Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Council Action Summary from February 27, 2001 meeting r COUNCIL ACTION SUMMARY Meeting Date: February 27, 2001 Agenda Item #: Comments SUBJECT: Request to Reconsider Application for Urban Revitalization Area at 511 South Fourth Street ACTION TAKEN: Referred to staff a request for reconsideration of approval of Urban Revitalization Area application for 511 South Fourth Street. MOTION BY: Cross SECOND BY: Quirmbach VOTING AYE: Campbell, Cross, Goodhue, Hoffman, Quirmbach, Wirth VOTING NAY: None ABSENT: None By: ' Jill Ripperger, epu City Cleric COPY to: Mark Reinig FEB 2 7 2001 ti K& J Cooper Properties __=_a �I Mailing Address: 909 Brookridge Ave. CITY CLERK Office Address: 819 Lincoln Way, Suite E CITY OF AMES,IOWA Ames, Iowa 50010-5412 PHONE: 515-232-3456 FAX: 515-232-7198 February 26, 2001 Steven L Schainker, City Manager City Council Members, Ames, Iowa To Whom It May Concern: My wife and I would like to appeal a recent decision of the City Council. We had Benjamin Design Collaborative submit an application for an urban revitalization designation for property at 511 S. 4`h Street and 317 S. Walnut. This application was denied based on staff recommendation. I most certainly would have been in attendance at this meeting to present you with some additional points had we have been notified of the time. However, Mark Reinig says that while this would have been the normal occurrence, it did not happen in this instance. I have just read the history of the origination and the discontinuance of the urban revitalization program designation for this area and am aware of how certain changes have occurred over time that affect this project. The major point in the denial seems to be that the property does not meet the under utilized matrix. The staff report over looks that 60% of the subject property meets the under utilized matrix as a infill area by the fact that it is a vacant separate lot (317 S. Walnut) that once contained a primary structure. It is developable by itself on a far smaller scale that would yield far less benefit to the City in the long run than granting the whole property urban revitalization status. Before I demolished that house in 1997 I checked with Brian about applying for urban revitalization on this property and was told that application for urban revitalization status was applied for when the new property was built. I understand that this is no longer applicable. Under that assumption we demolished the existing structure as it was no longer habitable by market standards. When it was published that changes were coming in the urban revitalization program I again called Brian who told me that changes were coming but that urban revitalization credit would still be available in this area. What was done it seems is that anyone that was active in redevelopment at the time was offered some sort of transition zone. We,however, were never notified of the possibility of entering this transition zone even though we had consistently expressed interest in redevelopment in this area. We feel that we made our best efforts to abide by the rules and stay abreast of what needed to be done to have urban revitalization credit for this property. However, we were never brought into the loop in the transition period. A unique situation exists in this section of the neighborhood. Unlike the surrounding neighbors, which were part of an original neighborhood, the lots west of Walnut and between S 3rd and S 4d' all contain structures that were obsolete in their original neighborhoods and were moved to this .r site over a period of 40 years ending in the early seventies. While these structures are in varying states of repair, they do not represent a neighborhood or any uniform pattern of development as many of the lots are split or reorganized. The ones that are multifamily are all conversions and lack many of the safety requirements that would be provided in a redevelopment property. In another recent development, the parking lot for 511 S. 4th was on the lot next door which is not owned by us. We had parked there under an arrangement with the former owner. When our last tenant in 511 S. 41h moved out, the current owner of that lot appropriated the parking spaces for his own use, thereby leaving 511 S. 41h with no off street parking. I have talked to the rental inspector and he informed me that the current letter of compliance has lapsed on 511 S.4th and that a new one could not be issued with no off street parking available. We also have sought repair estimates for the deficiencies outlined by the building inspector and these along with a new parking lot for eight cars come to $83,645.00. The current assessed valuation of the building improvements is $79,000.00. We feel this neighborhood was rightly identified for redevelopment in 1984 and because of the difficulty in acquiring suitable sized lots only one developer even showed interest to develop under the original program. They did not offer the quality of redevelopment that we are now offering. Since the program has changed there has been no new development of either urban revitalization or conventional development in this neighborhood. We have owned these properties since the middle 1970's and originally purchased 317 Walnut only for redevelopment purposes. We felt we were diligent in pursuing our options as the program changed. We do currently meet the under-utilization section on 60% of the site. We also feel that we are meeting all of the optional requirements to a large degree: the brick requirement 100%, the landscaping 100% and structured parking 16%. Also these apartments are offering efficiencies, 1 bedrooms and only 2—2 bedrooms for people working in this neighborhood and not oversized apartments with little parking for the student high rent populations. If we had known that our option for urban revitalization was going to be taken away we would have acted to be included in the transition zone. We would like the council to reconsider granting us urban revitalization as was a longstanding goal in this neighborhood and will give this rather strange neighborhood some quality development with increased long term tax benefits to the City of Ames. Sincerely eM4 Kent Cooper Joan E. Cooper