HomeMy WebLinkAboutA046 - Council Action Form dated January 12, 2016 ITEM # 30
DATE: 1-12-16
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO CAMPUSTOWN
URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN CRITERIA
BACKGROUND:
At the December 8, 2015 City Council meeting, staff presented amendments to the
Campustown Urban Revitalization Plan based upon Council's prior direction as
described in more detail below. However, Council chose to request additional
information before making a decision on enacting an amendment to the Plan. At
that meeting, Council directed staff to seek input from the Campustown Action
Association (CAA) regarding the standards for Non-Formula Retail occupancy
requirements and for staff to discuss with the City Assessor if tax abatement can
be split for different assessment classifications on a single property.
The CAA provided a letter that explains their support for the Non-Formula Retail
percentage requirements and occupancy standards as recommended by staff on
December 8t", and included as Attachment A to this report. The CAA's Letter in
reflected in Attachment B.
Staff visited with the City Assessor and described Council's question regarding whether
the classification of improvements on a property could be separated between residential
and commercial. A recent change to the property tax assessment law occurred in 2015
that now requires that multiple uses on a property be split out for assessment purposes;
whereas, previously a property was classified by its majority of use and was only
classified as one use. Due to this change in the law, the Assessor believes he is
able to apply a property tax exemption to each individual classification on a
property if Council was to approve an exemption for property and pass such a
determination on to the Assessor as required under statute. It is important to
emphasize that even with dual use classification on a property, it would still be important
that a whole building(s) is completed before City Council determines if an individual use
is qualifying real estate for tax abatement.
URA Plan Amendment Criteria
The original December 8t" Council Action Form is included as Attachment C. This
report detailed the staff's recommendations for the changes to the URA Plan. The
recommendations have not been changed since December 8t"
Amending the URA Plan by adopting a resolution makes any approved changes
effectively immediately. This means that regardless of when construction was
initiated on a property, any requests for tax abatement must be found to qualified
real estate with improvements and uses that are consistent with the tax abatement
criteria at the time of final approval by the City Council. However, any previous final
1
` tax abatement approvals would continue to be valid for the life of their exemption
regardless of changes to the URA Plan.
If Council has concerns about applying the new criteria to projects that are currently
he proposed amendments could have an implementation under construction t date that
defers the applicability of the changes. For example, the changes could be stated to be
effective for projects with improvements that are completed in 2017. This would mean
that tax abatement requests starting in 2018 would have to comply with the
requirements.
Currently, there is only one project that started construction in 2015 that will be
completed in 2016 and seek tax abatement by January 31, 2017. This project is The
Edge at 2311 Chamberlain. The developer, Gilbane, spoke on December 8th and
described their concerns with the non-formula retail occupancy standard in general and
how it could affect their project when they plan to request abatement at the end of 2016
and the potential to delay or negate a year of tax abatement if they are unable to satisfy
the non-formula retail occupancy requirement.
ALTERNATIVES
1. City Council may adopt a resolution to amend the Campustown Urban Revitalization
Plan with the criteria included in the attached Council Action Form dated December
8, 2015. (Attachment A)
2. City Council may direct staff to make different changes to the proposed Urban
Revitalization Plan criteria.
3. City Council may decline to adopt the proposed changes the Campustown Urban
Revitalization Plan criteria.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council previously gave staff direction on drafting amendments to the criteria and asked
staff to bring these amendments back for Council approval once the 2320 Lincoln Way
project had resolved its status for tax abatement eligibility. The 2320 Lincoln Way project
was granted final approval for tax abatement on December 8, 2015.
Staff believes that the amendments shown in Attachment A encompass all of Council's
previous direction regarding non-formula retail, adaptive reuse, architectural standards,
driveway limitations, signage, windows, and lighting. Staff has also included an appendix
to the criteria matrix (Attachment A) to help define the City's standards and expectations
for compliance with the criteria.
The most difficult element of the proposed amendments has been the language
regarding occupancy of the non-formula retail spaces prior to receiving tax abatement.
The final language does allow for Council to approve an alternative schedule for
tenancy, but there is still risk in the eyes of developers on approval of an alternative
schedule. Staff believes that the current language allows for adequate time for a
property owner to find an appropriate tenant, in the range of 17 months, or for Council to
allow for some latitude in getting a tenant into a space if necessary. Keeping the
occupancy requirement is likely the only way to ensure that commercial space gets
occupied in a reasonable amount of time after completion of the building due to the
leveraging of the high value of the residential component against the lower value
commercial component.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council
approve Alternative #1 thereby adopting the amendment to the Campustown
Urban Revitalization Plan with the criteria included in Attachment A.
ti i T L
O O .ti `� y •� U O cn C
"" � � � U L N � ca •C � � �
�_ .o
N > x N p 3 bA L cc v o-o N y -- v o oA L a o o n c
�• O U U v N 'O N '" C X G :j 'b '� cC ay C C U w 0
o ° t °o b o > ° 3 R E °L' 3 0 ro •c
v is v m +v' 'p aLi ^ p -D E (� U > O aCi
Ol 'Z +„' O N U r > p 0A v Y ° O w �, LY L ao o Y a o �, ° W ❑ ,� v
A � � o � oy � > a ° = EU Lv � g 3 y o � cwE .aoUb3
O v .� oOOA a o N L a v° w 3 G °� a T M
V ° U. o E fl a � � � cd C� 3 M � '� w° �'E � v° 3 0 .E n vi = ° o Rs D o 3 N °
Cbrq N i N C L + v U Q E C O U 3 Od N ti O U p O N
G� ;Zt O O� " :o •D � -o � v � `° -fl � ;: ° � �° � �i .� w v `° � R ,� Q.v � .�'� �
CZ
p cCi >O
V ry a G' LcC L v L ,� U • O U
A" N Q > , :
c aL C'G w cL o. n. m z
O Q w�i C" -• N M 7 �n �O l� 00 � •--
O
•ry
4-0
., o L z o0000 � as
ICI N C N M �D [� .,^G_, O_ .U.+ N ° •O y O
m ..O L ca N `� •� ,O
v cu CII
o •o `� c a
LI y C 2 °
V
C
� Q p 4� N O o o O O O
R. o kr�—• �n
Q /� Q iy�r H U •II E"' � • • • • • • d E ',� T cci O U 2 .E '� W U ca O �L
C
In
-C po
U � w
u y s
Q O E v U N d o y 3 v 2 ni o o L ob v
O v v Y v L 3 a '� E E o c ❑ �' w° > E is R `
aj
C" v � Y �
w >p . � v �
� w � o - clL- a N vC
K v a�i v ° c° � ti v E = o v 3 Z ° L, C
H ' coy ccz '�-' y T,a? CO N 'rn y id 7 cLC pCj
p ° v v v c a o N d R
v = Y v v ce •`-' avi '3 c ° U o M n v T v v ca o
`� � = °' `�° ``" E -xo .� �[ 3
�� � v
•ot y„ O v� O O U 'O 0A
+ o. v o _ ., o a N lbw • ° vbb > � w = 3 ° w N N _mow
U
V o � v o aU a> v o LEE . o ° E o � � � � �+; •� E ° n.�a
E Y p v � r
� w
a N y E OA i ° wca LO ' 1 C U •^ y
U
w w v v a o L oo C) E- w t > w a b4 cq
L E
O d O bA cd •V U .�. ° A, rn C
Y p 'V y O s`n. N •h '� O
L` r\ c C C �"' ' u O p U U cC U
E -mr-
CJ E ° v ° 3
Q CC, ,O U �, � r � 'O N ° U ° O � .0 � �., ° co d ,? � bA p � v
^^ w• h U ^ C cC �- U ,L ° U Ca O ° cd D\ O u C L U L crO cV
ci
ai
•� U > Q '�
fl > O
4. LL
O C) N
ct
cA
O y N O
bA
> U O Y
M C) O O
dN �' 4--i N .� cC ..Q U O
CO 0
cl
° � o coca " n ° 3
�_ a u
ozs � Nod
� = � o Novo co cu
X � a�n
L1 o U o a o a ) (b mto
o 92)
U a� L ca L a na
U � Q o x Q.) V an y° ° ° -Q C)CO � 3 o
a, '° - -° •� o � w U � .Q '� o coo 3 0
to
o
N co U - U Ln cz
iO, y Qv O ni +� U i
L O O co O
co
0 co
ct
cn
Q, N p cl L 3 4 O � co a > cn ^o
cz
rn
O 03
°�,' C) u cd w �, ca cn a) c ° O G s1 U
c
cn
o j U o `� o. cu Q o c) O, cu ° >
d 3 a o d d Z O o i o Z Z —co LL o cv 25
-� c-i cn d vi
cis m
bD u 4 o a� E
cn
cz
cz v� n
CZ
cz aD > >
ca
o 'EZ 0� °
•o = C4
vi O U cz C" m 4. L7
bD U O
U > O U O U
"O n +� O U ^ n
U o cd U N � bD � M
U U � M
cn bD bD s," O bD
' cc3 cn
bD O U 3 U U �
5 cz
U to
u " Q 0 i" O C U a
cn N V) M Ubb
'cn O 'O
n z O U r- Oto
bO
u d _ U a"
bD Z °O U
s O m > O 4, cn
U > 242 U ) p �'
� U �" y .� y � � � U •y ..O bA �
� O Oy 'O
U bD,C p �_ "p Um cz U
N
vncz
&-
y ^Ur, U N eC N CA
O 4,
campustown
action
association
Campustown Action Association
200 Stanton Avenue, Suite 102
Ames, IA 50014
December 17, 2015
The Honorable Ann Campbell and City Council
Ames City Hall
515 Clark Avenue
Ames, IA 50010
RE: Amendment to Campustown Urban Revitalization Plan
Dear Mayor Campbell and City Council:
Campustown Action Association (CAA) appreciates the opportunity to offer
further input in finalizing the Amendment to the Campustown Urban
Revitalization Plan. Per your request from City Council general meeting of
December 8, 2015, the following items were approved unanimously by the Board
of Directors at our monthly meeting Wednesday, December 9, 2015.
• We support the current percentage sliding scale as defined by the matrix
provided by City staff.
• We support the occupancy requirement of a non-formula business before
tax abatement approval. After much discussion among our Board of
Directors, we maintain this position due to the fact that this element was
the basis from which we built the entire tax abatement program: to
encourage small business growth in our district.
• In response to Councilperson Orazem's request for feedback on any
possible mechanism we could use to prevent putting the entire project at
risk by the tax abatement requirements: We propose that a non-formula
retail tenant must be secured at the time of application in order for a
property owner to qualify for tax abatement. If occupancy cannot be
executed in good faith at the time of application, we support an appeal
200 Stanton Avenue, Suite 102, Ames, IA 50014 • 515.292.4528 • director@amescampustown.com
campustown
action
association
process approval by City Council on a case-by-case basis whereas a
developer could receive tax abatement with formal proof a non-formula
business intends to occupy the space in the very near future.
Thank you again for considering our opinions regarding this program.
Sincerely,
Rebecca J. Olson, Trevin Ward,
Executive Director President
Campustown Action Association Campustown Action Association
200 Stanton Avenue, Suite 102, Ames, iA 50014 • 515.292.4528 • director@ amescampustown.com
ITEM # 29
DATE: 12-08-15
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO CAMPUSTOWN URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN
CRITERIA
BACKGROUND:
City Council reviewed potential changes to the Campustown Urban Revitalization Plan
Criteria on both June 9, 2015 and September 8, 2015. City Council directed staff to
include amendments to the URA Criteria that addressed the following issues:
1. Require Non-Formula Retail uses on a sliding scale of the total commercial
square footage of a project.
2. Define Non-Formula Retail as a business with 10 or less operating businesses at
the time of the request for tax abatement and that it does not have the
characteristics of formula retail with common elements of appearance and
services.
3. Require that Non-Formula Retail tenants occupy commercial space prior to
granting tax abatement approval, or with an alternative schedule approved by the
City Council.
4. Change the option for Adaptive Reuse from buildings built prior to 1941 to any
building that is at least 50 years in age.
5. Add criterion for design standards to limit driveways and drive-throughs.
6. Add criterion for architectural variation and interest.
7. Modify the sign program criterion to provide more clarity on its objective.
8. Clarify fixed windows does not allow for tamper proof windows.
9. Modify lighting standards to allow for LED lighting equivalent to metal halide.
Staff has also added minor changes to clarify that a small production facility (brewery) is
an allowed use on the ground floor of a mixed-use building as is permitted with the CSC
zoning and that front fagade means all front facades of a corner building.
The proposed criteria matrix for the Campustown Urban Revitalization Plan is
Attachment A. In further detailing out the requirements for Non-Formula Retail it is
important to review the appendix of Attachment A. Notably, staff has clarified how
to administer the occupancy requirement. Under the staffs recommendation,
Occupancy of Non-Formula Retail space will be required at the time of initial
approval of tax abatement, but to be clear, that space will not be required to be
1
continuously occupied during the life of tax abatement. This covers two scenarios
that could arise over a 10-year tax abatement. One being the business grows after
it is initially located in Campustown and exceeds the 10 location limit. Secondly,
it addresses a circumstance that a business may fail and that the space could be
vacant while searching for a new tenant. However, only a new Non-Formula Retail
tenant could then occupy the required space reserved for Non-Formula Retail.
(See Attachment A, paragraph 5)
The appendix also clarifies that to be eligible for tax abatement, that a project must be in
compliance with a site development plan, have building occupancy, and maintain
required features for the life of the tax abatement. An application for final tax abatement
approval must include documentation from the property owner in support of a finding of
compliance with the criteria.
ALTERNATIVES
1. City Council may adopt a resolution to amend the Campustown Urban Revitalization
Plan with the criteria included in Attachment A.
2. City Council may direct staff to make different changes to the proposed Urban
Revitalization Plan criteria or to the date of implementation.
This alternative could be supported if the City Council does not want to apply the
Campustown Urban Revitalization Plan amendments to projects that are currently
under construction. Currently, only the Edge project at 2311 Chamberlain is under
construction in this Urban Revitalization Area.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council previously gave staff direction on drafting amendments to the criteria and asked
staff to bring these amendments back for Council approval once the 2320 Lincoln Way
project had resolved its status for tax abatement eligibility. The 2320 Lincoln Way project
is a separate item on this same agenda and the property owner now seeks the project's
final approval for tax abatement. If Council grants final approval of the 2320 Lincoln Way
project, it would be exempt from the proposed amendments. All projects seeking final
tax abatement approval after December 8th would be subject to any amendments
approved by Council.
Staff believes that the amendments shown in Attachment A encompass all of Council's
previous direction regarding non-formula retail, adaptive reuse, architectural standards,
driveway limitations, signage, windows, and lighting. Staff has also included an appendix
to the criteria matrix to help define the City's standards and expectations for compliance
with the criteria.
Council gave permission to staff to write additional design language into the criteria to
ensure that there is architectural variation and interest that exceed the minimum brick
material requirements within the criteria. However, because of the inherent level of
discretion implied through guidelines and the need for certainty by developers, staff
believes that the new standards for architecture and driveways may necessitate that
2
applicants more frequently seek pre-approval of their projects by Council and not just
rely upon staff approval of site plans to meet the criteria. The alternative to having the
standards in the Plan's criteria would be to include them as part of the zoning standards
for site development plan review by staff. If the guidelines and driveway limits were in
the zoning standards, then Council would not review the design as part of a project's
Urban Revitalization Plan consistency determination.
The most difficult element of the proposed amendments has been the language
regarding occupancy of the non-formula retail spaces prior to receiving tax abatement.
Staff has received verbal comments from two Campustown developers that expressed
some concern about finding qualifying tenants on the schedule required to receive tax
abatement. The final language does allow for Council to approve an alternative schedule
for tenancy, but there is still risk in the eyes of developers on approval of an alternative
schedule.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council
approve Alternative #1 thereby adopting the amendment to the Campustown
Urban Revitalization Plan with the criteria included in Attachment A.
3