HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Staff Report 4 a �
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIRED FOR
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS IN THE
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-DENSITY (FS-RM) ZONE
On September 25, 2001, the City Council considered the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendments at a public hearing. A local developer spoke at the hearing and requested that the
City Council delay action on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments for the purpose of
including an additional amendment, which would change the minimum density required in the
FS-RM zone from a minimum of 10 dwelling units per net acre to a lower minimum density. The
City Council responded to this request by referring the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendments back to City staff for further analysis.
In response to this direction by City Council, staff first examined the origin of the minimum
density requirement for 10 dwelling units per net acre for single family attached dwellings in the
FS-RM zone. The "New Lands Policy Options" in the Land Use Policy Plan includes minimum
densities to be achieved by Suburban Residential development. The minimum densities to be
achieved are described as follows:
• Single Family and Two Family Residential: 3.75 dwelling units per net acre
• Manufactured Housing: 7.00 dwelling units per net acre
• Multi-Family Residential: 10.00 dwelling units per net acre
As indicated, these densities are calculated on a "net density" basis. "Net density" is described
as, the number of units per acre after all public or private right-of-way, public or private open
space, areas of severe slopes, and areas of natural resources are subtracted from the total area
calculation. "Net density" results in a greater number of units per acre, than would be the case if
we were to calculate density on a gross acre basis.
City staff has analyzed the densities of one proposed and one existing development, which
include single family attached dwellings constructed back-to-back, as proposed for the Zoning
Ordinance amendments. This analysis resulted in densities above the minimum required
density of 10 dwelling units per net acre, which is consistent with the current Zoning Ordinance
requirement for the FS-RM district and is also consistent with the minimum density
recommended in the Land Use Policy Plan. Those calculations are illustrated in the table
below:
Proposed Hunziker Development
Across from Bentwood Subdivision Bloomington Court Development
Gross Acres 18.5 5.71
Net Acres 13.39 (Approximate) 5.41
Number of Units 156 64
Gross Density 8.42 du/acre 11.20 du/acre
Net Density 11.65 du/acre 11.83 du/acre
r
On October 17, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal to reduce
the minimum density required for single-family attached dwellings in the Suburban Residential
Medium-Density (FS-RM) zone, and supports staff's position.
Given the findings of staff after further analysis of the minimum density requirements for the
single family dwellings in the FS-RM Zoning district, staff believes the minimum required density
of 10 dwelling units per net acre is very achievable and is consistent with the City's intent to
encourage higher densities in the "New Lands Area", as identified on the Land Use Policy Plan
Map. No changes to the minimum required density of 10 dwelling units per net acre are
recommended by staff.
Attached to the Staff Report is a response indicating that there is still a difference in opinion in
regards to the issue of density. What Council should understand is that the proposed
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance do not in any way relate to the issue of density. What is
being proposed is as follows:
• A change to the definition that would allow for back to back townhomes.
• A reduction in the lot area requirement from 3500 square feet per unit to 2400 square feet
for exterior units and 1800 square feet for interior units.
• A change in the rear yard set-back requirement from 25 feet to 0 feet for back-to-back units.
• An increase in the open space requirement from 10% to 15%.
Since the proposed amendments do not involve any change in density, staff urges that Council
take action on the proposed amendments.
sAStaff Reports\SF Att Dw in FS-RM Zone 11-13-01
11/09/01 09:01 FAX 515 2.32 5521 HUNZIKER & ASSOCIATES Q1002
1
SPSOSSOCIATE ,
REALTOR "
105 South IM Street
Ames,Iowa 50010-8009
(515)233-4450•FAX(515)232-5521
email:huazikerR�@aoJ-CO 01
1V ovemt5ei y LU
Steve Schainker
City of Ames
Dear Steve,
In response to your faxed copy of the staff report that I received yesterday_ I have made
the following conclusions.
1) Th• development that we had proposed across from Bentwood can't be
built as proposed. The City staff will not approve the plan as drawn. The
rea,on the staff will not approve the plan is because of the driveways
entering onto Wilder_ There will have to be a frontage road put in so that
the cars don't back out on to Wilder. That will certainly reduce the total
number of units. By reducing the number of total units you will reduce
the density. I can't say whether or not it will fall below ten or not.
2) It doesn't make sense to me to make the i.-ninimum density number so high
that it is hard to achieve. As the consultant for Somerset pointed out when
he as in town, these arbitrary numbers that we pick out for density are
bad planning tools. If every piece of development ground was a square
boX it may be easier to apply these standards. Since most developments
vary in size and shape, applying one number for density seems to be a bad
idea, particularly when the minimum is in reality closer to a maximum.
3) At ome point in time the City is going to have to make separate
pro isions for townhomes. Simply luinping them in with apartnients will
not work long term. The number of townhomes in Ames and around the
country continues to rise every year. From the baby boomers that don't
walit the headaches associated with individual ownership to affordable
hoilsing for first-time buyers, townhomes are becoming a larger part of the
real estate market.
I still feel that my riginal recommendation of 6 units to the acre (minimum density)
provides more fle ibility to both staff and the development coma-Dunity. Thank you for
giving 1ne an opportunity to review the staff report.
Sincerely,
Chuck Winklebla k
Broker Associate