Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-02 Public hearingNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the 2nd day of August, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall of the Iowa City City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider a Resolution Authorizing Conveyance of 519 North Johnson Street, also described as the South 50 feet of Lot 1, Block 35, Iowa City, Iowa, to an income - eligible family. Copies of the proposed resolution are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above - mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK CITY 4F IOWA CITY 6 MEMORANDUM Date: July 21, 2011 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator Re: UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program Update Introduction On August 2, City Council will be holding public hearings and voting on resolutions to authorize the conveyance of 519 N. Johnson Street and 904 Bowery Street as part of the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program. History /Background The grant for the UniverCity Program allows the City to purchase twenty -five rental units located in designated neighborhoods surrounding the University and downtown, rehabilitate them with up to $50,000 in grant funds and then sell them to income - eligible buyers. These two homes will be the eighth and ninth homes sold as part of the program. There are currently seven homes under renovation (with three to be completed by mid - August) and eight homes will be acquired on or near August 1 which will bring the total to 25 homes. Under the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program, the City proposes to sell 519 N. Johnson Street for $170,000 (this is what the City paid to purchase the home) plus "carrying costs" of approximately $5,000. "Carrying costs" are all the costs incurred by the City to acquire the home, maintain it and sell it, including abstracting and recording fees, interest on the loan to purchase the home, mowing and snow removal, utilities, real estate taxes, and any costs in excess of $50,000 to repair and rehabilitate the home. The City also proposes to sell 904 Bowery Street for $115,000 (this is what the City paid to purchase the home) plus "carrying costs" of approximately $12,000. The carrying costs are higher for this home because of some unexpected rehabilitation expenses. The buyer of this property will be receiving downpayment assistance from the Iowa City Housing Authority in the amount of $6,000. Both homebuyers are permanent University of Iowa employees so they will be receiving downpayment assistance from the University of Iowa. Recommendation Both of these homes were in need of extensive repair and after the renovation they have become assets to the neighborhood and to the community. Staff recommends that you approve the resolution to authorize the conveyance of 519 N. Johnson Street and 904 E. Bowery Street as part of the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program. rI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the 2nd day of August, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall of the Iowa City City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider a Resolution Authorizing Conveyance of 904 Bowery Street, also described as Lot T, Jerome's Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, to an income - eligible family. Copies of the proposed resolution are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above - mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Publish 7/19 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SCOTT SIX URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR A PROPOSED URBAN AREA IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA The City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa will hold a public hearing before itself at its meeting on August 2, 2011 which commences at 7:00 P.M. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa to consider adoption of a proposed Scott Six Urban Renewal Plan, Amendment No. 1 (the "Plan ") and to add the following- described land to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Area in Iowa City, Iowa: The NW quarter of the NE quarter of Section 30, Township 79N, Range 5W of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; also including the west 5.32 acres of the NE quarter of the NE quarter of said Section 30; and including all of the NW, NE, and SW quarters of the SE quarter of Section 19, Township 79N, Range 5W of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, and all of the SE quarter of the SE quarter of said Section 19 lying north of the southern right -of -way boundary of the Iowa Interstate Railroad; thence beginning at the SE corner of Nathaniel's Addition of the County of Johnson County, which is on the centerline of 420th Street, west 40'; thence W295% N338% E295', and S386'; also that portion of land lying south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad to the centerline of 420th Street between the western boundary of Nathaniel's Addition and the eastern boundary of the SW quarter of the SE quarter of said Section 19. which land is to be included as part of this proposed Urban Renewal Area. A copy of the plan is on file for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. The City of Iowa City, Iowa is the local agency which, if such Plan is approved, shall undertake the urban renewal activities described in such Plan. The general scope of the urban renewal activities under consideration in the Plan is to assist qualified industries and businesses in the Urban Renewal Area through various public purpose and special financing activities outlined in the Plan. To accomplish the objectives of the Plan, and to encourage the further development of the Urban Renewal Area, the plan provides that such special financing activities may include, but not be limited to, the making of loans or grants of public funds to private entities under Chapter 15A of the Code of Iowa. The City also may install, construct and reconstruct streets, parking facilities, open space areas and other substantial public improvement, and may acquire and make land available for development or redevelopment by private enterprise as authorized by law. The Plan provides that the City may issue bonds or use available funds for such purposes and that tax increment reimbursement of such costs will be sought if and to the extent incurred by the City. The Plan initially proposes specific public infrastructure or site improvement to be undertaken by the City, but provided that the Plan may be amended from time to time to respond to development opportunities. Any person or organization desired to be heard shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at such hearing. This notice is given by order of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by Section 403.5 of the State Code of Iowa. Dated this 19th day of July, 2011. s /Marian K. Karr City Clerk, Iowa City, Iowa (END OF NOTICE) r ��i�,:. ®r CITY OF IOWA CITY -$- MEMORANDUM Date: July 20, 2011 To: City Manager From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator Re: Public Hearing on the Proposed Expansion to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Area Introduction: On August 2, 2011 the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed expansion to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Plan. The adoption of an urban renewal plan requires several steps that are prerequisite to establishing a Tax Increment financing (TIF) district within the urban renewal area. The proposed urban renewal project area is contiguous to the east boundary of the existing Scott Six Urban Renewal Area and along a portion of 420th Street. It provides highly valued rail access on the north and south sides of the Iowa Interstate Railway on land that is especially well suited to industrial development. The amount of land (188 acres), the physical attributes of the land and its proximity to highway access are ideal for the expansion of Iowa City's industrial park. Urban Renewal Area projects will include the installation of infrastructure associated with attracting development, including but not limited to, streets, water, sewer, electric and rail infrastructure, and other public infrastructure improvements to a portion of 420th Street and surrounding area. The need for such improvements is expected to be created by development projects within the Urban Renewal Area. Additional urban renewal projects in the amended area may include offering financial incentives, including but not limited to the provision of land, grants, loans or other incentives to entities locating in the area to build a foundry and related support industries for the renewable energy industry. The designation of the amended urban renewal project area for industrial uses is consistent with the City's approved Southeast District Plan which refers to the area as the ideal place to expand Iowa City's industrial base. To ensure the ability to add to its industrial base, and because the existing BDI and Scott Six industrial areas are nearly built out, the City recently purchased, annexed, zoned and platted 188 acres of the amended area. The amended urban renewal plan, consistent with the Southeast District Plan, is therefore consistent with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. History /Background: Following the Council's adoption of a Resolution of Necessity (June 21, 2011), the Planning and Zoning Commission must meet to review the plan and make a recommendation to Council. The Commission met on July 7, 2011 and reviewed the urban renewal plan for its conformity with the comprehensive plan. The Committee voted (5 -0, Plahutnik and Payne absent) to recommend the proposed expansion to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Area. The Commission's written recommendation follows this memo. In addition to the Commission's review of the Plan, the City must publicize and hold a formal consultation with representatives of the affected taxing entities. Representatives from the Iowa City Community School District, Kirkwood Community College and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors were invited by letter and the consultation meeting notices were published in the Iowa City Press Citizen. No representatives from the taxing entities attended the consultation on Wednesday, July 13 at 10:30 a.m. in the City Manager's Conference Room. The Johnson County Board of Supervisors requested a staff representative attend and provide information to the Board about the expanded Urban Renewal Area be given at their regular July 22, 2011 Page 2 meeting of July 14, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. I attended and presented the urban renewal plans and goals to the Supervisors. They indicated support for the plan. The Supervisors voiced concern about the use of Taft Avenue, along the expanded area's east side, being used by truck traffic. Taft is a chip seal road that will not stand up to truck traffic and the Supervisors expressed a desire that Taft be upgraded as soon as possible. I explained that it is in the City's long range transportation plan and is an economic development priority, but it has not yet been funded in the Capital Improvement Program. Discussion of Solution Adopting the Proposed Amendment to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Area will allow for an orderly expansion of the City's industrial park. It will further ensure that its tenants are of the highest and best use for the land and provide the ability to use Tax Increment Financing to assist in building required infrastructure and /or in providing incentives to industrial users. Recommendation and Justification Staff recommends adoption of the proposed expansion of the Scott Six Urban Renewal Plan because it will increase the amount of land available for industry and commerce; it will increase employment opportunities, and will aid existing business by encouraging their retention or expansion and allow for the attraction of compatible new industries. The adoption of the plan furthers established economic well -being goals of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan as follows: • 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; • Cooperate with local and regional organizations to promote economic development within Iowa City; • Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through the efficient use of resources; and • Consider financial incentives and programs to facilitate achieving the above goals. r ��_,�„ ®, CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 15, 2011 To: City Councii, From: Ann Freerks, Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Review of the proposed amendment to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Area At its regular meeting of July 7, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Area Plan for its conformity with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. By a vote of 5 to 0 (Plahutnik and Payne absent), the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the proposed amendment to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Area conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and recommends the plan for adoption by City Council. A detailed discussion of the Commission's review is contained in the July 7 meeting minutes (attached). PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY JULY 7, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Karen Howard, Wendy Ford, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Amelon, Florence Stockman, Carol Samuelson RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused) to recommend approval of SUB11- 00007, an application submitted by Arlington LC for a preliminary plat for Stone Bridge Estates Part Ten, a 27 -lot, 8.06 acre residential subdivision located on the west side of Taft Avenue, north of Huntington Drive. The Commission voted 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused) to forward a written recommendation to the City Council stating that the Scott Six Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. The Commission voted 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused) to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, as outlined by staff. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB11- 00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington LC for a preliminary plat for Stone Bridge Estates Part Ten, a 27 -lot, 8.06 acre residential subdivision located on the west side of Taft Avenue, north of Huntington Drive. Walz explained that the current zoning for the property is RS -8. She said that the area was Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Formal Page 2 of 12 conditionally rezoned to RS -8 a few years ago; the chief issues with the rezoning at that time had to do with double- fronting lots on Taft Avenue, as Taft Avenue is intended to eventually carry a great deal of traffic from the industrial zones to the south. Conditions for the rezoning included a 140 -foot depth for lots adjacent to Taft Avenue, and a set -aside area for landscape screening. Walz noted that the Northeast District Plan envisioned the opportunity for public open space along the creek. One of the ways that Stonebridge Estates has handled this is to provide outlots along the creek which will be chiefly managed by the homeowners' association, with one outlot set to become a public park. Walz noted that the Stonebridge 10 homeowners' association will join the development's already established association, and will share responsibility for managing these outlots. The public will have access and be allowed to use the trails associated with the outlots, but the homeowners' association will maintain them. Walz said that one of staff's concerns has been that there is clear demarcation between private property and buffer, stream corridor, and outlot areas. She said that at the time of the of final platting those concerns will be addressed by the management plan governing the conservation areas. Walz said that the intention of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in this particular instance is to provide some protection for the creek and provide a natural, ecological transition from developed land to the creek. Walz said that the issue outlined in the staff report concerning the mailbox cluster has been resolved. The concerns regarding the sanitary sewer easement have also been worked out. She noted that while Huntington Drive ends in a cul -de -sac, land will be held in reserve that would allow the road to continue forward if the area to the north redevelops in the future. That property will be maintained by the developer, not the homeowners' association. Eastham asked if the applicant and staff had considered not extending Thames Drive to Taft Avenue. Walz said that all of the plans she had seen called for the extension, and that staff supported that. She said that good connection going north -south and east -west are important in new development. Howard said that she understood the idea of trying to control the number of intersections on an arterial street; however, there needs to be a balance to ensure that there are enough collector streets to provide good connections to the neighborhood so as not to overburden the interior streets and to provide good traffic circulation for residents and for efficient provision of public services. Freerks opened the public hearing Ron Amelon, MMS Consultants, 1917 South Gilbert Street, appeared on behalf of the developer. Freerks asked if the effect of runoff and drainage on the stream corridor had been thoroughly examined. Amelon said that studies had been done to ensure that a 100 -year flow could move through the area without having an effect on the buildable lots. Florence Stockman, 132 Eversull, said that she lives in Stonebridge Part 4 and is on the Homeowners' Association Board. She said she was appearing both as a property owner and a part of the 3- person Board. Stockman said that while the Board is happy to have Stonebridge 10 as a part of their association, it is not without reservations. She said the size of the development is a concern; there will be about 170 residences when the development is built out. The larger concern, she said, is Outlot B, which is where the properties will back up to the trails near the Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Formal Page 3 of 12 creek. Stockman said that the homeowners' association will need some guidance and assistance in enforcing the buffer zones and managing the creek area. Stockman said that it is very difficult to determine what is buffer area and what is private property. Stockman said that another area of concern is who exactly will be responsible for caring for the required landscape buffer. Stockman said she would like to see a the developer shave a bit off of one of the lots to add to the area of Stonebridge Park, rather than paying fees in lieu of parkland. Stockman said she would like to see the developer move forward with Part 10 before doing Parts 8 and 9, because there are a lot of property owners who enjoy the farm -side views from their residences. Greenwood Hektoen noted that as a general matter maintenance responsibilities fall to the person who owns the land upon which the trees are planted, whether it is the outlot, the developer's property, or the right -of -way. She referred Stockman to the documents relating to her land purchase for specific answers. Freerks said that the buffer zone will likely be enforced on a complaint basis, unless addressed proactively by the homeowners' association. Greenwood Hektoen said that the City would likely not get involved in such matters unless some sort of City- required easement or covenant exists. Walz pointed out that the outlot does extend beyond the stream - corridor buffer in certain areas and is not just the width of the stream corridor buffer. The outlot is intended to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan's call for public access in that area, as well as to benefit the private homeowners in the area, so there should not be spillover of private activities into public easement areas. Walz said that staff desires to see very clear, straightforward language in the final plat that ensures clarity for homeowners as to where private property ends and joint ownership begins, why the buffer space is there, and what purpose it serves. Eastham asked if that information is readily communicable to the homeowners' association Board of Directors. Greenwood Hektoen said that all of the documents are public documents that are recorded. Eastham said that regardless of that very few people actually look at those documents. Eastham said that since the assignation of green space in the form of outlots is in effect a design of the City, it makes sense for City staff to try to communicate the responsibilities and benefits of these schemes to the homeowners' associations fairly frequently and in fairly plain language. Walz said that she and Stockman have been in regular communication, but that a certain amount of responsibility does fall upon the developer to sell these outlots as amenities. Howard noted that because developments are created over long periods of time, it is sometimes the case that there is no homeowners' association until over 50% of the homes are built, so there can be a great deal of time between when a development is final platted and when there is actually a working neighborhood. Carol Samuelson, 120 Eversull, stated that she is a resident of Stonebridge Estates and has lived there for two years. She said that one concern she has regards the trails that are required by the City, built by the developers, but fall under the responsibility of the homeowners' association to keep up and maintain. She said that this arrangement seems awkward to her: 170 private residences maintaining publicly required and accessible trails. She said that she believes that all levels of City government should be examining what should and should not be the responsibility of homeowners and communicate those things clearly to them. Greenwood Hektoen said that these amenities are a part of the zoning code, which attempts to ensure nice Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 12 neighborhoods, and there is a certain level of burden that comes from living in such a neighborhood. She said the best the City can do to ensure proper notice is recording the requirements with the Recorder's Office. The City is not notified by the developer or the homeowners' association when the homeowners' association is formed, which makes it difficult for the City to consistently and actively communicate such requirements to property owners. Howard noted that the City makes a distinction between trails and amenities that are largely serving the people that live in that particular area versus trails that serve the entire community. As a general rule, trails that are intended as regional or community -wide trails are City -owned and maintained because they are larger, more regional draws. Trails that run through neighborhoods and largely serve those living in those neighborhoods are usually the responsibility of those living in those neighborhoods and are often something that citizens have requested as desired amenities in new neighborhoods and listed as an objective in district plans. Freerks noted that the trails are similar to alleyways in that they are maintained by property owners, though they can be used by anyone. There were no further comments on the matter and Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks noted that all discrepancies and deficiencies have been addressed, and the 45 -day limitation period is such that the issue could be voted on or deferred to the next meeting. Eastham clarified that staff is no longer recommending deferral, as all of the deficiencies outlined in the staff report have been addressed. Walz agreed. Weitzel moved to approve SUB11- 00007, preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan for Stonebridge Estates Part 10, noting that issues related to the designation and management of contiguous outlots along the creek will need to be addressed at the time of final plat review. Eastham seconded. Eastham said that the discussion of trails and the use of outlots had been an interesting one. He said that he does believe that over time homeowners' associations will figure out how to deal with management issues related to trails and outlots, but that will occur as the result of some vexing questions and problems that are sure to arise. He said that his major concern with the plat is the extension of Thames Road to Taft Avenue. Eastham said that part of this concern results from questions raised by Council members in relation to another subdivision regarding the number of connections between residential streets and Taft Avenue. He said that he would go ahead and vote to approve the preliminary plat, but if the Council would like the Commission to look at the plat again and remove the connection, he would be in favor of that. He said it seemed fairly easy to remove the connection, but it should be left up to the Council. Koppes said she would object to removing the connection. She said that if the traffic were all dumped out on Court Street, it would just zoom right back to Taft anyway. Freerks said that she agreed with Koppes. She said she thought Thames would be needed once the development is fully built out. She said that there are examples in the community where no connector streets were provided at the time of development and it is very difficult to go back and do that later. She said she was glad that the discussions about the trails and outlots had been held. She noted that those discussions would be reflected in the minutes and would be available to City Council. Freerks said that she did believe the outlots and trails will be used primarily by residents of the neighborhood. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused). Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Formal Page 5 of 12 URBAN RENWAL PLAN: Discussion of an amendment to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Area to add approximately 188 acres of property located east of the Scott Six Industrial Area along 420th Street. Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator, said that the original area of the Scott Six Industrial Park was established in 1997 and is nearly built out at this time. Ford said that the proposed amended area includes all of the land the City purchased in 2008 for potential industrial development and would add 188 acres to the existing 152 acres. The key goals of the plan would be to increase the area of land available to industry for development, to increase employment opportunities for the local workforce and to nurture the existing businesses in the city by encouraging expansion and attracting compatible industries. The land has already been annexed and zoned and is attracting interested developers. Staff has been working to attract the wind energy industry to the area. Ford says that the wind energy company looking to locate here is talking about a capital investment of $88 million which would generate $900,000 annually in property taxes. A key feature of the amended area includes the railway. Recently the City received a grant to provide track - siding on either side of the railway and to provide spurs connecting the southern and northern parcels of the amended area. Ford said that this feature, in addition to the large size of the area, make it one of the most appealing industrial areas in the state. Ford explained that creating an Urban Renewal Area is a prerequisite to establishing a TIF (tax increment financing) district which enables the City to incentivize improvements through tax rebates. Ford said that TIF is the only significant tool available to cities to attract companies to Iowa. Freerks asked Ford to discuss the time periods involved with the urban renewal area. Ford said that an urban renewal area can be established and within that, a TIF district can be created which has a time limitation of 20 years. Ford clarified that this does not mean that any given TIF would have a duration of 20 years; it just means that the area could, for a period of 20 years, use increment within the district to do City council approved funding for industrial developments. She noted that the average time for TIF awards for industrial development agreements was between four and seven years. Ford said that the current thinking is to fund only that part of the project that would not be able to go forward but for the TIF funding. She said there is a lot of due diligence built into the City's consideration process for TIFs. Ford said that the City tries to limit the project timeline for TIFs, though the district itself may implement TIFs over the 20 year period. Koppes asked if it was only Iowa City that had these due diligences built into their processes and Greenwood Hektoen said that it was part of state code. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the 20 year clock did not start with the approval of the plan, but when the City certified with the auditor that it was using tax increment from the TIF district in the urban renewal area. Dyer asked about the ability of the City to require certified green building as a part of the TIF agreement. Freerks said there had been some discussion about that before but her recollection was that there was concern that there would be new green standards in innovations over 20 years that could be discouraged by such a provision. Ford said she thought it could be required but would provide barriers to certain industries the city was working to attract. Ford said that if the goal is to draw employers, such restrictions could be counter - productive. Howard noted that LEED is only one type of green certification and there are other ways to encourage green building which are ever evolving. Dyer said that energy- efficient building techniques should be Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Formal Page 6 of 12 encouraged as the bottom line whenever possible. Weitzel said encouragement and incentivizing is fine, but he is not sure that requiring it would be a good idea. Freerks acknowledged that it was a difficult line to draw because, on the one hand, the City wished to attract businesses to locate here; and on the other hand, the City wants these companies to be good environmental stewards and use innovation. Weitzel said there have been other examples where the City has led with its ideals and now wishes it hadn't. Koppes said that encouraging is fine, but attracting businesses here is more critical. Koppes pointed to the Moss Green development as a forum where businesses interested in green development could locate. Ford said that if the language is left as "may encourage," then the green development model can be used as a carrot rather than a stick. Greenwood said that the discussion expresses the Commission's desire to be as environmentally sensitive as possible, without the potential problems posed by requiring such measures. Eastham asked what provisions there are in the zoning code that would apply to the location of a foundry in an 1 -1 zone. Howard clarified that the foundry being discussed is not a steel mill, is not something that would be considered heavy manufacturing and a big source of pollution. Eastham asked if staff was satisfied that the foundry being discussed was appropriate to the zone and staff said yes, it was something allowed in the zone and is a business that the City believes will be beneficial to the success of the industrial area. Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to forward a written recommendation to the City Council stating that the Scott Six Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. Weitzel seconded. Weitzel said that the area is zoned for the type of use being discussed, and a TIF is broader than one particular use. He said that increasing the job base is a positive thing for the community. Weitzel said that he hopes that incentives for energy- efficient and green uses /construction can be found, but that he is not interested in regulating it. Eastham said that his sense is that the urban renewal is in general conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Commission's scope of review in this case is relatively modest. The elements of the urban renewal plan are important, Eastham said, but they may fall more under the jurisdiction of the Council rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission. Freerks said that she hopes the area is beneficial to the environmental and economic health of the community. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik absent). CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code including: 1) Site development standards for the Central Business Service (CB -2), Central Business Support (CB -5) and Central Business (CB -10) zones; 2) Clarification regarding setbacks and frontage requirements for properties that front on City Plaza; 3) Clarification of standards for off- site parking for Household Living Uses in the CB -10 Zone; 4) Flexibility to adjust required storefront depths in the CB -10 Zone; 5) deleting the limitation on the amount of surface and ground -level parking allowed in the CB -5 Zone; 6) A requirement in the CB -10 Zone Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Formal Page 7 of 12 for the first two floors of new buildings to be constructed to accommodate commercial uses; 7) A requirement in the CB -10 Zone that the first two floors of a building be built to the side lot line; 8) Standards for the location of residential entrances in mixed use buildings; 9) Standards for Auto Repair in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone located within 100 feet of a residential zone boundary; 10) Side yard setbacks in commercial zones and 11) Adding a cross reference for administrative approval of off -site parking in commercial zones. Howard said that there has been renewed interest in redevelopment downtown as a result of recent alcohol ordinances and the economic recovery. In anticipation of that redevelopment activity, discussion has been taking place about what is and is not working in terms of zoning in the downtown area. The City Council has hired consultants to look at opportunities to market the downtown area. The Council just approved the hiring of a consultant to look at the larger Riverfront Crossings and downtown area in a broader scope and to help shape the Comprehensive Plan and guide the adoption of any necessary zoning changes. Howard said that there had been discussion centered on using form -based elements in zoning, which Iowa City uses to a certain extent already, particularly in its central business zones. Howard said that while these form -based elements are working quite well to ensure that new development is consistent with the pedestrian- oriented character of downtown that some additional flexibility may be needed to respond to specific site conditions that make infill development more difficult. Howard said that the code changes before the Commission are first steps in addressing some of the issues that have come to light and represent fairly minor amendments, with more changes possible in the future based on the work done by the consultants. Howard explained that the City Plaza downtown is not really a street, but buildings face it because it once was Dubuque Street and College Street. The first code amendment under discussion ensures that all of the regulations that apply to street - facing building walls also apply to plaza- facing walls. Freerks clarified that City Plaza is the official name for what is commonly referred to as the Ped Mall. Howard said that the second point is a little more complicated because in both the CB -10 and the CB -5 zone the first floor is required to be commercial and the upper floors can be residential. Howard explained that up until a couple of years ago, there was no parking required for residential in the downtown area. As a result, there was not a lot of pressure to put private parking on individual lots in the downtown area. The City requires the first 50 -feet of lot depth be reserved for active storefront uses, with the remaining depth can be used for structured parking. Howard explained that any downtown parking that is not underground requires a special exception. This means that there is already a great level of scrutiny when anyone does on -site parking in the downtown area. Howard noted that when the discussion was going on about requiring downtown parking for residential units, the hope was to level the playing field between permanent residents downtown and more transient residents, such as students. Howard said that one of the things that permanent residents often desire is a dedicated parking space. Howard said that allowing some flexibility in the amount of the building's first floor that is dedicated to commercial space would be helpful in cases where the property is small or constrained in some way that it is not possible to provide the 50 -foot retail depth. The language change would allow the Board of Adjustment to adjust the 50 -foot module as needed to address site constraints and still achieve the goals of providing quality commercial space in the downtown. Freerks said her initial concern had been that the commercial space requirements might have been diluted by the new language; however, she is pretty satisfied with the requirements for a special exception that staff has put in place. Howard said that there is quite a variation in the types of commercial spaces that are successful. She described a "liner" model, Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Formal Page 8 of 12 in which a parking structure is screened from street -front visibility by having narrow commercial spaces on the ground floor. Howard noted that there is also a market for Class A office space downtown, but often residential uses will outbid that market. She said that some of the code amendments in the works are intended to create better opportunities for office space to occur. Provision of upper floor office space might be one of the many different ways that a developer might mitigate for a smaller ground floor retail space requested due to specific site constraints. Moving on to the next code amendment, Howard said that the CB -5 zone requires a 30 -foot storefront module, with the amount of lot area that can be used for parking limited to 50 %. She said that it is not unusual to have more irregular sized lots or lots with greater depth in the CB -5 zone. Howard said that limiting the space used for parking behind the storefront module seems counterproductive in the CB -5, and therefore staff suggests removing that restriction as long as a quality commercial space is developed along the frontage. Howard said that commercial uses have different building code and fire code requirements than residential uses. If code requires the second floor to be built to commercial standards in the CB- 10 Zone, then there is the possibility that the second floor could be used and marketed for office uses at some point, even if it is initially used as residential space. To provide additional opportunities for office development downtown, Staff recommends changing the code to require the first two floors to be built to the commercial standard in the CB -10 zone. Howard noted that these requirements would also likely result in larger windows at least on the second floor. Eastham asked about the reference to "concerns expressed" that can be found in the staff report. Howard said that there has been extensive discussion among the City Council and the Downtown Association and other members of the community regarding keeping the downtown a viable, competitive commercial area in the region. Eastham said that as he understood it, the new requirements would increase the potential commercial space in a new building from one level to two levels. Howard said that was correct. Eastham asked if staff had information on how much commercial space has been created in the last ten years as a result of the requirement that the first floor be built for commercial uses. Howard said that residential uses have never been allowed in the first floor of the CB -10 zone. She said that there has only been a demand for downtown residential within the last 10 to 15 years. Eastham said that his point is that the proposed change would double the amount of commercial /office space in new buildings in the CB -10 and he is wondering if there is the demand to support such a change. Howard noted that the change would not preclude residential uses on the second floor, but would just allow the possibility for the space to be used for commercial uses in response to market demand. She also noted that there were no site development standards in the CB -10 zone prior to 2006. She said that some of the buildings that were built 15 years ago may offer commercial space, but it was built in a manner that is not attractive to businesses looking to locate downtown. She said that there are a number of buildings downtown that were built to satisfy demand for student housing and there was less knowledge and concern with providing quality commercial space at the ground level; as a result, the buildings with low ceiling heights and entrances located high above the sidewalk and without storefront windows may still be sitting empty. Howard said that the 2006 standards were intended to create attractive commercial spaces on the ground floor and have resulted in buildings that are more attractive to commercial users. In addition, marketing studies conducted by the City have demonstrated a demand for larger, Class A office spaces. Howard noted that the zoning changes are not intended to be silver bullets; rather, they are a tool that the City can use to try to capitalize on market demands that are already present. Eastham asked if consideration had been given to the increased construction costs resulting from these changes. Howard said staff did not feel that this would be an onerous requirement, given that higher building standards are already required for taller buildings, which is standard practice across the country. Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Formal Page 9 of 12 Howard said that there is already incentive in the downtown to build to the lot lines in order to maximize building space; however, the closer one builds to another building the higher the fire resistance of those building walls must be, which reduces the ability to provide windows openings along the side walls. Howard said that because most of the new buildings are built to accommodate the maximum number of residential units, there is an incentive to build the buildings far enough back to allow window openings and balconies along the side of the building. The result is narrow, dark corridors between buildings that are difficult to maintain and police, and often fill with trash and invite criminal activity. As a solution to this problem, staff is recommending that for the first two stories, the building be built to the side lot line. Eastham clarified that the requirement was to mandate building to the lot line on just the first two floors, and then the market would determine whether or not the upper floors stepped -back. Howard confirmed that that was correct, that above that level the building could be stepped back to accommodate windows and balconies. She also confirmed that this would apply only to side lot lines on interior lots. Howard noted that staff had recommended eliminating the CB -2 zone at the time the new zoning code was adopted, since it was an older zone that encouraged a type of development that was out of character and largely unachievable in downtown Iowa City. However, there had been some pushback from property owners wishing to keep it. At the time the City Council directed staff to study the CB -2 Zone during the Central District planning process and gather input from businesses and property owners on how to make the zone more useful and in character with downtown Iowa City. During the Central District planning process a number of meetings were held with property owners, business owners and nearby residents regarding the Northside Marketplace and the other CB -2 Zoned areas, and the resulting consensus was that the CB -2 zone should have the same kinds of standards as the CB -5 and CB -10 zones with pedestrian- oriented streets and parking located behind the buildings. However, the CB -2 should provide a transition and step down from the higher density allowed downtown to a scale that would be compatible with surrounding residential areas. With regard to all the amendments proposed, Eastham asked if staff had received feedback or comments from business owners in the effected zones. Howard said that they have not received any comments, but might expect some opposition from student housing developers regarding having to building the second floor to commercial standards. Freerks said that the goal is not necessarily to accommodate student housing developers' interests; rather, it is to plan for the best development in the downtown area for all users. Howard said that there was not direct outreach done on these amendments, but that these types of changes had been discussed in previous planning efforts and at the City Council in their ongoing discussions about the promoting economic development in the downtown. Once the larger changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the downtown zoning are on the table, there will be a more thorough public vetting. Eastham asked why the staff is making these recommendations now as opposed to waiting until the consultant has had a chance to make its recommendations to City Council about wider changes to the zoning code. Howard said that there are pending projects and City Council discussions centered on more immediate action than the consultant's timeline would allow. Moving on to the next amendment, Howard said that the code change for auto - repair uses involves removing the 100 -foot residential boundary restriction in the CI -1 zone and adding some performance standards to ensure that these uses are not disruptive to abutting residences. She said this is really just a fix of an oversight as a result of the previous update to Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Formal Page 10 of 12 the code and should make it easier for auto repair uses to locate in the CI -1 Zone, which is a zone intended for this type of use. Howard said that the last two code changes are just clean -up issues. She said the 5 -foot setback requirement for commercial would be deleted as it no longer serves any purpose and is creating some practical difficulties for placement of buildings on a lot, and the last one is a missing cross - reference in the accessory use chapter of the code referencing standards for parking location. Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Freerks invited a motion. Eastham moved to defer the item until the next meeting since it is fairly extensive and there has not been a great deal of Commission consideration on it. There was no second and the motion to defer died. Koppes moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, as outlined by staff. Dyer seconded. Weitzel said that the changes are fairly minor, but important and seem to be well thought out by staff. Koppes said that the Commission knew when the code was written that there would be amendments made to it. She said she is glad to see the clean -up, and is glad that the City Council is involved in making these changes. Freerks said she had had a few questions, but all of her fears have been put to rest. She said that these are good changes, and the zoning process always involves a certain amount of going back and tweaking things. Eastham said that the only problematic recommendation he sees is the requirement for the second floor to be developed to commercial building standards in the CB -10 zone. However, he said that he agrees that there is a demand for quality office space in the CB -10 area, and accepts the additional costs involved. He said that he sees this change as a cross - balance between placing additional costs on some developers, but providing additional office space opportunities for others that will hopefully provide benefits to the entire community. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: June 2,2011: Koppes moved to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused). Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 2011 - Formal Page 11 of 12 OTHER: Payne is scheduled to attend the next City Council meeting. Freerks welcomed Carolyn Dyer to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Koppes seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote (Payne and Plahutnik excused). z N SN Q L Ov Uww ZW� E z N OQ N jj 06 W z_ zQ z Q J CL 0 z w w Q O U. V z p w w Q I O LL z 1 X X X X w w X � I O X X O X X X 0 X X X X 0 X Lo I � X X X X 0 X N X X X X X X X X � X X X X X X co N X , X X X X- X X MX�XXXXXX ti N X X X X X X X r N X X X X X X X C0 gw (or- MNtnlnM mw 0—MNLOLOM � r r r r r WaLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w � W � 0 z J I Z W mJQ J U)JXZN J 2 N OOUQJ2 w OUZ Q W = UY� 2 � � LLI - - u) �UQYWLd w Q a� w a z= Q- H �u)wvpwa.> -Q- Qn >- Qw0QJw zmawwR0 -0- V z p w w Q I O LL z E 2 O O -0O m O z U X C N C N E N N D O Qz a Q 11 u u u w 2 XOOz w Y X � X X X X X X co N X , X X X X X X N M X X X X X X X r N X X X X X X X r mw 0—MNLOLOM � r r r r r w a. �X00000000 LO UO UO LO LO UO LO LO w w F- W J z -1 I Z W mJ J 2 N OOUQJ2 w LLI UY� C6 �UQYWUiDw wQ� 2u)W(1)Wa waz=� >- Q- QOOwQmOQJw zmoWwYaa� E 2 O O -0O m O z U X C N C N E N N D O Qz a Q 11 u u u w 2 XOOz w Y Urban Renewal Plan for Scott-Six Urban Renewal Area Amendment No. I - July 2011 Original -1997 C-,) N. CD M J X_ __j Table of Contents Section I - 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 Section 7 - Conformance with Land Use Policy and Zoning Ordinance Section 8 - Relocation Section 9 - Proposed Projects Section 10 - Financial Data Section I 1 - Property Acquisition/Disposition chi Section 12 -Urban Renewal Plan Amendments O F -52 Section 13 - Consent to include Agricultural Lane Section 14 - Effective Period Addendum No. 1 - Legal Description Addendum No. 2 - Scott -Six Urban Renewal Project Area Map 1A Section 1: Introduction The original Scott -Six Urban Renewal Plan ( "Plan ") for the Scott -Six Urban Renewal Area was adopted in 1997 and contained approximately 152 acres. The purpose of this Amendment No. 1 ( "Amendment ") is to: • add approximately 188 acres of property to the Scott -Six Urban Renewal Area; w • confirm and update the objectives and urban renewal activities;_ CE • describe additional proposed urban renewal projects; and r ... • make other changes as desired by the City. The primary goal of the Plan, as amended, is to stimulate, through public��lvaent commitment , private investment in new industrial development for the (ga alr4Scott Urban Renewal Area and the Amendment No. 1 area (collectively "Area" or�`yUrbav,;:Renewal co Area "). The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan — 1997 provides a vision for the economic well -being for the residents of Iowa City and outlines the goals the community must strive to achieve in order to attain its economic well -being vision. These goals include: • Increase the amount of land available for industry and commerce to expand and develop; • Increase employment opportunities for the local work force; and • Nurture existing businesses in the city by encouraging their retention and expansion, and by attracting compatible new industries. To help the City of Iowa City ( "City ") achieve these goals, the Comprehensive Plan states that the City may provide financial incentives as a catalyst for private enterprise. The Southeast District Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2011, identifies BDI, Scott Six and the recently annexed land to the east of Scott Six (the Amendment No. 1 area) as ideal areas for expansion of Iowa City's industrial base. The District Plan identifies these areas as uniquely suited for industrial activity, as they contain level, well- drained land and are proximate to services, utilities, highways and the Iowa Interstate Railroad. The District Plan refers to the recently annexed land east of Scott Six in particular as an important part of the district's objective to "take steps to make additional land available for future industrial development." The City has concluded it is in the interest of its citizens to encourage the expansion and continued development of the Scott Six industrial park in order to provide land at a price affordable to industrial development. To ensure that the price of land is affordable, the City intends to make available the use of tax increment financing as a means to finance the construction of some of the necessary infrastructure improvements within the Area. In addition, the City will make available the use of tax increment financing to provide direct grants, loans, or rebates for qualifying businesses planning to locate in the Area. To achieve the primary objectives of the Plan, as amended, the City of Iowa City shall undertake the urban renewal activities as specified in this Urban Renewal Plan, pursuant to the powers granted to it under Chapters 15, 15A and 403 of the 2011 Code of Iowa, as amended. 3 Except as in conflict with or modified by this Amendment, the provisions of the original 1997 Plan, as amended, remain in full force and effect. Section 2: Distriet Designation N With the adoption of this plan, Iowa City will continue to designate this Urw—Ai Removal Ai as an economic development district that is appropriate for industrial devel -- nt . UY an Renewal Area does not contain any residential uses. Section 3: Base Value rTi The Original Area will retain its existing base value. The adoption of Am e menFNo. 1 will have no effect on the tax increment ordinance that has been adopted for the Origmal urban renewal area. If Amendment No. 1 is adopted and a Tax Increment Ordinance is adopted and made effective by December 31, 2011, the area added as a result of this Amendment No. 1 will have a base value at the January 1, 2010 level. Section 4: Urban Renewal Plan Objectives The overall goal of the Scott -Six Urban Renewal Plan is to formulate and execute a workable program using public and private resources to develop the Urban Renewal Project Area for industrial development. The following objectives are being continued from the Original Urban Renewal Project Area and expanded for the Area, as amended: • To encourage and support development that will expand the taxable values of property within the Urban Renewal Project Area; • To encourage the development of start-up firms, the expansion of existing businesses, and the attraction of new industries, especially in the area of renewable energy; • To provide for the orderly physical and economic growth of the city; • To enhance the availability of sites to accommodate the construction of new industrial buildings; • To assist with the provision of infrastructure to enable competitive land prices and lease rates; • To make public improvements as deemed necessary by the City to support new industrial development; • To provide financial incentives and assistance to qualifying businesses; • To achieve a diversified, well - balanced economy providing a desirable standard of living, creating job opportunities, and strengthening the tax base; • To plan for and provide sufficient land for industrial development; • To provide other support as allowed under Iowa Code Chapters 15, 15A and 403. Section 5: Description of Urban Renewal Area in The legal description of this proposed Urban Renewal Plan Area attached hereto as Addendum No. 1- Legal Description. The location and general boundaries of the Scott -Six Urban Renewal Plan AreWare shown on Addendum No. 2 - Scott -Six Urban Renewal Area Map. This area is aproxrimateli}�_- n C._ acres. Section 6: Proposed Urban Renewal Activities .gin ° r-n The following urban renewal activities are being continued from thF @igial L'n Renewal Project Area and expanded for the Area, as amended, to en irag67 ndustrial development throughout the entire Urban Renewal Area. rO 1. To undertake and carry out urban renewal projects through the execution of contracts and other instruments. 2. To acquire land and to provide for the construction of specific site improvements such as grading and site preparation activities, access roads and parking, fencing, utility connections, and related activities. 3. To arrange for or cause to be provided the construction or repair of public infrastructure, including but not limited to, streets, water, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, public utilities, sidewalks, street lights, public parks and open spaces, bike trails, landscaping or other related facilities and activities in connection with urban renewal projects. 4. To borrow money and to provide security therefor. 5. To make or have made surveys and plans necessary for the implementation of the Urban Renewal Program or specific urban renewal projects. 6. To acquire property through a variety of means (purchase, lease, option, etc.) and to hold, clear or prepare the property for redevelopment, or to dispose of property. 7. To use any or all other powers granted by the Urban Renewal Act to develop and provide for improved economic conditions for the City of Iowa City and the State of Iowa. 8. Private Site Improvements: Site improvements may include, but are not limited to, design and construction of buildings, grading for building construction and amenities; adequate paving and parking. adequate landscaping; and on -site utilities. Tax increment financing may be used by qualifying businesses to finance these private site improvements. 9. Public Infrastructure Improvements: Public infrastructure improvements may include, but are not limited to, storm water management facilities, public streets and sidewalks, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and open space improvements such as wetland mitigation. Public infrastructure improvements shall include electric and rail infrastructure, and improvements to the adjacent portion of 420th Street. Tax increment financing shall be available to finance the construction of these improvements, in whole or in part, at the City Council's discretion. 10. Financial Incentives: To meet the objectives of this Urban Renewal Plan Amendment and to encourage private investment in and the development of the Area, the City may determine to provide financial assistance to qualified private businesses through the making of loans, rebates or grants under all applicable provisions of the Iowa Code, including but not limited to Chapter 15 and 15A, and through the use of tax increment financing under Chapter 403 of the Code of Iowa. 5 a. Loan Rebates or Grants. The making of loans or grants of public funds to private businesses within the project area may be deemed necessary or appropriate for economic development purposes and to aid in the planning, undertaking and carrying out of urban renewal project activities authorized under this Urban Renewal Plan and the Code of Iowa. Accordingly, in furtherance of the objectives of this Urban Renewal Plan, the City may determine to issue general obligation bonds, tax increment revenue bonds or such other obligations or loan agreements for the purpose of making loans or grants of public funds to private businesses located in the Urban Renewal Area. Alternatively, the City may determine to use available funds for making such loans or grants. b. Tax Increment Financing. The City may utilize tax increment financing as a means to help pay for the costs associated with acquisition and the development of the project area, as well as utilizing such financing to achieve a rnore marketable, and competitive land offering price and to provide for necessary physical improvements and infrastructure. General obligation bonds, tax increment revenue bonds, internal loans or such other obligations or loan agreements may be issued by the City, and tax increment reimbursement may be sought for, among other things, the following costs (if and to the extent incurred by the City): C. Constructing public improvements, such as streets, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water mains, utilities, rail or other related facilities. i. Making loans or grants to private businesses, including debt service payments on any bonds or notes issued to finance such loans or grants. ii. Providing the local matching share of state or federal grant and loan programs. iii. Encourage the incorporation of energy efficient building �Schniques such as those specified in the Iowa Green Building SUndards; or those attaining LEED certification. iv. Other authorized urban renewal projects. o -<r. Nothing herein shall be construed as a limitation on the power of the City to ex�rseIny 11 al a power granted to the City under Chapter 15, Chapter 15A, Chapter 403, Ch t& 420-B, oCRy other provision of the Code of Iowa in furtherance of the objectives of this Urgitn Renewal Plan. co Qualifying businesses shall be determined by the City Council. The Council's determination shall be based upon its economic development policy, which may amended from time to time, as may be necessary in Council's discretion, and on additional performance criteria the Council finds appropriate on a case by case basis. Section 7: Conformance with Land Use Policy and Zoning Ordinance The Amendment is consistent with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1997, and the Southeast District plan adopted in 2011. The Comprehensive Plan is the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. G Comprehensive Plan The Urban Renewal Area is located in the area designated by the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan as the Southeast Planning District. The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan designates the Urban Renewal Area as appropriate for industrial uses. Current Zoning The Area is currently zoned I -1, General Industrial Zone, and ID -1, Interim Development Industrial, which is consistent with this Urban Renewal Plan. Current and Proposed Land Uses The Urban Renewal Area is currently used for agricultural and industrial purposes. This Amendment does not in any way replace the City's current land use planning or zoning regulation process. 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: Proposed Projects The initial Proposed Projects in the Area, as amended, may include: a. The installation of infrastructure associated with attracting development, including but not limited to, streets, water, sewer, electric and rail infrastructure, and other public infrastructure improvements to a portion of 420th Street and surrounding area. The need for such improvements is expected to be created by development projects within the Urban Renewal Area. b. Offering financial incentives, including but not limited to, the provision of lail, grants, loans or other incentives to entities locating in the Area to build a fougry araTrelated support industries for the renewable energy industry. Cam - i Z4 n Section 10: Financial Data ---4 t-; o r! r 1. Constitutional Debt Limit: $ 130,927,980 -� 2. Current general obligation debt: $ 91,565,000 3. Proposed amount of indebtedness to be incurred: Although a specific amount of loans, advances, indebtedness or bonds to be included for projects over time has not yet been determined, it is anticipated that the cost of the proposed projects identified in Section 9 ( "Proposed Projects" above) will be between $55 -65 million, depending on the number and quality of businesses the City is able to attract over time. 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 7 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 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: 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, to change the boundaries, to add or change land use controls or regulations, to modify goals or types of renewal activities or projects, 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 following applicable statutory procedures. Section 13: Consent to Include Agricultural Land The Scott Six Urban Renewal Area contains land that is defined as agricultural land by Iowa Code Section 403.17(3). The City is the sole owner of such land and will consider a resolution consenting to its inclusion within the Urban Renewal Area. Section 15: Effective Period This Urban Renewal Plan, as amended, will become effective upon its adoption by the City Council of Iowa City and will remain in effect until it is repealed by the City Council. With respect to any property covered by this Amendment No. 1 which is included in an ordinance which designates that property as a tax increment area, the use of incremental property tax revenues, or the "division of revenue ", as those words are used in Chapter 403 of the Code of Iowa, is limited to twenty (20) years from the calendar year following the calendar year in which the City first certifies to the County Auditor the amount of any grants, loans, advances, indebtedness or bonds which qualify for payment from the incremental property tax revenues attributable to that Amendment No 1 property. However, 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 shall be limited as deemed appropriate by the Council and consistent with all applicable provisions of law. r— . a'_ 8 r.a C) ADDENDUM No. 1 ^ `� Legal Description o Commencing at the Southwest Corner of Section 19, Township 79 North, R5 West AM Fifth Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence NOO°O& "W.�along .the West Line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 19, a distance of 254.86 feet, to a point on the Northerly Right -of -Way Line of U.S. High -way No. 6 and the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing NOO °03'29 "W, along said West Line, 404.57 feet, to a point on the Easterly Right -of- Way Line of Scott Boulevard; Thence Northeasterly, 386.13 feet, along the Easterly Right -of- Way Line of Scott Boulevard and a 1481.54 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 385.04 foot chord bears N07 °23'39 "E; Thence N00 °03'29 "E, along said Right -of -Way Line, 1605.27 feet, to a point on the North Line of said Southwest Quarter, Thence NOO °18'56 "W, along said Right -of -Way Line, 579.87 feet, to a point on the South Right -of -Way of the Heartland Rail Corporation; Thence S62 °09'30 "E, along said South Right -of -Way Line, 749.90 feet; Thence S00 °03'29 "E, 300.25 feet; Thence S11 °43'38 "W, 1240.47 feet; Thence S06 °00'20 "W, 173.94 feet; Thence S02 °29'45 "W, 230.00 feet; Thence S87 °30'15 "E, 266.70 feet; Thence S02 °29'45 "W, 861.87 feet; Thence Southwesterly, 16.33 feet, along a 300.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 16.33 foot chord bears SO1 °12'12 "W; Thence S00 °21'22 "E, 65.50 feet, to a point on the South Line of said Southwest Quarter, Thence S89 °38'37 "W, along said South Line, 209.90 feet, to a point on the Northerly Right -of -Way Line of U.S. Highway No. 6; Thence Northwesterly 175.60 feet, along said Right -of -Way Line and a 5830.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 175.59 foot chord bears N59 °59'08 "W; Thence N60 °50'54 "W, along said Right -of -Way Line, 337.19 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 38.93 acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record AND Commencing at the Southwest Corner of Section 19, Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence NOO °03'29 "W, along the West Line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 19, a distance of 254.86 feet, to a point on the Northerly Right -of -Way Line of U.S. High -way No. 6; Thence S60 °50'54 "E, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 337.19 feet; Thence Southeasterly 175.60 feet, along said Right -of -Way Line and a 5830.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 175.59 foot chord bears S59 °59'08 "E, to a point on the South Line of said Southwest Quarter; Thence N89 °38'37 "E, along said South Line, 209.90 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence NOO °21'22 "W, 65.50 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 16.33 feet, along a 300.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 16.33 foot chord bears N01 °12'12 "E; Thence NO2 °29'45 "E, 861.87 feet; Thence N87 °30'15 "W, 266.70 feet; Thence NO2 °29'45 "E, 230.00 feet; Thence N06 °00'20 "E, 173.94 feet; Thence NI 1'43'38"E, 1240.47 feet; Thence NOO °03'29 "W, 300.25 feet, to a point on the Southerly Right -of -Way Line of Heartland Rail Corporation; Thence S62 °09'30 "E, along said Southerly Right -of -Way Line, 2261.25 feet, to a point on the East Line of said Southwest Quarter; Thence S00 °00'45 "E, along said East Line, 990.27 feet; Thence S89 °38'37 "W, 670.00 feet; Thence S00 °00'45 "E, 813.00 feet to a point on the South Line of said Southwest Quarter; Thence S89 °38'37 "W along said South Line, 1380.99 feet, to the point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 101.57 acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record AND Amendment No. 1 Area The NW quarter of the NE quarter of Section 30, Township 79N, Range 5W of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; also including the west 5.32 acres of the NE quarter of the NE quarter of said Section 30; and including all of the NW, NE, and SW quarters of the SE quarter of Section 19, Township 79N, Range 5W of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa, and all of the SE quarter of the SE quarter of said Section 19 lying north of the southern right -of- way boundary of the Iowa Interstate Railroad; thence beginning at the SE corner of Nathaniel's Addition of the County of Johnson County, which is on the centerline of 420th Street, west 40'; thence W295', N338% E295', and S386'; also that portion of land lying south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad to the centerline of 420th Street between the western boundary of Nathaniel's Addition and the eastern boundary of the SW quarter of the SE quarter of said Section 19. N D ©��� o CO ADDENDUM No. 2 SCOTT -SIX URBAN RENEWAL AREA MAP N CD --S O ice" cn PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FY11 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 The City of Iowa City is soliciting public comments on the proposed Federal Fiscal Year 2010 (City FY11) Annual Action Plan. The Annual Action Plan is a portion of Iowa City's 2011 -2015 Consolidated Plan (A.k.a. CITY STEPS). The FY11 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 will include information on the proposed use of $900,000 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program income to fund housing rehabilitation at 1956, 1958 and 1960 Broadway St. (Broadway Condominiums), Iowa City. A 30 -day public comment period will start on July 2, 2011. Copies of the FY11 Action Plan Amendment are available from the Department of Planning and Community Development, City Hall, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, 52240, the Iowa City Public Library, 123 S. Linn Street, Iowa City and online at www.icgov.org /actionplan. Written comments may be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development at the address above. A 30 -day public comment period will begin on July 2, 2011 and end on August 1, 2011. c,• a July 21, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FY11 Annual Action Plan Amendment The City Council will hold a public hearing, accept comments and consider approval of an amendment to Iowa City's FY11 Annual Action Plan on August 2, 2011. The meeting will be held at City Hall, Emma Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City at 7:00 p.m. The FY11 Annual Action Plan is a portion of Iowa City's 2011 -2015 Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS). The Annual Action Plan includes information on the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds for housing, jobs and services for low - moderate income persons. The FY11 Amendment proposes to use $900,000 in CDBG funds for the rehabilitation of the residential condominium complex at 1956, 1958 and 1960 Broadway St. Copies of the FY11 Annual Action Plan Amendment are available from the Department of Planning and Community Development, 410 East Washington Street, the Iowa City Public Library, 123 S. Linn Street or on Iowa City's web site (www.icgov.org/actionplan). Additional information is available from the Department of Planning and Community Development, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, 52240 or by calling 356- 5230. Comments may also be submitted in writing to the Planning and Community Development Department at the address above or by email to tracy- hightshoe @iowa - city.org. If you require special accommodations or language translation, please contact Stephen Long at 356 -5250 or 356 -5493 TTY at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. r ts_,:. ®fir, CITY OF IOWA CITY -2- I-oll MEMORANDUM Date: July 14, 2011 To: Thomas Markus, City Manager From: Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator Tracy Hightshoe, Community Development Planner Re: Resolution Adopting the FY11 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 Introduction A public hearing and resolution considering approval of the FY11 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 will be held at your August 2, 2011 City Council meeting. The Amendment allocates CDBG program income from a CDBG Disaster Recovery project. Aniston Village LP, a Low Income Housing Tax Credit Project, in Iowa City was awarded $2.9 million in Iowa CDBG Disaster Recovery Housing Funds through the Iowa Department of Economic Development to finance the construction of 22 homes for affordable rental housing. When Aniston Village LP secured permanent financing this spring, a portion of the construction loan ($2.7 million) was repaid to the City and receipted as program income to be used in the City's regular CDBG entitlement program. History /Background The City previously allocated $ 1,205,000 of these funds to three housing projects in Amendment #3. Due to a HUD technicality, the City had to conduct another funding round for the $900,000 allocated to Wetherby Condos South LLC. The Environmental Review Officer for the HUD Kansas City office determined that the project could not be funded as proposed because of the way it was structured in the original application (acquisition and rehab). As you know, the project changed from the time that the project was proposed because of the delay related to the development of the City's Affordable Housing Model. However, the project is still eligible based on a rehabilitation of the three building residential complex. Discussion of Solution In late May, the City advertised the $900,000 in available CDBG funds and received seven housing applications and two public facility applications totaling $2,972,554. The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) reviewed the applications at their June 16, 2011 meeting and recommended that $900,000 be allocated to Wetherby Condos South LLC. The $2.16 million project will revitalize a 108 unit complex that is in need of rehabilitation and has had issues with crime. The total cost of the proposed project is approximately $2.2 million, of which $648,000 will be used to rehabilitate the exterior and shared spaces of the complex, including driveway and parking lots improvements, fencing installed to provide for better security and privacy for tenants and installation of additional security cameras. An estimated $1,512,000 will be spent on interior rehabilitation. At least 51% of the 108 units will be reserved for low -to- moderate income households. Staff reviewed financial terms with Wetherby Condos South LLC and recommends the following financial terms: $300,000 Grant. $600,000 loan with a 0% interest rate starting at month 1 and ending on month 60. Interest payable starting at month 61 and ending at month 120 at 3 %. The loan will mature and be paid in full on the earlier of (i) the end of the 120 month period or (ii) upon sale. The payment at maturity will be equal to the greater of (i) 10% of the fair market value as determined by appraisal or (ii) 10% of the net sales price. This payment will be capped at $888,000. Staff recommends a 5 -year compliance period. July 20, 2011 Page 2 A draft copy of the FY11 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 is attached. You can also find this amendment at www.icgov.org /actionplan. If needed, amendments or changes to this plan may be considered at the August 2, 2011 meeting. Recommendation At your August 2 meeting, we are asking that you consider approval of the FY11 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4 as recommended by HCDC. To date, the City has received no written comments from the public concerning the FY11 Annual Action Plan Amendment. If you have any questions about the Amendment or the proposed projects please feel free to contact Steve Long or Tracy Hightshoe at 356 -5230 or steve - long @iowa - city.org or at tracy- hightshoe@iowa-city.org. Cc: Mike McKay, HCDC Chair