Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Memo to Council dated May 10, 1996 from Planning Director f M O PLANNING & HOUSING DEPARTMENT CITY OF AMES TO: Mayor, City Council FROM: Brian P. O'Connell, Director DATE: May 10, 1996 SUBJECT: Request Relative to Central Ames Rezoning At Tuesday evening's meeting (May 14, 1996) the City Council will be discussing a request from one of the Council members to initiate some form of immediate change to the development regulations that currently apply to the "Central Ames Area". This request is being put forth at this time because of several factors, which include: • Continued development of multiple family uses that remove the existing supply of single family housing, thus serving to further alter the character of the Central Ames area. • The emergence of the new Land Use Policy Plan which documents that the appropriate land use designation for the Central Ames area is a SINGLE FAMILY CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE. • The belief that past decisions of the City Council to attempt a rezoning had the support of the Council but were ultimately not fulfilled because it was felt that the completion of the Land Use Policy Plan was the appropriate strategy. Since 1977 the Land Use Policy Plan of the City has designated this area as being best suited for single family low density land use. The most recent Land Use Policy Plan that is proposed has indicated that this area should be maintained as predominantly single family to conserve the older housing stock. As a means to bring focus to this issue, the City Council should make the following decisions: 1 . Does the City Council believe that the predominant character of the area as a single family area should be preserved? YES or NO 2. If the answer to Question 1 is YES, then does the City Council believe that the development of additional multiple family uses should be prevented at this time? YES or NO 3. If the answer to Question 2 is YES, then which of the following techniques is best designed to preserve the single family character of the Central Ames area at this time? a. proceed immediately with rezoning, as proposed in December of 1994; b. adopt an ordinance that would prevent further demolition of existing structures; or C. proceed immediately with the adoption of a Single Family Conservation Overlay Zone. 4. If the answer to Question 1 is NO, then what is the appropriate land use for the Central Ames area, and what changes need to occur with the proposed Land Use Policy Plan? Staff believes that the appropriate answers to questions 1 and 2 are YES. Clearly, previous land use plans of the City have indicated that low density residential is the appropriate land use for this area. Most recently, the proposed Land Use Policy Plan indicates that this area is predominantly single family, therefore staff believe that the City's planning policies for this area support the conservation and preservation of the single family land use. Further, staff believes that the most appropriate course of action at this time is to adopt an ordinance that would prevent further demolition. This would serve to preserve the single family character of the Central Ames area, and allow time for the full development of the SINGLE FAMILY OVERLAY ZONE. Staff understands the complexity that exists in the time when a city undertakes a major change in planning policies. But the important point to recall with respect to the Central Ames area, is that the proposed Land Use Policy Plan does not represent a major change in planning policy for this area, it simply proposes a different method of regulating the area to account for the true land use character of the area, which is predominantly single family with a mixture of multiple family uses. BPO:cIh h\bpo\caf\centra1.510 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM STAFF REPORT FOR 1994 CENTRAL AMES ZONING ISSUE 3. EXISTING LAND USE. Existing Land Use, LUPP Designation and Zoning. Property Land Use LUPP Designation Zoning Subject Properties Single-Family Residential RL(Residential: Low-Density) R-3 (Medium-Density Two-Family Residential RM (Residential: Medium-Density) Residential) Multi-Family Residential R-4 (High-Density Residential) Group Homes Church Park North of Site Single-Family Residential RL(Residential: Low-Density) R1.6 (Low-Density Residential) Two-Family Residential H (Hospital) H-M (Hospital-Medical) Medical East of Site Single-Family Residential RL(Residential: Low-Density) R1-6 (Low-Density Residential) Two-Family Residential R-2 (Low-Density Residential) Multi-Family Residential Church South of Site Single-Family Residential C (Commercial) P-C (Planned Commercial) Two-Family Residential Commercial Churches City Hall West of Site Single-Family Residential RL(Residential: Low-Density) R1-6 (Low-Density Residential) Two-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Existing Land Use of Subject Properties (See Attached Graphic). Land Use %of Land Area %of Properties Single-Family 55% (35.94 Ac.) 60% (202/337) Duplex 20% (13.24 Ac.) 21% ( 70/337) Multi-Family 19% (12.35 Ac.) 15% ( 51/337) Public/Quasi-Public 3% ( 1.75 Ac.) 2% ( 7/337) Group Home 2% ( 1.30 Ac.) 1% ( 5/337) Park .4% ( 0.25 Ac.) .5% ( 1/337) Vacant .2% ( 0.12 Ac.) .5% ( 1/337) Total 100% (64.94 Ac.) 100% (337 Properties) Number of Dwelling Units. Type of Dwelling %of All Dwellings Number of Dwelling Units Single-Family 34% 202/600 Duplex 23% 140/600 Multi-Family 43% 258/600 Total 100% 600 14 In analyzing this request, staff has come to the following conclusions to support the denial of the request to simply rezone this area to R-2 and has concluded that a rezoning to R-2 with text amendments is the appropriate course of action for the City to take. REASONS TO SUPPORT THE REZONING WITH TEXT AMENDMENTS. 1. Since 1977, the Land Use Policy Plan of the City has designated a fairly large portion of the area, that is proposed for rezoning, as being best suited for Low- Density Residential. The remaining portion of the area has been designated Medium-Density Residential as a buffer to the Central Business District of the city. 2. A very large majority of new multiple-family dwelling units are being constructed in new, vacant, multiple-family zoned areas. A very small percentage of multiple- family dwelling units are being constructed in areas where infill or redevelopment is necessary. Therefore, redevelopment areas are contributing only a small number of multiple-family units to the total supply of multiple-family units of the entire city. 3. Only 13% of all units that have been constructed in redevelopment areas have been constructed in the area proposed for rezoning. Therefore, this area has accommodated only a small percentage of new multiple-family units in relation to all multiple-family units that have been constructed in redevelopment areas. 4. Rezoning this area to R-2 with text amendments will not reduce the total number of dwelling units available in the city. Additionally, there is approximately 88 acres of vacant multiple-family zoned land currently available for development in the city. These acres create a land supply that is available for additional multiple-family construction. 5. The R-2 zoning designation with text amendments is an attempt to apply a zoning designation to this area that best incorporates the mixture of land use attributes that are present in the area. Additionally, this approach also indicates that the current selection of zoning districts in the City's zoning ordinance does not truly fulfill the land use goals that are applicable in this portion of the city. 6. A large percentage of the existing land use (75%) in this area and a large percentage of the properties in this area (81%) is single-family and two-family with a much smaller percentage (19%) of land use and 15% of the properties are being used as multiple-family. 7. A small majority of all dwelling units (59%) in the area are single-family and two- family. 8. A rezoning of this area to R-2 with text amendments would be supportive of Ahe City's established goals of historic preservation. 28 9. A large number of properties in the area are already non-conforming by lot size (114 properties or 34% of all properties). The problems that these properties have at this time are not improved or made worse by a decision to rezone. 10. A rezoning of this area to R-2 with text amendments prevents additional properties from becoming non-conforming, which is a great concern of property owners who are opposed to the rezoning of this area to R-2 as the City's zoning ordinance exists today. Of the 35 structures that have been converted from single-family or two-family dwellings to multiple-family, 21 of these apartment buildings have only three (3) dwelling units, and only one (1) building has more than six (6). Eighty percent (80%) of the multiple-family conversions are in average or above average condition. This suggests that a commitment to maintain the character and integrity of this low-density residential area exists. The Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) supports the concept of preserving existing neighborhoods. Action taken by the City in 1989 to designate a portion of this neighborhood as the Old Town Historic District is one way of implementing a policy to preserve existing neighborhoods. Another means of implementing such a policy is to apply a zoning designation that permits the current mix of uses in the neighborhood and prohibits further development that would alter the established character and integrity of the existing development. Unfortunately, under the applicant's proposal, properties that have been converted to multiple-family land use and apartment buildings (originally constructed since 1983) would become non-conforming uses and could not be rebuilt if destroyed. Both the proponents and the opponents of this rezoning have emphasized the importance of maintaining the mix of land use types in this neighborhood. To make this possible with rezoning of the area to R-2, Zoning Ordinance text amendments, as described in Rezoning Option No. 4, would be necessary. This would allow multiple-family conversions to be rebuilt with a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and would allow all originally constructed apartment buildings as a permitted use. After reviewing the comments that were heard by both the proponents and opponents of this request, it has been determined that there were numerous points stated that substantiate the need for a rezoning to R-2 with a text change. These are: REASONS TO REZONE WITH TEXT CHANGE. 1. The comments heard by both the proponents and opponents have numerous valid points that substantiate the need for a rezoning to R-2 with a text change. These are: 29 IZ TH STREET w PF� � I I z T H ST�Er I I 0 z rHPTFFI - = ---•�irfzEET GiT EE > b d > > Tw L ' d d 9 TH �r�Er a ' -3 c4 p� 0 7 +� E �r srt��T p�T CITY oF�tcE u6Rau g 1GSHELL }{h1� PPdzK t5TH `�TFzEE� LUPP DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED REZONING AREA { HISTORIC DISTRIC C COMMERCIAL RL RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY H HOSPITAL/MEDICAL 13 TH STREET �..ununn.Hann...........n........u..u....n.q lU 12 T H sTEr ur MAY EE `J UKEF 11 TH Q 0 7 EST Q w 4- CL Z "4" P unuuuunuunuuun.$ f-j nnu�-r�E1'unun..n...un.nu.O L3 FT-17 �� '-4 Aj T- STREET it uun .. ....... uun all uuuun.n lei Isis pr.uu.nnnuuuM p�T CITY °F�� u�R p�lJDSHELL P"C }{ Fy PFRK M i I n.eauunnunuu...... .....�...nn.unuuunrjTHn.uunn�jTREET - ZONING F-� PROPOSED REZONING AREA 0 HISTORIC DISTRICT - R1-6 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R1-10 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R3 MEDIUM DENSITY,RESIDENTLAL R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL P-C PLANNED COMMERCIAL C-C CONCENTRATED COMMERCIAL H-M HOSPITALIMEDICAL 13TH STREET 12 T H .. r .. �,i'I* f ........ .. .................... ........ ....... :r. ................. . . ................. .. ...............r:. ............... B Em o T EEr W "' W J 7 t+ OL MC:Cj Y- 8 CH STREET \ ` s o so . Ow GT+I STREET" • 5TH •STREET EXISTING LAND USE ® PROPOSED REZONING AREA HISTORIC DISTRICT CO' MEDICAL ® COMMERCIAL © PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC MULTI-FAMILY - DUPLEX SINGLE-FAMILY ® GROUP HOMES $F? - �l F , MAY 10 1996 .� CITY CLEKK CITY OF AMES,I A May 9, 1996 709 Duff Ave Ames, IA 50010 Ames City Council City Hall Ames, IA Ladies and Gentlemen; It is my understanding that at your council meeting on May 14, you will be discussing the rezoning of the Central Ames Neighborhood or a temporary measure of a demolition moratorium until the new LUPP is in place and the zoning measures are made compatible with the Plan. May I encourage you to take some positive action and approve one of the two options. Being a resident of the area in question, I admit to my self interest; but at the same time declare a life-long interest in the Ames Community and know that my feelings are representative of an overwhelming majority of the property owners in the area. This being an old issue and one which has been presented more than once over the years--further delay can only lead to additional depredation of what could and should be one of Ames' strongest assets. Listen to the people. Si ce , W .tar er 13 TH STREET ------------ 12 T H IT F-EET- MAY TR d I I TH— �iTRE�T -MM o T EET 9 TH STREET V cif 8 i H ST P-E+✓T TTIT — ELa — — t-7 STREET L HIM NTH sTwe�T PST LI�RPR CITY oFracE paa1I�HEI L P= NTH `VTR Ei- -----� PEMO.ITION OVERLAY D15Tf�I6T 13MA ARC ------- OLPTOWN Hl!T0O 6 P15TRI6T BOUNPARY