HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Minutes of January 30, 1976 Planning and Zoning Commission - M I N U T E S -
CITY OF AMES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
PLAN COMMISSION: APRIL
_January 30, 1976 Georgene Shank, Chairperson 1978
Date. Harold R. ( Bud) Nichol, Jr.,
Vice-Chairperson 1979
John R. Thurston 1977
3:10 P.M. Patrick Shaughnessy 1978
Call to Order Valerie Cholvin 1979
Louis Lex, Jr. 1980
Council Chambers Norman Riis 1980
Place *ABSENT
-------------------------------------
6:30 P.M.
Adjournment
Mrs. Shank called the meeting to order at 3:10 P.M.
Mrs. Shank stated that the purpose of the meeting was to consider only one
item; the request from the Iowa State University Research Foundation for
rezoning and PUD for the Gateway Hills Development. She went into detail
about the order of discussion that would take place: 1) Discussion of the
land that the Research Foundation is indicating as community open space;
2) Motion to approve or deny the rezoning; 3) If the rezoning is approved,
the acceptance of the PUD as presented or as amended; and 4) Acceptance of
the preliminary plat as presented or as amended. She stated that if the
Commission finds that it cannot reach a consensus on the above items, each
member may write a letter of recommendation to the City Council stating
what each feels is proper for the area.
Angelo Bellizzi, Attorney with the Iowa State University Research Foundation,
stated he would like to make some compliments: To the Staff for their work
and cooperation with the developer; to the residents of the Ashmore Drive
area, from whom the Foundation gained by their participation and persistence;
and to the Commission itself. He made one initial amendment to the request
for rezoning. The original petition for rezoning included the area known as
Beech Avenue Estates. He stated that at this time it was felt by the
Foundation that they would like to hold this area out of the rezoning until
some resolution can be made with the residents.
Jim Sinatra, Landscape Architect and designer of the development, gave a
presentation,describing the area that would be developed and how the proposed
development scheme was arrived at. He outlined four specific areas in the
total development: Parcel #1 - 53.9 acres (off Mortensen Road and behind
Ashmore Drive) ; Parcel #2 - 19.4 acres (community park dedication to the City) ;
Parcel #3 - 13.4 acres (directly behind the country club south to the creek
and highway) ; and Parcel #4 - 12.2 acres (north of Beech Avenue Estates) .
2
Mrs. Shank asked about changing the number of townhouses. She also asked
whether approval would be for the number of dwelling units in a particular
area or just a density pattern. John Klaus, City Attorney, stated that
with the preliminary plat neither is true; the density is controlled by
the underlying zoning. The PUD employed in this development would control
clustering or location of the dwelling units; the preliminary plat would
control the skeleton of the development.
Mr. Riis stated that one of the considerations under a PUD is the adequacy
of play area and recreational areas. He asked if there had been any thought
given to formalized play areas and recreational facilities within the develop-
ment. Mr. Sinatra stated that there was more than enough space for this
purpose, but that nothing formal at this time had been incorporated into the
design.
Bart Johnston, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that the Parks and
Recreation Commission is interested in possible acquisition of areas for
community parks, but that the Foundation had not forwarded information to
them.
Mr. Riis asked if the Commission accepted the rezoning, the PUD, or the
preliminary plat, would it tie the Commission to the desired maximums of
80 units for Parcel #3 and 10 units for Parcel #4? Mr. Wooldridge stated
that even though there are two sites for future development in these parcels,
the City is not committed to formal approval. If approved, the desired
maximums could not be exceeded if Parcels #3 and #4 were brought in at some
time in the future.
Mrs. Shank opened the discussion to the public. She reported on calls she
had received from residents of the Ashmore Drive area.
Marti Rasmussen, 2187 Ashmore Drive, stated a concern with the garden apart-
ments that would be directly across from her home. She stated her preference
for townhouses.
Dr. Allen Packer, R.R. 4, wished to state the fact that in no way would his
property be available for access of any kind to the area. He also stated
his concern about the traffic from Mortensen Road and Elwood Drive due to
students using the Veterinary Medicine Complex.
A letter was received from Payer and Gibbons, Attorneys, in which Mr. Payer
was concerned with the development of the Beech Avenue Estates, due to the
restrictive covenants which he said are in effect.
A petition was received from a number of people living on Ashmore Drive
protesting the proposed R-1 land being rezoned to R-2. They believed the
value of their property would decrease and a new request could be forth-
coming in four to five years to build duplexes on the proposed single family
lots.
Protests were voiced by John Moore and Roscoe Marsden as stated in memorandum
dated January 28, 1976.
3
Mr. Shaughnessy questioned the restrictive covenants on the Beech Avenue
Estates area. Mr. Wooldridge stated that if these covenants state that
only single family dwelling units can be placed there until whatever date
is specified, the covenants would have to be honored. However, many
covenants can be amended or changed upon a favorable vote of a certain
percentage of the property owners in the area.
Gary Fanning, 2175 Ashmore Drive, raised three points: 1) The road that
would be connected to Elwood Drive could create a hazardous blind hill,
such as the one near Ashmore Drive on Beach Avenue. 2) He asked if drainage
patterns had been investigated. He was concerned as to the ecological
aspect of what additional drainage would do to Worle Creek. 3) If the
residents of Ashmore Drive accept the word of the Foundation as to how
the area would be developed, and that there would be certain criteria
that must be met by the developer, how could the Foundation guarantee
the quality of the project ten to fifteen years in the future?
Dan Griffin, Secretary-Manager of the Iowa State University Research Founda-
tion, explained the membership of the Foundation and stated his confidence
that in the future those members would respond to the community.
Val Kempthorne, 2020 Ashmore Drive, asked about the R-1 and R-2 classifica-
tions of the area. Mr. Wooldridge explained the differences between the
two districts and also stated that the PUD provision in the ordinance is
an overlay district.
Roscoe Marsden, 2102 Ashmore Drive, stated that he would like to see lots
made larger or deeper in the area directly behind Ashmore Drive. He asked
if the density of this project was subsidizing the City of Ames in providing
all the parking area for the proposed community open space. Why do these
people have to create parks for the rest of the city?mr- -'-�0 r 1< Ve-d
bd v�S';or o5 ct Flub moose, paxkS
Q.r" r� rY��r\to .ne <-;�y.
John Moore, 2144 Ashmore Drive, stated his specific objection that his house
is the only one that will back on a multiple family dwelling unit. He was
worried about possible damage to fruit trees in his yard and also with
trespassing.
MOTION (Nichol, Shaughnessy) To exclude Parcel #4 from the
rezoning consideration.
AMENDMENT (Thurston, Lex) To amend the motion to exclude
Parcel #3 also.
Mrs. Shank stated that if these two areas are excluded, they would not be
controlled by the PUD. There also arises the question of whether Parcel #3
should not go to Parcel #2 as additional park land. If Parcel #3 is excluded
from the rezoning, what is the possibility of requesting that it be added
to the park area?
VOTING AYE: Nichol, Lex, Shaughnessy
VOTING NAY: Thurston, Riis, Cholvin, Shank
Whereupon amendment failed, 3-4.
4
VOTING AYE: Cholvin, Shank, Nichol, Lex, Shaughnessy
VOTING NAY: Thurston, Riis
Whereupon motion carried, 5-2.
Mrs. Cholvin stated that she would like to see Parcels #2 and #3 as park land.
Mrs. Shank stated her belief that it could be recommended to the City Council
that, in the opinion of the Commission, Parcel #3 should be included in the
dedication to public open space for recreational uses.
Mr. Nichol asked about Lots 4-6, 18-20, and the possibility of making these
lots bigger, moving the road further south, qr cutting out one lot so as to
enlarge the lots somewhat. He stated that when the project was first dis-
cussed, it was stated that the lot sizes in the development would have a
minimum square footage of Aothing smaller than the average size of the lots
in the Ashmore Drive area.
Mr. Moore stated that the depth of the lot is more important to the people
on Ashmore Drive who own lots abutting these lots than the overall square
footage.
Mr. Thurston asked if the Commission could state as part of the recommendation,
a suggestion that approval would imply reconsideration of Lots 4-6, the area of
the garden apartments, and Lots 18-20 by possible redesigning of the areas; or
creating a way to shuffle the density of the whol development so as to relieve
these problem areas.
Mr. Wooldridge commented that the utilization of Parcel #3 shows various
alternatives and if the Planning Commission feels the best use is to leave
it as open space and make public the swimming pool, this is the kind of
expression to make to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Mr. Riis suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the
City pursue the development of Tract #3 as park and recreational area, either
privately or publicly operated. This statement would also be sent to the Parks
and Recreation Commission.
MOTION (Nichol, Thurston) That we recommend rezoning of Parcels
#1, #2, and #3 to R-2, with an R-2 PUD.
VOTING AYE: Nichol, Thurston, Shank, Shaughnessy, Lex, Riis.
VOTING NAY: None (Cholvin absent)
Whereupon motion carried, 6-0.
MOTION (Thurston, Shaughnessy) That the PUD be limited to 441 dwelling
units in Parcel #1 of the area that has
been rezoned.
VOTING AYE: Nichol, Thurston, Shank, Shaughnessy, Lex, Riis
VOTING NAY: None (Cholvin absent)
Whereupon motion carried, 6-0.
5
Mr. Wooldridge commented that no preliminary plat is technically complete,
which means there may be the possibility of an error in it. The staff
recommends in its reports that plats be approved contingent upon meeting
technical and engineering requirements.
MOTION (Riis, Thurston) That the preliminary plat be approved
contingent upon meeting technical and
engineering requirements.
AMENDMENT (Nichol, ) Amend the motion to increase the depth
of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, and 19 by
20 feet.
Mr. Thurston asked that the above motion be placed in the form of a recommenda-
tion to suggest that in the final platting efforts be made to redesign these
areas.
Mr. Nichol withdrew his amendment.
VOTING AYE: Riis, Lex, Nichol, Shank, Shaughnessy, Thurston
VOTING NAY: None (Cholvin absent)
Whereupon motion carried, 6-0.
MOTION (Nichol Thurston) That considerations be given to
adding depth to Lots 4, 5, 6,
18, and 19.
No vote was taken on the motion, with merely an expression of favorability
or opposition for the idea stated.
MOTION (Shaughnessy, ) To apply a PUD overlay on Parcels
#1, #2, and #3, which would tie in
with previous motions.
Mrs. Shank commented that she believed the single-family detached lots to be
very large.
Mr. Wooldridge stated that in the staff report it was recommended: "That the
preliminary plat consisting of the locations of units as established by
building zones, unit type notations, and desirable maximums be approved. This
would formalize the actions on the PUD.
Mr. Shaughnessy asked for feelings from the Commission on the Parcel #4 area.
He stated that he would not want to see any commercial development in this area.
ADJOURNMENT: 6:30 P.M.
Ronald R. Wooldridge Georgene Shank, Chairperson
Chief Planner Planning and Zoning Commission
dw