HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - staff evaluations and recommendations c2tY of AMES, Iowa
�,k 50010
JOHN R. KLAUS (515) 232-6210
City Attorney
SANDRA M. ZENK
Assistant City Attorney
rlr� JA
April 17, 1980
Hrd 1 8
Honorable F. Paul Goodland, Mayor
And Members of the City Council
of the City of Ames, Iowa
In Re: Comments and Recommendations Pertaining to Some
Proposed Revisions of the Zoning Ordinance
Dear Mayor Goodland and Council Members:
As promised at the Council meeting of April 15, the city
staff submits hereby its evaluations and recommendations in
response to the comments and suggestions submitted by Mr.
Rudi. Most of Rudi ' s suggestions are gratefully accepted
and recommended by staff. Some of the suggestions, though
not completely acceptable, have served to give staff better
insight, helping in that way to further develop the recom-
mendations we now make.
1. Lot Splitting. Reference, p. 9, item 5 of draft or-
dinance, the staff recommends a new rule as follows :
"Not more than two (2 ) buildings shall be per-
mitted on any lot, tract, or parcel of land until
the same has been platted in accordance with the
laws of the State of Iowa; and, no principle
building shall b rmitted on any lot formed by
the process " rto�e61V r`Lpieces or parts Xa
of platted lots of record except pursuant to a �
special permit issued by the Zoning Board . of
Adjustment after notice mailed to all occupantsXbf
land within two hundred feet of the site, hearing, ��
and finding that issuance of the permit will not
contribute excessively to any adverse effect on
city services, traffic and parking, or property
1 Combining E'ducation and Industry with Hospitality
Mayor and Council Members 2 April 17, 1980
values in the locale. Special protective condi-
tions may be imposed and the Board shall call for
and consider the evaluation and opinions of the
City' s professional staff in making its decision. "
All language after the semi-colon represents a new regula-
tory approach to "lot splitting" . That is, the process of
making new building lots from pieces of existing platted
lots split in two. (When a lot is split in three parts
state law requires that an official plat be approved by the
City Council . ) Lot splitting does not necessarily produce
any detrimental impact -- but it can, especially in its
cumulative effects over a period of time.
The regulation hereby proposed will not prohibit lot split-
ting, but will provide a process to protect competing pri-
vate property interests, and the public welfare generally,
by giving notice and a hearing at which competing interests
can be evaluated and protective conditions devised in view
of the special facts of each case.
2 . Conversion of property from single family to two family
use. Reference, p. 16 of the draft ordinance.
The owner/occupant of a single family structure in a de-
veloped R-2 district, as well as an investor/developer, may
desire to enhance the economics of a property by converting
it to a two family dwelling that can produce a rental in-
come. Any restriction on such opportunities may be per-
ceived as taking away a "private property right" . Property,
and the "rights" thereof, can take many forms, however, and
persons who own and occupy single family structures in the
locale frequently view the "conversion" as having an adverse
affect on the livability, attractiveness and value of their
homes, i .e. , a taking of one of their "private property
rights" . It is to provide a forum in which these competing
claims can be evaluated and judged on the basis of competent
evidence and sworn testimony, that the staff proposes a rule
as follows:
"Sec. R-2 Low Density Residential District
This district is established to accommodate single
and two family dwellings and other uses custo-
marily found in existing low-density residential
areas . Provided, however, that in developed,
built up areas which are subject to these district
regulations, no permit shall be issued to convert
a single family structure to a two family use, or
to construct a two family building on a lot of
record that bears a-s4L--&Hg1- fawily structure o-r-
Mayor and Council Members 3 April 17, 1980
which abuts a lot devoted to a single family use,
except by means of a special permit issued by the
Zon�ng,_Board of Adjustment after mailed notice to
all occupants of the land within two hundred feet
of the site, hearing, and a finding that issuance
of the permit will r}. t contribute ex�sively to
any adverse effectrems' 'ci services', traffic and
parking, or property values in the locale . Spe-
cial protective conditions may be imposed and the
Board shall call for and consider the evaluation
and opinions of the city' s professional staff in
making its decision. "
If only city services and traffic concerns were at stake
perhaps the permitting process could be handled administra-
tively under proper standards . Because of the competing
property rights, however, the matter is best given over to
the quasi-judicial processes of the Zoning Board of Adjust-
ment.
I believe the council will understand that the revision of
the R-2 regulations as proposed will in no way make "illegi-
timate" any existing building constructed pursuant to a
valid permit, nor would it render any structure a "noncon-
forming use" . The rule change relates only to the process
for future conversions of property devoted to a single
family use to a two family use.
"Conversions" and "lot splits" are the most important of the
zoning issues affecting the residents of the established R-2
areas, and there is reason to believe it will become more
critical in the future. The incidents in the past have been
isolated, and relatively few, but very disturbing when seen
as harbingers of the future for a neighborhood. Staff is
certainly not prepared to say that this city has seen the
last of this process, with or without regulation, or even
that the process should end. There is a valid argument to
be made in support of more intensive utilization of land,
redevelopment, and refitting for the established neighbor-
hoods . The new regulations proposed provide a procedure to
that end. It will be time consuming and, for one set of
property rights, may seem onerous . For a competing set of
Property rights it will provide some measure of protection.
3 • Ratio of duplex to single family in new subdivisions .
Reference, p. 18 of the draft ordinance
Staff proposes a maximum ratio of 4 single family to one
duplex because that is the overall ratio that exists pre-
sently based on a survey and analysis by planning staff of
conventional subdivisions in R-2 districts over the past
Mayor and Council Members 4 April 17, 1980
five years . There are local exceptions, of course, but the
4 to 1 ratio pertains overall . The staff believes that to
accept the counter proposal of a 2 to 1 ratio would be
legislating a policy to encourage a form of development not
in keeping with the character of the community.
4. Errata
Reference, p. 19, item (d) -- should be:
"8 feet for two stories"
Since this ordinance will not go into effect until July 1,
contemporaneous with the new municipal code, the format of
the ordinance will be changed so that it will not be an
amendment of the existing code -- thus eliminating some
duplicative "boiler plate" at the end that is confusing.
Also, a reference to the "site plan requirement" will be
made in each section setting out the regulations for dis-
tricts in which the site plan requirement will apply.
5 . Site plan requirements
(a) Reference, P. 26 of draft ordinance.
It has been asked what is meant by: "specially sensitive to
detrimental public and environmental impact" for purposes of
P-C (C-5) zoning. This is a legislative determination made
in the process of adopting or amending the zoning map. The
nature of the considerations that will motivate such legis-
lation are evidenced by the items expressed in subsection 3
of the P-C district regulations . It is also asked if the
site plan requirement of the P-C district entails archi-
tectural review. It does and always has . Scale drawings of
building facades are now and will continue to be required
and made a part of the approved plan.
(b) Reference, pp. 55 and 56 of draft ordinance. Site
plans for R-3, R-4, G-C and H-M. These site plans do not
entail exterior building design review as does the P-C site
plan requirement. Item (14) of page 56 should be revised ,
as suggested, to read as follows :
11 (14) A landscaping statement of intent or sche-
matic describing a landscaping concept which
includes overstory, understory, ornamental, screen
plantings, ground cover, earth forms or other
materials and design devices to enhance the pro-
ject. "
7 . Landscaping requirements . Reference, p. 29 of draft
ordinance. Landscaping plan for the P-C district.
Mayor and Council Members 5
April 17, 1980
Some confusion seems to exist over the landscaping plan in
the P-C district. Like the rest of the P-C site plan, this
does not need to be done at the time of zoning, but before a
building permit will be issued. Approval must be by city
council . The permit can then be issued by the administra-
tive department. This is present policy under C-5 .
Reference, P. 35 of draft ordinance. Landscaping plan for
the P-I district. Same as for the P-C as stated above.
Reference, pp. 58 and 59 of draft ordinance. Landscaping
plan for parking lots .
Mr. Rudi proposes that the parking lot landscaping require-
ments not apply except to lots of 41 or more spaces . The
staff chose the number of 16 or more spaces since this is
the sized lot that is required for an 8-plex apartment
building or a retail/service establishment of 3 , 200 square
feet. This seemed to staff to be a reasonable threshold
development for imposition of the landscaping requirements
and the community' s desired policy alternative to past
practices. The counter proposal of one tree to 41 spaces
seemed hardly adequate .
These requirements were developed with reference to general-
ly accepted standards and practices of the profession of
landscape architecture.
8 . Off-street parking requirements . Reference, P. 43 of
the draft ordinance.
Mr. Rudi advances different, smaller dimensions for off-
street parking requirements . His comments are not without
merit. Nevertheless, staff believes it necessary to adhere
to its initial proposal for three reasons :
1 . To protect landscaping features that will
surround parking spaces .
2 . To provide space to maneuver the trucks, vans
and "full sized" vehicles that are likely to be
with us several years to come.
3 . The staff proposal is verbatim out of the
Traffic Engineering Manual and is the national
standard for off-street parking.
However, in recognition of the pitfalls of rigid rules, the
staff proposes that this provision be added to the off-street
parking section:
Mayor and Council Members 6
April 17, 1980
"Except that, in circumstances where a strict
application of the aforesaid rules would result in
unnecessary practical difficulties, the Zoning
Board of Adjustment may, after notice and hearing,
authorize such specific, limited exceptions to the
above table of dimensions as it shall find war-
ranted and consistant with:
1 . protecting landscaping features
2 . adequate space for maneuvering of
trucks, vans and full sized passenger
vehicles .
No exceptions shall be allowed for any other
feature of the off-street parking rules . "
9. Processing time
The following is recommended as an addition to the zoning
ordinance:
"Sec. Processing time. For the orderly
processing of zonin applications as it cations the following
time limits are established:
1 . Rezoning proposals referred by the council to
the Planning & Zoning Commission shall be acted
upon and returned to the Council in not more than
90 days or three (3 ) consecutive monthly meetings unless time extensions are specifically requested by the applicant.
2 . Planned concepts referred by the Council to
Planning & Zoning Commission shall be acted upon
and returned to the Council for Action no later
than 120 days or four (4) consecutive monthly
meetings unless time extensions are specifically
requested by the applicant.
3 . Failure to return the application and a deci-
sion within the time specified will signify to the
council that the application is approved as sub-
mitted.
4. Staff reports : A copy of all staff reports
regarding an application review must be forwarded
to the appli
date. " cant 3 working days prior to a hearing
Mayor and Council Members
7 April 17, 1980
The time and effort devoted to this ordinance by everyone
has, I feel, been well spent.
zoning regulations are note as extensive as then b the cityfs
ulk of the
ordinance might su the
same as now. The importance sofothehordingancellieswinl be the
Procedures and approaches it establishes for fair and erenew
a-
sonable resolution of conflicts caused by legitimate but
contending private and public interests .
Respectfully submitted,
John R. Klaus
City Attorney
JRK/dls