HomeMy WebLinkAboutA029 - Property Owner Request to Initiate Zoning Text Amendment to the Hospital/Medical Design District (S-HM)ITEM #:31
DEPT:P&H
July 22, 2025
Staff Report
PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST TO INITIATE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO
HOSPITAL/MEDICAL DESIGN DISTRICT (S-HM)
BACKGROUND:
The City Council received a letter from Gary Botine of Mary Greeley Medical Center
(MGMC) in June regarding desired zoning changes to the height limitations and
residential use within the Hospital/Medical Design District (S-HM) for an upcoming
MGMC project.
Council directed staff to prepare a background memo about the requested changes and the
MGMC project concept. This information was provided to City Council for the July 8 meeting
and City Council directed staff to place the MGMC request with the background information on
a future agenda for Council discussion. Since the initial request and staff memo, MGMC held a
neighborhood meeting on July 7. Additional information about that meeting is included at the
end of this report.
The requested amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are related to two planned buildings:
1. A new building for a Nursing Simulation and Medical Training Facility, including
expanded skills labs for nursing staff and overnight rooms that may be used for staff on-
call.
2. Four townhome-style dwellings for long-term housing of staff and potentially residents
through a new medical residency program. (Note: the townhomes are considered
apartments under the Zoning Ordinance as the units will not be located on separate
lots).
The two buildings will be located in the southwest portion of the MGMC Campus, adjacent to
Kellogg Avenue. Conceptual plans for the project are attached, including a site plan that
shows the relationship of the project to the residential homes to the south.
The MGMC Campus and broader medical office area between 10th and 13th Streets
(from south to north), and Kellogg and Carroll Avenues (from east to west) is zoned
Hospital/Medical Design District (S-HM). The adjacent neighborhood is zoned
Residential Medium Density, and most properties are within the Single-Family
Conservation Overlay District (O-SFC). See attached zoning and location map.
MGMC requests Council consider changes to allow for residential use and to reduce
the setbacks for buildings exceeding 50 feet. The first request is to allow for household
living as a permitted use in the S-HM zoning in order to construct the four townhome-
style apartment dwellings. Overnight and short-term stay accommodations are a permitted
1
use in the S-HM , but household living as apartment dwelling units is not allowed.
The second request pertains to the training facility. MGMC requests a change to
setbacks for buildings abutting residential zoning that exceed 50 feet in height. This
change would affect the setback of the 60-foot-tall training facility from the south edge
of the site. A 12-foot setback is requested in lieu of the current 50-foot setback
requirement for the proposed 60-foot-tall training facility.
The current requirements allow for a 50-foot-tall building with a 12-foot setback from the south
property line that abuts residential property. Once a building exceeds 50 feet in height,
setbacks increase by an extra 30 feet for abutting residential zoning. An eight-foot high
landscape buffer is also required within the setback area abutting residential, regardless of
setbacks.
S-HM ZONING:
S-HM zoning uniquely applies to this area of the City. It was designed to accommodate
medical services desired by the community, but also to balance the compatibility of modern
office buildings located within the historic fabric of the neighborhoods around the area. This is
primarily accomplished through landscaping/buffering standards and setback requirements.
There are no specific design or architectural standards.
The subject area for the new building has been owned by MGMC for three decades, but it was
not rezoned to S-HM until 2011 when MGMC was completing its expansion plans.
It was also in 2011 that the current requirement for increased setbacks for buildings to exceed
50 feet in height when adjacent to residential zoning was approved. The height limit was part
of the 2011 MGMC request to increase the maximum height allowed in S-HM in relation to the
hospital renovation. The zoning standard for an additional 30-foot setback when adjacent to
residential was meant to maintain compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods while
otherwise increasing development intensities located more internal to a site.
POLICY ISSUES:
There are two significant policy issues to be addressed by the requested zoning text
amendment:
1. Reducing the required side setbacks in S-HM abutting residential.
The training facility does not meet setbacks along the south property line as proposed.
The requested setback from the south property line is 12 feet, which would apply to a
four-story building that does not abut residential or is less than 50 feet in height.
However, since the proposed building is 60 feet tall, the current required setback
is 50 feet.
Although the requested change to the setback would facilitate the MGMC proposal, it
also would apply to other properties zoned S-HM that are adjacent to residential zoning,
including multiple properties east of Duff Avenue.
For comparison, staff reviewed other zoning districts for required setbacks of
taller buildings and commercial buildings abutting residential areas:
2
- A 20-foot setback is required for a four-story/50-foot structure in the
Residential Medium (RM) Zoning District. FS-RM would also require a 10-
foot high screen landscape buffer within the setback.
- A 12- to 16-foot setback is required, depending on actual physical height,
for a four-story building in Residential High Density (RH).
- A 20-foot setback is required in Highway-Oriented Commercial (HOC) when
abutting residential, regardless of height.
- Other commercial zones, such as Neighborhood Commercial (NC) or
Convenience General Service (CGS) that may commonly be adjacent to
residential areas, do not allow for buildings greater than 35 feet in height.
2. Allowing household living within S-HM
Currently, S-HM allows housing facilities as an accessory use. Housing facilities are
short-term or overnight options for staff. They may not be a complete dwelling unit (e.g.,
a unit with bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom facilities). The proposed overnight rooms
in the training facility would fall under this allowance and do not require a text
amendment.
However, the allowance for housing facilities does not apply to the townhomes. They fall
under the use category of household living where stays exceed 60 days. They are also
independent, principal uses as complete dwelling units rather than accessory uses. A
text amendment would be required to allow household living in S-HM as a
principal use to facilitate the townhome development.
The townhome-style apartments are an allowable building type with the RM and O-
SFC zoning districts that abut the MGMC site. MGMC representatives have
indicated they are willing to consider architectural design requirements similar to
O-SFC to enhance compatibility along Kellogg.
OUTREACH:
MGMC hosted a neighborhood meeting on July 7, 2025, to solicit feedback on the project.
Over 30 people were in attendance. A member of City Planning staff attended to listen to the
presentation. At the meeting, MGMC representatives described the planned use of the
buildings and reviewed the design of each building.
Questions and comments from the attendees were focused on why there was an interest in
adding a residential use, the compatibility and design of the structures, including the
townhome style, the change in standards for reduced setbacks, the overall height of the
training facility, and how the changes would apply to other properties in the S-HM. Both
MGMC and representatives of the neighborhood, as requested by Council on July 8,
provided more detailed summaries of the meeting. Both are attached to this report.
OPTIONS:
1. Initiate amendments as requested to allow both household living and reduced
3
setbacks in S-HM as a “by-right” allowance with staff approval .
The initial letter did not identify an approval process or limitation to the changes; the
default approval process is staff review by right in the S-HM.
2. Initiate amendments to allow both household living and reduced setbacks in S-HM
t o be approved as an alternative design through a Major Site Development Plan
process.
With either the requested use or setback change, staff believes the sensitivity of the area
warrants a public hearing review process for approval of the design of an individual
project. This would typically occur through review of a Major Site Development Plan,
which ensures notice for public participation in the design review process.
3. Initiate amendments to partially reduce the setback by eliminating the extra 30 feet
of setback, but still require the minimum setback of 20 feet based on a height of 60
feet, and allow for townhomes.
This partially reduces the setback, but maintains consistency with similar separation
distances in other zones. Twenty feet of space would allow for enhanced landscape
buffering, accommodating larger trees.
4. Deny the setback reduction and only initiate an amendment to allow for the
townhomes.
5. Deny the request for townhomes and only initiate the setback reduction text
amendment.
6. Do not initiate amendments at this time.
If no amendments are made, a three-story training facility less than 50 feet in height
could be built in lieu of the townhomes within current setbacks. A larger area per floor
would allow the height to be reduced and, thus, no text amendment would be required if
the facility is less than 50 feet in height.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The requested changes are a departure from the historical development patterns of the S-HM.
The site of the two planned buildings abut other residential property and staff believes that
sensitivity to compatibility with the neighborhood is warranted. Balancing compatibility and
hospital/medical building needs has historically been a point of emphasis for this area. If any
changes are undertaken, it will be important for City Council to articulate its primary interests
regarding how to address these traditional issues that apply to this area.
ATTACHMENT(S):
MGMC Request Letter.pdf
MGMC Provided Summary 7.7.25 Neighborhood Meeting.docx
Neighborhood Representatives Provided Summary 7.7.25 Neighborhood Meeting.docx
MGMC 7.7.25 Neighborhood Meeting Attendees.pdf
4
MGMC Concept Drawings and Zoning and Location Map.pdf
5
6
7
Neighborhood Meeting
Re: Education Center and Residential Row Houses
Monday, July 7, 2025
Atrium A
Introduction and Project Overview: Gary Botine provided a historical background on Captain
Wallace Greeley and his wife Mary, detailing their contributions to the community, including the
establishment of the original hospital with $80,000 of Captain Greeley's own money. He
emphasized the project's goal to continue the legacy of Mary Greeley by providing ongoing care
and education, highlighting the significant education component and the partnership with Iowa
State University. The project includes residential aspects to support the community and the
hospital's needs, ensuring that the legacy of Mary Greeley benefits future generations.
Nursing Pipeline Issue: Penny Belville explained the current shortage of nurses, intensified by
the retirement of baby boomers and the increasing healthcare needs of an aging population.
Dawn Bowker highlighted the challenges in nursing education, including the lack of faculty and
clinical instruction spaces, which result in many qualified applicants being turned away from
nursing programs. Efforts to support nursing education include Mary Greeley's involvement in
clinical instruction for community colleges and the proposed program with Iowa State University
to increase the number of nursing graduates in Iowa. Gary shared the success of the pharmacy
residency program in partnership with Drake University, which has helped support outlying
counties by providing trained pharmacists.
Proposed Site and Facility: The proposed site for the education simulation lab and row
houses were presented, explaining the buffer from neighbors and the benefits of the residential
aspect. The proposed facility will include an education simulation lab to enhance nursing
education and residential units to support medical residents and new physicians, ensuring close
proximity to the hospital. Dawn explained the importance of simulation technology in nursing
education, highlighting the benefits of high-tech mannequins and quality simulation space for
accelerated nursing programs.
Architectural Renderings: Gary shared architectural renderings of the proposed education
simulation lab and discussed the additional needs for Mary Greeley, including computer training
labs and de-escalation training space. Kevin Barber from 10Fold discussed the design elements
of the proposed housing, emphasizing the importance of matching the neighborhood aesthetic
and providing a buffer between the education facility and residential area.
Project Timeline: The project timeline was given, including the process for hiring a construction
manager, obtaining board approval, and starting construction. It emphasized the importance of
community input and the board's role in the decision-making process.
8
Community Concerns: Community members raised concerns about the height of the proposed
60-foot building and its 12-foot setback from residential properties. Gary clarified that they have
requested a text amendment to allow for the 60-foot height and 12-foot setback, which is
currently under review by the city. Additional concerns were expressed about the impact of the
proposed building on the neighborhood, including potential shadows and the aesthetic fit, with
many saying it was too modern, with the existing residential area. Questions were raised about
the long-term plan for medical space, given the conversion of some medical land to residential
use. Gary said that the hospital's needs are evolving with technology, and they believe they will
have sufficient space for future medical uses within their current footprint.
Follow-up tasks:
Community Feedback: Provide the board with the input and comments received from
the community during the meeting.
House Relocation: Look into the possibility of offering the existing houses to someone
who might want to move them to a new location.
Zoning Text Amendment: Clarify the implications of the proposed zoning text
amendment for the entire hospital medical zone and communicate this to the community.
9
Summary of Mary Greeley Medical Center Neighborhood Meeting
on July 7, 2025, about Planned Construction
The meeting was held in a Mary Greeley Medical Center (MGMC) conference room.
Over 30 neighborhood residents from both sides of Duff Ave attended, along with
representatives from MGMC, their project design firm (10Fold), ISU Nursing Program
staff, and the City of Ames Planning and Housing Division. The meeting lasted one
hour.
Gary Botine from MGMC provided a brief history of MGMC, a high-level description of
the need for a new training facility and ability to train nurses in conjunction with Iowa
State University, the capabilities the facility would provide, and information about the
many counties that rely on MGMC for care. He and representatives from the ISU
Nursing Program discussed the nation-wide nursing shortage and the need for facilities
to support a new program that would accelerate nurse training while working alongside
MGMC nursing staff. He discussed some of the new technologies that would be used in
the training facility.
Mr. Botine also discussed the need for residential spaces to support newly hired or
visiting doctors and nurses, saying that some potential hires are unable to find adequate
housing in the Ames area and the need for the housing to be near MGMC.
Attendees from the community made several comments. Almost all prefaced their
comments with statements of support for MGMC, appreciation for the services MGMC
provides to the community, commendation for MGMC’s adoption of new technologies
and training programs, and similar sentiments of praise. One community member said
he appreciated MGMC’s location and shared a story of walking to MGMC when needing
immediate care.
Concerns identified about the planned project included:
Training Facility: MGMC is planning to build a new, 60’ tall training building. Per the
City Code, setbacks for a building that high would typically be 40‘-50’, depending upon
the specific location. MGMC is asking for a text amendment that would reduce the
setback requirement to 12’.
Several speakers said that a 12’ setback for a 60’ building seemed inappropriate for the
site, particularly on a property across the street from a residential area with one - and
two-story homes.
Several speakers were alarmed by the idea that MGMC’s proposed text amendment to
change the setback would apply to all of the S-HM area, meaning it would allow all
10
property owners in the S-HM, even those owning property in the S-HM along Duff Ave,
Kellogg Ave, and the S-HM area adjacent to residential property along Carroll Ave, and
11th and 12th Streets east of Duff, etc. to erect 60’ buildings with 12’ setbacks. There
was some uncertainty about the extent to which a change in setback requirements
would apply, and a representative from the City Planning and Housing Division
confirmed that the requested text amendment change in setback requirements would
apply to all properties in the S-HM area, not only to the proposed project’s location or
only to property owned by MGMC.
One resident who currently lives on the south side of 11th St, across from the proposed
training building site, expressed concern about living across the street from a building
so tall.
One person asked why MGMC wasn’t building the training facility at their new campus
on 13th St, near Dayton Ave. MGMC said that it was too far away.
Several people asked about parking, and where the ~600 new nursing students would
park. MGMC said they would park on the MGMC campus. Some people mentioned
that currently a lot of people going into MGMC park on Kellogg Ave and 10th St daily.
Some people questioned MGMC’s desire for actual useful public input, given that
MGMC has an aggressive schedule for obtaining required approvals, finalizing design,
and breaking ground.
Residential Facilities: MGMC is planning to build four townhomes to support visiting or
newly hired doctors and nurses and is asking for a text amendment to allow the S-HM
zoning to include residential use.
Several residents discussed earlier situations in which MGMC acquired their residential
property for medical purposes, ranging from the 1970’s to the mid-2010s. They asked
why MGMC was now wanting to convert land zoned for medical purposes into land for
residential purposes.
One person asked whether MGMC had a master plan for future land needs. MGMC
said they did not have a master plan identifying to be used to meet future needs and
was unable to develop one because their needs change too quickly to allow for such
planning.
One person asked where the people living in the residences would park. MGMC said
they would part on Kellogg Ave. Residents said that was unacceptable as Kellogg Ave
is already crowded with street parking. They noted that virtually all other new residential
developments in Ames require some on-site parking, and this one should, also.
One person asked why MGMC wasn’t building on the empty lot on Duff Ave that is two
blocks away, which is already zoned for residential use, or using some of the vacant
11
properties formerly used by social service providers that are three to five blocks away.
MGMC said those properties were too far away or too expensive.
Questions were asked about the townhome facades, which do not appear to comply
with the design guidelines that apply to the properties south and west of the S-HM,
particularly the window styles and the ratio of facade to window space. One person
requested that, if the text amendment is approved, the residential facilities comply with
the Single-Family Overlay design guidelines.
Several people commented that they felt it would be more appropriate for MGMC to
meet their residential property needs at a different site. Removing the residential
facilities from the proposed project site would provide MGMC additional useable space
on that site, allowing them to increase the training facility’s footprint and lower its overall
height, thereby obtaining the same amount of training space, and also enable MGMC to
better comply with the existing setback requirements.
General: One person made the concluding point that the City’s process for developing
the zoning code and setting zoning standards is intentionally rigorous, lengthy, and
thoughtful, actively engaging the public, providing adequate opportunity for the
community to provide input, ensuring the requirements are well understood, and offering
the best chance for the Code to serve the community for an extended period. The
variance process sets an even higher standard for those who are unable or unwilling to
follow the Code, establishing strict criteria to qualify for a variance. This reinforces the
strength and value of the Code and provides residents confidence in using the Code to
make decisions on where to live and work and whether to invest in their properties.
However, the text amendment process as currently followed by the City sets the lowest
bar – almost no bar. Ther text amendment process is neither rigorous nor thoughtful; it
uses a hurried and limited process for engaging the public; it makes very little effort to
ensure that proposed requirements are well understood by the impacted communities
and puts a burden on the impacted communities to quickly understand and spread the
word about proposed changes; and is focused primarily on meeting the needs of the
individual or organization requesting the change to the Code, rather than the needs of
the community. This process is frustrating and disadvantageous to the community.
12
13
14
MARY GREELEY
MEDICAL CAMPUS
Du
f
f
A
v
e
Ca
r
r
o
l
l
A
v
e
St
a
f
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
E 11th St
E 12th St
13th Street
11th St
12th St
10th St
Ke
l
l
o
g
g
A
v
e
Bu
r
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
PROJECT SITE - EXISTING CONDITIONS
N
PROJECT SITE
MGMCPROPERTYMGMCSimulationLab + Residency 15
16
KE
LLOG
AVE
HMA
4933.084
Pin & CapNo
5
931.
897Pin & CapNo
7931.968
Pin & CapNoN89°20'06"W 180.06'
N0
1
0
6
2
8
W
1
8
6
6
2
932
23
932
77
932
95
932
91
932
89
932
93
932
90
932
96
931
94
932
07
932
95
930
49
M
931
48
932
95
933
18
933
21
M
932
85
932
24
932
18
932
02
932
54
932
12
932
60
932
68
ST-03
ST-05
93
0
932
1.
5
6
1.
0
0
0.81%
2.58%3.72%
931
29
M
ST-02
TR
DW
RF
DW
RF
DW
RF
DW
RF
UP
UP
932
95
932
95
932
94
932
96
931
51
4.91
4.
9
4
1.
6
3
1.50%
0.00%
FFE=933.00
FFE=934.40
932
97
932
97
930
62
930
70
931
23
931
71
930
83
929
30
0 5 10 20
N
SI
T
E
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
3
C300
A S S O C I A T E S®
SHEET
JOB NO.
PROJECT MGR.
NO
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DA
T
E
ERIC THOMPSON
7001.008
AM
E
S
I
O
W
A
ME
D
I
C
A
L
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
S
I
M
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
L
A
B
MA
R
Y
G
R
E
E
L
Y
M
E
D
I
C
A
L
C
E
N
T
E
R
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
O-SFC
S-HM
RL
RM UCRM
E 11TH ST
E 12TH ST
E 13THST13THST
12TH
ST
11TH ST
10TH ST
KE
L
L
O
G
G
A
V
E
DO
U
G
L
A
S
AV
E
CA
R
R
O
L
L
A
V
E
DU
F
F
A
V
E
DO
U
G
L
A
S
A
V
E
Location and Zoning Map
0 0.03 0.060.01
Miles
Legend
Subject Property
Parcels
Overlay Zones
Single Family Conservation Overlay ''O-
SFC'' (sec 29.1101) (1)
Residential
Residential Low Density Zone
RL" (sec 29.701)
Residential Medium Density
Zone "RM" (sec 29.702)
Urban Core Residential
Medium Density Zone
UCRM" (sec 29.703)
Special Purpose
Hospital-Medical District "S-
HM" (sec 29.1001)
Development
Area
24