Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-2005 Board of Adjustment AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, July 13,2005 - 5:00 p.m. EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL 410 E. Washington Street A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the June 8, 2005 Minutes D. Special Exceptions: 1. EXC05-00010 Discussion of an application submitted by Paul Kalb for a special exception to allow reduction of the required 20-foot rear yard to 5.4 feet to allow an addition to an existing single-family house located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 1012 Hudson Avenue. 2. EXC05-00013 Discussion of an application submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a special exception for a reduction of the front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow front yard parking within 50 feet of a residential zone for property located in Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 850 Orchard Street. E. Other: F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - August 10, 2005 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 8, 2005 To: Board of Adjustment From: Robert Miklo Re: EXC05-00010 1012 Hudson Ave At the June 8 meeting the Board deferred this item and requested copies of the building plans for the proposed addition. Copies of the plans are included in the agenda packet. STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Jeffrey Banks, Planning Intern Item: EX05-00013. 850 Orchard Street Date: July 6, 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Gerry Ambrose 250 1 ih Avenue, Suite 150 Coralville, IA 52241 Contact Person: Gerry Ambrose Phone: (319) 354-8118 Requested Action: Approval of a special exception pursuant to codes 14-6N-B3b and 14-6Q-B, allowing parking within 50 feet of R zone. Purpose: To reduce the front yard to allow commercial parking. location: 850 Orchard Street Size: 4,218 square feet Existing land Use and Zoning: Commercial(CC-2) Surrounding land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Commercial, CC-2 Commercial; CC-2 Commercial; CC-2 Residential; RS-8 Comprehensive Plan: Southwest District Applicable Code requirements: 14-6N-B3b, parking within 50 feet of a residential (RS-8) zone; 14-6Q-4B, modification of yard requirements; 14-6W-2B, general standards for special exceptions. File Date: June 23, 2005 BACKGROUND: Section 14-6N-1 B-3-b of the zoning ordinance prohibits parking within a front yard if it is within 50 feet of a residential zone. Orchard Street, which abuts the western edge of the property, has a 66 feet wide right-of-way and the zoning boundary between the RS-8 zone and the CC-2 zone runs down the center of the right-of-way, therefore any parking within 17 feet of this right-of-way would be within 50 feet of the residential zone boundary. Consequently the Applicant, Gerry Ambrose, is applying for a special exception for his property at 850 Orchard Street to reduce the required 20-foot front yard setback for commercial property to 5 feet, in order to allow a parking lot within 50 feet of a Residential area. There is, apparently, no other place to provide the necessary off-street parking for Planned Parenthood, which occupies 850 Orchard Street or Touch of Mink which occupies 920 Orchard Street. Currently, a non-conforming gravel lot exists on the southern portion of the property and the remainder consists of a un-paved surface, which is frequently used for parking. A very similar Special Exception to the one now being requested was granted in April, 2000, allowing a reduction in the front yard setback requirement on the lot in question with the purpose of allowing a parking lot. This Special Exception (EXCOO-00008) has since expired without the Applicant ever having built the parking lot. The Applicant is now requesting a new Special Exception. 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 requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations found in Section 14-6L-10, pertaining to religious institutions in the RS-5 zone and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-6W-2B. Specific Standards: Section 14·6Q-4B Modifications of Yard Requirements A special exception to modify yard requirements may be granted when the owner demonstrates the situation is peculiar to the property in question, there is practical difficulty in complying with the dimensional requirements of the zoning code, and the general standards for special exceptions can be met (14-6Q-4B). The Applicant is requesting a 15-foot reduction in the required 20 foot front yard setback for businesses in the CC-2 zone, effectively reducing the setback to 5 feet from the property line. Applicant states that this 15 foot reduction, from 20 to 5 feet, is necessary for the construction of a parking lot. Because the residential zone boundary runs down the center of Orchard Street, which has a 66-foot right-of-way, the requested Special Exception would allow parking within 50 feet of a residential zone. The peculiarity of this situation is that the proposed parking would be across the street from a residential zone, however the actual use of the property across the street is a non-conforming commercial building - a dental studio. The disallowance of commercial and industrial parking within 50 feet of a residential zone (14-6N-B3b) is related to concerns with traffic noise, parking lot lights, and car headlights adjacent to a residential area. The Applicant has indicated on plans submitted to the City that he proposed parking will serve Planned Parenthood at 850 Orchard Street Planned Parenthood, A Touch of Mink, at 920 Orchard Street as well as businesses at 930 and 950 Orchard Street. The Applicant states that additional parking is needed to alleviate pressure on existing parking lots, on neighboring parking lots, and on adjacent public streets, and that the new lot will help address overflow problems associated with Planned Parenthood and other businesses along Orchard Street. The proposed lot appears the only place to provide parking without disrupting another commercial use. In most situations the City attempts to avoid commercial and single-family residential zones being across the street from each other, but in this particular instance it is an existing condition. The design drawings submitted by the Applicant indicate two separate curb cuts on Orchard Street which, in staff's opinion, would lead to an overabundance of pavement along the street and would be contrary to the intent of buffering the lot from residential areas. Staff has recommended to Applicant a revised plan with only one curb cut along Orchard Street. Additionally, the requested 15-foot reduction in setback requirements may be reduced to the minimum reduction necessary, given a 22-foot wide aisle, 18-foot long parking spaces and the distance between the lot and the Planned Parenthood building (approximately 8 feet). This will allow more room for landscaping in the front yard. A row of arbor vitae and three shade trees, as proposed by the Applicant, will, in staff's opinion, help mitigate the negative effects of vehicles in a parking lot in vicinity of a residential neighborhood. Tree regulations require that the Applicant plant shade trees at a frequency of one for every 40 feet of parking. Staff requests that Applicant specify which species of trees they intend to plant. General Standards: 14-6W-2B, Special Exception Review Requirements. The applicant's statements regarding each of the general standards are attached. Staff comments are offered as needed and correspond to the standards as enumerated in the Zoning Ordinance. a. The specific proposed special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or welfare. The proposed exception provides additional off- street parking which will reduce the potential for parking to spill over on nearby areas. The parking at 850 Orchard Street should not bring a substantial change to the neighborhood, however, allowing two curb cuts along Orchard Street for ingress and egress creates a situation which increases points of conflict along the street, so staff advises limited to one (1) the number of curb cuts on Orchard Street. An additional curb cut could exit onto the alley. Additionally, in staffs' view, the need for parking is clear because of the regular number of cars parked on this nonconforming space. The proposed use, while not conforming to the dimensional requirements for a 20-foot front yard setback in the CC-2 zone, does provide sufficient landscaping with a row of arbor vitae and a few taller shade trees to provide a buffer between the residential neighborhood and the parking area. Spillover parking by clients of local businesses will, in staff's opinion, be mitigated by a paved parking lot. b. 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 intent of the Zoning Ordinance in requiring a 20-foot setback for businesses in the CC-2 zone is to provide landscaping and open space as well as buffer commercial uses from residential uses. In plans submitted to the City, an arbor vitae hedge, along with three shade trees, are shown which will compensate for the intent of the zoning ordinance by providing a buffer between parking and the street and residential areas. The proposed parking at 850 Orchard Street will result in parking across the street from a residential zone where currently there is one residential dwelling as well as a non- conforming commercial use and a vacant lot. Arguably, the value of the vacant lot could be affected by the parking lot if it is not well screened. However, by reducing the potential for spillover parking, the proposed parking lot offers a potential benefit to the neighborhood and, in staff's view, will not diminish property values. This is currently an unpaved nonconforming, vacant lot, so paving and landscaping should improve the situation. c. 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. As noted above, with the exception of the vacant lot, which may be effected by a parking lot directly across the street, staff doesn't see the proposed use having a significant effect on the development of the surrounding properties. The existence of two curb cuts in design drawings would, in staff's opinion, create too much pavement along Orchard Street and would work contrarily to the purpose of screening the lot from neighboring uses. d. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The proposed parking lot shows a 28-foot curb cut as well as the existing 30-foot curb cut, both of which provide for ingress and egress from and onto Orchard Street. Though traffic is not expected to be significantly affected by the proposed use, the existence of two curb cuts on Orchard Street in the design drawings will, in staff's opinion, create points of conflict along Orchard Street. Staff therefore recommends a revised design for the parking lot with one curb cut on Orchard Street and, if Applicant wishes, a second curb cut opening onto the alley. The revised design, as proposed by staff, would offer 12 parking spaces, which is only 2 less than the current design and would, in staff's opinion, substantially improve the landscaping buffer along Orchard Street and minimize points of traffic conflict. The requested exception will allow for more commercial parking within this CC-2 zone which will, in staff's opinion, reduce the potential for spillover parking. The proposed use will, in this way, reduce the possibility of congestion along neighboring streets. e. 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. Typically parking across the street from a residential area is discouraged by City Code. Because the zoning boundary runs down the center of the right-of-way, the requested reduction in the front yard setback would place it within 50 feet of the residential zone. Staff does not see alternate locations for commercial parking, which is needed in the area. The lack of a sidewalk in submitted plans does not appear to conform with City Code and so Staff recommends that Applicant provide a sidewalk continuous with the sidewalk running north of the property which extends to the south at least as far as 950 Orchard Street. Other than the proposed special exception and above-mentioned items, this property conforms to the zoning of the area which is CC-2. f. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Southwest District Plan acknowledges that many of the commercial uses in the area serve the wider community who travel by car to the area. The only way to allow parking on this lot, would be to reduce the required front yard setback, therefore Applicant has applied for this Special Exception. The Southwest District Plan indicates this area has potential as a mixed- use area. The proposed reduction in the front yard will benefit the existing commercial uses in the area and therefore appears to conform with the Comprehensive Plan The Southwest District portion of the Comprehensive Plan outlines the community's priorities for the area in question. Pedestrian access is one priority not addressed in this proposed parking lot and so staff recommends that the Applicant make provisions for a continuation of the sidewalk which runs North/South along the west side of Orchard Street and currently terminates at the property in question. Given that proposed lot is designed to provide overflow parking for businesses at 850, 920, 930 and 950 Orchard Street, as indicated on submitted design drawings, the sidewalk should, in staff's opinion, extend south at least as far as 950 Orchard Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC05-00013, an application for a Special Exception to allow the minimum reduction necessary (up to 15 foot) in the 20-foot front yard requirement in order to build a commercial parking lot be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit revised drawings of the parking lot indicating only one çurb cut on Orchard Street. Another curb cut would be permitted on the alley. 2. Minimize the reduction in front yard setback to the minimum necessary to accommodate a 22-foot aisle, 18-foot long parking and the distance between the lot and the Planned Parenthood building. 3. Extend the sidewalk running north/south along the western edge of the property from 850 Orchard Street at least as far as 950 Orchard Street. 4. Specify the species of shade trees to be planted on property. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Proposed Site Plan Approved by: ~þ. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development S:\PCDlStaff Reports I~ ~~! (t) ,... I ~ 0 - 0 ~ 0 -h-J ~ ~'<v.~ I LO ~ -r:::: tJ 0 '-.~ () ..-- GS >< cnQ I~\ w ~ 'MH~IH ·s·n , 3^I~O 30IS~]^I~ Hlnl t--- ' lr--- I- if) _2 · r 0 ~ I- 2 ~ w r-- CD ~ tj IS O~VHJ~O-- ~ ~ :¿s~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ¡-is ( " ~ n. ~ 0 l- I- CD if) u Q) to- if) (j) ..... tj (f) (j) en M. .« .« "C --.J ---! to- o Ü co ...: ::) ~ .r::. C 0 0 0 J!-. to- ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ NIl818 0 . .....- LO ~ ex> "-- ) Z I-.... ( I T\~ 0 . ..,. IIooI ,-Ú~ l3\fHJIV'.J ~ - ....- f-- U :E 0 ITml'i ~ a: f.¡J t= I . \^V ïYff 00 o ~I :. ..2! t.. ,.11 us I a . Zl~ .-.tI _ . (9 f . I.<OMl. ðIH) e^IJQ epllJe^l~ I. ~nos 'I)! ~¡_ ----...- ,. ; :UlI 111 - .... .I. ~: Q q! . ~i ~.I J"J f ~ ~~ J! I g '" ~ l=±j ~~ III =1 I :3 ...... .. 11 .. ~ ~ ... ~.ItJ~s p.tDI. :)JO r·"···~_··'"·· .....~ r ---... ·-v.-··u·.·'.·.·,·...·.·.__...,,__.. . MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 8, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL-IOWA CITY, CITY HALL DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Ned Wood, Karen Leigh, Vincent Maurer, . , MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Gayle King Zeithamel, Joseph Altenhoff, Harry Wolf, Garry Sanders CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maurer called the meeting to order at 5:03pm. CONSIDERATION OF THE MAY 11. 2005 BOARD MINUTES Wright said that under the third paragraph under the first special exception instead of "where it is crossed by the railroad", it should be "where it crosses the railroad". MOTION: Wright moved to approve the minutes from May 11, 2005. Wood seconded the motion. Motion passed 5:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC05-00009 Discussion of an application submitted by Doc's Standard Inc. for a special exception to permit a used car lot on property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 801 South Riverside Drive. Miklo said that the application has been withdrawn by the applicant. EXC05-00010 Discussion of an application submitted by Paul Kalb for a special exception to allow reduction of the required 20 foot rear yard to 5.4 feet to allow an addition to an existing single-family house located in the Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 1012 Hudson Avenue. Before presenting the staff report Miklo showed pictures with the location of the property, illustrations with the existing house and the proposed changes. Miklo said that the applicant would like to make some structural improvements to his rental property. He would like to put a 57-square-foot addition on the rear of the house and in doing so square off the rear façade and fix some structural problems with the roof. He mentioned that the required rear yard in the RS-8zone is 20-feet. However, the existing house is located 5'4" from the rear property line, making it a nonconforming structure. He said that according to the Iowa City Zoning Code, a nonconforming structure may be enlarged, provided the enlargement does not increase the nonconformity. Miklo said that the applicant would like to square off the northeast corner of the home by adding a small addition. Since the addition would be located in the required rear yard, it would be an enlargement of a nonconformity and would not be allowed unless a special exception is granted to reduce the rear yard to 5 feet. Miklo stated that the special exception could be granted when the applicant demonstrates that there is a peculiar situation and a practical difficulty in complying with the requirements of the chapter. Miklo added that the staff considers that there is a practical difficulty and a peculiar situation in the current application. Miklo said that the peculiar situation is that the existing home is set back approximately 78 feet from the front property line, considerably further from the street than the other homes along the frontage. Regarding the practical difficulty of the property, Miklo said that the existing house is in need of repairs. He added that over the years a number of changes have been made to the home resulting in varying Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 8, 2005 Page 2 rooflines and a cobbled together appearance. He said that the current owner would like to square off the rear façade and make a more uniform roofline and in the process fix some structural problems. Miklo said that besides the specific standards there are seven general standards that need to be considered. He said that the specific proposed exception would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or welfare. Miklo said that in staff's opinion the proposed reduction will not be detrimental or endanger the public, but should be an improvement. He mentioned 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. He said that the addition is small and would result in a structural and aesthetic improvement to the existing home. The property abuts the rear yard of triangular lot that faces Douglas Court. He mentioned that sufficient yard space exists between the properties to afford each owner some privacy. In addition, he said that a six-foot tall privacy fence separates the two properties and limits views between the abutting yards. 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. He said that the proposed addition would improve the aesthetics of the home as viewed from neighboring properties. 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 exception will not result in a change to vehicular access. Next, Miklo said that the proposed would be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan of the City. He said that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this neighborhood as an area where efforts should be made to improve the housing stock. Staff recommends that EXC05-00010an application submitted by Paul Kalb for a special exception to allow reduction of the required 20 foot rear yard to 5.4 feet to allow an addition to an existing single-family house located in the Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 1012 Hudson Avenue be approved. Public Hearinq Opened Gavle Kinq Zeithamel. 429 Douglass Court, said that she is the property owner that would be most affected by the proposed changes. She said that the property at 1012 Hudson Avenue has been in disrepair for 27 years since she moved onto her property. She mentioned that they do not rent and she does not plan on moving. She added that the property at 1012 Hudson Avenue had always looked the same. She brought pictures to support her argument. She added that the structure of the house had not been kept up; the general maintenance has not been kept up either. She said that she installed a wood fence in order to obstruct vision. She said that any addition would only magnify the existing situation. Zeithamel said that she would be concerned about the roof, the general structure and repair before this time, and not having an addition put on to add to the length of the building. She said that the building intrudes on her property, to the aesthetics of her property and the usage of the backyard. She said the house currently is imposing on her property because it sits so close to the property line. She said she would not want to see it enlarged any more. She said that she has had to invest in the privacy fence and planting of trees to try to gain some privacy for her property. She mentioned that she would like to see the structure repaired and brought into compliance with zoning rather than given any special privileges. She asked if there is a drawing showing what the new additions would look like. Public Hearinq Closed Leigh asked if the property has passed the rental inspection. Miklo answered that he is not sure but assumes that the property had passed previous inspections. He said that his understanding was that the applicant wanted to make improvements to the house because he had trouble renting it in its current state. Leigh asked if a drawing of the addition was submitted with the application. Miklo said that it had not been. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 8, 2005 Page 3 Maurer asked if the design of the addition was within the purview of the Board. Miklo said that with a special exception the Board could place restrictions on the design of a building since it was granting waivers from specific zoning requirements. Miklo said that if the Board felt it needed further information from the applicant, it could defer this request to the next meeting to allow the applicant to respond. MOTION: Wright moved that EXC05-00010 00010an application submitted by Paul Kalb for a special exception to allow reduction of the required 20 foot rear yard to 5.4 feet to allow an addition to an existing single-family house located in the Mediùm Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 1012 Hudson Avenue be deferred to the July 13 meeting. Alexander seconded the motion. Wright stated he would vote to defer because he the Board needed to see the plans for the building to determine if it would be an improvement over the current situation. Motion passed 5:0. EXC05-00011 Discussion of an application submitted by Jehovah's Witnesses Iowa City for a special exception for a religious institution on property located in the Community Office (CO-1) zone at 2923 Northgate Drive. Miklo sad that there are no specific criteria listed in the zoning code for religious institutions located in the CO-1 zone, but the applicant must demonstrate that the general standards are met. Miklo said that the specific proposed exception should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He added that there is adequate space on the proposed property for the proposed use and the associated parking, and staff finds that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Miklo stated 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 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. He mentioned that the properties along Northgate Drive are all at least 1 acre in size, including the subject property proposed for a religious institution. As such, there is sufficient site area to separate the activities on the proposed property from other properties in the vicinity. There should be little impact, if any, on surrounding properties. Miklo said that the peak hours would be on weekends and in the evenings, so traffic to the site should be minimal during regular business hours. He added that here might be some occasional overlap between the peak hours of use for the proposed church and the Preucil School of Music located across the street from the subject property. However he said, the traffic volume along Northgate Drive is not high for its design and that it has sufficient capacity to handle traffic from the proposed use and other uses in the area. Miklo said that adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. He said that a lO-foot wide pedestrian parkway easement is required along Northgate Drive as a part of the development, and plans foe the parkway are included with the application. 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. Miklo said that the proposed special exception is for the use of the site only. The applicant will still be required to meet all other City Code requirements. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 8, 2005 Page 4 Miklo said that the proposed use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Miklo said that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for office development and that a religious institution would be compatible with office uses. He said that the proposed use and anticipated traffic for the proposed religious institution will be compatible with other uses permitted in this area as long as the site is designed in a manner that complies with the City's zoning and site pl~m review standards. Miklo said that staff recommends that EXC05-00011 an application submitted by Jehovah's Witnesses Iowa City for a special exception for a religious institution on property located in the Community Office (CO-1) zone at 2923 Northgate Drive be approved. Public Hearinq Opened NONE Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Leigh moved that EXC05-00011 an application submitted by Jehovah's Witnesses Iowa City for a special exception for a religious institution on property located in the Community Office (CO-1) zone at 2923 Northgate Drive be approved. Alexander seconded the motion. Alexander would vote in favor of the motion. She said she does not believe that it would be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. She said that appears to be adequate space on the property for the proposed use. She mentioned that it 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 because of the sufficient area that separates the properties. Alexander said that for the same reasons it should not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. She added that it would not have a negative effect on traffic, and the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Maurer would vote in favor of the application. He said that all the standards have been met. Wright would also vote in favor. He said that the seven general standards are met. Leigh would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Wood would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Motion passed 5:0. EXC05-00012 Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., for a special exception for a gas station and a drive thru pharmacy on property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone on Ruppert Road. Miklo said that recently the City Council agreed to sell a portion of the Aviation Commerce Park to a Wal- Mart Stores Inc., who would construct a Wal-Mart Supercenter on the west 21.86 acres. The property is currently going through a rezoning process to change from Intensive Commercial, CI-1 zone to Community Commercial CC-2. Should the property be rezoned to CC-2, general retail uses would be permitted on the property. Miklo said that Wal-Mart Stores is proposing a drive-through pharmacy and gas station on the property, which are common at other Wal-Mart Supercenter locations. Auto-and-truck oriented uses, including drive-through facilities and gas stations, are required to receive special exception approval to be permitted in the CC-2 zone. Miklo noted that there are three issues raised by drive-through pharmacies: how well the drive-through area is separated from surrounding pedestrian and vehicular use areas, whether there is enough vehicle queue storage area, and compatibility of the drive-through area with adjacent land uses. He said that the proposed drive-through pharmacy consists of two lanes located at the northwest corner of he proposed store. Traffic accessing the drive-through pharmacy is separated from the main parking Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 8, 2005 Page 5 lot, and entering traffic will not be inhibited by any stop or yield signs, and will not cross pedestrian use areas. Traffic exiting the drive-through pharmacy will cross a pedestrian access to the store, however it appears visibility would be adequate, and traffic exiting the drive-through pharmacy will be traveling at a low rate of speed and staff did not anticipate that there would be pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. Miklo noted that the Wal-Mart drive-through pharmacy would have more than enough queuing area for waiting vehicles, and due to its location the line of vehicles will not impact any public street. He also mentioned that the drive-through pharmacy should be compatible with surrounding properties, which include other commercial uses and the Iowa City Municipal Airport. Miklo mentioned that the specific proposed exception should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said that auto-and-truck oriented uses are not uncommon in this commercial corridor. The drive-through pharmacy is separated from other pedestrian and vehicular use areas. The access points for the gas station would be appropriately separated from the nearest intersection. He mentioned that the gas station would not be in the runway protection zone of the airport, and that there are no neighboring residential uses that would be affected by the gas station traffic. Miklo stated 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. He mentioned that adjacent developed properties are commercial, and many are high- traffic-generating businesses. He added that appropriate commercial development has the potential to increase values of the general area. 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. He said that the auto-and-truck oriented uses should be compatible with and generally accessory to the larger retail Supercenter proposed for the property. He added that the appropriate infrastructure will be designed as part of the subdivision and pU,blic improvements on the property. Miklo said that adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Staff recommends the special exception for the auto-and-truck oriented uses on the property, as proposed, be approved subject to a subdivision of the property being approved that reflects the appropriate infrastructure. He added that adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. He mentioned that the drive-through pharmacy would be located so that queuing traffic will not impact public streets. The gas station is proposed at the intersection of two public streets. The driveways would be separated from the intersection by approximately 120 and 180 feet respectively, which is appropriate spacing for a collector street such as this. Traffic turning onto and out of the gas station will not affect Highway 1, the main arterial street serving the area. 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. Provided a subdivision of the property is approved that includes appropriate transportation and utility infrastructure, as approved by the City, the auto-and-truck oriented uses as proposed should conform to City standards. Next, Miklo said that the proposed use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. He added that the Comprehensive Plan reflects Retail/ Community Commercial development for this property, and the proposed uses would be consistent with a large traffic-generating business proposed for the area. Staff recommends that EXC05·00012 an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., for a special exception for a gas station and a drive thru pharmacy on property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone on Ruppert Road be approved subject to a subdivision of the property reflecting infrastructure providing appropriate access to the uses as proposed. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 8, 2005 Page 6 Public Hearinq Opened Joseph Altenhoff, 1475 South Perryville Road, Rockford IL, said that they are filling the application to try to keep the project moving forward if the other elements of the project would move forward as well. He said that due to limited construction season they would like to start the construction as early as possible. Regarding to the access to the gas station, he said that they would like to have most of the exiting traffic coming from east driveway. He mentioned that for the drive-through pharmacy they proposed enough space for 8 cars to wait in line. Harrv Wolf, Iowa City, said that he represents the City, the seller of the property, and would answer any questions from the Board. Garry Sanders asked what was the deadline for submitting the application. Miklo answered that typically the application should be submitted four weeks prior the meeting. Sanders said that it disturbs him that Wal-Mart could not wait for the first public input on the zoning for the project, or the very first comment, or vote by the elected officials, because the construction season is short, and City Council will run up on this. He strongly objects for the matter to be decided at this point, and he proposes it to be deferred, due to the fact that nothing was decided by the Council. He said that he does not understand how could a decision be made based on a possible rezoning that had not been concluded yet. He asked if this is the best we could do with the public land. He said that there is a lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart every 6 minutes. He added that the Board should decide what would be the right thing in this case. He said that at the minimum the Board should defer until the rezoning for the entire parcel has been done. Public Hearinq Closed MOTION: Alexander moved that EXC05-00012 an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., for a special exception for a gas station and a drive through pharmacy on property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone on Ruppert Road be approved subject to a subdivision of the property reflecting infrastructure providing appropriate access to the uses as proposed. Wood seconded the motion. Wright would vote in favor of the application. However, he said that it was difficult to separate the fact that the Board is looking just at a pharmacy and a gas station, and not at the store as a whole. Holecek said that the Board is deciding on the auto-and-truck oriented portion of the business. He said that assuming that the zoning would go through; he said that the specific proposed exception should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. 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. He mentioned that adjacent developed properties are commercial, and many are high-traffic-generating businesses 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. Maurer would vote in favor. He said that all 7 standards have been met. Alexander would also vote in favor. She said that the use of public land is not in the Board's jurisdiction. She added that she based her vote on the reasons already stated. Wood would vote in favor of the motion. He said that it meets the general standards. Leigh would vote in favor of the motion for the reasons already stated. She added that the Board's review is limited to the special exception question and not the rezoning. Motion passed 5:0. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes June 8, 2005 Page 7 OTHER: MOTION: Alexander made a motion to adjourn to executive session to discuss strategy with counsel in matters that are presently in litigation or where litigation is imminent where its disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation pursuant to Iowa Code 21.5(1)(c) . Wright seconded the motion. Motion passed 5:0. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 PM. Chairperson Maurer reopened the meeting at 6:58PM. MOTION: Alexander made a motion to direct the City Attorney's Office to appeal the decision of the Iowa District Court in and for Johnson County in case nos. CVCV064983 and CVCV065060. Leigh seconded the motion. Motion passed 4:1 with Maurer against the motion. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION NONE ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM. Minutes submitted by Bogdana Rus. s:/pcdlminutes/BON2005106-08-05.doc