HomeMy WebLinkAboutA004 - Letter from Fox Engineering with possible modifications to ordinance engineering August20, 2004
Honorable Mayor & Council
City of Ames
Ames City Hall
515 Clark Avenue
Ames, Iowa 50010
RE: Proposed Ordinance Change for Storage in HOC Areas
E
a
° Dear Mayor & Council:
d
o At the last council meeting I spoke briefly about some of my concerns about
the proposed ordinance to allow storage buildings in HOC zoned areas. While I
appreciate the City's willingness to address this topic (as it has been an issue
since the zoning ordinance was revised), I think there are some modifications
that could refine the ordinance.
E A principal concern of the City is having storage next to residential areas.
o However, in review of the zoning map it appears there are few (if any) HOC
areas that are directly next to residential low-density zones. There are some
w medium (RM) and high-density (RH) areas next to HOC. In all cases however,
Ln the storage buildings will look considerably better than the HOC buildings of
which the design standards are considerably less restrictive than for the
storage buildings. I think it may be appropriate to have a two level standard
3 for storage — a higher standard for areas next to residential areas (especially
e RL) and a lower standard for areas that are not next to residential. This tiered
level of standards is already used in the code for landscaping where L1, L2 or
rn L3 landscaping standards are enforced depending on the neighboring
conditions. My suggestion is that the relaxed standards would be allowed for
the roofline and building size (length, height, overall dimensions) and not for
fencing or landscaping, which should be maintained at a higher standard.
As an observation - in many RM and RH areas there are already garage units
that are essentially used for storage by residents and never used to park cars.
My second concern is the requirement for a pitched (6/12) roof. As I previously
3 stated, pitched roofs are considerably more expensive than a "flat" roof. This
provision does increase the cost considerably for storage buildings as the
individual bays need to be divided to the height of the roof further increasing
_ the cost. For small, narrow buildings the cost is significant, but it is even more
expensive when the storage buildings are larger for more commercial uses.
Since most HOC buildings are using a flat roof, a pitched roof would tend to
make the storage look out of place and unordinary compared to the other uses
in the zone.
1601 Golden Aspen Dr. My observation is that fence standards and landscaping standards are
Suite 103 significant enough to screen the view of the buildings and that a pitched roof
Ames, Iowa 50010 will only advertise that it is storage. Furthermore, the landscaping and fence
1.515.233.0000 screening are so significant that I question the need for the restrictions on
1.800.433.3469 building materials that need to be used (with the exception of those next to a
Fax 1.515.233.0103 RL zone). I think the "natural" color requirement (for the buildings, trim and
www.foxeng.com
info@foxeng.com
v
doors) and prohibition against ribbed metal panels would be sufficient. There
are many metal panel options that are ascetically pleasing. Given the fence
and landscaping screening requirements are significant, it is likely only the
ends of the buildings will be remotely visible. The standards do add cost to
any storage facility; however, I would prefer to have the extra cost spent on
landscaping and fence (on the perimeter) versus the interior of the site (roof
and building materials).
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Scott Renaud, P.E.
Cc: Steve Schainker, City Manager
Joe Pietruszynski, City Planner