HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Regular Meeting of the Ames City Council 11/24/1998MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 24, 1998
The Ames City Council met in regular session at 6:30 p.m. on the 24th day of November, 1998, in
the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, pursuant to law with Mayor ProTem
Ann Campbell presiding and the following Council members present: Cross, Hoffman, Parks,
Quirmbach, and Wirth.
JOINT MEETING WITH HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION: Members of the
Commission present were Creighton Gaynor, Nikki Dempsey, Jim Hopson, and Jan Beran. City
staff representative Sheila Lundt was also present. Creighton Gaynor gave a presentation which
highlighted the Commission’s history, purpose, and responsibilities; its 1997/98 membership,
goals and accomplishments; and the types of discrimination handled by the Commission.
Council member Cross asked what the major human relations issues facing Ames were and how
the Commission specifically addresses those issues. He felt that the Commission’s charter
directed them to play an active role in identifying human relations issues in Ames and to create
solutions for those issues. Mr. Gaynor stated that the Commission seeks to offer opportunities
for the youth in the community to further their development as it relates to human relations
awareness. Also, Commission member Arnita Colbert works with the Ames High School’s
diversity appreciation group, and the Commission recently sponsored students who attended the
Lieutenant Governor’s Conference on Diversity. Mr. Gaynor advised that the Commission
sponsors housing fairs which bring landlords and tenants together in an attempt to resolve
housing inequality issues. The Commission members hear a lot of informal complaints on how
consumers of different ethnic backgrounds are treated by business owners, so they have recently
gotten involved in dealing with those types of issues with Ames businesses.
Council member Cross asked for specifics concerning the training sessions held by the
Commission, i.e., number of, who is invited, etc. Mr. Gaynor explained how the Commission
members are trained. He stated that the Commission has held training sessions on the issue of
housing equality for landlords and tenants. Jan Beran explained some community training
sessions which the Commission has held.
Council member Parks asked how many complaints are received by the Commission, how they
are normally resolved, and how many complaints are not resolved. Sheila Lundt stated that the
number of complaints average 8 to 12 annually. They have very few cases which result in a
finding of probable cause. Resolution of the complaint is usually found through mediation.
Council member Hoffman pointed out that the Commission’s annual report showed a number
of calls received from people outside of Ames and she asked for an explanation of why that
would be occurring. Ms. Lundt advised that there is an informal network of cities in Iowa formed
through human relations agencies. She said that Iowa City and Ames are the only two cities in
Iowa which have added a section to their ordinances which deals with sexual orientation, and
2
that is one reason for an increase in the number of calls. Creighton Gaynor felt that the addition
of the sexual orientation section did not, however, create an undue burden on the Commission;
five complaints have been received since the section was added in 1991.
Council member Cross asked what awards have been given by the Commission. Creighton
Gaynor stated that they give awards to people who have been leaders in promoting human
relations education in the Ames community. These have been given to Abe Epstein and the
Reverend Sarai Beck for their efforts in this regard.
Council member Hoffman asked how many cities in Iowa have a Human Relations Commission.
Sheila Lundt stated that under state law, any city with a population over 29,000 is technically
supposed to have a Human Relations Commission. There are currently about 13 cities who
actively belong to the Iowa Association of Human Rights Agencies. Because there is a
requirement for a staff member from the city to receive complaints, smaller communities may
not have the personnel to handle the additional workload.
Council member Campbell asked for an explanation of the interrelationship among the
Commission members, the investigating officers, and the hearing officers. Sheila Lundt stated
that main function of the investigating officers is to investigate the complaints as they are
reported. A Commission member is assigned to work jointly with an investigating officer to
interview, follow up, and prepare a report on the complaint. The report is given to the hearing
officer, who makes the actual determination as to probable cause. If probable cause is found, the
investigator, the Commission member, and Sheila Lundt meet to find a solution to the complaint.
If conciliation of the issue cannot be reached, a hearing would be held.
Council member Campbell asked how this Commission interrelates with the Diversity
Appreciation Team. Creighton Gaynor stated that the Human Relations Commission works with
the Diversity Appreciation Team to promote diversity education through brochures and
participates in activities together during diversity awareness events.
Creighton Gaynor asked if there was anything that the City Council would like to see
accomplished by the Human Relations Commission. Council member Cross thought they
perhaps should consider making their annual goals more specific, i.e., setting a number of
community organizations to which they would be making human relations presentations,
defining the role they should be playing in the “Breaking Down the Barrier’s” task force.
Council member Wirth believes it is very important for the Human Relations Commission to be
involved with the Chamber’s Diversity Appreciation Team.
PRESENTATION OF BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS. Mayor Pro Tem Campbell introduced
Linda Naeve, member of the Ames Beautification Committee. Ms. Naeve presented
Beautification Awards for installing attractive landscaping or planting and maintaining flower
gardens in the City’s rights-of-way to the Soroptimist Club, Kiwanis Club, Lowell Richardson,
Novartis Seeds, Harold and Joan Newell, Carol Ellertson, Claire and Charlotte Latta, Timothy
3
and Susan Taege, Charles and Marlene Bell, Rickie and Hope Arthur, Terry Besser, McFarland
Clinic, Youth & Shelter Services, Story County Master Gardeners, Betty Beyer and Jamie Beyer,
Ames Foundation, and the Ames Garden Club. Ms. Naeve advised that the Ames Beautification
Committee also sponsors a Holiday Lighting Contest. December 11 is the deadline for
nominations to be submitted to the Public Works Department.
CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Parks, seconded by Quirmbach, to approve the following items
on the Consent Agenda, removing Item 10 for consideration at a subsequent Council meeting:
1 .Motio n ap prov in g paymen t of claims
2.M otion approving M inutes of special m eetings of N ovem ber 9, 1998, and N ovem ber 14 , 1998, and
regular m eeting of N ovem ber 10 , 19 98
3.M otion approv ing renew al of the follow ing b eer perm its and liqu or licenses:
a.Class C B eer - Kw ik S ho p #55 0, 71 5 - 24 th S treet
b.Class C Liquor - Cazador M exican Restaurant, 127 Dotson D rive
4.M otion setting date for Zoning O rdinance W orkshop for D ecem ber 15, 1998
5.R E S O LU T IO N N O . 98-549 approving appointm ent of C arol Bo usquet to fill an unex pired term
of office on the Library Board of T rustees
6 .R E S O LU T IO N N O . 9 8-55 0 app ro ving aw ard of con tract fo r 1 99 9 P olice P atro l V eh icles to
W illey, Inc., of A m es, Iow a, in the am ount of $1 41,703.45
7.RE SO LU TIO N N O . 98-551 approving com pletion of the W ater Treatm ent Plant Renovation
8.R E S O LU T IO N N O . 98-5 52 app rov ing p artial release of U C C filing for B all P lastic Con tainer
Corporation
9.RE SO LU T IO N N O . 98-5 53 approv ing sub ord ination of secon d m ortgage lien for 5426 Frost D rive
in connection w ith the City’s Phase III A ffordable H ousing Program in the Bentw ood Subdivision
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.
NEW CLASS C LIQUOR LICENSE FOR TIP TOP LOUNGE: Moved by Parks, seconded by
Hoffman, to approve request for Class C Liquor License for Tip Top Lounge, 201 E. Lincoln
Way.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
NEW CLASS BW LIQUOR LICENSE FOR ANGRY HOUSE OF SAI: Moved by Wirth,
seconded by Parks, to approve request for Class BW Liquor License for Angry House of Sai, 223
Welch Avenue.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
PETITION REQUEST FOR S. THIRD/S. FOURTH CROSSWALK: Paul Wiegand, Public
Works Director, explained that a petition was received from residents of the Stonehaven
Apartments requesting that the City mark a crosswalk across S. Third Street at the S. Fourth
Street intersection. After evaluating this request, staff believed that the requested crosswalk
would be too close to the existing signalized crosswalk at the HyVee/Lincoln Center. Staff also
4
believed that it would be safer for pedestrians to use the HyVee/Lincoln Center crosswalk since
it is equipped with a traffic signal which can provide for extended walk phases. The petitioned
crosswalk would be located next to the HyVee truck entrance, which could pose some safety
concerns for pedestrians. Currently, there is no sidewalk constructed along the south side of S.
Third Street from S. Fourth Street to the HyVee/Lincoln Center traffic signal; however, staff
recommended that a sidewalk assessment project be initiated for a segment of sidewalk to be
installed there.
Realizing that inclimate weather may preclude the sidewalk from being poured in the next few
months, Council member Hoffman requested that staff follow up diligently to ensure that the
sidewalk is installed as soon as possible next spring.
Council member Quirmbach asked for an update on the Garfield sidewalk project. Paul Wiegand
stated that the property owners have indicated to staff that they cannot find a contractor to install
the sidewalk. The property owners have been asked to provide a plan and timeline to his
department. If arrangements are not timely made by the property owners, the Public Works
department will make arrangements for sidewalk installation next spring and assess the charges
to the property owners.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Parks, to deny the specific crosswalk request from the Stonehaven
residents, but direct staff to initiate a sidewalk assessment project for a 250' segment of sidewalk
along S. Third Street to facilitate the pedestrian movement to the signalized crossing at the south
entrance of the HyVee/Lincoln Center.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
STORY COUNTY EMPOWERMENT BOARD: Assistant to the City Manager Sheila Lundt
introduced McDonnell, the primary author of the proposed grant application, and Bill Whitman,
the chairman of ASSET.
Council member Campbell asked Ms. Lundt to explain the Story County Empowerment issue.
Ms. Lundt stated that the Iowa Legislature passed a bill which provides funding for early
childhood and school-ready programs. The funds would pay for programs designed to prepare
children under the age of five for school. In order to access these funds, which are state and
federal monies, an empowerment area needs to be established. It would be the empowerment
area which would request the funding and would then distribute the funding to support programs
within that area. The bill dictates that the empowerment area be no smaller than a school district.
It specifies to some degree who will comprise the Empowerment Board; the Board must have
representation from school districts, business providers, city officials, et al. The Board members
would make the decision as to how the grant monies would be allocated. Over the past six
months, a number of meetings, childhood summits, and discussions with Decat (which involved
child-care providers, health-care providers, child abuse agencies, family services agencies) have
been held in an attempt to examine the feasibility of applying for the funding, and if received,
how it would be used to best benefit Story County residents. Members of ASSET, the Mid-Iowa
5
Community Health Committee, and Decat (comprised of representatives from the county, school
districts, the Juvenile Court System, and the Department of Human Services) had been looking
at ways to work together for some time, and the creation of an empowerment area would
formalize their cooperative efforts.
Ms. Lundt advised that ASSET members were asked if they were interested in spearheading the
grant application process, and a letter was forwarded in September to the state of Iowa indicating
that ASSET would serve as the Transitional Empowerment Board for Story County. In order to
access the early childhood grant funds, an application needs to be sent to the state by December
1. Ms. Lundt explained the varied components of the application. The Story County Board of
Supervisors had reviewed and approved the application. The GSB and United Way Board’s
position is to approve the application if the Ames City Council and the Story County Board of
Supervisors approve it.
Steve Schainker, City Manager, asked what role the City of Ames would play in the
Empowerment Area concept if they agreed to participate. Sheila Lundt stated that it would mean
authorizing ASSET to move forward in organizing a permanent Empowerment Board and
committing City Council members to be a part of the Empowerment Board; it does not lock the
City into any arrangements to provide funding.
Council member Cross pointed out that all of the school districts in the County were not listed
as participants and asked for an explanation. McDonnell stated that five school districts have
accepted the invitation to participate; invitations were extended to all. They do hope to include
all seven school districts, and it is unknown why the other two have not responded.
Council member Hoffman advised that this is the second round of funding. The first application
deadline was in September. As a result of 28 applications received in the first round, three were
accepted. Almost every county in the state has indicated that they are applying for funds. Council
member Quirmbach stated that the odds of being funded through this round are not great, but it
is important to go through the process; this approach may aid the chances of being funded at a
subsequent stage.
Council member Hoffman asked Bill Whitman what reservations ASSET members expressed
about taking on the additional duties of the Transitional Empowerment Board. He stressed that
Council needs to recognize that staff time will need to be committed to complete the additional
tasks. Council member Campbell asked if administrative costs may be requested. McDonnell
stated that technical assistance may not be requested. Mr. Whitman pointed out that ASSET will
serve as the Transitional Empowerment Board; however, there needs to be a permanent Board.
Mr. Whitman stated that approximately $240,000 is being requested through this application. A
concern ASSET members have expressed is whether the state will continue to support the
childhood program after the first year or if they will be looking to fund areas not previously
funded. Even though there are some risks involved, ASSET unanimously recommends the City
of Ames’ participation.
6
Moved by Hoffman, seconded by Cross, to approve the City of Ames’ participation in the Story
County Empowerment Board and authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN: Brian O’Connell, Director of Planning and Housing, gave
an update on the Urban Revitalization Area (URA) Analysis which was originally presented to
Council in 1996. The City Council had requested additional information about the URA
program. Staff felt that a review of the program was necessary due to: (1) the existence of
development projects where it appears that the tax abatement incentive was not necessarily the
reason why a project occurred; (2) the program had been in effect for many years; (3) the Land
Use Policy Plan was adopted in 1997, and there was a need to review the URA program as a
means to implement various goals of the Plan. Mr. O’Connell gave a presentation which
delineated the five original urban revitalization areas created in 1981 and the two additional areas
added in 1996 and 1997.
Mr. O’Connell reported on the number of tax exemption applications received and how much
value has been eligible for exemption. In Area 1 (downtown area), there have been 150
applications (not properties) filed which represent a reported value of $24 million (value property
owner has reported to the City for the purpose of tax exemption). Thirty-one applications have
been filed in Area 2 (Campustown area), which represent a reported value of $5.6 million. In
Area 3 (Freel Drive area), 27 applications were filed representing $850,000. Twenty-one
applications were filed for Area 4 (West Campus area) representing $7.5 million. Area 5 (S.
Duff area) had a total of 47 applications filed with an added value of $9.6 million. Those five
areas, since 1982, have represented a total added value of $47.8 million. Area 6 has experienced
approximately $3 million worth of investment since it was added to the program in 1996. Area
7 (commercial area at Somerset) is still being developed; no applications for tax abatement have
been received. He stated that for the first five areas, City staff tried to encourage development
or redevelopment; however, in Areas 6 and 7, the City became more focused in what they hoped
to accomplish.
The following approaches were discussed: (1) retain the existing URAs and their boundaries; (2)
retain the existing URA, but update or change the criteria for receiving tax abatement in these
areas; (3) change the boundaries of the existing URAs; (4) retain some of the existing URAs and
delete other areas where utilization is low or there is another incentive option available, e.g.,
Industrial Tax Abatement; (5) delete some of the existing URAs where the utilization is low and
retain others, but only offer the tax abatement incentive for projects that meet a stated goal or
objective of the Land Use Policy Plan; (6) eliminate the existing URAs and designate specific
“blighted” or “underutilized” properties as individual URAs which would be eligible for tax
abatement when the redevelopment of the properties occurs; (7) eliminate the entire Urban
Revitalization program. Specific examples related to Options 5 and 6 were given.
Based on the analysis completed for the URA program, staff offered seven recommendations:
(1) eliminate URA 3; (2) merge URAs 2 and 4 into a single district; (3) maintain URA 1, but
7
limit the utilization of the tax abatement incentive to commercial uses in the areas zoned
commercial; (4) maintain URA 5, but limit the utilization of the tax abatement incentive to
redevelopment of a site that was previously developed; (5) create new URAs for each lot judged
by the City on a case-by-case basis to be “blighted” or “underutilized;” (6) create a URA for each
village that is developed and offer the tax abatement only for commercial properties built in these
developments; (7) assist with the creation of low- and moderate-income owner-occupied
housing. Mr. O’Connell explained the reasons supporting each recommendation.
Council member Campbell asked if staff had looked at underground or stacked parking when
requesting that developments meet the new standards of increased parking. Mr. O’Connell stated
staff had not been that restrictive in their recommendations. Council member Parks pointed out
that the cost of stacked or underground parking is much more expensive than surface parking,
and this program offers tax abatement to encourage development. If restrictions are placed on
the development which do not allow for a return of the developer’s investment, redevelopment
will actually be discouraged. He felt that if staff’s recommendations were accepted, developers
already will need to meet the new standard of increased parking.
Council member Quirmbach would like to revise the program so as to create some flexibility for
City staff to be able to negotiate with developers. He feels that a list of desired characteristics
needs to be established to use as a guide in granting tax abatement.
Council member Parks asked if any zoning designation (commercial, industrial, residential) may
apply for tax abatement within each district. Mr. O’Connell stated that if the property is being
used for a permitted use within the zoning district and the property is in a URA, the tax
abatement is granted. Council member Parks pointed out that the City’s ability to collect taxes
on assessed valuation is much different today than it was in 1981. In 1981, the City was
collecting 90%+ on valuation; today, the City collects approximately 56% as every residential
property is already abated approximately 45%. He is not sure that the City should be looking at
providing additional tax abatement to single-family and two-family residential areas. Council
member Wirth asked why staff was using the wording, “multi-family second floor,” as opposed
to just residential on the second floor. Mr. O’Connell stated that it would have to be three units
or more to be designated as multi-family, and many of them wouldn’t be; therefore, that wording
was incorrect.
Regarding applying tax abatement incentives to allow for the preservation and restoration of
property in the Historic District, Council member Parks pointed out how much tax valuation is
lost initially when a multi-family home is converted to a single-family home. He feels extremely
rigid criteria should be applied to applications for tax abatement on conversions of multi-family
units to single-family homes. Council member Wirth stated that if tax abatement incentives were
only available to conversions of multi-family dwellings, the City would be discouraging
restoration of other historic properties.
Council member Wirth asked if staff was proposing to expand the URA boundaries to match the
8
boundaries of the Historic District; all of the Historic District is currently not in a URA. Mr.
O’Connell stated that that is a possibility. He stated that the City’s goal is to use the tax
abatement incentive to further entice investment in officially determined historic districts or
properties. If Council agrees with the staff’s recommendation, it would include incentives for
properties to convert from multi-family to single-family to further the goal of the SFCOD.
Council member Parks stated that he would be opposed to including incentives for conversion
of multi-family to single-family dwellings.
Council member Wirth feels that the area north of the railroad tracks has different
development/redevelopment goals than the area south of the tracks. Also it has been proposed
to increase the commercial zoning south of Lincoln Way and east of the Target store; therefore,
it would seem logical to her to separate this area into more than one district. Council member
Parks stated that the district could be left intact until specific goals have been identified for
specific properties. He thinks this issue could be revisited by the Council rather than try to
delineate specific areas now. Council member Wirth feels tax abatement should not be granted
for any redevelopment of the area south of Lincoln Way and east of the Target store now since
the zoning may change to commercial. She feels that area is in transition and tax abatement
incentives should not be provided for projects which are not in conjunction with the City’s plan
for that area. Council member Parks pointed out that the area proposed to be changed to
commercial zoning has been designated for commercial use in the Land Use Policy Plan for
years, and he doesn’t find a problem with leaving that area in the URA. Council member
Campbell thinks that perhaps the City should not be granting tax abatement for redevelopment
along Lincoln Way given the prospect of changes to that area.
Five specific properties that could be considered “blighted” or “underutilized” were discussed
under Recommendation #5. Council member Quirmbach recommended two sites be added to
the list: the mobile home park in the 500 block of North Dakota and the old Ontario grain
elevator property. Mr. O’Connell stated that specific criteria for development or redevelopment
may be negotiated prior to the City granting tax abatement. According to City Attorney John
Klaus, Council could adopt a policy statement which says the City will consider granting tax
abatement on a case-by-case basis. Mr. O’Connell stated that the idea behind this discussion is
for the Council to be in agreement on rather specific areas of the City which may be “blighted”
or “underutilized.” Steve Schainker pointed out that currently requests for tax abatement are
automatically granted if the property is located in a geographic area designated as an urban
revitalization area; it doesn’t matter whether the City agrees with the improvement. If
Recommendation #5 is approved, Council would judge each property on a case-by-case basis.
Council member Hoffman believes the City would yield the best use of its money to follow
Recommendation #5.
Concerning Recommendation #7, the use of the tax abatement incentive would occur on a case-
by-case basis as a result of negotiations between the property owners and the City to ensure that
the prices of the homes are affordable to people whose income is between $25,000 and $50,000.
Council member Parks stated that he would rather see a cap on the price of the home; that would
9
be more definitive, both for the public and the developer. Mr. O’Connell stated that staff had
thought of that; however, there would be nothing to keep higher-income people from purchasing
a lower-cost home. Council member Parks stated that he is concerned about the equity recapture.
Mr. O’Connell told Council that City staff believes there are specific changes that should occur
to the Urban Revitalization program. Council member Parks stated that he agreed with all seven
of the staff’s recommendations except to not include tax abatement for the conversion of multi-
family residential units to single-family dwellings in the Historic Preservation District. Council
member Quirmbach thinks that the next step for most of these recommendations would be to
establish the types of criteria (desirable characteristics) the City would be looking for in
development or redevelopment. He feels this should be accomplished fairly quickly since the
current policy will continue to give tax abatement based on location only. Council member
Cross feels that care should be taken to arrive at these criteria, and perhaps a workshop needs to
be held.
Council member Wirth said that since there is the requirement for tax abatement applications to
be submitted by February 1, if there are changes agreed upon by all Council members, those
changes should be made effective February 1, 1999.
Moved by Parks, seconded by Wirth, to eliminate Urban Revitalization Area #3.
John Klaus asked if there were any projects pending completion or any anticipated applications
to be filed by February 1, 1999. He pointed out that once the application is filed, Council has
to grant or deny the request for tax abatement within 30 days based on what Urban Revitalization
Plan is in effect at that time. Therefore, if URA 3 is eliminated prior to February 1, 1999, nothing
in URA 3 would be eligible for abatement.
Moved by Parks, seconded by Wirth, to amend the motion to read eliminate URA 3 effective
March 1, 1999.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Parks, seconded by Wirth to merge URAs 2 and 4 into a single district that coincides
with the area designated in the Land Use Policy Plan as being the University-impacted area and
only apply the tax abatement incentive to commercial development and redevelopment in the
areas zoned commercial and to multiple-family development that meets the new standards of
increased parking.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Additional discussion was held on Recommendation #3. Council member Quirmbach stated that
he would prefer to target the tax abatement incentives to types of development that will enhance
Downtown in connection with the Land Use Policy Plan or the overall plan for the downtown
area.
Moved by Parks, seconded by Cross, to maintain URA 1, but limit the utilization of the tax
10
abatement incentive to commercial uses in the areas zoned commercial that further the vitality
of the downtown as specified in the LUPP; and also apply the incentives to preservation and
restoration of properties in the Historic District or to properties that receive a historic landmark
designation, but eliminate properties that are converted from multiple-family use to single-family
use.
Council member Wirth pointed out that they had also discussed matching the boundaries with
the Historic District boundaries.
Moved by Parks, seconded by Cross, to amend the motion to read to maintain URA 1, but limit
the utilization of the tax abatement incentive to commercial uses in the areas zoned commercial
that further the vitality of the downtown as specified in the LUPP; and also apply the incentives
to preservation and restoration of properties in the entire Historic District or to properties that
receive a historic landmark designation, but eliminate properties that are converted from
multiple-family use to single-family use.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Additional discussion over the boundaries was held. Council member Wirth was concerned that
when the Council revisits the issue during sub-area planning, part of Area 1 will be added to part
of Area 5; therefore, it seemed logical to her to change the boundaries of Area 1 now. Council
member Parks felt that all properties on Lincoln Way should be included. Council member
Cross recommended the alley south of Lincoln Way be the boundary for URA 1. Staff was
requested to report back to Council on the feasibility of changing the boundaries.
Council member Quirmbach stated that he would like staff and the Council to consider including
the Lincoln Center in URA 1. He believes that is an area where redevelopment should occur.
Moved by Wirth, seconded by Cross, to maintain URA 5, but limit the utilization of the tax
abatement incentive to redevelopment of a site that was previously developed.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council concurred with staff that Recommendations #5, #6, and #7 need to have criteria
established.
Moved by Parks to include the general concept of Recommendation #5 in the Urban
Revitalization Plan. Motion died for lack of a second.
Moved by Wirth, seconded by Parks, to agree with the general concepts listed in staff’s
Recommendations #5, #6, and #7, and authorize staff to develop criteria which will be brought
back to the Council for review.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
BLOOMINGTON COURT, 4521 HYDE AVENUE: The developer requested approval of an
11
amended Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan to modify the design for the condominium
buildings planned for Lot 20 in the Bloomington Court Subdivision, which is located east of
Hyde Avenue and north of Eisenhower Lane. This new design will result in a reduction in the
number of dwelling units located on Lot 20 from 32 dwelling units to 20 dwelling units. This
request was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting of November
4, 1998, with the stipulation that the reciprocal ingress/egress easement for access between Lot
20 and the other lots in this Subdivision be submitted to the City.
Moved by Wirth, seconded by Parks, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 98-554 approving the
amendment to the cross easement and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 98-555 approving the
amended PUD Plan.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolutions declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
AMENDED P-C PLAN FOR 823 WHEELER STREET: The restaurant tenant at 823 Wheeler
Street, Suite 9, in Northern Lights, requested to install four flat-panel valances along the top of
the three windows and the door/entrance for their business. The signs will consist of the
business name over the building entrance and the words, “Italian Restaurant, Lounge, and Pizza
Pasta,” respectively, along the top of the three windows. This property is located in the P-C
zoning district; approval of the valance signs on the exterior of the building is necessary under
the P-C regulations of the City. A sign plan was approved by the City and staff recommended
approval of this request.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Parks, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 98-556 approving the
amended P-C Plan for 823 Wheeler Street to allow for the installation of four valance signs.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
FREEL DRIVE LIFT STATION PROJECT: Steve Schainker advised that this project was
originally to be financed by a combination of special assessments assigned to the adjacent
property owners and the City picking up deficiencies created by the property values not being
sufficient to carry the assessments. After the original assessment hearing, Council directed staff
to modify the assessments to show that the City would pay one-half of the cost of the lift station.
Because the Lange property has an existing sanitary sewer adjacent to it, the capability of proving
benefit to the Langes by this project is difficult, and staff recommended removing the Lange
property from the assessment. The final assessment, therefore, is changed because of the
removal of the assessment against the Lange property. In order to cover the City’s investment
in the sanitary sewer that lies adjacent to the Lange’s property, staff recommended that a tapping
fee ordinance be enacted. Once the tapping fee is in place, any connection to the sanitary sewer
would require the payment of $15,105.
Mr. Schainker further advised that when the large change order was authorized, staff indicated
12
that the cost would be shared with the property owners as allowed by the original assessment
schedule. However, the cost couldn’t be shared because the maximum assessments had been
established by the revised schedule. That error resulted in the City’s cost being higher than staff
had originally indicated at the time of the change order discussion. In addition to the
assessments for the lift station, the total sanitary sewer program involved a separate assessment
program for the pipe needed to collect the sewage. The assessments have been levied for that
program. Based on the increased City cost, the sanitary sewer fund share will be required to
increase an additional $25,900.85 if the extra General Obligation Bonds in the amount of
$13,055.75 are also credited to the City’s share.
Moved by Quirmbach, seconded by Parks, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 98-557 accepting
completion of the Freel Drive Lift Station Project as constructed by ACI Mechanical in the
amount of $176,490; to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 98-558 correcting the schedule of
assessments; to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 98-559 adopting the final assessment schedule,
levying final assessments for $56,308.57; and direct staff to prepare a tapping fee ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolutions declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and
hereby made a portion of these minutes.
NORTHRIDGE PARKWAY SUBDIVISION: Steve Schainker advised Council that the
proposed Amendment details the developers’ responsibility to provide financial security for one-
half the cost of paving the third lane of George Washington Carver Avenue along the north
property line of the Subdivision. It also deletes the requirement of widening George Washington
Carver Avenue along the east property line since widening is no longer necessary with the
completion of the Stange Road extension through the Somerset Subdivision. Mr. Schainker
wanted to make sure that Council was aware that the Amendment also provides for the City to
refund or release the financial security for the widening of the street if the City Council makes
a decision not to pursue or support development north of Bloomington Road/George Washington
Carver Avenue.
Council member Quirmbach asked what would constitute a decision not to pursue or support
development; if the City agreed to development or annexation to the north, but required all the
costs to be borne by the developer, would that decision release these developers from their
obligation. John Klaus stated that it could be argued that if the City is doing nothing to facilitate
the development, not extending any infrastructure, and requiring that all infrastructure costs be
paid by the private sector, then the City is neither supporting nor pursuing development in that
area. Mr. Klaus advised that it would take some affirmative declaration or statement of policy
issued by the City as a clear indication that they are not pursuing or affirming development to
the north. Mr. Schainker stated that the key issue here is whether the street needs to be widened
because there is development to the north; who pays for that growth is another issue. Council
member Quirmbach is concerned that if Council does not make an allocation for infrastructure
costs, that might be interpreted as relieving these developers from their obligation.
Moved by Wirth, seconded by Cross, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 98-560 approving the
13
Amendment to the Development Agreement for Northridge Parkway Subdivision (9th Et
Sequentia) and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 98-561 approving the final plat for Northridge
Parkway, 17th Addition.
Roll Call Vote: 5-1. Voting aye: Campbell, Cross, Hoffman, Parks, Wirth. Voting nay:
Quirmbach. Resolutions declared adopted, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of
these minutes.
IMPLEMENTATION OF LIQUID SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE DISINFECTION SYSTEM
FOR THE WATER PLANT: Tom Neumann, Director of Water and Water Pollution
Control, introduced Karla Tebbin and John Dunn who gave a presentation on the proposed
modifications to the water disinfection system and the reasons therefor. Ms. Tebbin and Mr.
Dunn informed the Council of the options available and discussed a comparison of the various
systems evaluated. They pointed out the advantages and concerns of switching to a liquid
hypochlorite disinfection system and advised Council on the solutions which have been
developed addressing the concerns. It is estimated that the cost to convert from using gaseous
chlorine to the liquid sodium hypochlorite system for water disinfection will be approximately
$30,000.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Hoffman, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 98-562 approving a
budget amendment of $30,000 from the available Water Fund balance to implement the liquid
sodium hypochlorite disinfection system by June 21, 1999.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Resolution declared adopted unanimously, signed by the Mayor, and hereby
made a portion of these minutes.
ORDINANCE PROHIBITING “SPIDER LEG” SIGNS: Moved by Parks, seconded by Hoffman,
to pass on third reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 3506 prohibiting “spider leg” signs.
Roll Call Vote: 5-1. Voting aye: Campbell, Cross, Hoffman, Parks, Wirth. Voting nay:
Quirmbach. Ordinance declared adopted, signed by the Mayor, and hereby made a portion of
these minutes.
ORDINANCE REGARDING PARKING PROHIBITIONS FOR DAUNTLESS, SOMERSET,
AND EASTGATE SUBDIVISIONS: Moved by Hoffman, seconded by Cross, to pass on first
reading an ordinance regarding parking prohibitions for Dauntless, Somerset, and Eastgate
Subdivisions.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion declared carried.
COMMENTS: Council member Hoffman referred a letter from James Pritchard regarding a city-
wide leaf collection program to the City Manager.
Council member Cross referenced a letter the Council had received from Gary M. Myers, legal
counsel for the Target store. Mr. Myers is requesting expansion of Urban Revitalization Area
#5. Moved by Cross, seconded by Parks, to place this item on the Council’s December 8
meeting and to set January 12, 1999, as the date of public hearing.
14
Vote on Motion: 5-1. Voting aye: Campbell, Cross, Parks, Quirmbach, Wirth. Voting nay:
Hoffman. Motion declared carried.
Council member Campbell asked the Council if they wanted to meet with the area legislators.
Due to some important issues facing cities, Council will meet with area legislators. An attempt
will be made to schedule the meeting for December 16, 17, or 18.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m.
_________________________________________________________________________
Diane Voss, City Clerk Ted Tedesco, Mayor