The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA004 - Council Action Form, June 18, 1985 ITEM #:_�T DATE: 8 85 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: 1) Request to Rezone Spring Valley Development from R-2 (Low-density Residential ) and R-3 (Medium-density Residential ) to R1-6 (Low-density Residential ) 2) Request to Approve the Revised Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) for Spring Valley Development BACKGROUND: The owners of the Spring Valley Development, H & F Builders, Buck Construction and Friedrich Construction , are proposing to make two changes in the development. The first change involves a rezoning from R-2 and R-3 to R1-6. This change in zoning is in conformance with the Land Use Policy Plan as well as the type of development and density reflected in the proposed CDP. A request made earlier this year was for a change to R1-10, but that request was modified when it was determined that one of the lots already platted did not satisfy the minimum lot size of the R1-10 zoning district (10,000 square feet). The second request is for approval of the revised Conceptual Development Plan. The developers had previously submitted a revised CDP/PUD for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council . The issue arose concerning the PUD requirement for a landscaping plan including a street tree planting plan. The City Council did not approve the revised CDP/PUD at that time because the necessary landscape plan had not been submitted. Rather than submit a landscape plan the developers decided to revise the CDP and request that the PUD plan be eliminated. The revised CDP eliminates the 18 zero-lot-line lots along the east boundary. This revised CDP contains 116 lots of which 24 were previously subdivided as part of Spring Valley First Addition. Removal of the PUD eliminates the requirement that a landscape plan be submitted. The total area of the proposed CDP is 46.05 acres. The proposed gross density is 2.52 units per acre while the proposed net density, after deleting the area dedicated for streets and open space, is 3.57 units per acre. The proposed R1-6 zoning, if approved , will accommodate 7. 2 units per acre. The single-family lots average 12,200 square feet. The developers are proposing to install a six-inch looped water main to be located in the public right-of-way. In addition, an eight-inch sanitary sewer is proposed to be installed and will connect to an existing 12-inch sanitary sewer main which is located along Clear Creek. A storm water management plan has been submitted to the City Engineer, and the concept of this plan has been approved. This management plan contains two detention areas and a series of storm water mains that discharge to Clear Creek and to the storm sewer main in Ontario Street. Final approval of this storm water management plan must be obtained by the developer as part of the Administrative Plat approval process. ' • 2 • Al utilities are proposed to be public, and the concept of this utility plan has been approved by the City Engineer. The developers are proposing to dedicate 9.40 acres of public right-of-way for street purposes. The proposed streets will be 31-foot back-to-back with public sidewalks constructed throughout. All lots, as proposed, will have access onto a public street. Lot 3, which is located at the intersection of Ontario Street and Idaho Avenue, will have access limited to Ontario Street due to the presence of a center median in Idaho Avenue which necessitates the access restriction. This restriction must be included as a note to the Final Plat. During "Commission Comments", there was discussion regarding who will pay for the improvement of Ross Road east of Idaho Avenue when this area is developed. Past policy of the City has resulted in the developer of the subdivision paying for those improvements. The Council is being asked to reaffirm that policy so the developers will be aware of the responsibility when the Administrative Plat is submitted. The City staff has reviewed the CDP, and it satisfies the requirements of Section 23.10 of the Subdivision Ordinance. A concern was identified by the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the disposition of the 4.48-acre green space included in the CDP. The Parks and Recreation Department is concerned about the recreational value of the open space as well as the long-term costs involved in maintaining the area. A meeting was held with the developer at which time it was decided that the City staff would recommend accepting dedication of the green space, but a note would be placed on the Administrative and Final Plats that clearly identifies the area as a no-maintenance area. This was agreeable with the developer. Proposed wording has been submitted by Don Newbrough, the attorney for the developers. This proposed wording has been reviewed by the City Attorney and is satisfactory. A copy of the wording is attached. The developers also agreed to improve the access points to the green space. One access point has been dedicated to the City, and that access will be improved as per a schematic prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing and attached to a memo dated June 5, 1985. Other access points will be improved in a similar manner as needed. This revised CDP was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the meeting of June 5, 1985. At that time the Commission recommended approval of the CDP with a stipulation regarding the addition of language concerning the minimal level of maintenance of the green space on the Administrative and Final Plats. ALTERNATIVES: There are three requests to be addressed by the City Council . A. Request to rezone the Spring Valley Development from R-2 and R-3 to R1-6. B. Request to remove the approved PUD Plan. C. Request to approve the revised CDP. 1, The City Council can accept the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the three requests with the following stipulations: The storm water management plan must be approved prior to approval of the Administrative Plat. Language will be placed on the Administrative and Final Plats which states that the open space to be dedicated to the City and will be unmaintained and left as a natural open space. The portion of Ross Road from Idaho Avenue to the east property line of the Spring Valley development will be improved by the developer when the area is developed for lots. 2. The City Council can deny the three requests as submitted. 3. The City Council can refer these requests back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review. MANAGERS'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Manager recommends the City Council accept Alternative 1 . This alternative will allow the developers to proceed with submittal of the Administrative Plat. It will also bring the zoning into conformance with the Land Use Policy Plan. COUNCIL ACTION: 3 0 6 2 E `• ' 60 a�:a Es �; !" � , I � I ► W a P 61 OMvlo SV••t 7 Imo- -- -- a £ i r :'- �� Ll [l, i t _ gg � ykaa� Rom$34 � — • ';i'r I __ M \: \ar, •- .y coUU\moo eo-_ Os �• I W 4ar2 � I � Oy ,i _ REVISED C.D.P. s o E Spring Valley Subdivision ENGINEERING PLUS e11. Sw,n O 13,e1?J3-eess ja � f f C �•; . . . ' . . . . . . . rli L T• `,, / . J.. . . . . . . . . . . . 00, (� 0000 C, 00t •', rr fk. .1.. ;? �,�^•If 5�,� OOOOOA U OOG %,xek f t r; )Oo00oo0u0G:0000000000C 1 l Qo O o 0 0 C, . • , '•.t. rC J O00,� 11111111 ` 0000000u00000 0 C.0 00000OOOOQOOCc,� C 8 `�� tllllNl. ., t/llllll�� 0 O 000000000000OO� O0C.000000000, ;t)�r ',•�•"• y' .-i�.`, n._•:, ,t.y\ O0000000000 t �� • • • ,, ��}r!♦,•�r'��/0000 )�!; :ir)r.,OOOr 01, ♦ ,�l n JV0 )C;00r;•J. � 11' ^ — r it •:, Or Cpr7C /j, ' ' ' ' '•c ,coot; ;: Cain .mw z ro . .?. •• •• ,• Ur•t ,�,r,OC•. 00O as U _-- • "n- •r om a - :••, �✓ legend • �-t. low density residenti; med. density resident F2rL .IG`r ��N high density resident �— -____] commercial ��-- �:'..:_.1 industrial VALE-- pu ,_ ] hospital/medical institutional/public :-,• agricultural/greenbe residential expansion industrial expansion ■ ■a—11.—v9INISL ". 1, .%.-v.wvW.-v r 4 i995 RfL�1 Pity -of Ames, Iowa b 'hearing date: 6/05/85 � rezoning request area is location: Spring valley Subdivision notification area petitioner: H & F, Buck, Friedrich alaaoalaagou zoning district line from:R_3 & to: R1-6 Q O vZ J f nitl p�14L� fv��1.0t3 _f.�--..� .�.....J7. L -�+15 W 2 ct L7 8 0 f fir,a toyJ l C22 ®17180 �f t W C7oo9 lL ir'a /1'•N.NI•.N•NNNINI.M•MMINIa ♦ IINNNINNI ! �—�)ININIIIIIIIII/I.I.I...NIIIIII LO I . • 4 � ' :- lose+. b r' •_ S s• .�?�3 3aL34 ' 33 p •'..• 1 37 57 R-3 t25 58 : ./ .golf r� 54 I �` 63� - =1: •43 Q 14 •• w ICa J 0 t , . •, ,,. � = U4 . fi'61 tlugogounns I'llm goals go goslgoagosi ` a•� �`•,, 48 •:-lal.alls 24 50 Q •: �• 8 1 L .•'•� 31 48 49 , 32 11111/11/�,11111111/11111��:�11111► —1 ' • j 28 .30 20 nunN.gosnNn ,d 27 . . , f•. , z l 28 pO1" North Scale: p Prepared by the Departmont of Planning anJ Housing