The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA002 - Letter from Norman Rudi, concerns about the proposed ordinance Norman Rudi 2012 Pinehurst Drive Ames la 50014 Ph/Fx 515-292-9033 March 12 , 1998 iO: Ames City Council Planning and Zoning Commission ISU Fraternity Council Chamber of Commerce REGARDING: New Zoning Ordinance Working in the design profession for the past thirty years and complying with the zoning ordinance, there have been a niimber of ongoing concerns which were not addressed in the old ordinance, and which have not been addressed in the proposed ordinance, or have been changed to become more stringent . The concerns are parking and non- conforming uses . PARKING Current parking sizes are repeated in the new ordinance as "one size fits all . " After years of designing parking and working with the staff , I believe there should be three kinds of Parking. A. Standard or office parking B. Shopping center/grocery store parking C. Fraternity/Sorority parking. The current ordinance stipulates a 9 ft by t9 ft auto space with a 24 ft driveway. The reality is that the car front tire is nearly 2 ft back from the bumper , resulting in a 27 ft to 30 ft driveway, providing wider than needed backing space. Auto sizes , except for very large pick-up trucks , are rarely over 16 ft . The additional paved area provides for more safety in backing out , but also creates : 1 . 8% more paved parking area 2 . 45 sq ft ( 5 x 9) addl construction cost per two spaces , which at $4 . 00 psf amounts to $90 additional per parking space. ($180/2) :3 . Environmentally uses more land in hard surface. 4 . Uses more of the building site. 5 . Costs about 6% more in parking lot first costs . In low turnover parking office or commercial space this is important . Recognizing that high turnover space, shopping centers and grocery stores etc. , a second design parameter should be used . My example (B. ) still uses a smaller dimension than currently used , but takes into account automobile size. It should still be adequate for double parking, waiting to park, and the indecision in parking experienced by older drivers . RUDI PZ 1 r FRATERNITY parking requires Special consideration. The new ordinance changes the requirement. from ONE SPACE. PER TWO BEDS , to ONE SPACE PER ONE BED. I am not a fraternity member , but have assisted 18 fraternities in new buildings , renovations , and additions . Because there are ongoing problems with several facets of student living, they tend to he singled out when change is contemplated . They are a unique housing type, and their taxable base of fifty million dollars deserves some consideration . Under the new ordinance , none of the existing 56 or 57 fraternities or sororities can make alterations or additions because of their existing lot size does not permit compliance with the proposed parking ordinance. Students , in their own inimitable way, have always found a way to accommodate a maximum number of cars on their lots . Since they are 18 to 24 years old , they are presumed more facile than normal drivers , and can accommodate different circumstances . Recognizing that some student drivers store their cars Sunday night through Thursday or Friday, the allowance for double stack parking would help accommodate meeting the existing code on extremely tight lots . Additional land is not available for most fraternities and is not an option. The separation between adjoining parking lots of 5 ft plus 5 ft (total 10 ft ) for protection of adjoining properties by a planting strip and fence also seems counter productive when demanding strict parking criteria. A total of 5 ft between adjoining lots and inserting a shortened compact car space or motorcycle spaces to allow for a shade tree location would be consistent with wanting all cars to experience shade, which is the intent of the current staff . The enclosed drawings indicate conditions , new conditions , and proposals which may be easier to visualize. UNIVERSITY PARKING: The new ordinance requires all university housing to provide ONE PARKING SPOT PER EACH BED. Can the city legitimately enforce this? RUDI PZ 2 PARKING CONSIDERATIONS - EXISTING - ACTUAL 3 D¢'Gi4 PLr`�.ST1 Sit C� �cR'C'—� `I2 A NC t-c) SIG 1-7 4 l i/�.4 L� � GA12 IN 30 F F fi AGTUf?,t- RUDI PZ 2 . 1 PARKING CONSIDERATIONS - NEW STANDARD - PROPOSALS i --C t'r-ts H ckr4 i �► st-�PP ��tc� C� �?- Utz ��.-�� RUDI P7_ 2 . 2 PARKING CONSIDERATIONS - NEW STANDARD - PROPOSALS eD 77 / i it• �,/;"i' .;• T-�CS7 e AGttt Psil L f I �I rpm r j c 5�� t� t Cv �T � 8 ►12 �T 2� �� DGz1v�V�t�Y RUDI PI 2 . 3 NON CONFORMING USES The council and planning and zoning commission► periodically spend much hand wringing and mental anguish addressing changes in sites that. contain Non-Conforming Uses . It seems that if a site has been non- conforming for twenty five years , the chance that some one will tear clown their building and replace it with a peach orchard is incredibly optimistic or naive. At the adoption of the new ordinance, all non-conforming uses should convert , as close as possible, to their existing use to encourage development , growth, and success . CONCLUSION The above is a sincere attempt to address potential conflicts between the staff and design professionals as they both perform their services in the best interest of health, safety and welfare. Once adopted, the staff will have more responsibility in decisions , in lieu of "bothering the council with the mundane. " As elected officials , the council is more responsive to it ' s electorate, and personal agendas of staff , from the City Manager on down, may be questioned. We may not always have the quality staff we enjoy today. Sincerely Nor n an Rudi I _ RUDl PZ 3