HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council 08/12/2014MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA AUGUST 12, 2014
The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on August 12, 2014,
in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue purs ua nt to la w with M a yor Ann
C am p b ell p resid ing an d the fo llo w ing C ity C o u ncil m em b ers p resen t: G loria B etch er, A m b er C o rrieri,
T im G a rtin , M atth ew G o o d m a n , C h ris N e lso n , an d Peter O razem . E x o fficio M em b er Lissan d ra V illa
w as also presen t.
Mayor Campbell announced that the Agenda had been amended to add a Closed Session to discuss
matters in litigation; however, staff has now pulled that off the Agenda.
PRESENTATION OF SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT IN GIS AWARD TO PUBLIC WORKS: City
GIS Coordinator Ben McConville introduced Lisa Mondt and Dominic Roberge, GIS Specialists.
Mr. McConville stated that the City’s Public Works Department GIS Work Group had been honored
with an award from the Environmental Systems Research Institute for implementation and use of
GIS systems, and in particular, the use of new and upcoming mobile and on-line technologies. Mr.
McConville thanked Ms. Mondt and Mr. Roberge, the City’s Information Technology Division, City
management, and the GIS users for their hard work and/or support.
PRO CL AM AT ION CE LEBRAT I NG 4 0 ANNI V E RS AR Y O F CO M M UN ITYTH
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM: Mayor Campbell read a Proclamation
in observance of the 40 Anniversary of the CDBG Program and recognized the significant positiveth
impacts that the funding has had on the housing development needs in Ames. Accepting the
Proclamation was Vanessa Baker-Latimer, City Housing Coordinator. The Mayor introduced Steve
Eggleston, Head Field Officer of the Des Moines Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office.
Mr. Eggleston thanked Housing Coordinator Baker Latimer for her good work in using this tool to
address the housing needs of the Ames community.
CONSENT AGENDA: Council Member Gartin asked to pull Items numbered 17 (2015/16 ASSET
priorities) and 22 (requests from KHOI Radio for Grassroots Radio Conference) for separate discussion.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Betcher, to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda:
1.Motion approving payment of claims
2.Motion approving minutes of Regular Meeting of July 22, 2014
3.Motion approving certification of civil service applicants
4.Motion approving contract change orders for July 16-31, 2014
5.Motion approving renewal of the following beer permits, wine permits, and liquor licenses:
a.Class C Liquor – Olde Main Brewing Co., 316 Main Street
b.Class C Liquor & B Native Wine – The Mucky Duck Pub, 3100 South Duff Avenue
c.Class C Liquor – Es Tas Stanton, 216 Stanton Avenue
d.Class C Liquor – El Azteca, 1520 South Dayton Avenue
e.Class C Liquor – Okoboji Grill, 118 South Duff Avenue
f.Class C Beer & B Wine – Hy-Vee Gas #5013, 4018 Lincoln Way
g.Class C Liquor – Deano’s, 119 Main Street
6.Motion approving 5-Day Class B Beer Permit & Outdoor Service for Bar at Zylstra Harley
Davidson, 1219 McCormick Avenue
7.Motion approving 5-Day Class C Liquor License for Dublin Bay at Reiman Gardens, 1407
University Boulevard
2
8.Motion approving 5-Day licenses for Olde Main Brewing at ISU Alumni Center, 420 Beach
Avenue:
a.Class C Liquor (August 26-30)
b.Class C Liquor (September 6-10)
9.Motion approving Outdoor Service Privilege on September 6 and 7 for The Mucky Duck Pub, 3100
South Duff Avenue
10.Motion approving Outdoor Service Privilege for El Azteca, 2727 Stange Road
11.Motion directing City Attorney to draft ordinance pertaining to parking regulations on new streets
and corrections at various locations
12.RESOLUTION NO. 14-421 confirming appointment of Peter Hallock, Old Town District
representative, to fill vacancy on Historic Preservation Commission
13.RESOLUTION NO. 14-422 approving payment of City’s share of Intermodal Facility Operating
Subsidy to Iowa State University
14.RESOLUTION NO. 14-423 approving Official Statement and setting date of sale of General
Obligation Corporation Purpose Bonds Series 2014 in an amount not to exceed $9,985,000
15.RESOLUTION NO. 14-425 accepting the 2014 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
and authorizing the Police Department to participate in the Program
16.RESOLUTION NO. 14-426 approving Emergency Management Agency 28E Agreement
17.RESOLUTION NO. 14-427 approving 36-Month Internet Service Agreement with Century Link
18.Requests from Youth and Shelter Services for 100 Anniversary Celebration on Wednesday,th
September 10:
a.RESOLUTION NO. 14-428 approving closure of Kellogg Avenue, from 5 Street south to theth
alley, from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
b.RESOLUTION NO. 14-429 approving waiver of parking meter fees and enforcement
19.Requests from Main Street Cultural District for Oktoberfest on September :
a.M o tio n ap p rov ing B lan k et Te m p o rary O b struc tio n Pe rm it an d B lan k et V en d ing Pe rm it
b.M otion a pproving 5-day Clas s B Beer Perm it & Outdoor Servic e (pe nding dra m s hop
insu rance cov erage)
c .RESOLUTION NO. 14 -431 approving closure of M a in Stre e t from K ellogg to Dougla s from
10 :00 a.m . to 2:00 a.m ., includ ing closu re of 46 parking spaces; and w aiver of fees for B l ank et
Ven ding Permit, mete r cos ts for parking s pa c e c l osures , and cos t s for use of electr i c i t y in the
20 0 b lock
20.RESOLUTION NO. 14-432 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2014/15 Right-of-
Way Restoration; setting September 3, 2014, as bid due date and September 9, 2014, as date of
public hearing
21.RESOLUTION NO. 14-433 changing bid due date from August 26, 2014, to August 27, 2014, for
Water Pollution Control Facility Digester Improvements
22.RESOLUTION NO. 14-434 approving preliminary plans and specifications for Information
Technology Fiber Optic Deployment; setting September 10, 2014, as bid due date and September
23, 2014, as date of public hearing
23.RESOLUTION NO. 14-435 awarding contract to WESCO Distribution of Des Moines, Iowa, for
Aluminum Cable in the amount of $74,472
24.RESOLUTION NO. 14-436 awarding contract to PCI of Lansing, Kansas, in the amount of
$48,452.95 for Custodial Services for Ames Public Library
25.RESOLUTION NO. 14-437 approving contract and bond for Water Treatment Plant Five-Year Well
Rehabilitation Project (Year 3)
26.RESOLUTION NO. 14-438 approving changes in project sequence for Screw Pump Rehabilitation
CIP project for Water & Pollution Control
27.RESOLUTION NO. 14-439 approving Change Order to contract with ABC Companies for purchase
3
and refurbishment of used CyRide buses in the amount of $15,215
28.RESOLUTION NO. 14-440 approving Change Order #44 to contract with Henkel Construction
Company for CyRide Bus Facility Expansion Project in the amount of $10,582.70
29.RESOLUTION NO. 14-441 approving Change Order with FOX Engineering to delete the
unexpended balance related to the redesign of the aerators in the amount of $62,007.09
30.RESOLUTION NO. 14-442 approving contract renewal with Baldwin Pole & Piling, Inc., of Des
Moines, Iowa, for purchase of Electric Distribution and Transmission Utility Poles
31.RESOLUTION NO. 14-443 accepting completion of Public Library’s Wood Window Restoration
Project
32.RESOLUTION NO. 14-444 accepting completion of Hickory Drive (Lincoln Way - Westbrook
Drive)
33.RESOLUTION NO. 14-445 accepting completion of 2012/13 West Lincoln Way Intersection
Improvements (Lincoln Way and Dotson Drive)
34.Brookview Place West, 4 Addition:th
a.RESOLUTION NO. 14-446 approving partial completion of public improvements
b.RESOLUTION NO. 14-447 approving Final Plat
35.South Fork Subdivision, 6 Addition:th
a.RESOLUTION NO. 14-448 approving partial completion of public improvements
b.RESOLUTION NO. 14-449 approving Final Plat
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolutions/Motions declared adopted/approved unanimously, signed by the
Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
2015/16 ASSET PRIORITIES: Council Member Gartin said that he had requested to pull this item for
separate discussion so that staff could highlight the ASSET funding priorities for the upcoming year.
Assistant City Manager Melissa Mundt listed the three priorities: (1) Basic Needs, (2) Health-
Related, and (3) Youth. Ms. Mundt explained the process that identified and ranked the priorities.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Goodman, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 14-424 approving the
2015/16 ASSET priorities.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
REQUESTS FROM KHOI RADIO FOR GRASSROOTS RADIO CONFERENCE ON AUGUST
14-17: Council Member Gartin stated he wanted to ensure that the City had confirmation from the
property owners affected by the street closure that they had been notified of that closure. City
Manager Steve Schainker said that, per the City’s policy, event representatives are to contact the
property owners. Event coordinator Joe Lynch stated that the property owners had been contacted.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to approve a Temporary Obstruction Permit for two metered
parking stalls in front of 323 Main Street on August 17.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Betcher, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 14-430 approving the closure
of Douglas Avenue, from 5 Street south to the alley, from 3:00 to 8:00 p.m. on August 14.th
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
4
PUBLIC FORUM: No one came forward to speak, and Mayor Campbell closed Public Forum.
BRECKENRIDGE DEVELOPMENT: Mayor Campbell announced that public comment on the
hearings for the proposed rezoning of 205 South Wilmoth, the proposed rezoning of 601 State
Avenue, and the Breckenridge Development Agreement would be taken prior to City Council action
on any of the three items.
Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann advised that staff would be making presentations
on the North Parcel, South Parcel, and proposed Settlement Agreement. Concurrent public hearings
will then occur on the North and South Parcels, and public comments will be heard on the propsed
Settlement Agreement. The applicant will speak first and be followed by members of the public. Mr.
Diekmann stated that the North Parcel rezoning was independent of the South Parcel rezoning. The
proposed Settlement Agreement will be a third independent action.
1.Hearing on Rezoning 205 South Wilmoth Avenue: City Planner Karen Marren explained the
request to rezone the North Parcel located at 205 South Wilmoth Avenue from Special
Government/Airport (S-GA) to Residential Low Density (RL). She described the next steps that
would occur should the Council decide that RL is the appropriate zoning for the property in
question. If the City Council determines that Low-Density Residential is appropriate for the area
in question, the next subsequent step in the review process would be subdivision. Low-Density
Residential only allows single-family detached homes, which would require that the applicant
subdivide each home on an individual lot.
At the request of Council Member Corrieri, Planner Marren and Director Diekmann explained
the comments that had been made by members of the Planning and Zoning Commission at a
hearing held on June 4, 2014, regarding rezoning this Parcel to RL.
Council Member Betcher asked Director Diekmann to confirm that there is no dispute about net
acreage and the maximum number of lots that may be developed on the Parcel as being 40-50.
Mr. Diekmann answered that a decision was made that a Master Plan was not required because
of only one use being allowed and no site constraints. Staff had estimated 40-50 lots; literally,
it is 7.26 units x 8.23 acres, but that includes public streets.
2.Hearing on Rezoning of 601 South State Avenue: The request to change the zoning designation
from S-GA to RL for the portions of the property north of College Creek and Suburban
Residential Low-Density (FS-RL) for the property south of College Creek was described by
Director Diekmann. He added that, if that is the action chosen by the City Council, it would
allow for the development of up to a maximum of 194 dwelling units.
According to Director Diekmann, the Council might want to consider tabling this hearing to
allow staff time to gather more specificity behind some potential conditions that might be
appealing to the City Council.
Mr. Diekmann explained each of the six alternatives:
1.Approve rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres north of College Creek from S-GA to RL and
approximately 27.37 acres of land south of College Creek from S-GA to FS-RL, all located
at 601 State Avenue with a signed Zoning Agreement prior to third reading of the ordinance.
This is the applicant’s requested zoning change and is based on the assumption that up to
5
190 dwelling units may be built.
2.Approve rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres north of College Creek from S-GA to RL and
rezoning approximately 27.37 acres of land south of College Creek from S-GA to FS-RL,
all located at 601 State Avenue, with a signed Zoning Agreement prior to third reading,
agreeing with potential moving of the bike path, agreeing that the developable acreage of the
area is 10 - 14 acres, and agreeing to participate in the off-site traffic improvements required
on Mortensen and State.
This alternative would give direction regarding location of the bike path, would clarify
Council’s agreement with staff’s interpretation of the maximum density formula, and would
secure a proportional contribution to the cost of a nearby traffic improvement that is
impacted by development of the parcel.
3.Approve rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres north of College Creek from S-GA to RL and
rezoning approximately 27.37 acres south of College Creek from S-GA to RS-RL, all located
at 601 State Avenue with conditions other than those listed under Alternative 2.
4.Deny the request for rezoning of approximately 29 acres of land located at 601 State Avenue
from S-GA to RL and FS-RL.
This is the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Under this
alternative, the developer would not be able to file the same zoning application for one year.
5.Indicate its willingness to approve rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres north of College
Creek from S-GA to FL and rezoning of approximately 27.37 acres south of College Creek
from S-GA to F-PRD (Planned Residential District).
This option would require the developer to withdraw the current rezoning request and to then
apply for F-PRD zoning of the portion south of the Creek.
6.Postpone action on the request and refer back to staff and the applicant.
Under this alternative, Council could provide direction to staff and the applicant to confirm
the desired conditions in a written Zoning Agreement prior to Council approval of first
reading of a rezoning ordinance. In contrast to Alternative 4, this would avoid the
requirement that one year pass before the developer may seek FS-RL zoning of the parcel.
Director Diekmann again suggested that the City Council might want to consider continuing the
hearing if it does not feel it has enough information. Staff had highlighted some discrepancies
in the Master Plan in terms to commitments of the applicant to the development of the property.
Mr. Diekmann advised that, late yesterday afternoon, the applicant had provided additional
information concerning the bike path, commitments to the off-site traffic impacts, and about the
applicability of what developable area means on a Master Plan versus a net density calculation
that may be appropriate at the subdivision stage. Other core issues are the range of unit types,
actual building types, and where is the area that they will be built. The bike path influences that;
there is approximately 1.7 acres just within the bike path easement that currently exists. In the
developer’s proposal for just over 21 acres of developable land, it is assumed that the bike path
is moved and that that area is available for development. Even if the bike path is not moved, they
are still assuming that as developable area even though literally a home would not be placed on
6
the bike path.
According to Director Diekmann, at question is the amount of developable net acreage. The
developer alleges that approximately 21 acres are developable, which leads to a maximum
density of 194 units and 582 beds for student housing. While the proposed zoning is consistent
in its request of a base FS zoning, there are unknowns within the rezoning and Master Plan
related to the development intensity of the site. Outstanding issues include the advisability of
relocating the bike path, agreement by the City to relocate the bike path, off-site traffic impacts,
lack of CyRide service for a significant population of proposed students, and the overall design
of the site in relation to the current site constraints and the surrounding area. According to Mr.
Diekmann, given the unresolved nature of the density interpretation issue, the bike trail location,
and the developer’s commitment to off-site traffic improvements, it is staff’s recommendation
that the hearing be continued until the core issues are resolved.
Council Member Gartin pointed out that there is nothing to preclude the developer from bringing
in dirt and building up an area to expand the number of acres to the area north of the bike trail.
Mr. Diekmann advised that the “control on fill is at the subdivision stage.” At that stage, grading
plans are reviewed. Director Diekmann stated that, if a tremendous amount of fill dirt had to be
brought in to make the area developable, the grading plan would not meet the Land Use Policy
Plan expectation for natural resource preservation and also the subdivision lay-out criteria.
Council Member Betcher asked Director Diekmann to explain how a “proportional share of off-
site improvements” is calculated. She also asked if the City usually required a developer to pay
for all off-site improvements. Mr. Diekmann indicated that this situation has an existing
deficiency and the development would be taking a sub-par condition and exacerbating it. Since
it is already part of a problem, the City would calculate a proportional share. The developer
would not be obligated to fix something that is already failing at its sole cost. If the development
would cause a negative impact to occur, the developer would be required to pay the full cost of
the improvement. In this case, there is already a deficient intersection that would be made worse
by the operations of the proposed development. City Manager Steve Schainker further explained
that there are two types of off-site improvements. One type is when it is immediately adjacent
to new development – normally paid wholly by the developer. The other is when off-site
improvements are not adjacent to the new development; however, impacts from the new
development are felt a distance away, so a proportional share is paid by the developer.
City Attorney Judy Parks explained the Development Agreement in detail. The Agreement was
contemplated originally as a proposal that came at the public presentation on July 8, 2014. The
concepts of that proposal have been put into a more formal document with more detail on how
they would be effectuated at the Council’s approval. The Development Agreement is an
alternative to the three zoning applications being granted as proposed by the applicant.
At the inquiry of Mayor Campbell, Director Diekmann noted that one of the exhibits to the
Agreement shows where the buildable area is, and the assumption is that a clubhouse and 305
beds could fit within that area of the South Parcel.
Ms. Parks summarized that one rezoning had already been approved, i.e., the Middle Parcel; one
rezoning is in the process and may be able to go forward tonight because nothing had changed;
and one, i.e., the South Parcel, which at this point is still a work in progress. In order for the
Council to know what the base zoning would look like for all three Parcels, Ms. Parks advised
that it would be inappropriate for the Council to act on the Agreement tonight because it is
7
unknown what is going to happen with the South Parcel yet. Ms. Parks pointed out that new
information pertaining to the South Parcel was provided to the City late yesterday by the
developer’s attorney Brian Torresi.
Outlining the Council’s options, Ms. Parks stated that the developer has clarified that it wants
this to move forward, which means the Council has two choices: (1) the basic zonings of RL,
RL, and FSRL, as the developer as proposed; or (2) the Development Agreement.
Director Diekmann reiterated that, on August 11, the applicant’s attorney Brian Torresi had
submitted some revisions to the Master Plan where they changed the numbers. Those revisions
were distributed late and not all members of the Council had a chance to review them. In
correspondence accompanying the Master Plan changes, Mr. Torresi addressed comments in the
Staff Report on:
1.Determination of the location of a bike path. The developer approves it staying where it
currently exists or the City resolving where to move it. Breckenridge feels that the bike path
issue is a non-issue.
2.Breckenridge to pay a proportionate share of the cost of off-site traffic improvements at the
intersection of Mortensen Road and State Avenue. Breckenridge understands and agrees
that it will have to pay a proportionate share of the cost of off-site improvements at that
intersection; therefore this is also a non-issue.
3.Resolution between staff and Breckenridge related to various interpretations concerning how
net acreage is to be calculated. Section 29.1202(6) of the Ames Municipal Code provides that
regulations for the FS zone are provided in Table 29.1202(b). That Table was recently
amended by the City Council on July 22, 2014 by adding the word “only” to the formula for
determining net acreage. According to Mr. Torresi, it had always been the practice for
development in the City of Ames in FS-RL zones that the seven areas that may be subtracted
from gross acreage to determine net acreage, as identified in the Table, were allowed to be
subtracted, but did not have to be subtracted. By requiring Breckenridge to determine the net
acreage of the property by subtracting all of the areas identified on the Table, the Council
will be taking a position that appears to be targeted toward Breckenridge’s development and
contrary to the stated intent of the Table.
Attorney Torresi indicated that Breckenridge supported Alternative 1 as contained in the Council
Action Form with the revised plan and a modified version of Alternative 2 as long as subsections
(a)(I) and (b) are removed.
In reference to the Development Agreement pertaining to the North Parcel, Council Member
Betcher asked, if the base zoning were to be RH, would there was anything to preclude the
developer from constructing a building over five stories high to meet the 500+ beds that they
desire. Director Diekmann advised that, in theory, the building could be taller than five stories;
building height is not covered in the Development Agreement, but would be covered under
Major Site Plan review. The height limit in RH is nine stories or 100 feet.
Brian Torresi, Davis Brown Law Firm, Ames, addressed what he alleged to be inconsistencies
in staff’s testimony in that the letter received yesterday by staff was in direct response to the
Council Action Form, which was published after 5:30 p.m. on Friday, August 8. He added that
staff was not working on Saturday or Sunday, so Monday was the first time that he could
8
respond to the staff report. Mr. Torresi said the City Council could choose to move forward with
the Development Agreement. Attorney Torresi emphasized that the Development Agreement
was not forced upon the City in threat of litigation. According to Mr. Torresi, the Development
Agreement represents the best way to develop the three parcels based on input from the
neighbors, the University, and the City. If the Council members should decide not to move
forward with the Agreement, the developer is asking that they approve RL for the North Parcel.
Mr. Torresi added that the developer believes that the Parcel should not be RL along Lincoln
Way; however, the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) designates it as RL, and that is, therefore, their
request. Pertaining to the South Parcel, the developer’s application is in accordance with the
LUPP, and it has the option to choose between FSFV and F-PRD. Mr. Torresi stated that the
City Council can’t zone that Parcel FSFV or F-PRD unless it finds that the applicant actually
selected one of those zones. The applicant selected FS, and the least- intense zone in FS is FS-
RL, which is what the applicant is requesting. Mr. Torresi reiterated that the revised Master Plan
was submitted yesterday in response to the Council Action Form. He pointed out that the
changes decrease the maximum number of developable units.
Mr. Torresi stated that the developer has no issue with moving the bike path and there is no issue
with the developer paying its proportionate share of off-site traffic improvements. He believes
that determination of the net developable acreage is the only issue; that is for the engineer to
determine. According to Mr. Torresi, there is nothing else that the applicant is going to ask for,
and the property has to be rezoned. He said that “Breckenridge is not going to go away,” and
all three Parcels must be rezoned.
Council Member Goodman explained frustration that new information was received late
yesterday by City staff from the developer’s attorney. The Council did not receive this
information until today, and members of the affected neighborhoods had not seen the
information. He preferred that the hearing be postponed until the Council and public had had an
opportunity to review the new information.
Council Member Betcher read a section of the letter that she construed to be “lawsuit fodder”
and asked City Attorney Parks for her opinion. City Attorney Parks said that she could not
address that at this point because she had not had adequate time to review the letter.
Mayor Campbell opened the hearings on 205 South Wilmoth Avenue and 601 State Avenue. She
noted that public input concerning the Development Agreement would also be accepted.
Robert Lorr, 233 Hilltop Road, Ames, said that, by his calculations, 172 units with up to three
people in each would mean 515 people. He understands that roommates would also be allowed,
which would add to that number. Mr. Lorr believes that that kind of density added to the density
in the North Parcel would equate to more than the developer originally started out requesting.
It was noted by Mr. Lorr that Ames has been named as one of the best places to live and retire,
and two of the reasons for identifying Ames as a good place to live included a low crime rate
and high quality of neighborhoods. According to Mr. Lorr, if this development goes the way that
this developer’s other projects have gone in other communities, it is a disaster waiting to
happen.” According to Mr. Lorr, one of Breckenridge’s similar developments has an average of
30 police calls/day and weak infrastructure because the design is not conducive to the climate.
Mr. Lorr urged the Council to reject the Development Agreement.
Ken Platt, 3620 Woodland Street, Ames, said that he was very confused by the recent revisions.
He acknowledged that Breckenridge is here to stay; however, believes that density is the
9
problem. Mr. Platt believes that Breckenridge is proposing to place too many people in too small
a place. He does not support the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Platt indicated his support for the
RL designation for both the North and South Parcels; however, does not support RL for the
Middle Parcel because he does not believe anyone would purchase a home between two highly
concentrated student housing complexes with clubhouses. He thinks that parents would purchase
the single-family residents for their students to live, which would mean another 300 people
added to the approximately 900 students, equating to a total of around 1,200 people. Mr. Platt
recommended that the North Parcel be zoned RL. He expressed his opinion that developing the
land in question as being proposed by Breckenridge would be very, very detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhoods. He can find no logic to it, and he urged the Council to reject the
development proposal. It was also pointed out by Mr. Platt that ISU officials have stated that the
area in question is not suitable for high-density student populations. He said that it is unfortunate
that the City had been “saddled” with this situation, but the best way to deal with the problem
is by minimizing the negative effects, which can be done by keeping the designations as RL. Mr.
Platt stated his opinion that actions should not be taken by the City Council to avoid a lawsuit;
that would be a bad choice. A question posed by Mr. Platt was what happens if the student
population decreases; he doesn’t know who would buy the units.
Sarah Cady, 2812 Arbor Street, Ames, pointed out that the neighborhood does not want this
development, the City does not want this development, and the University does not want this
development. She said that she does not see an obvious path to stopping it, however. It was
pointed out by Ms. Cady that the developer is already being sued in other municipalities for his
inability to provide adequate heat and running water to its residents. She said that development
had not even started, and Breckenridge had already violated City of Ames Code with illegal
signage on the Middle and North Parcels. Ms. Cady stated her belief that the proposal for 500 -
600 bedrooms in the South Parcel would be too taxing on existing infrastructure. She also said
that, despite what the developer has said about the project being one-half mile from the ISU
Campus, only the northeastern corner of the Middle Parcel is within one-half mile of the
southeastern edge of the Campus and State Gym area. There is no public transit along State
Avenue, meaning the most residents of the South and Middle Parcels would have to drive during
the winter months. According to Ms. Cady, the FOX Engineering Traffic Analysis indicated
that, even with a 20% reduction in vehicle count relative to the proposed number of residents,
trip count on State Avenue could increase up to 25% with a 10 to 15% increase in east/west
traffic at the State and Mortensen intersection, and a 80 to 90% increase in north/south traffic
at the same intersection. Ms. Cady believes those traffic counts coupled with the unique traffic
patterns of a student-focused apartment complex could mean a traffic disaster for adjacent
neighborhoods. She is also very concerned that the developer apparently plans on building to
the maximum density possible on the South Parcel as that will significantly disturb the natural
topography and creek buffer. Ms. Cady stated that she was in favor of RL zoning for the South
Parcel. She told the Council that she supports the proposal because it is the lesser of all evils.
Ms. Cady does not believe that the detached rental houses would be repurposeable as owner-
occupied in the future. She would like to see a realistic layout and plan. Regarding the North
Parcel, she would like to see what is proposed for building size, buffer options, ingress/egress
from the neighborhood, an on-site parking layout, and traffic mitigation. For the South Parcel,
Ms. Cady would like to see a plan that includes more preservation of severe slopes in the
conservation easement, and a tentative layout of parking, streets, and the bike path. It was noted
that the City does not currently have language in its Zoning Code limiting the number of rental
houses in low-density neighborhoods. She indicated her desire that the zoning language be
changed before any more large tracts of government property are sold. Ms. Cady asked the
Council to make a decision for the long-term stability and strength of Ames neighborhoods.
10
Carolyn Bolinger, 2718 Valley View Circle, Ames, said that she had lived in Ames for 43 years
and had always felt that the City Council members had carefully thought-out all issues before
resolution was decided. She made reference to the numbers of apartment buildings being built
that are visible from her property. Ms. Bolinger stated that she would like to see the current
Council carefully consider what is going into the proposed development and those whom would
be directly impacted.
Sharon Guber, 2931 Northwestern Avenue, Ames, expressed her disapproval of the City Council
holding a hearing on two rezonings and discussion on a complicated Development Agreement
at one meeting; she hoped the Council would never do that again. Ms. Guber pointed out that
it is the job of the City Council to plan for the future and act in the present. She urged the City
to consider what is appropriate for the area in question; in her opinion, that is RL zoning. Ms.
Guber showed a map of the topography, showing the slopes that exist, and urged that the bike
path remain where it is. It was also pointed out by Ms. Guber that the City Council has the
prerogative to see details at this point; they should exercise that option. A listing of other Aspen
Heights locations and the number of bedrooms in each development was shown by Ms. Guber.
She asked that the Council approve RL zoning for the North, Middle, and South Parcels.
Catherine Scott, 1510 Roosevelt, Ames, spoke first about the South Parcel, telling the Council
that the big decision it has to make is the number of college students that are appropriate for that
Parcel. If the maximum number is known, it should be easier to choose a zoning designation that
will keep the number at or below that number. She encouraged the Council to take the advice
of the neighborhood residents as to what number of new residents that would best protect their
quality of life. Ms. Scott indicated her support for Alternative 4, to deny the FS-RL zoning
request, which was the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She believed
that RL zoning would be appropriate for all three parcels. She also believes that no zoning
change should be approved until all information is received and nothing should be left open to
interpretation.
Sharon Stewart, 437 Hilltop Road, Ames, asked that the decision on the three Agenda items be
delayed until the most-recent changes to the Master Plan can be adequately reviewed. She
contended that Breckenridge follows a continuous pattern where appropriate information is not
given at appropriate times. According to Ms. Stewart, that should be unacceptable and it would
set a very bad precedent if the Council were willing to accept that from a developer. Ms.
Stewart urged that the Council require a more detailed and complete Master Plan. She also noted
that Section 23.201 (38) of the Municipal Code clearly defines net acreage. In looking at the
topography of the land in question and reading the definition, Ms. Stewart believes this is very
clear. She spoke next about the Settlement Proposal and gave the reasons why she believed that
it should not be approved. Ms. Stewart strongly encouraged the Council to require Breckenridge
to subdivide.
Michael Petersen, 3302 Morningside Street, Ames, addressed flooding and wildlife concerns in
relation to the City Code if the proposed development is allowed. Mr. Petersen identified
himself as a professionally trained wildlife biologist. He presented some of his concerns
regarding potential effects that Breckenridge’s proposal would have particularly on the
environmentally sensitive South parcel if rezoned to FS-RL, as well as other effects on the two
remaining Parcels and on the surrounding residential neighborhood. Mr. Petersen specifically
raised the issue of the culvert under State Avenue. According to Mr. Petersen, during flooding
rains, the result is a large lake that backs up onto his and his neighbor’s property. Four 500-year
11
floods have inundated that area since 1984, yet Breckenridge has never given specifics on how
it plans to protect the area from the added threat of floods. Concerns about the loss of critical
wildlife habitat and wildlife that would occur if Breckenridge develops the area were expressed
by Mr. Petersen. It was Mr. Petersen’s belief that the City has a unique opportunity to preserve
some remaining wildlife habitat that is essential for a number of species that are in jeopardy. A
map was shown of an extended conservation easement proposal being requested from the
College Creek/Old Middle School Neighborhood. According to Mr. Petersen, City Planning and
Housing Department and Parks and Recreation Department have been informed of the requested
larger conservation easement. Mr. Petersen also raised the issue of net developable areas, noting
that net acres are to be determined by subtracting areas having 10% or greater slopes. He urged
the Council to zone all three parcels as RL and make them be subdivision-compliant.
Warren Madden, Iowa State University Senior Vice-President for Business and Finance, stated
that the University continues to believe that the area in question would best be served by single-
family homes. It does not believe that the area in question is the best place for a concentration
of under-graduate student housing, which is what is being proposed. The University intends to
retain the area to the south of the property in question for agricultural research and teaching
purposes. The land to the east will continue to be used for the ISU cross country track and
arboretum. According to Mr. Madden, initially, the University felt that some of the items in the
proposed Development Agreement could result in a community and University benefit and
potentially benefit the neighborhood. However, it appears that the neighborhood and
Breckenridge can’t come together on an acceptable density level. There is an apparent inability
to negotiate. There is a lack of clarity on the development of the plans, particularly as it relates
to density. In addition, some of Breckenridge’s management issues in other community have
raised concerns about how the high-density development would be managed. These concerns
make it very difficult to move ahead with the proposal. Based on the University’s assessment,
it has concluded that the neighborhood recommendations for RL zoning on all three parcels is
probably the best alternative. If the density questions were answered and people could see the
impact of the proposal, there might be a possibility that a Development Agreement could work;
however, based on the information known today, it is not believed that is possible.
Sue Ravenscoft, 455 Westbrook, Ames, spoke. She indicated that she had watched zoning
processes in Ames for at least ten years and had never seen one that was made as complicated
as the one in question – all brought about by the developer. Ms. Ravenscroft believes that
residents want predicability and assurance that their neighborhood will not suddenly become an
expensive student “ghetto.” Ms. Ravenscroft believes that the developer has created as much
confusion and uncertainly as possible. She is concerned that the developer hopes to win by
wearing down the neighbors and City staff with contradictory proposals. Ms. Ravenscroft
believes that placing 63 bedrooms per acre on the North Parcel is unacceptable. That density will
cause major traffic issues, not just at State and Mortensen, but also on Lincoln Way from
Franklin to State; this will have disastrous results. She urged the Council to zone the North
Parcel RL and the South Parcel RL. Ms. Ravenscroft noted that the South Parcel is
environmentally sensitive, and the ISU research plots impose further considerations, such as
protection from light pollution. The South Parcel should have an extensive conservation
easement. In addition, Ms. Ravenscroft expressed her opinion that the Settlement Proposal
should be rejected in its entirety.
Tony Ramey, 425 Hilltop Road, Ames, indicated that he was in favor of rezoning the North
Parcel to RL. Regarding the rezoning of the South Parcel, he is opposed to RL north of College
Creek and FS-RL south of College Creek. Mr. Ramey is also opposed to the Settlement Proposal
12
with Breckenridge that will sell the Middle Parcel for single-family dwellings and allow more
than 800 beds for student rental to be developed by Breckenridge on the North and South
Parcels. The Council was asked by Mr. Ramey to fight the litigation by Breckenridge to avoid
the requirement to provide subdivision compliance for all three RL zoned parcels and fight any
litigation that Breckenridge might bring to resist the rezoning of the South Parcel to RL in its
entirety. Mr. Ramey said that an alternative compromise that, in his opinion, would be fair
would be for Breckenridge to sell the South Parcel to ISU and to develop the Middle and North
Parcels according to the original Fall 2012 proposal of cottage-style buildings to support 300
bedrooms and student renters on the Middle Parcel plus 200 bedrooms and student renters on
the North Parcel. He gave the reasons why that proposal appeals to him. He asked that the City
Council do all it can to help the Neighborhood Association to achieve something closer to a
genuine parity.
Rich Ketcham, 2923 Arbor Street, Ames, said that he lives about three houses from the proposed
Breckenridge development. He encouraged the Council to take as draconian measure as possible
within the bounds of the law to the whole Breckenridge development process. In Mr. Ketcham’s
opinion, Breckenridge has demonstrated time and time again that it has its own agenda; they
have been disingenuous time and time again. What Breckenridge is proposing would be like
having the City of Gilbert or Slater dropped into the neighborhood only they would be all
students. Mr. Ketcham echoed Council Member Goodman’s concerns about the last-minute
changes. He encouraged the City to fight the proposed development with “every tooth and nail”
that it has and help the neighbors preserve the values of their existing properties.
Dickson Jensen, 4611 Mortensen Road, Ames, identified himself as a local developer who owns
and operates over 1,000 apartments in Ames. He indicated that he had never seen any process
like what is being proposed by Breckenridge. His method of building is to follow the rules and
get the job done; that is the way it is supposed to be. Mr. Jensen urged the City Council not to
allow this to continue. He requested that the City to turn down the settlement and not associate
litigation with zoning. Mr. Jensen expressed his opinion that both the North and South Parcels
should be zoned RL. He asked how the City was going to enforce an owner-occupied 21-year
covenant. It was Mr. Jensen’s suggestion that the City stop the development that no one wants
by buying the land in question.
Joe Doolittle, 406 Briarwood Place, Ames, said that his main concern as an educator is for the
safety of the Middle School students. While the current bike path has been designated as a “safe
path,” Mr. Doolittle does not believe that it would be a safe situation for Middle School students
to go through a development that has a clubhouse approximately 50 yards away from the bike
path. He does not want students to be put in that situation. Mr. Doolittle urged that the City limit
the number of students that are allowed to live on the South Parcel.
Joanne Pfeiffer, 3018 Morningside, Ames, said she had been asking herself if she should be
expecting the City Council to protect her home and her neighbors’ homes. She said that she has
learned that the Council members are sworn to support the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the State of Iowa. The State of Iowa Constitution contains the Bill of Rights,
and specifically, in the first section, all people have the right to acquire, possess, and protect
property and to pursue and obtain safety and happiness. Ms. Pfeiffer noted that government is
instituted for the protection and the security and the benefit of the people. She believes that the
City Council members are in office for the protection, security, and benefit of the community
and of the neighborhoods of Ames. Ms. Pfeiffer thinks that, in order to do that, the following is
needed: accurate traffic studies and provisions for safe conditions on all roads and walkways;
13
providing safe places to exercise, walk, bike, and run; conditions for safe homes where residents
feel secure, free from vandalism, violence, and altercations; conditions for social relationships,
connectivity, support, trust among neighbors with informal social control of undesirable
behaviors; a green space; accurate flooding studies and precautions that are needed to prevent
flooding. Ms. Pfeiffer asked the Council to approve RL for all three Parcels. She believes that
it is a matter of the peoples’ rights and the legacy for future generations and is the Council’s
duty to protect residents’ property, safety, and happiness.
Rich Ketcham, 2923 Arbor Street, Ames, again spoke, asking questions about the clubhouse
being requested. He asked how the developer plans to facilitate the operation of a clubhouse in
an RL zone, specifically asking if a variance would be required, if the clubhouse would be
operated as a commercial business, and if it would be subject to liquor license requirements,
parking requirements, etc.
Scott Renaud, FOX Engineering, Ames, indicated that the developer, from the beginning of this
process, has been trying to follow the rules and to follow the Ames Land Use Policy Plan. Mr.
Renaud provided the history of how Breckenridge came to own the Parcels in question. The
School Board sold the land at an auction. According to Mr. Renaud, the local development
community “sat on their hands” and did not bid on the land. Mr. Renaud contended that a larger
supply of rental housing is needed; rents are on the rise because of the lack of supply. Regarding
net developable acres, Mr. Renaud contended that easements and slopes may be in lots. They
might not be buildable, but they can be included as part of the lot density. He said the final goal
is to get to between 100 and 172 lots. The developer has been working with the City for over two
years.
The meeting recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:55 p.m.
Mayor Campbell closed the hearing on the North Parcel (205 S. Wilmoth).
Council Member Nelson asked for a summary of the bedroom ranges given the different zoning
scenarios. Director Diekmann advised that for the North, it has been roughly estimated that there
would be 40-50 units possible at three beds/unit for a total of between 120 and 150 at a maximum
level. For the South, with the applicant’s letter received yesterday, they state that they are willing
to modify their Master Plan to no more than 172 units at three beds/unit for a total of 516 beds at
a maximum level with FS-RL zoning. This is based on 21 acres of developable land. For the Middle
Parcel, it would be roughly 50 units at three beds/unit for a total of 150 beds.
Moved by Orazem, seconded by Goodman, to approve the request for rezoning of approximately
8.36 acres of land located at 205 S. Wilmoth Avenue (North Parcel) from S-GA
(Government/Airport) to RL (Residential Low Density).
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Betcher expressed concerns about closing the hearing on the South Parcel (601
State Avenue) since new information from the developer’s attorney had been received so late and
the Council and the City Attorney were not able to adequately review it.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Gartin, to continue the hearing until August 26, 2014.
City Attorney Parks explained that if the hearing were to be continued, there would still be the
opportunity for additional public input and Council consideration of the issues that may have been
14
raised in the new communication.
Council Member Corrieri disagreed, noting that a valid Protest had been filed against FS–RL and
five votes would be required to approve the rezoning to FS-RL. She did not believe that the new
information would make a difference on how the Council would vote, and she did not want it
prolonged. Ms. Betcher said it would not be responsible on the part of the Council to act on
something that is different than what the public thought it was considering.
In addition, Council Member Betcher stated that she did not have concrete information about net
developable acres; the numbers keep changing. She would like to suggest that Alternative 6 be
approved with specific direction on a Zoning Agreement similar to that contained in Alternative 2.
At the inquiry of Council Member Orazem, Director Diekmann advised that the Master Plan goes
with the rezoning; it is not a separate action.
After the question was raised by Council Member Betcher, Mr. Diekmann pointed out that one of
the requirements of the Master Plan is to identify unit types, developable area, and net acreage
associated with the building types. Ms. Betcher emphasized that the net acreage should be known
before the item is voted on. Director Diekmann clarified that the expectation is for a reasonable
estimate of the net acreage that will be buildable on the site; that is an element of the Master Plan.
Vote on Motion: 3-3. Voting aye: Betcher, Gartin, Nelson. Voting nay: Corrieri, Goodman, Orazem.
Mayor voted aye to break the tie. Motion declared carried.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Goodman, to instruct staff to come back on August 26, 2014, with
a signed Zoning Agreement with the following conditions:
1.That the shared-use path remain in its current location and configuration
2.The developable areas of the site be reduced to 10-14 acres based on Code-allowed exceptions
for constrained areas and the current configuration of the shared-use path.
3.The Developer agrees to pay a proportional share of the cost of traffic improvements at the
intersection of Mortensen Road and State Avenue.
Council Member Orazem said that he definitely did not want the bike path going through the middle
of the proposed development.
Moved by Orazem, seconded by Betcher, to amend the motion to state that the Master Plan includes
allowance for relocating the shared-use path subject to approval by the City.
Director Diekmann clarified that if the Zoning Agreement that accompanies the diagram would state
that the path may stay or may move as approved by the City, the decision on location would be made
at the time of subdivision. Staff is not 100% sure that relocation of the shared-use path is feasible
as it has not evaluated the current proposal pertaining to grades and it does not have confirmation
from the School District that it is in agreement with relocating the path on its property to make those
grades work.
Director Diekmann told the Council that the question before the City Council members at this
meeting is whether they believed the Master Plan had adequate information per the Municipal Code
requirements. Therefore, it could accept the Master Plan, as proposed, or request more detail, as staff
is recommending. Staff position is that the Master Plan does not seem to get to the level of detail
15
that is appropriate on this site for what is really the developable area and the developer has not
calculated an estimate of net acreage regarding the unit types that are being proposed on the site.
Council Member Goodman pointed out that if staff were going to do the “leg work” on FS-RL to
determine the density, it would make sense to do the same for RL. He felt that it would be necessary
to allow for a thorough understanding of the alternatives.
Council Member Orazem asked if a Master Plan would be required for RL zoning. Director
Diekmann responded that the Council has the prerogative to require a Master Plan to accompany
any rezoning request.
Vote on Amendment: 4-2. Voting aye: Betcher, Gartin, Nelson, Orazem. Voting nay: Corrieri,
Goodman. Motion declared carried.
Vote on Motion, as Amended: 4-2. Betcher, Gartin, Nelson, Orazem. Voting nay: Corrieri,
Goodman. Motion declared carried.
Breckenridge Development Agreement. Council Member Goodman noted that it will require five
votes to approve rezoning to FS-RL because a valid Protest had been filed. He asked if this
Agreement should even be discussed when it is felt that there would not be five votes in favor of
rezoning to FS-RL. City Attorney Parks clarified that there is a statutory process in place that
requires a super majority, i.e., five votes, if a valid Protest has been filed..
Moved by Orazem, seconded by Corrieri, to deny approval of the Development Agreement for the
Breckenridge parcels.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON VACATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT AND SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
FOR 701 SOUTH DUFF AVENUE: Eric Cowles, Civil Engineer, noted that Hunziker Land
Development had worked with the Howes and Mr. Flummerfelt, and staff believes that the issues
have been resolved.
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Campbell.
Jim Howe, 912 Clark, Ames, identified himself as the owner of the business located at 811 South
Duff Avenue. He told the Council that he believes, after talking to Chuck Winkleblack, that they
will still be able to get semis and large farm equipment in and out of his shop if the 16' easement is
approved. Mr. Howe indicated that he is in agreement to move the easement for the Park
Department that is located in back of his shop. He said that there is one remaining issue regarding
getting very large equipment, e.g., a 53' tractor-trailer, into his business. There is a still a concern
about the corner, as it would be impossible to get very large equipment to Howe Welding without
encroaching on Hunziker’s property line. Mr. Howe said he believed, after talking with Chuck
Winkleblack, that it is resolvable.
Chuck Winkleblack, 105 S. 17 Street, Ames, said it is Hunziker’s intent to work with Jim Howe.th
He indicated that when they get to the point of constructing the wall, they will figure out what
works; however, the easements will not change.
After no one else came forward to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing.
Council Member Gartin asked City Attorney Parks if the easement would run with the land. Ms.
16
Parks said that it would be related to what uses are on the land. Mr. Cowles said that the City will
be a party to the 12' easement; it will be in perpetuity.
Moved by Nelson, seconded by Gartin, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 14-450 approving the vacation
of an access easement and sanitary sewer easement for 701 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 VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR 4540 MORTENSEN
ROAD: Mayor Campbell opened the public hearing and closed same after no one requested to speak.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 14-451 approving the
vacation of a public utility easement for 4540 Mortensen Road.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON 2014-2018 CONSOLIDATED PLAN IN CONNECTION WITH CDBG
PROGRAM: The hearing was opened by the Mayor. No one asked to speak, and the public hearing
was closed.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Goodman, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 14-452 approving the
2014-2018 Consolidated Plan in connection with the CDBG Program.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
NEW WATER TREATMENT PLANT: Water and Pollution Control Director John Dunn told the
Council that the City had received the Construction Permit from the state on August 8, 2014; the
project is now ready to be bid.
Moved by Nelson, seconded by Corrieri, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 14-453 approving
preliminary plans and specifications for construction of the new Ames Water Treatment Plant -
Contract 2; setting September 24, 2014, as bid due date and October 14, 2014, as date of public
hearing.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
CAMPUSTOWN URA CRITERIA FOR 2300 LINCOLN WAY: Director Diekmann advised the
Council that the URA criteria requires facades facing any street use only fixed windows, which is
for the safety of pedestrians walking or standing near the building from projectiles that could be
thrown through an open window. The applicant requested an equivalent proposal to meet certain
criteria of the Campustown Urban Revitalization Area. The equivalent proposal is to install awning
windows on the street facing sides of the building (Lincoln Way and Lynn Avenue) that swing out
along the bottom edge of the window a maximum of four inches. The proposal has been reviewed
by the Ames Police Chief, and the Police Department is in favor of it.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Nelson, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 14-454 determining that
the developer’s proposal to install windows that open on the street-facing sides of the building under
construction at 2300 Lincoln Way is an equivalent alternative to the Campustown Urban
Revitalization Criteria for fixed windows on the street-facing sides of the building, provided the
17
following conditions are met:
1.Windows installed on the street-facing sides of the building shall have fixed windows for the
upper 5'6" of the height of each 7'6" window opening.
2.No more than the lower 2' of each window opening shall be an awning style of window that
hinges at the top and swings out at the bottom.
3.Awning windows on the street-facing sides of the building shall open no more than 4".
4.Screens for the awning windows shall be made of heavy gauge aluminum, 1/8" thick, in a grid
pattern with ½" openings.
5.Awning window screens shall be secured to U-shaped channels with tamper-resistant screens,
and the U-shaped channels are secured to the jamb of the window with tamper-resistant screws.
6.City staff will inspect the installed windows and screens to confirm that the conditions for
approval of the equivalent alternative have been met prior to consideration of a request for tax
abatement for this property.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
DOWNTOWN FACADE GRANT FOR 121 MAIN STREET: Council Member Nelson stated his
concern that the City would be making payment to the contractor rather than to the building owner,
to whom the grant was awarded. City Attorney Parks acknowledged that the grant process did not
account for this type of situation where the building owner cannot be found. City staff has made
several attempts to contact the applicant for the Grant, Caleb Matthews, but has not received a
response. In addition, the property at 121 Main Street has now been sold.
Planning and Housing Director Diekmann advised that the owner of 121 Main Street has never
requested payment of the Facade Grant, which is a requirement of the terms and conditions of the
Grant. City staff has determined that Integrity Construction has never received payment for the
completed facade work. Mr. Diekmann reiterated that the former owner, Caleb Mathews, cannot be
found. He did pay fees for professional design services, but did not request reimbursement from the
Facade Grant. Staff was recommending that the City Council authorize returning the unspent $1,000
for design fees to the Downtown Facade Grant fund balance.
Mr. Nelson believes that the court system should decide to whom the Facade Grant should be paid.
Brad Heemstra, 623 Lincoln Way, Ames, owner of Integrity Construction, indicated that the
property was to be sold under a Sheriff’s Sale; however, a new owner satisfied the debt and no
Sheriff’s Sale was held. Integrity Construction’s attorney has filed a Mechanic’s Lien and is in first
position.
Moved by Goodman directing staff to work with the new owners and Caleb Matthews to receive the
Grant proceeds.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Director Diekmann noted that the former building owner is not entitled to the Grant proceeds
because he failed to abide by the terms of the Grant Agreement. In essence, the City could void the
Grant Agreement for non-performance. He confirmed that the work on the building had been done
to the City’s specifications; however, the contractor was not paid for the work.
18
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to direct staff to take alternative action to resolve the
remaining Downtown Facade Improvement Grant allocated for121 Main Street.
Vote on Motion: 5-0-1. Voting aye: Betcher, Corrieri, Goodman, Nelson, Orazem. Abstaining due
to a conflict of interest: Gartin. Motion declared carried.
REQUEST FOR URBAN FRINGE PLAN AMENDMENT: Chuck Brekke, 26772 U. S. Highway
69, Ames, advised that he had met with Story County officials on May 7, 2014. He said that Story
County officials had indicated their approval of the proposal, but wanted approval of the City. Mr.
Brekke stated that the parcel in question is separate from the business parcel.
Council Member Orazem asked what the City’s position would be if this area were to be annexed,
specifically what would be the use of the property. Director Diekmann said it would be industrial;
however, the houses could stay as non-conforming uses in an Industrial zone. A map was shown of
the Industrial Reserve land as shown in the Ames Urban Fringe Plan.
Council Member Goodman pointed out that the parcel in question is located in between two other
parcels with existing houses.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to direct staff to move forward with the proposed
amendment to the Ames Urban Fringe Plan.
Council Member Gartin cautioned that the Council would be setting a precedent if it approves a
residential use in an area designated as Industrial Reserve. However, due to the unique
circumstances around this request, he indicated that he would be in favor of the motion.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
DRAINAGE CONCERNS AT 4006 STONE BROOKE ROAD: Civil Engineer Eric Cowles showed
a map of 4006 Stone Brooke Road, which indicated the location of the storm sewer and surface
water flowage easement.
Dan Carter, 4006 Stone Brooke Road, Ames, told the Council that, with even a two-inch rain, there
is a very large rush of water to the creek channel that is located next to his home. Several times in
the past, there has been enough force to carry 25-30' trees. Mr. Carter emphasized that the draining
ditch is not adequate. He asked if the City would investigate ways to address the problem. He would
like to see a tile installed.
Mayor Campbell noted that the Drainage Channel Review was performed by Bolton & Menk,
consulting engineers.
Charlie Martinson, 4313 Stone Brooke Road, Ames, identified himself as the President of the Stone
Brooke Homeowners’ Association. He indicated that contributing to the problem was Regency when
it developed the area known as the Reserve and built a retention pond. The Kinyon development also
built a holding pond. Northern Lights is a big contributor to the problem. The retention ponds hold
back a little water, but since the surface has changed, the water runs to the creek in Stone Brooke.
Mr. Martinson contended that the Bolton & Menk study concentrated on the Kinyon-Clark
Subdivision and didn’t mention the 300 acres being drained through other tiles.
Eileen Tramp, 1508 Stone Brooke Road, Ames, stated that she and her husband live a few feet from
19
the creek. Since 1995, there has been substantially increased water flow and velocity. It has become
treacherous in the past few years. Erosion is also occurring. The creek narrows by her property and
then overflows. According to Ms. Tramp, this causes a real safety concern for the area.
Mr. Cowles told the Council that the descriptions of the situations were accurate.
At the inquiry of Council Member Gartin, Mr. Cowles explained that the City now has a Post-
Construction Ordinance; however, when the Stone Brooke town homes were constructed, those
requirements did not exist.
Dan Carter stated that he and his wife had purchased their home approximately nine years ago. He
had talked to the builder of the home prior to his passing away, and he had indicated that they never
had any water problems. Mr. Carter said that he had sand-bagged around his home twice in the past
years.
Mr. Cowles indicated that the City is responsible for the maintenance of the creek; however, not of
the bridge.
Council Member Orazem believes that the Homeowners’ Association should play a role in the
improvements.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Orazem, to accept the report and direct staff to investigate ways to
protect the in-ground addition at 4006 Stone Brooke Road for overtopping of the adjacent creek.
Ms. Betcher stated her belief that the problem is broader than just Mr. Carter’s property.
Moved by Betcher, seconded by Orazem, to amend the motion to not be specific to just 4006 Stone
Brooke Road.
Council Member Goodman said he was not comfortable with the motion because it was too broad.
His main concern is safety. Mr. Goodman suggested that creek stabilization occur and signage be
placed warning of the danger of rushing waters after it rains.
Vote on Amendment: 4-2. Voting aye: Betcher, Gartin, Nelson, Orazem. Voting nay: Corrieri,
Goodman. Motion declared carried.
Vote on Motion, as Amended: 4-2. Voting aye: Betcher, Gartin, Nelson, Orazem. Voting nay:
Corrieri, Goodman. Motion declared carried.
MAINSTREAM LIVING PARKING REQUESTS: Moved by Orazem, seconded by Goodman, to
to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance designating parking restrictions and loading zone.
Vote on Motion: 4-0-2. Voting aye: Betcher, Gartin, Goodman, Orazem. Voting nay: None.
Abstaining due to a conflict of interest: Corrieri, Nelson. Motion declared carried.
2013 CARBON FOOTPRINT REPORT: Due to the lateness of the hour, the Mayor pulled this
item from the Agenda and recommended that it be placed on a future agenda.
UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL GOAL TO STRENGTHEN HUMAN SERVICES: Due to the
lateness of the hour, the Mayor pulled this item from the Agenda and recommended that it be placed
on a future agenda.
20
ORDINANCE REZONING 4710 MORTENSEN ROAD: Moved by Goodman, seconded by Corrieri,
to pass on second reading an ordinance rezo ning 47 10 M ortensen R o a d fro m C om m u nity
Com m ercial/R esidential (C CR ) to F loating S uburban Residential M edium -D ensity (F S -RM ).
Ro ll C all V o te: 6-0. M o tion declared carried un an im o usly.
O R D IN A N C E R E G A R D IN G A C C E S S O R Y S TR U C TU R E S F O R IN S TIT U T IO N A L U S ES IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DI ST RICTS: M oved by G oodman, seconded by Corrieri, to p ass on second
reading an ordinance m aking a zoning tex t am endm ent regarding accessory structures for institution al
uses in residential zo ning districts.
Ro ll C all V o te: 6-0. M o tion declared carried un an im o usly.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 PERTAINING TO EGRESS WINDOWS: Moved by
Nelson, seconded by Corrieri, to pass on third reading ORDINANCE NO. 4190 amending Chapter
13 to only require below-grade egress windows in bedrooms.
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 Orazem, seconded by Goodman, to refer to staff the email from
Maureen Ogle, 3002 Evergreen Circle, Ames, requesting a four-way stop at Northridge and Stange
with a flashing light for motorists on Stange.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to refer to staff the request of Scenic Development for
a text amendment to the City’s parking ordinance as it relates to front-yard parking.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Goodman said he believed that it was time to have conversation about the
possibility of creating some sort of balance in the New Lands or Existing Lands neighborhoods. He
would like to see that come back on a Council Agenda soon.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Betcher, to have Council review Planning & Housing
Department’s work priorities on August 26 and possibly move that project up on the list.
Motion withdrawn.
Moved by Corrieri, seconded by Gartin, to refer to staff the request from Stumbo & Associates on
behalf of Larry Roden requesting a waiver or deferral of sidewalk installation for property located
near the intersection of Freel Drive and Southeast 5 Street.th
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting aye: Betcher, Corrieri, Gartin, Nelson, Orazem. Voting nay: Goodman.
Motion declared carried.
Moved by Gartin, seconded by Corrieri, to ask staff to come up with a “tweak” to the process when
streets are closed to make the applicant be responsible for contacting the business owners and
property owners to inform them of the closure.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CLOSED SESSION: This item was pulled from the Agenda as it was no longer needed.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Goodman to adjourn the meeting at 12:34 a.m. on August 13, 2014.
21
_____________________________________________________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ann H. Campbell, Mayor