HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council 11/18/2003MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 18, 2003
The Ames City Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on the 18th day of November, 2003, in the City
Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with Mayor Ted Tedesco presiding and
the following Council members present: Cross, Goodhue, Hoffman, Mahayni, Vegge, and Wirth. Nate
Johnston, ex officio member, was also present.
PRESENTATION OF HUMANITARIAN AWARD TO CARLIE TARTAKOV: Mayor Tedesco
introduced Elaine Dunn, Co-Chair of the Human Relations Commission. She and the Mayor presented
the Human Relations Commission Humanitarian Award to Carlie Tartakov in recognition of her true
commitment to promoting understanding between people of all races, religions, and cultures.
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION FOR F.A.C.E.S. CELEBRATION:
The Mayor introduced Sheila Lundt, Assistant City Manager, who oversees the City’s F.A.C.E.S.
celebration. Certificates of Appreciation were presented to Kori Heuss and Holly Mueggenberg, in
absentia, for their hard work and dedication to make the F.A.C.E.S. 2003 celebration in Ames a success.
Elaine Dunn, on behalf of the Human Relations Commission, thanked the City of Ames for supporting
the annual celebration.
PROCLAMATION FOR WORLD TOWN PLANNING DAY: Mayor Tedesco proclaimed November
8, 2003, as World Town Planning Day. Accepting the Proclamation were City of Ames Planners Eric
Jensen, Jeff Benson, Ray Anderson, and Joe Pietruszynski. Mr. Jensen informed the Council that the
Iowa Chapter of the American Planning Association had recently presented the City of Ames with an
Outstanding Plan Award for the South Lincoln Sub-Area Plan. Jeff Benson, who worked diligently on
the South Lincoln Sub-Area Plan, gave credit to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council for their careful review and critiquing of the Plan.
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Wirth, 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 28, 2003
3. Motion approving renewal of the following beer permits and liquor licenses:
a. Class C Beer - Fuel Right, 508 S. Duff
b. Special Class C Liquor - House of Chen, 2508 Ferndale Avenue
c. Class C Beer and Class B Wine - Hy-Vee Wine & Spirits, 3615 Lincoln Way
d. Class C Beer - Kum & Go #113, 2801 E. 13th Street
e. Class C Beer - Kum & Go #214, 111 Duff Avenue
f. Class C Beer - Kum & Go #215, 4506 Lincoln Way
g. Class C Beer - Kum & Go #216, 203 Welch Avenue
h. Class C Beer - Kwik Shop #550, 715 24th Street
4. Motion setting Conference Board meeting dates for January 27 and February 24, 2004
5. Motion directing City Attorney to draft ordinance revising parking regulations on Bristol Drive
and Eaton Avenue, and establishing parking regulations on Northridge Lane
6. RESOLUTION NO. 03-434 approving revisions to the Official Parking Meter Map for relocation
of meter in front of 2519 Chamberlain Avenue
7. RESOLUTION NO. 03-435 approving Household Hazardous Waste Regional Collection Center
Service Agreement between Metro Waste Authority and the City of Ames
8. RESOLUTION NO. 03-436 awarding contract for Replacement of IBM/AS400 to HTE VAR, LLC
of Chamblee, GA, in the amount of $98,425
9. RESOLUTION NO. 03-437 approving Change Order for Engineering Services Agreement with
Snyder & Associations for East Lincoln Way Project
10. RESOLUTION NO. 03-438 approving Change Order for Ada Hayden Heritage Park to add the
causeway cleanup and increase the rip-rap quantity
11. RESOLUTION NO. 03-439 approving contract and bond to Furnish and Install Copper and Fiber
Cables and Related Materials for Information Services Division
12. RESOLUTION NO. 03-440 approving partial completion of public improvements (paving) for
Amethyst Place Subdivision and releasing the security therefor
13. RESOLUTION NO. 03-441 approving Major Final Plat for Armstrong’s Subdivision, 4th Addition
14. RESOLUTION NO. 03-442 approving Major Final Plat for South Fork Townhomes Subdivision,
1st Addition
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolutions declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
PUBLIC FORUM: No one spoke during this time.
CLASS C LIQUOR LICENSE FOR 212 MAIN PUB & GRILL: Moved by Hoffman, seconded by
Vegge, to approve a Class C Liquor License for 212 Main Pub & Grill, 212 Main Street.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
SUSPENSION OF PARKING IN CAMPUSTOWN: Moved by Wirth, seconded by Goodhue, to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 03-443 approving the request of the Campustown Action Association for suspension
of parking regulations on November 28 and 29, 2003, for a special promotion.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
LAND USE POLICY PLAN (LUPP) EVALUATION: An e-mail had been received from Terry Lewis,
2216 North Dakota, Ames, Coordinator of the Onion Creek Neighborhood, and placed around the dais.
City Manager Steve Schainker advised that one of the goals of the City Council for this year is to evaluate
the progress made to date in implementing the LUPP that was adopted in 1997. On August 26, 2003, the
staff presented the analysis of this progress at a joint meeting of the Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Prior to making any final decisions, the City Council requested that the Planning and
Zoning Commission members seek public input on the six pending issues raised in the staff report and
report back with their recommendations. Public sessions were held on October 1 and 9, 2003.
Mr. Schainker stated that, during the evaluation of the Plan, staff identified several issues that could be
inhibiting the progress of its implementation. Mr. Schainker pointed out that imbedded in the first issue
is the possibility that the City should consider accelerating capital improvement programming by building
the sanitary trunk sewer into the Southwest Growth Area as soon as possible. This strategy is strongly
opposed by the property owners who object to being involuntarily annexed into the City, are concerned
that the construction of the trunk sewer would de-value their property, and believe that the sewer project
would adversely impact the environment. It was stated by Mr. Schainker that the property owners along
Worle Creek have raised a number of legitimate concerns that will require a more in-depth discussion.
He feels that it might be appropriate to refer the issue of the trunk sewer to staff for further analysis; staff
could report back to the Council on December 16, 2003.
Mr. Schainker advised that if the City Council believes that action should be taken to increase the pace
of development in accordance with the Plan, then it would be his recommendation that the City Council
approve the staff’s recommendations. If the Council feels that the progress is at a level that they are
comfortable with, then they may choose to maintain the LUPP as it is currently. If the City Council
chooses to change the LUPP, the next step would be for the City Attorney to work with the Planning staff
to draft the appropriate language in the LUPP and Zoning Ordinance for the Council’s final approval.
2
Issue #1: Lack of Developer-Owned Land in the Southwest Growth Priority Area. Staff is
recommending that the Council consider maintaining the Southwest Growth Priority Area and the
secondary Northwest Growth Priority Area, but remove the development percentage threshold of
65%. This would allow development to occur immediately in this secondary growth area and
necessitate a revision to the Capital Investment Strategy to require the City to pay the over-sizing
costs for infrastructure in the area.
Council Member Vegge asked what the cost differences were for developing the Southwest Growth
Priority Area versus the Northwest Growth Priority Area. His second question was if the 65%
requirement were removed in the Southwest, how would that affect the incentive. Lastly, Mr. Vegge
asked if the Ames School District were taken into account when the City is recommending a
particular area for development. Mr. Pietruszynski stated that he would not be able to quantify the
exact costs tonight; however, he pointed out that the City Council, in the past, has made decisions
that some major capital improvements would be put in place in the Southwest Growth Corridor.
Some of those improvements include construction of a major interchange, an elevated water system,
and dual water pressure systems. Those improvements not only serve existing development, but also
future development of this community; their capacities are great enough to meet future demands. Mr.
Pietruszynski advised that the more emphasis put on those resources, the more return the City will
get on its investment; thus, if the City gets a certain percentage of growth, it could pay back some
of that capital investment. Regarding incentives, Mr. Pietruszynski pointed out that the Plan states
the City will pay for oversizing in a conventional Suburban Residential development in the
Southwest Growth Corridor. If a developer chooses to develop outside of the area, that developer
pays the full cost of improvements. By relieving the 65% threshold, the incentives would be widened.
Mr. Pietruszynski pointed out that the added costs of growing to the north would include significant
improvements that would be necessary, e.g., separated crossing at the railroad tracks to ensure
adequate service to the area and a more streamlined transportation network. There may also be
additional costs of extending sanitary sewer to the area.
Regarding the Ames School District, Mr. Pietruszynski stated that the Plan does not focus on school
districts; one is not favored over another. School District boundaries have not played a role in
determining where growth should occur to date.
Council Member Wirth asked, if the City were to leave the 65% development threshold in place, at
what point does the City foresee a problem regarding land to develop. Mr. Pietruszynski said that if
you look at the number of acres that are available for development, the City has about seven and one-
half years worth of inventory for residential expansion. The development community states that it
is really important that they plan five years out for residential growth. The rate of residential land
consumption has been sped up with recent drops in interest rates and the increase demand for
housing, so the gap has been shortened even further. Therefore, staff can see why there is concern
by the development community on where we are going to get more land.
Pertaining to the investments that have already been made by the City since the LUPP was adopted,
Council Member Mahayni asked what rationale was used when the City initially selected the
Southwest Growth Priority Area as the area for efficient growth. Mr. Pietruszynski said there are two
main reasons why the Southwest Growth Priority Area was seen as the efficient place for growth: (1)
the availability of drainage systems to extend gravity sanitary sewer in an efficient manner, and (2)
the transportation network. He advised that the Southwest Growth Area has good arterial street
systems to allow access to other areas of the community, i.e., Highway 30 provides access to East
Ames, South Duff Avenue, to commercial areas and employment centers; North and South Dakota
is an excellent arterial transportation route. There are no physical barriers that are
associated with the Squaw Creek, Skunk River, or railroad tracks. Summarizing, Mr. Pietruszynski
said that services can be provided in the Southwest Growth Priority Area at a lower cost.
3
Phil Iasevoli, 3108 South Dakota Avenue, Ames, advised that his property is located in Southwest
B, as shown in the Annexation Plan of February 2000. He pointed out that a lot of the land located
in the area south of New Highway 30 is owned by Iowa State University. There are approximately
20 land owners who live in the Southwest B Growth Area. In that Area, there is only one land owner
at this time who has expressed an interest in developing his land. The trunkline sewer that is
proposed will run from State Street to South Dakota. He said that the land that is available for sale
is a half mile beyond that. Mr. Iasevoli said it is his understanding that there will be a 100-foot-wide
swath cut right through the Worle Creek valley that would take out mature Shagbark Hickory, Oak,
and Black Walnut trees. He said that, ecologically, it would be devastating to take these trees out.
Mr. Iasevoli said he and his wife own six acres, and the proposed trunkline would run right through
the middle of their property, within 75' of the front door of their house. He encouraged the City
Council to look at alternatives for installation of a sewer line in this area.
Katherine Fromm, 3531 George Washington Carver, Ames, stated that she owns 45 acres of very
sensitive land. Ms. Fromm said that there is a great deal of environmental emphasis put into town
planning in Europe; she doesn’t see that in the City of Ames. She advised that she owns quasi-public
land, as she believes those around Worle Creek do also. They preserve the land for future
generations, pay taxes, pay liability insurance, enjoy the wildlife and the creek bed, but they aren’t
going to make any money on it; she believes it to be a stewardship issue. Ms. Fromm asked the City
Council to preserve public land. There is very little public land left in Iowa. She does not believe
the City Council has adequately considered environmental effects in their policies and urged the
Council to do so pertaining to the land around Worle Creek and in future deliberations.
Mimi Wagner, 1106 Harding, Ames, said that she has been doing research on how people relate to
the Squaw Creek Watershed, what they understand about it, and what is known about how it has
changed. Ms. Wagner said that, although economic decisions are really critical for every city to
consider, the streams and the creeks that are left undeveloped are some of the most precious
resources. Ms. Wagner said she has studied these streams and creeks from 1938, which is the earliest
time that they have photos of the region, and since that time, they have been radically removed. She
requested that everyone remember that streams are important and great places to live by, and caution
should be taken in allowing any type of development to come within the boundaries of any streams
that are left. She is currently conducting a survey to determine how much people value Squaw Creek
and its tributaries and for what specific reasons. Ms. Wagner would like to present the results of that
survey at a future meeting.
Alan Munson, 4001 Dartmoor Road, Ames, said that he came as a messenger for the 1,095 persons
who signed a petition opposing the installation of a sewer trunkline through the Worle Creek valley.
He said what is important is what they learned from the people as they signed the petition concerning
annexation and the role of the sewer trunkline in annexation. Many people view the sewer as part of
an involuntary annexation strategy. Mr. Munson believes there is a big difference between a strategy
and a policy; he hopes that the City is trying to define a policy and not manifest a strategy in this
endeavor. Mr. Munson asked the City to listen to the 1,095 persons and trust them with information.
According to Mr. Munson, most of the affected property owners learned of this less than three weeks
ago.
Miriam Patterson, 2810 Meadow Glen Road, Ames, said that she is not directly affected by this issue;
however, she stands in solidarity with those persons who will be affected. She believes that quality
of life for one person in Ames is a quality of life issue for all. Ms. Patterson quoted a comment made
by a City staff member that the majority of the City’s sewer lines follow creek beds. She believes
that years have passed since those sewer lines were installed, and people are better informed and
more sensitive now about the issues of environmental quality. Ms. Patterson said because the City
did it that way then, it does not mean that it should be done that way now. She also said that the City
justifies cutting a 100-foot-wide one-mile-long swath through the Creek valley by stating that natural
areas along Worle Creek are C and D Grade, meaning that they have been disturbed and that non-
4
native species have been introduced. Ms. Patterson agrees with that; Worle Creek is not an untouched
wilderness. The banks of Worle Creek have been farmed, cattle have grazed there, trees have been
cut, but in this agricultural state, these are what remain of our “wild” areas; they have become few
and precious. If a new development comes to the Southwest Growth Area, Ms. Patterson would like
to believe that people are smart enough and sensitive enough to find nature-friendly ways to do it.
Philip Zaring, 1955 Meadow Glen North, Ames, said that he has lived in the Meadow Glen area since
1967. With regard to the proposed sewer trunkline, he feels that it would be a real travesty to install
the sewer in the way in which it is being proposed; a 100-foot-wide swath in a fairly narrow valley
will nearly destroy it. Mr. Zaring suggested that a pumping station might be more effective, albeit,
more costly, to pull the sewer up high in a way that it does not destroy the valley. Mr. Zaring then
spoke about the issue of involuntary annexation. He believes that the issue of involuntary annexation
and the sewer trunkline seem to have surfaced simultaneously and very suddenly. He and his wife
are alarmed because they don’t want their property annexed. They are concerned about the cost of
annexation of the Meadow Glen Road area, which was estimated approximately four years ago by
the Planning Director at over $100,000 out of their pocket. This would provide them a connection
for electricity, sewer, water, and a better road. He is not sure of anyone in his neighborhood who
believes a better road is needed or wanted. Mr. Zaring asked that the City take into consideration the
feelings of the residents if annexation is imposed upon them.
Leonard Victor Larsen, 3158 South Dakota Avenue, Ames, said that he lives in a neighborhood
where they all know each other. He said that his home overlooks Worle Creek. According to Mr.
Larsen, there are large trees in the valley; they are not scrub trees or scrap trees. He said that this is
a natural area. It is upsetting to Mr. Larsen and his neighbors that the possibility of a sewer trunkline
was just sprung on them. He believes that the City can figure out a way to do this project without
running the sewer through their woods and neighborhood. Mr. Larsen advised that above Worle
Creek, there is an old stagecoach station that has been there since the 1850's. He believes that his
neighborhood has been around longer than the City has; he asks the City to treat this area with
respect.
Kim Christiansen, 2985 South Dakota, Ames, commented that he is concerned about the Southwest
B Area. He is concerned about the sewer coming up Worle Creek that may cost between $1 and $2
million. Mr. Christiansen urged the Council to look at this project and have it stand on its own merits
without looking at the money that has already been put into the construction of the interchange at
South Dakota. He pointed out that Southwest B is almost entirely in the United School District.
There is less than one section of land that really is developable there that isn’t owned by Iowa State
in Story County. It is Mr. Christiansen’s opinion that if that kind of investment is going to be made,
there should be assurance that Iowa State is going to sell its land or make the policy that the City is
going to go into Boone County for expansion. According to Mr. Christiansen, that sewer line will
not have the payback.. He also pointed out that there are many large homes on five- to ten-acre
tracts, so in this area, there are going to be a number of acres that are not going to be feasibly
developed because of the types of homes that already exist. Mr. Christiansen asked the City to look
economically at each new investment that is put into the Southwest Growth Area even though the
interchange has been constructed, was a big investment, and is great for transportation. He feels that
the sewer line is very difficult to rationalize economically.
Kay Wall, 1004 Kellogg, Ames, submitted a petition with 31 names of those opposed to the sewer
trunkline through the Worle Creek valley; the people signing the petition live between South Fourth
to 13th Street and from Douglas to Wilson. Ms. Wall suggested that a compromise that might satisfy
both sides would be to let Worle Creek go perpetually undeveloped. She also pointed out that having
convenience stores a mile apart means you only have six blocks to walk; that is close enough. Ms.
Wall believes that a lift pump station could service those homes along South Dakota. Ms. Wall said
that she heard staff state that the advantage of building to the southwest would be that you wouldn’t
have to cross the Skunk River or railroads. She pointed out that those obstacles are not present in
5
the northwest area either.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Wirth, to refer the sewer trunkline issue in the Southwest Growth Area
back to staff, to report on December 16, 2003; and, in so doing, direct staff to advise the Council of
the study that was done ten years ago relative to the quality of trees that are in the area, give the
Council an understanding of the costs to be borne by property owners, give the Council more plan
details, and provide an explanation of alternatives and the cost of those alternatives.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Hoffman stated that the City has mapped environmentally sensitive areas in the City
of Ames; Ames is one of the few cities in the state that has done that. Ms. Hoffman would like the
City to do the same for areas outside the City.
Issue #2: Need to Incorporate into LUPP Criteria for Neighborhood/Convenience Commercial
Development in Residential Areas. Staff is recommending that the City Council incorporate the
following criteria reflected in the Commercial Land Needs Analysis:
- Neighborhood commercial areas should be located with a distribution frequency of
approximately one mile in radius.
- The size of any one center should be between two and five acres, but not greater than ten acres.
- Each building in a neighborhood commercial center should be limited to 25,000 square feet, with
no neighborhood center in excess of 100,000 square feet.
- These centers should be located adjacent to or within the center of the highest possible
concentrations of population.
- Neighborhood commercial areas should be located on major or minor thoroughfares.
- Neighborhood commercial areas should not be located where there already is an existing
neighborhood/convenience commercial center that mostly adheres to the suggested criteria.
- Neighborhood commercial areas should not be located where there are more intense commercial
activities that already serve the neighborhood/convenience commercial land.
Council Member Goodhue pointed out that the development community initially said that they
wanted buildings to be in the 75,000 to 150,000 square foot (sf) range, but staff came back and said
the “ideal size” would be between 25,000 and 100,000 sf. He asked how staff arrived at that “ideal
size” for neighborhood/convenience commercial areas. Mr. Pietruszynski said that the real issue is
compatibility; if a building has a certain number of square feet, it needs to be determined if it is
compatible with the buildings in the area. Mr. Pietruszynski said that staff looks at developments in
other communities, in places where ordinances have worked well, to come to a number that’s
commonly used successfully in other places.
Mr. Goodhue also stated that the development community suggested that neighborhood commercial
areas be located with a distribution frequency of approximately one mile in radius. The Council was
advised by Mr. Pietruszynski that staff relied on research obtained from different planning
professionals and agencies to make this recommendation. In conventional to more traditional styles
of development, this type of spacing is seen for neighborhood commercial areas. This
recommendation focuses on density -- how many people will be utilizing that commercial service in
a given area and by what means will they get there.
David Maahs, 1007 Vermont Court, Ames, representing the Ames Chamber of Commerce and the
6
Ames Economic Development Commission, explained that they are supportive of most of the staff’s
recommendations for changes to the Land Use Policy Plan. Regarding the neighborhood commercial
area, they are requesting that developments be able to be larger than 25,000 sf – perhaps 35,000 sf
– in size. He agrees that the size of the development needs to be compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Maahs also stated that they agreed that neighborhood commercial areas should be located with
a distribution frequency of approximately one mile in radius; hopefully, with the understanding that
there is some flexibility as they look at density and what type of development is in the area.
Issue #3: Minimum Density Requirements for Single-Family Housing. It is the staff’s
recommendation that the Council consider changing the density standard for one- and two-family
developments to 3.4 units per acre, but retain the attributes (open space, right-of-way) that are currently
used to determine net acres.
Issue #4: The Village as the Preferred Development Option. Staff is recommending that the Plan
continue to support Village Residential as the preferred development option; however, it is agreed that
the need to provide justification for not creating a village can be eliminated from the development
application requirements.
Issue #5: Involuntary Annexation Policy. Staff is suggesting that the City Council consider an
involuntary annexation policy. Existing policies that work against voluntary annexation in the Southwest
Growth Priority Area should be examined and revised where appropriate.
Herb Harmison, 2692 Meadow Glen Road, Ames, Iowa, believes that the City should have a policy
setting forth how annexation should be handled. The goal of the policy should be to minimize cost
and discomfort to all parties involved. He believes that the City should avoid involuntary annexation
under virtually all circumstances; the costs in dollars, time, stress on individuals, and hard feelings
generated are not worth the small additional tax revenue to the City. Mr. Harmison thinks that the
annexation policy should be drafted involving many entities including City staff, residents of Ames,
representatives of proposed annexed areas, environmental groups, planning experts, commercial
groups, University representatives, sociologists, and legal representatives – a group that would create
a policy that would lead to good faith negotiations. The reasons for annexation should be clearly
defined and agreed to by those making the policy. He feels that the straightening of boundaries for
merely cosmetic reasons seems unreasonable; such efforts reflect a very limited understanding of the
concept of human community. It is the opinion of Mr. Harmison that to insist on following a plan that
is already shown to be questionable will surely be seen as unwise by future generations. Mr.
Harmison said that he checked the history of Meadow Glen Road and found that in 1970, the City
attempted to annex an area of 38 square miles. Ames then contained 15 square miles, and their
justification for the annexation was that Ames, with a population of 36,500, would grow to 80,000
by 1990. The growth of Ames actually grew by 8,000 people. Mr. Harmison feels that when
expansion is needed, it should be done in areas where potential buyers have shown interest and where
the development community can most effectively produce housing. He believes that forced
annexation amounts to levying increased taxes on unwilling and non-voting citizens and should be
avoided at all costs. When the City can demonstrate to those being annexed that the cost of
annexation in reasonable, the problem of involuntary annexation vanishes. Mr. Harmison wants the
Council to promote the concept that parties to any proposed annexation be mandated to communicate,
negotiate, and accommodate in good faith and reasonably. When there are issues of apparently
intractable resolution, provisions should be made for the intervention of an independent arbitrator
whose decisions will be accepted by all concerned.
David Atwood, 2732 Meadow Glen Road, Ames, said that he feels having an involuntary annexation
policy is inherently anti-democratic in that the City is inflicting its will on neighboring communities.
He feels any policy devised along those lines should be as restrictive as possible, only to be used in
the most extreme cases. Mr. Atwood said he and his neighbors in the Meadow Glen area are
somewhat alarmed because their neighborhood is defined as an “Annexation Problem Area” in the
7
Land Use Policy Plan. He said they are physically separated from Ames by some fields on the north
and by the Worle Creek ravine to the south; they believe they are a separate and unique community.
Mr. Atwood said that if annexation were to be forced upon their community, he believes it would
cause considerable expense due to the extension of infrastructure. He is concerned about this because
there are some retired residents on fixed incomes who may be forced out of their homes.
Chuck Winkleblack, 105 S. 16th Street, Ames, stated that there are a number of people owning
property in the Southwest Growth Priority Ara who have tonight indicated that they will fight
involuntary annexation. He asked how that would affect the ground that is available if there are
lawsuits that are tied up in the court system for a couple of years. Mr. Winkleblack believes that this
needs to be considered because if it does slow the process down, it will make the City’s land needs
even more urgent.
Mr. Winkleblack believes that we need to have choices for the people in the City of Ames to live,
not just in the Southwest Area. He thinks it is important to have homes in all areas, and by removing
the 65% threshold, it will provide more choices. Regarding commercial development, if the City
comes up with a total number of acres that can be developed, the development procedures and
process will take care of the square footage. He doesn’t want the two to be tied together; each piece
of ground is different and unique, and depending upon the use and requirements, the ordinances
already in place will dictate and limit the amount of square footage.
Mr. Winkleblack pointed out that there are a number of recommendations being proposed tonight,
and he asked in what form they will come back in to the City Council. He asked for clarification on
how this will be administered. Mr. Winkleblack said that not all of the uses will be the same; the
market will justify whether the service needs to be provided. It is not the role of the City Council to
protect markets.
Mayor Tedesco explained that any of the recommendations that are accepted tonight will come back
as either an ordinance or a Land Use Policy Plan change. Mr. Schainker said that it is contemplated
that the developer will meet all of them; each one is a unique policy. Mr. Winkleblack believes by
so doing, the City may be establishing a policy that can never be achieved. This may preclude some
development, e.g., if the policy states that the development must be on a major road, and from Point
A to Point B, there is no major road, it means that the development may not occur there. If a major
road has not been installed, it would be impossible to go into a developed area and lay down a major
street. Mr. Winkleblack emphasized that the policy is not going to be able to be achieved because
infrastructure may not be installed at the point it is determined the development may occur.
Issue #6: Urban Fringe Planning. It is proposed by staff that a high priority be placed on developing
an urban fringe plan that identifies joint strategies for managing development in the fringe areas involving
Ames, Gilbert, Boone County, and Story County.
Issue #7: Minor Changes to the LUPP. Staff recommends that the minor changes to the text of the
LUPP and the Zoning Map suggested on Page 60 of the comprehensive staff report be incorporated into
the Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Issue #8: Downtown. This issue was not previously identified in the staff report; however, the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended that a strategy be developed to enhance the role of downtown as
a community focal point.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Cross, to approve the staff recommendations on seven issues,
precluding the sewer trunkline through the Worle Creek valley, and refer to the City Attorney to develop
appropriate language to revise the LUPP and Zoning Ordinance.
Council Member Hoffman asked if Mr. Goodhue was taking into consideration any of the
8
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Goodhue said that he was not. He felt
that the Commission agreed with the majority of the staff’s recommendations.
Council Member Mahayni said that he would rather consider each issue by itself. This would allow the
Council to consider some of the recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Council
Member Wirth stated that she was in favor of looking at each issue separately.
Moved by Vegge, seconded by Goodhue, to amend the motion to include Issue #8.
Vote on Amendment: 5-1. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Hoffman, Vegge, Wirth. Voting nay: Mahayni.
Motion declared carried.
Vote on Amended Motion: 3-3. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Vegge. Voting nay: Hoffman, Mahayni,
Wirth. Mayor Tedesco voted aye to break the tie. Motion declared carried.
PROJECT CONCEPT FOR SOUTHEAST 16TH STREET: Public Works Director Paul Wiegand
explained that the 2003/04 budget included a concept study to evaluate the appropriate bridge opening
and cost of improving the gravel portion of Southeast 16th Street west of the Dayton Avenue interchange.
Staff developed a contract with Snyder & Associates to complete the study since they had completed the
recent floodplain management study. The consultants were to identify various bridge widths and impacts
to surface water elevations in addition to developing the cost estimates for the alternatives. The
parameters involved with the study stipulated that there would be no increase in the flood water
elevations caused by the proposed bridge up stream of the confluence of the Squaw Creek and Skunk
River. Snyder & Associates based their recommendations on the complete analysis of hydraulic data, past
flooding events, public input, City staff input, and engineering judgment.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Vegge, to approve a project concept for Southeast 16th Street from the
Dayton Avenue interchange west to east of South High Avenue that would provide for a 50-year flood
flow and paving set to overflow in larger flood events and direct staff to develop financing options.
Council Member Mahayni stated that he has concerns with this project because of the high cost, an
investment of $4 million, and given the fact that current traffic volumes on this section of roadway total
approximately 750 vehicles/day. Council Member Cross said that the City Manager’s recommendation
is that the City pay for the bridge improvements and that assessments against the property owners pay
the remainder. Mr. Mahayni said that he has serious questions about the size of this project and the need
for it without a proper transportation study that tells him the context of this project. He wants to know
what the impact is of doing this project in terms of the other street infrastructure. Mr. Mahayni said it is
his impression that we are duplicating capacity relatively close to each other, i.e., SE 5th Street, 16th
Street, and Highway 30, and the impact of that is that we are going to have overcapacity along that
corridor. Council Member Wirth concurred. She believes the bigger picture should be looked at before
continuing to move forward with this project. Mayor Tedesco pointed out that the motion tonight was
just to approve the concept; it does not mean the project has been approved.
Council Member Mahayni said that he wants to establish need in the context of the whole area. He said
a transportation network should never be done based on that link; you have to address it in terms of its
impact and the whole area that it is in. Council Member Cross believes that development potential exists
in this area. Council Member Goodhue said he thinks that development will occur fairly quickly in this
area if the street improvements are made.
Vote on Motion: 3-3. Voting aye: Cross, Goodhue, Vegge. Voting nay: Hoffman, Mahayni, Wirth.
Mayor voted aye to break the tie. Motion declared carried.
HEARING ON VACATING EASEMENTS IN NORTHRIDGE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, 5TH
ADDITION: Mayor Tedesco opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak, and the hearing was
closed.
9
Moved by Wirth, seconded by Cross, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 03-444 approving vacating easements
in Lot 23 of Northridge Heights, 5th Addition, and approving the Major Final Plat for Northridge Heights,
7th Addition.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE “NO PARKING ORDINANCE” ON MARYLAND STREET
FROM CALIFORNIA AVENUE WESTWARD: Moved by Wirth, seconded by Hoffman , to pass on first
reading an ordinance extending the no-parking regulation on Maryland Street from California Avenue
westward.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE REVISING PARKING REGULATIONS ON DICKINSON AVENUE: Moved by
Hoffman, seconded by Wirth, to pass on second reading an ordinance revising parking regulations on
Dickinson Avenue.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE REVISING LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS CITY
PERMITS: Moved by Hoffman, seconded by Goodhue, to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE
NO. 3746 revising the liability insurance requirements for various City permits.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Ordinance declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made
a portion of these minutes.
COMMENTS: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Wirth, to refer to staff the letters from the Randall
Corporation, Michael Emery, Pat Brown, and Reiman Gardens.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Mahayni pointed out that the City’s review process does not have any dimensions that
address aesthetics or design elements of commercial areas. He would like staff to investigate this issue
and report back to the Council.
Moved by Mahayni, seconded by Hoffman, to refer to staff to investigate and report back by late January
or February 2004 on methods to integrate design and aesthetics into the review process for commercial
development.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:05 p.m.
_________________________________ ________________________________________
Diane Voss, City Clerk Ted Tedesco, Mayor
10