Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-2007 Board of Adjustment/Tr7=1ki117_1 IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, May 9, 2007 — 5:00 PM Emma J. Harvat Hall A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the March 28, 2007 and April 11, 2007 Minutes D. Special Exception: EXC07-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc. for a special exception to allow location of a cell phone tower for property located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 612 Olympic Court. E. Other F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING —June 13, 2007 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC07-00004 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact: Property Owner: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Applicable code sections: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: May 9, 2007 USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc. 4201 River Center Ct. NE Cedar Rapids, IA 52407 319/551-3090 Tim Lynch P.O. Box 263 Delhi, IA 52223 319/551-4195 South Gilbert Development, Southgate B.P. Properties 755 Mormon Trek Blvd. Iowa City, IA 52246 Special Exception to allow a Communication Tower in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. To construct a cell phone tower. 612 Olympic Court 30,535 square feet Undeveloped, Intensive Commercial (CI-1) North: Commercial (CC-2) South: Commercial (CI-1) East: Commercial (CC-2) West: Commercial (CI-1) Specific approval criteria for locating communications towers in the CI-1 zone, 14-4B-4E-5b; General approval criteria for all special exceptions, 14-413-3. April 10, 2007 The applicant, USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc. (Iowa Cellular) is requesting a special exception to locate a 60-foot high cell phone tower in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 612 Olympic Court. The subject property is a paved lot, which was formerly used for an automobile dealership. At this time the lot has no other use or structure on site. The property abuts a CC-2 zone, which also allows cell towers by special exception. The nearest residential zone is located approximately 500 feet to the south between Keokuk Street and Waterfront Drive. Another residential zone is located to the north along Plum Street, 700 feet away. The applicant will lease a 30 foot by 30 foot section located in the southeast corner of the property where the cell tower and all related equipment will be located. A 15-foot easement will provide access to the site from Olympic Court. The applicant proposes to design the tower as a pole structure and has provided an illustration of the proposed design with the application. The tower would be 60 feet high with an additional 4-foot lightning rod on top. Lighting for the parking lot in which the proposed tower would be located will be mounted at a height of 35 feet. All equipment related to the cell tower will be housed in a shed that will be surrounded by a 6- foot high PVC fence. 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 14-413-4E-5b (p. 413-35) pertaining to communication transmission facilities in a commercial zone, and the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-413-3A. The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below. Specific Criteria: 14-4B-4E-5b Communication Towers in Commercial Zones The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area. The applicant must document attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, or industrial properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower. The applicant has indicated that there are no existing towers or tall structures or industrial properties that are suitable to satisfy US Cellular's coverage needs. The applicant has documented their present ability to cover the area with existing towers on Industrial Park Road, South Riverside Drive, and Market Street (see attached coverage maps). The applicant has indicated that the cell tower at Mercy Hospital on Market Street is unable to provide adequate coverage due to the distance from the site and the high capacity of calls handled in close vicinity to Mercy. The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. The proposed tower is designed to be inconspicuous. The 60-foot pole will be black and has no guy wires or trusses, which are sometimes associated with cell towers. The first 35 feet of the tower will look and function as a light pole. The proposed tower is 60 feet high with a lighting rod extending the height to 64 feet. The applicant's plans show the light fixtures as downcast and mounted to the pole at a height of 35 feet. The light fixtures on the pole are required to meet all lighting standards in the code. Staff believes that the design of the cell tower is appropriate given the surrounding uses —all abutting properties are Intensive Commercial (CI-1), except for those immediately to the east, which are zoned Community Commercial (CC-2). While the height of the structure will certainly be distinguishable from a light pole, staff believes that the proposed design and color is unobtrusive and should not detract from the surrounding commercial properties. The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide the service intended. The applicant originally proposed a tower that was 50 feet in height (plus a 4-foot lighting rod mounted to the top). The antennas were to be mounted at a centerline of 47 feet —the antennas extend vertically 3 feet up and down from where they are mounted. The applicant indicated that a shorter mounting height would substantially diminish the quality of the tower's performance and that, while the height would allow for co -location, it was uncertain as to whether any company would find adequate coverage at a shorter height. After further discussion, Staff proposed a slightly taller height in order to allow better potential for co -location. Co -location of antennas from more then one cell phone provider is encouraged in order to minimize the number of towers necessary to serve the city. The applicant indicated that with a 60-foot height, antenna could be accommodated at 57, 51, and 46 feet. The applicant indicated that there is always the potential for interference between competing antenna on this type of tower, which may reduce potential for co -location of other antenna. However, the additional ten feet will allow more space for vertical separation between antenna. The proposed tower will be set back at least a distance equal to the height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone and ID-RM Zone. The proposed tower meets this standard. The nearest residential zone is 500 feet to the south, between Keokuk Street and Waterfront Drive. Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in an equipment shed or building, which must be adequately screened from view from the public right-of-way and any adjacent residential or commercial property. The applicant has proposed to house the associated equipment in a 12-foot x 16-foot shelter that will be surrounded by a 6-foot high, tan vinyl fence. The applicant has provided a sketch of the fence. The proposed tower will not utilize a back-up generator as a principal power source. The applicant has indicated that the proposed tower will not rely on a back-up generator for its principal power source. The proposed tower may be designed and constructed to accommodate up to two additional users, provided the additional capacity does not prevent the applicant from adequately screening or camouflaging the use. USCOC has adjusted its original plans in order to provide adequate space for potential co - location. While there is always potential for interference between competing antenna, the 60-foot height will provide space for vertical separation between competing antenna and thus more potential for co -location. If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower or the owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of use. The applicant has agreed to remove the equipment if use of the tower is discontinued. 4 General Standards: 14-413-3, Special Exception Review Requirements 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The proposed exception meets the specific criteria, which were established to allow such communications facilities while still maintaining a safe and healthy environment. The tower will provide improved cellular service to the area. The applicant's representative has stated that the tower is designed to meet or exceed the TIA- EIA-222-F structural standard. That standard requires that the tower is built to withstand 75 mph wind with 1/2 inch radial ice covering the tower. The above standard is a national standard that is adopted by most zoning jurisdictions throughout the United States. The 60 foot tower will be designed so that if it were going to collapse, the top half of the tower would fold over on the bottom half at the 30 foot level. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The proposed tower will increase the level of cellular service for residents and businesses in the area thereby improving the use and enjoyment of the surrounding property. Given that the area in which the proposed cell tower structure is to be located is some distance from a residential zone, staff feels the proposed design and height is appropriate. The proposed tower will provide some lighting in a vacant lot, which may provide an additional public safety benefit. The inconspicuous design of the tower, which has no guy wires or trusses nor strobe lighting, will not detract from the surrounding uses nor impair property values. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Except for the lot on which the tower is located, all surrounding properties are developed for uses allowed in the zone. In Staffs opinion, this addition will not impede future improvements to these properties, nor any redevelopment of the commercial area. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Adequate electrical and phone service will be provided by the applicant. No improvement is required in the road or other utilities to serve this use. 5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The use will not generate additional traffic other than for maintenance of the facility. The property on which the tower will be located is at the end of a cul de sac and is surrounded by commercial uses. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The lighting elements for the proposed tower will need to meet all lighting standards in the code. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The proposed structure will not detract from the commercial uses at this location as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC07-00004, an application for a communication transmission facility in the CI-1 zone located at 612 Olympic Court be approved subject to compliance with the site plan and specifications regarding the tower design submitted as part of this application. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Photos and aerial views of the proposed location. 2. Location map 3. Proposed Site Plan and elevations 4. Application materials Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development 6 An aerial view of Olympic Court and the proposed location for the cell phone transmission facility. The proposed location of the cell tower (at 612 Olympic Court) is approximately 500 feet from Highway 6 and from the nearest residential zone. The proposed site is more than 200 feet from Keokuk Street. Most surrounding buildings are lower than 35 feet, which is the maximum height allowed in the CI-1 and CC-2 zones. This aerial view shows the proximity of the nearest residential zone, which is located 400 feet to the south— west of Keokuk Street and south of ---► Southgate Avenue. Views of the proposed site for the USCOC cell phone tower. The top image is looking northeast from Olympic Court. The lower image is looking east from Olympic Court. The structure and associated equipment would be located along this south property line. w Q — � d' O U' LLJ O - � O O O o CN >LLJ o is Vd N v� ¢ Y Q X W o a o 0 _C) a- 0 V -- \ is >inAo3A � a O Q _ w o a � N o is mm�, )9 r cn V- o cr 0 0 r Q A O FD CM - WATERFRONT DR `1J WATERFRONT OR O r w Q �� V w a _ con,- z w � N o f Fcu� �< ®rG a s� �LLrN=�Fw m co 'it z U z m O _ N � p (((lll,,, � � j %a `tea N ww F-> wr— � Z a 20 2 pim6 Ld Ld Z K O z O Q U d a 6 m U �d6 O U � o a z z 0 M oM w� I I I ma z aw OW w n J az Z? zo Na X I Ua F N F I I O 2 Z a 1 z _ F U \\ 2 w 9 O z O \ O N N \ v W Y \ ~ x Q o 0 U a 1 U > w d Zo o Z po m I O 3 zo 0 a .-- M oM z w K J p K Z J W W Z Q z 2 r M• ma _ pV p O � x0 p 1 W M M rn Z xm O wiz 00 oa z a v~wi Jf-`' o Q N F qua 0 F Gip w W W I m ~ z to w a ~ a 0 0 . J ® O ❑ i N N - mo w Q J z n a 0 W goiEq.N. a � o ,O'49 00a ONIN1HOIl 30 d01 0'09 SVNN31NV d0 d01 ONV 83M01 30 d01 Y a3�3 w j�Q %`QWCL wz �� >aaw Q wwo In7wSao _aZo ate, cwoo� J�- OJQ WOO wr(n (n- v) 1-Q Owf- v)_ zw Or ZNW ww BOO �Ol cl-I zQU� wOZ d~ JviU aK° wa= oZ oX l oo(n OQcrO- Oxw o mw�F Q vm OJJOJ �O_ OUm wOm OwJ wzV ) IZ-S H �� (n �O adH p V Z =HN�U J w dF- �dfn Z > O o JOz a w oU J O O U V1 O v) a r 3w<=a vi � 0 w w a Q w= 0 z 3 _ Ow 3 w N 00 in r- m > 3 O z Z m U Q mw C� f" CZJ F V) O O w Z F-� z O J Q � �w J � W C'�o wn �-w Z> Om a3 00 zr 0r om WJ Q Oww On z o_ I— Q W APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT --- I SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: t 11610-? PROPERTY PARCEL NO. OXa--1Q;6®( PROPERTY ADDRESS: PROPERTY ZONE: C--'-- i PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 36 5 3 5 APPLICANT: Name: US QC of, (rfeuie( 10w' � � T Ac'. Address: !( 201 (Z Ce.t� 4 Ct N � Phone: (313) 551- oqd CONTACT PERSON: Name: I1 rh L�J ^c (if other than applicant) p Address: P ©, 9 dx � , 'Al, T-A Phone: � l �) SS 1-'301 o PROPERTY OWNER: Name: SoA � .ltc" ''uwI � s 'J4-� B, F-Praodi It s (if other than applicant) T— Address: -1 SS MsrMa., -Frr-)C R1 j 1: Vj cat' I zA 5?a'i- Phone: �- 33-7-4155" Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: Purpose for special exception:nnAU��c���►0r✓ansr+��SS,o Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: jjor'.' — -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): B. *Plot clan drawn to scale showing: 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, including the location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. *Submission of an 8 %" x 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 zone are set forth in 14-48-4 of the Zoning Code. For other types of special exceptions - modifications to setbacks, parking requirements, etc. - refer to the relevant approval criteria listed in the Code. Planning staff is available to assist you in finding the relevant approval criteria for your requested exception.) Attach additional sheet if necessary. C. Responses to Specific Approval Criteria The requested special exception meets the specific approval criteria set forth within the zoning code. Section 14-4B-4E-5 provides for communication transmission facilities in commercial zones. Subsection (b) allows communications towers by special exception in CI-1 zones when the following relevant criteria are met: Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(2) requires that the proposed tower serve an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area. Response: There are no existing towers, tall structures or suitable industrial properties that are available to satisfy US Cellular's coverage needs. The goal of this tower is to provide improved wireless phone coverage to an area that is approximately bordered by Kirkwood Avenue to the north, Broh Street to the south, Taylor Drive to the east and the. Iowa City Municipal Airport to the west. US Cellular is currently trying to cor-r this -', area with antennas located at 2980 Industrial Park Road, 2416 South Riverside Drive and 500 East Market Avenue. Unfortunately, these locations do not do a good job of reaching the area that this tower will serve. The towers located at 2980 Industrial Park Road and 2416 South Riverside Drive do not serve this area well because of ridges that run between the towers and the area th4#�vill be covered by the proposed tower. The antennas located on the roof of Mercy Hospital at 0' 500 East Market Street do not do a good job of providing reliable coverage because of a combination of the distance from the proposed coverage area and the high capacity of calls that the antennas already handles in close vicinity to Mercy Hospital. The existing sites do provide a minimum level of wireless coverage to the area that will be served by the proposed tower, but the service does not reach the strength of signal required by US Cellular to ensure reliable wireless coverage. So while there is currently wireless service when standing outside or riding in a car, that service is not always reliable. And the service problems are further compounded when attempting to place or receive a call from within a business or home because the structure creates additional interference problems. Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(3) requires that the proposed tower is constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. Response: The proposed tower is camouflaged as a light pole to reduce the visual impact on the surrounding area. Attached is a picture of a similar light pole structure that we plan to model this tower after. Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(4) requires that the proposed tower is no taller than necessary to provide the service intended. The subsection further states that communications towers are exempt from the maximum height standards of the base zone but under no circumstances may the tower be taller than 120 feet. Response: The proposed light pole tower will have a maximum height of 54 feet. The light pole itself will be 50 feet tall and a lightning rod will add an additional 4 feet. The 50 foot light pole will allow the antennas housed on it to have a centerline of approximately 47 feet. That will be tall enough to improve the coverage in the area. If the tower were any shorter, the performance would be substantially diminished due to the interference caused by obstructions such as buildings and trees. Criteria: Section 14-4134E-5(b)(5) requires that the proposed tower is set back the height of the tower from any residential zone. Response: The proposed tower is located within a large area of commercially zoned property. The closest residentially zoned properties (RFBH & RM12) are on the south ''---= side of Southgate Avenue with the closest property approximately 400 feet from -#he t tower location. - Criteria: Section 14-4134E-5(b)(6) requires that any equipment associated with the tower will be enclosed in an equipment shed or building, which must be adequately,' - screened from view of the public right of way and any adjacent residential or commercial property. Response: The equipment will be housed in a 12' x 16' equipment shelter. The shelter and the light pole will be screened from the view of the surrounding properties by a solid 6 foot tan fence. Criteria: Section 14-413-4E-5(b)(7) requires that the proposed tower will not utilize a back-up generator as a principal power source. Response: The approval criteria will be satisfied. The tower will not use a generator as a principal power source. Criteria: Section 14-4134E-5(b)(8) prohibits strobe lighting unless required by federal regulation. Response: The approval criteria will be satisfied. Criteria: Section 14-413-4E-5(b)(9) requires that the tower is designed and constructed to accommodate up to 2 additional users, provided that the additional capacity does not prevent the applicant from adequately camouflaging the use. Response: The light pole can be built to accommodate additional users but based on its relatively short height, it is doubtful that it will be attractive to other carriers. US Cellular will mount antennas that are 6 feet long on the light pole between 44 feet and 50 feet above grade. Any additional antennas will have to be mounted below that level. US MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MARCH 28, 2007 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, Eric Goers OTHERS PRESENT: Steven Ramirez, Glen Siders, Anna Bus, David Fry, Jerry Anthony RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action): None CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 10, 2007 MINUTES: Wright said that the word "motioned" as used in the minutes should be replaced with the word "moved," as in "Michael Wright moved..." instead of "Michael Wright motioned..." Wright said that on page two of the minutes, fourth full paragraph, there is an incomplete word that currently reads, "b," when it should read "by." Wright said that on page six, third full paragraph, his name is misspelled —it should read "Wright" and not "Wrights." Alexander said that on page six, last paragraph, the word "apart" should be two words: "a part." MOTION: Shelangouski moved to accept the changes on the minutes for January 10, 2007. Wright seconded. The motion is approved 5:0. 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. Walz said that Eric Goers is assisting the Board of Adjustment today. She said that Goers is an assistant city attorney. Sarah Holecek was away and Mitch Behr recently moved to Colorado, and so Eric was filling in their absences. Walz said that the Board has updated zoning codes on their desks for their review. Walz read the staff report. Walz said that 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. Walz said that the lot has an irregular shape. Walz said that in the early 1970's a kitchen addition was put on and the then property owner had to purchase an addition, which was built without a permit. Walz showed a visual of the lot and pointed out an undeveloped alley way to the rear of the property. Even though Hutchison has all the characteristics of a private drive, it is in fact a street right -of -way —it does belong to the City. Walz said that the subject property is a corner lot and so it must provide a 15-foot setback on both street right of ways. Walz said that this portion of Hutchison functions as a private drive but should the property owner at 524 every want to develop his land it has very limited development potential but it does provide the frontage necessary for development to occur. Walz said that there is a garage and carport the rear of the house at 526 Park Road; both are set back 15 feet and thus nonconforming, as the code requires 25 feet. Walz said that the applicant, Brian Svoboda, is requesting a setback adjustment along the Hutchison Avenue Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 2 frontage in order to build an addition to the house, which includes an expansion of the kitchen and a covered porch/ entryway. The addition would close off the non -conforming garage and carport. Walz said that staff finds that this situation is peculiar to the property because of the odd situation of Hutchison Avenue. Walz said that the street is serving these two lots as a private drive. Walz said that staff finds that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback standards. Walz said that 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 of the house, and that a small covered porch would provide an entrance that is more protected from the elements. The addition would provide better circulation between the kitchen and the interior of the house. Walz said that staff finds that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. Walz said that 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. Walz said that this special exception will not intrude on the property across the street. No other homes are located or will be located along the frontage. Walz said that the reduction in the setback is mitigated by the fact that the applicant is closing off access to a non -conforming garage and carport. Walz said that the specific or proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare for the reasons she's talked about. Staff feels there will be no endangerment. Walz said that 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. Walz said that the setback will not be contrary to the purpose of the regulations in that it will not reduce opportunity for light, air and separation for fire protection and firefighting as the right-of-way provides separation between the only two properties along this portion of right-of-way. Walz said that 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. Walz said that the only property that could be impacted is that land behind the frontage, but the City has no intention of extending that road. Walz said that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Walz said that The only traffic needing ingress or egress to the streets are those accessing the two West Park Road properties, thus ingress and egress was adequate and unaffected by the proposed addition. Walz said that 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. Walz said the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Walz said that 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. Walz said staff feels that by closing off those garages, applicant is bringing a safety issue into closer conformity. The applicant intends to build a conforming garage on the property at some future time. Walz reads that staff recommends that EXC07-00001 be approved subject to general conformity with the submitted site plan. Wood asked if Walz to show an image where the garage would go. Walz then showed the Board where the garage would go and said that it is flat, although they might have to grade the area and build a retaining wall to support it. Shelangouski asked why the City doesn't vacate. Walz said that the neighbor at 524 objects and this seems like a more straightforward approach, which all neighbors affected can agree to. Walz said that the neighbor was adamant that he wanted to maintain frontage for his property. Thornton asked if Walz had a picture of the porch design. Walz brought up a sketch and noted that the sketch is a little deceptive because the door is not flush with the house. All of this is shown on Walz's illustrations and photographs. Shelangouski asked about the 1974 exception. Walz explained that it was not a special exception. A previous owner was required to purchase a portion of the public right -a -way to Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 3 get the addition onto their property. Wright asked if any portion of 604 was nonconforming. Walz said possibly the garage, though she was not certain. Public Hearing Open Brian Svoboda, applicant, said that the addition will not encroach and the new garage will create a better parking situation. Svoboda said that the parking will be further around the corner, which will make it safer. Shelangouski asked if he'd be able to achieve the 25-foot setback for the garage. Svoboda said yes. Public Hearing Closed MOTION: Wood moved that EXC07-00001, 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, be approved subject to general conformity with the submitted site plan. Wright seconded. Shelangouski said that situation is peculiar to the property. She said that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback standards. She said that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations as only the two homes are situated along this portion of Hutchison and the right-of-way is unchanged. She read the purpose of the regulation from the staff report. Shelangouski said that any negative impacts of the special exception will be mitigated by closing off the garage and carport. Shelangouski said that the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare due to the reasons stated before. Shelangouski said that the 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. She cited the staff findings, including that only the two houses were along this street. Shelangouski said that the establishment of the 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. She said all the utilities are already in place. There will be no impediment to access to or from West Park Road. The site plan will comply with all zoning standards. 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. For these reasons, Shelangouski voted to approve. Wood agreed and said he will also vote to approve. Wood said it will not be making the setback less than what already exists. Wood said that what is gained by taking away the garage will be a large improvement in comparison. Wright said that he agrees with his colleagues and he too will vote to approve. Thornton said he agrees with what has been stated. He voted in favor as well. Thornton noted that the applicant is going to be making a significant improvement to the property. Alexander said she will vote in favor. The motion is approved 5:0 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. Walz said that the property is being rezoned from CC-1 to CC-2. Walz read from the staff report. Walz said that Nordstrom Oil is requesting to have a drive-in restaurant at this site. The property is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement, which was described in the staff report. Walz listed some of the major conditions: Walz said that 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 includes both a decorated masonry wall of a minimum of 5 feet in height located within the northern ten feet of the buffer area and a dense planting of deciduous and evergreen under -story and over -story to the south of the wall. Walz said that the Hollywood Boulevard vehicular access point to the CO-1 property will be closed and both properties will have a shared vehicular access point from Broadway Street. Walz Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 4 said that there will be a landscaped setback of no less than 20 feet along Broadway Street. Walz said that there will be a limit of one free-standing sign located in the northwest corner of the property. Walz said that there will be S3 screening along the eastern and southern property lines of the CO-1 parcel. Walz said that any building or structure including canopies should be of a quality design appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features such as masonry materials, standing seam metal foots in muted colors. Walz said that the proposed drive-in restaurant includes a 1,728 foot building which provides kitchen, storage, and restroom and a 32-seat covered patio. Walz said Iowa City doesn't have anything like this proposed restaurant in that all customer activity is outdoors or in cars. Walz said that one of the canopies has room for nine cars, the other for eleven cars. There is an order board at each parking space. Walz said people will place their order at the order board. Walz said that the intensity of use is high, since the facility is completely outdoors. A drive -through window and order board would be located on the northwest side of the building. Walz said that it will be close to residential housing. Walz reads the specific approval criteria for drive -through facilities in the CC-2 zone. Walz said that the number of drive -through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved area necessary for the drive -through facility should 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. Walz said that the drive -through window, order board and associated stacking spaces are all located to the north and west of the building, towards the adjacent commercial center and Highway 6 and away from view of the residential properties to the east and south. Staff believes this provides an essential screen from the residential areas. Walz said that all 20 drive-in canopies are located on the east side of the building closer to the residential property, which raises some concern. Walz said that 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. Walz said that 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. Walz said 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. Walz said that, as for the proposed facility, all customer activity takes place outside the building via the drive -through window, drive-in canopies, and the outdoor seating area. Walz said that 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- footlandscaped buffer, including a 5-foot wall at the south end of the property. Walz said that the CZA requires a 35-foot landscaped buffer with a 5-foot minimum masonry wall. Walz said that Staff recommended and the applicant agreed to increase the effective height of the wall by increasing the height of the wall to 6 feet or 5 feet with a one -foot berm. Walz said that the site plan shows a 10-foot drive lane around the north side of the building for stacking at the drive -through order board with an additional 19-foot by-pass for vehicles circulating around the building. Walz said that Staff believes that this drive is more than what is required the space required to safely and effectively serve the one-way circulation on the lot. Walz said that the applicant has indicated that this wide drive is necessary for turning radiuses for trucks but has not offered evidence to support this. Walz said that 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. Walz said that 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. Walz said that staff believes the median is adequate to serve the safe circulation of the drive -through window. Walz said that the applicant has proposed one- way aisles of 24 feet on the east and 22-feet on the west sides of the lot. Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 5 Walz said that City Council has raised concerns about school children who cross the drive entrance along Broadway Street. In response to Staff suggestion, Walz said that the applicant will set back the wall 10 feet from the sidewalk to maintain good visibility for both cars and pedestrians along Broadway. Walz said that Staff recommends that vegetation adjacent to the drive entrance within ten feet of the sidewalk be kept to a 3-foot maximum height. Walz said that 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 on to Broadway. Walz said that the applicant has submitted information indicating that sound emitted from the intercom system will not be readily audible from the neighboring residential uses. Walz said that the activity of vehicles and customers in this area remains a concern particularly during late night hours. Walz said that Staff recommends that canopy hours be limited to 10 p.m. Sunday -Thursday and 11 pm Friday and Saturday. Walz said that 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. Walz said that the transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use in addition to the existing uses in the area. Walz said that an adequate amount of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure that traffic safety is not compromised. Walz said that 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. Walz said that 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. Walz said that traffic will enter and exit the drive-in facility via a shared, private drive off of Broadway Street. Walz said that 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 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. Walz said that Staff believes that while the application indicates stacking space at the drive -through of 4 cars between the service window and the menu order board and 4 additional stacking spaces at the order board, the site plan actually shows 3 stacking spaces at the window and 2 stacking spaces for the order board. Walz said that at peak times, there may be some conflict between vehicles parked or attempting to park at the canopies and cars attempting to enter the drive -through lane. Walz said that Staff does not feel that this presents a safety issue. Staff recommends traffic control signage and low level vegetation to provide safe pedestrian access to the site. Walz said that the drive -through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from the adjacent lot lines and public rights -of -way and screened from the 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. Walz said that the 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. Walz said that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Walz said that 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. Walz said that establishment of the proposed special exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement for the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. Walz said that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Walz said that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion. Walz said that 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. Walz said that the South District Plan identifies this area as apartments. The Comprehensive Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 6 Plan encourages CO-1 zones as appropriate transitions between residential and more intense commercial uses. Walz said that staff recommends applicant submit a litter control plan. Walz said that Staff recommends that EXC07-00002 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 on Friday and 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 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 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. Public Hearing Open Glenn Siders, Southgate Development Services, said this project has been an interesting journey with many compromises. Siders said they have developed a project that will be beneficial to the community. Siders said he has concerns with some of the Staffs recommendations. Siders provided illustrations showing the turning radiuses for delivery trucks traveling through the lot. Siders said he can answer the Board's questions. Siders said he is in concurrence with the CZA and happy to comply. Siders said he is in concurrence with the masonry wall height, as listed in the Staff report. Siders said that he has proposed a 19-foot width of the median, which will be reduced to a 17-foot width. Siders referred to a document passed out showing the path of a semi -truck going in and out of the facility in relation to the surrounding area. Siders said the document shows that they need every square inch. Siders mentioned the need for an S3 screening near the dumpster area. Siders said there will be landscaping placed back in that area. He questioned the necessity of S3 screening. He said there will be a wall or fence surrounding the dumpster area. Siders said an S2 screening will be adequate to screen the buffer area. Alexander asked the difference between the two documents regarding truck traffic moving through the site handed out to the Board. Siders said the difference is two different sized trucks. Siders said that the S3 screening seems a bit redundant. Siders said he concurs with pedestrian signage. Siders mentioned page 5 of the Staff report, which mentions the S3 standard indicates that screening must be a minimum of 3-feet tall when planted but Staff recommends that the screening be 4-5 feet tall in height when installed along the east side of the CO-1 property. Siders said there is about 200-feet from the end of the CC-2 to the east side of the property line of the CO-1 and he's not sure how beneficial that foot or foot and half will be. This small jump will be very expensive. Siders mentioned page 6, the trash container placement. Siders said he's not convinced that the locations suggestions are the appropriate suggestions. Siders said he would like to place the trash containers where they will be more beneficial. Siders said he will let Mr. Fry (a representative for the applicant) talk about the hours of operation before he comes back to summarize his requests. Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 7 David Fry, Nordstrom Oil Company, said he has concerns about the suggested hours of operation. Fry said he would like to suggest that the canopies on the east end and close according to the hours mentioned in the Staff report and keep the canopy adjacent to the patio open for the same hours as the drive -through window. Fry said that they are doing a lot of screening on this property. Fry said that he is complying with the lighting standards as mentioned in the Staff report and as far as sound systems, Fry has submitted documentation that shows it should not be a concern. Siders said that when you come into a drive-in stall, you drive in and turn the car off. You place your order, wait for food, and that's it. There's not a lot of noise in the process. Fry said that with the dimming of the lights, they have a safety concern. Fry said that the way the property is laid out, there are fairly natural buffers to screen out light and sound. Fry said that the amount of traffic from 10 until midnight is not significant. Fry said that in terms of trash, he intends to operate a clean business. Fry said they have a restaurant in Cedar Rapids with seven trash containers and no litter issues. Fry said it is very important for customers to know they are coming to a clean restaurant. Alexander asked about the loud speakers. Fry showed the Board a picture of a typical Sonic site. Fry showed Alexander how the speaker board works. Walz said that the applicant did submit a great deal of information about the sound system and Staff is not as concerned with the sound system. Walz said Staff's concern had to do with the activity of cars and customers coming and going. Alexander asked about Fry's proposal regarding the patio seating. Walz said the patio seating doesn't need to close at an earlier hour. Fry said that he understood that the patio would close at the same time as the canopies and he didn't agree with that. Walz said the Board will clarify that issue. Fry said it would be his hope to keep the patio open. Wright asked about parking on the west part of the property. Fry said it was staff parking open to customer parking. Thornton said he lived in New Mexico and so he is familiar with Sonic. Thornton asked if the outer parking spaces will have speakers and order boards. Fry said the west side parking is parking only. Thornton asked about the semi -truck path diagram. Thornton said it didn't look like the truck would find enough access to turn, according to the diagram. Thornton was concerned about traffic surrounding the turning truck. Fry said that deliveries typically take place in the morning, twice a week, during hours that are not busy. Fry said this system works well in Cedar Rapids. Wood asked about litter control. Is there a program in place? Fry said that part of the operation is that carhops have responsibilities to pick up trash when they are not serving customers. Fry said this is done six times a day on schedule, not including during their free time. Wood asked about the wall around the dumpster. Is it similar to the brick wall from the illustrations? Fry said he wasn't sure but he imagined it would be similar to the building masonry. Thornton asked about the requested reduction from an S3 to an S2 screening of the dumpster. Siders said he would summarize his requests and then respond to further questions. Siders said that they would ask the Board to adjust the hours of operation limited to 10 pm, Sunday through Thursday on the east canopy. They would turn the lights completely off, probably. Siders said they request the west canopy be open the same hours as the drive -through. Siders said that he wasn't sure if he wanted to obligate himself to the darker colors as mentioned by the Staff but he was willing to comply. Siders said that he would ask that S3 screening be no more strict than what is mandated by the code. Siders said that they are asking the area around the dumpster be changed from S3 to S2. Siders said that council approved the CZA and through the entire approval process, there has not been one individual from the neighborhood or general public that has spoken in opposition of this project. Everyone gave a favorable recommendation. Siders said that this is important. Siders said that the HACAP people sent a letter recommending they do it. Siders thanked the Board for their time and consideration. Siders addressed Thornton's original question. Siders said that around the very northeast corner, around the dumpster, Staff is recommending S3 zoning, while everything else is S2. Siders said this is a bit much when this Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 8 dumpster is completely enclosed with some type of wall unit. Walz said that the proposal for the S3 screening was made before they knew what the dumpster looked like or if there would be a structure surrounding it. Siders said he wasn't enthralled with the idea of closing Hollywood Blvd. He wanted to leave it open. Siders said that the one point of access is a part of the CZA. Shelangouski asked if that property has an ingress/egress easement across the property. Is it one property? Siders said yes. Siders said that they will have to do something if the Sonic people sell the CO- 1 to someone else, they'd have to come up with some kind of agreement. Siders said there is an access to the south of this site. He said that the 35-foot buffer is actually a driveway and the other 12 and a half feet is on HACAP property. Wood asked where it goes, what does it access? Siders said it goes to the existing apartment complex and HACAP apartment complex. Siders said he would leave the bike path open. Shelangouski asked if Siders anticipates people accessing the property from the bike path. Siders said that while they are not proposing an access way in this area, he couldn't guarantee that people won't do it anyway. Wood asked about the buffer around the dumpster and if they are going to keep the S3 screening around the area in question. Siders said yes. Shelangouski said that item B of the CZA is not stated well at all. She thought there would be no access to this lot, as stated in the writing. Siders had no comment. Thornton asked about the recommendation from the applicant about the change in lighting. Thornton asked if Walz could talk about another business that has faced similar issues. Walz said that she couldn't think of another facility that has faced this problem of having to alter lighting. Alexander said that there's a recommendation that the lighting be dimmed but in the applicant's material there is a photometric study that would confirm 0 foot candles along the southern and eastern property lines. Walz said Staff's concern was the view from the adjacent apartments. Dimming, Walz said, would be appropriate. Siders said he hopes to be given a chance and if there's an outburst of neighborhood complaint, they could adjust their hours and lighting. Thornton asked about security in terms of dimming the lights. Walz said that Staff initially asked to turn off the lights and the final compromise was dimming the lights 50%. Walz said this was reasonable in that dimming lights 50% provides lighting for security issues while discouraging people from being in that part of the lot. Fry said that in the original proposal they would dim the east canopy lights. Wood asked Fry about people pulling in and turning off their car. Wood said he envisions people pulling in and keeping their radios on while they eat. Fry said that is not the norm, at least not in Cedar Rapids. Fry said the food does come in a to -go package and so if they want to leave they can. Fry said he couldn't recall anyone keeping their lights on. Alexander asked if they'd be operating during the winter. Fry said yes. Alexander called for a 5-minute recess. Eric Goers said that he called and litter violations are a municipal infraction, which could amount to a fine. Walz said that it's not a matter of if you're not picking up your garbage because the City would do it at a certain point, but a fine would be exacted. Shelangouski said that, on page 5, second paragraph, it talks about the color of canopies, which is not mentioned anywhere else in the CZA. Walz showed her where the CZA does in fact mention color issues. Anna Bus, manager of property in the RN-44 zone, said that while she does welcome Sonic, she is concerned about the noise from their speakers. Bus advised the Board to go listen to the Sonic speakers in Cedar Rapids. She said the sound would travel up, which will disrupt her tenants. Bus said that she is concerned about trash. There have been complaints about trash in the area of her property and nothing has been done by the City. Bus said the City doesn't do "jack" about the trash. Bus returned to her issue about the speakers. Bus said if they could keep the volume of the speakers low, that would be sufficient. Bus said that no one objects to the hours of operation. Bus said if someone calls and complains about the noise, she would like immediate action done by the applicant. Bus had concerns about the statement that Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 9 no one in the neighborhood complained about the proposed facility. Bus said that tenants tend not to care about a plan until it has already been established and something becomes unacceptable. Bus said her only concern is having a line of communication between herself, her tenants, and the applicants. Shelangouski asked if there was a neighborhood association. Bus said yes but very few tenants are members. Bus said there is a gang issue and spray -painting property often occurs. Bus said that the applicant will find out soon enough that they are going to need to leave some lights on. She offered her own experiences as a point of reference. Bus said that the lighting will be an issue soon enough. Bus said that her tenants are most concerned about the noise from the speakers. Thornton asked her opinion about Sonic's hours. Bus said she's willing to give them whatever hours they want. Their business will bring in more business to the neighborhood. Bus repeated that her concern is noise. Jerry Anthony, chairperson of the HCDC, said he will speak in opposition to the application. Anthony said that this application should not be approved for many reasons. Anthony said that he will focus his attention on two issues. The first is the criteria concerning a proposed exception being detrimental to public health. Anthony said that with a drive -through, traffic will increase. Anthony said that the Broadway/Highway 6 intersection will become more dangerous if the special exception is granted. Anthony said that the Staffs suggestions will not decrease this danger. Anthony said that the applicant has tried to demonstrate compliance on many issues, but on traffic and pedestrian safety, there is no evidence that the applicant has attempted to mitigate this issue, and this is something they have to do before a special exception is granted. Anthony said the Staff's recommendations are elevated to the status of requirement than the chances of this drive -through not having an impact on properties to the east are reduced. The property values will be effect. If they are affected, property owners can files suits against the city. If this happens, the City and taxpayers will have to pay for the privilege of having a Sonic drive through. Anthony said that if the applicants of this special exception are confident that such a scenario will in fact not happen, then they should absolve the risk. Thornton asked Anthony to explain his last point. Anthony said that people living in RN-44 and RN-12 have an expectation that any new development must not have a negative effect on their property values. Anthony said that if Sonic does in fact have this negative effect, then they can claim the losses from the City. Anthony said if the owners of Sonic are confident that this will not happen, they should pick up this risk. Bus said she's also a real estate broker. She said that she doesn't believe Sonic will have anything but a positive effect on property values of the surrounding area. Bus said that it is a beautiful building and there will be more business for Pepperwood place and property values should go up. Bus said the only reason she is here tonight is to comment on the noise and garbage. Bus said that she doesn't think that anybody has ever sued the City and won on a property de -valuation, unless the property had been condemned. Wood asked Bus if she is concerned about traffic danger. Bus said no. Bus said it will be safer because her tenants won't have to be worried about traffic coming at 60 miles an hour. Wood asked about school bus stops. Bus said those are not on Hollywood. Bus said there is nothing but car traffic on Hollywood. Anthony said repeated that if the applicants are confident that the Sonic will have no negative effects on property values, they should absolve the risk. Walz reminded the Board that she submitted two emails to them. Alexander said they received them. One of the issues was volume of the speakers. Alexander called up the applicant. Fry said that there are volume controls inside the device. Fry said his intention is to be a good neighbor and he would be happy to keep in contact with Bus' neighborhood association. Fry said if there are issues with sound, he'll be open to work through them and find a compromise. Public Hearing Closed Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 10 Alexander asked Walz if traffic engineers looked at this. Walz said they did and they did not believe there was a problem. Walz said they looked at a standard for what a fast food restaurant would generate. Walz said they did not find a concern. Thornton asked about the hours of operation. He said that the staff recommendation said that drive-in hours would be limited. Thornton asked about the confusion voiced by applicants. Walz said the confusion was that the outdoor seating area could close with the rest of the building. Walz said Staff's concern was that the canopies themselves should close at an earlier hour. Walz said the patio could remain open. The drive -through could remain open. Walz said Staffs concern was the activity of cars coming and going from the lot and cars remaining after 10 pm. Thornton said he was concerned about people just "hanging out." Siders attempted to clarify this point. Goers said that unless there was a motion from the Board to reopen the public hearing then he was not allowed to speak. Siders said that he just wanted to be clear about the patio hours. Walz said that the Board could make the recommendation about the patio hours more clear. Alexander said she'd like to go backwards with the recommendations. She recommended the Board get some of the easier recommendations out of the way. The Board agreed on the last three recommendations as listed on the Staff report. Shelangouski said she thinks it might be overboard to have a litter -control plan. Wright said he's all for it. Alexander said it couldn't hurt. Alexander asked about the trash bin recommendation. Shelangouski said she'd like to see the trash can locations as part of the litter -control plan. Thornton agreed. The Board agreed. Alexander said that the illuminated signage as listed in the Staff recommendation is not disputed. The Board agreed. Alexander said the vegetation being limited to 3 feet is not up for dispute. The Board agreed. Alexander asked about the recommendation about the dumpster being S3 or S2. Wright said that the enclosure is a good idea and the landscaping is not going to fully mask the dumpster. Wright said that in terms of graffiti, taller landscaping might keep people away from the wall. Wright said a dumpster enclosure would be inviting for someone to want to spray paint. Shelangouski said that it S2 or S3 won't make a difference —if someone wants to paint it, they'll paint it. Shelangouski recommended a structure around the dumpster at S2 for visibility purposes. Walz said that the issue of unless the board felt that vandalism to the wall was a public issue, that the board should not be concerned with this, but what was appropriate screening for the dumpster. Shelangouski said the wall's function, as far as the Board is concerned, is to hide the dumpster. Wood said the S2 is 2-4 feet and the S3 is 6. Walz confirmed this. Shelangouski said that if it's just on the East side, what value is it adding? Thornton said that if they're S3 on one side, they should be the same. Thornton then said he could live with the S2. Wright agreed. Alexander said the S2 would be fine as long as there would be a specification that there would be an enclosure. Alexander brought up the S3 screening dispute regarding a height of 4-5 feet when installed. Alexander said under the S3 it can be 3 feet in height when installed but it can grow 5 to 6 feet. Alexander asked if the bullet was even needed or if they should strike that, being that it is already required in the CZA. Board agreed with striking. Alexander brought up the recommendation regarding the canopy colors. Board agreed with the recommendation as stated in the Staff report. Alexander moved to the question of hours of operation. Thornton said his issue is that he is not clear about Staff's recommendation. Thornton said he can live with 10 pm but he is not in favor of moving the hour to midnight. Walz clarified that the applicant has indicated that he thinks it would be doable to close the east canopy and allow the west canopy to stay open. Walz said the Staff recommendation was to close both canopies but to allow the drive -through and patio to remain open until midnight. Thornton said he liked that. Shelangouski said she liked the compromise that the applicant came up with, of closing one canopy. Shelangouski asked how customers order at the patio. Walz said there are speakers. Thornton said that he recalled that customers could simply walk up to the door and order something. Alexander asked if the Board would recommend that the east canopy lights be turned off while the rest of the lighting Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 11 remains on until closing. Wright and Shelangouski said they'd prefer the lights dimmed, not off. Board agreed. Alexander said that the stipulation for the earlier hours be confined to the east canopy. Shelangouski said that the site plan shows they are building 6 feet into the right-of-way and they are going to have to vacate the right-of-way and purchase it. Walz said this would be subject to the applicant being granted the vacation and then purchasing the right-of-way. Wright said Board should indicate that all recommendations are subject to site plan approval. MOTION: Shelangouski moved that EXC06-00002, 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, and all conditions in the conditional zoning agreement for the property, and the following additional conditions: - That the east drive-in canopy hours will be limited to 10 pm Sunday through Thursday and 11 pm Friday through Saturday and all canopy lighting, including lighting in the outdoor seating area will be dimmed to 50% when not in operation. - That canopies will comply with the CZA for the property and the material and colors to be submitted for Staff approval. - That the dumpster located along the CO-1 property line at the northeast section of the lot located in an enclosure and that S2 landscaping be around the enclosure. - That vegetation directly adjacent to the drive entrance/exit from Broadway will be held to a maximum height of 3 feet. - That all illuminated signage is limited to the west and north sides of the building. - That the applicant will provide a litter -control plan, including the location of trash bins, to control litter in the public right-of-way and on adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject lot. - That the applicant will install pedestrian signage or a stop sign adjacent to the sidewalk at the exiting drive onto Broadway Street. - That all other aspects of the site design will be subject to substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. Wood seconded the motion. Wright said that when he looks at the specific criteria for a drive -through facility in a CC-2 zone, he believes it meets most of those criteria. Wright said that pedestrian circulation is a concern for him. Wright said that this might remain an issue. Wright said that a fair amount of sound will come from this facility. Wright said that as far as general criteria, he believes that this facility fails the criterion that states the facility must not be detrimental to public health. Wright said that the idling cars and thumping stereos are going to be an issue that has not been mitigated by the applicant. Wright said that this facility is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at all. He said that a CO-1 zone is supposed to be a step down to residential zoning and they're chopping down the CO-1 to two residential lines. Wright said this is a radical change that is not fitting. Wright said he will be voting against this special exception. Thornton said that he doesn't think the facility is going to be that intrusive on the community but instead a good business to have in the community. Thornton said that he feels good about the screening. He said that this business is making attempts to deal with pedestrian traffic, traffic circulation, and sound. Thornton said he liked the applicant's compromise in regards to lighting. Thornton said he feels comfortable with the litter -control plan. Thornton said that in terms of traffic flow, it sounds like Staff has made an attempt to look at this and he'll go with their findings. Thornton said the risk of property loss wasn't an issue for Staff and Thornton will go with this. Thornton said he will vote in support of the motion. Wood said that in terms of the specific approval criteria, he doesn't have concerns. Wood said that good answers have been developed. Wood as far the general criteria, he has reservations. He said that traffic is a concern. Wood said that rezoning this area makes him hesitate but then to add an outdoor eating facility is what he is most concerned with. Wood felt that this is inviting more commotion and noise and traffic than other fast food restaurants. Wood said that neighbors will be impacted negatively by this facility. Wood said that none of these issues have been clearly addressed and so he will be voting against the motion. Board of Adjustment March 28, 2007 Page 12 Shelangouski said that she has heard thumping music from the apartment building that is already there and this business will actually control that. She said that the owner of the property will be in more control of the noise taking place on the grounds. She said this will be an improvement. Shelangouski said that this complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the area is being improved by the new development, and so she will be voting to approve the motion. Alexander said that she is convinced this will be an improvement to the area. She had concerns with the Comprehensive Plan but felt that those issues were dealt with by Planning and Zoning when they recommended for the rezoning. Alexander said that she will be voting in favor of this motion. Alexander encouraged applicant to be that "good neighbor" that he talked about. Motion is approved 3:2 OTHER: Walz read from a young woman, a junior at a local high school, who had researched the Shelter House case and had written to say she wanted the Board to know that they did the right thing. Walz said there will be an April 11t" meeting. Walz said there is only one item on the agenda and it should be pretty straightforward. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting is adjourned at 8:00 pm. s/pcd/min utes/boa/2007/3-28-07.doc 00 M O w w 0 O O O O O O O O O b MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS APRIL 11th, 2007 5:00 PM EMMA J HARVAT HALL — IOWA CITY/CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: Michael Wright called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Wright, Ned Wood, Michelle Payne, Edgar Thornton MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Alexander STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Steven Ramirez, Chris Stephan, Mike Wolf RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action): None. CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 28T", 2007 MINUTES The Board will consider the March 28`h, 2007 minutes at the next meeting. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS EXC07-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by CMC-West Lucas LLC for a special exception to allow a 50% reduction in the parking requirement from 76 parking spaces to 38 spaces for a proposed manufacturing plant located on property in the Heavy Industry (1-2) zone north of Izaak Walton Road. Walz read from the Staff report. Walz showed the zoning map and pointed out the property in the 1-2 zone. Walz said that the applicant is going through rezoning and including a sensitive areas development plan, but that is separate from the issues to be considered by the Board. Walz said that this property is surrounded by county agricultural land. Walz said that the property to the east is recreational property. Walz said that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the required parking from 76 to 38 spaces. To meet the specific requirement criteria for the special exception, the applicant has to demonstrate that the specific use has characteristics that make the requirement for 76 spaces unreasonable. Walz said that the applicant has indicated that the manufacturing process proposed for the facility is highly automated, and so there is need for only 15-25 employees. Walz said that based on the automation of the use Staff agrees that a parking reduction is warranted. Walz read from the special approval for a reduction in required parking. Walz said that where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the umber of required parking or stacking spaces up o 50%. Walz said that based on the square footage of the plant, Staff has established that 76 parking spaces would be required in order to meet the parking standard in the code for manufacturing use. Walz reiterated what the applicant has said about the automated process of the facility and the few employees and that Staff finds that the required number of parking spaces is indeed excessive. Walz read from the general criteria for granting special exceptions. Walz said that the proposed exception must not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Walz said that Staff finds a 50% reduction in the required parking will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Walz said that the zoning code discourages the development of excessive parking and large expanses of paved surfaces. Walz said that because the industrial property includes a number of wetlands and retention/infiltration basins, the issue of excessive paving is significant. Walz said that Staff agrees that minimizing the amount of area devoted to paved surfaces will help to reserve the capacity of the detention basins to handle storm water from other areas of the development. Board of Adjustment April 11, 2007 Page 2 Walz said that the specific proposed exception must not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity and must not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Walz said that the code requires and the applicant has demonstrated adequate screening to the S3 standard be incorporated into the site design to screen the view of the parking lot from the Izaak Walton League recreation area. Walz said that Staff finds that reducing the parking and its impervious surfaces will reserve on -site capacity to absorb storm water run-off. Walz said that in Staff's opinion, the reduction in parking would not negatively impact surrounding property. Walz said that adequate access roads are currently in place. Izaak Walton Road is a gravel secondary road with a seal coat surface, which is under Johnson County jurisdiction. Walz said that as a requirement of a Conditional Use permit granted to S&G Materials, which operates a quarry to the south and east of the subject property, the County has a maintenance agreement with S&G to maintain the road. Walz said that the parking area is intended for regular employee vehicle parking and staff has determined that the road is adequate to support the proposed use. Walz said that Staff believes adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion. Walz said that two access points would eventually be developed for the property. Primarily employees will use the southern access via Izaak Walton Road. Walz said that larger vehicles may eventually use the Oak Crest Hill Road access once it is fully functional. Walz said that until such time, adequate ingress and egress options are available via Izaak Walton Road. Walz said that 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 regulation or standards of the zone in which it to be located. From the Staff report, Walz read the applicant's ability to meet the design standards from section 14-5A-5 of the code. Walz noted on problem on the site plan. She said that the first bullet point, which states that the submitted plan for the parking area shows drives on the north and south ends of the lot that are 25 feet in width, but the maximum allowed by code is 24 feet. Walz said that Staff believes the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive plan of the City, as amended. Walz said that Staff recommends approval of EXC07-00003. Public Hearing Open Chris Stephan, from MMS Consultants, said he could answer any questions from the Board. Stephan pointed out the surrounding the property as shown on the overhead photograph. Stephan said that the space between the driveway and their property line is an easement granted to the Izaak Walton Road for the purposes of planting in that area to separate the property from the industrial area. Stephan says his plan to the city demonstrates their efforts to further screening requirements. Thornton asked if reducing the number of parking spaces would correlate with the number of employees. Stephan said yes. There will be 15 to 25 employees. Stephan said the east half of the building is where the mechanical equipment will be. Payne asked if eventually traffic would come off of Oak Crest Hill Road. Stephan said that is correct. Payne asked if that was a temporary thing. Stephan said no. Thornton asked if everything will be paved or if dust will be an issue. Stephan said yes, for the most part everything will be paved. Mike Wolf, Wagner Conservation, had concerns to address to the applicant regarding size limit on the screening. Walz said that the screening standard in the code specifies a planting height of 3 to 4 feet and a minimum growth height of 6 feet for that particular screening. Walz said that the screen has to achieve a density so even if there was a larger tree, there would have to be shrubs in between, for example. Wolf was concerned about plant hours of operation and the noise pollution. Walz said that issue would come up with the rezoning. Walz gave Wolf the date for that meeting. Public Hearing Closed MOTION: Payne moved to approve EXC07-00003: an application submitted by CMC-West Lucas LLC for a special exception to allow a 50% reduction in the parking requirement from 76 parking Board of Adjustment April 11, 2007 Page 3 spaces to 38 spaces for a proposed manufacturing plant located on property in the Heavy Industry (1-2) zone north of Izaak Walton Road. Wright seconded the motion. Walz asked Holecek if the motion should be in the 1-1 zone. Holecek said since parking requirements wouldn't affect the zone, it is not necessary. However, Holecek said that she would make an amendment to the motion, a friendly amendment, stating either 1-1 or 1-2 zone. MOTION: Payne moved to amend the previous motion, which approved EXC07-00003, to include either 1-1 or 1-2 zoning. Wright seconded. Wood said that a reduction in parking by 50% is warranted. Woods said that in terms of general criteria for granting special exceptions, the application would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Woods said that it would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or improve property values in the neighborhood. Woods said that it would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Woods said there are already adequate utilities and drainage. Woods said there is ingress and egress. Woods said that it conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Woods said the proposed exception would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. Woods voted in favor. Thornton said he agrees with Wood. He said it would have a positive effect on the overall community. He also voted in favor. Payne agreed with Wood and Thornton. She voted in favor. Wright had nothing to add. He agreed with his colleagues. The motion, as amended, passed 5:0 Other None. Board of Adjustment Information Walz asked if anyone was going to have conflicts with the next Board meeting. No one thought so. Adjournment The meeting is adjourned at 5:45 PM s/pcd/minutes/boa/2007/4-11-07.doc 0 0 N � 0 00 M O 00 0 O O O O k W O O O O O w �, o 6