Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-2011 Board of Adjustment IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 5:15 PM City Hall - Emma J. Harvat Hall AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the March 9, 2011 Board Minutes D. Special Exception EXC10-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Center City LLC for a special exception to allow above ground structured parking and off-site parking for a proposed mixed use building to be located in the Central Business (CB -10) zone at 328 East Washington Street. E. Other F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: May 11, 2011 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 8, 2011 To: Board of Adjustment From: Karen Howard, Associate Planne RE: EXC10-00013 - 328 East Washingto At your February board meeting, the Board deferred action on EXClO-00013, a special exception to allow above-grade structured parking in the CB-10 Zone and to allow off-site parking for the property at 328 E. Washington Street. At that time you requested additional information and clarification on a number of issues related to the proposed building. These issues included: . A request for a copy of the 2008 ordinance amending the zoning code to require parking for residential uses in the CB-10 Zone and to allow the required parking to be located off-site in a municipal parking facility; . Concern regarding the relationship between the new building and Ecumenical Towers, which provides apartments for the elderly. In particular board members expressed concern about the scale and design of the building and location of balconies and air conditioners; · Concern about providing a safe and accessible street entrance for residents of the proposed building; . Concern about pedestrian safety in the rear alley and ensuring that adequate sight lines for drivers exiting the parking garage are not obstructed by dumpsters or mechanical equipment; . Approval ofthe scale and design ofthe building by the Design Review Committee to ensure that the building will fit into the urban commercial character of the downtown and provide ground-level storefront space that will be attractive and functional for commercial tenants. Since your last meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised site plan and building elevation drawings to address the Board's concerns. The Staff Design Review Committee (SDRC) met on Thursday, April 7, to review the new elevations and site plan. The SDRC provided the applicant and his building designer with our suggested changes. In response, the applicant submitted the revised elevations and site plan that are enclosed in your information packet. The Design Review Committee has not formally met to review the latest drawings, but note the following changes that address your stated concerns. The SDRC will meet again early next week to review the latest plans and will provide any additional comments at your meeting on Wednesday. The Staff Design Review Committee notes: _ _.__..W'_".~'_~__"_"~~____""""",,-_.____..._.,___~.____. April 8, 2011 Page 2 · To address the concern about compatibility with adjacent elderly housing, the applicant has removed all balconies and air conditioning units from the west side of the building; · The street-side entrance for residents of the building will be located along the front fa~ade of the building and will be clearly demarcated with a canopy, door trim, a transom window and a clerestory window to provide additional light into the interior corridor. This portion of the building will be set back approximately 5 feet from the front fa~ade to distinguish it from the commercial storefront. · The revised site plan illustrates dashed sight lines to show that the dumpster and mechanical equipment will not obscure driver views when exiting the parking garage. Since the parking garage entrance is set back 10 feet from the alley right-of- way, visibility should not be a problem as long as any required dumpster enclosure does not extend into the illustrated sight triangles. · The Design Review Committee has been working with the applicant and his building designer to ensure that the ground-level storefront is designed with quality building materials, properly sized and proportioned storefront windows, functional canopies that provide shade and weather protection for pedestrians, and designated locations for commercial signage. · Building articulation, window placement, and definition between the base ofthe building and the upper floors is much improved. The relief provided by projecting bays, pilasters, and properly recessing storefront windows and doorways will help to break up flat facades and provide visual interest along the south- and west-facing walls visible from Washington Street. . The SDRC anticipates granting final approval subject to minor changes requested after review early next week. Per your request, a copy of 2008 ordinance amending parking requirements in the CB-10 Zone is attached for your review. Please refer to last month's packet for the complete staff report and supporting materials. Based on the initial review by the SDRC and revised site plan and building elevations, staff confirms our recommendation for approval, subject to final approval by the SDRC and the other conditions noted in the recommendations below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00013, an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to allow 13 on-site above-ground structured parking spaces and 19 off-site 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-10) 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: 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. April 8, 2011 Page 3 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 final building plan, site plan, and elevation drawings are subject to Design Review approval to ensure: o the building is compatible with the scale and character of downtown with a ground-floor storefront that is appropriately designed to be attractive to commericial tenants; and building articulation along the south and west-facing facades to break up blank facades and provide visual interest; o that any portions of the structured parking visible from the adjacent residential building should appear to be a component of the building; o that the building features a prominent street-facing residential entrance that is located close to the front property line and is safe and accessible to pedestrian residents, o that conflicts with surrounding uses are minimized; and o that the dumpster location and enclosure design will not impede visibility into the alley for vehicles exiting the parking garage. . The building will comply with zoning restrictions on occupancy, i.e. will not contain dwelling units that have more than 3 bedrooms. M~ 'i Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. 08-4326 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS (CB-10) ZONE WHEREAS, the Central Business District is intended to be the high density, compact, pedestrian-oriented shopping, office, service and entertainment area in Iowa City and provide opportunities for a wide range of retail service, office and residential uses; and WHEREAS, the location of the University campus in close proximity to the downtown in combination with the current lack of a parking requirement for residential uses create an incentive to develop or redevelop property in the downtown with large numbers of apartments intended for short term renters without providing any parking for said residents; and WHEREAS, the City's parking policy in the Central Business District has been to publicly provide customer parking in strategically located structures, in order to serve and support businesses in the downtown area and prevent large surface parking lots from detracting from the pedestrian-oriented, mainstreet character of the downtown; and WHEREAS, parking demand from residents living downtown is fundamentally different from the parking demand generated by businesses in that the residential demand is for dedicated, long term parking; and WHEREAS, large residential development projects may put an undue burden on the public parking facilities and on-street parking in neighborhoods surrounding the downtown if said projects are built without adequate provision of parking to meet the needs of the residents within the building; and WHEREAS, with an increased demand for residential uses in the downtown area beyond what was originally anticipated when the current Central Business regulations were adopted, and the consequent request for development and redevelopment of buildings that will contain large numbers of residents, provision of additional parking on-site or in convenient locations adjacent to residences is needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Deleting subsection 14-5A-4B, Minimum Requirements, and substituting in lieu thereof: B. Minimum Requirements 1. Table 5A-2 lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle parking requirements for the land use or uses on properties in all zones except the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones. For some land uses, the minimum parking requirements differ based on the zone in which the property is located. 2. In the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, parking is not required for any land use, except for Household Living Uses, as specified in Table 5A-1, below. 3. In the CB-10 Zone, off-street parking must meet the standards specified in 14- 5A-3D. Ordinance No. 08-4326 Page 2 B. Deleting Table 5A-1, and substituting in lieu thereof: Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones USE SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle CATEGORIES Parking Residential Uses Household Multi- CB-5 Efficiency,1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units: 1 space per Living Uses family dwelling unit. 1.0 per Dwellings 3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit d.u. Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. CB-10 For buildings built on or before December 31, 2008: 1.0 per Zone Bedrooms 1-10: no parking required d.u. All additional bedrooms: 0.5 spaces per bedroom (For purposes of this standard an efficiency apartment will be counted as one bedroom) For buildings built on or after January 1, 2009: Efficiency and 1-bedroom units: 0.5 space per dwelling unit 2-bedroom unit: 1 space per dwelling unit 3-bedroom unit: 2 spaces per dwelling unit C. Deleting subsection 14-SA-3D, CB-10 Zone, and substituting in lieu thereof: D. CB-10 Zone 1. Off-street parking is not required for any Use, except Household Living Uses, as specified in Table SA-1. 2. Private, off-street parking is permitted only after approval of a special exception, except for Hospitality-Oriented Retail Uses and Household Living Uses as specified in the following paragraphs. 3. Hospitality-Oriented Uses are allowed up to 1-1/4 parking spaces for each guest room and parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant load of any meeting or convention facilities without going through the special exception process. Any parking spaces allowed under this maximum must meet the standards specified in subparagraphs Sb. through e., below. Any parking spaces requested beyond this maximum must be approved by the Board of Adjustment as a special exception and meet all of the approval criteria listed in paragraph S, below. 4. Household Living Uses must provide parking according to the specified requirement in Table 5A-1. The parking must meet the standards specified in subparagraphs 5b. through e., below. Off-site parking proposed for Household Living Uses may be approved by special exception according to the provisions of 14-5A-4F, Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements. S. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria specified in Article 14-4B, applications for a special exception for private off-street parking in the CB-10 Zone must meet the following specific approval criteria: __ ______.__._O.'___________~~~;.....~~~__,_~_.__"___"_ Ordinance No. 08-4326 Page 3 a. The applicant must demonstrate through a parking demand analysis that the number of parking spaces requested does not exceed the demand for parking for the specific building or project proposed and that the parking demand cannot be satisfied through the public parking system. Short term parking demand is preferred to be satisfied through the public parking system. b. Surface parking is not permitted. c. Underground parking is preferred over above-ground structured parking. The design of any underground parking must not detract from or prevent active building uses on the ground-level floor of the building. To that end, the ceiling height of any underground parking level may not extend more than 1 foot above the level of the adjacent sidewalk. On sloping building sites and for existing buildings, the City may adjust this requirement. However, on sloping sites at least a portion of the ground level floor height of any new building must be located no more than one foot above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza; and the floor height of the ground level floor of the building must be no more than 3 feet above the level of the abutting public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point along a street-facing building facade. d. Above-ground structured parking may be approved only by special exception according to the standards in subparagraph e., below. e. Where parking is located within the exterior walls of a building, the following standards apply: (1) The proposed structured parking will not detract from or prevent ground floor storefront uses. Structured parking may be permitted on the ground-level floor of a building, provided that a substantial portion of the ground level floor of the building is reserved for and built to accommodate storefront uses. On the ground level floor of the building, parking is not allowed within the first 50 feet of building depth as measured from the front building line. (2) Vehicular access to parking within buildings must be from a rear alley or private rear lane, whenever feasible. Garage openings along the primary street frontage are not permitted if access is feasible from another street or from a rear alley, private street or private rear lane. If there is no other feasible alternative, a garage opening may be allowed along the primary street frontage, if the Board determines that the opening(s) will not detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian flow along the street and traffic and pedestrian safety will not be compromised. Garage openings shall be built to the minimum width necessary for access. (3) Any exterior walls of a parking facility that are visible from a public or private street must appear to be a component of the fa~ade of the building through the use of building materials, window openings and facade detailing that is similar or complementary to the design of the building. (4) Each entrance and exit to the parking area must be constructed so that vehicles entering or leaving the parking area are clearly visible to a pedestrian on any abutting sidewalk at a distance of not less than 10 Ordinance No. 08-4326 Page 4 feet. Stop signs and appropriate pedestrian warning signs may be required. D. Deleting subsection 14-2c-11., Central Business Zone (CB-10), and substituting in lieu thereof: I. Central Business Zone (CB-10) The purpose of the Central Business Zone (CB-10) is to be the high density, compact, pedestrian-oriented shopping, office, service, and entertainment area in Iowa City. Development and redevelopment in this zone should occur in compact groupings, in order to intensify the density of usable commercial spaces, while increasing the availability of open spaces, plazas or pedestrianways. This zone is intended to accommodate a wide range of retail, service, office and residential uses. Auto-oriented uses are not permitted, except as specifically provided. Consolidated off-street loading and service facilities should be provided wherever practical with access provided from public service alleys or courts. Private, off- street parking is strictly regulated in order to preserve valuable land for active building uses and to maintain a pedestrian-oriented streetscape. To support a healthy and vibrant commercial core, development of mixed-use buildings with residential uses located above storefront commercial uses is encouraged. E. Deleting subsection 14-2C-8F, Parking in the CB-10 Zone, -and substituting in lieu thereof: F. Parking in the CB-10 Zone Off-street parking is strictly regulated in the cB-10 Zone according to the procedures and standards listed in Article 14-5A, Off-street Parking and Loading Standards. F. Deleting paragraph 14-5A-4F-1., Off-site Parking, and substituting in lieu thereof: 1. Off-Site Parking 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-10 Zone or intended for a use located in the CB- 10 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. When the proposed off-site parking is located in an Industrial Zone, Research Zone, or Commercial Zone, except the CB-10 Zone, the Director of Planning and Community Development may approve the proposed parking, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs a. through g. are met. G. Deleting subparagraph 14-5A-4F-1 b, b. Location of Off-site Parking (1) In Residential and Commercial Zones, no off-site parking space 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 municipally-owned parking facility. (2) In Industrial and Research Zones, no off-site parking space may be located more than 600 feet from an entrance of the use served. Ordinance No. 08-4 ~26 Page 5 H. Deleting subparagraph 14-SA-4F-1e., Off-site Parking Located in a Municipally- owned Parking Facility, and substituting in lieu thereof: 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 number of parking spaces may be provided in the parking facility. When a use abuts a City-owned parking area, up to 100 percent of the ,required number of parking spaces may be provided in the parking facility. In the cB-10 Zone, up to 100 percent of the required 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 of parking spaces the capacity of the parking facility will not be exceeded. In the CB-1 0 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 in the subject facility for long term parking and leases have been or will be secured from the City. I. Deleting paragraph 14-SA-4F-4, Parking Exemption in the CB-5 Zone, and substituting in lieu thereof: 4. Parking Exemption in the cB-5 Zone and CB-10 Zone In the CB-5 Zone or CB-10 Zone, a minor modification may be granted as specified in Section 14-4B-1 exempting up to 30 percent of the total number of dwelling units contained in a building from the minimum parking requirements, provided that those dwelling units are committed to the City's assisted housing program or any other affordable housing program approved by the City. J. Deleting 14-4B-1A-3., and substituting in lieu thereof: 3. In the CB-5 Zone and CB-10 Zone, a minor modification may be granted exempting up to 30 percent of the total number of dwelling units contained in a building from the minimum parking requirements, provided that those dwelling units are committed to the City's assisted housing program or any other affordable housing program approved by the City. K. Deleting subsection 14-7B-7D, In Lieu Payment, and substituting in lieu thereof: D. In-Lieu Payment In order that available land in the Near Southside Parking Facility District is intensively used, and that a portion of residential parking is combined in a City off- street parking facility or facilities, rather than scattered throughout the Near Southside Parking Facility District, the City Council finds that the residential parking facility impact fee shall be paid for a minimum of 75% of the parking spaces otherwise required according to Article 14-5A, Off-street Parking and Loading Standards; for residential uses in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones; if fewer than 25% of the required spaces are provided on site, the fee shall be increased accordingly and if more than 25% of the required spaces are provided on site, the fee shall be 75%. In lieu of providing 50% of the parking spaces otherwise required according to Article 14-5A, Off-street Parking and Loading Standards, for residential uses in all other zones of the Near Southside Parking Facility District, a Ordinance No. 08-4326 Page 6 fee shall be paid. The City Council further finds that this parking facility impact fee is reasonably and rationally related to the increased off-street parking need or impact created by said new residential development. L. Deleting subsection 14-7B-7E, Formula, and substituting in lieu thereof: E. Formula The total residential parking facility impact fee required by this Article shall be calculated by multiplying the number of parking spaces otherwise required for residential uses according to Article 14-5A, Off-street Parking and Loading Standards, by 75% in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones and by 50% in all other zones in the Near Southside Parking Facility District, and multiplying that product by the per space parking facility impact fee amount, as expressed in the formula: (RPS x 0.75) RIF= TRF or (RPS x 0.5) RIF = TRF, where: RPS = the number of parking spaces otherwise required according to Article 14- 5A, Off-street Parking and Loading Standards, for the residential use; RIF = the per space residential parking facility impact fee for residential uses; and TRF = the total residential parking facility impact fee required by this Article. M. Deleting subsection 14-7B-11A, On-site Parking Spaces, and substituting in lieu thereof: A. On-site Parking Spaces Notwithstanding provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which may be to the contrary, payment of the residential parking facility impact fee shall require the residential fee payor to provide between 15% and 25% of the parking spaces otherwise required in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones; an additional 1 0% of required parking spaces may be provided on-site; however, the fee shall not be reduced. No fewer than 50% of the parking spaces otherwise required for residential uses on the site in all other zones within the Near Southside Parking Facility District shall be provided on-site. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this ...2.2.wi day of December , 20--'lB...-. Approved by ,/ ~I#t '/ it, 0: '?meA/ , ~ty Attorney's Office I;A / /i,4; P ATTEST: -~~ k' - ~AJJ CITY RK Ordinance No. 08-4326 Page ---2- It was moved by Wilburn and seconded by as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: Wrigh t that the Ordinance AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Bailey Champion Correia Hayek O'Donnell Wilburn Wright x x x x x x First Consideration --------------------- Vote for passage: Second Consideration 12/16/2008 Vote for passage: AYES: Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Correia, Hayek. NAYS: Champion, O'Donnell. ABSENT: None. Date published _12/31/2008 Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Wright, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the first consideration be waived and the ordinance be given second consideration at this time. AYES: Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Correia, Hayek. NAYS: O'Donnell. ABSENT: None. [ill]fQfQfQC~ ~~~~ ~~~ I ~~IIJ I ~~~~~ ~~H i~~ !;1~!5~~ ~n 5~- r.:JClcn~~~<f ~;~ s! ~,,!l; ~ ~ !"~ G:l~n ~ - ,I; " I! ~ i '! i! l l o~l q I !l Ii Ii,! i!.". I! ,'22il" lpl" ,iI II !ilm i d ! ~ ~ 1:- , "," "'''' i i i :" i' -;:! 1'''''''0 111 i" i,l ell -' 'i *.,1, .!:~ fl \ ... 0 tlfj:t j,.-.. III!! hi E-< W W 0:::: E-< if] Z<r: O~ .... z E-< 8 ~'f ~gg !Il!! ~ f-r1 ~~(.J~ .......f--I--<---", iIi..~" en C/J ~ O~"<tS ~~ ~....... ;ij! ~~~ w CD 0J OJ '.,n ~ h {:'I' ,. '" .... So CIl_~ ~fi5 ~~::; ~~~:~ :~~G~ owC');~ <ONOl:"? I I ~ .' /./' ,,9f ,;. I I I ~ l'! ~ "- tl< !i :l I ; ; i . ~ I I!; k !!I, " ;I!! j' ".' i! " : ,,' i; ! ~ ~ ~ a~ II Ii I ii , ~! 'I'; I .'. lh" '!I~I.J I~~rllll ~!~~ui~~ i ~;;; ! Il, ~ i! - slill !O ('fi' d. . ,il' i ~i I hili I: .. Ii 'Iii!! I ~ n h ~ ;bi ;;; ~ ~~. ~" Iloillillllo ~~ .. 55~S i < ,,-"-' ~ .,.i IIi I, 'I, il! II., i';ll! ill ii~1 ~~ ~ ~ ,.....Il...- . --(I 0 , il I~ ~i w~ ~~ i!!~ !i!~ ~(-(-(-(-(-(-1 -'~'--:~~~ ~ , E;~ "0, I. :, Ii ji iI .\ ~m ~., !n I !~! 1m , is 'i 1 I'i 'j . 'I :I!' ill, I' l~ II- 'I: I .. '11:!1 I!""l ~'I ",I 51.!!~ I~i ~ wi!I'" e~i~ei; ~n: .~ in il!' I',! rl",l !i' .,1 ;1: :i~!1 !'~lii dim!! ::1 ~!l l!f I~.~ lsiil 1ll/l5~ 't'!~ ~..,! ..d . ' ~!!! Iii. II~ I,!~ 'I!l i~:l ill !lih P,I ,ilhl !~~.;~ii Iii! ;!; 'i~; ~!!ii ~;iNh !llp:i; ili! i,;I'! :m I!~i! ~;:!!nl :ii.lll1 ;II~ I I ,. It: ~ ~I 1!11!!i I ;hl; I! ~ I ill!! ~I ~ ~ d, .,'.il !" ~ ~ !I l~i:~ ill (U 11" '/lO~5 'i 1Il~~ m ei;;! il~fe gEl!; ~1lI ~,!',!' 1Oi1~' II! ~~ Ii lill.! II I J.-"f"' t-' , ~'.. [II t I ~ '" JU1Ii @;'~ [0] ~ ~ @ill d ,m .I!' ~,' ,(/, ", Z <l: ...J 0.. UJ !:: (/) z o .... '" z s: ~tu ,W We::: ""I- PlCIl >- .... z ::> o u ~~ u'" "'Z"' J:IJ: QQQ '- , I, ,. ~~ , . , r"_'~'-"-~r'-' " ,~ ~ '~'^/~~ i, " 5 '~'il ;0"" , 'I -----:----- ~;~ -i-~ ,~,,' ,/ ! ~ ~i I, " '5 N~ ~.' /;:' ,. ;;:;~ ;;:;~ ;;:;~ ~ % d' V/ ....,. ~;% l',l ~;;:; :.' ~;;:; , u ---f ~ -~--- I I . ., 1,::,1 l~'dIOO' !...1l H , ;',', ,,* " '"L '~\:\\ ' , " '" j' """ '~]------>----'-"J,l--------::- '_, .... I"" \'. .... \. ".. ... ... ~'l ': '~'i ~~~" .. ii \ i ./ '.-1:----i-. l.~/~,,~-.~.~.---,~.- "-----.l.-----1-t--L~~1-------r r r " " 0 ' ~ I ,r , " , , , , f ~~ f ~~ << II 6 ~ ~.Id i ~i I VI 'AIIJ OMOI 'laaJjS UOj6UI4S0M 8zr ~JOIJ !Jar ~f f, f ~ I ~ <::( z ---' ::;: <c ::J 0 f-- lLJ U Cl "" (/) U ii2 .,. (/) ro lLJ .,. u"c, LLJ ..!.. Q:: " "'" S- ';> u ~ N C2 Ji m ~::J: (L W f- 00 o W 00 00 W U W 0: ZN"":' 3:~f- o~z !3~~ w193: ~~o zO...J O:...JW 00'" u:;: 00- ,.z ..::'5 "'(L o,w w ~ SlN3~ldVdV Sn8~nlOJ ..81L I ::;;: 1x:>[Rf''''' : ~~- f-- J r~~; ~ ,1;-[ ~-ii u.x ~3: zO ;;:...J OW 0:'" Uo _z ~ri3 x, '...- oo~ ,,1;J 9 '" ., 1;> b ':::. "i N b " w U ~ () z '7 9 '" ~::J: "'- UZ ;<:Q "'~ w> OOW C::...J ::>w Of- uoo ffi~ g~ 0_ 00 "'f-- ~~:n il5u:~ WOz OOf-o g5~~ 8~m c::z wO iSg ...J o 00 c: o :,::; 320 Q)~ W II :S~ ~ <v ~~ -::J: ~ + " ...J ;:;; ., ..9 ';> '" ~ lLJ ---" G:: o Q::"c, (1- , lLJ " Cl .~ <J::~ u~ <J::tj l-L- ~ ~::J: ~jldl z o ~ ;; :!'! ~ . '" ~ t; '" :;: €MOI '^I!::l €MOI UOj5Ul4S€M '3 SZ8 I SlueWlJedv snqwnlo8 /; ~ / I~ I I I I I I I I I ~ ~I Gl Gl ...JI ...JI r~(o ~~b rn I e I CLln C.9b ~~GlIN =, <l:~ ~I; ?: I I I I I I I I I I I I G o I 05 w I ~ o I '" II cnN GlM ::;M L() <( 5> ~ ~J1dl '" o ~ a. .. ; ~ ! E g () ElMOI '^l!:) ElMOI U016uI4seM '3 BZT I SlUeWlJedv snqwnlo8 f ~I ~II ,,0. ,69 " .~ Qi Qi '---i'< ~ 0. a 0 ::> ~r-- ~ (/) en EJ ~ ~O L..t a -- ~"' 0 f- (/) en u 0 <( a.'" 00 :;;;~ ~ 0 O~ u a 0 R-f- [II ~'" u (/) en 0 etN 00 ::;~ ~ ~O 0 0 U f- a 0 u ~'<t 0 <( en a.~ (/) 00 ::;~ 0 T u ~ z1l 0 ~f- 0 S2[ "'''' U r-- a 0 <('" 0 eto ~'" a.~ .. en ::;~ '" (/) 00 0 u 0 ..~ ~O , f- U 0 <( a.C) a 0 ::; ~N '" 0 (/) en u ~I 0' 0 ~ f- U <( a 0 ": ~'" ~~ en (/) en 0 u 0 ,~ --0 n . 0 0 to ~ -.-.,.---11 I ~ w C) ": U w<( ><", ~ aio ,- f- 1 1 (/) ,,0. .9~ 111 ~ 0.- ~'7 z ~ ::> 0. -E-- Z a a ::> "'to ~ 0 B- ,B -'" to - I" I I~ z a ,,0. oS ~ ( ,,0. ,os '1,,0. oS ,,0. oS t 0 <(N ~ 0:::;-: --'~ ;;!@ ~ ~ ~ < l 0 .. U -.....: ci '" ","'r-- ~ to ~ w'" "' ~ ~;g 11 Z :;;; . " '" a ~ ON ill M ~ to u '<t '" '" ;;; ~ '" "V. oS ... _IL .,;~ ,,9. ,s~ , "0. ,g~ k~ ,,9'H ~i'<-' I 0 ~ ...-" ~ c:, r-- ............... ~ t 0 .;,! I=--r to ..., ---~---+ + '<t ~I I, ~L'OL9 = ala 1'1"699 = ala C) <Xi $ " "vH o~. ,9~ .., "ms.,o "v/~ o~. ,9~ " Qi ,,0. ,9 ,,0. ,LV ,,0. ,9 ,,0 ,69 '" N a. <( .. 1;> o " '" o r-- "' " " a; ID= >0 (l) .' ...J~ "C " c:: . ::IN 0("') (5?i ~ <( ~1[cd{ ~~ ~" H , w:!! Hl~ eMol '^~I:J ElMOI UOl6uI4seM "3 82:1; i SluaWlJedv snqwnloJ N =II: l- e.. < Co '::I3~ .... N .... ::! ..t :;r IX: ::! '" Q IX: ~ ~ CO Q 0 CO ~ ...J W '" LL 0 -- N 0 '" N ..t \ N ::! .., ::! IX: b IX: Q Q CO CO M ~ M ..t N '" ::! ~ ::! IX: ~ IX: Q Q CO CO ""! ::! IX: Q CO "! o ~ ...... ...J =II: ...J I- ~ e.. w <W z '" ...... ..; ::!; a:: Q CO 1 J ,,0 - .LP ~ ~ ~ o ~-' Q3~ > <Il ' -N -('1 <1:M N <( ~JIcdl SMOI '^~:) SMOI UOl6u!4StaM '3 BlE: I SluaWlJedv snqwnloJ f ~ ~ t l- ll.. <( "- ::J N N :iE 0:: C lJ) M N :iE 0:: C lJ) "'! :iE a: c lJ) "! ::ii: 0:: C lJ) ..... -' 'l:I: -' M I- ~ 'l:I: "i= ll.. I- <( w ..... ll.. N9 w ..; <( Ul - 2 -..... '" :iE Ql II > 0:: Ql = -N C -M lJ) <('" (V') <( MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 9, 2011 - 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Eckstein, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings, Caroline Sheerin, Adam Plagge MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5: 15 PM. ROLL CALL: Eckstein, Grenis, Jennings, Sheerin and Plagge were present. A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 9.2011 MEETING MINUTES: Jennings offered two typographical corrections. Eckstein moved to approve the minutes as amended. Jennings seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXc10-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Center City LLc for a special exception to allow above-ground structured parking and offsite parking for a proposed Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 2 of 15 mixed-use building to be located in the Central Business (cB-10) zone at 328 East Washington Street. Miklo explained that the proposal is for a five-story building at 328 Washington Street. Miklo shared an aerial photograph to illustrate the location of the building. He explained that there is currently an office building on the property. An alley at the rear of the building provides access to the property and intersects with Gilbert and Linn Streets. The Chauncey Swan parking facility is located approximately 400 feet from the subject property. The proposal is to build a five-story structure with approximately 2,000 square feet of ground- floor commercial uses. The top four floors would contain 16 three-bedroom apartments. The zoning code requires 32 parking spaces for the apartments, two spaces for each three-bedroom unit. The applicant has proposed placing 13 of those required parking spaces on the property at grade or above-ground at the rear of the property. Miklo shared an illustration of the proposed building footprint. The parking spaces would be at the back of the building with access from the alley. The preferred location for parking in the CB-10 district is underground. The intention of that standard is to promote and maximize commercial uses in the downtown area. The zoning code only allows above-ground parking by special exception. The intent is to control the location, design and amount of parking so that it does not detract from the downtown policies of encouraging ground-floor commercial uses and of creating an attractive pedestrian environment. Miklo said that this is the first aspect of the special exception that the Board will be considering. The second aspect under consideration is a proposal to provide 19 of the required 32 parking spaces in the Chauncey Swan ramp, rather than on the property itself. In 2008, the City Council amended the zoning code to require that new residential structures provide parking spaces to serve residential uses. Prior to that time, the code did not require parking for either commercial or residential uses in the CB-10 zone. The requirement grew out of a concern that there seemed to be an increased demand for parking for residential uses in the downtown that were competing with retail and commercial parking needs. Recognizing that it would be difficult for some smaller properties to provide on-site parking, the code included a special exception to allow parking to be provided off-site. One possibility for off-site parking is parking in City-owned facilities if there is capacity to do so. The applicant is requesting that 19 of their spaces be provided in the Chauncey Swan facility, which is approximately one block east of the subject property. The specific standards in the zoning code require that the proposed structured parking not detract from or prevent ground-floor storefront uses. Parking can be provided on the ground- floor so long as a substantial portion of the ground floor remains available for commercial uses. The ground-level parking is also not allowed to be located in the first 50-feet of the building depth. Staff feels that the first aspect of this standard is clearly met. Approximately 2,000 square feet will still be devoted to commercial space, which staff feels is adequate. The requirement that the parking be accessed from the rear is also clearly met. The third specific standard is that any exterior walls of any parking structure that are visible from a private or public street must appear to be a component of the fayade of the building, and must use materials that are similar to and complement the building. Miklo said that based on the Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 3 of 15 information staff has received, they do not believe any of the parking structure will be visible from the street. The existing buildings on either side of the property will likely mask the parking structure. Staff is concerned, however, that the north access to Ecumenical Towers, which provides direct access to the elevator and is accessible for persons with disabilities, is at the north side of the property, and is adjacent to the proposed parking structure. Staff recommends that design review be required given the high visibility of that wall to Ecumenical Towers. According to the specific standards, each entrance to the parking structure must be constructed such that those entering and leaving the parking area are clearly visible to pedestrians. Staff feels that this standards is generally met in that there are no pedestrian pathways or sidewalks on the alley that would pose problems for pedestrians. The proposed structure will be set back ten feet from the alley so it will allow vehicles entering and exiting the structure appropriate visibility. Miklo noted that care will have to be taken to locate the dumpsters so that they do not block visibility. He said that this should be reviewed with the final site plan. Miklo next reviewed the specific standards pertaining to the off-site parking. There is a requirement that the plan contain a map showing the location of the parking in relation to the proposed structure. The map must demonstrate that there is a safe walking route to and from the facilities. Staff feels this standard is met as there is a controlled intersection between the proposed building and the Chauncey Swan parking ramp, which are approximately 400 feet apart. Another requirement states that when an applicant requests parking in a City-owned facility the Director of Planning and Community Development in consultation with the Director of Transportation Services and the City Manager to substantiate that the capacity of the facility will not be exceeded. The special exception can only be approved if there is capacity in the facility. Staff feels that this requirement has been met. The Director of Transportation Services has determined that there are 19 spaces available. Overall there are 475 spaces in Chauncey Swan. Permits have been issued for 384 spaces. An additional sixteen permits have been issued for residential use by a previous special exception that is similar to this request. There are 75 spaces that are uncommitted and remain available to the general public. Based on this the parking facility can accommodate this request for 19 spaces. However, staff cautions that as parking demand changes over time, this may not always be the case. The Board is to consider the desirability of the location for the proposed parking spaces, whether or not it is accessible and safe, as well as any potential detriment to adjacent or nearby properties. Staff feels that this standard has been met, as the parking facility provides for safe egress and ingress. An agreement or written covenant is required to ensure that the parking spaces are available in perpetuity, so that future residents of the building continue to have access to the parking. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit the required written agreement as a part of the building permit application. This agreement should state that the parking will only be offered to residents of 328 Washington Street, and shall be offered at a rate not to exceed the market rate as determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of leasing. Staff recommends that the agreement require the property owner to provide the Director with the name, license plate number and address of all permit holders. Miklo said that these conditions are necessary to ensure that permits are available to residents of the building and are not offered on the market to the general public or sold at a higher rate than what the City Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 4 of 15 charges for them. Because the future demand for parking is likely to increase, the agreement should include a provision giving the Director of Transportation Services the ability to move the spaces to another parking facility if that is determined to be necessary. The general standards that apply to most special exceptions were briefly outlined by Miklo. The proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The location of the parking is a reasonable distance from the proposed building, there are safe pedestrian crossings, and there is safe egress and ingress to the parking structure. The above-grade parking at the rear of the property is not necessarily supported by this criterion, because the entrance to the residential portion of the building is not visible from the public street and may not be safe and accessible. Staff is recommending that the Board impose the following conditions in order to make sure the general standards are addressed: · the building design should be subject to design review in order to ensure that the residential portion of the building has a prominent entrance from the public street; · the building must have an entrance that is safe and accessible to residents whose parking is located off-site; . and there must be final review of the site plan by the Building Official and Planning staff to ensure that the location and design of the dumpster enclosure does not impede visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the parking structure. The next general standard requires that the specific proposed exception will not impede 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 that granting the special exception to allow off-street parking in a municipal facility will allow the applicant to construct a substantially larger and more intensely used building than otherwise would be possible given the number of parking spaces that the applicant can provide on their own property. The larger building will have a greater impact on the streetscape and the adjacent building. Therefore staff recommends that approval of the application for off-street and above-ground parking be subject to design review. The design review process will help ensure that the building is compatible with the downtown streetscape and that there will be consideration of the appropriate design of entrances for the residential uses and for the fayade on the portion of the building that is highly visible from Ecumenical Towers. The establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in the zone. This standard has been met for the off-site parking based on the following: the Director of Transportation Services has determined that there is capacity for the requested 19 spaces; however, as future parking needs in the central business district change, those 19 spaces may not always be easily accommodated. Staff recommends that the special exception be approved subject to a provision allowing the Director of Transportation Services to allocate those parking spaces to other facilities downtown should the need arise. Staff also recommends a condition that the final building plan be submitted to design review to ensure compatibility with surrounding property. Staff believes that the requirements for the above-ground parking spaces are satisfied because: the structured parking allows for the first 50 feet of the building to be used for storefront uses; it will not be highly visible from public streets or sidewalks; and the project will be subject to design review. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 5 of 15 Another standard requires that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and necessary facilities have been or will be provided, and staff feels that has clearly been met. The general standards require that adequate measures have been taken to address egress/ingress to avoid traffic congestion on public streets. The City's current parking facility was designed to meet those standards. That criterion is also met for the aboveground parking at the rear of this property, so long as dumpster placement is reviewed to ensure that visibility is maintained. The next standard requires that except for the regulations applicable to the special exception being considered, the proposed exception meets all other applicable zoning codes. Miklo noted that the matter would be reviewed by the Building Official in greater detail at the time of site plan review. He noted that design review is also being requested by staff. The proposed use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. The Comprehensive Plan does raise concerns about residential parking in the downtown area competing with commercial parking needs. Miklo explained that this concern was one of the reasons the zoning code was amended, but that these concerns are addresses by the parking plan the applicant has proposed. Miklo noted that staff is requesting design review in order to ensure compatibility with the character of downtown to comply with Comprehensive Plan policies pertaining to the appearance of downtown. Miklo stated that staff is recommending approval of EXC10-00013, an application submitted by Jeff Clark to allow 13 off-street, above-ground parking spaces at 328 E. Washington Street, and 19 off-site parking spaces in a municipal parking facility, subject to the following conditions: · The applicant must submit the required agreement for off-street parking prior to securing a building permit, and the agreement shall include the following conditions: o The permits shall only be available to residents of 328 Washington Street at a cost not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of the leasing; o The property manager must provide the Director of Transportation Services the name, license plate number and address of all permit holders; o The permits will only be granted to residents with the primary address of 328 Washington Street; o The Director of Transportation Services may relocate the permits to another downtown parking faCility on an annual basis as necessary to accommodate demand for municipal parking facilities; · The final building plan will be subject to design review to ensure that the building is compatible with the scale and character of downtown. Any portions of the structured parking visible from adjacent residential buildings should appear to be a component of the building. The building should feature a prominent entrance that is safe and accessible to pedestrian residents. Conflicts with surrounding uses should be minimized, and the design of the dumpster enclosure will not impede visibility to the alley for vehicles visiting the parking ramp. · The building plan must be consistent with the plan submitted as part of this application. This plan indicates that there will be no more than three-bedrooms per unit. Miklo noted that the Board had received some correspondence in their packet regarding this property. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 6 of 15 Sheerin invited the Board to ask questions of staff. Grenis asked why the parking spaces being allotted are in the Chauncey Swan ramp rather than the parking ramp just to the north of the subject property. Miklo said he believed the Transportation Director felt that Chauncey Swan had more parking available. Plagge asked if it was standard operating procedure for the parking director to collect names, license plate numbers and addresses for people leasing parking spaces. Miklo said that the reason that those particulars are included in the conditions is to ensure that the spaces are not leased out to non-residents on the open market. Miklo said that these parking spaces will be taken away from the pool of parking spaces available to the general public and so the City would not want to see someone reselling them, possibly at a mark-up. Sheerin asked how much the City can take into account EXC1 0-0001, where 16 spaces were previously granted in the Chauncey Swan Ramp. Greenwood Hektoen said the Board could and that those spaces would have been taken into account by the Director of Transportation Services when he analyzed space availability. Jennings said that his recollection is that the uses were slightly different concerning those two parking space allocations. Jennings said that the last time this came up, there was a question as to what happens when the residents of the apartment building do not have cars. If the owner has paid for the permits, does the owner then have the ability to make those permits available to other people? Jennings noted that under the previous exception that was granted, the owner was allowed to sell those extra permits. Greenwood Hektoen said that staff believes that including these specific provisions will better address those concerns. Jennings said that had been a concern of his, and he is happy to see that it has been addressed. He noted that the provisions in this exception allow the Director of Transportation to relocate these parking spaces to a different facility if it becomes necessary to do so in the future. He asked why spaces were not being shuffled at this time to allow the residents spaces in the ramp closer to the subject property, rather than in Chauncey Swan. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thought that those kinds of decisions should probably be left to the discretion of the Director of Transportation Services. She said that part of his job is to review and analyze data on parking space availability. Greenwood Hektoen said that market needs change, and each year parking permits are reallocated to different parking facilities. Miklo said that while the Clock Tower ramp being discussed appears to be physically closer than Chauncey Swan, the pedestrian entrance may not actually be any closer or more convenient to the entrance to the subject property because the pedestrian entrance to that ramp is on the far side of the block. Jennings said that if there is on-site parking in the rear of the building then there will be building access in the back. Miklo said that access is not intended for pedestrians, and the City would not want to encourage pedestrian traffic in the alley, though it is allowed. Jennings said that he has questions about the safety of pedestrian traffic along Linn and Gilbert as well as in the alley. Eckstein asked if the alley allows traffic going both ways, and she was told that it does. Eckstein said that Ecumenical Towers appears to have a handicap accessible drop-off site in the alley. Miklo said that this rear entrance for Ecumenical Towers does get heavily used because it has a wheelchair ramp and is very near the building's elevator. Eckstein asked if it is only a drop-off site or if there is parking as well. Miklo replied that there is no parking for Ecumenical Towers in Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 7 of 15 the alley. She asked if the alley is wide enough for two cars to pass going in opposite directions. Miklo said that it is 20-feet wide, which is wide enough. Eckstein asked if the east face of the proposed building can be seen. Miklo said that the east face is almost entirely masked by the building that houses Gabe's, directly to the east. Eckstein noted that Gabe's is a two-story building and the proposed building is five-stories. Miklo said that he believed the upper floors would be of similar design. Plagge said that the Davis Hotel is also located to the east. Eckstein said that she understood that. Jennings said that he had a general procedural question. Jennings said that there seem to be a lot of conditions based on design and plan review and he said it seemed like putting the cart before the horse to approve an exception for a design that had not yet been approved. Sheerin said that is a very big question mark indeed. Plagge said that the Board is only approving the parking, not the building design. Jennings said that all manner of things that have to do with the parking also have to do with the building design issues that still have to be negotiated. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board has the discretion to defer a decision until after those matters are settled. Miklo explained that a recommendation for design review, and there is a staff committee that functions to make those decisions. Miklo added that the Board certainly could defer it if they preferred to see the design themselves. Staff felt that a way to expedite the application was to turn it over for design review. Grenis asked if design review was common for buildings in the CB-10 and Miklo replied that it is actually not. He said that design review is required in the Central Planning District, but for some reason is not required downtown unless it is in one of the urban renewal parcels. Staff is suggesting that it be a part of this application primarily because this building is considerably larger than would otherwise be permitted if the Board approves the special exception for parking off-site. Staff's primary concerns with the design review aspect are the front fayade of the building, the portion that will be visible from the street, ensuring that the pedestrian access to the building is an attractive, inviting and highly visible entrance, and that the design of the building itself is compatible with the urban patterns seen downtown. Eckstein asked if it was the case that if the off-site parking is approved, the building is able to be larger than would otherwise be permitted so the mass of the building is within the consideration of the Board. Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct. Eckstein asked what the square footage of the building that currently exists is relative to the proposed building. Miklo said that the building that is there now is approximately two-stories, and the new building will be a five story building. He said that the current building has as smaller footprint and has a parking lot behind. Greenwood Hektoen said that the applicant can probably address that question. Sheerin said that she thought the Comprehensive Plan is usually more helpful; in this case, it seems somewhat ambiguous. She said that it seems to merely state that there is a tension between housing and parking that needs to be resolved. Miklo said that he believes the City Council has made an attempt to address the issue by requiring parking for residential uses in the downtown. Sheerin said that the over-arching policy with the question of higher density residential housing development in the downtown versus commercial parking demand does not seem to have been resolved. Miklo said that Sheerin was correct that the Comprehensive Plan has not been developed any further on that question. He said if that was a concern for the Board they might want to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to look at the issue in more detail. He said that the code that the City is operating under now was an attempt to address that concern. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 8 of 15 Eckstein said that she agrees that there is a fair amount of ambiguity in several places in this application. She said that there is a question as to whether the Board has a responsibility to promote pedestrian use or satisfy the demand for parking. Another ambiguity is that the staff report states that any parking agreement made will be in place in perpetuity; yet, at the same time the Board is told there will be an annual review of the matter. Eckstein asked for clarification on that issue. Greenwood Hektoen explained that so long as this special exception remained in place, the applicant would have the right to 19 parking permits in perpetuity; they would not have the right to 19 spaces at the Chauncey Swan parking ramp. Miklo advised that the Board may want to have public discussion before getting into these kinds of broader discussions and ask questions specifically about the staff report at this time. Grenis asked if the design review would be applicable to the entire building or just the parking area. Miklo said that staff would recommend that it pertain to the entire building. Staff's primary design concerns are: the main fagade because the building will be much larger than would otherwise be allowed if the special exception for off-site parking is not approved, the western fagade, and the high visibility of the building from Ecumenical Towers. Staff was less concerned about the east side of the building because it will be partially masked by the adjacent buildings. Sheerin invited the applicant to speak. Jeff Clark, the applicant, said he could see there were some concerns with this project and he hoped to address them one by one. Clark said that he had been through this process with another project last year. He said there are always a lot of questions as to what to design on a project. He said that it is not really possible to go forward with a good design until you know what portions of code need to be met and what amount of parking will need to be put on-site. Clark said that he understood the concern the Board has about not knowing what is going in there exactly; however, it is difficult to present a complete design without knowing whether or not the parking will be on-site. He said he has worked extensively with Planning staff on this project, and will continue to do so. Clark said that there is short-term parking in the rear of Ecumenical Towers available to residents by sign-up for a few hours at a time. Clark said that building code dictates that the building will have rear access, and where it will be. Clark stated that he is happy to do whatever staff recommends in terms of leasing parking spaces. However, he did note that if he was granted the ability to lease unused spaces to tenants of other buildings then that would free up on-street parking elsewhere downtown. Clark said that in 2008 when this ordinance was being changed, he was present at City Council discussions. At that time, he actually had a building that was supposed to go on this site that was intended to be a high rise with 50 four-bedroom apartments. After the ordinance change, the plan was changed to 16 four-bedroom apartments. Once the parking requirements were changed, the four-bedroom units became impossible. The project has now been down-sized to 16 three-bedroom apartments. Clark said that when they purchased the property in 2008, they had intended a much more intensive use and at this point they are just trying to make it work. He said the building will ultimately be very attractive. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 9 of 15 Clark said he has worked with the design review process on several projects, and Planning staff does an excellent job. The east side fayade is planned to be virtually the same as the west side. Eckstein asked if the largest sets of windows on each story were balconies on the east, west and south sides, and Clark said they were. Plagge asked if it was reasonable to assume that Clark would be able to sell all of the 13 on-site parking spots to residents and Clark said that it was. Clark said that parking demand varies from year to year. Sheerin opened the issue to public discussion. No one wished to speak. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that because the parking was being allocated as permits rather than stalls, parking at the Chauncey Swan ramp would be available on a first come first serve basis. Grenis asked if the agreement was finalized for the Chauncey Swan ramp. Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct for the first year, and would be reviewed annually by the Director of Transportation Services after that. Eckstein moved to approve EXc10-00013, an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to allow 13 on-site above-ground structured parking spaces and 19 off- site 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-10) 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: 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 final building plan is subject to Design Review to ensure the building is compatible with scale and character of downtown; any portions of the structured parking visible from the adjacent residential building should appear to be a component of the building; the building should feature a prominent entrance that is safe and accessible to pedestrian residents, conflict with surrounding uses are minimized, and the dumpster location and enclosure design will not impede visibility into the alley for vehicles exiting the parking garage. · The building plan is consistent with the plan submitted as part of this application, indicating no more than three-bedrooms per unit. Grenis seconded. Eckstein said that one thing that sticks in her mind is the general criterion that asks if the special Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 10 of 15 exception impinges on the rights of surrounding property owners and residents. Eckstein noted that this is a building with balconies on three sides. Given the location of the building and the size of the apartments, it is reasonable to assume that the residents will likely be students. Eckstein said that in her mind, a question is raised as to whether open balconies catering to a student population facing a building that houses elderly residents is compatible. Sheerin asked if Eckstein was relating this to the parking issue because there would be that many more people in the building. Eckstein said that was correct. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned against considering the occupants of a building, as zoning decisions need to be made based on the use of a building. Miklo said that it is not appropriate to assume the residents will be students; however, it is appropriate to consider the balconies and address those if they pose a concern. Eckstein said that it is the balconies that are the concern. Greenwood Hektoen said that the balconies would also have to be considered in relation to the parking issues before the Board. Eckstein asked how many apartments would be enabled by allowing only the 13 on-site parking spaces. Miklo said that if the off-street parking is disallowed, then there would be ten fewer three-bedroom units allowable on the site. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the applicant could opt to put in units with fewer bedrooms. Sheerin noted that she would have to leave in five minutes. She said that her concern with this application is that she is uncomfortable with the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is so wishy- washy in terms of how the Board should be looking at this issue. She said that she really feels that it is ambiguous and does not give the Board proper guidance. Miklo suggested that the Board make the decision on this case based on what is available to them and then make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to revisit this type of application so that there would be greater clarity for future cases. Sheerin said that one of the requirements is that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the Comprehensive Plan not clear in this respect. Miklo said that staff has highlighted two pertinent areas of the Comprehensive Plan which speak to mixed use development downtown. Sheerin said that she still did not feel the Board was getting any guidance from the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the downtown parking issues. Miklo said that he felt the Board needs to act on the information available and then ask for further clarification from Planning and Zoning and the City Council. Greenwood Hektoen said that this is part of the judgment call that the Board is being asked to make. Sheerin said it is difficult because the problem is not the application, but the Plan. Jennings said that his concern is that the staff report specifically addresses problems that could arise and is indirectly asking the Board to approve their remediation through design review under the auspices of having the Board approve parking. He noted that the staff report points out potential conflicts with adjacent buildings, such as noise from activity or air condition units located on balconies. Jennings said that he trusts the applicant is acting in good faith, but is uncomfortable approving parking spaces based on a design review that hasn't taken place, particularly when the staff report points out problems that could arise in the design review process. Miklo explained that the Board has two alternatives. One is to delegate the design aspects to the design review committee, outlining any specific concerns and directing the committee to address those; another is to defer the application and ask the applicant to come back with a building that addresses their concerns. Jennings said that there is currently an affirmative motion on the table so he is not sure how to Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 11 of 15 proceed in any other way. Jennings said that it seems to him there are two areas of guidance, one has to do with design review and the other has to do with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that while they are related, the Comprehensive Plan issue seems to him to be a future issue, a protracted process of getting guidance for future rulings. He said he does not think it would be fair to burden the applicant with that, but it does need to be addressed. He said his more acute concerns were with design review. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thinks the Board needs to decide whether it is willing to delegate that expertise to staff, or whether they wish to have control over that. In regard to the Comprehensive Plan issue, Greenwood Hektoen noted, the plan itself may be broad and it is up to the Board to determine whether this application does or does not meet it, taking into account that the City Council did enact an ordinance requiring parking be provided for residential uses downtown and allowing this kind of parking arrangement and special exception. Plagge noted that the applicant is not bumping up against any height restrictions at this point so there is actually nothing keeping him from adding more on-site parking and adding another story to the building. Miklo said that the issue is probably one of feasibility. It would not be possible to fit in a ramp and additional levels of parking on this small of a lot. Sheerin said that she accepts what Greenwood Hektoen and staff have said, but that she is uncomfortable with the idea that the Board is a body that could be perceived as a rubber stamp. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board does not have to vote in favor of the application simply because staff has recommended it. She said that she thinks the Board does have the information it needs to vote one way or the other. Eckstein said the Board had a similar struggle in a different case in which they were to approve a preliminary design which they were told was not necessarily what the end-product would be like. She said there are plenty of details in this case that she does not feel the need to micro- manage, but she feels it would be irresponsible to vote for a special exception in relation to the parking that would enable a building to be of this size with this many balconies facing a structure housing elderly residents. Eckstein said that for her it is not the mass of the building or the parking arrangement, it is that if she votes for those special exceptions she is enabling a violation of one of the general standards the Board always uses to evaluate an application: 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. Eckstein said that it is as simple as this: if she can make a motion that says she wants no balconies, then she can vote for the parking; if she can't make a motion like that, then she cannot vote for the parking. Sheerin said that it sounds as though the Board has at least three separate problems: Sheerin has a problem with whether this complies with the Comprehensive Plan; Eckstein has a problem with the balconies; Jennings has a problem with the design. Jennings said he concurred with Eckstein. Eckstein said that it was a specific articulation of the same problem. Jennings said that it is a problem of being asked not to consider the occupants while simultaneously being asked to consider problems that would result from a specific kind of occupants. Greenwood Hektoen said the Board is certainly allowed to consider how the building will be used, just not who will be using it. Jennings said he understood that. Eckstein said that the balconies may create problems regardless of who the occupants. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 12 of 15 Greenwood Hektoen said that the record is probably sufficient to allow the Board to take a straw poll without going into findings of fact if it wished to do so. Miklo noted that there is a motion on the floor and that if the Board wished to add an amendment stipulating conditions for approval that might be another way of moving the application forward. Plagge noted that he too would have to leave in five minutes. Greenwood Hektoen said that if the motion is going to fail then the record is clear without having to go through the criteria. There was some discussion as to whether the Board wished to take a straw poll or vote on the motion. Miklo asked if it would be useful to simply amend the motion to reflect the Board's concerns. Greenwood Hektoen said it did not seem as though the Board was in a place where they were ready to amend. Sheerin asked if the application could be deferred, as the Board was about to lose its quorum. Grenis said that if it was to be deferred then the Board should be specific about what it wanted the applicant to bring back. Greenwood Hektoen advised that if Eckstein wished to she could amend her motion to make it a motion to defer. Greenwood Hektoen said that it seemed to be a controversial application and it would probably be good to have the full Board vote on it, though that was certainly the Board's decision. Eckstein said that she always resists deferring because she recognizes that applicants have reasons for putting these things together and schedules to keep; however, she said that it seemed as though voting on the issue as it stands also might not do the applicant any good. In that spirit, Eckstein said, she would amend her motion. Greenwood Hektoen said that she should do whatever she was comfortable with. Plagge noted that while the application may be controversial within the Board, there has not been any member of the public to speak against it. So this does not seem to be a concern for the community. Ekstein said that mayor may not be the case. Sheerin noted that it is the Board's role to consider what is in the interest of the community. Eckstein moved to defer the application until there was some clarity on issues of design and guidance on how to read the Comprehensive Plan in this case. Jennings seconded. Greenwood Hektoen advised that the Board is not likely to see guidance in the form of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan prior to consideration of this application, as that would be a drawn-out process. She asked what the Board would feel comfortable with in terms of guidance. Sheerin said that perhaps the best thing would be to ask for clarification for future applications. She said she did think the design review questions are one which the Board could get more information on whereas it probably was not fair to hold the application up for the Comprehensive Plan issues. Eckstein said that the design review is also related to the general criteria concerning the general well-being of the surrounding properties. Greenwood Hektoen asked if images relating the proposed buildings to existing buildings would be helpful. Jennings said that would be helpful, as well as a specific plan for how design review would deal with the concerns laid out in the staff report. Jennings said he is very uncomfortable doing a sideways vote on parking for something of this size and mass and potential impact. Grenis asked if it was an option to have the design review occur before the application is approved, or at least a more detailed site plan. Miklo said that staff could look into having the applicant do a more detailed plan of the building. The applicant could be asked to produce some drawings showing the building's scale in relation to the rest of the block. Miklo noted that a cursory review of the plan had also shown some concerns on the part of staff regarding the balconies in relation to Ecumenical Towers, and would likely have been addressed specifically Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 13 of 15 during the design review process. Jennings said that he thinks the concerns laid out in the staff report have potential for significant impact on the area and would like to see them addressed in the design review. He said that he does not want to unduly burden the applicant or hold up their application, but he does not think that voting for parking is a way to address those concerns. Jennings said that it is not that he does not trust the City staff but the building is going to have a significant impact and he would like to see what he is approving. Miklo said that assuming the motion to defer is approved, staff will work with the applicant over the next few weeks to clarify the main entrance, the visual impact of the building, the placement of windows and balconies, the dumpster location, and a diagram showing this building in relationship to other buildings on the block. Jennings said that what he is seeing are red flags raised in the staff report and he wants to see those addressed prior to voting on the parking. Plagge asked if Jennings had anything specific he would like to propose as part of an amendment to approve the application. Jennings said that there was nothing beyond the areas outlined in the staff report, though those were substantial areas. He said that his concerns were not specific to this application, though he does feel that alley is heavily used by pedestrians and a considerable increase in traffic at all hours would have a considerable effect. He said there are potential public safety issues he has concerns about aside from the parking issues. Miklo reiterated that the motion is to defer. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 3.1 (Plagge voting no; Sheerin absent at time of vote). Miklo summarized what he believed the Board would like to see from the applicant at its next meeting: 1) A diagram showing this building in relationship to the other buildings on the block to get a sense of scale; 2) The concerns about the main pedestrian entrance to the residential portion of the buildings being addressed; 3) The visual impact of the building which would include such things as window placement. balcony placement, scale of windows being; and 4) The dumpster location. Miklo asked the Board to please let staff know of any other concerns they wish to have addressed prior to the next meeting. Eckstein said that there is the issue of potential noise, as some designs are likely to illicit more noise than others. Grenis asked if staff would envision still recommending a full design review of all of these issues were addressed. Miklo said that he would suggest the design review committee works with the applicant to flesh out the design addressing these concerns and then come back before the Board. Once that design is approved, it mayor may not be necessary to do a further design review if the Board is satisfied. Gernis asked if the question regarding review of the Comprehensive Plan and parking issues should be voted on at this meeting. Miklo said it could be something out on the agenda for the April meeting. Greenwood Hektoen said it might also be helpful to provide the Board with a copy Board of Adjustment March 9, 2011 Page 14 of 15 of the actual ordinance enacted by the City Council. She said there are usually a list if "whereas" statements that would give the legislative intent behind enacting the parking requirements. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Greenwood Hektoen noted that as there are two new Board members there should probably be a training sometime soon. She said she would coordinate that with Sarah Walz. Grenis asked if making a recommendation for guidance on the Comprehensive Plan was something that should be done yet that evening. ADJOURNMENT: Jennings moved to adjourn. Grenis seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote (Sheerin absent at time of vote). ~ - - N - 0) - - - N - - 0 - ~ - - cn 0 - - CO M - - ...... ....0 ClO ffiEt: - (Q :EO ....0 - (/)W - - :JEt: Ln ..,w..... 00..... M <(ZC - U-<(N ~ 00 0) OZ - XXXXX Et:W M <(.... 0) xxx O!;( - :X N ED (f) ~(oLONC'? :liEW ~-c-~~~ 0:::0::: 00000 WD.. ~~~~~ 1-)( or- .,.- .,.- .,.- .,.- W 00000 W :liE c( z .~ c: .$ 'C II) Q) Q) ~ .!Q ~ C Q) Uc:c:g..c: L.U ~ 'c ro (f) ~(!)C:a.~ ro~Q)E= .ou""" 0 roe=.{gro aJaJ~<(() E :J ... o :J -00 ~ 0 :J Z ... C,,) -- Q) >< g>.o LlJ:;:::; E :;::'Q)Q) .... c: Q) """ c.... Q) EO::: Q) ~ rJ) ro ~rJ)~o.... ....0 Z 0 o..<t: II II Z II 1I~::2: II XOOz ;;..: w ~