Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Regular Meeting of the Ames Conference Board 01/27/2015 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL AMES, IOWA JANUARY 27, 2015 REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CONFERENCE BOARD The regular meeting of the Ames Conference Board was called to order by Chairman Ann Campbell at 6:30 p.m. on January 27, 2015. Present from the Ames City Council were Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Matthew Goodman, Chris Nelson, and Peter Orazem. Story County Board of Supervisors present were Wayne Clinton and Rick Sanders. Representing the Ames School Board were Jane Acker and Bill Talbot. Gilbert Community School District was represented by Tanya Austin. United School District was not represented. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2014, MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE BOARD: Moved by Sanders, seconded by Betcher, to approve the minutes of the February 25, 2014, Meeting of the Ames Conference Board. Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. ASSESSOR’S BUDGET PROPOSALS: Ames City Assessor Greg Lynch highlighted information from the City Assessor’s 2015/16 Annual Report. Mr. Lynch reported that the budget proposal is very similar to last year’s proposal; however, there are three major differences. Referencing Page 9 of the Proposal, Mr. Lynch noted the very large population growth in Ames that had occurred since 1996. According to Mr. Lynch, 1996 was the last time that his office had added any staff. The number of new projects that had been submitted to the Planning and Housing Department and the number of inspections done by the Inspections Division were reported. Those, in turn, have created a lot of work for the City Assessor’s Office. Due to those increases in workload, he is asking for a new half-time employee. The total cost for that half-time person would equate to $48,948. The second difference was the purchase of a new server at the cost of $28,700. The third difference is to earmark $17,000 annually (over the next two years) to begin planning for a Content Management system that is scaled to the needs of the City Assessor’s Office. Mr. Lynch shared good news that the taxable value increased by 4% from 2013 to 2014. Mr. Sanders advised that the Mini-Board had recommended a 3% increase in staff salaries. He said the Board based its recommendation on what it thought the City of Ames would be proposing for its employees. Mr. Sanders asked for more justification for the purchase of a new server. Matt Emerson, IT Administrator, for the City Assessor’s Office, stated that it is generally good business practice to replace servers that are four to five years old. He stated that the two older, less powerful systems would be replaced with a more powerful server. It would incur a substantial up-front replacement cost of $28,700, but will eliminate a need for ongoing support contracts of $700 annually. Regarding the proposed Document Management System, Mr. Emerson advised that the City Assessor’s Office needs to integrate its current software into any software that would be purchased and utilized for document management. Moved by Sanders, seconded by Orazem, to approve the recommendations of the Assessor’s report. Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Moved by Sanders, seconded by Corrieri, to receive the proposed budget (adoption of the budget will occur after the hearing is held). 2 Roll Call Vote: 3.0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Moved by Betcher, seconded by Sanders, to set 6:30 p.m. on February 24, 2015, as the date of public hearing on the proposed FY 2015/16 City Assessor’s budget. Roll Call Vote: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Orazem, seconded by Goodman, to adjourn the Ames Conference Board at 7:00 p.m. Vote on Motion: 3-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor Campbell at 7:02 p.m. on January 27, 2015, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Ames City Council were Gloria Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Tim Gartin, Matthew Goodman, Chris Nelson, and Peter Orazem. Ex officio Member Lissandra Villa was also present. Mayor Campbell announced that Item No. 23 ( pertaining to street right-of-way at 4316 Ontario Street) and Item No. 32 (Automated Utility Meter Reading Project) had been pulled by staff. In addition, Items No. 27 and 28 (City’s branding efforts and report on shopping carts abandonment) would be heard after Hearings. Staff had also requested that Item No. 25 (Final Plat for Chacaqua Subdivision pulled from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion. CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Betcher, seconded by Goodman, to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda: 1.Motion approving payment of claims 2.Motion approving minutes of Special Meetings of January 10, 2015 and January 20, 2015; and Regular Meeting of January 13, 2015 3.Motion approving certification of civil service applicants 4.Motion approving Report of Contract Change Orders for January 1-15, 2015 5.Motion approving renewal of the following Beer Permits, Wine Permits, and Liquor Licenses: a.Class C Liquor & Outdoor Service – West Towne Pub, 4518 Mortensen Road, Suite 101 b.Class C Liquor & Outdoor Service – Dublin Bay, 320 South 16 Streetth c.Special Class C Liquor & Outdoor Service – Black Market Pizza, 2610 Northridge Parkway 6.Motion approving new Class B Beer Permit & Outdoor Service - Torrent Brewing Co., LLC, 504 Burnett Avenue 7.Motion approving new Class C Liquor - Cyclone Liquors, 626 Lincoln Way 8.Motion approving 5-day (February 7-11) Class C Liquor License for Olde Main Brewing Company at the ISU Alumni Center, 420 Beach Avenue 9.Motion approving 5-day (February 6-10) Class C Liquor License for Olde Main Brewing Company at Workiva, 2900 University Boulevard 10 .R E S O L U T IO N N O . 15 -03 2 ap prov in g Q u arterly Inv estm ent R epo rt for period end ing D ecem ber 31, 20 14 1 1 .R E S O L U T IO N N O . 1 5 -03 3 settin g d ate o f p u b lic he arin g fo r F eb rua ry 1 0 , 2 0 1 5 , on v aca tin g S to rm W ater E asem ent at 30 1, 30 3, 30 5, and 32 1 S ou th 5 Streetth 1 2 .M o tio n setting F eb ru a ry 1 0 , 20 1 5 , as d a te o f p u b lic h e a rin g o n ad o p tio n o f 2 0 1 4 N a tio n al E lec tric C ode 1 3 .R E S O L U T IO N N O . 1 5 -0 3 5 ap p ro v in g p relim in ary p lan s a n d sp e c ific a tio n s fo r S a n d V o lle y b a ll Lights; s e tting Fe brua ry 2 5, 20 15, a s bid d ue date and M ar c h 3 , 20 15, as date of pu blic hear ing 1 4 .R E S O L U T IO N N O . 1 5 -0 3 6 a p p ro v in g p re lim in a ry p lan s an d sp e c ific a tio n s fo r 2 0 1 2 /1 3 C o n c rete Pa vem ent Im provem e nts #2 (Southeas t 5 Stre e t); se tting Fe bruar y 18, 20 15, as bid due date a ndth 3 Fe bruar y 2 4, 20 15, as date of pu blic hear ing 1 5 .R E S O L U T IO N N O . 15 -0 3 7 ap p ro v in g p re lim inary plan s a n d sp ecificatio n s fo r 2 0 1 4 /1 5 C o n c rete Pa ve m ent Im provem ents #2 (R idgew ood A venue, 9 St ree t, and Pa rk W ay); setting Fe bruary 18,th 2015 , as bid d ue date a nd Fe bruary 24, 2015, as date of public hearing 16.R E SO LU TI O N N O . 15-038 a w a rding contract to Truc k Country of Cedar Rapids, Iow a , in the am ou nt of $7 1,44 2 f or pu rchase of on e M ed iu m -D uty T ruck C hassis for use as D igg er D errick Tr uc k by Electric D is tribution 17.R E SO LU TI O N N O . 15 -039 a w a rding c ontract to Truc k Country o f Cedar Rapids , Iow a , in the am ou nt of $7 0,94 2 for pu rchase of on e M edium -D uty T r uck C hassis for use as A erial B uck et T ruck by El e c tric D istribution 18.R ESO LU TI O N N O . 15 -040 aw arding c ontract to Ir by Electr ic of Fort D odge, Iow a , in the am ount o f $6 8 ,5 5 2 (p lu s ap p licab le sales tax es) fo r P ad m o u n ted S w itch g ears 19 .R E S O L U T IO N N O . 15 -04 1 accepting com pletion o f W ater T reatm ent Plant T r ee R em ov al Project 20 .R E S O L U T IO N N O . 15 -04 2 accepting com pletion of F urnishing 15 kV O utdoo r M etalclad Sw itchgear and 69kV C ontr ol Pa ne ls for A m es Plant D is tribution Subs tation 2 1 .R E S O L U T IO N N O . 1 5 -0 4 3 ac c e p tin g co m p letio n cu rb an d g u tte r c o n stru ctio n an d pu b lic u tility a djustm ents required for Sunset Ri dge , 5 A dditionth 22.R ESO LU TI O N N O . 15-044 a c c e pting com pletion of sanita ry se w e r re locations re quire d for R inggenberg Pa rk, 4 A dditionth 23.R ESO LU TI O N N O . 15-045 approving Pla t of Survey for 23 0 South Duff A venue Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolutions/Motions declared adopted/approved unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. F I NAL P LAT F OR CHACAGUA BEND S UBDIVIS ION: Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann noted that the request was for approval of a rural subdivision. Also unique was the request for a reduction in the density of what is contemplated by the Urban Fringe Plan. Mr. Diekmann reported that what was being proposed was a three-lot subdivision; to meet minimum density, it would need to be a four-lot subdivision. Staff was supporting the waiver because the original parcel has a number of improvements on it, and to carve off a fourth parcel would be impossible to do without removing usable garages and accessory buildings. The normal Covenants for assessment, annexation, and rural water are in place. Moved by Nelson, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt R E S O L U T I O N N O . 1 5-04 6 app rov ing F inal P lat for Chac a gua Bend Subd ivision . Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. PUBLIC FORUM: No one came forward to speak, and Mayor Campbell closed Public Forum. 2015-2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP): Mayor Campbell invited members of the public to provide input on the 2015-2020 CIP. She specifically noted that the vote on the CIP would be taken at Budget Wrap-Up on February 10, 2015. No one came forward to provide public input. Referencing an e-mail that he had received from a citizen late today, Council Member Goodman asked staff to provide information on the history of the numbers. City Manager Schainker brought the Council’s attention to Page 94 of the CIP. Municipal Engineer Tracy Warner reported that there are several programs contained in the CIP related to multi-modal travel (pedestrian and shared-use paths). She explained that the locations being recommended come from feedback received during the City’s Long-Range Transportation Plan process. 4 Mr. Goodman noted the amounts that had been included in the five-year CIP for the Shared-Use Path System Expansion. In the first year (2015/16), there was $60,000 budgeted for engineering costs; however, years 2016/17 through 2019/20 showed amounts well in excess of $500,000/year. City Manager Schainker advised that it would be the future policy decision of the Council as to whether there were certain projects or expansions of bike paths the City should finance or how much in total dollars the Council wants to commit. Mr. Schainker also pointed out that the 2015/16 Budget will be approved prior to the Long-Range Transportation Plan being finalized; however, the CIP may be amended in future years. Priorities and funding may be changed next year. Council Member Goodman stated that he, personally, was not in favor of the Flood Mitigation - River Flooding project (Page 42 of the CIP). He stated that his concern was the large investment. The City’s portion of that investment is $1.8 million. Mr. Goodman said his issue was that this would be an investment in an area that will have a large impact for those on South Duff, both commercial and residential; however the conversations about flooding in that area had been ongoing for a long time. To him, this is bringing in the whole community to solve a problem that those who develop in that area are well aware of; development should occur there at the risk of those investors making the decision to do so. In the opinion of Council Member Goodman, the nature of the process of the flood mitigation studies came down to return on investment; however, he believed that those return-on-investment numbers gave areas that have high investment, e.g., South Duff, a very large edge in terms of the impact that could be made. When the discussions first started, Mr. Goodman said he thought it would be geared toward residential areas, e.g., Northridge, Meadow Lane. He noted that he was uncomfortable with this project. Mr. Goodman suggested that the project be delayed to allow the Council to learn more about it and the history of it. He suggested the following: (1) to see what the interest would be in cost-sharing on the project by those property owners who will benefit from the investment; (2) Council could benefit by knowing more about the bank stabilization, habitat restoration, additional recreational amenities, etc., although there is no funding for those items at this time; and (3) get a sense from the community as to what it felt about this project. Council Member Orazem pointed out that at least three public comment sessions had been held on this project. He noted that there have been developers who have invested in the flood-prone areas; however, there are also several apartment buildings that are impacted, affecting hundreds of citizens who live there. Mr. Orazem emphatically stated that he sees this issue as one of public safety. He views this project as a chance at lowering the possibility of flooding that area, and thus, lowering the probability of injuries or deaths from flooding. Mayor Campbell pointed out that Highway 69 is also affected and often has had to close during flooding events. Council Member Goodman indicated that he is mainly concerned about the costs. He reiterated that he is opposed to all citizens paying for benefits for a few. Mr. Goodman noted that there are those who refuse to take FEMA buy-outs and rebuild their businesses. The $5.8 million project primarily helps the investors who take the financial risk knowing full well what that risk is. Council Member Nelson asked if this project was coordinated with the Grand Avenue Extension project from the mitigation perspective. Ms. Warner answered that it is from the hydraulic standpoint. A consultant is doing the environmental analysis and also looking at the hydrology. Staff is looking at what level is the Grand Avenue bridge crossing Squaw Creek going to be protected. Ms. Warner noted that the Grand Avenue Extension project has been stagnant for quite some time. 5 Council Member Orazem commented that he believed the faster the water can be moved downstream away from Ames - and the fact that the conveyance of the water further downstream would be improved - would lower Ames’s potential for a 1-in-a-100-year flood level. Ms. Warner again stated that staff was attempting to coordinate this project with the Grand Avenue project relative to hydrology. The Grand Avenue bridge is going to be a large bridge, and staff needs to understand the impacts of the flood mitigation to determine how large. The bridge on Grand Avenue could be smaller if the flood mitigation improvements are made and the water level goes down. However, if the water level is higher, and it is desired that the new Grand Avenue bridge be open during a flood, that bridge would have to be a much larger structure or a series of box culverts or openings that would allow the water to pass would need to be installed. According to Ms. Warner, completing the engineering for this project would provide more accurate information about the construction estimates and also about the Grand Avenue Extension project. Applying for FEMA funding during Fall 2015 will also provide information as to the costs of the project; the design must be done so that the project is shovel-ready. Council Member Gartin asked if Mr. Goodman’s concern was more with the cost of the project or the merits of the proposal. Council Member Goodman replied that the cost was his primary concern. He reiterated that he believes the cost should be shared with those who will benefit. According to Mr. Goodman, after the cost/benefit analysis, which was the primary criteria used to evaluate the project, it was stated that nearly 100% of the benefits will be either commercial or rental housing residential, which is a commercial endeavor through a residential use. He acknowledged that there will be people impacted. His concern, in addition for the cost being borne by those who benefit - by those who were unwilling to take FEMA buy-outs in multiple floods - is the logic in stating it is to protect the people. Mr. Goodman commented that the people who have rental housing in the flood plain should then be asked to provide renter’s insurance for their residents. He also suggested that the City look at other places in the community where there might be an individual benefit. The study only focused on cost/benefit, which he felt skewed the results of the study. Mr. Goodman reiterated his concern that the financial benefits are based on financial benefits for a few. If the focus is on the human element, the City should be looking at the solutions differently. Council Member Orazem commented that the cost/benefit is specifically estimated because that is a requirement to qualify for FEMA funding, and the value of life is zero in those cost/benefit computations; it is entirely based on property. All the other costs borne by the community are not incorporated into that computation because they are more difficult to quantify. Mr. Orazem reiterated that this project gives the City a chance of lowering the peak flood by a foot or two, and if there are going to be even more large rain events in the future, that increases the need for the project. Council Member Goodman said that he was not arguing about the emotional and life impact of flooding. He asked if it is the taxpayers’ responsibility to protect the investments of those who consistently take the financial risk to develop in that area when that risk is so easily understood. Moved by Goodman, seconded by Betcher, to move the engineering and construction back one year in the CIP to give Council more time to look at the project. Council Member Gartin stated his belief that the City should move forward at least with the engineering piece. He did not see a downside with working through that, and he did not want to stall the work that is being done on that in light of the other projects. It was noted that the construction is not slated to begin until 2016/17. 6 Municipal Engineer Warner pointed out that if the engineering portion were to be done, it would give more insight as to the cost of this project and will determine the impact on the Grand Avenue bridge and how large it needs to be. Pursuing easements could be put off. An application for FEMA funding would be submitted during the Fall 2015. Council Member Goodman said he would be willing to push the easement acquisition to 2016/17 and construction to 2017/18. Council Member Corrieri suggested that the CIP be left as it is with Council having a discussion next year during the CIP and making its decision at that time. Motion withdrawn by Goodman. Council Member Nelson said that he would like to have a conversation about trying to shorten up the Grand Avenue Extension schedule; he would like it moved up a year (Page 93 of the CIP). Mr. Nelson noted that there is a South Duff problem now and it is only going to get worse over the next five years. City Manager Schainker advised that the City has to go through the first two steps. The construction would occur over the last three years. Mr. Schainker said that the staff needs to do further analysis on the types of funding available. During the next year’s CIP discussion, more information would be known as to how long the construction will take. Mr. Goodman expressed frustration that he had not heard, before tonight, that staff would be integrating the Flood Mitigation - River Flooding into the Grand Avenue Extension project. He stated that if there is something that would drop the project cost of another project, he would like to know that before the CIP hearing. He had many conversations with community residents about the Flood Mitigation project and had not mentioned that it would be integrated with the Grand Avenue Extension project. Ms. Warner stated that that is not guaranteed, and it is not known whether the Grand Avenue Extension project will come to fruition. RESIDENTIAL HIGH-DENSITY EVALUATION OF CITY-WIDE SITES: Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann summarized the discussion that had occurred at the Council workshop held on November 18, 2014. The workshop was held as a result of multiple requests for Council to consider rezoning of property or for LUPP amendments to designate land for high-density development (RH). Mr. Diekmann noted that the Draft RH evaluation tool had been reviewed by the Council at its meeting on January 13. Council had accepted the staff’s suggestion that minimum screening parameters be that sites should be at lease one acre in size and currently be within the city limits. A list of ten example sites that were identified through the screening effort was given by Director Diekmann. The Council received Mr. Diekmann’s suggestions for modifying the evaluation tool and explanations therefor. He advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission had reviewed the RH Evaluation Tool at its January 21, 2015, meeting. The comments of the Commission members were shared by Mr. Diekmann. Council Member Betcher asked if there were any clusters of assessed properties that could have a better effect if considered cumulatively. Mr. Diekmann answered that really the only ones would be some properties on West Lincoln Way. However, there are many factors, so he is somewhat hesitant about commenting on the potential of a cumulative impact. 7 Council Member Corrieri asked for more specifics on what is used by staff to rank the properties. Mr. Diekmann stated that bus access was a factor (the location of the bus stop). The CyRide schedule to the site was also crucial in determining the ranking. Also considered were proximity to parks and schools and commercial services. Another consideration was whether the elements could be pulled together to create a neighborhood of a sense of place. City Manager Schainker asked if the Council members felt that the Tool was beneficial to its decision-making, and if so, did they wanted to modify the tool. Mr. Schainker also asked Council to advise staff how they should apply the Tool. Council Member Orazem stated that he felt the Tool was useful for developers to have some certainty as to whether projects were feasible and for City Council members to make decisions on project and to use for revisions to the Land Use Policy Plan. Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to approve the RH Evaluation Tool to be included in the process of the review of development proposals. Council Member Goodman asked staff, when they begin to work on different projects, to come back to the City Council and give a sense of whether the development community would prefer to see the evaluation up-front. Council Member Gartin noted the significant increase in cost to CyRide due to isolated developments. Director Diekmann said that it amounts to the “chicken and the egg,” meaning that if a CyRide route was planned first, the City would encourage uses to support that route. However, if development occurs first, Transit then normally has to be expanded or created to service that area. Mr. Diekmann offered that it is not feasible for developers to be asked to fund CyRide routes. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. LAND USE POLICY PLAN (LUPP) AMENDMENTS FOR EASTGATE AND SOUTH DUFF AVENUE: Director Diekmann reviewed two requests for Land Use Policy Plan Amendments. Eastgate. Mr. Diekmann recalled that the Council had, on September 9, 2014, directed staff to prepare a memo providing information on Kurt Friedrich’s request for a LUPP Map amendment. Mr. Friedrich was requesting a change of approximately 12 acres of vacant land from Community Commercial Node to High-Density Residential. The subject area is located in the Eastgate Subdivision north of East 13 Street and west of Dayton Road. According to Director Diekmann,th on October 14, 2014, the Council had deferred consideration of the request until after a discussion had been held about the high-density housing interests of the City. At its January 13, 2015, meeting the Council reviewed information on the evaluation of high-density requests and indicated that the site was to be evaluated with the residential High-Density Evaluation Tool. According to Mr. Diekmann, the existing Community Commercial Node zoning allows for office, retail, lodging, and residential uses, but not for as many uses as allowed under Highway-Oriented Commercial. The apartment development sought by the developer is allowed within the FS Medium- Density Zone, the High-Density Residential Zone, and within Downtown and Campustown Service Center Zones as a mixed use. Land use issues were identified by Mr. Diekmann. He explained that staff had applied the RH Site Evaluation Tool and gave the results of the evaluation for each of the categories: Location/Surroundings, Site Features, Housing Type an Design, Transportation, Public Utilities and 8 Services, and Investment/Catalyst. It was noted that the Evaluation Tool did not evaluate the merits of keeping the current commercial land use designation. Director Diekmann provided options to the City Council: (1) If the Council believes that the site is suitable for commercial uses and it does not have an interest in allowing for a new residential use in the area in question, it should decline to approve the request. (2) If the Council believes there is potential interest in adding residential uses to the area, it must determine if the project requires a Major LUPP Amendment or a Minor LUPP Amendment. The difference between Major and Minor Amendments was explained. Council Member Orazem asked about the proximity to amenities since the site had been given a low rating. Director Diekmann explained that the site does not have sidewalks to access services. At the inquiry of Council Member Betcher regarding buffering, Mr. Diekmann explained that locating housing next to industrial uses can be a detriment to some business operations that might be concerned about nuisances and may require on-site buffering and separation of residential development to provide residents some sense of compatibility. Kurt Friedrich, Friedrich Realty, 100 Sixth Street, Ames, advised that the land is owned by First National Bank. According to Mr. Friedrich, there has been no development of the site for approximately 15 years. The property is zoned Community Commercial Node (CCN). He would like a portion of the site to be rezoned to High-Density Residential. According to Mr. Friedrich, there is a market demand for professional rental housing. There would be easy access to major employers. He has received no opposition to the proposed residential development, but has received many letters of support from adjacent businesses. Mr. Friedrich said that there is existing infrastructure to support a residential development for professional rental housing. At the inquiry of Council Member Corrieri, Mr. Friedrich indicated that the development would be comprised of one-, two-, and three-bedroom housing units (192) to be rented to professionals, families, and retired persons. Typically, they would have a clubhouse structure. His request is for ten acres of the site to be zoned RH. Mayor Campbell asked about the demand for persons to live next to industrial development. Mr. Friedrich indicated that there is really only one industrial use in the area. He believes that the area in question is conducive to mixed-use development and pointed out that, in the RH Zone, up to 5,000 square feet of commercial-type use is allowed to be located on the first floor with residential uses on top. Council Member Orazem pointed out the RH Evaluation Tool had been used on this request and had provided good information to the Council. He indicated his support of the request, stating that he felt it was a good compromise to bring in housing close to a lot of employers. He thinks that the area will continue to be attractive for this type of residential development. Mr. Orazem noted that, in touring Workiva, it was stated that 70% of its employees commute into Ames. Those professionals do not want to or are not ready to purchase a home, and the proposed development appears to be a good option for those type of people. Council Member Gartin added that, by the numerous letters of support, the neighbors near the site have indicated that they actually want this project. 9 Council Member Goodman stated that he had two concerns: loss of commercial land and the CyRide service issue. Council Member Orazem added that he did not believe the City should feel obligated to provide CyRide service to all areas of Ames. Council Member Goodman advised that the mission of CyRide is to provide service to all those who request it. He believes that the CyRide issue needs to be addressed in the context of the LUPP Map Amendment. Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Orazem, to direct staff to move the request through the Minor LUPP Amendment process. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. 3115 South Duff Avenue. On November 18, 2014, the City Council had acknowledged a request from Dickson Jensen to initiate a LUPP Map Amendment, but deferred action on the request. Mr. Jensen is requesting a change of approximately 15-50 acres of land from Highway-Oriented Commercial to High-Density Residential. The subject area is comprised of several properties with access along South Duff Avenue that extend as far back as 1,200 to 1,800 feet from South Duff Avenue. Council had directed, at its meeting on January 13, 2015, that the site be evaluated using the RH Evaluation tool. It was noted by Director Diekmann that the properties are zoned Highway-Oriented Commercial. The developer is requesting a designation for Residential High Density to develop the site with multi-family buildings. Issues that had been identified by staff related to development of the area were presented by Mr. Diekmann. The options available to the Council were to decline to initiate the request if it believed that the site was suitable for commercial uses and didn’t have an interest in allowing residential uses in the area or to initiate the process if it had a potential interest in adding residential use to the area. If the Council chose the latter option, Mr. Diekmann told the Council members that they would have to then determine if a Major or Minor Amendment would be needed. Council Member Gartin noted that the request was to change 15 to 50 acres of land. He pointed out that there is a big difference in whether the zoning for 15 acres were changed versus 50 acres. Director Diekmann advised that staff should consider the request as including the largest area, i.e., 50 acres; however, if the project size scales down to the low end, it may rate differently. Noting that staff has indicated that there are known drainage issues, Council Member Betcher asked about the storm water drainage. Municipal Engineer Tracy Warner referenced the results of the Teagarden Drainage Study and explained what projects are already planned for detention basins and storm water channeling in the area in question. Council Member Nelson questioned whether there are any existing noise-mitigation strategies related to residential developments near the Airport. Mr. Diekmann advised that he had some conversations about that with Transportation Engineer Damion Pregitzer. City Manager Schainker noted that the City had dealt with that before during airport discussions. Duane Jensen, 4795 Timber Creek Lane, Ames, noted that, since the first plan was presented to Planning staff in October 2014, the RH Evaluation Tool had been created. After applying the Tool and knowing the results of the evaluation, they have revised the plan. According to Mr. Jensen, the developers are proposing to build 700 units, which would accommodate up to 2,000 people, on approximately 57 acres. The development would consist of 10 Highway-Oriented Commercial or row houses, row houses, multi-family apartments, and attached garden homes. He described the plan for detention basins for storm water. A traffic study would be done to determine the impact of the development on South Duff. There would be a recreational trail system throughout the development that would attach to existing trails. The project would target professionals employed by the Iowa State University Research Park. Chuck Winkleblack, 105 S. 16 Street, Ames, urged the City Council to support changing the LUPPth for this area. He pointed out that the housing shortage is real, and there is a strong indication that many business are planning to or have expanded. Mr. Winkleblack noted that the proximity of this project to U. S. 69 was a huge factor. Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to direct staff to move forward with a Major LUPP Amendment for the property at 3115 S. Duff Avenue. Mr. Jensen indicated that the developers are requesting that the north portion off of Kitty Hawk (the multi-family residential) of the site be covered by a Minor Amendment and the remainder of the site be covered by a Major Amendment. Director Diekmann indicated that it would not be possible to have one portion covered by a Minor and another part covered by a Major Amendment unless it were broken into two projects. Director Diekmann indicated that this project would probably be inserted into the Planning and Housing Department work plan in March 2015. Council Member Gartin asked what the advantage would be to the City for a Minor versus a Major Amendment. Mr. Diekmann explained the outreach efforts that would be done on as part of a Major Amendment. There are several things that need to be looked at; studies will need to be done. Council Member Gartin asked if there would be a huge difference in time between a Minor and a Major Amendment process. Mr. Diekmann advised that a Major would take approximately a month and one-half longer than a Minor. City Manager Schainker indicated that it would also displace other projects. Council Member Corrieri indicated that a “heart-to-heart” conversation needed to occur at the Council level as to the Planning and Housing Department workload. There are many projects on the workload list that have been on it for over a year. She believes that some of those projects might be able to be removed from the list or prioritized lower. Noting that up to 2,000 more people would be moving into the area in question, Council Member Betcher said it was important to her for the outreach to neighbors to occur. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. 1515 INDIANA AVENUE: Eric Cowles, Civil Engineer, reminded the Council that it had referred the letter of John and Julie Larson, 1515 Indiana, to staff. The Larsons wish to construct a three-season portion at the rear of their property; however, due to restrictions of a water retention easement on the property, the structure could not be approved. The existing water retention easement area was established in 1980 as a part of the restrictive covenants of the Patio Homes West Association, Inc., and extends 50' from the rear property line. Staff was directed by the City Council to solicit quotes for engineering services to evaluate the drainage area and determine any ability to vacate portions of the existing easement at the sole cost of the Larsons, with staff coordinating the evaluation. The Larsons agreed, depending on the cost, to reimburse the City for the cost of the evaluation. Quotes 11 were requested from three local firms; however, only one response was received. The quote from Clapsaddle-Garber Associates (CGA) was in the amount of $3,500, which the Larsons agreed to pay. Mr. Cowles summarized the evaluation provided by CGA, which indicated that the existing easement may be reduced. The report also recommended that a minimum protective elevation three feet above the 100-year ponding evaluation be established to protect new openings, e.g., window wells, on future dwellings/additions. Mindy Bryngelson, representing CGA, stated that the easement goes through the backyards of 17 properties. She explained the details of CGA’s analysis. According to Ms. Bryngelson, abandoning the easement will not cause a major change; at the most, it would only change the water level six inches. Moved by Gartin, seconded by Orazem, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 15-054 , accepting the report, proposing that the Storm Water Retention Easement be vacated for all of the area, and setting the date of hearing on the proposed vacation for February 24, 2015. At the inquiry of City Manager Schainker, John Larson, 1515 Indiana Avenue, Ames, indicated that they would like to build the three-season porch by spring. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. The meeting recessed at 9:42 p.m. and reconvened at 9:48 p.m. HEARING ON URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN FOR 517 LINCOLN WAY: Mayor Campbell opened the public hearing. There being no one else wishing to speak, the hearing was closed. Director Diekmann noted that staff had determined that the Squeaky Clean Laundromat site at 517 Lincoln Way was eligible for designation as an Urban Revitalization Area (URA) under Section 404.1 of the Code of Iowa. The site has been vacant for many years due to environmental contamination. Council had directed staff to prepare an Urban Revitalization Plan and set the public hearing date for this meeting. Details of the Plan were reviewed. Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Orazem, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 15-048 approving the Urban Revitalization Plan. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Orazem, to pass on first reading an ordinance establishing the 517 Lincoln Way Urban Revitalization Plan. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. HEARING ON URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 921 - 9 STREETTH (FORMER ROOSEVELT SCHOOL SITE): Director Diekmann reported that the Council had adopted an Urban Revitalization Plan and designated the former Roosevelt School site, located at 921 - 9 Street, as an Urban Revitalization Area (URA). He explained that staff had recentlyth conducted an inspection of the site and the building exterior for conformance of the improvements with the adopted Roosevelt URA Plan and had determined that parts of the building and site improvements did not substantially conform to the adopted Plan. If the project does not substantially 12 conform to an approved URA Plan, a property owner would not be eligible to apply for and receive property tax abatement. After the non-conformance issue was discovered, staff asked the applicant to propose amendments to the URA Plan to ensure that the property would be eligible for tax abatement. The developer is now requesting that the City Council approve the amendments. According to Mr. Diekmann, the Council is now being asked to make a decision if the proposed changes to the Urban Revitalization Plan are acceptable. Director Diekmann summarized the amendments that had been requested by the developer, pertaining to the following: (1) Reduced Number of Units, (2) Parking Structure Reduced Size, (3) Atrium Materials, and (4) Parking Structure Windows. Council Member Nelson indicated that he had a conflict of interest, and thus, would not be participating in the discussion or vote on this issue. The public hearing was opened by the Mayor. Dean Jensen, representing RES Development, spoke asking the City Council to approve Option 3, which was to require additional landscaping be added to the north facade. Council Member Goodman asked why the changes were made by the developer without having a conversation with staff. Mr. Jensen stated that he did not know they needed approval since the changes were made due to structural issues caused by the reuse of a 1923 building that was formerly a school. Sharon Wirth, 921-9th Street, Ames, commented about the north side of the complex. She said she is very familiar with issues that can arise on historic preservation projects. Ms. Wirth noted that it is a difficult challenge when you have to integrate a large building next to a small building and try to make it fit in with the neighborhood. Ms. Wirth believes that the situation would be best solved by landscaping. Catherine Scott, 1510 Roosevelt, Ames, stated that, as a person who walks by the building, she would appreciate the landscaping more than windows. No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor Campbell closed the hearing. Moved by Goodman, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 15-049 amending the Roosevelt Urban Revitalization Plan with modifications to require additional landscaping be added to the north facade, on the condition that RES Development, Inc., provide a landscaping plan to the Planning and Housing Department for administrative approval of final details and provide a Letter of Credit to the City Clerk’s office by January 31, 2015, to guarantee the completion of the additional landscaping. Noting that staff was recommending that the Landscaping Plan include five trees, Council Member Betcher offered that perhaps fewer trees could be planted, but a trellis could be added. After a short discussion, Council concurred that the Planning Director could administratively approve the plan for additional landscaping. Council Member Goodman expressed frustration over the lack of understanding by the developer that changes could not be made to the project without bringing those changes back to the Council for approval. 13 Roll Call Vote:5-0-1. Voting aye: Betcher, Corrieri, Gartin, Goodman, Orazem. Voting nay: None. Abstaining due to conflict of interest: Nelson. Resolution declared adopted, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. HEARING ON VACATING WATER MAIN EASEMENT AT 230 SOUTH DUFF AVENUE: The Mayor opened the hearing and closed same after no one requested to speak. Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Goodman, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 15-050 approving the vacation of the Water Main Easement at 230 South Duff Avenue. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. HEARING ON NORTH DAKOTA WATER TOWER REMOVAL: The public hearing was opened by Mayor Campbell. There being no one asking to speak, she closed the hearing. Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 15-051 approving final plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Iseler Demolition, Inc., of Romeo, Michigan, in the amount of $54,770. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. HEARING ON CONTROLS AND RELAYING PANELS FOR 69kV SUBSTATION PANEL AND TRANSMISSION LINE TERMINAL UPGRADES - DAYTON AND STANGE SUBSTATION: Mayor Campbell opened the hearing. The hearing was closed as there was no one wishing to speak. Moved by Goodman, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 15-052 app rov ing final pla ns and specifications and a w a rding a contract to Sc hwe itz er Engineer ing Labora torie s of Pullm an, W a shington, in the am ount of $2 25,876.44. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. HEARING ON 2 0 1 4 /1 5 CONCRE TE P AVEM ENT IM P ROVEM ENT S #1 (HAYW ARD A V E N U E ): The he a ring w as op ened a nd closed a s ther e w as no one w ho as ke d to spe a k. M oved by Goodm an, se conded by Gartin, to adopt R E SO L U T IO N N O . 15-053 approving final plans a nd s pe c ific a tions a nd aw ar ding a contr a c t to Con-Struc t, Inc., of A m es, Iow a, in the am ount of $1,035,707.45. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. H EA R IN G O N 2 014/15 CO LL EC TO R STR E E T PA V EM EN T IM PR O V EM EN TS (W EST S T R E E T A N D W O O D L A N D S T R E E T ): M a yor Campbe ll de c lare d the he a ring open. C ollegiate Presby terian C hu rch (C P C ) C on cerns. M un icipal E ng ineer T r acy W arner stated that, as p art o f th e P u b lic W o rks D ep artm en t typ ical o utreach , staff co n tacted th e ad jace n t p rop erty ow n ers. A c c ording to M s. W ar ne r, on D e c e m ber 22 , 20 14, Public W orks Engine e ring sta ff , C yRide sta ff , a nd the str e e t im prove m ent proje ct c onsultant, Civil D e sign A dva ntage, m et w ith B oar d m e m bers of the C olle giate Pres byteria n Church to d iscuss se ve n conce rns that they had identifie d wi th the 20 14/15 C ollector Street Pav em ent I m prov em ents. T ho se con cerns w ere: 14 1 .C y R id e b u s p ro b lem s w ith th e cu rren t la y ou t (cau sin g c a rs to cu t th ro u g h th e C P C p a rk in g lot) 2.M etered p arking o n W est Street (cou pled w ith C on cern N o. 1)causing a prob lem 3.T urni ng radii are no t app rop riate for bu ses, especially cau sing the inco rrect use of lanes 4.D rainage a c ross the s idew alks 5.B ike paths 6.C on str uction du ring tim e other than sum m er 7.N um ber of stalls needed to b e taken b y construc tion M s. W a rn er stated th a t th e re is a sh o rt blo c k b e tw een H y lan d an d S h e ld o n , an d th e re are th ree p u b lic parking spaces. Sh e had also b een inform ed that, betw een 7 :20 A M and 9:05 A M , there can b e three to n ine b use s that are com ing through that area to drop people off. W ith the parking spaces at that loc a tion, the bus e s are not able to p ull to the c urb, a nd they have to sw i ng o ut into the op posing traf fic . If ther e is a bu s or tr a ff ic com ing fr om the othe r dir ection, tr affic becom e s sta c ke d u p o n H yla nd and people c ut through the Chur c h’s parking lot. W ith the Sheldon project, tw o p a rking spaces w ill be add ed. T he three parking spaces w ou ld b e elim inated; the m eters w ou ld n ot be re- insta lled. The bu s stops w ould b e m oved dow n and the radius w ould b e im prove d at H yla nd a nd W e st. T h e re w o u ld still b e th e sa m e n u m b e r o f b u se s, b u t m o re o f them co u ld stag e o n W est S treet. M ax Porte r, 1707 A m he rst, A m e s, s poke in favor of the proje c t. H e advise d that he is V ice-Pre side nt o f th e B o ard of T ru stees o f th e C o lleg iate P resb y terian C h u rc h . M r. P o rter sa id th a t th e y are n o t qu ite sure ho w to g ive the land to the City for the easem e nt; it m ight have to b e taken u p through the hie rar c hy of the Pre sbyte ry. Jo h n C ram er, 2 7 0 6 M ead o w G len R o ad , A m es, also a m em b er of th e C h u rch ’s B o ard of T rustees, sta te d h is a pproval for the proje c t. H e no te d tha t the re had been conse nsus by all m em be rs of the B oar d. M oved b y Goodm an, s e c onde d by Or a z e m , to ac c e pt the request to rem ove the three m eter e d parking sta lls a long W est Street be tw een H yla nd A ve nue and She ldon A venue and re vise the de sign through a futu re ch an g e o rde r to acco m m o d ate a larg er tu rnin g rad iu s. V o te o n M o tio n : 6 -0 . M o tio n declare d ca rried un an im o u sly . M ov ed b y G oo dm an, seco nd ed b y O r azem , to ad op t R E S O L U T IO N N O . 15 -04 7 ap prov ing final pla ns and specifications and aw arding a contr a c t to Con-Struc t, Inc., of A m es, Iow a , in the am ount of $1 ,287,638.25. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. HEARING ON 2 0 1 4 /1 5 CYR IDE RO UTE PAVEM ENT IM P ROVEM ENT S (2 4 S TRE ET ANDTH B L O O M IN G T O N R O A D ): The public hear ing w a s ope ne d by M a yor C am pbe ll. There w as no on e w ho re queste d to spe a k, and the he a ring w as closed. M ov ed b y G oo dm an, secon ded by O razem , to ad o p t R E S O L U T IO N N O . 15 -03 4 ap prov ing final pla ns and s pe c ific a tions and aw arding a c ontra c t to Con-Struct, Inc., of A m es , Iow a, in the a m ount of $1 ,650,000.01 . Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. Mayor Campbell stated that Item No. 28, Discussion of City’s Branding efforts, was being postponed until the Council’s February 10, 2015, meeting due to the lateness of the hour. 15 SHOPPING CART ABANDONMENT: Brian Phillips, Management Analyst, noted that, at the City Council’s request made on December 9, 2014, staff had provided the Council Action Form from April 12, 2011, regarding the abandonment of shopping carts at the corner of South 5 Street andth South Duff Avenue. A memo had also been sent to the Council outlining some of the changes that are occurring with CyRide. CyRide is investigating the possibility of moving a route in an attempt to address the issue at the corner of South 5 Street, where it appears to be most prevalent. th Moved by Goodman to ask staff to work with the managers of Walmart and perhaps other businesses on finding a solution that does not involve a CyRide route or citing citizens. Motion died for lack of a second. John Lempiaiman, Store Director of Walmart on South Duff Avenue, stated that the shopping cart issue was equally concerning for his store. He said that it costs Walmart a lot of money to send employees across a very busy highway to gather shopping carts. In addition, safety of their employees is an issue. The window of time to gather the carts is sometimes very small as they do not send employees out in inclement weather, after dark, or before the sun comes up. According to Mr. Lempiaiman, Walmart has put up signs in an attempt to deter customers from taking carts off of WalMart’s property; however, it seemed to make the situation worse. He advised that he had made a proposal to Walmart’s Finance Department to come up with a shopping cart retention system. The suggested system, seen more often in larger metro locations, has a magnetic lock on the wheel so when the cart is taken past a certain location, the wheels lock. Mr. Lempiaiman said that it takes a while to get things approved in a larger company, but he is working on it. Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to direct that staff report back to the Council after Walmart informs its staff on the results of their efforts. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. VENDING ORDINANCE: Moved by Orazem, seconded by Betcher, to pass on second reading the Vending Ordinance. Roll Call Vote: 4-1-1. Voting aye: Betcher, Gartin, Nelson, Orazem. Voting nay: Corrieri. Abstaining due to a conflict of interest: Goodman. Motion declared carried. ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 31, HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Moved by Orazem, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 4206 repealing and replacing Chapter 31, Historic Preservation. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. LAP DANCE ORDINANCE: Moved by Orazem, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 4207 repealing Municipal Code Section 17.31 pertaining to lap dances. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor and hereby made a portion of these Minutes. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Moved by Goodman to direct staff to explore reimbursing those who cut down trees that would have had to be cut down anyway by City crews in the last year, with the reimbursement being what it would have cost for staff to cut the tree. Motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Betcher recommended that the City Council members tour The Roosevelt, if they had not done so already. She felt it was an excellent example of an Adaptive Reuse project. 16 Moved by Goodman, seconded by Corrieri, to direct that staff respond to Dickson Jensen that there is no interest on the part of the City Council to refer his request for a text amendment to allow an office with sleeping rooms for his employees in an apartment building that he owns at 4611 Mortensen Road, which is located in the Community Commercial Node. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Goodman to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. _____________________________________________________________________ Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ann H. Campbell, Mayor