Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Planning & Zoning Minutes 03/21/20121 MINUTES CITY OF AMES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Date: March 21, 2012 Debra Lee 2012 Chuck Jons 2012 Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. Elizabeth Beck, Chairperson 2012 Norman Cloud , Vice-Chairperson 2013 Place: Ames City Hall Mark Stenberg 2013 Council Chambers *Jeff Johnson 2014 *Troy Siefert 2014 Adjournment: 7:42 p.m. *Absent MAJOR TOPICS DISCUSSED: 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Pertaining to where Delayed Deposit Service Businesses can be Located 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Concerning Definition of “Story”, and Related Terms ____________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER: Elizabeth Beck, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: (JONS/CLOUD) to approve the Agenda for the meeting of March 21, 2012. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2012: MOTION: (CLOUD/STENBERG) to approve the Minutes of the meeting of February 1, 2012. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC FORUM: There were no public comments. ____________________________________________________________________________ Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Pertaining to where Delayed Deposit Service Businesses can be Located Brian Phillips, Project Coordinator, City Manager’s Office, gave an overview of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. In September of 2011, the City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance “as restrictive as legally possible” to limit the locations in which payday lenders could operate. Staff is aware of seven existing payday lenders in Ames. Under the current zoning code payday lending is considered Office Use and is permissible in any commercial base zone. Currently in Ames there are 794 existing parcels in commercial zones where payday lenders could locate. 2 Regulating and licensing payday lenders are powers reserved by the state. However, cities can determine the conditions and locations in which commercial activity occurs. A zoning ordinance that totally excludes a particular business from an entire municipality must bear a more substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare than an ordinance which merely confines that business to a certain area in the municipality. In Ames, zoning restrictions have been imposed for specific uses that have an adverse impact on public health and welfare. For example, adult entertainment businesses may not be located within 1,000 feet of residential zones or each other. For activities that are not constitutionally protected, such as payday lending, it is permissible to pass any number of conditions—even if that creates no area of the City where such an activity is allowed—as long as each condition adopted can be shown to tie back to a substantial impact on public health, safety, and welfare. Such rationales used by other communities include eliminating or reducing negative effects associated with that economic activity. Ames would not necessarily have to have experienced those negative effects; evidence that other cities have experienced negative effects may be cited as justification for each condition. In response to the City Council’s direction, staff drafted a text amendment that would add payday lenders, or “delayed deposit services,” to the list outlining additional requirements for specific uses. The section defines delayed-deposit services and requires that they not be located: • Within 1,000 feet of other existing delayed deposit services • Within 1,000 feet of residential zones • Within 1,000 feet of schools, daycares, and parks • Within 1,000 feet of any arterial street • Within Highway-Oriented Commercial or Gateway Overlay zones Violation of these provisions would be a municipal infraction. If adopted, the conditions of this text amendment would not permit new payday lenders in any existing parcels. The payday lenders that already exist would be able to continue operation. Based on their locations, all would become nonconforming uses, and therefore could not be enlarged or increased in intensity unless certain conditions were met and a Special Use Permit were granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Chuck Jons asked for clarification for why the City is pursuing this amendment. Mr. Phillips said the reason this ordinance is before the Commission is because it was directed by Council. In other communities there has been a concern of the practices of payday lenders such as very high interest rates. And even though the City does not have the power to regulate those practices or set interest rate caps, the City can put restrictions on when and where that type of activity can occur. Within the Commission Action Form is language from a Commission hearing in Des Moines describing some of the ill effects that they have associated with payday lending that includes clustering in certain neighborhoods and promulgating, which tends to choke out other types of businesses. Doug Marek, City Attorney, stated that there have been national studies done that have associated a proliferation of delayed deposit service companies with general degradation of neighborhoods. He listed three issues that were the basis for findings in other jurisdictions: (1) 3 problems caused by clustering; (2) incompatibility with other uses (i.e. schools, day cares, parks, etc.); and, (3) determining if there is a need for these precise services and if there is an alternative source for those services. Some communities, while enacting zoning ordinances that are restrictive, have taken steps to encourage traditional banks and credit unions to have programs available to those that don’t regularly have accounts so that they have a place where they can cash checks and/or get short term loans at a more reasonable cost. Mr. Marek went on to explain that there is a difference between the payday lending types of businesses and other types of restricted uses through time, place, and manner of business regulations. Adult-oriented businesses are subject to pretty severe regulation in most jurisdictions, and some courts have found that there is a protected constitutional speech right that is impacted by the limitation of those. Those same protected constitutional protections have not been found to apply to the money service businesses. If the Council moves forward with the adoption of this, it would be incumbent upon them to have a basis for finding that there is a rational relationship between each of these types of restrictions in each of the locations to a legitimate public health, welfare, and safety benefit, which other jurisdictions have succeeded in doing. Mr. Jons said the restriction pertaining to arterial streets seem to be out of context with the other four. He then asked what constitutes an arterial street. Mr. Phillips explained that the Iowa Department of Transportation defines what an arterial street is and has a map that identifies which streets are arterial, collector, or local. He said we thought that particular restriction would be defensible since it was a restriction used in other communities in Iowa. Mr. Marek said part of the justification in other locations is the general visual impact on the character of a main thoroughfare. There are many places where there is a proliferation of these types of businesses that are located in run down areas. The windows tend to be cluttered with signs, there is not good sight from the street into the business, and it’s not very inviting or attractive. Elizabeth Beck asked for clarification that this amendment would not allow any new payday lender businesses. Mr. Phillips replied that there is no place within the current confines of the city of Ames where a payday lender would be able to legally locate under these restrictions. Norman Cloud asked for clarification that the existing businesses would be grandfathered in and allowed to operate. He then asked if there is any licensing that they have to renew in the future. Mr. Marek said there are no licensing requirements at the city level but there are regulations for these types of businesses at the state level. He clarified that the existing businesses can stay as long as the use remains. Ms. Beck asked how the businesses will know if this amendment passes that they are protected as a nonconforming use. Mr. Phillips said through the nonconforming use language in the Municipal Code. 4 Mr. Jons asked if there are any legal ramifications as members of the Commission if this decision would become contested. Mr. Marek said individually no. And since the Commission is a recommending body to the City Council the decisions on its recommendations would not be binding. Steve Osguthorpe, Director, explained that the role of the Commission is to be a recommending body to the City Council. The Council depends upon the Commission to basically do the research and look at projects from a citizen’s perspective and through collective reasoning. The Council can, however, make its own decisions regardless of the Commission’s recommendation. Mark Stenberg asked if this amendment would apply to a business that included both a pawn shop and payday lending if the payday lending is not the primary business. Mr. Marek said if a pawn shop that also does payday lending wants to move to a different location but continue as the business they could do that; they just couldn’t move the payday lending portion of the business to the other location. The payday lending business can continue as long as they stay in the location that they are in. MOTION: (JONS/CLOUD) to accept Alternative #1, which states: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the language as proposed, creating a separate land use for delayed deposit service provides and enacting prohibitions against their locating in Highway- Oriented Commercial or Gateway Overlay Zones, or within 1,000 feet of certain specified facilities. Ms. Beck noted the correction in section 2 of the proposed amendment to change the word ‘of’ to ‘or’. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Concerning Definition of “Story”, and Related Terms Steve Osguthorpe, Director, gave an overview of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. At staff’s request, the City Council referred this item for a possible zoning ordinance text amendment to develop a definition of “story” that reflects the intent of the zoning code in regulating setbacks and building heights according to the number of building stories. In response, staff presented to both the Commission and the City Council an amendment that essentially reflected the definition in the Building Code that the Inspections Division has applied to past projects, and therefore best reflected past practice. However, on December 13, 2011, the Council directed staff to come back with alternatives that would address the issue of building height in the downtown as it pertains to the number of stories and that would resolve the issue of nonconforming buildings in the downtown. 5 Staff believes that the proposed definition reflects the intent of the zoning code in terms of both downtown building design and setbacks in residential and hospital/medical zones. It would reasonably reflect how the term “story” has been applied on past residential projects as defined in the building code without reliance upon complex formulae. It puts tall buildings with few floor levels on par with the similar height buildings with multiple floor levels, thereby providing a more flexible means of meeting requirements pertaining to minimum number of stories in the downtown. Finally, staff believes the proposed increment of 14 feet, along with the rounding provisions described, strikes the appropriate balance between the objectives of ensuring minimum building height in the downtown, and the objectives of requiring increased setbacks in residential and hospital/medical zones when buildings reach a certain height. MOTION: (STENBERG/JONS) to accept Alternative #1, which states: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the language as proposed, adding the above definitions of “story” and “basement” to Section 29.201 of the Zoning Code. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chuck Jons said it has been a great journey and has enjoyed working with everyone that has been on the Commission over the years. Debra Lee said it has been nice to get to know and work with both Chuck and Liz. She further stated that she thought the joint meeting between the Commission and the Council last night went well, and appreciated the opportunity to meet with the Council. Elizabeth Beck said her time on the Commission has been fun, interesting, and a learning experience. She said being on the Commission has pushed her in terms of having to make a decision and then know that she had to defend her decision in public, and has no regrets on any of the decisions she has made. Norman Cloud said he is going to miss both Chuck and Liz. Chuck has the ability say we’ve had enough discussion and it’s time for a motion, and Liz has done a good job of guiding the Commission. Mark Stenberg said although he voted in favor of the amendment for the payday lending item, he is somewhat uncomfortable with it because it can be difficult for any governing body to dictate what businesses will survive. Essentially we are saying that these businesses are not welcome in Ames. On the other hand, he said he would rather see it happen at the local level instead of being issued down from the federal or state government. He stated that he does have a problem with the business model of payday lenders and thinks they are damaging to the community, which is why he voted for the amendment. And even though he thinks this change should happen at the local level, we need to be careful with the power to do that because we are essentially saying they can’t operate in Ames. Mr. Stenberg said it’s been fun working with both Chuck and Liz on the Commission. ____________________________________________________________________________ 6 STAFF COMMENTS: Staff reviewed the tentative agenda for the meeting of April 4, 2012. Steve Osguthorpe expressed his appreciation on behalf of himself and the entire Planning and Housing Department to Chuck and Liz for their service on the Commission. ____________________________________________________________________________ With no further business coming before the Commission, the Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m. _________________________________ ____________________________________ Elizabeth C. Beck, Chairperson Cindy L. Hollar, Recording Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission Department of Planning & Housing S:\PLAN_SHR\Council Boards Commissions\PZ\Minutes\2012 Minutes\Minutes-03-21-12.docx