HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO) Transportation Policy Committee 09/10/2013MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE AMES AREA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE
AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
AMES, IOWA SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
MEETING OF THE AMES AREA METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE
The Ames Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (AAMPO) Transportation Policy Committee
met at 7:00 p.m. on the 10th day of September, 2013, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall,
515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with the following voting members present: Ann Campbell,
Wayne Clinton, Jeremy Davis, Matthew Goodman, Chet Hollingshead, Peter Orazem, and Victoria
Szopinski. City of Ames Transportation Planner Rudy Koester was also present. Voting Members
Jonathan Popp, Gilbert City Council representative; Jami Larson and Tom Wacha, Ames City
Council representatives, and Dan Rediske, Transit Board representative, were absent.
FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2014 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
AMENDMENT: Public Works Transportation Planner Koester explained that the proposed
amendment had initially been presented to the AAMPO last month when it set the date of public
hearing. Three projects were being added to the FY 2014 TIP; they had been erroneously
programmed in the Central Iowa Regional Transportation Planning A gency’s TIP. Due to the
boundary update, those three projects should have been included in t he AAMPO’s TIP.
According to Mr. Koester, the requirements to amend the TIP include an opportunity for public
review and comment, as well as approval by the Policy Committee. A public comment period
was open from August 13 to September 10. 2013. In addition, a public meeting was held on
August 22 to provide another opportunity for review and discussion of the amendment. No
comments were received from the public on the projects.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Clinton, to approve the amendment to the FY 2014 TIP to include
the following three projects:
TPMS #21264: North Dakota Avenue over Onion Creek Bridge Replacement
TPMS #22016: I-35 - U. S. 30 Interchange in Ames New Bridge Construction, Grading, ROW
TPMS #15628: Gilbert to Ames Trail - Trail connection from Gilbert, Iowa, to Ames, Iowa
Vote on Motion: 7-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Davis, seconded by Clinton, to adjourn the AAMPO Transportation
Policy Co mmittee meet ing at 7:02 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Ann Campbell called the Regular Meeting of the Ames City Co uncil to order at 7:03 p.m.
with Jeremy Davis, Matthew Goodman, Peter Orazem, Victoria Szopinski. Council Members Jami
Larson and Tom Wacha were absent. Ex officio Member Alexandria Harvey was also present.
Mayor Campbell announced that the Council would be working from an Amended Agenda; a Permit
to shoot fireworks at Gateway Hotel & Conference Center had been added under Permits, Petitions,
2
and Communications. Also, Item 4e, renewal of the Class C Liquor License for LaFuente Mexican
Restaurant at 217 South Duff Avenue, had been pulled by staff.
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Davis, seconded by Szopin ski, to ap prove the following items
on the Consent Agenda:
1.Motion ap proving p ayment of cl aims
2.Motion approving Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 27, 2013
3.Motion approving Report of Contract Change Orders for August 16-31, 2013
4.Motion approving renewal of the following beer permits, wine permits, and liquor licenses:
a.Class C Liquor - Corner Pocket/DG’s Taphouse, 125 Main Street
b.Class B Liquor & Outdoor Service - Hilton Garden Inn Ames, 1325 Dickinson Avenue
c.Class C Liquor - Whiskey River, 132-134 Main Street
d.Class C Liquor & Outdoor Service - Wallaby’s Grille, 3720 West Lincoln Way
e.Class C Liquor & Outdoor Service - Hickory’s Hall, 300 South 17th Street
5.RESOLUTION NO 13-418 renewing 28E Agreement with Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division
for enforcement of underage tobacco laws
6.RESOLUTION NO. 13-419 approving revisions to Records Retention Schedule
7.RESOLUTION NO. 13-420 approving preliminary plans and specifications for 2012/13 Flood
Response and Mitigation Project (Northridge Parkway Subdivision) & 2009/10 Storm Water
Facility Rehabilitation Program (Moore Memorial Park); setting October 2, 2013, as bid due
date and October 8, 2013, as date of hearing
8.RESOLUTION NO. 13-421 approving preliminary plans and specifications for Sunset Ridge
Subdivision, 5th Addition HMA Paving Project; setting September 18, 2013, as bid due date and
September 24, 2013, as date of public hearing
9.RESOLUTION NO. 13-422 waiving formal bidding procedures and awarding contract to Detroit
Stoker Company of Monroe, Michigan, in the amount of $76,476.16, plus freight, for Unit No.
8 Dump Grate Parts
10.RESOLUTION NO. 13-423 awarding contract to Generator & Motor Services of Turtle Creek,
Pennsylvania, in the amount of $225,400 for Unit 8 Generator Repairs/Re-Wedging Stator
11.RESOLUTION NO. 13-424 awarding contract to ODB of Richmond, Virginia, in the amount
of $53,578 for two le af vacuums
12.RESOLUTION NO. 13-425 approving revised awards for water meters and related parts for
Water and Pollution Control
13.RESOLUTION NO. 13-426 approving contract and bond for 2013/14 CDBG Public Facilities
Neighborhood Infrastructure Improvements Program (South Maple Avenue)
14.RESOLUTION ON. 13-427 approving contract and bond for 2010/11 Stormwater Facility
Rehabilitation Program (Spring Valley) and 2012/13 Flood Response and Mitigation (Clear
Creek)
15.RESOLUTION NO. 13-428 approving contract and bond for 2013 Softball Field Fencing and
Lighting for South River Valley Park (Lighting Project)
16.RESOLUTION NO. 13-429 accepting completion of Unit No. 8 Feedwater Heater Replacement
Project
17.RESOLUTION NO. 13-430 accepting completion of Steam Turbine No. 8 Overhaul Project
18.RESOLUTION NO. 13-431accepting completion of Wastewater Treatment Plant Diesel Tank
Replacement
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Resolutions/Motions declared adopted/carried unani mously, signed by the
Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
3
PUBLIC FORUM: No one req uested t o speak, a nd the May or close d Public F orum.
IMPROVEMENTS TO BICYCLING IN CAMPUSTOWN: Management Analyst Brian Phillips
recalled that, in December 2012, the City Council had a brief discussion concerning the safety
of bicyclists and pedestrians in Campustown, which had been prompted by the Student Affairs
Commission after the occurrence of bicycle/pedestrian and bicycle/car col lisions. The particular
issues raised included ways to make Campustown more bike-friendly and reduce bicycle/car and
bicycle/pedestrian collisions.
Mr. Phillips reported that staff had met with Campustown Action Association’s (CAA)
Transportation Task Force and developed surveys to send to bicyclists and Campustown
businesses. The feedback received indicated that bicyclists, in particular, felt unsafe primarily
along Lincoln Way and Welch Avenue.
The current state of bicycling in Campustown was explained by Mr. Phillips. He reported that
bicycling features in Campustown are limited. The bicycle prohibition on the south side of
Lincoln Way is due to the concentration of pedestrian traffic and the narrower buildi ng setback.
According to Mr. Phillips, if Lincoln Way in Campustown were to be built from scratch today,
it would not support parallel parking. Parking would be provided at lots behind businesses, on
lower-vo lume side streets, or in area parking ramps/facilities. In place of the parallel parking,
the sidewalk would be constructed wider to accommodate more pedestrians, allow more street
furniture, and handle features such as sidewalk cafes or signs. The street itself would have the
same number of vehicular traffic lanes, but would also have on-street painted bicycle lanes.
Welch Avenue, in an ideal state, might also have less on-street parking, wider sidewalks, and
dedicated bike lanes or sharrows.
It was reported by Mr. Phillips that Campustown businesses were separately surveyed.
Unfortunately, only seven responses were received, compared to over 400 from bicyclists.
Although the low number of responses likely makes this survey’s results invalid, six of seven
respondents had a negative feeling about bicyclists on the sidewalks in Campustown. Six of
seven also indicated that they would support the CAA and the City focusing on ways to increase
bicycle traffic in Campustown, encouraging fewer people to drive and more people to bike.
However, only three business owners supported reducing the number of parking spaces to
provide bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and sidewalk cafes, while four were opposed to those
suggestions.
According to Mr. Phillips, the surveys and discussions yielded two projects that staff was
recommending to the City Council for consideration. These projects will improve some minor
amenities for both bicyclists and motorists, as follows:
1.Install several smaller bicycle racks on the sidewalks throughout Campustown. According
to the survey, these upside-down U racks on the sidewalk are the preferred means of
securing bikes and more of them are desired. These racks cost approximately $150 each
and staff believes that four to six more could be placed in the Campustown area. If directed
by Council, staff would include funding for bike racks in the 2014/15 proposed budget
and would work with the CAA to identify locations that would minimize impact on
sidewalk usage.
2.Develop a public parking signage program throughout Campustown. This signage may
4
help direct motorists to the area parking facilities (Intermodal Facility, Memorial Union
Parking Ramp) on the outskirts of the District, rather than adding to traffic congestion in
the center of the District. If that option were to be pursued, staff recommended that it be
directed to work with the CAA and Iowa State University to develop this program. Public
parking signage that does not use standard highway signage, but instead uses a theme,
tends to be more effective. The CAA is currently working on a Campustown way-finding
program that may be complementary to a public parking signage effort.
Mr. Phillips said the challenge that had been identified was that there was no easy way to
address the bicycle/pedestrian and bicycle/car collisions. It is recognized that whatever solution
is chosen, it will involve removing some parking. The following options were presented:
1.Determine that parking is the more important priority and take no further action. If the City
Council is satisfied with the current level of service for bicyclists in Campustown, or if the
City Council believes that motor vehicle traffic is the higher priority for the Campustown
District, the City Council may choose to take no action.
2.Determine that bicycling is the more important priority, and direct staff to investigate
modifications to remove parking on Lincoln Way and/or Welch Avenue in order to install
bicycle lanes.
If it is determined that there is a willingness to shift parking to area parking facilities, these
on-street spaces might be converted to a bike lane and wider sidewalks. In addition to
improving the primary complaint of bicyclists, the loss of parking spaces to businesses
could be offset by wider sidewalks that could host sidewalk cafes, sidewalk sales, or other
activities that have previously been limited or not possible due to space constraints.
3.Determine that balancing parking and bicycling needs is important and direct staff to form
a task force to identify creative solutions to satisfy both needs. If that alternative were to
be selected, staff recommended that the task force consist of three community bicyclists,
three student bicyclists, two Lincoln Way business owners, two Welch Avenue business
owners, two CAA representatives, and be facilitated by City staff. This task force would
be charged with identifying physical improvements to Campustown to address the safety
of bicyclists and pedestrians while still respecting the needs of businesses to have public
resources such as parking. City staff would facilitate discussion and provide cost and
feasibility estimates. The task force would return to the City Council with
recommendations, if any, to address any conflicts.
Council Member Davis asked staff to comment on which option was the better one. Mr. Phillips
replied that staff felt comfortable recommending installing more bike racks and developing a
way-finding system that would encourage drivers of vehicles to routinely use the Intermodal
Facilities or other parking facilities on the outskirts of an area, rather than using on-street
parking spaces.
City Transportation Engineer Damion Pregitzer noted that periphery parking facilities have the
best success when they are accompanied by good signing throughout the district.
Council Member Orazem said that it was important to consider how bicyclists are getting to
Campustown; Lincoln Way is not the best route. He noted that a better route would be on
5
Mortensen, 13th/Ontario, or on the shared-use path that goes right past the Intermodal Facility.
Mr. Pregitzer agreed and pointed out that, as the traffic volume on Lincoln Way has exceeded
23,000 daily trips and speeds have increased, challenges have been created for all users of the
road. In addition, there is heavy pedestrian use.
Mr. Orazem stated his opinion that, if parking was going to be sacrificed, it should be removed
from an area where there are the fewest businesses disadvantaged, e.g. Hayward or Stanton. Mr.
Pregitzer noted that staff learned from the surveys that there are some bicyclists who would use
alternate routes (other than Lincoln Way); however, there always will be a group of users whose
needs won’t be met unless so me kind of change within the right-of-way is made. If something
has to be taken away, e.g., on-street parking, staff is trying to balance it out by offering other
benefits, i.e., sidewalk cafes or parklets.
Council Member Goodman said he believed the best solution was to put together a Task Force,
but did not want to limit it to bicyclists. He also didn’t want to be too specific as to what groups
should be included. Mr. Goodman stated that he did not want to move forward with adding more
bike racks or signage until the task force discussion had occurred; there might be better solutions
that come out of that.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Szopinski, to direct staff to put together a task force,
including the two issues stated above (bike racks and signage) as part of that task force as well
as parking or any other solutions, including sharrows, and that this include all modes of
transportation (motorized and non-motorized).
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ANALYSIS OF HOTEL MARKET AND FUNDING SOURCES FOR FLAT SPACE
PROJECT: Brian Dieter, Chairman of the Ames Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors; Tina
Colburn, Vice-President of Ames Convention & Visitors Bureau (ACVB); and Kevin Cook,
President of the Ames Convention & Visitors Bureau, were present.
Mr. Cook said that, since last year’s presentation before t he City Council, several sessions had
been held with local residents and clients to gather additional information on the need and
opportunity for additional convention space in Ames. Discussions had also continued with Iowa
State University.
Tina Colburn requested that the City Council consider funding the continuati on of the study.
She presented an update to the CSL Market Analysis. Ames severely lacks exhibit space;
currently, only 20% of the demand is being met. The new request would fund a study that would
look at the feasibility of the hotel development and how it would impact current hotels in Ames
and the surrounding area as well as to determine the likelihood of private funding and in what
amount for the convention space. Ms. Colburn advised that the total cost of the study would not
exceed $38,500, which would be split 50% by the ACVB, and 50% by ISU (1/3), the City (1/3),
and the Chamber and AEDC (1/3).
Mr. Dieter identified himself as the Chairman of the Ames Chamber of Commerce Board of
Directors and explained the phased approach for the third study. He reviewed the original plan,
Phase I (Exhibit Space), Phase II (Scheman Remodel), Phase III (the south entry), and Phase IV
(proposed hotel) .
6
At the inquiry of Council Member Orazem, Mr. Cook advised that, at this point, the ownership
of the potential hotel, is anticipated to be private.
Council Member Goodman asked what led to the recommendation of adding a hotel to the
project. Mr. Cook pointed out that they had not had anyone step forward who was interested in
building a hotel. Other models had been looked at, and it appeared that hotels are a bit hesitant
to come into the project until the market had grown a little bit. However, a t this point, there
might not be a hotel that is ready to join in. It had been discuss ed for many years that a hotel
would complement the project; however, it is unknown whether a hotel can be attracted to the
project.
Duffie Lorr, 233 Hilltop Road, Ames, said that she found this project very interesting. She noted
that the proposed convention center appeared to be located very close, in geographical terms,
to an existing hotel. If the existing hotel is not enthusiastic about this project, she a sked to know
where a new hotel would be constructed. Mayor Campbell replied that that is why a study is
needed. Ms. Colburn advised that the original analysis indicated that the convention space
should be attached to the Scheman Building to be the most cost-efficient; it would not be built
out by Gateway.
Council Member Orazem asked if the study would examine what the likely shares of dollars that
could be raised through the City’s taxing author ity or through the Iowa State Foundation and
what the possible bill would be if proceeding with a bond issue. Mr. Cook confirmed that it
would. Council Member Goodman noted that, ultimately, this concept would have to come to
the community for conversation as to what amenities it wants and what it is willing to pay for.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 13-439 approving an
allocation of $6,417 from Council Contingency towards a two-phase study proposed by the
ACVB, which includes a market analysis for a potential hotel adjacent to the convention
facilities and a private funding analysis for the flat space project.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
AMES COMMUNITY PRESCHOOL CENTER (ACPC) PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT:
Parks and Recreation Director Keith Abraham reported that, earlier this year, the ACPC
purchased the former Willson-Beardshear school from the Ames Community School District.
Prior to the pur chase of t he former school, ACPC staff contacted the City about funding a
playground structure for the site. In exchange for the funding, it was agreed that the playground
equipment and recreational space could serve as a neighborhood park when ACPC was not in
session.
According to Mr. Abraham, the concept was presented to the City Council during budget
hearings in February 2013. The City Council, at that time, approved setting aside funding in the
amount of $30,000 to help in the purchase of the playground equipment and directed staff to
develop an agreement by which ACPC would pay one-third of the playground equipment cost.
Any Agreement would confirm that ACPC would be responsible for installation and surfacing
costs. However, in a letter dated August 23, 2013, ACPC asked the City Council to reconsider
this funding arrangement based on unforeseen costs associated with its building project. The
ACPC is now requesting $32,720 for the purchase of playground equipment, installation and
surfacing, and suggested the City pay one-third of the total cost. Repayment would be made in
7
two installments, one-half paid by June 30, 2014, and one-half paid by June 30, 2015. The
equipment cost is approximately $22,000; installation is a little less than $8,000, and the
surfacing would cost $3,000.
Director Abraham reviewed three possible funding options based on the new request.
The Council was apprised that if the cost of installation was to be included, it would trigger City
bidding requirements for the project as a public improvement. According to Mr. Abraham, after
learning of that fact, Sue Wuhs, Director of ACPC, suggested that the City up-front the funding
for the purchase of the equipment. If that were approved, ACPC would have to come up with
the money for installation and surfacing, and as a result, would request to change the pay-back
date to June 30, 2015, instead of June 30, 2014.
Council Member Orazem asked about the ACPC’s ability to reimburse the City by June 30,
2015. Sue Wuhs, 2920 Monroe, Ames, Director of the ACPC, said 2015 was chosen because of
ACPC’s anticipated revenues and expenditures for 2014. Mr. Orazem asked how people could
donate to the project if they so chose. Ms. Wuhs directed those persons to ACPC’s Website.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to direct staff to prepare an agreement whereby the
City will up-front $21,799 for the purchase of the playground equipment only; ACPC will
reimburse the City one-third of the $21,799 by June 30, 2015, and ACPC will be responsible for
installation ($7,811) and surfacing ($3,110).
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CLUBHOUSE USE IN RESIDENTIAL HIGH-DENSITY ZONE: Planning and Housing
Director Kelly Diekmann recalled that, at its August 27, 2013, meeting, the City Council
referred a letter from Scott Renaud, Fox Engineer, on behalf of Copper Beach, which requested
that the City consider a zoning text amendment to allow a clubhouse in the Residential High-
Density Zone. He noted that the City Council had directed staff to prepare a report providing
background information on this subject.
City Planner Karen Marren advised that, at issue is the ambiguity of the Zoning Code in
considering principal and accessory uses related to a clubhouse withi n the Residential High-
Density Zoning District. The Zoning Code does not directly list or define the use of a clubhouse,
but instead relates to a use description: “recr eational activities,” which are an acceptable
accessory use for permitted Household Living uses (single-family, two-family attached, and
apartment style dwellings). According to Ms. Marren, the Zoning Code does not define what is
intended by the term “recreational activities.” However, in a separate section of the Zoning
Code, “recreational facility” is defined. The definition would fit the intent and functions of a
clubhouse; however, “recreational facilities” are only listed as an accessory use under the Group
Living use category, which allows for such uses as assisted living facilit ies, boarding and
rooming houses, dormitories, or fraternities and sororities. Ms. Marren reported that a club house
is also considered a commercial use as an Entertainment, Restaurant, and Recreation Trade.
Within the Residential High-Density Zoning District, a limited amount of entertainment,
restaurant, and recreation uses are allowed as part of a mixed-use resident ial building. As a
commercial use, it is open to use by any person and not restricted to resident s or members. A
stand-alone recreational facility is not a permitted use within Residential High-Density zoning.
Ms. Marren advised that there are existing clubhouses in the City as accessory uses to residential
developments. However, they were constructed either under the approval of an old PUD
(Planned Unit Development), or as an F-PRD (Planned Residential District). One recently
constructed Residential High-Density Zoning clubhouse was allowed to be constructed as a
8
permitted Entertainment, Restaurant and Recreation Trade use within a mixed-use building
because a residential use is located above the first floor. In the case of a mixed-use development,
the entertainment/recreation use is limited to an area of not more than 5,000 square feet. In the
case of Copper Beach, however, the clubhouse is intended to be a stand-alone structure for
residents’ use and not be integrated into a mixed-use building. The Council was told by Ms.
Marren that it will have to be decided whether clubhouses should be permitted as Household
Living specific to Residential High-Density or just to a Household Living us e type.
Ms. Marren said that staff beli eves ther e is merit to adding a Zoning Co de amendment for
clubhouses for residential developments to accommodate a desirable outdoor/indoor activity and
amenity space for residential dwellings. In addition, such an amendment would provide an
opportunity to clarify the definitions of “recreational activity” and “recreational facility.” Staff
could review the description of the uses, arrangement of the use table, and potentially any
needed development standards. It was noted that, since there are existing clubhouses in other
zoning districts, the Council could direct staff to broaden the review of a clubhouse text
amendment to consider provisions and standards for clubhouse/recreational facility use in other
districts that allow multi-family dwellings. Whether Council determines that clubhouses are
appropriate for all re sidential use types or onl y specifi c to multip le-family uses within the
Residential High-Density Zone, the request and desire of Copper Beach for their development
would be satisfied.
According to Director Diekmann, the core issue is whether the City wants to allow clubhouses
in the High-Density zone. Council Member Goodman asked how the addition of a clubhouse
would affect the density requirement. Mr. Diekmann replied that a clubhouse would be viewed
as an optional element and accessory use on the site, which should not affect the density
calculation. Mr. Goodman indicated that he would want the clubhouse to be counted towards the
density calculation. He does not want a clubhouse to be counted as an outlot where it doesn’t
count as part of the density calculation, which decreases the net return for the City in terms of
property taxes.
Council Member Orazem inquired if existing clubhouse-type structures that have been built in
other high-density apartment complexes would be validated by the same zoning text amendment.
Director Diekmann said that it could be - there are options: they might be allowed “by right,”
they might require a Special Use Permit, or there might be standards about where they may or
may not be located. However, at least a path would be provided to remove the ambiguity.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to direct staff to prepare a zoning text amendment
to add the use (clubhouse) to Residential High-Density with the caveat that it be included in the
density calculation and with a definition of what a clubhouse is.
Director Diekmann said that staff would like to have the freedom to look at the Recreational
category as part of this, so there might be more than one definition; it might not just be a
clubhouse definition.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
8-MONTH SPECIAL CLASS C LIQUOR LICENSE FOR CAFÉ DIEM: Moved by Davis,
seconded by Szopinski, to approve an 8-Month Special Class C Liquor License for Café Diem,
229 Main Street.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
5-DAY SPECIAL CLASS C LIQUOR LICENSE FOR OLDE MAIN BREWING: Moved by
Davis, seconded by Orazem, to approve a 5-Day Special Class C Liquor License (September 18
- 22) for Olde Main Brewing at Reiman Gardens, 1407 University Boulevard.
9
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
OUTDOOR SERVICE AREA EXTENSION FOR WEST TOWNE PUB: Moved by Goodman,
seconded by Orazem, to approve an Outdoor Service Area extension on September 14 for West
Towne Pub, 4518 Mortensen Road, Suite 101.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
SIGN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR WHIMZE BOUTIQUE: Moved by Davis, seconded
by Orazem, to approve an Encroachment Permit for a sign for Whimze Boutique, 429 Douglas
Avenue.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
FIREWORKS PERMIT AT GATEWAY HOTEL & CONFERENCE CENTER: Moved by
Davis, seconded by Goodman, to approve a Fireworks Permit to shoot fireworks at Gateway
Hotel & Conference Center on September 21, 2013, for the Lange wedding, pending final
approval by the Fire Inspector.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The meetin g recess ed at 7:56 p.m. and rec onvened a t 7:58 p.m.
HEARING ON ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 29.401(5) TO ELIMINATE
PROVISION ( C ) PERTAINING TO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY OR TWO-
FAMILY STRUCTURE ON SAME LOT (Continued from August 27, 2013): Director
Diekmann reviewed the history of this issue. He reiterated that the proposed amendment would
directly require an individual lot for each single-family or two-family structure. This would
result in the requirement for a future development to go through the City’s subdivision review
process in order to build multiple homes.
According to Mr. Diekmann, as part of the analysis for the proposed zoning text amendment,
staff had looked at issues of non-conformity and consistency with the Land Use Policy Plan.
The Council’s attention was brought to a map that showed the residentially zoned properties in
the City that were greater than one acre. Staff was only able to identify one property that would
become non-conforming by the proposed amendment: it is a property on Ontario that has
multiple duplexes on one lot.
Mayor Campbell noted that the hearing had been continued to this meeting from August 27,
2013.
Duffie Lorr, 233 Hilltop, Ames, advised that she has lived in Ames since 1972 and is currently
a member of the College Creek Neighborhood Association. Ms. Lorr said that she and her
husband support Alternative 1, as it will ensure compatibility of new developments to existing
neighborhoods and ensure that there is compatible infrastructure i n all Ames neighborhoods
Moved by Orazem, seconded by Goodman, to pass on first reading an ordinance amending
Section 29.401(5) to eliminate provision ( c) pertaining to more than one single-family or two-
family structures on same lot.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
HEARING ON VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS AT 1606, 1610, AND 1614
SOUTH KELLOGG AVENUE: The public hearing was opened by the Mayor and closed after
no one came forward to speak.
10
Moved by Davis, seconded by Goodman, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 13-432 vacating the
public utility easements at 1606, 1610, and 1614 South Kellogg Avenue.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON WATER POLLUTION CONTROL TRICKLING FILTER PUMPING
STATION CHECK VALVE REPLACEMENT: The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one
requested to speak, and the public hearing was closed.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Szopinski, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 13-433 approving final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Story Construction Company of Ames, Iowa,
in the amount of $62,900.00.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
HEARING ON CONTROL PANELS FOR AMES PLANT SWITCHYARD: The hearing was
opened by Mayor Campbell. She closed same after no one asked to speak.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Szopinski, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 13-434 approving final
plans and specifications and awarding a contract to Schweitzer Engineeri ng Laboratories, Inc.,
of Pullman, Washington, in the amount of $198,469.55.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these Minutes.
XENIA RURAL WATER UPDATE: Assistant City Manager Bob Kindred advised that over the
past two months, the City Council had given staff direction to:
1.Attempt to ascertain Xenia’s best offer to buy out the service territory to the north of
Ames.
2.Completely search for all of the City’s existing records dealing with any service territory
interactions that have transpired in any location with Xenia Rural Water.
3.Seek outside legal counsel to help identify strengths that might exist in the City’s position
in its negotiations with Xenia to arrive at the best possible buy-out arrangement.
Mr. Kindred provided an update to the Council’s direction. He reported that staff had reviewed
existing City files to gather all available documentation of past dealings regarding service
territory transfers between the Xenia Rural Water District and the City, and a summary of that
research had been provided as part of the Council Action Form. Xenia was also asked to search
its records for additional documentation, but was not able to locate any files that substantially
cleared up the territory transfer questions. Using the information available, a map was prepared
to show the status of various Xenia territory requests over the pa st 20 years. Tha t map was
shown, which illustrated areas where the documentation appeared to confirm that Xenia has the
right to serve territory as well as areas where such transfers had not been made or where
questions remain. Existing Xenia customers were also depicted on the map as was the City’s
current two-mile fringe area. Mr. Kindred reported that, based upon the findings, City and Xenia
staff will have to work together to more clearly define the City’s respective service territories
to the west and south of Ames.
City Attorney Judy Parks recalled that, following Council direction, the City engaged the Des
Moines legal firm of Dorsey & Whitney to assist in determining the City’s legal position. That
firm reviewed pertinent laws and the available documentation to verify if the proper processes
had been followed in Xenia’s service territory transfer requests. The Council was tol d that the
Chapter of the Iowa Code that covers this particular type of transfer doesn’t have a lot of
11
specificity in what has to be provided when a rural water provider gives notice by means of a
water plan. Unfortunately, there is no concrete documentation of how the rural water request was
made for the northern area. Ms. Parks advised that, after reviewing the 1996 northern area
agreement with Xenia, Dorsey & Whitney confirmed that the City was bound by the terms of
the 1996 agreement. According to Attorney Parks, in Section 13, that agreement specifies that
“the City and Xenia may negotiate a buy/sell agreement for all or parts of the water distribution
system” based on the actual value of Xenia’s infrastructure within the specified northern area.
Although the agreement identified acceptable terms to be considered during negotiation of that
price, it also provided for additional issues to be considered. Ms. Parks pointed out tha t the
agreement used the term “may,” not “shall,” and did not mandate the negotiations of a buy/sell
agreement.
Mayor Campbell asked to know how it had been done in the past. Ms. Parks replied that, in the
last situation for the Northridge Heights development, there was not any City involvement.
Xenia had a water line through the area. The developer approached Xenia, and the parties agreed
that the developer would move the line at its cost. Assistant City Manager Kindred added that
the agreement was included in the Development Agreement for that Subdivision. Mayor
Campbell noted that Xenia’s financial status was different in 1996 than it is today.
Council Member Goodman questioned whether Xenia could be asked if it has records. Ms. Parks
answered that the City could ask Xenia; that is something that the City would like to work out
in a collaborative process. Xenia might choose not to share the information; if litigation
transpires, the City could force the issue. Mr. Kindred noted that the City sent them a request
to “fill in the blanks,” and they sent three documents that the City already had. Ms. Parks
pointed out that if Xenia had records that indicated it had clear rights to serve specific areas, it
would have produced those documents. City Attorney Parks said that the absence of
documentation by Xenia is interesting since it would have been in its best interest to produce
those documents when requested to do so by the City. Xenia has now utilized that opportunity
in requesting a very large payment before this service territ ory is transferred back to the City.
City Attorney Parks added that the Dorsey & Whitney legal team believes that there are avenues
that might be pursued to seek to better establish the City’s interests in these areas. Those actions,
however, would be time-consuming. Furthermore, given the lack of legal precedent on
adjudicating the process of service territory transfers, there would be no assurance of success.
Mr. Kindred reported on the City’s recent developments with Xenia. He advised that, within the
last two weeks, Xenia staff reported that they had met with the local Ames developers who are
seeking annexation in the Northern Growth Area. As a result of those discussions, Xenia staff
reported that they and the developers have reached a tentative agreement on a per-customer buy-
out payment. Xenia’s General Manager reported that the framework he discussed with the
developers has received tentative approval by the Xenia Board; and that, if the developers and
City Council are amenable to that arrangement, he will take that framework to Xenia’s creditors
to seek their consent. Even though Xenia and the City have spent several months negotiating
possible territory transfer scenarios, this approach by the l and developers of working directly
with the rural water agency to negotiate a service territory buy-out is consistent with how these
buy-outs have historically been handled when development stretched out into rural water
territory. Should the developers be willing to assume the obligation to see that Xenia is
compensated for this service territory, as has historically happened in other locations, then this
impediment to northern annexation will have finally been removed. Mr. Kindred recalled that
for the Barilla annexation and the former Wolford mall land, developers paid a buy-out to the
rural water provider.
12
It was noted by Mr. Kindred that the City had n ot seen t he terms of the developers’ agreement
with Xenia. However, legal counsel from Dorsey & Whitney have stated that, in the event that
Xenia and the northern developers agree to buy-out terms, it would be advisable for the City to
also enter into an agreement with Xenia to confirm the transfer of service territory. This
agreement should show the specific service territory to be transferred and could incl ude all of
the City’s Northern Growth Area. Following consummation of those agreements, the City and
developers should enter into pre-annexation agreements confirming t he buy-ou t terms. Th e same
language for rural water buy-outs that has historically been included in development agreements
could be used.
Kurt Friedrich, Friedrich Development Company, 100 Sixth Street, Ames, and specifically,
developers of Quarry Estates, provided a brief update on the status of negotiations with Xenia
after the City Council had suggested that affected developers become involved. He advised that
the developers asked Xenia what kind of agreement could be reached that would be agreeable
to Xenia. Mr. Friedrich said that the developers and Xenia seemed to have found some common
ground and have a tentative agreement. According to Mr. Friedrich, it appears that the tentative
agreement would allow the service agreement previously surrendered to Xenia by the City in
1996 to be turned back over to the City. There would be no cost to the City for that buy-out. He
advised that the developers would be happy to set up a meeting with the City to discuss the
potential terms of their agreement with Xenia. Because the negotiations have not been finalized,
Mr. Friedrich preferred not to disclose the terms of the agreement at this meeting.
Chuck Winkleblack, 105 S. 16th Street, Ames, said that his review of all documentation did not
yield any mention of a buy-out. He noted that when developing Northridge Heights, Xenia had
a water line where Hunziker wanted to build lots, and the developer paid for moving that line.
That has been the past practice; they do that all the time. It was Mr. Winkleblack’s contention
that that is a separate issue from who has water rights or who owns the service territory. Mr.
Winkleblack took issue with the comment that “historically,” or what the developers ha ve
“always” done. He emphasized that the developers have never bought-out territ ory.
Mr. Winkleblack explained that the developers had only been discussing the issue with Xenia
for approximately two weeks. He clarified that the only area that the developers had discussed
was for the Northern Growth territory. Mr. Winkleblack asked to hear what the Council’s
solution was for resolving the issue of developing land to the north.
Council Member Szopinski said that she believes the Council understands the developers’
immediate need for more buildable lots for housing; however, the Council has to look at what
effect this would have on the City long-term. There is a concern that if a precedent is set, it may
mean growth would not be allowed to happen in other areas. Ms. Szopinski said the Council
directed staff to negotiate, not just “to get the deal done.” She noted that ext ortion was not the
word that was legally appropriate in this situation, but it was clos e to it. Ms. Szopinski
commended that Xenia is in debt and has never charged those kinds of fees before; “however,
now they want over $6 million from the City.” Mr. Winkleblack reported that he thought there
were places in the state that had actually paid more than $3,700/customer. Ms. Szopinski said
that was not a reason for the City to continue with “those bad deals.” She pointed out that the
City is still negotiating; Assistant City Manager Kindred is dealing with the issue on a daily
basis. According to Ms. Szopinski, political involvement might change the manner in which
rural water can move into urban areas; they were never intended to be serving urban a reas in the
first place.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Orazem, to refer it back to staff to work with the developers and
Xenia; after the agreement has been reached between the developers and Xenia regarding water
rights, bring the agreement back to the City for approval.
13
Council Member Goodman advised that he would prefer the motion be that staff meet with
developers to ascertain the numbers. He said he did not understand why the developers had not
shared the numbers with the staff so that they could have been included in the staff report. Mr.
Goodman also said that he would prefer to have a full Council present before a decision is made
on this issue.
Mr. Winkleblack said that the tentative agreement had not been shared with City staff as the
developer was hoping that the City would come up with its own solution. The developers want
to pay “nothing.” Until the staff report came out, they did not know what the staff’s position
was. Mr. Winkleblack said that neither his firm nor Friedrich Development signed the agreement
that gave away the water rights in the first place; they have only been subject to them. He noted
that he had not had any discussion with the staff about negotiations for several weeks.
City Manager Schainker clarified that, as he understood what was indicated by the developers
at this meeting, the City would not be a part of this; they will have an agreement with Xenia
Rural Water to make the buy-out. However, before the City annexes any land, it has to ensure
that there is a declaration of the transfer of that service territory. Council Member Szopinski said
she wanted to see the terms of the agreement even if the City was not a party to the agreement.
Council Member Goodman said he was comfortable as long as the agreement is ultimately
brought back to the City for approval.
Assistant City Manager Kindred pointed out that, at this point, there would be no agreement to
approve because Xenia has stated that they want to take the framework to its lenders. He said
he believes that there will be three two-party agreements: one between the developers and Xenia;
one between Xenia and the City to confirm the transfer of the service territory; and there would
be the Annexation Agreements between the City and the developers confirming that the
developers are assuming that responsibility.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
The meetin g recessed at 8:55 p.m. and rec onvened a t 9:04 p.m.
INTERMODAL FACILITY OPERATING SUBSIDY: City Manager Steve Schainker recalled
that, in February 2011, the City entered into a three-party agreement with Iowa State University
and the Ames Transit Agency regarding operations of the new Intermodal Facility. Among
other provisions, that agreement specified that, if the revenue generated from the Facility users
were insufficient to cover the operations and capital improvement expenditures, the University
and City would each provide equal supplemental operational support necessary to maintain a
positive balance.
Mr. Schainker pointed out that the first full year of operations for the Intermoda l Facility came
to an end on June 30, 2013, and the University, which manages the facility, had provided a
budget summary to the City. The report indicated that expenditures for the facility exceeded
revenues by $27,973.37. In accordance with the Operations Agreement, the City then owes the
University one-half of that amount ($13,986.69) for the first year.
According to Mr. Schainker, in analyzing the budget data, it appeared t hat the expenditures for
the operations actually came in $2,560 less than the anticipated $124,284. Therefore, the cause
for the deficit can be isolated on the revenues where the receipts from meter and space rentals
were $48,559 less than budgeted. Fortunately, revenue from the rental of office space for the
Jefferson Bus Line and Executive Express was $16,470 greater than expected; otherwise, the
operational deficit would have been even greater.
14
The Council was told by City Manager Schainker that one reason for the lower-than-
anticipated revenue from meter and rental revenues was that fees in the Intermodal Facility
were higher than the City parking fees in the surrounding area. Those higher fees are
necessitated by the higher costs of maintaining a parking garage. In order to enhance the
revenue opportunities of the facility, the City Council might want to give consideration to
increasing the metered parking fees in the Campustown area to be more in line with the
Intermodal Facility rates.
Mr. Schainker suggested that, in order to prevent an operational subsidy in the future, the City
Council might want to consider either 1) increasing the parking and rental space fees in the
other areas in Campustown so that they are more in line with the Intermodal fees, 2) lowering
the Intermodal fees to match the other fees in Campustown with the expectation that prices will
attract more overall use of the facility, or 3) hope that the increase in enroll ment at ISU and
expected new redevelopment projects in Campustown will result in greater parking demand at
the Intermodal Facility.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Goodman, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 13-435 approving an
allocation of $13,986.69 from Council Contingency for City’s share of operating deficit.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
Council Member Orazem reported that there was a “glitch” in the meters at the Intermodal
Facility. He said he had already informed the Campustown Action Association. According to
Mr. Orazem, the meters do not add to the time already paid for, which dramatically increases
the payor ’s cost. City Mana ger Schai nker sai d that he w ould look into that proble m.
ADVANCED ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (AATI): Finance Director Duane
Pitcher stated that a couple things had come up since last Friday when the Council Action Form
was distributed. The first was related to the cash portion of the local match, which was shown
in the Council Action Form as $125,000. Mr. Pitcher advised that the ISU Research Park is
putting s ome money into this and that is listed as being amortized into the rent; however, the
Iowa Economic Development Authority had not evaluated that yet. If that equates to $125,000,
the City’s match would become the industrial abatement. The second issue was that AATI has
some preferred stockholders, and one of the preferences that they receive is the ability to ve to,
or the need to sign off, on additional debt. That step had not been finished and won’t be finished
before the Economic Development Authority meets in September. The City may endorse the
application if the Council so chooses; however, it won’t go to the Economic Development
Authority until October. Once all details are worked out, staff will inform the Council if there
is a cash match need from the City.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Orazem, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 13-436 to endorse the
application of Advanced Analytical Technologies, Inc., requesting economic development
assistance from the Iowa Economic Development Authority, with a local match to be
determined at a later date.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
CHAPTER 14 REVISIONS: Assistant City Manager Melissa Mundt recalled that , at the July 2,
2013, Ames Human Relations Commission (AHRC) meeting, the Commission was approached
by oneiowa, an organization which supports full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender Iowans. Matthew Skuya, Deputy Director of oneiowa, noted that Chapter 14 -
Human Relations - of the Ames Municipal Code was not consistent with the Iowa Civil Rights
Act as it did not list gender identity as a category for discrimination. That ar ea of the Iowa Civil
15
Rights Act was amended in 2007; however, the City had not undertaken any changes to Chapter
14 since 199 6. AHRC reco mmended that City staff bring back changes to Chapter 14 of the
Ames Municipal Code to reflect the changes to the Iowa Code as soon as possible.
According to Ms. Mundt, in addition to the changes regarding gender identity, the City
Attorney's Office also noted that the Municipal Code was missing several sections that were
adopted into the Iowa Civil Rights Act, which included a section on wage discrimination
adopted in 2009, a section on Additional Housing Exceptions adopted in 2007, a section on
Exceptions for Retirement Plans, Abortion Coverage, Life, Disability, and Health Benefits
adopted in 2006, and a section on Promotion or Transfer adopted in 1996. Several other lesser
housekeeping changes were also made to the Chapter, including changing the wording in
Section 14.5(1) to read Affirmative Action Officer, instead of Director; in Section 14.5(8)
changing the wording to read Mayor and City Council, instead of City Council; in Section 14.10
deleting Chapter 534 because it was repealed from the Iowa Code in 2012; and in Section
14.12, adding sexual orientation and gender identity as it was adopted into the Civil Rights Act
in 2007.
The Council was told that, at its August 22, 2013, meeting, the AHRC voted unanimously to
forward the amendments to Chapter 14 to the City Council for consideration and approval.
Moved by Szopinski, seconded by Goodman, to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance
making revisions to Chapter 14, as recommended by the Ames Human Relations Commission.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ASSET POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: Assistant City Manager Mundt advised that each
year, the ASSET Administrative Team and ASSET volunteers review the the Policies and
Procedures. As a result of the 2013 review and discussions with the Department of Human
Services (DHS), a change is being recommended to Section III - Team Structure. Ms. Mundt
explained that, in the spring of 2013, the DHS staff indicated that they no longer desired to
appoint volunteers to ASSET since they do not provide any funding directly to the services.
It was noted that the DHS does provide funding to assist with ASSET administrative expenses
and has stated that it would continue to do so. After considerable discussions by the ASSET
Administrative Team, the change was recommended to the ASSET volunteers at the August
2013 ASSET meeting, and the volunteers approved the change. ASSET’s funders are now
being asked to approve the change as well.
According to Ms. Mundt, ASSET’s Administrative Team and volunteers have thoroughly
discussed the impacts of the reduction of DHS involvement in the ASSET process and feel
comfortable with DHS’s continued support and participation with the ASSET Administrative
Team.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 13-437 approving the
revised ASSET Policies and Procedures.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
EASEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR 2008/09 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS EAST
PRESSURE ZONE LOOP: Operations Manager Corey Mellies reported that staff had been
working on this project for several years. It will provide a loop from Billy Sunday Road to
Crystal to loop Southdale. Currently, Southdale is on one water main on Duff, which causes
issues. At the time of the project, all the property owners seemed agreeable to grant the
easements; three out of the five property owners had signed the agreements. The City will
continue to work with the apartment complexes in an attempt to get voluntary agreement; if that
16
fails, staff will likely start the condemnation proceedings to get the easements so that the project
can be built next year.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Szopinski, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 13-438 approving
Easement Agreements with Teresa J. Yeary in the amount of $2,500; Jerry J. Miller and Judy
A. Miller in the amount of $3,500; and the State of Iowa in the amount of $8,300.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these Minutes.
ORDINANCE REVISING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 29.1503(4) (b) (iii) PERTAINING
TO THE WEIGHT OF TRUCKS SERVING SPECIAL USE PERMIT USES IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONES: Moved by Goodman, seconded by Davis, to pass on second reading
an ordinance revising Municipal Code Section 29.1503(4) (b) (iii) pertaining to the weight of
trucks serving Special Use Permit Uses in residential zones.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE REVISING APPENDIX Q PERTAINING TO WATER METER FEES:
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Davis, to pass on second reading an ordinance revising
Appendix Q pertaining to Water Meter Fees.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Moved by Davis, seconded by Orazem, to refer to staff the letters from
Lowell and Norma Elwick dated June 10, 2013, and Attorney Rebecca A. Reisinger on behalf
of Helen Anderson dated June 14, 2013, pertaining to 1311 George Avenue and 1401 Georgia
Avenue, respectively.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Szopinski, seconded by Goodman, to refer to Parks and Recreation staff regarding
the need for community gardens and include the e-mail from David Hoffman dated September
8, 2013, requesting that the City acquire a portion of land connecting the two pieces of Ross
Road for use as community garden plots.
Council Member Orazem said he believes that there are other areas in existing City parks that
could be used for community gardens. He doesn’t want to see additional land purchased for use
as community gardens, particularly land that otherwise would be a house.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Orazem, to refer to staff the letter from Reinhard K.
Friedrich dated August 8, 2013, requesting a time extension for the completion date for the
remote parking easement for 605/615 East Lincoln Way.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Da vis to adj ourn the me eting at 9:30 p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ann H. Campbell, Mayor