HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-2011 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, June 8, 2011 - 5:15 PM
City Hall -Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the April 13, 2011 Board Minutes
D. Special Exception
EXC11-0002: Discussion of an application submitted by Dan Hiserote for a special exception to
allow adrive-through facility in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1015 Highway 1 West.
EXC11-0003: Discussion of an application submitted by Joseph Dobrian for a special exception
for a reduction of the front setback requirement to allow construction of a deck at 1 C15 Second
Avenue.
E. Other
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: July 13, 2011
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC11-00002
1015 Highway 1 West
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: June 8, 2011
Applicant: Dan Hiserote
156 Gaul Drive
Sargent Bluff IA 51054
712-203-0492
Property Owner: Aftershock Ventures, LLC
156 Gaul Drive
Sargent Bluff IA 51054
712-203-0492
Requested Action: Special Exception toallow adrive-through facility in
the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone.
Purpose: To allow establishment of adrive-through restaurant.
Location: 1015 Highway 1 West
Lot 3 of Walmart
Size: approximately 1 acre
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped Commercial (CC-2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Commercial (CC-2 & CI-1)
South: Stormwater detention for the shopping center
(CC-2) and Undeveloped Commercial (CI-1)
and the Iowa City Airport (P-1)
East: Undeveloped Commercial (CI-2)
and the Iowa City Airport (P-1)
West: Undeveloped Commercial (CC-2 & CI-1))
Applicable code sections: 14-4B-3A (General Criteria), 14-4C-2K (Drive-through
criteria)
File Date: April 25, 2011
2
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Dan Hiserote, proposes to establish a fast food restaurant with adrive-through facility
on Lot 3 of the Walmart shopping center. The original Iowa City Walmart store still stands at this
location; a new, expanded Walmart recently opened within the same shopping center. The old
Walmart building will be demolished and Lots 2 & 3 will be redeveloped with new commercial uses.
Properties directly adjacent to the shopping center along Highway 1, are zoned for commercial uses
(CC-2 and CI-1) and public (P-1)-the Iowa City Airport (P-1) is located to the south. To the northwest
(on the opposite side of Highway 1) land is developed with residential uses (RS-5 and RM-20).
The subject lot is actually surrounded on all sides by shopping center (CC-2) property and vehicle
access is provided along a private drive that serves the entire shopping center. A portion of the
shopping center's stormwater detention facility borders the site to the south, providing more than 50
feet of separation between the subject property and the adjacent CI-1 zone.
The site plan shows a proposed 3,258-square-foot restaurant building. An adjacent 2,025-square-
foot building will house a separate commercial use (not yet determined). The property provides 63
parking spaces for the two uses. The minimum parking requirement for a restaurant of this size is 18
spaces.
As stated above, access to Lot 3 is provided from a private drive that circulates around the entire
shopping center-there is no direct access to the subject property from the public street. Two curb
cuts will provide entrance to and exit from Lot 3 along from the circulating drive. The site plan also
shows cross access at the southeast corner of the site to a 74-space parking area that serves
Walmart. The abutting lot (Lot 2), located to the northwest, will eventually be developed with another
commercial use.
Drive-through uses are permitted by special exception only. Drive-through facilities associated with
restaurants are allowed only in the CC-2, Commercial Highway (CH-1) Central Business Services (CB-
2) zones. The proposed drive through facility is located to the rear of the restaurant, along the
stormwater drainage area. The drive-through lane provides 3 stacking spaces at the window with
another 3 spaces at the order board. Additional cars would stack along the driving aisle.
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 14-4G2K pertaining to Drive-Through Facilities, in addition to the
general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 1448-3A.
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 (14-4G2K)
1. The number ofdrive-through lanes, stacking spaces and paved area necessary for the drive-
through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or
unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area where it is
located. To promote compatibility with surrounding development, safe pedestrian access,
and efficient and safe vehicular circulation on the site, the Board of Adjustment may require
certain conditions, including, but not limited to, restricting the location of the drive-through to
rear or side access, requiring directional signage, limiting the number of lanes and/or
amount of paving, and limiting or prohibiting the use of loudspeaker systems.
Staff believes the application satisfies these criteria based on the following findings:
• The proposed site plan shows space for up to seven cars to access the drive-through at
one time before stacking into the easternmost parking aisle.
• The drive-through is located at the rear of the site, behind the building, and drive-
through vehicle circulation is separated from other traffic entering or exiting Lot 3 as
well as other shopping center traffic.
• Because the property is served by a private drive, the proposed drive-through is unlikely
to have an impact on public rights-of-way.
• Drive-through circulation is directed behind the building, toward other land zoned for
commercial development, such that it is not readily visible from any residential zones.
• The site plan shows that the pavement along the drive-through will be marked with
directional arrows, and signs are posted at the entrance and exit to the drive-through. A
"Do Not Enter" message is marked on the pavement where the drive-through meets the
cross access with the Walmart parking area to the east.
• The proposed site plan shows that pedestrian connections from the shopping center
and across Lot 3 are located away from the drive-through. Pavement marking will be
required in this area as part of site plan approval.
2. The transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use in addition to the
existing uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level or service,
effects on traffic circulation, access requirements, and pedestrian safety. An adequate
number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure that traffic safety is not
compromised.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the facts provided under #1
(above) and the following findings:
• The property is accessed via a private drive from State Highway 1.
• Because the drive-through is located to the rear of Lot 3, there is ample space for
vehicles to stack before reaching the shopping center drive.
• The drive-through circulation is not in conflict with pedestrian access to the restaurant-
the site plan shows access from the sidewalk to the outdoor seating area at the front of
the restaurant. The pedestrian crossing in this location is required to have pavement
markings.
4
3. The drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and public
rights-of-way and screened from view to the S2 standard. If the drive-through is located
adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be screened from view of
these properties to at least the S3 standard. The Board of Adjustment may increase or
~,~, ~~o thp~P standards according to he snPrific circumstances affecting the site.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The drive-through lane meets the required set back standards on the north, west, and
east ends of the property and the required S2 perimeter screening is provided in these
areas. (The screening will match landscaping throughout the shopping center.)
• On the south side, which runs the length of the drive-through lane, there is no setback
provided. However, this side of the lot abuts a required stormwater drainage area that
serves the shopping center. This area provides more than 50 feet of separation
between the drive-through and the adjacent commercial (CI-1) property to the south.
Once the old Walmart store is demolished, the first 20 feet of this area will be planted
with trees as required as part of the Walmart site plan.
Staff believes that the 60-foot stormwater drainage area along with existing trees and additional
landscaping required as part of the approved plan for the redevelopment of the Walmart
shopping center, will provide adequate screening and separation between the proposed drive-
through and the adjacent CI-1 property to the south. This should also adequately screen the
drive-through from Highway 1. Staff believes that it is reasonable to reduce the required south
setback for the drive-through from 10 feet to 0.
4. Lighting for the drive-through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards set
forth in Article 145G and must be designed to prevent light trespass and glare onto
neighboring residential properties.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The property lighting will be reviewed by the Building Department as part of the
permitting process. All lighting standards must be met in order for an occupancy permit
to be issued.
• The drive-through area location and traffic circulation for the drive-through are directed
behind the building and away from view of the nearby residential zones.
General Standards (1446-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare.
In addition to the findings provided under specific criteria above with regard to vehicle access,
drive-through location, and directional signage, staff believes the application satisfies this
criterion based on the following findings:
• Highway 1 and the private drive entrance to the shopping center are designed to
accommodate the levels of traffic generated by CC-2 uses.
• The drive-through lane is located more than 600 feet from the entrance to the shopping
center and is set to the rear of Lot 3, such that drive-through traffic will not back up
onto public roads.
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.
In addition to the findings provided under the specific standards and general standard 1,
staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The proposed drive-through facility is located at the rear of the building and is bordered
by 50 feet of stormwater detention facility and another commercial (CI-1) property.
• Views of the drive-though are limited, due to its location and screening provided along
the stormwater facility in addition to perimeter screening around the site.
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.
For the reasons provided above, staff believes the application satisfies this criterion.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
Staff believes the application satisfies this c. iterion based on the following findings:
• All necessary utilities are available at this site.
• The private drive for the shopping center is designed to support the levels of traffic that
will be generated by the commercial shopping center, including the use proposed.
• The Building Official, in consultation with the City Engineer, will review the plan for the
proposed restaurant as part of the larger shopping center development.
• All drainage for the shopping center is directed to the stormwater facility along the east
and south sides of the shopping center.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as
to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
As stated above, staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following
finding:
• Traffic from the drive-through will not stack onto public streets or neighboring
properties. Since the drive-through is located to the rear of the rear of the site, with
traffic circulating behind the commercial building, there is ample space for vehicles to
stack before reaching the circular drive for the shopping center.
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 submitted for final site plan review and building permit. The Building
Official will review the plan to determine that all applicable zoning requirements not
specifically addressed here, including all requirements for lighting and signage, are satisfied.
All applicable zoning requirements must be met in order for a building permit to be issued.
6
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
• The Southwest District Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Highway-oriented
commercial development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of 'EXC11-00002, a special exception to allow adrive-through facility in
the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone, at 1015 Highway 1 West, including a reduction in the
setback from 10 feet to 0 feet and S2 screening requirements along the south property line, subject
to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including signage and pavement
markings indicating the one-way circulation of the drive and marking of the pedestrian
areas;
• Installation of landscaping along the adjacent stormwater facility as specified in the
Walmart site plan;
• Approval by the Building Official of the lighting plan and any signage for the site.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Aerial view of the proposed location.
3. Proposed site plan
4. Site plan for the Westport,/Walmart
5. Application materials
~I ~,
Approved by: ~%~~?~"
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
CSC= ;~~9 ~~op
m~u •~~~ wnw ~5 ~••~sasmc ~~g~QB ~ ~ ~ ~z ~~~~~~~ ~z[[°HH~€6~ e q O
~j•~•Z'aa8u[(X •yM ~`s~;$3 U <~ ~ ^ n ^ u
~~~~~1J~ ~~~o o ~ <~ ~~#~~~~~ 0 444444 ~ ~ ~ (n
~~;k~ s~ ~~~~~~ 'z l l l l l l~~~
I
~ II
w 1
~~~~ . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~i
I
~ s 9 e~ ~g e ~ p ~ I Ix
3-~y S g
vs ~ e~ eY q Y~qy' e e a 9 ee@C~Re ~ „ ~ ~ , . ~ ~ ryS~~ i ~
q`G R ~ ~ ~ aeq ~ ~ I ~1'.
4 ~~~~~s~~ ~~~ ~ e~~ ~~~p~~~~~ e~yygg ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
px ~~8~~tp$ ~ ~5 aa 5g ~~ i ~
+ + + + + ~ I ,_ 1 '
it
_ Ix
it
O ~r I _-yx
4 ~ I i'F.
q
,< ,
it I
,, II ~,
~-
'" { '^ ~
a I\~ }I' ~ I \.
q ~ I 9
r, 11 1,
• ~ ,I I x
'i °
'y I
r '~;
~ .o-az I _ yr'
I
.0-.el .o-.1Z ~ .o-•o~ I - '~
b' ~, I`I `~
11 Q I I `
~~ 1 I
'~I I K
Z ~ i`~
li I
~, '' , "-_
~ ~ ~~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ; i
Q bs I
+ Z ,; ;~
+ I (, ;
~.
r' ~ -~ ~ i ~'~I
II I I
~ a ~ ~,~ . ~
Il
i 9 ~'~ I i
~ ~ I I
. ,
b ~~ ~ m ~
II
I~
....... ~ ~~ I
1 ;,
'I I
q ~ I '' I I I
I
I ` I .I'
I --f
O I II
ry I I
I li
.o-. I I I %
I I
n.•9 nl.•9 - 4 ~ q t~~ I ~
~ m C I I
I I
I I x ~
I II
_._. I I K
8 1 I~
-'• 4 O ~ I I
I I
~} I I I%
I ~ li
+ + + - - I
li `, `x
~~ ~I I ~``
+~` Ix
~ i I ~' I
C ~y
C_]
_ '~ i-~
O
CN
ya e qe : p3 a B§yy g.~°~6i ~•9;S'.'~ aa~ a.~=< ^ 3y ~ y ~~.
0a ~`~"gt~ ~ ~~.t ~"l~~Et~i ~`s~ ~~ 4~e ~~A~~ a~gg°1~ tp ~~~~~~""~~ ~ ~a~-'
~~~ ~ eap 9s ~~~ ~aaY~a ¢r~ a! €~< r ~~~ aYA~~ <~~~ ^~ ~ r ~~s ~~~< S
"~~ i~ A ~ °~pgn~ tee ~ ~#~ ~ tl~~~i~ ~ ~~ ~@~~3~xi ~ ~~:
n dgg ~ `~ ~ 9 tt~@ p €S a ~- e~~a~~ 9ppe ' ~ 4~ as y~~ ~~~ g~ ~~ eE
~ § $~~ ~ ~` ~t ~ i~ ~ ! !x ~ i 5 ~ ~~~~~~ ,'jai p at ~~~t M=a~@~ ..
!IYlS ~'eggg~~~R ~~ 9E ~~a~~~m ~~~ ~t~eq~. ~~'s~. 6ye"Rpi®~•~ ®~bw~'~°6~[ ~~~~ "p~q~}~;Q 'L+
C ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~'~ 9~e~ ~SB &q Rp°p. . ta~s ~~$~it~i'-'.~ 9~a~~ g~~-.i~2~~a A
W ~~^S A aaiC 3 ~~ ~€.~ ~~ ie: ~~~4d~ ~M?:~A B c i:~ 9<a~¢ ~'f?e: !~S^i 'a~~e 5 a
a_ ~ - - -
;~ -
9 - 4 - a A 3 ~ _ ~ 3 a a a a y a r y a +: r y p
~~ ~
~
~~
' ~
~~
~
~~
~
~
~a
~
~
~ ~
~
~~
~
~ 1
~a
~
l~
~
@
d ~
~~
~~ ~
~
~ ~~
~ ~
~~
~ v n s r a z tt tt ~ ^ n n tt n tt F tt tt e ^- e s n n p tt n n a
& 3 3 1 i A ~ a 8 a ~ ~ E € R g ft 9 q i Pc t t t t t ~ ~ H d d t a a g
---.i-1--------,- T ------- - ~ --~ ~„~-~~ .;
r j --- ~- i
_ i ~ ~
~a
~ ~ ~ W~~
~ ~ ~ ~ '~
~ i ~.
,,
O I ! i t 3
w ~ i ! ~; I l
w ~ I i
J 1
g I ~ ~,' /^ ae
--- ~ a
~ I
o~ p p~~ T /
i„ / 6 ~ i
t< ~~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ '~.
Z `~ ~
~~
_ 5 1 ~ ~ v~
v 0\\~ \
fit-- ~ ~ ~ \~ \.
\'
~~~ ` S n
' n ~ x\
~ Jc (~ ry ~ ~ ~ -;
~ ti
.' ~ W'
x ., ~ @ ~ <
~ coo ~ \ \Q
~ ~ v
t7 ~~\
A~~ tip ~<~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~~ ~\ .~ ^ ;~:~
~ \~ ` ,~F
Z ` \\ ~\V,\ ,t~~~.
i1 L \~\ ~` ry~ ^ j~
llllllf ~ ~. \\ \ ) l 7
~~~~
^. m ~ \ a `
r~
~ \ \\ ~\`
\ ~:~ r
6
BpBp pq ygy i
o ~ ~~
Z ~4'
F ~j .~ r
~~' \\`~ /~`7~
.\ \\\ ~
~ . ~.
3
~~~ ~'.s
~~.
~'
/ ~ \ '~" `~
~ ~ ~ ~~~
-~ ~ ~
``J', ~
)~ ~~
~
y(
~
^
^
1S
~~ (
!~ 6
~~
~
'
~~ ~
~
O~
g~
~ i
~
~ ~
~~.~
-.
~~~ ~;
~_\ ~ W ~
~,
~%
"W, ~ A
~ ~ '~ , ~~
. ~C~\. ~ ~
~ ~ L „ i
l 1 /i;.,;~~ ~ L
~ ~ '~. ~
~\ % ZJ
~~
~~~~ ~`~J ~ i g~~ r
~ ° ~^
!~`~ a 7
~ :K ~ ~a$ 1
r
\ ~.~ ~ ~~
r-. ~ .~.
~r r~', ry~ ~57~
i
~6
~Q
~~ 3
~/ ~, ° ~
~ ~~ /,
ff ~ ~ /'/
S
~ ,~ ~, ~ ~i
°'~ ~~~~aa~~,a
^
// ~Nb ~$
~~~aa ~'~
^ . m o0 ~ ~~~~~~~
o "~
rc~ oZQ P3 2
~~ Z o ~ ~ 5~~~~~
~3~§e~ds
~ z
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION -
"~
i
DATE: ~ , l 5 ~ ~ ~ PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1' ~ l ra ~ ~ dO b ~-
1 iJ ~La r' 3 ~ ~- te.~~-i -~~a,-~~
PROPERTY ADDRESS: D ~ i
PROPERTY ZONE: C~ ~ _
Vic, ~ ~ -~~~~-
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 1 ~ ~/~
APPLICANT: Name: U~ --~ f J l S ~C -' Q ~~
Address: S~ w 1 ~ ~ S ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~-
~~~ c-- a-u 3 ._ o ~f~ ~ ~
Phone:
CONTACT PERSON: Name: --~-~
(if other than applicant) -+c°,
Address: -~ ~
~; ~.'
Phone: ""~''`
:~P
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: jg~=T£4ZSi~~GI< i~fiJl~~~~CZ%~ ~~c~
(if other than applicant) ~ S"wI~ s 5~~~,-~
Address: l s'G /i~a-ate ti ~'., ~l ~1~' i -~
Phone: -7 l Z- Z U 3- P ~` ~ ~~
N
O
~ ~
r~rr
N
E11
~.
cs
--~
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 email sarah-walz@jowa~ity.org.
Purpose for special exception: ~ ~ ~ "'~ ' ~'`~'' ~`
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
April 15, 2011
Iowa City DQ
Lot 3, Wal-mart Out Lot
Iowa City, Iowa
Dear Board of Adjustment,
Lot 3 in the Wal-mart parking lot is a great location and fit for this concept. It will be a
very family friendly place, well landscaped with patio seating.
Our customer traffic should not cause any congestion on Public Streets. The Wal-mart
entrance drive should easily handle traffic entering and exiting our parking lot.
Ingress/egress has been located to minimize potential congestion and provide pedestrian
safety. The parking lot has ample parking to help reduce congestion and improve
visibility.
Drive-thru queuing will allow seven car stacking before impacting the DQ circulating
traffic and 18 cars stacking while still allowing traffic to circulate around the DQ site.
This is more than enough stacking room for even the busiest summer nights.
Garbage cans will also be conveniently placed around the building.
Our operations should cause minimal impact to our adjacent neighbors. All the adjacent
neighbors are also of the same retail type.
Thanks for your consideration!
Sincerely,
/ ~/ J
Dan Hiserote
N
Q
(:.3
~~
'.'
"
--al
~7 -~
--t C"7
N
~
p~+'°~'
1
f7'!
`'~ ~ r~•
_
~~
~-~ _
~
:y~_
v
-6-
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing,
construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls,
improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum
yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C~, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk,
unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to
establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and
for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order
without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application.
(Section 14-8C-1 E, City Code).
Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved
by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any
taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of
record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision
is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section
14-8C-1 F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Date: ~ _ ~ ~ 20
Sign ture(s) of Applicant(s)
Date:
20 -
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdad min~application-boase.doc
_ rv
_o
O
-~ ~
T.~....; '-
zm
=~i
~~
---1 t'7 ~
~~ R'qy
~
~ i
~~ ~ ~
~ Cl
l
-.rt
o
~~
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Nick Benson
Item: EXC11-00003 Date: June 8, 2011
1015 Second Avenue
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Joseph Dobrian
1015 Second Ave.
Iowa City, IA
319-351-2672
Contact: Andy Martin
1824 G. St.
Iowa City, IA
319-248-0561
Requested Action: Reduction in front setback requirement for
uncovered decks and patios in residential zones.
Purpose: To reduce the front setback requirement for an
uncovered patio or deck in the RS-5 zone from 10
feet to 4 feet.
Location: 1015 Second Avenue
Size: 4,000 sq. feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Single-family residential (RS-5)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential (RS-5)
South: Residential (RS-5)
East: Residential (RS-5)
West: Residential (RS-5)
Applicable code sections: 14-4B-3A, (General Criteria), Section 14-4C-36-4b,
(Specific Criteria for setback reduction)
File Date: May 12, 2011
BACKGROUND:
This subject property is located along Second Avenue in the RS-5 zone. At 4,000 square feet, the
subject property is 2,000 square feet smaller than the minimum lot size under current code
requirements. A small front stoop is currently used to enter the front of the principal building (the
house).
At 75 feet, the Second Avenue right-of-way is
wide for a residential street -the standard
residential street right-of-way width is 60 feet. A
sidewalk runs along Second Avenue in front of the
house and ends at the southern edge of the
subject property. The front property line is located
8 feet inside the sidewalk, and the house is set 12
feet behind the property line. This is in
compliance with the required principal building
setback, which is determined through setback
averaging.
The property located directly south of the subject
property has significant landscaping, including
planting boxes, flowers and an evergreen tree that
extend into the right-of-way. Second Avenue is a
short street and results in a dead end roughly 2'/2
blocks south of the subject property at the railroad tracks.
C
The applicant wishes to construct an 8 foot x 26 foot uncovered deck to replace the existing front
stoop. The deck will span the width of the house and have two access points with stairs on the
east and south sides of the structure. While stoops are allowed to extend up to 8 feet into the
front building setback, uncovered decks are subject to a minimum 10-foot setback in all residential
zones. Because the proposed structure provides space beyond what is necessary for access, it is
considered a deck and is therefore subject to the 10-foot setback requirement.
The proposed deck would extend 6 feet into the required 10 foot front deck setback. In order to
build the proposed deck, the applicant is seeking a reduction in the required front setback from 10
feet to 4 feet.
ANALYSIS:
safety and general
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health,
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 14-4C-3B-4b pertaining to setback requirements for
decks and patios in residential zones in addition to the general approval criteria for special
exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A.
The applicants comments regStaff~ommentshrelated to the spec fic and general approlval c~iteria
the attached application form
are set forth below.
Specific Standards (14-4C-3B-4b).
1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question;
CJ
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
The Second Avenue right-of-way is 75 feet wide, which is unusually wide for a
residential street of its length and traffic volume. The current standard residential
street width is 60 feet. The distance between the front of the house and the sidewalk
is a little over 20 feet. Even with the deck constructed, there will still be 12 feet
between the edge of the deck and the sidewalk.
At 4,000 square feet, this property is significantly smaller than what is traditionally
found in RS-5 zones, and in fact would not meet the minimum lot size requirements
for RS-5 today.
2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements;
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The property is small in comparison with most other properties in the RS-5 zone, and
smaller than what would be allowed under the current zoning ordinance. This limits
space for outdoor seating.
3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations.
The minimum setback requirements are intended to:
a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting.
b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings.
Staff believes the application satisfies these criteria based on the following findings:
• The purpose of the proposed setback reduction is for construction of an
uncovered deck only and will not bring the principal building (the house itself) any
closer to the street.
• The proposed uncovered deck will have side setbacks that exceed the 5 feet
required by the zoning code.
• As previously mentioned, the Second Avenue right of way is unusually wide for a
residential street. This provides additional space between buildings that are on
the opposite side of the street, as well as space between the proposed deck and
the street.
• Once completed, there will still be 12 feet between the front edge of the proposed
deck and the sidewalk.
c. Reflect the general building scale artd placement of structures in the City's
neighborhoods;
d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between
residences; and
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the
vicinity.
Staff believes the application does not satisfy these criteria. The proposed 8 foot x 26
foot deck covers roughly 35 percent of the front yard - a significant percentage. The
scale and design is more consistent with the character of a back deck rather than a front
porch or stoop, and does not fit with the architecture of the house and surrounding
4
properties. Staff believes the application will satisfy these criteria if the following
conditions are met:
Deck width is diminished from 26 feet to 10 -16 feet, depending on the deck's
new design and structural considerations.
If the deck is to be constructed more than 1 foot off the grormd, screening along
the base of the structure should be provided to improve visual appeal.
If the applicant chooses to build handrails, the handrails and balusters must be
painted the same color as the house siding or a color approved by city planning
staff. Alternative materials, such as fiberglass, may be used if the applicant
wishes to not use painted wood, as long as the material is in an appropriate color.
Balusters need to tie into the top and bottom rails, as shown in the deck design
insert provided by the applicant.
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to
the extent practical.
Staff believes the application does not satisfy this criterion due to the scale of the
proposed front deck and the incompatible design in relation to the architecture of the
house and surrounding properties. Staff believes the application will satisfy this criterion
if it complies with the conditions listed in specific criteria "c-e."
5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property
line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right of way or permanent
open space.
Staff believes fhe application satisfies this criterion based on fhe following findings:
The proposed deck will be set back more than the required 5 feet from the side and
rear property lines.
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 findings above with
regard to the width of the right of way and compliance with the side setback requirements
as well as the following:
• The edge of the proposed deck will still be roughly 12 feet from the sidewalk. The
deck is uncovered and will not obstruct view of vehicles driving along the alley to the
north of the property.
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 satisfies this criterion based on the following findings, subject
to the conditions under specific criteria "c-e':•
5
The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of creating an uncovered deck
only; the house itself will not expand further toward neighboring properties or the
street.
Other principal buildings along this frontage are set back a similar distance from the
right-of-way line.
The proposed deck will satisfy the 5-foot side setback requirement.
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 satisfies these criteria based on the following findings:
The 75-foot Second Avenue right-of-way is unusually wide for a street of this length
and traffic load.
The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of creating an uncovered deck
only; the house itself will not expand further toward neighboring properties or the
street.
Other principal buildings along this frontage are set back a similar distance from the
right-of-way line.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
• This neighborhood is fully developed with all necessary access roads, drainage and
other necessary facilities, and alleys.
• The sidewalk in the Second Avenue right-of-way ends at the southern edge of the
subject property and does not extend to the final two houses of the block.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traft"ic congestion on public streets.
Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The proposed deck will be located roughly 12 feet back from the sidewalk and will
not obscure visibility for vehicles accessing the alley to the north.
• The subject property is asingle-family residence and does not generate significant
traffic.
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 setback reduction conforms to the applicable regulations for single-
family residences in the RS-5 zone.
• The plan for the deck must be submitted for a building permit before construction
may commence.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion, provided that the deck is
designed to be compatible with the neighborhood as discussed in specific criteria "c-e',
based on the following findings:
• The Comprehensive Plan encourages re-investment in older neighborhoods like the
neighborhood in which the subject property is located.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of an application submitted by
Joseph Dobrian to reduce the front setback from 10 feet to 4 feet to allow for
construction of an uncovered deck at property located in the Low-Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) zone at 1015 Second Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
The proposed deck width shall be no larger than 16 feet.
The deck design must complement the architectural style of the house complying with
the following requirements:
o If the deck is to be constructed more than 1 foot off the ground, screening
along the base of the structure should be provided.
o If handrails are included, the handrails and balusters must be the same color
as the house or a color approved by City planning staff. Balusters must tie
into the top and bottom rails, as shown in the deck design insert provided by
the applicant.
Final deck design is subject to staff approval.
The setback reduction is for the purpose of an uncovered deck only and the deck may
not be covered or enclosed at any time in the future without an additional special
exception.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Aerial views of the proposed location.
2. Location map
3. Site plan
4. Deck design
5. Application materials
Approved by: ~i' v '~ `'
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community
~~.
7 ~~
Side view of the front yard of the house at 1015 Second Avenue. The
proposed deck when completed will still be 12 feet from the sidewalk.
Photo of the house at 1015 Second Avenue. The front property line is
located 8 feet within the sidewalk.
i
Neighboring property directly south of 1015 Second Avenue.
G O
Aerial view of the property at 1015 Second Avenue.
M
O
O
O
O
rl
U
W
0
w ~nb
Q
w
z
Q
U
(n
~ _
1S~1~
a'
-v
N
,--~
O
.--i
r0
r
J
W
!Q NO~~S
Design #:37651 ~ ' ' ~ - 5/5/2011
.- ,
* * * Take this sheet to the Building Materials desk to purchase your materials.
You selected a 1 level deck wlth:
Pressure Treated Framing Material
4 x 4 Framing Posts
514" x 6" Pressure Treated Deck Boards
Poured Footings 12" Tube 3'-6"deep
Premium Gold Square Drive Screws
Galvanized Framing Fasteners
Handrail selections:
36" Horizontal Handrail Railing
2"x2"x36" Pressure Treated Sq. End Spindles
4"x4"x48" Pressure Treated Chamfered Railing Posts
2"x4" Pressure Treated Hand Rail
Below is a section of the railing style and
options you have selected for your deck.
Spindle placement is approx. 4"apart depending on style
f~ ~'
~~ ti
a-ap~
X16
-mr~
RRCtl
i~
Illustration intended to show general deck size and shape.
Some options selected may not be shown for picture clarit .
Today's cost for materials estimated in this design with options: 1,390.05
*The base price includes; 40 PSF deck live load, AC2treated -horizontal 2x6 *(BASE price); $1120.77
deck boards, 4x4 posts, 2x8 joists and beams, galvanized framing fasteners, ***If ppurchased todday you save; X5.29***
AC2 treated 36" Vertical handrail to joist without posts, and premium screws. ***Monthly B1G Card Payment would be; 39.04***
You may buy all the materials or any part at low cash and carry,prices. Because of the wide variable in codes, Menartls cannot guarantee that materials listed
will meet your code requirements. Check with our local munici ality for plan compliance and building permit. These plans are suggested designs and material
lists only. Some items may vary from those pic~ured. We do not guarantee the completeness or prices of these structures. Tax, labor and delivery not included.
~~
I I
II
I I
II
I I
II
I I
I I
!I
~~
I I
II
I I
II
I I
II
I I
I~
!I
~~
I I
L=
---®-- ---_-____- _ =====il
(~
I I
I~I~rtin ~ ~n~tru~ti~n ~
~ ~
n
~
1$~~ ~ fit. II
~~~-I~~~~ ~ O
~ ~bri ~r~ F~ ~~i~~ r~~~ I I
~ I
'I ~D1 ~ ~n~ ~~
I I
~I
I I
~
I
~ ~
I
~
~~ -
~o~ :~
~~
-~--
~
-
=
'
~ ~
~
1_~ ~ F°
~;ia a .~..~
II
I I
~~
E ~i~ting H ~ ~~
~$'
~r
P
€~
i
F
~,.. . a. ,. .,., ... ... .. ... ..
~~'11
r~~~ ~~d [~ ~~I€ I~~t~~p i
~r~d ~t~ir~
~' ~ ~ G'
II
~'~
II
I I
I~
I I
I~
I I
II
I I
II
I I
II
I I
~~
~+ II
~~
I I
!v
I `'. $ '
~ i
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: ~ Z U PROPERTY PARCEL NO. _ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ Zo l /
PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~ vtio~
PROPERTY ZONE:' S_
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: _~~(~_
APPLICANT: Name: `~~5~"-ak ~v~ 2; a:~
Address: _ t* v t ~ 2. ~ ../~ ~
Phone: 3'~ ~ ~~-~o ~~ 2-
CONTACT PERSON: Name: A.+~;,~, ~ n:ti-i - r.~
(if other than applicant)
Address: ~$~~ G- . S~
Phone:
~ 4S~ -~~~ ~!
t-:
=~.;
~~~~
~_ ~ -•;
~~
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: ~-; --;
(if other than applicant) ~~~~~`
Address:
Phone:
LM
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~Sar`ah Walz at 356t-5239 ore-mail sa1rah-walz@jowa~ity.(o~rg. j
\~s Cl~-U G~-~ J1 1~. ~Yl~^ "~{r~ ~{~C,i~ S ~G c~C`wC~cj cYli^v Cti CA ~~C
Purpose for special exception: ~~.:o I rLh~ S~vn,~ ~, ~~ ~~ c. clu,~
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
I am applying for the necessary permits to build a deck on the front of my house a15 Second Avenue, Iowa City, for
the following reasons:
1. The existing front stoop is in disrepair, unsightly, and useless for any purpose other than providing a steppingstone to
the threshold.
2. The deck would effectively provide an extra room, for eight months of the year. I would probably use it primarily for
reading and relaxation.
3. A simple and basic deck would improve the overall look of the house, and would cover eastern-exposed ground where
grass and flowers don't grow well.
4. A deck would improve access to the front entrance from the garage and driveway.
Joseph Dobrian
Additionally, the street here has an unusually wide right of way- 75 ft,-and the lot size is smaller than would currently be
legal.
List of names and addresses of record owners of all property located within 300 feet of the exterior limits of 1015 2"d Ave:
Name Address
William Persons 1011 2" Ave
Inga Jaeger 1019 2" Ave
Richard Farnsworth 1020 2" Ave
Stephen McNutt 1023 2" Ave
Linda Foster 1103 2" Ave
Brian Morelli 1112 2" Ave
Ruxton Smith 1113 2" Ave
Derek Mull 1020 3` Ave
John Wagor 1026 3` Ave ~:- `
Sharon Lake 2103 H st ~ ~'~
~.
Michael Olney 2104 H st t ~ -~ _._,
Jerry Hammer 2107 H st -"€r.
~::
Emmilee Kohl 2109 H st ~' '' _~
,~ ~;
International Church of Four Square Gospel 2120 H st =' "~` :`:
Brian Dykstra 2206 H st
Steven Grismore 2207 H st
Bennet Postlethwaite 2211 H st
Thomas Mitchell 2213 H st
Michael Osmundson 2214 H st
Jacob Deryke 2101 Muscatine Ave
Trinity Episcopal Church 2105 Muscatine Ave
Mary Anders 2108 Muscatine Ave
Amy Beenblossom 2117 Muscatine Ave
Thomas Kriz 2127 Muscatine Ave
Thomas Townsend 2128 Muscatine Ave
Larry Frantz 2130 Muscatine Ave
Ronald Cheney 2203 Muscatine Ave
Donald Lacina 2211 Muscatine Ave
Walgreen Co 2214 Muscatine Ave
James McFall 2221 Muscatine Ave
~~
~~
r~
-6-
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing,
construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls,
improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum
yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code).
r r Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk,
unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to
establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and
for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order
without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application.
(Section 14-8C-1 E, City Code).
Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved
by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any
taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of
record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision
is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section
14-8C-1 F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the cou ithin thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City C(er~C.
Date: 20 ~/~(
,~
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Date: , 20 _
ppdadm in~application-boase.doc
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
rv
~~ ::k: ~ ".~i
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 13, 2011 - 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PRELIMINARY
Barbara Eckstein, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings, Caroline
Sheerin, Adam Plagge
None
Robert Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Chris O'Brien
Jeff Clark, Marilyn Holland
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 MARCH 9. 2011 MEETING MINUTES:
Eckstein provided staff with a written summary of her corrections to the minutes. Miklo read the
changes for the record.
Jennings moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Plagge 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
mixed-use building to be located in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 328 East
Washington Street.
Board of Adjustment
April 13, 2011
Page 2 of 8
Miklo explained the proposed special exception has two aspects. The first aspect would allow
13 parking spaces in the rear two-thirds of the subject lot within the interior of the building. A
special exception is required to give the City the ability to review the design of the parking, its
location, and to make sure it is compatible with the character of downtown. The second aspect
would allow 19 of the required parking spaces to be located in the Chauncey Swann parking
facility, one block east of the subject property. Miklo said that at the last meeting staff had
recommended approval subject to design review. At the time of the last meeting there had not
been a close scrutiny of the building's design, which had been a concern for the Board. Miklo
said that the Board had expressed a desire to have a better idea about the building design prior
to approving the special exception, since the special exception would allow for a much larger
structure. Miklo noted that the Director of Transportation has determined that there is sufficient
capacity in the Chauncey Swann ramp to accommodate the parking requests made by the
applicant. Miklo said that staff recommends approval of the requested 19 spaces subject to
some conditions on how the spaces wil- be managed.
Miklo said that since the last Board meeting the staff Design Review Committee has met with
the applicant and the designer for the project. The plan has undergone some revisions as a
result of staff and Board input. The committee had some concerns with the commercial aspect
of the building and wanted it to be more conducive to commercial uses. It also had some
concerns with the entrance for the residential aspect of the building and its accessibility to
residents. Miklo said that the revised drawings show considerable change in terms of the
storefront design. The new design is much more conducive to a functioning commercial rise.
The entrances are more pronounced, there is an increased use of glass, and a canopy has
been added. Overall, the Design Review Committee was satisfied with the revised deign,
though there was still some question about the material to be used on the ground floor. The
concern is that the finish should be a stone or masonry veneer that is appropriate for downtown.
Miklo said the residential entrance has been brought closer to the front, and is now set back
only five feet from the rest of the building. The entrance is now distinct from the commercial
aspect, but still easily accessible, safe, and visible to the public.
As a result of the Board's concern, the design has been changed to include more balconies on
the right and left side of the building's front. This allowed for the removal of balconies on the
west side of the building that had been present in the previous plan. The Design Review
Committee is generally satisfied with the changes made to the balcony design.
Miklo said that the east side of the building has balconies in the northwest corner (above the
back side of Gabes) and the north side of the building has balconies facing the alley. The
pedestrian entrance to the apartments has been moved so that it minimizes the activity next to
Ecumenical Towers.
Miklo said that the Board had expressed concern about the alley entrance to the apartment
building itself at the last meeting. Staff has verified that there is adequate sight distance of the
alley for someone exiting the building.
Miklo shared an illustration which showed that the subject property would be taller than the
Davis Building, but considerably shorter than Ecumenical Towers. He also shared an illustration
demonstrating the range in heights for buildings on the block. Staff feels the proposed building
will be of a suitable scale for the block.
Miklo acknowledged the Board's concerns that the Comprehensive Plan and the code do not
Board of Adjustment
April 13, 2011
Page 3 of 8
give precise directions when it comes to downtown parking. Chris O'Brien, Director of
Transportation Services, made himself available for questions. Staff recommended that the
Board vote on the application before them based on the direction currently available. Miklo said
that the Board could then make a recommendation to the City Council and the Planning and
Zoning Commission that they study the question and give clearer direction in the future. The
City Council will be looking at the downtown area shortly, Miklo said, so this would be an
appropriate time to raise any concerns the Board might have about that area.
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to:
1. An agreement between the City and the applicant regarding management of the leased
parking spaces;
2. The building, site plan and elevation drawings being subject to approval by the design
review committee;
3. The building being restricted to three-bedroom units as shown in the site plan.
Miklo offered to answer any questions the Board might have.
Jennings asked if he was correct in understanding that there had been a change to the parking
area since the previous meeting on the subject. Miklo said that was correct. Miklo explained that
the larger drawing provided to the Board was intended to show the design within the footprint of
the building and the smaller drawing was intended to show the larger site beyond the building
walls. Miklo and Jennings discussed doorway placement and established that there was a
discrepancy in the two drawings, but that the doorways will be present and will be appropriately
set back.
Eckstein asked if there is any feature of the Tower Place Parking Garage that would direct
pedestrians into the alley. O'Brien explained that there is restricted pedestrian access to the
alley from Ecumenical Towers. Eckstein said she was trying to determine how close that was to
the vehicle entrance for the proposed building. Miklo said that it was about ahalf-block away.
Sheerin opened the public hearing.
Marilyn Holland, President of the Board of Ecumenical Towers said that Ecumenical Towers
really appreciates the design change that removed the balconies from the west side of the
building. She asked if there was green space frorr~ front to back between Ecumenical and the
proposed building.
Jeff Clark, the applicant, said that the green space will basically blend into the front yard of
Ecumenical Towers and then the buildings will touch.
Holland said that she wished to make sure that the grade between the two buildings does not
change because they want to ensure that there is no run-off onto their property. She said their
siding does not react well to water.
Clark said that he would be working with Holland closely on any issues that might come up.
Sheerin invited a motion.
Grenis 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
Board of Adjustment
April 13, 2011
Page 4 of 8
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 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 Street.
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 Committee 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
commercial 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 three bedrooms.
Plagge seconded.
Jennings said that he believed the letter written to the Board by the general manager of the New
Pioneer Food Co-op should be addressed. He said that the letter expressed concern about the
on-going allocation of public parking spaces for private residents. Jennings said that there are
vested concerns about this for the long-term. He said that there does seem to be some mutual
benefit to developers and the City for now, but the letter points out the potential for future
Board of Adjustment
April 13, 2011
Page 5 of 8
conflict in this area. Jennings said that he too is concerned about this approach for the long-
term. He said that he is supportive of promoting downtown, pedestrian living but he is
concerned about supporting private parking needs with public spaces.
Sheerin asked staff what the most appropriate way of notifying City Council of the Board's
concerns about this issue would be. Miklo said that he felt it was important that the concerns
were expressed at meetings such as this and reflected in the minutes. Staff can also relay those
concerns when they meet with City Council. Sheerin said that as long as the discussion alerts
City Council to the problem she did not feel a need to make a separate motion on the issue.
Eckstein agreed, saying that she was glad that Jennings had brought the matter up again but
she did not feel the need to specifically motion on the matter. Miklo said that it is clear that the
majority of the Board shares the concerns. Eckstein said that she can only anticipate that this
will be an issue again.
Jennings said that while he does not believe the matter necessarily requires a special motion,
he would like to articulate the concerns with some specificity for the meeting minutes. Jennings
said that the first time the Board faced a special exception of this nature the Board was not
assigning specific parking spaces but permits. Jennings said that the language of the zoning
code requires the developer to provide actual, physical parking spaces based on a ratio of
bedrooms to parking spaces. Jennings said that the first special exception granted did not
actually do that; instead, what was granted was a "virtual" parking space in which someone
renting a qualifying apartment could possibly show up at the parking ramp and find it full. Miklo
and Greenwood Hektoen clarified that that remains the case for this application; there is no
physical space granted, just a promise of space in the form of a permit. Jennings said that the
concern is that the Board is addressing a requirement for a physical space with a promise of a
space. He said that he believes this should be addressed prior to the granting of another
exception of this type.
Eckstein said that she is appreciative of the changes in the design, particularly as they address
concerns expressed by the Board. Eckstein said that her continuing concern is that adding a
vehicular access point to an alley that houses a pedestrian crossing primarily trafficked by
seniors seems to her not entirely safe. She said that she does not have a better design idea, but
she did wish to register that concern. Miklo clarified that there currently is parking in that area for
the professional building that currently exists there. He said that the nature of the parking will
change from business to residential but that there is already on-site parking there.
Jennings said that alleys are often pedestrian spaces in the downtown area and sometimes
serve as de facto sidewalks. He said that it sounded to him from comments received by
Ecumenical Towers residents that there could be a nuisance factor with the increased traffic.
Grenis said that in a way it could be seen as a good thing that the building will contain minimal
parking spaces with others being housed off-site.
There were no further comments or questions and the public hearing was closed.
Sheerin invited findings of fact.
Grenis said that the proposed structure will not detract from or prevent ground-floor storefront
uses and there will be no parking in the first 50 fewt of the building. The vehicular access is from
a rear-alley and therefore meets the second criteria. The third criteria states that walls visible
from the public street must appear to be part of the facade, and this criterion is met with the new
Board of Adjustment
April 13, 2011
Page 6 of 8
site plan. The renderings of the facade on the site-plan show this to be the case. Grenis said
that the parking area is clearly visible to pedestrians; the entrance to the parking is set-back 10
feet from the alley. The parking area is at grade to provide adequate visibility and the site plan
shows adouble-garage entry to allow better visibility.
Grenis outlined the specific standards for the alternative to minimum parking requirements.
Grenis said that the applicant has submitted a special location plan for off-site parking as is
required by the specific standards. The applicant has submitted an aerial view showing the
location of the subject property in relation to the Chauncey Swann Ramp and verified that the
entrance is approximately 400 feet from the proposed entrance. While the parking is located
more than 300 feet from the entrance, this is allowed because it is within a municipal facility.
The parking is within the same zone as the use it is serving. This application does not propose
sharing parking. The applicant has demonstrated that the Director of Planning, the Director of
Transportation Services and the City Manager have all approved the off-site parking plan. The
use is in the CB-10 zone; the applicant has requested 19 spaces for long-term rental which
have been determined to be available by the required authorities.
Grenis next addressed the approval criteria. The zoning code allows for properties in the CB-10
zone to provide up to 100% of their parking at a municipal ramp. There are adequate sidewalks
and controlled intersections between the proposed parking and the subject property. As the
ramp is already constructed, there will not be a resulting change to the area.
The applicant will submit the required written agreement for the off-site parking covenants at the
time of the building permit application. The agreement will require that the property manager
provides the Director of Transportation Services with the name, license number and address of
the permit holders. The agreement will also require that permit holders have their primary
residence at 328 E. Washington Street. The agreement will allow the Director of Transportation
Services to review the 19 parking permits on an annual basis and move some or all of them to
any other downtown ramp.
Eckstein covered the general standards. She said that given the density of the urban space in
which the structure will be built, the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The ramp is nearby, within 400
feet, and the on-site parking exits from the rear al~ey. Eckstein said that efforts are being made
to minimize the interaction of pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
The 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 value in the
neighborhood. The applicant has demonstrated an ongoing dialogue with Ecumenical Towers to
help meet the needs of neighbors.
The estab-ishment 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 for
the same reasons previously given.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have already been
established since the development is in the center of a developed area. Eckstein noted that
there was a concern about drainage from the subject property effecting Economical Towers and
that a dialogue has been established regarding that issue.
Board of Adjustment
April 13, 2011
Page 7 of 8
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress to minimize
congestion on public streets. Despite previous questions or concerns about the alley, the Board
is now persuaded that the current design is adequate in this regard.
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 in the CB-10 zone.
The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended, though the
Board has noted that the Comprehensive Plan is in need of further clarification in regard to
siting residential parking for residential facilities in downtown municipal ramps.
Jennings, Plagge and Sheerin supported the findings as outlined by Eckstein and Grenis.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eckstein moved to adjourn.
Jennings seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote.
W ~
~ V
fn W
~ ~
V
Q W O
W Q N
~ Q
GZ
~ W
Q ~
ma
M
X X X X X
d'
M X X X X X
N X X X X
~
W ~ Cfl ~ N M
~~ ~-
0 .-
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0
W d N
r N N
r N
r N
~.., x
W
0 r
0
0
0 ~--
0
C
. ~
~ ,`
N ~ ~ a~ ~
a~
c` (j c a ~
U ~ ~
~ ~
L
~
~ O
~
O _
Z m m ~ Q U
O
7
N ~
0
~ Z ~
U p~ ~
X
C
~ ~ ~
C ~
y ~ Q ~ fC
~ Q z o
a¢u,iz
u n w ~ n
XOOz
>-
W
Y
~ r
~~.®~r~
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 2011
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorne
Re: Legal Representation
In managing the workload of the City Attorney's office, I have decided to have Sarah Holecek
take over representation of the Board of Adjustment from Sara Greenwood Hektoen. Sarah
Holecek is quite knowledgeable about the legalities of BOA proceedings as well as development
matters generally. She has previously represented both the BOA and the Planning and Zoning
Commission and has mentored Sara Hektoen in her representation of both. Sarah Holecek's
first meeting will be June 8, 2011.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
cc: Jeff Davidson, Director of PCD
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Sarah Walz, Planner