Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA024 - Council Action Form dated November 28, 2006 r ITEM # �' DATE 11/28/06 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) PLAN FOR RINGGENBERG PARK SUBDIVISION The property owner/applicant of Ringgenberg Estates, L.L.C. is requesting approval of proposed modifications to the previously approved Planned Residence District for the Ringgenberg Park Subdivision. There are two changes proposed, as follows: ■ Alter the approved setbacks to provide a 20-foot front setback and a 20-foot street side setback for corner lots. ■ Moving the planned clubhouse from the FS-RM zoned property to the F-PRD zoned property and consolidating three lots to accommodate the clubhouse. The "F-PRD" (Planned Residence District) is intended to provide for development of a variety of innovative housing types, including: attached and detached dwellings, zero lot line detached housing, clustered housing development, residential condominiums, and innovative multiple family housing projects. In all instances, development that occurs in areas zoned "F-PRD" (Planned Residence District) shall include integrated design, open space, site amenities, and landscaping that exceeds the requirements that exist in underlying base zone development standards. Property developed according to the F-PRD (Planned Residence District)floating zone requirements shall 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 base zone requirements. Surrounding Property Characteristics: Area LUPP Designation Zoning Designation Land Use North Village/Suburban Residential Suburban Residential Zone Agriculture Residential Medium Density South Agriculture & Farm Service Story County Agricultural (A-1) Agriculture East Urban Residential, Natural Residential Low Density, Suburban Single Family Area, Village/Suburban Residential Zone Residential Low Detached & Residential Density, Story County Agricultural (A-1) Agriculture West Agriculture & Farm Service Story County Agricultural (A-1) Agriculture Property that is developed according to the F-PRD requirements shall create a development pattern that is more aesthetic in design and sensitive to the natural features of the site and to the surrounding uses of land than would customarily result from the application of the base zone requirements. Innovation and flexibility in design and development of property shall create a more efficient and effective use of land. Property that is zoned F-PRD shall adhere to the following development principles: 1. Provide for innovative and imaginative approaches to residential development that would not occur as a result of the underlying zoning regulations. • The request is a modification to a currently approved PRD. Allowing the proposed modifications would allow for a more centrally located clubhouse and greater flexibility in setbacks to accommodate the PRD. 2. Result in a more efficient, aesthetic, desirable and economic use of land and other resources while maintaining density of use, as provided for in the Land Use Policy Plan and the underlying zoning. • A centrally located clubhouse is more efficient for tenants of the subject site. Further, the location of the clubhouse, adjacent to a proposed trail network, provides a more efficient and aesthetic location. 3. Promote innovative housing development that emphasizes efficient and affordable home ownership and occupancy. • The proposed clubhouse allows for efficient and close services for those who live in the Ringgenberg Park Subdivision. 4. Provide for flexibility in the design, height, and placement of buildings that are compatible with and integrate with existing, developed neighborhoods and the natural environment. • Staff has not reviewed the proposed design of the clubhouse, however, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans of the proposed clubhouse through the Minor Site Development Plan review process. The setback revision request would provide greater flexibility in placement of buildings. 5. Promote aesthetic building architecture, significant availability of open space, well designed and landscaped off-street parking facilities that meet or exceed the underlying zone development standards, more recreation facilities than would result from conventional development, and pedestrian and vehicular linkages within and adjacent to the property. • The subject site is an existing, approved, development. The applicant is proposing the removal of three single family detached lots and replacing those lots with the clubhouse. The existing open space will be adequate for the amount of units being proposed on-site. All new construction will be required to meet current code requirements and is in compliance with all current code requirements as proposed. 2 6. Provide for the preservation of identified natural, geologic, historic and cultural resources, drainage ways, floodplains, water bodies, and other unique site features through the careful placement of buildings and site improvements. • The applicant states that there are no unique site features impacted by the proposed clubhouse and the revised setbacks. Drainage features would also not be impacted on the subject site by the proposed revisions to the original Planned Residence Development. 7. Provide for a development design that can be more efficiently served by existing and proposed infrastructure, including: street, water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure, than would be otherwise required as a result of conventional development. • The previously approved improvements including existing and proposed infrastructure would not change with this proposed revision. Planned Residential Development (PRD) Supplemental Development Standards. Property that is zoned F-PRD shall be developed in accordance with the Zone Development Standards listed in Table 29.1203(5). Each of those standards is listed below: 1. Area Requirement. A minimum of two (2) acres shall be required for all areas developed as F-PRD. • The subject site includes 96.33 acres. Therefore, the area requirement is met. 2. Density. Densities shall comply with the densities provided for in the Land Use Policy Plan and the underlying base zone regulations. In the case of more than one base zone designation, each area of the PRD project shall comply with the density limitation that is established for the base zone of that area. Density transfer from one area of a PRD project to another area of the same project with a lower base zone density is not permitted. • The density of the development will be decreased slightly by the proposed modifications and fall within the requirements for the zoning district. The original Planned Residence Development included a density of 3.83 units per net acre. The removal of three of the lots yields an overall density of 3.81 units per net acre. 3. Height Limitations. Structures proposed to be developed in areas zoned PRD shall be compatible with the predominant height of the structures in adjacent neighborhoods. • The height of the proposed clubhouse will be reviewed through the Minor Site Development Plan process. 3 4. Minimum Yard and Setback Requirements. • As stated earlier, the applicant is asking for a revision to the previously approved setbacks resulting in a 20-foot front and corner lot street side setback. This is not a drastic departure from the originally approved setbacks, which were originally a 15-foot front and corner lot street side setback. 5. Parking Requirements. • The proposed modifications and the overall development meet all City of Ames parking requirements. 6. Open Space Design Requirements. • The approved Planned Residence Development is not proposing to alter the previously approved open space design. 7. Open Space Area Requirement. • Ringgenberg Park Subdivision was previously approved for the amount of open space provided, however, the clubhouse is an open space amenity that increases the amount of open space on-site to a total of 45 percent, which exceeds the requirement by five percent. 8. Open Space Improvements and Amenities. • Please refer to questions 6 and 7 above. 9. Maintenance of Open Space and Site Amenities. • The maintenance of open space and site amenities will be owned and maintained by a Homeowner's Association. Recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. As of the date of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant had not conducted a neighborhood meeting as suggested by staff through the Development Review Committee process. Resident's from the neighborhood located directly north of this site attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and expressed strong concerns about the proposed change to the conceptual plan that the neighborhood felt had been mutually negotiated with the developer. The proposed change to the agreed upon plan would be the relocation of the clubhouse from the northern parcel to the southern location. The concerns of the neighbors also included the design of the future multi-family buildings and the proposed amenities of the northern parcel, which is located outside of the Planned Residence Development. Storm drainage concerns were also expressed. The neighborhood representatives in attendance at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting submitted a letter, meeting minutes from a previous City Council meeting, and a copy of the plan for the northern parcel, which identifies the conceptual location of the clubhouse, attached. 4 At its meeting of November 15, 2006, the Commission voted to accept Alternative #1 , which states, ''The Planning and Zoning Commission can recommend that the City Council approve the proposed modifications to the Planned Residence Development (PRD) Plan for Ringgenberg Park Subdivision." With a vote of 3-3, a majority vote could not be obtained. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . The City Council can approve the proposed modifications to the Planned Residence Development (PRD) Plan for Ringgenberg Park Subdivision. 2. The City Council can deny the proposed modifications to the Planned Residence Development (PRD) Plan for Ringgenberg Park Subdivision. 3. The City Council can approve the amendment to the approved Planned Residence Development (PRD) Plan for Ringgenberg Park Subdivision with modifications. 4. Action on this request can be postponed and referred back to the applicant for the purpose of a neighborhood meeting. MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: While the concerns of the neighbors that were addressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting are valid, Council will have an opportunity to review the proposed development of the northern parcel through a Major Site Development Plan. The difficulty of reconciling the applicant's compliance with the Planned Residence District criteria and the neighborhood concerns regarding their approval of a previous conceptual plan resulted in a 3-3 vote of the Commission. Since the applicant has complied with the criteria of the Planned Residence District amendment, staff recommends Alternative#1. However, given the time and energy that the neighborhood and the applicant have spent on the earlier conceptual plan, the Council may wish to approve Alternative#4 and direct the applicant to conduct a neighborhood meeting in an effort to address these outstanding issues. 5 AMIL ON DR Op. C DART �O 3 W UA OOD RD W - - - a �, Subject W a ,M I M ,,� � Area � N ��� iM�ll I;;MtM � ttlir � �.. ,.,R r ,'.� .� suN�ow n ZUMWALT STATION RD " t � MMr :lii ilk� ;alf lllpl '. �°�•~--..�I:���� LOTTO OOD RD � �,,, ,� - •' I lei. ; . J t r- £y a- f a vft, Location Map Ringgenberg Park Subdivision Planned Residence District Amendment I r--a - 0 700 1,400 2,800 Feet n 'moo D[TISC-!!UG CG1o£Q mIS,:cvi YMp•OT' 0000s¢ .s:.ww �6UIJaaU16Ua >�f.ax�an.a.of aooar.o wt, ao e.� owos.w•.en .oswoens w..anam.f N1'ld Y315VN l Z Wfll s�«"'$ ------ ` P E t k Z I p L� 3aa H tp; ztt s€ vl�aafiag�fEif6° Y $ J ro ?dP ag s iaia� "E$E$ m 5 215 W (n CEP �: Z ga 'aS� 's U q � 5p p g8 ,n W °O- 3 �CZ) •s S t-i-- III � N �1 �o € Z s a �ge1 @ a ¢%➢s O - i w ^ a 8 „ fill e o - :m Z $� r8 �ag1�?�E$ 1 :;p ,Sir 2 I 3 Z 1 �q g I hli 1 o A 1 ! h,l +c i y NI w h 1 I i ell oil E9zt a1I Oi' hi �1 N o on til o oh: o jj it hll a}. N' l a a y` g days a � Lea gig �,� d. ! I.G ay u� n n e _ € € a R... .h: �31 � „�� nl .. 9 999 � 5 1 n l i Ell � b}I A Er5 A ¢Zm z 6 it s — s ¢s rz o a xrw I Nib c u g9383 fill,o� !s _ a. S p far� E� DRYVE��. ttsxo-aoe mso[e[ls�sr xre 6u1jaaw6ua „ ar Hne a31Szt rn Nil r.n qtl - oh q 1 �d > p hI j 7 � �� m� pT N l' : nI� p £ 00 a p ztr bl a A39 `, i@g u w ur. > iY C'CL-� 1 irl4 i a a aZ ilk all wi! toll P e qa �^t � e st p`+pj Y$y R Y CA q g FS�p�p 7Y; a Y bj Nil Ell ^ S! o'i pgii� ,�! ab;! i pg@Yt e" a_ z '01Nil - I' nil b fi �! _ q nit E fE yQg hil ' m.i,'o `�13: §63lYa asaa tl➢ �4:a yy �! r 253 .� qi; )iA1 �•a is "!�� N;'. o q � �I �ii- a�. � m �;: °^"°!e� bid m 5 �C Ij �� n� o qqj 1 aa1 o m Ur it Zu,U Y 'V H'7'4 5 47 Yi ---, =G i .o o �po Hello, my name is Kim Townsend and Bev Madden, Ken Kreumpel and Bob Carithers and I would like to express our concerns over the proposed changes in the Ringgenberg Development. In an effort to save time we've put together the following points: • Our neighborhood started meeting in May, 2004 to come together to help define what we wanted to see in this new development. • We worked until the City council meeting on April 12,2005 at which time we presented our concerns such as density issues, setbacks and buffer plantings along Oakwood Road and adequate transition to the existing neighborhoods especially with concern to the medium density plans at the front of the development. The city council agreed with our concerns. Council member Goodhue stated"that some "R-M"development would be suitable in the proposal but that it would have to be scaled back"further Mahayni stated that he could not support medium density—"that it was not appropriate for this area". Council member Wirth agreed stating at another time in another letter that she agreed with the neighbors that "we're plopping down an island of medium density in the middle of low density". Council member Veggie agreed that the development would have to scaled down. Mahayni, seconded by Cross, moved to direct the staff to work with the developers and the neighborhood to come up with a workable compromise. This was an unusual and unprecedented move on the part of the city council that shows their concerns and all of our willingness to work things out. • We worked together with Friedrich to come to a workable solution as presented in the developer's final proposal. Note that there are only 13 buildings, increased setbacks, buffer zones of additional plantings, a pond, the pool and the club house. This proposal was unanimously approved at the city council meeting. Now times have changed and Friedrich has possibly altered their big house concept for a different kind of multi family housing—one which is more affordable to develop. This information was obtained through many conversations with Kurt Friedrich. They have changed their concept for the front part of the development on Oakwood Road, the part which is so very important to us in the surrounding neighborhoods. The part so very important to the city council that again, I remind you, they made an unprecedented move to send the developer back to the neighborhood to negotiate a better outcome. The developer is asking you to let them move the pool and clubhouse to the middle of their development. This pool and clubhouse, along with the pond, increased setback and additional plantings is the major visual transition between the large lot homes on the north side of Oakwood and the medium density condominiums on the south. If the pool and club house are taken away, what will fill their place? Other condos, townhomes or greenspace? No new plans for this area have been developed or shared with the community. • We therefore request that you deny the revision of the plans to move the pool and clubhouse from the medium density housing to the central part of the subdivision unless and until they can specifically define the modifications to the medium density housing area along Oakwood Road and insure the fulfillment of the original intent of the city council. WOODVIEW DRIVE AND OAKWOOD ROAD FROM"A"(AGRICULTURAL)TO"RL" (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY): Mayor Tedesco opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Council Member Goodhue left the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Moved by Vegge, seconded by Cross, to pass on first reading an ordinance rezoning property located in the vicinity of Woodview Drive and Oakwood Road from"A"(Agricultural) to "RL" (Residential Low Density). Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Council Member Goodhue returned to the meeting at 8:50 p.m. HEARING ON REZONING OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CEDAR LANE APPROXIMATELY 620 FEET SOUTH OF OAKWOOD ROAD FROM "A" (AGRICULTURAL) TO "FS-RL" (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) [RINGGENBERG PARK]: A letter was received in the City Clerk's Office from William B. Stoner,Jr.,and Joyce E.Stoner,2717 Oakwood Road,Ames,requesting that the City Council consider a zoning classification that would allow development of the Ringgenberg Farm in such a matter so as to respect the existing neighborhood along Oakwood Road;and at the same time, provide for the appropriate density of the overall development. Also for the record, Catherine Scott, 1510 Roosevelt,Ames,had provided to the City Clerk's Office pictures of"big house development"in Cincinnati, Ohio; those pictures were forwarded to the Mayor and City Council. The meeting recessed at 8:52 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Director of Planning and Housing Matt Flynn stated that Items 41,43,and 45 dealt with rezoning of property,and Items 42,44, and 46 a. and b. dealt with the Master Plan development of those tracts of land. He advised that staff was recommending approval of the rezoning requests and development proposals, as they were consistent with the Land Use Policy Plan and compatible with surrounding land uses. Mr. Flynn advised that the request to rezone the subject site from"A"(Agricultural)to"FS-RL" (Suburban Residential Low Density)and the subsequent request to rezone from"FS-RL"to "F- PRD"(Planned Residence District)involved approximately 96.22 acres and was generally located on the west side of Cedar Lane. A total of 202 single-family detached lots are proposed, which would create a net density of 3.81 units/acre. The request to rezone approximately 21.24 acres located at the southwest corner of Cedar Lane and Oakwood Road to RM"(Suburban Residential Medium Density)was specifically addressed by Mr. Flynn. The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Cedar Lane and Oakwood Road. A total of 210 dwelling units are proposed in 21 ten-unit buildings. He stated that there would be a net density of 14.60 units per acre for the proposed development. Mr. Flynn advised that no formal recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission accompanied the staff report because the Commission voted 2-2 to recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning request to "FS-RM." Scott Renaud and Ron Baker, Fox Engineering, 1601 Golden Aspen Drive,Ames,representing the developers Friedrich Realty,explained the proposed development. He specifically addressed the proposed"FS-RM"designation and the planned 210 dwelling units.The buildings would be designed in the "big house" concept (each building looks similar to large single-family homes). In addition to the residential buildings, the developer was proposing a clubhouse building with a pool and a pond in the northeast corner of the site and a maintenance building/storm shelter in the southwest corner of the site. Mr. Renaud showed the plan for landscaping and buffers. The developers preferred to install the bike path and landscaping(i.e., street trees) for the whole development right away even though development ofthis entire parcel would take approximately ten years. According to Mr.Renaud, the developers have accomplished a good transition from this proposed development to the arterial street(Oakwood Road)due to the large front setback of the homesteads already in place on the other side of Oakwood Road and the landscaping. Mr. Renaud advised that none of the landscaping would be removed if Oakwood Road were expanded. After being questioned by Council Member Goodman, Mr. Renaud advised that the village concept was considered, but decided against due to site limitations, market limitations, design limitations, and density requirements. The hearings on Items 41, 42, 43,44, 45, and 46 were opened by the Mayor. Kim Townsend, 2609 Timberland Road, Ames,advised that the current residents of the subject area believed that it was the responsibility of elected officials to protect current residents and that responsibility must take precedence to their service to the developers. They did believe that development was part of the future of Oakwood Road,but they wanted to help define the criteria for development. Ms. Townsend indicated what the current residents liked about the development proposal. She also listed and detailed what they did not like, i.e., (1) the condos did not provide appropriate transition, (2)there were too many condos(density was too high), (3)they had traffic concerns, and (4) there was insufficient setback and not enough screen plantings. According to Ms.Townsend,the Ringgenberg Farm is a Century Farm. The residents of the area adjacent to the Ringgenberg Farm would like to see the existing corn crib and mature trees preserved as part of Iowa's agricultural history. The optimal solution, according to area residents, would be larger lots with larger homes, at least a 60-foot setback from the proposed 34-foot road right-of-way, a buffer zone to include screen plantings,and a naturalized area with a pond and other amenities. Ms. Townsend advised that, if part of the area were allowed to be zoned "R-M," current residents wanted to see at least a 60-foot setback from the proposed expanded 34-foot road right-of-way, no more than 12-15 condo buildings, a buffer zone to include more generous screen plantings along Oakwood Road, and a naturalized pond area,the pool, and the clubhouse. Beverly Madden, 2815 Oakwood Road, Ames, indicated that her family had lived in this neighborhood for almost 30 years. She felt that the proposed condos would be an island surrounded by single-family homes and ISU farmland; it would be a distinctively different land use. Ms. Madden emphasized that, if the condos were approved, the current residents wanted to see at least a 60-foot setback from the proposed 34-foot road right-of-way. She also indicated that the proposed development of210 dwelling units in 21 ten-unit buildings was much too dense. John Sams,2314 Suncrest,Ames,said that his main concern over the proposed development was the additional traffic that would be generated. He had been told that there would be a 300% increase in traffic volume. He would prefer single-family residential development in this area. Beverly Kruempel, 2519 Timberland Road, Ames, urged the City Council not to approve the Medium-Density development. She was not opposed to the entire development proposal,just the medium-density(condo units). Warren Madden, 2815 Oakwood Road, Ames, advised that he was speaking as the Vice- President of Business and Finance at Iowa State University (ISU). He pointed out that ISU owned 2,650 acres of land to the south and to the west of this proposed project and planned to continue major agricultural operations on this land for the next 50 years. A new dairy farm is planned for this area, which is not conducive to residential development. Mr. Madden pointed out that residential development would drastically increase the population in this area, and he wanted to ensure that the people moving into this area were aware of ISU's plans. He indicated that the buffer zone was very important. Mr. Madden advised that Iowa State University also must ensure that storm water run-off would be properly engineered and adequately managed for any development in this area. He said that it was important for the City to provide a range of different housing styles that could be marketed to faculty being recruited, and he did not believe that the condos being proposed adequately addressed that need. Ken Kruempel,2519 Timberland Road,Ames,gave the history behind his neighborhood. It was also his belief that if the Medium-Residential zoning were allowed, it would create an island of multi-family units and not be characteristic of this neighborhood. He discussed right-of-way and questioned where the plantings being proposed along Oakwood Road would be located; it appeared to him that the plantings were located in the right-of-way, not on the developers' property. Mr. Kruempel also questioned where the electric line would be located if Oakwood Road were widened. He did not believe that the screen plantings would work because of the location of the electric line. It was pointed out that the height dimension had not been given for the"big house"development. Dave Overmeyer, 2611 Woodview Drive, Ames, asked that the City not allow the condo units to be built. He believed that it was the responsibility of the City to protect property values for the current residents of this area. Harold Crawford, 2319 Timberland Road, Ames, pointed out that there would be drainage problems with this land, as evidenced by the amount of water left standing after the recent rains. He also asked the Council to look at all the condo units currently in Ames and ask themselves if more were needed. Kurt Friedrich, Friedrich Iowa Realty, Sixth and Duff, Ames, indicated that they felt privileged to have been allowed to purchase the Ringgenberg Farm for development. He pointed out that if development were never allowed because of adjacent agricultural uses, Ames would be a no- growth community. The developers have ensured that this proposal provided for a variety of housing, ranges of prices, consistency of quality, aesthetics, trails, landscaping, and lots of neighborhood amenities. Mr. Friedrich recognized that there was opposition to the Medium- Residential development proposal;however,he hoped that they had dispelled any notion that this was just another"rental project." If the"R-M"development were not approved,the developers must move forward with the single-family development;however, there would be no clubhouse or pool, and landscaping would be more limited. Staff was asked to address the discrepancy in density. Matt Flynn advised that the Ringgenberg proposal calls for a gross density of 10.8 gross units/acre and Wessex was at approximately 9.9 gross units/acre. Kurt Friedrich explained that the developers believed that the corn crib was not structurally safe; they would be willing to give the corn crib to the neighborhood residents. The developers looked at including the corn crib in green space; however, for safety reasons, they opted not to do that. Pertaining to the mature trees in the area proposed for "R-M," if that rezoning did not get approved by the City Council,the offer to purchase that particular parcel of land would be void. Don Wandling, 2601 Oakwood Road,Ames,advised that the Wessex development consisted of 294 units on 30 acres;the proposed condo development would be comprised of 210 units on 21.4 acres. Council Member Goodhue indicated that he felt some"R-M"development would be suitable in this proposed development, but it should be scaled-back. If that could not be worked out, Mr. Goodhue indicated that he would not support rezoning any portion of the land to Medium- Density Residential. Council Members Vegge and Mahayni concurred. Mr. Mahayni said he believed that the proposed condominiums were attractive, but the subject site was not the right place for them. Council Member Wirth agreed and stated that she would like to see the density cut back by at least 50%. Council Member Goodman asked what the future plans were for Oakwood Road. Matt Flynn indicated that Oakwood Road was classified as a minor arterial; there currently are no major traffic generators on either side,and it may not need improvement for a long time. Mr.Goodman indicated that he did not feel this would be a good location for dense development if Oakwood Road were not classified as a major arterial.