HomeMy WebLinkAboutA017 - Memo/Brief from Mayor dated April 19, 2018 April 19, 2018
MEMO/BRIEF FROM THE MAYOR
To: Ames City Council
Re: Downtown Rezoning to DGC
Council,
In late March/Early April I reached out to four downtown business/property owners who have
previously appeared before Council and expressed their disapproval of the proposed rezoning. I
was able to meet with three of them (Laura Cram, Laura's Cabinet Gallery; Darwin and Jolene
Trickle, Trickle Tire and Ryan Davis, Wild Water Car Wash. I also contacted and had an
appointment to meet with Sherri Keigan, Cyclone Engraving but she had an operational issue
come up at the last minute at her business precluding me from meeting with her. I also had a half
hour telephone call with Tim Grandon, Grandon's Funeral and Cremation Care.
I offer what I believe are common themes and concerns expressed by all of those I visited with.
The following is not to convey that these are all of their concerns, but I do believe these are the
maior ones. I will share that several (but not all) of them also expressed support of proposed
redevelopment as illustrated in the Lincoln Way Corridor Study plan.
A. Communication—All indicated that they received at best short notice of the proposed
rezoning, and it was sometime late the week before our March 61h Council Meeting.They
were caught off guard. Those that did receive notice were surprised that the first reading
of the ordinance was on the agenda, and they were not previously aware council was
considering rezoning the area.
Several acknowledged that they had followed the LWCS plan as it was developing, so
they were somewhat aware of its potential but since its completion had not heard much
about redevelopment or the fact that rezoning would be required.
As staff has explained to council, letters of notice go out to all "property owners" of
record. It is the only realistic way to contact those who actually own the buildings. In
some cases (Trickles) it is possible that another family member(father) may still get
"property owner"mail, hence the actual operating entity or business might not be aware
of the communication. That may explain some of the folks indicating that they never
received any mail. Short of two mailings going out, one to the property owner of record
and one to the actual occupant,there likely will continue to be "gaps" in written
communication.
Page 2
This becomes a policy issue for council to discuss going forward. It would seem to me
that more time needs to be allowed, and add a step before some ordinances are being
considered. For example, prior to proposing a rezoning or property related ordinance (like
the rental cap) notice be sent out informing those who may be affected of council giving
consideration to rezoning/new ordinance and that it will be a topic of discussion at the
next council meeting. Then staff can"set the stage" and council then gives direction on
the ordinance.
So in this case, in lieu of having a proposed text amendment to the ordinance (item 29 on
3/6/18 meeting) on the agenda, in lieu thereof it would have been a topic of discussion at
that meeting. That is what ended up happening anyway. But by virtue of having the text
amendment/first passage of the ordinance on that evening's agenda, in my opinion, it sent
the "wrong message" to downtown business owners.
I understand that there may be times that speed is required. I am also not suggesting that
all ordinances/text amendments go through this process. I do think staff/council can
evaluate those which may be objected to ahead of time and allow more time for
consideration and communication before action is considered on an item.
B. Inability to rebuild if fire or natural disaster destroys a building—This was a major
concern with everyone I visited with. I think that this is a non-negotiable in the minds of
all business owners. They will strenuously object to the inability to rebuild if they
experience fire or natural disaster. And personally I believe they have a valid point and
concern. Subsequent to my conversations with the business owners, I have learned that
even if 100% destruction occurs, rebuilding might be able to occur, but that will require
going through ZBA for a Special Use Permit(see the FAQ's sheet on city website under
Planning and NEW—the link Steve sent to us yesterday).
Additionally Darwin Trickle posed a salient question—"Where do I relocate if I can't
rebuild or am not supposed to be located in this area?" This even ignores the lost business
they would experience due to a change in location. I think we need to consider his
question. If we are not going to allow auto service centers (or other types of services) in
the DGC area, then where can they be relocated to in Ames?
C. Depreciation in property value and impact of becoming non-conforming—I called a
local financial institution and asked if a person could get a loan on a piece of property
that did not conform to the current zoning designation. Here is a summation of our
discussion:
• A property appraisal is performed on any property where a loan is being considered.
Page 3
• The appraised value would likely be lower because the property might not be able to
continue on in its current use because it being non-conforming, hence the loaning
institution not being able to resell the property to recover the outstanding loan balance
in the event of a default or other reason for property sale.
• The amount they would loan to a non-conforming property would likely be less than
if it was conforming.
• Being non-conforming would not automatically negate a person's ability to borrow
money, but it is likely that the amount will be less than if their property was
conforming.
Second expressed concern was actual property value decline—for example if the current
proposed project goes through, what will Laura's Cabinet Gallery property be worth
since it is not included in this first project? Would what remains end up being lower value
because of it being a remnant?
Third concern is if they want to add onto a structure and being prohibited from doing so.
Discussing the staff provided comparative tables will aid in our discussion.
D. Objection to size/scale of the proposed development—It is the sheer scale of the
proposed Argent development that is objectionable to Laura, Ryan and Sherri. It
overpowers their buildings and they believe that will adversely affect their property value
going forward. Especially if they become non-conforming, will that affect their ability to
resell or rent to others in the future, causing financial harm?
Laura in particular was troubled by the fact that what was being consider at the March
27`" council meeting was of size and scale that was very different from what was
illustrated in the LWCS plan graphic, wherein multiple buildings of shorter height are
shown"sprinkled" around the area—and certainly not a 6-7 story building with the
footprint of what is being considered by Argent.
I understand that the proposed text amendment includes 2 story buildings along Kellogg
in the future, but that means that current buildings will need to be sold and demolished to
accomplish that. And while a number of the buildings on both sides of Kellogg from the
tracks south to Lincoln Way are under one owner, others are not. So timing on when that
redevelopment might occur is unknown. As everyone is aware and working towards, we
need to continue keeping the big picture and process in mind while considering approval
of a project on a portion of, and not all of the property within a contiguous "block area".
I
Page 4
Moving Forward
In light of the above, and in particular item 1. Communication, I have asked staff to pull the first
reading/passage of the text amendment for rezoning from next Tuesday nights agenda. Steve and
Kelly are in agreement. In lieu thereof the agenda will include staff report/council discussion on
the rezoning. I will be letting the business owners referred to above know what is transpiring and
ask them to let others know of this discussion item. Here is what is planned to be discussed.
1. Discuss what non-conforming and pre-existing conditions means, and what are the
implications of each if rezoning occurs. (Again see above referenced FAQ for an
excellent summation and discussion).
2. Review comparative tables posted on the City's website (Steve's link) showing what
properties are and are not currently non-conforming, or those that will become non-
conforming.
3. Discuss if the area of property to be rezoned should be changed (decreased or increased
in size).
4. Requested Council Action—how does Council want the final ordinance to be written?
Give direction to the City Attorney.
On the basis consensus is reached Tuesday night,the rezoning map change will need to go to
P&Z for their review and action.
Then on May 81h the first reading of text amendment to the ordnance would be acted on. The
moratorium in this area expires July 2"d, so that will allow adequate time to conduct the readings
with a 2 week time buffer as well.
I believe this will also allow adequate time for council to openly discuss the issues at hand,
secure additional property owner input through public comments, emails, and one on one
dialogue.
P.S. - I also asked staff to pull the Human Relations Commission presentation/report from the
DRAFT agenda for next Tuesday night. That would have likely added 30-45 minutes to an
already packed agenda and anticipated lengthy meeting.This will be placed on a near future
agenda. Plus as I mentioned to each of you when we individually met recently, I will be asking
council to consider refining/redefining the objectives for the HRC and I still owe Council a
written"brief'. I plan on discussing this with some members of the HRC or even at their meeting
and sending this to you in the very near future.
END OF BRIEF -