The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-11-2015 Board of AdjustmentCITY OF IOWA CITY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 11, 2015 5: 15 P.M. Emma Harvat Hall STAFF REPORT CITY OF IOWA CITY Department of Neighborhood & Development Services IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, February 11, 2015 — 5:15 PM City Hall — Emma Harvat Hall AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the December 10, 2014 Minutes D. Special Exception Items 1. Discussion of an application submitted by Bryan Svoboda to allow a reduction in the front principal building setback along Hutchison Avenue for property located in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 604 W. Park Rd. (EXC15-00001) 2. Discussion of an application submitted by King of Glory International Church for a special exception to allow expansion of a day care center and to reduce the required parking for property located in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2024 G St. (EXC15-00002) 3. Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to reduce the off-street parking requirement for a building designated as a Historic Landmark located in the Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone at 912 -914 S. Dubuque St. (EX015-00003) E. Board of Adjustment Information F. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: MARCH 11, 2015 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC15-00001 604 West Park Road GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable Code Sections File Date: Prepared by: Sarah `,Nalz Date: February 11, 2015 Bryan Svoboda 526 West Park Road 319-351-6534 Approval of a special exception to reduce the required front yard setback along Hutchison Avenue from 15 feet to 3 feet 9 inches. To allow replacement of a porch. 604 West Park Road 735 acre (100 x 320) Residential (RS-5) North: Residential (RS-5) South: Residential (RS-5) East: Residential (RS-5) West: Residential (RS-5) Specific criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements, 14-2A-46-5; purpose of the minimum setback requirement, 14-2A-4B-1; general criteria for special exceptions, 14-4B-3 January 5, 2015 BACKGROUND: The property at 604 West Park Road is located in the RS-5 zone at the corner of Hutchison Avenue and West Park Road. As a corner lot, the property is required to provide a minimum 15-foot front setback along both the Hutchison and West Park frontages. Although Hutchison Avenue is street right-of-way, it is not built to City street standards with curb, gutter, sidewalks, etc. The portion of Hutchison Avenue along which the property fronts is a dead end that terminates at an undeveloped alley to the rear of the property. This portion of Hutchison provides vehicle access for 604 and 526 West Park Road as well as frontage for an undeveloped portion of a lot associated with the property at 524 West Park Road. The applicant, Bryan Svoboda, is in the process of remodeling the house. In order to take advantage of views of the woodland ravine behind the house he is relocating the garage and a porch. The applicant recently removed the "existing" screen porch (12' x 18'), which was set back less than 2 feet from the right-of-way line. The applicant would like to build a new porch (9' 7" x 19' 4") along the Hutchinson Street side of the house, slightly further to the rear than the previous porch. The applicant has secured a minor modification allowing him to provide vehicle access (a driveway) from Park Road —this will allow him to move the garage to the west side of the house.0 The house is set less than 13 feet from the non -conforming. The zoning code states structurally altered or enlarged, provided it that will not increase its nonconformity. right-of-way line and :s therefore considered that a non -conforming structure may be is structurally altered or enlarged in a way In 2007, the applicant requested and was granted a setback reduction from 15 feet to 5 feet for the property at 525 West Park Road (his current residence) to allow a kitchen addition. ANALYSIS The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations found in Section 14-2A-4B-5, pertaining to setback adjustments and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3. Specific Standards: Section 14-2A-4B-5, Adjustments to the Principal Setback Requirements The applicant has provided a site plan showing how the porch will be located on the lot in relation to the previous porch. 1. The situation is peculiar to the property. FINDINGS: The subject property is a corner lot, with frontage on West Park Road and Hutchison Avenue. This portion of Hutchison Avenue terminates at an undeveloped alley to the rear of the property and only one other house is located along the street. In practical effect this section of right-of-way functions as a private drive for 526 and 604 West Park Road. Up until recently, the property had a screen porch on the east side of the house; that porch was set back less than 2 feet from the Hutchison right-of-way line. • The subject house is set back less than 15 feet from the right-of-way line. 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback standards. FINDINGS: • As indicated in the applicant's floor plan, the property had, until recently, a screened porch located on this side of the house. • The house is set back less than 15 feet from the Hutchison Avenue right-of-way line. • The applicant would like to re-establish a screened porch to take advantage of views of the wooded ravine located to the north of the house, however, because the property is considered a corner lot, the code requires a 15-foot front setback from the Hutchison Avenue right-of-way. 3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The purpose of the setback requirement is to: 1. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting; 2. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings; 3. Reflect the general building scale and placement of buildings and between residences; and 4, Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. FINDINGS: • Because the setback at issue is along a street right-of-way rather than a side property line, there is ample separation for maintaining light, air, and access for firefighting. The setback reduction does not diminish privacy for the adjacent property at 524 West Park Road. • Because the house at 654 is the only structure located along this frontage, the proposed addition will not disrupt the general building scale or placement of buildings along the Hutchison Avenue frontage. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. FINDINGS: • The structure being proposed is a porch and not an enclosed home addition. • Steps for the recently removed porch, which are in the right-of-way, will be removed. Access to the proposed porch will be from within the house. General Standards: 14-413-3, Special Exception Review Requirements The applicant's comments regarding each of the general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the general approval criteria are set forth below. 1. The specific or proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. FINDING: • Based on the findings provided above, the setback reduction is not contrary to the purpose of the setback standards with regard to separation for light, air, fire protection and firefighting. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity and will not diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. FINDINGS: • The setback at issue 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 nor the opportunity for privacy between dwellings. • The house is the only structure along this frontage, and thus the setback reduction will not disrupt the general building scale or placement of buildings along the frontage. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located. FINDINGS: • All surrounding property is currently developed. • There is a possibility that property to the rear of 526 `!Vest Park Road, which has frontage at the terminus of Hutchison Avenue could be subdivided to allow for an additional lot. However, due to the steep topography, it is unlikely that Hutchison could be extended to allow substantial development of this property. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. FINDINGS: • All necessary utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are in place to allow the proposed addition to be built. • Given the steep topography, it is highly unlikely that Hutchison Avenue would ever be extended as a public street. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. FINDINGS: 6 The portion of Hutchison along which the subject property fronts in all practical sense functions as a private drive for 604 and 526 West Park Road. The proposed porch is set back 3' 9" from the right-of-way line. The previous porch was set back less than 2 feet from the right-of-way line. The setback reduction will have no impact on ingress or egress from West Park Road, nor on any future development in the area. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception begin considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. FINDING: • The proposed porch addition complies with all other standards of the zone. • All other aspects of the applicant's proposed renovations will be reviewed by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services when an application for a building permit is received. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. FINDING: • The Comprehensive Plan encourages re -investment in existing neighborhoods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC15-00001, an application to allow reduction of the required principal building setback for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS-5) zone at 604 West Park Road from 15 feet to 3 feet 9 inches feet be approved subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; and • The porch may not be enclosed in solid walls or windows. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Proposed Site Plan 4. Application materials Approved by: 1 ✓4 y7- John Yapp, Development e vviceor, s Co�'r ��dinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services -.'W, 14 ,7 VOW Maw, +I lw .. - �„1 �.."�- -TAT--f•x ° � _• � -�,, 'S V- rMin Bob", r ".1 a "!.4 fGIN - 77 I {Tjy a I I I ____ �:-— lig 4 v ,MM ,��RPLM 1 S svobodk autogiro APPLICATION TO THE EOt-%RD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: Tf I PROPERTY PARCEL_ NO..,,-()( ' m + PROPERTY ADDRESS: G�j � All, k �vaiot PROPERTY ZONE; i PROPERTY LOT Sizf : ! >fJ G` APPLICANT: Address: Phone; CONTACT PERSON: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phcne: PROPERTY OWNER; Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: `wcf 3-5i !m5 ;y 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 Waiz at 356.5230 or e-mail sarah-wslx@jowe-clty.org, Purpose for special exception; !x. YQ (,oe, Date of previous application or appeal flied, if any: jnv,N. �'-11A1,4r:l,:<.: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. In 2007, the hoard of adjustment found the following: "Staff finds that the situation at 526 W. Park Road is peculiar, The subject property fronts along two streets-W; Park Road and a dead end section of Hutchinson Avenue, While the corner lot situation is not unique, the portion of Hutchinson Avenue is not built to public street standards in terms of paving, curb and gutter, and sidewalks. Moreover, this portion of Hutchinson Avenue terminates at an undeveloped alley to the rear of the property and only one other house is located along the street. In practical effect this section of right-of-way functions as a private drive for 526 and 604 W. Park Road with the property owners at 526 and 604 park Road maintaining this section of tight -of -way. While the street right--of-way and alley provide access and frontage for a portion of a large parcel that Is part of the lot at 524 W. Park Road, the topography is steeply sloped and there limited potential for development and it is highly unlikely that the City would ever extend the road or develop the alley." Since this part of Hutchinson Street acts as a private drive and not as a public street,. the setback for the proposed porch is not as crucial as in other corner lot situations where setbacks are necessary for visibility for traffic line of sight. The current porch is a closed in screen porch and projects from the house approximately 12 feet (1,6' 6" with the stairs. 3' of the stairs are on the city right-of-way). The proposed porch is an open-air porch that projects from the house 9' 7", which is less than what is already in place. This will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The proposed porch, having alarger setback to Hutchinson Avenue than the existing porch, and being an open-air porch instead of a closed screened in porch, will not have an effect of endangering the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and 'impair property values in the neighborhood: The proposed porch is essential to the design of the new house. The addition of the porch will have a positive effect to the facade of the bouse not only frorerahe fi�bnt but from the side as well. This entire remodel will have a positive effectto the' houses in the immediate vicinity, thus raising their property values. Farri the -only property owner adjacent to the proposed porch. ` ' . re 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property Is located. Approval of this special exception should have no impact on the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities, access roads, drainage acid/or necessary facilities are already in place. 5.. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Since this part of Hutchinson Avenue functions as a private drive, the proposed porch will have no effect on traffic congestion. 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.. With the exception of the reduced front yard setback, the porch will conform to all other regulations. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Since the Board of Adjustments approved the special exception that was requested at 526 W. Park Road in 2007,1 believe the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.. o- x.. rcrr a AREA 0,735 ACRE (32.000 z Q. F,-') i ..r � n• ��WWW�111 0 x , # i10(6 i tN i I .dl & I I i i MXK J ..- WLAG PK9t�4vRli% .#iNJN 6NNiY P!'W54R6 RTIEG I I i I I I imw.> P.FRi1Vl7t:@.\T.4TG7\Td1FfF?A"f 1`!)F'fHF R�S:tiAR7' Ti'YIR'VFR QF TO"< iCWAX,—, l TMAIM $PARK ATAXrV TT TDVM\ rrTT rW-, ,%CV*R* W, W RM P.AL' 11'llffflif Y 12174:k21 W & 14R3K 1 PAW4 AL AA'! 9b41 AW Q R3TIMK MM"m rmk 44rm wl"r is 2i AT.I{Iworm (W rTr mmm i AT: a. 6P1 m{ T'ATVWSvp TB, ITIR'ITT, ItAlw b RTo'T OF TTT S."'F A:: UW.N" I%bTC IVAA AW WITH HART SWIL104 LUU. m K..)-'TWF\1z WL*W)W LdkL TL91RIG i!.,SL'WI- L. 10 IW4 WLSl LDL(X'LLt'.Y1"VM ..%VMMI SAID AT..K'S PARK :1T=i DK TTiR .�S'E, SMFTR .v 0% TW VVV.WT.TI M M-TCMr4rN-VVF WF, W 717T TO'PIF.'2 a {WRW-h3x'W,, W caa)�-MWS6P4tIT NLitbCR px8ffi NDFP AL tiBlNNpI NE xl P6ftRD Wx9A�16 M MA in @Kmss LA0DP MVM WOSUKxE M LWDKAPEAflGMBM EMID0W8lTAI.OES:ALM 6WCI IKOWAW O 1 (31e)3s4RwtiwmheWRsuI18nM.Mt SITE PLAN caa)�-MWS6P4tIT NLitbCR px8ffi NDFP AL tiBlNNpI NE xl P6ftRD Wx9A�16 M MA in @Kmss LA0DP MVM WOSUKxE M LWDKAPEAflGMBM EMID0W8lTAI.OES:ALM 6WCI IKOWAW O 1 (31e)3s4RwtiwmheWRsuI18nM.Mt SITE PLAN 604 PARK ROAD A PORMN OF G0VERNMENTl4T9 1NBEG.4TPJ" WbFTIE SM PkA.. KANAMY, 2 JONNFO ! WMTY, M MMSCONSULTMIA IPA. T,mm. 1 14 S i dervaysd Wp t�dbPxNw w iV91 I o(. T 13 7 IC I�966 4M _ I I 7-11 --J RIGHT ELEVATION BGtlE'- iW - r��-_� _ —� _ .._ _ _------__---- LEFT ELEVATION _ I I I I FRONT ELEVATION STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC15-00002 2024 G Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: February 11, 2015 Applicant: King of Glory international Church 921 3rd Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 Contact: Thomas McInerney 1208 Marcy Street Iowa City, IA Requested Action: Special exception to expand an existing daycare center in the Low -Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone and to reduce the required parking. Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning 2024 G Street 9,600 square feet Low -density Single-family (RS-5) North: Residential (RS-8) South: Residential (RS-5) East: Religious Assembly (RS-5) West: Residential (RS-5) Applicable code sections: General Criteria for Special Exceptions (14-413-3A); Specific Criteria for caycare uses (14-413-41D-6); Specific Criteria for a reduction in minimum parking requirements for unique circumstances (14-5A-417-5) File Date: January 20, 2015 BACKGROUND: The King of Glory International Church is applying for a special exception to expand an existing daycare center for up to 33 children at 2024 G Street, In 2013, the church applied for, and was granted, a special exception for a daycare on the site, allowing up to 16 children. The church was also granted a reduction in the required parking based on a finding that the church and daycare do not operate at the same hours. The daycare has now been in operation for almost two years. The building in which the daycare is housed was constructed as a single-family home. It is under the same ownership and functions as part of the church at 921 Third Avenue. The daycare is operated by church members. The existing daycare operates out of the rear of the portion of the first floor of the house, with the main entrance directly off the parking area. The proposal is to expand the daycare service within the entire first floor footprint of the house. Vehicle access to the parking area and the proposed daycare site is provided from a curb cut on G Street. A pedestrian access from G Street was created as part of the previous approval. The outdoor play area is located behind the house and provides 1,866 square feet of play space. The applicant is again seeking to reduce the required parking due to a unique circumstance: the proposed daycare center and the adjacent church share the parking area and do not operate during the same hours. The church is required to provide 20 parking spaces based on the capacity of its gathering space. The daycare is required to provide 13 parking spaces + 2 stacking spaces based on the following Off Street Parking Requirements: 1 space per employee based on the maximum number of employees at the site at one time, plus 1 space for each 10 children serves based on the maximum number that may be present on the site at any one time, plus one stacking space for each 20 children serviced based on the maximum number that may be present at any one time. Additional parking spaces at a rate of 1120 children served may be substituted for stacking spaces, if the City determines that such an arrangement will not cause traffic to stack into adjacent streets or public rights of way. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general we!fare, 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-4D-6 pertaining to Daycare uses; 14-5A-4F-5 pertaining parking reductions for unique circumstances, in addition to the general approval criteria for all special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-46-3A. 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 Standards (14-4B-4E-6). a. Required Interior Activity Areas: Childcare centers must contain at least 35 square feet of usable interior floor space per child. Reception areas, kitchens, storage areas, offices, bathrooms, and hallways are excluded when calculating the required floor area. The dining area may only be included in the square footage calculation if used by daycare participants for activities other than meals. When co -located in a facility that houses other uses or services, the proposed daycare use must have its own separate identifiable space for program activities. Staff believes the applicant has satisfied the standard based on the following findings: • A daycare center for 33 children requires a minimum floor area of 1,155 square feet • The first floor of the existing home will provide more than 1,414 square feet of floor area for the daycare. • The church is in the process of modifying the first floor of the house to serve the daycare and is required to apply for a building permit to establish the use. The Building Inspector will verify that the minimum required square footage for the daycare is provided. b. Required Outdoor Areas: Child daycare uses must provide a fenced outdoor play area of not less than one hundred (100) square feet per child based on the maximum number of children that 3 will be using the outdoor play area at any given time. The outdoor play area must meet the following standards: (1) Playground equipment is not permitted within the front and side setbacks. (2) Outdoor play areas must be well drained, free from hazards, and readily accessible to the daycare center. In residential zones, outdoor play areas must be completely enclosed by a fence at least four feet (4') in height. Staff believes the applicant has satisfied these standards based on the following findings: • The proposed outdoor play area is located to the rear of the daycare. • The submitted site plan shows that the area consists of approximately 1,966 square feet. • The applicant has indicated that no play equipment will be located within the required 5-foot side setback. • The site plan shows the play area located within a chain link fence 4 feet in height. c. Vehicular Circulation: The daycare use must provide a drop off/pick up area in a location that is convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance to the facility. This drop off/pick up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces and/or parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent streets or other public rights -of -way. To promote safe vehicular circulation, one-way drives are encouraged. Staff believes the applicant has satisfied the standard based on the following findings: • Vehicle access is provided via a curb cut from G Street. • The State of Iowa requires daycare operators to provide a minimum number of caregivers based on the ages of the children in its care. The church has indicated that they anticipate 10 employees based on the ages for the children they will accept into their care. • With 10 employees and 33 children, the daycare is required to provide 13 parking spaces + 2 stacking spaces. • The parking area shared by the church and daycare provides 20 parking spaces and sufficient space for 3 cars to stack adjacent to the entrance from the parking area (60 + feet). • Given the size and configuration of the lot, no cars will be required to back into the street and there is adequate space to turn around in the parking area. e. Pedestrian Circulation: A sidewalk must be constructed connecting the main entrance of the center to the adiacent public right-of-way. Pedestrian access must be clearly separated or distinguished from vehicular circulation areas to minimize the extent to which users of the facility are required to walk across drives or aisles to gain access to the daycare center. Staff believes the applicant has satisfied the standard based on the following findings • A 5-foot wide pedestrian route connects the public sidewalk on G Street to the main entrance of the daycare. • The route is marked to distinguish it from the adjacent parking area. • Pedestrians using the pedestrian route are not required to cross drives or aisles in order to access the daycare entrance. d f. Site Development Standards: If the proposed use is located in a Residential Zone or in the Central Planning District, it must comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards as set forth in Section 14-2B-6. This is a somewhat unusual situation as the church property was established on a parcel that fronts on three streets: G Street, Muscatine Avenue, and Third Avenue. The Multi -family site development standards require parking areas to be located behind the building and to provide setback from the property line. The existing parking lot extends beyond the front fagades of the church and the daycare center building —there is no setback from between the parking area and the front property line along G Street. The site is constrained such that there is limited space to provide both the required parking in addition to the required setbacks and screening. Staff believes that, while it may be desirable for the parking area to be brought closer into compliance with the code requirements for screening and setbacks, it is also desirable for the church to maintain its off-street parking. In staff's view, it is not appropriate to bring the parking area into conformance with the setback and screening areas at this time. • The applicant is not proposing an addition to the building as part of this proposal. However, the applicant has indicated that it is a goal of the church to expand the daycare to 50 children, in the future. If the daycare expands beyond 33 children, the church will be required to seek a new special exception. The applicant should be aware that any further expansion of the daycare may require the church to come closer to conformance with the parking area setback and landscape screening as part of any future approval. Parking Reduction for Other Unique Circumstances (14-5A-4F-5): 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 number of required parking or stacking spaces by up to 50%. Staff believes the applicant satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The two properties and the two uses are under the same ownership. • The parking area covers portions of both lots. • In order to serve 33 children, the daycare is required to provide a minimum of 8-10 parking spaces in addition to the 20 required for the church. • The parking area provides 20 parking spaces in addition to 60+ feet of stacking space along the west side of the parking area. • The two principal uses (church and daycare) do not operate during the same hours: the daycare will operate weekdays only, from 7 AM until 6 PM; the church is used mainly on weekends, though some weeknight activities are possible. General Standards (14-4B-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on findings articulated above regarding vehicle circulation and pedestrian access. 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 findings articulated above regarding vehicle circulation and the parking. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Staff concludes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The daycare is limited in size, providing care for up to 33 children. • The daycare does not operate during the same hours as the church and is therefore able to share the parking area. • The parking area is able to safely accommodate both uses because the church and daycare do not operate during the same hours. • In the future, if the daycare wishes to expand beyond 33 children it will be required to secure a new special exception. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are in place to serve this property. 6. Adequate measures have been or will be taken 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: Access to the parking area is provided via a two-way drive entrance onto G Street, a low -volume residential street. • A daycare for 33 children requires a minimum of 10 parking spaces. Given the size and configuration of the parking area, vehicles may stack in the drive and can circulate within the lot without need to back into the public street. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific prcposed 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 noted above, the parking area does not comply with the code requirement for setbacks and screening. However, given the limited parking required for the daycare and the desire to maintain adequate off street parking for the church, staff does not believe it would be appropriate to require compliance with the parking area setbacks and screening at this time. However, if in the future the daycare is to expand beyond 33 children, the applicant is required to seek a new special exception. At that time, staff believes the board should carefully consider requiring the parking area to come into compliance with the setback and screening standards. 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 the location of civic uses such as churches, daycares, and schools within neighborhoods. The Central District Plan encourages the development of businesses, institutions, and public entities that provide services and amenities that support healthy neighborhoods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC15-00002, a special exception to allow the expansion of an existing daycare and a reduction in the required parking from 30 spaces to 20 on property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone at 2024 G Street subject to the following conditions: Substantial compliance with the site pian submitted. The size of the daycare may not exceed 33 children. To increase the number of children to more than 33 will require a new special exception. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Aerial view of the properties 3. Site plan 4. Application materials Approved by: -7,4 Y John Yapp, Development r ices Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services G ST - - LLJ H ST H ST - �— IT� SITE LOCATION: 2024 G Street EXC15-00002 I �- r 1 R YAPE ALI a llam®®©0 �o�oa �o�oa 6plButN016: ues.m. 1 I I 1 aieN•es �Nmn•.rmaw•u o nm mow. 1 .um ''y/% •LL�39bxq ��®WN{{j�J111 i �N—.IxN. SYMBOL LEGEND ; /P 1 Lya1 ,mMY asew•n � I I yx 4 sv 1 W6N.n¢�W 1 B 1 INTERIOR ELEVATION C 2 FLOOR PLAN Vv=la Ah. Ms� Idvw.wM ey:�we,4a.:Ylw,.m4.x.e+4 h nwdMYY�mas of Glory g `msxwawxl PmM rumhae +331 \1 Neen COP/R16HT , AwxlTitl= G�J FLOOR PLANS 3/up Numb.e A-101 Exc, S -WW2- APPLICATION TO THE �s —SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: r. E q . 2016 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. ! 0! 4 1q ' ot5 z PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2 O 2 q % 5 PROPERTY ZONE: K ` 5 0 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 0 APPLICANT: Name: Address: 147-0 LockUseat AVE Phone: 1 IA CONTACT PERSON: Name: _T� o+na,s Mc !Nt 9_,'3Z y (if other than applicant) AddF2S8: 120a Phone:i PROPERTY OWNER: Name - (If other than applisant) Address:: w' Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; please fist 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 sash-walkMown-city.org. Purpose for special exception: D c e k P OM i` I Aa1 p� eX ,?A ).� ; aV1 Date of previous application or appeal fried, if any: Thomas McInerney Architect January 14, 2015 Special Exception for a Daycare @ 2024 G Street Legal Description of Property: Lot 7 & E 1/2 Lot 6 BLK 26 & S 10' of Alley lying adjacent East Iowa City Specific Approval Criteria The property is an existing 60' x 160' (9,600 square foot) lot with a single family residence within a RS-5 zone. Towards to the East and adjacent property, 921 3rd Street has an existing church on a which shares a parking lot with the property. Both properties are owned by the The King of Glory International Church. Both properties have long operated as one and the daycare shall be operated by members of the Church. The proposal is to expand the daycare on the grade level portion of the existing structure. The size of the area will adequately accommodate the proposed daycare's capacity of 34 children. The hours of operation shall be 7AM to 6PM, Monday through Friday. Eventually; when the daycare business thrives, the daycare intends to build an addition to the existing residential structure to increase the capacity of the number of children served. The intended goal of the capacity is to be under 50. The existing driveway and parking lot is paved and drains gradually to the Northeast into grass and to the South via the existing driveway. The outdoor play area is proposed to be located behind the existing primary on -site structure. The fence enclosure shall not encroach into the side setback and it will allow 100 square feet per child of play area in two separate shifts. The fence shall at least four feet in height. Page 1 of 3 Thomas McInerney Architect January 14, 2015 Responses to the General Approval Criteria of the Special Exception: t. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. 2024 G Street Daycare shares a paved parking and driveway area with the adjacent lot to the East. The adjacent lot has a assembly type occupancy operating as the King of Glory International Church. Both lots are owned by the same entity. The occupant load of the church is 120 which requires 20 off-street parking stalls. The Daycare will require 8 off-street parking stalls. Since both occupancies operate at different hours (daycare is during the workweek while the church is during the weekends), a special consideration is requested to allow the amount of off-street parking requirements to be limited to the most demanding of the two occupancies. 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. 2024 G Street Daycare shall not substantially diminish or impair property values. 2. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. No significant exterior modifications are being proposed; therefore, 2024 G Street Daycare shall not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 3. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. 2024 G Street Daycare shall comply with requirements such as a distinguishable path to the daycare entrances. There is an existing bike rack and trash enclosure. 4. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. 2024 G Street Daycare shall utilize existing infrastructure including the off-street parking area and shared driveway entrance. Page 2 of 3 Thomas McInerney Architect January 14, 2015 5. 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. 2024 G Street Daycare shall conform to the applicable regulations and standards of a RS-5 zone. 6. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The use of 2024 G Street Daycare shall conform with Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 3 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC15-00003 912 and 914 S. Dubuque Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: February 11, 2015 Applicant: Jeff Clark 4 14 East Market Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Requested Action: A Historic Preservation Exception to reduce the required off-street parking. Purpose: Allow preservation and re -use of an Iowa City Historic Landmark property and to allow for redevelopment as called for in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Location: 912 & 914 South Dubuque Street. Size: 180 x 130 feet (.54 acres) Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant, Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Commercial (CI-1) South: Commercial (CI-1) East: Commercial (CC-2) West: County Building (P1) Applicable code sections: 14-4B-3A, General Criteria for special exceptions; 14-4134A-7e, 14-2B-8A-1 Specific Criteria to waive or modify any site development standards for an Iowa City Landmark. File Date: January 16, 2015 BACKGROUND: The subject properties are located on South Dubuque Street, across from the County Administrative Building in the Riverfront Crossing -Central Crossings sub -district. The Riverfront Crossings !Master Plan specifically identifies the property at 914 S. Dubuque Street as one of several historic sites in need of preservation. The Plan identifies 912 S. Dubuque Street as appropriate for mixed use development (page 105). In order to encourage preservation of the historic property at 914 S. Dubuque, the Plan suggests a density bonus for adjacent properties as well as a parking waiver (page 69). In December 2014, the applicant requested and received a rezoning of the subject properties along with a Historic Landmark designation for 914 S. Dubuque Street —they were formerly zoned for Intensive Commercial (CI-1) use. The rezoning allows the applicant to preserve and re -use the Tate Arms building and to develop and apartment building on 912 S. Dubuque Street. The Tate Arms: The building at 914 S. Dubuque Street was constructed in 1880 and operated from 1939 to 1963 as the Tate Arms. The owners, Junious and Elizabeth Tate, were among a small population of African Americans living in Iowa City during the 1930s and served an important role by housing male African American students at a time when they were not permitted to live on campus in University of Iowa dormitories. Designation of the Tate Arms as a Historic Landmark ensures its long-term preservation. The attached Historic Site Inventory Form provides a detailed discussion of the history and architecture of the property. The applicant, Jeff Clark, has proposed a development plan that would preserve the Tate Arms building and convert it to a residential use —a duplex. The Historic Preservation Height Tranfer provisions in the form -based code for Riverfront Crossings provide an incentive for developers to preserve and adaptively re -use historic properties by allowing a transfer of development rights from the historic property to one or more eligible sites within the Riverfront Crossings District. That is, he will forgo the development potential that would have been possible if he had removed the historic building and be allowed to apply some of that potential (1-floor of building height) to adjacent lot. His proposal is to construct a 5-story multi -family building. This proposal uses some, but not all of the development rights of the historic property. All requests for bonus height, including transfer of development rights, must demonstrate excellence in building and site design, use high quality building materials, and be designed in a manner that contributes to the quality and character of the neighborhood. In order to ensure that the development meets these high standards, the applicant's design proposal has been reviewed by the Form -based Code Committee and a Level II Design Review process and approved by the City Council. The applicant's building design has been approved; the site plan is awaiting final approval pending a landscaping plan. The applicant is currently in the process of rehabilitating the Tate Arms building in compliance with historic preservation standards and converting it back to a residential use (it had most recently been used as an office). In order to mitigate for the difference in height between the two buildings, the applicant has separated the buildings by 40 feet. This will also provide an open space area that may be used as shared open space for residents of both properties, which is also a goal of the Plan. The zoning code requires 5 parking spaces for the duplex, which will contain 2 units with 3 bedrooms each (2.5 spaces per unit). For the apartment building, the code requires a total of 30 parking spaces based on bedroom counts: 8 one -bedroom units (.75 space/unit) = 6 spaces; 6 two -bedroom units (1.5 spaces/unit) = 9 spaces; 6 three -bedroom units (2.5 spaces/unit) = 15 spaces. A total of 35 spaces are required for the 22 units (the duplex and the apartment). The site plan shows room for 2 parking spaces in the front driveway of the duplex in addition to the 10 parking spaces provided in the parking area at the back of the duplex —these spaces will be shared by residents of the duplex and apartment building. The apartment building will provide 16 parking spaces onside the ground floor. A total of 28 parking spaces are provided on the two properties. The applicant is seeking a waiver of the 7 remaining spaces. The applicant has indicated that there is additional space to park cars on the property, though these spaces are non -conforming and thus do not count toward the minimum parking requirement. This includes space for 1 to 2 additional cars to park in the duplex front driveway as well as 7 stacked parking spaces located in the ground floor parking area of the apartment building. To meet the bicycle parking requirement for the multi -family building. The applicant is providing a total of 20 bicycle parking spaces within a secure area in the ground floor of the building. The applicant has also indicated his willingness to provide exterior bike parking for the apartment. Adjacent uses include an law office to the south of the Tate Arms —parking for the office is provided in a lot located east of 912 S. Dubuque. The County Administration Building is located to the west and the County Social Health and Human Services Building to the northwest. A gas station is located to the North. Ralston Creek is located to the east. Parking is prohibited along the surrounding street frontages on Benton, Dubuque, Kirkwood, and Gilbert. 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 in 14-4B-4A-7e, pertaining to multi -family dwellings located at or below street level in the CB-10 and CB-5 zones; and 14-26-8A-1, allowing the modification or waiver of site development standards to allow preservation of an Iowa City Landmark; in addition to 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 Standards for reducing the off-street parking requirements 14-2B-8A-1: The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-48 of this Title that would prevent the use or occupancy of property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register of historic Places. In addition to the general special exception criteria, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property. FINDINGS: • The applicant voluntarily sought Landmark Historic status for the Tate Arms property and has agreed to rehabilitate the building at 914 S. Dubuque in conformance with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. • To make preservation of the historic property financially feasible, the applicable transferred some (though not all) of the development potential to the adjacent property at 912 South Dubuque Street. 4 • The applicant is maintaining an open space between the new building and the Tate Arms —space that might otherwise be used for parking. This space will will preserve the aesthetic attributes of the site by mitigating for the change in heights between the two buildings and will provide outdoor space for the residents use. • It is clear that if the applicant removed the historic building and developed the entire property there would be enough room to provide more than the required parking. b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. FINDINGS: • The applicant has received approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for the general concept. The Historic Preservation Commission will review any changes to the exterior of the historic structure. General Standards (14-45-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. FINDINGS: • Staff does not believe that the reduction in automobile parking will have any impact on public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. 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. FINDINGS: • The new building and site plan must meet all other requirements of the Riverfront Crossings -Central Crossings zone. The building design has been approved by the design review committee; the site plan is awaiting a landscape plan for approval. • The applicant is providing the required bicycle parking for the multi -family within a secured area in the ground floor of the building and has indicated a w.iIiingness to provide additional bike parking on the site, exterior to the building. Secured bike parking on the interior of the building has the potential to attract residents who do not own cars or do not rely on cars for their principal transportation. • The property is located within an area of the Riverfront Crossings —Central Crossings District that is not adjacent to properties contemplated for high -intensity residential use. c County properties are located to the west. o Property associated with the waste water treatment facility will become a public park. o Properties to the east have limited development potential due to their size and location along the creek. • In the future, the City intends to convert adjacent streets to two-way traffic. This will provide space for some on -street parking. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. See findings above under criterion #2. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. FINDINGS: All utilities, access roads, and other facilities are already in place to serve development proposed for this property. Given the current lack of on -street parking, staff recommends that the applicant provide 5-6 bike parking spaces on the site, exterior to building, for the convenience of residents and their guests. S. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide Ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. FINDINGS: Access to the parking areas is from an existing public alley and curb cut onto Benton Street. This alley also provides access to the office at 920 S. Dubuque and its parking lot located to the east of 912 S. Dubuque. 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. FINDINGS: The final site must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services. All aspects of the development not directly addressed in this report, must be in compliance with the form -based code for Riverfront Crossings and the Historic Preservation guidelines. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. There are two specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan that appear to apply to this proposal: 1.) the Historic Preservation Plan and 2.) the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan: • The Historic Preservation element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the identification and preservation of historic resources significant to Iowa City's past. • The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan identifies 914 South Dubuque Street as a Key Historic Building in Riverfront Crossings District. Key Historic Buildings, together with Contributing Historic Buildings and buildings of potential historic significance, provide character and ambiance to the district, and as such are important to identify and protect. • The River front Crossings plan explilcitely calls for preservation of the Tate Arms building, stating: "To provide for its preservation, the City would allow a density bonus for a new building to be created directly to the north. In addition a parking waiver would be granted due to Tate Arms small lot size." • The property is located within the Central Crossings Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. Within this district, the Plan calls for "moderate Intensity mixed use development in buildings that open onto pedestrian -friendly streets and streetscapes." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC15-00003, a historic preservation special exception to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements from 35 spaces to 28 spaces for residential uses to be established at 912 and 914 S. Dubuque Street, subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must secure a Certificate of Appropriateness for the rehabilitation of property from the Historic Preservation Commission. • In addition to the required parking on the interior of the apartment building, the applicant shall provide additional bike parking on the exterior of the apartment. 1. Location map 2. Information on Historic Status of Tate Arms 3. Site Plan and interior parking plan 4. Application materials Approved by: 7 x / 7r-- John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Efiza Seth Tate Belt. c f ate used to think she got (jade a deal She bought that t?-bedroom hom can South Dubuque Sh'aet With a Sin do,mpa)m . t in 1939. In Z. it cost 53.300 for the house that became a home to Tate. her husband. Jumous: and hundreds of male Afticas•american students during a period nbeo the L nt, e+siq of Imra didn't aitmr btaclm to li.e oil eampua. Tate housed. fed. advised the young men and called tl em her "hogs' in nsut sNas ralied the Tate arms houdnrg house. 'Thera :ere all these boys coming to tone needing a piam to star; Tate said in a pt•ofile stun, before her death to tpgq "I hen thin- mere aceeptea into co8ege, the umwirih could sand than a lint of places truere rbey' n�re allo-:ed ro In e. l e as ou the bst." She made they oung uien At& b her house mules. The} uem required to make then miT bc& change their linens once a week and pick up after them n.lves. They weieu't aBo+ied to dnnit in bring Shia into the house. and when Bette raised her voice• thet kno, to be quiet. Bettt, a cooked. The buys did the dishes. Bette .,a3 bola in Fairfield and moved to im+a City in t926. She i, as employed at the University of loin a Hospitals in d.e emd mascular lab %%here she,,vrked as a lab technician and supervisor before ret ring in tq-6 Site v "an actress at the Iowa City Community theatre and she volunteered at the LTHC patients' Lbmty and the Old Capital Building until she was 88. She noii is the namesake of Elizabeth Late High School in Iona City. — Andy Hamilton Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs State Historical. Society of Iowa Site Number Site Number 52-05284 Iowa Site Inventory Form Related District Number Continuation Sheet Tate Arms Johnson Name of Property , County Address 7. Description Neighborhood: The house is bounded by the. Iowa River to the west and Ralston Creek to the east, and the GRA14DIC Railroad and Iowa Interstate Railroad lines. to the north. ,The large lot,across the street from the Tate Arms is occupied by the Johnson, County Administration building. The area including and immediately surrounding the former Tate Arms is zoned for intensive commercial uses. Historically, the Tate:Arms was located in an industrial zone. According to Sanborn Fireinsurance maps from 1926 to 1944, some operations in the area included a junkyard; a, warehouse, and outhouses. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps from 1933 to 1944 show a stock yard;; garage and repair shop, coal yard, junk yard, bulk oil storage, and filling stations in the area. The National Guard Armory was a buffer between the Tate Arms and a sewage disposal plant, sewage. pump; and bulk oil storage station. African -American residents lived next door to the Tate Arms house at 9'i6 S. Dubuque Street. Local chapters of Kappa Alpha.Psi (founded in 1914) and Alpha Phi Alpha (founded in 1922) fraternities, which provided room and board to African -American students, were located nearby at..301 and 818 S. Dubuque Street and other locations in neighborhood. Architectural features: The house at 914 S. Dubuque Street was built in 1880.4t has two stories with a hipped roof and white stucco walls that cover the original brick. It has a stone foundation, and windows throughout the house are largely double hung with exterior light blue shutters and brick sills. There is 2,356 square feet of total living area (1,178 per floor). The total lot contains 7,800 square feet. There are:10 rooms above ground,,five bedrooms and,a full basement,but-no attic: There is one full bathroom. On the west elevation (facing Dubuque Street) is a 424-square-foot wrap -around veranda with a concrete floor and tapered; concrete cast pillars. The ground floor features a large 12-pane picture frame window that. appears to be original and a doorway that is currently boarded up. On the second floor are two double hung sash windows: The veranda wraps around to the north elevation, which, on the ground floor, features another 12-pane window; a doorway, and two more double hung sash windows. On the second floor is a single -pane diamond -shaped window and two double hung sash windows. Also on the north elevation is a port cochdre (carriage • porch) supported by tapered, concrete cast pillars. The east elevation, which faces Ralston Creek, features seven double hung sash windows — symmetrically placed on the ground floor and asymmetrically placed on the second floor. Also on this side of the house is a large parking lot. The south elevation features six double hung sash windows similar to those on the east elevation and one smaller three -over -one double hung sash window on the second floor: Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs State Historical Society of Iowa Site Number Site Number 52-05284 Iowa Site Inventory Form Related District Number Continuation Sheet Tate Arms Johnson Name of Properly County 914 S. Dubuque Iowa City Address City 8. Significance Significant to Iowa City history and culture: The Tate Arms, owned by Junious "Bud" Tate and Elizabeth "Bettye" Crawford Tate; served as a boarding house for African -American students before they were allowed to five on campus at the University of Iowa. The Tate Arms operated from 1939 to 1963 and was one of five boarding houses in Iowa City for black students. Immediately after the Tates moved into the 914 S. Dubuque Street house, they started renting to African -American students. Bettye Tate told reporter Jean Florman in a November 1995 article that the 12-room house was too big for the Tates and their son, Dennis. "She bought beds (including three 'double-deckers'), two dozen desks, and 20 bookcases, and hung a sign over the front porch with the name; 'Tate Arms,'" wrote Florman: "...There were all these boys coming to town needing a place to stay;" Tate told Florman. "'When they were accepted into college, the university would send them a list of places where they were allowed to live. 1 was on that list.'" Tate told a reporter from the Community News Advertiser in August 1995 that they started renting rooms due to student need. 'Where else would they go?" Tate said. The Community News Advertiser article said the Tates put "double-decker bunks in many of the rooms and charged about $10 a month in rent." The Tate Arms housed up to 20 tenants at a time (Iowa Women's Archive). Boarders stayed fall and spring semesters and over most of the summer. "At holidays we usually had 12 or 14 people around the dinner table because most of them couldn't afford to go home," Tate said in the November 1995 Iowa City Magazine article. Associated with events that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history: Housing was a huge concern for African -American students during this time. An article by Richard Breaux in the spring 2002 issue of Iowa Heritage Illustrated, titled "Facing Hostility; Finding Housing: African -American Students at the University of Iowa, 1920s-1950s;" begins by quoting a letter from an African -American law student at Iowa named William Edwin Taylor to James Weldon Johnson of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "The conditions in this city are at present almost unlivable for a colored student. The attitude of hostility is felt most keenly in the matter of housing: No one will rent to colored fraternities and no one will sad in a livable locality; Taylor wrote. The article discussed how a local property owner had terminated a contract with Taylor's Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity when local members of the Ku Klux Klan organized to outbid the black students. 'There is an organization of the Ku Klux Klan here, and I have not the least doubt that they are financing the scheme to affect our ruin; Taylor wrote to Johnson (Breaux 2002). Another article in the spring 2002 issue of Iowa Heritage Illustrated, this one by Anne Balser Allen, detailed the purchase of the house at 942 Iowa Avenue by the Iowa Association of Colored Women's Clubs for a group of female African -American students attending the University of Iowa in 1919. By that time, University of Iowa enrollment had reached 4,000. Currier Hall, the first dormitory built by the university (in 1913), housed fewer than 200 women and no African -Americans. African -American women had rented rooms from members of Iowa City's small African -American community or professors in exchange for menial labor. Through a statewide fundraising campaign orchestrated by the Iowa Association of Colored Women's Clubs and publicity from the Bystander newspaper, enough money had been raised to purchase the two-story house at 942 Iowa Avenue, located about nine Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs State Historical Society of Iowa Site Number Iowa Site Inventory Form Continuation Sheet Site Number 52-05284 Related District Number Name of Property County Iowa City AddressS. Dubuque Address City blocks;from campus, for $5,300 and $1,000 down payment. The initiative was endorsed by university officials, although no real assistance from the university was delivered. There was some resistance to the purchase from the neighborhood property, owners. "There had been some opposition from neighbors, who managed to force a reassessment of a small adjoining lot where:a garage stood, but the committee arranged to pay the additional tax,' Allen wrote (Allen 2002). Black students were not allowed to live in University of Iowa dormitories until 1946, although the University of Iowa had no official rule on the matter —only that the Deans of Men and Women believed that white students would object to the arrangement (Breaux 1998). It was be student sentimentthat would later Lead to a change in -the unwritten policy. The University of Iowa's decision to desegregate student housing was done, quietly,. according to the September 26, 1999 Gazette article. Professor emeritus Phillip Hubbard told the Gazette reporter that students returning from service in World War 11 were less tolerant of segregated housing. "'The white students wouldn't have tolerated that policy in the university,'" Hubbard said. "They were very civil rights. oriented at that period. Whatever the students wanted —that's kind of flow it was" As the residence halls became more integrated, demand for the boardinghouses declined. The Tate Arms was the last to close, in 1963. However, off campus housing was still an issue in the early1960s, as evidenced by an investigation by the University Committee on Human Rights (established in 1963) into discrimination in off -campus housing, fraternities and sororities, according to the "African-merican Experience' pamphlet. Associated with the fives of persons significant in our past: Elizabeth "Bettye" Crawford Tate was born in. Fairfield, Iowa in 1906. Following high school graduation and after working fora year in Lake Okoboji, she married Junious "Bud' Tate in the 1930s. The couple moved to Iowa City, where Bud operated a.janjtorial service for downtown businesses. The Tates were one of the few African -American families living in Iowa City in the 1930s, according to a biographical note in the Elizabeth "Bettye" Crawford Tate papers held in the Iowa Women's Archives. Bettye Tate was a leader and active member in the Iowa City community. In addition to opening up her home for black university students for nearly thirty years, Tate worked at the University of Iowa Hospital's cardiovascular lab for 22 years, starting out as a clinical technician and retiring as supervisor in 1976. Tate was,a charter member of the Iowa City Community Theatre and served on the board of directors, as well as performed in several theatrical productions. Many of the former residents at Tate Arms went on to successful careers. Former boarders Bradshaw and William Shoecraf Wood attributed the success rate among boarders at the Tate Arms to Bettye Tate's discipline. "'With her everything was not an obstacle," Bradshaw said in the August 1996 Community News Examiner article. "'She saw that you got out there and went face-to-face with the world.'" Bradshaw earned a Master's degree in health and physical education. Wood earned a law degree and was a judge in the Chicago area. Tate High School in Iowa City is named after Elizabeth Tate. Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs 7\ State Historical Society of Iowa Site Number Site Number 52-05284 Iowa Site Inventory Form Related District Number Continuation Sheet Tate Arms Johnson Name of Property County 914 S. Dubuque Iowa City Address City Has yielded or may likely yield information important in history: While much attention has'been given to the historical and cultural significance of the Tate Arms as a boarding house for black university students between the 1930s and 1960s, it is likely that the significance of this house goes back even farther. The house. at 914 S. Dubuque Street was used for lodging at least as early as 1928, when it was owned by Joseph Williams and was listed in the Iowa City Directory as the "Williams Hotel' (Breaux 1998). More research on this house may reveal even more information about Iowa City's past. Conclusion: in addition to being in line with the goals set forth in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, the Tate Arms building meets the following criteria used by the City of Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission to determine If a property should be eligible for landmark status: 1) significant to Iowa City history and culture; 2) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; 3) associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; and 4) has yielded or may likely yield information important in history. A Statement of Historical Significance, prepared by Richard Breaux, concludes with the following quote from the August 1995 Community News Examiner article: "Despite the historical value of this area to Iowa and African -American history, 'the small houses which dotted the west side of Ralston Creek from Benton Street to Kirkwood Avenue, have been removed to provide parking for the businesses that replaced the families who lived there." Breaux states that the Tate Arms building deserves the same treatment as other sites dedicated to African American history across the state. The role of the Tate Arms in facilitating the integration of African -American residents into the Iowa City community and state of Iowa deserves recognition similar to other historic landmarks. There has been criticism of historic preservation that it needs to be more inclusive, and it seems that if the'criteda for determining whichstructuresshould be saved are based solely on elements of style, those who could not afford to live in high -style houses will be forgotten. The Tate Arms is one of the last remaining homes in what was traditionally a small black neighborhood in Iowa City and should be recognized as a local landmark. Researched and written by Andrew Bassman. Edited by Erica Blair. Used with permission. — iE-acilP�PRiwwai%Pw�.dAXLCnPFt4 fiWMP P.Yw u.W meF.M1LI PPYl6 a6. I@MO�aM��yoStAm ryfG�N ��$$��RYviY. i�ii•WS1 .x �S�Re�lPi09SYr.bimR 1R-.o1�W BP 4mRMDz �i. Ya.P-scent - m.BL veN tl.M�W@y Pwlawmu..ma.c �p vyfRRN.dM we �wS^.v. b® �YM�ID RtlY�WP �A��wlll fPM6 ai �tRWff MAMURAM Mmv.w �j� wm im R.nw x��xgec ussb as .wa�K• L aw O+W a �YSCvVw ,wi nit xv '�uaanm��t mwr°°y'ax P$�iM mPP4 •SDtO pwp.�MmKapm�fi4R1p6pe u.i'wAWR�y MCORIRMM YMb R isKROi�po op .PLRVNNi ifOlP �bm.YP �M�WII uYiM IIDfBib -Y wi n.W6T -Y.CH'HM! .�}C{ - -- T biW .tP.. . _.... Ii6WLOp10W WOw[TRW.lbfl® wRr.weRauinawnuaR 912S. �-��- - rawAPPwwwm.a -"• �� rwmPw r R eu.anm eiPoeRas R.D aom.uP .m w. aa.awu RwwPa �. .awrDaP Pe as ioPr. Pa.wvPR.n.w S.fAPIMOw �61110C D.DtR SA./PP�mW6M wmPen am�..r�mn ktw hew IKAa 123Lm14 APPLI CATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION - DATE: 1 / i5 `1S PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1 d I5 Z 6Q&;eo'F PROPERTY ADDRESS: q i Z- " l i q S, PROPERTY ZONE: KC PROPERTY LOT SIZE: )8c , i 3zy APPLICANT: Name: Je* C-tc'y k- Address: H 19{ �-- M4p- C.E N-5 i Phone: 3 i `% — (G 3 1- IL 7 CONTACT PERSON: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: Name: XT- Z3 C. (if other than applicant) Address: `�� E M19-Kt--`r W' Phone: ; (i (e 3 t— 1 a L 7 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 of e-mail sarah-walz@iowac/ty.org. AM I I I 1 L_ dl cMil, rA& Purpose for special exception: HtS'i&LtL_I_AN bAA4lLfL DC—S (6- A-i-rig k/ Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: Applicant Answers: 1a. Parking is provided on the building site, but short by 8 parking spaces. There are areas on this site that can and will be used for overflow In those years where the parking need is high. Those overflow areas do not count as conforming parking, but have the ability to be used if needed. 1b. Riverfront Crossings is an area where preservation of historic structures !s highly desired. Giving up a few conforming parking spaces to encourage and preserve these historic structures Is very small In the whole picture. 2a. This property could have taken near 36 apartments If there was not a historic structure present. By allowing the transfer of building rights to allow an additional floor, it helps to gain back some of the units that are unable to be constructed where the "Tate Arms" house is located and helps to reduce the financial burden. 2b. This property contains a historic structure, whereas other properties directly around this one are not historic. 3c. The current landowner did not build a historic structure. . `I TI 'Zi wn q l� MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 14, 2015 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Connie Goeb, Brock Grenis, Becky Sogiin MEMBERS ABSENT: Gene Chrischilies STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Susan Dulek OTHERS PRESENT: Wendy Harbaugh, Gene Davis, Kevin O'Brien, Noah Kemp 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 the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 12. 2014 MEETING MINUTES Baker moved to approve the minutes. Sogiin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TRAINING: Dulek wanted to discuss BOA proceedings and give a little reminder of the structure and framework of special exceptions. Special exceptions are where City Council has granted by oridinance some flexibility to city zoning code. Council has set up standards by which the BOA must follow. General standards that apply to every special exception and then specific standards that apply only to the particular special exception that is being requested. So when an applicant makes an application they have to say why they meet each of the standards. Then staff reviews the application and offers evidence and opinion on the application. Then there is the public hearing where any member of the public can address the application and the applicant or staff can add more information, for the BOA to use in making its decision. Dulek pointed to the applicaiton in the BOA's packet for this meeting to show how the report goes through the general standards and the specific standards for the individual application. Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 2 of 10 Staff prepares the report based on specific standards and the general standards and goes through each standard one at a time. Just like a jury, the Board must decide how much evidence is necessary. This is not the same as a criminal case in which evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt —that's a lot. Here it is just a "preponderance of evidence," that means just about 51 %, or more than likely the application meets each standards. The Board must go through each and every standard —not just one, not just most, but all must be satisfied by a preoponderance of evidence. Soglin asked, for example, if just one single standard, say standard b, is not met, whether that is all it takes to deny the application? Dulek replied that this is correct, but the Board must explain why they do not believe the standard is satisfied. Dulek stated, while it may sometimes frustrate the board, most standards are fairly easy to meet by design. Walz stated that one thing she goes through with applicants is how the specific standards are written to address the general standards. So, for example, how does a setback request for a porch impact the general safety and welfare or impede future development on other property? The specific criteria ask if the setback creates an issue for fire separation or firefighting? Is it encroaching upon the public right of way such that a care backing out cannot see traffic or pedestrians? So most often the general standards draw from the specific standards. The specific standards are written to address issues of safety and neighborhood character or the appropriate uses in the zone. Many times applicants, they don't always go through the criteria item by item, but their site plan does the talking for them to show all the standards are met. It shows the setbacks, the parking, the landscaping, etc., that the specific standards call for. Dulek clarified that this is why the specific standards are discussed first in the staff report. Grenis asked whether a variance or an appeal also is judged by a preponderance of evidence. Dulek answered yes. Dulek says this comes from Civil Law. Walz stated in the case of appeal, the question is whether a decision was arbitrary and capricious. Staff always asks if it was that something got ignored or not applied to the correct standard. Dulek stated that if the applicant appeals the BOA decision, they must show a preponderance of evidence on a particular standard. So when the judge looks at the case, the question is isn't whether he or she would have drawn the same conclusion from the evidence, but rather was there enough evidence offered that the Board could reasonably come to its decision. The phrase "arbitrary and capricious' means that you were looking at something that did not apply — something other than the standards before you. Arbitrary and capricious is tough to prove —that you have not been reasonable in drawing your conclusions it is not substituting someone else's conclusion or decision. Dulek added that just skipping to the fourth point, one of the judicial reviews is the judge looking at the case and deciding if there was a reason to state there was not a preponderance of evidence on one of the standards or if the decision was just arbitrary and capricious. Walz reminded the Board that at the previous meeting Dulek had polled the Board and cautioned that if they were going to deny an application they needed to point to a standard that Board of Adjustment January14, 2015 Page 3 of 10 was not met. It is not enough to say, well this doesn't seem right or I don't like something about something that happened with the property in the past. You have to point to a standard. Grenis stated he puts a lot of emphasis on the standard regarding being injurious to the neighborhood, and if no neighbors come to public hearing to speak up, then he feels that is criteria that standard is met. Dulek stated that with the staff comments and the applicant's comments, and no public speaking against or offers any evidence to the contrary, that would likely cover the preponderance of evidence. Soglin questioned the order of Board discussion, then the motion, then the vote and findings of fact and whether the Board was just saying the same thing at both the discussion stage and the stating of the findings of fact stage. Walz replied that before one makes a motion there needs to be discussion to make sure no one has more questions for staff or the applicant —that all board members have everything they need —all the facts —and understand what is being approved — before a motion is made. If someone is on the fence, that is the time to ask for more or to point out where the application is coming up short or where some additional evidence has been provided that casts the application in a different light. Dulek added that the BOA can always defer the vote if there are a lot of question, or if more information is needed. Dulek thanked the BOA for their time, and to come to her with any questions SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC14-00012 EXC14-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Wadhams on behalf of Bruegger's Bagels for a special exception to allow a drive -through facility to be located in the Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront Subdistrict (RFC-WR) zone at 708 South Riverside Drive. Walz presented the staff report. Bruegger's Bagels is seeking to relocate its store, which includes a coffee service, to the property at 708 South Riverside Drive. The property is at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and Benton Street and was recently rezoned to be part of the West Riverfront Subdistrict in Riverfront Crossings. The business would like to provide a drive -through option. Drive -through facilities are an accessory use allowed by special exception in the Riverfront Crossings West Subdistrict. Walz showed the location map of the area, noting that the adjacent green space is referred to as Ned Ashton and is classified as a park but really functions as a trailhead. The subject Property once contained a business that some years ago (2006) was destroyed by a tornado. The decided to redevelop his business elsewhere and market this property for some other use. The property has remained vacant with no other use. Walz explained the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and how it affects the subject property and how the West Riverfront Subdistricts differs from areas on the east side of the river in terms of it emphasis on pedestrian vs. automobile facilities Walz presented several views of the property to explain how the site would function with regard to parking and vehicle access as well as setbacks and landscaping and improved pedestrian space. Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 4 of 10 At the request of the property owner, the City also vacated a portion of the Old Benton Street right-of-way, which served as an alley between the subject property and the Linder Tire property to the north. One half of the right-of-way will be conveyed to each property owner. A public access easement will allow use of the shared drive for accessing the two private properties and the trailhead for the Iowa River Corridor Trail at Ned Ashton Park. Baker asked Walz to point out on the slide where the new curb cut would be on Benton Street and Walz showed the general area and stated that the transportation and streets staff have looked at the area and have determined there would be adequate visibility for the right -out only exit. Walz explained that the drive -through standard were recently re -written to address the special nature of the Riverfront Crossings and to acknowledge that there are some places in the area where drive -through uses may be appropriate. Walz reviewed with the BOA the standards she felt are the crux of the decision. Wherever possible and practical, drive -through lanes shall be accessed from secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. Walz showed that the access to the proposed drive - through lane is from 22-foot wide access drive that is shared by the subject property and the Linder property to the north. She explained how the parking and drive would function and how the additional curb cut onto Benton would function. To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving the use may be limited. Walz explained that the drive -through could function without the additional curb cut but that it functions more efficiently with it. She showed on the site plan how the stacking spaces work and the distance from Riverside Drive. Walz explained the requirements for building and parking placement. Due to unsusual shape of the lot, and because it is a corner lot, the parking area cannot be concealed entirely behind the building. Therefore the proposed drive -through window and lane are located on the back (east) side of the building and are screened from Benton Street behind a 3-4 foot masonry wall with additional landscaping between the wall and the pedestrian area. . Sogiin asked how far from the edge of that landscaping wall will be from the sidewalk near the curb cut on Benton Street? Walz replied that it would be 10 feet. Another criterion states that drive -through lanes must be set back at least 10-feet from adjacent lot lines and public rights -of -way and screened from view according to the design standards below. The drive -through is set back 10 feet from the south property line. The number of drive -through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved area necessary for the drive - through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. Walz states that while there are no residential uses at this time, there is concern for pedestrians along the street. She reiterated the distance between the drive -through and the street and the setback and screening from Benton Street. Also that the additional curb cut would allow drivers an option so they do not all queue at the Riverside Drive curb cut and impede the Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 5 of 10 pedestrians on that street. Walz explained how the layout screening in the site plan helped to promote compatability with surrounding development. This also applied to the criteria with regard stacking spaces being screened from view. Walz explained the height of the proposed wall would screen views of the cars but provide some visibility for safetly. She said the site is not large enough to be appropriate for additional windows or bays. Walz stated that All lighting for the development is reviewed by the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit. As a condition of approval, Staff recommended that any lighting specific to the drive -through area (including illuminated signs) be turned down when the drive - through is not in operation (or between the hours of 10 PM and 5 AM). Walz explained that over time there will be more residential in the area and staff did not want to have the site be an all- night use Walz then discussed the general standards. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. This is addressed through the separation between the drive -through and pedestrian areas and the directional signage and pavement markings. Staff was recommending some additional markings and signage. Walz went over general criterion #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. Walz described how the setback for the drive -through and the buidling coverage did not meet the standard. She described the flexibility provided in the code and how the applicant's site plan addresses the code goal of making this an attractive pedestrian area. With regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the chief concernis the pedestrian character. Walz described how Riverfront Drive will be improved as redevelopment occurs. This site plan is meeting those standards. Though this is not the same kind of area as you would find Downtown, the goal is to temper the auto -oriented character of the neighborhood. Walz stated that staff recommends approval of EXC14-00012 a special exception to allow a drive -through facility for property located in the Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront Subdistrict at 708 S. Riverside Drive, subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; • A sign marking the exit from the drive -through lane will be located at the east end of the customer parking aisle and directional arrows will mark the pavement at the exit from and entrance to the drive -through lane and along the right -out only drive onto Benton Street; • Hours of operation for the drive -through is limited to 5:00 AM - 10:00 PM; and • All lighting and signage for the drive -through should be turned down when the drive - through is not in operation. Board of Adjustment January 14,2015 Page 6 of 10 Baker had a few questions regarding the right- out only curb cut and the path for cars through the drive -through. Walz answered the questions regarding traffic flows and options for cars to leave through the right -out only onto Benton Street or back out onto Riverside Drive. Baker asked what the speed limit was along West Benton Street where the curb cut would be, and Walz stated she believed it is 25 mph. Walz explained the visibility issue with the bridge. She stated there is only a small area in which the right -out only may be located to meet the visibility needed. Soglin questioned about the staff condition about limiting the hours of operation for the drive - through to 5:00 AM — 10:00 PM but in the applicant's materials they state the business is only open until 8:00 PM. Walz responded that condition was included at those times just in case there was a change in business at that location. Soglin also asked about there only being one pick-up window allowed, and if a new business wanted to come in and add a second window, should that be specified in this document. Walz confirmed that if a new business wanted tc make any changes to the building structure or use, it would have to come back before the Board for approval. Finally Soglin asked why the condition of signage and light turndown, rather than requiring a turn-off. Walz explained that the applicant would want to leave some light on for employee and building safety, but it would meet code regulations. Goeb wanted to clarify that the screening requirements for this property, under the new Riverfront Crossings requirements would be different than the requirements for the McDonalds across the street. Walz confirmed that yes, the new requirement are beyond what was required when McDonalds was built. The new requirements call for more screening from parking lots to pedestrian areas and screening of the drive -through area. Baker questioned what the width of curb cut opening on Benton Street would be. Walz said the applicant could speak to that, but the goal of the width is for the right -out way to be difficult to enter, but easy to leave from. Walz clarified that it would be a one -lane exit probably 10-12 feet. Soglin asked about the multiple windows on the drive -through again, stating the purpose according to the standards to have multiple windows is to reduce idling and was curious what the threshold of the standard was in regards to sustain ability. Walz explained that there wasn't a threshold, but there would be limits to what type of business could be located on this property due to the size of the property. Brueggers is attracted to this site because the don't have the same demand compared to a more traditional fast-food type restaurant. Soglin asked whether the sustainability goals of the Comprehensive Plan placed any limit on the number of drive-throughs. Walz said no limits had been said. The Plan does not address the issue of numbers or thresholds. Baker asked about the City's interest in dimming the lights. Walz explained that it was an acknowledgement that in the future on the adjacent property there may be residential uses and that tempering the drive -through use would help to make that a more attractive location for mixed use. Grenis invited applicant to come forward to answer questions Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 7 of 10 Wendy Hargbaugh (Ports Architects) and Gene Davis (Brueggers) represented the applicants. Hargbaugh explained that Brueggers currently has the location across the street and are interested in this location to add the drive -through but to stay in the same basic area. Baker asked about parking, noting he saw 7 spots on the pictures. Hargbaugh corrected him and stated there are 10 spots along the north side and 5 spots on the east. Baker also asked if the applicants knew what the exit width of the right -out only would be. Harbaugh answered that is would be about 12 ft. and they will work with city engineer. At this time they are still in, planning stage until they get the special exception approval. Baker feels 12 ft. is too wide, and might not be enough of a deterrent from people entering the wrong way; Harbaugh repl;ed they could reduce it to 10 ft. Baker suggested a special exception for these types of curb cuts; similar to how there are standards for lighting. Dulek stated the curb cut will have to be approved by city engineer, but BOA can recommend a certain width if they so choose. Baker asked who requested the curb cut and Walz replied that it was the property owner. Baker questioned the drive -through route, not sure how the curb -cut onto Benton Street will help, because once a car is through the drive -through, they then have to go back out where they came from, cross traffic and can go back to Riverside Drive. Harbaugh answered that the right - out only lane would be used potentially for delivery vehicles, waste management trucks, and such. Baker stated his overall concern with the plan is the curb cut, the safety of vehicles entering onto Benton Street at that location. Walz explained that the City has done a traffic study of the area and feels it is an adequate area for sight and safety, and the traffic study is conducted at peak traffic times. Soglin did note that when cars are exiting the drive -through and want to turn left and exit onto Riverside Drive, they are reliant on the good nature of cars lined up waiting to get into the drive - through to make that left-hand turn. Harbaugh stated that, during busy times drivers will have to be courteous of each other so there will not be a bottleneck. Soglin then asked In terms of lighting, at other locations, what is the typical night lighting policy. Davis replied that yes they turn down all lights leaving only enough light for safety reasons. Grenis opened public hearing. Kevin O'Brien (105 5th Street, Coralville) owner of McDonalds spoke regarding his issue with egress with the right -out only which he feels will be very close to right across Benton Street from the exit of his property. During peak hours it would be difficult for traffic leaving either business to navigate across lanes of traffic on Benton Street. If someone were to leave the Brueggers onto Benton Street, and then want to turn from Benton Street to go south on Riverside, they would need to cross three lanes of traffic in a very short time. Additionally he is in the process of finalizing development of the property east of McDonalds and part of that development an access road would be opened up from the Staples parking lot to Benton Street, increasing even more of the traffic on Benton Street. O'Brien reiterated that he is not against the business on that corner; he is concerned about the traffic exiting onto Benton Street and congesting traffic, especially in peak hours. Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 8 of 10 Baker questioned staff if there are a high number of accidents on that area of Benton Street exiting the McDonalds. Walz replied that there was not a crash concern in that area. Noah Kemp (2140 Hwy 22, Kalona) has owned the property since 1972 and then after the tornado was fortunate to move our business down the street a block, and since the property has been vacant. It is tough to do anything with that property because of its size. Kemp is excited that Brueggers wants the property, and feels it fits into the City's Comprehensive 'Plan. Grenis closed public hearing. Baker stated most of the application is easy stuff; he even has no problem with lighting and signage and doesn't see why the City should mandate certain operating hours. Baker is just not comfortable with the curb cut, and wants it to be as narrow and curved as possible. Sogiin asked if the recommendation can read as narrow and safe as the city engineer can allow, rather than state as "curved as possible". Walz agreed, and also said a width should not be specified, as there will be trucks using the right -out only lane as well. Baker asked Davis if the right -out only lane did not exist, how that negatively impacts business requirements. Davis replied that for trash it's a concern for where the trash enclosure will be located. He would be concerned about the safety pedestrians if trash and delivery vehicles had to turn around in the parking lot. Walz suggested that perhaps the BOA would want to place a condition on approval that for the curb cut onto Benton Street the City Engineer approve a plan design with maximum control over entry into that right -out only and also control over exiting and turning left. Grenis stated that there has to be a level of trust for the City Engineering Department to do the correct thing with regards to this curb cut. Baker asked if any other Board members had interest in removing restriction on hours of operation for the lighting. Soglin and Grenis both wanted to keep that condition, it is good to have in there in case of business change or future uses. Soglin read the language she drafted which would state to add to staff recommendations to limit as much as possible the ability of vehicles to turn left onto Benton Street or to enter the property site from Benton Street. Dulek state that seems fine, of course the city will have concerns from both traffic and police enforcement as well so the condition seems reasonable. Soglin moved to approve EXC14-00012 a special exception to allow a drive -through facility for property located in the Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront Subdistrict at 708 S. Riverside Drive, subject to the following conditions: 0 Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 9 of 10 • A sign marking the exit from the drive -through lane will be located at the east end of the customer parking aisle and directional arrows will mark the pavement at the exit from and entrance to the drive -through lane and along the right -out only drive onto Benton Street; • Hours of operation for the drive -through is limited to 5:00 AM -10:00 PM; • All lighting and signage for the drive -through should be turned down when the drive -through is not in operation; and • Ensure safety at the Benton street egress to limit as much as possible the ability of vehicles to turn left onto Benton Street or to enter the property site from Benton Street. Goeb seconded Baker requested that staff share with the board the final design of the project when available and Walz stated she would do so. Grenis asked if anyone wished to share their findings and facts. Baker stated regarding item EXC14-00012 I concur with the findings set forth in the staff report of January 14, 2015 and conclude that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal. Baker would also like to note there is a strong interest on the Board to ensure that the Benton street exit is as restrictive as possible based on the discussion this evening. Grenis stated that this use seems very compatible for the area and with the comprehensive plan for this district. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. 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 ADJOURNMENT: Baker moved to adjourn, Goeb seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 - 2015 NAME TERM EXP. 118 3112 419 5114 Silo 10/8 11/12 1114 BAKER, LARRY 1/1/2017 X X X X X X X X GOEB, CONNIE 1/1/2015 X X X X X X X X GRENIS, BROCK 1/112016 X X X X X O/E X X CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE 1/1/2014 X X X X X OlE X O/E SOGLIN, BECKY 1/1/2018 X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- = Not a Member