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.