HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-2011 Board of Adjustment
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, February 9, 2011 - 5:15 PM
City Hall - Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
c. Consider the November 10, 2010 Board Minutes
D. Special Exceptions:
1. EXC10-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Cress Investments for a special
exception to add one gas pump island to the existing facility on property located in the
Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone at 340 Scott Court.
2. EXC1 0-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Center City LLC for a special exception
to allow off-site parking for a mixed use building for property located in the Central Business (CB -
10) zone at 328 E. Washington St.
E. Other
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: MARCH 9, 2011
STAFF REPORT
To:
Item:
Board of Adjustment
EXC10-00012
340 Scott Court
Prepared by: Lorin Ditzler, Intern
Date: February 9, 2011
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
MMS Consultants Inc
1917 S Gilbert Street
319-351-8282
Contact:
John Cress
4506 Dryden Court
319-331-2401
Property Owner:
Cress Investments
340 Scott Court
319-331-2401
Requested Action:
Special Exception to allow expansion of a Quick
Vehicle Service Use in the CN-1 zone.
Purpose:
Addition of one gas pump island to existing facility.
Location:
340 Scott Court
Size:
54,995 sq ft
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial (CN-1)
Residential (RM-12)
Residential (RM-12)
Commercial (CN-1)
Applicable code sections:
General Criteria (14-4B-3A), Quick Vehicle Servicing
Criteria (14-4B-4B), CN-1 zone site development
standards (14-2C-7)
File Date:
November 17, 2010
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Cress Investments, is proposing to add a fourth gas pump island to an existing gas
station. A Special Exception was granted in 1996 to allow the construction of four gas pump islands,
but only three were built. Due to the amount of time that has elapsed, a new special exception must
be granted to allow the construction of the fourth gas pump island. The gas pump island canopy will
be extended an additional 25' south to cover the new island.
"~~"~~....__.._....~.-,,~-~"'_._-"..".,,"_._-~_.~..~---~-~------~--"---
2
The subject property has visibility along Court Street, Scott Boulevard and Scott Court. The property
is bordered by multi-family residential on the south and east, and commercial uses on the north and
west.
The subject property is located in a CN-1 zone at the corner of Scott Boulevard and Court Street,
which are both arterial streets, with vehicle access from Scott Court. Scott Court serves only the CN-
1 zone to control access onto the arterial. In the CN-1 zone, quick vehicle service uses are permitted
by special exception.
The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN-1) is to promote a unified
grouping of small-scale retail sales and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping
area; encourage neighborhood shopping areas that are conveniently located and that
primarily serve nearby residential neighborhoods; promote pedestrian-oriented
development at an intensity level that is compatible with surrounding residential areas;
and promote principles of site design, building articulation, scale and proportion that are
typical oftraditional main street design. Allowed uses are restricted in size to promote
smaller, neighborhood-serving businesses and to limit adverse impacts on nearby
residential areas. CN-1 Zones are generally located with direct access to an arterial street.
Quick vehicle service uses provide direct services for motor vehicles where the
driver generally waits in the car or on-site before and while the service is performed. This definition
includes filling stations.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to
conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of
property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the
requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific
criteria included for Section 14-48-48 pertaining to Quick Vehicle Servicing Criteria, in addition to the
general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-48-3A.
The applicant's comments regarding each of the general standards are included on the attached
application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth
below.
Specific Standards (14-48-4B)
1. All vehicular use areas, including parking and stacking spaces, drives, aisles, and service
lanes, must be screened from the publiC right-of-way to the 52 standard and to the 53
standard along any side or rear lot line that abuts a Residential Zone boundary.
Staff believes the application does not satiSfy this criterion. Screening is not sufficient along
Court Street and Scott Court. Staff believes that the application may satisfy this criterion if
additional screening is added along the perimeter of the parking area along Scott Boulevard,
Court Street, and Scott Court.
2. Sufficient vehicle stacking spaces must be provided to prevent congestion and vehicle
conflicts along abutting streets.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
___~__...._.._._..~,.__,_~._._.~,,".___"_'.m"',_"'-
3
. There are 23 parking spaces, including the spaces in front of gas pump islands. The
current arrangement with 3 gas pump islands and a car wash has worked well without
resulting in congestion or vehicle conflicts along abutting streets. In staff's opinion the
addition of one more pump island will not result in congestion or vehicular conflicts.
3. Unenclosed canopies over gas pump islands must be setback at least 10 feet from any
street right-of-way. Fuel dispensing equipment must be setback at least 10 feet from any
street right-of-way and at least 100 feet from any Residential Zone boundary.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. The site plan indicates that the gas pump islands are separated from the eastern
residential boundary by 280 feet, and by 110 feet at the southern residential boundary.
4. All lighting must comply with the provisions of Article 14-5G, Outdoor Lighting Standards.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
. The property lighting was reviewed by the building department as part of the original
permitting process. All standards were met.
5. The proposed use will be designed and developed with adequate separation and screening
between vehicular use areas and adjacent Residential Zones.
Staff believes the application does not satisfy this criterion. Additional screening is required
(see criterion #1 above).
6. No light source on the property, except for internally lit signs, shall be higher than 15 feet
above finished grade.
The lights on the existing island canopy are mounted at 14'6". An application must be
submitted for a building permit. The building official will review the plan to determine that
any new lighting conforms to the height standard.
General Standards (14-4B-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
. Public roads that provide access to the property are designed to accommodate the
levels of traffic generated by CN-l uses. Scott Boulevard and Court Street are both
arterial. roads. Scott Court provides access only to the commercial properties within the
CN-l zone.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values
in the neighborhood.
Staff believes the application does not satisfy this criterion, due to a lack of proper screening
along Court Street, Scott Boulevard, and Scott Court.
If screening is brought into compliance with zoning code requirements, staff believes that the
application will satisfy this criterion.
,,~...~.,,_.""----_.._.--_.~-=._-_----......._~>~~,_.-..-""'~-----
4
Staff believes that the impact of the filling station on neighboring properties is minimized by
facing the gas pump islands toward the interior of the commercial zone, toward Scott Court
instead of Court Street or Scott Boulevard. Distance and landscape screening will minimize
views of the gas pumps from residential properties. Canopy lighting will be reviewed by the
Building Official to ensure compliance with current zoning code requirements.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in
which such property is located.
Staff believes the application does not satisfy this criterion, due to a lack of required perimeter
screening along Court Street, Scott Boulevard, and Scott Court.
If screening is brought up to the established standard, staff believes that the application will
satisfy this criterion. In addition to the findings provided under general standards 1 and 2,
the subject property meets all setback and lighting standards.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. The commercial zone is fully developed with all necessary utilities, facilities and
drainage in place.
. Scott Court is designed to support the levels of traffic that are generated by the subject
use and surrounding uses within the CN-l zone.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as
to minimize traffic congestion on publiC streets.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
.In order to avoid congestion on Court Street or Scott Boulevard, vehicle access to the
subject property is restricted to Scott Court,
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable
regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
An application must be submitted for a building permit. The building official will review the
site plan to determine that all applicable zoning requirements not reviewed here (including
lighting) are satisfied.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
. This use is consistent with the Northeast District Plan, which identifies this property as
appropriate for Neighborhood Commercial uses.
.__.~.~_....._~~-"~..".~-,-,,.._---------------_._._-
5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00012, a special exception to allow a gas pump island to be
added to an existing facility in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-l) zone at 340 Scott Ct, provided
the following:
. Perimeter screening along Court Street, Scott Court, and Scott Boulevard must be filled in to
satisfy current zoning code requirements;
. Approval of a final site plan and canopy lighting by the Building Inspector to ensure
compliance with all requirements of the zoning code.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Proposed site plan
3. Application materials
Approved by: ~.
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
1,1
lit
..L..L J
I
0::
o
Z
<..9
~
W
I-
0::
:::::>
o
u
~
'-3
~
~
~
~
'-3
\
N
'1"'1
e
e
e
I
e
'1"'1
~
LLI
N
,...
:E
a:
~ "CX
ru
10
ICY:
l~
:<J: C
~(
I I
is N3Scf313d
~
::J
o
U
~
u
lJ)
o
V
M
..
z
o
....
8
o
...I
LLI
I-
....
U)
-"
-~~
...
/
~~, .A....
..' ./' ---..-
View from Court Street, looking north
: -~--,~""
'-..
View from Court Street, looking northeast (toward Scott Boulevard)
View along Scott Court, looking north
~
...,.
k
1
~
--
. _t_
,
,.
~
---
..
#-
View from Scott Boulevard
EXC/(f) - 0ft/2-
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: 11-17-10 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 0907353013
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 340 Scott Ct
PROPERTY ZONE: CN-1 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 54,995 sq ft
APPLICANT: Name: MMS Consultants Inc
Address: 1917 S Gilbert St
Phone: 319-351-8282
CONTACT PERSON: Name: John Cress
(if other than applicant) Address: 4506 Dryden Ct
Phone: 319-331-2401
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Cress Investments
(if other than applicant) Address: 340 Scott Ct
Phone: 319-331-2401
I".)
C::t
C::t
:z:
0 :z:
-<: 0
<:
\.0 i-l
:J> c:c
:J: "'"
<:::>
'-fiJ -
<:::>
&"
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356.5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa~ity.org.
Purpose for special exception: Adding one gas pump island to existing
facility
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
M
M
~
n
<
F
~
Q
Z
gJ
~
CI:l
t""
;I>
Z
tJ
CI:l
C
~
<:
m
><
o
~
CI:l
t""
;I>
Z
tJ
'"Cl
t""
;I>
Z
~
~
CI:l
t""
;I>
Z
tJ
CI:l
n
;I>
riJ
;I>
~
n
$
trl
n
...,
CI:l
~
<:
~
o
~
...,
~
CI:l
riJ
n
~
CI:l
...,
CI:l
MMS CONvuLTANTS, INC.
I
lOW A CITY lOW A
OFFICE: 319-351-8282
CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA
OFFICE: 319-841-5188
November 17,2010
Project #5224-002
City of Iowa City Application to the Board of Adjustment - Special Exception
Re: 340 Scott Court - a.k.a. Lot 178 & 179 Court Hill-Scott Boulevard Addition, Part IX
1. Suburban Amoco is proposing to construct a new the fourth gas pump island as shown on
their approved site plan with the city dated March, 1997. This pump island would be
located on the south end of the existing 3 gas pump islands. The canopy would be
extended an additional 25' south to cover the new island. Inclusion of the fourth gas
pump island will not be detrimental to or endanger the health, safety, comfort or general
welfare of the public.
2. The proposed gas pump will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values
in the neighborhood. Development of the subject site is expected to enhance the
enjoyment and property values in the neighborhood.
3. The proposed gas pump island will be completely within the confines of the subject lot
and will therefore not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
surrounding properties.
4. The attached site plan shows adequate access, ingress and egress for gas pump users.
Adequate storm sewer, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electricity, telephone, and CATV are
already in service to the existing convenience store.
5. The attached site plan shows the proposed ingress and egress to the site. The access to
the subject site is located directly onto Scott Court as approved on the original site plan.
No vehicular access is being requested to either Court Street or Scott Boulevard.
6. The proposed gas pump island and convenience store have be subjected to rigorous and
comprehensive review by the City staff to ensure that all applicable City Code
requirements are met.
7. The convenience store facility use is consistent with the city comprehensive plan.
Sandra Steil
MMS Consultants Inc.
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
s. steil @mmsconsultants.net
~
c::3
-
c::>>
:z:
o
4,
'-D?;,
.z:
=:J
.<
Jz:o:d
~
~~. ~;c ~
\D =
..
,f:-
en
tf)cnCIJCIJ~ .....:5i~Q; u~::-g
>t<>t<>t<"'~ rnNN C W....u:;
""~~~3 ~~~ S 5~....
~ rs:~~ 115~~ $ rn~!
~ >t<"'~ :!OO)':; ;EQa>
""~:::>< (!)-~"'"'-~
~Ajrn~~:;i!1 ui~!2. 8 ~fi!2.
E:: u """u en un.
U [@ c;;< E ~iIi
3~ ~~ E~. iii~
"" W
()
I~~IIJI
+..:l
~l ~"
:x "'
~t::co~
,..-i ;:J ~
H 0 0
Oul-1
.,.....,
+..:l+>>,
~+>+>
Q) 0.......
uU
~[jJco
~o~
~ 0
,.....-;C'J1-1
cd
.,.....,
U
Q)
~
U)
'" ~
!;;,..'"
~!5fij
rtJ8~
~!:~
~~8u
"''''
~o~
o~~g
~. :i!~
~.~:;~
;
NOV 1:J 2010
::z:
C>
i=
a...
UJ
.~1-
UJ_
-I CD
<C_
c:....:>I
UJ><
55w
Ou.!
00::::
O~
::::2: en
<( u.!
:z:c..:>
<(Z
mu.!
e::::z
=>u.!
m~
=>0
en c..:>
~
z
::)
o
U
~z
-0
Urn
<Z~
3:50
Q...,-
c..:i 0
~ ~ ~
en """"" 0
~ :;:: S ji 45
~ T""~ ] ~
:3 ~.sa:
en <(-<
:z EO if
8 1 E ]
~~ ~ g ~
a
to
JI
~~
':~jl~':-:l::k
2010 N'OV' ,:'9 iAM 9:
.1l
~
H..c ~1.
ig;~ :~i
mc.....~ .5.!!~
::"Gl: -S-c'O
~8"',s 55.
~.5J:'O ~-;;i-.~
:J:ol~v ~.!~
!umUi
~~~~~ ; g~
~~~l~ ~~$
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC10-00013
328 East Washington Street
Prepared by: Tabatha Miller, Planning Intern
Date: February 9, 2011
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Jeff Clark
414 East Market Street
319-631-1867
Property Owner:
Three Guy's Holdings, LLP
414 East Market Street
Requested Action:
Off site parking for property in the CB10
Purpose:
To provide off-site parking for residents of a
new mixed use building.
Location:
328 East Washington Street
Size:
8,850 square feet (59 x 150)
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Commercial, CB-l0
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Commercial (CB-l0)
South: Commercial (CB-l0)
East: Public (Pl)
West: Commercial (CB-l0)
Applicable code sections:
Minimum Parking Requirements (14-5A-4);
Alternative to Minimum Parking
Requirements: Off-Site Parking (14-5A-4F-l),
General Criteria for Special Exceptions (14-
4B-3).
File Date:
November 29, 2010
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 5-story, mixed use building in the Central Business (CB-l0)
zone. Off-street parking is required for residential uses located in the CB-l0 zone. The application
indicates the residential portion of the building will consist of 16 units with 3 bedrooms in each. The
minimum parking requirement based on the zoning code for 3-bedroom units is 32 spaces (2 spaces
per dwelling unit). The applicant is proposing to provide 13 parking spaces on site, with the
remaining 19 spaces to be provided in the Chauncey Swann municipal ramp located approximately
400 feet to the southeast.
2
There are 475 parking spaces in the Chauncey Swan ramp: 384 regular permits are issued, 16
permits are reserved in perpetuity for apartment tenants at 225 S. Gilbert Street (granted by special
exception EXC10-0000l), and 75 spaces remain open for use by the generally public. Not all
permitted spaces are used regularly. Nearly all permits expire on an annual basis. The number of
permits available for renewal or sale is based on an annual analysis by the Director of Transportation
Services. With the requested 19 spaces and the previously committed 16 spaces, a total of 7% of
the available parking spaces in Chauncey Swan will be dedicated in perpetuity to long-term private
residential parking.
Prior to 2009 there were no parking requirements for residential uses in the CB-l0 zone, and
developers who wanted to provide parking on site could do so only through the special exception
process. The standards for private parking in the code at that time were intended to control the
location and design of parking facilities to help ensure that they were compatible with the pedestrian
character of downtown.
As the demand for downtown apartments grew, adequate parking was not being provided.
Residents competed with shoppers, workers and other commercial users for available downtown
parking or spilled over into the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown.
To manage the growth of residential development in the downtown the zoning code was amended in
December 2008 to establish minimum parking requirements for residential uses. The goal of the
code amendments was to ensure that adequate parking be provided as new dwelling units are built.
Where it is not possible to provide the required parking spaces on site, the code allows that parking
spaces may be provided off-site by special exception. In the CB-l0 zoning district, the zoning code
allows up to 100% of parking to be located in municipal parking structures provided that the Director
of Planning Community Development, in consultation with the Director of Transportation Services
and the City Manager, substantiates that the requested parking spaces can be accommodated
without exceeding the facility's capacity.
The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow off-street parking to be located on a
separate lot, provided that the conditions listed in the zoning code are met.
ANAL YSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to
conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of
property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property.
The Board of Adjustment may grant the requested special exception to allow establishment of the
off-site parking in the CB-l0 zone if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the
regulations of the Sections 14-5A-4F-l as well as and the general standards for special exceptions
as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A.
Specific Standards: Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements (14-5A-4F-1)
Off-street parking may be located on a separate lot from the use served according to the following
rules. When the proposed off-site parking is located in a residential zone or in the CB-l0 zone or
intended for a use in the CB-l0 zone, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception for the
proposed parking, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs a through g are met.
3
a. Special Location Plan
A special location plan must be submitted with the application for off-site parking. The location
plan must include a map indicating the proposed location of the off-site parking, the location of
the use or uses served by the parking, and the distance and proposed walking route between the
parking and the use(s) served. The map must be drawn to scale and include property boundaries
of any intervening properties. In addition, documentation must be submitted providing evidence
deemed necessary to comply with the requirements herein.
Staff finds that the applicant has satisfied the criterion based on the following:
. The applicant has submitted an aerial view showing the location of 328 E. Washington in
relation to the Chauncey Swann Ramp.
. The ramp entrance is located approximately 400 feet from the entrance to the proposed
building.
. Residents would travel approximately 65 feet east to northwest side of the controlled
intersection of Washington and Gilbert, before crossing Washington and Gilbert to arrive at the
ramp. The ramp entrance is located approximately 200 feet from the southeast side of
Washington and Gilbert intersection.
b. Location of Off-site Parking
In Residential and Commercial Zones, no off-site parking may be located more than 300 feet
from an entrance of the use served, except as allowed in subparagraph e, below, for parking in a
municipal parking facility.
Staff finds that the criterion is satisfied based on the following:
. The proposed off-site parking is located in a municipal ramp. (See item e below.)
c. Zoning
Off-site parking spaces must be located in the same zone as the principal use(s) served, or
alternatively, off-street parking may be provided on a separate lot within the parameters of the
following pairings.
Staff finds that the criterion is satisfied based on the following:
. The proposed parking is located in a municipal parking facility. (See item e below.)
d. Shared Use of Off-Site Parking
Staff finds that the criterion is satisfied based on the following:
. The applicant is not proposing to "share" parking with another use.
e. Off-Site Parking Located in a Municipally-Owned Parking Facility
In instances where a use is within 600 feet of a City-owned parking area, up to 50 percent of the
required parking spaces may be provided in the parking facility. When a use abuts a City-owned
parking area, up to 100% of the required number of parking spaces may be provided in the
parking facility. In the CB-l0 Zone, up to 100 percent of the required parking number of parking
spaces may be provided in a City-owned parking facility regardless of the distance between the
use and the parking facility. When an applicant requests to provide off-street parking in a City-
owned parking facility, the Director of Planning and Community Development in consultation
with the Director of Transportation Services and the City Manager or designee must substantiate
that with the addition of the requested number parking spaces the capacity of the parking
facility will not be exceeded. In the CB-l0 Zone, said parking requested to meet minimum
parking requirements for residential uses may only be approved by special exception and only if
there is capacity.
Staff believes the applicant has satisfied this requirement based on the following:
. The subject use is located in the CB-l0 zone.
4
. The applicant has requested 19 spaces for long term rental. In consultation with the Director of
Transportation Services, staff has determined these 19 spaces are available for long term rental
and that the capacity of the ramp will not be exceeded.
. There are 475 spaces in the Chauncey Swan ramp; 384 regular permits are issued, 16 permits
are reserved in perpetuity for apartment tenants at 225 S. Gilbert Street, and 75 spaces remain
open. Nearly all regular permits expire annually and the number available for renew or sale is
based on an analysis by the Director of Transportation Services. The Director has indicated that
there is available capacity in the ramp at this time. The Director of Planning and Community
Development and the City Manager agree. However, with the 19 requested spaces in addition
to the existing 16 spaces granted by Special Exception EXC10-0000l, a total of 7% of the
Chauncey Swan ramp's capacity will be dedicated in perpetuity to long-term private residential
parking. Although staff feels the requested parking can be accommodated at this time, it is
important to consider the future availability of parking and to exercise caution in granting future
permits in perpetuity for private residential parking. Additional permits of this nature in the
Chauncey Swan ramp could comprise the facility's ability to accommodate future public parking
needs.
f. Approval Criteria
In assessing a special location plan for off-site parking, the Board of Adjustment or Director of
Planning and Community Development, as applicable, will consider the desirability of the
location of off-street parking and stacking spaces on a lot separate from the use served in terms
of pedestrian and vehicular safety; any detrimental effects of adjacent property; the appearance
of the streetscape as a consequence of the off-street parking; and in the case of non-required
parking, the need for additional off-site parking.
Staff believes that the proposed location for off-site parking is appropriate based on the following:
. The zoning code allows that for properties located in the CB-l0 zone, up to 100% of parking may
be provided in a municipal ramp regardless of its location. The Chauncey Swan ramp is
approximately 400 feet from the proposed dwelling units with sidewalks and a controlled
intersection connecting the two sites.
. The proposed site is in a municipal ramp in which the parking is designed to provide safe
vehicle access. Ingress, and egress from the ramp are designed with good visibility.
. The ramp is already constructed, so there will be no change to the area.
g. Covenant for Off-Site Parking
A written agreement between the owners of the parking and owners of the property for which the
parking will serve must be submitted with the application for off-site parking. The agreement
must assure the retention of the parking and stacking spaces, aisles, and drives and be properly
executed, binding upon their successors and assigns, and must be recorded as a covenant
running with the land. The agreement must provide that It cannot be released, and its terms and
conditions cannot be modified in any manner whatsoever, without prior written consent and
approval from the City. The written agreement must be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney.
Because the off-site location being requested is a City-owned facility, the parking agreement is
subject to approval of the special exception. Staff recommends that the applicant submit the
required written agreement as part of the building permit application based on the number of spaces
approved by the board. Staff also recommends that the agreement indicate that the parking permits
shall only be offered to residents of 328 East Washington and shall be offered at a rate not to
exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of leasing.
Staff recommends the agreement require the property manager provide the Director of
5
Transportation Services with the name, license plate number, and address of all permit holders;
permits will only be granted to residents with the primary address of 328 East Washington. In
addition, because future demand for parking will likely change and the Chauncey Swan ramp may
not always be the most suitable location to accommodate the requested parking, staff recommends
the agreement allow the Director of Transportation Services to relocate the 19 permits to any other
downtown municipal ramp on an annual basis.
General Standards: 14-48-3, Special Exception Review Requirements
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare.
Staff believes this criterion is satisfied based on the following:
. The Chauncey Swan parking facility is approximately 400 feet from the residential use.
Pedestrian access (sidewalks) is already established between the two sites and the crossing at
Gilbert and Washington Streets is a controlled intersection. Ingress and egress from the parking
ramp is designed to be safe and has good visibility to and from adjacent streets.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in
the neighborhood.
Granting the special exception to allow off-site parking in a municipally owned facility will allow the
applicant to construct a substantially larger building than would otherwise be possible given the
number of parking spaces the applicant can provide on-site. Staff believes that a larger building will
have a greater visual impact on the streetscape, including adjacent buildings. There is no
requirement that the proposed building be submitted to design review, and thus there is no
assurance that the new building will be designed to be compatible with the scale and character of
downtown be aesthetically appropriate for the downtown (see item 7 below).
Therefore, staff recommends that approval of the application for off-site parking be subject to design
review. The design review process will help ensure that the proposed building is compatible with the
downtown streetscape.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone In
which such property is located.
Staff believes that this criterion is met based on the following:
. The Director of Transportation Services has reviewed the application and has indicated to staff
that presently there is adequate capacity in the Chauncey Swan Ramp to provide the requested
19 spaces without compromising space available for shoppers and other visitors to the
downtown. However, as future parking needs in the Central Business District change, the
Chauncey Swan ramp may not always be able to accommodate the 19 spaces. Therefore, staff
recommends the special exception include a provision to allow the Director of Transportation
Services relocate the 19 permits to other downtown municipal parking facilities as needed on
an annual basis.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
All utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are in place to serve the parking facility and
the development of the proposed building.
6
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Staff believes that the criterion is satisfied for the following reason:
. All municipal parking facilities are designed to provide safe ingress and egress to adjacent
public streets and to minimize congestion of public streets.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable
regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
The proposed municipal parking area meets all applicable standards in the zoning code and is
designed to provide safe and accessible parking. The applicant has submitted a site plan to Housing
and Inspection Services showing 16 three-bedroom units. The site plan complies with the zoning
code's maximum occupancy of one household per dwelling unit, defined in Section 14-9A as a group
of not more than 3 unrelated persons. All other aspects of the residential development will be
reviewed by the Building Official as part of the building permit process.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Comprehensive Plan, drafted in 1997, has the following to say about residential parking demand
in the downtown:
"Higher density housing in and around the downtown is an issue to be addressed in this district. The
logic of promoting higher density residential development in the Downtown Planning District rests in
the concept that people who live in and near downtown will walk to work (or classes in the case of
University students), will patronize downtown businesses, will add to after hours vitality, and create a
sense of safety in the downtown. Higher density development in the downtown also reduces
pressure on the less dense older neighborhoods surrounding the downtown. However, some
downtown merchants and business owners feel the residential population burdens the parking
system in the district to the detriment of the businesses. The issue will need to be debated and
resolved, setting a clear policy for housing, parking, and redevelopment in the Downtown Planning
District."
Prior to 2009, residential uses in the CB-l0 zone were not required to provide parking. In response
to concerns regarding the growing competition for parking in the Central Business District, the City
Council approved the current minimum parking requirements in the zoning code, including the
present special exception criteria to allow off--site parking in a municipal ramp. At this time the
Director of Transportation Services has determined that there is adequate capaCity within the
Chauncey Swan Ramp to provide the requested 19 spaces.
The Comprehensive Plan notes the need for an ongoing strategy to address the appearance of
downtown. As noted above under general criterion 2, approval of this special exception will allow the
construction of a significantly larger building than otherwise would be possible given the number of
parking spaces that can be accommodated on this property. To help ensure that a larger building is
aesthetically compatible with the downtown, staff recommends that approval of the application be
subject to design review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00013, an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special
exception to allow up to 19 parking spaces in a municipal parking facility to satisfy the minimum
parking requirements for a mixed use building to be constructed in the Central Business (CB-l0)
zone at 328 East Washington Street, subject to the following conditions:
. The applicant must submit the required agreement for off-site parking prior to securing a
building permit. The agreement shall include the following conditions:
7
o The permits shall only be available to residents of 328 East Washington at a cost not
to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at
the time of leasing.
o The property manager must provide the Director of Transportation the name, license
plate number, and address of all permit holders. Permits will only be granted to
residents with the primary address of 328 East Washington.
o The Director of Transportation Services may relocate the permits to another
downtown municipal parking facility on an annual basis as necessary to
accommodate demand for municipal parking facilities.
. The special exception is subject to design review to ensure the building is compatible with
scale and character of downtown.
. The site plan is consistent with the plan submitted to Housing and Inspection Services,
indicating no more than three-bedrooms per unit.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Aerial views of the location
3. Location plan supplied by the applicant
4. Application materials
Approved by: ~~k
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
\ N
a ~ f--- ,."
~ ....
~-~ ~,ml-'- Q
I Q
- - Q
r-.l -- I
1 10 Q
....
IU ~
1S N3 w
, ...:::::::::--
~ t-- - ---
.It)
11 () ~
n c: / m
~ c:_ '" . I
C)C) .. 0
, be: ~ " D
~ ( ,,( ^ (,
) -......J ''''' -) -... J....::' 1~
~ / I- is 1>-I-=lR11~
ii~_ vV ~ a -tc
~ I-
~ ,," (f)
~
~ t; --,...- w
0
~ ~ 1m ~~- w
--.J ~._----- -----
~ --.J
,... 0 -tc
. = (.)- ()
~ ft .....,
OJ
~
~ . .....,
- (J)
~ ~ 11 c
-....------ .8
D- Ol
1---- C
~~ .-
--------- .c
V)
..... co
< S
~ -tc ------- .
e--'- ..'-- UJ
:: 00
S ~. N
("I")
1S 3nonsno ..
/ z
0
\ \ ~~_.~ .... .:::t.
*- ~ ~
'~l u co
o E
f------- ... "C
C
~--- .- f--~'---- f-- W co
i 1 --_._~- I- -
1- f--.~-- F=1 r;;-iC
I
~1!!
."......, ~ .
.Ji
I~
~
~'ngIOriSII
. ~.._Cb~
(f)
n
OJ
CD
~
II
"J::..
o
(..oJ
N
00
m
~
OJ
(J)
::r
::::J
lC
g
::::J
(f)
r-t"
~
CD
CD
r-t"
.,0 :01 "IV E?Z ^O~
'CtWI :~!J ll.lJrO I OZ
::jl;JI:)M!:) .:.1
moz 6 (; ^O~!
GtI1Id
CN
c.n
()
tJ
~
..,....
EXc-1 tf)- rJx[;([J I ;3
APPLICATION TO THE CO~
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT P
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: / / /29//0
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 31 B
PROPERTY ZONE: C B -. I ()
APPLICANT: Name: Jeff: C I tl rk
Address: 4P-I E. lV\/:lrk.d- Sh
Phone: 31'l- (.,31-\(<&'":J-
CONTACT PERSON: Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: C t.n\e.r C \ +-t l-LC.
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception: allow (')1+-5ik .Darkll"j~r Q IVII'>ltc.l u~
Mdl~
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
'"
<:::)
<:::)
:z:
o
<2-:
N ~.
\.0 ,-
;z:
CJ
<:
~
(..... W
~;:;- ~ f'.)
=
=
c;:? fj
o
eN
-3-
D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in
"C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the
following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In
the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information,
not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception
meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are
not relevant in your particular case.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
'Wi!- 6\ r~ f'lt>l.,<.s-hYij ~ USe..- pub 1/(, pc<V"'icll"J -filGib ftd
W ~ \ t \, S. e c vV"' -\-v kJ-'L f> 'ce. tI-\..1 ,s'a-te
2.
The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not
substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood.
r--.)
l;:;I
l;:;I
:z
Cl
<f~
N" ('
'-9'>?:'
~::r!
~-f+ ~
9:3 5
o
(..)
Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for
uses permitted in the district in which such property is located.
I>
Corrc..c-~
TA~f
z
S2 lJ1
1-=4
~ ~
~D
3.
!'I"t'"ff\i< I dt'~juf\l1ltvl.t o.l'\d IMfy/)\Il."f'l.!;~t 01- +-11-e- .fl.lyY'O\'c"\C\ :h')
Pl""clP:v1--f WI \' \'\ 0 t \o-L i ViI' pe <t.(, cl
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
p \.
1 u.b l (
pa.-bV\j ~(d\h-{j
ro {.I. d S, d V"Ctl V\t'< \'f
'3tf\~Il",I\l'1 \r)t:-vt c~JJlbv<--tn u-\i\.\.-<..iS (
Cindlov (l..tUfSti.r1 ~{;d(ft~s f>\-aU\J,(J.
a((lS~
-4-
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Th~ fl.<k>j,~ fcwklrty vamp.5 f'a'vide. IV7jY-lSj clv,d Ilrs!:>
L.tH\.e.. h f: (".: .n +0 i'YI, h; /lYlI U' ttrc.1f2t ~ {a h )_2 S /-t 0 VI ..
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other
respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in
which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception
requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant
will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a
particular use as provided in the City Code section 14-48 as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).]
Q.& ,A SflCl..1 lOUttJCH1
.tk<. C ~a\A (1(\01 ~V\htJ1 V'GlWlf'
p\CtV'\ uJd phV1t~J .fhn"Yl Gr.s Onf/l1t;
I~ ItSJ them il.\R'\ r f (\ ,
"TVV' t"~ 't"\.-tH"h ,the \..(J02 $.<,I,~J~,..
e, -r QlY1 re~I....a.+tY\j 20 s-ht\\s, T hA~ SpD\t-~ n w It\) ChYl~ 0 bi-l-lVl
u wh,lt bade- C\.nd he.. S(\\c\ he. COl.-I\J aaO\N1ocl"k. Lo ~1~- t-ltlV'1 \.c!de.s
-\t) \>~ Sel IAr.{J pno~.-\b bv.\\cLY\:) <X(-~pIlI'\L'I i'l'"'\ Jv.\'1 '20 \"z...
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
"itS, I"Y\f)(d \.AS.e. blA"J'\Il~.J OV'~ a\\ow(.t1 ClYld 'il\~e'1d{J -to '\'-e,
I'" +hL C-8.-IO clovlV\\-o'-'\lV\ OVtA , :r ~\')'\. p\ti.hYl:"'J -to e~nS-truL\-
C\ 1Y'l1,>,<d lAS-e. budo.'V'/j W It\-) So,.,.,~ CO\JU'u\ rO'rk~V\.J (' I'Z.-r? S....lb).
r-.)
c:::I
c:::I
:z: z
CH 0
~~ to <: ~
I..D QQ' t-:l ~
-';J 0 CD t'~r1
>;....~\ ~J
::c~ ~ .~ H
_r0 ~ "'u..
S? =
o
Co.)
'11~~1n11
~ 5~~ ~ ~1, ~
~ !Sp i~~
'" wlw
I g l.~ ;
- -"
..; "!. ...:: ~.l t
f I~'a -- ! II ~ i'loli :t~
Ii 11:11 'Jo ii 0 ,I: m
l!l!!~! II In! III lit
'" '''''' """"''''', '" , , ' , , '!ll ~,l
~ !,,: :11)".~'.ollllljl'i i I ~:Ii; Im~
!i! ' , I " I II,; 0 1.'-, .'!li
~ :1 li_! ~""H.': 1 III ;! :~; JiB
~ 0
~ ~
~ ~~
~ ti~
~~-;;-
~ ~rIJE~
[f~ "';~~1:_-~
.J. o::JULO
:r:z<C')
~~~R
Z -<I; ~---
- O~
~~8 d
o:Oz~-, ~~
~ ::'::~:5l
~ r--l U :!~..
E-< ~ u~~
~ <r: ti<..,.
U)U)~ ~e,,,,
-<CO
>.-.
,;;:0-
~
co
0J.
(Y)
, t~
ir;~
II
h.l
/7
#"
rnu.JJ
~
I]
'. T"
---- ,!
I
I
Ii
!!
; !; !!
~ ~; ~ ..
~~ ~ ; ._:~'
! ; ; l , , .~ hi
! q! i ::i I ii 1'1
11 I I ,; ; h!; Ii l:~i ii
II w J . l "I! ~~iiiiM
~i! ~ , ~ n~1 ~!~.jl n
I.~
~
8
gj
,.
--
i ~~~~ j i. i
11 ,hi!
hi hi '~I.i
i~' ,,!!. ,~
I; mi h
~llf!
II; ~b. ;;
1I1l.::' ~5 r
S$fii
~.~.: ~ i
1;; Ii i!~
illil hili
~1i1 ~~ ~ ~
~~ ! I"~
~= s::el1
~! ! ~:E
~. ~.i~
o ~..,...
~~ 01 ii :
i.:. III .1;
~~_i~:S
08i~ 0'_
11~~, 11:5
\
.[>
,....IL/.
I
I
J. .
//
.1'91
#v I
1
I
--= I~ I
, IIH
g
hOP S
/7 ! i ~
~v I ~ ~
I!!~
!U
\ \ \..'
~i(~ :;It:
I!! Ill;
Il~ "I'
~,i ,il
:'1 ~,l
E~. ~h
1:;1 hi
~lil 1:1
~h~ ~~iu
Iii! "I~
~~:~ :1 i
~!"tlll ...lit_a
c: ~~
I'll !liill
l '1'"1
III 1 !IIi
.i!! I_!;~;
I'~: il"~
!'l '1-'
;~ii !!l!i,
;1.' !!;II
II'! .II',"!
!.~; Itllll'
~!!I ~l5 i ~
j. . Ii '~,
~~d 1u!!!1
"
I I> .
~~ g" I-
i Nl~ .!
gl 1 ;I,lj j!
i . ,j 'I
[{;!o iii!l
U I' II
e~
,: ~~!i!~' !i,
~~ ;i ';i1t 00'
<<~ ~!:i iilm ii!
I! lIB
;;/'
",7
.'
z
~
...1
a.
w
~
Ui
~
z
::>
o
u
~z
Dg
<<z<<
~,,~
Q~Q
.JL.LJ L.LJU.l-J L...I....UL..l.......I l....-.J",J;;-'. -
/= !,l ~ Jjd!jj3l~
!JD ~
~~ @~ ~ bD. m.! 23
~eJ~i~~ -0 - B8i8.~-rn ~
~ ~~ QBi: B:3 ~
~8 ~~ [] itfai[
- ~
;f'
.1';
#v
I'"-.)
z
o
<:
-- --(--1-- ,----l-,-l-l-l-l-l----=-l-\-I-t-,--~l-----$'
1 .1l131I1.11.11 l\!iO.II.!)i'!6o.lSl'%\ 'ilJ ~ r~
II IN:.
i:' i: W.' 0..
IJ / !;.._..~,: i .._,,_,/~ ~ r? ~
~~. ~(> ~
c;:l
~-~~= :'.. h
I ~,-=~~., '." .. il ".
L '\...::" .I!~ l~
. ,"~,~ "~~\,:' ~
, .,-[..-~-.._-..-..__>7___....,..--.. -..
l--.-, ,-,--.--.-:-!~~;;~,,'\~.
I ",\ :~....-
~ ~ ' ~
- 1
I
I
I
8 I
F-
~ [
9
~ I
I
I
[
1
I
I
I [
-~-........_, "11":"".""" ...
~1I~' . _ ~ lI'----,- , , . ..- ....... U5 I
,\,-" ':-\-<:", ...., '.." ~....:~'-\.~'T--'-;:- .--,~,
-T'--/-"! i ,/-i~?-T'-.-/-/~-"L,_.}:_,--,-
....
.' i
o ..' l-<l.......:;~,-
,~.- c:6
i ,&"
-;, i
."
y
/./
"'.9
,~
'~-'-_!"!~-"~
-----..f--....-- --.----- ----.-
I ~
I ; .~
..------1--..-.
. - ....~ ~,
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOVEMBER 10, 2010 - 5:15 PM
MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE RECREATION CENTER
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caroline Sheerin, Will Jennings, Barbara Eckstein
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Le Ann Tyson, Robert Anderson
STAFF PRESENT:
Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
Duane Musser, Clifford Reif, Kristen Breaux
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5: 15 PM
ROLL CALL:
Jennings, Sheerin, Eckstein were present
CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 13. 2010 MEETING MINUTES:
Eckstein and Sheerin offered corrections to the minutes.
Eckstein moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Jennings seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC10-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Reif Oil Company for a special
exception to allow a drive-through facility located in the Community Commercial (CC-2)
zone at 2580 Naples Avenue.
Walz explained that the commercial area in which the drive-through was proposed was a
newer commercial development and that Naples Drive had been designed to support
higher levels of commercial traffic. She explained that City staff would be looking at the
street to decide whether the striped median approaching the Menards entrance should
be changed to a left turn lane.
Walz discussed the specific criteria for drive-through areas. She said that the location,
which is somewhat remote and along the intersection of two highways, would have
limited pedestrian usage. Nonetheless, the applicant was required to address pedestrian
access. The proposed site plan showed a sidewalk along Naples Avenue with a
pedestrian walkway extending around the parking area to the south and then crossing
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 2 of8
over to the convenience store near the drive-through. Walz explained that other uses in
this area are all commercial in nature and so there was no concern with impacts on
residential properties.
Walz explained that one requirement was that the number of drive-through lanes and
stacking spaces were appropriate for the use. Since this drive-through restaurant was
accessory to the larger convenience store use, staff believed that the one lane with six
stacking spaces is sufficient to serve the use. Also, the proposed drive-through is to be
located to the rear of the site with vehicles circulating behind the convenience store
building along a one-way drive. The site plan shows pavement markings indicating the
one-way direction of the drive, but staff recommended that the exit area of the drive
should be marked to indicate exit only to make it clear that this is a one-way drive.
Walz stated that the drive-through met th~ required setbacks and that the precise
location of the drive-through is set at a significantly lower grade than the adjacent
Highway 1 interchange. It is difficult to see the drive-through area from Highway 1 and
for this reason the Building Official waived the requirement for S2 screening along this
portion of the site as part of the site plan review. However, Walz noted, in reviewing the
drive-through application the Board could require screening.
Eckstein asked whether there was any bus service to the area and whether there was a
bus stop or shelter along Naples. Walz responded that she did not believe there was a
bus shelter nor bus service to this area.
Jennings stated that depending of the specific food franchise or times of day, that there
could be large demand at the drive-through. He asked whetherthere would be space for
cars to stack behind the building and still allow other traffic, such as delivery trucks to
pass through.
Walz said that there was space for cars to wait directly behind the building as well as
some space in the area before cars enter the drive-through lane. Jennings expressed a
desire to insure appropriate signage is used on the site so that it was clear to vehicular
traffic that the drive behind the building was one way. Sheerin stated that she was
originally concerned regarding the circulation, but feels that her concerns have been
adequately addressed.
Eckstein asked how people from Menardswould access the facility on foot, stating that
this being the only food service in the are,ait may attract workers on break to walk to the
site. Walz state that pedestrians would either cross the street at the drive entrance to
Menards or go to the controlled intersection of Highway 1 and Naples Avenue by way of
the sidewalk. Eckstein asked whether there was a pedestrian crossing where Naples
Avenue met the drive entrances from Menards and the subject property. Walz
responded that there was not. She said this had been discussed with the traffic planners
and that there was a consensus that in an area such as this where there is infrequent
pedestrian use that a crosswalk gives pedestrians a false sense of security as vehicles
are not anticipating the crosswalk.
Jennings asked about the traffic island shown on the site plan between the drive-through
area and the adjacent bypass lane that ran behind the building. Walz explained that
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 3 of8
areas not used for parking and drives must be landscaped and that this would be
appropriate for turf or other low landscaping.
Eckstein asked whether the pile of dirt shown in one of the photographs was temporary.
Walk replied that it was.
Duane Musser of MMS Consultants spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the
drive is one-way, running counter-clockwise behind the building and will have signage
directing traffic. The site has been designed to with the intention of limiting any
interference between the drive-through traffic and customers or deliveries for the gas
pumps or convenience store. He stated that the traffic island would have sod or low
shrubs and would not impede visibility between the drive-through traffic and vehicles
accessing the rear circulation drive. He stated that there is an easement for fiber optic
connections at the top of the retaining wall along the south property line. He indicated
that due to the easement it was not desirable to place trees in this area and that the
change in grade are such that shrubs would not adequately screen the drive-through.
He reiterated that the was no bus service to this area and that they had provided
pedestrian access to the site with the sidewalk along Naples and the connection along
the south side of the parking area. He indicated that the parking spaces at the south side
would be primarily for employees and that the proposed fast food restaurant would
occupy approximately 1,100 square feet of the building.
Eckstein asked how drainage was provided for the site. Musser responded that a
complete site and grading plan had been created showing curbs, gutters and stormwater
intakes will be installed. He explained that the pavement is relatively flat, so stormwater
run-off will be captured by the intakes and drain to the detention area at the north end of
Naples Drive and not run off to the Highway or Naples..
Clifford Reif of Rief Oil explained that he had applied for a fast food franchise and that in
order to get the franchise his site needed to provide 6 stacking spaces.
Jennings indicated again that the franchise may change over time and that at different
times of day or during the week demand for the drive-through would change. Reif
responded that it was not in their interest to have the franchise interfere with the
convenience store/gas station use and that the food service was only a small portion of
the facility.
Sheerin invited comment from the public. Hearing no further comment she asked for a
motion.
Eckstein moved to approve EXC10-00010, a special exception to allow a drive-
through facility in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 2580 Naples Avenue,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the.site plan submitted; and
2. The entrance and exit areas should be clearly marked with appropriate
signage to indicate the one-way circulation of the drive.
Jennings seconded.
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 4 of8
Jennings state that the number of drive-through lanes and stacking space were
appropriate and would not be detrimental to the adjacent properties because their was
space for 6 cars to stack at the drive-through with additional space behind the building
for cars that must wait for order. He said that the drive-through was at the rear of the
site and that the circulation of the drive, when marked with appropriate signage, would
not conflict with public drives or other vehicles accessing the site. He said that the
location was surrounded by other commercial properties and that residential uses would
not be affected by the use. He stated that pedestrian access would be provided along a
walkway from the sidewalk on Naples Avenue and that it is in the City's future plans to
include a sidewalk/trail extension to the Naples/Hwy 1 intersection, at which point a
signalized pedestrian crossing would be installed.
Jennings noted that Naples Avenue was designed to support the level of traffic
associated with commercial development in the area. He stated that the drive-through
lanes meet the required setback standard and that additional screening was not
necessary due to the change in grade.
Sheerin noted that all lighting for the proposed use would be reviewed by the building
department as part of the permit process and that all other standards in the code would
need to be met. She reiterated Jennings finding with regard to surrounding zoning and
uses and the placement and design of the drive-through to support the general
standards and stated that the Southwest District Plan identifies this area as appropriate
for Highway-oriented development.
Eckstein noted for the record that she did,not think it appropriate to develop a
commercial area such as this, with a major ,retailer like Menards, without provision for
alternative transportation: bike, pedestriah, or bus.
A vote was taken and the motion carri,ed 3-0.
EXC1 0-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Kristen Breaux for a special
exception to reduce the front principal building setback requirement to allow
reconstruction of a porch on property located in the RS-8 zone at 1122 E. Washington
Street.
Walz explained that the applicant had previously been granted a special exception to
alter the porch roof in order to provide better drainage. At the time the applicant believed
the porch could be improved with limited reconstruction. It was later discovered that the
porch was failing completely and need to be entirely reconstructed. Because the special
exception was limited to improvement of the roof, a new special exception to reduce the
front yard setback is necessary. Walz noted that the existing porch structure was
enclosed with windows that that staff regarded this similar to a home addition.
In order to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and particularly with the
other homes along East Washington, given the degree to which the porch extends into
the required front setback, staff recommends that a new porch be an open air porch-a
porch not enclosed by windows or solid walls. Walz noted that an enclosed porch makes
it appear as if the porch is part of the living space, unlike the other open-air porches
along the frontage that appear like a separate, distinct portion of the house that is less
intrusive into the set back area. Walz referred to the sketch provided by staff indicating
._.._..._....~d.__.._._..__.~.._~~__.__"_~_d..."_..."-~_.~.",~~_._~_..-
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 5 of8
that it was important that the porch be aesthetically and historically appropriate for the
character of the neighborhood, including trim and cornice board, maximum height of the
railing, and columns. She stated that the Applicant's design sketch submitted with the
application was not acceptable to Staff, so Staff recommends that a final plan be
approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to construction
of the porch. Staff further recommends that the conditions required pursuant to the
previous special exception with regard to the slope of the roof and matching the eaves of
the house and porch should be continued with this special exception. Hektoen
explained that the previous special exception is for 6 months from the date it was filed
with the Clerk unless the applicant takes action to establish the use within that time
frame.
Eckstein asked whether the staff's r~Gommendation regarding enclosure included
screens. Walz stated that it did not. She asked if the property was in a historic district.
Walz responded that it was not, but explained that Staff's suggested design plan for this
porch is an intended to make the porch more compatible with the surrounding historic
homes.
Kristen Breaux, the applicant, said that she had hoped to build an enclosed porch but
understood staff's reasoning for recommended an open air porch. She mentioned that
she had trim from the house addition and hoped to match that trim. She had also wanted
to build a porch that would match decks on the back of the house, which were
constructed of pressure treated wood. She wanted to use unpainted wood for the
cornice beam and columns.
Walz explained that the zoning code does no allow unpainted wood on front porches for
multi-family houses and was not sure how the code addressed this situation for single-
family structures, but she did not think this was appropriate. She explained that staff and
the zoning code regard the front of the house as a public face and therefore it would be
most appropriate to look to the established character along the street frontage, which is
painted porches.
Eckstein noted that the adjacent home to the east had a minimalist porch, with no walls
or railings. The applicant indicated her desire to have walls.
Jennings stated that he found the staff'.s, submitted sketch confusing. He wondered if
staff wanted that precise porch to be built. Walz said staff did not submit this as a
required design but rather as an illustration of one porch that would be acceptable. She
stated that the applicant's sketch did not include trim or other elements that the staff
thought should be included and it was unclear what the final completed porch would look
like. Jennings asked whether he was being asked to make an aesthetic judgment
between or to provide a recommendation for what the porch should look like or which
elements it should include. Sheerin stated that she believed the recommendation to
allow staff to review and approve a final design meant that aesthetic issues could be
negotiated between the applicant and staff. She did not think the board should get into
the specifics of a design.
Eckstein stated that she thought it would be appropriate to state in the findings of fact
that none of the drawings presented were approved or recommended, and also to
..~__.."..~..~~_,_..".~_,..o,__<__..~___~ ..
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 6 of8
stipulate that the window and wall prohibition did not include a prohibition on screens.
Sheerin agreed.
Eckstein moved that the Board approve EXC1 0-00011, EXC1 0-00011, an
application to reduce the required front principal building setback from 15 feet to
8 feet for property located in the Medium Density, Single-Family (RS-8) zone at
1122 East Washington Street subject to the following conditions:
. The setback reduction be for the purpose of constructing an open air porch to
replace the existing porch;
. The new porch will fall within the footprint of the existing porch and its
dimensions shall be no larger than 9.6 feet deep x 19.6 feet wide;
. The new porch shall in all aspects comply with the conditions of the previous
special exception.
. At no time in the future may the porch enclosed with windows or walls without
an additional special exception.
. Final porch design to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Development prior to issuance of a building permit.
Jennings seconded.
Sheering called for findings of fact.
Eckstein stated that the situation is peculiar to the property since existing porch is
original to the house and is set in the required front setback. Many other properties on
the same frontage also have front porches closer than 15 feet from the property line.
She said the proposed porch would be the same size as the existing porch and would
not bring the building any closer to the right-of-way or to adjacent properties. She said
there were practical difficulties complying with the setback requirement since the current
porch is failing completely and that the applicant could replace the porch with an awning
or stoop this would not be in keeping with the character of the frontage.
Eckstein stated that granting the exception would not be contrary to the purpose of the
setback regulations since the open air porch would allow even greater light and air and
would not limit separation for fire protection or firefighting and would not limit privacy
between dwellings. She said that the proposed porch would be the same size and in the
same footprint as the current porch and that the open air porch would be distinct from
the house and not appear as an extension of the living portion of the house. She noted
that porches along this frontage and in the neighborhood were nearly all open air
porches-although one screen porch was on the opposite frontage-and that many
were located closer than 15 feet to the street right-ot-way.
Eckstein said that the since the proposed is exception is tor the purpose of an open air
porch only, and because the porch will be limited to the size and footprint of the existing
porch, that this will mitigate any negative effects of the setback reduction. She indicated
that the new porch would comply with conditions of the previous exception regarding
slope and drainage to other properties. She stated that staff should approve the final
design of the porch to ensure that it is in the character of the neighborhood. For these
reasons she found that the special exception reflects the general building scale and
Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2010
Page 7 of8
placement of structures within the neighborhood, promotes a reasonable physical
relationship with the adjacent properties and provides flexibility to site a building so that it
is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
Eckstein found that the final design of the porch must be approved by the director of
Planning and Community Development and that screens are allowable.
Jennings reiterated Eckstein's findings with regard to the size, location, and open air
design of the porch to support the a finding that all the general standards for the special
exception have been satisfied and noted that the exception would have no impact on
traffic or ingress and egress from the site.
Eckstein noted that while the final porch design is to be approved by staff, that neither
the applicant's sketch nor the staff sketch represents a definitive design-that the final
porch will be negotiated and may be different from either sketch.
A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
Jennings moved to adjourn. Eckstein seconded. Motion carried on a vote of 3-0.
.~~-,',--,~._..._~~-~.~-..,~_._~--------~-------~-~_._"-~,~~._.-
co
-
N
-
0 W
- 0 >< >< >< -
- 0
-
-
M
- >< >< >< >< ><
-
0
-
CO W
0 >< >< >< >< -
- 0
0-
- W
- >< >< - >< ><
- 0
co
~ W W
- >< - - >< ><
- 0 0
,...
0- >< >< >< >< ><
-
..0
N W
- >< >< >< - ><
- 0
11\
~
- >< >< >< >< ><
-
~
0 ><
- >< >< >< ><
-
M
0 >< >< W
- >< - ><
- 0
N
M >< W
- - >< >< ><
- 0
-
III N "'It Ln M -
E f - - - - -
- - - - -
:.. .- - - - - -
~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0
t- )( - - - - -
- - - - -
w 0 0 0 0 0
c: c: c:
0 .Qi .t:
III
:.. +I ~
~ ~ III ~ c:
~ "'0 00 .c: 0
E c: v c: U) III
nI ct w .2 ~
nI ~
Z c: c:
t :.. ~ c:
~ nI - c:
.Q 0
.Q :.. ~ :.. ct
~ nI nI ~
l:D U .J
o
-
o
M
~ I
CU-c
E s..
~ 0
j U
"- Q)
<a::
"- Q)
o U
-c s::
; RS
O-c
~ s::
Q)
,...,
,...,
4
~
Q)
...
c:
'6
a.
a.
'"
c:
Q)
Q)
..c
~
>-.
...
o
c:
-0
'"
.I:.
.........
..c
........
~
o
~
'"
Q)
>-.
Q)
.I:.
...
t:>O
c:
'c
;j
-0
-0
Q)
c:
t:>O
'Vi
Q)
~
";;'
........
~
Q)
.I:.
...
'Qj
~
Q)
..c
E
Q)
I:
-0 ';:"
el Q)
;j t:>O..c
U c: E
~ 'p Q)
~....,alI:
el 5i 5i E ~
Q) Vl Vl 0 0
C:~~Zz
II II II II II
WI:
><OOZ
:>-:
W
~