Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Informal Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Monday, November 3, 2003 - 7:30 ****** RECREATION CENTER MEETING ROOM B ****** 222 SOUTH GILBERT STREET Agenda Formal Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, November 6, 2003 - 7:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall (Iowa City City Hall) A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Announcement of Vacancies on City Boards and Commissions D. Zoning Items: 1. REZ03-00022 Discussion of an application submitted by University View Apartments for a rezoning from PRM, Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential to OSA-PRM, Sensitive Areas Overlay, for an approximate 0.33 acre property located at 512 S. Dubuque Street. (45-day limitation period: December 6, 2003) REZ03-00023 Discussion of an application submitted by Idyllwild II for an amendment to an existing Planning Development Housing Plan to remove a requirement for an intemal sidewalk. (45-day limitation period: November 21, 2003) (deferred indefinitely at the request of the applicant) E. Development Item: 1. SUB03-00036: Discussion of an application submitted by Kennedy-Hilgenberg Enterprises for a preliminary plat of Wild Prairie Estates, Part 5, a 35-1ot, 25.79-acre residential subdivision located north of Wild Prairie Drive. (45-day limitation period: October 26, 2003) F. Code Amendment Item: 1. Discussion of a proposed change to the definitions of "restaurant" in the Zoning Code to allow carry-out restaurants that have a seating area in the CB-10 Zone. G. Other Items: 1. Discuss making a recommendation to the City Council on Capital Improvements Program priorities. (Formal Agenda) H. Consideration of the October 16, 2003 Meeting Minutes. I. ADJOURNMENT Upcom ing Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings: Info{mai iqovember-17 December 1 December ~'5 January 12 February 2 February 16 Cancelled Formal November 20 December 4 December 18 January 15 February 5 February 19 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZ03-00022:512 S. Dubuque Street Date: November 6, 2003 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: University View Apartments 414 E. Market Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Contact Person: MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 351-8282 Requested Action: Rezoning from PRM, Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential, to OSA-PRM, Sensitive Areas Overlay (rezoning from CB-2 to PRM currently pending before City Council) Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: To allow the construction of a 12-unit apartment building which would encroach into protected slopes located on the property. 512 S. Dubuque Street Approximately .33 of an acre Vacant building formerly veterinary clinic, CB-2 (rezoning from CB-2 to PRM currently pending before City Council) North: Office, CB-2 South: Residential, PRM East: Residential, PRM West:. School administration building, P Comprehensive Plan: The general land use plan contained in the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this area is appropriate for mixed-use development. The Near South Side Redevelopment Plan identifies this area for high-density residential development. Applicable code requirements: 14-6K-1, Sensitive Areas Ordinance; 14-6D-11, Planned High Density Multi- Family Residential Zone (PRM) File Date: O~ober 22, 2003 45 Day Limitation Period: December 6, 2003 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-PRM) for property located at 512 S. Dubuque Street. The applicant wishes to construct a 12-unit apartment building on the property, which is permitted within the PRM zone. However, the proposed parking lot associated with the building would encroach into areas of protected slopes (40% or steeper), requiring that a sensitive areas development plan and rezoning be reviewed prior to the issuance of a building permit. ANALYSIS: PRM Zone Compliance: The intent of the PRM zone is to provide for the development of high density multi-family dwellings in centrally located areas that are close to public transportation and employment and commercial centers. Because of the high-density development and high levels of pedestrian activity expected in this zone, special consideration is to be given to building and site design, as well as to providing a pleasant, safe, and efficient pedestrian environment. The PRM zone regulations contain a number of design provisions that must be addressed before a building permit can be issued. Building elevations and a site plan have been submitted and are under review with respect to these provisions. Within this zone, the Director of Planning and Community Development is responsible for determining compliance with these design provisions. Although building elevations are required and have been provided in association with this application, the Commission's primary role in this case is to review the application with respect to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Sensitive Areas Ordinance/Development Plan: The intent of the Regulated Slopes section of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to protect the stability of potentially erodible slopes from development activities and to preserve the scenic character of'wooded hillsides. Generally, protected slopes of over 40% are to be avoided and protected with a buffer at the top and bottom of the slope, and development within critical slopes of 25-39% is discouraged, but not prohibited. In this case, the slopes that exist on the property fall under the category of "altered protected slopes," as they were created by filling and dumping in the past. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows development within altered protected slopes provided that a professional engineer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that a development activity will not undermine the stability of the slope, and the City determines that the development activities are consistent with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Teracon Engineering regarding the existing condition of the slope and the effect of the proposed development. According to the report, the slope proposed to be disturbed is made up of a mixture of random fill (sand, gravel, brick and concrete rubble), soft native soils and clay soils. The report provides recommendations regarding the construction activity in this area, including the following main recommendations: · Recommendations regarding the design of a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall. · Recommendations regarding the removal of random fill materials from below the proposed retaining wall and pavement areas. · A recommendation for full-time testing during retaining wall construction. In terms of this project's consistency with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, staff feels that the ordinance was not intended to prevent development on a slope such as this, if it can be demonstrated the construction activity will not destabilize the slope. There is not much value in retaining the hillside in terms of wildlife habitat or scenic beauty, and it is not a part of a larger greenspace network in the area. Rather, it is an area that is somewhat isolated within an urban neighborhood. This hillside was created through filling and dumping activities that occurred here in the past. Encroachment into this hillside was previously approved for buildings at 517 S. Linn Street and 522 S. Dubuque Street. The proposed development activity will result in a more significant encroachment into the slope than the previously approved projects in this area. As noted above the Terracon report contains recommendations regarding construction activity on and near this slope. Staff believes that if this project is approved the recommendations of the Terracon report should be included as part of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. There is a note on the plan that states "The recommendations outlined in Terracon's geotechnical engineering report, in particular, those recommendations noted on pages 4-9 of the report, shall be followed. "Based on the results of Terracon's analyses and the completion of Terracon's recommendations, a deep-seated slope stability problem is not anticipated" (Terracon Report on 512 S. Dubuque Street). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ03-00022 a rezoning of approximately .33 of an acre at 512 S. Dubuque Street from Planned High-Density Residential Multi-Family (PRM) to Sensitive Areas Overlay - Planned High Density Residential Multi-Family (OSA-PRM) and the associated Sensitive Areas Development Plan subject to adherence to the recommendations of the Terracon report. ATTACHMENTS: Location map Development plan Building elevationSApproved by.~~?De~p~" ' ' rtment of Plarining and Community Development t t il i.lll ll{l.,II Iii ..,l., Ill: October 16, 2003 AUR Property Management 414 Market Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 'lreffacon 4192 Alyssa Court, Suite B Iowa City, Iowa 52246 (319) 688-3007 Fax: (319) 688~3008 Attention: Mr. Jim Clark Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed 512 S. Dubuque Street Slope Stability Iowa City, Iowa Job No. 06035675.01 Dear Mr. Clark: Subsurface exploration for the slope stability analyses performed for the retaining wall adjacent to the proposed apartment complex at 512 S. Dubuque Street in Iowa City, Iowa has been completed. Three soil bodngs extending to depths of about 20 to 50 feet below existing grade were performed for the project. Individual boring logs and a Bodng Location Diagram are included with this report. The attached report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides the results of our slope stability analyses along the existing embankment slope. Project Description The project will consist of the construction of a three-story apartment complex with associated parking and ddve areas. Based on our site visit, a portion of the parking will be situated on or near a proposed slope which contains random fill materials, as well as concrete and asphaltic cement concrete rubble. Based on the plans provided to Terracon, a retaining wall is proposed to be constructed on the slope with a maximum height of about 16 feet. We understand the City of Iowa City has requested any work associated on this slope be designed by a registered professional engineer..It should be noted that foundation design recommendations for the proposed structure was beyond the scope of our s~,rvices. SITE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Field ExPloration The field exploration consisted of drilling and sampling three soil borings to depths ranging from about 20 to 50 feet below the existing grade. The boring locations were selected and staked by Terracon personnel at locations accessible to our drilling equipment. The locations indicated on the attached Boring Location Diagram are approximate, and were Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Georgia · Idaho · Illinois · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Minnesota · Missouri Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Mexico · North Carolina · Oklahoma · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Wisconsin ·Wyoming Conaultlng Engineers & Scientlata Since 1965 www.terracon.com Proposed 512 S. Dubuque Street Job No. 06035675.01 October t6, 2003 measured with a tape while right angles were estimated. The ground surface elevations indicated on the boring logs are also approximate (rounded to the nearest % foot) and were obtained by Terracon personnel using a surveyor's level and rod. The elevations were referenced to the northwest top flange bolt on the fire hydrant located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Dubuque Street and Harrison Street. ^ benchmark elevation of 100 feet was assumed for this location. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them. The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight, hollow- stemmed augers to advance the boreholes. Representative samples were obtained using either thin-walled tube or split-barrel sampling procedures. In the thin-walled tube sampling procedure, a thin-walled, seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting edge is pushed hydraulically into the ground to obtain relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive or moderately cohesive soils. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. ACME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed for this site. The number of blows required to advance the Sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the standard penetration resistance value. These values are indicated on the boring logs at the depths of occurrence. The samples were sealed and returned to the laboratory for testing and classification. Field logs of each boring were prepared by the drill crew and included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling, as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation and testing. Laboratory Testing Selected samples retrieved from the borings were tested for moisture content, dry unit weight, and unconfined compressive strength to aid in the soil classification and to provide input for our analysis. A hand penetrometer was used to measure the approximate unconfined compressive strength of some samples. The hand penetrometer test has been correlated with the unconfined compression test and provides a more reliable estimate of the consistency and strength than visual classification alone. The results of the laboratory tests are shown on the boring logs, adjacent to the soil profiles, at their corresponding sample depths. Proposed 512 S. Dubuque Street Job No. 06035675.0t October 16, 2003 As a part of the testing program, the recovered samples were classified in accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System based on the material's texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is shown on the boring logs, and a brief description of the Unified System is included with this report. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Conditions Conditions encountered at the boring locations are described on the attached boring logs. Stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types. In-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Please review the attached boring logs for a detailed description of the soils encountered at the individual bodng locations. Based on the results of these borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows. The borings initially encountered existing fill materials to depths of about 4 to 11 feet below the existing grade. The existing fill materials were composed of a mixture of lean clay, sandy lean clay, and fine to medium sand with varying amounts of sand, organics, gravel, brick, and concrete rubble. Below the existing fill materials, Borings 1 and 2 encountered brown, soft to very stiff, lean clay to depths of about 14 to 16 feet below the existing grade underlain by brown, loose, clayey fine to medium sand to depths of about 21 to 24 feet. Below these materials and below the existing fill materials in Boring 3, the borings encountered gray brown to gray, soft to very stiff, clayey silt to silty clay to depths of about 18 and 39 feet in Borings 3 and 1, respectively, and to the termination depth of about 30.5 feet in Boring 2. Underlying these deposits, Borings 1 and 3 encountered brown, gray brown, and gray, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand with varying amounts of silt and clay to the borings' termination depths of about' 20.5 to 50.5 feet below the ex~sting grade. Groundwater Conditions The borings were generally monitored during drilling operations for the presence and level of groundwater. Water levels observed in the borings are noted on the individual boring logs. At this time, groundwater was observed at depth of about 39 and 11 feet in Borings 1 and 3, respectively, but was not observed at that time in Boring 2. Following the completion of drilling operations, groundwater was observed at a depth of about 28 feet in Boring 1. In addition, delayed groundwater levels were measured on October 8, 2003. Groundwater was not observed at that time; however, cave-in depths ranging from about 18.5 to 20 feet were 3 Proposed 512 S. Dubuque Street Job No. 06035675.01 October 16, 2003 observed in Borings 1 and 2. Longer term monitoring in cased holes or piezometers would be required for a more accurate evaluation of the groundwater conditions. It should be recognized that the borings were performed following a relatively dry season and fluctuations of the groundwater levels will occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. In addition, perched water will develop within higher permeability clay soils or sand seams and layers overlying lower permeability clay soils or variable existing fill materials following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing design and construction plans for the project. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnical Considerations Based on the results of the subsurface exploration, special design and construction considerations will be required for the retaining wall due to the random fill materials and soft native soils encountered at this site. We understand that the current plan is to build a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall. This report provides recommendations regarding the design and construction of a MSE wall as it relates to the site and soil conditions. Consideration could also be given to retaining the parking lot with an alternative retaining wall system such as soldier piles and lagging or a sheet pile system. The retaining wall could also consist of a KASTLE-wall blocks manufactured by Kings Materials. Additional information regarding these alternatives could be provided upon request. In all cases, it should be noted that the existing fill was composed of a mixture of lean clay, sandy lean clay, and fine to medium sand with varying amounts of gravel, organics, brick, concrete rubble, and asphaltic cement concrete that extended to depths of about 4 to 11 feet below the existing grade. The random fill materials were highly variable, and as such, structures supported on random fill would be susceptible to excessive total and differential settlements. Thus, we recommended these materials be removed from below the wall foundations and pavement areas. Slope Stability Analyses In order to perform our slope stability analyses, the proposed site grading plan was provided by MMS Consultants, Inc. personnel. The site grading will consist of constructing a retaining 4 Proposed 512 S. Dubuque Street Job No. 06035675.0t October 16, 2003 wall along the eastern and southern portions of the site in order to accommodate parking for the proposed apartment complex at the subject site. The retaining wall would be constructed on top of an existing embankment which has maximum slopes on the order of about 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) and, based on our site observations, contains random fill materials with concrete and asphalt rubble. The retaining wall proposed for this site will extend from the northeast corner of the site where it will have a height of about 3 feet to the southeast property corner where it will be at its maximum height of about 16 feet. From this point, the retaining wall will extend westward to the southwest edge of the parking lot where it will have a height of about 3 feet. As a result, fill thicknesses of up to about 16 feet will be required to achieve the finished subgrade elevations for the proposed parking lot. In order to evaluate the proposed slopes, a global stability analysis was performed using a computer program (PCSTABL6) that utilizes the Bishop method of slices (simplified) for circular failure arcs. Global stability evaluates the ratio of resisting to driving forces, and is referred to as a factor of safety. The magnitude of these forces are dependent upon the slope geometry, soil characteristics (texture, density, shear strength, and moisture content), surcharge loading, and groundwater conditions. A factor of safety of 1.0 indicates that these forces are in equilibrium and no movement occurs; however, the closer the factor of saf3ty is to 1.0, the Probability of movement increases. A factor of safety greater than 1.0 indicates that there is a margin of safety against movement. The degree of risk or the magnitude of the factor of safety which is considered acceptable is generally established by industry standards and are dependent upon many factors such as variability of the soil conditions, groundwater conditions, surcharge loading, and cost of repair. It should be noted that current Corp of Engineers standards recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.3 for an end-of construction condition. Based on the data obtained from our subsurface exploration and assuming the construction consists of building a Keystone MSE wall, vadous proposed cross-sections were analyzed for deep-seated failure. Based on our analyses, we recommend the following: Full-time testing by Terracon personnel dudng retaining wall construction is recommended to ensure the recommendations provided herein are adhered to and to verify conditions are similar to those encountered during our subsurface exploration. If the retaining wall is to be constructed using Keystone modular block units, we recommend standard units be used for the entire wall construction. In additior), the retaining wall units should extend at least 4 feet below grade or below the existing random fill, which ever is greater. 5 Proposed 512 S. Dubuque Street Job No. 06035675.01 October 16, 2003 We recommend placing at least a 12-inch crushed stone leveling pad below the retaining wall units. The crushed stone leveling pad will also serve as a stabilization base. The crushed stone should consist of a dense-graded crushed limestone (i.e. IDOT Specifications 4120.04) and should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 6 inches and compacted to a minimum of 98% of the material's maximum standard Proctor dry density using hand-held compaction equipment. In lieu of extending the wall deeper than 4 feet below exterior grade, the thickness of the crushed stone can be increased to extend below the existing fill. Depending on subsurface conditions encountered at the base of the wall, Terracon may modify the thickness of the crushed stone. In order to achieve acceptable factors of safety against a deep-seated failure, we recommend the following geogrid lengths for the reinforced zone behind the retaining wall units: 1. For wall heights less than 6 feet, we recommend geogrid lengths of at least 12 feet. For wall heights greater than 6 feet, we recommend geogrid lengths of at least t8 feet. The retaining wall should also be designed to achieve acceptable factors of safety for internal and external stability. In order to limit total and differential settlements, the walls should be designed with the lowest possible contact bearing pressure. The reinforced backfill material should consist of a well-graded granular matedal (less than 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve). Based on our knowledge of the site and the proposed design, the following soil design parameters are recommended in the design of internal and external wall stability: Fdction Angle Cohesion Unit Weight (pcf) Reinforced Fill 30 0 115 Retained Earth 22 0 105 Foundation Matedal 26 0 110 Based on the results of our analyses and the recommendations provided above, a deep- seated slope stability problem is not anticipated. The grades should be slope away from the retaining wall to prevent runoff and erosion problems or an adequate storm water intake system should be designed. In addition, a drainage layer (about 2 feet) should be provided behind the wall. The materials at the beadng elevation of the walls should be observed and tested by Terracon. Excavations for placement of the recommended crushed stone below the wall will require widening the excavation at least 8 inches beyond each edge for every foot of fill placed below the design base elevation. Proposed 512 S. Dubuque Street Job No. 06035675.01 October 16, 2003 Excavations should be sloped, shored, or braced for safety while personnel are in excavations. Excavations should be constructed in accordance with all local, state and federal requirements including OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926 requirements. Site Preparation and Earthwork In preparing the site for construction, all deleterious materials such as existing pavement materials, topsoil, vegetation, variable existing random fill or frozen materials should be removed from below and behind the wall. The actual removal depth should be evaluated by Terracon personnel during construction. Pdor to placement of any fill, the exposed subgrade should be observed by a geotechnical engineer. The subgrade should also be thoroughly compacted and proofrolled in the presence of geOtechnical personnel. The surficial proofrolling/compaction aids in providing a firm base for compaction of new fill and delineating soft, loose or disturbed areas that may exist below subgrade level. Unsuitable areas observed at this time should be improved by compaction or by undercutting and replacing with suitable compacted fill. The site soils could be susceptible to disturbance from construction activity, particularly if the materials have a high natural moisture content or are wetted by surface water or seepage. Care should be taken during site grading operations to reduce disturbance of the bearing soils. Heavy equipment traffic directly on beadng surfaces should be avoided in wet clayey soils. It may be necessary to place a layer of crushed stone to stabilize the subgrade prior to initiating fill. Geotextil® material could also be used to help increase subgrade stability and help expedite construction. All fill should consist of an approved material with a liquid limit of less than 45%, a maximum plasticity index of 23%, or a granular material free of organic matter and debris. The existing fill soils are variable, and therefore, re-use of these materials would not be recommended unless the rubble materials are removed. All fill materials at the time of compaction should be at -2 to +3% of the soil's optimum moisture value as determined by the standard Proctor test (ASTM D-698) for cohesive soils and :1:3% of the optimum moisture value for well- graded granular materials. However, the gradation of a granular material may have an affect on its stability and the moisture content required for proper compaction. Therefore, we recommend the geotechnical engineer review the granular materials proposed for use as structural fill in order to determine their suitability, as well as establish a recommended moisture content range, if applicable. Fill placed for the reinforced zone should be placed in lifts of 9 inches or less in loose thickness and be compacted to at least 95% of the material's maximum standard Proctor dry 7 Proposed 512 S. Dubuque Street Job No. 06035675.01 October 16, 2003 density (ASTM D-698). Fill placed below the wall should be compacted to at least 98% of the material's maximum standard Proctor dry density. This degree of compaction below the foundation should be extended 8 inches beyond the edges of the foundation for each foot of overexcavation depth. GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. This will help reduce the potential for misinterpretation of the recommendations provided in this report. Terracon should also be retained to provide testing and observation during excavation, grading, foundation and construction phases of the project. Testing and observation by the geotechnical engineer of record provides documentation regarding compliance with the recommendations provided in the geotechnical engineering report and the project specifications. Terracon shall not be held responsible for others' interpretation of subsurface conditions. Therefore, we recommend that the owner retain Terracon for foundation and earthwork phases of the project. Support of pavements on and above existing fill soils is discussed in this report. However, even with the recommended construction testing, there is a risk for the owner that unsuitable matedal within or buded by the fill will not be discovered. This risk cannot be eliminated without removing the fill, but can be minimized by thorough exploration and testing. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between bodngs, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until dudng or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report 'has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted 8 Proposed 512 S. Dubuque Street Job No. 06035675.01 October 16, 2003 geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the Conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this phase of your project and look forward to providing the construction testing services. If yoU have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service to you, please contact us. Sincerely, lrerracon Iowa No. 16017 BFG/AMG:amd~reports06035675.01 Copies: Addressee (2) Ms. Roseanne Edwards, NNW, Inc. (1) I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me or under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly licensed ~__<~e laws of the State of Iowa. Brian F. Gisi, P.E. Date My license renewal date is December 31,2003. 9 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner October 31, 2003 SUB03-00036, Wild Prairie Estates Part 5 Upon further evaluation, staff has determined that providing a connection to the future extension of Willow Creek Trail between lots 133 and 134, or between any other nearby lots is not practical due to steep topography. The proposed trail connection would not meet accessibility standards and would require extensive grading. The applicant has agreed to extend Wild Prairie Drive to the northwest corner of Outlot C as recommended by staff, and provide a temporary turn-a-round at this termination. Staff recommends that REZ03-00036, a preliminary plat for Wild Prairie Estates Part 5, a 25.79-acre, 35-1ot subdivision located at Wild Prairie Drive and Prairie Grass Lane, be approve~__... / Karin Franklin, Dir~/ctor - Department of Planning and Community Development City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM October 31,2003 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard - Associate Planner Re: Restaurant Definitions The definitions that we currently have in the Zoning Code for restaurants have been problematic due to the rigidity of defining restaurants by the ratio of seating area to total floor area. The Code currently divides restaurants into three categories: restaurants; restaurant, carry-out/delivery; and restaurant, drive-through/carry-out. "Restaurants" are those that have over 50% of the floor area devoted to seating. Establishments with no seating area are defined as carry-out/delivery restaurants. Those with less than 50% of the floor area devoted to seating are defined as drive-through/carry-out restaurants, regardless of whether they actually have a drive-through. The problem is that for restaurants that have less than 50% of the floor area devoted to seating, a much higher parking requirement is imposed and they are automatically categorized as "auto- and truck-oriented uses" even if they have no drive-through facilities. For example, a small carry-out restaurant with just a few tables must provide 1 parking space for every 65 square feet of floor area and are only allowed in commercial zones that allows "auto- and truck-oriented uses." This is especially problematic in the CO-1, CN-1, CB-5, and CB-10 zones, where "restaurants" and "carry-out restaurants" are permitted, but only if there is no seating area or if the seating area exceeds 50% of the total floor area. All restaurants in between those two extremes are not allowed because they are considered auto- and truck-oriented uses. This effectively precludes various types of restaurants that would be quite compatible with the pedestrian-oriented character of these commercial zones. The restaurant definitions have also been problematic in the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone. There have been a number of occasions when the city has received an application for a restaurant in the CC-2 Zone with a seating area that is less than 50 percent of the total floor area. As a consequence, the applicant must go through the special exception process for approval of an "auto- and truck-oriented use," even if no drive-through facilities are proposed. According to the Department of Housing and Inspections Services, applicants for restaurants (without drive-through facilities) have sometimes modified the interior floor plan of the restaurant to add seating area that they might not otherwise need just to avoid being categorized as an auto- and truck-oriented use. Attached is a list of examples of restaurants that had to modify their floor plans to fit into the definition of restaurant or went ahead and applied for a special exception for an auto- and truck- oriented use, even though they had no drive-through facilities. The apparent reason to make the current distinction between types of restaurants is to make it easier to establish distinct parking requirements for different types of restaurants and also to regulate more carefully those restaurants that have drive- through facilities. These purposes can be achieved, however, without placing such a rigid distinction based on the relative amount of seating area. Staff recommends, therefore, that the definition of restaurants be amended as follows: In 14-6B-2: Definitions, delete the definitions of Restaurant, Restaurant - Carry- out/Delivery, and Restaurant - Drive-Through/Carry-Out. RESTAURANT /~^DDV /'~[ [T/l"lr-I I~lr-DV·../~ h.,c.i ....... I~ro +~....i...-:...I o"cr3ti0nv -, ic In 14-68-2: Definitions, replace the aforementioned definitions with the following definition of Restaurant. RESTAURANT: An establishment where the principal business is the preparation and dispensing of edible foodstuffs and/or beverages primarily for consumption on or off the premises. Restaurants where the foodstuff and/or beverages are dispensed primarily for off-site consumption are considered "carry-out/delivery restaurants." "Drive-through restaurants" are restaurants that have drive-throuqh or drive-in facilities. Drive-through restaurants are considered "auto- and truck-oriented uses" and as such are only allowed in zones where auto- and truck-oriented uses are allowed. In 14-6N-1J' Required Number of Parking Spaces, amend paragraph 2.t., deleting the word "carry-out" from the title as follows: t. Restaurants, drivelthrou~qh/s3r,,-~· out Approved by: ¢~"'~~~~/ Karin//Franklin, Director Department of Planning and Community Development Recent cases where definition of restaurant has been problematic: The Rack - (CC-2 Zone) Granted a special exception as an "auto and truck- oriented use" in the CC-2 Zone in Pepperwood Plaza. The restaurant has no drive-through. Pita Pit - (CB-10 Zone) Modified its interior floor plan so that it would have more than 50% of its floor area devoted to seating. Otherwise, the restaurant would not have been permitted in the CB-10, because it would have been classified as an auto- and truck-oriented use. · Jimmy John's - (CB-10 Zone) same situation as the Pita Pit. The Wedge - (CC-2 Zone) Granted a special exception as an "auto and truck- oriented use" in the CC-2 Zone along Riverside Drive. The restaurant has no drive-through. El Paso Tienda Mexicana - (CC-2 Zone) Applied for a special exception for an "auto and truck-oriented use." Staff worked with the applicant to modify the interior floor plan so that the seating area would exceed 50%. Therefore,. the special exception application was withdrawn. The restaurant has no drive- through.