Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA010 - Letter from Mayor dated June 27, 2018 with City Council Minutes from June 14, 2018 f r CITY OF Ame s~ Smart Choice June 27, 2018 Ladies and Gentlemen: Attached you will find minutes from our June 14, 2018, meeting. Several of the items may include clarification of a point or issue that was asked during the meeting. The City Council received these last Sunday night, and they were aware of the issues contained therein. Should you have any questions regarding the attached,please feel free to respond with a request for clarification. If you have a different recollection of what an answer may have been,please let me know,and Steve and I will review the minutes we took to see if something was not transferred over correctly. Steve, Kelly and I all reviewed these several times in an effort to achieve accuracy and thoroughness. jRespe fully submitt d, John A. Haila, Mayor City of Ames JAH/dry Attachment Mayor's Office 515.239.5105 main 515 Clark Ave.,P.O.Box 811 515.239.5142 fax Ames,IA 50010 www.CityofAmes.org r , SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED AT JUNE 14, 2018 MEETING WITH PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERS REGARDING LINCOLN WAY REZONING O)W • There has been no talk among City Council members about utilizing eminent domain to eliminate any businesses or procure any property along the segment of the Lincoln Way corridor between Grand and Duff. The mention of eminent domain that Councilman Gartin made at the end of a council meeting earlier in the year was for general information and in no way related to a specific project, area, or development going on in the city. • The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) projects a decrease in traffic along the segment of the corridor due to the construction on the Grand Avenue Extension. Therefore, the LRTP includes an project for this section of Lincoln Way between Grand and Duff to go from four lanes to three lanes in the future with on-street bike lanes added. However, it should be emphasized that the City Council has not voted to implement this recommendation and no funds have been appropriated for these improvements that are anticipated to occur outside of the planning horizon of the LRTP (more than 5 years into the future). • The City Council is prepared, and has requested staff to bring back to council in the form of an amended ordinance, supporting the concept of "pre-existing' for the current active and permitted uses of the properties within the proposed rezoning boundaries. This is a change from the original rezoning ordinance text that would have made a number of the current uses/properties "non-conforming", because certain uses would no longer be allowed under the new zoning (DGC) standards. Therefore, those uses that are currently allowed in a DSC/HOC zone within the boundaries of the proposed rezoning will be allowed to continue to exist even if though they are no longer allowed in the new Downtown Gateway Commercial zone. • A pre-existing use is a defined term within the Zoning Ordinance. It allows the owner to intensify the use of their site, to tear down and rebuild the same use, remodel, renovate and rebuild in the case of a natural disaster or fire. The right for the use to continue to exist expires/is forfeited when the use is discontinued for more than one year. The pre-existing designation will transfer with the property if it is sold to a new owner. The pre-existing use classification is distinct from a non-conforming structure or other site improvement. Any changes to the building or the site with a pre-existing use will require full compliance with zoning standards (as is currently the case in all HOC zoned areas). If a current site is redeveloped into a new use, then compliance with the permitted uses in DGC is required. For example, a pre-existing use of retail cannot be demolished and be redeveloped into a vehicle service business. While existing vehicle service businesses may continue to operate as pre-existing, new ones cannot be added to the DGC in a redevelopment project. With pre-existing uses, intensification may occur and the new setbacks in DGC (which allow buildings closer to the property line in many cases) will govern, which may allow more building area than currently allowed under HOC. • Admittedly, it is difficult to determine when a use has been discontinued for more than a year since there are no business licenses. The staff could look to utility billing history for the property, but also will have to rely on other relevant information provided by the property owner or other observers of the situation. • An additional lot(s) cannot be added to a current pre-existing use site so that the new larger lot can gain a pre-existing status. The limits of pre-existing use are constrained by the current property lines/limits/extents as currently viewed as one contiguous site for the use. • Under the proposed rezoning ordinance, for example, one will not be able to change the use of a site that currently has a "pre-existing" car wash to a tire store. You will be able to change the use of a site that has a "pre-existing" use to another use that will be allowed in the proposed Downtown Gateway zoning district. • All other non-conformities that exist related to lots (landscaping, parking, etc.) will continue to be non-conforming even with the proposed zoning change to allow pre-existing uses to remain after the rezoning. To make any changes to the site will require the non-conformities to be improved as practicable. This also holds true for replacing a concrete slab for non- conforming parking situation. If no parking is required for a use, then replacing parking would likely not be allowed upon reconstruction based upon the current language of the Zoning Ordinance. • In order to determine whether a non-conforming structure can be rebuilt by right or through the granting of a special use permit, the percentage of damage to the structure(s) must be determined. The percentage will be based on the assessed value of the building improvements shown on the City Assessor's records. Staff is going to research this in that a number of properties have extremely low building values but high land values based upon the Assessor's valuation system. Concerns were raised that the low building assessed values may/will constrain the ability to rebuild non-conforming structures in the event of a fire or natural disaster. The percentage of value does not relate to nonconforming uses or pre-existing, only to nonconforming structures. • The classification of a building by the assessor (such as a warehouse) is NOT the same as the zoning ordinance classification. The City Assessor has limited categories to choose from, whereas there are numerous ones in the zoning ordinance. If a building has storage attached, which is carried as a "warehouse" by the City Assessor, it is NOT necessarily viewed as warehouse by zoning ordinance. It is viewed as storage that is ancillary to the primary use, which might be retail for example. Warehousing is a use type defined in the Zoning Ordinance and the standards define how principal use and storage is regulated. Staff was going to look at HPC's building and respond in that.the size of their storage building is large as compared to the office use; but HPC use of the storage is directly related to their business operation, and not as a distribution type of warehouse. Staff did determine at the end of the meeting that HPC is actually an Industrial Service Use as a contractor, not a warehouse or office use. • Clarity on what "improve as practical" is requested. Staff described case-by-case review requirements based upon scope of the project and ensuring no new deficiencies or nonconformities would be created when complying with current zoning standards. • Attendees asked staff to clarify what and when fagade improvements do and do not need to comply with DGC standards. Staff described how remodeling and maintenance is not subject to the new design standards as such activities are allowed for nonconforming structures. • Ryan Davis has a vacant piece of ground east of the Wild Water Car Wash. Can he not extend his car wash onto that property to expand even though he owns it but it is not merged with the other piece of property? Staff discussed if this would be possible to expand the site since it is under the same ownership. Staff determined that although multiple properties could be 'part of site if it is a separate site and not part of the pre-existing carwash site now with improvements that serve the carwash, it could not be expanded to a new property. This is based upon the Pre-existing definition that references a use on a site at the time of the designation. • Concern was expressed that if Argent pulls out, will the city and property owners be left with more restrictive zoning and nothing happens in the area for years to come? What was truly gained by rezoning then? c • Concern was also expressed about the mixed-use approach to new developments. Already in Ames many mixed-use buildings have empty storefronts (Aspen Heights on West Lincoln Way, took, along time for Campustown developments to fill first floor, west Ames Mortenson empty storefronts converted to apartments). Staff expressed that new buildings do not lease up immediately and it does take time, regardless of the use as mixed use or a shopping center. • Drive-through design and configuration options were discussed about allowing for side access, limiting access to Lincoln Way, and impacts on businesses desiring a pick up window. Specifically, Grand Junction LLC was interested in a pick up window for Little Caesars and maybe one or two drive-throughs for the rear building. The TOMCO property owners desired a drive through option for the future. A pick up window was determined to be a drive-through facility as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Young's property (Flowerama/Verizon) has a boarded up drive-through window in the Verizon store space. Other property owners thought it was an important option for future restaurants, coffee shops, and pharmacies. • Council is in process of reviewing storm water management requirements and these will govern future redevelopment on the current sites. The storm water detention requirements for smaller lots (less than one acre in size) might be relaxed, subject to Council approval. This is a citywide issued, not just a Corridor Plan issue. • Questions were raised by the owners about the desirability of mixed use with apartments and to leave as commercial. What distinguishes the Hy-Vee (Lincoln Center) site from having DGC zoning? • Concerns were expressed the standard being anti-automobile and that there needs to be space for automobile uses in the city and in this area in particular due it being such for many, many decades. • The three Primary objections (there are others but are not listed herein) of the property/business owners to the proposed rezoning are: -The reduction in the number of drive-through possibilities for the property owners and potential effect on the value of their properties in the future. -The reduction in the number of uses that were allowed in HOC that will no longer be allowed in the new Downtown Gateway district. It was asked that College (learning centers), Lodge/social club and religious institutions be added back in as permitted uses to expand the range of potential tenants. Staff described why these use were left out due to their lack of regular daytime activity and how they created "dead" spots in walkable areas downtown. -The elimination of the HOC zoned land within the proposed rezoning boundaries results in very little land being available in this zoning district in other parts of the City (in the center of the City on Lincoln Way). Staff discussed that issue would be addressed in the future, but the proposed area for rezoning was the only area suitable for the vision described in the Corridor Plan as complimenting Downtown. - END - .