HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-2011 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 — 5:15 PM
City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the August 10, 2011 Board Minutes
D. Consider the August 17, 2011 Board Minutes
E. Special Exceptions
1. EXC11- 00007: Board deliberation of an application submitted by Streb Construction Co.,
Inc. for a special exception to allow a concrete manufacturing plant in the General
Industrial (1 -1) zone on Independence Road, north of 420th Street and south of Liberty
Drive.
2. EXC11- 00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Bean Shack for a special
exception to establish a drive - through use to be located in the Community Commercial
(CC -2) zone at Gateway Plaza at Highway 1 West and S. Riverside Drive.
F. Other
G. Board of Adjustment Information
H. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: October 12, 2011
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: 14 September 2011
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Sarah
RE: EXCII -00007 a special exception for a proposed cement batch /mix facility to be located on Lot
35 of Scott Industrial area, north of 420`h Street and south of Liberty Drive
At the August 17 meeting, Steve Ballard submitted a video for the board to view. Staff was unable to
get the video to play on the projector, therefore Mr. Ballard has submitted DVDs (enclosed
herewith) to be distributed to the board so that you may view the video prior to the September 14
meeting.
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: EXC11 -00009 Date: September 14, 2011
South Riverside Drive
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Bean Shack
Sam Gilbaugh
Red Oak Drive
Coralville, IA 52241
Property Owner: Robert William Green
& Ellinor William Green Trust
Gateway One LC
25012 1h Avenue, Suite 150
Coralville, IA 52241 -6044
Requested Action: Special exception to allow a drive - through facility in the
Community Commercial (CC -2) zone.
Purpose: To allow establishment of a drive - through coffee &
beverage stand.
Location: Gateway One Plaza at the corner of Highway 1 West
and South Riverside Drive
Size: 5.62 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial (CC -2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Commercial (CC -2)
South: Commercial (CC -2)
East: Iowa City Public Works and Transit (P -1)
West: Commercial (CC -2)
Applicable code sections: 14 -46 -3A (General Criteria), 14 -4C -2K (Drive- through
criteria)
File Date: August 15, 2011
BACKGROUND:
The applicant proposes to establish a drive - through coffee stand within the parking lot of the Gateway
Plaza Shopping Center. The location of the stand is at the northeast end of the property, approximately
180 feet east of the shopping center's main entrance from Highway 1 West and approximately 40 feet
west of a secondary entrance from the frontage road. A coffee stand previously operated at this location
until 2006. That stand was misclassified under the previous zoning code and was never required to get a
special exception. Because the site has been abandoned for more than 12 months any rights to a drive -
through are considered expired.
The Gateway One Plaza is served by a frontage road that runs along the north and east sides of the
site —along Highway One and South Riverside Drive. The frontage road and the landscaping that
surrounds the parking lot are in the public right -of- way —they are not private property. Within the
private property a circular drive runs around the perimeter of the parking area. The parking area for the
shopping center exceeds the minimum parking requirements, however the site is not in compliance with
current parking area standards. This includes an absence of perimeter landscape screening, pedestrian
facilities, terminal islands for the parking rows, and shade trees.
The current proposal shows a 10 x 15 foot stand centered on an existing parking row. That parking row
will be shortened with a terminal island installed approximately 50 feet south of the coffee stand. Cars
accessing the drive - through will queue on either side of the stand, which will have service windows on
both sides. Vehicles accessing the west window will stack into the circular drive for the parking lot.
Vehicles accessing the east window will stack parallel to the parking aisle.
The proposed hours for the kiosk are 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. with anticipated peak demand between 6 a.m.
and 9 a.m. The applicant has indicated that following products will be served: brewed coffee, espresso
drinks, smoothies, tea, and pastries with an anticipated service time will be between 1.5. to 3 minutes
per order. The applicant has indicated that the kiosk will have exterior signage to be lighted from the
back. The applicant has not indicated any striping or signage for the drive - through.
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 -4C -2K pertaining to Drive - Through Facilities, in addition to the general approval criteria for
special exceptions as set forth in Section 14- 4B -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- 4C -2K)
1. The number of drive - 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 shopping center is not adjacent to any residential properties or zones.
• The proposed site plan shows space for up to 3 cars to access the drive - through on the
east side of the coffee stand before stacking into the drive aisle.
• Vehicles accessing the coffee stand's west window will stack along the circulation drive
that serves the lot. The site plan indicates approximately 38 feet between the stand and
the north edge of the drive. Staff believes this will provide adequate space for vehicles
using the circulation drive to pass around any vehicles that are waiting to access the stand.
• The drive - through coffee stand is located toward Highway 1, away from the most active
portion of the parking area and traffic, which tends to be closer to the retail uses and the
main entrances to shopping center.
• Because the drive through is located approximately 180 feet from the shopping center's
main entrance from Highway 1, it is unlikely to have an impact on public rights -of -way.
• Given the proposed use of the stand, staff anticipates that the peak times for the drive -up
will be in the morning, most likely before 10 a.m. This will minimize potential conflicts with
the peak business hours of the retail uses that characterize the shopping center.
Staff recommends that the applicant provide pavement markings along the drive - through lanes as
well as directional arrows indicating the one -way circulation of the drive - through lane.
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 of 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 proposed drive - through will be accessed from within the private parking area.
• Because the drive - through is on the northeast side of the parking area, away from the
shopping center entrances from Riverside Drive and Highway 1, there is ample space for
vehicles to stack before reaching the public right -of -way (the frontage road or the
highway).
• Highway 1 and South Riverside Drive, including the frontage road, are designed to
accommodate traffic generated by retail commercial uses.
The surrounding shopping center does not currently provide pedestrian access from Highway 1 or
South Riverside Drive. Given the limited space and intensity of the proposed drive - through coffee
stand within the context of the larger shopping center, Staff does not believe that would be practical
to require the use to construct pedestrian facilities.
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 reduce
these standards according to the specific circumstances affecting the site.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The drive - through lanes are setback more than 20 feet from the nearest property line (to
the north).
• The adjacent green space to the north, which is located within the Highway 1 right of way,
is planted with small shrubs that meet the S2 standard.*
*The shopping center parking lot is not in compliance with current standards for parking area design
and screening, however, staff believes the S2 screening provided within the Highway 1 right -of -way
satisfies the intent of the screening requirement.
4
4. lighting for the drive - through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards set
forth in Article 14 -5G 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:
• Any exterior lighting, including lighted signage, must be reviewed by the Building
Department as part of the permitting process. All lighting and sign standards must be
satisfied in order for an occupancy permit to be issued.
General Standards (14 -46 -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 pavement markings, 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 use is located away from the main entrance to the shopping center 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 is located away from other commercial uses within the
shopping center and is setback more than 300 feet from commercial property on the
opposite side of Highway 1.
• The shopping center provides more than the required minimum parking and has ample
parking to serve all existing uses.
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 this criterion based on the reasons provided above
regarding the limited intensity of the site and for the following reasons:
A similar coffee stand existed on the site for several years without impact on adjacent
businesses or vehicle circulation within the lot.
• The stand is limited in size to 10 x 15 feet.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and /or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• Electrical service is available for the stand, but City water service is not. The stand will
provide its own water in compliance with requirements from the State Health
Department.
• All other facilities and drainage are provided for the shopping center.
• Entrance roads and drives that serve the shopping center are designed to support the
levels of traffic that will be generated by the commercial shopping center, including the
use proposed.
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
findings:
• Traffic from the drive - through will not stack onto public streets or neighboring properties.
The drive - through is located within the parking area, adjacent to the circulation drive and
frontage road but away from other retail uses.
• Staff believes there is sufficient space for vehicles to stack at the drive - through without
blocking the access to the parking rows or inhibiting the flow of traffic in the circular drive.
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.
As stated above, the parking area for the shopping center is not in compliance with the code
requirements: its lacks terminal islands for the parking rows, shade trees, perimeter screening,
pedestrian facilities, etc. Given the limited size and intensity of the proposed coffee stand and
the previous existence of a drive - through coffee stand at this location, staff believes is
reasonable allow the proposed use despite the non - conformities of the larger site.
The Building Official will review the plan to determine that any zoning requirements not
specifically addressed here, including all requirements for lighting and signage, are in
compliance with the zoning code. All applicable zoning requirements must be met in order for a
building permit to be issued.
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 Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this issue, however, the Southwest
District Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Highway- oriented commercial
development.
6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC11- 00002, a special exception to allow a drive - through coffee stand in
the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone, located in the Gateway Plaza Shopping Center at the corner of
Highway 1 West and South Riverside Drive subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including the 38 -foot setback from
the north property line and a curbed and landscaped terminal island to be located 50 feet
south of the coffee stand.
• The coffee stand is limited in size to 10 x 15 feet.
• Pavement markings indicating the one -way circulation of the parking aisles along with
demarcation of the stacking space for drive- through;
• Approval by the Building Official of the lighting plan and signage for the use.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Aerial view of the proposed location.
3. Proposed site plan
4. Application materials
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Staff recommends that
adjacent parking rows
remain in place.
Parking row ends south of
the coffee providing 30 -32
feet of additional space to
accommodate vehicles
accessing and exiting the
drive - through .
� no
Aerial view of the site showing location of the entrances from Highway 6 and south
Riverside Drive and frontage roads within the public right -of -way.
db
ANN -�
' R
f'
*- "4
40D
dp
I
F
P
Vow
Ir 1 _ r
C:�ncm c::,
elf C
m
i►s."9►� a� a � �"► t
L,
"`
fl
000U'G�
fl
m
r—
g
o
S
w
g
F6
�Z D"C) , m
cn O— �7 CC
Z C/)C
J
N
>�
oin
w
o
�_�
j�
.X3�rz5
r- m C7 r
p-r-i
_
6
O
c
vop�
rn a�C�'tiZ
-i 0
O
ADS
j
uWiDrm
�SIT�JZz
u'_
m
Nm
y K z
Z m�
ITS 1 1 1
7�
L
NpA
W A o
�A�3
N O
VJ [n V] U7 VJ
�a
q
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: - ( I I C) PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: S 'Rtv ysl rk olv z.
PROPERTY ZONE: 0-0--2— PROPERTY LOT SIZE: _
APPLICANT:
CONTACT PERSON:
(if other than applicant)
PROPERTY OWNER:
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
Name: 504VI G ► I UOUQ V1
Address: V1'-')L2 &ci br e- DV O-V S 2-Z-11
Phone: q 3 � " I of 3 —1
Name: Rc-,yPr4 W OicLoo Grejm 4 !.[ I i n
Address:
Phone:
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356 -5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception:
C-�
-
M
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
a�
R:
M MMS CONS LTANTS, INC.
M IOWA CITY IOWA I CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA
OFFICE: 319- 351 -8282 OFFICE: 319- 841 -5188
July 12, 2011
<I City of Iowa City Application to the Board of Adjustment – Special Exception
r
7. The proposed drive- up coffee facility is consistent with the city comprehensive plan.
Duane Musser
MMS Consultants Inc.
Re: – Bean Shack a.k.a. Gateway One Plaza
Q
1917 S. Gilbert Street
1.
Lincoln McIlravy has proposed to construct a drive -up coffee shop within a leased area
Iowa City, IA 52240
of the parking lot at the Gateway One Plaza on the corner of Riverside Drive and
319 - 351 -8282
Highway 6. Inclusion of a drive -up window at this proposed coffee but will not be
—
�°--
detrimental to or endanger the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the public. On
a separate note this site has been used for this purpose previously.
2.
The proposed drive -up will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in
the neighborhood. Development of the subject site is expected to enhance the enjoyment
and property values in the neighborhood as well as adding a service not provided in that
area. The site has adequate space for cars to maneuver in the event that an emergency
a
would occur and emergency vehicles would need to be directed around cars.
0
3.
The proposed drive -up facility will be completely within the confines of the subject lot
a
and will therefore not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
The the
surrounding properties. site will also not affect property moving along any private
streets or frontage roads.
4.
The attached site plan shows adequate access, ingress and egress for the drive up facility
users. Adequate storm sewer and electricity, are available to the site to serve the proposed
r
z
drive -up facility.
5.
The attached site plan shows the proposed ingress and egress to the site. The access to
the subject site is located at various points via the existing parking lots existing egress
and ingress points. The shack has two windows on opposite sides and will allow for three
x
cars to stack on each side.
6.
The proposed facility will be subjected to rigorous and comprehensive review by the City
staff to ensure that all applicable City Code requirements are met.
7. The proposed drive- up coffee facility is consistent with the city comprehensive plan.
Duane Musser
MMS Consultants Inc.
Q
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319 - 351 -8282
j
—
�°--
d.musser@mmsconsultants.net
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 10, 2011— 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PRELIMINARY
Brock Grenis, Adam Plagge, Caroline Sheerin
Will Jennings, Barbara Eckstein
Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek, Nick Benson
Jeff Linder, Chris McGuire
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Grenis, 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 July 13, 2011 MEETING MINUTES:
Grenis offered corrections to the minutes.
Plagge moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Grenis seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0 (Eckstein and Jennings excused).
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC11 -00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Streb Construction Co., Inc. for a
special exception to allow a concrete manufacturing plant in the General Industrial (1 -1) zone
on Independence Road, north of 420`h Street and south of Liberty Drive.
Sheerin noted that in the interest of providing time for both the board and the public the board
would move to defer this item to another meeting.
Walz listed the items that had been received since the packet had mailed and noted that she
would make this and any subsequent information available to the board and the public on
Friday, by Friday, August 12`h. Wiz noted that a special meeting already scheduled for August 17
would start at 5:15.
Plagge moved to defer the application until the August 17`h meeting.
Grenis seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 3 -0 (Jennings and Eckstein excused).
Exc1100006: Discussion of an application submitted by James Truong of Panda Restaurant
Group for a special exception to allow a drive - through restaurant in the Community
Commercial (CC -2) zone at 1035 Highway 1 W.
Benson showed a location map of the property in the CC -2 zone located along Highway 1 West.
CC -2 zone is meant to serve retail properties. Dairy Queen is the lot to the east. The property is
surrounded on all sides by commercial properties. Properties to the northeast and west is apart
of the Wal -Mart shopping complex. Benson showed an areal of the property pointing out a
storm water detention facility that runs along the southern edge of the Wal -Mart shopping
center and about half of the southeast portion of the subject lot.
Benson showed an overall plan for the shopping center to give an idea of the final build -out of
the Wal -Mart shopping center and the location of the storm water detention facility located on
the southern edge.
The site plan for proposed restaurant and drive through shows two entrance and exits on the
north side of the property. Benson stated that there is a proposed pedestrian access from the
greater parking lot of Wal -Mart into the Lot 2. Another pedestrian access is located on the
northeast corner of the site.
There are a couple of main issues that are looked into in regards to a drive - through on a
restaurant. First is whether the site can handle the traffic of the drive - through and the stacking
of the vehicles in the drive - through; whether adjacent properties or uses would be affected by
light and noise generated by the drive - through; and. pedestrian and vehicle safety on the site.
Bensen pointed out that the private drive coming into the parking lot is built to handle the
traffic for commercial activities such as the proposed restaurant and drive - through. There will
be stacking room for up to seven cars, which is ample space before the cars would back up into
the parking areas. The drive - through is located along the back side of the building away from
the traffic that is coming in and out of the shopping center and Highway 1.
Benson brought up the fact that the board approved the special exception for the Dairy Queen
drive - through which is located to the east a couple of months ago. The commercial properties
surrounding are compatible with the drive - through that is proposed.
Benson noted that of the S2 screening is not actually shown on the site plan it is noted verbally
on the plan. Benson stated that the staff would recommend a condition that the S2 screening is
provided along the east side of the drive - through lane. The south side of the drive - through
(also required to have S2 screening) is adjacent to an undeveloped commercial property and
Wal -Mart is required to put in landscaping along the perimeter of the site as a conditional
zoning agreement for the larger shopping complex so staff recommended that a waiver for S2
screening in this area be allowed.
Benson stated that the pedestrian safety and separating vehicle traffic from pedestrian traffic
staff believes that the site is away from the drive - through. Staff feels there is no safety conflict
between the pedestrians and the vehicle on this site. Staff recommends approval of the special
exception subject to the conditions that the S2 screening be installed along the eastern boarder
of the site.
Plagge pointed out the locations of the Panda Express, Dairy Queen and asked where the
Culvers would be located on the comprehensive view plan. Benson pointed out it was located
across Highway 1 to the north and east of the properties.
Plagge asked if there is a pedestrian sidewalk that would lead to Wal -Mart or to the bus stop.
Benson pointed out the sidewalk that will run along the north side of the property. Plagge
asked where a bus stop would be located. Benson pointed out on the map where one bus stop
was located but was unsure if there would be another one.
There were no further questions for staff and Sheerin invited applicant to speak.
Jeff Linder, Mansfield, Texas, stated the City staff covered the plan well. Jeff came from the site
and noted that the driveway on the east side and the sidewalk to the north have already been
constructed. All utilities are in. The building process has not started yet. The contractor
tearing out the old Wal -Mart is moving out towards the end of the week.
Sheerin asked for any public discussion. There was none.
Sheerin asked the City staff for any additional comments. Walz wanted to make sure that the
board understands that a waiver of the S2 screen requirement along the south side where the
storm water facility is sought because there is about 60 feet of separation between the property
line for Panda Express and the property line for the next commercial zone to the south, which is
currently undeveloped. Sheerin asked if it was included in the staff recommendation. Benson
stated it was not. Holecek stated it would be good to note the waiver of the S2 screen
requirement along the southern border.
Sheerin closed public discussion.
Sheerin invited Board discussion and findings of fact.
Sheerin outlined the specific standards. Sheerin stated that this application meets the first
specific standard relating to drive through - lanes, stacking spaces and the paved area because
the proposed site does allow for up to seven cars to access the drive - through before stacking
into the eastern most parking area. The drive - through is located at the rear of the site so the
vehicle circulation is separated from other traffic entering or exiting Lot 2 as well as other
shopping center traffic. The property is also served by a private drive and so it won't likely
impact on the public right -of -way. Drive - through circulation is directed behind the building and
is not readily visible from any residential zones. Signs are posted at the entrance according to
the site plan and the exit to the drive - through and there is also a stop message marked on the
pavement where the drive - through meets the northeastern entrance and the exit to the subject
lot. The proposed site plan shows that pedestrian connections from the shopping center run
across lot 2 are away from the drive - through and pavement marking will be required as part of
site plan approval.
Sheerin said that the second specific criteria relates to the transportation system is capable of
safely supporting the proposed use. The property is accessed by a private drive from state
Highway 1, there is ample stacking space and is not in conflict with pedestrian access to the
restaurant.
The third specific criterion states the setback requirement of 10 feet. The drive - through lane
meets the setback standard on all sides and the required S2 perimeter screening is provided in
these areas.
The fourth standard deals with lighting and will be reviewed by the building department. The
building is away from near by residential zones and meets the specific criteria.
Sheerin also reviewed the general standards. The first general standard requires that the
proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or
general welfare. The Highway 1 and the private drive are designed to accommodate the levels
of traffic generated by the CC -2 uses and the drive - through will not back up onto public roads.
The second general standard the facility is located in the rear of the building and is bordered by
undeveloped intensive commercial CI -1 property and a storm water detention facility. Views of
the drive - through are limited due to its location and screening.
The third general standard is met because it will not impede normal or orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property.
The fourth general standard in regards to adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and /or
necessary facilities, here all necessary utilities are available at the site. The private drive was
designed to support these levels of traffic. The building engineer will review the plan as apart of
the larger shopping center development. All drainage for the shopping center is directed to the
storm water facility.
Sheerin stated the fifth general standard is in regards to the ingress or egress. Traffic from the
drive - through will not stack onto public streets or neighboring properties and there is ample
stacking space.
The sixth general standards respect to conforming to applicable regulations and standards of the
zone. Will need submitted to final site plan review and building permit.
As to the seventh general standard, the Souhtwest District Plan identifies this area as
appropriate for Highway- oriented commercial development.
Grenis moved to approve EXC11- 00006, a special exception to allow a drive - through facility in
the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone, at 1035 Highway 1 West, 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;
Approval by the building official of the lighting plan and any signage for the site;
Waiver of the S2 screening requirement along the south property line adjacent to the
drive through.
Moved by Grenis.
Seconded by Plagge.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0 (Eckstein and Jennings excused).
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.
EXC11- 00008: Discussion of an application submitted by McCon Bldg. Corp for a
special exception to allow a drive - through restaurant in the Community Commercial
(CC -2) zone located at 710 Hwy 1 West, east of Hawk Ridge Drive.
Benson showed the location map with the property located in the CC -2 zone. To the
east is a CI -1 property and to the north an RS -8 property. To the west is a plannned unit
development of medium density /multi family residential and to the south a CI -1
property.
Benson pointed out that it is important to note the contour lines that are shown on the
areal property map. The southern half of the property is flat. On the north part of the
property there is a steep grade and on up to the RS -8 zone to the north and the west
toward the Lodge complex. There are single - family homes located to the north of the
property.
Benson reviewed the site plan with the Board. He noted there is a new plan that was
just delivered today with only a minor change between the two plans. The change
shows a 15 foot easement for a future walking trail along the far western edge of the
property. The change does not affect the overall of the site plan.
Benson noted the entrance to the subject lot is located on the southwest and another
on the southeast of the property. The drive - through for Culvers is different than most
drive - through restaurants. The drive - through is larger for the system they use of
delivering of their items. When looking at the level of traffic and stacking of vehicles,
traffic is not an issue for the amount traffic that comes off of Hawk Ridge Drive and
Highway 1. The property to the east is a commercial property for a bank. The drive has
adequate capacity to handle the kind of commercial traffic that would be entering or
exiting the subject lot.
Benson noted, as it is stated in the staff report, that there are five spaces for cars to
stack at the order waiting line, at least six spaces for cars to stack going up to the
opayment window, and then there are another five spaces for the cars that are waiting
for a meal brought out to the their car. The area is located in the back of the lot so
there would be no issue of backing up into the parking area or the entrance way.
There is an S3 screening requirement provided along the northern portion of the lot
because of the drive - through and the adjacent properties. The land to the north is
zoned RS -8 and has a steep grade with a height of 35 to 40 feet higher than the subject
lot and would not be effected by the drive - through if it was ever developed. The Lodge
is located to the west and is in a residential zone. The applicant has provided S3
screening on the northwest edge of the property and an S2 screening on the west edge.
Benson stated that the City staff feels it is reasonable to reduce the S3 screen along the
west edge to S2 screening because the Lodge is at a much higher grade and is away
from the restaurant and the drive itself. It was also noted that the vehicle lights will not
affect the Lodge.
In regards to vehicle and pedestrian safety Bensen noted that the applicant has
separated the drive - through and the parking areas by a median. There is pedestrian
access on the southwest corner of the site and on the northeast corner. Both areas will
be marked and City staff feels that there would not be any conflict between the
pedestrian areas and the drive - through.
City staff recommends approval of the special exception subject to substantial
compliance with the site plan submitted including the pavement markings of the
pedestrian areas. Also approval by the building official the lighting plan and signage
needed.
Sheerin asked if there are any questions for staff.
Holecek asked if there a reduction from S3 to S2 screening along the western boarder.
Benson stated that the S3 screening is a requirement along the western side, but that
City staff felt it was okay to reduce the screening to S2 because of the change in
elevation of the adjacent residential zone. Grenis asked if this was a condition or if it
was apart of the site plan. Holecek stated it should be a part of the motion.
Plagge confirmed that the property directly to the north was a residential property.
Plagge asked when the walking trail and the easement were put into place. Benson
noted it was apart of the re- subdivision process in 2007. Plagge asked if the walking
trail was connected to the rest of Iowa City trails, or is it a nature trail or was it designed
to be commercial access. Benson stated it was not currently constructed . Walz noted
that the trail was to provide a connection between Benton Street and the highway.
Plagge confirmed so it was more of a side walk connection rather than a walking trail.
Benson stated that the Lodge doesn't currently have a lot of pedestrian access toward
the University and that this path would provide that.
Plagge asked if it was possible to have residential development along the north of the
property line. Benson stated that it would be difficult because of the steep hill grade. It
could be possible to have development along the northern hill but with the height
difference the drive - through would not affect the residential property. Walz confirmed
that the potential for development is limited given the slopes. Plagge asked if the City
has received any plans from the land owner to the north. Bensen confirmed none have
been received.
Sheerin invited the applicant to speak.
Chris McGuire, Highland, WI gave compliments to the City for a great experience.
Stated he was open to any questions that needed answered.
Sheerin asked for any public discussion. There was none.
Sheerin closed public discussion.
Sheerin invited Board discussion and findings of fact. Plagge stated a concern regarding the
reducing to the S2 screening there will be pedestrian traffic on the path. There will be lights and
a loud speaker which might have an impact to pedestrians that will walk. Plagge asked if there
would be room for a S3 screening in that area. Walz responded with suggestion of using
narrower trees that would only need to reach 6 feet for the S3 screening. Sheerin stated that
they will remove the City's request of a reduction of S3 to S2.
Plagge outlined the specific standards. The number of drive - through lanes, stacking spaces and
paved area is not going to be detrimental to any neighboring properties. The Board feels that
they meet the criteria by allowing 16 cars to stack. There are no safety concerns regarding
landscaping.
Transportation system is capable of supporting the proposed use. The stacking will be at the
rear of the restaurant and there will be no interference with the parking area. Circulation will
not conflict with pedestrian access. The drive - through lanes are set back 10 feet from adjacent
lot lines and public right of way and screened from view with the S2 standard. Drive - through
does meet all requirements and is set to all standards.
Plagge noted that the site plan shows the required S3 perimeter screening is provided along the
north, northwest, and western sides. Site plan will conform to the S3 lighting of the drive -
through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standard set forth in article 145G.
Screening standard will mitigate any potential negative impacts from the lights on the RS -8 zone
to the north of the property and the steep hills will provide screening on the other side.
General standards found also met. Specific proposed exception will not be detrimental or
endanger the public health safety, comfort or welfare. This satisfies the criteria according to
specific standards one and two.
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 values in the
neighborhood. Satisfy these criteria based off of the compatible neighboring uses and the view
of the drive - through is limited by the screening.
The 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
where property is located for reasons stated in one and two.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and /or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. All necessary utilities are available at the site.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed is as to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Traffic from the drive- through will not stack onto
the public streets or neighboring properties.
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.
The final site plan will be reviewed for building permit. The building official will review the plan
to determine all applicable standards and requirements have been met that are not specifically
addressed here. Including the requirements for lighting and signage are satisfied. All applicable
zoning requirements must be met in order for the building permit to be issued.
The proposed use will be consistent with the comprehensive plan as amended. The southwest
district plan identifies this area as an appropriate commercial development.
Grenis moved to approve EXC11- 00008, a special exception to allow a drive - through facility in
the Community Commercial zone, at 710 Highway 1 West, subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, pavement markings of the
pedestrian areas;
• Approval by the building official of the lighting plan and any signage for the site;
Moved by Grenis.
Seconded by Plagge.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0 (Eckstein and Jennings excused).
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.
OTHER:
Sheerin asked the Board for any other comments or questions.
Walz stated that there are two deferrals that will occur on August 17. Asked the Board to keep
in mind they are to not talk to other people. People should not contact you and if they do refer
them to the City office in the interest of no act part take communication.
Walz will forward any materials submitted since the report to the Board by Friday.
Grenis made a request for one more visual of an areal view for the EXC11- 00006. Walz
confirmed request.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Plagge moved to adjourn.
Grenis seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 3 -0 vote (Jennings and Eckstein excused).
W
V
W
LQLQN
Op
0
W
Q �
m °Q
E
0
m0
0
:3
X
C
LU
7 N N
C N
C ) U)
E -OQZ 0
a Q n n Z
w
XOOZ
}
w
Y
oxoxx
oxoxx
co
X
X
w
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
07
M
X
X
X
X
X
N
XXX
1
X
W
It
(D
Lid
N
M
5
O
T—
O
�
O
�
O
�
O
LU CL
N
N
N
N
N
�-X
w
�
o00o0
T-
T-
T-
C
m
N
m
L
U
W
N•E
cam
w
2
N
.Y
E
°
.0
cu
Z
mm�QU
E
0
m0
0
:3
X
C
LU
7 N N
C N
C ) U)
E -OQZ 0
a Q n n Z
w
XOOZ
}
w
Y
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 17, 2011 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Adam Plagge, Caroline Sheerin, Will
Jennings, Barbara Eckstein
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek,
OTHERS PRESENT: Kirk Murray, Wim Murray, Julie Riggert, RR Mount
Vernon (name illegible), Annie Pedersen, Lee Eno,
Steve Streb, Eldon Prybil, Steve Ballard, Phillip
Prybil, Linda Prybil
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Grenis, Sheerin, Eckstein, Jennings 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 July 13, 2011 MEETING MINUTES:
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC11- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Kirk and Wim Murray
for a special exception to allow a reduction in the rear principal building setback
requirement for property located in the Medium - Density Single - Family Residential
(RS -8) zone at 1026 Fairchild Street.
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 2 of 20
Walz noted that she gave a letter to the Board from the neighbors Thomas Fast and
Jennifer Carpe of 1118 Fairchild Street and also included new information and photos
from the property owner to the north. She noted that she would be going over the memo
that was provided to the Board and hoped that it would address any issues that they had
from the previous meeting.
Walz said that after the last meeting the applicant has inquired why the north property
line should be considered the rear property line and what the purpose of the rear yard is.
Walz explained in the memo that on a square corner lot the zoning codes states that one
of the lot lines opposite the street right -of -way must be designated the rear lot line. There
are no guidelines for which property line should be chosen. Walz acknowledged that for
this reason the applicant could resubmit her application declaring the west property line
as the rear lot line. However, Walz said, for the present application the north property
line is designated as the rear.
Walz explained that the proposed addition is centered above the existing footprint of the
house. The existing footprint will not change. The second floor addition would be 10
feet from the north property line with the first floor structure unchanged at 12 feet. In
terms of the west property line the existing structure is five feet from the property line,
and the new addition on top would be set back 12 feet. She noted that because it is
arbitrary as to which lot is the rear lot line it makes the situation peculiar.
Walz stated that the situation is more peculiar because there are two small properties that
are nonconforming. The subject property they is set back 39 feet from Center Street,
more than twice the minimum setback. Meanwhile, the adjacent property to the north is
set closer to Center Street than the minimum setback required. Both properties are set
approximately 10 to 12 feet back from the property line that they share.
Walz stated that the purpose of the rear set back is to provide private space for each lot
for uses or structures that the owner or occupant may not want on the street side of the
property line, including accessory structures.
Walz summed up stating that in staffs view the application is not contrary to this setback
regulations regarding privacy and the physical relationship between buildings for the
following reasons; the subject lot is square and reverse corner lot. Also, the surrounding
neighborhood is characterized by homes that are set close together at their side lot lines.
The subject property currently provides 12 feet of separation at the ground level and that
will not change with the new addition. The house is modest in size and would add 143
square feet of living area to the second floor. Both the subject property and the property
to the north provide the 10 to 12 feet of separation from their property line with about 20
to 24 feet over all.
The applicant has provided an elevation showing their intent to place the windows
approximately 5'6" from the floor at the sill height. Walz also noted that these windows
would not open to mitigate any concerns of the adjacent neighbor regarding noise.
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 3 of 20
Sheerin asked for any questions for staff.
Kirk and Wim Murray, Iowa City, Iowa, are the applicants/home owners. Wim thanked
the Board for having the extra meeting. She stated that the contractor came up with the
new window design to address privacy issues. They do not want to make their neighbor
unhappy and they plan to live at the house for a long time. Sheerin asked if there were
any questions for the applicant.
Julie Riggert, Iowa City, Iowa, the occupant and owner of the 509 Center Street. She
thanked the Board for the extra meeting and all the effort that was put into it. Riggert
stated that the bottom line would be that if you sat on her deck the view is now a wall.
Over half of her tree will come down and the tree only has leaves three months of the
year and the rest of the time she would be looking at a window and a wall. It will block
the sun on the south side corner of the house. She noted that she uses her yard and deck
year round and that is one of the reasons she purchased the house. Her yard gets lots of
light. Riggert stated that the addition remains a privacy issue. She stated that she has no
problems with her neighbors. She is afraid they will not always be her neighbors, and if
the house sells it might become a rental. She feels the house is not conducive to a large
family. If it does become a rental there would be 19 and 20 year olds up in the window
and that could affect the value of her property. Her home is very small so there would be
a limited population who could buy her home. There are steep steps so it would not be
for the elderly. She feels that the only people that would buy her home would be a single
person or a single person with a child and thinks this addition would invade their privacy.
Sheerin asked if there were any questions for Riggert.
R.R. (name illegible), Mount Vernon, Iowa, is the significant other of Julie Riggert. He
noted that in the all towns were required to produce a comprehensive plan and
subdivision ordinances to stop what is happening to these non - conforming properties.
The original owner of the house split the house off and built a house for his son and
daughter -in -law. Now you have two noncomplying houses and the state stepped in and
said: enough, this can't happen anymore. The house to the west has had four owners.
The applicants' house has 3 bedrooms with 1 on the first floor and 2 upstairs. He feels
that if you vote in the addition you are adding to the noncompliance and then it may
create more of a problem down the road.
Sheerin asked if there are any questions for the speaker.
Annie Pedersen, Iowa City, Iowa, is Wim's (applicant's) aunt. She stated she
understands the objections and that these homes are older and that perhaps they shouldn't
be changed. This is a neighborhood area that is meant to be residential. She thinks that
the worry that Riggert shared about the house one day becoming a rental is part of what
has invaded the north side and areas to the west of the subject property. Pedersen stated
it is good to encourage families to stay in the area and that change is not a bad thing.
This is a small addition and doesn't feel that the privacy will be affected any more than
what it already is because the houses are already close together. She feels the plan is very
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 4 of 20
reasonable, very thought out and planned solution to the problem that the Murray family
has.
Sheerin asked if there are any questions for Pedersen.
Lee Eno, Iowa City, Iowa, is the contractor working with the Murrays on the plan. The
biggest concern from the last meeting was the privacy issue and the discussion of
windows. Eno asked the Board members that were not present at the last meeting if they
had any questions concerning his drawings of the windows and the remedy for the
privacy issue.
Jennings asked for confirmation that in order for a room to be considered a bedroom it
has to have a ratio of window to floor space. Walz responded by stating that the window
just has to provide egress. Eno confirmed that yes there would be an egress window on
the Center Street side. Jennings stated that in the report the steps to mitigate are raising
the having a non - opening window and raising the height of the windows without
compromising the structural integrity of the wall. Eno stated that five feet six inches is
the window height.
Sheerin asked about the glass. Eno stated it was a regular, transparent glass. He felt that
raising the height to 5'6" would eliminate the need for obscurity. He indicated that 5'6"
would be eye level for him. He said that if obscuring the windows were required it would
be difficult.
Eckstein stated she was one of the absent Board members and feels that the drawings are
clear and the proposed change is also clear.
Sheerin asked for any further questions.
Sheerin asked if there were any other public comments for or against the application.
Sheerin closed the public hearing.
Eckstein moved to approve EXC11- 00004, a special exception to reduce the rear
setback requirement for the principal structure at 1026 Fairchild Street from 20 feet
to 10 feet subject to the following conditions:
• The setback reduction applies to the proposed addition only;
• Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations as submitted by the
contractor;
• The north facing window will be at the level of five feet six inches and the
window will not open;
Seconded by Jennings.
Sheerin asked if the Board wished to discuss the motion.
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 5 of 20
Jennings stated that the cause for conflict or resolution has been shifted a little bit from
the previous meeting. Initially it was an issue of privacy as well as infringement on the
use of one's property with objections based upon that. What was mentioned today were
issues of blocking the sun because of raising the height of the building. Jennings is
wondering if this is a new issue. Sheerin responded that this is a new issue from the last
meeting. Grenis stated at the previous meeting he felt one of the issues was general
standard two: that the exception not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property. He felt it was fair to the applicant to have all Board members present to weigh
in on the issue and that is why they decided to wait for this meeting.
Eckstein stated that when she first read the report in July she was sympathetic to both
points of view and the complexity of living in the Goosetown Neighborhood, which she
is familiar with having lived there herself. She felt, however, given the conditions that
everyone has to work in the neighborhood, she believed it would be inappropriate to deny
the Murrays application with the accommodations they had made. The buildings are very
close together and that compromises the privacy you would have if you lived in a
different neighborhood with a larger lot. However, she stated, she didn't feel that the
request to reduce the setback was unreasonable.
Plagge stated he agrees with Eckstein that the addition doesn't seem to be out of
character with the surrounding neighborhood. He understands the privacy concerns and
some can be mitigated by the conditions noted. It was discussed about the shaded
windows or texture on the glass to make the windows opaque. Plagge feels that Riggert's
point that at some point in the future there may not be a person under five feet living
there. He would like to see that point addressed. With an adult living there they would
be able to peer out and look onto the Riggerts deck. Sheerin agreed that the applicant
has done a lot to mitigate an awkward situation. She would also like to see an opaque
glass in to make it as private as possible.
Jennings commented as someone that lives on the north side in an area of both rental and
owner - occupied properties that houses that are built very close together. He explained
the privacy issues with his own house and that of the neighbors next door. Changes in
ownership that may happen five to twenty years down the line may infringe in the
ownership value in the investment. That being said it is difficult to conjecture the impact
of who will move, when or where. What is clear is that the conflict is a family wants to
build an addition to the house to enable them to stay at the location and a neighbor is
concerned that the addition will infringe upon her privacy. Jennings feels that the
applicants are doing everything within their power to mitigate the effect of the addition
on the neighbor's privacy issue.
Sheerin asked for any further discussion.
Sheerin asked the Board for findings of fact.
Eckstein outlined the specific standards. The property is a square corner lot that is close
to both properties in either direction. The 20 foot rear setback requirement is not possible
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 6 of 20
at this location. The existing first floor of the house is 12 feet from the property line to
the north, and the property is smaller than the typical lot in the zone. There is practical
difficulty complying with the setback requirements given the peculiarity of this property
and its neighbors and the small lot size. The house was set back deep into the lot so the
front setback is much larger than the requirement. That means it has short backyard
setback.
The logical location for an addition would be above the existing first floor structure
which is preferable to extending the first floor. Granting the special exception will not be
contrary to the purposes of the setback regulations. Those are to maintain light air
separation for fire protection and access for fighting. To provide opportunities from
privacy between dwellings to reflect the general building scale in placement of the
structures in Iowa City neighborhoods. To promote a reasonable physical relationship
between buildings and residences and to provide flexibility to site a building so that it is
compatible with other buildings within the vicinity. Staff agrees that the application is
not contrary to the purposes of the setback regulations because the lot is square and small
and the house is set deep back in the lot and the rear setback is only 12 feet on the first
floor and those things cannot be changed.
The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by small lots that are densely built. It is
not unusual for homes, especially on corners, to have side setbacks of 10 feet or less in
any manner of other differences. The house currently provides a 12 foot setback from the
north property line. The addition would extend out only two feet beyond the existing
north wall of the house. The house will remain modest in size with the addition.
Any potential negative affects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the
extent practical including raising the north facing window to a height of five feet six
inches. Making the window not able to open and using a window that is not see - through.
The subject building will be located no closer than three feet to a side or rear property
line. This proposed addition would be located 10 feet from the rear, north, property line.
Sheerin outlined the general standards. The specific proposed exception will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety or general welfare. It will not be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or
substantially or diminish property values in the neighborhood. It will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
in the permitted zone.
Due to the square shape of subject lot and its relation to the adjacent property to the north
the rear setback functions practically as a side setback. The surrounding neighborhood is
characterized by small lots with densely built housing. It is not unusual for homes in this
neighborhood to have a side setback of ten feet or less. The property will keep a 10 foot
setback from the north property line and a five foot side setback from the west property
line. In addition a 10 foot side setback has adequate space for fire separation and
firefighting access.
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 7 of 20
The house is modest in size and the proposed addition will increase the living space by
143 square feet and will be located above the existing first floor of the house. The
proposed addition is set back 39 feet from the side street lot line such that the addition
will not interfere with the street visibility right of way. The glass in the window facing
the north side will be opaque to increase the privacy for the neighboring property.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities, here all necessary
utilities are available at the site. In regards to the ingress or egress setback will not bring
this structure any closer to the street and will have no effect on visibility or contribute to
congestion.
This conforms to all regulations and standards of the zone. In order to secure a permit the
applicant must submit a site plan to the building official to show it will conform to other
zoning requirements.
The Comprehensive Plan does not address this situation directly though it does encourage
reinvestment in the Iowa City established neighborhoods.
Sheerin asked for an amendment to the motion. Eckstein stated that opaque seems not to
be the word to describe the window visibility. She noted that you would want light in the
room but not the ability to see through it. Sheerin asked if translucent would be a better
word. Eckstein agreed. Walz suggest that the Board makes it subject to staff approval.
Eckstein moved to amend the recommendation to say that the window on the north side
be such that it allows the passage of light into the room but not visibility out of the room.
The final design is subject to staff approval.
Jennings seconded motion.
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.
EXC11- 00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Streb Construction Co.,
Inc. for a special exception to allow a concrete manufacturing plant in the General
Industrial (I -1) zone on Independence Road, north of 4201h Street and south of
Liberty Drive.
Walz showed the zoning that surrounds the property within city limits. She pointed out
the rural areas and stated that those counties are (R -1). The city does not have control
over the zoning of county land, but these are areas within the Iowa City growth area. If
the areas are rezoned or develop beyond what the county allows the county comes to the
City for the recommendation for rezoning. Being within the growth area boundary means
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 8 of 20
that by 2025 the City foresees the likelihood that this land will be brought into City
limits —that it will be served by local utilities, streets, services, etc.
Walz showed a large view of the area. The industrial zone begins east of the First
Avenue Highway 6 intersection and extends heads east. The industrial area has been
there for some decades. There are some (CI -1) zones nearby that may be characterized
by outdoor storage or display uses. There is a manufactured housing in an area north of
the railroad tracks on the east side of Scott Boulevard with the Village Green
neighborhood to the west.
Walz pointed out on the comprehensive plan for the City includes a vision for the
industrial zone to expand outward to the east. She pointed out where city limits lines are.
Walz pointed out on the Southeast District Plan map showing the industrial areas and
noting that the plan was passed within the last year and involved two years of extensive
public input, including invitations to all surrounding property owners in the county to
meet with staff one -on -one. Any and all were invited to attend the public meetings to
plan for the district.
Walz stated that the reason for industrial zoning in this area because industrial uses
typically need two things: flat land and access to rail and or highway. The City views this
area as prime industrial land because it has those things.
Walz stated that the memo indicated that concrete batch facilities are allowed in two
zones. She corrected that the use is actually allowed in three zones: the Heavy Industrial
zone (I -2) allows the use by right; in the intensive commercial (CI -1) and the general
commercial (1 -1) the use is allowed by special exception.
Walz explained that a special exception is different from a variance or re- zoning. Special
exceptions are written into the code with specific criteria that attempt to address those
externalities that are typically associated with that use. In this case the zoning code states
heavy manufacturing uses in the (CI -1) and (I -1) zones are limited to concrete batch mix
plants. Concrete batch mix plants must meet the standards with the first being that a
proposed use must be located at least 500 feet from any residentially owned property.
The property is within the city and it is approximately 2000 feet from the residential areas
to the north.
The second criteria, is all proposed outdoor storage and work areas must be located and
screened adequately to reduce dust and visual impact of the proposed use of surrounding
properties. The applicant has provided an updated site plan showing the plant with the
screening. The site plan shows that around the perimeter of the site, which is the north
half of the lot, S3 evergreen screening is provided. The City staff asked that the
screening be of quick growing variety. Behind the row of evergreens the site plan shows
a line of fast growing deciduous trees. The City has recommended using poplars. The
other suggestion made by the City is that the screening be brought along to the west side
of the active use area on the site, between the stormwater facility and the active area of
the site. Any areas that are not paved or graveled would be covered in turf grass.
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 9 of 20
Walz noted that the applicant as indicated that the first 50 feet of the drive will be paved
in order to prevent dragging gravel onto the public road. Any parking on the site is also
required by code to be paved. The rest of the active work area will be gravel and
eventually changed to a paved surface over time. Walz indicated that the board has the
authority to require hard surface paving over gravel.
In regards to the dust control for the facilities this facility is a wet batch facility which is
typically less dusty than dry batch facilities. The particular equipment that is used has a
bag house which is an "industrial vacuum cleaner" as described by the DNR. Dust is
subject to EPA standards and to establish the facility the applicant would have to get a
permit from the DNR to show they are controlling for dust.
Walz explained that a concern was raised by a neighbor to the property about calcium
carbonate dust. The applicant has indicated in a letter that he does not use that in the
process. Walz noted that she checked with Iowa State Extension crop specialist Jim
Faucet about the effect of batch facilities on adjacent crop land. Wals said he indicated
he is not aware of any issue in regards to these facilities a negative effect on nearby crop
land. Faucet also stated in regards to the calcium carbonate is something that is applied
to crops. He stated that the facility would have an effect on crops similar to being located
next to a heavy used gravel road.
The third criteria pertains to traffic circulation and access points. Walz stated that Iowa
City has improved 420th Street specifically for the purpose of serving the expanded
industrial zone. This street is a City standard street with turn lanes. The road is meant
for the kind of heavy traffic that is put out by an industrial zone.
Walz stated that there has been some concern expressed about the height of the towers.
This is not an issue that is addressed by criteria for the special exception. The criterion is
principally concerned with the active area of this site, the conveyers, the outdoor storage
or anything that is dispensing dust and noise. There are other tall structures that are
located in the industrial zone. There is the Alpla plant further to the northwest that has
large towers directly adjacent to the residential zone. The City plans an area of greater
separation between the industrial area and future residential zones. Within the industrial
zone, buildings are allowed to be up to 45 feet in height with additional height allowed
provided the structure is set back further for each foot of height.
Walz summarized that the applicant is seeking approval for a site that is located in the
middle of the industrial zone at the far edge of Iowa City —a site that has direct access to
the highway along a road that is built specifically for industrial users. City staff
recommends approval of the special exception subject to use being located on northern
half of the lot and substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with addition of the
screening along the western portion of the property and that approval is limited to a wet
batch facility.
Brenis noted that the mention of additional screening on the west side is not noted in the
memo. Walz confirmed that the would need to add this condition to their motion.
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 10 of 20
Eckstein stated she didn't understand why the Board received a safety data sheet about
calcium chloride. She wondered if it was suppose to be calcium carbonate. Walz stated
that the applicant just submitted that information and that the Board would need to ask
him directly.
Plagge asked about the (I -2) zoning if it was the only industrial zoning that would allow
this. Walz stated that there was (I -2) zoning on South Riverside Drive, which is a salvage
yard that also been granted a special exception. The only other (I -2) zone is south of
Burlington Street between Kirkwood and Benton Street where a portion of the City
Carton facility has (I -2) zoning. In time this zone will go away and the City will no
longer zone (1 -2) in the center of town. Plagge asked if both areas were already
developed. Walz confirmed they were already developed. She also stated that the City
does not have a lot of (I -2) zones because there is not a lot of demand for it and they do
not encourage many heavy industrial uses.
Sheerin asked for any further questions for staff.
Steve Streb, Riverside, Iowa, with Streb Construction stated the City did a good job in the
description. He felt like there was some confusion when he talked to Mr. Prybil about
calcium chloride that is used in concrete to speed up the curing process. That was the
subject of the safety data sheet that Eckstein asked about. Streb stated he was confused
by the terminology chloride and the carbonate. The carbonate, which Prybil was
concerned with is the dust from the rock piles. Eckstein asked if she understood that the
calcium chloride solution is a liquid. Streb confirmed that is correct.
Walz clarified that calcium chloride solution may be used at a construction site but not at
the batch facility. Calcium carbonate is the dust from the rocks that would be stored at
the facility.
Streb continued saying that calcium chloride is used to speed up the curing process. In
twenty years they have only had to use the solution once. There were time restrictions on
when they were able to do the work. Streb explained that you had to mix the solution
with the batch right before you use it because otherwise it would harden to quickly which
is why they wait to mix until they are at the site.
Streb stated that in 1998 they had come to the board with the same idea on a different lot
in the industrial zone. The three reasons it was denied were the facility would be the first
use to go up in a new industrial park and it might discourage other uses from locating in
the park. The second was the potential noise pollution and dust may have a negative
impact on near by agricultural and residential uses. The final was that 420th street was
not in a condition to handle the high level truck traffic that the plant would generate.
Streb noted that 4201h Street has been improved recently. He provided pictures of various
businesses located near bath plants in the area to demonstrate that businesses do locate
next to concrete plants. In the ten plus years since the last Board of Adjustment the
technology has gotten so much better by way of controlling the dust from the mixing
process. They do follow EPA and DNR regulations and they do site visits. The
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 11 of 20
equipment has improved with the super suckers that have huge cartridges that collect the
dust and the cartridges have to be changed either twice a year or yearly.
Streb stated that the potential dust that has a possible negative impact on the nearby
agricultural fields and they were not prepared for that concern with the 1998 special
exception. He noted that the City has addressed the issue well with the information from
the Iowa State Extension office. The dust that is being talked about that affects their
crops is what is hauled every fall onto farmland to lower the pH balance of the ground.
He is unsure on how this concern could be a negative impact on the agricultural plants.
Walz clarified that while the board had denied the special exception in 1998, City staff
had recommended approval at the time.
Streb stated that Walz had asked him what the maximum height would be. He wasn't
sure what height so he did research and picked a height of 53 feet. Walz stated that the
screening is designed to minimize views of the active portion of the site, the conveyors,
truck activity, and out door storage. Many uses in an industrial zone are allowed to be 45
feet in height and higher. There are certain uses that do not have a height restrictions at
all. Streb stated that his point was that the maximum height would be the 53 feet for his
facility, but that it may be lower.
Sheerin asked if there were any questions.
Jennings asked Streb if all the areas in which the dust would occur are or if there were
other ways to mitigate the dust besides the super sucker. Walz stated that the applicant
could address the equipment and how that handles the dust. The DNR has requirements
that would address the dust issue. Streb noted what happens at the other plant that they
own in Coralville is that they use a water truck. The DNR and EPA do not allow fugitive
dust to leave the site. He discussed other ways that they can elevate the dust it would be
to drop heights from conveyors onto stacks.
The agro kit that comes in is wet. If there is a dry spell then they use the water truck to
help stop the dust and then the screen would be a huge factor in mitigating that dust.
Jennings asked if the instillation of the mechanical filtering devise addresses issues
within the mixing process. Streb confirmed that was correct and that there are standards
that they have to follow. He discussed the process of a dry plant and stated what he is
proposing is a wet batch plant. The water and aggregates go into a drum to minimize the
dust then it mixes in the drum and then is dumped either into a dump truck or a mixer
truck then transported to its site.
Grenis asked if Streb had already applied for the air quality permit from the DNR. Streb
said they have not yet applied but they are aware of the standards because they do
currently have the permit at the Coralville location. Grenis asked if it was correct that
they would only be paving a portion of the driveway. Streb said yes there plan is to pave
at least the first 50 feet of driveway to elevate any gravel from getting onto the public
road, then over they would pave the entire area with leftover mix that comes back on the
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 12 of 20
trucks. Sheerin asked about how long the process would take to pave the entire area.
Streb stated probably three years depending on how well his men calculate their yield.
Sheerin opened the issue for public discussion.
Eldon Prybil, Iowa City, Iowa, is the owner of farmland next to the proposed location.
He noted he is pro Iowa City and they have done much in support of the area. Prybil
stated that there was an incorrect statement made by the City from the County extension.
Calcium carbonate is a large factor in growing healthy crops as well as lime. These are
spread on the ground and not on top of the foliage because that is what kills the plant.
Prybil asked the board how the lot line would go on this property that is proposed.
Eckstein asked for clarification to Prybil's question. Prybil stated he wanted to know
where the lot line would be and if it would touch his lot line. Walz stated that his lot line
is shared with the proposed area. Prybil stated that they are in the county and that the lot
line is rural Johnson County is different than Iowa City he asked that it be explained.
Walz responded that she was not aware of any difference and deferred to Holecek for
clarification. Holecek stated that Prybil shares a property line along the eastern boarder
with the proposed site. Walz stated that at the time that the applicant submits the site
plan they will have to show that the construction of the facility is on their own property.
Prybil stated that there would have to be a three foot easement in rural Johnson County.
Walz responded stating that if that is a requirement then the applicant would be required
to do that. She stated that the applicant would be subject to all easements that exist on his
lot as well as any setback requirements from the City. Holecek confirmed that Prybil was
correct that in the Johnson County zoning code that you would not be able to build closer
than three feet to the adjoining lot line —that would apply to land in the county only.
Prybil stated he would like clarification from Walz about the fast growing trees and the
other row behind them. Walz stated that City staff suggested that applicant puts a row on
the outside of fast growing evergreens that meet the (S3) standard that grow to a height of
no less than six feet. Behind the row of evergreens, closer to the facility itself, there is a
row of deciduous fast growing trees such as poplar. That way there would be height to
catch any additional dust and views of conveyors.
Prybil asked if the City would allow this fast growing tree to shade his crops to hinder his
yield. Walz stated that it would be allowed. Prybil noted that he would not allow it.
Walz continued stating that it would be regarded similar to a warehouse built in that
location— anyone in that location would be allowed to build according to the zoning
codes. Prybil asked where the row of fast growing trees would be located. Walz stated
approximately 10 feet off of the property line and confirmed another row would be about
10 to 20 feet behind the first row. Prybil stated then that the second row would be on his
property about 10 feet. Walz corrected Prybil stating that nothing is allowed to be on his
property, that it is only allowed on the applicant'sown property. She stated that the
applicant would not be approved for a permit if he proposed to put anything on Prybil's
property. Walz also noted that anything put on Prybil's property could be removed at his
discretion.
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 13 of 20
Prybil asked if anyone has been to the other sites where concrete plants are located. Walz
stated she didn't know if any of the Board members had but she has been to locations.
Prybil asked if there was any greenery around those places. Walz stated that most of the
plants are in Coralville and they do not have the same standards.
Prybil reiterated that he was concerned about his crops.
Walz wanted to correct herself if she had misspoken that the Iowa State Extension crop
specialist and he did say calcium carbonate is applied to crop land not crops. She asked
him specifically the impact such a facility would have on crops. The crop specialist
indicated that he was not aware of anything beyond what one would experience on a well
traveled gravel road.
Holecek clarified when Walz was explaining where the trees would be for the screening it
would be 10 feet away from the property line with the next interior screen of trees
another step toward the interior. There would be a significant separation between
Prybil's property line and the screening of trees.
Sheerin asked if there were any other comments.
Steve Ballard, Iowa City, Iowa a lawyer representing the Prybil family investments.
Steve went over a power point that he created. He showed a picture of the Prybil
properties.
He addressed the special exceptions requirements. The first is the notion that the
property has to be located 500 feet from any residentially zoned property. He doesn't
have any objection or contest that it is there. He was glad that the City pointed out that
there is property where people are going to be concerned and affected by what the Board
decides. The proposal pretty close to the 500 feet from a residential use. He feels the
Board will serve everyone well if it considers the people that are on the other side of the
property line, especially if the City staff is saying that the City will grow out in that
direction in the next 10 to 15 years.
Ballard stated that the next requirement is proposed outdoor storage is located and
screened adequately to reduce noise, dust and the visual impact. He stated that it is going
to be a big facility. The proposal is to use trees as screening for a 53 foot facility. He
stated that the City noted that the present zoning if the special exception is permitted
would allow a 45 foot facility and with further exception it could be as tall as 53 feet.
Ballard stated that there is no natural buffer in that area. He said it will be years before
the trees will be adequate enough to screen and even at full maturity the trees will not
provide a protective buffer.
Ballard said it would be a good idea for the Board to go out and see these other concrete
properties to be able to see the heavy traffic. This produces a lot of dust, noise and large
piles of aggregate sand. He showed pictures of the Streb Concrete plant that is located
out in Coralville pointing out the retaining wall, the lack of vegetative screening, the
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 14 of 20
conveyors, and the large towers. The plant is located near Lowes on the south of
Highway 6. Ballard noted that there is a gravel road that ends somewhere south of the
Iowa Interstate Railroad. He pointed out that it is not just straight gravel anymore. There
is the concrete matter that is now also apart of the road. Ballard showed a picture of a
tower noting there is a regular spray a certain amount of dust that comes out of the tower
about every 10 to 15 minutes while in operation. He showed a picture of a bridge that
had a large amount of dust that goes down the intake into the stream below. He asked
that a video be played. The video would not show up on the screen for all to see. Ballard
stated that the video shows the dust in the area.
The next requirement is the traffic circulation. The roads in the industrial zone were
designed for the (I -1) general industrial use not the heavy industrial use as proposed.
Ballard stated the next criterion is that the exception won't be detrimental or endanger
public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He feels that the staff report doesn't
address the negative impact that the concrete plant is going to have on the surrounding
properties. Plagge asked if he had any studies or evidence that shows decreased crop
reduction next to concrete plants. Ballard stated he did not but that someone else would
speak to the agricultural aspect. He said he is more concerned with things that the Board
decided in 1998 saying the plant wouldn't be good then and he feels it still wouldn't be
good now.
Ballard noted that the plant will be visible for years; the dust created will have a negative
effect on businesses in the industrial park. There was a concern in 1998 if business
would locate in the industrial park if the exception was approved then. There are
businesses there now and farther to the east there is a proposed growth area that is mostly
industrial. He feels there will be that same concern of whether business will locate in the
future growth area if there is a concrete plant there. He encourages the Board to go back
and look at the 1998 file and staff reports.
There is an e -mail in the packet from one of the closest neighbors. The neighbor told
Ballard that he felt this would be a disaster for him because he keeps his doors open to
accommodate the employees with the fresh air, which would not be possible if there was
dust everywhere.
Ballard pointed out that the Prybil's have donated land to the City for use as a road to the
East of his property that is adjacent to the applicants' property. He showed the Southeast
District plan and explained that the purple area is designated as general industrial. Plagge
stated that Ballard had stated that the purple area is currently owned by his clients and
their concerned about potential development of the crop land and the nature because of
this. Ballard clarified that not all of the area in purple is owned by his client but some of
it is. They anticipate that at some point their crop land may be developed. That is one of
the reasons that they permitted the dedication of the road to facilitate a north south
thoroughfare. They are concerned not for the present agricultural use but for the future
industrial use. There are some notes from some real- estate agents saying that this will
negatively affect property values.
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 15 of 20
The Southeast District plan talks about encouraging green development. There is public
support for encouraging green development in future industrial areas. Ballard states that
this application is not encouraging green development.
Ballard stated that there has been discussion about how there are some other commercial
uses near by the industrial zone as well as in the zone. It seems that for those commercial
uses that currently exist or that might locate nearby this would be detrimental for them.
The next criterion talks about not impeding normal and orderly development. The
Southeast District plan talked about general industrial zone not heavy industrial use. It
talked about green development and not batch concrete plants.
Ballard summed it up by stating that their view is the plant is going to change the
character of the light industrial zone and general industrial zone. That it is inconsistent
with the Southeast District plan and that these sorts of uses should be permitted where
they are appropriate —in the (I -2) zone. In 1998 the Board found that the heavy industry
might discourage other uses. There are still great portions in this area that are not
developed.
The Board found that noise and air pollution would have a negative impact on nearby
agricultural and residential use. He notes that the staff report says nothing about the
impact on agricultural use. Plagge stated that he doesn't see that Ballard has shown any
evidence that it is a negative impact on agricultural use. Ballard stated that there will be
more representation on the agricultural use by another party that will speak. His final
note was that the Board did not find that the trees would effectively screen the area. The
Streb family owns a large part of the development of the Scott and Highway 6. The
people who might be perspective owners and those that are owners should have the same
right as the Streb family in 1998 to be able to sell their property or think about
developing their property without having to worry about the concrete batch plant. The
Board protected the interest of those people in 1998 and he is asking the Board do the
same and deny the special exception.
Grenis asked if the plant in Coralville that Ballard showed pictures of if it was a wet
batch concrete plant. Ballard stated he did not know if it was.
Grenis stated that when he read the Comprehensive Plan reference green development he
thought that was more about the types of manufacturing to attract as opposed to business
for the industrial park. Ballard stated he thought the reading talked about both. Walz
confirms that yes it talks about both. She stated that a large area of industrial property to
the east is owned by the City is being developed for potential use by a wind energy
company. The City views that this area is an appropriate spot for the batch plant. The
eastside of Iowa City is an area that will grow. Concrete will have to get to this area
somehow, and placing it the middle of the industrial zone with the screening provisions
that the City has outlined would be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 16 of 20
Walz stated that in regards to the roads not being created to sustain a use like this, the
City engineers do review the staff report. The City engineers have cleared this type of
use on the road. Ballard noted that he had stated that the road was designed for the (I -1)
zone not (I -2). That the general industrial zone and the uses that were talked about in
1998 and the uses that are out there today are not the constant stream of truck traffic that
you have with a concrete batch plant.
Ballard asked for the video to be tried and viewed again. There was no success in getting
the video to show up.
Sheerin noted that it was time to move on. Walz asked what was being demonstrated in
the video. Ballard stated it was to show what it looks like at the plant in Coralville. Walz
stated she would pass the video along to the Board and noted that it was a clip of a truck
driving along a gravel road. Ballard said the first part is, but where the concrete plant is it
is not a gravel road. He wants the Board to be able to see what the plant looked like
while operating.
Holecek asked if the City staff would be able to use Ballard's jump drive to print out the
pictures, slide show, comments for the record. Ballard confirmed.
Plagge asked Walz to clarify if there were any homesteads within the 500 feet. Walz
stated that there are some just outside the 500 feet.
Sheerin asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak.
Phillip Prybil, Iowa City, Iowa, stated he feels the Streb family has done a nice job
developing a great addition to the City of Iowa City and their industrial park of Scott
Boulevard and Highway 6. He stated that the Strebs did choose the zoning for that park.
They requested the I -1 zoning from the City and received it. If they had wanted to put a
concrete batch plant on it originally they could have heavy industrial zoning. This was an
issue brought up in 1998. He was present at that meeting along with 20 other people
many of whom spoke at that meeting. The uniform response he has received from those
people today is that they believed the use was voted down in 1998. He asked if the
situation is really all that different from then. Prybil stated that Walz says it is and the
road has improved. However, he believes that the situation on the ground in terms of
what is out there and what will be out there is much the same. He feels it is more
important that a concrete batch plant be built there today by virtue of the City's plan for
the area but noted that there is no natural buffer.
Prybil noted that he has a BS in agronomy. Calcium carbonate is nothing more than
material that makes soil more basic. This is applied to the ground and additional calcium
carbonate flowing off of the gravel road also makes ground more basic. When someone
purchases a piece of ground next to a gravel road you have to treat it differently than you
treat the rest of a parcel. When calcium carbonate is present in such levels that it makes
the ground so basic that it's not productive it becomes an issue. Prybil feels that for
someone to say that it can't be an issue or that calcium carbonate won't ever be an issue
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 17 of 20
is absurd. The extension person's comment saying that it is similar is true it is a function
of degrees.
Sheerin asked the Board for any questions.
Sheerin asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak.
Sheerin asked Streb if he would like to respond to any of the items talked about.
Streb stated that he understands that the (I -1) zone does allow concrete plants but by
special exception only. The other item he found that was spoken about that was not
correct was the information the wind energy. He believes the company that is coming
into Iowa City is an 85 million dollar venture is a foundry. So he feels that it would be
very heavy industrial. Grenis asked if Streb knew if the plant in Coralville was wet batch
plant. Streb stated that it is a wet batch plant.
Walz stated that it is up to the Board if they wanted to give their decision now but there
was a lot of new information presented and they should not feel pressed for time.
Holecek stated there are a number of things that could be discussed. Walz stated the
Board could view the video before they leave.
Sheerin asked if Streb was finished speaking. Streb stated their concrete plant is out in the
county, there are no screening requirements and it is on gravel road from Highway 6 all
the way to the River products. They are on rented ground so they could be kicked off at
any time should that owner decide. There is a farm operation to the east of their plant
that has been in production for many years. He referred to the photos he had provided
and stated that businesses have located near these plants so to say that property values
will diminish or to say that people won't locate next to a concrete batch plant is false.
Sheerin asked for their options. Holecek stated that the Board could continue the public
hearing or could close the public hearing. There after the board could choose to defer
and render the deliberations and decisions at another time. Walz stated there is only one
case at the September 14 meeting. She did not want the Board to be pressured for a
decision. This would give the Board time to go through all the information; they can view
the video at some other time without comment. Holocek stated the most import thing to
figure out is if they would need to continue the public hearing or close it.
Sheerin asked the Board if they needed to continue. Sheerin stated she would close the
public hearing. She asked if they need to make a motion to defer to the next meeting.
Holecek confirmed unless they wanted to set up a special meeting in between to render
the decision. Sheerin and Walz stated there was time at the next meeting. Walz stated
this would be the first item of discussion.
Eckstein pointed out that the most important thing was to not view the video because
there are all the photographs available and that the video and photographs are from a
particular point of view. She feels that it would be better to drive by the areas and view
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 18 of 20
them in person. Holecek stated that the Board should not go together; they should go on
their own and should not even talk about it.
Jennings moved to defer the decision on EXC11 -00007 for the special exception for
proposed cement batch mix facility located in Lot 35 of Scott Industrial area north
of 4201h Street and south of Liberty Drive until the September meeting.
Seconded by Eckstein.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0.
Walz reminded the Board that in the interest of avoiding ex parte communication the
board should not take any phone calls, from the press or individuals on either side. Walz
stated she would not speak to the Board on the matter and that everything needs to be on
the public record.
Linda Prybil, Iowa City, Iowa, had a procedural question. She stated that her concern is
the process of notification of people with interest in the area. The notification was very
sparse and not a good way to provide good feelings about the growth of Iowa City and
this area.
Prybil stated that it bothered her that Walz stated quote "that the three board members in
attendance tonight are in favor of the motion" and stating that basically there is no reason
to come. Prybil stated that Walz shared this with us and feels it is very inappropriate. She
should not know how the board is going to vote beforehand. Walz stated she did not
know what Prybil was talking about. Prybil stated that the fact is that Walz should not
know how the Board feels before hand. Walz stated she did not know. Plagge stated that
he did not think that any one of them had talked with Walz regarding this special
exception.
Walz stated that the City meets the legal requirement because the notice is published in
the paper, they posted the land, and send letters to any property owner within 300 feet.
Walz stated that concern was expressed that people didn't have enough forewarning and
so the Board gave more time by deferring to this special meeting. Walz stated that she
has had no conversation with the Board members and does not know how they feel about
the case. She stated that what she did say was in order for the special exception to be
approved, with just three members being at the original meeting, all three would have to
vote in favor of the exception. Therefore she believed the applicant would be inclined to
defer in order to have five members present. She stated she has no idea how the board
will vote. Sheerin pointed out that the Board has not even discussed amongst themselves
on how they are going to vote.
Prybil stated she thinks that that kind of information is a little troubling. Sheerin asked
for clarification on the type of information that Prybil was talking about. Prybil stated it
was in regards to Walz's comment that three of the Board members were going to vote in
Board of Adjustment
August 17, 2011
Page 19 of 20
favor. Sheerin stated that Walz did not make that statement. Walz stated that it would be
a requirement that all three vote in favor if the special exception were to be approved.
L. Prybil continued stating that she spoke with a business person who was very upset
about not being informed. This person was very upset when talking with Walz because
Walz tried to convince this person why the plant should be built. Prybil feels that if she
should be sharing information of both sides or should be impartial. Prybil thinks this is a
tricky development and as staff they have to be more careful about how they speak to the
public.
Walz asked Holecek if they would resend letters if it is deferred. Holecek stated they
typically do not. Walz stated that there will be a notice in the paper and the land will
remained posted.
ADJOURNMENT:
Sheerin adjourned the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote.
H
W
�
U
U) W
W
Q Z N
LL
O Q
pZ
W
Q �
m Q
c
E
N N
Q r�: O
� O
p
d "- N
:3 O
W 0) 0)
O O m
m¢a
E
`O
0
O
=3
U p� -0 CD
X C
LU
� N O
C �
c E�Ecv
<Z0
d Q II II Z
II II W � 11
X O O Z 1.
W
Y
ti
XXXXX
co
w0XOXX
0X0XX
co
XX
-
XX
M
XXXXX
C>
ch
XXXXX
N
XXX
11
X
U)
Wr-
"tCOLO
NM
w
0
r-
0
r-
0
r-
0
r-
0
N
N
N
N
N
FW-X
W
00000
c
�
Y
.(n
N
N
W
�•E
m(n
L
c
uj
cC
�c
E
—
p
=_
m
O
Z
m
co-;t
Q
U
E
`O
0
O
=3
U p� -0 CD
X C
LU
� N O
C �
c E�Ecv
<Z0
d Q II II Z
II II W � 11
X O O Z 1.
W
Y