HomeMy WebLinkAboutA004 - Staff Report dated May 24, 2011 ITEM # 30
Staff Report
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SITES
May 24, 2011
BACKGROUND:
On May 10, the City Council referred to staff a letter from Manatts, Inc. concerning their
use of the former Cyclone Truck Stop at 1811 South Dayton Place. Manatts had been
given a notice of violations of the flood plain and zoning ordinances due to their use of
that site as a concrete batch plant. The plant was set up for the US Highway 30
reconstruction project in Story and Boone Counties.
The letter from Manatts asked the City Council to offer alternative solutions to allow the
use to remain on a temporary basis to complete the US 30 project. In the City
Manager's memo that accompanied the letter, next steps were outlined if the City
Council were to refer the letter to staff. The memo stated that staff would prepare
options for City Council to consider. This report is intended to outline possible options
for the City Council to consider allowing the concrete batch plant to remain on a
temporary basis. These would all require an ordinance change and each offers distinct
advantages and disadvantages. Staff is asking the City Council to select a preference
from among the alternative approaches described below.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
Special Use Permit
This option is used most frequently by communities. It authorizes specific uses in
districts that don't normally allow them following a public hearing in front of the zoning
board of adjustment. If applied to this instance, the ordinance could be written to allow
concrete and asphalt batch plants in any zone, subject to the approval of the zoning
board of adjustment. The board would conduct a public hearing after notification and
could apply conditions to the approval that would mitigate any adverse impacts which
the use may cause. The ordinance could be written with a mandated time limit, or the
time limit could be a condition of approval of the board.
This option allows for broad public notification and input prior to the public hearing. It
allows the board to place any further conditions on the use, such as length of time,
hours of operation, etc. A violation of the conditions would allow the board to revoke the
special use permit. This process, however, usually takes three to four weeks to submit
an application, prepare a staff report, provide notifications, and conduct a public
hearing. Such a timeframe should not be too great a burden on such projects, though.
Administrative Approval
r
This approach requires an ordinance change to designate an individual or department
who can provide discretionary approval of such uses on a temporary basis. Under this
option, the Director of Planning and Housing may be the person best suited to authorize
the temporary construction site because this is a land use issue pertaining to
development on private property. The Planning and Housing Department would be most
knowledgeable of other land use issues that may be applicable to a site, such as the
requirement for a flood plain development permit, or any existing site improvements that
must be retained or other improvements that may be required under a previously
approved permit.
This approach does not allow for much public notification or input. The ordinance
authorizing staff to give approval could include locational criteria or other conditions. In
addition, the individual who is authorized to approve the use could also place any
further conditions he or she deemed appropriate. The timeframe for such approval
would likely be shorter than through a public hearing in front of the zoning board of
approval.
Permitted Uses
Another option is to consider a temporary concrete or asphalt batch plant as a permitted
use and with conditions. This approach would designate certain zones in which this use
could be established on a temporary basis. As a permitted use, no public notification or
hearing would be required. Neither could additional conditions be imposed.
This approach, like the administrative approval approach, would require no public
notification or input. It would impose no conditions unique to the site other than the
conditions written into the code. Its approval process would, like the administrative
approval approach, require little time.
Retain the Status Quo
This approach retains the language which does not allow for this type of use in other
than a GI General Industrial zoning district. It would require Manatts, if their appeal is
denied by the zoning board of adjustment, to cease operations at this site and seek
another site.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Manatts and City staff have discussed the reasoning behind selecting this site and its
advantages. As noted in a previous memo to the City Council, the criteria that best
serves the needs of the US 30 project is having a site close to the project with primary
access to an arterial road. The City prefers a site that is paved so as to reduce storm
water quality issues. The site should also be in a location to minimize interaction
between the estimated 850 heavy trucks that will enter and exit this site daily and local
traffic.
If the City Council wishes to create a mechanism to accommodate this and future needs
that will inevitably arise, the status quo is not an option. Of the alternative approaches
2
described above, the special use permit process allows for the greatest public
notification and input. It is this input that will allow the zoning board of adjustment to
apply any conditions that it believes will ameliorate identified adverse impacts. Although
the time frame for approval is the longest of the approaches, in projects of this scale,
such a time frame would not be a burden to contractors.
Staff has discussed other sites and identified serious limitations with them. If the status
quo is retained and Manatts relocates, possible options may include, for example, their
existing location on Dayton Avenue, about two miles north of this site. The concern of
Manatts and of the staff is the number of heavy trucks that would be going up and down
Dayton Avenue and the impact of these vehicles on the roads and the local traffic.
Manatts also indicated that the site is not large enough to accommodate the extra
demand for their services and still accommodate their normal business. Another site
discussed was the Hallett's quarry site just to the southeast of 1811 South Dayton
Avenue. Although the site is large, the amount of space able to be used to set up the
batch plant, sand and aggregate stockpiles, refueling, and truck maneuvering is limited.
In addition, neither the access to this site nor the site itself is hard-surfaced which would
raise concerns about storm water quality as trucks track mud onto city streets and the
state highway.
NEXT STEPS:
Before staff prepares any specific language for a zoning text amendment, the City
Council is asked to give direction as to which approach they prefer. The City Council
could also describe any parameters they would like to see within the preferred
approach.
With direction from the City Council on a preferred approach, staff will prepare a zoning
ordinance text amendment and staff report for a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The amendment then will be brought to the City Council for its
action. If approved, staff will then implement and apply it to the Manatts use.
ENFORCEMENT UPDATE:
The outstanding zoning and flood plain violations remain. Staff met with Manatts and
toured the site. This tour resulted in specific requirements for Manatts to follow in order
to bring the site into compliance with the flood plain regulations. Much of their
equipment and fixtures may remain on site, although they will need to be anchored,
elevated, or placed on trailers to become mobile. Manatts is preparing an action plan
that will describe how mobile items will be removed in the event of a flood warning. The
stockpiles of sand and aggregate as well as the batch plant will be able to remain on the
site. Manatts has assured staff that the site will meet the flood plain regulations by May
31, the deadline given in the original notice of violation.
The deadline to be compliant with the zoning ordinance is also May 31. However,
Manatts has filed an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision. This appeal stops
3
further enforcement until the appeal is decided by the zoning board of adjustment, in
accordance with Code of Iowa Section 414.11. This appeal is tentatively scheduled for
consideration by the board on June 8. However, if the City Council directs staff to
proceed with a text amendment at the May 24 meeting, the board will be asked to table
action on this appeal until the legislative action has run its course. But if the City Council
does not direct staff to seek a text amendment at the May 24 City Council meeting, this
item will be on the June 8 board agenda. If the board upholds staff determination,
enforcement action, including issuance of a municipal infraction, will follow.
4