HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-2015 Board of Adjustmentf
CITY OF IOWA CITY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
April 8, 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, April 8, 2015 — 5:15 PM
City Hall — Emma Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the February 11, 2015 Minutes
D. Special Exception Item
Discussion of an application submitted by BBCS Hawkeye Housing LLC, for a special
exception for a reduction in parking due to a unique circumstance for a multi -family
development located in the Institutional Public/Medium Density Multi -family Residential
(P2/RM-20) at Hawkeye Ct. (EXC15-00005)
E. Board of Adjustment Information
F. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: May 13, 2015
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC15-00005
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: April 8, 2015
Applicant: BBCS Hawkeye Housing LLC
158 Hawkeye Court
Iowa City, IA 52246
Contact: San Savoia
610-299-5017
Property Owner: Universitv of Iowa
David Kieft
301 University Services Bldg.
Iowa City, IA 52242
Requested Action: Reduction in the required parking due to a unique
circumstance.
Purpose: To allow a reduction in total parking from 864
spaces to 784 spaces (total of spaces).
Location: Hawkeye Court
Size: 30 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: University Housing P2/RM20
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Railroad; Industrial and Commercially zoned
property in Coralville.
South: Finkbine Golf Course, P2
East: Finkbine Golf Course, P2
West: University Recreation Fields, P2
Applicable code sections:
File Date:
14-4B-3A, (General Criteria)
March 13, 2015
BACKGROUND: The subject property, located on Hawkeye Court, is owned by the University
of Iowa. The redevelopment project is a public private partnership between the University and
Balfour Beatty Campus Solutions to provide new graduate housing. Therefore the zoning is
Medium Density Multi-family/Institutional Public (RM20/P2 and requires that the development
meet all City standards, including required parking.
2
As noted in the application, redevelopment of the site is in two phases:
• Phase 1 was complete in August 2014 and consisted of 270 one- and two -bedroom
apartments with a total of 444 bedrooms) and 446 parking spaces (2 more than
required).
• Phase 2 will include an additional 252 apartments with a total of 420 bedrooms and is
required to provide 448 spaces —a total of 864 spaces for the entire development.
The applicant has observed that a considerable number of parking spaces (50-80 spaces) in
phase 1 are not being used by residents. The applicant has indicated that this creates some
issues with commuters using the parking area as well as fans attending home football games.
The zoning code (14-4B-5A-6) allows a reduction in the required parking due to unique
circumstances. The applicant is seeking to reduce the total parking by 80 spaces. The applicant
believes the parking for this development to be excessive for the following reasons:
• Graduate housing serves a large population of international students, many of whom do
not own cars.
• Graduate housing serves a large population of households/families who own just one
car.
• Cambus provides service to graduate housing every half hour on weekdays and hourly
on weekends.
• A significant number of residents use moped, motorcycle, and bike for transportation.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general
welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the
most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and
enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may
grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with
the specific criteria included for Section 14-4B-5A-6 pertaining to parking reductions for unique
circumstances in addition to the general approval criteria for 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-5A-6).
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 spaces by up to
50%.
FINDING: University Graduate Housing serves a unique population that does not rely on
automobiles as heavily as the general population. As noted by the applicant many international
students do not own cars and many families who reside in the units have just one car.
FINDING: University's Cambus Service provides convenient service to Hawkeye Court. Four bus
routes serve this area. The Hawkeye Interdorm connects with both the east and west sides of
campus and runs twice an hour during weekdays and hourly on weekends during the academic
year. The Hawk Lot Hospital, Hawkeye Hospital, and Hawk Express routes provide peak
morning and afternoon transportation multiple times an hour. The Hawk Express operates only
during the academic year, the Hospital routes operate year round.
FINDING: Graduate housing is also well connected with the regional bicycle trail network, which
runs to the campus as well as those into Coralville and Iowa City. The Clear Creek Trail connects
out to Coralville shopping areas including the Coralville Strip, 12t" Avenue, and the Coralridge
Mall.
General Standards (14-413-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or, general welfare.
FINDING: The proposed removal of 80 spaces represents a 9% reduction in parking. When
completed, the graduate housing complex will have 522 one- and two -bedroom apartments. With
the parking reduction there will be 1.5 parking spaces per apartment; without the reduction the
applicant would be required to provide 1.65 parking spaces per apartment.
FINDING: University transit provides bus service every half hour on weekdays during the school
year and hourly on the weekends.
FINDING: Graduate housing is connected to the regional bike and pedestrian trail system with
links to Coralville, campus, and downtown Iowa City.
FINDING: Overflow parking would likely occur along roads that abut University property —areas
west of Mormon Trek and south of Melrose.
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. Any spillover parking will likely be on adjacent University property.
FINDING: The subject site is surrounded by University of Iowa property on three sides. A
commercial/industrial area, is located to the north of the railroad embankment.
FINDING: Parking is prohibited along Mormon Trek Boulevard. Parking is allowed along some
portions of Hawkeye Park Road and at the University recreation facilities located to the south and
west.
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.
FINDING: The property is surrounded by the University of Iowa on three sides. It is separated
from private property by the railroad embankment.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDING: All necessary access roads are constructed. Sidewalks, bike trails connection, and
bus stops are all provided to the site. Storm water drainage and any other required facilities will
be identified as part of the site plan review process.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDING: Ingress and egress are provided from two curb cuts on Hawkeye Court, a road that
serves the Graduate Housing complex and University Recreation facilities.
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.
FINDING: All other aspects of the development must comply with zoning code regulations. The
final site plan must be approved by the
T. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
FINDING: While the Comprehensive Plan does not speak specifically to parking reductions,
the plan does encourage development that reduces reliance on cars and enhances
opportunities for alternatives to commuting by car. By reducing the number of parking
spaces, the development creates a disincentive to bringing a car to campus. Meanwhile, the
development is well -served by the University transit system and by numerous
bikelpedestrian routes, with shopping and recreation services located nearby.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC15-00005 a special
exception to reduce the required off-street parking from 864 spaces to 784 spaces.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Aerial views of the proposed location.
2. Location map
3. Site plan
4. Application materials
Approved by: 7 -X I z "�
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
�M
jr I
~ AM
, !
lig III
' rn t
r
WOO
r
Univ4ilsity01,10+1
sHivGHa-rrcRv
a b
9.R1L6VglM NN NG61&OLPL4
]WI ET $.BUIIEiYa QOM MOM4 M51A'1 ; H
� � i
,
\
\
`e �
1
UI CRAOUATE
arts Io- MM-Nuxrta 9
C,
Pa.awavwrsl M
'®N6ATIa.B W1@i.B.d&&WICi �qa(
__ •�
t..__.. ,
N x
y
_
SIUDENTHWSING
mranAMetmuwna(Waa ..
MANUCN pA I6 P�AC� f
aoru PAPWG wePACEs a� .
•
¢: i• .m
s
� �'�'
_ 1-.
�`.
P
� .
PH0.5E 11
Vlf➢W PN�T'CWa1xUG11Up
rorumm PAWelq axwas }. 1
_,!A 9
lr.. S
i
d
IJNAGI'Y.N
1REEPEWNBIIXiANUwM6q >
NOPM1R516 RALLNAY ®E FMIIER11WIpPpYMA
LVI6ET�tltxURNMABWtlLiIB
.
O
}'
t [�
�'�
�
\
i
�EVE\ar°oT�wEwmaTEsnmE,rtxoua°o .
{,
a._ �
w
_
It
9
�'
f
RWEII&2Ta W6WETP4i P1 81iNY 4 3'
/&Mt{ENfWWNH NLAm0.V.MUP%WWA4Y (1.
�
`
® '
h�
�
r
5`
; •
Q♦ 1 I
1
f
,,
x
`
Orjl"�iiqti
: % 4'Yj <JJ, y. "- `i _' j
t.
•
_ —
iOr o- YA
ml ��.
c
�
r
1
_
,%
KF.Y PLAN
r
o a e
i �eP
r' o
1 0• tee.
°
° r a
° o
u
".
r�
mono w:lon. .• Y / � k�.a _. --C� d (/Nt�� N
6�1I
SHNC-HATTC-RY
w WIIHM�:�e ryv,wlne,MAlwnAwfOat .8 '•yam. ,'fi � :-• \\\\\ Iw rr
8 I fill i '.
LNYFIMIiIflY,6C
nYH%iHW1Ed114£PMMGIY.N�6 _
BMTIGWp11MAN88A8916IXL.PLC �•:. '�
,169POM.86.BIMEId.fFCARMPM U6N01
IIV2NVA RONAC —'� _�,.' Uri
u6,n num.e,vmw.aw STUDENT HOUSING
Naaeu -a r. - PFWSEII
aB.AAM��%8888
4.4
'IOTK 29UM19A �8%8689 I ' � —` � 1
wx%x6n PAa6za: %6BPIffi — �' ` wsaw6umooram�ox
wxawPAm%Ia KBPA?8 ',
MHPMNW. IAMItCB
� �re�am6r�ia6�rexmo� � .. A� \ wxAcm.a
Pu%6ree6umm
ixmeixffnw6noxAxuz� _ �_. r< — -
c
111O1,6AgMOMUWWAl681VMAMUBS ,i 6
ww666n6rowcWOER��6t,%Icwaemm � �� 'i t:I
MKK11@16MMrR AXBMCG'IFH PAMQIUMII S
acm.I.n,a -
1
r"
0 rP2%BEWNA .__._
� I _
I' NI f i IIIF .1 q�l f,!✓
el%a%ar
� �. f Y� �� I ^S TS ♦ 4 _ _� 4 � � ICY RAN
rn, O O i � yy----J• C; , _
o
_ - SRE PIANO
.n I I . � I
i dl SITE RAH ` C0.01
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: 3/10/15
PROPERTY PARCEL NO,
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Hawkeye Court
PROPERTY ZONE: RM-20
2013003
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 30 Acres
APPLICANT: Name: BBCS Hawkeye Housing LLC
Address: 158 Hawkeye Court, Iowa City, IA 52246
Phone: 610-299-5017
CONTACT PERSON: Name: Dan Savoia
(if other than applicant) Address: 158 Hawkeye Court, Iowa City, IA 52246
Phone: 610-299-5017
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: University of Iowa - Attn: David Kieft
(if other than applicant) Address: 301 University Services Building, Iowa City, IA 52242
Phone: 319-335-5052
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356.5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-cify.org.
Purpose for special exception: Reduction of parking for a unique circumstance.
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: N/A
B. SITE PLAN ATTACHED.
C. SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA:
1A-5A-4: MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The table in the regulations indicates that for the RM-20 zone the following requirement applies
University impact area: 1 space per bedroom (see section 14-213-6, map 213.1 of this title).
The Parcel referenced is being developed specifically to serve the Graduate Student Housing
population for the University of Iowa. Balfour Beatty Campus Solutions has entered into a 40 year ground
lease with the University of Iowa and is developing the parcel in 2 phases. Phase 1 was completed in
August, 2014, and consisted of (270) 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, containing a total of 444 bedrooms.
Phase 2 is planned for an additional 252 apartments, containing 420 bedrooms.
446 parking spaces were provided in Phase 1, which are 2 spaces more than required. This amount
of parking has proven to be in excess of what is being used, with 50 to 80 of the 446 spaces empty at any
given time. The parking requirement for this unique circumstance appears to be excessive for the following
reasons:
1. International Graduate Student Population. There is a significant percentage of international
graduate student/residents, most of which do not own cars.
2. Graduate Student Family Population. There are several families living in two bedroom apartments
that have one car.
3. University bus service. The community is, and always will be, regularly serviced by CAMBUS, and
provide complete connectivity to all University services.
4. Roommate carpooling. There are a significant number of residents who do not own cars, but
carpool with their fellow residents that do, when needed.
5. Moped, motorcycle, and bicycle usage. There is a significant portion of residents who primarily rely
on moped, motorcycle and bicycles for transportation.
The parking needed to meet the required spaces for both phases combined is 864. We are requesting a
reduction of 80 spaces to 784. This represents a 9% reduction in parking, and maintains 1.5 spaces per
apartment. The paving would be replaced with green space. Impervious paving will be reduced, and the
storm water management system will benefit from Having less run off. The excess parking has attracted
football and commuter parking at various times. We believe that the reduction will help curb this interest,
and will "right size" the parking to the unique circumstances associated with this project.
PLAT OF SURVEY "AMENDED"
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 20l3
ORIGINALLY RECORDED IN PLAT SOOT( 57, PAGE 255
A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION IF e
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
• _ _ _ N895TK'EM58AY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"` �— a
LJ `.
>�
NORTNLNE NW tH SEG 4]08 ��COPNER
f'AMNER
Z
Ti
SECTKKi&flE
SEC 9788
...
$•
FD. CONC. MON.
I
Vq
�''
SSI.WE [�
MFEM Eg mm
�".ev 3I'
vu�frtxnxsa,e�nuavwa�.ame.*w,waneMe,.wwv
F
r
'
rok' �\ b
A41,
mw,awsn PM. w. mN..ww"cwM.mreemrmK
{P$_
,.tE �\ I
+%�"".✓+oraosnanr...esmme xemw,am.,arew,e...navlr,
= V
y81
3'
LEGEND
pPd ApS /q
r.nxamaxsra•Ewzese.mwl+mnue wab.awnxw.wnomn,InumMaawbw"
q—
(RI RECOROFD OISTMCE OR SEFAING
M,
N, a,\ ag
\ '
ui
.w�.n pmm ^°, @""tluYe4vYvm16vMrt
w.,,mmrwm,mwc.nwa.�xnu..no".va. w,.alu...m,w
Ln p
g
POI MO1RIXi PoDWITNCPG tlA500
4\
\\•�\
MSaeMv.rokN'ufa=lS,enrMkw l,MiWkxeLwk
,,ppW
A"�
\
srPt '�gm
Namxumvwnamr,+mnn,Y�la++nSne.w.+amuwvm+mwweNM
o sEl'IRWI POO wNHYELIOW GYst25]t
� `\
Nam+
'MiemwmmTnvmvnw:
i��NNNvv
STATEOF wwA �. �. iom]s']rw
twasanN.nwv,m.z,xaa"grlW.wv,aa,.m.mw"Nw.aa.eNmmnaww,n
RHE UNWHEITY OF KKgAI��
Smw•+M'Weaee•rtowN�m,re6•wu,tm.toayn.pa„ary.uq:
wm smn a'Mm' mm Imm r.mn w W mM N+aw.
$
AUOffCRYPMiCEL301]0M Gv35131'
zrm stncsx R=BR.OY
`
W,uevxnn•oxa YM aEAxnaxnNw WmMK an>Imw Wna WMNW:
�
l•tY83i'
�-. CM 1R&10'
wiwovawbs.vnxYmseva„emaa'w]ea.wun,NNl.ahevm"wA"aa.wu.,
�
4.
N SPWdVE.
38.f0 E
—' E SWI149'W
6189DSY\\\
xw+%„elnenMvxvt.aMlaroem WauRy,p�ww/vmMrywcm.sltmaawlsam
wu�ec�nryry ,apnygm,mw'f,a'wamanpma Mnawpvy;
S
Ly
}y'
STATEOF IOwA
t9a.]]'
4sinSw,p',em'wenaz0.mlw 3,ry W'w.bM1"6Mmwb. W„aamum
O
(THE UNNHI9RY OF YJwA)
'
�
nT0'19W'E
ES%'
taw SuelxuN,Y9i,.N: Y1anq Wl WgxtlY,LnN4wY•m6aYwxa.an.[04v,tlwm,rt
J
3
mw..ewu®+nbtdoeennsmu,mmmw.,>amwi
W
g z
/ yb,
U
K
0
LL
w
"�� / I srATE aF 1OWA
snv+xmsivrimwrwmbt
Q
O
h.,Y1J1?, .. % 9 / RNE UNNERSRY OF KKYA
Yeiwroa, ze'xt'Ia'Wa,%AMYk
ry
J D_
U
g/%J
....eCna .i. ..Y:` 49°0]96 I
wiwwmi'imYew9as,feet
Z
�
0
i� /
taw NMnw4Mu'Emxa.,afat
(�
RaE41.(q' \• PoYR OF
.ww WXI,NC,VI'Wa, At®✓.
r
z
•ts•
eE0NNx01
wanwma•,aa E.nx,Emnrc
O p
> 2O
uw]msa //
=
R=M.
L-Ml N'
S98'itT(W
MwXaMM•ST,YEa, 6,e31NK
.ewsw, ueea'[wmW M[
L�
z i
CM ]A3P
ssrarss'w
<
W
t
,zy W. �y
/8TA9E
..wsw,mePsrEmnamu:
W
J z
F
V
�
Z.
OF MA
RREtMWRSTYOFIOWA)
.w�ma,nx V9MS[u weaxart
W
q
MOx"
wm Wm M,,P%, Faq syska
i
a
— a w 50,SIm UNE NW tM EG &]46
— — _ _ �xwwm,u,ivm.V'Fameoeeje+rma.peNlaeyFMy.,nmmY6g3rst
w,,,u.alm
sQ
8Ww�� NIXtiH LINE 3W tHBSEC.4]95
NV/}
N6]' Tw
F
(
DRAWN JSB
FO.IRgi ROO E0.BY
MARONHDD
STATE OF IOF
APPROI£D
— SBS'OJW'W ME UNNEA9ITY OF MA) I
P STATE OF IONA
St 89
ISSU F
N
S (THEIINNERSfry CFWWAI
i
OATE 4/5 t5
92.0 D001(
/ f!
suR IIEOUESTEDSY: SURVEYPREPNxID BY:
••���•�
TIEIIMVERSNYOFIOW SM HATTERY. we.
SHEET NAME
+ss
o�y
IMH NaaTl]oATe aR Ma aTr, w
Iwrsuns
PLAT OF SURVEY
ptm——zm®
(9t�351-]OW
S�
i
PROJECT NO.
IiDJ]sl
PR'=L^MINARY
g
''
SHEET NO.
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FEBRUARY 11 , 2015 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock Grenis,
Becky Soglin
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Susan Dulek
OTHERS PRESENT: Bryan Svoboda, Thomas McInerney, JJ Deryke, Jeff Clark.
Kirsten Frey
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 JANUARY 14, 2015 MEETING MINUTES:
Soglin moved to approve the minutes.
Chrischilles asked about the training that was conducted at the January meeting and that since
he was absent, he asked that when staff makes their recommendations do they have any
information that is not shared with the Board.
Dulek explained that if this item was to be discussed again it would need to become an agenda
item for an upcoming meeting or to speak with her or Walz after the meeting.
Goeb seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00001: 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.
Walz summarized the information in the staff report, noting the unique situation along Hutchison
Avenue and that the proposed new porch would be closer to conforming with the setback
standard then the original porch. She reminded the Board of the purpose of the setback
standards with regard to maintaining light, air, separation for fire protection and firefighting as well
as privacy and to reflect the general placement and character within the neighborhood.
She noted that she had been contacted by a neighboring property owner who wanted to be
certain that the right-of-way was not being vacated. He had no concern with the setback but
Board of Adjustment
February 11, 2015
Page 2 of 11
wanted the street to remain a public right-of-way, which it is.
Grenis questioned the staff recommendation that the porch to remain an open-air porch. Walz
answered this was the usual requirement on such setback exceptions, because if it were to be
enclosed, then in the future there may be the request to add yet another open -aired porch,
decreasing the set -back even more.
Soglin asked if the small right-of-way area is plowed by the City; Walz said she believed it is is
maintained by the applicant.
Chrischilles asked about the distance from the property line to the street, and Walz was difficult to
tell, but believed it no was less than 5 feet.
Grenis asked the applicant to come forward.
Bryan Svoboda (526 West Park Road) mentioned that the porch has not been torn down
yet. The stairs on the exiting porch actually extend over 3 feet onto City property and the
proposed porch would be completely on his property with no stairs extending across the
City property. Svoboda said that he has been plowing the right-of-way, which is the access
to his property. He stated that the porch sits about 15-20 feet from the paved street, but
sits about 2 feet from the property line.
Grenis opened public hearing.
No one came forward.
Grenis closed the public hearing.
Baker moved to adopt 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.
Goeb seconded the motion.
Baker stated that regarding application EXC15-00001 he concurs with the findings set forth in the
staff report of February 11 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 for the approval of this application.
Grenis concurred.
Goeb also concurred.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
Board of Adjustment
February 11, 2015
Page 3 of 11
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00002: 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.
Walz summarized the staff report for the Board, reviewing the site and its shared access and
parking with the adjacent church, which is under the same ownership and direction. She
reminded the Board that the daycare had opened just a year before with 16 children and the
many improvements to the property required for the special exception had been made at that
time.
She reviewed the requirements for parking and explained that the church and daycare share the
parking area, but operate during different hours and days of the week. For this reason, staff was
recommending a reduction in the parking requirement.
She explained the 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 parking area does not meet this
standard and 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, which has operated for decades, to maintain its limited off-street parking it
has. Staff did not believe it was essential to modify the parking area, however the applicant
has indicated that they would like the daycare to eventually expand to 50 children. While this
expansion is not under consideration with this application, staff is cautious about whether that
level of use would be appropriate on a site with these constraints.
Walz stated that 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 plan 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.
Baker shared concern about possible future development, as stated in the staff report "The
applicant should be aware that any future expansion of the daycare may require the church to
come closer to conformance to the parking area setback and landscape screening as any part of
any future approval". Baker stated the lot will not change, the parking availability will not change,
so if the plans are to increase to 50 in the long range, the applicant would have to come back
before the Board for special exception to set aside the required parking for 50 and what would be
different at that point to require the additional screening that is not being required with this
application. Walz explained the applicant is now doubling their occupancy and at this time staff is
not concerned about allowing 50 children with the current conditions, they need to see how the
site functions with 33 first. In terms of the screening, staff has not required that at this time
because in order to do this they would have to lose a parking space and it didn't seem necessary
Board of Adjustment
February 11, 2015
Page 4 of 11
at this time
Baker asked what the additional parking required if there were 50 children at the daycare. Walz
explained that the parking is based on the number of employees and the number of employees
required at a daycare is based on the ages of the children at the daycare, so it's hard to estimate
what that would be.
Chrischilles asked what the screening would consist of if the Board were to require it. Walz
replied it was meant to provide a couple of things, one is to provide a sense of separation
between sidewalks and parking area, and to screen the sight of cars particularly when it is dark
out and the glare of headlights onto other property.
Baker asked if neighbors were notified and Walz confirmed that neighbors are notified and staff
has not heard from any neighbors regarding this application prior to tonight's meeting.
Goeb asked about the approval for the increase in the number of children in the daycare is a
totally different application, something health and human services approve. Walz stated that is
correct, they verify all the space requirements are met and any other safety issues. Additionally
there is an element of the building code that is evaluated as well.
Grenis asked about the outdoor playground area space requirements. Walz stated that with
daycares not all the kids are outside at the same time so the space requirements are for the
maximum number of children that would go outside at one time.
Goeb asked how many parking spaces the church requires; Walz replied all 20 spaces are
required for the church.
Grenis asked the applicant to come forward.
Thomas McInerney (1208 Marcy Street) represented the King of Glory International Church as
the architect who drew up the plans. The project is requesting the increase of 33 due to the
ability inside the daycare to accommodate the additional children. McInerney also mentioned
that while they are not adding or renovating the building, they will be adding a ramp as a second
egress for an additional entrance to the newly used portion of the building.
Grenis opened public hearing.
JJ Deryke (2101 Muscatine Ave) has owned his property since 1962 and lived there until 1976
and again since 1987 to the present. Deryke feels he's been a good neighbor to the church and
the church has been a good neighbor to him. He stated he has a background in residential
childcare and has a problem seeing 33 children in that facility, outdoors and indoors. He also
questions the number of vehicles that will be coming and going from that property to service that
many kids, as it is a residential neighborhood. The small daycare that has been there presently
has been no problem, but he has a problem with the increase.
Baker asked Deryke about his concern about the increase in children at the daycare, asking if it
were a concern about space available for those children or if there was something about the
building or parking. Deryke answered that he hadn't been in the building for years, it was built
prior to the 1920's and feels it just wouldn't be enough space. Baker explained that the Board's
position is regulated by the State, and that the State determines what is acceptable for space of
the daycare and has stated this property meets the requirements. Deryke stated that his concern
Board of Adjustment
February 11, 2015
Page 5 of 11
is with that increase in children is the increase in traffic and cars coming and going.
McInerney responded that space requirements for each child is 35 square feet and the building
can more than accommodate that. Additionally the parking requirements for parking for a
daycare of 33 children are about 10 spots at most depending on the mix of ages of the children in
the daycare. He doesn't see how there will ever be an issue of traffic congestion, and it is a large
parking lot for the daycare and just the right size for the church.
Grenis asked about the outdoor play area and if all children go out at the same time, and
McInerney replied that no they did not, the infants do not go outside and all the other children do
not go out at the same time because they need a different level of supervision depending on the
age group. Grenis asked what the maximum number of children that are outside at one time
currently, McInerney did not have that information. He stated that the size of the fenced -in play
area accommodates 17 children.
Baker asked if the concern was increased child load, then there would be increased traffic, and
has it been the operational history that the traffic for parents dropping off children all at the same
time each day or is there variations. McInerney answered that every family has their own
schedule and make accommodations. Not everybody goes to work at the same time, or leaves
the center at the same time, generally there is a window of time, but the window is not always the
same.
Goeb asked for the hours of operation of the daycare. McInerney answered that it was 7 a.m. to
5 p.m. or a little later depending on the children enrolled.
Grenis closed the public hearing.
Goeb stated she has no problem with this particular application but is concerned with the lack of
screenings and setbacks that would need to be required if they increase the center to 50 in the
future.
Baker moved to recommend 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 (IRS-5) zone at 2024 G Street
subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan 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.
Soglin seconded the motion.
Chrischilles stated that regarding application EXC15-00002 he concurs with the findings set forth
in the staff report of February 11 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 for the approval of this application.
Baker concurred but stated that according to general standards number 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." And wanted to
Board of Adjustment
February 11, 2015
Page 6 of 11
acknowledge that there was concern expressed this evening and those concerns should be
entered into the consideration and if there is any future expansion those concerns will be much
more apparent.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00003: 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.
Soglin stated she works for Johnson County in a building across the street from this location and
was present at a meeting last fall that involved in a discussion regarding residential parking in the
area, but being present at the meeting does not affect her ability be impartial on the application
presented this evening.
Walz presented the staff report noting the historic aspect of the Tate Arms property and the
importance of preserving a site that marked a period in our local history when the University
would not house African American students. She explained the very detailed recommendations
contained in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to accomplish the stated goal of preserving the
few historic buildings that remain in the area. She reminded the Board that the previous month
they had heard another case on the west side of the river and of the concessions the land owner
granted in order to achieve the goals of the Riverfront Crossings plan with regard to pedestrian
accommodations.
She noted that the applicant had voluntarily sought Landmark designation for the property and
had agreed to restore the building. In exchange the applicant would be able to transfer
development potential to the adjacent site. The applicant had decided to transfer some, but not
all of that potential. In designing his development the applicant had made a number of
accommodations to ensure the historic character and integrity of the Tate Arms property was
preserved.
She reviewed the requirements for parking and explained how this was addressed specifically in
the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. She noted that 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.
Walz stated that while often the Comprehensive Plan does not speak to the specifics of a special
exception, in this case the Comprehensive Plan was quite explicit. She noted the various
areas in the Historic Preservation Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and the details of the Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan that put forward this very scenario.
She states the 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:
Board of Adjustment
February 11, 2015
Page 7 of 11
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.
Soglin asked about the additional bike parking, if bike parking was required at all, then the bullet
should be worded as "in addition to the required bike parking..." Walz agreed that is how the
second bullet should be worded.
Chrischilles asked if there were a contingency assumed in this that the applicant will maintain
ownership of both properties until they are both completed. Walz explained that the applicant
cannot have the development potential unless both properties are brought to fruition. The
applicant must complete the projects due to the agreement with regard to the Tate Arms.
Chrischilles asserted that was his concern, that the applicant would build the new buildings and
then not maintain the Tate Arms building or sell them off. Walz said the applicant would not get
the occupancy permit for the new building if that was to happen.
Goeb asked about the properties, its two addresses but it seems to be discussing three
properties. Walz replied that the two most northern properties have been combined. Goeb then
asked what happens in the future if one property is sold and not the other. Walz explained that
since Tate Arms has landmark status the Historic Preservation Commission would have to
approve if that property were to be removed, but if the owner wanted to divide ownership of the
properties, a parking easement would have to be issued for the other property, sine some of the
parking for the new buidling is on the Tate Arms site. This has been done in past cases. So it is
conceivable that the two properties could eventually be under two different ownership.
Grenis asked the applicant to come forward.
Jeff Clark (414 East Market Street) is the applicant for this project and stated he has worked very
close with City staff and the Historic Preservation Commission to create a project that is good for
this area. He was not aware how significant the Tate Arms was at the time he purchased it, but
once informed agreed it should be a landmark. In designating the Tate Arms a landmark, the
number of units they were able to develop was reduced, they could have developed over 40
units, but by keeping the Tate Arms was reduced to 22. There are some difficulties in developing
the site due to the preservation of the house but with the combined work of staff and the historic
preservation folks it has turned out to be a very nice project. There is roughly about 40 feet
between the Tate Arms project and the new building. Parking wise the lot can actually
accommodate, if stacking parking is allowed, 39 vehicles, but it only legally counts 28 due to city
code.
Soglin asked if in the case of a 100 year flood, could folks get their cars out of the area
reasonably. Clark replied that the base of that project is only 3 Yz feet below the 500 year flood,
the base level will sit there pretty high. The parking garage is set above the 2008 flood levels.
Goeb asked if there were to be some green space between the new building and the Tate Arms.
Clark answered that there is roughly 1500 square feet of green space between the two buildings.
Grenis opened public hearing.
Board of Adjustment
February 11, 2015
Page 8 of 11
Kirsten Frey (920 South Dubuque Street) stated that she and her law partners work out of 920
South Dubuque Street have had a good neighbor relationship with the applicant. However Frey
wanted the Board to be aware of the concerns with regards to the law firm's parking lot. She
pointed out on the map the portion in the rear of the parking lot where all the attorneys and staff
for the firm park, and that parking was required by the City in 1987 when the building was built,
because the other parking area was not large enough to fulfill the staff and client parking needs.
The concern is that visually the parking lot appears to belong to the applicant and not to the law
firm, and they have previously dealt with people parking in that lot when the buildings to the west
were commercial properties. The concern is with a residential property there will be even more
problems and vehicles could be parked in that lot all day and night that should not be there. Frey
is requesting that while it is true the Comprehensive Plan did recommend density bonuses and
parking waivers for the preservation of historic properties, it did not identify it would be done
necessarily at this location. There is concern regarding the way the properties are situated and
lack of side -street parking in this area, which will make it even more likely for people short a
parking spot to use one of the law firm's spots. Frey is asking the Board to consider the impact
on her property and consider the imposing of a condition that the applicant take all reasonable
steps necessary to preserve and protect the law firm's parking lot from the use of his tenants.
That could include the use of signage or putting a prohibition in the lease.
Baker asked if Frey had spoken to the applicant about these concerns. Frey replied that they
have spoken and Mr. Clark has been receptive of their concerns and said he would instruct his
tenants not to park in the law firm's lot, but was not inclined to put a requirement in his lease. He
did say he has an ongoing relationship with a towing company and that they could peruse the
parking lot periodically and tow people who did not belong in the parking lot. That is appreciated
however the concern is that it requires the law firm to have permits in their vehicles for the use of
their own lot. Additionally there is still the impact and disruption on their business if they need to
notify the towing company and then have towing going on in the lot. Baker noted there is a
comparable situation on Market Street between the law building there and the coffee shop and
that parking lot has clear identified signage and perhaps that is what should happen in this
situation too. Frey noted that area is more commercial and her concern is having her law office
next to residential and vehicles being parked in her lot overnight or on weekends. Additionally this
development is requiring an exception to lower the parking allotment and the burden will fall onto
the neighbors.
Soglin asked if there were signage on the lot now and Frey replied there is one sign that does
state private parking.
Chrischilles asked Frey what the ideal remedy of the parking situation would be for her and Frey
responded she would like it written in the tenant's leases that they cannot park in the law firm lot.
Chrischilles feels that would not stop people from parking there. Perhaps a fence between the
properties is needed causing a barrier for the people parking in the lot to get to their apartment
building. Or to ask the applicant to place a sign at each individual spot stating the spot is at the
ownership of the law firm. Frey replied that specific signage has not been discussed between the
law firm and the applicant, but when spoken in a general sense both parties understood some
signage would be necessary.
Frey also mentioned she did not want to encumber the liability of having others parking in her lot.
Baker asked if signage would ease the liability. Frey said it would help but was not sure if
signage is enough. Additionally they did not want to have to clean up after other in that parking
area. Baker asked if the law firm would be willing to require permits for parking there. Frey said
permitting the lot would be difficult because clients use those spaces as well.
Board of Adjustment
February 11, 2015
Page 9 of 11
Soglin asked if there has been a situation where cars were parked there illegally in the past and
what action did the law firm take and also if the law firm has thought to putting in a gate system to
deter overnight parking and such. Frey said it has not been a problem in the past, but there were
not residential properties next door in the past.
Dulek stated that for 15 years now the City has required that all leases have an addendum, an
information disclosure and acknowledgement form, and it sets forth certain things. For example
you have to identify specific inhabitable spaces and one of the things on the addendum is
acknowledgement of allowed parking if any. So landlords are required to tell tenants where
parking is allowed. Frey asked if that City form can be modified to specifically state where
parking is not allowed. Dulek replied that City Code only states parking is not allowed on grass
or a sidewalk, nothing else is specified. However the landlord can add additional language into
their leases.
Clark reiterated that the parking area he has could accommodate up to 39 vehicles and if there
were to be violators parking over on the law firm's property if would likely be a guest or someone
that didn't know any different. Clark stated he didn't have a problem placing a sign as the cars
enter the lot stating that parking is only for the law offices. He doesn't feel he has a right to tow
vehicles from someone else's property, which is the property owner's responsibility. Clark feels
the lease provision enters into a legality issue and doesn't think that is a resolution to this issue.
He feels signage will help, there are never guarantees that people will not park where they are
not supposed to. Clark has agreed that he is willing to pay in whole for a sign, to be placed on
the law firm's property, stating that parking was for the law offices only.
Grenis asked if Clark had other properties around town with a similar situation and Clark replied
that yes they do with properties in the downtown area, as parking downtown is always an issue.
Signage does help.
Grenis closed the public hearing.
Soglin asked if the information disclosure and acknowledgement form could be changed to say
parking is not allowed in unauthorized areas. That updated form could be helpful in this situation
and in future ones. Dulek stated the form only states where parking is allowed, the landlord could
hand write on the form that no parking is allowed in the lot to the east. Soglin thought that might
be useful.
Soglin also noted she is uncomfortable requiring the applicant to provide signage for another
property that does not belong to him.
Chrischilles commented that the combination of adding a sentence to the information disclosure
and acknowledgement form plus Mr. Clark's willingness to pay for a sign erected at the entrance
of the law firm's parking lot is a reasonable solution.
Baker suggested adding a third condition to the staff recommendation that states provision of
signage at the entrance of the adjacent property to discourage tenant parking. He is unsure
about adding the lease language to the conditions.
Grenis questioned if the City could require that extra sentence to be added just one landlord's
information disclosure and acknowledgement form. Dulek replied that Mr. Clark can handwrite
the added language to his forms and it is a feasible requirement the Board can impose.
Board of Adjustment
February 11, 2015
Page 10 of 11
Goeb stated her opinion is the law office has a valid concern, people park wherever they can find
parking. Signs may deter some people, but it is likely that visitors will ignore the signage, not the
residents. Having the language in the information disclosure and acknowledgement form as well
as the provision for signage is probably the best solutions for this situation.
Soglin moved to approve 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 bike parking on the interior of the apartment building, the
applicant shall provide additional bike parking on the exterior of the apartment.
With the permission of the adjacent property owner, provision of signage at the
entrance to the adjacent property to discourage tenant parking.
To add to the information addendum regarding no parking "on the lot east of the
alley."
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
Chrischilles stated that regarding application EXC15-00003 he concurs with the findings set forth
in the staff report of February 11 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 for the approval of this application.
Baker added that regarding general standards 1, 2, and 3 there has been public input that raises
questions about the effect of the development parking and that the Board has amended the
recommendation accordingly to begin to ameliorate some of those concerns. The staff report in
general is acceptable, however certain conditions needed to be acknowledged.
Soglin added that the concerns about parking are more of an inconvenience than anything
severe or injurious.
Grenis concurred.
Baker acknowledged and thanked Mr. Clark, stating that he had jumped through a lot of hoops.
He wished other developers would follow his example. He understood the concerns of the
adjacent property owner, but felt her concerns were addressed by the conditions the board
attached. This is a development that required many accomodations by the applicant and that the
applicant should be applauded for his efforts.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
ADJOURNMENT:
Baker moved to adjourn, Goeb seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014-2015
NAME
TERM EXP.
118
3/12
419
5/14
9110
1018
11112
1/14
2/11
BAKER, LARRY
1/1/2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GOEB, CONNIE
1/1/2015
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GRENIS, BROCK
1/1/2016
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE
1/1/2014
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
SOGLIN, BECKY
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X=Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member