The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-09-2006 Board of Adjustment AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, August 9,2006 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARV A THALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the July 12, 2006 Minutes D. Special Exceptions: 1. EXC06-00018 Discussion of an application submitted by Tracy and Scott McWane for a special exception to allow a non-conforming roof-top sign to be reinstalled on property located in the Community Commercial (CC2) zone at 526 S. Riverside Drive. 2. EXC06-00016 Discussion of an application submitted by Lorena Lovetinsky for a special exception to reduce the required front yard adjacent to Village Road to allow a six foot high fence for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 1208 Tyler Court. E. Other F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -September 13, 2006 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC06-00018: Dairy Queen Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: August 9,2006 GENERAL INFORMATION: Phone: Tracy and Scott McWane 60 Regal Lane Iowa City 52240 319-541-3049 & 319-541-3021 Applicant: Requested Action: Approval of a special exception. Purpose: To allow the re-installation of a non- conforming sign. Location: 526 South Riverside Drive Existing Land Use and Zoning: Approximately 22,000 sq. feet Commercial (CC-2) North: Commercial (CC-2) South: Commercial (CC-2) East: Commercial (CC-2) West: Commercial (CC-2) Size: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: 14-4E-8C-5, Nonconforming Signs; 14-4B-3A, Special Exception General Approval Criteria File Date: July 28, 2006 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A non-conforming, roof-top sign for the Dairy Queen store located at 526 South Riverside Drive was destroyed by the April 13 tornado, and the building was severely damaged. The sign was non-conforming in that the Zoning Code does not permit roof-top signs. Roof-top signs are not allowed because they are considered to be less safe. Many cities also prohibit roof-top signs because in some cases, especially on taller buildings, they have effects beyond the commercial zone in which they are located: due to the height that they are located they are visible from distance residential zones. The owners, Tracy and Scott McWane, have rebuilt the Dairy Queen store and wish to re- install a replica of the original sign on the building. City staff worked with the McWanes to try to find a way to allow a reproduction of the sign to be installed on the property in compliance with current sign regulations. However, a solution could not be found that would allow the large Dairy Queen sign and its two freestanding neon cone signs originally located on the 2 property. In the CC-2 zone, the Code limits freestanding signs on lots with 160-300 feet of frontage to 2 signs (14-5B-8D-2b, page 264-265). While there are provisions in the Zoning Code that allow alterations to existing nonconforming signs if they are located on properties designated as Historic Landmarks, properties registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or on properties located in a Historic or Conservation District. In this case the Dairy Queen sign was completely destroyed, and neither the building nor its location fall into any of the historic categories. In the aftermath of the tornado, City Staff has proposed an amendment to the Zoning Code to provide for a special exception to permit the repair or reconstruction of non-conforming signs that have been damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy if those signs are determined to be of significant artistic, cultural, or nostalgic value to the community. The language of the proposed amendment, which includes the specific approval criteria, is attached. Because this amendment is still under review by the City Council, the granting of a special exception would be subject to the amendment's adoption by City Council. 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 criteria included in amendment proposed for Section 14-4E-8C (attached) pertaining to non-conforming signs and the approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A (page 171). The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the general approval criteria are set forth below. Specific Approval Criteria for the reconstruction of non-conforming signs, Section 14- 4E-8C Nonconforming Signs (proposed amendment) a.2. The applicant's consider the sign to be an integral part of their property's historic identity. The original sign was created for McWane's Dairy Queen sometime in the1950s at a different location (across fromm the UI Hydraulic Lab). When the business relocated to its current site in 1961, the McWane's brought the sign from the previous building with them. The sign was designed specifically for the McWane store, and no other Dairy Queen has ever displayed one like it. Because the franchise store is locally owned, the Dairy Queen Corporation has allowed the McWane's to continue to display their unique sign. As the applicants have stated in their application, the sign is considered by many to be an icon of an era-the once ubiquitous drive-in diner and the neon roadside signs associated with commercial strips of the 1950s and 60s. The applicant has provided copies of articles and features from a number of local and regional publications to support this position. Following the tornado, news of the sign's destruction, as well as rumors about the fate of the store, were widely reported throughout the state, and many Iowa City residents have expressed their support for the sign's reconstruction in the media. 3 b. The sign will be constructed as nearly as possible to the design that is generally recognized and associated with the Dairy Queen. While the original sign was never recovered after the storm, the applicants are working with a sign manufacturer in Waterloo to fabricate a replica of the original sign based on historic photographs of the store. Though it will be built of contemporary materials, the reconstructed sign is intended to be otherwise identical in appearance to the original sign. The store itself has been rebuilt to appear very similar to design before the storm. c. The sign will be reconstructed in a manner that will not be hazardous. The applicant has proposed mounting the sign on the roof and affixing it to reinforced beams. Rooftop signs are not permitted by the Code because they tend to be less stable. Staff recommends that the sign be displayed over the canopy roof, as it was before the tornado, subject to the approval of the Building Official to assure that the sign is not hazardous. If the roof mounting is determined to be insufficient, from a safety standard, the Building Official may require that the sign be affixed to external poles. Because the building is set back nearly 60 feet from Riverside Drive there are no issues with the Intersection Visibility Standards. 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. Requiring the sign to affixed in a manner approved by the Building Official should make it safer. The sign will be on top of the store building, which is set back approximately 60 feet from the street, so there will be no glare, and it will not violate the Intersection Visibility Standards in the code. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The previous sign was displayed atop the building for more than 45 years without complaint from area businesses or residences. This property is zoned for CC-2 commercial uses. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The adjacent properties are zoned CC-2, which allows for similar commercial uses. Auto oriented businesses are common in this area, and the south property line is adjacent to the Iowa Interstate Railway bridge. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The property is accessed directly from Riverside Drive. All the required utilities and services are provided. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. There are two exiting curb cuts serving the Dairy Queen property. 4 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The applicants were not required to make any updates to their parking lot as part of the building permit process for restoring the store structure because they were not expanding the use or structure. The use and the structure itself were conforming -only the site development was non-conforming. However, the applicants have recently repaved the entire parking area, including the southern third of the lot, which was previously gravel. The Code states that "any portion of a nonconforming parking area that is reconstructed or expanded, must be brought into conformance with all applicable construction, design, location, and screening and landscaping requirements." (14-4E-8B-1 J page 230). While the applicants will be required by the Building Official to bring their parking area into compliance with the current standards in the code regardless of the approval of this special exception, Staff recommends that this special exception be subject to the applicants providing the Building Official with a site plan for the parking area demonstrating all required elements for parking and screening in compliance with the Code. The Southwest District Plan focuses particular attention on the lack of "aesthetic appeal" of commercial development along S. Riverside Drive, noting the absence of landscaping and the domination of parking lots. The plan calls for emphasis to be placed on "creating a more attractive commercial corridor over time." 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of Iowa City's cultural heritage. Replacement of the Dairy Queen sign will help to preserve a property that is seen by many in the community as an icon of recent history. The Southwest District Plan encourages the aesthetic improvement of Riverside Drive Commercial Corridor with emphasis on landscape screening and other improvements to the parking areas. Bring this property into compliance with current code requirements should help achieve this goal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC06-00018, a special exception to permit the reconstruction of a non- conforming sign, be approved subject to the Building Official's determination of a safe and secure mounting and subject to the submission to the Building Official of a site plan showing all required elements for bring the parking area into conformance with the design and landscape screening requirements in the Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map. 2. Proposed code amendment. 3. Aerial photo. 4. Application materials. / Approved by: /~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development I \ I I ,~ I I I _IIL-J I 1 - 1- " -' ' I \1 I I =-= ;:i~ITB I' ,,.... - ~ V..... I Dfl_ 4 7 ~ ~ ~\ J 0.\ I""" I \\~- C\I / - ~ / ~ E ~ --~ ,~~ P7 ~ l;ff II I ~, LS lOlldliJ- I ~ 'Dr L... mu:.J T - Jtn S NOS IOIi V1 (/) IJ]~ - U I- co T""" o o o I c.o o () >< w ------."" - ~ I~~'~~ \ n\ - ~. .. N\ \ \ D L Lr ~ ~~ -(J L \^V~Hl1~OllJ\ ~ I~ ~ ~P\\ ~~ ~r=TIl~ ~ I~ e~ -\\\ ::=:L- ~L.L-l.=:!lS ~ ~ 1.-.. ~ r" - \, c _ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ (/) w -~ r:P~ ." ~ .00 "! I ~ l wY< rJ.- ~oI ~ ~ ~Q) ~ '" ,.,.. ~ ::"'1 - tr -1 > c: ...... \ --LI.i - I ~ - 0: ~ f-- 0 - L_ _ G ~"o ~- - (fJ II I~ ~ J----.L I,~ LO ~ Nn81~ ~ -= ~ "7 ~ 1~ rnnr 5 a: r t;j r3^ Ii CJ3llll:'!- I - =CX) I ...... r IUJ I I _ ~ 1] id >lliO a: ,- -I 1d ONV1JOO"8 " ~I BIJ~~ T\ \~J \ \~~ ~City of Iowa L;ty MEMORANDUM June 29,2006 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: Zoning Code amendment for nonconforming signs The Dairy Queen located at 526 South Riverside Drive was destroyed by the April 13 tornado; The nonconforming sJgn located on the roof of the small building was also destroyed. The Dairy Queen and its sign had remained largely unchanged since being established on the property in the 1960's and as such were generally regarded fondly as a type of community landmark (see the attached photos). In fact, the sign was older than the building itself, because it was moved from an earlier Dairy Queen originally located further north on Riverside Drive. The owners of the property, Tracy and Scott McWane, are in the process of rebuilding the Dairy Queen and would like to install a replica of the original sign. City staff have been working with the property owner to try to find a way of allowing a reproduction of the iconi.c sign to be installed on the property in compliance with the current sign regulations. However, a solution could not be found that would allow the large Dairy Queen sign and the two smaller neon pole signs originally located on the property. There are provisions in the Zoning Code that allow alterations to existing nonconforming signs if they are located on properties designated as Historic Landmarks, properties registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or on properties located in a Historic or Conservation District. In this case, the sign has been completely destroyed and the Dairy Queen does not fall into any of the aforementioned historic categories, but certainly in the minds of many the Dairy Queen and its sign have made a significant cultural and nostalgic contribution to the community. In the interests of preserving such "community landmarks," staff recommends that the zoning code be amended to allow signs destroyed by fire or natural disaster to be reconstructed to their original design if they are located on a historic property or are deemed to be of significant artistic, cultural or nostalgic value to the community. Since such cases are likely to be rare and unique, staff recommends that they be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment as special exceptions. Please review the attached recommended zoning code language, which, if approved, would be inserted as a new paragraph into subsection 14-4E-8C, Nonconforming Signs. Approved by: /Z~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Insert a new paragraph into subsection' 14-4E-BC ofthe Zoning Code as follows: 5. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow repair or reconstruction ofa nonconforming.sign that has been damaged or destroyed by.fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy if the following approval criteria are met: a. In order to qualify for this exception, the sign must fall into at least one of the following categories: (1) The subject sign is an integral part of the historic identity of a property or use designated as a Historic Landmark, a property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or of a property listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic District or Conservation District Overlay Zone; or (2) The sign is an integral pmt of a propelty's historic identity such that it is generally recognized and associated with a longstanding business or institution and makes a significant artistic, cultural, or nostalgic contribution to the community or neighborhood. b. The sign must be reconstructed as nearly as possible to its historic design or to the design that is generally recognized and associated with the longstanding business or institution such that it continues to make a significant artistic, cultural or nostalgic contribution to the community or neighborhood. c. The sign must be reconstructed such that it is not a hazardous sign. The sign must be located in a manner that complies with Article 14-50, Intersection Visibility Standards. The Board may require changes to the sign, to its structure or mounting, or its location in order to improve public safety. If the sign is not maintained according to the provisions of Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations, and becomes hazardous, the City may request that the Board of Adjustment revoke the special exception. d. If the sign is located on a property designated as a Historic Landmark, a property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or a property listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic District or Conservation District Overlay Zone, the subject sign must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission and issued a certificate of appropriateness. If the Board of Adjustment grants a special exception for the sign, any subsequent changes to the sign do not have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment, but do require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. g ~f1 Z;.. Q) a; t.> CJ) -- o co ~ o - '+- o ~ +-' -- o f~ !y ~~ c !;l Co ~ lil 5.~ ooE 9 t;l a; 0 20 0-' ~ &!o c. x c. oCe - 000 I ~ ~~ 'X~~\), c3J ~~\ \l APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: July U I ZLJOc:' PROPERTY PARCEL NO. /[.)5~~ 0200 / PROPERTY ADDRESS: S,;;. (p j. /? i ye rs /de /) Y ; ve PROPERTY ZONE: (!ommtrcia I (e t-2) PROPERTY LOT SIZE: /fppr(),(. cJ;)., tJOO /3 --- sg. rf. -r- a ncl J'co# me Wane APPLICANT: Name: I rtJ.ClI Address: ~() /<L1Ct/ /.-4nL r.. , Phone: l1'lQ -5il-JoI/9 1'1-' 6'1/-3thl I CONTACT PERSON: Name: /I Q (if other than applicant) ;2:( :2 Address: ....c,-;.. I " Phone: ~: 1-. 'i 0 7~ ...c- PROPERTY OWNER: Name: II ~ (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: If-tiE. -Ie...~ #IJN-CONF()/l-Jn/Nq SlqNS Purpose for special exception: 71J Ii /If) w re - /hSIti II a IT d'n o/' Ct- . y- /)/J f -fr., f ~ 'J J/I Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: N~Nt r.,:) = C--j <:::i'" (-- (::: j -n N Q:) -0 ~ -:".... .- , '-r1 . i \ ,--', '''-.J - ~. o -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. Legal descriDtion 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 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. SDecific 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. o =1C:~ ~~< I ~---- iTI S2~ ....::-~ )> N co -0 ::r: 11 rn r--, '~ o Specific Approval Criteria 14-4E-8C-5- Non-Conforming Signs: a.2. The roof-top sign proposed for the Dairy Queen is an integral part of this property's historic identity. The original roof-top sign, which was destroyed in the April tornado, was constructed in the 1950s for the original McWane's Dairy Queen store, which was located across from the Hydraulic Lab on Riverside Drive. Sometime around 1960, the highway was widened forcing the Dairy Queen to relocate to their current location. When the new store opened in 1961, it included the original sign from the old store. That sign was one-of-a-kind. No other Dairy Queen has ever had a design like this. One of the things that makes it unique is that it is parallel to the road not a sign that attracts attention from a distance. Since it first opened in the 1950s, the McWane Dairy Queen has been locally owned. Because it is not corporately owned, it is allowed its distinct sign design by the Dairy Queen Corporation. The sign is considered by many to be an icon of an era and has been featured in a number of national and regional publications, including a centerfold in American Photo. A picture of the store with its distinct sign is sold as a postcard. Many people visiting the store look up at the sign and say that they are happy to see that something about Iowa City has not changed. (See attached pictures and articles) b. The McWane's are proposing to fabricate and install a new sign that, as closely as possible, resembles the original sign that was destroyed in the tornado. The major exception is that they will be using contemporary materials which offer much more quality and less maintenance over the years. Instead of sheet metal, the new sign is made of aluminum throughout. Even the paint is of much greater quality than was available forty some years ago. The neon is made to illuminate with more consistency than was utilized in the past. The size of 6'3" x 30' is intended to replicate the original sign. c. The sign will be mounted to the roof of the building in a much safer way than the old sign was. Previously, the front canopy was framed only with 2x10 roof joists and 2xlO beams on the sides only. The contractor has constructed an engineered 11-7/8 TJI roof joist system with (3) - 11-7/8" LVL beams on the side for anchorage and horizontal wind loading and a (2) - 11-7/8 L VL beam across the front for the support of the vertical weight of the sign. Right now, we are planning on running tubes or angle iron at a 45 degree angle down into the side beams and lag a base plate into the top of the side beams. These 45 degree supports will have a horizontal and vertical component to them. The vertical. component was treated as a typical point load on the side beams and the horizontal component will transferred through the beam (acting as a strut) into the block wall (acting as a shear wall) which now has vertical reinforcing that it did not have before. If recommended by the Building Offiicial, the sign may also be secured to external poles for additional support. The sign will be on top of the building, which is set back nearly 60 feet from Riverside Drive, so it will not create any issues for traffic. The McWane's believe the sign is integral to their business identity, and so will maintain it as required by the code. General Criteria I~ 1.The proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public ~~, g~ safety, comfort, or general welfare. ~;'.::..,c ...- -.,; -",,- ."~'......, ....'........ By affixing the sign to additional beams and, if recommended, additional pole mounting, thei~gp. w~ be mounted and secured in as safe a manner as possible and will be far more secure than t~:Qld'sign. The sign will be on top of the store building, which is set back approximately 60 feet from-*d4treet,~ so there will be no glare, and it will not violate the visibility standards in the code. Q ;: _ ;:: )> 0 11 CTl ;--1 \,....1 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 previous sign was displayed atop the building for more than 45 years without issue. The area where the store is located is zoned for commercial uses and is not close to many residential uses, which are located up hill and a distance from the store. The sign is turned off at 11 pm every night. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed special exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which this property is located. The area where the property is located is zoned CC-2 for commercial uses. Vehicle repair businesses are located on either side of the store. 4. Adequate utilities, access, roads, drainage, and/or necessary facilities have been or are provided. All the required access, utilities and services are provided. 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 are appropriate for this site. 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. The applicants are not aware of any non-conformities. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as commercial. o ~ s;: 4'.........::, C':':") c.-:::::;.t cr..... L_ c:: r- 11 N co ~ r-n "-..I o -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-2C-4, 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-Sc-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-SC-1 F, 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: ,TrJl~ <Jilt. 200b , - ScaH A. M.sLl'2..It~ ~ h.-t~ Signature(s) of Applican s) Date: ::s ~ \ \... ~~ ~ ,20~ \{Q~L j L MSWOXl €- '-(Y) c Y"'a.c, Signatu ) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) ppdadmin\application-boase.doc o ? :C; c.... ~= -n '._ ..J N 0) -0 :;r. i rn r-1 '-....J , In ;::~:rJ '.-I' -..- <s;:^ 5> o Johnson County GIS Online \..J Page 1 of 1 v Johnson Count Legend Legend . Political Boundaries Cenlertines Centerline labels Mobile Hol1l9s Parcel Lines P<ITOOlla P<ITOOl ~cJ..W"f 0 '" = = ~O c::n '- c:: -i r- 11 0-< N -i0 CO r- ~-< r- m nl -0 0:0 :Jt' l.J ;2:"^' )> 0 http://www.johnson-county.com!servletlcom.esrLesrimap.Esrimap?ServiceN ame=j cmapO... 7/26/2006 r i a ~ .. - n :Ie ~o 0::- W 0- W -" - ---1 co o~ N (.) LL --' r:: ::::> J O~ ...0 = 6 <=> c--J ~\f\ ~ ~. f_ .a Q. ~i ~~ ~ ~' ~~' ~ \S ~ ~ s o I~' f, ........... ~ \j'- ~ ~ ,d ~ v o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "ClY s- '- -' ~ ~ _V) ~ s: 1 ~ ~ ~.." y " il' J :.0; ,', {c t. ~ 1 "'" ,,~... ~ "- ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ~ ::s ~ ~V) ~ 2 ~ ~ I - -' .. .! I~ ~ ~ i r - - M-"f ~..... T .JJ .'!" ...:t- <<""'T T ........ '" ... t li...~. ; , I. ~. . f f. ';, -, i ( I l!l I '-- ~ f ~ { \S'- --- ~ ( \:j ~ ''f: ~ '"' '0 ----. ~. ,l '!J :::. ~ '>.. :.. ,~~ J ~ ~ } ~ ~ :::j ~ '~ . ~ :::;- ~ ~ . ~ _VI ~ , ~ ~ <::oJ .:::( , r /' ~ ~ --J v. '- ~ ~ ~ "'\::$ ::fl ~ 'C) C\: VI V\ Cl ~ <:.J ~ cJ A V\ -~ <d, ~ <:U ~ ~ .( -' Q" ~ <c) _.... '"',.~:.~.... , l\tiAYfJUNE 1991 .YUh Ii ,liNt 1~,199' $3;50 5:2.50 ~/J lit., . -(;I1Z'ZS VI~ i:03.U L O:>V Z6 V/H .. ""~ \.io~... ,.... . A.tI:> VMOI san 1.:13(1 S'VI133S "I-\O! AIM NL OOEEl71L 9600000VM1'1 27'ZZS ~I9Ia-5.*._**~.~*.~0Slt "'''~1f ."". .~~!~ !l $II:~"f.~~F"'~ ,~~;~} y~~~ J& U r I \. .. I I - I i .1 ~ May/Jllnt' 1')')1 I Oh say can you see our cover nus month? We debated for weeks about the best way to symbolize America on our lront page--and look what we finally carne up with... ,. I D b.P A R:T'M E-N T S EDITOR'S NOTE IN CAMERA MONITOR INSIDE ADVERTISING Stlootmg an ecological campaign in the rain lorest I, WITNESS Hmv America looked 50 years ago PHOTOFILE FIELD TEST Neal Slavin exposes Agfa's Triade film system BOOKS LISTINGS Wmkshops THE LAST WORD Arthur Grace shoots great Arnepcan comedians (j II :. Vol. It, No. 3 ~o :v--' '2 O~ ~O :<~ O:D ~7' ):> . , . Old Glory. But as you'll see on the gatelold. this Sllot by Flagstaff, Arizona. photographer John Running is about more than flag waving. And so is America SPECIAL SeCTION 55 66 AMERICA An introduction by Willie Morris, AMERICAN ICONS Wide-open spaces. . . baseball, , . the big city politicians, _ here are ten quintessentially American things as seen by ten great photographers We offer this study as proof of the camera's ability te turn the common into the truly monumentaL 88 AMERICAN VISIONS "America has been photographed so well by so many people that you have to look lor ways to see it lresilly.' says photOjournalist Mary Ellen Mar!< Here she does lust that, along with several other talenteo. dedicclted and footloose photographers 101 MEYEROWITZ'S AMERICA To see the USA his way, Joel Meyerowitz tleads out 111 hIS car with an 8 x 10 camera and a few sec reI strategies, 7 1 1 23 39 44 106 110 118 126 II'" 136 I I t r--' = (:::) <:::"' <- c::: Ii I N - .-- co I m -0 -1',~ ,---,. ...... (J c:> N .P~' " !'l1 I I I I I .. I .~ I "',p il{i t .1.' I ; = I h f t I I ;~ I \ -: CI .. I'P" 'NIP" lit'; '[,' .J ,;~b~.j ., .J ~ ~~~ i'flO. 011:' ...'~ 'P . : ",Fil ~ .. D" 6-0~il ~ )>- e O~ r- _ N\ .~~1.~ ! J C)'22 :x ~^ j> 'I 'Jl ; ~-". ~~;:~:le · "','t' .',' "1<.""..- : ill . C'f, '1_'~~~~"1'-' '.. .f: t '" . ilt1 of' ~, Q. .~ i ~ .. .1 ~t '":~,~,; t Jiin Dow - Dairy Queen, Iowa City, IA Page 1 of2 \..J u r--.J TITLE: Dairy Queen, Iowa City, IA 0 = = c:r"' ARTIST: Jim Dow :2:0 L- )> =::! c: 11 / I WORK DATE: 1988 ()~" N - Photographs --lO CO r- CATEGORY: :-< ,..-- rn ~ n-I -0 l) MATERIALS: Chromogenic Dye Coupler Print O:JJ ::J: EDITION/SET OF: 15 ::f'^' )> 0 SIZE: h: 20 x w: 24 in / h: 50.8 x w: 61 cm N PRICE*: Contact Gallery for Price GALLERY: RoseGallery (310) 264-8440 Send Emall DESCRIPTION: Signed by the artist on verso Limited edition of 15 ONLINE CATALOGUE Inventory Catalogue (S): http://www.artnet.comlaglFineArtDetai1.asp?G=&gid=0&which=&aid=20 17 4&wid=423 9... 7/24/2006 N 0 ~~ II :tt: [CO U.l a.. IJJ _J ro ~>-~ .......J\-- LL N ~U -1 ::::> O~ -, ...c:> = 0 <=:) c--.J , J f } 1..Gazette day 3,2006 \..J rozen . . In Ime Tracy and Scott McWane. This is what the Dairy- Queen on South Riverside Drive in Iowa City looked like at its grand opening in 1961. The shop's rooftop sign was blown away when a tornado destroyed the building April 13. I.C. must amend City Code before DQ can erect replica of sign peeled off by tornado By Drew Kerr The Gazette I ow A CITY - Tracy McWane, the . co-owner of the. Riverside Drive Dairy Queen here, says the neon sign the ice cream shop lost in Iowa City's April 13 tornado was unmatched the world over. "It was magical when I saw it, and I've been a lot of places," McWane, ~2, said. She owns the Dairy Queen with. her husband, Scott Mcwarie' of Iowa City. Now, Tracy McWane said, it's time to bring back the magic. But it can't happen .unless. the city alters an ordinance that prohibits signs from being Tracy McWane within 100 feet of each other, or to be on roofs. The city is willing to make . the change so that a replica of the lost sign can be installed . on the Dairy Queen roof, near two parking lot signs that survived the storm and depict ice cream cones. The Dairy Queen is one of several Iowa .City businesses hit by the tornado and still coping with damage. Plans call to open the shop in one month at its existing spot, 526 S. . Riverside Dr. Senior Iowa City planner Robert Miklo said virtually no opposition exists toa proposed City Code amendment that allows historic signs like Dairy Queen's to be replaced if damaged by an act of nature or fITe. . A sign would have to be an "integral part of a property's historic identity" and generally recognized as such by the community to be considered. Miklo said he expects few other signs in Iowa City to qualify. A recommendation from city. planners has the Ro:mi of Ariiustmp.nt decidine- excentions. Scott McWane Dairy Queen owners What's next . The Iowa City council will vote on the proposed sign law change Aug. 1. Inside . How other storm- damaged busjnesses are faring, 6.A T~..",.. ......rl c':'"tt U,.,IA/.,no "w.:i;S;"" nf. tho n.,irll ()lIaan nn C:::nllth ~ii\llir(!r" \....J r-.:l 0 = = C1'"' !from 9'Our !friends at :?o <- c: -n >=i I -/ o~ N ..- J{ills f}Janfc -- ~-. co \ --{ \...i m ':-<F.=t -0 It o;[~ :1:: U -2;:'^' - ., -- 0 )> N Jj i tL f/)c" .5~J la' ~ ~~~ ~il :oo"~ Ji! ~ .. I-< is. Q) .!.....oo to) I>> g _ ~ Q)'6ll t3 gj ~ Q) Q)..... ... $3~~ ~~ 1~ ~~ ....... e $3 5i . ~ $3 .Cli'~ 00 -- ooo..l:l .....'t:l ~~ S~~ .... S ~ . 0 Q) .1-< .. = .......... .~ S$ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 cS 1l ..c ~ :9 oo.!;:l't:l o~ .....~.... a Q. .~ ~ 't:l S .... Q) ~ ~"= ~: . i>to)El.... CIli> 00 't:lo.... Q) .... .f3 ~ .E!, ........ -=..l:l c.. ~ ~ ~ 8. 00: ~ .~ 0 to) ~ oo't:l~E =:en ~8~~~ 't:lQ)s:: : 1>>: ....... 'ell t3 :;:$ $3 ~ tl/) r' ]l $3 ,- .... .. ~ ,,' .j. N o E " :s ~.5 I-< ~.;; ~ la : ~ $3 ~ .':' ~-8 ~ i!.g.~ i ~ .~ ': ~ : ~~~ .~.a';:. ~ ~ ~ la.ootl.5 :8. j'~: ~ ~ ~ !f$3 J ~ " : t~.~3 ~ ..... = . = ~ ';! ~ l>>oS .loll ~ m 0 ~ Q) 1>>. .; I ~.. .-l 00..c ..l:l 5 ." en j ~ t i"a 6.1 ~ '6ll ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ; &. ~ =; i ~ . ~: j. t ~~, ~.~ ~ 1l ~~ Q) ~ Q) I-< ~ Q) ~ t ~ a ~ Q) ~ E:-' .... ~ Jl 0 e : .... ~.Q) .5 s:: g!ll i m t,":: 8 t c.. oo.~ ~ ll:: ..$ ~ :I: 1l Q) .a ! i.~ 00:S. r' ~ ~ 0 .5 i 01.. ~ e i l: l' ~..cl.;-; I-< ~~ ~:Q.. ~~'t:l:! a.i . Eo< tl/) -=.:..c::lt3 =o8.;&l 1:1 ~8 Q) '~.aj'flla' .!i'" E .a:J s ~ il. ~ ~ ~ ;...i ~ h; 8'..h f ..~ ~~" .!.~ e'~5 ~ ~ ~ u: ~.~ ~ 'fl ~ ~@ ~ ~ 5 ~:c a ~ $3 E'~ Q) a.~ 5i ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ ~: $3 ~ .~ - ~ j ~. i en 5l ,.- ~ i s~.1ft8 ij6;~ h~ @i~~ ~8H~ ~ij;cftu 'h~~.~ ': 1;);;';; JS a':;:$ 1-<" S ~ ~.loll.;; ~.~..c. 5i . cu..... ~ ~,g ~..( t:7' = m J .:S 'a ..l:l ~ 1l t ~". v' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ iJ~!i :~) ~~.5i.~ tj.s.~! -: . ~~ :~ Ij~ .51 ti ~o;~ ':::::: S ~ ~ ~ : ~ 8 ~ i ~ ~. ~ .5 i < ~ ~ ~ !a' eS t ~ ~ ~ ~ i t i ~ = 1 f2 ~ ~ e -E ~ I;_~ ~ cS ~ S 't:l < Q) I>> S I-< oc~ S..c::l ..c::l = ~ . ..l:l ..c oS c.. 0 ._~~, I It, i:! 00 .... Q) .... 't:l .... ~ ~ 0 ~:=~ ~ 1 ~1 ~ ~j ~~'.~$3 :t ! ~j ~i~ i'; ~~,~ $3ij~ ~ ?>~ ~ Q) 0 ~ II ::l I-<..c 5i 't:l S . oS ~ 1S..c!. .c:l ~ ~ 00 = ~ I-< ~ S ... .~ S ~'tJ. ~. 'i~~1l a8~ 'gj ~ l~ ~ ~.~ t ~]il.~~ g~s~ ca ~~.ElE. l;::@ ~ i~'E6~~ ~! .~'t:l.~. .i ~~ ~! ~ ..c 5i t~ ~a E :~~.~ ~ ~ t ~&~ ~i~'i ~~ ~ ~~~ }ii~ ~ s:8 to)i~ a.i H.~~ ~.~ o~ I-<~.$ J~]l~.-l ~ Q)'..( ...~ ;:~}i ~ ~~ ~ i~aJ.oo ~~~..c ~~ ~ IHH ~~ t~i~~!~~ Hjd~ ;~i iPJh~ n~~~ ~ $3 ~!Q)'Q..c!.~ 'g!~~i!~il~~ ~~ ;~U ~~i ;gd~,~~'E ii:!l A~ 'i 6l ~ Cd ~ ~ .-l ~ ~ to) 't:l.S Cd Q) E 00 ~ I>> k1 Q) 0.5 to) S oS ~ rIl i is = ~:. ~ =... <I; oo......l:l ~.~ ~ =s a gj 1-):;:$ 00 I>> ;:::I S ~..c::l 00 gj. ~ $3 ....:a ~ E 'i.5..e !..; ~ ~ji2 ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~~~~1~ ~ i ~@ ~ i ~~!.~ 51 ;:a:;a.!.~ ..(~~j~~ ..l:l ~ S .~..c::l ... IX< = I.1:.t ..l:l .. 't:l to) 00 ~..c::l rn .. r:r.. :P .... 't:l..c !..c 00 ~ Cd.. , 0- co N o -' =-..:> -) ",,0 c::,:::> c::;J C".J c .. ::I ~;,~ O ~'al-< ..I-<ocS ..... 1:1 1 *". J:~' VI c1:g~ I-< ___ cllto)1l <I)'" 5. t =s 0 .a!...Q).... ......... .. llj~~ a.i ::i ~t s:!:: c-:l ~'g..l:lil Q) 9l <Il ,g ~ ~ .-l cis S Cd ~ cis';; ~ .! .~ ~ ~:Q"O Q) ~ ~ ~ ?> ~ ': ~ I>> s:: 10l S F=l Jl ~ ClioS ~ ~ Qo ~ ~t. .= .~ ~ $. ]l.~ a.~ ~ Q) i>'i Q) J:l I>>E =..c::l ICda!a..c::li'a~~~~~:-'=i>I>>'S;Cd'~ ~~181IiJI;11~1;11:1~~J h1}t ' jh~~ ! ~ ~ to..~ ~ S $3 ..c::l' ""'<Il"'~~ ..l:lo....:-'~-~ O!..8:;::f ~ g.... ',=.a;. ;:>. 9j ell to).... 00 J:l Cl ~'; :! . ~ i ~ ~ I ~ J~; ~~jell'C ~]l:-,W;.i ~ I,. ~iij' !. ~~t .=~.a'i~ alii t~'E~~! '1liQ)~ ~ s ~ ~:!; ~~ i ; i ~li~i.~ r' ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ .... ""'" , ,I' I;: ~ I I:!;. e .s~~~J: ,:;.i.s .~;::tElii:.:a ~lit ..w .1Ie "' .... t....f3 :a :c:.-: 1;:" ,.... -= ~ ~ ~ t 1: .13 I ~ .~ -..... .... ~!:I ;.. !:S.i ~ ~ ... ~i~ fcJ fcliti.-= 11 II U~AIUlJA Y .com -lJlvers search tor hIstonc DaIry {Jueen sIgn blown away by April tor... Page 1 of2 Search I II>> Home News Weather lIn-s~e w~~ --" How-do I find it? Travel Money Tech Sports Life Find a forecast: Enter ZIP/City ;~ Provided b'l' . - Divers search for historic Dairy Queen sign blown away by April tornado Posted 5/5/2006 3:03 PM ET II Enlarge A diver searches through debris in the Iowa River for a landmark Dairy Queen sign that a tornado blew away in April. TORNADO RESOURCES Interactive graphic: How tornadoes form, tornado safety tips . ~ -= Photo gallery: Tornadoes Where twisters strike the most When tornadoes are most likely E-mail I Save I Print I Subscribe to stories like this IlD IOWA CITY (AP) - The owners of the Dairy Queen that was destroyed in last month's tornado are looking for a sign. Not just any sign. Their sign. The one that stood outside their store before the April 13 storm blew it away. The twister ripped the landmark sign from the ground. The roof of the restaurant, which stood for 54 years, was blown into the Iowa River, where it washed ashore downstream. The sign was custom built with no blueprint or plans to work from. "It was the only one like it," said Terry McWane, co-owner of the ice cream shop. "At least if we found it, we'd have something to go off of." The first place the owners wanted to look was under the roof, which was tangled under a fallen tree on the shores of the Iowa River. McWane said she and the restaurant's other owners considered bringing in a crane to lift the roof to see if the sign was there. Instead, they hired divers to go into the river to take a look, but visibility was poor and the divers couldn't see if the sign was there. Ken Kremer, owner of Setasea Watersports of Cedar Rapids, said nails and boards were tangled in the tree roots and branches. Divers couldn't tell if the sign was under the roof or not. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/stonns/2006-05-05-dairy-queen-sign_x.htm ?ord= 11 II N 0::> .....--.- .--- , o"-n ....:..:,"" ~'- 0 'J:?' rV Weather Shopping Bu Rela [; I~ @ 7/24/2006 Iowa City 5 g Press-CitiztJt _04f~~~~~4Oif~~n..e~~~: Optimists honor Dairy Queen owner ----l ' McWane celebrates 50 years in business By Deldre Bello Iowa City Prc..<r".Citizen Angie McWane ha'i gone princess to quet'lI. McWane, 63, is Own('f of the Dairy Queen on Rh'Pl'side D rive. She received 50 red rOSes Wednesday for the family store's f)(} Yf'oars of busi- ness in Iowa Cily. "In high school, she was a dairy princess, and now she's the dairy queen," daughlt'r-in-Iaw Tracy McWane said. Members of the Iowa City Noon Optimist Club gave MeWane the roses. The group has used the store's parking lot for their annual Christmas tree fund-raiser the past 25 years. ','" - . --~ Press-Citizen / Deb Barber The McWane family gathers with Angle McWane, center holding roses, Wednesday afternoon, From the left, Kim McWane Friese, Kurt Michael Friese, Taylor Friese, Tracy Sam pica McWane and her son, Stephan, Angie McWane, Blake McWane, Cassandra McWane, Iowa City Fire Chief Andy Rocca, Devon Friese and Dylan McWane. MeWane's unique laugh eOl~d be heard over the crowd of more than 40 club members who came to join the noontime celebration, enjoy free ice cream. and pose for photos with her and the city's Rescue One flre truck. "I just. keep working and the time flies," Angie McWallP said. "1 wlll hl" here for awhile." Iowa City Fire CJlic'" Allel.\' BC)('CH, who is president of the dull, congmt- ulated McWane and thanked her for use 'of the lot Rocca ha') known the See MCWANE, 4A McWane said Jack Walters, a member of the Optimist ell lb. The Riversi(lc Dairy Queen hac;; not changed much over the years. And it l-emains a family business, employing three of McWanc's six grandchildren. Some customers still come back and are tic kled to see Angie McWane is sUlI here, she said. Glenn McWane died in 1966. ' Over the years, the Optimist Club, with the molto "I<nends of Youth," ha'i raised $350,000 to $400,000 for local youth and com. munity progrmlls from the tree fund-raiser, said Wes Fotsch, a club member who oversees the fund-raiser. "Angie is a dear person," Fotsch said. "We love her," From lA. l\IcW;mes for 20 years. His sister. in-Jaw was a fonner employee at the store as a teen-nger, he said. The Riverside Drive Dairy Queen has been there since 1960 when McWane's father-in.law, W. E. MeWane, bought the first inde- pendent franchise in Johnson . County. His son and Angie MeWane's husband, Glenn, later look over the business. Prior to that, DairY Queen operated out of a one-time A&W Hoot Beer store across from' the Univ~~ty oflow~1Y~ulics lab, U) ..... ..... Ol Ol i. ~ T'" g l' 'C :1 " ~ ~i' 3:' ai, =,. ~ (!l Ul 'C J' ... CO 8 Q) t= o 'W '-1 - LL ",.Q t:1 u\ ~I .1 O! -i ; ~J IJ; L ,Q)'4!! Q) ca III Q) ch'a..&. d>'. Q) 'iil1II~. gh~ = c = ~!l~ ,clJCi.2 ~ >>.1: la.a 1Il.a: c~ =.a Q)~Q)t:>> . >.. C Q).5 Q) N S c:e : . E ~"ca cw)~" .5\1)~C ..tlll:g~ CD Ill'; c =~.! .fa,..... 1ii cn,!.'-.a ...E=cn...Q).c "Q)>!iQ).5cJ!,8"Zi... . 'cjiO'j!:"J!I<!J .5 c. ~ Q)j Q) c ~c ca.~ gUQ)i~i!!i;=>>=i u;~:eQ()IIl11.!a!1i!~ \..J (f") C> -' ~i co: Ni ~ ::::\ ~ -.Q ~ c-+J (: I Gay & Ciha Funeral and Cremation Services Page I of2 '----" '-J !i8ad It} fJMtu//tij 2 .-:::..0 ):>~ 0-< ::=;0 .<r- 00 rn 5;2 :;;;./' ):> r-3 = = c:T' c- c: .- rv OJ -n - r- \11 CJ -0 "> - ., o w '"" " Angeline L. McWane July 25, 1939 - December 01,2005 Iowa City I Iowa Angeline Louise Thiese McWane, 66, of Iowa City, died Thursday, December 1st, 2005, at her home after a courageous battle with cancer. Calling hours will be held Sunday, 4-7pm, at Gay & Ciha Funeral Home, 2720 Muscatine Ave, Iowa City, and on Monday from 11:30am-1pm at Christ the King Lutheran Church, 325 Mormon Trek Blvd, Iowa City, with services to follow at 1 pm. In lieu of flowers, the family requests that donations be made to Iowa City Hospice in Angie's name. Online condolences may be sent for Angie's family through our website @www.gayandciha.com. Angie was born July 25, 1939 in Monona, lA, the daughter of Alfred and Irene (Pa/as) Thiese. She attended Monona High School where she was Homecoming Queen in 1956. She also attended Wartburg College and the University of Iowa School of Nursing. An active athlete, Angie was an all-state basketball player, district runner-up in tennis for Monona High, and an avid runner. She ran in the Bix 7 in Davenport for more than 20 years with her friends, children and grandchildren, as recently as this past summer. Angie was a devoted member of Christ the King Lutheran Church in Iowa City, where she taught confirmation classes even until this fall. In 1974, Angie and her husband Glenn took over operations from his parents of the Dairy Queen on ~ Riverside Drive in Iowa City, where they proudly served thousands of Iowa City residents under the landmark neon sign. It remains a family business after 53 years, and will continue with the third and http://www.gayandciha.com/obit -display .jhtml?D B=update/obits/ dbase&DO=display &ID... 7/24/2006 Uay & Clha runeral and CrematIOn ServIces Page 2 of2 fourth generations. Angie was preceded in death by her parents, and by her husband, Glenn McWane of Iowa City. She is survived by her brothers Paul Thiese and his wife Jean, AI Thiese and his wife Joan, all of Brownsvi/le, Texas, and Myron Thiese & his wife Diane of Des Moines; her daughter, Kim McWane Friese and her husband Kurt of Iowa City, her son Scott McWane and his wife Tracy, of Iowa City. Angie has seven grandchildren, Cassandra McWane, whom Angie raised, Devon and Taylor Friese, Blake, Dylan, Steven, and Ariel McWane, all of Iowa City. Angie's family would like you to join them in remembering her contagious laugh and ability to bring pure ioy to eve/y day. These are forever with us in eve1Yfhing we do. Gay & Ciha Funeral and Cremation Service of Iowa City is caring for Angie's family and her services. If you would like to share your thoughts and memories, we will deliver your message to the family. CJJc.kheJj~. o ~O )."> .::~\ r-..:J c:::;::) c~-:;): c:t..... -11 N co -0 ---; :::it: c_ _~~.J Cl v.> http://www.gayandciha.comlobit-display .jhtml?DB=update/obits/dbase&DO=display&ID... 7/24/2006 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC06-00016: 1208 Tyler Court Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: August 9,2006 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Lorena Lovetinsky 1208 Tyler Court 351-0103 Contact Person: Michael Kennedy P.O. Box 2000 Iowa City of Iowa City 351-8181 Property Owner: Wayne and Lorena Lovetinsky Requested Action: Approval of a special exception to reduce the front yard setback area along Village Road from 15 feet to 5 feet. Purpose: To allow a fence higher than 4 feet. Existing Land Use and Zoning: 1208 Tyler Court approximately 11,800 sq. feet Single Family Residential, RS-5 North: Residential, RS-5 South: Residential, RS-5 East: Residential, RS-5 West: Residential, RS-5 Location: Size: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: 14-2A-4B, Minimum setback requirements for principal buildings; 14-4C-2L-2d, Fence regulations in the front setback area; 14-2A-B5-b, specific approval criteria for adjustments to principal building setback requirements; 14-4E-6, general approval criteria for special exceptions; File Date: June 23, 2006 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject property is a double fronting lot-a lot with two street frontages, one on Tyler Court and one on Village Road. The Village Road frontage contains a fence that exceeds 2 the 4-foot height limitation for fences located in the front setback area. The existence of this illegal fence came to the attention of the building official in January 2006, when a nearby property, a triple fronting lot that also fronts Village Road, was cited for establishing an illegal fence (a fence higher than 4 feet) in the front setback. The owner of that fence, inquired as to why a similar fence was allowed on another lot along Village Road. Upon further investigation, the building official discovered the illegal fence at 1208 Tyler Court and a citation was issued. The applicant's fence is located approximately 4-5 feet from the public right-of-way. The applicant is requesting a reduction of the front setback area along Village Road from 15 feet to 4 feet to allow the established fence to remain. 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 of Adjustment may grant the requested reduction in the front setback requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the approval criteria in Section 14-2A-4B-5b (page 11) have been satisfied in addition to the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-2A (page 170). The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the general approval criteria are set forth below. The subject property is located in the Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zone, which requires a minimum front setback of 15 feet (see 14-2A-4B-2, page 9, and Table 2A-2 page 16). The Zoning Code requires that if a lot fronting on two or more streets is required to have a front setback, a minimum setback equal to the front setback must be provided along all streets, and that this setback is considered a front setback. The Zoning Code prohibits fences more than 4 feet in height within the front setback area (page 211) in residential zones. (An exception is made only for those homes with a second frontage along an arterial street-see definition of arterial street.) A special exception may be granted to reduce the setback if the applicant demonstrates that the general 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 special 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. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the above criteria. 3 1. The situation is not peculiar to the property. Double fronting lots, while somewhat unusual in much of Iowa City, are common to the Village Green subdivision in which this property is located. Most of the lots fronting onto Village Road are double-fronting or corner lots with the Village Road frontage being the secondary frontage. The applicant has stated that they installed the new fence three years ago. The existence of the illegal fence in this location does not demonstrate a peculiarity to the property, nor does it legitimize its location. (It should be noted that the fence regulations were the same under the old code.) 2. In staff's view, there is no practical difficulty complying with the setback requirement. All other fences along Village Road are in compliance with these standards, including a fence on a triple fronting lot on the opposite side of Village Road from the applicant's property. If the applicant or the fence company had checked the fence regulations prior to installing the fence it would not have been impractical to comply with the standards. As stated earlier, double-fronting lots similar to the applicant's lot, are common in this subdivision, yet other lots with fences comply with the fence regulations. While, the applicant has stated that removing the illegally established fence would be impractical the code does not require removal of the fence, only alteration-a reduction to 4 feet. 3. In staff's view the location of the 6-foot fence within the front setback is contrary to at least one aspect of the setback regulation. The location of the fence does not reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in Iowa City's neighborhoods nor in its immediate neighborhood. As previously stated, other fences along Village Road are in compliance with the height and location standards in the Code. 4. The Code restricts the height of fences along street frontages for both aesthetic and safety purposes. While the applicant's fence is attractive and partially screened from view by vegetation, this addresses only the aesthetic aspects of the fence regulation. The second purpose, public safety, is intended to preserve the safety of public streets by creating a relationship between residential properties and the street to allow some degree of sight that is not possible when a street is walled off by privacy fences. The permitted 4-foot fence allows a degree of privacy as well as safety for the private property owner without compromising the safety for pedestrians and others who use the public right-of-way. To allow the fence to be maintained based on its aesthetic merits creates a complicated enforcement issue. Since fences are short lived (in comparison to buildings) such exceptions require careful consideration, both by the Board and by the Building Official. What happens when a fence must be replaced? Will a new property owner know what restrictions apply to their fence. Will an exception for an adjacent property owner require the same fence design and/or identical materials? What screening will be required for a particular fence and how will this subsequently be enforced over time. 5. The final specific criteria is not applicable here since the applicant is proposing a structure other than a building within the setback. 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. In Staff's view, the proposed exception is detrimental to the public safety and comfort and general welfare. The purpose of the height limitation for fences in the front yard is to preserve the safety, both actual and perceived, along the public right-of-way and to preserve the aesthetic quality of local, residential streetscapes. While a single fence may not undermine the public safety, permitting an exception for a 6-foot fence within the front setback in a subdivision where double fronting lots, like the applicant's, are the norm, establishes an example for other property owners to 4 follow. As stated earlier, at least one property owner has already followed that example and was later required to reduce the height of their fence to 4 feet. 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 staff's view, the proposed exception is primarily injurious to the public right-of-way. While this may not be immediately injurious to private property value, it does diminish the appearance of the larger neighborhood and the public value for a safe and aesthetically appealing streetscape for the reasons stated above. 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. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will set an example for the surrounding double and triple fronting lots, which may lead other property owners to believe that such a fence is legal. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Not applicable. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Not applicable. 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 subject property is in compliance with all other setback regulations of the zone. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan calls attention to the unsafe and unattractive situation created along some arterial streets, such as some portions of Scott Boulevard, where property owners have legally fenced out the publiC right-of-way with 6-foot fences. For this reason the double-fronting lots are discouraged during the platting process for new subdivisions, and, when double-fronting lots are the only option, they are required to have landscape screening. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC06-00016, an application to reduce the required front setback from 15 feet to 4 feet in order to maintain a 6-foot high fence be denied. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Photos 3. Application materials 4. Site Plan //:.-ft-i Approved by: /~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ] f-- Q ~ < f-- CD ,-- o o o I CD o o >< w ~ t3 ~ ~ ~ ~ t3 ~ 0 lo.... (1.) ~ CX) 0 C\J ,-- I . . z 0 ~ ~ < U ..u 0 -- ~ ~ ~ V') tf ! Applicant's fence. Adjacent fence along Village Road, which was later reduced to meet the 4-foot requirement. Four-foot fences along Village Road. ~~~-) ~x. c.. CXo- 00 0 ( b VI'\ ltyt~ ~ /<"Ctb lavJ. C OWl-- APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTc~ :~:C) SPECIAL EXCEPTION ;~~;:~~: ~,...) _ ,;::..-::> c::::') 0""" c..__ c:: --:{',7 il .~--<~ N W U ....,.. --t-~"'" ~ ! fll ,..-, .1.......; DATE: b )L)dh PROPERTY PARCEL NO. /2LfJ' Y;J.r &- C~;? 10134320~, N U1 0"1 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 11,1. I ~& {~ . PROPERTY ZONE: residential ,- APPLICANT: Name: 4rL.FldJ ~~/e.P7/7.:$AV I Address: Uf),f' 7j~ r d Phone: SS-LJJLJ3 . CONTACT PERSON: Name: Michael W.Kennedy (Attorney) (if other than applicant) POBox 2000 Address: Iowa City, IA 52244 Phone: (319) 351-8181 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: iv.ffo/JL/~Rd>itv,U'f.h~ (if other than applicant) 1 08 Tyler Court Address: Iowa CitYt IA 52240 Phone: 351-0103 Speci~ic Requested Special E?,ception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: Appl~cants request Spec1al Exception to allow them to reta1n the1r six foot high fence on the rear portion of their yard. See Code Section 14-2C-2L. Purpose for special exception: To allow Applicants to retain existing six foot fence on front setback ar~a of property adjacent to Village Road. Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: Not applicable. ;- - -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. LeQal descrlDtlon of property (attach separate sheet If necessary): Lot 93 in Part V, Village Green; an Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, accord- ing to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 99, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. B. "'Plot olan 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 %" 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. Soeciflc 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. "-) 0 = t::--.:::J ~":.:;: 0""'\ .:"::...0 c...... . '"~ ~ .~. c:: -, -.:,.,.. II -~< ~ N r- C) w f'- ill [T'r -0 C) :J:J :J: i", ;:::,: ~ "....1 ~ )> CJ1 0"\ -3- D. General ADDroval 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 sDecific 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; The existing six foot high fence does not present a traffic hazard, because the Applicants' property is not a corner lot. Furthermore, the portion of the fence closest to Village Road is completely obscured by existing lilac bushes, and the side portion of the fence is mostly obscured by trees. 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. As stated above, the six foot high fence is, for the most part, not even visible from the street because of existing vegetation. The fence is well maintained and only three years old and is aesthetically pleasant. 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. Not relevant to this case. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. ~ 6 ~ ~;o '- )>=1 ~ (j -< N ~~~: W IT, -u 5 ;&! :x .,.- /', N.. ..::=:: J> U1 (1'\ Not relevant to this case. II r- ill 1"-' \,,,_.J -4- 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Not relevant to this case. ' 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 1448 as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).] Not relevant to this case. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Not relevant to this case. r--...;) 0 = ~;lI --- 1:2-'7'"\ ~::: 0 L.. -'>--:] z II N r-~ (; c..:> r--- f-n m -0 ~-!2 ::ir I~ C) '-....j S /', l);> 5> Ul 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 ADDRESS See attached Addendum. r-...:> t.:::l C) = r::r- 50 C- >-"'~::l c Il ~-"l;'"",, -<~ ........ c) ('\,) r- .'::l {~~) w r--1 -< r--- -0 . I nl .---, ---I"'; :J\!:: lJ 1"":2 .~"\'...... , ^ N $ .. ::i> U1 0'\ -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-2C-4, 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: ~/:.3~b . , 20l>'=:, Date: ,20_ Slgnature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) ppdadmin\application-boase.doc r-....:> = Q = 4':.':f"'\ '>0 <- 5>::=::\ c: 11 , z C) -~.('-..., N :::--1 C) w r- .~<r- -0 rn In U ;-- :0 :J: 0--- ...;;:"'" N )3; .. U1 ...... . \ i . ' \ \ \ I ~ J x. ~ 1 ~ '1 K j ~~JI s: ~ ~ s.... ---- & ~ \ ~ ~ e l-L ~ \ ~ \ \ - - \.~ ;:::- - '- - ~ )< C) "--, --{ C) 0-<' r- - 'in 532 ~ )l> r-...> r.:::) = 0""> C- c:: :1..:: =rJ ~ 1- -0 IT} :::r. 0 ~ Ul -....J SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION Wayne Lovetinsky and Lorena Lovetinsky hereby submit the following supplementary information in support of their Application to the Board of Adjustment for a Special Exception: 1. The situation is peculiar to the property. There has been a fence in its present location on Applicant's lot since 1981, and the fence was there when the Applicants bought the property 19 years ago. The original fence was a picket fence, and was replaced with a new attractive fence by the Applicants three years ago. The portion of the fence closest to Village Road is completely obscured by existing lilac bushes, and the side portion of the fence is mostly obscured by trees. 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirement. It would be very expensive and difficult to remove the existing fence from its present location. It does not seem practical or feasible to have to spend several hundred dollars to move the existing fence. 3. regulations. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Granting the Special Exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback Allowing the existing fence to remain in its present location would not be contrary to the maintenance of light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting. The fence in its present location does not present any traffic hazard. Allowing the existing fence to continue in its present location would not be contrary to the goal of providing opportunities for privacy between dwellings. Allowing the existing fence to continue in its present location would also reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods. Allowing the existing fence to continue in its present location would promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences. Allowing the existing fence to continue in its present location would provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. As noted above, the existing fence is completely obscured by vegetation and really cannot even be seen from the street. - 2 - 5. The subject building will be located no closer than three feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right of way or permanent open space. The existing fence complies with this requirement. In addition, the Applicants submit the attached plot plan in support of their Application for Special Exception. DA TED this /9.(" day of ~ ' 2006. KENNEDY, CRUISE, FREY & BRISCOE, L.L.P. ;; (^ Attorney for Wayne and Lorena Lovetinsky MK34\037c5054 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 12, 2006 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michelle Shelangouski, Karen Leigh, Michael Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: Ned Wood STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: John Jadryev, Chuck Baker, Chris Stephan, Jim Walters, Wally Taylor, Gary Sanders, Nancy Carlson, Chris Degroot, Sarah Swartzendruber, Adam Bohn, Swen Larson, Brian Alexander, Diedre Fleener, Mary Chival CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:08 PM. CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 8. 2006 MINUTES Wright wanted to clarify that Wally Taylor who spoke at the June meeting did not have an Iowa City address. Walz said that Taylor is an attorney from Cedar Rapids representing a local group, and the minutes could be so amended. MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the June 14, 2006 minutes. Wright seconded the motion. Motion passed 4:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 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 Community Commercial (CC-2) zone on Rupert Road. Walz said the subject property is located north of the Iowa City Airport, south of Highway 1. She said it was rezoned for Community Commercial use in 2005, and the surrounding properties are for various commercial uses. She said the CC-2 is more of an intense retail zone, and the CI-1 is more a quasi-industrial outdoor display. Walz noted a portion of the subject property is located in the 1 OO-year floodplain and the applicant has proposed to put fill in the floodplain in order to develop the property. The applicant has applied for and will need to secure a floodplain permit from the building official prior to placement of fill in the floodplain. She said the Iowa City Zoning Code does not require nor does it provide for a special exception for putting fill in the floodplain. She noted these actions are allowed by administrative approval. However, in a 2003 case before the Iowa Supreme Court involving the location of a Wal-Mart store in Decorah, the court deemed invalid the City of Decorah's Ordinance granting the City Council the authority to approve the placement of fill in the floodplain and one may interpret that to mean that it is required to get a special exception in order to fill in the floodplain. So, given the ambiguity of how that decision can be interpreted Wal-Mart has chosen to apply for a special exception to put fill in the floodplain. The City Attorney has advised the Board to hear this application. Walz said Iowa City's Zoning Code does not define filling in the floodplain as a special exception. Because there are a lot of people in the public the meeting, it was important to explain that a special exception is something that is written into the zoning code as something that can be allowed but only through the discretion of the Board of Adjustment, and then the Code provides specific criteria for that specific situation. She said that two examples of special exceptions are reducing a required setback or allowing a church to be established in residential zone. Walz further noted, the Zoning Code provides specific criteria for those specific situations. We don't have such a special exception for filling in the floodplain, so we can only look at the general set of criteria that apply to all special exceptions. Walz noted a handout by the door that listed the general criteria for anyone in the audience. Walz said that given this unusual situation, she asked Rick Fosse, the Director of Public Works, to provide general overview of the floodplain regulations for Iowa City. Fosse said if you go back to the 1970's, the federal government looked at the floodplain issue and thought that we could do a better job as a nation managing our floodplains and reducing our losses. So they developed something called the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). That has two basic goals: to provide affordable flood insurance to people who live in the floodplains and then also to require local entities to responsibly manage development within the floodplains. To facilitate this, the Feds assisted in helping to develop floodplain maps. Fosse showed a portion of the floodplain map for Iowa City and explained that there are three key components of information on the map. One is the definition of the floodplain area. Secondly, is defining the floodways. Also, on these maps is a prediction of how deep the water will get in a 100-year flood, so if you're going to develop in the floodplain you understand what level you need to protect to. Shelangouski asked if they had a copy of the map because it was hard to read. Fosse indicated that it was exhibit 5 in the application. Fosse continued, in addition to the mapping the Feds also assisted with a model ordinance. If you want your citizens to be able to buy flood insurance you need to have enacted an ordinance that has at least the standards of the model ordinance. The ordinance recognizes the importance of floodplains both for storage and conveyance of flood waters. It also introduced the concept of floodways. Fosse showed a cross-section of a river valley that showed the 100-year floodplain. The floodway is an area that is defined within the middle of that and is a spot that is reserved for no development and no fill. The concept being that you could fill within the floodplain up to the edge of the floodway, and if you do that completely as high as you like on both sides but do not extend into the floodway, the rise in surface elevation upstream is no more than one foot. That's a standard that was adopted nationally as a good way to manage our floodplains so that's what we have enacted locally. Fosse asked, does that make sense, the distinction between floodplain and floodway? Okay. Fosse said, the other thing was that it adopted a permitting process that we put in place here for some time. That's really the basics of floodplain management. He asked, do you have any questions that I could answer for you in that regard? Wright said the water upstream is limited to roughly a one foot rise, but what about downstream? Fosse said downstream flows are really controlled by downstream components, so what you do upstream does not affect flow downstream, if anything it might lower that water surface elevation a little bit. Wright asked where does the water go if it's not spreading out on the floodplain? Fosse said it moves more quickly through the middle. Shelangouski said, so it moves deeper and faster? Alexander said, it increases velocity? Fosse said yes, it can. Alexander asked, I was told that the 100-year designation was based on history of the particular area and what has happened to it in the past, but one of the issues that's occurred is that as we've changed the landscape we've changed what happens. Is that an accurate assessment in your mind? Fosse, the floodplains 'are defined based on history as one component but also on hydraulic modeling and hydrologic predictions. We don't have good records for exactly what the 100-year flow is, with the exception being the Iowa River where we have a pretty good handle with what happened in 1993 and we tuned up our maps to reflect that. At the same time we were doing a tune up with the Iowa River, we did adjust the area along Willow Creek as well to try and define that better. Alexander asked, now does this involve the floodplain for Willow Creek? Fosse, this is the Willow Creek floodplain. Alexander asked, And how high in 1993 did the flooding get up to? Fosse, in this area? I don't know if it got into this area or not. The 100-year event that we had in 1993 was on the Iowa River. In Ralston Creek we had roughly a 50-year event. I don't know if we got that on Willow Creek or not. Fosse said, so really the question is, is the fill proposed going to be in the floodway or outside the floodway. In this case, the edge of the floodway from center line is about 60ft and the area where they are proposing fill is roughly 2,600 feet from the center line of the creek, so it's quite far removed. Alexander, are you the appropriate person to answer questions about the No Rise Certification? Fosse, Chris Stephan is here tonight with MMS consultants and he's the one who did those calculations. Alexander, okay I'll save my questions for him. Walz said, Rick one thing I had asked you about is that the standards that are set-and this is in the report- when a building is proposed or when a development is proposed, I put in the report is that it anticipates a fully developed floodplain so the idea is that anything that's developed in the floodplain is developed assuming a scenario that would probably never happen that the entire floodplain would be developed. So when you're talking about displacing water you're looking at the level that it has to come to would the case ever arise that the whole floodplain is developed. Fosse, part of the floodplain management ordinance requires that when you develop in the floodplain you elevate up to one foot above the predicted flood elevation and what that is for is that in the long term assuming that the floodplain is fully developed on both banks that one foot rise in water surface elevation still would not damage the structure. Alexander, but its talking about not damaging the structure that's in question, or any structure? Fosse, the structure that get's a floodplain development permit. Alexander, okay, so that's really something that protects the applicant and their property? Fosse, yes. Behr, as well as the fact that in this case, what's actually being done is not development in the floodplain, the fill will take the area out of the floodplain. Alexander, but there's also the question of how the applicant proposes to solve the problem. Behr, it's not before the Board, but when they place fill and it's no longer in the floodplain, the buildings will not be subject to floodplain regulations because they will not be in a floodplain. Alexander, that's if they're granted permission to put the fill in? Behr, correct. And that's one thing that I wanted to point out, if they're granted permission to place the fill and FEMA has given them a conditional letter saying the map will be amended that this will no longer be in the floodplain, only then would the buildings be in compliance with the applicable regulations. Alexander, but since part of what we are being asked to consider in the general regulations has to do with neighboring property values and general welfare we do have to look at what the affects of doing this are on the area. Behr, correct, the placement of fill would allow development, the point not being, you're not looking at what kind of development is going in, just that it would allow development. Fosse, and I think in answer to your question Carol, if you look at the upstream watersheds those are all properties that have developed since the enactment of the floodplain management ordinance. So, if they were in the floodplain, they were elevated to one foot above so that they have that protection level in place. Behr, Rick has fill been placed in this area previously? Fosse, fill has been placed in this area as part of anticipation of selling the lots here. Shelangouski, So at one point in time the buildings north of here were in the floodplain fill was placed in it and it was removed from the floodplain because of the fill being placed there? Fosse said that fill was placed around Ruppert Road in anticipation of the development. The buildings I talked about earlier are further upstream. Any other questions? Walz, we'll go back to talking about the general standards. The question then is whether the placement of fill in the floodplain at this location meets the general standards required for any special exception. In order to evaluate the general criteria we must look to the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan and any associated district plan. The first general standard is that the special exception proposed will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Placement of fill in the floodplain to elevate the area and remove it from the floodplain is an option for commercial development. The purpose of elevating land proposed for development and removing it from the floodplain is to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing flood hazards to future users of the development. The City's Comprehensive Plan and floodplain regulations anticipate both the placement of fill and the development within the floodplain. Two, the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The applicant has proposed filling in the floodplain on approximately 10 acres of the entire 22.59 acre property. The placement of fill in the floodplain along Ruppert Road will not increase flood risk to any surrounding properties as required by the building official, the applicant has provided certification from a licensed engineer that there will be no rise in the flood elevation as a result of this fill. As stated in the certificate, additional storage and flowable area will be provided in the floodplain as a result of this project. The applicant's property and other surrounding property are zoned for commercial uses. Fill will enable commercial development of any kind to occur in the floodplain. The opportunity to develop this property for commercial use will, in all likelihood, increase the value of surrounding property. 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 specific proposed activity will increase the opportunity for further development of the property in question and will not impede improvement of surround properties for uses allowed in the community commercial zone. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Because this request is only for filling in the floodplain the issue of utilities, access roads, etc. is not applicable. Utilities, access roads, and drainage are not required for filling in the floodplain. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Again, this is not applicable to the issue of filling in the floodplain. 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 property in question is zoned for commercial development. The applicant has applied for and will need to secure a floodplain development permit from the building official prior to placement of fill in the floodplain. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. The future land use scenario presented in the South Central District Plan, which was amended in April 2005, shows the undeveloped property north of the airport as retail community commercial. In addressing the 100-year floodplain, the district plan indicates that development is not prohibited in the floodplain designated areas but in such low-lying flood-prone areas, substantial fill is required to minimize flooding. Future development in the area is addressed in the District Plan as well. Commercial development and zoning are planned for most of the 54 acre airport north commercial park. The property at issue is zoned for commercial uses. Placement of fill in the floodplain to elevate the area and remove it from the floodplain is an option for commercial development of land in the floodplain. Staff recommends that EXC06-00012, an application for a special exception to permit fill in the floodplain for property located south of Highway 1 along Ruppert Road be approved. Public Hearina Ooened Chuck Becker, of 666 Walnut Suite 2000 (Des Moines, Iowa) said that Wal-Mart is seeking an application to fill in the floodway fringe. The ultimate development of the site will be for a Wal-Mart facility, the details of that facility will be reviewed by several other entities with the City. He said the issue tonight is narrow; does the Comprehensive Plan allow the placement of fill for a commercial development? Becker noted that according to the South Central District Plan, the City intends for commercial uses to be established in the airport north commercial park, which is where the proposed Wal-Mart site is located. He said the community commercial zone is appropriate for Wal-Mart stores. Furthermore, he noted the District plan addresses the 1 OO-year floodplain issue and says, "development is not prohibited in floodplain designated areas but in such low-lying flood-prone areas substantial fill is required to minimize the flooding." He reiterated staff's comment that filling of the floodplain to elevate and, therefore, remove the property from the floodplain is an option for commercial development in the floodplain. Becker said that the City has already placed a substantial amount of fill in the specific area of the proposed Wal- Mart site. Exhibit 9 shows the actual area that Wal-Mart will be filling. Exhibit 10 also shows the area of fill after such filling has occurred. The fill that needs to be placed in addition to what has already been placed there by the City is about two feet below the 655 grade which is the 1 OO-year flood elevation. Shelangouski clarified that the site already has had fill placed on it by the City. Becker said if you look at the FEMA map, a section zoned AH is no longer there as it has been filled. He said that is where the bulk of the facility will sit. It doesn't get changed until the CLOMR-F (Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill) is finalized with FEMA, which will be done after the project is completed. Becker reiterated that the actual placement of the fill will not result in any increase of flood elevation, even though a one-foot rise is allowed. He also said that he believed surrounding property values will increase-it allows for safe development, and it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He aSked that this item be approved. Chris Stephan, MMS of 1617 South Gilbert Street, said that his engineering firm has been assisting on the project. He has lived in Iowa City for the last 30 years involved in floodplain issues and said he was here to try and answer any questions. Alexander, said because so much of the staff report seemed to rely on the No Rise Certification I tried to look up some information and everything sent me to the FEMA website. When you read their description of No Rise Certification all of their language refers to the floodway rather than the floodplain. Can you explain? Stephan said the activity that takes place they will allow filling in the floodplain, but as Rick Fosse told you no fill at all is allowed in the floodway. The ordinance anticipates allowing a one-foot rise of stream/river level because of filling that will be allowed in the floodway fringe. The regulations that FEMA, through the suggested ordinance that Iowa City has adopted, require that any structure that is constructed on the floodplain be elevated a minimum of one foot above the flood elevation. That is the filling in the floodplain anticipated allowing a one- foot rise in the floodway. I've been involved in a couple of instances where activities have been suggested. One was a sand pit operation up on the Cedar River, which was actually in a floodway and we went though the No Rise Certification process having to demonstrate to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources that we had created enough additional floodway area so that we didn't increase the elevation of the 100-year flood in that particular instance. Now, I kind of went around your issue but the ordinance does allow filling in the floodplain. Alexander said no I understand that. My question was very specifically related to the No Rise Certification. So, it's been applied in this case to the floodplain. I mean you're specifically in your No Rise Certificate applying it to a floodplain, not the floodway. Stephan replied that that was correct. He said because the floodway was so far removed in this instance. Willow Creek actually skirts the south limit of the airport and we are really at the north limit. In this particular instance, the area that we're in, this floodplain area is designated AN. That is indicating that this is more of a ponding situation. In this location we have Willow Creek coming out under Highway 1 and then spilling out across the airport. If you look at the contours of the flood elevation, the distance between them is quite far apart indicating a ponding issue. The water is looking for a place to escape to the Iowa River. Alexander said in the information I found, it talked about that there is computer modeling that you use in order to do the No Rise Certification is that correct? Stephan said that the modeling had more to do with the excavation. He said that they had excavated in the floodplain to the rear and sides of the property in excess of the volume of fill needed. The water that would be displaced with the fill for the Wal-mart site has been taken from another area in the floodplain in excess of the volume to be displaced. Alexander asked if that is the area that looks like a trench. Stephan replied that was correct. He said we've created additional volume in excess of what we've displaced with the fill volume. Alexander said, one of the issues that I have been told occurs with big developments of this type, Coral Ridge Mall being one of them, has been excess runoff. Does the modeling, at all, take into consideration the additional runoff that will occur from all the concrete that will go in a development of this size? Stephan said that this particular modeling would not, as it was used mainly to estimate fill volumes. He said that they have done a hydraulic analysis of the drainage area with Wal-Mart in place at the request of the City. There is capacity downstream with the area fully developed. Alexander said that it does say in the information that the community must review the technical submittal package and verify all the supporting data. Did you submit your backup data? Has that been reviewed by the City? Stephan replied no, but it will be submitted as part of the site review process. Behr asked, were you reading the local ordinance? Alexander said no, I'm reading from the FEMA information on No Rise Certification because that was the only source I could find that would tell me what this was. She said, in your [to Stephan] certificate that's been submitted, it has two points to it. One talks about the additional storage and f10wable area provided to the floodplain as a result of the project, and we've already determined that's what I referred to as the trench. It looks like it has pretty steep walls of some sort. Is that going to be concrete? Stephan said no it will be graded 4:1 slopes. Alexander asked if it would be soil? Stephan said yes. Alexander continued that the No Rise Certificate also says there will be no encroachment of buildings or structures into the floodplain and that's because you are re-engineering the floodplain. Correct? Because of what you're doing there won't be any encroachment. Stephan said that's correct and emphasized that it was allowed. Alexander responded yes, I understand. Shelangouski asked if the fill that was already placed there by the City removed the subject area already from the floodplain. Stephan said no, you have to apply to change the floodplain map. No matter how much fill is put in, until the map is changed it's in the floodplain. Shelangouski said she meant to ask if there was enough fill there currently to remove it from the floodplain if you would make the application. Stephan replied no. Shelangouski asked how many more feet of fill were planned to be installed. Stephan said that a number of cubic yards were removed. We are actually removing about 7,780 cubic yards from the floodplain and filling about 6,700 cubic yards. So, we are taking more out than we are actually putting back in at this point. Alexander asked if this was a pretty straightforward engineering solution. Stephen answered very much so. Becker wanted to clarify the need for the 6,700 cubic yards of fill. He said that it will be used to fill in the level between the existing grade-about 653-and 655. It will take 6,700 cubic yards to fill the two feet up to 655. As to the fill, he said the fill that's there now, which was placed there by the City, would take most of the building out of the floodplain. It just would not remove the entire building from the floodplain. He noted if an application was made to FEMA it would be noted that the vast majority of the site is already out of the floodplain. Shelangouski clarified that 655 was the floodplain level. Baker said that was correct. John Jadryev, of 60 Denbigh Drive, introduced himself as a concerned citizen, retired insurance agent, and experienced training with the NFIP. He said that he did not think it was a good idea to build on floodplains and it generally causes problems elsewhere. In general, he said, that his experience and training is that exceptions like this should not be allowed. Leigh asked what NFIP stood for. Jadryev said the National Flood Insurance Program, part of FEMA. He also stated that a common perception was that there would be a flood every 100-years in a 1 OO-year floodplain. He said that was not correct and that it really meant there is a one percent chance of flooding in any given year which puts the odds of a flood in any 30-year period well over 50%. Wally Taylor introduced himself as the representative of Iowa City Stop Wal-Mart and 1000 Friends of Iowa. He said the real issue here is what happens to the area upstream and downstream by the water that's displaced by the fill. According to the staff report, Wal-Mart is going to fill 10 acres of a 22 acre area, which he said was almost half. He said that only a small portion of that 22 acres is in the floodplain but that 10 acres of fill would send the floodwater elsewhere. Taylor said he disagreed with the comment made by Staff that only upstream areas would be affected by the fill. He said that isn't true. In Cedar Rapids, a study of a flood along Indian Creek found that the severe flooding took place because of filling in the floodplain upstream. This water is going to find relief in a floodplain somewhere else. That's what a floodplain is. It's a place for floodwaters to find relief. He said that's exactly what's going to happen here. Taylor said the zoning ordinances included in a letter he had sent to the Board specifically talk about displacement of floodwaters elsewhere and that's something that the flood regulations, and you in considering the special exception, need to take into consideration. Taylor said the proposal seems to have a ditch around this fill area that will accommodate this displaced floodwater. He said there has been no data presented, no indication why or how that will take place. The water is going to go where it can find the easiest and fastest relief. If it's going down the floodway initially, this excess water, it's going to find its relief downstream, not in this ditch around the fill. Taylor said, the No Rise Certificate is used for structures in the floodway not a floodplain. This document is irrelevant. It doesn't apply to this situation and the certificate says that they're accommodating this diversionary floodwater, but again we don't have any good hard data to indicate that that's really going to take place. More importantly, it says that no encroachments will be made in the floodplain. Taylor said that this fill was an encroachment in the floodplain, even though the Wal-Mart structure itself is above the floodplain, this fill is an encroachment on the floodplain and that's going to cause diversion and higher velocity and elevations of floodwater elsewhere. Taylor noted that the Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit development in the floodplain. But, he said, it also indicates that it is done with caution and you make sure that there won't be any repercussions in that area or elsewhere and that's why you folks are here to determine whether or not a special exception should be granted. He said that just because the Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit development in the floodplain doesn't mean that you automatically approve it. You don't. That's why you are considering this application tonight. Taylor said it was interesting that a question was asked of the Wal-Mart engineer about the runoff from the parking lot and other areas where the water cannot seep in and there is historically, when you have streets, parking lots, concrete and asphalt, more and faster runoff into the floodplain and the adjoining stream. I heard the engineer say they haven't modeled for that. They don't have a clue to what the effects of that are going to be and that's a significant issue and that was one of the issues the study in Cedar Rapids found that with all of this development in the Indian Creek floodplain upstream there was quicker and faster and more runoff from the development and that caused the sever flooding downstream. Shelangouski asked is the runoff really part of what we are considering here. We are just considering fill in the floodway not how much concrete they are going to put on the property and how much runoff it's going to cause. This is simply whether we can fill the floodplain. Behr said that is correct. Alexander said, I know it is simply whether we can fill the floodplain but in trying to learn more about this, not the Wal-Mart situation, but just about floodplains and floodplain management is that "ve heard people talk about engineering solutions versus environmental solutions. When people talk about environmental solutions they talk about the ecology of the area and the ecology involves more than just putting in the fill and they are all attached. You can't just look at the fill without considering the runoff, the erosion, and those things. Behr said, which is why any development that then takes place has to comply with the City standards for storm water management and there is, to answer your question, you're correct that is not part of the special exception applied for. Wal-Mart, or anyone else who wished to develop this, has to comply with City standards for storm water management on site if this site is ultimately developed. Part of the site plan review being done by the City requires stormwater management on site. Alexander said, I think the point I was making was just that I think there are more variables that are involved in this, even though question is fill, but there are some things that are kind of hard to separate out. Behr said, and that's a good question. I think the answer is there are City ordinances that do require ultimately that stormwater be managed on site after the fact given the lay of the land and its proximity to waterways. Taylor said, you are exactly right. It is all connected and I think that, you know we had that discussion last fall when we were talking about the special exception that was granted for the drive in pharmacy and the gas station, how narrow is your look here at granting a special exception? I think you have to look at all the consequences of granting the special exception. You can't just close your eyes and put blinders on and say we're just talking about the fill. Because if it were not for the fill, you would not have the development there, you would not have the parking lot and all the runoff, you would not have the diversion, you can't separate it. I think that City Staff is maybe limiting too much what you folks need to consider in granting a special exception. This is not like the drive-in pharmacy and the gas station. When you are talking about allowing them to fill in so they can build the entire facility, that's directed at the entire operation and the consequences of that entire operation. Taylor said the other thing I wanted to mention is the Wal-Mart contract with the City. I think that you do need to consider how all of this will affect the use, development, enjoyment of the surrounding property both because of the restrictions Wal-Mart has placed on who and what can go in around there but also, how is it going to affect the use, the occupancy, and the enjoyment of the property around there because of all this floodwater that's being diverted. That is right within the ambit of your criteria for deciding on a special exception. Thank you. Taylor submits a copy of his letter and attachments for the record. Jim Walters, 1033 E Washington Street, introduced himself as an Iowa City resident and also founding member of 1000 Friends of Iowa. He said, I'm also a lifelong Johnson County resident and I spent the better part of 30 years farming on the Old Man's Creek in Western Johnson County. For the past 15 years I have been a groundskeeper at the University of Iowa and in both those capacities I have spent a lot of time dealing with water issues. So I have a lot of experience on a daily basis in dealing with water. I also served a term on the Board of the New Pioneer Co-op and have some experience in the travails of that organization with water. I am currently serving my second term on the University of Iowa's Campus Planning Committee where we spend quite a bit of our time dealing with issues of water on the campus. Walters said, I remember a night about three or four years ago where Steve Adkins was introducing a new council to the issues they would face as councilors and he suggested that council and all future councils for the foreseeable future would be facing as one of their number one issues, stormwater management and he was certainly right. Walters said, the reason that I oppose and speak in opposition to this special rezoning is because it doesn't take into account the entirety of the problems that a watershed faces and that a floodplain faces in dealing with the issue of too much water. When you grant a special exemption for Wal-Mart in this particular case, you're dealing only with that particular piece of property but in reality your responsibility should be to think about the entire watershed and the Willow Creek watershed still has a lot of development to take place throughout the watershed and there is no reason to expect that development won't continue in the future and that more and more water won't be coming down the Willow Creek floodplain. We've solved some of those problems on Ralston Creek with a very sophisticated system of retention basins, I don't know if that's a possibility on Willow Creek or if the City has either the will or finance to deal with it. Walters said we do know the more development you have upstream the faster the water comes downstream and the more water comes downstream. And we know also, that the past measures that engineers have used to measure flood events and excessive rainfall events have kind of gone by the wayside. Weather is changing a bit, we are seeing more and more erratic and extreme weather were we get huge rain events. And a huge rain event in a small watershed can create all kinds of havoc and problems. Walters said my main concern is you can't separate what Wal-Mart is asking here out of the bigger picture of what has to be dealt with in a watershed. As I look at your approval criteria for granting a rezoning request like this, I would say that at face value the Wal-Mart request for rezoning could be rejected on at least three of these and possibly more, depending on how you look at the problem. I have the highest respect for engineering studies, but I have a much higher respect for water that's trying to seek its way down hill because I've been in the way of it many times and had to deal with it. And for those of you who do have complete and total faith in engineering studies, there are neighborhoods in New Orleans who had assurances from engineering studies that you should visit-some of them no longer exist. Walters said, I think to grant this special exception without considering all the issues of the adjoining property owners and how it affects them and the continued development of the upper part of the Willow Creek is just something the City should not do at this point, and that's why I ask you to reject it. Brian Alexander, 60 Goldfinch Circle. I did not come here to discuss this but I think there are some things you should know about. He said that he built on swampland in Vietnam and that his concerns were more about the runoff from the hills and crossing Highway 1 and the erosion that would undermine the Wal-Mart building. Based on FEMA's ability to support and certify New Orleans, I wouldn't give them any credibility at all. And I've watched the Mississippi when I lived here in Iowa years ago, just come right down there and just take out sections of the Mississippi River from Burlington all the way down to Fort Madison, and it just changed the whole surface of the land and everything else. It's amazing to me that you're going to do this. I've watched floodplains, when we built on the land in Vietnam and when I was living in northern New Jersey, the land was built up over eight feet above the floodplain. So, I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish by raising it a foot. Gary Sanders, 831 Maggard St. He said, I am the chair of Iowa City Stop Wal-Mart and I don't envy you. I got into this fight basically a year and a half ago on economic and social justice issues. But I was the Sierra Club journalist of the year for the state of Iowa in 1989, and I have always been deeply concerned about the environment and this is very significant environmental decision which has been put in your laps. You are not hydrologists. You are not trained, and even among trained people there might be disagreements. I don't think that there is anyone person that you can believe a 100% on this. Sanders said, my lawyer, Wally Taylor is the attorney for the Iowa Sierra Club. Do you believe him? Do you believe the engineer that Wal-Mart hired? He's a man of good will and good faith and an expert in his field, but he was hired by the company that wants to do this. Their lawyers, the same thing. I don't know who to believe. I wish that I could have been like Mary Ferentz at the Supervisors when I was there five months ago when they were arguing about the road expansion. She went out and hired her own engineer and he disputed what the engineer that the County had was saying about the road. Now I can't afford that. I had somebody tell me that they could look into this but that it would cost a lot of money. I don't have that. Sanders said, Who do you believe? Models? I'm a little suspicious. FEMA has been mentioned here. I think we all know what's going on in the world with weather. Where did the models come from? Do we know about who generated the models? Do we know what base they used? Did they take into account global warming? I don't think so. We've got pretty much a whole new ball game here. And this is, again, public land that has been rezoned for this. Which I think places it in an even higher category of what your responsibility is. This is your legacy to this community, forever. Because if this gets built, it ain't going away. And 50 years from now, when we have more rain than anybody here is anticipating, what is your legacy going to be? I think that the question might be narrow, but there are so many variables here that there are going to be many unintended consequences. I'd ask you to think of this as you would a question in a courtroom drama. Is there reasonable doubt here? Is there reasonable doubt about this special exception as to the effect it could have? I believe there is reasonable doubt. I ask you, I ask you with all do respect to the Staff report, to the others that you have heard in favor of this, to do your duty as you see fit thinking about future generations. Thank you. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E Jefferson. She said, I moved into my current home on Jefferson in 1981 but five years later found out I was in a floodplain. She said, at that time I had to make a choice: did I want to go along with the rules and regulations of living in a floodplain or, if I didn't, did I want to move? I decided to stay where I was and follow the rules and regulations of the floodplain, as have hundreds of other citizens in this city. When we move into a floodplain area we accept the responsibility of living in that area, we accept the rules and the regulations. I want to know why it is that a corporation doesn't feel that they have to follow the rules and regulations that the ordinary citizen has to follow. Alexander asked for clarification on which rules and regulations Carlson was referring to. Carlson said, I have to have flood insurance. Since my house is older it already has a basement, but anybody else building a house in the floodplain cannot have a basement. They have to build just on the land. I do pay flood insurance, which is 130% higher than my house insurance. Becker moved to the podium to respond to some previous comments. He said, first I'll mention that we have not received a copy of any letter or any written objections at all submitted to you, so it would be impossible for us to respond to those. I would ask you to consider that fact when considering any of the written objections. Becker said you've heard several people here comment on the geology of this, except for two of them, none of them were engineers. One of them is for the City. So, in response to the question of who do you believe, I would suggest that you believe your own experts. I think that's the one thing that you do have to do here. Unless you have an engineering degree, to some extent, you have to rely on those people who have the expertise and have provided you with the information. That has been done tonight, despite the fact that there has been more than 30 days to prepare for this before a quasi-judicial body there is no counter evidence to the fact that this request will not impact the floodplain. Becker said, the question that you had earlier, Ms. Alexander, the backup for the No Rise Certificate, that requirement is not in your ordinance. We can provide it to you, but it's not part of consideration here. With regard to the question of runoff, Iowa City passed an ordinance a few months ago called the Construction Ordinance. It's a new ordinance required by all MS-4 cities and you're one of them along with 42 other cities in the state ~hat heavily regulates runoff. Wal-Mart is subject to that. Next year, you'll pass an ordinance call post- construction runoff that deals to even greater extent, to dealing with runoff from all sites, anything more than an acre in development. And Wal-Mart will have to follow that. There are as your staffers told you, many other regulations Wal-Mart is going to have to follow. We have supplied you with all of the information required by your ordinance to seek this request tonight. Becker said, the question about the No Rise Certificate going to the floodplain, my review of it is there is a reference to the floodplain. That provides greater protection than referencing the floodway-it includes the floodway. I want you to understand that. The floodplain is the floodway plus the floodway fringe. There will be no rise in either of those under the certificate that's been provided to you. And the explanation provided by our engineer, and of course, I would encourage you to ask your own engineer about it, is that there isn't going to be a rise. Actually there will be slight decrease in the 1 DO-year flood in this area because of the ability to take out some of that soil that is in the floodway, which will more than make up for what is being put in the floodway fringe. That is what's contemplated by your ordinance; that is what's contemplated under FEMA; that is what's contemplated under all development in the floodplain all around the state and all around the country. That's how it's done. The reality is we've got the right under your ordinance to allow a one foot increase. We're not going to. There won't be any increase. That's the engineers providing you with the information. I understand the comments that you can be skeptical of science, and you can do that if you want. At some point, you have to make a rational decision based on the information before you, and I would submit to you tonight that that information clearly indicates that this application should be granted for placing the fill in the floodplain, that is what we're seeking tonight. Becker said, finally the comment that there are a lot of things to consider. I do think it is a fairly narrow, straightforward question. It is the one that your ordinance requires us to put to you and that the Supreme Court required us to put to you: Does your Comprehensive Plan allow placement of the fill in this location for potential development purposes? Not only does it, but the City has already done that very thing in this area. The Comprehensive Plan provides that this area is going to be development. This isn't an open question about whether this is where there is going to be growth: there is. In order to be consistent with your Comp Plan, there will be. And that's what we're asking for tonight, and that's all that we're asking for tonight. The other questions about runoff and about the floodplain development itself, those will all have to come before other agencies within the City. We will do those, we will follow every rule that there is and comply fully with those requirements. Tonight is a very narrow question and I think it should be answered in the affirmative that we, in fact, can do it. Shelangouski asked if it was feasible to build right now with the lot in the condition that it's in without adding anymore fill, or would it substantially change the way you had to develop the lot? Becker said it would take a complete reconfiguration. It would substantially change that. You saw the picture, it would require the movement of that back alley and that side of the building, that quarter of the building and that would be a significant problem. Gary Sanders said, I won't get into a big back and forth, I just want to say one comment. I certainly respect Mr. Becker. He represents one the prestigious law firms in the state of Iowa. But, he mentioned rational. It seems to me that there is plenty of evidence here on both sides that rational people could disagree on. And again, as Ms. Alexander mentioned, this is part, this is a part of a larger puzzle. It cannot be considered on its most narrow basis. It is part of the entire floodway. You four people hold the Iynchpin to this entire floodplain. Stephan said, I guess I just want to respond a little bit. The City of Iowa City enacted a stormwater ordinance in '79, '78 or something like that and as a result of that the South Branch Damn was built and the North Branch Ralston Creek Damn was built. Also, as a result of that every subdivision or any development that occurs within the limits of the City of Iowa City is required to provide stormwater management. Generally that means we build a pond, or dig a whole, to hold the runoff from that particular development. You've seen, like out on the east side where I live, they're making ponds out of that and making them aesthetic features that also serve as storm water detention basins. Others like in my backyard, the South Branch Damn backs up in my backyard periodically when it rains hard. We're starting to see the signs of that working and I can give you an example of that that relates to this particular project. Stephan said, I'm going to talk about modeling here again and it has to do with runoff from the drainage area that's tributary to the swale and ditch that runs on the south side of this project and discharges through a culver that goes under Riverside Drive and discharges directly into the Iowa River. When the first subdivision was designed and built where the street and everything is at now, and which we're proposing to change at this point in time, but however, when that was designed and built both the swale and the pipe under Riverside Drive could convey a 50-year storm. We have recently completed another hydraulic analysis of this knowing that there are areas that have developed upstream from us on this particular site, the major one being the Lodge. There is some discussion about water coming down off the hillside, rushing onto the floodplain here. We've got storm water in place at the Lodge, and there are several other developments just south of Benton Street that have been put in place, and smaller ones throughout the basin. We are now able to convey a 100-year storm through the same pipe and swale, and that was six years ago when that was completed. Stephan said, the ordinance will continue to be in place and as development occurs on the Willow Creek Watershed and the Clear Creek Watershed, actually Willow Creek, in this instance we will see additional basins constructed that will further reduce the amount of runoff that occurs, or that reaches this site so that the 100- year storm, I would venture to guess, or elevation at this location will be lower than it is today. And this modeling that we put in place contemplated parking lots, paved parking lots, buildings, whatever it is that the City and whatever might take place in this particular subdivision. I might also add that the history of this location is such that prior to the improvements to Highway 1, where it was widened to four lanes instead of two, all of the drainage that used to come to this location, used to try and squeeze itself between Godfather's and Deli-Mart and go down in front of what now Paul's Discount, and try and find its way to the Iowa River down through a swale and ditch by Wendy's and the burger place over there. At the time that the four lane highway was constructed the highway department constructed a six-foot diameter culvert, if you will, that intercepted this drainage and took it directly to the Iowa River. It discharges just east of the Iowa City Maintenance Facility on Highway 1. Stephan said, the improvements that we are making here are further limiting the amount of runoff that's going to those properties to the north of Wal-Mart and it's being diverted to the swale that is now in place south of the Wal-Mart site and to the pipe that goes under Riverside Drive. So, we've reduced the amount of runoff that any of these people are receiving in that location, and I know well of it because MMS had an office in that area next to Deli-Mart for eight or ten years. So, I think that we've done our homework. I've think we've shown that we know what's going to happen there. I don't know all the scenarios, yes, maybe there is some global warming happening but what the City has put in place in terms of stormwater management will continue to reduce the volume of runoff that Willow Creek will see in which this location will experience. Shelangouski clarified that in doing so, if this used to run off to Willow Creek, Willow Creek disperses into the Iowa River at some point. You have diverted that, so now it disperses into the Iowa River upstream of where it would normally? Stephan said whatever the overflow of spillage in this direction, it used to go into that area by Deli-Mart is now being diverted to this swale that's south, yes, that's correct. Taylor said, it's been suggested that because of all the conflicting information you've heard here and some of the questions that have been raised that you should have your City engineering staff take a close look at all the numbers and all the issues here. I think that's what you should do. Step back, take some time, and make sure that you have all the information that you need. Walters said, I think Wally is right. I think there are more issues here on the table that need to be thought about and addressed by City staff before you make this decision. I don't think you should be forced to make this decision without all the information that you need. So I ask you to defer it as well. Becker said, I would disagree completely. You have the information before you. You've had it before you for 60 days. Staff has looked at it. Your engineers have looked at it. The presentation has been made. This was the time to be heard. They have been heard, we have been heard. We would ask for the question to be called tonight. Public Hearina Closed Behr asked to make a few comments. He said, I had included a memorandum in your initial report on this about your scope of review and Walz summarized that well tonight. I just wanted to touch on a few things. The code does provide that the Board's decisions are to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that's true of a grant or denial of a special exception that it be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. You're very used to stating your findings of fact and conclusions of law and those should take into account the Comprehensive Plan as you state those. Behr said, one other point is that, a point was made that the City Code does provide that of course in all special exceptions the applicant bears a burden of proof. The Code provides that it's by a preponderance of evidence. That's what the City code provides for special exceptions. That's true of all special exceptions. Last, the there's been a lot of talk about your scope of review and it being limited. That's not to suggest that all of the other issues brought up are not to be reviewed by the City, the State, or other entities. It's just to suggest that the fact is that there are various entities that pass on various phases of all developments, and what Staff has endeavored to do is to tell you what the scope of your involvement is in this special exception is. Behr then asked for any questions and stated he just wanted to supplement that memorandum. Shelangouski said, the only question that I have is, regardless of the decision that we make, the City building official still has the final word on what happens. Is that correct? He will take into consideration what our decision is but he still has to grant the request for it to happen? Behr said, they would need both, yes. Alexander said, but if we didn't grant the exception, would that mean that it wouldn't go to the building official? Behr said, no but the fill should not be, their having applied for the special exception if it were denied the fill should not be placed if they don't have both the Board's approval and the building official's. Shelangouski said, so we could say yes and the building official could still say no for some reason. Behr said, that is correct. Yes, your decision does not dictate the building official's decision. Motion: Alexander moved that EXC06-00012, an application for a special exception to permit fill in the floodplain for property located south of highway 1 along Rupert Road be approved. Seconded be Wright. Alexander said, as you can no doubt tell I've lingered long on this one. This is in no way related to who the applicant is. My feelings on this, you know it could be Target, it could be a piece of the University, it's more to do with the nature of the area and the size of the development. And we have another case in front of us that the Staff report quotes the scale of the development being one of the issues. I think this is an issue for this particular application. We have been asked to look as this very narrowly. It is a narrow question, I understand that, but I think we're being sort of guided along a certain path. Mr. Becker has suggested that we listen to the science, and I guess if there's anything that I've been looking at in trying to research some of the information about floodplains is that there are different kinds of science and they disagree. Engineers and environmental scientists don't always agree. I have a personal view and interest in flood management in watching what's gone on around our country, and I think we treat our floodplains rather cavalierly. I understand that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates fill and development in the floodplain, but it doesn't say anything about anticipating all development or all types of development. I'm going to stay out of my other things that I do in my heart of hearts believe are relevant. I'm going to keep it just to the point of the fill, but this is a very large scale change to the floodplain. Regardless of what we're being told about minimizing this, and I don't want to discount the engineer, but engineering solutions and other kinds of science solutions can somewhat differ. I am falling more behind the other kinds of opinions and because in our general standards we are to look at the public health, safety, comfort, and general welfare, and I think this is an issue for general welfare. I think it's very clear the Wal-Mart property will be protected, I am still not convinced that we are going to be protecting the surrounding area and once again I think reasonable minds can disagree. I also think there are issues about diminishing or impairing property values in the neighborhood. I think we have a real possibility that we are making this floodplain more treacherous by doing this. I don't see a solution where we have development after development that all have a big trench dug around them. Once again, Mr. Becker is very right, we aren't hydrologists, I'm not an attorney, but we are selected as a group a citizens and so I'm speaking from that point of view. I don't think the No Rise Certificate is a sufficient answer to this, and I don't really see any evidence that this is going to increase the value of the surrounding land. My concern is that it is going to decrease, and it's going to make development even more difficult. So, in addressing the issues about the Comprehensive Plan, it indicates that development is not prohibited, but I don't see anything that says that all development is expected. I just don't see this as a sustainable, definitive solution for managing our floodplains and so I am going to vote no. Wright said, I have to agree with much of what my colleague said, specifically in terms of the first general standard. Because this has to meet all of the applicable general standards, it has not been demonstrated to me with any degree of efficacy that placement of fill in the floodplain will not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. As a matter of public policy, again, we have seen floodplains treated rather cavalierly, and typically somebody pays the price. There is not a doubt in my mind that the commercial development in that area will remain dry, downstream there are other issues. The joke in our family is if you get five of us together, you'll get six opinions. I found that to be true as I reviewed some of the engineering literature. This is not as cut and dry as it might seem. Wright said, in terms of the second general standard it has also not been demonstrated to me that it will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. Water is going to go somewhere. It can be diverted, it can be diverted into the river, the river is still going to rise. Wright said, in terms of the third criteria the "establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property" it's very possible that it would not. Wright said, the next two standards don't apply. Again, in terms of the Comprehensive Plan because the land is identified as possible for development does not mean that it has to be development. I do not think it is good public policy to develop a floodplain on this type of a scale. So I will be voting no. Shelangouski said, I do agree with what has been stated so far. I do think that just the very first item that needs to be met, that it will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, or comfort. This water has to go someplace and it's going to be someplace. I find it hard to believe, as a lay person, that the water won't rise at all. It rains; it goes someplace. So. even if it isn't directly into the Iowa River it's going to raise the Iowa River eventually. I won't restate everything that's been said. I will vote no also. The motion was rejected on a vote of 4-0. Leigh said, any person desiring to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's office. 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. Walz reported that St. Wenceslaus Church is located in an RNS-12 zone, which is intended to stabilize the single family residential character of the neighborhood. She said that the subject lot is surrounded by other property owned by the Church. Walz noted the proposal by the Church was to build an addition on the west side of the building to create handicapped and elevator access. Walz said the addition is about 833 square feet and that all additions of more than 500 square feet for religious institutions in a residential zone require a special exception. She said the specific standards that apply consider the set back requirements, as well as the architectural design, scale, traffic issues, and the general compatibility of the expanded use with the expansion of the surrounding neighborhood. Walz said the Church was originally built in 1893 and then added on to in 1921. The Church does not meet the current set back requirements along Dodge and Davenport Street, nor the rear setback. She said that the addition will be placed on the west side of the building, and will far exceed the required set back, of 20 ft. She said that the proposed addition meets all of the other specific criteria. She said, in terms of street access, traffic scale, the proposed addition will not increase the occupancy load nor change the use of the Church. Walz further noted that this addition would provide better access to the facility and access is a big issue in the Comprehensive Plan. She said that even though handicap access is not required for a private group assembly, Staff felt it was admirable that the Church was desiring to do so. Walz then showed some photos, which included an architectural rendering illustrating the proposed addition. She noted the scale and its architectural compatibility. Walz reported that 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. Public Hearina Ooened Chris DeGroot, of Neumann Monson Architects at 111 E. College Street introduced himself as a representative for the applicant and indicated he was available for any questions from the Board. Shelangouski asked if the design overview had been submitted and approved. Walz responded that it did still have to go through design review. DeGroot added that the building permit had not been submitted yet. In response to a question from Shelangouski, Walz verified that design review is a part of the permitting process. Public Hearina Closed Motion: Alexander moved 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 St. be approved subject to general conformance with the submitted site plan and building design illustrations. Seconded by Shelangouski. Wright said that felt this proposal met the general and specific standards required for granting a special exception. He noted that all the set-back requirements are in place, there is appropriate street access, and it is a small addition. He said that he did not feel this would, in anyway, be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. He noted that due to the small scale of the addition and that all abutting property was owned by the Church that it would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of surrounding property. He also said that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that he would be voting yes. Alexander agreed with Wright and commended St. Wenceslaus for putting handicapped access in and for doing it in such an architecturally pleasing fashion. Shelangouski agreed with previous comments. She said that it won't even be noticed but will allow greater access and is beautiful. The motion was approved 4-0. Leigh said, any person desiring to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's office. 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 Olde 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. Walz showed a slide of the area in question and said that the neighborhood has given a lot of input in this development, resulting in a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). She said that the portion closest to the intersection of Rochester Ave and Scott Blvd is intended to be a commercial center. She said that the CZA intends for this area to be very pedestrian friendly, very connected to the neighborhood, and that parking areas will be located away from pedestrian areas. Walz said that there are three interior streets, two of which are private and one is public. The setback reduction request if for these interior streets only and do not effect the parking area setbacks from Rochester Ave. or Scott Blvd. She said that the previous owner had the property platted the streets in a way that created a conflict between the CZA and the setback requirement. She said that the CZA says that the principal building should abut the sidewalk, but CC-2 zoning requires a 10-foot setback. She said that Staff and the applicant have agreed on a three-foot setback, which would provide an 11-foot sidewalk area. She said that this agreement meets the intent of the setback requirements, which is to provide separation, air and light, and relationship between buildings, etc. Additionally, she said that it fulfills the purpose of the CZA, which is to have the buildings abut the sidewalk and function similar to the downtown area. Walz said that one specific standard for adjusting a principle setback in commercial zones is peculiarity to the site. She said that here the CZA is unable to be followed if the setback required .for the zone is followed. She further added that this peculiar situation has created a practical difficulty for the developer to provide the sidewalks, buildings, and parking, and commercial buildings of a viable size. Walz reiterated that the 11-foot sidewalk will serve the purpose of the setback requirements, such as light and emphasizing the relationship between buildings. Walz also said that the applicant has proposed a drive-thru facility to be accessed by two access points off of interior roads. She said that the canopy is integrated into the roofline of the bank and the overall design of the development. Staff will ask for some structure that will help make the A TM fit into the overall design as well. Additionally, she said that one concern was the establishment of a buffer between the drive-through facility and adjacent residential properties. She said that although the residential development is quite a distance from the proposed sight, the applicant has proposed an extensive landscaped area of approximately 40' deep by 80' wide. She said that in combination with the canopy being a real structure, not just a covering, will provide a level of screening similar to the S2 standard. Walz said that the hours of the drive-through facility are limited to normal banking hours. She said that all lighting will be in compliance with the Code. Wright asked if there would be adequate screening between residential areas and the ATM facility, which will be operating at all hours. Walz responded that Staff feels the S2 screening is sufficient to reduce glare from headlights. Walz said that the reduction in the setback will allow the developer to meet the goals of the CZA and therefore, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. She said the drive-through facility addresses all the specific criteria previously described and therefore, would not be detrimental either. She said the setback reduction would help the normal and orderly development of this site via more accessibility, and more similar to the design requested in the planning process. Adequate utilities, drainage, access roads, and necessary facilities must be provided, she said, and will be addressed during the site plan review. She said that ingress and egress issues have already been addressed and reiterated that there are only two points of access to traffic from Scott and Rochester. She said also that the applicant will be seeking a minor modification to reduce a small portion of the setback along Scott and Rochester. She said that a detailed site plan will be submitted, which will be subject to the decision of the building official. She also said that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as this entire development is a result of the District Plan for . the area. Walz said that 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 for lots 40-49 of aide 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 the minimum 11-foot-wide sidewalks, tree wells, and other street landscaping and pedestrian connections and crosswalks. Walz also said that Staff recommends approval of the drive-through facility for a financial facility to be located on the lot at the corner of Rochester Avenue and Scott Boulevard in aide Towne Village with hours of operation limited to between 8:00am and 7:00pm (limitation does not apply to ATM) be approved subject to Staff approval of a final site plan, with a detailed landscaping plan, ATM enclosure, and building elevations. Shelangouski asked how this project could be well thought out if a special exception is required prior to development. Walz explained that it was platted by the previous owner, who platted the interior streets similar to the way public streets are platted, and therefore included the sidewalks, as if they were in the public ROW. She noted that the current applicant became aware of this difficulty and subsequently applied for the special exception. Shelangouski asked then at what point of time these went from being public ROWs to private ROWs. Walz responded that only one is a public street. She said that the other two were always intended to be private streets, but all were originally platted in a similar fashion to a public street, which helped to create the conflict with the CZA. . Shelangouski then asked why the final plat was approved with these inconsistencies. Walz said that it must have been assumed that the previous developer was aware of the issue. In response to a question by Shelangouski, Walz said that the application was only for the commercial portions of development in aide Towne Village. Shelangouski asked if the minor modification would have to go through them for approval. Walz reiterated that it would not. She said that it would go through the building official. Leigh asked how they went about getting residential input for the design of the development. Walz said that it was part of the District Planning process, which formulated what this commercial development would be and what it would look like. Shelangouski clarified that there were two requests, one for the setback and one for the ATM. She asked if they would be considering those separately. Walz said yes. Public Hearina Opened Sarah Swartzendruber, of One South Gilbert Street, said that the CZA requires the buildings to have minimal or no setbacks. She said it contemplates that the area will have a main street/town center design. She said that if required to have the 10-foot setback, the development would lose that main street/town center type arrangement. Swartzendruber said that Bob Miklo brought the issue to her attention and informed her that she would need to apply for a special exception. She said that she felt the development meets all the required standards. She also said that without this special exception, City Staff cannot approve site plans for buildings the way they are supposed to be arranged. Shelangouski clarified that this development is proposed to look like 5th Avenue in Coralville. She then noted that without doing this there would be a 10-foot yard in front, and so the only way to conform with the CZA is to grant the exception. Swartzendruber said that the pedestrian friendly design completely goes away if you don't have this special exception. Shelangouski said that she was reading this as trying to make the sidewalks larger, not that they were trying to eliminate this setback. Swartzendruber said that it was really just to correct an earlier oversight. Shelangouski asked if this could be re-platted. Staff said yes, but at considerable additional time and expense. Adam Bohr, with McClure Engineering Company, introduced himself and made himself available for any questions. Shelangouski asked if the access roads into the facility were one-way streets. Bohr said that they were two-way streets. Shelangouski also asked if they were aware the drive-through facility was being constructed on an easement. Bohr said that they were aware of this. He said that the actual A TM structure will be moved to just outside the easement. Brian Alexander, of 60 Goldfinch Circle, said that his concern is the noise and light pollution that will be generated from this development. He said that he moved to this location because it was close to the country. He was concerned that the development may substantially reduce surrounding property values. He requested that the development along Rochester and Scott be heavily screened with shrubbery and conifer trees etc. Walz indicated that she believed the screening in this reduced area would be a dense, like an S3 screening. In response to a question from Alexander, Walz said that S3 screening is a taller, denser screening consisting of evergreens or perhaps a wall. Alexander asked how high the screening would be. Walz read that they have to be at least three feet tall when planted, at least half the shrubs must be evergreen varieties. She said that Chauncey Swan Park outside has a very dense screen and might offer an example of one kind of S3 screening. Alexander clarified that this was outside the question being addressed tonight and asked if the applicant would be able to address the specifically what the screening is they are planning to do. Swen Larson introduced himself as the developer of aide Towne Village. He said that he did commend the bank for adding the landscaping, buffering, and architectural components. He said that there would be residential areas much closer to this development than on the other side of Scott Boulevard. Larson said that this development is New Urbanist. He said that it moves from commercial into lower density, away from commercial. He said that he did not see anything detrimental, as the development has already been scrutinized by staff. Alexander asked if Larson could address the screening. Larson said that with the site review the City will review the screening. He said that the City was requiring screening and that it would be met during site review. Shelangouski asked Larson if there was a forum for these residents to address their concerns with the City and the developer. Behr said that they could certainly contact the developer. He also said that it was correctly pointed out that during site review, appropriate screening will have to be in place. He said that the Board can add to what screening is being provided. Walz said that Staff has called for a thorough, detailed, and dense screening in that area where the parking area setback would be reduced. Wright clarified that the screening issue may be better taken up with City Staff. Larson commented on previous statements regarding property values. He said that all of the residential property in the development has been sold. He said that there is a demand to be near commercial property such as the bank. Behr said that individuals with concern about screening can go to City Staff, but the Board may impose conditions including landscaping and screening for any special exception. But, he noted that it must be for that specific proposed use making that stipulation necessary. He clarified that it needed to be tied to the specific use granted in the special exception and not just related to the overall commercial development. Alexander noted that the attempt was to get the interested parties in the room to address each other's concerns. Diedre Fleener, of 72 Goldfinch Circle, said that she did appreciate the concerns for screening that were ongoing. She said that she is most concerned with is that in the letter sent to the neighbors, there was no mention decreasing the parking lot setback from 10 feet to five feet. She asked for clarification as to why that did not require a special exception. Walz said that it is written into the Code that that particular reduction may be done through a minor modification that has to be approved by the building official. She also noted that the modification still must be mitigated for. Fleener said that she had heard a Handi-mart may be established in the future. She asked if approval of this setback approved any other drive-through facility. Walz said that approval of the drive-through facility would only be for this lot only and only for a banking facility. She said that any other lot wishing to install a drive-through would have to go through it's own special exception and any other use proposed for this lot in the future would also require a new special exception. Public Hearino Closed Wright moved that EXC06-00014, an application for a special exception to reduce the principal building setback from 10 feet to three feet on all interior streets including Eastbury, Westbury, and Middlebury for lots 40-49 of Olde Towne Village located 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 at minimum: 11-foot-wide sidewalks, tree wells and other street landscaping, and pedestrian connections and crosswalks. Seconded by Alexander. Wright said that the setback reductions should not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. He said that is a peculiar situation where a zoning agreement is already in place, which if applied to the required setback standards would create an unusual looking development. He said that proposed 11-foot sidewalk width does meet the idea of that CZA. Wright said that the pedestrian and vehicular access to the site should be adequate. He also said that the special exception would most enhance the development of the area and will allow the developers to create more attractive and desirable commercial facilities. He said that utilities, access roads, ingress and egress, all should be adequate. He said that he believes this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Alexander said that she agreed with Wright and will be voting in the affirmative. Shelangouski said that she did not believe they meet the sixth approval criteria as they are asking for something they do not have. She asked if the application could be approved based on them getting approval of the minor modification. Behr said that in a case where it is put on notice where a minor modification will be required, it would be okay to do so. Shelangouski said that she agrees with what has been said. She said that unless they were to re-plat, they could not develop under current conditions because of the way the CZA is written. She said, they do not have to ask for this, this is something they are doing in addition to and probably could develop the lot without doing. The motion passes 4-0. Alexander moved that EXC06-00014 (Part 2), a drive-thru 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 8:00am and 7:00pm-this limitation would not apply to the ATM-be approved subject to Staff approval of a final site plan with a detailed landscaping plan, ATM enclosure, and building elevations. Alexander said that she would vote in favor of this aspect of the application as well. She said based on specific criteria for drive-through facilities, the A TM structure is integrated into the overall design of the development, it will not be detrimental to adjacent residential property because it will be setback about 70 feet from Scott Blvd ROWand about 40 feet from the Rochester Ave. ROW. A drive-through canopy will be incorporated into the roofline of the bank and will be compatible with the architecture and materials used for the office portion of the building. The transportation system within this development is adequate to support this commercial area. Outdoor lighting will comply with the code and minimize residential glare. Alexander said that the general standards apply in the same way as the previous portion of the special exception. Shelangouski stated that her only concern was that there is nothing in the report to see what they are going to do, and so they are reliant on Staff to follow the rules in granting their building permits and approving the final site plan. She said that she would agree that they meet everything as long as the designs are consistent with the overall plan. Walz asked if she was talking about the building design. Shelangouski said that everything in the report said that things are "designed to meet City standards". She said that we don't have a final plan to say, yes this is what they are going to do, instead it is what they are designed to do. Wright said that the four specific approval criteria dealing with integration into the overall design: the transportation system, the drive-through lanes being of the appropriate setback, screening to the S2 standard, and lighting which will minimize glare into neighboring residential areas. He said that he also believe the drive- through facility did meet the general standards. He said that it should not be detrimental as the ATM was designed to be compatible with the overall development. He said that he did not believe it would reduce surrounding property values, and other specific standards have been discussed. He also noted that this is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and so he would be voting yes. The motion passes 4-0. Leigh said, any person desiring to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's office. 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. Walz said that this is an expansion of a group care facility, but the community service standards seem more applicable in this case. She said that in 1993 Four Oaks received a special exception to establish itself at its current location. She said that this proposed application does not seek to increase the maximum number of youths living on site. She said that this application seeks to expand the building to house another program. Walz said that there were plenty of calls regarding the application, but received no negative communication in terms of the experience. She said that the maximum number of youth is 24, but up to 41 additional non- residential youths can be treated within the new added facility. Walz said that the general criteria state that the proposed use should not alter the character of the zone. She said that currently it is in a CI-1 zone, which is somewhat in transition. She said that these care facilities are allowed in a CI-1 zone. She said that the Four Oaks facility is somewhat secluded behind both Hy-Vee and the former MCI building. She noted down the street is an auto-repair use. Walz then showed illustrations of the current and proposed facilities. She said that no additional parking spaces would be needed. She also said that this facility makes these services more accessible to the community. Walz said that the specific use and enjoyment of the surrounding property will not diminished by the proposed exception, nor will surrounding property values erode. She noted that Four Oaks has been in the community for over 35 years and at its current location for 10 without incident. She said the lot is well maintained and the building is aesthetically pleasing. Additionally, she said that this facility does not create high traffic volumes in comparison to other uses permitted in the CI-1 zone. Walz said that the proposed exception would not impede the permitted uses of other property located within the zone. She noted the Hy-Vee to the north is CC-2, while the remaining surrounding property is CI-1. She further added that due to its good reputation and low-traffic generation that she did not believe it would impede the development of any surrounding properties. She said that utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities are provided. Walz said that the proposed site plan does shows the building meets the required setbacks. She said that all other zoning requirements must be fulfilled upon approval of a final site plan. She said that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Walz said that Staff recommends that EXC06-00015, an application for a special exception to allow an expansion of the General Community Service use located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 1916 Waterfront Drive be approved. Public Hearina Ooened Mary Chval, of 14 Ridgewood Lane, introduced herself as the representative of Four Oaks and offered to answer any questions. Public Hearina Closed Shelangouski moved 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. Seconded by Alexander. Shelangouski said that for the specific standards, this was a reasonable use of the property as no real change in the use was being requested. She said that traffic generation would be minimal and adequate access to City facilities for transportation are available. She said that as it has already been operating at that location for over 10 years without problems, she did not feel it would be detrimental to the public. She said that it did not appear that the addition would impair surrounding property values or impede development of such property. She said that all of the necessary facilities are already there and that she assumes that the final plan will include these as well. Shelangouski said that is subject to a final site plan. Finally, she said that the Comprehensive Plan does contain goals and strategies to provide adequate social services to the community such as this facility. Alexander said that she agreed with Shelangouski. Wright also concurred. The motion passed 4-0. Leigh said, any person desiring to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's office. Other Alexander asked for an update on legal issues of the Board. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM. s:/pcdlminules/boal2006/04-13-06. doc .... C"tJ CJ> .. E 0 ....CJ U) CJ> ~a:: '- CD "tJCI)o <((.)0 """CN o as "tJ "tJC .. CJ> ns= ~<( N ~ - :>< :>< :>< :>< --- t'-- 0 0 -.:t ~ - :>< :>< :>< :>< --- \0 0 0 0 - :>< :>< :>< :>< :>< --- \r) 0 M - :>< :>< :>< :>< :>< --- -.:t 0 00 ~ ~ :>< :>< :>< :>< M 0 0 00 0 :>< :>< :>< :>< :>< --- N 0 - - :>< :>< :>< :>< :>< --- - 0 CIl t'-- 00 0\ 0 - S ,g ~ ~ ~ - - --- --- - - - - - Q) ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ t-<~ --- --- --- - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 ... ..... ~ Cl.l "'0 ..c rI} ..c = ~ :I ]} = ... ~ il'll ~ "'0 Cl.l ..2 => = ~ = < - => - Cl.l ~ Cl.l Q) = - = ..c ~ Cl.l e ..c 00 ... ~ "'0 ~ = :i Cl.l ~ Z U Z "lj Q) CIl ~ gf ~.~ ~ Q) ==Q)~ ~Q).2o ~.2<Z ~< II II ~ II II ~~ ~:><OOZ