In recent months I’ve had numerous people ask me why I voted the way I did on Aug. 7th, and what I think of the current situation with this project. The matter is complicated, and I have found myself having the same lengthy conversation time and time again. So, in the interest of “transparency” and efficiency, I offer my thoughts herein for your consideration………..
The Planning & Zoning Commission utilizes the Change of Zoning Checklist when evaluating the merit of various rezone requests that come before it for consideration. This checklist consists of seventeen questions divided into four general categories, and provides a consistent framework for reviewing applications. Some of the questions that would seem to have direct relevance to the Village Cooperative request for Pebble Creek are as follows:
BROADER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING EFFORTS
1. Does the requested rezoning conform to the City’s comprehensive plan and future land use map?
The original plan had issues with both the comp. plan and the land use map. The land use map has the parcel zoned RS8 (low density residential) consistent with the single family homes that have been built to date. These documents also show 4th Street continuing across the north side of the parcel one day, and a neighborhood commercial node at the corner of 4th and Taft. While the revised layout would now make the 4th Street extension and neighborhood commercial node possible, the issue with the land use map remains.
LAND USE NEEDS AND BALANCE
4. Does the requested rezoning provide adequate residential land uses to achieve diversity in location and type throughout the city?
Some have argued that the broad support for diverse neighborhoods supported by the comprehensive plan indicate that this specific parcel is appropriate for high density housing. If this were true, the land use map generated with the comprehensive plan, updated just last year, would have reflected higher density for this parcel rather than RS8. This neighborhood is arguably one of the most diverse in the community as it exists right now: the neighborhood includes low/moderate income housing, apartments, condominiums, and high end single family homes. The market has supported development of higher density housing at an accelerated rate, with single family housing following at a slower, but steady pace. The addition of single family housing on this parcel will bring the neighborhood back into balance.
Pebble Creek exists at its current location, and cannot be continued as a contiguous neighborhood in another part of the city. Conversely, Village Cooperative could be successful in many different areas of the community. Financial projections show that the highest and best use of this parcel is to let it mature as single family housing, as planned and executed to date. Specifically, were each development to start next year (Village Cooperative vs. commencement of RS-8 housing) on this tract, 15 years from now the residential development would be somewhere between EVEN and $375,000 dollars ahead of the incremental taxes VC is anticipated to generate. Thereafter, the residential development will return $30,000/yr in taxes over and above VC project. If we assume both projects have a 70 year life cycle, the residential development returns a minimum of $1.7 million in taxes to the general fund over and above Village Cooperative at this location (today’s dollars).
7. If there is a need for additional land to be rezoned as requested, should the rezoning be done in the areas requested or would the public interest be better served if the rezoning were done in other areas of the city?
The rezone request is for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Currently, there are no parcels in the city appropriately zoned and of sufficient size to receive this project. So, wherever this project ends up, a change of zone will be required.
The proposed building exceeds the height restrictions of the current zoning classification. Typically, such deviations require a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. However, building height is not regulated in a PUD; once the parcel is changed to PUD, the building receives a height variance to the city zoning ordinance by default. The primary issue with the project has not been with the targeted demographic (seniors), rather, it has been with the magnitude of the physical structure, both in terms of height and footprint.
One of the Broad Goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to achieve stakeholder collaboration in development decisions….. The current developer has not addressed neighborhood concerns. Rather, they have moved the building on the same parcel to take the neighborhood’s concerns out of play by eliminating the opportunity for a petition to force a super majority vote of the council. For this and other reasons expressed herein, I believe the public interest is better served if the rezoning were done in another area of the city.
8. Is there an alternative site for the suggested use that would eliminate the necessity for rezoning?
As stated above, wherever this project ends up, rezoning will be required. The question has not been “Do we want Village Cooperative in Mason City?”; rather, it has been, “Where is the best location for this project?”. Let me be very clear: I want to see the Village Cooperative project come to fruition in Mason City, and I want it to happen sooner rather than later. This is a unique housing alternative for seniors, and is a great project for the community. But, the facility must be located such that it compliments the surrounding area, rather than dominating the area. And, it must be situated on a parcel whereby it becomes the highest and best use for the property; financial projections do not show this to be the case on the proposed parcel.
Understandably, the parcel in Pebble Creek has outstanding curb appeal. Alternative locations may not command the same marketability to Village Cooperative, creating a financial hurdle that does not exist now. I have pledged to support an incentive package to help bridge this gap if we can find an alternate location that meets the needs of Village Cooperative and the needs of the adjacent neighborhood.
PRACTICAL QUESTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OF SITE
10. Does the requested rezoning lessen congestion in the street; secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other dangers; promote health and general welfare; provide adequate light and air; prevent overcrowding of land; avoid the undue concentration of population; facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer services, schools, parks and other public requirements; preserve the character of area or neighborhood; conserve the value of buildings; or encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout Mason City?
The last three items are a primary point of contention between the two sides; my specific thoughts on these areas are addressed in responses to related questions herein.
13. Would granting the rezoning request adversely affect property values of adjacent landowners to an unreasonable degree?
This is rather nebulous; what constitutes “unreasonable”. None of us know for certain if a project of this magnitude would adversely impact existing property values, but we do know this: if Village Cooperative proceeds on this parcel, the decision is irreversible, and there is no recourse to existing property owners after the fact if they are adversely impacted. We also know this: the people that live in Pebble Creek now have made a significant investment in their real estate, and thus in the community, and they did so believing the adjacent area would be developed as planned.
If indeed I’m going to make a mistake (on this or other similar matters), I’d rather make it in favor of existing citizens in their existing neighborhood (as opposed to protecting the interests of people that would like to move to a building that does not yet exist).
14. Would granting the rezoning request impose undue hardship on adjacent owners, such as noise, light and glare, odor, vibration or other nuisances?
From the perspective of the neighborhood, the height and magnitude of the proposed building is a nuisance that creates an undue hardship.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
The Village Cooperative discussion has morphed into an emotional rather than intellectual debate. The rhetoric that has been used to jack people up in attempt to rally the troops behind an US vs. THEM argument is irresponsible and is not conducive to community harmony. The vast majority of this rhetoric is being perpetrated by a company from out of town that wants what is best for its business model rather than what is best for the community it seeks to join. And now, in the midst of the next election cycle, we have council candidates that are all too willing to permit themselves to become pawns of the propaganda machine, further enabling a manipulation of the process.
This debate is not about excluding an entire demographic, our seniors, from a specific neighborhood. This is not an attack on senior citizens. Many of the existing home owners are themselves senior citizens. The neighborhood has coexisted with and been enriched by the Homestead Assisted Living. This debate is about balancing the desires of an existing neighborhood with the best interests of the entire community. The highest and best use of the land (from a tax revenue perspective) is to permit the parcel to develop consistent with the long term plan. This long term plan is supported by the land use maps included in the recently updated comprehensive plan, and is consistent with the development residents anticipated when they made their investment in this neighborhood.
I believe there are a number of areas in Mason City where this project could be of mutual benefit. Up to this point, Village Cooperative has insisted the project must be on the west side of town, and must be on this parcel. Prior to the denial of the rezone request on August 7th, there was no room for negotiation to move the building on the desired lot, or to consider alternative locations. Now, after the denial, the developer has found the ability to move the building after all. Admittedly, the layout is better than the original. However, the primary motivator to move the building was not to address neighborhood concerns; rather, it was to circumvent them. The new layout eliminates the opportunity for concerned neighbors to petition and thus force a super majority vote of the council. In short, were the council to vote exactly as it did on Aug. 7th (on this new configuration), the rezone request would be approved. Ultimately, the court will decide whether or not this revised request violates the spirit of the law placing a one year moratorium on a rezone request once it fails. Regardless of the legal ruling, I believe if we all work together we can find a site in Mason City where this project is compatible with the neighborhood, is warmly received, is a wonderful place for the residents to live, and is of mutual benefit to Village Cooperative and the community.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the seniors desiring to see this project materialize; my issue is with the developer. I believe Village Cooperative knows the market very well, and delivered a bill of sale it was not yet in a position to support. Understandably, the seniors that desire to become owner-occupants are very excited, and they see this wonderful opportunity at risk. Rather than working to deliver a project that is mutually beneficial, Village Cooperative management is feeding this fear by employing propaganda meant to focus on fabricated issues (class envy, money, age, social status) that have no bearing on the real problem (the shear magnitude of the project at the desired location).
As stated earlier, I want this project to happen, and I want it to happen in Mason City. At this point, I don’t really care if Village Cooperative is the developer or not, but for the sake of our seniors that desire this opportunity, I want to see a project of this nature break ground in the next six months. Regrettably, I don’t foresee an opportunity for me to support this project on the desired parcel in Pebble Creek. The issues I’ve expressed herein are insurmountable, unless and until Village Cooperative can work with the neighborhood to create a project that is supported by the majority of the neighborhood (including a number of folks west of Taft that have expressed opposition). Only at that point will “stakeholder collaboration” trump the financial “highest and best use” for this parcel.
And, if we cannot make this work with Village Cooperative, I would be in favor of recruiting a company to help satisfy this market need.
As always, I appreciate your thoughts…………
Scott Tornquist
