The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-04-06 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES 3IJ ~ HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPROVED February 16, 2010 - 18:00 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Dianne Day, Dell Briggs, Howard Cowen, Martha Lubaroff, Fernando Mena-Carrasco. Members Absent: Corey Stoglin, Connie Cuttell, Yolanda Spears, Wangui Gathua. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Others Present: Samantha Terrill, Keely Jarvill, Dan Bettenhausen, Abbey Moffitt, Keely Kemp. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER Chair Briggs called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE January 19, 2010 MEETING: Day moved to approve. Lubaroff seconded. The motion passed 5-0. GIFTS/NAMING POLICY Commissioners found the 10 year wait period after an individual's death to be too long of a period to wait if that person has made a significant contribution to the City. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES Lubaroff reported that a future program would include violence and harassment against children. Spears and Mena-Carrasco will connect with contacts they have to move this project/program along. Day spoke of wanting to do a program on undocumented persons that addresses misconceptions and attitudes towards them. Briggs discussed several programs that had an emphasis on ethnicity and race. UICHR REPORT Correspondence from Stoglin summarized the last meeting. PROGRAMS 2010 Commissioners discussed upcoming programs including the screening of Neo African Americans on the 24th. The Dialogue Circles being held the 18th and Cultural Diversity Day being held on the 21st. Day updated Commissioners on a Civil Society being held on March 23 and March 24 at the both the Senior Center and the Iowa Memorial Union. SANCTUARY CITY Commissioners received correspondence sent to the City Council concerning Sanctuary City. Day updated Commissioners on the Sanctuary City Committee (SCC) noting a presentation being held on the 17`h with the Interfaith Religious Community. Day, Gathua and Mena-Carrasco have attended some of the SCC meetings but the Commission has not made any recommendations to the City Council either pro or con for Sanctuary City. REPORTS OF COMMISSION Day mentioned two upcoming public forums being held at the Senior Center, the first being held on Friday, the 19th and the second on Wednesday, the 24th. Human Rights Commission February 16, 2010 Page 2 of 3 ADJOURNMENT Day moved to adjourn. Lubaroff seconded. The motion passed 5-0 at 19:16. Human Rights Commission February 16, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2010 (Meeting Datel NAME TERM EXP. 1/19 2/16 3/16 4/20 5/18 6/15 7/20 8/17 9/21 10/19 11/16 12/21 Dell Briggs 1/1/11 X X Yolanda Spears 1/1/11 X O/E Corey Stoglin 1/1/11 O/E O/E Dianne Day 1/1/12 X X Wangui Gathua 1/1/12 X O/E Martha Lubaroff 1/1/12 X X Howard Cowen 1/1/13 X X Constance Goeb- Cuttell 111/13 X O/E Fernando Mena- Carrasco 1/1/13 X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = AbsentlExcused NM = No meeting/No Quorum R =Resigned - = Not a Member 3b 2 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Jake Rosenberg, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Larsen, Jane Driscoll, Jim Dane RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of REZ09-00011, an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 5.05 acres of property located on Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Eagle View Drive subject to: 1) the establishment of a 20-foot landscape buffer to the S-3 standard that runs along the eastern property line south from Eagle View Drive and which includes a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees in a spacing deemed healthy in consultation with the City Forester; and 2) to a height limit for any outdoor light fixtures of no more than 30 feet above grade level. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEM: REZ09-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 5.05 acres of property located on Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Eagle View Drive. Freerks noted that there had been problems with the public being able to hear comments made by the Commissioners at the previous meeting. She asked that Commissioners be sure to speak directly into their microphones to help alleviate that problem. Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 2 of 15 Eastham noted that he had had ex pane communication with Bob Dane while visiting the site and the prospective park land. He disclosed that he had received clarification from Dane about the boundaries of the prospective park, and that Dane had asked him for clarification on the types of uses that can be located in an Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. Rosenberg attempted to clarify a number of issues and questions that had resulted from the last formal meeting. Rosenberg explained that in 2006 the owner of the property, James R. Davis, sought rezoning from CI-1 to CC (Community Commercial) for a larger area that included the subject property. During the course of a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at that time, it was decided to amend the application to request Commercial Office (CO) zoning for at least part of the property. Part of the rationale for this was because PIP Printing did not want its building to have non-conforming status, and part of this was because of the enhanced visual appearance a CO-1 zone might have over a CI-1 zone. At a subsequent meeting, the applicant decided to request CO-1 zoning for the entire area, rather than leaving some lots as CI-1. At that time, staff reiterated that both CI and CO zoning were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for that area. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval, and the City Council approved the rezoning. Rosenberg explained that in 2005, the Dane parkland proposal was unanimously accepted by the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Commission. The proposal included 17 acres of land southwest of the airport and east of Dane Road as parkland. The property will continue to be held by the family until there are no grandchildren of Margery and George Dane who wish to maintain it. At that time, Rosenberg said, the entire site will be gifted by deed to the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, who will turn over management of the property to the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Commission. The site can only be used as a park and recreation area in accordance with Dane family's proposal. Rosenberg noted the Commission's previously expressed concerns about the compatibility of a car dealership located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed parkland. He said that the Parks and Recreation Commission had been aware at the time it approved the parkland proposal that the park would be located in a commercial and industrial area. Mike Moran, Director of Parks and Recreation, has indicated that so long as appropriate landscape buffers and other ameliorating effects are in place he does not object to the proposed zoning change. Rosenberg next offered a comparative analysis of the current and proposed zonings for the subject property. He noted that the property is currently zoned CO-1, which provides specific areas where office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public/semi-public uses may be developed. This zone can serve as a buffer between residential areas and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. The applicant has requested CI-1 zoning for the area. This zone provides areas for sales and service functions which are typically characterized by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, the repair and sales of large equipment of motor vehicles, outdoor commercial or amusement activities, or by operations conducted in semi-enclosed structures. The zone limits the types of retail trade that can be in this zone in order to provide opportunities for more land- intensive commercial operations. The zone is also intended to prevent conflicts between retail traffic and industrial truck traffic. Rosenberg noted that special attention is to be directed toward buffering adjacent residential areas from the negative aspects of the uses allowed in this zone. Rosenberg said that the advantages of CO-1 zoning to CI-1 zoning for a property adjacent to a park involve issues like lighting, traffic, aesthetics, and noise. The CO-1 zone, Rosenberg said, is specifically designed to serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 3 of 15 uses, whereas the CI-1 zone is not. Because of this, the CO-1 zone has design guidelines that limit or exclude commercial activities that require outdoor storage, display lighting, and frequent customer traffic. Rosenberg noted that additional requirements could be placed on the rezoning to CI-1 that would make uses allowed in the zone more compatible with residential and parkland uses. He noted, however, that at the time the Dane property was accepted as parkland by the Parks and Recreation Department, both parties were aware that the surrounding areas were designated for intensive commercial and industrial uses. Rosenberg said that the airport had been contacted in regard to the concern expressed by a member of the public that a car dealership's lighting might pose a hazard to pilots attempting to land and take off at the Iowa City Airport. The airport manager noted that the nearby Honda Dealership, which is actually closer to the airport than the subject property, had posed no problems to date and that he anticipated no problems with a similar lighting scheme. Rosenberg noted that when a building permit is applied for the building officials will review the lighting plan. In regard to Commissioner questions as to the availability of other already appropriately-zoned area in the city, Rosenberg acknowledged that there were a few commercially zoned properties in the area that would be able to site car dealerships. He said that there are vacant parcels in the CI-1 and CC-2 zones near the intersection of Highway 1 and Interstate 218. However, the size of the available parcels presents an obstacle. The applicant has indicated that at least five acres are needed to site this dealership. The largest vacant parcel in the area is approximately 3.5 acres. All available locations would require the acquisition of two or more parcels. The land on the west side of Mormon Trek adjacent to the Honda dealership that had been suggested is actually zoned CH-1. In order to make it viable as the location of a car dealership, the zoning would have to be changed. In response to a Commissioner's question regarding the ways in which this rezoning might benefit the city, Rosenberg explained that one benefit to the city would be in the clustering of car dealerships. Rosenberg said that the general location offers high visibility, large parcels of land and access to major highways. Additionally, such clustering of dealerships is known to lower shopping costs for consumers and increase sales for dealerships. Staff also feels that maintaining an adequate supply of CI-1 and I-1 land is necessary for the City's future economic viability. These zones attract employers to the area, and can provide a transition area for land near industrial uses. Rosenberg pointed out that the reason the City invested in the extension of Mormon Trek was to create arterial access to the planned industrial development area. Rosenberg addressed the question of the access easement that appears to give direct access to Mormon Trek from the subject property. He said the access easement was part of a final plat for this property from 2005 and was meant to serve two parcels that had been joined. The easement would provide combined access to the whole area. Rosenberg said that the length of the area for which staff had recommended a buffer is approximately 255 feet. He said that the idea was not to buffer beyond that as it was likely the property to the south would be developed. Rosenberg said that he thought the car dealership might be interested in expanding into that parcel at some point, but that Dave Larsen could better address that. Rosenberg noted that the site plan is a concept plan. He said that staff does not recommend the option discussed about having 10 feet of buffer on Dane property and 10 feet of buffer on Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 4 of 15 the subject property; rather, staff recommends a 20 foot landscape buffer on the subject property along the property line with the proposed parkland. Rosenberg said the site plan shows a 3-foot hedge on Eagle View Drive; the proposed lighting is shown as being 20 feet tall. Rosenberg said that if the Commission wished to have these features as requirements then they would need to be included in a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). Rosenberg said that Staff continues to recommend approval of the rezoning subject to a 20-foot wide landscape buffer being provided on this property along the property line with the proposed park. If the Commission would like to include other conditions in regard to lighting, signs, additional landscaping, outdoor speakers or other minimizing effects, those conditions should be included in a CZA. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to require a buffer on any property other than the subject property. She noted that the Commission could not require or enforce a 10-foot buffer on the Dane property. Koppes asked if this property consists of two lots or one lot. Rosenberg said that it is actually two lots, as it has been subdivided. Koppes noted that the staff analysis talks about the difficulty of combining two parcels as it relates to the car dealership locating elsewhere in the area; however, Koppes pointed out, that is already being done in this case. Greenwood Hektoen said that the parcels in question are already under common ownership. Rosenberg said he did not know if there were other suitable places in the area that were also under common ownership. Eastham asked if staff felt the access easement would or would not be appropriate for the proposed rezoning. Rosenberg said it would be appropriate because it would provide access with the fewest number of curb cuts possible. Busard asked if PA systems are addressed under the zoning code. Walz said they are addressed under the noise ordinance, which is regulated through the building department as a part of the permitting process. Busard asked if this meant there were standards set. Walz said there are standards set and limitations placed on different types of uses. Busard asked what the restrictions were in the case where the uses were adjacent to a residential property. Walz said that the idea is that one would not be projecting a noise so loudly that it is disturbing another property. Walz said that it could be audible from another property, but would be kept below a certain level and would have time limitations put on it. Busard said the "short of it" is that there are standards on the books that apply to the proposed site; Walz said there are. Eastham said he wished to look at the lighting standards that Walz had passed out prior to the meeting. He asked if it was true that the light trespass provisions in 14-5G-4c would apply to this parcel without any further action on the part of the Commission or City Council. Walz said she assumes that it does apply. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that while there is a home out there, it is zoned Agricultural, not Residential. There were no further questions for staff, and Freerks opened the public hearing. Dave Larsen, address not given, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He noted that the group that is currently developing the property is not the same developing group as that which originally had the zoning changed from CI-1 to CO-1. That group was John Dane and the Jim Davis family. Larsen said that it is not actually the developer that is applying for the current zoning Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 5 of 15 changed, but the auto dealer. He said he just wanted to make clear that it was not that someone was changing their mind about the zoning; different people were making the request. Larsen said he would attempt to address questions that arose in the informal meeting. He said the lights can be lowered, but that engineering had informed him that if they are lowered then more lights would be needed. He said they are not necessarily against that, but that there would have to be a balance. He said that the dealership would be doing a lighting analysis on the property as a part of the building requirements. Larsen said that he had spoken with the engineer, and the speakers can be lowered if the Commission desires to do so. He said that the sound can be set at a certain decibel level. Larsen noted that the sound system at the current Honda dealership actually has speakers on the Dane side of the building which point directly at the Dane home. Larsen said he spoke with the manager Dave Billion and was told that those speakers can be redirected if turned off. Freerks noted that that was not something the Commission could include in a CZA, but that it was a very good thing for Larsen to take on himself to work out. Larsen said those actions would be taken regardless of the outcome of the zoning for the subject property. Larsen noted that the length of the buffer will be 266 feet; it had been approximated at 300 feet on earlier occasions. Larsen said that trucks will not actually be parking and unloading on Eagle View Drive. He said that in the past the Honda Dealership has unloaded on Mormon Trek, but that the new dealership and the Honda Dealership will both be unloading cars on their own property. Larsen said that if a truck is extra heavy, then caution needs to be taken. He said that care would have to be taken that the driveway could withstand it, as the street is much thicker than a driveway. He said that there may be occasions where trucks unload in the street, but that will be an exception, not the norm. Larsen noted that even if Eagle View is blocked every once in awhile, the Danes could still use Grace Drive to get out to Highway 1. Larsen noted that the lights will be turned down lower at whatever time is required by code. He said that if there are problems with that, then the manager would be happy to sit down with the Danes and try to work something out. Larsen explained that it is in the car dealership's own best interest to be a good neighbor, and they want to be one. Larsen passed out a handout of the George and John Dane properties. Larsen said they want to put in a 60 foot easement to get from John Dane's property to Mormon Trek. He said this would improve access to the park once the adjacent property becomes parkland. The Billions have indicated that they would be willing to donate trees to the parkland that could serve as additional buffer. The trees would be planted now so that in 20 or 30 years when the property becomes a park, they will have grown enough to provide buffer. He said the applicants would budget in 40 or more trees to donate to the park. Larsen asked of the Commission had any questions. Busard asked if Larsen had said that the two parcels in question were once part of the Dane farm. Larsen explained that the lots did not belong to the Danes; however, John Dane is part of the development because he joined the Davis family to develop the area. He noted that the PIP Printing lot had been owned partially by John Dane and partially by the Davis family. Greenwood Hektoen asked Larsen to address the issue of a 10-foot buffer versus a 20-foot Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 6 of 15 buffer. Larsen said he had spoken with Miklo about the issue, and that while the Danes were accepting of 10-feet of buffer on each property, Miklo had indicated that the full 20-feet of buffer needed to be on the subject property. Larsen said they would be open to having 30-feet of buffer with 10-feet on the Dane property, with the trees being planted by the applicant. Greenwood Hektoen said that such an arrangement would be beyond the Commission's scope. Larsen agreed, but said that the applicant could negotiate it with the Danes separately. Plahutnik asked where the subject property ended in relation to the abrupt hillside. Larsen explained that the buffer is the location of the old Dane Road. Larsen said that half of the road had been the Davis family's and half had been George Dane's. He said there is approximately a 16 foot drop from the top of that. Larsen said there is an odd-lot piece where the easement is, and John Dane is definitely attempting to get the applicant to purchase the southern property. He said that he would probably be back before the Commission to request annexation of that property in the future. Eastham asked if he was suggesting that the odd-lot piece would become part of the car dealerships and Larsen said it would not at this time but they would like it to be in the future. There were no further questions for Larsen. Jane Driscoll, no address given, said that she speaks on behalf of her grandfather, George Dane, who owns the property at 4120 Dane Road Southeast; the property is directly across from the property under review. She said she was joined by other members of their family, including her parents who reside at the home at 4120 Dane Road; a home her grandparents built in 1948. Driscoll explained that the property is a family residence that will eventually become a park. She said that in addition to a family home, the property has a grape vineyard, flowering trees and bushes, walnut and oak trees, farm crops, livestock, and stunning vistas of the area as the elevation is the highest in the area. Driscoll briefly outlined a program she had seen on national parks and the preservationists, including Teddy Roosevelt, who had created that system for all posterity. She said that every turn, the preservationists had to battle commercial and development interests, but in the end they prevailed and the nation owes them a debt because of it. Driscoll said that her grandfather believes that we are tenders of the land for a short time, that the land is a gift, and that mindful care must be taken of it. She said that her grandfather had the foresight to designate the property as a park so that the world could enjoy its graces. She said they accept as a given the fact that the property surrounding the park will be developed as time goes by. However, their concern is securing the best neighbor scenario for the surrounding property and the future park. Driscoll said that car dealerships and residential or park uses do not mix well. She noted that agricultural uses and car dealerships also do not mix well because of all of the dust that would settle on the new cars. She said that while the lighting design has been revised to have shorter directional lights on the north and east sides of the property, the lighting on the south edge are proposed to be 30 feet tall. Those lights will be oriented to the north and northeast in order to illuminate the car lot; however, that is also the direction of the Dane residence. Driscoll asked how these lights would be shielded to prevent trespassing or spilling onto their property. Driscoll asked if lights that are placed at mid-height on the pole and pointed downward would not be more compatible with the nearby residence, at least for after-hours lighting. She said that the family is requesting lighting restrictions similar to those required in the airport zone. Driscoll said that noise is also a concern, as the proposed speaker system appears to be similar Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 7 of 15 to those currently installed at the nearby Ford and Honda dealership. The existing speakers are farther away from their property than the subject property and are still audible from the Dane residence. Driscoll asked if there would be speakers mounted on the building. She suggested having more speakers around the lot that were closer to the ground and turned to a lower volume. She said ideally, speakers would not even be needed; personnel could carry two-way radios. Driscoll said that another concern is the proposed accesses to the parcel under review to Eagle View Drive. She said that she encouraged Commissioners to consider the proximity to Mormon Trek, and the fact that anyone turning left from the property may be precluded from doing do because of the long line of cars that may be waiting to access Mormon Trek. She said this problem is demonstrated in other areas of Iowa City where access points are located too close to intersections. Driscoll said that cars are delivered to car dealerships on the large, heavy trucks that had already been mentioned. She said that they have observed many times the blockage of Mormon Trek for the purposes of unloading these trucks. She said that Eagle View Drive is a two-lane street and cannot accommodate the unloading of trucks along with regular daily traffic, farm vehicles, maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles. She noted that the proposed car dealership would only bring more traffic to the street. She also noted that Eagle View Drive is a public street and should not be blocked by private vehicles. Driscoll said that there are plans to develop the property to the immediate north of the subject parcel, which would also increase traffic on Eagle View. Driscoll said that the family agrees with staff's recommendations of a 20-foot buffer to the S-3 screening standard. She said that the family's property extends to the centerline of the old Dane Road, and at this time they are not planting any trees on the old road bed. The top of the hill on their side of the property line is about 30 feet east of the centerline of old Dane Road. Their preference would be to have the landscape buffer extend along the entire east property line of the parcel under review. This, she said, would help to block the light spill over as well as the noise and would help develop the delineation at the edge of the future park and the transition to the more intensive industrial uses. She said that if there did wind up being an expansion into the southern parcel the trees could be removed or transplanted at that time, though she would not advocate that. Driscoll said that they would prefer a mixture of trees so that some would mature quickly and some would keep their foliage year-round to provide the best buffer. Driscoll said they would also prefer trees that reach a mature height of 30 to 40 feet at the maximum to prevent blockage of views to the west. She advocated defining the maintenance of the tree buffer, and the need to remove and replace dead trees, as well as including specifications that say the tree buffer cannot be cut down by a future owner. Driscoll advised that promises and good intentions should be documented as property owners, City Councils, Commissions, and staff change over time. She said that it is important to include conditional zoning requirements during the rezoning process to document the plans agreements and intentions for the future. Jim Dane, 4507 Dane Road Southwest, introduced himself as the son of John Dane, nephew to George Dane. Dane said he operates the farm at the base of the hill, and he wanted to let Commissioners know that while Grace Drive is a nice cement drive, it is fairly steep, and if there is any precipitation at all it is unsafe for farm equipment. He said that he really needs Eagle View Drive open to maintain his operations. He also said he lives two miles south on the continuation of Dane Road and that he is a little concerned about the hazard additional lighting from the car dealership would pose to those turning left onto Mormon Trek. He said he is afraid the lights could be blinding for drivers, and that it is a difficult intersection to begin with since it is Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 8 of 15 descending on a curve. Dane noted that there are about three or four residences further south on the Dane road that are primarily rental houses. He said that the elevation of those homes is well below that of the proposed car dealerships, so the lights may shine directly down upon them. There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Busard moved to approve REZ09-00011, an application submitted by Dealer Properties LLC from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 5.05 acres of property located on Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Eagle View Drive subject to the installation of a 20-foot wide landscape buffer to the S-3 standard from Eagle View Drive to the access easement to the south. Eastham asked what the length of the proposed buffer was. Freerks said Busard was proposing a buffer that ran the entire length of the property line to the access easement on the eastern side of the property. Eastham asked as a point of order if it was correct that seconding the motion did not preclude anyone from offering amendments to it. Freerks said it would not. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited discussion from the Commission. She noted that there were a lot of details to iron out. Eastham offered an amendment to the motion which would include a 20-foot wide landscape buffer to the S-3 screening standard along the northern part of the parcel from the boundary of Eagle View Drive down to Mormon Trek Boulevard. Greenwood Hektoen reminded Commissioners that as they consider conditions for the zoning, any requirements would need to be reasonable and need to be related to a public need that is created by the rezoning. Eastham thanked her for the reminder, and said that he did intend to offer his reasons for the requirement. Busard asked if a tree buffer right up against Eagle View Drive would pose a visual hazard for drivers. Walz said there are intersection visibility standards that would apply, and that the buffer would have to be on the applicant's property, not the right of way. Walz asked if Eastham was proposing a buffer between the proposed CI-1 zone and the adjacent CO-1 zone to the north. Koppes asked what the purpose of the buffer would be. For the purposes of allowing discussion of the amendment, Plahutnik seconded. Freerks asked that amendments be added and discussed one at a time. Eastham said he agreed with that process and would be happy to outline his reasoning for the amendment. Eastham said that when he visited the subject property and the adjacent proposed parkland, his observation was that from the northern boundary of the proposed parkland a considerable amount of the subject property was visible. Eastham said his intent in offering the amendment was to use a screening buffer to help with compatibility issues between the two uses. Payne asked if the current Honda Dealership and PIP Printing could also be seen from that point. Eastham said that they could. Payne noted that those businesses would not be shielded Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 9 of 15 from the parkland by the proposed buffer. Eastham agreed, but said that in his view the Honda Dealership was far enough removed from the parkland as to not pose a visual problem, and the PIP Printing building was in line with the type of aesthetic of any acceptable CO-1 uses. He said that such views of outside storage could pose a hindrance to the park as a vista destination. Busard said that the point of having a car dealership on the side of the road is for it and its merchandise to be visible. Eastham said that he believed the dealership would still be very visible from Mormon Trek. Busard said Mormon Trek was an arterial roadway where people travel at higher rates of speed. Eastham said that he was attempting to balance future park usage with future car dealership usage. Koppes said that her concern was that the zoning would be for any CI-1 use, not specifically a car dealership. Eastman said the buffer would help with any outdoor storage use. Freerks said she did not believe that wrapping it further is not really in the best interest of the use, and that other properties in the area will also be developed and would not be asked to screen in that matter. Plahutink asked what was required for screening by the zoning. Walz said S-2 screening would be required there by both the CI-1 and the CO-1 zoning. A vote was taken and the amendment and the amendment failed 6-1 (Eastham voting in favor of the amendment). Discussion returned to Busard's motion. Koppes asked why Busard was interested in continuing the buffer to the access easement rather than the lot-line. He said he could go either way, but that he thought the Commission's discussions had leaned toward having the buffer run the full length of the property. He said he was open to changing the ending point, though he thought that aesthetically the full length of the property would be better. Plahutnik said that while the Commission can only consider the matter in front of them, he noted that Larsen said there is an effort being made to include the next parcel into the car dealership in the future. He said that though that could not specifically be taken into consideration, the added cost to a developer if it was put in and then taken back out seems unnecessary. Busard said that was a good point and he would definitely be amenable to an amendment to the motion. Payne asked how the CZA would work if the developer did wind up purchasing the adjacent lot. She asked if they would then have to amend this CZA in order to remove the trees. Greenwood Hektoen said that they would. Eastham said that was preferable to him as there is ample rationale for having a buffer all along the southern boundary, and that condition can be changed if in the future if there is an annexation and rezoning of that property. Payne said she cannot see that taking the buffer all of the way to the access easement is of a huge benefit to the park because the park ends at the property line. Freerks said that as development occurs and trickles down in that direction, buffering will be addressed throughout the area. She said that hopefully whatever is done at that time will do the job of buffering the area. Payne said that was her thinking as well. Plahutnik offered an amendment to the motion to run the 20-foot buffer at the S-3 screening standard down 256 feet south of the property line at Eagle View Drive. Weitrel seconded. Weitzel said that he thought it was more appropriate to address additional buffering as future lots are developed. Freerks noted that the buffering is to occur on the applicant's property, not on the future parkland. Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 10 of 15 Busard said he was okay with the change. Eastham said he was alright with the change as well because what he saw when visiting the proposed parkland was that the southeastern view is obscured by intervening terrain. A vote was taken and the amendment was passed 7-0. Freerks said she had a question about the maintenance of the buffer. Walz said that the owner of the property is required to maintain the buffer. If it is observed that the buffer is removed, then the property owner will be asked to replace it. Walz said that does occur occasionally, but people are required to replace the required screening if removed. Payne asked if trees that die have to be replaced. Walz said they are. Payne asked how that was monitored. Walz said it was monitored on a complaint basis, or in the event that there was need for a building permit the CZA would be flagged for compliance. Greenwood Hektoen said the CZA would be an ongoing requirement until such time as the property is rezoned. Payne noted that this meant there would be no need to place a requirement in the CZA for the maintenance of the buffer because that would be understood; Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct. Plahutnik said that the screening and 20-foot buffer had been addressed, but there were a few things left to discuss that had been brought up in the informal meeting, such as lighting restrictions and car unloading. Plahutnik noted that lighting regulations were already failry strict, but that here had been some discussion of requiring the same lighting guidelines for this property as would be required in the airport zone. Concerning the unloading of cars in roadway, he said that if he parked his Honda Element in the middle of Gilbert Street and took things out of the trunk for an hour, he would likely get a ticket. He asked if this was the same for commercial vehicles or if there was some specialized permit process that allowed this. Walz said that such things would be enforced on a complaint basis. Greenwood Hektoen noted that issues of access and circulation would be determined at the time the site plan is reviewed. She said that if there were problems after that time, parking restrictions could certainly be added and/or enforced. Plahutnik said that there was also the matter of noise from the sound system coming and whether the noise ordinance was sufficient to address that problem, as well as questions about the access easement that had been brought up by Weitzel and Eastham. Eastham noted that signage had been discussed as well. Freerks said she had a question about the lighting. She said Larsen had represented that a specific type of light would be used for the car dealership. Freerks asked if that specific lighting mechanism would have to be put in a CZA in order to ensure that that kind of lighting was used. Walz said she believed the lighting standards always require downcast lighting to meet the dark sky standards. She said that all of that gets reviewed at the permitting stage. Freerks said that very specific, kinder, gentler lighting had been proposed by the applicant and she was curious if that needed to be specifically addressed. Plahutnik asked how much further requiring the airport standards would take the lighting scheme. Walz said that was something that the building department deals with so she could not describe it for the Commission. Walz said that someone who spoke had indicated that it would be similar to the Toyota Dealership, but she said that she could not verify that was the case. Greenwood Hektoen said that if the Commission did want some kind of stricter standard then now would be the time to impose that. Eastham said that he is happy that the light trespass standards do apply, and that he thinks they should limit the light from traveling horizontally from the dealership. He said that in this case the hours of operation did not make a lot of difference, but the height of the poles might; he said he did not believe the parkland would be used a whole lot at night. Payne pointed out that those standards just mean that the light cannot shine on your property; it does not mean that you will not be able to see light from the adjacent property. Eastham said that the light fixtures could extend 35 feet above grade level under the current code, which would extend noticably into the Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 11 of 15 air as viewed from the park. He wondered if reducing the maximum height to 25 feet might be appropriate as that would be closed to the height of the tree buffer. Weitzel said that his concern is that he is not a lighting engineer and it had been suggested that lower lights mean more lights which could result in more bleed off. Eastham said that he did not think the light fixture height would result in more bleed-off because the light trespass standards would still have to be met. Payne and Freerks said they would be comfortable with limiting the height to 30 feet. She said that it is the height proposed by the applicant in the concept plan, so it should work and should be less offensive than 35 feet might be. Payne said the trees would be between 30 and 40 feet, so if the lights were at 30 feet then they should still be somewhat buffered. Walz asked what trees Payne was talking about, and Payne said the buffer trees. Payne said that the grade of the park is another 16 feet higher than the grade of the subject property so the park will still be looking down on the dealership. Walz clarified that the S-3 screening standard consists of enough shrubs and small evergreens to form a continuous screen or hedge at least five to six feet in height and more than 50% solid year round. Walz said it could certainly be higher than six feet but it may not be 30 feet. Payne said she guessed she had been looking at what was on their concept plan. Walz clarified that the Commission was not adopting their concept plan and needed to be very clear about what they wanted. Freerks said she thought that everyone, including the applicant, is comfortable with putting those kinds of requirements in. Busard asked why the ordinance was not just amended. Walz explained that the S-3 standard is meant to provide separation of uses, and does not assume a change in grade. Freerks said that is a discussion for another time. Payne offered an amendment that included in the 20-foot buffer area to the S-3 standard there will be a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees in a spacing deemed healthy in consultation with the City Forester. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 7-0. Eastham offered an amendment to limit the height of any light fixtures to no more than 30 feet above grade level. Weitzel seconded. Eastham said his rationale is to attempt to minimize the visual impact of a CI-1 use on the nearby parkland. The motion carried 7-0. Freerks asked if anyone wished to address the speaker system. Eastham asked Walz to summarize the existing noise ordinance. Walz said there is a specified decibel level and hours of operation for a loudspeaker system. She said she did not know what the exact timing is with regard to commercial uses. She gave the example that high school athletic fields can use speakers between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Payne pointed out that the Commission could say that speakers could not be placed in the north and east sides of the building, but that it would have to be worded so that it did not matter what building was built there. Greenwood Hektoen said that the danger in this is that the adjacent property is not developed, though there is a home on it, and the use of it as a park in the future is still speculative; it could be developed as any CO-1 use. Payne said that this is very close to a residential home. Freerks asked if it was possible that the Honda dealership is exceeding the volumes allowed by the ordinance and is just not being enforced on. Walz advised against setting a decibel level. Eastham said he is not sure why outside speakers are necessary for any Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 12 of 15 outdoor storage facility because all personnel have access to electronic communication. Walz said they are used because those businesses find them most convenient; Eastham replied that there are many things that are most convenient that are not allowed in some situations. Weitzel said that ultimately it is a CI zone and there are certain uses permitted. Freerks said she did not feel the conditions have been too restrictive thus far. Payne said she did feel it would be unreasonable to say that no speakers were allowed because that would be limiting the way they conduct their business. Weitzel said it would be annoying to live next to it, but that he does not know how to regulate it beyond the noise ordinance. Payne asked if the Commission was interested in prohibiting lighted signs along the north and east sides of the building. She pointed out that this may be difficult to do as it is unknown what will actually be built on the site. Walz said that there are regulations governing signs adjacent to residential zones. Payne noted that those would not be applicable in this case because the adjacent zoning is Agricultural. Weitzel said that there seems to be different standards applied to signage in CI-1 zones already in that area; some car dealerships have short, discreet signs while some have very tall, visible signs. Walz said she did not know why as they would all be subject to the same sign codes. She said it may have to do with when the signs came into existence. Koppes pointed out that some of the car dealerships out there are in CH zones which allows larger signs. Walz said her sense is that people put signs on the side of buildings that face the street, though if the Commission wishes to they could prohibit signs facing the parkland. Weitzel said he thought this issue was addressed by the buffer. Freerks invited general discussion about a change in zoning from CO-1 to CI-1. Payne said she is torn between rezoning because although the Comprehensive Plan allows these types of uses, the nearby parkland is an area where you might not want such a use. She said that it may be that with the issues addressed in the proposed CZA the difference between the proposed use and that of a busy office building may not be that great. Weitzel said that he believed that the Commission had addressed a lot of the issues raised, and that the potential negative effects of the rezoning have been appropriately mitigated. Busard said he did not necessarily agree with all of the amendments but that he would be voting for the motion on the table because the alternative was to vote no for the whole application. Plahutnik said he always uses the Comprehensive Plan as his guide and that in this case it says that either zone is acceptable. He said that he is not sure, however, that the possibility of a park in the area had been foreseen at that time. Koppes said she too was feeling torn because of the flip-flop zoning. She said that she is aware that there is a development proposal on the table; however, there was a development proposal on the table for the parcel the last time it was rezoned. She said she would support the motion but with the caveat that she would likely not flip the zoning again unless there is an extremely good reason for doing so. Eastham said he agrees that the Comprehensive Plan supports CI-1 zoning for the parcel, but that he too believes the plan itself is out of date and did not anticipate the park. Eastham said that he believes this is a very valuable piece of parkland and is the only park that has vistas of the community as its draw. He said he could envision it as a destination park. He said he hoped the proposed conditions of the rezoning are enough to make for a reasonable compromise for both the Danes and the applicant. Freerks said she agrees with Eastham's comments, and that the city does need CI-1 zoning. She said that the Commission has been trying to make the two uses as compatible as possible, though it is admittedly and imperfect compromise. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. DISCUSSION OF UNIVERCITY NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP Eastham noted that he is the President of the Board for an organization that actually has an Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 13 of 15 application in for funds to do rental housing within the UniverCity area. He said that since tonight's representation is a discussion it is his understanding that this does not represent a conflict. Walz explained that this came about as a result of planning. In the Historic Preservation Plan and the Central District plan there were a number of goals in relation to encourage long-term renters and homeowners to relocate to these areas. She said there is also language in those plans encouraging in reinvestment in the city, partnerships with the University, and preservation of existing housing stock. Walz said the goals of the partnership are to create a healthier balance of owner-occupied and rental property and to ensure that the neighborhoods that surround the university remain vital, safe, affordable, and attractive places. These goals are essential to the university's recruitment efforts and sustainability initiatives. The designated neighborhoods are located near campus, retain a single family character to their housing, and have a large student renter population competing with single family uses for that housing. The focus of the partnership is to improve the condition and affordability of the housing and to maintain a balance between student rental and family housing. The Miller- Orchard neighborhood was chosen as the designated neighborhood for the west side of campus. Walz said part of the program is to provide down-payment assistance and home renovation assistance with the help of downtown employers and community partners. She said the hope is that in the future there will be an enrollment program where elderly homeowners who wish for their property to remain owner-occupied could enroll and give the program the right of first refusal. Several existing city programs and policies will assist in making this program work, such as historic preservation regulations, capital improvement programs, the Office of Neighborhood Services, etc. The I-Jobs Affordable housing Program is the first phase of this partnership. The program is a 2 year program with a grant of $1 million from the state. The program is intended to be an economic stimulus and is for owner-occupied affordable housing. The goal is to renovate and sell 20 homes within the designated neighborhoods. The City will purchase homes with low- interest loans provided by local lenders; the I-Jobs grant will allow the City do up to $50,000 in renovations with all of the work being done by local contractors; the house would then be sold to income-qualified applicants through a lottery process. The houses have to remain owner- occupied and affordable for ten years; the renovations are forgivable in five years. Qualified homes must have a current rental permit -a policy that may be amended to account for elderly people moving out of their homes, and in a condition that can be reasonably addressed with $50,000. The homes must be under $200,000, and must be distributed throughout the eligible neighborhoods. The committee governing the process is made up of a wide cross-section of interests in the community. Walz said that at the end of the two year funding period the hope is that the organization can become aself-sustaining one. A separate but related program that may arise from this in the future that would similarly promote affordable rental housing in these areas. Koppes had concerns that these two programs would run counter to one another, but Walz said she did not think that would be the case. She said she thought it would be a program that could supplement the other rather than compete with it. Plahutnik said that current zoning in the applicable areas are for no more than three unrelated people in a residence. Walz said it is meant to be a really community building program. Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2010 -Formal Page 14 of 15 OTHER: Freerks noted that given the current discussions regarding school redistricting, the issue of clustering of low-income populations is continually coming into the conversation and what she is hearing in these conversations are comments that may really come down to inclusionary housing zoning. She said that what she is hearing is that maybe the redistricting is not the solution but that the community may need to take actions in a more holistic way. She said that in one meeting she attended swell-meaning but misinformed individual placed the problem at the doorstep of the City, saying that the City placed low-income residents all in one area. Freerks tried to explain that the City does not tell anyone where to live and that really the problem of clustering is a sum of a long equation with many factors. She said that this is a time when people are beginning the discussion and so it may be a right time to bring it up. She cautioned that she is not saying she is for or against such an idea, just that the time might be ripe for discussion. Walz agreed that it is a unique opportunity just to talk about what kinds of housing gets put where. Walz said it was a good opportunity to make people aware of what the larger issues are, whether inclusionary zoning is a solution or not. Eastham said that he would be interested in gathering as much public information as possible about where different priced and different used housing is actually located and how that relates to our overall zoning patterns. Freerks said she is interested in learning what other communities do. She said there are issues in the community and she is not sure redistricting is the addressing it in the best way for the most people. Koppes asked Walz to update the Ace Recycling Board of Adjustment meeting when that occurred. Payne noted that she would not be able to attend the next meeting in February. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: January 21, 2010: Busard motioned to approve the minutes. Payne seconded. The minutes were approved 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Weitrel motioned to adjourn. Payne seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 9:08 p.m. Z O O V Z Z N 0 z Q Z z z Q J a O o U z ~ W W C W V o ~ aN a o ~ z ~ W ~ H F- a ~ N x x x x x x x r N X X X X X X X N ~~ ~ H X W ~ ~ ~ 0 ~- ~ ~ 0 M ~ ~ 0 N ~ ~ 0 O ~ ~ 0 O ~ ~ 0 M ~ ~ 0 w ~ a z Q = cn ~ ~ a cn ~ m W J Q = V = E- cn a w Z z Q ~ w w ~ u. ~ W ~ _ W w a a o Y J ~ = U ui z ~ Q a } J a ~ Y ~ = Q ~ a ~ ~ W ~ - W ~ N X X X X X X D W r r C'7 N O O M ~X , o , o , o ~ o ~ o , 0 ~ 0 W W ~ ~ Q J W J J J Q 2 Q = Z V1 V Z Q . 2 ~ ~ W U ~ Y ~ m GC Q Y N W W F' w W Q = i- ~ w a z A = N ~ ~ Q cn ~ cn Q w ~ a O >- Q Q ~ - W z m w w Y a a ~ O z F= W W Q 0 Z E 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~' Z ~ ~ ~ U p~ ~ X ~a~~ c ~~ ~~~~c~ ~~QZ o a Q ~~ ~~ Z iiuw~n xOOz w Y 3b 3 MINUTES APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 - 6:30 PM EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Andy Douglas, Charlie Drum, Jarrod Gatlin Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Brian Richman, Rachel Zimmermann Smith, MEMBERS ABSENT: Rebecca McMurray STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long OTHERS PRESENT: The Housing Fellowship: Maryann Dennis, Charlie Eastham Mayor's Youth Employment Program: Roger Lusala, Kim Downes, Katie Lammers Caring Hands & More: Bruce Teague Dolphin International: Rafael Crespo BBSJC/ISU Extension: Gene Mohling, Scott Hansen Crisis Center of Johnson County: Beth Ritter Ruback The Free Medical Clinic: Sandy Pickup ISIS: Yolanda Spears, Ladiester Lamaster Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity: Mark Patton Iowa City Housing Authority: Steven Rackis RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Brian Richman at 6:35 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 10, 11, & 16, 2010 MEETING MINUTES: Richman noted that the meetings on the 10th and 11th consisted of the site visits done by the Commission. The meeting on the 16th was the most recent formal meeting. Zimmermann Smith motioned to approve the minutes. Gatlin seconded. The minutes were approved 8-0 (McMurray absent). PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE2of19 STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Long handed out a map and gave an update on the Single Family New Homes Program. He explained that this is a program funded by CDBG flood recovery money. The intent is to replace the homes being bought out and demolished as part of the City's flood mitigation program. The State awarded the City funds to construct 77 homes throughout Iowa City. Long said that the City is now in round two of the project; 40 homes have already been constructed. The map outlines the locations and price ranges of the homes in phase two. Long said there are 19 homes priced under $150,000 and 18 priced under $180,000; the homes are scattered pretty evenly throughout the city. He said that construction on the second phase should begin sometime in May. Hightshoe said that the City received $1.7 million for round two. She said that income-eligible homebuyers will receive 25% off the acquisition of the home. Hightshoe said that there is currently not a wait list; but that once the program is ready for applicants they will do a press release and get the word out through the City website and through lenders, realtors, etc.... She said they must wait to advertise until IDED approves the development plan. Long provided an update on the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnerships Program, a program funded through I-Jobs in which the City and the University are partnering to acquire 20 homes that are currently rental properties close to downtown and campus. The program will renovate those homes with up to $50,000 in assistance (in the form of a forgivable loan) and then sell them as affordable homes, giving first priority to people who work in the downtown area or at the University of Iowa. Long said the first three homes were acquired this week. Hart asked if the targeted rental properties were single family rental homes. Long said that they have been to- date. Hart asked if this meant that the program was not taking one or two bedroom units off-line by converting houses with multiple units in them. Long reiterated that the first three had been single family rental units. Hart asked if there was a plan to ensure that the number of one and two-bedroom units available downtown would not be cut into by this conversion program. Long said that it was a good point and that it was unlikely that would occur since homes with multiple units are much more expensive than single family rental homes. He said that in order to acquire homes that can then be sold to income-eligible households, the cost of the unit must be relatively low. He said that it has been difficult to find inexpensive enough units. Long said that University employees can receive up to $5,000 in down-payment assistance. He said that the first three properties purchased were located at 1207 Muscatine, 517 S. Governor and 310 Douglass Court. The price ranges had been $85,000-$180,000. He said he believed a good range of housing options were available in these properties. Hightshoe noted that part of the program was intended to invest in the neighborhood and get the housing stock in better condition. Long said that typically the targeted neighborhoods have more than 50% rental properties. Long said the goal is to keep the ratio of homeowner-occupied to rental-occupied fairly even. Hightshoe said that City Council did not approve The Housing Fellowship's (THF) site acquisition of 2500 Muscatine. Hightshoe said that if the current policy is enforced, and if THF has not applied for low-income tax credit status by March 15th, then the $220,000 FY10 allocation to THF will be out of compliance. Hightshoe said that at the March 25th meeting, the Commission would then need to make a recommendation to either leave the funds with the THF project, or recommend a specific project the Commission would rather the funds went to. Hightshoe said she believed that $191,671 were HOME funds and about $28,329 were CDBG funds. In response to Richman's questions at a prior meeting regarding the future of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, Hightshoe said that she spoke with an Iowa Finance Authority HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 3 of 19 (IFA) low-income tax-credit analyst. Hightshoe said she was told the project would keep moving forward as it is an Internal Revenue Service program. The analyst said that when the value of the price drops, gaps in financing occur, so the federal government created a program providing $72 million in gap financing this year, and plans to expand it for next year. Richman noted that there are no FY11 tax credit projects applying for CDBG/HOME funding. Hightshoe informed the Commission that the City Council also did not approve the revised Unsuccessful or Delayed Projects Policy. Hightshoe advised Commissioners that a copy of The Iowa City Housing Authority's (ICHA) annual report has been included in the HCDC packet and will be an agenda item at a later date. Hightshoe noted that the map in the Commissioners' packets shows all ICHA public housing units, rental units, transitional shelter, elderly rentals, and project-based rental housing. Hightshoe said that the only low-income housing not indicated on the map was Section 8 rental housing, and that is because it is a snapshot in time. Because Section 8 tenants live in units owned by private landlords, the location of any given Section 8 assisted household is variable. Hightshoe noted that HOME-assisted projects cannot refuse a tenant solely because they are Section 8 voucher holders. She said the map is intended to be a reference for future conversations. Hightshoe updated Commissioners on the Extend the Dream project. Hightshoe said that conflict of interest provisions under CDBG/HOME rules are very strict. As a result, Lepic Kroeger would not be able to accept any commission on the sale because the Board President is affiliated with the company. The original application was for a Public Facilities project, with no rental unit included in the application. Because of this, if the Commission recommends funding the space it must be used as strictly commercial space; no one can live there. Hightshoe noted that the applicant can always approach City Council directly after the Commission has made its recommendation and ask that the rental unit be allowed; however, the rental unit would have to be occupied by one of the business managers, and that business manager would have to be low-to-moderate income. Another condition for funding would be that Extend the Dream would have to institute new procedures for separation of financial duties. Hightshoe said that their financial auditor had said that he would come up with some strict recommendations for Extend the Dream sometime after April 15th. Hightshoe said it was likely that staff would make sure those recommendations had been in effect for a couple of months before releasing any funds to the organization. Hightshoe said that all of these matters had been discussed with Extend the Dream, and that staff is awaiting their response. She said that the response is expected prior o the Commission's March 25th meeting. Hightshoe said that she believed any other information. that had been requested by the Commissioners could be found in their packets. DISCUSSION REGARDING FY11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTENERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) REQUSTS: Richman noted that there are two meetings left for the allocation cycle: tonight's meeting, and the March 25th meeting. He said that the meeting on March 25th will be to finalize allocations. Commissioners received a table outlining the suggested allocations and rankings for individual projects as proposed by each Commissioner. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss these proposed allocations and the thought-processes that went into them. Richman explained that new allocation forms would then be completed by Commissioners prior to the next meeting. Hightshoe said she would distribute new allocation forms to the Commissioners. Richman HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 4 of 19 noted that typically Commissioners had not re-done their ranking sheets, but that they did generally move dollars around on their allocation sheets. Hightshoe explained that the recently revised CITY STEPS is what guides this funding cycle. She said that in that plan priorities were established as being high, medium, or low. Hightshoe said she had taken the Commissioners' ranking sheets and identified the high score, low score, the range and the average score. She said that CITY STEPS states that allocations will be based on priority, with the high priority items being funded first, then moving on to medium priorities, and lastly, if funding remains, the low priority items. Hightshoe said that the category rank was transposed to average allocation, and that that is what order the items are listed in. HOUSING ACTIVITIES: Richman asked if anyone wished to offer any comments as to how they had approached funding Housing Activities. Zimmermann Smith said that she had two main concerns in her allocation approach, one project-specific, and one more general in nature. First, she had specific concerns about the rental aspect of the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnerships Program. She said that it had been her impression that this was a homeownership program, as it had been promoted on the City's website and in the newspaper as such. She said that she was wondering about the shift in focus from homeownership to rental. Long said that the program was designed to stabilize neighborhoods in the downtown and University areas. Long said the current website focuses on the I-JOBS homeownership grant application, though the UniverCity program is much broader and includes the support of well managed affordable rental properties close to downtown and campus. He said the I-JOBS grant is focused strictly on homeownership, and that has sort of clouded the overall theme of the UniverCity message; but the whole idea is to provide safe, decent, affordable housing downtown whether it be rental or owner-occupied. Zimmermann Smith noted that all of the publications on the City's website focus on homeownership. Long said that actually the first part of the website focuses on the overall broad UniverCity program and the rest of the website focuses on the I-JOBS grant, but agreed that it is difficult to distinguish. Zimmermann Smith said that the more general issue she was concerned with involved the school district's efforts to redistrict. Zimmermann Smith said that some of the applications involve projects that could impact the free-and-reduced lunch percentages for schools in the project areas. Zimmermann Smith said that this concerned her not only because she is a parent of child in the school district, but also because she would like to see City Council and the School Board get together to come up with creative ways to disperse some of this housing. Zimmermann Smith said that none of the applicants, with the exception of Isis, have agreed not to purchase property in the two tracts identified in the 2007 map as having concentrations of low-income housing. She noted that Horace Mann is within the boundaries of the UniverCity Program, and that the school currently has a 55%free-and-reduced lunch population, which is approximately 20% above the district average. She said that if the Commission puts more low- income housing in that area and the school district does not wind up redistricting, the free-and- reduced population could become even greater at that school. She said that one redistricting option before the School Board lowers the free-and-reduced lunch population at Horace Mann to 13%; if that option was adopted, then the UniverCity Program could be a great option for that area. Zimmermann Smith said she would like to send a message to the City Council to take such issues into consideration when they are approving funding for projects, and that is why she funded various rental housing projects at zero. Long noted that City Council guidance for HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 5 of 19 HCDC is based on location. Zimmermann Smith said she would like Council to provide more updated guidance in light of what is going on locally with other governmental organizations. Long asked if it was correct that free-and-reduced lunch was set at poverty level. Zimmermann Smith said she believed so. Steven Rackis of ICHA said that that information is in the ICHA pamphlet that had been distributed to Commissioners. Long said that to qualify for free-and- reduced lunch he believes that a family has to be at or below 30% of the median income; all HCDC-funded projects would be at or below 60% of the median income. Zimmermann Smith said that there are some statistics in the pamphlet that indicate that most of the program participants qualify for free-and-reduced lunch. Hightshoe said that that pamphlet refers to Section 8 clients, which is a different program. Rackis said that Zimmermann Smith was touching on a hot button issue. He said that the press and the school district would have people believe that all kids on free-and-reduced lunch are in assisted housing, affordable housing, or low-income housing. He said that the ICHA report shows that there are 1,200 kids on the Section 8 program. Of those 1,200 children, 1,100 are eligible for free-and-reduced lunch, though it is not known whether or not they have actually applied for it or received it. Rackis said that even if every eligible child on Section 8 did receive free-and-reduced lunch, that number still only represents one-third of the total number of children on free-and-reduced lunch in the Iowa City School District. This means that over 2,000 children throughout the community participate in the free-and-reduced lunch program and do not receive Section 8 rental assistance. Rackis said that the notion that free-and-reduced lunch equals assisted/affordable housing which equals bad test scores is not a notion that is supported by any facts. Zimmermann Smith said she had made not contentions about test scores. However, Zimmermann Smith said, there is a direct impact of free-and-reduced percentages on schools. She said this is not because the children are bad kids, but that there are quantifiable effects of high free-and-reduced populations. Rackis said that there is no cause and effect between free-and-reduced lunch and low test scores. Zimmermann Smith said she was not interested in debating free-and-reduced lunch; rather, it is obvious to her that the City Council is concerned about these issues at some level or they would not have had the 2007 map drawn, which happens to include a couple of schools with high populations of children eligible for free-and-reduced lunch. Zimmermann Smith said she was not trying to start a big argument, she simply wanted people to take this under consideration, and she wanted City Council to think about it. She said that it is frustrating as a citizen to see bodies of government failing to communicate on these issues, and failing to come up with more comprehensive plans for resolution. She said this was the rationale she used in awarding zero allocations to the projects she did. Charlie Eastham of THE said that his recollection of the HCDC guidelines for housing funding was that they said nothing at all about the school district. Rackis noted that the original 2007 map did allow for affordable housing in Census Tract 18, the Grant Wood neighborhood; however, City Council did not adopt that recommendation. Richman asked if anyone else had guiding principles they would like to discuss, or if the discussion could move into individual projects. No one offered comment so the discussion moved to the Shelter House/NAMI rental project. Shelter House/NAMI -Rental ($200,000 request): Richman noted that on this project he was somewhat of an outlier, saying that it looked as though most everyone but he and McMurray had funded the project at a high level. Richman said his primary concern with this project was the fairly high per-bedroom cost of $33,000. He said the model was an interesting one, but it was a new model for the community, which also impacted his decision. He said he is certainly in favor of new options for addressing problems in the community, but that the novelty of this idea was a bit of a concern for him. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 6 of 19 Chappell said the novelty was not an issue for him, though he respected Richman's concern. He said that he recommended full funding for the two projects for which his numbers were highest. To an extent, he then tried to recommend funding proportional to his rankings. He said that the cost per bedroom, while high, did not seem inordinate to him. Chappell said that this project was one of the few that he thought was offering something a little more innovative. McKay said he felt somewhat the same as Chappell. Additionally, he said that this group was putting up about half the funds themselves, and had demonstrated success in the past. He said he also liked the target population for this project. He said this population is one that every community struggles with and that this seems like an innovative approach. Richman asked if this was a project that would work with less than full funding. Hightshoe said she believed so. Long said that their application said that the project could proceed with less than full funding. He said their application listed three priorities depending on the level of funding, which are: first, property purchase; second, site development through partial building rehab; and lastly, completion of rehab. Richman asked if Hart or Douglas cared to share their thoughts on the program as they had only partially funded it. Hart said that while the project came out highly rated for her, but that does not in and of itself make it worthy of funding. She said that she too is highly impressed with the level of funding support the applicant is able to secure on its own, as well as its proven success in being able to manage these projects. She said she had concerns about fully funding the project from the perspective that Shelter House had been heavily funded in recent years in order to complete their new facility. She said that her thinking was to provide enough funding to keep the project going, while still spreading funding around to other projects and agencies. She said she was open to funding at a higher or lower level if need be. Douglas said that he pretty much agreed with Harts statements. He said he could have given more as he feels it is a great project. He said the project is especially important as it seems to be the only one focusing on mental illness and homelessness during this funding cycle. He said he could conceivably go higher on his allocation. There were no further comments on the Shelter House/NAMI application, and discussion moved to Isis Investments. Richman noted that as the Commission works through the allocation worksheet, items/projects can certainly be revisited if need be. Isis Investments, LLC -Rental ($250,000 request): Hart said she had a question about the Isis application. She said that she did not fully fund Isis as she was trying to spread the money around. She said she noticed that the project targeted the 0-30% income range, and that she was interested in knowing if there had been any success in the program at getting people at that income level into homeownership. Yolanda Spears spoke on behalf of Isis Investments and said that at this point the focus was still on building their clients up so that they could reach a level at which homeownership was possible. Hart asked if the idea was that presently Isis rented to people at that income level with the plan of selling the home to the renter in the future. Spears said this was correct. Spears said that Isis works closely with their renters, building relationships and trust. She said that the program counsels clients on finances, credit, and other aspects necessary to homeownership, as well as offering a wealth of services and referrals on other topics that help maintain successful families. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 7 of 19 Gatlin said that while he did not fully fund Isis, it is a project that he really likes. He said he is impressed with their philosophy of relationship building, and the idea of investing not only in the community but in the individual as a means of getting the family out of the rental track and into homeownership. Richman said that one of the things he likes about this project is that it gets affordable units on- line quickly. Because it is an acquisition and rehab project there is no long construction or financing period. He said that this fact, in addition to the populations served and the services offered, carries a lot of weight with him. Drum said he has always been impressed with the success of Isis. He said their past successes score very highly with him. Richman noted that Zimmermann Smith allocated zero to this project. She said that the reasons were the same general ones she had given at the outset of the Housing Activities discussions. Zimmermann Smith said that she understood that Isis had actually put into their application that they would try not to put projects in the two census tracts discussed. However, she feels there still needs to be some more guidance from Council. Hightshoe said that Isis has followed the Council-directed map in all of their projects to-date. Zimmermann Smith said she had noticed that and does believe that this is a good project. Iowa City Housing Authority/Domestic Violence Intervention Program - TBRA ($40,000 re uest Richman said this was the one project on which there seemed to be universal consensus on fully funding it, something he did not believe had ever happened on a Housing project during his time on the Commission. There was no further discussion on the matter. The Housing Fellowship - CHDO Operating ($40,000 request): Richman noted that there is a fixed limit on what can be allocated for THF's CHDO Operating expenses of 5%, which is approximately $40,000 this year. Chappell said he did not recommend any funding for operating expenses for either THE or Isis. Chappell said that it was not clear to him if the Commission was required to spend some of its funds in this manner or not, noting that he would obviously adjust his allocations if required. Chappell said it seemed to him that both of those organizations seem pretty well established. He said that in response to staff questions as to whether or not the operating funds would continue to be requested, THE had indicated that they would continue to apply for operating expenses because the federal regulations say that this is a good thing to fund. Chappell said that in comparison to the other projects, operating expenses did not rank as high for him. Hightshoe said that the Commission did not have to spend 5% of its allocations on CHDO operating expenses. Chappell said that he did recommend funding for both of the projects for those organizations, just not the operating expenses. Chappell said that he assumes that there is some level of operating expenses built into the budgets for the projects. Hightshoe said there is now; in the past there had not been. Long noted that CHDO operating expenses are used for more than just one individual project; they are for the entire entity. Long said that while funding CHDOs is not mandatory, it is strongly encouraged by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Additionally, The Affordable Housing Market Analysis completed three years ago encourages the City to support CHDO operating expenses. Hightshoe said that when the City began administering the HOME program, a lot of affordable housing was funded without developer fees and with as minimal funding as possible for operating expenses. Over time, Hightshoe HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 8 of 19 said, that philosophy strained the organizations. She said that 15% of funds have to be allocated to a CHDO; in Iowa City there are two: HACAP and THF. Allocating to CHDO operating expenses does not affect your requirements under the HOME program. Hightshoe said that the City does try to support the CHDOs that it has. She said Cedar Rapids had only one CHDO and it went bankrupt. Hightshoe said she had discussed this with some Commission members in the past, but that the City does try to encourage CHDO development because there are only two. Hightshoe said some communities in Iowa only have one CHDO, and they fund the same organization every year. Hightshoe asked if that had answered Chappell's question. Chappell said he had not really had a question; rather, he felt he should offer an explanation as to why he opted not to fund the request. Richman said that when THF first began requesting operating expenses three or four years ago he had been not terribly enthusiastic about it. Over time, he has concluded that there are two ways that HCDC supports operations and future development initiatives at THF. One way is through HOME funded operating expenses, and another is through the developer fees associated with specific projects. Richman said that in a lot of ways he feels like the direct CHDO allocation is a lot more transparent than the developer fees, and he likes that aspect of it. The Housing Fellowship -Rental ($682,443 request): Gatlin said that in some ways he believes more in the rental programs than in the homeownership programs, and that this guided some of his funding decisions. Gatlin said that THF has a history of doing a good job with rental properties, and that is why he allocated a large amount to this project. Richman said he had asked Hightshoe to prepare a sheet that outlined the terms requested by the various applicants which would indicate the proposed affordability periods and the proposed repayment terms (if any). Richman said that one of the things he likes about the THF rental project is that there is a relatively long 20-year affordability period, giving the Commission a long- term bang for its buck. Richman said he believes that nearly all of the projects this time around requested either no repayment or forgivable loans. He said that as he has expressed in previous years, he does have some concerns about that, and would like to see the Commission look at a developer's potential ability to pay back at least a portion of the allocated funds. Chappell said that the amount of funding he had allocated to the project was just a function of making the numbers work. McKay said that he ended up with an oddball number because he had looked at all of the projects and wanted to give this project as much as he could in balance with the needs of the other projects. Richman said that he and Zimmermann Smith were the only two people who did not allocate the full amount available for Housing Activities. He asked staff what the Commission was required to spend on Housing. Hightshoe said that the Commission is required to spend about $1.4 million on Housing. Zimmermann Smith pointed out that if the full amount is not spent then the money is reallocated. Hightshoe said that it can be reallocated, but the applicant has only two years to commit and the clock starts on July 31, 2010. The housing provider would have to find a site, do an environmental review, and enter an agreement within that timeframe. If that statutory requirement is not met, there is no going back to City Council, the funds are automatically recaptured by HUD. Hightshoe said that if there is a large amount of money that is not allocated, that becomes problematic and the Commission would be looking at a mid-year HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 9 of 19 allocation. If the amount of money is smaller, then carrying it over for a year is not as problematic. Richman said that he guessed the concept behind not allocating all of the money is an underlying assumption that some other project is going to come along that is more worthy of funding, which of course may or may not be the case. Dolphin Lake Point -Rental ($584,000 request): Richman invited discussion on the Dolphin Lake Point project. He noted that this project seemed to have Commissioners divided, with five Commissioners allocating no money and four Commissioners allocating some level of funding. He asked someone who had allocated to the project for comment. Chappell said that he liked the size of the units. He said studio apartments are not going to draw large numbers of people to congregate in them, they tend to target single parents or individuals. Chappell said he would like to see more money from other sources in the project, and that he was initially concerned by the for-profit status of the applicant; however, upon review he came to the conclusion that other for-profit entities had also been funded and been successful in the past. Chappell said that he was comfortable allocating the same amount of money for this project as had been allocated for the failed homeownership project. Chappell said that he also felt confident that the construction should be able to move quickly since the buildings were down to bare walls and they had done a lot of rehab in that area before. Drum said his concern was that the property was in the exact same state when he had toured it a year ago for the other project. He said the fact that the project is not moving at all is a concern to him. He said it was also a concern for him that the project has been given money in the past and was not successful enough to actually use it. He said that he understands that this is a different request and a different proposal, but it troubles him that they were not successful in the past. Gatlin said he is in full agreement with Drum. He said he did not have enough confidence in the organization to allocate funds to it. McKay said that he came at it from the angle that developers are sometimes successful. and sometimes are not. He said that the fact that they came up on the wrong end of this project once was not reason enough to discontinue support forever. However, McKay said he also likes to see a developer bring some of their own money to the table, and he did not see that happening here. He said that Dolphin was requesting $584,000, but had not demonstrated that they were willing to risk any more of their own money. He said it just felt more like a bailout than an investment to him, and one that still did not have a high probability of success at that. Hightshoe said that some of these concerns may be the result of staff's directions to the applicant. She said that when the applicant was applying to the program, staff advised them against subjecting all 300-400 units to the requirements of the HOME program, and instead encouraged them to focus only on units they wished to have HOME restrictions on. The applicant chose to apply for funding on only one building. Hightshoe said they are continuing to rehab other buildings, and the reason they did not put a local match toward the HOME funded building is because they felt it would enable them to move more quickly with their other rehab projects. Long said that staff also advised Dolphin not to start construction until July 1S` because of the environmental review requirements. Long noted that there was a representative of Dolphin present if there were any questions from the Commission. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 10 of 19 Richman said he agreed with Mci<ay's sentiments. He said he was concerned that this project seems to create a lot of affordable rental units in an area of town where there is not necessarily as much. of a need for them. He said he respected that these are a different type of unit in that they are efficiencies and studios, which is an underserved market in the city. However, he had a hard time with the number of affordable rental units there. Douglas asked what Richman meant when he said there was not a need for affordable rental units in that area. Richman said that he did not know what the rental market rate was on that side of town, but he did not know how much subsidy is really needed for people who would want to live in these units. Chappell said he had thought about that too, however, in the end he figured that the units would wind up being affordable units in some way shape or form, so ultimately, denying funding would not change that there would be that number of affordable units in that area. Richman asked what the value of allocating money to the project would be if the units will be affordable regardless. Chappell said that it was his impression that the City wanted more affordable units. Douglas said he supports the project to a degree because it proposes to support the stock of affordable rental units which he feels is an important goal. He said that while there have been issues with the applicant in the past, this is a different project. Douglas said that the bottom line is that it would increase the number of long term affordable units in Iowa City. Hart said her thinking was in line with that of Douglas. She noted that the owners have been able to regroup from the homeownership model and are pursuing a more practical approach to fixing the units up for rentals. Richman asked the applicant if the proposed affordability period of ten years could be extended to a period of twenty years. Rafael Crespo, Dolphin International, said he was pretty sure that they would be open to that but would have to check. Richman asked Crespo to look into it and e-mail Hightshoe or Long. Crespo asked if he could address the Commission. Richman asked Commissioners if they were willing to hear from Dolphin and they indicated they would listen to a brief comment. Crespo said that the developers have invested about $150,000 into rehabilitation of that building to-date. He reiterated that work had stopped when they learned about the application opportunity. Crespo said that the initial project had failed because the prospective homeowners had failed to secure financing. He said that at one point the units had actually been sold, but that the banks did not want to get involved once the economy took a downturn so the buyers could not get financed. Richman said he did not want to get into an argument about what constitutes a "sold" unit, but that he went to this project and actually went through the files last year and what he saw was a lot of applications with un-cashed $100 checks serving as deposits. He said in his mind that did not really constitute a sold unit. He said that he felt there were a lot of issues with that project. Richman said that this project could be a particular challenge because half of the Commission voted not to fund the project at all. He said that as people go through the second round of allocations they need to consider whether they can get comfortable with either some level of funding or no funding at all. Habitat for Humanity -Home Ownership ($190,000 request): Discussions moved to the Habitat for Humanity application. Gatlin said that he did not fund this project because he does not see a connection to the community after the home is created. He HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 11 of 19 said he is looking for more of a connection to the property as it relates to the community as a whole. Gatlin said it seems somewhat like Habitat puts up a house and then leaves as soon as they put a family in it. He said he just could not fund it on those terms. Douglas asked Gatlin if he could provide an example of what kind of ongoing support he was looking for. Gatlin said he was thinking long-term; he said that Habitat would likely not come back and rehab the house in five years or help pay for its upkeep. He said that it seems as though the program drops low- income housing into a neighborhood and makes no connection to the community beyond the initial purchase. Hightshoe said that Habitat does retain the right of first refusal, which allows Habitat to buy the home back from the homeowner if the homeowner decides to sell. Hightshoe acknowledged that the home is indeed the homeowners and not Habitat's once the sale is final. Mark Patton of Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity noted that Habitat serves as the lender, as well as the developer; as a result, the home remains affordable for a twenty year period. Patton said the homeowner pays full property taxes, and is required to take homeownership classes for a full year after the purchase. Gatlin asked what Habitat's success rates were for having families remain in the home for ten or twenty years. Patton said that they have had one foreclosure out of 56 loans. He noted that Habitat feels the rankings are somewhat misleading as their program often charges less for a mortgage than would be paid in rent. There were no further comments on Habitat's project. Richman noted that Hightshoe would be putting together something on affordability terms and financial terms for Commissioners to review. He asked if she could indicate if repayment might be appropriate for a particular project, and whether she had recommendations for specific terms. Hightshoe said she could give general recommendations. There were no further discussions on Housing Activities. Long noted that those in attendance from agencies whose projects had already been discussed could leave the meeting if they wished, as their topics would likely not be returned to. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program -Facility Rehab ($97,237 request): Richman noted that a lot of Commissioners had funded the Mayor's Youth Empowerment Project (MYEP) at the mid-range level. Richman asked if anyone had comments for the way they funded these projects. Chappell said that all of his numbers were based on the scores. He said that in general he started off trying to have a specific formula, but that in the end he had to adjust them. He said the higher the score, the higher the percentage for funding for the most part. McKay said that in this case he looked at the applicant's priorities, knowing that there would not be enough money to fund all projects fully. McKay said that there are an awful lot of good projects, but that he tried to look at a fair distribution. Drum said he was guided for the most part by the scores, as well as how much of the money came from HCDC and how much came from elsewhere. He said that where partial funding would be of benefit, he tried to do so. In the case of MYEP, he said, they have already invested a tremendous amount of their own money already. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 12 of 19 Extend the Dream -Acquisition ($200,000 request): Richman said that this project and Big Brothers/Big Sisters both requested $200,000. He said that his take was that he could either fund one or the other, or split them. Richman said that most of the Commissioners came in at around $200,000 combined for the two projects combined. Richman said that he likes Extend the Dream and wants them to find a permanent home; however, it seemed to him that there were outstanding issues that were not going to be resolved prior to the Commission having to make decisions. That is the reason he allocated zero for this project. Chappell said he liked the project and the two projects Richman mentioned scored the highest for him. Chappell said he proposed funding Extend the Dream at a higher percentage because he got the impression that the Big Brothers/Big Sisters project was going to happen with or without funding from HCDC. He said he has the same concerns as Richman about Extend the Dream's application, and if the outstanding issues are not taken care of by next week his funding allocation will also be changed to zero. Hart said she based some of her allocations on what kind of public facilities work was being requested. She said that having tripped on one of the requested items, some of them seemed like actual safety issues, and it is those to which she gave priority. Chappell said that it had seemed to him that Extend the Dream would not be able to go through with their project without HCDC funding. Richman asked if it was correct that Big Brother/ Big Sisters was moving forward regardless if HCDC funding. Chappell said that was his impression from the timelines they presented. Gene Mohling of Big Brothers/Big Sisters said that they would be waiting until they have word on the annexation application before proceeding. He said there would be no construction prior to July 15t. Scott Hansen of Big Brothers/Big Sisters commented that it has been a long process for them to get into this new facility. He said that over the past eight years the program has gone from serving 200 kids to serving 800 kids annually. Richman said that one of the things he likes about this project is the number of people it serves. He said that it is a big investment, but it serves a large section of the community. Mohling said that there have been two years of planning to get where they are now. Chappell noted that while most Commissioners had allocated $200,000 for Big Brothers/Big Sisters and Extend the Dream combined, his allocations were closer to a combined $300,000 for the two projects. Douglas asked if it was known when the issues regarding the Extend the Dream project might be cleared up. Hightshoe said she had spoken with them last Friday. She said that Extend the Dream was weighing the money they could get from CDBG versus the money they would have to forego in rental income for the apartment, and considering their options. Hightshoe said staff had asked for an update on their intentions by no later than a week before March 25th. Long said there would definitely be some kind of resolution prior to the next HCDC meeting. Richman asked for clarification on the possible scenarios, asking if it was correct that Extend the Dream had to refrain from renting the apartment altogether or be granted an exception so as to rent the unit to one of the business operators. Hightshoe said that was the case. Hightshoe said that the outstanding issues were the financial management issues, conflict of interest regarding realtor fees, as well as the apartment and how it can/will be used. Richman said he kind of felt HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 13 of 19 like the conflict of interest and financial management issues either would or would not resolve themselves regardless of HCDC action. Long said that the first order of business is that the person who has the listing has to agree to give it up and forego the commission. The second issue would be what the agency decided to submit to City Council, as far as a plan to deal with the apartment. The third issue is whether it is ultimately worth it for Extend the Dream to accept CDBG money at all. Hightshoe said that she felt like Extend the Dream liked the idea of keeping the unit as an apartment; however, if the Commission recommended funding, then they would ask the Council to consider allowing them to rent to low and moderate income folks. Richman said he still did not understand exactly what it was that City Council had to do if the Commission recommended funding. Hightshoe said that the Commission would be recommending funding and Council would review it. Extend the Dream would have to ask Council directly if they could be allowed to keep the apartment and lease it to one of the business managers. Richman asked why it was that the last step was necessary. Hightshoe said that the Legal Department had determined that once an application has been submitted it cannot be substantially changed. Because the application was for Public Facilities, only the Public Facility use can be funded. Richman noted that this would not affect how the Commission allocated its funding. Hightshoe said that was correct. Richman commented that having to lease the unit to someone who works on-site would leave a fairly limited tenant pool. Hightshoe said the same type of concept for alive-work building was done by Extend the Dream successfully on F Street. Hightshoe said this arrangement would be more restrictive than that model. DVIP -Facility Rehabilitation ($76,000 request): Drum said that his scores came out very low for this project and for the Iowa City Free Medical Clinic project. Drum said that both of those agencies are among his very favorites in the community. He said that he is not a structural engineer, but he had a hard time seeing the amount of work that needed to be done as being so expensive. He said that this combined with the low score made him fund the project at zero. He said that he could easily be convinced to fund it higher, and that in previous years DVIP has been at the top of his list. Hart said that when she made her allocations she was hoping to fund a portion at least for DVIP and MECCA because both were safety issues. She said it was possible the estimate was high, but she really had no idea either way. Richman said that it is a lot of money, and the project did seem like one in which the allocation needed to be all or nothing. He noted that building half a ramp does not maintain or increase accessibility. He asked if the applicant was open to partial funding. Hightshoe said she would call DVIP and ask. She said they likely would not turn down funding. Richman said that given the size of the funding request that would be useful information. MECCA -Facility Rehabilitation ($15,850 request): This request was for the replacement of the door, the concrete in the entryway, and the carpet. Hart said was that her thought was the carpet was not a dire situation, whereas the door and concrete seemed like serious safety issues. Gatlin said that he agreed with Hart and that the price of the projects made them very do-able. Douglas said that in comparing this project to some of the others the crucial nature of it had not jumped out at him as much as it had for other projects, so he had funded it at zero. He said he could be persuaded. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 14 of 19 Iowa City Free Medical Clinic -Facility Rehab ($97,975 request): Drum said that he had not been convinced that this was a project that had to be done this year. He said it is a compelling project and if more money was available he could see funding it, but that he could not see the urgent need for the space to be converted. Zimmermann Smith said that she had felt the same way, and that she too thought the world of Sandy Pickup and the Free Medical Clinic, but that given some of the needs of the other applicants, this did not seem as critical. Drum said that another factor for him had been the potential redevelopment of the Towncrest area, and the uncertainty surrounding the area's future. Richman said that any redevelopment was presumably pretty far down the road. Hightshoe said that was correct. She said it could be several years before any major redevelopment was seen in that area. McKay said that some of the things Free Med was trying to do with this project were going to have a positive impact on its operating costs, so he supported those aspects, while some of the other things could probably wait for another day. That was his rationale for partial funding. Chappell said that the project had received a low score from him. He said that he considered all of the Public Facilities projects to be worthy of funding. He said his recollection had been that Pickup had indicated some of the HVAC work could be done for about $30,000 and that is how he settled on his figure. Chappell said that he felt the site visit presentation clearly outlined the facility's priorities. Drum said he had not gotten that same sense from the site visit. Richman said that he wished to remind people that how much money is spent on the categories for Housing and Public Services is interdependent. If Housing is allocated beyond $1.4 million, then the amount of funding available for Public Facilities allocation is reduced; however, spending less than $1.4 million on Housing does not increase the amount of money available for Public Facilities. PUBLIC SERVICES: Richman noted that there were three projects where there seemed to be a broad consensus of opinion: The Crisis Center, Shelter House and EccoCast Communications. Richman reminded Commissioners that a policy had been adopted a couple of years ago that said a Public Service project would receive a minimum of $2,500 in funding; that being the case, the Commission can only fund four projects at most in this category. Douglas noted that the Free Medical Clinic falls in with the categories above as well as seven people supported funding for it. Richman said that he had just noted that Isis too had eight votes for zero funding. Hightshoe noted that if the Sheridan house sells before July 1st, 15% of the sale price can be used for Public Services allocations. Long said that the price had just been lowered today, and that the sale could mean an additional $15,000. Hightshoe said that Commissioners could have that idea in the backs of their minds. Long suggested that the Commission might want to pick a second funding scenario for when the property sells. Hightshoe said that the rest of the money from the sale can go to CDBG eligible projects. Richman said that as it seems unlikely that the sale of the home would go through before City Council considers their allocations, it seems unnecessary to him to come up with two separate allocation scenarios. Hightshoe said that if HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 15 of 19 the money is not allocated by July 1St, then the additional money for Public Services is lost. Richman asked if a separate meeting could not just be held, and Hightshoe said it could. Long said the Commission could consider as well if they wanted to have a completely separate funding round at that time, or if they wanted to just go with the same applications before them currently. Crisis Center -Operations ($10,625 request): Beth Ritter Ruback of the Crisis Center reminded Commissioners that the funding was for additional staff time for the emergency assistance program. Douglas said that he felt this was a good project to fund because of the distressed economy. Richman said that if one assumed that McKay would succumb to peer pressure, then it looks as though the Crisis Center and Shelter House would be two of the projects that would be funded at some level, which means that at most there would be two other projects to receive funding in this category. He noted that Douglas had pointed out there was fairly broad consensus on the Free Medical Clinic, although Hart and Drum had allocated that project at zero. Drum said he did not know what was wrong with him to do such a thing. Hightshoe said she needed to note that Isis is the one Public Service application that could possibly be funded under HOME, and thus would not count against the Public Service cap. Hightshoe said that the guidance she had received from HUD was very unclear, but that it seemed as though HOME-related tenant counseling could be covered under HOME funding. She said that Isis does provide a much broader array of counseling services, and those extra services could not be funded under the HOME program. Douglas asked if this meant that Isis would not be allowed to offer those additional services if they were funded under HOME. Hightshoe said it meant that HOME funds could not pay for those services. Richman noted that the following comment goes entirely against what he said about funding CHDOs earlier, but he wondered if Isis could not simply build in a developer fee. Hightshoe said he believed they did build in some developer fees. Chappell said the developer fee was only $7,000. Richman noted that it was too late for Isis to change their application. Long noted that in a manner of speaking the applicant cannot change the application at this point but the Commission can: if the Commission makes a recommendation to Council and Council approves it then the application is in essence changed. Hightshoe said that any developer would be glad to increase their developer fee. Long said that while the applicant cannot increase their total request, the Commission could recommend above the requested amount if they chose to. Douglas asked if Hightshoe was saying they could be funded under Public Facilities. Hightshoe said the funding would be under Housing as a HOME eligible activity. Richman said the Commission could certainly ask Spears if they would be interested in operating under those kinds of restrictions. He said that if they have a model that works he is disinclined to start putting restrictions on what a counselor can talk about with their client. Hightshoe noted that it is what the Commission can pay for that is restricted, not the services being offered. Spears said that it would simply be a matter of HCDC funding only the housing related counseling; there would be no change to their model, just how it was funded. Hightshoe said the project is completely CDBG eligible, it is just that moving the funding would remove them from the Public Services cap equation. Douglas asked if the Commission needed then to decide how to fund the request. Richman asked how Commissioners felt about it. Hart asked HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 16 of 19 for clarification on whether moving the funding to Housing meant that this would subtract from the total available for Housing. Douglas said that it would. Richman said that in looking at the numbers for the Housing allocations, it seems unlikely that Isis would get the full $250,000 request; however, the Commission could recommend to Council that the developer fee be raised beyond what was stated in the application. Extend the Dream -Operations ($3,600 request): McKay said he had been operating on assumptions in making his allocation for this project that he is no longer sure are valid. McKay said that if the larger project is still up in the air, then he could easily be talked into moving his allocation elsewhere in Public Services. Douglas said that Extend the Dream does come to the Commission pretty much every year for operations assistance. Hightshoe said they had requested operations assistance for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. Douglas said that the argument could be made that they are not moving toward becoming self-sustaining. He said he likes what they do. Hart said that to their credit, they have gotten through some rough spots, and have used funds to sustain and improve their business operations. She said she would certainly consider increasing her allotment. She said she hoped this part of their operation would continue to become more self-sustaining in the future. Chappell said he did not necessarily have strong feelings about any of these projects. He said that when he got to Public Services his high-minded attempts to fund according to his numbers went out the window and he got into spreading money around and comparing allocations in the other categories. Chappell said that frankly he had assumed that they would quickly figure out where consensus lay and work toward that. Zimmermann Smith said she went with basic human needs versus programs and operating costs. She said that Shelter House, Crisis Center and the Free Medical Clinic all provide basic human needs so she just divided it among those three programs. Richman asked if it would be useful to decide tonight whether to fund three or four Public Services in the final round. The Commissioners agreed to try to make that determination. Chappell noted that three Commissioners had funded three projects and six Commissioners had funded four projects. It was agreed to fund four projects in the Public Services category. Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program / FAS TRAC ($8,322 request): Douglas said that as the agency applied for funding in another category in which they will likely be given quite a bit of money, he opted not to fund them in Public Services, where money is sparse. Arc of Southeast Iowa -Equipment ($3,184 request): Hart said she felt this was a really good project, but that she believed Arc would have a good chance of raising this amount of money for this purpose. The Free Medical Clinic -Operations ($10,000 request): _Richman said the relationship between their Public Facilities request and their Public Services request has been noted. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 17 of 19 EccoCast Communications -Operations ($8,320 request): Hart said she had funded this project knowing that they likely would not ultimately receive funding. She said she wanted to note that this is actually an important item that they are bringing up. She said that it will increase in importance in the future, and that she is very sorry that they did not show up to any of these meetings to discuss their application. Long noted that there was a representative present. Hart said she thought there was a possibility that this could be a good project but that she feared they would fall by the wayside because they did not provide enough information in support of their cause. She said that she hoped that even if they were not funded this year they would consider reapplying next year because she believes this service will become more critical. Amos Peterson, a representative of EccoCast, told the Commission he had brought pamphlets and materials to help answer any questions they might have. Richman asked staff if materials had been accepted from other applicants. Hightshoe explained that the materials Peterson had were in response to staff analysis questions, not questions brought up by Commissioners. Long said that in that case other materials would not have been accepted. Richman thanked Peterson but said the Commission could not accept the materials. Richman said that the next step was completing a new allocation sheet to be returned to staff by Tuesday, March 16th. Hightshoe said she would send out a blank allocation spreadsheet tomorrow. Chappell asked how consensus was generally reached on the allocations. He said that in an instance where he is the sole funder of a project and it is clear that others are not interested in moving his way he would likely back off and go with the group. He asked if this was generally the case, or if there were often holdouts. Richman said that this certainly is not the first time where half the Commission likes a project and half of it does not. He said that ultimately it is a matter of which side persuades the other of the project's worthiness of funding. He said that certainly there have been some contentious issues in the past, but that ultimately somebody gives some ground. Hightshoe noted that attendance is very important because every vote counts. Richman said there are some contentious issues every year, but that he felt like in some respects the second meeting was no longer necessary except as a means of shortening the third meeting. Several Commissioners expressed that they had found the second meeting to be very helpful. Hart said she did not recall a lot of contentious issues. Hightshoe said there is always a difference of opinion but that people are always respectful about it. Hart said she had been yelled at by some of the applicants before but not other Commissioners. Zimmermann Smith asked if the Extend the Dream would have cleared up their issues by the Tuesday deadline for turning in the new allocations. Long said staff would try to get clarification to Commissioners by Tuesday. Richman said that he is assuming they'll resolve the issues about the conflict of interest and the financial management. Gatlin commented that the realty commission would be tough to give up. Hightshoe said that Extend the Dream has to analyze what they currently pay against what they could pay. She said the mortgage in the new building would less than what they pay in rent now. Richman asked if Jeff Edberg is the listing agent on the property. Hightshoe said he is not, but he works there and is also the Board President for Extend the Dream. Richman said that Edberg is then charged with talking someone else into giving up that commission. Hightshoe said that was correct. She said the conflict of interest rules say that the director of the agency or any board member cannot benefit for a period of one year. Hightshoe said that if Edberg left the board today, the conflict of interest clauses would govern for a whole year. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 11, 2010 PAGE 18 of 19 Drum said that before the meeting adjourned he wanted to apologize for being late but that it was due to an important and unavoidable personal matter. ADJOURNMENT: Zimmermann Smith motioned to adjourn. McKay seconded. The motion carried 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Z O N ~_ O U H z W J a O W W rD 1-- Z O U D Z Q Z N O D O U w W O U~ Z ~ Q N O Z W I- Q X X X X X X p X X M co X X X X X X X X X N N X X X X X X X X X N ~-- O N O ~- ~ r O ~ N r- ~a ~( W r O N ~ ~ ~ ~ O r ~ ~ O r O N ~ ~ ~ `- O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ O O N ~ W O O O O O O O O O Q Z U W H ~ ~ W O ~ W W Q ~ Q ~ J U_ ~ m Z W Q U ' O 2 ~ ~ Z Q L J ~ W a C7 ~ ~ t= Q ~ _ ~U Q Z = U O D ~ ~ Q C7 Q = v ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~Q N~ N ` ~ ~ X ~ W ~ ~ c~~~ ~a~~m aQZ Z II II II II wg YXOZ