Dan DeGeest's Council Review

Hello friends,

I hope everyone enjoyed their spring break.  City Council did not meet for two weeks and the agenda for March 22 was packed full of items - the meeting lasted around 4 hours.  Please see below for a recap of some of the bigger items.

Review of Ames City Council Meeting for March 22, 2016.

The agenda included:

• 37. Resolution approving/motion denying Ames Urban Fringe Plan Map Amendment for East Industrial Area. 
  Council has approved installing sewer and water east to 590th St. to create the East Industrial Area. To do so requires annexation, but first a change in the Urban Fringe Map (Part of the Land Use Policy Plan). In addition to the area immediately affected (marked as "planned industrial" on this map), staff is proposing land to the north and south be designated as "industrial reserve". The "industrial reserve" areas would be for long-term future uses, and may not be utilized for 30+ years. They would need to be re-classified as "planned industrial" before the city could annex and use those areas. There are several significant issues with this East Industrial area. Installing the infrastructure is a big investment, but as a city we want to make sure we fill the area with the right type of businesses. Once we invest in the area, pressure will build to fill the space, but we should only do so with industry which will be good for Ames in the long run. 
  
  
  This issue continues to be controversial.  Both the Story County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Ames Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny the change.  A handful of neighbors and residents of the proposed area spoke during public comment and not a single one spoke in favor of the proposed Fringe Plan Amendment.  The only comments supporting the changes were presented by Dan Culhane and Mike Espeset both representing the Ames Economic Development Commission.  Clearly, there is a difference in opinions on how this land should be designated in the Fringe Plan and the City Council has the unenviable job of deciding the way forward.  The main arguments in favor are job creation, revenue generation, and the need for available parcels, not the promise of future ones, in order to recruit companies to invest and build.  The main arguments against are lack of public input, cost, the size of the proposed area, and uncertainty about the type & quality of developments that will be built and the impacts they will have on existing homes and the environment.  After lengthy debate and many heartfelt pleas to vote it down, a motion was made by Gartin (second by Orazem) to approve the Fringe Plan amendment.  The motion passed 5-1 with Beatty-Hansen the only NO.  It is important to note that this is just the first in a number of steps toward final development of this land and I encourage all concerned parties to stay engaged in the process.  The Story County Board of Supervisors will review and vote on it next week.

• 38. Walmart at Grand Avenue and 30th Street (Joint Use Parking Agreement with North Grand Mall).
  Walmart is proposing a plat of survey to combine two lots, totaling 14+ acres. (One is the current Walmart lot, the second is the old Cub Foods/Dahls lot.) According to city code, Walmart is required to complete a sidewalk along Wheeler Street before the plat of survey. They are requesting a deferral on sidewalk improvements until site redevelopment and will give a security deposit in the amount of the needed improvements. Walmart will also reach an agreement with North Grand Mall regarding parking while their site is under construction.
  
  While seemingly a minor procedural detail around a small section of sidewalk and a parking agreement, it should be noted that approving this plat of survey opened the door for Walmart to tear down the two large, relatively new, existing buildings (the old Dahls and the current Walmart) to build one Super Walmart on the combined parcel.  The new structure will face South, not East toward Grand Avenue, to accommodate the parking lot.  Motion approving all 3 items passed 6-0.

• 39. Update on Flood Plain and Environmentally Sensitive Overlay and Map Amendments.
  In November 2015, Council directed staff to prepare a map, designating floodways with an “Environmentally Sensitive Overlay” (O-E) and require major site development plan oversight. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard input on this and recommended (5-0) against the requirement for an additional layer of major site development plan approval. P&Z did recommend (3-2-1) the change to O-E, but without language about the site plan, this yields inconsistent policies. Council will have to decide whether to move forward with their original recommendation to staff, address only the parking issue related to floodway development, or abandon changes.
  
  Staff presented three options to oversee development in the floodway. 1. Require major site plan approval by Council for developments in the floodway 2. Address only parking being built in the floodway 3. No changes to current development policy in the floodway.  Council directed staff in 2015 to pursue Option 1, however Councilperson Orazem moved Option 2, seconded by Beatty-Hansen, which failed 2-4.  Option 3 was then moved by Nelson, seconded by Gartin, and failed 3-3.  Option 1 was then moved and passed 4-2. (Beatty-Hansen, Betcher, Corrieri, and Orazem voted AYE, Gartin and Nelson voted NO).  If that sounds confusing, don’t feel bad because it was confusing.  Option 1 will allow for project-by-project review of development in the floodway, which will help ensure the stewardship of these areas.

• 40. Lincoln Way Pedestrian Crossing Data Collection and Analysis (University Boulevard to Sheldon Avenue).
  In light of increased enrollment, traffic, and the tragic pedestrian death near campus recently, the City and ISU and embarking on a joint study of traffic safety along Lincoln Way. This will be a separate study from the "Lincoln Way Corridor Study", allowing those consultants to focus more on topics like planning and land use. The safety study will involve recording and counting traffic (pedestrians, bicycles, cars, & other vehicles) at intersections from University Blvd to Sheldon Ave. 
  
  A motion approving scope of work and to pay 50% of the joint study passed 6-0.  The  City of Ames will work with ISU and it's consultants to complete this study in the near term and begin working on potential solutions.  It will be important that this data and work is funneled into the Lincoln Way Corridor study which will be looking at these same segments of the corridor based on other criteria at the same time.  Subsequently, these studies will most likely impact the Long Range Transportation Plan and other planning and budgeting work so it will be important to continue tracking the progress and outcome of this study.

• 41. Staff report on Campus Community Commission.
  There has been renewed interest in forming a group or commission of citizens and students to weigh in on issues in the campus and Campustown areas. The now-defunct Student Affairs Commission was formed in 2008 to meet this need, but had stringent membership requirements. Several methods to proceed with a new avenue for gathering citizen and student input have been proposed including a 28E (intergovernmental) agreement between ISU and Ames to create topic-specific task forces, or the creation of a Campus Community Commission. 
  
  After a fairly long discussion on this item it became clear it was not defined enough yet for a clear path forward.  A motion was made to postpone this item to allow further conversations to take place with the incoming Student Government and other partners.  Motion passed 6-0.

• 44. Hearing on Urban Revitalization Plan for 3505 and 3515 Lincoln Way.
  In 2015, Council directed staff to create an Urban Revitalization Plan for these two properties (currently under construction) at 3505 and 3515 Lincoln Way. The plan requires conforming to the Major Site Development Plan (approved by Council in September 2015) and requires participation in the Crime Free Housing Program in order to achieve tax abatement. 
  
  With little discussion a motion approving this Urban Revitalization Plan passed 6-0.  An important distinction to note is that this URA is approved on these specific projects only and not for a geographic area as has been done in other places such as Campustown.  What that means is that the abatement is being granted based on the submitted site plan, not on Council approved criteria.  Therefore, as long as the finished project substantially matches the site plan the abatement will be granted.

Thanks for reading,

Dan DeGeest

Others can subscribe at
Follow Council News on
View council on line live at

Any corrections or additions to this email will be posted at the Council Preview Blog.