Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-16 CorrespondenceSTAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sylvia Bochner, Planning Intern Item: REZ17-00019 Date: January 4, 2018 Kum & Go GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Kum & Go, LC 6400 Westown Parkway West Des Moines, IA 50266 Contact: Brian Boelk HBK Engineering 509 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-338-7557 bboelk@hbkengineering.com L01-16-16 3-16 -1 Requested Action: Rezone three parcels as follows: 1010 First Avenue from RS-5/ODR to CC-2/ODR 1022 First Avenue from RS-5/ODR to CO-1/ODR A portion of 1025 Wade Street from CO-1/ODR to CC-2/ODR Purpose: To allow for the consolidation and redevelopment of two gas stations and the provision of parking for an adjacent office use Location: 1010 and 1022 First Avenue and 1025 Wade Street Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: Approximately 0.5 acres Single Family Residential (RS-5/ODR) and Office (CO-1/ODR) North: Commercial (CC-2/ODR) South: Office and Residential (CO-1/ODR and RS-5/ODR) East: Commercial (CC-2/ODR) West: Commercial and Residential (CC-2/ODR and RS -5) Southeast District Plan and Towncrest Urban Renewal Area City High November 30, 2017 45 Day Limitation Period: January 14, 2018 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant, Kum & Go, LC, has requested rezoning of three properties, located at 1010 S. First Avenue, 1022 S. First Avenue, and 1025 Wade Street. 1010 S. First Avenue and 1022 S. First Avenue are residential properties that Kum & Go has acquired or plans to acquire. Kum & Go also owns 2303 Muscatine Avenue and plans to purchase 2315 Muscatine Avenue, both of which are currently gas stations. 1025 Wade Street is the facility for Iowa City Hospice. The purpose of this project is to redevelop the site at the corner of Muscatine Avenue and First Avenue as a Kum & Go market and gas station. This redevelopment would consolidate the two existing gas stations. The property at 1010 S. First Avenue would be added to the Kum & Go site to provide an area for parking. A portion of 1025 Wade Street, which provides parking for Iowa City Hospice, would also be added to the Kum & Go site. To replace this parking, 1022 S. First Avenue would be added to the Iowa City Hospice site. The building for Iowa City Hospice would not be altered, but its parking area would change. The existing dwellings at 1010 S. First Avenue and 1022 S. First Avenue would be removed to construct the proposed redevelopment. To adjust the property lines accordingly, the applicant must apply for a subdivision or a lot line adjustment. The applicant has submitted the attached concept plan that shows how the area would be redeveloped The applicant is requesting rezoning of 1010 S. First Avenue and the portion of 1025 Wade Street that will be added to the redeveloped Kum & Go site to Community Commercial (CC -2) to match the zoning of the existing gas stations. They are also requesting rezoning of 1022 S. First Avenue to Commercial Office (CO -1) to match the zoning of the existing Iowa City Hospice site. The subject property is located within the Towncrest Commercial Area. Towncrest was developed in the 1960s as a suburban -style commercial area with a focus on medical offices. At the time of its development, Towncrest was on the edge of Iowa City's urbanized area. Today, the area is well - integrated into the city and is a fully developed, urban area surrounded by a diverse walkable neighborhood. In recent years, efforts have been made to improve this area. Towncrest is an Urban Renewal Area and a Design Review District. In 2010, a Design Plan Manual was created for Towncrest to provide details on streetscape design, architectural character, open space, and signage and wayfinding to provide guidance on redevelopment in this area (the plan may be viewed at: https://www.icgov.org/towncrest) While the applicant is not required to follow the Good Neighbor Policy, they have scheduled a meeting for January 3, 2018 (Good Neighbor Meetings are generally held at least 7 days before the scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting). ANALYSIS: Current zoning: 1010 S. First Avenue and 1022 S. First Avenue are both currently zoned Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5). This zone is primarily intended to provide housing for individual households. Although this zone allows for some nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, providing parking for a commercial establishment would not be permitted. 1025 Wade Street is currently zoned Commercial Office (CO -1). This zone is intended for office functions, compatible businesses, apartment buildings, and some public/semi-public uses. The CO - 1 zone can also serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. Proposed zoning: The applicant has proposed two zones, Community Commercial (CC -2) for the redeveloped Kum & Go site and Commercial Office (CO -1) for the modified Iowa City Hospice site. The existing gas stations and Iowa City Hospice sites are already zoned accordingly; the rezoning would apply to the properties at 1010 S. First Avenue, 1022 S. First Avenue, and the portion of 1025 Wade Street that would be transferred to the Kum & Go site The Community Commercial (CC -2) zone is intended to provide districts for major businesses that serve a significant segment of the total community population. This is the proposed zoning for the redeveloped Kum & Go site, and the current zoning for the existing gas stations on Muscatine Avenue and First Avenue. This zone is meant for businesses that generate significant traffic and require access from major thoroughfares. Uses in this zone can also include limited outdoor activities, provided that outdoor operations are screened or buffered to remain compatible with surrounding uses. Because the subject area is in the Towncrest Design Review District, some of the development standards are different than the general standards for the CC -2 zone. In the Towncrest Design Review District, Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses require a special exception granted by the Board of Adjustments. The redevelopment of this site will be subject to the approval of this special exception. Additionally, when permitted, Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses in the Towncrest Design Review District must be designed according to the site development standards for the Central Business Support (CB -5) zone, which includes standards that ensure high quality design and a pedestrian focus. One notable requirement in the CB -5 zone is that all street -facing facades must have a minimum of 50% of the fagade composed of transparent windows and doors. This will be required on both the Muscatine Avenue and First Avenue frontages of the redeveloped Kum & Go Market. The Design Review process will further ensure that the building meets the guidelines for the Towncrest Design Review District. The Commercial Office (CO -1) zone is the proposed zoning for the modified Iowa City Hospice site and the zoning of the current Iowa City Hospice site. This zone, as noted above, is intended for office functions, compatible businesses, apartments, and some public/semi-public uses. Comprehensive Plan: The Southeast District Plan supports redevelopment in the Towncrest Commercial Area that helps turn the area into a more walkable mixed use center. One of the goals for this area is to improve traffic flow by limiting the number of access points along Muscatine Avenue. The redevelopment of the two gas stations supports this goal by reducing the number of curb cuts onto Muscatine Avenue from 2 to 1. Overall, the redevelopment will reduce the number of curb cuts from 8 to 5. This redevelopment will also improve the pedestrian environment by moving sidewalks further from the road and providing landscaped buffers with street trees. Another goal of the Southeast District Plan regarding the Towncrest Commercial Area is to "encourage reinvestment and redevelopment." The adopted Urban Renewal Plan provides redevelopment standards that work towards making Towncrest a walkable, mixed-use urban neighborhood. The comprehensive plan supports redevelopment and reinvestment in this area to create aesthetic improvements and move towards the urban form outlined in the Design Plan. The proposed redevelopment of the site would be subject to design review based on the standards in the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area Design Plan to ensure the redevelopment contributes to the intended character of the area. Compatibility with neighborhood: Because the type of uses along Muscatine Avenue will not change with this rezoning, the redeveloped site will be generally compatible with the surrounding commercial area. On the existing site, the gas station abuts the residential property at 1010 S. First Avenue. With redevelopment, this lot and the lot directly to the south will be redeveloped as parking, which will move the transition from commercial to residential to the property at 1026 S. First Avenue. With redevelopment, there is the opportunity to provide a landscaped buffer to protect the residential properties from light and noise from the commercial and parking uses. The applicant has M submitted a landscaping plan that shows S3 screening (a mix of evergreen and deciduous shrubs at least 3' in height when planted and at least 6' at maturity) between parking and residential uses. The rest of the site is shown with S2 screening, which uses masonry walls and shrubs to create a low-level screen with some visibility. Traffic implications: By consolidating the two gas stations, the proposed redevelopment reduces the number of curb cuts on Muscatine Avenue from 2 to 1, as shown in the site plan. As mentioned above, reducing the number of curb cuts on Muscatine Avenue is an objective of the comprehensive plan that supports the goal of improving traffic flow in the Towncrest Commercial Area. The redevelopment of these properties will also reduce the number of curb cuts on First Avenue by closing the driveways that lead to 1010 S. First Avenue and 1022 S. First Avenue. A single access point will remain on First Avenue that connects to parking on the redeveloped Kum & Go site. Access points on Wade Street will remain largely the same; the concept plan shows one access point to the redeveloped Kum & Go site and one entrance and one exit for Iowa City Hospice. The access drive onto the Iowa City Hospice site is a one-way drive that leads to parking along the side of the existing building and the additional parking on 1022 S. First Avenue. Vehicles would then exit the site onto Wade Street through a one-way drive adjacent to Kum & Go's access point. Because of differences in elevation between the Kum & Go site and the Iowa City Hospice site, these drives cannot be combined. Another goal for the Towncrest Commercial Area is to make the area more pedestrian -friendly. Currently, the sidewalk along the east side of First Avenue directly abuts the road with no buffer, which creates a safety risk for pedestrians. The concept plan indicates that the sidewalk along First Avenue will be relocated to provide a 6' landscaped buffer between the road and the sidewalk. This will contribute to a safer, more pedestrian friendly environment. The applicant has also submitted a landscaping plan that shows street trees along First Avenue, Muscatine Avenue, and Wade Street. SUMMARY: The proposed redevelopment will contribute to producing the desired character for the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area. This project will consolidate two existing gas stations, reduce the number of curb cuts on Muscatine Avenue and First Avenue, and redevelop the site in conformance with the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area Design Plan. Landscaping will provide a buffer between the Kum & Go gas station and the adjacent residential uses. Additionally, to ensure this redevelopment contributes to the pedestrian -friendly environment of the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area, it is important that all sidewalk connections and curb cuts are appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of this application pending resolution of deficiencies noted below. Upon resolution of these items, staff would recommend approval of the proposal to rezone property located at 1010 S. First Avenue from Low Density Single Family (RS - 5) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone, 1022 S. First Avenue from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to Commercial Office (CO -1) zone, and a portion of 1025 Wade Street from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone, subject to general conformance with the concept plan (including the revisions noted below). DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. The site plan shows a parking aisle that is 30 feet wide, while code allows a maximum of 24 foot parking aisles. 2. A minimum of 5 feet of landscaping must be provided on both sides of the property lines between parking areas. A minor modification may be granted due to change in grade on the east side of the property, but this landscaping must be provided between the parking lots for Kum & Go and Iowa City Hospice. 3. Sidewalk connections should be provided on the First Avenue side of the building and the sidewalk on the east side of the building should be extended to connect to Muscatine Avenue. 4. Curb cuts do not meet the standards for width and location. The City Engineer is currently reviewing the plan and will consider allowing modification or may request changes to the curb cuts. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plan e—� Approved by: Tracy Hight e, Dir or, Department of -Neighborhood and Development Services ppdadminWfmpldo menQ rr R � Y x. T INWANW-W 'W- AW CC2 CCA +!� 114 'ilk . R55 lf,: — '00C01 RS5 ` RS5 RS5 L R35 RS5 RS5 i :S5 Cot r i RS5 s •e �' � t An application submitted by Kum & Go, LC RS5 46 for the rezoning of 1010 S. 1st Avenue from RS -5 to CC -2,1022 S. 1st Avenue from RS -5 to CO -1, and a portion of 1025 Wade Street from CO -1 to CC -2. RS5 lim repared By: Sylvia Bochner :itc Pi oparedt December 2017 tC�t6f r ,, Col Legend Rezone to CC -2 Rezone to CO -7 col *I 4—WV OI CMI® ✓sun 3y D N D 'w O �b © �•aSS3NN3IH11N3W3AVd cSwnww�n�v.mi+au ]I 3(1N3AV BBI 3NI1tlOSHW r' 27 cmea 1 ®a ® I _ 133tl1S 3QtlM 6i � I I amain T y n ® �. s.�....m.. mn.�nv.O h m m it O• -- — . D 'w O �b © �•aSS3NN3IH11N3W3AVd cSwnww�n�v.mi+au ]I 3(1N3AV BBI 3NI1tlOSHW r' 27 "All IRSTAVIN�E CONCRM 00 - --- ------------- II ®R Alli A Xr. A; DE STR A. 111 11 Fgy IR W i 19 i !i 11 ieE z '2- ;iz m .1 m P, 1 -0 0 5 1 0 i L j, o m mx a x m m m 14, C zo irii I A I j 5pgi 3502 -IOWA CITY, IOWA CS� 2303 MUSCATINE AVENUE g(Z:ill LANDSCAPEPLA 0111w 4ft�olw-KUM & GO MARKETPI elm, IOWA C' ftmbl.�- I 1 • .' ,moi qjcox r a: sn¢tial® — � 2.38 2.38 2.38 - - - 1 J OW - x � d ,Ions n I KUM & GO MARKETP IOWA Cl 01-16-18 3e(2) STAFF REPORT 01-16-18 3e(3) To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sylvia Bochner, Planning Intern Item: ANN17-000011REZ17-00020 Date: January 4, 2018 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: IC Housing Group, LLC 266 South 10th Avenue Waite Park, MN 56387 MSCarr@SandCompanies.com Contact Person: Megan Carr 366 South 10th Avenue Waite Park, MN 56387 320-202-3100 MSCarraSandCompanies.com Property Owner: Lyle Mark and Betsy Larson 22780 Hope Dale Avenue Parker, CO 80138 larsonmbjk@gmail.com Requested Action: Annexation & Rezoning Purpose: To annex 7.9 acres at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE to rezone the property from County Commercial (C) and County Multi -Family Residential (RMF) to Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) for 5.27 acres and Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) for 2.76 acres. Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE 7.90 acres Residential—County Commercial (C) and County Multi -Family Residential (RMF) North: Residential – County Residential (R) South: Residential – County Commercial (C), County Multi -family Residential (RMF), and County Residential (R) East: Residential – County Residential (R) West: Commercial –Community Commercial (CC -2) and Office Commercial (CO -1) Northeast District Plan – residential December 4, 2017 45 Day Limitation Period: January 18, 2018 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant, IC Housing Group, LLC, with the consent of the owners, Lyle Mark and Betsy Larson, is requesting annexation and rezoning of 7.90 acres of property located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE. The applicant has requested that the property be rezoned from County Commercial (C) and County Multi -Family Residential (RMF) to Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) for approximately 5.27 acres and Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) for approximately 2.76 acres (see attachment label A-6) This area is located adjacent to Iowa City's current boundary and within Fringe Area B of Johnson County's Fringe Area Agreement with Iowa City. The comprehensive plan shows this area within the City's growth boundary with a future land use of residential at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and held a meeting on December 19, 2017. At that meeting a concept plan was presented showing multifamily residential on the northern part of the property and single family on the southern portion. ANALYSIS: Annexation: The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide decisions regarding annexations. The annexation policy states that annexations are to occur primarily through voluntary petitions filed by the property owners. Further, voluntary annexation requests are to be reviewed under the following three criteria. The Comprehensive Plan states that voluntary annexation requests should be viewed positively when the following conditions exist. 1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary. A general growth area limit is illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the City's Zoning Map. The subject property is located within the City's long-range growth boundary. The boundary is located about 1.5 miles east of the subject property. 2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. Iowa City has a need for expanded housing options to accommodate a growing population. At the time of the development of the Northeast District Plan, the area east of Scott Road and south of Herbert Hoover Highway was largely agricultural and undeveloped. However, the plan indicated that a variety of types of residential uses would be appropriate for the subject area. One of the goals for this area is to encourage a reasonable level of housing diversity, including single family homes, duplexes, townhouses, and small apartment buildings. The Comprehensive Plan encourages growth that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and City services. The western border of the subject property is adjacent to the eastern border of Iowa City, near the Olde Towne Village commercial area. Therefore the subject property is contiguous to current development and meets the goal of contiguous growth. 3. Control of the development is in the City's best interest. The property is within the Long - Range Planning Boundary. It is appropriate that the proposed property be located within the city so that residents of future development may be served by Fire, Police, water, and sanitary sewer service. Annexation will allow the City to provide these services and assure PGMSlaO ReponMstafi report annW-00001.doc that the infrastructure meets City standards. Annexation will allow the City to control zoning so that it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. For the reasons stated above, staff finds that the proposed annexation complies with the annexation policy. Zoning: The western portion of the subject property is currently zoned County Commercial (C), while the eastern portion of the lot is zoned County Multifamily Residential (RMF). The County Commercial zone allows for the development of a wide variety of retail uses, businesses, government and professional offices, and places of amusement. The County Multifamily Residential zone allows the construction of multifamily housing with a minimum lot area of 1,000 square feet per unit with a maximum height of 3 stories. Single family dwellings and two-family dwellings are also permitted in this zone. However, because of the subject area's location in Iowa City's Fringe Area within the growth boundary, all development in this area must be constructed to City standards and it is unlikely that development would occur prior to annexation. The applicant is requesting rezoning of the subject property to Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) for approximately the northern 5.27 acres, and Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID -RS) for approximately the southern 2.76 acres. The purpose of the Interim Development zone is to provide areas of managed growth in which agricultural and non -urban land uses can continue until the City is able to provide services to support development. Under this zoning, the only use that is permitted by right is agriculture. The applicant is currently investigating options for providing utilities to this area. Because utilities are still undetermined, interim zoning is appropriate for this property. Sanitary Sewer and Water: As noted, the applicant is investigating options to provide water and sewer service to this property. Once that is determined a permanent zoning designation will be considered. Traffic Implications: Herbert Hoover Highway serves as the arterial street connecting the subject property to the rest of Iowa City. This street is currently not built to City standards. Although the pavement is in reasonable condition, there is no curb, gutter, or storm sewers. The Subdivision Code gives the City the discretion to approve development on roads that do not meet City standards, provided the developer contributes to the cost of improving the street in the future. For arterial streets, the fee is 12.5% of the cost for improving the street based the City Engineer's estimate. Payment of these fees will need to a part of the developer's agreement at the time the property is platted. A sidewalk was installed along Herbert Hoover Highway by the developers of the Churchill Meadows subdivision to provide pedestrian access between their development and the rest of Iowa City. That sidewalk crosses the northern part of this property and provides a pedestrian connection to the commercial area to the west. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ANN17-00001 and REZ17-00020, annexation of approximately 7.90 acres and a rezoning from County Commercial (C) and County Multifamily Residential (RMF) to Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) for approximately 5.27 acres and Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) for approximately 2.76 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE. PCMStaff RepoasWaff report annV7 0001.doc ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Applicants Statement 3. A-6 Proposed Zoning 4. Summary of Good Neighbqr Meeting Approved by: _ Tracy Hightshoe, Department of Ni PCOIStaB ReponslsWff report annV-00001.doc rd and Development Services N EX Apartments Annexation Application Legal Description TEGLER SUBDIVISION LOT 1 SUBJ TO ROW EASEMENT TO JOHNSON COUNTY AS DESC IN BK 997 PG 349 Location Map Neighboring Property Listing See the attached spreadsheet. Emailed on December 4, 2017 as an Excel file to PlanningZoning@iowa-city.org. Applicant's Statement IC Housing Group, LLC, Applicant, requests annexation and Interim Development zoning from the City of Iowa City. Applicant is requesting annexation within Iowa City's growth area. The intent is to build multifamily housing on the northern portion, but the Applicant needs to further review, with City Staff, utility and other infrastructure, which is why the zoning being requested is Interim Development. Further, land directly to the west, and nearby on the east and south have all been annexed into the City of Iowa City. Zoning on the northern portion of the site will be requested at RM -12 and will be forthcoming in spring 2018. The southern portion will remain as Interim Development until further analyzed. M607 . t562 liN ID: RM j 67315.27 ACREAS I ID: RS 2.76 ACREAS j NEX Apartments Annexation Application Summary of Good Neighbor Meeting A Good Neighbor Meeting for the annexation of 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE took place at Helen Lemme Elementary School on December 19, 2017 from 6:30 pm to 8 pm. Owner/Developer representatives were Megan Carr and Nikki Sand from Sand Development, LLC representing IC Housing Group, LLC. Bob Miklo from the City of Iowa City attended the meeting to answer any relevant City procedural questions. Two neighbors attended and asked various questions regarding the process and plans for the site. Megan Carr answered their questions relating to the site development and timeline. Bob Miklo answered their questions relating to rezoning and process. The two neighbors were Ted Pacha, 4640 Lower West Branch Road SE, Iowa City, IA and Linda Lovik, 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway SE, Iowa City, IA. U1-16-18 3f(1) Kellie Fruehling From: lorraine bowans <Ibowans2l@msn.com> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:06 AM To: Council Subject: Thank you for your concern Dear Council Members, First I would like to thank Stan Laverman for coming to the Neighborhood Council meetings to keep the neighborhoods informed about all of the changes with rental properties and permits. I was one of the organizing members of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association, have served on the Neighborhood Council off and on since the council was formed, and have written many PIN Grants for the neighborhood. Thank you for continuing to fund the PIN Grants. My husband and I purchased our home at 510 S Governor St in July of 1987. The neighborhood was rundown and mostly rentals that were not kept up. We started cleaning up the property and getting to know our neighbors. It started a chain reaction. More homes started getting fixed up and some of the rentals were purchased as single family homes. (Ours was a duplex when we purchased and we turned it into single family.) We have loved our home and have restored it. In the last 7 years we have spent about $80,000 to add the finishing touches to this historic property. It is one of Iowa City's oldest homes, built in 1864, and was lived in by Irving Weber's great aunt. We purchased a newer ranch home in May and put our home on the market in June. We hated leaving, but sometimes age plays a part in moving. Many years ago my neighbor Ann Freerks and 1 worked to get S. Governor/Lucas re -zoned to try to reduce density and the destruction of the old homes in the area. We were successful. We also worked to become a Conservation District, and we were successful. Several years after that more neighbors worked to have it rezoned again, to preserve the blend of rentals and owner occupied. Now after all of the work we have done to improve our neighborhood and save the older homes, we now are saddled with a White Elephant. I watched the council meeting where you did the final vote and you all stated that the changes will hurt a few people, well you are meeting one now. You also stated you would consider some exceptions. If granting a homeowner, who is trying to sell a home, a temporary rental permit for up to 2 years is not a lot of help. We don't want to own rental property! We would like to have the home go to a family, but that most likely won't happen because you moved our neighborhood into the Bowery District. We have had interested people, but they change their mind as we are in a high rental area according to your districts. We had 2 different investors willing to purchase at $400,000 to be used as a rental for visiting professors/doctors , but since we didn't know if we could get a rental permit, they moved on. It would have sold in the first month to one of the investors. We continue to have inquiries from parents who want a good home for the college age children, but no rental permit. We have dropped the price $25,000 and will be dropping it again in another month. Owning 2 homes is costing us $1500 per month. My husband is retired and I am semi -retired. So thank you all so much for costing us 10's of thousands of dollars. We most likely will have to put our newer home on the market and move back to Governor St, unless one of you would like to give us fair market value for our white elephant. Hope you all have a wonderful New Year as ours isn't looking to hopeful. 1 Lorraine Bowans Jerry Moore 320 S. Dubuque St. Apt 111 Iowa City, IA 52240 319-351-3742 Dec. 26, 2017 )ea t r4q" 5 Coin c4'4 01-16-18 3f(2) c�u .IjA ct,. Ha1-o-ipe s. �-o-t akc�teboa td6 G ldu$n" y we need aome. 04apaca. ,'ind a" �J�.t a auk. yea.#:i.on i'vow J & td a�yT4y Y � n :ern i`J 01-16-18 3f(3) Kellie Fruehling From: Edye Freeman <edyemfreeman@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 9:48 AM To: tim-shie@uiowa.edu; vpma@uiowa.edu; debbie.stanton@washington.lib.ia.us; leann.kunz@washington.lib.ia.us; Council; askaden@kalona.lib.ia.us Subject: Internet safety for teens Hello there! I'm the mother of a 12 year old son and a 13 year old daughter. I'm concerned about trying to keep them safe online. I'm searching for a course, workshop, or seminar that is designed for both teens and parents that will address some of the issues we are facing with internet safety. We'd be willing to travel to Iowa City, Washington, or Sigouney for this. I've searched for classes through UI, Mercy, Kirkwood, the IC Police Department, and the Washington Police Department. Do you have any other suggestions where I might be able to find out about a course/workshop/seminar on internet safety for teens? Thanks so much! Edye Freeman 319-325-9942 3f(4) Kellie Fruehling From: Clay Claussen <clayclaussen@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 3:48 PM To: Juli Seydell Johnson; Chad Dyson; Zac Hall; Amanda Opitz; Larry Brown; Joe Younker, Cara Hamann; Suzanne Bentler; Angie Smith; Lucie Laurian; Wayne Fett; Jamie Venzon; Tammy Neumann; Council Subject: Parks & Rec Commission 2018 The City Council has term -limited me off the Commission and not reappointed Larry Brown. I want to thank each and every one of you for your involvement, service and valued input for the seven years I had the privilege of serving as Chairperson. I would also like to extend a welcome to the two new Commission members who will hopefully step right in and work to implement the new Master Plan. I am not going to ride off into the sunset. I love Iowa City and our Parks and Recreation offerings! I will continue to serve the community in other capacities and work to make life better for each and every citizen. Happy New Year and very best regards! Clay Clayton M. Claussen 27 Green Mountain Drive Iowa City, IA 52245-3812 clayclaussen @ama! I.com Mobile: 319-331-9911 Home Office: 319-351-HAWK(4295) 3f(5) Kellie Fruehling From: Ginalie Swaim <ginalieswaim@me.com> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2018 8:34 PM To: Kellie Fruehling Subject: For Work Session Discussion: 109 Market Kellie: Please include this as a late packet addition for the Work Session Jan. 2. Thanks, Ginalie Swaim, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission Begin forwarded message: Late Handouts Distributed (Date) From: Ginalie Swaim <ginalieswaim(a)me.com> Subject: Work Session Discussion: 109 Market Date: January 1, 2018 at 8:30:48 PM CST To: kingsley-botchway(d_)iowa-city.org, rockne-cole(a)iowa-city.org, Susan Mims <susan- mims(iiowa-city.org>, Pau line-taylor(gD-iowa-city.org, mazahir-salih(g2iowa-city.orq, John Thomas <lohn-thomas a(�iowa-citv.org>, Jim Throgmorton<m-throgmorton(a�iowa-city.org> Dear City Council: We are pleased that the City is now engaged in saving the Sanxay-Gilmore House, and that you will be discussing it at the Jan. 2 work session. We'd like to offer a few comments on Mr. Fruin's Dec. 4 memo to Council, in which he presented our Options A, B, C, and D, and reviewed each. Option A, preservation in place: We continue to see this as the highest priority, and we are pleased and encouraged that Mr. Fruin's memo states that "Staff and Mayor will have dialogue with the Church and the University about a preservation in place option." The memo also states that the university doesn't "have any campus use or operating funding identified to maintain the structure." That may be true at the moment, but we know that university plans are constantly evolving. On August 30, 2017, the Press -Citizen reported that the university was buying two lots from Gloria Dei (plus two more on Clinton) for the possible site of a "new entrepreneurial center." On November 14, the Cedar Rapids Gazette quoted the Dean of the College of Business regarding the entrepreneurial center: 'The location selection has shifted and has become more fluid" Within ten weeks, the future site for a campus building that would displace Iowa City's oldest house was off the table. We understand that according to the purchase agreement, the university expects a cleared lot this summer, implying that they will raze the house if it's not moved first. This is particularly distressing when the university now has no current plan for that lot, and that any future plan will be months, perhaps years, in the making. This would be short-sighted in the extreme, and discredits any organization's tendency to reassess needs and resources—as well as the human ability to generate creative solutions and new visions. We would hope that the university would not dismiss these opportunities so quickly. Option B, moving the house to Gloria Dei's parking lot: We clearly understand that all of our downtown churches face challenges because of their location—this is a nationwide dilemma—and that one of those challenges is parking for staff and congregants. It is harder to understand how "losing an estimated sixteen parking spaces adjacent to [Gloria Dei] would have a significant detrimental impact on their operations" and that "Without such parking, the Church's long-term viability in Downtown Iowa City will be greater risk," to quote Mr. Fruin's memo. Is Iowa City being asked to measure the importance of sixteen parking spaces against that of its oldest house (and along with Old Capitol, one of its two oldest buildings)? And, as well, the courtyard associated with the Park House Hotel/St. Agatha's Female Seminary? Option C, moving the house to the city -owned parking lot across Market Street: Granted, there are several unknowns here: the actual dollar value, the city's goals, the university's and the church's needs and interests, and so on. Nevertheless, this space is clearly an opportunity worth exploring. If the church wants to continue to use the Sanxay-Gilmore House, having it across the street seems as convenient as across the alley in the courtyard (see Option D). Option D, moving the house into the historic courtyard at 130 Jefferson: This is not a viable option and we ask that the council remove this option from its discussions with the church and the university. This courtyard is not a vacant, empty space waiting for development. It is a historic green space dating back to at least 1865. Inserting the Sanxay-Gilmore House here would diminish the historic integrity of the house, the courtyard, the adjoining Park House Hotel, and the Jefferson Street Historic District. In addition, moving the house here would require removal of several mature trees, consume well over half the courtyard, and most important, fly in the face of the city's policy to protect our precious few green spaces in older Iowa City. Mr. Fruin also mentioned "other yet -to -be -identified options." Here we should all take heart. We need only point to the Unitarian Universalist Church, where continued discussion and give-and-take yielded a workable, win-win option. The City should look with pride at what was accomplished there. We believe that there is surely an Option E, perhaps a multi-party agreement involving the city -owned parking lot, or other uses or owners of the Sanxay-Gilmore House. We do not wish for Gloria Dei to lose its anticipated $2.7 million. We do not wish to stymie the university's growth. We do not wish for the community to give away its assets, be they parking lots or green space. We do wish for all parties to recognize that the 1843 Sanxay-Gilmore House, in its original location, is a cultural asset to the community and the university, which all parties should value and take pride in. And work hard to preserve in place. Thank you. Ginalie Swaim, chair, Historic Preservation Commission Alicia Trimble, executive director, Friends of Historic Preservation UI -Ib -"Ib 3f(6) Kellie Fruehling From: tweitzel.email@gmail.com on behalf of Tim Weitzel, M.A. <h istoricconsulti ng @gma il.com> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 3:06 PM To: Council Subject: Sanxay-Gilmore House I've written a preservation themed whitepaper, which is available as a google document here. Best regards, Tim Weitzel Preservation of the Sanxay-Gilmore House Executive Summary This letter is intended as a policy white paper and guidance on the threatened historic property, Sanxay-Gilmore House located at 109 E Market St., Iowa City. The issue is especially complex, given the number of parties involved and the many considerations that need to be made in order to proceed effectively. Ultimately, the decision is one for the City Council to make in consultation with the property owner and prospective buyer But The National Register criteria for evaluation and past experience offer opportunities to compromise and save the building and achieve development and planning objectives for all parties. Preservation of historic properties are specifically called out in a number of the City's policy documents, including the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, as a Certified Local Government for the State of Iowa, Iowa City has agreed to survey, evaluate, and preserve its historic properties. But the building will all but certainly be destroyed if the City Council Does not act. Although a discussion is included here that follows the matrix of five decision options (0-4), it appears the best two options are to move the building across the street or to move it onto the property with the Gloria Dei Church. Background As the result of public meetings and local press it has become apparent that Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, the current owners of the Sanxay-Gilmore house, wish to sell the property to raise funds for their primary building located at 123 E Market St. In turn, the University of Iowa has offered to buy the property at a rate that has been characterized by City staff as well above market rate (Fruin 2018). Historic Significance The Sanxay-Gilmore house has been identified for preservation from an early date, largely due to its architecture. The first recommendation that the building was individually eligible came in 1981. The opinion was seconded by a survey of the Original Town Plat area in 1996 by Tallgrass Historians. As an aside, the building was also recommended as contributing to a potential district, but as no district was proposed or has been added, this additional is consideration is not relevant. 52-02324 - Sanxay-Gilmore House Consultant - 1981 Opinion of Eligibility Consultant - 1996 Opinion of Eligibility Consultant - 1996 Contributing in Potential District Recent review of the property indicates that, but for signage attached to the east side of the building and restoration of the surface finish to natural brick, the building retains the same level of integrity as it has since 1981, which is to say, the exterior appears to be individually eligible to Preservation of the Sanxay-Gilmore House the national register for Criteria C: Architecture. Additionally, preliminary research has also found the building to be associated with the Sanxay family as well as the Gilmore Family (Nash 1996, Smith 2017, Trimble and Swaim 2017, Webber 1976). Reviewing historic summaries tell: the story of Theodore Sanxay, who ran a hardware store at the northeast corner of College Street and Clinton Street for many of the early years of Iowa City (Anonymous 1883, Aurner, 1912, Shambaugh 1915). He was a founding member of the Presbyterian Church in Iowa City—the meetings for its founding appearing to have taken place at his home on Market Street, a subscriber to a railroad survey, and company officer for a mill and manufacturing company, the group of which was said to have been the forerunner of the Commercial Club, which in turn is today's Chamber of Commerce. Sanxay was a early member of the school board as well as holding the office of Cashier for the Johnson County Savings Bank. A portrait of Sanxay was hung in the State Historical Society building when it was originally located in Iowa City. Gilmore was a president of the University and the man for whom the old law building, Gilmore Hall was named. Therefore the building is likely to eligible under Criteria A, for associations with events important to local and university history. However, the architecture of the building being so intact --an excellent example of a late Federal Style building with Italianate additions, is one of the most intact buildings of any type from the early settlement period in Iowa City suggests that the Criteria C eligibility is the primary focus for preservation. Preservation Goals Preservation of historic properties are specifically called out in a number of the City's policy documents, including the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, as a Certified Local Government for the State of Iowa, Iowa City has agreed to survey, evaluate, and preserve its historic properties. From the standpoint of historic preservation, preserving the building in place is the best option whenever feasible. That said, it no longer appears feasible to leave the building where it located. Applying further pressure to try to force the University to preserve the building will result, most likely, in loss of the property entirely. While it has been stated that both parties could walk away from the deal but it remains unclear if both would choose to do so at his time (Fruin 2018). In particular, it is unclear how the church would raise funding for their main building without the sale of the property in question. In absence of preservation in place, the State Historical Society has facilitated building relocation as a treatment option. In some instances, particularly where significance is primarily derived from historical associations to a given location and context or where the the architect clearly was responding to the building site in their design choices, moving is not generally recommended or allowed for the building to remain eligible. However, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation provides for a building to be moved and particularly where the significance is derived from the buildings architecture. In particular, the guidance document states: Preservation of the Sanxay-Gilmore House The National Register criteria limit the consideration of moved properties because significance is embodied in locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves. Moving a property destroys the relationships between the property and its surroundings and destroys associations with historic events and persons. A move may also cause the loss of historic features such as landscaping, foundations, and chimneys, as well as loss of the potential for associated archeological deposits. In this case—a stand alone residence from the early town history—the building should be moveable to any location in Iowa City and retain its historic significance, criteria consideration B for moved buildings being taken into account. That said, the preference would be for the building to remain in its general vicinity, especially within this section of the original town plat, for its contextual importance related to Criteria A to be a little affected as possible. At any rate, however, the ultimate destruction of the building should be avoided at any cost in order to preserve at least some aspects of its history. Preservation Treatment Options --analysis review matrix Option 0. Do nothing. The building has been offered for sale and a purchase agreement has been signed. The University of Iowa has stated they do not wish to preserve the building, but would facilitate a move. If the University takes possession of the property, the building will be demolished. Council and Iowa City as a whole will have to live with the fact a key historic structure that has been designated for preservation for a very long time was lost due to developmental and financial pressure. Given this option, it is highly recommended the building be fully documented with photographs, plans and elevation drawings prior to demolition and the information archived in perpetuity. This option is not recommended, but would be the least acceptable if no other compromises can be made. Option 1. Move the building to the site on Jefferson Street. The Certified Local Government, Paula Mohr, was asked by the Historic Preservation Commission in September for an opinion about moving the building to the Jefferson Street Historic District at the site of the greenspace for the St. Agatha's Seminary building. Ms. Mohr replied on behalf of State Historic Preservation Office Staff that in absence of a federal undertaking, this option should seek an opinion from the National Park Service regarding the level of diminishing effects this building move into the district would have on the Jefferson Street Historic District, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. Further, and archaeological survey is recommended of the green space. From a preservation standpoint, as well as a practical matter of timing, this option is not recommended due to the length of time it would take to accomplish. It is more than likely this option cannot be completed within the deadline period for the property transfer. However, should the parties involved be willing to wait on the property transfer until all these arrangements can be made, this option becomes feasible. It is still not the most ideal option due to the effects it will have on the historic context of the Jefferson Street District. 2 Preservation of the Sanxay-Gilmore House Option 2. Move the building to the same lot as Gloria Dei's principal building. This option works well in terms of allowing Gloria Dei to continue to use the building as they use it now, but does remove green space from the neighborhood, which is primarily paved or built up. Ideally a move to this site would be accompanied by a similar review of land use patterns of the space that has occurred for Option 1. In absence of a existing district or federal undertaking, an archaeological survey would not be required. However, it would be diligent to carefully remove the top soil prior to building a foundation for the building and look for intact building remains or other key items of archaeological significance, such as features or artifact clusters during construction. This option is ideal on several fronts, but does remove green space and is also unhelpful for preservation should Gloria Dei choose to move in the future at which point the building would be potential threatened again, unless steps were taken, such as a subdivision of the lot for the historic property were to be made with an accompanying preservation covenant for the property. Option 3. Move the building across the street to a small City -owned parking lot. The building could be moved across the street, rotating it to align it's front with the frontage on the north side of the street. The building could then be redeveloped, primarily with two key options. Council members expressed a potential for an opportunity cost loss for the parking lot that would be represented in a loss of affordable housing opportunity. One possible option for the house could be a workforce housing unit or medium income affordable housing through the UniverCity program. Zoning questions present themselves with this option as with any use of the parking lot space as housing. Alternatively, continued use of the building as a professional or other similar office space, such as those surrounding Mercy Hospital could be more compatible on this site, which appears to be similarly surrounded by commercial zones' but that would need to be confirmed. Potentially the building could also be donated to a non-profit for offices, but this would not allow the building as much potential to be returned to the tax roles. Ultimately a value estimate of the parking lot is just an estimate. The actual value is not readily known without an offer on the property. A value for the loss of the historic property is not strictly a monetary decision. It would be diligent to carefully remove the pavement prior to building a foundation for the building and look for intact building remains or other key items of archaeological significance, such as features or artifact clusters during construction. Again, the key objective is to preserve the historically intact example of early Iowa City architecture. Option 4. Move the building to an unspecified location. This option has too many unknowns to be useful, but is included here for completeness. The building theoretically could be move anywhere, provided the building meets appropriate zoning standards. Any historic districts should also be reviewed as for Option 1. It should be reiterated that the further from the original town plat the building is moved, the less any Criteria A significance would be relevant. The architecture would be preserved however, which is key. Sources Preservation of the Sanxay-Gilmore House Anonymous. History of Johnson County, Iowa, containing a history of the county, and its townships, cities and villages from 1836 to 1882. Iowa City, Iowa. 1883. Aurner, Clarence Ray. Leading Events in Johnson County, Iowa, History. Western Historical Press, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 1912. Fruin, Geoff. Comments made by the City Manager during the City Council work session, January 2, 2018. Nash, Jan Olive. Survey and Evaluation of a Portion of the Original Town Plat of Iowa City Johnson County, Iowa. Tallgrass Historians, Iowa City, Iowa. 1997. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 1990, 1997. Shambaugh, Benjamin F., ed. Iowa Journal of History and Politics, 13:468, 1915. Smith, Candice. A Historical House and a Holy Hooligan. Reference Blog, Iowa City Public Library Website. August 31, 2017. Trimble, Jessica and Ginalie Swaim. Saving Iowa City's Oldest House. Facebook Post, Friends of Historic Preservation organization. December 16, 2017. Weber, Irving B. Historical Stories About Iowa City. 1:184-185. Noon Lion's Club, Iowa City, Iowa. 1976. Author: Tim Weitzel, MA, Architectural Historian and Historic Preservation Specialist has four years experience with the state community development office doing preservation planning work and has assisted local governments and councils of government statewide with preservation planning options as recently as 2018. The advice here is offered free and without warranty. 4 01-16-18 3f(7) Kellie Fruehling From: Royceann Porter <royceannporter@msn.com> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 10:21 PM To: Council Subject: Citizen Police Review Board Hello Kingsey, Just wanted to let you know that I have filled out the online application for the CPRB. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 3f(8) Kellie Fruehling From: Maeve Clark <maeve-clark@icpl.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 4:23 PM To: auraevecarlson@gmail.com; Council; Susan-craig@iowa-city.org Subject: To Our Public Leaders regarding the public library Dear Ms. Carlson, Susan Craig, the Iowa City Public Library Director, forwarded your email about the Library's current display on political materials to me and the Keith Olbermann title included. The display of books is on the first floor of the library, behind the Help Desk, not in or on the way to the Children's Room. The book is a new book and has been on display in the new book section of the nonfiction collection. We have a large list of people on the hold list for "Fire and Fury" and we created the display table to highlight other items in the library's collection on current politics. Our collection offers materials on all sides of the political spectrum including titles by well-known conservative and libertarian authors and many of those titles can be found on the display. I have included a link to the Iowa City Public Library's Collection Development Policy as well as the American Library Association's Freedom to Read Statement. Sincerely yours, Maeve Maeve Clark Adult Services Coordinator Iowa City Public Library 123 South Linn Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319-887-6004 WWw.icpl.org IOWA CITY rgW PUBLIC LIBRARY From: Laura Carlson [mailto:lauraevecarlson@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 8:47 AM To: susan-craig@iowa-citv.org; Council <Council@iowa-city.org> Subject: To Our Public Leaders regarding the public library As a patron of the library system, I am shocked and disappointed that you have chosen to purposely place books in areas where children and adults will READ titles with swear words. No matter what YOUR personal political bias might be, displaying books where the "F" word is highlighted are disgusting! I don't want to be exposed to these titles, and purposely don't seek them out. But placing titles on tables in clusters to promote negativity is irresponsible. My children will not be visiting the Iowa City Public Library until these displays are moved to adult only sections, or placed elsewhere. Or perhaps the city now will offer a seminar titled "How Parents Can Easily Explain Disgusting Use of F*ck in the Library to Children" later this week? Let us parents know, we'll need your assistance when the kids ask "Mommy, what does f*cking mean?" Sign me, One of many concerned parents 3f(9) 1/9/zo16 l)cxv" CLk5 Go,6Cl 1115 Dear City Clerk The Sudanese farm at Tiffin Would you please put the above topic on the Agenda for next session of the city council on --11- Sincerely Adil Adams 2532 Bartelt Rd #!C Iowa City la 52246 Tel -319-594 6902 ro 0 d m - i C-) Y M �x IV C:) cic CY� j% NlC�vta i t 1CITY OF IOWA C I o�_�s_�s COUNCIL ACTION REP 3f(10) January 16, 2018 Installation of (1) "Stop" sign for westbound traffic on Meadow Ridge Lane at the intersection with North Dubuque Street Prepared By: Darian Nagle-Gamm; Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston; Transportation Planner Tracy Hightshoe; Neighborhood and Development Services Director Fiscal Impact: No impact Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: None Executive Summary: As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise City Council of the following action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (10); Install (1) "Stop" sign for westbound traffic on Meadow Ridge Lane at the intersection with North Dubuque Street. This action is being taken due to limited visibility for vehicles exiting Meadow Ridge Lane. I r 1 CITY OF IOWA CI 01-16-18 -r� COUNCIL ACTION REPO 3f(11) January 16, 2018 Install (2) "Yield" signs on Wagon Wheel Drive and (2) "Yield" signs on Armstrong Drive at their intersections with Langenberg Avenue. Prepared By: Kent Ralston; Transportation Planner Reviewed By: Tracy Hightshoe; Neighborhood and Development Services Director Fiscal Impact: No impact Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: None. Executive Summary: As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (5); Install (2) YIELD signs on the northwest and southeast comers of the Wagon Wheel Drive and Langenberg Avenue intersection and install (2) YIELD signs on the northwest and southeast corners of the Armstrong Drive and Langenberg Avenue intersection. Background / Analysis: This action is being taken to provide traffic control at two newly constructed intersections as part of the Sandhill Estates Part 4 subdivision. The public improvements for the subdivision are anticipated to be accepted by City Council on January 161 and traffic control needs to be in place prior to opening. In the coming months, staff intends to reevaluate traffic control in the Langenberg Avenue corridor for possible safety improvements at the City Council's request. This evaluation will investigate the use of adding stop signs to the corridor. CITY OF IOWA CI ol_Is-is COUNCIL ACTION REPO 3f(12) January 16, 2018 Establish (8) "Low -Barrier Shelter Parking Only" parking spaces on the east side of the 800 block of South Clinton Street Prepared By: Dadan Nagle-Gamm; Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston; Transportation Planner Tracy Hightshoe; Neighborhood and Development Services Director Fiscal Impact: No impact Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: None Executive Summary: As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise City Council of the following action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (10); Establish (8) "Low -Barrier Shelter Parking Only" parking spaces on the east side of the 800 block of South Clinton Street adjacent to the 821 South Clinton Street building owned by Johnson County. This action was requested by Johnson County to provide parking for the low -barrier shelter. The County has also requested that these signs be removed and replaced with parking meters when the shelter closes in March. If meters can be installed, staff will ask Council to approve said meters this spring. 'r 1 " CITY OF IOWA CIT ° 4 3f(13) - ®,m7� COUNCIL ACTION REPO January 16, 2018 Establish 5 metered parking spaces on the east side of the 800 block of South Dubuque Street with a 2:00 a.m. — 6:00 a.m. tow -away zone Prepared By: Darian Nagle-Gamm; Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston; Transportation Planner Mark Rummel; Acting Transportation Services Director Tracy Hightshoe; Neighborhood and Development Services Director Fiscal Impact: No impact Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: None Executive Summary: As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise City Council of the following action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (14,17); Establish (4) metered parking spaces (D802S, D804S, D806S, and D808S) with two-hour terms at 75 cents per hour and (1) disabled metered parking space (D800S) with a five-hour term at 75 cents per hour on the east side of the 800 block of South Dubuque Street. Establish a $200 fine for unauthorized use of the disabled parking space. Establish a "No parking 2:00 a.m. — 6:00 a.m. tow -away zone" for the new meters. This action was requested by Johnson County and the Transportation Services department to provide short-term metered parking for the block. 3 -sp (i �) Kellie Fruehling From: Nicholas Theisen <uahsenaa@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 6:20 PM Late Handouts Distributed To: Council Subject: affordable housing Mayor Throgmorton and Members of City Council: (Date) I plan on communicating much of what I have to say below at Tuesday's meeting, but given the limits on speaking time and in the interest of giving council members and city staff time to digest all of this and respond thoughtfully, I thought it appropriate to submit to you all a letter well in advance of that meeting. I should add that the following is by no means comprehensive—any number of related issues can and ought to be discussed—but so as to have a more focused discussion, I have broken down my thoughts into three interconnected concerns: the magnitude of the affordable housing crisis in Johnson County, the economics of affordable housing, and the need for an overarching vision to guide how the city should go about tackling this problem. The Crisis of Affordable Housing According to the Cedar Rapids Gazette's reporting from July of last year ("Locked Out"), Johnson County possesses the worst disparity among corridor counties between those who qualify for subsidized housing and units available to them, having only 254 units for 10,265 qualifying households, or 2.5% of need. When compared with the already abysmal national average of 28 units for every 100 qualifying households, we find ourselves in a situation that is orders of magnitude worse than bad. Given this crisis—for a crisis it is—one would think that city government would have mobilized all hands to engage with it, when, in fact, the city's response to date has been, to put it kindly, anemic. If one looks at the examples of the Chauncey or Southgate development projects, we can get a sense of just how demobilized the city seems to be in response to this crisis. The Southgate project has promised only 13 of a total 253 units as affordable housing (in what sense remains to be determined), while the city has purchased 5 units in the Chauncey building, over and above the millions in Tax Incentive Financing (TIF) the city has provided for the project. Marc Moen has even had the gall to suggest that he provided the city a great boon by allowing it to purchase these units at a below market rate. City government seems to think that by nudging developers or entering into public/private partnerships it is addressing the affordable housing crisis in an appropriate manner, but at the rate of a handful of units here or a dozen there, it will take hundreds of years just to get to the national average for affordable housing supply much less make a significant dent in the thousands of units—roughly 20% of total households in Johnson County (!)—that would be needed to close the gap. The city needs to take drastic action, and do so now, because the problem is only getting worse by the year. Studies from 2007, 2013, 2016, and most recently 2017 all paint a pretty bleek picture. When one focuses on the rental market, which is the true epicenter of this crisis, 30% of households were considered housing burdened (i.e. were paying more than 30% of income in rent) in 2000. That number rose to 45% in 2012, 58% in 2017, and is projected to rise to two thirds of all renters by 2020. With numbers like that, one would think city government would practically be up in arms, but even since the Gazette's reportage, city council has made only minor, technocratic tweaks, like requiring projects that receive TIF funding to allocate 15% of units as "affordable," again according to an as yet to be determined standard, when studies have indicated time and again that 60% would be a more appropriate minimum, if it were to match the burden currently being placed on those in the rental market. During the most recent campaign, all three of the candidates elected gave voice to the need for affordable housing, and the city has produced media highlighting the issue, which would make it seem to be a top priority going forward. However, when one looks closely at the budgetary allocations for affordable housing, the city's actions do not match the rhetoric. For instance, there is a transfer of $650,000 from the general fund to the Affordable Housing Special Revenue Fund, which isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the magnitude of the crisis the city faces. To put this in perspective, the FY19 budget allocates more money ($753,000) to a half mile stretch of sidewalk along Highway 1 than it does to affordable housing. I make this comparison not so as to malign the Bike Master Plan, which is also a good for the city, but rather to highlight what a low priority the issue of affordable housing seems to be. One might argue that the city has taken the approach of many small actions adding up to a larger whole, and the sheer number of "definitions of affordable housing" the city has produced in one planning document would seem to point in that direction. This might be the case, if it were not for the fact that a number of actions the city has taken under the aegis of affordable housing actually run at cross purposes with one another. As noted above, the epicenter of the housing crisis in Johnson County is the rental market, but home ownership is a concern as well. With the city's UniverCity program, efforts have been made to move people into owning homes in more desirable, walkable neighborhoods but in so doing have actually exacerbated the problems in the rental market. At a time when the available supply of rental housing ought to be increasing, the city is taking measures to remove rental housing from the market and convert buildings back into single family residences. This has the effect of displacing renters and adding burden to an already overburdened rental market. Because the city seems to lack an overarching vision for how to tackle the problem of affordable housing, a large number of programs have been swept up into that category with little sense of whether they each are contributing toward the same goal. In reality, not only is this multitude of affordable housing programs directed toward a variety of disparate ends, but those ends seem in many cases to specifically contradict one another. It is important, therefore, in acknowledging the full extent of this crisis to recognize how budget and policy go hand in hand, why you cannot do one without paying explicit attention to the other. To that end, it's worth thinking about the macroeconomic impact of affordable housing in order to understand how working in tandem with developers is not only not a good solution, it contributes to the problem. Economics of Affordable Housing Rents are, by their very nature, extractive. They remove financial capital from circulation and concentrate it in the hands of those who only spend a fraction of that capital back into the local economy. On the other hand, those in the lower echelons of the socio-economic order, from whom these rents are extracted, spend very close to if not 100% of their income back into the economy. In fact, in a large number of cases, citizens are spending even more than the entirety of their income through various debt vehicles. Nowadays, one can hardly turn around without one politician or another talking about "the job creators" who sit at the top of the pecking order, when the reality, if you dare to think about it for a moment, is that those in the lower echelons, whether we call it the 99% or something else, are the true engine of the economy. It stands to reason, then, by drastically lowering the amount of money rentiers extract from working class people, one would increase the amount of capital going back into the local economy and thereby improve it. I point this out, because it seems the first go to in these circumstances is for city council to try and encourage developers already in the market to provide more affordable housing, quite often by means of financial incentives or favorable zoning changes. Except developers are one of the primary causes of the crisis and therefore a poor partner in solving it. One need only look to recent housing developments to see that, if left to their own devices, developers would build no affordable housing at all. Recently completed projects such as those on Riverside Dr. or S. Dubuque St., and projects underway on the corner of Route 6 and Gilbert and throughout the Riverfront Crossing area are all being advertised as "luxury condos," not to mention the houses and duplexes on the east side of the city, all off which are being listed at prices well above Iowa Citys already high median home price of $203,000. Average rent is now nearing $1,200/month, well beyond what could be expected to be paid from the median household income of $55,000 per annum, and if the city does not intervene, perhaps in conjunction with the county, so as to pool resources and preempt boundary shenanigans, developers have given every indication that they will proceed in making the crisis worse and worse. And frankly, developers need no more incentive beyond what the state is already giving them. With the massive decrease in property taxes developers of multi -residential properties have been gifted for the current and coming years, it is entirely reasonable for the city to step in and demand they provide some material benefit to community from which they seek to extract their wealth. If the city is going to have a service economy in which people can expect to make between $10 and $14 and hour—an issue in itself, to be sure, but beyond the scope of this overview—then there needs to be housing that someone making that wage can actually live in. At those wages, you would expect there to be one bedroom apartments for between $500 and $700 per month, but what developers are actually building are units going for $1,100 a month. And this lack of cheaper housing has nothing to do with whether there is money to be made at a $500-700 rate, because there is, but because there is more money to be made at the higher end, even if a significant number of units in those "luxury" buildings sit vacant for extended periods of time. In addition to the contrary impulses of developers, the city is prevented by state law from imposing rent control on any privately owned housing developments. Given these two factors, if the city wishes to make meaningful change, it must step in directly, running public housing the city itself owns out of the Public Housing Authority in sufficient quantities as to drive down the cost of housing or at least put a significant check on its outsized growth. A Vision for Affordable Housing The piecemeal approach the city has adopted so far of little tweaks here and there might appeal to some in the community, but it is woefully inadequate given the magnitude of the crisis we face. Building something on the order of a thousand—yes, thousand—public housing units would be a good start and would lay the groundwork for subsequent developments in future years. Of course, those who might balk at this number will likely ask, "how do you plan to pay for it?" It is not all a matter of money, though, of course, funding is a massive concern. The city needs to leverage the full extent of its powers in order to address this crisis. For instance, eminent domain can be used to seize properties that have sat vacant for more than, say, 6 months, and rent them out at substantially reduced rates. A recent editorial in the Press - Citizen suggests an opulence tax be imposed on residences whose assessed valuations rise above a certain level. Conditions can be placed on zoning changes sought by developers to provide affordable housing at rates set by the city. Property for public housing can be acquired through annexation of surrounding land or through joint ventures with the county. But all of these pale in comparison to a rather large and untapped financial resource. According to Ms. Monroe's portion of last Satuday's budget presentation, the city's General Obligation (GO) debt, sits well below the state's 5% ceiling at only 1.09% of total assessed property value for FY19. This means, if the city wished to, over $200 million could be acquired to begin the process of building affordable housing. To give a sense of scale of what is possible, that would be more than four Chaunceys, entirely dedicated to providing subsidized housing, not just a handful of units here and there. What is more, unlike, say, a bridge or playground equipment, public housing is revenue generating, meaning not only would such projects service their own debt but, once the bonds were paid off, would provide capital for building future projects as well. Moreover, given the city's triple A bond rating, it would have no problem at all acquiring this capital, should it choose to do so. But all these things and more—this is only a sample of possible courses of action—are meaningless if not guided by a clearly stated, explicit goal: to provide housing that people making wages at the median and below can afford in order to drive down overall housing costs. In addition, the number of units made available needs to reflect the magnitude of the crisis before us. Finally, council should acknowledge how, given recent and current behavior, local developers are unlikely to be an honest partner in such a project, and as such their demands or concerns need not at all be factored into what council and city government chooses to do going forward. I realize much of what I have to say here has been bluntly critical, but it is my hope that council will take these criticisms to heart in order to do what is best for the whole community. Sincerely, Nicholas A. Theisen