Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-09-2012 Board of Adjustment
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, May 9, 2012 — 5:15 PM City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the March 28 and April 11, 2012 Minutes D. Special Exceptions 1. EXC12-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by MidwestOne Bank for a special exception for a temporary drive-through banking facility on property located in the Community Business Service(CB-2)zone at 509 S Dubuque Street. 2. EXC12-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by MidwestOne Bank for a special exception for a drive-through banking facility on property located in the Community Business Service (CB-2)zone at the southeast corner of the intersection of Clinton and Harrison streets. • E. Board of Adjustment Information F. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: June 13, 2012 f City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM } Date: May 11, 2011 To Board of Adjustment From Sarah Walz RE: Special Exceptions EXC12-00007 and EXC12-00008 The two applications before the board this month are closely related and concern two adjacent properties located along Harrison Street between South Clinton and South Dubuque Streets. Both properties are under the same ownership and zoning designation. These properties are associated with the former Sabin School site at 509 South Dubuque Street and include the parking area to the west of the alley at the southeast corner of Clinton and Harrison Streets. The University of Iowa acquired the properties with the intention of leasing or transferring them to MidwestOne Bank in exchange for MidwestOne's Bank current Home Mortgage Center property located two blocks to the north at 325 South Clinton Street, which is one of the parcels forming the proposed site for the University's new music school. The applicant has submitted two applications: The first is a special exception to establish a temporary drive-through facility at the property on the east side of the alley behind the former Sabin School building (EXC12-00007). This drive- through would serve the bank until such time as a new building can be established on the property west of the alley at the corner of S. Clinton and Harrison Streets. The second is a special exception to establish a permanent drive-through facility at the proposed future banking facility for MidWest One mentioned above (EXC12-00008). Because this bank facility is at the concept phase, the applicant is also seeking an extension of the term of a special exception to five years—the term to establish a use approved by special exception is 6 months, unless the applicant specifically requests an extension. The applicant is seeking the special exception now so they can appropriately plan for phased relocation of their services. The specifics of the each drive-through are discussed in the relevant staff reports attached. } IIW 0>. r O N 4 1-1 . �. c u �.. 3 O 0 , . : . '''....m.• 11:4'''''' -, 1i :,,,,I Orsiiii Wit - W -,R i MiT x _ . ._ ii €# � O'' O .. :5 a , ..._.. s . . . 1 a a ' x s Q) --- ♦ i .., .:: 'w .... �. .. _ Cr ..) .. _a ....„ t ... .. .. ... ., . .. t.„) . . cA . . .. . . . .. .., :' y `d .. i . ` , a:, 0 N szE 1—I — O . .- i.. - b.. W U _ I II (n z STAFF REPORT To Board of Adjustment Prepared by Sarah Walz and Andrew Gassman (intern) Item: EXC12-00007 Date: May 9, 2012 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Dan Black MidwestOne Bank 102 South Clinton St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5920 Contact Person: Kevin Monson Neumann Monson Architects 221 East College Street Suite 303 Iowa City, IA 52240 319-338-7878 Property Owner: Board of Regents University of Iowa do David Keift 2660 UCC University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 Requested Action: Special Exception to allow a temporary drive- through facility in the Central Business Service (CB-2) zone Purpose: To allow a drive-through banking facility Location: 509 South Dubuque Street Size: approx. 1 acre Existing Land Use and Zoning: Public (P-1) (in the process of being re-zoned to CB- 3 2) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: U.S. Post Office (P-2) South: Multi-family Residential (PRM) East: Multi-family Residential (CB-5 and PRM) West: Multi-family Residential (PRM) Applicable code sections: 14-4C-2K-2, Specific Criteria for drive-through uses; 14-4B-3A, General Criteria for all special exceptions File Date: April 10, 2012 1 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at 509 South Dubuque Street, the site of the former Sabin School Building. The property previously housed the administrative offices of the Iowa City Community School District. The University of Iowa acquired the property with the intention of leasing or 3 transferring it to Midwest One Bank in exchange for Midwest One's Bank Home Mortgage Center property located two blocks to the north at 325 South Clinton Street. (The current Midwest One property on is one of the parcels that form the proposed site for the University's new music 3 school.) The subject property is currently zoned Neighborhood Public (P-1) but is being re-zoned to 3 Central Business Service (CB-2) to reflect its future private ownership and use The property is 3 within the Riverfront Crossings District for which the City is currently preparing a detailed redevelopment plan. After completion of that plan staff anticipates that the area will be rezoned to a new mixed use zoning classification that is being drafted to implement the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Drive-through banking facilities will be a conforming use in the new zone. The applicant proposes to temporarily operate a portion of its banking services out of the historic Sabin School Building until a new bank building can be constructed on the west side of the alley at the southeast corner of Clinton and Harrison Streets (currently a parking lot). This special exception would allow Midwest One to establish a drive-through facility at the rear of at 509 S. 3 Dubuque Street, along the east side of the alley. Once a new bank facility is established west of the alley, the drive-through would be discontinued. The applicant is seeking simultaneous approval for a drive-through for the new building (see agenda item EXC12-00008) in order to plan for a phased relocation of their banking services. 3 The site plan for the proposed temporary drive-through facility shows a two-lane drive-through 4 with two stacking spaces available between the alley and teller window in each lane (stacking spaces are where vehicles wait to access the window service). The outer lane will have ATM 3 service. The site plan shows a drive-through route parallel with the alley with a canopy to overhang the service widow area The entire drive-through width is 25 feet 4 inches from the curb at the buildling to the alley. The site plan does not indicate a separation or setback between the drive-through lanes and the alley. 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 131 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-2 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 specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below 4 Specific Standards (14-4C-2K-2) a. 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: • Access to the drive through is from the paved public alley. • Two lanes with two stacking spaces for each lane is sufficient to serve the use based upon similar banking drive-throughs in the area and the diminishing reliance on these facilities due to on-line banking. • Much of the area adjacent to the public alley is now surface parking. • Staff anticipates that this area, which is part of the Riverfront Crossings District, will be re-zoned for mixed use—commercial and residential. 1 b. 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 these criteria based on the findings listed above under"a"and the following findings: • The alley is 20 feet wide, which is sufficient to support two-way traffic. • Harrison and Prentiss Streets are both low-volume streets. • A number of drive-through banking facilities currently operate safely along the perimeter of the downtown, including the current Midwest One and Bank of the West facilities on Clinton Street and the University of Iowa Community Credit Union at 500 Iowa Avenue. c. 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 The proposed drive-through does not indicate any set back or separation between the outside drive-through lane and the public alley. 1 1 s 1 1 Given the limited intensity of bank drive-throughs, the hours of operation, and the temporary nature of the proposed service, staff believes that the proposed drive-through can operate safely and is compatible with existing uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff recommends waiving the requirement for a 10-foot setback on the condition that the 1 applicant provide separation between the outer drive through lane and alley by installing bollards, paving markings or another method to be approved by planning staff. Staff also recommends that the entry and exit to the drive through be marked with signage. i 1 2d. 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. t The property lighting must be reviewed by the Building Department as part of the building permit process. All lighting standards must be met in order for an occupancy permit to be issued. General Standards (14-4B-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: I • Bank drive-throughs have limited intensity and limited hours of use • Providing bollards, paving markings or other means of separating the drive-through lanes from the alley, will minimize confusion for drivers navigating the alley. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other Iproperty in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings provided above i under# 1 and these additional findings: 1 • The proposed drive-through banking facility is not out of character with the existing uses in the area and is an appropriate at this location, which is part of Riverfront Crossings District. • Adjacent properties currently use the area along the alley for parking. • The proposed drive-through is intended to function temporarily until the bank can re- Idevelop property at the corner of Harrison and Clinton Streets. 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. i Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings under#1 and i #2 above. f 1 i 1 4 1 1 1 a 1 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or Iare being provided. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: 1 1 • All necessary facilities, utilities, access roads and drainage are provided for this area • Access to the bank is provided from a paved alley. 1 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed 1 so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The public alley is wide enough for two way traffic. • Signage and required pavement markings at the entrance and exit to the site will I minimize traffic confusion along the alley. 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 1 applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. ¢ A final site plan must be submitted for final site plan review and building permit. The Building Official will review the plan to determine that all applicable zoning requirements are satisfied. All applicable zoning requirements for the property must be met in order for a building permit to be issued. 1 1 i 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 1 Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The Comprehensive Plan currently shows this area as being appropriate for government functions and mixed uses. • The subject location is within the Riverfront Crossings Redevelopment area and is proposed for re-zoning to a mixed use zone in which it is anticipated that drive- through banking facilities will be a conforming use i i d STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC12-00007, a special 1 exception to allow a temporary drive-through banking facility at 509 South Dubuque Street, 1 subject to the following conditions: Installation of bollards, paving markers or other means of separating the outside drive-through lane from the alley to be approved by staff. • The drive through area will have pavement markings and signage to direct vehicles. • General compliance with the site plan for the drive-through as submitted; with the I final site plan and lighting to be approved by the Building Official. • Upon establishment of a proposed new bank facility at the corner of Harrison and 1 Clinton Streets, the subject drive-through will be discontinued. if , l I 1 1 i ATTACHMENTS: 1 1. Location map 2. Site plan 3. Application materials /4644111,-, Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development 7j p3 } £ , _. \\I 1 / --- , \ \-1 \_-_•e / lvv\ i r% 1 0 I-2 \ II § (6. ilk Pir x II . w n* I• ., ., _:._-._- .- , IIIP i'l ILj . ---- L---1-__ di ..- is -:- - 07 - II • I 1 , • ---:-___-. r (0) __ . .... _ ----1--„, _ 1 . IN ...., €._._ , ., ____.n o plii , 1 1_ -7 (r) clii cr I \01\113 1--- (r) & NI 1 __ I- cr -4.____j -I—) cp I' .... 8 .--___ Ai cp t)' I a) r \ ___) ----- .,_) ------ —721S 1011 cIVO Cit. a) = cr I — 13 = , 0 1.10 r 1 2.1 ! . - • . (r) u \ 0 ... is \OSICV A w ill , 11 i i , .. i , 1 ; ,.,-.4;...,, , , I z ,,,,,„ : „ .? ,,ii:,..., . , ri ZV -1q OW r•ii ""Z : 4; LA:11 ::41:1 1.F.1.1, Ma., a) C 0 0 g i 611 !II , , 0 w— , z‘. ._ ..,..—• .., ..— CD 4: Nil .',Iiiii a) ai k- Td. I hi,: 0 a) u) 0 0 .3 11 10 11 1 '_J' ia IJJ 1 !-- ;PI. 2 i il i g Z k 0 E b , ..- y ii i -A E 't Z 0 ' opt. 1.1# . ii, i t t . 1 i g:-... : 1 • 1 .:;: - .t“F. i i it-, (lEiii — 0 0 1 ..f 2 M 0 CC 1 hi id I : 34.•34 43 34 a , 1 ) 1 1 , ‘ 3 1 , 1 3 i 4 . . 3 1 i . 3 1 to 1 1 . 1 4. Al., •,. ,•.:.ii i 4? 1 1 1 i i L. , r,.1111111hr. I 1____I ' •, I____I / :.wwliiii ... Illir irw, 0 0 0 lir 0 0 i . . i - .t...1R1:43 mogaurtri 3 : i i g , i _..._ _..._ .. .I.• . --04..-......tr_,...._,_,..ce -.. , <lin _ . •-nar=--..,=ear--.P ...._!_ .a , ",-... GT I i le . •),-..:1-..p44., ,, 1 i -:-:„---. • „ .. i I-°- • 'NUM I 31 343 3 . ! 41 . 11 — '• L.., .3,... 4. 3. . •.... 3 443. ::. , . ki443133 ..4.-3 il 3 ....•Fillirl- _ . , . _ auir :L.: ... ,,....,.. ....,..,.,. ... . . . .:. . ..1 .. . . . . • . . • . .. • :... . . , ipip-,..., ,-; ,. .;:: .,, ; 1 1 . ..e _ .3: 1 ., .• . .. . • .1i , , --,-.•. .- 1 .,. 1 : 4 1 1 . . 1 , •3: i 4 L 1 ,. . .. ..,,,. . . .. .. .. ... ,. • . . . . . . .„ . . • • .• . • • .. . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . , , ; p tap,4, • , .. , mi.. ,......... „ . 1 ,..„ • 0 .. . • " , .1 • pi,„,:......._ 11111. . .„,,„ .. • •••..1111111 • 11 1 , i . . , ,' -24211#igalThaltio ! • 11M.a_AL' . ,,•2:•=fZI:.'i••..::::::.L.'.....r..::.:,..:._•• •• • • '' ' .34 •411111.1 1:, 4. , 1 , —— 0.3-11•Ionand 0 1 ) )---I 11111111111111111111111 IN IN i .allE 4 ' 141110 . .' ••• :*--' '474 ill MN IIITAI , : • i 3:rir.or.4.44/1) 3 4. I . .• ••' '.4 ......• -9! ..• , , , 4 : • 1 ; 1 l'#:- --, .•''. ' .11. , r . : ...: •., :. it i . 3 . , • , • , M ' ' il '•.•• • ' . AI 4iF 3 i.4.4 •,-.S. :11r1.."':':, 1 :: : .1 • 7"-7... . , . , .3, • • 4 ... •• ••1 •-. 1 . l• ,....-, ' . . ..... . . , • , :: ''. r•••• ' '' : POI ..: :, .:.':'•.' .. .:::.111; .1 . ••• •. :"1 .•ASA . ' . .1 1 ' / , 1 , L.—"-I---I L.—V.J./..-A4-zP / I ' C 0 -6,1 If13-1 I I-- i i VI 1 1 i APPLICATION TO THE • . i BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT i, 1 SPECIAL EXCEPTION , i i . 1 i April 10,2012 1015206001 I DATE: PROPERTY PARCEL NO. I PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5095.Dubuque Street,Iowa City,IA 52240 I I 150'x 320' I PROPERTY ZONE: Downtown PROPERTY LOT SIZE: i 1 1 Dan Black/MidwestOne Bank i i APPLICANT: Name: 1 102 South Clinton St.,Iowa City,IA 52240 I Address: 1 319.356.5920 I Phone: , i i Kevin Monson/Neumann Monson Architects i CONTACT PERSON: Name: , 1 (if other than applicant) Address: 221 E.College St,Suite 303,Iowa City,IA 52240 ! 319.338.7878 I Phone: I Board of Rebents F/B/O University of Iowa .... 1 I PROPERTY OWNER: Name: c/o: David Kieft i ! (if other than applicant) I Address: 2660 UCC,University of Iowa,Iowa City,IA 52242 i iPhone: 319.335.5052 i 1 , , ! 1 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 I cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please I contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarabwalz@lowa-clty.org. — -- I See Item C below: ---:- ' -- ;— I Purpose for special exception: —? -- 1 1-,) i Date of previous application or appeal filed,if any: - I i , t 5 1 i t i 1 i i 1 1 H -2- B • in order for your application to be considered complete,you must provide responses to all of the information requested below.Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date for your application. A pre-application consultation with Planning staff is STRONGLY recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria. I As the applicant,you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official statement,you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Legal description of property(attach a separate sheet If necessary): Lots 1,2,3,the north 26.5 feet of Lot 4,and the east 90 feet of the south 53.5 feet of Lot 4,and all of Lot 8,Block 8,County Seat Addition to Iowa City,Johnson County,Iowa,according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 1&2,Page 253,and the subsequent deed recorded in Book 4866,Pages 181-183,Deed Record of Johnson County,Iowa. The property currently has the address of 509 S.Dubuque Street,Iowa City,IA. B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following infomiafion: 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees-existing and proposed. 7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking spaces,etc.) _ C. Specific Approval Criteria:In order to grant a special exception,the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet,address each of the criteria that apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met.(Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 144B-4 of the Zoning Code.Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are listed elsewhere in the Code.) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail Sarah-walz©Jowa- city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment. The project is seeking a temporary special exception for a drive-through facility as allowable in CB-2 zoning by 14-4C- 8 via special exception as defined in 14-4C-2,K-2 for a period not to exceed 5 years. The drive through use would terminate when the planned new operations center and drive-through(via separate application)is put into use. The drive-through facility would reside on the alley(west)side of the existing Sabin School Building. Access would be via the public alley. A custom canopy over the drive through lanes will be provided. Specific information in support of these special exceptions is as follows under Items D 1-7 below: I;it 4 1 -3- D. General Approval Criteria:In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed In • "C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information, not Just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are not relevant In your particular case. 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,safety,comfort,or general welfare. The proposed use is primarily an office function for a local bank and a drive-up banking component. The moderate-use nature of the intended use should be beneficial to the public health,safety,comfort,and general welfare of the area through activation of the now vacant site. The intended use should support the residents and land uses already in place and those future uses desired for the neighborhood as part of the River Crossings development plan. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be Injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not • substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. 3 The drive-through is located off of the alley and does not front onto a street. It should not add any type of hindrance to surrounding property values or decrease the enjoyment of surrounding property owners. 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 district in which such property Is located. The proposed development should not impede the normal development of the area—in fact,the project is a first,temporary step to full redevelopment of this parcel. The project does not hinder or impede existing utilities or traffic patterns. The proposed development should not adversely affect drainage past its site borders. The proposed development should not hinder views to or from the vicinity. The proposed development is a conforming use. The proposed use is contained within an existing building. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities,access roads,drainage,and necessary facilities will be designed to exceed applicable requirements. _ ' 1 3 3 '•i. Ii _ ) I ID 0 1 1 -4- s i 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide Ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Traffic added to the area due to the proposed drive-up facility will be handled utilizing the public alley for + ingress and egress. Substantial stacking space for automobiles will be provided to mitigate the possibility of stacking on the public alley. i 1 A 1 1 j 3 . i i 1 i 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in I which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant I will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use as provided in the City Code section 14.4B as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards(14-5A through K).] In all other respects,exclusive of the special exceptions being requested,the project will conform to all applicable regulations and standards of the CB-2 zoning. Only two lanes of drive-through will be provided. Four stacking spaces will be provided within the property. Lighting will be from under the building with iappropriate cut-off fixtures to mitigate light spillage across property lines. 1 I i 3 1 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance specifically allow for retail banking establishments and office functions in CB-2 zoning areas. i 4 1 3 a 1 i i t I i g 1. i 5 __ F CJ i 1 4 j t I 1 i -5- i E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal: NAME ADDRESS, 1 I a Board of Regents F/B/O University of Iowa c/o:George Hollins,2660 UCC,University of Iowa,Iowa City,IA 52242 United States Postal Service Iowa City,IA 52240 Johnson County 913 S.Dubuque St.,Iowa City,IA 52240 Lederman Bros Property Management Co LLC 712 Sycamore Street,Waterloo,IA 50703 Penningroth Apartments LTC PO Box 525,Iowa City,IA 52244-0525 Nick&Nora LC PO Box 143,Iowa City,IA 52244-0143 QB-1 LLC PO Box 3049,Iowa City,IA 52244 XV LLC PO Box 3049,Iowa City,IA 52244-3049 John O.&Joellen S Roffman 1314 Burry Drive,Iowa City,IA 52246 f Harry W&Paulette Hinckley 886 Park Place,Iowa City,IA 52246 Dubuque Street Investments 711 S.Gilbert Street,Iowa City,IA 52240 4 Philip W&Janice L Launspach 136 Koser Ave,Iowa City,IA 52246 3 4 Nagle Limited Partnership 301 S.Dubuque Street,Iowa City,IA 52240 Martin A Diaz 802 Raymond Drive,Solon,IA 52333-4701 I XJ-23 LLC PO Box 3049,Iowa City,IA 52244-3049 Ai-Iman Center of Iowa Inc 1733 Winston Drive,Iowa City,IA 52245 J i 4 i 4 1 J 1 1 i S 1 i i I 9 g 3 1 _ J {I 1 t`J i i 1 1 i B i J A F#' s i I I -6- NOTE:Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may Impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, i improved traffic circulation requirements,highway access restrictions,increased minimum i yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code). 1 Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall I expire six(6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to I establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to 1 completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order 4 without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-8C-1E,City Code). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons,jointly or severally,aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision I is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C-1 F,City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty(30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk. 1 Date: Lf ._ c/ , 20 /2_ I Occ,___ 31 „.____ _ 2). / ' 1 Slgnature(s)of Applicant(s) 1 vL Date: •i _5 • , 20 �2 1 B Signature(s)of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) 1 ppdadmlrMppUcatloa-boase.doc 1 i 3 J a-ate`iL,a c C) 3 6 U , �A iFs' • 1 {l 1 9, 2 STAFF REPORT To Board of Adjustment Prepared by Sarah Walz 2 EXC12-00008 and Andrew Bassman (intern) Southeast corner of Date: May 9, 2012 Harrison and Clinton Streets GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Dan Black Midwest One Bank 102 South Clinton St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5920 Contact Person: Kevin Monson Neumann Monson Architects 221 East College Street Suite 303 Iowa City, IA 52240 319-338-7878 1 Property Owner: Board of Regents University of Iowa do David Keift 2660 UCC University of Iowa 4 Iowa City, IA 52242 Requested Action: Special Exception to allow a drive-through facility in the Central Business Service (CB-2) zone Purpose: To establish a drive-through banking facility Location: Southeast corner of Harrison and Clinton Streets Size: Approximately 12,000 square feet Existing Land Use and Zoning: Public (P-1) (in the process of being re-zoned to CC- 2) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: U.S. Post Office (P-2) South: Multi-family Residential (PRM) East: Multi-family Residential (CB-5 and PRM) West: Multi-family Residential (PRM) Applicable code sections: 14-4C-2K-2, Specific Criteria for drive-through uses; 14-4B-3A, General Criteria for all special exceptions. File Date: April 10, 2012 I 1 I 1 I BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Harrison and Clinton Streets and is currently used for surface parking associated with uses at 509 South Dubuque Street. The property previously housed the administrative offices of the Iowa City Community 4 School District. The University of Iowa acquired the property with the intention of leasing or transferring it to MidwestOne Bank in exchange for MidwestOne's Bank Home Mortgage Center property located two blocks to the north at 325 South Clinton Street. (The current Midwest One property is one of the parcels that form the proposed site for the University's new music school.) The subject property is currently zoned Neighborhood Public (P-1) but is being re-zoned to Central Business Service (CB-2)to reflect its private ownership and use The property is within the Riverfront Crossings District for which the City is currently preparing a detailed redevelopment plan. After completion of the plan staff anticipates that the area will be rezoned to a new mixed use zoning classification that is being drafted to implement the Riverfront Crossings Plan. It is anticipated that drive-through banking facilities will be a conforming use in the new zone. 1 The applicant has submitted a special exception to establish a temporary drive-through facility at I the property on the east side of the alley behind the former Sabin School building (EXC12-00007). The temporary drive-through would serve the bank until such time as a new building can be established at the site described here. Once the proposed permanent drive-through is established, the temporary drive-through, east of the alley, would be discontinued. MidwestOne currently operates a drive-through banking facility at its home loan center located at 325 S. Clinton Street, approximately two blocks northwest of the proposed site being considered. That drive through relies on access from Clinton Street and a public alley. I The site plan for the proposed permanent drive-through associated with the future bank facility 3 shows a two-lane drive-through with three stacking spaces. An ATM will be located on the outer (east) lane. A median in excess of 10 feet separates the outside drive-through lane from the alley, and a building wall screens the drive-through lanes from the ally. Vehicles will circulate from the paved public alley, turning north to the drive-through and exiting onto Harrison Street. The City plans to reconstruct Harrison Street when the new bank is constructed. 1 In order to plan for the phased relocation of Midwest One banking facilities, the applicant is seeking an extension for the term of the exception to five years. 1 ANALYSIS: i The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general 1 welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the I 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-2 pertaining to drive-through facilities in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A. 1 1 The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria Iare set forth below. 3 Specific Standards (14-4C-2K-2) a. 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: • Access to the drive-through is from the paved public alley. • Two lanes with three stacking spaces each is sufficient based upon similar banking drive-throughs in the area and the diminishing reliance on these facilities due to on-line banking. • Much of the area adjacent to the public alley is now surface parking. • Staff anticipates that this area, which is part of the Riverfront Crossings District, will be re-zoned for mixed use—commercial and residential. To ensure the safety across the sidewalk on Harrison Street, staff recommends signage at the exit to remind drivers to yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk. b. 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 these criteria based on the findings provided above i under criterion "a"and the following findings: 3 • The paved alley is 20 feet wide, which is sufficient to support two-way traffic. • The exit for the drive-through is located along Harrison Street—a low volume street, which will be improved when the new bank building is reconstructed. • The exit to the drive-through is not in conflict with the drive-up mailboxes in the median of East Harrison Street. • A number of drive-through banking facilities currently operate safely along the perimeter of the downtown, including the current Midwest One and Bank of the West facilities on Clinton Street and the University of Iowa Community Credit Union at 500 Iowa Avenue. c. 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 these criteria based on the following findings: • The submitted site plan shows a setback in excess of 10 feet separating the outside drive-through lane from the alley. • Screening along the alley is provided by a building wall. d. 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. The property lighting must be reviewed by the Building Department as part of the 1 building permit process. All lighting standards must be met in order for an occupancy permit to be issued. 1 General Standards (14-4B-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • Bank drive-throughs have limited intensity and limited hours of use. • The site plan shows the building set back approximately 5 feet from the sidewalk, which will provide adequate visibility for vehicles exiting the drive. • Staff recommends signage at the exit to caution drivers to yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk. 1 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings provided above under# 1 and these additional findings: • The proposed drive-through banking facility is not out of character with the existing uses in the area and is an appropriate at this location, which is part of Riverfront Crossings District. • Adjacent properties currently use the area along the alley for parking. 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 findings under#1 and #2 above. 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: • Adequate utilities, drainage and other necessary facilities are already provided for this property. • The alley that provides access to the property is paved. • At such time as the new bank building is constructed, the City will improve/reconstruct Harrison Street. • The new curb cut for the drive-through requires a permit and so a final site plan will also be reviewed by the Public Works Department. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The applicant has indicated adequate stacking spaces will be provided to 1 prevent stacking into the public alley. • The public alley is wide enough for two-way traffic. • Signage and required pavement markings at the entrance and exit to the site will minimize traffic confusion along the alley. 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. Because the new bank facility will not be built for a few years and may be under a new zoning designation, staff regards site plan as concept only and the boards review should apply to the layout of the drive-through only. Once the applicant has firm plans to construct the building, a final site plan must be submitted. The Building Official will review the plan to determine that all applicable zoning requirements are satisfied for the property. A 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The Comprehensive Plan currently shows this area as being appropriate for government functions and mixed uses. • The subject location is within the Riverfront Crossings Redevelopment area and is proposed for re-zoning to a mixed use zone in which drive-through banking facilities will be a conforming use STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC12-00008, a special exception to allow drive-through banking facility at the southeast corner of Harrison and Clinton Streets, subject to the following conditions: • The drive through area will have pavement markings and signage to direct vehicles, including pedestrian signage at the exit onto Harrison Street. • Substantial compliance with the proposed design of the drive-through as submitted; with the final site plan and lighting to be approved by the Building Official. 1i • Approval of the curb cut onto Harrison Street by the Public Works Department. Staff recommends that the term of the special exception be extended to 5 years, within which time the applicant must have taken action to establish the use or construct the new bank building under the terms outlined above. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Site plan 3. Application materials Approved by Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development fib` - , O \-OdW °o 2 \ O 31 II W Irl , T O - P 0 ,1 -- _ - tit W al ,! • • i a _____ ________ .____ II � �is ins .,.., . "Iii I ,:)[,, z ___ _4, O 0 7 E ` l OE. ., 0 O v _� a,______ ,„ O O \000 O C\1 � O � 0 O a 1 1 — O O � O -6-0.) 'v 0 O _ Q) O O G) 1S 01 C0 N 0 a NI Z, . 0 a ., ,, a 1 o _1 . W 1S \OSICVIA 4 H / AVA 1 . 1 /1. 1 f i / / / 3 CO I I < , 3 1.-E) 1 0 , ...;,....„3..44". Z 4 I 4 A , -,'4943 433 , 1 o j —--— cv 1 1 1 g ATI1V onend g 1 1 o — , 1 I ., ....... –– ■---1 1 / Lo '-4 '.......),, , 1 •.,,,,,..,.....„. :, -,,,(....-..... ., I 1111 Ili I . .44411■ te I-1 .ilt....: 11 1 i ".4 ,_ , .. ... , c 14° 11 I I 1 1111111)11 11141111111 *\V '' 11/ I 1 3 -M O / 1 ,..,# i / 1 4 . s t.. 1 . 1 1 g" a , 41 4 111) NI 41011 i cr) i , ".•z-N0,3' k• ,‘„,:fez..;,6 1 41111 1 1 o (.0 Z III 1 6 i cn 1 ,.., • z 4 , 43,*31111 hillm, Ili " 0 4 *i'444 III! 11 3;-11,* 1 UJ LU I IT;:.-• > a. 0 , tee 1 •, ,e..., ..,t,.. ....:''' • II Eli'4:0,er:,7' 1.1.1 --I ■A ill i Z / ,terilt. 4;1' C46 5 0 sk 0 CO W ....e; •;7',,... * 2 c5 1.g..,fisviv* 0 W •.7,33,,, z<8 ..it.le ; 1 . 2 Z t..... '... Z 0 1— : ii •••••S., 1,.;.±...:, •;f1, 0 , u 0 I r .I3. ' •,/4i;Ice E.= p 0 ,fi' i a. i 7) t`" • CC LU z 1 4 , ' '4 -i c•-3.0" 0 II C3 , -J ,- OA, 1 -,,, ,,•- U- '7-3. ‘... ,..tc; ei - 3.,3 I i '4"44••.‘ irilYit,4 '‘. 0 1 '',-•. '-.). .•e ...• -,,,):•■•• •.' . I •.' i kl :"L !°P 2,01J's iAsl.'"k4fi.' 1 • `i..ilf ' • .1 1, .k1 1 :I'. •i,-... • .4-4,,g ; gl • • •t= . g i *' V-43.• g , .. A , 4.;•$'14.1' 1 IS ", l''5'. g •,:s5;„,,:r?!.1 ■ i ....P'.. .7 I • • .......3- - --— il .4. .. ,-• 3 .-_• '‘''' • .......,4 , ,..o A . . t. .; 1. •-,.--.- ‘Z11111''Ulilki.: •-— 3. ...ttr.1:, 3 i . Is° .:'"4 • • i .' It: -. • . ill '?'.... ..* • i 1 tP., ". • i let; '4 • 4'11 .e.,. 5 ' ' ' '31 :3 3 •••" ,../ el ' :3,4 ..3.' ,,..t' :3, :, ...* ,-.) ' ., 4„, •.••••• ,-.) ' .,..4,,. ?..4 .'Q... ... -01. .' . ...: . A -' '..:::'A i -'7'..,"'s. it:,7,:*,.1..''8,x:• '',,a,',7,:',l'.•,,, ,a-• 4.4,7,'• ,,,':,,,'.,, ..• "ti,;,'..,,,.".„. .... ■_.: .rt.,.,,_. ,.-,a,,y ''- ;;.;) 11 '., 1 ■• ; \ . „V ..• , ■ 1 i C-AC,I '2--WILan 1 . ID 4111 1 9Q O e4e) APPLICATION TO THE . 0M BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1 SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: April lo,2012 PROPERTY PARCEL N0. 1015206001 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 509 S.Dubuque Street,Iowa City,IA 52240 PROPERTY ZONE' Downtown 150'x 80' . PROPERTY LOT SIZE: Dan Black/MidwestOne Bank APPLICANT: Name: 102 South Clinton St.,Iowa City,IA 52240 Address: 319.356.5920 Phone: Kevin Monson/Neumann Monson Architects CONTACT PERSON: Name: (if other than applicant) 221 E.College St,Suite 303,Iowa City,IA 52240 ° Address: Phone: 319.338.7878 Board of Regents F/B/O University of Iowa PROPERTY OWNER: Name:_ c/o: David Kieft (if other than applicant) Address: 2660 ucc,University of Iowa,Iowa city,IA 52242 ; 319.335.5052 V Phone: I 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 -ti( contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-wala@Iowa-cfty.org, ,— J m. I0I A See Item C below: .,..I i Purpose for special exception: sJ 5 z, Date of previous application or appeal filed,if any l 1 , 4 I q 1 • -2- in order for your application to be considered complete,you must provide responses to all of the information requested below.Failure to provide this Information may delay the hearing date for your application. A pre-application consultation with Planning staff is STRONGLY recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria. As the applicant,you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official statement,you should address all the applicable criteria in a dear and concise manner. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Leaai description of property(attach a separate sheet If necessary): Lots 1,2,3,the north 26.5 feet of Lot 4,and the east 90 feet of the south 53.5 feet of Lot 4,and all of Lot 8,Block 8,County Seat Addition to Iowa City,Johnson County,Iowa,according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 1&2,Page 253,and the subsequent deed recorded in Book 4866,Pages 181-183,Deed Record of Johnson County,Iowa. The property currently has the address of 509 S.Dubuque Street,Iowa City,IA. B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information: 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; • 5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees-existing and proposed. 7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking spaces,etc.) C. Specific Approval Criteria:In order to grant a special exception,the Board must find that - I the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet,address each of the criteria that apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should Just be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met.(Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-4B-4 of the Zoning Code.Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are listed elsewhere in the Code.) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Waiz at 358-5339 or e-mail sarah-waJz> lowa- x city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment. The project is seeking a special exception for the drive-through facility as allowable in CB-2 zoning by 14-4C-8 via special exception as defined in 14-4C-2,K-2. The drive-through facility would be part of a new operations center(retail banking offices)located on the northwest lot bounded by Clinton and Harrison Streets,west of the public alley. Specific information in support of these special exceptions is as follows under Items D 1-7 below: 11 3 7 -3- D. General Approval Criteria:in addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in "C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information, not Just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are not relevant in your particular case. 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,safety, comfort,or general welfare. The proposed use is primarily an office function for a local bank. There is also a drive-up banking component allowable by CB-2 zoning(Section 14-2C-8,article I)through special exception(14-4C-2,K-2). Given the scale and nature of the investment,the stability of the financial institution,and the stability and type of workforce,the intended use should be beneficial to the public health,safety,comfort,and general welfare of the area. The intended use should support the residents and land uses already in place and those future uses desired for the neighborhood. i s 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not • substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. The proposed development represents a sizable investment and will be built with exceedingly high quality standards. The development should only increase property values in the area. The screened drive-through which is integrated into the building form should not add any type of hindrance to surrounding property values. • ) 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 district in which such property Is located. The proposed development should not impede the normal development of the area. The project does not hinder or impede existing utilities or traffic patterns. The proposed development should not adversely } affect drainage past its site borders. The proposed development should not hinder views to or from the vicinity. The proposed development is a conforming use. The proposed building scale and use should be compatible with that of the Johnson County Justice Center and reinforce future development along Clinton. Drive through egress and ingress has been kept away from Clinton Street in conformance with City Planning long range goals for development under the City of Iowa City's River Crossing project. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. ? All utilities,access roads,drainage,and necessary facilities will be designed to exceed applicable requirements. s 7 1 -4- 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Traffic added to the area due to the proposed drive-up facility will be handled utilizing the public alley for ingress. Substantial stacking space for automobiles will be provided to mitigate the possibility of stacking on public ways. Drive-through egress is proposed onto Harrison Street due to the limitations of the lot size and corner position. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, the specific proposed exception In all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use as provided in the City Code section 1448 as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards(14-5A through K).] In all other respects,exclusive of the special exceptions being requested,the project will conform to all applicable regulations and standards of the CB-2 zoning. The drive-through will be integrated into the building form(no canopies or freestanding kiosks)and buffered from public view to the greatest extent possible.Ingress and stacking will be off of the public alley(side access). Egress will be onto Harrison. Only two lanes of drive-through will be provided. Four stacking spaces will be provided within the property. The drive through is setback from adjacent lot lines and will be screened to the 52 standard(S3 standard to the adjacent PRM zone). Lighting will be from under the building with appropriate cut-off fixtures to mitigate light spillage across property lines. ( 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance specifically allow for retail banking establishments and office functions in CB-2 zoning areas. The proposed use should also reinforce development along Clinton Street. • ( tp I i . I . 0 0 i . i 1 , i -5- ,i. 1 .. E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located i within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved In this appeal: 1 I I NAME ADDRESS 1 . 1 I Board of Regents F/B/0 University of Iowa ao:George Hollins,2660 UCC,University of Iowa,Iowa City,IA 52242 i United States Postal Service Iowa City,IA 52240 Johnson County 9135.Dubuque St.,Iowa City,IA 52240 ' Lederman Bros Property Management Co LLC 712 Sycamore Street,Waterloo,IA 50703 Penningroth Apartments LTC PO Box 525,Iowa City,IA 52244-0525 1 Nick&Nora LC PO Box 143,Iowa City,IA 52244-0143 i .1 0,B-1 LLC PO Box 3049,Iowa City,IA 52244 i XV LLC PO Box 3049,Iowa City,IA 52244-3049 1 John 0.&Joellen S Roffman 1314 Burry Drive,Iowa City,IA 52246 Harry W&Paulette Hinckley 886 Park Place,Iowa City,IA 52246 1 Dubuque Street Investments 7115.Gilbert Street,Iowa City,IA 52240 , 1 Philip W&Janice L Launspach 136 Koser Ave,Iowa City,IA 52246 a 1 Nagle Limited Partnership 301S.Dubuque Street,Iowa City,IA 52240 ? Martin A Diaz 802 Raymond Drive,Solon,IA 52333-4701 o :I XJ-23 LLC PO Box 3049,Iowa City,IA 52244-3049 1 Ai-Iman Center of Iowa Inc 1733 Winston Drive,Iowa City,IA 52245 i i i , i 1 i q i ! 1 J i ? i ! g .1 , i ... i i . • . , . _, ....., . „ i 1 ,....) ; i i 4 1 1 1 1 ; ' 1 , 1 i i I i 1 1 -6- NOTE:Condition& in permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements,highway access restrictions,increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six(6) months from the date the written decision Is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-8C-1E,City Code). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons,jointly or severally,aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the Illegality. (Section 14-8C-1F,City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty(30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk. Date: c' , 20 L L .net,x 641 k.77. Signature(s)of Applicant(s)4 - 20 Date: (2- Da.-0(4)t, a. s • Signature(s)of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) f ppdadminlapp1caUon-boase.doc jrj a , i " . ID 03 4 i ) . ,...e . < z t -r, 1 , •5;, 4, ''e 4.,°,,?•1 CV :•, i 2 ... Arnv on8nd 111 dm i 2, , r2 1-\.* --r--,, 1——v---- —— , • , 1 '.',:t•''''''''''''.A f---1--- , Ill . ... ., 1 I °. 1 . ' ' I a mil 0(4 Ian ■:,''' / ft.. 4,, ,..,.—,_i INN, .1.—.=..-,—' ,We■ -11:■ i I e'4V ' I i alarilaiiimm_._ 11_1T"4 I 11111-61 triMir0 1 i ; I ' co LLI 1 .,.:,..:)---e..: 1 s;•,.,..-r.t:..,,, 1 ......: , .:-.. .,— . •••.„, w , •.• ,:•,.... 2 I I 0 0) II 6 i ,,,==°°=••■ ,: ' Z ; 4-•-4 111. I --....k. .,' ■■ I ..: •". •!./%/t : I- I "/.' • < 4 1 • ;:.•,LiMillfil I liet,f CC —1 j 4, '••r",:,,,'-',.-■6 I. I tb.It'f Lij I lit Z 9 g CI 4 ..._ .;ea 1 ''.A„i-vigt.i.-. 0 Ill , i \ ''••- z,z 0 tn 0 i Fit'f I i Z E 1,1,r'S .(Et•'.4 w al 9,,. I 4'4 1,•a• , -1•e';''.-. -,/,5 0 a.0 :-. I • ""ri I :l .•e -. cc cr -'6',A. '')C ' a."t I !' • :if,' a.. cn , 0 z .4,, I CC • I o ....4 t-N 5' , , , •,A., - i c7 s i 1 ;11 , I , •. U. ..;- 2 I ____, I • iti. g 2. -!, • 0,- g . • •-;:„ 1 I , .•-••,•,,, wl 1 I I i - __1-4.10.1_____ , ) -•%!•!' 4,,,..1''..;. .., 1: J'•:r •••• i ,a... sore. 2- ••■ ./.* -a •; , .,-/.• ••, /./ j■ .,•., -,/, ,) .../....- /.0 :„.) , .' •7 -.0 ,..), ,. ,,,,,t, ...,,,f - -6.t. . ,4. ' ''e.V. ; ;■, - -''tk,. .• ; 'h ' -4 I61.'. . ' ''''61;`''' ; ' ' ' 9 -4. •: ."''' d ' ' -.VI,' )_ ._ i .--....... i i t• AL k 133H.LS NaLN110 I MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 28, 2012—5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings, Caroline Sheerin MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: All were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 2012 MEETING MINUTES: Jennings moved to approve the minutes for February 8, 2012. Baker seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION EXC12-00002: Discussion an application submitted by Steven Sacks for a special exception to allow a reduction of the required front yard setback for property located in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 1215 Pickard Street. { Walz explained that Pickard Street is very low-volume and not connected to any arterial streets. She said that the lots in this neighborhood are typically very small but the area in general does not have a dense atmosphere such as a downtown area would have. She said the applicant has indicated that the nine foot wide garage on the house is not practical to accommodate a car. She said that the applicant would like to make the garage interior into part of the living space. Board of Adjustment March 28, 2012 Page 2 of 8 Walz said that the Code requires the principal building setback in this neighborhood to be 19.5 feet, based on setback averaging. She explained that the current Code requires a single family use to have off-street parking space for one vehicle, and that would typically be provided in the garage. She explained that the Code does not allow the required parking within the principal building setback. She said that because this applicant wants to turn the garage into living space, he is seeking a reduction in the front principal building setback in order to provide the required off-street parking in the driveway. Walz explained that location standards for parking in the single-family zones are intended to ensure that parking areas are located to prevent drainage onto adjoining properties. She noted that this house and driveway are set back more than five feet from the neighboring property. She said another location standard is to prevent vehicles from blocking sidewalks and to ensure that front yard areas remain free of large parking areas that detract from the residential character of the neighborhood. She said other location standards are to enhance public safety for residents and visitors by lining streets with active living spaces, ensuring that there is a physical and visual connection between the living area of the residence and the street, and to enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of the neighborhood by preventing blank fa0des and large expanses of concrete along the street. Walz said that staff believes this can be done while allowing the parking in the front setback because the garage that will become interior space is actually set back 25 feet from the property line or the street right of way line and is set back 32.5 feet from the sidewalk, which is within the street right of way. She explained that the Code requires a garage entrance to be a minimum of 25 feet from the street right of way line in order to provide space for parking. She said there is ample room at this property to allow parking without blocking the sidewalk. Walz said that a standard parking is 18 feet in length, and there is 25 feet available in this case and the driveway is set back more than the three required feet and because the neighborhood is characterized by ample space between houses, this is not a situation where there is a visibility issue for someone backing out or for pedestrians. She said staff is recommending approvable subject to the condition that the reduction is for the purpose of satisfying the parking location standard only and does not allow for any expansion of the house into the required setback. Sheerin invited discussion. Baker asked if this special exception adheres to the property rather than the owner. Walz replied that this is true. Baker asked that if this property were to be eventually used as a rental would it require a different parking standard. Walz explained that depending on how many bedrooms are in the house they would have to provide a different number of parking spaces, and in this case they can only rent two bedrooms. Holecek clarified that the Code required one-half space per bedroom. Baker asked if it's the parking that restricts the number of people. Walz and Holecek affirmed this Jennings asked if this was ever intended to be a real garage because it appears that it was designed as a garage in name only Walz explained that it was designed at a time when cars Board of Adjustment March 28, 2012 Page 3 of 8 were smaller. Jennings said it seems more like a feature for storage and that it was always intended for the car to be parked on the driveway. Baker noted that in his house that was built in 1922, there was a free-standing garage in the back that wasn't any bigger than the space being considered, and couldn't be used for a car. Walz said she thinks perhaps people let passengers out and then pulled into the garage. She noted that there are many small garages like these in the Longfellow and Northside } neighborhoods. Jennings said that many of them were intended to be used for wagons or for horses when they were built, but that he doesn't know of any time when someone would have built a nine foot entryway for a garage and that it was intended for storage but that it has the design features of a garage. Walz explained that you are not prohibited from parking on your driveway. Baker asked if the applicant has to do this because he's going to get a building permit. Walz affirmed this Jennings asked if a place like this were to be rented is there a limit even if there are the bedrooms and the driveway is long enough to the number of cars that can be parked nose to front. Walz explained that situation is called stacking, and it is illegal to park across the sidewalk. She said if you owned three very small cars and could figure out a way to stack them on your property side of the sidewalk you could do that She said neither could you park on your grass in the front yard. public opened Sheerin o hearing. p p 9• Sheerin closed public hearing. Sheerin invited discussion. Jennings moved to approve the application submitted by Steven Sacks EXC12-00002 to reduce the front principal building setback from 19.5 feet to seven feet to allow a required parking space to be located along the driveway for a single-family use located in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 1215 Pickard Street subject to the conditions that the setback reduction is for the purpose of satisfying the parking location standards only and does not allow for any expansion of the building into the required setback. Grenis seconded. Sheerin submitted her specific findings. The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are 1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question because the attached garage is approximately 9 feet wide, makeing it difficult to use for storing a standard size car or larger. Board of Adjustment March 28, 2012 Page 4 of 8 { 2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements because the Zoning Code requires one off-street parking space for single-family uses' in the RS-5 zone, but does not allow the required parking space to be located within the front principal building setback, and, here, because the garage is small, the applicant stores his car on the driveway. 3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. For this application the standards that are appropriate relate to the location standards for parking in a single-family zone and here the application is in keeping with these standards because the standard for parking space is 18 feet in length, and under the current Code driveways that lead to a garage are required to be a minimum of 25 feet in length. In this case the street right of way line is located 25 feet from the garage and the sidewalk is located 32.5 feet from the garage so there is plenty of room to park the car in the driveway without blocking the sidewalk. The driveway is set back more than the required three feet from the side property line, and in this particular neighborhood there is ample space between the buildings and the driveways. The subject frontage is 267 feet in length and has just three homes, so there should be plenty of room in this neighborhood for this kind of exception. [ 4. For the reasons above, the potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. 5. The subject building will be located no closer than three feet to a side or rear property line as noted above. Jennings submitted his general standards. The general standards the Board feels are satisfied are: 1. The proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because the front property line is located 25 feet from the garage, and the sidewalk is located 32.5 from the garage. Because a standard parking space is 18 feet in length, under current Code driveways that lead to a garage are required to be a minimum of 25 feet in length in order to minimize the opportunity for vehicles to be parked across the sidewalk. There is adequate space here for a car to be parked and not block the sidewalk. Pickard is a low-volume street only two blocks in length and does not intersect with any collector or arterial streets, and only 10 homes front onto the entire length of Pickard Street running between Kirkwood Court and Friendly Avenue (both residential streets), so pedestrian and vehicular traffic along the street is characterized as low-volume. 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. The Board finds that the proposed setback reduction is solely for the purpose of allowing required parking to be located on the existing driveway that the current occupant is using for this purpose now The house itself would not expand further toward the neighboring properties or toward the street right-of-way and the subject house satisfies all building setback requirements for the zone in which it is located. 3. The Board finds that the establishment of the specific proposed exception does 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. Those reasons are covered under the first two criteria of general standards#1 and#2. ' 1 1 i I Board of Adjustment I J March 28, 2012 i Page 5 of 8 / 1 4. The Board finds that the subject neighborhood is fully developed with all of its necessary i / access roads, drainage and other facilities and alleys so those are in place and already I provided. I5. The subject property is a single-family resident and does not generate significant traffic so 3 I therefore adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress i i designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. I6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being i considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the i 1 applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. It conforms to i the applicable regulations for single-family residences in the RS-5 zone, and the applicant i will be required to secure a building permit to convert the garage to living space. The Board 1 / finds that this special exception is not concerned with the details of the conversion of that space other than the implications it has for the required parking. 1 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the I Board find this so. , 1 i Grenis added that for general standard #2 the Board had received a letter from the next door 1 neighbor supporting the exception so that perhaps would strengthen the argument that it won't I diminish surrounding property values. / 1 , 1 1 A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. , 1 1 1 I DISCUSSION ITEM ) i I Board discussion of a proposal to seek clarification from the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council regarding the criteria for a special exception to allow off-site parking in a 1 municipal parking facility for residential uses in the downtown commercial zones. , 1 Walz explained that after reviewing pertinent minutes and talking with staff, she is asking staff and Planning and Zoning Commission to help the Board clarify several key issues. She said the first issue is how the Board is to interpret "substantiate" because the key to the special exception is that the Director of Planning and Community Development and the Director of Transportation Services substantiate that there is adequate space in the ramp. She said the second issues is how the Board is to evaluate the general criteria whether the special exception impedes normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties for uses permitted in the zone because once the pool of available parking dwindles, at some point, something may impede development. Walz said the third issue is how much discretion the Board has, if any, in reviewing the specifics of the development being proposed, for example, how it contributes to the diversity of downtown housing. She said the other area is the question of the meaning of pedestrian-oriented. She said she believes that staff can with the next ' application provide clarification as to what that term means in regard to the downtown. She said the Board will have an application on the April agenda that will be seeking off-site parking so if they need clarification, the discussion should focus on criteria and what the Board's authority is and not on personal feelings about parking or development downtown. Jennings said his concerns on interpretation focus on how this parking relates to housing. He said that in Tower Place and the former Old Capital Mall, there is specific assignation of specific , , I I Board of Adjustment I March 28, 2012 ; Page 6 of 8 , i i 1 parking spaces for specific uses, which allocation is based on some zoning or level of request of Iuse. He said that for two prior applications for exception, the definition or terms by which these 1 parking spaces were being assigned changed radically. Jennings noted that in the first 1 application regarding the Gilbert Street property where Happy Joe's used to be, the parking ispaces were not tied to individual apartments or tenants, but were only associated with the 5 property owner who was granted these parking space, but if said owner did not sell them to 1 members in that apartment building was then able to sell them to other people elsewhere. i 1 Walz stated that they had changed that. i / i Jennings said in the second application they wanted these parking spaces to be assigned to a 1 specific tenant who must reside at that specific address. He said he needs clarification about the spirit or intent of attaching parking to residents and anytime they say that in other 1 1 neighborhoods you actually have to have a real live parking spot that has to exist for that 4/ vehicle. But in this case, you just have to have a permit which sort of a promissory note saying if 1 no one has taken that space, then odds are there will be one there for you, but it's not an actual I allocation of a physical space. He said he is concerned that the original intent of having a zoning 1 i restriction of parking associated with residents especially rental properties and larger rental / units must provide so many spaces per bedroom that the intent of that is to assert incentive or 1 influence over what can or can't reasonably be developed in any site and once that begins to 1 I move off-site they are no longer working with the original intent. 1 1 Walz explained that until 2 or 3 years ago any residential development in the downtown required I no parking, in fact, developers were discouraged from providing any parking. She said the remedy was that the Code was changed to require some parking but that the parking could be 1 1 provided in the ramps because there are properties downtown that can't accommodate parking. 1 i The idea wasn't that a particular space would be assigned or reserved for a particular person 1 but that somehow within the City system of municipal parking we were accounting for demand. 1 1 1 Jennings said he understands Walz's explanation but what he is very, very concerned about is i what may or may not result as unintended consequences. He said in his neighborhood where they are close to dorms and where first-year students who bring cars are assigned parking i i spaces so far away that they have no incentive to use the space they are provided so they park 1 in the neighborhoods nearby, which has a tremendous impact on the neighborhoods. 1 1 Walz declared that she understands what Jennings is saying but that is part of the legislative process. , i. 1 Jennings said that if someone wanted to build a 20-story building but in order to do it they would 5j need to provide eight stories below for underground parking, then that would make their costs 1 prohibitive. But if they could get that parking put in the ramp next door, then they will build the 1 20-story building. It's beyond the purview here, but if the Board is approving an exception for a , 1 20-story building where only 10 are allowed, would they even be faced with that. 1 Walz said that she thinks this is precisely why Council made the special exception because they .. 1 wanted development, and they wanted parking to be accounted for, but on many, many parcels i 1 it would be impossible to provide. 1 i 1 Holecek said that is accurate. 1 , 1 I 1 4 , 1 i Board of Adjustment March 28, 2012 Page 7 of 8 Walz said the reason for that is not the purview of the Board. She said it was the Council's decision to separate those two things. She said that they want to clarify how they substantiate that there is enough space in the ramp so that 9 times out of 10 the person is going to find space. Jennings said that often when we consider urban parking we think of a model where people live downtown and it's inconvenient to take your car downtown, so you park your car and you leave it there unless you're going away from downtown and often the car stays parked more than it's used. That's not how it works in dense areas between community and campus. He would like to see the grounds they are using to articulate what they mean by substantiate. What are they using as metrics, because that does go to an issue of safety. He said that they will give 60 parking spaces in an apartment in a parking ramp predicated on expecting people to park it there and leave it most of the time when in fact those cars are going and coming frequently. He wants to know what the baseline presumptions or assumptions are when they use these words, otherwise, he feels that when these applications come before the Board, it's just a formality to approve recommendation and there is nothing to be done about it and they don't even know why they are hearing the exception. Baker asked if when the Board grants off-site parking the property owner literally buys a parking permit. Walz explained that the residents of the building granted a special exception have an opportunity to purchase permits held for anyone who proves they are a resident of the building. She said that the permits are tied to the residents. Baker asked if someone working downtown buys a permit to park in a ramp gets an assigned spot. Walz said there are some assigned spots in the ramps that have been negotiated as part of economic development and other relationships with the university but those are minimal. She said the number of permits they sell is based on making sure that the ramp is not full. } Baker asked if they would ever sell out a ramp with permits. Walz declared they would not BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Walz said that there will be four applications for special exceptions before the Board at the next meeting, only one of which is for parking. She explained that by that time there may be a fifth Board member. ADJOURNMENT: Jennings moved to adjourn. Baker seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote. ) ] ' } ) \ ] } ) � ) � { ) } ) ) ) } ) l I ) ) ) I- W Ce !1 Cn W } ) D CL ) p ,- " x x k x } < 0 \ O O x k x q Ce W \ 0 x / k \ ! C X:N ' 0 ] } 2 ® o p n E w } a ON � � � � ! 0 0 0 0 § 2 w _ } x ,R ) L k E } f $ 2 i a) a) kE ■ c. § 2 < kt \ •- a < �� ii z } u) a u 2 i ) 2£ x002 | 2 � n m0c � } ° -' $ Z ° : % _1 m k U } ) \ ! ! ( MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 11, 2012—5:45 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Brock Grenis, Caroline Sheerin MEMBERS ABSENT: Will Jennings STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Marc Moen, David Bentz, Dallas Robertson, David Robertson RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. M1 33 ROLL CALL: All 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. SPECIAL EXCEPTION EXC12-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Marc Moen for a special exception to allow above ground structured parking for two vehicles and to allow 12 required parking spaces to be provided off-site in a municipal facility for a proposed mixed use building to be located in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 114 S. Dubuque Street. Howard showed the Board slides indicating the property location, which fronts directly on the pedestrian mall and Blackhawk Mini Park, both of which are public right of way. She said there is alley access to the property on the south. She showed renderings of the proposed building, which is a fourteen story tower. Howard explained that what is proposed is ground floor retail space along with the two proposed parking spaces off the alley, three floors of Class A office space, and residential units above that up to and including the fourteenth floor. She showed photos of that location now and also floor plans of the proposed building. Howard explained that one of the standards in the Central Business District is that a fifty foot lot depth is required to be reserved for commercial uses on the ground floor so parking can't generally be within the first fifty feet of the lot depth. She said that because of the constraints of this site, in order to get any parking on-site the applicants are requesting to reduce that lot depth Board of Adjustment April 11,2012 Page 2 of 20 for the retail space to thirty feet and then provide a mezzanine level for the retail space in lieu of ground floor space. Howard explained this is allowed through a special exception that the Commission will consider at this meeting. She read from the staff report that said "The Board may reduce this storefront depth requirement if the applicant demonstrates the conditions on the subject property create a practical difficulty in achieving full compliance. In such case, the applicant must demonstrate that the resulting alternative storefront space, both the interior and exterior, will be of a quality in both design and materials that will enhance the commercial character of the Central Business District. To mitigate for loss of ground floor commercial space, the Board may also require additional quality commercial space be included on an upper floor or mezzanine level and said space reserved for non-residential units." She said that the applicants are trying to balance the parking needs of the building and the needs for the commercial space on the ground floor that meets the City's standards for retail space in the downtown. She added that they are also proposing to build three levels of commercial office space, which is a development goal of the City. Howard said that the second special exception that's being requested is to allow parking off-site in a City parking facility. She said that two years ago the City adopted a standard requiring a minimum amount of parking for residential in an attempt to balance the needs of parking for the commercial businesses and the needs of parking for the residents. She said that in order to accommodate residential parking, builders are required to put as much parking on-site as possible, and they can also ask for parking in the City's parking facilities. She said these applicants are requesting twelve spaces for long-term rental in the City's Dubuque Street parking ramp, and the other two spaces will be on the ground level of the proposed building, which will satisfy the requirement in the zoning code for parking. She said the City Manager and the Director of Transportation Services in consultation with the Director of Planning have determined that the Dubuque Street parking facility does have adequate space for the twelve parking permits. Howard said that staff recommends approval of this special exception with the conditions specified in the staff report. Baker asked what would happen if for some reason the developer does not build three floors of office space. Holecek explained that methods have been used to lock in the design as it is being proposed, but if that were not to occur, there would be a violation of the special exception and the applicants would have to rectify that before the Board. Baker asked what would happen if the developer changed the number of residential units. Howard said that staff's position is that three floors of office space is more than adequate to meet standards, and even if the developer were to propose less office space, staff may have the same recommendation. She said if the developer was going to add residential units, more parking spaces would be required, and he would need to come before the Board again to request them. Baker asked about the definition of substantial in the Code as it relates to structured parking. Howard said that substantial as defined in the Code is a fifty foot depth of that retail bay. Baker asked if there is a percentage definition of substantial and how the Board will know if someone has met "substantial." Howard explained that in the Code substantial is defined as a fifty foot storefront depth, that is, at least fifty feet of the first floor has to be reserved for principle uses allowed in the zone and not for parking unless a special exception is granted to reduce that fifty foot depth of the storefront. Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 Page 3 of 20 Baker asked how staff believes that one-bedroom units will add to the diversity of housing opportunities in downtown Iowa City for long-term renters or owners. Howard explained that the diversity that staff alludes to in its report is the diversity of types of residential units. Sheerin asked if they knew for certain that there was a demand for this type of residential unit in the downtown area. Howard said that there's such a low vacancy rate for one-bedroom units that they demand a premium price on a per bedroom basis. Grenis wanted to know if when the Board is considering the consistency of the Comprehensive Plan it should be for the project as a whole or just for the parking requirements that are being considered. Holecek said it was for the project as a whole. Walz said because there was some confusion at a previous meeting of the Board regarding providing parking in the ramp and parking in general and what that meant for pedestrian-oriented design in a pedestrian-oriented downtown, she took language from the Code and from the Comprehensive Plan to show the Board what that means and included it in the staff report. Sheerin said that still doesn't answer the fact that the Comprehensive Plan has ambiguity in it regarding "downtown merchants and business owners feel the residential population burdens the parking system in the district to the detriment of businesses." She said that issue still needs to be debated and resolved. Howard said the resolution of that issue to date has been that in 2008 the City Council added parking requirements for residential uses in the downtown area where previously there had been no parking requirements for residential. She said that currently there is no parking requirement for commercial uses in the Central Business Zone, but there is a requirement for residential uses. Sheerin stated that policy for residential parking seems to encroach on the parking that is meant for people shopping downtown in the parking ramps. Sheerin asked if the Commission is supposed to follow Council or the Comprehensive Plan. Holecek stated that the Commission should act consistent with the legislative process, which is what Howard was describing in the choices that were made by the Council when they required parking be available in the downtown in City provided facilities. She said whether that is consistent with the Comprehensive { Plan, staff has provided some justification as to how those two things can be reconciled. Grenis said that in past cases similar to this, staff has required design review. He asked if that would be required in this case. Howard said this project has to go through design review because it's done through a development agreement with the City. Sheerin invited the applicant to come forward. Marc Moen of 221 E. College Street#1301 said this project will add diversity to the type of units that are available as well as to the population of downtown. He said what's been done all over the country but not in Iowa City are true one-bedroom units with nice finishes, in a quiet environment that attract young professionals and entry level condo buyers. He said this project will have only three units per floor and will be priced to meet that market at under$1500 per month in the low $200,000 range as opposed to Plaza Tower one-bedrooms which are almost $400,000. Moen said the lenders have responded very well to the concept of units that size and pricing in that range. Baker asked if this proposed building will be both rental and condominium. Moen said their goal is to get people vested in Iowa City downtown with owner-occupied units, but they also need to Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 Page 4 of 20 respond to the market by renting. He said there are a total of twenty-six units in this proposed building, and their ultimate goal is to have all the units owner-occupied. Moen said the goal with Plaza Towers was to get diversity downtown, a mix of non-students with students. He said there is now a gap between student housing and $400,000 one-bedroom units. Sheerin opened public hearing. Sheerin closed public hearing. Sheerin invited discussion. Baker moved to approve the application submitted by Marc Moen EXC12-00003 for a special exception to allow above ground structured parking for two vehicles and to allow 12 required parking spaces to be provided off-site in a municipal facility for a proposed mixed use building to be located in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 114 S. Dubuque Street subject to the following conditions. • The applicant must submit the required agreement for off-site parking prior to securing a building permit. The agreement shall include the following conditions: o The permits shall only be available to residents of 114 South Dubuque Street at a cost not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of leasing. o The property manager must provide the Director of Transportation the name, license plate number, and address of all permit holders. Permits will only be granted to residents with the primary address of 114 South Dubuque Street. • The final building plan is generally consistent with the plan submitted as part of this application with regard to the design for the retail and office floors, and the residential unit and bedroom mix and must comply with the Central Business Site Development Standards as set forth in the Zoning Code. Grenis seconded. Grenis submitted his specific findings. The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are i Where parking is located within the exterior walls of the building: 1. The limited size of the property makes it impractical to provide parking below grade and any parking provided within the building cannot meet the 50-foot setback requirement. The proposed mezzanine space, which will be located above the parking and the amount of space committed to retail floor area is the same as would occur without the parking. The applicant is proposing to build three additional floors of Class A office space above the retail space. The proposed building design as characterized in the application will be constructed with high quality building materials and designed to provide maximum visibility and access for retail customers with storefront windows and floor to ceiling height that appear to exceed City standards. The applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with all Central Business standards with regard to building entrances, floor to ceiling heights, minimum fenestration, and building articulation prior to issuance of a building permit. 1 Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 Page 5 of 20 2. This criterion is satisfied because the site plan shows that access to the proposed structured parking is located with access from the public alley on the south side of the building. 3. The two parking spaces are located off the alley, so they will not be visible from a public or private street. 4. Vehicles entering or exiting the parking will not be crossing any public sidewalk or City Plaza. Specific Standards Relating to Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements: a. Special Location Plan • An aerial view was provided showing the location of the property in relation to the Dubuque Street parking facility. • The pedestrian entrance to the parking facility is located approximately 450 feet from the entrance to the proposed building. • There is a direct walking route between the parking facility and the subject property is through City Plaza. b. Location of Off-site Parking The proposed off-site parking is located in a municipal parking facility. The distance was such that it met the standard. c. Zoning The proposed parking is located in a municipal parking facility. d. Shared Use of Off-Site Parking The applicant is not proposing to "share" parking with another use. e. Off-Site Parking Located in a Municipally-Owned Parking Facility • The subject use is located in the CB-10 zone. • In consultation with the Director of Transportation Services, staff has determined these 12 spaces are available for long term rental and that the capacity of the parking facility will not be exceeded. • The Director of Transportation Services has indicated that there is available capacity in the ramp at this time The Director of Planning and Community Development and the City Manager concur with this analysis. f. Approval Criteria • The zoning code allows that for properties located in the CB-10 zone, up to 100% of parking may be provided in a municipal ramp. The Dubuque Street ramp is approximately 450 feet from the proposed dwelling units. • The proposed parking is located in a municipal parking facility, which is designed to provide safe vehicular access. • The parking facility is already constructed, so there will be no change to the area g. Covenant for Off-Site Parking This covenant will be submitted as part of the building permit application based on the number of spaces approved by the Board. The agreement will require that the property manager provide the Director of Transportation Services with the name, license plate number, and address of all permit holders; and that permits be granted only to residents with the primary address of 114 South Dubuque Street. Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 Page 6 of 20 Sheerin submitted her general findings. The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are: 1. The proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because ingress and egress from the parking facility is designed to be safe and has good visibility to and from adjacent streets; I Access to the on-site structured parking is from the alley, minimizing conflicts with 1 pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles; Access at grade will improve visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the parking. 2. The proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property and will not substantially diminish or impair property values because the structured parking i is accessed from the alley, and thus will not disrupt pedestrian areas; The structured parking is not generally visible from the public street or pedestrian areas; j The proposed development devotes 1,702 square feet to retail use (80% of the ground floor space), and includes three floors of Class A office space, which contribute to the Downtown commercial vitality; The proposed residential units add to the diversity of Downtown housing and will not substantially increase parking demand. 3. The proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property because the Director of Transportation Services has reviewed the application and has indicated to staff that presently there is adequate capacity in the Dubuque Street Ramp to provide the requested 12 spaces; The structured parking allows for more than 30 feet of depth for storefront use plus an additional mezzanine level highly visible to pedestrians through floor to ceiling storefront j glass windows; The structured parking will not be generally visible from public streets or sidewalks and will be screened from view by garage doors located along an alley; With inclusion of the mezzanine level, the building will provide the same amount of retail li floor area as it would without structured parking. 4. All utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are in place. 5. There is adequate ingress or egress to adjacent public streets and with regard to the structured parking space, the spaces are accessed from a public alley that is designed to provide safe ingress and egress, and there is a double garage entry door set back approximately 10 feet from the property line, and the building provides a 40-foot wide opening onto the alley for appropriate visibility. 6. Municipal parking facilities are designed to meet all applicable standards, and all aspects of I the residential development will be reviewed administratively by City staff as part of the site plan and building permit process so it will conform with applicable regulations or standards g of the zone in which it is to be located. 7. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because while there is some 1 ambiguity in the residential plan, in 2009 City Council required residential uses to provide I parking, and so this response to any concerns about growing competition for parking in the Central Business District. Furthermore, this plan will increase the diversity of housing 1 opportunities in downtown Iowa City. 1 A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0. 1 1 i , I i I Board of Adjustment 1 April 11, 2012 1 Page 7 of 20 , i I Sheerin read a brief statement regarding the appeal process for this decision. r t EXC12-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Parish Apartments LLC for a special 1 t r exception to reduce the required width for a parking aisle for the preservation of a historic r 1 property located in the Planned Development Overlay / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential 1 (OPD/RNS20) zone at 108 McLean Street. I iWalz showed the Board photos of the property. She said that this is an historic property that the I neighborhood wants to see preserved. She noted that there are a number of mature oaks on the i site, and the property owner as well as the neighborhood would like to preserve as many as 1 possible and do as little grading as possible. Walz said there is a special exception in regard to I historic properties that can help in the preservation of them. She said in this case, it would be for I i the historic site rather than for the building. She noted that there is a ten foot wide driveway that I serves as access to the parking in the rear of the building. She said for the apartment units / , , planned, additional parking needs to be created on the west side of the building. She said there t t is a of change in grade there, and that is where the grove of oak trees in question is sited. Walz I said that what would typically be required in that area just behind those parking spaces is for a twenty-two foot width parking aisle. She said the applicants want to minimize the grading and t , paving necessary on the site, so they are requesting the Board reduce that to seventeen feet in 0 I width. She said the Zoning Code would allow a seventeen foot wide parking aisle on a one-way 1 J drive, and this two-way drive is going to function as a one-way drive by nature of the property I , I itself. She said staff does not see an issue because there is not going to be a lot of traffic I associated with the site, and they see a compelling interest in preserving that grove of trees. I 1 Grenis asked if there were any screening requirements. Walz said that the applicants had I added some screening on the west side due to the change in grade. I I Sheerin opened public hearing. , i i Sheerin closed public hearing. 1 t I I Sheerin invited discussion. 3 3 3 I Grenis moved to approve EXC12-00005, an application submitted by Parish Apartments 1 LLC to reduce the minimum aisle requirement 22 feet to 17 feet to allow minimize paved 1 surfaces and preserve existing oak trees for a multi-family use located in the Planned 1 Overlay Development / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (OPD/RNS20) zone at i108 McLean Street. i 1 Baker seconded. i 1 1 Baker submitted his specific and general findings. ., r 1 The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are: 1. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of I 1 the property because modification of the aisle width from 22 feet to 17 feet will make the I r reuse of this historic property feasible allowing for the preservation of the historic building 1 t and its picturesque site. I I r I r r i , f I I Board of Adjustment i April 11, 2012 Page 8 of 20 l 2. The applicant will obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the historic preservation I commission. Assuming that the Council approves the ordinance designating this property as a Landmark, any future exterior alterations to the property that require a building permit will be subject to compliance with the guidelines contained in the Historic Preservation Handbook. 1 The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because the proposed exception will primarily affect users of the parking lot, and result in minimal traffic generation to and from the site 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. Rather than removing trees, the proposal preserves the trees that contribute to the overall aesthetic quality and that serve as a buffer from the adjacent property. i 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 because a 5 foot reduction of the minimum aisle width for the 1 subject property does not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. i 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. These are apparent in the approved OPD site plan and standard #5 will govern access roads. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as j to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The parking lot will primarily be used by the i occupants of the building, and the existing/proposed parking lot will adequately serve a low volume of traffic. Therefore there should be little congestion on McLean Street as a result of the reduced parking aisle width. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being 3 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. Aside from the proposed exception, the parking lot and aisle conform to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone. The width of the existing contiguous lane between the street and the parking spaces will likely result in alternating traffic, meaning the aisle will only be able serve vehicles moving one direction at a time 7. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, promoting the i preservation of historic properties as well as environmentally sensitive areas. 3, 1. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0. Sheerin read a brief statement regarding the appeal process for this decision. 1 EXC12-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by McDonald's USA, LLC for a special 1 exception to expand the existing drive-through facility on property located in the CC-2 (Community Commercial) zone at 2440 Mormon Trek Boulevard. i Walz showed a site plan and explained that this area is undergoing a rezoning from CI-1 to CC- , 2 so any exception the Board grants is subject to that rezoning. She said that the two drive- , 1 Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 Page 9 of 20 throughs on the agenda are very similar and that McDonalds is using this format at all of their stores. She said it creates two order-board lanes to more efficiently get traffic across the site, and then the lanes come together for the payment and pick-up window. She said that what the concern is with all drive-throughs is that there is good circulation on the site and that the site is set back and screened adequately from surrounding uses. Staff had asked the applicant to provide additional screening on the site and to better demarcate the pedestrian crossing from the Mormon Trek right-of-way. Sheerin invited the applicant to come forward. David Bentz, of Bishop Engineering at 3501 104th Street, Urbandale, Iowa, said they are in agreement with all City staff recommendations. Sheerin opened public hearing. Sheerin closed public hearing. Sheerin invited discussion. Grenis moved to approve the application submitted by McDonald's USA, LLC for a special exception to allow an expansion of the existing drive-through facility on property located in the CC-2 (Community Commercial)zone at 2440 Mormon Trek Boulevard subject to the following conditions: That substantial compliance with the site plan submitted including signage and pavement markings indicating the one-way circulation of the drive and the marking of the pedestrian areas at the front of the store and approval by the building official of the final site plan, lighting plan and any new signage for the site and that the subject property must be rezoned Community Commercial 2 (CC-2). Baker seconded. Sheerin submitted her specific and general findings. The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are 1. The number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces and paved areas 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 because: • It is consistent with the commercial character of the area It also improves the efficiency of the drive-through facility. • There is space for three cars to stack between the order boards and the pick-up window. • The site plan shows that the drive-through will be marked with directional arrows. • The site plan also shows that pedestrian access is provided from the Mormon Trek right-of-way at the southeast corner of the property, and pavement markings are shown on the site plan and are a requirement of the parking area design standards. • The site plan for the drive-through expansion shows that the McDonald's lot meets the minimum parking requirements based on the square foot of floor area of the restaurant, which are part of the commercial site development standards. I Board of Adjustment I April 11, 2012 Page 10 of 20 i 1 2. The transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use in addition to i the existing uses in the area because: • Both Mormon Trek and Highway 1 are designed to handle the level of traffic generated by this kind of retail use. • There is sufficient space for vehicles to stack before reaching the entrance from Mormon Trek. • The drive-through circulation is not in conflict with the pedestrian access because the site plan shows that the entrances to the restaurant are provided on the south of the building so that pedestrian access is appropriate from Mormon Trek. • The addition of a second drive-through, furthermore, is intended to provide more efficient service therefore minimizing time cars are stacked along the south side of the o building. • Cross access drives with the adjacent commercial properties are designed to provide i the circulation needed between sites; cross access on the north side of the site 1 provides an alternative or secondary access point. 3. The drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and public right-of-ways are screened from view to the S2 standard. This criteria is met because: • The drive-through lanes meet the 10-foot setback from adjacent lot lines and public o rights-of-way requirement. o 5 • The submitted site plan shows added S2 screening along the east and south property i lines. o • There is no need for the S2 screening along the west side of the property due to the j change in grade between the two abutting properties. 1 4. Lighting for the drive-through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards. This criteria is met because: • Property lighting must be reviewed by the Building Department as part of the building permit process I • The drive-through area location and traffic circulation are directly behind the building and are not in view of residential zones. i j 1 The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are: 1. This application will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or 1 general welfare because: • Mormon Trek Boulevard and Highway 1 are both designed to serve the levels of traffic generated by CC-2 uses such as the one proposed. i • The drive-through lanes are located more than 200 feet from the public street • Cross access drives with the adjacent properties provide adequate circulation for the proposed use. 1 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other o property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. • The proposed drive-through is located at the rear of the building and the subject 1 property is surrounded by other commercial uses. 1 • Views of the drive-through will be minimized by installation of S2 screening along the south and east property lines where the property is in view of the Mormon Trek and 1 Highway 1 rights-of-way. 3. This application does not impede the normal and ordinary development and improvement of the surrounding property referring back to the reasons already stated. 1 p i Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 Page 11 of 20 4. No additional utilities, drainage or other necessary facilities will be needed for this expansion, and the site plan indicates that the applicant intends to remove storm sewer intake and a section of the gutter at the east end of the lot, but also plans to replace the storm sewer intake and section of the gutter. Cross access drives with adjacent properties provide appropriate circulation for the proposed use. 5. Relating to ingress and egress the drive-through is located to the rear with traffic circulating behind the commercial building, and there is adequate space for vehicles to stack so it will not interfere with public streets, and the cross access drives that serve the site are designed to control ingress and egress to minimize congestion on the public streets. 6. With regard to specific regulations and standards a site plan must be submitted for final site plan review and building permit, and a building official will review that to make sure that applicable zoning requirements are met. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because this area is a general commercial area, and it is also near a highway interchange so it will promote the economic development of the area A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0. Sheerin read a brief statement regarding the appeal process for this decision. EXC11-00005 an application submitted by McDonald's USA, LLC for a special exception to expand the existing drive-through facility on property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 804 S. Riverside Drive. Walz explained that this property already has the required CC-2 zoning. She said this application is one that had originally been filed late last summer, and then the applicant decided to look at some other franchise opportunities but was now ready to bring it before the Board. She showed photos of the site to the Board that showed access to the site off S. Riverside Drive and off Benton Street. She explained that what's important in considering this site is that it is part of the Riverfront Crossings District, so there are a number of redevelopment sites in the immediate vicinity. She said that when the Staples property was redeveloped to the south, they were required to provide cross access easements onto their property, as will be the case with other properties that are redeveloped. She explained that this means drivers will not always have to go back to S. Riverside Drive in order to move from site to site Walz said this property was originally granted a special exception for the drive-through some years ago, and one of the things the Board looked at then was the S. Riverside Drive access. She said staff had recommended that it be a one-way drive, but the Board did not ultimately adopt that, saying "The situation at this intersection may result in delays, but if delays are experienced by customers trying to access and leave the site, this may serve to discourage use of the site at peak traffic time, and, in a sense, be a self-regulating mechanism to keep vehicle trips at the restaurant at acceptable levels." She noted that the City's transportation staff looked at the crash history at the intersection and found no safety concerns. Walz said that cross access easement along the Staples site would only come into play if this access point was closed off, at which point a consolidated access between these two sites should be considered, so maybe a drive would come in here and then cars headed to McDonalds would spill off to the north and cars going to Staples or other sites would spill off to the south. f 1 1 Board of Adjustment 1 April 11, 2012 Page 12 of 20 I Walz noted that the site doesn't quite meet all the set-back standards in terms of the space required between the property line and the parking, but that updates would only be required if they were doing large modifications to the building or to the paving, but what they are doing is not sufficient to trigger that. She said they are coming into compliance with screening requirements along this property line. She said staff has recommended waiving the requirement 1 where there's a change of grade between the McDonalds lot and the Mum's lot to the east. She said the screening along the south is required but is already being provided on the Staples side. 1 l Walz said that the McDonald's property is actually two separate properties, with one square parcel at the front of the site and an arrow-shaped parcel at the rear, each owned by a different owner. She said that with the franchisee and McDonalds, there are four owners involved. She I said that the Comprehensive Plan and the planning for Riverfront Crossings have staff looking I more carefully at development and congestion in this area. She said staff believes it's important 1 that some sort of cross access be provided at the drive onto Benton Street so that when the 1 property at Mum's redevelops there can be one shared drive. Walz said that if the Board requires cross access, the applicant will have to resubmit site plans that showed the access, but right now all the parties are not in agreement. She explained the easements are on the Staples side, and if eventually McDonalds was no longer on its site and it j was redeveloped, those cross access easements would be required by the property on the j other side. She said that the special exception doesn't trigger the requirement, but the Board can make it a recommendation based on some of the general criteria for the special exception. Baker asked if the Board can require it. Walz said that the Board can require it, but it's not required by Code. She said if the property were being fully redeveloped, it would be required, but since that is not happening at this time, it's a recommendation that the Board could require based on some of the criteria that deal with access. She said staff believes that the drive- 1 , through can function safely at this time, but their concern is with the redevelopment that will be / occurring in this area in the next five to ten years. Baker said he understood that the Board could approve this special exception without requiring those easement agreements, but if they approved them subject to those agreements being I signed, then the easements are a requirement, and various property owners aren't in agreement currently. Walz affirmed this. Grenis asked if those agreements would trigger one of the entrances being closed either to McDonalds or Staples. Walz said the one staff recommends would be on this drive, and it would j only come into play if at such time the property to the east redevelops. Sheerin asked if staff is recommending cross access at the southwest end at this time. Walz I said they are not. She said she believes the reason staff didn't want to recommend that at this time is because that would be part of a larger redevelopment where you would close this access and provide a joint access between the two properties. 1 l Sheerin asked if the Board doesn't require it at this time, and it does become more congested is there an opportunity to go back and change it. Walz stated that they would then have to rely on 1 this entrance drive over here to bring traffic over and around. 1 Sheerin invited the applicant to come forward. 1 3 E 1 I F I Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 1 Page 13 of 20 David Bentz, of Bishop Engineering at 3501 104th Street, Urbandale, Iowa, said they are in agreement with all of City staff's recommendations except cross access easement. He said that i McDonalds likes to have 100 feet from where you pay to where you order, so that's why the island between the side by side is curved around to the southeast. He said the drive would not i fit if laid out directly to the east. He said McDonalds can do 80 feet stacking from that window I back, but it's not preferred, and that option doesn't work on this site because of the land constraints. He said the trash enclosure used to be in the southeast corner of the property but to 3 get the delivery semis through with the side by side, it had to be shifted to the north in , approximately the same area where the easement would be He noted that there isn't a lot of room to provide a shared ingress and egress easement. Bentz said that McDonalds does not I wish to ease congestion on a public street by having drivers cut through the property and possibly causing accidents. He reiterated that McDonald's goal is to serve their patrons, not to provide public access from one point to another. I Baker asked if as long as that is operating as a McDonalds, will they never agree to the cross access. Bentz said McDonalds would like the Board to consider not requiring that at this time 4 Walz clarified that the cross access would be granted by the property owner. I Sheerin asked if McDonalds wouldn't be contributing to the congestion by adding the drive- through. Walz said that is why staff is not recommending that the Board add the cross access, but that they do want to see some sort of cross access agreement so that as such time as the property to the east redevelops there would be only one curb cut onto Benton Street that the two properties would share. Bentz replied that McDonalds is already on site, so he doesn't believe that what they are doing would increase traffic flow on the street, so all the drive- / would do is eliminate back-up on Riverside from the drive-through. Baker asked if that in a sense doesn't increase probable business. Bentz said that speaking from experience that if he wants to go to a McDonalds and whether he finds a long line or not, he's going there. He said but if he is driving by on that street and sees a long line, he doesn't pull in, but he's still on the public street. Bentz said that McDonalds asks that the Board consider not requiring the easement at this time until such time as the area is redeveloped and meets the criteria of a redevelopment. i a Grenis asked if the purpose of the side by side is to increase efficiency or to get more customers. Bentz replied that the side by side increases efficiency by pushing the traffic through i and out of parking areas and with the shorter line, it might be more attractive to people driving by, which, he pointed out, was traffic that was already on that street. He said that he doesn't know if a side by side will actually draw more people. TI Sheerin opened public hearing. Dallas Robertson of 4293 Maureen Terrace in Iowa City said he is speaking in favor of the 1 application He explained that there are two lots on this site and that he and his brother are half owners of the lot that borders Mums, and the Hippee Trust is owner of the other lot. He said that Kevin O'Brien is the franchise owner and owner of the Mums property. He said he's in favor of their updates to the site because it's more efficient for the customers. He said he's against the cross easement because there's a motel planned for the former Wendy's site, and if it were him j staying at the motel, he would never drive up to McDonalds, but rather walk there. He said that I Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 Page 14 of 20 the cross easement benefits everyone but McDonalds and would actually make traffic flow on the property hazardous, even with only one drive-through. He said it's not right to have public traffic going across private property to access streets because there's potential for fender benders in the parking lot and business is disrupted. Robertson said other cities have frontage roads that are owned and maintained by the City. He said in this case, a private owner would be required to allow public transportation across their lot. He said he has a problem with the cross easement going to the east because they are close to a bridge and because he doesn't want to put Kevin O'Brien in a bind over something he doesn't want that may hinder his business. He said in the future if O'Brien wanted that cross easement, Robertson would work with him. Baker said he understands Robertson's objections based on his current situation but wanted to know his objections based on the possibility of redevelopment. Robertson said that in the future a cross easement would reduce the amount of usable land on his property in order to benefit other people. He said that Benton Street runs through the middle of what used to be his grandparent's property and that the City has taken most of their property. He explained that with less usable land, he can't get the rent he would like and besides, he would have to pay property tax on the cross easement land that's being used by the public. He said that neither of the two lots is big enough to separately make a big enough financial gain for the property owners. Baker asked how much sellable property he would lose if there's an easement built here. Walz said that you wouldn't lose sellable property and by consolidating the curb cuts, you would actually provide more shared set back areas that open up other opportunities for other uses on the property. Baker said if the property is redeveloped, one curb cut will be closed, which would open up some area that is currently taken up by access and takes it away from the area at the east side of the lot. Walz said it would depend on if they rely on this current access point or if it's consolidated and shared by the two properties, but the idea is that people going to either property would be able to use the same drive. Baker said he had no desire to require the access now but wanted clarification on what the City will need to do in the future to get the access it believes is necessary. Holecek said it would be on redevelopment, rezoning, other intensification of the use that might require special exception, but basically changes to the site. Baker said that this, then, wasn't the only option the City had to get that access. Holecek said that wasn't necessarily the case. She said there would be opportunity if there is redevelopment in the future of either of the Mums site or other activity on this site. Walz said the redevelopment of the Mums site would only affect that site and that cross access is only required on one side. Sheerin said that even if there was redevelopment on the Mums property that would not allow for cross access. Holecek and Walz said that was correct, that it wouldn't allow for cross access on this side. Baker said he thinks that cross access will be necessary at some point but wants to make sure the City still has mechanisms that will achieve cross access in the future. Walz said there is probably not another likely special exception opportunity for McDonalds. Holecek said another opportunity would be if the City were to require the consolidation of the two driveways through a i 1 Board of Adjustment j April 11, 2012 Page 15 of 20 1 1 condemnation process or a reconstruction of Benton Street. She said such a process in now underway on Lower Muscatine where drives will be eliminated and consolidated. Baker said the objection before the Board tonight is the possible future diminishment of the value of the property. Walz said staff would disagree, that typically better access makes properties more valuable. Holecek clarified that the Board is also debating whether or not the addition of the drive-through intensifies the use and the traffic coming to the property based on less queuing. 1 Baker asked Robertson if a future easement requirement impacted his current operation or if his only concern is for the future redevelopment or sale of the property. Robertson said that with the odd lot configuration, an easement on the east end of the south side through to Staples would remove four or five parking spaces and shoot the traffic right into the drive-through. He said that the other easement that would be on the northeast side of the property could bring 4 consequences to the Mums property owner. 1 i j Baker asked if Robertson would agree that a future easement requirement does not affect his current operation. Robertson said a future one going onto Benton Street would not necessarily be a bad thing, but he's really against the south easement going into Staples. He said that if the City forces them to do this through condemnation then he assumes they would be reimbursed. 1 ISheerin said that was not the bailiwick of the Board. Robertson said the land is theirs, they rent to McDonalds, O'Brien has a franchise for McDonalds, so why should they be responsible for Staples' customers or any hotel customers. Sheerin said their concern was traffic on Riverside Drive, not the private businesses in the area. Robertson said that typically people don't come to the west entrance of McDonalds and try to I turn left but rather come out on Benton Street once they come out of the drive-throughs. 1 David Robertson of 2260 Balsam Court in Iowa City said he is one-hundred percent in agreement with what Dallas Robertson has said. He said that when the Mums property is redeveloped he would like to see the curb cut more centered between the two properties and would be in total agreement in working on that. He said that when the Mums property is redeveloped, he would like to shift the southern easement over and make it a requirement of the other property and then you wouldn't have to cut through the McDonalds' property but rather the newly developed property to use the access onto Benton Street. A ' Sheerin asked if staff had considered that alternative. Walz said they had, but that all staff is recommending now is access easement that allows consolidation of the two curb cuts here upon redevelopment of the Mums property. 1 Baker asked if the Board asked for a future cross access easement agreement, does that agreement specify the exact location of the access. Holecek replied that because they don't now know how or what is going to redevelop on the Mums property it's hard to tell where the 1 location would be. She said what the Board could articulate is that they want the one to the north so that the drive can be consolidated upon redevelopment of the Mums property, and the ! trigger would be the redevelopment of the Mums property. 1 1 1 1 IBoard of Adjustment l April 11, 2012 Page 16 of 20 Walz said you would get the easement on the McDonald's property right now, but would there only on paper. She said that at such time as Mums redevelops, they would grant their side of the easement, close their curb cut and do whatever is needed to consolidate the drive. I 1 Baker asked if without a future access agreement does the City have the ability to achieve this same result once Mums redevelops. Walz said not unless McDonalds redevelops. She said they would get the agreement on paper now for McDonalds, and then when Mums redevelops j you get the agreement from them. She said you need to get the two halves, and the only time to get them is either when a property is being redeveloped or a property going through a process such as this one 4 j Bentz asked if McDonalds provides an easement and O'Brien develops, would they then use his drive or McDonald's or are they sharing. He asked what if O'Brien starts redevelopment in four months, and McDonalds has just built their side by side is that the time McDonalds has to rip out 1 its trash enclosure. Holecek suggested that they angle it and not have a trash enclosure. Bentz asked if what they are looking for is an easement across that green space just north of the trash enclosure. Holecek affirmed this Bentz said if McDonalds hooked on to Staples, would they have to pay for the concrete from McDonalds to Staples current parking lot so O'Brien would have to provide some sort of service drive, and he would have to access onto Benton. Holecek said no, that what she would envision is something going between the two with a new curb cut and moving everything to the east. Sheerin closed public hearing. 1 2 Sheerin invited discussion. Baker said he does not share the property owners' concerns about the diminishment of value of the property in the long run. He said he has concerns that trying to get cross access in the j future would be difficult. He said he recommends that the Board approve this application maintaining the four recommendations of the staff. Sheerin concurred. She said she understands the concern about the Staples curb cut but I doesn't see any problem with the Benton Street curb cut. Grenis agreed that cross access easement on the east side is for the public benefit, meaning j less congestion on Benton Street, and he didn't see the need for the southern one at this time 1 I Baker moved the adoption of EXC11 -00005, a special exception to allow the expansion of the 4 existing drive-through facility in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 804 S. Riverside Drive be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 3 areas at the front of the store. 2. Re-landscaping of areas currently covered in rock as necessary to meet the code standard for turf or other plant covering. 3. Approval by the Building Official of the final site plan, lighting plan, and any new signage for 1 the site. 1 4. A cross access easement for the drive entrance from Benton Street to allow the 1 consolidation of curb cuts along this arterial street at such time as the property to the east redevelops, and the easement must be granted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3 I Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 Page 17 of 20 Grenis seconded. 1 ` Grenis submitted his specific and general findings. The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are 1. In regard to drive-through and stacking spaces • The site plan shows space for at least five to six cars to stack at the order boards. • There is adequate space for five cars to stack on the north side of the building in the 1 pick-up lane. • There are pavement markings along and traffic islands that demarcate the drive- 1 through lanes from other vehicle circulation on the site. • The property is surrounded by commercial properties and is not readily visible from the residential zones. • The pavement along the drive-through will be marked with directional arrows. I • Pedestrian access is provided from the Riverside Drive right of way. • Pavement markings are shown on the site plan and are a requirement of parking area design standards. 2. In regard to the transportation system being capable of supporting the proposed use • This is supported by several of the facts from the first standard and that the property is i S accessed via curb cuts along Benton Street and S. Riverside Drive, both of which are arterial streets. • There is sufficient space for vehicles to stack before reaching the entrance from Riverside Drive. • The drive-through circulation is not in conflict with pedestrian access to the restaurant. Pedestrian access is therefore appropriate from Riverside Drive. j • The addition of a second drive-through lane is intended to provide more efficient service and minimize the amount of time that cars are stacked along the south side of the building. 3. That the drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines is I satisfied because the drive-through lanes meet the required set back standards, and the site plan shows the required S-2 screening along Benton Street and Riverside Drive, S-2 screening is present on the Staples side of the south property line, and the S-2 screening along the east property line as the existing retaining wall and change of grade serves as an effective buffer 4. The lighting standard is met because the property line will be reviewed by the building department at part of the building permit process and the drive-through area is not in the view of residential zones Ii The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are: 1. The specific proposed exception not being detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare is satisfied because Riverside Drive and Benton Street are designed to accommodate levels of traffic generated by this zone, the drive-through I. lanes are located more than 100 feet from the entrance on Riverside Drive, and the access to Benton Street provides an alternative entry and exit point during peak traffic time 2. That the exception not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property is satisfied I because the drive-through facility is located at the rear of the building, the subject property is surrounded by commercial uses, and the use of the drive-through will be minimized by the installation of S-2 screening. i Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 Page 18 of 20 1 3. That the proposed exception not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property is satisfied because for the reason provided in previous general standards relating to circulation, set-backs and screening. 4. That the adequate utilities and access road drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided is satisfied because all necessary utilities and drainage are available at the site, Benton Street and Riverside Drive are designed to support these sorts of intense commercial uses, and easement that the Board discussed for the east property line will add to this in future years provided the redevelopment of the Mums property provides for such easement. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress to minimize congestion has been satisfied because there is adequate space for vehicles to stack such as will not interfere with public streets, having ingress and egress from both Riverside Drive and Benton Street will minimize traffic congestion and provide safer ingress, and the site plan shows an existing parking space directly adjacent to the drive that will be removed and landscaped, in addition to the cross easement discussed for the eastern property. 6. Except for the specific regulations, the special exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations and standards of this zone is satisfied because the applicant will replace rock and sod and mulch to satisfy the requirements of the zoning code, and the 1 building official will review the plan to determine that applicable zoning requirements are satisfied. 7. That the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is satisfied because the proposed site plan improves the attractive landscape features that are already present on the site, attention is called to traffic congestion and turning conflicts along this portion of Riverside Drive and calls for cross access between commercial sites and the consolidation of curb cuts. and the cross access for this site recommends cross access easement for the Benton Street entrance. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0. Sheerin read a brief statement regarding the appeal process for this decision. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Baker asked if legally there is a process for the specific and general standards by which the Board could say that they find themselves in agreement with the findings in the staff report and then adopt the findings in summary form and allow for additions or disagreement after that. Holecek said that under case law, the staff report is looked at, but articulating the standards as being adopted by Board helps bolster the staff report for controversial for contentious cases. Baker suggested that when there is disagreement would be the time for precise articulation of the standards but perhaps for cases where the Board is in agreement, they could simply adopt the findings in the staff report. Holecek said when applications are approved is typically when a lawsuit occurs because someone is not in agreement with it. She said that things could be simplified in the non- controversial cases where no one is protesting. She said that case law does suggest that the staff report could be adopted with commentary. I I Board of Adjustment April 11, 2012 Page 19 of 20 1 ADJOURNMENT: IGrenis moved to adjourn. Baker seconded. i . The meeting was adjourned on a 3-0 vote. 3 i 3 I 1 q$ i 3 w 5 1 4 I 7 r i I iI I— W ID i- 0 XXw zirr W QVo M co XXXX Z N OZ 5 XXXD W▪ Ill OF~- r XX0X CO r- (Olf) M � W �- � � �- Q � 000 Wa pNNN vc I- X CD o W p 0 0 0 N Z XN m-0 N N a) a) N N c N la Q Z O 'c Q II II Z N N N 11 II W 2 II " 'c 0).c XOOZ I a) N 'C cv0E (D 0o c W Y N _ W Z' U -) O O — co Z joo50 I