Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-2005 Board of Adjustment AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, May 11,2005 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call c. Consider the March 9, 2005 Minutes D. Special Exception: 1. EXC05-00008 Discussion of an application submitted by Brad Anderson for a special exception to expand an existing cementitious concrete batch/mix plant to allow for the addition of a warehouse on property located in the General Industrial (1-1) zone at 3310 South Riverside Drive. 2. EXC04-00020 Consider an extension of the expiration date for a special exception for expansion of The First Presbyterian Church to permit installation of a columbarium for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2701 Rochester Avenue. E. Other: F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - June 8, 2005 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 9, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL-IOWA CITY, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Ned Wood, Karen Leigh, Vincent Maurer MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Steven Rohrback, Mike Brown, Terry Ira, Dwight Dobberstein, Sandra Wagner CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maurer called the meeting to order at 5:05pm. CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 9.2005 BOARD MINUTES MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the minutes from February 9, 2005. Leigh seconded the motion. Motion passed 5:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC05-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a special exception for a drive-through restaurant on property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 901 Hollywood Boulevard. Before beginning the staff report Miklo showed a map with the location of the property, the proposed site plan and photos with the general location. Miklo said that the applicant is proposing to construct a Taco Bell restaurant to the east of the new driveway. He added that a drive-through window is proposed for the new restaurant. Miklo mentioned that the CC-2 zone permits auto and truck oriented uses by special exception. He stated that there are two concerns raised by the proposed uses of drive-through. He said that one concern would be how well the drive-through lane is separated from surrounding pedestrian and vehicular use areas. He added that the plan shows sidewalks on the north, east and south sides of the building. Miklo said a connection to the shopping centers main sidewalk crosses the drive-through lane in a location south of the pick-up window. He stated that although it would not be ideal to direct pedestrians across a driveway, there would be no good alternative in this location. A second concern, Miklo said, would be whether there are enough stacking spaces for motorists waiting to pick-up orders from the drive-through window. He stated that the site plan shows sufficient area within the drive-through to accommodate 10 vehicles. Miklo added that if there would be a need of additional spaces there would be a driveway to the east of the drive-through entrance where vehicles could wait, which would result in temporary delays for motorists wishing to access the parking areas. Miklo said staff found th is to be acceptable. Talking about the general standards Miklo said that the specific proposed exception would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or welfare. He added that the proposed exception should 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. Miklo said that Pepperwood Plaza is easily accessible by car, and the traffic generated by the proposed use would be a minor fraction of the total. Miklo continued by saying that th~ establishment of the specific proposed exception should not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. He said that restaurants are permitted uses in the CC-2 zone, and the addition of the drive-through should not impede the development of other properties in the area. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 9, 2005 Page 2 Miklo said that adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. He said that the proposed drive-through is likely to have no effect on public streets. Miklo said that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is located. He mentioned that it will be required to conform to all requirements when they seek the building permit. Next, Miklo said that the proposed use is consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan of the City. Staff recommends that EXc05-00003 an application submitted by Southgate Development for a special exception for a drive-through restaurant on property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 901 Hollywood Boulevard be approved subject to general conformance with the submitted site plan. Leigh asked how many access points are there to allow entrance to the Plaza. Miklo said that the site plan does not show but there are at least two different entrances to the Plaza. Public Hearinq Opened Steven Rohrback, 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard, said that the project would add up to the renovation of the Pepperwood area. Rohrback said that he would be happy to answer any questions that the board would have. Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Leigh moved that EXc05-00003 an application submitted by Southgate Development for a special exception for a drive-through restaurant on property located in the Community Commercial (cc-2) zone at 901 Hollywood Boulevard be approved subject to general conformance with the submitted site plan and pedestrian crosswalk sign being installed. Alexander seconded the motion. Alexander said that she would vote in favor of the application. She said that the crosswalk sign for cars would help with the pedestrian's safety. She said that there would be enough stacking spaces for people waiting to pick-up orders. Alexander added that it will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, the proposed exception would 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, but would help the area. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. She mentioned that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Wright said that he would vote in favor of the application. He said that with the pedestrian crossing sign the proposed exception would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties, but would help the area. The establishment of the specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the rest of the area. He added that there would be no ingress or egress problems. He mentioned that adequate utilities, drainage and access are in place, and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Leigh said that she would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Wood would also vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Maurer said that he would vote in favor of the application. He said that all general standards have been met and have been indicated in the motion. Motion passed 5:0. EXc05-00004 Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa City Tire & Service Inc. for a special exception to reduce the front yard from 20 feet to 5.5 feet for property located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone north of 404 Kirkwood Avenue. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 9, 2005 Page 3 Before beginning the staff report Miklo showed a map with the location of the property, the proposed site plan and photos with the property. Miklo said that the property is located at the corner of Maiden Lane and Kirkwood Avenue. He mentioned the property contains three buildings, two of which are used by Iowa City Tire & Service Inc., while the other one contains a retail pet supply store on the first floor with residential apartments on the upper floor. Miklo stated the applicant wishes to add a 5 by 50-foot building to the property to be used for auto repair and warehouse space. He added that the applicant seeks a special exception to the front yard setback requirement to allow the addition to encroach approximately 14.5 feet into the required 20-foot front yard adjacent to Maiden Lane. Accordingly, he said, that would leave only about a 5.5-foot yard between the property line and the new building. Miklo added that the Board can grant a special exception if the owner of the property demonstrates that there is a peculiar situation to the property in question, and there is a practical difficulty in complying with the zoning requirements. Miklo said that in staff's view there is no peculiar situation that warrants special treatment for the property, and granting the special exception might have negative consequences for adjacent properties and the general public. Miklo mentioned the application indicates that the requirement for two front yards for the tract is a peculiar situation that warrants the special exception, but all corner lots are required to have two front yards, so the property is not peculiar in this regard. He said that the requirement for a minimum front yard is intended to provide open space, visibility and consistency with the rest of the neighborhood. He added visibility is important for motorists and pedestrians, and reducing the set back to 5.5 feet would reduce visibility of motorist who need to cross the railroad tracks, and would force them to drive forward of the building before seeing an on coming train. Miklo said that in addition to visibility for traffic, a minimum setback helps assure the visibility of a business is not reduced, and granting the request would give a special privilege to this property that would reduce the visibility of its neighbor. Miklo mentioned that open space is important for the general aesthetics of the neighborhood, and provides space for landscaping. He said that the particular area has very little landscaping, and a further reduction of open space would diminish even more the space for landscape. Miklo said that another test is that there is a practical difficulty. He said that the applicant indicates that given the existing configuration of the buildings and parking lots on this tract, it would be difficult to locate the addition on the property. He added that although it may not be possible to build a structure the size the applicant wishes, it would be possible to adhere to the 20-foot set back on Maiden Lane and add a building with a 45-foot east to west dimension, which would allow the addition of considerable more square footage. In addition, Miklo said that the specific proposed exception should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said that staff finds that the proposed exception will limit the visibility of the railroad for motorists, would reduce the visibility of another business, and the amount of open space available for landscaping. He added that the proposed exception should 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. Miklo mentioned that it will limit the visibility for motorists, and would reduce the visibility of another business, and the amount of open space available for landscaping. Miklo continued by saying that the establishment of the specific proposed exception should not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Miklo stated that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 9, 2005 Page 4 and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Miklo said that adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Miklo repeated that it will limit the visibility for motorists. Next, Miklo said that the proposed use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. He said that this area is proposed for commercial development in the Comprehensive Plan, and staff believes that it would be possible to further develop the property for intended uses yet still adhere to the minimum standards applied to al other commercial properties in the zone. Staff recommends that EXc05-00004 an application submitted by Iowa City Tire & Service Inc. for a special exception to reduce the front yard from 20 feet to 5.5 feet for property located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone north of 404 Kirkwood Avenue be denied. Maurer asked what would the height of the proposed building be. -Miklo answered that it would probably be a one-story building. Alexander asked if all other buildings in the area meet the required 20-foot set back. Miklo said yes. The closest building to the street is 25-feet. . Public Hearinq Opened Mike Brown. 4547 Jenn Lane, North East Iowa City, said that the biggest concern for the board would be the visibility. He said that they have removed trees in the area to improve the visibility which has been affected by those trees for about 20 years. He said that having the building back to the 5.5 feet would help visibility; it would not be as good as it currently is, but from what it was when the trees were in place, it would actually improve it. Brown explained pointing to a picture presented that the edge of the building would be 17 feet from the beginning of the driveway, so it would be set back. He added that the width of that entrance is 25 feet. He mentioned he agrees that on the north side there would be some visibility issues. Brown said that the traffic there is the train. He added that they monitored over a few months how much train traffic here is in the area. Brown stated that the train goes by one or two times a week, very slow, and blowing the horn the entire time. Talking about the open space Brow said that even with the proposed building they would still have 88% open space of that whole parking lot. As far as the landscaping, Brown said that when his dad opened the shop in 1994 he had to do a lot of landscaping to comply with the code at that point, and he added that he is willing to do more if it would be necessary. Wood asked for explanation regarding the measurements of 17 feet from the beginning of the driveway. Miklo added that the setback from the driveway is not the concern in this case. The concern is the setback from the street right-of-way. Maurer asked how would the building tie with the rest of the existing constructions. Brown said that it would tie into the existing storage building. Maurer asked what would the access points be. Brown said that they would have access through the south, and also access from the other building. Terrv Ira. 386 Running Deer Road, said that the pictures are kind of deceiving. Miklo mentioned that the pictures were meant to present the visibility issue, not to show the actual height of the proposed building. Ira said that the area is a 3.5-foot hill so there are visibility issues there already, and cutting down on the setback would not impede anyone's access. Ira said that it is possible to build a smaller building, but that would influence the business that he would do. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 9, 2005 Page 5 Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Alexander moved that EXC05-00004 an application submitted by Iowa City Tire & Service Inc. for a special exception to reduce the front yard from 20 feet to 5.5 feet for property located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone north of 404 Kirkwood Avenue be approved. Wright seconded the motion. Wright would likely vote against the application. He said that the Board can grant a special exception if the owner of the property demonstrates that there is a peculiar situation to the property in question, and there is a practical difficulty. He mentioned that the application indicates that the requirement for two front . yards for the tract is a peculiar situation that warrants the special exception, but all corner lots are required to have two front yards, so the property is not peculiar in this regard. Wright said there would be issues with the visibility. He added that the general standards are a concern because of the visibility issue. It would be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity; it would impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Wright said that it would also reduce the open space. Adequate measures would be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The visibility would again be the issue. He added that a smaller building would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Alexander would likely vote against the application. She said that although wanting to support people who improve their businesses, the board is restricted in what they do by the code, and they are stuck on the question of being a peculiar situation. She said that after that she does not think thatit would qualify for a peculiar situation. Leigh would likely vote against the application. She mentioned that she is disappointed in not being able to help businesses expand, but this case would be a situation that would be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. She added that those businesses might not always be the same, and their visibility might be obstructed by the proposed building. Accordingly, there is no precedent of other businesses so close to the street in this neighborhood. Wood would vote against the application. He mentioned that there is nothing that would make it a peculiar situation. He said that he knows that the train goes slow, and with the horn on, having a building so close to the street represents a potential detriment to the public health. He added that the biggest concern would be that it would be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. He stated that the proposed building would be very inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Maurer would vote against the application. He said that he would like to seethe building built. He said that he does not have a problem with the ingress and egress. He added that the reduced setback would stand out among all other properties there. Motion denied 5:0. EXC05-00005 Discussion of an application submitted by Sycamore Mall for a special exception to allow the reduction of he parking requirements for property located n the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1600 Sycamore Street. Miklo said the Sycamore Mall property contains a variety of retail uses, and based on parking requirements the existing development is required to have 1,369 parking spaces. He added there are 1,411 spaces on the property. Miklo said the applicant would like to construct additional commercial space in the northwest corner of the property and additional theaters near the southwest corner of the property. He mentioned that the current theaters contain a total of 1,200 seats, and the applicant would like to add 800 more seats. Miklo mentioned that based on the parking requirements the proposed development would require 248 additional spaces, 206 more spaces than currently exist on the property. As a result, he said, the property would not have sufficient spaces to satisfy the requirements of the zoning code. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 9, 2005 . Page 6 Miklo said that by special exception the required number of parking space can be reduced by up to 50% where it can be demonstrated that the specific use has characteristics such that' the number of parking spaces required is too great. He added the applicant is requesting. such an exception to reduce the required number of spaces to one space per 200 square feet. Miklo stated that the applicant contends that the manner in which the zoning code calculates the required number of parking spaces for a shopping center results in a requirement that is too high. To demonstrate this contention, Miklo said, the applicant has conducted a count of the parking spaces being used. He added the counts were taken at three times per day- Noon, 3PM, and 7PM. He mentioned that the peak period of parking usage was Saturday afternoon when 644 of the 1,384 of the parking spaces were being used. Miklo said the actual peak parking demand at the mall likely occurs in late November, or in December, and even though parking counts are not available for the busiest time of the year, in staff's view the counts provided by the applicant demonstrate that the number of spaces provided by the mall, far exceed the actual demand for parking spaces. Miklo added the applicant had submitted information from the existing movie theaters indicating that peak attendance occurs at approximately 9:00PM when most other businesses in the mall are closed. He said that in staff's view the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, the proposed exception would 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 establishment of the specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Adequate measures would be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. He mentioned that adequate utilities, drainage and access are in place, and commercial development in this area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Staff recommends that EXC05-00005, an application submitted by Sycamore Mall for a special exception to allow the reduction of he parking requirements for property located n the Community Commercial (CC- 2) zone at 1600 Sycamore Street, be approved. Public Hearina Opened Dwiqht Dobberstein. 111 East College Street, said that they see this as the next step in what it was a remarkable transformation for the mall. He mentioned that he had never seen the parking lot full even during Christmas time. He said that the last thing the mall owner want to do is to short the parking which is critical for people to come. Sandra Waqner, 1606 Spruce Street, said that their backyard is directly adjacent to Sycamore Street. She said the time of the Board meeting is not appropriate for people who are working. If the meeting time was later she said more of her neighbors would be here to voice their concerns. She said that they love the theaters, but their concern with the new additions would be the loss of the buffer zone between the mall and the housing area. She said they had their fence vandalized, the American flag stolen, people climb over the fence, and they had been sworn at by teenagers traveling across their residential yards to get to the mall. Wagner said there is constant litter and noise. She said that there were other outdoor activities at the mall, such as car shows and bands, that disturbed the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Alexander moved that EXC05-00005 Discussion of an application submitted by Sycamore Mall for a special exception to allow the reduction of he parking requirements for property located n the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1600 Sycamore Street be approved. Leigh seconded the motion. Leigh would vote in favor of the application. She said that she appreciates the concerned raised about the adjacent neighborhood, but she did not think the proposed parking reduction related to those concerns. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes March 9, 2005 Page 7 She added the application has tremendous merit in revitalizing that part of town. She said she found the parking count very supportive of the request. She mentioned the application meets both specific and general standards. The proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, the proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. The establishment of the specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Adequate measures would be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. She mentioned that adequate utilities, drainage and access are in place, and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City Alexander would vote in favor of the application. She said the data submitted was very helpful. She added that it fulfils all general and specific standards. Wright would also vote in favor of the application. He said that he appreciates the concerned raised. He added the specific and general standards are met. The parking would be more than adequate. He said that it will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, the proposed exception would 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 establishment of the specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Wood would also vote in favor of the application. He said that he appreciates the concerned raised. He said the data submitted was very helpful. He added that it fulfils all general and specific standards. He said it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Maurer would also vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated. Motion passed 5:0. OTHER: NONE ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:30PM. s:/pcd/minuteslboa/2005/03-09-05.doc STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: May 11, 2005 Item: 3310 Old Highway 218 S, Croell Redi-Mix GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Croell Redi-Mix 3310 Old Highway 218 S., Iowa City, IA 319-248-2599 Contact Person: Brad Anderson Req uested Action: Approval of a special exception to expand a cementituous batch/mix plant on property located within the 1-1, General Industrial zone. Location: 3310 Old Highway 218 S. Riverside Drive Size: 1 0 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: cementituous batch/mix plant, 1-1, General Industrial Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: East: South: West: Vacant, 1-1 Salvage yard, pond, M-1 (County) Vacant, 1-1 Agricultural and County Fairgrounds, A2(County) Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Map - Industrial. Other applicable provisions: Entryway considerations, protection of natural environment Applicable Code Requirements: 14-4B-4B - General Special Exception Standards File Date: April 14, 2005 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1998 the Board approved a special exception to allow a concrete batch plant to be installed in the General Industrial (1-1) zone located at 3310 S. Riverside Drive. The approval contained conditions regarding the a landscaped screen between the plant and Riverside Drive. The applicant is know requesting a special exception to allow the expansion of the plant. The expansion would include a warehouse near the east side of the plant. ANAL YSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the 2 requested special exception for the expansion of a concrete batch plant if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations of the 1-1 zone and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-6W-2B. The zoning code does not contain specific standards for concrete batch/mix plants in the 1-1 zone. However, since a special exception is required, it is assumed that a the time the zoning code was adopted there was concern about the appearance and traffic impact of this type of use and its effect on adjacent properties. These concerns are addressed by the general special exception standards. General Special Exception Standards: The application contains the applicant's statements regarding the special exception standards. The following are staff's comments on these standards. 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. This property is generally isolated from residential and commercial uses. The existing plant has operated in this location for approximately 8 years. When the plant first began operating the City did receive complaints about dust being raised on the entrance driveway. The applicant has since paved the driveway and the City has not received any recent complaints about dust. At the time the previous special exception was granted the Board and staff were concerned about screening of the plant from Riverside Drive. As required by the previous special exception the applicant has planted evergreens between Riverside Drive and the plant. As the trees mature they should screen the view of the plant from Riverside Drive. In staff's view, the proposed warehouse space should not negatively affect public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The properties to the north, east and south are zoned for industrial development. The property to the west contains the County Fairgrounds. Highway 218 provides a barrier between this site and the Fairgrounds. Although, this use produces dust and heavy truck traffic, in staff's view, the addition of the proposed warehouse should not substantially diminish or impair property values. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The adjacent properties to the north and south are vacant and are zoned for industrial development. As noted above staff believes that the cement plant in this location and the proposed warehouse addition should not impede the development of these properties for industrial development. Highway 218 provides an adequate barrier between this property and the non-industrial uses to the west. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Facilities are currently in place to serve the existing plant. The added warehouse should not require improvements to these facilities. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Access to this site is proved by a driveway over the CRANDIC railroad right-of-way. As noted above the applicant paved most of the access drive after the City received complaints about dust. CRANDIC has not granted permission to pave the railroad crossing. In staff's opinion the current access drive is adequate. 3 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. At the time the plant was established it was required to comply with the zoning requirements. The proposed warehouse addition appears to meet the requirements of the 1-1 zone. At the time of building permit approval the Housing and Inspection Service Department will verify that the new building complies with all City codes. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as being appropriate for industrial development. The Plan also encourages careful consideration of the appearance of the city's entranceway from Highway 218. Landscaping and screening are encouraged. As noted above the applicant has planted evergreens between Riverside Drive and the plant. For the most part, the trees appear to be healthy, but a few have died or in poor condition. These should be replaced prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for the warehouse. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC05-00008 an application for a special exception to expand an existing cementitious concrete batch/mix plant to allow for the addition of a warehouse on property located in the General Industrial (1-1) zone at 3310 South Riverside Drive subject to the dead and unhealthy trees in the landscape screen being replaced. A TT ACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Application Approved by: °122).4-1; ;¿¡;¿¡Jc,C Karin anklin, Director Department of Planning and Community Development S\BOA \stfrep\croell .doc - - :::::::::---. , ~ 31 V~ d~OJ A1IJ VMOI ~ tj ~ ~ ~ ~ tj .... - 9~l ÂVM~IH 010 Cí) Cj § <:>-Q a~Q: V)<~ <-..ct: :t:-.J-- ~8~ o (¡) c:: (¡) 00 (¡) 0 I..... Q)~ ~ CX) o o o o I LO o Ü >< w '- Q Q) "'C U) '- Q) .> a: en o ,... M M z o Þ-f ~ ð o ~ ~ t= en " ~ x. c.., 0 ~-_ COO O){ Ç?cJ~; AP~ÊÀr~~~ò;~E~ ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W DATE: 5Øf!#S- PROPERTY PARCEL NO. Idzl/Z6~/)2. APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: ?.S/tl {;",,77/ .ß~..j/~ ,t:.k? APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: APPLICANT: Name:~c.. Æ~¿¡/r Addres~~~ ¡}C,t) ~r '2/"- S- Phone: ~#-;J..~ CONTACTPERSON:Name~ 4vÞtf2kyv Address: ~ ~ ë~~~ ) .'-"?~ .,,) r; Phone: "". --- PROPERTY OWNER:Name: ~C-- F '.., . Address: Phone: ...¡.- "...' ~ - C0 Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: I~~ ~--I Purpose for special exception: Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: MP~ -2- INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Leaal description of property: S~~. 'z8 ¡ T 79 ( (("41 - ~·E. t/VIeT6C ~ AI·E.. £~ 4S L:1?S~/Ji!R"') /A/ k~ hi¡~t ;4t-óE It'l ~ C~rr ¡<t3'C¿ýl.ÞtfK.. B. *Plot plan drawn to scale showing: 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, including the location and record oY(n~r of éach property opposite or abutting the property in question; 3:;: 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. rSubmission of an 82" x 11" bold print plot plan is preferred.] .""'" -"''('.''1 C. Review. The Board shall review all applicable evidence regarding the~cª-¡~~ exfsting,"_,j and proposed structures, neighboring uses, parking areas, drive~ 10caUòns, highway and street access, traffic generation and circulation, drainage, sé\!!Jtary sewer and water systems, the operation of the specific proposed exception and such other evidence as deemed appropriate. (Section 14-6W-2B1, City Code). In the space provided below or on an attached sheet, a.ddress the areas of Board review which apply to the requested special exception. In this narrative statement, set forth the grounds offered as support for the special exception. 71/F ¡./ðltFAlJNf~ /i#L¿ ,H;vC71tlN ð.s ,4t/ dCúC55d/'r U;¿:,fi/l T/1F ~r it" 6¿;EO , !/MtF~$r IY'/U ßç tlSEl) ~ ~'Td/lF /I?~,A!mte. ;,71lfit ~"y r:'~Þf¿rs. 7?1¿=- . /Y'/JeJ:7fÞtSE" MU ~¿/~ S~¿:: ~ 7##7 /5 #¿'IT ~r 4r&¿Æ>LE 7i ~ ~~TS ~ ~.6VTS:' D. The applicant is required to present specific information, not just opinions, that the aeneral standards for the arantina of a special exception (Section 14-6W-2B2, City Code), enumerated below, will be met: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. R >hn/A/ð /T6h! #I/' #' Á/~~~I J,/'E At/tI/L) d'¿/5/¿#/7~ ~ d:1T~þl ~/¿:::.L ðØV ÆÝJ ~ /I?¿Jf/2F /7l7i? S #T ¡;/If/ ~~ /./nfdl ~¿¿::{ '#F #~/V¿ ré/ll~¿¿: ~~f r #~cE .s~,v ,,h"/2 ~t2Y¡{ ,£J~7J (t1tV.» d~ #Þvþ ~ tI~ /#/@ -3- 2. The specific proposed exception will not be Injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property In the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. J'tVu,plW'blA/6 ./ffð~M7Y /.5 /#þur7if!/¡If-{.. ~ ,eFC'~¿/.v6 /. ( S~p(t 4//r7éit!/~. ~/,(£ð 1.5 4:~~/ h""'øfi"') ~~ ~#'T /r ¿::tk¿ lOaer.~. ,Ab~~~ ~~~J& ~¿¿ ¿>,F 7d 'ißfP ~ /F /k""'éRTt ~T ø.k.d'¿~ ~~ 4f"&e.vPr" k,~ 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and Improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. ~ ¿IÍ/~~.fF /> 4 ~&?{þV#¿¿¿C k 7//E û7Y~ ~T ~þ /5 , 7ðE ff¡/~~T ~~¿ /A/ ,.,f ~S~~r ~..r¿=- é'~.p-<7i#;r A//~ .:z:- / Ze:fl#¿=' . 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. ¿J . , /VI) â71¿,/77P5> #IF #&;PEO F' ØHp &ß'cf?9Þ ý' 5)(/5r£, ~ rPv;l.. ",%~.A;.~ 2;-- ~r ~P~A" /~ ¿/é?!Z:> ./T ~¿é:.. /r>E " ~~~ ~ ¿Cé~ ~~tF-. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. ~ÞA/ð 7?7/F þ"~Eál::JaJF ØLL Æ/,T #J/¿;/26?::!F ~L 7õ .J ~ ~ ~ d~~ #~¿It// ~r Mt=¿ ~~"w é¿?s~.r ~ ~ ;:¿zç= ø ~ ~ ~.ø'::> ç ¿IV' ~. -"'"",.. "£",::'" ~J ---- -- --- c) -4- 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone In which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of exception requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use, as provided in City Code Section 14-6L-1, Special Exception Enumerated Requirements; Section 14-6N-1, Off-Street Parking Requirements; Section 14-6Q, Dimensional Requirements, or Section 14-6R, Tree Regulations, as appropriate.] ð¡Íf4W~~ &///# a~ /5 p~¿,v~ .IV 7/f/é: ¡ft/ ,~ S/Te /~ ~/Z:iV/ ~/;Ý# $ ~T/t'" $ ~~~(. ~ ~þ ~ #VVl/þ 7ñF~#ð IA/ ß'/7E /,S 4PF~ ,J. ~ /¿~¿? ~ ~ ú~ç=; ~~~f/~,f-'L S;;'f V~S ~#F /HE/' 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7$ ~~ç£> /I.s.er: /5 C¿U,/»~r þ:/r// ., ~/ ~A/'tf'. E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal: NAME 1t./lU171ý' "é't(( SF' ~L 4<1/1l.lJ.Y Æ I --- ;fc¿Ç ~7ï;) CCyc.¿8(S LÃ/C ~ 3*~A/ (J~7Y A~ltI{t-72Iæ«-- ADDRESS e;øy¿ IZMI:. /./~~ ,Ø) 5'~ 2 7 S'"2- 18 // ~í'1 /:)t::= f;:r2. . t/Z 7 :>- t#It C¿çfT /#¿¿ ¡(>¡), "'~;~':"~':} .><:.."'" (~'''''\ ",,- ,- . "" '''''~ ~'" ~ '-'-'. '-'.,. --.... ,.J ~.>:- -..-... "'-'- '~'::..,. ----. . ,<" ' -~ ........ . . ...,. ¡I ....~~ ". 04/APR. 11. 20055 9:23PM18:J:J7CROELL REDI MIxçroell Redl M1x Inc -+ sumne:NO, 193 P. 1/102 .- .':"'.,-.""_........,.,.¡i -5- I / ~_. NOTE: Condltlon&. In permitting a special excaptlon. th9 Board may Impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, Including but not limited to planting ·-screens, fencing, construction, commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, . Increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, Iimitatlol1S on the duration of a use or ownershIp or any other requirement whioh the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and Intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-6W-2B3, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the d~te the-written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the buildIng permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion In accordance with the terms of the permit.. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-6W-3EJ City CodG). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or a.!lY taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court óf record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such ,decision is Illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of tho Illegality. (Section 14-6W..7, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of thè decision in the office of the City Clerk.. y? .20~ ~~ I :;'4'.'i__.. Slgnature(s) of Appllcant(s) Date: ~ Date: yþL 20" r J _ Slgnature(s} of Pr erty Owner{s) If Different than Applicant(s) ppdadmln\appboase.doc '-{~.. ......, . . ........... c,) ê5 C/') z ~ z z ~ ::::> LU Z I- u LU I- I U c.::: « ~ ~ ~ ~ :9- J .. ;8 Jt ~ U 15~!1 ~~ii 51 !II¡¡ ~ I; ~ I~wll If It I ~ .1 .:) ~ ~I ( b ! i~iW § f·ll. JI 11.. .. f~d~j 8 d! F ~ ~ l i z @ ¡jj <C ; : o v ~ ::: ¡:¡ ~ Q ß3f~'J;r ~..1..,.: ::::Jlt;:; ; ci;;;/ r:: ~j 5 ~L~ ,:!g: r;:::;-¿-- ;[ .' ~_J i) : ::::¡ ç " ~ ..f ( J w ~~ ....J~O iIlo:I: ~OZ~ ¡a:O« lO()S: I jj < z o ::: CD ... '" ... '" '" ~ i! '6 ~ ~ o ., I'. ~ ):..Q ¡ii l.!íó ~ J o OÞë:ë:<;; 1~~1 ;fi~~ ~: [ """"," T 41""1"lIl3 , r fi41OW1J. . '09UMC) 1UØ?Orpv '-õ i ~ _' o~ -l¥1.<o m'\1 «)~ ~f5~~'~~ .~~;·~t ~~~Sffi:g3;t' c8'¿\j~ ~r ~1I)"h:¡¡lI)~õ~~'¡¡õjj §£~.9Õ ~~~~~¡;¡þ ¡¡ ~'ö~<!)l!oõ..~-8~_æll) :2~ ~N~ f8ZfN~~l~ IQl-õg~,"l''¿~w~ ... ~~8~¿;8 òn~ b:n O~N<1í~:5-~(J1~13 ill II) :¡¡ Õ\JI<::;'\1ii'¡;:t.:~Q," ~. 3:''"2;~h~«) j~~~ ð j::t~h~~ß r~~~~n ~ ~~~~~82õ~~~~~~ ,... ~«)c aq)m2'8..i\Q¡¡~ '-L .<: lQõ<I)«)§"w_o"'" G !'Hi~~¡~j ~~!~H (J) cd:gl~~ik ~to;~~ I w .k."'N~~i~ '3'~-a%slf)~ o ~hÕ1.--=~~I),"~~iII~1II ~ nH¡t§nblL~h.9 « ü w -.1 T~-- j ,<;;Eï,~v <;;'£v9 WJ'"8 JO doJ. - ""'1M ,01 () ~~ ¿:~"'Oit) INj ~Hg- ~1!).lí0 ~61 " t~~ .~~¡;j ~ "'.. c ~&:¡¡] ~Bæ -;; ~~lI\G f~~l ~-""~ in~ .~ ~ii1 g~<J "Gt~ ~~~~ "'::s Õ " :c~ z a L¡:: G« \ì» >-w a..J aW -oC! «a- za"" 'W -1 ~ lLiLlI z 5 a.. -w ~~ or- « - - -:.--..- -- ~! ....{ ,~v'þ';¡t< ,< _~ ···········~;;"::t~:~~3Æ C \..... I.. .. I . = e'<t6-tftl j\(\ N _ ~ _ 9~ _~-=- -_ _ -,·~~~>~9~ n o~~~_-:-=- _ _ ~ ~:= t~ _ \ 1\j3ffi1'ïVd~ '-(8 lZ PIO) l6-6----kMH -¿..-. - ----'- -: ils- !I - - - - - ~30- - - _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ -= - - - --I+- -- ~~ City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 6,2005 To: Board of Adjustment From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: EXC04-00020 First Presbyterian Church The First Presbyterian Church has requested an extension of their special exception to allow the expansion of a religious institution. Section 14-6W-3 E requires that steps be taken to established a special exception within six months of the Board decision being filed. For good cause the Board may extend the expiration date. In the attached letter, the applicant requests an extension for 6 months or until appeals are resolved. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 2701 Rochester Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52245 319-351-2660 FAX 319-351-2901 EMAIL fpcchurch@mchsi.com w m Date: April 26, 2005 To: City of Iowa City Attn: Robert Miklo Re: Exception EX04-00020 Regarding the application of First Presbyterian Church for a special exception EX04-0020: this was approved at the Board of Adjustment meeting on October 13,2004. We are asking for an extension to the permit of another 6 months, or until the appeal by Nestor Lobodiak is resolved. Thank you for your consideration. "Lift High the Cross, the Love of Christ Proclaim"