HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-2016 Board of AdjustmentCITY OF IOWA CITY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 9, 2016
5: 15 P.M.
Emma Harvat Hall
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Department of Neighborhood & Development Services
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, November 9, 2016 — 5:15 PM
City Hall, 410 East Washington Street
Emma Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the October 12, 2016 minutes
D. Special Exception Items:
1. EXC16-00010: Discussion of an application submitted on behalf of M&W
Properties, for a special exception to allow 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 for property located in the High Density Multi -Family (RM-
44) zone at 518 Bowery Street.
2. EXC16-00008: Discussion of an application submitted on behalf of Monark LLC,
for a special exception to allow a 100% reduction in the off-street parking
requirement for a proposed mixed use building to be constructed in the Central
Business District (CB-10) zone at 7 South Linn Street.
E. Board of Adjustment Information
F. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING:
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC16-00010
518 Bowery Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
STAFF REPORT
M & W Properties
Ryan Wade
3 Audrey Court, NE
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-430-5991
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: November 9, 2016
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:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Applicable code sections:
File Date:
BACKGROUND:
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.
518 Bowery Street
1,470 square feet
Historic District Overlay Zone, high -density multi-
family residential (OHD-RM-44); vacant
North: Residential (RM-44)
South: Residential (RM-44)
East: Residential (RM-44)
West: Residential (RM-44)
14-4E-5B-1, specific criteria for change to a non-
conforming use; 14-4B-3A, general criteria for
special exceptions.
September 21, 2016
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
%7
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-41-1) 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 14-413-3A.
The applicant's comments regarding each of the speck 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-513)
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
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 (14-413-3)
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.
R
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 betaken 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.
0 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:
A firm that manufactures and/or assembles goods that are intended for retail sale to the general
public. The goods may also be sold at wholesale to other outlets or firms, but retail sales is a
significant component of the operation. The manufacturing component for such a firm is small in
scale. Size limitations may apply to such uses in commercial zones to keep the uses in scale and
character with surrounding land uses.
■ 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.
■ Repeal special exception number EXC12-00010, recorded Book 4997, page 304-309.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Photo
Approved by:
John Yapp, Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Exc16-00010
518 East Bowery Street
4
61
i epared sy: Marti Wn
Lla[e. Prepared:
Selz, 2
' 91
IT
�rA
-
-r'
• 8 L
1
Page 1 of 1
https://www.icgov.org/sites/defaultlfiles/stylesllarge/PublicIBoweryStreetGroceryZazaExte... 11 /3/2016
rx
i
Em
0
lb
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC16-00008
7 South Linn Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: November 9, 2016
Applicant: Monark LLC
221 East College Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Kevin Monson
319-338-7878
Reduction of Required Off -Street Parking
To allow development of a mixed -use building
7 South Linn Street
95'5" x 41'
Vacant; CB-10
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Mixed use, CB-10
South: Mixed use, CB-10 (Historic Landmark)
East: Mixed use, CB-10
West: Commercial, CB-10
Applicable code sections: 14-4B-3A, General Criteria; 14-5A-4F-5, Specific
Criteria—Altematives to the Minimum Parking
Standards
File Date: September 16, 2016
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located at 7 S. Linn Street and is the site of the former Van Patten
house, a historic structure that in 2011 was severely damaged by a fire, which also destroyed
the Bruegger's building at 225 Iowa Avenue. Subsequent to the fire, the Van Patten house was
inspected, found to be structurally unsound in and demolished. The adjacent property to the
south, 13 South Linn, contains the Hohenshuh building (now occupied by the Yacht Club), a
structure that is on the National Register of Historic Places and also a local historic landmark.
The adjacent property to the north (257 Iowa Avenue), is the Vogel House —a 7-story modernist
building with commercial at the ground floor and apartments above.
The above properties are located in the Central Business District (CB-10) zone. The central
business zone (CB-10) is intended to support high density, compact, pedestrian oriented
shopping, office, service, and entertainment area in Iowa City. The CB-10 zone permits a wide
range of retail, service, office, and residential uses. Private, off-street parking is strictly regulated
in order to preserve valuable land for active building uses and to maintain a pedestrian -oriented
ra
streetscape. To support a healthy and vibrant commercial core, development of mixed use
buildings with residential uses located above storefront commercial uses is encouraged.
The applicant proposes to develop a 14-story mixed use building with retail and commercial
office space on the first two floors (first floor commercial is required in the CB-10 zone). Floors 3
through 14 are a mix of studio (48 units at 300 square feet/unit) and one -bedroom (24 units at
500 square feet/unit) apartments above. The off-street parking standards in the CB-10 zone
require 36 parking spaces (0.5 spaces per dwelling unit). The applicant has also submitted a 7-
story concept for consideration. The lower building proposal would have the same floor plans for
the residential levels of the building, with apartment units beginning on the second floor. For the
7-story building, up to 36 units would be constructed, requiring up to 18 parking spaces.
The property is 41 feet wide by 95 feet deep and has no alley access. Due to constraints
imposed by the size and location of the lot, the applicant is seeking a waiver from the minimum
parking standards. A 100% waiver may be granted by the Board of Adjustment if the applicant
satisfies all of the standards for the special exception.
The City adopted parking requirements for residential uses in the CB-10 Zone in 2009 after
considerable discussion about the value of providing opportunities for new housing in the
downtown area while balancing the impact on the City's public parking system (See attached
memo from December, 2008) After experiencing some unintended consequences of these new
regulations, the City looked at parking policies more comprehensively for both Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings and adopted new parking policies for residential uses in the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings in 2014 (See attached memo explaining these changes). As the ordinance
adopted in 2014 states, "The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District standards are
intended to provide an option for development that meets certain public goals to reduce on -site
parking requirements through a payment of fees in lieu. Fees collected are intended to ensure
that the increased development that results from this parking reduction bears a proportionate
share of the capital improvement costs necessary to meet the additional parking needs caused
by such development."
This option was intended to create a financially sustainable way to address the additional
demand for parking generated by residential uses. When a special exception is granted to
reduce minimum parking requirements in the CB-10 zone by more than fifty 50%, the developer
is required to pay a fee in lieu of the of each space otherwise required in the amount of 90% of
the estimated cost of constructing a parking space in one of Iowa City's parking garages. The
estimated cost of a structured parking space is $26,053 (FY17 dollars). This fee is adjusted
(upward) annually based on the national historical cost indexes. The payment in lieu of parking
spaces is intended to address parking demand generated by development but does not
guarantee parking permits or reserve parking spaces for future residents of the proposed
building. Approval criteria and associated analysis for this special exception are listed below.
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. 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-
5A-4F-5 pertaining to allowed parking reductions in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings
3
Parking Districts 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.
The special exception is specific to properties located within the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Parking District. The zoning code notes that for qualifying development, as set forth
below, the number of required on -site parking spaces may be reduced in order to facilitate said
development.
a. Qualifying Development: To qualify for a parking reduction under this subsection, the
proposed development:
(1) Must be located in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District:
The subject property at 7 South Linn Street falls within the defined area. Properties located within
the area bounded by Burlington Street on the south, Van Buren Street on the east, Iowa Avenue on
the north, and Capitol Street on the west are within the Downtown Parking District.
(2) Must not result in the demolition of a property that is designated as an Iowa City
landmark, registered on the national register of historic places, or individually eligible for the
national register of historic places:
The property was formerly the site of the historic Van Patten House, which was severely damaged
by fire in 2011. Inspection of the property following the fire determined that the structure was unsafe
and it was demolished. The property remains vacant.
(3) Must include uses, elements, or features that further housing, economic development, or
other goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings
Master Plan:
The proposed building provides retail/commercial office space on the first floor and Class A office
space on the second floor. Commercial retail and office space are encouraged in the
Comprehensive Plan and in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The applicant has
indicated that the all housing units will meet the guidelines for the State of Iowa Workforce Housing
Tax Credit program and that the building will be designed to LEED standards and will have photo
electric solar panels on the roof. Environmental sustainability and affordable housing are both goals
included in the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan. The developer intends to add
additional environmentally sustainable aspects to the project as he refines the building plans.
Specific Standards (14-5A-4F-5)
c. Reduction of the On -Site Parking Requirement:
For qualifying development (see above) where it is infeasible to provide at least 50% of the
required parking on site due to specific qualifying site constraints as noted below, a
developer may request a special exception to reduce the parking requirement by up to one
hundred percent 100%, provided a fee is paid in lieu of each parking space not provided on
site and the following review and approval criteria are met. The Board of Adjustment will
review such a request according to the following approval criteria:
(A) Convincing evidence has been presented that it is not feasible to provide at least 50% of
the required residential parking on site due to a lack of alley access, a lot width narrower than
4
60 feet, a lot orientation that makes it infeasible to provide on -site parking and meet
storefront depth requirements of the zone, or other unique circumstance.
FINDINGS: The subject lot width is only 41 feet wide. The property is located midblock and has
no access from an alley.
(B) The proposed project will be designed in a manner that is sensitive and complementary to
adjacent properties designated as Iowa City landmarks, registered on the national register of
historic places, or individually eligible for the national register of historic places. See
subsection 14-3C-3C, "Design Review Guidelines", of this title for guidance on the factors to
be considered to comply with this standard. This standard is not intended to impose any
particular architectural style, but rather to foster a harmonious rhythm and proportion of
building elements along a street frontage and ensure that differences in mass and scale are
mitigated through facade articulation and upper story step backs.
FINDINGS: The Yacht Club building to the south of the subject property is a historic structure
and Iowa City Landmark. As the applicant has noted, the proposed new structure is set back
6 feet from the south (side) property line. In the CB-10 Zone, the first two stories are required
to be built to the side lot line in order to prevent narrow, unkempt areas between buildings,
unless the subject building wall abuts an alley or usable outdoor space, such as a plaza,
green, courtyard, or midblock pedestrian passage. In this case this setback is necessary to
preserve access to a side door in the historic building (an access easement on the property)
and also functions to separate and define the historic structure from any new construction on
the subject lot and provides access to a rear service area and bicycle parking.
The applicant has indicated that the contemporary design of the new building serves to
differentiate it from the historic property. Historic preservation guidelines recognize this
approach as appropriate for new construction adjacent to historic structures and within
historic districts (note: the Downtown is not designated as a historic district). The Secretary
of Interior's Guidelines state: "The new work shall be differentiated from the old . . . .
However, this same guideline goes on to state, ". . . and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property
and its environment."
The Design Review Guidelines in the zoning code (14-3C-3C) elaborate on the principles of
compatibility.
Building Design (14-C3-3C-2):
a. The project evaluation will be based on the architectural concepts of the design and the project's
relationship to and compatibility with the defining characteristics of the buildings and site features of
the surrounding area, or alternatively, in areas proposed for redevelopment or revitalization, the
proposed building(s) will be evaluated according to the goals of the revitalization plan, whether it be
to strengthen orpreserve the integrity of the existing area or to support a new architectural theme
or set of unifying characteristics for a particular development or area.
b. Architecturally significant buildings proposed for renovation or rehabilitation should retain the
original architectural style and the essential and prominent features and materials of the original
facade.
c. Alignment of the horizontal and vertical architectural features on building fronts is desirable so as
to enhance the visual continuity of the streetscape.
Relationship of Building(s) To Site (14-C3-3C-3):
a. The project should integrate with adjoining properties, provide a transition between the project
and pedestrian uses, and provide appropriate landscaping.
by
c. The scale of each building should be compatible along a street frontage to preserve the
character of the street or to create the desired streetscape anticipated by the development plan or
agreement. Rhythm and proportion of buildings, doors, windows and other projections should be
considered.
d. Building materials, colors, textures, lines and masses should harmonize with adjoining buildings
and sites, or alternatively, in areas proposed for redevelopment or revitalization, the proposed
building materials, colors, textures, lines and masses should be in harmony with the architectural
theme or goals of the revitalization plan, whether it be to strengthen or preserve the integrity of the
existing area or to support a new architectural theme or set of unifying characteristics for a
particular development or area. (put image here)
These guidelines should not be taken to mean that new construction must be of the same
height as an adjacent historic structure, rather they encourage an approach that minimizes
the impact of changes in height, such as upper floor fagade stepbacks to complement that
general height of buildings along a street frontage and other variations in building massing
that provide a visual transition when the height of new construction exceeds that of adjacent
buildings. In addition, floor -to -floor heights, cornice lines, horizontal banding that defines
floor to floor heights, windows and other horizontal architectural elements should generally
align along a street frontage.
It should be noted that along this particular frontage, between Iowa Avenue and Washington
Street, there is not a unified architectural theme or rhythm in building height. The Yacht Club
building is the only historic structure along the frontage and its style is somewhat of an
anomaly —more residential in character than a traditional commercial storefront.
At the corner of Iowa and Linn Streets, the Vogel House is a 7-story modern building with a
fagade stepback above the 6`h story, allowing the top floor units to have outdoor terraces. In
addition, the vertical lines of the building align with the floor heights of the nearby historic
structure. South of the alley a small structure (a service building for US Bank) and its
surrounding surface parking lot and drive -through lane do not comply with current zoning
standards and are not in character with the historic downtown or newer infill development
allowed under the current CB-10 standards. The Downtown Master Plan identifies this
corner (the US Bank property) for redevelopment.
Above: View of the street frontage with horizontal elements of the Vogel House aligned with those of the historic
building located midblock.
6
a ar .r - • • ■ .
A9gnmmt of O'eja s
A }e S�f G li G � Y Y■
•,a:,
unaom wse
Figure 3C.2 Iowa City Zoning Code: Design Review Guidelines
n n u 1.
. 1 f
11 11 r _
low .....
Above: Another view of the Vogel House at the corner of Linn Street and Iowa Avenue shows how horizontal
elements on a modernist building harmonize with elements of the scale of nearby traditional downtown buildings.
(Note: North fagade of the Vogel House is 44 feet in width.)
Horizontal architectural elements —similar to those shown in the Vogel House illustration above
on the adjacent Vogel House Building —would help to create a harmonious transition between
the modern building proposed in this mid -block location and the abutting historic structure and
would reflect the horizontal alignment in the corner building. Staff believes that refinement of
these architectural elements is best accomplished by working with staff through the design
review process.
F
General Standards (14-4113-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
FINDINGS: The proposed site plan retains a 5'10" access between the new structure and the
historic building to the south (note the side entrance door on the historic property). Because there
is no vehicular ingress or egress from the site to the street, the pedestrian space along Linn Street
is not interrupted.
The setback will function to allow access to the rear of the building where the applicant's site plan
indicates bicycle parking and other amenities. Given safety and aesthetic concerns about these
narrow spaces, staff recommends that access to the rear service area and the portion of the
passageway located beyond the side entry to the Yacht Club building be secured with a gate or
other appropriate means determined through the design review process and include safety
lighting.
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 reduction in parking and payment of fees in lieu of will not impact
property in the immediate vicinity. Granting the exception will allow a property that is currently
vacant to redevelop, which will be beneficial to the downtown area.
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.
The proposed structure would not impede future development. The abutting building to the north
was recently constructed and so is unlikely to redevelop in the near future. If the abutting historic
property were ever destroyed, it could be redeveloped at a similar scale to the subject property.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
The director of parking has indicated that, while demand for permits is high and the adjacent
Tower Place facility is near capacity, parking is be available and additional capacity will open up
with a new parking facility currently under construction on the site of the former Sabin School.
This would allow for shifting parking demand and permits to other parking structures. The
special exception does not guarantee a parking space or permit for residents of the property.
The Transportation and Resource Management Department would be able to accommodate the
parking for either of the two proposed structures. While currently at permit capacity for the Tower
Place Parking facility located at the corner of Iowa Avenue and South Linn Street, the parking
system would have time during the construction process to build up the necessary space to meet
the requirements of either 18 or 36 spaces. An additional 600-space facility, located at the corner
of Harrison and Dubuque Streets, will be coming online in March of 2017 which will provide the
capacity to accommodate new permit requests.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
8
FINDING: Because it is not possible to provide vehicle parking there is no ingress or egress to
create congestion.
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 submitted elevations and site plan show conformance with the basic
requirements for first -floor elements —setback, storefront windows, entry at grade, etc.
Balconies that extend from the east face of the building over the City right-of-way would require
the purchase of air rights from the City. While we do not have enough of a fully detailed plan to
state that all requirements are met, the proposal in general appears to meet CB-10
requirements.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was adopted in 2013 and is an integral
part of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. It contains specific goals and objectives for
preservation and redevelopment in the Downtown. Two of the Master Plan objectives most
relevant to this case include protecting the character of downtown, key historic buildings and
promoting quality infill and redevelopment. To this end, the Strategic Infill Section of the Master
Plan states the following:
"In order to reinforce the existing fabric that currently exists in Downtown Iowa City, new development
should be mixed use and pedestrian oriented in nature. In addition, it should follow a list of very basic
rules that are consistent with the existing character of Downtown. The following guidelines were
developed following a thorough analysis of the patterns and framework that make Downtown special.
These include:
• New development should be located on sites that do not contain historic buildings.
• Active uses, such as ground floor retail (and not blank walls), should front on to the street
frontages and the City Plaza [Ped Mall].
• Upper floors should contain office, commercial, and residential uses.
• Buildings should be built to the property line.
• Corner locations should be reserved for taller buildings, creating a block structure with taller
buildings on the corners and lower scale historic buildings between them.
• The taller buildings on the corner should have a lower base consistent with adjacent historic
buildings to make them 'feel' contextual' with the rest of the Downtown, while also limiting
the perceived height of the towers.
• Parking should be located both on -street and behind storefronts in parking structures.
"The buildings shown in the master plan embody these rules. Departure from these guidelines will
erode the special qualities that make Downtown so unique. Ultimately the City should pursue the
creation of a form -based Code to regulate all new development Downtown."
The proposed 14-story building proposed in this application meets many of the goals and
objectives listed in the Downtown Master Plan: the site does not contain a historic building; the
first floor is designed for commercial use; the site plan shows the structure built to the property
line as much as is practical given access requirements; parking is available on -street and in
nearby parking structures; it is certainly quality infill, mixed -use development; and the project will
provide a unique housing type in the downtown — residential options / new construction is
encouraged in the Downtown Master Plan. The project is also an opportunity to enhance the
downtown and improve its competitive position particularly compared to the current vacant lot.
It is worth noting that if the proposed 14-story building contained only non-residential uses
9
(hotel, office, retail, etc.) it could be constructed without a special exception as commercial uses
do not have minimum parking requirements. A special exception is only required due to the
proposed residential component.
While the CB-10 Zone complies with the Comprehensive Plan, and the CB-10 Zone does not
limit building height, the Historic Preservation guidelines seem to call for something lower in
scale and more compatible or harmonious with the development on either side of the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a parking reduction of up to 18
spaces to allow a lower scale building (up to 7 stories) with up to 36 dwelling units subject to
Design Review Committee approval to ensure that the new building is designed in a manner
that is complementary and harmonious with the abutting historic landmark building including
horizontal architectural elements, that align with elements on the adjacent historic building.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Information regarding the parking standards for residential units (memos)
3. Referenced sections of the Downtown Master Plan
4. Site Plan and Elevations
5. Application materials
Approved by: / / 7Q2:
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
h►°�4 �,��������a�
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 10, 2008
To: City Council
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
NE: Proposed amendments to the parking requirements in the CB-10 Zone - City
Council request for revisions
At your meeting on November 18, the Council considered recommendations forwarded by
the Planning and Zoning Commission to establish minimum parking requirements for
residential apartments in the Central Business (CB-10) Zone. After public discussion, the
Council requested that the proposed parking requirements be further refined by staff and
the Planning and Zoning Commission to address some concerns. In particular, the
Council was concerned that the parking requirements as proposed would discourage
renovations of existing buildings downtown, if owners wanted to convert vacant or
underutilized space on the upper floors to apartments or condominiums. Some also
expressed a concern that the parking ratio of one parking space per bedroom for efficiency
and one -bedroom apartments was too high for the CB-10 Zone, particularly if we want to
encourage development of smaller apartments.
In addition, the following important points were raised during the public hearing and
Council discussion:
The City subsidizes downtown development by providing parking in conveniently
located structures, which helps preserve land for stores, offices, and restaurants
while maintaining the pedestrian -oriented, main street character of the downtown.
While the parking spaces within the municipal facilities are intended primarily for
customers and employees of downtown businesses, there is some capacity within
the system for long term leases for downtown residents. However, the City's
parking system is not designed to provide for and subsidize large-scale residential
projects. When the downtown parking system was conceived 30 years ago, large-
scale residential projects were not contemplated.
• Providing adequate parking dedicated for residents is important when trying to
attract long term residents to live downtown. While one of the benefits to living
downtown may be the ability to reduce reliance on the automobile, many people
will still own a car and need a place to park that is convenient to their residence.
The absence of a parking requirement for residential uses in the CB-10 Zone,
gives student apartment developers a market advantage over developers wanting
to build apartments and condominiums for long term residents. For students the
lack of a parking space is a temporary inconvenience, whereas for those
contemplating living downtown on a permanent basis, the lack of a dedicated
parking space may cause them to search elsewhere for a residence.
• There was general agreement on the Council that for new, large-scale residential
projects providing some dedicated parking on -site for residents is necessary to
prevent spillover parking in surrounding neighborhoods, to reduce pressure on the
December 10, 2008
Page 2
public parking system, and to level the playing field for developers wanting to build
apartments and condominiums for long term residents downtown.
Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation:
To address the goals and concerns stated above, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends:
Reducing the recommended requirement for efficiency and one -bedroom apartments
from one parking space per apartment to 0.5 parking spaces per apartment.
Eliminating the parking requirement for the first ten bedrooms in existing buildings.
This change will allow owners of existing buildings to convert vacant or underutilized
space on the upper floors to apartments or condominiums without having to provide
parking.
Allowing developers to apply for a special exception to provide 100% of the required
parking spaces within municipal parking structures, regardless of how far the parking
facility is from the apartment building, if spaces are available for long term parking.
There was much discussion between Commission members about the long term
implications of allowing a significant amount of residential parking in city parking
facilities. A number of commissioners expressed concern about the implications that
this policy would have for the availability of parking for downtown businesses. There
was general agreement that continuing to allow parking for residential uses within
city parking facilities would require a commitment on the part of the City to expand
the parking system in the Central Business District as the downtown grows.
Easing the current restriction on above -ground structured parking. Currently, above-
ground structured parking is only allowed if a development has a floor area ratio
(FAR) of at least 7. There are currently no buildings in the downtown that have
achieved an FAR of 7, so the current standard, in effect, prevents private developers
from putting any parking in above -ground parking structures. Since the City already
has standards in place to ensure that any above ground structure is designed in a
manner that preserves space on the ground level for businesses and maintains a
pedestrian -oriented streetscape, this change was viewed as a means to allow more
flexibility for private developers to provide more parking on site.
The proposed changes to the zoning ordinance are attached. Underlined text is new language
and text shown with strikethrough notation is proposed for deletion.
Cc: Michael Lombardo, City Manager
,Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
r
t��~p CITY OF IOWA CITY
.�;�� MEMORANDUM
Date: February 14, 2014
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Parking Amendments for Downtown and the Riverfront Crossings District
As mentioned at your previous meeting, there have been a number of changes to parking
policies in and around downtown Iowa City over the last decade. While these changes have
helped to further specific goals, the result over time is a patchwork of standards that sometimes
work at cross purposes. In January, staff forwarded a set of draft changes to the minimum and
maximum parking requirements to the Commission for discussion. As mentioned at your last
meeting, staff has continued to refine the proposed changes. The attached amendments include
the following:
• A new table that establishes minimum parking requirements for properties located in a
Riverfront Crossings Zone;
• Revised minimum parking requirements for the Central Business Zones and the PRIM
Zone to create a more consistent set of standards that will help to achieve the density
and type of development desired for these areas while ensuring that adequate parking is
provided;
• New alternatives to minimum parking requirements for development that helps to
achieve public goals;
• Clean-up and clarification of the language in Section 14-5A-4, Minimum Parking
Requirements;
Deletion of the Near Southside Parking Impact Fee District provisions;
• Deletion of the allowance to satisfy parking requirements within public parking facilities
without compensation to the City;
• Standards to address parking for uses within a Liner Building, which is a building that is
constructed around or in front of a mid -block parking structure such that it masks the
parking structure from view;
• Allowance to convert up to 10% of the required parking spaces into parking for
motorized scooters and motorcycles due to the increased use of these types of vehicles;
Deletion of the maximum parking standard in the CB-5 Zone. This is an obsolete
standard that may prevent neighborhood -serving commercial uses, which rely on certain
amount of on -site parking, from locating in this zone. Due to the high cost of land in
central Iowa City, parking does not tend to be oversupplied such that a maximum
parking standard is needed;
• Minor amendments to the standards for structured parking to address the Riverfront
Crossings District standards and to clarify how underground parking is distinguished
from ground level parking. This clarification will be particularly helpful for sloping sites.
Following is a table that shows the proposed changes to parking requirements for multi -family
uses and the relationship between the parking requirements in these areas. Our
recommendation is to continue to encourage smaller apartments downtown (CB-10 and CB-5
Zones) by lowering the parking requirement for 1-bedroom units in the CB-5 Zone to match the
0.5 space required per 1-bedroom unit in the CB-10 Zone. We also recommend lowering the
parking requirement for 3-bedroom units in these zones from 3 spaces to 2.5.
For the CB-2 and PRM Zones, which are typically located on the periphery of the downtown, the
standards would be set a bit higher, but would also create an incentive for smaller units. It
February 14, 2014
Page 2
should be noted that in PRM-zoned areas within the University Impact Area the standard of 1
space per bedroom would still apply. There is one area on the west side of the river zoned
PRM. This area is not included in the University Impact Area because it is not adjacent to any
sensitive lower density neighborhoods. It is located directly adjacent to the health sciences
campus where housing is needed for medical, dental, nursing, and pharmacy students. The
lower parking requirement for 1 and 2-bedroom apartments will encourage development of new
housing for these populations as well as for employees of the UI hospital and clinics and others
desiring to live close to the University's westside campus.
In the Riverfront Crossings District, in the South Downtown and University Subdistricts the
standards would mirror the standards in the CB-10 Zone, except that for 3-bedroom units the
parking requirement would be 2 spaces instead of 2.5 to reflect that these areas are appropriate
locations for larger apartments. Similar to the central business zones where a considerable
amount of short term parking is available on -street and in public parking ramps, private off-street
parking will not be required for non-residential uses in the South Downtown and University
Subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings. In the remainder of Riverfront Crossings the proposal is to
establish a minimum parking ratio of 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area for all non-
residential uses. This standard is lower than the requirements in other commercial zones
reflecting the central city location of the Riverfront Crossings District.
Comparison of Existing and Proposed Parking Requirements for Multi -Family Uses
RFC
CB-10
CB-5
CB-2
PRM Zone
south
RFC
Zone
Zone
Zone
Downtown,
all other
University
subdistricts
Outside
Inside
subdistricts
UTA
UTA
Existing
1-bed
0.5
1
1
1
1
_
Requirements
2-bed
1
1
2
2
2
___
_
3-bed
3
3
3
2
3
Proposed
1-bed
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.75 1
0.5
0.75
Requirements
2-bed
1
1
1.5
1.5 2
1
1.5
3-bed
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5 1 3
2
2.5
Staff recommends deleting the Near Southside Parking Facility District and its associated
parking impact fee. The Riverfront Crossings District Master Plan has replaced the Near
Southside Plan as the comprehensive plan for the area immediately south of downtown Iowa
City, so this article of the zoning code is obsolete and is creating some market distortions. By
requiring parking impact fees in lieu of 75% of the parking required for residential uses
constructed in this area, money was generated that could be used for purchase of land and for
capital costs associated with constructing municipal parking facilities in the area. However, the
parking impact fee was set at about 1/3 the cost of constructing a structured parking space, so it
encouraged a considerably higher residential density with insufficient on -site parking to meet the
parking demand for residents yet did not generate enough funds for the City to construct
municipal parking facilities to meet that demand in a timely fashion. We now believe that
requiring parking on -site that is closer to the actual amount of parking demanded by residents in
these downtown locations will ensure that adequate parking is available and also help level the
playing field between student apartments and housing constructed for more permanent
residents.
Keeping in mind the goal to encourage quality high density housing in Downtown Iowa City and
in the portions of Riverfront Crossings immediately south of downtown where public parking
February 14, 2014
Page 3
facilities are or will be provided, staff is recommending a new parking alternative to facilitate
projects that have been granted bonus height, bonus FAR or other financial assistance from the
City for including uses, elements or features that further housing, economic development or
other goals of the Comprehensive Plan. While qualifying properties would be allowed to reduce
their parking requirement according to these provisions, the developer would have to pay a fee
in lieu of providing the required parking to help offset the cost to the City of providing
strategically located public parking facilities to satisfy the increased demand. The fee would be
set at a level closer to the actual cost of a structured parking space. In 2013 dollars the
estimated cost of a structured parking space is $24,000. For example, the fee for up to a 50%
reduction in parking is 75% of the cost of a structured parking space or $18,000 per space. The
fee is adjusted every year based on a published cost inflation factor.
Given the increased cost of the fee, staff is anticipating that developers would only choose to
pay the fee if there is practical difficulty providing the parking on -site. For very constrained sites
that would otherwise remain undeveloped, there is an option to pay a fee in lieu of up to 100%
of the required parking, but the fee would be even higher for reductions beyond 50%. This new
alternative to minimum parking requirements will also replace the confusing policy for off -site
parking in a municipal parking facility where developers could request to satisfy parking
requirements within a nearby parking facility at no cost. This amounted to the City giving away
public parking for free. This policy created a confusing and frustrating approval process for the
Board of Adjustment, for applicants, and for the City's parking manager.
Attached are the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code related to the issues described in
this memo. The draft language forwarded to you at previous meetings is superseded by the
attached language.
Prepared by: Karen Howard, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING, ADDING ARTICLE 14-2G, RIVERFRONT
CROSSINGS FORM -BASED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND AMENDING OTHER PARTS
OF TITLE 14 TO INTEGRATE THE FORM -BASED CODE
WHEREAS, the adopted 2013 Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan (2013 Plan)
provides a vision, goals and objectives encouraging pedestrian -oriented, mixed -use redevelopment
in the Riverfront Crossings District; and
WHEREAS, one of the primary tools to implement the 2013 Plan's vision for the Riverfront
Crossings District is the adoption and incorporation of form -based development standards into the
Zoning Code to ensure new buildings are designed and located to create a walkable and sustainable
urban neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, because the form -based code will be incorporated into the existing Zoning Code, it is
necessary to amend other articles and sections of the Zoning Code to ensure consistency and clarity
regarding which generally -applicable zoning standards apply in the Riverfront Crossings Zones; and
WHEREAS, furthermore, due to changes in parking policies and regulations since the Near
Southside Neighborhood Parking Facility District Impact fee was enacted in 1992, it is in the interest
of the City to eliminate said fee and update its parking policies and regulations in Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings to reflect current market conditions and the 2013 Plan goals that encourage on -
site parking for residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District standards are intended to
provide an option for development that meets certain public goals to reduce on -site parking
requirements through a payment of fees in lieu. Fees collected are intended to ensure that the
increased development that results from this parking reduction bears a proportionate share of the
capital improvement costs necessary to meet the additional parking needs caused by such
development. This option will supplant the option to request a special exception for parking in a
municipal parking facility, which has resulted in the unsustainable practice of transferring public
parking to private entities at no cost; and
WHEREAS, in response to the increased demand for fraternal group living uses (fraternities and
sororities) it is in the best interests of the City to allow these uses at the previous density level of 1
resident per 300 square feet of lot area in the highest density multi -family zones (RM-44 and PRM
Zones), but only by special exception to ensure they are designed and managed in a manner that
provides a safe and healthv livina environment for residents and will be compatible with surrounding
residential uses; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City to clarify that student dormitories are a type of
independent group living use and to establish special exception approval criteria that will allow this
housing type as an option in the Riverfront Crossings District in a manner that provides a safe and
healthy living environment for residents; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interests of the City to establish consistent storefront window standards in
zones where such windows are required, including the Riverfront Crossings Zones, Central Business
Zones, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, and the Mixed Use Zone; and
WHEREAS, after considerable deliberation and public discussion, the Planning and Zoning
Commission has recommended approval of the Riverfront Crossings form -based development
standards and other related amendments to the zoning code.
downtown district
q
e"
Du�tirta
s
1 rvnwmxn
� al ]y O8
i A IIdI OY/11101NII fP
mayy^ l
Py! Gilbert
-
� xwxwpo wx:
53
downtown district
Downtown Iowa City is the heart of the region. The City's
most dense area is home to businesses, civic venues, condos,
apartments, and the University of Iowa. Historic buildings can be
found next to new buildings, and streets are active throughout the
day and Into the night. The focal point of the district is the iconic
and popular City Plaza, which is often referred to as the pedestrian
or ped mall. The area has experienced a significant amount of
development in recent years, including the Plaza Towers and
Vogel House mixed use buildings, and the Iowa City Public Library.
Even with all of this new development activity, including several
projects that are currently In the development pipeline, there are
many opportunities to strategically enhance the area.
Downtown .District Summary
I lister Plan Ob;ectiaes:
> Protect historic character and key historic buildings
> Promote quality innll and redevelopment
> Build on existing strengths (locally owned shops, proximity
to the University of Iowa, farmer's market, adjacent
neighborhoods, etc.)
> Maintain balance of uses and activities
> Improve competitive position of downtown
> Improve connectivity to surrounding districts
Development Character:
> Regional destination for arts, culture, and entertainment
> Most dense urban district
> High quality streets, public spaces, and architecture
Development Program:
. Residential Options - new construction and rehab
Retail infill and redevelopment (national retailers; incubator
space; entertainment - bowling, movie. theater; childcare)
Office
> Hospitality
54 downrown and riverfront crossings plan —
4p�
DT-1: Historic Preservation- Downtown Iowa City contains
a number of buildings of historic value. In the Analysis section
of this document, these buildings were Identified as key historic
buildings, contributing historic buildings, and potential buildings
of historic significance. The high concentration of these buildings
within the District provides character and ambiance, and gives
Downtown Iowa City its own unique sense of place. In orderto
maintain this, the City should take measures to preserve and
actively protect these buildings.The aforementioned diagram
should be utilized to help determine where infill development
should, and should not occur. In addition, it should be utilized
to help identify properties that could receive density bonuses
in return for the protection and renovation of these historic
structures. In order to facilitate preservation of historic structures,
density bonuses, waiver of parking requirements, and other
entitlements will be considered. Another option to be considered
would be the formalized protection of these resources by
designating them as local landmarks or including them within a
local historic district.
DT - 2: Fa0de Enhancement Program -As mentioned in the
previous section, protection and preservation of Downtown's
historic building stock should be a key priority. One way to
accomplish this is through the Implementation of a faSade
enhancement program and programs to encourage the use of
upper floors. The City is exploring incentives to make these
buildings more usable and therefore make existing buildings
more economically viable and less likely to be torn down. These
programs typically offer grants and/or loans for the historically
correct restoration of a building's exterior fapde. Implemented
over time, a program such as this can make a significant impact on
the appearance of Downtown.
DT - 3: Strategic Inflll - In order to reinforce the existing fabric
that currently exists in Downtown Iowa City, new development
should be mixed -use and pedestrian -oriented in nature. In
addition, it should follow a list of very basic rules that are
consistent with the existing character of Downtown. The following
guidelines were developed following a thorough analysis of the
patterns and framework that make Downtown special. These
include:
, New development should be located on sites that do not
contain historic buildings.
. Active uses, such as ground floor retail (and not blank walls),
should front onto the street frontages and the City Plaza.
�'-.l ...
r
Aerial view ofthe Downtown District
DT-3: Strategic Infill on Linn Street
DT-4: Washington Street Parking Garage
55
56
> Upper floors should contain office, commercial, and residential
uses.
> Buildings should be built to the property line.
r Corner locations should be reserved for taller buildings,
creating a block structure with taller buildings on the corners
and lower scale, historic buildings between them.
t The taller buildings on the corners should' nave a lower base
consistent with adjacent historic buildings to make them'feel'
contextual with the rest of downtown, while also limiting the
perceived height of towers.
r Parking should be located both on -street znd behind
storefronts in parking structures.
The buildings shown in the master plan embody these rules.
Departure from these guidelines will erode the special qualities
that make Downtown so unique. Ultimately, the City should
pursue the creation of a form -based Code to regulate all new
development Downtown.
DT — 4: Washington Street Parking Garage - Construct a new
parking structure on the south side of Washington Street between
Dubuque Street and Clinton Street. This structure would cause
the removal oftwo or three contributing historic buildings. Any
loss of historic structures should not be taken lightly. However, in
this case, it may be necessary in order to encourage the adaptive
reuse and thus, the long term preservation of two more significant
historic buildings -the Jefferson Building and the Mid West One
Bank Building. The Jefferson Building could be restored for such
uses as a hotel or housing with adjacent parking. The parking
structure would also support reuse of the Mid West One Bank
building to the west.
A key element of this project would be to require a retail liner
building between Washington Street and the parking structure.
This liner building, designed to look like a series of retail bays,
would mask the parking structure from the street and sidewalk,
and help keep the existing rhythm and scale of the street. Curb
cuts would not be allowed from Washington Street. Access would
be required from the alley to the south.
DT — 5: Burlington Street- Burlington Street acts as a barrier for
pedestrian traffic between Downtown and the South Downtown
,District. This Is due to multiple traffic lanes and heavy traffic,
both of which combine to make crossing the street difficult and
limited right-of-way, which results in extremely narrow sidewalks
and limited streetscape enhancements. In orderto remedythls,
two things need to occur. The first is to redevelop the adjacent
and riverfront crossings plan
properties on both sides of the street utilizing the infill guidelines
mentioned previously. This would not only help"bridge"the gap
by providing active storefronts and human -scale architecture on
both sides of the street It would also provide an opportunity to
Implement a 10'building setback along each side of the street,
thereby allowing room for future streetscape enhancements.
Once this occurs, the second round of improvements could
occur. This would consist of implementing new streetscape
enhancements, allowing Burlington Street to become a safe,
pedestrian route to and from campus. Ideally, the new pedestrian
section would consist of a 15'sidewalk and 5'furnishing zone,
which would contain pedestrian scale lighting, bollards and chain
to reduce mid -block crossings, and landscaping, such as columnar
trees and taller grasses, to create a vertical living buffer. Where
redevelopment of adjacent parcels does not occur, the streetscape
enhancements could still occur, with the sidewalk zone reduced
from 15'to 5:
DT — 6: The City Plan (Ped Mall) -The Visioning Process revealed
that several key stakeholders felt that the pedestrian mall was
beginning to look dated. Because of its iconic nature, the City
should begin an Inclusive community process to determine
what, if any, improvements should be made. The outcome of this
process would determine if the mall should be "freshened up," or
not.
DT-S. Burlington streetscape Concept
DT — %: Patking District- In order to achieve the desired level
of development within Downtown, the City currently addresses
parking demand through a parking district approach. Instead of
addressing parking on a project -by -project or site -by -site basis,
which diminishes the urban nature of a particular area, parking
is provided on a district -wide basis. This means utilizing district
serving parking structures, on -street parking, and demand pricing
to address parking demand.
s
downtown yield analysis
P4`•
1
57
58
DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
MIIaIN
NWrs
Squese Cprm.
M.
MUed
Mail
Il41el
Mixs M
Mideast! identlel
antrl Pass,
PerMN
WSNIIMID Type
Fn4mM1tt
St4drs
FaaMp SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF UnM
UNts
Rovers Denied
PmuMed
Fravle
FSalas W.anr Mfe
ET-1 Mhed Use
GAV5
5
M,225 -
-
5,M
Am,
IS
- 46
3
-
3
DT-2 Meet Use
6,m
5
32,= -
-
6,500
2SAW
-
16
- 48
3
-
3
M-3 MMed Use
ima)
5
56,95a -
-
1;39a
aAw
32
- 91,
34
28
6
Did Mixed Use
11,320
6
90$6D -
39,140
1;320
-
395
0
Mhileal
5
-
;525
-
9
250
-
..i Mail Uner Building; 53/Iloar
DT-5
DTE MhM Use
Use
I'm
21,960
U
]Dm
23
4a
0
DT-] Mbed Use
38
3,090
5
5
15,= -
3tatan,00
3m
a
23
0
DT-0 M Use
]g6ga
47M
;aa
it
9,A
fi
19
D
- -
Use
ages
1;935
116p15 -
1;935
MAW
64
143
a
DT-12 Mbxd Use
Xr- %M%I
6,m
38aaa -
Fl,]]5
-
4p
a
-
-
Mhed Use
4
31,m -
),475
BAD
25
51
51
D
ME! Mhed Use
IIA75
6p]5
6),175 -
MAM
59,325
42
%
12
12
-
M-13
Mixed Use
6,05
- 5
5
36,1]5 -
6"
6,235
2AM
20
-
9
16
W-13
Oi-30 Mixed Use
),]35
5
36,1)5
],]35
2$ggD
2D �
%
56
9
9
g
DOWNTOWN DISTIDLTTOTAIS
'Egli a
]9,240
np13
44111$96
u
a D
la9
4 y0a3
331 i
A
ao am
river(ront crossings plan
b
IOWAA UE
80' - 0`
BLDG LENGTH
TS Ll- Sires}
DaeW—l'r. Kevin Mamn
Property Cleae: C
95'-51/8°
LOT D PM
� � I
}
SITE PLAN
View from southeast
wwwaaww"
NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS 17 -
11
Y
WE14
•`-•'►:.�• fib: _1 ^.��
IF =
71
IL
AN
~-
I FY�
View from southeast
S
NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS 17
EP-1 �
`.• J
:� �8• 1I11 :I ��� -y
III Tr
4 i • OM
it
fi.
4F
Fw-
ks
rrlr� . . ♦1 ... - �: � � _ - _ [7i� :.ter .
October 4, 2016
Sarah Walz
City of Iowa City
410 Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE; Request
Dear Sarah,
The Van Patten House located at 7 S. Linn was severely damaged by fire on September 24, 2011. The
building was demolished due to safety concerns and the lot is currently vacant. Monark, LLC proposes to
build a new mixed -use, fourteen story building with over 40,000 square feet of space. The proposed
building includes retail/office space on the first floor, Class A office space on the second floor, 48 studio
apartments (approximately 300 square feet each), and 24 one -bedroom apartments (approximately 500
square feet each) on floors two through fourteen. All units in the project will meet the guidelines for the
State of Iowa Workforce Housing Tax Credit program and we wish to apply for the tax credit. A seven
story building with similar attributes is also under consideration but is not preferred. Please see plans
enclosed.
The target market for these units is young professionals looking for affordable, non -undergraduate
housing in the downtown core. The building is designed to be very sustainable which we believe will
appeal to young working professionals who wish to live in a vibrant downtown setting that will reduce
their carbon footprint. The building will be designed to LEED standards and will have photo electric solar
panels on the roof.
At this time, due to the restricted site size, we are asking that all 36 required parking spaces be waived.
Thank you in advance for your support of our project. The application form was previously submitted.
For the Monark, LLC,
Kevin Monson I AIA LEED AP
APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT —SPECIAL EXCEPTION
information to be provided by Applicant:
A. Legal Description:
IOWA CITY (ORIGINAL TOWN) COM 40' N OF SE COR LOT 8 BLK 66; N 41; W 45'; S 17; W SO; S 24'; E
95' TO BEG & THAT PART OF E 1T OF N 86' LOT 7 & W 35' OF N 86' LOT 8 8LK 66 DES A5 AUDITOR'S
PARCEL 2014046 AS REC IN BK 58 PG 271
B. Plot Plans/Site Plan;
See Attachment
C. Specific Approval Criteria:
a) Convincing evidence has been presented that is not feasible to provide at least 50% of the
required residential parking on site due to a lack of alley access, a lot width narrower than
60 feet, a lot orientation that makes it infeasible to provide on -site parking and meet
storefront depth requirements of the zone, or other unique circumstance
Lot width is only 41 feet (less than 60 feet), making it too small in width to allow for
vehicles to drive down and park underneath the building.
-Lot does not have any alley access. The only possible access point for underground parking
would be off the front side of the building (Linn Street side). The 41-foot-wide building
facing the front of a busy Linn Street corner creates a hardship to have any on -site parking
on this lot.
-With the only possible access to a parking garage being from the Linn Street side of the lot,
the first floor retail/storefront requirements would not be able to be met if parking was
determined to be feasible.
b) The proposed project will be designed in a manner that is sensitive and complementary to
adjacent properties designated as Iowa City land marks, registered on the national register
of historic places, or individually eligible for the national register of historic places.
-The proposed project will take into consideration the adjacent properties in the design and
will meet all zoning requirements of the CB-10 district. The Yacht Club building to south of
the site is a significant historic building, an Iowa City Landmark, but not on the National
Register of Historic Places. To the north of the site is the Vogel House which is an award
winning design of this century, Following the Secretary of Interiors guide lines for designing
adjacent to historic structures, we have chosen to not mimicking the design; which would
confuse the public of the true origins of the design of the new structure. We will design to
the current time and place. The most effective and sensitive treatment of the Yacht Club
building is to set back from it by pulling six feet away from it. In so doing it allows the
building to be very clearly seen as a distinct historic structure with greater street}esence
than it has enjoyed since it was constructed. This does reduce the frontage.pf tI4ew
building by over 10% but we feel it is the most honest treatment of the stree(faaes whfl
enhancing the landmark structure.
r.y
c) The proposed project will be designed in a manner that will contribute to the pedestrian
oriented, urban character of central Iowa City as envisioned in the downtown and Riverfront
Crossing master plan.
-With a mixed use building consisting of first floor retail, second floor potential office space
and the upper floors residential, it will blend in with the current character and existing
dynamics of central Iowa City. Many of the units may be workforce housing rentals that will
bring a much needed aspect of more affordable living for young professionals, singles and
the aging to the urban vibe going on in the downtown area. With large expanses of glass on
the first floor, the building will be another exciting retail space adding to the vibrancy of the
retail uses to the north.
D. General Approval Criteria:
1) The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, or general welfare.
-Not relevant
2) The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property
values in the neighborhood.
-Considering the existing lot is a blighted/vacant lot which is an eye sore to the surrounding
businesses, this development will be beneficial to not only the neighboring buildings, but to
the entire central business district.
-Property taxes for this lot will increase from $9000 per year up to a minimum of $100,00o
per year after stabilization.
3) Establishments of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the
district in which such property Is located.
-The central business district currently allows for mixed use buildings. Height limits will be
followed, along with all other building, zoning, and housing codes. This project will not
prevent improvements or future developments of the surrounding properties.
4) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
-Yes
5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress desigrW to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. �.
-Not relevant
cn
6) Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special exceptiopeinK" —
considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms�tp tive applicable
regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
-Yes, this project meets all other applicable regulations and standards of the M 101iocne
T.I
7) The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
- The zoning ordinance allows for unlimited height of buildings in the CB-10 zone. The
recent revision in the Comprehensive Plan calls for tall buildings to be in corner locations.
This recommendation is in conflict with the zoning ordinance. We have not yet established
the height of the building and we do not agree with a plan that makes that determination. in
this location on Linn Street we believe the tall buildings should not be on the corner being
too close to Iowa Avenue.
The comprehensive plan is met in all other aspects. This project will be a great addition to
our community in providing a much need housing type not currently available.
E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located within 300
feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal:
r-,
cn
rU
'
...
Y
fJ
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OCTOBER 12, 2016 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
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:
• Substantial compliance with the floor plan submitted.
• 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:
• Substantial compliance with the floor plan submitted.
• 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:
• 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 seventy feet (70') from any residential 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:
• 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:
• 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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
TERM EXP.
12/16
1/13
2/17
319
4113
6115
7113
8/10
9/14
9/21
9/30
10/12
BAKER, LARRY
1/1/2017
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GOEB, CONNIE
1/1/2020
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
GRENIS, BROCK
1/1/2016
X
CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE
1/1/2019
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
SOGLIN, BECKY
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WEITZEL, TIM
1/1/2021
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X=Present
0 = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member