Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council 12/20/2011MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 20, 2011 The Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council was called to order by Mayor Campbell at 7:00 p.m. on December 20, 2011, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Ames City Council were Davis, Goodman, Larson, Mahayni, Orazem, and Wacha. Ex officio Member Finseth was also present. Mayor Campbell recognized Council Member Mahayni for his nearly 22 years of service to the City – as a City Councilman, Planning and Zoning Commissioner, and Historic Preservation Commissioner. Mr. Mahayni chose not to seek reelection, and as such, this was his last meeting as a Ci ty C ouncil Member. She presented Mr. Mahayni with a Key to the City in gratitude for his service. CONSENT AGENDA: Council Member Larson requested that Item No. 5 [Increasing the limit for First National Bank and Wells Fargo Bank (approved depositories)] be pulled for separate discussion. He advised that he is on the Board of Directors of First National Bank; therefore, would be abstaining from the vote due to a conflict of interest. Moved by Goodman, seconded by Wacha, to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda: 1.Motion approving payment of claims 2.Motion approving Minutes of Special Meeting of December 6, 2011, and Regular Meeting of December 13, 2011 3.Motion approving renewal of the following beer permits, wine permits, and liquor licenses: a.Class B Beer - Pizza Pit, 207 Welch Avenue, Suite 201 b.Class B Liquor - Quality Inn & Suites Starlite, 2601 East 13th Street 4.RESOLUTION NO. 11-564 accepting Abstract of Votes of City Run-Off Election held December 6, 2011 5.RESOLUTION NO. 11-566 approving COTA Spring 2012 Special Project Grant Contracts 6.RESOLUTION NO. 11-567 approving Amendment to Iowa Department of Economic Development CEBA and HQJC Agreements with Sauer-Danfoss 7.RESOLUTION NO. 11-568 approving preliminary plans and specifications for Vet Med Substation Capacitor Banks; setting January 11, 2012, as bid due date and January 24, 2012, as date of public hearing and award of contract 8.RESOLUTION NO. 11-569 changing bid due date from December 28, 2011, to January 4, 2012, for WPC Facility Ultraviolet Disinfection Equipment 9.RESOLUTION NO. 11-570 accepting Federal Stimulus Program Project - Duff Avenue (7th Street to 13th Street) Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolutions declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these minutes. INCREASING LIMIT OF APPROVED DEPOSITORY: Moved by Goodman, seconded by Wacha, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 11-565 increasing the limit for First National Bank and Wells Fargo Bank on the list of Approved Depositories. Roll Call Vote: 5-0-1. Vot in g aye: Davi s, Good man, Mahayni, Oraze m, Wa cha. Voting nay: None. Abstaining: Larson. Resolution declared adopted, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these minutes. 2 PUBLIC FORUM: Richard Deyo, 505 Eighth Street, #2; Ames, said that on December 8, 2011, as he opened the door for persons entering City Hall, he offered to take them to lunch. When they declined, he tried to give them $10 to pay for their lunch. Only one person accepted money from him. Mr. Deyo said that someone called the Police Department, and an officer talked to him, telling him that he did not have the right to do that. Mr. Deyo said that he believed he should have the right to open the door at City Hall and take people to lunch. He also felt that he should be able to give people money if he wanted to do so. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 AND 414 SOUTH DUFF AVENUE: Planning and Housing Director Steve Osguthorpe explained that on April 23, 2010, a Minor Site Development Plan for property located at 400 and 414 South Duff Avenue was signed and submitted by Rick Thompson. The Plan entailed removing all of the existing improvements on the site except for the furniture warehouse.The pavement was removed, the building was removed, and the site was elevated. A Landscape Plan was also submitted and approved with a few minor changes. According to Director Osguthorpe, by removing all existing improvements, any non-conformities formerly existing were also removed; therefore, any “grandf atheri ng” provisions were eliminated. After approval was given of the Site Plan and the Landscape Plan, the applicant was granted Building Permits, and construction of the project was allowed to begin. The project was constructed in two phases. Once the phases were complete, staff inspected the site to ensure that all required improvements were installed per the Plan. Staff identified a number of items in the Landscape Plan as well as dumpster screening issues and provided comments to Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, at that time, expressed his concerns with the landscape requirements as they pertained to his site. According to Mr. Osguthorpe, there was no question about the interpretation of theCode; it was more a matter of how those requirements applied to the site in question. Mr. Osguthorpe reported that staff later met with Mr. Thompson and Tom Wierson. It was noted by Director Osguthorpe that he had the wrong name of the person who met with him in the Council Action Form; it should have been Tom Wierson. A corrected Council Action Form had been provided to the City Council and posted to the City’s web page. At that meeting, Tom Wierson had identified a number of sites around town that he wanted some feedback on, believing that they were treated differently from others. The sites were the Casey’s store on Lincoln Way and Walnut; Super Walmart, Target, the new taco restaurant on South Duff; and the two new HyVee gas stations. Upon reviewing those sites, staff again met with Mr. Thompson. According to Mr. Osguthorpe, staff found that the plans that had been approved for those sites did comply with the landscaping standards in place at the time they were approved. Mr. Osguthorpe reported the findings of how the other sites at issue with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Wierson complied. Director Osguthorpe said he wanted the City Council to know what the applicant’s concerns were and to allow the applicant to express those concerns to the Council. Since the planting season had past, staff had agreed to give Mr. Thompson until May 1, 2012, to get the landscaping finished; however, Mr. Thompson wanted to present his case before the City Council. Mr. Osguthorpe defined four alternatives that could be approved by the City Council. City Attorney Doug Marek advised that the first two options were available to the City Council. However, to effectuate the third option, which would be to suspend the landscaping rules for all applicants, an ordinance-type action by the City Council would be required. 3 City Manager Schainker said that this case was quite unusual. Normally, the City’s next action would be enforcement; however, because the customer wanted an opportunity to speak to the City Council, staff took an unprecedented move to allow that. Rick Thompson, 414 South Duff, Ames, said the property owners felt that common sense should apply to the landscaping requirements for the property in question for the following reasons: 1.They believe that to plant 250 trees and shrubs required by the approved site plan for the property in question was “overkill” and “would look gaudy.” 2.The site would be difficult and expensive to maintain. Mowing around all the bushes and prun in g them would be cost ly. 3.Property characteristics should come into play. Since the property had to be raised three or four feet, there are slopes around all the property except for the front. It is very difficult to plant shrubs on the slopes. 4.O’Riley’s Auto is right next to the site in question. Because of that proximity, no one would be able to see the bushes between the buildings on the south side. 5.The applicant felt that money would be better spent reinvesting in their business. They have already spent over $32,000 on bushes, rock, irrigation, sod, and trees. To plant the number of trees and shrubs to comply with the Landscape Plan would cost the applicant an additional $10,000. Currently, the site is nine (9) trees and 112 shrubs short of the requirement. 6.The applicant felt that what had already been planted was in good taste; they have had no negative comments from anyone. According to Mr. Thompson, they have been “trying to get through to staff” that, based on other developments around town, the issue is with how they are interpreting the Code. What staff has told him “goes way over his head,” and he wanted an explanation from Mr. Osguthorpe on specific items. Mr. Thompson asked Director Osguthorpe for an explanation of Paragraph 2 on Page1 of the Staff Report, which stated, “Apart from this screening requirement, review comments from City staff pertained only to some plant substitutions to reduce the height of trees near an overhead power line..”. Mr. Osguthorpe said that staff from Electric Services was concerned about the type of plant listed gr owing into the power lines and had requested a shorter-type shrub. He advised that the Landscape Plan had been approved with that change. Mr. Thompson repeated that the City Electric Services had recommended a different species of tree be planted because the one listed in the Plan would interfere with power lines. He said the Plan was changed because City staff wanted it changed. He is askin g not to plant trees on the site because they will interfere with the signage for their business. He felt there was no difference in those reasons why the Plan should be changed; the City got its wish and the applicant should as well. Council Member Mahayni advised that there was a major difference, which was that the applicant had submitted the site plan, and when he did so, the number of trees and shrubs were shown on it and that was the Plan approved by the City because it complied with the City’s 4 landscaping standards. Mr. Thompson acknowledged that he had seen the Plan prior to it being subm itte d. Continuing, Mr. Mahayni noted that staff from Electric Services saw the Plan after it had been submitted and raised the issue. He asked Mr. Thompson why the applicant did not notice the interference with signs before the Plan was submitted. In response, Mr. Thompson said they did not even look at the landscaping, as they had had an architect draw up the Plan. According to Mr. Thompson, the applicants “had more important things going on in their world” at that time. He explained that their office had been flooded, and over a year later, nothing had gotten done on the site. Mr. Thompson said “the last thing on his mind was landscaping,” and he felt that could be dealt with later. Mr. Mahayni pointed out that the applicants had submitted a site plan to the City, they had negotiated that site plan with the City, and the City had approved it because it met the landscaping requirements. However, now the applicants are changing that site plan according to their own wishes without regard to the rules and regulations of the City. Mr. Thompson said he was before the Council tonight to find out if those rules and regulations should apply. Council Member Mahayni felt strongly that it was not a question of interpretation. He told the applicant that that question should have been asked before the site plan was submitted, not after the fact, as they were allowed to construct their building because what was submitted met the requirements. Mr. Mahayni said that he had been in his profession for a long time, but he had never seen a report such as this case. In his opinion, what the applicant was stating was that they had submitted a site plan, but had intended to only do what they wanted to do regardless of whether it complied with the approved plan or not. Mr. Thompson said the applicant had seen other sites around Ames and wondered why he was being subjected to certain requirements when others were not. Again, Council Member Mahayni noted that the plan had been approved by the City after it had been submitted by the applicants, but now the applicants were stating that they were not going to fulfill its obligations. Mr. Thompson said that he was refuting the interpretations made by City staff. He believes that the Plan could be changed as they do it all the time with leases, which in his opinion, are more important than a plan. Mr. Thompson felt that it would not be that big of a deal to redraw the Plan and take out the landscaping that doesn’t need to be there. Council Member Larson said that the City would have to approve the revised plan, which would not happen because it would not meet the standards. Council Member Wacha pointed out that each case is different, and different requirements apply. Mr. Thompson compared the building the applicants had constructed at 400/414 South Duff to Casey’s at the corner of Lincoln Way and Walnut. Director Osguthorpe gave a synopsis of the improvements made to the Casey’s store. He stated that, for Casey’s, the circulation plan was unchanged; the pavement was replaced, but in the same location. The Code provisions pertaining to non-conformities applied, which allowed for repairs and maintenance of non-conforming structures and rebuilding of structures that were not lost to more than 70% of their value. Mr. Osguthorpe pointed out that the pavement area and parking circulation of the original Casey’s site was not completely removed, and it was reinstalled exactly as it was before the repairs began. At the inquiry of Council Member Mahayni, Mr. Thompson acknowledged that they had hired a professional firm to determine what was needed to meet the requirements of the City of Ames. Council Member Larson said that those professionals did that, submitted the Plan, and that Plan was approved. He noted that if the applicant was not in agreement with the Code requirements, the applicant should have gone through the appeal process at that time. 5 Moved by Wacha, seconded by Mahayni, to defer enforcement action until May 1, 2012, to allow Mr. Thompson to accomplish the required planting for 400/414 South Duff. Council Member Goodman stated his opinion that “big fish get different type of treatment.” The Code dictates the requirements; however, he can understand why some owners feel that their interests are not t reated equall y. Council Member Mahayni stated that an approved plan is a contract. The contract was agreed to by Mr. Thompson. He asked Mr. Thompson if they had checked with the architect prior to the Plan being submitted and approved by the City. Mr. Thompson acknowledged that they had reviewed the plan; however, they now feel that the architect had made mistakes on the Plan. Vote on Mo ti on : 6-0. M ot io n declared carried un anim ou sly. Mr. Thompson then raised the issue of the requirements being enforced by the City for the trash receptacle on the site in question. He pointed out that three sites had been allowed exactly what they were proposing for their site; however, he was not allowed to have chain link fence around the trash receptacle. 2114 STATE AVENUE: Director Osguthorpe recalled that the City Council had, on September 13, 2011, referred a letter from Ron Mowers and Margaret Epplin, owners of 2114 State Avenue, requesting approval to connect to the City’s water service. The property is contiguous to the City limits, and without annexation, the City is under no obligation to provide water service. However, the “land-banking” option approved by the City Council on October 25, 2011, created a mechanism to provide water to the properties along State Avenue. Moved by Orazem, seconded by Mahayni, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 11-571 approving the Covenant and Agreement for Annexation for 2114 State Avenue. Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of these minutes. ADAMS STREET PAVING: Municipal Engineer Tracy Warner introduced Sarah Okerlund, a newly hired engineer with the Public Works Department. Ms. Okerlund summarized the request made via a petition from Staci Harper of 1419 Edgewater Court that the graveled portion of Adams Street be paved and that the costs be borne entirely by the City. Ms. Okerlund stated that the estimated costs for paving that segment of Adams Street were $160,500 (including engineering, construction, and construction administration). Ms. Okerlund advised that, historically, the initial paving of a residential streets is paid for by the developer and passed on to each property owner through the purchase price of the lot. From there on, the City assumes ownership of the street and responsibility for its maintenance and replacement. For that reason, for those lots that are adjacent to graveled streets, the City Council has typ ically required a special assessment paid for by the abutting property owners to accomplish this type of improvement. The special assessment process ensures that the property owner pays for the ini tial street construct ion wh ile al lowi ng for a reasonable payment arrangement over time at a low-interest rate. At the Council’s direction given on August 23, 2011, Ms. Okerlund reported on how the 6 pavement would impact assessed property values. She advised that assessed property values are based in part on the adjacent roadway surface where the driveway is located. The City Assessor had estimated that the property values of two of the the four parcels would increase. Parcels 3 (910 Adams Street) and 4 (3919 Dawes Drive) come off of paved sections of Calhoun Avenue and Dawes Drive, respectively, and would not have an increase in assessed value. Ms. Okerlund noted that, after receipt of the petition, Council, on August 23, 2011, had directed staff to meet with adjacent prop erty owners along Adams Street regarding a potential special assessment. Ms. Okerlund met with the property owners personally or spoke telephonically with the affected property owners and summarized their discussions. Potential options were outlined by Ms. Okerlund. At the request of Council Member Wacha, City Attorney Marek explained the standard assessment procedure, specifying what happens if all adjacent property owners did not agree to the assessment. At the inquiry of Council Member Orazem, Ms. Warner advised that the City assumes the costs of maintaining graveled roads. Operations Manager Corey Mellies said that because the site in question equates to about a half block in length; the costs are minimal. Staci Harper, 1419 Edgewater Court, Ames, pointed out that the graveled portion of Adams Street is not flat; there is an incline. She said that there are already several holes in the road. Ms. Harper also noted that the graveled road is a direct route to Calhoun Park and Ada Hayden Heritage Park. Council Member Goodman asked if other residents of the neighborhood would be interested in sharing the cost of the paving. Ms. Harper said they were all very agreeable to sign the petition to have the costs of paving put into the City’s Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). She felt that it would come down to “the numbers.” Moved by Goodman, seconded by Larson, to direct staff to explore a voluntary assessment project that would include contributions from residents of the adjacent neighborhood to the west, i.e., The Reserve, and other interested neighbors for the paving project. Council Member Larson said that he wanted staff to talk to other residents of the area. Council Member Davis said that he would also like to know what the costs would be for alter nate surfacing. Council Member Mahayni disagreed and said that staff would be sent on a chase that would not yield different results. He preferred that the Council compromise on Option 6 to call for a neighborhood meeting and discuss the issues. If they are willing to contribu te tow ard the paving, they should sign a new petition. City Attorney Marek noted that an assessment project would be possible if the residents signed a Voluntary Assessment Agreement. Council Member Goodman said that he would like staff to include discussions of a standard assessment procedure, which means that the property owners would pay $99,560 and the City would pay $60,940. Mr. Larson stated that perhaps the City could agree to 50% (around 7 $80,000) of the costs because he can see the public good that would come from the project; however, he felt that those are discussions that should be held with property owners in the area. Vote on Mo ti on : 6-0. M ot io n declared carried un anim ou sly. TRAFFIC-CALMING STUDY: Traffic Engineer Damion Pregitzer introduced the consultants from Howard R. Green who had assisted in the preparation of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Handbook. Mr. Pregitzer stated that the Traffic-Calming Study was planned through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in order to create a handbook for Ames with the goal to enhance safety and livability for residents throughout the community. He said that the final draft of the Handbook was created from compiling nationally recognized best practices in the field of traffic calming and then tooling those methods and their application to fit the context of the Ames community. According to Mr. Pregitzer, the information contained within the Traffic-Calming Handbook is not intended to be a set of rigid requirements and solutions; rather, it is a guide to identify, select, and apply the most appropriate traffic calming measures for a particular situation. Mr. Pregitzer emphasized that the document is not intended to be a substitute for sound engineering judgment. Mr. Pregitzer gave the background of traffic-calming methodology. He said that techniques of traffic-calming may include education, enforcement, and/or engineering. Traffic-calming measures are not appropriate in all areas; they are typically limited for use on local streets. However, communities have incorporated them on collector streets with predominate residential land uses, and less frequently, on streets through downtown business districts. Because traffic- calming measures are designed to slow traffic and reduce cut-through traffic volumes, they are generally not appropriate for use on arterial streets which are intended to accommodate higher speeds and larger traffic volumes. According to Mr. Pregitzer, each traffic-calming request will require evaluation by a qualified transportation engineer or engineering team. The Handbook will be used by City staff to assist the Council in providing effective solutions that promote the safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians while enhancing the environment of a neighborhood within th e Cit y. The history of traffic-calming was briefly described by Mr. Pregitzer. He reviewed the objectives and princip les of traffi c-calming. Mr. Pregitzer described non-physical measures that could be used: speed enforcement, photo speed enforcement, speed feedback sign, signage, lane-striping, high-intensity striping, transverse markings, speed legends, recessed pavement markers, high-visibility crosswalks, in-pavement light ing, flashing LED sign, and colored pavements. They can potentially be low in cost. The pros and cons associated with non-physical measures were given. Physical measures include physical modifications to the street facility. According to Mr. Pregitzer, physical measures can be more effective at reducing speed and traffic volumes. However, they are more restrictive and could potentially divert traffic and impact access to adjacent properties. Measures under this category are generally higher in costs and have longer implementation times. Physical measures include textured pavement, speed humps, speed cushions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, traffic circles, curb extensions, 8 chicanes, lateral shifts, curb bump-outs, center island narrowing, and medians. Potential advantages and disadvantages associated with physical measures were also noted. It was emphasized by Mr. Pregitzer that there is not a single tool to solve all traffic problems and one tool that may work well in one area for a particular problem may not be effective in another situation. The key to successful traffic-calming is both community acceptance and municipal/maintenance support. Mr. Pregitzer advised that no action b y the Cit y Council was nec essary at t his m eetin g. Council Member Wacha acknowledged that there are at least two instances where residents had raised traffic issues in their neighborhoods. Those persons had been told that the City was undertaking a Traffic-Calming Study and their requests were put on hold pending the completion of the Study. Mr. Wacha felt that the Council should provide direction to the staff to apply the most- appropriate traffic-calming measures for each situation. Moved by Wacha, seconded by Goodman, to direct staff to implement measures in the traffic- calming tool box for the Crescent/Summit area by the Ames High School; the Diamond/Jewel area; and Hayes, from 24th to 20th Street. Vote on Mo ti on : 6-0. Motion d eclared carried unanimousl y. The meeting recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:42 p.m. FLOOD MITIGATION: Assist an t C it y Manager Kindred recalled that, following the August 2010 flood, the City Council set a goal to mitigate flooding. That goal included both short- and long- term actions. The two primary sub-components were to reduce the possibility of damage caused by river/watershed flooding and reduce the possibility of damage in our community caused by localized flood ing. According to Mr. Kindred, so far, greater progress had been made on the short-term mitigation actions. This emphasis grew out of the limited time frames available to access FEMA funding, as well as the sense of urgency conveyed by affected citizens in specific neighborhoods. Work on the long-term goals has progressed more slowly since it involves deliberation and coordination with more outside entities. The ultimate accomplishmen t of Council’s goal requires measured, steady progress in many different areas and with many different partners. Pertaining to localized flooding, Mr. Kindred said that with the assistance from outside engineering firms, staff is completing the required engineering analyses for mitigation improvements in nine neighborhoods that reported being impacted by localized flooding. Municipal Engineer Warner gave specific information pertaining to the following neighborhoods: Northridge Parkway, Castlewood Place, Waterbury Court, North Park Villa, Oakwood Drive Area, Stuart Smith Park Bank Armoring, Schubert Street and Todd Drive, Trail Ridge Landslide, Pi Kappa Alpha Union and Phi Kappa Theta, Utah Drive Landsclide, and South Duff Sipon Access Structure. Ms. Warner noted the projects that FEMA will not fund. The City’s Notice of Interest for those projects will be withdrawn. Six projects are still under consideratioon by FEMA: Northridge Parkway, Castlewood Place, Waterbury Court, North Park Villa, Oakwood Drive Area, Stuart Smith Park Ba nk Arm oring. City Manager Schainker noted that decisions on what projects would receive City funding will need to be made in January before the property tax rate for Fiscal Year 2012/13 is determined. 9 Long-Term Actions. Mr. Kindred advised that in order to better mitigate localized flooding in areas of future development as well as to understand the factors that currently contribute to flooding in established neighborhood, representatives of the City, Story County, and Iowa State University collaborated with ISU Professors Chris Anderson and Gene Takle to develop a tool to better predict future intense rainfall events in Ames. Water and Pollution Control Director John Dunn explained that Professor Anderson is currently developing a rainfall sensitivity analysis using three different approaches to projecting intense rainfall events: 1.The first approach will use historical precipitation data dating back to the 1890's to create a baseline scenario; thus, “the future will be like the average of the past.” 2.The second approach will use the average precipitation data from the past 30 years and project that forward as a possible rainfall scenario. Essentially, “the future will be like today.” 3.The third scenario will use the trends of precipitation patterns from the past 30 years. This approach will assume that rainfall continues to increase even beyond what has been experienced. According to Mr. Kindred, by using the rainfall sensitivity analysis with an engineering analysis of Ames’ current storm water management standards, staff will be able to model specific storm water i mprov ement s that could more effecti vely mit igate future localized flood ing. Short-Term Actions. Assistant City Manager Kindred said that the City had taken many short- term actions in addition to working with affected land owners, the State, and FEMA to quality properties for a buy-out. It was ultimately determined that none of the properties were eligible for the buy-out program. Mr. Dunn stated that staff had completed an upgrade of the equipment used in the local flood early-warning system and created a new model that uses the more-detailed topography data available to better delineate sub-watersheds and estimate run-off coefficients. Three new river gauges were installed within the City that will provide improved monitoring of river flooding near the most-likely locations in the community and will provide invaluable data to assist in long-term flood mitigation studies. Mr. Mellies described repairs that had been made to public facilities damaged by the floods: facilities in the park system, water mains, storm sewers, and sanitary sewers. Four remaining projects are in different stages of review by FEMA. Long-Term Actions. Mr. Kindred reported that staff is collaborating with a number of other governmental agencies that are also dealing with flooding issues in the City’s watersheds. The projects were described by Mr. Mellies and Ms. Warner. Mr. Kindred announced that an intense rainfall sensitivity analysis will be completed. Rainfall educational programs on potential future intense rainfall events will be developed. Mr. Dunn advised that a number of public forums will be held beginning in January 2012 to gather input into the goals of a comprehensive river flooding engineering study. A Request for Information will be distributed in January 2012 to help define the exact scope of the analysis. A Request for Proposals for preparation of that comprehensive engine ering an alysis wi ll go out early in 2012. According to Mr. Kindred, after receiving the flood study’s results, Council will be asked to make decisions regarding which long-term steps will be taken to mitigate future fiver flooding. 10 Mr. Kindred acknowledged that a significant amount of work has been accomplished; however, a great deal more remains to be done. He summarized the next steps to be taken. Council Member Goodman asked if more staff were needed to accomplish th e tasks necess ary. Mr. Kindred said that option will be analyzed. STORM SEWER RATES: Mr. Mellies advised that, since its inception, the City’s Storm Sewer Utility has generated revenue based on a uniform flat monthly fee per utility account. In response to requests from the public, the City Council directed City staff to develop alternatives for billing based on impervious area. At a November 17, 2009, workshop, the Council considered four alternatives that reflected this new billing philosophy. At that meeting, the Council then directed staff to explore two additional alternatives for consideration. The City Council was subsequently presented with those six alternatives at a September 21, 2010, workshop. Staff was then directed to bring back those alternatives for a final decision. In a meeting held November 23, 2010, Council reviewed seven alternatives. On March 15, 2011, City Council directed staff to implement an ERU-based billing system, with a five year phase-in of the revenue share adjustment, beginning in July 2011. Because of the potential impacts on the City’s users, Mr. Mellies said that staff is recommending that implementation of the shift to an ERU system based on impervious area be delayed until January 1, 2 013 . In the interim, staff will begin to develop a public relations campaign to notify the most-affected users of the proposed fee structure change well before the ordinance is brought before the City Council. The campaign would target the Ames Community School District, churches, non-profit organizations, medium to large businesses, and industrial users. This will allow staff to make any needed administrative changes and gather public feedback on the proposed system b efore fin al action is taken by the City Council and allow users to plan for potential increases. Council Member Larson noted that the City’s storm water rates are low compared to other utilities. Moved by Wacha, seconded by Goodman, to direct staff to delay implementation of the new rate structure until January 1, 2013. Vote on Mo ti on : 6-0. M ot io n declared carried un anim ou sly. ZONING ORDINANCE CORRECTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS: Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Goodman, to pass on second reading ordinances making text amendments that will correct and/or clarify various sections of Zoning Ordinance, including definitions, general zoning regulations, development standards, residential high density permitted uses, neighborhood commercial signage standards, village residential design guidelines, and site development plan review. Ro ll Call Vote: 6 -0. M ot io n declared carried un anim ou sly. ORDINANCE TO PERMIT BANQUET HALLS, EXHIBITION AREAS, AND MEETING AREAS IN GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Davis, to pass on second reading an ordinance to permit banquet halls, exhibition areas, and meeting areas in General Industrial Zoning Districts. Ro ll Call Vote: 6 -0. M ot io n declared carried un anim ou sly. 11 ORDINANCE ADDING ROSE PRAIRIE TO WARD AND PRECINCT: Moved by Goodman, seconded by Davis, to pass on second reading an ordinance adding Rose Prairie Subdivision to Ward 2, Precinct 5. Ro ll Call Vote: 6 -0. M ot io n declared carried un anim ou sly. ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PARKING BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND STREETS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFA RES IN PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE: Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Davis, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 4094 to allow parking between buildings and streets along major thoroughfares in the Planned Industrial Zone. 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 request from Silverstone Partners, Inc., for a text amendment pertaining to senior housing parking requirements. Vote on Mo ti on : 6-0. Motion d eclared carried unanimousl y. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Davis to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. ________________________________________________________________________ Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ann H. Campbell, Mayor