Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-2011 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, May 2, 2011 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order Thursday, May 5, 2011 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Rezoning Item REZ11-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Ranshaw Limited Partnership for a rezoning from Medium Density Family Single (RS-8) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately .69 acres of property located at 1014, 1016 & 1022 Hudson Avenue. (45-Day Limitation Period: May 14, 2011) D. Comprehensive Plan Item CPA11-00002: Set a public hearing for May 19 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Single-Family/Duplex Residential to General Commercial for property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 1 West and Hudson Avenue. E. Code Amendment Item Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 4, Use Regulations, Article D, Temporary Uses to add the new temporary use "football game day commercial vending" to provide specific approval criteria for football game day commercial vending and Chapter 9A, Definitions to define tailgating. F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 21, 2011 G. Other Report from American Planning Association Conference. H. Adjournment U comin Plannin 8~ Zonin Commission Meetin s Informal Ma 16 Ma 30" June 13 Jul 4* Formal Ma 19 June 2 June 16 Jul 7 * Meeting cancelled due to holiday STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Christina Kuecker Item: REZ11-00008 Date: May 5, 2011 1014, 1016, and 1022 Hudson Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Ranshaw Limited Partnership 463 Hwy 1 Iowa City, IA 52246 Owners: 1014 & 1016 Hudson Avenue Shirken LLC 463 Hwy 1 W Iowa City, IA 52246 and 1022 Hudson Avenue Ranshaw Limited Partnership 463 Hwy 1 W Iowa City, IA 52246 Contact Person: Kurt Ranshaw Phone: (319)331-2626 Requested Action: Comprehensive Plan amendment from residential to commercial and Rezoning from RS-8 to CC-2 Purpose: To allow commercial development Location: 1014, 1016, and 1022 Hudson Avenue (northeast corner of Hudson Avenue and Hwy 1) Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: 0.69 acres Single Family Residential (RS-8) North: Single Family (RS-8) South: Commercial (CC-2) East: Commercial (CC-2) West: Commercial (CI-1) Southwest District Plan -shows the area as Single- Family/Duplex Residential. March 30, 2011 May 14, 2011 The area is currently served by public utilities 2 Public Services: The area is served by the Westport and Oakcrest Nights & Weekends bus routes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The rezoning history of the subject properties; 1014 (Lot 16), 1016 (Lot 17), and 1022 (Lots 18 & 19) Hudson Avenue; goes back to 1981 when a request was made to rezone 1014 and 1016 Hudson Avenue from Residential to Commercial. This lead to neighborhood opposition because of the potential adverse effects on the residential to the north and south and the application was withdrawn. Again in 1988, a request was made to rezone 1014 and 1016 Hudson Avenue to Commercial. Staff recommended against the rezoning because of adverse effects the rezoning would have on the residential properties to the north and south. Staff also recommended that if 1022 Hudson Avenue was also rezoned to Commercial then the rezoning would be appropriate and would fit the policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The application received neighborhood opposition and was withdrawn. Then in 1990, the same request was made again to rezone 1014 and 1016 Hudson Avenue to Commercial. Staff and neighborhood concerns were the same as the 1981 and 1988 rezoning requests. The Council denied the application because of the increased traffic and noise on the adjoining RS-8 neighborhood; the parcels would have no frontage along Highway 1, the commercial corridor for the area; and the rezoning would cause isolation of the residential lot at 1022 Hudson Avenue from other residential uses. In 1991 the neighborhood requested for the Comprehensive Plan to be changed for the eastern side of the southern portion of Hudson Avenue (11014, 1016, and 1022 Hudson Avenue) from General Commercial to Residential. This change was made and is the reason the Southwest District Plan shows Residential in this area. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives. ANALYSIS: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan: The current zoning of the property is Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) and allows detached single family houses with duplexes on the corners. The proposed zoning is Community Commercial (CC-2) which allows commercial uses, particularly uses that require access from major thoroughfares. The Comprehensive Plan and Southwest District Plan show this area as Single Family/Duplex Residential. A Comprehensive Plan amendment will need to take place if the proposed rezoning is to be approved. In general, the Comprehensive Plan and Southwest District Plan indicate Highway 1 as a commercial corridor. In addition the single family residential uses are not a compatible use along such a busy arterial street. Previous applications to rezone 1014 and 1016 Hudson Avenue were not approved because this would have left 1022 Hudson Avenue as an isolated residential use surrounded by commercial and would have directed commercial traffic onto Hudson Avenue. Staff recommends that the set a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Southwest District Plan for the next meeting to change the designation of these properties from residential to general commercial. Neighborhood Compatibility: The properties to the east, south, and west of the proposed rezoning are zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The 3 properties to the north are zoned Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8). The existing single family is surrounded on three sides by commercial uses. Staff finds that if appropriate conditions are in place regarding building placement, screening, and vehicular access the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted three concept plans. The concept plans generally show the building located in the north portion of the property and the parking located close to the street. Two of the concept plans show access from the parking area on to Hudson Avenue. The other does not. Staff feels that the building locations in all three concepts are appropriate, but does not believe that there should be commercial vehicular access onto Hudson Avenue. In addition, staff believes that there should be vegetative screening between any parking and the north property line. Traffic and Access: The proposed rezoning is located at the corner of Hudson Avenue and Highway 1. In order to prevent negative traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood to the north, staff recommends that the vehicular access to the property be limited to the Highway 1, as a cross access easement with the existing curb cuts for the property to the east. The applicant also owns the property to the east, so a cross access easement is feasible. The City is planning to install a wide sidewalk along this portion of Highway 1 and sidewalks along Hudson Avenue beginning this summer. Summary: In general, Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the neighboring properties and is compliant with the general principals of the Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan amendment will be needed in order to rezone these properties. Staff also believes that appropriate conditions need to be placed on the rezoning to mediate any adverse effects on the existing RS-8 neighborhood to the north. Appropriate conditions include screening along the north property line and limiting the vehicular access onto Hudson Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ11-00008, an application to rezone 0.69 acres located at 1014, 1016, and 1022 Hudson Avenue from RS-8 to CC-1 be approved subject to a comprehensive plan amendment changing the plan map to show the area a General Commercial and a Conditional Zoning Agreement that addresses the need to screen the commercial uses from the residential uses to the north and to limit the vehicular access onto Hudson Avenue in order to protect the neighborhood from commercial traffic. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Rezoning Exhibit 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Exhibit 4. Concept Plans ,, Approved by: ~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development (~ FoN y Vaao Z~ z U ~ ~ o W W O~ F ~ N ONO C F N~ ~ m O7 ~ ` Z ~ o~ ~O r~ ~i' ~ (p~~C ~ d' I n C ~ 1 n ~ = 0 ~ rrZ C~ (Y~ Z ~ yyO .Z~~'~ra„ morn ~ ~pW ~ W Q cc~ ~ Q O~ Q Zy o w a y ~- ~ y fq - ~ ~ Z Z Op ~ U J ~ dS BS qW~ ~ C NOv ~ I..I.J W W ~~~~~ rU~. y Ud ~ Z~ ~ ~ ~O N Q O Q o r'a E v4a ~ 0 cfl¢ QZQ O g~~ ~~o o ~ ~U ~ ~U Q ~ ~ ~~~ g ~ d ~ ~ ~~? Q ~: E-~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ °~~ ~8 U ~~~ E W ri ~ f Q(~~ a ~ zZ~ ~ ~ °~ ~=° ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Q U] e-1 ~ v z Q 8~~ w (G~~ x Z ~~ a~ ~ °° o ~. r-+ H O a a ~Poo~o~an -1_--- a m -' . d~ c o°NO d ~a y orNr' m m rc° ~'03o e U ~- ° u °°' 'c N J cmrj v c w o 3vK ° ~` , _ rn~:n u y ~On O ~ o - O v d J Z° o ° c j ° cvv - u v` r U ~ y ° c ° u ° ai `o <t q M o° V o N q L T y •• 3 O ~ ._ mad ~v'~r °~~ ~° L c$w o w N~ Nye E c° " L° U ' C m ° w o w ' ~ C C O 3 ~ S, V ~ 1~ w N p N Jw E m pt ~ VI O) - N ~ 0 0 d COO c - ~ `m N j' y N° o3Mor O ° F.J y ~ L m~Z C ~~ ; n~ 0 CP CJ a N U C ? y fcra a ~„ M~«°a; ~m ~ ~ ~C V ~ d ~ JU riO n 4) <nC O« O C tno ~~~~ a ~n~a~o a ~~b ?~J~JJ ~~ ~ ~, ~p o0 P ~ Q P o~~ _ ~ I I N02'08'43'W 100.00' N02'14'27'W 97.98 aMD~Of~ IIMC~f~MC~ -- --- ----- ----~-- ~ ~ -g l- a ~ ~ -I ~ ®J F' -~ ~~ a~ g ~ ~~ a~ I ~~ I o I I' ~ $~ a I ~ ~~ ~ Q ~~ ~I ~ ~ e~ ~ j ~ ~ - ~ -- d~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~a~oa gmb h M Q ~ ~ ~ I j ~~~~ n dew a~oa ~b ~. ~ ~ L -- OM N N Z j 1 MJ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~I °~ I I 9 @~ MJ Q _ ~~ AVH~E~_ - r ~,~.®~~ CITY OF IOWA .CITY ~,~ r~ ~~ 1V1~11/IORAND(~M Date: April 28, 2011 To: Planning and Zoning Commis ' From: Douglas Boothroy, Director of Hou ' pect n Services Re: Proposed Amendment to the Zoning ode to add t New Temporary Use "Football Game Day Commercial Vending" The City Council, at its April 18, 2011 informal meeting, decided football game day commercial vending located along Melrose Avenue should be allowed to continue as a temporary use under performance standards, and these standards are to be implemented for the 2011 football season. I have attached my April 12, 2011 memo sent to Council, to provide background for the Commission concerning this matter. Council has referred the Zoning Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration and recommendation. In response to Council's action, I have prepared for your review an amendment to the Zoning Code, Temporary Use section (see attachment entitled Article D Temporary Use Proposed Amendment) which would establish the new temporary use "Football Game Day Commercial Vending," provide specific approval criteria, add the definition of tailgating, and exempt tailgating and tailgate parking from Temporary Use permitting requirements. It was Council's direction to limit football game day commercial vending to the Melrose Avenue street frontage to protect the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood from further commercial intrusion into the neighborhood, enumerate life safety standards, and allow no alcohol in conjunction with any temporary commercial use. Also, tailgating would continue to be allowed as anon-commercial, informal, social football game day gathering and tailgate parking without temporary use permit regulation. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to establish the new "Football Game Day Commercial Vending" temporary use with approval criteria and allowing tailgating and tailgate parking to continue without permit regulation. The life safety standards have been reviewed and recommended by Police and Fire Departments. The approval criteria is intended to ensure football game day commercial vending remains temporary, limited to the Melrose Avenue street frontage, provides no alcohol, and is safe for all. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Attachment hisadm/mem/dg-PZ042711.doc ARTICLE D, TEMPORARY USES -PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 1. 14-4D-2 Temporary Uses Allowed Amend the Iowa City Zoning Code Title 14-4-D-2, Temporary Uses Allowed, to add the temporary use: L. Football Game Day Commercial Vending 2. 14-4D-3 Permit Required Amend the Iowa City Zoning Code Title 14-4D-3, Permit Required, to insert the following: A temporary use permit is required for all temporary uses listed in subsection B, above, unless specifically exempted. Tailgating and tailgate parking held on home Iowa football _pame days do not require a Temporary Use Permit. Procedures for obtaining a permit are contained in Article 14-86 of this Title, Administrative Approval Procedures. 3. 14-4D-4 Approval Criteria Amend the Iowa City Zoning Code Title 14-4D-4 to add additional approval criteria for football game day commercial vending. H. Football Game Day Commercial Vending 1. Display permit. Vendors must prominently display the permit and it must be clearly viewable from the public right-of-way. 2. Assignment and use by others. A vendor may not assign its space/permit to any other vendors to use without application and approval of a new temporary use permit. 3. Location. Vendors are only allowed to locate along the Melrose Avenue street frontage from the Iowa Interstate Railway right-of-way to Melrose Circle. 4. Setup/Teardown. Vendors are not allowed to set up before 12:00 p.m. the day before game day and must tear down/remove all equipment and materials after each game. 5. Clean-up responsibility. All vendors must keep any area they vend at litter-free and shall remove litter from any adjacent public property/right-of-way. Vendors shall provide a trash container with unfilled capacity at all times. Disposal unit will be provided for liquid waste (oil, grease, grey water, etc.). Liquid waste cannot be placed in gutters, port-a-johns or in the ground. 6. No blocking of sidewalk/right-of-way. No vendor shall block or obstruct the free movement of pedestrians or vehicles on a sidewalk, street, or other public right-of- way. Tents/stands must be set back at least 2 feet from the back edge of public sidewalks. 7. signage. Vendor signage must be approved by the City. Vendor signage is only allowed on the vendor's stand/vehicle/tent, etc. and is not allowed on utility poles across the public sidewalk, on buildings or as yard signs. No electrically lit signs will be allowed. 8. Sales tax permit. Each vendor whose sales will be subject to sales tax must provide a copy of their sales tax permit. 9. Insurance/indemnification. All vendors must provide to the City evidence of comprehensive general liability insurance of $500,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate and must indemnify the City against all damages that may result from the vendor's permitted temporary commercial use and/or the vendor's use of the public right-of-way. 10. Fire extinguishers. All vendors must provide at least one five pound, 2A 10 BC extinguisher that is functional and accessible at all times. 11. Health permits. All food vendors must secure necessary health permits from the Johnson County Department of Health and prominently display the permit so it is clearly viewable from the public right-of-way. 12. Cooking tents. All cooking tents (regardless of size) must be approved by the Fire Code/Building Official. Cooking tents will be required to be separated from other tents, parked vehicles and lot lines. LP containers exceeding 96 pounds require approval from the Fire Code/Building Official. 13. Tent size. All tents and membrane structures having an area in excess of 400 square feet shall not be erected or operated for any purpose without first obtaining approval from the Fire Code/Building Official. 14. Alcohol. No alcohol is allowed in conjunction with any temporary commercial use. 15. Utility Location. Any tents and membrane structures using stakes or similar ground attachments must call for utility location at least 24 hours before setup. 16. Violation of these provisions. Any violation of the temporary use permit conditions will result in a civil citation and loss of the temporary commercial use permit for the current football season. Also, the property owner will lose the right to replace the commercial vendor on the site during the football season. 4. 14-9A Definitions Amend the Iowa City Zoning Code Title 14-9A, Definitions, to add the definition of tailgating. Tailgating: A home football game day informal social gathering that is non-commercial and includes eating and drinking beverages (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) as part of the activities. Tailgating events do not provide for the sale of alcohol and/or admission charged for alcohol and/or giveaways of food, beverage or promotional item(s) or the sale of any goods and/or services and/or providing services. Tailgate temporary parking that is unimproved and located on private property is allowed during tailgate events. hisad m/amend 14-4D-3.doc ~ r ~~.®~~, ~m~ ,~®,~~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: April 12, 2011 To: City Manager From: Douglas Boothroy, r sing Re: Regulating Melrose Av n e Football Ga ISSUE: d Inspection Services Day Commercial Vending The code enforcement issue is whether football game day commercial vending in the Melrose Avenue area should be allowed to continue under performance standards, or whether to enforce the current zoning provisions which would prohibit commercial vending. This issue is about commercial vending and not about tailgating. Tailgating is considered an informal, social football game day gathering that is non-commercial, and temporary tailgate parking would continue to be allowed during a tailgating event as long as the parking is unimproved. This memo provides background, options, and recommendations for Council's consideration of this matter. BACKGROUND: • Temporary Commercial Use Vending Temporary commercial vending activities (e.g., food and retail sales) have been occurring for many years along Melrose Avenue near Kinnick Stadium (see attached vending location map) on football home game days. This area is zoned RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, and developed as Residential. The zoning regulations are intended to maintain, promote and protect the livability of the neighborhood. The RS- 5 zoning allows for some non-residential uses that contribute to the livability of the residential neighborhood (e.g., parks, schools, religious institutions and daycare facilities) but does not allow for any other commercial use. In addition, the Melrose Neighborhood is an historic district as designated on the National Register of Districts. In 2008, the Council, as part of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, included the goal to establish the Melrose Neighborhood area as a local historic district. The neighborhood historic district is intended to protect, preserve and stabilize the neighborhood. Recent commercial activities of the "Stadium Club" (Commercial Use with Alcohol), relocation of the "Magic Bus" (live music with alcohol) and "Game Day" (Commercial Retail) tent stake puncturing a natural gas line raised serious neighborhood and life safety issues. Thus, the question of how to regulate commercial vending activities along Melrose Avenue needs to be resolved. Under the current zoning ordinance, any commercial vending that occurs along Melrose Avenue without a Temporary Use Permit would be considered illegal. April 12, 2011 Page 2 • Temporary Use Permit The Temporary Use provisions of the Zoning Code (see attached temporary use regulations) would allow the City to issue a temporary use permit for those short-term uses that are temporary and determined by the Building Official to be compatible. Temporary uses have no inherent rights within the zone in which they locate and can be terminated and removed immediately with no permanent improvements allowed to a site. No temporary use permit has been issued for any commercial vending along Melrose Avenue. In the fall of 2010 the "Stadium Club" applied for a temporary use permit and was denied due to several issues, including zoning violations, permanent site improvements, and the determination the use was not compatible with the neighborhood. The "Magic Bus" did secure a temporary use permit to relocate to a site south of Benton Street. These temporary use permit considerations were an interim measure until discussion could be had by the Council concerning the future of commercial vending in the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood. • Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association Recommendation On March 24, 2011 the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood met with staff to discuss commercial vending along Melrose Avenue. At the meeting, the Melrose Avenue Executive Committee (13 residents) read a statement strongly recommending elimination of any commercial vending along Melrose Avenue. The Executive Committee's recommendation and rationale is attached to this memo. However, attendees at the meeting were divided as to whether or not commercial vending should be allowed so long as it is regulated. Residents supported the Executive Committee's recommendation and non-resident property owners supported continuation of commercial vending. DISCUSSION: A staff committee was created with representation from the City Manager's Office, Legal, Fire, Police, City Clerk and Housing Inspection Services. The Committee's purpose was to identify the options and make recommendations concerning the regulation of commercial vending along Melrose Avenue. A consensus was reached concerning the following options and recommendations: OPTION 1 - No change in the City's current enforcement practice Comment: In past football seasons, the City enforced no permanent site improvements and prohibited vendor setup before 12:00 p.m. on the Friday before game day and required tear- down/removal of all equipment and materials after each game. The "Stadium Club" activities, "Magic Bus" relocation, and "Game Day" tent stake situation has raised issues that require full compliance with the Zoning Code (i.e., temporary use provisions). Temporary use permits for commercial vending were not issued; therefore, the commercial vending was illegal. This option does not enforce the Zoning Code or adequately protect the neighborhood and those attending game day activities. OPTION 2 -Enforce the Zoning Code to prohibit temporary commercial vending activity along Melrose Avenue Comment: Under this option the City would be enforcing the current zoning requirements and would no longer tolerate ongoing commercial vending. This would be consistent with University April 12, 2011 Page 3 Heights' prohibition of commercial vending in their residential area along Melrose Avenue. It is consistent with the RS-5 zoning, and the recommendation of the Melrose Avenue Executive Committee. This option protects the neighborhood and its livability. It is the easiest option to enforce. However, neighborhood non-resident property owners do not agree with the Executive Committee's recommendation and wish to see commercial vending continue. OPTION 3 -Amend the Zoning Code to allow commercial vending only along Melrose Avenue on football game days (i.e., limited to the Melrose Avenue street frontage) without alcohol, and subject to a football game day temporary commercial use permit under performance standards. Comment: This option allows commercial vending to continue but only by permit if all performance standards are met, and any violation could result in loss of a permit and the right to engage in commercial vending. All vendors/property owners would need to comply with the conditions and standards of the temporary use provisions of the Zoning Code as well as any additional restrictions adopted by Council. Attached to this memorandum are some recommended commercial vending performance standards. This option is not consistent with the recommendation of the Melrose Avenue Executive Committee. It is difficult to enforce and would involve considerable enforcement expense (e.g., Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday inspections). If this option is selected, a permit fee should be established to fully cover the cost of enforcement as well as any neighborhood cleanup costs. The Zoning Code would need to be amended to add provisions fora "football game day temporary use permit" with performance standards. An amendment to the Zoning Code would need to be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation. This option may open the door to allowing Temporary Commercial uses in other residential neighborhoods. RECOMMENDATIONS: Past enforcement practices (Option 1) do not adequately protect the neighborhood and enforce the Zoning Code; therefore, Option 1 is not recommended. Enforce current zoning regulations to stop commercial vending in the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood (Option 2). This option best protects the residential character, livability, and viability of the neighborhood. It's consistent with the Melrose Avenue Executive Committee recommendation, RS-5 zoning, enforcement in other neighborhoods, and the 2008 Historic Preservation Plan. Option 2 is recommended. Amend the Zoning Code to establish a new "football game day" temporary use permit under performance standards (Option 3). This option allows the continuation of commercial vending. The performance standards would address neighborhood compatibility and life safety issues. Enforcement would be difficult and expensive but fees could be established to cover costs. However, the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Executive Committee is strongly opposed to this option because ongoing commercial activity is destructive to the livability of their neighborhood. Ongoing commercial vending is contrary to what is allowed in other single family neighborhoods, the RS-5 zoning and the 2008 Historic Preservation Plan. It has encouraged speculation in RS-5 residential properties in the Melrose area for their commercial potential (e.g., 817 Melrose Avenue 2007-2010 assessment was $179,290 and it sold for $500,000; properties at 3, 5 Triangle Place and 805 Melrose 2007-2010 total assessment was $427,920 and they sold for a total of $1,080,000). Allowing ongoing commercial vending affects how people think of the neighborhood and will define its future. Option 3 is not recommended. hisadmlmem/dg-markus032511.doc Melrose Commercial Use Activity stadium hospital E 4 6 Melrose Ave '•, 22 24 19 21 18 171516 14 30 12 5 7 9 2 4 23 25 ~ 20 a= t 11 13 6 8 ~ 3 i 1 k ~ 811 SD7 806 ~ 801 ' ~ j 821 ~ 817 ~ j ~ E 4 t '~ '~ ' ~ 12 I ; 74'1, I 71 ~ IO ; ~ i 1 ~ r s L~ i i ,L~' 701 629 Da ~~ ~ i 727 ~ ~ 3 k - 20a ~«__ r f ~ ~ i r? •~r. job CD s 1 ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~l~j. 7 0 2~ ; ~ Q } ' ~ _ _ ~---~ 6 d` o~- ~1 L 4 J R! ''` Commercial Uses ~~ 1 1. Suburban Sports 15. Imprinted Sportsware T University property 2. Imprinted Software 16. Rage GrafFx Signs & Screenprinting 3. Wildwood Smokehouse 17. Yolanda's Egg Rolls 4. Tri-Care 18. Jerry & Margies Catering 5. Bruvissey's 18a. Gyros-Tom Paulsen 6. Big Ass Turkey Leg 19. Kingdom Graphics 7. Cragar's Cigars 20. Big Mike's Grill 8. Custom Apparel) 20a. Stadium Club 9. Corridor Sports 21. Giant Tenderloins 10. Aladdin Restaurant 22. Pizza On Wheels il. Hani's Grill 23. Gameday Iowa 12. Imprinted Sportsware 24. Cragar's Cigars 13. The Brown Bag Deli 25. Ricky's Roadhouse a ~~ • 14. Wright's Pins CITY OF ION~4 CITY parking ramp PAGE 4D-1 14-4D Temporary Uses Article D. Temporary Uses ~-d.D-i Purnc The purpose of the Temporary Use regulations is to allow short-term and minor deviations from the requirements of this Title for uses which are truly temporary in nature, will not adversely impact the surrounding area and land uses, and which can be terminated and removed immediately. Temporary activities are characterized by their short term or seasonal nature and by the fact that permanent improvements are not made to the site. Temporary uses have no inherent rights within the zone in which they locate. The following temporary principal and accessory uses are allowed, subject to approval by the Building Official through the temporary use permit process described in this Article and any conditions specified herein: A. .Outdoor display and sales of merchandise within commercial districts, including merchandise customarily sold on the premises by a permanently established business; B. On- and ofF-site contractors' construction yards in conjunction with an approved development project; C. Construction activities pursuant to a valid building permit that temporarily violate the Performance Standards contained in Article 14-5H of this Title; D. Temporary auto sales lots; E. Christmas tree sales lots; however, a permit is not required when such sales are in conjunction with an established commercial business, provided such activity occurs only from November 1 through December 31; F. Circuses, rodeos and carnivals; G. Fairs, festivals and concerts, when not held within premises designed to accommodate these types of events, such as auditoriums, stadiums, or other public assembly facilities; H. Temporary parking areas in conjunction with a permitted use; I. Halloween haunted houses for 15 to 45 days, one. event per year; 7. Real Estate Sales Centers and model homes, provided the center or use of a home as a model is discontinued when the number of dwelling units remaining to be sold is less than 10 percent of the total number of dwelling units approved for the development or 5 units, whichever is less. Employees at the approved real estate center are limited to the minimum number necessary to show and sell the dwelling units within the same development. The hours of operation are limited to the hours between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. K. Other temporary uses which, in the determination of the Building Official, are compatible with the zone and surrounding land uses. Title 14: Iowa Ciry Zoning Code Revised 07-06-09 PAGE 4D-2 14_4j~ Temporary Uses 14-4D-3 Permit Required A temporary use permit is required for all temporary uses listed in subsection B, above, unless specifically exempted. Procedures for obtaining a permit are contained in Article 14-8B of this Title, Administrative Approval Procedures. A temporary use permit will be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Building Official within 10 business days after submittal of a complete application. A temporary use must meet the following approval criteria: A. The proposed use is temporary or seasonal in nature and will not continue for more than the time period specified in the application. Except for temporary uses specifically approved for longer periods, such as model homes or real estate sales offices, temporary uses must not continue for more than 180 days for outdoor temporary uses or 1 year for temporary uses within a building; B. The proposed temporary use will not necessitate permanent improvements to the site; C. The site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed use; D. The proposed temporary use is compatible with the land uses presently on the site and with existing land uses in the general area; E. There is adequate provision for public and private utilities and services to ensure that the proposed temporary use will not be detrimental to public health and safety; F. There is adequate provision for public and emergency access to serve the proposed temporary use; and G. Any impacts of the proposed temporary use are mitigated. In approving an application for a temporary use permit, the Building Official may impose conditions deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit will be in accordance with the approval criteria required by this Article and to satisfy public needs directly caused by the proposed temporary use. These conditions may involve any pertinent factors affecting the operation of such temporary event or use, and may include, but are not limited to: A. Provision for a fixed period of time, not to exceed 180 calendar days for a temporary use not occupying a structure, including promotional activities, or one year for all other uses or structures, or for a shorter period of time as determined by the Building Official; B. Provision for temporary parking facilities, including vehicular ingress and egress and appropriate circulation. Parking required for temporary and principal commercial uses may be reduced up to 10 percent if sufficient evidence is presented that parking will be adequate to meet the demand for the proposed temporary use and any permanent uses on the site; C. Regulation of nuisance factors such as, but not limited to, prevention of glare, light trespass, noise, vibration, smoke, dust, dirt, odors, gases, or heat that create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties; Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 07-06-09 Pa,cE 4D-3 14-4D Temporary Uses D. Regulation of temporary structures and facilities, including placement, height and size, location of equipment and open spaces, including buffer areas and other yards; E. Provision for sanitary and medical facilities; F. Provision for solid, hazardous and toxic waste collection and disposal; G. Provision for security and safety measures; H. Provision for regulation of signs; I. Regulation of operating hours and days, including limitation of the duration of the temporary use; 7. Submission of a performance bond or-other surety device to ensure that any temporary facilities or structures used will be removed from the site within a reasonable time following the event and that the property will be restored to its former condition; K. A requirement that the approval of the requested temporary use permit is contingent upon compliance with applicable provisions of the Federal, State and City Code; and L. Any other conditions which will ensure the operation of the proposed temporary use in an orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the intent and purpose of this Article. Title 14.• Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 07-06-09 To: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission From: Jean Walker, Melrose Neighborhood Association Representative Date: April 29, 2011 Re: Commercial Vending on Melrose Avenue on Football Game Days Attached are four documents concerning the commercial vending on Melrose Avenue on football game days: 1. Statement from the Executive Committee of the Melrose Neighborhood Association given, by Jean Walker, to Doug Boothroy, Iowa City's Director of Housing and Inspection Services, March 24, 2011 at a meeting with him, members of the Melrose Neighborhood and Vendors March 24, 2011 (Vending11_03-24.docx) 2. Statement submitted, by Jean Walker, to the Iowa City City Council Work Session, April 18, 2011 (VendingCouncilWorkSession11_04-18.docx) 3. Statement submitted, by Jean Walker, to the Iowa City City Council Formal Meeting, April 19, 2001 (VendorsCityCouncil11_04-19.docx) 4. Map of vendors' locations, from a memo from Doug Boothroy to Iowa City City Council (VendorsMap 11 _03-24. pdf) Summary of topic: After consultation with various city officials and after a 03/24/11 meeting with the Melrose Neighborhood and vendors, Mr. Boothroy presented a memo to the City Council with the recommendation that the vending be banned. The Executive Committee of the Melrose Neighborhood Association concurred (see 1. above). Just prior to the Council's 04/18/11 work session, the Melrose Neighborhood presented the Council a statement (see 2. above) where the neighbors suggested there were alternate locations for the vendors, that are still beside the Stadium and described one in detail. They also outlined why commercial vending should not be on the south side of Melrose Avenue. Few, if any (except Mayor Hayek) had a chance to read this statement prior to the work session (where there was no public input) and thus were unaware of the alternate location proposed and they said that they thought the vendors should stay in their current location and they directed Mr. Boothroy to draw up regulations for the vending. The regulations would go to the Planning & Zoning Commission for their input before going back to the Council for public input and, for the first time, their vote. At the 04/19/11 formal City Council meeting, the Melrose Neighborhood presented the Council a statement (see 3. above) that clarified that they were not against having vendors on game days but stating that they did not want them located along houses in the historic neighborhood. The statement also said: "Because time is pressing, we suggest that the vendors remaining where they are for the next year or two, with temporary use permit regulations in place, with the understanding that an earnest effort is made, with cooperation of the City, the University of Iowa, and the Neighborhood, to find an alternate location that is outside of the historic Melrose Neighborhood." Amendments to regulations requested by the _Melrose Neighborhood Having seen a draft of the regulations that Mr. Boothroy has prepared, the neighbors would like the following amendments (though these amendments might not be comprehensive at this time): 1. We would like the location of the vendors to be curtailed to extend only to 711 Melrose Avenue (see the map, which is attachment 4.), rather than extending to Melrose Court. 711 is the current extent of all but one of the vendors and that one vendor is currently on the public right-of-way. 2. There must be adequate toilet facilities. This aspect of game days needs to be addressed in relationship to vending (as well as the overall game days) and in consideration of these regulations by the Planning & Zoning Commission. We believe that it is the responsibility of the University of Iowa to provide these facilities. 3. There have been various complaints about the improper disposal of turkey legs and shish kabob sticks. These items are injurious to pets and wildlife. We would therefore like these items, especially the shish kabob sticks to be banned. We believe that the food on these sticks could be vended in an alternate manner. Our preference would be that the turkey legs also be banned, or at the very least that the vendor have a very prominent notice on his stand to remind people of the proper disposal of them. All vendors, and especially food vendors need to have adequate waste containers. However, we realize that part of the problem of improper disposal is that there are not enough waste receptacles throughout the whole neighborhood, particularly along the length of Melrose Avenue east of the bridge to University Heights and that this needs to be addressed as a separate issue from the vendors. 4. Our preference would be to have all foodware items and beverage containers be biodegradable/compostable and that recycle containers be provided for their disposal, either by the vendors, the City, or the University of Iowa. Also the food vendors should be encouraged (at each mandatory vendor/property owner meeting) to use raw ingredients that are locally grown. 5. That there be no selling except on game day. COMMERCIAL VENDING ON MELROSE AVENUE ON FOOTBALL GAME DAYS Statement from the Executive Committee of the Melrose Neighborhood Association March 24, 2011 Concerning commercial vending on Melrose Avenue on football game days, the Melrose Neighborhood Association's Executive Committee requests that Iowa City officials uphold the law and that this illegal activity be stopped. The Melrose Neighborhood, which includes a historic district nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, is a fragile neighborhood that needs to be preserved (as stated in various Iowa City documents). Currently, the people who congregate around the vendors' stands, and who walk down Melrose Avenue eating food purchased at those stands, appear to feel free to discard trash and uneaten food at will along and on the properties on the Avenue. There appears to be a herd mentality that shows an utter disrespect for the neighborhood, a disrespect that one would hope people would not exhibit in their own neighborhoods. For too long, this behavior has been allowed to occur unchecked. This vending on Melrose Avenue is an invasion of the neighborhood, which is zoned RS5 (residential), and it affects its character adversely. It is destructive in that it creates a huge mess on the street and on the adjacent properties, and though in recent years a better effort has been made to clean up (most of) that mess in a somewhat timely manner, it still encourages disrespectful behavior and generates lingering harm to the properties in terms of tents, carpets, and people destroying the lawns. Few, if any, vendors have supplied trash containers for the by-products of their sales with the result that trash is strewn on the street, sidewalks, and properties. Of particular concern are the turkey bones and the shish kabob sticks that pose a threat to the lives of neighborhood pets and wildlife. Carelessly discarded broken-off wooden shish kabob sticks with remnants of food attached have been found and are alife- threatening hazard. In addition, extreme congestion of the street occurs because people are attracted to the stands from the stadium on the other side of the street and people tend to congregate around the vendors' stands. The neighborhood's request to have this illegal activity stopped is corroborated by the fact that University Heights upholds a ban on commercial vending in their city. Commercial vending on football game days occurs due to the University of Iowa's football games. We therefore believe that if commercial vending is to continue in the vicinity of the stadium, the University should take responsibility for any such activity so that it does not impinge on, and adversely affect, the Neighborhood. We would propose that any such vending could occur in an area of the stadium parking lot. In addition to eliminating the trash and the destruction of the Neighborhood, such a placement of the vendors should greatly diminish the congestion on Melrose Avenue near the stadium. We have heard of various instances, due to this congestion, when people could not reach the adjacent UI Hospitals and Clinics in a timely manner in an emergency or when people have had problems getting to work at the UIHC. Most importantly, diminished congestion would facilitate the access of fire trucks, ambulances (particularly going to the UIHC), police vehicles, and any other emergency vehicles to the area. Reduction of this congestion on Melrose Avenue, which is one of the main arterial streets of Iowa City, is thus a safety concern. For all of the above reasons, we request that the illegal vending on Melrose Avenue be stopped Melrose Avenue Vendors Iowa City City Council Meeting, April 19, 2011 Comments by Jean Walker, Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Representative I want to make it very clear: The Melrose Avenue Neighborhood is not opposed to the vendors. Yes it would be crazy to ban them. The problem is their location. We have come up with several alternate locations that address many of the issues brought up by the City Staff and the Neighborhood. Bottom line: we feel that the Council is moving ahead too fast on this topic without sufficient knowledge (for example of the alternatives) and without sufficient input from the neighbors. So we are asking for time for further discussion by the Council and further public input. Let's not rush this through, but let's get it right -take time to look at the alternate locations. Because time is pressing, we suggest that the vendors remaining where they are for the next year or two, with temporary use permit regulations in place, with the understanding that an earnest effort is made, with cooperation of the City, the University of Iowa, and the Neighborhood, to find an alternate location that is outside of the historic Melrose Neighborhood. City staff has stated that the highest priority is protecting the neighborhood, and moving the vendors to an alternate location close to the Stadium would help do that. So now is the time to come together to make this awin-win-win-win situation for the City, the fans, the neighbors, and the vendors. Putting all other considerations aside, we respectfully request that you to answer this question: If a nearby alternate location was found for the vendors outside the Melrose Neighborhood, is there any reason why it should not be used? (Presentation of alternate locations.) I have already submitted to the Council a document that lists the many positive aspects of these alternate locations and summarizes the reasons that vending should not be on the south side of Melrose Avenue. Responses to comments made by City Council members: The UI needs to be involved. I was shocked that the statement would be made that "the UI wouldn't allow vendors on their property" -without even asking them. Just because people don't do what they should do, should they be allowed to avoid their responsibility? At other events in the City, the entity is held responsible for activities associated with its event. The UI should not be an exception. Some of the vendors have expressed the opinion that the UI should put up sufficient trash cans and portapotties so that those issues are not a problem. The notion that the UI is a good neighbor is a broad generalization -each topic needs to be assessed separately to see if that applies. The UI has not been a good neighbor in several instances as regards football games and the Melrose Neighborhood. For example, it took two years of persistent emails for the UI to supply portapotties to alleviate the urinating, throwing up, and defecating on Lucon Drive and nearby areas. Response came only when the parents of toddlers atone of the daycare centers learned that people were defecating behind that center and wrote to the UI. Subsequently 5 portapotties were supplied by the UI and lines of as many as 20 people waiting to use them were observed. If the UI was a good neighbor they would step forward, show concern for the Neighborhood, and offer to help, rather than wait in the background and have•the City, neighbors, fans, and vendors solve their problems. They even have a Department of Urban and Regional Planning that should be a great help in this matter. It is not surprising that the City received many emails etc. from people against banning the vendors. There are hundreds of thousands of fans and much fewer neighbors. We are sick of the phrase to the effect that neighbors knew the Stadium was there and that it would involve commotion. Many of us have lived here for decades and football game days are very different (in a negative way) from when we moved in, in large part because neither the City nor the UI has not intervened to stop various illegal activities. (Side note: This neighborhood was first established in the 1850s, well before the stadium was built.) Selling parking spaces and selling turkey legs is not the same. The vendors attract large crowds of people. VENDING ON MELROSE AVENUE DURING FOOTBALL GAMES 04/18/11 Comments submitted to the Iowa City City Council meeting by Jean Walker, Melrose Neighborhood Association Representative THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT AGAINST HAVING VENDORS ON FOOTBALL GAME DAYS, (provided they are regulated to avoid the problems currently associated with them). However we are very strongly opposed to having the vendors in our historic Neighborhood and particularly in their current position where the main arterial street that is Melrose Avenue is turned into a sidewalk, and emergency vehicles have great difficulty passing through. A NEW LOCATION THAT SHOULD PLEASE MOST OF THE PEOPLE AND ENTITIES AFFECTED: We have therefore come up with a new location that should please most of the people and entities affected: The ideal location for the vendors is in the UI parking lot next to Kinnick Stadium. A UI official has indicated that that is not possible at this time because the UI has a contract with a couple of vendors which excludes other vendors on UI Athletics property. This contract expires in 2016. So, unless the contract is modified before then, the vendors would have to wait until then to be accommodated in that area. In the meantime, the neighborhood has found a couple of other win-win locations that could be used until the parking lot is available. Probably the best one is along Hawkins Drive right across from Kinnick Stadium along Parking Ramp 2, where there is a 15 foot grassy area and a wide sidewalk backed by a grassy slope. (See attached map and photos -if available.) Advantages of this location: 1. It avoids the congestion across Melrose Avenue, thus allowing emergency vehicles a clearer path. 2. It makes the job of police, fire and ambulance workers a lot easier. 3. It is just around the corner from the current location, but still just across the street from Kinnick Stadium. 4. It gives greater protection for the historic Melrose Neighborhood. The favored location does not involve any residences. 5. It gives the UI an opportunity to take responsibility for some of the activities generated by their football games, and the City would not have to spend the money and people resources to police the area and enforce any regulations. 6. The UI has stated in the past that it supports historic preservation and also that it wants to have good relations with its neighbors. By taking care of this problem, they will achieve both goals. 7. It stops the inflation of property prices in the Neighborhood that is based on speculation of monetary gain from commercial vending. Inflated prices would make home purchases in the Neighborhood out of reach for most people. 8. It removes some of the trash concerns generated by vending activity, including the perception that it is okay to trash the Neighborhood. 9. There might be some congestion of Hawkins Drive (though less because the vending area there is more open than the current one). Also, Hawkins Drive is not a main arterial of Iowa City, or one that leads directly to the UIHC Emergency Room, as opposed to Melrose Avenue. That section of Hawkins Drive could be closed to all but official traffic during the vending period. Note that access to the hospital entrance is still available from both ends of Hawkins Drive. WHY COMMERCIAL VENDING SHOULD NOT BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MELROSE AVENUE: -- WE SHOULD NOT EVEN BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. VENDING ON MELROSE AVENUE IS ILLEGAL. THE MELROSE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. IF THE CITY HAD BEEN DOING ITS JOB, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. -- The City has not enforced this regulation through the years and has let it get out of hand. It has become much worse over the years. Instead of contemplating allowing the vending to continue, the City should apologize to the Neighborhood and enforce the ban on vending. Now is the City's chance to make up for their years of neglect in not enforcing that regulation. -- The vendors should be glad they have not been fined for their illegal activity. -- If the City allows commercial vending on Melrose Avenue, it is simply rewarding the illegal activity of the vendors, while undermining the very hard work that the Neighborhood has put in concerning historic preservation - a slap in the face indeed. The City failed to protect our neighborhood and instead dealt it a double injury -instead of prosecuting the vendors, the city allowed them and then did not even control them. -- The City has, in various of its documents, stated that the Melrose Neighborhood is fragile and needs to be protected. Allowing the vending to continue goes against those statements and would be detrimental to the fragile historic Neighborhood. We ask the City to follow-up what it has said about protecting the neighborhood with what it will do, i.e., ban vending in the Neighborhood. -- What is the City's view of our neighborhood - a quiet residential neighborhood (for which it is zoned) or a place where one has commerce -not even orderly commerce but commerce that trashes the neighborhood? -- If the City allows this vending to continue, it means that the City is anti-preservation (in contrast to what it has said in the past in various documents) and condones these negative activities. Does the City want vendors to make money or does it want to preserve a neighborhood? -- Allowing vending affects how people think of the neighborhood and negates our huge effort to establish a historic district nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. -- Instead of seeing how the City can facilitate this commerce with all its downside, the City should be seeing how it can protect the neighborhood. We've suffered years of this abuse. Don't "reward" us with allowing it to continue. -- I doubt that the Council members would like people to come into their (historic) neighborhood and setup stands and let people stand in the middle of the street and toss trash that could injure/kill your pets? And then the City says "Okay, it's illegal but, never mind, it's fun and the people coming from all over town want it". -- Are you for civility and protecting neighborhoods, especially fragile historic neighborhoods, when the rare opportunity arises for improvement, or are you for standing by, throwing your hands in the air and saying "we can't do anything' and let mob rule rule? Is anyone brave enough to stand up and protect us? Iowa City could be a model for others. Alternatively, there must be other cities with football stadiums that do it a lot better (and would not tolerate our situation). Perhaps the City could look for better models. University Heights is already a better model, both in not allowing commercial vending on Melrose Avenue and controlling the littering and trash. -- Trashing our neighborhood is unacceptable behavior. -- Football game days are in essence intense abuse of our neighborhood 7 or 8 days a year (not counting the partying the day prior to the games). How much abuse should to be tolerated? Isn't once too much? Would you tolerate abuse elsewhere? Abuse of our neighborhood has got to stop and enforcing the law against this illegal commercial vending, with its accompanying trash and congestion etc., is a start. -- Commercial vending for football games could be the thin edge of the wedge as regards such vending on other occasions. -- The situation is getting worse. There are now at least 25 commercial vendors, the overwhelming number coming from outside the neighborhood and some even from out of the State. It is not a "mom and pop" endeavor. These people probably are not thinking of it as a neighborhood and are unlikely to care about its preservation. To them it is just a piece of commercial real estate, a place to plunder for monetary gain. Vendors coming from Wisconsin - do they care about the neighborhood? How many vendors are owner-occupiers? These vendors should not be telling the neighborhood what we should accept. -- It's heartbreakingly depressing to have our neighborhood turned into a disgusting mess and to drive down Melrose Avenue after a game and see our beautiful historic neighborhood trashed. But it's not just a trash concern. It's about congestion, destruction, and total disrespect of our neighborhood. -- This is a once-in-a lifetime opportunity -please don't blow it. It's a "knife-edge" decision. It is in your power to choose good for this neighborhood. Once the genie is out of the bottle.... -- Finally, the UI, whose event has generated this problem and which should have a vast amount of intellectual power at its disposal (including a Department of Urban and Regional Planning), should be coming up with a location to host the vendors that does not include the fragile historic Melrose Neighborhood. Melrose Commercial Use Activity stadium hospital 22 24 19 21 18 171516 14 10 12 5 7 9 2 a Melrose Ave 23 20 1113 6 8 3 1 821 817 811 805 801 ~ 71 2 1 20a °' 727 i s2s 3 lJ cu 4 D a [~ fO~ f ~ 13 3 ~~10 f D i >. ~ ~O'~~ 10 10 .,0 <~, y ~ J, Commercial Uses 1 a_ 3 a J I5 0 ~ o O~ 4 ~ ~n~ /~//~.~, '«~ `. ~~' 223 ~ 229 .--. 233 1. Suburban Sports 15. Imprinted Sportsware ' ~" University property 2. Imprinted Software 16. Rage Graffix Signs & Screenprinting 3. Wildwood Smokehouse 17. Yolanda's Egg Rolls 4. Tri-Care 18. Jerry & Margies Catering 5. Bruvissey's 18a. Gyros-Tom Paulsen 6. Big Ass Turkey Leg 19. Kingdom Graphics 7. Cragar's Cigars 20. Big Mike's Grill 8. Custom Apparel) 20a. Stadium Club 9. Corridor Sports 21. Giant Tenderloins 10. Aladdin Restaurant 22. Pizza On Wheels 11. Hani's Grill 23. Gameday Iowa 12. Imprinted Sportsware 24. Cragar's Cigars 13. The Brown Bag Deli 25. Ricky's Roadhouse 14. Wright's Pins CI7Y OF IOIIA CITY parking i t, ramp U PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 2011 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker, Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jesse Allen, Duane Musser RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 (Freerks absent) to approve REZ11-00001 and SUB10-00016, an application submitted by Rochester Ridge LLC for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) zone and a preliminary plat for Rochester Ridge, a 55-lot, 23.22 acre residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue subject to: • The Wetland mitigation Plan being approved by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers; • Along-term maintenance plan for the wetland/storm-water detention located in Outlot A by the Home Owners Association being included in the legal papers with the final plat; • The applicant working with the City Forester to find a location for the replacement trees that cannot be planted on site. This should be worked out prior to Council consideration. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVLOPMENT ITEM: REZ11-00001/SUB10-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by Rochester Ridge LLC for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) zone and a preliminary plat for Rochester Ridge, a 55-lot, 23.22 acre residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue. Planning and Zoning Commission April 21, 2011 -Formal Page 2 of 6 Kuecker explained that this application had come before the Commission previously, and had been deferred until a wetland mitigation plan could be submitted. Kuecker said that the plan has now been submitted. She explained that the sensitive areas ordinance and the Army Corp of Engineers will require any wetland disturbance to be mitigated. Kuecker said that a portion of the mitigation is to take place off-site and in wetland banks within the Iowa River Watershed. Kuecker noted that the planned subdivision is for 55 single family lots located south of Rochester Avenue. There are three outlots, one of which is a small outlot for a mailbox cluster, the second is a trail connection and the third outlot is the storm-water detention area. Kuecker said that the major changes to the plan from the last time it was before the Commission include clarification on the tree buffer, the extension of Outlot A, and shifts to the grade, utilities and lot boundaries. Kuecker said that the wetland mitigation plan seems to meet all of the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Staff recommends approval subject to the approval of the wetland mitigation plan by the Army Corp of Engineers, along-term maintenance plan for the wetlands and storm-water detention basin needs to be included in the legal papers for the homeowners association, and the applicant needs to work with the City Forester to place 134 replacement trees. Kuecker noted that even though the wetlands are being affected, the applicant is incorporating a few wetland features into the storm-water retention area above and beyond the mitigation requirements. Busard asked how many trees are being removed. Kuecker said that the applicant is, by ordinance, allowed to remove 50% of the woodlands. If they remove more than that, then they must place one replacement tree for every 200 square feet. Busard asked if scrub trees were considered in this ratio. Miklo said the replacement requirement refers to trees with trunks at least two inches in diameter. Miklo said that there is not an actual tree count; the replacement number is based on square footage of woodlands. Plahutnik asked if Oulot C was where most of the disturbance would take place and Kuecker said that there is a no-construction area in a portion of Outlot C where none of the trees will be disturbed. Kuecker noted that the applicant is planting an evergreen buffer between the arterial street and the buildable areas of the lots. Koppes asked if the Forester had approved that and Kuecker said the Forester has looked at the plan and did not raise any issues with the plan currently before the Commission. Miklo noted that the evergreen buffer has been slightly adjusted since the last time the plan was before the Commission. Eastham asked if there would be pull-offs for motorists to park in while picking up mail at the mail box clusters. Miklo replied that staff did not anticipate traffic volume in the development to be great enough to warrant pull-over areas. Weitzel asked for more information on the Corp's approval of the wetland mitigation. Kuecker explained that in order for the Corp to approve a wetland mitigation plan the applicant must prove that there is no way to do the development without impacting the wetland. Kuecker said the applicant has demonstrated this. Weitzel asked a question concerning habitat disturbance and Kuecker explained that only endangered or threatened species are considered for the purposes of Planning and Zoning Commission April 21, 2011 -Formal Page 3 of 6 a wetland mitigation plan. Miklo noted that the property to the north of Rochester Avenue is a preserve that will not be developed. Hopefully the wildlife will relocate there during the habitat disturbance. Busard asked if the applicant has indicated a phasing plan for this project. Kuecker said that the applicant has indicated that the development will take place in several phases. Eastham asked for more information about the off-site nature of the wetland mitigations. Kuecker said that the total amount of wetlands being impacted is 2.08 acres; the required mitigation is of 3.54 acres. Koppes opened the public hearing. The applicant, Jesse Allen, 3704 Lower West Branch Road, made himself available for Commission questions. Eastham asked if it was correct that there were two separate areas involved in the wetland mitigation. He asked if it was yet known where the wetland bank would be, and how much mitigation would be occurring at each of the two sites. Allen said the bank is up by Tama and 2.6 acres will be in the bank up there; there will also be .8 acres of wooded wetlands on Harvest Farm and Preserve, which is across the street from the subject property. Allen explained that the wooded wetlands have a slightly different replacement ratio than the emergent wetlands. Eastham asked for more information on the wetland bank. Allen explained that the bank is called the Soul Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank, apre-established bank of 1,000-2,000 acres. This bank has already been accepted by the Army Corp of Engineers. Developers seeking wetland mitigation can purchase credits with the bank and which is monitored by and meets the guidelines of the Corp. Miklo explained that the bank is anon-profit agency that is monitored by the Corp for compliance with regulations. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, explained that MMS has previously used this wetland bank to purchase credits for other developers. He said that the wetlands are reviewed and monitored each year by the Corp. Musser said that Allen has a purchase agreement with the bank to buy the acres needed for the necessary wetland mitigation. Musser said that while the Corp's first preference is to have no impact on wetlands at all, the next preference is a professionally managed bank. Musser said that the mitigation plan is a two-stage one. He said that the applicant's preference is to mitigate everything through the wetland bank. The stream corridor restoration would occur at the preserve, which would be monitored and maintained to meet both Corp and City requirements. Musser noted that the area was not a wetland 100 years ago; it was a pasture. The development to the east of the property brought in the hydrology that created the monoculture wetland. He said the goal is to establish a good, healthy, diverse wetland. Musser said that even if it winds up that the developer has to plant trees on city property elsewhere, he is committed to meeting his replanting requirements. Musser said that the developer is hoping to have the necessary Corp permits by mid-July. With approval of tonight's application, the first phase of construction plans could potentially begin in the fall. Musser noted that there will be an entrance off Rochester for development activities so as not to disturb existing neighborhoods with construction traffic. No one else wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing was closed. Planning and Zoning Commission April 21, 2011 -Formal Page 4 of 6 Payne moved to approve REZ11-00001 and SUB10-00016, an application submitted by Rochester Ridge LLC for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) zone and a preliminary plat for Rochester Ridge, a 55-lot, 23.22 acre residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue subject to: • The Wetland mitigation Plan being approved by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers; • Along-term maintenance plan for the wetland/storm-water detention located in Outlot A by the Home Owners Association being included in the legal papers with the final plat; • The applicant working with the City Forester to find a location for the replacement trees that cannot be planted on site. This should be worked out prior to Council consideration. Plahutnik seconded. Weitzel said that the applicant has shown considerable efforts to adapt his plan to the environmental conditions present on site. Busard said he is in favor of this application because poor quality wetlands are being traded for good wetlands, and hop-scotch, sprawling development is being avoided by doing in-fill development. Plahutnik said that it would have been great if the City could have retained the area as parkland, but that is not in the budget. He said that he is satisfied with the development as planned. Eastham said he agreed that this is a reasonable plan for this parcel of land and he approves of the off-site mitigation site. Payne said that over time, this development will represent a positive change for the existing neighborhood. A vote was taken and the motion carried &0 (Freerks absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: April 7, 2011: Weitzel offered a correction to the minutes. Plahutnik moved to approve the minutes as amended. Payne seconded. The motion carried 6-0 (Freerks absent). OTHER: Miklo noted that he and Weitzel had attended the American Planning Association Conference in Boston. He said that on thing he took away from the conference is the notion that the aging population will have a large effect on future planning. The other demographic consideration is that Planning and Zoning Commission April 21, 2011 -Formal Page 5 of 6 Generation Y is a larger generation than Generation X, and their housing demands are likely to be more urban in nature. Miklo said that one statistic that he heard repeated at the conference was that nationwide there is a 30-year oversupply of single-family detached housing on large lots. There was a prediction that more households would be seeking attached housing. Payne noted that she had attended the most recent City Council meeting and the Dane property had been an agenda item. She said there was an extensive discussion by the Council about the rezoning application which resulted in a 5-2 vote in favor of the application. She said the nature of the discussion was much the same as the one the Commission had had. Eastham said that he personally would be in favor of changing the Comprehensive Plan to take the possible park on this property into account. Weitzel said that it was a complicated issue and it would probably not be a bad idea to gather more input on the matter. Koppes noted that this is Busard's final meeting as a Commissioner and thanked him for his service. Plahutnik noted that he has a busy travel schedule in May and may be missing some meetings. ADJOURNMENT: Plahutnik motioned to adjourn. Busard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Freerks absent). Z O ~_ O V Z Z N Z_ Z Z a O O V W W r' V `- Z ° Q N Z W F- Q X ~ X ~ X X X X ~ X ~ X X X X X X M X ~ X X X X X X N X ~ X X X X X X N X X X X X X X ~W .- Cfl ~ M N ~ lf') M r ~ r ~ ~-- ~ ~-- ~ r ~ r ~ r ~ r ~ W a ~x ~n o ~n o ~n o ~n o ~n o ~n 0 ~n 0 ~n 0 W W F=- !' J ~ Z ~ m J Q J Q Q N ~ O . O 2 C~ Z Q ~ = ~ '' W V Y Q ~ ~ Y ~ Z J ~ v = w ui ~ W W Q GC F - W a Z = ~ ~ Q N ~ W ~ N Q W m a O ~. Q Q J - W z m G w w Y a a ~ Z H W W OC O N X X X X X X X M X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X r N ~W ~- ~ ~ ~ M ~ N ~ ln ~ ln ~ M ~ ~X o o o o o 0 0 W Q W J ~ W J ~ J Q Z Q J Q N = V Z Q N V ~ O W Y ~ N Y ~ ~ Z F- _j W ~ a H w a z = ~ Q ~ Q m O Q ~ _ W z m w w Y a a ~ O z E_ W W OG O w Z E O ~ ~ ~ o ~z X ~ ~ ~ .,,, C ~ c ~ ~ ~ v~i~~o ~~QZ a Q ~~ n ii n w ~ XOOz w Y