HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-2006 Housing & Community Development Commission
AGENDA
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2006
6:30 P.M.
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Approval of the September 21,2006 Minutes
3. Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda
4. New Business
. Public Meeting - Annual Review of the 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan
(a.k.a CITY STEPS)
. Update on FY07 Projects - CDBG/HOME projects that have not
entered a formal agreement with the City of Iowa City
5. Old Business
. Discussion of CDBG and HOME Investment Policies
. Discussion of Design Standards for Federally Assisted Housing
Projects
6. Monitoring Reports
. Iowa City Free Medical Clinic - Case Management (Richman)
. Shelter House - Outreach Coordinator (Hayek)
. Shelter House - (FY04) Land Acquisition (DeFrance)
7. Adjournment
1 ~ !
..-~= -....
...r--.......
~~~~~
~ ~..,
~~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 13, 2006
To: Housing & Community Development Commission (HCDC)
From: Tracy Hightshoe, Associate Planner
Re: October Meeting Packet
Below is a brief description of the October agenda items.
New Business
Update on FY07 Projects - CDBG/HOME projects that have not entered a formal
agreement with the City of Iowa City.
As of this mailing, Four Oaks, Arc of Johnson County, and Habitat for Humanity have not
entered agreements with the City. Habitat for Humanity is unable to enter a HOME agreement
until a site has been identified. HOME regulations require the City to complete a project-specific
environmental review before the City enters an agreement with the applicant.
Public Meeting - Annual Review of the 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS)
CITY STEPS, (2006-201 0) is a five year plan that guides allocations decisions for the funds the
City receives through the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment
Partnership programs. Two community meetings have been held over the last two weeks to
gather input and feedback on CITY STEPS. The summarized comments from these two
meetings are enclosed. Staff will meet with representatives from the police department to
discuss emergency/crisis needs in the community and will present the comments received at
the October 19th meeting.
After the opportunity for public comment at this meeting, HCDC can recommend proposed
amendments, if any, to forward to the City Council for consideration.
Old Business
Discussion of CDBG and HOME Investment Policies
At the September HCDC meeting commission members asked staff to draft a revised policy
based on some of the comments received at the meeting. Please see the attached policy with
suggested revisions. If this recommendation is approved, it will be forwarded to Council for their
consideration.
Discussion of Design Standards for Federally Assisted Housing Projects
At the September HCDC meeting the proposed design standards were discussed and several
suggestions were made. We will discuss these changes and HCDC will consider approving the
guidelines for FY08 projects.
Monitoring Reports
. Iowa City Free Medical Clinic - Case Management (Richman)
Contact: Sandy Pickup, 337.9727, 2440 Towncrest Drive
. Shelter House - Outreach Coordinator (Hayek)
Contact: Kafi Dixon, 338.5416, 114 E. Prentiss Street (office)
. Shelter House - (FY04) Land Acquisition (DeFrance)
Contact Crissy Canganelli, 338.5416, 114 E. Prentiss Street (office)
If you have any questions about these agenda items, or will be unable to attend, please contact
me at 356-5230 or by email at tracy-hightshoe@iowa-city.org.
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21,2006,6:30 P.M.
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Anthony, Steve Crane, Holly Hart, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT: Marcy DeFrance, Matthew Hayek, Thomas Niblock
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long, Linda Severson
OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Cremer, Maryann Dennis, Charles Eastham, Sadie Hildebrand
CALL TO ORDER
Anthony called the meeting to order, and asked everyone to introduce themselves.
APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 15. 2006 MEETING MINUTES
Long noted a change in the fifth paragraph of the first page, where it should say there is a formal
application process.
MOTION: Shaw moved to approve the minutes as amended. Richman seconded, and the motion carried
on a vote of 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
Anthony noted that an inclusionary zoning subcommittee was formed at the last meeting. The
subcommittee met for the first time on September 18 and will be having a series of meetings in the next
two months. Their objective is to present a recommendation to the full commission for discussion in
December.
NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Hightshoe said no one has expressed any preference to her regarding serving as officer. Anthony said he
would like to continue as chair for another year. Shaw asked if a nomination is required. Hightshoe said
yes, and asked if Richman is interested in continuing as vice-chair. Richman said he would be happy to
continue.
MOTION: Shaw nominated Anthony to continue as commission chair and Richman as vice-chair.
Crane seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of 5-0.
Long suggested discussing design standards first. Anthony agreed.
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion of Design Standards for Federally Assisted Housing Projects
Hightshoe noted this has been discussed for the last few months. Every HOME agreement has a
provision that the city must approve the building design before the developer may obtain a building
permit. There are currently no design standards in place, thus there is no consistent criteria to use when
reviewing these plans. This has caused some confusion and/or frustration with applicants and staff as for
the applicant it is unclear what staff will be looking for during the review. Having guidelines would assist
applicants save time by establishing what will be reviewed and what is required so the applicants does
not have to spend time designing a building that will not be approved.
Hightshoe said staff started with the design guidelines from Springfield, MO and made revisions based in
part on input from planning staff and affordable housing providers. There are revisions that will be
implemented based on conversations with affordable housing providers such as changing the minimum
requirement that the foundation extend six inches (not two feet) above grade to be in agreement with city
code.
Hightshoe said the purpose of the guidelines is to have housing developed with CDBG/HOME funds fit or
complement the surrounding neighborhood to lessen opposition to affordable housing in our
neighborhoods. Most of the guidelines are based on what homes in the vicinity look like. There is
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
September 21,2006
Page 2
currently a question about how "vicinity" is defined, whether within the same block or a mile of the
proposed affordable housing. Shaw asked whether that would be added to the guidelines. Hightshoe said
staff would look into a definition. Staff's opinion of vicinity is the immediate vicinity - the neighboring
homes when standing on the lot and looking around. The neighboring homes would be considered, not
those several blocks away.
Long said it is basically a matter of looking at the immediate neighborhood and making sure that
affordable housing does not stand out. With the city investing a lot of money in these projects, the intent is
to have the affordable housing look like the other houses as much as feasible. Richman said that makes
sense, though he would like to hear what some of the developers have to say about this. He noted some
other standards that were quantitatively expressed that seemed too limiting, such as the requirements for
garage placement and the width of pedestrian paths. He asked whether those requirements were in
agreement with city codes or if they are specific to these design standards.
Hightshoe said pedestrian paths in single family uses are specific to the design standards. There are
standards for multi-family housing in the code. Richman asked about the garage recess requirement.
Long said it is a requirement for multi-family, but not about single-family.
Richman said he is not opposed, but is wondering if the specifics are too limiting. Hightshoe said inclusion
of garages is not required, but the guidelines could indicate that if a garage is included, it should be
similar to the houses currently in the neighborhood while the specifics are removed. Long said they did
hear concerns from the Housing Fellowship about that requirement (Provision H.2 on draft).
Dennis said the Housing Fellowship typically purchases lots that are in subdivisions for new construction,
so they are required to meet standards based on the covenants in the subdivisions. If there were a
situation with an infilllot, they would have concerns if the standards required something other than what is
currently in the neighborhood.
Dennis asked whether there would be a specific dollar amount listed to define "substantial rehabilitation,"
or if staff would determine that on a case-by-case basis. Hightshoe said substantial rehabilitation is
defined by HUD, however did not remember the exact definition. Hightshoe said she will research and
include a definition in the guidelines as to when applicable. Dennis asked if that is a dollar amount. She
said that state HOME regulations specify that anything above $49,999 per unit would be considered
substantial. Eastham agreed that substantial rehabilitation needs to be defined.
Eastham said new construction also should be clearly defined, since that could include both homes that
the Housing Fellowship and Habitat build, but also homes the organizations purchase that are newly
constructed. Hightshoe stated existing homes purchased is considered acquisition, not new construction.
Dennis said that when their organizations apply for funds that are allocated through this process, they
have already presented a budget and plan for how many units will be built or acquired with those funds.
Their concern is going through an additional review process that would potentially change the budget of
the project. She said the concern is not with changing the building plan as much as the budget, since they
have to coordinate so many sources of funding in order to complete a project.
Shaw asked for confirmation that this would be the reason to have guidelines available for their use at the
outset. Dennis said that is fine, as long as the guidelines are not subjective. Dennis said she is
comfortable with having Hightshoe and Long evaluate the plans, but there is no guarantee that they are
the only ones who will be doing it. This design review also adds another layer to a process that is already
complicated.
Eastham said any guideline that has potential cost effects to the project should have a justification for the
additional requirement. Since this is applied to affordable housing, funds are extremely limited; it might be
a choice between doing additional work on the interior of the home versus adding an element for the
exterior look. This could possibly add costs to the projects at a time when they have no additional sources
of funds, except to come back to the city to ask for more money. He noted that the council has shown a
disinclination to follow the Scattered Site Housing Taskforce's recommendation to have additional local
funds made available to assist with scattering. He suspects the council will also not be inclined to supply
additional local funds to cover the costs of design guidelines beyond those required by the zoning code.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
September 21,2006
Page 3
Long agreed that is a valid point, though staff understands that the council would like housing that is built
with federal funds not to stand out from the surrounding neighborhoods. Scattering housing is a totally
different issue. He noted that the city is investing a lot of money into affordable housing, and is interested
in having that money be a good investment for the people living there. Long added that most CDBG and
HOME projects already meet the proposed guidelines.
Dennis said the philosophy of the Housing Fellowship has always been to make it attractive. They have to
make sure people want to live in it, so they want to have their houses fit into the neighborhoods, too. She
said that though there are benefits to keeping the guidelines flexible, that flexibility might unintentionally
provide ammunition for neighbors who object to affordable housing being built in their neighborhoods.
Richman said from his perspective there are places where quantitatively expressed specifics that could
cause some concerns for developers. At the same time, in concept, the guidelines ought to help fight the
neighborhood objections to affordable housing. Dennis said some of the requirements seem very rational.
Mainly the concern is with the infilllots, which are small in number. Most of their plans have to agree with
subdivision covenants, so the design standards are already covered.
Shaw said his additional concern is not to set the guidelines too rigidly, so that all the affordable housing
looks alike. There is value in diversity. Long said the guidelines are not concerned with style of the house,
but with fitting into the surrounding neighborhood. He said staff does not really want strict standards, but
they have had some cases that have caused them to feel it is necessary to have some written guidelines.
He added that one executive director of a non-profit housing developer requested written guidelines,
though that person is not in attendance.
Richman asked how specific covenants get for building in new developments. He asked if they specify
such things as roof pitch, front door alignment, and similar exterior elements. Eastham said garage is
often regulated, roof pitch can be, but size is often the largest consideration. Dennis added that colors are
specified as well. She said that most developers require a plan to be submitted and approved before they
can begin building.
Richman asked for confirmation that having the guidelines specify similarity in design to the surrounding
neighborhood would not be problematic. Eastham said if it is phrased that way, it could be implemented,
though there is still a question on how the review process would work. There needs to be a timeline
specified so that the applicants can have a definite idea about when things will happen and a decision will
be made.
Dennis asked for confirmation that the issues leading to the development of these guidelines involved
infill lots. Long said yes. Dennis suggested specifying that the guidelines only apply to infill lots, while
construction in new subdivisions are required to comply with covenant restrictions.
Richman suggested first defining the word "vicinity." In the case of construction in new subdivisions, the
vicinity would the subdivision in which it is located. For infill lots, it would be a three-block radius, for
example, which would likely accommodate a wide variety of housing styles, but would hopefully also be
reasonably consistent.
Shaw asked Cremer if he had anything he would like to add to the discussion. Cremer introduced himself
as a volunteer with Habitat for Humanity, and said he is present at the meeting on his own to listen to the
proceedings and learn more about the issue. In his opinion, the guidelines are completely unnecessary
and are designed to solve a problem that does not exist. He does not see how adding these guidelines
and the associated cost would be necessary. He asked for clarification of what the problem is. The idea of
having to match a house with the surrounding area is very difficult and nebulous. Matching to the
surrounding architecture in some cases might be a detriment to the neighborhood. Habitat objects to the
guidelines for good reason, and he does not see why some of the specific architectural additions are
necessary.
Long said the city feels that a tremendous investment is put into affordable units, so they would like them
to conform to the rest of the neighborhood. They do not what the houses to stand out as obviously built as
affordable units. It hasn't been an issue except with Habitat, and Habitat's director asked city staff to
come up with consistent guidelines. He added that the complaints about housing have been about Habitat
homes.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
September 21, 2006
Page 4
Cremer said he wondered whether the complaints were actually about the architecture of the homes or
about concerns with poor people moving into certain areas. Anthony said he believes the concern is
primarily the architecture because the people who move into Habitat housing are pretty much the same
people who move into Housing Fellowship and other agency housing, though no complaints are heard
about those. Shaw noted that Habitat houses do have visual indicators that it is affordable housing during
its construction, because of the large groups of people who work on the houses.
Eastham said he agreed that adding costs through added features is not going to accomplish much. Long
suggested sitting down with the involved groups to figure out what the additional costs would be for some
of these requirements. Hightshoe pointed out that if the city has $60K invested in the lot, and if you could
document that these guidelines increased cost by $1,000 (if any) that would still be a relatively small
amount considering the level of subsidy provided. Eastham noted that Habitat does not receive the
benefit of the city investment. The homebuyer receives that $59,000 or $60,000 benefit, and additional
design elements just add to the cost the homebuyers pay.
Long said he would like to meet with the groups to look at what additional costs would be incurred by
these design elements. He said he looked at all the current Housing Fellowship projects, and they fit all of
the guidelines they could come up with. Dennis said if the guidelines were requested by Habitat, what is
Habitat's objection to them? Cremer said he is not aware that Habitat asked for guidelines, but that being
the case, it is a case of not liking what is being proposed.
Shaw confirmed that the primary concerns are additional costs, and restrictiveness. He asked whether
there was a way to look at the community from which the guidelines were drawn before the standards
were put into place. Long noted that there are many communities that have design guidelines for
affordable housing. Shaw asked if there was a way to determine what the additional costs when the
guidelines were added. Hightshoe said she called the community that the proposed guidelines are
patterned after, and they said they have had great success with these guidelines, both with homeowners
and neighbors. Homeowners have gotten more equity from the homes and the homes have been
appreciating faster. The Neighborhood Conservation Office (Springfield, MO) stated that if the design
requirements did cost the developer additional funds, it was no more than 5% and that most designs did
not increase the price. Hightshoe stated the original guidelines (Springfield, MO) are stricter than the ones
proposed in this draft.
Crane said that most of these homes probably meet the covenants already, except for some situations
that need to be discussed specifically. Richman agreed, except in the case of infilllots. He said it seems
that it would be hard to supply objective analysis of increased costs, since there is such wide variance in
building costs due to neighborhood, size of house, etc. Maybe they add some cost to the price of the
house, but it does not seem that asking for houses to be consistent with the surrounding area should add
a significant cost. If it does, it is probably worth it, since the objective of creating affordable housing is not
to build the cheapest possible unit, but to build something that makes affordable housing acceptable and
adds value to the house.
Anthony said that the things that will really change the cost of building any home are the foundation, the
square footage, requirements for garages, and minimum heights. Exterior and interior finishes add costs
also. Since none of the regulations pertain to any of those, he is unsure how much of a cost increase they
would cause. Most of the housing developers of affordable housing build homes that exceed the
requirements, but there have been cases that have caused problems in the past. Also, Anthony agreed
with Richman that this should be viewed from a long-term perspective of improving the quality of those
few problematical units, so hopefully neighborhood resistance to affordable housing would be reduced.
Long said staff would take the suggestions and talk more with the providers of affordable housing, then
bring it back to the commission in October. Hightshoe said these guidelines would be applied for houses
approved in FY08. She said the city would not require a developer who already had a design for FY07 or
FY06 redo their design; however it is in the HOME agreement that the city approve the design before a
building permit is issued. There will be flexibility in review of FY06, 07 projects. Having the guidelines to
review before design or submitting plans will help to avoid additional design costs or time delays. She
added she hoped that if there were any questions that the developers would ask staff for clarification
during the process.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
September 21, 2006
Page 5
Shaw asked since this would be for FY08, what would be the timeline for approving the guidelines. Long
said they would have to be approved by December 1, 2006. Shaw asked if there was a way to get the
revised guidelines early, before the packets. Long said yes.
Cremer asked for clarification of the decision made about the guidelines. Anthony said that staff would be
making the changes that were discussed at the meeting, and will email out the revised version to
interested parties in advance of the October meeting. Then there will be more discussion about it at that
meeting and perhaps a vote on whether to adopt them.
PUBLIC HEARING & APPROVAL OF THE FY06 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE &
EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER)
Anthony asked for confirmation that this is a formal, mandated public hearing on CAPER. Long said yes.
Anthony said the public hearing is open.
Long distributed the year-end reports, which are formatted according to HUD guidelines. He summarized
by saying that $855,111 in HOME funds and $1.2 million in CDBG funds were spent. Income received
was $320K from loan repayments. CDBG funds assisted 17,300 people, some of which are duplicated
between agencies. Still, he noted that is a tremendous number of people.
Richman stated the chart on page 9 was beneficial to show the progress towards meeting our CITY
STEPS housing goals and identifying the need to focus on affordable rental housing. Hightshoe stated
that is this the first year of the plan and staff is reporting accomplishments differently than last year. In
previous years, staff reported projects underway as well as those completed in the fiscal year. This year
staff only reported on the housing projects completed in FY06, however there are several projects
underway such as Melrose Ridge (18 units affordable rental), Whispering Garden (12 units of affordable
rental, and Longfellow Manor (6 units affordable rental) that are not reflected in the chart.
Hightshoe stated some of the goals identified in CITY STEPS may be difficult to achieve given the
funding available. We will continue to look at this during the 5-year plan.
MOTION: Crane moved to approve the FY06 CAPER and to forward it on to the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Shaw seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
SELECTION OF PROJECTS TO MONITOR IN FY07
Each HCDC Member selected 2-4 projects to monitor. Anthony suggested that staff assign projects to
those not in attendance. Hightshoe stated she will complete the monitor list and forward it in the next
packet as well as email out to HCDC members.
TIMELlNE FOR THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN
Hightshoe stated that each year, staff review the strategic plan and priorities established in CITY STEPS.
CITY STEPS is our 5 year plan to address the needs of low income residents through housing, jobs and
services. Two meetings are scheduled to obtain feedback on CITY STEPS. Staff tries to obtain feedback
each year from different agencies and clientele. This year, meetings were set up at Successful Living
(agency that provides supportive services and singe room occupancy rooms for persons living alone, men
and women) and at the Local Homeless Coordinating Board meeting. A summary of the comments
received will be sent to HCDC members in the October HCDC packet.
Hightshoe encouraged HCDC members to attend one or both of these meetings. Staff will also be
meeting with police officers to discuss emergency/crisis needs. If any HCDC member would like to be
present at that time, just let staff know. We will be holding a public meeting during the October HCDC
meeting to go over the comments received. If HCDC wishes to amend CITY STEPS a recommendation
to amend CITY STEPS must be sent to council.
Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes
September 21, 2006
Page 6
OLD BUSINESS
DISCUSSION OF CDBG AND HOME INVESTMENT POLICIES
Long discussed a waiver of the investment policy for transitional housing for homeless families upon
receiving a request from HACAP (FY06 HOME recipient). HACAP requested HCDC review possible loan
forgiveness due to the due to the inability to pay the full loan. The investment policy requires a 100% pay
back loan at 0% for non-profit housing developers. Richman stated he would prefer to review housing
policy and not make exceptions for one provider. Anthony stated he would like to have flexibility of loan
terms for all transitional housing such as part loan, part grant due to the ability to payor rent structure.
Richman suggested pay back be based on rent revenues and could possibility be determined at intervals,
such an annually, every 6 months, etc.
Long stated he would recommend flexibility in the terms provided to transitional housing providers as
many do not receive full fair market rent or a rent that would cover operational and maintenance
expenses during the life of the project. Hightshoe stated there are housing providers that can make full
payment as their properties receive fair market rent due to Section 8 vouchers or the residents in the unit
are of a higher income than the clients in transitional housing. Hightshoe stated she would encourage a
policy that recognized the rent revenue collected. When providing housing to homeless families and
individuals, the developer will not collect fair market rent or typically any Section 8 subsidy. As they only
charge 30% of the household's income, this may not be much and certainly in some cases not enough for
the project to provide sufficient cash flow. Hightshoe would like to see some flexibility with the terms
recognizing the ability to pay instead of a set policy stating transitional housing providers all get a
conditional occupancy loan.
Anthony suggested upon reviewing the proforma, a determination of the appropriate loan terms be made.
Shaw questioned if that would be too time consuming for staff. Long stated that staff currently performs
that function now and could review for repayment terms as staff had that flexibility in the past. Hightshoe
stated that agency rent rolls could be reviewed to determine/verify estimated gross rent revenue for the
project and what payment could be made. Therefore the financial assistance provided could be in a form
of a certain percentage conditional occupancy loan and the remainder a loan.
Anthony asked staff to come up with COSG and HOME investment scenarios to discuss at the
October HCOC meeting.
DISCUSSION OF CDBG AND HOME COUNCIL EARMARKS
Aid-to Agencies - Severson gave information on the Aid-to-Agencies process. Local health and human
service agencies complete one application form yearly and may request funding from City of Coralville,
City of Iowa City, Johnson Count Board of Supervisors and/or the United Way of Johnson County. For
FY 07, the City of Iowa City allocated $446,973.00 to 15 agencies (17 programs), one collaborative effort
and the contingency fund for Aid to Agencies. Of this amount, $305,923 comes from the General Fund,
$105,000 from CDBG and $36.050 from utilities division. The City of Iowa City has typically appointed
two council members to handle the review of the paper application and participate in presentations and/or
site visits to the agencies. Then the two council members develop funding recommendations to present
to the whole council for review and decision. Each agency that receives funding from Iowa City submits
quarterly information (program report, financial reports, and board minutes) which is reviewed by
Severson. She also visits agencies on an informal basis and may attend programs or fund raising events.
Richman recommended to leave process as is, that is, that HCDC allocates whatever remains in the
public service category after the Aid-to-Agency set-aside is removed. Shaw commented that the reason
he is on the commission is to review public service needs and make recommendations on the allocation.
Other reasons included the availability of funds for the allocation to new projects or services and that the
allocation reflect CITY STEPS priorities.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Shaw moved to adjourn. Richman seconded and the motion carried on a vote of 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10.
s/pcd/mins/hcdcl2006/9-21-06hcdc. doc
CITY STEPS ANNUAL REVIEW
PUBLIC MEETING
SUCCESSFUL LIVING
OCTOBER 5, 2006
City Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long
HCDC Members Present: Marcy DeFrance, Holly Jane Hart
Comments Received:
Transportation
. Lack of reliable transportation available for jobs on the weekend or when
needed for large employment shifts a large barrier for employment such
as late night hours.
. Bus passes (free) - can't use during peak hours, thus very difficult to get
to jobs that begin or end during peak times (6-9 AM or 3:30-6:00 PM)
. Questioned when SEATS was available, however must be a person with a
disability or elderly (over 80) to use.
. Agency van availability for employment and appointments are needed
. Communal use of vans or old vehicles suggested for employment or
grocery trips
. Wheels to Work (previously offered through Goodwill) a great program.
Hope that it can be reinstated (due to tax changes for vehicle
donation/valuation and expense of program, Goodwill was no longer able
to support it).
. Transportation is critical to keeping a job, possible car pool.
Employment
. Successful Living contracts with the City to provide City Park rides. Great
employment source and extra income for tenants. Request additional
contracts for employment for their tenants such as for the recreation
department. Request City Park rides open till 1 0:00 PM on summer
evenings.
. Assistance with setting up own businesses (custodial, maintenance, lawn
care, etc. with the help of Successful Living or other agency (micro-
enterprise businesses) Need business mentoring/work skill development
and/or entrepreneurial development.
. Suggestion to work with area business for a live-work arrangement.
Provide lawn and/or maintenance needs and get free or reduced rent on
business site (apartment over business) or if unit owned by a property
management company a unit managed by the company
. Increased availability of employment or civic engagement to get out into
the community and reduce social isolation.
. Work with home builders or other businesses for skill development.
. Surplus labor for entry level positions due to students.
. Vocational rehabilitation has a long waiting list.
Housing
. Need affordable housing. Needs to be housing affordable to make that
next transition from transitional housing to permanent housing that does
not rely on Section 8 or other subsidies. Low cost one bedroom or studio
apartments are needed for non-student population.
. Need additional SRO (single room occupancy) units in the community
. Need rehab. funds to keep current SRO units available to the community.
. Section 8 waiting list is too long.
. Very difficult to move to permanent housing and afford the security
deposit. Often times the deposit is not returned no matter what condition
the apartment is when leaving the unit.
. Property management companies charge a processing fee, security
deposit, and require a long application. Not able to afford all the up-front
costs and difficulty completing 20 page application forms.
Medical
. Iowa Care - clients can only be seen at the University; however
psychiatric visits and medication not covered. The current waiting list at
Community Mental Health is three weeks.
Other
. Opportunities for civic involvement. A chance to contribute positive
activities in the community such as fundraisers, volunteer opportunities,
etc.
. Safety cameras and/or emergency phones needed downtown for assaults
and safety issues.
CITY STEPS ANNUAL REVIEW
PUBLIC MEETING
LOCAL HOMELESS COORDINATING BOARD
OCTOBER 11, 2006
City Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Linda Severson
HCDC Members Present: Marcy DeFrance, Holly Jane Hart
Comments Received:
Transportation
. Chronic transportation problems to employment, daycare, and
social/medical appointments.
. Transportation costs are high and difficult to afford. Bus and taxi trips
(when public transportation is not available) are expensive.
. Crisis Center is one block away from the bus stop. It is too difficult for
elderly folks to get their groceries and carry them to the bus stop and get
them home. Bus stop could be added so that the route stops in front of
the Crisis Center.
. Transportation difficult after bus hours, especially for Coralridge workers
as the last bus to downtown Iowa City misses the bus to southeast Iowa
City.
. Suggest an after hour service, point to point system, such as JARC in
Cedar Rapids. The City is looking into grant funds for transportation after
regular transit hours.
. Bus must run additional hours on weekend hours.
. Bus service is not available to mobile home parks outside the Iowa City
corporate limits. Suggest working with the county to provide bus service
to outlying mobile home parks.
. Suggest employer buy-in to address transportation issue for businesses
open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as well as to reduce employer turn-
over and the high cost of training new employees.
. There is value in any employment and the opportunity to learn or improve
on work habits and skills as well as to obtain a positive employment
reference.
. Request to reinstate Wheels to Work or a similar program. Wheels to
Work provided donated, reliable vehicles to individuals in need of
transportation to get to work.
. Substance abuse problems leads persons to lose their license, however
many refuse to use the bus and would rather risk another offense than to
find alternative transportation.
Employment
. Need basic skill development such as literacy and computation. Many
can't complete a resume or complete an application on a computer that is
increasingly more common.
. Need vocational training opportunities in Iowa City as difficult to go to
Cedar Rapids.
. Need daycare available to persons working 2nd and 3rd shifts.
Employment can be found, however once a household moves out of
transitional housing where child care was possibly shared with others in
transitional housing, that opportunity no longer exists and the household
may lose employment as they can't locate childcare.
. Employers increasingly demand skill certification programs. Having formal
training is a barrier to many low-income persons who have the skills, but
can't afford formal training.
. HUD funding for employment training has dried up, however work habits
and job skills are important to obtain and keep a job.
. Need to market one's own skills to obtain a job. Recognize that they do in
fact have skills and can rapidly learn new skills. Suggest a coach and
ways to build self-esteem.
. Recognition that there is a benefit in all employment. Need a local,
positive reference, experience, and a way to build on skills learned.
Housing
· Need affordable housing in the community. There is a large waiting list
for Section 8.
. The jobs people without vehicles or without a license can accept/take is
determined by the bus routes or where they live. Many are not working
the traditional 9-5 jobs. Thus housing needs to be located on routes that
can facilitate transportation needs.
Other
. Comment to do more outreach to engage low-income populations, such
as placing bulletins at mobile home parks and subsidized housing
complexes.
. Community need for grocery store visits for the elderly and homebound as
need medical disability or must be over 80 to ride SEATS.
Page I of2
Tracy Hightshoe
From: Barker, Joyce A uoyce-barker@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 11: 13 AM
To: Tracy Hightshoe
Subject: a plan that may work or provide a base to go from
I Men's side
Women's side
DDDDDDD
ODD
ODD
This is an obvious un-architectural drawing...
But my idea is a modest building that is 2 stories,
With fire escapes but divided with classrooms and staff facilities in the middle and men on one side and
women and families on the other.
First floor could be communal, email showers etc., food and general area and 2nd floor for sleeping.
Maybe with accordion locking pleated dividers for privacy when occupancy is low and in the winter it
could be opened up for a larger night status.
A separate building could be built next door to provide daycare for the children there.
That would also be able to be set up so that second and third shift daycare could also be provided
in this situation.
This would help people be able to keep a steady job, get a work history and build up some money
so they can get housing in this town.
This is just an idea from a person who has been on the brink in this town and pulled themselves
up with only using the assistance of the Crisis Center.
Thank You.
Joyce Barker
10/12/2006
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.
. g. investment
the revenue
,the amoOnt
Inmosfcases, 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.
Inh1o~lcases, assistance to homeownership projects will have three repayment options as
shown herein. 1. A 20-year loan that must be paid in full when the low-moderate income
homeowner sells, transfers title, moves or rents the property or the 20-year term expires,
whichever occurs first. No interest will accrue and no payments will be required to be made by the
property owner prior to payoff. 2. The homeowner has the option to make monthly payments to
the City or its designee in a form not to exceed a 30-year, zero percent (0%) amortized loan, a 30
year amortized loan must start at the time the assistance is provided. 3. If CDBG\HOME
assistance is provided to a certified non-profit organization, for a Community Land Trust project,
the CDBG\HOME funds will be in the form of a grant.
All HOME funds provided for Tenant Based Rent Assistance will be in the form of a grant.
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).
(over)
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: A lien 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 COBG Agreement. If the subrecipient
fully satisfies the terms outlined in the applicable COBG 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 COBG assistance allocated to a
subrecipient in anyone City fiscal year for a "public facility" project divided by $3,000
equals the number of COBG compliance years for the Earned Grant. (For example:
$17,000 in COBG assistance divided by $3,000 would equal a compliance term of 5.67
years or 68 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) and if
the Earned Grant Formula results in a compliance term of more than ninety-nine (99)
years the maximum compliance term shall be ninety-nine (99) 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.
Wpd/ppdcdbg/proinvestpolicies 10/06
City of Io",,"a City
Affordable Housing Design
Guidelines
October 2006
Community Development
City of Io"VVa City
410 E. Washington Street
Io"VVa City, IA 52240
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PURPOSE
APPLICATION & REVIEW
2 PROVISION A: BUILDING LOCATION
PROVISION B: BUILDING MASS, SCALE & ROOF
PROVISION C: PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
PROVISION D: INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY
3 PROVISION E: BUILDING ENTRANCE & PORCHES
4 PROVISION F: WINDOWS
5 PROVISION G: EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
PROVISION H: GARAGES
6 PROVISION I: VEHICULAR ACCESS PROVISION
PROVISION J: UTILITY PLACEMENT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES
(For New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation of Single-Family and Duplexes/Attached
Single Family Housing Units)
PURPOSE: The City of Iowa City's Affordable Housing Design Guidelines provide a standard
framework for developers utilizing Community Development Block Grant or HOME Investment
Partnership funding for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable single-family
and duplex/attached single family homes. The purpose of the Guidelines is to foster a positive
public perception of affordable housing by promoting the rehabilitation and/or design of single-
family and attached single family homes in a manner that complements surrounding single-
family housing styles, encourages a street-scape which promotes neighborhood interaction, and
ensures a quality design for the low income household that will live in the housing unit.
APPLICATION AND REVIEW: Prior to obtaining a building permit, a site plan, building floor
plans, and building elevations for all single and two family uses funded by the City of Iowa City,
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development (PCD). PCD
shall review plans and shall consult with additional staff representatives from Housing and
Inspection Services to ensure conformance with the Design Guidelines.
Substantial rehabilitation includes any repair, reconstruction, modernization or improvement of a
structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure either: 1) Before
the improvement or repair is started; or 2) If the structure has been damaged, and is being restored,
before the damage occurred.
These guidelines are in addition to the requirements in the zoning code. If the provisions of these
guidelines are inconsistent with one another or if they conflict with provisions found in other adopted
ordinances or resolutions, the ordinance or resolution will control. When these guidelines are equally
specific or when it is unclear which provision to apply, the ordinance or resolution will control.
Affordable Housing Design Guidelines
1
PROVISION A:
PROVISION B:
PROVISION C:
PROVISION D:
BUILDING LOCATION
All principal and accessory structures within a City of Iowa City
funded development site shall be located on the lot in a manner
consistent with the majority of single-family residential structures
in the vicinity.
BUILDING MASS, SCALE AND ROOF
As viewed from the street on which the front entrance is oriented, the
proportion of the building height to width should be compatible with the
same proportions of other buildings on the block. Generally, floor to floor
height of new structures should relate to adjacent single-family homes;
and, the overall height at the eaves should relate to homes within close
proximity.
The mass, roof pitch and the orientation of the roof ridge for the principal
structure shall be compatible with similar residential structures in the
vicinity. This requirement does not disallow roof line alterations if
necessary for structures subject to rehabilitation so long as the alteration
is reasonably consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. False gables
and/or dormers may be permitted to ensure the consistency of roof style.
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
A minimum three (3) foot wide paved pedestrian path shall be
provided from the primary pedestrian entrance of a single-family
home to the driveway and/or sidewalk. Minimum three (3) foot-
wide paved pedestrian paths shall be provided from the primary
pedestrian entrances of each unit in a duplex/attached single
family development to a driveway and/or sidewalk. If the
duplex/attached single family units have a shared entrance or
both open into the same porch, one path shall be provided.
INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY
To the extent possible, multiple financially assisted homes constructed
adjacent to, or in close proximity to each other should exhibit
distinguishing characteristics - regardless of whether they utilize the same
floor plan. Acceptable alternatives may include varying roof pitches and
Affordable Housing Design Guideines
2
Figure 5:
Individual Identity:
PROVISION E:
orientation, window arrangement, porch arrangement, varying materials,
etc. so long as such alternatives do not conflict with the other design
elements addressed within this document.
~~
While a consistent size and scale is exhibited by these two homes utilizing the
same floor plan, slight variations in the roof, exterior building materials, details,
windows, and door give every unit a distinctive identity.
BUILDING ENTRANCE & PORCHES
Each single-family home and duplex unit shall be provided with
no fewer than two (2) pedestrian entrances in order to promote
pedestrian flow through all portions of the unit and lot unless the
developer can illustrate that a second pedestrian entrance is not
feasible.
Main entrances to a building, including main entrances to ground
level individual dwelling units must be clearly demarcated by one
of the following means: covered porch or canopy, transom and
sidelight windows, pilasters and pediment, or other significant
architectural treatment that emphasizes main entrances. Simple
trim around the doorway does not meet this standard.
1. Single-Family.
The primary pedestrian entrance to a new single-family residential
home or home to be rehabilitated shall face the street.
2. Duplex and Attached Single Family Dwellings.
The primary pedestrian entrance must follow the applicable zoning
code.
3
FIGURE 1
~g
B~~,
~>_. [] ~
A. EE ~ ra1 EE
-- ~ --
<t!_y_ Lr.1J
'~~'~~.:::::~;:=,,:~:::~::. '-::-,-' -' - ..' .
.-....w-......
~-~_.-
B.---..
A. Yes. Both units within this duplex have their own entrance but all other building elements
simulate a single family home, including size and scale.
B. No. The doors of these duplex units face the side yard instead of the street. The side of the
building is oriented toward the street.
PORCHES
Single-family residential homes and duplexes/attached single family
dwellings shall have a front porch for new construction if porches are
commonly found in the neighborhood or are on structures directly
adjacent to the subject property. The front porch of structures to be
rehabilitated shall be retained or replicated in a manner that is consistent
with the original. Front porches on new construction shall be a full facade,
partial fa9ade or wrap around porch depending on the design of single-
family homes in the vicinity. Alternative porch arrangements may be
considered where no predominant style exists. A porch may be omitted
from the front building facade only if such an omission is necessary in
order to make the unit consistent with surrounding homes of similar
architectural style.
PROVISION F:
WINDOWS
On facades which face the street or other public spaces, window
openings shall be similar in rhythm, size and proportion to that of the
majority of single-family homes in the vicinity. Window proportions shall
be compatible with the architectural style of the house.
At least 15% of any street facing facade must be windows or pedestrian
entryway doors. Windows in garage doors to not count towards meeting
this standard, but windows in a garage wall do count towards meeting this
standard.
4
PROVISION G:
PROVISION H:
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
Exterior surface materials, excluding the roof, shall be compatible with
that of other buildings on the block except synthetic siding may be used if
complementary to the majority of single-family homes surrounding the lot.
Exterior walls of buildings that are not primarily masonry or stucco, must
have a durable foundation consisting of masonry, stucco, or dressed
concrete that extends at least six inches above grade.
Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any
facade that faces a street-side lot line.
All windows, doors and roof eaves, including roof eaves on porches, must
be demarcated with trim. Window and door trim shall be not less than 3
inches wide. The City may waive this requirement in cases where the
building has an exterior material of stucco or masonry such that trim is
impractical or inappropriate to the design of the building.
For buildings where the exterior wall material used on the side of a
building is a different material than what is used on the street-facing wall,
the street-facing wall material must wrap around the corners to the sides
of the building for at least three feet.
GARAGES & OTHER OUTBUILDINGS
1. A garage is not a required building element. When utilized,
attached or detached garages shall be located on the parcel
in a manner consistent with the majority of single family
homes in the vicinity, except that it is preferable to remove the
garage from the front building facade where possible.
2. Detached garages shall be of a similar height as garages on
adjacent lots, shall have a roof pitch similar to that of adjacent
5
PROVISION I:
PROVISION J:
garages and shall be of a scale that is subordinate to the
principal residential structure.
VEHICULAR ACCESS
Vehicular access to the assisted property shall be consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood.
UTILITY PLACEMENT
Electric and gas meters serving new construction shall not be placed on a
street facing building facade. Every effort shall be made to relocate
electric and gas meters to a non-street facing building facade of a
dwelling unit to be substantially rehabilitated.
City of Iowa City
Community Development
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319.356.5230
www.icgov.org
6