HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-2006 Board of Adjustment
AGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
WEDNESDAY, July 12, 2006 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARV A THALL
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the June 14, 2006 Minutes
D. Special Exceptions:
1. EXC06-00012 Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a
special exception for the placement of fill in the floodplain on property located in the
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone on Rupert Road.
2. EXC06-00013 Discussion of an application submitted by St. Wenceslaus Church for
a special exception to permit an addition to a religious institution (a handicapped
accessible entrance) for property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS-12) zone at 630 E. Davenport Street.
3. EXC06-00014 Discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls, LLC for a
special exception to reduce the required front yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet to
allow commercial buildings to be built closer to the sidewalk in accordance with the
Conditional Zoning Agreements for aide Towne Village and a special exception to
allow drive-through lanes for a bank for property located in the Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone south of Rochester Avenue, east of Scott Boulevard.
4. EXC06-00015 Discussion of an application submitted by Four Oaks Family and
Children's Services for a special exception for construction of an office building for
General Community Service Use (youth counseling, treatment, and recreation) for
property located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 1916 Waterfront Drive.
E. Other
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjournment
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -August 9, 2006
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 7, 2006
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
RE: EXC06-00012, Wal-Mart's application to fill in the floodplain.
Attached please find the replacement exhibits (9 and 10) and a new No-rise
Certificate, all of which were provided by the applicant at the June meeting of the
BOA. These replace the original exhibits provided with the application. All other
materials for this application, including the Staff report, are still valid.
As explained at the June meeting, the changes to the fill plan demonstrated in
these exhibits were made at the request of City staff during the final plat stage
for this property. These changes shown are do not relate to flood plain issues
but rather have to do with the layout of the subdivision and the City's
requirement for vehicular access easements.
M ;MM~p:ONSULrANTs,.lNc:.
'.- ~ "- ".:. - .... ..I~_,'... ,_' ',. ...'.... ";"~' :.:. ~ . ::_ ", "" . ..... ,"",: ':'._,
M ~~~~~:~~;~}~~i:' '" I -..' '~~!~'~:~~~~,I~~~i'
~
()
::;:
F
m
Z
o
Z
~
~
r-
:>
z
tl
V>
c
,.
<
t'T:
-<
Q
:;;
r'
:I>
~
i:!!
~
m
~
,
~
c
V>
()
~
r'1
~
()
:x:
::j
m
~
:n
~
~
~
:s:
~.
:;
~
on
"C
?S
5=
r-
on
""
'"
..
.. .
.... . .'_ ~., .~ ~ h" I
NO RISE CERTIFICATE
FOR
THE WAL-MART SUPERCENTER DEVELOPMENT
AT
THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF WESTPORT DRIVE AND RUPPERT ROAD
IN
IOWA CITY~ JOHNSON COUNTY
I hereby certify that there will be no rise in the floodplain eh:vatlon as a result of the Wal-Mart
development as shown on the plans prepared by Arc Design Resources, Inc. and MMS
Consultants.
This certification is based on the foUoVving facts:
There will be additio0111 storage and flowable area provided to the floodplain as a
result of this project.
- There is no encroachment ofbuiJdings or structures into the floodplain.
I .{ - ..Ju "-.IE - 0(:,
Date
T:\5400\S4 74006\5474006.0 .DOC
f. fit Y
00
01
c V
+- If) 0 +-
.~ 6 i2 25
(]) += 4- Q..
01-'6 (]) E
.,; 6 0 .-
$U-Dtt=
OU+-co
...r::: .- c
VI ~ ~ c'
c 0 L 0
OL:J+=
D-~U~
(]) Q.. V (])
;':= 0 is Qj
if) +-
L
(])
+-
C
(])
U L
mO
Q..+-
:J L
if) 0
+-E-^
0_ If) :4=
:2:~u
1>0
O~$
>0Jo
>'0_
OJ
~
00
I i
i
-I
z- (0
-D
0-
L
X
W
\
\
\
\
\
\
'\ \ \ \I \\ \ \
\ \I \ \ \ \
\ \ \1\" \
I II \
\ 1\,\
\ \':,
I
0>
I>"~-f!...-
00
l-
n:: CID
0
z- ----j
8
\
\
\
\
\
\
L
0)
+-
C
0)
U .
L L
0)0
o...+-
::) L
U) 0
+- 0... >-.
L"t:;+-
o Q) .-
::?:>u
1>0
o~s
>0Jo
>'0_
-;;;:;-.M=- ~ ) - -
--0 L
0) 0)
V1 +-
04- 0
0... 0
0 c ...-
L
0... 0
+- 01
01 0 .~
c > -+-
S 0) --0
0 o~
0 0) L ..Q
....c:: 01
V1 --0
0 --0 0-
c 0 c L
0 4- 0
D- 01 X
0)
0) IJ) .~ w
;+:: o:;:=:
U) ....0 4-
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC06-00013
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: July 12, 2006
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: .
St. Wenceslaus Church
630 East Davenport
Contact Person:
Steve Conklin
341-5900
Other Contact:
Neumann Monson P.C.
111 E. College Street
338-7878
Location:
Expansion of a Religious Facility in
the Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS-12) Zone
630 East Davenport Street
Requested Action:
Size:
0.37 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Religious Facility (RNS-12)
North: Residential (RNS-12)
South: Residential (RNS-12)
East: Residential (RNS-12)
West: Residential (RNS-12)
Applicable code sections:
Section 14-4B-4D-14,
Religious/Private Group Assembly in
the RNS-12 Zone; Section 14-4B-
3A, General Approval Criteria.
File Date:
June 14, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Saint Wenceslaus church building was constructed in 1893 and added onto in 1921. All the
properties immediately adjacent to the lot on which the church is established are owned by St.
Wenceslaus and serve the site. This includes the rectory to the west and church parking Jots to
the north.
The Church is proposing construction of a handicapped accessible entrance with an elevator on
the west side of the church building. The proposed addition has a footprint of approximately 833
square feet; building additions of 500 square feet or more for religious/private group assembly in
RNS-12 zone require a special exception.
2
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general
welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the
most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and
enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board of
Adjustment may grant the requested special exception to allow a expansion of a church in the
RNS-12 zone if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations of the
Sections 14-4B-4D-14 (page 199) as well as and the general standards for special exceptions
as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A (page 171).
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan encourages neighborhoods with a mix of housing and
supportive land uses as well as open space and recreational facilities. The Comprehensive Plan
encourages the location of religious facilities and other institutional uses within neighborhoods
provided that traffic circulation and pedestrian safety are ensured and adequate measures are
taken to buffer neighboring property owners from any negative effects of parking and increased
traffic.
Specific Standards Regarding Educational Uses in the RS-12 zone-14-4B-40-14
The proposed special exception to allow expansion of a religious institution must meet certain
specific regulations spelled out in Section 14-4B-40-14 (page 199) of the Zoning Chapter.
The church site meets the requirement for street access with its primary entrance off of Dodge
Street, an arterial. The main church building was established prior to the current setback
requirements. While the building is non-conforming with regard to the front, rear, and east side
setbacks, the proposed entry addition to the building's west side is set back more than the
required 20 feet from the front and west side property lines, and more than the required 50 feet
from the rear property line.
The proposed addition is small in comparison to the established church building, and will not
increase the occupancy load. No additional parking is proposed on the site and handicapped
parking spaces are already provided at the rear of the lot. All the properties immediately
adjacent to the church lot are owned by St. Wenceslaus and serve the site, including the rectory
to the west and parking lots to the north.
General Special Exception Approval Criteria: 14-4B-3A
The applicant's comments regarding each of the general standards are included on the attached
application form. Staff comments related to the general approval criteria are set forth below.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff finds that the proposed expansion to the
church will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare
for the following reasons: The proposed addition will not change the use or function of the
property; it will neither increase the occupancy load nor require additional parking. While the
church building is a nonconforming structure with regard to current setback requirements, the
entrance addition to the west side of the church will exceed all setback requirements for
religious facilities in the RNS-12 zone. Although the building is not designated as a historic
landmark, a State Historical Society Site Inventory Form (copy attached), which was prepared
as part of a historic preservation study of the Northside and Goosetown Neighborhoods,
indicates that the building is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places due to the
building's gothic architectural features its association with the Czech immigrant community. The
addition has been designed to compliment the historic structure.
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 or impair
property values in the neighborhood. In addition to the reasons cited above in criteria 1, Staff
finds that the 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 for the following reasons: The lot on which the church is established is abutted on
the north and west by other property also owned by the church, including the church rectory to
the west and the church parking lots to the north. The addition is small in scale, in comparison
with the main church building, and is in keeping with the architectural style of the established
building, so it will not detract from the character of the property.
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.
Because the surrounding neighborhood is already fully established neighborhood, and for the
reasons cited above (in criteria 1 and 2), Staff finds that the special exception will not impede
the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
The proposed addition to the church will require no additional facilities. Access roads, utilities,
drainage, etc., to the established church are currently adequate.
5. 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 addition to the church will not increase the occupancy load nor generate
additional traffic to the church.
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.
The proposed church addition meets the requirements of the RNS-12 zone. Because this
institutional use is located in the Central Planning District, all exterior alterations or additions to
the building are subject to Design Review (14-C3-2A-5, page 138). Alterations and additions to
the building are subject to the Multi-family Site Development Standards.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan promotes accessibility for disabled persons in its
Transportation; Social Service; Parks and Recreation; Housing; and Arts, Culture and Human
Development goals and strategies. While religious facilities are not subject to the same ADA
regulations as public facilities, it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage and
support greater accessibility in all areas of community life. In addition, the Housing and Land
Use and Urban Pattern Goals and Strategies in the Comprehensive Plan encourage
neighborhoods with a mix of housing, churches, schools, recreational facilities, commercial
areas and historic landmarks. The addition has been designed to compliment the historic
structure.
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC06-00013, an application for a special exception to allow expansion
of a religious facility in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 630 E.
Davenport Street, be approved subject to general conformance with the submitted site plan and
building design illustrations.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Proposed site plan
3. Proposed elevation
4. Aerial view of site
5. Application materials
6. State Historical Society Site Inventory Form
Approved by: ~
,
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
- Ed~
C")
T"""
\ \ ~t- 0
0
0
I
CD
lS S'VJ nl 0
()
J- x
~ w
- I--
I--
. -
. L-
- ,..
.
I~H \ f--- \
~ l ; 'VMH~IH lS - C\nC\n
_1'--' \...J'J \...J
-
Q) ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(j c: ()
t: CJ c: () ~~
~CJ--c:-
t3 I () ~ (~!.. ~
I
\ li.l ~ ) n ~ Q; \
~ - Q) "'--
--kJ~(J lS NO ;NHOr
"'-- "'-- :J
~ \ \ a (J 0- I
<~lr) -
~
f-----
6JJ ~ +oJ
t: I-- - (f)
t
\ \ \. '"I n- ~ \ 0
t3 Q.
C
~I .. Q.)
>
ctS
t-- \ \ . I- ~ J- 0
" " I- (.f)
I- (.f) ~ 0
(.f) ~I~ 0 I- C")
0:::: CD
I ~~ 0 . .
U D- Z
0:::: Z 0
I ~ W ~
\~ I \ \ f-~ I ~
I <{ ~
U LL <
U
0
8d hl84 Pl~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
~
rJJ
D"'
g
,~,i
s
\..,--,
c.,.)
,';:'
<: ~.~
~.~
. .h
-I
~
U
~
~
~o::
g:u
0:::: <r;
::::J[/]~
lf2 ~ 8_
u~~
I-! ~ E--<
::r:: .,I-!
p....f--IU
<r;U)<r;
~~~
lJuo
~Zl-!
o~
E--<~
~
U)
~~~umpu ~ ~ ~ ;;:: 9
:c ~ <Ii !:I j
~ '" !!l III :5"- "f"- ~~ II) :> ~ ~l
ll.~ ~"'" 0 UJ ~~
$l~~~~.g I ~i U:c ~ I
ZU :>
<fl
U jU [i~ UJa:: -0 15
:!:::> U<fl
O::l ~~~ 0
liB <fl.
~U) Q~Q ~ I i
~
-<",.
.-~,
~,.j
C)
.-1
~;
I.
\,
G..~)__1
'"
Nu.
",0<<
g~~
~f?i:'
~:;tu
tt)~<(
(f)S23:
f-O:O
00-
...J
..
0:
I
g
'0
N
'"
~
'",
0
N
'"
i'-'
:;:
}..
<0
'"
<Xl
Z
L.
'.!.s 3J~lQJiO[D 'INJ
8
j,
>-
1M,
:l
~
~~
'ct
o
j
<<
U
~
...J
...J
<<
UUl
<<
~~
0...
<<:;!;
~...J
OUl
-<<
., U
"'
f-f-
0::>
zoo
.._...~
g
o
N
-'"
--------
)
;i
I.
C'J
N01'OS'39"W 149.96'(M) lS0'(R)
~i! ! ~~
iO. ~ ~~
o~~! ~ ~ s~~
~~~i t ~~ ~~
(j) i3 i- ~ m~1:f
W ~~~~~t1g ~~ 5;;3U111l~
r- 888i~~.:lI ~~~ :i~j\E~a~
o ~:i:i~~~~ {:i~U1~~~~;~&
Z m~ d! ~~~~~~~~~8 ~
5~~~~~j~~~"~33~~~~~
o ~gg~~~va~8~~g9~a~~a
Z 11111 1III1I1 III
<{ II! I
o : III ~E
Iii I
o
Z ~4<J. 0
W
(j
W
-I
Lm
d
I'
.
Iii
~
g
@,
~
~
I1:Jl
Mi
\
~
i
~
'"
N
o
N
'"
!
:;:
}..
<0
",'
'"
Ul
z U)
0 >- + 8
U) u I" Ii
z I I ill
0 UJ i Ilil
~ >- ,lUll t! 'IIi i j! ! 00
z - . Ii:
z I !II!,I IIIl i J<(
<(
~ U ! 'ff iilll'
:::l "" f Jill , i Isi ,I
LJ,J hm U !
z <(
0;
. -~
9 - .~--
(~-~
~.:::..:
-.
--)
~~~: ~ Q
co's
~u~
jHU
I _H_
zEB
I ~~u~
. ~H~~
z .:> .:> ;!:
un
Johnson County GIS Online
Johnson Coun
Page 1 of 1
Legend
Legend
Politica I
Boundaries
C6ntertines
C6ntertine labels.
Mobilll Homes
Paroellines
P~ld
P~
RirfIH1-WtIf
http://www.johnson-county.com!servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceN ame=j cmapO... 6/20/2006
Exc <IXo - fZ)(lXZ)13
APPLICATION TO THE kL~0J~' rIal-
+n rro O(l~
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -
. SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: ~. I~- (:)(, PROPERTY PARCEL NO. l&1LOI&OOO~
PROPERTY ADDRESS: &, -g,o e.. D ..av~~ ~
PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SIZE:
APPLICANT: Name: N~nutftr t't,a~ f: C.
Address: Jl.Lf!. c."U1:!!J~ ~
Phone: ,,,~. 767~
CONTACT PERSON:
(if other than applicant)
Name:
~-+ ev~ c,,~k1: t1
~ ~ 0 ~. ~1\\1&.J~+-
~+I ~.,~
.
~.
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER:
(if other than applicant)
Name:
-n
Address: ~J!~ ~Jilr~
Phone: ~ '7 4- q~7
~
.....' .)
~/" 6
Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chap!fj:
~
~--r-'"
, l i
I ' .
~~~I
co
---14- 4-6 - 4'" D...14
Purpose for special exception: ~he pt11pQIII,d .,~l-l-io.,..,
~Ge.e.J. 9 ;"00 91~.tI.t"e +'~
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
-2-
Please see 14-8C-2 in the Code for more detailed information on special exception
application and approval procedures. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with
questions about the application process or regulations and standards in the Zoning Code.
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A.
leaal descriotion of property (attach separate sheet if necessary):
l-~ Ii ;t14cl -e:. ~~ I l-O-r ~ (bl.,K 2."
t:r"'I
I ,
B.
*Plot clan 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 owner of each
property opposite or abutting the property in question;
6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed.
*Submission of an 8 Yz" x 11" plot plan is preferred.
C. Review: The Board of Adjustment is empowered to grant special exceptions to the
provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code only in circumstances specifically
enumerated within the Code. To ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is observed
and substantial justice done, no special exception shall be granted by the Board
unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the specific and general approval
criteria are met, as described below.
Soecific Aooroval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find
that the requested special exception meets the specific approval criteria set forth
within the zoning code with respect to the proposed exception. In the space
provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board review that
apply to the specific requested special exception. The applicant is required to
present specific information, not just opinions, that demonstrate that the requested
special exception meets each of the specific approval criteria listed in the Zoning
Code. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions in the base zone are
set forth in 14-48-4 of the Zoning Code. For other types of special exceptions - modifications
to setbacks, parking requirements, etc. - refer to the relevant approval criteria listed in the
Code. Planning staff is available to assist you in finding the relevant approval criteria for
your requested exception.) Attach additional sheet if necessary.
"'"
r:,,:;.)
c':::)
en
o
~O
J>' -J
C) '-'"
~<~p
rT!
Q~;~
;2:
)>
-'11
.{:"'
::t!,~
~r
rn
;-~
\.....1
6
co
-3-
D. General Approval Criteria: The Board must also find that the requested special
exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following
criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet,
provide specific information. not just opinions, that demonstrate that the spec ific
requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or
that the approval criteria are not relevant in your particular case.
1.
The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. .
1h~ ;dJ;-l-,'~tt ;.,.. ~~ +k...... ye:r .!?c..A- .er-o n--r
-rf..t-c:... tt e#"'~ f h:' p~ I; tte::... J /1ltJ. 1_ Q1 ttc.. -I-.-~
+k40 ~.z_ o~ ~ ~"'J ~~ ~f.U,.~.
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.
"'11r.c.. ~AA.'+~"'" "" tl .t1.?-I- I,'tni+ ne-~l>ot- i~ v"e~,
l~ ~~~ ..J...k" ~~ t- ,..,h.J. ~&A k O'.p. +k'C
e.~i.";lI"-h'k.~ ~t-dt. 1-1- d.oe.~ t'J(::)+ c-.h"~e- +k.c.
",,,6- ~t" .P&-'~-l-c~.,. #'~ -l-.k., e-)04""','~ ~h~.j.,..
,If.. w,' U .,.,t- ;""-f:'eHc:.. ..}be ~,..~ ~ -req~i +-etne~
t1~ -H:z.~ c-k"t- ~ .
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 district in which such property is located.
~ pt-&'p~,.e.J. ~M'~.Pt1 ~.ll ~6.J- ck...i~ +L.~
~e. "r -A:HV+t",,<< p~ ~-c. ~~'tP ~brJ1 f~r~Y.'Tl
Cy-'
-.J J:"" "~'-1
-< :> :"~-1
=i: \...__1
4.
o
~
)>
co
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
:G-~i"b "'1-ili+,'e."" k-~9, e.:lt-"';'~.e oV't"t'e~"""ly
~et"vi~ +k.e- ~~ ".').t-~ .:?vf2,f,c;.i e.wI- -/-0 ~t:-'rf'c:::ot+
+b4- p ~ f~e.l *~.+.. ott. ~~ ~ ;/l ~-I- -t1~ +0
be- ~....l
o
-4-
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
e:~~i~ ttt~~~ c.f. ; "'~rc::.~ ~ e.~t'e?~
~r-~ in. f'UG~ pw.e! w;Jl tu:'.J- ~~~,. -r.lz'C
f""P~ .-.;Ji~o~ IJI' Il ...,,~-I-. i "~~c. ..f-.k t:..
-t"e.1V~fr~"~ .At- t~e+9 t:'t"' .e~.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other
respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standardsofthe zone in
which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special 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 the City Code section 14-48 as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).]
'1'J.. ~-I-t~ E." 4oo;~iH -t-~1~ twt ~9~'S.
~,,__ ..aJ,+I... :. ~."",,~ J.,\,..... e,..~il:1l.." ~~
.},-." ~.4J'1f ~p; I J.:~ h'-" ..*~- ~....{.
-r..,,,J,...,, ~ r,;tl ~ ~ l-.e-.....~. "- ~
-rl..~ ;JId.J..-IY.... e.-i/J .-/- r. ....Jec~ ~~ I ~ t'e," "I'
L~-If..,.. ~...~... l~ rlY,'J"i- ~+I""'""'~.
"11-." ~LJi'l!' ~rlJ",. wi-l-~ r"""~ 14-. ~~-".
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
-r1..4- ~i....1.i~ ~ud.J.~~ ~ ~ ""6L~~" .,a :J~'" b ~
~e- Pc,.IJ.;~.
-rt.-e. r'r#ro.. ~~- ,,;Il n-+ c~~ +.It,.,.
~;lvl-e,.. o~ -Ua-c. ~.LJi ~ Jilt"/' ,,; IL ; tct:.-t"~c
.n )tul,:&.r .iile.~bi' t+y.
~ e. iJJ,J/--J..leJu ~..lt...ri- <lOI'tI Ptrltt1;..., +_-c
II~,',,,, ~ --l-k.-e ~().tf1,pt"e .h...tc,kV~ 'f't;,~.
I"..:l
~~::)o
=
0'-'
o
~
<,'~O
i>-..,
-:::::J
'.
-"r-j
~~
I
<1"'........,
. I J
o ;T:d
~........,
~
:-
;:I::!oo
=c
rn
r~-'
'......J
S?
0:>
-5-
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
~~ n-lt~.,d
ADDRESS
(5
~(J
p-~
Q ~:!
--j-' f "
'"', .'
'"'. ,-:.
'm
() -:J.;
...:;.- ,...-".
<:
):>
9
co
r-...,
=>
C"::;;;
c::;r.
(-
c::::
.:;.~
-I]
;-n
,--,
:.,-,,..1
.+:""
:l::!l>
::JJ:'
-6':
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the 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, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which 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 14-8C-2C4, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date 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 14-8C-1E, City Code).
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 any
taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of
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 the illegality. (Section
14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk.
~ .1A.(
~.. 14-.t;1~
. 20~
Date:
Date:
~E::; l Lf,
.20~
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
e... i(}~J.~
,..,.~ ,:. (!QlVac..&-tN
~7. w6..lcul..... c".u..,,'c.. CL.A.c.J..) ~14.~
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdadmin\application-boase.doc
""
0 =
C;.::';l
:?fo 0">
1>--"
-- -....., 1"1
c) -<.....
--j C) .::-
C'< I iT1
m ::=-
C-S22 3;: ;---,
.<::/, C3 "'-,J
~ ..
co
Site Inventory Form
State Historical Society of Iowa
(January 28, 1997)
H)
State Inventory No. 52.03135 ~ New 0 Supplemental
D Part of a district with known boundaries (enter inventory no.)
Relationship: D Contributing 0 Noncontributing
D Contributes to a potential district with yet unknown boundaries
National Register Status: (any that apply) 0 Listed D De-listed 0 NHL D DOE
Review & Compliance No.
D Non-Extant (enter year)
1. Name of Property
historic name St. Wenceslaus Bohemian Catholic Church
other names/site number
2. Location
street & number
630 East Davenoort Street
city or town Iowa City
Legal Description: (If Rural) Township: Name
No.
D vicinity, county Johnson
Range No. Section Quarter of Quarter
(If Urban) Subdivision 0ri2inal Town
3. State/Federal Agency Certification [Skip this Sect/on]
4. National Park Service Certification [Skip this Sect/on]
5. Classification
Category of Property (Check only one box)
181 building(s)
o district
o site
o structure
o object
Lot(s) E:26tOfLot S~Lot 6
Block(s) 29
Number of Resources within Property (Do not include previously listed resources)
Contributing Noncontributing
1 0
o
buildings
sites
structures
objects
Total
)me of related p'roject report or multiple property study (Enter oN/A" if the property is not part of a multiple property examination).
Title. HistoricaVArchitectural Data Base Number
Iowa City Original Town Plat Phase II Study
6. Function or Use
Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions)
52-032
Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions)
06AO I RELIGION/relilrious facilitv/church
06AOl RELIGION/religious facilitv/church
7. Description
Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions)
Materials (Enter categories from instructions)
06E LATE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURY REVlV ALSfLate Gothic Revival
foundation 04 STONE!
walls 03 BRICK!
roof 08 ASPHALT
other
Narrative Description (~SEE CONTINUATION SHEETS, WHICH MUST BE COMPLETED)
8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark .x. in one or more boxes for criteria that may qualify the property for National Register listing)
~ Yes 0 No 0 More Research Recommended A Property is associated with significant events.
n Yes 181 No 0 More Research Recommended B Property is associated with the lives of significant persons.
JiVes 0 No 0 More Research Recommended C Property has distinctive architectural characteristics.
. Yes ~ No D More Research Recommended D Property yields significant information in archaeology or history.
Criteria Considerations
18I A Owned by a religious institutio'lQr used
for religious purposes.
o B Removed from its original location.
8 C A birthplace or grave.
o A cemetery
Areas of Significance (Enter categories from Inatructlons)
~~
A reconstructed..building, object, or structure.
A commemorative property.
Less than 50 years of age or achieved significance within the past 50
years.
)
02 ARCHITECTURE
14C06 ETHNIC HERIT AGE/ /Bohemia/Czechoslovakia
Significant Dates
Construct/on dlte
1893
Other dates
Architect/Builder
Architect
unknown
Builder
unknown
Narrative Statement of Significance ~ SEE CONTINUATION SHEETS, WHICH MUST BE COMPLETED)
9. Major Bibliographical References
Bibliography 18I See continuation sheet for citations of the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form
Significant Person
(Complete if National Register Criterion B is marked above)
10. Geographic Data
~rr"~~~~.~*N;~~~:...... .. ..:.::.........::.~:.:}:::.:.:.::\:.\:!:'!.::..;;:..::::)).:....\)2.. .:;;;.:....::.::::..:'::..:::::'/.:;;;........ ...
-. .. ............ ...........
.. ......0. See continuation' sheet ioradd~'ional'UTMrei~ie~~esoj.coiiir;;ent~:""
11. Form Prepared By
".. .............................................................._...'....'.._... u.. ................. .....
~:~~::::::~:::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~~~~j~J:~:~:~:\~;~~~1~~r~l~:~:~[~\~\~~~~~:~\j\:~~lr:::~:~:::~::::::::;.:.:.:.;...'.....:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:....;...;.;....
. . . . '. ....... ......:::: :::.:::::::::::::::::::::: :::::. :.:.:;:::::: :::::::.:.: - .' - ': ':::;:::;. ;.:;\;j~~t~I:j\~\j\t:~~l:~j~~~{m}~\t\
'.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:.:-:.:.;.:-:.:.'.:.'.;.:.'.;.:.:.:.:.:.'.
........................
.......................
........................... .
......... ........
.,...,.,....-..-..-.,.........
..... - - .-..
................. .
nameltitle Marlvs A. Svendsen
organization Svendsen Tvler. Inc.
street & number N3834 DeeD Lake Road
date 6/98
telephone 715/469-3300
city or town SaraM state WI zip code 54870
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION (submit the following items with the completed form)
FOR ALL PROPERTIES
1. Map showing the property's location in a town/city or township
2. Site plan showing position of buildings and structures in the nominated area in relation to adjacent public road(s).
3. Photographs: representative black and white photos. If the photos are taken as part of a survey for which the Society is to be curator of
the negatives or color slides, a photo/catalog sheet needs to be included with the negatives/slides and the following needs to be provided
below on this particular inventory site:
RolVslide sheet # 9612 Frame/slot # 06 Date Taken 4/15/98
RolVslide sheet # Frame/slot # Date Taken
RolVslide sheet # Frame/slot # Date Taken
o See continuation sheet or attached photo & slide catalog sheet for list of photo roll or slide entries.
o Photoslillustrations without negatives are also in this site inventory file
FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF PROPERTIES, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AS WELL
1. Farmstead & District (List of structures and buildings, known or estimated year built, and contributing or non-contributing status)
2. Bam:
a. A sketch of the frameltruss configuration in the form of drawing a typical middle bent of the barn.
b. A photograph of the loft showing the frame configuration along one side.
c. A sketch floor plan of the interior space arrangements along with the barn's exterior dimensions in feet.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Use Only Below This Line
~~:~:I'II~~.:.:,i...'Ol.!.r.i.;.!.r.i...;.i.r.g.l,~!~~~,.[~!':~~mlm~llII!m!l:i)::1. .........:.'i:i!'i';;j;~;;:.;
~Ov..:a~/.ul...n:..8.~.:....e:~d:t,s.:..:b;:...y!!...:i,ji~itltliij:..:^::'..;ii:i. ii.. ......' .........."'.:,!iiOi:.. ::...m.. ... ..... .... ..... ....,.,.. ..."1"["1"",.... "'W"'!:''U'jiITJiifyi'i
c;; .' .................. ..... ............... .. ..... ."<dati;: .... ..........,::.:::.:::::,..:.::):::::.
Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs
State Historical Society of Iowa
Iowa Site Inventory Form
C'1ntinuation Sheet
Page 1
Site Number 52-03135
St. Wenceslaus Bohemian Catholic Church
Name of Property
Johnson
County In Iowa
7. Narrative DescriDtion
The original 50' x 100' sbUcture was erected in 1893 and consists of five side bays divided by brick pilasters with a steeped crenellation of
projecting brickwork capping each bay panel. The square steeple base is similarly pilastered and decorated. An elaborate octagonal tower
rises from a sub-base that features four primary and four secondary gables. The church is set on a stone foundation and is consbUcted of brick
probably produced at the brickwork located north of Brown Street between Governor and Lucas streets. Gothic or pointed arched stained
glass windows appear throughout the structure. In 1921 the transept and nave were added. Brick pilasters in each ttansept face fonn gothic
arches enclosing a medium sized rose window. Two larger gothic windows flank the pilasters and rose window while two smaller gothic
windows are paired beneath each rose window. The present plan is in a cruciform shape. The interior was modernized in 1951. Much of the
labor for the consbUction of the original church and the 1921 addition was completed by parishioners of S1. Wenceslaus.
8. Statement of Si2Ilificance
St. Wenceslaus Church derives historical significance under Criterion A as the focal point for Iowa City's Bohemian community that was
predominantly Catholic. Since its construction in 1893 it has served as a social and cultural center for hundreds of Bohemian families. In
addition. 81. Wenceslaus derives qualifies for the National Register under Criterion C as an outstanding example of a Late Victorian Gothic
Revival church. Its important exterior elements - pointed arched windows, elaborate brickwork, imposing spire and entrance - qualify the
church.
- 9. Maior Bibliograohic References
)ciaux, Jenny. Centennial St. Wenceslaus Church, Iowa City, Iowa, 1893-1993. September, 1993.
Iowa City city directories.
Property Transfer Records, Johnson County Auditor's Office.
Tax Assessor's Records, City of Iowa City Assessor.
#52-010-994, Goosetown Neighborhood Survey, 1985.
Sanborn maps, 1879, 1888, 1892, 1899, 1906, 1912, 1920, 1926, 1933,and 1933 updated to 1970.
Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs
State Historical Society of Iowa
Iowa Site InventoryForm
P-yntinuation Sheet
Page 2
Site Number 52-03135
St. Wenceslaus Bohemian Catholic Church
Name of Property
Johnson
County in Iowa
Additional Documentation
Plat MaD
)
b l.lJ ~AAt(E
. 3BDz
'" z
O~[I]:;
0' JEFFERSON
i \
I IOWA
..~'
_J.2~~' .../
4 S
I,
"
{28
If
N
i
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC06-00014 Olde Towne
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Applicable code sections:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: July 12, 2006
Three Bulls, LLC
2621 Catskill Court
Iowa City
319-631-5800
Sarah Swartzendruber
One South Gilbert St.
Iowa City
466-1511
Approval of 2 special exceptions
Reduction of the principal building
setback along the interior streets
(Westbury Drive, Middlebury Road,
and Eastbury Drive)1 0 feet to 0 on
lots 40-49 and approval of drive-
through banking facility at the corner
of Rochester Avenue and Scott
Boulevard.
Old Towne Village, lots 40-49, South
of Rochester Ave. and East of Scott
Blvd.
8.51 acres (approx.)
Vacant, Community Commercial
(CC-2)
North: Undeveloped (ID-RS)
South: Vacant (OPD-8)
East: Nursing Home (CO-1)
West: Residential (RS-5)
Specific approval criteria for
adjustments to principal building
setbacks in the commercial zone,
14-2C-4B-5; specific approval
criteria for drive-through facilities,
14-4C-2K-2; general approval
criteria for special exceptions,
14-4B-3A
2
File Date:
June 15, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The property now known as Olde Towne Village was annexed into the City in 2001. At that time
it was zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and Medium Density Single-family Residential
(RS-8) with a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). The conditions contained in the CZA
required the final plats for the development to comply with the neighborhood design policies of
the Comprehensive Plan and a concept plan contained in the Northeast District Plan.
Specifically, the development was to conform to a Main Street or Towne Square-style
commercial center with a pedestrian orientation including such features as on-street parking,
parking lots behind buildings, minimal or no building setback from sidewalks and upper floor
residential uses.
A preliminary plat and a rezoning for the development was approved in February 2005, with the
final plat approved in September 2005. Following the final plat approval, the owner, Plum Grove
Acres, sold the property to the applicant, Three Bulls LLC. .
When the current developers (the applicant) began to layout buildings on the platted property,
they discovered that the lots were not deep enough for the parking and pedestrian
arrangements required in the CZA and commercial buildings of a viable size. While a 10-foot
setback is required in the CC-2 zone, requiring the full setback on this particular site would be in
conflict with the neighborhood design concept and the requirements of the CZA. In order to
accommodate the pedestrian orientation, with buildings set close to the sidewalk, the applicant
is requesting a reduction in the principal building setback from the interior streets in the
development. The original application requested that the setback be reduced from 10 feet to 0
feet. To assure that there is adequate room for a sidewalk, which will be partially within the
setback and partially within the private street right-of-way, Staff recommends that the setback
be reduced to only 3 feet and the applicant has concurred with this change.
The applicant is also seeking a special exception to allow a drive-through banking facility within
the commercial development at the corner of Rochester Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Drive-
through facilities are an accessory use permitted in the CC-2 zone by special exception.
ANAL YSIS:
Specific Standards for adjustments to the principal building setback in commercial zones,
14-2C-4B-5 (page 57)
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific standards are included on the attached
application forms. Staff comments related to the general approval criteria are set forth below.
The situation is peculiar to the property in question due, in part, to the Conditional Zoning
Agreement to which this property is subject. The requirements of the CZA for pedestrian
orientation with buildings set up to the sidewalk, on-street parking, and parking lots behind
buildings combined with the final plat submitted by the previous developer, which included the
sidewalks as part of the network of interior drives, limit the way in which the current developer
can locate the buildings on the site.
This peculiar situation has created a practical difficulty for the developer to construct viable
commercial building space and meet the principal goals of the neighborhood commercial center
concept within the required setbacks.
3
A reduction of the principal setback will not be contrary to purpose of the setback regulations in
the commercial zone. The developer's proposed plan shows a minimum 8-foot wide sidewalk
within the street right-of-way and an additional 3-feet of sidewalk width within the proposed 3-
foot setback. Staff believes that the resulting minimum 11-foot wide sidewalks along the interior
drives throughout the development would meet the intent of the setback requirement as well as
the goals of the CZA. The 11-foot sidewalk with tree wells, as shown in the applicant's site plan,
will create the reasonable and attractive physical relationship between the buildings and the
street that are at the heart of the neighborhood commercial concept proposed in the Northeast
District Plan.
Specific approval criteria for drive-through facilities in the CC-2 zone, 14-4C-2K-2 (page
210)
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific standards are included on the attached
application form. Staff comments related to the general approval criteria are set forth below.
The applicant has proposed a two-lane drive-through facility, which is entered from the north
end of Eastbury Drive. Vehicles would circulate around the building west toward Rochester and
then south. The bank and drive-through facility would operate during standard banking hours
8:30 -5:30 weekdays and Saturday morning hours from 9:00 am until noon. The applicant has
also proposed an island for A TM service locate northwest of the drive-though lanes, near the
intersection of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue.
a. Staff finds that provided that the A TM structure is integrated into the design of the overall
development, the drive-through facility will not be detrimental to the adjacent residential
properties for the following reasons: The drive-through service area will be set back
approximately 70 feet from the Scott Boulevard right-of-way (ROW), and more than 40 feet
from the Rochester Avenue ROW. The ATM lane is approximately 20 feet from either ROW.
The applicant has proposed an area adjacent to the drive-through facility measuring
approximately 40 by 80 feet for landscape screening. The applicant has also provided
sketches showing the drive-through canopy, which will be incorporated into the roofline of the
bank and will match architecture and building materials used for the office portion of the
building. The initial design for the ATM structure does not have any of the features of the
proposed bank, and in Staff's opinion appears like a sign. The applicant has agreed to
construct a brick enclosure for the A TM so that it will be compatible with the architectural
character of the proposed bank and overall aide Towne Village development.
b. The transportation system within the commercial center is designed to support the level of
traffic generated by the banking facility and other commercial uses. Traffic entering and
exiting the commercial development is limited to two access points-one form Scott
Boulevard and one from Rochester Avenue. The proposed drive-through lanes include two
stacking spaces each.
c. The drive-through lanes are set back from the adjacent lot lines and publiC rights-of-way
more than the required 10-feet. The applicant has proposed a substantial area for the
required landscaping to screen any negative effects from the drive-through lanes. The
standards for drive-through facilities located adjacent to residential zones suggest S3
screening, which is defined as a dense screen of evergreens or masonry wall 5-6 feet high
(see page 297). The applicant has proposed a canopy design that will act as a partial screen.
This combined with the proposed landscaped area and the distance that the drive-through
will be set back from the residential zones should minimize any negative effects. With this in
mind, Staff recommends that the drive-through be screened to the S2 standard. Staff also
recommends that the A TM island, which is setback more than 10-feet from the adjacent
rights-of way, also be screened to the S2 standard in order to screen any glare from vehicles
4
using the ATM at night. As discussed above, Staff recommends that the ATM be partially
enclosed within a brick structure so that its appearance is compatible with the bank building.
d. The applicant has indicated that lighting for the facility will comply with the outdoor lighting
standard in the code and will be designed to minimize glare onto neighboring residential
properties. All outdoor lighting for the commercial development will be reviewed by the
Building Official for compliance with the Code.
General Standards: 14-48-3, Special Exception Review Requirements
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The reduction in the principal building setback
from 10 feet to 3 feet will allow the developer space to create at least 11-foot wide sidewalks
with the street amenities that are required in the CZA . The sidewalks along all interior drives in
the commercial development will serve the same purpose as the setback requirement and
provide for the safety, comfort and general welfare of the public-pedestrians and vehicles-
accessing the site.
Because the applicant's proposed drive-through facility addresses all of the specific criteria as
described above, Staff finds that it will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, or general welfare provided that the ATM enclosure is designed to be
compatible with the overall development.
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. As stated above, the reduction of the front setback from
10 to 3 feet will allow for 11-foot wide sidewalks with tree wells, will address the safety and
aesthetic intent of the code as well as the requirements of the CZA. Because the applicant's
proposed drive-through facility addresses all of the specific criteria as described above, Staff
finds that it 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.
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 reduction in the setback from 10 feet to 3
feet will accommodate an 11-foot wide sidewalk along the interior streets of the development
and will actually aid in the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property in
the manner proposed in the Northeast District Plan. The reduction in the setback will allow the
developer to create viable commercial spaces with appropriate parking and pedestrian facilities.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided. The subject lots are otherwise suitable for commercial development.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are designed to meet
current City standards.
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 the site has been designed
to avoid congestion. Vehicles will enter the commercial development from two access points-
one on Rochester Avenue and one on Scott Boulevard. All vehicular movement within the site
will occur on along interior drives (Westbury and Eastbury Drives and Middlebury Road). In
addition, the development is designed with pedestrian access across lots and connections to
Rochester and Scott as well as pedestrian cross walks on the interior streets.
5
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.
The applicant will seek a minor modification to reduce the parking lot setback from 10 feet to 5
feet along an approximately 160-foot section of Scott Boulevard. The applicant will provide a
site plan with a detailed landscape plan, including architectural elements (Le. walls or fences) to
mitigate any negative effects of that setback reduction. In all other ways, the applicant's
proposed plan meets the regulations and standards of the zone, including those in the CZA for
this property. The final site plan is subject to administrative review for complains with the CZA.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The plan for the commercial development at Olde Towne Village is consistent with the
Neighborhood Commercial goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Those goals include designs that
"have a pedestrian orientation with the stores placed close to the street, but with sufficient open
space to allow outdoor cafes, patios or landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and
sides of stores with additional parking on the street." (page 21 of the Comprehensive Plan)
In addition, the plan meets the more specific goals of the Northeast District Plan, which called
for the commercial center at this site to have "a pedestrian orientation. . . incorporate[ing] such
features as on-street parking, parking lots behind buildings, minimal or no building setback from
the sidewalk. . . accessible pedestrian pathways that provide connections between the
businesses within the commercial center as well as to the neighborhood." (page 24 of the
Northeast District Plan)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC06-00014, an application for a special exception to reduce the
principal building setback from 10 feet to 3 feet on all interior streets (Eastbury Drive, Westbury
Drive, and Middlebury Road) for Lots 40-49 of Old Towne Village in the Community Commercial
(CC-2) zone located south of Rochester Avenue and east of Scott Boulevard be approved
subject to an approved site plan showing minimum 11-foot wide sidewalks, tree wells and other
street landscaping, and pedestrian connections and crosswalks. Staff recommends approval of
a drive-through facility for a financial facility to be located on the lot at the corner of Rochester
Avenue and Scott Boulevard in Olde Towne Village with hours of operation limited to between 8
am and 7 pm (this limitation would not apply to the ATM), be approved subject to staff approval
of a final site plan with a detailed landscaping plan, A TM enclosure and building elevations.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Proposed Site Plan and elevations
3. Application materials
Approved by: /.4./~ n '
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
t:
t3
~
~
~
~
t3
en
0:
en
0:
I
C
-
o:::t
,.-
o
o
o
I
CD
o
()
><
w
0)
0>
~
>-
0)
c
~
o
I-
0)
"0
o
Z
o
~
~
<
u
o
~
~
~
~
rJ)
-
,
w ~ I IE' fill WII ~ WI . .0
;; 0 ~ l . :1'11 I , z ;; I
~: ~ i~~~ i~~~ is!! lhl'ltl!lfll ~ .. I i I:::
it i i
q;. .... 0 n; I.. 0
-III ~ .~~~ · m I"i 11'111 'iI',(1 f .. I-
... ~ iil ~ ~~~ E~~~ i.!. htlll II ,I ::> l!l
- ~ ~ J,~ ~ 'J,~ it" 1111' II ~ l- i .-
Oo .... ,
(.) :: - O~:~J ~h f,"J (If' HI 11'11 ,.'\ lU 0 I' I' I~
"
C> ;; _ w ~~ ~. U I 'II I f z
'\.'\.'\ 0
~ :: _ :E I I. I !I " (,)
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
.;
\
~. ~
"~~:' ;
NORTH 0 i
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
.~r- -
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
_..~.- - - - _. _. -.- - - ~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
..~
\
\
\
"'
o
z
=>
o
WO::I-
00~
<(:'<:1-
zUI-
0~~
v;wU
z=>3
<(O\/)
x<(z
WCl.<(
;::O~
~~w
:'<:UI-
u:5I
~~
00
--'0
00
0--,
06
W
l-
I
~
o
z
=>
o
WO::I-
00~
<(:'<:1-
ZUI-
,~<( z
VcOW
v;wU
z=>=>
<(O~
x<(z
wCl.<(
;::O~
::;~UJ
:'<:Ut::
U<(::c
~~
U)
CO
CO
II)
'i
~
en
o
-
~
CO
.
M
:z:
...
11.1
a
o
:I
o
o
o
-'
::J
>-
Z
:>
tu
o
o
::>
Z
o
-'
0.....
0G5
I.....
u w co
.....!::: '<t
<( I 2
~~.
00
-'z
0::>
00
060
w~
!:::u
I<(
~. co
........w
~::>
~CJ
V)<(
o a...
:;:20
~~
UU
<(<(
-' -'
co co
o ~Mg
- .~"9-C:; ~
Q) ~~~";' ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .~
a ~WS~~
CL ~~:!:-ss
:.J ~ ..... .
'.c,,~~
~ E g ~
g:Octu.
Ck::
o
L?
x
Ck::
o
"'-0
g;g
"'~~~
~Q)NCl.
"'Eo..
~~ili~
DQ)oE!
Qu:oo
Q;
"0
o
~
-0
~
<n
~
I-
<(
:'!;
,...:
Ck::
o
Cl.
z
W
>
<(
o
o
z
;:)
o
w~t-
l?l?i:6
<(":t-
zUt-
l?<(z
_cow
VlWU
z;:);:)
<(0-'
X<(Vl
~c...~
t-O",
::J~"'"
..:UW
~~~
co,co3:
o
z
;:)
o
w~t-
l?l?x
<(..:}:!
zUt-
l?<(z
_cow
VlWU
z;:);:)
<(0-'
X<(Vl
~c...~
t-O",
::::i~1-
..:UW
~~~
cD CO 3:
00
-'l')
00
l')-,
06
w
t-
I
3:
co
co
N
__ 0
o = 8 E
N .~ ~ q ~ 8
Q) Vl~""::: ~
.. co '" , v
oil'" ~~.-
n.. b~S~ ~
~rI~S~
~ "... ~
~OE.r;~
~ CL.u..~
z
o
!;
>
1&1
...
1&1
l-
I&.
1&1
...
'"
o
U
x
'"
l')
0-
0-'0
COO
0-0---
o-..~:r:
coQ)-.,.....
o-ENa..
.. 00"
'*"Zi!i~
.g~"6e
-,U::oo
CO
."<t
C") '0
=:r:r ~,
z Qj ll)
0 '0 ~
0
~ t-
U) 0 - <(
eX) .' =
eX) S? >
It) 1&1
~ ...
1&1
II:
~ :3
en
0 II:
-
~
eX)
~ t-
C") ~,,"-+~ Vl
z ;:) ;::!;
'"
t-
... 06 ,...:
'"
..: 0
1&1 ..9-,S z a..
a <( z
cD w
0 Z >
<( <(
:E U '0
ii20 C
w'" 0
~t- "6
<(v;
.;...:m u
c ~ .3
Q)'O .0
. '0
U<( 0
-,
~-f/Xl1l)1 if
cseA-bCLC.JZ... reel.
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: June 15,2006
PROPERTY PARCEL NO. See attached
Olde Towne Village, Lots 40-48, Auditor's Parcels 2006029 and 2006030
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PROPERTY ZONE:
CC-2
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: approx 8.51 ac.
APPLICANT: Name: Three Bulls, LLC
Address: 2621 Catskill Court, Iowa City
Phone: (319) 631-5800
CONTACT PERSON: Name: Sarah E. Swartzendruber
(if other than applicant)
Address: One South Gilbert Street, Iowa City
Phone: (319) 466-151l
-
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: ~
(if other than applicant) C'
Address: :::
,-<
Phone: ;:-::::
~
Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter:
reduce front setback from 10 feet to 0 feet. Section 14-2C-4(B)
Purpose for special exception: This setback reduction will permit the property to be developed
in accordance with the Conditional Zoning Agreements for the Olde Towne Vi/lage commercial development.
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: None
r--;)
=
C):
0""
o
=::J
~)
-....
c......
<.::::
..'-It.
11
"'....-').
'- .'
,.....-
i-n
IJ
^
r-
c..n
:Do
~,;lIr
...~
iTJ
r---.
\",j
tn
\D
-2-
Please see 14-8C-2 in the Code for more detailed information on special exception
application and approval procedures. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with
questions about the application process or regulations and standards in the Zoning Code.
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Leaal descriDtion of property (attach separate sheet if necessary):
See Attached
B. *Plot Dlan drawn to scale showing:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lot with dimensions;
North point and scale;
Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines;
Abutting streets and alleys;
Surrounding land uses, including the location and record owner of each
property opposite or abutting the property in question;
Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed.
See Attached
6.
*Submission of an 8 Yz" x 11" plot plan is preferred.
C. Review: The Board of Adjustment is empowered to grant special exceptions to the
provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code only in circumstances specifically
enumerated within the Code. To ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is observed
and substantial justice done, no special exception shall be granted by the Board
unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the specific and general approval
criteria are met, as described below.
Soecific Aooroval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find
that the requested special exception meets the specific approval criteria set forth
within the zoning code with respect to the proposed exception. In the space
provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board review that
apply to the specific requested special exception. The applicant is required to
present specific information, not just opinions, that demonstrate that the requested
special exception meets each of the specific approval criteria listed in the Zoning
Code. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions in the base zone are
set forth in 1448-4 of the Zoning Code. For other types of special exceptions - modifications
to setbacks, parking requirements, etc. - refer to the relevant approval criteria listed in the
Code. Planning staff is available to assist you in finding the relevant approval criteria for
your requested exception.) Attach additional sheet if necessary.
See Attached
Q
:2::0
)>=:~
--<:
C)
-'ie)
~.~( F~;
1"-,:0
'-"~
;?:
)>
-'n
Ul
I
rn
f',
\...J
Ul
\.0
-3-
D. General Approval Criteria: The Board must also find that the requested special
exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following
criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet,
provide specific information. not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific
requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or
that the approval criteria are not relevant in your particular case.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
See Attached
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.
See Attached
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 district in which such property is located.
See Attached
o
~()
)>=j
() -<:
==1
~-<
t"...:;::
<="
C:;J"
<:;;')'""
C)
:=? ::-
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary faciifties h~
been or are being provided.
See Attached
-Tl
U1
-4-
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
See Attached
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
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 special 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 the City Code section 14-48 as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).]
See Attached
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
See Attached
~
"""- .()
>=,
~)
0--'
=j ~~2
:'\-Ti
02,=2
-s /"
--
)>
f'''
e=o
c..)
<<;."';},
L..
c-=:
;~::
-n
(Jl
~-
,
I
lT1
'--1
\.....)
:1:31'
3:
(J'1
I.D
-5-
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
ADDRESS
See Attached
......,
0 =
c:;.,:;;)
~O ;:;:r.
)>--1 11
0 -~<
-~i (.J1 r--
,-< ;T1
;:=..
0 :::11: r-,
,-.j
$- -
..
)> <:.n
\.D
-6-
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the 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, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which 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~C-2C4, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date 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 14-8C-1E, City Code).
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 any
taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of
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 the illegality. (Section
14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Date:
.Ju.Y\e. \5
,20Qo
Three Bulls, LLC
Date:
,20_
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdadmin\application-boase.doc
~
e:::>
(;7'..;;;:;)
0"<
o
~O
J> ...,
--.~)
() -(,
~C')
~-< r"~
rTi
-----'1
(.J~
SA
)>
-11
UI
>
.:11:
j'-
I
m
I--l
1,,-'
UI
1..0
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
Three Bulls, LLC
Lots 40-48, Olde Towne Village and Auditor's Parcels 2006029 and 2006030
Parcel Nos. 0907228001
0907228002
0907252005
0907253002
1012106001
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT
A. Lee:al Description of Property:
Lots 40-48, Olde Towne Village, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Book 49, Page 321, Plat Records of Johnson County,
Iowa; and
Auditor's Parcel 2006029, according to the Plat of Survey recorded in
Plat Book 50, at Page 299, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa, being
a part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 7,
Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the 5th P.M.; and
Auditor's Parcel 2006030, according to the Plat of Survey recorded in
Plat Book 50, at Page 300, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa, being
a part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 7,
Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the 5th P.M and a part of the
Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 79
North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M.
B. Plot Plan:
See attached.
{ 00348368.DOC}
o
~O
);.. -~
~ -1
(l-;~
~..::
--re;
.:-<r.-
m
;:- .:n
'J -"-
SA
);:
en
\0
r--.:J
=
=
Q"\
c......
(""-
;.;e
=0
r
IT1
r-,
\......J
UI
;'l.::Joo
~
.......
-
-
..
C. Specific Approval Criteria:
14-2C-4(B)(5)(b) lists the following specific requirements for granting a special
exception to reduce principal building setback requirements:
(1) The situation is peculiar to the property in question;
The situation is peculiar to the property in question in that the property is subject to a
Conditional Zoning Agreement with the City that requires the commercial lots to be
"designed with a pedestrian orientation incorporating such features as on-street parking,
parking lots behind buildings, minimal or no setbacks from sidewalks and upper floor
residential uses." Conditional Zoning Agreement adopted by Ordinance 02-4002,
Section 3 (b)( emphasis supplied).
(2) There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements;
The Conditional Zoning Agreement requires site plans for the commercial lots to
incorporate the features outlined in the Conditional Zoning Agreement ("on street
parking, parking lots behind buildings, minimal or no setbacks from sidewalks and upper
floor residential uses). The site plans cannot incorporate these features without a special
exception to the setback requirement.
(3) Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations; and
Granting the exception will not be contrary to the terms of the setback regulations
because the front of each commercial lot will be abutted by an 8 foot sidewalk.
(4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are
mitigated to the extent practical.
We do not foresee any potential negative effects. This special exception will permit the
property to be developed as was anticipated by the City in the Conditional Zoning
Agreement.
(5) The subject building will be located no closer than three feet (3') to a
side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a
public right of way or permanent open space.
,.....,
Weare requesting that the front setbacks be reduced to 0 feet, which will not ~t the ~
side or rear setbacks. :.E 0
>=i
,.......,-<
i~ .J
--- r---, U1
--l,- _.'
:<r'.-
rn :r>>
(5~ -4
...:--^ -
~
)> c.n
\D
-1-,
m
I~
U
{00348368.DOC}
D. General Approval Criteria:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare. It will permit the property to be developed in
accordance with the Conditional Zoning Agreement for the property. The minimal
setbacks will be offset by the adjacent sidewalks.
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.
The special exception applies to all of the commercial lots and will therefore not be
injurious to the use or enjoyment of any immediately adjacent property. The special
exception will benefit each of the commercial lots.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for
uses permitted in the district in which such property is located.
The special exception will permit, not impede, development of the commercial lots. It
will not impede or negatively affect any development of the adjacent multi-family or
single family lots either.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities
have been or are being provided.
Adequate utilities, roads, drainage or other facilities are being provided for the
subdivision. This special exception should not have any impact on those facilities.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or
egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Ingress and egress to the commercial lots is provided by the private streets in Olde
Towne Village. The special exception should not have any effect on traffic or increase
traffic congestion.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the
special exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all ~..~ err. g...
respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone i~ich 'l.!
it to be located. )> I ~
-<
() -
No exception other than the setback reduction is being requested by this appli~~. U1
m >
_-T'"_ :3:
O.J,?
<-,/ ,
~
Oil
[Tl
r-,
I....J
c..n
1..0
{ 00348368.DOC}
[. x c o~ - /J~C/J I{
Dr\vt,-+hYbtA--5 h
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: 'tIt /Ol.P PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY ADD~SS: t1~r Of ~~qE(t .t--~~
PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SIZE: ~
APPLICANT:
. ~
Name:Y-N ~bSQD~
Address: d:- <) S'" ~ ~ r;~~t'
~lA~~ II>
Phone: b3/~' tt'/ j
CONTACT PERSON:
(if other than applicant)
Name:
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER:
(if other than applicant)
Name: ~ f-t-t. B,,&oL ~ ~~p ~
Address:
Phone:
Specific Requested Special exception; Applicable Sectlon(s) of the Zoning Chapter:
~rZr ~"t. l~t(,t4.
Purpose for special exception: locA.re iJ(U..) f3vJ ( ~ L.S I ,A--r
l' *1. ~ ["c,~~
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
-2-
Please see 14-8C-2 in the Code for more detailed information on special exception
application and approval procedures. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with
questions about the application process or regulations and standards in the Zoning Code.
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Leaal descrlDtion of property (attach separate sheet if necessary):
,B. *Plot Dlan 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 owner of each
property opposite or abutting the property in question;
6. Parking spaces and trees - eXisting and proposed.
*Submission of an 8 W' x 11" plot plan is preferred.
C. Review: The Board of Adjustment is empowered to grant special exceptions to the
provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code only in circumstances specifically
enumerated within the Code. To ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is observed
and substantial. justice done, no special exception shall be granted by the Board
unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the specific and general approval
criteria are met, as described below.
Soecific ADDroval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find
that the requested special exception meets the specific approval criteria set forth
within the zoning code with respect to the proposed exception. In the space
provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board review that
apply to the specific requested special exception. The applicant is required to
present specific Information. not just opinions. that demonstrate that the requested
special exception meets each of the specific approval criteria listed in the Zoning
Code. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions In the base zone are
set forth in 14-48-4 of the Zoning Code. For other types of special exceptions - modifications
to setbacks. parking requirements, etc. - refer to the relevant approval criteria listed in the
Code. Planning staff Is available to assist you in finding the relevant approval criteria for
your requested exception.) Attach additional sheet if necessary.
\L J,td
C\ {\ tl
MCCLURE
ENI;;INEEI,ING COMPANY
III~~
-
. . ~.. ... .. IfTl1TTij~i..~.
~.m..._._~,..'"'__"'"
ME C r.esults. com
CORALVILLC
1150 5th Street, Ste.270
Corll1villp, IA ~221j '-2933
319.338.2449 T
319.338.2487 f
OFFICES
ANK!::NY
rorn DODGE
OTTlIMWA
May 26, 2006
City of IOwa City
Planning Department
RE: Old Towne Commercial lot
MEC# 326017
To Whom It MayConcem:
The purpose Of this correspond~n(;e is to address the specific approval criteria for
the proposed drive-through facility. The applicant is proposing to build a bank on
the corner as shOWn on the conceptual site plan. The drive through facility that is
proposed has two lanes, plus an ATM area.. The items below specifically address
the special exception approval criteria.
2. Special exception approval criteria.
a. The applicant is planning to build the drive-through facility in such a
manner that will not be disruptive to adjacent residential properties. The
drive-through will be set back from the Right-of-Way of Scott Blvd.
approximately 70 feet and will have landscaping screening in between the
Right-of-Way and the structure. The applicant also intends to bulld an
architecturally ennanced structure for the drive-through to provide a
pleasing view from the.street. The applicant has provided for safe
pedestrian flow with a oombination of public sidewalks and private walks
through the site.
b. The surrounding street capacities is not an issue for the drive-through on
this site. All of the traffic will be entering the site off of Scott and Rochester
on the approved access points. They will then be entering the bank area
through private accesses. The private drive aisle will be accommodating
the traffIc from this lot only. The drive-through lanes will provide stacking
of six cars and should at no time compromise the safety of the traffic.
c. As stated earlier the drive-through structure will beset back approximately
70 feet from the Scott Blvd. R.O.W. Screening standards following "$2"
standards will be provided.
J. The lighting for the drlve.through facility will comply with the outdoor
lighting standards. The lighting will not glare on to adjoIning property
owners.
A copy of the conceptual sUe plan Is attached illustrating the above issues and the
preliminary plan for the entire lot. The other necessary applications are also
attached.
Should you have any questions. or require any additional information please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
McClure Engineering Company
Adam J. Bohr, P.E.
N:\Land Projocts 411AC 326017P\Cler\ColTespondenoe\planning dEipt.doc
-3-
D. General Approval Criteria: The Board must also find that the requested special
exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following
criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet,
provide specific information. not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific
requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or
tt:Jat the approval criteria are not relevant in your particular case.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
() 17~ \( ~ U f T (Ut-ff t L. W ( l1.. (~f' AoCQ.;..JATf::-
(kpr- ~p tJw0uGI{'E(LA~~ 1l.4;-{Zot.->G:>l.fOUl
r ~ S,.rt
t j)€I(~~~'r l~ bf A Cr,MM€ 1'-' ~t..- .Jo.'"C'"'Uf~
?-P 17 q.v\f t- U@ T <lAt'~1f"i c.. W \ '-<.. Po r- B....
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not
substantially diminish and Impair property values In the neighborhood.
p T ~ 'G-J T\ ~ Oe..v~ ~ '.5 A. CoMM ~.r-~...........A
~..,.elof"""e..-t t- t '1 c.l JJ '\ ~ I\.tZ'-c, k04Z.~r,4'r.::.}Ae€.-sr-
p(l..opd'-her. -$0 ;A b-." IL OS~ t-~'Ce..0p
~ l c.A.- b:L )." f 4-c\p /L.~~. (fc....:) A1:>o,.~) T (lot-
~.lL cJ((A. Bt.- A.J A~t ~v~ P~4S'. ~G
B..:>w<> . "..) b ,- ~... CJ ........ ~,,~~u.. ~E: ~'ft<!-~ D~~ J
3. establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal 'f .
and orderly development and Improvement of the surrounding property for
uses permitted In the district in which such property is located.
P/J, BPNll.. Us<-. t- p~~ ~ l7 ,~Asse..-
T~ T I.Vt. C;.)'t1-17-ov.,..>O,,-.)b 6""<;d'~<C?~\ 6.,.)~6;2.<;' ~-Y:)
Pk:>I(l..o~S, TtA{='~'- t,.)(\A.. ~~J'l"fO ~~ l~'/
~f\)"g:'lett.~ D ~ ~ (.~ W/\..L. ,J?1'" A~'f"fCC-~ l)~
th€1- S ~
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
A c~ s s Tz:> ~4C:. ~ . ~ c.. (2.c-v ~ ~ -" \)(# "" ~
l....) 7t~ ~,,\(J.op~l\- 1$ Pto~~OI A., wJl ~') I
~Cd-S5 h -rk \?"OfE.r+, .+0 ~fL q~v-K.....I ~b
+- L.\60H-r'~6 t,.).v\. \3~ ){)rz~"JlI>-rl; "*0 ~~rz.,ofJ!.A~~~
tY'>~Q ~ "fb-( 1~APfiu.~,..> ~l1\lJe~ €'P('"?~.
-4-
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
~"'- t~ fo~ S~f~ 1'(^^t\11)'11'>i~.s/~l~S
~~ ~eC7 S ~ MAl to.,) C ~cA ';-O~ ~f).O'5 f No ~
lIw<-~r t-..#. Ct:..'=:'6€S % ...,) W,l,..... D 0"\ ~'i- A,.,J. ( Ss u r[:
~l~ \.,~ i)~I~Up V5t
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other
respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in
which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception
requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant
will demonstrate complIance with the specific conditions required for a
particular use as provided in the City Code section 14-48 as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through 1<).]
. A~ -S,~ PI.6.~,~, \~S ~~ rJ)l>,.,.€ ;-
~~Clf ,..j~ ~() lr lOG ~~rf, W~ ~ @-r5 ~ FJ)€'..J q-
Z>t> ~ ~ I 7'f l,).v..... ~ ~ ~ ~ CJt t?l--r tA.p p ~vf
00~ S/~o,~~s..
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
'~u. ~ t tt P~6\)I,,)b t~s ()o.r->~ (~ Co~{l.(~f N~~
~ l~ :C;...:>A CA ~f~N,"~~ <;~rF f-
r-:, '1$ I ~ ~ r~ 0 Ve~ ~'"-(>~.
-5-
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
ADDRESS
-6-
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the 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, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which 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 14-8C-2C4, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date 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 14-8C-1E, City Code).
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 any
taxpayer or any officer, deparbnent or board of the City may present to a court of
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 the illegality. (Section
14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision In the office of the City Clerk.
Date:
,20_
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Date:
,20_
Slgnature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Appllcant(s)
ppdadmin\appfication-boase.doc
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: July 12, 2006
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC06-00015 Four Oaks
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Four Oaks Family & Children's
Services
1916 Waterfront Drive
Contact Person:
Mary Chval or Kelli Malone
319-337-4523
Requested Action:
Approval of a special exception
Purpose:
To allow a General Community
Service Use in the CI-1 zone
Location:
1916 Waterfront Drive
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
59,590 square feet
Group Living (CI-1)
North: Commercial (CC-2)
South: Commercial (CI-1)
East: Commercial (CI-1)
West: Commercial (CI-1)
Size:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Applicable code sections:
General Community Services in the
CI-1 zone, 14-4B-4D-4; 14-4B-3A,
Special Exception approval criteria
File Date:
June 15, 2007
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In 1993, the Board of Adjustment granted a special exception to allow the establishment of the
Four Oaks (Youth Homes, Inc.) group home and emergency shelter facility to house up to 24
adolescent youths at 1916 Waterfront Drive. (Prior to that, Hope House, an adult community
corrections facility, was located on the site.) In 1999, Youth Homes, was granted a second
special exception to expand the facility to allow construction of a 1,120 square foot classroom.
The 1999 special exception did not increase the number of clients served, only the size of the
structural size of the facility. The 24 clients allowed for the Group Living facility is well below the
199-maximum that would be allowed on a site of this size.
Four Oaks, now proposes the construction of a Youth Center to provide space for an existing
program that is currently housed in a rented warehouse on Industrial Park Road on Iowa City's
2
far southeast side. The new building will serve the Phase Structured Community Treatment
program, a supervised program that will serve up to 65 Johnson County youth daily. The total
number of clients served includes the maximum 24 youth who live in the residential facility, 12
non-resident youth in the treatment program and the remainder would be kids who are part of
Four Oaks tracking services-these do not necessarily visit the site for treatment.
The proposed one-story, 3,000 to 3,500-square-foot facility includes a large activity room and
classroom, which take up more than half of the building floor area and provide space for indoor
recreation, meetings and activities. The remainder of the building will serve as offices and work
space for program staff and therapists. The addition will have its own entrance, but may also be
accessed from the residential treatment facility via a breezeway.
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 of the Section 14-4B-40-4 (page 194) pertaining to General Community Service
uses within the CI-1 Zone and the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in
Section 14-4B-3A (page 171).
While the established facility on this site is classified as a Group Living use,.the proposed
expansion will primarily serve a separate, non-residential function. Because the special
exception criteria for Group Living uses addresses only the residential aspects of the use (space
per roomer and access to kitchen, bath and other residential facilities, etc.), Staff determined
that it would be more appropriate to consider the expansion under the General Community
Service use criteria. Like Group Living, Community Service uses are allowed in the CI-1 zone by
special exception.
The Zoning Chapter defines a Community Service Uses as: "Uses of a public, non-profit, or
charitable nature providing a local service to people of the community. Generally they provide
the service on site or have employees at the site on a regular basis. The service is ongoing, not
just for special events. . . . The use may provide special counseling, education, or training of a
public, nonprofit or charitable nature." General Community Service includes youth club facilities
and some social service facilities. (14-4A-6C, page 161)
As indicated by the applicant, Four Oaks is a non-profit organization that has provided treatment
and counseling services for youth in Iowa City for 35 years. Four Oaks group living facility has
operated at this location on Waterfront Drive for 13 years.
Specific Standards for General Community Service Uses in the CI-1 Zone: 14-4B-40-4
(page 194)
The specific criteria for General Community Services uses states that the proposed use should
not significantly alter the overall character of the zone and must not inhibit future development of
uses for which the zone is primarily intended. The Board will consider such factors as size and
scale of the development, projected traffic generation, and whether adequate transportation,
transit, and pedestrian facilities exist to support the proposed use.
3
The Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone is intended to provide areas for sales and service functions
and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display, storage and/or
sale of merchandise, by repair of motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and
recreational activities or by activities or operations conducted in building not completely closed
(see page 49 of the Zoning COde).
The CI-1 zone in which Four Oaks is located is an evolving area. While much of the property in
the area just south of Highway 6 was originally zoned for industrial use, recent residential
growth to the south of Iowa City has brought with it more commercial growth. Properties along
the South Gilbert Street area between Waterfront Drive and Southgate Avenue are proposed for
rezoning to Community Commercial (CC-2) as are properties along Boyrum north of Olympic
Court. While this gradual change toward more general commercial use was anticipated by the
South District Plan, most of the remaining area east of Waterfront Drive is expected to remain
CI-1.
The Four Oaks lot is approximately 59,590 square feet and the established building footprint for
the residential facility is 5,484 square feet. Because the residential program has operated at this
site with no known negative impact on the neighboring properties, the proposal to add the non -
residential program to include and additional 41 (maximum) non-residential clients in the 3,000
to 3,500 square foot addition is, in Staff's view, a reasonable use of the property.
Traffic generated by the expanded facility will be minimal in comparison with other uses
permitted in the CI-1 zone and will not require additional parking beyond what is already
available on the site. The proposed addition to the building is 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. A
minimum of 35 parking spaces are required in total to accommodate the residential and non-
residential programs as proposed (23 for the residential facility, based on 1 space per 3 beds +
1 for each staff member; 12 spaces for the proposed expansion program, based on 1 space per
300 square feet). The established parking lot has 38 spaces. In addition, the location of the
facility is accessible via public transit routes (Broadway and Lakeside/Westwinds). The site also
has sidewalk access running north to the Hy-Vee property and south to Southgate Avenue.
Properties that are directly adjacent to the site within the CI-1 zone include the Mid Eastern
Council on Chemical Dependency (a residential drug treatment facility) to the south, TMone (a
telemarketing firm) to the east, and Auto Tech Center to the west. The adjacent property to the
north is occupied by Hy-Vee in the CC-2 zone. Because the commercial areas south of Hy-Vee
and east of Gilbert Street do not experience heavy traffic loads and do not require high-visibility,
in Staff's opinion, the proposed use will fit into the commercial character of the area.
General Standards: 14-48-3, Special Exception Review Requirements
The applicant's comments regarding each of the general standards are included on the attached
application form. Staff comments related to the general approval criteria are set forth below.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. A group care facility has operated on the site since
1993 with no known negative impact on the neighboring properties or the public in general.
Because client's of this facility are supervised, in Staff's view the expansion of the facility to
serve an additional, non-residential use will also have little or no negative effect on surrounding
properties. The proposed expansion to the facility will provide expanded counseling and
rehabilitation services for troubled youths and their families, and thus will contribute positively to
the public welfare of the larger community. The location of the site, with access to public transit
makes the site accessible for clients without cars.
4
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. For the reasons cited above, in criteria 1, Staff finds that
the 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
for the following reasons: The lot on which the facility is established is attractively landscaped and
well-maintained. Traffic generated by the expanded facility will be minimal in comparison with
other uses permitted in the zone and will not required additional parking beyond what is already
available on the site. Because the commercial areas south of Hy-Vee and east of Gilbert Street
do not experience heavy traffic loads and do not require high-visibility, the proposed use will fit
into the commercial character of the area.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in
the zone in which such property is located. With the exception the Hy-Vee property, which is
zoned CC-2, the surrounding properties are fully developed for uses permitted in the CI-1 zone
or have received special exceptions for human service related uses. For the reasons stated for
criteria 1 and 2, Staff finds that the specific proposed special exception will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities
are already provided to the site. In addition, the established parking lot exceeds the minimum
parking requirements for a facility of this size.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. As stated earlier, traffic generated by
the facility is small in comparison to other uses permitted in the CI-1 zone. The commercial area
south of the Hy-Vee store on Waterfront Drive and east of Gilbert Street does not experience
heavy traffic loads, and so congestion is not a concern.
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. The requested
special exception is to allow an expansion to the current facility for a general community service
use. The proposed site plan shows that the building meets the required setbacks. When the
applicant submits a finalized site plan for review, all other applicable zoning requirements for the
new addition will need to be met.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. This
property is within the area included in South District Plan, which depicts this area as appropriate
for intensive commercial uses. As discussed above, in Staff's view the proposed General
Community Service would be compatible with such uses. The Comprehensive Plan contains
goals and strategies to provide adequate social services to the community.
5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC06-00015, an application for a special exception to allow an
expansion for General Community Service use on property located in the Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) zone at 1916 Waterfront Drive be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Proposed Site Plans
3. Photos
4. Aerial view of site
5. Application materials
Approved by: ~..v- ~..
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
w
>
<(
W
f-
<(
C)
:r:
f-
:J
o
(f)
C\I
,..
en
a:
--......
c
D..
o
t:
(j
~
~
~
t:
(j
,..
-
u
C\I
U
U
I
I
I
I
I is Hl38l18
: DID
~O SN3^3iS
I
a:::
o
(f)
z
w
>
W
f-
(f)
W
f-
<(
C)
:r:
f-
:J
o
(f)
- .~~,-
[5 .~~
La
~
o
o
o
I
co
o
o
><
I W
I
~
o
~
C
o
lo-
-
l0-
CI)
+--
~
S
co
~
(j)
~
z
o
~
~
<
U
o
~
~
~
~
r.J)
, It
;I~
, "
,I !ri
".,::-<,J J-J
'J
'"\
.:i
,;) ~~-.- r--'
, ~ I
I
"-rr,. ~. . ~. _M~ _. _ _'---:.,~
i"" , ' . -""1\_,- - ~~L -=:-: - - _ _ _ _ -=- r _;- _
r:\~'}-T--d~YL--~~. Ji ,<
\:: '\,,:*:=-:_=_=_~ ~-.:c:~i~ ~:~~__\ ,~,.~ "~ ~'
:--...---- ----JJ___ '---. . \ ,'k \ (l,.
' --. - - ~ .. ---"", "C, ."" . \ "
":---'-~-:',- .~,." ", '\."""~\" ~ [:", L.:
,. '-"~~-. '- - -" '\ , , '~\ .
II . I 1.1'\ '.'\' '. r''':'''~j , <:<<:
· ;' " " \, " \ ..Y ~ .':
~~ : " ~'I ! t-. ~~> \ \ -I' .. <U 'CPt' '-: '
sa,,! --r" ,. ,", -". - II ',~-,,, I ". ,
· , " r :-Tw:!;'" - '\, i / 'I'" --, : L'
' , ~ i; '\J/ I,~ " L. ..
/,1/1 -~ I' " ~~ '" I.,
< '1 " "~..J '::.- , .
I V j, ";[. C> . '.' :
/,. '~I~ ' ~~ -~- ~~ '1M \j ~. {2,
: '5~.j 'f~ = "
t-.. : r f", " '.
' . I " , '-' "\ , , '
.,. .. L _ _ .. _ ~. _,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. .:~::- " , . _ -+- > .::" ~I
". , :r:: --.----~_. I. \'. ," ... _~ __~--- <>~I ~
" :~ ',' . "--.. u '" " ", ,
' i' ,
-c-, ~~~-ITip- : -m./ l-il, (::~
I II I, I I II I , I Ii' I' ,
I . I, , ,:! '.
11 . ,
I.
I;
"
!
,
...
..
...
,
I
-l
i
l
; i
I I
I ' .
,L__i
I
--.-- ._~ .
I
I
I
, I
..L. __~
!~,", I~
~.o ,~
(fi :?::l ;Z.
, . (....-;: I
q; r; (J1
r:::::;.\ _....:.
~~~.r\, ~
r':~'~1 ~
'...:;.- c:>
'J:> 0
-n
-
f-
'rn
,-..-1.
\......)
(j
---v
,
"
I
I
J
(,.."
/'
"
rSL',,\
;::.. ~
'::l . ~,'5
1:, "')
. ............, ~\.........
~<~
~
..
TEl. -
~~)
~
0L_.-
? ''''''', ~
~.J..Y IDG
m.
-'Ie. -=
--\'\-
\'\
--
-
-
-
VRJV!' _ __
~~~~~ - --
-
-
-
--
_6-
6
-&
-
-
-
-
--
6
-
-
-
-
-
~
lI'-8'V .. 4'-G'H
5'~~..o'If
,,-- .. -
4'-6'
....7t
J
..
~
~ n
~ ;:o~
d; oP tl;
~ o III
r ." 3 III
~ c: ~x
.J ;
0
III
III
rr-::
~ ~ ~
;r-
~
..
i
9'-W 1'-:1' ......
D t:tI n
-t) ;:0,
l:; -t) o III ;:00 J
~ n O~ o:s
III 3^ O-t)
3' ~x
III
:s ~
n
III
~ liNt
(.1
CJ D 0 n-
: ~ , ;0-., ~
~ -t) -t) ~ ~ "'t) 0::::
"'t) -t) -t) P o III
n n n (0 3
III III III III
....... 14'-7i: 1O'-lr "'-ar
2'-4;", " 4'_ ......"" .....
-...-lr w..... ........ ...7"
/V
1;1
01S,
-' ~ i i ~ 1"\"1"1'" i ;8~ i
!:!J .... I ~ ~ ~2 !
YOUTH HOMES, INC
1916 WATERFRONT DRIVE
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
sO i~1 I~
c.;,>o ~
- c.....
QI\'s i>
Site for the proposed building addition.
View of parking area looking west.
View of parking lot looking north.
Johnson County GIS Online
Johnson Count
Page 1 of I
Legend
Legend
Politic:al
Boundaries
. V CenlartJnas
CilnlartJne labels
Mobile Homes
Paroel Lines
P3't:d td
P3't:d
p,qt..d-W"'f
http://www.johnson-county.com/servlet/ com.e~ri .esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceN ame=jcmapO... 6/20/2006
~--0flXlJ 15
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: 6/12/06
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PROPERTY ZONE:
PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1nn2~1
1916 Wattl'/ront Drive
CI-1
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 59.590 SII. It.
APPLICANT: Name: FOil' Oaks Family tlnd Childrens Sel'Vu:n
Addreea: 1916 W,*,jront Drive
Phone: 319..337-4523
0
CONTACT PERSON: Name: KeHI Mtiione 0' Mtuy ChVtll ~.-( )
(If other than applicant) )> \
Q /'
Add.....: 1916 WtIttI'front Drive
~, )
Phone: 319-337-4523 ~J,
Q
),
)>
PROPERTY OWNER: Name:
(If other than applicant)
Add.....:
Phone:
1','
C-,
li.7~-;J
Co:'"'\
-.-"
I I
CJ1
---0
11-'
1 ; 1
_"n'_'
-'~'"
1'0
..
o
o
Specific Requeattcl Special Exceptlonj Applicable 8ectIon(s) of the Zoning Chapter:
!J01(Y4 i Co mMVn'-' .J'erviu- Use ~..ftu.. e:J'- / z~
Purpose for special exception: Const1'1ICt new b"ildinll fo, of1kn ad tlCtivitv slHIce
Date of previous application or appeal filed, If any: 10/13/93 ".219199
-2-
Pi.... S88 14-8C-2 in the Cod. for more detailed infonnation on special .xception
application and approval procedures. Planning staff are availabl. to aaaist applicants with
questions about the application ptOC888 or regulations and standards In the Zoning Cod..
'NFORMAnON TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
Lot 16 BLK 5 Braverman Center. Book and Page 1703-239
Q
:::.:: 0
-,>--;
'"',. --J
1'"-,,)
~:;;
C'"'
A. Leqal dMcrlDtlon of property (attach s.parate sheet If necessary):
-n
C)
=~=l
~.<
Ul
B.
*Plot Dlan drawn to scal. showing:
-0
-~1
- '
~- ;
:::;:
f"""--t
\_.J
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Lot with dlm.nslons;
North point and scal.;
Existing and proposed structures with distances from property IIn88;
Abutting streets and all.ys;
Surrounding land U888, including the location and record owner of each
property opposite or abutting the property in question;
Parking spaces and trees - .xlsting and proposed.
o
~
):>
N
,.
o
o
*Submiaalon of an 8 %" x 11" plot plan is prefemKI.
See AttIlched DocUlMnts.
C. R.view: The Board of AdJustm.nt is empowered to grant special .xceptions to the
provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Cod. only in circumstances specifically
enum.rated within the Cod., To ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is observed
and sube...tial Justice done, no special .xception shall be granted by the Board
unl... the applicant demonstrates that all of the specific and g.neral approval
criteria are met. as described below.
SDeCific ADDroval Criteria: In order to grant a special .xception, the Board must find
that the requested special exception meets the specific approval criteria set forth
within the zoning code with respect to the proposed exception. In the space
provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board review that
apply to the specific requested special exception. The applicant 18 required to
p.....nt specific information, not Just opinions, that demonstrate that the requested
special exception meets each of the specific approval criteria listed In the Zoning
Code. (Specific approval criteria for U888 listed as special exceptions In the base zone are
set forth In 1~4 of the Zoning Code. For other types of special exceptions - modifications
to setbacks, parking requlntments, etc. .. refer to the relevant approval criteria listed In the
Code. Planning staff Is available to assist you In finding the relevant approval criteria for
your requested exception.) Attach additional sheet If necessary.
Four Ollks is requesting this exception to buihl a tul4itlon tlult will houe ojJice, progrtun ad IIctiVity SpliCe.
This splice willllllow room lor existing progrlllllS to expIIIfd activity space, slIpply oJJice ad progrtllllmlng
IIrellS to the Strllctured Community Trelltlnent Progl'llltl and provide meeting roOIllS lor community grollps IInd
IlImiIy services.
The proposfJd new structure will meet the specijic CriterillllS defined In the city code. The existing structure
and progrtUIIS lire cll1'rently in complillnce with City code or hold specilll exception lor use. No additional
services or par1clng lire neededlor this project. The pt'Olfl'lll"S hllve been houed In this location since 1993
without detriment to the neighborhood.
The proposed "" 01 the bllihlin, is to enhllnce our IIbllity to provide services to existing clients by Increasing
our progrtllll IInd therllJlY SpliCe. These services have not illtpllCted the chll1'llcter olthe neighborhood IInd no
issues. 'It expected In the lutllre.
...
-3-
D. General ADDroval Crlter1_: The Board must also find that the requested special
exception meets the following general approval criteria or thM the foItowfng
criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet,
provide SDeelflc information. not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific
requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or
that the approval criteria are not relevant In your particular case.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
FOllr Oaks is tI prlvtlte, non proflt tlgency tledlctlted to worldng with trollbled YOllth tIIId their fa",llles.
The tlJIency htlS been provldilfg services to ffl1tlilies In this co",,,,tmlty for 35 yeti" and in this speciftc
Ioctltion for 13 ~tII'S. The hetlUh, safety tIIId wel/tlre of the com",lInity is enhanced by ollr efforts.
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.
The neighboring properties tire bllsinesses thtlt hllVe specijic cllentMe tlnd they will not be tlffected by the
tultlition. The proposed tultlition tit FOllr Oaks will be till attI'tIctWe bnproveltl8nt to the property th.t win
be comptltlble with the existing structllre. The presence of Four Oaks in this loctltion htlS not had tiny
tulverse effects on the SllrrollMing bllsinesses or cO"""lInity in the pilSt 13 yetlrs.
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 district in which such property Is located.
The proposed addition will not bnpede the developltl8'" or bnprowltl8nts of sllrrounding properties. The
neighboring businesses tire: MeccIl, TMone, By-Jlee tIIId A lito Tech Center. By-Jlee is p/ilnning till
exptlnslon tIfId TMone htlS recently chtlnged from MCL Fou, Oaks tultlition should not Interfe,e with
tiny Improwltl8nts 0' exptIfISIons of the neighboring businesses.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or nec....ry facilities have
been or are being provided.
ROtIds, utllitles tlM dlVlhulge are tIlready in p/(Ice tit thsi loctltion. No chtlnges tire n~tlry
<0
>:'-'-'.'i
C)-<:
:::~
C)
<;:
'"'"'-
)>
r',,:>
c;::::)
c'..::)
0--
'-
c:
z
-on
Ul
....-
,
-0
rTl
\--,
'--......J
::;~
N
o
o
-4-
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egr...
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
There will be no change needed to access the addition, no ;ltCreae In traJfic is expect<<l.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
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 special 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 the City Code section 14-48 as well as
requirements listed In the base zone or applicable overtay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).]
The pro~rty and tire progrtllftS at 1916 Waterfront Drlw currently comply will all City Code M/U;remenls
excluding the special exceptions' Four Oaks will conthtue to meet all regullltiom that apply.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
S;"ce 1993. Four Oaks hllS provided residential and community services to Johnson Community
members fro.. this location. The buUding tutti services currently flt within the plJrameters of the
Comprehensive PlIIn of the City _ will continue to do so with the addition.
r-.)
0 t':;'::.'i
(:';';:')
0.....
~ Q
)> --I 11
Cj ",..(
=.~ c.n ',--n
.:-< -0
;.-'t
""'"i\l;'''' '---1
r-,\ --"'l,'"
'--' N
-s:
~ 0
0
-5-
E. List the names and mailing add....... of the record owne... of all property located
within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property Involved In this appeal:
NAME
ADDRESS
1720 Watetfront Drive
430 Southllate
1947 Waterfront Drive
1925 Boyrum
Hy-Vee
Mecca
Auto Tech Center
TMone (formerly MCI)
CR and IC Railway
9
sO
)>=-l
.'
O'
=-...4 (-',
...../1-
- -, fTt
-- ..,-:
....-) .......'
'::::--7(
~
r<l
=
C:''J
<:::F"'
<-
~
-n
c..'1
-
r--
\
-c
=~
'r-r-1. '
, I I
,.---,
<...-J
rs;
o
o
~
NOTE: Conditions. In pennitting a special exception, the Board may impose approorlaa
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens,. fencl"lf
construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls,
improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum
yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which 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 14-8C-2C-4, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise detennined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date 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 pennitted under the tenns of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building pennit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the tenns of the pennit 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 14-8Co1E, City Code).
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 any
taxpayer or any officer, deparbnent or board of the City may present to a court of
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 the illegality. (Section
14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Date:
$h~ /S
,20~ ~~./-f~
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Date:
,20_
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdadmin\application-boase.dOC
o
<;:,.......,
<'-..... ,)
>-i
r-,,;;
~~;
0'"""
'-
c:-:;
z
Tl
,...,
'~4 .-.'
..~- ,...,
----1 .c. "
.../'
... ......i..T..;
022
<" /'
.>
)>
U1
-0
:11
----r
.......J
::;:
N
<:::)
o
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JUNE 14, 2006
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Ned Wood, Michael Wright.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Shelangouski
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Mitchel Behr
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:07 PM.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 14. 2006 MINUTES
Wright said that on page 6, first paragraph after the amendment, second sentence instead of "she" should
be "he".
Alexander said that on page 11, third paragraph instead of "unreasonable" should be "reasonable".
MOTION: Wright moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Alexander seconded the motion. Motion
passed 4:0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC06-00007 Discussion of an application submitted by Terry Gillette for a special exception to permit a
side yard reduction to allow a second floor addition to be located within one foot of the property line for
property located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 920 E. Davenport
Street.
Walz said the original house at 920 Davenport Street is considered a non-conforming structure because it
sits within one foot of the east property line; the precise location of the property line is unclear. She noted
that a five-foot minimum side setback is required in the RS-8 zone. The applicant has added on to the
back of the house, thereby expanding the non-conforming structure without the required building permit or
special exception.
Walz said that in 2004 the Building Official received a report from MidAmerican Energy about the property
for what appeared to be an illegal addition on the back of the house. Walz said the report noted that the
electric service to the house was propped up on a PVC pole. It appeared that the property owner (the
applicant) had screened in a deck on the west side of the house and constructed or enclosed a portion of
the deck on the east half of the house.
Walz stated that in July 2004 the Building Official sent a notice of violation to the applicant citing the
unsafe electric service. She noted that the applicant was instructed to apply for a building permit. Later,
on August 4, 2004, the Building Official requested that the owner submit site plans for the project. On
August 13, 2004, the owner submitted an application for a permit for an unspecified project along with a
number of sketches for the addition. However, because the information provided by the applicant was
incomplete and the plans submitted were inconsistent, a permit was not issued. As an example Walz said
that the plot plan submitted by the applicant showed the rear portion of the house as 18.5 feet deep, while
the west elevation showed 18.0 feet and the east elevation showed 17.0 feet. The extent of the addition
was not clear to the Building Official nor whether the addition was to the first or second story or both.
While a permit was never issued, in January 2006 it was discovered that the applicant had completed the
addition and another notice of violation was issued. Walz said that in April 2006 the applicant submitted
an application for a building permit, describing the project as a second story addition. The Building Official
noted the non-conforming setback on the east side of the house and advised the applicant that a special
exception would be required to permit the structure within the required side setback.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 2
Walz stated that 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 of Adjustment may grant the
requested reduction in the side setback requirement if the applicant demonstrates that the approval
criteria have been satisfied in addition to general standards for special exceptions.
Walz said that a special exception may be granted to reduce the principal building setback if the applicant
of a property demonstrates that the general special exception approval criteria and the following specific
approval criteria have been satisfied:
1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question.
2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements;
3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations; and
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent
practical.
5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the
side or rear property line abuts the public right-of-way or permanent open space.
Walz noted that the applicant was unable to demonstrate any of the above criteria. She said that this
situation is not peculiar to the property nor is there difficulty in complying with the setback requirements.
The applicant's lot is slightly narrower than the standard RS-8 lot (40 feet)-the assessor's records show
the lot at 38 feet. The original, non-conforming structure sits on or within a foot of the east property line,
however the west side of the house is set back approximately 20 feet from the west property line, allowing
sufficient space for the applicant to build an addition.
She said that granting the special exception is contrary to the purpose of the setback requirement. Walz
said the purpose of the setback requirement is to:
1. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting;
2. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings;
3. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods and
commercial areas;
4. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and
5. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
She said the addition to this property extends the portion of the house that is less open to air, light, and
separation for fire protection and access. The addition within the required setback reduces the opportunity
for privacy for the house on the abutting lot as well as the space necessary for maintenance. According to
measurements taken from the aerial views, the two houses are set approximately 7 feet apart at the point
of the new addition. While many residences in this neighborhood are on narrow lots, they do not typically
sit this tightly.
Walz noted that the applicant has not demonstrated any attempt to mitigate potential negative effects
resulting from the setback exception. Finally, the addition extends the non-conforming structure within 3
feet of the side property line.
Walz noted that the application for this special exception is incomplete, and the applicant has provided no
information or evidence that the reduction of the required minimum setback will not impact neighboring
properties nor the general welfare.
The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort
or general welfare. Walz said the reduction of the minimum side setback reduces light, air, separation for
fire protection, and access for firefighting and the opportunity for privacy between dwellings.
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. Walz
said the requested reduction of minimum side setback reduces the opportunity for privacy and the safety
of the adjacent dwelling and thus may impair the use and enjoyment of the adjacent property. Because
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 3
the building is so close to the property, the owner and future owners will need to enter the adjacent
property to maintain the east side of the house.
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. Walz noted the requested reduction of minimum side setback may impede the opportunity for the
adjacent property owner to add on or maintain his/her property.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided.
Because this is a fully developed residential neighborhood this issue is not applicable.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize
traffic congestion on public streets. Because this is a fully developed residential neighborhood this issue
is not applicable.
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. Walz said that because the addition was built without the required
building permits or inspections, it may not be in conformity with other City codes. If this special exception
is approved, a building permit and inspections will be necessary.
The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Walz said the Housing
Goals and Strategies in the Comprehensive Plan include maintaining and improving the safety of all
housing. This goal calls specifically for enforcement of building and housing codes.
Walz said that staff recommends that EXC06-00007 an application for a reduction of the required side
setback for property at 920 East Davenport Street be denied.
Alexander asked what would happen if the special exception would be denied. Walz said that the
applicant would have to remove the added portion. Behr added that this would be an enforcement issue
for the Building Official.
Walz noted that a letter from a neighbor in support of the application was received and distributed to the
board members.
Public Hearina Opened
Patricia Gillette, 920 East Davenport Street, clarified the aerial picture presented in the staff report saying
that the picture shows the house after the improvements. Gillette said that it was never their intent to
violate housing and zoning codes or to avoid obtaining a building permit. She noted that they responded
immediately when the permit violation was brought to their attention in the late summer of 2004. She
added that they completed a permit application and submitted the requested drawings on 8/13/204.
Gillette said that contrary to information provided to the board, they did not continue to build despite the
notice of violation and the improvements had already been completed in 2003.
Gillette said that several months after completing the first permit application the building office contacted
them requesting more information and a revision of the drawings to include more specific information.
She noted that they submitted the revised drawings and did not hear from the building department until
early 2006 when they requested architectural plans for the improvements. Gillette said that because they
could not afford to have an architect draw the plans in April 2006 they completed a new permit application
and submitted plans generated using a CAD computer program.
She said that after this last submission they were first notified that they would need to obtain a special
exception to obtain a permit. Gillette said that they completed the application to the Board of Adjustment
on May 1, 2006.
Gillette said that it has always been their intent to respect their neighbors, their neighborhood and the
history of their house. She noted that a history of the property is necessary in order to fully understand the
predicament in which they find themselves. She said their house was in existence in 1880, and the
Historical Society believes that the first room of the home may have been in existence in 1860. Gillette
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14,2006
Page 4
noted that since that time the home has had many owners and has undergone numerous renovations and
improvements. She noted that the earliest improvements appear to have been the addition of a front
room, stairs, and an upstairs sleeping area. She said that later a kitchen, an inside bathroom and an
enclosed back porch were added.
Gillette said that according to their deed, their home was the only structure on a lot that was twice the size
and extended to the east. However, she said that in 1910 the owner of the house built a new house next
door. She noted that at that time there were no City regulations or concerns about the line being drawn
within a foot of their structure.
Gillette said the purpose of the setback requirement is to:
1. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting;
2. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings;
3. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods
and commercial areas;
4. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and
5. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
She noted that because they have not in any way reduced the actual space between the two structures
their improvements have not diminished light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting
and that there remains adequate privacy between the two homes. She said that a majority of neighboring
houses are two-story dwellings and they have not veered from the general building scale or placement of
structures in the neighborhoods.
Gillette said that a special exception may be granted to reduce the principal building setback if the
applicant of a property demonstrates that the general special exception approval criteria and the following
specific approval criteria have been satisfied:
1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question.
2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements;
3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations; and
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent
practical.
5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side
or rear property line abuts the public right-of-way or permanent open space.
Gillette said that due to the unusual age of their home and the unusual division of the lot, the situation is
peculiar to the property. Further, she said that there is a practical difficulty in complying with the setback
requirements. She said that there is less than one foot between the home and the property line. She
noted the only way that their home could comply with the requirement of being located 3' away from the
property line would be to pursue returning the line to the original location that was in place when the
property was first divided: She noted that this could not be done and they should not be penalized for a
property line drawn years ago without the knowledge of future Iowa City Ordinances.
Gillette said that while there is less than l' of clearance between the structure and property line there is
actually 8'6" of clearance at the narrowest point between the two houses. She noted that the location of a
property line should not be the determinant of density instead the space between the structures should be
used.
Gillette said that their alterations and enlargements did not increase or extend the non-conformity of the
structure. She noted that they have not extended into the space or reduced the clearance between the
home and the property line. .
She noted that they have made every effort to provide evidence of good intent and adequate evidence to
support each of the approval criteria.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 5
Terry Gillette, 920 East Davenport Street, said that the back porch was built prior to their ownership. He
said that since they bought the house they worked on improving it. He said that he is sorry for not getting
a permit.
He clarified that the back porch was not part of the extension. He said they have only added above the
porch at the second floor. He said that the footprint of the building has not been altered in any way.
Cindy Coyne, 923 East Davenport Street, said that she is in support of the application. She noted that
Gillette's property always shows their sense of space and landscaping as it is always pleasant to see their
yard.
Donna Gentry, 922 East Davenport Street, said that the new addition had not created any problems. She
added that it would be more inconvenient to tear the addition down since she already has planted flowers
in the area. She added that the Gillette's always have permission to fix that part of the house. Gentry said
that the addition does not pose any problems.
Public hearina closed
Alexander said that due to additional information she sees the situation differently and even with the
alterations made the footprint of the property did not change. She added that at the same time a problem
is that the board should not reward people for ignorance of the rules.
MOTION: Alexander moved that EXC06-00007 an application for a reduction of the required side
setback for property at 920 East Davenport Street be approved. Wright seconded the motion.
Alexander said that she would vote for approval of the application. She said that an addition to the second
floor is a different situation than extending the first floor. Alexander said that the property is peculiar and it
would be difficult to extend the second floor due to the restrictions placed on the first floor. She said that
the adding to the building does not change the light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for
firefighting. She added that there is no change in the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
because the first floor structure already exists. She said that utilities are already in place and the area is
fully developed.
Wood indicated that he would vote in favor. He said that the separation for fire protection is unchanged.
He noted that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity. He said that it will reduce the privacy, but it is an unusual situation in
terms of boundary lines and history of the houses. He said all general standards are met.
Wright said that this is a peculiar situation. He said he would vote in favor of the application. He noted that
the footprint of the building has not been changed and the specific and general criteria are met.
Walz suggested that if the board members were leaning toward supporting the special exception that staff
would recommend the yard reduction be subject to applicant securing an access easement for
maintenance of the building. This would protect future owners of the property who might not be on such
good terms.
AMENDMENT: Wright moved to amend the motion to include a property maintenance easement
between properties at 920 and 922 East Davenport Street. Alexander seconded the motion.
The amended motion passed 4:0.
EXC06-00009 Discussion of an application submitted by Professional Muffler, Inc for .a special exception
to permit the reestablishment of a vehicle repair use and to reduce the street side setback requirement for
property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 708 S. Riverside Drive.
Walz said The Iowa City Zoning Code states that: "Any structure for a non-conforming use that has been
destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a publiC enemy to the extent that less than 75
percent of the replacement value of the structure at the time of damage or destruction, may be restored
for the same non-conforming use as existed before the damage."
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 6
Walz said that Professional Muffler was damaged in the April 13 tornado so severely that the original
building could not be restored. The Muffler shop (a vehicle repair use) is a non-conforming use allowed by
special exception in the CC-2 zone. Therefore, a special exception is required in order to reestablish the
auto repair use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone.
Walz noted that the prior (damaged) building, which was established in 1940, did not meet the current
minimum 10-foot setbacks from Benton Street, S. Riverside Drive (U.S. Highway 6), and the old Benton
Street right-of-way that are required for corner lots in the CC-2 zone. In addition, the applicant relied on a
portion of public right-of-way north (a section of the former W. Benton Street) of his building for parking. In
order to reconstruct a bUilding of similar size and comply with the current requirements of the Zoning
Code (minimum setbacks and landscape screening) the applicant has applied for a vacation of a portion
of the former W. Benton Street right-of way so that he may add it to his property. The applicant is also
seeking to purchase approximately 70 feet of City-owned property to the east of the building, abutting the
Ned Ashton trailhead parking lot, in order to establish the required parking area for his business.
Walz said that because the applicant's property is a corner, a 10-foot setback is required along both
streets Riverside and Benton). The portion of public right-of-way between the applicant's property and
West Benton Street includes a section of the Iowa River Corridor Trail and a well-landscaped green
space, which is maintained by the City. She said the landscaped area is approximately 5 feet deep along
the applicant's proposed parking area and widens to 10-25 feet along the area proposed for the building.
Thus the building has the "appearance" of being set back from the right-of-way, and adequate space is
provided for safety, light, air, etc. While some additional landscaping would be required along the Benton
Street side of the new building, in Staffs opinion the established open green space and landscaping area
along the trail provide an adequate separation between the commercial operation and the street as well
as screening of the parking.
In addition, she said that reducing the required street side setback to 5 feet along Benton Street will allow
the applicant sufficient space to orient the vehicle use areas away from the street while creating safe and
efficient vehicle access to the service bays from the alley. The applicant's proposed site plan includes the
required landscape screening and parking capacity and orients the vehicle repair bays away from the
street. Though the applicant had not provided elevations, Walz indicated that the building would be
required to address the street and that staff had gone over a variety of options with the applicant for
creating a building that was more attractive in order to meet the goals of the district plan.
Staff recommends that EXC06-0009, an application to permit a vehicle repair use and a reduction of the
street side setback requirement for property in the in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 708
South Riverside Drive be approved, subject to submittal of a final site plan demonstrating all required
landscaping and proposed parking layout and traffic circulation, and subject to Design Review approval of
the final architectural design (elevations) of the new building.
Public Hearino Ooened:
Noah Kemp, 2140 Highway 22 Kalona, said that the tornado was devastating. He said that he
appreciates the help received from staff and the consideration of the board.
Public hearino closed
MOTION: Wright moved that EXC06-0009, an application to permit a vehicle repair use and a
reduction of the street side setback requirement for property in the in the Community Commercial
(CC-2) zone at 708 South Riverside Drive be approved, subject to submittal of a final site plan
demonstrating all required landscaping and proposed parking layout and traffic circulation, and
subject to Design Review approval of the final architectural design (elevations) of the new
building. Alexander seconded the motion.
Wright will vote in favor of the application. He said the specific requirements, maintain light, air,
separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting; provide opportunities for privacy between
dwellings; reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods and
commercial areas; promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between
residences; and provide flexibility to site a building have been met. He noted that Vehicle Repair uses are
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 7
allowed by special exception and should not be 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. Wright said the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property, adequate utilities, access
roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided, adequate measures will be
taken to provide ingress or egress and the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to
the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is located.
Alexander will vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated.
Wood will vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated.
Leigh will vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated.
Motion passed 4:0.
EXC06-00010 Discussion of an application submitted by PIP Printing for a special exception to permit
more than 5,000 sq. feet of light manufacturing for property located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
zone at 2650 Mormon Trek Blvd.
'Walz said the proposed use is limited to 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, excluding floor area
devoted to other principal or accessory uses, unless granted a special exception by the Board of
Adjustment (up to 15,000 square feet). She noted that the applicant is requesting a special exception for
a printing facility of up to 12,400 square feet. The proposed building will contain approximately 20,376
square feet of floor area. This space will be divided into three commercial suites of 9,205 square feet,
6471 square feet, and 4,700 square feet, respectively. Walz said the initial plan is to use approximately
5,900 square feet of floor area within the largest commercial suite for the printing operation. The
remainder of the floor area within this commercial suite will be used for accessory office uses, lobby area,
restrooms, employee break room, garage, loading and storage areas. The remaining two commercial
suites may be rented out to other users. However, the applicant is requesting approval to expand into the
adjacent rental suite at such time as the space is needed for additional production space and requests
that the special exception be approved for up to 12,400 square feet within the proposed building for the
printing operation.
Staff feels that the site can accommodate a printing facility of up to 12,400 square feet; however, the
applicant should be aware that if the other suites are rented to uses other than a printing facility, any
special exception granted for that space for a printing facility would expire. Once expired, the applicant
would need to come back to the Board of Adjustment for a new approval, if at the later date they wish to
expand the printing facility into other areas of the building.
Walz said the proposed use meets the performance standards for off-site impacts contained in Article 14-
5H, Performance Standards. She said the proposed use will meet the performance standards for off-site
impacts. There will be no emissions of smoke, particulate matter, chemicals, or offensive odors. The
printing operation will not cause noticeable vibrations and there will be no bulk storage of flammable
materials.
Walz said the proposed use is not one of the manufacturing uses prohibited in the CI-1 Zone. A printing
facility is not one of the prohibited manufacturing uses.
Walz noted that the proposed use will not exceed 15,000 square feet. She said that the applicant is
requesting approval of 12,400 square feet of space for technical/light manufacturing. She added that all
general standards are met.
Staff recommends that EXC06-00010, a special exception to permit a printing facility up to 12,400 square
feet in size in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone on property located at 2650 Mormon Trek Blvd, be
approved.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14,2006
Page 8
Public Hearino Opened:
Dan Tiedt, 526 Woodridge Avenue, said that they might enlarge their production facilities if they do not
get a tenant for one of their suites. He said that they realize that if they rent one or both suites to a tenant
the special exception expires. He said that this represents an opportunity for them to grow in the future
months.
Public hearino closed
MOTION: Alexander moved that EXC06-00010, a special exception to permit a printing facility up
to 12,400 square feet in size in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone on property located at 2650
Mormon Trek Blvd, be approved. Wood seconded the motion.
Alexander will vote in favor of the application. She said that it fits in the possibilities for special exception
since it is less than 15,000 square feet. She said that it will meet the performance standards for off-site
impacts. She noted that it 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. She said that it
will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property.
Alexander said that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided, adequate measures will be taken to provide ingress or egress and the specific
proposed exception. She said that in all other respects, it conforms to the applicable regulations or
standards of the zone in which it is located.
Wood will vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated.
Wright will vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated.
Leigh will vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated.
Motion passed 4:0.
EXC06-00011 Discussion of an application submitted by Willowwind School for a special exception for
the expansion of a general education facility, a reduction on the rear setback requirement, and the
reconfiguration of the parking lot and play areas for property located in the Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-12) zone at 950 Dover Street.
Walz said the applicant, Willowwind School, is requesting a special exception to allow expansion of a
general educational facility in a High Density Single-Family Residential (RS-12) zone. In addition, she
said, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the rear setback requirement for general education
facilities in the RS-12 zone from 50 feet to 30 feet. .
Walz said that in February 2004, The Board of Adjustment granted a special exception for Willowwind
School to allow a general educational facility to be established at 950 Dover Street (the former Moose
Lodge) and to reduce the required rear setback for educational facilities from 50 feet to 38 feet. At the
time, the applicant had not yet consulted within an architect and believed that any necessary
modifications would not require expansion of the building. Walz said the original special exception (EX06-
00001) was granted subject to submittal of a site plan that demonstrates sidewalk construction along the
east side of Dover Street connecting the current sidewalk to Muscatine Avenue; landscape screening
along the front parking lot on Dover Street; and proposed parking layout, traffic circulation, and
landscaping on the site, including identification of a designated fire lane.
Walz noted that since that time, the Willowwind School has hired an architect and assessed the interior
space of the building as well as use of the outdoor areas and parking. She said that the architect has
made a number of recommendations for expanding the building and modifying the outdoor activity areas.
The site plan for the building shows two proposed areas of new construction at the front (south) of the
building: a 400 square foot addition for a handicapped accessible entrance from the lower level with an
elevator and a 1500 square foot formal entrance and conservatory and office space on the main level.
She noted that the plan also shows proposed expansions on the main level (approximately 270 sq. feet
each) to the four classrooms on the east, west, and north sides of the building.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 9
Walz said the site plan also shows,two changes to areas external to the building: the outdoor area on the
west side of the building is proposed for playground use for pre-K and kindergarten students, and the
large parking area at the front of the building will be reduced by more than one third to allow development
of a level grass play area at the front of the property. She said that play areas are an accessory use
associated with educational facilities and do require review by the Board.
She stated that 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 of Adjustment may grant the
requested special exception to allow expansion of the educational facility in the RS-12 zone if the
requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations of the Sections 14-4B-4D-9 as well as
and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A. The Board may grant a
reduction in the rear setback requirement if the applicant demonstrates that the approval criteria have
been satisfied.
Walz said the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan encourages neighborhoods with a mix of housing and
supportive land uses as well as open space and recreational facilities. She added that the
Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of educational facilities and other institutional uses within
neighborhoods provided that traffic circulation and pedestrian safety are ensured and adequate measures
are taken to buffer neighboring property owners from the negative effects of parking and increased noise.
Walz said that with the exception of the additions in the rear setback of the building, Staff believes the
proposed building expansions will have no significant adverse affects on the livability of nearby residential
uses. She said the proposed additions on the east side of the building will be setback more than 100 feet
from the east property line. The area proposed for the formal entrance and office space on the main level
is currently used for air exchange equipment, which will be relocated to the roof of the school. In Staff's
view the conversion of this area will improve the aesthetic appearance of the building. She added that the
two additions on the west side of the building for the enlargement of the classroom on the main level and
the handicapped accessible entrance from the lower level both maintain the 20-foot side setback
requirement and are screened from view of the abutting residential properties to the west by landscaping
and privacy fencing that appear to be on the residential property.
She said that the two additions on the north side of the building will expand further into what is already a
reduced setback of 38 feet. The applicant has not submitted in time to make the package an explanation
of the criteria to meet the rear setback requirements. Walz said the applicant's explanation and a
memorandum signed by her in regard to the set back issue were handed out to the Board prior to the
meeting.
For the previous special exception, the applicant had anticipated using the open area to the east
of the building as active play area. Since consulting with an architect, the applicant has changed
plans for active outdoor use areas. Walz said that because the school operates during limited hours
(approx. 8:00 am until 5:00 pm) on weekdays, in staffs view, the establishment of the newly proposed
outdoor play areas-the kindergarten and pre-K area on the east side of the building and the grass playing
field at the front of the school-will not have significant adverse affects for neighboring properties. Walz
said that because excessively large parking lots are a concern highlighted in the standards for general
educational facilities, the conversion of a large portion of the parking lot at the front of the property will
actually bring the property into better compliance with the code. The redesigned parking area will need to
meet all parking standards for capacity, circulation, and landscaping. She noted that to ensure safety,
staff recommends that the playing field at the front the property be fenced to a height of 6 feet (non-solid
fencing) and, in accordance with the fence regulations, the fence must not be located within the front
setback. Staff recommends additional screening for both play areas to address the potential negative
affect of increase noise generated so close to residential properties.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 10
Walz said an email was received from a property owner on the west side of the school with concerns
about drainage issues. She noted that the email was also handed out. She said that the drainage issue
could be addressed when changes are made to the play area.
Walz said that changes to the parking lot and modifications to the building exterior are required to meet all
zoning and site development standards, including the Multi-Family Site Development Standards.
Walz said the minimum setback requirements are exceeded on all sides of the building with the exception
of the rear setback, which is approximately 38 feet-a 50 foot setback is required. In, the original special
exception to establish the school, the Board of Adjustment reduced the setback
requirements because the building was already established within the required setback. In
addition, the topography of the site, with its steep slope at the rear, combined with the existing
privacy fence along the property line, provides an adequate buffer, screening these properties
from the additional noise and traffic generated by the school.
She said that the two proposed additions on the north side of the building will expand further into what is
already a reduced setback of 38 feet. She said that the applicant had submitted an explanation for the
setback requirements. However, Walz said the information provided does not adequately address the
specific standards for reducing the rear setback. Walz said the situation is not peculiar to the situation in
question. She said that there are opportunities for expansion on the east and west side of the building
which are not within the requirement setback. She said that the applicant noted in the explanation that
there will be improvements to the building facade. Staff believes there can be improvements to the facade
through change of building materials, and addition of windows, which will not intrude within the setback.
Walz said the applicant raised the issue of safety access. Walz explained that fire escapes can be
provided within the required setback, so safety is not an issue. Walz noted that there should not be
practical difficulty because expansions can take place on the east or west sides of the building. Walz said
that granting the exception should not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. She said that
the larger setback requirements for educational institutions are intended to address the intensity of use
and to provide space for neighboring uses. She added that staff believes that backyards are meant for
privacy.
The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff finds that the proposed special exception will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The Staff
recommends additional screening to mitigate noise from the newly proposed play areas
and fencing surrounding the playing field at the front on the property.
The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
properties in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood. Walz said that the school operates during the weekdays from 8 AM to 5:30
PM and thus traffic and noise generated by the school will be limited to business hours. Staff believes that
additionai screening along the both play areas and fencing around the playing field at the front of the
property will provide adequate buffer and separation from the neighboring residential uses. The
conversion of a portion of the parking lot to playing field will bring the site into better conformance with the
code and will improve the aesthetics of the site. She said that the newly designed parking lot and the
additions to the school building itself will be required to meet all zoning and site development standards,
including the Multi-Family Site Development Standards.
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. Walz said the surrounding properties are already fully developed.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided.
Walz said that in the previous special exception for the property the Board found that vehicular access to
the property via a collector (Dover Street) and an arterial street (Muscatine Avenue) meets the
requirements for educational uses established in the RS-12 zone. She added that the construction of a
sidewalk as required in the previous special exception will ensure safe pedestrian access to the property.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 11
traffic congestion on public streets. She said that on-street parking has been restricted along Dover Street
in order to maximize visibility at this location. The existing traffic control at the Dover/Muscatine
intersection has been evaluated by traffic engineers and has been determined to be appropriate.
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. The applicant
is required to submit a site plan to the building official for review and will be subject to all other
requirements of the Zoning Code. Walz said that the site plan must meet the Construction and Design
Standards for off-street parking, including the minimum parking requirements, proposed traffic circulation
on the site, designation of an emergency vehicle/fire lane along the building, and parking layout and
landscaping requirements. Modifications and additions to the building will be subject to the Multi-family
Site Development Standards.
The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Walz said the
Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of educational facilities and other institutional uses within
neighborhoods provided that traffic circulation and pedestrian safety are ensured and adequate measures
are taken to buffer neighboring property owners from the negative impacts of parking and increased
noise. She added that the use of the property as a school complies with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff recommends that EXC06-00011, an application for a special exception allowing an
expansion of a general educational facility in the High Density Single-Family Residential (RS- 12) zone be
granted subject to submittal of a site plan demonstrating the recommended screening and fencing as well
as the prior required sidewalk construction along the east side of Dover Street connecting the current
sidewalk to Muscatine, and proposed parking layout, traffic circulation, and landscaping on the site,
including identification of a designated fire lane. Staff recommends that the special exception to allow a
reduction in the rear setback requirement for a general educational facility in the RS-12 zone be denied.
Public Hearina Opened:
Chris DeGrout, representing Teague Architects said that they are trying to recreate the design elements
of the existing school. He said they want to create an attractive building but also want to be good
neighbor. He said they are trying to give the school a residential feeling as to better include itself in the
neighborhood. DeGrout said that they are asking for an extension of 8-10 feet for the bump outs which
will give the opportunity of breaking the mass and creating a more residential aspect. He said the
proposal will be a greater benefit to the neighborhood and the school itself.
Wood asked what the appropriate dimensions of the bump outs are. DeGrout said the vertical dimensions
will be 8-9 feet, and 20-25 feet wide.
Wright asked what the primary purpose for the bump outs is. DeGrout said the bump outs have an
aesthetical goal as well as extending more space for classroom. He said that the classrooms are
approximately 480 square feet. He added that a typical Iowa City classroom is 800 square feet.
Jeff Edbera. 2041 Rochester Court, said that the design work is from the inside out. He said that the
curriculum is incorporated into the building design. He said the bump-outs are not just extra space but
they will also plant the right trees to attract wildlife in ways that enhance the education of the kids. He
noted that he agrees that separation from residential is important and parts of the school are naturally
screened.
Jeanne Bancroft. 906 Dover Street, said she appreciates the efforts of improving the aesthetics of the
building. She said that property owners have an expectation of privacy in their backyards and its feeling
like the school is moving into their backyards. She said that adequate screening is needed and is not
currently provided by the school. She said she would like to work together to see that every place is
screened in an attractive way. She said that she is interested in the type of fence that will be installed.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 12
Walz said that on the side of the property solid fence could be installed; however, due to traffic restrictions
the front of the school would need a non-solid fence.
Marqaret Murray, 832 Dover Street, said the buildings on the west side of the school are O-lot-Iines;
therefore each lot consists of two homes with shallow yards. She added that anything done to the school
would be an improvement. She said that thoughtful consideration should be placed around the privacy of
the area, including the placement of the dumpster close to the residential property.
Leigh asked if with the proposed additions the school will still comply with the required setbacks. Walz
said the school will be in compliance with the required 20 feet setbacks.
Naida Brown said the school is open to adding planting and landscape on the west side of the school as
to not intrude in the backyards of the residents.
Bancroft said that she would like to be educated as to how these requirements would be implemented.
She said there are ongoing issues with the drainage from the parking that were never solved. Behr said
that if the board imposes conditions, the housing inspections department then assures that the plan is in
accordance with those conditions when the applicant seeks site plan and building permit approval.
Stefan Strack, 848 Dover Street, reemphasized the necessity to make sure the drainage issue is rectified.
He said that when the parking fills with water everything spills into their backyards which caused 6 floods
so far.
Public hearina closed
MOTION: Alexander moved that EXC06-00011, an application for a special exception allowing an
expansion of a general educational facility in the High Density Single-Family Residential (RS- 12)
zone be granted subject to submittal of a site plan demonstrating the recommended screening
and fencing as well as the prior required sidewalk construction along the east side of Dover Street
connecting the current sidewalk to Muscatine, and proposed parking layout, traffic circulation,
and landscaping on the site, including identification of a designated fire lane; provisions be made
in the site-plan to address drainage issues from the parking lot going into Dover properties and
adequate screening on the west side particularly at the fire truck turnaround and recycling and
trash area. Wood seconded the motion.
Wright said that the additions are well within the setback requirements. He added that moving the air
exchange equipment will have aesthetic benefits. The two additions on the west side of the building as
well as the handicapped accessible entrance fall within the required setback and should be properly
screened from the residential property. He noted that these changes will have to meet all zoning and site
plan requirements. Wright said the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property, adequate utilities, access
roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided, adequate measures will be
taken to provide ingress or egress and the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to
the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is located. He noted they are
recommending additional screening to mitigate possible externalities.
Walz recommended that the Board could specify S3 planning, which would address those issues raised
by the neighbors.
Alexander would vote in favor for the reasons already stated.
Wood would vote in favor for the reasons already stated.
AMMENDMENT: Wright moved to amend the motion to include a required S3 standard screening
for the west side of the school. Alexander seconded the amendment.
The amended motion passed 4:0
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 13
MOTION: Wright moved that EXC06-00011, a special exception to allow a reduction in the rear
setback requirement for a general educational facility in the RS-12 zone be approved. Alexander
seconded the motion.
Wood would vote against. He said that the 50 foot setback is needed, and a reduction would be too
much.
Wright said that he does not believe this is a peculiar situation for a further reduction of setback in the
rear. He said there are many opportunities for improvement of the rear without intrusion into the required
setback. Wright said he would vote against the setback reduction.
Alexander would vote against the setback reduction. She said there are issues of comfort and general
welfare. Privacy issues could also affect property values in the neighborhood.
Leigh would vote against for the reasons already stated.
Motion failed 0:4.
EXC06-00012 Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a special exception for
the placement of fill in the floodplain on property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone on
Ruppert Road.
Behr said that representatives of Wal-Mart intend to request a deferral of the consideration. He said that
the request of referral is based on the wish to submit revised exhibits. He noted there were attached
exhibits to the application. Behr said that the board can proceed with the public hearing as they would
typically do and take the new exhibits into consideration and if comfortable doing so make a decision. He
added that the board could choose to proceed with the public hearing and if based on the new exhibits
they could continue the public hearing to the next meeting. Behr said that another option would be to
relate the request for referral and explain the reasons for it and if wish they could defer and commence
the public hearing on the merits of the application at the next meeting
Alexander asked if the deferral would require a motion from the board. Behr said that a motion would be
required.
Leigh said that the board did not have access to the revised exhibits and asked when they would get
access to them. Behr said the exhibits could be presented at that time.
Leigh said that the board had received a lot of material with this application and if new exhibits would be
provided it would be better for the board to have them ahead of time. Behr said that the board should let
the applicant to make the request for referral and the basis for the request and allow others to speak to
the issue of deferral.
Chuck Becker. 666 Walnut Street, said he is speaking on behalf of Wal-Mart. He asked the board to defer
the consideration of application submitted by Wal-Mart. He said that in reviewing the materials presented
to the board they discovered two mistakes and would like the opportunity to correct them and provide new
exhibits to the board. He stated that the mistakes do not affect the fill or the placement of the fill but the
documents have a small error. He noted the two mistakes are on exhibit 9 and 10. He said on the existing
exhibit 9 there is an alley of grey on the east side of the proposal which is not supposed to be there. He
said that the alley does not currently exist and they wanted to install it but city staff said that it would be
unacceptable. He added that exhibit 10 who showed it would also need to be corrected to not show the
alley. Becker said that due to that mistake on exhibits 9 and 10 they had the No Rise Certificate
recalculated and no changes were perceived, which means that there will be no increase in flooding as a
result of that change. He noted that a new exhibit 4, the No Rise Certificate, had been handed out which
verifies the elimination of the alley would not have an impact on the rise. He said they are asking for
referral because those documents are not accurate and they would like them to have the change, and if
considering appropriate to defer the application to the July meeting they would be more than happy to
present at that time.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 14, 2006
Page 14
Leigh asked if there is any change to the exhibit 9. Becker said that looking at exhibit 9 there is a grey
alley that is gone. He added that there is not where the fill will go, so it does not directly impact the
purpose of the application but is a change to the exhibit which made them believe that the board might
prefer to put the meeting off for a month.
Wood asked if the same change exists on exhibit 10 as well. Becker said that exhibit 9 shows the existing
topography and exhibit 10 shows the modified area after construction. He added that the gray is the flood
plain designation and the difference in the gray areas is where the fill will be placed. He noted that there
seems to be a depression where the alley way is. He noted that on the exhibit 9, the alley presented is
not currently there. He said that document 10 shows the gray alley again, which was intended to be
installed drainage area. He added that the staff said the installation of the alley would be unacceptable,
and the changes were made to the documents.
Behr said that there happens to be a final plat of the property proceeding and when city staff informed
them that the alley was not acceptable was not a matter of flood plain issues but with the layout of the
subdivision and not wanting a drainage way there but wanting vehicular access easements there.
Wallv Tavlor. 118 3rd Avenue SE, said that the public needs an opportunity to look at the new exhibits and
examine them and in fact the documentation in the packet was prepared a month ago and not available to
the public until recently. He asks the board to deny the application but at least defer the matter until the
public has the opportunity to examine the information.
MOTION: Alexander moved that EXC06-00012 Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. for a special exception for the placement of fill in the floodplain on property located in
the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone on Rupert Road be deferred. Wright seconded the
motion.
Motion passed 4:0.
OTHER
Wood will not attend the July meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:03 PM.
...
C"'C
CI) ...
E 0
...(,)
f/) CI)
::s~
'- (D
"'CCI)o
<((,)0
c
'l-nsN
O"'C
"'CC
... CI)
ns=
~<(
'V W
T""" >< >< >< ><
- -
CO 0
0
0
T""" >< >< >< >< ><
-
Lt)
0
('I')
T""" >< >< >< >< ><
-
'V
0
ex:> W
0 >< >< >< ><
- -
('I') 0
0
ex:>
0 >< >< >< >< ><
-
N
0
T"""
T""" >< >< >< >< ><
-
T"""
0
l/) ...... ex:> 0') 0 T"""
E ~ 0 0 0 T""" T"""
- - - - -
G>'~ T""" T""" T""" T""" T"""
0 e 0 0 0
- - - -
I-w T""" T""" T""" T""" T"""
0 0 0 0 0
~ ~
Q) - f/)
"Cl .c =
.c c :2l 0
:2l = ~ C)
3: "Cl C
Q) Q) 0 ns
...J CC G) 0 G)
Q) c '0 ns 3: .c
E e .c "Cl en
~ .~
ro ns ns Q) :i
z ~ () ~ z
"0
Q)
l/)
:::J
00)
X c:
w.-
~Q)
......c:Q)
C:c:Q)00:::
Q)Q)l/)or:::
l/)l/).Do
~.D<(z
a. <( II II
>.. II II Woo:::
Q) _or:::
~><OOz