Dan DeGeest's Council Review

Hello Friends,
 

Development in Ames seems to follow this pattern - the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) and Zoning allow for A and the developer wants B - and as the clock ticked past 11:00 PM on Tuesday I really started to wonder how effectively our City government is operating.  Granted, it was a long agenda but a majority of the time was spent talking about land use changes, zoning changes, and requests from developers to alter our current ordinances and policies to allow their projects to move forward.  This is bad for a number reasons.  It makes every project really complicated and effectively makes development only accessible to really big firms that can afford engineers, lawyers, and other experts who can navigate all the details.  That complexity is then pushed down the line to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council who must attempt to make informed decisions in very short amounts of time.
 

For example, this week's Council packet, which is published just a few days before the meeting, was 315 pages long.  I go through these every weekend before the meeting, I hope all our Council members and Mayor do the same, and anyone who says they read and understood it all is kidding themselves.  It makes the council meetings very long.  It deters the public from showing up.  It compels the Mayor to limit public input.  It leads to hasty decisions when fatigue and hunger take over and all anyone wants is the sound of the gavel signaling adjournment.  See below for a recap of another such meeting.
 

Ames City Council May 24, 2016.  The agenda included: Please note that Councilperson Betcher was absent and did not participate any votes.

• 44. Staff report regarding Welch Avenue Bicycle/Pedestrian Project.
  Welch Ave. Bike/Ped project: in 2014, Council directed staff to investigate a temporary pilot project which would eliminate east-side parking on Welch to create a protected area for gathering (eating, sitting, etc.) on the 100 and 200 blocks of Welch Ave. There are several methods to eliminate parking, ranging from changing the paint on the road to safer, more substantial barriers such as concrete planters. Options for Council to consider now include the following: which method to pursue for parking closure (paint or planters), additional street furniture to be installed, source of funding, and what information to collect during this trial project.
  
  There was quite a bit of discussion on this one, there always is when any change to parking is being considered.  Also, there was a fair amount of confusion on Council about what was actually being proposed.  This project is an experiment to see how reducing parking on one side of Welch and increasing pedestrian gathering space impacts the usability and vibe of the area.  With Council approval to buy concrete planters and furniture it will create places to sit, drink a coffee, eat lunch, or simply people watch.  This is not a bicycle lane or any other form of bicycle treatment and the benefits for bicyclists are simply from reduced interaction with parked cars and car doors and it could provide some increased bike parking which is sorely missing in Campustown currently.  I predict that cars and busses will also find this same reduction in parked car interactions very beneficial and traffic flow will actually increase and improve.  Everything that is being purchased can be reused elsewhere when/if the project is terminated or continue to be used on Welch when it is rebuilt in 2020.  With recent votes that have limited the potential in Lot X for pedestrian areas I am glad to see Council support this experiment on Welch.
  
  Motion approving funds for concrete planters, furniture, and installation of the project passes 5-0.
• 45. Resolution approving Preliminary Plat for Crane Farm Subdivision (896 South 500th Avenue) 
  Council approved rezoning of the property at 896 500th Ave., now the developer is back with a preliminary plat. Because the project is in an incentivized growth area, a development agreement is necessary before the final plat. (The developer’s agreement will outline which improvements will be the responsibility of the city because we incentivize growth in that area, and which will be the responsibility of the developer.)
  
  This project has been talked about at length at previous meetings and with the major land use hurdles complete it has now received approval of the preliminary plat with a handful of conditions that must be met regarding road, intersection, frontage, and public bus improvements.  Resolution passed 5-0.
• 46. Resolution setting date of public hearing on granting Access Easement across City property (Welch Avenue Parking Lot X) to benefit 122 Hayward Avenue.
  The next Council meeting on June 14th would be the normal time to set this public hearing. The developer is asking Council to hold a special meeting on May 31st, in order for them to be able to keep to their development schedule.
  
  
  Rather than waiting two weeks for a regular scheduled meeting the developer would like the Council, City Manager, Mayor, Staff, City Clerk, Channel 12 employees, and so on to assemble at a special meeting to take action on their request for an easement.  A motion to hold a special meeting on May 31 passes 4-0 (Nelson abstaining due to potential conflict of interest).  Anyone interested in this particular easement and it's impacts on Lot X, Welch, and Hayward should plan to attend the hearing.
• 47. 321 State Avenue (Former Middle School) Options for Development Workshop.
  Options to develop 321 State Ave.: Council is being asked to decide if we want to consider only single-family detached housing, or if we want to consider a variety of ownership/rental types which aren’t currently permitted in RL zoning. Neighborhood input and support will be essential in order to consider alternatives to the single-family owner-occupied detached housing model.
  
  A fair amount of discussion on this one.  It's not a question if this site will be developed with affordable housing, just a question of how.  Considering more than just single-family detached gives many more options, price ranges, and the chance for a very creative development unlike anything done prior in Ames.  The motion here is simply to let the Planning and Housing Department explore the options and will not result in a plan, just ideas and options.  When you buy a market rate home you want options, you want to see  variety of things and find what works best for you.  Why should that be any different for affordable housing?   Also a range of housing styles will break up the homogeneous uniformity that often plagues these types of developments and results in them being labeled and stereotyped as "low-income" or other, often derogatory, terms.  Motion to explore expanded options passed 4-1.
• 48. Resolution approving Preliminary Plat for 125 and 130 Wilder Avenue (Sunset Ridge Subdivision, 7th Addition).
  Council approved a Major Site Development Plan, but to proceed the developer still needs approval of a prelim and final plat.
  
  Resolution approving passes 5-0
• 49. Staff Report on redevelopment of 2700 Block of Lincoln Way.
  Redevelopment of 2700 block of Lincoln Way: Developers of the property on the 2700 block of Lincoln Way are proposing two options. Option A redevelops the properties at 2700, 2702 and 2718 Lincoln Way in the current zoning (Campustown Service Center), and requires no changes or council action. Option B proposes adding properties at 2728 Lincoln Way, 115 S Sheldon, and 112 and 114 S Hyland, and involves rezoning the area to a combination of CSC and high density residential (RH). The developers hope to build a 5-6 story building which would serve as a combination boutique hotel, commercial space, and residential apartments. (Approx. 168 units with a total of around 500 beds) To do so would require a LUPP (land use policy plan) amendment, zoning changes, zoning text amendments, and designation of an urban revitalization area (which includes tax abatement), development agreement, site development plan, and plat of survey. The Lincoln Way Corridor study is currently underway, and the site is the eastern edge of one of the focus areas of the study, but the developer is asking for an answer before that study concludes.
  
  
  
  Land use allows for A but developer wants B - according to the City Planner, pretty much as complicated as it gets.  The developer was on hand to present their plan to combine seven existing parcels at the corner of Lincoln Way and Sheldon for the construction of a high density, 5-7 story, student tailored apartment complex with adjacent "boutique" hotel. A plan that would require a LUPP Amendment, rezoning, zoning text amendment, designation of an Urban Revitalization Area (URA), a development agreement, a site development plan, and a plat of survey to combine parcels.  So complicated that Councilperson Gartin was concerned that this one project would consume all of Staff's time leaving other projects high and dry.
  
  The plan included a small amount of ground floor commercial, far less than what is there currently with Arcadia, Chinese Homestyle Cooking, etc. - far less than what the Campustown Service Center zoning is designed to achieve.  It is also squarely located on the edge of the area that has been prioritized in the Lincoln Way Corridor Study, but according the developer this site is unique and there is no need for the City to study it. They believe it should be removed from the study and not hold up development.  I disagree with this.  Why bother undertaking a study only to ignore it?  That just further perpetuates our problem of consistently having projects that are at odds with current land uses, goals, and expectations.  What if that study comes back and finds that the ideal Western entrance into Campustown is pedestrian scale, 2-3 story mixed-use buildings and not seven story high-density apartments with little to no ground floor commercial?
  
  As usual with these types of requests, the developer said moving quickly was imperative and if Council did not make decisions soon they would just have to move forward with the smaller project they have ready to go on the three properties that fall in the CSC zoning area.  However, when asked for details of this plan they were unable to produce a single drawing and seemed fuzzy on the number of beds, parking, and other details.
  
  In the end Council requested the developer come back with revised plans that address concerns raised during meeting.  The developer said they are willing and ready to work with the City to realize the large project.  I wonder if that is in a similar manner as a recent project they undertook in Lansing, MI.  Trowbridge Developer Threatens To Stop Project Unless Tax Incentives Increase

   

• 52. Hearing on Major Land Use Policy Plan Amendment for 3115, 3409, and 3413 South Duff Avenue.
  A developer is proposing a major land use policy plan amendment in order to pursue a development on the 3100-3400 blocks of South Duff. The current LUPP designation for this area is highway oriented commercial (HOC). The developer would like to change the south and west portions of the 44 acre property to high-density residential, while maintaining the HOC zoning on the frontage north of the existing cemetery. The developer is proposing 700 apartment units. Residents in the spoke about concerns with traffic and storm water during input sessions in 2015 and 2016. At their May 4th meeting, Planning and Zoning voted 4-1 to recommend this major LUPP amendment. Staff recommend pursing contract rezoning if the project proceeds to address traffic and storm water issues.
  
  Here we go again, another major land usage change request, this time from Highway-Oriented Commercial (HOC) to Residential High-Density.  The appetite to build high-density apartments seems insatiable.  Many residents stuck out this long meeting for a chance to voice their concerns about traffic and storm water management that could be introduced by this project.  They reiterated over and over how bad traffic already is on South Duff and that this development will only exacerbate the problem.  Despite their efforts a motion approving the change passed 5-0.
• 53. Hearing on Final Amendments to Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget.
  
  Motion approving final amendments passed 5-0.

Thanks for reading!

Dan DeGeest>>