Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-2011 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, September 12, 2011 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Comprehensive Plan Item CPA11-00003: A public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential Stabilization to Urban Commercial for property located at 221 N. Linn Street, 225 N. Linn Street and 223 E. Bloomington Street and the MidAmerican substation located on the west side of Linn Street. D. Rezoning Items 1. REZ11-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone to Central Business Service (CB-2) zone for approximately .34 acres of property located at 221 N. Linn Street, 225 N. Linn Street and 223 E. Bloomington Street and approximately 3200 square feet of property located on the west side of Linn Street (MidAmerican substation). (45-Day Limitation Period: Waived) 2. REZ11-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Mane Gate, LLC for an amendment to the Planned Development Overlay High Density Single Family (OPD/RS-12) zone to allow ground floor residential uses in lieu of commercial space and to remove the requirement to build 20 garage spaces shown on the original approved plan for approximately 2.73-acres of property located at 2785, 2829, and 2871 Heinz Road. (45-Day Limitation Period: October 7, 2011) E. Development Item SUB11-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Saddlebrook Meadows Development for a preliminary plat for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 2, a 21-lot, 3.57 acre residential subdivision located at Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane. (45-Day Limitation Period: September 23, 2011) F. Urban Renewal Plan Discussion of the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan for approximately 45 acres of property bordered by Highway 1 on the south, Myrtle Drive on the north, the Iowa River on the east and generally Orchard Street on the west. G. Self Supported Municipal Improvement District Item Discussion of an application for a Self Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) for property located within the Central Business (CB-10) zone (Downtown) and the Central Business Service (CB-2) and the Central Business Support (CB-5) zones generally located north of Iowa Avenue (Northside Marketplace). H. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 29 and September 1, 2011 I. Other J. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Informal September 26 1 October 17 1 October 31 November 14 Formal October 6 1 October 20 1 November 3 1 November 17 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 15, 2011 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo Re: CPA11-0003/REZ11-00012 221 & 225 N. Linn Street and 223 Bloomington Street At the September 1 meeting, the proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance for properties located at the intersection of Linn and Bloomington Street were deferred to the September 15 meeting to allow more Planning and Zoning Commissioners to be present for their consideration. The applicant has submitted revised plans and drawings, which are attached. A color rendering was distributed at the September 1 meeting. Please review the August 18 staff report and September 1 memorandum for more details regarding these applications. At the September 15 meeting, the Commission should determine if the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to show the subject properties as being appropriate for commercial development. If the Commission recommends the Comprehensive Plan amendment, then the Commission should determine if the rezoning form Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) to Central Business Service (CB-2) zone should be approved and if any conditions should be contained in a Conditional Zoning Agreement regulating the property. Q Z �- VI 'Alpo e-1 �i Ur z 59 SlV1N3N/S31N0H N311V W r-r Q p N311V 3SS3f oCD wQo o ld]ONOD '1S NNII e z u c c �n J > c > - o n cn a �_ L c- c c c {- c= a) o o c o a c c c a a> O D c c ,ctci n c _ o ti Q o� c c c <n a a o 0 0 0 �- c _ -d (n O �O O cj cj -O Z3 7 � N O c O N O O _� _O c O .�-. .�-� i O O X� U Li Cn m J m W W� m U (n n n n (n (n Q-) CV d' in CO I- 00 o-) O N CV d- n c.fl _ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Cn n n (n (n (n (n (n cn J z Z Q a rn mO o p Z LC) W CD Q W = w lz 0 CL ww2 z gZ-o Y W Z w C OZ Q N Q = 0 LO M(�zQ F 7 Z _ W V N Q a2w Q N 0 r z V Z N Q 2 v Q Cl) wCD zo0 z LU 3�03 O¢a� .3 d (N zU�c =>Zz �_-D o �f- CpOOF—� sop¢ �wIrQ�o a— o�Zz� Q'D C �wa0 O� U W NU —OUC/]U O w M m z 2' �N 7, Cr cc �CflNOr r NN� -N O,N ^ a-N - c4zz 00. Y $ !S VI ,40 enrol SIVIN3a/93W0H N311V N311V 3SS3f 1dIONO3 *1S NNII a U t 8 $ �aE.ge `I a N N Na N Na LO N (01 , 04 2 0 0 rn 4 N �OJ co � I p N co Ip a �N W �Jd Y Z a —d�-------`------ O �. m (0 a O U U U cod J QU � Q n N O N >, U U my 000< 0 0 r- Q,' Z %- VI 'Al!0 BMOI Wu► Q r SlV1N3M/S3WOH N3llV ^ € o ,^� N3lN 3SS3f ,E. N b N zQ/C A 1d]ON0O *IS NNII z > Vi 'Al!O emol 04 (5 z SlVlN3N/S3WOH N311V N311V 3SS3f E $ wAoN 1d]3N0D '1S NNIIgv z u Z VI 'A8o Lmol SIVIN3WS3WOH N311V E W�� �� N3ll`c 3SS3f a c R y wWo 1d]3N0O '1S NNII" - T zAu ti g a Q �Z Z VI 'Ra0 U-1 ►J N SlV1N3HlS3WOH N311V W a N3l1V 3S53f 5 ` L zAU 1dIONO3 '1S NNII Q (N 1 � � d tl c f 9 w C _d a_ O O af Z Z VI 'Apo e-1 04 SlViN 3H/S3WOH N311tl N311V 3S53f € �O zAo 1dIDN00 '1S NNII b w s Q 0 Z VI 'A1l0 emoI W ¢ N < SlV1N38/S3WOH N311V N311V 3SS3f 'gIR § zQo 1d]ONO3 '1S NNII g N Q 0 w�¢ � Vi 'Apo emol SlViN3HlS3W0H N311b' N311V 3SS3f 1dIONO3 '1S NNII aZ � VI 'AllO emol W H^ G s n SlV1N3H/S3WOH N311V N3lltl 3SS3f p Z=U 1dION0O '1S NNII g To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REV 1-00013 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Phone: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: September 15, 2011 Steve Gordon 2871 -Heinz Road Iowa City, IA 52240 319-354-1961 Requested Action: Amending Overlay Planned Development Housing (OPD/RS-12) plan to allow existing ground floor commercial space to be used for commercial use or residential and to remove the requirement for 20 garage spaces. Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: To allow exiting 9,000 square feet of commercial space to be converted into five dwelling units. West side of Heinz Road south of Highway 6. 2.73 Acres Mixed use buildings with 9,000 square feet of commercial space and 30 apartments — OPD/RS12 North: Multi -family housing, RM-20 South: Manufactured housing, OPD/RS-12 East: Multi -family housing, RM-20 West: Manufactured housing, OPD/RS-12 Duplex and/or small lot single family August 25, 2011 October 9, 2011 Sanitary sewer and municipal water service are available to this property Public Services: Garbage and recycling will be provided by a private hauler. Police and fire services will be provided by the City. The nearest bus stop is near Highway 6/ Heinz Road intersection, where both the Mall and Lakeside bus routes pass. 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Saddlebrook development was annexed into the city in 1994. The annexation and zoning of this property was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The major conditions of the CZA specified that the applicant would provide for wetland protection and mitigation; construction of a trail network; dedication or payment of fees for neighborhood open space and dedication of a school site. The subject area was zoned RFBH, Factory -Built Housing Residential zone, at that time. The developer's original plan for Saddlebrook indicated that the area subject to this rezoning would be reserved for commercial uses, such as a convenience store, day care, dry cleaner, video rental store, mini -storage buildings and restaurants designed to primarily serve the residents of the manufactured housing park. At the request of the developer the zoning code was amended to allow a variety of commercial uses within a manufactured housing park. Prior to 2005 a number of mini -storage units were built, but no other commercial uses were developed within Saddlebrook. In the 2005 the applicant requested a rezoning from RFBH to High Density Single Family (RS-12) and a Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPD) to allow a mixed use development with offices and retail on a portion of the first floor and residential apartments on another portion of the first floor and the entire second floor. This was in lieu of the commercial uses originally proposed as part of the manufacture housing park. That application was approved and the mixed use buildings were built in 2006. The staff report for the 2005 rezoning is attached. The applicant is now applying to amend the OPD plan to allow the commercial space to be used for either commercial or residential uses. The applicant states that he has had difficulty leasing the spaces and feels that apartments would be a productive use of the property. The underlying RS-12 zoning would allow up to five additional dwelling units. The OPD plan that was approved in 2005 included two garages containing a total of 20 parking spaces near the west property line adjacent to the Bob Aire Manufactured Housing Park. The garages were not built when the apartment buildings were completed and the inspection department did not realize that they were a requirement of the OPD plan. The applicant is now requesting that the OPD plan be amended to show the garages being replaced by 20 surface parking spaces and an evergreen hedge. The hedge was planted when the development was built and now provides a screen between Bon Aire and the parking spaces. ANALYSIS: As noted the applicant's original plans for Saddlebrook included commercial uses to serve primarily the residents of development. Because of secondary access concerns further residential development within Saddlebrook has ceased. This has likely limited the market for commercial uses. McCollister Boulevard, an arterial street planned through the southern section of Saddlebrook, is not yet programed for construction. Once built, McCollister Boulevard will allow additional residential development in this area and will also lead to increased traffic counts on Hienz Road. Additional residential development and traffic may make the subject property more suitable for commercial activity in the future. In the interim the applicant's request would allow the existing buildings to be used for five additional apartments. If a market develops for commercial uses, the ground floor units could be converted back to function as commercial businesses. This flexible approach is similar to what is planned for other mixed use areas, such as Towncrest and Riverfront Crossings. In staffs 3 opinion this would be an appropriate strategy for this developing neighborhood. The OPD plan that was approved in 2005 included 20 garage stalls as an amenity to serve the residential units. The garages were also seen as providing a transition between the one story dwellings located within Bon -Aire, the adjacent manufacture housing park, and the two-story buildings on this property. Surface parking spaces were installed in place of the garages and the applicant would like to amend the plan to reflect this change. An evergreen hedge was planted to screen the surface parking areas from the adjacent dwellings. The applicant has indicated that the market does not support the construction of the garages and that they would be a financial burden on the project. The applicant also indicates that the evergreen hedge produces a more appealing transition to the adjacent residential uses than the back of a garage would. The Commission should determine whether the garage structures were an important element of the original OPD plan and should be built prior to the addition of more residential units, or whether the OPD plan should be amended to allow the surface parking and landscape hedge in lieu of garage spaces. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the REZ11-00013, an application submitted by Mane Gate, LLC for an amendment to the Planned Development Overlay High Density Single Family (OPD/RS-12) zone to allow ground floor residential uses or a maximum of 9,000 square feet of commercial space for approximately 2.73-acres of property located at 2785, 2829, and 2871 Heinz Road be approved. The Commission should determine if the garages are an important feature of the plan or if OPD plan should be amended to allow open parking spaces with the evergreen hedge in lieu garages. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Site plan 3. Elevation drawings 4. 2005 Staff Report Approved by: Jeff Davidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development SAIRMStaff Reports\REZ05-00009 Saddlebrook mixed -use dim M 74 O O ri N W o sliwi-i 3 Z uio z TRIPLE CROWN LN M cn C O �c i I IN if 10 ONIwOIVd L I II Il I� ; N I 13 NVsaow O �/� V ♦ A3 VH JINOdOIOd �10 I I I O I �10 NVIBV C 3JVSS3 N /Q li 3a Olt � �`—_J1 = OaLI 3SOONV \iCl 31dd \0 O� i�(M ZN31 00 N N 00 N Ln 00 N O co N a 0 CLu z Q 2 O a °' .J JN183dSIHMm LY H / O C — cl 0c O o U C W JcWi - - $ M.0 p .• 6'a >. E 6e j C_€ J-0Qa o C =s o E Ecd - U .� mg m � X �,� o�� �5. Y3 •� aB Y 8 CL o of co C� LLJFLp�i'^Jt O r`ie C—) h y C p� ..: aw.« �•V z 5 9 e �..•` F in gn�_�MH ¢ss 'e8^a mB..ZaS�$ � :a�'�aa' s a:�aa• �•pS r, o g O. E��¢S�y y^� ^• a z=8$m�8s� a �"aE s_ gam ti 0 z 0 < w LLI z D w co Of U A z 0 F— < w Ljj LAS -j D W D 0�— Fit 2011 AUG 2 : O'f4A9e c S 1 w J _Q z w Q w w 0 Q W W z U LL z O :< 4 oj > W LLI W O_ W ON 0 ix _ 0 0- 0 w Q U) W F— U) z Q w a n W H W z U LL S W < — V) W _d < r > J w W _4 J J wz 0 W w 9 pW <i 0 N M MIi STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Jeffrey Banks, Planning Intern Item: REZ05-00009 Date: July 6, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: The Stables, LL.C. 805 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Contact Person: Brenda Nelson, Phone: 319-627-6818 Requested Action: Rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Overlay Planned Development Housing (PDH-12). Purpose: To allow construction of two-story, mixed use development with 30 residential units and 9,000 square feet of commercial space. Location: West side of Heinz Road south of Highway 6. Size: 2.72 Acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Public Services: Office (former single-family dwelling) - RFBH North: Multi -family housing, RM-20 South: Manufactured housing, RFBH East: Multi family housing, OPDH-RS12 and RM-20 West: Manufactured housing, RFBH Duplex and/or small lot single family June 14, 2005 July 29, 2005 Sanitary sewer and municipal water service are available to this property Garbage and recycling will be provided by a private hauler. Police and fire services will be provided by the City. The nearest bus stop is near Highway 6/ Heinz Road intersection, where both the Mall and Lakeside bus routes pass. 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Saddlebrook development was annexed into the City in 1994. The annexation and zoning of this property was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The major conditions of the CZA specified that the applicant would provide for wetland protection and mitigation; construction of a trail network; dedication or payment of fees for neighborhood open space and dedication of a school site. The subject area was zoned RFBH, Factory -Built Housing Residential zone, at that time. The applicant is now requesting a rezoning from RFBH to High Density Single Family (RS- 12) and a planned development housing overlay (OPDH) to allow the development of a mixed use development with offices and retail on a portion of the first floor and residential apartments on another portion of the first floor and covering the entire second floor. The OPDH request is necessary to allow the mix of commercial and multi -family proposed by the applicant. The current zoning designation (RFBH) would allow this area to be developed for manufactured housing units or limited commercial uses, such as convenience stores, beauty parlors, dry cleaning businesses, video rental stores and restaurants, designed to primarily serve the residents of the manufactured housing park. ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: This land is located in the South .Planning District. The land use plan for this area indicates that is it appropriate for small -lot single-family or duplex dwelling units. This designation was given to the property in 1997 and recognized the development plan that had already been approved for Saddlebrook, including small -lot single family homes in the RFBH zone. The current RFBH zoning classification allows for manufactured and/or mobile homes with provisions for limited commercial uses. When Saddlebrook was first planned it was the developers' intent to include commercial uses, as allowed by the RFBH, on the area now being requested for rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan provides guidance for the incorporation of commercial and mixed -use developments into new neighborhoods. The Plan states that, "Located near an arterial street, or near an intersection of two collector streets, a neighborhood commercial area associated with a public square or park can provide a focal point and gathering place for a neighborhood ... shopping areas within convenient walking distance for the residents in the immediate area, and may include such facilities as a post office substation, a day care center, small restaurants and a convenient store. The design of the neighborhood commercial center should have a pedestrian orientation with the stores placed close to the street, but with sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes and patios or landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and sides of stores with additional parking on the street. Including public space, such as a town square in a commercial center, will allow such centers to be a focal point for their neighborhoods that can serve as an activity center for recreation, seasonal festivals, farmers markets, play areas and a bus stop. Apartments above businesses can provide needed housing while increasing the revenue stream for commercial establishments and enhancing the residential nature of the area. Townhouses or small apartment houses surrounding the commercial center can increase the customer base for the commercial uses @nd make efficient use of the services available in the neighborhood center." (p.21) The purpose of the PDH overlay zone is to allow flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development many be inappropriate and where modifications of requirements of the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or harmful to the surrounding properties. It is the intent of the PDH overlay to promote efficient land use with smaller utility and street networks, provide for flexibility in architectural design, preservation of K3 landscape features and open space and to promote an attractive and safe living environment compatible with surrounding residential developments. The proposed PDH-12 overlay will allow for mixed use structures with multi -family and commercial elements. The proposed development would be on a 2.72 acre lot, and would include three two-story buildings with a total of 9,000 square feet of commercial space on the first floor and 30 residential units of one or two bedrooms. The design also includes 79 parking spaces, which slightly exceeds the amount (76) required by the City. Behind the development, on the West side of the lot, are two parking garages, both of which are one-story in height. The applicant has proposed a design which incorporates a central green space surrounded by the three buildings with parking situated on a lane running behind the buildings. In staffs' opinion, there are several attractive design elements in the proposed building plans, such as the use of masonry construction, storefront windows and generous green space. There are a few existing mature trees which may be incorporated in the design. In staffs' opinion, this plan meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the OPDH zone. There is evidence of a flexibility of design with the clustering of buildings on the site, a generous use of open space and an efficient plan for parking. The proposal generally helps promote an attractive and safe living environment which is compatible with surrounding residential developments. Compatibility with neighborhood: At the time the Saddlebrook development was annexed the properties lying to the north and east were zoned to RM-20 to allow for multi -family development. In staffs' view, the proposed mixed use multi -family development is compatible in scale and design with existing buildings in the area. The manufactured housing units to the West are lower scale but the proposed two-story building to the West is setback from the western property line by one-story garages along the property's edge which effectively provide a buffer to the two-story development. The existing RFBH zone lying to the south contains a clubhouse for the development and the current proposal is consistent with institutional and recreational character of the club house. In staff's opinion the proposed Planned Development is compatible with the surrounding development. To assure continued compatibility, staff recommends that the uses and signs of the proposed development are limited to those of the Community Commercial (CN-1) zone. Traffic implications: Proposed zoning is very similar to existing zoning and so significant additional traffic is not expected. Under the current zoning (RFBH) the developer could build the area out with either manufactured housing or limited commercial uses. Traffic anticipated for the residential units is 6 trips per day, or 180 VPD (vehicle trips per day) for the 30 units. This is not excessive for Heinz Road, a collector street. The proposed 9,000 square feet of commercial space will generate additional traffic, however, given the relatively small size of the commercial space and the anticipated neighborhood commercial uses, traffic volumes are not expected to overburden Heinz Road. Access and street design: The proposed development will be accessed from Heinz Road off Highway 6. Heinz Road is a collector street and is currently the primary access road for the Saddlebrook developments. In the past, because of increased number of housing units in the area, this single access road has been a concern. A Conditional Zoning Agreement on the overall Saddlebrook development allows occupancy permits for only 416 residential units until the time when a secondary access road is made available. Residential development is approaching the threshold of 416 units, however, as the Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 development has been approved and platted, which includes plans for a secondary access route, staff expects that secondary access will soon be available to the Saddlebrook developments. Building permits will cease to be issued when the threshold is reached, until 4 such time as a secondary access road has been made available. Pedestrian access to the proposed development from Bon Aire Mobile Home Park, which lies directly to the West, is so limited as to encourage trespassing across the properties abutting the western side of the lot. Staff recommends, for this reason, that the proposed development expand pedestrian access in the West by building a sidewalk to the property line in the Southwest corner of the lot, where Bon Aire Mobile Home Park has a public area. Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of: A neighborhood open space dedication is required for this lot. At the time of the original Saddlebrook subdivision and the Conditional Zoning Agreement with Sycamore Farms, the Parks and Recreation Commission determined the amount of open space required for the entire subdivision to be 6 acres based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance. At that time approximately 2 acres of neighborhood open space were proposed along the west side of Lot 6. An additional acre was proposed within the 50-foot wide sanitary sewer easement between Lots 5 and 7. The remaining three acres of Neighborhood Open Space are to be provided along the west boundary of Saddlebrook when that is subdivided, so that it may be combined with open space required for the Gatens' tract to the West, in order to create a more substantial open space area. Infrastructure fees: The $395 per acre fee for water main extension was paid for by earlier Saddlebrook subdivisions. There is no sanitary sewer tap -on -fee for this portion of the city. Stormwater: Requirements for stormwater management for this property were addressed through the larger subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the rezoning of 2.72 acres from RFBG to OPDH-12 and the preliminary plan for Saddlebrook Addition Part 1, Lot 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Uses and signs limited to those of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone. 2. Preserve and incorporate older existing trees, where possible, especially the Fir trees on the West edge of the lot and the large tree in the central green (perhaps building G could be shifted to the north a few feet to make room for the tree). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Site plan 3. Elevation drawings Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development S:1PCDXStaH Reports\REZ05.00009 Saddlebrook mixed -use z z 11 Z g tD s j r. a: sixt e .� fill ] f sea Q .... 0 _ 0? 0 �ns�sR asY� �R"'Rie STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: SUB11-00013 Date: September 15, 2011 Saddlebrook Meadows Part 2 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Saddlebrook Meadows Development 2871 Heinz Road Suite B Iowa City, IA 52240 354-1961 Requested Action: Preliminary plat approval Purpose: 21 single-family lots Location: Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane Size: 3.57 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential; South: Wetland Reserve and Agricultural; RR-1 East: Agricultural; RS (County) West: Agricultural; RS-8 File Date: August 11, 2011 45 Day Limitation Period: September 25, 2011 SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer service area available to serve the site. Public Services: Police and Fire protection will be provided by the City. Solid waste disposal will be provided by the City. Transportation: The Eastside Loop and Lakeside transit routes serve this area with the closest stops located on Lakeside Drive approximately'/ mile to the north of this subdivision. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 422-acre area containing the Saddlebrook development was annexed in 1994. The property 2 has been subdivided into several parts. The most recent subdivision was Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1, an 8.98-acre, 47-lot Planned Development with a mixture single-family lots, duplexes, zero -lot line and townhouses. The applicant is now requesting preliminary plat approval for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 2 located to the south and west of Part 1. Street access will be provided by the extension of Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane, which are being built to provide access to Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1. (Although Part 1 appears on this plat it has already been approved, only Part 2 (lots 48 to 68) is being reviewed at this time.) The proposed subdivision is subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) which applies to the entire Sycamore Farms annexation area. That agreement includes requirements for a mitigation plan designed to protect the Snyder Creek Bottoms wetland area from storm water runoff; dedication of neighborhood open space or payment of fees in lieu of dedication, and payment for all oversize cost except those associated with an east -west arterial street. ANALYSIS: Subdivision Design: As noted Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane, which are being built as part of Saddlebrook Part 1, will provide street access and frontage to most of the lots in Part 2. Blazing Star Drive will extend to the south of Pinto Lane and to the west of Whispering Meadows Drive to provide access to future phases of the development. Pinto Lane will extend to the west of Whispering Meadows Drive to provide access to future phases. The connection of Whispering Meadows Drive to Pinto Lane will provide secondary access to the larger Saddlebrook development located to the east. The proposed design meets the subdivision standards for streets and lots. All of the lots exceed the minimum 45-foot lot width and 5,000 square feet lot area required within the Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone. Neighborhood Open Space: The neighbor open space requirements for this subdivision are 5,386 square feet. The Parks and Recreation Commission has determined that open space dedication for the Saddlebrook development should occur in the western part of the RS-8 zone where it can be added to the Sycamore Greenway. At the time of the final plat for Part 2, the legal papers should specify the open space obligation will be satisfied on the adjacent property. Stormwater Management: Storm water management facilities to serve this area were built in early phases of the Saddebrook development. Other than storm sewers no other storm water facilities are needed to serve this development. Hydric Soils: Hydric soils are located on lots 58-64 and 67 and 68 and within Pinto Lane. The presence of hydric soils indicates the probable existence of a high water table. High water tables on a property require special construction practices for infrastructure and residences. Construction safeguards for streets and utilities will need to be included in the construction drawings for the final plat. Provisions for sump pumps and discharge tiles will need to be addressed in the legal papers at the time of final plat review. Infrastructure Fees: Water main extension fees of $395 per acre apply to the entire subdivision. South Sycamore Trunk Sewer tap on district includes the area west of Whispering Meadows Drive, but the lots in Part 2 will be served from lines in Part 1, which is not include within the district so fees will not apply. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this application be deferred pending addition of a mail box cluster. Upon this deficiency being corrected staff recommends approval of SUB11-00013, a 3.57-acre, 21-lot residential subdivision located on Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: Mailbox clusters should be shown on the plat (staff recommends a mailbox cluster in the vicinity of lots 59 and 60). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Preliminary plat Approved by:� GUi Jeff Davidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development O o SilVV 31` 60dKO _ ONE W _ TRIPLE CROWNLN _ _ ^l I \\ CM m c N T 7 m a O V OCL 0 O _ i ONIM3dsIHM w a i 3 WV O t o, o� N SNARE W 1 'iT ONIYVO'1Vd) 1 ,i - �_—_ cm T lO ONvlsnw ,' I; l0 woven); i I, - - I lOO ANOdOlO I O A3NNOVH a 1(17N BV� I 0 30VSS340 l �alr�O 110 3SOON--& Mddi� � II �\ /,10 ZN31 0��-----'��— 1 Q W o _ ..... co _/ ti Gteefo , �r i i O q g 5 �#p .� W R$sRsR$ bye w€ HRU Yd lilt a 3 i d � kWEide � S 9 . n �ii Raawaa°enpe.r m i RMS E- r N a W ri D HOW a `n3 W / Q r � > � A 4/ V 1 W � a1NN� VONO _— _ 1--1 jt,� F _ .a. =Xwu _ le, N ��� �� I d Z lino -j �$ 30 ! p0p } ie J Eu p s�y jig, k yyFFRRRgp9 6 gg p Y �' ge@ GY�geg� � 9cg2 � g1S�yrs*b ig5 Y�ErB�r?"� I ki —�_,--r.®Ir CITY OF 1OWA CITY imilwMakh MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinatorze Date: September 9, 2011 Re: Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area Introduction: On September 6, the City Council approved a Resolution of Necessity as the first step to establish the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area. The Resolution of Necessity sets into motion the steps of requiring the Planning and Zoning Commission to review and recommend the plan, of holding a consultation with other taxing jurisdictions in the county, and of setting a date for a public hearing on the plan. The urban renewal plan is proposed for the purpose of and the prerequisite to establishing a tax increment financing district to finance projects within the urban renewal area. State Code requires that prior to the City Council holding a public hearing on the plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission review and submit a written recommendation to the City Council regarding the urban renewal plan's conformity with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. History/background: The proposed Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan has been developed to help reduce blighted areas and promote economic development within Iowa City. Disinvestment over time reduces the likelihood that neighboring property owners will choose to invest and the cycle continues as blighted conditions increase and property values decrease. This cycle was exacerbated in Riverfront Crossings by the flood of 2008. The proposed Urban Renewal Area encompasses both sides of Riverside Drive between Iowa Highway 1 on the south and Myrtle Ave. on the north, and from the Iowa River on the east to a line roughly 1 block west and parallel to Riverside Drive. The entire area was significantly affected by the floods in 2008. The 2002 Southwest District Plan addresses the need for changes and improvements in this area, citing the lack of attention to the relationship between commercial and residential uses, among other things, as having contributed to general disinvestment and declining property values in the area. The district plan calls for redevelopment that would better blend the business with the residential neighborhood and for improvements to the walkability and streetscape in the area. In 2008, several buildings along the east side of Riverside Drive were inundated in the flood forcing some businesses to close for good or relocate and others to substantially rebuild. One building near the Benton Street bridge had been vacant for years before the flood and remains in a further dilapidated condition today. Although some properties were rebuilt after the flood, or are of newer construction, a substantial number of structures and properties are appropriate for blight remediation. September 9, 2011 Page 2 Discussion of Solution: In order to make development or redevelopment sites attractive to new and expanding businesses, communities are often called upon to provide financial incentives and programs. With the creation of an urban renewal area, a city may establish a tax increment financing (TIF) district. At the City Council's discretion, TIF may be used for public improvements such as roadway and sidewalk repair, trails, or for public/private partnerships to assist in development or redevelopment of properties. When considering public/private partnerships, there should be a clearly identified public benefit. The area is designated for blight remediation due to the presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures, defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, deterioration of sites, and the existence of conditions which endanger property by various causes, including a combination of the foregoing factors. Such conditions substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of the City, retard the provision of housing accommodations, or constitute an economic or social liability and are a menace to the public health, safety or welfare of the City in the area's present condition and use. The ability to use a portion of the increase in property taxes generated by redevelopment for public projects such as beautifying the Riverside Drive commercial corridor, increasing trail connectivity along the Iowa River, and remediating some of the blight conditions in the area will improve the environmental and economic health of the community. This is a primary goal of establishing the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area. Conformity with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan Among the economic well-being, land use and urban pattern goals outlined in the comprehensive plan are: • Further the concept of compact and contiguous growth by prioritizing the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP); • Redevelop and reuse existing commercial sites; • Diversify and increase the property tax base by (1) encouraging the retention and expansion of existing industry and (2) attracting industries that have growth potential and are compatible with existing businesses; • Increase employment opportunities consistent with the available labor force; • Provide and protect areas suitable for future industrial and commercial development; • Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through the efficient use of resources; • Focus commercial development in defined commercial centers, including small scale neighborhood commercial centers; and • Foster strong community neighborhoods with a mix of housing, churches, schools recreation facilities, commercial areas, and historic landmarks; and • Consider financial incentives and programs to facilitate achieving the above goals. September 9, 2011 Page 3 The Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan conforms with these goals and the 2002 Southwest District Plan. TIF TIF is a mechanism which may be used to finance certain projects within a designated urban renewal area. The difference between taxes derived from unimproved and underdeveloped property and those derived after its development is the "increment" of taxes which may be pledged by a city, at the discretion of the city council, to retire loans, advances, bonds, or other indebtedness incurred by the City or the developer in furtherance of the development. The amount of incremental valuation is taxed at the consolidated property tax levy rate (city, county and schools). The revenues produced from local debt service levies are subtracted because these are returned to each taxing jurisdiction in order to pay outstanding general obligation debt. This revenue may not become part of the tax increment revenue and is known as the protected debt levy. The balance of the revenue is allocated to the City. Chapter 403 of the Code of Iowa sets forth the provision of Tax Increment Financing. To establish a TIF program, a city must first prepare an urban renewal plan for a specific urban renewal area. A city may designate an urban renewal area as either a "blighted," "slum," or "economic development" area, each of which s defined in Chapter 403. In this instance, the urban renewal area shows evidence of slum and blight, which is appropriate for designation "by the local governing body as appropriate for commercial and industrial enterprises." The City's stated objectives for the urban renewal area are outlined in the urban renewal plan. The urban renewal plan also explains why it is in the City's interest to establish this urban renewal area. In addition to the Planning and Zoning Commission's review and recommendation, the City will hold a consultation with representatives from the county, school district, and community college, in order to provide these taxing entities with an opportunity to comment on the use of the incremental tax revenues. After the public hearing and the consultation with the affected taxing entities, the City Council will consider adoption of the urban renewal plan and the TIF ordinance. The TIF ordinance establishes the mechanism for separating the incremental tax revenues from the base tax revenues. Any subsequent developer's agreements for projects financed with TIF will outline more completely the City's obligations and the developer's obligations regarding development within the urban renewal area. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a written recommendation to the City Council stating that the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. September 9, 2011 Page 4 Attachments Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan Blight Analysis map Approved by: DO t4-t Jeff Davidson, Director Department of Planning & Community Development City of Iowa City Ri*verfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan 2011 Table of Contents Section 1 — Introduction Section 2 — District Designation Section 3 — Base Value Section 4 — Urban Renewal Plan Objectives Section 5 — Description of Urban Renewal Area Section 6 — Proposed Urban Renewal Activities and Proposed Projects Section 7 — Conformance with Land Use Policy and Zoning Ordinance Section 8 — Relocation Section 9 — Financial Data Section 10 — Urban Renewal Plan Amendments Section 11 — Property Acquisition/Disposition Section 12 — Effective Period Addendum No. 1 — Legal Description Addendum No. 2 — Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area Map 2 Section 1- Introduction This Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan ("Plan") for the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area ("Urban Renewal Area" or "Area") has been developed to help local officials reduce blighted areas and promote economic development within Iowa City, Iowa. The primary goal of the plan is to stimulate, through public involvement and commitment, private investment in the revitalization of the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area. The goals outlined in this Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan include the following, which include goals detailed in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan — 1997, as amended: ■ Remediation of blighted areas; ■ Diversify and increase the property tax base by (1) encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses and (2) attracting businesses that have growth potential and are compatible with existing businesses; ■ Increase employment opportunities consistent with the available labor force; ■ Provide and protect areas suitable for future commercial development; ■ Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through the efficient use of resources; ■ Consider financial incentives and programs to facilitate achieving the above goals; ■ Focus commercial development in defined commercial centers; ■ Increase sidewalk and trail connectivity to promote walkability and encourage bicycling and other alternative forms of transportation; ■ Improve connections between commercial retail uses and adjacent residential neighborhoods, and ■ Beautify the commercial corridor through better landscaping and streetscaping, rehabilitation of old buildings and improvement of building facades. In order to make development sites attractive to new and expanding businesses, communities are frequently called upon to provide financial incentives and programs. Other development sites in the metro area, which already cater to commercial and office uses, make tax increment financing available to qualifying businesses. The City has identified the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area to be a blighted area, as defined by Iowa Code 403.17 (2011). It is in the interest of its citizens to provide financial incentives and programs in order to encourage blight remediation and revitalization of such areas. Redevelopment of property within the the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area was of particular interest to residents of the Miller Orchard neighborhood due west of Riverside Drive during the planning of the Miller Orchard Neighborhood Plan in the Fall of 2008 and Spring of 2009. Residents of the neighborhood expressed a desire for reinvestment in the Riverside commercial area, with better streetscapes and landscapes and increased diversity of businesses. Commercial redevelopment of this area would coincide with the residential neighborhood improvements occurring as part of the Miller 3 Orchard neighborhood plan. The Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan is one component of broader redevelopment efforts that will eventually encompass the east side of the Iowa River. Those broader redevelopment efforts are planned to include significant investment in new residential, mixed -use and commercial properties. The City intends to make available the use of tax increment financing as a means to finance the construction of some of the necessary public infrastructure improvements within the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area. In addition, the City may make available the use of tax increment financing to provide direct grants, loans, rebates or other incentives for qualifying commercial or residential developments that help achieve the goals and objectives set forth herein. To achieve the primary objectives of this Plan, the City of Iowa City shall undertake the urban renewal actions as specified in this Urban Renewal Plan, pursuant to the powers granted to it under Chapters 15A and 403 of the 2011 Code of Iowa, as amended. Section 2- District Designation With the adoption of this Plan, Iowa City designates this Urban Renewal Area as as appropriate for elimination and remediation of blight. This Urban Renewal Area is located within the Southwest District of the City. The Southwest District Plan, a component of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan, addresses the need for changes and improvements in this area, citing the lack of attention to the interface between commercial and residential uses having contributed to general disinvestment and declining property values in the Southwest District. Updated in 2002, the Southwest District Plan calls for buildings that would better blend the business with the residential neighborhood. The 2008 flood of the Iowa River exceeded the 100-year flood level and inundated much of the Urban Renewal Area. Most of the area east of Riverside Drive and much of the area west of Riverside Drive was under water for a period of approximately 30 days. This event exacerbated the blighted condition of this Urban Renewal Area. Several buildings west of the Iowa River and east of Riverside Drive were inundated in the historic flood of 2008 causing several businesses to close or relocate and necessitating considerable rehabilitation of existing buildings. Although there are a few properties that rebuilt after the flood or are of newer construction, a substantial number of structures and properties are appropriate for blight remediation. In addition, many properties along Orchard Street south of Benton Street and along either side of Riverside Drive sit on small lots that do not provide adequate or attractive spaces for development. These lots also lack efficient access from neighboring streets and are plagued by restricted traffic flow. The configuration of Sturgis Corner Drive off of Riverside Drive has contributed to the accessibility problems in particular for businesses 11 in the southeast portion of the Urban Renewal Area. The overall lot configuration and lack of accessibility reduces the usefulness of these properties, leading to a general diminution of property values. The disinvestment that has plagued the Urban Renewal Area is circular; the decision by existing property owners to not reinvest in their property reduces the likelihood that neighboring property owners will choose to invest. This cycle, spurred on by the flood of 2008, inadequate lot sizes, poor traffic flow and lack of site accessibility, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of this area, constitutes an economic and social liability in its present condition and use. The Area does contain several well -established, successful businesses that nevertheless do not conform with the City's current design standards, and may benefit from substantial rehabilitation or redevelopment of certain site improvements. Access from Riverside Drive is difficult due to lack of turn lanes and proliferation of driveways in the corridor. Sidewalk accessibility is discontinuous and inadequately designed. Curb ramps are inconsistent and absent in places. Landscaping and pedestrian amenities are nearly nonexistent. Cross -access easements between lots are largely absent. All of these features could be enhanced through incentives enabled by the Urban Renewal Area, which would foster economic development in the area. Overall, the area is designated for blight remediation due to the presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures, defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, deterioration of sites, and the existence of conditions which endanger property by various causes, including a combination of the foregoing factors. Such conditions substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of the City, retard the provision of housing accommodations, or constitute an economic or social liability and are a menace to the public health, safety or welfare of the City in the area's present condition and use. Section 3- Base Value If the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area is legally established and debt is certified prior to December 1, 2011, the taxable valuation within the Area as of January 1, 2010 will be considered the "base valuation". If the debt is not certified until a later date, the "base value" will be the assessed value of the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area as of January 1 of the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the City first certifies the amount of any debt. Section 4- Urban Renewal Plan Objectives The overall goal of this Plan is to formulate and execute a workable program using public and private resources to develop the Urban Renewal Area for retail, office, and other commercial or residential uses. The following objectives are hereby established for the proposed Urban Renewal Project Area: ■ To assist with blight remediation efforts; ■ To encourage and support development that will expand the taxable values of property within the Urban Renewal Project Area; ■ To reverse the deterioration of commercial properties within the Urban Renewal Project Area; ■ To encourage new development of commercial businesses in the Urban Renewal Project Area, in particular high -quality restaurants, retail stores to serve the surrounding community, banks and hotels.; ■ To make public improvements as deemed necessary by the City to support commercial and recreational activity within the Urban Renewal Project Area; ■ To provide financial incentives and assistance to qualifying projects and businesses as necessary; ■ To continue redevelopment along the Iowa River; ■ To assist and promote development of green space and recreation trails along the Iowa River; ■ To establish an attractive, vibrant southern highway corridor to the city; ■ To provide for the orderly physical and economic growth of the city; ■ To provide other support as allowed under Iowa Code Chapters 15, 15A and 403. Section 5- Description of Urban Renewal Area The legal description of this proposed Urban Renewal Project Area is included in the Plan as Addendum No. 1 — Legal Description. The location and general boundaries of the Riverfront Crossings Drive Urban Renewal Plan Area are shown on Addendum No. 2 — Location Map: Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Project Area. This area is approximately 44 acres. Section 6- Proposed Urban Renewal Activities and Proposed Projects To meet the objectives of this Plan and to encourage the development of the Area, the City intends to utilize the powers conferred upon it pursuant to Iowa Code Chapters 15A and 403 (2011) and to make available financial incentives, including but not limited to, tax increment financing for the following activities and Proposed Projects: 1. Undertake and carry out urban renewal projects though the execution of contracts and other instruments; 2. Make or have made surveys and plans necessary for the implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan or specific urban renewal projects; 3. To acquire and dispose of property for urban renewal projects; 4. Make loans, forgivable loans, grants, rebates, or other incentives to private persons or businesses for economic development purposes on such terms as may be determined by the Iowa City City Council, in its sole discretion; C 5. Provide for the installation of infrastructure and roadway improvements; 6. Use any or all other powers granted by the Urban Renewal Act to develop and provide for improved economic conditions in Iowa City; 7. Encourage the incorporation of energy efficient building techniques such as those specified in the Iowa Green Building Standards, or those attaining LEED certification, through the use of tax increment financing, in the sole discretion of the City Council; 8. Private Site Improvements: Private site improvements may include, but are not limited to, demolition of existing buildings and site preparation; design and construction of buildings; grading for building construction and amenities; paving and parking; landscaping; and installation of on -site utilities. Tax increment financing may be granted to qualifying entities to finance these private site improvements, at City Council's discretion. Any development projects receiving tax increment financing or other public funding assistance may be subject to review by the Staff Design Review Committee. Design review approval may be based on compliance with design consistent with the goals of the Southwest District Plan. In addition, the City Council may designate Riverside Drive a "Design Review District," whereby all improvements to buildings or property within the district would be subject to Design Review according to the aforementioned design guidelines; 9. Public Infrastructure Improvements: Public infrastructure improvements may include, but are not limited to, storm water management facilities, public streets and sidewalks, trails, parks, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and open space and streetscape improvements. Tax increment financing may be available to finance the construction of these improvements, in whole or in part, at the City Council's discretion; 10. Financial Incentives: At the City Council's discretion and as permitted by Iowa Code Section 403.19 (2011), tax increment financing may be available for providing direct grants, loans, property tax rebates, or other incentives for qualifying projects and businesses in the Urban Renewal Area; 11. Tax increment financing may be used for, but is not limited to, financing the private site improvements and public infrastructure improvements listed above. Qualifying projects and businesses shall be determined by the City Council on a case by case basis. Section 7- Conformance with Land Use Policy and Zoning Ordinance Comprehensive Plan 7 The Urban Renewal Area is located within the area designated by the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan as the Southwest Planning District. The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan designates the Urban Renewal Project Area as appropriate for general commercial and residential uses. This Plan is consistent with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Southwest District Plan, last amended in 2002. Current and Proposed Zoning and Land Uses The Area is currently zoned CC-2, as defined by the Iowa City Zoning Code. The current land use for the project area is commercial. The proposed land uses include retail, office, and other commercial uses permitted in the CC-2 zones. The City may amend its zoning code to create a new Design Review District and/or a new, mixed -use zoning classification appropriate for Riverside Drive and may rezone the area to be so designated. Any rezoning to this area, including the creation of a new zoning category under the Zoning Code, will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Section 8- Relocation The City does not expect there to be any relocation required of residents or businesses as part of the proposed urban renewal projects; however, if any relocation is necessary, the City will follow all applicable relocation requirements. Section 9- Financial Data 1. Constitutional Debt Limit: $ 131,337,980 2. Current general obligation debt: $ 91, 155,000 Proposed amount of indebtedness to be incurred: Although a specific amount of tax increment debt to be incurred (including direct grants, loans, advances, indebtedness, or bonds) for projects over time has not yet been determined, it is anticipated that the cost of the Proposed Projects and activities identified in Section 6 above will be between $5 to $10 million. In no event will debt be incurred that would exceed the City's debt capacity. It is further expected that loans, advances, indebtedness or bonds to be incurred for the Proposed Projects or subsequent projects, including interest on the same, will be financed in whole or in part with tax increment revenues from the Urban Renewal Area. The City Council will consider each request for financial assistance or a project proposal on a case -by -case basis to determine if it is in the City's best interest to participate. Section 10- Urban Renewal Plan Amendments This Urban Renewal Plan may be amended from time to time for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to changes in the boundary, to add or change land use controls or regulations, to modify goals or types of renewal activities, or to amend property acquisition and disposition provisions. If the City of Iowa City desires to amend this Urban Renewal Plan, it may do so after providing public notice, holding a public hearing on the proposed change, and undertaking other required actions, all in conformance with applicable state and local laws. Section 11 - Property Acquisition/Disposition The City may provide incentives for land acquisition in the Area. The City will follow applicable procedures for the acquisition and disposition of property. Section 12 - Effective Period This Urban Renewal Plan will become effective upon its adoption by the City Council of Iowa City and will remain in effect as a plan until it is repealed by the City Council. The use of tax increment financing revenues (including the amount of grants, loans, advances, indebtedness or bonds which qualify for payment for the division of revenue provided in Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa) by the City for activities carried out under the Urban Renewal Plan is not limited due to the designation of the area as blight. However, the use of tax increment financing incentives shall be limited as deemed appropriate by the Council and consistent with all applicable provisions of law. X Addendum No. 1 Legal Description of the Urban Renewal Project Area The Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area includes the following: Beginning at a point on the southeast corner of Sturgis Corner Addition Part II; Thence southerly to the centerline of U.S. Highway 6; Thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with S. Riverside Drive; Thence continuing westerly along the centerline of State Highway 1 to a point where it intersects with the centerline of Orchard Street extended; Thence northerly along the centerline of Orchard Street to the centerline of the Iowa Interstate Railroad; Thence easterly along said railroad centerline to a point that is 190', more or less, west of the point of intersection of the railroad and the centerline of State Highwayl/Riverside Drive; Thence northerly to the north right-of-way line of said railroad; Thence north 118' to the south right-of-way line of S. Riverside Court; Thence north 12.5' to the centerline of S. Riverside Court; Thence west along said centerline to where it intersects with the extension of the west boundary of property described as follows: Commencing 459.5' east of the SW corner of Lot 1; N100'; E60'; 5100'; W60% Ryerson's and Sharp's Subdivision. Thence northerly along said west property line extended to the centerline of Myrtle Ave; Thence east along said centerline, continuing east to the west bank of the Iowa River; Thence southerly along the west bank of the Iowa River to the point of beginning; And the right of way of all adjacent roads. 10 Addendum No. 2 Riverftont Crossing Urban Renewal Area PRENTISS Riverfront Crossing Urban Renewal Area Approximately 44 Acres 00812191-1\10714-106 ST J 11 Mr, 11 Riverfront Crossingb. - - Area Approximately •• Acres Tr t MYRTLE AVE P513 510�"� �■1 ��aih. �a • M—MIN 0 BENTON ST 804 820 i aso m o s e w 9 co W I !1 0 o .. s 0 0 `^ 1 9 19 21 70 U.S. HIOHwq Y e 00 N r7 Johnson County BD Johnson County Imo,', NOR TH WA S TEWA TER TREA TMEN T —. PLANT - A substantial number of slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures Defective or inadequate street layout - Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness Unsanitary or unsafe conditions Deterioration of site or other improvements Diversity of ownership, tax, or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of land Defective or unusual conditions of title; or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes Any combination of these factors CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator Date: September 8, 2011 Re: Evaluative Report on a Proposed Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District The City has received and City Council has forwarded for review a petition by property owners within the Central Business (CB-10) zone, the Central Business Service (CB-2) zone and Central Business Support (CB-5) zones, downtown, connecting to, and including the Northside Marketplace. The petition requests the creation of the Iowa City Downtown Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) as defined by Iowa Code Chapter 386 (attached). The Iowa Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission review of 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 considerations for review of the petition. Submission of a petition is the first step in the process of creating a SSMID. The text of the petition is also included in this memo (without signatures). Iowa Code states that the SSMID petition must be signed by at least 25% of the property owners (within the specific area or district) representing at least 25% of the assessed value of the proposed district. Upon staff review, the SSMID petition meets these two thresholds. The petition submitted on August 25, 2011 contained the signatures of 35.6% of the property owners representing 42.3% of the assessed value within the proposed district. What is a SSMID? A SSMID is a self-imposed additional taxing district that will levy a tax on the properties within the specified district. The proposed SSMID would cover properties located in the Central Business District (CB-10) zone, the Central Business Service (CB-2) zone and the Central Business Support (CB-5) zones downtown, connecting to, and including the Northside Marketplace (see map within petition). Funds generated from the levy would be used for the purposes of paying the administrative and operational expenses of the proposed district, as defined and authorized by state law. Below are some facts about this petition and some further points for your consideration of the merits and feasibility of the SSMID. Iowa City Downtown SSMID Petition Purposes State Code allows for the SSMID to levy taxes for three purposes within a SSMID district: Operations, Capital Improvements and Debt Service. The petition for the Iowa City Downtown SSMID proposes only the levy of Operational taxes for the following purposes: 1) To develop and manage activities in support of marketing, business retention and attraction, including, but not limited to marketing activities, including media and advertising campaigns and communication materials; providing miscellaneous business support services; September 9, 2011 Page 2 establishing and promoting special events, festivals, and activities; establishing databases, providing space referrals and assistance, and making further improvements to and expansion of the Park & Shop/Bus & Shop program. 2) To make physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the Proposed District, including, but not limited to lighting Improvements, seasonal and decorative enhancements, signage and banners, and landscaping. 3) To hire a Business Development Manager and Assistant Business Development Manager who will work for the Board to manage the work of the Iowa City Downtown Self Supported Municipal Improvement District Board and to fulfill the intent of this Petition. Tax Rate In the SSMID petition, the rate is established at a maximum, not to exceed two dollars ($2) per one thousand dollars ($1,000) assessed value for a period of four (4) years, commencing with the levy of taxes for collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. At this level, the SSMID would generate about $282,000. This rate is requested by petitioners because it will meet the operational budget projections for SSMID activities. Duration of the SSMID The proposed SSMID petition is limited to four years. To renew a SSMID, the same process must be followed as to establish a 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 Iowa City Downtown Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District would work. The petition intends that the City of Iowa City enter into an operating agreement with the Iowa City Downtown SSMID Board, a 501 (c)(6) non-profit organization. SSMID Board The proposed Board will direct the activities of the SSMID and consist of 14 to 19 people including the following voting members: two from property owners or their representatives from a single property within the Proposed District that has an assessed value in excess of 1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries; two from property owners or their representatives from a single property within the Proposed District that has an assessed value less than of 1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries; two from business owners within the Proposed District that lease more than 3,000 square feet of commercial space; two from business owners within the Proposed District that lease less than 3,000 square feet of commercial space; one from a business in the Northside Marketplace area, one from The University of Iowa; and up to four other stakeholders of the proposed district. SSMID Advisory Board to the City Council September 9, 2011 Page 3 A proposed Advisory Board to the City Council will be made up of specific members of the proposed SSMID Board and advise City Council on SSMID activities and make annual SSMID budget recommendations to City Council. The Advisory Board will be chosen by the SSMID Board from among its members and be comprised of the following: a property owner or their representative from a single property within the Proposed District that has an assessed value in excess of 1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries; a property owner or their representative from a single property within the Proposed District that has an assessed value less than of 1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries; a business owner within the Proposed District that leases more than 3,000 square feet of commercial space; a business owner within the Proposed District that leases less than 3,000 square feet of commercial space, and one from a business in the Northside Marketplace area. Council Action Because 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 received. Such a petition must contain 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 at any time, the SSMID ordinance must be withdrawn and no further affirmative actions may be taken by the Council related to the SSMID ordinance. Amendments to the SSMID To amend a SSMID ordinance, property owners within the district must go through the same petition process used to create the SSMID. The amended ordinance is subject to Council approval. Other points for Planning and Zoning Commission Review Iowa Code Chapter 386 requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to prepare, with "due diligence," an evaluative report for the City Council on the "merits" and "feasibility" of the SSMID project. These terms are not defined by statute and thus should be given their ordinary meanings. The following is a list of items that the Commission may want to consider in drafting its report. This list should not be considered all-inclusive. 1. Whether the property in the proposed district meets all of the criteria established in Section 386.3(1): The Iowa City Downtown Self Supported Municipal Improvement District (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed District) petition appears to meet the minimum requirements of Iowa Code Section 386.3(1), which states that a district shall: 1) be compromised of contiguous property, zoned for commercial or industrial uses and be located wholly within the boundaries of the city, 2) be given a descriptive name containing the words "self-supporting municipal improvement district", and 3) be comprised of property related in some manner. • The Proposed District is comprised of contiguous property zoned for commercial use (CB-10, CB-5 and CB-2) and is within the boundaries of the City of Iowa City. The petition states that the Proposed District is entitled "Iowa City Downtown Self September 9, 2011 Page 4 Supported Municipal Improvement District. " Finally, the property within the Proposed District is related in that it is physically located in downtown Iowa City, is contiguous, and serves as a commercial hub for the community. 2. Whether the petition submitted is sufficiently clear and contains the requisite number of signatures from property owners representing the necessary assessed value of all the taxable property within the proposed district. The Proposed District petition provides detailed explanations of the proposed operations of the SSMID and the requirements of SSMID property owners. Staff has reviewed the petition and verifies that it contains signatures from at least 25 percent of property owners representing the necessary assessed value of all the taxable property within the Proposed District, as well as over 25 percent of all owners of property within the Proposed District, per Iowa Code Section 386.3(2)(a). 3. Whether the petition sufficiently describes the boundaries of the district or provides a consolidated description of the property contained therein; • The petition provides a legal description of the boundaries of the Proposed District, as well as a map indicating the parcels of land included within the Proposed District. 4. Whether a maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon the property within the district and the purposes for which it may be levied are set forth; The Proposed District petition establishes a maximum tax rate of $2 per $1,000 of assessed value. This meets the requirement of Iowa Code Section 386.3(2)(d). The petition states purpose of the tax is to provide new, additional or enhanced services within the Proposed District. 5. Whether the purpose of the district is adequately described, as well as any improvements or other project activities that may be the subject of the petition; As stated in Item 4, the petition states that the purpose of the Proposed District is to provide for new, additional or enhanced services within the Proposed District. In particular, revenues collected for the Proposed District Operating Fund may be used for the following projects: o Development and management of activities in support of marketing, business retention and attraction, including establishment of databases, space referrals and assistance, media and advertising campaigns and communication materials, establishment and promotion of special events, festivals and activities, and further improvements and expansion of the Park & Shop/Bus & Shop program; September 9, 2011 Page 5 o Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the Proposed District, including lighting improvements, seasonal and decorative enhancements, signage, banners and landscaping; o To hire a Business Development Manager and Assistant Business Development Manager who will fulfill the intent of the SSMID petition. 6. Whether the proposed district or improvements would conflict in any way with 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 the Proposed District does not appear to conflict with any existing laws, plans or policies. • The Proposed District overlaps with the existing City -University Project I Urban Renewal Area. As proposed, the SSMID petition does not conflict with the goals or purposes of the City -University Project I Urban Renewal Area. It is noted in petition the intention that, notwithstanding the fact that a part of the proposed SSMID district is located within the City -University TIF district, the amount of funds which would be derived from the annual SSMID levy from properties within the TIF district be made available annually for the SSMID activities and that the City take all actions necessary to accomplish this purpose, including the allocation of a portion of the incremental property taxes which are attributable to properties within the proposed district. 7. Whether the taxes proposed, if any, will be sufficient to pay the anticipated costs or other expenses. The maximum revenue generated from the proposed SSMID would be approximately $282, 410 per year. This amount would be sufficient to hire the Business Development Manager and Assistant Business Development Manager mentioned above, as well as to cover costs associated with marketing campaigns, operational costs, and physical improvements to the Proposed District. (Additionally, the University of Iowa has announced intention to contribute $100, 000 per year in support of SSMID activities.) 8. Whether the formation of the district is consistent with or in furtherance of other identifiable City policies or goals. Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan notes the importance of keeping downtown Iowa City vibrant, including the need to upgrade and improve physical amenities downtown. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan suggests a combination of public and private efforts, including those by downtown businesses and property owners, to ensure continued vitality of downtown Iowa City. The Proposed District petition September 9, 2011 Page 6 states that one of the purposes of the SSMID is to provide physical enhancements, or beautification, to improve the image and appearance of the Proposed District. One of the stated goals for the Northside Marketplace in the 2008 Central District Plan includes strategies to encourage area businesses and residents to participate in events, activities, and associations that foster a sense of identity and create a vibrant level of commercial activity. Another strategy listed was to support promotional actiivttes of the local businesses association and encourage partnerships between businesses, institutions and neighborhood associations. Stated SSMID activities are consistent with these goals and strategies. In addition, the adoption by the City Council of the 21-Only ordinance in 2010 is resulting in changes in the commercial landscape of downtown Iowa City. The Proposed District petition notes a major purpose of the SSMID is to provide development and management services, including marketing, business retention and attraction for the Proposed District. These activities, will help to promote future growth in downtown Iowa City and are to be accomplished by people employed in two full time jobs -- a Business Development Manager and Assistant Business Development Manager. The review by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the "merits and feasibility" of the Proposed District should focus on ensuring that the petition meets the requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 386, that the operational activities (as defined in Iowa Code Section 386.8) of the Proposed District are appropriate in relation to existing laws, plans and policies, and that the means being used to implement the proposal appear reasonably calculated to accomplish the Proposed District objectives. In this context, staff recommends that the Proposed District petition be recommended for approval and forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. If you would like additional information or have questions about the Proposed District, please contact Wendy Ford at 356-5248 or via e-mail at wendy-ford(a)-iowa-city.orq. Cc: Tom Markus, City Manager Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development Bob Miklo, Senior Planner Petition N To establish the Iowa City Downtown Self Supported Municipal Improvement DtNfrict (,�SMIDTgj pursuant to Chapter 386 of the Code of Iowa. c7 (A � We, the undersigned, being owners of the property within the SSMID, hereby petitiog—i he -Pity M Council of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 386 of the Cod"' Fio -i wyjthe ; '� "Act") as follows: �? • N 1. To establish by ordinance a Self Supported Municipal Improvement District in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa: a. The name of which shall be the "Iowa City Downtown Self Supported Municipal Improvement District" (herein referred to as the "Proposed District'), b. A description of boundaries and map of the Proposed District is attached hereto as Exhibit A. c. The purposes of which shall be the undertaking of actions authorized by the Act and the performance of administration, redevelopment, and revitalization of the Proposed District, as authorized by the Act, any and all of which actions and improvements are intended to benefit the property, businesses, and residents within the Proposed District, including, but not limited to activities that expand the mix of businesses, increase consumer traffic, enhance beautification and landscaping, and expand the Park & Shop/Bus & Shop program. 2. To establish an operation fund for the Proposed District and levy an annual tax (the "Operation Tax") upon the property defined in the Act (excluding property assessed as residential property for property tax purposes) at a maximum levy rate not to exceed two dollars ($2) per one thousand dollars ($1,000) assessed value for a period of four (4) years, commencing with the levy of taxes for collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012 for the purpose of : (a) paying the administrative and operational expenses of the Proposed District, as defined and authorized in the Act, or (b) paying part or all of the maintenance expenses of "improvements" or "self-liquidating improvements" as defined in the Act with respect to the Proposed District. 3. It is the intent of this Petition that the operation taxes levied and collected on behalf of the Proposed District shall be expended for new, additional or enhanced services within the Proposed District, and that the City shall not diminish the type and extent of governmental services currently provided. 4. This Petition is not requesting any amount of levy for either a Debt or Capital Fund. 5. To disburse annually all amounts collected in the Operation Fund, for one or more of the following purposes, at such times and under such conditions as shall be recommended to the City Council by a SSMID Advisory Board (described in section 7), as more specifically described below. a. Development and management of activities in support of marketing, business retention and attraction, including, but not limited to: Establish databases Space referrals and assistance Marketing activities, including media and advertising campaigns and communication materials Miscellaneous business support services Establishment and promotion of special events, festivals, and activities Further improvements and expansion of the Park & Shop/Bus & Shop program b. Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the Proposed District, including, but not limited to: Lighting Improvements Seasonal and decorative enhancements Signage and banners Landscaping --Z N C. To hire a Business Development Manager and Assistant Business ro opment Manager who will work for the Board to manage the work of the 101Z,16. ity 0 ir Downtown Self Supported Municipal Improvement District Board andtiio Wll the intent of this Petition. +v 6. It is the intent of this Petition that the City of Iowa City enter into an operating agreement with the Iowa City Downtown Self Supported Municipal Improvement District Board (herein referred to as the "Proposed Board"). This Board will be formed as described below. All SSMID levy monies shall be appropriated to the SSMID Board for the management and operation of the Proposed District. From time to time, the City of Iowa City may provide additional revenue to the Proposed Board for the purposes of the management and operation of the Proposed District. a. The Proposed Board shall establish itself as a 501 (c)(6) non-profit organization with a Board of Directors consisting of fourteen (14) to nineteen (19) members serving four year terms. i. Board membership shall consist of voting members: 1. Two from property owners or their representatives from a single property within the Proposed District that has an assessed value in excess of 1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries as of January 1, 2011. 2. Two from property owners or their representatives from a single property within the Proposed District that has an assessed value less than of 1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries as of January 1, 2011. 3. Two from business owners within the Proposed District that lease more than 3,000 square feet of commercial space. 4. Two from business owners within the Proposed District that lease less than 3,000 square feet of commercial space. 5. One from a business in the Northside Marketplace area. 6. One from The University of Iowa. ii. Board membership may consist of up to four (4) other stakeholders of the Proposed District as voting members of the Board. iii. Board membership shall consist of ex-officio non -voting members from: 1. Iowa City-Coralville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau; 2. Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce; 3. Iowa City Area Development Group; and 4. City of Iowa City. iv. Board membership shall include the Downtown Business Development Manager as an ex-officio non -voting Board member. v. It is the intent of this Petition that no revenues produced through property taxes imposed specifically for the Proposed District or tax increment financing revenues attributable to the operation tax levy on properties in the Proposed District shall be spent by the City Council without the approval of the Board. b. The initial Board shall be chosen by a group of five persons representing:. 1. Iowa City-Coralville Area Convention and Visitors,Bureau,: 2. Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce; 3. Iowa City Area Development Group; and 4. City of Iowa City; and��°' 5. The University of Iowa. � r- -0 r 7. The SSMID Advisory Board to the City Council shall be made up of spec%`c members o the Proposed Board and will be chosen by the Proposed Board as follows: Co i. A property owner or their representative from a single property within the Proposed District that has an assessed value in excess of 1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries as of January 1, 2011. ii. A property owner or their representative from a single property within the Proposed District that has an assessed value less than of 1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries as of January 1, 2011. iii. A business owner within the Proposed District that leases more than 3,000 square feet of commercial space. iv. A business owner within the Proposed District that leases less than 3,000 square feet of commercial space. v. One from a business in the Northside Marketplace area. 8. It is the further intent of this Petition that, notwithstanding the fact that the Proposed District is located within the boundaries of a Tax Increment Finance District which has been created by the City, an amount of funds which would be derived from the annual SSMID levy of the Operation Tax against property within the Proposed District if the Proposed District were not located within such Tax Increment Finance Districts shall be made available annually for the services, improvements, and activities set out in this Petition, and that the City should take all actions necessary to accomplish this purpose, including, if necessary, allocation to these services, improvements and activities of a portion of the incremental property taxes which are attributable to properties within the Proposed District. These allocations may be from the SSMID levy or other sources. Proposed SSMID Area All block numbers referenced in the description below are in the Original Town. • Beginning at the centerline of Gilbert Street where it intersects with the extended centerline of the east - west alley between Bloomington and Davenport Streets in Block 57; • Thence west along said alley centerline to the centerline of Linn Street; • Thence south along the Linn Street centerline to where it intersects with the extended centerline of the east -west alley between Market and Bloomington Streets in Block 68; • Thence west along the alley centerline to where it intersects the centerline of Dubuque Street; • Thence south along the Dubuque Street centerline to the centerline of Jefferson Street; • Thence east along the Jefferson Street centerline to the sidewalk on the east side of Gilbert Street; • Thence south along the western boundary of said sidewalk to its intersection with the south boundary of the east -west alley between Iowa Avenue and Jefferson Street in Block 45; • Thence east along the southern boundary of the alley to the NW corner of Lot 6 Block 45; • Thence south along western boundary of Lot 6 to where said western boundary extended intersects the centerline of Iowa Avenue; • Thence west along the Iowa Avenue centerline to the centerline of Clinton Street; • Thence south along the Clinton Street centerline to the centerline of Washington Street; • Thence west along the Washington Street centerline to the centerline of Capitol Street; • Thence south along the Capitol Street centerline to the southern boundary line extended of Lot 4 Block 83; • Thence east 182' to the east right-of-way line of Clinton Street; • Thence south to the southwest corner of Lot 5 Block 82; • Thence east along the southern boundary of Block 82 to the centerline of Dubuque Street; • Thence north along Dubuque Street centerline to a point 40' west and 120' north of the southwest corner of Lot 5 Block 64; • Thence east to the centerline of Linn Street; • Thence south along Linn Street centerline to the southern boundary of block 63 extended; • Thence east along the southern boundary of block 63 to the centerline of Gilbert Street; • Thence north along the Gilbert Street centerline to a point 40' west of the NW corner of Lot 4 Block 44; • Thence east along the south right-of-way line of Iowa Avenue to the NE corner of Lot 3 Block 44; • Thence north to the northern boundary of the east -west alley between Iowa Avenue and Jefferson Street in Block 45; • Thence west along the northern boundary of said alley to the eastern boundary of the sidewalk on the east side of Gilbert Street; • Thence north along the eastern boundary of said sidewalk and crossing Jefferson Street to the northern boundary of the sidewalk on the north side of Jefferson Street; • Thence west, crossing Gilbert Street, to the NW corner of Gilbert and Jefferson Streets; • Thence west along the sidewalk to the SW corner of Lot 5 Block 59; • Thence north to the centerline of the east -west alley between Jefferson and Market Streets; • Thence east along the alley centerline to the SE corner of Lot 4 Block 46; • Thence north to the northeast comer of Lot 4 Block 46; • Thence north 105' to a point 25' north of the SE corner of Lot 5 Block 47; • Thence west to the centerline of Gilbert Street; • Thence north to the point of beginning, and excepting those properties zoned Neighborhood Public, which are as follows: The north 110' of the west 58.5' of Lot 4 Block 65 Lots 7, 8, and the east 20' Lot 6 Block 65 The west 58.5' of N 110' of Lot 4 Block 65 r Lot 5 and the west 28.66' of Lot 6 Block 61 The east 38.3' Lot 6, all of Lot 7, and the west 39.7' of Lot 8 Block 58' .r,\ NXT 4 PRINT Page I of 11 Document 1 of 15 CHAPTER 386 SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS 386.1 Definitions. 386.2 Authorization. 386.3 Establishment of district. 386.4 Amendments to district. 386.5 Dissolution. 386.6 Improvements. 386.7 Self-liquidating improvements. 386.8 Operation tax. 386.9 Capital improvement tax. 386.10 Debt service tax. 386.11 Self -supported municipal improvement district bonds. 386.12 Payment for improvements. 386.13 Parking fee abatements. 386.14 Independent provisions. Document 2 of 15 386.1 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise: 1. "Book", "list", "record ", or "schedule " kept by a county auditor, assessor, treasurer, recorder, sheriff, or other county officer means the county system as defined in section 445.1. 2. "Cost " of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement includes construction contracts and the cost of engineering, architectural, technical, and legal services, preliminary reports, property valuations, estimates, plans, specifications, notices, acquisition of real and personal property, consequential damages or costs, easements, rights -of -way, supervision, inspection, testing, publications, printing and sale of bonds, interest during construction and for not more than six months thereafter, and provisions for contingencies. 3. "District" means a self -supported municipal improvement district which may be created and the property therein taxed in accordance with this chapter. 4. "Improvement " means any of the following: a. All or any part of a city enterprise as defined in section 384.24, subsection 2. b. Public improvements as defined in section 384.37, subsection 19. c. Those structures, properties, facilities or actions, the acquisition, construction, improvement, installation, reconstruction, enlargement, repair, equipping, purchasing, or taking of which would constitute an essential corporate purpose or general corporate purpose as defined in section 384.24, subsections 3 and 4. 5. "Property" means real property as defined in section 4.1, subsection 13, and in section 427A.1, subsection 1, paragraph "h ". 6. "Property owner " or "owner " means the owner of property, as shown by the transfer books in the office of the county auditor of the county in which the property is located. 7. "Self-liquidating improvement" means any facility or property proposed to be leased in whole or in part to any person or governmental body to further the corporate purposes of the city http://search.legis. state.ia.us/printasp/print.asp?vid=default&NXTScript=nxt/gateway.dll&N... 9/8/2011 NXT 4 PRINT Page 2 of 11 and: a. To aid in the commercial development of the district. b. To further the purposes of the districts; or c. Not substantially reduce the city's property tax base. 8. The use of the conjunctive "and" includes the disjunctive "or" and the use of the disjunctive "or" includes the conjunctive "and", unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. 9. All definitions in section 362.2 are incorporated by reference as a part of this chapter, except as provided in subsection 5. [C77, 79, 81, §386.1] 84 Acts, ch 1179, § 1; 2000 Acts, ch 1148, § 1; 2002 Acts, ch 1119, §200, 201 Document 3 of 15 386.2 Authorization. A city which proposes to create a district, to provide for its existence and operation, to provide for improvements or self-liquidating improvements for the district, to authorize and issue bonds for the purposes of the district, and to levy the taxes authorized by this chapter must do so in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. [C77, 79, 81, §386.2] Document 4 of 15 386.3 Establishment of district. 1. Districts may be created by action of the council in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. A district shall: a. Be comprised of contiguous property wholly within the boundaries of the city. A self - supported municipal improvement district shall be comprised only of property in districts which are zoned for commercial or industrial uses and properties within a duly designated historic district. b. Be given a descriptive name containing the words "self -supported municipal improvement district". c. Be comprised of property related in some manner, including but not limited to present or potential use, physical location, condition, relationship to an area, or relationship to present or potential commercial or other activity in an area, so as to be benefited in any manner, including but not limited to a benefit from present or potential use or enjoyment of the property, by the condition, development or maintenance of the district or of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement of the district, or be comprised of property the owners of which have a present or potential benefit from the condition, development or maintenance of the district or of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement of the district. 2. The council shall initiate proceedings for establishing a district upon the filing with its clerk of a petition containing: a. The signatures of at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the proposed district. These signatures must together represent ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of the assessed value of all of the property in the proposed district. b. A description of the boundaries of the proposed district or a consolidated description of the property within the proposed district. c. The name of the proposed district. d. A statement of the maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon property within the http://search.legis. state.ia.us/printasp/print.asp?vid=default&NXTScript=nxt/gateway.dll&N... 9/8/2011 NXT 4 PRINT Page 3 of 11 district. The maximum rate of tax may be stated in terms of separate maximum rates for the debt service tax, the capital improvement fund tax, and the operation tax, or in terms of a maximum combined rate for all three. e. The purpose of the establishment of the district, which may be stated generally, or in terms of the relationship of the property within the district or the interests of the owners of property within the district, or in terms of the improvements or self-liquidating improvements proposed to be developed for the purposes of the district, either specific improvements, self-liquidating improvements, or general categories of improvements, or any combination of the foregoing. f. A statement that taxes levied for the self -supported improvement district operation fund shall be used for the purpose of paying maintenance expenses of improvements or self- liquidating improvements for a specified length of time, along with any options to renew, if the taxes are to be used for this maintenance purpose. 3. a. The council shall notify the city planning commission upon the receipt of a petition. It shall be the duty of the city planning commission to make recommendations to the council in regard to the proposed district. The city planning commission shall, with due diligence, prepare an evaluative report for the council on the merit and feasibility of the project. The council shall not hold its public hearings or take further action on the establishment of the district until it has received the report of the city planning commission. In addition to its report, the commission may, from time to time, recommend to the council amendments and changes relating to the proj ect. b. If no city planning commission exists, the council shall notify the metropolitan or regional planning commission upon receipt of a petition, and such commission shall have the same duties as the city planning commission set forth in this subsection. If no planning commission exists, the council shall notify the zoning commission upon receipt of a petition, and such commission shall have the same duties as the city planning commission set forth in this subsection. If no planning or zoning commission exists, the council shall call a hearing on the establishment of a district upon receipt of a petition. 4. Upon the receipt of the commission's final report the council shall set a time and place for a meeting at which the council proposes to take action for the establishment of the district, and shall publish notice of the meeting as provided in section 362.3, and the clerk shall send a copy of the notice by certified mail not less than fifteen days before the meeting to each owner of property within the proposed district at the owner's address as shown by the records of the county auditor. If a property is shown to be in the name of more than one owner at the same mailing address, a single notice may be mailed addressed to all owners at that address. Failure to receive a mailed notice is not grounds for objection to the council's taking any action authorized in this chapter. 5. In addition to the time and place of the meeting for hearing on the petition, the notice must state: a. That a petition has been filed with the council asking that a district be established. b. The name of the district. c. The purpose of the district. d. The property proposed to be included in the district. e. The maximum rate of tax which may be imposed upon the property in the district. 6. At the time and place set in the notice the council shall hear all owners of property in the proposed district or residents of the city desiring to express their views. The council must wait at least thirty days after the public hearing has been held before it may adopt an ordinance establishing a district which must be comprised of all the property which the council finds has the relationship or whose owners have the interest described in subsection 1, paragraph "c ". Property included in the proposed district need not be included in the established district. However, no property may be included in the district that was not included in the proposed district until the council has held another hearing after it has published and mailed the same http://search.legis. state. ia.us/printasp/print. asp?vid=default&NXTScript=nxt/gateway. dll&N... 9/8/2011 NXT 4 PRINT Page 4 of 11 notice as required in subsections 4 and 5 of this section on the original petition to the owners of the additional property, or has caused a notice of the inclusion of the property to be personally served upon each owner of the additional property, or has received a written waiver of notice from each owner of the additional property. 7. Adoption of the ordinance establishing a district requires the affirmative vote of three - fourths of all of the members of the council, or in cities having but three members of the council, the affirmative vote of two members. However if a remonstrance has been filed with the clerk signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the proposed district representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of the assessed value of all of the property in the proposed district, the adoption of the ordinance requires a unanimous vote of the council. 8. The clerk shall cause a copy of the ordinance to be filed in the office of the county recorder of each county in which any property within the district is located. 9. At any time prior to adoption of an ordinance establishing a district, the entire matter of establishing such district shall be withdrawn from council consideration if a petition objecting to establishing such district is filed with its clerk containing the signatures of at least forty percent of all owners of property within the proposed district or signatures which together represent ownership of property with an assessed value of forty percent or more of the assessed value of all property within the proposed district. 10. The adoption of an ordinance establishing a district is a legislative determination that the property within the district has the relationship or its owners have the interest required under subsection 1, paragraph "c " and includes all of the property within the area which has that relationship or the owners of which have that interest in the district. 11. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal the action and the decisions of the council, including the creation of the district and the levying of the proposed taxes for the district, to the district court of the county in which any part of the district is located, within thirty days after the date upon which the ordinance creating the district becomes effective, but the action and decision of the council are final and conclusive unless the court finds that the council exceeded its authority. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to the establishment of a district or the validity of the district, or the propriety of the inclusion or exclusion of any property within or from the district, or the ability of the city to levy taxes in accordance with the ordinance establishing the district, after thirty days from the date on which the ordinance creating the district becomes effective. 12. The procedural steps for the petitioning and creation of the district may be combined with the procedural steps for the authorization of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement, or the procedural steps for the authorization of any tax, or any combination thereof. 13. The rate of debt service tax referred to in the petition and the ordinance creating the district shall only restrict the amount of bonds which may be issued, and shall not limit the ability of the city to levy as necessary in subsequent years to pay interest and amortize the principal of that amount of bonds. 14. The ordinance creating the district may provide for the division of all of the property within the district into two or more zones based upon a reasonable difference in the relationship of the property or the interest of its owners, whether the difference is qualitative or quantitative. The ordinance creating the district and establishing the different zones may establish a different maximum rate of tax for each zone, or may provide that the rate of tax for a zone shall be a certain set percentage of the tax levied in the zone which is subject to the highest rate of tax. [C77, 79, 81, §386.3] 85 Acts, ch 113, §1; 88 Acts, ch 1246, §7; 2010 Acts, ch 1061 180 Subsection 3 internally redesignated pursuant to Code editor directive Document 5 of 15 http: //search.legi s. state. i a. us/printasp/print. asp?vid=default&NXTS cript=nxt/gateway. dl l&N... 9/8/2011 NXT 4 PRINT Page 5 of 11 386.4 Amendments to district. 1. The ordinance creating the district may be amended and property may be added to the district and the maximum rate of taxes referred to in the ordinance may be increased at any time in the same manner and by the same procedure as for the establishment of a district. All property added to a district shall be subject to all taxes currently and thereafter levied including debt service levies for bonds previously or thereafter issued. 2. Action by the council amending the ordinance creating the district, including adding any eligible property or deleting any property within the district or changing any maximum rate of taxes, shall be by ordinance adopted by an affirmative vote of three -fourths of all of the members of the council, or in cities having but three members of the council, the affirmative vote of two members. However, if a remonstrance has been filed with the clerk signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the district and all property proposed to be included representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of the assessed value of all the property in the district and all property proposed to be included, the amending ordinance must be adopted by unanimous vote of the council. 3. The clerk shall cause a copy of the amending ordinance to be filed in the office of the county recorder of each county in which any property within the district as amended is located. 4. At any time prior to council amendment of the ordinance creating the district, the entire matter of amending such ordinance shall be withdrawn from council consideration if a petition objecting to amending such ordinance is filed with its clerk containing either the signatures of at least forty percent of all owners of property within the district and all property proposed to be included or signatures which together represent ownership of property with an assessed value of forty percent or more of the assessed value of all property within the district and all property proposed to be included. 5. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal the action or decisions of the council amending the ordinance creating the district, to the district court of the county in which any part of the district, as amended, is located, within fifteen days after the date upon which the ordinance amending the ordinance creating the district becomes effective, but the action and decision of the council are final and conclusive unless the court finds that the council exceeded its authority. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to the amended ordinance or the validity of the district as amended, or the propriety of the inclusion or exclusion of any property within or from the amended district, or the ability of the city to levy taxes in accordance with the ordinance establishing the district, as amended, after thirty days from the date upon which the amending ordinance becomes effective. 6. All other provisions in section 386.3 shall apply to an amended district and to the ordinance amending the ordinance creating the district with the same effect as they apply to the original district and the ordinance creating the original district. [C77, 79, 81, §386.4] Document 6 of 15 386.5 Dissolution. A district may be dissolved and terminated by action of the council rescinding the ordinance creating the district, and any subsequent ordinances amending the district, by an affirmative vote of three -fourths of all members of the council, or in cities having but three members of the council, the affirmative vote of two members. However, if a remonstrance has been filed with the clerk signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the district representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of the assessed value of all the property in the district, the rescission of the ordinance creating the http://search.legis. state.ia.us/printasp/print. asp?vid=default&NXTScript=nxt/gateway.dll&N... 9/8/2011 NXT 4 PRINT Page 6 of 11 district, and any subsequent ordinances amending the district, requires a unanimous vote of the council. At any time prior to action of the council rescinding the ordinance creating the district, and any subsequent ordinances amending the district, the entire matter of dissolving a district shall be withdrawn from council consideration if a petition is filed with its clerk containing the signatures of at least forty percent of all owners of property within the district or signatures which together represent ownership of property with an assessed value of forty percent or more of the assessed value of all property within the district. [C77, 79, 81, §386.5] Document 7 of 15 386.6 Improvements. When a city proposes to construct an improvement the cost of which is to be paid or financed under the provisions of this chapter, it must do so in accordance with the provisions of this section, as follows: 1. The council shall initiate proceedings for a proposed improvement upon receipt of a petition signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the district representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of the assessed value of all the property in the district. 2. Upon the receipt of such a petition the council shall notify the city planning commission, if one exists, the metropolitan or regional planning commission, if one exists, or the zoning commission, if one exists, in the order set forth in section 386.3. subsection 3. Upon notification by the council, the commission shall prepare an evaluative report for the council on the merit and feasibility of the improvement and carry out all other duties as set forth in section 386.3. subsection 3. If no planning or zoning commission exists, the council shall call a hearing on a proposed improvement upon receipt of a petition. 3. Upon the receipt of the commission's report the council shall set a time and place of meeting at which the council proposes to take action on the proposed improvement and shall publish and mail notice as provided in section 386.3, subsections 4 and 5. 4. The notice must include a statement that an improvement has been proposed, the nature of the improvement, the source of payment of the cost of the improvement, and the time and place of hearing. 5. At the time and place set in the notice the council shall hear all owners of property in the district or residents of the city desiring to express their views. The council must wait at least thirty days after the public hearing has been held before it may take action to order construction of the improvement. The provisions of section 386.35 subsections 7 and 9 relating to the adoption of the ordinance establishing a district, the requisite vote therefor, the remonstrance thereto and the withdrawal of the entire matter from council consideration apply to the adoption of the resolution ordering the construction of the improvement. 6. If the council orders the construction of the improvement, it shall proceed to let contracts therefor in accordance with chapter 26. 7. The adoption of a resolution ordering the construction of an improvement is a legislative determination that the proposed improvement is in furtherance of the purposes of the district and that all property in the district will be affected by the construction of the improvement, or that all owners of property in the district have an interest in the construction of the improvement. 8. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal the action or decisions of the council ordering the construction of the improvement to the district court of the county in which any part of the district is located within thirty days after the adoption of the resolution ordering construction of the improvement, but the action and decisions of the council are final and http://search.legis. state.ia.uslprintasp/print. asp?vid=default&NXTS cript=nxtlgateway. dll&N... 9/8/2011 NXT 4 PRINT Page 7 of 11 conclusive unless the court finds that the council exceeded its authority. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to the ordering of the construction of an improvement, or the right of the city to apply moneys in the capital improvement fund referred to in this chapter to the payment of the costs of the improvement, or the right of the city to issue bonds referred to in this chapter for the payment of the costs of the improvement, or the right of the city to levy taxes which with any other taxes authorized by this chapter do not exceed the maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon property within the district for the payment of principal of and interest on bonds issued to pay the costs of the improvement, after thirty days from the date of adoption of the resolution ordering construction of the improvement. 9. The procedural steps contained in this section may be combined with the procedural steps for the petitioning and creation of the district or the procedural steps for the authorization of any tax or any combination thereof. [C77, 79, 81, §386.6] 2007 Acts, ch 144, 419 Document 8 of 15 386.7 Self-liquidating improvements. When a city proposes to construct a self-liquidating improvement, the cost of which is to be paid or financed under the provisions of this chapter, it must do so in accordance with the provisions of this section as follows: 1. Section 386.6, subsections 1 to 5 are applicable to a self-liquidating improvement to the same extent as they are applicable to an improvement and the proceedings initiating a self- liquidating improvement shall be governed thereby. 2. Before the council may order the construction of a self-liquidating improvement, and after hearing thereon, it must find that the self-liquidating improvement and the leasing of a part or the whole of it to any person or governmental body will further the corporate purposes of the city and will: a. Aid in the commercial development of the district. b. Further the interests of the district; or c. Not substantially reduce the city's property tax base. 3. If the council orders the construction of the self-liquidating improvement, contracts for it shall be let in accordance with chapter 26. 4. The adoption of a resolution ordering the construction of a self-liquidating improvement is a legislative determination that the proposed self-liquidating improvement and the leasing of a part or the whole of it to any person or governmental body will further the corporate purposes of the city and will: a. Aid in the commercial development of the district. b. Further the interests of the district; or c. Not substantially reduce the city's property tax base. 5. A city may lease any or all of a self-liquidating improvement to any person or governmental body. 6. A city may issue revenue bonds payable from the income and receipts derived from the self - liquidated improvement. Chapter 384, division V applies to revenue bonds for self-liquidating improvements and the term "city enterprise " as used in that division shall be deemed to include self-liquidating improvements authorized by this chapter. 7. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal a decision of the council to order the construction of a self-liquidating improvement or to lease any or all of a self-liquidating improvement to the district court of the county in which any part of the district is located, within http://search.legis. state.ia.us/printasp/print. asp?vid=default&NXTScript=nxt/gateway.dll&N... 9/8/2011 NXT 4 PRINT Page 8 of 11 thirty days after the adoption of the resolution ordering the self-liquidating improvement, but the action of the council is final and conclusive unless the court finds that the council exceeded its authority. 8. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to the ordering of the construction of a self-liquidating improvement after thirty days from the date of adoption of the resolution ordering construction of the self-liquidating improvement. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to the leasing of any or all of a self-liquidating improvement after thirty days from the date of the adoption of a resolution approving the proposed lease. In addition to the limitation contained in section 384.92, no action may be brought which questions the legality of revenue bonds or the power of the city to issue revenue bonds or the effectiveness of any proceedings relating to the authorization and issuance of revenue bonds relating to a self-liquidating improvement after thirty days from the time the bonds are ordered issued by the city. 9. The procedural steps contained in this section may be combined with the procedural steps for the petitioning and creation of the district. [C77, 79, 81, §386.7] 89 Acts, ch 83, §50; 2007 Acts, ch 144 20 Document 9 of 15 386.8 Operation tax. A city may establish a self -supported improvement district operation fund, and may certify taxes not to exceed the rate limitation as established in the ordinance creating the district, or any amendment thereto, each year to be levied for the fund against all of the property in the district, for the purpose of paying the administrative expenses of the district, which may include but are not limited to administrative personnel salaries, a separate administrative office, planning costs including consultation fees, engineering fees, architectural fees, and legal fees and all other expenses reasonably associated with the administration of the district and the fulfilling of the purposes of the district. The taxes levied for this fund may also be used for the purpose of paying maintenance expenses of improvements or self-liquidating improvements for a specified length of time with one or more options to renew if such is clearly stated in the petition which requests the council to authorize construction of the improvement or self-liquidating improvement, whether or not such petition is combined with the petition requesting creation of a district. Parcels of property which are assessed as residential property for property tax purposes are exempt from the tax levied under this section except residential properties within a duly designated historic district. A tax levied under this section is not subject to the levy limitation in section 384.1. [C77, 79, 81, §386.8] 85 Acts, ch 113, §2 Document 10 of 15 386.9 Capital improvement tax. A city may establish a capital improvement fund for a district and may certify taxes, not to exceed the rate established by the ordinance creating the district, or any subsequent amendment thereto, each year to be levied for the fund against all of the property in the district, for the purpose of accumulating moneys for the financing or payment of a part or all of the costs of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement. However, parcels of property which are assessed as residential property for property tax purposes are exempt from the tax levied under this http://search.legis. state. ia.us/printasp/print. asp?vid=default&NXTScript=nxt/gateway. dll&N... 9/8/2011 NXT 4 PRINT Page 9 of 11 section except residential properties within a duly designated historic district. A tax levied under this section is not subject to the levy limitations in section 384.1 or 384.7. [C77, 79, 81, §386.9] 85 Acts, ch 113, §3 Document 11 of 15 386.10 Debt service tax. A city shall establish a self -supported municipal improvement district debt service fund whenever any self -supported municipal improvement district bonds are issued and outstanding, other than revenue bonds, and shall certify taxes to be levied against all of the property in the district for the debt service fund in the amount necessary to pay interest as it becomes due and the amount necessary to pay, or to create a sinking fund to pay, the principal at maturity of all self -supported municipal improvement district bonds as authorized in section 386.11, issued by the city. However, parcels of property which are assessed as residential property for property tax purposes at the time of the issuance of the bonds are exempt from the tax levied under this section until the parcels are no longer assessed as residential property or until the residential properties are designated as a part of an historic district. [C77, 79, 81, §386.10] 85 Acts, ch 113, §4 Document 12 of 15 386.11 Self -supported municipal improvement district bonds. 1. A city may issue and sell self -supported municipal improvement district bonds at public or private sale payable from taxes which must be levied in accordance with chapter 76. The bonds are payable from the levy of unlimited ad valorem taxes on all the taxable property within the district through the district debt service fund authorized by section 386.10. When self -supported municipal improvement district bonds are issued and taxes are levied in accordance with chapter 76, the taxes shall continue to be levied, until the bonds and interest thereon are paid in full, against all of the taxable property that was included in the district at the time of the issuance of the bonds, regardless of any subsequent removal of any property from the district or the dissolution of the district. 2. The proceeds of the sale of the bonds may be used to pay any or all of the costs of any improvement, or be used to pay any legal indebtedness incurred for the cost of any improvement including bonds or warrants previously issued to pay the costs of an improvement, or bonds may be exchanged for the evidences of such legal indebtedness. 3. Before the council may institute proceedings for the issuance of bonds, it shall proceed in the same manner as is required for the institution of proceedings for the issuance of bonds for an essential corporate purpose as provided in section 384.25, subsection 2 and all of the provisions of that subsection apply to bonds issued pursuant to this section. 4. A city may issue bonds authorized by this section pursuant to a resolution adopted at a regular or special meeting by an affirmative vote of a majority of the total members to which the council is entitled. The proceeds of a single bond issue may be used for various improvements. 5. The provisions of sections 384.29, 384.30, and 384.31 apply to bonds issued pursuant to this section, except that the bonds shall be designated "municipal improvement district bonds". 6. No action may be brought which questions the legality of bonds issued pursuant to this section or the power of a city to issue the bonds or the effectiveness of any proceedings relating to the authorization and issuance of the bonds after thirty days from the time the bonds are http://search.legis. state.ia.uslprintasp/print. asp?vid=default&NXTS cript=nxtlgateway. dll&N... 9/8/2011 NXT 4 PRINT Page 10 of 11 ordered issued by the city. [C77, 79, 81, §386.11] Document 13 of 15 386.12 Payment for improvements. The costs of improvements may be paid from any of the following sources or a combination thereof: 1. The capital improvement fund referred to in section 386.9. 2. The proceeds of bonds referred to in section 386.11. 3. Any other funds of the city which are legally available to pay all or a portion of the cost of an improvement. The fact that an improvement is initiated under the provisions of this chapter, or any of the costs of an improvement or any part of an improvement are being paid under the provisions of this chapter, shall not preclude the city from paying any costs of an improvement from any fund from which it might otherwise have been able to pay such costs. In addition, and not in limitation of the foregoing, any improvement which constitutes an essential corporate purpose or a general corporate purpose as defined in section 384.24, subsections 3 and 4, may be financed in whole or in part with the proceeds of the issuance of general obligation bonds of the city pursuant to the provisions of chapter 384, division III. 4. Payment for the costs of an improvement may also be made in warrants drawn on any fund from which payment for the improvement may be made. If such funds are depleted, anticipatory warrants may be issued bearing a rate of interest not exceeding that permitted by chapter 74A, which do not constitute a violation of section 384.10, even if the collection of taxes or income from the sale of bonds applicable to the improvement is after the end of the fiscal year in which the warrants are issued. If.the city arranges for the private sale of anticipatory warrants, they may be sold and the proceeds used to pay the costs of the improvement. Such warrants may be used to pay other persons furnishing services constituting a part of the cost of the improvement. [C77, 79, 81, §386.12] Document 14 of 15 386.13 Parking fee abatements. A city may apply moneys in the operation fund of the district to prepay parking fees at any city parking facility located in or used in conjunction with the district but only after notice and hearing as required by section 386.6. The authority to prepay such fees shall exist only for the period of time set out in the notice to owners and in the resolution of the council authorizing the application of funds for that purpose. Upon the application of sufficient amounts of prepaid fees, the city need not charge individual users of the parking facility. Before adopting a resolution authorizing the application of funds for such purpose, the council must find that the application will further the purposes of the district, including but not limited to increasing the commercial activity in the district. [C77, 79, 81, §386,13] Document 15 of 15 386.14 Independent provisions. The provisions of this chapter with respect to notice, hearing and appeal for the construction of improvements and self-liquidating improvements and the issuance and sale of bonds are in http://search.legis. state. ia.us/printasp/print. asp?vid=default&NXTScript=nxt/gateway. dll&N... 9/8/2011 NXT 4 PRINT Page 11 of 11 lieu of the provisions contained in chapters 73A and 75, or any other law, unless specifically referred to and made applicable by this chapter. [C77, 79, 81, §386.14] CHAPTERS 386A to 387 RESERVED © Iowa Legislature http://search.legis. state. ia.us/printasp/print. asp?vid=default&NXTScript=nxt/gateway. dll&N... 9/8/2011 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 1, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: PRELIMINARY Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel, Wally Plahutnik Ann Freerks Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood John Ockenfels The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: A public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Riverfront Crossings Sub -Area Plan. Miklo stated that in response to the flood in 2008 the EPA provided funding to Iowa City as well as other communities to help plan for disaster recovery. The result was a policy document for Riverfront Crossings area. The policy is very broad and had some general goals for redevelopment of the area that would be compatible with the flood plain. In 2009 the City received a second grant from the EPA to do a more in-depth study of Riverfront Crossings. That resulted in the Sub -Area Plan that the Commission was being asked to consider as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Riverfront Crossings is bounded by Burlington Street on the north, just east of Gilbert Street on the east, and includes some properties with frontages on Kirkwood Avenue. Highway 6 on the south and properties running along Riverside Drive on the west. The sub -area includes properties directly adjacent to the waste water treatment plant. Staff chose to focus on this area because as a result of the flood the City has decided to move the waste water plant to the existing south plant. The City has influence over a large piece of the property within the sub- area. Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 - Formal Page 2of11 Miklo stated that the goal for the existing waste water plant is to create a riverfront park. Removing infrastructure from the floodplain and turning them into a green space asset that would also be floodable. Staff feels that with an investment in a park it will change the whole makeup of this area. The area currently has a mixture of industrial and intensive commercial zoning and then some small pockets of retail zoning. Staff feels that removal of the waste water treatment plant and some of the concerns of being located next to a sanitary sewer plant will go away and a major investment in a park will make this area desirable for other forms of development. Staff has created this plan to help guide the future development of the area. Miklo stated that the floodplain covers a large portion of the sub -area including most of the waste water treatment plant as well as private properties along Ralston Creek and the Iowa River. The goal is to make as much of the floodplain as possible open public space. That may not be possible in all cases but that is the goal of the plan. Miklo showed a photo that illustrated the extent of the flooding in 2008 with the waste water treatment plant in the foreground and private industrial properties to the north and to the northeast along Ralston Creek. The policies of the plan are to develop mixed -use pedestrian oriented district. The idea is to take advantage of the riverfront and to create a vibrant park system. It would turn Ralston Creek into an asset rather than just a drain ditch as it functions today. It will introduce multiple modes of transportation. The plan calls for improving bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and transit facilities in terms of City buses as well as possible future light rail and Amtrak services to the area. The plan calls for green streets in terms of dealing with storm water management, a sustainable design, respectful of the floodplain, and addresses storm water quality issues in design of the public infrastructures as well as private and public buildings. Miklo stated that the framework plan shows how this area might develop in the future. As noted the City controls a large portion of the property and is showing it as a public park. Other areas that the City does not control or own that are in the floodplain, ideally these would also be converted into park land at some point. There would be opportunities for a higher density development both commercial and residential on adjacent or nearby properties to take advantage of the view of the park and riverfront. The plan also calls for a more intense development along Gilbert Street. Miklo showed an illustration with a view from the air. A large portion of the park could be restored wetland and that would help with storm water management and that would be true for Ralston Creek as well. The plan relies on a new street network for the area. Currently the one-way pair around the County Administration Building has been confusing. One of the main goals in the plan is to eliminate the one-way street network and return to a grid pattern. To accomplish this, the plan would connect the intersection of Capitol and Benton Street, which is now the City Carton property, to Kirkwood Avenue. This would also help frame the park and create a high density development site on what is now the City Carton property. Traffic studies show that it would also improve the flow in the area and would help connect the east side of the river with the west side of the river with a clear traffic route. Miklo stated that breaking up the plan into smaller segments, the northern portion is being called Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 - Formal Page 3 of 11 the park blocks. The City is looking for this area to generally be higher density residential with the possibility of commercial being at key corners or where the market would support it. He showed an illustration of what it might look like. There could be high-rise buildings about ten stories tall at Benton and Capitol and along the Kirkwood connector. The other portion of the plan addresses Gilbert Street and here the plan calls for five a lane boulevard with commercial and mixed use residential and office uses and then transitioning into residential to the west along Ralston Creek. There may be opportunities for some larger commercial uses at the intersection of Highway 6 and Gilbert to take advantage of the traffic counts there. Miklo stated that the last aspect would be the park itself. The idea would be to create a wetland along the southern portion of the park and along Ralston Creek and then a more formal park that would take advantage of the riverfront. He showed an illustration of how it might look and stated that it included extending the Iowa River Corridor Trail along the river. He showed how the wetland might look and it showed the potential development on private property just beyond the park. There could be a good relationship between those uses and it would be adding value to the private investment. In terms of transportation, the plan calls for multiple modes of transportation like a riverfront trail that would be for both bicycles and pedestrians. Streets would be designed to be pedestrian friendly to encourage walking to make it more pleasant and easy. There is a possibility of a rail network in the long term, an inter -city rail as well as a light rail that would serve the metropolitan area including Cedar Rapids. The plan goes into detail about the transportation network and the multiple modes of transportation that the City is trying to encourage in this area. Miklo stated that the plan contains some proposals for street sections. He pointed out an example of the new street that would eliminate the one way pairs. The idea is that this would be an urban boulevard that would define the edge of the park with high-rise residential mixed use development on one side. There would be two center lanes for traffic and then two side lanes for parking for more local traffic. Gilbert Street is proposed to be a boulevard with a center green space and it will have turn lanes at the intersection, two travel lanes, and parking on the side. The parking would be to serve the businesses in the area but also to calm traffic. He showed an illustration of one of the potential pedestrian streets to be located between Gilbert and Ralston Creek to tie the larger neighborhood into the park network. The idea is that it could be devoted to pedestrians and storm water management resulting in an environment that extends the park up into the neighborhood. Miklo stated another key element in the plan is addressing water resources. What got the City to this point is with the flood and it is not just a local issue but a regional issue. Some feel that is a reminder that the storm water needs to be dealt with in a better fashion. The plan talks about best management practices to better control storm water, such as including green roofs on top of buildings and swales within parking lots to treat the runoff and slow it before it reaches Ralston Creek and the Iowa River. There have been several examples around the country where these types of innovative techniques are being used to improve storm water quality. The diagram shows Ralston Creek and the goal of restoring the creek so that it is not just a drainage ditch. Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 11 Miklo stated that the document contains some guidelines on how zoning might be implemented to accomplish the goals of the plan. Generally it calls for lower buildings, one to two stories in the southern area of the plan, and this would be to address the runway overlay for the airport and increasing height as you travel to the north. The plan also calls for a mixture of uses requiring commercial at the key corners but also allowing residential more extensively than it is at other parts of the city that are zoned for commercial. What the City is proposing to do in this area, where there is not likely to be a demand for commercial throughout, would be to allow a property owner to use either residential or commercial on the ground floor. Staff is asking the Commission to consider adopting this as part of the Comprehensive Plan as a general guide as to how the City and private property owners would treat this area. As noted the City has control over the waste water treatment plant and that will have a big effect on property values and the general area. The City is not planning on going in and buying properties and redeveloping them. The goal of the plan is to leave that to the private market. The City is not intending to buy or displace businesses; the goal is to work with property owners to find suitable locations. Many of the businesses that are currently there could stay in the neighborhood and are suitable for what is proposed. When the time is right for other businesses, the plan lays out a method of working with them so that the properties could be redeveloped in this more dense fashion. Miklo stated that the next steps in terms of the plan would be to apply it to the larger Riverfront Crossings area, Highway 6 all the way to Burlington Street, west side of the river over to Gilbert Street. Staff is working with the consulting firm as part of updating the Comprehensive Plan to look into that. There would be a need to adopt some detailed zoning districts that would allow the increase in density an intensity that is proposed by this plan. There would need to be some more details on traffic engineering, park planning and storm water planning for the area. Eastham stated that what Miklo pointed out with the flood of 2008 put them in the position to be looking at this plan. The plan contemplates areas that are flood prone and designates those areas. He asked if the plan uses FEMA flood area maps and if so has staff considered any comments on the ability to incorporate the University and the National Weather Service that recently released flood area designations. Miklo stated that the plan used the most recent flood plain information available. He stated that when they create the larger plan they will incorporate any newer information. Dyer stated she noticed that there was no mention about access for people with disabilities as an expectation of the development and also if that could be made as an expectation. Miklo stated that it is in the code, that any new construction has to be accessible. Dyer said she noted that in the conceptual drawings that all townhouses have porches on the front and those would not be accessible. Miklo stated that the multi -family buildings would have to be accessible per City code. If it is a two-story unit then would not be required by law to be accessible. If there is a City supported project where the City is providing some funding, the local ordinance requires that it be accessible. Dyer stated that the whole Peninsula is inaccessible except for one apartment building. Miklo stated that the newer town buildings are accessible in the Peninsula. They are required to have access from the garage to the rear of the townhouses. Koppes asked for any further questions from the Commission. Koppes opened the public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 - Formal Page 5 of 11 John Ockenfels, 3 E Benton Street, Iowa City, is a representative of City Carton Recycling. He feels this plan will have a dramatic effect to their operations. He said it was mentioned that the City did not plan to displace the businesses through zoning. As he looks at his business they plan to be there for several years to come and have no intention to move their business. He asked if the City adopts the plan will it kill their ability to operate in that area, will they still be a commercial operation and an industrial operation with the benefits they have today or will this make it so they cannot continue to be there and eventually force them out. Miklo responded stating that the adoption of this plan will not change the zoning or the regulations that apply to his property. The adoption of the plan will make a public statement as to what the City's plans for the future are. Even if the City did change the zoning to his property they would be grandfathered in and allowed to continue to operate. However, they would not be able to expand. Ockenfels asked to have expansion explained. Miklo stated it would be adding more building or more square footage to the nonconforming situation. Miklo stated that the City is not intending to go in and rezone all properties in the area. The proposal is to put out this plan and adopt it so that it is publicly known that when potential developers approach the City they would have some direction to give them about the possibilities might be. There are properties near Gilbert Street that may be suitable for residential that if a developer came and approached the City with the plan it would give them some direction, whereas right now they are zoned commercial. Ockenfels asked if staff could tell him the conceptual timeframe on this change, as in how long the City is thinking before this starts moving along. Miklo stated that the waste water treatment plant will be removed from the site in three to four years. Nothing will happen as far as City investment in the park until then. He is hoping that the funding will be in place in four years and then will be able to implement some plans for the park. Miklo stated that in terms of private and redevelopment the market would determine the timeframe. Ockenfels responded stating he was confused because staff say they do not plan to displace businesses through zoning but he thinks that he heard Miklo state that they do plan to advocate changing the zoning going forward. Miklo stated that the staff is proposing to develop a zoning code that if applied to these properties would allow this vision or something similar to this vision to occur. If the plan is in place and the zone codes in the books but not necessarily applied to a specific property, the City will have the ability, if the property owner or developer chooses to seek redevelopment of the property, the City will have the tools in place to allow that to happen in a timely fashion rather than having to come up with a zoning code. Ockenfels asked if there currently was any funding in place for any of this. Miklo stated that there were only limited funds in the Capital Improvement Program and the significantly more funding will be necessary to implement the plan. Koppes closed the public hearing. Payne moved to adopt the Riverfront Crossing Sub -Area Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Weitzel seconded. Koppes asked for any further discussion. Weitzel stated that one of the big things in planning is visioning and setting out a goal for long term development. Laws do not allow them to uproot any businesses that are operating now. He stated he doesn't see any negative, only positive to adopting this plan. Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 - Formal Page 6 of 11 Eastham thinks that the staff work and the public meetings that have been held and the feedback that was given by a number of people at those meetings and also to the staff through other channels have been incorporated into this Sub -Area Plan. He does think that it is a visionary statement. Looking at it the southern part of the sub -area involves a lot of the waste water treatment plant area and feels it could proceed with immediate development without involving changes in the northern part of the sub -area. He is not saying that it should happen or that it would happen; he just feels that it is possible. Eastham stated that changing the street network is going to require timing and give-and-take on everyone's part. He does think it is a good planning concept to have in place — a vision for an entire area so that the developers can do as they wish to incorporate their desires and interests in specific blocks and specific buildings. Eastham also is in favor of maintaining local businesses and investments that are intact therefore as long as that works out for everyone's interest. He has never felt that the plan is a threat, but that it provides guidance. Including a park plan and riverfront improvements is something most people in these communities will look forward to over the years. He stated he knows that plans have grand concepts and getting them done in a practical way sometimes results in something that was not quite in the original concepts but is very close to it. Eastham says he is happy to be in support in recommending that the Council adopt the plan at this time. Payne stated she agrees with Eastham. She feels that this is a great plan for the area. She feels there needs to be something done there about having some park land and storm water detention for future flooding. Plahutnik stated what they are looking at is a Comprehensive Plan. They are looking ahead with a wish list for the future and there is no waving a magic wand to change the businesses that are there. He agreed with Miklo in that the idea of the park is to hope that the private investment would take the ball from there, and if properties are not for sale then it won't happen. The City will get another park which is a good thing. Dyer stated the idea of reclaiming the riverfront for community use is the most exciting part of the plan as well as the opportunity for people to live in that area. Koppes feels the transportation ideas are a good idea. Hopefully when they get into this in the future they do not want to displace any businesses. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Freerks absent). CPA11-00003: A public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential Stabilization to Urban Commercial for property located at 221 N. Linn Street, 225 N. Linn Street and 223 E. Bloomington Street and the MidAmerican substation located on the west side of Linn Street. Payne recused herself as she is employed by MidAmerican, which owns a substation in this area. Koppes recommended deferring because of there only being five Commissioners present. She stated that the applicant has agreed to this. Miklo stated that if Commission defers, then staff can review the report at the next meeting. Otherwise, he could give the report now. Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 - Formal Page 7 of 11 Eastham ask for a motion to defer. Greenwood stated that Commission could have a discussion or if someone wanted to make the motion they could. Koppes asked if they needed to have a public discussion. Greenwood stated it was up to the Commission. Koppes opened the public hearing. Koppes closed the public hearing. Weitzel moved to defer. Eastham seconded. Koppes stated that it has been deferred to the September 15, 2011 meeting. Eastham clarified that a public hearing would continue at the next meeting. Koppes agreed. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Freerks absent, Payne abstained). REZONING ITEMS: REZ11-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone to Central Business Service (CB-2) zone for approximately .34 acres of property located at 221 N. Linn Street, 225 N. Linn Street and 223 E. Bloomington Street and approximately 3200 square feet of property located on the west side of Linn Street (MidAmerican substation). Koppes opened the public hearing. Koppes closed the public hearing. Eastham moved to defer this item to the September 15, 2011 meeting. Weitzel seconded. Koppes thanked that applicant for deferring the application until all Commissioners are present. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Freerks absent, Payne abstained). REZ11-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Apartments Downtown for a rezoning from Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multi -Family (RM- 12) zone for approximately .88 acres of property located at 2218 Rochester Avenue. Koppes noted that the applicant has asked that this item be deferred indefinitely. Eastham moved to defer the item indefinitely. Payne seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 - Formal Page 8 of 11 A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Freerks absent). ZONING CODE ITEMS: Discussion of an amendment to Article 14-4A of the Zoning Code adding a new Use Category, Building Trade Uses, which would include contractors that specialize in certain building trades as distinguished from the heavier construction uses that are considered Industrial Service Uses, and an amendment to allow Building Trade Uses as provisional uses in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. Miklo stated that this amendment would add a new category to the zoning ordinance. This would allow small contractors, businesses such as plumbing shops to be located in the CC-2 zone with provisions that their activity is mostly indoors and that they do not have open yards for storage. This came to the staffs attention as a result of a local plumbing business that has been operating on Gilbert Street for a number of years. The business would like to expand their business but they are nonconforming and staff feels that their current operation, which is indoors, fits into the neighborhood. Staff is recommending that the amendment occur. Koppes opened the public hearing. Koppes closed the public hearing. Weitzel moved to approve amendment to Article 14-4A of the Zoning Code adding a new Use Category, Building Trade Uses, which would include contractors that specialize in certain building trades as distinguished from the heavier construction uses that are considered Industrial Service Uses, and an amendment to allow Building Trade Uses as provisional uses in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. Payne seconded. Koppes asked the Commission for any discussion. Eastham commented that this was discussed at the informal meeting and he feels it would make sense to make the change in the code. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Freerks absent). Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow an applicant to seek a minor modification to paragraph 14-2A-6C-4., the single family site development standard that requires garages or carports to be located so as to provide a driveway at least 26 feet in length between the entrance of the garage or carport and the street right-of-way, in cases where the lot configuration, topography, or other physical aspect of the lot makes the application of this standard impractical. Miklo stated that the current zoning requires that there be at least 25 feet between the garage door and the property line. The intent of that is to ensure that when the garage doors are closed and someone is parking behind the garage that their vehicle does not hang out over into the right-of-way and block the sidewalk. There are a few situations in town where there is an extra right-of-way and even though the garage door would not be back a full 25 feet from the property line. There is still 25 feet between the door and the sidewalk because the sidewalk is farther away from the property line. This is pretty common in the older neighborhoods. Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 - Formal Page 9 of 11 Miklo stated that a situation occurred recently in one of the historic districts where the Historic Preservation Commission approved an addition of a garage on the property. Because of the slope on the back side of the site, this is literally a cliff on the back side, in the Linn Street area. They were not able to push the garage back the 25 feet from the property line, but they were able to accomplish the 25 feet from the sidewalk. This amendment would allow flexibility in situations like that. What is key is there has to be something unique about the property; this won't just apply automatically. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to provide more flexibility in those types of situations. Payne asked that this would be something that they would not have to get a special exception for. They wouldn't go to the Board of Adjustments they would have a staff review. Miklo confirmed that it is a minor modification, a little more streamlined process. With a special exception there is a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment and it is a lengthier process. With a minor modification there is also a public meeting and the neighboring property owners are invited, but it is a staff committee that makes the decision so it is a little more informal. Koppes opened the public hearing. Koppes closed the public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend that a zoning code amendment allowing an applicant to seek a minor modification to paragraph 14-2A-6C-4., the single family site development standard that requires garages or carports to be located so as to provide a driveway at least 25 feet in length between the entrance of the garage or carport and the street right-of-way, in cases where the lot configuration, topography, or other physical aspect of the lot makes the application of this standard impractical. Weitzel seconded. Koppes asked the Commission for any discussion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Freerks absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: August 18th, 2011: Payne stated that she had some corrections. Miklo confirmed staff had some as well and Payne could just send him her notes and they would make the updates. Miklo pointed out that the minutes reflected that the Palisades proposal on Dubuque being deferred to September 1st. The intent was to defer it indefinitely and staff will send notice to the neighbors when it is back on the agenda. Eastham moved to approve the minutes with corrections. Plahutnik seconded. The motion carried 6-0 (Freerks absent). OTHER: None. Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2011 - Formal Page 10 of 11 ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Payne seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Freerks absent). z O 20 V W ZW� v� z z N oa N 06 z ow z~ za z a J IL z w w z Q 0 X x X X X x xxxxxxx cxxxxxox xxxxxox cm oxxoxxx � oXXXXox V; L to xxxxxox C4x xoXxxx x Xxxxox CO) X : X x x x X x ti xxXoxx Nx N X X X X x X x � u= M N LO LO M waLOLOLO000LO0 X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w�- J m z w z m J J N J 2 N w 000a�= � Q�tn �z � U Q Y w w wa��wCL2: �cnwcnwCL - aU)wQ)OaJw zmmwu.Yaa3: z w w 2 o� N co LO xXoo x xxxx Zxxxxxox U)X0xxxxxx co N X x X x x x X Mx xxxxxx N X i X X X X X X MNt1')LoM Wa��n�n�n L�n 'Ln L 'LO �L X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w x J z LLJ m J J OOvzNW4 Q 2 W Q�U) 2z �C)QYWui�W ui LuILz=P 2wwwwa�a— <m>-amOaJw zmaWLLRmm E 3 O 7 -00 aD O U p� X � N ++ C N C C N E N N -0O ��Qz a Q ii u ii u w xOOz w Y