Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-2016 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, July 13, 2016 — 5:15 PM City Hall :i1LL�lF ■imL•CMMMf 111 A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the June 15, 2016 Minutes D. Special Exception Item EXC16-00005: Discussion of an application for a special exception submitted by Pat McArtor to reduce the rear principal building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet for property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone located at 1031 E. Market St. E. Board of Adjustment Information Materials requested by the Board regarding amplified sound and Rooftop Service Areas, G. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC16-00005 1031 East Market St. 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 Walz Date: July 13, 2016 Pat McArtor 1031 East Market Street Iowa City 319-331-2797 Reduction of the rear principal building setback To allow a 10' x 20' home addition 1031 East Market Street f INE.&I Residential, Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) North: Residential, RNS-12 South: Residential, RNS-12 East: Residential, RNS-12 West: Residential, RNS-12 14-4B-3A, (General Criteria) April 6, 2015 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in the RNS-12 zone at the corner of Clapp and Market Streets. The lot is considered nonconforming because it is smaller than the minimum size currently allowed in the zone: the established lot is 4,550 square feet; the minimum lot size for detached housing in the RNS-12 zone is 5,000 square feet. The home is also nonconforming with regard to the required side and rear setbacks of the zone. A 5-foot side setback is required for the principal building (the house); the house is set approximately 4 feet from the side (west) property line. A 20-foot rear setback is required for all principal structures'; a small portion of the house (a rear bay) is set approximately 12 feet from the rear property line. The footprint of the house is just under 900 square feet. The applicants would like to construct a one-story, 10' x 20' addition in order to create a more functional dining room. The addition would encompass the area now occupied by the rear bay and a wooden deck. The proposed addition would be set back 10 feet from the rear (south) property line and approximately 13 feet from the side (west) property line. The applicant has indicated that windows on the south wall of the addition will be clerestory windows in order to preserve privacy for the adjacent residential property to the south at 121 Clapp Street. ' On a square corner lot, either interior property line may be designated as the rear lot line. Because the subject house is set so deeply into the lot —approximately 4 feet from the west property line, the south property line is designated as the rear because it comes closest to meeting the rear setback standard at 12 feet. is In 2015, the applicant applied for and was granted a front setback reduction to establish a 20' x 22' garage. The required front setback was reduced from 10 feet to 3 feet (8 feet from the sidewalk) from the front property line on Clapp Street. An accessory building (a shed), is currently located at the southwest corner of the property. The minimum setback for this shed is 3 feet from a side or rear lot line. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-4B-4E-5 pertaining to principal building setbacks in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A. The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below. Specific approval criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements (14-2A-4B-5). 1. The situation is peculiar to the property. FINDINGS: • The subject property is a small, nearly square comer lot 65' x 70' (4,550 square feet). The existing house is set to the back of the lot, close to both interior (side and rear) lot lines, with a larger front yard than most homes in the neighborhood. • Because the property is located on a corner, the "rear" property line serves as the side lot line for the adjacent property to the south (121 Clapp Street). 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements. FINDINGS: • The property is small (4,550 square feet) and square and the house is set near the back of the lot —close to the interior lot lines. 3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations, which are: a. To maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting. b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings; c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in Iowa City neighborhoods; d. To promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences: and e. Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. FINDINGS: • The proposed addition would maintain a 10-foot rear setback from the abutting property to the south. The principal building on the adjacent property to the south (at 121 Clapp Street) is set approximately 9 feet from shared property line. The minimum side setback requirement is 5 feet and so this preserves adequate space for fire separation and firefighting. • The applicant has proposed using only clerestory windows on the south wall of the addition in order to preserve the privacy of the adjacent property. • Properties on the Clapp Street frontage are characterized by small lots and most have non -conforming setbacks. • Likewise, within the neighborhood, homes fronting on the north -south side streets tend to be located on small lots and many have non-standard setbacks. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. WINAMe$-1 The applicant has proposed clerestory windows on the south wall of the addition, which will help to preserve privacy on the adjacent lot and its rear yard. While buildings on the lot (house, new addition, garage, storage shed) will not exceed the maximum building coverage standard or the accessory building coverage standard for the zone, there is some concern about the amount of impermeable surface clustered to the back of the property, especially given the way the buildings on the adjacent lots are clustered close to the property lines. For this reason, it may be appropriate to preserve open, permeable space in the rear yard. Staff recommends that no other structures, besides the garage, be located within the rear yard and no additional paving be permitted between the house and the rear property line. This would require removal of a wooden deck and a shed that is located in the southwest corner of the property. The existing brick patio between the house and the garage could remain along with a privacy fence located at or near the property line. With the removal of the shed and the deck there will be no net loss in permeable yard space when the addition is built. 5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. The proposed addition would be located 13 feet from the west property line (this area requires a minimum 5-foot side setback) and 10 feet from the south property line. 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. See findings above with regard to meeting the purpose of the building setback requirements. The proposed addition will meet all other requirements of the zone, so will not endanger the 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 proposed addition will not prevent use or enjoyment of the adjacent properties as the clerestory windows and privacy fence will preserve privacy between the small yard spaces generally present in this neighborhood, The small one-story addition will replace an existing portion of the home, so will not add significantly to the building size. If the removal of the deck and the storage shed is a condition of approval (see staff recommendation above), there will be no net loss in permeable yard space. 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 neighborhood is fully built out in a traditional urban neighborhood pattern, with homes closely spaced on relatively small lots. This small addition will be an improvement to the subject home, adding dining room space, and will not prevent investment or improvement to other homes in the neighborhood. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. FINDING: • All utilities, access roads, drainage and facilities are established for this neighborhood. S. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Not applicable. 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 proposed addition will be in compliance with the required side setback of 5 feet from the west property line. • it will comply with all other standards in the zoning code. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. FINDING: While the Comprehensive Plan does not speak directly to this situation, the plan does encourage reinvestment in existing housing stock. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of special exception EXC15-00006, to reduce the required rear principal building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to allow a one-story, 20' x 10' foot home addition for property located at 1031 East Market Street, subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • Only clerestory windows are allowed on the south -facing wall of the addition. • No other structures may be located within the rear yard except for the privacy fence and existing garage. The existing deck and storage shed must be removed. • No additional paving or impervious surface may be established between the house and the rear property line. (The existing patio between the house and garage may remain in its current location as shown on the site plan.) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map. 2. Aerial views of the property. 3. Proposed site plan and floor plan. 4. Application materials. 5. Correspondence. Approved by: -7 ww ) 72�:� John Yapp, Development Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Ln C:) 4-j V) rn CD o 0 t ■ • ■ ■ in ■ ■J■ ■ ■ ■ f m I n !, ZVI I I , I Nke"Kt+ �56-elt waf,-6� WIT\ MYRI a PIOPOA/ W C7 Q OC Q 47 N N X 9 N O a C O a m o z iAl G 3� O CD N �p O O. N Q w O C 'C O. 0 O O LL W4 (i r4id-t4i',D)" t_. � ` LICiff-kTION TO THE 1: ""' R 4 ` � D "U TM E N� TS-PE""%'.`01AL EXCEPTION DATE:. %, W& PROPERTY PARCEL NO. PROPERTYAADItRESS: i tt d A dff.k A PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SIZE: -22 6� j APPLICANT: Name:7�/y�/�� Address: 1— b31 _j Phone: -- CONTACT PERSON; Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone; PROPERTY OWNER: Name; (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sersh-wa►z@iowa-city.org. Purpose for special exception: `t°1 ed llLP. „sue - e �, �n _ , I- r Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: -2- In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide responses to all of the Information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date for your applicaidon. A pre. -application consultation with Planning staff is STRONGLY recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria. As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official statement, you should address all the applicable criteria In a clear and concise manner, IidFC3Ri�ATIOd TO RF;�j(7�1�F BY APPi.J,�: A. Legal descri AM of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary): You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing a parcel search for your address on the Assessor's website at www.lowaclty.loweassessors.coml or by calling 319-356-6066. B. Plot PlanlSite Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information; 1. Lot with dimensions; - 2. North point and scale; w 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each prrgperty opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. A,2 7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking spaces, etc.) C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code, In the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met (Specific approval criterla for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-413-4 of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are listed elsewhere In the Code.) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Weiz at 356-5339 or e-mail sarah-wa/z{r bwa- cify.o% Failure to provide this information will constitute an Incomplete application and may head to a delay in its consideration before the Board -o_f,% Adjustment ,,101 r't �(r'f- 111 i�1) dt ra)vG.�l Un t 2(d t `%'1t j f eo r C6 Filmeisi©,-is oa I I ae hoax are �,i f eLetW S t ikilk' 4G � &A k W Anb i Yy t t7rL. ) b X 20 Aden hull V51►1# P '/C"'a I r vfi/ys everJ> June 13, 2016 To the Board of Adjustment: I am writing to request a special exception for my property on 1031 East Market Street. First of all, I would like to thank you for granting my request last year to allow me to build a garage. To refresh your memory, I requested an exception because I live in a high density neighborhood on the corner lot of Market to the west and Clapp to the north. The exception allowed me to build a garage to the side of my lot and preserve the brick patio area between the house and the garage. I am requesting another exception to add a place for a dining room. At the city's recommendation, the request is for a I O' X 20' addition to the back of the house. This will leave a 10' space from the back of my house to the property line. Originally I was proposing a 14' X 20', I do feel this is a good compromise. As you can see in the drawing, the addition does not back to the neighbor's house but to their yard. I will be replacing the 6' X 3' existing laundry room and current deck. Under the current laundry room is a cinder -block foundation which will allow me to maintain interior plumbing and the rest of the addition will be on pillar footings. I hired a designer to help us maintain the character of this 100 year old house. It will update my laundry room and allow for a dining table. Included is a copy of the interior plan. The addition will have a shed roof. The south side of the addition will have high set casement windows to allow light but also preserve privacy for me and the neighbor's yard. The east wail with be primarily windows. This request does not contradict with my previous exception, as this also maintains my brick patio. The back entrance to the house will be moved to the northeast corer of the addition. Once completed then I will replace my current fencing and finish the remainder of the landscaping. Thank your for your consideration on this request. F spec tally, / /1 Pat McArtor ~ 6/2VMl6 Urban Ades Red Estate Mail -1031 Market St. variance P r s Karen Peterson <karen eterson{� urbanacres com> URBAN ACRES 1031 Market St. variance 1 message Karen Peterson <karenpeterson@urbanacres.com> Wed, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:11 AM To. sarah-walz@iowa-city.org Dear Sarah: As per our phone conversation this rooming, I am the sister of Linda Rohret Vikel and she Is NOT in favor of the construction of the 10 x 20 addition to the 1031 Market St. property. She does not want to have the structure any closer to her home located at 121 Clapp St. Iowa City, Iowa than what is currently permitted for setbacks. Her lot is very small and her views are already limited from the construction of the 2 car garage that Mr. McArtor has previously built. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Please confirm receipt of this email. f" UR13AN ACRES Karen Peterson / REALTORO YetenPcterson@urbenacres.com1319-330-4442 Urban Acres Real Estate Office' 319-351-1111 1519 S. GilbertSt., Iowa City, IA 52240 Licensed to sell real estate In Iowa w_,w-urbanarr€ s.ccrr. Mps9/mail.gocgle(oWmSIKMW=2&lk=4dldedMg view=pt&searci,=eet&ih=1559rsdc5al5cc848siml=1;5ecedc5al5=U 1/1 r CITY OF IOWA CITY �z'r. MEMORANDUM DATE: 7/8/2016 TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT i FROM: SUSAN DULEK, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNE RE: ROOFTOP SERVICE AREAS You requested information regarding City staff's recommendation to City Council regarding amplified sound in rooftop service areas (RSAs). For your information, I have attached copies of: 1. Section 14-4C-2AA(1)(f) of the City Code; 2. Memo from Geoff Fruin to Planning and Zoning Commission dated May 15, 2015; 3. Excerpt of final minutes of meeting of Planning and Zoning Commission on May 21, 2015; 4. Memo from Geoff Fruin to Planning and Zoning Commission dated July 10, 2015; and 5. Excerpt of draft minutes of meeting of Planning and Zoning Commission on July 16, 2015 (final minutes have not been submitted for approval). As Section 14-4C-2AA(1)(f) of the City Code states, amplified sound is only allowed in the CB-10 zone with a special use permit (except for hospitality uses). In other words, absent a special use permit, RSAs are prohibited (except for hospitality uses). Because amplified sound is prohibited, the BOA cannot further limit or restrict amplified sound as there is nothing to limit or restrict. The BOA has no jurisdiction over the issuance of a temporary use permit. The reason why staff recommended restricting the use of amplified sound via a special use permit, as opposed to a special exception, is what Geoff Fruin refers to in his memo as "flexibility." A special use permit is not a right, but rather a privilege; that is it can be denied or rescinded at the discretion of the City. Thus, if there were noise issues on a Saturday night, the City could revoke the special use permit on the following Monday without any hearing. Although the owner could appeal the decision to revoke a special use permit to district court, given that it is a privilege and not a right and the permit is a matter of staff discretion, it is highly unlikely that the appeal would be successful. In contrast, a special exception is a property right and the City must provide due process if it wishes to revoke that right. If, for example, the BOA had the authority to grant amplified sound and did so, staff would need to set a hearing before the BOA to have the special exception reviewed, and the property owner could appeal BOA's decision to district court. It is doubtful that one loud Saturday evening would be sufficient to take away a right granted by special exception. Further, the right granted by special exception attaches to the property, and if the property is sold, the new owner has the same right to amplified sound. If, on the other hand, the new owner had a history of alcohol violations (e.g., serving of under age persons), the City could deny a special use permit. I understand that this issue has been frustrating to you. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Attachments Copy to: Sarah Walz-w/att. 14-4C-2 14-4C-2 plan and/or the number of monitors to remedy the situation and reserves the right to suspend or revoke the RSA permit. (2) In the CB-10 zone, where the building containing the RSA abuts or is directly across a public alley from a property containing upper floor residential uses or hotel rooms that have windows facing the RSA, the hours of operation of the RSA are limited to ten o'clock (10:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Sunday through Thursday and ten o'clock (10:00) A.M. to twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight Friday and Saturday. d. Food Service: If alcohol is being served, food service must be provided. Prior to approval of an RSA, the applicant must submit evidence indicating how this requirement will be met. e. Noise: The design of the RSA must minimize the carry of noise across property boundaries. Use of specialized screen wall materials, sound deadening techniques, or similar, may be required. Evidence of such a noise mitigation plan must be included with an RSA application. In addition, after an RSA is established, the city reserves the right to require additional measures to remedy any violation of the city's noise or nuisance ordinance, as determined by the city. f. Amplified Sound: Due to the potential nuisance to neighboring properties and the general public in the surrounding neighborhood, amplified sound is only allowed for RSAs associated with hospitality oriented retail uses in the RFC -SD subdistrict and for RSAs in the CB-10 zone, subject to the limitations set forth below. RSAs acces- sory to hospitality oriented retail uses are not required to obtain a temporary use permit, but must comply with the city's noise and nui- sance ordinance, and the standards stated below. Amplified sound is only allowed for an RSA in the CB-10 zone upon receipt of a seasonal temporary use permit, unless it is accessory to a hospitality oriented use. Permits for amplified sound are subject to the stan- dards and restrictions set forth below and the general approval criteria for temporary uses as set forth in article D of this chapter. A temporary use permit may be denied or rescinded at the discretion of the city if noise becomes a nuisance or terms of the temporary use permit or the special exception conditions are violated. (1) If an RSA is located within three hundred feet (300') of a residential zone, amplified sound is prohibited; January 2016 Iowa City 14-4C-2 14-4C-3 (2) The city may restrict the hours when amplified sound may be used. However, in no case shall amplified sound be per- mitted between the hours of twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight and ten o'clock (10:00) A.M.; (3) No live entertainment using amplification shall be allowed; (4) Amplified sound may be restricted or prohibited during public events, festivals or concerts; (5) The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that the design of the RSA will minimize carry of noise across property boundaries. Use of specialized screen wall materials, sound deadening techniques, control of volume, or similar may be required. 2. Additional Special Exception Approval Criteria For Nonconforming Drinking Establishments: An RSA accessory to a nonconforming drinking establishment may be allowed by special exception provided it meets the general approval criteria for special exceptions set forth in section 14-4B-3 of this chapter, the approval criteria stated above for all RSAs and the additional approval criteria listed below: a. The RSA shall be located directly above and contiguous to the licensed drinking establishment. Contiguous means there may not be other uses located on floors in between the drinking establish- ment and the accessory RSA. b. There shall be no horizontal expansion of the licensed drink- ing establishment; c. There shall be no increase in interior floor area or interior occupant load of the existing drinking establishment, except if neces- sary for required bathrooms, elevator, stairs, kitchen equipment, or other essential elements necessary to meet accessibility, building code requirements or to meet the requirements or conditions of the special exception. (Ord. 15-4641, 9-15-2015) 14-4C-3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The following development standards help to ensure that accessory structures and build- ings remain secondary to the principal uses and buildings on a site. The standards provide for necessary access around structures, help maintain privacy to abutting lots, and maintain open front setback areas. In addition January 2016 Iowa City r -.. '�, CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMUKANDUM Date: May 15, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Geoff Fruln, Assistant City Manager Re: Rooftop Service Areas Background: In recent yeas, communities across the country have experlenced a growing demand for outdoor seating areas associated with restaurants and other commercial businesses. In Iowa City the public has seen this growing demand translate Into expanded sidewalk cafes, especially in the downtown. In many communities businesses are also finding great success with rooftop service areas that offer a similar customer experience in what is typically a more intimate, yet still urban setting. Much like sidewalk cafes, rooftop service areas can add to the vibrancy of cornmemial districts and often help boost the appeal of other sectors of the economy, such as the retail, office and hospitability sectors. In recent months, staff has received multiple inquiries related to rooftop service areas from existing and prospective businesses. For businesses classified as drinking establishments within 500 feet of a similar use, rooftop service areas are currently prohibited as it is considered an expansion of a non -conforming use. The 500 foot rule was implemented, in part, to encourage proliferation of other non -drinking establishment uses for downtown storefronts (e.g. retail, office, restaurant, and entertainment/hospitality). Qualifying drinking establishments can currently expand into sidewalk cafes and staff feels that expansions for rooftop service areas can contribute positively to the downtown without allowing horizontal expansion into new properties. Other businesses can have rooftop service areas, but alcohol service is prohibited and there is no process or criteria in place for review and consideration of neighboring uses. In these cases, staff feels a defined process will ensure nuisances are mitigated and that other criteria, such as accessibility considerations, are appropriately met. Staff believes that the attached changes to the zoning code can help facilitate these uses, while still adequately protecting Ilfe/safety and nuisance issues that sometimes accompany outdoor uses of space. Discussion of Solutions: In order to accommodate more requests for rooftop service areas, staff is proposing amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, of the City Code. These amendments define a rooftop service area as an accessory use to a variety of business types and create a special exception process for interested applicants. The special exception process is being proposed, recognizing that circumstances can vary greatly based on conditions such as location, size, and neighboring uses. In summary, the special exception approval criteria for rooftop service areas will include: * Compliance with all building and fire codes, as well as accessibility requirements including an elevator and accessible restrooms. Compliance with "outdoor service area' regulations as detailed in Title 4 of the City Code. (Staff notes that amendments to Title 4, Alcoholic Beverages, will be presented to the City Council as this item progresses through the legislative process in order to May 15, 2015 Page 2 account for differences between such areas and traditional outdoor service areas on the ground level and to avoid any conflicts between Title 14, Zoning Code, and Title 4j. • Acceptable design that will not detract from adjacent uses and will prevent nuisance and safety issues. Such design considerations includes dimensions, setbacks, accessibility provisions, screening and overall aesthetic compatibility with the surroundings. The minimum setback from the street -facing edge of the service area is proposed to be 10 feet. • Compliance with current zoning regulations related to lighting, and a requirement that lighting must be turned off when the area is not in use. -/ • Amplified noise will only be permitted through a temporary use permit obtained outside r of the special exception process. The temporary use permit will allow the City to more quickly remedy any nuisances related to noise. • A management plan to monitor safety and compliance with all applicable regulations. For nonconforming drinking establishments, the following additional criteria will be required: • The location must be located directly above and contiguous to the licensed drinking establishment. • There can be no horizontal expansion of the licensed drinking establishment. • The Interior floor area cannot expand except if necessary for restrooms, elevators, stairs, kitchen equipment or other essential elements needed to meet code requirements. A food service component must be incorporated Into the business. The special exception process also provides flexibility for the Board of Adjustment to Impose additional conditions to mitigate any anticipated externalities used on the circumstances of the individual application. Recommendation: Rooftop service areas are quickly growing in popularity across the country. Locally, staff is experiencing increasing requests for such uses. We feel the special exception process will afford more opportunities to our business community while ensuring that neighboring properties and the general public are not unreasonably Impacted. Therefore, Staff recommends amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to add a detinidon for "rooftop service areas" and establish standards for such uses, as indicated on the following pages. Underlined text is new language proposed and the strike -through natation indicates language to be deleted. In addition to the Zoning Code changes outlined above, staff will present changes to the City Code pertaining to Title 4, Alcoholic Beverages, when the item moves to the City Council. These changes will the mmended zoning provisions. Approved by: with Dougrtm h , Director Depant Neighborhood a Development Services Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 17 of 25 Eastham noted he would prefer there be a better mechanism for cost sharing for the alley improvements. He also feels the applicant would not want the Commission not to approve the application based on not being able to do the cost sharing. Hektoen stated that the Code allows the Commission to impose conditions to address public needs that are being generated by the rezoning and as Miklo stated there will be additional traffic on that alleyway so that is why Staff is recommending the condition. Freerks agreed that with the up -zoning the alley needs to be improved. She did have a couple other concerns. She sees this area with small businesses in affordable buildings and hopes what is developed here does not out -price the businesses and just becomes more housing, likely student housing. She also is concerned about open space and to make sure it is nice open space that can be utilized and appreciated. Martin agreed and is concerned that they haven't seen any design plans nor have a concrete idea of what will happen at this site. She is not opposed to this rezoning and to have the land developed, but is cautious and would like to know it will be developed with good intentions. Hensch noted he was excited about this because it is a difficult site to develop given its sloping nature and its position next to the substation. So the willingness for someone to want to go in and develop this is exciting. He does understand the concerns about being solely responsible for the cost of the alley upgrade, but doesn't know there are alternatives for that. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning to add a definition for "rooftop service areas' and establish standards for such uses. Fruin shared with the Commission that outdoor dining has become more popular and every season there are more and more applications for cafes and that is a trend also seen in other communities. One option they have not addressed in Iowa City is rooftop service areas, but it is seen more frequently in urban areas and recently in Iowa City when they created a code amendment allowed FilmScene to have a rooftop area which they are using. People are also probably familiar with the 30 Hop restaurant in Coralville that has a rooftop patio area, and what a success it has been. Iowa City currently has a situation where some businesses can expand to rooftops service areas but we don't have a set of standards other than the building codes to evaluate those requests. Other businesses simply cannot expand to rooftops. The City is getting more inquiries from people interested, primarily with new developments but also existing properties. It would be much more expensive for an existing property to retro-fit for this type of expansion. As the City gets more of these requests, Staff needs to have a process in place to evaluate, particularly with safety, accessibility, nuisance mitigation. That is not In place right now even for those businesses that could offer rooftop services. The City has chosen to make this a special exception process, to allow for ability to look at each individual situation. It is very hard to write regulations for situations where every case can be different, so the special exception is the best route. Each rooftop will be different; the setbacks from other buildings different, the nuisance controls for neighbors will be different so it is very hard to write one rule to encompass all those scenarios. Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 1g of 25 Freerks asked for examples of how other communities make this type of rooftop services areas work, especially with concerns about amplified sound. The idea of these rooftop service areas is to enhance the community, not be offensive to the community. Fruin agreed and said that amplified noise is the number one issue that cities deal with regarding rooftop service areas. There are sometimes also issues with lighting, but amplified noise is the toughest issue. Some cities outright restrict amplified sound, some have placed time of day restrictions, and he is sure there are other methods other cities have employed. Again this is why Staff felt the special exception was the way to go with each unique situation and the Board of Adjustment would create a set of standards that made sense for that unique property. For instance, FilmScene has a small rooftop patio and they like to show movies up there but don't have any neighboring properties that object. That is a case where amplified noise may not be an issue or have any impact. If there were to be a restaurant or bar build a large rooftop patio and there is residential area 10 feet away, then a condition of no amplified sound at all should be made, or at least cut it off at a reasonable time. Fruin said Staff is also recommending that any type of amplified sound use be controlled through a temporary permit to allow for flexibility to address problems. Nensch asked what the time frame of temporary permits was, so how long could the amplified sound be an issue. Freerks replied they are issued for one year. Fruin confirmed they are seasonal, weather permitting with an annual application process through Neighborhood Development Services. Boothroy came forwarded and added that the permits are issued and can be used at any time within the one year time frame and then needs to be reissued. It works because there is criteria they must meet and that is reviewed on an annual basis so businesses make an effort to comply to the performance standards so they can get a permit issued for the next year. They use the temporary permits throughout the community, all the garden centers and venders on Melrose Avenue during football games. There have not been problems with temporary permits, vendors know it's temporary and that they will not be reissued a permit in upcoming years if they do not comply. Freerks commented that for the rooftop services areas alcohol is involved and feels that is so much different than garden centers. Boothroy said the permit would just be for the amplified sound, not for alcohol. Theobald also noted that the Melrose Avenue permits are for football Saturdays only, these rooftop areas would be every single night. Boothroy said he was just trying to give examples from an enforcement perspective the permits are effective. Freerks feels the easiest way to enforce the issue is to just not allow amplified sound. Boothroy agreed that could be an option but if any amplified sounds are going to be allowed the temporary permit is the best solution for compliance. Eastham asked how a resident would be able to object to amplified noise issue. Boothroy said residents can contact his office if there are complaints. Freerks reiterated that she does not feel the amplified sound is necessary on the rooftop service areas, she lives close to downtown and can hear noise now and feels it will just contribute to that issue if allowed. She noted that it would always be changed in the future and allow for incremental allowance of amplified sound. Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 19 of 25 Martin asked for clarification, that with this special exception every case would be reviewed individually and it if were appropriate for no amplified sound, like close to a residence, the City could say no. Boothroy replied that was correct and it was not just a Staff review, but each case would go before the Board of Adjustment. Martin then asked if there were complaints on a location that did have amplified sound; this would allow easier access to revoke the permit. Boothroy said that was accurate and if they were unable to revoke they could at least not renew in the following year. Eastham said if there were five use permits for amplified sound in a three block area of downtown and neighbors object to the amount of amplified sound but cannot identify which of the five businesses they are hearing, how would the City address that. Fruin explained that they do deal with that issue already in the summer months when restaurants and bars open their doors and windows and loud amplified sound spilling out and admitted it can be a struggle to deal with and pinpoint the most offensive offender, but the City tries to work with the business owners to rectify the situations. Dyer noted that Plaza Center One has offices that overlook FilmScene and she has heard that their rooftop patio can be distracting. Fruin noted that they have seen in other cities that there are different types of amplified noise; it is one thing to have a couple of TV's up on a bar versus an extensive speaker system or live entertainment. Particularly with live entertainment, there are cities that have said no live entertainment allowed. With this exemption if the Board of Adjustment agrees that amplified sound is to be allowed and allow a temporary use permit to be obtained they can put conditions on the approval to state what type of amplified sound is to be allowed. Dyer said the Staff report says the criteria for the rooftop services areas states an elevator and accessible restrooms are required. Since it is the Board of Adjustment that deals with these requests is there any possibility of them allowing an exemption form the elevator. Fruin stated that the elevator and accessibility criteria cannot be given an exemption; it is one of the core principles for allowing this type of area. Because of these criteria it will likely make existing buildings very difficult to add the rooftop services area due to the cost to bring the existing building up to the criteria standards. Existing buildings would have to be structurally sound to support a rooftop area, they would have to be contiguous spaces, so mostly one story buildings and a few that were grandfathered in to allow for serving alcohol on upper floors. Freerks asked if Fruin could talk about what areas these rooftop service areas would be allowed, the zones they would be allowed. Fruin said this would be for any place in Iowa City, not just the downtown area. She also asked how this might change the alcohol ordinance. Fruin stated that the piece of this proposal that is not before the Planning and Zoning Commission but would go before the City Council is an at least 20 year old rule that says the City does not allow the sale of alcohol on upper level or basement level floors of businesses. There are some current businesses that have been grandfathered in as exceptions to this rule. That ordinance was born out of public safety concerns and Fruin said they have discussed this rooftop services areas proposal with both Police and Fire and both chiefs have indicated they are comfortable removing that particular ordinance and allowing alcohol sales on upper levels. Freerks said that means this would allow for expansion, where it previously did not. Fruin agreed that this would affect the 500 foot rule and expansions of non -conforming drinking establishments. The allowing of the expansion would be for the sole purpose of a rooftop service area. Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 20 of 25 Martin asked if currently a business had a roof that was structurally sound could they expand up there now, with no standards. Fruin said currently they would not be allowed to serve alcohol and there would be building code standards they would have to meet. Boothroy said that if the business is a restaurant they can expand to the roof or top floor by obtaining a permit if they meet all building code requirements. There would need to be a guardrail along the edge of the roof, it would need to be structurally sound, and lighting requirements, etc. All those are already in the code, but the new criteria this amendment would add would be the requirement of the elevator and other items that will show more careful consideration. Haktoen stated that non -conforming drinking establishments means they do not currently conform to the 500 foot buffer and they would not be allowed to have a rooftop area under current ordinances because that would be expansion of a non -conforming use. This amendment would modify and allow the rooftop service areas, even for non -conforming drinking establishment. Fruin also noted that food service would have to be included, City Staff felt it was important that these areas not just be drinking only. Freerks asked if food service would have to be until 2 a.m. Fruin said Its stated "as it's in operation" but doesn't know that the Board of Adjustment Will allow rooftop access use until 2 a.m. Hensch asked about businesses that do not serve food. Fruin said if a drinking establishment wanted to add a rooftop access area, they would be required to serve food, however they would not be required to meet the restaurant standards that are in the code. Freerks asked who decides what enough food service to fulfill this requirement is. Fruin said this would all go through the Board of Adjustment who would receive Staff input. Eastham asked who would enforce the food service requirement. Fruin said City Staff would, if there were concerns or complaints they would follow up. Hektoen said it would be enforced just as any special exemption is. Eastham asked for clarification as to why Staff included an amplified sound provision in this proposal. Fruin stated Staff felt there could be circumstances where amplified sound could be appropriate. It is very hard to contemplate what the circumstances may be for each individual situation. Freerks opened the public discussion. Hearing none, Freerks closed the public discussion Theobald stated that she spent the majority of Tuesday researching this issue, and found that every code change throughout all her research was no amplified music, no live music, no television, no PA system and therefore has concerns supporting this proposal as is. She is not necessarily against rooftops, but against allowing amplified sound. The other issue she found in her research was smoke, when people are outside they feel they can smoke. Hektoen said that smoking would not be allowed on the rooftop service areas at all. Theobald understand that but says in other communities, it was an issue, even if smoking was banned. Theobald said in New York City the ordinance says rooftop areas need to close at 10 p.m. Sunday — Thursday and close at 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Additionally no doors can be open from the downstairs due to music. Her research showed multiple cases of neighborhoods Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 21 of 25 having issues with these areas. In Chicago, their ordinance states no live or recorded music and to be dosed by 11 p.m. Each city was pulling back and adding more rules as time went by. The New York Times claimed "the mixed -use neighborhood complaints were up 44% in one year". Also in New York State, the State controls all rooftop areas; they are not governed by local governments. Hensch asked if there was any research to see if special use permit were used to try to control the issues. Theobald said no special permits were used, this was all written in City and State codes. Freerks said she would be interested in knowing how other college towns are dealing with this issue. She would like to give this issue more time, or if it must go forward without the amplified sound provisions and also the 2 a.m. issue. She of course wants to see the downtown enhanced but does not want to see it broken. Fruin said clearly the City's intention is to enhance it and also he does not take the amplified noise issue lightly but feels there should be flexibility in the issue, however if the Commission does not agree it is certainly their right to take that out. Fruin doesn't feel additional research will lead to any new information; they know this is a difficult issue that many communities have struggled with. The Commission can restrict amplified sound, or set limits. Eastham stated that perhaps this proposal for amplified sound is not specific enough, five amplified noise areas in one small location is different than one isolated location. Dyer noted that televisions were mentioned as an example, if they are televisions in a sports bar on a roof the patrons are not going to be quiet so while their voices are not amplified, they would be loud due to the amplified televisions. Freerks agreed stating that just voices will carry and there is no need for amplified sound, she would be in favor of removing the amplified sound provision of the proposal. Hensch feels that if a business put the financial investment into these rooftop areas they will be extra careful to comply so they can have their temporary permit reissued. Freerks thinks h would be better to not allow the amplified sound at first, and if this all works out, add in the amplified sound provision in the future. Parsons agreed it Is much easier to give something later than take it away. Eastham said he would like to defer this application and have it redrafted without the amplified sound provision. Hensch stated he does not have a problem with the amplified sound believing the temporary permit system will regulate the issue. Theobald believes the broader picture is to consider all the residents and their best interests rather than just the interest of a few businesses. Eastham moved that the Commission recommending approval of amending the code to Title 14, Zoning to add a definition for "rooftop service areas" and establish standards for such uses as indicated on the Staff Report except eliminating references to amplified sound as a use permitted in those rooftop service areas. Thsobald seconded the motion. 11 r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 10, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager Re: Rooftop Service Areas At your May 21, 2015 meeting you requested that staff consider codifying stricter limitations on amplified noise for rooftop service areas (RSAs). Previously, staff had suggested that amplified noise be handled outside of the Board of Adjustment's special exception process through a temporary use permit. Such a permit is renewed annually and can be granted with conditions that are appropriate for the unique circumstances of each application. It is important to note that a temporary use permit is not a right and if circumstances dictate, the City can choose not to issue such a permit. In response to the concerns articulated by commission members, staff has made the following revisions to the ordinance: We have added a table that more clearly indicates the zones where rooftop service areas are allowed and under what conditions. Note that in a number of zones hours of operation will be limited and occupancy will be limited to 30 or fewer persons. An applicant may request a special exception to exceed these limitations in some zones, but this option is not available in the zones that are more likely to be looted In proximity to residential areas (CO-1, CN-1, MU, RFC-G). Regardless of the zone, if located within 100 feet of a residential zone, the occupancy is limited to 30 and the RSA must does by 10:00 PM or when the kitchen is closed, whichever Is earlier and there Is no option to exceed these limitations by special exception. It is only in the CB-10 Zone where a RSA may be open during bar hours (midnight to dose), so we added a provision in the CB-10 Zone to address situations where the prop", abuts or is directly across a public alley from a residential or hotel use that has windows Bing the RSA. In such a case the RSA must dose by 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and by 12:00 midnight Friday and Saturday. In addition, all RSAs accessory to drinking establishments in the CB-10 Zone must be approved through a special exception, so the Board of Adjustment may impose further restrictions if warranted based on the particular Nation and the adjacency of other uses. We added a provision requiring applicants to indicate how the RSA will be designed to minimize carry of noise across property boundaries. Amplified sound is prohibited within RSAs, except for RSAs accessory to hotels (hospitality -oriented retail) in the RFC -South Downtown and for RSAs In the CB-10 Zone. In the CB-10 Zone, a seasonal temporary use permit is required for use of amplified sound. Hotels are not required to apply for a yearly temporary use permit (see further explanation below), but any use of amplified sound within an RSA must comply with the standards listed below and are subject to the City's noise and nuisance ordinance. o If a RSA is located within 300 feet of a residential zone, amplified sound is prohibited; o The City may restrict the hours when amplified sound may be used. However, in no case shall amplified sound be permitted between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 10:00 AM; o No live entertainment using amplification shall be allowed; July 10, 2015 Page 2 o Amplified sound may be restricted or prohibited during public events, festivals or concerts; o The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the design of the RSA will minimize carry of noise across property boundaries. Use of specialized screen wall materials, sound deadening techniques, control of volume, or similar may be required. • Specific language is also included that reiterates the City's right to enforce its noise and nuisance ordinance and to rescind the temporary use permit if nuisances arise. While these revisions provide stricter rules to manage potential noise concerns, staff still believes the amplified noise issue is best dealt with outside of the special exception process through a temporary use permit. This will allow for additional conditions if warranted, and afford greater flexibility and timely response to remedy unanticipated noise concerns. While considering these additional conditions, it was brought to our attention that the Hotel Vetro has a rooftop terrace where special events are often held, such as weddings, conferences, receptions, and similar. As would be expected, amplified sound Is sometimes used during these special events and the City has never heard of or received any complaints regarding the use of this space. Since we are trying to encourage more hotels downtown and in Riverfront Crossings and special events are often an Important part of a hotel's business model, we recommend allowing rooftop service areas and use of amplified sound without a temporary use permit. It is staffs opinion that hotels will tend to be self -policing with regard to nuisance issues related to any rooftop or other outdoor amenity areas, so as not to disturb other guests in the hotel, so there is little reason to impose additional approval processes regarding the use of these outdoor spaces. It should be noted that as with all uses in the city, hotels are subject to the City's general nuisance and noise ordinances, so the City is not without recourse to take corrective action if an issue arises. Additionally, if alcohol is being served in the outdoor spaces, hotels are subject to the City and State regulations regarding alcoholic beverages. It is staffs opinion that the changes outlined above provide a good starting point for regulating RSAs and for managing noise associated with RSAs. It is anticipated that changes to the ordinance may be needed after the community has some experienoe with these uses. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 8 of 14 it was. Eastham asked how this parcel was addressed in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Miklo said the Plan shows this property as being part of the development of the block to the north. Miklo showed the CA Ventures proposal which showed a parking structure with two towers on it and a walkway that would be retained to allow pedestrian access between the two sections of Harrison Street. Eastham opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Eastham closed the public discussion. Hensch moved to approve VACI"0003, a vacation of the eastern 150-feet of the 80ft-wide Harris Street right-of-way located west of the Linn Street right-of-way and south of lot 4 in block 1, according to the original town plat, subject to the creation of a pedestrian easement, a minimum of 10' in width, for the southern edge of the right-of-way. Parsons seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent). AM Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning to add a definition for "rooftop service areas" and establish standards for such uses. Fruin began the Staff Report reminding the Commission of the discussion at the May 21 meeting and the concern about noise and how that would be handled. All the other requirements that were mentioned at the May 21 meeting still stand, the ADA requirements, the screening requirements, etc. Given the concerns regarding noise that the Commission raised the Staff has gone back and codified the noise regulations. The first proposal was to just handle noise through the temporary use permit system. In that system everything would be reviewed on case -by -case basis. In the new proposal that is still the case, except they have also greatly restricted who is even eligible to get a temporary use permit. There is a table in the Staff memo that shows each zoning classification and the limitations in each on amplified noise and limits on occupancy and hours of operation. Fruin said amplified noise would only be allowed in the CB-10 district, which is the heart of the downtown and for hotels in the Riverfront Crossings South Downtown District There are restrictions for no live entertainment using amplified noise, live entertainment would be allowed, but could not be amplified. It also states that under no circumstance would amplified noise be allowed after midnight or before 10 a.m. Martin asked for clarification on whether amplified sound is allowed for hospitality oriented retail use in the downtown CB-10 zone. Fruin said yes it would be allowed. Dyer asked what would be amplified if live music is not allowed. Fruin said amplified meant plugged in, so in the areas where no amplified is allowed, not even speakers can have microphones. Eastham asked for where the provisions are that allow hotels to have amplified sound in their Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 9 of 14 outdoor service areas. Howard said currently a provision on amplified sound in outdoor service areas. Fruin said this amendment is for rooftop service areas, noting that there have been more and more requests. For example Hotel Vetro has had wedding receptions and gatherings on their rooftop area using amplified noise for over a decade now. The City has not received any noise complaints with that, but would like to have this code amendment in place to officially permit it. Additionally FilmScene has been showing outdoor movies without any complaints. This code amendment will legitimize these situations. Hensch asked if the no live entertainment exemption was current City policy. He feels that in situations like weddings at Hotel Vetro that would not cause any disruption. Fruin said it was not an intentional prohibition it was just written that way. Howard said one of the issues is the regulations for outdoor areas is included in the part of the City Code regarding alcohol so it is not in the zoning ordinance where typically a lot of things are reviewed. Fastham wanted to make sure this would not seem to be an amendment to favor one particular business, Hotel Vetro. Howard noted there would be three more hotels coming into the area soon that could also have such outdoor areas. Fruin stated that hotels are typically self -policing when it comes to noise, as they also have a residential component so there was less concern about noise. Additionally he noted that the City's noise ordinances are enforced. Howard said hotels would have to comply with all the noise ordinances but would not need to reapply for the temporary use permit each year as other businesses would. Fastham opened the public hearing. Brian Flynn (Joe's Place) and Aaron Doubet (DB Acoustics, Marion Iowa) came forward. Flynn wanted to know if the Commission had questions for them and the concern about amplified noise. He said Doubet does all his sound engineering for all his restaurants and bars. Flynn noted he owns 30 Hop in Coralville which has a rooftop service area. There has a hotel right across the street from 30 Hop but they were able to engineer the sound to be amplified directionally away from the hotel. Hensch asked if noise baffling was an expensive issue for businesses. Doubet said it all depends on the space and what you are trying to control. In an instance where there is an outdoor patio space one of the controls is the overall volume a system should play at, That is because what happens is the louder the system, the louder the people will talk. He noted that in the downtown Iowa City bar area it is generally loud anyway. Sound baffling, which is using materials to absorb or deflect sound, to reduce the energy and reverberation of it, there are many options and some can be quite expensive. It just depends on the situation. Doubet noted that if a lot of low frequency is not pumped through a system (which goes everywhere and is not directional) and high frequency is used it will run out of energy and not travel as far. Doubet said the spoken word is in a range of 2000 hertz's and anything below 250 hertz is considered low frequency. So he said what they will do, instead of trying to sound proof the space, they will control the frequency of the sound that is played through electronics. It can also be controlled through the direction of the speakers. So that will eliminate any type of rattling of windows or reverberation caused by law frequencies. Additionally Doubet said outside of just absorption panels there are many things that absorb sound. Humans absorb sound so taking the capacity of a space into account helps them design their sound systems. He noted that in the downtown Iowa City space they will have fence covered in vines built opposite of the speakers used to deflect sound. Dyer questioned that some property owners could just bring out the speakers to their stereo Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 14 systems and not employee electronic technology to control it. Fruin said the City would require a sound management plan that Staff reviews prior to giving the temporary use permit. Nate Kading (business owner Tailgate, Shorts, Pullman) stated on behalf of his business partners and himself they are in support of this amendment and commend City Staff on the work that went into this. He feels this is a great opportunity for the Commission to set a precedent for these types of RSAs moving forward and the details that have gone into plans for rooftop service areas is extensive and well thought out. It is all responsible and taking into consideration neighboring businesses and residents. Kading said he had an opportunity over the past couple months to travel around the United States into Denver, Charlotte, Columbia, Portland, Seattle and saw that these type of spaces. This is something consumers want and Iowa City is lagging behind from a competitive standpoint. Kading highly recommends the Commission approve this amendment. Joe Tiefenthaler (executive director, FilmScence) noted he was impressed with the time and thought City Staff put into this amendment. He said they have received positive feedback from the use of their rooftop service area and it's been a wonderful addition to the downtown community. He agrees other businesses should have this same opportunity. He added Washington DC and Minneapolis as two other cities that utilize these rooftop areas well. He also said that when discussing noise, when on their rooftop you do not hear much of the sound from the Ped Mall — so noise is not an issue. Hensch asked if Tiefenthaler has had any difficulty managing sound. Tiefenthaler said they have not, they have received no complaints, and they do have a sound guy and projectionist who works to keep the sound in check. Their rooftop space is very intimate so they don't want ft to be very loud. Hensch asked how late into the evening they use the space. Tiefenthaler said they screened four movies in the space last summer and they start as dusk so it is approximately from 9 p.m. to midnight. Dyer asked if FilmScene had an elevator. Tiefenthaler said their elevator only goes to the second floor and it is stair access to the rooftop. He explained that they were grandfathered in with the development of the space. Eastham closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve the recommendations set forth in the Staff memorandum dated July 10, 2016. Martin seconded the motion. Theobald noted that the revisions Staff made to the amendment made her feel better about this. Staff and the community have really addressed all the concerns. Hensch agreed and said he felt this was a good amendment. Parsons agreed, noting nothing would be 100% effective and there may be adjustments along the way but at this point is ready to move forward with this amendment. Eastham said he enthusiastically supports parts of this rooftop access, particularly the requirement Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 11 of 14 of accessible access which has not been done well in the past or in other communities A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. COUNTY REZONING ITEM (CZ15-00002): Discussion of an application submitted by Michael Furman for a rezoning from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R3) for approximately 40 acres of property located at 3051 Buchmayer Bend NE in the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area. Miklo showed a map of the area. The 40 acre parcel currently has one residence on the parcel and is zoned agricultural in the County. Most of the area is agricultural with some residential lots to the east. Since this area is within two miles of the city limits is it covered by the Fringe Area Agreement where the County and the City jointly review rezoning's and subdivisions. In the County Land Use Plan the area west of Highway 1 is identified as a growth area for residential development. So this item does comply with the County's Land Use Plan. The Plan also has some policies regarding environmental concerns and the need for adequate infrastructure. Miklo stated the development standards in the Fringe Area Agreement encourage cluster development, which preserves large tracts of open space including environmentally sensitive areas and farmland, results in compact development that requires lessinfrastructure, and is more efficient for provision of services. Staff has reviewed the subdivision concept with County Planning Staff and is concerned that the concept plan does not comply with this policy of the Fringe Area Agreement. The current proposed plan would create a situation in which future subdivision of property for infill development might not be possible. Rather than a cul-de-sac staff recommends that Jenn Lane be connected to the existing Jenn Lane Court and that a road easement be reserved to provide access to the property to the south to allow interconnected development. These reconTmndatlons are to avoid long cul- de-sacs that are not easy for navigation of emergency vehicles. Parsons asked if the County had the same "complete streets" policy that the City has. Miklo was unsure of "complete streets" but that they do have a policy of connecting streets and avoiding cul- de-sacs for the same reasons the City is. Miklo said they defer to the County on whether this complies with their land use plan, the City believes it does, but if they do approve the rezoning the City would recommend the four conditions 1. Buchmayer Bend being improved to meet County road performance standards. 2. The subdivision being designed to preserve open space and create an appropriate street pattern with Jenn Lane and Jenn Lane Court being connected to provide a loop street. 3. An easement being reserved to provide for future road access to the property to the south. 4. The subdivision include stormwater management Parsons asked what County road performance standards are. Miklo was not completely familiar with the County road standards, but it would not be curb based and concrete, but would be chipped sealed and not gravel. Eastham asked how the requirements of the conditions fit into the City's interests when its a MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 15, 2016 — 5:15 PM MPOJC OFFICE, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Gene Chrischilles STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas McInerney, Justin Matiyabo, Katie Sturgell, Sue Benton, Mike Benton, Binua Matiyabo, Anthony Smith CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 13, 2016 MEETING MINUTES: Soglin moved to approve the minutes of April 13, 2016, with minor changes. Goeb seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0, SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM (EXC16-00003): Discussion of an application for a special exception submitted on behalf of the King of Glory Church to allow expansion of an existing daycare center located in the Low Density Single - Family (RS-5) zone at 2024 G Street and 931 Third Avenue. Walz began the staff report noting that she did receive a letter from a neighbor earlier in the day which she distributed to the Board [and was distributed to the applicant].. Walz explained that the Board had previously approved a daycare to be located in a house that is associated with the Church and subsequently approved a second special exception to expand the daycare from 16 to 33 children. The Church is now seeking to increase the daycare again by expanding into the basement of the church. Walz noted there will need to be some modifications to the church building to accommodate the daycare. She showed photos of the location from various views and also the site plan for the property. A few issues with the site plan, the daycare will still operate out of the house, but they wish to expand into the basement of the church, which will involve creating an ADA accessible path to enter into the lower level of the church. Board of Adjustment June 15,2016 Page 2 of 12 Walz stated that the biggest issues for daycare operations in residential zones are parking and vehicle traffic and the noise associated with children. Walz explained that when Staff was reviewing this application one of the chief concerns was vehicle circulation and parking. Staff has been observing the parking situation and on most days there were only five or six vehicles in the lot. The applicant has proposed some screening to screen the play area as well as some of the parking area. Walz reviewed the specific standards. In regard to required indoor and outdoor activity areas, she noted that following the CHS standards there was sufficient activity areas. vehicular circulation access to the shared parking area is provided via a curb cut from G Street so that is where all the traffic would come from. The applicant has stated that to provide adequate care for the various age groups of children they will require only 10 employees. With 10 employees and 64 children, the daycare is required to provide a minimum of 16 parking spaces + 3 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. However at peak times it may be necessary for cars to park on the street, or there may be some delay entering or exiting the lot. However, the daycare makes use of van service to transport many of its clients to and from the site. With regard to pedestrian circulation there is adequate pedestrian access to the Church building and daycare from the parking lot from G Street. With the site development standards Walz noted they plan to bring the parking area closer to conformance, with the removal of a portion of the pavement to create more separation from parking to public sidewalk and by adding screening along Muscatine Avenue to screen the play area. The Church had previously received a parking reduction special exception based on the schedule for the daycare and the Church do not operate in the same business hours. This special exception can continue as long as the hours of operation for the daycare are noted to not interfere with Church business. Walz said that she would not review all of the general standards listed in the Staff report, but did note with regards to "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 in the specific standards regarding vehicle circulation and pedestrian access. Additionally, by providing van service to provide pick-up and drop-off of children, the daycare greatly reduces the demand for parking and circulation on what is a constrained site. That along with the sufficient parking and on -street frontage parking will be adequate. Staff recommends approval of EXC16-00003, a special exception to allow the expansion of an existing daycare and a reduction in the required parking from 40 spaces to 20 on property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone at 2024 G Street subject to the following conditions: Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. Fencing of the play area that faces onto Muscatine Avenue will be black chain link. The size of the daycare may not exceed 64 children according to the age schedule submitted with this application. The applicant must secure a building permit for the proposed Board of Adjustment June 15,2016 Page 3 of 12 modifications to the church building in order to establish the use. Recommended that all parking loading and unloading should take place within the parking area or on the G Street frontage. Walz noted that the final condition was to address what may occur if the daycare would ever change such that most children are not provided van service to the site. Goeb noted this is the third time this property has been in front of the Board for a special exception. The first was just to allow the daycare, next to increase the number allowed in the daycare, and now to again increase the allowable number. Walz confirmed that statement. Goeb asked how the daycare can keep increasing the number of children without increasing the parking necessary. Walz said there is a small increase in the parking but it doesn't extend over the 20 spots that are there. The parking is based on number of employees, and the number of employees needed is based on the ages of the children in the daycare. She explained that if the City does receive complaints about parking issues at the location they will check to make sure the daycare is operating to the age schedule they said they would to make sure they are not using extra parking. Goeb asked about noise and if there were any Code regulations to control that. Walz said there are not, but the Board could impose a condition on the special exception that would address noise if they wish. Baker asked about the playground size and what the maximum number of children that could be on the playground at one time. Walz said the maximum number of children on the playground at any one time is 19. Baker questioned what was meant by a privacy fence. Walz explained it would be a 5-6 foot solid, for example wood, fence. On the question of parking, Baker noted the report states "most of the children at the daycare are served by a pickup service and are delivered to the site by a van which reduces the number of vehicles coming into the lot" but a van requirement is hard to enforce. Walz said the City can enforce that they have a van and they offer van service but cannot force families to use that service. Dulek suggested that if the Board wishes to impose the condition of a van service, they should also indicate a percentage of clientele that must use the van, such as one-third, so that there is then a way to follow up and assure the van service is being utilized. Baker asked the applicant to come forward to address and answer questions of the Board. Thomas McInernev (1208 Marcy Street) is the architect for 921 Third Avenue project. He explained that the project is achievable because they have the opportunity to utilize the remaining part of parking that was not being utilized and also with the installation of a ramp there will be an accessible access to the basement level, which has an existing restroom that can be modified for accessibility. The intent of this project is to not put an addition on but rather utilize currently unutilized space. The children that this daycare serves are 90% from low- income housing so this will be an opportunity to service more of that population. He added that part of the project will be to install fire sprinklers into the building. Soglin asked if McInerney could describe how the outdoor areas are used. McInerney said the playgrounds are used in shifts so that is why they needed more indoor space to accommodate all the children even when some are on the playground. Soglin asked if that meant that there Board of Adjustment June 15,2016 Page 4 of 12 would be children on the playground throughout the entire day. Justin Mativabo (2024 G Street) came forward to answer Soglin's question. He said they play outside on rotation, each group is outside for about a half-hour twice a day. Baker questioned the addition of more children to the daycare and how that would affect the number of children on the playground at one time. Walz said there is sufficient outdoor space to accommodate the added children. Baker voiced concern about added noise. Goeb asked how many staff are supervising the children when they are outside. McInerney referred to the DHS guidelines for ratios of staff per child is based on the ages of the children. There was discussion regarding the van that is used for the daycare. It is a 15-person van and is used for all ages of children that attend the daycare. Matiyabo noted that DHS checks to make sure the van is compliant for transporting children. Baker asked about the playground and how much fencing would be necessary to create the privacy from the neighbors. McInerney said it would be about 5 to 6 feet. Soglin expressed concern about the playground on the Muscatine Avenue side of the property and that a chain link fence does not seem sufficient for such a busy road. She also voiced her concern about supervision of children while on the playground. Baker opened the public hearing Katie Sturgell (920 Wh Avenue) is a native of Iowa City and questioned the number of children up to the age of two the daycare will have and according to DHS regulations of one employee to every four children. Walz said that is correct up to 24 months, but it changes at 24 months, and the daycare will be overseen by DHS regulations. Sturgell noted her concern is the level of supervision for the children. Her house backs up to the outdoor play area of the daycare and said it can be very noisy. Additionally the children shout at her dog and throw things into her yard at the dog —this is not being addressed by the staff who are supposed to be watching the children. Goeb asked about the fence and Sturgell said it is her chain link fence on the property line. Sturgell stated that on June 8 her husband was in the backyard with the dog and one of the children did come over the fence from the daycare into the backyard. At that time there was no supervision for the handful of children that were playing outside. Another child had to go inside to get an employee to let them know one of the children had jumped the fence. Baker asked how many times Sturgell has noticed children on the playground with no supervision. Sturgell said she has not kept exact track but it has been half a dozen to a dozen times that the children were teasing her dog without the employees intervening, but it was only the one time her husband saw no adult supervision on the playground. Baker asked if Sturgell had ever filed a complaint with DHS and Sturgell said she has not. She intends to look on the DHS website for information on filing a complaint about the June 8 incident. Soglin asked if Sturgell has spoken with any of the daycare staff or supervisors and Sturgell Board of Adjustment June 15,2016 Page 5 of 12 said she had not, but intends to Baker asked if there were a 6- to 8-foot solid wood fence would that alleviate some of Sturgell's concerns and she replied it would. Baker asked about the noise concerns and when those became a problem. Sturgell said it has been more noticeable this summer and is fairly consistent throughout the day. Soglin asked when the daycare increased the number of children, and Walz said that was in 2015. Sue Benton (2001 Muscatine Avenue) stated that when they moved into this neighborhood 18 years ago they knew there was a church nearby and knew that meant every Sunday there would be more traffic and activity than on weekdays. One day a week, maybe some occasional weekday meetings, that was acceptable. The building changed hands many times, sometimes they were good neighbors, sometimes not. When the King of Glory congregation bought the property they asked for a special exception to start a daycare and Benton said she was not thrilled about that idea. However because she wanted to be a good neighbor, she did not object. In hindsight they should have thought about all the children playing outside, the noise, the increased traffic and commotion that comes now on a daily basis. Now King of Glory wants another special exception to nearly double the number of children they serve, which will be more noise from the playground, increased traffic, and basically expanding their business into what has traditionally been a quiet residential area. Benton questions where does this end. She is not in favor of granting this special exception and feel that expansion of this daycare business further intrudes on the nature of their residential neighborhood. Goeb asked if Benton noticed a change when the daycare expanded in 2015. Benton said that yes, the noise level became more noticeable over time as well as the traffic. Mike Benton (2001 Muscatine Avenue) stated he feels like the proposed expansion is a done deal and questions once the Board allows this new service, if the Church goes away, does the daycare and the ability to use the property remain. Walz said that yes the daycare could still remain but also noted no decision had been made. She stated that the Board makes that decision based on evidence and testimony they hear from the public as well as the applicant. Baker added that there are no preparatory meetings of the Board, they are hearing this application for the first time at this meeting. Walz explained that the Board has options, they can approve a request, they can deny a request, or they can approve a request with conditions. Benton voiced his concern about the proposed expansion saying he feels the property will no longer function primarily as a church but rather a business. Baker asked for clarification from the applicant about the daycare operations. Binua Mativabo (2024 G Street) confirmed that the Church runs the daycare but the clientele is not restricted to Church members. Baker closed the public hearing. Goeb questioned the square footage of the entire facility and if her calculations are correct they could provide daycare for up to 91 children. Walz said she did not know for sure, but that while further expansion may be possible based on the square footage, any further expansion would Board of Adjustment June 15,2016 Page 6 of 12 be limited by the minimum parking requirements Baker asked about the current parking capacity and what capacity of children will that allow for. Walz said it would depend on the ages of the children, how many staff would need to be added, and how many parking spaces those staff would need. After this request, they are very close to capacity of parking spaces per employee. Baker noted the areas of concern: the available parking and the screening and noise concerns, both of which are based on the allowable density. Walz agreed, she however noted that while Staff is fine with a privacy fence along the property lines to screen from the neighboring houses, however, for aesthetic reasons she thought it was unlikely that staff would recommend a privacy fence along Muscatine Avenue. Weitzel asked if a solid fence was the normal mitigating factor used for noise control. Walz replied that given the limitations on space for setbacks or landscape buffering, it likely was the only means of addressing noise. Baker shared his concerns that this application is a dramatic increase in density, it will have an impact on parking and traffic, and there is demonstrated evidence of neighbors' concerns about noise, based on the current density. Goeb agreed that the density is a concern. Soglin also feels the density is a concern. Weitzel stated that with regards to the van service, the Board could articulate the recommendation of using the van service to mitigate the amount of traffic in and out of the area, however as Staff has indicated it is going to be difficult to enforce. Soglin stated that it appears that taking the density up to 64 children is too much, but questioned if the daycare could add more children without building another playground. Walz said that additional floor area was needed and that was to be added in the church building. Soglin asked if the play area has to be connected to the building the children are in, or can they be walked across the lot to the other playground. McInerney stated there is no requirement that says the playground must be connected to the building. Soglin stated that is a concern for her, that walking children across the lot to a playground area risks a child running off or being injured. Walz noted that the Board is able to determine if the site is fit for what is being proposed, based on the general and specific criteria. Baker asked if the Board was in agreement that there should be some fencing buffer, such ash foot solid fence, between the existing playground and the neighboring houses. Goeb and Soglin said that condition would only be necessary if an increase in density was allowed. Goeb stated that she is not supportive of approving an increase in density. Soglin stated that if she were to agree to an increase it would be a very small number. She had supported the two previous special exceptions for the daycare but did not feel she could support this much larger expansion. Soglin said she was sympathetic to the fact that the Church is providing a service, one that is needed in the community, however there is some valid information from neighbors that this is a residential area and that the expansion proposed is too much. This building was Board of Adjustment June 15, 2016 Page 7 of 12 just a church, which is very different from a daily daycare. If the site was larger or if the buildings and parking area were arranged differently it might be more appropriate. Weitzel stated he would have a problem with voting for a small increase in capacity that cannot be achieved due to financial limitations. A certain density will be needed to financially allow for the improvements to the church basement and alterations for accessibility. Weitzel moved for the approval of EXC16-00003, discussion of an application for a special exception submitted on behalf of the Xing of Glory Church to allow expansion of 64 children to an existing daycare center located in the Low Density Single -Family (IRS-5) zone at 2024 G Street and 931 Third Avenue. Goeb seconded the motion. Goeb stated regarding agenda item EXC16-00003 she finds that under the general standards #2 the proposed exception would be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. From the testimony of the neighbors it has been shown that it has impinged on their enjoyment and has been injurious and would only get worse with increasing the capacity of the daycare. Soglin seconded that finding and also stated that with regards to general standards #1 the specific proposed exception will be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. She feels there would be significant safety issues to increase the daycare size in this location. Weitzel concurred with the finding that general standard #2 is not met based on the testimony that the noise has affected quality of life issues for the neighboring residents. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0-4. Baker stated the motion declared denied, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office, SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM (EXC16-00004): Discussion of an application submitted on behalf of Little Creations Academy to allow the establishment of a daycare center in the Low Density Single -Family (IRS-5) zone at 2929 East Court Street. Walz began the staff report showing an aerial photo of the property, noting that since that photo had been taken a couple of duplexes have been constructed close to the property at each corner. The property is in a residential zone, however the site is considerably larger than the previous application. The daycare would be in the lower level of the church, it is more of a garden level than basement. The parking lot is not conforming in that it does not have the required setback or appropriate screening. The designated play area the applicant has proposed would wrap around the back portion of the property where the entrance is located. Walz explained that there is more than ample parking for a daycare, even if some spots were removed to bring the parking lot into compliance, they could make up for the lost spots by restriping and adding compact spaces. Staff is recommending moving the play area away from Board of Adjustment June 15, 2016 Page 8 of 12 the neighboring property lines and adding a fence and hedging to mitigate noise and for screening. The applicant is proposing to start the daycare with 16 children but the intent is to grow to 42 children. The interior floor plan shows there is adequate square footage for the 42 children, and the play area (outdoor playground) is also adequate. Walz noted that the vehicular situation is appropriate due to the two curb cuts into the parking area and more than adequate parking and for stacking of vehicles during drop-off and pick-up times. With regards to pedestrian circulation there are two sidewalks that lead from the site to the street. With regards to general standard #2 and being sensitive to the residential properties the play area is suggested to be constructed at least 20 feet from where the houses property lines are and the addition of privacy fencing and additional screening. Staff recommends approval of EXC16-00004, a special exception to allow the establishment of a daycare center for up to 42 children on property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS-5)zone at 2929 E. Court Street subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with some modification to the play area location, shifting the northern boundary south 15-20 feet south to allow greater separation between the daycare use and the adjacent residential dwelling to the east. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM until 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Retain the shrubs along the east side of the outdoor play area and install privacy fence in this area (a 5-6 foot solid fence). Establish the required 10-fart setback between the parking area and sidewalk on Raven Street and install low (S2) shrub screening as required by code. Install 4-5 small trees along the west side of the parking lot to serve as screening forthe parking area. • Establish required bicycle parking. A building permit is required in order to establish the use. Goeb questioned if neighbors were notified as well as the signs regarding the special exception being posted. Walz said letters were sent to property owners within 300 feet of any portion of the Church property. She did note that the sign was taken from the property and not replaced. Goeb stated her concern that the sign was not on the property for the required time period. Dulek noted that neither the State Code nor the City Code require notifications, it is part of the operations manual. Soglin asked about the parking lots and Walz stated the lots were ample enough for vehicular circulation and tum-around. Baker asked the applicant to come forward to address and answer questions of the Board. Anthony Smith (3715 Banar Avenue SW, Cedar Rapids) pastor for the New Creations International Church. Board of Adjustment June 15,2016 Page 9 of 12 Baker asked if Smith had any questions or concerns regarding the Staff report. Smith stated that with regards to the Staff recommendation to add 4-5 trees along the west side of the property, there is already one large tree there so feels adding 2 additional trees would be sufficient. Soglin asked Smith about the hours of operation. Smith said they prefer to open at 6:30 a.m. to service those that have to be at work at 7:00 a.m. Waiz stated that it would be fine to update the hours of operation to 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., they just need to be defined reasonably. Goeb asked if they anticipate the density to go above 42 children. Smith said they cannot due to the square footage available. He added that they will be starting with 16 children to make sure the program is operating efficiently with 16 children before adding additional children and staff. Soglin asked what the timeline is for increasing from 16 children to capacity of 42. Smith said that progression would be based on their proficiency and what the director and staff can accommodate. Soglin asked about fencing around the playground area. She asked if Smith would be willing to do fencing higher than 4 feet. Smith doesn't believe the higher fencing is necessary due to the sloping of the property. Goeb questioned the fencing along Court Street and the property to the east stating it should be solid material to help mitigate noise. Baker agreed, sharing the concern about noise. Stating that having a solid fence and higher than 4 feet is necessary to help mitigate noise. Soglin questioned the large tree on the property and safety issues if portions of the tree are overgrown. Smith stated that DHS liked the tree on the property because it provided natural shade. They chose the area for the playground because of the natural shade from the tree, the building and the tall bushes. Smith also noted that he sent out a notification about this special exception hearing via his app "Nextdoor" which has a large number of followers from the east side of Iowa City. He only received positive feedback. Goeb asked where Smith anticipates the children to come from, the congregation families, or the neighborhood. Smith said the daycare was always in their plans, and it will be open to all families. Goeb asked what the timetable for the opening of the daycare would be. Smith said they had originally hoped for the end of June, but are still working through all these meetings and DHS requirements. Soglin shared concern about 42 children on the playground. Smith said that they won't all be on the playground. They are starting with 16 children, ages 3-5. When they begin to add more children they will be younger, and infants will never be on the playground. Baker opened the public hearing. Board of Adjustment June 15, 2016 Page 10 of 12 Seeing no one, Baker closed the public hearing Weitzel noted that with the proximity to residential areas the privacy fence is needed but other than that feel the application is acceptable. Baker said they will want to specify which sides of the playground will need the solid fence, the north and east. Additionally specify the height of the fence to be 6 feet. Soglin moves to approve of EXC16-00004, a special exception to allow the establishment of a daycare center for up to 42 children on property location in the Low Density Single -Family (RS-5)zone at 2929 E. Court Street subject to the following conditions: Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with some modification to the play area location, shifting the northern boundary south 15.10 to allow greater separation between the daycare use and the adjacent residence to the east. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:30 AM until 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Retain the shrubs along the east side of the outdoor play area and install a 6 foot solid privacy fence on the north and east sides of this area. Establish the required 10-foot setback between the parking area and sidewalk on Raven Street and install low (S2) shrub screening as required by code. Install 2-3 small trees along the west side of the parking lot to serve as screening forthe parking area. Establish required bicycle parking. A building permit is required in order to establish the use. Goeb seconded the motion. Soglin stated regarding agenda item EXC16-00004 she concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff Report of June 15, 2016 and conclude the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member she recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the Staff Report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal. Soglin also noted the applicant has met the general criteria regarding not being injurious to neighbors and has followed DNS guidelines and worked conscientiously with neighbors and Staff to meet all criteria. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. Baker stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. Board of Adjustment June 15,2016 Page 11 of 12 OTHER: EXC16-00002: Approval of the decision to allow a Rooftop Service Area for property located in the Central Business District (CB-10) zone at 115 and 117 Iowa Avenue. Walz explained that this was a new special exception for the City and in explaining it she made an error stating live entertainment was not allowed when what is disallowed by Code is live entertainment using amplified sound. The City Attorney recommended bringing this topic back to the Board to clarify what the Code allows. Walz clarified that amplified sound is only allowed by a temporary use permit. No amplified sound is allowed for live performance. Goeb stated she would be okay with allowing the live entertainment, so long as no amplified sound is used. Baker agreed, live performances (without amplified sound) should be allowed. Goeb moved to approve EXC16-00002 without the prohibition on live entertainment. Weitzel seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed 3-0 (Soglin abstained due to missing the meeting where the original vote was taken). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Baker said that he had requested a copy of the Rooftop Service Areas ordinance because he questioned why the Board has the right to review sound and other issues on all other special exceptions but not this one. After reading the ordinance he is still unclear why an interpretation was made that precluded the Board from discussing amplified sound, especially since other criteria refer to sound —such as the requirement for a sound mitigation plan. Baker believes the Board should request clarification from the Council as to why the Board is barred from discussing sound particular to just this one special exception. Dulek said it was not likely the Council would respond and that perhaps the Board should ask for clarification from Staff first as to why they recommended this ordinance to Council this way. Goeb echoed Baker's confusion and said it was not consistent. By consensus the Board agreed to ask for clarification on the interpretation of the ordinance. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. z o W w 2 O W G V LL Q z O Q G G z cc w Q � o a m X 1 X 1 0 X X i 1 i X X 1 X 0 x' I M x X I 1 X X X a0 X 1 I X x X i en x X X X 1 m N X x X X x 1 r c x X x X 1 r X X X x X 1 w X X X X X 1 m { X n o co f rn 'o N r r I(� 1!I N N N N N N W T T T r F I ul z W U F Y Y W !A M J �c c � Lu ~ J m VconJ V W rn W 1 W mLu Z I J H mu z m 0 0 u w 3 M Handed out at 7/13/16 meeting MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 2015 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin LTA IALTA 1:3:1Cb1_1 190ZII STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Susan Dulek OTHERS PRESENT: Pat McArtor, Brian Boelk, John Roffman 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 APRIL 8, 2015 MEETING MINUTES: Baker moved to approve the minutes. Chrischilles seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Pat McArtor to reduce the required front building setback for a garage to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone located at 1031 E. Market St. Walz presented the staff report, showing an aerial map of the area, located on the corner of Clapp Street and Market Street, which are both one-way streets. Walz explained that this is a small lot, 4550 square feet, 5000 is the minimum that is allowed in that zone today. This is a corner lot, and on corner lots property has to provide two front setbacks. In the case of an accessory structure such as a garage, it has to meet the principal building setback to allow for a pattern on the street so that buildings are located at different setbacks along the street frontage. The buildings along the Clapp Street frontage are much closer to the street. Walz showed a rendering of what the applicant is asking to do, he would like to put the garage over into the side yard because there is very little rear yard that is private from the street. The applicant could put the garage close to house, but would lose the private yard space for the house. The applicant is seeking to reduce the setback from the required 10 feet to 3 feet (8 feet from the sidewalk vs. 15 feet from the sidewalk). He would rely on the existing curb cut and then curve the new driveway Board of Adjustment May 13, 2015 Page 2 of 9 over to garage. The current parking pad in front of the house is no longer allowed in code, and with this proposal the applicant will be removing some of that parking pad. The new driveway would be 10 feet wide that will slowly widen to 16 feet at the entrance to the garage, and is about 15 feet from the house which preserves the existing patio/backyard space. Walz did not review all the criteria listed in the staff report, but stated that this application doesn't change the way the cars will come into the site, and are eliminating some of the temptation to park in the front yard, and the existing hedge provides some screening. Staff recommends approval of special exception EXC15-00006, to reduce the required front setback along the Clapp Street frontage from 10 feet to 3 feet for property located at 1031 East Market Street, subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • Substantial compliance with the elevation proposed, with the garage being sided with a similar size/width lap as the house. • Removal of paving between the driveway and walkway leading to the house as proposed by staff. • The applicant will secure a minor modification to establish the curb cut on Market Street as a legally approved curb cut. Walz explained that the last condition was based on the current regulations which were not in place at the time the home was originally built. Since this home is not located on an arterial street and there are no traffic concerns, this is just a formality to make this a legal curb cut. Baker asked Walz to review the discussion about the amount of concrete to be removed. Walz explained that the 4 foot sidewalk would remain, and the driveway would be 10 feet wide that slowly tapers out to 16 feet for the entrance of the garage. The building official will work with the applicant to determine where the driveway will begin to taper wider. Walz showed again the aerial map of the area with the new paved area drawn in. Goeb asked if the driveway would be gravel and Walz stated is has to be concrete. Baker asked if there were any response from neighbors on the notification of this application. Walz said she did have neighbors stop in to ask about it, but once she explained what was happening the neighbors did not have any objections. Goeb asked if this home was owner -occupied and Walz confirmed it is. Grenis invited the applicant to come forward to address the Board. Pat McArtor (1031 E. Market Street) is the owner of the property and was ready to address any questions the Board might have of him. He explained thai he looked at many options for the garage, it is a high density area with no alley and wanted to construct a garage without losing his backyard privacy. The Board had no additional questions for the applicant Grenis opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Grenis closed the public hearing. Board of Adjustment May 13, 2015 Page 3 of 9 Baker moved to approve special exception EXC15-00006, submitted by Pat McArtor to reduce the required front building setback for a garage to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone located at 1031 E. Market St., subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • Substantial compliance with the elevation proposed, with the garage being sided with a similar size/width lap as the house. • Removal of paving between the driveway and walkway leading to the house as proposed by staff. The applicant will secure a minor modification to establish the curb cut on Market Street as a legally approved curb cut. Chrischilles seconded the motion. Baker stated that regarding EXC15-00006 he concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff report of May 13 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 concurs with Baker. Chrischilles concurs. Soglin concurs. 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 EXC15-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by John Roffman to reduce principal building setbacks for property located in the General Industrial (1-1) zone at 2264 S. Riverside Drive. Walz showed the location of the property on the zoning map, it is at the corner of McCollister Boulevard and South Riverside Drive. The property is next to OPRS-12, manufactured housing park and is across the street from another set of 1-1 properties as well as public property such as wetlands and floodplain and right-of-ways. The applicant is asking for two different setback reductions, the ability to reduce the 100 foot setback that is required for principle buildings in the industrial zone from residential properties as well as to reduce the requirement of the adjacent residential zone along the street front of 40 feet. In the Staff report, Walz explains that in the 1-1 zone there are a number of different uses allowed that are less than compatible with residential zones. In Iowa City there are not the real heavy industries with smoke stacks and such, but there are light manufacturing uses which can be noisy or have a lot of outdoor storage. Of all the uses allowed in this zone self -storage is probably the most benign because there is very little activity happening in the buildings other than when people are moving items in and out. Walz explained that the buildings would screen the residential properties from the active areas of the site, as all the buildings open to the interior of the site. Additionally the applicant has proposed to not illuminate the backside of the buildings facing the residential areas.