Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 Board of Adjustment Decisions,M � �,..��aaon: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Doc 10: 031730660004 Type: GEN Kind: DECISION Recorded: 12/27/2021 at 10:06:38 A Fee Amt: $22.00 Pane 1 of 4 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder Pre" by:K Lehmann,Associere Plannw,410E.WaahIWJl ,Iowa Cq,IA52240:319-3565230 W6326 P0434-437 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2021 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles, Bryce Parker, Amy Pretorius, Mark Russo MEMBERS ABSENT: None -� STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann OTHERS PRESENT: Clay Claussen- SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: _-: W Ln 1. EXC21-0016: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by submitted by Clay Claussen requesting a reduction to the front building setback from Crestview Avenue to construct a carport and widen the driveway at 504 Upland Avenue. The Board concludes that the situation is peculiar to the property in question based on the following findings: The subject property is on a corner lot, so it must comply with minimum front setbacks to the north and west. More than 50 percent of developed lots on Crestview Avenue to the north have principal buildings set back at least 5 feet further from the street than is required, so the setback of the building closest to the street becomes the new minimum front setback, increasing the north front setback to 30 feet instead of 15 feet. Front setbacks for other nearby comer lots are also subject to setback averaging, but they have lower minimum front setbacks, ranging from approximately 21 to 28 feel. The Board concludes that there is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements based on the following findings: Parking could be added by rotating the garage so that access is provided from Crestview Avenue, but that would require removing the existing driveway on Upland Avenue, adding a new driveway on Crestview Avenue, demolishing the existing garage, and building a new garage that would extend into the rear yard. Parking could be added by providing parking south of the house, but that would require removing a mature tree and other complications such as splitting the property's parking or infringing on the setback to the south. Expanding the existing driveway and adding an attached carport is a more practical option. The Board concludes that granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations based on the following findings: The proposed carport would beat least 23 feet from the north property line, which is greater than the standard minimum front setback requirement of 15 feet, and it would meet minimum side setback requirements of 5 feet. Because the proposed reduction is greater than the standard minimum front setback requirement, it maintains light, air separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting; provides opportunities for privacy between dwellings; promotes a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and provides flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. The proposed reduction reflects the general building scale and placement of structures in Iowa City's neighborhoods as other nearby comer lots have front setbacks that are less than 23 feet. The Board concludes that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical based on the finding that the front setback reduction results in a front setback that is greater than the minimum typically required, so no negative effects are anticipated. The Board concludes that the accessory use, building or structure will be located no closer than three feel IT) to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space based on the finding that the proposed parking will be will at least 5 feet from the side lot line to the east and meets the minimum rear setback to the south. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: • The property will remain a single-family detached use, though the additional two parking spaces would increase the potential occupancy from 3 to 5 adult occupants. • Vehicular access to the property will not change. • The proposed carport will not interfere with visibility at the comer of Upland Avenue and Crestview Avenue. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The applicant has proposed painting the support posts and braces to match the house siding. • Nearby properties feature a mix of garages, carports, and parking pads. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The surrounding area is a fully developed residential neighborhood. - • The proposed carport would meet side setback requirements and be no closer than approximately 23 feel from the north property line. Oal,� vg,wNre mnf�ation: The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: • The subject property is already developed, and all utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities are established for this neighborhood. • The final plat shows no underground utilities beneath the proposed project, and compliance with other City standards will be confirmed during building permit review. The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • No changes are being proposed to the existing driveway access, sidewalk, or street. • Two additional off-street parking spaces would be provided, but anticipated traffic would be similar to other single-family residential areas in Iowa City. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The proposed carport and driveway meet all accessory use standards and all other dimensional and single-family site development standards, including driveway location, maximum building coverage, and other setback requirements. • Staff will confirm compliance with applicable standards during building permit review. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • Future Land Use Maps designate the subject property, for residential uses (2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre) in the Comprehensive Plan and for Low/Medium Density Single -Family & Duplex uses in the Southeast District Plan. • Both Comprehensive and District Plans support improving and maintaining the housing stock in existing neighborhoods. • The current land use of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans and will not change because of the proposed special exception. DISPOSITON: By a vote of 5-0, the Board approved a reduction to the required front setback requirement along Crestview Avenue to 20 feet for the property located at 504 Upland Avenue. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action;_shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the application shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the ` ' improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 7i-8G 1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. :a n e IMP uw ur. wrmrxwn: Amy Pretorius, Chairperson STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY Approved �by�:\ � (d •do, dj City Attorney's Office I, Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 8"day of December, 2021 as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this 2 Sf day of - 6 , 20 Z 1 Kelie K. Freehling, ity Clerk �y '. GA VI J� t Mollwq 96^+�ureevl0otlano.� �� -,{ nb Doc ID: 026279750005 Type: GEN Kind: DECISION Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, lox® Cpy, IA 52240; 31M58-5230 Recorded; $10/00/Page 2021 at to 11:38:04 AM Sohnson County Iowa DECISION Kim Painter County Recorder IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BK 6303 PG253-257 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13,2021 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chdschilles, Bryce Parker, Amy Pretorius, Mark Russo MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Canon STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM: 1. EXC21-0015: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by SouthGate Companies requesting a special exception to allow an indoor self-service storage use in a Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone at 947 Highway 6 East. The Board concludes that all self-service storage units or areas shall be completely within conditioned space, as defined in the Building Code, and no outdoor storage shall be allowed based on the following findings: • The site plan shows that all self-service storage areas am within the existing building (conditioned space is an area, room, or space that is enclosed within the building thermal envelope and that is directly or indirectly heated or cooled). • Outdoor storage is not proposed as part of the project. The Board concludes that self-service storage units shall not be individually accessible from the outside, and no more than 2 garage or overhead doors shall provide access into the building, which shall only be provided at the rear of the building, based on the following findings: • Self-service storage units are not individually accessible from the outside. • Two overhead doors are proposed in the rear to provide access into the storage areas. The Board concludes that the following standard is met: A substantial portion of the front building facade must accommodate other allowable commercial uses. Self-service storage uses are not allowed within the first thirty feet (30') of the front building depth as measured from the overhang of the roof, except for the primary entrance to the self-service storage areas. This primary entrance shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the width of the self-service storage use's building facade and may consist of a hallway, lobby, and/or retail storefront. Individual self-service storage units shall not be allowed within this primary entrance area. This is based on the following findings: o • The proposed use fronts onto the Pepperwood Plaza parking area to theswd[i ti _t C] N f'- -IC-: Cn 1 /j W N The site plan shows that all self-service storage areas and units are at least 33' from the front of the building overhang, and that the primary entrance area is approximately 5% of the width of the building containing the proposed use. Approximately 51 % of the facade of the building containing the proposed use is to be an outdoor patio area and another 44% is to be used for commercial space. Second story space above the proposed commercial uses may be occupied by additional commercial uses. The Board concludes that buildings containing self-service storage uses shall be considered a large retail use as it relates to the site development standards set forth in Section 14-2C- 6K based on the following findings: • Buildings containing self-service storage uses shall be considered a large retail use as it relates to site development standards set forth in Section 14-2C-6K. • Staff shall ensure compliance with all applicable standards during site plan review. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: • The proposed project would occupy an existing building and includes few changes to the site, which limits negative impacts to health and safety. • The conversion of large retail spaces to other uses may decrease the availability of certain goods and services near residential areas. However, trends such as the closure of large national brickand-mortar retailers and expansion of e-commerce has negatively impacted the demand for large retail spaces, and spaces that remain vacant for long periods of time can lead to deferred maintenance and ultimately blight. • The proposed small-scale commercial storefronts along the front facade can provide space for entrepreneurs to scale their businesses and can help provide goods and services near residential areas, albeit at a lesser scale than large commercial tenants. • Improvements to the north and south building facades will provide a positive impact on the visual appeal of area, and the proposed outdoor patio area will help encourage an active, pedestrian -friendly frontage. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The proposed project would occupy an existing building and includes few changes to the site, which limits impacts to surrounding properties. • Improvements to the north and south building facades will provide a positive impact on the visual appeal of area. • Trends such as the closure of large national brick -and -mortar retailers and expansion of e-commerce has negatively impacted the demand for large retail spaces. Finding:.,, alternative uses for such spaces is beneficial for nearby properties, especially if payed with opportunities to support additional small businesses. - o • The proposed use and commercial space along the front facade can help.promota-j v economic activity and drive traffic to the site, though at a lesser scale than may belhe �- - case for large retail tenants. -- 3 N p I nonoop urawre.q on: 1 , ... The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. • The proposed uses will not negatively impact the redevelopment of surrounding properties for uses permitted in the zone because the project will occupy an existing building with limited changes to the structure and surrounding site. _ • Improvements to the fagads will make the building more visually appealing from boVhe north and south. .y c^ The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: CO • The subject property is already developed, and all utilities, access roads, diainage4pd necessary facilities are established for this area. o • Staff shall ensure compliance with all applicable standards during she plan and building permit review. The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • Access to the property is available from Cross Park Avenue, or through the Pepperwood Plaza parking area, which includes Pepperwood Lane and other drives. No changes are being proposed to existing access, drives, or parking areas. • The loading area south of the building would be accessed from Cross Park Avenue. While the proposed project includes filling in the current ramp area and covering it with an addition, the method and route for vehicular access will remain unchanged. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The building meets all dimensional standards. • The proposed use would contain an estimated 570 storage units and between 2,695 and 5,390 square feet of shopping center uses which would require between 18 and 29 parking spaces. Parking in the Pepperwood Plaza shopping area is shared and contains adequate parking for the proposed uses. Bicycle parking will also be required, to be confirmed during site plan review. • The site development standards require easily identified pedestrian mutes between principal buildings on the site, to abutting rights -of -way connected to adjacent public sidewalks, and through parking areas. While the north side of the building includes dedicated pedestrian routes along the building frontage and internal access drives, the proposed entrance to the south does not include a safe pedestrian route to the sidewalk on Cross Park Avenue. The property is a nonconforming development, so the Board adopted a condition that there be a pedestrian route from the south entrance to the dododP:�m,..mnodon. 1 , . , sidewalk on Cross Park Avenue that is demarcated by colored concrete, pavement markings, or other methods where it crosses the internal drive to provide for safe pedestrian travel. The property is across Cross Park Avenue from a residential zone, so the parking and loading areas south of the building must be screened to the S3 standard. The property does not currently meet that standard but is a nonconforming development. The Board adopted a condition that S3 screening be provided along the Cross Park Avenue right- of-way, to be approved by the City Forester prior to issuance of a building permit and to be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All site development standards for CC-2 zones shall be met prior to site plan approval or shall require minor modifications as allowed by the zoning code, including compliance with the large retail use standards at Section 14-2C-6K. Because this is a nonconforming development, the Board adopted this as a condition of approval. Staff shall ensure compliance with all applicable standards during site plan and building permit review. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • The City's future land use maps designates this area for General Commercial (Comprehensive Plan) and Commercial (South District Plan). • The Comprehensive Plan includes a goal to increase the property tax base by attracting businesses that have growth potential and are compatible with Iowa City's economy. • The South District Plan notes that changes in retail due to the rise of online shopping have impacted large shopping centers like Pepperwood Plaza, but that fa5ade and landscaping improvements can entice shoppers to linger and can help foster a sense of place which could help to improve prospects for small or local businesses.;. _ • Fagade improvements and the small commercial storefronts can act as starting ss��wce -;-j for small businesses, which helps encourage a healthy mix of independeftf; Idcallyi •,�_ owned businesses and supports entrepreneurial activity.�-- _, ut DISPOSITION: By a vote of 4-0, the Board approved a self-service storage uuu a M Community Commercial (CC-2) for the property at 947 Highway 6 East, subj§ tlt� following conditions: •• N O 1. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-6C of City Code, along the subject property's Cross Park Avenue frontage prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The landscaping plan must be approved by the City Forester prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. Establishment of a pedestrian route from the sidewalk on Cross Park Avenue to the entrance on the south building face that is demarcated where it crosses parking areas by colored paving, pavement markings, or other similar methods, to be approved prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. All site development standards for CC-2 zones, including compliance with standards relating to large retail uses at Section 14-2C-6K, shall be met prior to site plan approval, or shall receive minor modifications as allowed by the zoning code • aoe�eyetima.�nno�: ��.r �.,.,„.. �,,,,. ,,,,. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the application shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C- 1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Q f�'ieYe¢rira' ' Amy Pretorius, Chairperson STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY Approved by: j /U ro10 dl City Attorney's Office I, Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Derision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 130 day of October, 2021 as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this 2rj-tday of t""i'Dbe , 20 ZI Kelli C. Fruehling+CiCI4rkL o c Sri TYi; a o m v 0 rosap „Pun;..,..aa.00�. Fee PRepan d M Kirk Lehmann. Assoaate Planner. 410 E. waw nglon, Iowa Coy. IA 52240, 319-3WS230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8,2021 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Doc ID: 028256170022 Type. GEN Kind: DECISION Recorded: 10/01/2021 at 01:47.42 Prl Fee Ant: $112.00 Page 1 of 22 Johnson County Ic.a Kim Painter County Recorder BK6293 PG84-105 MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chnschilles, Amy Pretonus, Mark Russo .`., MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryce Parker STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: - V 1. EXC21-0013: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by Imbn Communications to allow a basic utility use in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone fePa telecommunications hub at 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard. The Board concludes that the following specific standard at 14-4B-4D-lb-2 will be met: In all commercial zones, the RDP and ORP zones, and the ID-C and ID -RP zones, basic utilities not enclosed within a building [that houses another principal use allowed in the zorrej are permitted only by special exception. Proposed uses must be screened from public view and from view of any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. In addition, the applicant must provide evidence that the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding structures and uses with regard to safety, size, height, scale, location, and design, particularly for facilities that will be located close to or within view of a residential zone. For uses located in highly visible areas, the board may consider addifional design elements such as masonry or brick facades, and walls or fencing to improve public safety and to soften the visual Impact of the proposed use. Water and sanitary sewer pumps or lift stations approved by the city as part of subdivision or site plan approval do not require special exception approval from the board of adjustment This is based on the following findings: • The proposed use would be located at the rear of the lot and not highly visible from a public street, sidewalk, access easement, or other public way, or from a public park or other public open space area. • The site plan straws emerald arborvitae landscaping to the S3 standard to the north and west of the proposed telecommunications hub, and a block retaining wall to the north, which helps screen the use from abutting residential properties. Staff will confirm the proposed screening conforms to S3 standards during site plan review. • The proposed use will be enclosed in a structure with a locked door, preventing access to those not authorized and mitigating public health and safety issues. • The proposed structure is one story (approximately 10 feet in height), which is in scale with surrounding one- and two-story, structures. • The use is proposed to be attached to the existing building to the south. The Board adopted a condition that the proposed structure match the design of the existing building, including colors, textures, materials, roof pitch, and related features to ensure compatibility. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: The proposed use will be enclosed in a structure with a locked door, preventing access to those not authorized and mitigating public health and safety issues. The proposed telecommunications system requires a generator that will be located west of the proposed structure, approximately 12 feet from the property line. The generator is expected to produce 64 decibels of sound, which is similar to air conditioning units at 100 feet away (60dB), TV audio & vacuum cleaners (70dB), or a normal conversation. The site plan shows a 6-foot tall privacy fence enclosing the generator. The Board adopted a condition that the privacy fence be solid to mitigate potential spillover noise onto adjacent properties. The proposed system would provide internal and cable options to Iowa City residents, improving general welfare. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: The proposed use will allow for another internal service provider in Iowa City and increase bandwidth capabilities. The proposed structure is small (240 square feet), is in the rear northwest comer of the property, and is screened from the view of adjacent residential properties. The application indicates that the proposed structure enclosing the use will blend into the existing building. The Board adopted a condition that the proposed structure match the design of the existing building to mitigate the visual impact of the building for nearby uses. The proposed hub requires a small generator to power it, which is expected to produce 64 decibels of sound. The site plan shows a privacy fence enclosing the generator and the Board adopted a condition that the privacy fence be solid to mitigate potential spillover noise onto adjacent properties. The Board concludes that establishment of the speck 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 based on the following findings: • The subject property is fully developed, as are surrounding lots. • The proposed structure is set back from adjacent property lines and pmposed landscaping improvements to the site will mitigate any visual impacts. The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: a, The area is fully developed with access to utilities and other necessary facilities. Staff will ensure compliance during site plan and building permit review. W P V` The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • The proposed structure is located on a lot that has adequate circulation and parking from an alley that is accessed via Westwinds Drive. The use is not expected to substantially increase traffic as it would only need occasional maintenance. • A dumpster enclosure is directly east of the proposed use. However, there is adequate space for parking between the enclosure and proposed structure, and there is adequate space for garbage trucks to access the enclosure. • A pedestrian mute is proposed north of the building to provide access. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • There are no minimum parking requirements for this use. • Where a side or rear lot line in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone abuts a residential zone, the minimum setback must at least equal the setback in the abutting residential zone. The property to the west is zoned Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12), which requires a 20-foot rear setback. The site plan shows that the proposed use is set back 17 feet from the abutting residential property. The applicant may either shift the building 3 feet east or request a minor modification to reduce the setback by 3 feet (15%). This will need to be addressed for the site plan to be approved. • The proposed generator is 12 feet from the west property line. As an accessory mechanical structure, this meets the accessory setback standards for the zone. • Based on a preliminary review, all other standards appear to be met. Staff will ensure compliance with all other standards during site plan and building permit review. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates this area as General Commercial. • The Southwest District Plan future land use map designates this area as No,ighbor*od Commercial. rn • The Southwest District Plan encourages the development of businesses thatprovlqil, goods, services and amenities to the neighborhood. v DISPOSITION: By a vote of 4-0, the Board approved a basic utility use for a— - telecommunications hub located at 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard, sub)ect to the: fdllowgg conditions: a m 1. The exterior of the structure for the proposed use shall match the exterior of the existing building to which it will be attached, including colors, textures, materials, roof pitch, and related features, to be approved during site plan review. 2. The generator used to power the telecommunications hub shall be enclosed by a 6-foot tall, solid privacy fence to mitigate noise spillover onto adjacent properties. � m _. 2. EXC21-0003: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by LT Leon Associates to allow a drive -through facility in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for online grocery pick-up at 1125 N. Dodge Street. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3a will be met. Access and Circulation: The transportation system should be capable of safely supporting the proposed drive -through use in addition to the existing uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, effects on traffic circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian safety in addition to the following criteria. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) Wherever possible and practical, drive -through lanes shall be accessed from secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can demonstrate that access from a secondary street, alley, or shared cross access drive is not possible, the board may grant access to a primary street, but may impose conditions such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting the number of lanes, requiring the drive -through bays and stacking lanes to be enclosed within the building envelope, and similar conditions. • The property has two public vehicular access points from N. Dodge Street to the south and two from St. Clement Street to the north, which are connected by north - south internal drives and east -west parking aisles. St. Clement Street is classified as local street while N. Dodge is classified as an arterial. • The proposed drive -through lanes are accessed from the internal cross access drive nearest the building and exit into the surface parking lot. The facility cannot be accessed directly from a street. • While the small parking areas around the drive -through lanes have two-way access. the drive -through lanes are one-way from east to west. (2) To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is subject to the standards and restrictions in chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title. • No changes to curb cuts are being proposed as part of the project. • Pedestrian access through the site will be retained and a sidewalk route will be added to the Aisles Online kiosk for employees. The existing pedestrian route is demarcated with colored pavement where it crosses the internal drive. The crossing is approximately 20-feet long. • Additional painted areas will provide access from the kiosk to individual cars to facilitate safety while orders are loaded. (3) An adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic safety is not compromised. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces is recommended for drive- l6ugh fatalities associated with eating establishments and a minimum of four (4) stackingspaces for banking, pharmacies, and similar nonfood related drive -through faplities, "Stacking spaces" shall be defined as being twenty feet (20') in length and the width of a one lane, one-way drive. The board may reduce the recommended number of {tacking spaces if the applicant can demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristics such that the recommended number of parking spaces is excessive (i.e., a drive- through that is to be used for pick up only and not ordering). • The site plan shows 3 drive -through lanes, each with 6 stacking spaces, for a total of 18 vehicles. The drive -through facility is for pick-up only, not ordering. This meets the required number of stacking spaces. • Peak hours are estimated from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. • The drive -through lanes are far enough from the access drive to accommodate potential spillover traffic and to minimize traffic safety impacts. • The Board adopted substantial compliance with the site plan as a condition of approval to ensure that traffic safety is not compromised. (4) Sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance areas, and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement. • The site plan indicates directional arrows at all access points to the drive -through facility and in the dare -through lanes. • Signage to direct vehicles to the drive -through are located at the entrance to the access drive. • Pavement markings denote drive -through lanes and loading areas. • No pedestrian routes cross the drive -through lanes. Where there is a pedestrian crossing to the north, it is demarcated with colored concrete to promote safe pedestrian movement. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3b will be met regarding Location. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) In the CB-2 zone and in all subdistricts of the riverfront crossings district located east of the Iowa River, drive -through lanes and service windows must be located on a nonstreet-facing facade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are allowed, this location standard must be met, unless the applicant can demonstrate that a street -facing location is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site, does not oonw with adjacent uses or pedestrian access. and does not compromise the character 61 the streetscape or neighborhood in which it is located. - - -n ri • The drive -through lanes are on the nonstreet-facing facade of the kiosk' -` (2) Drive -through lanes must be set back at least ten feet (10') from adjacent lot IirWs and public rights of way and screened from view according to the design standank below. <a • Drive -through lanes are more than 30 feet from the St. Clement Street rightof-way and will be screened by the kiosk and landscaping to the S3 standard. • A landscape plan will be submitted as part of the site plan review. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3c will be met. Design Standards: The number of drive -through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved area necessary for the drive -through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential •o•ero sipawee wnnaom: properties or detract from or unduly Interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. The board of adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the circumstances affecting the site. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive -through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking space does not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of the pedestrian environment. • The drive -through is proposed in a central location on the north side of the site, which is across St. Clement Street from single-family and duplex homes. • The site plan shows three 10- to 12-foot wide drive -through lanes, partially under an awning, and a kiosk between the drive -through lanes and St. Clement Street for part of the length of the lanes. • Nearly all proposed paving replaces existing paving, except where parking islands would be removed and/or otherwise affected. • S3 screening is required between the drive -through lanes and the St. Clement Street right-of-way. Landscaping along St. Clement Street will be replaced, and two trees in parking Islands will be removed. Compliance with parking lot landscaping standards will be reviewed at the site plan stage, including Landscaping and Tree Requirements Within Parking Areas (14-5A-51). Because of these standards, additional tree islands may be required. • The Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No. 21-4860) requires that any structure with canopies, including the proposed kiosk, shall be of a quality design appropriate for property near residential neighborhoods with features such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors. The Design Review Committee must review and approve prior to issuance a building permit. • The proposed improvements will help maintain the safety of those utilizing the walkways and will not diminish the design quality of the streetscape nor the pedestrian environment. (2) Drive -through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive -through is located adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. To preserve the pedestrian oriented character of streets in the CB-2 zone and the riverfront crossings district, the board may require the drive -through to be incorporated within the building or be screened with masonry street walls and landscaping. Street walls shall be a minimum of five feet (S) in height and shall be designed to complement the principal building on the site. t: Landscaping along St. Clement Street shall be replaced to the S3 standard. Part. of the drive -through lanes would be screened by the proposed kiosk, while the remainder will be screened by the future landscaping. f3) Multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane (e.g., order board, payment window, pick up window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling on the W6e. The drive -through facility is proposed for pick-up only. • Incremental time slots for customers are used to help plan orders and reduce idling on tits site. • Employees bad customers' cars, so while doors are included in the fa,ade of the kiosk, no service windows are provided. (4) Stacking spaces, driveways, and drive -through windows shall be located to minimize potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in which it is located. • No new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed drive -through facility, except for demarcated areas where employees will bad vehicles. • Some conflicts may arise between vehicles accessing the drive -through lanes and vehicles accessing nearby parking, but there is adequate room for vehicles to maneuver and adequate signage and pavement markings to direct traffic. • The Design Review required by the Conditional Zoning Agreement will ensure the building is also integrated into the surrounding streetscape. • The proposed facility will be similar to the current parking spaces on the site as both are auto -oriented uses, so the proposed use will retain consistent design. (5) Lighting for the drive -through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards set forth in chapter 5, article G of this title and must be designed to prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties. • A photometric plan was submitted as part of the application. • Staff shall review any new lighting for the site in compliance with current code„ standards as part of the site plan review process. 7 (6) (Repealed.) _ -- (7) Loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be givenYo locations adjacent to residential uses to ensure such systems do not diminish the-� residential character of the neighborhood. • No loudspeakers or intercom systems are part of this project. • The Board adopted a condition that no external loudspeakersor intercom systems be installed in the future to mitigate potential future issues associated with noise. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the follovnng findings: • The proposed drive -through facility is not expected to increase vehicular traffic to the site, as it is anticipated that drive -through trips will primarily replace in -sore trips. • Vehicular circulation and access are adequate to the accommodate drive -through traffic as long as they conform to the site plan as submitted. • To ensure a smooth flow of traffic, the Board adopted a condition that drive -through lanes remain pick-up only. • No new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed drive -through facility, except for areas where employees will bad vehicles. • While there may be some potential conflicts between vehicles that are parking and vehicles that are utilizing the drive -through lanes, there is adequate room to maneuver, and pavement markings and signage are sufficient to ensure safe traffic flows. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • Screening to the north will mitigate impacts to the stmetscape and adjacent properties. • The Conditional Zoning Agreement requires that any structure with canopies, including the proposed kiosk, shall be of a quality design appropriate for property near residential neighborhoods with features such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors. The Design Review Committee must review and approve prior to issuance a building permit. • Because the proposed facility Is adjacent to residential uses, the Board adopted a condition that hours of operation be limited from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm weekdays and from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends to mitigate any potential Impacts due to noise. • No loudspeakers or intercom systems are part of this project. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. • Future redevelopment and improvement of adjacent properties will not be affected. The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: • Sufficient utilities, access roads, and necessary facilities are established for this neighborhood and can meet the proposed site requirements. • Pedestrian access will be maintained between the right-of-way and subject property. • Proposed internal circulation is sufficient for vehicular and pedestrian access. • The project will include relocating the existing Electric Vehicle charging station and light r'pole/vertical wind turbine. e Thp Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress --- or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following fi"jjngs: a.. • vThere is adequate space for 18 vehicles to stack in the drive -through lanes with � acklibonal space for overflow. • -The proposed drive -through lanes and kiosk are accessed from internal drives and will exit into the parking area. • Signage and pavement markings will help efficiently direct vehicles through the site. • The site plan as proposed is not expected to negatively impact ingress or egress on public streets, nor is traffic expected to increase. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The proposed use will replace existing parking spaces. However, the site would retain 215 proposed parking spaces, which Is above the parking requirement of 189 spaces. • The proposed project will remove two existing tree planters in the parking area. The standards for Landscaping and Tree Requirements Within Parking Areas (14-5A-51) require that every parking space is within 40 feel of a small tree or 60 feet of a large tree. Depending on the size of surrounding trees, it is possible that additional tree islands may be needed to ensure compliance with these standards. Staff will review the landscaping plan during site plan review to ensure compliance. • The Conditional Zoning Agreement requires that any structure with canopies, including the proposed kiosk, shall be of a quality design appropriate for property near residential neighborhoods. The Design Review Committee must review and approve prior to issuance a building permit. • Staff will ensure the site design conforms with all other applicable zoning standards and regulations, including screening, lighting, and signage requirements, during the subsequent site plan review. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as General Commercial, and the Future Land Use Map of the North Distinct Plan designates this area as RetaiUCommunity Commercial. • The Comprehensive Plan supports 'encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses'. • The current primarily land use of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans and will not change because of the proposed special exception. DISPOSITION: By a vote of 4-0, the Board approved a drive -through facility for online grocery pick-up located at 1125 North Dodge Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with site plan dated June 8, 2021. - - 2. The drive -through lanes shall remain pick-up only. 3. Installation of external loudspeakers or intercom systems is prohibited. 4. Hours of operation are limited from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm weekdays and from:6:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends. .- EXC21-0004: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by LT Leon Associates to allow a drive -through facility in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for online grocery pick-up at 1720 Waterfront Drive. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3a will be met. Access and Circulation: The transportation system should be capable of safely supporting eodeep sipmve wn : the proposed drive -through use in addition to the existing uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, effects on traffic circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian safety In addition to the following criteria. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) Wherever possible and practical, drive -through lanes shall be accessed from secondary streets. alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can demonstrate that access from a secondary street, alley, or shared cross access drive is not possible, the board may grant access to a primary street, but may impose conditions such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting the number of lanes, requiring the drive -through bays and stacking lanes to be enclosed within the building envelope, and similar conditions. • The property has three vehicular access points from Boyrum Street to the east and three from Waterfront Drive to the west, which are connected by two east -west internal drives and north -south parking aisles. Both streets are classified as local streets. • The proposed drive -through lanes are accessed from the internal cross access drive directly north of the building and exit into the southem-most internal access drive. The facility cannot be accessed directly from a street. • The drive -through lanes have a one-way access point from north to south. (2) To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is subject to the standards and restrictions in chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this title. • No changes to curb cuts or existing pedestrian routes are being proposed as part of the project. The existing pedestrian route is demarcated with colored pavement where it crosses the parking aisles. Crossings are approximately 25 to 35 feet long. • The pedestrian path will cross the drive -through facility but is already demarcated which promotes safe pedestrian movement, and no new conflicts are created. • The Aisles Online addition Includes an employee access route through the store, and the pedestrian route directly east of the building will be retained. Additional painted areas will provide access from the addition to individual cars to facilitate safety while orders are loaded. (3) An adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic safety is not compromised. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces is recommended for drive - through facilities associated with eating establishments and a minimum of four (4) stacking spaces for banking, pharmacies, and similar nonfood related drive -through facilities. "Stacking spaces" shall be defined as being twenty feet (20') in length and the width of a one lane, one-way drive. The board may reduce the recommended number of stacking spaces if the applicant can demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristics such that the recommended number of parking spaces is excessive (i.e., zHrive- through that is to be used for pick up only and not ordering). The site plan shows 4 drive -through lanes, each with 5 stacking spaces, for a total of 20 vehicles. The drive -through facility is for pick-up only, not ordering. so staff believes this is adequate due to the unique chamcterisfics of the use. • Peak hours are estimated from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. • The drive -through lanes are far enough from the access drive to accommodate limited spillover traffic and to minimize traffic safety impacts. • The Board adopted substantial compliance with the site plan as a condition of approval to ensure that traffic safety is not compromised. (4) Sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance areas, and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement. • The site plan indicates directional arrows at all access points to the drive -through facility and in the drive -through lanes. • Signage to direct vehicles to the drive -through are located at the entrance to the access drive, and a do not enter sign is located at the exit. • Pavement markings denote drive -through lanes and loading areas and a landscaped planter separates the drive -through lanes from the parking aisle. • All pedestrian crossings are demarcated with colored concrete, which helps ensure safe pedestrian movement. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3b will be met regarding Location. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) In the CB-2 zone and in all subdistricls of the riverfront crossings district located east of the Iowa River, drive -through lanes and service windows must be located on a nonstreet-facing facade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are allowed, this location standard must be met, unless the applicant can demonstrate that a street -facing location is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site, does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access, and does not compromise the character of the streetscepe or neighborhood in which it is located. • The drive -through lanes are on the Boyrum Street -facing facade of the building. • This location is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site because the proposed facility utilizes the existing building facade. • The street -facing location does not affect pedestrian access. • The neighborhood is commercial, and the drive -through facility will replace existing cur -oriented uses and will enhance existing landscaping. As a result, the location will not conflict with adjacent uses or the character of the neighborhood. • To ensure a consistent viewshed for the stmetscepe, the Board adopted a condition that the new Aisles Online addition must harmonize with existing buildings as it relates to materials, colors, textures, lines, and masses, to be reviewed with the site plan. (2) Drive -through lanes must be set back at least ten feet (10') from adjacent lot lines and public rights of way and screened from view according to the design standards, below. • Drive -through lanes are approximately 100 feet from the Boyrum Street right4way and will be screened by existing landscaping to the S2 standard and by trees planted in a new 16-foot landscape planter that is pan of the project. • A landscape plan will be submitted as part of the site plan review. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3c will be met. Design Standards: The number of drive -through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved area necessary for the drive -through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. The board of adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the circumstances affecting the site. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive -through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking space does not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of the pedestrian environment. • The proposed facility is east of the building in the southeast comer of the site, which is across Boyrum Street from commercial uses. • The site plan shows four 10- to 12-foot-wide drive -through lanes, partially under an awning, with an addition to the west of the lanes. • Nearly all proposed paving replaces existing paving. • S2 screening is required between the drive -through lanes and the Boyrum Street right-of-way. Existing trees and landscaping along Boyrum Street will be retained, and additional trees will be planted in a new 16-foot wide landscaping median. • The existing pedestrian pathway delineated with colored pavement will be retained from Boyrum Street to the store entrance as part of the project. The pedestrian walkway crosses where cars will turn to enter the drive -through lanes, which will ensure requires cars to yield and maintains pedestrian safety. • The proposed improvements will help maintain the safety of those utilizing the walkways and will not diminish the design quality of the streetscape nor the pedestrian environment. (2) Drive -through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive -through is located adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. To preserve the pedestrian oriented character of streets in the CB-2 zone and the hverfront crossings district, the board may require the drive -through to be incorporated within the building or be screened with masonry street walls and landscaping. Street walls shall be a minimum of five feet (5') in height and shall be designed to complement the principal building on the site. • Existing landscaping along Boyrum Street will be retained at the S2 standard, and additional landscaping will be provided between the proposed drive -through facility and street. • The drive -through facility is not adjacent to residential uses. v: 6) Multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane (e.g., order board, payment ivinclow, pick up window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling on the site. •'��� The drive -through facility is proposed for pick-up only. • Incremental time slots for customers are used to help plan orders and reduce idling on the site. • Employees bad customers' cars, so while doors are included in the facade of the kiosk, no service windows are provided. (4) Stacking spaces, driveways, and drive -through windows shall be located to minimize potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated into the surrounding landscape and stmetscape design of the neighborhood in which it is located. • No new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed drive -through facility, except (or demarcated areas where employees will bad vehicles. • The landscape median will reduce potential vehicular conflicts. • Adopted conditions will help integrate the proposed use into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design. • The neighborhood is commercial in nature, and the proposed facility will be similar to the current parking spaces on the site as both are auto -oriented uses. (5) Lighting for the drive -through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards set forth in chapter 5, article G of this title and must be designed to prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties. • A photometric plan was submitted as part of the application. • Staff shall review any new lighting for the site in compliance with current code standards as part of the site plan review process. (6) (Repealed.) (7) Loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be given to locations adjacent to residential uses to ensure such systems do not diminish the residential character of the neighborhood. • No loudspeakers or intercom systems are part of this project. • The Board adopted a condition that no external loudspeakersor intercom systems be installed in the future to mitigate potential future issues associated with noise. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: • The proposed drive -through facility is not expected to increase vehicular traffic to the site, as it is anticipated that drive -through trips will primarily replace in-store trips. • Vehicular circulation and access are adequate to accommodate drive -through traffic as long as they conform to the site plan as submitted. • To ensure a smooth flow of traffic, the Board adopted a condition that drive -through, lanes remain pick-up only. (; • No new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed stacking spaces and driveways, except for areas where employees will load vehicles. • Pavement markings and signage are sufficient to ensure safe traffic flows. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • Screening to the east will mitigate impacts to the streetscape and adjacent properties. • The proposed uses and development are compatible with those of nearby properties. • Conditions as adopted help ensure a consistent building appearance. • No loudspeakers or intercom systems are part of this project. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of commercial and intensive commercial uses. • Future redevelopment and improvement of adjacent properties will not be affected. The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: • Sufficient utilities, access mads, and necessary facilities are established for this neighborhood and can meet the proposed site requirements. • Pedestrian access will be maintained between the right-of-way and subject property. • Proposed internal circulation is sufficient for vehicular and pedestrian access. • The project wilt include removing an existing stone sewer line and rerouting the roof drains. Staff will ensure compliance with all applicable standards during site plan and building permit review. The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • There is adequate space for 20 vehicles to stack in the drive -through lanes with limited space for overflow. • The proposed drive -through lanes are accessed from internal drives and will likely exit onto Boyrum Street. • Signage and pavement markings will help efficiently direct vehicles through the site. • The site plan as proposed is not expected to negatively impact ingress or egress on public streets, nor is traffic expected to increase. The Board concludes that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exWtion being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located based on the following findings: • The proposed use will replaceexisting parking spaces. However, the site would retain -455 proposed parking spaces, which is above the parking requirement of 329 spaces. • Staff will ensure the site design conforms with all applicable zoning standards and regulations, including screening, signage and lighfing requirements, during the site plan review. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as General Commercial, and the Future Land Use Map of the South District Plan designates this area as Commercial. • The Comprehensive Plan supports'enceureging the retention and expansion of existing businesses'. • The current primarily land use of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans and will not change because of the proposed special exception. DISPOSITION: By a vote of 4-0, the Board approved a drive-thmugh facility for online grocery pick-up located at 1720 Waterfront Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the she plan dated August 20, 2021. 2. The drive -through lanes shall remain pick-up only. 3. Installation of external loudspeakers or intercom systems is prohibited. 4. The new building addition must harmonize with existing buildings on the site as it relates to building materials, oolors, textures, lines, and masses, as determined by the Development Services Coordinator during site plan review. 4. EXC21-0014: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by LT Leon Associates to allow a drive -through facility in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for online grocery pick-up at 812 S. 10 Avenue. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3a wilt be met. Access and Circulation: The transportation system should be capable of safely supporting the proposed drive -through use in addition to the existing uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, effects on traffic circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian safety in addition to the following criteria. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) Wherever possible and practical, drive -through lanes shall be accessed from secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can demonstrate that access from a secondary street, alley, or shared cross access drive is not possible, the board may grant access to a primary street, but may impose conditions such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting the number of lanes, requiring the drive -through bays and stacking lanes to be enclosed within the building envelope, and similar conditions. The property has three vehicular access points from S. 1 at Avenue to the west and one from Muscatine Avenue to the south, which are connected by two -east -west internal drives and norm -south parking aisles. Both streets are classified as mior arterials � • e• • The proposed drive -through facility is accessed from a parking aisle which can only be reached from S. 1st Avenue. Access is not available through the surface parking lot areas. The facility cannot be directly accessed from a street. • The drive -through lanes have a one-way access point from north to south. (2) To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is subject to the standards and restrictions in chapter 5, article C,'Access Management Standards', of this title. • No changes to curb cuts are being proposed as part of the project. • The existing pedestrian mutes are not currently demarcated where they cross the parking aisles or drives. • The existing southern pedestrian route will cross the proposed drive -through facility, but the site plan shows the route would be striped which will help provide for safe pedestrian movement. Crossings are approximately 16 to 24 feet long. • The site plan shows that the existing northern pedestrian route would also be striped where it crosses the internal drive as part of the project. The crossing is approximately 25 feet long. (3) An adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic safety is not compromised. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces is recommended for drive - through facilities associated with eating establishments and a minimum of four (4) stacking spaces for banking, pharmacies, and similar nonfood related drive -through facilities. "Stacking spaces" shall be defined as being twenty feet (20') in length and the width of a one lane, one-way drive. The board may reduce the recommended number of stacking spaces if the applicant can demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristics such that the recommended number of parking spaces is excessive (i.e., a drive- through that is to be used for pick up only and not ordering). • The site plan shows 2 drive -through lanes, each with at least 9 stacking spaces, for a total of more than 18 vehicles. The drive -through facility is for pick-up only, not ordering. This meets the required number of stacking spaces. • Peak hours are estimated from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Monday through Friday. • The drive -through lanes are far enough from the access off S. 1st Avenue to accommodate limited spillover traffic and to minimize traffic safety impacts. • The Board adopted substanfial compliance with the site plan as a condition of approval to ensure traffic safety is not compromised. (4) Sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance areas, and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement. •, The site plan indicates directional arrows at all access points to the drive -through facility and in the drive -through lanes. Signage to direct vehicles to the drive -through are located at the entrance to the access drive, and a do not enter sign is located at the exit. • Pavement markings denote drive -through lanes and a raised curb separates the drive -through lanes from the parking aisle and drive. v. memo:�ee,r„ ,e.�.n•.m�. • All pedestrian crossings will be demarcated with pavement markings as part of the project, which helps ensure safe pedestrian movement. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 144C-2K-3b will be met regarding Locafion. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) In the CB-2 zone and in all subdistricts of the riverfront crossings district located east of the Iowa River, drive -through lanes and service windows must be located on a nonstreet-facing facade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are allowed, this location standard must be met, unless the applicant can demonstrate that a street -facing location is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site, does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access, and does not compromise the character of the streetscape or neighborhood in which it is located. • The drive -through lanes are on the S. 1 st Avenue -facing facade of the building. This location is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site because the proposed facility will utilize the existing building larade • The street -facing location does not affect pedestrian access. Marked pedestrian crossings will improve safety. • While areas to the north are residential, the area directly across S. 1st Avenue is commercial. The drive -through facility will replace existing car -oriented uses and will enhance existing landscaping. As a result, the location will not conflict with adjacent uses or the character of the neighborhood. • The proposed drive -through facility expands an existing drive -through area, though the project does not include any new structures. Because the property is in the Towncrest Design Review District, design review is required which will help ensure consistency with the Towncrest Design Plan standards for parking, landscaping, and signage. (2) Drive -through lanes must be set back at least ten feel (10') from adjacent lot lines and public rights of way and screened from view according to the design standards below. • Drive -through lanes are more than 40 feet from the S. list Avenue right-of-way and will be screened to the S2 standard. • A landscape plan will be submitted as part of the site plan review. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3c will be met. Design Standards: The number of cinve-through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved area necessary for the drive -through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. The board of adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the circumstances affecting the site. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive -through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking space doesnot diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of the pedestrian environment. .. si timrewrm • The proposed facility is west of the building in the center of the site, which is across S. 1st Avenue from commercial uses. • The site plan shows two 12-foot-wide drive -through lanes along the west edge of the existing building and utilizes an existing awning. • Nearly all proposed paving replaces existing paving, except where a small, landscaped area would be modified. • S2 screening is required between the drive -through lanes and S. 1 st Avenue right-of- way. Existing landscaping will be enhanced as part of that screening. • The pedestrian pathways from S. 1st Avenue will be enhanced as part of the project, which includes striping where the routes cross drives and a small pedestrian island in the drive -through facility. • The proposed improvements will help maintain the safety of those utilizing the walkways and will not diminish the design quality of the streetscape nor the pedestrian environment. (2) Drive -through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive -through is located adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. To preserve the pedestrian oriented character of streets in the CB-2 zone and the riverfronl crossings district, the board may require the drive -through to be incorporated within the building or be screened with masonry street walls and landscaping. Street walls shall be a minimum of five feet (5) in height and shall be designed to complement the principal building on the site. • Existing landscaping along S. tat Avenue will be enhanced to the S2 standard. • The drive -through facility is not adjacent to residential uses. (3) Multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane (e.g., order board, payment window, pick up window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling on the site. • The drive -through facility is proposed for pick-up only. • Incremental time slots for customers are used to help plan orders and reduce idling on the site. • Employees bad customers' cars, so while doors are included in the fagade of the kiosk, no service windows are provided. (4) Stacking spaces, driveways, and drive -through windows shall be located to minimize potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in which it is located. • No new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed drive -through facility, except for demarcated areas where employees will bad vehicles. � • A curb between the drive -through lane and parking aisle will reduce potential vehicular conflicts. • Where vehicles exit the drive -through facility, they must cross the existing cross access drive. However, cars will leave straight ahead, one at a time, and the area in front of the store has slow traffic speeds which help ensure traffic safety. • Landscaping will be enhanced as part of the project, and the project Is subject to the Towncrest Design Review standards. This will help integrate the proposed use into the surrounding landscape and sireetscape design. • Adjacent uses are commercial in nature, and the proposed facility will be similar to the current parking spaces on the site as both are auto -oriented uses. (5) Lighting for the drive -through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards set forth in chapter 5, article G of this title and must be designed to prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties. • A photometric plan was submitted as part of the application. • Staff shall review any new lighting for the site in compliance with current code standards as part of the site plan review process. (6) (Repealed.) (7) Loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be given to locations adjacent to residential uses to ensure such systems do not diminish the residential character of the neighborhood. • No loudspeakers or intercom systems are part of this project. • The Board adopted a condition that no external loudspeakers or intercom systems be installed in the future to mitigate potential future issues associated with noise. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: • The proposed drive -through facility is not expected to increase vehicular traffic to the site, as it is anticipated that drive -through trips will primarily replace in-store trips. • Vehicular circulation and access are adequate to accommodate drive -through traffic as long as they conform to the site plan as submitted. • To ensure a smooth flow of traffic, the Board adopted a condition that drive -through lanes remain pick-up only. • No new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed stacking spaces, except for areas where employees will bad vehicles. • While there may be some potential conflicts between vehicles entering the drive -through lanes and trucks utilizing the loading area, and vehicles exiting the drive -through lanes, there is adequate room to maneuver, pavement markings and signage are sufficient to ensure safe traffic flows, traffic speeds are slow, and truck traffic can be scheduled to coincide with non -peak hours to reduce conflicts. • The pedestrian route currently leads to a door which may not be open to the public. If the door is closed to the public, safety is compromised because there is not a complete pedestrian route from the sidewalk into the building. The Board adopted a condition that there be a complete, demarcated pedestrian route at least 4 feet in widtty from tf sidewalk to the interior of the building, to be approved as part of the design review process. ^' v3 ca The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • Screening to the west will mitigate impacts to the streetscape and adjacent properties. • The property is in the Townrrest Design Review District, so any new buildings, parking, landscaping, and wayfinding signage will require staff design review, which helps provide a consistent design with the standards in the Towncrest Design Plan. • No loudspeakers or intercom systems are part of this project. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. • Future redevelopment and improvement of adjacent properties will not be affected. The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: • Sufficient utilities, access roads, and necessary facilities are established for this neighborhood and can meet the proposed site requirements. • Pedestrian access will be enhanced between the right-of-way and subject property. • Proposed internal circulation is sufficient for vehicular and pedestrian access. • The project will include relocating an existing bicycle rack. The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • There is adequate space for mare than 18 vehicles to stack in the drive -through lanes with limited space for overflow. • The proposed drive -through lanes are accessed from a parking drive aisle and will exit onto a shared cross access drive. Where vehicles exit, they must cross the access drive, but there is adequate space to wait for a break in traffic and traffic speeds are slow. • Signage and pavement markings will help efficiently direct vehicles through the site. • The site plan as proposed is not expected to negatively impact ingress or egress on public streets, nor Is traffic expected to increase. The4oard concludes that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exg0tion 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 based on lhe"fellowingfindings: c� • Ifie proposed use will replace existing parking spaces. However, the site stilt proposes do retain 399 proposed parking spaces, which Is well above the parking requirement of `f 20 parking spaces. • The parking areas were developed prior to anent zoning standards. Where pavement is removed and replaced, the parking lot must be brought into compliance with arrant design standards. Staff will ensure compliance during site plan review • The property is in the Towncrest Design Review District, which requires consistency with the standards in the Towncrest Design Plan, including those related to parking, landscaping, and signage. Staff will ensure compliance through design review. • The subject property contains sensitive areas which include a part of the South Branch Ralston Creek and the 100-year flood zone. During site plan review, staff will ensure work is conducted outside of flood hazard areas and sensitive areas buffers. If work is completed within those areas, a separate sensitive areas application will be required. • Staff will ensure the site design conforms with all other applicable zoning standards and regulations during the subsequent site plan and design review. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as General Commercial, and the Future Land Use Map of the Southeast District Plan designates this area as Commercial. • The Comprehensive Plan supports 'encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses'. • The current primarily land use of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans and will not change because of the proposed special exception. DISPOSITION: By a vote of 3-1 (Carlson against), the Board approved a drive -through facility for online grocery pick-up located at 812 South 1° Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with site plan dated August 6, 2021. 2. The drive -through lanes shall remain pick-up only. 3. Installation of external loudspeakers or intercom systems is prohibited 4. A complete, demarcated pedestrian route at least 4 feet in width from the sidewalk to the interior of the building must be approved as pan of the design review process. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the application shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C- 1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Q•y,. W9 m Amy Pretorius. Chairperson Approved by: qikl� 9--dYr4t. City Attorney's Office r7 STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY I, Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the S" day of September, 2021 as the same appears of record In my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this 2"I' "— day of 'ar , 20 �—W Jmmpew••ewioom.. Fat . preperad by KA I.tllmam, A•sodaM Plerrer. 410 E. Wa•IYngwA lava Cdy, IA M2 . 319,15"230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2021 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Doc ID: 028248410029 Type: GEN Kind: DECISION Recorded: 09/23/2021 at 11:12:19 Art Fee Art: $147.00 Page I of 29 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder w6289 PG899-927 MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles. Bryce Parker, Amy Pretortus, N'Wk Russo MEMBERS ABSENT: None•-- -� N N _ STAFF PRESENT: Sue Oulek, Anne Russell, Kirk Lehmann FT1 _• _r1 SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: „ =J 1. EX021-0012: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by v I Elizabeth Homan requesting an eating establishment use for a Peninsula live -work unit in a Low Density Single-Famlly Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (RS- 5IOPD) at 1040 Martin Street. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: • The subject unit is small at approximately 766 square feet, the Intensity of the property will not change substantially from previous occupants, and access to the property and surrounding properties will not be affected. To enlarge the use In the future, such as into the rear space, a new special exception would be required. • Given the remote location of the neighborhood, limited s¢e, and seating constraints, it is likely that the use will rely primarily on customers that are already within the neighborhood, either residents or people traveling to the dog park or along bike trails. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: Before this special exception application, the property was utilized as an eating establishment with minimal effects on neighboring residential uses- Staff does not expect any major impacts to neighboring properties. The Board has approved special exceptions for other nearby commercial uses with conditions limiting hours of operation, size, and exterior sound. These condifions help ensure that the Peninsula corrmerdal area retains a mix of uses that serve the neighborhood and does rat detract from other nearby uses. Staff recommends adopting similar conditions for this use, though limitations on size are not necessary because any subsequent enlargement will require a new exception. Proposed conditions limiting hours of hours of operation and prohlbrdng exterior amplified sound help to ensure that Peninsula residents can benefit from a restaurant within walking distance without the negative externalities of noise from late night hours and amplified sounds. • Signs and lighting must comply with the regulations for the Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed Use zones, which am designed to be compatible with neighboring residential uses and must be approved by the Peninsula Neighborhood Architectural Review Board. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The neighborhood is fully developed with a mix of residential and commercial uses. • The Peninsula Regulating Plan includes opportunities for commercial uses In pA.Aicular locations around the park. _ _ • The building was designed and built for commercial use on the grounds "T. v �_t The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or riaile aiD r facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: — v j-jj • All access roads are in place for the development, on -site drainage is porvjded, and the area directly behind the property is reserved for stormwater detention. No additional facilities are required. r The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • Off-street parking is not required for commercial uses under 1,500 square feet. As such, no parking has been provided for the commercial use. • The use will be limited in the customers it likelywill draw due to its small size and remote location In Iowa City. As such, adequate Ingress and egress are provided. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • All other aspects of the proposed use have been reviewed for compliance with the specific standards in the Peninsula's Planned Unit Development regulations. • Any changes to previously approved uses, such as to lighting or signage, will require appropriate permits, and will be reviewed upon application. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • The Peninsula Neighborhood was developed utiliz ng conservation and traditional neighborhood design principles that include a variety of housing types, neighborhood commercial, and live -work buildings (North District flan pg. 29). • The Peninsula Regulating Plan includes opportunity for limited commercial uses in locations adjacent to the park. DISPOSITION: By a vote of 4-0 (Pretorius mused herself), the Board approved an eating establishment in a Peninsula Live -Work unit for the property located at 1040 Marlin Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Business hours of operation must dose by 10 PM Sunday through Thursday and 11 PM Friday through Saturday. 2, Amplified sound on the axter_!pr of the building is prohibited. 124,1 Gene Chrischilles, Vice Chairperson and Acting Chairperson EXC21-0009: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by Axiom Consultants requesting a 50 percent parking reduction for other unique circumstances and to allow parking on the ground floor at 21 S. Linn Street as set forth in the Staff Report dated August 11, 2011. The Board found that the proposed student housing use does not have unique characteristics, as detailed in the attached minutes of the August 11, 2021 meeting, Incorporated herein. Because of this finding, the application failed to satisfy the required approval criteria. DISPOSITION: By a vote of 2-3 (Carlson, Chrischilles, and Russo against), the Board denied special exception number EXC21-0009. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time IlmitaWn on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the application shell have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terns of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14AC- 1 E, City of Iowa City, lowa. '�r"'0 Amy Pretorius, Chairperson STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY City Attorney's Office v - - . N .. - N " N ui I, Kellle K. Fruehling, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 11" day of August. 2021 as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa ay, this u day Of r 20 I Ke@ K. IF : hlla Gy Cledc e o _ r � D' N MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL AUGUST 11, 2021 - 5:15 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles, Bryce Parker, Amy Pretorius, Mark Russo MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulok, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Andy Savoy. Mohamed Mahmoud, Tim Fuerst, Niles Bolton, III& Watch, Karen Kubby, Maggie Elliott CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. m, s 0 2 ROLL CALL: N A brief opening statement "a read by Pretorius outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. ,SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC21-0012: An application submitted by Elizabeth Homan requesting a special exception to allow an eating establishment use for a Peninsula five -work unit in a Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (RS-5lOPD) at 1040 Martin Street. Pretorius recused herself from this hem as she had a conflict of Interest. Chdschilles opened the public hearing. Lehmann noted this is a special exception to allow an eating establishment use in the Peninsula Neighborhood in a livelwork unit which Is a low -density single family residential zone with the Planned Development Overlay. The subject property (1040 Martin Street) it is located adjacent to Emma J. Harvat Square Park in the Peninsula neighborhood. Lehmann noted the Peninsula has some unique regulations as part of the Planned Development Overlay (OPD) and also has a regulating plan that shows what different kinds of buildings can be constructed where and then how specific uses in those buildings can work together. The OPD has some areas for potential commercial development with a goal of reducing car trips by providing goods and services for nearby residents. The subject property Is a livelwork she, which allows some commercial uses on the ground floor with residential uses above ft. However not all commercial uses are allowed by right for example, eating establishments require a special exception. This unit actually had a special o a 6osM of Adluetrnenl August it, 2021 Page 2 of 25 �n N r a exception in the past that was approved in 2016 (EXC76-00006) but it was discosQP mom than a year and so they need to apply for an" special exception to allow the use boln. In terns of the criteria that are part of this special exception, them are no specific approval criteria so only the general approval crisis will be used to evaluate the proposal. Lehmann showed the subject property and an aerial of the Peninsula neighborhood. The subject property is directly across from the park In the center of the Peninsula neighborhood and that's the area theta designated for commercial uses. The zoning map shows that area Is all pretty much low -density single-family residential (RS-5) with the OPD. Lehmann reiterated it's the overlay that brings in these special development regulations that affect uses. So even though it is a residential single-family zone, it allows those commercial uses. He next showed a dose up, Its the northmost unit in a line of buildings and how they have commercial uses on the ground floor and residential above. The unit has some outdoor seating that's next to it along the sidewalk Most of the neighboring properties are lownhomes. The proposed site plan that was Included in the agenda packet is almost identical to the previous site plan from the site. They're largely keeping the interior of the space as it "a from the previous restaurant. The Board of Adjustment is charged with approving, approving with conditions, or denying the application based on the fads presented. To approve the special exception the Board must find that It meets all applicable approval criteria. In this case the seven general standards for all special exceptions that are being reviewed and those are located at 14-49-3A of the City Code. The first general criterion is that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The proposed use Is relatively small at about 766 square feet and since there was a previous restaurant that was approved in this space, the Intensity of the property will not change substantially from past use. Similarly, the unit is already bunk out so access to the property and surrounding properties won't be affecled. In the future If it does want to expand in any way it would require another special exception. Based on the size and its location in the neighborhood and some seating constraints that it has, staff believes that the use will rely primarily on customers who are already In the neighborhood, either residents or people who am traveling through the neighborhood, such as to the dog park or along the bike tails. The second is that the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not subshandally diminish or impair property, values in the neighborhood. As previously mentioned, the space was previously an eating establishment and it had minimal effects on neighboring residences, so staff doesn't anticipate any major Issues. As far as other commercial uses in the area, staff has approved special exceptions, With some conditions that limit the hours of operation, their size, and exterior sound. The purpose of those were to ensure that the neighborhood commercial area retains a mix of uses, and that it does not negatively impacts surrounding properdes. Staff recommends similar conditions; for this use bud does not believe that size limdatlons am necessary because if the use wants to expand it will require another special exception. Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation and preventing exterior amplified sound. As far as signage and lighting, they have to comply with the regulations in the Peninsula Code and Board of Aclupment o August 11,2021 rn Page 3 of 25 M N N _ ra the City Code and they have to be approved by the Peninsula Neighborhood AmbltflCduratt" Review Board. .. N The third is that the establishment of the proposed exception will not Impede the normal and orderly development and Improvement of the surrounding property for uses In the district. The neighborhood Is fully developed, it's got a mix of residential and commercial uses. and the Peninsula Regulating Plan allows opportunities for commercial uses, specifically across from the park. Additionally, this building "a already designed and built for commercial uses on the ground level, so staff believes that this criterion Is met. The fourth criterion is that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. In this case, again is already developed, there are access roads already and on -site drainage, the area behind the property is reserved for stormwater detention and staff doesn't believe that any additional facilities are required. Fifth is that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide Ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Lehmann explained in the Peninsula Development Regulations, off street parking is not required for commercial uses that are less then 1500 square feet and therefore no parking Is provided for the commercial use at the site. However, again based on its location and size, staff believes that the customers that are drawn will be limited, and a lot will be people who live in the neighborhood or who are already In the neighborhood for other purposes. Therefore, staff believes that adequate ingress and egress are provided. The six criterion is that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception will conform with all other applicable regulations in the City Code. Lehmann noted again the use has already been built and ofer aspects have been reviewed for compliance with the Peninsula standards with the Building Code and any changes to those previously approved uses, such as lighting or sgnage, will require appropriate permits and will be reviewed upon application. Staff believes this criterion Is met. Finally, the proposed exception must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City as amended. Lehmann stated the Peninsula Neighborhood was developed using conservation and traditional neighborhood design principles that includes a variety of housing types, neighborhood commercial and live/work buildings such as the subject property. The Peninsula Regulating Plan includes opportunities for limited commercial uses where the building is located, so staff believes that the Comprehensive Plan criterion is met. Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0012 to allow an eating establishment In a Peninsula IlveAvork unit for the property at 1040 Martin Street, subject to two conditions: 1. The business hours of operation must close by 10pm on Sunday through Thursday, and 11 pm on Friday through Saturday. 2. Amplified sound on the exterior of the building is prohibited. ao,mpsiY^3 wewienrm Board of Adtustro t August 11, 2021 Page 4 of 25 Carlson asked if there are any limitations on when they can open in the morning. Lehmann stated staff did not place an opening time limitation. Careen asked what the other uses In the Peninsula have as opening times, is there a standard practice or does it depend on each project. Lehmann confirmed it depends on the business. Some standards in the City Code place opening time limitations, for example rooftop service areas, but not In this part of the code. In this location with the proposed use, staff believes that closing limitations are more of a staff concern due to the possibility of late hour operations. Carlson noted there's no alcohol being served but If they ward to serve alcohol then they would need to get a liquor permit. Lehmann confirmed they would have to get a liquor license, but it wouldn't technically convert from an eating establishment to a drinking establishment unless they were open past midnight In this case, the applicant is not proposing alcohol at this time. Russo asked if the window openings are fixed or does this have the potential to open up a wall of windows to allow sound to leave? Lehmann believes they are fixed as currently canstrwed. They could always apply to put in windows that would open but that would still be Interior sound and the exterior amplified sound condition primarily prevents putting a speaker outside to -= provide music for the seating area. Chrlschllles closed the public hearing. r nNi i- Chrischilles asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion. - CTf Parker moved for approval EXC21-11012, an application submitted by Elizabeth Horr�'qin requesting a special exception to allow an eating establishment use for a Peninsula live - work unit In a Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (RS-5IOPD) at 1040 Martin Street with the following two conditions! 1. The business hours of operation must close by 10pm on Sunday through Thursday, and 41pm on Friday through Saturday. 2. Amplified sound on the exterior of the building Is prohibited. Russo seconded the motion. Russo stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0012 he concurs with the findings set forth In the stag report of this meeting date, August 11, 2021 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings In the staff report for the approval of this proposal. Carlson seconded the findings. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0 (Pretodus recused) Chrischilles stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes 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. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC21-0009: Board ofAdfuslmenl O ~ August it. 2021 Page 5of 25 An application submitted by Axiom Consultants requesting a special exception to a)Iows 5� percent parking reduction for other unique circumstances to construct a new mixed' -use bujlQing at 21 S. Linn Street.- Pretonus opened the public hearing. Chrischilles asked If the Board should be considering this as a valid exception as staff may have based Its findings on the wrong section of the Code. Lehmann explained the staff citation was an old citation that was incorrect. The actual section with the unique circumstances is the correct provision, staff just put the wrong number, it should end in seven Instead of six. Lehmann stated EXC21-0009 is submitted by Axiom Consultants on behalf of CA Ventures to request a 50% parking reduction by special exception for unique circumstances for new mixed - use building at 21 South Urn Street. Lehmann noted this one also requires a second special exception there included in the staff repot regarding parking on the first floor of the building so those criteria will be reviewed and the Board will be voting on that tonight as well. The subject property Is 21 South Linn Street which is located in the middle of downtown, currently the US Bank surface parking lot that has a drive-thru building onsite. Lehmann noted most of downtown is zoned Central Business (CB-10) Including the surrounding buildings but to the east Is a public building, the senior center. This is in the Downtown Historic District which was recently approved and buildings to the north and east do have Historic District Overfays but the buildings to the west, the subject property, and buildings to the south do not, The Historic District Overlay designates local historic landmarks and provides protection to those buildings, but buildings without the overlay are not protected by the zoning code. Regarding the two special exceptions, one is to reduce the minimum number of required parking spaces by 50% for the subject property due to unique circumstances of the use, in this case they refer to student housing as the unique use. The second Is to provide a portion of required parking on the ground floor In a CB-10 zone. Approval of these two special exceptions would facilitate redevelopment of the site into a 13-story mixed use building with commercial and amenity space on the that floor and about 229 residential units above. Lehmann explained that this is going to the Board of Adjustment and not to Planning and Zoning Commission or Council because by right they could build a building with the same envelope, but exceptions requested are required for the parking reduction and for the parking on the ground floor. In this case, the residential land use requires a minimum amount of parking w that's where the parking reduction comes In. As for current uses on the site, there's a non -confirming parking lot and a drivedhru bank. They've been around since 1962. though these uses aren't allowed downtown anymore. The subject property Is CB-10 which Is Intended to bs the highdensity, compact, padestrianorlented shopping, office, service and entertainment area in Iowa City. It allows compact development with the goal of intensifying the density of usable commercial spaces, increasing the availability of open spaces or pedestrian ways, and supporting a healthy and vibrant commercial core. It encourages mixed -use buildings with storefront commercial and residential above. Lehmann noted there are two unique challenges to this property, one is the building to the west is historic but does not have a Historic District Overlay, it has windows on Board of A*9n ant o Moog 11, 2021 p �• Page 6 of 25 �n N >= ro -.( N N the second story that could provide egress. The building Is not currently used fof-rental uljts but blocking the windows could prohibit future rental permits. The second is that theflist N9jlpnal Bank drive -firm building on the property is actually a contributing resource to the Down"n National Historic District that "a recently approved. Again, We not a local historic landmark and It's not in a Historic District Overlay Zone and the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan shows the site as one of the few remaining sites for strategic Infill. With regards to minimum parking standards, they are intended to provide off street parking to accommodate most of the generated demand for parking, especially where sufficient on street parking Is not available. They're also Intended to prevent nonresidential parking from encroaching on nearby residential neighborhoods. The CB-10 zones are unique In that they are subject to maximum parking standards as well for private off-street parking. The goal is to preserve land for active uses and maintain a pedestrian oriented streeacape, so parking is addressed in the Downtown District at a district wide level which relies on consolidated off street facilNes, on street parking and demand pricing to address parking rather than addressing it on a project by project basis. Residential uses are the only land use category in CB-10 that require a minimum amount of parking. Other uses do not and are subject to those maximum parking standards. In the application, they are requesting a parking reduction of 50%which is allowed by special exception where a specific use has unique circumstances such that the number of spaces required Is excessive. Based on the current minimum parking amounts, the proposed project would require 135 parking spaces and by requesting a 50% reduction they would have to provide 67 onsite parking spaces. The concept includes 67 spaces In two levels below ground and a few spaces on the Post story. Access to that parking would be from the alley north of the subject property, which exits onto either South Dubuque Street or South Linn Street. As for pedestrian access, that would be directly on the comer of East Washington Street and South Linn and there are some doors directly Into the retail space as well. Lehmann showed pictures of the subject property, and a close up of the adjacent historic building which currently has a mural on the wall. He noted that Is a temporary use until the subject property is developed, but there are also the windows along the aide of that building on that second story. Lehmann also showed the concepts that have been provided noting they Incorporated the height of the abutting buildings into the brick facade design and storefronts along the street. They are proposing a small mural wall as well and there are visual setbacks to the north and the west. Next Lehmann reviewed the floor plans that were submitted with the application. The Post two levels are the underground parking spaces which would be have most of the parking. Level one has a few parking spaces but the remainder of the facade is retail space primarily on East Washington Street and a lobby, leasing, and amenity space along South Linn Street. There are also building facilities In the northeast comer, which is where that mural is proposed (that would include generators and bash and that sort of thing). For the second, third, and fourth levels they are planned as a backwards C shape. On the second story, they propose some outdoor open space and that C shaped continues up for levels three and four which Is where the brick facade �ammv.�,w:rPnn,wm. N Boehd of Addustmeet O h August 11, 2021 D M Page'I of 25 C)—< N - y f— p Is shown. At the fifth level is a stepback to the wrest on the south leg of the C and h!'&ut ou6ii the northeast which continues for the rest of the building's height. N cn The Board of Adjustment Is charged with approving, approving with conditions, or denying the application based on the facts presented. To approve the special exception, they have to find that it meets all applicable approval criteria and there are two sets of specific standards, one pertaining to the parking reduction and one to the first -floor parking. Finally, there are also the general standards that apply for all special exceptions. The first specific set of standards Is from 14.5A4F-7 (in the staff report, tread it as 145A4F-6 which was the old citation, 14-5A4F-7 is the correct citation) and states that where it can be demonstrated that a spedflc use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stecidng spaces required is excessive, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking spaces by up to 50%. Far this exception, the applicant has requested the full 50% packing reduction due to the unique characteristic of the use staling that their unique use is housing for university students who prefer Irving In a walkable urban setting to having onelte parking. Staff finds that students generally exhibit lower demand for onsite parking and are more likely to use alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking, and transit. Features that are spedf c to student populations Include furnished units and on -eke amenities such as a study lounge. However, It Is not restricted exclusively to students, non -students may also reside there, but it is marketed and intended for students. As far as downtown residents, they tend to use the cars law due to proximity to the University, jobs and other services. The applicant provided some census data which was in the staff report but typical work commutes In census tracts new downtown show that 460A drive alone, 6% carpool, 39°/a walk or bike, 6% use public transportation and others work from home or use other modes of transportation. The subject property is In Census Tract 21 which is the most central tract and has the lowest levels of car usage at only 27% driving alone to work and 80%of residents living there are enrolled In undergraduate or graduate programs so that supports the claim that students exhibit a lower demand for onsite parking. Again, they are proposing 67 orate parking spaces which would be 0.29 spaces per dwelling unit or 0.25 per bedroom. It does provide less parking than other recent student projects, The Rise at 435 South Linn Street provides approximately 0.6 parking spaces per dwelling unit or 0.34 per bedroom but staff is not aware of any complaints regarding spillover parking on that The Gilbane Iowa City at 700 South Dubuque Street has been approved for 0.81 spaces per unit and 0.41 bedroom after it received a special exception using a similar rationale of student housing. Lehmann asserted however that special exceptions do not set precedent, he Is only using this as an Illustration of other student uses. Additionally. Census data supports that student housing has some unique characteristics such that the required number of parking spaces Is excessive. The second set of specific criteria standards are in Section 14.5A-30-5e which is that where parking in a CB-10 zone Is located within the exterior walls of a building, such as on the ground floor, the following standards apply. First, the proposed structured parking will not detract from or prevent ground floor storefront uses and that storefront uses are a substantial portion of the ground level floor of the building. Additionally, on the ground floor, parking Is not allowed within the first 50 feet of the lot. This concept does not show parking In that first 50 feet of building aeeM of Adk;e M O �' August 11, 2021 sn N Page 8 or 76 Dy -rap ° t yn N f r depth, but that will be confirmed during site plan review. Approximately 72% of ihtcing facade is intended for active nonresidential uses which Includes retail storefronts; off ce, I by and amenity space (which could accommodate future storefront uses). The remainder oft�te' space Is for support areas such as the trash, generators, stairwells, etc. The second criterion is that vehicular access to parking must be from a mar alley or private lane and the garage opening shall be built to the minimum width necessary. Vehicular access to the omits parking Is proposed from the rear alley and would come from primarily from Linn Street The third Is that any exterior walls on a parking facility that are visible from a public or private street must appear to be a component of the facade of the building through building materials, window openings, and facade detailing that is similar or complimentary to the design of the building, This concept shows that most exterior walls to the parking faciliity will not be visible because to the east and south it will be behind the building facades that will meet the central business site development standards. The garage well to the west abuts the existing building. Exterior walls to the north am visible from the alley, which is not considered a public street, and the wall of the parking facility is set back 50 feet from the South Linn Street right-of-way. The final specific criterion is that each entrance and exit to the parking area must be constructed so that vehicles entering or leaving are clearly visible to a pedestrian on abutting sidewalks at a distance of at least 10 feet Slop signs and appropriate pedestrian warning signs may be required. The concept shows the entrance and exit is more than 50 feet from the nearest sidewalk which is fine one to the east However, staff recommends a cond Won that the applicant provide a convex traffic safety mlmor or similar method of providing visibility or awareness of potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians who am using the alley. As with all special exceptions, the seven general standards that must be met are located at 14- 483A. The first is that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general we[fare. Them are 67 onsite parking spaces proposed. about 0.29 per dwelling unit or 0.25 per bedroom. The Institute of Traffic Engineering (ITE) suggests that average parking demand for multifamily high-rise muff] -use urban has a parking demand of about 0.55 vehicles per unit or 0.3 per bedroom. Parking for recent high rise residential projects in the CB-10 zone also vary widely In their approach to parking. The Tall winds project, which Is not yet built, is a multifamily building with about 102 dwelling units or 186 bedrooms and they are providing 50 onsite spaces after receiving a reduction for historic properties (EXC20-07), their final onsite parking will be about 0.49 per unit or 0.27 per bedroom. The Chancy at 404 East College Street is a mixed -use building completed In 2017 with 60 units with 76 bedrooms. They pmvkie 45 onsite parking spaces, which would be about 0.75 per unit or 0,59 per bedroom and those are in the Chauncey Swan ramp. Finally, there's Park @ 201 (201 East Washington Street) which was constructed as a mixed -use building in 2012 and has less dwelling units, 24, with 25 bedrooms, but they don't have any parking onsite, they have 14 off eke spaces approved by special exception (EXC12-03) which comes out to 0.58 par unit and 0.56 per bedroom. Lehmann reiterated it varies widely In haw parking has been acoemmodated, but for the proposed project, its per unit parking ratios am well below comparable projects but its per bedroom ratios are mom similar because of the high number of one -bedroom units. Also the Board ofAdjuatmerd o August II, 2M1 Page 9of 25 Damp k7-G N N ITE estimates are not specific to students, it is all downtown high-rise multifamily, and students are more likely to use alternative modes of transportation than estimated by the ITE. It apgears based on Census data for Tract 21 that those perking ratios are appropriate. In addition, there are a couple public parking ramps within two blocks of the proposed building. However, there are waiting lists for those ramps and some of the submitted correspondence touches on this. The Tower Place parking ramp has 510 spaces and there's 625 at the Dubuque Street ramp and 475 at the Chauncey Swan ramp. The idea is that those would provide parking spaces for visitors or for those visiting commercial uses downtown. Currently, the site Is occupied by a private parking lot and drive-thru bank. The concept does propose six new on street parking spaces which It would accommodate by reducing the parking entries to the lot and bank. As far as spillover uses. nearby streets are metered so it's not expected to Impact on street parking in neighboring residential areas and tenants will have to consider reduced onsite parking in their decision making so it Is likely that the project will attract tenants who require less onshe parking. Chrischilles asked if downtown residents are allowed to obtain permits for parking in the ramps. Lehmann stated there Is no availability for residents, they could apply for it but they are not anticipated to support residential uses. Chrlwhilles noted then as far as the residential Impact they can'trely on anything from the public ramps, but visitors could park in the public ramps. Lehmann confirmed the ramps are for visitors and others visiting downtown. Lehmann reiterated the First National Bank drive-thru building that's on the property is a contributing resource in the Downtown National Historic District and would be demolished as part of the project. However, the Crys adopted plans Indicate that the site and existing uses should be redeveloped because the existing surface lot and drive-thru uses are not allowed downtown generally and they detract from the vibrancy and pedestrian friendly streets that are envisioned for the downtown. It is explicitly shown In the Downtown Rivedront Crossings Master Plan that it is in the Cty's Interest to redevelop this site. However, staff recommends that there be a condition that the historic nature of the site, including Its current use and its use as the former City Hall, which It was prior to being demolished for the parking lot, be acknowledged to the satisfaction of the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. Chrischilles asked what the definition of a contributing resource for the Downtown National District Is and would that building potentially be listed by itself on the National Register. Lehmann stated It is listed as part of the district, but it is not an individually listed building nor designated as a local historic landmark. Lehmann continued to the second criterion "Ich Is that the proposed use 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 subject property and the surrounding properties are In the Downtown Historic District that was listed in May 2021. so 13 South Linn Street to the north and 28 South Linn Street to the east (The Yacht Club building and the Senior Center building) are local historic landmarks with a Historic District Overlay. As previously mentioned. the building to the west, 220-222 East Washington Street, Is a contributing structure but does not have a Historic District Overlay. However, it Is identified in City plans as a significant building, whereas the drive-thru bank is mt. The buildings In the e_ Board of Adjusanont "= August 11, 2021 __ [ Page 10 of 25 Historic District are occupied by a mix of different uses, some cammerolal, some mWentiahbut they were largely constructed prior to minimum parking Standards. The concept shQ*S a brick facade matching the parapet height of the building to the west, and the facade must meet the Central Business Design Standards. This will be discussed mom In criteria six, which talks about being compliant with other regulations in the Code, but it basically has requlremerss for windows and how the facade most took, etc. As far as nearby residential properties, again they vary in their parking supply and scale but there aren'treally any single family uses In the Immediate vicinity of the proposed use. Most of downtown residential uses cater to the Same market segment as the proposed project, although some cater to high Income households that prefer urban living. The concept includes six new on street parking spaces, but the onsite parking would be reserved for those occupants of the building. Again, within about two blocks of the project there are approximately 16M public parking spaces in ramps so that would provide oft street parking for customers and/or visitors. The proposed project will Increase nearby pedestrian traffic. so that would likely improve the commercial viability of nearby businesses. Lehmann noted again that 220-222 East Washington Street has second story windows that could be used for egress directly next proposed building and if the development is less than five feet from those windows, they wouldn't be able to be used for egress which would prevent it from obtaining a rental permit in the future. The concept indicates that the second story would be more than Me feet from the abutting windows, which retains the possibility of egress but staff recommends ensuring that egress is preserved. Carlson asked'd that west wall will be the same distance from the building to the west from the ground up. Lehmann stated the concept shows it differently where Its about three feel on the ground floor and five feet at the sewed floor. Staff left their proposed condition open so the applicant can tweak their concept to either provide five feet the whole way across or they could cantilever something to allow access to those windows. In the condition they allow a couple ways of accommodating the egress, staff just wants to avoid negatively affecting egress for the windows of that property. Carlson asked what the fire code is. Lehmann replied the fire code is five feet for egress but it could be three feet on the first floor If the residents have away out. Russo asked if that wall on the building to the west is a flrewall. Lehmann stated it Is an exterior wall. Russo asked If they intrude on that five-foot space, they probably raised the requirements. Lehmann replied potentially but staff Is more concerned about what was the egress to those windows and It will have to be approved according to the fire code and the building codes. The wall does step back a little bit, it's net a flat well, it steps back, so there is even a possibility where It just has to be five feet from that building face where it could be three feet and maybe It does meet that but the applicant wouM have to show that in their site plan review. The third criterion Is that the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development improvement In surrounding properties for use as permitted in the District. Lehmann noted the Downtown District is obviously predominantly already developed, them are a few sites that the City has Idengfled that are appropriate for redevelopment. A lot of downtown Is histodc and the City wants to preserve those historic buildings. As far as those specific sites Identified for potential redevelopment, they wouldn't be impacted by the proposed project. The one that would be most impacted is the abutting property that Is not part of the project on East memp :�q,a,,,re.a.nknoon O Board of Arltustnenl rn •,..;,.� August 11, 2021 Page 11 W 2a A itt Washington Street, which Is a historic structure which the Downtown Master Plan shows should be preserved so redevelopment is not expected and should not occur at that site. Based on those findings, staff doesn't believe Mat the normal and orderly Improvemert of nearby uses will be Impacted by either the proposed development or the parking reduction or the parking on the first story. There may be some temporary closures due to construction In the public streets, but those are temporary rather than a permanent Impact. The fourth criterion Is that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Lehmann rated there are existing streets and the alley, which provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access. The site also has excellent access to public transportation, there are several bus lines that run on East Washington Street right against the project. As far as utilities, drainage, and other necessary facilities, those will be evaluated more thoroughly during site plan review and the building permit processes. So similar to things like fire code, all of those would be reviewed by the City at that point in time. Fifth, adequate measures must be or will be taken to provide Ingress or egress designed to minimize tar fic congestion on public streets. The parking entrance is at grade on the alley to the north and they would expect vehicular access to primarily be on South Linn Street. People may exit west towards South Dubuque Street. Additionally, some existing vehicle access points will be eliminated, which would prevent some vehicular conflicts and would focus traffic at the alley. Also new public parking will be constructed in the East Washington Street and South Linn Street rights -of -way which would help support some demand for short term on street parking for nearby commercial uses. The pedestrian access would be along the sidewalks that are by the bullding and the street improvements would also facilitate that continued pedestrian use. Sixth, other than the specific regulations and standards being considered that in all other respects the special exception must conform with the applicable regulations for its zone. Staff looked at the dimensional requirements and the Central Business Site Development Standards for CB-10 zones, First, for dimensional requirements, there are no minimum lot or setback requirements, there Is a maximum setback requirement of 12 feet, which the concept appears to meet. There's no maximum height limit in the CB-10 zone, rather height is regulated based on the floor -area ratio, which Is essentially the lot area multiplied by the floor -area ratio number. In a CB-10 zone, that base level is 10 and can be Increased with bonuses which are not requested In this concept. The proposed use Is within that 10 fioorama ratio. The other height requirement is due to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), they have a 155-foot height limit there. Additionally, the open space requirements can be tricky, but up to 50% can be met with Indoor space and outdoor space can Include rooftop courtyards. In this case, there will be an outdoor courtyard on the second and fifth stories and Indoor amenity space which will exceed the required 2700 square feet of open space, though they need to meet design criteria that makes the outdoor space useable. This will all be checked during site plan review. The Central Business Site Development Standards on the other hand ensure that downtown development Is compatible with pedestrian friendly streetscapes and adjacent uses. This concept addresses standards related to commercial space, minimum windows, building articulation, differences in facades providing vlsualrnterest, and It meets standards related to building entrances and other similar requirements. The project may require a minor adjustment however due to requirements om000:,rwN.<w.rcr:oo.,. C Board of Adjustment D August 11. 2021r^--- Page 12 of 25 <� a M ,. W in the CB-10 zone that the first two stores of the building be bulk to the side lot line w1Ah Is somewhat complicated by this special exception. However, the building official may approve minor adjustments to this requirement to accommodate Irregular lot Iln" or structural requirements, such as Installing footings or foundations that maintain the structural Integrity of adjacent buildings. The goal Is to prevent unsafe or unkempt spaces between buildings, for example if there Is a very narrow alley Ws easy for fresh to accumulate. Based on the concept, there Is the setback for egress from the abutting building that staff believes is necessary because of the special exception requirement that an exception can't impair adjacent properties, so a mirror modification would be necessary for egress at the second story of the property. Staff recommends a condition that there be design features Incorporated, whether that be gates, shielding, something to block off that space from trash, to prevent unsafe, unkept spaces between buildings and staff recommend requiring that be approved prior to the certificate of occupancy. As far as other standards, staff will review those during she plan review and building permit processes and including ensuring that they meet that FAA height requirement. The final criterion Is that the proposed exception must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City as amended. The Comprehensive Plan Fuhcre Land Use Map shows this as a general commercial area and includes a goal to maintain a strong and accessible downtown that is pedestrian oriented with strong, distinctive cultural, commercial and residential character. One of the objectives is to preserve the historic malnstrest character of downtown while encouraging appropriate infhl development to enhance the economic viability and residential diversity of the area. The Downtown Rdverfront Crossings Master Plan provides more specifics regarding this and shows this she as a strategic Infill site, We one of the remaining surface lots downtown and suggests that redevelopment may consist of a high rise building where at least the base occuples the full she. The concept Shown In hre Plan is one floor of commercial space with eight stories of residential above, It doesn't include any onshe parking, and It Includes stepbacks from adjacent historic buildings. Carlson had a question about the residential and the commercial space. The floor plan for the ground floor has amenities for the apartments upstairs, they have a rental office for the apartnents upstairs and is ghat still considered commercial. It seems to go with the residential rather then the commercial and then there's only 5000 square feet of retail specs. In most other buildings the first floor Is commercial with apartments above them, and they have a small door with a hallway leading to go upstairs to the apartments above. Lehmann acknowledged that would be a decision that the Board would need to make, but staffs interpretation was all of those was would be allowed within commercial space on the first floor. Even though It caters specifically to the residential was above, staff still identhies that as commercial storefront Space. But again, that would be up the purview of the Board to interpret. Chrischllles stated going back to the last point, according to the Comprehensive Plan, It envisioned a nine -story building whh a step down to a four-story next to the historic properties adjacent to K but this concept is a 13story building. Lehmann stated staff does not interpret the Comprehensive Plan literally as to stories or even the floor area ratios that are provided in the Plan. The Plan has some very detailed specifications that are tied more to market studies, but staff has not Interpreted that literally In other cases. OOOmp•iga�vevNrt,rzoan. o O Board ofAdkrstnent D, August 11, 2021 Page 13 of 25 c'l- N yn N r �m a -. ' • CJ Dulek reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan is a plan, It's not City Code nor adopted by ordinance. Its a vision to provide general guidance to the development so simply because something shows It's nine stories does not mean that must be nine stories. Chdschllles recognizes that but noted this standard says that its consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Dulek agreed but noted it doesn't have to be consistent with absolutely everything in the Plan, nothing is ever going to be consistent with absolutely every Item In the Plan, the Board Just has to decide whether it Is consistent or not, it Is a plan and a vision is to provide general guidance, If after looking at all of this, the Board concludes if it Is conalslent or not. Lehmann added the Plan does incorporate some spectkc guidelines as to how they might Interpret consistency with the Plan and theta what staff looked at as it was evaluating the application. First new development should not be located on shes that contain historic buildings. Second, active uses such as ground floor retail, not blank walls, should front onto street frontage and the city plaza, that upper flops should contain office, commercial, and residential uses, and buildings should be built to property lines. Corner kxxtion should be reserved for taller buildings creating a block structure with taller buildings on comers and lower scale historic buildings between them. The taller buildings on the corners should have a lower base consistent with adjacent historic buildings to make them feel contextual with the rest of downtown, while limiting the perceived height of the towers and that parking should be located both on street and behind storefronts in parking structures. Lehmann stated with regard to these, the First National Bank drive-thru building Is listed as a contributing property in the National Register of Historic Places but as far as the uses that are on the site, the surface parking lot and the driveahru use, they are underutilized compared to other uses downtown and what Is allowed by this zone, they promote auto usage, they don't support a vibrant pedestrian experience and the intent of the Downtown Rlverfront Crossings Master Plan was always to demolish that building and redevelop the site. As far as other standards, the concept shows active uses on the ground floor, parking behind, residential uses above and the property on the comer has a taller building, it also has a lower architectural base with stepbacks to reduce the perceived size of the building. That's part of the contextual place but based on the analysts that staff provided, staff believes those criteria are met, but that Is for the Board to Interpret as to whether they believe this standard Is met, and it's up to the applicant to make that case to the Board. As far as other goals in the Comprehensive Plan, Lehmann staled it includes some goals and objectives that support public art, and while the redevelopment will cover the mural on the abutting wall to the Mgt. that mural was Intended as a temporary use until the site redeveloped. Staff did get some comments on the loss of the mural, but the proposed building also includes a mural wall to help somewhat mitigate that lose. The Downtown Master Plan also notes that the City addresses parking demand through a parking district approach rather than a project by project approach. The reason it does that is to achieve the desired level of development downtown based on that Plan. Again, the Master Plan encourages pedestrian friendly development that builds on the strengths of downtown and that includes proximity to the university for student uses and reducing parking. As a result, staff believes that reducing parking to promote redevelopment of the subject property and providing that parking on the first floor Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the findings that are in the staff report and were summarized in this presentation, staff 0 Board of Adjustment August 71, 2021 D-1 -9 ...._... Page 14 of 26f-- � r: recommends approval of EXC21-0009, to reduce the minimum perking requlremeo by 5ow and to allow parking within the exterior walls of a building In a CB-10 zone for the property at. Linn Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the concept dated July 30, 2021. 2. The historic nature of the site, Including it being the site of the former City Hall among other uses, shall be acknowledged. to be approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services prior to Issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. Clearance of at least 5' shall be provided from the face of the existing wall where existing windows are located that may provide egress, to the face of the proposed building. This clearance shall be either at or above ground level such that emergency egress be provided to the satisfaction of the Building Official. A perpetual emergency escape easement shall also be required to provide for future egress, to be recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 4. Incorporation of appropriate design features to prevent unsafe, unkempt spaces in the setback between the subject property and the property to the west must be approved by the Building Official prior to Issuance of a building permit and must be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5. A convex traffic safety mlrror or similar method of providing visibility or awareness of potential conflicts beween pedestrians and vehicles using the alley shall be provided prior to a certificate of occupancy. Staff fielded a few inquiries over the phone and than received several written comments. Three of them were Included in the packet, four were forwarded to the Board prior to the meeting, and Lehmann will summarize some of these discussions that were provided and some of the feedback, and some commenters may also be present tonight to speak to the Board as well. The first comment received was from Hockett that noted the concept seamed too tall and asked if the City had considered purchasing the kri as public open space. Second, Weitzel noted that the proposal would be problematic ff it demolished to 222 East Washington Street and also said that the loss of the recently listed drive-thru building is regrettable, but it's not a locally designated landmark. Kubby noted that the current parking lot and drive-thru are not the highest and beat use of the property, and she appreciates the Incorporation of step backs and cutouts into the building design. As for late submittals, one was from Bird with the Iowa City Downtown District who noted support for the request because it ties to fit Into the downtown and the f rmished units will likely draw students who will require less parking. Also that crafts parking is not possible and the property should be re laveloped despite the drive-iMu bank. Kading noted that parking should not be reduced because its already limited downtown Including In nearby ramps. He also noted that the alley may be problematic as two businesses currently use it and It doesn't have snow removal and there are dumpsters that might affect navigation. He noted that he doesn't believe the project meets general criteria one and two. Clark stated the parking should not be reduced because it would cause congestion downtown, that downtown Iowa City needs more parking, 0hat the parking will drive businesses out of downtown as result, and that the unique circumstance cause is intended for smaller projects. Finally. Millo noted that the application should use a fee In lieu instead. Lehmann explained that was part of the confusion with the citation but that was not the criteria that staff was evaluating it by. That would require a Code Amendment because the fee In lieu doesn't allow demolition of a historic building. Mlllo uar c6'N u,evniLeam Soard of Adluefinent c Augus111,2a21 CD Page 15 of 25 D� —1C� N Pam, r �I K r" i also noted that the Code section was not Intended for student housing see unigm. ] -- i ca arcumstance, that the proposed use does not meet the step backs in the Comprehensive-!�an , and that a smaller development should be considered Instead as student housing is planned for other areas of the Riverfront Crossings District and he included an Image of the subject property that is In the Comprehensive Plan. Lehmann showed that Image of strategic Inflll on Linn Street to the Board which shows significant stepbacks to the north and west and the building being nine stories. Lehmann noted again the Plan generally Is a guiding document and it's up to the Board to determine what they believe consistency with the plan Is. Lehmann also noted that Bob Miklo was the former City senior planner who was here when the Cade was Initially created. Chdschilles asked what the setbacks on the current proposed building are. Lehmann replied the stepback to the west is approximately 20.5 feet and the cut out in the northeast comer is 26 feet from the west property line and 32 feet from the north property line. There's not any significant stepback on the south side, the Washington Street -side of this building. Lehmann pointed out on the site plan that shows the stepback and cut out are at the fifth story. Carlson noted for the courtyard on the west side, I would not be visible from the street a great amount and therefore does not affect the visual bulk of the building from Washington Street. The Comprehensive Plan is a direction, but It talks about a lower architectural base with stepbacks to reduce the perceived height and bulk of the building but If there Is no significant stepback from Washington Street, then that doesn't coincide with the suggestion from the Comprehensive Plan, not does it seem to keep with some of the other high rises that have been built downtown. Lehmann stated there are actual stepback requirements in Riverfront Crossing zones, but not in the Central Business zone, and that provides some stepbacks that look a little different than what Is proposed here. When staff looked at stepbacks, they interpreted It based on the image from the plan that shows stepbacks from the west and north, which help limit the perceived size of the building. Dulek noted the Board needs to ask staff questions and then they can converse among themselves about issues during the discussion time. Andrew Savo v (CA Ventures) prepared a slideshow that began with an aerial of the site as it currently exists. There are six curb cuts along the east side of the site and one to the south. In their opinion those seven curb cuts greatly reduce the walkability around this site because roughly every 10 feet there is a space where a vehicle could drive over the sidewalk. Their project eliminates all of those and Increases walkabiltty at the pedestrian level downtown, which they think is a benefit. This project will have 2500 square feel of retail along Washington Street, which they percelve to be the beat street for retail. Then along Linn Street they have mostly active uses, they're not technically retail, but theyre active. This would be likely a fitness center for the residents and a leasing office, so it's going to be a fully staffed building and these uses wit have an active presence along the street. He understands that's not retail, but retail is not necessarily sways active as a use, It could be a cell phone store and that would be not very active. Therefore, they think that these uses are more active than some uses with certain retailers. Then along the northeast comer of the site Is where they will have the utility area and this area must flank one of the property lines along one of the main streets because they have mYxp iipa[we rt,HraCn Board at Adjustment o August 11,2e21 - Page is of 25 v >> to conned In with utilities from the street. In that area they will have more of an Fpaque ?�N btr{-,+ are proposing that be a mural wall that could be designed maybe In conjunctlonwith a ry downtown ads group to mitigate the loss of the mural that's currently on the adjacent property. Savoy also stated they have done due diligence investigation of the site, Including borings, and they encountered the water table at 30 fed below the surface of the site. Therefore, providing additional underground parking Is infeasible and providing parking above the first floor they think would greatly detract from the charm and character of the area. Savoy also noted that, as Lehmann mentioned, a few other projects have been approved for similar reductions and those projects have a higher quantity of three- and four -bedroom units in some cases and the Code - required parking for those units Is much higher per bed. So the actual percentage reduction that they're requesting is actually in line with the other projects that have been approved. He acknowledged they understand that does not set a precedent just because a previous project has been approved. Savoy showed the renderings and noted they designed their building to acknowledge the adjacent historic character of the downtown neighborhood. He showed a view of the building from the comer noting that they've set back from the west and from the north to make the tower a separate architectural element than the base which results in an elegant, thinner tower, father than the thicker one that they were proposing prior, and the base relates to the historic architectural language of the surroundings. Savory also noted In the Comprehensive Plan It does not show a setback from the south and that's what they were also looking at as stall brought up and so that's how they arrived on this general massing. Savory reiterated they will be providing additional walkability, much greater than what currently exists at the site, additional retail and active uses around the perimeter at the pedestrian level, six additional street parking spaces that would be for the public and are not Included in their parking numbers, an opportunity for public ad, 270 residents that would patmnize local businesses around the area, and likely additional taxes to support downtown infrastructure once this is completed. They are excited to proceed with this development and thank the Board for their consideration. Chrischilles asked if there an area in the building that has been set aside for scooter and bicycle parking. Savoy confirmed there Is bicycle parking in the center of the first -floor plan. For scooters there are two parking spaces at the entrance of the building and those two perking spaces could either be two full spaces or six scooter spaces, depending on the need. Chrischilles asked if those six spaces are the only provision for scooter spaces in this plan and Savoy replied that only up to 10% are allowed per Code, so that would be six spaces. Carlson asked about the three parking spaces on the first level, where are those and would they have to back out Into the alleyway. Savoy stated there's one space in which that would be the case, its labeled the manager space on the plan, from the alley they woud pull directly into that manager space. They are also conskler ng the Idea of incorporating a shared Zipcer concept In which the students would be able to rem out a shared car that could be in that space. Then there are two spaces at the entrance of the ramp attar entering the overhead door and the property where one could take a left and park In either of those two spaces. They are also considering those as potential scooter spaces. Lehmann slated that with the scooter spaces, even though it would be six spaces It still counts as two because two parking spaces can be converted to six scooter spaces. 'mu000.,Pw.:wnusm Board of Adiuerment August 11, 2021 Page 17 of 25 cn i Carlson asked If a car parked In there could turn around and leave the building going forward. Savoy said the two spaces labeled scooter spaces may be able to back up and leave the I: building going forward. The space labeled manager space would have to back up into the allay. v Carlson asked if these parking spaces will be used possibly for the people who work in the retail space or are Involved In the leasing space rather than the apartments above. Savoy agreed that is true depending on the retailer involved and how many spaces they need so they may sanction a certain number of spaces within the building for them, depending on what they need. Carlson asked if they are asking for a 50% reduction of parking spaces for the residential area and if those three spaces are Included in the 50%, because if so, then the reduction will be a tad bit over 50%. Savoy confirmed that Is correct, however no spaces are required for retail. Lehmann confirmed no spaces are required for retail. Carlson noted the applicant talked about making spaces available as a nice gesture for the retail space but if they are asking for a 50% reduction of parking spaces, and then three of the spaces are not going to the residential area, then instead of 25%, it'd be like 24.9%. Savoy said they have not settled on any number of parking spaces for the retail at this point but would be happy to take a condition to make it zero, If that's a decision point. Russo asked how marry staff members they will employ and where will they park. Savoy rioted likely between six and eight staff members. They have one space labeled manager space, so one of the managers would park on site and the rest of the employees would park off she. They do have other community assistants that would be residents in the building, and they would either park In the building if they choose to rent a space or park off site if they choose to store their car in one of the university lots. Russo noted these parking spots will not be first come first serve, they will be leased. Savoy confirmed that is correct. Chrischllles asked if there is any cap on the number of occupants per unit Savoy noted at this point they are not proposing double occupancy beds, which is when there are two beds per bedroom, right now We only one bed per bedroom. They will have 270 residents In 229 units because there are 41 2-bedroom units and all the met are one resident per unit He stated there would only be 270 residents max, and their average occupancy is around 95%which would be 255 expected residents. Karen KubW (Co-owner Beadology Iowa, 220-222 East Washington Street) is happy those buildings [220-222 E. Washington Street] are going to stay standing as she was trying to figure out how to save the buildings and her business at the same time. She has a question about the appearance of a setback on the Washington Street and Linn Street facades. Maybe ft's just a visual thing, because It's a change from brick to whatever the facade is, but it appears to be maybe 10 Inches and she questions what is gnat setback from the outside of the facade m the tower. The appeamnce of setback is important to her as she has not been In favor of some of the larger projects In downtown Iowa City In the past because they haven't understood the 9oeef of Adjustment e Aupust 11, 2021 O y Pepe 1s a25 m ' Y N i s context in which these buildings will be placed. So part of her support for this praQgk® ttidF It understands the context of downtown Iowa City. Not only Is the use unique in teru[s'bf ctlllilda,^ " but this tot is unique, and she has always thought that parking Is just not the bestlise of Vow in downtown Iowa City. Even though it would negatively impact her business to have this lot under construction for 24 months. For activity downtown and on Washington Street, cumarmy the storefronts. Discerning Eye and Beadology Iowa, that have any ins and outs, so toot traffic, on Washington Street, and the ability to be successful as a retailer there Is harder than on the other side of Washington Street. Adding more retail space will create more foot traffic and in and out, that makes any retailer In those three spaces more successful. Kubby added for the public record, even though she said 8In her letter in support of this project, that she Is currently needing to leave to 220-222 East Washington Street because of a new landlord and circumstances that aren't tenable for her to remain. While she is not sure she can move again In two years into this new property, she is going to keep in contact with CA Ventures about that, because Washington Street is a great place for Beadology Iowa, it's been their home for 15 years. They are a 35-year heritage business family owned in downtown Iowa City. Kubby thinks Ifs Important for people to know that she does have that Interest in seeing this project go but also a greater community interest to make sure It's good for downtown. Her personal interests are not always the most important for her because she is going to land somewhere else and may or may not move back to Washington Street. This lot is unique because it's on the comer and because It's kind of small and no matter what development is proposed here. Ifs going to need a special exception for parking, whether It's an eight -story building or 13-story buliding, because of the water table issues. Kubby also wanted to note that the reason the drive-thru building was a part of that historic record is because when they looked at doing the application for a Historic District downtown, they wanted the Ped Mall to be included which meant It had to be things at least 50 years old. So compered to 220, 222 and 218, which are 1883 buildings the historic asset is much different with these buildings than it is for the drive-tivu building and If those are maintained this tot will never be developed and it will remain a surface parking lot which is not the best use of downtown property. Pretorius asked staff has information on the setback question. Lehmann noted the archkect should but staffs interpretation was It Is minimal enough where it's a negligible stepback on the south and east sides for that tower when looking at the concept that was provided. Savoy stated there are typically only four to six Inches between the brick and panel walls, but there are places in the facade that are stopped back by 30 inches. If they look at the roo8lne, they can tell there are two areas stepped back In that way to provide relief. One area along Washington Street is step backed In that way, and the elevator shaft is about five feet taller than the rest of the building, but it Is set back 18 Inches as well, to provide that depth of the facade. Manmie Elllori noted she Is In favor but has a question If the Board of Adjustment has the power to condition their approval. For Instance, could they say that they require the design to be reviewed by the Histonc Preservation Commission to ensure If consistent with the existing fabric of downtown. Dulak stated any cenditkms placed would have to be tied to one of the standards Board of Adjustment r, N August 11, 2021 y M Page 19 of 25 �n N ..G r No further members of the public wished to speak but the Board had additional questions: N Cartoon asked about the alleyway and If cars are coming out on the alleyway what is the Impact of this traffic on Studio 13 or whatever bar has an entrance on the alleyway that will be almost directly across from where people go in and out of this building. Lehmann replied that staffs consideration of traffic Impacts on the alleyway was peak hours versus the use of businesses that are on the alley and those probably aren't going to fine up in staffs opinion. There will be congestion in the alleyway, but alleys are intended for the use of different vehicles rather than pedestrian access typically. As far as getting out from the alley into the street, they're going to have to yield to traffic and abide by the rules of the road. Carlson is concerned about pedestrians exiling that bar and the traffic that might be involved there. Carlson asked what the City's responsibility is as far as alleyways go and making them safe. She is concerned about ice removal, pedestrian versus vehicle traffic. Lehmann replied it depends on the alley, the Clty does not clear Ire in downtown alleys. Savoy noted the building will have on site staff and management, including an engineer, and they typically perform snow removal around the boundaries of their buildings and that would Include that leg of the alley as well to allow for easy access to their parking. Carlson stated one of her concerns was that one of the cars would back out Into the alleyway and the Code states a pedestrian needs 10 feet to we the vehicle, but that's not possible In this situation and how will they deal with this type of situation. Staff mentioned putting in a convex mirror to help see If there's any traffic but she Is concerned about people exiting that bar. Lehmann clarified staffs concern regarding the convex mirror is where the alley exits by the sidewalk, which is where the "ortty of pedestrian traffic would go. As far as use of the alley by pedestrians, there can be backup perking in alleys, and yes this alley has more pedestrians than others due to the businesses, but staffs opinion was that was not a major concern. Carlson noted the City allowed that bar to be put In there, Kading wrote a letter about this, about his conoem about the Impact of this structure on his property across the alleyway. Russo noted Bob Miklo refers to payment in lieu of parking and how does that come Into play here. Lehmann stated there are multiple different routes that parking reductions can occur. Staff and the applicant explored a fee In lieu parking but because of the presence of the drive- thru building listed on the National Historic Register, they can't demolish that property and use the fee in the parking. Russo thought the drive-thru is not listed. Lehmann stated it Is listed as a contributing structure that is part of a National Historic District. Since the fee In lieu did not appear to be a viable option, given the characteristics of the site, the applicant applied through the unique circumstances provision rather than the fee in lieu of parking provisio. Russo also rated Mr. Miklo also refers to the fact that in many buildings downtown there was a reduction In parking requirements. Was there an existing reduction in parking requirements for many of the residential structures downtown and this Is a step further? Lehmann stated Mr. Miklo was referring to lower minimum parking standards in zones that are typically used downtown, whereas further from downtown, those minimum standards Increase. So his Interpretation was that because there are lower minimum standards downtown already, this Board of Adiushnerd m August 11. 2021 O ti Page 20 of 25 r constitutes a further decrease. As staff evaluates it, though, they look at the Cod" militantly exists and the criteria and that's how they made their analysis. m `} N Pretorlus asked what year tixe comprehensive plan was adopted. Lehmann believes the ` Downtown and Rivefinnt Crossings Plan was In 2013, The plan has been subsequently updated a couple times. Pretorius closed the public hearing. Pretorius asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion. Parker moved for approval EXC21-0009, an application submifted by Axiom Consultants requesting a special exception to allow a 50 percent parking reduction for other unique circumstances to construct a new mixed -use building at 21 S. Linn Street Chrischilles seconded the motion. Russo has a list of questions and the primary one is how the building became 13 stories. It is his understanding that zoning has to be based on something and It's based on the Comprehensive Plan which is the accumulation and collaboration of a lot of study and thought and forward thinking etc. and it this is completely arbitrary, then he finds this body at a complete loss on what to base their recommendations or judgments on. The Comprehensive Plan, or at least the Downtown District Plan, states that any new development tie Into the existing g atmosphere. The Plan suggests nine stories with a tower separated from the base and now suddenly this is neither, it is 13 stories and no distinct stepback. Parker noted they dont need a stepback in the CB-10 zone. Russo states the Riverfront Crossings Plan made a drawing and recommends that it be based on that. Parker replied that's the Plan, Its not Code. Russo acknowledges We not law, but any variation from that jeopardizes the Plan. Parker stated It will still have to go through City Council and Planning and Zoning. Chrischilles stated this will not go to Council or Planning and Zoning. Russo stated he Is not disputing the benefits, but he'd like to sae It finessed a little more and one of the ways to finesse It might be to conform it to the recommended Comprehensive Plan requirement suggestion of nine floors. He thinks 13 floors is a lot for that comer. Russds next question is the need this development is in the premiere real estate of Iowa City so why does the City need to offer incentives to developers. Why give the further reduction to the parking requirement if its already reduced. Wherewill the excess parking occur. It'd be Interesting to know, far Instance, these large structures like The Rise, on South Linn Street, there's not a parking spot available on the entire street past the metered spots, and who's to say that those aren't customers of The Rise. So wham will the parking from this development go. They know that students have cars, they have to go to Target and home. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2021 Page 21 of 26 ti sn n D_i ro N Russo's last concern Is with this structure and the Introduction of 229 or 250 people downtown Is the City making any allowance or increasing green space for this increased denslty. Dudek reminded the Board to keep in mind the standards of the special v exception and whether any of these standards have or have not been met. If there's a particular standard they feel is problematic, she advises them to speak to that. Carlson would like to speak to number six of the specific standard 14•SA4F, where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics, such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required Is excessive or reduce the ability to use or occupy a historic property in a manner that will preserve or protect the history. When the TelNrind project was done. they did get a 50% reduction, but she broke this down because these units have different amounts of bedrooms but The Talkvind has a 0.27 spaces per bedroom. That Is the lowest one before this project but pan of the reason they got that was because they were attempting to protect the facade of the buildings on the Ped Mall, so there was a distinct reason for that reduction, so she went along with it For this project, it will be 0.25 spaces per bedroom so is the goal to see how far down they can go on the amount of parking spaces per bed. When they did the parking thing back in the 90's they took Into consideration that these apartments or these units downtown would be Inhabited by a wide variety of people and the parking would not cover everything, but it would cover a large amount. Now these people, especially with students, are saying they're a special group and therefore should get special privileges. Carlson feels In doing that are they negating the zoning law that was set up and was agreed upon by a number of people. Are they ending up doing a type of spot zoning and participating in a run-around of the parking requirements? She feels uncomfortable constantly giving a deduction In parking because someone comes and asks for it and says that they are this special group of people that do not need all this parking. She would like to see it go before the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission and discuss this overall rather then having this done case -by -case. Carlson's other concern Is the people who ask for these major deductions, the Board of Adjustment is supposed to do special exceptions, that means not very often, and she would assume that means Ire tweaking a small problem. This parking reduction is the second one since she's been on the Board that they have cleat with and these am not little tweaks, these am big tweaks, and is that the purpose of this Board of Adjustment. Dulek stated the purpose of the Board of Adjustment Is to review the standards set forth by the City Council and determine whether the applicant has met them. That's the purview, they need to look at the standards, both the specific and the general and we whether the applicant has met them or not. Thats the purpose. Carlson then questions whether this has unique characteristics. Number six asks if there are unique characteristics that the number of spaces required is excessive. (Lehmann clarified that is number seven, there was an error in the staff report, the ctaton Is 14-SA-4-F7.) Chnschilles stated first, he'd like to say that he is not opposed to redevelopment on this site but as he "a reviewing this he was having trouble consolidating his problems with it. He agrees s o Board A Addusne,R nn m August 11, 2021 -p Page 22 of 25 y(7 N r with Carlson regarding that standard about uniqueness. He doesn't think this project establishes uniqueness. Irs a residential building for students, that's not unique. The other standard,*t he doesn't think is fully met is General Standard 2, the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property In the immediate vicinity. Chrischilles thinks It Is Injurious to the Yacht Club and to Studio 13. He has a problem with the use of the alley as the main in and out to this building. He doesn't know how else they can do It but it's too much congestion in an inadequate space. So those two things are the main things he was having trouble consolidating In his thoughts. Then the Board got this We letter from Robert Miklo, who obviously is more qualified than any of us on the Board to analyze this problem, a this consideration, and Chrischllles thinks that the things Mr. Miklo brings out are valid points that they can use to tweak this proposal. Again, he Is not opposed to developing a residential building on this site, they need something to go there, but the proposal is too big. As Mr. Miklo suggests, the City should consider a Code Amendment to 14-5A-4-F6 to allow the redevelopment of properties containing National Register Buildings, which would then allow them to tear down the bank building and also allow them to collect parking fees. Chrischilles thinks if theyre giving somebody an exemption from a requirement, they should pay for it. If City Council agrees a Code Amendment should be granted, then Chrischilles would suggest the project as proposed is not In line with the Comprehensive Plan and nine stories with a setback to four stories would be much more agreeable in terms of visual and density to the to the area. Chrischilles suggestion is that Is that they send this back to Council to gel that amendment and then the developer comes back with a redesigned building that more closely is In line with the Comprehensive Plan and it can be approved. Parker stated he Is for the project just from the stance that student housing will not use parking as dense as we typically are used to. As a member who bicycled here, he asks how everyone got to this meeting and if they live in the downtown area, and use a car, then they are contributing to limited parking. But those that do not park, do not use those facllities, use public transportation to get around downtown. It is unique and the standard, as told by staff, meets these standards and he thinks they should go forward to the project. Pretodus tends to agree that student housing is unique and If student housing Isn't unique, she asks the other Board members to tell her what would be unique In their minds. They have only the Information thars been given to them, and they've been given a US Census study that says around 51%of people Irving in these areas travel by vehicle. Regarding the alley access, any building that goes here someday will have to use that alley In some form. This building will have only 67 parking spaces. H each vehicle exited and entered the building each day, thars around 134 ins and We and that might take only a minute each time and there's over 1500 minutes in a day. So yes, It will be happening but it will be for a super minority of the minutes of the day. Also the hours of operations of the businesses, the Yacht Club and Studio 13, the hours of those establishments are very unique, theyre late and may not actually run into the hours that people may be coming in and out of this building. Pretorius also commented on the Comprehensive Plan from 2011, it has already had multiple revisions and the reason it has had multiple revisions is because things have changed since 2011 and Ideas may not make sense anymore. Also, from working with Mr. Miklo historically she has noticed knee jerk reactions related to density specifically. She understands this project compared to the renderings of what memr,ie+o+e.e.m.,m.. s = Board of AdlusbneM August 11, 2021 D—t Page 23 0f25 HC) N � sA rii they expected these properties to one day be developed to look like can change and couI be disheartening to some degree, so them might be a little bit of an emotional attachment to. specific concern. She also agrees with Parker that they do need to consider how things am changing with regards to vehicles. Its generation by generation and is changing. Vehicles are becoming electric, they+m becoming automated, Uber service completely charged the Industry regarding different kinds of transit Public transit is fantastic in this area, and they just always need to be considerate of what are the studies and the science, the information being provided and actual information versus what they have been used to historically. Pratorius acknowledged many valid concerns and points have been made tonight by all Board members. Parker agreed with Pretodus on automation and vehicles, wondering how many people are going to have a license in 10 years, the current generation getting out of high school are not getting their licensee as quickly. They need to be thinking about the next generation as they put this to a vote. He knows historically, there Is a gap In their ages, but if they come together, if they vote on something that will contribute to downtown Iowa City, and not the suburbs, he thinks they will make Iowa City more livable and more pedestrian friendly. They don't want to stare at a surface lot for another 25-30 yeara, but that Is not up for vote today, It's making the City more livable In the area that they have. Pretodus admitted she had the same feeling too and was originally taken back by the lesser amount of commercial space on the first floor, always hoping for more stores and businesses to visit when she comes downtown. But then again, the last two years have taught her that brick and mortar stores are dangerous to some degree, and she wouldn't expect somebody who's getting ready to build a brand-new building to build a bunch of ommerdal space and offices as so many have recently shut down and are currently vacant downtown. She loves the idea that them is some space essentially reserved for some commercial space and hopefully that is in fad what goes there. Chrischilles reiterated he is not opposed to redevelopment of this property and thinks it will happen and he thinks it's a good idea. He is not opposed to the residential use but does think that the project, as It Is now, is excessive. He would like the Board to consider his comments about sending this back to Council for two reasons, one to get another set of eyes on this and two to see If they think the Code should be amended, such that the bank building can be demolished with the application of parking fees. He doesn't think that this should be a freebie. He also thinks as part of that compromise they should just ask the developer to come back with something closer to the Comprehensive Plan because according to Mr. Miklo, whose opinion Chrischilleswould value because he's experienced, sticking closer to the Plan would result in a better looking building on that corner. Oulek clarified there's no compromise. Chrischilles stated compromise is voting against it. Carlson stated she too Is not against seeing this site redeveloped, it has been an eyesore for as tong as she has been in Iowa City, and it is not useful and doesn't generate as much money as 0 could If something else was there. Getting rid of all the curb cuts would be a wonderful uwaay eipww<.ew,m.. �, .. s Boardof Adluwment "I { August 11, 2021 Page 24 of 25 Ci—G N 1 —f c� :fir a �i rn s addition, and having a building there, would make it more conducive to walking- $he is%Oq against redevelopment; she Just doesn't believe that this particular structure rgM now warms. Packer reminded the Board that's not what they are voting on, they are voting on whether staff has presented the material to fit the criteria. Carlson does not believe that they have. She does not believe that this building has enough unique characteristics to allow it to have the parking deduction that it's asking for. Russo also has reservations about the uniqueness of the site and there is verbiage that states something about the historic value of the aria. The fact this project is going to take out that drive- thru, Is there really a quallfying historic value to Me site that kicks in this applicable Code. He would be much more comfortable with the project closer to the suggestions found in the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 23 (Parker and Protorius assenting; Carlson, Chrischllles and Russo dissenting). Pretorius stated the motion declared denied, any person who wishes 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. CONSIDER THE JULY % 2021 MINUTES: Russo moved to approve the minutes of July 14, 2021. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Chdschillea abstained). Lehmann noted now that the meetings are in person, b someone is not able to attend, he will need to talk wiM communications about what remote opbons there are. Parker will not be able to attend starling with the next meeting and will need to request an accommodation. Lehmann acknowledged they had some issues with the online packet an he will continue to try and email those and hopefully that'll work better than the new online system. He may try to use Dropbox at some point, which should allow larger transfers and larger PDF documents. ADJOURNMENT: Carlson moved to adjourn this meeting, Chrischilles seconded, a vote was taken and all approved. Board of Adlualmeel August 11, 2021 Page 25 of 25 0 c; D=E BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD o 2021 NAME TERM EXP. 7/14 Bill CHRISCHILLE9, GENE 12/31/Y022 WE X PARKER BRYCE 12/312024 X X PRETORIUS, AMY 12/3120M X X CARLSON, NANCY 12/312025 X X RU990, MARK 12/312021 X X air x =PraeaM o=rove,a ore=Aesa�,a,aaa --= ra a Mpaba. feel Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Asspri ne Fanner, 410 E. Washbngton, 1a City, IA 52240; 318-356-5230 DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Doc ID: 0281ON 69850014 Type: GEN Ktntl: DECed: 07/3 Recorded: 72.00/Pape at 01:15:02 PN Fee Ant: County Pape 1 of 14 Sohn Pal ter Co Iowa ty Kim Palmer County Recorder BK6265 PG209-222 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2020 ELECTRONIC MEETING —ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Bryce Parker, Amy Pretorius, Mark Russ;-, —. �rh D= MEMBERS ABSENT: Gene Chrischilles STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann :< a iTj C SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: ry 1. EXC21-0006: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by Iowa City Ready Mix, Inc. requesting to enlarge an existing heavy manufacturing use in a General Industrial (1-1) zone to construct an addition at 1854 S. Riverside Drive. The Board concludes that the proposed use is located at least five hundred feet (500') from any residentially zoned property based on the following findings: • There are no residentially zoned properties within 500 feet. • The closest residential zone is more than 1,000 feet from the subject property. The Board concludes that all proposed outdoor storage and work areas are located and screened to adequately reduce the noise, dust, and visual impact of the proposed use from surrounding properties based on the following findings: • The proposed addition to the primary building will allow for manufacturing equipment and silos to be replaced and enclosed in the building envelope, which will reduce noise and dust. Other buildings on the property will not be impacted by the addition. • The addition includes updates to the fayade which will have a positive visual impact. The Board concludes that traffic circulation and access points are designed to prevent hazards to adjacent streets or property based on the following findings: • The property is accessed from 3 curb cuts on S. Riverside Drive, which acts as a frontage road for Old Highway 218. • Most of the site around the primary building is paved which provides access through and around the site, including to the other buildings and equipment. • The addition will retain adequate space for circulation to the north and east of the primary building and will otherwise not affect circulation or access. • Additional daily truck traffic is not expected to significantly increase due to the proposed improvements. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: MloaO sigroNre renfiutlon: • The proposed addition will enclose new manufacturing equipment within the building. • The new equipment is expected to decrease load times into mixers and increase onsite storage capacity, which decreases reliance on shipping tankers and dump trucks. Daily truck traffic is not expected to significantly increase. • The roads surrounding this use do not have sidewalks or bike trails, so pedestrian interaction with the subject property is minimal. • The property is in the 300-year floodplam, so a floodplain permit will be required to document that the proposed addition will not be in the 100-year floodplam. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The proposed addition is in the transitional zone of the municipal airport to the west which restricts maximum building height to 75 feel. The proposed addition is less than this and will thus not impair the use of the airport. The Federal Aviation Administration has already accepted the proposed addition (Project: IOWA—000639526-21). • Properties to the south are zoned 1-1 and contain industrial uses. Owners have not raised concerns over the proposed addition. • Trees to the north and east screen the use from public trails across the Iowa River. • The proposed project will improve the building's appearance and will not negatively impact surrounding properties or their property values. The Board concludes that 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 distinct in which such property is located based on the following findings: • The proposed addition is relatively small, and the enlarged building will be more than 100 feet from adjacent properties to the west and south and more than 50 feet from public property to the north. • The surrounding neighborhood is already developed with industrial and public uses, and the proposed addition will not affect future development or improvement. The Board concludes that adequate utilifies, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: • The site has access to adequate utilities, and improvements to utilities, where required, must be approved by the appropriate entity prior to construction. • Roads, access drives, and stormwater management will not be significantly affected by the proposed addition. • Compliance with the City's building code and related requirements will be reviewed during the site plan and building permit processes. The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ioAress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the f_olloW, ng findings: _ y LD —IC: _ s _ " N vamp:iq•ev.wamean: • The property is accessed from S. Riverside Drive which acts as a frontage road to Old Highway 218. Because S. Riverside Drive forms a dead-end north of the property, traffic is primarily limited to vehicles accessing the subject property. • The property will retain adequate space for circulation around the building. • The proposed addition is not expected to significantly increase traffic to the site. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The proposed addition will be approximately 50 feet tall, which is higher than the 45- foot maximum building height allowed in the 1-1 zone. However, the maximum building height may be increased by 1 foot for every 2 feet of additional setback (Section 14- 2D-4C-4a). The building is set back adequately from all lot lines to allow for approximately 8 feet of additional building height, so the proposed addition complies with this standard. • Buildings on the site total 20,886 square feet, and heavy manufacturing uses require 1 off-street parking space for every 750 square feet of floor area and 2 off-street loading spaces for uses between 20,001 and 40,000 square feet. The proposed addition will add approximately 600 square feet, which will require an additional parking space but no additional off-street loading spaces when looking at parking across the site. • The Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 50-foot buffer between the Iowa River and any development activity, but the proposed addition is not within that buffer. • Staff will ensure the site design conforms with all applicable zoning standards and regulations, including requirements related to parking and sensitive areas, during the site plan review. • The property is in the 100-year floodplain, but the proposed addition appears to be outside the floodplain. The applicant will need to confirm this by obtaining a floo4am permit prior to issuance of a building permit. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive-BIai1 q(jhe --- City, as amended, based on the following findings: �r m a � • The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designates this arej�br_= General Industrial, and the Future Land Use Map of the South Central *6'Jct I%n designates this area for Industrial / Manufacturing Uses. _ • One of the Comprehensive Plan's goals is to "Increase... the property tax base y encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses...' • The current land use of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans and will not change because of the proposed special exception. DISPOSITON: By a vote of 4-0, the Board approved enlargement of a heavy manufacturing use within a General Industrial (1-1) zone for the property located at 1854 S. Riverside Drive in order to construct an addition. 2. EXC21-0007: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by Shive- Hattery on behalf of Regina Catholic Education Center requesting to enlarge an existing general education facility use in a Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-S) zone to construct an addition at 2150 Rochester Avenue. eonoop� mture.e„kanoo: The Board concludes that the following specific standard is met: "The following setbacks are required in lieu of the setbacks specified in the base zone. However, the board of adjustment may reduce these setbacks, subject to the approval criteria for setback adjustments as specified in subsection 14-2A-485, 'Adjustments to Principal Building Setback Requirements', of this title. (1) Front: Twenty feet (20'). (2) Side: Twenty feet (20'). (3) Rear: Fifty feet (50').' This is based on the finding that the proposed additions will be on the central, south side of the building which complies with all enhanced setback requirements for general educational facilities. The Board concludes that the following specific standard is met: "The proposed use will be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The board of adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed use, such as the site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building scale, setbacks, landscaping, and location and amount of paved areas. The board of adjustment may deny the use or aspects of the use that are deemed out of scale, incompatible, or out of character with surrounding residential uses, or may require additional measures to mitigate these differences. Additional requirements may include, but are not limited to, additional screening, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, setbacks, location and design of parking facilities, and location and design of buildings." This is based on the following findings: • This general educational facility use has been in place since 1958, and multiple additions have been approved by special exception over the years. • Buildings on the site total approximately 165,000 square feet, and the proposed additions total 1,850 square feet, which is small compared to the scale of the building. • The additions are not expected to increase occupancy due to the uses of the existing and proposed space. The site plan indicates that the existing building in the proposed renovation area has an occupancy of 303, while the proposed building additions and renovated areas will decrease the occupancy to 277. Occupancy will be calculated during the building permit review. • The proposed use will retain compatibility with adjacent uses. The Board concludes that the following specific standard is met: "Given that large parking lots can seriously erode the single- family residential character of these zones, the board of adjustment will carefully review any requests for parking spaces beyond the minimum required. The board may limit the number of parking spaces and the size and location of parking lots, taking into account the availability of on street parking, the estimated parking derinand, and opportunities for shared parking with other nonresidential uses in the vicinity of the use." This is based on the following findings: • Regina has two primary parking lots, one to the south along Rochester Avenue with approximately 130 spaces, and one to the north of the building with approximately 170 spaces. No new parking spaces are being proposed as part of this application. • The required minimum parking for the use is approximately 226 spaces, and the proposed additions are small. Regina will retain adequate parking to accommodate new space and will otherwise not modify onsite parking. The Board concludes that the proposed use will not have significant adverse effecis on the livability of nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late nigh[9?eroons, .. odors, and litter based on the following findings: n< N - �n �O �r m Mc (( - s Es N awoo•vpwure.ennw�o�: • The proposed additions are small compared to the overall scale of the building and are not expected to increase occupancy. • The proposed additions are approximately 450 feet from any neighboring residential uses and will not have significant adverse effects on the livability of those uses. The Board concludes that the following spec standard is met: "The building official may grant approval for the following modifications to an educational facility, without approval from the board of adjustment, upon written findings that the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located: (1) An accessory storage building less than five hundred (500) square feet in size. (2) A building addition of less than five hundred (500) square feet, provided the addition does not increase the occupancy bad of the building." This is based on the findings that because the proposed addition is 1,850 square feet, the building official cannot approve the additions and therefore a special exception is required. The Board concludes that the following specific standard is met: "If the proposed use is located in a residential zone or in the central planning district, it must comply with the multi- family site development standards as set forth in section 14-2B-6 of this title' This is based on the following findings: • Many mufti -family site development standards do not apply to the proposed addition as an institutional use in a single-family zone, including standards related to parking design, building entrances, balconies, and exterior stairs. • The proposed addition will have to comply with certain standards related to aisles and drives, building scale in the Central District, building materials, mechanical equipment, and other standards in the Central Planning District. • Staff shall ensure compliance as part of the site plan review process. This may require minor changes to the site plan to address minimum required setbacks between the internal drive aisle and the proposed addition, or a minor modification. 0 0 The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrime�S�2b e`E _i_: endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the "Onl� --�- findings: �ri a T • The proposed additions are specifically designed to improve the safetyg"enwal welfare of the pre -kindergarten program by providing a more secured exillranceq `-- • Staff will ensure additional applicable life and safety standards and regAtionsve met through the building permit process. • Pan of the proposed project includes replacing a curb with an ADA accessible ramp, which will improve the overall accessibility of the building. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The proposed additions are small and are not expected to increase occupancy. • The proposed additions are approximately 450 feet away from the closest property and will have no negative impact on public view. eo�ma v�awre.er�sn�o�: • The proposed exception will not affect property in the immediate vicinity. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of residential, commercial and open space uses. • The proposed additions are set back far enough from property lines to not affect the development or improvement of surrounding properties. The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: • The subject property is already developed, and all utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities are established for this neighborhood. • The project will include replacement of an existing sanitary sewer line and improvements to the stormwater management systems. • Staff will ensure all other applicable standards and regulations are met through the site plan review and building permitting processes. The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • The site is accessed from a one-way inbound drive from Rochester Avenue and a two- way drive from North 1st Avenue. Internal drives provide access to the building and onshe parking. The site also contains a one-way outbound drive to Rochester Avenue. • No changes are being proposed to the existing driveway, public sidewalk, or street. • Pedestrian access to the building will be slightly modified with the replacement of a curb with an ADA accessible ramp, which will improve overall accessibility. • The proposed additions will not affect onsite parking, and adequate measures are already being taken to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Board concludes that except for the specific regulations and standards applicableto 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 based on the following findings: • The proposed additions will not cause the property to exceed the maximum lot coverage of 45 percent and will not exceed the maximum height of 35 feet. • All setbacks requirements will be met by the proposed additions. • Staff will ensure all applicable standards and regulations are met through the site plan review and building permitting processes. o a The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehens0 Plan.W the -7-; City, as amended, based on the following findings: N r KT a o� a !V rn The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Public / Semi-public, and the Future Land Use Map of the Central District Plan designates this area for Private Institutional. The Comprehensive Plan's vision of creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods asserts the following: "Neighborhood schools, partimlarly elementary schools, are an integral part of healthy, sustainable neighborhoods. Schools serve not only as centers of education but as a focal point for community gathering and neighborhood identity." The current land use of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans and will not change because of the proposed special exception. DISPOSITION: By a vote of 4-0, the Board approved an 1,850 square foot addition to a General Educational Facility use within a Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone for the property located at 2150 Rochester Avenue. 3. EXC21-0008: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by Neumann Monson Architects requesting allowance of a Rooftop Service Area for a nonconforming drinking establishment in a Central Business (CB-10) zone at 111 E. College Street. The Board concludes that the following specific standard regarding accessibility is met: "The RSA shall meet all building and fire code requirements, be ADA compliant, include elevator service, and have accessible restrooms provided." This is based on the following findings: • The proposed RSA will be fully accessible with an elevator at the north end of the building providing access and accessible restrooms on the same floor of the building. • The building plans will be reviewed to ensure compliance with all applicable building and fire codes prior to issuance of a building permit. The Board concludes that the following specific standard regarding design at Section 14- 4AA-lb is met. "The RSA shall be designed in an attractive manner that will not detract from adjacent uses, and will prevent nuisance and safety issues. The applicant shall submit a design plan with the application for an RSA that, at a minimum, specifies and illustrates the proposed size, dimensions, setbacks from adjacent buildings and roof edges, occupancy load, layout, landscaping elements, access routes, elevator, and accessible bathrooms. RSAs shall meet the following minimum standards. If a special exception is required, the board of adjustment may impose additional or more restrictive conditions to mitigate any anticipated externalities, including, but not limited to, restrictions on hours of operation, lighting, size, occupancy bad, and setback and screening requirements.' This is base{"n the following findings for each sub -criterion: _ (1) The RSA shall be located directly adjacent to or above the use to whicro- is ---- accessory and there shall not be other uses located on floors in between the, RSAafvtd the use to which it is accessory. -n • The submitted site plan illustrates the proposed dimensions, setbacks; occuPN Y, landscaping, accessibility, accessibility, and other required elements. The Board approved at condition requiring compliance with the submitted site plan. • The proposed RSA is directly adjacent to and above the drinking establishment to which it is accessory. The Reunion Brewery is the only use in this building. ewWa+,ww2K,,nxw�: (2) The RSA must be set back from adjacent upper floor uses and the edge of the roof and screened and completely enclosed within a decorative fence or wall built of high quality, durable materials. Landscaping elements, such as planters and green roofs, may be used to soften views or provide a buffer. The setback and screening must be established in a manner that will not unduly block light, air, or outdoor views from upper floor windows on abutting buildings. • The proposed RSA will be surrounded and screened by the existing exterior walls of the historic building which are 16' tall. • An interior dining area for the associated drinking establishment will separate the RSA from the Pedestrian Mall to the north. • Interior space for the associated drinking establishment will separate the RSA from adjacent upper floor uses to the west, while an existing building parry wall will separate the RSA from adjacent upper floor uses to the east. • The RSA is set back 6' from the south facade, and the existing exterior masonry wall with wood windows fixed per Historic Preservation guidelines will separate the RSA from adjacent upper floor uses to the south. The site plan includes vegetated roof components within this setback area which will provide additional buffering. • The screening is part of the existing building shell will not negatively affect light, air, or outdoor views from abutting buildings. (3) The RSA must be set back a minimum of ten feet (30) from the street facing edge of the roof. A smaller buffer between the RSA and the roof parapet or guardrail may be allowed, provided the buffer is determined to adequately address public safety. The buffer and screen wall shall be of a sufficient depth and/or height and constructed of attractive, durable materials that may also include landscaping elements to prevent persons from leaning or dropping things over the parapet or guardrail that encloses the terrace or rooftop. A design of the proposed buffer and screen wall shall be submitted with the application. • The street -facing side of the property is the Pedestrian Mall to the north. The RSA is set back 24' from the street -facing edge of the roof. • Building space to the north and west, exterior walls to the south and east, and the 6' setback from the exterior wall to the south will help prevent safety issues and nuisances. • The RSA management plan notes there will be a minimum of 5 staff persons on this level who will help ensure safety, address nuisances, and prevent underage drinking and overserving of alcohol. The Board approved a condition requiring compliance with the submitted management plan. (4) The lighting must comply with chapter 5, article G, "Outdoor Lighting Standards", of this title. Except for any lighting required by the building code, lights must be turned off when the RSA is not in operation. A lighting plan shall be submitted that illustrates compliance with these standards. o 0ze • The lighting plan indicates that canopy lights will be the primary exteriggllkht s6rce on the RSA with a total expected output of 6,500 lumens, well below tbert 4111 total light output allowed by code. —i c; W i- • The management plan notes that RSA lights will be turned off when tftr; SA}lnot i use. E5 v • To ensure compliance with lighting regulations, the Board approved a condition requiring approval of a lighting plan be required prior to issuance of a building permit. (5) No signs shall be allowed in or on the exterior wall or fence of the RSA that are within public view, as defined in chapter 9, article A of this tide. • A logo -based mural is planned for the interior portion of the east wall of the RSA, but it will not be visible from any public street, sidewalk, access easement, or park or other open space. The Board concludes that the specific standard related to management at Section 14-4AA- 1c is met based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) For RSAs that are also outdoor service areas, as defined in title 4 of this code, there must be an RSA management plan in place and at least one employee must be designated to monitor the safety and compliance of the RSA during hours of operation. The proposed management plan shall be submitted with the application. If nuisance or safety issues arise, the city may require immediate changes to the management plan and/or the number of monitors to remedy the situation and reserves the right to suspend or revoke the RSA permit. • The proposed RSA will serve alcohol, so it is also considered an Outdoor Service Area (OSA). • The management plan submitted with the application notes there will be a minimum of 5 staff persons on this level who will help monitor safety and compliance of the RSA during hours of operation. • If nuisance or safety issues arise, the management plan may be modified, or any temporary use permit for amplified sound may be suspended or revoked. (2) In the CB-10 zone, where the building containing the RSA abuts or is directly across a public alley from a property containing upper floor residential uses or hotel rooms that have windows facing the RSA, the hours of operation of the RSA are limited to ten o'clock (10:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Sunday through Thursday and ten o'clock (10:00) A.M. to twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight Friday and Saturday. • The RSA neither abuts nor is located directly across a public alley from a property containing upper floor residential uses or hotel rooms. • A new building will be on part of the subject property with upper floor residential windows facing the proposed RSA, but it is under the same ownership, the existing wall which will be maintained will mitigate noise and light conflicts for windows facing the RSA, and exterior light fixtures will face downwards. The Board concludes that the following specific standard regarding food service is met: "If alcohol is being seared, food service must be provided. Prior to approval of an RSA, the applicant must submit evidence indicating how this requirement will be met." This is qWd on the following findings: o 0 4� • Alcohol will be served on the proposed RSA. n� N �• '~ N Cn d.dw vpuwrtvo?r.— • The management plan notes that the establishment will have a fully functional kitchen and substantial food service provided for all hours of operation. The Board concludes that the following specific standard regarding noise is met: "The design of the RSA must minimize the carry of noise across property boundaries. Use of specialized screen wall materials, sound deadening techniques, or similar, may be required. Evidence of such a noise mitigation plan must be included with an RSA application. In addition, after an RSA is established, the city reserves the right to require additional measures to remedy any violation of the city's noise or nuisance ordinance, as determined by the city." This is based on the following findings: • The management plan contains provisions to help manage noise on the RSA and the existing walls which will be retained around the RSA will minimize the carry of noise across property boundaries. • No amplified sound will be allowed without a separate temporary use permit, which requires submittal of a sound mitigation plan in compliance with Section 4-3-105. The Board concludes that the following specific standard regarding amplified sound at Section 14-4AA-1f is met. "Due to the potential nuisance to neighboring properties and the general public in the surrounding neighborhood, amplified sound is only allowed for RSAs associated with hospitality oriented retail uses in the RFC -SD subdistrict and for RSAs in the CB-10 zone, subject to the limitations set forth below. RSAs accessory to hospitality oriented retail uses are not required to obtain a temporary use permit, but must comply with the city's noise and nuisance ordinance, and the standards stated below. Amplified sound is only allowed for an RSA in the CB-10 zone upon receipt of a seasonal temporary use permit, unless it is accessory to a hospitality oriented use. Permits for amplified sound are subject to the standards and restrictions set forth below and the general approval criteria for temporary uses as set forth in article D of this chapter. A temporary use permit may be denied or rescinded at the discretion of the city if noise becomes a nuisance or terms of the temporary use permit or the special exception conditions are violated.' This is based on the following findings for this criterion and for each sub -criterion: • The proposed RSA is in a CB-10 zone and shall require a seasonal temporary use permit to allow amplified sound. • Requirements for the temporary use permit include that amplified sound be limited to background music at a low volume and that the RSA either be more than 300' from other service areas or be inaudible to those areas. • A sound mitigation plan will be required as part of the temporary use permit process if amplified sound is desired for the RSA. • The temporary use permit may be denied or rescinded if noise becomes a nuisance or the terns of the temporary use permit or special exception are violated. (1) If an RSA is located within three hundred feet (300') of a residential zone, amp(tged sound is prohibited. �r D� i • The proposed RSA is not within 300' of a residential zone. (2) The city may restrict the hours when amplified sound may be used. HGaWw¢¢�eer,�'t no case shall amplified sound be permitted between the hours of twelve o'clock-(i 19) midnight and ten o'clock (10:00) A.M. o '..J eoeoop s¢,wiore+ninwuoo • The management plan notes that there will be no amplified sound between the hours of 12:00 am and 10:00 am if approved through a temporary use permit. (3) No live entertainment using amplification shall be allowed. • The management plan notes that live entertainment shall not be allowed to use amplification. (4) Amplified sound may be restricted or prohibited during public events, festivals or concerts. • The management plan notes that the operator will comply with any requests to restrict or prohibit amplified sound during public events, festivals, or concerts. This would include requests by the City. (5) The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that the design of the RSA will minimize carry of noise across property boundaries. Use of specialized screen wall materials, sound deadening techniques, control of volume, or similar may be required. • The proposed RSA is surrounded by the existing building facade, which will minimize carry of noise across property boundaries. • Amplified sound will only be allowed through a temporary use permit, which will require a noise mitigation plan. The Board concludes that the following specific standard is met: "The RSA shall be located directly above and contiguous to the licensed drinking establishment. Contiguous rows there may not be other uses located on floors in between the drinking establishmentgLhd the accessory RSA." This is based on the following findings: -- c • The proposed RSA is directly above and contiguous to the licensed dr(dkllfg ry establishment to which it is accessory. • The proposed Reunion Brewery is the only use in this building. o M z- The Board concludes that there shall be no horizontal expansion of the licensed dr&ng establishment based on the finding that the proposed RSA will be completely con , over the licensed, nonconforming drinking establishment and thus approval will not result in horizontal expansion. The Board concludes that there shall be no increase in interior floor area or interior occupant load of the existing drinking establishment, except if necessary for required bathrooms, elevator, stairs, kitchen equipment, or other essential elements necessary to meet accessibility, building code requirements or to meet the requirements or conditions of the special exception, based on the following findings: • The proposed RSA will not increase interior floor area or interior occupant load. • The Board approved a condition requiring that no solid roof shall be allowed to be constructed over any portion of the RSA to ensure there is no future increase in interior floor area. m pve tur..<rk non. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: • The use of the property and access to the property and surrounding properties will not change because of the RSA. • The proposed RSA and any heat sources must meet all building and fire code requirements, and it must also be ADA compliant. • Access to the proposed RSA is from an interior stairwell and elevator. The management plan notes that all customers must present ID before entering the RSA, and underage patrons will not be allowed without supervision after 10:00 pm. Starting at 9:00 pm, all customers must present ID at the first level entrance as well. • As shown in the site plan, the RSA will be set back from the private alley to the south. The outdoor area will be surrounded by the existing walls of the historic structure to prevent occupants from accessing other rooftop areas. • The management plan indicates that at least 5 staff will ahways be present at this level, and the RSA will be actively managed. Staff will be responsible for ensuring safety, addressing nuisances, and preventing underage drinking and overserving of alcohol. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The proposed RSA will be screened by the existing 16' walls of the historic building on all sides, and the 6' setback to the south will help prevent nuisance and safety issues. In addifion, interior space will screen the RSA from the Pedestrian Mall to the north and from the building to the west. There are no windows on the building to the east. • Exterior lighting will face downward and must comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. • Noise will be controlled by the existing historic walls and amplified sound will only be allowed by temporary use permit which may not extend beyond midnight, in addition to other previously mentioned requirements. • Renovation of the property will help ensure continued economic viability of the space. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The subject property is in the Downtown District and is zoned Central Business District with a Historic District Overlay (CB-10IOHD) which is for high density, mixed use development and entertainment areas. • RSAs are allowed in the zone to create more diverse seasonal opportunities. • The surrounding area is already fully developed with a mix of uses. — • The proposed RSA will be more than 20 feet from the new building being.�t_nst"d to the south which is part of the larger redevelopment of the area. - r" • With appropriate controls on amplified sound administered through the*4or* use-4�-,, permit, the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding developmeptwill not ;_ prevent surrounding properties from being redeveloped again in the ful�li� anoAll be an attractive addition to the Downtown. -- v aonaope�aw,evminunoe: :. The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: • The site has access to adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities. • These considerations will also be reviewed by staff during the building permit process. The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • Access to the building is expected to be primarily through the Pedestrian Mall. • No changes are being proposed to access which will affect traffic congestion on public streets. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • An approved lighting plan for the proposed use is recommended as a condition of approval to ensure compliance with the City's Outdoor Lighting Standards. • The RSA will serve alcohol, so compliance with applicable regulations for outdoor service areas in Title 4, "Alcoholic Beverages," of the City Code is required, and the applicant will be required to receive a liquor license through the City. • Amplified sound will only be allowed as a temporary use permit, which will require additional staff review. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area for General Commercial, and its vision includes to "[e]ncourage continued investment in the Downtown to assure its place as the center of arts, culture, entertainment, commercial, and civic activity within the city and the metro area". The Downtown and Rivertront Crossings Master Plan shows this area as part of the Downtown District, which is "the heart of the region" with historic buildings next to new buildings and streets that are active throughout the day and into the night. Objectives of this plan include to "[p]romote quality infill and redevelopment" and to "[m]aintain balance of uses and activities." The nonconforming drinking establishment use is consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans and will not change because of the proposed RSA. The RSA will be located on a local historic landmark. Current plans as proposed were approved as part of the Historic Preservation Commission review. DISPOSITON: By a vote of 4-0, the Board approved a Rooftop Service Area (RSA) as ag! accessory use to a nonconforming drinking establishment in a CB-10 zone for tha prope% located at 111 E. College Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the submitted site plan, dated March 1, 20262 ` � ry 40 O V dWlm signature vP finha 2. Compliance with the submitted management plan, dated July 9, 2021. 3. No solid roof shall be constructed over any portion of the Rooftop Service Area. 4. A lighting plan in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance shall be approved by the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the application shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-BC- 1E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. ,f, P..Ye. ,,-,K', Amy Pretorius, Chairperson STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY Approved by: 9 ,aj_ar City Attorney's Office I, Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 10 day of July, 2021 as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this Z-�1'("� day of \J Lc-C 4 , 20 �- Kellie K. Fruehling, City Cie eV ,t r g� o > N m Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E. Weshinghn, Iowa City, IA 52240: 31"J 230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2021 ELECTRONIC MEETING -ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Doc I0: 026142220007 Type: GEN Kind: DECISION Recorded: 06/24/2021 at 11:31:48 Al Fee Amt: $3].00 Page 1 of ] Johnson County Iona Klm Painter County Retarder BK6245 Pa268-274 MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Bryce Parker, Amy Pretorius, Mark Russo MEMBERS ABSENT: Gene Chrischilles STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann OTHERS PRESENT: Taylor Hall, Julie Yaney SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 1. EXC21-0005: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by PM Design Group to allow a drive -through facility in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for a remote Automated Teller Machine (ATM) at 1600 Sycamore Street. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3a will be met. Access and Circulation: The transportation system should be capable of safely supporting the proposed drive -through use in addition to the existing uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, effects on traffic circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian safety in addition to the following criteria. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) Wherever possible and practical, drive -through lanes shall be accessed from secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can demonstrate that access from a secondary street, alley, or shared cross access drive is not possible, the board may grant access to a primary street, but may impose conditions such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting the number of lanes, requiring the drive -through bays and stacking lanes to be enclosed within the building envelope, and similar conditions. • The subject property has two vehicular access points from primary streets, Lower Muscatine Road to the northeast and Sycamore Street to the west. • Several shared cross access drives provide circulation between the access points, across the property, and to the three buildings on the site. • The proposed drive -through facility would be accessed from a shared cross access drive through the surface parking lot, most likely from where Mall Drive intersects Lower Muscatine Road. • The drive -through facility has a one-way access point from southeast to northwest that flows with adjacent traffic through the surface parking lot. (2) To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cat on any street is subjeato t6 standards and restrictions in chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Staru7br1f,, of this title. -= — -�c. i M w � rJ N rCb • No changes to curb cuts are being proposed as part of the project. • The nearest existing pedestrian route, located northwest of the proposed drive - through facility, will not be significantly impacted. • There may be additional traffic where the pedestrian route crosses the entrance to the parking lot, but traffic speeds along the internal drives are low, visibility is good, and the pedestrian pathway is clearly demarcated with colored pavement. (3) An adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic safety is not compromised. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces is recommended for drive - through facilities associated with eating establishments and a minimum of four (4) stacking spaces for banking, pharmacies, and similar nonfood related drive -through facilities. "Stacking spaces" shall be defined as being twenty feet (20') in length and the width of a one lane, one-way drive. The board may reduce the recommended number of stacking spaces if the applicant can demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristcs such that the recommended number of parking spaces is excessive (i.e., a drive- through that is to be used for pick up only and not ordering). • The concept plan shows a drive -through lane with 3 stacking spaces, which is one fewer than the recommended number of spaces. • The recommended number of stacking spaces is excessive for this use due to the unique characteristics of an ATM, which has shorter transaction times and relatively low peak hour volume usage. • Based on data provided by the applicant for May 2021, peak hours are estimated to be 1:00 pm through 5:00 pm on weekdays and 10:00 am through 5:00 pm on weekends, with heaviest use on Fridays and Saturdays. • Based on data provided by the applicant for May 2021, less than 3% of hour-long timeslots saw more than 10 users. The highest volume during a timeslot was 19 users, which occurred once. Even at this highest volume, which averages to 3 minutes and 9 seconds per user, the longest potential wait time for vehicles within the 3 stacking spaces would be approximately 9.5 minutes. • The parking drive aisle can accommodate potential spillover traffic from the drive - through lane, and traffic volumes are slow enough to maintain traffic safety. (4) Sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance areas, and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement. • The concept plan indicates that pavement markings include directional arrows in the drive -through lane, "enter only at the entrance, and "exit only' at the exit. • Existing parking striping will be removed and new striping provided that distinguishes the drive -through lane from the former parking spaces. • The concept plan does not include signage. The Board approved a condition to require installing a "do not enter" sign at the drive -through lane exit to ensure safe vehicular movement. • With the Board's condition, the proposed use will have sufficient onsite controls to i7 �y4de traffic. IN Boardconcludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3b will be met regarding -Location. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: •� N dodoop•R*eNre Vm Mloo: r,r ,: ...... (1) In the CB-2 zone and in all subdistricts of the riverfront crossings district located east of the Iowa River, drive -through lanes and service windows must be located on a nonstreet-facing facade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are allowed, this location standard must be met, unless the applicant can demonstrate that a street -facing location is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site, does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access, and does not compromise the character of the streetscape or neighborhood in which it is located. • The drive -through lane is parallel with Lower Muscatine Road. While it is not associated with a building, it is on the street -facing side of the ATM. • This layout is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site because it allows right -turn access to the drive -through lane for the adjacent traffic lane and consequently reduces potential traffic conflicts. • Nearby uses are commercial, and the drive -through lane will replace existing surface parking. Because of the nature of the neighborhood and the required landscaping that will act as a visual buffer, the drive -through lane will not compromise the character of the streetscape. • The location of the drive -through lane does not affect pedestrian access. (2) Drive -through lanes must be set back at least ten feet (10') from adjacent lot lines and public rights of way and screened from view according to the design standards below. • The drive -through lane is setback more than 10 feet from the Lower Muscatine Road right-of-way. • The proposed drive -through lane shall be screened to the S2 standard. The Board concludes that the following specific standard found at 14-4C-2K-3c will be met. Design Standards: The number of drive -through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved area necessary for the drive -through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. The board of adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the circumstances affecting the site. This is based on the following findings for each sub -criterion: (1) To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of ddve-through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking space does not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of the pedestrian environment. • The concept plan proposes one approximately 10-foot wide drive -through lane with 3 stacking spaces which will replace existing 10 paved parking spaces. No new paving is being proposed as part of this project. • S2 screening is required between the drive -through lane and the Lowe Muscillhe Road right-of-way. Existing trees and landscaping should be retained d--' N incorporated in this landscaping where possible. `-' - — • The nearest pedestrian walkway is delineated with colored pavement "icIc fi helps maintain the safety of those utilizing the walkway.- • No pedestrian pathway is provided along the south side of Lower Musr9 R% Road. Space should be reserved to allow a future pedestrian connection. o N tlorlwp98^e re Knfira[lan ... • The proposed facility will not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of the pedestrian environment. (2) Drive -through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive -through is located adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. To preserve the pedestrian oriented character of streets in the CB-2 zone and the riverfront crossings district, the board may require the drive -through to be incorporated within the building or be screened with masonry street walls and landscaping. Street walls shall be a minimum of five feet (s) in height and shall be designed to complement the principal building on the site. • The drive -through facility is not adjacent to residential uses. • Landscaping along Lower Muscatine Road shall be provided at the S2 standard. (3) Multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane (e.g., order board, payment window, pick up window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling on the site. • The drive -through facility is an ATM, with an anticipated through -put of approximately 2 minutes per user according to the applicant. • Multiple machines are not necessary to reduce the amount of idling onsite. (4) Stacking spaces, driveways, and drive -through windows shall be located to minimize potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in which it is located. • While there may be additional traffic where the pedestrian route crosses the entrance to the surface parking lot, no new pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed drive -through facility. • Traffic speeds along the internal drives are low, visibility is good, and the pedestrian pathway is clearly demarcated with colored pavement, which helps protect pedestrians crossing the parking drive aisle entrance. • Vehicular conflicts are reduced by having the proposed ATM separate the drive - through lane from the parking drive aisle. The Board approved a condition requiring additional physical separation by using a curb, planter boxes or other similar control devices, to be approved by the City Engineer. • The immediate area is commercial in nature, which is a less sensitive use, and screening will help soften the appearance of the facility from the right-of-way. • The proposed facilities will replace existing parking spaces. As such, the drive - through facility will be visually similar as an auto -oriented use. N Ligh* for the drive -through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards ;.; ..! t fo"-_, chapter 5, article G of this title and must be designed to prevent light trespass j t fbd gTere onto neighboring residential properties. a,.•, N Tbe�&oncept plan proposes one overhead light with two LED fixtures. eonoop�n,�re.nrmveoo: �-. • Staff shall review any new lighting for the site in compliance with current code standards as part of the site plan review process. (6) (Repealed.) (7) Loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be given to locations adjacent to residential uses to ensure such systems do not diminish the residential character of the neighborhood. • No loudspeakers or intercom systems are proposed as part of this project. • The ATM will only include a keypad tone but will not include advertising or other miscellaneous sounds. The Board concludes that the speck proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: • The proposed drive -through facilities are not expected to substantially increase vehicular traffic to the site near other commercial uses. • Vehicular circulation and access are adequate to accommodate drive -through traffic as long as they conform to the concept plan as submitted. The Board approved a condition requiring substantial compliance with the concept plan as a condition of approval. • While the ATM provides a physical barrier between the drive -through lane and the parking drive aisle, the Board approved a condition requiring physical barriers such as planter boxes for the length of the drive -through lane to provide additional separation. • While there may be additional traffic where the pedestrian route crosses the entrance to the parking lot, no new pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed drive - through facility and low traffic speeds, good visibility, and clear demarcation of the pedestrian route help promote pedestrian safety. • The proposed drive -through facilities will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The proposed drive -through facility is compatible with commercial uses at nearby properties and replaces existing parking spaces which are also an auto -oriented use. • Screening will mitigate impacts to the streetscape. • The proposed use is far enough away from nearby businesses where any potential increase in traffic will not create a negative impact. • The proposed exception will not injure the use or enjoyment of nearby properties, nor will it negatively impact property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that establishment of the specific proposed exception wilt" impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property fof psss permitted in the district in which such property is located based on the followirUfridirtgg: —X CO N N 4MWP el8nesurev Mcx n: • The surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of commercial and industrial uses and future redevelopment and improvement will not be affected. The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: • Sufficient utilities, access roads, and necessary facilities are established for this neighborhood and ran meet the proposed site requirements. • Pedestrian access will be maintained from the right-of-way through the property. • Proposed internal circulation is sufficient for vehicular and pedestrian access. • Screening to the S2 standard will be required between the drive -through facility and Lower Muscatine Road. The existing tree should be incorporated into this screening. The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • The proposed drive -through lanes are accessed from internal parking drive aisles. • Three stacking spaces for vehicles in the drive -through lane are adequate to accommodate the use. Additional overflow space is available in the parking drive aisle. • The pavement markings shown on the concept plan, with the addition of the Board required signage, will help efficiently direct vehicles through the site. • The proposed facility will not substantially affect congestion on public streets. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • Parking is abundant at 1600 Sycamore Street, so the site maintains compliance with parking standards despite the loss of 10 spaces. • Staff will ensure the site design conforms with all other applicable zoning standards and regulations, including screening requirements, during the site plan review. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as General Commercial, and the Future Land Use Map of the South District Plan designates this area as Commercial. • The Comprehensive Plan supports "encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses". • The current primary land use of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive and N District Plans and will not change because of the proposed special exception. N DISPO ON: By a vote of 3-1 (Carlson against), the Board approved a drive -through fad* W ATM located at 1600 Sycamore Street, subject to the following conditions: Lt t 1.—InstWMffin of a "do not enter' sign at the drive -through lane exit. 2. Additional physical separation between the parking drive aisle and the drive -through lane by using a curb, planter boxes, or other control devices as approved by the City Engineer. If there are plantings as part of this physical separation, the operator of the ATM shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance. 3. Substantial compliance with the concept plan. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the application shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C- 1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Amy Pretorius, Chairperson STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY APP ^ b b)l-d( City Attorney's Office I, Kettle K. Fruehling, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 9' day of June, 2021 as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this 2-1 E14- day of 1 t� t n ?, , 20 z 1 4 Kellie K. Fruehling, Ci y Clerk 0 0 ram, c D- y 7 < N �n r �T 3 O� N N V PrepareE by 14rk Lebmenn, Associate Fenner, 410 E. Washington, loxes CM. IA 52240: 319J 5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2020 ELECTRONIC MEETING —ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Bryce Parker, Amy Pretorius a MEMBERS ABSENT: Zephan Hazell STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann oA OTHERS PRESENT: Britni Andreassen, Dave Moore, Keith Weggen ' N 1. EXC21-0001: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by Britni Andreassen on behalf of Kum & Go, LC for a special exception to allow changes to the total outdoor light output standards for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 1310 South Gilbert Street and 348 Highland Avenue. The Board concludes that the proposed development will meet the following specific standard found at 14-413-4131-12j. Waivers from Development Standards for Quick Vehicle Servicing in RFC Zoning Districts: For properties located in the CB-2 zone, CB-5 zone, riverfront crossings district, eastside mixed use district, or towncrest design review district, where it can be demonstrated that the proposed quick vehicle servicing use cannot comply with a specific standard as indicated in subsections B12h and B12i of this section, the board of adjustment may grant a special exception to modify or waive the provision, provided that the intent of the development standards is not unduly compromised. The board of adjustment may impose any condition or conditions that are warranted to mitigate the effects of any variation from these development standards. This is based on the following findings: • The property is in the Riverfront Crossings District, so the applicant may request a waiver from standards outlined in Section 14-013-48-12i of the Zoning Code which requires that properties in the Riverfront Crossings District comply with the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code. • The applicant requested a modification to Section 14-2G-1C regarding the applicability of certain site development standards. Specifically, the applicant requested that the maximum total outdoor light output be increased from 100,000 to 200,000 initial lumens per net acre (Section 14-5G-5C). In effect, this changes the lighting environment district from an E2 medium ambient lighting to an E3 high ambient lighting standard. • The E2 medium ambient lighting district applies to higher density multi -family and lower intensity commercial and office zones, including its current designation of Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG), in addition to most multi -family (PRM, RM-20, RM-44, RNS-20) and Riverfront Crossings (except the RFC-WR) zones. • An E3 high ambient lighting district applies to higher intensity commercial, industrial, and research zones, including the property's former Intensive Commercial (CI-1) designation, and the Riverfront Crossings — West Riverfront (RFC-WR), Central Fat Type: aN at 10:35:11 Aft Iof 5 BK6191 P0833-837 aonooa+ie,a,,,,e�,nuuo„� Business (CB-2, CBS, CB-10), and Community Commercial (CC-2) zones, among others. • The intent of outdoor lighting standards is to reduce obtrusive aspects of outdoor light while preserving safety, security, and the nighttime use and enjoyment of property. • Total outdoor light output standards prevent excessive overlighting and light pollution. • The property is located along the Highway 1 commercial corridor and is near higher intensity commercial and light industrial properties which are less sensitive to ambient light and which are in zones that typically use the E3 high ambient lighting standard. • Additional lighting is typical for special outdoor uses, such as quick vehicle servicing. While the City's Outdoor Lighting Standards include some exemptions for special uses, such as outdoor recreational facilities and display lots, it does not include allowances for vehicle service stations as would be required in this case. • The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) provides recommended lighting levels to ensure adequate illumination and safety for occupants based on use categories and anticipated users. IES standards recommend a higher level of lighting than what is. currently allowed in the zone due to the proposed use of the site (ServicE�§tatiorQ and its proposed users (the general public, including those older than 65 jew). s • The request does not unduly compromise the intent of the development s'Paa�ar( 1�-< — The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimerlpo� orN endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the follomo = m findings: • There is an existing convenience store with fuel sales located on this site r • The Board of Adjustment approved allowance of a new convenience store with fuel sales at this site (EXC19-12 recorded January 31, 2020 in Book 6004, Page 400-403 in the Johnson County Recorder's Office). • The Board of Adjustment waived the 2-story minimum building height requirement at this site with the condition that the external walls of the proposed convenience store be at least 22 feet in height to appear like a 2-story building. (EXC20-03 recorded May 1, 2020 in Book 6036, Page 313-315 in the Johnson County Recorder's Office). • The Board of Adjustment waived the 3-foot parking setback behind the secondary street fagade on 3rd Street and frontage type and related design requirements for the north building face with the condition that the final site plan substantially comply with the submitted she plan, dated June 23, 2020 (EXC20-07 recorded July 29, 2020 in Book 6083, Page 791-795 in the Johnson County Recorder's Office). • The requested waiver will result in more ambient light throughout the site which will improve safety for employees, customers and others accessing the site. • As discussed above, IES standards recommend a higher level of lighting than what is currently allowed in the zone due to the proposed Service Station use and its proposed users being the general public, including those older than 65 years of age. • Additional lighting will increase safety, so the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The new request will not change the use or access to the site. aaroop 3a•wee....mcaum: 7 • The property is along a busy commercial corridor with higher levels of ambient light. • Nearby properties contain higher intensity commercial or light industrial uses which are less sensitive to ambient light. • Nearby properties are in zones that would utilize the E3 high ambient lighting standard, except for those properties located in the Riverfront Crossings District. • In this rase, higher levels of light are expected primarily to the east and north, rather than towards mixed use developments to the west. • A nearby owner raised concerns about lights shining into the windows of apartments to the northeast. The special exception applies only to total light output, so physical controls which help control glare and minimize light trespass still apply. As a result, the photometric plan shows that light trespass should not affect the apartments to the northeast. • Increasing the total outdoor light output to an E3 high ambient lighting standard will not injure the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor will it negatively impact nearby property values. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • Surrounding properties are developed, but they are eligible for redevelopment under the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code. • Redevelopment of this property and the requested modified standard will not affect development or improvement of surrounding properties. The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or neWaparig —� facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: �1 • The subject property has access to all necessary utilities and facilities. —'P N r��� T A 1 � r • The redevelopment will not require off -site improvements. y The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide irgess or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following finding: • The current site has access off S. Gilbert Street, Highland Avenue, and 3rd Street. • The proposed redevelopment will improve traffic congestion, ingress, and egress because the rezoning (Ordinance No. 19-4814) included conditions that all access points from S. Gilbert Street be closed and only one access point from Highland Avenue remain open to minimize traffic congestion at the intersection of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue. • The proposed exception will provide better nighttime visibility at all site access points. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The property has already received several special exceptions which modify standards: o EXC20-03. Waived the 2-story minimum building height requirement; and o EXC20-07. Waived the 3 feet setback for surface parking from the north building facade; waived the frontage type requirement for the north building face; and waived several related building design standards for the north building face. • Staff will ensure compliance with other Zoning Code provisions during site plan review. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • The Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Mixed Use Development which includes a variety of retail, office, and residential uses. • The Comprehensive Plan supports urban infill and redevelopment in certain areas of the City, including in the Riverfront Crossings District. • The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan calls for a pedestrian scale development in this area along S. Gilbert Street, with buildings to the front of the street and parking to the rear. Some plan concepts show a gas station on the comer of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue. The Plan also calls for a retail/convenience store in this area to serve local demand. This area is envisioned to be redeveloped with a commercial use. • The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. DISPOSITON: By a vote of 3-0, the Board approved changing the maximum total outdoor light output (including both fully shielded and unshielded fixtures) from 100,000 initial lumens per net acre to 200,000 initial lumens per net acre for the properties located at 1310 S. Gilbert Street and 348 Highland Avenue. 2. Extension Reauest: A request submitted by Kum & Go, LC to extend the expiration date to September 10, 2021 for EXC19-12, a special exception approved to allow a quick vehicle servicing use in the Riverfront Crossings -South Gilbert zone, EXC20-03, a special exception to waive the minimum 2-story building requirement, and EXC20-07, a special exception waiving the 3-foot parking setback behind the 3rd Street secondary street facade and from frontage type and related design requirements for the north facade. DISPOSITON: By a vote of 3-0, the Board approved an extension to change the expiration dates of EXC19-12, EXC20-03, and EXC20-07 to September 10, 2021. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the application shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C- 1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. o r �rn a 'y N r EPnmPBBru, rtttr,fi[atlan:',. .. .. u. R.,P.a b 6 s:m ca Amy Pretorius, Chairperson STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) Approve 3 ' fa'al City Attorney's Office I, Kettle K. Fruehling, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 1V day of March, 2021 as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this / J {J, day of !iIQ iQh , 20 2-1 c C�lv F i Z-� Kellie K. Fruehling�y Clerk o - a tin cn oM a _ D N r Fee. aouooP>�mew,mmrauo. IIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII Doc ID: 026067260005 Type: GEN Kind: DECISION Recorded: 04/23/2021 at 10:28:39 Fr1 Fee Mt: $27.00 Pape 1 of 5 Johnson County love Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Asaotlate Planneg410E.Washington, Iowa Cay, M52240; 319-356-5230 Klm Painter County Recorder M6211 Pe500-504 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2021 ELECTRONIC MEETING —ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Zephan Hazel, Bryce Parker, Amy Probrtus,3S9ncy Carlson, Ernie Cox [replacement for Hazell during appeal] - —--- :7 -- N MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Danielle Sitzman, Anne Russell, Kirk Lehmann LEGAL COUNSEL: Grant Lientz [legal representation for the Board during appealr v OTHERS PRESENT: Sarah Clark, Allison Wagner, Andy Litton, Brian Richards, Darlene Clausen, Dave Moore, Diana Harris, Dorothy Fowles, Drew Jones, James Larew, Lee Dreier, Linda McGuire, Maeve Clark, Michael Apt, Michael Welch, Michael Olievera, Rachel Hams, Richard Blazk, Sharon Degmw APPEAL ITEMS: 1. APL21-0001: A public hearing regarding an appeal of a decision by the Building Official to approve an application for a minor modification (MOD20-0009) reducing the side setbacks to build a new single-family home at 319 N. Van Buren Street, alleging an error in the determination that all applicable approval criteria were met. The Board concludes the following approval criterion was not met: Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location, surroundings, or characteristics, or preexisting site development, which make it impractical to comply with the subject regulation or which warrant a modification and/or waiver of the subject regulation. This is based on the finding that the condition of impracticality was created by the owner and therefore the City should not have approved the minor modification. DISPOSITON: By a vote of 3-2 (Parker and Pretorius against), the Board approved the appeal that there was an error in the decision by the Building Official to approve the application for a minor modification (MOD20-0009) reducing the side setbacks to build a new single-family home at 319 N. Van Buren Street. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 2. EXC21-0002: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Gilbane Development, requesting a special exception to reduce the minimum parking requirement by 50 percent for a multi -family redevelopment project at 700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque Street and 206 & 220 Lafayette Street. The Board concludes that the following specific approval criterion was met: eonoop:y,a,�re.re.,rvea�: i Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive or will reduce the ability to use or occupy a historic property in a manner that will preserve or protect its historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking spaces by up to fifty percent (50%) (up to 100 percent for properties designated as a local historic landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as key or contributing structures in a Historic District or Conservation District Overlay Zone). This is based on the following findings: • The applicant has requested the exception on the basis that the specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive, which would allow a reduction of up to 50 percent of the required minimum number of parking spaces. • The property is purpose-built housing for University of Iowa students and includes features specific to that use, such as individual leases, furnished units, and on -site amenities like study lounges. Students exhibit lower demand for on -site parking and are more likely to utilize modes of transportation such as transit, walking, and biking. • 2019 5-Year American Community Survey data (table B08301) suggests residents in downtown Iowa City use cars less due to proximity to the University, employment, and other services. For typical commutes in Census Tracts near downtown (specifically 16, 17, and 21 as shown in Attachment 3), around 52%drive alone to work, 7% carpool, 34% walk or bike, 4% use public transportation, and the remainder use other modes of transportation or work from home. Tract 21, the closest to downtown, has the lowest levels of car usage with only 27% driving alone to work. • The applicant proposes approximately 0.81 underground parking spaces per dwelling unit, which equals approximately 0.41 per bed. • The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) suggest an average parking demand rate of 0.90 vehicles per unit or 0.48 per bed for a Multifamily (Mid -Rise) Dense Multi -Use Urban use, though it is not specific to student housing. • The RISE at Riverfronl Crossings, a student housing project on E. Court Street, provides parking at a rate of 0.60 spaces per unit or 0.34 per bed. Staff is not aware of any complaints regarding spillover parking from the RISE. • Properties adjacent to the subject property vary more widely from 0.55 (628 S. Dubuque Street) to 1.25 (225 E. Prentiss Street) parking spaces per dwelling unit. The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings: • Parking ratios are similar to other projects that are located downtown and are , ppropriate as determined by Census data about means of transportation to work. • -Parking,ratios are below suggested ratios by the ITE, but the targeted market of students -U more likely to use alternative modes of transportation than is anticipated by the ITE. --- • :Spillovbr'parking is not anticipated to impact on -street parking in neighboring residential ,.. `areas because most nearby streets either meter or do not allow on -street parking. • the Harrison Street public parking ramp totaling 550 spaces is within a 3-minute walk of She proposed building for downtown visitors or commuters, and the site plan shows new c- aaimo`�wrevzrmueon::^, The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following findings: • The parking level entrance is located at grade on Lafayette Street where the alley will need to be vacated as part of the project. The approval of the vacation by City Council is recommended as a condition of the requested parking reduction. • Vehicular access to the public street network is provided to the west with Ralston Creek blocking access to the east. Lafayette Street intersects S. Dubuque Street at an intersection with a stop sign. • Several vehicular access points on S. Dubuque Street and one on Lafayette Street will be eliminated as part of the project. • New public parking will be constructed in the S. Dubuque Street right of way. Staff has recommended that these spaces be metered to help support short-term on -street parking needs in a mixed use area. • Pedestrian access is proposed along all public streets and along Ralston Creek. • Adequate measures are being taken to minimize traffic congestion. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • As the project progresses, staff will ensure that all applicable standards and regulations are met through the design review, site plan review and building permitting processes. • Policies for administrative height bonuses shall be followed as part of this project. The Board concludes that the exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended, based on the following findings: • The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Mixed Use on the Future Land Use map and includes goals to "identify and support infll development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place" and to "encourage pedeshianoriented development... that make it safe convenient, and comfortable to walk." • The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan includes objectives for the Central Crossings subdistrict such as "promote new housing options" and "restore and enhance conditions along Ralston Creek". The development program for the area includes "Multiple housing option typologies". • The Master Plan highlights this block for residential redevelopment. • Reducing parking to promote redevelopment, new housing options, and Ralston Creek restoration is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. DISPOSITON: By a vote of 5-0, the Board approved a reduction of the minimum parkft requirement by 50 percent for the properties located at 700, 710, 720, & 730 Dubuque Street and 206 & 220 Lafayette Street, subject to City Council approval of VAC W.Oo 3a. - z EXC21-0003: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted bttT Leon Associates for a special exception to allow drive -through facilities in a Co nmunily ' _ dmwop 9gn. rerermrnwrt v ` public parking spaces on S. Dubuque Street as part of the project. Parking permits in public ramps are not typically available to downtown residents. Some parking demand may be satisfied by the University's remote parking lots if regular travel is not conducted by car and students are the primary occupants. Tenants must consider reduced on -site parking in their decision -making, so it is likely the proposed project will attract tenants who do not require as much on -site parking. Overall, the parking reduction will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • Many properties in the immediate vicinity, especially those owned by the University and County, have more than adequate parking and will not be negatively impacted. • Nearby residential properties vary in their parking supply but typically cater to the same market as the proposed project. There are no single-family residential uses in the immediate vicinity. • The Harrison Street Parking Ramp provides adequate off-street parking for customers and visitors. • The proposed project will provide new on -street parking. • The proposed project will increase nearby pedestrian traffic, which will likely improve the commercial viability of nearby businesses. • Improvements to Ralston Creek will increase the attractiveness of the area for properties to the east. • The parking reduction will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not impair nearby property values. The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings: • The area is already largely developed, and recent nearby redevelopment projects have only increased the demand for additional improvements in Riverfront Crossings. • The proposed development may cause temporary closures of streets as part of construction but will otherwise not impact development or improvement of surrounding properties in the long-term. • The proposed parking reduction will not impede normal development. The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided based on the following findings: • The existing streets provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access. Pedestrian access is Supplemented with amenities along Ralston Creek. • S{aff will Osure adequate utilities, drainage, and other necessary facilities are being provided through the site plan review and building permitting processes, which will include r9placement of a sanitary sewer line. 0 emwop�n.rvre.nmaao�. Commercial (CC-2) zone for online grocery pick-up at Iowa City Hy-Vee #3 located at 1125 N. Dodge Street. DISPOSITON: By a vote of 5-0, the Board voted to defer the application indefinitely. 4. EXC21-0004: A public hearing regarding a special exception application submitted by LT Leon Associates for a special exception to allow drive -through facilities in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for online grocery pick-up at Iowa City Hy-Vee #1 located at 1720 Waterfront Drive. DISPOSITON: By a vote of 5-0, the Board voted to defer the application indefinitely. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the application shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-6C- 1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Approved by: Amy Pretorius, Chairperson City Attomey's Office o STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) I, Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that thet'oard o6 Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed bJ'Me Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 10 day of April, 2021 as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this *,-2-1 St day of Y r I , 20 21 Kellid K. Fruehling, it) Clerk