Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Special Joint Meeting of the Ames City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission 02/01/2000MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AMES, IOWA FEBRUARY 1, 2000 The Ames City Council met in special joint session with the Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. on the 1st day of February, 2000, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with Mayor Ted Tedesco presiding. The following Council members were present: Campbell, Cross, Goodhue, Hoffman, Quirmbach, and Wirth. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present were Mahayni, Sevde, Buck, Schafer, Keeney, and Prudhomme. Commission Member Silence was absent. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PRESENTATION OF ANNEXATION STUDY: Mayor Tedesco explained that public input would not be received at this meeting. The Study will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and then come back to the City Council; public input will be received during both of those meetings. City Manager Steve Schainker gave the background leading up to the creation of the Annexation Study. He said that the objective of the Study is to assist the City Council in the implementation of the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) by determining which one of several scenarios proves to be the most cost- effective for purposes of annexation. Mr. Schainker emphasized that the Study, which estimates the future demand for residential land, is not meant to identify exact costs or revenues of any scenario, but rather to present relative comparisons to aid the City Council in understanding the possible financial ramifications of growing in one direction versus another. He reminded the Council that they had previously reviewed and approved a Phase I Annexation Study that indicated annexation in the Southwest Priority Growth Area and the Boundary Adjustment Area presented the fewest challenges to the City in terms of providing municipal services. Brian O’Connell, Director of Planning and Housing, explained the Study Areas: Southwest Growth Area A, Southwest Growth Area B, and Boundary Adjustment Area, which were first defined in the Phase I Annexation Study; the Northern Annexation Area, which Council had directed the staff to research; and the Uthe and Taylor Growth Area. Mr. O’Connell explained four scenarios, outlining the area, net acres, and population, representing a combination of Study Areas that yield a population approximately equal to or slightly greater than 62,000 people (as prescribed in the LUPP). He pointed out that any one of the Areas, by itself, does not give the City the growth objective it hopes to accomplish with annexation. According to Mr. O’Connell, several departments were asked to identify the estimated operating/capital expenditures and revenues associated with the development of the four growth scenarios. Parks and Recreation, Public Works, Fire, Police, CyRide, Water and Pollution Control, and the Municipal Electric Utility Departments identified directional-related costs for the Study Areas. Joe Pietruszynski, Planning Technician, explained how the City’s Geographic Information System was used to apply real world scale and information to this Study; this helped to maintain uniformity and fairness among all the Areas. He explained that each of the four Study Areas represented net developable acres, which is the land area remaining when several limiting factors are subtracted from the total gross acreage. Mr. Pietruszynski stated that in addition to the limiting factors, the remaining land area was further reduced by 20% to account for future street right-of-way and utility corridors. 2 The methodology used for projecting the population for each of the Study Areas was explained by Mr. Pietruszynski. He said that costs were analyzed over 18 years, since that was determined to be the time period required to meet the 62,000 population goal for each scenario. Non-directional costs were being represented as per-acre costs and held constant throughout the life of the Study period. He explained that non-directional-related costs are those costs incurred by the City to provide a service or program that is not affected by growth in any given direction, but would occur regardless of which direction the City grows. Council Member Quirmbach asked if any sensitivity testing was done in this Study. Mr. O’Connell stated that sensitivity testing was not included as a part of this analysis. Mr. Pietruszynski presented a comparative analysis among the four scenarios. It was pointed out that there would be additional costs in bond interest which would need to be borne by the City beyond the 18 years. Mr. O’Connell stated that the Study verifies that the most-efficient direction for the City to expand would be into the Southwest Area (Scenario 1), and the most costly strategy would be simultaneous growth in both directions to the extremes of the North and Southwest Study Areas. Mr. Pietruszynski pointed out that Scenario 2 (Northern Annexation and Southwest A) represents 470% greater costs than Scenario 1, Scenario 3 (Southwest A, Southwest B, and Uthe and Taylor Farms), represents 85% greater costs, and Scenario 4 (Northern Annexation, Southwest A, Southwest B, and the Boundary Adjustment Area) represents 738% greater costs. Discussion ensued on how those calculations were made. Mr. O’Connell emphasized that additional capital costs associated with a growing community had not been factored into this report. He said other cities have addressed that issue through the implementation of a Capacity Depletion Charge, but this Study does not factor a depletion cost concept into any growth scenario. Mr. Schainker advised that if Southwest Area B is annexed into the City, a portion of the Boundary Adjustment Area must also be brought in because of the state law prohibiting the creation of “islands.” The staff’s recommendations, based on the completion of this Study, were presented by Mr. Schainker. In summary, staff is recommending that the Southwest A area, the Uthe Farm, and the Taylor property be annexed and developed before annexation should occur in the Southwest B area. Mr. Schainker further stated that since the Uthe and Taylor properties are in the same watershed that drains storm water into Hallett’s Quarry, it is important that a plan to mitigate the effects on water quality be developed before these properties are annexed. Also, Mr. Schainker said it is the staff’s recommendation that the developers commit to make at least 40% of the lots or land area available to construction companies not affiliated with the developers before the City approves any request to annex and rezone the Uthe property. He emphasized that any growth north of the Uthe property requires a potential net cost to the City of such magnitude that it cannot be recommended by the staff. Commission Member Mahayni asked why the costs of the mandated annexation of the Boundary Adjustment Area (so as not to create an island) were not included in Scenario 3. Mr. Pietruszynski explained that the Boundary Adjustment Area is comprised of mostly existing lots; most of the costs for improvements would be borne by the property owners.. Council Member Cross asked for an explanation of voluntary and involuntary annexations and the 3 timeframes required for each. Mr. O’Connell explained the process for both options; it takes approximately six weeks after the request is referred to Council for voluntary annexations, and it could take years to complete involuntary annexations. Council Member Quirmbach asked for further explanations concerning the costs represented in the comparative analysis on Page 8 of the Study. Public Works Director Paul Wiegand explained that the costs associated with the construction of a separated crossing of the north/south tracks were the main difference between Scenarios 1 and 3. Other cost differences, caused mainly by CyRide, Fire, and Electric services, were explained. COMMENTS: Council Member Cross asked if any particular action was needed to be taken by the City Council this evening. Mayor Tedesco explained that the next step is for the Annexation Study to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission; no direction by the Council is needed at this point. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. _________________________________________________________________________ Diane Voss, City Clerk Ted Tedesco, Mayor