HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council 10/25/2005 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA OCTOBER 25, 2005
The Ames City Council met in regular session at 5:30 p.m. on the 25th day of October, 2005, in the
City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with Mayor Pro Tem Vegge
presiding and the following Council members present: Cross, Goodman, and Mahayni. Tony Borich,
ex officio member, was also present. Mayor Tedesco and Council Member Wirth were absent.
Council Member Goodhue arrived at 5:52 p.m.
ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSION WITH STUDENT COMMISSION: Present were Tony Borich,
ex officio City Council member; Angela Groh, Government of the Student Body (GSB)
President; and Chris Deal, GSB Vice-President. Matt Randall, Past-President of Ames Young
Professionals, was also present. Mr. Borich gave the background leading up to this round-table
discussion.
Council Member Goodman expressed his concern that this would not be an equal-access
commission; not everyone in the community would be eligible for appointment to this
Commission. Ms. Groh explained that the recommendation concerning who would be voting
members of the Commission was made based on the belief that those individuals have
specialized areas of expertise and have the capability of communicating with a large number of
students. Council Member Mahayni agreed that the recommended voting members have a
network of individuals with whom they interact.
Council Member Mahayni’s recommendation to include an international student was well-
received. He also suggested that representatives of surrounding neighborhoods, other than just
the University-Impacted Area (UIA), be included (e.g., SCAN, State Avenue, West Street,
Westside, Oak-Wood-Forest).
Ms. Groh then suggested that the Commission be comprised of five designated student leaders
with the remaining three seats being at-large, one of whom would be an international student.
Council Member Mahayni recommended that there be six designated student leaders, one of
whom would be an international student, and two seats at-large.
Mr. Randall preferred that, in addition to the Chamber of Commerce, the Commission include
a member from the Young Professionals organization. Council Member Cross recommended that
the Campustown business representative serve also as the Chamber representative. Ms. Groh
suggested that the rental property owners be represented, and also, that the two at-large positions
be students living off-campus.
Mr. Mahayni stated that he would like to see the Student Body President of Ames High School
be included. Ms. Groh said she liked that idea, but was concerned about the size of the
Commission.
City Manager Steve Schainker summarized the composition of the Commission, as follows:
1. City Council Student ex officio member
2. GSB President
3. IRHA (Resident Hall) President
4. Greek Community Leader
5. Off-Campus Student Resident
6. President of International Students
7. At-large student
8. At-large student
9. Chamber/Campustown business representative
10. Young Professional representative
11. Rental Property Owner (in Campustown area)
12. Ames High School Student Body President
13. At-large neighborhood representative
14. At-large neighborhood representative
15. At-large neighborhood representative
Ms. Groh recommended that the two off-campus students be appointed for two years. Council
Member Vegge endorsed this possibility in order to afford some continuity to the Commission.
Council Member Cross asked who would appoint whom. Council Member Mahayni suggested
that applications of individuals be submitted from the affected neighborhood associations, the
Campustown Business Association, the Young Professionals, and the Rental Property
Association, and the Mayor would select the individuals to be appointed. The GSB would
nominate students for the at-large student positions, and the Mayor would make the
appointments.
Regarding a concern expressed by Council Member Cross about meetings held during the
summer months, Ms. Groh advised that the GSB President is required to live in Ames year-
round; many of the recommended representatives would be in Ames through the summer
months. Council Member Mahayni suggested that the Commission year commence on May 1,
with meetings held monthly.
Council Member Goodhue said that it was important to hold the Commission meetings in the
Council Chambers so that they can be taped and televised. Mr. Borich stated that the GSB was
generally supportive of that, with the possibility of a few meetings held on Campus.
Mr. Borich asked for more dialog about the charge of the Commission. Mr. Schainker said that
the Commission could be provided support by one member of City staff in carrying out business
within its scope (on issues that directly affect students). When staff time is involved, it must be
so directed by the City Council on topics would be suggested by the Commission.
It was suggested by Mr. Borich that the Commission’s charge would be as follows: “Subject to
2
Council request, express an official position on issues/policies under consideration by the
Council that primarily or uniquely affect students.” Paragraph #2, under “CHARGE” (from the
staff report), would be eliminated, but a statement similar to “stimulate dialog among community
groups” would be added.
ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSION WITH STEERING COMMITTEE FOR UNIVERSITY-
IMPACTED AREA (UIA): Advisory Committee members present were Jim Cornwell, Dick
Horton, Russ McCullough, Matt Fisher, Brian Humphreys, Christina Dvorzak, Jim Wellman,
Jim Murdock, Jon Chester, John Lott, Cathy Brown, and Matt Randall.
Discussion ensued about various aspects of the proposed UIA Plan. Matt Randall expressed
concerns about the requirement for a 30-foot setback. He pointed out that the City Council had
already determined that the University-Impacted Area was meant to be an intensified area of the
community. John Lott wanted definitions included, e.g., “what is the definition of a balcony.”
Mr. Murdock felt that the setback shouldn’t necessarily be based on the height of the building,
but how the buildings were shaped. He clarified that the Advisory Committee was not allowed
to discuss density; density had already been determined by the City Council. Mr. Fisher advised
that the patterns of development historically in Campustown, i.e., one- to three-story buildings,
would be dramatically impacted by buildings with over six stories. The recommended setback
would allow the Area to be intensified without dramatically impacting the existing buildings.
Mr. Horton said he was concerned that the area at Lincoln Way and Beach was singled out with
unique criteria. He strongly desired to retain the architectural integrity of the Area and does not
see the need for buildings over four stories in height. Cathy Brown, representing Iowa State
University (ISU), stated that ISU was not so concerned about the recommended intensification,
but how the intensification occurs. She felt that spreading that density over a series of single-
story buildings may be desirable. Jon Chester requested that the parking requirements needed
to be determined. Mr. Cornwell pointed out that high-rise buildings were not going to “pop up
overnight.” He said that there is not enough land available in this Area to accommodate that
type of construction.
Mr. Borich said that he believed the reason multiple-story buildings were recommended to be
allowed in this Area was to meet the desire of students and others to live close to Campus; there
are benefits to intensification. Mr. Randall advised that it is not attractive to developers to
construct a commercial-only building in Campustown, but it is important to accommodate those
who want to live close to Campus so that they can make it a vibrant area. He felt that the City
is trying to legislate “pretty” buildings. Mr. Chester showed pictures of various buildings in this
Area, many of which would be non-conforming if the proposed standards were adopted.
It was pointed out that the Committee was a very diverse one; its members have quite different
ideas pertaining to aesthetics and types of structures to be allowed in this Area. Mr. Lott
suggested that an Architectural Review Committee be created to review all buildings to be
constructed in the University-Impacted Area.
Each Committee member explained his/her role in the process and preferences for design
3
standards.
Mr. McCullough stated his desire that building height be expressed in the Code by the number
of feet, not stories. He also pointed out that density was dictated by land area.
Mr. Murdock said that he was disappointed with the Committee; the charge of the Committee
was not clearly defined and did not meet his expectations.
Council Member Goodman asked how the revised recommendations were contrived, i.e.,
setbacks, height, 15% “open space”, exterior materials, and demolition. In the opinion of
Council Member Goodhue, there was not consensus among the Advisory Committee members
on the standards to be included in the Final Plat, and he did not believe that the City Council
could approve any of the components at this point. Council Member Mahayni pointed out that
discussions on this topic had been ongoing for a long time, and he felt that they should attempt
to strike a balance between aesthetics and structural requirements. Council Member Goodhue
thought it would be beneficial for the Advisory Committee to meet one more time in an attempt
to strike that balance.
PROGRESS REPORT ON THE AMES VETERANS MEMORIAL AND REQUEST FOR
FUNDING: Brian Anderson, Co-Chairman of the Ames Veterans Memorial Committee,
introduced Herman Quirmbach, Co-Chairman, and Committee Members Norm LaGrange, Norm
Rudi, and Randy Lueth. Mr. Anderson described the project to be built at the northeast corner
of Fifth and Grand. He explained that close to $114,000 had been raised. They hope to
complete the project within the next year, but there is a sense of urgency to the project so that
elderly veterans, particularly those from World War II, will be able to see it. Mr. Quirmbach
advised that applications for several grants have been filed, some of which require matching
funds. He requested that the City Council consider making a commitment to this project not to
exceed $80,000. Different funding scenarios were presented. It is hoped that the foundry work
and artwork would be completed so that the Memorial could be dedicated as early as Memorial
Day, but no later than Labor Day 2006. Mr. Quirmbach pointed out that the Memorial will be
honoring the service of ordinary men and women who have answered the call of their country.
Mr. Quirmbach stated that information about making a contribution was available on the website
(www.amesveteransmemorial.com) or by calling 232-7060.
Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Cross, to place the request for funding on a future agenda.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
PRESENTATION OF COMPLETED NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT GRANT
PROJECT BY EASTWOOD VILLAGE: Jessica and Amy (last names not given), residents of
Eastwood Village, 420 E. Seventh Street, gave a presentation showing the new playground
equipment, benches, and trash receptacles made available to their neighborhood through the
City’s grant program. Jessica described the progress of improvements to the playground at
Eastwood Village since 2003. In 2003, two new slides were installed by members of the Village
4
and others from the Volunteer Center of Ames. In 2004, benches, tables, and trash receptacles
were purchased and installed near the playground equipment. Residents of their neighborhood
and entire Ames community worked together on this project; the playground is used by all area
families, not just those living in Eastwood Village. In 2005, they will be installing toddler
equipment.
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to approve the following items
on the Consent Agenda:
1.Motion approving payment of claims
2. Motion approving minutes of the regular meeting of October 11, 2005
3.Motion setting Regular Meeting date for December 20, 2005, and cancelling meeting scheduled
for December 27, 2005
4. RESOLUTION NO. 05-439 approving City's Investment Report for quarter ending September 30,
2005
5.Motion directing City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to establish no parking regulations along
the east side of Northwestern Avenue from 13th Street to 615 feet north
6. Motion approving renewal of the following beer permits and liquor licenses:
a. Class C Liquor & Outdoor Service Privilege - The Meeting House, 823 Wheeler, Ste. 4
b. Class C Beer & Class B Wine - Southgate Expresse, 110 Airport Road
c. Class C Liquor & Outdoor Service Privilege - Thumbs, 2816 West Street
7.Motion approving new Class C Beer Permit and Class B Wine Permit for Target, 320 S. Duff
Avenue
8.Motion approving new Class C Liquor License for West Towne Pub, 4518 Mortensen Road,
pending issuance of certificate of occupancy
9. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant:
a. Motion accepting Grant Award
b. RESOLUTION NO. 05-440 approving Intergovernmental Agreement with Iowa State
University
10. RESOLUTION NO. 05-441 approving preliminary plans and specifications for Construction of
Unit No. 8 Condenser Tubes Replacement; setting November 23, 2005, as bid due date and
December 13, 2005, as date of public hearing
11. RESOLUTION NO. 05-442 approving preliminary plans and specifications for Installation of
Communication Hardware for WAN project; setting December 6, 2005, as bid due date and
December 20, 2005, as the date of public hearing
12. RESOLUTION NO. 05-443 awarding a contract to Murphy Tractor and Equipment for the
purchase of a 2005/06 John Deere 624J Wheel Loader and Bucket in the amount of $125,250
13. RESOLUTION NO. 05-444 approving Change Orders 1 through 3 for the 2005/06 Cy-Ride
Route Reconstruction
14. RESOLUTION NO. 05-445 accepting completion of the 2005/06 Shared Use Path
System/Mortensen Road (South Dakota Avenue to Dotson Drive)
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Resolutions declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: No one spoke during this time.
5
“COMMUNITY BETTERMENT” DISCUSSION: For the record, an e-mail message from
Merlin Pfannkuch, 1424 Kellogg Avenue, Ames, was placed around the dais. He clarified his
request for an open discussion about the 40% of Local Option Sales Tax funds used for property tax
relief so that it is clear to the entire community for what those monies are used.
Finance Director Duane Pitcher explained that the City Council had asked staff to report on the
following issues: (1) is the City complying with the referendum pertaining to Local Option Sales
Tax (LOT) funds; (2) the definition of “community betterment;” and, (3) modifying the budget
document to reflect more detail on use of funds. He advised that, on November 4, 1986,
residents of Ames approved a 1% Local Option Sales Tax (LOT). Tax revenues from sales and
services are to be allocated in the City and Story County as: 60% for property tax relief and the
remainder expended for human service agencies, the arts, and community betterment. Mr.
Pitcher stated that the City accounting and budget documents have demonstrated continuous
compliance with the requirement of the referendum every year since the inception of the LOT.
He reviewed the communications of the Committee for Property Tax Relief that were distributed
in favor of the 1986 LOT referendum.
Mr. Pitcher further explained that the determination of “full and adequate funding” of arts and
human service agencies is based on the judgment of the City Council. The Council utilizes the
assistance of the ASSET board to help determine the level of funding for human service
agencies. He said that, although it is difficult to determine the voters’ intent for “full and
adequate funding” for arts and human service agencies, the City Council has made substantial
increases in funding levels and has more than replaced the funding formerly provided by federal
revenue sharing. Council Member Goodhue pointed out that the City is the only ASSET funder
that has continually increased its allocation in the past years.
Regarding the definition of “community betterment,” Mr. Pitcher pointed out that that term was
not defined in the referendum. The Committee for Property Tax Relief did not make an attempt
to define it; however, two areas that were mentioned by the Committee included road repairs and
economic development. Since the determination of expenditures under “community betterment”
is not fully defined, the City Council has considerable latitude in determining what is paid for
out of Local Option Tax funds; that allows them to respond to changing needs and desires in the
community.
The Council had requested that the budget reflect additional detail on expenditures under
“community betterment,” rather than showing a $230,000 transfer to the General Fund for tax
relief. Mr. Pitcher advised that there are expenditures within the General Fund that could be
considered “community betterment” that far exceed LOT revenue; the Council needs to make
a determination as to which expenditures should be identified as “community betterment.”
Council Member Goodman said that he felt the Council could assist staff by better defining
“community betterment.” He suggested that a workshop with residents be conducted sometime
in the next year to help define “community betterment.” Council Member Mahayni
6
recommended that more documentation as to how the funds were used for community
betterment be made available. Council Member Goodhue suggested that a discussion on this
topic be held during the budget issues meeting in November.
Kathy Svec, 602 Grand Avenue, Ames, spoke as a former member of the Committee for
Property Tax Relief. She gave a brief history of the 1986 referendum and advised that the issue
of “community betterment” was intentionally left nebulous at that time. Ms. Svec said that she
now believed it would be beneficial to define “community betterment” and asked the City
Council to discuss it in the future.
ROOF REPLACEMENT AT WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL PLANT (tabled from 10/11/05): John Dunn, Assistant Director of Water and
Pollution Control, reminded the Council that they had directed staff to further clarify the bids for
this project after concerns were expressed by one bidder about the staff evaluations and
recommendation. He advised that staff had conducted a very detailed re-evaluation.
Staff continues to believe that the award of a contract based on the re-evaluated bids
would be inappropriate and recommends that all bids be rejected.
Council Member Cross asked Mr. Dunn to describe the difficulty staff had in evaluating the
bids. Mr. Dunn said staff discovered that literal interpretation resulted in some components
being required that staff had not intended. It was difficult to determine what was included in the
lump-sum portion of the proposals and what was included on a unit-price basis, specifically
relating to ballast and concrete pavers. Additional information was received from each bidder
to document those work components. Staff compared that additional information to the
respective manufacturer’s standard installation specifications and to the specifications prepared
by staff. Concerns surfaced that the same project was not bid because of different interpretations
of the bid documents. Mr. Dunn specifically pointed out the confusing section of the bid
documents and the proposal forms.
Also, Mr. Dunn advised that the issue was further complicated by staff’s realization that there
was internal inconsistency in specifications. When staff reviewed the 1988 shop drawings, they
revealed that the existing concrete pavers did not meet the requirement for a minimum 18
pounds per square foot. Because one manufacturer’s warranty required concrete pavers with a
minimum
22 pounds per square foot, that would indicate that all pavers needed to be replaced with new
matching pavers meeting the requirement. Also at issue is the requirement that existing pavers
be reused.
City Attorney John Klaus reminded the Council that the decision to award a contract must be
in the best interest of the City and that it be based on what was submitted on the face of the bid.
However, staff is having difficulty doing that, and it is not a good precedent to set to continue
to ask bidders to further clarify their bids; that jeopardizes the City’s integrity. Thus, to preserve
the integrity of the City’s bidding process, staff is requesting to re-bid this project.
7
Council Member Cross pointed out that Central States Roofing had submitted a letter after the
last meeting to indicate that the City would not incur additional paver expense. He asked why
staff had not clarified that with them. Mr. Dunn said that, by that time, the City was moving so
far away from the competitive bid process, it was more like negotiation.
Dick Belz, 2013 Prairie View East, Ames, representative of Academy Roofing, stated that one
of the problems they had with the re-evaluation was the timing of the clarification. At the time
of the bid opening, clarifications were made; however, those clarifications changed after the bids
were opened. At the bid opening, it was clear that Central States’ bid was all-inclusive and
Academy Roofing’s bid was all-inclusive. Mr. Belz felt that it would be fair to all parties
involved to re-bid this project; however, Academy Roofing continues to believe that it was clear
after the bid opening that they were the low bidder.
Mark Hanson, 2003 Thompson Drive, Ames, representing Central States Roofing, explained that
there are different requirements for different projects. The manufacturer that Central States
Roofing chose to use (Carlisle) was brought into the process ahead of the bidding and was
familiar with this project. Prior to the project being bid, Carlisle Manufacturing issued a Pre-Bid
Design Review Requirement. It was also pointed out that Carlisle had issued a letter, copy of
which had been provided to the City Council, stating that the pavers that were in place were
acceptable and they would issue a 20-year warranty without the pavers being replaced. Mr.
Hanson agreed that there was inconsistency in the bidding documents regarding pavers;
however, in his opinion, there is at least one inconsistency in every set of bid documents. He
advised that pavers were not included for total replacement in any submitted bid. It was Mr.
Hanson’s understanding that Central States’ bid included more pavers than any other bidders,
and their bid was the low bid. If you deduct the pavers no longer necessary, Central States’ bid
would still be the low bid. According to Mr. Hanson, on bid day, Central States’ bid was the
low bid, and when all things were considered and clarified, Central States’ bid would still be
low. He feels “now that all the cards are on the table,” it would be very unfair to Central States
to re-bid the project. Mr. Hanson read a portion of the letter from Carlisle Manufacturing
specifying that additional pavers would not be required.
Mr. Hanson advised that inconsistencies in the specifications are not uncommon. He feels that
Central States would definitely be harmed if all bids were rejected because they are now the low
bidder and the contract should be awarded to them. If the project is re-bid, all bidders would get
another chance to make their bid lower.
Council Member Cross asked how the City’s integrity was harmed when they asked for
clarification from all three bidders. Mr. Dunn explained that the additional information was
being provided in a less-than-competitive process. Clarification was requested from Academy
Roofing and received within four hours of the bid opening, and unsolicited information was
provided by Central States after the bids were opened. Mr. Dunn stated that the City Attorney
has recommended that contracts not be issued on projects knowing that the scope is going to
change.
8
Council Member Goodhue asked if the results would have changed if based on a 15-year
warranty. Mr. Dunn explained that staff did not evaluate any of the proposals based on a 15-
year warranty as there is benefit to the City to require a 20-year warranty.
Matt McDermott, Vice-President and Manager of Academy Roofing, explained that they had
been using Firestone as a manufacturer since 1988. Mr. McDermott stated that Academy
Roofing bid a comprehensive package. Academy Roofing and Bailey Roofing were present at
the pre-bid meeting where replacing all the ballast was discussed; however, Central States was
45 minutes late for that meeting. He advised that the bid form was clear and not unlike others
used in the industry. According to Mr. McDermott, it is unusual for one contractor (Central
States) and one manufacturer (Carlisle) to put together the bid package for the owner (City). Mr.
McDermott felt that the City was disadvantaged by that as they were led to believe that Carlisle
was a superior manufacturer.
Harlan Hanson, 2717 Duff Avenue, Ames, stated that he was the Chief Executive Officer of
Central States Roofing. He advised that Central States was involved in the bid process from the
beginning, and they have been involved for the past 30 years. Central States asked Carlisle to
participate in the process, which they did. Mr. Hanson explained that they submitted a complete
bid and were the low bidder. All bidders now know the amounts bid by the other contractors,
and it would be a “public auction” to re-bid this project. Central States and all contractors would
be done an injustice if this project were re-bid.
Council Member Mahayni said he believed that the City’s reputation would be jeopardized if
the contract were awarded. Council Member Goodhue felt that the City’s integrity was
jeopardized prior to this meeting when the controversy first surfaced. It was his opinion that it
would be completely unfair not to award the contract to Central States Roofing. Council
Member Cross concurred.
Council Member Goodman indicated that staff had admitted that errors had been made in the
bidding process. He believed that Central States Roofing was the low bidder; however, due to
the apparent discrepancies and the time spent evaluating the bids by the staff, he would support
staff’s recommendation to reject all bids.
Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Goodman, to reject all bids and rebid using revised
specifications and proposal forms.
Vote on Motion: 3-2. Voting aye: Goodman, Mahayni, Vegge. Voting nay: Cross, Goodhue.
Motion declared carried.
The meeting recessed at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:52 p.m.
PLANNED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AREA EAST OF I-35 AND NORTH AND SOUTH
OF EAST 13TH STREET: Steve Schainker highlighted the major changes proposed for the Zoning
Agreement, as follows:
9
1. The revised Agreement now requires only one rezoning ordinance for one legally described
lot.
2. The latest proposal extends the deadline to provide proof of financing/pre-leasing for the
proposed improvements on the north to December 2007. In return for the extended deadline,
the Agreement now requires the developer to obtain financing/pre-leasing before any permits
are issued to allow work on the north side. In addition, the city will be able to take action
to repeal the zoning change on the site (north and south) free of any action by the developer
if the financial conditions on the north side are not met by the December 2007 deadline.
3. The revised Agreement allows the City to extend the water and sewer mains, if the Council
decides it is warranted, with the requirement that the developer reimburse the City for this
utility work once the land is purchased by the developer.
Mr. Schainker emphasized to the City Council that a decision to pay the upfront costs of the
water and sewer mains does not guarantee reimbursement since the developer is under no
obligation to ultimately purchase the land.
Bill Bartine, attorney for Wolford Development Option, was also present.
REGULATION OF LAND USE ISSUES RELATING TO “ADULT CABARETS”: City
Attorney Klaus reminded that the City Council, at its September 13, 2005, meeting, had directed him
to prepare a revision to the Zoning Ordinance to regulate land issues pertaining to commercial
establishments that provide sexually evocative performances as entertainment. He stated that the
regulatory device he was proposing would be a Special Use Permit with a duration limited to one
year. Mr. Klaus summarized the ordinance, as follows:
1. It would prohibit sexually evocative dancing for commercial purposes within ten feet of the
audience, even if the dancer were fully clothed, without a Special Use Permit from the
Zoning Board of Adjustment.
2. It would require an unobstructed view of all areas of premises.
3. It would require specific lighting on the premises.
4. It would provide a public hearing process to review compatibility with adjacent land use.
5. It would determine stipulations to mitigate adverse effects on adjacent land uses.
6. It would set a term limit for the permit.
Mr. Klaus specified that it would not prohibit sexually evocative dancing for commercial
purposes if performed further than ten feet from the audience, and it would not guarantee the
absence of “adult businesses” in Campustown.
10
Council Member Mahayni asked if the distance requirement could be added to the revised
ordinance draft so that such establishments would be prohibited within so many feet of plazas,
schools, churches, major arterials, residential areas, etc. Mr. Klaus indicated that he would take
that into consideration; however, it could have First Amendment ramifications.
Moved by Mahayni to direct the City Attorney to add language for separation requirements from
certain land uses, e.g., schools, churches, plazas, major arterials, residential areas, etc.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Council Member Goodman questioned whether the separation requirements would be
encompassed in the revised ordinance. City Attorney Klaus indicated that they would.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to refer the proposed ordinance to the Planning &
Zoning Commission.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
UNIVERSITY-IMPACTED OVERLAY DISTRICT (tabled from 10/11/05): City Manager
Schainker explained that the revised Plan includes a requirement for 15% open space and a setback
requirement.
Mr. Borich said that he did not believe the members of the Committee could come to a
consensus. He feels that the decisions are going to have to be made by the City Council.
Council Member Goodman concurred. He felt this process had been going on for too long and
it was time for the City Council to make a decision. It is his opinion that it would not be
beneficial to pass this item back to the Committee for 60 days; Council will be at this same
point after that time had elapsed.
Jon Chester, a member of the Advisory Committee, advised that he felt the existing draft had a
lot of problems; there are many issues that need to be discussed, i.e., economics versus
aesthetics. There’s a lot of vagueness in the proposed Plan. He believed that, with direction
from the City Council to the staff, the Committee could resolve some of the conflicts. He named
two issues: aesthetics and what is meant by “compatibility.” Mr. Chester pointed out that
everyone has a different opinion as to what type of architecture should be allowed in this Area.
Cathy Brown, 2309 Hayes Avenue, Ames, also a member of the Advisory Committee, felt that
the Committee would be committed to further discussing the issues. She is unsure if all their
differences could be worked out, but they could perhaps provide some clarification. The
Architectural Review Committee component is an interesting aspect and could be discussed.
Mr. Borich recommended that staff meet with the Advisory Committee to work out some issues
prior to involving the Council.
11
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to reconvene the Advisory Committee with a City
facilitator to assess the intent of the Plan, narrowing in on the open-space requirement, the
setback requirement, and the usage of certain materials; consider the creation of an Architectural
Review Committee, and bring back their recommendations by December 13, 2005.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA FOR A PORTION OF THE BLOCK BOUNDED BY
GRAY AVENUE, SUNSET STREET, AND BEACH AVENUE: This request was removed from
the agenda by the developer, Jon Chester, on behalf of Sunset Beach, L.C.
REPORT ON YARD WASTE FREE-DAY BAGS: Assistant City Attorney Bob Kindred
described the changes made to the yard waste “free days,” one of which was the requirement to use
clear bags. He explained that surveys will be distributed to users at each of the “free days” to gain
input regarding this program.
ORDINANCE REDUCING THE SPEED LIMIT WEST OF STATE AVENUE TO THE
EAST LINE OF SOUTH DAKOTA AVENUE: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to pass
on first reading an ordinance reducing the speed limit from a point 2,000 feet west of the west
line of State Avenue to the east line of South Dakota Avenue.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodhue, to suspend the rules necessary for the adoption of an
ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to pass on second and third readings and adopt
ORDINANCE NO. 3857 reducing the speed limit from a point 2,000 feet west of the west line
of State Avenue to the east line of South Dakota Avenue.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE MAKING A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A RENTAL
SERVICES OFFICE AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE PLANNED RESIDENCE (F-PRD)
ZONING DISTRICT: Moved by Cross, seconded by Mahayni, to pass on second reading an
ordinance making a zoning text amendment to allow a rental services office as a permitted use in
the Planned Residence (F-PRD) Zoning District.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE REVISING THE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM: Moved
by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to pass on second reading an ordinance revising the Rental
Housing Inspection Program.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY AT 198 AND 199 WILDER AVENUE: Moved by
12
Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 3853
rezoning property at 198 and 199 Wilder Avenue from “A” (Agricultural) and “RH” (Residential
High Density) to “CVCN” (Convenience Commercial Node).
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE 4509 AND 4512 TWAIN CIRCLE URBAN
REVITALIZATION AREA: Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Goodhue, to pass on third reading
and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 3854 establishing the 4509 and 4512 Twain Circle Urban
Revitalization Area.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN DAWES DRIVE AND U.
S. HIGHWAY 69 (CALHOUN PARK): Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to pass on
third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 3855 rezoning property located between Dawes
Drive and U. S. Highway 69 (Calhoun Park) from “A” (Agricultural) and “S-GA” (Government-
Airport).
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PARKING REGULATIONS ON DALTON STREET AND
DALTON CIRCLE: Moved by Cross, seconded by Goodman, to pass on third reading and adopt
ORDINANCE NO. 3856 establishing parking regulations on Dalton Street and Dalton Circle.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
COMMENTS: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to refer to staff the letters from the City of
Gilbert, ISU Government of the Student Body, and Steve Moore of Mastercraft Estate Homes.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried.
CLOSED SESSION: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Goodman, to hold a closed session as provided
by Section 20.17(3), Code of Iowa, to discuss collective bargaining strategy.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Mahayni, to reconvene in Regular Session.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:12 p.m.
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ted Tedesco, Mayor
13