Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Planning & Zoning Minutes 12/21/2011 1 MINUTES CITY OF AMES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Date: December 21, 2011 * Debra Lee 2012 Chuck Jons 2012 Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. Elizabeth Beck, Chairperson 2012 Norman Cloud , Vice-Chairperson 2013 Place: Ames City Hall *Mark Stenberg 2013 Council Chambers Jeff Johnson 2014 Troy Siefert 2014 Adjournment: 9:25 p.m. *Absent MAJOR TOPICS DISCUSSED: 1. Planning & Zoning Commission Initiatives 2. Discussion on Land Use Policy Plan Amendment Process ____________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER: Elizabeth Beck, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: (JOHNSON/SIEFERT) to approve the Agenda for the meeting of December 21, 2011. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2011: MOTION: (CLOUD/JONS) to approve the Minutes of the meeting of November 16, 2011. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC FORUM: There were no public comments. ____________________________________________________________________________ Planning & Zoning Commission Initiatives Steve Osguthorpe, director, reviewed the status of the City Council approved priorities for fiscal year 2010/11 giving an overview of the outstanding projects that still need to be completed:  National Registration for Downtown. The Council gave the consultants, Will Page and Gloria Betcher, the go ahead for Phase 2 of that project. Ray Anderson, planner, will be helping to coordinate with the consultants on that project.  Chapter 31 (Historic Preservation Districts) Revision Process. The City was not awarded a grant to receive help from a consultant, which means this revision will be done totally in-house by staff.  Continued Work of Urban Fringe Issues. This item is partially done and has been placed on the back burner while Boone County works on other pressing matters. Staff still needs to work with Boone County on fringe issues. 2  Provide a report to Council on feasibility of requiring that a master plan be reviewed by the City Council prior to submittal of a preliminary plat. This is in response to a proposed suggestion at the 2010 Workshop we had with the development community. Jeff Benson is working on this item.  Provide a report on what the process would entail to develop standards for an airport overlay zone. This item is still outstanding but well into the process. Staff has provided information to the City Council on developing standards for an airport overlay zone. Staff will report back to the Council with information on some continued questions they had on this issue.  Landscaping Standards. Although this topic is not a listed item, staff has received numerous complaints this past year from both external customers and other City departments about the landscaping standards. Staff presented this topic to the City Council defining the concerns and complaints and identified examples of how other jurisdictions have addressed these kinds of issues. The Council indicated that they believe landscaping has value and has directed staff to develop a workgroup to review the landscaping standards, which is expected to be about a six month process. The Planning and Zoning Commission will get involved in this topic if any code amendments are identified during this process.  Approved priority of “can-do.” Although this isn’t a listed item, staff continues to work on requests from customers that need to be dealt with immediately (e.g. Code amendments for Webfilings for parking between the street and the building and for McFarland Clinic for double frontage lots). These types of projects takes staff away from its prioritized work schedule and is our effort to achieve that “can-do” approach to facilitate development, which is the challenge to estimating how much time these other items will take. Discussion occurred about how the list of Commission priorities is sent to the Council prior to its goal-setting session, but the Commission doesn’t meet with the Council to discuss the priorities until later in the spring. Staff suggested that maybe this year the purpose of the workshop between the Commission and the Council be different to be more strategizing on how to have the communication and how to coordinate priorities. Mr. Osguthorpe said until he gets the Commission’s feedback, he is not sure if some of the listed items are tasks to be done, or if they are just goals we have in mind as we move forward with whatever we do on a day-to-day basis. Elizabeth Beck recalled that one of the major conversations the Commission had in the past was that we couldn’t do much until we looked at the Land Use Policy Plan to see if the projections are matching, which was one of our priorities that has been accomplished (Planning Base Update). She suggested that maybe the Commission should provide the Council with the priorities document and let them choose what they would like to see worked on. Norman Cloud said that Planning Base Update was important because now that we have some better numbers, it sets up these priorities as long-term planning for the city, which is what we need to be focusing on. Ms. Beck said she thinks the Commission’s job is to help the City think in longer terms with citizen’s voices, and sees this as a conversation to the Council for things for them to think about in the next ten years. Mr. Osguthorpe said there may be some things that are not necessarily a major task that planning takes on, as much as the Commission conveying concerns or issues that they should 3 be aware of in whatever they do. For example, if the Commission is concerned that a traffic study was only addressing the capacity issues and not the quality of life issues, then that might be an issue or concern the Commission conveys to Council and let them decide what needs to be done to address that. It may not be a task to be done, as much as it is something that they are going to commit to do differently as they move forward. Ms. Beck recalled that the traffic issue was an item that Debra Lee was talking about; it wasn’t the capacity of the road, it was the quality of life of the people that purchased homes along that road that are now affected by a higher level of traffic that created some safety issues. Ms. Beck said for her, industrial lands is a tax base issue, a community growth issue, and a diversification issue. She said we are a government town and maybe we need to start thinking beyond that. She noted an article in the newspaper tonight about the decline of employment being in the government sector. She said even if that bounces back next year she doesn’t think we are in the position to just sit and wait for that to happen. We should be in the position of creating another kind of sector in our community in our industrial area, which is why she chose industrial land. Mr. Cloud said although industrial land was at the top of the list for several Commission members, he is not sure that it was listed for the same reasons. His viewpoint is that we need available industrial land in and under the City’s control for when we have a potential customer that wants to develop a parcel. What we have been doing is incentivizing an industrial park that is divided up and then chopped up into little pieces, which is a misuse of industrial land. The City needs some large parcels of industrial land that is ready and waiting for a potential large industrial use. Mr. Osguthorpe replied that it’s the market that divides up the land and not the City. So the question may be should we look at the code to see if there is a provision or an allowance that needs to be addressed or amended about the size of parcels of industrial land. Mr. Cloud suggested that the City could work with those landowners so that there is an incentive for them to hold on to larger parcels until the right business comes along. Mr. Osguthorpe explained that the City has actively incentivized land for industrial development through Tax Increment Financing (TIF). He asked Mr. Cloud if he had any suggestions or any changes that would help address his concerns. Mr. Cloud said he doesn’t have any suggestions at this time, but thinks the City should be driving this industrial development for large parcels instead of accepting that the only thing the market will bear right now is nothing bigger than five or ten acres. Mr. Osguthorpe mentioned that the City has two industrial zones, which are general and planned industrial. We also have what we call an industrial reserve area. The idea of the industrial reserve is to not have that land develop until some of the other areas have developed. For example, if we have a large industry that needs a large parcel of land, and that land was no longer available except in the reserve, that would be a good reason to open up the reserve for that use. Right now there hasn’t been a need or a trigger to use that reserved land. Mr. Osguthorpe then spoke about Council directing staff to work with Story County and Nevada to address the issue of how we regulate the area between Ames and Nevada to see if we should change the industrial reserve to something else. The City Council also directed staff to explore the cost of the design for extending sewer and infrastructure out to 580th and 590th, which is in process right now. 4 Mr. Cloud said it is his impression that over the last four to five years, there have been major industrial companies that have located near Story City and Nevada because Ames does not have large property available that is shovel ready. Jeff Johnson said as he listens to the discussion, his mind goes quickly goes back to a vision. Deb kind of asked that question – would some of the future planning be connected to the visioning process? As we look at the University and the bio-economy, and we start looking at what’s coming to Ames, how are we planning for that? Because if that type of industry really takes off in this community, then it starts to do almost everything on this list (diversifying tax base, retail, etc.) The biggest driver is going to be what type of industry is that going to attract and what kind of land is going to be needed to complement that. Right now it is AEDC and others in the enticing business, and the City is being more reactive than proactive to growth. The City doesn’t have an active kind of growth; it just kind of happens and then we fix the issues when they occur. He said to him that gets into the visioning thing, which is something that the City appears to be uncomfortable going out that far to discuss. Five years appears to be how far we will let ourselves go. Mr. Jons asked what the City’s philosophy is for infrastructure to be in place so that projects can be shovel ready. He said it is his opinion that the City has made the developer put in the infrastructure. Mr. Osguthorpe said as mentioned earlier, the City Council has directed staff to explore the cost of extending sewer in the east of Ames area. What Chuck is referring to is the City’s targeted growth area policies, where the City will help pay some of the cost of infrastructure for residential development. Then there are allowable growth areas, where development can happen if the developer is able to provide the required infrastructure. The targeted growth areas are areas that we have identified as being more efficiently developed and more cost-effective to the citizens. Mr. Jons said cities that want to attract businesses will put in the infrastructure so that those parcels are ready to go, which is not the policy for Ames. He asked if the Council has made a decision to put in infrastructure in the land that is on the other side of Interstate 35. Mr. Osguthorpe reiterated that the Council has directed staff to explore what the implications are for extending sewer over to this area. The Council has not made a decision to install infrastructure in this area. Mr. Jons said at some point it shouldn’t make any difference whether it is cost-effective or not, which is the point he is trying to make. Mr. Osguthorpe said what is different is that the City’s policy has been to have development occur contiguously so that it can be efficiently served, as opposed to these long-arm linear approaches where you are extending millions of dollars of sewer to serve one parcel way out at the end. We incorporated industrial reserve because we wanted the area already designated industrial to develop first because it is more cost-effective to extend infrastructure and to serve. If the Council decides that it makes sense to extend that sewer east of Ames, then that will be a departure from the policy that we currently have. Mr. Jons said since we are seeing that the University is having some financial problems and that the government jobs are declining, the City should step up to the post and pursue the issues so that we have industrial land available with infrastructure in place. If it is our criteria that it be cost-effective, then we are handcuffing ourselves. 5 Troy Siefert said he understands the views of the other Commission members with regard to the industrial lands issue, but thinks the approach that Steve is talking about makes sense. He said he doesn’t know how far out on the limb the City can go and foresee the future, but it seems like it would be better to be able to react quickly than to get too far out in one direction and then have things go in a different direction. Ms. Beck said the area east of Ames is a huge potential but we just don’t know how it’s going to play out. Part of it could be industrial, which is why she is putting it number one on her list because of the long-term view of what’s going to happen and where it could happen. But what she doesn’t want to do is put in infrastructure because we want people to go to the southwest side of town and then it doesn’t happen. Mr. Cloud said he thinks the City should spend the money to put in infrastructure to incentivize industrial to come to Ames, which is a long-term planning issue. There is nothing wrong with the City spending money proactively before we have buyers on the ground. But it shouldn’t be done for retail or housing because one is generating jobs and the houses will come if there are jobs. Mr. Osguthorpe asked the Commission what they would like to convey to the Council. He said he is not quite sure by the discussion and because of what he has shared that is already in motion what more the Commission would like to convey to the Council. Mr. Jons said what he would like to convey is the fact that we need to get moving on this thing that is already in progress (east of Ames study) and get it done as quickly as possible. Mr. Johnson added that we support and encourage not only the setting aside of industrial land, but that we also make it a priority to have it be shovel ready, which will allow us to attract business and industry to the community. Ms. Beck said she is not personally dedicated to shovel ready, but she is personally dedicated to figuring it out, which is taking a look at some of the stuff before we just dive right in. But she does think that the conversation has been pretty significant in terms of focusing on industrial lands. She is hearing that the Commission is saying that this is something the City Council should pay attention to and work diligently on, and that the Commission would like to be kept in the loop and have some way to respond to what’s is going on. She said we may not have the unanimous vote, but thinks the Commission is focused on industrial lands as a priority the Council should take a look at, even though there are some that think it needs to be shovel ready and others may not be that committed to it. Mr. Cloud said the USDA sites that have sprung up over the last decade were massive projects and employs a lot of people in the government sector. The City should be proactively looking for those kinds of companies, which is important for long-term planning and covers the tax base, transportation, etc. Mr. Johnson suggested that the Commission convey to the Council that, based on the commitment of this community to the bio-economy that is being driven by the University, the Chamber, and AEDC, we know we are going to need industrial land to support that kind of future and be the fourth partner in that conversation. We are going to set aside land, do the east of Ames study to see what it would take to get infrastructure there, and we are going to help “create the buzz” that Ames, Iowa is open for that type of industry. We are asking the City to be positioned for what seems to be the vision for our community. 6 Ms. Beck said she thinks the use of the word partner is reasonable, but doesn’t think it is up to us to define what that partnership should look like. It is up to the partners together to encourage the City to be a partner and to be responsive. Mr. Osguthorpe said what he is hearing is that the Commission supports what the Council has already embarked upon for long-term growth and underscore the importance of it. Diversify Tax Base Discussion Mr. Osguthorpe asked the Commission what they see needs to be done with this subject. Is there a task to be done, is there support for what may be in process, and is there something the Commission sees that is sending the message that we are not encouraging growth within our planning policies. Mr. Jons said there have been times when the landscaping codes have not encouraged development. He said he doesn’t think it rises to the height of the industrial lands issue, but thinks the City needs to continue doing what they have been doing this past year with code amendments so that people will know ahead of time what is expected of them. Mr. Cloud said this wasn’t one of his highly ranked priorities, but questioned if there was something that the City is doing now that is limiting our tax base. Mr. Jons said we have a lot of government land in Ames that is not taxed. And we have had several cases that have come before the Commission where there has been disagreement about how many trees to plant or how close they have to be planted. He said that partnership between an individual starting up a business and the City has not been a friendly partnership that you often see in other communities. Mr. Cloud said assuming we have this defined boundary around the city and there is a limited amount of land to develop, would it be better to develop for residential, businesses, commercial, or industrial. Mr. Jons said we can make the boundary bigger; we can’t stay the same. There are no inhibitions other than philosophy about how big Ames can be. The City has been very reluctant to annex and has never done an involuntary annexation. What he is saying is that times change, and the City needs to have more land available so that we can diversify our tax base. Mr. Osguthorpe asked if it is a land availability issue or is it a concern over the development standard issue. How does this link back to diversifying the tax base. Mr. Jons said he thinks it is the attitude of the residents of Ames and who is on the City Council at the time. The mall was voted down, which would have diversified the tax base. This is a very complex issue and we need to consider the fact that Ames is a major metropolitan area in Iowa that hasn’t grown much. Ms. Beck said for her, part of it is annexation and the loss of tax base. Rose Prairie is one issue that finally got resolved. The mall is another issue. We can expand and we do have a fringe plan, but we do probably need to think about being ready. We don’t have to have the infrastructure in, but we do have to have the available land around. Part of it is whether it becomes a commercial or residential node or whatever it is, but we have a huge chunk of our interior land in the city that we don’t even know who it’s owned by that are non-taxed entities. 7 Mr. Johnson said it is important for Ames to diversify the tax base for our bio-economy and for keeping young people here, which means retail, service industry, entrepreneurial, business, and industry. Mr. Osguthorpe asked if the Commission is suggesting that we annex land before it is ready to be developed so that it is in the city and available to be developed. Mr. Johnson said for him it is. Ms. Beck said she would be comfortable with that, although she is not comfortable with eminent domain or involuntary annexation. There is land out there that may or may not be available. But if that offer ever comes we should step up and change the boundaries. She stated that although annexation was not high on her list of priorities, she does believe the City can annex land without somebody necessarily buying that land at that time; the City can own it for a while. Mr. Johnson said we could also commit to reclaiming our regional status by diversifying that tax base. Mr. Cloud said diversifying the tax base wasn’t high on his list of priorities, and is having a tough time trying to make concrete recommendations on how you get the tax base diversified. What do we do that makes it diversified other than not having so much government land as a percentage of the city. Mr. Osguthorpe asked if there are specific things we might address in that regard. Mr. Johnson said Chuck mentioned it earlier when he spoke about code impediments. Mr. Osguthorpe said it is not discouraging development when you look at jurisdictions that have a much higher standard both in terms of landscaping and design. It is a question of community value and whether or not we value that. West Des Moines is a prime example. If we were to adopt the same standards that West Des Moines did in terms of landscaping and architectural design, there would be a whole different process in Ames. Mr. Johnson said he sees West Des Moines as an upscale community and looks at that as suburbia, which isn’t who we are. Mr. Osguthorpe said if it is the landscaping standards or whatever that is discouraging businesses from coming to Ames, then the question is why are they going there. The types of businesses that we attract are going to be proportional to the types of development standards that we are looking for. Ms. Beck said it is clear that the Commission doesn’t know if we are clear on figuring out how to diversify the tax base. We know we are a government town; we just think we need to be more than a government town. Mr. Cloud said he also put down planning for specific districts because it gets to industrial land, diversifying the tax base, and transportation. He doesn’t have a problem with a McDonald’s going into Campustown, but it should fit into an overall vision of what we want Campustown to look like, which is not a mini version of South Duff. The City should help guide some of these parts of town into an overall vision that Jeff keeps talking about. Certain parts of town we expect them to have a certain vision and character to them. 8 Ms. Beck said that would imply that we have standards and just not let anybody go in and do what they want. Part of what Chuck is saying is sometimes it discourages business, and Steve is saying it might encourage certain kinds of businesses. Mr. Johnson said he agrees. The East Village in Des Moines has character and a set of standards that are different than Court Avenue and you start thinking about these areas as districts. Ms. Beck said one of her original priorities from the last meeting was planning for a specific district, and was focused on Campustown. She understands when Steve said that if we talk about it one way, it may have a ripple effect and an impact somewhere else that we may not be thinking about. But when our voice goes forward to the City Council, even if we don’t agree, that is okay because we are a citizen’s commission with people with different opinions. Mr. Siefert said it seems like a lot of what he is hearing are philosophical views about really large issues, and what Steve is asking for are tasks that the City can move forward on. He said any one of these issues is so big that we can spend a lot of time on them. Pertaining to the landscaping discussion, he stated that all he has is anecdotal information and no studies to back it up. But thinks he would be of a very different view about the worth of landscaping and what those kinds of things mean to people coming in. Mr. Osguthorpe said he thinks it would be worthwhile and appropriate if the Commission wants to have a conversation with the Council about what the Commission’s concerns and perspectives are so that they can keep them in mind as they move forward in whatever they do. Mr. Siefert said he put down factoring quality of life implications into planning and zoning decisions as one of his priorities. What really brought that to his attention was the issue that we dealt with on Roxboro. It was clear that something was done there that wasn’t well thought out, and the citizen that lived on that street brought some really good points to the Commission that we couldn’t do anything about. It is his thought that maybe a quality of life issue is more of a subjective thing and something that is probably hard to mandate or write into the policy. He gave another example of the intersection of South 5th and Duff Avenue, where the bowling alley used to be. There are always people waiting to cross the street and there are shopping carts all over. There is a huge need for people to get to Walmart and Target, and yet the bus doesn’t go across the street. He said it is common sense that we try to do something about this issue before someone gets hurt and is it mandated. Mr. Osguthorpe said this is more of a specific issue that the Commission would like to have addressed rather than an on-going concern. Ms. Beck said she thinks all of the topics have a huge correlation and are really complex and linked together. Mr. Siefert asked if the Commission will be giving Steve some concrete ideas for the City Council. Or do we want to have some kind of workshop or forum where we talk about these issues in a different format. Ms. Beck said what Steve is saying is that we haven’t worked through these in a way that is clean and clear for a recommendation to the City Council. She asked if this topic should be continued to the first meeting in January, or do we want to state to the Council that these were the topics identified by the Commission. 9 Mr. Osguthorpe said it appears that there are some things that the Commission has identified that he thinks are tasks. But doesn’t think that should preclude the Commission from utilizing an opportunity with the Council to express whatever message you want to convey that they would want to keep in mind as they go about their business. Ms. Beck said she kind of likes the broader approach. We can say that we as a Commission have had a long discussion and believe that the availability of industrial land is something that the Commission is very interested in. We don’t get specific; we just say that we are interested in increasing the availability of industrial lands and let them work it out as a partner. Mr. Jons asked if staff is able to summarize what the Commission is saying so that we can look at it at our next meeting. Mr. Osguthorpe said it is his understanding that the Commission is in agreement to having more of a conversation with the Council. The Commission is not going to provide them with specific recommendations or proposed tasks, but state the issues the Commission is concerned about that the Council can consider when they are engaging in anything that may be related to those issues. Ms. Beck said the question is if the Commission is comfortable forwarding this list. Mr. Osguthorpe said he doesn’t think the Commission is all on board with this list. Ms. Beck suggested that this topic be discussed again at the January 4 meeting. Mr. Johnson said he would like to forward to the Council the message that we have these concerns for the City’s position as it relates to industrial land. That the Commission would like to recommend that there be quantity; that there be an attitude; and, that we are in sync with conversations we are hearing within the community from the University, AEDC, and the Chamber. We also want the City to be ready to think how it would partner to be sure that we are able to capture those opportunities in the most efficient way should they occur. That is not saying shovel ready. That is saying that we should position ourselves. We are not coming to Council with the how, but saying that it is a high priority in our thinking that the City needs to be proactive in this area. Mr. Osguthorpe said what you are saying is that these are the Commission’s priorities. You are not saying how, but suggesting that these are some things that the Council should consider as they conduct business. Mr. Johnson stated that under transportation and traffic, we could suggest that more sensitivity be given to the future arterial streets, identify some of the issues we are seeing in our current traffic patterns, and look into the concerns we are seeing with CyRide. We can take some of the things that we have heard tonight and start grouping those under the topic areas, and then come back and decide if we have captured everyone’s voice or concern. Mr. Cloud said he is not comfortable with that. What he is hearing from the discussion is that the number one issue of the Commission is industrial land; getting it and developing it. It is not developing the southwest corner of Ames, it is not flood plain issues, and it is not having diversity of people in the city. It is industrial land. Ms. Beck said there are only five voices here tonight and is not sure that Deb would say that flood plain issues are not important.