The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA002 - Letter from McRoberts & Associates, concerns about proposed ordinance INVESTMENT BROKERAGE ADVISORY LEASING VALUATION " MANAGEMENT -- W ROBERTS Office . Retail . Hotel . Industrial . Multi-Family . Land Commercial Real Estate Services Kevin J.McRoberts,MAI,ASA,President Serving Clients Worldwide MCROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC T: 515.264.8400 F: 515.264.8401 kevin@mcroberts.us The Plaza 19 August 16,2004 300 Walnut Street Des Moines,Iowa 50309 www.mcroberts.us Mayor Ted Tedesco City Council Members City of Ames 515 Clark Avenue Ames, Iowa 50010 RE: HOC Zoning Text Amendment—Providing for Self-Storage Facilities. Dear Mayor and Council Members: On August 10, 2004, City Staff presented the proposed text amendment language regarding the above referenced issue. The following information outlines some of the design criteria and text concerns that have been raised, in addition to suggestions which may provide clarification of certain items and for some possible alternative text language for the zoning code amendment Understanding that the text amendment, as currently written, is intended to cover a broad range of variables and building concerns, it is difficult to cover every possible issue. However, some clarification does need to be established in order to be affective for allowing self-storage facilities to be properly built, as some of the existing text is rather contradicting. As written,the text amendment may effectively be too strict,and/or cost prohibited,to actually allow for a facility to be built. The following information outlines some of the issues with the text. However, ultimately since each project of this nature is subject to approval only by Special Use Permit, perhaps the text could simply be rewritten and utilized as a "suggested guide" for development standards, rather actually requiring some of the specific design items for every proposed project. As an example, the existing text could easily insert the word"may"prior to the word"require". Hence, as an example, the roof pitch issue in item (1)(c)(1), could be changed to read as follows: (Existing key words to be changed are italicized with new alternative words underscored) "Buildings i ii may be required to include a roof pitch greater than or equal to 6:12, with roofs incorporating a high quality surface such as architectural shingles, standing seam metal or tile. Flat roofs,,,rf, may be prohibited." Therefore the changes with the suggested alternative text would provide for better adherence to item (1)(a)(I) which is considered to be paramount to the intent and concept of the total amendment language. The text change would then help to guide a project/development, in the decision making process, to better understand what items may apply in the strictest requirements of a proposed development, yet allow for variation given different locations, materials, and neighboring uses. Hence the requirements may better serve to influence a development based on its location and adjacent property such as residential neighborhoods. Likewise, in areas of industrial or commercial uses, the actual final design requirements may be different to accommodate area design influences. Again,the fact that a Special Use Permit is ultimately required for a development, the City is protected from a project that does not incorporate the proper design criteria, yet allows for the City to be able to consider each development's specific design, on a case-by-case basis, with consideration to all of the variables including other area uses. Additional issues or concerns are also outlined as follows: In item(1)(b)(iv)why would buildings that are greater than 40 feet include a change in wall plane, etc., every 20 feet ? Rather, it would seem that requiring a change in wall plane subject to the actual length of a building would be more appropriate. Inconsistencies and irregular exterior building patterns may result from the measurements required with this item when reviewed with item(1)(B)(5), which currently requires and maximum building length of 60 feet. (i.e. -a SO foot building.) The maximum building length of 60 feet is also considered to be restrictive, as the nature of self storage facilities includes longer buildings to be effective. In addition larger buildings are utilized for climate controlled buildings, and would also require a lower roof pitch. The proposed AirPort Business Park is affected by all of these concerns. As an example; 1) A change in wall plane would appear more desirable at 50 foot increments. 2) With a larger proposed climate controlled building, the roof height would be over 43 feet based on the requirement of a 6:12 pitch., which of course is above the maximum height of 20 feet in the existing text. 3) Steel paneled buildings are to be proposed, however it will not be constructed with typical corrugated or smooth metal surface siding. Rather, this facility will use a high quality textured panel of Structurcoat. This material appears as more of a stucco finish from the exterior and will include various trim and architectural reliefs, such as bump-outs and parapet walls which will also effectively hide a proposed ''/2:12 pitch roof line. Again allowing for text changes as described, would allow for AirPort Business Park to go forward in presenting the proposed plan. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and I will be available to discuss any questions at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, MCROBERTS & ASSOCIATES,LLC I�� 7 1(4/�� Kevin J. McRoberts,MAI,ASA,President& CEO AirPort Business Park 707 Airport Road Area Buildings—Review of Roof Lines �.. . . « » \: p . � . ® - . , . Flat R<m£L!n-HOC District New Retail Strip Building -Airport Road � > , 1 I a s I µ a : T . Flat Roof line- HOC District Wilson (Automobile Dealership— So. Duff' s, � t n q Mat Rool.'Lin `urns Club Airport Road y d �y A 4f^ d v _ f � sY` G Flat Roof Line Lowes _ Airport Road m- - mm- C. Y g §p _ ki W oo p v :Aar _ Flat Roof Line Aspen Business Park �a V = a., ir am Flat Roof Line Aspen Business lark ....... P _,.:,...... 4 �. u Low Roof Line Munn Lumber open Storage (To be hidden by Subject Proposal ) 3. Low Roof Line Morin I.,umbcr --Airport Read u - b y 3 a 4 F x IP .. _ .. a W y Low Roof Line Airport Read Y:. .a � k a Low Roof I,ine .Airport Buildings 1..,ow Roof I_.ine Airport Buildings i% Vol q Ma 1 Yid k[ y y__ P n Fi 4 2 _ J.. a gqs'.r"1 r I...ow Roof Line. Airport Buildings tot, n r r � � Flat Roof Line Airport lac.?ad - "kz y ,"mg , 011 u -ter �k ,_ a nC gg MW MW 2 OP 711 i w. H k x M <w �x e a � � r Low Roof Line Airport Road G y r:✓ 7�; �, s a �§ S x ............ T, mgw ,..-. - *•� ... - to - �� Combination Roof Lin Elwood at IIwy 30 E ::. fi .ter F" d � R t� r � fp fi 3 1 } q R xi F S Example Subject Landscaping and ['ence r J a a < � 3 F t: S h k I;xamplc Subject L.anc3seaping and Fence 1 3 &'f 011 ' nylon C l ry MA, R � �r 4 11 ax t� x h ' m� 3 rt W N ' . Example Subject Landscaping and Fence y� ,max �¢- '��a� s� � „:. ,•, �•�,... "� � � mar,a. r i ' NO IA iAx ...,� �� .»,�.ws.w�-z� x.�.�..>..e... ars,,.x,,...a, .tea' a_mm _� »✓.�,.w.....�,«.uw,:.». _ �zs 3 Parapet Wal I ip^Ls 3 KS U T s �Z $ v s . .x f Aj s '.a l 3 MO Example Parapet Wall x, a +ea, ?a ti x gg r s '01 a�ErN�, C'c O. . Example I'ampo Wyl