Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-27 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2002 - 5:00 P.M. FINAL/APPROVED CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, Vince Maurer, T.J. Brandt, Dennis Keitel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Shelley McCafferty, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser, Kevin Kidwell, Tom Gelman, Tom Lepic, Tim Krumm, John Ockenfels, Tom Rowald, Tim Zimmerman (CRANDIC), Jim Clark, Cindy Parsons, Scott Kaeding, Ann Connors, David Chamberlain, Jim Petrain, Richard Haendel, Austin Chamberlain, Chuck Polfliet, Carol Peters, Eric Gidal CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Brandt called the meeting to order at 5:04 P.M. ROLL CALL: Maurer, Paul, Brandt and Keitel present. CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 12, 2001 BOARD MINUTES: Motion: Paul moved to approve the December 12, 2001 minutes. Maurer seconded. Motion carried 4-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC01-00026. Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Kidwell for a special exception to permit dwellings units above a ground floor warehouse use in the Intensive Commercial (CI- 1) Zone at 729 S. Capitol Street. Howard stated that this proposal would replace the existing building on this site with a mixed- use building with warehouse space on the first floor and two floors of residential above, including four 4-bedroom apartments and six 3-bedroom apadments. She said that residential uses in this zone are permitted by special exception provided they meet a density requirement of one unit per 1800 sq. ft. and the general special exception review standards. Howard said that this proposal does meet the density requirement for the property. She presented drawings of the proposed building, and stated that 26 parking spaces are required for the building. She said that a rail line runs between this property and the next zone over, which is an industrial zone containing City Carton. She said that to the west and across the street are utility substations, and there is a warehouse use directly to the north. Howard said that staff has concerns about this proposal, and do not feel it meets the general special exception review requirements. She said that residential should be carefully considered in the Intensive Commercial Zone because the intent section of this zone states that any residential use needs to be buffered from any kind of intensive commercial or manufacturing uses permitted in the zone. She stated that the small, narrow lot does not present much opportunity for any kind of buffering of residential use from surrounding industrial uses. She said that proposal is for a primarily residential use. The apartments will contain 34 bedrooms and be marketed primarily to University students. She stated staff is concerned that the noise and truck and train traffic in this location is not conducive to such an intensive residential use. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes Janua~ 9,2002 Page 2 Howard said the Board should be aware that there has been a lot of discussion about whether residential uses are appropriate in the Intensive Commercial Zone. She said that a 1996 study triggered by a residential use in this particular area showed that there is pressure to develop apartments in this area due to proximity to the University. However, the C1-1 zone is intended for semi-industrial sues and this is the only C1-1 zone remaining in the city that provides opportunities for these types of businesses close to downtown. She said the 1996 study recommended to the Planning & Zoning Commission that residential uses be prohibited in this particular zone. She said the P&Z Commission, on a split vote, decided not to amend the ordinance relying on the fact that the Board of Adjustment would have the opportunity to review each case on its own merits. Howard said that due to the fact that this proposal, which is more intensely residential than commercial, would change the character of this area and due to the industrial and intensive commercial character of this location and the fact that this property is too small to provide any buffer from industrial and intensive commercial uses, staff recommends that the Board deny EXC01-00026. In response to a question from Keitel, Howard said that the railroad right-of-way is immediately adjacent to this parcel. She said that she understood that the applicant has not done a specific survey but they estimate that the railway is approximately 40 feet from the property line, and the building would set back another 20 feet from the property line. She stated that it is a spur line. Public Hearinq Opened Duane Musser of MMS Consultants identified himself as the consultant for Kevin Kidwell. He said that immediately north of the project site is a Johnson County warehouse, and they see the warehouse as having little traffic, odor or noise. He said that to the east and west are electric substations, and they don't feel any staff concerns regarding odor or noise or traffic are valid. He said that the spur traffic on the south side dead ends at Moore's. He said they talked with CRANDIC and were told that they make three trips per week, one per day, on that spur line, and they don't feel this rail line would cause odor or noise with that infrequent use. Musser said that the tracks are located on an old right-of-way where Lafayette Street was vacated, providing CRANDIC with the nodh half and City Cation receiving the south half. He said they consider City Carton to be a light manufacturing type of industrial use. He said that adjacent is a warehouse for paper bundling. He said they have looked at the traffic coming into the City Carton site, and all that traffic travels south to Benton Street when leaving the site. In addition, he stated that on the day they took a count, there were 32 large trucks entering/exiting the site in a 9 hour period. Musser stated that there are several existing uses with commercial on first floor and residential above, especially in the area located between the two railroad tracks and to Gilbert Street. He said that Capitol Street is not a through street connecting Burlington and Benton Streets, and is limited traffic use. He said it is close to campus, downtown and the hospital, and is right across from the bike path. Kevin Kidwell introduced himself, and stated that he respectfully disagrees with the City staff's opinions. He said that allowing residential use in this zone makes perfectly good sense. He stated that the tenants, who probably will be students, will be able to walk to school, which would relieve parking congestion downtown. In addition, he said it will help to eliminate the sprawl that so many residential neighborhoods do not desire. Kidwell said that given the history of the Iow vacancy rates in the immediate neighborhoods and of the surrounding areas, allowing this residential use is a good fit. He said that he owns a Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 3 property two blocks east of this site which has commercial use on the ground floor with dwelling units above, and is between two rail lines. He said that since 1992, the entire building has been 100% full, never having a vacancy. Kidwell said he agrees that the project is adjacent to an industrial zone, but the current use is not a true industrial use such as Procter & Gamble or Sheller-Globe. He said he disagrees that the apartments would be leased only by people with limited choice. He said that proximity to campus is a much higher priority for students. Kidwell referred to three letters in the Board's packets in support of this proposal. Kidwell said that to alleviate any concerns of tenants, he would erect a fence between the proposed sight and the railroad right-of-way on the south and west sides of the property. He said this would address the safety issue and would create a buffer between the uses. In response to a question from Paul, Kidwell said his other property is in a C1-1 zone, and is between two sets of tracks. In response to a question from Keitel, Kidwell stated he expects the commercial use to be cold storage warehouse. Howard stated that for warehouse use two spaces would have to be allocated for parking. In response to a question from Paul, Kidwell said that he is undecided on warehouse spaces; it depends on what the tenants want. He said that a commercial neighbor has talked about leasing the space. Tom Gelman introduced himself as legal counsel for Kevin Kidwell. He said that there are specific requirements specified in the statute for special exceptions, and there is no question that the specific requirements have been met. Gelman said that although there are comments on the seven general requirements, there really are not any significant objections raised with any other than the first requirement which relates to the general welfare, safety and health of the community. Gelman said that the City staff is focusing inward on this project, and traditionally they focus outward to determine that the project is in the best interest of the community generally and the neighboring properties specifically with less concern about the actual developer. Gelman stated that the staff did not address the potential benefits to the health, comfort, safety and welfare of our community. He said it will provide additional needed student residences in a location that is appropriate. He said iowa City needs to encourage close-in student housing that does not encroach on existing residential neighborhoods. He stated that the project would facilitate walking and riding bicycles as opposed to traffic into the downtown area. He said it is improvement of a commercial site that desperately needs improvement, and a type of improvement that will be more intensive, allowing more tax base. Gelman stated that there are many bases upon which people will choose where they live. He said that if proximity to campus was very important, this would be is a very good very location. He said no one will be forced to live there. He stated that the requirements that the City staff is placing upon this properly, such as screening from noise, odors and intensely commercial uses, are not generally the standards that are applicable to second floor/third floor residential houses in commercial neighborhoods. He cited downtown apadments and Burlington Street apadments as an example. He said that in 1999 a special exception was made on Scott & Court, which location is immediately adjacent to a 24 hour gas station & car wash, and to Scott Boulevard. He said that in a 1996 traffic count, there were 349 trucks per day and 8912 cars per day immediately adjacent to this building with no particular screening. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 4 Gelman stated that at the last Board meeting, a special exception was approved for housing on the second and/or third floors of an apartment on First Avenue immediately adjacent to Procter & Gamble; immediately adjacent to the railroad spur and to First Avenue, which has an extraordinary number of cars and trucks per day. Gelman stated that the railroad is not a health and safety risk. He stated that the adjacent CRANDIC spur is used three times per week and the railroad track that is north of this property is used much more frequently. He said there were a lot of people who live along that rail line with no significant buffering, particularly around the roundhouse. Gelman said that the electric substations do not create any harm for anyone. He said that there are no studies regarding noise and traffic from City Carton Company. Gelman said that not one of the semi trucks that accessed or left City Carton passed the proposed location. He said he understands that the plant is a paper bundling plant, the paper is shipped from that location, and no known odor is arising from that. He said it is not clear what the noise staff is talking about is, or that it would be any worse than downtown, Burlington Street, Procter & Gamble, or Scott Boulevard. Gelman said that the real statement from the City is that people shouldn't have to live there because it's not as desirable as other places. He said he thinks there are other undesirable places to live that are zoned residential in this community, and people would choose to live there. Gelman said that the applicant has done his task in establishing that this special exception is a reasonable and appropriate use for this property. Gelman stated that the portion of the spur running by the southerly portion of this property is not used by City Carton; they have a separate spur behind their plant. In response to a question from Paul, Gelman said that he has not investigated the zoning classification for Mr. Moreland's project on First Avenue; he was referring to the general location being near Procter & Gamble and the railroad line. Gelman said that the City has characterized the project area as heavy industrial and heavy commercial, in part because of the zoning, but he believes it is neither. He said the actual industrial activities are the City Carton recycling plant, and it is not the type of manufacturing industrial that one might think about. He said that there is not as much traffic as heavy commercial and industrial regions usually generate. Tom Lepic identified himself as a friend of Kevin Kidwell, and the realtor who has the property listed for sale. He stated that this property has been very hard to sell, and they feel fortunate that someone wants to enhance the betterment of Iowa City. He said he drives by this property every day to get downtown, and it is a popular route to downtown from the west. He said that if they want to have people continue to drive past this area, they need to enhance the area. Lepic said that Kidwell would not be building the project if he didn't think tenants would want to live there. Tim Krumm identified himself as counsel for City Carton, who are opposed to this application. Mr. Krumm passed out additional information to the Board, including a summary of issues they feel are important, a portion of the auditor's parcel plat filed in October of last year for some adjacent parcels owned by City Carton (Eagleview Properties), and photographs of the area of the project. Krumm said that the primary emphasis in the staff report has to do with protecting the general health and welfare of the future residents of the apartments, which he feels is entirely consistent with the standard that should apply. He said that there is not another property like this; it is Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 5 completely surrounded with commercial and industrial uses and would not be like living in an apartment downtown. He stated that, according to the company's records, 75 trucks per day (Monday-Friday and some Saturdays) on the average go past the subject property along the east-west. He said 25 employees go in and out of the property in two shifts every Monday through Friday and many Saturdays. He said 3-4 railroad cars are switched on tracks that are virtually adjacent to this property. He said it is a heavy industrial use. He said that not only may there be complaints to the City from future residents, but they believe that there will be future complaints directed to City Carton. He said they have been a good corporate citizen and want to continue in that vein, and they feel this project puts them in jeopardy. Krumm said that City Carton acquired the propedies depicted on page 2 of his handout with the idea that they would be able to continue to make industrial use of that property. They feel that the adjacent residential use, if granted, would put their plans in jeopardy. Krumm pointed out a few errors in the site plan. He said that the project name was wrong (Lots 1 and 2, Eastdale Mall Addition), which he just wanted to point out for the record. He said that part of Lafayette Street farther to the west has been vacated, but about two-thirds of the properly has not been vacated, even though it is not in use for public travel. He said this is a City right-of-way of Lafayette St. In addition, he said it is not City Carton who owns the property to the south and west -- it is Eagleview Properties which is owned by the same parties as City Carton. Krumm referred to page 2 of the handout to show what properties City Carton and/or Eagleview Properties owns. Krumm referred to comments by the applicants and supporters that there would be no problem getting tenants, but that is hardly the standard by which this decision should be made. He said the comment that the project would make the property look better is not the test here. He said the public safety of the individuals who will occupy the residences should be the major concern. Krumm stated that the letter from Downes contains several errors of fact. He referred to Downes' opinion that the area should not be commercial and City Carton would be better off moving to somewhere else. On the contrary, City Carton has prospered at this for a long time, has every intention of continuing to do so, and does rely on the railroad at that location. In response to a question from Keitel, John Ockenfels identified himself as the President of City Carton and said that they plan to use the property purchased in October in their long range plans. Ockenfels said that this is the only industrial area left in the central region of Iowa City without having to go out to the Industrial Park. He said they don't have the facilities City Carton needs in the Industrial Park. He said their business has to have access to railroad and to big trucks. He said they are the largest recycler in Eastern Iowa and have a lot of equipment coming and going, which is why they acquired the other properties for their future plans. Ockenfels said they ship out over 200 cars a year on CRANDIC from this site. He said that there are anywhere from 50-70 trucks, trailers, cars coming back and forth dropping material off at that recycling site to the back side of the building during the course of a day. He said they are slow right now because at the turn of the year it is always slow. He said that the City did one study and almost immediately put in the stoplights at the corner of Capitol and Benton because it is the only way to get to downtown Iowa City from the west. Ockenfels said they are an industrial site, they have industrial equipment, they will have trucks coming and going, and they use the right-of-way of Lafayette St., which is a current open City street. He said that from the center of the alleyway all the way to the river is owned by City Carton or Eagleview. He said they own the property touching the subject property on the south and on the west entirely. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 6 Ockenfels stated that if housing is built in the area, it would put constraints on what they do as industrial. He said there is a natural buffer to the industrial zone - the Iowa Interstate Railroad overpass. He said everything to the north is apartments and commercial, and to the south is commercial and industrial. He said everything on the west side of Capitol Street is industrial and commercial. He said there are currently no living quarters there at all. He suggests the City not go around the natural buffer. Ockenfels said that, in reality, the project is residential. He said the plan has been to load as many residential units as possible on top of the ground floor warehouse space. However, this proposal is not something that is compatible with the area. In response to a question from Keitel, Ockenfels said they did not try to buy the subject parcel. He said because of the fact that their priority at the time was on the other properties they purchased. Tim Zimmerman identified himself as a representative of the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway. He said this is a spur line now, but up until a year ago it was their main line. It connects down to Hills, and is also their connection to the Iowa Interstate Railroad just past Maiden Lane. He said that two days a week they come down through Iowa City/Coralville, and they do switch over 200 cars a year at City Carton. He said their biggest concern is the safety factor for the people in this area. He said there are no signals on Capitol Street; people get used to hearing the trains and don't pay attention to them. Tom Gelman said he appreciated the comments and concern about public health and safety from Mr. Zimmerman, however, he does not think it is unique to this site but everywhere along that line. In addition, he said that concern about complaints being made to the City and City Carton may be reasonable or unreasonable concerns, but should not be grounds to either deny or reject the request for special exception. He said those matters can be handled by other ways. Gelman stated that he does not understand how the industrial use of City Carton has been long established on that property and a good corporate and industrial citizen will be jeopardized by the project. He said City Carton had the opportunity to purchase the property. Gelman stated his client is willing to make a substantial investment to improve the property, is willing to provide a convenient, close-in residence for people who are likely to rent the property, and to provide an appropriate setting to do so. Gelman said that the bottom line seems to come to welfare and safety, which is a very nebulous, general and subjective standard. He said the reality is he is at a loss to see where the danger and risk is. He said that this special exception should be granted unless there is a clear and apparent demonstration that somehow the public's best interest will not be met; whether it provides a real safety risk, or not the same sort of risk that any number of property may have, but an extraordinary and special risk that is associated with this property. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Paul moved to approve item EXC0'1-00026, a special exception to permit dwelling units above a ground floor warehouse use in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) Zone at 729 S. Capitol Street. The motion was seconded by Maurer. Holecek said that Mr. Gelman stated the burden is on the City staff to show detriment to the public health, safety, welfare or general welfare. She said this is a misstatement of the standards. She said that there is no right to a special exception; it is incumbent upon the applicant to meet the standards as the Board finds the facts that have been presented to them. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 7 She said it is necessary that the Board find that there is not that type of detriment, and it is incumbent upon the applicant to make that case. Howard said that special exceptions are "special", which is why they come before the Board. She said that the intensive commercial zone is primarily intended for intensive commercial uses, and special exceptions are intended to be special and exceptions to the types of uses intended for this zone. She said that to the extent that the proposed special exception tends to supplant what is intended for the zone, it may be a detriment to the neighborhood. Findinqs of Fact Paul stated that the staff report refers to a similar incident in 1996 wherein the Planning & Zoning Commission considered the matter but decided on a split vote against changing the Code language. He said that the Commission felt that the Board of Adjustment could carefully consider applications for residential uses of intensive commercial uses on a case-by-case basis. He said he believes that is a good idea, and there is no doubt that Mr. Kidwell has met the specific standard as far as square footage being adequate for his project. Paul said that as far as the standard of endangering the public health, safety and comfort and general welfare and improvements of neighboring properties, and as far as being consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, he has a problem in that none of the residential properties referenced by the applicant as being similar to the subject property were located directly adjacent to an industrial use as intensive as City Carton. He said his concern is not the railroad tracks; he is concerned that if City Carton decided to sell and move and a more intense use came in, that would affect those residents to a greater degree than City Carton is presently or will in the future. In addition, given the size and orientation of the lot he said he does not see any way for Mr. Kidwell to buffer the project adequately from surrounding intensive commercial and industrial uses. Paul stated that he will vote against approval. Maurer stated he agrees with both sides to a large extent. He said one of the things that stand out is that in the commercial industrial zone there appears to be at least three other properties that have this same basic situation with commercial on the lower floor and apartments on the second floor. He said that seems to make it very difficult on the zoning issue to say that this project should not be approved. He said that safety is a factor, but is primarily a factor of the people who are going to live there. Maurer stated he will vote in favor of the application because the zoning seems to allow this to take place, even though he believes the main reason for the building may be residential versus commercial on the first floor, and it is an obvious improvement. Keitel said he can see merits on both sides. He said he is not sure it is the duty of the Board to be concerned about tax revenues. He said this property is unique and cannot be compared to the other properties highlighted in the map that Musser provided, because none of those other ones have an industrial use adjacent to it. He said the railroad tracks are not the big issue; the big issue is the industrial use of City Carton and is the exception going to be a detriment to the surrounding uses. He said the buffering issue is a concern. A fence would just hide the problem. Keitel said that he believes indications are this is primarily a residential use and the applicants are going to put a warehouse on the bottom floor just because they have to. He said that the intended use of the area is for more intensive commemial uses and the residential use really cannot be buffered nor should the area be allowed to transition into a residential area. He said if the developer wants to do this, they should look at trying to rezone this particular parcel. He said he would vote against the application. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes Janua~ 9,2002 Page 8 Brandt stated the proposed new building would be a vast improvement over the buildings that are currently on the site. He agrees the railroad is not a big concern for safety issues. He said the biggest concern is with 36 apadments above a commercial space. He said he sees a definite conflict with vehicular traffic with the residents in the apartments versus the truck traffic generated in the industrial use zone by City Carton. He said he will vote against the exception for those reasons and because of the possible conflict to the City and City Carton as this is zoned as highly intensive industrial commercial use. He said if the proposal was primarily commercial rather than residential, it may promote him to vote in favor. The motion failed on a vote of 1-3, Maurer voting in the affirmative. EXC01-00027. Discuss[on of an application submitted by University View Padners for a special exception to permit off-street parking in the Central Business (CB-10) Zone at 217 Iowa Avenue. Howard stated that except for hotels and elderly housing, private off-street parking is not permitted in the CB-10 zone without a special exception. She said the City has a fairly well defined parking policy downtown. She stated that this application is for 22 underground parking spaces for a new mixed use building on Iowa Avenue which will replace the First Christian Church. Howard said the proposed underground parking would have access off the rear alley that runs between Dubuque and Linn Street. The parking facility would not be viewed from Iowa Avenue, but will be totally underground. Howard stated that the policy of restricting parking downtown is intended to promote high density commercial and residential development in downtown to foster pedestrian orientation along downtown streets and to reduce overall congestion in the central business district. Surface parking lots take up valuable downtown property that might otherwise be used for more active uses. The City has made an effort to provide adequate parking in the downtown through public parking facilities. In light of this investment, the Board should consider whether the proposed private parking will be in direct competition with this public parking system. Howard said that after reviewing the application, staff feels that the requested parking will not undermine the City's downtown parking policy for a number of reasons. First of all, she said that underground parking is the best kind of parking you can have downtown because you cannot see it, it doesn't interrupt the pedestrian environment, and provides needed parking for a particular use. However, Howard stated that staff wanted to make sure the parking would not be to the detriment of the viability of the ground floor commercial space. In order to accommodate the underground parking the first floor commercial space is elevated about 28 inches above grade. Staff feels that the commercial space is less viable if there are not dear views into the commercial apace from the sidewalk. In addition, staff wanted to make sure that the frontage along Iowa Avenue was usable commercial space and not all entryway and steps. She said that after working with the applicant on the design of the interior commemial space and the entryways, they believe that the proposal is acceptable. She said that the design of the entry into the commercial space will show that this is clearly a commercial use on the ground floor. Finally, Howard said that staff does not feel that the provision of 22 off street parking spaces at 217 Iowa Avenue will undermine the effectiveness and viability of the public parking system, provided that it is used as long-term parking. She said that the parking requested will not exceed the parking demand of the building. However, staff feels that the parking should be clearly signed as reserved for tenants of the building and not used for short-term customer Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 9 parking. The rear alley cannot accommodate the congestion that could result from short-term parking. There is a public parking facility nearby for customer parking. Howard said there are specific standards for off-street parking in the CB-10 which are mostly concerned with screening and ensuring pedestrian safety. She said that screening is not necessary in this case, and access and entrance to the property shall be constructed so that vehicles entering or leaving shall be clearly visible to pedestrians. She said that downtown alleys are congested, but staff feels that the amount of traffic this would add to the alley is not inconsistent with how alleys are used downtown. Howard said staff feels some appropriate signs need to be placed, including a stop sign at the exit and a sign to indicate that it is for long-term parking for employees or tenants of the building. Howard said that staff recommends that EXC01-00027 be approved provided that the building is designed so that the ground level commercial space that fronts on Iowa Avenue is no more than three feet above grade; entrances to the building are designed to maximize the usable storefront along Iowa Avenue; the entrance to the commercial space is designed to be the most visually prominent entrance along ~owa Avenue substantially similar in design to the entrance shown on the elevation submitted January 4, 2002; storefront windows and doors provide views into entryways and ground floor commercial space and not into the underground parking; a stop sign is placed at the exit from the parking garage; and the use of the parking is reserved through both signage and building management policy/practice for building residents and for employees of the commercial tenants of the building. In response to a question from Paul regarding alley usage and congestion both for pedestrians and cross traffic, Howard stated that staff believes it is highly preferable to have access off the alley instead of Iowa Avenue. According to the applicant the parking spaces would be reserved based on how many spaces the commercial tenants need first, and any remaining spaces will be available to the residential tenants of the building. She said that if there is no parking provided, there would likely be more illegal parking in the alley. In response to a question from Keitel, Howard stated that the proposed building steps will not need approval by the Board, but will need administrative approval. Brandt stated that his company has done work with this applicant on some of his other commercial properties in the downtown area. He said he does not believe that will hinder or affect his decision on this application. In response to a question from Holecek, he stated he has no current contracts outstanding with the applicant. Public Hearinq Opened Applicant Jim Clark stated that the alley is 20' wide, with 16' of paving. He said they have set the building back 5' to allow for some excess parking that could occur in the alley. Clark said that the 22 underground spots will be primarily to attract a good commercial tenant, assuming they will need 6-8 spots. He said there will be a sign for assigned spots. He said that the permanent parking is important. Clark stated that he believes the City is discussing an ordinance to allow parking on the street from 5pm-9am. Howard said she is not aware of that discussion. Clark said there would be about 80 persons inhabiting the building, counting commercial tenants. He said that Moen will have about 30 more people next door, and the Old Library location will have about 80-90 people. He said that the parking lot across from the library will be closing, and that has 80 spots. He said if the new hotel goes in, that will need 100-200 spots, so Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 10 there will be a need for about 500 new short-term spots downtown. He said he believes the long-term spaces in the public ramps are pretty much filled up, so we need to support the commercial portion of downtown with more long-term parking. He said this gives downtown a larger pool of commercial tenants. Clark stated they would need some parking available for maintenance trucks as well to take care of emergencies. He said he has talked to the power company regarding the power lines in the alley, but has not been able to get a statement from the power company. He said he understands that the power lines will be put underground in the near future. In response to a question from Maurer, Clark said that if they have parking spots at S. Johnson, they would move students cars over there. They always do what they can to take the cars off the street. He said he feels comfortable with 22 spots, dedicating at least 8 spots to commercial tenants with the remainder to tenants. In response to a question from Keitel, Clark said they do not plan a door or gate to the underground parking. He said it would be built in such a way to handle frost and so on. He said that building will be there for 100 years; if they don't put the parking in now, it can't be done later. He said there will be an elevator going down to the parking so there would be access to handicapped. He said visibility is good coming out because there will be 7 feet before you get to the 16 feet of the alley. He said he doesn't have a concern about non-tenants coming in and taking the parking because it will be signed for building tenants only. His experience has been that people will park illegally on surface lots, but it is less of a problem in a garage. Cindy Parsons stated she owns the adjacent building directly to the west at 215 Iowa Avenue. She said it is a small commercial building with a hair salon downstairs and 8 apartments going all the way to the alley. She said she is not against underground parking; however, she strenuously objects to dumping more traffic into the alley. She said it was designed to be a service alley, and there are a number of large dumpsters in the alley and in many spots along the alley two cars cannot pass each other. She feels that an estimate of 3 cars per hour is Iow, but even adding 3 cars per hour will add more congestion to the alley, creating a big problem. Parsons said their apartment building opens right onto the alley so tenants use that door. She said there is another alley connecting Iowa Avenue with the subject alley, and it is used heavily by pedestrians. She said there is a business at the east end of the alley, the Alley Cat Bar, whose entrance door opens directly on the alley. She said an alley is not designed to be a primary entrance or exit, and if the underground parking is allowed, it should go onto Iowa Avenue. Parsons said that page 3 of the staff report discusses the standard that each entrance and exit to the parking area shall be constructed so that vehicles entering or leaving the parking area shall be clearly visible to a pedestrian on any sidewalks at a distance of not less than 10 feet. She said that an alley is not a sidewalk, but effectively functions as a sidewalk with people walking down there and there will not be 10 feet of visibility. Parsons said that it is seldom that a car can make it one way without stopping for a garbage or delivery truck, and trying to get two way traffic in the alley will be a big mess. Parsons recited sections 9-1-1, 9-3-3h and 9-3-6a of the traffic code and expressed concerns about young drivers in a hurry. Scott Kaeding identified himself as the owner of 13 S. Linn St., and said his building fronts the largest part of the alley. He said he is okay with tearing down the church and erecting a new building, but is not okay with an underground parking area and an entrance and exit from the alley. He said the alley is way too congested and there are too many cars, beer trucks, dumpsters and all kinds of junk back there all the time. Iowa City Boa~ of Adjustment Minutes Janua~ 9,2002 Page 11 Kaeding said if there has to be underground parking, entrance and exit via Iowa Avenue should be reviewed more. He said that there is a big, giant empty parking ramp right across the street, so there is all kinds of parking available all the time, which he felt would be the City's preferred way to get as many people in that ramp as possible. He said that if the Board considers this, he would suggest another meeting to have pictures of the alley to give everyone more feedback. Kaeding said he would strongly recommend blocking off the alley completely and have it so people cannot drive from Dubuque Street to Linn Street. He said this is a huge safety issue because there is a huge amount of pedestrians in the alley and there are businesses which have entrances into the alley which add more traffic. Ann Connors identified herself as a citizen interested in preserving the vitality of downtown. She said she has a concern about the precedent this approval would set for further exceptions, as with the prior point of business. She said it affects the congestion of downtown and the entrances and exits to the alleys. Jim Clark stated that without this parking, there will be more congestion because students will park in the alley. He said an apartment without parking is a very congested area; there is always someone coming and going, and they will leave their car to run in for 5 minutes. He said they could put up a 10 mph sign at the exit of the parking garage to remind drivers to drive slowly. Public Headnq Closed Motion: Keitel moved to approve item EXC01-0002?, a special exception to permit off- street parking in the Central Business (CB-10) Zone at 217 Iowa Avenue, provided that: l) the building is designed so that the ground level commercial space that fronts on Iowa Avenue is no more than three feet above grade; 2) entrances to the building are designed to maximize the usable storefront along Iowa Avenue; 3) the entrance to the commercial space is designed to be the most visually prominent entrance along Iowa Avenue, substantially similar in design to the entrance shown on the elevation submitted 01-04- 02; 4) storefront windows and doors provide views into entryways and ground floor commercial space and not into the underground parking area; 5) a stop sign and a 10 mph speed limit sign is placed at the exit from the parking garage; and 6) the use of the parking is reserved through both signage and building management policy/practice for building residents and for employees of the commercial tenants of the building and not for any short term parking. The motion was seconded by Maurer. Findinqs of Fact Keitel stated that this particular issue was discussed at Monday night's Council work session, and there was an article in Tuesday's Press-Citizen regarding that discussion. He said Council did a straw poll to discuss whether they thought this was a good idea or a bad idea. Holecek stated they discussed possibly fleshing out the guidelines under which a special exception would be granted in the CB-10 Zone. Keitel said that there was a lot of discussion about the safety issues regarding vehicular traffic in the alleyway, and a lot of the Council members did not like that. Keitel said that in his opinion, the purpose of an alley is to provide access to the rear of the building. He said that Jeff Davidson stated that the Capitol St. and Dubuque St. ramps were well utilized, and the Tower Place ramp is only 40-50% utilized right now. Davidson stated that if they wanted to, they could issue 100% parking permits on the three City-owned ramps, but the City wants to reserve spaces in the ramps for short-term retail customers of the downtown business district. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 12 Keitel stated that Davidson was asked by Council if underground parking for this particular project was denied, would the City be ready to issue 22 parking permits in the Tower Place ramp, and he said no. Keitel stated that based on that knowledge, he would vote in favor of the underground parking because he feels the City needs underground parking. He said he doesn't see it as a big safety issue coming out; he said anyone coming out of the parking ramp is coming up a grade and will not be going at an excessive speed. Maurer stated he would vote in favor. He said that the dumpsters take up a large part of the alley and the parking is abominable, and that if the alley were policed properly the underground parking would enhance the situation tremendously. Paul stated he would vote in favor. He said he shares some concerns with regard to congestion in the alley but the number of parking spaces is limited in this case. He said as far as meeting the specific standards, the applicant has met those. He said the parking will be underground; there is access from the rear of the alley; full development of the property is not prevented; they are also fostering the creation of this pedestrian-ordered streetscape that the City successfully did recently. Paul said that the applicant feels certain the tenants and commercial clients are the ones parking there. He said that the standards of screening, access and signage will be met. He doesn't see it being a detriment to the public; it will not be injurious to the enjoyment and use of other property in the immediate vicinity, and it will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties; the applicant does provide, according to his plan, ingress and egress; and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Brandt stated he will vote in favor of the exception. He said he doesn't think you can go into any alley in the City and not find congestion; the alleys are not meant for pedestrian traffic and pedestrians need to understand that there will be vehicular traffic. He said that he does not think the traffic coming out of the underground ramp will be injurious to anybody. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. BREAK 7:15 p.m. to 7:18 p.m. EXC01-00028. Discussion of an application submitted by Austin Chamberlain for a special exception to reduce the required side yard for property in the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone at 417 Ferson Avenue. Howard stated that this application concerns a single family house with a single garage attached. Originally, from 1958, this was a carport which was built without a permit and did not comply with the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at the time it was built. Recently, following storm damage, the applicant remodeled the structure, adding a new front and rear fa(;ade and new siding. A dispute arose between the applicant and the neighboring property owner to the south. Following a survey of the neighboring property, it was determined that the south side of the garage sits directly on the property line and the concrete slab on which the garage is constructed is actually on the neighbor's property. Howard said that currently there is a minimum 5' side yard setback requirement in the RS-5 Zone, but since the original structure was not constructed in accordance with the Zoning requirements in 1958, it cannot be considered a leally nonconforming use. She said the applicant is requesting a special exception to reduce the side yard to zero in order to retain the existing garage. Howard stated that this presents a unique situation since the structure has existed for over 40 years, and there is practical difficulty meeting the standards. Without the special exception Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minu~s January 9, 2002 Page 13 the applicant would be required to tear down the garage. She said the applicant acknowledges that the issue of the concrete slab must be resolved privately with the adjacent property owner. Staff feels that this is a substantial reduction because if the side yard is reduced to zero, the applicant would have to walk on to his neighbor's properly to do any maintenance work on the garage. However, given that this situation has existed for over 40 years, staff feels that it would be reasonable to grant the exception provided that the adjacent property owner grants the applicant an easement for maintenance purposes. Staff does not feel there will be any substantial detriment to the neighborhood if the exception is granted. This situation has existed for over 40 years. Tearing down the garage would not result in an increase in privacy between the applicant's property and his neighbor to the south, because currently the garage screens a back patio area from the neighbors view. There also appears to be adequate room between the properties for maintenance and fire separation. It is staffs understanding that the applicant has not made any changes to the garage that changed the footprint or setback of the garage in relation to the neighboring property. Given that the garage has existed since 1958 in this location without substantial detriment to the neighborhood, staff feels the interests of justice would be served by granting the exception. Howard said staff recommends that the Board approve EXC01-00028, provided the applicant obtains an easement from the owner at 402 McLean Street to access the south side of the garage for maintenance purposes and provided that the applicant obtains a building permit for the garage and brings the existing garage structure into compliance with the Building Code. Public Hearing Opened David Chamberlain stated he is the owner of the house. His son, Austin, lives there. He said the outside of the garage is finished and they are still remodeling the inside. He said that many hundreds of square feet of concrete will be required if the garage is removed and rebuilt in the back. He stated that his son has improved the property considerably. Jim Petrain, 410 Magowan Ave., stated that he is a neighbor and witness to the state of disrepair before the Chamberlains took possession of the house. He said they have made major improvements. He said that the adjoining back yards comprise a sort of park and the neighborhood children play there. He stated that the adjoining back yards would be adversely affected if the garage is removed and rebuilt in the back yard. Petrain stated he commends Austin and Lisa Chamberlain on the time and effort they have put into the house. He said it is not uncommon to have garages on property lines in this neighborhood. Richard Haendel, 402 McLean St., identified himself as the owner of the adjacent property. He presented two photographs showing the space in the driveway and the survey marker for the lot line, and the area between the garage, his garage and bedroom area. He stated that the wall sits on the property line between the two properties; additionally, the footing sits about 16" onto his property. He said that Mr. Chamberlain extended the garage this past summer some considerable distance. He said it is now significantly longer, and impedes his view from his bedroom and bathroom areas. He said the old footings, as well as the new concrete poured by Austin Chamberlain this summer, are on his property. In response to a question from Paul, Haendel stated Austin added onto the length of the garage, toward the back. Haendel admitted that he would still be looking at the garage if it did not sit on the property line. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 14 In response to a question from Maurer, Haendel stated that his preferred solution is to tear the garage down. In response to a question from Brandt, Haendel said he has lived in his house since the mid- 70s. He said he did not have any conflict with the previous owner of the house. He said that Chamberlain had rearranged the gutters and downspouts so instead of pouring water to the front and rear of his properly, it now goes on the property of Haendel so he gets water runoff. He said the black pipe pictured is on his property. In response to a question from Keitel, Haendel stated that the drainage went to the front and rear previously. However, he said this is a minor issue. In response to a question from Brandt regarding Mr. Haendel's view toward the garage prior to the remodeling, Austin Chamberlain submitted photos to the Board. Chamberlain stated there was a shed there previously, which he removed to facilitate lengthening the garage. Mr. Chamberlain said the shed was 4-1/2 feet deep and did not have a concrete foundation. He said he did not change the depth of the garage except for a footing to stop runoff. He said the back of the garage now is as far back as the shed. He said the footprint is the same. Austin Chamberlain stated that Mr. Haendel's window looked at the shed previously, now it looks at a new Cedar sided building. In response to a question from Keitel, Chamberlain stated that the water drained into his garage and basement previous to the remodeling; now drainage goes to the back of the garage, where he brought in dirt to change the slope and built a solid structure garage after the shed blew down in a storm. Keitel asked Haendel if there would still be a drainage issue if the garage was removed and a driveway was built. Haendel said the roof of the garage now drains onto his property, but if it were removed there would be no drainage from a roof. He said the slope of the roof was made larger, but their drainage was changed. He said it can be changed and would not be a big issue. Keitel asked Austin Chamberlain if they had sought professional help on the drainage problem. Chamberlain said he was willing to do whatever is necessary to fix the situation. He said he put a large amount of dirt in the back to create a bowl in his yard to stop a large amount of water from pouring onto his neighbor's property; he installed gutters and put ADS piping from the gutter alongside the garage to a trough of trees. He said he has front and back gutters which both dump into the trough. In response to a question from Keitel, Haendel said there is no storm sewer adjacent to either property. Austin Chamberlain stated that if he was required to tear down the garage and bulldoze the middle section between the houses, it could help the drainage system but the remaining neighbors would be upset with building a large garage in the back with a studio above, and the noise this would create. Haendel stated that Chamberlain planted a number of bushes, thinking they were on his property; however they are on Haendel's property. Haendel stated he doesn't have a problem with the plantings unless they get larger with regard to backing out onto the street. Haendel stated he agrees with Austin Chamberlain that he has improved the appearance of the property very much. Public Hearinq Closed Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 15 Motion: Paul moved to approve item EXC01-00028, an application submitted by Austin Chamberlain for a special exception to reduce the required side yard on the south side of the subject property to zero for the length of the existing garage for property located in a Low Density Single Family (RS-5) Zone at 417 Ferson Avenue, provided that the applicant obtains an easement from the owner of 402 McLean Street to access the south side of the garage for maintenance purposes and provided that the applicant obtains a building permit for the garage and brings the existing garage structure into compliance with the Building Code. The motion was seconded by Maurer. Findinqs of Fact Paul stated that this is a situation which Austin Chamberlain inherited. He said the crux of the issue is beyond the purview of the Board. He said there is a unique situation; there is a practical difficulty in complying with the Code regulations. He stated the requested setback is substantial, but it is a unique situation. He said it would not increase the population, density or affect the use of municipal facilities; and if the garage remains the way it is it might be a detriment to his neighbor, but to the community as a whole it has not been a detriment and he does not see it being one in the future. Paul stated that whether there is feasible alternative for the applicant in lieu of the exception is a matter of degree. He said that Chamberlain could plow the garage down, put down concrete and put a garage at the back of the lot, but that is not feasible in his view. He said the interests of justice would be served by granting the modification request because this is a truly unique situation that was inherited by the owners. Paul said that the language to comply with the Building Code was inserted into the motion, which complies with the general standards. He said he would vote in favor. Maurer stated he would vote in favor for many of the same reasons. He said the shame is that it has reached this stage between the neighbors. Keitel stated he would vote in favor for the reasons stated. He said the drainage issue is a problem, but he feels the backyards are so flat that it will be difficult to find a solution. Brandt stated he would vote in favor for the reasons stated. He said he feels that if the applicant were to bulldoze the garage and fill the area with concrete and put in a larger garage in the back yard this would create a major drainage issue for the neighborhood. He expressed a hope that the neighbors could work something out to make it work for both parties. He said he feels that as long as the shrubbery is maintained and not allowed to become an issue with visibility restrictions, that would be a very good attribute to both properties involved. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. EXC01-00029. Discussion of an application submitted by Chuck Polfliet for a special exception to reduce the required rear yard for property in the Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) Zone at 928 E. Davenport. McCafferty stated that this applicant was issued a building permit for construction of a garage located at the rear of the property, and constructed that garage. Subsequently, a building official conducted the final inspection and approved the construction. Later that same day, another building official noted that the applicant's garage was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and that housing inspection services failed to inform the applicant that the garage did not comply with the requirement that accessory buildings may not occupy more than 30% of the required rear yard. She said the garage is currently located 10 feet from the rear property line. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page 16 McCaffedy said that the reason the applicant chose to place the garage in this area was so he could maximize the amount of usable rear yard space. She said if he had located the garage 20 feet back, which would have been in compliance with the Code, he would have lost some usable yard space. She said the applicant stated that he would have complied with the maximum 30% rear yard coverage standard if he had been aware of it. McCaffedy stated that staff feels the applicant has demonstrated that this situation is unique and that there is practical difficulty complying with this dimensional requirement. She said this lot is 40 feet wide, and a standard RS-8 yard is 45 feet wide. She said it would be difficult to maximize the usable rear yard between the house and garage if he were to comply with the 20 foot rear yard. McCafferty said that complying with the Code would have substantially reduced the usable rear yard which is counter to the intent of the Code. She said the Code says that an accessory structure shall not crowd the lot, or increase intensity such that it reduce light, air and privacy. McCafferty said that this exception is substantial; however, the reduction will maximize the usable rear yard space between the house and the garage. She said that, therefore, this placement of the garage is in compliance with the intent of the Code. She said the garage is located in alignment with existing garages in the alley. McCafferty stated that staff feels the current location better meets the regulations to not crowd neighboring residences. McCafferty said that this exception will not affect the population density or affect the use of municipal facilities. She said a substantial change or detriment to the neighborhood would not be produced by this exception. She said the applicant could have located the garage 20 feet from the rear property line; however, this deficiency was not identified at the time the permit was issued. She said that the interests of justice would be served by permitting the requested exception. She said there was an oversight by the Building Department; therefore, the applicant did not build his garage to meet that requirement. There would be practical difficulty in moving the garage to comply with the requirement; and indeed the garage more equally meets the intent of the 30% coverage regulation. McCaffedy said that staff recommends the Board approve EXC01-00029. Brandt confirmed that the original inspector signed off on the property, saying that the location of the garage was fine, and a second inspector said it did not comply with the 30% rear yard maximum buildable area. McCafferty stated it was built according to the site plan by which the building permit was issued. Public Hearing Opened Chuck Polfliet stated that it was not the same day that it was noticed the garage didn't comply with the Code; actually the final inspection was made on November 27th and a permit issued, and construction began. He said that on December 6th a City official stopped construction, did some measurements and realized the garage did not comply with the Code. The applicant said he intended to abide by the Codes when he brought in his plans to HIS, but was not aware of this 30% standard. Polfliet said that the garage is actually about 15 feet from the gravel part of the alley. He said it is set back 3-1/2 feet from each side property line. He stated that, based on the circumstances, he would like this application approved. Carol Peters, 1437 Buresh Ave., encouraged the Board to approve this application. She said he did try very hard to meet all the requirements the City requested, and had been to the City offices a number of times to make sure he was in compliance. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 9, 2002 Page Public Hearing Closed Motion: Keitel moved to approve item EXC01-00029, an application submitted by Chuck Polfiiet for a special exception to reduce the required rear yard from 20 feet to 10 feet for property located in a Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) Zone at 928 E, Davenport St. The motion was seconded by Maurer. Findinqs of Fact Maurer stated he would vote in favor because this looks like a flaw in the system, and certainly the applicant has done everything necessary to comply. Keitel stated he would vote in favor. Paul stated he would vote in favor. He said the applicant has met the specific standards of unique situation, and practical difficulty; the setback is substantial but not through his own fault. He said it won't increase population density or affect municipal facilities or be a substantial change to the neighborhood. He said there really is not a feasible alternative at this point, and he has met the standards. Brandt stated he would vote in favor for the reasons given. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION Howard introduced Eric Gidal, a new Board member who was appointed yesterday by Council and was informed today. She said Mr. Gidal sat in the audience for this meeting. Paul complimented McCafferty on her presentation at her first meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 13, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Keitel moved to adjourn, seconded by Paul. The meeting adjourned at 8:09 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes Submitted By Neana Saylor ppdadnVr~n/boaO 1-09-02 doc