Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Revitalization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts amended multi-residential urban revitalization plan to speed development north of proposed site
Summary
After a second public hearing and neighborhood petition, Cedar Falls City Council adopted an amended multi-residential urban revitalization plan that reduces the geographic area and preserves incentives for a northern development; the council also suspended rules and passed implementing ordinance the same night.
Cedar Falls City Council adopted an amended multi-residential urban revitalization plan on March 3 after receiving a petition from neighborhood residents seeking a smaller incentive area. Council voted to move forward with the reduced (northern-only) map that excludes certain southern residential parcels.
City staff explained the two available options during a second public hearing: the original plan covering a wider area and an amended map that removed residential parcels east and west of a proposed development. Shane Graham told council that the amended option had been prepared after a timely petition requesting a second hearing and that both options were available for council action.
Residents from Millennium Drive and nearby blocks urged the council to adopt the amended map. Joni Snyder said her neighborhood collected about 39 petition signatures and argued that the eastern and western vacant parcels should not be included. “Most of the houses in our neighborhood signed the petition ... No one in our neighborhood wants this,” Snyder told council.
Bobby Feist, another resident, raised concerns about narrow lot widths and stormwater runoff if multi-unit buildings were placed on the smaller parcels; he urged council to favor the smaller map to avoid creating building conditions that would require units to abut property lines and exacerbate drainage issues.
Councilors discussed the competing priorities: encouraging infill and varied housing stock in core areas, avoiding delays to a northern development the council already supported, and responding to neighborhood concerns about density and drainage. Council members noted the city’s housing needs assessment and emphasized that the revitalization plan is a tool that does not change underlying zoning by itself.
Councilor motioned to adopt the amended map (agenda item 6). The council approved the amended resolution by roll-call. Later in the meeting, council suspended the usual three-reading rule and passed an ordinance designating the amended multi-residential urban revitalization area upon the same meeting, enabling the change to take effect sooner. Staff and council members said the amended plan would allow the approved northern development to proceed without delay while keeping future options to consider limited incentives for other properties if developers propose feasible projects.
Council discussion also included a reminder of the program’s criteria: staff noted that residential projects must increase property value by 10 percent or more and commercial projects by 15 percent to qualify for tax abatement under the revitalization rules; those thresholds will be assessed by the county assessor upon application.
