HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Special Joint Meeting of the Ames City Council and the Ames Planning and Zoning Commission 04/15/2003MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL AND THE
AMES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AMES, IOWA APRIL 15, 2003
The Ames City Council met in joint session with the Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m.
on the 15th day of April, 2003, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue,
pursuant to law with Mayor Ted Tedesco presiding. Council members present were Steve
Goodhue, Judie Hoffman, Riad Mahayni, and Daryle Vegge. Planning and Zoning Commission
members present were David Carter, Dennis Keeney, Darryl Knight, and Dan Rice. Council Member
Cross arrived at 7:06 p.m. Council Member Wirth and Commission Members Feilmeyer, LeGates,
and Mercier were absent.
City Manager Steve Schainker reminded those present that the Mayor and City Council, at their
workshop held on November 19, 2002, established a list of priorities that they hoped to accomplish
in the coming year, and one of the high-priority items dealt with the review of the Land Use Policy
Plan (LUPP). He stated that the LUPP was initially adopted in 1997. Mr. Schainker reminded the
City Council that they wanted to revisit the vision statement, goals/objectives, and strategies that
guide the LUPP, and ultimately, the zoning ordinance that directs development in the City.
OVERVIEW OF LAND USE POLICY PLAN: Brian O’Connell, Director of Planning and
Housing, advised that staff began creating the current LUPP in 1993; it was ultimately approved
in August 1997. According to Mr. O’Connell, the Plan has been modified several times since
its adoption. Mr. O’Connell gave a brief chronological review of the actions undertaken by staff
that culminated in the adoption of a resolution approving the Land Use Policy Plan.
Mr. O’Connell summarized the Plan’s Vision Statements pertaining to Overall Planning and
Management, Environment, Mobility, Neighborhoods, Downtown, and Economic Development.
He then briefly reviewed the ten Goals and Objectives listed in the Plan. Mr. O’Connell pointed
out that this LUPP is highly interwoven; when one part is changed, it has a consequence on other
parts of the Plan. He also pointed out that the Plan contains a land resource guide with respect
to the amount of residential, commercial, industrial, public/quasi public, and parks/open space
land that the City needs to support its growth over time. The Unique Area Classification System
was explained by Mr. O’Connell, specifically, the Urban Core, University-Impacted Area, New
Lands Area, and Near Term Lands Area. Implementation techniques of the Plan pertaining to
Priority Growth Areas, Capital Investment Strategy, Entryways, Affordable Housing, and
Planning Management were briefly reviewed.
Council Member Goodhue asked if the percentage of growth in the Southwest Growth Priority
Area had been tracked. Staff was asked to provide this information. Mr. O’Connell advised that
historically, the City has been absorbing approximately 58 acres of residential land per year of
all types – low-density, medium-density, and high-density. Planner Joe Pietruszynski stated that
there are approximately 300 dwelling units built per year. Council Member Cross said it would
be helpful to know what types of residential developments are occurring, e.g., single-family,
multiple-family.
Council Member Goodhue asked how many current developments in the Southwest Growth
Priority had been designated to be designed as Village Residential. Mr. O’Connell said there are
none; landowners now have a choice as to how to develop the land – either as Village
Residential or the more conventional alternative of Suburban Residential. He pointed out that
incentives provided by the City are greater for Village Residential development in accordance
with the Plan’s Capital Investment Strategy. Mr. Goodhue suggested that the Capital Investment
Strategy be reviewed as it pertains to the Priority Growth Areas. He clarified that he was not
suggesting Village Residential development be eliminated, but since none exist in the Priority
Growth Areas, he feels that the Capital Investment Strategy needs to be revisited. Mr.
O’Connell advised that the Capital Investment Strategy provides the Council with the authority
to give as much financial contribution for major infrastructure within the Priority Growth Areas
for Village development as they deem appropriate. He said that within the Priority Growth
Areas for Suburban Residential development, the financial contribution is limited to paying the
cost of over-sizing major infrastructure, and outside the Priority Growth Areas, the total cost for
on- and off-site infrastructure is the responsibility of the developer.
Council Member Cross asked to know the rate of land development in the County. Planner Joe
Pietruszynski stated that staff did not have that information with them at this meeting, but it can
be provided. Mr. Cross is concerned that development is being driven out of Ames; he feels that
some of the development rules set by the City of Ames may be the cause. City Attorney John
Klaus pointed out that rural water is now available, no longer necessitating the construction of
wells, and there is a good connection of hard-surface roads in the County. He believes these are
two reasons that more development in the County is occurring. Mr. O’Connell also stated that
it is a density issue. Based on preliminary analysis, the staff has been able to determine that the
development pattern in the urban fringe of the County results in one dwelling per three acres on
average in contrast to the City development pattern of four to five units/acre. Further discussion
ensued pertaining to density/intensification.
Council Member Cross believes that a workshop should be held to review the Goals contained
in the LUPP. Council Member Mahayni pointed out that all components of the Plan are
interconnected; if you change the Goals, the other components are affected. Council Member
Cross feels that the current LUPP Goals lack a stated time frame and any type of measurement
as to their implementation.
Commission Member Rice said he questions whether the regulations and policies that are
currently in place are too restrictive. Specifically, Commissioner Rice referred to the situation
of prohibiting additional commercial growth in the northern portion of the City where he
believes there is a need for additional commercial services for the residents in that area of the
City , i.e., Commercial Nodes.
Commission Member Keeney expressed his concern about commercial development being
allowed to occur in the flood plain.
Commission Member Carter feels that the City cannot expand its Downtown, continue to allow
2
“Big Box” stores on South Duff, and build a regional mall. He feels there are not enough people
to support all three areas.
Commission Member Darryl Knight advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission needs
guidance from the City Council as to continued implementation of the current Land Use Policy
Plan. He pointed out that there are a lot of references in this Plan to Village Residential
development, yet there is only one such development in Ames.
Council Member Goodhue recommended that the Chamber of Commerce and the Ames
Economic Development Commission (AEDC) be asked to provide input on the Plan. Council
Member Hoffman stated she did not feel that the invitation to provide input should be limited
to just the Chamber and AEDC. Mayor Tedesco said that other groups could be included during
special meetings held after the input from the Chamber/AEDC is received. Mr. O’Connell
believes that ideas for revision need to be more narrowly focused. He is concerned about how
changes will be identified as there are many groups affected. Council Member Mahayni
suggested that City staff first be asked what issues need to be addressed and whether the Plan
is still viable.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to direct the Mayor to write a letter to the
Chamber/Ames Economic Development Commission (AEDC) requesting feedback on the
current Land Use Policy Plan.
Vote on Motion: 2-3. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue. Voting nay: Hoffman, Mahayni, Vegge.
Motion failed.
Council Member Mahayni suggested that the first step in this Plan review would be to start in-
house (for City staff to share what they feel the issues are and their recommended changes). The
findings would then be shared with the public, input would be received, and the Plan changes
would come back to the City Council for decisions on whether or not to approve. Commission
Member Carter believes that the issues need to be narrowly focused. He pointed out that over-
occupancy is a component of the Land Use Policy Plan; it is almost endless the number of issues
that could be put back on the table. Mr. Carter believes a process is needed. That process should
start centrally (with the City Council), should name specific areas to work on, input should be
received, and then a decision made on the proposed changes.
Council Member Cross doesn’t think the City should define the issues they believe that the
public has with the Land Use Policy Plan. Council Member Goodhue said the City needs to ask
for input from the public to name the issues. Commission Member Carter feels that the City can
ask for input, but input doesn’t need to be sought on the entire Land Use Policy Plan; it should
be sought on specific items.
Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Hoffman, to direct staff to make an assessment in terms of
experience with implementing the Plan and what needs to be adjusted, reporting back to the City
Council within the next 60 days.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
3
Council Member Cross requested that the information be as fact-based as possible.
COMMENTS: Mayor Tedesco announced that a workshop will be held on the over-occupancy
issue prior to the regular City Council meeting on May 13. The workshop will begin at 5:30
p.m.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Mahayni, to set the effective date of the Property Maintenance
Ordinance as July 1, 2003.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Hoffman, Mahayni, Vegge. Motion declared
unanimously carried.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
_____________________________ ________________________________
Diane Voss, City Clerk Ted Tedesco, Mayor
4