HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Planning & Zoning Minutes 11/5/2014 MINUTES
CITY OF AMES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Date: November 5, 2014 Debra Lee, Chairperson 2015
*Rob Bowers, Vice Chairperson 2015
Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. Yvonne Wannemuehler 2015
Julie Gould 2016
Place: Ames City Hall John Tillo 2016
Council Chambers Carlton Basmajian 2017
*Matthew Converse 2017
Adjournment: 8:58 p.m.
*Absent
MAJOR TOPICS DISCUSSED:
1. Zoning Text Amendment for Greek Parking (fraternity and sorority)
2. ISU Research Park URA Conformity Finding
3. Public Hearing for Rezone of the ISU Research Park
4. Zoning Text Amendment for Front Yard Parking
5. Overview of Chapter 31 Update
___________________________________________________________________________
CALL TO ORDER: Debra Lee, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION: (Wannemuehler/Tillo) to approve the Agenda for the meeting of November 5,
2014.
MOTION PASSED: (5 - 0)
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2014:
Debra Lee requested that page 4, paragraph 2, sentence 2 of the October 15, 2014 be
amended to read: She stated that she believes in transition; however, she feels that the
proposed project for this property is not exactly mixed-use nor does it have anything transitional
to build upon.
MOTION: (Gould/Wannemuehler) to approve the Minutes of the meeting of October 15,
2014 as amended.
MOTION PASSED: (5 - 0)
____________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC FORUM: There were no public comments.
____________________________________________________________________________
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR GREEK PARKING (FRATERNITY AND SORORITY)
Karen Marren, Case Planner, stated that the City Council initiated a request to look at reduced
parking ratios for fraternity and sorority houses in Campustown after discussions with the Greek
Alumni Alliance. She stated that this discussion was a result of possible expansion projects and
rebuilds of some of the Greek houses due to the fact that some of those houses do not meet the
existing parking ratios for the current Code. Ms. Marren stated that Council asked staff to initiate
some public outreach. She stated that during October a meeting was scheduled with the Greek
Alumni Alliance, some of the Greek chapters, and the neighborhood to ask for their feedback.
Ms. Marren stated that there are 40 fraternity and sorority houses south of campus in the high-
density zone. She stated that there are two overlay districts in this area that have some special
requirements (parking and building requirements). Ms. Marren stated that currently Greek
chapters have to meet a parking ratio of one parking space per bed. She stated that there are
two homes that meet current code. Ms. Marren outlined on a map the location and number of
homes that would meet the proposed reduced parking requirements if they are approved. She
stated that there are possibly several chapters that are looking to develop new houses in this
area (either converting a current structure or building a new house). Ms. Marren stated that
residents are generally in agreement with Greek houses expanding and trying to accommodate
parking needs for them. She stated that there was a concern that Greek houses would be
converted to apartments if the chapters could not be sustained. Ms. Marren stated that there is
a concern with generating additional on-street parking. She outlined some of the parking and
design standards. Ms. Marren stated that City Council recommended that the parking ratio be
reduced to one parking space per three beds. She outlined the potential changes to the Code in
regards to the parking ratio.
John Tillo asked for clarification on whether the two chapters, that are interested in locating in
this area, are interested in the overlay district. Ms. Marren stated that staff has not heard about
the specific locations where these homes will be located.
Debra Lee asked for clarification. She stated that the staff report states that a resident feels that
the parking ratio should not be changed and that requests for a parking expansion should be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Lee asked if this recommendation was made by the City
Council. Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning & Housing, stated that staff asked Council in
October which of several options, that were suggested, they would like staff to pursue. He
stated that Council asked that a text amendment be drafted for the one parking space to three
bed ratio for the review process. Mr. Diekmann outlined items for the Commission to consider.
Yvonne Wannemuehler asked whether this will impact the current on-street parking as this was
a concern voiced by the neighbors. She stated that there is currently alternate side, on-street
parking and she feels that this potential change might make the on-street parking worse. Mr.
Diekmann stated that several residents asked, during a neighborhood meeting, that nothing be
changed that would change the on-street parking requirements due to less on-site parking. Ms.
Lee stated that she feels that tonight the Commission is being asked to consider ways to make
parking more viable for the Greek houses to remain in this area. Mr. Diekmann outlined reasons
why staff feels that there will not be a great deal of increase in on-street parking with the
proposed change to the Code.
Jeremy Davis, 711 Beach Avenue, stated that he is here speaking on behalf of the Greek
Alumni Alliance. He stated that many Greek Chapters have a desire to expand. Mr. Davis stated
that many of these homes were built in the early 1900’s. He stated that lot sizes in this area are
smaller than the current traditional lot size. Mr. Davis stated that if a Chapter wanted to rebuild
or expand their house it would not be possible due to lot size, the potential need to realign the
2
placement of the structure on the lot, and the fact that current City Code does not allow for front
yard parking. He stated this would result in the inability to place the required number of parking
spaces on the lot without eliminating the green space or building a parking deck. Mr. Davis
stated that the neighbors, that he has visited with, do not want to have parking decks in this
area. He stated that current students have additional educational living demands and the
Chapters want to offer additional living amenities. Mr. Davis stated that they are in support of
both of the proposed text amendments. He stated that he does not anticipate that the overall
capacity of the Greek system to increase significantly. Mr. Davis stated that many chapters
utilize parking at the stadium. He stated that once Council determined that a Greek chapter
house cannot be torn down until the request is heard by the Council it is no longer treated like
an apartment house.
Mr. Tillo asked if the prospective new chapters are looking at any of these lots. Mr. Davis stated
that those chapters realize that without the proposed change the lots are not large enough to
support 60-70 parking spaces. Mr. Tillo asked how much of a drop in residency occurs at the
Greek houses in the summer. Mr. Davis listed several examples and stated that there is
approximately a 70% drop in residency during the summer.
Mr. Tillo stated that he is generally in favor of Alternative #1. He outlined his reasons for
supporting this amendment. Mr. Tillo asked how the Council came to the conclusion of
recommending one space per three beds. Mr. Diekmann stated that the Greek Alliance
requested the one parking space to three beds. He stated that staff felt that this was a
reasonable recommendation based on comparisons and evaluating current conditions.
Ms. Lee stated that she is supportive of this text amendment largely due to the amount of
outreach that has been made.
MOTION: (Gould/Tillo) to accept Alternative #1, which states: that the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed zoning text
amendments to Table 29.406(2) reducing the on-site parking required for Fraternity and
Sorority housing from 1 space per bed to 1 space per 3 beds and revising Section
29.406(2)(b) and 29.406(2)(c) for text clarification.
MOTION PASSED: (5 - 0)
____________________________________________________________________________
ISU RESEARCH PARK URA CONFORMITY FINDING
Charlie Kuester, Planner, stated that the City Council is embarking on a partnership with the ISU
Research Park for the expansion of the Park utilizing approximately 280 acres of land that was
recently annexed by the City of Ames. He stated that the annexed property consisted of
approximately five homesteads and slightly more than 200 acres owned by ISU Research Park
and Hunziker Apartments, LLC. Mr. Kuester stated that in order to facilitate the partnership and
allow the expansion of the ISU Research Park several funding sources have been put in place.
He stated that the ISU Research Park received funding from the legislature for the construction
of an administration building referred to as the Hub, a RISE grant that will pay for much of the
road infrastructure, and the City has been asked to participate with the installation of some of
the sewer and water as well as the matching funds for the RISE grant. Mr. Kuester stated that in
order to provide this financing the City Council has asked staff to prepare an Urban Renewal
3
Plan. He stated that the Urban Renewal Plan includes a Tax Increment Financing Component.
Mr. Kuester stated that the increased revenue from this new development will pay back the
City’s investment for streets, sewer, and water. He stated that Iowa State Code requires that the
Planning and Zoning Commission review the Urban Renewal Plan and determine whether it
conforms to the Land Use Policy Plan. Mr. Kuester outlined the contents of the Plan. He
outlined details of the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Kuester stated that the Land Use Policy Plan
identifies this area appropriate for industrial development. He stated that prior to annexation the
Ames Urban Fringe Plan was amended to designate this area appropriate for annexation for
industrial park expansion. Mr. Kuester stated that after annexation it was immediately given the
designation of Planned Industrial (PI). He stated that the land lies almost entirely within the City
of Ames. Mr. Kuester stated that the west half of the University Boulevard right-of-way lies
within the County’s jurisdiction. He stated that staff has asked the County to acquiesce in the
inclusion of the ROW into the Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Kuester stated that the County Board
gave their approval on October 28, 2014. He stated that the Commission’s recommendation will
go to the City Council on November 10, 2014.
Mr. Tillo asked about the amount of debt that this request would incur for the City for public
improvements. Mr. Diekmann stated that the project will be done in phases. Mr. Kuester
outlined various expenditures that the City will incur. He stated that the total expenditures
amount to approximately three million dollars. Mr. Diekmann stated that the development
agreement with the ISU Research Park for this phase has a targeted pay-off in approximately
ten years. Mr. Kuester outlined the areas of the proposed TIFF District.
Ms. Lee asked for clarification on why some of the parcels were included in the Urban Renewal
area. Mr. Kuester explained why these parcels were included. Mr. Diekmann explained that in
order to make any needed improvements they have to be located within the area that is
included within the Plan.
Mr. Tillo asked if development would stagnate in this area without the TIFF financing. He asked
for clarification as to why TIFF financing was chosen. Mr. Diekmann stated that it is a result of
the conversations with the applicant and the subsequent proposed Development Agreement
between the City Council and the applicant.
Carlton Basmajian asked for clarification of the location of the proposed east-west street within
this area. Mr. Kuester outlined the proposed street location on a map. He outlined a natural area
on the map that will be part of a watershed management program. Mr. Kuester that this area will
most likely be maintained by the Story County Conservation Board.
Ms. Lee asked for clarification that no housing uses are contemplated within this area. Mr.
Diekmann stated that this urban renewal area does not include any new housing uses. Mr.
Basmajian asked for clarification on whether commercial uses are allowed in this area. Mr.
Diekmann stated that this will be discussed at this meeting during the rezone request for this
property.
Ms. Lee asked for clarification as to where the funds for each of the proposed details of the Plan
will be spent She stated that public funds are going to be used for this project. Mr. Diekmann
stated that the RISE Grant and Hub building will amount to approximately fifteen million dollars
from the State and three million dollars from the City.
Nathan Easter, ISU Research Park, stated that he supports staff’s report. He stated that they
appreciate the partnership with the City as a result of the Developer’s Agreement and they hope
to pay off the funding as soon as they can. Mr. Easter outlined the areas where the RISE Grant
4
will be used. Mr. Basmajian asked for clarification on the street widening included in this project.
Mr. Easter outlined the area and stated that the street will be widened from a current two lane
street to a three lane street with middle turn lanes. Mr. Diekmann stated that there will also be
pedestrian facilities and bike lanes on the side of the street.
Mr. Tillo asked for clarification of the conversations with the Story County Conservation Board
regarding the wetlands in this area. Mr. Easter outlined the location of several wetland areas on
the property and stated that there will either be a perpetual easement or the area will be deeded
to the county. He stated that the details have not yet been determined. Mr. Tillo asked about the
size of the easement. Mr. Easter stated that it would 30-40 acres in size depending on the size
of the lots. He stated that part of this easement will be used for storm water management for the
next phase of the ISU Research Park. Mr. Basmajian asked if it would be open to the Park. Mr.
Easter stated that it will be open to the Park. He outlined several trails on the map connecting to
this area.
Ms. Lee asked if the layout of the area around the Hub has been determined. She asked if the
layout of the other lots depends on the future clients’ needs. Mr. Easter stated that the roadway
alignment is pretty set once the Hub is built. He stated that they will work with any potential
clients about potential lot size.
Julie Gould asked the Commission members to be sure that they are okay with the wording of
the letter that has been drafted that requires the signature of the Commission Chairperson. Mr.
Kuester stated that in the drafting of this letter he tried to emphasize bullet points from the ISU
Research Park Urban Renewal Plan showing how it is consistent with the Land Use Policy Plan.
MOTION: (Gould/Wannemuehler) to accept Alternative #1, which states: that the
Planning and Zoning Commission can forward a written recommendation that they find
that the proposed Urban Renewal Plan for the Iowa State University Research Park
Urban Renewal Area conforms to the Land Use Policy Plan for Ames.
MOTION PASSED: (5 - 0)
____________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONE OF THE ISU RESEARCH PARK
Charlie Kuester, Planner, stated that a previous annexation request annexed approximately 200
acres into the City of Ames. He stated that applicants are requesting to rezone a portion of this
recently annexed property. Mr. Kuester stated that this property is currently zoned Agricultural
(A). He stated that there are currently five homesteads on this property. Mr. Kuester outlined
these homesteads on a map. He stated that the rezone request is for the land owned by the ISU
Research Park and Erben Hunziker and Margaret Hunziker Apartments, LLC. Mr. Kuester
stated that at the time of annexation this property was identified on the Land Use Policy Plan
with a Planned Industrial (PI) designation. He stated that currently this property is not served by
public infrastructure; however, with the developers’ agreement and the TIFF funding mechanism
staff feels that public infrastructure will be brought to this site. Mr. Kuester outlined staff’s
conclusions listed in the staff report.
Ms. Wannemuehler asked for clarification of the zoning designation for the five homesteads in
this area. Mr. Kuester stated that the zoning designation will remain Agricultural (A) unless the
owners request a rezone in the future. He stated that staff has spoken to the surrounding
property owners and explained the proposed request. Discussion was held on whether the
Agricultural (A) zoning designation for these five homesteads would create “islands”.
5
Mr. Basmajian asked for clarification that applicants’ request for a Planned Industrial (PI)
designation would be for a short term and that the ISU Research Park will possibly ask that a
new zoning designation be adopted to accommodate their full build out of the property. Mr.
Diekmann stated that the ISU Research Park would like to be able to provide commercial
service uses in the expansion area and possibly along Airport Road. Mr. Basmajian asked
if this new zoning designation would rezone the entire ISU Research Park. Mr. Diekmann stated
that the ISU Research Park will require a new zoning designation in the future as none of the
existing designations would accommodate the proposed uses. Mr. Kuester stated that this
current zoning request of Planned Industrial (PI) will allow the ISU Research Park to break
ground.
Nathan Easter, ISU Research Park, stated that individuals working at the ISU Research Park
have expressed the need for some commercial services in this area; e.g., daycare, dry cleaners,
coffee shop, restaurant, etc.
Mr. Basmajian asked if City staff have looked at changing some of the Cy-Ride routes to
accommodate some of this expansion. Mr. Easter stated that discussion has been held but
there are other Cy-Ride issues; e.g., funding.
MOTION: (Tillo/Wannemuehler) to accept Alternative #1, which states: that the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the request for
rezoning from A-Agricultural to PI-Planned Industrial, based upon staff’s findings and
conclusion as found in the addendum.
MOTION PASSED: (5 - 0)
____________________________________________________________________________
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR FRONT YARD PARKING
Charlie Kuester, Planner, stated that this request is from Northridge Village, a residential
development with a continuum of skilled care, assisted living and independent senior living
uses. He stated that residential use in the Floating Suburban Residential Medium-Density (FS-
RM) zoning district does not allow front yard parking. Mr. Kuester stated that the applicant is
requesting to have some parking in front of the building. He outlined various details of the
applicant’s layout of the building on the site. Mr. Kuester outlined when and where front yard
parking is allowed in residential areas. He stated that staff feels that the use of this property falls
into the use of group living. Mr. Kuester outlined several instances when this request would
apply. He stated that the proposed amendment protects neighborhoods from exposed parking in
residential areas. Mr. Kuester stated that this proposed amendment is not applicable to
apartments. He stated that it is applicable to fraternities and sororities; however, staff feels that
due to lot size constraints, they would not meet the 50 foot setback nor are they usually built
with the design guidelines that would apply.
Ms. Wannemuehler asked if the Code defines group living. Mr. Kuester outlined the section of
the Code that includes a specific list of allowed group living uses.
Discussion was held on why the Greek houses would not be able to be able to have front yard
parking if this text amendment is approved.
6
Discussion was held on the definition of dormitories and the differences between apartment
buildings and dormitories. Mr. Diekmann stated that it is undefined in the Code but staff’s
interpretation is that a dormitory is for public institutional use. Mr. Diekmann stated that the
Commission could list dormitories and resident halls since they are related to group living;
however, it may be unnecessary since Iowa State University is not regulated by the Municipal
Code. Mr. Basmajian asked if the Commission could add this to their motion.
Ms. Lee asked why the term group living was used for the proposed request. Mr. Diekmann
stated that staff felt that proposing a zoning text amendment for one narrow use is not justified.
He stated that staff felt that group living uses have some of the same attributes and services as
household living. Mr. Diekmann stated that if the Commission has any concerns the
Commission needs to pass them along to the City Council. Mr. Diekmann explained how staff
determined their findings.
Mr. Basmajian asked how the requirement of the 50 foot setback was determined. Mr. Kuester
explained how this requirement was determined. Discussion was held on the type of parking
that several existing senior living centers and nursing homes currently have.
Ms. Lee expressed concern about some of the proposed uses that have been proposed
(boarding, rooming or lodging houses, and dormitories) and about the possibility of a fraternity
or sorority locating in an area other than the Campustown area.
Julie Gould stated that the Commission can word their motion to include their concern about
allowing front yard parking for certain uses.
Gib Wood, Northridge Village, stated that they are concerned about the mobility of the visitors to
the facility and how they are impacted. He stated that without front yard parking visitors have to
be dropped off at the front door and the driver needs to park on the side of the building and walk
to the front door when arriving and leaving their facility. Mr. Wood feels that this is a safety issue
due to the mobility of many of their visitors. Mr. Basmajian asked if Northridge Village currently
has a rear or side door that accesses their side parking lot. Mr. Wood stated that the main
entrance is the front door. He outlined the location of the additional entrances to their facility and
their relationship to the parking lot.
Discussion was held on how to express to the City Council their concern about several of the
group living uses. Mr. Diekmann stated that the Commission’s concerns about the group living
uses will be included in the staff report going to the City Council so it will not need to be a part of
tonight’s motion.
MOTION: (Wannemuehler/Gould) to accept a motion which states: that the Planning &
Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Section 29.406 (7) of the
Ames Municipal Code to include an allowance for front yard parking based on the above
proposed language; which states, for group living uses in any residential district on an
interior lot no parking shall be allowed between the primary façade and the street. In
addition, any parking so located shall require a setback of 50 feet. On a corner lot, no
parking is allowed between the street and any secondary façade.
MOTION PASSED: (5 - 0)
___________________________________________________________________________
7
OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER 31 UPDATE
Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning & Housing, stated that the Chapter 31 Update will be
placed on the November 19, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. He stated that
before the next meeting is held the Historic Preservation Commission will make their proposed
recommendations for the update of Chapter 31. Mr. Diekmann stated that the City Council
directed staff to update Chapter 31. He stated that a new inventory was completed in 2003 for
the District and 19 more principal structures (homes) will be included along with some
accessory structures, namely garages, that will now be regulated by the update to Chapter 31.
Mr. Diekmann stated that the boundaries for the Old Town Historic District have not been
changed. He outlined some of the proposed changes to Chapter 31. Mr. Diekmann stated that a
Chapter 31 Workgroup was formed to give input to the Historic Preservation Commission on
proposed changes to Chapter 31. He outlined the public outreach that has occurred to inform
property owners in the District, with contributing structures, about the proposed changes to
Chapter 31. Mr. Diekmann stated that attendance at these meetings has been light. He outlined
some of the feedback that staff has received at these meetings from the affected property
owners. Mr. Diekmann stated that staff supports the 2003 Inventory. He stated that more
latitude is being proposed for new construction areas. Mr. Diekmann stated that the Chapter 31
Update will, potentially, result in more instances of staff approval for designated District
requests. He stated that it is a Code requirement that the Planning and Zoning Commission
make a recommendation on the Chapter 31 Update
Mr. Basmajian asked what precipitated the need for a change to Chapter 31 in 2010. Mr.
Diekmann stated that the City adopted a Preservation Plan in 2009 and the District was placed
on the National Register of Historic Places approximately 10 years ago. He stated that once the
District was listed in the Register there was momentum to update the District. Mr. Diekmann
reviewed additional details of this process with the Commission.
Ms. Lee asked what criteria designates a structure as a contributing structure. Mr. Diekmann
outlined the process and the criteria for this designation.
Ms. Gould asked if another inventory were to be completed in the future and a property owner
makes exterior renovations to their structures to bring them back to historical significance could
the property then be changed from non-contributing to contributing. Mr. Diekmann stated that he
feels that this could be the case. He stated that he believes that all property owners (even those
with non-contributing structures) in the District can apply for any available tax credits.
Mr. Tillo stated that he is surprised that only five of the nineteen property owners that would
have contributing structures due to the proposed update to Chapter 31 attended the public
outreach meetings.
Mr. Diekmann asked if the Commission desired any additional clarification or details to let staff
know. He stated that there is also a lot of information listed on the City’s Historic Preservation
Commission webpage.
Ms. Gould asked whether multiple attempts have been made to contact the additional 19
contributing property owners regarding the proposed change as there may have been a change
in ownership and the new homeowner might not be aware that they now have a contributing
structure in the District. Mr. Diekmann stated that there was a public outreach meeting during
April of 2014 after staff had received direction from Council. He stated that there was also a
District wide mailing in September of 2014.
8
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Ms. Lee stated that she has spoken to many people and she feels that they are very interested
in potential discussions and changes to the Land Use Policy Plan.
Ms. Wannemuehler asked what is being built in the area by the south Riverside Manor site. Mr.
Diekmann stated that apartments, with a total of 376 beds, will be built in this area. He stated
that this site is already zoned high-density.
____________________________________________________________________________
STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Diekmann outlined items that will be discussed at the upcoming City
Council Workshop that will be held on November 18, 2014.
____________________________________________________________________________
MOTION TO ADJOURN:
MOTION: (Wannemuehler/Tillo) to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION PASSED: (5 - 0)
The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Debra Lee, Chairperson Lorrie Banks, Recording Secretary
Planning & Zoning Commission Department of Planning & Housing
S:\Planning.Dep\PLAN_SHR\Council Boards Commissions\PZ\Minutes\2014 Minutes\P&Z Minutes-11-05-14.docx
9