HomeMy WebLinkAboutA009 - Council Action Form dated August 12, 2014 ITEM # 41
DATE: 08-12-14
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REZONING WITH MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY AT 601 STATE
AVENUE
BACKGROUND:
At the February 3 and March 5, 2014 meetings, the Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewed a Floating Suburban Residential Medium Density (FS-RM) rezoning request
for the subject property at 601 State Avenue (South Parcel of the three Breckenridge
development properties). The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of FS-RL (Floating Suburban Residential Low Density) zoning to the City
Council with conditions limiting the development intensity of the site to 14 acres and a
maximum development intensity of 105 units. That application was withdrawn by the
applicant prior to consideration by the City Council and a revised rezoning request for
FS-RL has been submitted for the south parcel that is now before the City Council. City
Council directed on April 22nd that the applicant prepare a master plan with the new
rezoning request for this parcel.
The current rezoning request is for the 28.9 acre parcel at 601 State Avenue (South
Parcel on Attachment A). The request is to change the zoning designation from S-
GA (Special-Government/Airport) to RL (Residential Low Density) for the portions
of the property north of College Creek and FS-RL (Suburban Residential Low-
Density) for the portion of the property south of College Creek for development of
up to a maximum of 194 dwelling units. The development concept articulated by the
applicant is for a new student housing rental development with a mix of both detached
single-family dwellings and single-family attached dwellings (rowhomes). Complete
analysis of the project is included as an addendum to this report.
Based upon the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) land use designation, the site is generally
split by College Creek with approximately 1.63 acres of Low Density north of College
Creek and 27.37 acres of Village Suburban to the south. The proposed RL and FS-RL
are zoning districts that can be found to be consistent with the LUPP for the site both
north and south of the creek, respectively.
Staff notes that while most public infrastructure is adequate to serve the site, the
preliminary findings of the traffic impact analysis submitted by the applicant identify off-
site impacts of the new development. Development of this site with the cumulative
impact of development at 321 State Avenue (Middle Parcel) shows incremental impacts
to nearby intersections, specifically at the intersection of Mortensen Road and State
Avenue. The applicant has not offered mitigation for traffic impacts with the rezoning
request.
To develop the site in conformance with the proposed building types of the master plan,
the applicant will be required to complete a preliminary plat and a final plat for the
property before development of any of the proposed residential units. Because the
1
proposed rezoning request is for a mix of housing types, site plan review approval
would be required for attached single-family homes, while it would not be required for
detached single-family homes.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing for the requested rezoning
on June 4, 2014. Comments and concerns were voiced from the neighborhood
regarding issues such as traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety, impervious surface area,
slopes, storm water control, removal of wildlife habitat, expansion of the existing
conservation area, Land Use Policy, trash, and housing types. The residents' comments
also focused around the desire to have the entire property rezoned to Residential Low
Density (RL) rather than either FS-RL or FS-RM. The Commission members were sent
multiple written documents identifying the issues and concerns voiced from the
neighborhood. Those comments have been attached as a separate PDF for Council
reference.
Upon deliberation of the applicant's master plan and information at the hearing, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to deny the request for rezoning with a
vote of 3-2.
Since the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the applicant has submitted a
revised Master Plan dated, August 5, 2014. The extent of the changes to the Master
Plan since the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation includes a revised
bike trail alignment on the school property to the west, a revision to the minimum
number of units proposed for Parcel 3 from 125 to a minimum of 110 units, while
maintaining the maximum number of units at 190, removal of the denoted 100 foot
stream buffer from the Master Plan, and the addition of a 25 foot buffer along the south
property line.
For any alternative where the Council requires a master plan, the Zoning Code requires
the applicant to submit a signed zoning agreement that specifies future development will
be consistent with the approved master plan subject to consistency with Municipal
Code. Staff recommends that submission of the signed zoning agreement for the
master plan be required prior to the third reading of any ordinance rezoning the
site.
Based on staff analysis of the proposed rezoning and most current master plan
submittal, three areas of concern are noted for inclusion in a potential zoning
agreement. The items for discussion are determination on whether or not the existing
shared use path should be relocated, determination on mitigation of the off-site traffic
impact through a contribution to improvements of the State Street and Mortensen Road
intersection, and the determination of net acreage for the site to clarify the potential
range of developable units for the property.
Determination on the location of the bike path could impact the overall developable area
of the site and the required access points for the development. Without the benefit of a
more detailed site layout, it is unclear where or how many times the proposed
development may cross the existing path, which is a safety concern for the shared use
path users. A relocation as indicated on the August 5th revision to the shared use path
2
would still need to be reviewed by staff to verify acceptable location, slopes, and written
approval of the School District for the proposed realignment west of the subject site.
It has been determined there is an impact from the development at the intersection of
State Avenue and Mortensen Road. The development of the Breckenridge parcels as
described in the Traffic Impact Analysis may cause a need for the City to accelerate the
planned improvements at the intersection before the City's planned LRTP timeline.
Development of the subject site could be accountable for a portion of the improvement
needed to mitigate the impact as a condition of the rezoning.
Outlined in the project analysis section of this report is a review of the developable area
and net density calculation for the site and a difference between staff's calculation and
the applicant's request. Staff has estimated net acreage of 10-14 acres for the site
based on code allowed exceptions for constrained areas as compared to the applicant's
proposal of 21.48 net acres. Consideration is needed on development intensity based
on the overall net developable acres of the site which are determined through the
allowed exemptions for FS zoning in the Zoning Code.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres north of College
Creek from "S-GA" (Government/Airport) to "RL" Residential Low Density, and
rezoning of approximately 27.37 acres of land south of College Creek, from "S-GA"
(Govern men t/Airport) to "FS-RL" (Floating Suburban Residential Low Density), all
located at 601 State Avenue, with a signed zoning agreement prior to third reading.
This is the Applicant's requested zoning change, and is based on the
assumption that up to 190 dwelling units may be built.
2. The City Council can approve rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres north of College
Creek from "S-GA" (Government/Airport) to "RL" Residential Low Density, and
rezoning of approximately 27.37 acres south of College Creek, from "S-GA"
(Government/Airport) to "FS-RU (Floating Suburban Residential Low Density), all
located at 601 State Avenue, with a signed zoning agreement prior to third reading,
subiect to the following conditions:
a. With regards to the bike path,
i. That the shared use path remain in its current location and configuration,
OR ALTERNATELY,
ii. That the master plan include allowance for relocation of the bike path and
easement subject to the approval by the City at the time of subdivision.
b. With regards to density of development, that the developable areas of the site
be reduced to 10-14 acres based on code allowed exceptions for constrained
areas and the current configuration of the shared use path.
c. With regards to off-site traffic improvements, that the Developer agree to pay
a proportional share of the cost of traffic improvements at the intersection of
Mortensen Road and State Avenue.
3
This alternative would give direction regarding location of the bike path, would
clarify Council's agreement with staff's interpretation of the maximum density
formula, and would secure a proportional contribution to the cost of a nearby
traffic improvement that is impacted by development of this parcel.
3. The City Council can approve rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres north of College
Creek from "S-GA" (Government/Airport) to "RL" Residential Low Density, and
rezoning of approximately 27.37 acres south of College Creek, from "S-GA"
(Government/Airport) to "FS-RL" (Floating Suburban Residential Low Density), all
located at 601 State Avenue, with conditions other than those listed under
Alternative #2.
4. The City Council can deny the request for rezoning of approximately 29 acres of
land located at 601 State Avenue from "S-GA" (Government/Airport) to "RL"
(Residential Low Density) and "FS-RL" (Floating Suburban Residential Low Density).
This is the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Under
this alternative, the developer would not be able to file the same zoning
application for one year.
5. The City Council can indicate its willingness to approve rezoning of approximately
1 .63 acres north of College Creek from "S-GA" (Government/Airport) to "RL"
Residential Low Density, and rezoning of approximately 27.37 acres south of
College Creek, from "S-GA" (Government/Airport) to "F-PRD" (Planned Residencial
District).
This option would require the developer to withdraw the current rezoning
request, and to then apply for F-PRD zoning of the portion south of the creek.
Alternately, the City Council itself could initiate rezoning of this site to F-PRD.
6. Action on this request can be postponed and referred back to staff and the applicant.
Under this alternative, Council could provide direction to staff and the
applicant to confirm the desired conditions in a written zoning agreement rior
to Council approval of a rezoning ordinance. In contrast to Alternative #4, this
would avoid the requirement that one year pass before the developer can seek
FS-RL zoning of the parcel.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The proposed zoning change to FS-RL and a portion of the site as R-L is consistent
with the Land Use Policy Plan designation of Village/Suburban Residential and Low
Density Residential. Within the applicable base zoning districts, the master plan
submitted by the developer includes an estimated 21 acres as developable, which leads
to a maximum density of 194 units and 582 beds for student housing. While the
proposed zoning is consistent in its request of a base FS zoning, there are unknowns
within the rezoning and master plan related to the development intensity of the site.
4
Outstanding issues include the advisability of relocating the bike path, agreement by the
City to relocate the bike path, off-site traffic impact, lack of CyRide service for a
significant population of proposed students, and the overall design of the site in relation
to the current site constraints and the surrounding area.
To develop the site with the proposed mix of units will require subdivision review of the
property. Based on lot constraints due to undevelopable areas or protected areas of the
site, staff questions if the proposed upper range of units could even be accomplished
within requirements of subdivision design and improvement standards. Although the
applicant submitted an August 5th revision to the Master Plan since the Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing, it still does not address any revision to the overall
developable area of the site or the maximum number of units proposed to the site. For
that reason, staff does not believe the proposed master plan accounts for existing
development constraints of the site and compatibility of the proposed development to
the surrounding area.
Staff also notes that, if the master plan was to be approved with a potential rerouting of
the shared use path, the rerouting is conceptual at this stage and is still subject to City
Council agreement and approval with a subsequent subdivision. The new configuration
of the path will also require approval and granting of an easement by the School District
for the realignment of the path indicated on the Middle School property.
Since the August 5 master plan still does not adequately address the density, traffic
impact and bike path issues, staff is unable to support Alternative #1 at this time.
Staff could support Alternate #2 if two issues are resolved. First, Council would need to
give direction on location of the bike path. Second, the the developer and staff need to
resolve their varying code interpretations regarding net acreage that may be counted
towards determining maximum density. That key issue must be resolved before staff
could recommend approval of the FS-RL zoning. The developer's representatives have
verbally indicated that the bike path issue and proportional sharing of off-site
improvements may be acceptable. All of these issues should be resolved and confirmed
in writing.
If the City Council desires, it may identify other conditions that should be included in a
zoning agreement tied to FS-RL zoning. That option would build upon Alternative #3.
Alternative #4 could be approved if the Council determines that the requested zoning
and master plan is not within the public interest and does not promote the City's interest
in orderly and planned development supported by appropriate infrastructure and
development of a site accounting for its constraints. This was the recommendation of
the Planning and Zoning Commission. Infrastructure deficiencies relate to impacts on
the surrounding transportation and bus systems. Furthermore, the change could be
seen as detrimental to the general welfare of the community and surroundings in its
intensity of development with its incompatibility to the surroundings and site constraints
as shown in the layout of the master plan. Such a denial would preclude the applicant
from proposing the same zoning for this parcel for one year.
5
If the Council and the developer desire to consider a uniquely adapted zoning
designation for the parcel, then Alternative #5 could be selected. As was stated above,
this option would require the developer to withdraw the current rezoning request, and to
then apply for F-PRD zoning of the portion south of the creek. Alternately, the City
Council itself could initiate rezoning of this site to F-PRD.
Given the unresolved nature of the density interpretation issue, the bike trail location
and the developer's commitment to off-site traffic improvements, it is the
recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve Alternative #6.
Under this action, City Council would direct staff and the developer to try to resolve the
disagreement over density determination. Specific language guaranteeing proportional
responsibility for off-site improvements could be developed, and Council could give
direction regarding its preferred approach to the bike path issue. If needed, the
developer and staff could be directed to explore the impact of varying bike path
locations on user safety and on development density.
Consistent with the requirements of Section 29.1507(8), a protest of the zone change
application signed by 17 property owners representing 19 of the 31 properties within
200 feet of the subject site has been submitted to the City. As a result of this protest,
action to rezone the site to any zoning district except RL (Low Density
Residential) will require five affirmative votes by the City Council.
6
ADDENDUM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Breckenridge Group Ames Iowa, LLC initially approached the City to develop/redevelop
three parcels of land located at 205 S. Wilmoth Avenue (North Parcel), 321 State
Avenue (Middle Parcel), and 601 State Avenue (South Parcel). See Attachment A. The
three properties are currently designated as Low Density Residential or
Village/Suburban Residential in the Land Use Policy Plan. The north and south parcels
are currently zoned Special-Government/Airport (S-G/A) and the middle parcel was
recently zoned to RL (Residential Low Density). See Attachment B, Future Land Use
Map, and Attachment C, Existing Zoning Map. The development concept traditionally
used by the applicant is for a new student housing rental development that differs from
traditional apartment type student housing developments. The concept had been for
small individual buildings rather than a development of larger apartment buildings. For
this lot however, a mix of residential unit types is being identified by the applicant within
the master plan. Development of the properties requires a rezoning to allow for
development consistent with an underlying land use designation.
The first rezoning request by the applicant, which was recommended for approval by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at the meeting on January 15, 2014, was for
rezoning of 321 State Avenue, the middle parcel, to Residential Low Density. The
subject request is for rezoning of 601 State Avenue, the south parcel, from S-GA
(Special-Government/Airport) to RL (Residential Low Density) north of College
Creek and FS-RL (Floating Suburban Residential Low Density) south of College
Creek with a master plan for development of 128 to 194 dwelling units. See
Attachment D Proposed Zoning. The subject site is an undeveloped 29 acre site at 601
State Avenue (referred to herein as the south parcel). Full development potential of the
site at their maximum development based on the submitted master plan is unlikely to be
realized once site design and subdivision requirements are taken into account.
In response to the applicant's request to initiate a rezoning for the south parcel, the City
Council determined a master plan was needed to accompany this rezoning request.
City Council also recommended that staff work to facilitate a discussion with the
neighborhood and the applicant to address priorities for the development sites and the
integration of the proposed rental development into the neighborhood. A workshop was
held on May 6, 2014 to discuss the development priorities for the combination of sites
controlled by Breckenridge. The applicant has not submitted a formal application for
alternate use of the South site since the workshop.
Project Description
The rezoning request and master plan submitted for review for the south parcel are for a
RL and FS-RL development with a mix of single-family detached homes and single-
family attached units (row houses). (See Attachment F) The master plan identifies
approximately 21.48 net acres for development. The range of units �roposed for the
site based on three development parcels identified in the August 5t revision to the
master plan is between 113 and 194 units. This range of units could yield up to 582
beds for the property at a maximum of three bedrooms per unit to be rented by the
property owner.
7
The master plan indicates public street improvements for the site with access to State
Street through two points of ingress and egress to the site. The developer indicates that
parking will be provided as 90 degree on-street parking. The master plan does note the
intent for an additional access point at South Franklin if parcel #2 is developed or if
additional access is required for parcel 3, but this type of detail will be reviewed as part
a subsequent subdivision application and not as a master plan component.
The Master Plan identifies existing easements on the site including water and sewer, a
conservation easement and a bike easement. Staff notes that there appear to be some
additional mains that are not currently identified in easements which will need to be
addressed at the time of subdivision review. One such line may hinder the development
of Parcel 1 as indicated on the Master Plan.
A conservation easement, which was included on the Plat when the lot was created, is
indicated on the Master Plan and exempted from the net acreage calculation by the
applicant as required by code. A question about the validity of the easement has been
raised and staff is reviewing the claim that the easement is "expired". Staff would
request that a formal easement document for the existing Conservation Easement be
drafted and approved for the area in conjunction with any approval for rezoning of the
property to affirm the clear intent of the easement on the plat.
The applicant has also requested as part of the master plan that the existing bike trail
easement be relocated as shown in green on the August 5th revision to the master plan
to remove circulation conflicts with internal streets of the development.
Proiect Analysis
Land Use Designation/Zoning. The subject parcel was included within the citywide
Land Use Policy Plan map amendment study for assigning government land a land use
designation for future reuse. The City Council adopted a resolution changing this site
from Government use to Village Suburban Residential on February 26, 2008. The
alternative approved by City Council was to extend the village/suburban designation for
residential development in response to a general interest to provide for more single-
family home development opportunities in support of the neighborhood and school
district interests.
The current LUPP future land use designation for the subject site is represented as split
by College Creek. It is Low Density on two areas north of the creek, development parcel
1 along South Wilmoth and development parcel 2 at the end of the South Franklin
ROW. Development parcels 1 and 2 total 1.63 acres. The subject site is also designated
as Village Suburban Residential on all areas south of College Creek for a total of 19.85
acres. See Attachment D.
The Low-Density Residential designation of the LUPP is intended for such uses as
single-family residential with the Residential Low Density (RL) zone and compatible with
the adjacent established neighborhood. Rezoning development parcels 1 and 2 to RL
8
will limit the areas to single-family residential dwellings with a maximum density of 7.26
dwelling units per acre.
The Village Suburban designation is intended for one of two types of development.. the
village concept or the suburban residential concept. Suburban residential developments
are intended for remaining in-fill areas and new lands area where the village residential
development is not chosen. Suburban residential designated areas are anticipated to
develop similar to past residential development patterns, such that it is generally a
singular residential use pattern with little design integration as compared to a village.
This concept generally requires that landscape buffering be used as a separation of
land use types. The LUPP intends for Suburban Residential, however while vehicular
focused, to provide for improved pedestrian connection to parks, schools and open
space areas using such amenities as sidewalks on both sides of the street, bike
connections, and open space area. It is also required that the conservation of
designated natural resources areas, such as designated environmental sensitive areas,
be protected through design features incorporated into the development. The
requested rezoning from the current Government/Airport (S-GA) to the
Residential Low Density (RL) and Floating Suburban Residential Low Density (FS-
RL) zone is consistent with the intent of the LUPP designation.
The rezoning request to the FS-RL zone could allow for a development with a mix of
single family and single-family attached (12 units or less), which is in line with the use
types currently requested by the applicant. The code will require that each single-family
detached and single-family attached unit be constructed on an individual lot as
established through the requirements of subdivision.
The density range established for the FS-RL zone is 3.75 units per acre to 10 units to
net acre. Based on the applicant's calculation of developable area as the net acreage
(21 .48 acres), the minimum number of units under an FS-RL zoning could be 80 to 214,
after exempting out undevelopable areas for floodplain, the conservation easement
area, and the existing bike trail easement.
Staff analysis supports additional areas of land being exempted from the
developable area and taken out of the net density calculation, thereby reducing
the buildable acreage of the site to approximately 10-14 acres. The FS Zoning
District supplemental development standards within Table 29.1202(6) describe types of
constraints that may be exempted for a net acreage calculation, such as areas of right-
of-way, areas of steep slopes, detention/retention areas, and the area within the 100
foot stream buffer as required exceptions from the density calculation. However, at the
master plan level, those areas have not all been identified as undevelopable and would
be further refined with subdivision.
With staff's limited data on topography of the site, staff has conservatively
calculated net developable acreage accounting for steep slopes greater than 15%
would allow for approximately 10-14 acres of developable area, not all of which
would be considered contiguous. Most of this developable area would be
concentrated on the eastern 1/3 of the site with other scattered pockets.
Additional limitations on developable area would also occur if the City does not
9
agree to move the bike path. With 14 acres of developable area, the minimum
development requirement would be 54 units up to a maximum of 140 units. This is
substantially less that the range of development identified by the applicant. The
number of units could additionally be reduced based on the location of the bike
path as well as the design constraints which will be identified during the
subdivision process.
Planned Residential Development zoning is also provided for in the LUPP and the
zoning code. Property developed according to the F-PRD (Planned Residence District)
requirements is to allow for innovative housing types and create a development pattern
that is more aesthetic in design and sensitive to the natural features of the site and to
surrounding uses of land than would customarily result from the application of the
requirements of other residential zoning districts. Development is to include a mix of
housing types, integrated design, open space, site amenities, and landscaping that
exceeds the requirements that exist in other residential zone development standards. If
the City Council determines that a PRD is suitable for the site, and if that zoning is
acceptable to the developer, then a major site development plan would be required
before F-PRD zoning could be approved for the property.
Existing Land Use. Land uses that occupy the subject property and other surrounding
properties are described in the following table:
Direction from Existing Land Uses/
Subject Property Ownership of Properties
Subject Property Vacant
Breckenridge Ames Iowa, LLC
Single Family Homes/Former Ames Middle School
North Rental and Owner Occupied/Breckenridge Ames Iowa,
LLC
East Undeveloped Park and Open Space
Iowa State University
South Undeveloped Park and Open Space
Iowa State University
Single-Family Homes/ Current Middle School Site
West Rental and Owner Occupied/Ames Community School
District
Access. The master plan submitted indicates two access points to the site along State
Avenue. Public streets are noted in the submitted master plan documents. However,
identification of public streets is not a required element of the master plan submittal by
the zoning code and would typically be addressed at the time of subdivision. Provision
of parking on the public streets is also noted on the master plan and that too would be
evaluated with a subsequent preliminary plat application. Two points of access will be
required to serve the site and meet Fire Code access requirements upon development
of the site. Based on the two access points proposed, staff notes a concern for safety of
the bike trail crossing. The proposed relocation would mitigate most of these concerns
for the developer. However, at this time staff has not fully evaluated the desirability and
10
feasibility of reconstructing the path with steeper grades down to the creek channel and
back to State Street.
Infrastructure. The subject area is an undeveloped lot. Public utility mains for water
and sewer are immediately adjacent to the subject property. Utility connections and
storm water management will be verified at the time of site development based on the
use(s) and site layout proposed. It is noted that some existing water and sewer mains
exist within the site. The location and easements for each will need to be verified at the
time of subdivision for the site when design and layout is better understood. This
affects the areas north of the creek and their viability for construction of homes.
Electric service will need to be run to the site, potentially from the intersection of State
Avenue and Mortenson Road. Any costs associated with getting electric service to the
site will need to be reviewed for the property at the time of development.
Transportation Impacts. The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) currently does
not plan for any new residential units within the areas of the previous school district
owned sites as they were government owned and not expected for near term
development when it was adopted. The traffic impact analysis submitted by the
applicant is intended to identify areas of increased traffic for vehicular movements at
surrounding major intersections based on the projected number of new residential units
for the sites. The City considers operational capacity at intersections when evaluating
the effectiveness of the transportation network. The LUPP Transportation Chapter
targets Level of Service (LOS) "C" for intersections.
The applicant intends to develop the existing vacant site with the noted potential mix of
uses ranging from 113 to 194 residential units for student housing rentals at 601 State
Avenue. The applicant's traffic study accounted for 570 bedrooms or approximately 200
units, depending on type. The traffic study also accounted for the pending rezoning of
321 State Avenue and considered the combined impacts of both projects. The applicant
appropriately used assumptions of trips per person rather than units because of the
intention for the development as student housing versus standard single-family homes.
The applicant then applied a 20% discount in trip generation due to expected lower car
utilization based on a survey of parking utilization at Campus Crest Communities
apartments on South 161h Street in Ames. While staff does not concur with the method
for creating the 20% trip reduction, the overall results of the study do demonstrate the
expected magnitude of impacts of cumulative development of the south and middle
parcels.
City staff provided the trip distribution for the new development based upon the City's
traffic model. The applicant then added their new project trips with a generalized
distribution to the existing traffic counts in order to estimate operational levels at the
time the development is built. Based on the submitted traffic impact analysis, there are
some off-site impacts of the new development when considered in conjunction with the
pending south site rezoning application. The highest level of impact is to the
intersection of Mortensen Road and State Avenue during the PM Peak Hour
where service degrades by one level.
11
Under current conditions, the unsignalized Mortensen and State intersection operates at
the cusp of acceptable delay. With the proposed project there is a significant increase in
the delay for certain traffic movements at the intersection and a worsening of conditions.
The conclusions drawn by the applicant's engineer indicate that the decreased level of
service shown from the inclusion of the proposed development increase is not a
significant change from existing conditions to warrant any mitigation on behalf of the
development. Staff does not concur with these findings about mitigation, since
the change in level of service is an effect of the development.
Derived from a needs assessment done for the current LRTP, a planned improvement
for this intersection of a roundabout would mitigate the projected project impacts of both
321 and 601 State Avenue. The existing conditions of the intersection do show a need
for improvement and it is identified on a LRTP priority list for improvement within the 10-
year planning cycle. However the current priorities do not show the improvement
planned in the current 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The development of
these parcels as described in the TIA may cause a need for the City to accelerate the
planned improvements before the City's planned LRTP timeline. Development of the
subject site could be accountable for a portion of the improvement needed to
mitigate the impact as a condition of the rezoning as the City has not planned for
this improvement in the near term.
Existing transit service to the general area occurs by way of existing routes and stops
on Lincoln Way. These routes are approximately 2,000 feet from developable area on
the edge of the site along State Street. CyRide has provided comment that service in
the area is already at capacity. CyRide also indicated they would not alter routes to
provide service on State Avenue for direct service to the site. CyRide does not currently
have the financial means necessary to increase the level of service to the area with bus
capacity or routes to accommodate the cumulative increase of new development in the
area. Even with a large concentration of student housing on this site that would need
and desire bus service, there is unlikely to be public bus service in the near future.
Goals of the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP). Several of the ten goal statements of the
LUPP speak indirectly to this request for rezoning. However, Goal No. 5 seems to
address the rezoning proposal most directly since it states that "it is the goal of Ames to
establish a cost-effective and efficient growth pattern for development in new areas and
in a limited number of existing areas for intensification." Objective 5.C.states: "Ames
seeks continuance of development in emerging and infill areas where there is existing
public infrastructure and where capacity permits."
Applicable Laws and Policies. The City of Ames laws and policies that are applicable
to this proposed rezoning are included in (Attachment F).
Applicant's Statements. The applicant has provided a description of the proposed
rezoning with master plan request (See Attachment G).
Findings of Fact. Based upon an analysis of the proposed rezoning and laws pertinent
to the applicant's request, staff makes the following findings of fact that may be
incorporated into final decision on the project:
12
1. The subject site is a vacant lot zoned S-GA. S-GA allows for uses associated with
federal, state, county, school districts, or municipal governmental authorities, such
as publically owned facilities used for administration, services or general aviation
functions.
2. Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1507(2) allows owners of 50 percent or more of
the area of the lots in any district desired for rezoning to file an application
requesting that the City Council rezone the property. The property represented by
the applicant is entirely under one ownership representing 100 percent of the
property requested for rezoning.
3. The subject property has been designated on the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP)
Future Land Use Map as "Residential Low Density" north of College Creek and
"Village/Suburban Residential' south of College Creek. The City completed an
analysis of government lands in 2008 and designated this site accordingly to
accommodate a desired increase in low-density single-family development and for
compatibility with surrounding neighborhood.
4. The LUPP identifies a greenway overlay across the site in support of the natural
area of College Creek and the existing bike trail.
5. The "Village/Suburban Residential" land use designation supports multiple zoning
district choices. The proposed "Suburban Residential Floating Residential Low
Density" (FS-RL) zoning designation request for the site for areas south of College
Creek. Under "FS-RL" zoning the proposed uses as identified in the master plan
are permitted. The applicant will be required to subdivide the property through a
preliminary and final plat to allow for each single-family attached residential unit to
be located on individual lots.
6. Ames Municipal Code Sec. 29.1507(5) requires approval of a zoning agreement
for an application with a master plan and that all subsequent development comply
with the master plan.
7. Public infrastructure is generally available to serve the proposed development and
pending development. However, the project contributes incremental negative
impacts to intersection operations in the area of the site and contributes additional
riders to the bus system that currently operates at capacity.
8. Development of the project would accelerate the need to implement traffic
mitigation at the intersection of Mortensen and State that is not programmed
within the City's Capital Improvement Plan.
9. CyRide bus service does not have a route in service or planned for convenient
access to the site.
10. The City owns an easement for a bike trail used for recreation and transportation
purposes through the site and connects across State Street at the middle of the
13
site. Development around the bike path would negatively affect safety for users if
crossed frequently by vehicles. Development surrounding the path would
negatively affect its setting within a natural area as a greenway amenity.
11 . The site includes a number of natural constraints to development that include a
flood plain, natural areas, creek channel, and a substantial amount of acreage of
the site in excess of 15 percent slopes. Development of these areas would be
disruptive to the setting of the site and require substantial engineering and grading
to manage stormwater runoff and soil stability for appropriate building sites of
homes.
Public Notice. Notice was mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the rezoning
area and a sign was posted on the subject property.
14
Attachment A
Location Map
c 4
L'YCOI N YJAY L; J -
+e..�. � _.,....« � k. ."' li:r. i Y. 4.� •fir - ri
kA
North Parcel r
205 S. Wilmoth �+ r 4 _
L�{(i 'r
LLI :.., , ` S 4 ► ^: , A'�)ti i:'"'. ►.:', Middle Parcel - r "A1.
321 State Avenue tL }.
r, f
rn
1, .;r J a � • r�. �` '� #{��-
IL
•'' err.;. -•� •�_ •,r-_6.1•�� `1r ,�•"'' -,= -- .;�y1•�, 7�
,� a- `' - •�. A? a n'
l >
us—
♦ �y
Subject Site 1
y;. •. South Parcel
601 State Avenue 5 �-
•r
Location Map
Breckenridge Development Properties
15
Attachment B
LUPP Future Land Use Map
O =
zW O� =} -
a �Q .._
'YCOI IJ WAV U L.hC01 V'::!•.Y ` Y+r�� .'NAYLN D&COLN WAY U
Highway-Oriented Commercial - ��►q117701—cW
W
\, I J a a
y'ij n n
WOOLI ST
i
North Parcel _ L
}. a 205 S. Wilill �� i Q
_ LETiIE ST LEFTY Sr
<' f •4
U
L zW
w T?
c
Parks and Open Space = (ARBO*SIA","
Parks and Open Space
TRIPP ST TRIPP ST to TRIPP ST p p
p > -.i. o - TRIPP ST _
a Middle Parcel Z
— y 2, 321 State Avenue
Q
Low-Density Residential
VILLAGE
0 VIR
2 = ? r
N N
COY ST COY ST ♦�'�
MORNINGSIDE ST O�I w
i� %Aw
C
R h
Al
Subject Site
t South Parcel
601 State Avenue
i
Village/Suburban Residen.ial
Existing Land Use Policy Plan Map A m e 5
Breckenridge Development Properties
16
Attachment C
Existing Zoning
RH
HOC LINGO LN WAY LINCO LN WAY LINGO LN WAY LINCOLN VVAY LINCOLN WAY
T�X :1
W RH
Q w
:L ffl
O RL WOOD ST
Z E w
J J Z J
Q
i &GA
Q h 1 w
LL _
N 205 S. Wilmoth Ave. LETTIE ST a
(North Parcel)
w 2
S GA 'aI z
w I =. ARBOR ST ARE ST
4
r�
OZ FT-- 2.:
V a
O
x
a I � N
TRIPP ST TRIPP ST TRIPP ST -
W TRIPP ST
w 'a ° w PL 321 State Avenue
a W 73
o (Middle Parcel)
a < RL Rezoned to RL in Jan. 2014
J p = 3
LL �
h N
VILLAGE DR w
o w
4 ft d
z a =
Y r
O
Q J
� = J
W
W
COYST COYST
MORN INGSIDE ST
m
RN1 / 1
S-GA
601 State Avenue
(South Parcel)
W.
Existing Zoning Map
17
Attachment D
Proposed Zoning
- -STORYST I STORYST Q I -
,1 i - ..� ,- ---• ` - I ! �j --. O- it ! I J�-I r---
fsTORY S f- - STORYST- I-- -- -�--
205 S. Wilmoth — I4. � ;RL' ; RH
North Parcel --
Pending RL Zoning Request °� 6
_
LINGOL Y ----UNCOLN WAY- -- - LINCOLN WAY Li NCOLN WAY LINCOLN WAY'
-�--HOC---W RH L' —_M
_
i O - - -
� w W-OO.hST
RL
NL.LL_
G CIl
d� EIBOR.ST .ARBOR'ST ARBORST
z rc o;
Y
FS-RM �L- ;- J
TRIPP ST------- -w.---TRIPP ST --
�f o' ---- -TRIPPST u, 321 State Avenue
a M! RL Middle Parcel
a RL ~ I 0 Rezoned to RL in Jan. 2014
LU
Q!
FS-RL_. I —� a.
— o -
zi
LL =
N • 1-J�N w
COYST--- COYST - w S-G A
=RM
NgRNINGSIDEST w^ T III
RL 601 State Avenue
—]
South Parcel
Pending RL and FS-RL Zonin=Request
FS-RL
I
� N
0 200 400 800
' Proposed Zoning
I �
18
Attachment E
Code Requirements for a master plan
Per Section 29.1507(4): master plan Submittal Requirements:
a. Name of the applicant and the name of the owner of record.
b. Legal description of the property.
c. North arrow, graphic scale, and date.
d. Existing conditions within the proposed zoning boundary and within 200 feet of
the proposed zoning boundary: Project boundary; all internal property
boundaries; public rights-of-way on and adjacent to the site, utilities; easements;
existing structures; topography (contours at two-foot intervals); areas of different
vegetation types; designated wetlands; flood plain and floodway boundaries;
areas designated by the Ames Land Use Policy Plan as Greenways and
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
e. Proposed zoning boundary lines.
f. Outline and size in acres of areas to be protected from impacts of development
g. Outline and size in acres of areas proposed of each separate land use and for
each residential unit type
h. Pattern of arterial streets and trails and off-site transportation connections
i. For proposed residential development provide the number of unit type for each
area, expressed in a range of the minimum to maximum number to be developed
in each area
j. For proposed residential development provide a summary table describing all
uses of the total site area, including the number of units per net acre for each unit
type and each zoning area.
19
Attachment F
Applicable Laws and Policies
The laws applicable to the proposed rezoning at 321 State Avenue are as follows:
• Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) Goals, Policies and the Future Land Use Map:
The Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) Future Land Use Map identifies the land use
designations for the property proposed for rezoning.
• Ames Municipal Code Chapter 29, Section 1507, Zoning Text and Map Amendments,
includes requirements for owners of land to submit a petition for amendment, a
provision to allow the City Council to impose conditions on map amendments,
provisions for notice to the public, and time limits for the processing of rezoning
proposals.
• Ames Municipal Code Chapter 29, Section 701, Residential Low Density (RL) Zone,
includes a list of uses that are permitted in the Residential Low Density zoning district
and the zone development standards that apply to properties in that zone.
• Ames Municipal Code Chapter 29, Section 1200, Floating Zones, includes a list of
uses that are permitted in the Village Residential, Suburban Residential and Planned
Residential zoning districts and the zone development standards that apply to
properties in those zones.
20
PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION PACKET-FLOODING AND WILDLIFE
By Michael K. Petersen (5-21-14)
1. Members of the Ames Planning&Zoning Commission. My name is Michael Petersen. I have lived at
3302 Morningside St. in Ames for almost 44 years. I am a member of the CC/OAMS NA. I am here
to present some concerns regarding potential effects that Breckenridge's proposal to have
particularly the south parcel re-zoned to FS-RL,would have on the environmentally sensitive south
parcel, as well as other effects on the two remaining parcels and on the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
2. According to Breckenridge Plan S, made in July 2013,the amount of impermeable surface on the
south parcel would be almost 316,000 SF with their proposed 118 units. Increasing the units to
275,which they could do under FS-RL with City Staff recommendations (2-3-14) in their P&Z
"Commission Action Report", using city net acres without the city recommended limit of 7.26
units/ac,has the potential to increase the impermeable surface up to 2.33 times (275/118)ABOVE
the previously stated estimates [2.33 x 315,797 SF = 735,897 SF or 16.89 ac], including about
23,000 SF (— 0.5 ac) of impermeable surface from proposed Lots 3 &4 and an access alley in the
NW corner of the south parcel. All told,up to S8% (16.89 ac/29 ac) of the entire south parcel could
potentially be covered with impermeable surface. Another proposal numbering up to 510 beds
could potentially result in even more impermeable surface. I realize they cannot build right down
to College Creek, but is overwhelming to imagine even 40 - 50% of the south parcel covered with
impermeable surface, and the resulting runoff during heavy rains. Soil compaction caused by heavy
construction machinery will result in additional impermeable surface near buildings and parking
lots. At least four residents in the middle and north parcel areas (especially on Hilltop Rd.and
Wilmoth Ave.) frequently have water in their basements because of poor drainage/existing high
water tables,which may be further exacerbated if proper mitigation measures are not undertaken
by the developer. All three parcels ultimately drain in to College Creek. Breckenridge has never
told anyone how it plans to mitigate the extra runoff that would be caused by the added
impermeable surfaces.
From data 1 have previously presented (my personal observations and Iowa DNR animal species
lists), 144 total vertebrate species, including 77 endangered,threatened, rare, and species of
concern would have approximately 60% of their habitat in the immediate vicinity of the south
parcel development eliminated and/or damaged by the 118-unit(Plan S). With 275 units,that
wildlife habitat could potentially be reduced to 43% (118/27S) of that existing in and next to the
275-unit plan. With a S10-bed site,the amount of wildlife habitat could be potentially reduced
even further. Again, Breckenridge has revealed NO plan on how they intend to mitigate the loss of
critical wildlife habitat and wildlife that will result from their development. The P&Z Commission
and City Council have on file a 43-page document consisting of my personal observations from 44
years on animals in the area and the Iowa DNR Iowa Wildlife Action Plan.that discusses
endangered,threatened, rare and species of concern.
4. Paraphrasing the Ames Suburban Residential Floating Zone Supplemental Standards, net acres
shall be determined by subtracting areas having 10% or greater slopes. The following slide clearly
demonstrates that Breckenridge has plans to develop several areas that have 9-14% and 18-25%
slopes in the south parcel as determined by the Story County Soil Survey. How can they reconcile
violating Ames Suburban Supplemental Development Standards that are designed to protect
potentially erodible soils?
S. The current Ames LUPP Visions and Goals seek to provide biodiversity through the inclusion of
plant and animal habitats by enhancing the value of its stream corridors and the linking of existing
greenways. As cities continue to grow, critical wildlife habitat is increasingly being eliminated. The
city of Ames has a unique opportunity to preserve some remaining wildlife habitat that is essential
for a number of species that are in jeopardy of their numbers being depleted further. Preservation
will afford ALL citizens of Ames the chance to experience the high quality of life that is provided
when they come into contact with the natural environment.
6. I refer you to a map of an extended conservation easement covenant proposal from our
neighborhood. We have informed Ames City Parks& Recreation and Ames City Planning and
Housing of our desire to have the existing conservation easement/floodplain be enlarged. The
current conservation easement/floodplain is approximately 7 acres in size. We propose extending
the easement size by 11 acres, for a total of 18 acres. A 30,000 SF area of wildlife habitat in the NW
corner of the south parcel (including the fence row of trees between the middle and south parcels)
would be eliminated and/or severely damaged by construction of Lots 3 &4 and the access alley.
Similar wildlife habitat would be eliminated or severely damaged in a 1.44-ac area just south of
Franklin St. The proposed extension would help protect the wildlife and habitat from future
development, and it would mesh perfectly with the intent of the LUPP Visions and Goals that
promote a high quality of life for ALL Ames citizens. Ames Parks and Recreation has projected a
desire to increase the amount of open spaces/natural areas from the current 225 acres to over 300
acres. The larger conservation easement would help the City of Ames toward this goal.
7. Very few citizens in Ames have voiced support for this project during a year and a half of public
hearings. I urge you as an important city commission to recommend that the Ames City Council
zone all THREE parcels as only RL and subdivision compliant. This will help promote single-family
dwellings, each one on a single lot,which will attract a diverse and heterogeneous population
rather than a homogeneous student-only population and the attendant problems that type of
development will cause. This recommendation will also help protect an environmentally sensitive
ecosystem to a greater degree than if the area was zoned FS-RM.
8. Thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns and to have a voice in city government.
A
Q. S lam
c°
+} E <"•
�z�w.ccrso�•<k:s-�:.�:�as�c�.c..ciera...8s.-xr•..�*x.:.:..�w�cL°.s�-,2
7M11 i_�a V•4�L V' � � l
1
w ttn�
-
,r �c 4
r F _
..r � :- a.%r...�J�•r.ari .gwvMr.�.+ _ �' k j. V
lot 0 �.�
. - •01�}It�•flJi'�1c'Kpy43�'4'Sl."JA. �.`�
P n .`-��-.....�....•..�.. ..�,.+..a.-..-. -1 j.�[.w.•..+.f.s-••.- -;, .-. .. 1. .- - �. ��i��.�r1�ttl,,;S 7a-�_�i.,.. a. r�-1�..•'._�.i e.. ��e�.
CC/GAMS Proposed South Parcel Conservation Easement
includes existing woodlands, steep slopes
3NOZ V9 S r
. '►~ �. F „ �:- J. y 3NOZ WH + JNOZ I ' N" )
_ 3AV NIIHNVkIJ Slot
-
. - � � nw.atLwae l,tiv to•\ � �ii-��!1[�. ��. �i ', •.y
I ,...... .- as aoLiizH
`' \ 3HO2111
,...,, � - - •-„ram ��t- F
-.4x l
jr
. -'1•,� ``(� ••tr... -- 3AV IilOW71M S
3NOZ V 9'S . '. - !,+�,a:c a,>.rav•
sir"00[t-lMn1iN7
� Mlb 71IIIY � :1
� 1 F• vu. ■a„tin.ew u
�.. •an, m wuwauw.,a .
C � Data.tar.rn
I p I 1 j�qt
1
I
1 '
a. 3AV 31VLS
DO NOT WRITE IN THE SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE,RESERVED FOR RECORDER
Prepared by:Judy K.Parks,Ames City Attorney,515 Clark Avenue,Ames,IA 50010 Phone:515-239-5146
Return to:Ames City Clerk,P.O.Box 811,Ames,IA 50010 Phone:515 239-S1D5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF AMES,IOWA,AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 29.301 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES,IOWA,BY CHANGING THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED AND SHOWN ON
SAID MAP AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 29.1507 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES,IOWA;REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES
AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Ames, Iowa;
Section 1: The Official Zoning Map of the City of Ames, Iowa, as provided for in
Section 29.301 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa, is amended by changing the
boundaries of the districts established and shown on said Map in the manner authorized by
Section 29.1507 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ames,Iowa,as follows: That the real estate,
generally located at 601 State Avenue, is rezoned with a Master Plan from Special
Government/Airport(S-GA)to Residential Low Density(RL)and Floating Suburban Residential
Low Density(FS-RL).
Real Estate Description:North Tract: That part of Lot 2,Ames Middle School 2003,Plat
2 lying North of the centerline of an existing creek and being more particularly described as
follows: Beginning at the Northeast Corner of said Lot 2; thence S00°48'56"E, 97.42 feet
along the East line thereof to the approximate centerline of said creek;thence following said
line S79°47'00"W, 67.81 feet; thence N61°44'50"W, 133.74 feet; thence S27°29'01"W,
217.58 feet; thence S62°33'38"W, 122.40 feet; thence S06°19'30"E, 90.87 feet; thence
S74°57'15"W, 150.40 feet; thence S32°58'47"W, 79.43 feet; thence S89°05'41"W, 61.87
feet; thence S76°47'10"W, 218.20 feet; thence S63°12'57"W, 133.13 feet; thence
S42°05'28"W, 125.26 feet;thence N89°34'38"W,239.77 feet;thence N59°27'19"W, 195.77
feet to the West line of said Lot 2;thence N00°15'00"W, 123.82 feet to the Northwest Corner
thereof, thence following the boundary of said Lot 2 S89°10'19"E, 210.71 feet; thence
S89°14'16"E, 665.23 feet; thence N00°18'11"W, 125.01 feet; thence S89°22'29"E, 27.50
feet; thence N00°18'11"W, 342.83 feet; thence N88°29'30"E, 555.97 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 242400.13 s.f.
South Tract:
That part of Lot 2,Ames Middle School 2003,Plat 2 lying South of the centerline of
an existing creek and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at
the Northeast Corner of said Lot 2; thence S00°48'56"E, 97.42 feet along the East
line thereof to the point of beginning; thence continuing S00°48'56"E, 396.10 feet;
thence S06°31'20"E, 200.95 feet; thence S00°47'57"E, 300.01 feet; thence
S06°33'03"E, 167.66 feet to the Southeast Corner of said Lot 2; thence
N89°08'56"W, 1507.08 feet to the Southwest Comer thereof,thence N00°15'00"W,
543.21 feet along the West line thereof to the approximate centerline of said creek;
thence following said line S59°27'19"E, 195.77 feet; thence S89°34'38"E, 239.77
feet; thence N42°05'28"E, 125.26 feet; thence N63012'57"E, 133.13 feet; thence
N76°47'10"E, 218.20 feet; thence N89"05'41"E, 61.87 feet; thence N32°58'47"E,
79.43 feet; thence N74°57'15"E, 150.40 feet; thence N06°19'30"W, 90.87 feet;
thence N62°33'38"E, 122.40 feet; thence N27°29'01"E, 217.58 feet; thence
S61°44'50"E, 133.74 feet;thence N79°47'00"E,67.81 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 1020749.98 s.f.
Section 2: All other ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
Section 3: This ordinance is in full force and effect from and after its adoption and
publication as provided by law.
ADOPTED THIS day of ,
Diane R. Voss, City Clerk Ann H. Campbell, Mayor
2