HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-2007 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 — 5:00 PM
Emma J. Harvat Hall
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the January 10, 2007 Minutes
D. Special Exception:
1. EXC07-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Bryan Svoboda 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 526 W. Park
Road.
2. EXC07-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Nordstrom Oil for a
special exception to allow a drive -through restaurant facility for property located
in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1902 Broadway'Street and 1906
Broadway Street.
E. Other:
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjournment
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING —April 11, 2007
STAFF REPORT
March 28, 2007
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: EXC07-00001 526 West Park Road Date: March 28, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Applicable Code Sections:
Bryan Svoboda
526 West Park Road
319-331-6559
Approval of a special exception to
reduce the required front yard
setback along Hutchison Avenue
from 15 feet to 5 feet.
To allow construction of an addition
on the west side of the house.
526 West Park Road
9,800 square feet
(60 x 150) + (10 x 80)
Residential (RS-5)
North: Residential (RS-5)
South: Residential (RS-5)
East: Residential (RS-5)
West: Residential (RS-5)
Specific criteria for adjustments
to the principal building setback
requirements, 14-2A-4B-5; purpose
of the minimum setback
requirement, 14-2A-4B-1; general
criteria for special exceptions,
14-4B-3
File Date: February 5, 2007
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The property at 526 West Park Road is located in the RS-5 zone at the corner of
Hutchison Avenue and West Park Road. As a corner lot, the property is required to
provide a minimum 15-foot front setback along both the Hutchison and West Park
frontages. Although Hutchison Avenue is street right-of-way, it is not built to City street
standards with curb, gutter, sidewalks, etc. In 1974, a previous owner of the property
acquired a 10 x 80 foot section of the Hutchison Avenue right-of-way in order to
accommodate a small addition on the west side of the house, which had been built
without a permit. That addition is set back 5 feet from the property line and is thus
considered non -conforming.
The portion of Hutchison Avenue along which the property fronts is a dead end that
terminates at an undeveloped alley to the rear of the property. Two other properties
share frontage along Hutchison: 524 and 604 West Park Road. For all practical
purposes, this portion of Hutchison serves as a private drive shared by the
applicant, Mr. Svoboda, and his neighbor at 604 West Park Road, who maintain it.
However, the road also provides frontage for an undeveloped portion of a lot
associated with the lot at 524 West Park Road.
The current arrangement of the house also includes an attached garage and carport at
the rear of the house (basement level), which are set 15 feet from the street right-of-way.
The zoning code requires that garages be set back 25 feet from the from the street right-
of-way line and that driveways measure 25 feet from the street right-of-way line to the
garage entrance. Additional parking is provided on a paved area off the northwest corner
of the house, within the 15 foot setback. The garage, carport and paved driveways and
parking area are all considered non -conforming.
The applicant, Bryan Svoboda, is requesting a setback adjustment along the Hutchison
Avenue frontage in order to build an addition to the house, which includes an expansion
of the kitchen and a covered porch/entryway.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to
encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit
the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent
property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is
found to be in accordance with the regulations found in Section 14-2A-4B-5, pertaining
to setback adjustments and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in
Section 14-413-3.
Specific Standards: Section 14-2A-413-5, Adjustments to the Principal Setback
Requirements
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific standards are included on the
attached application form. Staff Comments related to the general approval criteria are set
forth below.
1. The situation is peculiar to the property: Staff finds that the situation at 526 West
Park Road is peculiar. The subject property fronts along two streets —West Park Road
and a dead end section of Hutchison Avenue. While the corner lot situation is not unique,
the portion of Hutchison Avenue is not built to public street standards in terms of paving,
curb and gutter, and sidewalks. Moreover, this portion of Hutchison Avenue terminates at
an undeveloped alley to the rear of the property and only one other house is located
along the street. In practical effect this section of right-of-way functions as a private drive
for 526 and 604 West Park Road with the property owners at 526 and 604 Park Road
maintaining this section of right-of-way. While the street right-of-way and alley provide
access and frontage for a portion of a large parcel that is part of the lot at 524 West Park
Road, the topography is steeply sloped and there limited potential for development and it
is highly unlikely that the City would ever extend the road or develop the alley.
The property at 526 West Park Road as it is now configured includes a 10 foot x 80 foot
section that was formerly part of the Hutchison Avenue right-of-way. This portion of ROW
was sold to a previous property owner to accommodate a small addition,on the west side
of the house. That addition is set 5 feet from the property line and the remainder of the
house is set back the required 15 feet. Thus a small portion of the house is already
established within the required setback and is considered non -conforming.
2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback standards. As indicated in
the applicant's floor plan, the 11 x 12-foot kitchen, which is located in the non -conforming
addition, has no space for eating in and has limited circulation with the rest of the house.
The applicant is proposing an addition to accommodate space for an eat -in kitchen with
direct access to the family room at the rear of the house. In addition, the' applicant is
proposing a covered porch entrance on the side of the house. The applicant has
indicated that the existing side entry is more accessible than the front entry for visitors
and others entering and exiting the house, since all parking for the property is on the
north side (to the rear) of the house, and that a small covered porch would provide an
entrance that is more protected from the elements.
3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the
setback regulations.
The purpose of the setback requirement is to:
Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting;
Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings;
Reflect the general building scale and placement of buildings and between
residences; and
Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the
vicinity.
Because the setback at issue is along a street right-of-way rather than aside property
line, there is no practical reduction in the separation required to maintain light, air, and
access for fire protection and firefighting, nor does the reduced setback diminish privacy
for the subject property or the adjacent property at 604 West Park Road. Because Mr.
Svoboda's house is the only structure located along this frontage, the proposed addition
will not disrupt the general building scale or placement of buildings along the Hutchison
frontage. Moreover, because the steep typography of the area makes it unlikely that
Hutchison Avenue will be ever be improved as a City street, the compatibility in the
placement of buildings along this portion of street is unlikely to ever be an issue.
4. The negative impacts of the special exception are mitigated The addition
proposed by the applicant will close off access to a non -conforming garage and carport.
Both the carport and the garage are non -conforming because they are not set back 25
feet as required in the code and do not have a driveway 25 feet in length from the street
right-of-way as required by code (see section 14-2A-6) . The applicant plans to build a
new garage to the rear of the house at some point in the future. Any garage will be
required by code to meet the driveway and setback standard. The applicant will continue
to park cars on the non -conforming parking pad off the northwest corner„of the house.
That parking area is screened from view along West Park Road by an existing retaining
wall and the proposed addition.
General Standards: 14-413-3, Special Exception Review Requirements
The applicant's comments regarding each of the general standards are included on the
attached application form. Staff comments related to the general approval criteria are set
forth below.
1. The specific or proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The specific proposed exception
will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general
welfare for the reasons cited in response for the specific criteria above.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of the property in the immediate vicinity and will not diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood. As stated above under specific criteria 3, the setback at
issue will not be contrary to the purpose of the regulations in that it will reduce
opportunity for light, air and separation for fire protection and firefighting nor the
opportunity for privacy between dwellings. Because the applicant's house is the only
structure along this frontage, it will not disrupt the general building scale or placement of
buildings along the frontage. By closing off the non -conforming garage and carport and
moving parking to the rear of the property, the proposal will reduce the overall non-
compliance of the property with regard to off-street 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 the property is located.
All surrounding property is currently developed. There is a possibility that property to the
rear of 526 West Park Road, which has frontage at the terminus of Hutchison Avenue
could be subdivided to allow for an additional lot. However, due to the steep topography,
it is unlikely that Hutchison could be extended to allow substantial development of this
property. The proposed reduction in the setback requirements will not impede any
potential future development, for the property associated with 524 West Park Road, the
property line remains as it is established and parking will remain at the rear of the house.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been
or are being provided. All necessary utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary
1 The zoning code requirement (14-2A-6C-4) requiring garages and carports to provide a driveway at least
25 feet in length is intended to prevent vehicles from blocking rights -of -way, including sidewalks and
streets. The code does not provide a special exception to reduce the 25-foot drive length requirement.
facilities are in place to allow the proposed addition to be built. Again, by closing off the
non -compliant garage and carport, the proposal will reduce the overall non-compliance
of the property with regard to parking.
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 portion of
Hutchison along which the subject property fronts in all practical sense functions as a
private drive for 604 and 526 West Park Road. The proposed addition to the subject
property is setback more than what is required from the Park Road right of way and will
not impede visibility along the road. The setback reduction will have no impact on
ingress or egress from West Park Road, nor on any future development in the area.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception
begin considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects conforms
to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
The proposed addition complies with all other standards of the zone.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages maintaining and improving the safety and
conformity of all housing and promotes the preservation and integrity of existing single
family housing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that EXC07-00001, an application to allow reduction of the required
principal building setback for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS-5)
zone at 526 West Park Road from 15 feet to 5 feet be approved subject to general
conformity with the submitted site plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Proposed Site Plan
Approved by: /444�`
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
�► �►°N
jasz
Ito
n,
a
t
Mae
ire
r,
oil
.., .
F
i r
v " SAi
Pw
Views of the carport, garage and paved parking area off the northwest corner of the
house
View of the non -conforming addition on the west side of the house.
�K�
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
-- SPECIAL EXCEPTION -
DATE: S CO PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5--� G W. Rat k R
PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SIZE: IO k SrCI
APPLICANT: Name: LA�tTq�n�
Address: W.
Phone:
CONTACT PERSON: Name:
(if other than applicant)
-
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER: Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter:
Purpose for special exception:
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
r e o%' C- C ('9 v t reel
oc�m1J f-luic"sn
— 6 5 fezj-
a
-2-
Please see 14-8C-2 in the Code for more detailed information on special exception
application and approval procedures. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with
questions about the application process or regulations and standards in the Zoning Code.
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Legal description of property (attach separate sheet if necessary):
�P `)aT -7
B. *Plot plan drawn to scale showing:
1. Lot with dimensions• Atr
2. North point and scale;e
3. Existing and proposedctures w%h distances from properly lines; fie >
4. Abutting streets and alleys;r
5. Surrounding land uses, in lu mg the location and record owner of each
property opposite or abutting the property in question; t �0
6. Parking spaces and trees -existing and proposed.
I *Submission of an 8'/2" x 11" plot plan is preferred.
�- C. Review: The Board of Adjustment is empowered to grant special exceptions to the
provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code only in circumstances specifically
enumerated within the Code. To ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is observed
and substantial justice done, no special exception shall be granted by the Board
unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the specific and general approval
criteria are met, as described below.
Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find
that the requested special exception meets the specific approval criteria set forth
within the zoning code with respect to the proposed exception. In the space
provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board review that
apply to the specific requested special exception. The applicant is required to
present specific information, not just opinions, that demonstrate that the requested
special exception meets each of the specific approval criteria listed in the Zoning
Code. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions in the base zonerare
set forth in 14-46-4 of the ZoningCode. For other
types of special exceptions - rffc�dificatiolls
to setbacks, parking requirements, etc. - refer to the relevant approval criteria_fls�eq in the
Code. Planning staff is available to assist you in finding the relevant approval. O teria fo}r j
your requested exception.) Attach additional sheet if necessary.
J7-
Iowa City Assessor - General Parcel Info
Page I of 3
Iowa City Assessor
Pin 1004456002
home i parcel search_ I advanced parcel search I residential sale
sea_r_ch I commercial sale search
Current value as of January 01, 2006 - Taxes payable September 2007 and lkaich 2C48'
Land Value Dwelling
Value Improvement Value
---Total Value -- + l
65,000
211,660
0
__ -- 276,6
Prior Year Value Information
y,
Year Land Value
Dwelling Value Improvement Value
Total Value
2006 65,000
211,660
0
276,660
2005 65,000
211,660
0
276,660
2004 65,000
160,900
0
225,900
2003 65,000
160,900
0
225,900
2002 65,000
139,720
0
204,720
2001 65,000
139,720
0
204,720
2000 47,630
151,570
0
199,200
Residential Building Information
Occupancy
Style Year Built
Total Living Area
Single_ -Family / Owner Occupied
2 Story Frame 1920
2,326
Land Front Foot Information
Lot Front Rear Side 1
Side 2
http://www.iowacity.iowaassessors.com/i)arcel.-ohl)?2id=21679
2/5/2007
Page 3
ha
1. The special exception being requested is to construct a small porch on the
southwest corner of the existing structure and a kitchen addition on the northwest
corner of the existing structure. Both additions are to be built within the existing
square dimensions of the already existing structure. Due to the existing setback of
the existing structure and due to the (de facto) vacated Hutchinson Street which
abuts the west boundary of the property, the proposed structure will not be
detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
2. The special exception will not be injurious to the property to the west of the
property seeking the special exception for the reason that there is no additional
encroachment of the already existing building line on the west side of the
property. The building addition will enhance the value of the property seeking the
special exception, which normally secures and enhances the values of neighboring
properties.
3. The same argument is valid for this paragraph that applies to the previous
paragraph. Views of neighboring properties will not be diminished which would
be the main and only consideration in question on this paragraph.
4. All utilities, access, drainage and any other necessary facilities will not be altered,
changed and/or affected, by the proposed additions to this property.
5. Ingress and egress are not affected by granting of this special exception.
R-O-W .f`M a�S (M a er;va,-{e, dy-ivt for.
6. All other respects of standards and regulations are not affected.
7. Yes.
lJ i
(DI
Application for Special Exception
Continued side yard reduction
526 West Park Road
Iowa City, IA 52246
March 12, 2007
I am requesting this special exception be granted for the following two reasons:
1. Kitchen The kitchen is totally isolated from the rest of the house as shown in the
floor plan. Also, there is no eating area in the kitchen. To get from the kitchen to the
family room, one must travel almost a complete circle around through the front of the
house, through the foyer and formal living room, and then into the family room. By
building an addition on the northwest corner of the house, a direct access may be gained
to the family room area and also a small area may be set aside for an eating area. There
is no other option to solve this problem.
2. Porch All guests must park to the rear of the house, as there is no on -street
parking in this area. Guests must travel up a flight of outside stairs and use a walk to the
front of the house where there is no covered area to wait until entry is gained. Also there
is no area to build a porch on the center front or the southeast corner of the front of the
house because of design and window constraints. A porch or deck on the rear of the
house is not possible because of the driveway that will be in place to get to the garage. A
small covered porch on the southwest corner of the house would help solve this problem.
Guests would be able to use a more direct route and guests would be able to stand under
the cover of a roof while waiting to gain entry. Also occupants of the house need
someplace to go outside for numerous reasons, i.e., fresh air and so forth. The porch
proposed for this house could only be located on the southwest corner of the house and
would alleviate the problems as specified.
Note: A new garage along with a driveway, which will be built to code, will be
constructed at the rear of the house, which will replace the current non -conforming
garage.
Thank You,
Bryan Svoboda
5. b. (1) The situation is peculiar in that the city has already granted a special
exception for setback on this property and what is being requested does not alter that
setback.
5. b. (2) There is practical difficulty in compliance with setback requirements only
due to the fact that the west side setback has already been granted and no further setback
to the west is being sought. Therefore, this request is based on an already granted setback
to the west. The north and south setbacks are not affected, and the completed
construction will comply with already existing front yard and rear yard setbacks (North
and south).
5. b. (3) Same answer as on 1 and 2 above.
5. b. (4) There will be no potential negative effects. Effects will be positive as the
building fagade will be enhanced and value will be enhanced which will enhance the
value of neighboring properties.
5. b. (5) The subject building will not encroach any further into the side yard and
will be much further than 3 feet from the side yard property line.
tl
O
IQ
�o
N
,`I
1
L
C, rio >te\
34
STAFF REPORT
March 28, 2007
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: EXC07-00002 Date: March 28, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Nordstrom Oil
1400 61h Street
Cedar Rapids, IA 52404
Phone: 319-365-8664
Contact Person: Duane Musser
MMS Engineering
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: 319-351-8282
Property Owner:
Henry Nathanson
P.O. Box 3400
Iowa City, IA 52244
Southgate Development Co.
P.O. Box 1907
Iowa City, IA 52244
Requested Action:
Special Exception to allow a proposed drive -
through use in the CC-2 zone.
Purpose:
Establishment of a drive-in restaurant.
Location:
1902 and 1906 Broadway Street
Size:
.91 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Community Commercial (CC-2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Residential (RS-5)
South: Residential (RM-44)
East: Undeveloped (CO-1)
and Residential (RS-12)
West:Commercial (CC-2)
Applicable Zoning Code Sections:
14-4C-2K, Specific criteria for drive -through
facilities; 14-Off-street parking construction and
design standards 14-5A-5; Screening
standards, 14-5F-6; outdoor lighting standards,
14-5G; general standards for special
exceptions, 14-413-3.
Comprehensive Plan:
Apartments
File Date:
February 15, 2007
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Nordstrom Oil, is requesting a special exception for a proposed drive-in restaurant with drive -
through window. The property is currently zoned Commercial Office (CO-1) and is being rezoned to
Community Commercial (CC-2). The CO-1 zone does not permit drive -through uses, however such uses are
permitted in the CC-2 zone by special exception. Thus the special exception for a drive -through is subject to
a rezoning of the property to CC-2.
In its report for the rezoning of this property, staff noted that drive -through eating facilities are one of the
most intensive CC-2 uses and thus have the potential to negatively affect neighboring residential property.
For this reason, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council have approved the CC-2
rezoning for this property subject to the following conditions:
a. A substantial buffer area of no less than 35 feet will be established along the southern property line of the
parcel rezoned to CC-2. This buffer must be screened to the S3 standard and include both a decorated
masonry wall of a minimum five (5) feet in height located within the northern ten (10) feet of the buffer
area with a dense planting of deciduous and coniferous understory and overstory to the south of the
wall.
b. Closure of the Hollywood Boulevard vehicular access point to the CO-1 property and use of a shared
vehicular access point from Broadway Street.
c. A landscaped setback of no less than 20 feet along Broadway Street.
d. A limit of one (1) free-standing sign located in the northwest corner of the property. No building signs on
the south and east sides facing the residential development. Other fascia and monument signs are
permitted as per the code.
e. S3 screening will be provided along the eastern and southern property lines of the CO-1 parcel or
alternatively along the eastern property line of the CC-2 parcel.
f. Any building or structure including canopies should be of a quality design appropriate for property
abutting a residential neighborhood, including features such as stone and masonry materials, standing
seam metal roofs, and muted colors. The Director of Planning and Community Development shall
approve the design of buildings as well as associated structures and facilities.
The proposed drive-in restaurant includes at 1,728 square foot building, which provides kitchen, storage, and
restroom and a 32-seat covered patio. The site plan includes two drive-in canopies —one running along the
east side of the building accommodating 9 cars, and second canopy along the east property line, allowing 11
vehicles. Customers enter the canopies to place orders via an intercom system and a carhop delivers food to
the vehicles. In addition the facility has a drive -through window on the west side of the building. The applicant
has suggested hours of operation at 6:30 am to midnight.
The site plan submitted with this application extends 6 feet into the public right-of-way along Highway 6 and is
therefore subject to vacation of right-of-way by the City and purchase by the applicant.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to
conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use
of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that
does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the
requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-4C-2K (p.
210, attached) pertaining to drive -through facilities and the general approval criteria for.special exceptions
as set forth in Section 14-46-3A (page 171).
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the
3
attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth
below.
Specific approval criteria for drive -through facilities in the CC-2 zone, 14-4C-2K-2 (page 210)
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 the pedestrian circulation or 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 paving,
and limiting of prohibiting the use of loudspeaker systems.
Drive -through window location
The drive -through window, order board and associated stacking spaces are all located to the north
and west of the building, toward the adjacent commercial center and Highway 6 and away from view
of the residential properties to the east and south. Staff believes this is provides an essential screen
from the residential areas. However, all 20 drive-in canopies are located on the east side of the
building closer to the residential property. Staff believes that this eastern portion of the facility should
receive careful attention to screen and buffer nearby residential uses from the noise and glare
produced by the drive-in canopy lighting and sound system as well as the noise and glare generated
by the vehicles and customers accessing the canopies.
Screening
The site plan shows all of the screening required by the CZA, including the 35-foot landscaped
buffer on the south end of the property as stipulated in the CZA. The site plan also shows the
required 20-foot landscaped buffer on the west side of the lot and S3 screening around the perimeter
of the adjacent CO-1 lot to the east.
As stated above, drive -through eating facilities are one of the most intensive CC-2 uses and thus
have the potential to negatively affect neighboring residential property. The restaurant being
proposed in this application is solely a drive-in facility —all customer activity takes place outside the
building via the drive -through window, drive-in canopies, and the outdoor seating area. Because of
the intensity of the proposed use in close proximity to residential uses, Staff recommended to the
Planning and Zoning Commission that the site included a 50-foot landscaped buffer, including a 5-
foot wall at the south end of the property. The conditional zoning agreement (CZA) for the property,
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council requires a 35-foot
landscaped buffer with a 5-foot minimum masonry wall. To provide a sufficient buffer for the adjacent
residential uses, staff recommends and the applicant has agreed to increase the effective height of
the wall by placing it on a one foot high berm or increasing the height of the wall to 6 feet.
As required by code (section 14-2C-6G-3) parking areas and drives must be screened from view of
abutting properties to the S2 standard. The applicant's site plan shows the all required S2 screening
on the north side of the lot where the property abuts the public right-of-way. Staff recommends S3
screening between the dumpster and the abutting CO-1 lot.
Vehicle circulation
The site plan shows a 10-foot drive around the north side of the building for stacking at the drive -
through order board with an additional 19-foot by -bass drive for vehicles circulating around the
building. In staff's view this drive exceeds the space required to safely and efficiently serve the one-
way circulation on the lot (one-way drives as narrow as 10 feet for 1 way traffic are allowed by code).
The applicant has indicated that this wide drive is necessary for turning radiuses for trucks but has
not offered evidence to support this.
On the west side of the building, the drive through lane is separated from the parking aisle by a 2-
foot landscaped median as required by code (section 14-5A-51-1-4c). This median is intended to
direct drive -through traffic around the building and provide separation from vehicles entering and
exiting the parking spaces on the west side of the building. The applicant has allowed a break in the
median to allow cars to pull out of line early. Staff believes the median is adequate to serve the safe
n
circulation for the drive -through window.
The applicant has proposed one-way aisles of 24 feet on the east and 22-feet on the west sides of
the lot. Off-street parking and loading standards in the code (section 14-5A-5H-2 and 3) restrict aisle
widths to a maximum of 24 feet. Aisles for angled parking may be as narrow as 18 feet.
Pedestrian circulation
Pedestrian circulation on the site is accomplished with a connection from a sidewalk on the
Broadway Street right-of-way and a pedestrian walkway across the lot just to the north of the
entrance drive. During the rezoning process, members of the City Council raised concerns about
school children who cross the drive entrance along Broadway Street. In response to Staff suggestion
the applicant will set back the wall 10 feet from the sidewalk to maintain good visibility for both cars
and pedestrians along Broadway. Staff recommends that vegetation adjacent to the drive entrance
within ten feet of the sidewalk be kept to a 3 foot maximum height. Because drivers exiting the site
may not look for pedestrians traveling south along Broadway, Staff recommends that a pedestrian
crossing sign or stop sign be posted before the sidewalk where the drive exits onto Broadway.
Sound
The applicant has submitted information indicating that sound emitted from the intercom system will
not be readily audible from the neighboring residential uses. However, the activity of vehicles and
customers in this area remains a concern particularly during late night hours. For this reason staff
recommends that canopy hours be limited to 10 p.m. Sunday -Thursday and 11 pm Friday and
Saturday. Because it is located on the opposite side of the building, Staff believes the drive -through
window will not be detrimental to the nearby residential and thus could remain open later into the
evening. Staff recommends that when closed, the canopy lights be turned down to 50% to reduce
glare.
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
amount of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure that traffic safety is not
compromised.
CC-2 uses, such as commercial recreational uses, eating and drinking establishments, and sales -
oriented retail are likely to generate consistently high -volume traffic flows throughout the day and into
the evening. The intersection of Broadway and Highway 6 as well as the transportation system
illustrated in the site plan is designed to support the level of traffic generated by the drive-in facility. A
1989 conditional zoning agreement for 1906 Broadway requires that any commercial development of
the property must be accessed from Broadway Street. The current conditional zoning agreement for
the CC-2 rezoning of the property closes the Hollywood Boulevard access point, which is the only
means of accessing the property at this time.
Traffic will enter and exit the drive-in facility via a shared, private drive off of Broadway Street. This
access drive is designed to circulate traffic to the drive-in lot as well as onto the adjacent CO-1 site.
All drive-in traffic will circulate counterclockwise (one-way only) around the building. Staff finds that
the placement of the drive -through window service on the northwest side of the building, away from
the drive-in canopies is appropriate to separate vehicles accessing the drive -through from those
entering the drive-in portion of the restaurant. However, while the application indicates stacking
space at the drive -through for 4 cars between the service window and the menu order board (at the
northwest corner of the building) and 4 additional stacking spaces at the order board, the site plan
shows 3 stacking spaces at the window and 2 stacking spaces for the order board. At peak times,
their may be some conflict between vehicles parked or attempting to park at the canopies and cars
attempting to enter the drive -through lane, however, staff does not feel that this presents a safety
issue.
. The 24 foot measurement for the aisle shown incorporates 22 feet for the aisle with an additional 2 feet provided for
the landscaped medians separating the drive -through lane.
5
As stated in criteria "a", staff recommends additional traffic control signage and low level vegetation
around the drive entry from Broadway to ensure pedestrian safety. Staff believes that this will provide
safe and efficient pedestrian traffic across the drive.
C. The drive -through lanes must beset back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and
public rights -of -way and screened from view of all non-residential property to the S2
standard. The property must screen to the S3 standard from residential property. The Board
of Adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the specific
circumstances affecting the site.
The drive -through lanes are set back from the adjacent lot lines and public rights -of -way more than
the required 10-feet. Drive -through facilities within commercial zones require S2 screening —a low 2-
4 foot landscaped screen —from public rights -of -way and abutting properties. The site plan shows a
20-foot buffer with S2 landscaping along the Broadway Street right-of-way and a 35-foot landscaped
buffer along the southern portion of the property, which includes S3 standard landscaping as well as a
masonry wall of a minimum 6 feet in height or 5 feet with a 1-foot berm. Both buffers meet the
requirements of the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Along the north and east property S2 screening
is required and is indicated on the site plan in all areas except in the area of the dumpster at the
northeast corner of the property. Staff recommends S3 landscaping to screen the view of the
dumpster from the adjacent CO-1 property.
Because the CO-1 lot to the east is currently undeveloped, the drive -through restaurant will be visible
to adjacent residential property. Moreover, the eastern portion of the drive -through with its drive-in
canopies is the most intensive aspect of the facility and has the most potential to create disturbances
due to traffic, light, and noise. The site plan indicates compliance with the S3 screening requirement
in the CZA by providing screening around the perimeter of the CO-1 lot. S3 screening is a dense
landscape screening that provides a visual and physical separation between uses and zones. It is
defined as enough shrubs and small evergreens to form a continuous screen or hedge at least 5 feet
to 6 feet in height and more than 50 percent solid year round. Because the shrubs proposed will take
some time to mature —the S3 standard indicates that screening must be a minimum of 3-feet tall
when planted —staff recommends that the screening be 4-5 feet in height when installed along the
east side of the CO-1 property.
D. Lighting for the drive -through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards
and must be designed to prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring residential
properties.
The lighting standards in the zoning code require that all under -canopy lights must be either
recessed into the canopy and fully shielded or use flat lenses instead of drop lenses. The applicant
has indicated surface mounted metal halite fixtures and meet cut off and Dark Sky Requirements as
well as the requirements of the code.
The CZA for the CC-2 property recommends that the canopies be constructed of standing seam
metal in muted colors. Building elevations show the canopies in a light off-white color. Staff
recommends a darker canopy color, similar to the color of the outdoor patio canopy shown in the
elevation, to reduce light reflection.
All other lighting and signage for the facility is appropriately positioned away from the residential
property. All lighted signage will face to the north and west of the building and all lighting will be
evaluated for compliance with trespass standards during site review..
General Criteria for Granting Special Exceptions:
14413-3 provides the general criteria which must be met before the Board may grant any special exception.
The applicant bears the burden of proof. The general criteria are:
The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, or general
welfare.
Because litter is a nuisance commonly associated with drive -through restaurants, Staff recommends that
trash receptacles be located at both end of each drive-in canopy and at the south end of the lot on the
west side of the property. In addition, staff recommends that the applicant provide a litter control plan to
address litter in the public right -of way to the north and west of the site. The litter control plan would be
subject to approval of planning staff and should address regular clean-up of litter that has strayed into the
public right -of way or onto adjacent properties to the east and south of the drive-in.
Staff finds that with all the required screening and additional recommendations to limit hours of operation,
create safe pedestrian access across the site, and control litter, the drive -through facility will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
The proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
Staff has recommended additional measures to reduce light and glare through recommendations
regarding the color of the canopies and limiting the hours of operation. Staff believes that these measures
should be taken to minimize the effects of such an intense commercial use on the neighboring residential
property.
Subject to the conditions enumerated in the staff recommendation below, staff believes the proposed
exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will
not substantially diminish or impair property values.
Commercial uses located to the west of the proposed drive -through facility are compatible with this
development and will not be affected by the drive -through service. Future development of the CO-1
property to the east will also be compatible with the drive -through facility.
Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impeded the normal and orderly
development and improvement for the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in
which such property is located. Adjacent property to the west is already developed for commercial use.
Property to the east is undeveloped but zoned for CO-1 use, which is compatible with the CC-2 use.
Residential property to the north and south are fully developed. Staffs recommended conditions for the
proposed drive -through in addition to the Conditional Zoning Agreement negotiated with the CC-2 rezoning
are intended to mitigate any negative externalities by limiting hours of operation, screening the area from
noise and light glare and minimizing lighting and signage on the site.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are designed or are
being designed to meet City standards.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize
traffic congestion. The intersection of Broadway and Highway 6 is designed to handle the additional traffic
generated by the proposed use. The access point from Broadway Street is located so as to minimize conflicts
with access points on the west side of Broadway. Due to the sort of uses allowed in the CO-1 zone, the
adjacent property is not likely to generate substantial traffic. The use of one-way circulation around the site
will keep most exiting traffic stacked on the drive-in lot (along the west drive) rather than on the two-way
access drive. Since most traffic will exit to the right (north), exiting traffic should not be a problem.
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.
At the time of site plan and building permit approval he applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with
all other City codes and the conditional zoning agreements to which the property is subject.
The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended.
The South District Plan identifies this area as apartments. The Comprehensive Plan encourages CO-1 zones
as appropriate transitions between residential and more intense commercial uses. With the CC-2 rezoning of
this lot, that area of transition has been reduced for residential property to the east. The residential property to
the south will have no such transition and thus Staff has recommended for the substantial buffer on the south
7
portion of the property.
While the Comprehensive Plan does 'contemplate new commercial areas emerging in areas close to where
people live and along commercial corridors, it also states that as new commercial developments emerge,
"special care should be taken in site design of these establishments. Landscaping to soften the impact of the
structures and lessen the effect of multiple parking lots should be part of each development. Signage that is
informative but unobtrusive is important, particularly near neighborhoods and in entrance corridors to the city."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC06-00022, a special exception to allow a drive -through facility in a CC-2
zone, located at the corner of Highway 6 and Broadway Streets be approved subject to compliance with the
submitted site plan and elevations, all conditions in the conditional zoning agreement for the property, and the
following additional conditions:
• Drive-in canopy hours will be limited to 10 pm Sunday -Thursday and 11 pm Friday -Saturday and all
canopy lighting, including lighting in the outdoor seating area will be dimmed to 50% when not in
operation.
• Canopies will comply with the CZA for the property and be constructed of materials in a muted color,
similar to the outdoor patio cover in order to reduce light reflection and visibility to adjacent property.
• The S3 screening along the east side of the CO-1 property must be a minimum 4-5 feet in height
when installed.
• Include S3 landscaping to screen the view of the dumpster from the CO-1 property at the northeast
section of the lot.
• Vegetation directly adjacent to the drive entrance/exit from Broadway will be held to a maximum
height of 3 feet.
• All illuminated signage is limited to the west and north sides of the building.
• Trash bins will be provided at both ends of each drive-in canopy and at the south end of the lot, west
of the building.
• The applicant will provide a litter control plan for addressing litter in the public right-of-way and on
adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject lot.
• The applicant will install pedestrian signage or a stop sign adjacent to the sidewalk at the exiting
drive onto Broadway Street.
• All other aspects of the site design will be subject to substantial compliance with the site plan
submitted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Materials
Approved by,
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
�m a
T
I_ 'I L
I_
lT��
J-•J
0
0
0
0
U
x
W
cIO
70
0
L—
m
0
0
7T
1�--1
O
U
O
N
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: 2, - 15 - c)-1
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PROPERTY PARCEL NO. _See A a cx c herj
PROPERTY ZONE: .i t jX0,,).A PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 1-1
APPLICANT: Name:o,t
Address: I Lmc, u -1Y' S-r 'mow c•grinr ►Ra 22i s -LA
2L►oy
Phone:
CONTACT PERSON: Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address: 1c)1 1 --, G',jV)&yA -�A --TY� cx cL+'4 zA
Phone: 1 q 351 k 2 S z
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: a E1ac_1,r�rl
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
77
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-waiz(jowa-city.org.
Iy-LlC.K
Purpose for special exception: Dv'\ ve - U-1 r1 0-C
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
U
IMA
FAA
a
Ld
z
cn
E
MMS CON JLTAN, INC.
IOWA CITY IOWA
OFFICE: 319-351-8282
CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA
OFFICE: 319-841-5188
Application To The Board of Adjustment
Special Exception
1. Nordstrom Oil proposes to construct a new restaurant at the subject location. Inclusion of
a drive -up use at this proposed restaurant will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
2. The proposed drive -up use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property
values in the neighborhood. Development of the subject site is expected to enhance the
enjoyment and property values in the neighborhood.
The proposed drive -up facility will be wholey within the confines of the subject lot and
will therefore not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
surrounding properties.
4. The attached site plan shows adequate access, ingress, and egress for restaurant and drive -
up facility users. Adequate storm sewer, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electricity, telephone,
and CATV are available to the site to serve the restaurant and the proposed drive -up
facility.
5. The attached site plans shows the proposed ingress and egress to the site. The access to
the subject site is as far as possible from Highway 6 East to minimize traffic congestion.
6. The proposed restaurant facility will be subjected to rigorous and comprehensive review
by city staff to ensure that all applicable city code requirements are met.
7. The proposed restaurant facility use is consistent with the city comprehensive plan.
1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET • IOWA CITY • IOWA 52240
WEBSITE: WWW.MMSCONSULTANTS.NET EMAIL: MMS@MMSCONSULTANTS.NET
D. General Approval Criteria
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The project will be located
at a lighted intersection which is well equipped to and capable of safely
supporting the proposed use and other existing uses in the area.
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. Allan
Axeen, the Director of the HACAP, who is the residential neighbor directly to
the south, has previously provided a letter to the Chair of the Planning and
Zoning Commission stating his support of the project and encouraging the
Commission to grant the rezoning request based upon his knowledge of the
proposed use of the property. A copy of the letter is attached. Development
of the subject site is expected to enhance the enjoyment and property values in
the area.
3. The establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located.
Areas just to the west and south of the proposed development have undergone
substantial renovation and updates. This redevelopment will continue in that
vain to revitalize the area by providing more employment opportunities and
enhancing the appearance of this highly visible corner.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been
or are being provided. All utilities are available and adequate. The lighted
intersection at Broadway and Highway 6 is well equipped to and capable of
safely supporting the proposed use and other existing uses in the area.
5. Adequate measures will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The proposed development
moves the existing access farther from the lighted Broadway and Highway 6
intersection in order to minimize traffic congestion in the area while still
maintaining the desired 35' landscaped buffer strip.
6. The proposed restaurant facility will be subjected to rigorous and
comprehensive review by city staff to ensure that all applicable city code
requirements are met.
7. The proposed restaurant facility is consistent with the city comprehensive
plan.
Application to the Board of Adjustment
Special Exception
C. Specific Approval Criteria
a. Nordstrom Oil is requesting a Special Exception so that it may construct a
new Sonic Drive-in Restaurant at the corner of Broadway Street and US
Highway 6. The proposed restaurant development would consist of a 1,728
square foot building which is primarily kitchen, storage and restrooms for the
20 stall drive-in and 32 seat covered patio. The facility also has a drive-thru
window facing Broadway. The drive-in feature is accomplished through two
canopies, one canopy running along the east side of the building to
accommodate 9 cars, and one running along the east CC-2 lot line which will
accommodate 11 cars. Customers order from an intercom system located
under the canopies. The intercom speakers are at car window level and are
designed for minimum audio impact to adjoining properties. Taking into
consideration the distance from the residential use to the canopies and the wall
to be erected, the noise generated from the intercom system will be less than
the street noise coming from Hwy 6. An audio analysis is attached. Carhops
deliver orders to customers in their cars. Typical hours of operation are 6:30
am to midnight.
The flow of the site plan and proposed width of drive aisles helps traffic flow
and circulation. Sonic strives to keep lanes wide giving cars the ability to
back out from under canopies. Wider aisles also allow semi truck to circle the
building for delivery of food once or twice a week without hitting canopies.
These same radiuses enhance trash disposal and fire department accessibility.
The site plans shows no separation between the drive thru lane and drive
around traffic. A separation of this nature would make access difficult for
trash disposal and truck deliveries by reducing radiuses. In the front drive-
thru it would be in direct conflict with how Sonic typically operates its
business. Because of the drive-in Carhops, Sonic services the drive-thru
customers so they can pull out of line and leave with their ice cream or
beverage orders as soon as they are served. This is done via carhops
accessing the door at the back of the drive-thru. This allows customers to
leave as soon as their order is delivered instead of waiting like other quick
service chains as well as reducing the space needed for car stacking.
Sonic's franclusee has worked with staff to layout tlus site to pro;note
compatibility with the residential uses to the south and east. The menu board
and drive-thru lane are located near the northwest comer of the building
furthest from the residential use to the south. The canopies are located along
the east side of the building next to the vacant lot which remains in the CO-1
zone. There is a preview menu board first than the menu /order board.
Landscaping was enhanced in these areas at the urging of city staff. The
proposed configuration allows 4 cars to stack between the menu/order board
and pick up window. There is space for 4 additional cars to stack at the
menu/order board. This total stacking is thought to be adequate based upon
existing locations. At peak times, stacking may impact the canopy stalls
located on the east side of the building, but customers are typically courteous
and allow people to back out. The Iocation of the access drive off of
Broadway Street is positioned across from the Pepperwood Plaza access to the
west. Just south of this access, a 35' landscaped strip will be provided to
buffer the residential use to the south. South of the 35' buffer strip is a 25'
drive to access the south residential property; the residential building is
situated approximately 40' south of that. In all, the most immediate
residential building is located a minimum of 100' south of the access drive at
its closest point.. A masonry privacy wall will be located within the 35' buffer
area creating more separation between uses. The buffer strip will also be
heavily landscaped to the S3 standard with a dense planting of deciduous and
coniferous understory and overstory trees and bushes south of the wall.
Screening to the S3 standard will be provided along the eastern and southern
property line of the CO-1 parcel. There will be a landscaped setback of 20'
along Broadway Street.
The proposed Sonic Site Plan strives to blend into the surrounding area and
will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties. The following
features were utilized to promote compatibility with surrounding
development:
a. Sonic oriented its building parallel to the street and facing to the south.
This places the drive-thru window and menu board on the north and west
sides of the building and shields that activity from the east and south.
b. A 35' wide landscape buffer has been created along the southern side of
Sonic and will include multi tears of evergreen shrubs and trees. Inset in
this is a 5' masonry wall that will insure visual and audio separation.
Along the east side of the Sonic site evergreen shrubs will shield cars and
head lights.
c. Sonic has carefully placed only three parking lot light poles on the north
and center west sides of property away from the residential use. A
Photometric study will confirm zero foot candles at the southern and
eastern property lines.
d. The Sonic canopies at the rear behind the building housing the drive-in
stall will use a surface mounted cylinder metal halite fixture that meets
cutoff and Dark Sky requirements.
e. Sonic landscaping meets and exceeds requirements and will also include
off site evergreen trees bordering the south and east property lines along
the remaining undeveloped property.
f. Pedestrian access is accomplished through a sidewalk and crosswalk
which ties into the existing sidewalk along Broadway Street.
Representatives from Sonic worked diligently with staff to create the
circulation pattern, pedestrian access and overall site layout.
g. To better promote circulation and emergency access for future
development of the remaining CO-1 parcel, an additional drive from the
CO-1 parcel to the CC-2 parcel is located along the north drive of the
property.
The franchisee has worked with staff on the architectural elements of the Sonic
building and canopy design to harmonize with the area by doing the following:
1. Utilization of stone and brick on the fagade with careful attention to detail
and quality.
2. Upgrading to an oversized standing seem metal hipped roof on the
articulated drive-thru tower.
3. Continuing this with Sonic's curved patio canopy changing from fabric to
matching standing seam metal. This also includes two matching awnings
added along the western Broadway elevation.
4. Addition of cornice molding at parapet of building and on edges of car
stall canopies.
5. Elimination of LED architectural lighting and signs. As proposed they are
only on the north and west side of building.
6. Four primarily downward wall packs have been used minimally and only
on the west and north side of building.
b. The site is located at the intersection of US Highway 6 and Broadway Street.
This lighted intersection is well equipped to and capable of safely supporting
the proposed use and other existing uses in the area. The access drive off of
Broadway Street into the site is located as far away from the intersection as
possible wl-ule still maintaining the 35' buffer strip to the south.
The drive-thru lanes are set back more than the minimum 10' from adjacent
lot lines and public right-of-way and screened from view either at or
exceeding the required S2 standard. The access drive to the south of the
property is screened to the S3 and includes a 35' buffer strip and 5' masonry
privacy wall.
d. To alleviate lighting trespass and glare onto the neighboring residential
properties, Sonic has carefully placed only three parking lot light poles on the
north and center west sides of property away from the residential use. A
Photometric study will confirm zero foot candles at the southern and eastern
property lines.
Y iM
�{ ti t + •.. � '. '".a re�g�'AP
7P
f
City d Sonic Io
wa t
Proposed o
P
View to Southwest from Northeost Corner
Y•
FIR,
u uaw.WW
y
A 1�
Proposed Sonic Iowa City
View from Broadway to Northeast
Proposed Sonic flowa_Ci_
Ytew,to Southeast fowards' Drive-thru
����iS •+MIT,
Irl
n
it + r>
i A'
I
Sri:. f ! . �•=� � �'a � � ,
Iry
k
-_ _. _
Proposed Sonic Iowa City
Front Perspective from Broadway Entrance
YA
w
F
ProiDos.ed Sonic Iowa Cy
y View to Northwest from Southwest Corner
EXISTING
BUILDING LOT 3
BLOCK I
f5RAVERMAN CENTER
600K 12, PACE 39
A6RAHAM ENTERPRISES, LLG
ZONED CC2
ourLOT
"A��
N
N>
Q
J'
r
d
U
�
W 11�nn
O
LOT
7
(co
.5,.
44lQ
O�
me
N40'01
0,
/ N29'15'00"E Q
20.00'
N17'30'00"E
38.00'
N20'00'00"E g
56.00'
N12*15'00"E
/ 16.00' — CURB
RAMP
(TYP)
fC•a
BIKE RACK(4
25' (125 SF)
�'Alit Ir
a=O'08'08"
R=3009.00'
L= 7.11'
T=3.56'
C= 7.11'
CB=S68'00'04"E
�o
s o
L"ZN\yoAPL IVACY
ZONED COI
EXISTING
PARKING
AREA
PLAT
MMS
1917
IOWA
PA
0 6 15 30
GRAPHIC SCALI
1"=60
" 150UNPARY SURVEY AND SITE PLAN"
1500K '1I, PAC)E 147
\ y69. o SOUiH6ATE PEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
\ 3 40.
\ \ �4340,
\ \ 2S•0, A CC S3 SCREENING
LOT 2 ess e,4
EXISTING f5LOCK 2 �\
BUILDING �
f5RAVERMAN CENTER
DOOK 7, PACIE 20
CITY GF IANA CITY \
ZONED RM44
"TRASH RECEPTACLES TO BE PLACED AS NEEDED**
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
JANUARY 10T", 2007 — 5:00 PM
EMMA J HARVAT HALL — IOWA CITY/CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER: Carol Alexander called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright, Carol Alexander, Edgar
Thornton
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: John Beasley, Shelley McCafferty, Jim Enloe, Jim Esten, Tim Weitzel
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action):
None
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
MOTION: Michael Wright motions to nominate Alexander. Shelangouski seconds the motion.
The motion is approved: 5:0
MOTION: Ned Wood motions to nominate Michael Wright for Vice Chairperson of the Board of
Adjustments. Shelangouski seconds the motion.
The motion is approved: 5:0
CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 13T" 2006 MINUTES
MOTION: Shelangouski motions to accept the minutes for the December 13th, 2006 Board of
Adjustment meeting. Wright seconds the motion.
The motion is approved: 5:0
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
EXC06-00020 Discussion of an application submitted by Bethel A.M.E. Church for a special
exception to allow the expansion of a religious institution in the Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS- 12) zone at 411 S. Governor Street. As part of the special exception, the Church
is requesting a Historic Preservation Exception to allow a reduction in the required number of off-
street parking spaces, reduction of all required setbacks for churches located in the RNS-12 zone
and to allow a waiver from the maximum building coverage.
Sarah Walz says the applicant requested that the Board defer the case to the February 14th, 2007 Board
of Adjustment meeting. Applicant said they would like additional time to address some of the issues
raised in the staff report.
MOTION: Wright motions to defer EXC06-00020 to the February 14th, 2007 Board of Adjustment
meeting. Wood seconds the motion.
The motion is approved: 5:0
APPEALS
APL06-00004 Discussion of an application submitted by John Roffman for an appeal of the
decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness
Board of Adjustment
January 10, 2007
Page 2
for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone
and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue.
Sarah Walz says that the Board originally denied APL06-00004 at its November 16th, 2006 meeting.
There were only 4 Board members present at that meeting and the tie, 2:2, resulted in the appeal being
denied. The applicant has requested a re -consideration in front of the full Board. Walz said this issue of
constructing a building to replace the previous structure that was destroyed in a tornado originally came
up in a September 28th, 2006 Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting. Walz says that the
although the HPC denied the Certificate of Appropriateness citing the mass and scale of the proposed
structure, the appellant believes that the denial was actually based on the density of the proposed
building. The original building on this property had 9 one -bedroom units. The applicant was proposing a
new apartment building with 6 three -bedroom unit apartments.
Walz says that the HPC design guidelines that apply to the proposal for 923 Iowa Avenue may be found
in section 10.0 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which she has provided the Board. Walz
says that she realizes this is all new territory for the Board. Walz says it should be noted that the
proposed building meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, including the density of the underlying
zone. Walz says it should be noted that the HPC has no authority to regulate density because density is
regulated through the Zoning Code. The only criteria cited in the denial were scale and mass; all other
criteria for the building design met with approval.
Walz says that the Board has had time to review the minutes from both September 14th and September
281h HPC meetings as well as the November 16th BOA meeting. Walz says that at the first HP meeting,
the HPC deferred the application because they sought further information from the Zoning Interpretation
Panel.
Walz says that the subject property is located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20)
zone. Walz says a lot of this size in the RNS-20 zone is allowed up to 7 units, and each unit is allowed a
maximum of 4 bedrooms. Walz says that this number may be limited b the amount of off-street parking
that the owner is required to provide. The property is also located within the College Hill Conservation
District. Walz says that she has explained this further in her memo to the Board.
Walz says that the original building at 923 Iowa Avenue had at one time been a single-family home but in
more recent years it had operated as a 9-unit, 9-bedroom apartment. Over the years, the original building,
before the tornado, had been adapted such that it was designated a non-contributing structure —a
structure that is not considered an integral part of the historic context or character of the district.
Walz says that the final proposal submitted by the applicant at the September 281h, 2006 meeting showed
a building measuring 52 feet wide by 69 feet deep, with a roofline just under 28 feet. The original 3-story
building being replaced had a footprint of 42 by 40 feet and a roofline of 38 feet and 10 inches. Walz
refers to the visual aide projected on screen.
Walz says that the authority of the HPC extends only to the overall compatibility of that design with the
surrounding neighborhood and district as described in section 10.0 of the handbook. The issue of scale
and mass require interpretation based on the facts specific to the application under consideration. Walz
says that the Board must decide the following:
1. Were the criteria regarding scale and mass applied appropriately?
2. As explained in the City Attorney's memo, if you should decide that the HPC acted in error, you
may overturn the decision or, by acting in the role of the HPC, you may render a new decision
based on the facts presented in the attached documents or any additional testimony given at this
meeting.
Wood asks Walz to explain the role of the College Hill Conservation District. Woods asks how much the
Conservation District can limit what can be built. Holecek says the Conservation District is developed to
maintain the architectural standards for a given district. Holecek says that a Conservation District's
function is to preserve the styles of a district and to protect those properties that have certain architectural
characteristics. Holecek says a Conservation District protects the architectural elements that are found in
any given neighborhood.
Board of Adjustment
January 10, 2007
Page 3
Walz says that if one chooses to build something new, that person must meet certain criteria fitting with
whatever the guidelines are that have been set by that particular Conservation District. Wood clarifies that
those guidelines for this particular appeal are 10.0. Holecek says yes.
Alexander notes that the building proposed is actually somewhat shorter than the original building. Walz
says yes, although the applicant can explain it further in detail. Holecek says that density is set by the
base zone and the guidelines are meant to preserve architectural features for the district.
Public Hearing Open
John Beasley, attorney speaking on behalf of John Roffman in support of his appeal. Beasley asks for
any question from the Board regarding his exhibits. Beasley says that the proposed building is bigger. It's
a little bit bigger from the front, he says, and from the North and South, the building is a little bit wider.
Beasley says that the increase in the size is due to the depth. Beasley says that he does want to show
some materials to the two members who were not present at the November 16t" BOA meeting. Beasley
shows visual aides of what Roffman proposes. The overlay shows the building in relation to what was
there previously (looking from the South). Beasley shows an overlay depicting the West elevation.
Beasley says the issue is whether the HPC acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Beasley says if you
conclude that the HPC denied the Certificate based on density concerns, that "ends it right there", and
that reflects an arbitrary and capricious decision because density concerns are not governed by the HPC.
Beasley puts forth the question, Did the HPC follow the guidelines set forth in chapter 10? Did they
exceed their authority? Beasley puts forth the question, Did the HPC have the authority to deny
Roffman's application simply because the building is "bigger"? Beasley notes chapter 10 doesn't give the
HPC this authority.
Beasley says the issue is that the HPC denied the application on the basis of density. Beasley says that
the case history is significant. Beasley reads the staff report that refers back to the first HPC meeting,
September 14t". Beasley points out the staff that reviews these cases issues a report, which the Board
has with them. Beasley reads the staff report verbatim: The design guidelines and zoning code contain
mandatory requirements that all projects must meet. Unless otherwise noted below the applicant's
proposal appears to meet the mandatory requirements. Staff comments pertain to requirements where
there is a need for more information or there is a question regarding compliance. Beasley then points out
that Roffman's proposal has met all of the Zoning Code requirements, including Lighting, Parking,
Building Materials, and then Height. Beasley says that Height isn't "listed in of itself' in the staff report, but
instead in relation to a setback requirement with the single-family resident to the West. Beasley says the
architect addressed each of the issues raised by staff. Beasley says that McCafferty, the architect,
addressed the height issue by stating the building width has been reduced by one foot, thus providing for
a 15 foot setback along the west property line. Beasley says his interpretation of the staff report is that
mass and size are a non -issue, with respect to chapter 10.
Beasley says that the focus of the September 14t" HPC meeting is the front fagade, because is chapter 8
there are some subjective standards. Beasley asks whether this even applies to a multi -family residence.
The report stated that no, it did not apply. Beasley says that the September 28t" HPC meeting shifted
concerns to overall depth of the building. Beasley refers to a letter dated September 20t", 2006—a petition
against Roffman's proposal that Beasley says actually supports Roffman's claim that the HPC acted on
density issues above all else. Beasley highlights one particular part of the letter that reads: "This
increased size is to enable the property owner to double the number of tenants, and although this last
point is not within your purview, we trust that you will understand our further concern about this." Beasley
says that these issues of density are further spoken about in the HPC meeting. Beasley asks whether
these 10.1 and 10.2 guidelines allow the HPC to deny to a Certificate simply because a building is larger
due to depth. Beasley says he's provided materials to show how the HPC has acted in the past, where
the HPC has approved applicants where increased mass is a result of increased depth.
Beasley refers to the Bethel A.M.E. Church application that was deferred at the beginning of this BOA
meeting. Beasley says that the HPC, soon after Roffman's appeal, approved a building proposal that
increased the mass and size of a national historic site from 600 sq. feet to 2700 sq. feet —four times as
large, Beasley says. Beasley says this is only further evidence that the HPC acted arbitrarily and
Board of Adjustment
January 10, 2007
Page 4
capriciously when denying Roffman's application. Beasley says that the HPC has no authority to deny
Roffman's application. Beasley says that according to the guidelines, "measures must be taken" to reduce
visual mass and overall height. The criteria requires that design measures be incorporated, which the
architect, McCafferty, has done.
Thornton asks Beasley to repeat the architect's attempt to address the height issue. Beasley says that
there are design guidelines for multi -family buildings and those are broken into 10.1 and 10.2. Beasley
says that section 10.2 brings objectivity to 10.1 by having a point system. 10.2 is not an issue. Beasley
says that once you meet the minimum point requirements, "they quit counting." Beasley repeats the
architect's incorporation of the criteria that states design measures "must be taken to reduce visual mass
and height".
Shelley McCafferty, architect for 923 Iowa Avenue building, speaking in support of Roffman's application.
McCafferty says that she was the HPC planner for four years before going into her own private practice.
She says she is very familiar with the guidelines. McCafferty says that the issue is whether or not
measures were taken to reduce the visual mass and height of the building. McCafferty says there are
multiple approaches an architect can take when developing a building design. She says that this
particular guideline tells her that she has to take the approach of reducing the mass. She must
incorporate measures. McCafferty says she will demonstrate that she in fact has done this.
McCafferty shows the BOA an aerial view of the building. She says that the building is shaped as an "H"
to meet the criteria to reduce the visual mass. She says that if she had scrunched this building into a
single block, then she would have had a roofline that would have been much taller in relation to the
residential neighborhood. McCafferty says that she chose the "two -form" concept joined by a stairway in
the middle so that building looked like a duplex, or two separate houses connected. This reduces it from
being a single block to something more residential.
McCafferty says that the stairwell is also recessed, creating a front appearance that "bumps in and out"
instead of a single block. She shows the front fagade in another visual. She notes the horizontal lines on
this particular drawing. She says this indicates the floor and ceiling structures. She notes that the third
floor wall is much shorter, which makes the building a two -and -a -half story building. She says this allows
her to take advantage of the room underneath the roof and lowering it, which lowers the overall height of
the building.
McCafferty shows the Board an example of the elevation deception. She shows another building, not the
proposed sight, and shows how perspective can mislead the eye when it comes to building designs on
paper. She compares a drawing to an actual photograph and notes the difference between the drawing
and the photograph, in relation to mass. McCafferty says that her goal with 923 Iowa Avenue was to
reduce the visual mass by making the building appear as two smaller buildings, hence the stairwell
recess.
McCafferty shows the side of the proposed building (West view) and highlights her architectural efforts to
break up the broad walls in order to reduce visual mass. McCafferty notes the extra windows as well.
McCafferty shows a house on South Gilbert Street. She notes the side bays of the structure. She says
that this blocks the eye from viewing the back of the house. McCafferty says she has done this with the
923 Iowa Avenue structure to divert the eye from the back of the structure, another attempt at reducing
visual mass.
McCafferty shows the elevation of the 923 Iowa Avenue building. She says that most of the roof that is
shaded is going to disappear. As visual mass, you will only see the two side gables and the front porch.
Walz asks McCafferty to clarify what certain lines on the architectural drawing indicate. McCafferty says
that the lines she speaks of indicate the base of the back of the building. McCafferty says she also used
color and materials to reduce visual mass. The colors she chose would also diminish the size of the
building. She has chosen darker colors so the building appears less massive. The color, the textures, the
windows, the shape, all of these things, she says, plays into trying to meet the 10.1 criteria.
Shelangouski asks McCafferty to define the difference between architectural mass and visual mass. She
refers to the HPC minutes from a previous meeting and asks McCafferty whether she thinks they meant
Board of Adjustment
January 10, 2007
Page 5
the same thing. Shelangouski read the statement from the transcript. McCafferty says to ask Weitzel. She
does say that the two terms are different, from her approach. She says that section 10.1 deals with visual
mass, or the perception of mass (colors, textures, shape, etc), which she says is different than actual
physical mass.
Jim Enloe, resident of College Street, speaking against Roffman's application. Enloe reads from the HPC
handbook, emphasizing their function and authority. He highlights their authority to make sure a structure
is "compatible with the size, scale, and architectural pictures in order to protect the historic integrity of the
property and its environment". Enloe says that mass, size, and scale are important parts of every HPC
decision. In terms of 10.1, Enloe says that while McCafferty has attempted to meet criteria, the HPC must
decide whether her attempts are sufficient.
Enloe refers to some of Beasley's visual aides. He notes the large areas of roof that are substantially
larger. Enloe says the structure is very "dominating". From an aesthetic perspective, he says, this visual
mass is much more imposing than the previous structure. Enloe says the HPC acted within its purview
and he asks the Board to have faith in the HPC's decision. Enloe says the HPC works based on a lot
"looser" conversations, unlike the Board, but decision are made on evidence and the decision to deny
Roffman's application was based on visual mass and overall height, which is in their purview.
Jim Esten, resident of 1039 College Street, speaking against Roffman's application. Esten says there are
two points he wants to make about visual mass. The first is that the requirement is not to just put in
feature to soften visual mass but to put in sufficient features. Esten says one of the biggest variables is
the literal mass of the building, which has the greatest impact on the visual mass. The second point is that
the notion of gables is admirable but not sufficient. Esten says whether or not the structure looks like a
duplex, as the architect stated, is irrelevant when looking at the building from the side. Esten says he is
speaking on behalf of a friend who lives on the west side of the structure and who also had to rebuild after
the tornado.
Tim Weitzel, HPC member, speaking against Roffman's application. Weitzel addresses the difference
between architectural and visual mass. Weitzel says that transcripts often chop up what people are trying
to say. He says he doesn't have anything to add from what he said last time. He restates the HPC
majority's opinion on the size of the building. Weitzel refers to the petition Beasley read and said that the
letter also stated size and scale of the building, not just use.
Wood asks about the next largest building on the block. Weitzel says that the building sits in a valley, so
its height is lower. Weitzel says that the HPC looks at surrounding buildings when making decisions,
which was a factor in approving the Bethel A.M.E. Church proposed increase in square footage. Weitzel
says that there are "problems" with the Church decision that he thinks the HPC should investigate further.
Wood asks about the point system. Weitzel says that section 10.2 has to do with mandatory requirements
that buildings must meet.
John Beasley, attorney on behalf of John Roffman, speaking in favor of Roffman's application. Beasley
sags that Weitzel indicated that the HPC's decision was based on size. Beasley reads from September
28 h, 2006 HPC transcripts. Beasley says that the application was denied based on density, which is
arbitrary and capricious.
Walz reminds the Board that their decision will be based on the HPC's decision as it was rendered. Walz
asks Holecek to elaborate on the decision of the Board. Holecek says that the Board must decide
whether or not the HPC appropriately applied the guidelines and facts of this case. Or did they exceed
their authority and were arbitrarily and capriciously in applying those guidelines. If you find that they were
not acting arbitrarily and capriciously, then "we're finished". However, if the Board finds that the HPC
acted inappropriately, the Board steps into the shoes of the HPC. They can either approve a Certificate of
Appropriateness or they can this with modifications. They can also defer if they thought there are design
elements they would like to further see taken.
Enloe says that the Board also has the option of denying a Certificate of Appropriateness. Holecek says
she already said that. Walz clarifies Enloe's point and says that even if the Board finds that the HPC
acted arbitrarily and capriciously, they can render a new decision that has the same results of denying a
Certificate, based on findings a fact. Holecek says this is correct.
Board of Adjustment
January 10, 2007
Page 6
Public Hearina Closed
MOTION: Shelangouski motions to approve the appeal from John Roffman for APL06-00004 for a
decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness
for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone
and Conservation District Overly (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue. Wood seconds the motion.
Thornton asks Shelangouski to repeat the original motion. Holecek repeats the motion as stated by
Shelangouski (see above).
Shelangouski says that she hasn't changed her mind from the last meeting. She finds that the HPC
always went back to density in rendering its decision, according to the minutes and transcripts from both
HPC meetings, which is not in their purview.
Wrights says that after rereading the HPC minutes from both meetings, he found a mix of argument.
Some of which was germane and some not. Wright says that he understands depth is part of the mass of
the building and quotes to statements made by the commissioners that refer to visual mass and
architectural mass. Wright refers to various moments in the transcripts (as previously brought up by
Shelangouski and Weitzel) from the September 14th and September 28th HPC meetings and notes that
there is no firm definition of architectural mass and visual mass. Wright calls 10.1 "tremendously
subjective" and reads that measures should be incorporated to reduce visual mass and overall height.
Wright reiterates that he doesn't really know what visual mass is —is it perception or what is actually
there. Wright notes section 3.4 in the Historic Preservation manual. He reads this section out loud notes
how the "size of buildings, lots and yards, as well as architectural characteristics of a building varies by
district". Wright says that while measures were incorporated into the design of the building to reduce the
visual mass, there is a point at which the structure takes up "just plain mass". Wright says that the HPC
did not act capriciously but in fact acted within their purview. Wright says he will vote to deny the appeal.
Wood says that from his reading of the minutes, he feels that there was considerable discussion of mass.
The terms use varied —scale, height, depth —but the majority of the HPC were speaking about mass,
size, and depth. Wood says that with the College Hill Conservation District the HPC has a difficult job.
Wood says that the HPC has to apply very broad criteria to individual properties and the neighborhood
and this takes a lot of interpretation. Wood feels that both considered that the HPC worked hard to act
appropriately. While he admires McCafferty's design, he says that when a large building is made even
larger, there must be more drastic steps to reduce the mass to make it fit the buildings around it. He
believes HPC considered mass in its decision. Wood says that he will vote to deny the appeal.
Thornton says that he understands the HPC has an important and a difficult job in evaluating this
proposal. Thornton says that looking at the HPC regulations that "measures should be incorporated" into
the design of a new building to reduce the visual impact, and seeing that the previous building was the
largest on the block, he has trouble understanding how the HPC came to its findings. The proposed
structure looks like it is taking into account the character of the neighborhood. There is a very large
building on the other side of the block that doesn't look anything like the rest of the neighborhood.
decision. He said that the applicant has made extraordinary attempts to reduce the visual mass of the
proposed building. With such attempts to meet the criteria of 10.1 and 10.2, Thornton says he has trouble
understanding how the HPC came to its decision. Thornton says that he will vote in favor of the appeal.
Alexander reiterated that density concerns were apart of the HPC discussion and that is not within their
authority. Alexander refers to Beasley's concerns of a denial based on size. Alexander says that in her
reading of the minutes she has concern that the HPC made a decision based on physical mass and not
visual mass. She thinks the job of the HPC is hard here because these aesthetic issues must be taken
into consideration. These are issues that are not often within the purview of the BOA. The HPC's looser
discussion style that Weitzel talked about becomes an issue when it comes to an appeal. Alexander says
as longs as things go smoothly that style is fine, but when an appeal occurs and the Board only has the
transcripts and minutes of past meetings, then that's all they can use to make a judgment. She says while
some have asked us to have faith in the HPC, it cannot be blind faith or it renders the appeal process
meaningless. Alexander says that visual mass was hit on at various times, but the pervasive reasons that
she read in the minutes were in fact density, the nature of the population of the people who would live in
Board of Adjustment
January 10, 2007
Page 7
the building, and the number of people who were speaking against the building. Alexander says she
understands what a difficult decision this was, but the decision should not be done on the basis of a vote
by those who come to testify. Alexander will vote in favor of the appeal.
The motion is approved: 3:2
Holecek informs the Board that the next step is to decide on an appropriate remedy given the facts before
the Board. Holecek tells Alexander that the motion can be to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, to
deny a Certificate, to defer for more design information, or modify the decision.
MOTION: Shelangouski motions to approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
a new building to be constructed at 923 Iowa Avenue per the plans presented. Thornton seconds
the motion.
Wright says that in terms of other remedies to reduce the visual mass, he doesn't feel qualified to make
those recommendations. Wood agrees. Wood says that he feels the architect took admirable steps but he
still isn't sure.
Holecek says that as far as the remedy, the Board is now applying the guidelines discussed to this
particular structure. Holecek says that if the Board feels adequate attempts to reduce the visual mass and
overall height have been taken, then that would support Shelangouski's motion.
Wright says that the southern third of the West elevation is quite "bothersome" and "slab -like". He would
like to see something to break that up. Wright is concerned about the residential lots to the rear. Wood
says that if there are concerns about noise, maybe small windows are fine. Wright asks if there is a
screening standard that comes into play. Holecek says yes but she doesn't know what that is.
Shelley McCafferty says that there is a screening standard for the multi -family use —a 15 foot setback
from the lot line. She is voluntarily adding additional screening so there will be an evergreen screen. This
screen is an S-2 standard, which she doesn't know offhand. Walz says that S-2 is a screening standard
that uses distance and low-level screening to separate uses from the public right away and other zones.
Walz says the S-3 is when there are bright lights or a need to screen to a greater height. Walz says S-2
would range between 2 and 4 feet.
Holecek says that the HPC has no jurisdiction over landscaping. Weitzel says the HPC usually refers to
the S-2 standard. Thornton asks if there was a question about screening. Holecek says no, since the
HPC doesn't address screening.
Shelangouski asks Wright to clarify his concerns. Wright says that his concerns are primarily with the
west side of the building; however he doesn't have any suggestions. Walz says that the Board doesn't
need to recommend a specific change to the structure but more of a broad outlining of what the applicant
must address —the visual mass of the rear portion of the building. But, Walz says, that change will come
back to the Board anyway in the future for approval. Alexander asks for such suggestions from the Board
in order to amend the motion.
Holecek says the Board can do a "friendly" withdrawal of the motion rather than amending the present
motion. Wright asks for Board's feelings. Wood says that he feels "very much out of place" in making such
a decision. Thornton says that he feels comfortable in expressing his position. Holecek suggests to the
rest of the Board to ask the architect further question about how the issue of the rear portion of the
building might be addressed.
Wright asks about the depth of the rear portion of the building. McCafferty says that it's about 14 feet from
the bay to the rear of the building. The bay juts out about 3'/2 feet. Shelangouski asks if she can reduce
the visual mass of the 14 feet. McCafferty says she can't answer that without her floor plan. Shelangouski
asks about additional windows to break up the West side of the structure. McCafferty says that would be
an option to consider without looking at the floor plan. McCafferty says that the location of the back is 6
feet higher than the front. So the foundation is going to be a little bit higher than what is shown.
Board of Adjustment
January 10, 2007
Page 8
Wright says that if something could be done to break up the west side of the structure, then he would feel
comfortable. Shelangouski indicates that the exterior board and batten treatment used on the bay could
be repeated on the rear portion to break up the rear mass. Wright indicates that this would take care of
his concerns. Alexander refers back to the state of the motion. Walz suggests amending the motion if the
Board is comfortable with the architect's suggestions to address with the Board's concerns.
Board decides that the motion must be amended.
MOTION: Wright motions to amend the original motion to request that the "southern third" of the
side elevation of the building be "broken up" per the suggestions of the architect so that it
receives the same treatment as the large bay of the structure and hence reduces the visual mass.
Shelangouski seconds the motion.
Shelangouski says that she believes that the architect has met the guidelines as set forth by 10.1 of the
handbook to reduce visual mass of a building. Shelangouski says she will be voting to approve the motion
as amended.
Thornton says that the applicant and architect have adequately addressed the guidelines of section 10.1.
Thornton says that he will vote in favor of the motion as amended.
Wright says that the concept of visual mass in a structure that large takes a fair amount of attention from
the architect and any efforts to break up the mass is valid. Wright votes in favor.
Wood says he has concerns about the visual mass but the measures that have taken place are
admirable. He will vote in favor.
Alexander will also vote in favor for the reasons stated.
The motion is approved: 5:0
Other:
None
Board of Adjustment Information:
Shelangouski will not be at the February 10 meeting. Wood will not be at the meeting in March.
Shelangouski says she might not be able to make it either, but she's not sure. Walz advises the Board to
start thinking about an alternate date.
Adjournment:
Meeting is adjourned at 7:05 PM
s/pcd1mins/boa/2007/1-20-07.doc
d
o
3
�
�
H