HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Special Meeting of the Ames City Council 05/17/2011M INUTES OF THE SPECIAL M EETING OF THE AM ES CITY COUN CIL
AM ES, IOWA M AY 17, 2011
The Ames City Council met in special sessio n at 7:00 p.m. on the 17th day of May, 2011, in the City
Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with Mayor Ann Campbell presiding
and the following Council Members present: Davis, Goodman, Larson, Mahayni, Orazem, and Wacha.
Ex of ficio member Finseth was also present.
LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE: Mayor Ann C ampbell welcomed the group in
attendance for the expansion update. Library Director Art Weeks introduced Library Bo ard of
Trustees members in attendance, which included members Lucket, Budd, Bradley, Schill, Rawlins,
Campbell, Manus, and Meier. Mr. Weeks said Member Stow will be arriving later. Mr. Weeks also
introduced Library staff members Lynne Carey and K aren Thompson, and Library Consultant K ay
Runge. Mr. Wee k s t ha nk ed the City Council for the opportunity to provide an update on the
expansion project, and said the opportunities for comment are tomorrow at the library in the Farwell
T. Brown Auditorium at 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and at 2:00 p.m. in the Green Room at N orthcrest
Community. Mr. Weeks introduced Library Architects Jeff Scherer and Amanda Aspensen. Two
handouts were distributed to the Council members.
Mr. Scherer said the goal is to strike the right balance for Ames and the Ames Public Library. He said
one of the overriding considerations is that the addition would not be overbearing, and that the building
would have continuity. He said the proposed expansion would increase square footage from 48,000
to 77,500.
Mr. Scherer reviewed the increases in circulation, collection, and visits since the library renovation in
1984. Mr. Scherer also discussed the existing conditions of the building and the modifications that have
been made. Photographs were shown of the library in 1904, 1907, 1940, and 1984.
Mr. Scherer said that the main issues are ADA compliance, collection space, technology changes,
safety, meeting space, and youth space. He described the new location for the Bookmobile, and said
that the current mailboxes will be retained. Other improvements were also discussed. Diagrams were
shown of the library space and how the floor plan will be re-worked. He said that a new elevator will
be installed, and that the circulation desks will be more like concierge desks. Mr. Scherer showed the
new entrance, with a glass connection from the older portions of the building to the new part.
Council Member Orazem asked how many renovations would still have to be done even without the
renovation and expansion. Mr. Scherer said that roughly half of the budget is devoted to systems.
Discussion ensued on the floor plan. It was noted that there will be four meeting rooms on the second
floor and two large meeting rooms on the first floor. Council Me mb e r Go o d ma n asked if the
operations costs would be flat. Mr. Weeks said that staffing costs should not increase since the point
of supervision will be shifted to the second floor. Mr. Scherer said the building will be designated
LEED Silver, so the operations should remain relatively the same.
Library Board Member Luckett said he is pleased with the process. He said the Board has listened
to the citizens, and has learned that the current site is very important to the community. He said the
Board is fortunate to have Jeff Scherer working through the process, and believes the project is on the
right track and will be supported by the community.
Library Board Member Bradley said the process has been long, and the Board has learned much about
the community’s desire to work with what is there while incorporating energy efficiency and needed
improvements.
Mr. Weeks thanked the Mayor and Council, and reminded the public to comment on the project at
the public input sessions on Wednesday, May 18.
The meeting recessed at 8:04 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m.
DISCUSSION OF LAND USE POLICY PLAN AM END M ENT PROCESS: City Manager
Steve Schainker told the Council that the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) Procedural Considerations
prepared for the meeting were prepared as a starting point. Planning and Housing Director Steve
Osguthorpe reminded the Council that on April 20, 2010 the Council invited the development
community to give input on what they believed were code impediments to development. Mr.
Osguthorpe said that one of the suggestions that came out of that meeting was to develop a defined
process for amending the LUPP. That was then referred to staff, and then became a priority for the
Planning & Housing Department.
Mr. Osguthorpe reviewed the process for amending the LUPP currently, and then reviewed the
procedural considerations prepared by staff to aid Council in developing a defined process.
Discussion ensued regarding previous amendments.
Council Member Orazem wondered if the Council should anticipate future requests when decisions are
being made. Council Member Goodman and Council Member Larson commented on change and
unanticipated conditions related to a LUPP.
Discussion ensued regarding how many amendments are too many. Council Member Wacha said it
is frustrating when a specific request drives the Plan. Council Member Mahayni said that an integral
part of a comprehensive plan is a serious periodic review. He said the Council must adopt a resolution
to review the applicability of the LUPP vision and goals in terms of what is currently taking place every
five years.
Mayor Campbell said Council Member Larson had the same idea. Member Larson said that any
strategic plan is reviewed every five years, and the LUPP is a strategic plan. Mayor Campbell asked
if the Council would rather anticipate than react to requests. Member Mahayni said both are
applicable; the Council must deal with minor amendments, and major amendments would be the result
of deliberate evaluation and study.
Member Goodman said he does not believe that amendments mean there is something wrong with the
plan. He said he believes the scheduled review should be community-wide and bring everyone to the
table.
Mayor Campbell said that it cannot be said that changes can only be made every five years. Member
Wacha agreed that there must be flexibility.
2
Mr. Schainker said that some issues are difficult on a case by case basis. He said a major review of
the LUPP every five years could be a solution that would reaffirm the direction of the Plan, and then
a separate policy could be instituted for minor amendments that come about.
Discussion ensued regarding what would constitute a major change, and what would constitute a minor
change.
Mr. Schainker asked for direction. He said that staff can continue as before if that is Council’s desire,
and mo ve a he a d with a new commitment to review the LUPP every five years. It was his
understanding that customers were expressing frustration at the April 20, 2010 meeting, and it was
referred by Council for staff to look into this. He said nothing has to be done right now, that staff can
come back to Council with an outline of a major review process.
There was discussion regarding a major review of the LUPP. Member Goodman said the review every
five years is a good idea, but he worries about how long it will take each time. Mr. Schainker said the
major review would include public meetings to gather input, and could take longer than the periodic
reviews of other plans. Mr. Schainker said that the 2003 review was an internal review, and the last
city-wide review of the Plan was in 1993. Member Orazem suggested the review would have focus
with specific topics being reviewed each time.
Moved by Wacha, seconded by Goodman, directing staff to come back to Council with a plan to
review the LUPP every five years.
Member Orazem said council members should be required to put forward what they think are the
elements that should be focused on in the review. Member Larson said he thinks the results of the
visioning effort should be considered. Member Orazem said that with the census results coming out
over the next year, he thinks this is the ideal time for the review.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Member Goodman discussed a situat ion where the customer was frustrated with how the process
worked. He said he hopes that an environment can be created where decisions c a n b e r e a ched
quickly, or the investor knows from the beginning that they may not achieve what they are hoping to
achieve.
Member Larson discussed the idea of concur r e nt applications. He said with some new council
members, he believes the Council should be reminded of the quasi-judicial situations. He also said
there is value in looking at things concurrently with land use and zoning.
Member Goodman said he thinks it makes the most sense to do the LUPP discussion independently.
Mr. Schainker asked the Council if it would like to handle all a me nd me nt requests at once or
separately.
Member Davis said he is not in favor of having applications due at one time, and said it would be a real
detriment to many.
3
Mr. Osguthorpe asked if major amendments would still be processed when requested or be processed
during the five year review. Member Orazem asked if City Attorney Doug Marek could help clarify
between major and minor amendments. Mr. Marek said if zoning is being considered concurrently with
a minor LUPP amendment that is site-specific, they must be treated as quasi-judicial decisions. He said
that council members would need to be careful to keep their consideration of facts limited to those
p r esented in public forum. He said it is possible, but that the presentations, discussions, a nd
deliberations would need to take place in the Council Chambers as public meetings.
Discussion ensued regarding benefits and drawbacks of concurrent applications.
Mr. Schainker asked the Council if a comprehensive review is done every five years, does the Council
even want to consider major amendment s a fte r a major review. There was discussion regarding
amendment requests. Council members agreed that the Council should analyze requests as they come.
Mr. Schainker asked if there are any criteria that the Council wants to establish in a process to help
in making the decisions. Discussion ensued on major versus minor amendments. Member Larson said
that an amendment may be minor to someone and major to someone else. Member Davis agreed that
the perception is different with each person of what is major or minor. Mr. Schainker asked if the
Council is satisfied with the way the process is now, without any new criteria. Member Goodman said
the criteria are the goals already established in the Plan. Discussion ensued regarding the current goals
of the LUPP and the suggested criteria.
Mr. Schainker reiterated that the Council does not want to change or add criteria right now, which will
give the ultimate flexibility to the Council. Member Larson said it could happen that guidelines are
a d d e d d ur ing the major review as a result of public input. Member Goodman said he hopes the
Council can address a concern from the conversation on April 20, 2010 regarding how much time
developers spend with staff on a request before the Council has a chance to approve or deny the
request. There was agreement that this issue should be addressed, but that it cannot be addressed or
solved tonight.
Discussion ensued regarding the major reviews of the LUPP every five years.
Mayor Campbell said she hopes that a review of the LUPP every five years will result in staff helping
guide the Council through the items that are appropriate in a LUPP.
COM M ENTS: Council Member Orazem congratulated Edie Schmidt on receiving the Buyer of
the Year Award.
Mayor Campbell commented on the property tax reform bill going through the legislature currently.
She asked Assistant City Manager Bob Kindred to give a brief overview.
Assistant City Manager Bob Kindred said the current proposal is for a reduction of approximately 40%
in the taxable valuation of commercial and industrial property to be phased in over five years. Member
Larson said he has concern about the effect on residential property taxes. He said he is not sure the
public fully understands what is being considered. Mayor Campbell said this is a very crucial time in
the legislature, and told the Council that the Iowa League of Cities is having a webinar on this proposal
tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.
4
ADJOURNM EN T: The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
_______________________________________________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ann H. Campbell, Mayor
___________________________________
Erin Thompson, Recording Secretary
5