Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Packet 11.9.16.pdfSTAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz Item: EXC16-00010 Date: November 9, 2016 518 Bowery Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: M & W Properties Ryan Wade 3 Audrey Court, NE Iowa City, IA 52240 319-430-5991 Requested Action: A special exception allowing conversion of a non- conforming use, located in a structure designed for a use that is prohibited in the zone, to another non- conforming use of the same or lesser intensity. Purpose: To allow a range of small scale commercial uses: general office and commercial retail—sales oriented and personal service oriented—as allowed uses for a non-conforming property located in the RM-44 zone. Location: 518 Bowery Street Size: 1,470 square feet Existing Land Use and Zoning: Historic District Overlay Zone, high-density multi- family residential (OHD-RM-44); vacant Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential (RM-44) South: Residential (RM-44) East: Residential (RM-44) West: Residential (RM-44) Applicable code sections: 14-4E-5B-1, specific criteria for change to a non- conforming use; 14-4B-3A, general criteria for special exceptions. File Date: September 21, 2016 BACKGROUND: The property at 518 East Bowery Street is an isolated remnant of Iowa City history dating back to at least the 1860s. The existing 720-foot building was originally used as a grocery store, and historic records show continued use as a grocery from 1895 until the early 1970s when it served as the first home of the New Pioneer Cooperative Society. A retail establishment, the House of Jade, moved in when the New Pioneer moved out in 1975. Records show a brief tenancy by Helen Caldicott Community School in 1983. The structure was later illegally modified (without a 2 building permit) to create a bedroom and bathroom on the second floor. The second floor does not meet minimum ceiling height requirements for habitable space and does not have egress windows as required by code. Given the size of the property and structure, it is not possible for the property to be re-adapted for a multi-family use, though it could be adapted for a small single-family use. In 2012, the property was designated a Historic Landmark. This established a Historic District Overlay Zone for the property, the underlying zoning for which is High-Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44). The historic designation protects the building from demolition as well as exterior modification that would diminish its historic integrity. The designation also makes the property eligible for certain exceptions and zoning waivers to allow the continued use of the property. That same year, the property was granted a special exception under the Non-conforming Use Provisions to allow conversion to a new use. The zoning code provision allows a building constructed for a use no longer permitted in the zone to be converted to another non- conforming use in a different use category or subgroup so long as the new use is of the same or lesser intensity as the existing use, provided that certain conditions are met. The applicant sought approval a range of commercial retail uses—sales oriented, personal- service-oriented, or repair-oriented businesses. Staff recommended that the use be limited to one use—sales-oriented retail only. The Board approved a special exception to allow the use to convert to another nonconforming use located in a structure designed for a use not allowed in the zone subject to the following conditions:  The special exception is limited to a sales-oriented retail use only. Any change or conversion from the granted sales use must be approved through another special exception.  A building permit is required in order to establish the approved retail sales-oriented use.  The property shall provide and maintain two-off street parking spaces at the rear of the building in accordance with the off-street parking requirements in the Zoning Code.  Hours of operation are limited to 6 AM to 10 PM weekdays and 6 AM to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.  Outdoor seating and display of products within the public right-of-way are prohibited unless a temporary use permit is granted.  Signage should be limited to a facia or awning sign in compliance with the zoning code standard for non-residential uses located in residential zones and in compliance with Iowa City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines.  All outdoor lighting should comply with the zoning code standards for residential zones and with the Historic Preservation Guidelines.  The sale tobacco or alcohol on the property is prohibited.  Food preparation and sales on the site are limited per the definition in the code, which allows cottage industry component.  The alley may not be used for drive up or drive through or parking.  No amplified sound is permitted on the exterior of the building.  The building may not be expanded without a special exception.  Any alterations to the exterior of the building must comply with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. 3 The property operated as a retail use for a number of years but has recently become vacant. The current owner would like to operate his business office from the site, but also seeks additional flexibility to market the property for a range of uses in the future. The Use Classification section in the code (14-4A-4I-1) provides the following set of examples for the proposed commercial retail uses that are being sought as part of this exception: sales-oriented: Stores selling, leasing, or renting consumer, home, and business goods, including but not limited to antiques, appliances, art, art supplies, bicycles, carpeting, clothing, dry goods, electronic equipment, fabric, flowers, furniture, garden supplies, gifts, groceries, hardware, household products, jewelry, pets, pet food, pharmaceuticals, plants, printed material, stationary, videos, Also includes retail establishments that have a cottage industry component, such as bakeries, confectioneries, upholsterer, artist/artisans studios, and similar. personal service-oriented: Establishments engaged in providing retail services and services related to the care of a person or a person’s apparel, such as retail banking establishments, laundromats, catering services, dry cleaners, tailors, shoe repair, photographic studios, beauty salons, tanning salons, therapeutic massage establishments, taxidermists, mortuaries, funeral homes, and crematoriums. general offices uses as: professional offices, such as lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects, and real estate agents; financial businesses, such as mortgage lenders, brokerage houses, administrative and back office banking facilities; data processing; government offices; public utility offices; social service agency offices; television and radio studios; and business services, such as advertising agencies, consumer credit reporting agencies, collection agencies, mailing and copying services, quick printing services, building management services, detective agencies, computer services, software development, research and development, consulting and public relations, protective services, bondspersons, drafting services, auctioneer services, call centers. The building has 702 square feet of floor area. The zoning code requires one parking space per 300 square feet of floor area for general office uses; this is the same requirement for retail sales and personal service-oriented uses. The property provides two parking spaces to the rear of the building with access off the public alley. On-street parking is prohibited on Bowery Street during most of the business day. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included in 14-4E-5B pertaining to the conversion of non-conforming uses and 14-2B-8A-1 in relation to a waiver of the site development standard for required parking in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in 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. 4 Specific Standards (14-E-5B) The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a nonconforming use that is located in a structure not designed for a use allowed in the zone to be converted to another non- conforming use in a different use category or subgroup that is of the same or lesser intensity as the existing use, provided the following conditions are met: a. The proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is currently not allowed in the zone, for example a storefront commercial building located in a single-family residential zone. FINDINGS:  The subject building was originally constructed as a grocery store and continued to serve commercial uses until the early 1980s. At some point after 1983 the structure was illegally modified to serve as a single-family residential use, which is prohibited in the RM-44 zone.  The first floor interior of the building is still arranged with an open floor plan—it is one large room with a half bathroom at the back. The large, front windows are the only windows on the first floor other than a small window on the west side of the building. The building is set at the front property line, as is typical of older commercial buildings, and just inches off the east property line (public alley).  It should be noted that alterations to the building completed by a previous owner created a second floor bedroom and bathroom were done without permits, and the second floor space is considered uninhabitable due to minimum ceiling height requirements. The second floor also lacks required egress windows. b. The proposed use is of the same or lesser intensity and impact than the existing use. The Board of Adjustment will make a determination regarding the relative intensity of the proposed use by weighing evidence presented by the applicant with regard to such factors as anticipated traffic generation, parking demand, hours of operation, residential occupancy, noise, dust, and customer and/resident activity. The Board of Adjustment may also consider qualitative factors such as whether a proposed use will serve an identified need in the surrounding neighborhood. FINDINGS:  As stated above, it is clear that the property is not designed for a use that is currently allowed in the RM-44 zone.  Due to the extremely limited size of the property and structure, the property is not adaptable as a multi-family residential use.  The property was most recently occupied by a general retail use (ZaZa’s pasta).  The lot provides minimal opportunity for parking—only two parking spaces. On-street parking along this portion of Bowery Street is prohibited during daytime business hours. Moreover the high demand for on–street parking in the surrounding neighborhood makes on-street parking practically unavailable. Given these significant constraints, the commercial uses proposed will, by necessity, be self-regulating and very limited in intensity: no viable use can rely on significant vehicle access or parking.  A somewhat flexible range of commercial uses seems reasonable and prudent due to the physical constraints of the property, which, in combination with the conditions adopted with the existing special exception, effectively limit the intensity of any specific use 5 allowed. In all practicality the proposed commercial ventures will be most successful at this site are those that are neighborhood serving (relying almost entirely on pedestrian traffic from the surrounding neighborhood) or those that do not require regular customer/client visits.  The surrounding High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) zone represents the highest intensity residential use allowed outside the Downtown and PRM zone. The neighborhood is dominated by high-density multi-family housing. c. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site. FINDINGS:  The structure was originally designed as a grocery store and its interior floor plan remains almost unchanged—the first floor is one large room with a half bath. The building abuts the Bowery Street right-of-way and has large front windows, giving it the appearance of a commercial use.  The limited size of the property (less than 1,500 square feet) and the building (702 square feet) place such significant constraints upon the potential re-use of the building that the market for the property is quite limited. A list of commercial uses, which by necessity will be limited in scale, seems appropriate to ensure the continued use of this historic structure.  The site can provide 2 off-street parking spaces, which satisfies the minimum requirement for all uses included in the special exception. d. The structure will not be structurally enlarged in such a way as to enlarge the non- conforming use. Ordinary repair and maintenance and installation or relocation of walls, partitions, fixtures, wiring, and plumbing is allowed as long as the use is not enlarged. FINDING: The building may not be enlarged without approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. Moreover, the size of the building along with its non-conforming setbacks and limited parking area practically eliminate any enlargement of the structure and impose considerable constraints upon its commercial use. 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. FINDINGS:  The extremely limited size of the lot and structure along with limited parking and the restrictions placed on it due to its Landmark status, effectively limit the intensity of any use on the property.  Two off-street parking spaces can be provided with access from the public alley. 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: Uses that can function on the property will be limited in scale due to the size of the lot and building and the minimal availability of parking. 6 A set of conditions, similar to those imposed with the original (existing) special exception will further ensure that the use does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, even if the uses transition over time.  Hours of operation are limited to 6 AM to 10 PM weekdays and 6 AM to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.  Outdoor seating and display of products within the public right-of-way are prohibited unless a temporary use permit is granted.  Signage should be limited to a facia or awning sign in compliance with the zoning code standard for non-residential uses located in residential zones and in compliance with Iowa City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines.  All outdoor lighting should comply with the zoning code standards for residential zones and with the Historic Preservation Guidelines.  The sale tobacco or alcohol on the property is prohibited.  Food preparation and sales on the site are limited per the definition in the code, which allows cottage industry component.  The alley may not be used for drive up or drive through or parking.  No amplified sound is permitted on the exterior of the building.  The building may not be expanded without a special exception.  Any alterations to the exterior of the building must comply with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. 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 conditions outlined above ensure the safety and aesthetics of the site as it transitions, over time, between retail and general office uses. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. FINDING: This neighborhood is fully developed with all roads and drainage—Bowery Street is adequate to serve a small-scale retail use. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. FINDINGS:  Constraints on the site due to the size of the lot and building would seem to deter uses that rely on significant vehicle traffic.  The property can provide the two required off-street parking spaces with access from the alley.  On-street parking is prohibited along Bowery Street until after 5:00 PM.  By necessity, any retail or office business would likely rely on customers coming on foot or bike from within the surrounding neighborhood or will generate very limit customer visits.  The conditions for approval restrict use of the public alley for drive-up service. 7 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:  Very little about this property conforms to the zoning code. The lot does not meet the minimum lot size for the zone (the minimum lot size is 5,000 feet) or the frontage requirement (35 feet), nor does it meet the minimum front setback standard (20 feet), or the minimum side setback (5 feet).  The parking requirements, building coverage and setback standards, and historic preservation guidelines prohibit the building from expanding in any manner.  The proposed set of commercial uses would allow the property to be in a reasonable and limited way with the potential to serve the surrounding neighborhood. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. FINDING: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the re-use of existing buildings so long as their use does not interfere with the function and character of the neighborhood in which they are located. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the preservation of historic buildings. Summary: Since the original special exception was approved, staff is more confident that the unique characteristics of the property—the extremely small size of the of the lot and structure and limited parking along with the proposed conditions imposed regarding hours of operation, limits on products sold, etc.—will provide adequate control over the use of the site such that transition from between the uses proposed (sales-oriented and personal-service oriented uses) may occur without additional Board review. Moreover, to limit the property to one narrow use may be an onerous burden on the property owner and may discourage reasonable reuse of the historic building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC16-00010 a special exception, to allow general office and commercial retail (sales-oriented and personal-service oriented uses) to be located in a structure designed for a use that is not allowed in the zone in the High Density Multi-Family (RM-44) zone at 518 Bowery Street, subject to the following conditions:  The property shall maintain two-off street parking spaces at the rear of the building in accordance with the off-street parking requirements in the Zoning Code.  Hours of operation are limited to 6 AM to 10 PM weekdays and 6 AM to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.  Outdoor seating and display of products within the public right-of-way are prohibited unless a temporary use permit is granted.  Signage should be limited to a facia or awning sign in compliance with the zoning code standard for non-residential uses located in residential zones and in compliance with Iowa City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines.  All outdoor lighting should comply with the zoning code standards for residential zones and with the Historic Preservation Guidelines.  The sale tobacco or alcohol on the property is prohibited.  Food preparation and sales on the site are limited per the definition in the code, which allows cottage industry component: MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 2016 – 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Bulechek, Duane Musser, Rick Streb 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. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC16-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Mark Bulechek for a special exception to reduce the front principal building setback for property located in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 9 Forest Glen. Walz began the staff report showing a map of the area to show. Walz explained that it is not a traditional street design with a uniform setback along the street, the houses are turned at various angles and in some cases the garages are set forward of the houses. In this instance setback averaging applies, requiring a deeper setback than the standard 20 feet. The applicant is proposing a new addition to enlarge two existing small bathrooms at the front of the house to make them handicapped accessible. Walz explained that there is practical difficulty in accomplishing this in part because the street is actually at a higher elevation than the house. In order to work with most of the existing floor plan and the existing plumbing it makes sense to extend the bathrooms at the front of the house rather than to reorient them to the back of the house. Walz reviewed the purpose of the setback standards. The proposed addition does not contradict any of the purposes and will not reduce separation between adjacent homes. However, because the addition faces the street, Staff recommends that Board include a condition that the new addition have windows (clerestory windows) along the front face of the addition. Walz stated that staff recommended approval the special exception to reduce the front principal setback allow a 10 x 17 foot home addition for the property, subject to the following conditions: x Substantial compliance with the floor plan submitted. x Inclusion of windows on the front face of the home addition, requiring one window per bathroom. Board of Adjustment October 12, 2016 Page 2 of 8 Baker opened the public hearing. Mark Bulecheck (9 Forest Glen) came forward to answer any questions from the Board. Baker asked Bulecheck if he had any problems with the Staff recommendation regarding the windows. Bulecheck replied that he is fine with complying with that condition. Baker closed the public hearing. Chrischilles noted that the Staff Report outlines the special difficulties with this particular application. Goeb stated that when she drove by the property it appears as if this addition will be fairly well disguised due to the elevation of the street in relation to the house. Goeb moved to approve EXC16-00007, a special exception seeking to reduce the front principal setback allow a 10 x 17 foot home addition for property located in the Low- Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 9 Forest Glen, subject to the following conditions: x Substantial compliance with the floor plan submitted. x Inclusion of windows on the front face of the home addition-one per bathroom. Chrischilles seconded the motion. Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC16-00007 he concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff Report of October 12, 2016 and conclude the general and specific criteria are satisfied, in particular that the situation is peculiar to the property in that the topography limits an addition to the rear and the existing plumbing makes such an addition practically difficult. Furthermore the existing setbacks are not consistent and other buildings have elements that project from the front and the elevation plain. The reduction of the setback requirement can be accommodated safely under the existing lot and does not reduce privacy between the subject property and abutting property. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. 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. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC16-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Tom Streb for a special exception to allow expansion of an existing Quick Vehicle Servicing use located in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone located at 2221 Rochester Avenue. Walz showed an aerial view of the subject property, noting that the gas station is located in the CN-1 zone and that zone includes requirements that pedestrian oriented development, with buildings facing the street. The zone is intended for small scale businesses that serve the surrounding neighborhood, not regional or city-wide serving shopping areas. For that reason, expansion of a Quick Vehicle Servicing requires a special exception. This application does not expand or alter the building so there is not an opportunity to reorient the site in that manner Board of Adjustment October 12, 2016 Page 3 of 8 envisioned in the code. However, the applicant has addressed other elements of the they did site and bring it closer into compliance with the current regulations. Walz explained that the applicant is seeking to extend the gasoline service portion of the business and add a new canopy. The existing canopy is approximately 50 feet long and the new one would be almost 90 feet in length. There would also be the addition of another gasoline pump, currently there are two gas pumps present; the addition would allow for six vehicles to access the pumping area simultaneously. This will require a change in configuration and some of the improvements will include some additional landscape screening, removal of concrete in some areas and installing more landscaping, and extension of the sidewalk and reduction of parking along that sidewalk area and moved to be tucked behind the building. The applicant has moved the required bike parking rack to an area that is just off the sidewalk. Walz showed pictures of the site and noted that Staff did not see any issues with the proposed expansion. The applicant will have to meet all the City’s requirements with regards to lighting of the canopy. New gasoline tank storage is permitted through the DNR with the Fire Department provides comment. Walz stated that the site plan that was submitted meets the standards of the setback of this area from the adjacent residential zones. The residential zone across the street is the site of Regina Educational Center and a single-family house to the north and east. There are additional commercial properties between the site and any other residential properties to the west and south. Walz stated that the southernmost loading space in the service area, currently appears to extend into a parking aisle that is shared by other properties in the commercial center. Staff recommends that the site plan be modified to better define and separate the vehicle fueling area from the shared aisle. This may be accomplished in one of two ways: (1) reorient the fueling spaces to make them perpendicular rather than angled spaces; or (2) extend the landscaped island (located west of the fueling area) to better define the edge of the shared aisle. A detailed landscaping plan must be reviewed to determine compliance with the S2 screening standard. Staff recommends approval of the special exception to allow the expansion of the Quick Vehicle Servicing Use in the Neighborhood Commercial subject to the following conditions: x Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with the following alternations: o Staff approval of a detailed S2 landscaping plan for areas to the north and west of the parking and vehicle fueling area. o Modification of the fueling stalls or landscaped island to better define and separate the shared aisle from the fueling area. Soglin asked about the area to the south of the existing building and how it would be accessed since it is being blocked by the sidewalk. Walz showed on the photo how one would drive into the area and access the parking. Soglin asked about the height of the canopy and if it would be the same as the existing canopy. Walz stated the applicant can answer that question. Soglin noted that under the standard regarding Quick Vehicle Servicing, item C states “fuel dispensing equipment must be set back at least ten feet (10') from any street right of way and at least seventyfeet (70') from anyresidential zone boundary” and there is housing in the building nearby. Walz explained that statement is only for residential zone. Soglin asked what kind of protection is available for the rental units that are in the area. Walz showed measurements on the site plan indicating that the dwelling units units will be more than ninety (90’) feet from the Board of Adjustment October 12, 2016 Page 4 of 8 fuel pumps. Soglin asked what the normal hours allowed for this gas station, could it be open 24 hours, which she understands might be a question for the applicant. She also questions the sign, not knowing if that can be part of this discussion, and feels vehicle need to be across the sidewalk to see around that sign. Soglin questioned moving of the dumpster, she noted when she visited the site she saw a garbage dumpster as well as a recycling bin, but the application talks of only one dumpster and it appears the spot they are indicating to move it to seems inaccessible for the garbage truck. Walz said Staff did look at that, and it will have to be worked out by the applicant and their dumpster company. Soglin asked how close the dumpster could be to a neighboring property and Walz said it can abut as long as there is proper screening. Chrischilles asked if there was anything from the City’s perspective that the applicant couldn’t make this a drive-through type filling station, get rid of the median strip. Walz said that, because it is a shared drive, there must be a setback from a shared drive. Baker asked about the diagram, and the southernmost pump that goes over the line, and what that line represents. Walz said that line is the setback for the canopy from the adjacent property to the east. Baker asked if the parking spaces were striped and Walz said they were. Baker stated there was a legal requirement that the parking space be a certain depth, so the space in- between the parking is a shared driveway and is there a specific required width for that shared driveway. Walz said there is a minimum width but this one is larger than the minimum. Baker discussed the configuration of the gas pump spaces, how they would be accessed. Finally he questioned the wording of the Staff recommendation and “modification of the fueling stalls or landscaped island to better define and separate the shared aisle from the fueling area” where does that get settled beyond the decision of the Board. Walz said it would be approved by Staff, however if the Board saw fit to approve a specific modification they may make that a condition of approval. Baker opened the public hearing and invited a representative from the Applicant to come forward and address the Board. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) addressed the Board on behalf of the Applicant, his firm prepared the site plan and survey. He stated that the intent of the angled approach to the gas pumps is to try to control traffic so there is not someone pulling through at the same time someone else is backing out. After doing several convenience store site plans over the years they find that one can pull through those angled spots and go around to avoid backing out into traffic. They eliminated several parking spaces to make that flow better and to circulate a clock- wise rotation. Musser also noted that the minimum for a shared driveway is 22 feet and this driveway is in excess of 26 feet. He also said they are in agreement to remove the concrete and add the raised landscaping and moving the bike rack. With regards to the dumpster, the current location doesn’t meet any design standards or codes, they are just in the middle of the parking lot and not screened. It will be either the owners or the trash-haulers responsibility to get the new dumpster out of the enclosure, roll it out and to the garbage truck. That is common at other businesses. Musser stated they also reconfigured this plan as right now there are no safe ways to get from parking south up to the store, but by extending the sidewalk they are providing that pedestrian access. Soglin asked for more information about the dumpster location, noting there is not room there for two dumpsters (trash and recycling). Musser explained it would be only one dumpster. Board of Adjustment October 12, 2016 Page 5 of 8 Soglin stated her concern about the residential units close by the dumpster, with regards to odors and noise. Soglin asked about the canopy height and Musser confirmed it would be the same height at the current canopy. Walz added some additional information regarding the dumpster issue. The building setback, as shown on the site plan, is more than 16 feet and the relocation of the dumpster is a zoning requirement and if they change the site they have to move and screen the dumpster to comply. Soglin questioned the angle of the gas pumps and noted that all spaces would have to back out. Musser disagreed and said the landscaping is far enough away that a vehicle can go forward and turn left to exit the pumping station. Chrischilles asked about the transformer pad that is currently located in the space, and if there was anything on that pad. Musser stated there is a transformer on that pad and it will stay in the same spot. Chrischilles questioned if it would block the dumpsters and Musser doesn’t believe it will. Rick Streb (2221 Rochester Avenue) came forward to answer the questions about the dumpster location and access. Streb said that they will have a dumpster that rolls, it will be on wheels, and be able to be moved out into the parking lot to the dumpster truck for disposal. Streb also confirmed they would just have the one dumpster, they will use their recycling facilities at another location for recycling needs. Baker closed the public hearing. Chrischilles noted his concern about the shared driveway, he feels there is room to maneuver through as Musser indicated, but is worried about the space on the south that intrudes into the shared driveway, it could be a conflict. Soglin also is concerned about the maneuverability around the gas pumps. Streb was called back to the podium to address that question and he noted it is not uncommon to have this configuration and they are confident that especially smaller vehicles will be able to pull through and that is why they are angled as shown. Soglin asked where in Iowa City there is a gas station with angled pumps. Streb stated he does not have a station with this configuration, but he has been to other sites where this configuration works. The gas company actually set up this configuration, and they have done a lot of research and assures them this is common and will work. Baker wondered whether they are trying to direct traffic by using the slanted drive-through from north to south—he asked how this would effect vehicles entering the commercial site form First Avenue vs. Rochester. Streb explained they are trying to make it convenient and most of the traffic does come from Rochester. Streb stated they looked at many possibilities, but this configuration seems to work the best. Musser added that they also had to remember that they must get a full size semi-truck into the space to fill the tanks and with this plan they are trying to make that easier and more convenient as well. Board of Adjustment October 12, 2016 Page 6 of 8 Weitzel moved to approve EXC16-00009, a special exception to allow the expansion of the Quick Vehicle Servicing Use in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone at 2221 Rochester Avenue, subject to the following condition: x Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with the following alternations: o Staff approval of a detailed S2 landscaping plan for areas to the north and west of the parking and vehicle fueling area. o Staff approval of modification of the fueling stalls or landscaped island to better define and separate the shared aisle from the fueling area. Chrischilles seconded the motion. Chrischilles asked about the motion and what is the Board then saying about the orientation of the gas pumps and the landscaping. Will there be landscaping to the southernmost stall. Walz said that second sub condition clarifies that. The Board can decide they like the current configuration and remove that second condition, or keep the condition and state they would like a modification. Chrischilles stated the potential trade-off in safety due to the better traffic flow versus the slight overhang into the shared driveway (which still allows for the required width of the shared drive) means the way it is currently shown on the site plan is satisfactory, it allows for a better traffic flow. Therefore he feels that second condition can be removed, and not modification is necessary. Weitzel stated he would agree with that as a friendly amendment to his motion. Soglin still has concerns, and would have liked to see examples of where this configuration has worked. Her concern is safety and thinks the access should be consistent, either always backing out of the spaces or always pulling forward, but to have both options could cause issues. She also feels there hasn’t been enough information provided on other options, or even the need as to why an increase in pumps. Weitzel withdrew his first motion, Chrischilles withdrew his second, and Weitzel stated a new motion: Weitzel moved to approve EXC16-00009, a special exception to allow the expansion of the Quick Vehicle Servicing Use in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone at 2221 Rochester Avenue, subject to the following condition: x Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with the following alternation: o Staff approval of a detailed S2 landscaping plan for areas to the north and west of the parking and vehicle fueling area. Chrischilles seconded the motion. Goeb asked about the sign on Rochester Avenue, and if that will remain as is. Dulek said it can only be addressed if it is tied to one of the standards, or a safety concern. Baker stated he does not see a problem with the sign. Soglin said she did have a problem seeing traffic coming without pulling into the sidewalk. Baker asked if the sign is currently conforming. Walz cannot verify that at this time. Soglin said that is her concern. Dulek said she would have to know if the sign was grandfathered in if it is found to be non-conforming. She will look into that issue Board of Adjustment October 12, 2016 Page 7 of 8 and the City would take care of any non-conforming issues. Musser noted that there is currently no plan to replace the sign and there would be an expense opposition to relocating the sign. Soglin stated that the sign issue is related to general safety and welfare and does have safety concerns to the public due to additional traffic to the site. Soglin moved to amend the motion to add that if the sign is found to be non-conforming that it be brought into conformance and does not impede the vision of the sidewalk. Goeb seconded the amendment. The Board voted on the amendment, and it was added by a 5-0 vote. Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC16-00009 he concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff Report of October 12, 2016 and conclude the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the Staff Report as altered as our findings with acceptance of this proposal. Soglin expressed concern about the design of the fuel pump spaces and asked that the owners be attentive to any problems that might arise once this is built. She stated that it would have been helpful to have examples that this configuration has worked at other gas stations. Soglin added her finding under general standard 1 that the sign has the potential to obstruct views of the sidewalk and is therefore a public safety issue, especially as there are many school children in this area. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1 (Soglin dissenting). 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 INFORMATION: Walz stated that the Board will be hearing from the attorney that represents them in the Lusk Avenue case with an update. Baker added that the attorney has said that although the Board’s written statements were part of the public record, anyone can access them through the City Clerk’s office, but the Board should not individually provide those opinions to anyone. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn this meeting. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. BO A R D O F A D J U S T M E N T AT T E N D A N C E R E C O R D NA M E T E R M E X P . 12 / 1 6 1 / 1 3 2 / 1 7 3 / 9 4 / 1 3 6 / 1 5 7 / 1 3 8/ 1 0 9 / 1 4 9 / 2 1 9 / 3 0 1 0 / 1 2 BA K E R , L A R R Y 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 7 X X O / E X X X X X X X X X GO E B , C O N N I E 1/ 1 / 2 0 2 0 X XX X X X X X X X O / E X GR E N I S , B R O C K 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 6 X -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CH R I S C H I L L E S , T . G E N E 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 9 X XX X X O / E X X X X X X SO G L I N , B E C K Y 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 8 X XX X O / E X X X X X X X WE I T Z E L , T I M 1/ 1 / 2 0 2 1 -- - - XX X X X X X X X X KE Y : X = P r e s e n t O = A b s e n t O/ E = A b s e n t / E x c u s e d -- - = N o t a M e m b e r