HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-08 Bd Comm minutesItem Number: 4.a.
+ r ,
• yyrrmr��
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 8, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Civil Service Commission: December 18
MINUTES — FINAL
CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE
Tuesday, December 18, 2018 — 8:15a.m.
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL
Members Present: Rick Wyss, Melissa Jensen
Members Absent: None
Staff to the
Commission Present: Karen Jennings, Tracy Robinson
Others Present: Police Chief Jody Matherly, Police Captain Denise Brotherton
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Wyss called the meeting to order at 8:16 a.m.
CERTIFICATION OF HIRING LIST FOR THE POSITION OF POLICE
OFFICER:
After a brief discussion, Jensen moved and Wyss seconded that the list be certified as
presented. All were in favor.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jensen moved to adjourn, Wyss seconded, all were in favor and the meeting was
adjourned at 8:21 a.m.
Board/Commission: Civil Service Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2018
(Meeting Date)
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
212/18 8/21/18 12/18/18
Lyra Dickerson
4/3/18
X --- ---
Rick Wyss
4/4/20
X X X
Melissa Jensen
4/5/21
X X X
Emily Bushman
4/4122
--- O/E ---
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No Meeting
--- = Not a Member
December 18, 2018
cul �
A"
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council (3 1 9) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination - POLICE OFFICER www.icgov.org
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the
following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Officer.
1. Nathaniel Rose
2. Andrew Bratek
3. Travis Tyrrell
4. Jeffrey Reinhard
5. Gregory Hall
6. Richard Pfarrer IV
7. Emilio Puente
8. Anna Strien
9. Samuel Opana-Ogoli
10. Maddi Friedrich
11. Nathan Hoschek
12. David Hallet
13. Jared Slagle
14. Tyler Kleese
15. Vishal Saini
16. Thomas Stark
17. Brian Toop
18. Justin Adams
19. Zakary Kohlmeyer
20. Bryce Sweeney
21. Jake Loux
22. Adam Stone
23. Peter Bailey
24. Gabe Humphrey
25. Jonathon York
26. Carlos Delgado
27. Mohamed Bourahla
28. Matthew Van Brogen
29. Dylan Mertens
30. Luke Seele
31. David Arch
32. Kieran Robuck
33. Tim Starr
34. Garrett Young
IOWA QTX CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Rick Wys , Chair ,t
ATTEST:
Kellie Fruehling,
December 2018 Police Officer Recruitment
American
Hispanic or Indian or Asian
Latino Alaska Native
Total
Native
Black or Hawaiian or
African other
American Pacific
Islander
White
Two or
More Undisclosed
Races
Applications Received
150
Undisclosed
Female
22 1
2
17
2
Male
128 6 3
10
97
11 1
Written Test*
45
Undisclosed
Female
7 1
1
4
1
Male
38 2
4
27
5
Physical Fitness*
55
Undisclosed
I
Female
_ _
7 1
1
4
1
Male
48 3 1
5
35
4
Interview
45
Undisclosed
Female
2
2
Male
43 2 1
2
35
3
Certified Hiring List
34
Undisclosed
Female
2
2
Male
32 2 1
1
28
*The data data reported reflect the number of candidates who participated in each stage of the process. Participation was not required in the written
test if the candidate was ILEA certified or had a documented passing POST score within the specified timeframe. Participation in the physical fitness
test was not required if the candidate was ILEA certified or submitted acceptable documentation of successful completion of the physical fitness
test with another state law enforcement agency within the specified timeframe.
Item Number: 4.b.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 8, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Housing & Community Development Commission: November 15
ITY OF IOWA CITY
`
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 16, 2018
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner
Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission
At their December 20th meeting, the Housing and Community Development Commission
approved the November 15, 2018 meeting with the following recommendation to the City
Council:
1. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends proceeding with a substantial amendment to the
FY18 Annual Action Plan to allocate an additional $36,141 in CDBG funds to the Little Creations
Academy project to complete the full scope of work in the agreement.
2. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the draft FY20 Aid to Agency
Emerging application forms, with changes as discussed in the minutes below
3. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the draft FY20 CDBG/HOME
application forms, with changes.
Additional action (check one)
X No further action needed - #2 & #3
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
x_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - #1
MINUTES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 15, 2018 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ASSEMBLY ROOM
FINAL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Mitch Brouse, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz,
Christine Harms, John McKinstry and Paula Vaughan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Lamkins, Maria Padron
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly
OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Vinograde, Crissy Canganelli, Christi Regan, Lauri Mitchell,
Ellen McCabe, Ron Berg, Daleta Thurness, Chastity Dillard, Sara
Barron, Becci Reedus, Anthony Smith, Chelsey Markle, Susan Gray
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends proceeding with a substantial amendment to the FY18
Annual Action Plan to allocate an additional $36,141 in CDBG funds to the Little Creations Academy
project to complete the full scope of work in the agreement.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the draft FY20 Aid to Agency Emerging
application forms, with changes as discussed in the minutes below.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the draft FY20 CDBG/HOME application
forms, with changes as discussed in the minutes below.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Vaughan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 11, 2018 MINUTES:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes of October 11, 2018, with changes as discussed in the meeting.
Fixmer-Oraiz seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
MONITORING REPORTS:
Crisis Center (FY18 Facility Rehab): Becci Reedus (Executive Director) presented an update on the
warehouse project that received funds. She shared the project budget, noting they did not raise all the
revenue they anticipated, they came within $22,000 and the project, but also had some cost increases on
building material costs and also due to age of the building, new obstacles were found that needed
addressing. Overall they are happy with their efforts noting it was an unusual capital campaign that
started with a large matching fund, then had increasing costs, but were able to obtain another matching
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 2 of 10
fund. In total they raised $405,000 for the project, CDBG originally granted $85,000 and then awarded an
additional $10,000. Reedus also reviewed the project, they broke ground in March, completion was
scheduled for 11 weeks after that and they met delays but finished the project by September 2018. The
project also included some remodeled offices to give staff more space, a remodeled client entry area to
the food bank making it more accessible, a second restroom and water fountain were added (up to ADA
code), and the donation acceptance area was moved to the warehouse section of the building which
enlarged and decluttered the shopping area for the clients. Reedus invited Commissioners to sign up for
the Project Holiday event to see the finished project and see how better the Center is better able to serve
clients. Overall they gained space for 8-12 pallets of food which was essential due to the growth of the
food bank, which is now operating 8 mobile and 1 school pantry sites as well. The Iowa City Rotary Club
funded an additional cooler for the Center, which was essential for all the produced received in the
summer months. They built a new repackaging area making the pantry in compliance with Code and will
allow the Center to buy large quantities of food and repackage them into smaller quantities. Reedus
noted they still have some shelving to purchase and also they had wanted to add a 24 hour door or
drawer where people could drop off donations, but are still investigating options for such a donation area.
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (FY19 A2A & Facility Rehab): Lehmann noted that Brian
Loring with Neighborhood Centers sent in a written report. The report noted that for the FY19 Facility
Rehab project they sent out invitations for bid in August and received one bid that came in at $88,000
which was about 60% above what was budgeted. That bid came from the same contractor that gave the
Center the estimate they used in their funding application. The contractor was worried about labor
classifications and felt they needed to increase their bid to be safe. The City has been working with Brian
Loring on options, the Center will solicit bids again in January hoping that being out of the busy season
for contractors may yield additional bids, and they have also added more contractors to the list of who
they will invite to bid on the project.
Successful Living (FY18 Rental Acquisition and Rehab, FY19 Rental Acquisition): Lehmann stated
Successful Living also sent in a written progress report. For the $50,000 in HOME rehab funds the
approved contractor was selected but is late getting started because he got flooded with work but they
are hopeful that will happen soon and concrete will get poured by month end. Otherwise concrete work
will be put off until spring which is when the project is expected to conclude. For the purchase of a rental
house in FY18 the HOME and CDBG funds were combined for a single down payment, this was
approved by the HCDC and City Council, a house was purchased on Hollywood Boulevard in July and
five renters moved right in and Hills Bank financed the mortgage. That leaves Successful Living with
$194,000 for down payments on three more houses for FY19, they are in the process of negotiating for
one of those houses currently, on Russell Drive, and then will purchase two more homes as well.
Harms asked about the Neighborhood Centers bidding process and when that may need to be completed
by. Lehmann said typically when a contract is signed with organizations the funds need to be spent
within the year if possible, so hopefully they will have a project done by June 30, but extensions can be
granted as well.
CONSIDER REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, LITTLE CREATIONS ACADEMY:
Lehmann talked about the memo he prepared on this project, in FY18 HCDC and City Council approved
$73,000 in CDBG funds to rehabilitate the daycare to provide affordable childcare services through June
30, 2024. Because of cost overruns, Little Creations has not been able to contract for the full scope of
work that was in the initial agreement and are now requesting an additional $36,141 to complete the
scope of work as stated in the agreement based on new contractor estimates. Little Creations signed the
contract with the City in March, since then about $50,000 of the $73,000 has been spent and the
remaining funds are contracted out with work going on right now. The additional scope of work that was
in the agreement is expected to cost about $35,000 and CDBG will cover all but $1,000 of that cost. The
budget in the agreement and status of each work item is as follows:
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 3 of 10
Childcare Center Renovation
Budgeted
Bid
Change
Orders
Contracted
/Expended
Complete
Total Cost
$73,000
$104,568
$4,573
$73,000
Remove asbestos
$7,900
$8,800
$500
$9,300
X
Install floors
$6,600
$8,412
$956
$9,368
X
Replace HVAC
$20,000
$28,950
$3,117
$32,067
X
Replace doors / install access control
$14,900
$23,479
$0
$22,265
In
Progress
Install permanent cubbies
$3,000
Replace kitchen window(s)
$5,100
$5,777
Replace outdoor storage shed
$3,500
$4,770
Install room dividers
$12,000
$24,380
Based on conversations with Little Creations the list of renovation items were prioritized and the list of
completed work reflects that prioritization. Lehmann noted the typical way the City deals with increase
requests of funding is City Staff can approve up to 25% of the project budget on top of the initial
allocation. This is only possible if there are additional funds available to commit. If additional funding is
not approved, or the amount is more than 25% of the project budget, the City recommends the partner
reapply at the next funding round. There are situations where HCDC and Council can substantially
amend the agreement, which requires a mandatory 30 -day comment period. Little Creations is
requesting a budget amendment of 43 percent of the initial allocation, which triggers a substantial
amendment.
Lehmann noted there are three solutions for which HCDC can consider. First is to recommend staff
proceed with a substantial amendment to the Annual Action Plan for the full requested amount (or any
amount HCDC deem appropriate). This amendment would be formally considered by HCDC following a
30 -day public comment period. Upon recommendation, City Council would consider approval of the
amendment. Second HCDC could recommend that staff proceed with an administrative amendment to
the agreement of up to $18,250 (25% of the original allocation). This could be used to complete some but
not all items requested. The final option is for HCDC to request that Little Creations complete the current
project as contracted and apply to the upcoming CDBG funding round which will open in December.
Funding amounts have not yet been determined and application materials are not yet approved, but public
facility projects of more than $50,000 typically get first consideration. No more than two public facility
projects are awarded per year. Funds would become available on July 1, 2019.
Lehmann stated that currently the City currently has $46,000 in excess CDBG funds due to program
income and project refunds and that Little Creation's full request of $36,141 could be funded. If these
CDBG funds don't get used this year, they will roll into available funds for the next funding cycle.
Staff recommends to administratively award Little Creations $18,250 to fund part of the cost of the room
dividers. Little Creations would need to match this with $6,130 of their own funds. If this is not feasible,
staff recommends they apply for the FY20 funding cycle due in January to complete all necessary
improvements. Historically, the City encouraged organizations to apply at subsequent funding rounds if
requests exceed 25 percent their original awards. If requests are substantial, staff prefers that all
organizations are allowed the same opportunity to apply for those funds. It also encourages applicants to
obtain accurate estimates so HCDC can review what can best be accomplished with the funds available.
Eastham noted he would prefer to create a substantial amendment and award the $36,141 to complete
the project. He feels the project is worthwhile and the whole scope of the project will benefit the kids in
the center.
McKinstry added that most of the kids who attend the center are being paid for by state funds which is a
very low amount and affects the financial stability of the whole operation.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 4 of 10
Lehmann shared the daycare's income statement, with income around $153,000 and expenses of
$150,000 there is a net income of less than $3,000. The daycare budgets approximately $3200 each year
for facilities and equipment maintenance. With regards to how many people they serve, per the annual
report from last year they assisted 25 persons, 24 of which were between 31 % and 50% AMI and one
between 51% and 80% AMI.
Eastham asked if the persons served were all children and Lehmann confirmed they were.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked about the process for the substantial amendment and how the timing will work.
Lehmann said the 30 -day comment period would start shortly, continue through the next HCDC meeting,
and then go to Council for approval at which point the comment period would end and Council would
vote.
Harms asked how that timeline would affect the daycare and if they are at a complete stopping point and
cannot proceed at all.
Anthony Smith (Pastor, Little Creations Academy) said the project is currently still progressing and work is
being completed, they are building cubbies and about to install doors and the access pads. If they do not
receive additional funds they will have to halt the project after those items are completed, and if they had
to reapply for new funding they would not have those funds until after July 2019. They still need to install
room dividers, a shed and windows. The room dividers are important to keep the children in ratios and
divide up the area uses. Smith noted the daycare has served 99 children since creation, they do have
capacity of 54 but without the room dividers they have to makeshift things to make it work.
McKinstry asked Smith to comment on the ability to match the $18,000 if that was what the Commission
decided upon. Smith said they just don't have that amount of funds available, as seen on the income
statement they have very little net income each year.
Vaughan asked if they recommend the $18,000 it only leaves the daycare short around $6,000 to
compete the dividers, would that be possible. Smith said they plan to work on some fundraising but it
would take some time to raise those funds and complete the project.
Smith also noted they raised all staff salaries to match the $10.10 Johnson County minimum wage
proposal to be competitive for staff and that affected net income. It was a necessary move to keep staff
at a livable wage.
Smith also shared the current room dividers they are using are being held together with duct tape. They
really want to maximize the area and room dividers are essential to that function and would maximize the
availability for children. All their funding comes from the State and therefore they must follow the room
ratios and all State guidelines.
Eastham moved to recommend staff proceed with a substantial amendment to the FY18 Annual
Action Plan to allocate an additional $36,141 in CDBG funds to the Little Creations Academy
project to complete the full scope of work in the agreement. McKinstry seconded. A vote was
taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF FY20 AID TO AGENCIES LEGACY SUBMITTALS:
Lehmann first noted the assigned priorities Staff had chosen and asked that HCDC discuss and decide if
they agree with those priorities. One agency sent an email stating their disagreement with the priority that
was assigned, and Lehmann read that email to HCDC. The email was from Genevieve Anglin with UAY
(United Action for Youth) who commented on the preliminary category UAY was given noting that while it
is true UAY is a youth services nonprofit, they have a much broader mission that encompasses many
programs. All the programs work with youth, but UAY also offers mental health services (which is
available to all, regardless of ability to pay), homeless youth services and teen parent services in addition
to the youth development work. In FY18 youth development programs made up 18% of the programming
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 5 of 10
budget while mental health services made up 40%. Homeless youth services made up another 17% and
the remaining 25% for teen parent services. Anglin stated her concern with the preliminary designation of
youth services makes it seem as if all of UAY services should be categorized as medium priority when the
request for City funds was primarily for homelessness and mental health services, which make up 50% of
their total budget, and are high priority categories. Anglin noted she understands it is hard to categorize
organizations such as UAY that have multiple programs but it is important for the members of the
Commission understand the full depth and breadth of UAY programming.
Eastham wanted to clarify the priority assignment for each year, he thought it was based on the
description of the program for which funding was requested on the application. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed that
was her assumption as well. Vaughan agreed and said that is how she based her priorities. Eastham
noted there is a sentence in the Staff memo that indicates the Staff is asked to make a priority
assignment to the agency as a whole. Lehmann noted that was Staff's understanding of what HCDC
asked of Staff, because in the past everyone applied for funding in the high priority category so there was
no way to differentiate, staff though applying a priority category to a whole agency made it clearer.
Harms noted she was on the Commission when that was agreed upon. However, Harms noted that
often once a decision is put into practice it is seen it may not be best and perhaps does need to be
revisited. Lehmann noted it is very challenging to categorize agencies that do several different things,
like HACAP and staff tried to categorize based on where the largest portion of funding was spent.
Eastham noted then if HCDC is to prioritize based on the application for the particular year than UAY
should be prioritized as high. Lehmann added that this year perhaps the Commission should dismiss the
Staff priorities assigned (since they were based on Agency and not program requests) and prioritize each
application based on funding request. The Commission agreed.
Lehmann stated they also sent Aid to Agency question requests and received responses from the
agencies and those were shared with the Commission.
Eastham noted he wished to discuss the Pathways and Elder Services responses. Both agencies say the
percentage of black and Hispanic people in the community who are served by their programs is not much
lower than percentage of black and Hispanic populations in the community when accounting for age.
Eastham noted it was not clear what that percentage was and how that percentage compares to the
demographic information. Eastham asked Lehmann to get census data to clarify as well as Latinex data.
Vaughan had a couple other questions for Pathways. One is they list they have volunteers but do not list
if they have any in-kind support. Secondly she requests to know who does their home chore repair, is it
volunteers or a specific company. Finally on question 5, the collaboration with other agencies, they listed
places like Oaknoll and assisted living and group homes and she questions if that coincides with what
Pathways does (as it is adult daycare) and why people from assisted living facilities would be coming to
Pathways for services. Vaughan would like clarification on that relationship.
Vaughan noted that the Free Lunch Program didn't complete their application, perhaps they filled in the
wrong column, but they didn't have any data for 2019.
Vaughan state that Inside Out Reentry is a concern, they are losing their free -rent space so there is a
concern about the organization's financial stability. McKinstry also mentioned concern regarding this,
stating the church where they are currently located will give Inside Out Reentry a large portion of the sale
of the building, however the building has not yet been sold. Vaughan requested to hear from the Agency
on their financial plan as they are requesting 21 % of their budget from the City, which is substantial.
Lehmann suggested having someone from the Agency come to the next meeting to answer these
questions and discuss their plans for the future.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted she had a difficult time going through the project requests and finding the specific
percentages of AMI and perhaps that could be a follow up question to all applicants. Other
Commissioners agreed. Lehmann said the CDBG/HOME applications ask for that information but this
application did not. McKinstry said some agencies may not collect AMI information because they have an
open-door policy for all regardless of income. Fixmer-Oraiz acknowledged that could be indicated on the
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 6 of 10
application, but for others it is necessary to have that information. McKinstry noted while it might be good
to have that information it should not be heavily weighted against those agencies that do not track that
information as the Commission does not want to inadvertently punish those people an agency serves
based on lack of collection data. Fixmer-Oraiz agreed and said every application needs to be reviewed
based on the need for the money and having the AMI data may not be pertinent to every application.
Vaughan noticed a large increase in expenses for the Crisis Center from FY18 to FY19 and would like
more information regarding that increase and if such increase are expected in the future. Additionally they
showed a large increase in in-kind support but about a 30% decrease in number of volunteers and
wonders if moving forward if that will be problematic.
Vaughan also said HACAP also showed a large reduction in volunteers (about 54%) so she wonders how
they will address that.
With the Housing Trust Fund Vaughan noticed they have a large amount of restricted funds and would
like more detail on those funds and what they can be used for
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity had a large amount of other expenses Vaughan noted. She would like
more detail on what those expense entail.
Vaughan stated that on question #9 the Neighborhood Centers stated they had little income from fees,
however they listed $1.2 million in the line item that said fees and that does not seem like a small number
She would also want to know what their fees are from.
Vaughan questioned the Rape Victim Advocacy Program answer to question #2, they state that most of
their funds are restricted for direct care but on the form they did not list anything in restricted funds.
Finally, on ARC, Vaughan said the application talks a lot about what clients need but not so much about
what ARC does for their clients or how they provide services for the needs. She requests clarification on
the services provided. Fixmer-Oraiz noted this application is asking for funds for childcare, which also
places the agency in a higher priority than originally categorized as well.
Eastham would like for HCDC to consider looking at a few different things when deciding on how to use
funds for the Emerging Aid to Agencies allocations this year, he was at a meeting recently in the South
District and one of the things that group discussed was youth activities that underrepresented groups of
youths in the community are greatly attracted to. Two organizations, Dream Center and G World, provide
those activities and have not received funds in the past from the City and Eastham would like the chance
to talk to the leaders of those organizations to see if funds from this source of the community would help
to improve and stabilize their programming. Eastham realizes the Aid to Agencies funding is application
driven but he feels it does not have to be that way and rather HCDC could go out to agencies in the
community they know are doing great things and effective work and provide assistance. McKinstry said
perhaps just ask those agencies to submit an application and help them fill it out. Kubly noted that Staff
does help agencies fill out applications if they have questions. Alter suggested perhaps putting on a
workshop for the agencies to help fill out applications. Lehmann said Staff has a workshop for the
CDBG/HOME application, it is not required but strongly encouraged. Brouse said the County has a grant
program for sustainability and requires all agencies that want to apply for funds to attend a workshop, so
it is something that can be required. Lehmann suggested they set us an "office hours" type of workshop
where if an agency is interested they could come to the office hours and work on their applications and
staff will be available to help answer questions, he is open to suggestions.
Harms wanted to discuss the financial resources portion of the application. Lehmann said that many of
the financial questions seem cut and dry but it is up to the discretion of HCDC, that HCDC could have a
consensus of how to score questions. Harms was concerned particularly about ranking a project's ability
to leverage other resources and how each Commissioner is ranking that question. Brouse stated he felt if
an agency said they were leveraging other funds based on these grants that weighted more on his
rankings. McKinstry noted he was more impressed when an agency was able to use local government
funds to get matching funds from other sources. Alter feels the goal of these agencies is to help people
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 7 of 10
and using their time to leverage funds may not be the best use of their time. Lehmann concluded
everyone is looking at leveraging differently, with most looking at organizations that leverage as a positive
thing but not as a requirement. Harms agreed that is a valid way to look at the question.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DRAFT FY20 AID TO AGENCY EMERGING APPLICATION FORMS:
Lehmann noted that he had an agency ask if they applied for Legacy Aid to Agencies funds, can they also
apply for emerging funds. His understanding of the intent of creating the emerging funding was for new
organizations, not new programs within existing organizations that received Aid to Agency funds but
wanted HCDC's feedback on the topic. Vaughan noted that to be considered emerging the organization
had to be in existence two years or less or haven't received Aid to Agency funds in the last five years.
Eastham added he felt the separation of legacy and emerging was based on agency not programs within
the agency.
Eastham asked if the application will ask for AMI information. Lehmann said it is part of the income
section on page 3. He said the application had information and project information sections and the
project information section is where it includes the budget information and impact to the community.
Eastham said it doesn't ask for it specifically, there is an area for which they can explain. Lehmann said if
the organization is emerging they may not have clientele yet and have that type of financial information.
Brouse questioned if 250 characters was enough space for an agency to describe their functions.
Lehmann said that was unknown, he will see if anyone reaches out and states it is not enough space but
he will also increase it to more characters.
Fixmer-Oraiz said the front application page should include a note about a workshop or office hours for
application assistance.
Lehmann noted that when the application asks for the agency corporate status (nonprofit or for-profit) he
will add an option for "other" in case they are in the formation process and it is unknown.
Alter asked about the question asking how the application fits into one or two of the goals of the City
Steps, could there be a link there to direct them to the City Steps. Lehmann will make sure it links to the
City Steps Plan.
Lehmann noted the online application is accessible to all. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if a translation widget
could be added. Lehmann said it can be done in Chrome but unsure of all browsers, he will look into it.
Alter asked if under impact/benefit "all service projects are required to..." it is a yes or no answer, if they
choose no can there be a place for the applicant of explain why. Lehmann will add a box for explanation.
Fixmer-Oraiz moved to approve the draft FY20 Aid to Agency Emerging application forms, with
changes as discussed in the meeting. Brouse seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed
7-0.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DRAFT FY20 CDBG/HOME APPLICATION FORMS:
Lehmann noted most of the application is similar to last year, changes include parts of the applicant guide
was reorganized and condensed. He noted the application timeline includes an applicant workshop on
January 3, 2019, with applications due on January 18, 2019, question and answer meeting in February
and recommendations in March. He noted they are very tentatively budgeting for $1.3 million which
would be roughly $612,000 available for the funding round. That will likely change as they get closer to
next spring and know better program income. HOME amount will be around $500,000, project facilities
projects of around $50,000 or more will get first consideration. On page 5 it discusses the evaluation
criteria, it currently states what was used last year so if the Commission wants changes this would be the
time to suggest so. He also added a section about the rental permit cap that affects some of the
neighborhoods downtown, and the affordable housing location model is updated in the packet as well.
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 8 of 10
Vaughan noted where the application talks about CHDO, it needs to be spelled out. She also asked if it
was customary to only hold one workshop for applicants. Lehmann said in the past they have done two
on occasion. Vaughan thought it might be beneficial to have two options in case the one date doesn't
work for an organization. Lehmann said he would create a second option.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked about the number of characters the applicant gets in each section to answer
questions. Lehmann said he set them to encourage concise answers but he is open to making the answer
boxes larger. Fixmer-Oraiz noted some in the past were very long and yet explicit so having a lot of
space was necessary for the applicant to explain their needs. To be able to evaluate these applications
the Commission will need as much detail as possible from the applicants. Lehmann noted there was one
answer he encourages they keep brief, the "provide a few lines describing the proposed project" because
it is intended to be just a few lines and in the past they have received book long answers.
Eastham questions where the applicant will include the initial rents per unit or the initial sale price for
units. Lehmann said that information is not in the pro forma, the pro forma is based off what was asked
for in the past but would add the question of initial rent or sales price in the application.
Fixmer-Oraiz moved to approve the draft FY20 CDBG/HOME application forms, with changes as
discussed in the meeting. Harms seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Lehmann made a general comment about the delivery of documents and information and noted it is often
easier to work online (depending on each person's technological capabilities) but he can print off copies
for a commissioner if requested, please let him know.
Lehmann noted there is a new Aid to Agency audit policy that City Council approved, he distributed a
memo regarding that policy to each Commissioner.
Lehmann stated for the 2020 Census they are starting to get the Complete Count committee together,
and he distributed handouts on that for those interested in participating. The Complete Count Committee
would focus on outreach and attaining participation in the census.
Eastham asked when it will become clear if people are actually responding to the citizenship question, if
there is one. Lehmann said there is not a clear answer to that question at this time, right now there are
legal protections for the citizenship question but that can always change. It also noted it is being
challenged in court.
Eastham asked for an update on the low-income housing tax credit and a proposal for adding additional
funds to reduce rents for some number of units, if staff had that conversation yet or if the City Manager
stopped it. Kubly said in their memo to Council staff put HCDC's approval of the regular $200,000 for the
LIHTC project and indicated HCDC had a consensus they would like Council to consider extra funds to
subsidize lower rents for this project. Council approved the main $200,000 and discussed the extra
funding but they did not approve any additional funding. Eastham did not believe Council was asked to
approve additional funding. Kubly said Council needs to give Staff direction on the availability of funding
for staff to proceed with discussions with the developer on those funds. Eastham was at the Council
meeting that night and interpreted the discussion as Council not being asked to direct the staff to do
anything. Kubly said staff relayed the request to provide additional funds, but Council needs to give staff
direction on the availability of funds. Eastham asked if staff talked with the developer. Kubly said staff
wouldn't do that until there was direction that funding was available for that purpose. Eastham asked if the
Commission needed to get on board to go back to Council to ask for additional funding. Kubly said the
request was made to the Council. Eastham stated he was at the meeting and doesn't believe Council
understood they had to direct staff that night to ask the developer how they would use additional funds.
Kubly stated it didn't have had to happen that night, but at some point, Council would need to indicate
there was additional funding available for this purpose. Eastham asked if the City Manager is going to
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 9 of 10
bring it back up to the Council. Kubly didn't know, but will ask. Eastham stated he could talk to Council
members, that he doesn't believe the City Manager's memo to Council was worded fairly to what this
Commission asked to have happen, that he could sit down with the City Manager, that he wants staff to
sit down with the developer and come up with a proposal for some additional amount of funds to have
some additional lower rents in the project. Eastham stated the City Manager's position is to not proceed
until Council tells him how much additional money he has for discussions with the developer, but that
Council does not understand that. Kubly will relay that message to the Department Director and City
Manager. Fixmer-Oraiz stated the recommendation seems to be stuck in a procedural loop. Eastham said
it could be called that or a considered decision on the part of the City Manager about how to present this
to Council. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if HCDC needs to request Council to consider directing staff to talk to the
developer. Vaughan noted the recommendation was made from HCDC to Council. Eastham thought the
recommendation was for staff and the developer to present a specific proposal for consideration by
Council. McKinstry understood the recommendation to include possibilities for different amounts of funds
and how they would affect rents, and noted this did not happen. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if staff needed
Council direction to research that. Kubly stated that without funding available or an indication by Council
they would support additional funding, staff did not believe there would be anything to offer the developer
at this time. Eastham stated there is plenty of funding available, that Council could find that money. Kubly
stated they could. Eastham added that the City Manager could recommend funding. Vaughan asked if a
Commissioner should go to a Council meeting to urge them to reconsider. Eastham said that or he could
talk with individual Council members. Lehmann stated Council also accepts correspondence. Fixmer-
Oraiz asked if that would come from Eastham or HCDC. Vaughan noted that they talked about it last time.
Harms added HCDC agrees about how to proceed. Vaughan affirmed but noted HCDC does not make
the decision. Brouse stated he was not at the meeting, but HCDC made the recommendation and Council
approved the initial funding. Eastham stated HCDC had two votes, one to recommend the initial funding,
and the second to ask Council for additional funds for this project to lower rents. Lehmann noted staff
asked Council for funds to lower rents but staff did not move forward discussions with the developer
because nothing was approved. Eastham said Council did not say yes or no to providing additional funds,
that Council didn't make a decision about it. Vaughan suggested Eastham could ask Council. Eastham
asked if that would come from him or HCDC. Brouse stated they could vote again. Fixmer-Oraiz added it
should be an action from HCDC. Alter noted HCDC had a robust conversation and saw it as a two -parted
recommendation to Council. McKinstry added the developer was here and was willing to provide the
information, that most Commissioners thought what would be passed to Council was information from the
developer about what could happen with different amounts of additional funding, and it is up to Council to
decide, that he understands the frustration. Alter stated that Council did not understand they needed to
make a decision on the second part. Kubly noted there was a discussion at Council where the extra
$200,000 was raised and the developer said if they had extra funding they could submit their pro forma
but they need more information, that Council noted in the discussion that the Housing Trust Fund of
Johnson County was also providing funding for the project, a portion of which was funds that the City
provided so there was already a significant amount of City funds in the project, that it was her
understanding that Council was not going fund additional money to the project. Eastham said that
conversation was from one council member. Fixmer-Oraiz noted support for a formal letter from HCDC
urging Council to reconsider, so it's not just staff or individuals, but something in writing that HCDC really
considered and still feels strongly about, that the developer is fine moving forward in terms of timeliness,
that the proforma is not time constrained. Eastham stated the developer has plenty of time to use
additional funding to reduce rents. Lehmann said he can add an item to next month's agenda for HCDC
and draft a letter for HCDC review to reiterate their request to Council for additional funds for the project.
Eastham asked staff to pay attention to this part of the minutes for next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Fixmer-Oraiz moved to adjourn. Brouse seconded. Passed 7-0
Housing and Community Development Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 10 of 10
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
7/10
9/20
10/11
11/15
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
Alter, Megan
7/1/21
X
X
X
X
Brouse, Mitch
7/1/21
X
X
X
X
Eastham, Charlie
7/1/20
X
X
X
X
Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa
7/1/20
X
O/E
X
X
Harms, Christine
7/1/19
X
X
X
X
Lamkins, Bob
7/1/19
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
McKinstry, John
711/17
X
X
X
X
Padron, Maria
7/1/20
X
X
O/E
O/E
Vaughan, Paula
7/1/19
X
X
X
X
• Resigned from Commission
Key:
X
= Present
0
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
Item Number: 4.c.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok 10WA CITY
www.icgov.org
January 8, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Planning & Zoning Commission: October 18
r
_.:.® CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 27, 2018
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
At their December 20, 2018 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the October
18, 2018 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council:
By a vote of 4-2 (Martin & Dyer dissenting, Baker absent) the Commission recommends
approval of REZ18-00020, an application submitted by IC Housing, LLC, for a rezoning
from ID -RM to RM -20 for approximately 1.79 acres and RM -12 for approximately 2.55
acres on approximately 4.34 acres of property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway
and east of Scott Blvd subject to City Council approval of the following conditions:
A. A north/south street shall be built to City standards and dedicated to the City as a
public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney.
B. A detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Arborist to ensure a
landscaped area that buffers noise and wind from the proposed housing
communities at the time of platting.
C. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and generally
conforms with the street layout on the concept plan.
2. By a vote of 6-0 (Baker absent) the Commission recommends Council not recommend
approval of CZ18-00002 an application submitted by Claude and Adam Greiner for a
rezoning from County Agriculture (A) to County Single Family Residential (R) for
approximately 11.34 acres of property located south of American Legion Road and west
of Wapsie Avenue SE.
3. By a vote of 6-0 (Baker absent) the Commission recommends approval of ZCA18-00003
Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of development
rights for historic properties.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done #1 & #2
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 18, 2018-7:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Baker
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Megan Carr, Gina Landau, Victoria Sharp, John Sharp, Matthew
Kulzak, Andrew Hoffmann
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 4-2 (Martin & Dyer dissenting, Baker absent) the Commission recommends
approval of REZ18-00020, an application submitted by IC Housing, LLC, for a rezoning from
ID -RM to RM -20 for approximately 1.79 acres and RM -12 for approximately 2.55 acres on
approximately 4.34 acres of property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway and east of
Scott Blvd subject to City Council approval of the following conditions:
1. A north/south street shall be built to City standards and dedicated to the City as a public
improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney.
2. A detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Arborist to ensure a landscaped
area that buffers noise and wind from the proposed housing communities at the time of
platting.
3. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and generally
conforms with the street layout on the concept plan.
By a vote of 6-0 (Baker absent) the Commission recommends Council update the Fringe Area
Agreement with Johnson County.
By a vote of 6-0 (Baker absent) the Commission recommends Council not write a letter of
support for CZ18-00002 an application submitted by Claude and Adam Greiner for a rezoning
from County Agriculture (A) to County Single Family Residential (R) for approximately 11.34
acres of property located south of American Legion Road and west of Wapsie Avenue SE.
By a vote of 6-0 (Baker absent) the Commission recommends approval of ZCA18-00003
Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of development rights
for historic properties.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 2 of 15
REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00020):
Discussion of an application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC for the rezoning of
approximately 4.34 acres of property located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE from Interim
Development Multi -Family Residential Zone (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi- Family Residential
Zone (RM -12) for approximately 2.55 acres and Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone
(RM -20) for approximately 1.79 acres.
Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map of the site, the applicant is proposing to
rezone some of the area to RM -12 and the remainder of the site will remain Interim
Development- Single Family Residential (ID -RS).
The applicant has used the "Good Neighbor Policy", and a Good Neighbor Meeting took place
on September 25, 2018 at Helen Lemme Elementary School. One neighboring resident
attended the meeting and expressed concerns related to construction site runoff and stormwater
management and concerns related to the proposed public street. The same neighbor also
submitted a letter to the Commission which was included in the agenda packet.
Russett gave an overview of the three part project, phase A is the rezoning of about 2.5 acres to
RM -12, the applicant is proposing an affordable, family apartment building of about 36 units on
this site. The applicant has secured tax credits from the Iowa Finance Authority for the project
as well as $400,000 from the Johnson County Trust Fund and $200,000 from the City of Iowa
City. Phase B (on the east side of the property) is the proposal of about 1.8 acres to RM -20 and
are considering an affordable senior housing project of about 52 units. Phase C would be a
future rezoning.
With regards to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map it identifies this area as
residential development around of 2-8 dwelling units per acre and in addition the Plan
encourages goals for a diversity of housing options. Additionally, the Northeast District Plan
encourages housing diversity and a mixture of single family residential along with townhomes
and small apartment buildings. The Northeast District Plan lays out how this should be done by
locating townhouses and apartment buildings adjacent to neighborhood commercial areas and
at intersections of arterial and collector streets. Staff finds the proposed rezoning is consistent
with the Comprehensive and District Plans due to the location of the project near the Olde Town
Village commercial areas and along the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial, therefore a mixture of
housing types, including multi -family, is appropriate.
Russett next showed pictures of the project site. The applicant has provided a concept plan and
elevation for the design of the two multi- unit buildings. Russett noted these are just concepts
and staff will need to review plans as they move through the site review stage.
In terms of transportation issues The Northeast District Plan discusses the importance of an
interconnected transportation system. There is a current 8 foot side path constructed along
Herbert Hoover Highway and the project site is within half a mile from a transit stop. Staff is
proposing a condition of approval be a north/south street shall be built to City standards and
dedicated to the City as a public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement as
well as a detailed landscaping plan, particularly focusing on providing a buffer from the
proposed housing and Herbert Hoover Highway.
Russett noted one correction regarding the neighborhood open space requirement, the staff
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 3 of 15
report stated approximately 0.28 acres of public space is require or they must pay a fee -in -lieu
and that number should actually be around 0.35 acres.
Staff recommends the approval of REZ18-00020, an application submitted by IC Housing, LLC,
for a rezoning from ID -RM to RM -20 for approximately 1.79 acres and RM -12 for approximately
2.55 acres on approximately 4.34 acres of property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway
and east of Scott Blvd subject to City Council approval of the following conditions:
1. A north/south street shall be built to City standards and dedicated to the City as a public
improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney.
2. A detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Arborist to ensure a landscaped
area that buffers noise and wind from the proposed housing communities at the time of
platting.
3. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and generally
conforms with the street layout on the concept plan.
Hensch asked about landscaping and noted the main concern is providing a buffer from Herbert
Hoover Highway but the Commission prefers to see a landscaping plan for the entire project
and not just focused on one area. He noted the Iowa City Care Center is to the south of the
project and there should be some buffering there as well. Russett stated the applicant is
required to submit a complete landscaping plan that meets the City's landscaping requirements,
what staff is asking for in the condition is for the applicant to go above and beyond the
standards in that area.
Hensch also inquired about a topographical map for this area because of the concerns raised
regarding stormwater. Russett does not have a topographical map but showed on her map
where the site slopes heavily on the eastern side of the site. Hensch noted with the third parcel
being undeveloped that will temporarily mitigate stormwater issues going to the southeast, but
feels it should be addressed now and not wait until that third parcel is developed.
The final point Hensch is concerned about is the fee -in -lieu of public space, and none of the
developments in area have any neighborhood space. Russett noted that it is possible that all
developments in the area will do a fee -in -lieu of if there is not space on the sites for park areas.
Staff would work with the City's Parks Department on this during final platting. Hensch asked
what size of space is needed for pocket parks, he feels it is necessary for children to have a
place to play close to their homes. Russett is unsure of the preferred size but noted the
applicant is proposing some open space for the residents of this project.
Townsend asked what the affordable housing is based on since this project is receiving funds
towards affordable housing. Russett noted the applicant can address the rents and target
renters.
Dyer noted that since affordable housing is likely to include children it should be expected to
have a playground or facility for children to play onsite. Russett noted the applicant is proposing
a playground on the site.
Hensch open public meeting.
Megan Carr (IC Housing Group, Sand Development LLC.) stated they do have a proposed
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 4 of 15
playground for the site, there are also picnic tables, a bike rack and they intentionally moved the
parking lot over so there would be open green space for the children to play. Carr also stated
there will be a buffer along the property line next to the Iowa City Care Center, it is a hedge
along the parking lot.
Martin asked about the playground area and Carr said they can send the City photos of the
playground equipment and areas they have developed on other sites.
Dyer noted the handouts the Commission received in the packets are not easy to read. Martin
agreed noting it is better to have more visuals so they can make better informed decisions. Carr
said when they come back before the Commission at the preliminary plat stage they will provide
better detailed plans.
Carr noted they have received tax credits from the Iowa Finance Authority and hope to close on
the land in early 2019 and start construction.
Townsend asked if the entire project is considered affordable housing. Carr noted the first
phase is funded through Iowa Finance Authority so it will all be affordable, low-income housing.
Townsend asked what is considered affordable. Carr said in this community they have
proposed 6 1 -bedroom units, 12 2 -bedroom units and 18 3 -bedroom units and there is a mix of
30, 40 and 60 and there will be 4 market rate units. Carr said current market rate for a 1 -
bedroom would be under $1000 and up to a 3 -bedroom would be $1300. At the 30% rate it is
about $450 for a 1 bedroom and about $620 for a 3 -bedroom.
Parsons asked how many people would live in phase A if all bedrooms were full. Carr said it is
unlikely they would ever have full maximum occupancy, they do allow up to 2 occupants per
bedroom in their units, but in most cases the occupancy is less. In this development there
would be around 80-81 bedrooms.
Signs asked how many stories are the buildings. Carr said they are both 3 -stories, and within
the 35 foot roof height requirement.
Hensch asked if phase B is maybe a senior housing development or surely a senior housing
development. Carr said if built at 52 units it would have to be a senior housing development
because of the bonus, if they kept the development as family housing they were unable to
garner any additional funding from the City of Iowa City or Johnson County.
Martin asked about the concept of the building. Carr said they are looking at a row -house style
so the one building looks like many different buildings to better blend in with the community.
The building would be 60% brick or Architectural CMU Block and the remaining portion would
be a cement board siding or similar product.
Signs asked why they are not including phase C into this current plan, and noted his concern
about stormwater draining and neighboring properties. Carr said they are not including phase C
right now because they are unsure what they will do with that development, most likely it will be
an outlot and it will need to come back to rezoning for a platting process. She stated they are
also looking at doing a regional pond on phase C where the stormwater would collect. Carr said
they have talked with the neighbor and will continue to keep an open line of communication with
the concerned neighbor as the development moves forward.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 5 of 15
Hensch closed the public hearing
Parsons moved to recommend approval of REZ18-00020, an application submitted by IC
Housing, LLC, for a rezoning from ID -RM to RM -20 for approximately 1.79 acres and RM -
12 for approximately 2.55 acres on approximately 4.34 acres of property located south of
Herbert Hoover Highway and east of Scott Blvd subject to City Council approval of the
following conditions:
4. A north/south street shall be built to City standards and dedicated to the City as
a public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney.
5. A detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Arborist to ensure a
landscaped area that buffers noise and wind from the proposed housing
communities at the time of platting.
6. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and
generally conforms with the street layout on the concept plan.
Signs seconded the motion.
Martin noted this area is one of the entrances to Iowa City and it is very important to keep the
entrances to Iowa City beautiful and she is concerned about how little information the
Commission was given on concepts and not knowing what the end result will look like with all
three pieces.
Hensch agreed with Martin's concern regarding this being an entrance to Iowa City and feels
the landscaping plans along Herbert Hoover Highway are important as well as his concern
about the people living at the Iowa City Care Center and the view from their facility should not
be a parking lot. It is a lot of density in this area so landscaping is needed. He acknowledged
Iowa City desperately needs affordable housing but that doesn't mean people who live in
affordable housing shouldn't have decent facilities and areas to live in. Hensch is concerned
about the overall lack of green space or a place for a pocket park. Additionally there seems to
be chronic problem in Iowa City regarding stormwater management and he feels the
Commission should receive a City Engineer's report for any rezoning, especially in this area
when they know it is an issue with the neighbors.
Parsons asked if the City Engineer has to sign off on every application for stormwater
management. Russett said stormwater management is addressed at platting and the site plan
stage so the applicant will be required to meet all the City's stormwater management
regulations.
Martin noted that yes the City needs this type of housing and really likes the style of the building
but wants to make sure smart decisions are being made for the entire community.
Hensch also noted that the Commission has often seen elevation drawings at the rezoning
phase so they can be better informed and that hasn't happened lately.
Signs concurred and noted that is his concern about the phase C lot, the area is dense, it is
neighboring both residential and commercial, and is uncomfortable not having a picture of the
whole property at this stage.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 6 of 15
Dyer noted the landscape issue is because the parking lot in phase A is a large
asphalt/concrete parking area and often with areas that large there is also landscaping within
the parking lot, the residents of one side of the building will have a view of only the parking lot
as well.
Russett noted the City does have landscaping requirements for parking lots and all of that is
addressed at the site plan stage and the whole project is subject to the City's multi -family design
standards.
Townsend noted the concern regarding the nearest bus stop 1/2 mile away when this is to be
low-income, affordable housing.
Signs noted a challenge of affordable housing in the community is there is not a lot of options of
where to put it, and most of the places are on the fringe of town. The Iowa Finance Authority
scores the applications based on the housing being close to schools, shopping amenities, etc.
and that is not possible in Iowa City.
Parsons said there is such a prejudice against affordable housing so it is important to make sure
these developments are done right to counter the prejudice. Hensch noted he has many
questions still lingering tonight regarding the development.
Hensch asked if the sense of the Commission was to defer this topic for more information.
Dyer stated it would be good to see examples of other affordable housing this developer has
completed.
Russett asked what the Commission would like the applicant to further provide. She has heard
pictures of playgrounds, other developments, etc.
Martin said often the Commission has received pictures of products that will be used,
playgrounds, and at the very least elevations to see how it will all look.
Russett noted the rezoning request is not for phase C and therefore there is no concept for that
area. Signs feels that is part of the problem and the whole area should be handled as a whole.
Hensch would like more information regarding a landscape plan and building elevations.
Dulek noted the Commission must act within 45 days of the application or it will be considered
approved and day 45 is Sunday, October 28' therefore unless the applicant is willing to waive
the 45 day requirement action must be taken.
Parsons noted that most of the informational items the Commission is requesting can be on the
preliminary plat which will come before the Commission. Russett acknowledged they can
definitely provide more detail at that stage. Tonight's decision is a land use decision, is the
Commission comfortable with multi -family use in this area of the city, will it be compatible with
the neighborhood and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Parson stated he is
comfortable with the RM -20 and RM -12 at this location.
Hensch acknowledged they will see more information at the preliminary plat stage for this
project and could take a leap of faith and approve this. However he noted staff should be aware
the Commission wants to see more detailed information on similar applications in the future.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2 (Martin & Dyer dissenting, Baker absent).
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 7 of 15
FRINGE AREA REZONING ITEM (CZ18-00002):
Discussion of an application submitted by Claude and Adam Greiner for a rezoning from County
Agriculture (A) to County Single Family Residential (R) for approximately 11.34 acres of
property located south of American Legion Road and west of Wapsie Avenue SE.
Russett noted this item is located in Johnson County, not in Iowa City limits, but is in fringe area
B, outside the City's growth area. She showed on a map where the proposed rezoning is
located, and noted the current County zoning for this area is agricultural. The applicant is
proposing dividing the parcel into seven single family residential lots and one outlot. Russett
noted the City is required to look at rezonings in the fringe area per the Fringe Area Agreement.
The County's future land use map indicates this area as residential, the residential land use
category allows single family detached dwellings with a preferred density of one dwelling unit
per acre or more. Although the density shown on the concept plan is less than one dwelling unit
per acre, the proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applies to
areas not specifically planned for in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff relies on this
Agreement and policies in reviewing proposals and the Agreement is intended to provide
guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City's corporate
limits. This property is located in Fringe Area B — Outside the City's Growth Area. For this area,
the agreement states that agricultural uses are preferred. The Agricultural land use category
envisions agricultural uses, such as row crops and animal husbandry, with "very limited
residential development."
Based on the policies outlined in the Fringe Area Agreement, which is part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, staff does not recommend approval of this rezoning. Staff recognizes that
the proposed rezoning is consistent with the County's recently updated Comprehensive Plan;
however, staff relies on the Fringe Area Agreement policies when reviewing rezonings in the
Fringe Area.
Hensch asked that since the Fringe Area Agreement hasn't been updated since the County's
Comprehensive Plan was updated perhaps the recommendation is the Fringe Area Agreement
should be updated. Parsons agreed and said they should be updated together. Russett said
that could be passed along to the City Council.
Signs asked that the rezoning application does fit within the County's Plan but not the Fringe
Area Agreement. Russett confirmed that was correct.
Hensch opened the public meeting
Gina Landau (MMS Consultants) represents the applicants, Claude and Adam Greiner, and
wanted to address the Fringe Area Agreement. She has spoken with the County and was told
that at any time the County or the City can request an update to the Fringe Area Agreement and
it is the County's intention to request an update as well. The County has also told Landau they
are in the process of working with some of the smaller towns to update fringe area agreements
and were working their way up to Iowa City. The current Fringe Area Agreement is 12 years old
and that is why it doesn't reflect what the County's current objectives are. The application
however does follow all the County rules regarding density, acres of correct size, street
locations, and stormwater management. Landau requests the Commission recommend that
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 8 of 15
yes, this area is good for residential use. The County has the ultimate say and Landau believes
they will recommend approval.
Victoria Sharp (5124 American Legion Rd, SE) noted some concerns regarding changing from
agricultural to residential based on a number of issues. First is the heavy traffic already on
American Legion Rd, speeds are quite fast, and multiple accidents have happened very close to
this area.
Hensch asked what the speed limit was along American Legion Rd. Sharp said it is 55 mph but
often people go much faster as well as there is heavy truck traffic on the road. Another concern
is the number of driveways onto the road, right now there is one, adding two additional
driveways (as seen in the plan) would increase the traffic. Another concern is location for
emergency services such as fire, where West Branch responds because Iowa City will not.
Sharp wonders if West Branch has been consulted as they would have to have additional
people available if there was a fire. Finally she noted a concern about how much overall
agricultural land will be rezoned to residential, there is the new school going up and it has a lot
of agricultural land around it and it would make more sense to rezone that area closer to the
school. Sharp also commented on the drainage, currently there is drainage that goes into that
area and there may be difficulties due to that drainage.
John Sharp (5124 American Legion Rd, SE) added that the American Legion Road is a very
recreational road, there is a bike path out there to Scott Park, and people do drive 70 mph down
the road and to have a residential development where there are these reckless speeds and
truck traffic from the propane place down the road is risky to the families that may live in this
residential area without addressing some of the safety concerns. Sharp also wanted to
acknowledge the concept of a good neighbor meeting would have helped a lot in this situation,
they found out about the rezoning by a sign across the street.
Hensch noted the Commission is a proponent of good neighbor meetings however this is a
county rezoning. Parsons also acknowledged the Sharp's concerns will have much more
meaning at the County level.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parson moved to recommend Council update the Fringe Area Agreement with Johnson
County.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch agrees and hopes it can be done soon.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent).
Parsons moved to not approve CZ18-00002 an application submitted by Claude and
Adam Greiner for a rezoning from County Agriculture (A) to County Single Family
Residential (R) for approximately 11.34 acres of property located south of American
Legion Road and west of Wapsie Avenue SE.
Martin seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 9 of 15
Parsons stated he made the recommendation because while he believes the application
probably does conform with the County, it does not comply with the current Fringe Area
Agreement.
Signs noted this may become a bigger issue as he is aware of two other large open green
spaces nearby are destined for development so there is the potential of a rather large rural
residential area here.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent).
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEM (ZCA18-00003):
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of
development rights for historic properties.
Russett began by providing the Commission with background as to why staff is working on this
ordinance, she will then talk about the existing transfer rights provisions which exist in Riverfront
Crossings, and finally will get into the specifics of the amendment proposed tonight.
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark
designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. Council deferred action on the local
landmark designation until January 2019 while staff reviews and analyzes the establishment of
a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. On August 7,
2018, Council discussed a city-wide TDR program at a work session and then on September 4
2018, provided direction to staff on some key policy issues. Staff has been given a timeline by
Council, in June and August staff conducted a lot of research analysis of TDR around the
country, on September 4 they presented that research to Council and they directed staff to
move forward with drafting an ordinance. Last week staff presented the draft to the Historic
Preservation Commission and tonight are before the Planning & Zoning Commission for review
and discussion of this ordinance. Staff would like to present a draft to City Council next month,
the deadline for adoption of this ordinance, should the Council decide to adopt the ordinance, is
January 29, 2019, because that is when the expiration of the deferral for the local landmark
designation on the North Clinton Street property happens.
Russett provided some background as to why the City is perusing this ordinance. National
Register Districts are an honorary designation, it does not provide any protection for listed
resources, it does not limit a property owner from making modifications on a building or
demolishing a building, but it does offer incentives. On the flip side Iowa City's local historic
districts and local landmarks provide protection to historic resources and any changes to the
exterior of those buildings need to either be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation
Planner or the Historic Preservation Commission. The idea behind the transfer of development
rights ordinance is to provide an incentive to property owners to landmark their historic
buildings. Transfer of development rights is meant to protect historic resources by giving
property owners of those historic resources the ability to sell or transfer development rights to
another property. The areas that may receive the transfer of development rights are in areas
where the City wants to see more development. Russett acknowledged the goal is to preserve
historic landmark designations and buildings, right now it is uncertain the effectiveness of an
ordinance like this, there has been no market analysis to determine a market for these transfer
rights, and if people will actually utilize it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 10 of 15
Russett noted key components of TDR programs are:
• Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be
preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be
transferred to another site.
• Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be
transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and
development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should
have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well
as a healthy market demand for growth.
• Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the
development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are
calculated.
• Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers
are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how
many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been
transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred).
The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of
open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below
is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures:
• Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible
for landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or
listed as a historically significant building per a survey
• Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as
an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term
• Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District
• The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum
Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
• City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development
rights
• No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus
provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict
One example of a transfer of development rights was for the transfer of development rights from
the Tate Arms building at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S.
Dubuque and Benton Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the
34,800 square feet of development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer
of 7,400 square feet to add a 5th story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square
feet of development rights remaining to transfer.
Signs asked about the calculations of transfer rights being based on the square footage of the
entire lot and why aren't they based on the allowable square footage of a building that could go
on that lot. Russett stated when the formula was developed for Riverfront Crossings they
intentionally made it very generous because they anticipated development and redevelopment
in Riverfront Crossings and wanted it to be a higher amount that could be transferred.
Russett noted the direction staff received on the city-wide ordinance is to have the sending sites
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 11 of 15
to only apply to future local landmarks, not to existing, staff is to develop a new transfer formula,
however the current formula used in Riverfront Crossings would remain intact for that area only,
Council will continue to have oversight on the program and will review and approve any transfer
right requests, and in terms of the receiving sites Council directed staff to look at Riverfront
Crossings and sites that allow multi -unit development throughout the community.
Russett next gave an overview of the proposal for the City-wide ordinance. For the sending
sites staff is recommending looking at future properties that are listed as Iowa City landmarks as
well as contributing properties listed in future Iowa City local districts. Staff presented this
proposal to the Historical Preservation Commission on October 11 and they expressed concern
that the proposed ordinance only applies to future Iowa City landmarks and if it is not provided
to future districts it could be a disincentive for the creation of districts and people will just want to
create landmarks. The Historic Preservation Commission also noted Council recently adopted
several Iowa City landmark designations and requested those properties also be eligible for the
incentive. Properties within existing historic districts would not be eligible and property within
existing and future conservation districts would also not be eligible as sending sites.
Russett noted in addition to this proposed ordinance, staff is recommending an amendment to
the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer of development rights provisions to allow the transfer
and incentive to also apply to districts and not just landmarks.
In terms of receiving sites, staff is recommending any site zoned Riverfront Crossings, multi-
family residential or any commercial zone that would allow multi -family be eligible as a receiving
site. Russett showed a map indicating the potential receiving sites.
Staff is recommending the transfer of development rights be one of two options, either a height
bonus or a density bonus, but not both a height and density bonus. Additionally, staff proposes
to allow transfer requests to exceed either the height or density permitted on the receiving site,
but restrict any height bonus to no more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed. If the
receiving site is next to an existing single family home the height is limited to twenty feet above
the height of that existing home. Staff is not recommending any restrictions on the density
bonus.
Hensch asked if for density someone could use every square inch of the parcel. Russett noted
with density there would still be parking requirements, open space requirements, and all other
regulations in the zoning ordinance.
Russett noted the formula to be used to determine the potential transfer a sending site would
have, staff is proposing the difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending
site and the existing height of the historic structure. However they are noting that no transfer
would be less than 12 feet, or one story. For example if there is an existing historic structure
that is 30 feet and the maximum height on the sending site is 35 feet, the difference is only 5
feet but the transfer would be 12 feet as it is the allowable minimum. For the density bonus
option staff is proposing the transfer be the difference between the maximum number of
dwelling units allowed on the sending site and the existing number of dwelling units on the
sending site. The maximum density should also be based on the on the underlying zoning
designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark designation.
In terms of the transfer process, any requests for a transfer of density or height from a sending
site to a receiving site will be reviewed by the staff design review committee, which will then
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 12 of 15
submit a recommendation to the City Council for their review and approval.
Russett noted the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as there are
goals in the Comprehensive Plan to protect our community's historical, environmental, and
aesthetic assets, there is also a Historical Preservation Plan component of the Comprehensive
Plan which again has goals for the preservation of historic resources and also a specific goal to
establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic buildings and
neighborhoods.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft
ordinance by the Iowa City City Council.
Hensch thanked Russett for the thorough presentation and how helpful it was to explain the
proposal. He noted he is not a big fan of the density bonus and feels there could be issues with
that but likes that City Council has to approve all transfer requests.
Martin acknowledged the process this has gone through and asked if the Historic Preservation
Commission did approve the ordinance. Russett said the Historic Preservation Commission did
have some concerns but recommended moving it forward, she will go back to the Historic
Preservation Commission in November with an update and let them know the progress.
Signs asked about the historic district piece, noting a few meetings ago when the Commission
voted on a large group of properties on South Clinton Street (the Railroad District) that was to
be made into a historic district, would those properties then qualify to have transfer rights.
Russett noted they would if it was a contributing resource to the historic district.
Hensch asked for clarification on how the transfer rights work within a district. Russett used the
Railroad District as an example, any property within that district that is identified as a
contributing resource, that site and that building, would be eligible for a transfer and the formula
would be based on that specific property, not the district as a whole. Hensch asked who can
take advantage of the transfer rights, only the owners of the property, or could they give that
right to some developer in their name. Russett said the transfer rights could be sold to a
developer.
Dyer asked about demolition by neglect or any provisions that say the owner must upkeep the
landmark property. Russett said they followed the language that was in the Riverfront
Crossings Code that says the property is subject to the demolition by neglect ordinance and
property needs to be maintained. If the property is deteriorating the owner would not need to
make improvements to be eligible for the transfer rights.
Townsend asked how they would keep track of these transfers. Russett said the City will
maintain a database of eligible properties and transfer potential, where they are transferred to
and what the receiving site is. Staff is also proposing as part of the application to apply for a
transfer details on the application. They are also requesting that if there is a private sale on the
open market that the City at least be notified the sale has happened.
Martin asked what would happen if a private sale happens and the developer does not use the
transfer rights for a while and in that time the City decides this ordinance is not appropriate and
removes it from Code, what happens to the developer that is now the owner of a transfer they
cannot use. Dulek acknowledged that is an issue that is potentially out there. She added with
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 13 of 15
regards to maintaining this database there will have to be the ability to keep track of the change
of title for these rights.
Hensch asked if this ordinance is in response to market demand. Russett said it was a request
of the property owner's at 410 North Clinton when that property was going through the historic
designation process, they requested for their local landmark designation be put on hold until this
ordinance could be discussed and implemented.
Hensch opened the public hearing
Matthew Kulzak (222 N. Clinton St.) is an econ student at The University of Iowa and is taking a
class on planning livable cities and that is why he attended today's meeting. In class they are
discussing the development rights and transferring those and he feels from an economic
perspective it is great because one issue that occurs with historic buildings is there is potential
development in that area but it is unusable because it is historical and something that is valued
by a city to maintain historic character. One issue that could arise is the building being
neglected and the rights still sold, and that seems like a valid concern and not in the spirit of the
program to benefit for the historic building but not maintain it.
Andrew Hoffmann (718 Oakcrest Street) is a College of Law student at The University of Iowa in
a property law class and commented on the density issue noting it was pretty limited in the way
the presentation was shown because the density can only be transferred by the extent that the
landmark has the capability to do that. Hoffmann feels it would be a pretty small transfer and not
a big issue. Additionally the distance of transfer, the transfer could be sold and used anywhere
in the City and there are no restrictions given in the presentation.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City
Code related to transfer of development rights for historic properties.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Signs noted he likes this amendment in that it does address some of the concerns he expressed
when the Commission was acting upon the historic properties at past meetings. There is
potential for economic loss to a landowner when the City designates a landmark against the
property owners will, and now there is a potential benefit and may mitigate any owner loss on
the property.
Townsend would like to see some requirement that the property had to be kept in good
condition to be eligible to transfer development rights.
Martin asked if a property sells their rights, then has the property demolished due to disrepair
what can be rebuilt in that location.
Dyer recalls that when the Tate Arms transfer of development rights happened the property
owner was required to upgrade and maintain the Take Arms building as well as be able to
construct the new building. Russett agreed and noted there was a provision in the Riverfront
Crossings Ordinance related to demolition by neglect. That provision will also be in this
ordinance. Russett also noted there is a City ordinance that requires all buildings in the city to
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 14 of 15
be maintained.
Signs is concerned about an indefinite time frame, but likes to idea of bringing the building up to
standards at the time of development transfer.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent)
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 20. 2018
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 20, 2018.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted two things. First she introduced the new associate planner Ray Heitner. Second,
staff received a letter from property owners in the Cardinal Pointe Subdivision that she emailed
out to the Commission members, the letter expresses some concerns to a property that is for
sale off Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Russett noted staff has not received an application for a
rezoning on the property yet.
Signs noted there has been a substantial change of membership on the Commission and in
staff and he wonders if a work session is needed to talk through expectations going forward.
The Commission felt that a work session was not needed at this time.
Hensch noted it seems like staff reports are different now and perhaps stormwater can always
be referenced even if just to say no report for that application. Signs agreed, that is an issue
brought forth in many applications.
Adiournment:
Signs moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018
KEY_
X = Present
O = Absent
01E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
3/1
(W.S)
3/12
3/15
(W.S.)
4/2
4/5
(W -S)
4116
4/19
513
5/17
6/7
6/21
715
-
8116
9/6
9/20
10/18
BAKER, LARRY
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- ---
X
OtE
X
X
O/E
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O
O/E
O
X
FREERKS, ANN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
`-- --
HENSCH, MIKE
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
-- --
-
-X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
- --
-- --
-- --
- --
-- --
- --
-- --
-- -
-- --
-- -
-- --
X
X
X
X
KEY_
X = Present
O = Absent
01E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member