HomeMy WebLinkAboutA017 - Council Action Form dated March 23, 1999 Y
ITEM#:
DATE: 03/23/99
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PUD) FOR SOMERSET SUBDIVISION AND TO APPROVE A
CHANGE TO THE AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE REZONING, PLATTING AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOMERSET SUBDIVISION.
ACTION FORM SUMMARY: This is a request to approve amendments to the PUD Plan
for Somerset Subdivision and to approve a change to the zoning agreement for Somerset
Subdivision.
Approval of these amendments to the PUD plan and the zoning agreement changes is
recommended.
BACKGROUND:
The developer is requesting approval of three setback amendments to the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) plan for the Somerset Subdivision. They involve changes to reduce
the minimum rear yard setbacks for Village Houses and Country Houses and to allow a
zero setback from the interior side lot line for a Village Apartment detached garages.
Currently the PUD plan adopted for Somerset Subdivision requires a minimum rear yard
setback of 30 feet for Village Houses and Country Houses. The developers are requesting
the minimum rear yard setback be reduced to 20 feet. This request is being made because
of problems designing homes with attached garages on corner lots. See the attached
drawing of a corner lot on Camden Drive. It should be noted that the Village Houses and
the Country Houses are zoned either R1-6 PUD or R-2 PUD, and the minimum rear yard
setback in the R1-6 and R-2 zoning districts is 20 feet. Therefore the current PUD plan
requires a greater rear yard setback than would be required under conventional zoning,
and there does not appear to be a significant reason to require a greater setback than
would be required conventionally.
Also a request is being made to reduce the minimum setback for a Village apartment
garage from five (5) feet to zero along the interior side lot line. This change will result in
the elimination of 10 foot wide corridors between the garages and allow for wider vehicle
maneuvering area between garages. And in the case of 72 wide lots it will provide an
opportunity to have two sets of garages on the parcel with a drive aisle in between. The
additional width is needed because garage parking spaces are deeper than surface
parking spaces.
ANALYSIS:
Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP). The proposed development and the proposed changes
to the PUD are consistent with the 1997 LUPP Map designation of Village/Suburban
Residential.
Zoning. The Village Houses and the Country Houses are zoned RI-6 PUD and R-2 PUD.
The Village Apartments lots are zoned R-3 PUD.
Parking. The proposed setback reduction from a minimum of five feet to zero from the
interior lot line for Village Apartment garages will facilitate garage parking for the narrower
width Village Apartment lots. Without this change surface parking would have to used to
meet some of the on-site parking requirements.
Architectural Elevations. The developers have submitted architectural elevations for the
zero lot line garages that utilize a roof design that minimizes the roof height of the two
combined garage structures. See the attached architectural elevations. There is a design
criterion that states that a garage should not be more than one floor in height. A 44 foot
wide building, which would result from the combination of two garages with a zero lot line,
has the potential to have a roof height of the combined garages, which would appear to be
more than one story in height. However, the proposed roof design proposed by the
developers minimizes the roof height and creates the appearance of a normal one story
garage. The developers have also minimized the massiveness of the combined garages
by including window detail at the end of each of the zero lot line garages. Another
technique used to reduce the height of the garages is the use of a one foot high, lapped
sided, trim strip under the roof soffit. A stipulation of approval of the zero lot line garage
setback should be that the garages are designed in accord with architectural
representations that are attached.
Setbacks. The proposed setback changes for Village Houses and Country Houses are
a reduction in the minimum rear yard setbacks from 30 feet to 20 feet. These changes will
make designing homes on corner lots easier and should not cause a detrimental impact
on interior lots.
The proposed setback change to allow a zero setback for Village Apartment, detached
garages also should not have a negative impact on development, provided architectural
design measures are taken to minimize the roof height of the combined detached garages
so they have the appearance of a one story structure. Refer to the discussion above.
Also party wall agreements will be needed because of the zero lot line.
2
Intent of the Planned Residential Development. It is the intent of the City of Ames to
encourage planned residential developments as appropriate, more specifically it is the
intent to:
"(a) Promote and permit flexibility that will encourage a more creative and imaginative
approach in development and result in more efficient, aesthetic, desirable, and
economic use of land, while maintaining density and intensity of use consistent with
the adopted Land Use Policy Plan."
• The proposed setback changes will further enhance the flexibility in the design of
creative buildings, while maintaining the intended density and intensity of
development.
"(b) Provide a minimal effect upon adjacent properties and existing development. To this
end, the Planning and Zoning Commission may make the appropriate requirements."
• The proposed changes should have minimal effect on adjacent property. There
will have to be party wall agreements for the zero lot line garages to protect the
interest of the affected property owners. Also the design of the garage roofs
should be consistent with the roof designs, as presented, to minimize height and
massing concerns. These should be stipulations to the approval of the zero lot
line setback for the Village Apartment garages
"(c) Promote development that can be conveniently, efficiently, and economically served
by existing municipalities and services or by their logical extension."
• This not applicable
"(d) Promote flexibility in design, placement of buildings, and use of open space,
pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities, and off-street parking areas in a
manner that will best utilize the potential of site characterized by special features of
geography, geology, topography, size, or shape."
• The proposed setback changes will further promote flexibility in design, and
additionally the zero setback from interior lot lines for the Village Apartment,
detached garages will create an opportunity for off- street, covered parking on the
narrower width, Village Apartment lots.
"(e) Provide, where it is shown to be in the public interest, for the preservation of historic
features and such natural features as streams, drainage ways, flood plains,
ponds/lakes, topography, rock outcroppings, unique areas of vegetation, stands of
trees, and other similar natural assets."
• This is not applicable.
3
"(f) Provide for more adequate recreational facilities and other public and common
facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development."
• This is not applicable.
"(g) Provide for the enhancement of the natural setting through careful and sensitive
placement of man-made facilities and plant materials."
• The potential massiveness of the two garages abutting each other with a zero
setback has been mitigated with the proposed roof design that has been
presented. This proposed garage design will be an enhancement to the natural
setting.
Design Standards. Even though PUDs promote and permit flexibility of design, certain
standards must be applied to assure compatibility of the project with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. The following standards are applicable:
(a) Permitted Uses. The normal permitted uses in a PUD are uses of a residential
character, including single-family (detached or attached), two-family and/or multiple-
family dwellings as well as the usual accessory structures, such as garages, storage
space and buildings for recreational purposes.
• No changes to the permitted uses are proposed.
(b) Density.
• No changes in density will result from the proposed setback changes.
(c) Tract Size.
• No changes to the tract size are proposed.
(d) Parking. The parking provided on the site must meet the requirements of Section
29.41 "Rules for Computing Off-Street Parking".
• There will be no change to the dimensional requirements for parking or to the
number of required parking spaces as a result of these setback changes.
4
The parking design must also meet the following standards:
"(i) Parking areas shall be treated as an integral part of the development in scale,
location, and character."
• The proposed change to the detached garage setback for Village
Apartments with the proposed architectural design detail will result in the
parking for the Village Apartments being treated as an integral part of the
development in scale, location and character.
"(ii) Parking areas shall be so arranged to discourage through traffic."
• The setback revisions will not affect this standard.
"(iii) As appropriate, parking areas shall be screened from adjacent structures and
streams with hedges, plantings, fences, earth berms, changes in grade, and/or
similar examples."
• The design criteria for Village Apartments already requires appropriate
screening of parking areas in the form of garden walls. The setback change
will not affect this design requirement.
"(iv) Parking areas shall be so designed to allow for drainage of surface water
without erosion, flooding, or other inconvenience."
• The garages that are built with a zero lot line will have to have roof drains
that address roof drainage from these larger structures.
(e) Height. The Planned Residential section of the Ordinance does not mandate a
maximum height requirement. However, heights shall be regulated to the extent that
it relates to the proposed development and to the general area within which the
development is proposed to be located.
• The intent of the design criteria for Village Apartment garages will be met,
provided that the proposed roof design, is used for the zero lot line garages.
(f) Open Space. A major portion of any PUD is its open space. The desirability of the
PUD is closely tied to the integration of the open space with the total development.
• These changes to the setback requirements should not affect the designated
open space areas in the Somerset Subdivision. The 10 foot space between the
garages that would be eliminated was not useable open space area.
5
(g) Other Considerations. A number of major factors should undergo evaluation as part
of the design standards. Those include-
(i) Natural drainage areas shall be retained as appropriate and, if necessary,
improved.
• This not applicable.
(ii) Due consideration shall be given to preserving natural site amenities and
minimizing the disturbance to the natural environment.
• There will be no effect on natural site amenities.
(iii) Existing trees shall be preserved wherever possible. The location of trees is
to be considered in designing building locations, underground services, and
paved areas.
• There will be no effect on existing trees.
(iv) If the development includes flood plain areas, they shall be preserved as
permanent open space.
There are no floodplains on this site.
(v) Due consideration shall be given to the natural topography and major grade
change shall be avoided. If the development includes hillsides and slopes,
special evaluation shall be given to geological conditions, erosion, and topsoil
loss. If unfavorable development conditions exists, the City Council may
restrict leaking, cuttings, filling, or other substantial changes in the natural
conditions of the affected area.
This is not applicable.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff recommends approval of the three setback changes to the PUD plan for Somerset
Subdivision. The reduction in the rear setbacks of the Village Houses and the Country
Houses will allow for more flexibility in the design of homes, especially on corner lots. The
ability to utilize a zero setback from the interior lot line for Village Apartment garages will
result in more covered parking for the Village Apartments, and the proposed architectural
design solutions for these larger garage structures will mitigate any possible negative
effects.
6
The following stipulations should be placed on the approval of the zero setback from the
interior lot line for Village Apartment garages:
1. That the Village Apartment zero lot line garages shall be in substantial compliance
with the architectural representations that are attached, including roof design and
placement of windows.
2. That there shall be party wall agreements for all zero lot line garages.
It should be noted that these proposed changes to the setbacks in the Somerset
Development will require not only a PUD plan amendment, but also an amendment to "An
Agreement Pertaining to the Rezoning, Subdivision Platting and Development of Land in
the City of Ames to be Called Somerset Subdivision", since this is a zoning contract that
contains the requirements for development in the Somerset Subdivision. The changes
to this zoning agreement have been prepared by the City Attorney and are attached.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request at their meeting of March 3,
1999 and recommended that this request be approved with the following stipulations:
1. That the Village Apartment zero lot line garages shall be in substantial compliance
with the architectural representations that are attached, including roof design and
placement of windows.
2. That there shall be party wall agreements for all zero lot line garages.
7
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve an amendment to the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Plan for Somerset Subdivision to allow the three setback revisions with the
stipulation listed above and also approve the necessary changes to the zoning
agreement.
2. The City Council can approve an amendment to the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Plan for Somerset Subdivision with modifications and also approve a the
necessary changes to the zoning agreement.
3. The City Council can deny the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Plan for Somerset Subdivision.
4. Action on this request can be postponed and referred back to City staff and/or the
developer for additional information.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that Alternative #1 be adopted. Alternative #1 is approval of the PUD
Plan Amendments to allow the changes in the rear yard setbacks for Village Houses and
Country Houses and the side setback for Village Apartment garages. Approval will allow
the developer to proceed with development under these new regulations.
Attachment
8
i O
\\
Zy O
\ -�-
0�T7--
D:3 \\ -�-
m
co
I � I
03
i
II NOt/8135 1 NO'd813S
i 'O,t 6V38 30V�JVO
03SOdOad ONdW
0-,OZ 0�,ZZ ! „0-,8! 0-,S!
i
I
N0V813S'
08W, �!d38 Z
,0-.OE I i Q
i Q
E- E-
W �
z �
o �
IF ALLEY
3'-0" MIN.
24'-0" MAX
-0" MIN.
\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\\\ \ \ \\
\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ BUILD TO LINE
\` \\\\
\\\\\\ \ \\
\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\\.\ \. \. \\\ \
i oi_ aIZ I
------
...... i
3
! !
i !
\\\\ \ \
\ \\\\\\ \\\
! \\ \\ \\\\\ \ \ \ 20'-0" MIN.
20'-0" MIN. \\\\ \\\ \\\\ BUILD TO LINE
\ \ \\ \
I !
j I !
L.-.-.---.-.-.-.-.-----.-.-- --.-.-.-.-.-.--_.-.-.--
SOMERSET COUNTRY HOUSE SITE DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTS RUDI/LEE/DREYER 1/24/98 N.T.S.
I �
iA
If ALLEY
3'-0" Mile.
24'-0" MAX.
BUILD TO LINE I
i o z oIIZ !
_._._ A--._.—._.—._._._.
r JJ
i I
33' MIN. OR OPTIONAL 25'-0" MIN.
WITH 6"-8' PORCH REQUIRED
\\ \ \
20'-0" MIN. \\ \ \ \ NI '
i ! �
15-0" !
i BUILD TO LINE I
z ><
I U
I I
L--._.—._._.. ------.—._.—._._--------------------_._.�I
SOMERSET VILLAGE HOUSE SITE DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTS RUDI/LEE/DREYER 1/24/95 N.T.S.
--------- ---•---•------- -------,
�
i 6'-0- MIN. I
ENTY REQ'D
ZERO SIDEYARD SETBACK {
\\ \\ \' FOR DETACHED GARAGES
I
\\`\ \
\\\ \ BUILD TO
\ LINE
{ \ \ EN REQ•D
ALL EXTERIOR BUILDING WALLS J o o
S REEN;,;d,, RA,-S FR ni u I
Ai�JACENT SpTyP.EtET� OAP, fYATHS --•—...— �— — — —.—.
L..—.— ENCSLT - RESIDENTIAL INT IOE —
SOMERSET VILLAGE APARTMENT SITE DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTS RUDI/LEE/DREYER 1/23/98 N.T.S.
I
I
z
CC0
a
1
I
' � 9
li
Q
lil y
I
i 1
1
Ij p� i
Ij I
I
I
I
I I.
1
I
Z- A
It -
I
9
i z
TPHI
Is a
1,pi
5
I
oo �
7 � t
--= fill Ili
`? ---
�i Z ;ICI
j
I
I � ; I
Ali
i
i
f
t
� l
i
I � I
i
4
1
i
I
I
i
1
scur�c-.�- w/rat-�5p�ur
p , «
SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE AGREEMENT FOR
REZONING, PLATTING AND DEVELOPMENT
OF SOMERSET SUBDIVISION
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective the day of , 1999
by and between the CITY OF AMES,IOWA("City);and ERBEN A.HUNZIKER,TRUSTEE OF
THE ERBEN A. HUNZIKER REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED JULY 29, 1992; DONALD M.
FURMAN and RUTH W.FURMAN,CO-TRUSTEES OF THE DONALD AND RUTH FURMAN
REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MARCH 1, 1991; and, R FRIEDRICH & SONS, INC., their
successors and assigns (all hereinafter collectively called"Developers"), to AMEND that one certain
agreement between the aforesaid parties dated April 8, 1997 entitled: AN AGREEMENT
PERTAINING TO THE REZONING,SUBDIVISION PLATTING AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND
IN THE CITY OF AMES TO BE CALLED SOMERSET SUBDIVISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree that the aforesaid
agreement shall be and is hereby amended as follows:
1. Appendix B, stating regulations for single family homes, is amended by changing
paragraph 6,p, on page B-4, to state:
"On Single Family homes,the front yard build to line shall be 20' for Country Houses
and 15' for Village Houses and Village Cottages. The side yard setback shall be 5' and
the rear yard setback shall be 20' on all Single Family Homes."
2. Appendix D, stating regulations for "Country House", is amended by replacing the
drawing at the top of page D-1 with a new drawing on page D-1A as attached hereto.
3. Appendix E, stating regulations for "Village House", is amended by replacing the
drawing at the top of page E-1 with a new drawing on page E-1 A as attached hereto.
4. Appendix G, stating regulations for Village Apartments, is amended by replacing the
drawing at the top of page G-1 with a new drawing on page G-1A as attached hereto; and,by adding
new pages numbered G-8, G-9 and G-10 as attached hereto, to show architectural elevations for a
permitted zero lot line garage.
In all other respects, the said Agreement shall remain the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
effective as of the date first above written.
CITY OF AMES,IOWA
By. Attest by:
Ted Tedesco, Mayor Diane Voss, City Clerk
STATE OF IOWA,STORY COUNTY ss:
On this day of 19_,before me,a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa,personally
appeared Ted Tedesco and Diane R.Voss,to me personally known,and,who,being by me duly swom,did say that they are the
Mayor and City Clerk,respectively,of the City of Ames,Iowa;that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate
seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City
Council,as contained in Resolution No. adopted by the City Council on the day of
19 , and that Ted Tedesco and Diane R. Voss acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act and
deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation,by it voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for Story County,Iowa
DEVELOPERS
By:
Erben A. Hunziker,Trustee of the
Erben A. Hunziker Revocable
Trust, Dated July 29, 1992
STATE OF IOWA,STORY COUNTY ss:
On this day of , 1999,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State of
Iowa, personally appeared Erben A. Hunziker,Trustee of the Erben A. Hunziker Revocable Trust, Dated July 29, 1992,to me
known to be the identical person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that the person,as the
fiduciary,executed the instrument as the voluntary act and deed of the person and of the fiduciary.
Notary Public in and for Story County,Iowa
APPROVED AS TO FORM
E'
John . Klaus
City Attornev
By: BY:
Donald M. Furman, Co-Trustee of Ruth W. Furman, Co-Trustee of the
the Donald and Ruth Furman Revoc- Donald and Ruth Furman Revocable
able Trust, Dated March 1, 1991 Trust, Dated March 1, 1991
STATE OF IOWA,STORY COUNTY ss:
On this day of 1999,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State of
Iowa, personally appeared Donald M. Furman and Ruth W. Furman, Co-Trustees of the Donald and Ruth Furman Revocable
trust,Dated march 1, 1991,to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that those persons,as the fiduciaries,executed the instrument as the voluntary act and deed of the persons and of
the fiduciary.
Notary Public in and for Story County,Iowa
By: BY:
Reinhard K. Friedrich, President Robert K. Friedrich, Jr., Vice President
R. Friedrich& Sons, Inc. R. Friedrich& Sons, Inc.
STATE OF IOWA,STORY COUNTY ss:
On this day of 19_,before me,a Notary Public in and for Story County,Iowa,
personally appeared Reinhard K. Friedrich and Robert K. Friedrich,Jr.,to me personally known,who being by me duly sworn,
did say that they are the President and Vice President respectively of R. Friedrich & Sons, Inc., that the seal affixed to said
instrument is the seal of said corporation, or no seal has been procured by the said corporation, and that said instrument was
signed and sealed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors and the said Reinhard K. Friedrich and
Robert K.Friedrich,Jr.,acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation by it
voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for Story County,Iowa
law\somerset.317
IF ALLEY �\\ \\�
4'--0 \\�I \\\\
2 -0 MAX �\ \ \ \ \ \
\ BUILD TO LINE
\ •. I
i oz oz i
r . _. ._.._.-.-.-.-.. ---
-.-.-.._._. . .-.-.-.-.�
I I
i
\ i
i
j 20'-0" MIN.
20'-0" MIN. BUILD TO LINE
I
( I
I �
L.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. .-.-.............
-
SOMERSET COUNTRY HOUSE SITE DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTS RUDI/LEE/DREYER 1/24/98 N.T.S.
D-IA
i � 2 I
If ALLEY
3-0" MIN.
24'-0" MAX.
I \ \\ \
i \ \ BUILD TO LINE I
I \
{ aZ oZ I
-.-•-•-•-•-.-.-.- -•-'-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-
I �
I -
I
\\\ \ 33' MIN. OR OPTIONAL 25-0" MIN.
\ WITH 6'-8' PORCH REOUIRED
{ I
i
j
20*-0' MIN. \ \
I I
i I
i ,5•-0'
BUILD TO LINE I
I z
j I
L.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.--- .—.—.............
—.—.—._I
SOMERSET VILLAGE HOUSE SITE DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTS RUDI/LEE/DREYER 1/24/98 N.T.S.
E-1A
r---•- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — �
o = I
6,-0' MIN. {
i ENT REO'D
ZERO SIDEYARD SETBACK !
I \ FOR DETACHED GARAGES I
\\ 6-0
BUILD TO
LINE
{
' ENT RED D
{ I
iY-O \\ {
MIN. \
ZW
i AA5L��L KTERIO�R BUILDING ppWALLS o 0
�A�DUJA EPNT�ASFTTREE E PRA HS I `�
E � RE DE 'O 6 L — — NCL SING I SI I NFIAL INTFTO� —-—-—-—-— —
SOMERSET VILLAGE APARTMENT SITE DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTS RUDI/LEE/DREYER 1/23/98 N.T.S.
G-1A
I
i
0
' 9
1
Q
I�
I I'1 ,
1 i
R
I � i
r S
I I
it
1
I -
I
i
1IIA
-
� a
I
3
w�
1
� I
i
iZ
s
i II ��I'Iil
'• s ,I1 it "
III. ilil'I�jl
it
id:
ll I' i'i�t.•1
Is
G-9
I
\
12 �
(,
Zir
I
i
upPGR- w/ NS�Ur
G-10