Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-2004 (2) Planning and Zoning CommissionAgenda Informal Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Monday, March 1, 2004- 7:30 p.m. "RECREATION CENTER MEETINGROOMB ****** 222 SOUTH GILBERT STREET Agenda Formal Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 7:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall (Iowa City City Hall) A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Rezoning Items: 1. REZ04-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by James Clark for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) zone to High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-44) zone for approximately 32,000 square feet of property located at 302 and 308 S. Gilbert Street. (45-day limitation period: March 14, 2004) 2. REZ04-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by James Clark for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone for approximately 1.34 acres of property located on the east side of S. Gilbert Street. (45-day limitation period: March 14, 2004) 3. REZ04-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Mike Roberts Construction for a rezoning from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone for approximately 24.1 acres of property located on South Sycamore Street, east of Southpoint Subdivision. (45-day limitation period: March 14, 2004) D. Development Item: SUB04-00005: Discussion of an item submitted by Mike Roberts Construction for a preliminary plat of General Quarters subdivision, a 8.81 acre, 29 lot single family subdivision located east of Sycamore Street, south of Stanwyck Drive. E. Other Items: 1. Discussion of an application for a Self Supporting Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) for property located within the Central Business (CB-10) zone, generally located between Iowa Avenue, Burlington Street, Gilbert Street and Capital Street. 2. Discussion of Planning & Zoning Commission By -Laws, section 10 conflict of interest. F. Consideration of the February 19, 2004 Meeting Minutes. G. ADJOURNMENT Uncomine Plannine & ZoninQ Commission Meetines: Informal March 15 March 29 April 12 May 3 May 17 Cancelled Holiday Formal March 18 April 1 April 15 May 6 May 20 June 3 To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ04-00003 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45-Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: February 19, 2004 James A. Clark 414 E. Market Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Rezoning from CB-2, Central Business Service to RM44, High Density Multi -Family Residential Zone. To bring current building in closer compliance with zoning. Southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Burlington Street. Approximately 32,000 square feet Residential; CB-2 North: P, Recreation Center South: RM-44, Residential East: CB-2, Commercial West: CB-5, Commercial Mixed Use, General Commercial January 29, 2004 March 7, 2004 The applicant, James A. Clark, is requesting the rezoning of approximately 32,000 square feet of property from CB-2, Central Business Service, to RM-44, High Density Multi -Family Residential. The area under consideration is on the east side S. Gilbert Street and the south side of Burlington Street. It includes the buildings at 302 and 308 S. Gilbert Street. The CB-2 zone requires commercial uses on the ground floor; thus the existing buildings are non -conforming due to the first floor residential apartments. The proposed rezoning to RM-44 will make the buildings more conforming with the current zoning requirements and will allow the owner to modify the ground floor residential units according the to RM-44 zoning requirements. K ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The current CB-2 zoning allows a variety of commercial uses, including retail, office, and auto and truck oriented uses, such as gas stations. In addition to commercial uses the zone allows residences above the ground floor. The zone is intended to provide a transition from the intense development of downtown to the less intense development located in adjoining areas. Proposed Zoning: The proposed RM-44 zone is intended for high -density development up to 44 dwelling units per acres. It allows very limited commercial uses, such as child care centers. Due to the density of development permitted RM-44 zones should be located near arterial streets. This portion of Gilbert Street and Burlington Street are considered to be arterial streets. Comprehensive Plan: This property is on the eastern edge of the Downtown Planning District. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifies this area for mixed -use development. The Comprehensive Plan also promotes higher density residential development near the downtown area because people who live near downtown can walk to work or class, will likely patronize downtown businesses, will add to the after hours vitality, and create a sense of safety in the downtown. Allowing high -density development near downtown also removes development pressure for high -density development in historic and outlying neighborhoods. The proposed RM-44 is not in strict compliance with the mixed -use land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan for this area, but does comply with the policy of encouraging high density housing near downtown. If this property were vacant or a candidate for redevelopment staff would be reluctant to recommend a residential zoning classification over a mixed -use zone. However given the age and relatively good condition of these properties, it is unlikely that they will redevelop for mixed -uses anytime in the near future. It should be noted that the draft zoning code anticipates the elimination of the CB-2 zoning district. If this occurs the City will need to rezone existing CB-2 properties to some other zoning category. For this property the proposed RM-44 zone, which accommodates the existing development, appears to be appropriate. Neighborhood Compatibility: The uses surrounding this property include high -density multifamily residential, commercial uses and the City's recreation center. The west side of Gilbert Street has commercial buildings. The area to the east contains an auto body repair shop. The property to the south is owned by the applicant and is zoned RM-44 and developed with apartment buildings that are similar to those located on the subject property. The proposed high -density multi -family zone would be compatible with this mix of uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ04-00003, an application from James A. Clark for a rezoning from CB-2, Central Business Service to RM-44, High Density Residential Multi -Family for property at 302 and 308 S. Gilbert Street be approved. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map Approved by: ``- Karin Franklin, Di Department of PI. 3 and Community Development T/pcd/shelley/REZ02-00001 Hanick/REZ02-00001 staff City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner DATE: February 23, 2004 RE: REZ04-00004, 408-522 S. Gilbert Street At the February 19 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, you directed staff to research options for dealing with the parking and traffic circulation needs at 550-06, 516 and 500-22 S. Gilbert Street if this property is rezoned from CC-2, Community Commercial, to CB-5, Central Business Support. Parking: This property is located along an arterial street that operates at its maximum capacity, therefore there is no on -street parking on Gilbert Street. Located directly east between S. Gilbert Street and S. Van Buren Street of this block, is a High Density Multifamily zone (RM-44) which shares the alley with the property in question on Gilbert Street. On - street parking is also limited in this zone. Parking is prohibited on Bowery Street and on the east side of Van Buren Street due to its narrow width. This has contributed to the congested condition of the alley. Based on police reports, in 2003 there were 25 incidences of improperly parked vehicles in this alley and in 2004, four incidences. Staff has heard concerns that cars parked in this alley block traffic and interfere with deliveries to businesses. Consequently, development of this property at a higher intensity may further exasperate the existing parking problems in the alley. Mr. Clark has not yet submitted specific plans for the redevelopment of 500-522 S. Gilbert Street, therefore the number of proposed dwelling units, bedrooms and parking spaces are not available at this time. The parking requirements per dwelling unit in the existing and proposed zones are: Existing CC-2 1 space per efficiency or 1 bedroom 2 spaces per 2 bedroom or 3 bedroom 3 spaces per 4 bedroom 4 spaces per 5 bedroom Proposed CB-5 1 space per efficiency or 1 bedroom 1.5 spaces per 2 or more bedroom The CB-5 zone was originally intended to be used in the near southside neighborhood located west of Gilbert Street. Plans for this area include a public structured parking facility. Therefore, less on -site parking is required in this zone. As indicated, the CB-5 zone requires considerably less parking per dwelling unit for multiple bedroom apartments than the CC-2 zone. For comparison, if the mixed -use building that Mr. Clark constructed at 217 Iowa Avenue, were constructed in the CC-2 zone, 57 parking spaces for the residential units would be required. In the CB-5 zone, 27 parking spaces for the residential units would be required. To address concerns about parking in this area, staff recommends that the conditional zoning agreement (CZA) require that development on this property comply with the parking requirements of the CC-2 zone. Traffic circulation: Because Gilbert Street is an arterial and the Bowery/Prentiss/Gilbert Street intersection is offset, staff has recommended that any access to 500-522 S. Gilbert Street be only from the alley at Bowery Street. Staff is concerned about the safety issues of accessing the new development from Gilbert Street. However, this is a dead-end alley that is terminated by Ralston Creek. This limits access to parking located off the alley and to February 27, 2004 Page 2 future commercial uses by large delivery trucks. In order to alleviate this circulation problem, staff has identified additional conditions for consideration in the CZA. 1. Allow one access from Gilbert Street south of Ralston Creek, the design and location of which must be approved by staff. 2. Any Gilbert Street access must connect directly to the alley and be constructed to specifications adequate to accommodate commercial delivery trucks. The criteria that staff will use to determine if the access is acceptable are: 1. Is the access located as far north of the Bowery/Prentiss/ Gilbert Street intersection as possible? 2. Does the bridge guardrail and abutment interfere with the vision triangle to Gilbert Street? 3. Will a vehicle travelling south on Gilbert Street be able to enter the property using the future left-hand turning lane? Staff Recommendation: Given the concerns raised by area property owners regarding traffic circulation and existing parking problems in the in the alley, the staff recommendation has been revised. Staff recommends that REZ04-00004, an application from James A. Clark for a rezoning from CC-2, Community Commercial, to CB-2, Central Business District on approximately 1.34 acres located on the east side of Gilbert Street between Burlington and Gilbert Streets be approved, subject to a CZA with the following conditions: 1. New development must comply with Chapter 4, Article E. Design Review, and must be approved by the staff design review committee. 2. Only one access from Gilbert Street south of Ralston Creek is allowed subject to staff approval of the design and location of the access. 3. Any Gilbert Street access must connect directly to the alley and be constructed to specifications adequate to accommodate commercial delivery trucks. 4. Eight feet of right-of-way along 516 and 520-22 Gilbert Street frontage must be dedicated to the City. If an access from Gilbert Street is provided at 500-06 S. Gilbert Street, eight feet of right-of-way must also be dedicated along this frontage. 5. Any development of the property at 500-06, 516 and 520-22 S. Gilbert Street must comply with the parking requirement for the CC-2 zone. For multifamily use, these requirements are: 1 space per efficiency or 1 bedroom 2 spaces per 2 bedroom or 3 bedroom 3 spaces per 4 bedroom 4 spaces per 5 bedroom Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 27, 2004 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Associate Planner Re: REZ04-00002 Niffenegger property rezoning At the February 19 meeting, the Commission asked that staff look into requiring construction access for development on the Niffenegger property to be from Sycamore Street, as opposed to Stanwyck Drive and Gable Street, which are local residential streets. There is an existing farm access to Sycamore Street at the northwest corner of the Niffenegger property. There are two issues with this proposal. First, Sycamore Street is sometimes embargoed to heavy trucks during spring due to wet weather conditions. Second, some construction on the Gable Street extension and associated utilities will need to occur from the existing south terminus of Gable Street. Staff recommends adding a condition that to the extent possible, and except in times when Sycamore Street is embargoed to heavy vehicles, construction access will occur from Sycamore Street. Staff cautions that this type of condition can be difficult to enforce and is not always passed down to every driver of construction -related vehicles. However, adding the condition does raise awareness of the expectation that there should be minimal development -related traffic on Stanwyck Drive and Gable Street due to this development. A revised staff recommendation adding this condition is below. This revision also addresses a typographical error in the February 19 staff report that the sidewalk connection to the Sycamore Trail should be at the north east corner of the property, not the north west corner. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that REZ04-00002, a rezoning from ID-RS, Interim Development Residential, to RS-5, Low -Density Single -Family Residential, for approximately 24.1 acres of property located on South Sycamore Street east of the Southpoint Subdivision be approved subject to a conditional zoning agreement with the following conditions: 1. The subdivider is required to contribute toward the cost of improving South Sycamore Street at a rate of $78.75 per linear foot, or $2,894.68 per acre of property as it is final platted. 2. Up to 29 lots may be platted with access to Gable Street before a second access to Sycamore Street is required for further development to occur. After the 29 lots with access to Gable Street are developed, a connection to Sycamore Street is required before additional lots are platted. 3. No direct access to Sycamore Street will be permitted until the reconstruction of South Sycamore Street is in a funded year in the City's Capital Improvements Program. 4. The property owner and / or subdivider shall dedicate 45-feet of property from the centerline of South Sycamore Street as right-of-way for South Sycamore Street, along the property's frontage with South Sycamore Street. 5. To the extent possible, construction vehicle access shall be from Sycamore Street, except during times when heavy vehicles are embargoed on Sycamore Street. 6. To fulfill neighborhood design principles in the South District Plan and Comprehensive Plan, the following conditions shall apply to the subdivision design for the property: a. Street connections to the north (at Stanwyck Drive), west (at Dickinson Lane) and south are required; and b. At least 300 feet of public frontage along the Sycamore Greenway is required; and c. A sidewalk connection from the north east portion of the property to the Sycamore Greenway Trail is required. Approved by: - Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: John Yapp Item: SUB04-00005 General Quarters Date: March 4, 2004 Preliminary Plat GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Mike Roberts Construction 15 Tarton Drive North Liberty, IA 52317 665-5601 Applicant's Engineer: MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 351-8282 Applicant's Attorney: Phil Leff 122 S. Linn Street Iowa City, IA 52240 338-7551 Requested Action: Preliminary Plat Purpose: To establish a 29-lot single family subdivision Location: South Sycamore Street, east of Southpoint Subdivision Size: Approximately 24.1 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural; ID-RS A request for RS-5, Single Family Residential Zoning has been requested Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential, RS-5 South: Agricultural, IDRS East: Agricultural, RS-8 West: Residential, RS-8 Comprehensive Plan: The South District Plan indicates detached single-family development is appropriate for this area. File Date: February 12, 2004 45 Day Limitation Period: March 28, 2004 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Mike Roberts Construction, is requesting a preliminary plat of General Quarters, an approximate 24.1-acre, 29 lot single family subdivision on the east side of South Sycamore Street, south of Stanwyck Drive and Gable Street. A request to rezone this property from ID- RS, Interim Development Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Multi -Family Residential, was recently received and is also being considered. No action on the subdivision request may take place before action on the zoning change request. ANALYSIS: Subdivision Design: The subdivision consists of 29 lots located off of Gable Street, a local residential street extended from the south. The majority of the remainder of the property is in an outlot for future development. According to the staff -recommended conditions associated with the rezoning request for this property, additional development on this property would not be permitted until the reconstruction of Sycamore Street is funded, and a connection to Sycamore Street can be made. Sherman Drive is a new east -west street proposed along the northern portion of the property. A sidewalk connection to the Sycamore Trail is shown at the north east corner, and an easement for a future sidewalk connection to Sycamore Street from the west end of Sherman Drive is shown. Landscaping at the west end of Sherman Drive is also shown — this landscaping will help keep drivers from cutting through from the west end of Sherman Drive to Sycamore Street, as well as being positive aesthetically. Escrow funds will be required for this landscaping with the final plat, and the landscaping will be planted when Sycamore Street is reconstructed. A temporary hammer -head turn -around for emergency vehicles is included at the east end of Sherman Drive. Sycamore Street: Sycamore Street at this location is a chip -seal road with a traffic count of 1,690 vehicles per day (2002 count). This level of traffic will increase as the area develops. In conjunction with the zoning change request, staff has recommended no additional access to Sycamore Street be permitted until Sycamore Street is in a funded year to be brought up to urban design standards. Staff also recommends that the applicant be required to contribute toward the cost of reconstructing South Sycamore Street as the property is platted. The rationale behind this recommendation is that rezoning this property to allow for urban development increases the need for Sycamore Street to be improved to urban design standards (curb and gutter, storm sewer, sidewalks, and a concrete surface). The need to improve Sycamore Street as surrounding properties are developed is not only related to the traffic levels; it is also related to the mix of people using the corridor, including pedestrians and bicyclists. As part of the rezoning analysis, staff has recommended the subdivider pay $78.75 per linear foot of Sycamore Street frontage toward the reconstruction of Sycamore Street. This amounts to $2,894.68 per acre. These amounts were developed according to a formula developed by the Johnson County Council of Governments. The legal papers associated with the final plat will be required to include the need for these funds to be paid toward the reconstruction of Sycamore Street. The subdivider is also required to dedicate right-of-way for Sycamore Street, in order to bring the right-of-way width to arterial street standards. The amount of right-of-way needed is 45 WsubdivisionslGeneral Quarters.DOC 3 feet from the center line of Sycamore Street, and is shown on the plat. This is consistent with the amount dedicated from the subdivision to the north, and will allow adequate width to bring the corridor to arterial street standards in the future. The reconstruction of Sycamore Street is currently unfunded. Gable Street access: The subdivision is proposed to have access from Gable Street, a local residential street to the north. Based on the City's guidelines for secondary access for local, residential streets, approximately 500 vehicle trips per day can occur on a residential street before secondary access is recommended. This is equal to approximately 71 single family lots, based on the 7 trips per day per household estimate used locally (71 households x 7 trips per household = 497 trips), that may be located on a single means of access before secondary access is required. Currently, 46 lots are located on Stanwyck Drive and Gable Street south of Lombard Street, which means an additional 25 lots would be developed before the 500 trips per day threshold is reached. As part of the rezoning request, the applicant requested 29 lots be permitted before secondary access is permitted, which equals approximately 525 vehicle trips according to our 7 trips per day per household estimate. This gives the applicant the ability to develop a street with two full rows of lots across the north side of the property, including the sidewalk connection to the Sycamore Trail. Staff is comfortable with allowing up to 29 additional lots off of Gable Street, provided a connection to Sycamore Street is required with any additional development of this property. Because Stanwyck Drive and Gable Street are improved City streets, these 29 lots may be developed before Sycamore Street is scheduled for improvement. The single access to Gable Street is a temporary situation until a connection to Sycamore Street is established. Gable Street will have to be extended across a segment of public property, the Sycamore Greenway and Trail, in order to serve the General Quarters subdivision. This will be required to be done by the developer. Sycamore Greenway: Segments of the Sycamore Greenway and Trail are located along the north and east sides of the Niffenegger property. The Sycamore Greenway was constructed to serve as a regional storm water collection system, and it also serves as a recreation trail, wetland, and habitat corridor. As recommended in the zoning analysis for the property, a sidewalk at the north east corner of the property is shown to connect to the Sycamore Trail. Storm Water Management fee: As noted above, the Sycamore Greenway was constructed to provide a regional ,storm water collection system for this area. In lieu of being required to construct individual storm water detention basins project by project, property owners and developers are required to pay a per -acre fee toward the Sycamore Greenway system as properties are developed. A portion of the cost of constructing the Sycamore Greenway is thereby recouped from the properties that drain into it. The fee is $2,775.68 per acre, and will be required at the time of final platting. Other development fees: Other development fees, including the sanitary sewer tap -on fee ($1,796.50 per acre) and water main extension fee ($395 per acre) will be required prior to the first occupancy permit being issued. Open Space: Based on this 24.1-acre subdivision, 0.57 acres of open space is required to Wsubdivisions\General Quarters.DOC 4 be dedicated. The applicant has proposed 0.2 acres of open space adjacent to the Sycamore Greenway with the first phase. It is anticipated another approximate 0.2-acre parcel will be dedicated with the second phase — fees in lieu of land may need to be paid for the balance of open space not dedicated. This subdivision will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their March meeting. Anticipated street connections: Street connections to Gable Street to the north, with Sycamore Street at Dickenson Lane to the west and to the south are recommended as conditions of the zoning approval. This subdivision complies with this by including the extension of Gable Street into this property. The other street connections are identified on the outlot for future development. Hydric Soils: The Sensitive Areas Inventory Map identifies an area of potential hydric soils on the east side of the Niffenegger property. These areas of hydric soils are shown on the plat, and the title is appropriately titled as a 'Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Site Plan.' The final plat construction plans and legal papers will need to reflect special construction methods for infrastructure and basements in areas of hydric, or water -saturated soils. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that SUB04-00005, an approximate 24.1-acre, 29 lot preliminary plat located east of Sycamore Street and south of Stanwyck Drive, be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Preliminary plat Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Wsubdivisions\General Quarters. DOC I.' 967 I I 4iY 2B0 i/11 9RB I PUT/PWI APPBBYBi a++x+rwYrr .m. 4.12 �rarrv� •rwx.x aes �® 277 by IN p_ ;rt• Ewa Preliminary Plat & Sensitive Areas Site Plan C'ICily of Iowa City Q wrLWy �7 �eneraC Quarters Iowa City, Iowa / STF'A•FI w4. r, r• v� tinh wi•1 a NO PWP1I Mffl I ATHYYIY IOC WICULTU BIG 1011 WBQIB WIO18rILTgl1 M O A lMy aDO cm GUM M OI. I4 tIByAM BBIR ffi BM. VA =0 l9 Bx CRY. DNA BffiW MOM I�xT, pIA 6A1'I CBA M. OVA bffi1a n � ... �i i71 +irt 2TJ na Zi5 i78 90a '°' ew •-�w IiGi.TLS�.w �. )-_.. a .�sc ''rvcc _ TW �� ��'-• _ riwrir.�a�•i''.I° 1 1 ,�rxr �� ~ +'r.r...l r I �r -v r %. � BBCIx BBBM MYaBxlAlirnFi a P.O.B. I I III •�. �y �1 r 73 12 .aaa. A 4 5 6 7 �' 9 . "' 15h I4-1 o r .� Oy A I. OIB aBG nIrxlAalxYAL1aY ro"i%°Lo, STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES 17 11 �. • — _-l.BS. w.LrlmwnBxmN ° J 24 B 22 I 27 28 - .... I .... - --- _ ' uxr xnB use T 29 Pl - neon Bay F 3 0 xql a°iun rmos` a.aw 2 e ya ; ; I � �•✓ Y � I-WSIFGSWlMr 44A '�� ' --. - aAcmuL alas —_— '_roywlBc wo r17 I 6w - p k�l x350' WIN uY LTIMfI Y 4L MPOYO uru1F5 9IOw I' O+ _� I n° R y d rC Mi YS Ba[Cr q KO! IP uON O.LNS � �j . I ` p lJ �{ . IIE KIIMx 9II YB LOGlg16 NL .PTbgp KLITES I +��xagg!Y A a.•u ac Lmllm wm e0xsrmsrlOx Banxlvl wsBr 1i I - W'[° _ yl .vino w a`r°ilxswm uo aaxnxP aascacx*aro xc i axri �n� ♦ ��,a=y lyl �iii GON TOYR INKIBvwL. r x IOOT �� toi� ioLOT lrll mwoc s n`ror xxxe wacr ® "f� ' I - if t xxnx w aR a.o-w uo aowx I o +� ®IoL ® xx • • nv sm wmWw�ra rx`�[ w s ? alsaxa x a rmr 9 a. b low ITY. IOWALLUUM � page\�' � �,_ -. ,x •CS lY � ex � 11 0 19\lI I o d Y t I r c I I •� I LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE <xwa. % u City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: February 23, 2004 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steven Nasby, Community and Economic Development Coordinator Mitch Behr, Assistant City Attorney RE: Proposed CB-10 Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District At your January 15, 2004 meeting the Commission considered the proposed CB-10 Self - Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) and received public input. At the request of the CB-10 petitioners, the Commission deferred consideration of the SSMID until March 4. To discuss this matter in more detail, on February 6, 2004, the Downtown Association hosted an informational meeting for property owners and tenants. At the January meeting, there were several questions raised by the Commission and the public that required consultation with our bond attorney. A description of these questions and the response from our bond counsel is as follows; 1. Would the SSMID levy be considered a tax or an assessment? • The SSMID is called a "tax"in the Iowa Code references and should be treated as such. 2. A property owner that signed the petition in favor of the SSMID has since sold the property. Can the new owner(s) of the property "remove" their property from the original petition? • The act of 'petitioning" was completed when the petition signed by the former owner(s) was filed. That act merely started the SSMID process The new owner(s) are free to support the petition that is being considered or join other owners in filing a petition to stop the adoption of the district. 3. One of the properties in the proposed SSMID area is a Low Income Housing Tax Credit (Section 42) property. How would a SSMID levy interact with this type of property? • Low -rent housing is exempt from property tax, upon proper application, during the term of the original low -rent housing mortgage (Section 427(1)(21)). These taxes should be handled in the same manner as all other property taxes applicable to this property. As mentioned in the January 9, 2004 memorandum, Iowa Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the proposal and with due diligence report to the Council with a recommendation on the "merits and feasibility" of the project. Within the January 9, 2004 February 25, 2004 Page 2 memorandum is a report containing review criteria for your consideration, along with Staffs comments regarding each of the criteria. Because of the statutory requirement that the Planning and Zoning Commission make its report and recommendation to Council with due diligence, Staff recommends that the Commission be prepared to make its report and recommendation at the close of the March 4 meeting. The report contained in the January 9, 2004 memorandum, a copy of which is attached hereto for your reference, can be used as your report, of course modified in accordance with your wishes. If you have any questions please contact Steve Nasby at 356-5248. Cc: City Manager Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development Bob Miklo, Senior Planner City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM _. DATE: January 9, 2004 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steven Nasby, Community and Economic Development Coordinator RE: Evaluative Report on a Proposed Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District The City has received a petition by property owners within the downtown central business district (zoned CB-10) requesting the creation of a Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) according to Iowa Code Chapter 386 (attached). A memorandum from the City Council notifying the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by Iowa Code, is also attached. Iowa Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the petition for "merit and feasibility" and to make an evaluative report to the City Council. The following is a description of a SSMID and some suggestions for the Planning and Zoning Commission on how to review the petition. This petition is the first step to beginning the process of creating a SSMID. For your information, the cover page of the SSMID petition (without signatures) is attached. Iowa Code states that the SSMID petition must be signed by at least 25% of the property owners (within a specific area or district) and that they represent at least 25% of the assessed value of the proposed district. On its face, the SSMID petition meets these two thresholds. The SSMID petition submitted to the City contained the signatures of 28.125% of the property owners that represented 38.6% of the total assessed value of the property within the proposed SSMID. What is a SSMID? A SSMID is essentially a self-imposed additional taxing district that will levy a tax on the properties located in a specified district. The proposed SSMID would cover all properties located in Iowa City's CB-10 zone. Funds generated from the levy would be used for projects that benefit the SSMID. Below is a listing of the purposes of the SSMID as submitted in the petition. Purposes The petition describes areas of focus for the use of SSMID revenues. A wide range of activities is allowed by Iowa Code and may be defined as operational, capital projects, parking abatement and debt service. This petition is designed to establish a SSMID district. Expenditures, other than those allowed as operational expenses (administrative), must follow the process outlined in Iowa, Code section 386.6 (improvements) and section 386.13 (parking fee abatement). Essentially, a second petition process will be needed in the future to expend funds for specific projects. Staff has consulted with our bond counsel to determine what expenses would qualify as administrative expenses upon creation of the district, which are the only expenses authorized without further process. January 9, 2004 Page 2 Tax Rate In the SSMID petition, the tax rate is established as a maximum of $2 per $1,000 of assessed value on all properties located in the CB-10 zone. The 2002 assessed value of the CB-10 zone is about $99 million. At this level, the SSMID would generate about $198,000 per year in revenue at the maximum tax rate. There is an exemption in the Iowa Code for residential properties. According to the City Assessor's Office, there is about $3 million in residential property that may be exempted from the SSMID levy. If these residential properties were exempted the maximum SSMID levy would be approximately $192,000 per year. Duration of the SSMID The proposed SSMID petition sets a 10-year life with an automatic renewal. A subsequent amendment to the SSMID could change the life of the SSMID. Notification and Public Hearing Following the receipt of the Planning and Zoning Commission's report, the City Council must set a public hearing and the City Clerk will officially notify all property owners via certified mail at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. After the 15 days have elapsed, the City Council could hold a public hearing on an ordinance to create a SSMID. SSMID Ordinance An ordinance implementing the SSMID would need to be created. This ordinance would contain the operational mechanics of how the CB-10 SSMID works. A number of other Iowa cities have SSMIDs in place and utilize a SSMID board to oversee the administrative duties, determine what projects would be proposed and then make recommendations to the City Council concerning the business of the SSMID. Council Action Since the creation of a SSMID is done through an ordinance, the City Council would have three readings of the proposed ordinance. Iowa Code states that a SSMID ordinance must be approved by 75% of the members of the Council. Councilors who abstain due to a conflict of interest are not included as "members of the council" in determining the 75%. A unanimous Council vote is required if a petition opposing the SSMID is received, which contains the signatures of 25% of the property owners within the proposed district who represent at least 25% of the assessed value of the district. If an opposition petition contains the signatures of 40% of the property owners who represent at least 40% of the assessed value of the district is received at anytime the SSMID ordinance must be withdrawn and no further affirmative actions may be taken by the Council related to the SSMID ordinance. Amendments to SSMID To amend a SSMID ordinance, property owners within the district must go through the same petition process used to create the SSMID. The amending ordinance is subject to Council approval. January 9, 2004 Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Review As mentioned previously, Iowa Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the proposal and report on the "merits and feasibility" of the project. These terms are not defined or identified in the statute. Our bond counsel has advised that since these terms are not defined, the Planning and Zoning Commission should give them "their ordinary meanings". Some subjects that the Planning and Zoning Commission may want to consider include the following items as identified by our bond counsel. This list should not be viewed as all-inclusive. 1. Whether the property in the proposed district meets all of the criteria established in Iowa Code Section 386.3(1); • The CB-10 SSMID petition has been considered by the City Attorneys Office and Iowa City'; bond counsel. The CB-10 petition as submitted appears to meet the minimum requirements of Iowa Code section 386.3(1). 2. Whether the petition sufficiently describes the boundaries of the district or provides a consolidated description of the property contained therein; • The CB-10 SSMID petition describes the area to be included as the downtown properties zoned CB-10. Iowa City has only one CB-10 zone in the jurisdiction. As such, stair's opinion is that the petition sufficiently describes the area and meets these requirements as shown in Iowa Code section 386.3(1) that requires the properties to be contiguous and wholly within the boundaries of the city, be given a descriptive name including the words "self -supported municipal improvement district"and be comprised of property related in some manner. 3. Whether a maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon the property within the district is set forth, and the purposes for which it may be levied; • The CB-10 SSMID petition establishes a maximum tax rate of $2 per $1, 000 of assessed value. This provision meets the requirement of Iowa Code section 386.3(2)(d). 4. Whether the purpose of the district is adequately described, as well as any improvements or other project activities that may be subject of the petition; • The purposes outlined in the CB-10 SSMID petition include marketing and business development, parking fee abatement, capital projects and operational. • Iowa Code section 386.3(2)(e) states that the purpose of the district "may be stated generally" As such, the CS-10 SSMID petition meets the requirement establishing a purpose for the district. • A preliminary review of the proposed SSMID by bond counsel and the City Attorneys Office has determined that operational expenses (including marketing) may be undertaken if the SSMID is approved by the City Council. This could include hiring a SSMID coordinator to provide operational support and provide for a marketing campaign. However, any other activities (e.g. capital January 9, 2004 Page 4 improvements and parking abatement) must come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to obtain expenditure authority. 5. Whether the proposed district or improvements would conflict in any way within any existing laws, plans or City policies, including comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, local or regional development plans or programs, local, state or federal laws or regulations or other established special districts; • The operational functions and marketing that can occur under this CB-10 SSMID petition, as proposed, does not appear to conflict with any laws, plans or policies. The proposed SSMID area overlaps with the existing City -University Project I Urban Renewal Area. As proposed, the CB-10 SSMID does not conflict with the goals or purposes of the City -University Project I Urban Renewal Area. Due to this overlap, State Code indicates that any valuation above the 2002 assessment of $99 million on property located in the SSMID area would be captured by the Tax Increment Financing (77F) district that was established within the City - University Project I Urban Renewal Area. If the SSMID is approved by the City Council, options do exist to account for any SSMID revenue loss due to the capture of value of the TIF. 6. Whether the taxes proposed, if any, will be sufficient to pay the anticipated costs or other expenses; • As noted above, the maximum revenue generated from the proposed SSMID would be approximately $192, 000 per year. This amount would be sufficient to hire a SSMID coordinator to provide operational support and provide for a marketing campaign. • Please note that since the SSMID would be an additional levy or tax, the City Council has the authority to annually establish the tax rate, but only up to the maximum allowed by the CB-10 SSMID petition. 7. Whether other funding sources will be required to construct any of the proposed improvements, and if so, whether they are expected to be available at such times and in such amounts for that purpose; and • No capital improvements are anticipated at this time. 8. Whether the formation of the district and construction of any proposed improvements are consistent with or in furtherance of other identifiable City policies or goals. • The activities that are allowed by this CB-10 SSMID petition would serve to compliment City policies and goals by promoting downtown Iowa City. The review by the Planning and Zoning Commission for "merits and feasibility" of the proposed CB-10 SSMID should focus on the operational activities (as defined in Iowa Code section 386.8) that would be eligible. In this context, staff recommends that the CB-10 SSMID petition be recommended for approval and forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. January 9, 2004 Page 5 If you need additional information or have questions about the proposed SSMID please contact me at 356-5248 or via e-mail at Steven-Nasby@iowa-city.org. Attachments Cc: City Manager Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development Bob Miklo, Senior Planner City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 17, 2004 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo Re: Commission bylaws in 1997 the Planning and Zoning Commission amended its bylaws to specify that a member who believes that they have a conflict of interest on a matter to come before the Commission, shall leave the room when the item is discussed. The City Council follows a similar practice. The attached article from the Planning Commissioners Journal provides a discussion of the matter. If the Commission decides to amend the bylaws the proposed amendments will be reviewed and approved by the City Council. TIP #% FOR NEW COMMISSIONERS RECOGNIZE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Why Care About Conflicts of Interest? Conflict of interest questions are part of the larger due proc- ess consideration of the impar- tiality of the planning board or commission. Simply stated, every party before your board is entitled to a fair hearing and decision, free from bias or fa- vor. Having a conflict of inter- est can threaten that impartial- ity. Therefore, it is critical that conflicts be identified and dealt with in an appropriate manner. The issue of conflicts of inter- est is particularly acute when a planning board member has an interest in developable real es- tate. While none of us like to think that we have given up some right by agreeing to serve on the planning board, the most sensitive ethical area in- volves a perception that a planning board member is act- ing in a way to advance his own interests in private prop- erty development. As a planning commissioner you are a public official. As such your actions are sure to be under scrutiny by members of the public and by your local media. The slightest stumble in how you deal with ethical is- sues has the potential to flare up into controversy. When in Doubt, Disclose If you believe that you have a conflict of interest or a situa- tion that could create the im- pression of a conflict of inter- est, the safest route is to dis- close the nature of your con- cern to the planning commis- sion. Be sure to make this dis- closure before beginning dis- cussion of the item. Let the Commission Decide Rather than an individual planning commissioner making a unilateral determination on conflict questions, consider establishing a procedure whereby a commissioner may request permission to be ex- cused, or request permission to participate, and let the com- mission make the determina- tion. This has several effects. First, it removes the burden from the individual. Second, it allows for the possibility that the commission may disagree with the individual commis- sioner's determination. Err on the Side of Caution When faced with a potential conflict, readily agree that you are willing to step aside if the commission so desires. Any insistence on your part to stay involved will only create the impression that you have a rea- son "to stay involved." Leave the Room Once a determination has been made that there is a conflict or potential conflict the simplest course of action is for that commissioner to simply leave the room. Out of sight, out of mind. Continuing to sit silently with the commission or even moving to the audience is not good enough. Leave the room. An Ounce of Prevention ... As with many things in life, it makes sense to plan for contin- gencies. Take the time to be- come familiar with whatever legal restrictions involving con- flicts of interest apply in your state. It may benefit your full commission to schedule an in- formal meeting or workshop with your city or county attor- ney to discuss hypothetical conflict of interest (and other ethical) concerns and how to deal with them.. From, "Conflicts of Interest — A First Look" and "Caution: Con- flicts of Interest," by Greg Dale (PCJ #1 and 34) Disqualify Yourself Don't fail to disqualify yourself if either directly or indirectly you have any financial interest in the outcome of the hearing, and let your conscience be your guide where it could be said that moral, ethical, politi- cal, or other considerations, such as personal animosity, would not permit you to make a fair and impartial decision.... To avoid all accusations of un- due influence, it is generally wise to leave the room and ask that the record show that you did so and that you did not in- dicate by word or action whether you were in favor of, or opposed to, the matter un- der discussion. From, "The Riggins Rules, #9" by Fred Riggins (PCJ #13). C 10