Ames planning commission recommends council deny Dakota Towns rezoning at 113 North Dakota

The Ames City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council deny a rezoning, planned unit development (PUD), major site plan and preliminary plat for 113 North Dakota Avenue — a proposal marketed as "Dakota Towns" — after an extended hearing featuring staff presentation, an applicant statement and extensive neighborhood opposition.

City staff presented the application and recommended approval, saying the requested rezoning from low-density residential to residential medium density with a PUD overlay would permit roughly 20 attached townhome units and allow design flexibility to protect steep slopes and meet the goals of the Ames Plan 2040 urban corridor designation. Staff described a 12,500-square-foot slope-protection easement, stormwater memo reviewed by public works, and density calculations of about 14.25 units per acre (gross). Staff also identified the primary requested deviations: reduced front (external) property-line setback from the standard 25 feet to an 8-foot building-to-property-line dimension (noting the sidewalk sits forward of the property line), internally smaller townhome lots, and up to 3-foot encroachments for stoops and decks under the PUD.

Luke Jensen, project lead for RES Development, told the commission the proposal consists of townhomes "22 bedroom, 2 and a half bath, townhomes, each with an attached 2 car garage," and said the product could include both ownership and rental units. He said the design sought to preserve slopes, add tree plantings for buffers and align with the city’s 2040 comprehensive plan.

More than a dozen neighbors spoke in opposition during public comment. Liz Block said the site’s woods were "our green space" and told the commission the plan would remove "over of about 50 mature trees" and replace them with roughly 14 small replacement trees. Other neighbors raised similar points: loss of century-old oaks, a changed viewshed from West Bend Drive, and concerns about property values. Megan Stevenson, a registered nurse and nearby resident, cited what she read as 47 trees slated for removal and said the northern three-story townhomes would sit atop a proposed 10-foot-high retaining wall, which she said would increase the apparent massing of the buildings and could conflict with municipal code provisions on compatible massing abutting single-family homes (the transcript cites municipal code section 29.11146(c) during public comment). Justin Landheis, who described a background in environmental science and forestry, warned that removing old-growth oak canopy could worsen downstream stream-flashiness and erosion in the Clear Creek watershed.

Commissioners questioned staff and the applicant about the alternative landscape plan (staff explained street-tree locations would be relocated to the north of the site to provide buffering), the stormwater memo (public works reviewed and found the city system would accommodate the runoff), slope stability and retaining-wall review (inspections division will review footings and standard BMPs were proposed), and whether private yard areas should count toward the PUD open-space requirements. Staff stated that when yard space is included the site’s open-space calculation is 41.5%; neighbors disputed whether that yielded usable, accessible common open space.

During deliberation commissioners discussed four procedural options (approve; approve with conditions; recommend denial to council; defer) and expressed concerns about scale, context sensitivity, the usability of small northern lots, long-term maintenance of a retaining wall that abuts privately owned lots, and preservation of old-growth trees. Commissioner (speaker 4) moved to recommend alternative 3 — that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Council deny the rezoning, PUD, major site development plan and preliminary plat for 113 North Dakota — citing North Dakota setbacks, unequal yard size and access to open space, design compatibility along North Dakota and preservation of old-growth trees. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. The commission directed the item to the City Council; staff noted a likely council hearing date of May 13.

What happens next: the commission’s negative recommendation and the record of public comment will be forwarded to the City Council for its public hearing and decision. The commission did not adopt detailed alternative design requirements; commissioners encouraged specificity in any future deferral or conditional approval requests so the applicant could respond effectively.

Sources: staff presentation and recommendation; applicant statement by Luke Jensen (RES Development); testimony from neighborhood residents including Liz Block, Don Eichner, Megan Stevenson, Justin Landheis, Amy Erica Smith, Ryan Lilith Jeffrey and Matt Stevenson; commission deliberations and motion to recommend denial. The commission’s recorded action was a voice vote in favor of recommending denial and forwarding the item to City Council.