HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Letter with Norman Rudi concerns on amendments 12
city of AMES, Iowa
50010
JOHN R. KLAUS Public SatetY
City Attorney Bldg (515) 232-6210
R. MICHAEL HAYES
SANDRA M. ZENK
Assistant City Attorneys
April 15 , 1980
Honorable F. Paul Goodland, Mayor
And Members of the City Council
Of The City of Ames , Iowa
In Re : Comments of Norman Rudi on Amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance
Dear Mayor Goodland and Council Members :
On Monday, April 14, Norman Rudi delivered to staff his
written concerns pertaining to certain of the proposed
zoning regulation revisions now before the Council. At
the risk of oversimplifying .the issues raised are the
familiar ones of:
1. "Lot splitting" and "conversions" in the R-2
districts
2 . Landscaping and site plan review
3 . off-street parking requirements
The fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff, and
the City Council have devoted many hours to these concerns in
the past is no reason for not devoting still more time now.
The zoning ordinance and policies are far too important to
this community to leave any possibility for improvement un-
explored.
It is my intention to work through the City Manager' s office
with the Community Development staff to produce a written
evaluation and recommendation from which the Council can work
at its meeting of April 22 . Thank you for your patient and
open-minded commitment to this work.
Res ectfully submitted,
ohn R. K
City Attorney
cc R. Bartolotta
R. Wooldridge
AMENDMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION
AMES ZONING ORDINANCE
1 . PAGE 9, ITEM 5, last sentence - omit the work "platted" -
COMMENTS: Lot of record accomplishes intent of ordinance. Platted lot would
require review by council and Planning and Zoning, adding 2 to 3 months
to process. The situations originally pointing out the need have
expired - large lots in existing residential areas.
2. PAGE 16, SECTION 38-10 16 R-2 low density residential district - omit
"the percentage mix and concentration of single and two family dwellings
shall not exceed the existing percentage mix and concentration of
dwelling units. Any structure which increases the density of family
units must be approved by the Planning and Zoning commission and the
City Council before a permit is issued. Specifically. . . "
INSERT: In built up areas, no permit shall be issued to convert a
single family to two family use or to construct a two-family structure
until the building inspector verifies that the issuance of a permit will
not have a substantially adverse impact on city services , traffic, parking,
or property values in the area . The building inspector may require a
site plan to verify conformance.
COMMENTS:
1 . R-2 district has been a ligitimate zoning district since the first
passage of a zoning ordinance in Ames. This ordinance eliminates
the district making all R-2 districts a non-conforming use.
2. The council and zoning commission have more important business than
to pass on every building permit regarding R-2 zoning.
3. This ordinance has been brought about becuase of one or two awkward
situations where oversized lots were available. They should not
penalize all R-2 districts because of a few isolated instances.
4. R-2 districts in the original ordinance tend to be areas in transition.
More intensive use of existing land has been recommended by the
zoning commission to slow the encroachment on tillable land.
5. The ordinance as written with the review process thru all agencies
opens the door for political patronage.
6. The process of application to the council , referred to P & Z, hearing,
decision, referred back to council and a decision rendered in an
onerous and time consuming process for a property already zoned to
permit its intended density.
3. PAGE 18, SECTION 38-1017, ITEM (4) - to read "maximum ratio of one (1 )
two family lot to each two (2) single family lot. "
COMMENT: The purpose of this is to reduce potential density from R-2
maximum density to 50% total density, as a compromise measure. Single
family has a density of 3.5 units/acre, R-2 - 9 units/acre, R2-7 @
6 units/acre. .
4. PAGE 19, SECTION 38-018, ITEM (2) - (d) - correct line - 8 feet for two
stories.
5. PAGE 18 AND 19 : Should the site plan requirement be adopted, add to
requirements under (4) , should landscape requirements be adopted without
modification , add to requirements under (5) .
6. PAGE 23, SECTION 38-1021 : ADD (4) Site plan requirement.
7. PAGE 24, SECTION 38-1022 G-C. ADD (4) Site plan requirement.
8. PAGE 26, SECTION 38-1024: PC planned commercial (1 ) what is detrimental
public and environmental impact?
9. PAGE 26, SECTION 38-1024 - (3) - (b) : A site plan . . . .
elevations of buildings and structures.
COMMENT: Is this architectural review? Elevation has two or more meanings in building trades: (1 ) height related to affixed point, as in contour
intervals under (a)( iii ) above, or (2) a scale drawing of a building facade.
We believe the intent is the first definition (b) (viii ) is the intent, but
the second has been interpreted at various times.
10. PAGE 29 , SECTION 38-1024 - P.C. - (c) Landscape plan.
COMMENTS: A landscape concept plan at the time of zoning approval is
appropriate. This could describe over-story, under-story, screening,
accent and general design concepts as integrated to site/building
design.
The detailed execution plan for landscaping is appropriate at the time
of building permit.
The escrow or bond has been discussed.
11 . PAGE 35, SECTION 38-1026 ( P- I) - (c) Landscape plan.
COMMENTS: Same as 10 above.
12. PAGE 43, SECTION 38-1041 : Rules for computing parking (7) change 9 x 19
feet to 9 x 16 feet.
COMMENT: The 9 x 19 does not take into account the front overhand on
a car.
13. PAGE 43, SECTION 38-1041 - RULES FOR COMPUTING PARKING - omit (8) table.
(8) ADD: Parking for R-3 and R-4 shall have a minimum width for 90'
parking of 56 feet curb to curb with a recommended width of 60 feet
curb to curb.
(9) ADD: Parking for HM, G-C, G-1 , P-C, C-C, P-I --- 90' parking shall
have a recommended width of 60 feet curb to curb.
ADD (10) Parking curbs in all districts shall be a minimum of 3'-0" from
the property line.
ADD (11 ) Maneuvering space and width of parking area is required to permit
safe and convenient movement of vehicles. The following are space
requirements for various parking angles.
Parking Angie Stall Width (a) Stall to curb (b) Aisle Width (c) Curb - Curb(d)
Parallel 9 .0' 9.0 ' 12.0 ' 26.0 ft.
20% 9. 0' 15.0' 11 .0' 41 .0 ft.
30% 9.0 ' 17. 3' 11 .0' 45.0 ft.
45% 9.0 ' 19. 1 ' 13.0' 52 .8 ft.
60% 9.0 ' 21 .0 ' 18.0' 60.0 ft.
14. PAGE 55, SECTION 38-1049 - Site plans required - statement of intent.
OMIT R3 and R4.
15. PAGE 56, SECTION 38-1049 - Site plans required - 0 4) omit
ADD (14) - A landscaping statement of intent or schematic describing
a landscaping concept which includes overstory, understory, ornamental ,
screen plantings , ground cover, earth forms or other materials and design
devices to enhance the project.
16. PAGE 58, SECTION 38-1050: Parking lot landscaping plan. Change 16
spaces to 40 spaces.
17. PAGE 59, SECTION 38-1050, Landscaping Requirements for Parking Lots.
Interior coverage requirements - omit. ADD: Landscaping of interior
parking lots shall be provided in the following amount.
a. The first 41 spaces - provide shade - one tree .
b. The next and each subsequent amounts of 20 parking spaces, provide
one additional tree.
c. If a 5 ft. planting island between parking lanes is provided, interior
space need not to provided.
18. PAGE 59 , SECTION 38-1050: A landscaped strip at least 3 feet in width ,
etc.
COMMENT: This note should be added in setback requirements of the
respective zoning districts to which it applies.
19. PAGE 66, SECTION 38-1076: Rewrite - t1E entire section is out of context.
a. No section one exists.
b. Section two should have its own major section heading or under 38-1005.
20. ADD SECTION 38- PROCESSING TIME for the orderly processing of zoning
requests the following timetable is established to effecuate decisions .
1 . REZONING; Proposals referred by the Council to the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be acted upon and returned to the Council for action
no later than 90 days or three (3) continuous monthly meetings unless
time extensions are specifically requested by the applicant.
2. Planned concepts referred by the Council to Planning and Zoning Commission-
shall be acted upon and returned to the Council for action no later
than 120 days or four (4) continuous monthly meetings unless time
extensions are specifically requested by the applicant.
3. Failure to return the application and a decision within the time
specified will signify to the Council that the application is approved
as submitted.
4. STAFF REPORTS: A copy of all staff reports regarding an application
review must be forwarded to the applicant 3 working days prior to
a hearing date.
f ,T ritiD /LEE/DREYER
31!, Sixth Street
AMLS, ;:.'WA 50010