HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Excerpt of City Council minutes from July 9, 2013 Mr. Schainker noted that, even in the RM and RH, if the buildings were built on individual lots
after subdividing the property, the occupany limit would be three unrelated.
Mr. Goodman said that he believes it is working fine now, and he cannot contemplate what the
impacts would be if and when someone would come in and request to change it.
Issue 2: Adherence to Subdivision Requirements. It was noted by Planner Marren that Section
29.401(5)states"more than one single-family or two-family residential structure on the same lot
of one acre or less is prohibited." That Code section allows, on residentially zoned lots (larger
than one acre) more than one single-family and two-family structure on a single lot when
developers choose not to subdivide. By allowing multiple single-family and two-family units to
be constructed on one large lot(more than one acre), developments do not have to comply with
the requirements of the Subdivision Code, i.e., lot and block standards, protection of natural
features, landscape standards, public street standards including public sidewalks, utility
requirements for water,sanitary sewer,electric and storm water management,erosion control,and
also any improvement guarantees for any needed infrastructure improvements).
According to Ms. Marren, the policy question being asked by staff is if Council wanted to
continue to allow multiple single-family and two-family structures on a single lot without
requiring adherence to subdivision regulations. Three options were provided for Council
consideration:
1. Revise the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Code to incorporate standards of the Subdivision
Code, based on a created set of criteria, for developments that choose not to subdivide the
property.
This option would allow certain regulations of the Subdivision Code, such as public streets,
sidewalks,or public infrastructure to be met while allowing the developer to maintain a single
lot development.
2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the right to construct multiple single-family or two-
family structures on a single lot in a RL District.
3. Make no changes to the current Zoning ordinance and thereby continue to allow multiple
single-family and two-family structures on lots of one acre or larger.
Ms.Marren advised that,if the City Council chooses to consider a specific change to some of the
current zoning code standards, staff could be directed to draft the appropriate zoning text
amendment(s), seek input from stakeholders, and hold a public hearing before the Planning and
Zoning Commission. In that case, staff would work to bring the text amendment back to Council
for adoption on first reading in late August or early September.
Council Member Goodman stated his opinion that the City needed to maintain some sort of
control over what occurs on property to ensure that residential and business investors have some
protection on what locates next to them.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Szopinski, to approve Option 1 pertaining to RL and FSRL,
thus directing the City Attorney to revise the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Code to
incorporate standards of the Subdivision Code,based on a created set of criteria,for developments
that choose not to subdivide the property
15
Council Member Wacha questioned whether this should also pertain to RM zoning.
Moved by Wacha, seconded by Szopinski, to amend the motion to add RM and FSRM.
Vote on Amendment: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Vote on Motion, as Amended: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
SOUTH DUFF AVENUE ACCESS STUDY: Moved by Davis, seconded by Orazem,to grant staff
the authority to conduct the Study.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COUNCIL COMMENTS: Moved by Orazem, seconded by Larson, to direct staff to investigate
whether there are successful entities in the U. S. which have managed to reach equitable
settlements in a finite time and potentially investigate as to whether one of those firms or
attorneys would be useful for the City.
Council Member Larson said he would rather keep the negotiations"at home." Mr.Larson added
that he believes employing outside counsel would actually lengthen the process.
Mayor Campbell noted that she and Management Analyst Brian Phillips will attend a
Metropolitan Planning Coalition meeting tomorrow and rural water issues will be discussed.
Council Member Orazem said he believes that Xenia is just "going to wait it out" and expect
extortionary amounts from the City. It is holding Ames from growing.
At the request of Council Member Goodman, City Attorney Parks said it would not require a lot
of staff time to investigate options.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Orazem, to refer to staff the letter from Dean Roosa and Carol
Jacobs for a waiver of subdivision regulations for property located at .
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Larson,seconded by Goodman,to request a short staff report back on the City Council
on the mosquito fogging process.
Council Member Davis suggested that a question be added to the Resident Satisfaction Survey
as to whether residents want mosquito fogging in the parks to continue.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Wacha, seconded by Orazem, to refer back to staff the memo from Planner Charlie
Kuester dated July 1,2013, pertaining to a proposed text amendment for Special Use Permits in
residential zones.
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Moved by Goodman, seconded by Wacha, to refer the email pertaining to a section of the Iowa
Constitution regarding the assumption of debts of...associations or corporations written by John
Klaus dated July 7, 2013, to staff for comment.
16