HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Planning and Zoning Commission, notes from discussion of impermissible uses Planning and Zoning Commission -6- January 20, 1982
DISCUSSION OF IMPERMISSIBLE USES - 30TH AND GRAND
Mr. Wooldridge reviewed the rezoning request at 30th and Grand pointing out
that the Commission recommended denial of the request. However, at the public
hearing on January 5, City Council passed the rezoning request on the first
reading. At that time, it was indicated that a list of impermissible uses would
need to be generated for the P-C areas. When City Council passed the request on the
second reading, they decided to table the ordinance until a recommendation on
impermissible uses for 30th and Grand was received from the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Mr. Wooldridge distributed a memorandum from staff dated January 20, 1982,
which presented the staff's recommendation for the impermissible uses. He
reviewed the contents of the memorandum explaining the reasoning behind staff's
recommendation and also discussed a letter from Larry Curtis dated January 19, 1982,
in which Mr. Curtis stated that the list of impermissible uses should include no
retail stores using less than 5,000 square feet of single-floor area to exclude
retail shops that would be in conflict with the typical type of space available in
the Downtown commercial area. Additionally, the staff memorandum included a letter
from Mr. Payer, representative for the owners of the 40 acres at 30th and Grand,
indicating a proposed list of impermissible uses.
Mr. Wooldridge then asked for comments from the Commission on the staff
proposal. The Commission discussed this item at length. Mrs. Manatt was concerned
that the Statement of Intent for Tract 6 was not clear enough and over a period
of time the intent might be lost. Mr. Zingg questioned how staff would decide
on acceptable uses if the staff recommendation was adopted. Mr. Wooldridge
stated that staff would make a judgement on the Statement of Intent and whether or
not the use was listed as impermissible. In the event an owner would take issue
with the staff decision, an appeal process would be available.
Mr. Sherkow then requested that the developers' representative discuss the
plans for the site before a decision was made on impermissible uses.
Mr. Payer explained that he could not answer any questions on what uses were
planned for the area because the developers did not know. He stated that the
request "by Councilmember Hammer for a general concept of intended uses would be
put together. Mr. Payer then indicated that the uses would generally consist of
retail establishments, a service station, a car wash, business offices, and
possibly some residential development. Subsequent to discussions with prospective
tenants, a more detailed presentation would be made. He indicated that staff's
recommendation was workable for the developers; however, they had strong feelings
against the 5,000 square foot limitation as proposed by Mr. Curtis because it
would be detrimental and contrary to the P-C concept.
Mr. Fouts suggested that some general terminology be formulated consistent
with the ordinance to provide the developer with a guideline and then list some
specific.items. Mr. Zingg stated that his suggestion fit what the staff had put
together and would go along with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Fouts was
concerned that being too specific, however, would result in restricting the
developers and, he noted, the 5,000 square foot floor area would do just that.
Mr. Wooldridge reviewed other P-C applications and how the lists of impermis-
sible uses were handled. Generally, P-C applications are for specific uses to be
developed immediately and, therefore, riot much discussion is held on impermissible
BOOK PAGE �0
Planning and Zoning Commission -7- January 20, 1982
uses. This present application, however, is unusual in that there are no immediate
plans for the site.
The Commission discussed the recommendation from Mr. Curtis noting that it
was exclusively Mr. Curtis' recommendation and not that of the Councils. The
Commission does not have to return that recommendation to Council. Mr. Zingg
indicated that the development which would take place at 30th and Grand would be
competitive with the North Grand Mall and Downtown Ames by its very nature and
the 5,000 square foot approach would not be viable and would be unfair to the
developers.
Mrs. Manatt was concerned that staff included hotel/motel as an impermissible
use in Tract 6 and not in Tract 5. She felt it should be included in both.
Mr. Sherkow reviewed his recommendation emphasizing that one of his primary
concerns was to provide buffering for the residential developments to the north
and east of the proposed development. He suggested putting together one list
for both tracts to give the developer some flexibility. That list would include:
vehicle services or sales; grocery, fruit,* or vegetable stores; hotel/motel;
warehousing; tractor/truck implement sales; farm machinery or heavy equipment;
general drive-through uses; convenience stores; and any use similar to those
mentioned. Mr. Payer stated that creating one list for the entire P-C area would
be contrary to the plan as it was submitted. Norm Rudi, architect, indicated that
the entire development was initiated because of the interest shown by financial
institutions, grocery stores, service stations, restaurants, and other facilities.
This would constitute 90% of what was being asked for. Mr. Sherkow explained that
he included grocery stores in his list because he did not want to add to the
exodus of grocery stores from the heart of the City.
Mr. Zingg stated his preference for the Tract 5 and Tract 6 approach.
Councilmember Hammer, 4th Ward, discussed the P-C as explained in the ordinance
and indicated that the problems the Commission was experiencing in putting together
a list of impermissible uses were due to the vagueness of the developers request.
Mr. Hammer stated that the developer should give more of an indication of what he
has planned so that creating a list could be done in a more straightforward manner.
Mr. Payer stated that the developers cannot plan for the 40 acres and it was un-
fair to make such a request. They have the right to have the area rezoned and
subsequently submit a detailed plan giving the Commission more information on the
planned uses. He stated that the developers intended to have a large shopping
area, but this would not preclude the development of separate smaller establishments.
Mrs. Hoffman pointed out that the Commission was asked by City Council to do
this and through this process was trying to protect itself because a plan could
be submitted at a later date with uses the Commission would not approve of. They
do not want to be accused of dragging out the approval process. Mr. Payer read
an excerpt from the ordinance which stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission
should determine those uses which have a tendency for detrimental impact. In
other words, things that are totally out of the question.
The Commission then went back to the staff recommendation and the following
motion was made:
BOOK .-a pA^ l
Planning and Zoning Commission -8- January 20, 1982
MOTION: (Fouts/Manatt) To preserve the Tract 5 and Tract 6 concept, make a
motion that follows the text as the staff has presented it with the
addition on Tract 5 of "vehicle sales and service (with the exception
of service stations)" and "hotel/motel." On Tract 5, eliminate the
'rnew and used auto sales." Tract 6 should include "vehicle sales and
service," "Convenience stores" and the last phrase stating "any retail
or service store that would normally generate traffic from the general
public" should be taken out.
2 in favor (Zingg, Fouts)
4 opposed (Kahler, Sherkow, Whetstone, Hoffman)
1 abstention (Manatt)
Following the failure of the above-stated motion, another motion was made as
follows:
MOTION: (Sherkow/Kahler) Eliminate the gas station from Tract 5 and add grocery,
fruit, or vegetable store; hotel/motel, and convenience store. For Tract
6 add convenience store and eliminate last phrase.
3 in favor (Kahler, Sherkow, Whetstone)
4 opposed (Manatt, Fouts, Zingg, Hoffman)
Because the second motion failed, a third motion was made:
MOTION: (Fouts/Manatt) To preserve the Tract 5 and Tract 6 concept and follow
the text as the staff has presented it with the addition in Tract 5 of
"vehicle sales and service; hotel/motel" and remove, in Tract 5, "new and
used auto sales." In Tract 6, add "vehicle sales and service; convenience
stores;" remove "new and used auto sales; any retail or service store
that would normally generate traffic from the general public."
Motion passed-6 in favor, 1 opposed (Whetstone)
Therefore, the text of the recommendation passed by the Commission read as follows:
Tract 5. This tract is designated for the full array of retail product and service
establishments and dwellings compatible within an intensely developed suburban
commercial setting.
Impermissible uses in such a setting include: Vehicle sales and service;
hotel/motel; warehousing; tractor/truck implement sales; farm machinery or
heavy equipment sales; any use similar to the above.
Tract 6. This tract is designated for professional and business offices, dwellings
and limited supportive and ancillary activities located within the main building(s) .
Impermissible uses include: Vehicle sales and service; grocery, fruit or
vegetable store; hotel/motel; convenience stores; warehousing; tractor/truck
implement sales; farm machinery or heavy equipment sales; any use similar to
the above.
-------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Mrs. Manatt asked that the Commission be provided with an updated work schedule.
B04K __) Z2ZPAGE 33a