of $1.85 million in State Jumpstart funding has been used to assist 78 flood- impacted residential households and $861,000 in Federal Jumpstart funding has been used to assist 17 households. • The City continues to accept applications for the following disaster business assistance programs: Loan Interest Supplement Program, Residential Landlord Business Support Program, Commercial Rental Revenue Gap Program, Equipment Reimbursement Assistance Program, Flood Insurance Reimbursement Program, and Expanded Business Rental Assistance Program. The deadline for all business programs is December 31, 2010. l~ f !~~ {~ . e i BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION August 2010 KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS Type of Improvement ADD -Addition ALT -Alteration REP -Repair FND -Foundation Only NEW-New OTH -Other type of construction Type of Use RSF -Residential Single Family RDF -Residential Duplex RMF -Three or more residential RAC -Residential Accessory Building MIX -Mixed NON -Non-residential OTH -Other ,1i _; Page : 2 City of Iowa City Date: 9/1/2010 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : From : 8/1/2010 8/31/2010 Census Bureau Report Permit Number Name Address BLD10-00480 MAYOR'S YOUTH EMPOWE] 1200 S GILBERT CT ENTRY PORTICO ADDITION, RESIDE BLD10-00316 HOOVER ELEMENTARY SC 2200 E COURT ST PORTABLE CLASSROOM FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BLD10-00424 AMBROSE, GERRY 965 S RIVERSIDE DR AWNING FOR BUSINESS Tvne Twe Imnr Use Stories Units Valuation ADD NON 0 0 $51,438 ADD NON 1 0 $10,000 ADD NON 1 0 $4,000 Total ADD/NON permits : 3 Total Valuation : $65,438' BLD06-00481 FRANTZ CONSTRUCTION C 42 LANCESTER PL ADD RMF 1 0 $54,830 BASEMENT FINISH AND 4 SEASON ADDITION FOR RMF UNIT Total ADD/RMF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $54,830 BLD10-00455 PATRICK & JENNIFER DUF 126 RICHARDS ST ADD RSF ADDITION FOR SFD BLD10-00478 MIKE & MERCEDES KLUG 1803 C ST ADD RSF ADDITION FOR SFD BLD10-00439 PERSAUD, PETER KRISHEN 522 RUNDELL ST ADD RSF ADDITION FOR SFD BLD10-00484 DAVID W & KOREEN KAY L 3449 ROHRET RD ADD RSF ATTACHED 4 CAR GARAGE ADDITION FOR SF D BLD10-00395 MARY KATHERINE SEEMU 1107 CLARK CT ADD RSF 30' of uncovered deck BLD 10-00513 JOHN & CAROLYN HARTLE 1715 E ST ADD RSF DECK AND SCREEN PORCH ADDITION FOR SF D BLD10-00469 ROBERT WEHRLE 1104 HIGHLAND AVE ADD RSF DECK ADDITION FOR SFD BLD10-00466 FERGUSON, RANDALL D 712 KIMBALL RD ADD RSF DECK ADDITION FOR SFD BLD10-00457 ROBERT WILHELM 1413 LAUREL ST ADD RSF DECK ADDITION FOR SFD BLD10-00447 KEITH E YENTER 734 OAKLAND AVE ADD RSF DECK ADDITION FOR SFD BLD10-00477 STEVEN E & BRENDA S DOI 210 N MOUNT VERNON D ADD RSF DECK ADDITION FOR SFD 0 0 $175,000 0 0 $52,650 0 0 $35,000 0 0 $25,000 1 0 $5,000 0 0 $4,000 0 0 $1,824 0 0 $1,750 0 0 $1,300 0 0 $1,000 0 0 $560 Total ADD/RSF permits : 11 Total Valuation : $303,084' BLD10-00515 ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH 310 N JOHNSON ST INTERIOR REMODEL OF CHURCH BLD10-00145 IOWA CITY CMNTY SCH DI 2901 MELROSE AVE REMODEL SCIENCE CLASSROOMS FOR WEST HIGH SCHOOL BLD10-00487 JAMES INVESTMENT GROU 673 WESTBURY DR OFFICE FINISH OF TENANT LEASE SPACE IN COMMERCIAL BUILDING ALT NON 2 0 $1,450,749 ALT NON 0 0 $136,250 ALT NON 2 0 $127,000 Page : 3 City of Iowa City Date : 9/1/2010 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 8/ 1 /2010 From : 8/31/2010 Census Bureau Report Tune Twe Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD10-00485 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES 2591 INDEPENDENCE RD ALT NON 0 0 $26,800 OFFICE AND RESTROOM IN WAREHOUSE BLD10-00176 HENRY ROMERO 1820 BOYRUM ST ALT NON 1 0 $25,000 RESTAURANT BUILD OUT IN COMMERCIAL TENANT SPACE (SEE MISC. Action in activity) BLD10-00483 LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRI~ 601 HOLLYWOOD BLVD ALT NON 0 0 $25,000 PIZZA TAKE OUT RESTAURANT BLD10-00440 MERCY FACILITIES INC 540 E JEFFERSON ST ALT NON 5 0 $14,000 ALTERATION OF SUITE 300 MEDICAL OFFICES BLD10-00471 SOUTHGATE DEV CO INC 1067 HIGHWAY 6 EAST ALT NON 1 0 $5,000 POLICE SUBSTATION OFFICE FINISH BLD10-00470 SUCCESSFUL LIVING, INC 2400 TOWNCREST DR ALT NON 0 0 $1,000 change of use from medical office (Cross Med Labs) to general office (administrative and soci al services) Total ALT/NON permits : 9 Total Valuation : $1,810,799 BLD10-00452 JUDY, EDMUND L 1714 LOUIS PL ALT RDF 0 0 $6,000 CONVERT SCREEN PORCH TO 3 SEASON Total ALT/RDF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $6,000 BLD10-00476 U OF I CREDIT UNION 46 LANCESTER PL ALT RMF 1 0 $45,000 BASEMENT FINISH AND COMPLETION OF MAIN FLOOR FOR RMF TOWNHOUSE UNIT BLD10-00462 ALPHA CHI SIGMA 114 E MARKET ST ALT RMF 0 0 $20,886 RESTROOM REMODEL FOR SORORITY BLD10-00451 MARY HOFFMAN 522 WESTWINDS DR ALT RMF 0 0 $12,000 BATH REMODEL FOR TOWNHOUSE UNIT BLD10-00390 PENINSULA DEVELOPMEN 1083 WALKER CIR ALT RMF 0 0 $1,000 Basement Finish BLD 10-00481 PAMELA S MICHAUD 613 E COLLEGE ST ALT RMF 3 0 $1,000 CONVERT DWELLING UNIT TO ROOMING UN IT STRUCTURE TO CONTAIN 1 EFFICIENCY DWELLING UNIT AND 5 ROOMING UNITS Total ALT/RMF permits : 5 Total Valuation : $79,886 BLD10-00259 DENNIS NOWOTNY 511 E WASHINGTON ST ALT RSF 3 0 $17,157 ALTERATION OF SFD--ATTIC CONVERTED TO HABITABLE SPACE BLD10-00454 WALDEN WOOD ASSOCIA 4024 GUSTAV ST ALT RSF 0 0 $16,000 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD BLD 10-00473 ANN KHAN 923 DEARBORN ST ALT RSF 0 0 $13,480 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD BLDIO-00510 ADVANTAGE CUSTOM BU 748 FOSTER RD ALT RSF 0 0 $12,700 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD BLD 10-00458 ROY YELDER 408 N DUBUQUE ST ALT RSF 0 0 $12,500 BASEMENT BEDROOM AND BATH FOR SFD BLD10-00482 KATHERINE FREY 1522 PRAIRIE DU CHIEN R ALT RSF 0 0 $12,500 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD Page : 4 City of Iowa City Date : 9/1/2010 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 8/1/2010 From : 8/31/2010 Census Bureau Report Type Tyue Permit Number Name Address Imnr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD10-00453 SCOTT RENTALS LLC 1613 PRAIRIE DU CHIEN R ALT RSF 0 0 $10,000 REMODEL SFD BLD10-00501 MYEP ROGER LUSAIA 3404 S JAMIE LN ALT RSF 0 0 $7,120 ADD BEDROOM FOR ZERO-LOT LINE SFD BLD10-00502 MYEP ROGER LUSAIA 3412 S JAMIE LN ALT RSF 0 0 $7,120 ADD BEDROOM TO ZERO-LOT SFD UNIT BLD10-00475 ROMY BOLTON & JULIA M 302 PARK RD ALT RSF 0 0 $2,800 BATH REMODEL FOR SFD BLD 10-00474 CHARLES K & SUSAN R EV 1701 QUINCENT ST ALT RSF 0 0 $2,500 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD BLD10-00432 MARK BROWN 306 MELROSE CT ALT RSF 0 0 $1,700 BASEMENT BEDROOM FOR SFD BLD10-00433 MARK BROWN 318 MELROSE CT ALT RSF 0 0 $1,700 BASEMENT BEDROOM FOR SFD BLD07-00467 JOSH ZEMAN & MEI FANG L 1611 HEMINGWAY LN ALT RSF 0 0 $800 BASEMENT BEDROOM FOR SFD Total ALT/RSF permits : 14 Total Valuation : $118,077 BLD10-00472 REIF OIL COMPANY 2580 NAPLES AVE NEW NON 0 0 $97,660 GAS CANOPY FOR FUTURE GAS ISLAND/RETAIL STORE BLD10-00491 TEKE ENTERPRISES INC 2870 COMMERCE DR NEW NON 1 0 $59,547 6,900 Sq. Ft. STORAGE BUILDING BLD10-00402 REIF OIL COMPANY 2580 NAPLES AVE NEW NON 0 0 $20,000 Foundation for Convenience Store BLD09-00573 CITY OF IOWA CITY 200 PARK RD NEW NON 0 0 $9,000 18 X 22 PARK SHELTER BLD10-00341 EAGLE VIEW PROPS LLC 933 S CLINTON ST NEW NON 1 0 $5,000 STORAGE BUILDING Total NEW/NON permits : 5 Total Valuation : $191,207 BLD10-00244 ANISTON VILLAGE LP 1076 CHAMBERLAIN DR NEW OTH 0 0 $6,500 RETAINING WALLS FOR LOTS 18 & 19 BLD09-00035 KEITH E YENTER 734 OAKLAND AVE NEW OTH 2 0 $335 FENCE FOR SFD Total NEW/OTH permits : 2 Total Valuation : $6,835 BLD10-00494 SHARP INVESTMENT PROP 26 LANCESTER PL NEW RMF 1 3 $557,481 3 UNIT TOWNHOUSES WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGES 26-30-34 LANCESTER PLACE BLD10-00493 SHARP INVESTMENT PROP 3114 WINTERGREEN DR NEW RMF 1 3 $430,000 TRI-PLEX WITH ATTACHED 2 & 3 CAR GARAGES-3114-3118-3122 WINTERGREEN DRIVE---3114 WITH BASEMENT FINISH; END UNITS WITH SCREEN PORCHES Total NEW/RMF permits : 2 Total Valuation : $987,481 Page : 5 City of Iowa City Date: 9/1/2010 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 8/1/2010 From : 8/31/2010 Census Bureau Report Tune Tune Permit Number Name Address Imnr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD10-00468 JOSH & STEPHANIE CHAPM 840 OXEN LN NEW RSF 1 1 $202,500 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD10-00438 PRIME VENTURES CONSTRI 650 GALWAY DR NEW RSF 1 1 $197,742 SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BASEMENT FAMILY ROOM & BATH BLD10-00372 PENINSULA DEV CO LLC 651 WALKER CIR NEW RSF 2 1 $196,610 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE (Bungalow) ONE-HOUR EXTERIOR WALLS (See plan check notes 10 and 11 at rough in and final). BLD10-00373 PENINSULA DEVELOPMEN 837 WALKER CIR NEW RSF 2 1 $196,610 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE (Bungalow) ONE-HOUR EXTERIOR WALLS BLD10-00407 IOWA VALLEY HAB FOR Ht 2651 WHISPERING MEADC NEW RSF 1 1 $145,412 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE PUBLIC FUNDS/MLO Total NEW/RSF permits : 5 Total Valuation : $938,874' BLD10-00492 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REP NON 2 0 $86,764 REPAIR AND REPLACE ACCESSIBLE ENTRY RAMP BLD10-00500 JIMMY JACKS RIB SHACK 1940 LOWER MUSCATINE REP NON 1 0 $14,000 REPLACE ROOF FOR RESTAURANT BLD08-00412 UHLER, ROBERT J 1841 S GILBERT ST REP NON 0 0 $5,000 FLOOD REPAIR OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING Total REP/NON permits : 3 Total Valuation : $105,764' BLD10-00486 PHYLLIS BLACK 1100 MARCY ST REP RDF 0 0 $1,000 REBUILD AWNING OVER REAR OF DUPLEX WITH POSTS Total REP/RDF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $1,000 BLD10-00441 WILLIAM J & MARIAN E BR 416 DOUGLASS CT REP RSF 0 0 $35,000 REMODEL AND REPAIR SFD BLD10-00449 CRAIG & NANCY KOHL 3342 ROHRET RD REP RSF 0 0 $15,000 FIRE REPAIR FOR SFD BLD10-00461 KATHY FLANDERS 308 4TH AVE REP RSF 0 0 $12,000 REFRAME BASEMENT WALLS/WATER DAMAGE BLD10-00519 LANCE & AMBER GREEN 2507 MAYFIELD RD REP RSF 0 0 $6,960 WINDOWS FOR SFD BLD10-00430 BARBARA J MORCH 1202 MARCY ST REP RSF 0 0 $4,200 REMOVE AND REPLACE DECK FOR SFD BLD10-00518 ED BREED 123 MONTROSE AVE REP RSF 0 0 $4,000 FOUNDATION REPAIR FOR SFD BLD10-00448 LENZ, JOSHUA A 58 REGAL LN REP RSF 0 0 $650 3 WINDOWS FOR SFD BLD08-00499 MARCUS & JOAN NASHELS 1177 E COURT ST REP RSF 0 0 $600 RECONSTRUCT GARAGEBASEMENT STAIRS Page : 6 City of Iowa City Date : 9/1/2010 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : sil/ZOIo From : 8/31/2010 Census Bureau Report ?~ Tvne Permit Number Name Address Imnr Use Stories Units Valuation Total REP/RSF permits : 8 Total Valuation : $78,410 GRAND TOTALS : PERMITS : 70 VALUATION : $4,747,685 IP8 ;_,~_. ~,~,a . _ ~~,-i,,_ :: Iowa City Police Department AUG 13 2010 P.A.U.L.A. Report -July 2010 c~tycierk ~~;~~ c;r,~, >~,~~ (Possession of Alcohol Under Legal Age) Business Name joccupancyJ Monthly Totals Year-to-D ate Totals PAULA Visit (occupancyloads updated Oct'08) visits arrests visits arrests ear-to-date 808 Restaurant & Nightclub [176] 3 1 33 52 1.576 Airliner [223] 4 0 17 3 0 0.176 000 0 American Legion [140] 1 0 10 . Aoeshe Restaurant [156] Atlas World Grill [165] Blackstone [297] Bluebird Diner [82] 1 0 16 8 0.500 Blue Moose [436] Bob's Your Uncle [260"] 13 0 0.000 Bo-James [200] 2 0 Bread Garden Market & Bakery 40 12 300 0 [It's] Brothers Bar & Grill [556] 9 0 . [The] Brown Bottle [289] 1 0 0 000 Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar [189] 0 0 . Caliente Ni ht Club [498] 1 0 7 0 0.000 Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill [92] 0 0 1 0 0.000 Carlos O'Kelly's [299] Chefs Table [162] Chipotle Mexican Grill [119] 0 000 0 [TheJ Club Car [56] 0 0 2 1 0 . 000 0 Coaches Corner [160] 0 0 . Colonial Lanes [502] 1 0 000 0 Dave's Foxhead Tavern [87] 1 0 . David's Place (aka Dawit's) [73] 0 0 2 0 0.000 DC's [120] 2 1 12 2 0.167 [The] Deadwood [218] 1 ~0 3 0 0.000 Devotay [45] ' 0 0 3 0 0.000 s Pub [49] Donnelly 6 0 000 0 [The] Dublin Underground [57J 0 0 . [Fraternal Order of] Eagle's [315] EI Banditos [25 EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant [104] [BPO] Elks #590 [205] EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant (161] Englert Theatre [838] 0 39 78 2.000 [The] Field House (aka Third Base) [420] 4 Firewater [114] 0 0 8 0 0.000 First Avenue Club [280] Formosa Asian Cuisine [149] 0 0 2 0 0.000 Gabes [261] 0 0. 1 0 0.000 George's Buffet [75] 1 0 3 0 0.000 Givanni's [158] 1 0 1 0 0.000 Godfather's Pizza (170] Graze [49] Grizzly's South Side Pub (265] 0 0 8 0 0.000 Guido's Deli [20] Hawkeye Hideawa [94] ' [The] Hilltop Lounge [90] 1 0 2 0 0.000 IC Ugly's (72] 1 0 5 0 0.000 India Cafe [100] Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack [71] Jobsite [120] 1 0 9 0 0.000 Joe's Place [281] 0 0 7 0 0.000 Joseph's Steak House (226] Karaoke La Revna (781 La Reyna [49] Linn Street Cafe [80] Los Portales [161] Martini's [200] 2 0 9 4 0.444 Masala [46] Mekong Restaurant [89] Micky's [98] 0 0 6 0 0.000 [The] Mill Restaurant [325] [Lo al Order of] Moose [476] [Sheraton] Morgan's [231] Motley Cow Cafe [82] Okoboji Grill [222] Old Capitol Brew Works [294] 0 0 3 0 0.000 One-Eyed Jake's [299] aka J Bar 6 0 28 30 1.071 One-Twent -Six [105] Orchard Green Restaurant [200] Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant [87] Pagliai's Pizza [113] Panchero's (Clinton St) [62] Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr) [95] Piano Lounge [65] 1 0 1 0 0.000 Pints [180] 2 0 22 1 0.045 Pit Smokehouse [40] Pizza Hut [116] Pizza Ranch [226] Quality Inn/Highlander [971] Quinton's Bar & Deli [149]' 0 0 5 0 0.000 [The] Red Avocado [47] Rick's Grille & Spirits [120] Riverside Theatre [118] Saloon [120] 1 0 3 0 0.000 Sam's Pizza [174] 1 0 0.000 (The] Sanctuary Restaurant [132] 0 0 2 0 0.000 Shakespeare's [90] 0 0 6 0 0.000 Short's Burger & Shine [56] 0 0 2 0 0.000 Slippery Pete's [178] 2 0 11 1 0.091 Sidelines [200] 2 0 5 0 0.000 Sports Column [400] 4 0 32 32 1.000 Star Lounge [144] 0 0 3 0 0.000 Studio 13 [206] 2 0 11 0 0.000 [The] Summit [736] 7 0 46 69 1.500 Sushi Popo [84] Takanami Restaurant [148] TCB [250] 1 0 13 0 0.000 Thai Flavors [60j Thai Spice [91 J Times Club @ Prairie Lights [60] T. Spoons [102] Union Bar [854] 3 0 29 18 0.552 VFW Post #3949 [197] [The] Vine Tavern [170] 0 0 7 3 0.429 Vito's [320] 4 1 17 2 0.118 Wig & Pen Pizza Pub [154] 1 0 1 0 0.000 [Iowa City] Yacht Club [206] . 0 0 2 1 0.500 Zio Johno's Spaghetti House [94] Z'Mariks Noodle House [47] Totals: 72 3 518 314 0.606 Other PAULA at non-business locations: 1 45 PAULA Totals: 4 359 'includes outdoor seating area current month year-to-date -~.}y~.j AUG 13 2010 City Cterk sc~°a City, Iowa IP9 ~vi~t:a~ Tram ~~uF, Nr.d Hello neighbors, it's Ned. It seems like only half a bag of kibble since my last column, but another season is end- ing and Ma says. "Ned, time co stop licking t ~ and star[ writing, hu ha!" It has been a long hot summer for a black dog in a fur tuxedo, as Ma likes to describe it, and I am not sorry to see the days getting shorter and the leaves start snowing down. We are taking longer walks and the water in my bowl is alwnys cool. Also, Ma is A LOT less crabby and she NEV- ER yanks my leash when 1 have sniffed something LONG ENOUGH. (She promised me a peanut butter sandwich if 1 would say that.) 1 hope you enjoyed the garden walk. Once again, Ma would not put our yard on the tour. "Who wants to see a bunch of weeds and bare spots where even mint won't grow?" she says. My friends, that's who!!! We could eat all the rotting cherries off the ground, I could show them where I almost caught the squirrel in '03, and thea we would stick our nos- es down the biggest chipmunk hole you have ever seen!!! There are plenty of moles to go around tool!! Next year!!! Hello to my new friends Pearl, Sukie, twin brothers Zeus and Apollo (yon are the biggest puppies in the neighbor- hood!), and Hannah, who is the same age as ME-want to join AARF together? Well, I have filled my part of the bnrgain like a Totally Good Boy, and it is time to remind Ma about the peanut butter. If she wanted to grill me some chicken 1 would not object except that i am in kind of o puny. I don't know why fast food is supposed to be a bad thing, do you? Happy fall from your friend, Ned Leidiger, TGB GI:n~~nL nnnounc>:nl:nrs -oin Us at the New LNA Online Locatlon- located at http:// groups.googlecom/group/LNA-iowa-city. Anyone can view the online content. Bnck issues of this newsletter and other docu- ments are also available. In the next few weeks the two historic signs on the stanchian on Muscatine will be restored with new copy and graphics. These signs had suffereddamuged from traffic corrosion and rand salt and will be improved through the use of vinyl appliyues. Tt11: L0116PfLLOW I1~16ti60PiI100D nSSOC[I1TlOfl f1CW5LCTTttt http:%/groups.google.coml9roup,'LN.4-Iowa-city Iowa City, Iowa September 2010 `~~~ LC)YJ~~P~~(~11V ~PIn~~9U~~0(~d ~I~Y~I~ Sunday, September 19, 4-6 pm The annual Longfellow Neighborhood Picnic will be held on Sunday, September 19, from 4-6 pm on Clark Street between Bowery and Seymour. This annual event is open to all and is an excellent time to meet up with neighbors and friends. Everyone is encouraged to bring a dish to share, and perhaps we can bring as many dishes made with local ingredients as possible. It has also been suggested that folks bring their own tableware, including silver as we will try to make this event as "green" as possible. Re- tycling containers will be on hand at the site. Brats, hot dogs and veggie burgers will also be provided, as well as lemonade. Bring chairs or blankets to sit and listen to the band, The Recliners. A special guest, Rowan Jacobsen, will be in attendance with Maeve Clark. Rowan Jacobsen is the James Beard Award-winning author ofA Geography ofOysters: The Connoisseur's Guide to Oyster Eating in North America, Fruitless Fall: The Collapse of the Honey Bee and the Coming Agricultural Crisis, and Zhe Living Shore, about our ancient connection to estuaries and their potential to heal the oceans. He has written for the New York Times, Newsweek, Harpers, Outside, Eating Well, and others. He will be at the Iowa City Public Library that day for a talk about his new book American Terroir. The library tnik is sponsored by ECO Iowa City and Field to Family. So come to tlTe Longfellow Neighborhood Picnic on September 19, listen to the Recliners, meet a special guest, enjoy some great local food, and celebrate with your neighbors and friends! 1~16I ~1~~5 ~111~I~ 0001~~0~1~91~11 ~1011~d9II01 Ss [ ON lILI1S3d ¢MOl :AJI~ E.MOI QIb'd 3Jt'.LSOd S'i1 a.LS .Lxsxa uopnpossy pooy~a7y61aN ~MOlla~6uo7 /~~Il~ 91!01 ~II1 UniverCity Renovates Homes in Longfellow Exciting things are happening in Longfellow Neighborhood! The UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership, a coopera- tiveeffort between the University' of Iowa and the City of Iowa City, has begun purchasing and renovating homes in and around Longfellow neighborhood. This program, with funding from $1.25 million 1-JOBS grant, purchases homes in neighborhoods near the University of Iowa campus and downtown. A variety of sizes and price ranges are purchased by the program and a Housing Rehabilitation specialist from the City oversees up to $50,000 in renovations on the home. The home is then resold W an income eligible individual or family' who must keep it affordable for at least 5-tears and owner-occupied for at-least 10 years. In the first phase of the program 25 homes will be renovated and sold, and both the University of Iowa and the City of Iowa City hope that this program will encourage reinveshnent and stability in selected neighborhoods. For mare infonnafion about fhe program visit wunv.icgov.org/UniverCity, call the Planning and Community Development depart- ment nt (319) 356-5230 or (tnd the progrnm on Fc+cebook ctt www.facebook.cam/LLniverCityGl 517 S. Governor Street Renovation Complete "this home is lo- cated on South Governor Street in the Governor- Lucas Street Con- versation District end in the Long- fellow Elementary School District. Bull[ in 1915, this home has been a rental since 1995. The house offers 1,548 square feet of living space and an unfinished base- ment. It has three bedrooms and one bathroom Located on the second floor. There is also a two car garage otf the alley behind the home and there is a nice fenced backyard. Renovations: All new roof, sidewalk, kitchen, front door, refinished hardwood Floors. Estimated Sale Price - $180,000 plus carrying costs' 1207 Muscatine Avenue Currently Under Renovation This 1560 square foot home is situated on Muscatine Av- enue between Burlington and College Streets in the College Hill Conservation District and in the Longfellow Elemen- tary School District. Built in 1900, it has four bedrooms and 1.5 baths, an unfinished basement and walk-up attic. Access is from a driveway on Muscatine or a parking area off the rear alley. The home has wood floors, a new furnace and aJc, new water heater, new 200 amp electrical service with undergrtound feed, hardwired smoke detectors, wood siding, soffits, fascia, and mostly original windows. Renovations: All new kitchen; bath- (r rooms; repaired front _-~ -- - porch, sidewalk and steps; laundry room, ~~-'" ~ .~ ',,;„ ~. .I interior and exterior yl iii I ~ paint. 5 ~•'', r r Ili , Estimated Sale Price ~ ~ ' - $156,000 plus car- r eying costs' °carry costs typically do not exceed S30W. Need a hand with some home reaairs2 0 r If your home needs essential repairs but you can't afford to make them, the City of Iowa City Elousing Rehab Program may be able to help. You may yualify for ~~ financial assistance to repair or rehabilitate your home if: • You are a resident of Iowa City, and own and live in your home. ~ • Your home needs one or more essential repair, but you do not have the financial means to have the work done. ~ • Your household income meets guidelines for assistance. You have enough equity in your home to support the City's loan. The City's housing rehabilitation program offers no-interest or low-interest loans through federal Community Ievelopment Block Grant (CDBG) and Home ® Investment Pannership (HOME) funds. For more information, conWCt City of Iowa City Housing Rehabilitation at 319.356.5246, ernai/ liz-osborneCtiowa-city.org ar visit their websi[e wtvw.icgov.org/ /f cornmdev Bowery Street Paving Restored Late July bustled with activity as a platoon of workmen restored and renewed one of the last remaining sections of brick-paved streets in Iowa City. Contractors carefully removed, cleaned and palleted the existing paving bricks, revealing a soil subsurface than had become sunken and bumpy. Rather than simply reinstall the bricks after level- ing, the street was then prepared with 6" of road stone, graded and paved with 7"of concrete underlayment and a 3/4" asphalt setting bed. 'Phis technique will assure that the final surface will remain flat and smooth; the asphalt laver between the brick and concrete will cushion the brick. New curbs were cast as part of this process, then the original brick was reinstalled, leaving the street in pristine condition. The work, performed by AIL-American Concrete, required 6 weeks at a cost of $215,00(1. "this block of Bow- ery involved 995 square yards of surface -around 35,820 bricks. A third of the bricks had to be replaced with new because of damage to existing bricks. The work also in- cluded new curb and gutter, sensory detectable curb ramps at all corners and partial resurfacing of Clark. A city ordinance protects the remain ingbrick-paved streets in the city from being covered or removed. Bowery is one of several brick-paved streets left in the city, includ- ing Church Street west of Dubuque, three blocks of Brown Street, part of Van Buren Street, Summit Street between Burlington and College, and others. Those who come [o the pic- nic at Clark and Rowery on Sep- tember 19 can examine the restored street personally. Advice to Near-Campus Residents Concerning House-Parties (turn O(/ice o(Neighhorhood Services and Ure Iowa City Poticc Ucpartu+ent As you map be aware from news reports or from your own ex- periences, neighborhoods that host student rental housing mac be experiencing a transition period with the new 27 Ordinance. It is important for the long term welt being of the neighbor- hoods to address any noise issues and house parties as quickly as possible at the tmginning of this schcx+l year. If you are experiencing issues with noise/house parties, the following arc suggestions on how to most effectively address them: • Consider talking to the part}' host directly. Very freyuently this will help dissipate the noise issue immediately. • If you do not get results in speaking with your neighbors, CONT4C'CTH[ POLICB. It has become apparent that although residents express fivstration with house parties after the fact, there are no calls to the police. Do not assume your neigh- bors have done so. You can contact the police at either their routine number - 356-6800, or (only to be used far E.MERGEN- C/ES1- 91 L The 6800 number will take you directly to the Joint Communications Center dispatch. Please have the address of the subject progeny available. 'Che police department is taking an aggressive stance towards house parties and attempting to address them early in the school year. Please help them with this process. • Consider establishing a Neighborhood Watch area where You live. Jorey Bailey, Iowa City's Crime Prevention Officer is very interested in working with you to set up this program in your neighborhood and will also do a lot of the footwork' Creating a watch area can help all neighbors get to know each other and provides a direct link to the Crime Prevention office for questions, concerns or other issues. Jorey can be reached at Jorey-BaileyCaiowa-city.org or 319-356-5273. • And most imponantly, introduce yourself to your new neigh- bors as soon as possible when there are no issues and it is a posi- tiveexperience. Many students have not lived off campus and do not realize that they now' have neighbors who have families, have jobs t}tat require getting up early in the morning or are elderly. Offer [hem your contact info, and encourage them to do the same, so that they can let you know if they intend to have a party. A phone call is notch easier for everyone if any issues come up. ittC LO114PIL10'Y! [1CI4flD0fttl00D t'SSOC111TIOtl BOTIftD: President: Ann Khan Vice President: Will Thomson Treasurer: Alison McGoff Secretary: leonette Carter Nature Troll Piontings Coordinator: )eft Schabilion Newsletter Editor: Will Thomson the Long VFew is issued by the Longfellow Neighborhood Associa- tion. The Office of Neighborhood Services of [he Ciry of lowo Gty prints and pays for postage and maintains the address list, but is not responslbie for the quality or content. Newsletters must meet city-op- proved Neighborhood Guidelines. Content is considered intellectual property and may only be borrowed for attributed non-profit use. Workers cme(rJly remova an; -lean rba pavi+g brick from Bowery Sfrtef ns pmt of the process to restore the Street this sununer. ~h~ Planner VOLUME 2, ISSUE 14 Weelc of AUGUST 30, 2010 Newsletter for the Iowa City Planning & Community Development Department Urban Planning ~ Historic Preservation ~ Housing Rehab ~ Community Development Economic Development ~ JCCOG Transportation Planning ~ Neighborhood Services ~ Public Art The new Towncrest Concept Plan A: Towncrest Drive entrance ~1 rf ~, ~ ' 1"'~ a:'r_ p : ~~ ~ ~.~ ~ , t r ~ ~ - .,~ ~~~ t~r F 1 ~~ [j r +/' { ~~ f; + 5~ I I ~~a ~ i 1 ~d' T r , ~ ~. ~ ~~~+- ~~ ~ ~ ' I ;_~ ~ti.~~ri~ rte. ,~ ~ ~~' i f ~~~ ,, .. y ~ a ~. ..~ ~~~ ~ .. Concept Plan B: Towncrest Drive entrance ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ • • • RDG Planning & Design, the landscape architecture firm hired by the City to develop a streetscape plan for the Towncrest urban renewal project, unveiled two concept plans at an open house last week. Now, they're looking for feedback from Towncrest area business owners, resi- dents, and the Iowa City pub- lic on the pros and cons of each plan before they prepare their final recommendations for the City. The deadline for public feedback is next Tuesday, August 31. Com- ments may be submitted via the RDG website at: www.rdgusa.coml urbandesignltowncrest See the full article on the Towncrest proposal inside. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The Planner, week of 8.30.10 -page 2 The new Towncrest Consultants introduce two design concepts, ask for public feedback After previous meetings with the Towncrest neighborhood to gather input on what business owners and resi- dents would like to see for the future of the Towncrest district, representatives of RDG Planning & Design hosted an open house on August 23 to unveil two redevelopment design concepts. RDG, a landscape architec- ture firm, has been hired by the City to develop a streetscape plan for the Towncrest urban renewal project, which will include design concepts for sidewalks, landscaping, signage, basic architectural treatments, parks, public open spaces, and other amenities such as lighting, benches and public art. Referred to as "Concept A" and "Concept B," the two plans offer widely varying approaches. Christina Kuecker, a Planner with the City of Iowa City who has been associated with the project for the past year, said Concept A represents a more modern architectural approach, while Concept B is more traditional. Concept Plan A: Exterior facades, walkways and plantings Concept B, Kuecker continued, offered an approach that is more representative of a Midwestern Main Street. "It's more tradi- tional, more simple," Kuecker said of the second proposal. This concept plan calls for the use of brick in many of the design ele- ments, and more traditional ap- proaches to landscaping, such as shrubs, flowers, and planters. Concept B, she continued, is "reminiscent of a traditional downtown." continued on next page Concept A, she said, is more "organic" in design, reflected by free-flowing lines, the use of limestone and other natural ma- terials, and a more artistic ap- proach to details in benches, planters, street lighting, and signage. This concept also offers a modern interpretation of Iowa's agricultural heritage, in- cluding the use of prairie grasses in the landscaping plans, bolder colors that are reminiscent of Iowa's red barns and farm build- ings, and metal roofs. Concept Plan B: Exterior facades, walkways and plantings Both plans offer ideas for facade improvements to existing build- ings, along with ideas for possi- ble new construction. The plans focus heavily on a reconfigura- tion of the Towncrest Drive area, proposing two lanes of traffic, diagonal parking on both sides of the street, aseven-foot area for benches, trees, and plantings, and aseven-foot walk- way adjacent to buildings and businesses. Ideas have also been included in each plan for an open space, if an open area was to be included in the final plan. While the firm has focused on this part of the neighborhood in its pro- posals, the design concepts could be implemented through- out the Towncrest business dis- trict for greater uniformity in appearance and presence. What now? Now, the RDG team is looking for feedback on the proposals, including what people like, what they don't like, and any sugges- tions they have for improve- ment. Kuecker noted that the final plan would not be either Concept A or Concept B, but a variation based on comments received by the public. To view both proposals in full, andlor to submit comments, visit www.rdgusa.comlu rbandesignl towncrest. RDG will accept pub- lic comment through August 3 I . What next? After reviewing what the public has to say, RDG staff will make revisions and prepare a final con- cept plan proposal that will be presented to the neighborhood. A date for that presentation has not yet been set. The firm will The Planner, week of 8.30.10 -page 3 The new Towncrest Concept A Facade improvements How would the looks of the buildings change? The small inset photo in each of these graphics depicts a brick building that is currently located in the Towncrest business district. The illustration above shows how the building might look if the design recommendations from Concept Plan A were implemented, while the illustration below shows ideas from Concept Plan B. Concept B then create a final plan that will offer specific details on how to implemented the new ideas for Towncrest business owners, local investors, and the City, pending authorization by the City Council. For more information, contact Christina Kuecker in the Plan- ning & Community Development Department at 319.356.5243 or e-mail Christina-Kuecker@iowa- city.org. ave yo u r s ay. . Plans for the Towncrest redevelopment have been largely shaped by businesses and residents that call that area "home." Now it's time to comment on the ideas that have been presented! Review the concept plans and submit comments by August 3 I to • RDG via their website: • www.rdgusa.coml urbandesignltowncrest The Planner, week of 8.30.10 -page 4 The new Towncrest Concept Plan A: Signage and Wayfinding (above) Concept Plan B: Signage and Wayfinding (below) UPCOMING MEETINGS This is a tentative schedule of upcoming meetings. To verify that the meeting will be held, check the calendar on the City website at www.icgov.org or call the Planning & Community Development office at 356.5230. Meetings will be held at City Hall at 410 E. Washington Street. The individual listings below provide the name of the meeting room. Thursday, September 2 ^ Public Art Advisory Committee, 3:30 p.m., Lobby Conference Room ^ Planning & Zoning Commission, 7 p.m., Emma Harvat Hall Wednesday, September 8 ^ Board of Adjustment, 5: 15 p.m., Emma Harvat Hall Thursday, September 9 ^ Historic Preservation Commission, 6 p.m., Emma Harvat Hall Thursday, September I6 ^ Housing & Community Development Commission, 6:30 pm, Lobby Conference Room To view agendas and meeting packets for City meetings Go to the City Calendar page at www.icgov.orgldefaultl appslG E Nlcalendar.asp Click on the date of the meeting, and then on the name of the group that will be meeting. Agendas and meeting packets for all scheduled meetings are posted to the web at least 24 hours in advance. ^ Planning & Zoning Commission, 7 p.m., Emma Harvat Hall -~ WHO SHOULD YOU CONTACT? PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT General Phone: 319.356.5230 Fax: 319.356.5217 Department Web Page: http://www.icgov.org/PCD ............................................... ADMINISTRATION . e ............................................... COMMUNITY . e ............................................... CCOG J eff Davidson J DEVELOPMENT ~ ohn Ya J pp Director Steve Long Executive Director 319.356.5232 Coordinator 319.356.5252 Jeff-davidson@iowa-city.org 319.356.5250 ~ john-yapp@iowa-city.org anet Dvorsl J ry • steve-long@iowa-city.org . ~ Trans ortation Planners: p Administrative Secretary Community Brad Neumann 319.356.5230 ~ Development Planners: ~ 319.356.5235 Janet-dvorsl<y@iowa-city.org Trac Hi htshoe y g brad-neumann@iowa-city.org Jodi DeMeulenaere ~ 319.356.5244 ~ Kent Ralston Public Information Assistant ~ tracy-hightshoe@iowa-city.org 319.356.5253 319.356.5236 Dou On ie g g Kent-ralston@iowa-city.org odi-demeulenaere@ ~ 3 19 356 5479 • iowa-city.org ~ . . doug-ongie@iowa-city.org Kristopher Aclcerson • 319.356.5247 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• David Purdy . I<ristopher-acl<erson@ 319.356.5489 o iowa-city.org URBAN ~ david-purely@iowa-city.org Darian Na le-Lamm g PLANNING g Housin Rehabilitation g . 319.356.5254 Robert Milclo S ecialists: p darian-nagle-gamm@ Senior Planner David Powers iowa-cit .or Y g 319.356.5240 • 319.356.5233 , Human Services bob-mil<lo@iowa-city.org ~ david-powers@iowa-city.org ~ , • . . Planning: Urban Planners: . Jeff Vanatter a . Linda Severson Karen Howard 319.356.5128 Coordinator 319.356.5251 Jeff-vanatter@iowa-city.org 319.356.5242 Karen-howard@iowa-city.org • linda-severson@iowa-city.org : Liz Osborne r Christina Kuecker . Program Assistant . Historic Preservation 319.356.5246 ............................................... 319.356.5243 liz-Osborne@iowa-city.org Christina-kuecker NEIGHBORHOOD iowa-city.org ............................................... SERVICES Sarah Walz . . . Marcia Bollinger Board of Adjustment ECONOMIC Coordinator of 3 19.356.5239 DEVELOPMENT Neighborhood Services sarah-walz@iowa-city.org ~ Wend Ford y ~ & Iowa City Public Art Program Coordinator 319.356.5237 319.356.5248 mania-bollin er iowa-cit .or g @ Y g Wendy-ford@iowa-city.org . ~~0 W@~CO11'1@ to the neighborhood! Iowa City is a diverse city made up of people from all lifestyles and backgrounds. Students are an essential part of this community. The residents of Iowa City are excited to welcome you as a neighbor. We want you to have fun in Iowa City. But it is important to remember you are part of a neighborhood and being respectful of your neighbors will help everyone feel safe and comfortable. The following are some guidelines to help you host that party that is fun and safe and does not create problems between you and your neighbors: Know Your Neighbors Let your neighbors know when the party will be and when it will end. Give them your phone number, so they can call you with a complaint instead of the police. Being open and responsive to your neighbors can help you avoid a more serious situation. Keep it Clean and Quiet Make sure your guests stay inside and that litter is kept off your yard or the yards of your neighbors. Check outside periodically to make sure the noise level is appropriate and that no guests are outside. Parties that spill outside are more likely to be charged with a disorderly house and open container. Possession of Alcohol Under Legal Age. 1st offense: $200, 2nd offense: $500 + completion of a substance abuse class or suspension of your drivers license for a year, 3rd of- fense: $500 + suspension of your license for a year. Additionally, a surcharge of 35% of the fine and court cost of $60 making for a pretty expensive drink Monitor Your Guests It's easiest to control parties when you know the people there. If you have unwanted guests, don't hesitate to call the police. Keeping your party in control will help keep your guests safe. If the police do become involved, be polite to them and follow their directions. Interfering with the police is against the law. Be a Good Host If you are the host, keep in mind that its easy to loose control of the party if you don't have control of yourself. The best way to keep your party fun and safe is to stay sober. Keep cab numbers handy and encourage your guests not to drive drunk or walk home alone. POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES ~ •. The definition of disorderly house is quite broad. Open containers in public places Conduct that can contribute to a disorderly house (streets, public sidewalks, hallways includes: fighting or conduct that threatens injury to to apartment complexes and front people or property, and loud, raucous, or disagree- stoops of multi-unit rental properties able noises disturbing the neighborhood or general are included) cost $50 per violation public. A good rule of thumb is to keep your party plus surcharge and court costs. under control and be considerate of your neighbors. The fine is a minimum of $65 and a maximum of $625 plus additional surcharge and court costs. .. When purchasing a keg, the retailer will record your name, address and Simply put, a "nuisance property' is a house that drivers' license number in a log book. A sticker containing an identification frequently causes problems for its surrounding number will than be placed on the keg. This allows law enforcement officers nei hbors. If ou decide to disrupt the neighborhood to track kegs to where they were sold and whom they were sold to. You will g y want to keep this responsibility in mind when deciding how you want to through noise, neglect to pick up garbage, maintain a throw a party. disorderly house, and violate the open containers and couch ordinances, or any combination of these violations, you can be cited as a nuisance property. Selling alcohol in Iowa City without a permit carries a fine of $1,000. It isn't If you become a nuisance property, you will be required possible to get a permit for your house. Selling to an intoxicated person is to attend a compliance meeting involving the city, your also a misdemeanor which can cost $65 to $625 plus surcharge and court landlord, and other tenants involved. This could cause costs and/or 30 days in jail. your landlord to lose his/her rental permit and/or you Remember: Under Iowa state law selling liquor, wine, beer and other getting evicted. alcoholic beverages without a license is bootlegging. Whenever liquor, wine or beer are sold or the cost is recovered in any manner, a license is required. Bootlegging is a criminal offense (serious misdemeanor). First and foremost, introduce yourself to your neighbors when they move in. Many students have not lived off campus and do not realize that they now have neighbors who have families, have jobs that require getting up early in the morning or are elderly. Offer them your contact info, and encourage them to do the same, so that they can let you know if they intend to have a party. A phone call is much easier for everyone if any issues come up. If you do experience issues with noise/house parties, the following are suggestions on how to most effectively address them: Consider talking to the party host directly. Hosts may not realize that their party is too loud or that their guests are being inappropriate. This contact can help dissipate the noise issue quickly without police involve- ment. If you do not get results in speaking with your neighbors, CONTACT THE POLICE. Regardless of if you think your neighbors have called, please do it regardless. You can contact the police at their routine number - 356-6800. Please reserve #911 for emergencies only. It is helpful to have the address of the subject prop- erty available. The police department is taking an aggressive stance towards house parties and attempting to address them early in the school year. Please help them with this process. • Consider establishing a Neighborhood Watch area where you live. Jorey Bailey, Iowa City's Crime Preven- tion Officer is very interested in working with you to set up this program in your neighborhood and will also do a lot of the footwork! Creating a watch area can help all neighbors get to know each other and provides a direct link to the Crime Prevention office for questions, concerns or other issues. Jorey can be reached at Jorey-Bailey(a~iowa-city.orq or 319-356-5273. Office of Neighborhood Services City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Iowa City IA 52240 PRST STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID Iowa City, Iowa Permit No. 155 Postal Customer r ~~~~ ~~"::tu ,,,.m~~"~ This guide was produced by the Iowa City Office of Neighborhood ~~m.. Services. Contact 319.356.5237 with any questions or comments. CITY' (7f 1 C~t'~'A C I TY As you may be aware from news reports or from your own experiences, neighborhoods that host student rental housing may be experiencing a transition period with the new 21 Ordinance. It is important for the long term well being of the neighborhoods to address any noise issues and house parties as quickly as possible at the begin- ning of this school year. ua-uz-~ u IP11 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 11, 2010 - 5:15 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson MEMBERS ABSENT: Will Jennings STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Robin Chambers, Tracy Barkalow, Alicia Trimble, RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Anderson, Tyson, Eckstein, Sheerin were present. A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 14. 2010 MEETING MINUTES: Sheerin noted a typographical error. Tyson motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Anderson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Jennings excused) SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXC10-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Richard and Robin Chambers for a reduction in the principal building setback requirements for property located in the RS-5 zone at 907 Fifth Avenue. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 2 of 9 Walz explained that the applicants have converted their attached garage into living space, and wish to build a new attached garage at the rear of the property. Walz said that the applicants have the right to build a 21x 21 foot detached garage that could be located as close as three feet from the property line. Walz said that because detached garages are separate from the primary living space, they are classified as accessory structures and are subjecf to different standards than the principal building. Walz said that accessory buildings are generally smaller than the principal structure and therefore have different setback requirements than attached garages, which are considered a part of the principal structure. Walz noted that this property is somewhat different than the surrounding properties, which consist of long lots. The subject lot is the smallest lot size allowable in the RS-5 zone. Under current zoning if the lot was being built on today, it would be required to have vehicle access provided from the alley. Walz said that what makes this particular situation so peculiar is that the attached garage would actually provide a greater setback from the neighbor than the detached garage could. Walz said that most of the houses in the neighborhood have vehicle access off the alley. Walz said that given the arrangement and size of the lot it seems reasonable to grant a setback reduction allowing the attached garage. Walz said that staff recommends approval of this application subject to the height of the structure being limited to the standards for detached accessory structures and the setback reduction applying only to the 21-foot depth of the garage. Eckstein said that the written staff report seems to recommend only that the standards be adhered to, whereas the oral report seemed to indicate that staff favored asingle-story structure. Walz said what she had meant was that the structure would be held to the height standards of a detached garage, as recommended in the staff report. Eckstein said there could be some concern about the mass of the building on the site if the decision was to make the garage more than one story. She asked if that was something the Board could or should consider. Walz said that the Board could consider that, but that they should keep in mind that a detached garage is allowed to be up to 20-feet tall. Eckstein asked if that would be true of an attached garage if the application was approved as staff had presented it. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that if the garage was attached, the garage was allowed to be as tall as the house, which is less than the 20-feet being discussed. Robin Chambers, 907 Fifth Avenue, said that she wished to clarify that the original attached garage has not yet been converted to living space, though that is the plan. She said that no conversion would begin until the Board made their decision on the new garage. She offered to answer any questions the Board might have. Eckstein said that she understood it to be the case that the proposed garage and its driveway would not be directly across the alley from the neighbor's driveway. The applicant said that was correct. Anderson moved to approve EXC10-00006, a special exception to reduce the setback requirement for principal buildings from 20 feet to 10 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1) The height of the garage will be limited according to the standards for detached accessory structures; 2) The setback reduction is for the 21-foot depth of the proposed garage only. Tyson seconded. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 3 of 9 Sheerin invited discussion from the Board. Anderson said that upon initial review of the application he was concerned about the amount of buildup on the lot, with particular concern for the amount of open space that would be left on the site. He said that concern had been removed because of the fact that attaching the garage actually leaves more open space. He said that the staff recommendation to limit the height of the garage was a good idea. Sheerin said she too had originally had concerns about the mass of structures on the site. Sheerin invited the findings of fact. Eckstein said that this special exception poses no threat to the public safety and does not increase traffic congestion because of the way the garage is situated on the alley. She said that there are no structural changes that would impede emergency vehicles. Sheerin said that this situation is peculiar to the property because the lot is smaller than other lots in the area, and is the minimum size allowed in the zone at 6,000 square feet. Sheerin said that there is very little room behind the house to situate a garage off the alley. Sheerin said that another peculiarity of the property is that it actually provides for a larger setback with an attached garage than it could have for a detached. Sheerin said it meets the specific criteria as there is a practical difficulty with the setback requirement due to the shallow depth of the parcel and the small size of the lot. Sheerin said that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback requirement because it actually provides more space between the garage and the adjacent property than would a detached garage in this case. Sheerin said that the height limitation will reduce the appearance of massing large structures on the small property. She stated that any potential negative effects resulting from the proposed setback would be mitigated to the extent possible because the proposal actually results in more space on site. Sheerin said that the proposed garage is set back ten feet from the rear property line. Sheerin said that all necessary utilities and facilities are in place and the proposed setback will not diminish the capacity for the installation of sidewalks in the future, nor does it have any effect on motorists or pedestrians on the streets. She said the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which provides incentives for the use of alleys. Anderson noted that the staff report indicates that sidewalks are not present but that sufficient right of way exists for their future construction. Eckstein said that she concurs with the staff recommendation that the height of the garage be limited to the standards used for detached garages. Sheerin closed the public hearing. A vote was taken and the motion carried 40 (Jennings excused). Sheerin declared the motion approved, stating that anyone wishing to appeal the decision may do so within 30 days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 4 of 9 APPEAL: Discussion of an appeal filed by Tracy Barkalow to overturn a decision of the Historic Preservation Commission denying a Certificate of Appropriateness for a property located at 837 Maggard Street. Tyson recused herself from consideration of this case as she is associated with the appellants. Walz noted that the appellant has the option of deferring on the matter for another month, as a vote to approve the appeal requires three affirmative votes. The appellant indicated a desire to proceed. Eckstein said that she had another commitment, so if the discussions ran past 6:35 p.m. she would have to leave. Walz said that at that point the Board would have to defer if the matter had not been resolved. Walz explained that at the May 27`h meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) the Commission voted to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow vinyl siding fora non- contributing structure located at 837 Maggard Street. The subject property is located in the Clark Street Conservation District. The appellant has requested an appeal to the Board of Adjustment for the denial of the HPC decision citing the following grounds: 1) The decision was unfair because adjacent properties in the neighborhood are sided in vinyl siding, and the Board approved the vinyl siding on the adjacent properties (also owned by the appellant) at the very same meeting; 2) A member of the Commission made statements prior to and during the meeting indicating bias against the appellant, and 3) The cement-board siding approved by the Commission is too expensive. Walz noted that the Board has been provided with the transcript and minutes from the May 27~h meeting. She said that staff believes that HPC was not arbitrary or capricious in its decision, which is the standard for granting an appeal. Walz said that the transcript shows that the Commission cited the property's non-contributing status. Walz said that staff finds it is reasonable that the two properties owned by the appellant were treated differently by HPC because the property that was allowed to have vinyl siding was non-historic, whereas the property that was denied vinyl siding was cited as non-contributing. Walz said that the non- contributing status indicates that the property is of historic value but the property has been altered in such a way that it no longer contributes to the historic nature of the neighborhood. Staff finds that the bias indicated by the appellant is not evident, and that even if it was, such bias did not taint HPC's decision as both the vote to approve vinyl siding on one property and deny vinyl siding on the subject property were unanimous votes. She said that Commissioners had cited appropriate reasons for their votes. Walz noted that the Board does not have the authority in this context to grant relief based on economic hardship, which is the third ground the appellant lists as a reason for appeal. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the standard the Board is to consider is whether the HPC was arbitrary and capricious in making their decision. She said that this is not a re-hearing of the merits of the case; Board members are not meant to decide what they themselves would have done if they had been on HPC. Greenwood Hektoen said that the decision as to whether the Commission had behaved arbitrarily or capriciously should be based on the record provided to the Board and the testimony at this evening's meeting. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 5 of 9 Eckstein asked if there is any economic apparatus in place to help building owners in historic districts meet the standards required by the code. Walz said that in this particular context there is not. Greenwood Hektoen said that in some cases an application for economic hardship can be filed separately from the appeal process. Eckstein asked if that meant that a homeowner would not have to comply with certain aspects of the historic preservation regulations if they were found to be suffering economic hardship. Greenwood Hektoen said that there is an avenue available for that in the general sense, but that has not been requested in this case and is not part of what the Board is to consider in this case. Sheerin asked if it was correct to say that 837 Maggard Street was considered non-contributing because it was a historical home that had undergone changes that had detracted from its historic character. Staff said that was correct. Sheerin invited the appellant to speak Tracy Barkalow, 916 North Gilbert Street, said that in the past year several thousand dollars had been spent on a new roof for the subject property. He said that they had worked with HPC to put a small, new deck on the front of the building; Barkalow said that the deck should have cost a couple thousand dollars but actually cost about $8,000 to build to historic code. Barkalow said that they wished to put vinyl siding on the property for a better long-term appearance. He noted that Housing inspection Services (HIS) requirements required only a weekend's worth of work on the porch and a few hundred dollars in paint. Instead of meeting the bare minimum requirements, Barkalow said, it was his desire to improve the property and the general neighborhood by replacing the siding. Barkalow explained that the street dead-ends into a cul-de-sac and railroad tracks. He said that the apartment complex at the end of the street has vinyl siding on it; 831 Maggard has vinyl siding on it; 841 will have vinyl siding on it; several other properties on the street have vinyl siding. Barkalow said he understands the value of historic neighborhoods as he owns a real estate company in town and lives in a historic district himself. He said that he just does not understand the historic value of this particular duplex at the end of a cul-de-sac that has been a rental property for over a decade. Barkalow said Pam Michaud of the HPC came into his real estate office and badgered his staff for about a half an hour the week before the HPC meeting was to take place. He said Michaud told his staff that Barkalow could afford to side the building in cement-board and that Barkalow should stop putting bad tenants in historic neighborhoods. He said she asked how he had made all of his money, and in response to his claims that cement-board siding was not economically feasible for this particular home, she inappropriately suggested at the meeting that he should take money from other income properties and invest it in this one. He said that this particular property generates about $900 per year, and it would take about 15 years to pay the difference between vinyl and cement-board siding. Barkalow said that Michaud's behavior had been totally inappropriate and that Mayor Matt Hayek and City Planner Christina Kuecker had both personally apologized for Michaud's behavior and acknowledged its inappropriateness. Barkalow said that he did not feel he had gotten a fair shake at that meeting, and that he had found the whole thing disturbing. Barkalow said he just wanted to get the property sided and cleaned up, and that if he is unable to do that then he will simply paint it and leave it as an ugly house in the neighborhood. Alicia Trimble, 2232 California Avenue, introduced herself as the current chair of HPC. She said Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 6 of 9 that to her knowledge, the HPC has never approved vinyl siding on a contributing structure, or a structure that could be contributing if it was restored. Trimble said that the property next door to the subject property was built in the 1980's, so HPC did not have any guidelines that would prevent vinyl siding from going on that structure. Trimble also noted that the Commission cannot take cost into consideration when making their decisions. Eckstein motioned to grant the appeal to overturn the decision of the HPC to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a property located at 837 Maggard Street. Anderson seconded. Anderson thanked Kuecker, Barkalow and Trimble for attending this meeting, saying he knew that historic preservation can be a contentious issue. He said that while actions or statement s of certain Commission members may or may not have been appropriate, ultimately, the decisions rendered were appropriate based on the criteria governing the Commission's decision. He said that for him it is a fairly straight-forward issue. Sheerin said that she agreed with Anderson that there was nothing in the record to demonstrate that the Commission had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Sheerin did note that if the Commission was not allowed to consider economic hardship as a factor in their decisions then they certainly should not be considering a perceived ability of the applicant to pay for requirements. She said that while those comments may not have been appropriate, they also were not allowed to influence the decision. Sheerin said that while it is frustrating that two adjacent properties are governed by different rules that is a function of the historic preservation code. She said she did not see how the Board could overturn the decision of HPC based on what was before them. Eckstein said that she agreed with what her colleagues had said. She said that the distinction between non-historic and non-contributing is clear in the code, and that the Commission has voted consistently based on that distinction. Eckstein said that the double-balcony mystifies her; she said she cannot understand how that structure went through the HPC and was approved. Eckstein said that the whole issue of contributing and non-contributing is based in the potential of the property to go back to its role as reflecting a historic presence in the neighborhood. Eckstein said that she understands perfectly why the two homes had different findings from the Commission regarding vinyl siding; although, how the double balcony was ever approved through HPC is another question altogether. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board should consider the balcony's role in the structure's historical conformity as no evidence had been presented on that. Eckstein said she was merely making a comment. She said she agreed with her colleagues; she would not know how to question the decision given the clarity of the distinctions. Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited further findings of fact. Eckstein said that anon-historic property like 841/845 Maggard is outside the historic purview of HPC; therefore, rules such as whether or not vinyl siding can be used simply do not apply to those properties. For a property that is within the Commission's historic frame, those rules do apply. Sheerin said that HPC had made a clear distinction between the two properties based on the code and made it clear that the subject property did not fall within the exception for non- Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 7 of 9 contributing property to have vinyl siding. Sheerin said that while the comments of Michaud may have been inappropriate, the Commission did not form their decision based upon them and in fact made it clear that those comments were irrelevant to the matter before them. She pointed out that a simple majority was needed, and the Commission had voted unanimously in the matter. She said that cost just is not an issue because it cannot be considered. Anderson said that he could understand an allegation of bias if the Commission had made a practice of approving vinyl siding for non-contributing structures in the past; however, HPC has been very consistent in not allowing vinyl siding for properties that can be moved toward contributing status. Walz reminded the Board that a "yes" vote meant that they were overturning the HPC decision; a "no" vote means that the HPC decision is affirmed. A vote was taken and the motion failed 3-0 (Tyson recused; Jennings excused). Sheerin declared the motion approved, stating that anyone wishing to appeal the decision may do so within 30 days of the decision being filed within the City Clerk's Office. Walz noted that the next meeting would take place September 8th and that there would be at least two applications. Walz said she would not be present for the meeting as she would be in Des Moines; however, she will inform the Board ahead of time of which staff member will be there instead. ADJOURNMENT: Tyson motioned to adjourn. Anderson seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote (Jennings excused) at 6:02 PM. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 8 of 9 Board of Adjustment Attendance Record - 20 I 0 Name Term Expires I / l 3 2/ I 0 3/ I 0 4/ 14 5/ 12 6/9 7/ 14 8/ I I 9108 10/ 13 I 1110 1218 Other Robert Anderson 01 /0 I/ 12 X X X X X X X X Barbara Eckstein 01 /0 I/ 14 O/E X X X X X O/E X Will Jennings 01 /01 / 15 X X X X X X O/E O/E Caroline Sheerin O I /01 / 13 X O/E X X O/E X X X LeAnn Tyson 01 /0 I/ I I X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting -- = Not a Member (Member either [a] resigned during the year, or [b] had not yet been appointed) IP12 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 2010 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Julie Tallman, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development -Industrial (ID-I) Zone to Planned Development Overlay -General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, a 9-lot, 173 acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. Miklo said this item was in order for approval pending an updated mitigation plan. He said he was hoping the Commission would have the updated mitigation plan by the formal meeting so that it can be voted on. Miklo said that there are roughly 700 acres zoned for industrial development in Iowa City, almost all of which is developed. For this reason, Miklo said, staff feels it is very important to add to the stock of industrial land in Iowa City. Miklo said that in looking for suitable industrial land, the city looks for large, flat areas with potential for rail and interstate access. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 -Formal Page 2 of 6 CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-4B-2 Variances and 14-8B-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). Miklo said that the most significant change that results from the proposed amendment is that the city would be regulating to the 500-year floodplain, rather than the 100-year floodplain. Miklo said that if this ordinance had been in place prior to the development of Idyllwild and Parkview Terrace it could have been effective in mitigating flood damage. Miklo said that the current standards require elevation of the lowest floor of the building to one foot above the floodplain if a home is improved by more than 50% of its value or 25% of its square footage. Miklo said that this language is based on the FEMA model, and is interpreted differently by different communities. He said the Iowa City interpretation is rather generous, and has, to date, required only the addition to be elevated if the existing structure is not substantially changed. He said the Commission will need to decide if they prefer a strict interpretation wherein the entire structure must be elevated or a more generous one in which only the addition must be elevated. Miklo said that the Commission also needs to decide if they wish to exempt historic properties from the floodplain regulations or if they want to add in a variance process for review on a case by case basis. Miklo said that it did make sense to provide some avenue of relief for historic properties. Miklo said that as the proposed ordinance is written, a property damaged by fire, tornado or other disaster would be required to rebuild to the floodplain standards. He said that is the case under the current floodplain ordinance as well. He noted that the whole point of floodplain regulation is to minimize future damage by flood. Greenwood Hektoen said that keeping in mind the purpose of the regulations should help guide the Commission in its decisions. Weitzel said he would like to see language for a variance for historic properties. Miklo said that in his view a variance would be a more appropriate option than an exemption as two bodies would review the matter (the Board of Adjustment and the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)) and a variance would be granted on a case by case basis. Miklo noted that Tallman's memo of July 9`h has helpful analysis of the impact of the floodplain regulations on those making substantial improvements. He said that in the vast majority of cases the homeowners were able to meet the floodplain regulations. Miklo said that the language for a variance could be fairly easily modeled after the language used by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). He said the issue is more about how the Commission wishes to interpret the language through its policies. Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission did not necessarily need to approve specific language; rather they could approve a concept to give guidance to City Council. Plahutnik and Busard urged Commissioners to think long-term in considering whether the stricter interpretation should be applied to the elevation requirements. Miklo noted that staff intends to ask City Council to put aside some funds in the Capital Improvements Plan to continue the purchase of properties in Parkview Terrace that had been flooded in 2008. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 -Formal Page 3 of 6 Busard said that requiring homeowners to come into compliance with floodplain regulations at some point in the future, even if it comes at some expense to the homeowner, is not necessarily a bad or punitive thing. Eastham asked if there were similar issues in the zoning code that could be compared to the issue with the interpretation of the floodplain elevation requirements. Miklo said that the source of destruction -flood, fire, tornado-- is not separated out in the current code either Koppes pointed out that the language appears to indicate that damage of 50% or more by flood events is not addressed by the code. Greenwood Hektoen said she would double-check, but her understanding is that flood damaged is included and that the point being made is simply that non-flood related damage is also a factor. Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission would have to balance the risks versus the benefits and decide where to draw the line. Koppes advised caution in assuming that flooding only occurs in a floodplain, pointing out that many areas that had never seen flooding before were submerged in 2008. Eastham noted that there are areas in the Ralston Creek/Willow Creek areas that are now in the 500-year floodplain that were never in the 100-year floodplain. Plahutnik said that flash flooding is caused by upstream overflow in creeks. Miklo said that there is a common misperception that the floodplains of creeks in Iowa City will not flood due to dams built in the 1970's and 1980's. Miklo said that the floodplain maps had been updated to take into account the dams. Eastham asked if there would be specific language to be approved and Miklo said that it was possible there would be specific language but that the idea was more to get direction from the Commission. Freerks said she would feel more comfortable voting if there was specific language. Miklo said staff would attempt to have language for the Commission by the formal meeting, but could not guarantee it. Greenwood Hektoen said that essentially all of this is just a conceptual recommendation for language they would like to see in the City Council ordinances. OTHER: Discussion of the Work Program: 1) Review CB-2 standards: Miklo said that originally staff had planned on looking into eliminating the CB-2 zone altogether; however, property owner objections prompted City Council to direct the Commission to review the standards instead. 2) Review of CB-10 standards: Miklo said this arose from issues surrounding Heironymous Square. He said some of the issues were addressed through a CZA, but the desire was to have the same requirements apply to everyone. Miklo said work has not yet been finalized on setbacks and height limitations. 3) Southeast District Plan: A draft should be before the commission in September. 4) Landmark trees: Miklo said this is a very difficult thing to regulate, but has been tackled by some communities. It concerns trees on private property. 5) Open Space Plan: Miklo said staff had hoped the Parks and Recreation Commission would examine this as part of its Master Plan process; however, it was beyond their scope. He said the questions are: Are the current standards sufficient? Should credit be given to private open space so as not to further burden the Parks and Recreation Department with added maintenance? Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 -Formal Page 4 of 6 6) Review floodplain development regulations: Miklo said this should be completed soon. 7) North Corridor: This includes the Moss Green Urban Village. He said that there is a lot of residential development that would need to be annexed or somehow worked around in that area, and there would likely be opposition from county residents. 8) Northwest District Plan: This area includes Manville Heights, University of Iowa properties, and the Camp Cardinal Boulevard area. Miklo said that has not been a real priority for because so much of it is already developed, owned by the University or covered by the Camp Cardinal Boulevard concept plans, but it does need to be looked at eventually. 9) Entryway standards: Miklo said he believed this came about as the result of some of the Wal-Mart controversies. He said that this work would include defining what exactly an entranceway to the city is. Miklo said that one item that should be looked at soon concerns alternative energy sources. He said that though it sounds ideal on the surface, our initial research showed that local wind patterns would require wind turbines that were 300 feet tall in order to be cost effective. Miklo said staff questions whether that would be appropriate anywhere within city limits. Miklo said there are some questions as to whether there are public health issues related to these turbines such as long-term insomnia caused by the background buzz of the turbines, and the flickering light effect. Miklo said that staff would be comfortable with turbines in industrial areas that were of the same height as cell towers (120 foot maximum). Miklo said that residential solar collectors also need to be addressed. He cited an example of a solar panel in Galway Hills that was a source of concern for neighbors. Miklo said that this particular example was built two feet from the property line and is designed to follow the sun, so it causes glare for neighbors. Miklo said that there should be some regulation of these beyond what is currently in place to assure that there is an adequate setback from property lines. Discussion of potential update to South Central District Plan land uses adjacent to the Iowa River: Miklo said that the City has applied for some funds to build a levee from the railroad tracks down to McCollister Boulevard. Miklo said that this levee would protect two mobile home parks and a commercial area. He said that this was one of the sandbag levees built in 2008 that actually worked to protect the area. He explained that if a permanent levee is built there will be a trail built on top of it. Miklo said that the South Central District Plan discourages the long-term use of that area for mobile home parks. Miklo said that there is some conflict in that area between the industrial and residential uses. Miklo said that discussion of this matter should probably be put off until a determination is made about funding. Eastham said that his understanding is that the CDBG portion of the funds would not be available if the low-income residential housing was not there. Miklo noted that it has been over ten years since the Comprehensive Plan was looked at as a whole and at some point that should probably be reviewed. Miklo said that while the plan is still on track for the most part, some of it may be dated. Miklo said that the Work Program list is something that will be worked on over the course of the two years. There was a brief discussion of the landmark trees item and whether or not that was something that the Commission should pursue. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 -Formal Page 5 of 6 Eastham asked if the open space requirements were still quite contentious and Miklo said that they are now generally accepted by developers. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham motioned to adjourn. Plahutnik seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 (Payne excused) vote at 6:56 PM. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2010 FORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 1/21 2/4 3/18 4/1 4/15 5/6 5/20 6/14 8/5 BUSARD, JOSHUA 05/11 X X O/E X X X O/E O/E X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/11 X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/13 X X X X X X X X X KOPPES, ELIZABETH 05/12 X X X X O/E X X X X PAYNE, MICHELLE 05/15 X X X X X X O/E X X PLAHUTNIK, WALLY 05/15 X X X X X X X X X WEITZEL, TIM 05/13 x X X O/E X X X O/E X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/11 3/29 4/12 5/3 5/17 6/17 7/26 8/2 8/16 BUSARD, JOSHUA 05/11 X O/E X O/E O/E X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/11 X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/13 X X X X X X X X KOPPES, ELIZABETH 05/12 X O/E X X X O/E X X PAYNE, MICHELLE 05/10 O/E O/E X X X X X O/E PLAHUTNIK, WALLY 05/10 X X X X X X X X WEITZEL, TIM 05/13 O/E X O/E O/E X O/E X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting/No Quorum --- = Not a Member IP13 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Julie Tallman, Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Clark, Jim Kerr RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development -Industrial (ID-I) Zone to Planned Development Overlay -General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, a 9-lot, 173 acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. Miklo said that staff is still awaiting a revised wetland mitigation plan so this item should be deferred until the September 2"d meeting. Freerks opened public hearing on the matter. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Payne motioned to defer REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004 until the September 2"d meeting. Weitzel seconded. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 2 of 11 CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-4B-2 Variances and 14-8B-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). Tallman noted that at the last meeting questions had remained about the possible unintended impact these regulations might have, particularly on historic structures in Conservation Districts. Tallman said that Greenwood Hektoen had come up with some language that could be incorporated into the variance procedures to address those properties. Greenwood Hektoen suggested amending 14-5-J9, subparagraph B, "Factors for Consideration," to read: "Upon recommendation by the Historic Preservation Commission: the Board of Adjustment will make a determination as to whether compliance with the floodplain regulations would result in a substantial alteration or destruction of defining architectural characteristics of landmark properties and properties located within Historic or Conservation Districts." Greenwood Hektoen said that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) would make the determination as to whether a change was architecturally appropriate. She said that the intent of the language is to require homeowners to comply with floodplain regulations if HPC does not object to the changes to the structure on historic preservation grounds. She said that HPC's decision on the floodplain regulations would be the equivalent of granting a Certificate of Appropriateness. Payne asked if the determinations would be made on a case by case basis, and Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the above language would not be the only factor for the Board to consider in a request for a variance. She said there are a number of other factors already set forth in the variance section and this would be an additional consideration that the Board could use to make their decision. The variance section is 14-5-J9; the additional language would be inserted as B5. Eastham said that it seemed to him that the suggested language would allow any structure within a Historic or Conservation District to obtain a variance, whether it was a "contributing" structure or not. Greenwood Hektoen said that was not the case; HPC's process analyzes the historic value of a property when considering the requested variance. Greenwood Hektoen said that structures of no historic value would not be granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by HPC, and as a result would not meet the standards for the Board of Adjustment. Weitzel said that it is foreseeable that there could be alterations required by the floodplain regulations that would not necessarily reduce the historic value of a property. Koppes asked if it was correct that those seeking variances would have to first go before the HPC and then go to the Board of Adjustment for the actual variance. Greenwood Hektoen said that was essentially correct, though the language did not spell out the exact path that would take. She said there had been some discussions that perhaps a homeowner would apply for a variance to the Board of Adjustment which would then trigger a review by HPC, which would then be used to help the Board of Adjustment make its determination. Tallman said that administratively what triggers this process is an application for a building permit; at that time the determination will be made as to whether the project meets the two criteria for the possible elevation of the structure: 1) the value of the property in relation to the improvements or repairs and 2) the amount of the property that is being altered. Once those two thresholds are met, Tallman said, consultations with HPC and the Board of Adjustment would take place. Tallman said that the goal is to make it as simple as possible administratively and for the applicant. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 3 of 11 Eastham said he wished to review again the number of structures this proposal might apply to. Tallman said she had initially done a quick analysis of the Jefferson Street area and used that to extrapolate. She said that she had since done another analysis in an area near Sheridan and Court Street and had come up with roughly the same general findings. In both cases, 80% of the homes that were in the 100-year floodplain were also in the 500-year floodplain and therefore would be subject to elevation standards for substantial improvements under both the new and the old floodplain ordinances. She said that the primary changes in going from 100- year to 500-year floodplain levels is that the elevation requirements increase by one foot, and there is a 20% increase in the number of structures effected. Eastham asked how the current ordinance handles historic structures. Tallman said historic structures are not addressed at all under the current ordinance. Tallman said that the 1977 language had addressed historic properties, however at some point that language disappeared and no exemptions were allowed for. Plahutnik said that the way he understands the proposed ordinance is that non-contributing structures in a historic district have no access to this exemption. Freerks said that the contributing historic structures are all already mapped out and accounted for. Miklo said that in most cases a structure that is not currently considered a contributing structure would not be eligible for this variance; he noted that there have been times when a property has been improved by taking off vinyl. siding or adding back a porch that had been removed, and because of those improvements anon-contributing structure became a contributing structure. In those cases HPC could consider the home for an exemption; however, for the most part it is pretty clear which homes such an exemption would apply to. Payne asked if historic structures that were not in Historic or Conservation Districts would also be eligible for this exemption and Greenwood Hektoen said that historic landmarks as defined by city code would be eligible. Payne noted that when Tallman said the difference in elevation standards for the 100 and 500- year floodplains was one foot, she was speaking only to those particular areas of town that she had analyzed. Payne said that in other areas of town the difference between 100 and 500 year floodplain elevation standards could range from six inches to six feet. Tallman said that was correct. Freerks said that there had also been some discussion about stricter regulations and whether entire structures should be elevated or just additions. Greenwood Hektoen said the language currently applied to horizontal additions. Miklo noted that the issue was not about stricter language, but interpretation. Miklo said that current language says that the lowest floor has to be elevated. He said there have been some instances where the existing building has been excluded from the elevation requirements if a common wall remained between the two structures. Tallman said that either way the matter needs to be discussed because clarification is needed on how the standard is going to be applied. She said the state and federal regulations include language that says as long as the original structure is not changed, the common wall remains, the original structure has a basement and the lateral addition is elevated, than no change is required for the existing structure. Tallman said this is also the way the City has historically applied this provision. If a homeowner put up an addition and removed the common wall and/or made improvements to the original structure, then the existing structure was also subject to the elevation standards. Tallman said the question is how the City wished to handle lateral additions moving forward. Tallman said that if the City wished to change their interpretation then language should be added to clarify that. Eastham asked if Tallman had any idea how many structures such a change would have effected in recent years. Tallman said that had been examined in the discussions on the subject in July, and briefly reviewed those findings. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 4 of 11 Freerks opened the public hearing. Dave Clark, address not given, asked if the changes to the flood ordinance strictly concerned historic properties. Freerks said that the changes governing historic properties were being discussed, but that the ordinance dealt with other changes as well. Clark said he is involved in two buildings in the Gilbert/Stevens area that have slab construction. Clark said that he had owned one of the buildings for almost forty years and never had water in it until 2008. Clark said he had some reservations about an ordinance that would require properties to be raised to one foot above the 500-year floodplain. Clark said he did not know what the elevation of his buildings is, but that if they were required to be raised to one foot above the flood level then his buildings would have to be raised eight feet. Clark said that it would be economically infeasible to raise a building eight feet. Miklo noted that there were alternatives to elevating buildings available to commercial properties. Tallman said that commercial properties could be flood- proofed instead. Tallman said that a combination of water resistant materials and adhesives can be used to get structural certification of flood-proofing. Tallman said that if a property owner carries flood insurance they may be eligible, in th event of a flood, for additional funding to be put toward flood-proofing. Clark asked how insurance companies are dealing with this ordinance. He said that an insurance company will pay to rebuild a property as it was; it will not pay to elevate a building six feet. Clark said that his buildings are not located there because he is athrill-seeking entrepreneur; rather, his building was built there because previous Commissions had zoned the area for that type of business. He said that the same body would now be requiring him to take ahalf-million dollar building and turn it into a one and a half million dollar building. Tallman asked how much damage his property had sustained in 2008. Clark said it had sustained $150,000 in damages and had not had flood insurance. Tallman said that in order for the elevation/flood-proofing standards to apply the building would have had to have sustained $250,000 worth of damage. Clark said that these regulations are encumbering him with undue financial hardship. Tallman said that only the property owner can ultimately decide whether they wish to continue in a given location. Clark said there would definitely be an exacerbation of the floodplain area. He said that if all of the buildings had to be raised, then a new floodplain would be created. Clark said that the water would have to go somewhere and the elevation of those properties would worsen the flooding for more people. Tallman said that she did not know that to be true. Freerks said that scenario had been discussed in Commission deliberations. She said that it is not just about what Iowa City does, but also about what communities all down the river decide to do, and factors such as rainfall that are beyond the control of the City. Greenwood Hektoen asked Tallman to talk a little bit about the No-Rise Certification as a way of addressing Clark's concerns. Clark said he thinks answers to those questions must be determined before going forward, as currently there is no guarantee that elevation won't ultimately make the flooding worse. Eastham said that he agrees that the No-Rise Certification could bear some deeper explanation. Tallman said the No-Rise Certification concerns the floodway, the Iowa River channel, rather than the floodplain being discussed presently. Tallman said that development is assumed up to the floodway with the understanding that full build-out along both sides of the floodway will result in a one foot increase in a flood. Tallman said that a No-Rise Certificate is something that would be necessary if a person proposed putting anything other than a floating dock in the floodway (which Iowa City prohibits). Plahutnik said that the massive amount of water that was flowing through the entire floodplain could have filled all the basements in Iowa City in a matter of minutes during the 2008 flood. He said that the additional fill required by this ordinance would not likely result an appreciable increase in future floods due to the displacement of floodwater. Clark said that raising the floodplain will increase the spread of floods. Eastham asked Clark how he felt flood damages to his buildings in the future should be Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 5 of 11 handled. Clark said that he believed damages would be his responsibility. He said that it was his place to repair the property because it was his decision to locate there. However, he said that he did feel that if measures were to be taken toward flood control then he thinks building in the area should probably stop. He said that the best solution would be no more construction there. Jim Kerr, 1335 Oaklawn, asked if there has been a change in the floodplain designations. He asked if the 100 and 500 year floodplains have changed. Tallman said the designations have not changed but that staff is trying to change the frame of reference for them. She said that when one hears "100-year" or "500-yeas" floods, then it is natural to think that if a 100-year event happened in 1993 than it would not happen again until 2093. Tallman said the designations are statistical constructs whose likelihood increases over time. Tallman said that statistically speaking, there is a 26% chance of experiencing a 100-year flood if you live in that floodplain for the life of a 30-year mortgage. Tallman said that the likelihood increases each year. Kerr said the definitions in Tallman's memo were helpful. Kerr said that he has two buildings constructed prior to 1977. He said that it appears that there is a bit of an exemption for buildings older than 1977 and asked if he was correct in that understanding. Tallman said that 1977 was the first year that Iowa City participated in the national Flood Insurance Program. Buildings prior to 1977 are grandfathered in their current state. Tallman said that there are two tests the City looks at in applying the new floodplain regulation. First the City looks at the floor area of the 1977 building to see if the floor area has increased cumulatively by 25%. If that is the case then the building has been substantially improved and needs to come into compliance with current standards. Tallman noted that Kerr's building is already subject to these standards; the question becomes whether or not the building must be elevated if the floor area has increased by 25%. Tallman said these regulations would change the flood hazard elevation. The flood hazard zone is larger and requires a higher elevation. She said that given the nature of Kerr's building she would advise flood-proofing rather than elevating the building. Kerr said that a substantial improvement occurs when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, or floor commences. He asked if he would still be subject to the new standards if he did not increase the footprint of his building but altered a wall. Tallman said that would only be the case if the wall alteration is very expensive because the second elevation requirement is that the improvement exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the property. Kerr said that property owners in the floodplain are sometimes saddled with their properties because they are difficult to sell or rent. He said that going forward it would be helpful if the City kept in mind that restrictions and requirement such as these could hinder or restrict property owners from selling or improving their properties. Kerr said that he did not think any properties in his area had been sold in a couple of years and a few of them had not even been successfully rented in several years. Kerr suggested that before more stringent regulations are put in place there should be some thought put in to relieving the property tax burden placed on such properties. Greenwood Hektoen said that it is the City's position that such regulation would not be considered a "taking," and therefore there would be no compensatory rights for property owners. No one else wished to speak to the issue and the public hearing was closed. Eastham motioned to defer the matter until the next meeting. Plahutnik seconded. Eastham said his rational for deferral is that while he feels like he understands all of the issues, Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 6 of 11 he is not at all comfortable voting on an ordinance of this importance and complexity without having a written outline of what he is being asked to vote on. Miklo asked if the variance was the only concern that Eastham had. Freerks said she thought there might also be a question of how the variance would be enforced administratively as that did not yet seem to be fleshed out. Eastham said that the interpretation of "improvement" needs to be defined. Tallman asked if two examples of how the provisions would be administered would be helpful in fleshing that out for Commissioners and Eastham said it would satisfy him. Freerks noted that this was the first meeting in which members of the public were present and spoke to the issue. She said she would like to take what those people have said and absorb it a little bit. She noted that the topic has been discussed extensively and acknowledged the enormous amount of work staff has put into it, saying that at some point a vote would have to be taken whether they were entirely comfortable with it or not. Weitzel said that he is not sure the Commission has a handle on the unintended consequences of the enforcement aspects of this ordinance. He asked if it would be worse to have half a building elevated as it is under the current ordinance or none of it elevated because additions and renovations were so cost prohibitive that they were not undertaken. Plahutnik noted that when a member of the public asked if the federal government would pay the difference in rebuilding that resulted from the floodplain ordinance, the answer was an unequivocal "no." He said that he feels very clearly guided by the goals of the floodplain ordinance. Freerks said that the Commission does not yet have the language nailed down. She said that if the vote was to go forward at this meeting then they would need to either vote for the language as presently stated or vote for language that they did not have before them. Freerks said it makes her a little bit uncomfortable to vote on something that does not have specific language at this appoint. Weitzel asked if the Commission would be passing specific language with a vote or approving a concept for recommendation. Payne said she would much rather see the specifics of what she is voting on then vote for a concept. Busard said that he believed the Commission should move forward. He noted that the Commission is always voting for a concept only as the City Council can change language and approve whatever they want. He said the issue had been sat on long enough. Plahutnik said that he is perfectly comfortable holding the matter for one more meeting; however, he said the Commission should be very clear on what is left unresolved in its mind. To Plahutnik's understanding, the outstanding issues are: 1) the variance language for historical properties, 2) whether the existing structure in a lateral addition should be subject to elevation standards, and the language to go with that, and 3) whether new construction residential properties should be allowed in the floodplain. Eastham noted that while he may be in favor of a prohibition of residential development in the floodplain, he is not insisting that staff provide language for that option. Miklo said that an outright prohibition on any residential development in a flood hazard area would take a lot more research by staff before they would be comfortable with the legal ramifications of that action. Miklo said that Cedar Falls has prohibited subdivisions in the flood hazard area; people who own a given lot in a flood hazard area can build on it, however, they could not subdivide it to create additional building lots to be sold. Eastham said that the Cedar Falls provision is the kind of prohibition he had been thinking about. Miklo said that if a majority of the Commission wished to explore the option of residential prohibitions in the floodplain then staff would research Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 7 of 11 it. Miklo said he would advise that the current ordinance be passed and, if the Commission so directs, staff can research the other issue at a later date. Freerks said that it may make sense to discuss the prohibition as a work item for the future rather than directing staff to look into into it now. Miklo said that his concern would be that adding the residential prohibition to the ordinance would slow it down considerably and would allow more buildings to be built to the current standards while waiting for word on the prohibition. Miklo noted that Eastham's question is a perfectly legitimate one, but that staff cannot make an informed determination on it without looking into it in a much more in depth way. Eastham said that Miklo's point was well taken and Weitzel agreed that it is better to do something now rather than wait for the next flood. Plahutnik said that there are still misunderstandings between the residential standards and the commercial standards. Plahutnik said that it needs to be communicated that commercial structures have flood-proofing options available to them in addition to the option of elevating out of the floodplain. He said more education and information dissemination was needed. Tallman discussed some technical aspects of flood-proofing commercial buildings. Greenwood Hektoen said that some discussion about the horizontal and vertical additions would be good so that staff can have an idea of the direction the Commission wishes to take that. Freerks said that her understanding is that the Commission is not yet sure which direction they want to go on that, but that they wish to see what it might look like to go one direction or the other on the issue. Tallman said that the language on enforcement does needs to be clearer. Miklo asked if the Commission had a sense on whether they wished to see the stricter or more lenient interpretation of the lateral/vertical addition issue. Plahutnik said he was going to offer a motion to include the language that would require the entire structure to be elevated in order to vote it up, down, or defer. Freerks said that the language has not yet been set for that discussion. Miklo said that the language as written says that the lowest floor has to be elevated. Miklo said this is a policy issue of whether the Commission wishes to have the entire structure elevated or just the addition. Koppes said she thought staff had changed the language. Miklo said staff would clarify the language in whichever direction the Commission directed. Greenwood Hektoen said that her reading of the language is that the entire structure would have to be elevated whether it is a lateral or vertical addition. However, historically staff has only applied the requirement to lateral improvements; thus, the need for guidance from the Commission. Busard said that it seems pretty contradictory to him to require the elevation of new construction but to allow non-conforming substantial improvements in the floodplain for existing structures. Eastham said that his preference is for bringing the entire structure into compliance. Tallman said that the fact that she found relatively few examples in her research indicates that such substantial investment is not common. Weitzel said that he leans toward requiring elevation of the whole structure. Freerks said she is inclined to disagree with requiring the whole structure to be raised. She noted that there appeared to be at least four Commission members that wish to direct staff to tighten up the language regarding the variance and the lateral improvement. Weitzel noted that requiring homes in Historic and Conservation Districts to go before HPC and the Board of Adjustment is a valuable way of consulting on the projects. Weitzel said that while a homeowner might have to add a step by going before the Board of Adjustment it is for their own potential benefit; they would have had to go before HPC regardless. Weitzel said there are examples of historic structures that cannot be moved or elevated so the mechanism for allowing an exemption is an important one. Busard noted that he is not a big fan of deferring this matter, but would vote in favor of it since it was clearly a foregone conclusion. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 8 of 11 A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUITES: JULY 26, AUGUST 2, AND AUGUST 5, 2010: Payne noted that the attendance record needed to be updated to reflect the new expiration dates for her term and Plahutnik's term. She also made note of a typographical error. Eastham motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Payne seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard not present at time of vote). OTHER: Discussion of the Work Program: Freerks noted that Miklo had given an overview of these items at the informal works session. She said the idea is to keep the list down to nine or ten items. She said the Southeast district Plan and the Floodplain would soon be completed and taken off the list. Miklo said staff's suggestion on the west-side levee would be that it need not even be discussed until a funding decision is received. Greenwood Hektoen noted that at the Commission's direction she had learned that the grant to fund the west-side levee did not require the protection of residential structures as a condition of funding. Eastham said that the current Work Program included as an item the protection of landmark trees. He said that he personally would be in favor of removing that from the Work Program. Freerks said she could understand why this was a work item and the history behind its placement on the list, but that she was not sure that it was the most effective use of staff resources at this time. Freerks said the idea was to protect special trees that were not part of a protected grove. Weitzel asked if that was not a function of subdivision design rather than a zoning issue. Miklo said that this would apply to existing lots and individual trees and would go above and beyond the sensitive areas ordinance. The Commission indicated a consensus desire to remove this item from the list. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the Parks and Recreation Department is looking into how to deal with the emerald ash borer, and that might be somewhat related to this item. Freerks said she would not be interested in bringing the Open Space Ordinance up high on the list. Eastham said that he agreed. Koppes said she agreed but felt that the issue was going to have to be dealt with eventually. Freerks said she believed the item should stay on the list, but not high on the list. Plahutnik said that there is something in place for this issue now that seems to be working. Koppes asked Miklo if developers had expressed an opinion as to whether current open space standards were working. Miklo said that his general impression is that developers are mostly satisfied, though a couple of concerns have been raised. One of these concerned largely unusable leftover land from a development and whether or not a developer should receive open space credit for that. Miklo said that another issue is whether or not the ratios of open space to development are adequate. Miklo said this issue does need to be discussed, but that it will likely be a controversial issue when that time comes. The Commission reached a consensus to put this item lower on the list. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 9 of 11 Freerks asked Miklo if he had a preference for which order the North Corridor District Plan and the Northwest District Plan were worked on, and he indicated that he did not. Freerks said that she believed the CB-2 standards and the review of the CB-10 zone requirements were both important issues that needed to be examined. Miklo said that in thinking about the Riverfront Crossings development plan staff noted that the City currently has a Mixed Use zone that allows for commercial development on the first floor and residential above. Miklo said that areas such as Riverfront Crossings probably would not have a market for commercial/office space for the ground floor of every building in the neighborhood. Miklo said that staff would like to consider an Urban Mixed Use zone for some of those ground floor spaces, which would allow commercial or residential on the first floor and would have some of the same standards as the CB-10 zone. Miklo said that the timing for adding an Urban Mixed Use zone to the zoning code is probably right. Freerks said that this had been discussed quite a bit in discussions of the 'Moss Green development. Miklo said he would recommend grouping that issue in with the CB-2 and CB-10 standards reviews. A consensus was reached to have those three items at the top of the list: CB-2, CB-10 and Urban Mixed Use. Freerks said that whenever there is development in the entryways to the City the issue of entryway standards comes up and it would be nice to be able to point developers to a specific set of standards rather than always having the standards as a part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). Koppes noted that part of that process would include clearly defining which areas are entryways to the city. Koppes said she would be in favor of moving it up if the definition of entryways was included. A consensus was reached to place this item above the northern district plans and below the review of the downtown zones. Freerks asked the Commission where on the list they would like to add the issue of alternative forms of energy. Eastham asked Miklo how pressing the issue was. Eastham said that his understanding is that the large tower windmills are not presently allowed. Miklo said that there is some interest in exploring them. Miklo said that based on the research staff has done it seems unlikely that they would recommend allowing towers taller than 100-120 feet. He said that staff's initial research indicated that given the wind patterns in our area towers of 300 feet would be necessary to make them cost-effective; however, that height does not seem appropriate for placement within city limits. Miklo noted that dealing with the issue earlier and proactively would alleviate the pressure to go to 300 foot towers in town. Eastham asked if Coralville was going to beat Iowa City to something with these towers and Weitzel joked that if Coralville wanted 300-foot towers in town they were welcome to them. Miklo noted that there had been one significant complaint in the Galway Hills subdivision regarding a solar panel that had disturbed the neighbors. Freerks asked what the solution was and Miklo said that fill was brought in to make it so that the solar panel did not exceed the height standards. Miklo said staff feels that it is probably reasonable to allow a certain size of solar panel in a residential zone, but that there should be reasonable setback from the property line. Freerks asked if that was an issue that could be researched and examined fairly quickly by staff, or where he felt it should fall on the list. Miklo advised putting the district plans fairly low on the list and putting this item just beneath the entryway overlay plan. Payne asked if the Commission wanted to add the study of a prohibition on residential building in the floodplain to the Work Program. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thinks it is pretty clear that an outright prohibition on building in a floodplain is problematic. She said that Cedar Falls has passed an ordinance prohibiting subdivision in a floodplain, but property owners can still build homes on their own lots. Miklo said the Cedar Falls ordinance also limits the amount of fill) Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 10 of 11 that can be brought into elevate a property. He said that they only allow three feet of fill to be brought in for elevation and only 30% of the property can be elevated. Freerks said she would like to see how the new floodplain ordinance works before pursuing this item. Payne said she is just in favor of learning more about it and having staff investigate it. Four Commissioners agreed to place the item at the bottom of the list. The Work Program list was prioritized as follows: 1) Review CB-2 standards. 2) Review of CB-10 zone requirements -setbacks, height limits. 3) Urban Mixed Use zone. 4) Entryway overlay zone or standards. 5) Alternative energy. 6) North Corridor District Plan. 7) Northwest District Plan. 8) Update Open Space Plan/Ordinance. 9) Research options for prohibiting/limiting residential comstruction in the flood hazard area. Discussion of potential update to South Central District Plan land uses adiacent to the Iowa River: Per discussion of this item at the informal work session, the Commission opted to table discussion of this item until it is determined if a grant will be awarded to fund the item. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Plahutnik seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Busard not present at time of vote) at 8:28 PM. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2010 FORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 1/21 2/4 3/18 4/1 4/15 5/6 5/20 6/14 8/5 8/19 BUSARD, JOSHUA 05/11 X X O/E X X X O/E O/E X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/11 X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/13 X X X X X X X X X X KOPPES, ELIZABETH 05/12 X X X X O/E X X X X X PAYNE, MICHELLE 05/15 X X X X X X O/E X X X PLAHUTNIK, WALLY 05/15 X X X X X X X X X X WEITZEL, TIM 05/13 x X X O/E X X X O/E X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/11 3/29 4/12 513 5/17 6/17 7/26 8l2 8/16 BUSARD, JOSHUA 05/11 X O/E X O/E O/E X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/11 X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/13 X X X X X X X X KOPPES, ELIZABETH 05/12 X O/E X X X O/E X X PAYNE, MICHELLE 05/10 O/E O/E X X X X X O/E PLAHUTNIK, WALLY 05/10 X X X X X X X X WEITZEL, TIM 05/13 O/E X O/E O/E X O/E X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting/No Quorum --- = Not a Member. IP14 MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 - 6:30 PM EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Andy Douglas, Charlie Drum, Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay MEMBERS ABSENT: Jarrod Gatlin, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman, Rachel Zimmermann Smith STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: HCDC recommended that City Council adopt the revised CDBG and HOME Program Investment Policies as it pertains to homebuyer and public facility projects. Revised policy attached. (Vote:5-0) CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairperson Charlie Drum at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 30. 2010 MEETING MINUTES: Long noted an error in a figure given in the minutes. Chappell motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Hart seconded. The motion carried 5-0 (Gatlin, McMurray, Richman, Zimmermann Smith absent). PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 PAGE 2 of 10 STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Long noted that the City had received another $1.4 million for the Single Family New Homes Program. This program involves replacing the housing stock that has or will be purchased through federal buy-out programs from the 2008 floods. Long said that the Single Family New Homes program built and sold 40 homes that were all completed and sold by this spring and there are 37 additional homes being constructed now under Round 2 of the program. The City was recently notified that there will be a Round 3 that will support approximately 30 additional homes. He said that it also sounds as if there may be a fourth and fifth funding round for this program in the future. Long said the program has been very successful and that builders have also been thrilled with it. Hart asked how many flood damaged homes had already been purchased. Long said that 56 homes have been acquired; he expects that approximately 100 will be acquired eventually. He said that 38 have been demolished and another nine should be down by next week. Long noted that the City had also applied for grant funds to build a levee to protect the Baculis and Thatcher mobile home parks and 50 nearby businesses. Chappell said that he thought the number of businesses involved had previously been stated as 20. Long said that there are approximately 20 business structures, but there are multiple businesses in a number of the structures. Long said the project would be about a $4 million project. Long said that the project had been voted down by HCDC at the June 30th meeting but that City Council approving it. Hightshoe noted that the legal department had noted there were some votes recorded as abstain in the last few HCDC meetings. Hightshoe said that "abstain" means that a Commissioner is not voting on a matter because of a possible conflict of interest; whereas if a Commissioner feels they do not have enough information to vote on a matter or just not at a point to vote yes, then they should simply vote "no." REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE ALLOCATION PROCESS FOR ANTICIPATED AND RECENTLY RECEIVED CDBG PROGRAM INCOME: Long stated that there would be approximately $2.9 million in program income coming back into the CDBG line of credit from the Aniston Village project. Long said the funds would be received sometime this winter. The City Council recently allocated $1.9 million to the proposed west side level project with the remainder of the funds anticipated to come from an I-Jobs grant if the City is awarded funding. This would leave about $1 million to allocate through the HCDC process. Long said that if the I-JOBS Board does not approve the City's application on September 15tH then the full $2.9 would need to be allocated. Long said this evening's discussion was how to address the additional funding from a theoretical and policy standpoint. Long said the daycare facility at 1516 Sheridan had been sold at the end of the City's fiscal year (June 2010). This repayment is considered CDBG program income and has to reallocated to CDBG eligible uses. Long said the City had assisted anon-profit in purchasing and renovating the building eight years ago; four years ago the building went into foreclosure and the City took the property over. Long said there is about $100,000 from the sale of the building to allocate. Long explained that Extend the Dream Foundation started their FY11 project before the environmental review was finished, despite numerous warnings and reminders not to do so. As a result, they are no longer eligible for the $40,000 that they were allocated. Starting any HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 PAGE 3 of 10 construction work before the City receives environmental clearance jeopardizes the whole project. The City will need to reallocate these funds as well. Hightshoe explained that as early as the application process funding recipients are clearly informed that they cannot begin projects before the environmental release from HUD and they enter into an agreement with the City. Federal guidelines prohibit the City from funding any part of the proposed project due to this procedural issue. Hightshoe said that because such a large amount of money is coming into the City's line of credit all at once, they need to begin spending and allocating funds before the next regular round. If the Commission waited and just included the money in the next funding round, the money could not be spent until the other FY12 allocations were released in July 2011. Because this money is "program income," the City can spend it immediately; it is prior-year money. Long noted that HUD has a policy stating that the City cannot have more than 1.5 times their allocation amount in their line of credit each year. Long said that it is likely the City will exceed that this year and will receive a warning from HUD. He said the more money that can be spent by the end of May, the better. Long said that even if the levee grant is approved, construction on it will not start until around March, so that allocated money ($1.9 million) will not be spent by the time HUD takes its first measurement. Long proposed having a special allocation round sometime this fall. He said that the idea would be to have a less formal process, with high minimums so that the number of projects to be reviewed was not overwhelming. Hightshoe said there is currently a policy in place for "windfall' income, which would apply to the funds being discussed. Hightshoe said the current policy says that HCDC will determine if: 1) existing projects that did not receive full funding should be considered, 2) projects that applied but did not receive any CDBG/HOME funding in the last funding cycle will be considered, 3) new proposals will be submitted, or 4) funds will go to the Contingency Fund. Hightshoe said the Contingency Fund is not really an option in this case. The amount of funding available for Public Services could not exceed 15% of anticipated program income, so internal amounts would be set for those projects. Hightshoe explained that one of the things that would have to be decided would be whether 15% of the $2.9 million would be withheld until FY12 for Public Services, or would be spent on eligible Pubic Facilities and Housing applications prior to July 1, 2011. Hightshoe said this item would be back on the Commission's agenda in September, and what staff was seeking at this point was guidance from the Commission on how they would like to see this proceed. Long said that this is an unprecedented amount of additional funding. Hightshoe noted that if the I-JOBS levee grant was not funded, then there would be another $1.9 million to allocate. Long urged the Commission to be creative as this was an opportunity to really make an impact. Long noted that 20 years ago the City took a $1 million pool of money and used it to create the Senior Center, which has a tremendous impact on the community. Long said that in the past large funding amounts like this have been used to make improvements to Ralston Creek and build dams in Hickory Hill Park. Hightshoe noted that City Departments will also be aware of this money and will be applying for funding as well. She said that when the money is opened up and advertised, it will be opened up to everybody. Long said it will be up to the Commission to decide what the best use for the funding is and whether there is a need for the proposed project. Hightshoe said that even some applying City departments may not understand that there must be a component of their project that benefits those with low-to-moderate incomes. Chappell asked if it was possible to move 85% of the $1 million now, and hold the other 15% back for the regular allocation cycle, and staff said that it was. Long said that if there was a particular project in their minds, a couple hundred thousand could also be held back for next year. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 PAGE 4 of 10 Long said that there has been some talk about using funds to redevelop the Towncrest area by setting up a small business fund to encourage businesses to locate or expand into that neighborhood. Another idea that has been discussed is land-banking in which scattered-site lots are acquired and then developed at a later date. Chappell asked if Towncrest was in a low- to-moderate income census tract and Long said that it is not. Hightshoe said that if the business owner herself is low-to-moderate income then the funds could be used. Long said that facade improvement was a possibility for the Towncrest area, but it could be difficult to justify. Long said that Riverfront Crossings is also an area that funds could be targeted toward. He said that the City has purchased the former site of St. Patrick's Church and would like to put affordable housing in the upper levels of the building when they redevelop the site. Long said money could be set aside for downpayment assistance or as incentives for rental housing. Long said he had brought the FY11 project list in consideration of the policy that states the Commission may first consider those projects that were not fully funded. Long said ISIS, The Housing Fellowship, Dolphin Point, Habitat for Humanity, MYEP and Big Brothers/Big Sisters all received less than full funding for FY11. Chappell asked if the Commission was required to reconsider these projects and staff said that they did not. Long said that the Commission could also go back to consider the two projects that had received no funding. Hightshoe said staff was just looking for a general direction and would put something together for the September meeting. Drum said that he is partial to looking at fully funding some of the projects that have already applied. Chappell said that given how unique it is to have that amount of money at one particular time he is partial to the idea of thinking creatively on how to spend the money. He said that the Commission could encourage those who were not fully funded to reapply, but reserve some funds for new ideas. Drum said that it would be great to be able to support one large project, such as when the Senior Center was created. Chappell said that he is interested in knowing how the funding will be advertised in order to get the word out that the Commission is seeking creative ideas. Long said that a number of non-profits are already aware that the money is coming and staff also works with members of the business community and other city departments. Hightshoe said the word will get out pretty fast. McKay said that his inclination is that the Public Services funds should be reserved to the greatest extent possible because that pot is always so small and the organizations so worthy. McKay said he would like to maximize the funds available to those groups. Chappell said he would like to see the $15,000 do something in the short term, and would like to reserve 15% of the one million and allocate that as part of the regular funding process next year. Long said that with small windfalls for Public Services in the past, staff has had just a one page application for those who had not received full funding in the prior funding cycle and distribution of the additional funds was done in one meeting. Hart said this was an appealing idea. She said that Public Services are always frustrating allocations because of the scarcity of resources. Chappell asked what the timeline would be if a separate allocation process was done for all but the Public Services set asides. Working backwards from an approximate funds-availability date HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 PAGE 5 of 10 of January 15tH, staff determined that October 31St would be a likely due date for applications. Chappell said he was not sure that more than a month of notification is necessary if everyone already knows this money is coming. Hightshoe said that the application due date will likely be sometime in October. Chappell asked if the Commission needed to do anything special if it decided to hold back some of the funding and use it for next year's allocation. Chappell said he wanted to be able to reserve some funds and not be committed to spending all of the money if the applications were not particularly exciting or creative. Drum said he did like the idea of being able to fund a larger project if it came along. Chappell said his comments had only pertained to the Public Services funding. Douglas said it sounded to him like there was enough money that all of these things could be done: fund public facilities, fund some of the housing/construction projects, and put money aside for other ideas as well. Chappell said that his thinking is to set aside the $15,000 for Public Services (% eligible from the resale of the Sheridan property) and allocate those funds to last year's applicants; have a second allocation process for the rest of the money (whether it is $1 or $2.9 million depending on the outcome of the I-Jobs application), letting applicants know ahead of time that the full amount of funds may not be allocated; and then hold $150,000 (from the % eligible of the Aniston repayment to be received in FY11) aside for Public Services in the FY12 allocation process. McKay said that made sense to him. Hart asked if this was something that needed to be agreed on tonight. Long said that if a consensus could be reached staff would go ahead with the notification process. Chappell suggested letting Public Services applicants reaffirm their need for funding by a simple a-mail rather than reapplying. Chappell asked if there would be one or two new members on the Commission and Long said it would only be one. Hightshoe said that she did not think the $15,000 would require an Annual Action Plan amendment if funding the same public service applicants. Long said that was correct; the money could be allocated the day after the vote. Long said the $1 million allocation would take place at the November meeting and would require a 30-day comment period. Hightshoe said the idea would be to spend as much money as they can by May. Commission members agreed that Chappell's summary represented a consensus on how to proceed. SELECT HCDC MEMBER TO REPRESENT THE COMMISSION DURING THE CITY MANAGER HIRING PROCESS: Long said that the consultant had narrowed the search to 15 candidates and the City Council will be narrowing it to five or six. Long said that the Council would like to have a representative from each Commission participate in the interview process. Hi~htshoe said that there will be a "meet and greet" of candidates on September 27tH 28tH and 29t . Typically, Hightshoe said, the HCDC Chair would attend; however as of September 15t the Commission will have no Chair. The chair will be appointed at the September 16 meeting. Hightshoe clarified that the representative would have to be available for all of the meetings that week. McKay said he would be interested in participating. Chappell motioned to nominate McKay to represent the Commission in the City Manager hiring process. Drum seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Gatlin, McMurray, Richman, Zimmermann Smith absent). HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 PAGE 6 of 10 DISCUSS REVISED CDBG & HOME PROGRAM INVESTMENT POLICIES FOR PUBLIC FACILITY PROJECTS -RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: Hightshoe explained the currently policy. For public facility projects, the compliance period is determined by the amount of CDBG funds received. The award amount is divided by 3,000 and the resultant number is the compliance period. For example, if a subrecipient received $30,000, they would have a compliance period of 10 years. Using this formula, Long said, there have been agreements that have resulted in compliance periods that ranged up to 99 years, the current maximum compliance period. This policy creates problems for some subrecipients. As the City places alien/mortgage on the property to ensure compliance with the CDBG agreement during the compliance period, some subrecipients with large awards must show a liability on their books for 30-99 years depending on the CDBG award. Staff has also encountered problems when the useful life of the project is less than the compliance period such as for carpeting, bathroom remodels, etc. Hightshoe noted that this formula was developed by the City and is not a HUD policy. Hightshoe said that staff is proposing a maximum 20-year compliance period regardless of award amount. Hightshoe said that staff is also suggesting that the new formula to determine compliance periods would be to divide the allocation amount by 10,000, opposed to 3,000. For an allocation amount of $20,000, this would change the required compliance period from approximately 6'/z years under the old formula to 2 years under the new. Long noted that HOME funds have a required "affordability period" period of 20-years for new construction and having the same maximum for CDBG would bring some consistency. Hightshoe stated there is also a proposed change to the homebuyer investment policy so that it is consistent with the City's policy as submitted to HUD for HOME homeownership projects. Hightshoe said that HUD had required the City to formalize its resale and recapture provisions this year in the City's Annual Action Plan approved by Council. Resale and recapture provisions are used for homebuyer projects under the HOME program. Hightshoe said that for a home ownership application the applicant must identify at the time of application whether they will go by a resale provision or a recapture provision. Under the resale provision, the assisted homeowner would have to sell their home to another income-eligible homeowner during the affordability period. The recapture provision says that the homeowner must repay the City all or a portion of the funds the applicant received from the homeowner's net proceeds upon the subsequent sale of the home. The policy states how the City will implement its resale or recapture option for HOME homebuyer projects. If an applicant proposes something different than the stated policy, this must be identified in the City's Annual Action Plan approved by City Council and then reviewed by HUD. Hightshoe said staff is proposing that City policy be consistent whether it is funded with HOME or CDBG funds. Basically the policy will be defined by the Annual Action Plan, approved by Council each year. In this way, our homebuyer investment policy and our Annual Action Plan sent to HUD will be consistent. Long said that at the time of application each year staff will give applicants the most recent policy. Chappell motioned to adopt the revised policy. McKay seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Gatlin, McMurray, Richman, Zimmermann Smith absent). HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 PAGE 7 of 10 Hightshoe noted that it was not unlikely that some of the agencies with 99-year compliance periods may come back before the Commission for amended terms if the City Council approves this policy change. ADJOURNMENT: McKay motioned to adjourn. Chappell seconded. The motion carried 5-0 (Gatlin, McMurray, Richman, Zimmermann Smith absent). The meeting was adjourned. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 PAGE 8 of 10 EXHIBIT A -Draft CDBG AND HOME PROGRAM INVESTMENT POLICIES Economic Development Economic development projects making application to the CDBG Economic Development Fund will be reviewed by the Council Economic Development Committee. The Council Economic Development Committee will make a recommendation to the City Council for each project proposed for funding. Said recommendation shall include the amount of CDBG assistance to be allocated and the terms of investment. Typically, for-profit business projects will receive low-interest loans; whereas, non-profits may be recommended for forgivable loans or grants. Decisions regarding investment terms for economic development projects will be made based on the nature of the project including, but not limited to, the risk, potential for growth, the number of and quality of jobs created for low-moderate income persons, the ability to repay a loan and the amount of other funding leveraged. Housing Rental Housing. Except as noted below, the interest rate for rental housing activities will be zero percent (0%) for non-profit owned projects and prime rate (determined at the time the CDBG\HOME agreement is executed by the City) minus two points for for-profit owned projects with an amortization period up to thirty (30) years or the period of affordability, whichever is less. Homeownership. Each year Iowa City adopts resale/recapture provisions that apply to all HOME assisted homebuyer projects. The recapture/resale provisions shall be the same for both CDBG and HOME assisted homebuyer projects. These provisions are set forth in the Annual Action Plan for the year the funds were allocated to the Subrecipient/Recipient. Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA). All HOME funds provided for TBRA will be in the form of a grant. Exceptions. The City may grant a different interest rate and/or a different repayment option based on the nature of the project including, but not limited to, the revenue generated, the ability to repay a loan, the type of housing provided, the beneficiaries, the amount of other funding leveraged and the location of the site. Public Facilities The City of Iowa City, as the recipient of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, utilizes these funds for "public facilities" projects as defined in 24 CFR 570.201 (c) that are completed by the City and\or subrecipents. The following policy applies to CDBG assistance provided to non-governmental subrecipients ("governmental" includes only jurisdictions with taxing authority as provided for in Iowa Code). HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 PAGE9of10 Projects that receive an allocation by the City of Iowa City will receive an earned grant, as defined herein, which will be secured by a mortgage or other comparable security instrument. The compliance term of the earned grant will be determined by the formula also provided herein. At the end of the applicable compliance term the lien or other security instrument will be released by the City. If the real property is leased, the lease shall be for a period that matches or exceeds the compliance term of the earned grant. • Earned Grant: Alien against the real property being assisted, or other comparable security, which is repaid only upon transfer of title, rental of the property, or termination of services or occupancy as outlined in the applicable CDBG Agreement. If the subrecipient fully satisfies the terms outlined in the applicable CDBG Agreement the mortgage against the property, or other security instrument, will be released by the City following the completion of the compliance period that begins on the date of execution of the mortgage or security instrument. • Earned Grant Formula: The total amount of CDBG assistance allocated to a subrecipient in any one City fiscal year fora "public facility" project divided by $10,000 equals the number of CDBG compliance years for the Earned Grant. (For example: $20,000 in CDBG assistance divided by $10, 000 would equal a compliance term of 2 years or 24 months). If the Earned Grant Formula results in a compliance term of less than one year (12 months) the minimum compliance term shall be one year (12 months). The maximum compliance term for any CDBG assistance shall be no more than twenty (20) years. Public Service Public Service projects as defined in 24 CFR 570.201 (e) shall receive CDBG assistance in the form of a grant with a term of not less than one year. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVEOPLMENT COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2010 NAME TERM EXP. 1/28 2/16 3/11 3/25 4/15 6/30 8/19 CHAPPELL, ANDREW 9/1/2012 X X X X X X X DOUGLAS, ANDY 09/01/11 X X X X X X X DRUM, CHARLIE 09/01/13 X X X X O/E O/E X GATLIN, JARROD 9/1/2012 X X X X X X O/E HART, HOLLY JANE 09/01/13 X X X X X X X McIrCAY, MICHAEL 09/01/11 X X X X O/E X X McMURRAY, REBECCA 09/01/11 X X O/E X X X O/E RICHMAN, BRIAN 09/01/10 X X X X X X O/E ZIMMERMAN SMITH, RACHEL 9/1/2012 X X X X O/E O/E O/E Key: X = Present O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member