HomeMy WebLinkAboutA004 - Council Action Form dated October 13, 2015 ITEM #: 45
DATE: 10-13-15
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
REQUEST: REZONE FROM "HOC" (HIGHWAY-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL) TO
"RH" (RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY) THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
516 S. 17T" STREET.
BACKGROUND:
The subject site is approximately 12 acres and had a Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP)
amendment approved one year ago on October 14, 2014 that changed the site from
Highway Oriented Commercial to Residential High Density on the Future Land Use
Map. At the time of the LUPP Amendment, a number of details about the ability to
develop the site were deferred until consideration of a rezoning request.
The initial applicant for the LUPP amendment for the rezoning of the site was Roers
Investments. Roers is no longer pursuing rezoning of the site and Scott Randall, owner
of the property, wishes to proceed with the rezoning request as the applicant
(developer). Details of the project have changed with the change of developer. There is
no longer a defined project for construction accompanying the request. The
current proposal by Mr. Randall is for a maximum 209 apartment units versus 272
apartment units that were proposed by Roers. The number of bedrooms will be less as
well, but is not precisely estimated at this time by the developer. The reduction in units
is an effort by the applicant to mitigate some of the traffic impacts of the development.
The subject property is an undeveloped parcel accessed through the Aspen Business
Park from the west end of S. 17th Street. The site is located between U. S. Highway 30
and S. 16th Street. (see Attachment A-Existing Zoning Map). Property to the north and
to the west of the site has been developed with apartments (Pheasant Run, The Grove,
and Copper Beech) and property to the east of the site has been developed with an
office business park (Aspen Business Park).
The developer has no specific building project for the site, but has submitted "Concept
Plan A," (see Attachment D) as a potential way to subdivide the site (Note there is no
approval of the concept with the rezoning request). An outlot is shown as reserved for
future street right-of-way to accommodate the future extension of S. 17t" Street to S.
Grand Avenue. On these four proposed lots, the developer proposes to construct 209
units total with a mix of 2, 3 and 4-bedroom apartment units. An exact design or mix of
units is not known at this time. Staff estimates that a typical non-student oriented
development may average 2-1/2 bedrooms per unit and this would yield 523
bedrooms with 209 units. The developer's intent is to develop apartments marketed
to all types of tenants, but not exclusively designed for students. Plans are to lease
apartments by the unit, as opposed to leasing each bedroom separately. Leasing would
occur throughout the year, without a required August to August lease, and without being
pre-furnished.
Additionally, City Council directed on January 13, 2015, to include with each zoning
1
application a Residential High Density Evaluation checklist as a measure of a project's
LUPP consistency. The RH checklist reviews topics of Location/Surroundings; Site
Features; Housing Variety/Design; Transportation; Utility; Investment/Catalyst (See
Attachment F). A full evaluation of the request is included in the addendum.
At the time of the analysis for the LUPP Amendment, staff identified issues
pertaining to traffic, transit, and access to S. 16th Street. Developer's approach to
mitigate transportation issues is to reduce density and construct a turn lane in place of
an existing boulevard at the stop controlled intersection of Golden Aspen Drive and S.
16th Street, as well as pavement markings for turn lanes at the intersection of S. Kellogg
Avenue and S. 16th Street.
Damion Pregitzer, Traffic Engineer for the City of Ames, has requested that the
Developer complete a Traffic Impact Letter (TIL), as specified in the Iowa Department of
Transportation traffic impact guidelines. Much of the traffic information needed by the
City has been prepared by the traffic consultant for the Developer; however, it needs to
be formalized into a final report summarized as a TIL. The TIL can make
recommendations for what improvements are reasonable and appropriate for this
change in zoning. This is where the Developer can describe the anticipated connection
to S. Grand Avenue and to the traffic signal at S. 16th Street in the future, along with any
other engineering considerations in the narrative regarding the mitigations proposed to
address traffic concerns.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation. At a public hearing on August
5, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (3-0, Abstain:
Wannemuehler) of the proposed rezoning, subject to the following items to be included
in a Development Agreement, as conditions of approval of the rezoning request:
A. The developer is responsible for the installation and cost of construction of
traffic improvements, at the intersection of S. 16th Street and Golden Aspen
Drive for either an additional lane or traffic signal based upon warrant
analysis. The timing for construction and the extent of such traffic
improvements will be at the direction of the City.
B. Create a deed restricted no-build area approved by the Public Works Director
in the southwest corner of the site for future South Grand extension.
C. Reservation of future street right-of-way for the future extension of S. 17th
Street to the west property line.
D. Leasing terms to lease by the unit and timing of leasing.
E. Development intensity limited to 209 units and 525 bedrooms, pending
acceptance of traffic mitigation by the Public Works Director.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can hold the public hearing and direct staff to return with a
signed development agreement reflecting the conditions recommended by the
Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the first reading of the ordinance for the
proposed rezoning from "HOC" (Highway-Oriented Commercial) to "RH"
(Residential High Density) for the property located at 516 S. 17th Street.
With this option, the developer would commit to defining the project and
mitigating impacts as described above or with any additional conditions
added by Council. This option would be accomplished as a contract
rezoning.
2. The City Council can hold the public hearing and approve on first reading the
request for rezoning from "HOC" (Highway-Oriented Commercial) to "RH"
(Residential High Density) for the property located at 516 S. 17th Street.
With this option the rezoning would be approved with no conditions.
3. The City Council can deny the request for rezoning of the property located at 516
S. 17th Street, if the City Council finds that the project is not consistent City's
regulations and policies.
Council would choose this option if it does believe it is the right timing for
development of the site or there is not adequate information about the
request to determine it meets the City's interests.
4. The City Council can refer the rezoning request back to City staff and/or the
applicant for additional information.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City has recently experienced a strong growth in the construction of apartments
over the past five years. This has been a product of high enrollment growth at ISU, job
growth, and a high desirability for Ames by retirement age households. In response, the
City has had multiple requests for new RH development through LUPP amendments
and rezoning, including the subject site.
The subject site was granted an LUPP Amendment in October 2014 with expressed
concerns about the timing of development of the site. Specific issues concerned direct
site access and transportation capacity that needed to be addressed before rezoning.
The applicant has partially addressed these interests as described in this report. The
applicant has minimized density to reduce traffic impacts for Golden Aspen with
construction of a turn lane with the stop sign, rather than pursuing signalizing the
intersection. However, the applicant has been unable to secure direct vehicular or
pedestrian access to S. 16th Street.
Review of the RH Checklist indicates the site has a variable mix of high and low ratings.
The main areas with low ratings are transportation access and lack of details on
project design and building types because it is a straight rezoning request. The
transportation ratings are low for the site due to lack of general connectivity and transit
services. Despite the findings of the applicant's traffic study that most intersections are
not significantly impacted by the project's development, staff finds the study shows
there are incremental impacts to multiple intersections in the area with some exceeding
the City's Level of Service (LOS) C requirements. The site has limited walkable access
to neighborhood service, but does have fairly high access to employment areas in the
immediate vicinity of the site. The developer believes that transit access is not a priority
to the site since it is not intended to be student oriented. Staff rates the project as low
for housing variety, since that full details are not available on the complete design and
layout of the site and buildings as they seek rezoning entitlement.
The question of the rezoning is its timing as was indicated in the LUPP amendment
process. There are outstanding issues the developer has not been able to address that
would help support the rezoning to RH. The chief issues that are unaddressed are the
desired north access to S. 16th Street and information about the design of the project.
Questions about these issues would support rejecting the rezoning request as it could
be determined that zoning is premature without the beneficial resolution to these issues.
Although staff strongly favors that the direct access north to S. 16th Street be present
before development, the site may operate acceptably with the reduced density and
minor traffic improvements. Reducing density is probably not a good long term strategy
for meeting our ongoing housing needs, but seems to be acceptable in this
circumstance. Therefore, the City Manager recommends Alternative #1, that the
City Council hold the public hearing and give direction to staff on the
Development Agreement for a contract rezoning in accordance with the Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommendations, prior to holding the first reading of
the ordinance for the proposed rezoning.
4
ADDENDUM
APPLYING THE RH SITE EVALUATION TOOL:
(see Attachment F—RH Site Evaluation Matrix)
Location/Surroundings
Does the site integrate into an existing neighborhood with appropriate interfaces
and transitions? Staff rates the site as "High" in that it integrates well into the existing
High Density Residential area. The proposed zoning would be an extension of the RH
zoning to the west (Copper Beech), north (Pheasant Run) and on the other side of S.
16t" Street to the northwest (The Grove). High Density Residential land use can
interface well with the HOC land in Aspen Business Park to the east.
Is the site located near daily services and amenities (school, park, variety of
commercial)? Staff rates the site as "Low" in this subcategory. Commercial land use
abuts the east boundary of the site (Aspen Business Park); however, there is not a
variety of retail and service commercial businesses in this business park to serve the
needs of residential tenants. A major concentration of retail, restaurants, and service-
type businesses lines South Duff Avenue, the center of which is approximately one (1)
mile from the site. Within a distance of approximately one-half (0.5) mile, tenants could
access Ames Christian School (grades K-6), and Coldwater Golf Links. The applicant
does propose private recreational amenities for the site.
Does this create a new neighborhood, not an isolated project? (if not part of
neighborhood, does it create a critical mass or identifiable place, support to
provide more services?) Staff rates the site as "Average" in this subcategory. This is
a growing neighborhood of high density residential development. Development as RH
would be an expansion of, and continued growth of rental housing. Overall, the area has
critical mass but lacks a sense of identity due to incremental development and planning
for the area. Even with approval of the project, it is not anticipated additional services
would be added to the area.
Is the site located near cam employment centers or ISU us? Staff rates the site as
p
"High" in this subcategory. The Iowa State campus, Iowa State Research Park, Iowa
Department of Transportation, and Mary Greeley Medical Center are all easily accessed
by arterial roadways from the subject site. Aspen Business Park, abutting the east
property line of the site, could potentially be a location of employment for tenants in the
proposed apartment complex.
Site Features
Does the site contain no substantial natural features on the site (woodlands,
wetlands, waterways)? Is the site located outside the Floodway Fringe? Staff
rates the site as "High" in these subcategories. There are no existing natural features
on the site, that would be impacted, or require mitigation of any kind to protect, or
preserve waterways, natural wetlands, or woodland resources. There are no designated
floodplains that cross the subject property.
5
Is the site separated adequately from adjacent noise, business operations, air
quality (trains, highways, industrial uses, airport approach)? Staff rates the site as
"Low" in this subcategory. The southern boundary of the site is U.S. Highway 30, a
four-lane divided major roadway. The Ames Municipal Airport is located in the general
vicinity of the site, across Highway 30 and Airport Road to the south.
Is there an ability to preserve or sustain natural features? The site rates as
"Average" in terms of consistency with the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) policies
regarding natural features. The site is vacant and does not include significant natural
features to be preserved, or sustained.
Housing Type and Design
Is there a need for housing or building type or variety of housing types?
Staff rated this category as "Low" based upon the lack of information received from the
developer to enable an analysis of housing types and design.
The developer believes there is a need for apartment units, and that the number of
units/bedrooms proposed would be equivalent to developing the site as 115,000 square
feet of commercial office use. The developer intends to design a project that would
accommodate both student oriented housing and housing for those in the workforce.
Apartment units with two (2), or three (3) bedrooms is consistent with the preferences of
the young professionals demographic, while four (4) bedroom units are typical of
student apartments. The developer believes future projects would be standard 2 or
3-story basic apartment complex(s) and that no specific amenities are planned to be
included.
The site may be platted into four (4) separate lots of sizes that vary from 1.40 acres to
3.60 acres. If this were to occur it would be similar then to how individual apartment lots
were created along Mortenson Coconino area rather than organized and managed as
centralized complexes like Wessex or The Grove.
Transportation
Is the site adjacent to the CyRide line to employment/campus? Staff rates the site
as "Low" in this subcategory. The site is not adjacent to a transit stop for CyRide due to
the lack of a direct connection to CyRide on S. 16th Street. The walk distance along S.
17th to a bus stop at Golden Aspen and S. 16th is in excess of a '/4 mile for the majority
of the site area. Access to CyRide was one of the major issues identified by staff in
analysis of the LUPP Map change of the site from HOC to RH. While always desirable
to have transit access for high-density residential uses, it has been an essential element
in support of student oriented developments to meet student interests and service levels
of CyRide. The transit service in this part of the community does not function as a
convenient means of access to major employment areas in the community for the
demographic of young professionals.
Does CyRide service have adequate schedule and capacity? Staff rates the site as
"Low" in this subcategory. The nearest route (CyRide Gray Route) follows S. 16th
Street. The Gray Route already exceeds ridership capacity. The Gray Route brings
students from this area as well as picks up students from Iowa State Center transit
6
station. The Gray Route consists of one bus every 30 minutes, between 7:00 a.m. and
5:30 p.m., and one bus hourly between 5:30 p.m. and 10-00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, while school is in session. There is no weekend service.
The former applicant completed a survey of bus ridership along S. 16th Street and
concluded that a worst case scenario would be 20% of the total students using the bus
during the day. For this development if it was assumed half occupied by students we
would estimate a demand for 10 riders during peak hours. CyRide provides comments
that a standard bus has a capacity for 38 seated persons and 20 additional standing
individuals. Adding 10 riders may not always be accommodated in combination with
demand from the other nearby bus stops or with the needed seats at the Iowa State
Center transfer point.
Are there pedestrian and bike paths, or lanes, with connectivity to
neighborhoods, or for commuting? Are site access and safety provided? Staff
rates the site as "Low" in these subcategories. Sidewalks exist along S. 17th Street and
Golden Aspen Drive to access S. 16th Street. However, there is no direct pedestrian,
nor bike path, connection between the site and the bike path and sidewalks along S.
16th Street. There is a strong need for this connection to provide the necessary means
of convenient access to the site from S. 16th Street. If the pedestrian/bike connection to
the site was constructed, the S. 16th Street bike path would serve as a link to other parts
of the community. There are stretches of right-of-way along the south side of S. 16th
Street where sidewalk has not been constructed. These missing sections of
sidewalk are needed to provide pedestrians with a continuous link to other
sidewalks/bike paths throughout the community. Construction of sidewalk between
the subject property and S. 16th Street was discussed with the developer. There was no
commitment by the developer to construct the sidewalk as part of this development.
Are there roadway capacity and intersection operations (existing and planned at
Level of Service (Average) "C"? Staff rates the site as "Low" in this subcategory. A
traffic impact analysis (TIA) was conducted by the traffic consultant, Duane Smith, PE,
as part of the rezoning proposal by the previous applicant, Roers Investments. That
analysis was based on a greater number of units (272 versus 209) and more bedrooms
(700 versus 523). The analysis, at that time, determined that the Level of Service (LOS)
at the intersection of S. 16th would be the most likely require a traffic signal to improve
LOS for the larger buildout of the property to meet LOS C.
The most recent traffic analysis, by the traffic consultant, has the objective of
determining the number of apartment units that will generate traffic volumes which will
not degrade the LOS associated with the current land use of office for the Aspen
Business Park. Two intersections were evaluated, including Golden Aspen Drive and S.
16th Street, as well as S. Kellogg Avenue and S. 16th Street. It was determined that if
the number of apartment units were reduced to 209, that would equal the amount of
traffic generated by developing the site to accommodate 115,000 square feet of
commercial office space. The LOS at the Golden Aspen Drive intersection,
improved to include a northbound turn lane, through lane, and right turn land,
would be a LOS "E", regardless of whether the site were developed at with 209 units,
or 115,000 square feet of office space. A LOS "E" describes a case in which there is a
traffic delay, but traffic is still moving. It falls below the LOS "C", which would be the City
7
of Ames standard. The same LOS "E" would also be the case for the S. Kellogg
Avenue intersection, with improvements to include left turn and right turn lanes.
The developer is agreeable to constructing turning lanes at the two intersections,
Golden Aspen Drive, and S. Kellogg Avenue, but would not commit to paying the
cost of improvements to the intersection of S. 16th Street and Golden Aspen
Drive, if it includes a signalized traffic light intersection at some point in the
future to safely absorb the additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated
by the development contemplated on the parcel. From staff's review of the
information, it is unlikely that a traffic signal would be warranted based on projected
traffic volumes at Golden Aspen and that accepting LOS E for these stop sign controlled
signals may be found acceptable for the project. If a signal warrant for future installation
was needed, the developer could contribute to it but it would not be installed at the time
of development. Staff finds it unfortunate that the improvement may remove the
boulevard in Golden Aspen rather than changing the parking strip. Traffic mitigation
needs would be documented in the Developers Agreement, if required by the City as a
condition of approval of the rezoning to RH.
The previous applicant had informed staff that he had diligently pursued an agreement
with the owner of the Copper Beech property to allow vehicular and pedestrian access,
by the tenants of the new development, to the driveway and sidewalk on the Copper
Beech property. The Copper Beech driveway is the location of S. Grand Avenue, once
it is extended past S. 16th Street. The developer, at that time, informed staff that
negotiations with the Copper Beech property owner were not productive, and there was
no interest, on the part of the Copper Beech owner, to allow the use of their driveway
(future extension of S. Grand Avenue) as a means of access between S. 16th Street and
the site proposed for rezoning. The previous applicant had also been unable to secure
permission to circulate through the Pheasant Run apartments north of the site.
The current Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) includes an illustrative
planning project for the extension of Grand Avenue under Highway 30. The City
has not committed to the Grand extension south of S. 16th Street at this time;
although the project will again be evaluated as part of the current "LRTP" (Long
Range Transportation Plan) Update. This site may be encumbered by slope
easements restricting development in the southwest corner, and may include a need for
developer contributions towards road and access improvements along the Grand
extension corridor. Street right-of-way for the future extension of S. Grand Avenue will
be needed on the southwest corner of the subject property to accommodate the proper
alignment for the U.S. Highway 30 underpass. The width of right-of-way needed for the
S. Grand Avenue extension would be a minimum of 80 feet, and the template design for
the underpass would require approval by the Iowa Department of Transportation
(IDOT). This would occur at the time of site plan approval. A U.S. Highway 30
underpass, adjacent to this property, can be accommodated with agreement by
the developer. The developer is amenable to reservation of the southwest corner
of the site for the eventual extension of S. Grand Avenue.
Public Utilities & Services
Are there adequate storm, water, sewer capacity for intensification?
Staff rates the site as "High" in this subcategory. For all rezoning proposals, City staff
8
examines the possible impacts of a change in the zoning designation, including
intensification, to public utilities, such as storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water
capacity, storm drainage. This review is based on overall system capacities and the
information available to staff at this point in the development process. For the subject
property, staff finds that the capacities of storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water are
adequate to serve the proposed high density residential development.
Is the proposal consistent with emergency response goals? Staff rates the site as
"Average" in this subcategory. The site is within a three (3) to five (5) minute
emergency response time. The nearest fire station from which emergency response
would be dispatched is located on S. Duff Avenue at the Airport Road intersection.
Investment/Catalyst
Does this proposal support prior City sponsored neighborhood/district
investments or sub-area planning? Does this proposal create
character/identity/sense of place? Does this proposal encourage economic
development of diversification of retail commercial (Mixed Use Development)?
Staff rates the site as "Low" in these subcategories due to no LUPP direction
concerning this area or type of project. Staff's rating of this category is based on unique
situations of projects related to LUPP objectives and implementation interests. This
development request will not have a substantial influence on its surroundings within this
meaning.
REZONING BACKGROUND:
Existing Land Use Policy Plan. (see Attachment C - Existing LUPP Map Designation)
The LUPP designation of the subject property, which includes twelve (12) acres, is
"High Density Residential." This change in designation of the property from "Highway-
Oriented Commercial" was approved by the City Council on October 14, 2014.
Existing Zoning. (see Attachment A - Existing Zoning)The site is zoned as "HOC"
(Highway-Oriented Commercial). Zoning of abutting properties to the west and
north/northwest is "RH" (Residential High Density). The immediate area to the
northeast and east is zoned the same as the subject property, "HOC." Bordering the
south property line is the right-of-way for U. S. Highway 30. Directly to the south of
Highway 30 is land zoned as "S-GA" (Government/Airport) as part of the land area
reserved for the Ames Municipal Airport.
Existing Land Use. The existing land use of the subject property and all other abutting
properties is as follows:
EXISTING LAND USE
Location Land Use
Subject Property Vacant
West Apartment Buildings
North/Northwest Apartment Buildings
North/Northeast Commercial Office Buildings
East Commercial Office Buildings
9
South U. S. Highway 30 right-of-way
Applicant's Statements. The current applicant has not provided an explanation of the
reasons for the rezoning. A summary of the proposal is on pages one (1) and two (2) of
this report. The developer requests the rezoning in order to construct apartment
buildings on the site to meet housing needs for ISU students and young professionals in
Ames.
Public Notice. Notice was mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the subject site.
As of this writing, no comments have been received.
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:
1. Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1507(2) allows owners of fifty percent (50%) 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 owner of this single
parcel has requested the rezoning.
2. The subject property has been designated on the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP)
Future Land Use Map as "Residential High Density."
3. The "Residential High Density land use designation supports the "RH"
(Residential High Density) zoning designation. Under the "RH" zoning
designation, the proposed multiple-family residential development can be
accommodated subject to the Zone Development Standards allowed within this
zone, as described in Chapter 29, Article 7, of the Municipal Code.
4. Infrastructure is available to this site. The owner will need to obtain any necessary
easements for service line connections to the site.
5. Access to this site is from S. 17t" Street, a public street right-of-way. There is no
direct access to the minor arterial roadway of S. 16t" Street.
6. The project has potential impacts on bus service due to capacity limits of the Gray
Route.
7. The traffic impact analysis for the site is incomplete for purposes of comparing
background conditions with project conditions.
10
Attachment A — Existing Zoning
77�,
PEN RIDGE°RD`"`'.
{ "�z
._._ 5 16TH ST, ..._ .- S-16TH-ST..___. .. ---.........._.S_1ffH ST...._...g..16TH-ST, 0-S-16TH-ST
._,_.:w z - .......
Q Z
SNC RE Dr C z w
4 LvLV rL
o
CORAL DR---o N
------EAY'DR
5..1 Tr H-ST"_
U
i
w Subject Property
SANDCA STLE DR
Y
r.
3
Residential High Densty Zone"RH"(sec 29.704)
FI Reddential Low D ensdy P ark Zone"R LP"(sec 29.705)
Neighborhood Commercial Zone"NC"(sec 29.801)
High%ay-Oriented Commercial Zone"HOC"(sec29.804)
G ore rnm e rVAirp ort District"S-G A"(sec 29.1002)
-AIRPORT-RD �AIRPORTRD---AIR PORT-RD--- -- ----AIRPORT RD Planned Residence District"F-PRV (sec 29.1203)
.M
Existing
' 4 -
,-� Zoning Map
515 S. 1 7th Street
11
Attachment B — Proposed Zoning
.__...... i_ 7
i,
it
t '�
A?PEN
17 � t
'ftIDGE'RD
-77 i
-,S 1ETH,5T-._........ _-.8.18TH.ST __. .__................._g_18PH ST..__5.18TH.9T.-•--0-5-16TH-ST
a w
tif
w O
' W 0 0 0
--LAXE VfEW f LL m w
CORAL-DR---
;n � a
w BAY DR
! _5 17r H ST
tr -CKIVEDR / =
Subject Properrty
FSANDCASTLE-DR
r,.
Residential High Density Zone"RH"(sec 29.704)
Residential LowDensdyPark Zone"RLP"(see 29.705)
Neighborhood Commercial Zone"NC"(see 29.801)
Highvay-OrientedCornrriercial Zone"HOC"(see29.804)
ii Government/Airport District"S-GA"(sec 29.1002)
-,AIRPORT RD----- AIRPORTRD -AIRPORT,RO- — ""`AIRPO RT RD
Planned Residence District"F-PRD" (sec29.1203)
r
-Aay
R Proposed
a �
Zoning Map
12
Attachment C — Existing LUPP Map Designation
`4
it
1
r
f ! �
w. �� 's°A3PE N'RIDGE'R D"•'
i iI� I 1 �
_.. .1__ ...— ._.... _ _ -..___.__ w ._,.. ..._ .....� ......
.5-16T-H-ST .. S 16TH ST-- _. .. ...._.5.16TH -S-16THST
T. LU
zRE L)R
q tIt w L�
-LAKE VIEW PL o
w
JJJ ll- OD PAL DA
_ / J/// :� ///', .-5q..----�---S..17r H-ST
VE
Subject Property sr
d�
..�,..� _�___---•- ----... - gip.
Lotw-Density Residential
Medium-Density Residential
High-Density R esidential
I
,.^_^^^T� 3 H i gh v�m y-0 ri ente d Commercial
G ove rnrn e ntlAirp ort
AIRPORT-RD --^--
._._.._._AIRPORT-R .......
-AIRPO RT RD------:AIRPORT RD ---AIRPORT-RD— �---.............. '.P,gricu lturerF arm stead
1
f �n
Existing
Land Use Policy Plan Map
� w 516 S. 1 7th Street
t' F...
1J
Attachment D — Concept Plan A
f�
Sb
r�rrNr.vuty kalh=,e� hl'.
41
411
sg T
eT
S s y
� S
f f
3
� R
14
Attachment E — Applicable LUPP Goals & Objectives
Goal No. 1. Recognizing that additional populations and economic growth is
likely, it is the goal of Ames to plan for and manage growth within the context of
the community's capacity and preferences. It is further the goal of the
community to manage its growth so that it is more sustainable, predictable and
assures quality of life.
Goal No. 2. In preparing the target populations and employment growth, it is the
goal of Ames to assure the adequate provision and availability of developable
land. It is the further goal of the community to guide the character, location, and
compatibility of growth within the area's natural resources and rural areas.
2.A. Ames seeks to provide at least 600 to 2,500 acres of additional
developable land within the present City and Planning Area by the year
2030. Since the potential demand exceeds the supply within the current
corporate limits, alternate sources shall be sought by the community
through limited intensification of existing areas while concentrating on the
annexation and development of new areas. The use of existing and new
areas should be selective rather than general.
Goal No. 5. 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. It is a further goal for the community to link the timing of
development with the installation of public infrastructure including utilities, multi-
modal transportation system, parks and open space.
Goal No. 6. It is the goal of Ames to increase the supply of housing and to
provide a wider range of housing choices.
6.C. Ames seeks to establish higher densities in existing areas where
residential intensification is designated with the further objective that there
shall be use and appearance compatibility among existing and new
development.
Goal No. 7. It is the goal of Ames to provide greater mobility through more
efficient use of personal automobiles and enhanced availability of an integrated
system including alternative modes of transportation.
7.B. Ames seeks a transportation system that is linked with the desired
development pattern of the overall community and areas therein.
15
Attachment F — RH Site Evaluation Matrix
REZONING of 516 S. 171h STREET
RH Site Evaluation Matrix Project Consistency
High Average Low
Location/Surroundings
Integrates into an existing neighborhood with appropriate interfaces
and transitions
High=part of a neighborhood, no significant physical barriers, ✓
includes transitions;
Average=adjacent to neighborhood, some physical barriers, minor
transitions; Low=separated from an residential existing area,
physical barriers, no transitions available
Located near daily services and amenities(school, park,variety of
commercial)
High=Walk 10 minutes to range of service;
Average=10 to 20 minutes to range of service;
Low=Walk in excess of 20 minutes to range of service.
*Parks and Recreation has specific service objectives for park
proximity to residential
Creates new neighborhood, not an isolated project (If not part of
neighborhood, Does it create a critical mass or identifiable place,
support to provide more services?)
Located near employment centers or ISU Campus (High=10 minute
bike/walk or 5 minute drive; Average is 20 minute walk or 15 minute
drive; Low= exceeds 15 minute drive or no walkability)
Site
Contains no substantial natural features on the site (woodlands, ✓
wetlands, waterways)
Located outside of the Floodway Fringe
Separated adequately from adjacent noise, business operations, air
quality (trains, highways, industrial uses, airport approach)
Ability to preserve or sustain natural features
Housing Types and Design
Needed housing or building type or variety of housing types
Architectural interest and character
Site design for landscape buffering
Includes affordable housing (Low and Moderate Income))
Continued next page...
16
Transportation
Adjacent to CyRide line to employment/campus
High=majority of site is 1/8 miles walk from bus stop; ✓
Average= majority of site 1/4 mile walk from bus stop;
Low= majority of site exceeds 1/4 miles walk from bus stop.
CyRide service has adequate schedule and capacity
High=seating capacity at peak times with schedule for full service
Average=seating capacity at peak times with limited schedule
Low=either no capacity for peak trips or schedule does not provide
reliable service
Pedestrian and Bike path or lanes with connectivity to neighborhood ✓
or commute
Roadway capacity and intersection operations (existing and planned
at LOS C)
Site access and safety
Public Utilities/Services
Adequate storm, water, sewer capacity for intensification
High=infrastructure in place with high capacity
Average=infrastructure located nearby, developer obligation to
extend and serve
Low=system capacity is low, major extension needed or requires
unplanned city participation in cost.
Consistent with emergency response goals
High=Fire average response time less than 3 minutes
Average=Fire average response time within 3-5 minutes
Low=Fire average response time exceeds 5 minutes, or projected
substantial increase in service calls
Investment/Catalyst
Support prior City sponsored neighborhood/district investments or
sub-area planning
Creates character/identity/sense of place
Encourages economic development or diversification of retail
commercial (Mixed Use Development)
17
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:515-239-5105
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 516 South 171h Street, is rezoned from Highway-Oriented Commercial(HOC)
to Residential High Density(RH).
Real Estate Description: Outlot B, Aspen Business Park, First Addition, Ames, Story
County, Iowa.
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