Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

then i'm going to move into the public hearing agenda because we don't have any consent agenda items tonight i'm going to go slightly out of order here first because item number four needs to be continued to our august 20th meeting so that the applicant can hold their neighborhood meeting so could we get a motion to continue could we um just is there anybody in the audience that's here for this item tonight are you the applicant or neighbor

Okay, perfect.

Could we get a motion to continue that item to the August 20th meeting?

So moved.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Okay, motion passes. And we will go back to item number one. This is a request from Farmco Properties for review and approval of a public hearing site plan, Cottage Avenue Mixed Use. for property located at 2511 Cottage Grove Avenue and for type two design alternatives in accordance with city code. A, wave occupied space requirements to allow utility and storage areas within the front portions of the building where a minimum of 30 feet of depth is required per code. And B, wave mechanical rooftop screening where required to be screened on all sides per code. And Jasmine will present this item for the city.

Good evening. Okay. So again, this is a request for a public hearing site plan with two alternatives that we'll be looking at today. One being the occupied space requirements and the other being mechanical rooftop screening. So here's the property. It is located at the northwest corner of Cottage Grove Avenue and 25th Street. To the north you have Drake University's campus and then to the southeast you have Sherman Hill. Here are some photos that was taken a month ago. I'll kind of walk you through some of these photos that I have here. This is an image of the property standing east looking west at the property. A direct view from 25th Street standing across the street. This is at the corner looking north on 25th Street. A direct view from the corner. And then this is looking up Cottage Grove Avenue to the west. And this is from the alley looking east. The request today is proposing a two-story mixed-use building with two commercial spaces and five residential units, one of the units being ADA on the ground floor. As you see, this property is a little bit odd shaped. You got the building pushed towards the corner along both frontages with the narrow side, the parking lot pushed in the rear towards that alley access there. And what they're proposing today for the occupied space, due to the size of the lot, they had to be pretty creative with design. So there's some areas of utility and storage that's located along those 30 foot of depth of frontage. So to do that without either putting it where the staircase is, it would be pretty limited. So that's request number one for the type two design alternative for occupied space. And then the second request is to waive mechanical screening. Some mechanical screening, they have a parapet wall that screens it from 25th Street and Cottage Grove Avenue. But on the rearmost side of the building, if you can kind of see on the top, the second... On the right side, the top elevation, there's some... AC units that you can see there and then if you look at the in the middle section that left elevation you can see some that would be facing basically the neighbor to the north there. So they're requesting a waiver to waive some of that mechanical screening. So staff's recommendation is approval of the public hearing site plan and the design alternative for occupied space with with compliance with all administrative comments and then denial of waiving that rooftop mechanical screening. And staff is here to stand for any questions.

I don't know if this is the point when we ask this. I just am wondering why the denial.

Of the mechanical screening? We don't have any new, to my awareness, we don't have any new builds that have waived mechanical screening. And the reason for the mechanical screening is to hide, essentially, visibility impacts to the public. So we felt that this was...

necessary to kind of Yeah, with new development, we, you know, expectation that new development, you know, we are often flexible and screening with existing properties, existing buildings, a lot of flexibility and design alternatives granted, they're both new construction, it's a code requirement, we figure new development, you should be able to figure it out. So that's why we're recommending now. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Is there a height requirement that doesn't allow it to go any taller, or is there a reason it's at two stories versus like three or something?

There is a height requirement for a minimum of two for storefront in MX1, but I believe the height is matching similarly to the houses in the area. The height is approximately, I would confirm with the developer there, but I believe the height is similar to the existing houses next to it.

Just to add additional, you said this is MX1, right? So the maximum height is three stories.

Any other questions?

Jasmine, could you talk a little bit more about what is required for that rooftop screening or what the question there is and were they planning on putting independent screening up just to cover around any compressors up on the roof? Yes. I do see it does seem to have a fairly high parapet wall.

There are two different ways of screening, one being trying to include the mechanical units in some sort of way with the roof design. So often, it's usually a parapet that's proposed. And again, I think it could be reduced to cover the mechanical units very high. That's one way to do it through roof design. The second way is to have it 360 degree with the singular unit, providing screening around that, which I believe, I'll let the developer kind of speak to it, but I believe their rationale for that is that it would be more structural kind of implications to doing individual ones, but I'll let them speak to that.

Yeah. So just to add onto that. So in a case like this, you know, I think with solution, cause I'm guessing the roof, excuse me, the roof is sloping, you know, we're probably looking at some sort of screening in the vicinity of the units on that backside. So not necessarily like screening the whole run of the building, but just really close to those units.

Okay. Any other questions for the city?

I guess I have one last one. Sorry about that. So on the screening, I'm assuming is because I know we always talk about the visual, but isn't noise a consideration, especially considering that side of the building is against residential houses as well. And having the buzz of that all night would be really annoying. Is that in the consideration or is that just a just visual that we think about?

I mean, I think that's part of it too. We don't necessarily have standards that are based off of the sound, meaning we might be looking at a material that would adequately screen it visually but maybe uh some of it might you know like some of the noise might go through it versus shooting it up upwards that's not a level of detail that we get into but i do think as just anecdotally a secondary part of what we're trying to do is you know push sound up with screening thank you is the applicant present

Please come forward, state your name and address for our records, and sign in on that white sheet. When you're done, you have up to 10 minutes.

Hello, I'm Jeff Blosser, architect with SSOE. Address is 121 Zwart Road in Des Moines.

I'm Hunter Pfeiffer. I'm also an architect with SSOE, and my address is 412 Southwest 12th Street, Unit 105, Des Moines, Iowa.

Maybe we'll start with the screening on the project. As with all projects, we're kind of running into some budget issues and we're representing the owner on this project. So we're looking at ways to kind of look at ways we can minimize cost framing in exterior materials. So some of our logic was maybe to look at some of the screening on the backside of the building since the building is pushed closer to the street and there's a gap between the building and parking lot to the neighbors, there's an alley, then there's the neighbors. So we thought maybe being able to reduce the parapet will help us kind of get our costs back into alignment. And so it was like our suggestion to just reduce the parapet. Since it does back up to an alley, there is a parking lot behind it, there is the alley, then there's the houses behind on the other backside. So that was kind of our... our hope is that we can maybe reduce costs but still maintain the the presence of the building at the street locations painting how high is that parapet

On the front, it's four or five feet on the front, but then the back we're proposing to go down to zero would be our or for the two on the back. We were hoping to go to zero. And the idea behind that is without the parapet on the back, we would be able to not have to have an internal roof drain, which was adding a lot of costs with fire stopping and other issues with going through the building, including water infiltration and So our idea was to hopefully lower it to zero and then drain it off the back and use a gutter system rather than having to try and go through the building as well, which also would help save some costs and make it a little bit more feasible for our developer.

So you would keep the higher parapet on two sides?

We would keep the higher parapet on both street facades and then also on that north facade facing the residential unit on the very front. And then really the only, there's two parapets that would get lowered to zero, which is the west facade and then the northwest-ish facade closer on this edge. So, but then yes, the other three-ish would stay.

Yep. So the areas that we're talking about reducing the parapet, removing the parapet, just in that little corner, yeah, inside legs of the owl.

When you say inside legs, you mean like the entire side of both owls, though? You don't mean like a little opening based on the pictures, right?

Correct.

So the whole backside's wide open, right?

Yeah, it would be those, it'd be those whole two, two whole walls on that L on the inside L we would keep that up at the yep. And then the logic behind that is the residential unit pretty much abuts the property at that end. But then our logic for the other two is, you know, we have the alley in between that weren't pretty, pretty far away from that residential unit on the west.

Is the mechanical equipment that you're screening obscene in nature?

Is it just compressors, just residential compressors for a split system or mini split system up there? Or is it a large package unit?

So on the eastern half-ish on the main portion of the building is all normal compressors, like small residential ones. But we do have a makeup air unit for one of our tenant spaces is a residential or a restaurant tenant. But that would be closer to the southwest corner. is kind of where it's placed right now in terms of location.

Did you have a neighborhood association meeting or any comment from the neighbors or from the title holder of the property?

We have not had any neighborhood meetings or any concerns at the moment.

So the title holder, it says here, was notified, but you didn't receive any response from whoever that was?

Yeah. So they, um, the title holders of everybody within two and 50 feet were notified. We didn't, Jasmine, did we get any calls or, um, yeah, they, they're not because it's not a re this was a, this is a site plan and not a rezoning. They weren't required to have a neighborhood meeting. I do know that we had people at the last meeting and I believe we may have some folks here tonight as well that want to speak on the item, but I don't know that we received like anything in writing. Right. Okay.

I got one more. So if you change it from being an internal drain that would have went to the sanitary sewer system, it wouldn't have daylighted, correct? But now if you're talking about changing it to a shed roof, sloped roof and go into a gutter and downspout, would that water now be sheet draining onto that back parking lot or is it still be going in, tying in underground to, I don't even know what there is there for sanitary, but if you could explain, please.

Yeah, I think the goal would still be to have it tie into the sanitary sewer the same as the internal drain. It would just be on the exterior portion reducing possible leaks on the interior and fire caulking and UL assemblies for internal roof drain.

Perfect. Just checking. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I have a question. Would you be willing to share the cost savings from not screening those two sides?

We don't actually have a dollar figure of that. Right now we're just trying to get it in alignment with the costs or we haven't had it actually bid to show what the difference is gonna be.

An estimate?

We don't have an estimate, no. Could you go back to the- Can you use your mic?

Go back to the renderings. So there are two exhaust hoods on the roof, right? From the restaurant? Is one an exhaust and one's an intake?

Yeah, one's an exhaust and one's a makeup air.

And then there's a pretty sizable RTU that's also kind of visible in the lower right? Correct. Could you, my concern is, as you drive down Cottage Grove, I believe it's Cottage Grove, you're coming at an angle at this building and all these things are gonna be visible from that street. So I'm not a fan of delimiting the screening. and that's my major concern is that you could put the parapet up you could go to scuppers attach scuppers down to what you're talking about a drain system um so i guess that's my two cents worth yes

Just so I'm clear, for clarification, Todd, the way I understood it, they were leaving the parapet along the two sides and just eliminated it from the backside. You're saying if you're coming at it from the west?

If you go to the site plan.

Yeah.

Coming down Cottage Grove and that hole. So that's my concern. It's pretty visible to the neighborhood and also anybody on Cottage Grove.

I have a question on just the use of this building. What's the use case? Who's the client? What is the actual economics of it?

So one tenant is an ice cream shop, and the other tenant is a restaurant. And then there's four units upstairs, and there's one ADA unit on the lower floor.

And again, there is actually a, oh, I guess it's one block over. I was going to say there's a series of four-story brick buildings within this neighborhood, so having something taller isn't actually out of character with the neighborhood. I'm an engineer, so I don't care how most things look, but I do have to say the noise piece to me would be problematic with especially restaurant-level buildings. having that reverberate back and I think everyone on that block behind you is renters anyway I don't think you have any owner occupies in there unless I'm wrong on that one I don't know the greenhouse but my question is if you're having economic issues with this property and you have access to a whole nother floor why not

First, I mean, that would probably be more of a question for the developer in terms of their performance and stuff, but our idea behind it is kind of as a transition more so, since across the street you have the couple that are higher, and then ours is the portion that goes a step lower, and then a step lower to the residential, and it kind of creates a... transition into the neighborhood was kind of our feel for it. And we also wanted to try and respect the black cat that used to be there wasn't a huge shop either. And I mean, we're trying to make it work with the size, but we were kind of trying to make it more right size for the neighborhood we felt.

was a great barbecue place a lot longer than Black Cat by the way but just as a curiosity then but I mean I guess what you're saying is we don't know why we'd go to three we don't know how it impact the numbers on that when that could be possible on that side and it sounds like we have access to it but yeah

I guess that it is a owner sort of decision if they want to do three stories, but I highly just understanding where they're at with it. I don't believe that'd be something that they'd be willing to look at. They have looked, I guess we have looked at different sorts of scenarios and stuff, but I think the size of this is meeting their performer.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I assume parking might be an issue with going through stories to kind of tie a lot. Yep.

And I, yeah, not to go down a rabbit hole, but we have a, an agreement. Our owner has an agreement with the church to allow some parking, but like you said, I mean, adding any more, um, you know, residential units and not having a permanent place to park would be an issue for them as well.

since there are cities all over america and the world that don't actually have parking dedicated units and considering the streets in this neighborhood actually have tons of street parking even though it is one of our busier ones i'd hope that that isn't a concern that's going to prevent looking at more higher density in one of your best in one of your best connected neighborhoods in the entire hopefully that isn't the argument that come back if we're saying we aren't going to go to higher density when we could and we're allowed and if we have more units are available it could make the performer work just as a thought that might want to go somewhere if you want to change this approach because I'm definitely against the parapet reduction I don't think we should be adding noise to renters in order to cut cost we could potentially get a higher return by putting on more units where there probably be support for waiving the parking issues.

Other questions? Thank you.

Thank you.

Please do sign in. Is there anyone in the audience tonight who's here in favor of this item? Please come forward. When you get up here, state your name and address for our records and sign in when you're done and you will have up to five minutes.

Hi, I'm Christina Porter. I live at 1060 25th Street. So I am the house directly across Cottage Grove. And I generally support their project. I don't love the design personally. I do appreciate that it's going to be two stories and not three, since I don't want to look at the people across the way. I'd still like to be able to see the other houses in the neighborhood and have it feel like a neighborhood house. But I am actually an attorney. I do real property. But on the title side, I looked at the zoning. I know there's not a lot here. I'm in favor of the janitor closet. I don't think that's a problem. I support that. I'm a little torn on the parapet issue. I think... I don't have any concept for how much noise it will add. I don't think it will be super visible based on looking at it every day. And if it's going to be some significant cost savings, I would say go for it. But in general, I'm in support and I did a lot of reading about it today. So thank you. Thank you.

My name's Allison Stewart. I live next door to Christina going south at 1050 25th Street. And I'm super excited to have some businesses because I think the Black Cat spot was, like, one of our last business spots in the neighborhood, which kind of makes Drake fun and more exciting. And when the ice cream place went under, like, the energy in the neighborhood just, like, went way down. So anyways, excited for businesses. I actually... I've lived there since... God, what was that barbecue place called? I'm totally blanking. Yeah. Woody's. And so that was prior to there being a parking lot across the street that used to be just a field and Woody's people would park in front of me and all around the triangle. And it was not an issue. Um, But I do really appreciate the two-story thing. I really do. Because I think they're totally right. When you cross the street, it is kind of like now it's residential and things are this tall. So I think that would block a lot of sunlight actually as well onto your property for sure. So I appreciate that. And I'm... Yeah, I think the parking thing is surprisingly like, we've we really enjoy the free street parking in the neighborhood, like when we have guests, whatever. And then it's not been an issue with businesses. I think if it was an issue with anything, it would be with that church. But that's only on Sunday. So. All right. That's, that's all I got.

Thanks. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral? Is anyone opposed? Okay. Applicant, if there's anything else you'd like to add, you do have an extra five minutes for rebuttal. Okay. They declined that. So I will close the public hearing and open it up to the commissioners for discussion and motions, please.

I've got a question. Do we know if the, is the owner of the property, I know is different than the developer. Is it under contract or is the owner in on the deal or what's the scoop there? Do we know?

I think they're purchasing the property through a development agreement, right? Purchase agreements that get a nod from the architects. Yeah. So that the applicant has got, it's going to under contract.

so farmco is going to be out yes okay i i think i better abstain just because farmco is a friend of mine i think that's probably best huh thanks for that we appreciate it thank you other comments

I am in favor of, um, giving relief for the parapet wall. Um, I think they've met the intent of the code by screening from the, from the, uh, two streets that they're adjacent to. Um, I don't think that mechanical equipment on the roof is quite as, um, damaging to the public good as the zoning ordinance seems to believe. I think there's mechanical equipment on almost every commercial roof and we're used to seeing it and we have to have it if we want air conditioning and heat. And so I'm not sure that we need to spend this much time and energy and money concealing it. So I think that they've done a good job and i buy the argument that they're wanting to save a couple dollars on the complexity of the roof and the screening so i'm going to be um eventually well i want to make a motion for that but i want discussion first

Yeah, Andy, I would tend to agree with your comments almost exactly. I do appreciate Todd's comment about coming at it. If you're heading from the west, heading east, that you may see it. But I think there's enough angle there that you're meeting the intent. I think it's a good value analysis option to try to save without, you know, really cutting the job down and reducing the quality of the project. So I appreciate that, guys. So, I mean, I see it as a pretty good compromise. Also like to hear from my fellow commissioners if they have any comments.

You know, I'll chime in because I am... actually taking the sound, the potential sound issues quite seriously. I'm also frustrated that knowing this was an issue that we don't have data that explains to us exactly how much of an impact. I'm very, very aware of how these processes can increase the price of development and ultimately the cost of housing, but having no numbers and just a like not even a nudge nudge wink wink trust us it's just it makes it very difficult to make this decision without that information and i don't like the possibility of of neighbors tenants having to live with significant sound impact going forward. So I struggle with that, I do, because I don't want to increase, but I also don't have a sense of how sticking to this regulation, which is obviously in place for a reason, would affect the final cost of the project either. So that's where I'm stuck in that. I'm not quite sure how I followed on that.

I think that's a good point, but if you read the city's item number three here, the intent of this regulation is to minimize visual impact of mechanical equipment. It does not reference sound. whatsoever.

But the nice thing is, is that we have the ability to think and recognize that sound has significant, I actually don't care about the visual side of it at all myself, but I do care about the long-term. I know, I'm sorry, Will, I shouldn't have maybe said that with you there, but I am concerned about that impact and I'm going to take it into account.

And yeah, I don't know if there is any data that proves that vertical screening reduces sound because you're still wide open all the way around it and above it. Just a comment.

Well, as someone who spends a lot of time on commercial roofs, I can promise you that vertical screening does, number one. Number two, we have plenty of ordinances that do not actually account for things because we don't have a manner to measure them, which I think is actually what city staff clarified, the missing element of it. So I understand that what's red there is a visual item, we have another item without a known impact without an actually analysis of it and we're asking for um not enforcing an ordinance when we don't even have a cost estimate for it so because we don't have a calculation i'm against it on principles that we have not waived something for the cop for the purpose of cost and we don't even know cost that makes no sense i also do say at risk of allison kicking my kid out who's in her house 90 of the time I am still actually in favor of third story, so I do hope we would think about that because I think this is actually a good high density opportunity and a great corner. And I'll just argue, I think the sun should be on the south all the time, who knows? But I don't think that waiving the parapet for a cost that we don't know is in line with how we've truly treated these in the past.

I THINK THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITE TO PLAN AND BUSINESS ON AND I THINK THE ARCHITECTS HAVE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB IN MEETING THE CHALLENGE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE MOTIONS? OTHERWISE WE COULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE MY MOTION TO APPROVE BOTH A AND B.

Can we just make that subject to compliance with all just standard administrative review comments on the site plan? I mean, A and B, you would be granting that, but just your motion also is really approving the site plan. Yes.

Discussion on that motion?

So I just want to clarify, it would be not denying, right? Is that what's being?

Yeah, he's made a motion to approve the type 2s, both A and B, subject to compliance with standard administrative review comments. Okay, that's what I wanted to make sure. Thank you.

Okay, all in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. Opposed? What was our count?

I had 7-5. Yeah, motion carries.

Motion passes. Thank you. Okay, we'll move to item number two. This is a request from Greater Des Moines Habitat for Humanity represented by Ryan Doyle for the following regarding property located at 6100 Hickman Road. Determination as to whether the requested rezone is in conformance with plan DSM. Amend plan DSM to revise the future land use classification of the property from low density residential to medium density residential. and rezone the property from N3B neighborhood district to RX1 mixed use district to allow the construction of row home buildings containing approximately 22 dwelling units. And Sriochi will present for the city.

Excuse me, I actually need to recuse myself. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, Sreyoshi Chakraborty, planning staff. Item number two is a rezoning request for property at 6100 Hickman Road. There is a request to amend the land use plan from low density residential to medium density residential and rezone the property from N3B to RX1 mixed use district. This is the subject property. It is on the south side of Hickman Road. It's just immediately west of the neighborhood node that's centered around Merle Hay and Hickman Road. The area around this is fairly diverse in terms of having a mix of uses along Hickman Road. So there's some commercial as well as P2 and residential uses. To the south of Hickman Road, it's primarily residential. However, there's some diversity in terms of duplexes and fourplexes as well as multiple households in the vicinity of the subject property. I have some pictures here to just give you an idea what the site looks like. The site is about approximately 1.6 acres in area. It's currently vacant and this is looking north towards Hickman Road right here. Currently there's construction going on on Hickman Road to reconstruct the water mains between 70th and Merle Hay Road. So you can see some construction work going on. And again, another view of the subject property. This is looking south into the neighborhood so you can get a sense of the housing in that area. I have some older pictures. As you saw, those pictures that I showed you aren't too good because of the construction activity there. But this gives you a better idea. This is looking east on Hickman towards the subject property. And then this is looking west. And then this is looking north on 61st Street. So this is the proposal that was submitted to us for the rezoning. The applicant wants to do a 22-unit row home project on this property. And so they submitted a conceptual site concept as we required during the rezoning stage. The design details are still in the works. They're not finalized, but there are currently a total of 22 row homes proposed in some different configurations and this does require to allow the building type as well as to allow the density requires a rezoning to the Rx1 district and to also amend the current land use which is low density residential to medium density. This is the concept sketch as I mentioned this is still in the works it's conceptual in nature but Based on what was submitted to us with the application, you can see that there are 12 units currently that are fronting Hickman Road. They have rear-loaded garages. The other units are facing 61st and 62nd Street, and they do have front-loaded garages currently. There's a private driveway that runs east-west. through the site providing access to the garages. There's stormwater detention in the middle of the site. The applicant is also proposing to utilize that detention area as a common space for the future residents. So with that, I did want to point out a couple things. The rezoning does require an amendment to the land use plan from medium to high density residential, or excuse me, medium density residential, which allows single, two-family and multi-family residential up to 17 dwelling units per acre. With that density and the acreage of the site, the maximum number of units with the medium density residential that would be allowed on the property would be 28. The applicant is currently proposing 22 units. The other thing I wanted to point out is regarding the design. As you noticed in the site concept, there are some units that do have front-loaded garages. And within the Rx1 district for row buildings, garages entry and entry into the garages are only allowed through the rear yard on the rear and side along the rear and side facade so should the applicant continue with the concept that they have proposed right now they would have to seek a design alternative alternatively they can look into modifying the the design but i did want to point out that this This is still being determined. The design is not finalized, so the applicant has a couple options in front of them as they move forward with the site design. But that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning request subject to all buildings shall comply with facade material requirements in accordance with Chapter 135 and to the satisfaction of the planning and urban design administrator. The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting as is required for all rezonings. It was attended by a few residents, and some of the questions to summarize that came up included street parking, increased traffic on Hickman from 61st and 62nd Street, and the total number of units that are being proposed. The applicant has indicated that they will continue to work with the neighbors to address some of these concerns to the best extent that they can. We did receive some emails in opposition to the project, and I will let you read through these.

Seriously, were those three from the same person?

Those four are all from the same guy.

Yes, that's the one. And this is also from the same individual, kind of summarizing the concerns. And we received some comment cards. I will scan through these. And this is the consent map showing the percentage posed in favor of the reasoning request. I'll be happy to take any questions.

What's the legal and tax structure of this project, especially considering the next item on the agenda? Since it's Habitat for Humanity, how does that work tax-wise? This is a taxable property, and if so, since they're a non-profit, why? Are they just developers? Are they owners?

I think that's a better question for the applicant team.

I did want to point out, I forgot to mention that the housing, the proposed housing is for, is medium density housing proposed for workforce housing, essentially for medium income.

Other questions for Sreyoshi?

Can you go back to the Staff recommendation because I think our packet only included the urban renewal stuff. Thank you. Just as a quick follow-up, if the design is maintained as current concept, it would be a Type 2 design alternative? Or is it a Type 1 design alternative with the garages facing the street?

I believe that would be, I'll defer to Jamie.

That's a Type 2.

So we'll have to come back to it. Yes. Okay, thank you.

If they were to stick with this design.

Okay, thank you. Is the applicant present? Please come on forward, state your name and address for our records and sign in when you're done and you have up to 10 minutes.

Thank you. My name is Ryan Doyle at 4308 Ingersoll Avenue representing Greater Des Moines Habitat for Humanity. So, quick summary of the project, just adding to what Shirose said. This is a 1.67-acre vacant site, served as a commercial greenhouse for approximately 60 years and was demolished about 10 years ago or so. Habitat for Humanity has owned it for two years. um the project that we are proposing is uh 22 units uh row house uh type in a variety of different configurations these units would be approximately four fourteen hundred square feet and three bedroom two and a half bath um and a correction from what's in the packet is uh we're proposing one car garages on these i believe it says two car So Greater Morton Habitat for Humanity, to answer the question on tax structure, we are the owner and developer of the site. All the units would be sold to owner occupants to low and moderate income under 80% AMI. Like I said, these are owner-occupied only. There are long-term affordability restrictions on them, Habitat for Humanity. Also, when a homeowner intends to sell, we typically buy the units back to preserve affordability. There are rental restrictions. The homeowners can't rent them out. From a general kind of applicant makeup, these typically are families, but not exclusively. I think our general pool of applicants covers right around two and a half kids each in this. the site itself would be redeveloped there's relatively little infrastructure that needs put in outside of the site I'm a water line on the east side somewhere in the right-of-way down 62nd would need to be developed you've seen the east-west private drive let me go to sorry Oh

THERE WE GO. FEEL FREE TO CLOSE THAT SECONDARY WINDOW PAIN. THERE YOU GO.

I'LL GIVE YOU MORE SPACE. OKAY. SO YOU CAN SEE THE EAST WEST. THAT'S PRIVATE DRIVE THROUGH THE SITE. THE CENTRAL AREA WOULD SERVE AS STORM WATER DETENTION AND THE UNITS TO THE NORTH WOULD BE KIND OF THE TYPICAL ROW HOUSE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS WITH REAR GARAGES FACING THAT PRIVATE DRIVE. We are preliminary here. We don't have a project architect, but I'm trying to give you kind of an idea of the general intent that we're going with the configuration and the thought process behind it. As we spoke with the neighborhood association multiple times, as well as the neighborhood groups, one of the major concerns on this was parking traffic and the density involved in it. So on the east-west, What we're proposing is our intent will be drives on the front of the homes. That's done for a couple of reasons. We think as we work through the design of the actual units with planning and UDRB is that that'll allow for a little bit of a more transitional design as we move towards Hickman. It's typically one story residential to the south. There are duplexes directly to the west of it as well with front drives. In addition to that, it allows us to manage the site grading in a way that also can activate the central area of the site. If we do rear garages, we end up having to put in significantly more interior private drives. which really limit what that stormwater detention area can kind of look like. So opening it up like this allows us to grade the site in a way. And just for reference, Hickman, as you head west, falls off. The west side of the site is approximately, the west street is approximately 10 feet lower than 61st Street on the right. So it allows us to activate that interior area. The intent is that it will be a multi-use area, both for stormwater as well as outdoor use. So think kind of natural playscape, think boardwalk type stuff, think picnic table type things, stuff like that. so we're kind of excited about that one of the concerns is being on a busy road like hickman is um and the kids that would be here where do they play what's the kind of um what's available for them so that's the thought process there like we said we would be coming back to discuss the specifics of what those units look like in the future though and how that makes sense um the other major the probably the biggest concern that we had talking with the neighborhood groups neighbors adjacent is the parking considerations so as we've designed the site you can't really tell from this and it's a little preliminary is all of the units will have at least two off street parking stalls versus the one required in the rx1 zoning type we are also looking at additional on-site visitor parking stalls to even augment that further some of the other neighbor issues that came up traffic was a concern especially getting onto hickman the children playing the location of that site trees as well as as well as attention to the lighting design as well so with that i'll answer any questions i'm curious on the uh

When you're doing the selling to low income, you identified the often buy them back, do you sell the land as well? Or is this more like a land trust type thing? Or how does how does that work?

We maintain the long-term affordability through deed restrictions. So the homes are sold at the appraised value as an arm's length transaction. So the homeowners own the land and the building themselves. So it is taxable in that sense, just as if we were selling them on the open market.

So can you walk me through the financials of how the TIF component plays into this then?

Sure. So the...

I guess I'm not trying to... if you're granted the TIF as a developer, but then you sell all the properties, does that mean that these buildings are fundamentally abated as they're going forward? Or is there a, like, I apologize for not understanding the mechanisms of how the TIF actually enables this project. And keeping in mind, I love this project, heavily support it. One, I just wanna understand, and especially considering how TIF should be used, this is the right use for it. I just don't get the mechanism.

They are taxable properties just as any other property here in Des Moines. There's no exemptions or anything like that. So it just functions as a regular parcel.

So the TIF dollars is cash that goes to Habitat for Humanity to cover that gap, or how does that work? Sorry.

Correct. Our TIF agreements are typically on the side of the street, you know what I'm talking about.

And the design of the house is notwithstanding, they're very close to the road, and they seem to be very close to the road and they stand out in the eye because they're very close to the road. How does this setback blend more into the rest of the context?

Sure. There's two conditions to kind of look at here. One is the row houses facing Hickman. So Facing Hickman, there is a 30-foot easement for the new water main going in, so the units would be held back past that, so at least 30 feet on that north side. The units on the west and east, as we're wanting to do front drives on them, we would need to ensure that the off-street additional parking spot The house is set back far enough that they've cleared the sidewalk as as well as a parking stall So that would be what's going to restrict how close in practical considerations not the zoning requirements so none of them will be hugging the street for kind of two different reasons and

I have a question. Well, first of all, I was wrong about the packet. So apologies to staff. It was included in there. I just skipped over. You mentioned that there's the potential to add additional parking for visitors. Does that also mean potentially that you would redesign, excuse me, redesign the units that are not currently compliant with the driveways and garages facing the street, or is that pretty much set in stone?

So that would be in addition to those units. So what we're looking at is on the east side of the site, just to the south of the private drive going through there, there's some green space that could be used as IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THREE PARKING STALLS THERE. SO THE INTENT WOULD NOT BE TO REDESIGN THE EAST WEST ONES. WE DO THINK THAT THAT CONFIGURATION FITS BETTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALSO PROVIDES THE SITE WITH THE OTHER BENEFITS OF BEING ABLE TO ACTIVATE THE CENTRAL AREA AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A MUCH MORE KIND OF TIGHT CONDITION AND A DEEP STORM WATER BASIN. And maybe just circling back clarification on how our affordability model works in the relation to the TIF. So we sell the homes to buyers at the appraised value. Habitat for Humanity works with a buyer who enters our program. And depending on the buyer's income, we originate a mortgage that results in a monthly payment that is on more than 30% of their gross income. So every buyer has a different I guess mortgage balance when they start. That introduces a subsidy on each one. It varies between them, but the TIF that we're asking for is the value of that subsidy there.

So does that mean you're the mortgage holder?

We originate the mortgages. That's correct. And we do have partners that we, local banks that will buy the mortgages as well.

OK, so you originate the mortgage. I guess I'm sorry for not being a banker. So then you sell it off to someone else. So someone else actually manages the mortgage. But the origination fees are yours. You set them. So the TIF actually, you don't charge the low income person

IT'S NOT THE ORIGINATION FEES. THE FIRST MORTGAGE IS ACTUALLY SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE SALE PRICE OF THE HOME, THE APPRAISED VALUE. SO A HOME, IF THESE ARE $280,000 APPRAISED VALUE, THE SALE PRICE IS $280,000. THE FIRST MORTGAGE THAT HABITAT ORIGINATES COULD BE $200,000 FOR IT. AND THE TIF IS WHAT COVERS THAT GAP BETWEEN 280 AND 200.

IT'S A $280,000 APPRAISED VALUE IT'S A $280,000 APPRAISED VALUE BASED OFF OF EXTERNAL BASED OFF OF EXTERNAL APPRAISERS. APPRAISERS. YOU SELL IT FOR 200. YOU SELL IT FOR 200. THE TIF PAYS YOU 80 AND IT ALSO THE TIF PAYS YOU 80 AND IT ALSO PAYS FOR THE ORIGINATION FEES PAYS FOR THE ORIGINATION FEES OF THAT MORTGAGE AND YOU'RE OF THAT MORTGAGE AND YOU'RE THE ONE THAT ISSUES THAT THE ONE THAT ISSUES THAT MORTGAGE TO START BEFORE IT'S MORTGAGE TO START BEFORE IT'S SHIPPED OFF TO SOMEONE ELSE?

SHIPPED OFF TO SOMEONE ELSE? MAYBE A CLARIFICATION. MAYBE A CLARIFICATION. THE SALE IS AT $280,000 $200,000. So Habitat essentially doesn't recoup or short $80,000 on a specific unit. That's what the TIF comes in. And then the $200,000 mortgage that we originated, we then sell to a third party for $200,000 just for cash flow purposes. So there's no money made there in that transaction. Origination isn't really a factor or fees involved in this.

Okay so it's really just the fact that you're basically paying part of their house off with TIF money. That's correct. That goes off and now they just have a mortgage going on but you through deed have a right to buy it back if they're selling it.

In as part of our deed restriction we have a first right of refusal where if they get a bona fide third party offer on the home we have the right to match it and purchase the house back from them which we typically try to do just to increase the the pool of affordable homes in the community.

When that happens and you buy a home that you developed back and you resell it as an affordable property, is there another subsidy that comes or is it just... There's another subsidy that comes. Yep.

Any other questions?

Just to clarify, so the house gets sold, there's a subsidy on the sale and the gap. If for some reason... the market goes down and people have to sell their homes again, then you resell them again. There's a whole nother subsidy on that same gap on that second sale and third sale and everything going forward.

When we purchased the house back, we treated exactly the same as if it was an additional new construction home when we sell it. So we purchased it back from them. at um we purchase it back and then it just enters our program as if we were buying it you know if this was a rehab property that we were purchasing we put it back in our program we rehab it up to the habitat standards and match it with a homeowner comes to our program and sell it the same way but there's a subsidy then on that transaction as well so we would have to get additional sources to cover that subsidy so that's where other funding sources come in private donors other city, state, federal mechanisms as well.

I want to make sure I'm understanding the last parts. What you're saying is the amount of TIF that's being discussed in the next section covers only the first sale, but the second sale, if it's sold back, is no longer coming from city TIF money. You're saying someone else would have to donate to cover the subsidies if there is a second sale?

If there was an additional gap that needed covered, correct.

Could you, I'd like to follow up on my question, please. We got this from the city. It's, you know, it's a view of an aerial view of the neighborhood and so forth. Can we put that up on the screen for a minute?

Should be one of the earlier slides, the aerial. It's a, there you go.

There, sorry.

Perfect. There we go. Okay, good. Give me, look at the setback over here on the east from these houses facing Hickman, and then tell me where the setback for the row houses would be.

So I don't have that exact measurement in front of me. All I can tell you is there's a 30 foot, there'll be at least a 30 foot setback because of the the easement.

I just did a quick measurement with GIS on the web-based version of it. And it's not 100% accurate because aerials, and there's always an angle depending on where the plane is. But that house right there, it says 6018, is about 40 feet setback from this property line. But again, that could be off a few feet. So I think it's probably pretty comparable.

so it was a 618 6018 is that the one that you were measuring yeah yeah it's measuring about 40 feet back that answers my question because i was really concerned about these others they just i was concerned about them thank you yeah i'm i'm familiar with that and that setback is i don't know 10 feet maybe okay any other questions for the applicant thank you

Is there anyone in the audience today who's here to speak in favor and support of this item? Please come forward. And state your name and address. Sign in when you're done. And you have up to five minutes.

Thank you. My name is April Wiese, and I'm the board president for the Merrill High Neighborhood Association. I live at 2860 2nd Street, so just up north on that 62nd Street there. We're here to speak in support of this possibility. I do have a letter of support in case anybody wants a copy of that. I can just leave that here. I'm not sure where to put it. We did have a discussion, as they said, with the board, and thank you, and Habitat. They did a presentation for us. We did have some concerns, mainly because of that other project that you mentioned. We do not like the way that one is. We definitely had some concerns about parking, about setback, about... green space for the families. Because, you know, with the kids, as you talked about, you don't want them playing on Hickman, right? You don't want them playing even on 61st and 62nd right there. It's pretty busy. So there really needed to be that area in the back for those kids to play. Little concerned about the fact that it's going to be, because if any of you have been to that other property on Hickman, that water pit is just, it's a pit. Very much a hazard for any of the kids around there. My daughter actually rented one of those town homes, and so I had three grandkids who I was scared about that water pit. So we wanted to be sure that this wasn't going to be that same kind of water pit in the middle where the kids were going to play. So that was probably one of our bigger concerns. We'd like to see more like a fence around that water pit area, if possible, the water retention spot. But really, other than that, they've been extremely responsive to us, very much like the plan that we're seeing so far. were were in support of it. We do understand that some of the neighbors have some concerns from that meeting. We had a couple of board members that attended that meeting as well. And it kind of sounded like some of their concerns were laid in that in that meeting or at least discussed through so that is all I have any questions.

You're welcome. Thanks. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral? opposed okay applicant if you have anything else to add you do have up to five more minutes okay they declined so I will close the public hearing and open it up to the Commission for discussion of motions what do we think

I aggressively support this project. I think it's necessary. I think it's the right group to do this. I obviously have questions about the structural financing and these types of projects in general. However, I hope we can support this one and the concerns I've heard could either be alleviated at the next round or probably aren't even problems. So I'd be excited to push in favor of moving this forward.

i'm very much in favor uh i think this is what's right in uh infill lot development and creating affordable housing this is a plus opportunity for us to move something forward here i agree with the comments uh 100 a question for staff is whether there could be a friendly amendment to your recommendation

regarding flexibility with the driveways, since it doesn't sound like the neighbors are opposed to that, in order to avoid another, if that's the only, type 2 design alternative.

In order to avoid another procedural meeting. We didn't notice for, I mean, a type two design alternative, we need to do notice of that. So we can't act on that tonight. I appreciate, you know me, I like to.

I was just checking.

Yeah, I like to get stuff done and be quick and efficient, but unfortunately we can't.

I just wanted to add that I was really pleased to see the row houses along Hickman. That's a good building type to put along a busier street like that and nice transition into the neighborhood. So it's an exciting project. I support staff.

Madam Chair, if there's no other discussion, I would move staff recommendation to approve the project.

Thank you. Well, any discussion on that motion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. Okay, that is unanimous. Motion passes. So let's move along to item number three, determination as to whether the proposed 6100 Hickman Road Urban Renewal Plan is in conformance with Plan DSM. And Sriyoshi will present this item.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Sreyoshi Chakraborty, planning staff. This is the other piece of the project that we just discussed. This is the approval of the 6100 Hickman Road urban renewal plan and to determine if it is in conformance with plan DSM, creating our tomorrow plan. So this is the urban renewal plan boundary which is the same as the rezoning and land use plan amendment that we just reviewed. And in your packet, you should have received the staff report which includes some summary information from the plan. So as you know, the primary goal for the urban renewal plan is to encourage the development of medium density or high density low and moderate income workforce housing. And then there are some specific objectives which are outlined here in the staff report. And so staff has reviewed the goals and objectives of the urban renewal plan. And one of the prerequisites for an urban renewal plan is to look at the comprehensive plan for the community and to determine if the urban renewal plan is in conformance WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. In looking at the goals and objectives, staff does believe that the plan conforms to several of Plan DSM goals. And those are outlined here under the categories of land use, housing, economic development, community character, and neighborhoods. Therefore, staff is in support of the Hickman Road urban renewal plan and recommends to the commission that the proposed urban renewal plan be found in conformance with plan DSM so long as the designation for the land within the urban renewal area is amended from low density residential to medium density residential, which was the previous item that was just discussed. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to my colleague, Katie Hernandez. She is going to give you some more details of the urban renewal plan itself and will be taking any questions that you might have.

Thank you. Hi, thank you, Sreyoshi. Katie Hernandez, Office of Economic Development for City of Des Moines. So I'll be walking through the urban renewal plan. I'm going to jump around a little bit, not chronologically in the page order, but wanting to start with the geographic location here. the proposed urban renewal plan boundary in the TIF district so the boundaries outlined in red it does incorporate adjacent right-of-way just as a proactive measure we do that just in the case that the actuals potentially outpace the assumptions and there could be the opportunity for an additional funding source for infrastructure here. That's certainly not the outset, the proposal on the table here, and that would be any additional projects would be subject to additional city council approval of those projects within the plan, but it's, again, more of a proactive measure to grab the right-of-way adjacent to the subject property. The TIF district is the hash mark, that's the specific development parcel. The purpose of the plan, as Ryoshi mentioned, is to support the project PROPOSED AT 6100 HICKMAN AS THE NAME SUGGESTS. SO THE FULL BOUNDARY IS 2.95 ACRES IN TOTAL SIZE. AGAIN, INCORPORATING THAT RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL AS THE PRIVATE PARCEL. Section 2, Sreyoshi covered it in her introduction, but outlining the conformance with the goals in Plan DSM related to land use, housing, economic development, and community character neighborhoods. So showing how this project aligns with the goals outlined in Plan DSM. CONFORMANCE WITH PLAN DSM LAND USE PLAN. THIS PART OF THE PROCESS FOR INTRODUCING A NEW URBAN RENOVAL PLAN IS A REQUIREMENT FROM THE CODE OF IOWA, CODE 403. SO THE FINDING CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS THE ACTION HERE ON THE TABLE TODAY. I will jump to again the maps. I'm sorry for the scrolling. So just a quick administrative note, I think the packet document, because of the previous action with the rezoning and the complaint amendment, the map will reflect the final decision by this commission and city council. So at the time, this is slated to go in front of city council at the August 24th meeting. So by the time it's recorded, it will reflect what the decision here for the comp plan amendment land use designation amendment and rezoning. So kind of evolving as the zoning and comp plan land use designation decisions take place as well. Appendix C DETAILS THE REAL PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN. SO AS RYAN MENTIONED, THIS IS A PROPOSAL OF A 22 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. RYAN DID MOST OF THE DETAIL ON THE PROJECT ITSELF, THE FINANCIAL COMPONENTS. SO THIS IS ADDRESSING THE PROPOSAL OF AN 11 YEAR SCHEDULE PROPOSAL OF AN 11 YEAR SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED 674,000 ON A NET NOT TO EXCEED 674,000 ON A NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 4.5% PRESENT VALUE AT A 4.5% DISCOUNT RATE SO THIS IS It's in response to the gap between the appraisal and the mortgage origination amount, which, again, is subsidized to meet those affordability goals that Habitat for Humanity has as part of its mission. So, again, these units will be provided for those likely... I think their mission is 30 to 80% as an organization. I think these will definitely be below the 80% mark AMI as a result of the sale that will be ultimately the income. So it'll be 80% below. Financial condition report. This is more detail on the TIF, the proposed TIF and the functionality of the TIF. The graph is probably the most meaningful part of this. This shows the projected assumptions for the TIF valuation used, revenue used and collected by the city and the percentage used over the course of the proposed TIF schedule. IT ALSO INCLUDES INFORMATION LIKE OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT LIMIT JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE. I KIND OF JUMPED AROUND BUT TRYING TO FOCUS ON REALLY THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN, HOW IT RELATES TO THE COMP PLAN. AND THE AS FAR AS SCHEDULING GOES, THIS PROJECT WAS HEARD BEFORE COUNCIL IN THE JUNE 8TH MEETING FOR PRELIMINARY TERMS. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A FINAL TERMS DATE YET THAT'S STILL WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT IT DID GO THROUGH COUNCIL ON JUNE 8TH AND DID RECEIVE APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY TERMS. I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR INFORMATION COVERED. I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.

CHRIS?

Sorry, yes, got a few. And just, as everyone knows, it's been my bed bug for a long time. Obviously, since 52, we've had TIF, and since 93, it's started to be restricted only to these types of properties, and then 2014 into utilities. So I really, really appreciate the use of TIF in this type of a thing. I think it's probably the only... project I've seen on here that's truly in line with what California has proven is the right way to do this, which is awesome. My question, I guess I'm curious, on the total asset valuation after adjusted projections that you have, has recent state legislature changes forced a risk as to whether or not that value is correct, or has that changed, or is that the right number, and how did you get it?

Do you mean... Like the foundation levy or the max usage at 60%?

I mean, what's the taxable value that you're basing your projections off of that all of our estimations are coming from? How do we get those numbers? Sorry.

We run a projection showing assumptions over the total schedule. We always do a 20-year term for future projections to understand what the TIF is. THE TIF PROJECTIONS ARE AT THE THE TIF PROJECTIONS ARE AT THE END OF THAT 20-YEAR TERM. END OF THAT 20-YEAR TERM. WE WERE, THE STATE LAW DID WE WERE, THE STATE LAW DID CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF THE TIF CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF THE TIF LEVY IN THIS LAST LEVY IN THIS LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHICH I LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHICH I BELIEVE EMILY MIGHT BE ABLE TO BELIEVE EMILY MIGHT BE ABLE TO CORRECT ME BETTER BUT I BELIEVE CORRECT ME BETTER BUT I BELIEVE ANY TIF ORDINANCES THAT ARE BELIEVE ANY TIF ORDINANCES THAT ARE ADOPTED AFTER THIS CALENDAR YEAR THE TIF VALUE IS REDUCED BY THE THE TIF VALUE IS REDUCED BY THE FOUNDATION LEVY AT THE SCHOOL SO FOUNDATION LEVY AT THE SCHOOL SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER FIVE DOLLAR IT'S ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER FIVE DOLLAR REDUCTION TO THE TIF VALUE. REDUCTION TO THE TIF VALUE. IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHEN WE IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHEN WE CERTIFY THE ORDINANCE SO WE DID A CONSERVATIVE RUN HERE BUT THE TIF WILL BE CAPTED AT 674,000 IN RESPONSE TO THE FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM PRESENTED. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

I think so. So what you're saying is right now, you believe there's certainty that the actual, the chart below and the increase in value of this property is in line with what the current legislative restrictions we believe are coming in place are going to be? Because every time we have this little chart, I'm just curious. Yeah, the one below, like, how accurate is that? Like, for example, for like the last five TIF projects, has this chart proved out? Correct?

So everything in gray is assumptions because it's future looking.

So looking back at the last five we've done in this city, have they proved out?

I don't have that information on hand. I can tell you most of our TIFF packages are proportional. So it's a percentage of whatever is generated by the TIFF. So usually these are kind of numerator, denominator, equal. It's a proportional percentage. a proportional chart, but I don't have the data in front of me for retroactive. I can tell you we have done some spot checking and some of the assumptions have outpaced the actuals, excuse me, have outpaced the assumptions as far as the assessments go, but we don't have that information on hand today. We can probably get that.

So how do you judge return on investment? Because this is obviously an investment. And again, we've just been all called to figure out if we want to spray for mosquitoes or not. So given that context, how do we know if these are smart investments in general? This one, I think I'm happy with. In general, TIF in general, how do we know we're happy with it? How do we know if it's returned?

So TIF as a mechanism is based on generated taxes so it really involves a project taking place. So return on investment is I mean there's a protected debt service levy that is TIF formula that's an automatic return on investment because it doesn't go back to the developer or the infrastructure project outlined in the plan as a matter of just how the TIF functions according to state law. The chart showing the lines at the bottom really outlines the return on investment as we consider TIF from a long-term standpoint.

If I could, isn't it also safe, I mean, I think you alluded to this, but the payments that go, the rebate payments, they only occur if the value is generated.

Correct. If there's no increase in value, there are no payments. That's the basis of TIF.

I guess my last one thinking about the long-term again right when you're looking at long-term and right here it looks like we're sizing this to give on average a thirty thousand dollar subsidy to the first purchase of that home and given the fact that these TIF documents you know our contracts that we have some leeway on restrictions on when we get there right is that financial model that's being proposed by Habitat the best model for Des Moines long-term interests versus the immediate ones or how do you view those types of structures for ensuring we maintain access for these properties to be meaningful affordable and when they're required for extra investment and years forward is this is there not something like a land trust or something else that may also be worth consideration or restricting within by this urban renewal plan or within your tiff contract um not within the tiff

contract or the scope of urban renewal. We have community land trusts, we have relationships with organizations that focus on affordable housing, but that is beyond the scope of this urban renewal plan. By nature of Habitat for Humanity's like model for home ownership. I mean, it will maintain its affordability because of the deed restriction. That's just by nature of how Habitat for Humanity transacts the property.

We say it's beyond the scope. It's beyond the scope of what's written or it's beyond the scope of what you're able to write?

It's beyond the scope of this urban renewal plan proposal.

but it could be something, it could be in a future one in the same way that we used to have other types of requirements in these that say, hey.

Are you just asking, could a land trust structure be used? Is that the question?

I'm just curious. I mean, right here, we're proposing this urban and rural plan. These urban and rural plans often look pretty cookie cutter. They always look the same. We always ask, could we do something smarter, different, more long-term, thoughtful? Can we have more data on what's actually happening? What's the return? How effective is this stuff? we never have those answers so I'm just asking what's the scope of what we can do and I've heard that the scope of this is not that I'm just curious in general we could go beyond what we have here just curious if we thought about it or why and love this project I think it's awesome we need to be putting TIF towards affordable housing I was curious in a long term RETURN FOR THE CITY IS THIS THE RIGHT SUBSIDY VEHICLE FOR THIS USE OF THIS DOLLARS AND DO WE HAVE CONTROL TO ACTUALLY DRIVE AN APPLICANT TOWARDS A MORE APPROPRIATE MODEL IF WE ARE THE ONES GIVING IT OUT?

I MEAN I THINK IF WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A GOOD PROJECT OR THE RIGHT TOOL WE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. WE WOULDN'T BRING IT FORWARD? YEAH. SO I GUESS I'M NOT SURE THAT I mean, I understand you have some strong opinions and I respect that. I don't know that, I'm not sure you're asking very specific question. I feel like what you want is a broader discussion about TIF in general.

Oh, that'd be good.

We never have to have that conversation offline.

Yeah, that's not what's before you tonight.

Well, we're required to have most these conversations in public as per letter from the city. So I just want to make sure we're clear we're putting out our opinions in public, since we are in this forum, and we're restricted from having those off record conversations, apparently. So I want to make sure that here

I DON'T THINK IT'S UP. I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'RE ASKING A QUESTION THAT WE CAN REALLY ANSWER TONIGHT BECAUSE YOU'RE WANTING TO HAVE A LONGER PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION.

I'LL DO A SHORT ONE. COULD WE, IF WE BELIEVE THE LAND TRUST WAS A MORE IMPROPRIATE INVESTMENT FOR AN URBAN RURAL PLAN TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR THE CITY'S INTEREST IN LONG TERM, COULD WE REQUIRE THAT TO AN URBAN RURAL PLAN?

THAT HAS NOT BEEN

Can we do it? I don't know that there's any legal reason why.

I don't, yeah, I don't know if there are any legal ramifications. That has not been a consideration as it relates to this proposed urban renewal plan.

So could we do it?

Yeah.

So it could do something different than what we got in front of us.

And not to eat up a lot more time, but I mean, in a way, what they're doing affects, I mean, it operates like a land trust. They have the right to buy it back. That's the whole point. They ensure long-term affordability, which is what a land trust does. I mean, I think we're getting essentially the same thing.

Jane, did you have a comment?

Yeah, it's different than a land trust, but I don't want to comment on that right now. I wanted to clarify about the property taxes that the future residents will be paying. And so those property taxes are based on the assessed value of the property, not on the mortgage. Is that correct? that is correct the whole county assessor makes it right and and so in in a sense these folks are paying for the subsidy that they'll be receiving um and i'm i just wanted to know that because we all know about property taxes in des moines they're not small and that'll be quite different potentially if it's a 30% AMI family from what they paid on their mortgage? And is that being considered in the calculations of affordability? Like if you're looking at the 30% of the household income going towards housing costs, then I would hope that you're considering the property tax expense as well, or we're setting up these families to not be successful.

I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE DUE DILIGENCE AND MATCHING WITH THE BUYER WITH THESE UNITS THAT PROPERTY TAX, P&I PROPERTY TAX INSURANCE IS ALL WRAPPED INTO THE FORMULA TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT ORIGINATION AMOUNT IS, BUT RYAN COULD BETTER SPEAK TO THAT.

THANK YOU. yeah to directly answer your question the uh the 30 percent of the buyer's uh gross household income is calculated on the principal interest taxes insurance and any fixed fees associated with ownership of the property like hoa fees specifically with this and regarding the sizing and the selection of excuse me the matching of families with homes There are many more criteria beyond just the 30% to 80% AMI. What you're talking about really is something we care a lot about of ensuring that the homeowner would be successful in this specific product, not just that they fit the broad program constraints. So it's a very individual approach to it. to success.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that the property tax and that folks were clear that folks are, that the residents will be paying property tax based on the assessed value, not based on the value of their mortgage. So in some cases, I mean, it's, it's possible that their property tax payment would be higher than their mortgage payment, you know, in a month.

The math could technically work that way. In practice, it doesn't for a variety of other reasons, but yes, you're correct.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. And so then I just had a larger question, and maybe this is not the place for it, but I'm curious about the setting of the TIF district, why it isn't larger.

TIF districts are... They follow parcel boundaries. We send the TIF district visual boundary and legal description to the county auditor's office who reviews it, and they administer the TIF JUST ON THE BACK LIKE THEY ADMINISTER ALL OF THE TIF ADMINISTRATION DUTIES ON THE BACK END BEFORE WE DO ANY TIF ADMINISTRATION SO IT HAS TO FOLLOW PARCEL BOUNDARY ACCORDING TO THE AUDITORS OFFICE AND IT DEALS WITH THE COLLECTION RIGHT OF WAYS, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY SO IT WON'T GENERATE ANY TIF.

BECAUSE WHAT WE DON'T HAVE THEN IS A LARGER SET OF we just don't have collective support then for this project is the folks who are living in it and it's their property taxes that'll be paying for the subsidy, right? Correct. Thank you.

Any other questions or discussion or motions?

Is this, have we closed the public hearing? Is this the time for the commission to deliver?

No, we have not.

Okay.

Thank you, though. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral? Anyone opposed? Okay. Applicant, do you need any more time? Okay. Uh, so I will close the public hearing officially and open it up for more discussion and motions.

I want to say a couple of things before maybe I'll make a motion, but I am actually glad to see this project. As some of you may know, this is an area that's adjacent or within the Invest ESM covered sits. so i think it would be a good idea to think about doing something like this within the other ones as value appreciates and keeping some of those homes affordable as well so i would like to hear from others but if not i would like to make a motion to approve the urban renewal plan i'll just make a comment to the developer that uh this i don't know maybe i shouldn't say this but that greenhouse that was there uh

you said everything perfect. It seems like you're on top of every little detail, but it was demolished in 2022, I think was on here and not, not within 10 years ago. I drive by it all the time. So I was, I was aware of that, but this is probably not a concern. I'm not as familiar with construction demo, but I want to make sure that glass does not come back up. You know what I mean? And you don't have to say anything about it. I just make a comment. Yeah.

Um, no, I did want to maybe, maybe bring up. So when that was a concern of ours, both, um, anytime, uh, a structure is demolished on the site that we build, we want to make sure that there's no issues. And specifically on a site like this. Um, so we commissioned, um, Derek on to do a type one. environmental assessment, and they determined that based on the prior use, more investigation was warranted. So we actually did on-site testing and evaluation of the site to ensure there were no leftover contaminants or leftover weird fertilizer things on site. So we dug around a lot to make sure what was supposed to be gone was gone on that site.

Since this one's about TIF, I do want to say that I really, really strongly support the fact that we are using TIF in this manner, which is what history and experience has proven is the best use for it versus the other things we tend to use it for. So hugely, hugely awesome. I do want to reiterate again, as I do every single time, I wish we would actually be a little more thoughtful in our restrictions and not just make cookie cutters when we're actually trying to make long-term investments.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, we have a motion on the table to approve the 6100 Hickman Road Urban Renewal Plan. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Opposed?

Pass.

One pass. Motion passes. That's the last item on our agenda tonight. Are there any committee or director's reports?

No. Thank you.

Thanks.