HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Special Meeting of the Ames City Council 12/15/1998MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 15, 1998
The Ames City Council met in special session at 5:05 p.m. on the 15th day of December, 1998, 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: Campbell, Cross, Hoffman, Parks,
Quirmbach, and Wirth.
WORKSHOP BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF ON PROPOSED CHANGES
TO ZONING ORDINANCE:
1.LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR APARTMENT DWELLINGS IN RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM-DENSITY (RM) AND RESIDENTIAL HIGH-DENSITY (RH) ZONES
City Manager Steve Schainker indicated that the City Council had asked staff to come up with
some very specific landscaping regulations rather than generic or general descriptions that causes
frustration on the part of builders or developers. Planning & Housing Director Brian O’Connell
noted that the Staff Report responds to the City Council’s direction to provide specific
landscaping requirements for front and side yards for a multiple family building in the RM and
RH zones. Mr. O’Connell summarized the report.
It is recommended that the proposed landscaping requirements as set out in the Staff Report be
included as a general requirement to be located in Article 4 of the proposed zoning regulations.
This Article contains the other landscaping and screening requirements and planting
requirements for parking lots. It is staff’s belief that this Article is the appropriate location for
this landscaping requirement for apartment dwellings.
Moved by Wirth, seconded by Campbell, to make a change so that these landscaping
requirements would be applicable to “all permitted uses” rather than just multiple family
zones. Vote on Motion: 1-5. Voting aye: Wirth. Voting nay: Campbell, Cross, Hoffman,
Parks, Quirmbach. Motion failed.
Moved by Cross, seconded by Hoffman, to accept the staff report recommendation.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
2.RECOMMENDATION ON MINIMUM DENSITY FOR SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
City Manager Steve Schainker noted that Suburban Residential density was the last issue the City
Council has to deal with before adopting the Zoning Ordinance. The initial recommendation
from the consultant had stated that all new lands would be “village.” However, the City Council
decided that would be too restrictive and asked staff to develop an alternative. Thus, the
Suburban Residential District was born. Council asked staff to come up with an option which
would allow developers to choose between these two options. Staff came back with a minimum
density issue in Suburban Residential (4 units per acre). Council then asked staff to provide a
comparison to existing neighborhoods to give a perspective on how this would impact the City.
2
It is staff’s recommendation that four dwelling units per net acre be established as the minimum
density standard for Suburban Residential regulations. It is further recommended that exceptions
to this minimum density standard be included in the Suburban Residential regulations to create
flexibility to accomplish the objectives stated in the staff report.
Mr. O’Connell explained “exceptions”--small lots, irregularly shaped lots, and natural
vegetation. At the October meeting, staff had discussed this in terms of the “average” minimum
density--i.e., not every lot had to meet a size standard, but would accomplish the density
requirement. There should be a means whereby the owner of a large piece of property would
have the ability to make some larger lots as long as there is a sufficient number of smaller lots
to create, in total, an average density. Also, staff discussed density on the basis of “net acres,”
where public right-of-way, park space, private open space would not be included in the
calculation.
Mr. Schainker noted that the City Council would have to decide whether they should mandate
a minimum density or offer it as a goal. If there was to be a minimum density, the Council
would have to decide on what it should be and what elements would be excluded. Staff had
attempted to follow the directions of the City Council on this issue. The City Council will have
to decide if establishing a minimum density helps to accomplish the goal in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mayor Tedesco noted that, from information contained in the staff report, it appeared that great
progress has been made from the older neighborhoods with lower densities to the more modern
neighborhoods with higher density. He cited two reasons for this trend: 1) because Council has
encouraged it; and, 2) the marketplace has required it, to economically develop land today
because of the costs involved.
Council Member Parks expressed concern that if some people wanted larger lots and the Council
made zoning laws so restrictive that they do not accommodate the market, that market will go
elsewhere.
Council Member Campbell asked about the implications of making the four dwelling units per
acre a “goal” rather than mandating it. Mr. Schainker responded that the Council would have
to analyze the situation and if the goal wasn’t being met, would have to decide what to do to
make it right.
Mr. O’Connell reminded Council that when Village Residential was the preferred development
alternative, Suburban Residential had density minimums as a goal, not a requirement. The plan
was to look at it every five years to see if the goals were being met. When the idea was put forth
to put Village Residential and Suburban Residential on the same plane in terms of a preferred
development option, it was thought that we should at least get some of the basic tenants of our
Land Use Plan out of either model. Village Residential has a minimum density requirement (of
8 dwelling units per acre). It was decided that we should have a minimum density requirement
for Suburban Residential. They are both going to accomplish some of the fundamental tenants
in our LUPP and that is established in Goal #6 of the Plan which is very explicitly stated in the
Suburban Residential section of the plan.
Mayor Tedesco noted that the median is 3.96 and the mean is 4.05. He believes our land use has
encouraged density on a voluntary basis.
3
Mr. O’Connell acknowledged that what was being proposed wasn’t dramatically different that
what’s been happening without the regulation. But, it is saying that as a matter of policy and as
a matter of development requirement, here’s how we want single family and two family
development to occur in our community--so there won’t be any confusion on the part of someone
who is coming in.
Council Member Cross noted that Ames has had a significant amount of multi-family
development take place in the last 10 years, but that we’re not measuring it--just single-family
development. We’re not regulating multi-family development. We’re encouraging it and
discouraging single- family development in Ames.
Council Member Wirth suggested that the real reason for mandating density is because it’s
another tool to implement our Land Use Plan which is why we were revising our Zoning Code
so that it would go with our Land Use Plan.
Moved by Parks, seconded by Cross, to set four dwellings per acre as a density “goal” and
not as a “mandate” in Suburban Residential.
Vote on Motion: 2-4. Voting aye: Cross, Parks. Voting nay: Campbell, Hoffman,
Quirmbach, Wirth. Motion failed.
Moved by Wirth, seconded by Quirmbach, to include the staff recommendation in our
Zoning Code.
Moved by Parks, seconded by Cross, to amend the motion to read 3.5 (dwelling units per
acre) instead of 4.0.
Vote on Motion as amended: Voting aye: Parks. Voting nay: Campbell, Cross,
Hoffman, Quirmbach, Wirth. Motion failed.
At Mayor Tedesco’s request, Mr. O’Connell referenced page 4 of the staff report defining
density: “Density shall be determined by the number of dwelling units per acre after all property
that is included in street right-of-way, school property where application and public or private
open space has been subtracted from the total acreage of a subdivision.
Council Member Parks called for the Question.
Vote on Motion: 3-4. Voting aye: Hoffman, Quirmbach, Wirth. Voting nay: Cross,
Campbell, Parks, Tedesco. Motion failed.
Moved by Campbell, seconded by Parks, to reconsider the original motion to make 4.0
(dwelling units per acre) as a “goal” rather than as a “mandate.”
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting aye: Cross, Campbell, Hoffman, Parks. Voting nay:
Quirmbach and Wirth. Motion carried.
Moved by Parks, seconded by Cross, to set four dwellings units per acre as a density “goal”
and not as a “mandate” in Suburban Residential.
Vote on Motion: 4-2. Voting aye: Cross, Campbell, Hoffman, Parks. Voting nay:
Quirmbach, Wirth. Motion carried.
Mayor Tedesco asked for a clarification of the motion: Should the balance of staff’s
4
recommendations as outlined in the staff report be included in the motion. Mr. Schainker noted
that it would not now be appropriate. Mr. O’Connell noted that, since there will not be an
ordinance addressing density, there is no reason to have all the exemptions for something that
isn’t a regulation. Suburban Residential and Village Residential will now be placed as floating
zones that would allow the landowner to select one or the other, and the development would be
guided by the regulation that they select.
3.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED
ZONING MAP
City Manager Schainker reviewed the process of implementation. He stated that there will be
a series of public input sessions similar to those held on the Zoning Ordinance, along the lines
of the “ward” boundaries, followed by a public hearing. The first meeting will be initial
recommendations
Council Member Parks asked that the ward meetings be in the Council Chambers and be
televised and that all Council members should be present at each meeting. He suggested that the
City should go to the expense of notifying all property owners to let them know dates of
meetings and that their zoning will change.
Council Member Campbell suggested sending notification in the utility mailing with a list of all
the dates.
Mr. Schainker indicated they could publicize the meetings on Government Channel 12 and the
media, although he was hesitant about listing dates that would probably change. The first order
of business would be to contact the consultants (Snyder & Associates) to see when they will be
available.
Council Member Cross asked staff to come up with specific schedules and suggestions on how
residents and commercial property owners were going to be notified. He wants the meetings
to be held in the neighborhoods, not in the Council Chambers, and the meetings to be taped for
showing later. He believes it would be easier for people to get to the meetings if they were held
in their neighborhoods, and it would give residents a sense that the Council is keenly interested
in hearing directly from them. In response to Mayor Tedesco’s query about available facilities
in each ward, Mr. O’Connell noted that they had not yet contacted the School District to secure
a meeting place. The information distributed was a proposed plan.
Council Member Parks reaffirmed his belief that individual property owners needed to be
contacted. Otherwise, the ward meetings would only be attended by the Council, and we
wouldn’t get significant participation beyond activists who are already interested. Council
Member Parks asked to be informed at the next meeting what the cost of a direct mail would be.
Mr. O’Connell noted that there were approximately 13,000 parcels and suggested a cost of
$4,000 to $5,000 for a direct mailing. He feared that his staff would not be able to handle the
demands of this large of mailing. Council Member Cross suggested contracting the mailing to
an outside agency.
In response to Mr. Schainker’s question about the type of information the Council wanted
contained in the letters, Council Member Parks suggested a generic letter stating, “your property
5
will be rezoned.”
Mayor Tedesco asked that staff report back at the first meeting in January concerning plans for
notifying homeowners as well as a suggested time line.
COMMENTS: Moved by Parks, seconded by Cross, to refer the VisionAire letter to staff.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Hoffman, seconded by Cross, to refer the letter received from Robert Karp regarding
the Downtown Farmer’s Market to staff.
Wirth noted that Mr. Karp wanted to get the location for the Farmers Market settled as soon
as possible. She asked that information be on the agenda at the first meeting in January (just
the location, not necessarily the question about the pavilion). She indicated that the Council
has already received information from the Downtown Betterment indicating that they support
it, that they are willing to take the parking off on those days (Saturday and Monday).
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Council Member Hoffman expressed concern about the press release giving information on the
spraying of streets with a brine solution. Some people are confused and are thinking that we’re
going to use a lot more salt instead of less salt. Asked staff to disseminate information in the
utility newsletter to clear up the confusion.
In Campustown, the decorative covers are broken up at the bottom of the light poles and are just
laying around the poles. She asked about removal and/or replacement, noting the present
unattractiveness.
Council Member Wirth received word that the speed study the D.O.T. did on the South Duff area
is completed and asked staff to try to set up a meeting between the D.O.T. officials and the
citizens that are concerned about this so that the D.O.T. can give them the information and
answer their questions.
Council Member Wirth received an inquiry about a change coming up in our Building Code.
There is some concern that, in the near future, you would not be able to install your own
electrical and plumbing in new construction for single family dwellings. She asked staff for a
memorandum to clarify this issue. If that change is coming, she wanted to know when it is
coming and why are we changing that particular regulation.
______________________________________________________________________
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ted Tedesco, Mayor
__________________________________
Lynette Windsor, Recording Secretary