HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-2014 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, April 9, 2014 — 5:15 PM
City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the March 12, 2014 Minutes
D. Special Exception Items
1. EXC14-000057 Discussion of an application submitted Russ Garrett for a special exception to
reduce the rear setback requirement to allow a home addition for property in the Medium Density
Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 632 Brown Street,
2. EXC14-000037 Discussion of an application submitted by Peninsula Development Company, LLC,
to allow an eating establishment (coffee shop) to be located in the Planned Development Overlay,
Low Density Single -Family Residential (OPD-5) zone at 2280 Willenbrock Circle.
3. EXC14-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Peninsula Development Company, LLC,
to allow an eating establishment (restaurant) to be located in the Planned Development Overlay,
Low Density Single -Family Residential (OPD-5) zone at 1010 Martin Street.
E. Board of Adjustment Information
F. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: May 14, 2014
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC14-00005
632 Brown Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: April 9, 2014
Applicant: Russ Garrett
3044 Rohret Road SW
Iowa City
319-631-0672
Property Owner: Kevin and Kim Glenn
632 Brown Street
Iowa City, IA
Requested Action: Reduction of the rear setback requirement
from 20 feet to 11.41 feet.
Purpose: To allow a rear addition to an existing home.
Location: 632 Brown Street
Size: 6,000 square feet (60' x 100')
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Medium Density, Single-family Residential (OHD-
RS8) with a Historic District Overlay
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential (RS-8)
South: Residential (RS-8)
East: Residential (RS-8)
West: Residential (RS-5)
Applicable code sections: 14-4B-3A, (General Criteria)
File Date: March 13, 2014
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located at 632 Brown Street (the northwest corner of Brown and N. Dodge
Streets) and is within the Brown Street Historic District. As a contributing structure to the district,
any modification to the exterior of the home must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation
Commission (an application is currently under review by HPC).
The minimum lot size in the RS-8 zone is 5,000 square feet; the subject property is 6,000 square
feet. The property is required to provide to 20-foot rear setback. The existing structure is set back
19"5' feet from the north (rear) property line. The proposed addition would result in a setback of
11'5" feet.
The owners propose to remove an existing one-story converted rear porch (6' x 10') and replace it
with a new one-story addition (14' x 26') with a kitchen and family room. The old kitchen area will
become a laundry room and bathroom. The owners previously applied and were granted approval
for the same special exception in 1998, but the project was never undertaken and the term of the
special exception expired.
The lot has existing vehicle access from North Dodge Street and a one -stall garage at the
basement level. The addition would also provide a garage stall at the basement level with entry
from N. Dodge Street. The existing structure and the proposed addition meet the front setback
standard along N. Dodge Street.
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 14-4B-4E-5 pertaining to principal building setbacks in
addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A.
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are
are set forth below. included on
the attached application form. Staff comments related to the speck and general approval criteria
Specific approval criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements
(14-2A-413-5).
The situation is peculiar to the property.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• Most homes along Brown Street are set close to the street right-of-way line. However,
the three homes located along this particular Brown Street frontage are all set back
well in excess of the standard minimum 15 feet required in the RS-8 zones and
further back from the street than the subject house. For this reason, the property is
subject to a deeper front setback requirement from Brown Street (setback averaging).
• The subject property is significantly smaller than the two other lots along the Brown
Street frontage. (See image on page 6.) The other lots along the frontage are 18,700
square feet and 23,300 square feet.
While a lot of 6,000 square foot is not unusual in this neighborhood, the deep front
setback (32 feet) on a lot that is just 100 feet is unusual.
2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings above, in addition
to the following findings:
• The 32-foot front setback from Brown Street reduces the opportunity for additional
development without encroaching into the rear setback.
• As a corner lot, the property must provide 2 setbacks: one along N. Brown and the
other along N. Dodge Street.
3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations, which are:
a. To maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting.
b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings;
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in Iowa City
neighborhoods;
d. To promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and
residences: and
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the
vicinity.
Staff believes the application is not contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations based on
the following findings:
The Brown Street neighborhood was established long before current zoning
standards and is characterized by small lots with minimal setbacks. With the
exception of this frontage and the 400 block of Brown Street, it is not unusual for
homes in the immediate area, including neighboring properties along the Dodge
Street frontage, to have setbacks that do not conform with current minimum
standards.
• Because this is a corner lot, the rear setback functions similar to a side setback in
terms of its relationship to the adjacent property to the north. The minimum side
setback in the RS-8 zone is 5 feet. (See aerial views.)
• The property to the north is set at a higher elevation, preserving privacy of the
adjacent residential use.
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to
the extent practical.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the facts provided under
criterion 1 and the following finding:
• The sketches submitted with the application show an addition that is designed to
complement the architecture of the original, historic house and will require approval
from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
• The proposed addition is limited to one story.
5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line,
unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open
space.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
• The proposed addition would be located 11.4 feet from the rear (north) property line.
General Standards: 14-4B-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.
Staff believes the findings listed under specific criterion #3 above meet the standard: the
reduced setback will maintain adequate separation for fire protection and access for fire fighting.
While the application before the Board is for a reduction in the rear setback, allowing the
addition does have an impact along the Dodge Street frontage due to the placement of the
basement level garage.
The applicant plans to create an expanded driveway, approximately 22 feet wide to be served
by the existing 7 foot driveway curb cut. Given the slope on this portion of the property, staff
believes the wider driveway will improve visibility for cars backing out of the property (see photo
of the current driveway entrance) and will provide opportunity for a car to turn around before
entering traffic. Staff sees this as a benefit to both vehicular and pedestrian safety by widening
the paved area.
The Zoning Code requires that garages be located so as to provide a driveway at least 25 feet
in length between the garage entrance and the street right-of-way line. The proposed addition
does not meet this standard, however the applicant is seeking a minor modification to reduce
the requirement. The Building Official may grant a reduction if the garage entry is 25 feet from
the sidewalk and if the resulting garage location and driveway length will not compromise public
safety along Dodge Street. (The building is setback approximately 24'8 inches from the sidewalk
and the entrance to the garage is recessed more than 4 inches.)
To ensure adequate separation from the sidewalk and improved entry and exit from the street,
Staff recommends widening to 10 feet the portion of the drive between the sidewalk and the
curb (currently 7') with and 16 feet at the curb. This will allow more room for cars to maneuver
as they enter and exit the property. Modifying the paved area serving the new garage entrance
to create a gap between the driveway and the sidewalk (see illustration below) will help to
ensure that parked cars do not overhang the sidewalk, creating an obstacle for pedestrians.
EMSTINN
"RIVANAY
PROPERTY LINE___
DRIVEWAY
ADDITION I =
149"
• TO7N. �, — -
SIDEWALK
1
DRIVEWAY APRON WIDENED TO
IV AT THE SIDEWALK/ 16 AT THE CURB
North Dodge Street
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings under specific
criterion #3 above: the reduced setback will maintain adequate separation for light, air, and
fire protection, and access for firefighting as well as privacy between dwellings. The reduced
setback will not result in development that is out of character with the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the zone in which such property is located.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings under specific
criterion #3 regarding the purpose of setbacks in addition to the following findings:
• In this case, the rear setback functions practically as a side setback in terms of its
relationship to the abutting property to the north.
The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by small lots with densely built
housing, particularly on corner lots —it is not unusual for homes in this neighborhood
to have front and rear setbacks that do not meet current standards.
• The property will retain an 11.4-foot rear setback from the north property line.
• The proposed addition meets the required front setback from the property line on
North Dodge Street.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
The subject property and neighborhood is fully developed with all necessary utilities,
access roads, drainage, and other facilities in place.
S. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding. -
The proposed rear setback reduction will not bring the structure any closer to the
street, and will not contribute to traffic congestion along the public street as a single-
family residential property does not generate a significant level of traffic.
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.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding. -
In order to secure a building permit, the applicant must submit a site plan to the building
official at which time the plan will be reviewed to ensure conformance with all other
zoning requirements not specifically reviewed here.
• In order to build the addition being proposed, the applicant must secure a minor
modification to reduce the required driveway length in addition to a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Comprehensive Plan does not address this situation directly but does encourage re-
investment in Iowa City's established neighborhoods.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC14-00005, a special
exception to reduce the rear setback requirement for the principal structure from 20 feet to 11
feet 5 inches, subject to the following conditions:
1. The setback reduction applies to the proposed one-story addition only;
2. The applicant must secure a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
3. The applicant must secure a minor modification for a reduction in the drive -way length;
driveway design should be in substantial compliance with the drawing proposed by staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Aerial views of the property.
3. Proposed site plan and elevations submitted by the contractor
4. Application materials
Approved by: 11z14&Ae1
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
yJ'4i�_,.�
ABOVE: The aerial view at the top of the page shows the deep setbacks of the houses along the
Brown St. frontage. Also note the small size and relationship of the lot at 632 Brown and the
abutting property to the north at 815 North Dodge.
BELOW: The aerial view directly above shows the typical configuration of corner lots in the
immediate neighborhood, which tend to be smaller and densely built, with shallow side and rear
setbacks.
i
Dodge Street
lei
�
r
E3::o
nc
c..a
y
t✓ac c_ o oi,o5
-7LF0 THE
BOARD OFF AE)JUSTMENT
DATE: 3 -1, ` .:� h I q PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6 5 A ]3 X 0 W V 57—
PROPERTY ZONE: - PROPERTY LOT SIZE: O i� l car7
APPLICANT: Name: _f�►�►.5 C 112R E 7i�
Address:- I Z6l4 fza- [Zip .5 /nJ
Phone:_ 31e1' oeo7;2
CONTACT PERSON: Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone: "<rrt -o M
0
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: K_ 46Is7__ -jy_ k NI
(if other than applicant)
Address:-L3Z
z�1690 JAI 'j—
Phone: 21ci" IkCM
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-wa/z@jowacW.org.
Purpose for special exception:
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: Of- i q G[g�-'
-3-
D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in
"C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the
following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In
the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information.
not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception
meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are
not relevant in your particular case.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimenta: to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
NO7-
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.
'mv- &rA"Pr-W/J t✓lLL .�� a,�l�r/a 7 J�abztC�i�lG
C)AI &eOt;JAJ 3-7-
OF rSf&g psaP4FXTY 00,41-v15 r3Y �urat,��1✓Cu TNz=f� r4tTTc 7C
s ee 151>5 To t eo4o 7c) -rl NO.vO'5,
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impedete normal
and orderly development and improvement of the surrouaing pieperty for
uses permitted in the district in which such property Is loc?
Al6T APP4XC C') <�..
--ss)
C.)
<rr-
-p M
r
o
0
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
Yes
-4-
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
I3 Y AUW- & 7-Hz;' 1�-A TS o !®3L I'YO,41 S772�2sT
'710
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other
respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in
which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception
requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant
will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a
particular use as provided in the City Code section 144B as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K) j
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
N
V'
y
gp
ram'
C�
Specific approval criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements
(14-2A-4B-5).
1. The situation is pecwiar to the property.
The house sets on a comer lot with a single stall garage under the house. There is no other
place to put additional garage space on this property except to the north of the existing
house.
2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements.
This is the only space available on this property to attach a garage addition.
N
O
3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of tft
setbackcs
regulations.
The purpose of the setback regulations is to =sue w
a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection and access for firefig
b. To provide opportunities for privacy between buildings; ` w
c. To reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in 16A City-
neighborhoods;
d. To promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences.
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
A. The driveway for the property to the west (618 Brown Street) is located on the
eastern most line of the property which allows for excellent access to the addition in
case of fire.
B. The driveway for the property to the west (618 Brown Street) is located on the
eastern most line of the property with the house located at the rear of the property
and as such their privacy will not be encroached upon. The property to the North (815
North Dodge) sits 10' from the South property line. There will still be 21' 5" between
the back of the proposed addition at 632 Brown and the side of 815 North Dodge.
C. 618 Brown street is currently has 784 square feet of living space on the main floor.
The proposed addition will add 364 square feet for a total of 1,184 feet. The other 2
other houses on the north side of the 600 block of Brown Street are 1,169 and 1,473
square feet.
D & E: The proposed addition will blend seamlessly into the existing neighborhood
and onto the existing house.
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to
.he extent practic29.
S. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or :ear property line,
unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open
space. The proposed addition will be 11' 5" from the rear property line and 13' 5° from the
side property line.
r,
c�
r
.�
o
3/12/2014
Kevin and Kim Glenn reside at 632 Brown Street and are requesting a setback reduction in
order to build an addition to the rear of their home. They have lived at this address since 1998
The Glenn's are a 3 car household with their daughter and Kim's mother living with them. They
can currently only park 1 car in the garage and park the other 2 on Brown Street which they
have to move daily due to odd/even parking rules. The retaining wall on the North side of the
driveway is falling in and has to be addressed before it fails completely.
There is a small 10 x 10 addition to the rear of the house which includes a laundry room and
bathroom. The addition is not insulated and was poorly constructed by previous owners. This
winter the pipes froze on several occasions.
The proposed 14 x 26 addition calls for the removal of the small back room and replacing the
failing retaining wall. The lower level will add a much needed 2"d stall garage and additional
parking in the driveway which will allow the Glenn's off street parking.
The main floor of the addition will house a new kitchen and family room and the old kitchen
area will become a new bathroom and laundry.
Russ Garrett
N
o
_o
as
Garrett Construction Company 4
`—a
=ica
w
r
M
_�
q
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Items: EXC14-00003
2280 Willenbrock
EXC 14-00004
101 Martin Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: April 9, 2014
Applicant: Peninsula Development
1188 Foster Road
Iowa City, IA
Contact: Amy Pretorius
1188 Foster Road
Iowa City, IA
Requested Action: Two special exceptions to allow two eating
establishments in the Overlay Planned
Development- Low Density, Single -Family (OPD-5)
zone in a new mixed use building.
Purpose: To establish a coffee shop and a restaurant in a
planned mixed -use building.
Location: 2280 Willenbrock Circle and 101 Martin Street
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Applicable code sections:
File Date:
101 Martin Street
.26 acres
Vacant —Planned mixed use building.
North: Residential (OPD-5)
South: Residential (OPD-5)
East: Residential (OPD-5)
West: Residential (OPD-5)
14-413-3A, (General Criteria)
March 11, 2014
BACKGROUND: The subject property is located adjacent to Emma Harvat Square in the
Peninsula Neighborhood and is zoned Overlay Planned Development, Low Density Single -
Family Residential (OPD-5). The Peninsula Neighborhood has its own set of development
regulations that were adopted by the City. The regulations allow for some commercial uses
within what is otherwise a residential zone.
From its initial planning phase, the Peninsula Neighborhood identified specific locations for
potential inclusion of non-residential uses, including commercial uses at the ground floor with
residential units above. Plans identified sites near the central square for commercial uses such
as daycare, small grocery, general retail, and offices. The goal of allowing such uses was to
reduce car trips by providing some goods and services that would benefit residents of the
neighborhood.
On parcels identified for mixed uses, the Peninsula code allows certain commercial uses by
right: retail or personal service uses, adult or childcare homes, bed and breakfast homestays,
medical offices and some general office uses. Restaurants and coffee shops are allowed only
by special exception.
The two proposed uses would be located in separate ground floor units (3 and 4) within a 4-unit
mixed use development that fronts on Martin Street and Walker and Willenbrock Circles. The
two uses would both make use of the shared outdoor patio located between the units. There will
be two additional ground floor spaces (units #1 and 2) that could be used for either residential
or commercial uses. The upper floors of the building will contain a total of four dwelling
units. There are four garage parking space and four driveway spaces at the back of the building
that will be reserved for the residence.
The proposed coffee shop would occupy approximately 460 square feet of ground floor interior
space in unit #4 of a mixed use building with front entrance from Willenbrock Circle.
The proposed restauranttwine bar will be located in Unit #3 of the building, a commercial space
at the corner where Willenbrock intersects with Martin Street. The unit provides less than 1,500
square feet of space, with approximately 900 sq. feet for seating.
Parking: In the Peninsula Neighborhood, commercial uses that occupy less than 1,500 square
feet, are not required to provide off-street parking. The applicant is seeking the provision of
some additional public on -street parking spaces along Martin Street through modification of the
right-of-way. If allowed by the City Engineer, these spaces would be available to the public and
would not be reserved exclusively for the commercial businesses.
Signs: The zoning code limits signage for commercial uses in the Peninsula Neighborhood to
those signs allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) and Mixed Use (MU) zones.
These standards were developed with adjacent residential uses in mind. Because the building is
in a residential zone, internally lit signs are prohibited. Lighting for signs associated with these
uses may only be illuminated externally. All lighting, including lighting for signs is reviewed by
the Building Official. The City's sign regulations also limit the size and the amount of building
area that can be devoted to signage. In addition, the Peninsula Neighborhood Architectural
Review Board must approve all signs and lighting for this building. PNRB approves all building
designs, colors, and landscape plans to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood
Alcohol: Restaurants and coffee shops both fall under the zoning classification "eating
establishment," a use classification that is distinguished from "drinking establishments" (bars) in
that they may not serve alcohol after midnight. While both establishments may use the outdoor
space for food service, outdoor provision of alcohol is prohibited in residential zones, including
the Peninsula Neighborhood.
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 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.
Separate reports for each of the applications. Materials provided by the applicant are attached.
EXC14-00003: Coffee Shop at 2280 Willenbrock Circle
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop) would occupy approximately 460 square feet
of ground floor interior space in unit #4 of a mixed use building with front entrance from
Willenbrock Circle. Given the limited square footage of the space, the use can provide only
minimal indoor seating. The coffee shop will have access to outdoor patio seating space in a
225 sq. foot (approx.) courtyard located between units 3 and 4. The applicant has not proposed
hours of operation for the coffee shop, but anticipates peak hours to be early in the morning with
service running into the later afternoon or early evening.
The coffee shop will provide one off-street loading and unloading space to the rear of the unit
along Willenbrock. The applicant intends to reserve this space for customers who are carrying
out coffee. Such a small establishment would likely draw on pedestrian traffic within the
neighborhood as well as visitors to the off -leash dog park located at the end of Foster Road.
Customers traveling by car would park in on -street spaces around the square and along
Willenbrock Circle.
There is a proposal to create more on street parking on Martin Street through a modification of
the right-of-way. If approved by the City Engineer, these parking spaces would be available to
the public, though staff anticipates they would principally serve the commercial uses at this
location.
General Standards (14-4B-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The subject unit is small in size, 460 square feet, with limited seating capacity.
• Given the remote location, limited size of the space, and constraints on seating, it is likely
that the use will rely on customers that are already within the neighborhood —residents or
people traveling to the dog park or along bike trails.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings provided above in
addition to the following finding:
• Because activities associated with the proposed use are mostly indoors, save for the
courtyard seating area in the space between units 3 and 4, the potential for noise or other
externalities that might create a disturbance for neighboring residential uses is minimal.
However, to minimize outdoor noise, staff recommends imposing a condition prohibiting
amplified sound (e.g. music) on the exterior of the building, including the courtyard.
Due to concerns about late evening hours, staff recommends limiting the hours of operation to
10 PM on weeknights and 11 PM Friday and Saturday. This would also effectively limit the use
to the eating establishment classification as opposed to a drinking establishment.
Because the space can provide only limited interior seating it is likely that most purchases
will be carry -outs —in this way the use will function more like a traditional retail store.
Staff has observed that there appears to be sufficient on -street parking to serve the use.
• Because the use is located in a residential zone, alcohol is prohibited in the outdoor
service area.
• The proposed building must meet the design standards of the Peninsula neighborhood.
• City code prohibits the use of signs with interior illumination; signage and lighting must
comply with the regulations for the Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed Use zones,
which are designed to be compatible with neighboring residential uses and must be
approved by the Peninsula Neighborhood Architectural Review Board.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone
in which such property is located.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings under criteria 1 and 2
above, and the following finding:
• The Peninsula development plan has always included opportunity for commercial uses in
locations around the park.
• The building must meet the design standards that are part of the Peninsula regulations.
Staff believes this use is in keeping with the vision for the development of the
neighborhood.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• All access roads are in place for the development. On site drainage must be provided
and will be reviewed as part of the building permit process for the overall development of
the site. The area directly behind the property is reserved for stormwater detention. No
additional facilities are required.
5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• Nearly all parking (save for the loading and unloading space) will be provided on -street,
therefore there is no ingress or egress from the site itself.
• The use will be limited in the customers it can draw due to its small size and remote
location within the larger community.
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.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• As part of the building permit process, a site plan will be reviewed for compliance with all
other requirements of the zoning code.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
The Peninsula development plan has always included opportunity for limited commercial
uses in locations around the park. Staff believes the proposed use is in keeping with the
vision for the development of the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of a special exception to allow an
eating establishment at 2280 Willenbrock (unit 4) subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; and
2. The establishment shall not exceed 500 sq. feet of gross floor area;
3. Hours of operation are limited to 10 PM weeknights and 11 PM on Friday and Saturday;
4. Amplified sound on the exterior of the building is prohibited.
EXC14-00004: A RestaurantNVine Bar at 101 Martin Street
The proposed eating establishment (restaurant/wine bar) will be located in Unit #3 of the
building, a commercial space at the corner where Willenbrock intersects with Martin Street. The
total space in the unit would be less than 1,500 square feet with kitchen and bathrooms
included. The seating area occupies approximately 900 square feet. The restaurant would also
provide some seating on the shared outdoor patio located between units 3 and 4. Total
occupancy for the indoor space is estimate to be 49-60 based on building code requirements for
the provision of bathrooms and entrances. An actual interior seating layout will determine a
more precise occupant load. While the applicant may use the outdoor space for food service,
outdoor provision of alcohol is prohibited in residential zones, including the Peninsula
Neighborhood.
A restaurant at this location would naturally draw on residents of the neighborhood who would
likely come by foot. As noted above, the use is not required to provide off-street parking
because it provides less than 1,500 square feet of floor area.' Customers traveling by car would,
by necessity, park in on -street spaces around the square and along Willenbrock Circle. The
applicant is seeking the provision of some additional public on -street parking spaces on Martin
Street through modification of the right-of-way. If allowed, these spaces would be available to
the public, though staff anticipates they would likely be used by principally by the commercial
uses in the subject building.
In most commercial zones, the minimum requirement for parking is 1 space per 150 square feet or 1.3 the occupant
load, whichever is less —in this rase, that would mean fewer than 10 spaces.
General Standards (14-4B-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• The restaurant space is relatively small in size, 900 square feet of indoor seating area with
a maximum occupancy of 49-60.
• Given its size and remote location within the larger community, it is somewhat unlikely that
the use will draw significant from outside the Peninsula area on a daily basis, though this
may depend on the particular appeal and marketing of the restaurant.
• Staff has observed that there appears to be sufficient on -street parking to serve the use.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
• Because activities associated with the proposed use are mostly indoors, save for the
courtyard seating area in the space between units 3 and 4, the potential for noise or other
externalities that might create a disturbance for neighboring residential uses is minimal.
However, to minimize outdoor noise, staff recommends imposing a condition prohibiting
amplified sound (e.g. music) on the exterior of the building, including the courtyard.
Due to concerns about late evening hours, staff recommends limiting the hours of operation to
10 PM on weeknights and 11 PM Friday and Saturday. This would also effectively limit the use
to the eating establishment classification as opposed to a drinking establishment.
Staff recommends setting a maximum combined indoodoutdoor occupancy load of 60 to
control the intensity of the use.
• Because the use is located in a residential zone, alcohol is prohibited in the outdoor
service area.
• The proposed building must meet the design standards of the Peninsula neighborhood.
• City code prohibits the use of signs with interior illumination; signage and lighting must
comply with the regulations for the Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed Use zones,
which are designed to be compatible with neighboring residential uses and must be
approved by the Peninsula Neighborhood Architectural Review Board.
In response to recent concerns about noise generated by commercial kitchen ventilation, the
City is in the process of adopting a new ordinance requiring new standards for the location of
kitchen hood vents such that they do not disturb adjacent residential uses. The new ordinance
z The commercial kitchen hood vent shall terminate above the roof level and may not terminate at, nor pass through,
an exterior wall except where exhaust outlets terminate or encroach an alley right of way. Exhaust outlets shall be
located not less than 10 feet horizontally from parts of the same or contiguous buildings, adjacent buildings and
adjacent property lines and shall be located not less than 10 feet above the adjoining grade level. Exhaust outlets
shall be located not less than 10 feet horizontally from or not less than 3 feet) above air intake openings into any
building .Exception: Exhaust outlets shall terminate not less than 5 feet from parts of the same or contiguous building,
an adjacent building, adjacent property line and air intake openings into a building where air from the exhaust outlet
discharges away from such locations.
requires the vents to pass up through the roof or out an exterior wall that is on an alley. Vents
are also required to be located 10 feet above the around. Staff recommends that the location
of the kitchen vent for the proposed use to conform with the forthcoming ordinance. In this
instance it is likely the vent could be located along the exterior wall facing the alley. The area
beyond the alley is not developable and is reserved for stormwater detention.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone
in which such property is located.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings under criteria 1 and 2
above, and the following finding.
• The Peninsula development plan has always included opportunity for limited commercial
uses in locations around the park.
• The building must meet the design standards that are part of the Peninsula regulations.
Staff believes this use is in keeping with the vision for the development of the
neighborhood.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
• All access roads are in place for the development. On site drainage must be provided
and will be reviewed as part of the building permit process for the overall development of
the site. The area directly behind the property is reserved for stormwater detention. No
additional facilities are required.
5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
• All parking will be provided on -street, therefore there is no ingress or egress from the
site.
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.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
• As part of the building permit process a site plan will be reviewed for compliance with all
other requirements of the zoning code.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
Staff finds that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding. -
The Peninsula development plan has always included opportunity for limited
retail uses in locations around the park. Staff believes this use is in keeping with
the vision for the development of the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of EXC14-00003, a special
exception to allow an eating establishment at 2280 Willenbrock (unit 4) subject to the following
conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted;
2. The establishment shall not exceed a combined indoor -outdoor occupancy load of 60;
3. Hours of operation are limited to 10 PM weeknights and 11 PM on Friday and Satruday;
4. Amplified sound on the exterior of the building is prohibited;
5. The commercial kitchen hood vent shall conform with a proposed ordinance now under
consideration by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Aerial view of location
3. Site plan
4. Building plan
5. Elevations
6. Application materials
7. Correspondence from neighbors
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
IF
Qy
ZI
"I . ... .....
T�
am
0
u
x
LU
MAJOR SF.= PLAN
LOT 117; THE PENINSULA NEGF3CRHOOD
zu
1N
IOWA CITY, IOWA
IL
.1
ON
III
99
on
ZORMi
it
0
i
lip
` r
I
r
�'.ic..�.:a
D
.�
7
�a
L::
T.
LN
.�
.y
q
c
r.
G
LI7
r'r"
r �
�F-
r' �
��
�w
�ii►IIiS)
DATE:
. PPLIG ,Pj`,!�\\,� To THE
PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1 00 4 3 -,k7 0 O5
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1010 M N(L'f I ) S T.
PROPERTY ZONE: 0 P045
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: o 4 Acrds
APPLICANT: Name: PENIN"S.ULA De�LCLOPHZ-N-r Co. LAC
Address: I1$'9 F051ct U
Phone: 31ci " 8 $ 7- 1000
CONTACT PERSON: Name: prcioriuS
(if other than applicant)
Address: Fo St+=c Rapp
Phone: ?J 14'- T 87 - 10QQ
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: '�=a
(if other than applicant) C =
�-
Address:_
Phone:'
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception: Qjui `ci i o FG t O C o
w I-rk
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
APPLICATION ATsON TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSIMENT
DATE: 1 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 100 4 3 k7 0 0 5
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1%$O W,IIc0ocock. CCIrcl
PROPERTY ZONE: 0? D05 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: • el( Ac1cS
APPLICANT:
Name: 11!M%V►5u1P
ueleloOmw'y
Address:
H B8 FOSTER �A
' dg7' 1000
Phone:
CONTACT PERSON:
Name:
1-mu Pretoriu5
(if other than applicant)
tn
�O8 $ Fo STER Imo
Address:
Phone:
3 I ' $$ %' 1000
PROPERTY OWNER:
Name:
—
W
(if other than applicant)
Address:
M
Phone:
ca
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@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception:
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
Special Exemption Information
Section C: Specific Approval Criteria:
The property in question, Lot 117 of the Peninsula Neighborhood, is currently zoned Live/Work (OPD-5).
Per the Peninsula Neighborhood Code, live/work zoned buildings may have commercial office space
occupying the first floor. The Peninsula Neighborhood Code does state that "Eating and Drinking
Establishments may be permitted by special exception on Lot 117." It is that special exception that we
are seeking with this application.
Section D: General Approval Criteria:
1) The addition of a food and beverage establishment within the neighborhood will not prove to be
detrimental to the existing residents. Its existence will promote the overall welfare of the neighborhood
by providing a gathering place for residents to socialize, as well as a possible place for artistic expression
in the form of displayed artwork and small scale musical performances.
2) The addition of a food and beverage establishment will not prevent any person from the use and
enjoyment of their personal property nor the private park across the street. We have discussed with real
estate professionals on the impact this type of establishment would have on neighborhood property
values and they believe this amenity would help increase property value by providing a near -by and much
anticipated service.
3) The addition of a food and beverage establishment will not impede the development of the surrounding
property. This particular commercial establishment was anticipated from the planning phase of
development. Its existence it firmly noted in the Home Owners Association documents that every
homebuyer signed into when purchasing their property in the neighborhood. It will prove beneficial in
the development of the surrounding property as commercial services within walking distance is a hallmark
of neo-traditional development. The City of Iowa City's IC2030 Comprehensive Plan denotes
neighborhood commercial areas as a desired feature.
4) The necessary facilities, utilities, roads and drainage are in place as this lot was developed from the
beginning of the sub -division as the location for the central neighborhood commercial building.
5) The building will be located near the main thoroughfare of Foster Road and will offer off street parking for
the owner, upstairs tenant and some patrons. Much of the anticipated patronage will come from persons
living within walking distance. Because of the size of the units, the city code requires the building in which
the restaurant is located to provide 4 off street parking spots. This building will in fact have 11 off street
parking spots. The building is located across the street from an Iowa City Transit bus stop and a city bike
trail which will provide alternate methods of transportation for consumers to help minimize traffic
increases.
6) Per The Peninsula Neighborhood Code (Rev. 3112), eating and drinking establishments may be permitted
by special exception on Lot 117, which is zoned Live/Work. The building is designed and plotted to adhere
to all zoning and design regulations that apply to the Peninsula Neighborhood.
7) The addition of a food and beverage establishment fits perfectly into the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan by
providing an integrated commercial center at the heart of the development that is(R iI acffisible b
pedestrian residents of the neighborhood. There will be a designated outdoor seats` lea !et will s r e
as a major boon to the surrounding area in the warm months. The business will alsefwve sQMe offVt
parking as a way to reduce traffic congestion during peak business hours.
The proposal is for a wine bar that will also serve a small menu food.
Interior seating capacity is 49. There is outdoor seating, 5, 2-person bistro tables
specifically for the wine bar and an additional 5 tables that are shared commonly with the
coffee shop in the courtyard space between units 3 and 4 of the lot 117 building. All the
outdoor seating will be located on grounds owned by the building directly in front under
a stripped awning and the courtyard will be open to sky. It is our intention to serve food
and beverages, including alcohol on the patio if allowed when seeking licensure. We
would also like to peruse special exception with the Board of Health to allow dogs on the
patio. We believe this would be a great asset for customers who travel through the
community when visiting the dog park, making it easier for them to become patrons
while having their canine companion with them.
The business will likely have 2 people working typically (the owner who lives upstairs,
and a cook for the small menu). On Friday's and Saturday's the owner may employee
one extra staff person, but most likely only during Friday, Saturdays, and warm seasons
when the patio is open for dining.
Initially, restaurant hours will be from 4 pm to 10pm. However that business owner
would like flexibility in hours as needed to create a successful business. Possibly
lunches, Sunday Brunches or later night service on weekends and holidays such as New
Years.
The availability of on street -parking is not an unnatural phenomenon for this type of
community. We would love to provide off-street parking if and when possible.
A "good neighbor meeting" will be held on March 20 for the neighborhood in hopes of
addressing any concerns or expectations related to this commercial building. We have
already announced as of mid February the exact type of commercial business through
billboards and the community webs=_te as seen below.
T
ti
r
rn =s
-.a
As early as 2011 we placed a billboard on this property to help market the commercial
building at its location, along with the help of our professional real estate agents who
have enthusiastically promoted this idea to fixture residents.
The vision for including commercial businesses in the neighborhood has been a part of
the plan for this development since day one. The goal is to offer a mix of uses in the
neighborhood that can provide basic needs/services within walking distance. In a
neighborhood concept plan put together by Dover Kohl, Suzanne Martinson Architect,
and the City of Iowa City in 1998 (please see attachment), it refers to an establishment
like this existing within the community:
"Neighborhoods are more desirable if they offer some basic daily needs such as
comer grocery, daycare, and live/work spaces. Residents can have more comfortable
lifestyles if some basics are within walking distance." Pg. 4
Pg. 5 shows specific layout around Emma Harvat Square as having businesses.
"The square is a neighborhood meeting place, sometimes quiet contemplative
space, and sometimes filled with activity. In the morning parents can drop off their
children at the daycare center and nick up a cup of coffee at Emma's comer store on the
way to work. Throughout the day, many people enjoy the shaded square while waiting
for the bus. The Iowa River Corridor Trail is aligned to route trail users to the square. So
they can stop at the square to rest and buy refreshments. The on -street parking along the
square doubles as trailhead parking - not at the edge of the neighborhood, but at its center
where visits and activities are desirable." Pg. 10.
In addition, our community was developed with protective covenants and deed
restrictions all put into place under the Peninsula HOA documents. These documents are
adopted by each and every homeowner within the subdivision when they purchase a
property. In chapter 4.2, page 27 of the Book of Principles it states;
"Most of the Peninsula Neighborhood is intended for residential use. However,
certain parcels are designated in the Peninsula Neighborhood Code for commercial use.
These commercial uses are an integral part of the pedestrian -friendly community and
allow people to obtain some goods and services without having to use an automobile.
Businesses must use reasonable measure to dispose of garbage properly and mix Wize the
impact of noise and odor to surrounding areas. However, residents near businesffs need
to recognize that a certain amount of noise and odor may be unavoidable (3urs'mf
business are regulated by the Iowa City Code and are not subject to regul8'ts'cin byithe
Association." c-) C �
ra
Lastlythe Principles and Re c y • -'
p Regulations, a code specifically for the Peninsu�;�xg�'orhos�d»-
enforced by the City of Iowa City, speaks directly to the commercial build'- t�page ;
37 of the code it specifies that as long as the commercial space is less thati 1,500Aft
(each business), there is no requirement for off-street parking. This Peninsula Wine Bar
is 900 sgft and will have occupancy of 49 (comparable to Devotay on Linn St.) and the
Peninsula coffee shop is 460 sgft. Even though code requires only one off-street parking
spot per residence (4) this building has roughly 11 off-street parking spots already
included in the site plan.
It is not only our goal to provide commercial business in our community but to ensure its
success. Our main goals are to protect and enhance the property values of our residents
and complete the vision that is the Peninsula Neighborhood. Addition of these small
businesses will provide a social gathering space for the neighborhood and will
complement the walkable design. We could not be happier that businesses like the wine
bar and coffee shop, and their future owners, see potential in our commercial building
and our community.
M
Sarah Walz
From:
C Wilson <wlsn82@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 10, 2014 4:11 PM
To:
Sarah Walz
Subject:
Peninsula Neighborhood Commercial Building
Hi Sarah,
I would like to add my support for the proposed Wine Bar and Coffeeshop that are set to be built on the east end
of Emma Harvat Square. I believe they are a crucial addition to this neighborhood and serve the mission of the
new urbanism movement. I live on Emma Harvat Square and can't wait to be able to access retail stores without
driving. The only reasonable way to currently do that is to walk over the river to Coralville and I much prefer
my dollars to stay within Iowa City.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Corey Wilson
Sarah Walz
From:
LISA R WILCOX <Irwilcox49@msn.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 10, 2014 3:22 PM
To:
Sarah Walz
Subject:
Peninsula commercial building
Dear Sara,
We are writing to express our support for the wine bar and coffee shop that would like to locate in the Peninsula
commercial building. We live only 2 blocks away and are not worried about adverse effects on the
neighborhood. We would love to have a place within walking distance to meet with neighbors and friends for a
cup of coffee or something stronger. We have been waiting a long time for this!!
Sincerely,
Lisa and Bill Case
750 Walker Circle
Sarah Walz
From: peter brokaw <pete.brokaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 1:48 PM
To: Sarah Walz
Cc: Amy Ganoe
Subject: Commercial property in the Peninsula Neighborhood
Sarah,
I'm writing to voice my support for the proposed commercial development in the Peninsula Neighborhood. That
feature is one big reason I moved to the neighborhood in 2007. The whole concept of new urbanism hinges on
being a walkable neighborhood with commercial properties close -by.
Compared to other NU developments I've read about, I think our version is smaller and the commercial
presence will probably be sized appropriately but no less important.
The neighborhood has made tremendous progress in the past few years and I know there's a groundswell of
support and anticipation about the shops that might come in. The restaurant and coffee/pastry shop seem like a
natural fit. I've also heard a lot of interest in a corner grocery (a mini John's Grocery). I think they would all be
well supported both by the neighborhood residents as well as people who come to the dog park or to the shops
as a destination.
The planning for this commercial space is critical --parking in the neighborhood is already in short supply at
times. Increased car traffic will put more pressure on our roads to accommodate. Some off-street parking seems
necessary to me to allow for people who come to have a meal or stay for a cup of coffee.
I believe the size of the neighborhood has gotten to the point where we can support and sustain some businesses
and with more residents coming over the next few years, that support should grow even more.
Feel free to contact me if you would like any clarifications or follow-up.
thanks,
-pete-
Pete Brokaw
947 Walker Circle
Iowa City, IA 52245
cc: Amy Pretorius
Sarah Walz
From:
Tony Weiler <arw@aweiler.net>
Sent:
Monday, March 10, 2014 12:44 PM
To:
Sarah Walz
Cc:
Amy Pretorius
Subject:
Commercial Business In The Peninsula Neighborhood
Good Afternoon Sarah,
In writing you not only as a residents but also a member of the Peninsula HOA Board, want to express support
for the introduction of retail ventures for the Peninsula Neighborhood.
The two businesses already signed up should bring more people together and further enhance an already vibrant
community.
My wife and I are looking forward to using their services and know that many others feel the same way.
Regards,
Kay & Tony Weiler
770 Barber Place
Iowa City, IA 52245
804 7610778 Office
C "1111YAUI11AT-0
arw a�awei lcr.net
Sarah Walz
From:
Chad Johnson <chad.johnson@istate.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 10, 2014 2:17 PM
To:
Sarah Walz
Cc:
Johnson, Michelle (Michelle.Johnson@uscellular.com); Amy Pretorius
Subject:
Peninsula Neighborhood Special Exemption
I am writing you today to voice my support for the special exemption for the Peninsula Neighborhood. Last
year my wife and I decided to build a home in Iowa City. For us there was only one neighborhood that fit our
designs. We were drawn to the Peninsula Neighborhood for the unique architecture, tree lined streets, front
porches, parks, and the neighborly interaction. Besides these characteristics one of the main reasons we built
here was for the future plans of adding commercial space. We look forward to the day we can take our dog for
a walk, stop in for a coffee, or stop for a glass of wine and interact with our friends and neighbors. There is no
other neighborhood in town that offers this kind of lifestyle. And living downtown Iowa City is not an option
due to the influx of students. Please approve this special exemption so people like us can enjoy the lifestyle we
worked so hard for. Thank you for your time!
Chad & Michelle Johnson
719 Walker Circle
Iowa City, IA 52245
Chad Johnson I Branch Manager I Interstate Power Systems
5701 161h Ave SW I Cedar Rapids, IA 52404
P:319-396-4111 F:319-396-4144 C:319-389-6959
www.istate.com
"Pride in Service"
Sarah Walz
From:
Matt Geneser <matt.geneser@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, March 13, 2014 2:00 PM
To:
Sarah Walz
Cc:
Amy Pretorius
Subject:
Support for Peninsula Coffee Shop/Restaurant
Dear Ms. Walz,
I wanted to share with you my strong support for the proposed businesses in the Peninsula development. My wife and I
moved our family here last July and we love this neighborhood. One of the biggest draws for us was the thought of
having a cafe or a restaurant within walking distance. It will allow us to meet with friends and it will bring this close knit
community even closer.
We do realize that having a restaurant, bar or coffee shop will bring traffic, but that is a trade off that we are willing to
make. There is already a fair amount of traffic from the dog park and really any commercial business will bring more.
The pro's far outweigh the con's in this situation. This neighborhood is already unique for its walkability and front porch
atmosphere, adding cafes and restaurants will complete the urban feel that we all moved here to embrace.
Please share this with all of those who will be making decisions on zoning here in the Peninsula.
Thank you for your time,
Matt
Matt and Terry Geneser
765 Barber Place
Iowa City, IA 52245
Sarah Walz
From:
Mariola Espinosa <mariolaespinosa@me.com>
Sent:
Friday, March 14, 2014 11:41 AM
To:
Sarah Walz
Cc:
Amy and Adam Pretorius
Subject:
Letter of Support for Peninsula Wine Bar and Coffee Shop
Dear Ms. Walz and Board of Adjustments,
We are writing to express our support for allowing a Wine Bar and Eatery, and a Coffee Shop, or any other food
establishment in the commercial building in the Peninsula Neighborhood. Our family was drawn to the
Peninsula because of the conscious encouragement of community living in the planning and building of the
neighborhood --with front porches and common areas like parks instead of the large yards of suburban houses --
and the possibilities that a diverse commercial building on lot 117 could bring in services to the community. A
restaurant and a coffee shop would be a perfect fit with the character of our neighborhood and we fully support
the efforts to bring these amenities that would enhance the Peninsula and adjacent neighborhoods (and Iowa
City) even further.
Best,
Mariola Espinosa, Fred Solt, and Clara Solt
650 Walker Circle
Iowa City IA 52245
Sarah Walz
From: EVE <earthview01@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 6:26 PM
To: Sarah Walz
Subject: Fwd: PDC application for proposed business exception
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: EVE <earthviewOlna gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 6:02 PM
Subject: PDC application for proposed business exception
To: sarah.walznn,iowa-city,ora
Sarah,
This email is in reference to the Peninsula Development Company application for a special exception with the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment.
In general, we are in support of this application. However, we have two concerns. We feel that the business
should close at I Opm on weekdays and I Ipm on weekends. This would prevent excessive drinking and limit
late night noise. We are also concerned with parking. Because of the narrow streets and many multi -family
buildings, parking is already an issue. We would like to see other parking arrangements made for customers that
would be off-street. Encouraging walking or biking is a plus.
Sincerely,
Brian and Judy Joyce
Sarah Walz
From:
Lorie Reins-Schweer <lorieandkeith@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:54 PM
To:
Sarah Walz
Cc:
Peninsula amy@pniowacity.com
Subject:
Re: Commercial Building Peninsula
Dear Sarah:
I have talked to several residents. I think people are generally excited about having the restaurant in the
neighborhood, and I too support this business.
Given that our neighborhood is residential and has many walkers and bikers, it seems like there should be some
restriction to prevent heavy drinking. I think this would be satisfied by having a limit on the operating
hours. Amy said you suggested that the operating hours would probably be limited to 10pm on weekdays and
11pm on weekends. This makes sense.
The limit on operating hours that you suggest should also mitigate any negative impact to individuals who live
close to the establishment. I am concerned about noise and parking for the people that live close to there. The
suggestion is that property values and lifestyle will improve for the neighborhood with this establishment. I
believe that may be true, overall. But for many people who live very close to the proposed establishment, the
negative impact could be very troubling - I wonder if people that live close to there could get any sleep, as the
distance between parcels here is so very small. But as I suggested, the limit on operating hours that you suggest
(10pm/l 1pm) should mitigate this risk.
I also believe that the neighborhood would be comfortable with a limited number of days per year that the
establishment could be open even later. E.g. if there were five days per year in which the business could be
open later (a special football game, a family reunion, new year's eve....) that would be reasonable, I think. I
hope this is helpful.
Best Regards,
Lorie Schweer
Sarah Walz
From: Chad Diefenderfer achad.diefenderfer@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 4:13 PM
To: Sarah Walz
Subject: Fw: FW: Message from KMBT C654
Hi Sarah,
I do support the commerical building but feel that reasonable restrictions and requirements should be put in
place that provide for the safety and well-being of the surrounding neighborhood. This includes limiting the
hours of operation and potentially placing requirements on serving food in addition to alcohol. As an example,
requiring the restaurant to close at 10 pm (potentially 11 pm on Friday and Saturday) allows the restaurant to
serve its patrons while curbing excessive alcohol consumption. These hours also act to prevent disruptive late
night disturbances. Further, a requirement could also be set that food must be served in addition to alcohol. Our
neighborhood is best served by an eating establishment not a drinking establishment.
Ultimately, the purpose of any restrictions should serve to maintain the safety of our neighborhood and prevent
unnecessary disturbances.
Regards,
Chad
Sarah Walz
From: Jonah Parker <parker.jonah@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 11:00 AM
To: Sarah Walz
Subject: Peninsula Neighborhood Commercial Property Special Exception
Sarah,
I wanted to take a minute to voice my support for the special exception requested for the proposed commercial
property in the Peninsula Neighborhood. I moved to the neighborhood in 2010, shortly after the current
development company became involved. We moved to the neighborhood after reading about New Urbanism
and falling in love with the old feel of the few homes that had been built in the neighborhood.
We had heard of the tumultuous past in the neighborhood and the extremely slow start, but were not deterred as
we were sold on the prospect of a truly walkable neighborhood with places for neighbors to work, eat and
interact. It's been four years since we first moved in and those promises are on the verge of being realized, but 1
fear restrictions on the proposed businesses could kill them before ground is even broken.
The original neighborhood designs called for multiple commercial properties and live/work sites. Today, there
are no commercial properties and less than a handful of live/work sites being utilized for anything other than
residences. To make the neighborhood truly walkable, there must be places for neighbors to gather. We've
already lost two commercial sites to residential buildings as the developers attempt to satisfy city
requirements/restrictions on population density. This commercial property is our only shot at making the
neighborhood even a fraction of what it was designed to be in terms of walkability.
I'm certain the residents of the neighborhood, which will more than double in the next five years, will be
incredibly supportive of whatever businesses inhabit the property. However, coffee shops and
restaurants/lounges are not high margin businesses. They rely on volume and I fear additional restrictions
enforced by the city could limit the number of customers at the proposed businesses. Such limits could crush
the businesses and the neighborhood's only chance of becoming truly walkable.
I apologize for the lengthy email and thank you for your time and consideration. The commercial property is
something that everyone in the neighborhood, myself included, is extremely passionate about. It's something
we've been waiting on for several years. I know there are concerns about issues such as traffic and parking, but
those issues exist regardless of the commercial property or its intended use. They have been brought to the
city's attention multiple times and the desire to keep the neighborhood as originally designed has been given as
the reason for not remedying the current parking/traffic situation. I would ask that the city remain consistent
and keep the original design in mind as they consider the special exception for the commercial property to make
the neighborhood a place neighbors can eat, drink and interact without hopping in their cars and driving
somewhere else.
Thank you again for your time.
Best,
Jonah
Jonah Parker
725 Walker Circle
Sarah Walz
From: Ponto, James <james-ponto@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:32 PM
To: Sarah Walz
Subject: Board of Adjustment Application for 632 Brown St
Dear Sarah,
Please share with the Board that I strongly support the application to reduce the front and rear setback
requirements for the residence at 632 Brown St., as described in your letter of March 26, 2014.
I am an adjacent property owner to the west. At the time that the Glen's purchased 632 Brown several years
ago, it was in disrepair. The Glen's have made great strides in restoring the house, including winning an award
from the Historic Preservation Commission for exterior painting. The Glen's have been wonderful neighbors
and have contributed in many positive ways to the neighborhood.
The application proposes removing an existing rear addition and replace it with a slightly larger addition with
garage at street level (Dodge St). This proposal is appropriate, given that it is to the back of the house (the front
of the house on Brown St will stay exactly the same). A reasonable addition on the back, including a garage, is
appropriate for modern living conditions. Such remodeling will better ensure that a family will remain in the
house. It will also allow garage parking, and hence decrease by one the number of cars parking on Brown St.
In summary, as adjacent property owner, I STRONGLY SUPPORT this application.
Sincerely,
James A. Ponto
618 Brown St.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MARCH 12, z014 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock
Grenis, Becky Soglin
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sue Dulek
OTHERS PRESENT: None.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF JANUARY 8. 2014 MEETING MINUTES
Baker moved to approve the minutes.
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS
EXC14-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Hy-Vee Stores, Inc. for a
pharmacy drive-thru for property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at
1109 & 1123 North Dodge Street.
Walz presented an aerial view of the subject property. She said the property was rezoned in
2012 for the purpose of redevelopment, and at that time there was a conditional zoning
agreement recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by City
Council that requires a number of conditions including the appearance and construction design
of the building, layout of the parking lot, landscaping and a number of other conditions. She said
a special exception for the use had been approved by the Board of Adjustment in 2012, but the
Board of Adjustment
March 12, 2014
Page 2 of 7
term of a special exception naa expired betore Hy-Vee made progress on establishing the use..
For this reason, the applicant must go through the special exception process again. Walz said
through the rezoning process and the previous application for special exceptions, the public has
been made well aware of what is proposed for the site.
Walz showed a general layout of the how the site will be developed and a visual of what the
buildings and parking lot and landscaping would look like.
Walz said the reasons drive-throughs must go through the special exception process is to
evaluate whether there are enough drive -through lanes and stacking spaces for proposed use;
whether there is safe vehicular circulation; whether the site is served by streets that can handle
traffic that might be generated by drive -through use; whether the drive -through will interrupt
pedestrian circulation on the site; whether a drive -through use would be detrimental to
surrounding uses.
Walz showed an example of a pharmacy drive -through that Hy-Vee at their Waterfront store.
She said staff had requested that Hy-Vee add bollards on their plan for the subject site to
ensure separation along the pedestrian walkway. She said use of these drive-throughs at Hy-
Vees is fairly low intensity. A row of existing arbor vitae and the distance from the residential
neighborhood to the north seemed sufficient for screening the drive -through from the
neighborhood. She said staff is recommending approval of this drive -through with conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted.
Installation of bollards between the sidewalk and drive -through lane; this aspect of the site
plan to be approved by planning staff.
Goeb asked about restrictions on the hours. Walz replied that staff chose not to place those
restrictions on this drive -through due to the low intensity of use. Goeb had concerns about arbor
vitae being adequate for screening. Walz said those in place are a dense row of growth and will
be retained on the site in addition to the planting of other trees.
Soglin asked what would happen if the existing trees died. Walz said they would have to be
replaced with new screening that would have to be of sufficient height.
Goeb asked about the configuration of St. Clements Street. Walz said when Hy-Vee develops
the subject site they will build a new St. Clements Street right-of-way outside the parking lot.
Grenis asked if this application was in any way different from the application the Board
previously approved. Walz replied that it is the same.
Walz clarified for Goeb the essence of a Main Street look that both Planning and Zoning and
City Council required for this building, which includes street front windows and a higher quality
of building. Goeb indicated that she did not believe the site, with its large parking area, to be
characteristic of a Main Street look.
The Board agreed to hear staff reports on both special exception items before proceeding with
the findings and the motions.
Board of Adjustment
March 12, 2014
Page 3 of 7
EXC14-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hy-Vee Stores, Inc. for a drive -
through associated with a coffee shop located in the Community Commercial (CC-2)
zone at 1109 & 1123 North Dodge Street.
Walz explained that the proposed drive -through for coffee shop would be located in the
southwest corner of the subject property. She said that because it is positioned across from a
residential neighborhood, staff wanted to make sure that it would be well screened with a
masonry wall and landscape screening to screen views of the cars, the sound system will be
directed away from the neighborhood, the hours of operation will be limited, and it is limited to
coffee and beverage sales with food sales being incidental, so it will not be a fast food
establishment. She said there is adequate stacking space at the order board and the pickup
window, and the two pedestrian walks will be well marked, and Hy-Vee is required to put a
median and pedestrian connection to the sidewalk on Dodge Street.
Baker asked why staff recommended restricting the hours if they are confident that the coffee
shop is screened and buffered from the neighborhood. Walz said staff believed that because the
drive -through was so close to a neighborhood, it was important to impose limits on the hours of
operation. She indicated that the applicant could come back before the Board in the future if
they feel those regulations are not needed.
Goeb asked what form the incidental food will take. Walz said it will be only coffee related foods
like pastries or similar items.
Soglin asked if additional pedestrian markings could be required. Walz explained that what is a
parking space on the current plans will actually be a raised, landscaped and curbed median.
Soglin said she was unsure how this drive -through met the criteria for a "Main Street" look as
there's a lane of traffic facing the neighborhood and a five foot wall only seventy feet from the
nearest neighbor.
Soglin asked how often you see two drive-throughs on the same property. Walz said that a
property this large can accommodate two, and she sees does not see the low intensity of the
pharmacy drive -through as comparable to a food -related drive -through.
Soglin asked if the City keeps track of the number of drive-throughs. Walz said they don't and
take each one on a case by case basis. Soglin said she sees the concept and reality of drive-
throughs as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its goals for sustainability and
greenhouse gas emissions. Walz said the Comprehensive Plan did not go into that level of
detail in terms of sustainability.
Grenis invited the applicant to speak.
John Brehm of the Hy-Vee Engineering Department briefly explained the history of the original
application and how the length of their negotiations with Robert's Dairy delayed the project so
they had to reapply. He said the site plan is the same as the original, the pharmacy drive -
through would follow the pharmacy hours, and about one car per hour is the -average use of a
Hy-Vee pharmacy drive -through. He said everything they will be planting as screening will be
evergreen so the site will be well screened even in winter. He said there are typically five or
vehicles at one time in coffee shop drive -through lane. He explained that the wall will cut down
Board of Adjustment
March 12, 2014
Page 4 of 7
on headlight glare but people will still be able to see over the wall and won't act as a visible
barrier. He said they will be attempting LEED certification on this project.
Baker asked if the convenience store will be Hy-Vee owned. Brehm said it will be. Baker asked
what the hours will be. Brehm replied that they don't know what the hours will be as each Hy-
Vee sets its own hours, but a compromise was reached between the City, the neighborhood and
Hy-Vee that the drive -through hours would be set somewhere between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. Baker asked if there was illuminated signage on the west side. Brehm said there wasn't.
Soglin asked for clarification on what will be sold. Brehm explained that the Caribou Coffee will
sell the same types of items as a Starbucks and will be partitioned off from the rest of the
convenience store so there can't be any "cross selling" out of the drive -through. Soglin asked if
sandwiches were sold through Caribou Coffee. Brehm said he hasn't seen sandwiches at their
Caribou facilities.
Soglin asked if Brehm knew how many cars would be coming through the coffee shop drive -
through in an hour's time. Brehm said at their busiest facility he's seen no more than six stacked
at one time.
Goeb stated that it is the coffee shop drive -through that will have the hours set between 5:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and that the shop itself could be operated for 24 hours. Brehm said that
was correct.
Baker asked Brehm if he had experience with a coffee shop that stayed open 24 hours and the
amount of traffic that would generate. Brehm said he didn't.
Goeb asked if there was much public participation in the Commission and Board meetings that
occurred the first time this application was approved. Walz said at the Planning and Zoning
meeting issues arose about the design of the building that were ultimately resolved with Hy-Vee.
Grenis opened public hearing.
Baker move to approve EXC14-00001, a pharmacy drive -through for property located in
the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1109 & 1123 North Dodge Street with the
following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted.
• Installation of bollards between the sidewalk and drive -through lane; this
aspect of the site plan to be approved by planning staff.
Chrischilles seconded.
Goeb said from what she's seen of pharmacy drive-throughs, they are very low usage, and it is
a convenience for certain people. She thinks the disturbance from the traffic generated by this
use will be negligible.
Soglin concurred with Goeb's remarks.
Baker said that regarding EXC14-00001 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report
of March 12, 2014, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless
Board of Adjustment
March 12, 2014
Page 5 of 7
amended or opposed by another Board member he recommended that the Board adopt the
findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal.
Grenis said he concurs with Baker's findings and as there is no opposition from the neighbors,
that shows him that the project is supported by the neighbors.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
Soglin said for EXC14-00002 she still had concerns about what is going to be sold and isn't fully
convinced that it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if sustainability aspects that are now
part of the Plan are considered.
Grenis said he didn't understand how what they are selling makes a difference.
Soglin said that Brehm had been unable to clarify whether more meal items would be sold than
beverage items. She said a concentration of meal items would bring it closer to the aspect of a
fast-food restaurant that staff has indicated is not appropriate for this area.
Chrischilles moved to approve EXC14-00002, a special exception to allow a drive -through
associated with a coffee shop in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone subject to the
following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including screening,
location of pedestrian access points, and order board.
• A pedestrian route will be provided from the North Dodge Street right-of-way in
conformance with code standards: four feet in width and separated from the
parking area by two curbed landscaped medians — each median four feet in
width and planted with permanent groundcover.
• Hours of operation are limited to 5 AM to 9 PM weekdays and 5 AM to 10 PM
weekends.
• The drive -through use is limited to an eating establishment whose principal
product sales are coffee and other beverages, with food sales being incidental
and accessorv.
Bakerseconded.
Baker said he doesn't have concerns with the products being sold but he wonders if staff is
being unnecessarily cautious about the hours of operation based on traffic concerns. Baker said
the Board could accept the motion as is but add that the applicant knows they can come back
any time and request a change in that restriction or the Board could remove the restriction and
then review it further along in time. Walz said the Board can impose a restriction or not.
Walz clarified that the Board can't say that they might impose a restriction in the future. Dulek
said that was correct, but the applicant can return at any time requesting a change.
Baker said he has no problem removing the restriction regarding the hours of operation
Board of Adjustment
March 12, 2014
Page 6 of 7
Chrischilles said he thinks it's a reasonable restriction seeing as how customers can still go
inside to get coffee.
Goeb added that the applicant has the right to ask for removal of the restriction.
Grenis said the sales are primarily coffee shop and he's not too worried about a food item being
a primary sale. He said he thinks the City has a good means to enforce that.
Chrischilles asked if Soglin's concern was that every time the Board approves something that
encourages the use of cars, they are going counter to the general principle of sustainability.
Soglin responded that her concern had to do with a use that requires cars to idle.
Walz said the Comprehensive Plan set a general direction toward sustainability, but it hasn't
been explicit in that area. She stated that the City had completed a sustainability assessment
but has yet to create a sustainability plan with specific goals.
Goeb said she still has issues with the North District Plan to foster a Main Street look, and this
plan looks nothing like that, no matter how many little bushes you put around it. She said she
really has no issue with the drive -through but questions the overall redevelopment plan.
Chrischilles said regarding EXC14-00002 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff
report of March 12, 2014, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied.
Unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommended that the Board adopt
the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal.
Soglin said regarding EXC14-00002 she has concerns about General Standard #7 regarding
the proposed use being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended, and since the
Comprehensive Plan now includes sustainability components she is concerned about this type
of drive -through going against some of the goals related to that especially in terms of
greenhouse gas emissions.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-1 (Soglin opposed).
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
OTHER:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
ADJOURNMENT:
Grenis moved to adjourn.
Soglin seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote.
W
V
CO) W a
� � o
® W N
ci
Z M
LL Q a-
® o N
W
0
O 4
m
N
x
x
x
x
x
M
�
x
x
x
x
!
x
a
x
x
x
x
!
x
r
x
x
x
x
!
x
go
x
x
x
x
!
x
o�
N
x
!
x
x
x
0
X
!
x
x
!
X
n
N
P
X
;
x
x
!
x
eo
H
x
!
X
X
x
X
0
X
!
x
x
X
x
a
M
W
X
X
x
X
N7
O
co
WO
x
!
x
X
X
N
Kn
iO
co
v
LO
eo
O
W
O
O
CD
CDO
o
LU
F
W
Z
W
C9
Y
J
y
�
W
V
V!
3
Q
Z
W
j;
w
J
p
m
N
co
=
0
U
y
V
Z
Z
W
W
m
Z
y
Z
J
W
OLU
W
X
Z
0
N
Z
m
O
C9
L)
w
Y