Loading...
09-05-2007 Regional Planning Regular Meeting PacketHall County Regional Planning Commission Wednesday, September 05, 2007 Regular Meeting Packet Commission Members: Regional Planning Director:Chad Nabity Technician: Edwin Maslonka Secretary: Barbara Quandt 6:00:00 PM Council Chambers - City Hall 100 East First Street John Amick Hall County Karen Bredthauer Grand Island Scott Eriksen Grand Island Mark Haskins Hall County Vice Chairperson Bill Hayes Doniphan Lisa Heineman Grand Island Dianne Miller Grand Island Jaye Monter Cairo Pat O'Neill Hall County Chairperson Deb Reynolds Hall County Leslie Ruge Alda Secretary Don Snodgrass Wood River Hall County Regional Planning Commission Call to Order Roll Call A - SUBMITTAL OF REQUESTS FOR FUTURE ITEMS Individuals who have appropriate items for Commission consideration should complete the Request for Future Agenda Items form located at the Regional Planning Office on the second floor of City Hall. If the issue can be handled administratively without Commission action, notification will be provided. If the item is scheduled for a meeting, notification of the date will be given. B - RESERVE TIME TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS This is an opportunity for individuals wishing to provide input on any of tonight's agenda items to reserve time to speak. Please come forward, state your name and address, and the Agenda topic on which you will be speaking. DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION This is an opportunity for the Director to comment on current events, activities, and issues of interest to the commission. Hall County Regional Planning Commission Item .A1 Summary to Agenda Summary to Agenda Wednesday, September 05, 2007 Regular Meeting Hall County Regional Planning Commission Staff Contact: Chad Nabity Hall County Regional Planning Commission Staff Recommendation Summary For Regional Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2007 4. Public Hearing – Concerning a Blight/Substandard Study for Redevelopment Area No. 6 as blighted and substandard in accordance with Section 18-2116 Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska, Nebraska Community Development Act, as amended. The property includes Five Points, Eddy Street north of 1st Street and the north side of 1st Street from Clark Street to Ada Street extending to North Front Street from Custer Avenue to Broadwell Avenue. (C-25-2007GI) (See full recommendation.) 5. Public Hearing -Concerning amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Grand Island and its 2 mile extra-territorial jurisdiction. Amendments to be considered pertain to the §36-96 Off-Street Parking Requirements; to modify parking lot surfacing requirements and clean up language relative to changes in zoning districts that were made with the adoption of the Large Lot Residential Zone in 2004. (C- 26-2007GI) (See full recommendation.) 6. Final Plat – Doniphan – Trumbull Sports Activity Subdivision located east of Hwy. 281, between Walnut St. and Pine St., in the Village of Doniphan, Hall County, Nebraska. Both of these parcels exist as unplatted tracts. The school is buying a portion of the east parcel from Linda Eihusen. This will plat both lots in conformance with current regulations. (2 lots) 7. Final Plat – Prairie Creek View Subdivision located at the northwest corner of Hwy. 11 and Capital Avenue, Hall County, Nebraska. The owners of this tract wish to split an historic farmstead from the property of more than 20 acres. The farmstead is no longer on the site but the area where the farmstead stood is still unfarmed and undisturbed. This will require an exception by the planning commission and the county board to approve in this fashion, since the farmstead does not currently exist. (1 lot) Item E1 Meeting Minutes - August 1, 2007 Minutes of the August 1, 2007 meeting. Wednesday, September 05, 2007 Regular Meeting Hall County Regional Planning Commission Staff Contact: Chad Nabity Hall County Regional Planning Commission THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF HALL COUNTY, GRAND ISLAND, WOOD RIVER AND THE VILLAGES OF ALDA, CAIRO, AND DONIPHAN, NEBRASKA Minutes for August 1 , 2007 The meeting of the Regional Planning Commission was held Wednesday, August1, 2007, in the Council Chamber - City Hall - Grand Island, Nebraska. Notice of this meeting appeared in the "Grand Island Independent" July 21, 2007. Present: Pat O’Neill Leslie Ruge Debra Reynolds Mark Haskins Don Snodgrass Scott Eriksen Karen Bredthauer Dianne Miller Bill Hayes Jaye Monter Lisa Heineman Absent: John Amick Other: Mitch Nickerson, Steve Riehle, Wesley Nespor Staff: Chad Nabity, Barbara Quandt Press: 1. Call to order. Chairman O’Neill called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. He stated that this was a public meeting subject to the open meetings laws of the State of Nebraska. He noted that the requirements for an open meeting were posted on the wall in the room and easily accessible to anyone who may be interested in reading them. 2. Minutes of July 11, 2007 meeting. A motion was made by Haskins , and seconded by Reynolds to approve the Minutes of the July11, 2007 meeting as presented. The motion carried with 7 members present voting in favor (O’Neill, Ruge, Reynolds, Bredthauer, Haskins, Bredthauer, Snodgrass) and 4 members present abstaining (Miller, Monter, Hayes, Heineman). Motion carried. 3. Request time to speak. Marlan Ferguson and Bob Niemann requested a time to speak concerning Agenda Item #4. Greg Baxter requested a time to speak concerning Agenda Items #6 and #7. 4. Public Hearing – Concerning a Blight/Substandard Study for Redevelopment Area No. 7 as prepared by Hanna:Keelan. The 498.5 acres are located primarily one-half mile east of U.S. Highway 281 and one-half mile west of South Locust Street between Schimmer Drive and Wildwood Drive referred to as Area No. 7. (C-24-2007GI) This Public Hearing was held following the Consent Agenda (Items #5, #6 and #7). Chairman O’Neill opened the above mentioned Public Hearing. Nabity reported that the Grand Island Area Economic Development Corporation (GIAEDC) commissioned a Blight/Substandard Study for Redevelopment Area No. 7 to be prepared by Hanna:Keelan Associates of Lincoln Nebraska. This study area includes 498.5 acres referred to as CRA Area #7. This area is located primarily one-half mile east of U.S. Highway 281 and one-half mile west of South Locust Street between Schimmer Drive and Wildwood Drive. Council referred the study to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation at their meeting on July 10, 2007. If the Planning Commission does not make a recommendation within 30 days, Council can proceed with a decision on the declaration without recommendation from Planning Commission. Nabity stated that the Statutory authority and direction to the Planning Commission is referenced in Section 18-2109 – Redevelopment plan; preparation; requirements. Nabity presented a flow chart of the blight declaration process. He pointed out that, at this time, the Planning Commission and Council are only concerned with determining if the property is blighted and substandard. He presented an overview of the differences between the blight and substandard declaration and the redevelopment plan. If a declaration as blighted and substandard is made by Council, then the Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA) can consider appropriate redevelopment plans. The redevelopment plans must also be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and approved by Council, prior to final approval. Nabity stated that it is appropriate, in conducting its review and considering its recommendation regarding the substandard and blighted designation, for the planning commission to: (1) review the study; (2) take testimony from interested parties; (3) make findings of fact, and; (4) include those findings of fact as part of its recommendation to Council. To determine the terms blighted and substandard, Nabity referred to State Statutes Section 18-2103 – Terms, defined. He discussed the two principal structures, as well as the remaining 22 structures included in the study, as shown on pictures from the Hall County Assessor’s Office. Nabity stated that the majority of the subject property was annexed by the City of Grand Island in March of 2007. The annexation was at the request of the GIAEDC in anticipation of industrial development on this property. Approximately ten acres north of Schimmer Drive and 40 acres at the SW corner of the property were not annexed by the City. He explained that areas outside of the City limits may be included within a study but redevelopment of those properties using TIF, or other CRA funds, may not be considered until after annexation. Based on the following excerpt from the Blight Study as presented by the GIAEDC and Hanna:Keelan Associates: While it may be concluded the mere presence of a majority of the stated Factors may be sufficient to make a finding of blighted and substandard, this evaluation was made on the basis that existing Blighted and Substandard Factors must be present to an extent which would lead reasonable persons to conclude public intervention is appropriate or necessary to assist with any development or redevelopment activities. Secondly, the distribution of Blighted and Substandard Factors throughout the Redevelopment Area must be reasonably distributed so basically good areas are not arbitrarily found to be blighted simply because of proximity to areas which are blighted. (Page 4, Blight and Substandard Study and General Redevelopment Plan as prepared for the Grand Island Area EDC by Hanna:Keelan Associates, P.C.) Planning Commission staff is recommending consideration of the following questions as a starting point in the analysis of this Study and in making a recommendation on the question of whether the property in question is blighted and substandard. Recommend Questions for Planning Commission · Does this property meet the statutory requirements to be considered blighted and substandard? · Are the blighted and substandard factors distributed throughout the Redevelopment Area, so basically good areas are not arbitrarily found to be substandard and blighted simply because of proximity to areas which are substandard and blighted? · Is public intervention appropriate and/or necessary for the redevelopment of the area? · Is this property different than other properties on the urban fringe of the community? Findings of fact must be based on the study and testimony presented including all written material and staff reports. The recommendation must be based on the declaration, not based on any proposed uses of the site. If the Regional Planning Commission concludes that the area in question meets the definition of blighted and substandard and supports such conclusion with findings of fact they should move to recommend approval of the declaration as blighted and substandard based on the facts presented and identified at this meeting. If the Regional Planning Commission concludes that the area in question does not meet the definition of blighted and substandard and supports such conclusions with findings of fact, they should move to recommend denial of the declaration as blighted and substandard based on the facts identified. Prior to opening discussion, O’Neill reiterated that a redevelopment plan is not a part of the consideration at this hearing. He then asked for questions from commissioners. Heineman stated that she was familiar with the legislation that allows for the declaration of areas as blighted and substandard. However, she was unable to find information on how to apply the reasonable distribution of deficiencies test in that legislation. Nabity responded stating that you would know it (blighted and substandard) when you see it. Wes Nespor, with the Grand Island City Attorney’s office, responded to Heineman’s question stating that this comes down through case law where it has been established that it is necessary to show that parcels that are not themselves declared blighted or substandard can be included in an area if they are necessary for the purpose of alleviating the blighted and substandard issues on the other parcels. The whole concept of having them distributed throughout is just another way of stating that if there is basically a good parcel mixed in the entire project, it is there because it is necessary to alleviate blighted and substandard conditions in the parcels that are not good. Heineman stated that the opposite would then apply as well. If the area adds a portion, because it does have blight and substandard, it cannot be pulled in just to make the area in question declared blighted and substandard. Nespor replied that applies if you are amending a blighted and substandard area. If one is starting from scratch, you would consider all of those questions from the beginning. Heineman had a second question regarding the portion of legislation, which reads “in its present use”. She questioned the current use, since the City zoned this property M2 when it was annexed. Is its current use manufacturing, or is it agriculture? Nabity answered that its current use is agriculture and its expected use is manufacturing. He stated that it is not unusual for the City to zone property that is anticipated for other uses appropriately so that it is ready to be developed prior to the actual development occurring. Heineman contended that, when it doesn’t say its intended, or expected, use and it just says its current use, then we have to take that to mean the way it is presently being used. Nespor agreed that is a fair reading of that statement, but even in the present use, we need to look at the various conditions. Are there buildings that are dilapidated, or are of a certain age that they fall within one of those catagories? Heineman stated that she was referring specifically to the roads as to whether the roads were adequate for the current use. She stated that this Study makes the point that the roads would not be adequate for heavy manufacturing, but she contends that we are supposed to make a consideration based on its present use. Nespor agreed that, strictly speaking, she is most likely correct; however, this property is in an area that has been annexed and zoned M2. He continued stating that it is just a matter of time before this area is developed since it has been annexed. He referred to a broader aspect by considering if it is in the best interest of the City to address that issue at this point. He suggested that it was something that could be addressed when findings and facts are being discussed. Reynolds questioned how each of the 24 structures could be considered individual parcels. Nabity referred the question to Marlan Ferguson since the Study came from the EDC. Ferguson then referenced page 16 of the Study; specifically, the section entitled “Parcel-by-Parcel Field Survey”. He stated that Hanna:Keelan is a well respected firm who has completed five studies in this community. Ferguson defers to Hanna:Keelan, since they stand by this Study and this report. They explained their reasoning in the paragraph that Ferguson referred to on page 16. His opinion is that there are 26 structures on this property that are considered blighted and substandard. Nabity stated that, in listening to the paragraph that was read, the survey referred to was not a land survey. They were referring to a site condition survey, where they drove out and looked at the site, as opposed to a legal land survey. Reynolds noted that in the Study, it found that the barn structures were determined to be substandard due to substandard porches, steps, fire escapes, without water and extreme age. She cited page 16 of the Study which stated that “the system for classifying buildings be based on established evaluation standards and criteria”. Reynolds contends that the criteria are not standard for this type of structure. O’Neill answered by referring to page 17 of the Stud y regarding dilapidated or deteriorated structures. They examine structural components as primary components and then secondary components as building systems. Reynolds had the opinion that the Study measured the barns more as a residence, rather than a farm structure. Heineman questioned the standard with which they were doing the comparison. She contends that a chicken coop is compared in this Study as though it does not have adequate fire systems, as are the two houses that are on both farmsteads. A discussion followed regarding the buildings located on the southern farmstead, and questions raised and debated, as to the standards by which they were compared. Ferguson discussed the language, which described the standards of comparison. He also pointed out that the infrastructure needs to be a consideration of determining the blight and substandard designation. State statute does not differentiate between residential buildings and other buildings located in other places. He noted that there are enough factors of dilapidation and blight, plus lack of infrastructure, to designate this area as blighted and substandard. Reynolds asked another question regarding information contained on page 32, under number three, “Existence of Debris”. She quoted, “These abandoned structures and adjacent areas with debris harbor pests and vermin, as well as being a threat to the health, safety and welfare of trespassers.” She stated that she understood “attractive nuisance”, but farms are not usually considered attractive nuisances. She also expressed agreement with Heineman regarding the condition of the rural roads needing to be hard surfaced for the municipal infrastructure and utility systems. Also, she did not think that the ethanol production facilities should have been mentioned, or used as a basis for criteria for finding the infrastructure and utility systems lacking. Miller commented that perhaps the ethanol business should not have been mentioned at this point. However, the area will be bought into by other businesses and will need adequate infrastructure in order for those businesses to be developed. She stated that the question before the Commission is whether they found it blighted and substandard. Miller questioned whether that area would be considered beyond private enterprise ability to deal with effectively due to infrastructure requirements. O’Neill’s opinion was that the existing surrounding land uses need to be considered, such as the power plant and the industrial park to the west. He suggested that the big picture should be considered by not just looking at what is actually there now, but look ahead to the potential for redevelopment. Miller asked Nabity to explain the potential positive, as well as the potential negative ramifications, if RPC accepts the Blight & Substandard Study. Nabity stated that the positive ramification would be that sewer and water could be extended through the property for redevelopment and potentially be financed with tax increment financing. The possible detriment would be that it could potentially open other areas on the urban fringe for the blight & substandard designation based on this same criteria. Marlan Ferguson, President GIAEDC, responded to the possible negative impact of accepting the Study mentioned by Nabity before proceeding with his testimony. He stated that this property is what should be considered at this time since it has been annexed by the City Of Grand Island. Ferguson provided a written statement, which he outlined for the RPC. This statement is copied below. Bob Niemann, a former member of the Regional Planning Commission, spoke before the RPC. He encouraged members to recommend the approval of the declaration of this area as blighted and substandard. He stated that it would be in the best interest of the City Of Grand Island since business recruitment is very competitive. Greg Baxter spoke before the RPC. Baxter commended Heineman and Reynolds for their statements as fellow advocates for agriculture. He does not generally support municipal expansion on agricultural land, but in this case he supports this effort. Eriksen stated that, even though he did not necessarily agree with the subjectivity that exists with the Statutory criteria pertaining to the blighted and substandard factors, clearly the professional opinion of Hanna:Keelan supports the designation. Since the experts support the finding, Eriksen stated that he will support it as well. Hayes questioned what percentage of Grand Island would be declared blighted and substandard if both Studies were to be approved. Nabity stated that with the current areas and both this area and area 6 that will likely be before the planning commission in September 16.66% of the City would be considered blighted and substandard. Haskins questioned Ferguson regarding tax increment financing in the consideration of determining whether public intervention was appropriate, or necessary, for the redevelopment of this area. Ferguson responded that because the City of Grand Island annexed this property, the City has one year to extend sewer and water to this area. He stated that while tax increment financing is the primary public intervention, it is not the only public intervention. Public intervention is absolutely necessary to get the needed infrastructure in place in order to have it ready for development. Reynolds stated that, in her opinion the way the law is written now , the legislature should have looked at it more carefully. A brief discussion followed regarding the merits of TIF funds, both pro and con, which ultimately encourages community competition for the location of industry. Haskins stated that in the November election, Amendment Six put a vote to the people to actually use TIF funds for a wider array of projects, but it was soundly defeated. O’Neill pointed out that the Amendment contained other items as well. Hayes stated that he thinks that TIF funds have a purpose in many areas, and if it takes TIF funding to get businesses here to provide jobs, it is well worth it. He cited the Wal-Mart Distribution Center in North Platte, which used TIF funds, resulting in a great benefit to their community. Heineman agreed with everyone that industry is needed in Grand Island. She stated that she has a dilemma in her mind whe n she reads the Study. She is unable to see a predominance of dilapidated buildings in the subject area, or that there are substandard issues that meet the criteria as set forth by the legislature. Her dilemma is that the voters of the state of Nebraska were asked specifically if it would be appropriate to revise these statutes so that TIF funding could be used for areas other than substandard and dilapidated areas. The voters, who are represented by this body, declined those revisions. Heineman’s opinion is, therefore, that it is the responsibility of this body to follow the dictates of what the legislature set forth as criteria, rather than follow the lead of the Hanna:Keelan Study, no matter what the consequences of that decision may be. Ferguson responded that the state statutes may have many interpretations. However, in his opinion, state statutes clearly state that there only needs to be one of those twelve issues identified. The Study identified eight out of the twelve issues. Heineman disagreed with the interpretation, stating that there is an overlying sentence over the entire law, which states that “substandard areas shall meet an area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements in which” and then they list different areas in which you just need to have one of those pertain. Also, in addition, they list other criteria. Going down to the second paragraph, where it says the blighted area shall mean an area where there are a substantial number of deteriorated structures. She stated that you actually have to fulfill the whole thing, not just find one dilapidated building and therefore the entire area that you assign to it is considered substandard. Ferguson disagrees, but states that he is not an attorney. He again defers to the opinion of Hanna:Keelan. Changes to legislation to help in this area have been discussed but no changes have been enacted yet. Reynolds made statement pointing out that in looking at this area, as opposed to other areas, this looks like a typical farmstead in her opinion. Ferguson responded that it may be true, but in this definition and Study, it is considered a dilapidated farmstead. From tax roll information, there is no value assigned to these buildings, which clearly makes them dilapidated. In this case, this property is on the urban fringe and has been annexed and zoned M2, which is much different than most farmsteads in Hall County. O’Neill spoke concerning the definition of “blighted” on page 5, Section 18.2103. He stated that according to this definition, any combination of such factors under “(a)” and “at least one of the following conditions” under “(b)” would suffice. It is his opinion, according to this definition, that it is not necessary to find that all of these factors exist; but, that any combination is all that is required. Snodgrass commented on the approval by the RPC of housing developments and infrastructure expansions. He noted the large number of homes currently for sale in our area. A discussion followed regarding the number and price ranges of the homes available. Snodgrass continued his comments by stating that if we have these houses and housing developments available, we need people with jobs to purchase those homes. It is his opinion that for the good of City, and the good of the community, this is a situation that we need to approve. O’Neill had a question for Steve Riehle, Public Works Director, regarding the costs involved with adding sewer and water to the annexed area being discussed. According to Riehle, the trunk sewer line costs would be six to eight million dollars, a half a million dollars for the lift station and two million dollars for the water lines. Ruge commented on the time of year the Study was prepared. He stated that obviously the b uildings would look different today than they did in January when the photos were taken. There is some improvement being done that does make it look better. His assumption is that Hanna:Keelan physically inspected the buildings to determine the condition. He noted that there was a building on the south farmstead that is totally dilapidated and needs to be destroyed as well as some improvements that need to be done in that area for safety. He also noted that from the view from the street on the north farmstead, it is harder to see any deterioration that may be there. There is definitely an age factor involved for these buildings. However, improvements are currently being made. Reynolds had one question on whether it would be beyond private enterprise ability to do this effectively. Nespor noted the various portions of this hearing that need to be made a part of this public record. They are the slides and power point presentation, the Blighted and Substandard Study, and the written testimony of Marlan Ferguson. O’Neill commented on the costs of bringing sewer and water to this property. He stated that if private enterprise had to spend eight million dollars to extend the trunk line to this area, it is not likely to be developed. It is his opinion that this is a huge issue. Chairman O’Neill closed the public meeting. A motion was made by Hayes, and seconded by Miller, to recommend the approval of the declaration of the area under consideration as blighted and substandard based on the facts presented and identified. Chairman O’Neill stated that the findings of fact needed to be identified. These findings of fact will include the presentation; the Blight/Substandard Study presented by Hanna:Keelan, with the exception of Amendment B, the Redevelopment Plan; the written testimony by the Grand Island Economic Development Corporation; the buildings located on the property identified as aged/dilapidated; the age of structures are at least 40 years old ; property is different from other properties because of location on the urban fringe of the community in that it is directly adjacent to an industrial area on the west, directly adjacent to a power plant on the south with high voltage lines, as well as, close to rail lines, which would be good for manufacturing growth, but possibly detrimental for other development; location of major commercial arterial roads between, but not on, property; and, public intervention is deemed appropriate for the redevelopment of the area due to inadequate infrastructure, specifically sewer and water, and the high cost of making that available. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with 9 members present (Ruge, Hayes, Monter, Haskins, Eriksen, Bredthauer, Snodgrass) voting in favor, and 2 members present (Reynolds, Heineman) voting against. Motion carried. The Consent Agenda, consisting of Agenda Items #5, #6 and #7, was considered by the Commission before Agenda Item #4. CONSENT AGENDA 5. Preliminary & Final Plat - Knecht Second Subdivision located east of Highway 11, between Cedarview Road and Burmood Road, Hall County, Nebraska (2 lots) 6. Preliminary Plat – Westgate Industrial Park Subdivision located south of Old Potash Highway and north of Westgate Road in the city of Grand Island, Hall County, Nebraska. 7. Final Plat – Westgate Industrial Park Second Subdivision located south of Old Potash Highway and north of Westgate Road in the city of Grand Island, Hall County, Nebraska. Chairman O’Neill asked for discussion regarding the Consent Agenda. Ruge raised a question referring to Agenda Item #7, Westgate Industrial Park Second Subdivision. He questioned the length of a street. . Nabity stated that there is a provision for a graded gravel drive that will cross the property at North Road providing emergency access, which is preferred by the Fire Department. The easement is in place. The Utilities Department has received that easement dedicating that as an access easement and as a utility easement for that area between the end of Silve r Road and North Road. A water line will also be tied in so that the water is moved into the development from the very beginning. A motion was made by Ruge, and seconded by Miller, to recommend approval of the Consent Agenda as presented. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with 11 members present (Miller, O’Neill, Ruge, Hayes, Reynolds, Monter, Haskins, Eriksen, Bredthauer, Heineman, Snodgrass). 8. Planning Director’s Report Nabity discussed that he had attended a meeting regarding the new unofficial flood maps. He stated that they are much better than the maps that he saw last year. He anticipates receiving copies of the maps by the end of September, with expectation of adoption of these maps next year. Nabity reported that he expects City Council to forward the Blight Study for Area 6 to RPC. This is the Study on the older areas of Grand Island. Nabity stated that we are seeking nominations for the Community Beautification Awards. We would like to present these awards at the October RPC meeting in conjunction with the 40th Anniversary of the Hall County RPC. Nabity also reported that the Hazard Mitigation Plans will be coming forward in the next few months. 9. Next meeting is September 5, 2007 10. Adjourn Chairman O’Neill adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. _____________________________________________ Leslie Ruge, Secretary by Barbara Quandt Item -1 UNL Students Graduate students from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Architecture, Community and Regional Planning Department will be at the meeting to begin a project to develop concept plans for the South Locust Gateway into Grand Island. They will be developing these plans as part of a studio course at the University. Wednesday, September 05, 2007 Regular Meeting Hall County Regional Planning Commission Staff Contact: Chad Nabity Hall County Regional Planning Commission Item F1 Public Hearing - C-25-2007GI Concerning a Blight/Substandard Study for Redevelopment Area No. 6 as blighted and substandard in accordance with Section 18-2116 Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska, Nebraska Community Development Act, as amended. The property includes Five Points, Eddy Street north of 1st Street and the north side of 1st Street from Clark Street to Ada Street extending to North Front Street from Custer Avenue to Broadwell Avenue. Wednesday, September 05, 2007 Regular Meeting Hall County Regional Planning Commission Staff Contact: Chad Nabity Hall County Regional Planning Commission 1 Agenda Item 4 PLANNING DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION TO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION: August 14, 2007 SUBJECT: CRA Blight Study (Proposed CRA Area #6) C-25-2007GI PROPOSAL: The Grand Island Area Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA) commissioned a Blight/Substandard Study for Redevelopment Area No. 6 to be prepared by RDG Planning and Design of Omaha, Nebraska. The study area includes approximately 412 acres referred to as CRA Area #6. The study focused on 4 sub-areas described as Five Points, Eddy Street, Broadwell Avenue and Second Street West in central and north central Grand Island. See Figure 1 for a map of the area. Council has referred the attached study to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation. If the Planning Commission does not make a recommendation within 30 days Council can proceed with a decision on the declaration without recommendation from Planning Commission. OVERVIEW The Statutory authority and direction to the Planning Commission is referenced below to explain the Planning Commission purpose in reviewing the study: Section 18-2109 Redevelopment plan; preparation; requirements. An authority shall not prepare a redevelopment plan for a redevelopment project area unless the governing body of the city in which such area is located has, by resolution adopted after a public hearing with notice provided as specified in section 18-2115, declared such area to be a substandard and blighted area in need of redevelopment. The governing body of the city shall submit the question of whether an area is substandard and blighted to the planning commission or board of the city for its review and recommendation prior to making its declaration. The planning commission or board shall submit its written recommendations within thirty days after receipt of the request. Upon receipt of the recommendations or after thirty days if no recommendation is received, the governing body may make its declaration. ~Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska A flow chart of the blight declaration process is shown in Figure 2. At this time, the Planning Commission and Council are only concerned with determining if the property is blighted and substandard. Figure 3 is an overview of the differences between the blight and substandard declaration and the redevelopment plan. If a declaration as blighted and substandard is made by Council then the Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA) can consider appropriate redevelopment plans. The redevelopment plans must also be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by Council prior to final approval. 2 Figure 1 Redevelopment Area 7 includes all properties within the red outline. 3 Study Commissioned by CRA Study Commissioned by Other Agency Study Presented to CRA Study Presented to Council May Be Forwarded to RPC Study Sent to RPC for Review and Recommendation Council Chooses not to Forward Study to RPC No Declaration Made RPC Reviews Study and Makes Recommendation within 30 Days Council Considers Substandard and Blighted Declaration Council Chooses not to Make Substandard and Blighted Declaration. No Redevelopment Plans May be Considered Council Declares Area Substandard and Blighted. Redevelopment Plans May be Considered by the CRA Process for Declaring an area of the City Substandard and Blighted Figure 2 Blight Declaration Process (Planning Commission Recommendation is the second purple box). 4 Substandard and Blighted Declaration vs. Redevelopment Plan l Substandard and Blighted Declaration l A Study of the Existing Conditions of the Property in Question l Does the property meet one or more Statutory Conditions of Blight? l Does the Property meet one or more Statutory Conditions of Substandard Property? l Is the declaration in the best interest of the City? l Redevelopment Plan l What kinds of activities and improvements are necessary to alleviate the conditions that make the property blighted and substandard? l How should those activities and improvements be paid for? l Will those activities and improvements further the implementation of the general plan for the City? Figure 3 Blight and Substandard Declaration compared to a Redevelopment Plan 5 OVERVIEW Continued It is appropriate for the planning commission in conducting its review and considering its recommendation regarding the substandard and blighted designation to: 1. review the study, 2. take testimony from interested parties, 3. make findings of fact, and 4. include those findings of fact as part of its recommendation to Council. Blighted and Substandard Defined The terms blighted and substandard have very specific meanings within the context of the Community Redevelopment Statutes. Those terms as defined by Statute are included below: Section 18-2103 Terms, defined. For purposes of the Commu nity Development Law, unless the context otherwise requires: (10) Substandard areas shall mean an area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether nonresidential or residential in character, which, by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, and crime, (which cannot be remedied through construction of prisons), and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; (11) Blighted area shall mean an area, which (a) by reason of the presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures, existence of defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site or other improvements, diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land, defective or unusual conditions of title, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use and (b) in which there is at least one of the following conditions: (i) Unemployment in the designated area is at least one hundred twenty percent of the state or national average; (ii) the average age of the residential or commercial units in the area is at least forty years; (iii) more than half of the plotted and subdivided property in an area is unimproved land that has been within the city for forty years and has remained unimproved during that time; (iv) the per capita income of the area is lower than the average per capita income of the city or village in which the area is designated; or (v) the area has had either stable or decreasing population based on the last two decennial censuses. In no event shall a city of the metropolitan, primary, or first class designate more than thirty-five percent of the city as blighted, a city of the second class shall not designate an area larger than fifty percent of the city as blighted, and a village shall not designate an area larger than one hundred percent of the village as blighted; ~Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska 6 ANALYSIS The following tables are copied directly from the Study. The analysis of the substandard and blighted factors is conducted on pages 6 to 17 of the study. 7 Based on the study these areas meet the thresholds to qualify as blighted based on unemployment, age of units and per capita income. Table two deals with the more subjective qualities of a blighted area and the consultants have identified the area as having 7 of those 11 qualities of a blighted area. Table 3 specifically identifies the qualities of a substandard area. All four sub-areas qualify on 3 of the 11 qualities. A number of the sub-areas also display other substandard qualities according to the study. All of this property is located inside the Grand Island City Limits and has been for at least 40 years. Tax increment financing would potentially be available for redevelopment projects on any of the property included in the study. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission staff is recommending consideration of the following questions as a starting point in the analysis of this Study and in making a recommendation on the question of whether the property in question is blighted and substandard. Recommend Questions for Planning Commission · Does this property meet the statutory requirements to be considered blighted and substandard? (See Page 5 for requirements) · Are the blighted and substandard factors distributed throughout the Redevelopment Area, so basically good areas are not arbitrarily found to be substandard and blighted simply because of proximity to areas which are substandard and blighted? · Is public intervention appropriate and/or necessary for the redevelopment of the area? Findings of fact must be based on the study and testimony presented including all written material and staff reports. The recommendation must be based on the declaration, not based on any proposed uses of the site. All of the testimony, a copy of the study and this memo along with any other information presented at the hearing should be entered into the record of the hearing. If the Regional Planning Commission concludes that the area in question meets the definition of blighted and substandard and supports such conclusion with findings of fact they should move to recommend approval of the declaration as blighted and substandard based on the facts presented and identified at this meeting. If the Regional Planning Commission concludes that the area in question does not meet the definition of blighted and substandard and supports such conclusions with findings of fact, they should move to recommend denial of the declaration as blighted and substandard based on the facts identified.           BLIGHT AREA DESIGNATION    For Redevelopment Area #6 in Grand Island    City of Grand Island, Nebraska            Prepared by  RDG Planning & Design  Omaha and Des Moines,   June, 2007  Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 2    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007  This study considers the presence of blighted or substandard conditions in the study  area located in the City of Grand Island, pursuant to the requirements of Section 18‐2103  of the Nebraska Revised Statutes.    GEOGRAPHY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT SITE    The site is defined as follows:    Beginning at the southeast corner of lot 1 blk 118 Railroad Addition thence southerly to  the south line of first street being the northeast corner lot 1 blk 121 Koenig and Wiebe’s  Addition.  And is compliment lot 1 blk 121 railroad Addition.  Thence southwesterly on  the southerly line of first street to the west line of Ada Street thence north on a line to the  southwest corner of lot 3 Packer and Barr’s annex thence continuing north on the west  line of Packer and Barr’s annex and Packer and Barr’s Second Subdivision. To the north  line of North Front Street being the southwest corner lot 243 Belmont Addition. Thence  east on the north line of north front street to the west line of White Avenue being the  southeast corner lot 1 block 15 Packer and Barr’s Addition. Thence north on the west line  of White Avenue to the south line of 9th street being the northeast corner blk 4 Golden  Age Subdivision. Thence west on the south line of 9th Street and an extension thereof to  a point on an extension of the west line of White Avenue thence north on the west line of  White Avenue to the north line of 13th Street thence east on the north line of 13th Street  to the west line of Huston Avenue. Being the southeast corner lot 266 West Lawn  Addition.  Thence north on the west line of Huston Avenue to the north line of Capital  Avenue thence east on the north line of Capital Avenue to the east line of Broadwell  Avenue thence south on the east line of Broadwell Avenue to the southwest corner Lot 4  Home Subdivision. Thence east on the south line of lots 4 and 7 Home Subdivision. And  an extension thereof to the east line of Wheeler Avenue thence southeasterly on the  easterly line of Wheeler Avenue to a point where the extension of the south line of lot 9  Home Subdivision. Intersects thence west on said south line of lot 9 Home Subdivision.  To the east line of Walnut Street thence south on the east line of Walnut Street to the  north line of State Street thence east on the north line of State Street and an extension  thereof to the southerly line of 17th Street thence southwesterly on the southerly line of  17th Street to the east line of Cleburn Street being the northwest corner lot 5  Abrahamson’s Subdivision. No 3 thence south on the east line of Cleburn Street to the  south line of 6th Street thence southwesterly on the southerly line of 6th Street to the  west line of Clark Street being the northeast corner lot 1 block 10 Rollins Addition.  Thence northwesterly on the west line of Clark Street to the south line of 15th Street  being the northeast corner lot 1 blk 7 Gilbert’s Second Addition. Thence southwesterly  on the south line of 15th Street to the east line of Greenwich Street being the northwest  corner lot 5 blk 7 Gilbert’s Second Addition. Thence southeasterly on the east line of  Greenwich Street to the south line of 13th Street being the northwest corner lot 5 blk 13  Gilbert’s Addition. Thence southwesterly on the south line of 13th Street to the east line  of Lincoln Avenue being the northwest corner lot 5 blk 1 Gilberts Addition. Thence  Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 3    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007  southeasterly on the east line of Lincoln Avenue to the south line of 11th Street being the  northwest corner lot 5 blk 10 Gilberts Addition. Thence southwesterly on the south line  of 11th Street to the east line of Washington Street being the northwest corner lot 5 blk 11  Gilberts Addition. Thence southeasterly on the east line of Washington street to the  south line of 10th Street being the northwest corner lot 5 blk 15 Fairview Park Addition.  Thence southwesterly on the south line of 10th Street to the east line of Adams street  being the northwest corner lot 5 blk 14 Fairview Park Addition. Thence southeasterly on  the east line of Adams Street to the south line of 8th Street being the northwest corner lot  5 blk 9 Wallichs Addition. Thence southwesterly on the south line of 8th St. to the east  line of Broadwell Avenue thence south on the east line of Broadwell Avenue to the north  line of 7th Street thence northeasterly on the north line of 7th Street to the east line of  Jefferson Street being the southwest corner lot 6 blk 10 Wallichs Addition. Thence  southeasterly on the east line of Jefferson Street to the south line of 6th Street being the  northwest corner lot 5 blk 20 Wallichs Addition. Thence southwesterly on the south line  of 6th street to the east line of Madison Street being the northwest corner lot 5 blk 3  Bonnie Brae Addition. Thence southeasterly on the east line of Madison Street to the  northwest corner lot 6 blk 7 Bonnie Brae Addition. Thence southwesterly on the south  line of the alley in blocks 8 & 9 Bonnie Brae Addition. And an extension thereof to the  east line of Broadwell Avenue thence southerly and southeasterly on the east line of  Broadwell Avenue to the north line of 2nd Street thence northeasterly on the north line  of Second Street to the west line of Madison Street being the southeast corner lot 8 blk 11  Kernohan and Decker’s Addition. Thence northwesterly on the west line of Madison  Street to the southeast corner lot 1 blk 11 Kernohan and Decker’s Addition. Thence  northeasterly on the north line of the alley in block 10 Kernohan and Decker’s Addition.  And its complement block 4 Spaulding and Gregg’s Addition, and blocks 3 and 2  Spaulding and Gregg’s Addition. To the west line of vacated Washington Street thence  south on west line of vacated Washington Street to the north line of Second Street thence  northeasterly on the north line of Second Street to the west line of Lincoln Avenue  thence northwesterly on the west line of Lincoln Avenue to the southeast corner lot 1 blk  17 Arnold and Abbott’s Addition. Thence northeasterly on a line to the point of  beginning.  (Source: The City of Grand Island)    Figure 1 depicts the location of the site and supersedes the above description.    DESIGNATION OF BLIGHT    In order to qualify as a blighted and substandard area in accordance with the  requirements of Section 18‐2103, a parcel or district must comply with certain  quantitative and qualitative evaluative criteria, set forth by state statute.     Quantitative Criteria    281 34 281 281 2 30 30 30 Capital AveNorth Rd13th St Old Potash Hwy Stolley Park RdWebb RdSycamo re S t 4th StSt. Paul RdBroadwell AveGrand Island City Limits Grand Island, Nebraska NORTH 1 MILE0 RDG Planning & Design 900 Farnam St. Suite 100 Omaha, NE 68102 2007 Study Area Figure 1: Study Area 1/2 City Limits Sub-Areas 1. Five Points 2. Broadwell Street 3. 2nd Street 4. Eddy Street 1 2 3 4 Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 4    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007  In order to qualify as “blighted,” a site must comply with at least one of five quantitative  criteria.  These criteria include:    1. Unemployment.  The qualifying criterion is an unemployment rate in the designated  area that is at least 120% of the state or national average.  2000 Census block group  data are utilized to determine the site’s performance with respect to this criterion.      2. Average age of residential or commercial units in the area. The qualifying criterion is that  structures in the proposed blighted area have an average age of at least 40 years.      3. Per capita income.  The qualifying criterion is a per capita income for the area that is  lower than the average per capita income of the municipality in which the area is  located.  Block group data from the 2000 Census were utilized to assess the presence  of this condition.      4. Population.  The qualifying criterion is that the area has had either a stable or  decreasing population based on the last two decennial censuses.  Census block level  data from 1990 and 2000 were examined to determine the presence of this condition.    5. Unimproved land.  This criterion applies to blight designation of predominately  vacant areas.  Such an area qualifies as “blighted” if more than half of the plotted  and subdivided property in the area has been within the city for 40 years and has  remained unimproved during that time.    Qualitative Criteria    In addition to meeting at least one of the quantitative requirements described above, a  potentially blighted area must exhibit the presence of at least one of several qualitative  criteria.  These evaluative criteria include:    1. Presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures.    2. The existence of defective or inadequate street layout.    3. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness.    4. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions.    5. Deterioration of site or other improvements.    6. Diversity of ownership.    7. Tax or special delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land.  Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 5    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007    8. Defective or unusual conditions of title.    9. Improper subdivision or obsolete platting.    10. The existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes.    11. Any combination of such factors that substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the  community, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes economic or  social liability and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present  conditions and use.    Documentation of Qualifying Conditions, Quantitative Criteria    The primary data source to evaluate the redevelopment site’s blight status is the U.S.  Bureau of the Census.  To expedite the Census data collection process and provide more  fine‐grained information, the Census Bureau divides counties and places into several  enumeration levels.  The basic reporting level is the census tract, which is divided into  blocks that are then aggregated into block groups.  Because the study area includes  portions of block groups, data at the block level provides the most accurate evaluation of  information.  However, in order to preserve the privacy of individuals, the Census  Bureau suppresses some block level data.  Therefore, the population evaluation utilizes  1990 and 2000 Census block data, while the other objective criteria are evaluated using  2000 Census data for Block Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Tract 3, Block Groups 2 and 4 of  Tract 4, Block Groups 1, 2, and 3 of Tract 7, Block Group 1 of Tract 8 and Block Groups 1  of tract 9 all in Hall County, Nebraska.     Figure 2 illustrates study area boundary and the constituent Block Groups and Census  Tracts.     Analysis of Census data indicates that the study area meets the statutory requirements  for the first level of evaluation for the presence of blighting condition, as required by  Section 18‐2103 (11).  Table 1 illustrates the study area’s performance with respect to  each of these criteria.  The area meets Quantitative Criteria 1, 2, and 3.  It does not meet  Criteria 4 and 5.      Capital AveCapital Ave State StState St 13th St13th St Faidley AveFaidley AveWebb RdWebb RdNorth Front StNorth Front St Old Potash HwyOld Potash Hwy 2nd S t 2 n d S t 3rd St3rd S t 1st St1st S t 2nd S t 2 n d S t Koeing S t K o e i n g S t Anna S t A n n a S tBroadwe l l AveBr oadwell AveBroadwell AveBroadwell AveWheele r Av eWheeler Ave Sycamore St S ycamor e St 10th S t 1 0 t h S t 4th St4th S tEddy S tEddy StCuster AveCuster AveCapital Ave State St 13th St Faidley AveWebb RdNorth Front St Old Potash Hwy 2nd S t 3rd St 1st St 2nd S t Koeing S t Anna S tBroadwe l l AveBroadwell AveWheele r Av e Sycamore St 10th S t 4th StEddy S tCuster Ave30 Block Group 1Block Group 1 Block Group 2Block Group 2Block Group 3Block Group 3 Block Group 4Block Group 4 Block Group 5Block Group 5 Block Group 1Block Group 1 Block Group 2Block Group 2 Block Group 3Block Group 3 Block Group 1Block Group 1 BlockBlock Group 2Group 2 BlockBlock Group 3Group 3 Block Group 1Block Group 1 Block Group 2Block Group 2 Block Group 3Block Group 3 Block Group 4Block Group 4 Block Group 5Block Group 5 Block Group 1Block Group 1 Block Group 2Block Group 2 BlockBlock Group 3Group 3 BlockBlock Group 4Group 4 Block Group 1Block Group 1 Block Group 2Block Group 2 Block Group 1 Block Group 2Block Group 3 Block Group 4 Block Group 5 Block Group 1 Block Group 2 Block Group 3 Block Group 1 Block Group 2 Block Group 3 Block Group 1 Block Group 2 Block Group 3 Block Group 4 Block Group 5 Block Group 1 Block Group 2 Block Group 3 Block Group 4 Block Group 1 Block Group 2 Tract 400Tract 400 Tract 200Tract 200 Tract 300Tract 300 Tract 700Tract 700 Tract 800Tract 800 Tract 900Tract 900 Tract 400 Tract 200 Tract 300 Tract 700 Tract 800 Tract 900 Grand Island, Nebraska NORTH 1/4 MILE0 RDG Planning & Design 900 Farnam St. Suite 100 Omaha, NE 68102 2007 Study Area Figure 2: Census Boundaries Block Group Boundary Census Tract Boundary Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 6    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007    Table One  Study Area Compliance with Quantitative Criteria for Blight Determination    Criterion Qualifying Condition Compliance      1. Unemployment Unemployment rate in the  designated area at least 120%  of the state or national average  Yes  2. Age of Units Structures in the proposed  blighted area have an average  age of at least 40 years  Yes  3. Per Capita Income Per capita income lower than  the citywide average per  capita income.  Yes  4. Population Stable or decreasing  population based on the last  two decennial censuses  No  5. Unimproved Land More than half of the plotted  and subdivided property in  the area has been within the  city for 40 years and has  remained unimproved during  that time.    No      1. Unemployment.  The block groups within the Grand Island Redevelopment Area had  7,378 residents over the age of 16 in the workforce, of which 405 were unemployed  resulting in an unemployment rate of 5.5%.  This rate is more than 120% of the statewide  figure of 3.5%.  Therefore, the study area meets the unemployment qualifying criterion.      2. Age of Units.  The redevelopment site meets the average age of residential structures  criterion.  The 2000 Census indicates that 60% of the units are in structures built prior to  1960.  As a result, the median age of residential structures is greater than 40 years.  The  median construction year for housing units in the study area is 1953, interpolating from  the distribution of dates of construction.       3. Per Capita Income.  The average per capita income in this study area was $14,457 in  2000, compared to the citywide per capita income of $17,071. Therefore, the study area  meets the per capita income criteria.     4. Population.  Based on a comparison of 1990 and 2000 block data the study area  increased in population from 2,398 in 1990 to 2,483 in 2000.  Therefore, the study area  does not comply with the population requirement.   Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 7    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007    5. Unimproved Land.  The redevelopment site does not meet the unimproved land  criterion as over half of its platted or subdivided land is improved.      Documentation of Qualifying Conditions, Qualitative Criteria    Because the area satisfies at least one of the quantitative criteria for the presence of  blighted conditions, this study then proceeded into an investigation of the presence of  one or more of the qualitative criteria.  This evaluation indicates that the presence of at  least one qualifying factor for the presence of blighting condition, as required by Section  18‐2103 (11) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes.  Table 2 reviews the study area’s  compliance with the possible qualitative criteria for blight designation.  The  redevelopment area was divided into the four sub‐areas identified in Figure 1.  Table 3  identifies the presence of the qualitative criteria within each sub‐area.       Table Two  Study Area Compliance with Qualitative Criteria for Blight Determination  Qualitative Criterion Presence in  Study Area  1. Presence of a substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating  structures  No  2. The existence of defective or inadequate street layout Yes  3. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness Yes  4. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions Yes  5. Deterioration of site or other improvements Yes  6. Diversity of ownership Yes  7. Tax or special delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land Unknown  8. Defective or unusual conditions of title Unknown  9. Improper subdivision or obsolete platting Yes  10. The existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and  other causes  No  11. Any combination of such factors that substantially impairs or arrests the  sound growth of the community, retards the provision of housing  accommodations, or constitutes economic or social liability and is  detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present  conditions and use  Yes  Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 8    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007  Table Three  Presence of Qualitative Criteria for Blight Determination by Sub‐Area  Criterion Five  Points  Broadwell  Avenue  Eddy  Street  2nd Street  West  1. Deteriorated or deteriorating structures      2. Defective or inadequate street layout X X  X  3. Faulty lot layout  X X  X  4. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions    X  5. Deterioration of site or other improvements X X X X  6. Diversity of ownership X X X X  7. Tax or special delinquency       8. Defective or unusual conditions of title      9. Improper subdivision or obsolete platting X X  X  10. Conditions which endanger life or property       11. Any combination of such factors  X X X X  The specific results of this analysis follow:    1. A substantial number of deteriorated or deteriorating structures    No.  Based on visual observation, the study area does contain some deteriorated  structures.  However, as a whole, most residential and commercial structures in the  study area are in fair or better condition, and either provide or can provide reasonable  accommodations to their residents.      2. The existence of defective or inadequate street layout    Yes.  The study area presents three specific situations of an inadequate street layout  leading to poor and sometimes hazardous traffic ciculation.  These situations include  colliding grids, the Five Points area, and the Broadwell/Union Pacific grade crossing.    Colliding Grids.  The city of Grand Island has two intersecting street grids systems, one  paralleling the section line grid of nominal directions, while the other is rotated to  parallel the Union Pacific Railroad.  These grids “collide” along Broadwell Avenue,  creating awkward and sometimes hazardous intersections and inhibiting through traffic  circulation.  These intersecting grids create the well‐known Five Points intersection at  the crossing of Broadwell, Eddy, and State.  Local streets that create difficult or offset  intersections along Broadwell include 18th Street, 17th Street, 16th Street, 15th Street, 14th  Street, 13th Street , 12th Street, 11th Street, 10th Street, 5th Street, and 4th Street.  The Five  Points intersection, where three arterial streets meet, forms a particularly confusing and  sometimes congested situation.   This intersection, at a key neighborhood commercial  node, is difficult for both motor vehicles and pedestrians to negotiate.        Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 9    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007  Five Points Circulation.  The overall street layout and land configuration in the northern  part of the study area channels considerable traffic through the complex Five Points  intersection and inhibits local connectivity.  No east‐west streets link Broadwell and  Wheeler Avenues between State Street and Capital Avenue, limiting access between  neighborhoods east and west of the Broadwell corridor.  As a result, most traffic headed  for destinations on either side of Broadwell (including Grand Island High School) must  negotiate either Five Points or the Capital/Broadwell intersection, a busy highway  junction.  Pedestrian access through and between these residential districts is equally  difficult, a particular problems because of the presence of such neighborhood‐oriented  destinations as Skagway, Grace Abbott Park, Blessed Sacrament Church, and the high  school.      The Broadwell/Union Pacific Grade Crossing.  This grade crossing of a principal arterial and  the nation’s busiest freight railroad is generally considered Grand Island’s leading traffic  problem.  This unacceptable situation produces frequent traffic queues on Broadwell  Avenue and is a major challenge for both travelers and businesses.  Old Lincoln  Highway and North Front Street, major collector routes that intersect Broadwell close to  the crossing and serve neighborhoods adjacent to the Broadwell corridor, are frequently  blocked by queuing traffic and provide poor local continuity.       The Broadwell grade crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad mainline.        Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 10    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007    Old Lincoln Highway parallel to the Union Pacific tracks. Broadwell traffic lined up waiting for a train to  pass frequently backs traffic up on this intersecting collector street.     3. Faulty lot layout in relation to size adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness    Yes.  The study area’s current lot layout contains several deficiencies, including:    • Lots that lack street access, including a site northeast of the intersection of State,  Broadwell, and Eddy Streets.      • Triangular lots of inadequate size and/or surrounded on all sides by streets.  These  include the intersection of 17th Street, 15th Street, 13th Street, 12th Street, 11th Street,  7th Street, 6th Street, and 5th Street.  There are also several inadequately sized  triangle shaped lots along Old Lincoln Highway, 3rd Street and 2nd Street.     4. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions    Yes. Outdoor storage in several locations between Old Lincoln Highway and North  Front Street create unsafe conditions that can create attract casual access.  Some of these  sites accommodate light industries that store materials related to business.  Other sites  are used to store abandoned vehicles, barrels, and other materials.  The following  pictures illustrate some of these conditions.   Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 11    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007  Outdoor storage in the 2nd Street area north of the railroad.      Outdoor storage in the 2nd Street area south of the railroad.    Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 12    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007  Outdoor storage in the Broadwell Area. .    5. Deterioration of site or other improvements    Yes.  The study area contains both deteriorated structures and numerous lots with site  deficiencies.  While only a few houses have serious apparent structural problems, many  units present such deficiencies as missing windows, damaged or missing siding, and  peeling paint. Other site problems include unpaved driveways and outdoor storage of  household goods.        Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 13    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007    Outdoor storage and deteriorating siding in the 2nd Street Area      Unpaved parking area and outdoor storage in the 2nd Street area.  Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 14    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007      Peeling paint and gravel yard along Broadwell Street.       Inadequately sized and deteriorating housing structure in the Broadwell Street area.     Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 15    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007    Housing unit with apparent structural problems in the Eddy Street area.       Graffiti and deteriorated screening in the Five Points Area.   Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 16    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007  6. Diversity of ownership    Yes.  The study area includes many individual property owners.  In some cases, the  ability to assist with the assembly of several parcels could further overall neighborhood  development objectives, including better access, more viable development, and  expanded commercial sites.     7. Tax or special delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land    Unknown. Evaluation of this criterion requires detailed title analysis of individual  properties.   The presence of other qualifying conditions makes an investigation of tax  delinquency unnecessary to demonstrate blighting conditions.    8. Defective or unusual conditions of title    Unknown.  Evaluation of this criterion requires detailed title analysis of individual  properties.  The presence of other qualifying conditions makes an investigation of tax  delinquency unnecessary to demonstrate blighting conditions.    9. Improper subdivision or obsolete platting    Yes.  The intersection of Grand Island’s two street grids at Broadwell Street creates a  number of triangular and eccentrically‐shaped sites, some of which are completely  surrounded by streets.   Many of these lots are unable to accommodate contemporary  residential development.  Platting north of State Street between Broadwell and Wheeler  combines large and small sites, and currently prevents good commercial access to  Broadwell and effective inter‐neighborhood circulation.      10. The existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes    No.  While several properties contain environmental deficiencies, this condition does not  endanger to life or property, and is unlikely to endanger members of the public who are  appropriately using public streets or properties.    11. Any combination of such factors that substantially impairs or arrests the sound  growth of the community, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or  constitutes an economic or social liability and is detrimental to the public health,  safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use.      Yes.  The current spotty quality of development in the study area, including poor site  maintenance, unsanitary conditions, and intermittent building deterioration,  discourages investment in some parts of the study area.  Poor platting and circulation  reduces the economic potential of the area, complicates the growth of important  Blight Area Designation, Grand Island, Nebraska ● 17    RDG Planning & Design ● June 2007  neighborhood businesses, and results in underutilized property.   These obsolete ar  blighted conditions are likely to deteriorate further, and have an impact on the economic  base of adjacent neighborhoods.  Redevelopment of certain areas would eliminate  deficiencies in platting, provide sites for new housing, commercial, and industrial  development, and create an environment that both stabilizes important neighborhood  assets and stimulates further economic growth.     Conclusions    This study substantiates the presence of at least one of both the quantitative and  qualitative criteria for designation as a blighted area set forth by Section 18‐2103 of  Nebraska Revised Statutes.  The designated area is hereby determined to be eligible for a  declaration of blight, pursuant to the requirements of Section 18‐2103 of Nebraska  Revised Statutes.         Item F2 Public Hearing - C-26-2007GI Concerning amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Grand Island and its two mile extra-territorial jurisdiction. Amendments to be considered pertain to the 36-96 Off- Street Parking Requirements; to modify parking lot surfacing requirements and clean up language relative to changes in zoning districts that were made with the adoption of the Large Lot Residential Zone in 2004. Wednesday, September 05, 2007 Regular Meeting Hall County Regional Planning Commission Staff Contact: Chad Nabity Hall County Regional Planning Commission ChadN S:\Docs\409.doc Last printed 8/30/2007 1:57 PM Page 1 Agenda Item #5 PLANNING DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION TO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION: August 23, 2007 SUBJECT: Concerning amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Grand Island and its 2 mile extra-territorial jurisdiction. Amendments to be considered pertain to the §36-96 Off-Street Parking Requirements; to modify parking lot surfacing requirements and clean up language relative to changes in zoning districts that were made with the adoption of the Large Lot Residential Zone in 2004.. (C-26-2007GI) PROPOSAL: City staff is suggesting additions to the Grand Island Zoning regulations pertaining to Off-Street Parking Requirements that are shown in this manner deletions or additions . Mr. James Truell, on behalf of his client Jerold Ross of YAP Auction has asked the Grand Island City Council to consider changes as shown below as additions. The Grand Island City Council referred this issue for review and recommendation to the Hall County Regional Planning Commission at their meeting of August 14, 2007. §36-96. Off-Street Parking Requirements (G) Design Standards. All off-street parking and loading facilities shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley and contain adequate and safe maneuvering areas. No driveway or curb cuts shall exceed twenty-six feet in width in residential districts, or thirty-five feet in width in business or industrial/manufacturing districts, and detailed plans shall be submitted to the public works director for approval of all curb cuts or driveway openings before a permit may be obtained therefor. No signs shall be displayed except such signs as required for the orderly use of the facilities. All facilities shall be provided with a permanent type, dust-free surface such as meaning: asphaltic cement concrete, Portland cement concrete, cold rolled asphalt millings with an oil overlay, or paving brick. All parking lots containing five or more parking spaces, which are within 30 feet of property occupied by a residential use in a Transitional Agricultural Large Lot Residential Zoning District or of property within a Suburban Residential Zoning District, Low Density Residential Zoning District, Medium Density Residential Zoning District, High Density Residential Zoning District or Residential Development Zoning District, shall provide a sight-obscuring fence or screen not less than six feet nor more than eight feet in height along the boundary of the parking lot adjacent to such districts. No fence or screen shall be required between abutting parking lots or adjacent to an alley. The height of any fence or screen shall be subject to other restrictions provided by the City Code. ChadN S:\Docs\409.doc Last printed 8/30/2007 1:57 PM Page 2 OVERVIEW: The current language suggests that other hard surface types would be permitted by including the words such as before the list of possible surfacing types. The building department has generally considered this a closed list and the Grand Island Board of Adjustment upheld that determination in considering an appeal of this interpretation in June of this year. The appeal was filed by Mr. Truell on behalf of YAP auction. To avoid confusion on this issue staff is proposing to change the words such as to meaning, thereby limiting the choices to those listed. New products could be added to this list as the y become available and are shown to comparable similar benefits to those already on the list by amending these regulations. The addition of “cold rolled asphalt millings with an oil overlay” is the request of Mr. Truell. Consideration of this change is included based on the referral from the Grand Island City Council. The change from Transitional Agriculture to Large Lot Residential is being proposed to make this consistent with the intent of the creation of the Large Lot Residential District in 2004. This change should have been made at that time but was missed. The City has used cold rolled asphalt millings with an oil overlay for projects in recent years. These were used in an attempt to make improvements to an existing gravel street (Ada Street) and to build a connection for the hike/bike trail. In both of those cases this technique did not hold up and did not produce an acceptable dust free hard surface. A letter from Public Works Director Steven Riehle P.E. is included with this report detail the experience of the city with regard to this product. RECOMMENDATION: That the Regional Planning Commission recommend that the Grand Island City Council approve the changes to the Grand Island Zoning Ordinance as shown except for the provision that would allow cold rolled asphalt millings with an oil overlay. ___________________ Chad Nabity AICP, Planning Director INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM From the Public Works Department Working Together for a Better Tomorrow, Today. DATE: August 27, 2007 TO: Chad Nabity, Regional Planning Director FROM: Steven P. Riehle, P.E., City Engineer/Public Works Director RE: Use of Asphalt Millings for Parking Lot Surfacing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have over 24 years of experience in the design and construction of civil infrastructure including construction and rehabilitation of asphalt millings base course, hot mix asphalt pavements, cold mix asphalt pavements, surface sealants, crack sealing and Portland cement concrete pavements. Asphalt millings do not compact as well as hot or cold mix asphalt. There is not enough free asphalt in the millings to adequately bind the material into an acceptable pavement. The lack of temperature adds to the poor compaction of asphalt millings when compared to hot mix asphalt. While it doesn’t make a good surface course, asphalt millings are a good base course for a hot mix asphalt overlay. Asphalt millings coated with a spray on asphalt sealer does not create a satisfactory surface. The spray on sealer does not penetrate the surface, allows moisture to saturate the sub grade, tracks onto the street from vehicle tires, and is carried into adjacent properties on the soles of shoes. I strongly recommend against a surface sealant or oil spray. The city of Grand Island has experimented with asphalt millings for streets, parking lots, trails and the snow dump site. It’s been our experience that the surface is loose, allows the sub grade to become saturated, is rough, does not hold up well and is susceptible to pot holes. When we use asphalt millings, we cover it with at least 1” of hot mix asphalt to get an acceptable pavement. Hot or cold mix asphalt pavements result in a smooth surface that is safer to walk on, sheds water and is considered permanent. The city has used asphalt millings as a base course topped with 2” to 4” of hot mix asphalt pavement to hard surface the bike trail along the St Joe railroad spur trail between US Hwy 34 and Stolley Park Road, Garland Street from US Hwy 34 to Blaine Street, the parking lot expansion for Fire Station # 4, South Street between Henry Street and Ada Street, the alley by the Blackstone Hotel, and the snow dump on East US Hwy 30. A new parking lot constructed with asphalt millings can be compared to an old hot mix asphalt parking lot that is at the end of its life because the two surfaces are similar. Both surfaces have pot holes, do not drain well, are cracked, and are in need of a surface treatment such as asphalt overlay. Asphalt millings as a surface for a parking may be better then gravel or crushed concrete, but makes a significantly lower quality surface than hot mix asphalt pavement or Portland cement concrete. Because of the lower quality, asphalt millings should only be used as a temporary surfacing, and not considered a permanent surfacing. Item M1 Final Plat - Doniphan - Trumbull Sports Activities Subdivision Doniphan - Trumbull Sports Activities Subdivision located east of Hwy. 281, between Walnut St. and Pine St., Village of Doniphan, Hall County, Nebraska. (2 lots) Wednesday, September 05, 2007 Regular Meeting Hall County Regional Planning Commission Staff Contact: Chad Nabity Hall County Regional Planning Commission August 23, 2007 Dear Members of the Board: RE: Final Plat – Doniphan – Trumbull Sports Activities Subdivision For reasons of Section 19-923 Revised Statues of Nebraska, as amended, there is herewith submitted a final plat of Doniphan – Trumbull Sports Activities Subdivision, located east of U.S. Highway 281 between Walnut St. and Pine St. in the Village of Doniphan. . This final plat proposes to create 2 lots on a tract of land comprising a part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4 SW1/4) Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 9 West of the 6th P.M., Hall County, Nebraska. This land consists of approximately 13.070 acres. You are hereby notified that the Regional Planning Commission will consider this final plat at the next meeting that will be held at 6:00 p.m. on September 5, 2007 in the Council Chambers located in Grand Island's City Hall. Sincerely, Chad Nabity, AICP Planning Director cc: Doniphan City Clerk Doniphan City Attorney County Director of Building Inspections Manager of Postal Operations Davis Surveying, Inc. This letter was sent to the following School Districts 1R, 2, 3, 8, 12, 16, 82, 83, 100, 126. Item M2 Prairie Creek View Subdivision Prairie Creek View Subdivision located at the northwest corner of Hwy. 11 and Capital Avenue, Hall County, Nebraska. (1 lot) Wednesday, September 05, 2007 Regular Meeting Hall County Regional Planning Commission Staff Contact: Chad Nabity Hall County Regional Planning Commission August 23, 2007 Dear Members of the Board: RE: Final Plat – Prairie Creek View Subdivision For reasons of Section 19-923 Revised Statues of Nebraska, as amended, there is herewith submitted a final plat of Prairie Creek View Subdivision, located at the northwest corner of Capital Avenue and Highway 11 in Hall County, Nebraska. . This final plat proposes to create 1 lot on a tract of land comprising a part of the Northwest Quarter (NW1/4) of Section Seven (7), Township 11 North, Range 11 (11) West of the 6th P.M., Hall County, Nebraska. This land consists of approximately 5.021 acres. You are hereby notified that the Regional Planning Commission will consider this final plat at the next meeting that will be held at 6:00 p.m. on September 5, 2007 in the Council Chambers located in Grand Island's City Hall. Sincerely, Chad Nabity, AICP Planning Director cc: Hall County Clerk Hall County Attorney County Director of Building Inspections Manager of Postal Operations Rockwell & Associates This letter was sent to the following School Districts 1R, 2, 3, 8, 12, 16, 82, 83, 100, 126.