Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Department report to Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PREPARED: JANUARY 5, 1977 MEETING DATE: JANUARY 14, 1977 CASE NUMBER: Z 76-14 Continued. APPLICANT: This rezoning consideration was initiated by the City Council following Council consideration of rezoning on the area bounded gener- ally by Airport Road, Gateway Center, Woodview Drive, Oakwood Road, and the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from A-1 (Agricultural) to a residential district. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Elwood Drive and Oakwood Road. SIZE: 12.2 acres. EXISTING LAND USE: Presently used for agricultural purposes. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Gateway Center Development - C-5. South - Agricultural - R-2 (County) . East - Agricultural - C-5 and I-3. West - Agricultural - R-3. Please refer to the attached map and to the Oakwood/Airport Area Study recommendations. Rezoning of the area requested by Mr. Cochrane was completed by the City Council on January 4, 1977, with the exception of this 12.2-acre portion. LAND USE POLICY PLAN: The Land Use Policy Plan designates this property as suitable for commercial development as was recommended in the Oakwood/ Airport Area Study, and as the Commission recommended to City Council. Goal No. 1 and Policy Statements 2-5 and 1-7 of the commercial section of the Land Use Policy Plan are applicable. The commercial development which would be envisioned for this site would be of the neighborhood type. This would include convenience retail stores in a development integrated with the neighborhood and accessible by pedestrians and bicycles as well as automobiles. ZONING HISTORY: The subject property has been zoned A-1 since annexation in 1976. PUBLIC UTILITIES: a. A 12" water line is located in Elwood Drive and Oakwood Road. b. A 12" sanitary sewer is scheduled for installation during the 1977-78 fiscal year. 83 percent of the cost is to be borne by property assessment. -2 c. The storm drainage system capacity in this area is limited, as was pointed out by the Oakwood/Airport Area Study. Development of this property, under any zoning, will need to observe the same precautions being taken on the Gateway Center property. TRANSPORTATION: Access to the property is excellent, both from the immediate area and from elsewhere in the community. Elwood Drive is the major north/south street in the area, and Oakwood Road is the primary east/ west street. Airport Road connects with Elwood nearby, as does U. S. 30. As development takes place iii the area, signalization of Airport Road and Elwood Drive is a definite possibility in the future. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: The property is gently rolling and drainage is generally to the northeast. The limited capacity of the drainage sys- tem will require that development be designed to control the rate and volume of runoff. The dominant natural feature is the densely wooded windbreak which cuts across the property. ANALYSIS: The crux of the question is the appropriateness of commercial development on the site in the future. The Land Use Policy Plan desig- nates commercial use for the property. The Commission recommended C-5 zoning to the City Council in accordance with Department recommendations (see report of October 5, 1976) . However, the City Council chose to delete the C-5 portion from consideration. The Council rationally determined that a commercial demand did not yet exist to ustify the C-5 designation. The Department does not disagree with t e Council decision. The question now is whether there will be a commercial demand in the future, and what the City's zoning policy for the property should be in the interim. There are approximately 75 dwelling units in the area presently. The 33 acres west of the property, which has just been rezoned to R-1, R-2, and R-3, can potentially support over 450 dwelling units. The development of the Cochrane property could in- crease the population of the area by 600 percent. Further, develop- ment of land south of Oakwood Road is a possibility in the future and would add to potential demand. While we agree that the demand may not presently exist, we feel that it will exist in the future and that this is the most appropriate location for neighborhood commercial facilities. One aspect which should be considered at this time is the size of the facility which might be needed.. One proposal which has been discussed included the redevelopment of the farmstead south of the windbreak into specialty shops and the development of a neighborhood center north of the windbreak. Preservation of the windbreak has been considered to be imperative. As a result, much of the land would be rendered undevelop- able due to the acute angles which become a factor. On this basis, the 12.2 acre gross area probably would not be excessive. If only a very small facility could be justified, it would probably be best located on the triangular parcel south of the windbreak. -3- , Under the Council directive, it would seem that there are three zoning alternatives worthy of consideration at this time: R-2, R-3, and A-1. R-2: Zoning the tract R-2 would make the tract available for residen- tl—al development. The R-2 designation would allow a lesser density than the R-3 designation to the west, creating an awkward land use pattern in the area. An R-2 designation would be more desireable if developed under a PUD, whereas a conventional subdivision would not relate well to the surrounding uses. R-3: An R-3 designation would permit continuation of the density proposed or the adjacent tract and would provide greater opportunities to achieve a desireable blend of uses. With an R-3 designation, a PUD would be the most desireable development procedure. A-1: Continuing the existing A-1 zoning would signal an intent to "hold" e property in an undeveloped state until a demand for commercial facili- ties could be realized and evaluated. Once done, the appropriate zoning designation could thus be determined. RECOMENDATION: The Department does not clearly favor any particular alterna- tive, because it is felt the effects of any decision will be minimal in the short term. Regardless of the zoning decision made, it is felt that the developer will wait until a market demand appears as the result of development in the area and will reapply for C-5 on all or part of this tract. However, we do not favor an R-2 designation due to the inappro- priateness of the development pattern which could result with respect to surrounding uses. Therefore, we would recommend either of the following: 1. R-3 zoning for the 12.2 acres with a reaffirmation of the appropriate- ness of commercial development on all or part of the tract if warranted in the future. 2. A-1 zoning for the 12.2 acres as an interim policy pending the develop- ment of a tangible commercial demand. dw • j lie I + I j I I •All, + i cyst II N � L u m a i A31�j A39 � cn li i