Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Staff report CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF COl�vIUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1976 REZONING REQUEST: From "A-1" (Agricultural) and "R-1" (Single Family Dwelling) to "R-2" (Two Family Dwelling) . PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Gateway Hills Development. PRELIMINARY PLAT: Gateway Hills Development. APPLICANT: Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. MEETING DATE: January 30, 1976. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Staff Report of_January 2, 1976. LOCATION: Mortensen Road and Elwood Drive, south and west of Ashmore Drive. ATTACHMENTS: Updated Preliminary P.U.D. Plan P.U.D. plan development cross-sections Parcel and Desireable Maximum Unit Densities Map REPORT: The function of this report is to bring the Commission up to date on the current status of the Gateway Hills project, and to present some additional comments prior to the January 30 meeting. It is intended to supplement the report of January 7, 1976. 1. REZONING REQUEST The rezoning request will be amended by the applicants to include only the former golf course property and the University agricultural land along Mortensen Road. The parcels adjoining the interchange will be deleted. A resolution of the variation among the coverages of the rezoning request, P.U.D. plan, and preliminary plat has been made to include this same area in each. 2. P.U.D. PLAN The preliminary P.U.D. plan covers 98.83 acres and is divided into four parts (See P.U.D. plan and the parcel and unit densities map) . Parcel 1 (53.9 acres) . This consists of the former University field and the northern high lands of the former country club. The majority of the dwelling units requested would be located here. They are broken down as follows: Garden Apartment Units - 258 Townhouse Units - 163 Single Family Units - 20 TOTAL M 2 Garden apartments are concentrated in the north and northwest portions of the area. Single family detached units line the sites' border with the Ashmore Drive residential area. Townhouse units are arranged south and west of the single family units, generally along the ridges overlooking major slopes and along the primary street, Mortensen Road. Parcel 2 (19.4 acres) . This is the area proposed to be dedicated to the city for park purposes. It includes Worle Creek, its associated low lands, and the slopes north and west of the plain. Parcel 3 (13.4 acres) . This is the site of the clubhouse and pool, and also includes a substantial amount of land south of that facility. Several options exist for the future use of this area. The Foundation has started discussions with the Parks and Recreation Department concerning possible City lease or purchase of the area and its facilities. A joint lease of the area with the University is another possibility. A third alternative for the Research Foundation, or the eventual owners, is development of the area. Although not specifically planned for, the area does carry a desire- able maximum of 80 units on the P.U.D. plan. Any development of this area should be confined to the northern plateau. Dedication of the southern portion would not be an unreasonable request in our opinion either now or after any development would occur. Parcel 4 (12.1 acres) . This area is included in the P.U.D. plan with a esirea le maximum of 10 units. The relationship of the area to the Beech Estates area near the interchange makes it impractical to establish the single family lot boundaries and the street location until the design to the south is finalized. This does not preclude the establishment of a maximum under the preliminary P.U.D. and the rezoning of the area with the remainder of the former country club, since the land use and density are definite at this time. Densities and Maximums. The P.U.D. plan establishes the locations and types of units without unnecessarily restricting any flexibility in their final design and location. Building areas contain proposed desireable maximums which cannot be exceeded, and unit type specifications and building zones which cannot be altered. Final P.U.D. plans for each phase or for the entire project will also need to receive Commission approval. The overall density for the project is summarized as follows: Parcel Maximum or Area Size Units 1 53.9 acres 441 2 19.4 acres 0 3 13.4 acres 80 4 12.1 acres 10 TOTAL 98.8 acres 531 531 units = 5.37 dwelling units per acre 98.8 acres Street locations and access to Mortensen Road are also fixed by the P.U.D. plan. 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT The updated preliminary plat is judged to be more complete than was the earlier plat. The necessary modifications basically involve further surveying and cross-sections of any minor streets which would be dedicated, final establishment of easements anticipated, and some changes in the designation of lots (numbers vs. letters) . Also, Outlot X as shown does not abut a street. Since the lot is usable presently and could eventually contain further development, this requirement should be met. The Public Works Department, in its routine study of the plat, will establish in writing the technical ,requirements which must be met prior to final platting for the use of the Foundation or potential developers. Large copies of the updated plat are available for viewing in the office. Reduced copies will be available early in the week. Final platting would be desireable for the total site at one time to facili- tate construction of improvements. Further division of any portion of the plat would necessitate the replatting of that portion. The possibility also exists to amend the preliminary plat with final divisions prior to final platting. The process is dependent upon exactly what course is followed in the transfer of the property. It is our understanding that the Research Foundation is hopeful of selling the entire property to one party, with the preliminary P.U.D. plan and preliminary plat approved. Then the final platting and P.U.D. plan approval processes will be undertaken comprehensively. This would remove much of the uncertainty which was of concern in recent weeks. RECOMNIENDATIONS: The report of January 7, and this report, contain comments on the P.U.D. design, circulation, and the open space system. We believe that the difficulties communicated with the January 7 report have been remedied. By any measure, Gateway Hills is a development project of substantial proportions. No other development of this size and complexity has ever before been proposed in Ames. We sincerely encourage Commission members to contact the office prior to the meeting to ask any questions and receive as much information as possible, as we do not feel that written communication alone is adequate. Based upon the January 7 report, our further discussions with the designer and the Research Foundation, and this report, the Community Development Department makes the following recommendations: 1. That the rezoning request be amended to exclude the parcels adjoining U. S. 30 in the Beech Estates Subdivision. 2. That the request for rezoning of the remainder of the property to "R-2" be approved. 3. That the preliminary P.U.D. plan, consisting of the locations of units as established by building zones, unit type notations, and desireable maximums, be approved. 4 4. That the preliminary plat be approved contingent upon meeting engineering and technical requirements. 5. That the process for final approval be established as follows: a. A final P.U.D. plan for each phase or for the entire development must be submitted to the Commission and and City Council prior to final platting. b. The final plat of each phase or for the entire development must be filed and approved according to standard procedure. In conclusion, we would reiterate the concluding recomendation of the January 7 report concerning the development of the public open space system in this area. CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1976 (Continuation of Staff Report of January 2, 1976) REZONING REQUEST: From "A-l " (Agricultural ) and "R-l " (Single Family Dwelling) to "R-2" (Two Family Dwelling) . PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Gateway Hills Development. PRELIMINARY PLAT: Gateway Hills Development. APPLICANT: Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. MEETING DATE: January 9, 1976. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Staff Report of January 2, 1976. LOCATION: Mortenson Road/Beach Avenue, south and west of Ashmore Drive; and the northwest corner of U.S. 30 and Beach Avenue. ATTACHMENTS: Preliminary P.U.D. Plan P.U.D. Plan Cross-sections Desirable Maximum C.gelling Unit Density Map Preliminary Plat (Rezoning Request Map included with report of January 2, 1976) . INTENT OF REPORT: This report is intended to provide a conceptual introduction to the Gateway Hills Development proposal . As stated in the January 2 report, the P.U.D. plan and preliminary plat were not submitted in time for the normal referral by the City Council and review by the Staff. However, the Research Foundation appeared at the Council meeting of January 6 and requested referral of both to be considered with the rezoning request on January 9. Consistent with this Council action, Ore are providing the Commission with all the materials filed as well as this report. The following section will be divided into three parts, one dealing with each of the three parts of the request. Recommendations will be included in each and summarized at the conclusion. One overriding recommendation should be presented at the outset: we do not recommend that any action be taken at the January9 meeting. There are many inadequacies and unanswered questions, as will be presented, and we do not feel any action should be taken until all aspects of the request are clear and established. We feel that most of the difficulties are due to the unusual development process being undertaken (the landowner, the designer, and original subdivider is not the developer) , and require that special attention be given to the process and the rights and responsibilities of the Foundation, the City, and the subsequent developer(s) . The rezoning request and preliminary plat will be discussed first, with the P.U.D. plan following as the focus of discussion of the development concept. 2. REPORT: 1 . REZONING REQUEST The legal description and rezoning request map provided with the January 2 report show a request including the entire "Old Golf and Country Club" property and the property at the northwest corner of the Beach and U.S. 30 interchange, excepting the three existing houses in the western portion. The "R-2" request grew out of the P.U.D. design and the resultant gross density of the project. The possibility does exist to classify the single family units "R-1 ", as will be discussed in the P.U.D. section. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings in May and June, the Commis- sion was seemingly united in its desire to consider the rezoning request in relationship to the P:U.D. plan. Strictly speaking, the P.U.D. plan includes the area to be developed (Parcel 1 on the Parcel and Desirable Maximum map) and the dedicated park (parcel 2) . Parcels 3 and 4 are not specifically planned for, although desirable maximums for any future development are established. Parcels 1 and 2 should definitely remain in the rezoning request. Parcel 4 and the other property near the interchange should not be included, as the development plans are not finalized and the two areas are obviously closely related. The inclusion of Parcel 3 is optional . The choice is between maintaining "A-1 " and "R-1 " zoning and rezoning the parcel "R-2" with its inclusion in the P.U.D. plan. Any future development would then constitute an amendment to the plan and would require Commission review. 2. PRELIMINARY PLAT We have -found the preliminary plat to be almost totally inadequate. Its . transmittal to the Commission is made only in response to the action of the City Council . To illustrate the inadequacies , the Department of Public Works uses the following check list to evaluate preliminary plats: 1 . Legal description of addition. 2. Appropriate scale and legend. 3. Street stationing shown. 4. Curve data shown. 5. Sewer easements shown. 6. Existing utilities shown. 7. Certification (of Engineer or surveyor) . 8. Appropriate street right-of-way. 9. Lot dimensions shown (and bearings) . 10. Survey tie to congressional division. 11 . Profiles and cross-sections. 12. Miscellaneous. On this plat, items 3, 4, 6, and 7 are absent, and deficiencies exist in items 1 , 5, 8, and 9. This determination was made in consultation with the Municipal Engineer. 3 On the plat, the numbered lots are the developable areas , with lettered outlots in street, public open space, or private open space use. Outlot W is to be dedicated. Consistent with comments on the rezoning request, we would prefer that Outlot V not be platted at this time. It would be more appropriate to include this area with the other land to which it is physically related. The preliminary plat should not be approved until the obvious in- adequacies have been corrected, and until a clear understanding is reached regarding the technicalities of final platting and improvement construction. 3. P.U.D. PLAN The discussion of the P.U.D. plan will be organized consistent with the pro- visions of Section 38-1052 of the Zoning Ordinance. The staff reaction to the P.U.D. plan is extremely favorable. The plan has been developed with consistent communication with, and input from, both the Community Development and Public Works Departments. It represents a workable, aesthetically pleasing, and environmentally sensitive design in our opinion. a) Effect on the value of adjacent property. The west and southwest sides of the development are bordered by University farms and U.S. 30 respectively. The north and north- west borders are adjacent to other University property, including the Towers Residence Halls and the associated parking and athletic field. East, across Beach Avenue, is more University property. The remaining impacts to be considered are on the northeast and southeast sides. Northeast. This involves the Ashmore Drive area, where vocal opposition to any development whatsoever of this site has and will probably continue to be expressed. Although we understand the concern of these residents and would very much like the entire site to exist as open space under public control , we also recognize the impossibility and impracticality of such a desire becoming a reality. Under present circumstances, the City is unable to purchase the land. Instead, we are pleased that the plan preserves many natural features of the site, provides public open space, and relates well to the existing development along Ashmore Drive. The twenty single family homes are located adjacent to this area, and in effect insure that the development will not have adverse impact on the value of this property. Southeast. The concern here is with the large tract which is surrounded by Gateway Hills, and with the three homes existing effectively in the middle of the southern part of the development. It is essential that the development of this area maintain the integrity of existing homes and relate to future development of the large tract. The P.U.D. plan proposed at this time does not include these areas (Northwest Corner and Parcel 4/Outlot V) and effects are minimized by the existing wood- lands and by Worle Creek. b) Consistency of the plan with the purposes of the chapter. Under this general provision, such concerns as traffic circulation, environmental considerations , design, and utilities are placed. The presentation before the Commission by the designer will undoubtedly 4 include discussion of the design concept and of environmental sensitivity. Mortenson Road is proposed to be extended through the development, along an alignment which fits the. site more naturally than the previously pro- posed alignment. Access is limited to the street, and the intersections proposed provide adequate sight distance. The connections with existing Mortenson and Beach Avenue have been designed to engineering and safety standards in consultation -with the Public Works Department. The road will serve to remove through traffic from Ashmore Drive. Although utilities and other improvements can be provided, they have not been designed at this point. This is not a requirement for preliminary platting or P.U.D. approval , but, of course, is necessary for final plat- ting. As mentioned previously, the construction, bonding, and final plat- ting processes for this proposal must be worked out prior to any action. c) Housing Mix and Land Uses. The development is proposed to contain 20 single family units, 163 town- house units, and 258 apartments. Accessory buildings include only garage structures. The status of the clubhouse and pool , located in Parcel 3 (Outlot -X on the plat) is unknown at this time, as is the exact status of that parcel . The proposed mix of dwelling units does meet the require- ments of Section 38-1052(c) . d) Density. The gross density of the P.U.D. plan (71 .5 acres of parcels 1 and 2 on the Desirable Maximums Map) is 6.2 units per acre. This is well within the allowable maximum for the "R-2" district. The arrangement of this density is worthy of some discussion, however. In an effort to establish specific locations of units without unduly restricting the flexibility of the eventual developer of each area, the designer has established the desired maximum numbers of units in each building area shown on the Desirable Maximum map, corresponding with lots on the plat. In addition, setbacks and building zones have been established within which construction must take place. These are illustrated in the cross-sections. The presentation by the designer will deal with these areas in more detail . As mentioned previously, the possibility exists to remove the single family units from the P.U.D plan and zone them "R-1 ". They also could remain in the P.U.D. and have an "R-l " classification. In any event, the twenty units occupy only about 8.22 acres, and their re- moval or zoning change would have a negligible effect on the gross density of the rest of the project. e) Adequacy of Open Space. Obviously, a feature essential to any development proposal on this particular property is an extensive open space system. There are three aspects of open space in the plan worthy of discussion. 5. 3 Private. The development layout of the northern part of the site allows considerable private open space to be retained. In addition to single family yards, these areas involve parts of Lots 1 , 10, 16, 24, 25, 30, and Outlots Y and Z on the preliminary plat. In particu- lar, it is interesting to note the attention given to the slope in Lot 10 through placement of the roads and units. Outlot X. This area, in the southwest portion of the site, will serve as open space as well . Any future development of Outlot X should occupy the northern part, the clubhouse site, leaving the remainder for open space use. Public use of this would be desirable, either through easement or dedication. The existing road to the clubhouse, Outlot E, will provide public access to the open space areas. Community Open Spate System. Public open space will consist of Outlot W plus any access provided to Outlot X. Outlot W is 19.4 acres in size and will be dedicated following rezoning and approval of final plats and P.U.D. plans. It includes Worle Creek, the slopes on the north and west, and the low and flat plain along the creek. The possibility would exist for dedication of part of Outlot X, approxi- mately 12 additional acres in the southwest corner of the tract, follow- ing the solution of a drainage problem and decision on any development in this area, according to the Research Foundation. One of the main features of this open space system is the connecting link it would serve between the Stuart Smith and Brookside Park system and Railway Park lying south of U.S. 30. The initial dedication of 19 acres provides access to Railway Park by means of the western box culvert under U.S. 30, and an easement on (and possible dedication of) the southwest 12 acres provides a connection to Mortenson Road and the TRA by means of the old F.D. , D.M. , and S.R.R. right-of-way. The critical link, between the Gateway Hills open space and Elwood Drive, is most aesthetically and efficiently provided along Worle Creek, south of the boundary of the development. This is mandated by the topography as well as the project design. This link, as designed, crosses that portion of Dr. R. Allen Packer's property lying north of Worle Creek. It is most desirable that the City attempt, with the support of the I.S.U. Research Foundation, Inc. , to acquire the use of this small tract either through dedication, lease, easement, or purchase. It is also important to discuss access to Railway Park through the cuIV..ert with the I.D.O.T. as pointed out in the land use report on the four corners area of December 12, 1975. SCHOOL POPULATION: The following estimates are provided for your information: SCHOOL POPULATION ESTIMATES GATEWAY HILLS DEVELOPMENT AMES, IOWA Garden apartments (figures derived from 1973 values for structures built as apartments) (estimates rounded to the next child) Pre-school - city-wide average - 0.107 children/unit x 258 units = 28 children Elementary - city-wide average - 0.044 children/unit x 258 units = 12 children Junior high - city-wide average - 0.005 children/unit x 258 units = 3 children High school - city-wide average - 0.011 children/unit x 258 units = 3 children Townhouses (figures derived from 1973 and 1975 values for existing townhouses) Pre-school - 1975 townhouse average - 0.155 children/unit x 163 units = 26 children Elementary - 1975 townhouse average - 0.333 children/unit x 163 units = 55 children Junior high - 1973 townhouse average - 0.050 children/unit x 163 units = 9 children High school - 1973 townhouse average - 0.055 children/unit x 163 units = 9 children Single family (figures derived from 1975 Country Club Drive and Ashmore Drive area values, and from Crawford School values) Pre-school - 1975 area value - 0.150 children/unit x 20 units = 3 children Elementary - 1975 area value - 0.292 children/unit x 20 units = 6 children Junior high - 1973 Crawford School value - 0.145 children/unit x 20 units = 3 children High school - 1973 Crawford School value - 0.152 children/unit x 20 units = 4 children 7 SUMARY OF RECOWMENDATIONS: The Planning Division makes the following recormenda- tions, and invites requests for further information, not able to be included in this report, prior to any decision: 1 . That this request be tabled until such time as all inadequacies of the preliminary plat have been resolved. 2. That the rezoning request be amended to exclude Parcel 4 (Outlot V on the plat) and to exclude the property near the interchange. 3. That the preliminary plat be returned to' the engineer for upgrading to City standards. Outlot V should be excluded in favor of its inclusion in the platting of the other property. 4. That the staff and Research Foundation reach a clear understanding of the processes through which final platting and the bonding and con- struction of improvements will take place. 5. That the Cormission indicate -a favorable attitude toward the P.U.D. plan, but withhold approval until other matters are resolved. Outlot V should not be included in the P.U.D. plan. It is also strongly recommended that the City seek rights of use, in some form, to Outlot X, the north part of the Packer property, and the I .D.O.T. land and culvert at U.S. 30 and Worle Creek.