Loading...
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