Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Additional staff report from Planning city of AMES, Iowa 50010 (515) 232-6210 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT September 1S, 1976 Honorable Lee Fellinger, Mayor Members of City Council Administration Building Ames, IA 50010 RE: Freel Drive request for rezoning of the area from A-1 to R-1. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council: The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council before them a recall recommendation during by the July 20, 1976, Council Meeting, there was Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone the Freel Drive Area from A-1 to I-1. On this date a public hearing was conducted and there was presented to City Council, bh nine residents street, requesting R-1 zoning) while atte same tmethose personsexpressdddin towards the I-1 rec- omendations by the Commission. As a result of the above proceedings, City Council did not approve I-1 zoning on a first reading and, therefore, directed that the Community Development Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission do further study on this rezoning issue. The staff has since prepared an added staff report which upholds previously related principles and convictions, but in addition thereto offers two alter- native courses of action: 1) Rezone to .I-1, or 2) Remain as A-1. I have attached a copy of this staff report so that you may better understand recormlendative rationale. This latter report and the recent petition were presented to the Commission to be considered during its meeting on September 1, 1976, at which timftL i V Commission, by full membership, approved the following motion: CITY CLERK'S .-FICE That we table this and investigate the situation in the / viES, IOWA area through an in-depth study by the staff. S E P 1 6 1976 ®Combining Education and Industry u?i-th Hospitality R Honorable Mayor and City Council September 15, 1976 Page Two. As a result of this motion, the staff will be doing investigatory work into aspects such as existing nonconforming uses and illegal uses (both pre-dating and post-dating annexation that occurred on December 31, 1975) , sizes of lots relative to requested R-1 zoning and potential of further residential develop- ment through splitting of existing lots, plus other aspects. It is hoped that the Department and the Commission will be able to provide City Council with new recommendations on this issue within the next couple of weeks. Respectfully, _ C Patrick J. Switz, Jr. Director of Community Development PJS:daw cc: Terry Sprenkel, City Manager Georgene Shank, Chairperson, Planning and Zoning Commission. John Luchan, Building Official A. 0. Chantland, Director of Public Works CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1976 REZONING REQUEST: A-1 (Agricultural ) to R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) . BY: Petition by Residents. LOCATION: Freel Drive Area. What follows is a supplemental report on the rezoning of the Freel Drive area. On May 14, 1976, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public meeting on the rezoning. It was tabled pending notification of property owners concerning the aspects and effects of non-conforming residences which would be created. Letters were sent to the property owners on May 14 informing them on this matter. Three contacts were made with the Planning Office in response to the letter. Two of the contacts expressed interest only in cleaning up the area. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the I-1 rezoning at its meeting on June 11. City Council action on the rezoning occurred at two meetings: June 22 - "After discussion relative to whether or not it is desireable to make the existing residences on Freel Drive non-conforming, it was moved by Hammer, sec- onded by Koerber, to instruct the City Manager to have staff draw up a change in the ordinance rela- tive to non-conforming uses in the I-1 district. " (Motion carried) July 20 - Council public hearing. Two property owners spoke in opposition and a petition was filed and signed by nine residents requesting zoning to R-1 instead of I-1. Motion by Maxwell , seconded by Stevens, that the entire issue of the rezoning of Freel Drive and newly filed petition be referred back to Community Development and the Planning and Zoning Commission for further study. (Motion carried) The question to the Commission is in two parts: The request for R-1 zoning; the inclusion of residences in the I-1 district as a permitted use. 1. Rezoning to R-1. The developmental land use categories in the zoning ordinance are those of residential , commercial , and industrial . In the determina- tion of land use these three categories were weighed against each other. Essentially, through debate of pros and cons of each category and through the process of elimination, one category will emerge as dominant. This was the process used on this area. z a) Residential . The Freel Drive area is one which has a number of negative environmental and land use factors. A large portion of the area is characterized by salvage yards, auto repair and storage, maintenance buildings, and areas for trucks and a concrete batching plant. Also included in the area are 18 single family detached dwelling units of which 10 are deteriorating and in need of repair, some of which would be in the major category. Additionally, it has been some time since there has been any residential construction in the area. In consulta- tion with various persons in the land market, it was unanimously expressed that there was little marketability for housing in this area. This area is in the floodway fringe of the Skunk River. Any proposal for residential construction/reconstruction would initially need approval of the Iowa Natural Resources Council . It is very doubtful such approval would be given for single family dwellings. The Freel Drive area is contiguous to industrial zoning on the north and east. Additionally, a rezoning request for I-1 was approved by the Commission and Council on Freel in Summer, 1975. b) Commercial . Commercial zoning is a possibility. However, commercial land usage would be of a selected and limited nature. "Impulse" commercial zould not be warranted. "Seek out" commercial could. Such "seek out" commercial would be in the form of service establishments, ware- housing, and wholesale facilities. c) Industrial . The area already is industrially characterized, although it is not necessarily light industrial (I-1) . Industrial land use could be marketable in this area if the negative environmental features in the area were eliminated. Industrial usage is consistent with adjacent and contiguous areas. Summary. Of the three developmental zoning categories, industrial is the most appropriate and residential the least appropriate. Industrial usage is indicated on the updating of the Land Use Policy plan. The establishing of non-conforming residences in the area is the consequence of the nature of industrial zoning. This now appears to be of real concern to the property owners who filed the petition for R-1. This concern should not be negated. r 3 Recommendation: It is the recommendation that the original transmittal to City Council for I-1 zoning be reaffirmed. This, of course, creates the non-conforming dwellings. In the event of future proposed remodeling or structural alteration of the existing dwellings, relief could be sought by appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Any decision of the Board would take into account the extent of the remodeling or alteration, its appropriateness, and the fact that the non-conformity was imposed by a legislative action (the rezoning). An alternative recommendation is to retain the existing A-1 zoning. The dwellings would not then be non-conforming and remodeling could be accom- plished by the issuance of a building permit. If this alternative is chosen, the Commission should transmit to Council the intent of the area for future industrial land usage and that upon receipt of rezoning requests for this usage, such industrial zoning would be favorably considered. Inclusion of Dwelling Units in Industrial Districts as a permitted Use. The proposition deals with the compatibility of two diverse types of land use. Many characteristics of industrial uses have traditionally been thought to be detrimental in a residential setting. Such factors are noise, bulk, traffic, pollution sources, glare, vibration, and other nuisance factors. Such factors have necessitated the separation of different land uses in different zoning categories in traditional zoning ordinances. Original Euclidian Zoning theory was totally pyramidal in nature in that it was directed towards the protection of the single family dwelling. All uses permitted in a district were automatically permitted by right in the succeeding least-restrictive district. This then accumulated all possible uses and permitted them by right in the least-restrictive district, usually the one designated "heavy industry. " In time, this theory was modified and different uses were regulated to areas of similar characteristics. The Ames ordinance, basically, follows this direction. Residences are allowed only in residential areas with the exception of multiple family structures of six or more units in commercial districts, commercial allowable in industrial areas, and no residences in industrial areas. The Ames ordinance could be termed as a modified pyramidal ordinance. Some ordinances in other communities contain a greater separation of uses then the Ames ordinance. Today, the concept of mixed land uses is again gaining favor in the planning and development field. There is a very important difference between the modern approach and the pre-zoning situation. Before zoning came into prac- tice, nuisance factors and incompatibility were prevalent in many mixed use situations, particularly between residential and industrial uses. This is a reason for the general separation of these uses found in most zoning ordinances. The modern approach to mixed land use development dictates that prior planning devote attention to harmonious design, landscaping, buffer areas, traffic circulation, and other such methods to promote compatibility. Without such performance standards and prior planning, incompatibility would be, and has been, the rule rather than the exception. Joint land use districts employing performance standards and design review are tools being developed to allow mixed land uses under the modern approach. The Community Development Department is considering incorporating such dis- tricts into the revised Development Code. 4 In the Freel Drive area, the land use pattern more exemplifies the tradi- tional situation than the modern concept. When dealing with this type of area through a pyramidal zoning ordinance, the separation of industrial and residential uses is preferable to a mixed use approach. We would recommend against allowing residential uses in industrial districts as a matter of right in favor of providing for mixed use areas through performance standards and design review. the Freel Drive area is felt to be most appropriate for homogeneous industrial development. dw