Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-2003 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003 - 5:00 PM EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL, CIVIC CENTER A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the March 12, 2003 Board Minutes D. Appeals AP03-00001 - Public hearing regarding an application submitted by James Clark appealing a ZCIP ruling that the installation of a pass - through door between adjoining dwelling units in multi -family residential buildings would create a single dwelling unit. E. Variances 1. VAR02-00002 - Public hearing regarding an application submitted by S & M Properties for a variance to allow an additional sign along the frontage of a tract that has exceeded its allowable limit in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1 570 S. First Avenue. F. Special Exceptions EXC03-00003 - Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Ronald Wade for a special exception to allow a school of specialized private instruction in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 1 565 South Gilbert Street. 2. EXC03-00004 - Public hearing regarding an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a special exception to allow off-street parking in the Central Business District (CB-10) zone at Lot 64-1 A. G. Other H. Board of Adjustment Information Brochure on the Planning & Zoning Workshop for Local Officials sponsored by the ISU Extension office. I. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING — May 14, 2003 To: Board of Adjustment Item: AP03-00001 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact person: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: John Adam Date: 9 April 2003 James Clark 414 E. Market St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Ph. 351-8391 C. Joseph Holland 123 N. Linn St., Suite 300 Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Ph. 354-0331 Requested Action: Reversal of Zoning Code Interpretation Panel ruling on effect of pass -through doors between adjoining dwelling units in multi -family residential buildings. Purpose: Applicable code sections: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: To allow installation of pass -through doors between adjoining dwelling units and maintain the two -unit distinction. 14-613-2, Zoning Definitions I I March 2003 In 1996 the applicant inquired about installing pass -through doors between side -by -side units in one or more of his multi -family properties. The doors would permit passage between adjoining units at the mutual discretion of the units' occupants, The applicant was informed that the presence of the doors would create single units out of any adjoining units linked in that manner. The applicant appealed to the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel (ZCIP), which affirmed that conclusion based on the definition of "dwelling unit" as it appears in Article B of the Zoning Chapter; it states that a dwelling unit is Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals. There is nothing to prevent the applicant from installing the doors. However, once they are installed it may be problematic going backward and restoring the wall between two units. Some of those problem situations are discussed in the analysis, but not every situation can be anticipated. The outcome of this appeal would affect the regulation of nearly every multifamily property in the City, not just those owned by the applicant. ANALYSIS: Under the definition of a "dwelling unit" in the Zoning Chapter, the installation of pass -through doors between adjoining units makes them then a single dwelling unit: they would constitute "adjoining habitable rooms" with cooking, eating, sleeping and living facilities. Multiplying any of these facilities is immaterial from a definitional standpoint: there is no rule saying a dwelling cannot have more than one kitchen, more than one bathroom, or more than one living room or family room. How the unit is leased is immaterial for the purposes of zoning enforcement: for instance, a unit could be leased bedroom by bedroom or as a single unit; that does not change the definition. The problem occurs when the definition of a dwelling unit is treated as a fluid thing; flipping back and forth changes calculated density, calculation of required parking and other zoning factors. Some uses exist as legally nonconforming uses; that is, they became nonconforming because of' a rezoning or an ordinance change but are allowed to continue as nonconforming uses until redevelopment occurs or the use changes or the use is discontinued for one year. The degree of nonconformity may not be increased, nor may a use go from being nonconforming to conforming then back to nonconforming. In certain situations a multi -family dwelling may exceed the allowable density for its zone. It may decrease density by combining adjacent units, but once that has happened it may not increase it again beyond the permitted density. Many older multi -family units in town do not meet current parking requirements because the City used to require less parking. Combing units may make them compliant, but once an attempt is made to uncombine them they may not be able to meet the current parking requirements. The applicant may install the doors and offer the units for lease as, for instance, 2-bedroom units or 4-bedroom units; that does not essentially matter. The jeopardy to the applicant is loss of legal nonconforming status. Once two units are combined in the manner described, they cannot be made into two units again as though nothing had changed. Changing a Zoning Chapter definition is a legislative process. Staff maintains that the definition of a "dwelling unit" can only be interpreted as outlined above and only a substantive change to the definition could alter that interpretation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that AP03-00001, an appeal to reverse the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel ruling, dated 25 March 1996, and subsequent affirmation of said ruling, dated I April 2003, be denied. ATTACHMENTS: I. Application 2. ZCIP ruling, dated 25 March 1996 3. Affirmation of 1996 ZCIP ruling, dated I April 2003 Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development wl. 60001 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION PANEL Title 14, Chapter 6, Article W DATE: March 5, 2003 APPLICANT: Name: James A. Clark Address: 414 E. Market St., Iowa City, IA 52240 I Phone: 319-351-8391 CONTACT PERSON: Name: C. Joseph Holland Address: 123 N. Linn St., Suite 300, Iowa City IA 52245 1 Phone: 319-354-0331 1 Specific Requested Action: Reversal of Zoning Code Interpretation Panel ruling on effect of pass through doors between dwelling units in a multi -family residential building. The ZCIP recently affirmed a March 25, 1996 ruling, a copy of which is attached. The ZCIP has ruled that if pass through doors are placed in the common wall between two dwelling units, the two units become one and cannot be thereafter lawfully used as two units without meeting current zoning code requirements. In some instances the units will be located in buildings where the existing units are grandfathered in with respect to certain zoning requirements. This means that the pass through doors cannot be removed and the two units returned to two individual units without meeting current zoning code requirements. In some instances that would be impossible. The mere installation and use of pass through doors does not transform two units into one. The ruling of the ZCIP is not correct and should be reversed by the Board of Adjustment. Dated: March 2003 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 25, 1996 To: File From: ZCIP Re: Definition of Dwelling Unit Issue: A local developer, Jim Clark, has proposed modification of two existing dwelling units within an apartment building such that the two units which adjoin have the common wall breached and two doors are constructed which can be either locked or unlocked. The doors would occupy the same jam and could be locked or unlocked at the discretion of the tenants. The purpose of the doors is to allow free flow between the two dwelling units such that people who have leased each of the dwelling units can essentially live together. The question before the Panel is whether the breaching of the wall and the installation of the doors constitutes a change in use, as to the number of units. In determining whether, within a single structure, there are one or more dwelling units, the practice is to consult the definition of dwelling unit in the zoning ordinance, evaluate the existence of common areas shared by more than one unit, and determine whether there are separate entrances for each unit. A dwelling unit is defined as "any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals." In the circumstance under consideration, there currently exist two dwelling units which meet the above definition. Whether these units become one with the modification proposed, hinges on whether there are common areas shared by both units and whether there are separate entrances to each unit. It is clear, that there will continue to be two separate entrances, an entrance from the hallway, to each existing unit. However, when the permanent wall between the units is breached, the doors are installed, and the doors are unlocked, a change of use will occur to create one unit from the previous two. It is clearly the intent, by the installation of the doors, to provide the opportunity for people to pass from one room to another and to share these spaces. 4 Subsequently locking the doors for a period of time, such as the extent of a lease as tenants change, will change the use back to two dwelling units. In many instances this change from two units to one and back to two units will have no consequence. However, once the use is changed to one dwelling unit, if the number of units prior to the change is non -conforming or is conforming under an RNC zone and sets the number of replacement units, the number of dwelling units may be diminished and potentially could not be changed back. It is our opinion that to make the modification proposed presents a risk to the owner as to whether he would be able to convert the modified units back into two units and may jeopardize his rights if the curre dwellin ' s areon-conforming or are conforming under an RNC zone. Doug too roy K in Franklin Director. Housi &Inspection Servi D rector, Dept. of Planning & Community Development City Attorney tp5-2 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 1, 2003 To: File From: ZCIP Re: Definition of Dwelling Unit -Reaffirmation of March 25, 1996 opinion On March 25, 1996, the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel concluded that placement of a door between two dwelling units, in which the door could or would be unlocked, would constitute a change of use from two dwelling units to one dwelling unit. This conclusion was based upon the definition of dwelling unit, which has not changed since 1996. The instigator of the original opinion, Jim Clark, now wishes to come before the Board of Adjustment to contest the interpretation of the Panel. This reaffirmation of the original interpretation serves to satisfy the timeliness criteria for any appeal to the Board. As members of the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel, we reaffirm our interpretation of March 25, 1996 relative to the definition of dwelling unit by our signatures below. i Franklin, Director . of Planning & Community Development Doug Boot oy, Director Dept. of H ing & Inspection Sery rah Idlecek � V a{ -Assistant City Attorney r' - .,� • APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION PANEL Title 14, Chapter 6, Article W DATE: March 5, 2003 �p j APPLICANT: Name: James A. Clark Address: 414 E. Market St.., Iowa City, IA 52240 1 Phone: 319-351-8391 CONTACT PERSON: Name: C. Joseph Holla Address: 123 N. Linn St., Suite 300, Iowa City, IA 52245 1 Phone: 319-354-0331 1 Specific Requested Action: Reversal of Zoning Code Interpretation Panel ruling on effect of pass through doors between dwelling units in a multi -family residential building. The ZCIP recently affirmed a March 25, 1996 ruling, a copy of which is attached. The ZCIP has ruled that if pass through doors are placed in the common wall between two dwelling units, the two units become one and cannot be thereafter lawfully used as two units without meeting current zoning code requirements. In some instances the units will be located in buildings where the existing units are grandfathered in with respect to certain zoning requirements. This means that the pass through doors cannot be removed and the two units returned to two individual units without meeting current zoning code requirements. In some instances that would be impossible. The mere installation and use of pass through doors does not transform two units into one. The ruling of the ZCIP is not correct and should be reversed by the Board of Adjustment. Dated: March 2003 i" A. Clark, Applicant i8ity of Iowa citye MEMORANDUM Date: March 25, 1996 To: File From: ZCI P Re: Definition of Dwelling Unit Issue: A local developer, Jim Clark, has proposed modification of two existing dwelling units within an apartment building such that the two units which adjoin have the common wall breached and two doors are constructed which can be either locked or unlocked. The doors would occupy the same jam and could be locked or unlocked at the discretion of the tenants. The purpose of the doors is to allow free flow between the two dwelling units such that people who have leased each of the dwelling units can essentially live together. The question before the Panel is whether the breaching of the wall and the installation of the doors constitutes a change in use, as to the number of units. In determining whether, within a single structure, there are one or more dwelling units, the practice is to consult the definition of dwelling unit in the zoning ordinance, evaluate the existence of common areas shared by more than one unit, and determine whether there are separate entrances for each unit. A dwelling unit is defined as "any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals." In the circumstance under consideration, there currently exist two dwelling units which meet the above definition. Whether these units become one with the modification proposed, hinges on whether there are common areas shared by both units and whether there are separate entrances to each unit. It is clear, that there will continue to be two separate entrances, an entrance from the hallway, to each existing unit. However, when the permanent wall between the units is breached, the doors are installed, and the doors are unlocked, a change of use will occur to create one unit from the previous two. It is clearly the intent, by the installation of the doors, to provide the opportunity for people to pass from one room to another and to share these spaces. Subsequently locking the doors for a period of time, such as the extent of a lease as tenants change, will change the use back to two dwelling units. In many instances this change from two units to one and back to two units will have no consequence. However, once the use is changed to one dwelling unit, if the number of units prior to the change is non -conforming or is conforming under an RNC zone and sets the number of replacement units, the number of dwelling units may be diminished and potentially could not be changed back. It is our opinion that to make the modification proposed presents a risk to the owner as to whether he would be able to convert the modified units back into two units and may jeopardize his rights if the curre dwellin s are�on-conforming or are conforming under an RNC zone. IN. Doug oo roy V JK in Franklin Dire r Housi & Inspection Servi ctor, Dept. of Planning & Community l Development Sarah olecek Assists t City Attorney tp5-2 To: Board of Adjustment Item: VAR02-00002, 1570 First Ave: GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: John Adam Date: 9 April 2003 S & M Properties 1476 First Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 Tel. (319) 338-8058 Variance from sign ordinance To allow an additional sign along the frontage of a tract that has reached its allowable limit. South side of First Avenue, east of Lower Muscatine Road. 0.98 acres Mixed use office/residential, CC-2 North: vacant, CC-2 South: retail/office, CC-2 East: retail/office, CC-2 West: retail/office, CC-2 14-60-5D-2, Provisional signs in CH -I, CC-2 and Cl- I zones; 14-6W-2C, review standards for the granting of variances 14 August 2002 The applicant proposes to install a monument sign in front of his building at 1570 First Avenue. The sign would contain a collection of smaller signs identifying the businesses in the building, which has space for 10 offices. It also contains 16 dwelling units on two floors above. The sign ordinance allows up to three (3) signs along any single frontage if the frontage exceeds 300 feet. The signs must be spaced at least 150 feet apart. No more than four (4) signs are allowed per lot. A tract, which is a group of lots linked by internal drives, is considered to be a single lot for the purposes of the sign ordinance. In this application, there is a tract consisting of all the businesses and their related parking lots from the Delimart (also owned by the applicant) on the corner of First Avenue and Lower Muscatine Road to the Eastdale Office Park east of 2 the applicant's building. The First Avenue frontage of this tract is approximately 1000 feet. Currently there are three free-standing signs along this frontage, therefore the current number of signs is at the allowable limit. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested variance for the installation of a monument or free-standing sign if the requested relief is found to meet the several tests for variances as set forth in Section 14-6W- 2C. The burden of proof in these tests rests with the applicant. No variance to the strict application of any provision of the Zoning Chapter may be granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following elements are present: 1. Not contrary to the Public Interest a. The proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor have a substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. Staff finds that the application does not meet this test. The addition of one more sign along this stretch of First Avenue will not radically alter the streetscape, but at some point "one more" becomes "too many." Because that's a potentially subjective judgement, the City Council has set the limit at three along a frontage (four total for corner lots or tracts; three can be on one frontage and the fourth around the corner). The current permissiveness of the ordinance allowing up to four signs is a recent change in the Code (July 1999). A variance in this case would be tantamount to a Code change and establishes a pattern that would be difficult to ignore in future cases. b. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter and will not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Staff finds that the application does not meet this test. A sign could meet the 150-foot spacing requirement (there are 311 feet between the Eastdale Plaza sign and the Eastdale Office Park sign), but the frontage already has its permitted number of signs along it. An additional sign would counter the intent of the Zoning Chapter, which is to avoid visual clutter, which was the reason the Council limited it to three along one side of a frontage. 2. Unnecessary Hardship: a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located. Staff finds that the application does not meet this test. The applicant has already leased some of the office spaces in the ground floor of the building and is enjoying the rental income from the dwelling units in the two floors above. The building design provides for the placement of facia signs which would be visible from the roadway and are currently not being utilized, therefore the applicant is not disadvantaged by a restriction on signs. 3 b. The owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question, and the situation is not shared with other landowners in the area nor due to general conditions in the neighborhood. Staff finds that the application does not meet this test. The redevelopment of any of the properties in this collective tract would create the same situation faced by the applicant. There is nothing so unique about this tract that a property owner in a similar tract wouldn't face the same signage choices, including using facia signs which would be both larger and more comprehensible from further away when compared to smaller placards on a monument sign. Granting a variance would convey a special privilege to the applicant that would not be afforded other property owners who are in similar situations. c. The hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of a predecessor in title. Staff finds that the application does not meet this test. The lease agreements the applicant has with his office tenants promises each of them space on a sign near the roadway. Such agreements were made prematurely and are not valid reasons for granting a variance. Furthermore, the applicant has alternatives to a new sign out front: as mentioned above, the building was designed to accommodate facia signs, or the applicant could move the Delimart sign around the corner and meet Code since the tract can have up to four signs along its frontages as long as any one side only had three. Because the application does not meet all the tests, the Board cannot legally grant a variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that VAR02-00002, an application submitted by S&M Properties for a variance from the zoning ordinance to allow more than four free-standing signs along one frontage of a single tract in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1570 First Avenue be denied. ATTACHMENTS: I. Application 2. Site Plan Approved by: 14,04,Mgk Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development I iA SITE LOCATION: 1570 First Ave. VAR02-00002 l< EXISTING EXISTING ACCESS (3) FIRST AVENUE CLUB SIGN / PROPOSED SIGN / EXISTING100 / EXISTING ACCESS (2) EASTDALE MALL SIGN\ EXISTING DELIMART / SIGN i EXIT / ACC �O EXISTING ACCESS / EXISTING WENDY'S SIGN ld 119 14-60-5 14-60-5 (3) Awning Sign: (A) Maximum Area: 25 percent of the surface of the awning. (B) Maximum Height: Top of first story. (4) Window Sign: (A) Maximum Area: 25 percent of the area of the win- dow. (B) Maximum Height: None. (5) Monument Sign: (A) Maximum Area: 2 square feet per foot of lot front- age, not to exceed a total of 100 square feet or 50 square feet per sign face. feet. (B) Maximum Height: 5 D. CH-1, CC-2 And CI-1 Zones: 1. Permitted Signs: a. Signage for residential uses shall comply with the sign requirements for residential uses in the RM Zones (subsection A3 of this Section). b. Facia signs. c. Only one of the following types of signs: (1) Monument sign. (2) Freestanding sign. August 2000 Iowa City d. Canopy signs. e. Awning signs. f. Window signs. 2. Provisional Signs: a. When two (2) or more uses are located on a lot, a common monument or freestanding sign may be installed. The maximum area of the common sign may be fifty percent (50%) larger than the area of the maximum individ- ual sign allowed. (1978 Code §36-62) b. Two (2) freestanding or monu- ment signs or one freestanding sign and one monument sign are permit- ted, provided frontage along a single lot is not less than one hundred sixty feet (160'). The distance between two (2) freestanding signs shall be no less than one hundred fifty feet (150') as measured along the frontage of a single lot. Any lot with a frontage in excess of three hundred feet (300') may have up to three (3) freestanding signs per frontage, provided the signs are at least one hundred fifty feet (150') apart, measured along the frontage, and there are no more than four (4) freestanding signs on any lot. A tract of integrated lots shall be considered a single lot consistent with the defini- tion of tract in this Chapter. (Ord. 99-3892, 7-27-1999) c. In the CC-2 Zone, barber pole signs are permitted, provided they do not exceed three feet (3') in length and nine inches (9") in diameter. • APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - VARIANCE - Title 14, Chapter 6, Article W DATE: 08= 12-02 APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: CC2 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1.570 First Avenue APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 18 A 2 2 0 ' APPLICANT: Name: S& M Properties Address: 1476 First Ave, Iowa City Phone: 338-8058 CONTACT PERSON: Name: John Moreland Jr. Address: 1476 First Ave, Iowa City r� C Phone: 338-8058 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: S&M Properties Address: 1476 First Ave, Iowa City y; Phone: 338-8058 Specific requested variance; applicable section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: 14-60-SD-2B Reason for variance request: Requesting more than 3 freestanding signs on a single tract along single frontage. Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: N/A • • -2- INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Legal description of property: Lots 1, 2 and 7 Eastdal'e Mall, Iowa City, TA B. *Plot plan drawn to scale showing: 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. Land uses on and property owners of abutting lots; and 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. ["Submission of an 8" x 11 " bold print plot plan is preferred.] C. List of property owners within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal: NAME APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION: ADDRESS y .. Section 14-6W-2C of the Iowa City Zoning Chapter gives the Board of Adjustment power to authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the terms of the Zoning Chapter as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Chapter will result in unnecessary hardship and so the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. No variance to the strict application of any provision of the Zoning Chapter shall be granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following elements are present: (emphasis added) • • -3- (Please respond specifically to each of the following, explaining your answers.) Not contrary to the public interest. a. Explain why the proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, or have a substantially adverse effect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. The entire area is developed in commercial uses. The additional sign will not effect neigh.horing properties. b. Explain why the proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter, and not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. With the area being fully developed it is difficult to view the entire tract and see all the existrna signs. The additional sign is consitent with the existing zcmaing and comprehensive plan. = C^- T1 2. Unnecessary hardship. = �- a. Explain why the property in question cannot yield a reasonable retut if used only ; for a purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located. =- `•' The property is located on an arterial street with shared access points it is important to distinguish each property with its own sign. b. Explain how the owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question, and the situation not shared with other landowners in the area or due to general conditions in the neighborhood. As stated before the tract is rather larae, with shared access drives. It should also be noted that this was previously Papa Murphy's which had its own sign. c. Explain how the hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of a predecessor in title. The City has always encouraged shared access points along First Avenue which is consistent with this tract. NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a variance, 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 14-6W-2C3, 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 14-6W-3E, 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 14-6W-7, 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: 9 Date: , 9 ppdadmWapboavar.doc Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) - 71241 j GENERAL EXPLANATION OF VARIANCES A variance is a legal right granted to a property owner to use property in a manner prohibited by the Zoning Code. It has been said that a variance is an "escape valve" from the literal terms of the ordinance which, if strictly applied to a property owner, would deny all beneficial use of his land and thus amount to a confiscation. A variance is not a personal license to the property owner. It is a right that runs with the land. Under Iowa law, the Board of Adjustment, which has power to grant variances, is an independent, quasi-judicial body. That means that while the Board members are appointed by the City Council, they are not subordinate to the Council. Their actions are reviewable only by the courts. The Board conducts a hearing with respect to each variance application, after notices are posted on the property and mailed to owners of other properties within 200 feet of the property for which the variance is sought. That hearing will normally be relatively informal, but the Board will hear testimony and review documentary evidence in a manner similar to a court of law. The City's Department of Planning and Community Development assists the Board of Adjustment by reviewing variance applications and preparing a report which is sent to the Board members shortly before the hearing. The primary purpose of that report is to provide background information to members of the Board, and to inform them generally of the nature of the request for a variance. In preparing the report, the Department will use information provided in the application for a variance, and may, but is not required to, contact the applicant for further details. However, applicants should be aware that under Iowa law, they, not the City, are responsible for demonstrating that they are entitled to the variance. The Iowa Supreme Court has rendered several decisions involving variances, including the following: Deardorf v. Board of Adjustment of Fort Dodge, 254 Iowa 380, 8 N.W.2d 78 (962). C1 r A Board of Adjustment v. Ruble, 93 N.W.2d 497 (Iowa 974). Graciano v. Board of Adjustment, City of Des Moines, 323 N.W.2d 233 (Iowa 982). - - - Greenwalt v. Board of Adjustment, City of Davenport, 345 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 984). i. Those cases give meaning to the requirement of the Iowa statute (Code Sec�>44.2(a). that variances be granted only where unnecessary hardship will result. The Court hag --said unnecessary hardship is shown by establishing all of the following elements: The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone in which it is located. 2. The plight of the owner is not due to general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself, and 3. The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Questions regarding variance applications should be directed to the Department of Planning and Community Development (356-5230), or the City Attorney's Office (356-5030). STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC03-00003, 1565 S. Gilbert St. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prepared by: John Adam Date: 9 April 2003 Ronald Wade 100 S. Fairchild St. Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Ph. 338-4589 same To permit a School of Specialized Private Instruction in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 1565 S. Gilbert St. To permit establishment of a dog obedience school. 1565 S. Gilbert St. 18,690 sq. ft. Professional Office/Vacant, CI-1. North: Commercial, Cl- I South: Commercial, Cl- I East: Commercial, CI - West: Commercial, Cl- I 14-6W-2B-2, General Special Exception Review Requirements; 14-6E- I D-7, Schools of Specialized Private Instruction in the Cl- I zone. 10 March 2003 The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a dog obedience school to lease space in the north half of the applicant's commercial building at 1565 South Gilbert Street. The school, Spot & Co., is operated by Sue Pearson, who received a special exception in 1994 (EXC93-00032) to operate the school in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 123 Stevens Drive, which is located across the intersection from the subject address. The other leasable space in the building contains a real estate office. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations of the Cl- I zone and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-6W-2B. Specific Standards: 14-6E- I D-7. Schools of Specialized Private Instruction in the Cl- I zone. A school of specialized private instruction is permitted by special exception in the Intensive Commercial, CI -I, zone. No specific, additional requirements are applied to such a use in this zone. General Standards: 14-6W-2B-2. Special Exception Review Requirements. The applicant's statements regarding each of the general standards are attached. Staff comments are offered as needed and correspond to the standards as enumerated in the Zoning Ordinance. b. The proposed use conducts small classes —generally about a dozen dogs at a time —and the owner does not anticipate increasing class sizes. Obedience training takes place indoors, so any associated externalities are contained in the building. Classes take place on weekends and on weekday evenings. The landlord at the school's current location has informed staff that, in their opinion, operations are quiet, clean and conducted responsibly. e. The configuration of the parking lot and entrances will not be changed. There are 22 parking spaces provided, 18 of which the real estate office requires. Schools of specialized private instruction require two spaces per classroom; since there is only one classroom, parking is sufficient. The proposed use typically begins classes at 6:30 PM, after the real estate office closes, and goes until 8:30 PM, therefore traffic impact will take place during off-peak hours. The use has been operating across the street for over eight years, so traffic in the area will not increase as a result of its establishment in a new building. f. The applicant's lot is currently deficient in right-of-way trees (14-6R-6), which were lost during the 1993 floods. The applicant will need four trees for compliance. The trees will also provide parking lot coverage with the right mix of large and small trees. Staff feels the proposed use will work well in this location, as it has done so for nine years across the street. The building is in a controlled flight zone that at one time had restrictions on occupancy loads. Current FAA standards leave it to the local building official to determine if the use is safe and for what number of people it is safe. Since the regulations no longer prescribe safe load factors, staff has concluded that the former load factors can serve as a benchmark for determining safety for this use: at one per 50 square feet, this 3,680-square-foot space could contain 73 people. However, since there are usually no more than a couple of dozen people and a dozen dogs, and the instructor has no plans to expand class sizes, a lower cap would not burden the use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC03-00003, an application for a special exception to permit a school of specialized private instruction be approved subject to compliance with 14-6R, Tree Regulations, and provided the operations are solely for dog obedience classes and occupancy shall be limited to no more than 35 persons at any one time. ATTACHMENTS: I. Location map 2. Site plan Approved by: ;;r1rA/2 Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development I . CITY OF IOWA CITY ON I STURGIS FERRY PARK SITE LOCATION: 1565 S. Gilbert Street EXC03-00003 I 1565 SOUTH GILBERT STREET SITE AREA: 18690 SQUARE FEET 8040 NEVV BUILDING SF NEW KEL-WELCO HARDNARE STORE 1/16" = 1, 1 57 --U—RB 15, - I p T9 2C UTILITY ;15-S E C L R E R I 0 I WAREHOUSE, / J lL�o +1'10 'P FF7- Uft R 6. SHOWROOM ------- �� F12� o'cr 22'-0- AREA WAREHOUSF 12 'xio. 2��r �j A AREA OVERHEADIII DOOR LLJ +1'4 3C eC iF7 it I DASHED LINE IS IPROF�RT- LINE L 10 1 - - 4�@,::� I' 57'-0" cl) Li 61, I ug "...i as 4- kF-227::01 227---U 1 - 0--o-i 119'-9 1/2- 5S 6S L.Lj 21'-0 1/2" 24'- 518T" Ov cn ONE 711— 'VAY TRAFFI, 7c 8C 59'- 9C I C "S 12S 17'- 13HC 0 3/4- 14C 15C IGS T—, 60'R401US cu 17S 111E I I I 0 C 19S 20j 21S 22C PARK (:U vm C04 rV(STING 8' WIDE 3 CONCRETE SIDEWALK NO.* 4 ED 169'-6 1/8" J,\ tORNER PARKING SPACES ARE NAMED 'C' FOR COMPACT 8' X 15, .,T FOR STANDARD 9' X *HC* FOR HANDICAPPED 12'6 X 18, GILBERT STRE�E pwmc Tm 11 COMPACT SPACES PROVIDED 10 STANDARD SPACES PROVIDED 1 HANDICAPPED SPACE PROVIDED NORTH ALL EXTERIOR LOT EXCEPT lo' RADIUS PARKING, TREE ISLANDS AND 5' WIDE RE'E Co'IER4 PLANTING AREA IS CONCRETE PAVED � �£xc os_° 03 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W DATE: v�--/,Q —D_ f PROPERTY PARCEL NO. APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: r APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: CONTACT PERSON: Name: APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE:�� X -m �2/ Phone:. Address;/ v Phone: PROPERTY OWNER:Name: Ra-rw�' Address: 1h D Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoninq Chapter: Date of previous application bf appeal filed, if any: 0 -2- r INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Legal description of property:f�a B. *Plot plan drawn to scale showing: 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 the location and record owner property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. [*Submission of an 82" x 11" bold print plot plan is preferred.] of each C. Review. The Board shall review all applicable evidence regarding the site, ,existing and proposed structures, neighboring uses, parking areas, driveway IOcatiorfs1 highway and street access, traffic generation and circulation, ani drainage;�rystar� sewer and water systems, the operation of the specific proposed exception and such other evidence as deemed appropriate. (Section 14-6W-2131, City Code). In the space provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board review which apply to the requested special exception. In this narrative statement, set forth the grounds offered as support for the special exception. D. The applicant is required to present specific information, not just opinions, that the general standards for the granting of a special exception (Section 14-6W-2132, City Code), enumerated below, will be met: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. • -3- 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. �z4d 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. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress esigned so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. 0 -4- 0 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. [Depending on the type of 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 City Code Section 14-6L-1, Special Exception Enumerated Requirements; Section 14-6N-1, Off -Street Parking Requirements; Section 14-6Q, Dimensional Requirements, or Section 14-611, Tree Regulations, as appropriate.] 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range £pmprehensive Plan of the City. 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: -5- 0 NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-6W-2B3, 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 14-6W-3E, 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 14-6W-7, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in t is of the City Clerk. Date: J ._/i!9 -0,j , 20 Date: ppdadminlappboase.doc 20 Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: John Adam Item: EXC03-00004, Lot 64- IA. Date: 9 April 2003 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Contact person: Tim Schroeder Neumann Monson PC Architects I I I E. College St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Ph. 338-7878 Requested Action: To permit off-street parking in the Central Business (CB-10) zone in Block 64, Lot IA of the Original Town Plat. Purpose: To provide parking for a large mixed -use development. Location: SW quadrant of the intersection of South Linn and East College Streets. Size: 0.91 acres. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Parking lot, CB-10. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Civic Institutional, CB-10 South: Municipal Parking, CB-10 East: Commercial, Residential, CB-10 West: Commercial, CB-10 Applicable code sections: 14-6W-2B-2, General Special Exception Review Requirements; 14-6N- I E, Specific Special Exception Review Requirements for Off -Street Parking in the CB-10 zone. File Date: 27 March 2003 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant is requesting a special exception to permit the provision of off-street parking in the Central Business (CB-10) zone for a development project on Urban Renewal Lot 64-IA. The applicant is proposing both surface and underground parking to serve the Plaza Towers development. The development will contain commercial and office space on the first two floors, and 57 residential units and 54 hotel suites above. The property is currently used as a municipal surface parking lot. As part of the joint effort between the City and Moen Development to develop this parcel, the City agreed to initiate the process to obtain a special exception. Except for hotels or motels, private off-street parking can only be provided in the CB-10 zone through the granting of a special exception. The applicant requests consideration of 70 underground parking spaces and 22 surface spaces (approximately 7,000 square feet). The surface spaces will be short-term only and used for customers of the grocery store on the site plan. The underground parking will serve the residential portion of the development. A pedestrian bridge will link to the City -owned parking ramp to the south and serve the hotel portion. Vehicular access to both the surface and underground lots would be from Linn Street, Access to the surface lot would be via a one-way entrance. Exiting traffic would leave via the public access driveway between the development and the parking ramp to the south. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations of the CB-10 zone, the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-6W-2B, and the specific standards for off-street parking in the CB-10 zone as set forth in 14-6N- I E. Specific Standards: 14-6E-8A. Intent of the CB-10 zone. The intent section of the CB-10 zone states that "it is intended that off-street parking facilities be publicly provided." The policy of restricting private parking is intended to promote high - density commercial and residential development in the downtown area, foster a pedestrian orientation along downtown streets, and reduce overall congestion in the central business district. Individual parking lots, particularly surface parking lots, take up valuable downtown property that might otherwise be developed for more active uses. Given this policy, the City has made an effort to provide adequate parking in the downtown through the construction of public parking facilities. These facilities represent a considerable public investment. In light of this investment, the Board should also consider whether the proposed private parking will be in direct competition with the public parking system. There are two different parking facilities to consider with regard to CB-10 parking policy. One is the underground 70-space parking lot that will be used for residents of Plaza Towers. The other is the 22-space surface lot that will be used for the grocery store. Both are the subject of the special exception request, but each has unique features that are discussed separately below. 3 Underground parking: Providing dedicated off-street parking will help satisfy most of the long-term parking demand expected with the new use of the property and as a consequence prevent some of the parking congestion that might otherwise occur in the vicinity if the additional spaces were not provided. Also, since it will be underground, most of the lot can be developed at full density. When the Comprehensive Plan was being drafted in 1996-97, downtown business owners expressed concern that encouraging more housing in the Central Business District would place a strain on available on -street parking as residents competed for available space. This exception proposes a solution that answers those concerns; neither will there be excess parking that the owner may use to compete with public parking facilities. Access to the facility will be from the street, but Linn Street is not a busy thoroughfare like Clinton and Washington Streets, or Iowa Avenue. Traffic speeds also tend to be slow because of the presence of angled parking opposite the development. The entrance is not set amid a row of retail and restaurant uses, so the numbers of people simply hanging around on this block will be low. Staff would typically be concerned about turning movements across the sidewalk disrupting the street life. That concern is mitigated by the sparseness of that street life in this location. Surface parking: The Plaza Towers developer contends that the only way a grocery store can survive in the downtown is if it has easily accessible parking dedicated to that particular use. This is due in part to the unique nature of grocery shopping as compared to other retail uses. Shopping for groceries typically occurs at the tail end of a longer shopping trip or it is the sole object of the trip. Whereas public ramps and metered on -street parking are fine for most types of shopping downtown, a grocery trip is either going to be quick and light, like convenience store shopping, or a little more cumbersome, as most suburban supermarket trips are. Some people buy enough for one or two days; most others get enough supplies to cover an entire week or more. In the first case, a high -turnover lot close at hand is needed to draw customers. In the second case, a parking lot close at hand and to which you wheel a cartload of groceries is desirable. Until the downtown again has a "critical mass" of residents who can support a store, a small amount of parking now could mean the difference between having a grocery store and not having one. In staffs opinion the amount of parking provided is not excessive for the use. Using the similar CB-5 zone as a guide, this lot is below the maximum parking allowance for grocery stores in that zone. In the CB-5, one (1) space per 500 square feet is permitted. For this grocery store that would come out to 26 spaces. The developer is not proposing an amount of parking that will exceed demand generated by the uses proposed for the development. In other words, there should be no excess available to other retail uses in the area, and therefore it will not be competing with public parking facilities. The developer will be employing methods of controlling parking use to make sure the lots serve their intended users and will not be used as free parking by others. 4 Specific Standards: 14-6N- I E. Off -Street Parking in the CB-10 zone. The Board shall consider the impact of the proposed parking upon surrounding uses in relation to the following requirements: I . Screening: In addition to the applicable requirements for screening of subsection D of this Section, where a parking area abuts a street, it shall be separated therefrom by a solid fence, wall or evergreen hedge having a height of not less than three feet (Y) nor more than five feet (5'). The site plan indicates that a hedge in planter boxes is planned in the required location. Without elevations or notes indicating the proposed height of the hedge, staff recommends a condition be attached restating the 3- to 5-foot requirement. 2. Access: Each entrance and exit to the parking area shall be constructed so that vehicles entering or leaving the parking area shall be clearly visible to a pedestrian on any sidewalks at a distance of not less than ten feet (10'). All entering vehicles would be visible from the sidewalk at any point along it. Vehicles exiting the underground ramp would be visible from the north by a person standing at the edge of the entrance, but from the south the required hedge may inhibit visibility of exiting vehicles. At the outside corners, however, clear lines of sight are necessary for safe interaction between vehicles and pedestrians, so no hedge or other obstruction should be above two (2) feet high within a triangle measured 10 feet from the intersection point of drives and the right-of-way. Staff also feels it would be beneficial to have pedestrian access from Linn Street; the developer believes that could be done and anticipates submitting a revised plan showing a pedestrian walkway. 3. Signs: Appropriate signs, including stop signs posted at the exits to streets, shall be provided. This concept plan does not indicate signs, but the appropriate locations for a "slow" sign would be at the upper transition slope for vehicles exiting the underground parking. No sign should be required for vehicles exiting the south public access drive. It will behave like an alley and alleys do not have traffic signs. General Standards: 14-6W-2B-2 Special Exception Review Requirements The applicant's statements regarding each of the general standards are attached. Staff comments are offered as needed and correspond to the standards as enumerated in the Zoning Ordinance. b. 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. While the proposed parking will add some congestion along the street, providing long-term parking for residents will prevent these tenants from competing with other users of on -street parking, which is intended for short-term customer parking. Providing on -site parking for the grocery store, a unique use, may increase the grocery - specific marketability of the retail space. The City Council concluded that it would be in the best interests of the public to have a grocery store downtown, therefore allowing limited surface parking for a grocery store is consistent with stated policy. g. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City's downtown parking policy is discussed above. Staff feels that the proposed parking lots are consistent with this policy provided the underground lot is used as long-term tenant parking and the surface lot is used only for grocery store parking. Grocery stores are one of the key services the downtown needs to become a more livable place, which is one of the objectives spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan. Livable means that jobs and everyday necessities are close at hand, so there's reduced demand for automobile use. The Plaza Towers project will add more residents to the downtown, which in turn will increase the market base for grocery stores, clothing stores, drug stores, etc. However, typical grocery store business practice requires on -site parking. The requested parking lot occupies a small area of the parcel and is designed into the site in such a way that the street wall has little interruption. The unique features of grocery store trip generation, described above, make the provision of parking a reasonable request. The desirability of having a grocery store downtown was a key factor in the City Council's approval of the developer's proposal for Lot 64- IA. If there is no grocery store, there is no need for surface parking. Staff recommends requiring as a condition of approval that the retail space be used as a grocery store, otherwise this portion of the lot cannot be used for parking. The owner also has the option of developing the area as something other than parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC03-00004, an application for a special exception to permit Off - Street Parking in the Central Business (CB-10) zone in Block 64, Lot I A be approved subject to the following provisions: I . Three- to five-foot high screening shall be provided along the public right-of-way in front of the surface parking lot; 2. At the southeast and northeast corners of the surface lot the screening shall be no higher than two (2) feet within triangular areas measured 10 feet from the intersection point of drives and the right-of-way; 3. The surface lot will be used only if the retail space intended to be a grocery store is used as a grocery store, otherwise the developer or property owner has the option of developing this portion as another use permitted in the CB-10 zone. ATTACHMENTS: I. Location map 2. Site plan and elevations Approved by: ✓��� Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development C 0,,Cl U N i 'u F R i I Y OF O `A/ A z O U SITE LOCATION: Lot 64-1 a O Z u MR OWA n `U E -r p *ASH iNGil ON UF L- JE1 --p EXC03-00004 I� PLAZA TOWERS ZONING LIMIT 155'-6" 834.00') LINN STREET ELEVATION FI FV PFNTH()I ISF keno F 155'-0- - 152'-0„ 134'-0" )E 50'-4" EYOND) kE 4�4'-" IE 31'-6" EYO N D) STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES a �nw II eic ��s nw �:rFs nw � ]fEWLIBRARYF�00TPRINT O©LLiG'E'SFRg € � g 6 0 � Y GROUND LEVEL s� z BUILDING FOOTPRINT FFE: 6MS0' L \ iacnnaa rwnoerv,.wwc X I any __—_ ` e � ALLEY t" PARKING RAMP uervnr aoacwor .a eisN Gu�wvuv N AlsffE;rL z NEUMANN MONSON A R C H I T E C T S PLAZA TOWERS DEVELOPMaU ��M NL move PLAN C-121 D 3 � 5 oho 0 o sn o 0 o Q t o 0 0 00 o O I I r I I O o o®- O N AiFiAnLEvEL PLAN NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS NIA vnM m. PLAZA TOWERS ►,aai oEVaoP�err �M •ic mass RFtST LEVEL PLAN A-101 NEUMANN MONSON A R C H I T E C T S PLAZA TOWERS Moen DEVELUU rr o p,b LOWER LEVEL A� A-116 � �XGo3-oo001� APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTi Z7 —SPECIAL EXCEPTIONlo.� TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W DATE: March 25, 2003 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. Auditor's Parcel 97013 APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: Block 64, Parcel 1 A APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: CB-40 APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 0.94 acres APPLICANT: Name: City of Iowa City Address: 410 E. Washington St. Phone: 356-5236 CONTACT PERSON: Name: Tim Schroeder, Neumann Monson PC Address: 111 E. College St., Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 338-7878 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: City of Iowa City Address: 410 E. Washington St. Phone: 356-5236 Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: 14-6W-2B, gen. spec exception review stds , 14-6N-1 E off-street pkg in the CB 10 zone Purpose for special exception: To provide parking for a large mixed -use development Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: None 0 • -2- INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Legal description of property: Block 64, Parcel 1A, Original Town Plat B. *Plot plan drawn to scale showing: 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 the location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. [*Submission of an 8%" x I bold print plot plan is preferred.] C. Review. The Board shall review all applicable evidence regarding the site, existing and proposed structures, neighboring uses, parking areas, driveway locations, highway and street access, traffic generation and circulation, drainage, sanitary sewer and water systems, the operation of the specific proposed exception and such other evidence as deemed appropriate. (Section 14-6W-2131, City Code). In the space provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board review which apply to the requested special exception. In this narrative statement, set forth the grounds offered as support for the special exception. This exception is requested to allow a development that will increase pop Densitv downtown Wout putting stress on the available parking Most of the lot will have a buRft footprint so the requested parking will not detract substantially from the preferred urban form. D. The applicant is required to present specific information, not just opinions, that the -general standards for the granting of a special exception (Section 14-6W-2132, City Code), enumerated below, will be met: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The exception requested is for parking which will be the least change to the lot's use once it's been developed Turning movements into the development will be from a low -speed street (Linn) so there's a low probability o gel F io Pedestrians. _ J y 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 exception is part of an urban use in an urban setting Traffic is an everyday reality downtown. Traffic movement in and out of this site will have little consequence. 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. Parking presents no physical intrusion that may impede full development of neighboring properties. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. These issues have been addressed by the project's engineers and architects Storm water will be directed to City storm sewers. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The surface lot has separated ingress/egress ddyeways to minimize the no of associated conflict points on Linn Street. The undergroundI)arking has one means of entering and exiting, but it does have a lower rate of traffic turnover CD 1 y 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. [Depending on the type of 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 City Code Section 14-61-4, Special Exception Enumerated Requirements; Section 14-6N-1, Off -Street Parking Requirements; Section 14-6Q, Dimensional Requirements, or Section 14-6R, Tree Regulations, as appropriate.] 14-6N-1 E requirements will be met: Screening will be provided; vehicles entering and exiting will be visible to pedestrians: and directional signs will be provided 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan of the City. Higher densities of residents are welcome in the downtown since they increase the retail base, but many existing retailers are worried that more residents will further strain parking demand. The development increases downtown residences Provides parking for them. 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 -5- • NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-6W-2B3, 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 14-6W-3E, 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 14-6W-7, 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: March 26 , 2003 10 Date: ppdadmiMappboase M641a.doc 20 Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) { � c