Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, August 18, 1982 - rtYNUTEs - 0 CITY OF AMES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Date: August 18, 1982 Jackie Manatt, Chairperson 1984 Frank 3herkow, Vice Chairperson 1985 Call to Order: 7:30 P.M. Judie Hoffman 1987 Alan Kahler 1983 Charles Fouts 1985 Council Chamber Placer *Esther Whetstone 1983 Roy Zingg 1984 10:05 P.M. Adjournment: *Absent MAJOR TOPICS DISCUSSED: 1. Amendment to approved P,C plan for Gateway Center Hotel. 2. Annexation and Rezoning of land located on the east side of Elwood Drive 3. Eugene Ennes Subdivision 4. Discussion of Composite Zoning Map 5. Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendments CALL TO ORDER: The meet4.ng was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Man-tt. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved on a motion by Fouts, seconded by Zingg. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST TO AMEND AN APPROVED P-C PLAN FOR `THE GATEWAY CENTER HOTEL Dean Brennan reviewed this request and stated that there were actually two requests; dne to modify the site plan for Gateway Center Hotel to reflect a change in the location of the floodlights and the other to construct an unlit sign on the west wall of the hotel tower. With respect to the floodlights, they were approved as part of the original site plan; however, when they were installed, the approved plan was not followed. The City did not become aware of this deviation until last October. The sign requested would be an unlit sign located on the west wall of the hotel tower and similar in script to the existing sign on the east wall. It will be sized and located as proposed in the request submitted in October, 1981, which asked for approval of an internally lit sign. This internally lit sign was not approved by City Council because the motion did not get a second. City Council did, however, approve a motion to allow placement of a lighted sign on the east wall of the hotel tower. Mr. Sherkow asked why the original plan was not followed, and staff was not able to give a definite reason. Mrs. Hoffman wondered about the location of the lights and the effect on nearby residents. Mr. Brennan indicated that all of the lights were aimed at the building and therefore, the effect on nearby property owners was minimal. Physically moving the floodlights would have little effect. Speaking in Favor Dave Percival, general manager for the Gateway Center Hotel, pointed out that the floodlights were not purposely moved. He stated that the sign being requested would be primarily visible during the day with some lighting at night from the floodlights. The elevation of the west side sign would not be as high as the east side sign. Mr. Percival also indicated that a sign on the north side of the hotel would not be acceptable because it could not be seen by motorists in time for them to exit. Also, consideration was given to the aesthetic effects of a sign on the north side. Planning and Zoning Comm ion -2- • August 18, 1982 Speaking in Opposition Ken Krumpel, spokesperson for the Timberland Road Neighborhood Association, indicated that the residents in the area were opposed to the sign because it would have a negative impact on their neighborhood. Commission Comments Floodlights: Mr. Fouts pointed out that since the Gateway Center Hotel has been in operation for some time, requiring them to move the floodlights would seem unnecessary: MOTION: (Fouts/Zingg) That the proposed revision to the approved plan for the Gateway Center Hotel be approved. Motion carried unanimously. Sign: MOTION: (Zingg/Fouts) Move the approval of the request to put an unlit sign on the west side of the building as specified. Motion carried: 5 in favor/1 opposed (Hoffman) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST TO ANNEX A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ELWOOD DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF ELWOOD DRIVE AND AIRPORT ROAD, AND A REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY P-C (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) Mr. Brennan summarized this request. He stated that presently the property has access to city water and the owner was requesting annexation in order to hook up to the city' s sanitary sewer system because of septic tank problems. Mr. Brennan also pointed out that the subject property was part of a pocket of unincorporated land within the city limits and if it were annexed, only one other property would remain in the county. Also, the applicant was requesting that the area be rezoned P-C (Planned Commercial) because of surrounding land use and the Land Use Policy Plan designation for the area. At this time, however, the owner has no intention of developing the land commercially. Speaking in Favor Jennie Lorenz, owner of the subject property, reiterated Mr. Brennan's remarks and indicated she has been in favor of annexation for some time now, but was waiting for the city to initiate the annexation. Speaking in Opposition There was no one who spoke in opposition to this request. Commission Comments Annexation: MOTION: (Fouts/Hoffman) That we approve the annexation. Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission -3- August 18, 1982 Rezoning: MOTION: (Zingg/Sherkow) That we recommend this area for P-C zoning. Motion carried unanimously. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EUGENE ENNES SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN STORY COUNTY ON NORTH DAKOTA AVENUE (COUNTY SUBDIVISION) Mr. Brennan indicated that the Eugene Ennes Subdivision consisted of 10 acres of land with four lots proposed ranging in size from 0.8 to 5 acres. The Commission had this item for review because the proposed subdivision was within the two-mile limit, hence, the City, not the county, had control over the development of the subdivision. Mr. Brennan went on to discuss the condition of the soils in the area and the physical characteristics. He stated that the Public Works Department had recommended that the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance be waived as requested by the property owner since those requirements (i.e. , sidewalks, water lines, street lights, etc.) would seem to be unnecessary in this subdivision. Speaking in Favor Richard Montag, surveyor and engineer for the Eugene Ennes Subdivision, addressed the Commission. He stated that the reason for the subdivision was because the owner wanted to divide the area into four lots. State law requires that an area divided into three or more lots has to be platted. Additionally, the lots were unusually shaped in order to have frontage on the road. Speaking in Opposition There was no one who spoke in opposition to this request. Commission Discussion Mrs. Manatt was concerned about the eventual annexation of this area and the related expenses to the city. Mr. Brennan indicated that the sanitary sewer line could not be extended across the railroad tracks and, consequently, the line would have to go up the creek. Because of this problem, the Urban Service Expansion Line goes along the north side of the railroad tracks. MOTION: (Zingg/Fouts) That we recommend approval of this subdivision request and recommend that the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance be waived for this. Discussion: Mr. Sherkow was opposed to this request because of the ultimate cost for annexation. He preferred to institute an agreement whereby all costs for annexation, that is, extension of city services, would be borne by the property owners at the time of annexation. Mr. Fouts suggested promulgating Mr. Sherkow's suggestion as a precondition to annexation. The Commission discussed this suggestion. Mr. Zingg pointed out that just because a property was within two miles of the city limits did not guarantee its annexation. He was also concerned about restricting the boundaries and thereby restricting growth. After further discussion, staff indicated that setting preconditions to annexation would require some research and was a legal matter. It was the consensus of the Planning and Zoning commission ..Q, • August 18, 1982 Commission that this research should be done. MOTION: (Sherkow/Fouts) That this proposal be tabled for a period of one month and direct the staff to research the question of future financial liability for costs associated with annexation. Motion carried unanimously. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION OF COMPOSITE ZONING MAP Mr. Brennan displayed a large zoning map which indicated the proposed R1-6 areas and the total number of nonconforming structures created, disregarding the Zoning Ordinance amendment which grandfathers in existing duplexes in R1-6 areas. Mr. Sherkow asked for the percentages of nonconforming uses in each area depicted on the map. Staff will have this information available at the next meeting. Mr. Brennan noted that 65% of the area presently zoned R-2 was being proposed for R1-6 zoning and much of this area already consisted of single-family development. Mrs. Manatt suggested that the Commission also be given a map indicating the R-2 areas which the Commission was proposing. Mr. Sherkow stated that the Commission should also have information on the degrees of concentration of duplexes in the larger, proposed R1-6 areas. Staff will make land use maps available at the public meetings with these concentrations designated on them. Some of the Commission members were interested in studying these maps before the public meetings and will meet with staff prior to the September 1 meeting. There was some discussion about the availability of adequate land for commercial and industrial development as expressed by Mr. Kahler. The consensus of the Commission was to handle this type of development on a case-by-case basis. Review of the Energy Policy Plan was brought up by Mr. Kahler, and Mr. Brennan stated that the Commission would have an opportunity to review this report and make recommendations to the Energy Committee. At the present time the city managers staff is reviewing the report as it relates to city functions. The Commission talked about the conduct of the public meetings and how public input would be handled. It was noted that City Council should be provided with all pertinent points and concerns voiced by the public. Some suggestions for the public meetings included: (1) An opening statement by the chairperson relating the process the Commission has gone through in reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and other background information; (2) A request from the Commission to the public in attendance for assistance in improving what has been developed and proposed; (3) The importance of balancing all citizen comments from past and present public meetings by the Commission; (4) The presence of the large zoning map and individual area zoning maps; (5) Attendance by City Council members; (6) More press coverage of the proposals; and (7) An individual at the public meetings who would be able to answer legal questions in connection with the ramifications of R-2 areas being proposed for R1-6 zoning. It was also suggested that staff make a short presentation at the public meetings outlining the Zoning Ordinance amendments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning and zoning Coon -5- August 18, 1982 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mr. Brennan reviewed the following Zoning Ordinance amendments. The Commission discussed each amendment and made suggestions as appropriate. 1. Supervised Group Home: This amendment was accepted by the Commission as it was written. Mr. Brennan pointed out that the important phrase in this amendment related to approval of group homes by the Iowa Department of Social Services. Mr. Sherkow commented that staff should be cognizant of the fact that at some future date the uses approved by the Department of Social Services could change and licensing may not be required. Mr. Brennan expressed his hope that licensing would remain a requirement and indicated that the ordinance would be revised in the event any of the uses mentioned would no longer be covered by the Department of Social Services. 2. Surfacing of Off-Street Parking Areas: The Commission accepted this amendment as written with the following additions: a. A statement addressing the need for adequate pavement thicknesses to accommodate transit vehicles. b. A statement addressing bicycle and pedestrian access to larger shopping malls. 3. Accessory Buildings: This amendment was accepted as written. The staff assured the Commission that the Zoning Board of Adjustment would have the opportunity to review this amendment and others before final approval by City Council. 4. Development Review Area Overlay: This amendment was accepted as written except that the Commission stated that the provision contained therein which established the Development Review Board could be deleted and those responsibilities taken up by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or the Commission. Staff was asked to look into this and report back to the Commission. Since it was late, the Commission decided to discuss the remaining amendments at a subsequent meeting. ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSION COMMENTS Mr. Sherkow asked that staff consider the ventilation and circulation patterns of the Council Chamber during the public meetings and make sure that adequate visual aides were available and readily viewed by everyone. City Council meetingsduring the month of September will be attended by Mr. Sherkow. Mrs. Hoffman will attend City Council meetings during October. -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission was provided with copies of the Urban Land Institutes. Protection Statement for their review. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. on a motion by Sherkow, seconded by Fouts. Dean P. Brennan, Senior Planner Jackie Manatt, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission -6` August 18, 1982 Follow-up Required: 1. Staff to research the question of future financial liability for costs associated with annexation. 2. Staff to provide the Commission with the following information: a. The percentages of nonconforming uses in each area depicted on the proposed zoning map in connection with R1-6 areas. b. The degrees of concentration of duplexes in larger, proposed R1-6 areas. C. A map indicating the R-2 areas being proposed. d. A large zoning map and individual area zoning maps at each public meeting. e. A short presentation at each public meeting on the zoning ordinance amendments. 3. Staff to revise the proposed zoning ordinance amendment on the surfacing of off- street parking areas by adding statements on the need for adequate pavement thicknesses to accommodate transit vehicles and bicycle and pedestrian access to larger shopping malls. 4. Staff to. study the possibility of eliminating the proposed Development Review Board as contained in the amendment on the development review area overlay and giving those responsibilities to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 5. The Commission to review the City's Energy Policy Plan.