HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - July 26, 2022, Regular Meeting of the Ames City CouncilMINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA JULY 26, 2022
REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor John Haila at 6:01 p.m.
on July 26, 2022, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law.
Present were Council Members Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Rachel Junck, and
Anita Rollins. Council Member Bronwyn Beatty-Hansen and Ex officio Member Bryce Garman were
absent.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Haila said that the City Attorney had requested to pull Item No. 18:
Awarding a contract for Architectural Services to SVPA Architects Inc., of West Des Moines, Iowa,
for the WPCF Administration Building Renovation Project in an amount not to exceed $86,100, as
a few components still need to be worked out.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda.
1.Motion approving payment of claims
2.Motion approving Regular Minutes of July 12, 2022
3.Motion approving Report of Change Order for period July 1 - 15, 2022
4.Motion certifying Civil Service candidates
5.Motion approving new Class E Liquor License, Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit and
Sunday Sales - Kwik Star #1158, 1910 Isaac Newton Drive, Pending favorable Department of
Inspections & Appeals Inspection
6.Motion approving new Outdoor Service Privilege to Class C Liquor License and Sunday Sales
- Time Out Ames, 120 Kellogg Avenue, Pending Final Inspection
7.Motion approving ownership update for Class C Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit and
Sunday Sales - Hy-Vee Market Grille, 640 Lincoln Way
8.Motion approving ownership update for Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit,
Class C Beer Permit (carryout beer), and Sunday Sales - Kum & Go #1215, 4506 Lincoln Way
9.Motion approving ownership update for Class A Liquor License, Sunday Sales and Outdoor
Service - Green Hills Residents’ Association, 2200 Hamilton Drive, Suite 100
10.Motion approving the renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits and Liquor
Licenses:
a.Special Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales & Outdoor Service - Botanero Latino,
604 East Lincoln Way - Pending Dram Shop Insurance
b.Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (carryout beer),
and Sunday Sales - AJ’s Liquor II, 2515 Chamberlain
c.Class C Liquor License with Catering Privilege, Outdoor Service, and Sunday Sales -
Cyclone Experience Network, 1800 S. 4th Street
d.Class C Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit and Sunday Sales - Hy-Vee Market
Grille, 640 Lincoln Way
e.Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit and Class C Beer Permit (carryout
beer) - Fareway Meat Market #189, 3720 Lincoln Way
f.Class C Liquor License, Sunday Sales, Outdoor Service & Catering Privilege - Sweet
Carolines, 316 Main Street
g.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service, Catering Privilege, Class B Native Wine
Permit, Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - The Mucky Duck Pub, 3100 S Duff Avenue
h.Class E Liquor License with Class B Wine Permit, Class C Beer Permit (carryout beer),
and Sunday Sales - Kum & Go #1215, 4506 Lincoln Way
i.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - El Azteca, 2120 Isaac
Newton - Pending Dram Shop Insurance
j.Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales - Es Tas Stanton, 216
Stanton
k.Special Class C Liquor License with Sunday Sales - New Hickory Holding Company,
1404 S. Duff Avenue
11.Requests from Octagon Center for the Arts for Octagon Art Festival on Sunday, September 25,
2022
a.Motion approving a blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit and a blanket Vending
License for the Central Business District
b.RESOLUTION NO. 22-398 approving closure of the following streets from 5:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m.
i.Main Street, east of Clark to just west of Duff Avenue
ii.Douglas Avenue between 5th Street and Main Street
iii.Kellogg Avenue between south of the alley and Main Street
iv.Burnett Avenue between south of the alley and Main Street
c.RESOLUTION NO. 22-399 approving waiver of fee for blanket Vending License
d.RESOLUTION NO. 22-400 allowing usage of electricity and approving waiver of costs
of electricity
12.Ames Grand Prix:
a.Ames Main Street Criterium on Saturday, August 27, 2022:
i.Motion approving blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit for the closed area
ii.RESOLUTION NO. 22-401 approving closure of Main Street between Clark and
Douglas Avenue, Douglas Avenue between Main Street to Sixth Street, Sixth
Street between Douglas Avenue to Burnett Avenue, Burnett Avenue between
Sixth Street and Main Street, Fifth Street between Burnett and Clark Avenues,
and Clark Avenue between Fifth and Main Streets from 3:45 p.m. to 11:15 p.m.
iii.RESOLUTION NO. 22-402 approving closure of 187 metered parking spaces
from 2:30 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. along the race route and approving suspension of
parking enforcement
b.ISU Research Park Circuit Race on Sunday, August 28, 2022:
i.Motion approving blanket Temporary Obstruction Permit
ii.Motion approving blanket Vending License
iii.RESOLUTION NO. 22-403 approving waiver of fee for blanket Vending License
iv.RESOLUTION NO. 22-404 approving closure of Collaboration Place between
South Riverside Drive and University Boulevard, Plaza Loop, University Blvd
2
from Collaboration Place to Airport Road (northbound lane only; southbound
lane to remain open to traffic), Airport Road from University Boulevard to South
Riverside Drive (one eastbound lane only; the road will remain open to both east
- and westbound traffic), and South Riverside Drive (southbound lane only;
northbound lane to remain open to traffic) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
13.RESOLUTION NO. 22-405 confirming appointment of City Clerk
14.RESOLUTION NO. 22-406 approving Quarterly Investment Report for period ending June 30,
2022
15.RESOLUTION NO. 22-407 approving Memorandum of Understanding with Story County to
apply for grant funding under the 2022 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Assistance Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program and
authorize application for that Grant
16.RESOLUTION NO. 22-408 approving renewal of contract with EMC Risk Services, LLC, of
Des Moines, Iowa, to provide third-party administration of the City’s Worker’s Compensation
and Municipal Fire and Police “411 System” claims for August 1, 2022, through July 31, 2023,
at a cost not to exceed $55,000
17.RESOLUTION NO. 22-409 waiving Purchasing Policies’ formal bidding requirements and
extending an engagement with Ahlers and Cooney, P.C., of Des Moines, Iowa, in an amount
not to exceed $25,000 for legal services related to application of Iowa Code Chapter 20
18.RESOLUTION NO. 22-411 approving Change Order No. 1 to Power Line Supply of
Williamsburg, Iowa, in the amount of $25,661.81 (inclusive of Iowa sales tax) for the
Padmount Switchgear
19.RESOLUTION NO. 22-412 accepting completion of 2019/20 Multimodal Roadway
Improvements (13th and Clark)
20.2020/21 CDBG (Infrastructure) Improvements [Baker Subdivision]:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 22-413 approving Change Order No. 5 in the amount of $43,819.23
b.RESOLUTION NO. 22-414 accepting completion
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motions/Resolutions declared carried/adopted unanimously, signed by the
Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: Mayor Haila opened Public Forum.
Richard Deyo, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, said that he has a petition and would like people in the
audience to sign it. It stated, “We the undersigned honor the rights, duties, and responsibilities of
those who wear no clothes as a public expression of their rights through these rights and
responsibilities.” Mr. Deyo believed that people’s rights, duties, and responsibilities should be
honored. He commented that he can’t be naked in his own apartment and there should be places
where people can be naked. Mr. Deyo mentioned that he can’t spend his money that has “Please let
us be naked” written on it because the businesses can’t give that money to other people. He said he
would be happy to trade one of his dollars for a regular dollar if anyone was interested.
The Mayor closed public forum when no one else came forward to speak.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FY 2023/24 ASSET PRIORITIES: Assistant City Manager Deb
3
Schildroth explained that ASSET has a total of six volunteers; one member was present (Michael
Lazere). She said that the ASSET funding priorities is an important tool for the volunteers to use
when they go through the ASSET recommendations. She mentioned that on June 21, 2022, the City
Council held a Workshop to discuss inclusion and diversity when establishing ASSET funding
priorities for FY 2023/24. At that Workshop, the Council approved expanding the statement in
Priority #2 “with an emphasis on low to moderate income” to be inclusive of all three categories and
service areas. Another change that was approved was removing the descriptor “quality” from
“quality daycare.” City staff met with the City’s ASSET volunteers on July 11, 2022 to review the
priorities and Council’s recent modifications. The volunteers recommended these additional changes:
1) clarifying emergency shelter; 2) re-inserting “quality” in “quality daycare” as the term refers to
national standards and best practices in the areas of teaching and assessment, developmentally
appropriate curriculum, and staff competencies; and 3) reprioritizing medical and dental services
above financial literacy and education programs.
Council Member Betcher asked if the volunteers had any difficulties with the recommendations from
the Council. Mr. Lazere voiced that there were no concerns from the volunteers. Ms. Schildroth said
that as more data becomes available and shared with the Council there may be more changes to the
priorities.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to approve the City of Ames ASSET Priorities for the FY
2023/24 Funding Cycle.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
FITCH FAMILY INDOOR AQUATIC CENTER PROPERTY UPDATE (POTENTIAL
ALTERNATE SITES TO IDOT PROPERTY): Parks and Recreation Director Keith Abraham
said that on July 12, 2022, City staff presented a report regarding the potential acquisition of the
property at 122 North Oak Avenue for the construction of the Fitch Family Indoor Aquatic Center.
The Report detailed environmental contamination documented on the site, potential costs to address
the contamination, and the costs to acquire the property from the Iowa Department of Transportation
(IDOT). The Report explained that the purchase price would be $2.9 million for the IDOT property,
and the City could potentially face up to approximately $1 million in additional costs for
construction alterations and mitigation measures related to the contamination.
Director Abraham mentioned that there had been some questions about how often an indoor pool
is utilized. He looked at three years prior to the pandemic (2016-2019) and the average attendance
was around 49,000 visits per year. Director Abraham reviewed the process that staff went through
when looking for alternative sites. At the July 12, 2022, meeting the City Council directed staff to
explore whether any other alternative sites to construct the Indoor Aquatic Center exist, either within
or in the vicinity of the City’s current Downtown Reinvestment District Urban Renewal Area. Staff
was able to identify 13 potential locations in or near Downtown. Of the 13 locations, City staff
believed only three would be potentially feasible as an alternative to the 2.9 acre site at 122 North
Oak Avenue. Those three sites were: 1) Brookside Park; 2) O’Neil Park; and, 3) City Hall Parking
Lot M. Director Abraham reviewed the pros and cons of each of the three potential sites.
4
Council Member Gartin mentioned that Brookside Park is leased to the City from Iowa State
University (ISU) and wanted to know if the terms of the lease would allow the City to construct an
Indoor Aquatic Center. Director Abraham indicated that the land east of Ioway Creek is owned by
the City.
A meeting was held on Monday, July 18, 2022, via Zoom to discuss the option of O’Neil Park and
over 300 letters were posted on doors. There were approximately 40 attendees. Director Abraham
summarized the top comments from the neighborhood and indicated that the Staff Report has all the
comments listed in more detail. Director Abraham noted there were several options for the Council
to choose from depending on what site they decide to go with. Of the three potential sites, staff felt
that O’Neil Park appeared to be the most feasible site to construct the Indoor Aquatic Center in a
cost-effective manner; however, a key challenge with the O’Neil Park site is the loss of the park for
the neighborhood.
Council Member Betcher said that there was not any mention of why CBD Lot X was not looked at
further for a potential site. Director Abraham mentioned that this area was not looked at further
because it will be part of the Lincoln Way Development. The CBD Lot had been earmarked as part
of the development for a parking structure. Ms. Betcher asked how many parking spaces were in the
CBD Lot if the Indoor Aquatic Center was to go there. City Manager Steve Schainker commented
that the CBD Lot X had around 125 parking spaces. Ms. Betcher said she wanted to know how many
spaces were in the entire CBD lot. It was determined that information was not available at that time.
Council Member Betcher inquired if any of the other sites would require remediation similar to the
IDOT site. Director Abraham said there was a possibility; however, there was not any in depth
research done. Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips indicated that there were three sites that he
would be concerned about from an environmental standpoint. Those three sites were: 1) Former
Power Plant Coal Yard site; 2) Former Water Treatment Plant site; and, 3) East Main Street.
Council Member Gartin stated that the City is focusing on the Reinvestment District for a financial
reason and asked Director Abraham to provide more information regarding the downside of putting
the Indoor Aquatic Center Pool outside of the District. Director Abraham said that the Iowa
Economic Development Authority (IEDA) offered a program that set aside funding for communities
to apply for. Any community that has a Reinvestment District was welcome to apply. The Program
will give any sales tax that is generated from any new development in the Reinvestment District back
to the City by rebate. The City submitted a preliminary application in February 2021 to the Iowa
Economic Development Authority (IEDA) and the City was given a preliminary award of $10
million. Director Abraham reminded everyone that there is over $10 million that has been pledged
for this project and bonds will need to be issued to cover the $21 million debt. He noted that even
if awarded $10 million and the District only received $8 million in revenues then that is all the City
will get; the $10 million is not a full guarantee. Assistant City Manager Brian Phillips commented
that it was important to note that the Reinvestment District Program requires that the area can’t be
larger than 75-acres. It is possible to amend the District to include new areas and decrease other
areas.
5
Council Member Gartin asked about what kind of outreach was done. Director Abraham said the
Council directed staff to look at sites within close proximity to the Reinvestment District and if that
site was within a neighborhood, then meet with the neighbors. Staff found O’Neil park met the
direction from City Council and that is why there was a neighborhood meeting in that area. A
meeting was not held for the Brookside Park area because staff felt the site was not a viable option.
Mr. Gartin said he had not seen any articles in the Ames Tribune regarding the possible change of
pool locations and he was concerned that people are unaware of the change. He noted the Council
is going to be asked to balance the needs and concerns of a neighborhood against the benefits to the
community without the community receiving any notice.
Council Member Gartin mentioned that an important concern for the community was the indoor
walking path. He clarified that the Council had to drop the walking path option due to finances. Mr.
Gartin wanted to verify if the Indoor Aquatic Center was placed on the IDOT site then there would
not be a walking path. Director Abraham stated that the base bid would be the aquatics portion and
the multipurpose space/walking track would be bid as an add alternate. He indicated it would depend
on how the bids came in and if there was enough funding. Mr. Gartin mentioned that if the Indoor
Aquatic Center was built on the IDOT site there will probably not be a walking track; however, with
the savings from not having to purchase land from the IDOT then the walking track could be done
if the pool was developed at O’Neil Park. Director Abraham reiterated it would depend on how the
bids came to see if there was a chance to do the add alternate or not. Mr. Gartin felt that an indoor
walking track should be an amenity that the community should have. He inquired if walking tracks
were an amenity that communities the size of Ames would have. Director Abraham mentioned that
many areas do have one as a lot of people look for where they can go during the winter months or
inclement weather and still walk.
Council Member Gartin asked what the best estimate was for the price of remediation. Director
Abraham said the worst case scenario would be around $1.2 million. He noted that the best case
scenario would be around $350,000.
Council Member Gartin inquired about the general nature of how often O’Neil Park was used.
Director Abraham said he would not be able to say as there are times it is empty and there are times
the park is very busy.
Council Member Betcher commented that she thought the purpose of the Reinvestment District was
for urban revitalization and a catalyst for redevelopment of downtowns; when she thinks of urban
revitalization, she thinks of brown field sites and not city parks. She wanted to know how to argue
that shifting the location to the park fits with the Reinvestment District goals. Mr. Phillips explained
that he did not know all the ins and outs of the Reinvestment District Program, but a key component
is economic development and encouraging people to come to this area of Ames to be connected to
the Indoor Aquatic Center site, Downtown, the Plaza, and other amenities. He indicated the goal is
to encourage commerce. Ms. Betcher asked if the projects needed to be contiguous to Downtown.
Mr. Phillips said that was a conversation that needed to be had with the IEDA, and the City will have
to show that the Indoor Aquatic Center is connected. City Manager Steve Schainker explained in the
6
literature from the Iowa Reinvestment District it states, “the Program is designed to assist
communities in developing transformative projects that improve the quality of life, create and
enhance unique opportunities, and substantially benefit the community region and State.”
Council Member Junck asked if there had been any preliminary conversations about if the City
would be allowed to amend the boundaries at this point or if the $10 million would be at stake if the
City didn’t go with the IDOT site. Mr. Phillips stated that staff has spoken with the IEDA, and any
amendments would be subject to approval by its Board and there is an amendment process to go
through.
Council Member Corrieri inquired about the timing of the project with the various sites that were
being recommended. She noted that 12 months have already gone by with reviewing the IDOT site
and they don’t want to push the project back any further. Director Abraham said from the project
standpoint, staff would need around nine months for the design before it would go out for bid, which
could take around a month, and then construction would take around 18-months. Overall, it would
be over two years before the project would be completed. Director Abraham indicated that the IDOT
site would be the quickest site to move forward with. If the O’Neil site was selected, then an
environmental study would need to be done and meetings will need to be had with RDG regarding
the designs; this could add a few months to the overall project. Mr. Phillips stated that staff had
indicated in the Staff Report that time is of the essence as the City is approaching the point where
a decision needs to be made regarding the IDOT site because the IDOT intends to put the site up for
auction if the City is not going to purchase the property. It was pointed out that the City is expecting
to issue bonds for the project and that will need to be done within the next month or two.
Council Member Betcher wanted to know if changing the Indoor Aquatic Center location would
affect the bonds. Mr. Phillips stated that it would, but staff will need to speak with the Bond Council
and the Finance Director to understand all the implications.
Council Member Corrieri asked if the Council decided on the IDOT site and did the remediation
would that add more time to the project. Mr. Schainker stated that is unknown as staff is not 100%
sure what will be found during construction.
Council Member Rollins asked if any timing would affect the $10 million award. Mr. Phillips didn’t
think it would, but staff is waiting on a few documents to finalize the application. If the boundaries
are going to be changed then staff would need to wait. Mr. Schainker stated that once the application
is finalized and approved, and the largest component of the Lincoln Way project is started, then that
is when the clock starts, so it is not necessarily linked to the Indoor Aquatic Center.
Mayor Haila opened public input.
Susie Petra, 2011 Duff Avenue, Ames, stated that 13 years ago the City closed Carr Pool. The
League of Women’s Voters worked to try to find an Indoor Pool location. A lengthy study was done,
and everything was dismissed when ideas were voted down. She said that approximately two years
7
ago the City started looking at the IDOT site and she was appalled that the City didn’t have its own
City Assessor look at the site. Ms. Petra mentioned that it has taken nearly two years just to find out
that the site is contaminated. She commented that citizens would like a pool that is available for
recreation, swimming lessons, and rehab. Citizens would also like to have an indoor walking track.
She commented that she was surprised when she reviewed the list of 13 potential sites. Ms. Petra
said a few suggestions were “laughable,” some may be contaminated and require remediations, and
others were too small. She said she felt there would be other sites that would be better to look at even
though they would be outside the Reinvestment District. Ms. Petra indicated that the City owns the
former Edwards School property; it is huge, nothing would need to be demolished and trees would
not have to be removed. She also mentioned the former Carr Pool location to be used. Another site
was the Ontario site where nothing would need to be demolished. She hoped the Council would not
choose the O’Neil Park site. Ms. Petra asked that wherever the Council decides to put the Indoor
Aquatic Center to consider permeable paving.
Judy Lemish, 327 S. Maple, Ames, explained that she is a water exerciser along with several of her
friends. She commented that the City has failed to build an Indoor Aquatic Center. It gives her pause
about the trust that she puts into the City of Ames to come up with a decision. She felt the City was
in a big hurry to get the aquatic center done, and she said that making any decisions quickly often
leads to problems, failure, and regrets. Ms. Lemish referred to the noticing process that was done for
the neighborhood. She said that it is summer time and a lot of the neighborhood is gone and the door
notices that were received didn’t give them a lot of time. She stated that the City of Ames, in its
hurry, didn’t do its own evaluation of the IDOT site. She said any homebuyer would get an inspector
of their own before making any decisions and she felt that the City should have hired someone to do
an inspection. Ms. Lemish commented that the IDOT knew there was contamination of the site back
in 1994 and wondered why there aren’t any public records of the contamination. She said that the
citizens are left with a “pathetic” list of sites that could possibly be used with O’Neil Park being in
the cross-hairs regarding the decision to put in a pool. She felt the City was taking “the easy way
out.” Ms. Lemish noted that she had an alternative idea. She said that instead of preserving the “Linc
development” area between Clark and Kellogg, that the City should build an Indoor Aquatic Center
there. Ms. Lemish felt the City should “look outside the box.” She also felt that the old middle
school site would be a great place for an Indoor Aquatic Center as well.
Sarah Davis, 1220 Park Way, Ames, said she wanted to add that there is not enough information. She
appreciated all the information so far, but felt there was not enough understanding of the
consequences of the decision. Ms. Davis mentioned everything felt hasty. She explained that
undeveloped land is more precious than presently developed land that could be recycled and reused.
Kim Moss, 430 Lynn Avenue, Ames said she agreed with the previous speakers. She felt that
preserving green space, as much as possible, needs to be at the forefront of every decision made by
the Council. Ms. Moss commented that she is excited to have an Indoor Aquatic Center developed,
but not when having to take away green space. She encouraged the Council to allow more time for
additional feedback and to save the green spaces.
8
Jeri Neal, 916 Ridgewood Avenue, Ames, said that she is assuming that the Council will stay within
the Reinvestment District and not go with the IDOT site. She supported the option of placing the
Indoor Aquatic Center in City Parking Lot M. Ms. Neal explained that the construction of structured
parking over the current parking lot is a “big ticket” item that the City can and should rethink. She
explained that the world is already moving into a climate challenged economy and sizing down the
traditional approaches to parking and investing in a reimagined future made sense to Ms. Neal. She
can’t imagine a future where more and more people won’t choose walking, shared transportation,
or bicycling. Ms. Neal commented when looking over Brookside Park and O’Neil Park she didn’t
see a provision anywhere about creating an equal amount of new green space elsewhere. She stated
that community vitality is enhanced by purposeful and plentiful green spaces. Ms. Neal said the City
can’t pave over green spaces without creating new or equivalent green spaces. She asked the City
to look at repurposing hard surface locations to better fit the City’s fast approaching future needs.
Tam Lorenz, 311 S. Maple, Ames, mentioned that she was speaking on behalf of herself and maybe
some under-represented park users who do not live in the Oak to Riverside Area. She commented
that she voted for the Healthy Life Center and didn’t object to the placement of the Indoor Aquatic
Center on the IDOT site; however, the latest maneuver to stretch the Urban Renewal Zone farther
south in the City and the possibility of destroying O’Neil Park brought Ms. Lorenz in to speak. She
said that O’Neal Park does not serve just the Oak-Riverside neighborhood, but other surrounding
neighborhoods as well. She commented that the proposal to replace O’Neil Park with an aquatic
center shines a bright light on two City-wide issues and values that are at risk. The first is the
inclusion of low-income citizens and the benefits of living in Ames. The second is the reduction of
the Ames carbon footprint through carbon sequestration. Ms. Lorenz said that covering acres of no-
fee for use of green space with two acres of concrete brings into question the City’s dedication to the
civic value of increased carbon sequestration. She mentioned that even if the City builds a carbon
neutral building it can’t replace the current natural carbon and water absorption natural space. Ms.
Lorenz recommended keeping the IDOT site or the site north of Target. She asked the Council to not
consider O’Neil Park as an appropriate spot for the Indoor Aquatic Center.
Merlin Pfannkuch, 1424 Kellogg Avenue, Ames, questioned why the indoor track could be built at
O’Neil Park and not at the IDOT site. He said he was baffled by the Council’s approach to the Indoor
Aquatic Center. Mr. Pfannkuch wanted to know why the City would want to anger an entire
neighborhood by suggesting O’Neil Park as a site, 18 months after identifying the IDOT site. He
asked why other sites weren’t looked at during the past 18 months. Mr. Pfannkuch commented that
the Council Action Form says that “time is of the essence” so a decision must be made quickly. He
wanted to know if it was about saving citizens maybe $2 million dollars. Surely, the City would have
known there was some contamination given the location. He said he can’t defend the IDOT appraisal
nor can he attack it as he doesn’t know how the $2.9 million was arrived at. Mr. Pfannkuch wanted
to know why the Council was worried about spending $2 million for the IDOT site since they already
approved a General Obligation (GO) bond to pay for it. He mentioned that, just this spring, the
Council gave the owners of the properties at 2105 and 2421 Dayton Avenue a tax break of $2.6
million to install infrastructure for a small lot industrial development. Mr. Pfannkuch noted that there
never was a formal review as to why the Healthy Life Center failed and no pertinent questions have
9
been asked in the Residential Satisfaction Survey. He believed one word summarized the City’s
approach to having and Indoor Aquatic Center and that is “bumbling.” He asked the Council to not
take away O’Neil Park.
Richard Deyo, 505-8th Street, #2, Ames, stated that some items should be deferred until
conversations are had with the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Debbie Lee, 214 S. Maple Avenue, Ames, said that for many years she had encouraged her neighbors
to engage with city government. She has worked to provide neutral background information to
encourage participation in City meetings, and put a face on government by asking Electric
representatives and City staff to join their neighborhood picnic. She explained that the pursuit of
return of tax dollars through a state program has resulted in the discovery that one state agency,
IDOT, ironically an Oak-Riverside neighbor, responded with a bureaucratic wall for a project that
is for community good. Ms. Lee stated that a state program seemingly devoted to revitalizing
community areas could result in the elimination of a City park in an established residential area. She
recognized that the Council has worked on the Reinvestment District for a long time, but to the
community it has happened really fast. Many in the neighborhood are still in shock as they thought
the park was protected by the O’Neil Family Agreement when the land was donated to the City. Ms.
Lee commented that right now, the governmental process felt more like a tsunami wave than a
participatory process. She recognized that everyone has a goal for providing an Indoor Aquatic
Center for the community. However, if the O’Neil Park site had been considered during the normal
search and review process, then she would believe that she would begrudgingly accept, but that is
not what happened. She said the O’Neil site is only on the table only to meet the constraints of the
Reinvestment District Program. Ms. Lee commented that she was heartbroken that the path to an
Indoor Aquatic Center had taken this turn. Infill should be about repurposing developed sites and
not about paving over the green spaces that remain. She urged the Council to take a step back and
look at other ways to improve the community.
Ellyn Grimm, 217 S. Hazel Avenue, Ames, said she has lived in the neighborhood for about 12 years
ago and she has spent a lot of time with her children in O’Neil Park. She wanted to echo everything
that has been said tonight. She commented that it feels like the response was easy and convenient
to a difficult situation. She challenged the Council to not take the easiest and most convenient way
and consider the implications and the cost. Ms. Grimm explained that she attended the zoom meeting
and it came apparent to her that she has awesome neighbors and she met the majority of them at
O’Neil Park. She stated when her nine-year old son found the notice on their door he came to her
crying as he didn’t want to lose the park. Ms. Grimm said that the neighborhood is not wealthy or
centrally located and she felt that they often get overlooked. She had a hard time believing that if
O’Neil Park was located in a wealthier neighborhood, they would not be having this conversation.
She felt there were some inequities that were coming up during the discussions. She encouraged the
Council to take their time in making a decision.
Jackie DeLay, 129 S. Russell Avenue, Ames, stated she is from the O’Neil neighborhood. She
commented that when she first heard about the Indoor Aquatic Center being at the IDOT location
10
she was thrilled. Suddenly, they were hearing that the IDOT site was no longer going to happen and
that it would be O’Neil Park instead. The feeling changed from being thrilled to disappointed as
something is going to be taken away from the neighborhood. Ms. DeLay didn’t think the City should
take away green spaces. She felt the original site was being dismissed too quickly, but something
needs to be done to make the site appropriate. She urged the Council to not give up on the site so
quickly.
Bambi Yost, 212 S Hazel, Ames, stated that O’Neil Park is not somewhere she frequents; however,
she would like to propose another location. She suggested that the Depot site be utilized as it is
currently being underutilized. She stated the site would be a mixed-use as the site has synergy,
parking, and it fits within the Reinvestment District. It wouldn’t compete with new development in
the area either. Ms. Yost also recommended going back to the IDOT site as the site needs to be
remediated regardless of who owns the property.
The Mayor closed public input when no one else came forward to speak.
Mayor Haila said that he wanted staff to answer the question from Mr. Pfannkuch regarding the
indoor walking track. Director Abraham explained it was a matter of finances as to why they would
be able to possibly construct the indoor walking track at the O’Neil Park location versus the IDOT
site. He stated with the estimates they have from the IDOT site there would not be enough funds to
build it; however, at the O’Neil Park site since the City wouldn’t have to purchase the land, it will
give the City extra funding to build the indoor walking track.
It was noted by the Mayor that the Council had received a lot of emails and his recommendation was
to take everything under advisement for now. He asked for confirmation on how the public will
know when a decision will be made. Director Abraham noted that there are multiple ways for the
City to announce information. The City can advertise on the City’s Facebook pages, City website,
and an email blast. Staff will send out information this weekend from the last two Council meetings,
provide links to the information, and let everyone know that this topic will come back on August 9,
2022. If anyone wanted to get more information, they can email Director Abraham at
keith.abraham@cityofames.org and he will add them to the list.
Council Member Betcher asked that given the City’s concern regarding the IDOT site, is there any
reason to believe that the City could not successfully remediate the contamination. Director Abraham
stated a number of things that could be done. He noted that there is no way to ever get rid of all the
contamination as the source is still there, and there is no guarantee that everything can be remediated.
He stated that the City can probably minimize the contamination.
Council Member Gartin wanted to address a couple comments that were made with respect to the
process that staff and Council went through. He appreciated the fact that the process seemed “fast”
for the neighborhood, but that does not mean that staff had short-changed the due diligence process.
He said to characterize the staff as “bumbling” or “rushed” could not be further from the truth. Mr.
Gartin commented how he was proud of the staff with the way they have handled all the “curveballs”
11
that were handed to them.
The Mayor referred anyone to the last the City Council Meeting to review the Staff Report for Item
25 regarding information on the IDOTs site contamination, as this is an important decision. He asked
that everyone respect staff as they are working really hard.
Mayor Haila recessed at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened at 8:21 p.m.
STAFF REPORT ON NON-COMPLIANT FRONT-YARD PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS:
Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann said that an enforcement action brought this item
forward. He noted that the basic background was that the City has had front yard parking and paving
standards for almost 40 years. The standards address issues of illegal parking and paving of areas in
front yards, often an issue in areas with high levels of single-family home rental conversions. It
should be noted that a major force for these front yard parking changes was influenced by residents
in neighborhoods where there was an increasing number of conversions from owner-occupied units
to rental units. Because their conversions lacked sufficient off-street parking, cars in the rental units
would park in the front yards on grass, making ruts in the front yard, and thereby disturbing the
character of the neighborhood. Director Diekmann explained that the City relies upon the front yard
parking terminology for parking enforcement of the act of parking a car as well as design standards
in the Zoning Code for where paving can be placed. The City’s zoning standards require two paved
off-street parking spaces for every single-family and two-family dwelling unit. Parking can be
provided either covered or uncovered, but it must be located on a driveway in front of a garage or
on a driveway that leads to a parking space in the side or rear yard.
Staff conducted an in-depth review of single-family residential parking areas throughout Ames to
identify those that are non-conforming compared to the current Zoning Code standards. Additionally,
staff reviewed changes to the Zoning standards for parking in previous years to help determine if
some of the driveways that do not conform to the present Zoning standards would have complied
at the time they were constructed or modified. Through the in-depth review, staff has identified six
process improvements that could be made. The first improvement would be to the application
process. Staff has revised the application to become both an “Access and Driveway Paving Permit,”
so that includes the curb cut and/or the on-site expanse of paving. The new comprehensive permit
requires a review by the Traffic Engineer, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Planning Division. It
was also suggested that the $50 curb cut fee be increased to $100 to cover the cost of inspection as
well as the curb cut. The second process improvement was to make Code changes to clarify driveway
standards. Staff identified at least 450 non-conforming existing front yard paving and driveway. Staff
categorized the driveways into five categories which are: 1) Flared side parking areas; 2) Flared side
parking - no side yard; 3) Parking in front of the house; 4) Flared side parking - corner lot; and, 5)
Looped or Double Driveways.
Non-Conformity Type 1: “Flared Side Parking Areas:” These are parking surfaces that have been
added to an existing, otherwise compliant, driveway. The surface does not lead to a parking surface
behind the front yard and therefore are non-compliant. Type 1 non-conformities have adequate room
12
to expand behind the front yard but have not done so. Staff is recommending adopted a Text
Amendment that would allow Type 1 non-conforming parking areas to legally exist. This would
make the 253 non-conforming parking areas compliant and would allow for this type of parking area
to be added to other residential properties.
Council Member Betcher asked about discussions that were had regarding discouraging car
ownership and discouraging the paving of permeable surfaces. These changes seemed to go against
the Climate Action Goals by encouraging paving. Director Diekmann noted that the discussion
regarding discouraging car ownership did not come up. He stated that less paving would be expected
and would save some parking due to the current standards.
Non-Conformity Type 2: “Flared Side Yard Parking - No Side Yard:” Type 2 non-conformities are
similar to Type 1 non-conformities, where a parking space has been added to the side of an existing
driveway in the front yard. However, the difference with this non-conformity is the lack of enough
space to provide a compliant parking space beyond the front yard. Staff’s review showed that there
were approximately 56 properties that have additional paving adjacent to the driveway that does not
lead beyond the front yard due to insufficient room. Staff recommended adopting a Text Amendment
that would allow properties with insufficient room for an additional parking area beyond the front
of the house to pave additional parking area when sited towards the adjacent side property line.
Non-Conformity Type 3: “Parking in Front of House:” Type 3 are parking areas that extend towards
the center of the house (some extend fully to the structure and some end in the front yard) rather than
towards a garage, side yard, or areas that provide an additional parking space situated perpendicular
to the existing driveway. Some of the spaces are adjacent to existing driveways and some serve as
the only driveway or off-street parking. Staff found approximately 51 properties that fit into the Type
3 category. It is staff’s recommendation to adopt a Text Amendment that would allow existing areas
to remain and to allow for parking areas to be added adjacent to the driveway as long as the
maximum driveway width does not exceed 20 feet. This Text Amendment would allow properties
to have at least two off-street parking spaces regardless of the number of garages or distance between
the driveway and adjacent property line. New construction would still need to comply with
requirements for required parking to be located outside of the front yard.
Council Member Gartin wanted to know if there were many properties that had Type 3 parking.
Director Diekmann noted that there are not many properties that have this configuration. He noted
that the properties where Type 3 will be seen is on a single-car garage that has the standard setback
of five-feet setback. Mr. Gartin asked what area of town some of these houses may be located in.
Director Diekmann noted there were a few along Duff Avenue. He also wanted to be clear that for
locations that have a detached garage that is in the rear of the yard, this parking standard would not
apply. Mr. Gartin asked how many locations did not have a curb cut already. Building Inspector Sara
VanMeeteren indicated that there were very few houses that don’t already have a curb cut. She noted
there may be alley access but not a curb cut. A good question for the Council would be if a
household had alley parking would the Council allow for a front driveway curb-cut for the sole
purpose of putting a paved parking space in front of a house that doesn’t lead to anything.
13
Non-Conformity Type 4: “Flared Side Parking - Corner Lot:” Type 4 category is for properties that
are corner lots. The Municipal Code treats corner lots as having two front yards and one side yard,
as opposed to a typical lot that has a single front yard and two side yards. There are approximately
56 corner lots that have non-compliant parking categorized as Type 4. There are many different
considerations involved in drafting a text amendment to allow parking on corner lots. Staff believes
that allowing for paving in a street side adjacent to a sidewalk is an undesirable environment for
pedestrians and the aesthetic of the streetscape. Therefore, staff recommends setting a date by which
all Type 4 non-conformities in existence may continue and require all new parking installed after that
date to comply with the current Code, with no changes. This would allow the 56 non-conforming
parking areas to remain as-is but would prohibit new Type 4 parking areas from being installed in
the future.
Council Member Betcher questioned what the Code said before it got changed in 2000 about where
parking was permitted on a defined side. Director Diekmann stated that the owner of a corner lot got
to pick their front yard and the other side would become a street side-yard.
Non-Conformity Type 5: “Looped or Double Driveways:” Type 5 non-conformities are parking areas
that loop in front of the house and/or have two curb cuts. Some of the driveway areas lead to
approved parking and some do not. Driveway loops that do not lead to approved parking beyond the
front yard cannot be used for parking under the current Code. Staff found 38 properties that can be
categorized as non-conforming. Staff understands the desire for two curb cuts, but finds it necessary
to establish parameters to avoid the entire front yard from being paved. Staff recommends adopting
a Text Amendment that would allow two curb cuts on lots that have at least 150 feet of frontage as
long as the curb cuts can be located at least 75 feet apart. This Text Amendment would allow the 38
non-compliant parking areas to remain and would allow the same type of parking areas to be
installed moving forward. With this frontage standard it is likely only a corner lot could qualify for
a looped driveway.
Council Member Gartin asked if the recommendations were approved, would there be a time where
someone might ask for a Variance, especially on properties that are difficult to turn around on and
residents have to back up onto a busy street. Director Diekmann said that on certain high speed
streets the Code does specify to allow for an exemption to put in a turnaround. He noted there are
very few streets that allow this.
Council Member Gartin inquired as to how other peer communities are handling front-yard parking
and driveways. Director Diekmann said that other cities have made certain allowances. Mr. Gartin
asked if any contractors have been notified about the recommended changes. Ms. VanMeeteren
commented that the permitting process will be different for the contractors and will be a learning
curve.
Council Member Betcher asked if there have been any complaints from neighbors of non-conforming
driveways. Ms. VanMeeteren said there have not.
14
City Manager Steve Schainker stated that staff needs to get a recommendation on the houses that
have an alley and are requesting a curb cut. Director Diekmann mentioned that it was linked to Type
3. The question was for an allowance of up to 20 feet of parking in a front yard of a home that
already has compliant rear-yard parking.
Council Member Gartin stated that if a property already has access, he would feel less likely to add
additional parking. He said a lot of the time those garages in the back are small.
Council Member Betcher stated she is normally opposed to paving more over grass, and if people
already have parking accessible from the alley, she did not think the Council should be encouraging
paving anything in front of the house.
Council Member Junck asked how much time would be added to the process to do an inspection
since this was not previously done. Ms. VanMeeteren commented that staff will consider this type
of inspection as a footing/foundation inspection and it is a two-hour notice. The hope is to go out
when the area is framed before the cement is poured. Ms. Junck asked if the inspections would cause
more time for staff. Ms. VanMeeteren said that she anticipated it would only take an additional 30
minutes for the inspector.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to approve Items 1-6 as presented by staff in the Staff Report
which state:
1.Adopt a Text Amendment to codify the permit and inspection and establish a $100 fee
to cover the costs of the process.
2.Adopt a Text Amendment that would allow Type 1 non-conforming parking areas to
legally exist and allow for paving sited towards the adjacent side lot line. This would
make the 253 non-conforming parking areas compliant and would allow for this type of
parking area to be added to other properties.
3.Adopt a Text Amendment for Type 2 non-conforming parking areas that would allow all
properties with insufficient room for an additional parking area beyond the front of the
house to pave additional parking area when sited towards the adjacent side lot line. This
would make the 56 properties compliant and allow for this type of parking area to be
added to other properties.
4.For Type 3 situations, allow for all existing properties with front yard parking to be
allowed and adopt a Text Amendment that would allow front yard parking for all
properties when added adjacent to an existing driveway and the total width does not
exceed 20 feet. This Text Amendment would make 51 properties compliant and allow
properties to have at least two off-street parking spaces regardless of the number of
garages or distance between the driveway and adjacent property line. New construction
would follow current requirements.
5.Set a date by which all Type 4 non-conformities in existence may continue and require
all new parking installed after that date to comply with the current Code. This would
allow the 56 non-conforming parking areas to remain as-is but would prohibit new Type
4 parking areas from being installed in the future.
15
6.Set a date by which all Type 5 non-compliant double or looped driveway parking areas
to remain and adopt a Text Amendment that creates new limitations on multiple
driveways by limiting two curb cuts to lots that have at least 150 feet of frontage so long
as the curb cut can also be located at least 75 feet apart.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to direct staff to not allow for an exception of a Type 3 non-
conformity, if there is already a compliant required parking in the rear yard.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Junck, seconded by Betcher, to not allow any looped driveways that do not lead to any
parking.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO SOLICIT FOR A PARTNER
DEVELOPER IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-INCOME
HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC) UNITS IN THE BAKER SUBDIVISION: Housing
Coordinator Vanessa Baker-Latimer stated that on December 22, 2020, as part of the City Council
goal to create more affordable housing for both owner-occupied and rental households, the City
Council entered into a Partnership Agreement with Prairie Fire Corporation and Builder’s
Development Corporation to submit a 9% LIHTC application to the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA)
for 36 multi-family housing units in the Baker Subdivision (321 State Avenue). In late September
2021, staff learned that the City’s 9% LIHTC application was not funded due to the large group of
disaster set-aside projects that absorbed most of the funding allocation. However, staff was informed
by the developer that 4% LIHTC funding was available, and that the Governor’s priority was to
allocate an additional $100 million to affordable housing that the State was eligible to receive
through the US Treasury. Unfortunately, the final US Treasury guidelines did not permit for the State
to use the funds as they hoped. In December 2021, it became apparent that the Agreement among
the City, Prairie Fire Corporation, and Builder’s Development Corporation that was predicated on
a 9% LIHTC award was no longer valid.
At the April 12, 2022 meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed with utilizing $1.8 million
of the City’s HOME allocations and update the Developer’s Agreement with Prairie Fire and
Builders Developers Group to submit an application to IFA for a 4% Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit to develop a minimum of 30 units in the Baker Subdivision. However, in June 2022, staff was
notified by Prairie Fire that they intended to introduce a new partner from Minnesota into the project,
and it was explained that the new company would bring property management and construction
management experience to the project. Staff was also informed that the new partner “Titan” would
take over as the major developer and guarantor role, and that Prairie Fire and Builder’s Development
Group would take on a reduced co-developer role. In accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy,
staff believes that this change in partnership/ownership would require the City to resolicit proposals
for the project.
16
Staff prepared an updated Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit for a new partner developer to pursue
a 4% LIHTC application utilizing the $1.8 million incentive from the available City’s HOME
allocations. Staff believed that pursuing the 4% credits, rather than the 9% credits, is the better
option to assure that the units are developed faster because it is a non-competitive process. Ms.
Baker-Latimer explained that there will be a requirement that a minimum of 10% of the units be set
aside for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher participants. She explained that under Section 4:
“Developer Minimum Responsibilities/Requirements” a Developer’s Agreement will be entered into
to prepare the 4% LIHTC application, that includes the terms for the developer’s construction and
operation of the project, the City’s participation in the project, transfer of land for the development
of the project, and anticipated start date of the construction. Also, the Agreement shall be completed
with the City of Ames within 45 days from the date of acceptance of the proposal by the City
Council. The application shall be submitted to the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) on or about 60 days
after a Developer’s Agreement has been signed. Under Section 6: “Competitive Requirements and
Scoring” Ms. Baker-Latimer said that additional points will be given based on the percentage of
affordable housing units for either Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher participants or households
with income at 50% or less of the Ames Metropolitan Statistical Area Income Limits beyond the
required 10% for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher participants.
Ms. Baker-Latimer mentioned that the revisions to the RFP were reviewed by Legal, Purchasing,
Public Works, Electric, and Planning and Housing. Staff also met with the Old College Creek
Neighborhood Association and they supported the City with having to develop a new RFP.
Ms. Baker-Latimer reviwed the timeline of the project and it was the hope that this item would be
brought back to the City Council on October 25,2022.
Council Member Rollins asked if there was an opportunity under Section 6 of the RFP to add
additional scoring related to the Climate Action Plan (reflective surfaces, lighting). Ms. Baker-
Latimer commented that they could add an additional section for bonus points if the developer adds
solar, energy efficient windows. She could meet with the RFP team to find out what extra points
could be added.
Council Member Gartin stated that as more requirements are added, there will be more tradeoffs. He
has been advocating for more units and he is afraid the tradeoff would cause the City to serve fewer
people. Mr. Gartin wanted to know with the requirement for Section 8 housing, will there be some
developers that won’t want to apply due to the requirement. Ms. Baker-Latimer explained that when
she looked at some of the applications that were previously funded those applications were for even
lower homeless housing. Also, the developers are familiar with Section 8 and besides the vouchers
it comes with funding.
The Mayor asked if a developer wanted to go for the 9% will that developer still be considered, or
would it be for the 4% only. Ms. Baker-Latimer stated she doesn’t believe that they can add a mixed
development.
17
Mayor Haila opened public comment.
Stephen Bond, 2555 Eisenhower Avenue, Ames, said he wanted to lend his support for low-income
housing. He understands there was a hiccup concerning the project at the old middle school grounds
and he is sure staff is taking care of everything. Mr. Bond said the more people that can be helped
the better. He would prefer a higher density, but knows the City will do its best job.
Tara Brown, 225 S. Kellogg Avenue, Ames, said she is the Director of Shelter Services for The
Bridge Home. She explained that The Bridge Home is a non-profit organization that has served the
Ames area since 1985. The Bridge Home aims to stop the cycle of homelessness that many in the
community are struggling to get out of. However, it is not an easy task to take on when there is no
affordable housing for their clients to utilize. Ms. Brown stated she was present to push for the
development of the Baker Subdivision. Specifically, she wanted to express its support for a more
high-density affordable housing development that includes units that could be used for supportive
housing. Ms. Brown commented that now is the time to take a step back and re-evaluate the project
and strongly recommended that the Council considers increasing the number of units that are
available for the City to a minimum of 100 units. She said that last year The Bridge Home had over
100 clients on their waiting list for supportive housing. Supportive Housing, as defined by HUD, “as
permanent housing in which housing assistance and supportive services are provided to assist
households with at least one member who is chronically homeless with a disability in order to
achieve housing stability.” The Bridge Home has successfully operated its Supportive Housing
Program for over a year. Ms. Brown said that The Bridge Home wants to partner with the Baker
Subdivision. She asked everyone to take a stand and declare “enough is enough” and to no longer
allow a single individual in Ames to go to sleep in the street.
Lauris Olson, 1705 Buchanan Drive, Ames, stated she was present on behalf of Home Allies. She
commented that she did not have a preference for the number of units as The Bridge Home would
know more of that information. Ms. Olson believed that the 4% LIHTC option is the best way to go.
She had a couple recommendations for the RFP. Ms. Olson asked, for the pre-screening, if the group
that does the pre-screening also includes one or two committee members for diversity, input, and a
different perspective. She felt there needed to be a balance between the expertise and a newer group
to give a different perspective. Ms. Olson advocated to have the evaluation committees include a
developer and someone who works with low-income people. She asked when looking at the final
RFP to set some caps. Ms. Olson asked the Council to offer more affordable units.
The Mayor closed public input when no one else came forward to speak.
Council Member Gartin asked what the pre-screening group was that Ms. Olson referred to. Ms.
Vanessa Baker-Latimer noted that the internal staff makes sure that all the requirements are met, but
a lot of the input came from the neighborhood and the community. She stated the RFP is a public
document and welcomed any feedback.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-415 approving a Request
18
for Proposals (RFP) to solicit for a Partner Developer in connection with the development of Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Units in the Baker Subdivision.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO REDUCE MEDICAL
PARKING RATES FOR BUILDINGS LESS THAN 50,000 SQUARE FEET AND UPDATE
MEDICAL OFFICE DEFINITIONS: City Planner Justin Moore said that two options were being
recommended. The first option was to lower the standard for buildings under 50,000 square feet in
all areas of the City to four spaces per 1,000 except for the Hospital Medical Area and the
Downtown Gateway Commercial district. Those two exclusions would have a parking rate of five
spaces per 1,000 square feet. The second option was to reduce all medical service parking to four
spaces per 1,000 square feet for all buildings under 50,000 square feet in all zones across the City.
Mayor Haila opened public input.
Linda Feldman, 1111 Stafford Avenue, Ames, stated she wanted to get clarification as to why
parking is being reduced for the main central area for Hospital/Medical. She said that in 2011,
McFarland Clinic received approval to have a building built on Carroll Avenue, and this caused the
loss of homes and parking. Ms. Feldman mentioned it was awful between the neighborhood and the
Hospital/Medical. It was agreed upon to have a roundtable discussion and they worked on
developing a committee of five neighborhoods that surround the area to meet on a regular basis to
try and work out some “vision” that everyone could agree on. She commented that the committee
had not met since March 2020, due to the pandemic. One of the agreements that came out of the
discussions was that anything that would affect their neighborhood again would trigger the
Hospital/Medical personnel to contact the committee to have a meeting. She was surprised to see a
Zoning Text Amendment change request and this had not been discussed with the Committee yet.
Ms. Feldman said she would not be in favor of lowering the parking any more than what it already
is. She explained that she would be supportive of what is being requested out on Dayton Avenue,
but does not support any changes to the parking requirements in the Hospital/Medical Zone in the
central area. She stated that the streets are already full of vehicles parking on the street.
The Mayor wanted to clarify that Ms. Feldman was against reducing the parking at the Hospital and
the main McFarland clinic along 13th Street, but not in other areas of the community. Ms. Feldman
noted that was correct.
The public hearing was closed when no one else came forward to speak.
The Mayor asked Director Diekmann to explain why the parking is being reduced. Director
Diekmann explained that the City Council had referred a letter to staff from Mary Greeley Medical
Center (MGMC) regarding a requested change in the required parking for Medical Office uses.
MGMC wanted the parking rates to change for a new surgery center that they want to build on
Dayton Avenue. The Mayor stated that the Hospital did not initiate the request, but something that
19
the City Council was doing to try to reduce some of the dependency on vehicles and not have as
much paving. He said he doesn’t believe the Hospital or McFarland clinic broke faith. Mayor Haila
stated that if the standard gets reduced from seven spaces per 1,000 square feet to five spaces, could
the main McFarland building build more without increasing parking. Director Diekmann indicated
that the main McFarland clinic is five spaces per 1,000 as the clinic is already over 50,000 square
feet.
Council Member Betcher commented that she was under the impression that the “Ring of
Neighborhoods” were already contacted.
Council Member Rollins asked if the request tonight was time sensitive at all. Director Diekmann
stated it is not tonight, but it will be within the next six weeks. Mr. Schainker asked if the Council
could amend the proposed ordinance by allowing the change to be made for the area outside of the
Hospital Medical and Downtown Gateway Commercial district and strike the rest of it until a
decision could be made. City Attorney Mark Lambert said that all it would take would be a motion
to approve what Mr. Schainker had mentioned and then approve the ordinance on first reading as
amended. The amended ordinance would come back for the second and third readings.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to approve Option 1a and 1c in the staff report which are:
1a: Reduce medical parking to four spaces per 1,000 square feet for areas outside of the
Hospital Medical Area and Downtown Gateway Commercial district.
1c: Revise the definitions to replace the term “clinic” with Medical Service Facility.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to approve on first reading the ordinance as amended.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to have the City Manager meet with the “Ring of
Neighborhoods” in the Hospital Medical Zone to re-establish contact and to address neighborhood
concerns.
Vote on Motion 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
AUTHORIZING THE IMMEDIATE TOWING OF VEHICLES ON SATURDAY, AUGUST
20, 2022, FROM MIDNIGHT TO 11:50 P.M. IN THE DESIGNATED AREA OF BEACH
AVENUE WEST TO STATE AVENUE AND LINCOLN WAY SOUTH TO MORTENSEN
AVENUE FOR CERTAIN ILLEGAL PARKING VIOLATIONS: Police Chief Geoff Huff said
that on July 12, 2022, the City Council approved an ordinance to allow for the immediate towing of
vehicles parked illegally when authorized by a City Council Resolution (Section 18.34 of the
Municipal Code). The resolution that authorizes such towing must designate certain types of illegal
parking subject to tow, along with specific dates, times, and geographic area subject to immediate
towing. Chief Huff stated that staff is requesting a resolution authorizing the use of the immediate
Towing Ordinance for certain areas and times on Saturday, August 20, 2022, from midnight to 11:59
p.m. in the following geographic areas: 1) Lincoln Way between Beach Avenue and State Street; 2)
20
State Street between Lincoln Way and Mortensen Avenue; 3) Mortensen Avenue between State
Street and Beach Avenue; and 4) Beach Avenue between Mortensen Avenue and Lincoln Way. He
further explained that the authorization to tow illegally parked vehicles for the following violations:
1) Alternate side parking violations; 2) No parking on one side of the street violations; 3) Yellow
line violations; and, 4) Fire Hydrant violations. It was noted that staff does not intend to tow for
overtime parking violations, absent a public safety risk. Chief Huff explained the different ways that
the public will be notified and educated about the change.
Council Member Betcher stated on the list of violations that there is nothing about blocking
sidewalks with vehicles and wanted to know if that was a safety concern. Chief Huff stated it is not,
it is more of an inconvenience for the mobility impaired, but it has not been an issue for this event.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-416 authorizing the
immediate towing of vehicles on Saturday, August 20, 2022, from midnight to 11:59 p.m. in the
designated area of Beach Avenue west to State Avenue and Lincoln Way south to Mortensen Avenue
for certain illegal parking violations.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1699 APPLE PLACE: Director
Diekmann stated he was present if there were any questions.
Mayor opened public hearing and closed it when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 417 approving the Major Site
Development Plan for 1699 Apple Place in the Old Orchard Mobile Home park.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON REZONING, WITH MASTER PLAN, 798-500TH STREET FROM “A”
(AGRICULTURAL) TO “FS-RL” (FLOATING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY): Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Gartin, to continue the hearing on the Rezoning, with
Master Plan, of 798-500th Street from “A” (Agricultural) to “FS-RL” (Floating Suburban Residential
Low Density) until August 9, 2022.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON WATER TREATMENT PLANT FIVE-YEAR WELL REHABILITATION
CONTRACT: The Mayor opened the public hearing and closed it when no one came forward to
speak.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-418 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to The Northway Corporation of Marion, Iowa, in
the amount of $141,625.
21
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON STORY COUNTY EDGE OF FIELD PROJECT: The public hearing was
opened by Mayor Haila. It was closed when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-419 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Hands On Excavating, LLC, of Radcliffe, Iowa,
in the amount of $240,389.42.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON BOILER TUBE SPRAY COATING & RELATED SERVICES FOR POWER
PLANT: Mayor Haila opened the public hearing and closed it when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-420 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Integrated Global Services Inc., of Richmond,
Virginia, in an amount not to exceed $435,000.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON BOILER MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT FOR POWER PLANT:
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Haila. It was closed when no one came forward to speak.
Moved by Rollins, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-410 approving the final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to TEiC Construction Services, Inc., of Duncan,
South Carolina, in an amount not to exceed $325,000.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S PLANNING PROJECT REVIEW AND
NOTIFICATION PROCESS AND APPROVAL PROCESS RELATED TO CHAPTERS 20
AND 29 OF THE AMES MUNICIPAL CODE: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Gartin, to pass
on second reading an ordinance on the Proposed Amendment to the City’s Planning Project Review
and Notification Process and Approval Process related to Chapters 20 and 29 of the Ames Municipal
Code.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE INCREASING FINES FOR NUISANCE PARTIES ON CERTAIN
OCCASIONS: City Attorney Mark Lambert said this was passed on all three readings at the last
Council Meeting; however, there were not enough votes to suspend the rules. In order to suspend
the rules, it required at least five votes and the vote passed at only four votes. Essentially the second
and third votes were null and void.
22
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Rollins, to pass on second reading an ordinance increasing fines for
nuisance parties on certain occasions.
Vote on Motion: 4-1. Voting Aye: Betcher, Corrieri, Gartin, Rollins. Voting Nay: Junck. Motion
declared carried.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to suspend the rules necessary for the adoption of an
ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: 4-1. Voting Aye: Betcher, Corrieri, Gartin, Rollins. Voting Nay: Junck. Motion
failed.
DISPOSITIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL: The Mayor indicated that there
were six items to review. The first item was a memo from Chief of Police Geoff Huff that provided
recommendations from Policing in Ames.
City Manager Steve Schainker noted the memo from Chief Huff was an update only and no action
was required.
The second item was a letter from Charli Hanway, Ames Resident requesting the City Council to
consider creating a pollinator habitat at the Ames Solar Farm.
Municipal Engineer Tracy Peterson explained that Public Works has been working with the Electric
Department to plant pollinators at the Solar Farm.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Junck, to ask staff to respond to the letter from Charli Hanway letting
them know what the City is going to be doing.
The third item was an email from Sue Ravenscroft, Ames Resident, voicing her concerns regarding
the proposed alternate locations for the Indoor Aquatic Center.
This was already discussed earlier, and no action was taken.
The fourth item was an email from Lorna Carroll, Ames Resident request to have a “Lights Out
Ames” day to increase awareness of migratory birds and the implications of artificial nighttime
lighting.
Municipal Engineer Tracy Peterson mentioned that the City of Ames has achieved three years of bird
friendly certification. She explained there is a committee working on different action items and one
of them is for having a “Lights Out Ames” day.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Rollins, to ask staff to reply to Ms. Carroll letting her know that a
process is already in place and how the committee will be proceeding.
The fifth item was a memo from Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning and Housing providing an
23
update to a previous request from John Gade for the City to waive its platting authority within two
miles of the Ames City Limits in the Urban Fringe area.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Gartin, to place the memo from the Planning and Housing Director
Kelly Diekmann on a future Agenda.
Vote on Motion: 4-1. Voting Aye: Betcher, Gartin, Junck, Rollins. Voting Nay: Corrieri. Motion
declared carried
The last item was a memo from Damion Pregitzer, Traffic Engineer, providing information on the
process and cost to rename the Ames Municipal Airport.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Rollins, to place the memo from Mr. Pregitzer on a future Agenda
for discussion
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Corrieri, to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
___________________________________________________________________
Amy L. Colwell, Deputy City Clerk John A. Haila, Mayor
__________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk
24