HomeMy WebLinkAboutA039 - June 24, 2025, Regular Meeting of the Ames City CouncilITEM #:41
DATE:06-24-25
DEPT:P&H
SUBJECT:APPLICANT REQUEST TO INITIATE A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
MODIFYING THE PUD OVERLAY OPEN SPACE STANDARD FOR INFILL
SITES OF LESS THAN TWO ACRES
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
At the June 10 City Council meeting the Council referred to staff a request for a Text
Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay standards governing the
required amount of dedicated open space in PUDs. The letter was sent by Wasker, Dorr,
Wimmer and Marcouiller, P.C. representing a property owner JJR Holdings and SRM
Holdings, wishing to develop a PUD townhome infill project on a small site on S 4th Street that
is less than two acres (See Attachment A- Applicant Letter).
The essential question raised by the developer is whether the current requirement for
10% of a project site to be common open space accessible to residents should apply to
infill sites less than two acres. The letter from the owner's attorney requested that Council
consider allowing PUD sites less than two acres to not have to provide dedicated set aside
open space, but rather that the dedicated open space requirement on sites less than two acres
be allowed to be calculated based upon individual yards as well as open areas across the
entire site (See Attachment B- PUD Standards Excerpt). Essentially, this would allow for some
type of private usable space configuration to meet the common area standard.
The applicant believes this approach, depending on the definition of what type of space counts
toward the10%, would work for their planned 1.27 acres 16 unit bi-attached/townhome style
project (See Attachment C-South 4th Common Preliminary Plat). Although this approach
may work for the applicant, Council may also want to consider the broader question of
whether open space should be required with infill development regardless of lot
configurations.
If the requested text change is initiated by Council, the applicant will pursue the 16-unit
townhomes style project (Attachment C) concurrent with the text amendment. If the text
amendment is not initiated, staff believes that the developer will have to eliminate one
of the units at the rear southwest corner of the site where there is otherwise open space
due to electric easements. Potentially other adjustments or the loss of a second unit
could be required as well, which is what led to the request for a text amendment by the
applicant.
PUD OVERLAY:
The City established the Overlay originally to facilitate more variety of housing types targeted
to the growth areas of the City for sites exceeding two acres. Last year Council made
changes to allow for PUDs on infill sites that are under two acres. When the PUD was
initially created it was likely to only apply in FS zoning districts that already had a 10% usable
open space standard. The PUD added to the requirements that 50+ unit projects would
1
require more specific types of common amenities. However, infill sites have non-FS zoning
districts base zones which do not have open space set-aside requirements.
The rationale for requiring open space was to mitigate some of the tradeoffs in reduce lot
sizes, setbacks, coverage, etc. that often occur with PUDs to ensure that livable areas with
quality open spaces similar to how developments in FS areas would otherwise occur. Having
tradeoffs for PUD flexibility is common. However, growth areas and infill site could be viewed
differently because of zoning differences and different neighborhood development patterns
where existing areas may already have park and open space area.
From the review of the S 4th PUD concept and the recent Dakota Townes project, the effect of
the open space expectation does have significant influence on small projects. Specifically,
facilitating townhome type development has issues of balancing common space with individual
lot configurations. While having common open space on site could be beneficial to residents,
the balancing of development types, space allocation, and resident maintenance costs on
smaller projects is a reasonable question to be addressed to help guide infill projects in the
future.
Council needs to consider with this request how the PUD standards affect the
maximum number of housing units on small infill sites and how that relates to
achieving dual goals of Ames Plan 2040 to provide infill housing throughout the City in
a context sensitive and high quality living environment.
POTENTIAL APPROACHES TO AN OPEN SPACE AMENDMENT:
Staff describes multiple alternatives below to respond to this issue for infill projects. The
developer proposal for a combination of open space and common area is viable, but will
require some definition with the text amendment to address:
whether to emphasize private or semi-private space (usable ground area, deck, patios)
located outside of front yards as being required to achieve the expectation,
whether a minimum area is needed for every unit or just in total for the project as
proposed by the developer
whether a specified amount or area with minimum dimensions is required per unit or if it
would be reviewed qualitatively with the PUD design overall.
Staff believes two other approaches are also viable if City Council desires to amend the 10%
standard for infill. The first is to eliminate the 10% open space standard in its entirety if the
base zone does not already require an open space set-aside. A second variation is to allow
for townhome projects to be exempt from the standards.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Initiate a developer application for a text amendment to remove the 10% open space
requirement for PUD sites less than two acres in size if not otherwise required by the
base zoning district and allow for concurrent review of the applicant's PUD with the text
amendment.
This choice has the broadest application and treats infill sites equal to the underlying
base zone that otherwise does not require open space for projects. It would help
increase densities on a site because no specific set-aside requirement would exist.
However, each project would still have to address on a case by case basis that the
project attains the purposes of the PUD, which include appropriate private and common
open spaces. This option would meet the developer's interest that motivated the
request.
2. Initiate a developer application for a text amendment to allow for a combination of private
and common area equal to 10% open space requirement for PUD sites less than two
acres in size and allow for concurrent review of the applicant's PUD with the text
amendment (Developer's request).
With this choice, the type of substitute open space will need to be defined regarding the
private yard area sizes and dimensions per unit. Staff would make recommendations on
these issues in response to the applicants proposal.
3. Initiate a developer application for a text amendment to remove the 10% open space
requirement only for Single-Family Attached housing (Townhome style housing) for PUD
sites less than two acres in size and allow for concurrent review of the applicant's PUD
with the text amendment.
While the scope is narrower for Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 1, It would meet
the goals of the developer as well.
4. Initiate a developer application for a text amendment with modified standards from those
discussed above or direct staff to prepare other draft changes to the PUD Overlay.
5. Decline to initiate a text amendment to modify the 10% open space standard.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based upon the goals of Ames Plan 2040 to support housing within infill areas of the City and
the nature of small PUD sites under two acres in size, staff believes that changing the
standard requiring set aside devoted open space equal to 10% of the gross lot area can be
viewed as appropriate. Infill sites often have more constraints than growth areas and may be
able to take advantage of existing park and open space resources.
Staff believes any of the top three alternatives described above would either in whole or
in part address the developer's request. Staff believes Alternative #1, which provides
3
for eliminating open space when not otherwise required by a base zoning district puts
infill housing on the same ground as a non-PUD project and facilitates housing
development to the greatest degree. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City
Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.
It should be noted that the approval process of the PUD would still require findings of support
related to the PUD purpose and have to address providing appropriate combinations of private
and common open space on a case-by-case basis.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment A- Applicant Letter.pdf
Attachment B- PUD Standards Excerpt.pdf
Attachment C- South 4th Commons Preliminary Plat 06-04-25.pdf
4
LAW OFFICES
WASKER, DORR, WIMMER & MARCOUILLER, P.C.
HIGHLAND BUILDING – THREE FOUNTAINS OFFICE PARK
4201 WESTOWN PARKWAY – SUITE 250
WEST DES MOINES, IOWA 50266-6720
(515) 283-1801
FAX (515) 283-1802
Email: lawfirm@wdwm.net
June 18, 2025
REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMES MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 29, ARTICLE 11 (OVERLAY ZONES)
Mayor John Haila & Ames City Council
City Hall
515 Clark Avenue
Ames, IA 50010
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Our office has been asked to put forward a letter requesting a text amendment
to Chapter 29, Article 11 of the Ames Municipal Code. Our specific request is for an
amendment to the Common Open Space and Amenities requirement shown in Table
29.1114 (5) Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUD) Supplemental
Development Standards, which states that a minimum of 10% of gross area shall be
devoted to common open space.
There is a possible interpretation of the existing language that this 10% must
be dedicated, set aside, separate open space, independent from open space given to
individual residents via walkouts, patios, balconies, etc. This interpretation could be
seen to hold true for sites of various sizes, layouts, and purposes, but may not be
effective for all of them.
To that end, we are requesting a minor, targeted exception to this rule, stating
that, specifically, smaller infill development sites of less than 2 acres, are allowed to
count such extra open spaces from walkouts, etc. towards their 10% goal. This
exception would not apply to any sites other than infill development sites, and only to
FRED L. DORR
MATTHEW D. KERN
MARK R. ADAMS
DAVID C. PULLIAM
MATTHEW M. HURN
ZORICA ILIC BURCH
JOSEPH W. COPPOLA III
____________
JASON R. SANDEGREN
SETH D. DODGE
JUSTIN E. HAYES
TAYLOR R. FRANCIS
TYLER M. PHELAN
AUDRA F. SAUNDERS
JAMES H. SAYRE
____________
OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM J. WIMMER
RUSSELL (RUSTY) H. LAIRD
01/16/27 – 06/05/15
CHARLES F. WASKER
02/04/26 – 12/09/16
5
those infill sites that are less than 2 acres, which are the sites which are most in need of
flexibility in these requirements to make sure of such spaces.
Per Sec. 29.1114(1), one of the stated goals of The Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Overlay zone is to “encourage context-sensitive infill development.” We
believe that this text amendment would further this policy objective. It would also help
“provide for innovative and imaginative development through flexibility in… use of
open space.”
Further, exceptions like this for infill development have already been made in
the Ames zoning code. For example, an exception is already written into the PUD
ZONE Area Requirement, which states that the required minimum area of two acres
or more for such sites be waived for infill development sites.
In summary, we feel that this small, targeted change to the language of the
Municipal Code could provide the chance for more flexible and creative development,
allowing for better use of smaller infill spaces.
Respectfully submitted,
WASKER, DORR, WIMMER & MARCOUILLER, P.C.
Taylor R. Francis
6
!"
#
$"
% & '(
)
'
*+* ,'(&-(
,'(&-
' '( & '
' &. /'0/ * / 1+
*' & /0 .
& .-
+'&& -- /2( &
' '
2 3&
'4 . (2/-*' &.
'+( &- 0/ . -'
' '( &+5&1+'
* +
6 /0 & &4 (+( & 57& &. '/ ' /. +-/' .& (0
'( /
/'& 0/
& & '( / . '(&- &4 & -'
+&
' . /
/' /0 & /'
8
. - /-/&( 5+
(
' 0// -
' '( (
286 & *+& 5 -- /2( 8
. . - /9 4
):
*+*
. ;
'
- <+
(
'
=/'
' 3
&
.
. 1+
*' & &. --6 / 5+
(
' 8
.
' >> 0 /0 ' 5+
'
/ /0 (
00 ' &
('
?/' / &
('
'( +& (&
'
/'4
7
' 1+
*' &
7
' &-& &. 5 - /2
(( & - &
5( 56 .
& .- @ ./82
1+
( - 7
'
/
/'& *6 5 -- /2( 56 .
6 /+'
' /**/' & / /' & 8
.
' .
5/+'(
& /0 . A34 00/ (5 ./+&
' 0/ /8; '( */( ;
'/* ./+&./(& *6
.2 - 7
' (+( &/ . ' - *' (8
' +'
/'6 1+
& *:
*+* /0 8/
- 7
' &-& (&& /0 5( //* /+' - +'
4
% BC'0 & + +
C*- /2*' &
%
*- /2*' &
8
&'
6 &8
& / * &8
*- /2*' &
- 7 ((
/'
'(
0
& &. 5
'& (
' /*-
' 8
. . &+5(
2
&
/' +
/'& /0 .
6
'( &. * . /'& +
/' &-
0
/'& /0 .
64
2 & & D
0
'+((E *+&
/*-6 8
. - /2
&
/'& /0 . %+5(
2
&
/' /(4
/**/' F-' %- '(
*'
&
)
'
*+* /0 >G /0 . /&& &. 5 (2/ ( / /**/' /-' &-4 .
' '((
-+ -/& /0 . - /-/&( /-' &- *+& 5 & 0/ .
' . -'4 . '( - /2
(( 0/
/**/' /-' &- *+& 5
*- /2( 0/
&
' '(( -+ -/&
'( (
6 &&
5 /
&
(' &4 /2
( 0/ . /8' &.
- '( *
' '' /0 . /**/' /-' &-4 .&
' /0
*- /2*' & &. 5 6 (&
5(
' . (2/-*' -'& '( *6 5 1+
( / 5
& 0/ .
' 6 5
'(
'
'& +*' 4
+5./+&
//0 (7 -
/&
'( &
*
/**+'
6 *'
& *6 5 (
( /8 ( .
/-' &- 1+
*' 4
32/-*' & :(
' > (8
' +'
& &. - /2
( 0/ +&5 /-' &- '( *'
&
/ & 2 . &
(' & /0 . (2/-*' 8.
. *6
'+( /*5
'
/' /0 /**/'
'( -
2 +&5 6 ( & / ( /+ &
( 0 /' 6 ( & 57&4H
32/-*' /0 *(
+* '( .
.;('&
6 (2/-*' & *6 5 :*- 0 /* - /2
(
'
/**/' /-' &- 8.'
/' *'
&
&+. & +5./+&&
-//&
/ &-/
/+ &
&+00
' 6 - /2
(( 0/ & ' '
24
</7 3&
'
,6/+ '( (&
' &. '
' /'' ( ' 8/ 7 /0 & & 8
. 5/7 0& . (/
'/ :( II> 0 8
.
' . (2/-*' 4 J. -
5
5/7 ' .& '/+ (
/ 5 >> 0 / &&4 </7 0& *6 :( II> 0 8. -.6&
/ '2
/'*'
/'(
/'& - +( */
' /'' ( & ' 8/ 74 A& /0 +;(;&& '( ((;'(
& & &. &/ 5
*
( / .& &
+
/'&4
J.' 5/7& :( I>> 0
. A3 &. /**/( -(&
' /&&
'&
8786
/''
/'& . /+. 5/7
/ / . *'& /0 '.'
' . -(&
'
+
/' &6& *
0/
' /'' ('&&4
A& /0 6&
/00;&
- 7
'
/ / . &. ( && *'&
& (&
5 / *
'
'
/'&
& ' & 0 /' 8
. *
'
*
' +-
/'& 56 (
286& / & &
.
'
/';
& - 7
'
'( &
(87& & 8 & - /2
(
' /--/ +'
& 0/ '
2 ./+&
'
/-
/'& &+. & / /+ &4
KLMNOPQROPSSTUVPWXWWXWWVPLMNOPQROPSTYWZPYTXW[XW[VPLMNOPQROPSTS\ZP\YXYUXWS]P
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
EX BUILDING
EX BUILDING
WA
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
SOUTH 4TH STREET
77
'
30
'
77
'
50'32'32'2'30'32'32'31'60'
77
'
30
'
77
'
47'31'31'28'30'35'32'32'34'
77
'
49'32'32'32'32'32'31'61'
77
'
77
'
46'31'31'8'
31'
57
'
77
'
77
'
77
'
77
'
77
'
57
'
31'
15'32'32'35'
77
'
77
'
77
'
77
'
77
'
A
5'
20'
11'11'11.12'
24.05'
15.51'15.88'
34.44'
10'11.8'
8'
10.42'10.42'
20.61'
20'(TYP)21.5'(TYP)
3.5'(TYP)16.5'(TYP)
7.36'14'
23.58'34.94'
20.21'
5'
5'
3'
5.34'
3'
R25
'R25
'
R25
'R25
'
8'
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
4"
P
C
C
S
W
JUNIPER ST
6" PCC
4" PCC SW
CURB PCC, 3" (TYP)
10' FRONT SETBACK
FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT PATCH
DETECTABLE WARNINGS (TYP)
4" PCC SW
MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL
MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL,
PROVIDE RAILING AT TOP OFF WALL
4" PCC SW
MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL
3,558 SF 2,384 SF 2,384 SF 2,096 SF 2,606 SF 2,452 SF 2,455 SF 2,641 SF
4,688 SF 2,422 SF 2,424 SF 2,417 SF 2,413 SF 2,417 SF 2,420 SF 3,824 SF
SOUT
H
4
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
3
2
0
C
O
-
O
P
I
N
C
STOR
Y
C
O
U
N
T
Y
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
I
N
C
321 S
O
U
T
H
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
L
C
321 S
O
U
T
H
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
L
C
11,470 SF
20'
8'
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
15' REAR SETBACK
6'
11.05'
10' PROPOSED ELECTRIC EASEMENT
PROJECT NUMBER:
PAGE NUMBER:
DATE:
24-427
3
LO
T
L
A
Y
O
U
T
ENGINEER:
DRAWN BY:
BWS
SO
U
T
H
4
T
H
C
O
M
M
O
N
S
AM
E
S
,
I
A
KRL
06-04-25
ST
U
B
B
S
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
16
0
9
N
A
N
K
E
N
Y
B
L
V
D
S
T
E
2
3
0
,
A
N
K
E
N
Y
,
I
A
5
0
0
2
1
(5
1
5
)
2
5
9
-
1
1
3
3
UTILITY NOTE:
UTILITIES LOCATIONS ARE TAKEN FROM PUBLIC RECORDS AND FIELD
SURVEYS. THE SURVEYOR AND ENGINEER MAKE NO GUARANTEE
THAT ALL UTILITIES IN THE AREA ARE SHOWN. THE EXACT LOCATIONS
AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE
CONTRACTOR. IT IS ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR
TO ESTABLISH IF ANY ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OTHER THAN THE ONES
SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE PRESENT IN THE FIELD.
Feet
0 20 40
8