Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-11 BOA DecisionJmmpew••ewioom.. Fat . preperad by KA I.tllmam, A•sodaM Plerrer. 410 E. Wa•IYngwA lava Cdy, IA M2 . 319,15"230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2021 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Doc ID: 028248410029 Type: GEN Kind: DECISION Recorded: 09/23/2021 at 11:12:19 Art Fee Art: $147.00 Page I of 29 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder w6289 PG899-927 MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles. Bryce Parker, Amy Pretortus, N'Wk Russo MEMBERS ABSENT: None•-- -� N N _ STAFF PRESENT: Sue Oulek, Anne Russell, Kirk Lehmann FT1 _• _r1 SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: „ =J 1. EX021-0012: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by v I Elizabeth Homan requesting an eating establishment use for a Peninsula live -work unit in a Low Density Single-Famlly Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (RS- 5IOPD) at 1040 Martin Street. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: • The subject unit is small at approximately 766 square feet, the Intensity of the property will not change substantially from previous occupants, and access to the property and surrounding properties will not be affected. To enlarge the use In the future, such as into the rear space, a new special exception would be required. • Given the remote location of the neighborhood, limited s¢e, and seating constraints, it is likely that the use will rely primarily on customers that are already within the neighborhood, either residents or people traveling to the dog park or along bike trails. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: Before this special exception application, the property was utilized as an eating establishment with minimal effects on neighboring residential uses- Staff does not expect any major impacts to neighboring properties. The Board has approved special exceptions for other nearby commercial uses with conditions limiting hours of operation, size, and exterior sound. These condifions help ensure that the Peninsula corrmerdal area retains a mix of uses that serve the neighborhood and does rat detract from other nearby uses. Staff recommends adopting similar conditions for this use, though limitations on size are not necessary because any subsequent enlargement will require a new exception. Proposed conditions limiting hours of hours of operation and prohlbrdng exterior amplified sound help to ensure that Peninsula residents can benefit from a restaurant within walking distance without the negative externalities of noise from late night hours and amplified sounds. • Signs and lighting must comply with the regulations for the Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed Use zones, which am designed to be compatible with neighboring residential uses and must be approved by the Peninsula Neighborhood Architectural Review Board. The Board concludes that establishment of the specific proposed exception will not Impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted In the district in which such property Is located based on the following findings: • The neighborhood is fully developed with a mix of residential and commercial uses. • The Peninsula Regulating Plan includes opportunities for commercial uses In pA.Aicular locations around the park. _ _ • The building was designed and built for commercial use on the grounds "T. v �_t The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or riaile aiD r facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: — v j-jj • All access roads are in place for the development, on -site drainage is porvjded, and the area directly behind the property is reserved for stormwater detention. No additional facilities are required. r The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • Off-street parking is not required for commercial uses under 1,500 square feet. As such, no parking has been provided for the commercial use. • The use will be limited in the customers it likelywill draw due to its small size and remote location In Iowa City. As such, adequate Ingress and egress are provided. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • All other aspects of the proposed use have been reviewed for compliance with the specific standards in the Peninsula's Planned Unit Development regulations. • Any changes to previously approved uses, such as to lighting or signage, will require appropriate permits, and will be reviewed upon application. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • The Peninsula Neighborhood was developed utiliz ng conservation and traditional neighborhood design principles that include a variety of housing types, neighborhood commercial, and live -work buildings (North District flan pg. 29). • The Peninsula Regulating Plan includes opportunity for limited commercial uses in locations adjacent to the park. DISPOSITION: By a vote of 4-0 (Pretorius mused herself), the Board approved an eating establishment in a Peninsula Live -Work unit for the property located at 1040 Marlin Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Business hours of operation must dose by 10 PM Sunday through Thursday and 11 PM Friday through Saturday. 2, Amplified sound on the axter_!pr of the building is prohibited. 124,1 Gene Chrischilles, Vice Chairperson and Acting Chairperson EXC21-0009: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by Axiom Consultants requesting a 50 percent parking reduction for other unique circumstances and to allow parking on the ground floor at 21 S. Linn Street as set forth in the Staff Report dated August 11, 2011. The Board found that the proposed student housing use does not have unique characteristics, as detailed in the attached minutes of the August 11, 2021 meeting, Incorporated herein. Because of this finding, the application failed to satisfy the required approval criteria. DISPOSITION: By a vote of 2-3 (Carlson, Chrischilles, and Russo against), the Board denied special exception number EXC21-0009. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time IlmitaWn on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the application shell have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terns of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14AC- 1 E, City of Iowa City, lowa. '�r"'0 Amy Pretorius, Chairperson STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY City Attorney's Office v - - . N .. - N " N ui I, Kellle K. Fruehling, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 11" day of August. 2021 as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa ay, this u day Of r 20 I Ke@ K. IF : hlla Gy Cledc e o _ r � D' N MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL AUGUST 11, 2021 - 5:15 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles, Bryce Parker, Amy Pretorius, Mark Russo MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulok, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Andy Savoy. Mohamed Mahmoud, Tim Fuerst, Niles Bolton, III& Watch, Karen Kubby, Maggie Elliott CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. m, s 0 2 ROLL CALL: N A brief opening statement "a read by Pretorius outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. ,SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC21-0012: An application submitted by Elizabeth Homan requesting a special exception to allow an eating establishment use for a Peninsula five -work unit in a Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (RS-5lOPD) at 1040 Martin Street. Pretorius recused herself from this hem as she had a conflict of Interest. Chdschilles opened the public hearing. Lehmann noted this is a special exception to allow an eating establishment use in the Peninsula Neighborhood in a livelwork unit which Is a low -density single family residential zone with the Planned Development Overlay. The subject property (1040 Martin Street) it is located adjacent to Emma J. Harvat Square Park in the Peninsula neighborhood. Lehmann noted the Peninsula has some unique regulations as part of the Planned Development Overlay (OPD) and also has a regulating plan that shows what different kinds of buildings can be constructed where and then how specific uses in those buildings can work together. The OPD has some areas for potential commercial development with a goal of reducing car trips by providing goods and services for nearby residents. The subject property Is a livelwork she, which allows some commercial uses on the ground floor with residential uses above ft. However not all commercial uses are allowed by right for example, eating establishments require a special exception. This unit actually had a special o a 6osM of Adluetrnenl August it, 2021 Page 2 of 25 �n N r a exception in the past that was approved in 2016 (EXC76-00006) but it was discosQP mom than a year and so they need to apply for an" special exception to allow the use boln. In terns of the criteria that are part of this special exception, them are no specific approval criteria so only the general approval crisis will be used to evaluate the proposal. Lehmann showed the subject property and an aerial of the Peninsula neighborhood. The subject property is directly across from the park In the center of the Peninsula neighborhood and that's the area theta designated for commercial uses. The zoning map shows that area Is all pretty much low -density single-family residential (RS-5) with the OPD. Lehmann reiterated it's the overlay that brings in these special development regulations that affect uses. So even though it is a residential single-family zone, it allows those commercial uses. He next showed a dose up, Its the northmost unit in a line of buildings and how they have commercial uses on the ground floor and residential above. The unit has some outdoor seating that's next to it along the sidewalk Most of the neighboring properties are lownhomes. The proposed site plan that was Included in the agenda packet is almost identical to the previous site plan from the site. They're largely keeping the interior of the space as it "a from the previous restaurant. The Board of Adjustment is charged with approving, approving with conditions, or denying the application based on the fads presented. To approve the special exception the Board must find that It meets all applicable approval criteria. In this case the seven general standards for all special exceptions that are being reviewed and those are located at 14-49-3A of the City Code. The first general criterion is that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The proposed use Is relatively small at about 766 square feet and since there was a previous restaurant that was approved in this space, the Intensity of the property will not change substantially from past use. Similarly, the unit is already bunk out so access to the property and surrounding properties won't be affecled. In the future If it does want to expand in any way it would require another special exception. Based on the size and its location in the neighborhood and some seating constraints that it has, staff believes that the use will rely primarily on customers who are already In the neighborhood, either residents or people who am traveling through the neighborhood, such as to the dog park or along the bike tails. The second is that the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not subshandally diminish or impair property, values in the neighborhood. As previously mentioned, the space was previously an eating establishment and it had minimal effects on neighboring residences, so staff doesn't anticipate any major Issues. As far as other commercial uses in the area, staff has approved special exceptions, With some conditions that limit the hours of operation, their size, and exterior sound. The purpose of those were to ensure that the neighborhood commercial area retains a mix of uses, and that it does not negatively impacts surrounding properdes. Staff recommends similar conditions; for this use bud does not believe that size limdatlons am necessary because if the use wants to expand it will require another special exception. Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation and preventing exterior amplified sound. As far as signage and lighting, they have to comply with the regulations in the Peninsula Code and Board of Aclupment o August 11,2021 rn Page 3 of 25 M N N _ ra the City Code and they have to be approved by the Peninsula Neighborhood AmbltflCduratt" Review Board. .. N The third is that the establishment of the proposed exception will not Impede the normal and orderly development and Improvement of the surrounding property for uses In the district. The neighborhood Is fully developed, it's got a mix of residential and commercial uses. and the Peninsula Regulating Plan allows opportunities for commercial uses, specifically across from the park. Additionally, this building "a already designed and built for commercial uses on the ground level, so staff believes that this criterion Is met. The fourth criterion is that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. In this case, again is already developed, there are access roads already and on -site drainage, the area behind the property is reserved for stormwater detention and staff doesn't believe that any additional facilities are required. Fifth is that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide Ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Lehmann explained in the Peninsula Development Regulations, off street parking is not required for commercial uses that are less then 1500 square feet and therefore no parking Is provided for the commercial use at the site. However, again based on its location and size, staff believes that the customers that are drawn will be limited, and a lot will be people who live in the neighborhood or who are already In the neighborhood for other purposes. Therefore, staff believes that adequate ingress and egress are provided. The six criterion is that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception will conform with all other applicable regulations in the City Code. Lehmann noted again the use has already been built and ofer aspects have been reviewed for compliance with the Peninsula standards with the Building Code and any changes to those previously approved uses, such as lighting or sgnage, will require appropriate permits and will be reviewed upon application. Staff believes this criterion Is met. Finally, the proposed exception must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City as amended. Lehmann stated the Peninsula Neighborhood was developed using conservation and traditional neighborhood design principles that includes a variety of housing types, neighborhood commercial and live/work buildings such as the subject property. The Peninsula Regulating Plan includes opportunities for limited commercial uses where the building is located, so staff believes that the Comprehensive Plan criterion is met. Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0012 to allow an eating establishment In a Peninsula IlveAvork unit for the property at 1040 Martin Street, subject to two conditions: 1. The business hours of operation must close by 10pm on Sunday through Thursday, and 11 pm on Friday through Saturday. 2. Amplified sound on the exterior of the building is prohibited. ao,mpsiY^3 wewienrm Board of Adtustro t August 11, 2021 Page 4 of 25 Carlson asked if there are any limitations on when they can open in the morning. Lehmann stated staff did not place an opening time limitation. Careen asked what the other uses In the Peninsula have as opening times, is there a standard practice or does it depend on each project. Lehmann confirmed it depends on the business. Some standards in the City Code place opening time limitations, for example rooftop service areas, but not In this part of the code. In this location with the proposed use, staff believes that closing limitations are more of a staff concern due to the possibility of late hour operations. Carlson noted there's no alcohol being served but If they ward to serve alcohol then they would need to get a liquor permit. Lehmann confirmed they would have to get a liquor license, but it wouldn't technically convert from an eating establishment to a drinking establishment unless they were open past midnight In this case, the applicant is not proposing alcohol at this time. Russo asked if the window openings are fixed or does this have the potential to open up a wall of windows to allow sound to leave? Lehmann believes they are fixed as currently canstrwed. They could always apply to put in windows that would open but that would still be Interior sound and the exterior amplified sound condition primarily prevents putting a speaker outside to -= provide music for the seating area. Chrlschllles closed the public hearing. r nNi i- Chrischilles asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion. - CTf Parker moved for approval EXC21-11012, an application submitted by Elizabeth Horr�'qin requesting a special exception to allow an eating establishment use for a Peninsula live - work unit In a Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (RS-5IOPD) at 1040 Martin Street with the following two conditions! 1. The business hours of operation must close by 10pm on Sunday through Thursday, and 41pm on Friday through Saturday. 2. Amplified sound on the exterior of the building Is prohibited. Russo seconded the motion. Russo stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0012 he concurs with the findings set forth In the stag report of this meeting date, August 11, 2021 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings In the staff report for the approval of this proposal. Carlson seconded the findings. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0 (Pretodus recused) Chrischilles 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 EXC21-0009: Board ofAdfuslmenl O ~ August it. 2021 Page 5of 25 An application submitted by Axiom Consultants requesting a special exception to a)Iows 5� percent parking reduction for other unique circumstances to construct a new mixed' -use bujlQing at 21 S. Linn Street.- Pretonus opened the public hearing. Chrischilles asked If the Board should be considering this as a valid exception as staff may have based Its findings on the wrong section of the Code. Lehmann explained the staff citation was an old citation that was incorrect. The actual section with the unique circumstances is the correct provision, staff just put the wrong number, it should end in seven Instead of six. Lehmann stated EXC21-0009 is submitted by Axiom Consultants on behalf of CA Ventures to request a 50% parking reduction by special exception for unique circumstances for new mixed - use building at 21 South Urn Street. Lehmann noted this one also requires a second special exception there included in the staff repot regarding parking on the first floor of the building so those criteria will be reviewed and the Board will be voting on that tonight as well. The subject property Is 21 South Linn Street which is located in the middle of downtown, currently the US Bank surface parking lot that has a drive-thru building onsite. Lehmann noted most of downtown is zoned Central Business (CB-10) Including the surrounding buildings but to the east Is a public building, the senior center. This is in the Downtown Historic District which was recently approved and buildings to the north and east do have Historic District Overfays but the buildings to the west, the subject property, and buildings to the south do not, The Historic District Overlay designates local historic landmarks and provides protection to those buildings, but buildings without the overlay are not protected by the zoning code. Regarding the two special exceptions, one is to reduce the minimum number of required parking spaces by 50% for the subject property due to unique circumstances of the use, in this case they refer to student housing as the unique use. The second Is to provide a portion of required parking on the ground floor In a CB-10 zone. Approval of these two special exceptions would facilitate redevelopment of the site into a 13-story mixed use building with commercial and amenity space on the that floor and about 229 residential units above. Lehmann explained that this is going to the Board of Adjustment and not to Planning and Zoning Commission or Council because by right they could build a building with the same envelope, but exceptions requested are required for the parking reduction and for the parking on the ground floor. In this case, the residential land use requires a minimum amount of parking w that's where the parking reduction comes In. As for current uses on the site, there's a non -confirming parking lot and a drivedhru bank. They've been around since 1962. though these uses aren't allowed downtown anymore. The subject property Is CB-10 which Is Intended to bs the highdensity, compact, padestrianorlented shopping, office, service and entertainment area in Iowa City. It allows compact development with the goal of intensifying the density of usable commercial spaces, increasing the availability of open spaces or pedestrian ways, and supporting a healthy and vibrant commercial core. It encourages mixed -use buildings with storefront commercial and residential above. Lehmann noted there are two unique challenges to this property, one is the building to the west is historic but does not have a Historic District Overlay, it has windows on Board of A*9n ant o Moog 11, 2021 p �• Page 6 of 25 �n N >= ro -.( N N the second story that could provide egress. The building Is not currently used fof-rental uljts but blocking the windows could prohibit future rental permits. The second is that theflist N9jlpnal Bank drive -firm building on the property is actually a contributing resource to the Down"n National Historic District that "a recently approved. Again, We not a local historic landmark and It's not in a Historic District Overlay Zone and the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan shows the site as one of the few remaining sites for strategic Infill. With regards to minimum parking standards, they are intended to provide off street parking to accommodate most of the generated demand for parking, especially where sufficient on street parking Is not available. They're also Intended to prevent nonresidential parking from encroaching on nearby residential neighborhoods. The CB-10 zones are unique In that they are subject to maximum parking standards as well for private off-street parking. The goal is to preserve land for active uses and maintain a pedestrian oriented streeacape, so parking is addressed in the Downtown District at a district wide level which relies on consolidated off street facilNes, on street parking and demand pricing to address parking rather than addressing it on a project by project basis. Residential uses are the only land use category in CB-10 that require a minimum amount of parking. Other uses do not and are subject to those maximum parking standards. In the application, they are requesting a parking reduction of 50%which is allowed by special exception where a specific use has unique circumstances such that the number of spaces required Is excessive. Based on the current minimum parking amounts, the proposed project would require 135 parking spaces and by requesting a 50% reduction they would have to provide 67 onsite parking spaces. The concept includes 67 spaces In two levels below ground and a few spaces on the Post story. Access to that parking would be from the alley north of the subject property, which exits onto either South Dubuque Street or South Linn Street. As for pedestrian access, that would be directly on the comer of East Washington Street and South Linn and there are some doors directly Into the retail space as well. Lehmann showed pictures of the subject property, and a close up of the adjacent historic building which currently has a mural on the wall. He noted that Is a temporary use until the subject property is developed, but there are also the windows along the aide of that building on that second story. Lehmann also showed the concepts that have been provided noting they Incorporated the height of the abutting buildings into the brick facade design and storefronts along the street. They are proposing a small mural wall as well and there are visual setbacks to the north and the west. Next Lehmann reviewed the floor plans that were submitted with the application. The Post two levels are the underground parking spaces which would be have most of the parking. Level one has a few parking spaces but the remainder of the facade is retail space primarily on East Washington Street and a lobby, leasing, and amenity space along South Linn Street. There are also building facilities In the northeast comer, which is where that mural is proposed (that would include generators and bash and that sort of thing). For the second, third, and fourth levels they are planned as a backwards C shape. On the second story, they propose some outdoor open space and that C shaped continues up for levels three and four which Is where the brick facade �ammv.�,w:rPnn,wm. N Boehd of Addustmeet O h August 11, 2021 D M Page'I of 25 C)—< N - y f— p Is shown. At the fifth level is a stepback to the wrest on the south leg of the C and h!'&ut ou6ii the northeast which continues for the rest of the building's height. N cn The Board of Adjustment Is charged with approving, approving with conditions, or denying the application based on the facts presented. To approve the special exception, they have to find that it meets all applicable approval criteria and there are two sets of specific standards, one pertaining to the parking reduction and one to the first -floor parking. Finally, there are also the general standards that apply for all special exceptions. The first specific set of standards Is from 14.5A4F-7 (in the staff report, tread it as 145A4F-6 which was the old citation, 14-5A4F-7 is the correct citation) and states that where it can be demonstrated that a spedflc use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stecidng spaces required is excessive, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking spaces by up to 50%. Far this exception, the applicant has requested the full 50% packing reduction due to the unique characteristic of the use staling that their unique use is housing for university students who prefer Irving In a walkable urban setting to having onelte parking. Staff finds that students generally exhibit lower demand for onsite parking and are more likely to use alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking, and transit. Features that are spedf c to student populations Include furnished units and on -eke amenities such as a study lounge. However, It Is not restricted exclusively to students, non -students may also reside there, but it is marketed and intended for students. As far as downtown residents, they tend to use the cars law due to proximity to the University, jobs and other services. The applicant provided some census data which was in the staff report but typical work commutes In census tracts new downtown show that 460A drive alone, 6% carpool, 39°/a walk or bike, 6% use public transportation and others work from home or use other modes of transportation. The subject property is In Census Tract 21 which is the most central tract and has the lowest levels of car usage at only 27% driving alone to work and 80%of residents living there are enrolled In undergraduate or graduate programs so that supports the claim that students exhibit a lower demand for onsite parking. Again, they are proposing 67 orate parking spaces which would be 0.29 spaces per dwelling unit or 0.25 per bedroom. It does provide less parking than other recent student projects, The Rise at 435 South Linn Street provides approximately 0.6 parking spaces per dwelling unit or 0.34 per bedroom but staff is not aware of any complaints regarding spillover parking on that The Gilbane Iowa City at 700 South Dubuque Street has been approved for 0.81 spaces per unit and 0.41 bedroom after it received a special exception using a similar rationale of student housing. Lehmann asserted however that special exceptions do not set precedent, he Is only using this as an Illustration of other student uses. Additionally. Census data supports that student housing has some unique characteristics such that the required number of parking spaces Is excessive. The second set of specific criteria standards are in Section 14.5A-30-5e which is that where parking in a CB-10 zone Is located within the exterior walls of a building, such as on the ground floor, the following standards apply. First, the proposed structured parking will not detract from or prevent ground floor storefront uses and that storefront uses are a substantial portion of the ground level floor of the building. Additionally, on the ground floor, parking Is not allowed within the first 50 feet of the lot. This concept does not show parking In that first 50 feet of building aeeM of Adk;e M O �' August 11, 2021 sn N Page 8 or 76 Dy -rap ° t yn N f r depth, but that will be confirmed during site plan review. Approximately 72% of ihtcing facade is intended for active nonresidential uses which Includes retail storefronts; off ce, I by and amenity space (which could accommodate future storefront uses). The remainder oft�te' space Is for support areas such as the trash, generators, stairwells, etc. The second criterion is that vehicular access to parking must be from a mar alley or private lane and the garage opening shall be built to the minimum width necessary. Vehicular access to the omits parking Is proposed from the rear alley and would come from primarily from Linn Street The third Is that any exterior walls on a parking facility that are visible from a public or private street must appear to be a component of the facade of the building through building materials, window openings, and facade detailing that is similar or complimentary to the design of the building, This concept shows that most exterior walls to the parking faciliity will not be visible because to the east and south it will be behind the building facades that will meet the central business site development standards. The garage well to the west abuts the existing building. Exterior walls to the north am visible from the alley, which is not considered a public street, and the wall of the parking facility is set back 50 feet from the South Linn Street right-of-way. The final specific criterion is that each entrance and exit to the parking area must be constructed so that vehicles entering or leaving are clearly visible to a pedestrian on abutting sidewalks at a distance of at least 10 feet Slop signs and appropriate pedestrian warning signs may be required. The concept shows the entrance and exit is more than 50 feet from the nearest sidewalk which is fine one to the east However, staff recommends a cond Won that the applicant provide a convex traffic safety mlmor or similar method of providing visibility or awareness of potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians who am using the alley. As with all special exceptions, the seven general standards that must be met are located at 14- 483A. The first is that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general we[fare. Them are 67 onsite parking spaces proposed. about 0.29 per dwelling unit or 0.25 per bedroom. The Institute of Traffic Engineering (ITE) suggests that average parking demand for multifamily high-rise muff] -use urban has a parking demand of about 0.55 vehicles per unit or 0.3 per bedroom. Parking for recent high rise residential projects in the CB-10 zone also vary widely In their approach to parking. The Tall winds project, which Is not yet built, is a multifamily building with about 102 dwelling units or 186 bedrooms and they are providing 50 onsite spaces after receiving a reduction for historic properties (EXC20-07), their final onsite parking will be about 0.49 per unit or 0.27 per bedroom. The Chancy at 404 East College Street is a mixed -use building completed In 2017 with 60 units with 76 bedrooms. They pmvkie 45 onsite parking spaces, which would be about 0.75 per unit or 0,59 per bedroom and those are in the Chauncey Swan ramp. Finally, there's Park @ 201 (201 East Washington Street) which was constructed as a mixed -use building in 2012 and has less dwelling units, 24, with 25 bedrooms, but they don't have any parking onsite, they have 14 off eke spaces approved by special exception (EXC12-03) which comes out to 0.58 par unit and 0.56 per bedroom. Lehmann reiterated it varies widely In haw parking has been acoemmodated, but for the proposed project, its per unit parking ratios am well below comparable projects but its per bedroom ratios are mom similar because of the high number of one -bedroom units. Also the Board ofAdjuatmerd o August II, 2M1 Page 9of 25 Damp k7-G N N ITE estimates are not specific to students, it is all downtown high-rise multifamily, and students are more likely to use alternative modes of transportation than estimated by the ITE. It apgears based on Census data for Tract 21 that those perking ratios are appropriate. In addition, there are a couple public parking ramps within two blocks of the proposed building. However, there are waiting lists for those ramps and some of the submitted correspondence touches on this. The Tower Place parking ramp has 510 spaces and there's 625 at the Dubuque Street ramp and 475 at the Chauncey Swan ramp. The idea is that those would provide parking spaces for visitors or for those visiting commercial uses downtown. Currently, the site Is occupied by a private parking lot and drive-thru bank. The concept does propose six new on street parking spaces which It would accommodate by reducing the parking entries to the lot and bank. As far as spillover uses. nearby streets are metered so it's not expected to Impact on street parking in neighboring residential areas and tenants will have to consider reduced onsite parking in their decision making so it Is likely that the project will attract tenants who require less onshe parking. Chrischilles asked if downtown residents are allowed to obtain permits for parking in the ramps. Lehmann stated there Is no availability for residents, they could apply for it but they are not anticipated to support residential uses. Chrlwhilles noted then as far as the residential Impact they can'trely on anything from the public ramps, but visitors could park in the public ramps. Lehmann confirmed the ramps are for visitors and others visiting downtown. Lehmann reiterated the First National Bank drive-thru building that's on the property is a contributing resource in the Downtown National Historic District and would be demolished as part of the project. However, the Crys adopted plans Indicate that the site and existing uses should be redeveloped because the existing surface lot and drive-thru uses are not allowed downtown generally and they detract from the vibrancy and pedestrian friendly streets that are envisioned for the downtown. It is explicitly shown In the Downtown Rivedront Crossings Master Plan that it is in the Cty's Interest to redevelop this site. However, staff recommends that there be a condition that the historic nature of the site, including Its current use and its use as the former City Hall, which It was prior to being demolished for the parking lot, be acknowledged to the satisfaction of the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. Chrischilles asked what the definition of a contributing resource for the Downtown National District Is and would that building potentially be listed by itself on the National Register. Lehmann stated It is listed as part of the district, but it is not an individually listed building nor designated as a local historic landmark. Lehmann continued to the second criterion "Ich Is that the proposed use 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. The subject property and the surrounding properties are In the Downtown Historic District that was listed in May 2021. so 13 South Linn Street to the north and 28 South Linn Street to the east (The Yacht Club building and the Senior Center building) are local historic landmarks with a Historic District Overlay. As previously mentioned. the building to the west, 220-222 East Washington Street, Is a contributing structure but does not have a Historic District Overlay. However, it Is identified in City plans as a significant building, whereas the drive-thru bank is mt. The buildings In the e_ Board of Adjusanont "= August 11, 2021 __ [ Page 10 of 25 Historic District are occupied by a mix of different uses, some cammerolal, some mWentiahbut they were largely constructed prior to minimum parking Standards. The concept shQ*S a brick facade matching the parapet height of the building to the west, and the facade must meet the Central Business Design Standards. This will be discussed mom In criteria six, which talks about being compliant with other regulations in the Code, but it basically has requlremerss for windows and how the facade most took, etc. As far as nearby residential properties, again they vary in their parking supply and scale but there aren'treally any single family uses In the Immediate vicinity of the proposed use. Most of downtown residential uses cater to the Same market segment as the proposed project, although some cater to high Income households that prefer urban living. The concept includes six new on street parking spaces, but the onsite parking would be reserved for those occupants of the building. Again, within about two blocks of the project there are approximately 16M public parking spaces in ramps so that would provide oft street parking for customers and/or visitors. The proposed project will Increase nearby pedestrian traffic. so that would likely improve the commercial viability of nearby businesses. Lehmann noted again that 220-222 East Washington Street has second story windows that could be used for egress directly next proposed building and if the development is less than five feet from those windows, they wouldn't be able to be used for egress which would prevent it from obtaining a rental permit in the future. The concept indicates that the second story would be more than Me feet from the abutting windows, which retains the possibility of egress but staff recommends ensuring that egress is preserved. Carlson asked'd that west wall will be the same distance from the building to the west from the ground up. Lehmann stated the concept shows it differently where Its about three feel on the ground floor and five feet at the sewed floor. Staff left their proposed condition open so the applicant can tweak their concept to either provide five feet the whole way across or they could cantilever something to allow access to those windows. In the condition they allow a couple ways of accommodating the egress, staff just wants to avoid negatively affecting egress for the windows of that property. Carlson asked what the fire code is. Lehmann replied the fire code is five feet for egress but it could be three feet on the first floor If the residents have away out. Russo asked if that wall on the building to the west is a flrewall. Lehmann stated it Is an exterior wall. Russo asked If they intrude on that five-foot space, they probably raised the requirements. Lehmann replied potentially but staff Is more concerned about what was the egress to those windows and It will have to be approved according to the fire code and the building codes. The wall does step back a little bit, it's net a flat well, it steps back, so there is even a possibility where It just has to be five feet from that building face where it could be three feet and maybe It does meet that but the applicant wouM have to show that in their site plan review. The third criterion Is that the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development improvement In surrounding properties for use as permitted in the District. Lehmann noted the Downtown District is obviously predominantly already developed, them are a few sites that the City has Idengfled that are appropriate for redevelopment. A lot of downtown Is histodc and the City wants to preserve those historic buildings. As far as those specific sites Identified for potential redevelopment, they wouldn't be impacted by the proposed project. The one that would be most impacted is the abutting property that Is not part of the project on East memp :�q,a,,,re.a.nknoon O Board of Arltustnenl rn •,..;,.� August 11, 2021 Page 11 W 2a A itt Washington Street, which Is a historic structure which the Downtown Master Plan shows should be preserved so redevelopment is not expected and should not occur at that site. Based on those findings, staff doesn't believe Mat the normal and orderly Improvemert of nearby uses will be Impacted by either the proposed development or the parking reduction or the parking on the first story. There may be some temporary closures due to construction In the public streets, but those are temporary rather than a permanent Impact. The fourth criterion Is that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Lehmann rated there are existing streets and the alley, which provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access. The site also has excellent access to public transportation, there are several bus lines that run on East Washington Street right against the project. As far as utilities, drainage, and other necessary facilities, those will be evaluated more thoroughly during site plan review and the building permit processes. So similar to things like fire code, all of those would be reviewed by the City at that point in time. Fifth, adequate measures must be or will be taken to provide Ingress or egress designed to minimize tar fic congestion on public streets. The parking entrance is at grade on the alley to the north and they would expect vehicular access to primarily be on South Linn Street. People may exit west towards South Dubuque Street. Additionally, some existing vehicle access points will be eliminated, which would prevent some vehicular conflicts and would focus traffic at the alley. Also new public parking will be constructed in the East Washington Street and South Linn Street rights -of -way which would help support some demand for short term on street parking for nearby commercial uses. The pedestrian access would be along the sidewalks that are by the bullding and the street improvements would also facilitate that continued pedestrian use. Sixth, other than the specific regulations and standards being considered that in all other respects the special exception must conform with the applicable regulations for its zone. Staff looked at the dimensional requirements and the Central Business Site Development Standards for CB-10 zones, First, for dimensional requirements, there are no minimum lot or setback requirements, there Is a maximum setback requirement of 12 feet, which the concept appears to meet. There's no maximum height limit in the CB-10 zone, rather height is regulated based on the floor -area ratio, which Is essentially the lot area multiplied by the floor -area ratio number. In a CB-10 zone, that base level is 10 and can be Increased with bonuses which are not requested In this concept. The proposed use Is within that 10 fioorama ratio. The other height requirement is due to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), they have a 155-foot height limit there. Additionally, the open space requirements can be tricky, but up to 50% can be met with Indoor space and outdoor space can Include rooftop courtyards. In this case, there will be an outdoor courtyard on the second and fifth stories and Indoor amenity space which will exceed the required 2700 square feet of open space, though they need to meet design criteria that makes the outdoor space useable. This will all be checked during site plan review. The Central Business Site Development Standards on the other hand ensure that downtown development Is compatible with pedestrian friendly streetscapes and adjacent uses. This concept addresses standards related to commercial space, minimum windows, building articulation, differences in facades providing vlsualrnterest, and It meets standards related to building entrances and other similar requirements. The project may require a minor adjustment however due to requirements om000:,rwN.<w.rcr:oo.,. C Board of Adjustment D August 11. 2021r^--- Page 12 of 25 <� a M ,. W in the CB-10 zone that the first two stores of the building be bulk to the side lot line w1Ah Is somewhat complicated by this special exception. However, the building official may approve minor adjustments to this requirement to accommodate Irregular lot Iln" or structural requirements, such as Installing footings or foundations that maintain the structural Integrity of adjacent buildings. The goal Is to prevent unsafe or unkempt spaces between buildings, for example if there Is a very narrow alley Ws easy for fresh to accumulate. Based on the concept, there Is the setback for egress from the abutting building that staff believes is necessary because of the special exception requirement that an exception can't impair adjacent properties, so a mirror modification would be necessary for egress at the second story of the property. Staff recommends a condition that there be design features Incorporated, whether that be gates, shielding, something to block off that space from trash, to prevent unsafe, unkept spaces between buildings and staff recommend requiring that be approved prior to the certificate of occupancy. As far as other standards, staff will review those during she plan review and building permit processes and including ensuring that they meet that FAA height requirement. The final criterion Is that the proposed exception must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City as amended. The Comprehensive Plan Fuhcre Land Use Map shows this as a general commercial area and includes a goal to maintain a strong and accessible downtown that is pedestrian oriented with strong, distinctive cultural, commercial and residential character. One of the objectives is to preserve the historic malnstrest character of downtown while encouraging appropriate infhl development to enhance the economic viability and residential diversity of the area. The Downtown Rdverfront Crossings Master Plan provides more specifics regarding this and shows this she as a strategic Infill site, We one of the remaining surface lots downtown and suggests that redevelopment may consist of a high rise building where at least the base occuples the full she. The concept Shown In hre Plan is one floor of commercial space with eight stories of residential above, It doesn't include any onshe parking, and It Includes stepbacks from adjacent historic buildings. Carlson had a question about the residential and the commercial space. The floor plan for the ground floor has amenities for the apartments upstairs, they have a rental office for the apartnents upstairs and is ghat still considered commercial. It seems to go with the residential rather then the commercial and then there's only 5000 square feet of retail specs. In most other buildings the first floor Is commercial with apartments above them, and they have a small door with a hallway leading to go upstairs to the apartments above. Lehmann acknowledged that would be a decision that the Board would need to make, but staffs interpretation was all of those was would be allowed within commercial space on the first floor. Even though It caters specifically to the residential was above, staff still identhies that as commercial storefront Space. But again, that would be up the purview of the Board to interpret. Chrischllles stated going back to the last point, according to the Comprehensive Plan, It envisioned a nine -story building whh a step down to a four-story next to the historic properties adjacent to K but this concept is a 13story building. Lehmann stated staff does not interpret the Comprehensive Plan literally as to stories or even the floor area ratios that are provided in the Plan. The Plan has some very detailed specifications that are tied more to market studies, but staff has not Interpreted that literally In other cases. OOOmp•iga�vevNrt,rzoan. o O Board ofAdkrstnent D, August 11, 2021 Page 13 of 25 c'l- N yn N r �m a -. ' • CJ Dulek reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan is a plan, It's not City Code nor adopted by ordinance. Its a vision to provide general guidance to the development so simply because something shows It's nine stories does not mean that must be nine stories. Chdschllles recognizes that but noted this standard says that its consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Dulek agreed but noted it doesn't have to be consistent with absolutely everything in the Plan, nothing is ever going to be consistent with absolutely every Item In the Plan, the Board Just has to decide whether it Is consistent or not, it Is a plan and a vision is to provide general guidance, If after looking at all of this, the Board concludes if it Is conalslent or not. Lehmann added the Plan does incorporate some spectkc guidelines as to how they might Interpret consistency with the Plan and theta what staff looked at as it was evaluating the application. First new development should not be located on shes that contain historic buildings. Second, active uses such as ground floor retail, not blank walls, should front onto street frontage and the city plaza, that upper flops should contain office, commercial, and residential uses, and buildings should be built to property lines. Corner kxxtion should be reserved for taller buildings creating a block structure with taller buildings on comers and lower scale historic buildings between them. The taller buildings on the corners should have a lower base consistent with adjacent historic buildings to make them feel contextual with the rest of downtown, while limiting the perceived height of the towers and that parking should be located both on street and behind storefronts in parking structures. Lehmann stated with regard to these, the First National Bank drive-thru building Is listed as a contributing property in the National Register of Historic Places but as far as the uses that are on the site, the surface parking lot and the driveahru use, they are underutilized compared to other uses downtown and what Is allowed by this zone, they promote auto usage, they don't support a vibrant pedestrian experience and the intent of the Downtown Rlverfront Crossings Master Plan was always to demolish that building and redevelop the site. As far as other standards, the concept shows active uses on the ground floor, parking behind, residential uses above and the property on the comer has a taller building, it also has a lower architectural base with stepbacks to reduce the perceived size of the building. That's part of the contextual place but based on the analysts that staff provided, staff believes those criteria are met, but that Is for the Board to Interpret as to whether they believe this standard Is met, and it's up to the applicant to make that case to the Board. As far as other goals in the Comprehensive Plan, Lehmann staled it includes some goals and objectives that support public art, and while the redevelopment will cover the mural on the abutting wall to the Mgt. that mural was Intended as a temporary use until the site redeveloped. Staff did get some comments on the loss of the mural, but the proposed building also includes a mural wall to help somewhat mitigate that lose. The Downtown Master Plan also notes that the City addresses parking demand through a parking district approach rather than a project by project approach. The reason it does that is to achieve the desired level of development downtown based on that Plan. Again, the Master Plan encourages pedestrian friendly development that builds on the strengths of downtown and that includes proximity to the university for student uses and reducing parking. As a result, staff believes that reducing parking to promote redevelopment of the subject property and providing that parking on the first floor Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the findings that are in the staff report and were summarized in this presentation, staff 0 Board of Adjustment August 71, 2021 D-1 -9 ...._... Page 14 of 26f-- � r: recommends approval of EXC21-0009, to reduce the minimum perking requlremeo by 5ow and to allow parking within the exterior walls of a building In a CB-10 zone for the property at. Linn Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the concept dated July 30, 2021. 2. The historic nature of the site, Including it being the site of the former City Hall among other uses, shall be acknowledged. to be approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services prior to Issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. Clearance of at least 5' shall be provided from the face of the existing wall where existing windows are located that may provide egress, to the face of the proposed building. This clearance shall be either at or above ground level such that emergency egress be provided to the satisfaction of the Building Official. A perpetual emergency escape easement shall also be required to provide for future egress, to be recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 4. Incorporation of appropriate design features to prevent unsafe, unkempt spaces in the setback between the subject property and the property to the west must be approved by the Building Official prior to Issuance of a building permit and must be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5. A convex traffic safety mlrror or similar method of providing visibility or awareness of potential conflicts beween pedestrians and vehicles using the alley shall be provided prior to a certificate of occupancy. Staff fielded a few inquiries over the phone and than received several written comments. Three of them were Included in the packet, four were forwarded to the Board prior to the meeting, and Lehmann will summarize some of these discussions that were provided and some of the feedback, and some commenters may also be present tonight to speak to the Board as well. The first comment received was from Hockett that noted the concept seamed too tall and asked if the City had considered purchasing the kri as public open space. Second, Weitzel noted that the proposal would be problematic ff it demolished to 222 East Washington Street and also said that the loss of the recently listed drive-thru building is regrettable, but it's not a locally designated landmark. Kubby noted that the current parking lot and drive-thru are not the highest and beat use of the property, and she appreciates the Incorporation of step backs and cutouts into the building design. As for late submittals, one was from Bird with the Iowa City Downtown District who noted support for the request because it ties to fit Into the downtown and the f rmished units will likely draw students who will require less parking. Also that crafts parking is not possible and the property should be re laveloped despite the drive-iMu bank. Kading noted that parking should not be reduced because its already limited downtown Including In nearby ramps. He also noted that the alley may be problematic as two businesses currently use it and It doesn't have snow removal and there are dumpsters that might affect navigation. He noted that he doesn't believe the project meets general criteria one and two. Clark stated the parking should not be reduced because it would cause congestion downtown, that downtown Iowa City needs more parking, 0hat the parking will drive businesses out of downtown as result, and that the unique circumstance cause is intended for smaller projects. Finally. Millo noted that the application should use a fee In lieu instead. Lehmann explained that was part of the confusion with the citation but that was not the criteria that staff was evaluating it by. That would require a Code Amendment because the fee In lieu doesn't allow demolition of a historic building. Mlllo uar c6'N u,evniLeam Soard of Adluefinent c Augus111,2a21 CD Page 15 of 25 D� —1C� N Pam, r �I K r" i also noted that the Code section was not Intended for student housing see unigm. ] -- i ca arcumstance, that the proposed use does not meet the step backs in the Comprehensive-!�an , and that a smaller development should be considered Instead as student housing is planned for other areas of the Riverfront Crossings District and he included an Image of the subject property that is In the Comprehensive Plan. Lehmann showed that Image of strategic Inflll on Linn Street to the Board which shows significant stepbacks to the north and west and the building being nine stories. Lehmann noted again the Plan generally Is a guiding document and it's up to the Board to determine what they believe consistency with the plan Is. Lehmann also noted that Bob Miklo was the former City senior planner who was here when the Cade was Initially created. Chdschilles asked what the setbacks on the current proposed building are. Lehmann replied the stepback to the west is approximately 20.5 feet and the cut out in the northeast comer is 26 feet from the west property line and 32 feet from the north property line. There's not any significant stepback on the south side, the Washington Street -side of this building. Lehmann pointed out on the site plan that shows the stepback and cut out are at the fifth story. Carlson noted for the courtyard on the west side, I would not be visible from the street a great amount and therefore does not affect the visual bulk of the building from Washington Street. The Comprehensive Plan is a direction, but It talks about a lower architectural base with stepbacks to reduce the perceived height and bulk of the building but If there Is no significant stepback from Washington Street, then that doesn't coincide with the suggestion from the Comprehensive Plan, not does it seem to keep with some of the other high rises that have been built downtown. Lehmann stated there are actual stepback requirements in Riverfront Crossing zones, but not in the Central Business zone, and that provides some stepbacks that look a little different than what Is proposed here. When staff looked at stepbacks, they interpreted It based on the image from the plan that shows stepbacks from the west and north, which help limit the perceived size of the building. Dulek noted the Board needs to ask staff questions and then they can converse among themselves about issues during the discussion time. Andrew Savo v (CA Ventures) prepared a slideshow that began with an aerial of the site as it currently exists. There are six curb cuts along the east side of the site and one to the south. In their opinion those seven curb cuts greatly reduce the walkability around this site because roughly every 10 feet there is a space where a vehicle could drive over the sidewalk. Their project eliminates all of those and Increases walkabiltty at the pedestrian level downtown, which they think is a benefit. This project will have 2500 square feel of retail along Washington Street, which they percelve to be the beat street for retail. Then along Linn Street they have mostly active uses, they're not technically retail, but theyre active. This would be likely a fitness center for the residents and a leasing office, so it's going to be a fully staffed building and these uses wit have an active presence along the street. He understands that's not retail, but retail is not necessarily sways active as a use, It could be a cell phone store and that would be not very active. Therefore, they think that these uses are more active than some uses with certain retailers. Then along the northeast comer of the site Is where they will have the utility area and this area must flank one of the property lines along one of the main streets because they have mYxp iipa[we rt,HraCn Board at Adjustment o August 11,2e21 - Page is of 25 v >> to conned In with utilities from the street. In that area they will have more of an Fpaque ?�N btr{-,+ are proposing that be a mural wall that could be designed maybe In conjunctlonwith a ry downtown ads group to mitigate the loss of the mural that's currently on the adjacent property. Savoy also stated they have done due diligence investigation of the site, Including borings, and they encountered the water table at 30 fed below the surface of the site. Therefore, providing additional underground parking Is infeasible and providing parking above the first floor they think would greatly detract from the charm and character of the area. Savoy also noted that, as Lehmann mentioned, a few other projects have been approved for similar reductions and those projects have a higher quantity of three- and four -bedroom units in some cases and the Code - required parking for those units Is much higher per bed. So the actual percentage reduction that they're requesting is actually in line with the other projects that have been approved. He acknowledged they understand that does not set a precedent just because a previous project has been approved. Savoy showed the renderings and noted they designed their building to acknowledge the adjacent historic character of the downtown neighborhood. He showed a view of the building from the comer noting that they've set back from the west and from the north to make the tower a separate architectural element than the base which results in an elegant, thinner tower, father than the thicker one that they were proposing prior, and the base relates to the historic architectural language of the surroundings. Savory also noted In the Comprehensive Plan It does not show a setback from the south and that's what they were also looking at as stall brought up and so that's how they arrived on this general massing. Savory reiterated they will be providing additional walkability, much greater than what currently exists at the site, additional retail and active uses around the perimeter at the pedestrian level, six additional street parking spaces that would be for the public and are not Included in their parking numbers, an opportunity for public ad, 270 residents that would patmnize local businesses around the area, and likely additional taxes to support downtown infrastructure once this is completed. They are excited to proceed with this development and thank the Board for their consideration. Chrischilles asked if there an area in the building that has been set aside for scooter and bicycle parking. Savoy confirmed there Is bicycle parking in the center of the first -floor plan. For scooters there are two parking spaces at the entrance of the building and those two perking spaces could either be two full spaces or six scooter spaces, depending on the need. Chrischilles asked if those six spaces are the only provision for scooter spaces in this plan and Savoy replied that only up to 10% are allowed per Code, so that would be six spaces. Carlson asked about the three parking spaces on the first level, where are those and would they have to back out Into the alleyway. Savoy stated there's one space in which that would be the case, its labeled the manager space on the plan, from the alley they woud pull directly into that manager space. They are also conskler ng the Idea of incorporating a shared Zipcer concept In which the students would be able to rem out a shared car that could be in that space. Then there are two spaces at the entrance of the ramp attar entering the overhead door and the property where one could take a left and park In either of those two spaces. They are also considering those as potential scooter spaces. Lehmann slated that with the scooter spaces, even though it would be six spaces It still counts as two because two parking spaces can be converted to six scooter spaces. 'mu000.,Pw.:wnusm Board of Adiuerment August 11, 2021 Page 17 of 25 cn i Carlson asked If a car parked In there could turn around and leave the building going forward. Savoy said the two spaces labeled scooter spaces may be able to back up and leave the I: building going forward. The space labeled manager space would have to back up into the allay. v Carlson asked if these parking spaces will be used possibly for the people who work in the retail space or are Involved In the leasing space rather than the apartments above. Savoy agreed that is true depending on the retailer involved and how many spaces they need so they may sanction a certain number of spaces within the building for them, depending on what they need. Carlson asked if they are asking for a 50% reduction of parking spaces for the residential area and if those three spaces are Included in the 50%, because if so, then the reduction will be a tad bit over 50%. Savoy confirmed that Is correct, however no spaces are required for retail. Lehmann confirmed no spaces are required for retail. Carlson noted the applicant talked about making spaces available as a nice gesture for the retail space but if they are asking for a 50% reduction of parking spaces, and then three of the spaces are not going to the residential area, then instead of 25%, it'd be like 24.9%. Savoy said they have not settled on any number of parking spaces for the retail at this point but would be happy to take a condition to make it zero, If that's a decision point. Russo asked how marry staff members they will employ and where will they park. Savoy rioted likely between six and eight staff members. They have one space labeled manager space, so one of the managers would park on site and the rest of the employees would park off she. They do have other community assistants that would be residents in the building, and they would either park In the building if they choose to rent a space or park off site if they choose to store their car in one of the university lots. Russo noted these parking spots will not be first come first serve, they will be leased. Savoy confirmed that is correct. Chrischllles asked if there is any cap on the number of occupants per unit Savoy noted at this point they are not proposing double occupancy beds, which is when there are two beds per bedroom, right now We only one bed per bedroom. They will have 270 residents In 229 units because there are 41 2-bedroom units and all the met are one resident per unit He stated there would only be 270 residents max, and their average occupancy is around 95%which would be 255 expected residents. Karen KubW (Co-owner Beadology Iowa, 220-222 East Washington Street) is happy those buildings [220-222 E. Washington Street] are going to stay standing as she was trying to figure out how to save the buildings and her business at the same time. She has a question about the appearance of a setback on the Washington Street and Linn Street facades. Maybe ft's just a visual thing, because It's a change from brick to whatever the facade is, but it appears to be maybe 10 Inches and she questions what is gnat setback from the outside of the facade m the tower. The appeamnce of setback is important to her as she has not been In favor of some of the larger projects In downtown Iowa City In the past because they haven't understood the 9oeef of Adjustment e Aupust 11, 2021 O y Pepe 1s a25 m ' Y N i s context in which these buildings will be placed. So part of her support for this praQgk® ttidF It understands the context of downtown Iowa City. Not only Is the use unique in teru[s'bf ctlllilda,^ " but this tot is unique, and she has always thought that parking Is just not the bestlise of Vow in downtown Iowa City. Even though it would negatively impact her business to have this lot under construction for 24 months. For activity downtown and on Washington Street, cumarmy the storefronts. Discerning Eye and Beadology Iowa, that have any ins and outs, so toot traffic, on Washington Street, and the ability to be successful as a retailer there Is harder than on the other side of Washington Street. Adding more retail space will create more foot traffic and in and out, that makes any retailer In those three spaces more successful. Kubby added for the public record, even though she said 8In her letter in support of this project, that she Is currently needing to leave to 220-222 East Washington Street because of a new landlord and circumstances that aren't tenable for her to remain. While she is not sure she can move again In two years into this new property, she is going to keep in contact with CA Ventures about that, because Washington Street is a great place for Beadology Iowa, it's been their home for 15 years. They are a 35-year heritage business family owned in downtown Iowa City. Kubby thinks Ifs Important for people to know that she does have that Interest in seeing this project go but also a greater community interest to make sure It's good for downtown. Her personal interests are not always the most important for her because she is going to land somewhere else and may or may not move back to Washington Street. This lot is unique because it's on the comer and because It's kind of small and no matter what development is proposed here. Ifs going to need a special exception for parking, whether It's an eight -story building or 13-story buliding, because of the water table issues. Kubby also wanted to note that the reason the drive-thru building was a part of that historic record is because when they looked at doing the application for a Historic District downtown, they wanted the Ped Mall to be included which meant It had to be things at least 50 years old. So compered to 220, 222 and 218, which are 1883 buildings the historic asset is much different with these buildings than it is for the drive-tivu building and If those are maintained this tot will never be developed and it will remain a surface parking lot which is not the best use of downtown property. Pretorius asked staff has information on the setback question. Lehmann noted the archkect should but staffs interpretation was It Is minimal enough where it's a negligible stepback on the south and east sides for that tower when looking at the concept that was provided. Savoy stated there are typically only four to six Inches between the brick and panel walls, but there are places in the facade that are stopped back by 30 inches. If they look at the roo8lne, they can tell there are two areas stepped back In that way to provide relief. One area along Washington Street is step backed In that way, and the elevator shaft is about five feet taller than the rest of the building, but it Is set back 18 Inches as well, to provide that depth of the facade. Manmie Elllori noted she Is In favor but has a question If the Board of Adjustment has the power to condition their approval. For Instance, could they say that they require the design to be reviewed by the Histonc Preservation Commission to ensure If consistent with the existing fabric of downtown. Dulak stated any cenditkms placed would have to be tied to one of the standards Board of Adjustment r, N August 11, 2021 y M Page 19 of 25 �n N ..G r No further members of the public wished to speak but the Board had additional questions: N Cartoon asked about the alleyway and If cars are coming out on the alleyway what is the Impact of this traffic on Studio 13 or whatever bar has an entrance on the alleyway that will be almost directly across from where people go in and out of this building. Lehmann replied that staffs consideration of traffic Impacts on the alleyway was peak hours versus the use of businesses that are on the alley and those probably aren't going to fine up in staffs opinion. There will be congestion in the alleyway, but alleys are intended for the use of different vehicles rather than pedestrian access typically. As far as getting out from the alley into the street, they're going to have to yield to traffic and abide by the rules of the road. Carlson is concerned about pedestrians exiling that bar and the traffic that might be involved there. Carlson asked what the City's responsibility is as far as alleyways go and making them safe. She is concerned about ice removal, pedestrian versus vehicle traffic. Lehmann replied it depends on the alley, the Clty does not clear Ire in downtown alleys. Savoy noted the building will have on site staff and management, including an engineer, and they typically perform snow removal around the boundaries of their buildings and that would Include that leg of the alley as well to allow for easy access to their parking. Carlson stated one of her concerns was that one of the cars would back out Into the alleyway and the Code states a pedestrian needs 10 feet to we the vehicle, but that's not possible In this situation and how will they deal with this type of situation. Staff mentioned putting in a convex mirror to help see If there's any traffic but she Is concerned about people exiting that bar. Lehmann clarified staffs concern regarding the convex mirror is where the alley exits by the sidewalk, which is where the "ortty of pedestrian traffic would go. As far as use of the alley by pedestrians, there can be backup perking in alleys, and yes this alley has more pedestrians than others due to the businesses, but staffs opinion was that was not a major concern. Carlson noted the City allowed that bar to be put In there, Kading wrote a letter about this, about his conoem about the Impact of this structure on his property across the alleyway. Russo noted Bob Miklo refers to payment in lieu of parking and how does that come Into play here. Lehmann stated there are multiple different routes that parking reductions can occur. Staff and the applicant explored a fee In lieu parking but because of the presence of the drive- thru building listed on the National Historic Register, they can't demolish that property and use the fee in the parking. Russo thought the drive-thru is not listed. Lehmann stated it Is listed as a contributing structure that is part of a National Historic District. Since the fee In lieu did not appear to be a viable option, given the characteristics of the site, the applicant applied through the unique circumstances provision rather than the fee in lieu of parking provisio. Russo also rated Mr. Miklo also refers to the fact that in many buildings downtown there was a reduction In parking requirements. Was there an existing reduction in parking requirements for many of the residential structures downtown and this Is a step further? Lehmann stated Mr. Miklo was referring to lower minimum parking standards in zones that are typically used downtown, whereas further from downtown, those minimum standards Increase. So his Interpretation was that because there are lower minimum standards downtown already, this Board of Adiushnerd m August 11. 2021 O ti Page 20 of 25 r constitutes a further decrease. As staff evaluates it, though, they look at the Cod" militantly exists and the criteria and that's how they made their analysis. m `} N Pretorlus asked what year tixe comprehensive plan was adopted. Lehmann believes the ` Downtown and Rivefinnt Crossings Plan was In 2013, The plan has been subsequently updated a couple times. Pretorius closed the public hearing. Pretorius asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion. Parker moved for approval EXC21-0009, an application submifted by Axiom Consultants requesting a special exception to allow a 50 percent parking reduction for other unique circumstances to construct a new mixed -use building at 21 S. Linn Street Chrischilles seconded the motion. Russo has a list of questions and the primary one is how the building became 13 stories. It is his understanding that zoning has to be based on something and It's based on the Comprehensive Plan which is the accumulation and collaboration of a lot of study and thought and forward thinking etc. and it this is completely arbitrary, then he finds this body at a complete loss on what to base their recommendations or judgments on. The Comprehensive Plan, or at least the Downtown District Plan, states that any new development tie Into the existing g atmosphere. The Plan suggests nine stories with a tower separated from the base and now suddenly this is neither, it is 13 stories and no distinct stepback. Parker noted they dont need a stepback in the CB-10 zone. Russo states the Riverfront Crossings Plan made a drawing and recommends that it be based on that. Parker replied that's the Plan, Its not Code. Russo acknowledges We not law, but any variation from that jeopardizes the Plan. Parker stated It will still have to go through City Council and Planning and Zoning. Chrischilles stated this will not go to Council or Planning and Zoning. Russo stated he Is not disputing the benefits, but he'd like to sae It finessed a little more and one of the ways to finesse It might be to conform it to the recommended Comprehensive Plan requirement suggestion of nine floors. He thinks 13 floors is a lot for that comer. Russds next question is the need this development is in the premiere real estate of Iowa City so why does the City need to offer incentives to developers. Why give the further reduction to the parking requirement if its already reduced. Wherewill the excess parking occur. It'd be Interesting to know, far Instance, these large structures like The Rise, on South Linn Street, there's not a parking spot available on the entire street past the metered spots, and who's to say that those aren't customers of The Rise. So wham will the parking from this development go. They know that students have cars, they have to go to Target and home. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2021 Page 21 of 26 ti sn n D_i ro N Russo's last concern Is with this structure and the Introduction of 229 or 250 people downtown Is the City making any allowance or increasing green space for this increased denslty. Dudek reminded the Board to keep in mind the standards of the special v exception and whether any of these standards have or have not been met. If there's a particular standard they feel is problematic, she advises them to speak to that. Carlson would like to speak to number six of the specific standard 14•SA4F, where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics, such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required Is excessive or reduce the ability to use or occupy a historic property in a manner that will preserve or protect the history. When the TelNrind project was done. they did get a 50% reduction, but she broke this down because these units have different amounts of bedrooms but The Talkvind has a 0.27 spaces per bedroom. That Is the lowest one before this project but pan of the reason they got that was because they were attempting to protect the facade of the buildings on the Ped Mall, so there was a distinct reason for that reduction, so she went along with it For this project, it will be 0.25 spaces per bedroom so is the goal to see how far down they can go on the amount of parking spaces per bed. When they did the parking thing back in the 90's they took Into consideration that these apartments or these units downtown would be Inhabited by a wide variety of people and the parking would not cover everything, but it would cover a large amount. Now these people, especially with students, are saying they're a special group and therefore should get special privileges. Carlson feels In doing that are they negating the zoning law that was set up and was agreed upon by a number of people. Are they ending up doing a type of spot zoning and participating in a run-around of the parking requirements? She feels uncomfortable constantly giving a deduction In parking because someone comes and asks for it and says that they are this special group of people that do not need all this parking. She would like to see it go before the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission and discuss this overall rather then having this done case -by -case. Carlson's other concern Is the people who ask for these major deductions, the Board of Adjustment is supposed to do special exceptions, that means not very often, and she would assume that means Ire tweaking a small problem. This parking reduction is the second one since she's been on the Board that they have cleat with and these am not little tweaks, these am big tweaks, and is that the purpose of this Board of Adjustment. Dulek stated the purpose of the Board of Adjustment Is to review the standards set forth by the City Council and determine whether the applicant has met them. That's the purview, they need to look at the standards, both the specific and the general and we whether the applicant has met them or not. Thats the purpose. Carlson then questions whether this has unique characteristics. Number six asks if there are unique characteristics that the number of spaces required is excessive. (Lehmann clarified that is number seven, there was an error in the staff report, the ctaton Is 14-SA-4-F7.) Chnschilles stated first, he'd like to say that he is not opposed to redevelopment on this site but as he "a reviewing this he was having trouble consolidating his problems with it. He agrees s o Board A Addusne,R nn m August 11, 2021 -p Page 22 of 25 y(7 N r with Carlson regarding that standard about uniqueness. He doesn't think this project establishes uniqueness. Irs a residential building for students, that's not unique. The other standard,*t he doesn't think is fully met is General Standard 2, the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property In the immediate vicinity. Chrischilles thinks It Is Injurious to the Yacht Club and to Studio 13. He has a problem with the use of the alley as the main in and out to this building. He doesn't know how else they can do It but it's too much congestion in an inadequate space. So those two things are the main things he was having trouble consolidating In his thoughts. Then the Board got this We letter from Robert Miklo, who obviously is more qualified than any of us on the Board to analyze this problem, a this consideration, and Chrischllles thinks that the things Mr. Miklo brings out are valid points that they can use to tweak this proposal. Again, he Is not opposed to developing a residential building on this site, they need something to go there, but the proposal is too big. As Mr. Miklo suggests, the City should consider a Code Amendment to 14-5A-4-F6 to allow the redevelopment of properties containing National Register Buildings, which would then allow them to tear down the bank building and also allow them to collect parking fees. Chrischilles thinks if theyre giving somebody an exemption from a requirement, they should pay for it. If City Council agrees a Code Amendment should be granted, then Chrischilles would suggest the project as proposed is not In line with the Comprehensive Plan and nine stories with a setback to four stories would be much more agreeable in terms of visual and density to the to the area. Chrischilles suggestion is that Is that they send this back to Council to gel that amendment and then the developer comes back with a redesigned building that more closely is In line with the Comprehensive Plan and it can be approved. Parker stated he Is for the project just from the stance that student housing will not use parking as dense as we typically are used to. As a member who bicycled here, he asks how everyone got to this meeting and if they live in the downtown area, and use a car, then they are contributing to limited parking. But those that do not park, do not use those facllities, use public transportation to get around downtown. It is unique and the standard, as told by staff, meets these standards and he thinks they should go forward to the project. Pretodus tends to agree that student housing is unique and If student housing Isn't unique, she asks the other Board members to tell her what would be unique In their minds. They have only the Information thars been given to them, and they've been given a US Census study that says around 51%of people Irving in these areas travel by vehicle. Regarding the alley access, any building that goes here someday will have to use that alley In some form. This building will have only 67 parking spaces. H each vehicle exited and entered the building each day, thars around 134 ins and We and that might take only a minute each time and there's over 1500 minutes in a day. So yes, It will be happening but it will be for a super minority of the minutes of the day. Also the hours of operations of the businesses, the Yacht Club and Studio 13, the hours of those establishments are very unique, theyre late and may not actually run into the hours that people may be coming in and out of this building. Pretorius also commented on the Comprehensive Plan from 2011, it has already had multiple revisions and the reason it has had multiple revisions is because things have changed since 2011 and Ideas may not make sense anymore. Also, from working with Mr. Miklo historically she has noticed knee jerk reactions related to density specifically. She understands this project compared to the renderings of what memr,ie+o+e.e.m.,m.. s = Board of AdlusbneM August 11, 2021 D—t Page 23 0f25 HC) N � sA rii they expected these properties to one day be developed to look like can change and couI be disheartening to some degree, so them might be a little bit of an emotional attachment to. specific concern. She also agrees with Parker that they do need to consider how things am changing with regards to vehicles. Its generation by generation and is changing. Vehicles are becoming electric, they+m becoming automated, Uber service completely charged the Industry regarding different kinds of transit Public transit is fantastic in this area, and they just always need to be considerate of what are the studies and the science, the information being provided and actual information versus what they have been used to historically. Pratorius acknowledged many valid concerns and points have been made tonight by all Board members. Parker agreed with Pretodus on automation and vehicles, wondering how many people are going to have a license in 10 years, the current generation getting out of high school are not getting their licensee as quickly. They need to be thinking about the next generation as they put this to a vote. He knows historically, there Is a gap In their ages, but if they come together, if they vote on something that will contribute to downtown Iowa City, and not the suburbs, he thinks they will make Iowa City more livable and more pedestrian friendly. They don't want to stare at a surface lot for another 25-30 yeara, but that Is not up for vote today, It's making the City more livable In the area that they have. Pretodus admitted she had the same feeling too and was originally taken back by the lesser amount of commercial space on the first floor, always hoping for more stores and businesses to visit when she comes downtown. But then again, the last two years have taught her that brick and mortar stores are dangerous to some degree, and she wouldn't expect somebody who's getting ready to build a brand-new building to build a bunch of ommerdal space and offices as so many have recently shut down and are currently vacant downtown. She loves the idea that them is some space essentially reserved for some commercial space and hopefully that is in fad what goes there. Chrischilles reiterated he is not opposed to redevelopment of this property and thinks it will happen and he thinks it's a good idea. He is not opposed to the residential use but does think that the project, as It Is now, is excessive. He would like the Board to consider his comments about sending this back to Council for two reasons, one to get another set of eyes on this and two to see If they think the Code should be amended, such that the bank building can be demolished with the application of parking fees. He doesn't think that this should be a freebie. He also thinks as part of that compromise they should just ask the developer to come back with something closer to the Comprehensive Plan because according to Mr. Miklo, whose opinion Chrischilleswould value because he's experienced, sticking closer to the Plan would result in a better looking building on that corner. Oulek clarified there's no compromise. Chrischilles stated compromise is voting against it. Carlson stated she too Is not against seeing this site redeveloped, it has been an eyesore for as tong as she has been in Iowa City, and it is not useful and doesn't generate as much money as 0 could If something else was there. Getting rid of all the curb cuts would be a wonderful uwaay eipww<.ew,m.. �, .. s Boardof Adluwment "I { August 11, 2021 Page 24 of 25 Ci—G N 1 —f c� :fir a �i rn s addition, and having a building there, would make it more conducive to walking- $he is%Oq against redevelopment; she Just doesn't believe that this particular structure rgM now warms. Packer reminded the Board that's not what they are voting on, they are voting on whether staff has presented the material to fit the criteria. Carlson does not believe that they have. She does not believe that this building has enough unique characteristics to allow it to have the parking deduction that it's asking for. Russo also has reservations about the uniqueness of the site and there is verbiage that states something about the historic value of the aria. The fact this project is going to take out that drive- thru, Is there really a quallfying historic value to Me site that kicks in this applicable Code. He would be much more comfortable with the project closer to the suggestions found in the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 23 (Parker and Protorius assenting; Carlson, Chrischllles and Russo dissenting). Pretorius stated the motion declared denied, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. CONSIDER THE JULY % 2021 MINUTES: Russo moved to approve the minutes of July 14, 2021. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Chdschillea abstained). Lehmann noted now that the meetings are in person, b someone is not able to attend, he will need to talk wiM communications about what remote opbons there are. Parker will not be able to attend starling with the next meeting and will need to request an accommodation. Lehmann acknowledged they had some issues with the online packet an he will continue to try and email those and hopefully that'll work better than the new online system. He may try to use Dropbox at some point, which should allow larger transfers and larger PDF documents. ADJOURNMENT: Carlson moved to adjourn this meeting, Chrischilles seconded, a vote was taken and all approved. Board of Adlualmeel August 11, 2021 Page 25 of 25 0 c; D=E BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD o 2021 NAME TERM EXP. 7/14 Bill CHRISCHILLE9, GENE 12/31/Y022 WE X PARKER BRYCE 12/312024 X X PRETORIUS, AMY 12/3120M X X CARLSON, NANCY 12/312025 X X RU990, MARK 12/312021 X X air x =PraeaM o=rove,a ore=Aesa�,a,aaa --= ra a Mpaba.