Coralville Board of Adjustment

City of Coralville Board of Adjustment Meeting March 28, 2011 Staff: Jim Kessler, Building & Zoning Official, Kevin Olsen, City Attorney Dee Marshek Administrative Assistant Item #1: Meeting called to order @ 6:02 PM (recorded minutes) Item # 2: Roll Call: Members present: Wells, Rice, and Szcech. Absent: Shannon and Snyder Acting Co-Chair was Committee member Tom Rice Others present: Tony Theisen and Jacob Johnston with Theisen’s Home -Farm - Auto Item # 3: Minutes from February 28, 2011 meeting approved. Motion by: Wells 2nd by: Szcech Motion carried: 3-0 Item # 4: Public Hearing by Theisens requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a Lawn and Garden Center @ 100 Westcor Dr. Public Hearing opened: Tony Theisen, Vice President of Theisens introduces store manager Jacob Johnston. Theisen discusses the previous 2009 parking variance request of 2 ½ to 1 ratio for a total of 254 parking spaces, based on other store sizes and location. He explains that upon further discussion that he thought included the future garden center approval was granted for 1 per 300 for retail space and 1 per 1000, non retail space for a total of 308 parking spaces. His understandings were that this approval was based on the need of 33 spaces for the seasonal lawn and garden center. He also explains that utilities had been installed in the previously specified location and respectfully requests the Board of Adjustments approval. Public Hearing closed: Motion by: Rice 2nd by: Szcech Motion carried: 3-0 Kessler: Questions the previously submitted plans from August 2009, and explains that the lawn and garden request wasn’t a part of the previous 2009 reduced parking variance request submitted by Southgate Development. The 2009 reduced parking variance was based on the new proposed store usage. With this new Conditional Use request now is the time to discuss the lawn and garden center. Kessler again pointed out an issue with the site plan that was submitted and questions were raised as to available access to the north end of the parking lot area if the garden center was to be place in the proposed location. Kessler also explained to the commission and Mr. Theisen that more than the requested 33 spaces are rendered unusable and that there’s a discrepancy in square footage on the proposed site plan because of the existing vertical parking. Kessler shares his main concerns; the location right outside the exit door, losing more spaces than originally expected and the fact of having already been granted a previous parking reduction. This lawn and garden request also adds additional retail space and reduces even more parking spaces than the original request. Kessler suggests the possibilities of moving and reorganizing of displays which would prevent the use of additional parking spaces. Kessler also questions Theisen about the installations of the utilities in the parking lot which weren’t on any site plans submitted to the City. Theisen: Stated that they used McClure Engineering and that those utilities should have been on the site plan. Wells: Asked if there was a possibility of moving the garden center to the east end of the building? Theisen: Shares the companies thoughts about the necessity of it being located in a higher traffic area near the entrance and this location is only affecting the Theisen’s building and not any other businesses. He also adds that the only time the parking lot has been totally full was during the original grand opening. Sczech: Agrees with Theisen, in the fact that he has never seen a full parking lot or experienced issues with parking. Wells: Questions the fairness in granting this request when there are other options for relocating within the existing property. Members discuss other lawn & garden centers traffic patterns within the City and the concern of blocking traffic lanes for pickup and delivery of merchandise. Sczech: Suggests moving the garden center to the western edge of the lot. Members and Kessler again discuss this newest relocation possibility. Kessler: Once again shares that from the City’s stand point that the parking requirements are 5 per 1000 and a parking variance has already been issued which is well below what is required for this store and this lawn & garden request adds additional retail space and reduces even more parking spaces. The recommendation of the City would be to move this to the east end of the building’s display area. If in choosing to use that area no Conditional Use permit would be necessary. Johnston: The visibility in that area is hindered because of the insert in the fencing. Kessler: If advertised customers will find it. Theisen: Disagrees and says from a retail stand point a garden center is 60% impulse buying and states customers will not come back to the store if they can’t find places to park or if it’s an unsafe environment, and he states that Theisen’s is creating neither. We’re a destination store and this location has more parking than any other new store that we’ve built. Moving the location of the garden center would cost the store additionally money. Theisen felt the changes in the original parking variance had allowed additional spaces for the future placement of this lawn and garden center. Wells: I don’t remember discussing the garden center back in 2009. Kessler: This couldn’t be discussed back in 2009, only the granting of a parking variance was to be discussed. Kessler again expresses the City’s concerns. Members discuss the current parking ratio and question Theisen about other stores in other communities. Members and Kessler again discuss the City Code requirements pertaining to the parking ratio in different zoning districts. Theisen: Questions the parking variance and again shares that this location will not have issues with overflow parking because there are no other business nearby and if that were ever an issue, Theisen’s would gladly address that if necessary at that time. We’re not trying to do anything that would turn our customers away. Rice: I can see the City’s concern, but on the other hand when the City setup the retail parking ratio it was meant to guarantee that the busiest of business would still have enough parking spots. Members and staff explain and discuss the differentiating of various retail stores parking. Theisen: Compares other home and farm parking ratios. Sczech: Again asks about the possibilities of moving the location further to the west of the parking lot. Kessler: Expresses concerns about the placement and possible visibility issues and also the proximity of parking to the exit doors of the store causing a safety hazards for customers. The City’s has also requested extra signage to be placed at the door for additional safety to the customer. Theisen: We have a 4’ sidewalk in front of the store and purposely there is no curb in front of the store to prevent any tripping hazard to customers. We have signage at both doors and have placed stop signs at both exit and entrance. Kessler: It is still continues to be a dangerous situation for customers and the city has had numerous complaints. Johnston: Shares that he’s only aware of the one complaint and that signage and stop signs were installed. He also confirmed that hoop covering for the green house would be placed to the north and there would be visibility through the racks and lower plants and shrubs would be placed to the front store side and drive-thru area. Kessler: The visibility zone should have nothing in it, otherwise you’re asking for an accident to happen. We have visibility zone throughout the City at street intersections, parking lots, exit and entrances. Kessler again reviews the City’s recommendations, which are based on the City Codes and what has already been done. This has been discussed enough. Rice: States these previous concerns are issues that should be addressed, but are separated issues from what has been presented to the board tonight. It’s not a very full parking lot all the time; it’s a different retail than a Wal-Mart, but, we do have some concerns of using quit a few prime spaces. We did struggle over giving you the original parking variance, but when we did we were confident that was enough spaces. This use of more retail space for a lawn center is no different than another building that has met the space ratio we have granted a Conditional Use permit to for part of the year. Theisen: I understand; that’s why when we can in for a 21/2 to 1 originally and left with 3 to 1, we thought to was specifically because of the comment of the seasonal use area. Kessler: The original request from Southgate Development was 5 to 1 reduction to 3 to 1 ratio, that was Glenn Siders original request for a parking variance. Originally you had sent it to us at 2.5 to 1, but the request from Glenn Siders dated 8/3/2009 was asking for a 3 to 1 variance for a 101,250 square foot store. Olson: There is mention in the minutes about asking for 2.5 to 1. Wells: Again expresses concerns about the previous reduction and the granting of this Conditional Use permit. Olson: Reads from the previous minutes. Theisen: I suggestion was made to take it down to 28 spots and move it to the west farther, I don’t think this would negatively affect the visibility and or the drive isles what so ever and would be a logical location to place it base on the angle parking. Rice: It is a better location; it gets it away from in front of the store, which is better for pedestrians and traffic in the area. Szcech: It takes up less parking and opens up another drive isle, but you still need to move the hoop covering to the back farther for better visibility. Szcech: I would like to make a motion to grant the permit based on this new location, as long as they can meet the requirements for visibility Olson: The Board of Adjustment can be any conditions on they want that are reasonable. Motion to Approve by: Szcech 2nd by: Rice Roll call for vote: Wells: no, Rice: no, Szcech: no Motion: Denied Motion to approve with special conditions: Szcech 1. Moving locating of the Lawn & Garden to the Western end of Theisen’s lot. 2. Special precautions regarding the visibility zones: Members again discuss exact location and the number of approximately 28 spaces that will be used for this lawn and garden center. 2nd by: Wells Rice: Questions the depth of the space, concerns about people parking near to entrance and the visibility or height of merchandise at the front of the display area. Members agree that the hoop has to be located at the north, it’s open enough that visibility is never an issue, and it’s partitioned of so no one ever parks in that area. Theisen: Asks if there’s a specific distance from the corner that the City requires? Kessler: Explains and draws the necessities of the visibility zone to Mr. Theisen. Szcech: States as part of the motion, the Building Official will work out all the details. Theisen: It makes sense, with the angle parking.  Roll call for vote: Wells: yes, Rice: yes, Szcech: yes Motion: Approved Item # 5: Motion to Adjourn. Motion by: Szcech 2nd by: Wells Motion carried: 7:05pm Meeting Adjourn: Respectfully Submitted, Dee Marshek