Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-13 BOA Agenda PacketIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, October 13, 2021 – 5:15 PM City Hall, 410 East Washington Street Emma Harvat Hall Agenda: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Special Exception Item a. EXC21-0015: An 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. 4. Consideration of Amendments to the Board of Adjustment Bylaws 5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 8, 2021 6. Board of Adjustment Announcements 7. Adjournment If you need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Kirk Lehmann, Urban Planning at 319-356-5230 or at kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings Formal: November 10 / December 8 / January 12 Informal: Scheduled as needed October 13, 2021 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC21-0015 ITEM 3A ON THE AGENDA Staff Report Prepared by Staff 1 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC21-0015 Parcel Number: 1022108010 Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner Date: October 13, 2021 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: SouthGate Companies 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, IA 52246 Contact Person: Caleb Wilson SouthGate Companies 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, IA 52246 cwilson@southgateco.com Property Owner(s): Pepperwood Properties LLC 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, IA 52246 Requested Action: Special exception to establish a self-service storage use in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone Purpose: To rehabilitate the property into an indoor self-service storage facility with a wrap of commercial storefronts Location: 947 Highway 6 East Location Map: Size: 2.22 Acres 2 Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial; Community Commercial (CC-2) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Commercial; Community Commercial (CC-2) East: Commercial & Institutional; Community Commercial (CC-2) South: Residential; Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) West: Institutional; Community Commercial (CC-2) Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria 14-4B-4C-10: Self-Service Storage in CC-2 Zones (to be codified) File Date: September 9, 2021 BACKGROUND: The applicant, SouthGate Companies, owns the subject property at 947 Highway 6 East in the Pepperwood Plaza commercial area. The building is occupied by the post office and the former Slumberland furniture store, which is nearly 39,000 square feet. The property is zoned Community Commercial (CC-2). The applicant is proposing to rehabilitate the former Slumberland into a two- story indoor self-service storage use with a wrap of approximately 2,700 square feet of small retail storefronts along the north building façade with additional commercial space potential above. The post office would be unaffected by the proposed project. Application materials, including the proposed site plan and concept elevations, are included in Attachment 4. The special exception application (EXC21-0015) would allow the establishment of a self-service storage use. City Council made this an allowable use in CC-2 zones by special exception on September 21, 2021 when they approved Ordinance No. 21-4864 (zoning code amendment REZ21-0007). SouthGate Companies was the applicant for that zoning code amendment as well. The special exception approval criteria incorporated in that amendment help ensure that any such use continues to meet the intent of the zone by requiring that it be an indoor facility, that it be able to accommodate other allowable commercial uses along the front façade, and by applying enhanced design standards. The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on October 4, 2021. 12 neighbors attended. Attachment 3 includes a summary report of the meeting provided by the applicant. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare; to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city; and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included in Ordinance No. 21-4864 (to be codified at Section 14-4B-4C-10), pertaining to self-storage uses in CC-2 zones, as well as the general approval criteria in Section 14-4B-3A. For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, the following criteria below must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each criterion may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are set below. 3 Specific Standards: 14-4B-4C-10: Self-Service Storage in CC-2 Zones: a. All self-service storage units or areas shall be completely within conditioned space, as defined in the Building Code. No outdoor storage is allowed. FINDINGS: • The site plan shows that all self-service storage areas are 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. b. 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. Said doors shall only be provided at the rear of the building. 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. c. A substantial portion of the front building façade 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. FINDINGS: • The proposed use fronts onto the Pepperwood Plaza parking area to the north. • 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 façade 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. d. 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. 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. General Standards: 14-4B-3: Special Exception Review Requirements: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. 4 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 brick-and-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. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 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 paired with opportunities to support additional small businesses. • The proposed use and commercial space along the front facade can help promote economic activity and drive traffic to the site, though at a lesser scale than may be the case for large retail tenants. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. 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 façade will make the building more visually appealing from both the north and south. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. FINDINGS: 5 • The subject property is already developed, and all utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities are established for this area. • Staff shall ensure compliance with all applicable standards during site plan and building permit review. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. 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. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. 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 routes 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 staff recommends a condition that there be a pedestrian route from the south entrance to the 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. Staff recommends 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 14-2C-6K. Because this is a nonconforming development, staff recommends this be a condition of approval. • Staff shall ensure compliance with all applicable standards during site plan and building permit review. 6 7.The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. 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 façade 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. •Façade improvements and the small commercial storefronts can act as starting space for small businesses, which helps encourage a healthy mix of independent, locally owned businesses and supports entrepreneurial activity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0015, to allow a self-service storage use in a Community Commercial (CC-2) for the property at 947 Highway 6 East, subject to the following conditions: 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 14-2C-6K, shall be met prior to site plan approval, or shall receive minor modifications as allowed by the zoning code ATTACHMENTS: 1.Location Map 2.Zoning Map 3.Correspondence & Good Neighbor Meeting Materials 4.Application Materials Approved by: _________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services October 13, 2021 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC21-0015 ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map Prepared by Staff HOLLYWOODBLVDBROADWAYST TAYLOR DRTRACY LN KEOKUK STSOUTHGATE AVE HIGHWAY6E PEPPERWOOD LN CROSS PARK AVE EXC21-0015947 Highway 6 East.µ 0 0.045 0.090.0225 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: September 2021 An application submitted by SouthGate Companiesfor a special exception allowing an indoor self-servicestorage use for approximately 34,000 sq. ft. of property located at 947 Highway 6 E. October 13, 2021 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC21-0015 ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map Prepared by Staff HOLLYWOODBLVDBROADWAYST TAYLOR DRTRACY LN KEOKUK STSOUTHGATE AVE HIGHWAY6E PEPPERWOOD LN CROSS PARK AVE CC2 CC2 CC2 CC2 CI1 CI1 CO1 RM12 RM12 RM12 RM44 RM44 RS12 RS12 RS12 RS12 RS5 RS5 RS5 EXC21-0015947 Highway 6 East.µ 0 0.045 0.090.0225 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: September 2021 An application submitted by SouthGate Companiesfor a special exception allowing an indoor self-servicestorage use for approximately 34,000 sq. ft. of property located at 947 Highway 6 E. October 13, 2021 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC21-0015 ATTACHMENT 3 Correspondence & Good Neighbor Meeting Materials Submitted by the Identified Party Attendees were disappointed that previous discussions suggested there would be more storefronts incorporated. The more retail that can be included, the better. Attendees were not thrilled about a self-service storage use, but they were OK if it supported retail uses in the area. Parcel Number Mailing Name Mailing Address1 Mailing Address2 Mailing Address3 Mailing Zip Code City (mail)Zip Code Property Address 1022101013 SHELTER HOUSE COMMUNITY SHELTE 429 SOUTHGATE AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY 52240 820 CROSS PARK AVE 1022101009 AGING SERVICES INC 740 N 15TH AVE STE - A HIAWATHA, IA 52233 IOWA CITY 52240 817 PEPPERWOOD LN 1022101016 GOOD NEWS BIBLE CHURCH 845 PEPPERWOOD LN IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY 52240 845 PEPPERWOOD LN 1022108010 PEPPERWOOD PROPERTIES LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 925 HIGHWAY 6 E 1022108008 PEPPERWOOD PROPERTIES LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 1023243002 PARKVIEW EVANGELICAL FREE CHUR 15 FOSTER RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245 IOWA CITY 52240 BROADWAY ST 1023254001 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 E WASHIHGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY 52240 2105 BROADWAY ST 1022106001 IOWA CITY HOUSING ASSOC LP PO BOX 1226 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-1226 IOWA CITY 52240 861 CROSS PARK AVE #1053 1022108009 PEPPERWOOD PROPERTIES LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 1023243001 PARKVIEW EVANGELICAL FREE CHUR 15 FOSTER RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245 IOWA CITY 52240 1027 HIGHWAY 6 E 1022107001 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A 1022107002 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B 1022107003 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C 1022107004 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D 1022107005 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A 1022107006 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B 1022107007 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C 1022107008 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D 1022107009 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A 1022107010 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B 1022107011 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C 1022107012 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D 1022107013 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A 1022107014 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B 1022107015 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C 1022107016 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D 1022107017 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A 1022107018 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B 1022107019 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C 1022107020 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D 1022107021 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A 1022107022 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B 1022107023 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C 1022107024 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D 1022107025 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A 1022107026 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B 1022107027 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C 1022107028 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D 1022107029 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A 1022107030 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B 1022107031 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C 1022107032 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D 1022107033 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A 1022107034 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B 1022107035 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C 1022107036 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D 1022107037 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A 1022107038 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B 1022107039 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C 1022107040 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D 1022107041 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A 1022107042 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B 1022107043 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C 1022107044 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D 1022107045 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A 1022107046 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B 1022107047 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C 1022107048 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D 1022110001 IOWA MENNONITE CROWDED CLOSET 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 101 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY 52240 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 101 1022108012 PEPPERWOOD PLAZA ASSOCIATION 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 1022110002 GRD PEPPERWOOD LLC 1805 STATE ST STE 101 BETTENDORF, IA 52722 IOWA CITY 52240 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 102 1022110003 MGNS LLC PO BOX 5591 CORALVILLE, IA 52241 IOWA CITY 52240 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 103 1022108011 AT & T MOBILITY SERVICES 16 TH FLOOR - 16A21 754 PEACHTREE ST NE ATLANTA, GA 30308 September 20, 2021 RE: Special Exception for 947 Highway 6 E. Dear Property Owner: The Iowa City Board of Adjustment has received an application submitted by SouthGate Companies requesting a special exception to allow an indoor self-service storage use for the property located at 947 Highway 6 East (see attached map). As a neighboring property owner, you are being notified of this application. If you know of any interested party who has not received a copy of this letter, we would appreciate it if you would inform them of the pending application. The Board of Adjustment will review this application at a public meeting tentatively scheduled for October 13, 2021 at 5:15 pm in Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City. Because the meeting is subject to change, you may wish to call 319-356-5230 or check the City of Iowa City’s website, www.icgov.org/BOA, the week of the meeting to confirm the meeting agenda. You are welcome to attend this public meeting to present your views concerning this application. You may also submit written information to me for consideration in advance of the meeting, and I will include your comments in the information to be considered by the Board. Please do not hesitate to contact me at kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5247 if you have any questions or comments about this application or if you would like more information on the Board of Adjustment review process. Sincerely, Kirk Lehmann Associate Planner City of Iowa City Department of Neighborhood and Development Services What is the Board of Adjustment? The Board of Adjustment is panel made up of Iowa City citizens appointed by the City Council. The board reviews and grants special exceptions and variances and also considers appeals when there is a disagreement about an administrative zoning decision made by the City. Members of the board act like judges, making decisions about individual properties and uses that may have difficulty meeting a specific zoning regulation or to resolve disputes about administrative zoning decisions. The actions and decisions of the Board of Adjustment are binding upon all parties unless overturned upon appeal to District Court. What is a special exception? There are two types of special exceptions. 1. Within the zoning code a number of land uses are set apart as special exceptions that may be permitted in certain zones. Rather than permitting these uses outright, each is reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they do not negatively affect surrounding properties. For example, daycare centers are permitted in residential zones by special exception. The same is true of churches and private schools. All may be appropriate uses in residential zones, if certain criteria such as parking, screening, and other requirements are met. 2. Adjustments to specific zoning requirements in cases where there are unique circumstances. Again, the opportunity to adjust these requirements and the criteria for allowing such adjustments are described in the Zoning Code. For example, a homeowner may apply for a reduction in a building setback in order to accommodate an addition or other improvement to their property. The Zoning Code lists explicitly each use and standard for which a special exception may be considered. In other words, you can’t request a special exception for everything—only those things called out as special exceptions in the Code. The Code also provides criteria specific to each request. Applicants must provide evidence that they satisfy each of these criteria, and the Board must consider these criteria when making a determination as to whether to grant a special exception. What is a variance? A variance grants a legal right to an owner to develop property in a manner that deviates from a specific provision of the Zoning Code and for which a special exception is not expressly allowed. In seeking relief from the restrictions in the Zoning Code, the property owner applying for the variance must show that the strict application of the Zoning Code would cause and unnecessary hardship such that the property in question is unusable or that a literal interpretation of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the zoning district. In addition the circumstances that create this hardship must be unique to the property in question and must not be of the property owner’s own making. What is an appeal? The Board considers and rules on appeals from any citizen who believes there is an error in any decision, determination, or interpretation made by the City or its designee in the administration of the Zoning Code. As with their other decisions, the Board’s ruling is binding on all parties unless overturned on appeal to the District Court. How does the review process work? An application requesting a special exception, variance, or an appeal is a request. The Board makes a decision on whether to grant a specific request only after City staff have provided a review of an application and the public has had an opportunity to make its concerns known. The Board not only has the right to approve or deny requests, but may also choose to approve request subject to certain conditions. In making decisions, the Board may only consider comments and evidence relevant to the specific standards provided in the code. City Development Staff provide reports to the Board for each application on the agenda. The Staff Report provides background information on the application, informs the Board of all the criteria in the Code that a particular application must satisfy, and interprets whether and how an application has satisfied these criteria. How can I participate in the process? Because most applications will be reviewed and decided upon at a single public hearing, it is important for interested parties to respond in a timely and informed manner. Those who wish to speak for or against an application are given an opportunity to be heard by the Board at the hearing, but may also submit written comments prior to the meeting. Written comments must be delivered to the Department of Neighborhood & Development Services at City Hall no later than 5 days before the hearing in order to be included with the Staff Report. All correspondence submitted after that time will be delivered to the Board at the time of the hearing. The Board considers the application, the recommendation of staff (in the staff report) and any additional information, correspondence, or testimony provided at the hearing. Board of Adjustment hearings are usually held on the second Wednesday of each month at 5:15 p.m. in Emma J. Harvat Hall in City Hall. You can find more information at the following website: www.icgov.org/boa. The Staff Report can be very useful to anyone who is unfamiliar with the BOA process or with the Zoning Code and will provide an understanding of the criteria that the Board must consider in rendering its decision. Staff Reports may be obtained from the Department of Neighborhood & Development Services. E-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa- city.org to request a copy of a report. If you have questions about an application or if you simply want more information about issues related to the Board of Adjustment, please feel free to contact Kirk Lehmann at 319-356- 5230 or e-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa- city.org. To submit comments to the Board of Adjustment write to the Board of Adjustment c/o the Department of Neighborhood & Development Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City IA 52240 or e-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa- city.org. Board of Adjustment: Frequently Asked Questions HOLLYWOODBLVDBROADWAYST TAYLOR DRTRACY LN KEOKUK STSOUTHGATE AVE HIGHWAY6E PEPPERWOOD LN CROSS PARK AVE EXC21-0015947 Highway 6 East.µ 0 0.045 0.090.0225 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: September 2021 An application submitted by SouthGate Companiesfor a special exception allowing an indoor self-servicestorage use for approximately 34,000 sq. ft. of property located at 947 Highway 6 E. Mailing Name Mailing Address2 Mailing Address3 Mailing Zip Code SHELTER HOUSE COMMUNITY SHELTE429 SOUTHGATE AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52240 AGING SERVICES INC 740 N 15TH AVE STE - A HIAWATHA, IA 52233 GOOD NEWS BIBLE CHURCH 845 PEPPERWOOD LN IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY HOUSING ASSOC LP PO BOX 1226 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-1226 PEPPERWOOD PROPERTIES LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 PARKVIEW EVANGELICAL FREE CHUR15 FOSTER RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA MENNONITE CROWDED CLOSET851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 101 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 PEPPERWOOD PLAZA ASSOCIATION 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 GRD PEPPERWOOD LLC 1805 STATE ST STE 101 BETTENDORF, IA 52722 MGNS LLC PO BOX 5591 CORALVILLE, IA 52241 AT & T MOBILITY SERVICES 754 PEACHTREE ST NE 16 TH FLOOR - 16A21ATLANTA, GA 30308 October 13, 2021 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC21-0015 ATTACHMENT 4 Special Exception Application Submitted by the Applicant Project Description: SouthGate Companies is requesting a Special Exception for 947 Highway 6 E (former Slumberland space) to allow the use of indoor self-service storage with a wrap of small retail storefronts, within the CC-2 zoning. Special Exception Application: 9/9/2021: SouthGate Companies – 947 Hwy 6 E, Iowa City, IA Summary: SouthGate Companies is requesting a Special Exception for 947 Highway 6 E (former Slumberland space) to allow the use of indoor self-service storage with a wrap of small retail storefronts, within the CC-2 zoning. TENTATIVE Specific Criteria (14-4B-4C-10): Self Storage in CC-2 Zones a. All self-service storage units or areas shall be completely within conditioned space, as defined in the Building Code. No outdoor storage is allowed. SouthGate’s submitted draft site plan shows only indoor storage and retail use. b. 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. Said doors shall only be provided at the rear of the building. There will be 2 rear garage doors on the building and the storage units will be accessed from inside the building. c. A substantial portion of the front building façade 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. The submitted Site Plan shows retail use in the first 30’ of the building, with the except of a front entrance for the Self Storage business that meets the above criteria. d. 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. We have submitted a concept to the City of what the exterior will look like to meet these standards. We are currently working with an architect to put together formal construction plans. We expect them to be very similar to the concepts submitted. General Criteria (14-4B-3A): 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. This building will be a positive use and benefit to the community, and will be well maintained. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. This new business will support additional traffic flow to this shopping center, and will aid in maintaining values of neighboring property owners, if not improving. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. The front retail use is directly in line with the neighboring businesses, and the rear loading area will be similar in use to how Slumberland uses it currently, as a loading and drop off area. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. This is accurate. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. This shopping center has more than adequate infrastructure to support traffic flow as it is today. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. This is true. 7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. This is true. Lot 9, Pepperwood Plaza Subdivision, a resubdivision of a portion of block 1, Braverman Center, Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the plat thereof recorded in Book 52, Page 60, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. October 13, 2021 Board of Adjustment Meeting BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BYLAWS ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA Consideration of Amendments Prepared by Staff DATE: 10/1/2021 TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: SUSAN DULEK, ASS’T. CITY ATTORNEY KIRK LEHMANN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PROCEDURAL RULES Introduction. The October 13, 2021 agenda will include two proposed changes to the Board of Adjustment Procedural Rules (i.e., bylaws), a copy of which is attached. Notice to Nearby Properties - Article V / Section 1. The Board has discussed providing notice to additional persons living near the site. By way of background, the City first established the voluntary good neighbor program in 1998 to encourage dialogue between developers and adjacent properties owners. The program was most recently reviewed in 2013, but it has remained relatively stable over time and requires notice to neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. In March 2019, the Mayor requested further review of the policy after a consultation between the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Following numerous discussions, Council directed staff to proceed with the following changes to the good neighbor program at their May 4, 2021 work session: 1. Require good neighbor meetings for annexations, project-specific comprehensive plan map amendments and associated rezonings, and project-specific amendments to the zoning map. 2. Increase the notification radius to 500-feet. 3. Expand those notified to individual residences when the mailing addresses are easily attainable from the Assessor’s website. 4. Explore ways to increase electronic notification options. While these recommendations apply primarily to applications reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Neighborhood and Development Services (NDS) staff recommends that all Urban Planning applications include consistent requirements. For the Board of Adjustment, standards related to the good neighbor program are currently guided by Article V, which includes procedures on notice letters for nearby property owners, a newspaper notice publication, and posting of a notice sign on the property. Based on Council’s directives, NDS staff recommends increasing the notice letter radius from 300 to 500 feet and adding a requirement that such letters be sent to all non-duplicative individual occupants (when available on the City Assessor’s website). However, other recommended changes do not similarly apply to cases heard by the Board of Adjustment, or are better approached with a more comprehensive policy. The proposed amendment to the Procedural Rules is: Section 1. Notice Letters. No less than seven (7) business days prior to the public hearing, the Secretary of the Board shall send notice by mail to all property owners of record, and to all non- duplicative individual occupants (when available on the City Assessor’s website), within 5300 feet of the subject property. Such notice shall include a description of the action requested along with the time and location of the meeting. The applicant shall be formally notified of the time and place of the hearing, in writing, by the Secretary of the Board. Motion/Second by Chair - Article VI/Section 10. Chairperson Pretorius has requested the Board consider an amendment to remove the provision prohibiting the Chair from making or seconding a motion. I reviewed the bylaws for all the other City boards and commissions, and aside from the Board of Adjustment, only the Planning and Zoning Commission has such a provision. Also, the Mayor can make a motion and second a motion at a City Council meeting, and there is no such prohibition in state law or Robert’s Rules. Robert’s Rules does suggest that with large groups the Chair not make a motion or a second to ensure the appearance of impartiality. The proposed amendment to the Procedural Rules is: Section 10. Board Motions. Motions may be made and seconded by any member of the Board other than the Chair. Motions are always made in the affirmative, approving the requested action. Process. Article IX of the Procedural Rules require 3 members to approve an amendment to the bylaws. If approved, the proposed amendment will be forwarded to City Council for approval. (Council approves the bylaws for every City board and commission.) The amendment would be effective upon Council approval. The Board has three options, which in no particular order are: 1. Approve both proposed changes. 2. Approve only one of the proposed changes. 3. Not approve either of the proposed change. Due to both open meeting requirements and the Procedural Rules (Article IX), the Board cannot at the October 13 meeting approve a change that substantially modifies these two proposed changes and cannot approve a change to any other provision of the Procedural Rules. Those changes could occur at the November meeting with proper notice. We look forward to talking with you about these proposed changes at the October 13 meeting. Attachments. 1. Proposed changes to the Bylaws of the Board of Adjustment PROCEDURAL RULES Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 2021 ARTICLE I. AUTHORITY: The Iowa City Board of Adjustment shall have that authority which is conferred by Chapter 414 of the Code of Iowa; City Code Title 14, Chapter 7, entitled “Administration,” Article A, entitled “Board of Adjustment,” and through the adoption of these procedural rules stated herein. ARTICLE II. MEMBERSHIP: Section 1. Qualifications. The Board of Adjustment shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the City Council. All members of the Board shall be residents of Iowa City, Iowa. A majority of the members of the Board shall be persons representing the public at large and shall not be involved in the business of purchasing or selling real estate. Section 2. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for expenses incurred for travel outside the city on designated Board business. Such expenses must be submitted to the City Manager. Section 3. Orientation for New Members. Prior to the first regular meeting following their appointment, each new member shall be shall be given an orientation briefing by City staff and be provided with the Board’s procedural rules and other information that may be useful to Board members in carrying out their duties. The City Zoning Chapter and the Comprehensive Plan are available on line. Section 4. Absences. Three consecutive unexplained absences of a Board member from regular Board meetings may result in a recommendation to the City Council from the Board to discharge said member and appoint a new Board member. Members shall be removable for cause by the City Council upon written charges after a public hearing. Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy on the Board because of death, resignation, long-term illness, disqualification, or removal shall be filled for the unexpired term by the City Council after at least thirty (30) calendar days of public notice of the vacancy as required by law. Section 6. Terms. Members shall be appointed for terms of five years. No members shall be appointed to succeed themselves. However, a member appointed to fill an unexpired term with one year or less remaining may also be appointed concurrently for one full five (5) year term. Section 7. Resignations. Resignation should be submitted in writing to the Board Secretary, who will transmit the resignation to the City Council with copies to the City Manager, the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, and the Board Chairperson, preferably at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of intended departure. Section 8. Temporary Alternate. An alternate member, if available, shall be appointed as provided herein, to replace a member who is unable to participate in an appeal of an administrative decision due to a conflict of interest. Any person who has served as a member of the Board within the 5 years preceding the filing of the appeal, and who represents the public at large and is not involved in the business of purchasing or selling real estate, shall be qualified to serve as an alternate. When the member has recused himself/herself due to a conflict and the date of hearing before the Board has been set, the Secretary of the Board shall notify all such persons and the first to agree to serve as the a lternate is hereby appointed to do so. ARTICLE III. OFFICERS: Section 1. Number. The officers of the Board shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected by a majority vote of the members of the Board. The Board Secretary shall be a staff person, who is appointed by the Director of Planning and Community Development. Section 2. Election and Term of Office. The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be elected annually at the first regular meeting of the Board each year. Section 3. Vacancies. A vacancy in the office of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification, or other cause shall be filled by election from the members of the Board for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings, call special meetings, and in general perform all duties incident to the office of a Chairperson, and such other duties as may be prescribed by the members from time to time. Such Chairperson may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. Section 5. Vice-Chairperson. When the Chairperson is absent or abstaining, the Vice-Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson. Section 6. Acting Chairperson. In the absence and/or due to the abstention of both the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, the remaining three-member Board may elect a member to serve as Acting Chairperson. The Acting Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and when so acting shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson. Section 7. Secretary. The appointed staff person, who serves as the Board’s Secretary, shall be responsible for maintaining the office of the Board, receiving and filing Board decisions and orders, posting and publishing notices as required by law, and for maintaining minutes and other records of the Board’s proceedings. ARTICLE IV. APPLICATIONS: Section 1. Application Forms. Any application for a request or appeal to the Board of Adjustment shall be filed with the City Clerk on forms provided by the Secretary of the Board. The Secretary’s office is located in the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services. Forms are available in the office of the City Clerk and on the City’s website. In the appropriate cases, the Building Inspector shall transmit to the Secretary all documents constituting a record, upon which the Board shall act. Section 2. Application Submittal. Appeals to the Board shall be filed with the City Clerk within a reasonable time period, not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days after the action appealed from, and shall specify the grounds for such appeal. An appeal from a decision by the Building Inspector to issue a building permit shall not be deemed to have been filed within a reasonable time if such appeal is filed more than ten (10) business days after construction work pursuant to such permit is observable from adjacent properties of the public right-of-way or ten (10) business days after an alleged violation of the zoning code is similarly observable. Applicants may appeal an approval or a denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission within a conservation district by filing a letter with the City Clerk within ten (10) business days after a Resolution of Denial is filed by the Commission. Section 3. Application Filing Fee. The applicant shall complete the required forms, providing all information requested on the form, and any additional information as requested by the Secretary of the Board. A filing fee shall be paid upon presentation of the application. Application fees are established by resolution of the City Council. Section 4. Party of Interest. Requests for a variance or special exception must be filed on behalf of the real party in interest, such as the owner or contract purchaser. Section 5. Case Number. An application filed according to the above procedure shall be given a case number within five (5) business days of the filing date. Case numbers will be assigned according to the order in which applications are received. ARTICLE V. NOTICE: Section 1. Notice Letters. No less than seven (7) business days prior to the public hearing, the Secretary of the Board shall send notice by mail to all property owners of record, and to all non- duplicative individual occupants (when available on the City Assessor’s website), within 3500 feet of the subject property. Such notice shall include a description of the action requested along with the time and location of the meeting. The applicant shall be formally notified of the time and place of the hearing, in writing, by the Secretary of the Board. Section 2. Newspaper Notice. Notice of the time and place of public hearings shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation not more than twenty (20) calendar day nor less than seven (7) business days prior to the hearing. It shall contain the street address or location of the property and a brief description of the nature of the application or appeal. Section 3. Notice Sign. No less than seven (7) business days prior to the public hearing, the Applicant shall post a sign on or near the property upon which the application is being made, and shall remove the sign immediately following the public hearing on the application. The sign will be provided to the applicant(s) by the Board Secretary. ARTICLE VI. HEARING: Section 1. Regular Hearings. Hearings will be held as needed at a regular time and place to be set by the members of the Board. Section 2. Special Hearings. Special hearings or meetings of the Board may be called by the Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson at the request of three (3) or more members of the Board. Section 3. Place of Hearings. All hearings and meetings of the Board shall be open to the public and shall be in a place accessible to people with disabilities. Section 4. Quorum. Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum. Section 5. Applicant Representation. The applicant may, at the time of the public hearing, appear on their own behalf and be represented by agent and/or counsel. The applicant or their representative may present oral argument and testimony; witnesses, including experts; and may submit written evidence and exhibits in the form of statements, photos, charts, or other relevant evidence. In the absence of the applicant or their representative(s), the Board may proceed to act on the matter based on the information provided. Section 6. Briefs. The Board may request written briefs for legal argument. Applicants may submit written briefs if they so choose. Section 7. Conduct of Hearing. Order and decorum shall be maintained at the hearing by the Chairperson of the Board of Adjustment, so as to allow an orderly presentation of evidence wherever possible. The Chair may swear witnesses and direct order of testimony. The Chair shall avoid testimony that is overly redundant. The Chair may provide for recesses during the deliberation, as appropriate. Any Board member who has a legal conflict of interest shall recuse him/ herself from the decision- making process. A member who has a legal conflict of interest or otherwise elects to recuse him/herself due to a perceived conflict of interest shall state the reason for recusal prior to discussion of the matter under consideration and may choose to leave the meeting room for the duration of the proceedings for that application. Section 8. Hearing Order. The order of hearing shall be as follows: 1. Staff presentation of the facts of the case and recommendation to the board. 2. Statement by proponents of the application. 3. Statement by opponents of the application. 4. Rebuttal by proponents and then by opponents. 5. General discussion by the Board. Section 9. Board Deliberation. After all parties have been heard, the public hearing will be declared closed so that the Board may deliberate the case. The Board must state findings of fact and conclusions of law. These facts and legal conclusions must be set forth in writing as requir ed by Iowa law. The Board may request additional comments from the participants. An application may be deferred or withdrawn at the request of the applicant at any time before a decision is made by the Board. Section 10. Board Motions. Motions may be made and seconded by any member of the Board other than the Chair. Motions are always made in the affirmative, approving the requested action. Section 11. Board Voting. After a motion and discussion, the Board shall be polled for votes. A board member may abstain from voting, which is a non-vote. The concurring vote of three (3) members of the Board shall be required to uphold an appeal, to decide in favor of a special exception, or to grant a variance. Voting on Board decisions will be by roll call and will be recorded by yeas and nays. Proxy votes are not allowed. Section 12. Legal Advisor. The City Attorney or a designated representative shall act as legal counsel to the Board. Section 13. Conduct of Meetings. Except as otherwise provided herein, Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be used to conduct Board hearings and meetings. ARTICLE VII. RECORDS: Section 1. Record of Hearings. Audio recordings shall be made for all hearings and such recordings shall be kept for a period of no less than six (6) weeks. Minutes shall be produced from such recordings, and forwarded to the City Council after approval by the Board or the Secretary of the Board. All minutes shall be maintained by the Secretary of the Board, and shall also be on file at the City Clerk’s office. The applicant may request a court reporter at the applicant’s own expense. Section 2. Case Files. The Secretary of the Board shall keep a file of all cases, including forms and additional information. Said file shall be a public record and available for public inspection during business hours. Copies may be made available upon request, at cost. Section 3. Transcript. Upon request, a transcript or the audio recording of the Board’s deliberation will be made, at cost to the requestor. In the case of an appeal to district court there is no charge for the transcript. ARTICLE VIII. DECISIONS: Section 1. Whenever possible, decisions by the Board shall be made at the same hearing wherein the testimony and presentation of evidence are considered. Section 2. Formal decisions shall be made in writing, setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Iowa law. Section 3. Each decision shall be filed with the City Clerk within a reasonable time after the Board hearing, and shall be stamped by the Clerk to indicate the date and time of filing. The Clerk will forward the decision to the Johnson County Recorder’s Office, for recording at the city’s expense. Section 4. A copy of said decision shall be forwarded by the Secretary of the Board to the applicant, the Building Inspector, the City Attorney’s Office, and any Attorney of Record within a reasonable time after filing with the City Clerk. Section 5. Reconsideration: Upon written request, the Board may reconsider a decision on a special exception or variance application. A request for reconsideration must be made within ten (10) business days of the meeting at which a vote on the application was originally taken and shall articulate and be based on evidence that was not presented or was unavailable at the time of the original hearing. A motion to reconsider must be made at the subsequent meeting by a member of the Board who voted on the prevailing side. If a motion to reconsider is approved, the application will be placed on the agenda of the next meeting in order to satisfy the requirement for public notice and hearing. No decision may be reconsidered more than once. Appeals to the Board may not be reconsidered. ARTICLE IX. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROCECURAL RULES. Section 1. A concurring vote of three (3) of the members of the Board shall be necessary to amend these procedural rules. Such proposed amendments shall be presented in writing at any regular meeting or at any special meeting called for that purpose. Amendments shall go into effect upon approval by the City Council. October 13, 2021 Board of Adjustment Meeting PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA September 8, 2021 Prepared by Staff MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 – 5:15 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles, Amy Pretorius, Mark Russo MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryce Parker STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Pugh, Joe Meyers, John Brehm, Benjamin Samaniego and Jorge Medina CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Pretorius outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Request to reconsider the decision for EXC21-0009 dated August 11, 2021 (An application submitted by Axiom Consultants requesting a special exception to allow a 50 percent parking reduction for other unique circumstances and to allow parking within the exterior walls of a building in a CB-10 zone to construct a new mixed-use building at 21 S. Linn Street). Dulek stated this item on the agenda is a request to reconsider a decision the Board made on a special exception at the last meeting. This is not about the substance of the application, but whether the Board wishes to reconsider its decision. To do that, someone who voted in the majority will need to make the motion, so that would be Board member Carlson, Chrischilles, or Russo, and anybody can second except the Chair. If no motion is made, or if it dies for lack of a second, the item will not be discussed, and the Board will move on to the next item on the agenda. The Board will first hear on behalf of the person requesting the reconsideration, Mike Pugh, the applicant’s attorney, but first does the Board have any procedural questions. Chrischilles asked if there will be discussion if no one makes a motion. Dulek replied if no motion and second, then no Board discussion. Mike Pugh (Pugh Hagan Prahm Law Firm) is here on behalf of the applicant as their representative. They submitted the request for reconsideration in writing and that was also supplemented by correspondence from Andy Savoy, who is the development specialist for CA Ventures. Pugh stated the procedural rules for the Board permit the applicant to put forth and speak at the Board in support of their application and then opponents are permitted an opportunity to voice any concerns or opposition in connection with that application. But then, importantly for the applicant, the applicant should be given a chance to rebut any information or Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 2 of 24 comments that were supplied by people that oppose that application. Their request centers around Bob Miklo’s letter that was received by the Board an hour or so before the meeting, which the applicant never received until the next day. Therefore, in their presentation before the Board, the applicant didn't get a chance to address Mr. Miklo’s comments or the points that he made and didn't get a chance to rebut those items. The Board received a copy and proceeded to discuss the contents of Mr. Miklo’s letter, but the applicant never saw it. They did not see the letter until the next day. Additionally, part of the issue with Mr. Miklo’s letter is that he's a former senior planner for the City of Iowa City and when Mr. Lehmann produced the staff report, which was very detailed in this particular case, and supported approving the application, that report is done with objectivity and an analysis of the code at the time. The staff reports are very detailed, going through all of the specific factors and in this particular case, Mr. Lehmann and the staff recommended approval. The first thing Mr. Milko states in his letter is that he's a former senior planner and therefore the letter was written in a cloak of objectivity in its analysis of the code. But make no mistake, that letter was written in a persuasive fashion, and left out certain details and certain facts were twisted, and the applicant should have had a chance to rebut. The situation is the application was presented, had a favorable recommendation from the staff, there was no other opponent that spoke at the meeting, the only bit of resistance or negative comments came from Mr. Miklo’s letter that the applicant never even saw. Pugh asks the Board then, but for Mr. Miklo’s letter would the vote have turned out differently, the applicants think the answer is clearly yes, and they'd like an opportunity to rebut that information that Mr. Miklo provided and the way he provided it to the Board. Mr. Savoy presented some of that information in his letter but the analysis between their project and their peer group, which is only a few projects in town, the data concerning the parking requirements for student housing like the CA Ventures project is critical. Most importantly is all of the variety of ways in which this project is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Milko conflates the Comprehensive Plan with the code and Ms. Dulek did an excellent job at the meeting trying to steer the direction to really what the Comprehensive Plan is, but Mr. Miklo’s letter conflates the two. Pugh stated there's a whole host information that the applicant can provide in terms of showing how their project is in fact in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and they respectfully request an opportunity to do so. Russo asked how they were left out of that information. Lehmann replied the letter came in late so copies were printed off for the Board, but not enough copies were printed for the applicant. He asked the applicant if they were fine waiting until the next day to get a copy and they were, but they did not get a chance to see the letter in advance. Chrischilles noted in their informational packets for this current meeting, Mr. Pugh’s points of rebuttal are included as well as another set of rebuttals from Mr. Miklo and asked Mr. Pugh if he would not consider that and the time here requesting the reconsideration as a rebuttal. Mr. Pugh replied the way the procedural rules work, they cannot discuss the substantive issues this evening and the only issue before the Board is whether the request for reconsideration should be granted and to do so they had to put forth some minimal explanation for the request. If the Board would grant a reconsideration, then at a subsequent Board meeting they would present the weight of the evidence and information. Dulek confirmed should there be a vote and a second to reconside r, at the next meeting they will publish the public hearing, open the public hearing, and hear from anybody on any subject having to do with that application, it will be a new meeting. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 3 of 24 Russo moved to reconsider the decision for EXC21-0009 dated August 11, 2021 (An application submitted by Axiom Consultants requesting a special exception to allow a 50 percent parking reduction for other unique circumstances and to allow parking within the exterior walls of a building in a CB-10 zone to construct a new mixed-use building at 21 S. Linn Street). No second, motion dies. Russo asked in light of the fact that one Board member is absent due to being abroad serving the military, does the applicant get a chance to make another request. Dulek replied no. Russo moved deferral of the reconsideration, no one seconded the motion, and motion failed. There was no second to the motion to reconsider, and it failed for lack of a second. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC21-0013: An application submitted by lmOn Communications requesting a special exception to allow a basic utility use in a Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone to build a telecommunications hub at 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard. Pretorius opened the public hearing. Lehmann stated tonight's application is from ImOn for a basic utility use in a CC -2 zone at 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard in the Walden Square development. Walden Square contains a mix of uses, primarily commercial with some residential above, apartments to the north and west and across Mormon Trek Boulevard are some single-family homes. The single-family homes are away from where the use is proposed. It is currently zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and most areas around it are also CC-2 with some low density residential multifamily to the north and west, and low-density single family across Mormon Trek Boulevard. ImOn is a local telecommunications provider, they provide cable, internet and some other services within Iowa City and are seeking to expand their service capabilities. ImOn has applied to establish a telecommunications hub at 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard, and it would be attached to the north side of the garages on the west side of the property. A basic utility use is allowed by special exception when not enclosed within a building that houses another principal use. The hub will require screening around it to the S3 standard because of the residential properties, but the building itself is relatively small at 15’ by 16’. Again, it would be screened by landscaping and there would be a retention wall to the north as well. Lehmann showed on a map where the property is located, and the site plan shows screening to the north and west and a retaining wall to the north. ImOn is also proposing a generator with a fence that would be in that area. Lehmann then showed pictures. The pavement is already expanded to the front of the proposed use but there is a grade change that necessitates the retaining wall. Lehmann showed the building concept submitted with the application, the building is roughly the same size of the garage, just a little taller at 10’. It would extend past the garages an additional 16’ to 15’ in depth and it would have HVAC units on the back. Lehmann noted it is an unmanned site. The role of the Board of Adjustment is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based on the facts presented. To approve the special exception the Board must find Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 4 of 24 that it meets all applicable approval criteria including both specific standards for the waiver requested and the general standards for all special exceptions. The specific standards are located at section 14-4B-4D-1B-2 which says in all commercial zones basic utilities not enclosed within a building with another primary use 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 the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding structures and uses with regards to safety, size, height, scale, location and design particularly for facilities located close to/or within view of residential zones. Lehmann began first with how the proposed uses must be screened from public view and from the view of any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. He noted the use is at the rear of a lot and not in public view, defined as highly visible from a public street, sidewalk, access easement or other public way or from a public park or o ther public open space. Regarding proposed screening, the site plan shows S3 screening to the north and the west where there are the adjacent residential uses, to the south are the existing garages and there's also the block retaining wall to the north. Screening standards are typically reviewed during site plan when the applicant will submit a landscaping plan and staff would review the standards, but based on the concept, staff anticipates that they will meet S3 standards. Secondly, it's compatible with surrounding structures and uses. In this case, the basic utility use would be an enclosed structure and would have a locked door that would prevent unauthorized access, which would help mitigate public health and safety issues. The proposed structure is one story so it's in scale with the surrounding structures that are one or two stories, though it is slightly taller than the existing garages. Staff would recommend a condition because it is attached to those garages that the proposed structure match the design of the existing building, specifically regarding colors, textures, materials, roof pitch and related features, to help provide visual continuity between the new building and existing buildings. Lehmann next discussed the seven general special exceptions standards at 14-4B-3 that pertain to all special exceptions. The first is that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He stated again that the use is in an enclosed structure with a locked door which prevents access and mitigates public health and safety issues. There is a small generator that would support the use directly west of the site, it’s about 12 feet from the west lot line. Based on the information provided by the applicant, staff expects it to produce approximately 64 decibels of sound, which is somewhat similar to air conditioning units about 100 feet away at 60 decibels, TV audio and vacuum cleaners at about 70 decibels, and approximately the range of a normal conversation. The site plan includes a six-foot-tall privacy fence enclosing the generator, and the staff recommends a condition that the fence be solid to help mitigate any potential spillover sound into adjacent properties. In addition, the use will also provide internet and cable options to Iowa City residents improving general welfare. The second criterion is 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. Lehmann stated the use will allow for another internet service provider in Iowa City and increased bandwidth capabilities. Also, the proposed structure Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 5 of 24 is small at only 240 square feet and is in the far northwest corner of the property and screened from adjacent residential uses. Staff did recommend the condition regarding design as well which helps mitigate impacts on surrounding properties. Lehmann reiterated there is a generator that will produce sound, but with staff’s condition they don’t believe that is an issue. The third is that the exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses in the district. The property and surrounding lots are fully developed, and the structure is set back from adjacent lot lines. Staff believes that landscaping improvements will mitigate visual impacts and therefore that this criterion is met. The fourth criterion is that there are adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities. Again, Lehmann noted the area is fully developed with access to utilities and other necessary facilities. However, staff will also review compliance with all applicable standards during the site plan and building permit review required as part of the process. The fifth criterion is that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The property generally ha s adequate circulation and parking and there is an access alley from Westwinds Drive. Because the site is unmanned, it's not expected to substantially increase traffic and should only need occasional maintenance. There is a dumpster directly east of the project but there appears to be adequate space for parking between the enclosure and the structure and adequate space for garbage trucks to continue to access the structure. There's also a pedestrian route proposed north of the building to provide access to that generator per the site plan. Criterion six is except for the specific regulations and standards applicable, the exception has met all other standards of the zoning code. Lehmann explained in this case there are no minimum parking requirements for basic utility uses. The property is east of properties that are zoned low density multifamily residential, so for commercial zones, the rear setback must equal the setback of the abutting residential zone. In this case, that setback is 20 feet for the RM-12 zone and the site plan shows the property is currently set back 17 feet, so it is slightly short of the requirement. The applicant can either shift the building three feet to the east or they could request a minor modification to reduce the setback by three feet. Based on staff’s preliminary review, it appears that it would meet the requirements for a minor modification, but it would need to be approved prior to site plan review. As far as other setbacks, the generator meets accessory use setbacks, which are different than those for main setbacks, so it can be closer to the property line. Other standards also appear to be met. But staff again would ensure compliance during site planning and building permit review. Finally, it must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan shows the future land use designation for this area as general commercial, and the Southwest District Plan shows it as neighborhood commercial. Generally, the Southwest District Plan encourages the development of businesses that provide goods, services and amenities to the neighborhood. Based on these findings staff feel that this criterion is met. Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0013, to establish a basic utility use for the property located at 755 Mormon Trek Blvd, subject to the following conditions: 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 Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 6 of 24 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. Carlson asked if this Board has to say anything about the fact that the setback is only 17 feet and require the approval be based on either they have to move it or they have to ask for a minor modification. Lehmann stated the Board does not because as currently proposed, the application would have to be adjusted in some way, whether it's through a minor mod ification or through an increased setback during site plan or the site plan couldn't be approved. That being said, the Board could say if they would prefer one or the other, that they shift the building or get a minor modification, that would be within the purview of the Board. Russo asked how close the nearest residence is. Lehmann stated it is set back a way, not sure exactly the distance but there is green space and parking in between. Russo asks because he is concerned about the noise spillover from the generator and is there another avenue that this can be addressed. Lehmann replied there are noise regulations in the City that could come into play if it was a nuisance and affect the peace of the neighbors. Lehmann stated he believes that they would have recourse where the generator would have to be moved or additional screening provided. Joe Meyers (engineer, ImOn Communications) first addressed the generator, it will only run on a five minute exercise cycle during the business day so it would come on like once for probably 15 minutes during the day, and the only other time it will come on is if they lose commercial power. It's a backup generator. As for what's inside the building, there's the power supply in there, it's neg 48 which is a low voltage power, and they’re going to have their equipment that they will actually use to provide fiber to the homes. The only voltage that's going to be going up there is for the 200-amp single phase to the structure itself. Meyers noted he did one similar on F Street and First Avenue over by HyVee a couple of years back that was similar for that part of town. He also noted there's no flat part of Mormon Trek Boulevard, so they felt this was the best spot as the exterior is going to match perfectly to the struc ture. All they’re going to do is extend it out 16 feet and they wouldn't have problems coming in the other two feet but would really need a little extra room for rack separation, because there's going to be equipment racks in there. As far as any kind of harm to the public or anything like that, it doesn't exist there. Pretorius closed the public hearing. Pretorius asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion. Russo moved for approval EXC21-0013 to establish a basic utility use for the property located at 755 Mormon Trek Blvd, subject to the following conditions: 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. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 7 of 24 Chrischilles seconded the motion. Russo stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0013 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of this meeting date, September 8, 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. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. Pretorius 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 ITEMS: The next items are special exceptions to allow for drive-through facilities. Each will be discussed and voted on separately, but the public hearings will run concurrently. EXC21-0003: An 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 #3 located at 1125 N. Dodge Street. Pretorius opened the public hearing. Lehmann stated this is a special exception to allow a drive-through use for their Aisles Online program. At the 1125 North Dodge location, the grocery store is in the northeast corner of the site and parking is to the southeast. There are commercial and residential uses to the south and institutional and commercial uses to the east. To the west, and northwest, there's some single - family residential uses and to the south there are a couple single family residential uses, but most of it is commercial. To the east is the former HyVee site. The site is currently zoned community commercial and there are single family zones to the north and west, more community commercial to the south, some multifamily zoning to the south where there's a cemetery, and then a neighborhood commercial zone to the east. In terms of background, LT Leon Associates applied on behalf of HyVee for the Aisles Online drive-throughs. The grocery store on the property is about 57,000 square feet and was constructed in 2014. The lot itself is large at about 6.27 acres, but the drive-through facility would only be on a small portion of that. The property was first zoned community commercial with a planned development overlay in 2013. That OPD was required to accommodate sensitive features that are on the site, specifically steep slopes. However, because of the conditions that were incorporated as part of conditional zoning agreement, they needed to rezone it even though drive-through facilities are allowed by special exception. Specifically, it did not meet the conditions of the original conditional zoning agreement that required it to match the site plan when adding in drive-through facilities and a new kiosk. The property was rezoned to the same zone CC-2 with an OPD on August 17, 2021, to revise the conditional zoning agreement but there are still five conditions. The first is that a buffer area screened to the S3 standard shall be established along the western property line and a masonry wall shall be provided where the buffer is less than 35 feet. Second that no signs are allowed in the 35-foot buffer, or to the north Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 8 of 24 or west of the convenience store, which is located on the southwest corner of the site, except for a monument sign. Additionally, no more than two freestanding signs are allowed along Dodge Street and other signs are allowed per code. Third, that any structures including canopies shall be of a quality design appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features such as masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors and designs to be approved by the design review committee prior to issuance of a building permit. The fourth condition is that existing evergreen screening and mature trees be preserved along the northwest side of the property where possible. Finally, the development and landscaping shall be consistent with the plan dated June 8, 2021 and Lehmann noted the site plan that they submitted for this application is the same that they had submitted for that rezoning. Chrischilles asked where this was to be built. Lehmann stated it would replace the parking aisle closest to St. Clement Street. Chrischilles asked if they want to build a canopy over the whole thing. Lehmann stated no, the canopy would only be over their unloading area. They can have basically four cars in a row that would be waiting, and then have two loading zones in each lane. Regarding vehicular access to the site, Lehmann said there are three access points on North Dodge, but the eastern most is only for loading and is not a public access point. Then there are also two access points on St. Clement Street and all are connected by internal drives and east/west parking aisles. As far as pedestrian routes, there are two access points on North Dodge and two on St. Clement Street, there are also pedestrian pathways along the front of the building, there's one that goes through the middle of the parking lot and where those pedestrian paths cross internal drives they are demarcated by colored pavement currently. Regarding the proposed drive-through, it replaces the existing parking near St. Clement Street. It will be pickup only, there won't be any order boards or intercom systems. The site plan includes a pedestrian pathway that would allow employees to bring orders to the kiosk. Again, the drive -through will be at the north center part of the site, it would be three drive-through lanes, with two parking stalls plus four stacking stalls behind them. There are also small parking areas in the entry and exit areas. Lehmann noted it retains two-way movement at the entry and exit areas but the drive-through lane itself would be one direction, from east to west. Carlson asked about the sidewalk. Lehmann replied the sidewalk is for the employees to bring groceries to the kiosk and it was built from the existing sidewalk, which goes into the front of the store to the east. It crosses the internal drive outside of the drive-through area where it is marked as a crossing, and then connects into the area of marked pavement. That would be a clear zone for employees and then the kiosk is slightly to the west of that. The lanes would be marked by paint in the loading areas where employees could walk to the cars and the canopy would be over where they load. The kiosk would block the canopy from the residential area to the north so they wouldn't see the canopy as much. Carlson asked if the canopy has lights in it, Lehmann believes yes but noted the applicant can also speak to that. Lehmann showed an image of what it looks like today, right now it's just a parking aisle with a temporary Aisles Online building that looks like a storage container. He pointed out a lot of the parking spaces are already reserved for Aisles Online customers. As for current screening, there is existing screening and the application states that it would replace it all or they could retain as much as possible as long as they have a landscaping plan that meets the applicable standards. Looking west they can see the residences across St. Clement Street and the Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 9 of 24 screening there as well. He showed what the pedestrian crossing currently looks like and noted the applicant also submitted a concept that shows the kiosk and the canopy. The canopy only covers a few of the parking spaces and it doesn't extend the length of the kiosk. There are no windows in the kiosk but it would have doors. The canopy extends enough so that people loading groceries would be underneath the roof if it is raining or snowing. The role of the Board is to approve, approve with conditions or deny the applications based on the facts presented tonight. The applications have to meet all applicable approval criteria with specific standards pertaining to drive-through facilities, and then the general standards that apply to all special exceptions. One of the reasons staff wanted to run these all at once is because the specific standards for drive-throughs can be long and there are three subsections of them for access and circulation, location and design standards. As they proceed through the other applications, Lehmann will try to abridge his comments as much as possible. The first criterion is at 14-4C-2K-3a regarding access and circulation, that 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 following criteria. First, wherever possible and practical drive-through lanes shall be accessed from secondary streets, alleys or shared cross access drives. In this case, Lehmann noted the public access points for the property are two off North Dodge and two on St. Clement Street, both of which are local streets, and those access points are connected by north/south internal drives and parking aisles. The proposed use is accessed from an internal cross access drive, not directly from the street, and it would exit into the surface parking lot. While there are two small parking areas that have two-way access, there appears to be sufficient room for maneuvering and the drive-through lanes are one-way. In terms of what this looks like on a map, Lehmann pointed out the four public access points, the north/south cross access drives, the east/west parking aisles, and the pedestrian routes. The second criterion is to provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving the use may be limited. In this case, no changes to curb cuts are being proposed. For safe pedestrian movement, pedestrian access will be retained and a sidewalk route will be added to the Aisles Online kiosk for employees. The existing route already has colored pavement where it crosses the internal drive and that crossing is approximately 20 feet long. There will also be additional painted areas that will provide access from the kiosk to individual cars to facilitate safety while loading orders. The third criterion is related to stacking spaces, there must be enough so that safety is not compromised. A minimum of four is recommended for nonfood related drive-through facilities and the Board may reduce the number of stacking spaces if the applicant can demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristics, such that the recommended number of spaces is excessive. Lehmann pointed out there are three drive-through lanes with six stacking spaces each so a total of 18 vehicles can stack there. The facility is for pickup only, not ordering, so it meets that required minimum. Peak hours provided by the applicant are estimated form 4pm to 6pm Monday through Friday. Staff believes the drive-through lanes are far enough from the access drive to accommodate some potential spillover traffic, which minimizes safety impacts, but staff recommends substantial compliance with the site plan as a condition of approval to ensure that the traffic safety is not compromised. Fourth, sufficient on-site signage and Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 10 of 24 pavement markings shall be provided to indicate direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossing, stop signs, no entrance areas, and other controls for safe pedestrian and vehicular movement. Lehmann noted there are directional arrows at all drive-through entrances and exits. The signage will direct vehicles to the drive-through, the canopy also serves as wayfinding and then pavement markings denote the drive-through lanes and loading areas and there are no pedestrian routes that cross the drive-through lanes. Where there is a pedestrian crossing to the north it is demarcated with colored pavement to promote safe pedestrian movements the staff believes that this criterion is met. With regards to location where drive-throughs are allowed, there's a location standard that drive-through lanes and service windows must be located on a non-street facing facade unless the applicant can demonstrate that a street facing location is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site and does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access and does not compromise the character of the street shape or neighborhood in which it is located. In this case, the drive-through lanes are on the non-street facing side of the kiosk. Also the drive- through lanes have to be set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and public rights-of- way and screened from view. The drive-through lanes are approximately 30 feet from St. Clement Street and they will be screened by the kiosk and landscaping which would be at the S3 standard because it's residential uses across the street. Staff will review that at the time of site plan review when they receive a landscaping plan with the detailed screening. With regards to 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 it is located. The Board may adjust standards as always. As far as the sub- criteria with this one, to promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive-through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking spaces do not diminish the design quality the streetscape, or safety of the pedestrian environment. In this case, the drive-through lane is proposed in a central location on the north side across from St. Clement Street from single family homes and some duplexes. The site plan shows three 10- to 12-foot-wide drive-through lanes partially under an awning with the kiosk. Most of the paving replaces existing paving. There are two parking islands that are proposed to be removed which are affected by the project. Again because this is across the street from residential uses, S3 screening is required and the landscaping along St. Clement Street would be replaced per the site plan. Landscaping also has comply with parking landscaping standards located at 14-5A-5I which states all parking spaces have to be within a certain distance of trees. Because they are removing islands that have trees in them, they may not comply with that so staff will make sure their site plan complies during site plan review. The conditional zoning agreement (CZA) also requires a staff review of the kiosk to ensure the design is appropriate for property near residential neighborhoods which is required prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff also believes that the proposed improvements will maintain safety and not negatively affect the streetscape or pedestrian environments, so this criterion is met. Second is that drive-through lanes, bays and stacking spaces shall be screened from views from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard unless it's across from residential property and then it must be S3. As mentioned, St. Clement Street would need to be screened to the S3 standard. Although part Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 11 of 24 of the drive-through lanes would be screened by the kiosk, the rest would be future landscaping incorporated in the landscaping plan. Third, multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane should be considered to reduce idling on site. This is a pickup only location and employees come out to load vehicles so there are no windows provided, but they do provide multiple lanes and they use incremental time slots to try and reduce idling on site. Four, 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. The proposed project creates no new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts, however there will be employees going into the par ked areas so there are some conflicts where employees load vehicles that's relatively sporadic, and it doesn't affect pedestrian access. There may also be some conflicts between vehicles accessing the drive-through lanes and those accessing the parking at the entry and exit but staff believes there's adequate room to maneuver and adequate signage and pavement markings to help direct traffic. Again, the CZA design review condition helps ensure that the building is integrated in the surrounding streetscape and the proposed facility is similar to existing uses, which are auto-oriented so staff believes that the proposed use will be consistent. Fifth, that lighting for the drive-through must comply with outdoor lighting standards and must be designed to prevent light trespass and glare on to neighboring residential properties. Lehmann noted there is a photometric plan that's submitted as part of the application but generally lighting is reviewed at site plan and if there are issues, they would need to address it to meet the code standards. The sixth condition was repealed. The final specific conditions is that loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses, with special consideration given to uses next to residential uses. In this case there are no loudspeakers or intercom systems as part of this project but staff recommends a condition that no external loudspeakers or intercom systems be installed to mitigate any future issues. All three of the applications have these findings and this condition. Regarding the seven general standards, for this site at 1125 North Dodge, first the specific proposed special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Lehmann noted the facility isn't expected to increase traffic to the site because it should replace in-store trips which should minimize some of the issues. As far as traffic circulation and access goes, staff believes it is adequate for drive-through traffic as long as it conforms to that site plan as submitted. Staff also recommends that drive-through lanes remain pickup only to help keep smooth traffic flow rather than installing future systems. No new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed facility except where vehicles will be loaded by employees. And while there are some potential conflicts between vehicles that are parking and vehicles utilizing the drive-through lanes, staff doesn't see that as an issue so staff believes that this criterion is met. The second criterion is regarding whether the use will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of property in the immediate vicinity or affect property values negatively. Lehmann stated the screening and kiosk will mitigate impacts of the streetscape and adjacent properties. Again, the conditional zoning agreement requires design review so staff would review that prior to issuance of a building permit. In this case, the proposed facility is adjacent to residential uses so staff recommends that the hours of operation be limited from 6am to 9pm weekdays and from 6am to Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 12 of 24 10pm on weekends to mitigate potential noise impacts. Finally, no loudspeakers or intercom systems are provided as part of this project. The third criterion is if the special exception will affect development or improvement of surrounding properties. Lehmann noted the area is fully developed with a mix of uses, residential, commercial and institutional, and staff doesn't believe redevelopment is affected. Fourth, to ensure there's adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities. Again, it's a developed area it's got access to all necessary facilities. Pedestrian access is maintained and internal circulation is sufficient. The project will include relocating an electric vehicle charging station that's currently on the site and a light pole/vertical wind turbine but that would be reviewed as part of site plan review and they are showing that it would be moved. Fifth criterion is regarding traffic congestion and public streets. Lehmann stated there is adequate space for 18 vehicles to stack in the drive-through lanes and some additional space for overflow. Everything's accessed from internal drives and exits into the parking area and there's signage and pavement markings to help direct traffic. Staff doesn't believe it's going to affect anything on public streets with regards to ingress or egress. Criterion six states it must conform with all other zoning standards. As far as parking goes, HyVee has more than enough parking, 215 parking spaces would be retained which is well above the 189 spaces required, even after losing an entire parking aisle. There are two tree planters that would be removed and as Lehmann previously mentioned in standard 14-5A-5I it requires that every parking space is within 40 feet of a small tree or 60 feet of a large tree. So depending on the size of the trees that are being retained along the streets, new planters may be needed to comply with the standards and that would be reviewed as part of the landscaping plan during site plan review. Again, there's also the CZA requirement for design review to ensure that it's compatible to adjacent residential neighborhoods and other standards would be reviewed during site plan and building permit review. Finally, the seventh criterion is that the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map shows this as general commercial and North District Plan shows it as retail community commercial. The Comprehensive Plan supports encouraging retention and expansion of existing businesses and the current land use is consistent and won't change because of the approved exception. Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0003, to allow a drive-through facility for the property located at 1125 N. 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. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 13 of 24 Carlson asked about the hours of operation, it’s mentioned in this exception but there's no mention of hours of operation on the other two and wondered why. Lehmann stated hours of operation are not a standard, the special exception is a discretionary process. In this case, the use is directly adjacent to residential uses. In the other cases, the drive-through facilities are predominantly across the street from commercial uses, so staff believed it was appropriate in this case and not in the other cases. However, if the Board would like they could add time limitations on other ones as well. Carlson asked what the hours of operation for that store are. Staff did not look at the hours of operation of the store, but these do fit within the hours expected by the applicant. The other part of it is that store hours may change but this condition would follow the property if there were new owners or if the store hours changed. Staff moved onto the next application, noting the applicant will speak at the end of all three, as well as answer any Board questions. EXC21-0004: An 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. Lehmann stated this is a similar use at 1720 Waterfront Drive. He showed a map of the area south of Highway 6. The grocery store is at the center south side of the site with parking to the north. It's pretty much commercial uses all around and the zoning map reflects that with community commercial for most of the area and some intensive commercial to the south. The proposed drive-through lane is directly east of the building and it would replace the parking aisle closest to the building. The Waterfront Drive grocery store is larger at 96,000 square feet and on a lot of about 8.6 acres zoned community commercial. This store was initially built in 1996 and expanded in 2010. As far as vehicular access for the site, there are three access points on Boyrum Street and three on Waterfront Drive. Internal drives are east/west with north/south parking aisles, and the loading area is west of building. As for pedestrian routes, there are two access points on Boyrum Street and one on Waterfront Drive that both connect to the pedestrian area north of the building that runs directly along the building face. The route along the building face is demarcated by bollards along the building and by colored pavement where it crosses internal drive aisles. The proposed drive-through would be four lanes, it would be accessed from the internal drive to the north and be one-way directional to the south, which would allow egress on Boyrum Street at the southernmost access point. There would be an addition that would be included on the building, and a canopy as well. It’s currently proposed with no order boards or intercom systems and the proposal does not affect pedestrian facilities. In the area directly east of the building, the parking aisle closest to the building is what would be replaced with the drive-through lanes. The concept shows five cars that could be stacked with a two-car loading area and the construction of a landscaped medium between the drive-through lanes and the parking aisle that would be retained to the east. In this case, both the entry and exit would be one directional because there isn't parking at the entry or exit. Again, the canopy would basically cover the walkway. For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, each of the specific crite ria located at 14-4C-2K-3 and general criteria located at 14-4B-3 must be met. Regarding specific criteria, the first regarding access and circulation states it has to be accessed from secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. The property is accessed from those three points on Boyrum Street, which is the local street, and three on Waterfront Drive, which is also a local Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 14 of 24 street. They're connected by east/west internal drives and it's from one of those internal drives, specifically the one closest to the building, that this one way would be accessed. It would also exit into an internal drive as well, which would be the southmost one, and would allow one to exit out directly onto either Boyrum Street or go north again through the parking aisle. Regarding pedestrian access, there is a path along the outside of the property and a route through the middle of the property, but those are not proposed to be affected by the project. The next criterion is regarding safe pedestrian movements and curb cuts. No changes to curb cuts are being proposed nor are there changes to the existing pedestrian route. The route is already marked with colored pavement where it crosses the drive aisle, and the crossings are around 25 to 35 feet long and are demarcated which provides for safe pedestrian access. No new conflicts are created because the pedestrian crossing is already there. As far as accessing the kiosk, employees will reach it through the store, and there'll be additional painted areas providing access from the addition to the individual cars to safely load orders. With regard to stacking spaces, there are four drive-through lanes, each with five stacking spaces for 20 total. The drive-through facility is for pickup only, not ordering, so this is adequate for the use being proposed. Peak hours are the same as North Dodge, after work, 4pm to 6pm, Monday through Friday. The drive-through lanes are far enough away from the access drive to accommodate some limited spillover traffic, it's not as much room as in the North Dodge case but they could probably fit one or two cars if there were issues. Staff recommends substantial compliance with the site plan as a condition of approval again. As far as on-site signage and pavement markings for vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs etc., there are directional arrows at all access points and drive-through lanes. Drive-through lanes are denoted with pavement markings as well as signage. There's also signage to direct folks to the entry and a do not enter sign at the exit. As for crossover between the parking aisle and the drive-through lanes, there's a landscaped planner that would be installed and the pedestrian crossings are already marked with colored concrete, which helps ensure safe pedestrian movement. Regarding location, first, it must be on a non-street facing location unless shown to be otherwise preferable. In this case, it is on the Boyrum Street facing facade which staff believes is preferable for the safety and efficiency of the site since it will utilize that existing building facade and does not affect pedestrian access. The neighborhood is commercial, and the facility will be replacing existing car-oriented uses and will enhance existing landscaping so staff doesn't believe it will negatively impact surrounding properties. However, to ensure a consistent view shed for the streetscape (similar to the ImOn project), staff recommends that the new addition harmonize with the existing building as it relates to materials, colors, textures, lines, and masses to be reviewed during site plan review. Second for location, is that the drive-through lanes are set back at least 10 feet. These drive-through lanes are set back about 100 feet and they will be screened both by the existing screening along the street right-of-way, but also by trees shown in their new landscape plan. The landscape plan will also be submitted as part of site plan review. Regarding design standards and compatibility with surrounding uses, the proposed drive- through facility is east of the building and across Boyrum Street from commercial uses. There are four lanes with the partial awning and the addition as well. Nearly all paving replaces existing paving and screening is required between the lanes and Boyrum Street, shown through the existing landscaping and through additional trees in the new landscaping plan. In addition, the existing pedestrian pathways already have color concrete, which facilitates safe pedestrian access and where the pedestrian crossing is located, cars will be turning so they would already be looking to yield which will help maintain pedestrian safety. The proposed improvements will help maintain the safety of those utilizing the walkway and won't affect the quality of the Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 15 of 24 streetscape. As far as screening goes, it needs to be to the S2 standard in this case because there aren't residential uses across the street. It will be met with both existing and proposed additional landscaping. Regarding drive-through windows, this is the same findings as the North Dodge site as it’s pickup only and they use incremental slots to reduce idling so there aren't windows. With regards to minimizing vehicular and pedestrian conflicts integrated in the surrounding streetscape, there aren't any new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts that are created except where employees will load vehicles, and the landscape medium reduces the potential for vehicular conflicts as well. Staff believes that the recommended conditions are enough to ensure that it matches the neighborhood. In addition, lighting has to comply with outdoor lighting standards same as North Dodge. There's a photometric plan that's submitted as part of the application that staff will review for compliance during site plan review. The final specific criterion is that loud speakers or intercom systems should be located to minimize disturbances to adjacent uses. Staff recommends the same conditions as North Dodge and there are no loudspeakers or intercom systems as part of the project. Moving onto the general standards affecting health, safety, public comfort or general welfare. It's not expected to increase vehicular trips and circulation is adequate for the site. Staff recommends the same conditions with regards to the lanes remain pickup only and otherwise believes that that these conditions are met. Second, that it won't injure the use or enjoyment of adjacent property. Screening will help mitigate impacts to the streetscape and adjacent properties and the uses are consistent with adjacent properties. The conditions as recommended will help ensure that this is met as well. Third, that it won't affect development on surrounding properties. The area is already fully developed and won't affect development on surrounding properties. With regards to infrastructure, the fourth criteria, sufficient infrastructure is already provided, and pedestrian access will be maintained. Staff will ensure compliance during site plan review. As far as ingress or egress on public streets, there's adequate space for 20 vehicles in the drive-through lane and limited space for overflow. There's adequate pavement and signage markings to direct traffic so staff doesn't believe that it's going to affect public streets. Six, regarding the special exception that all other standards in the code are met. Again, parking is more than adequate for the site even with the loss of a parking aisle and other standards will be reviewed during site plan review, but staff did not notice any potential issues at this moment. Finally, regarding the Comprehensive Plan, it shows this area as general commercial, and the South District Plan shows this is as commercial. The other findings are the same as for North Dodge that it won't change the use of the site. Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0004, to allow a drive through facility for the property located at 1720 Waterfront Drive, subject to the following c onditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site 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 Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 16 of 24 to building materials, colors, textures, lines, and masses, as determined by the Development Services Coordinator during site plan review. Moving on to the third application. EXC21-0014: An 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 #2 located at 812 S. 1st Avenue. Lehmann noted this HyVee is located north of Muscatine Avenue and east of South First Avenue. The building is in the center of the site with open space to the north and parking to the south. Much of that area to the north is open space due to sensitive features of Ralston Creek South Branch. There are some multifamily uses to the east, single family uses to the north and northwest and then commercial uses to the west and to the south. As far as zoning, it is zoned community commercial, as are the properties to the south and directly to the west. There are some single-family zoning to the northwest and to the north and some multifamily zoning to the east. This community commercial zone does have a design review overlay because it's part of the Towncrest Design Review District which requires staff review of proposed buildings, landscaping, and parking, and that is a separate process. As far as where the drive-through facility is proposed, it's directly west of the existing building. This grocery store is 66,000 square feet built in 1997 and expanded in 2001. Three vehicular access points are off First Avenue and one is on Muscatine Avenue. There are two east/west internal drives connected by north/south parking aisles. There is also a parking aisle west of the building that connects to the northern most First Avenue access point, and that's where the drive-through facility is proposed. Pedestrian routes are provided at two access points on First Avenue, but they are generally not demarcated where they cross vehicular drives. The proposed drive -through facility replaces existing parking west of the building on First Avenue with two drive-through lanes which make use of some existing drive through lanes south of the building winds around building. It would be one direction from north to south and there would also be a parking aisle to the west of the lanes, which would also be one direction from north to south. Again, there are no proposed order boards or intercom systems and the site plan shows demarcated pedestrian crossings from the west, which would be an improvement over the current site. The two drive-through lanes would basically wrap around the west building face and be integrated into the existing drive-through lanes south of the building and would exit southeast into that internal drive aisle just south of the building. Again, this plan converts the parking aisle to one direction from north south, so there would be no access to the drive-through through the parking lot, one would have to go on First Avenue. Lehmann noted however the intent is most people who would use the drive-through would replace their trips to the store and so that wouldn't be a concern. Lehmann showed a picture of the current pedestrian crossings, the northernmost one comes from the trail, and to the south they're proposing a painted crosswalk which would directly cross the lanes with a small pedestrian island between the parking aisle to the west and the drive-through to the east. There is a door on the west side of the building and staff added a condition regarding that as well depending on whether that's open to the public or not, it appears to be closed access but staff is waiting on confirmation that it would remain closed as part of this project. Staff believes it would be used for employees to have their own route to get to the cars. The role of the Board is the same regarding specific and general standards with the specific standards being those related to drive-through facilities. The first set of criteria are related to access and circulation. Wherever possible and practical, they must be accessed from Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 17 of 24 secondary streets, etc. there are three access points on First Avenue and one access point on Muscatine Avenue to the south, both are minor arterials, and those access points are connected by east/west internal drives and parking aisles. The drive-through lanes could only be accessed to the north from First Avenue, but it is technically accessed through a parking aisle so it meets this standard. The drive-through cannot be directly accessed from streets and must exit into the internal aisle and not a street. Lehmann showed the three access points on First Avenue and the one on Muscatine, and he pointed out parking aisles and pedestrian routes throughout the site. The project proposes all aisles and pedestrian routes be marked with pavement markings. Second is to provide safe pedestrian movements, the number of curb cuts serving the use may be limited. Lehmann stated no changes to curb cuts are being proposed but the existing pedestrian routes aren't currently marked where they cross existing drives and the southernmost pedestrian route would cross the drive-through facility. The site plan shows that would be striped with the crossings being about 16 to 24 feet long with a pedestrian island in the middle. The northern route would not cross the facility, but it would be striped across the drive and that crossing is about 25 feet long. As far as stacking spaces, the two drive-through lanes each have about nine spaces for a total of 18 which meets the required number, and they are for pickup only, not ordering. Peak hours are the same. It is again far enough from the access drive that it would minimize traffic safety impacts and staff recommends compliance with the site plan to ensure traffic safety is not compromised. As far as sufficient onsite signage and pavement markings, there are directional arrows shown at all access points and drive-through lanes and there’s other pavement markings. There's the separated curb between the drive- through facility and the parking drive aisle to the west, signage to direct vehicles to the entrance, and there's a do not enter sign at the exit where they would not be able to move north from the rest of the parking lot. Otherwise, pedestrian crossings would also be marked as part of this project, which helps ensure safe pedestrian movement. For location standards, the facility is on the street facing facade towards First Avenue but it will utilize the existing building facade. For that reason, staff believes it's preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site. It improves pedestrian access, so staff also sees that as beneficial. There are residential areas to the north, but the area directly across First Avenue is commercial so it only requires the S2 standard which is less than the S3 standard. The drive- through use will replace car-oriented uses, so it won't particularly affect the neighborhood character and the property is in the Towncrest Design Review District so staff would review any new structures and any new parking areas to be consistent with the Towncrest Design Review District Plan adopted by the City, and that helps ensure consistency with surrounding properties. The drive-through lanes also have to be set back 10 feet and here they're set back 40 feet from First Avenue. They need to be screened to the S2 standard because it's commercial across the street, so a landscape plan will be submitted as part of site plan review. Regarding design standards, and compatibility with surrounding developments, the amount of drive-through lanes may be limited for stacking and/or for paving. The drive-through is west of the building in the center of the site across First Avenue from commercial uses. The two drive - through lanes are about 12 feet wide along the west edge of the existing building, and it utilizes the existing awning so there are limited changes to the streetscape in those regards. There's also S2 screening required along the First Avenue right-of-way so the existing landscaping would need to be enhanced because the current screening does not meet the standard. The pedestrian pathways would also be enhanced as part of the project with striping where they cross the drives and a small pedestrian island by the drive-through facility will help maintain safety for those utilizing pedestrian routes. Again, because of commercial areas across the Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 18 of 24 street to the west, it would be screened to the S2 standard and based on the landscaping plan , staff believes this standard will be met. With regards to windows and intercom systems for the drive-through, staff recommends the same conditions as the other two applications. With regards to minimizing potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and being integrated into the streetscape, again generally no new conflicts are created, there are existing pedestrian routes that cross it already and there is a curb being proposed between the drive-through lanes and parking aisle that should reduce potential vehicular conflicts. The areas where employees will load cars will again be as a potential conflict but is relatively minor. There may be potential conflicts created where vehicles exit the drive-through because they have to cross the existing drive aisle south of the building and this would reverse the direction of traffic for the existing drive-through, but cars will leave straight ahead, they’ll be leaving one at a time, and the area has slow traffic speeds already. Landscaping will also be enhanced as part of the project with regards to the surrounding neighborhood and the project is subject to the Towncrest Design Review. Overall staff believes that those vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are minimized to the extent possible. With lighting, staff had the same finding as the other two applications. With regards to loudspeakers or intercom systems, staff makes the same recommendation, including the same condition regarding future loudspeakers or intercoms. Regarding general standards, the special exception cannot not endanger health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff has similar findings and conditions, it’s not expected to increase vehicular traffic so no new conflicts created that are of significant concern to staff, and also the condition to ensure smooth traffic flow by retaining pickup only status. There may be s ome potential vehicular conflicts where cars exit, and the entry is also where there's currently the loading area, but there's adequate room to maneuver. Staff believes that pavement markings and signage will help direct traffic, loading times can be coordinated with pickup times as well, and overall those things can be worked around by the applicant. The other issue staff wanted to touch on briefly was that the existing pedestrian route leads to a door that staff believes is currently is not available to the public, staff is waiting on confirmation if it will be open to the public but to ensure a safe pedestrian route if that entrance is not public, staff recommends that there be a complete demarcated pedestrian route at least four feet in width from the sidewalk to the interior of the building to be reviewed as part of the design review process. Lehmann noted that standard would be similar to what would be incorporated into a Towncrest Design Review anyway since they're looking at the parking areas and access so staff believes that's an appropriate time to include the condition but it just ensures it's there so that it will be reviewed. As far as effects on surrounding properties, screening will be enhanced which will help mitigate streetscape impacts and it's in the Towncrest Design Review District so it is subject to those standards as well. With regards to surrounding development, ensuring that it can occur, it's already the area is fully developed with a mix of residential, commercial and institutional uses and staff doesn't believe that future development would be affected by the proposed exception. Regarding adequate infrastructure, this exception provides additional benefits in that it includes pedestrian striping and a condition for pedestrian access to the primary building so staff believes this criterion is met. The project will also relocate an existing bicycle rack required by bicycle parking requirements in the code. With regards to ingress or egress on public streets, again there's adequate space for more than 18 vehicles to stack with some limited space for overflow, it will not affect ingress or egress on public streets and it should be possible to exit safely. In addition, signage and pavement markings will help direct traffic. For compliance with other standards, this site like the others has an excess of parking so that standard is met. However, parking areas were developed prior to current zoning standards so where pavement is replaced, they will need to comply with current standards and bring it up to code, and staff will Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 19 of 24 review that during site plan review. Lehmann noted there's also Ralston Creek to the north which is a sensitive area, and the 100-year flood zone, so during site plan review staff will ensure that work is conducted outside of those areas. If it is conducted within those areas that will requires a separate application for sensitive areas. Based on submitted site plan, staff doesn't believe that's an issue. All other standards staff believes are met by the proposed site plan. With regards to the Comprehensive Plan, this area is shown as general commercial, and the Southeast District Plan shows it as commercial. Otherwise, there are the same provisions that support the proposed use. Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0014, to allow a drive-through facility for the property located at 812 S. 1st 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 part of the design review process. Pretorius asked about screening and landscaping and if that is something the City requires or something the applicant is offering and what is the difference between parked versus stack ed cars for screening. Lehmann explained screening standards change slightly based on parking and drive-through areas. The S2 standard is the general standard for areas around commercial uses and the S3 standard, which is slightly denser landscaping, is required by residential areas because they are more sensitive uses. Lehmann added the Board can place conditions on an exception if they believe that a higher level of landscaping is required as long as it's related to approval criteria, such as if the Board found cars idling more unattractive than cars parked. John Brehm (Director, Site Planning, HyVee) began by stating they are in agreement with all of staff’s recommendations on all three of these applications so there's no issues there from their standpoint. Brehm is happy to answer Board questions and give any background information. Carlson had a general question about the lighting, is the lighting on all the time, 24 hours a day or is it on only when the drive-through is being used for loading. Brehm replied they leave the parking lot lights on all the time for safety but the kiosk lights will be turned off at night. Russon noted regarding the condition of a four-foot walkway for the First Avenue project, is that still being reviewed by HyVee. Lehmann replied with regards to the walkway, staff mentioned that because there's a door staff initially believed would provide public access until visiting the site and seeing that it didn't appear to be public. So based on that staff added the condition that it would be reviewed during design review, which would includes the development services coordinator, senior building inspector, and senior planner. Currently there isn't an identified location for it as long as they provide a direct pedestrian access to the interior. Brehm replied based on the condition, they can provide a way to the front of the store. He needs to check on the use of that particular door that's been referenced, he doesn’t know if that's for public access or just employees. Either way they can get a pedestrian access to the front of the store. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 20 of 24 Benjamin Samaniego and Jorge Medina (710 South First Avenue) reside directly north of the property and wanted to make sure it wasn't going to affect his property. He recently purchased it about a year ago and was informed when he was purchasing it that he owns all the land up to the bridge pathway leading up to HyVee. So he just was concerned over that fact that it wouldn't infringe on his property and take away from his property. Lehmann noted that the project impacts the parking area directly west of the store and will not impact the property to the north. Pretorius closed the public hearing. Pretorius asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion. Chrischilles moved for approval EXC21-0003, to allow a drive-through facility for the property located at 1125 N. 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. Russo seconded the motion. Carlson finds that it does not interfere with other parts of the business, the restaurant in this case is on the other end of the building. People can enter and exit this drive-through by itself and there may be some minor problems but nothing major and she really likes this design. Pretorius agrees, there's currently a Band-Aid there with the temporary storage container situation, regarding the pandemic that's probably even quite more dangerous than what they’re talking about here. This is probably a way of making what's going on safer. Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0003 he does concur with the findings set forth in the staff report of this meeting date, September 8, 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. Russo seconded the findings. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. Pretorius 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. Chrischilles moved for approval EXC21-0004, to allow a drive through facility for the property located at 1720 Waterfront Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site 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, colors, textures, lines, and masses, as determined by the Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 21 of 24 Development Services Coordinator during site plan review. Russo seconded the motion. Carlson again finds this is a wonderful plan as the restaurant and the deli are at the other end of the building and this is not going to impact egress or ingress to the main entrances of the building. A person parking in the parking lot and going into the store can do that and feel safe. Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0004 he does concur with the findings set forth in the staff report of this meeting date, September 8, 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 o f this proposal. Russo seconded the findings. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. Pretorius 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. Chrischilles moved for approval EXC21-0014, to allow a drive-through facility for the property located at 812 S. 1st 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 part of the design review process Russo seconded the motion. Carlson stated she is somewhat uncomfortable with some of the aspects of this one. She is very concerned about a person who is parked in the lot and wants to enter the s tore because of the fact that the exit to the drive-through is so close to the main entrance which services the grocery store, Starbucks, the restaurant, the deli, the post office, and there is a lot of pedestrian traffic close to where the cars come out. The cars can either make this strange U-turn or they have to cross the traffic and go down two lanes to get out of the parking lot. She goes to that store all the time and knows what the traffic situation is like there, and this makes her very nervous. Th e temporary pick up is between two of the entrances on First Avenue, it's where the landscaping thing is usually in the springtime, and maybe that would be an alternative. She reads all these things about the truck traffic and that they would have to coordinate and she didn’t see any of those comments in either of the other plans, which she feels are great. This one is a more challenging site and she is concerned about the safety of people who will be using the facility. Pretorius asked to see a picture of the front of the current covered space and noted that currently there is a covered area that serves pickup grocery or it had historically and maybe still does to some degree. Carlson stated it is for pickup, but the cars do not exit out in front of this. Pretorius asked then what is the difference between a car coming out of the parking lot to enter this space to pick up the groceries versus a car leaving the space with the groceries already in Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 22 of 24 hand, are the cars traveling at different speeds, are they paying less attention to what's going on, either way they're crossing the pedestrian traffic as it comes in whether they're coming into this current area or coming out of it. What is the difference in safety. Carlson stated if they're facing First Avenue they would probably be on the right hand side and would not be crossing a lane to go into it and then when they exit it they would be going away from the store. Carlson noted there are comments that say that where vehicles exit they must cross the access drive. There may be some potential conflicts between vehicles entering the drive-through lanes and the trucks utilizing the loading area and for vehicles exiting the drive-through lanes there is adequate room to maneuver, and pavement markings and signage are sufficient to ensure safe traffic flow. Carlson is concerned about pedestrians and this site is the only one where they included a map of how the vehicles exiting could leave into the parking lot. Chrischilles asked what are they exiting, the kiosk. Carlson replied yes, the kiosk, to leave the kiosk, vehicles have a choice of making a huge U-turn or going out on First Avenue. She is asking is there someplace else where this could be done where vehicles wouldn't have to do this U-turn to get out on First Avenue. Chrischilles stated vehicles don’t need to do a U-turn, to get on First Avenue, they just go straight out and go right or go left. Lehmann explained the applicant’s movement plan shows they could do either, staff anticipates that they would not do U-turns typically but rather most people would go straight ahead based on the orientation of the facility though it is possible to U-turn and exit out the middle access point to First Avenue. Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0014 he does concur with the findings set forth in the staff report of this meeting date, September 8, 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. Russo seconded the findings. A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-1 (Carlson dissenting). Pretorius 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. CONSIDER THE AUGUST 11, 2021 MINUTES: Russo moved to approve the minutes of August 11, 2021, Chrischilles seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS: Lehmann had no announcements other than he will coordinate with Bryce Parker to try and figure out what happened as to why he couldn’t access the meeting. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 23 of 24 ADJOURNMENT: Chrischilles moved to adjourn this meeting, Carlson seconded, a vote was taken and all approved. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2021 Page 24 of 24 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2021 NAME TERM EXP. 7/14 8/11 9/8 CHRISCHILLES, GENE 12/31/2022 O/E X X PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X X O PRETORIUS, AMY 12/31/2023 X X X CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X X RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2021 X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- -- = Not a Member