Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-2009 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009 — 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Election of Officers D. Consider the December 10, 2008 Board Minutes E. Special Exception(s) EXC08-00017: An application submitted by John Hartson and Frank Gersch for a special exception to allow conversion of a non -conforming use from medical office to general office for property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 1027 Rochester Avenue. F. Appeals APL08-00001: An application submitted by Michael and Jan Dahlen appealing a decision of the Building Official to grant a building permit to Shelter House for property located in the CI-1 zone at 429 Southgate. G. Other H. Board of Adjustment Information I. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING — FEBRUARY 11, 2009 Sha red/pcd/boafi I es/agenda MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 10, 2008 — 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Members Present: Terry Hora, Karen Leigh, Caroline Sheerin, Edgar Thornton, Ned Wood Members Excused: None Staff Present: Sarah Walz, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen Others Present: Dick Noble, Dwight Dobberstien RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ned Wood at 5:00 p.m. An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. ROLL CALL: Hora, Leigh, Sheerin, Thornton and Wood were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTMEBER 10, 2008: Sheerin pointed out a missing word on page one and the inappropriate use of a hyphen on two occasions. Wood noted the need for a word to be removed on page four. Leigh asked that page numbers be included on the minutes submitted to the Board. Thornton motioned to accept the minutes as amended. Leigh seconded. The motion carried 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC08-00016: An application submitted by the University of Iowa Community Credit Union for a special exception to allow a drive -through bank facility to be located in the Iowa City Board of Adjustment December 10, 2008 Page 2 Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at the southwest corner of Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard. Walz explained that drive -through facilities are only allowed in a CO-1 zone by special exception. The property in question was recently rezoned for the CO-1 use with a conditional zoning agreement covering the design and layout of the building location. Walz said that the special exception requires that the number of driveway lanes and stacking spaces necessary for the drive -through facility are not detrimental to adjacent residential properties. Walz explained that stacking spaces are the spaces where cars wait to get to the service window or the ATM in a drive -through facility. In this case, Walz said, the site plan shows 16 stacking spaces spread over three lanes. The adjacent residential properties in this case are across the street from the bank on one side, and several hundred feet away from the bank on the other. The drive -through spaces are more than 300 feet from the residences in Hickory Heights, and more than 200 feet from the residences across the street. The entrance to the bank will be adjacent to North Dubuque Road. When the use is established, the building itself will screen the properties across the street on Dodge Street from any view of the drive -through facility. The site -plan does demonstrate the necessary S-3 screening, consisting of tall, dense evergreen material, which will effectively screen both the drive -through area and the parking lot from the adjacent residential properties. Staff has asked the applicant to provide clear signage and markings for the pedestrian crossings in the drive -through area and near the entranceway to the development. Walz said that one obvious question that comes up is the issue of traffic flow from Dodge Street onto Scott Boulevard, given the short turn and the merging of two lanes of traffic into one lane near the entrance to the bank. Walz said that the transportation staff had looked carefully at this issue and had determined that this was indeed a safe and appropriate location for a drive -through and that a drive -through facility in this location would not unduly hinder the flow of traffic. The drive -through lanes must be set back at least ten feet from the adjacent lot lines, Walz said. According to the site plan, the setbacks far exceed what is required. Lighting for the drive - through will be reviewed by the building department to ensure that the City's lighting standards are met. Walz said that the general criteria require that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Because of the adequate number of stacking spaces, the fact that the drive -through lanes are set back quite a distance, and the fact that the pedestrian walkways will be marked, Staff feels that this proposed exception is a safe one for the public and its general welfare. The specific proposed exception also cannot be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and cannot substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Walz said that because of the distance that the drive -through will be set back from surrounding properties and the direction traffic is heading (when cars are waiting for the Iowa City Board of Adjustment December 10, 2008 Page 3 drive -through facility their headlights are pointed away from the residential neighborhood), the drive -through should not be injurious to nearby properties. The neighboring property across the street is publicly owned and is slated to be the location of the north -side fire department. The residential property across Scott Boulevard is a rural property slated as future office -style development by the Comprehensive Plan. As a result, the establishment of this exception should not impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding properties. Utilities and proper drainage are already in place for this property; the access roads have been reviewed and found to be safe. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress/egress design so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Walz noted that traffic planners have indicated that additional signage may be necessary, but that the intersection (specifically right turning traffic) has been deemed safe. Except for the specific regulations applicable to the exception being considered, Walz said, the plan in all other respects meets the requirements for the zone in which it is to be located. Walz said that a final site plan must be approved by the building department to ensure full compliance. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended, Walz said. She noted that in the conditional zoning agreement, a number of issues were addressed concerning the building's appearance due to its location at a major entrance -way into Iowa City. Walz stated that Staff recommends approval of application EXC08-00016, a special exception to allow a drive -through bank facility to be located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at the southwest corner of Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard subject to substantial compliance with the submitted site plan, including cautionary signage and pavement markings for pedestrian crossings in the area of the drive -through and the bank entrance. Walz offered to answer questions from the Board. Sheerin noted that the staff report indicated there were 19 stacking spaces for the drive -through whereas the site plan indicated there were only 16. Walz said she believed the correct number was 16. Hora asked if the traffic engineer had addressed the issue of northbound traffic turning left into the facility. He noted that having two or three cars backed up there could cause major traffic congestion. Walz said this had been looked at by traffic engineers, and they had concluded that it was unlikely that the drive -through facility would generate enough traffic to cause that kind of a problem. Hora asked if the S-3 screening at the entrance would block the view of those attempting to leave the bank parking lot, causing them to creep forward onto the sidewalk or into the street. Walz said she believed that the distance that landscaping was set back in that location would prevent that from becoming an issue. She said she believed there was adequate distance from the curb- Iowa City Board of Adjustment December 10, 2008 Page 4 line to the street. Hora said his concern was for pedestrians on Scott Boulevard being blocked by cars trying to see around the screening. Walz said that the screening has a minimum setback requirement of ten feet from the sidewalk. Thornton asked if Staff had ever talked about the nature of what would go on inside the building. He wondered if there would be a large room that generated larger activities thereby generating more traffic. Sheerin asked if the Board was allowed to consider that or if their considerations were confined to the stacking spaces in the drive -through facility. Sheerin noted that the Board was not approving the parking or the use of the facility, but the stacking spaces for the facility. Walz said that the uses of the facility are CO-1, general office uses, which tend to be lower traffic -generating uses. Walz said that she agrees with Sheerin in the sense that, in general, what happens in the facility is a rezoning question and not a special exception issue. Greenwood- Hektoen said that while she agrees with that assessment, she does believe that traffic circulation related to the drive -through and its impact on the neighborhood is something for the Board to consider. Wood asked if there were any other questions from the Board for Staff. As there were none, he invited the applicant to address the Board. Dick Noble, 173 Glenn Drive, Iowa City, spoke on behalf of the University of Iowa Community Credit Union (UICCU). He said that he was accompanied by Dwight Dobberstein of Neumann - Monson Design to answer any questions the Board might have that were architectural in nature. Noble said he wanted to first recognize and thank Bob Miklo and all of the City staff and departments who had helped in the design and rezoning process. Noble said that no specific design had been set for the building and the interior uses/design would not be determined until all zoning and special exception matters had been resolved. To answer Thornton's questions, Noble indicated that while the UICCU did have a large community room at their Mormon Trek office, he did not anticipate one for the facility in question. In general, Noble said, the building would largely be for administrative purposes, with a small 5,000-6,000 square foot branch office. The main use of the building would be operational, with administrative staff keeping the basic hours of 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Noble said he did not anticipate a rush of people coming to the facility at any one specific time of day. Noble offered again to answer any questions the Board might have, and then introduced Dobberstein. Dwight Dobberstien, 221 College Street, noted that there are in fact 19 spaces shown on the site plan, and that 19 is the correct number.* He said this would be the maximum number of spaces, and that the actual number would not be known until more was known about the design. He said what was in the building would ultimately determine how big the parking lot was. Dobberstein said that City staff had determined that a turning lane would not be warranted for the driveway intersection due to the limited increase in traffic volume that was likely to result from the bank. The screening, Dobberstein said, would meet the S-3 screening requirements of the code, but actual screening materials would be determined at a later date. The evergreen screening shown on the current site plan was a generic screening used for demonstration purposes only. Dobberstein said he was confident Staff would very carefully review the final site plan and its Iowa City Board of Adjustment December 10, 2008 Page 5 landscaping plan. Dobberstein said he did not believe the concern Hora expressed for pedestrians crossing the entrance -way would be an issue, but that he believed that the additional signage and pavement markings recommended by the City would definitely help to address that potentiality. The pictures of the proposed building also represent a generic vision, useful for the general concept, but not necessarily representative of the ultimate building design. Wood noted that the design plan shows limited parking on the right side of the building and extensive parking on the left side of the building. Wood noted that this caused pedestrians to have to cross a large expanse of parking lot that included the drive -through area and the entrance -way. Dobberstein replied that the parking on the right side of the building was intended for the public and for bank customers, while that on the left side of the building was intended for staff. As staff would not usually be accessing the building from the parking lot during drive - through hours, Dobberstien said he believed that this made the most sense. Hora asked if Dobberstein really anticipated needing 19 stacking spaces. Dobberstein said that he did not, as it was intended primarily to be administrative office space. However, Dobberstein said, as soon as the name is out on the building, customers will want to bank there. Noble noted that even at larger UICCU facilities cars are seldom backed up more than two or three spaces per lane even at the busiest times. He said people generally would not want to wait longer than that and would simply go inside to do their business. As a result, he did not believe that 19 stacking spaces would be utilized even if that was the end -design plan. Walz clarified that the idea behind the stacking spaces is for the applicant to show the maximum number that could be utilized without blocking the flow of traffic. Walz explained that the number of stacking spaces shown does not necessarily represent the amount the applicant thinks necessary, rather the maximum amount that are available given the space available. As there were no more questions for the applicant the public hearing was closed. Thornton moved to approve application EXC08-00016, an application by the University of Iowa Community Credit Union for a special exception to allow a drive -through bank facility located in a Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at the southwest corner of Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard subject to compliance with the specifications and arrangements worked out with Staff, including the proper signage and pavement markings for pedestrians crossings as well as appropriate screening. Sheerin seconded. Leigh stated that she felt it had been well established that this application met both the specific and the general standards required for granting this special exception. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Iowa City Board of Adjustment December 10, 2008 Page 6 Leigh said there is proper screening to buffer adjacent residential properties, noting that this was probably one of the biggest concerns. Leigh noted that drive -through lanes had been arranged to minimize congestion, and that it has been established that the arterial streets involved can support the traffic generated by the use. For the same reasons given above, the specific proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the vicinity and would not diminish or impair property values. Leigh said that because of the arrangement of the stacking spaces, vehicles waiting in line will not cause congestion on public streets. Leigh said that utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities were being addressed as part of the larger development of the property. Leigh said she did not believe she had anything to add to what she had already said, and that the standards had been met as discussed in Staff s overview and Board discussions. Thornton said he agreed with his colleague that the applicant adequately showed that they would have a maximum of 19 stacking spaces, that they are 300 feet from the nearest residential property to the north and 200 feet from the nearest residential property to the south. Thornton said that it appeared that Staff had provided input on the issue of traffic congestion. He also noted that the proposed specific use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said the project appears to be well thought out and will likely be a very welcome addition to the community. He said that he will likely vote in favor of the motion. Hora said that he too agreed with the statements of his colleagues on the Board and that he would likely support the motion. Sheerin said she would like to add that the applicant has indicated that the recommended pavement markings and signs will be put in place to warn pedestrians of drive -up area entrances and exits. She also noted that there is appropriate outdoor lighting. She said that for these reasons and for the previously stated reasons she believes the specific and general criteria have been met and she will vote in favor of the motion. Wood said he believed the specific and general standards have been met and that the facility will be an asset to the area. He said that he expects to vote in favor of the motion. Greenwood-Hektoen asked if she could clarify Thornton's motion to be clear of its intent. She asked Thornton if his motion was to approve the application subject to substantial compliance with the site plan, including the cautionary signage and pavement markings that Staff had recommended. Thornton said that was the case. A vote was taken and the motion was approved on a 5-0 vote OTHER: Iowa City Board of Adjustment December 10, 2008 Page 7 None. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Walz thanked Leigh for her service, noting that she had agreed to fill in for someone who had vacated their seat mid-term, after having served in prior years. The December 101h meeting is Leigh's last as a Board of Adjustment member. Walz thanked her for doing a wonderful job and providing excellent service to the community. Walz also welcomed Hora to the Board. ADJOURNMENT: Sheerin motioned to adjourn. Thornton seconded. The motion carried 5-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:36 p.m. aw 0 Q 0 j X X X X X Z Z Z Z Z co Z Z Z Z Z X X ui X M X X X X X co ti X X X X ui X X LU X X X 0 X X X Ln X X X X 0 N M X 0 X X X M � X X X X N Z Z Z Z Z cn L 00 Q\ co 0) O _O \ \ N_ 1 _N \ Q 'Q. r C) r C) r C) r C) r C) r C) r C) W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 --1 -\ 0 O O E Ci U c a' � *' Rf t N O N •i A M a O c L 0 �, f17 a U C U .� J N G O a H _ .� C� > U >U oY�Z w I4)� U L 0) -0X C E W N .Q E ca O o CL Q Q Z Z II II X II LU O II II Z W Y To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXCO-000017 1027 Rochester Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: January 14, 2009 John Hartson and Frank Gersh 373 Scott Court, Suite A Jeff Edberg 2346 Mormon Trek 319-331-6187 Conversion of a nonconforming use To allow a nonconforming medical office to be converted to a nonconforming general office use. 1027 Rochester Avenue 45 x 55 feet Medical Office, RNS-12 North: Residential (RS-12) South: Residential (RNS-12) East: Residential (RNS-12) West: Residential (RNS-12) 14-4E-5B, Regulation of Nonconforming Uses -Specific Criteria for a Change of Use;14-4B-3, General Criteria for Special Exceptions. December 12, 2008 The subject property is located in the RNS-12 zone, a residential zone, which does not permit commercial uses. The applicant is seek to convert the current medical office (a counseling office) use to a general office use (an architecture firm). The current business includes five therapists plus staff. The proposed new office will have five architects plus staff. Regulations for nonconforming situations such as this are addressed "Nonconforming Situations" section in the zoning code (14-4E): "The intent of the regulations is not to force all nonconforming situations to be immediately brought into conformance. Rather, the intent is to guide future uses and development in a direction consistent with City policy, to protect the character of an area by reducing the potential negative impacts from nonconforming situations , and, over time, to bring the development into compliance with the City's regulations." Based on Sanborn Maps', staff has determined that the property was constructed and established as a commercial use prior to 1933. The Assessor's record shows that it was likely built in 1920 (ca.) prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance in Iowa City. Neither the 1925 nor the 1936 zoning codes required parking, and there is no evidence that the property ever provided off-street parking. Thus the use, when established, was a permitted use and subsequently, due to changes in requirements of the zoning code, became non -conforming. The use is therefore grandfathered in as a non -conforming use with rights to non -conforming parking. While the property served as a grocery store in the 1940s, it was converted to a medical office sometime in the 1950s. Most recently, the property has served as a counseling office, which is classified under the medical office category. The proposed new use is an architecture firm, which is classified as a general office use. The code regards these uses as different in the character of their intensity: medical office uses rely on regular scheduled visits by clients while general office uses have less regular visits from clients. Save for its location within a residential neighborhood and the absence of any off-street parking, it is in many ways a typical commercial development. The building is a traditional one- story storefront and provides approximately 1500 square feet of finished floor area. Like many commercial buildings, it provides no front setback and covers a majority of the lot.2 As stated above, the property is also non -conforming with regard to parking —it provides none. Instead, the property relies on on -street parking available along Rochester Avenue and on the nearby residential streets (Clapp, Elizabeth, Bloomington). 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 regulations of the Section 14-4E-5B-2 pertaining to the specific standards for the conversion of non -conforming uses as well as the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A. Specific Standards: 14-4E-SB-2, Regulation of Non -conforming uses -Change of Use: The Board of adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a nonconforming use, which is located in a structure not designed for a use allowed in the zone, to be converted to a nonconforming use in a different use category or subgroup that is the same or lesser intensity than the existing use, provided the following conditions are met. ' Sanborn Maps were originally created for assessing fire insurance liability in urbanized areas in the United States. The maps include detailed information regarding town and building information and are a highly useful resource for historic preservation and planning. 2 The subject lot is 2, 475 square feet, which less than half the required minimum lot size for the zone, and the building covers 60% of the lot area —maximum building coverage in the zone is 40%. a. The proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is currently not allowed in the zone, for example a storefront commercial building located in a single-family residential zone. As described above, the subject building is a traditional one-story storefront building, with large display windows at the front of the building. The interior of the building is divided into office suite with 4 offices, exam room, and waiting areas. The basement is used for kitchen, filing and storage. b. The proposed use is of the same or lesser intensity of impact than the existing use. The Board of Adjustment will make a determination regarding the relative intensity of the proposed use by weighing evidence presented by the applicant with regard to such factors as anticipated traffic generation, parking demand, hours of operation, residential occupancy, noise, dust, and customer and/or resident activity. The Board of Adjustment may also consider qualitative factors such as whether a proposed use will serve an identified need in the surrounding neighborhood. A general office use is considered less intense than a medical office use in terms of traffic generated by the use. Medical office uses are defined by fact that rely on regular client appointments. The off-street parking requirements for the two uses reflect this difference: General Office, minimum parking requires 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area Medical Office: minimum parking requires 1.5 spaces for each office, examining room and treatment room, provided however that there shall not be less than 5 spaces. Because the subject property was established without the current required off-street parking, it is credited with "ghost" parking to allow the current use, but no change or expansion of the use such that it would require additional parking. As currently configured, the building would be required to provide 5 spaces for a general office use (1 space per 300 square feet) and 8 spaces for a medical office use (1.5 spaces x 5 office/exam rooms). This difference in the minimum parking requirements reflects that a general office does not generate the same level of traffic as it does not rely on a regular schedule of clients appointments as the medical office does. A general office use would likely have only occasional visits from clients. c. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site. As described above, the building is designed and constructed for a commercial use. The interior of the building has been renovated to provide individual office. spaces. The site provides no off-street parking. However, because the required parking for a general office use is less than the requirement for the medical office, staff considers the use appropriate for the site. d. The structure will not be structurally altered or enlarged in such a way as to enlarge the non -conforming use. Ordinary repair and maintenance and installation or relocation of walls, partitions, fixtures, wiring, and plumbing is allowed, as long as the use is not enlarged. The new owners do not plan to expand the building and would be prohibited from doing so by the zoning code. Any modification, including an interior renovation, that requires a building permit is reviewed by the Building Department, and would preclude any expansion of the use such construction of additional office space in the basement of the building. 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. The proposed general office use is considered less intense than the currently permitted medical office use, therefore the conversion to the new use would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. As stated above, because the new use is less intense —generates less traffic —than the current allowed us, staff believes that the conversion in use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. For the reasons stated above, the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are already being provided. S. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The property does not provide off-street parking and thus ingress and egress from the site are not an issue. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The subject property is non -conforming with regard to use, setbacks, lots coverage, and parking. These non -conformities prevent the use from expanding. However, the zoning code allows for the conversion from one non -conforming use to another, less intense use, so long as the non - conformities are not expanded. Because the general office use is less intense with regard to traffic generation, than the medical office use, the special exception allows the continued use of the property and does not require that the applicant bring the property into conformance with the parking requirements. Instead, it precludes the use from expanding such that is would require more parking. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. While the Comprehensive Plan does not address this issue specifically, the Central District Plan does discuss the demand for on -street parking. The conversion of this property to a less intensive use should slightly relieve the demand for on -street parking in the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC08-00017, an application for a conversion of use from a nonconforming Medical Office Use to a nonconforming General Office Use for property located in the RNS-12 zone at 1027 Rochester Avenue be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Aerial view 3. Application materials Approved by: /&V/� 4OA" Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development 0 Ll 00 0 0 s ilM co _j is ddv�3 S HilgVZII _000",_ Is NV O �d NO 11 ------ .... ........ . cn --------- - Li TF L I '3. S ddn 'IS ulaqDzi13 i n APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: i 2- — � - Z' 006 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2--7 � ' �'�'l ns L ,-- A u , PROPERTY ZONE: R rA ' i Z PROPERTY LOT SIZE 3 _Z 9 C)c Z V-- 15zc t' APPLICANT: Name: evs k'1 � �' Address: 3 ? 3155 rL "IV,* Phone: 13 4S �5 CONTACT PERSON: Name: c (if other than applicant) Address: 2-346, Phone- PROPERTY OWNER: Name: (if other than applicant) S-e rt Address: Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-waiz@iowa-cify.org. Ill d A44Ar' fl / `)on Co,12-�t-p"iLec, f/.cp Purpose for special exception: �� l r� C'✓? e�iea`'ic % 6—u / O v - `4 Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: [ \ omx- Application to the Board of Adjustment — Special Exception Addendum A: Legal Description: 135612 J W Clarks Addition E 55' of N 45' of Lot 2, Blk 1 B: Plot Plan / Site Plan: See attached areal from Johnson County GIS site C: Specific Approval Criteria: This request is for a change from Medical Office to General Office use in a RNS-12 zone. This use has been a Psychology and counseling office with five professionals and support staff. This use had limited parking and traffic requirements of the users and their clients. The new use as General Office, would be for a design and architecture firm that would have even lower parking and traffic use than the Medical Office had. The Architecture firm currently employs 5 including support staff and would have a limited number of clients visiting the property. There will be no physical change to the property except for general maintenance such as tuck point the exterior brick and replacing the windows. F"4 r.„.J -2- In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide responses to all of the information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date for your application. A pre -application consultation with Planning staff is STRONGLY recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria. As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official statement, you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner. A. Legal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary): You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing a parcel search for your address on the Assessor's website at www.iowacity.iowaassessors.com/ or by calling 319-356-6066. B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information: 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees- existing and proposed. 7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking spaces, etc.) C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-46-4 of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are listed elsewhere in the Code.) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa- city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment. ` -:7 ray `12/07/2008 10:26 3193510124 JEFF EDBERG PAGE 02/02 NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, Increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-204, City Code). Orders- . Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-BC-1E, City Code). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, In whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office a Clerk. Date: (1 20 0i Gw- � P.,. Date 12' I( 20 a ppdadmi n%pplicatlon-boase.dvc Signature(s) of Applicant s) tq - V-�415 M, Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) If Different than Applicant(s) s E i...s` wit .� Listing Detail Page 1 of 1 For advanced listing tools / Login cr Create an aCCDUnt Search r,ly Favorites Things To Gc > IrnageTour > Print Listing > Bookmark * Aerial Photograph > Ftap !� Dinxtions > Add fin Fmmnte.- ► P(-,quest 5howirg > Send to a Friend Listings Directory > Listing Details C Back Recently renovated office suite located at 1027 Rochester Ave. 1,491 sq ft includes 4 main offices, 1 exam room, reception, and waiting areas. The basement is used for kitchen, filing, research and storage, too. Plenty of off street parking available. Other Details • Property Type: Office/Tech • County: Johnson $1,900 !Monthly For Rent 1027 Rochester Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 Presented By Jeff Edberg (319)331-6187 Contact Me My Notes Sq. Ft.: 1491 MLS:20085067 Click here to begin using this feature http://www.icrealestate.comlListingsIListingDetailsIListingDetail.aspx?ListID=609391 &Fil... 1/2/2009 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney DATE: January 8, 2009 RE: Appeal from Building Official's granting of a Building Permit to the Shelter House at 429 Southgate Ave, Iowa City You will receive a memo from Planning staff on the background of the appeal and a copy of the documents the Building Official relied upon in making his decision to grant the building permit. The purpose of this memo is to set forth the rules and standards that govern your consideration of the above -referenced appeal. Please review the information submitted to you prior to the public hearing process. As the Board of Adjustment, you have the power to hear appeals from decisions an administrative official made in interpreting the zoning code and related ordinances. In the present action, the Appellants are appealing from the decision the Iowa City Building Official made in granting a building permit for 429 Southgate Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa. Granting such building permit is an act of interpreting and applying the zoning code. Standard of Review Your scope and standard of review is a narrow one. The Board is not entitled to simply substitute its judgment for that of the Building Official. In other words, you may not reverse the Building Official's decision merely because you disagree with it. Your task is to determine whether the record reflects that the Building Official erred in issuing the building permit. In deciding the appeal you must first determine whether the Building Official who approved the building permit erred in doing so. The Appellants have alleged the Building Official erred in several ways (please see the Appeal and Staff's memo provided to you). Your review of the Building Official's decision is limited to reviewing whether the alleged errors were, in deed, errors. In making your decision, you should consider the information provided to you in your packet, as well as additional information and testimony given at the public hearing, and determine whether the Building Official acted within the scope of his powers and followed the guidelines established by law. If you find that the Building Official acted within the scope of his powers, followed the guidelines established by law, and therefore, did not err in granting the building permit, then you must affirm the Building Official's decision. If you find that the Building Official did not act within the scope of his powers or failed to follow the guidelines established by law, and therefore did err, you may reverse his decision, wholly or partly, or modify the decision. You may make such decision as you find the Building Official ought to have made, and to that end you have the same powers of the Building Official. In other words, if you conclude the building permit was issued in error, you January 9, 2009 Page 2 will then stand in the shoes of the Building Official and are bound by all the guidelines and laws that govern the Building Official's decisions on applications for building permits and must make a decision in accordance with those guidelines and laws. Procedure You are required to decide the appeal within a "reasonable time." If, on Wednesday night, you decide that you have all the information you need and no further time for deliberation is necessary, you should close the public hearing and decide the appeal. If, on Wednesday night, you need any additional information in order to make a decision, you may defer your decision. If the Board feels comfortable in proceeding to a vote, I wish to reiterate that it is very important for each Board member to articulate their findings of fact and conclusions of law. In other words, each member should state the evidence or testimony they have used to establish certain facts, and then proceed to state how those facts fit with their legal conclusions. By way of an unrelated example, if during a special exception application a Board member found testimony on the inadequacy of drainage for the proposed use credible, the Board member could cite the testimony in their conclusion that the special exception should be denied for failing to meet the standard requiring necessary facilities to support the use. Please note that the Board is not compelled to render a decision immediately after the close of the public hearing. The Board may choose to direct specific legal questions to its counsel and defer rendering its decision until a later date when those questions can be answered. For instance, the Board may wish to schedule a "work session" during which findings of fact and conclusions of law could be drafted by the Board. Such a work session would of course be open to the public, but no additional evidence or comment would be taken. If you believe it necessary, the Board could divide its deliberations into two separate motions and votes. The first motion could be framed to answer the question of whether the Building Official's action was in error. If the Building Official's action is deemed erroneous, a second motion could be framed to address the appropriate relief (i.e. reverse the Building Official's decision in its entirety and deny the building permit or partly reverse the Building Official's decision and issue a building permit with modifications to correct the error that you find in the Building Official's decision). cc: Sarah Holecek, Vt Assistant City Attorney Sarah Walz, Planner Doug Boothroy, HIS City of Iowa city MEMORANDUM Date: January 10, 2008 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: APL08-00001 an appeal of a decision made by the Building Official to issue a building permit to Shelter House. Michael and Jan Dahlen ("Appellants") have filed an appeal of the Building Official's decision to issue a building permit to Shelter House on November 26, 2008. The Appellants claim that the Building Official's decision to issue the permit to Shelter House was in error for the following reasons: 1. Section 14-4B-4d-5b in the zoning code requires a shelter management plan. Shelter House has not submitted such a plan. 2. The site plan fails to comply with the parking requirements of code section 14-5A-4. 3. The site plan that was approved was not submitted to or approved by the Appellants, the owners of a substantial portion of land included with this site plan. 4. The site plan that was approved was not the site plan that was submitted by the Shelter House ("Applicant") and was not made available to Appellants for their review. 5. Appellants also contend that the special exception granted to Shelter House in July of 2004 was expired, and therefore a new special exception is necessary. BACKGROUND Shelter House Community, owners of property at 429 Southgate Avenue, submitted a site plan for review on August 27, 2008 to develop a Community Service Shelter Use (transient housing) on the subject property. Site plans are submitted to the Department of Housing and Inspection (HIS) for initial review and then routed to Fire, Public Works, and Planning Departments for additional review and comment. Any items needing correction or modification are identified and referred back to the applicant to be addressed before a permit can be issued. Upon final approval of the site plan, a building permit may be issued. For major site plans, HIS or owners of 20 percent or more of the property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed development site may request a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission in addition to staff review. The purpose of such a review is to ensure that proposed developments are in compliance with all City Code requirements, conditional zoning agreements (CZAs), subdivision agreements, and any conditions or requirements associated with special exceptions for a specific property or use. On October 16, 2008, owners of more than 20 percent of the property located within 200 feet of the property owned by Shelter House at 429 Southgate Avenue submitted a request for review by the Commission. The petition raised the following three issues in objection to the proposed site plan: 1. The petitioner asserted that the site plan does not show compliance with parking requirements; January 9, 2009 Page 2 2. The petitioner asserted that the time limitation associated with the special exception for the property has expired; 3. There is an apparent dispute regarding the boundary line between the Shelter House property and the adjacent mobile home park. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved a site plan for Shelter House on November 6, 2008. A final site plan and the application for a building permit were submitted to HIS on November 12, and a building permit was issued on November 26, 2008. Where a person believes he or she has been aggrieved by the decision of an administrative official acting in his or her capacity to enforce the zoning code, both state and local law allow for such an aggrieved person to appeal that decision to the Board of Adjustment. The Appellants have thus appealed the building official's decision to grant Shelter House the building permit. 1. CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION: MANAGEMENT PLAN To secure a building permit, Shelter House is required to meet the specific standards for the special exception that were in place at the time that the application for the special exception was approved (see BOA Decision, July 2004, attachment 1). The requirements of the special exception granted in July 2004 are: 1. A minimum of 200 square feet of lot area is required per temporary resident and a minimum of 300 square feet of lot area is required per permanent resident; ■ Maximum of 70 temporary residents are proposed; there will be no permanent residents 2. General compliance with the site plan submitted with the special exception, including ■ an evergreen landscape buffer along the east property line; ■ An approximate 30-foot rear building setback; ■ An 8-foot high privacy fence installed along the south property line; • Compliance with the exterior stairwell guidelines. The appellants' reference to a required management plan is taken from Iowa City's current Zoning Code, which was rewritten in 2005. As part of a major updating of the code, a criterion was added for special exceptions to allow shelter uses. The new criterion requires a shelter management plan to be submitted to the Board for review. Because this requirement did not exist at the time of the original (2004) special exception, it was not required or considered by the Board of Adjustment in its deliberations and therefore is not retroactively imposed by HIS in reviewing the application for a building permit. 2. PARKING STANDARDS The minimum off-street parking is calculated according to the formula provided in Table 5A-2 located in Section 14-5A-4 of the Zoning Code (the parking requirements of the current zoning code apply to this development as the Board of Adjustment neither considered nor assessed the parking requirements for the proposed use at the time the special exception was granted in 2004). The shelter is classified in the code as a Community Service -Shelter. The parking requirement for this use is listed in Table 5A-2 (page 5A-8 in the code, (attachment 2) as: 0.1 space per temporary resident based on the maximum number of residents staying at the shelter at any one time plus 1 space per employee based on the maximum number of employees at the site at any one time. The minimum parking requirement for Shelter House is 7 spaces required for residents (0.1 x 70) plus one additional space for each employee based on the maximum number of employees who will be at the site at any given time. Shelter House indicated that a maximum of 14 employees would be at the site at one time, and thus a total of 21 spaces are required. The proposed parking area provides 21 spaces total, including 2 spaces provided inside the building in a ground floor garage. January 9, 2009 Page 3 3. BOUNDARY DISPUTE Appellants claim that a portion of the property shown on the approved site plan is not owned by Shelter House, and thus the approval of the site plan was improper. They claim that a new site plan must be submitted excluding the portions they claim to own. This claim arises from an adverse possession boundary dispute between Appellants and the Shelter House. The Appellants claim title to a portion of the property by adverse possession— portions of two mobile homes have allegedly, for some period of time, occupied lot 1, block 5 Braverman Center Subdivision, which was purchased by Shelter House. (The area contested by the Appellants is within the 30-foot setback shown on the Shelter House site plan.) Such disputes regarding boundaries and legal ownership are private matters —matters over which the City has no legal authority. This dispute is between the Appellants and Shelter House and the City has no involvement. Likewise, the Board of Adjustment has no authority to determine ownership nor to deny the building permit based on the question of ownership. Should the Appellants desire to contest or seek title to the property, they need to do so through the courts. The issue of property ownership is not determined by the City when approving a site plan. In reviewing site plans and building permit applications, the Building Official requires that the applicant identify the legal owner of the property and show the surveyed property lines of a legal lot. The Building Official reviews the plan for compliance with all the applicable site plan development standards given the surveyed property lines as depicted and described on the site plan, however, the Building Department does not verify ownership. Shelter House and the engineering firm that prepared the site plan provided the required information regarding legal ownership of the subject property, including the surveyed lot lines. 4. APPROVED SITE PLAN WAS NOT THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT AND WAS NOT APPROVED BY APPELLANTS Applicant first submitted a proposed site plan for approval on August 27, 2008. After receiving comments from City Staff, revisions were made and Applicants submitted the final site plan that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Neither Shelter House nor the Building Official are required to submit a site plan to the Appellants for review or approval under Iowa or local law. Iowa City Ordinance 18-2-1 C sets forth the notice requirements for site plan applications. Such notice is limited to the requirement that, within 24 hours after submitting an application for a major site plan, the applicant must post notice of its intent to develop the site. The City provided Shelter House with the necessary signage for posting, and Shelter House did timely post such notice, thus satisfying the notice requirement. 5. TERM OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION The Board of Adjustment granted Shelter House a special exception to establish transient housing in the CI-1 zone after a public hearing on July 14, 2004. This decision was timely challenged by persons in the neighborhood and, after trial, the district court overturned the Board of Adjustment's decision by a ruling filed in June 2005. The Board of Adjustment and Shelter House appealed this ruling and on March 7, 2008 the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and affirmed the Board of Adjustment decision granting the special exception. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied, and the Supreme Court entered its final order on April 9, 2008. January 9, 2009 Page 4 By operation of local ordinance, Board of Adjustment decisions expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the board's decision, such as obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Shelter House was informed of the terms of this limitation in a letter dated August 4, 2004 (attachment 3). Upon written request and for good cause shown, the board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. During the pending litigation, and within the six month time frame, the Board received a request for the extension of the expiration of the six-month period. In February, 2005 the Board granted an extension from the date of the written decision to a period six months after the final conclusion of the then on -going litigation and associated appeals (attachment 4). This resulted in Shelter House having until October 9, 2008, to take action to establish the use. In this instance, Shelter House submitted a site plan for review on August 27, 2008. Staff performed a review of the plans and conveyed comments on September 9, 2008, noting that revised plans incorporating the comments should not be submitted until public works and the water division conveyed their comments so they could be incorporated into the revised plans. Public Works and the Water Division submitted their comments and revised plans were received from Shelter House on September 17, 2008. Shelter House submitted an application for a building permit and detailed building plans on September 26. In reviewing the building plans and the revised site plan it was noted that a major site plan was necessary because the floor area in the proposed building would exceed 10,000 square feet. On October 1, 2008, a revised site plan was submitted based on submittal requirements for a major site plan and on October 2 the site was posted to notify the public of a pending major site plan review. Between September 29 and October 3, there was significant correspondence and communication between City staff and Shelter House regarding the site plan. On October 10, staff received a revised major site plan with corrections made based on staff comments. As noted above, a petition to require review of site plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission was filed by the neighbors on October 16. The Commission reviewed and approved the site plan at a public meeting on November 6. Shelter House submitted a final site plan to the Building Official on November 12 (attachment 5) and a building permit was issued November 26. (The P&Z minutes and packet are provided for reference as attachment 6 and 7; items reviewed by the Building Official are also provided, attachment 8)". While an application for a building permit in itself is not required in all situations, it is the Building Official's responsibility to determine that "action has been taken to establish a use. Because Shelter House made its application for a building permit and site plan review and responded promptly to numerous comments and made multiple plan revisions all within the six-month time frame from the date of the conclusion of the subject litigation, it was the Building Official's interpretation that the Applicant had taken appropriate action to establish the use prior to the expiration of the six-month period. SUMMARY: With regard to the issues cited by the appellant, staff believes the issuance of the building permit was not in error for the following reasons: 1. Because a management plan was not required by code or contemplated by the Board of Adjustment as a condition of the original special exception, a management plan is not required at this time, and the Applicant has satisfied all conditions of the special exception as granted in 2004. * Also provided is the Staff Report and related documents submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for November 6, 2008, and documents reviewed by the Building Official in his review of the permit application. January 9, 2009 Page 5 2. The site plan approved by HIS meets the minimum parking standard: twenty-one spaces are required and twenty-one spaces have been provided. 3. The issue of property ownership is not reviewed or determined by the City when approving a site plan. Disputes regarding property ownership are private matters and must be resolved between the parties. 4. Neither the Applicant nor the building official are required to submit site plans to neighboring property owners or other parties for review or approval. 5. Because Shelter House submitted a major site plan for approval, applied for a building permit and took other additional substantial and material steps toward establishing the use prior to the expiration of the six month period, it is the practice and policy of the zoning official to consider such actions to be sufficient steps taken toward "establishing the use" for purposes of satisfying such time limitations. Approved by: ,lam 9 U/W Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Attachments/enclosures 1. BOA decision (July, 2004) with preliminary site plan submitted. 2. Off-street Parking Standards. 3. Letter to Shelter House (August, 2004). 4. BOA decision to allow extension of the special exception (February 2005). 5. Approved site plan (November, 2008). 6. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting (November, 2008). 7. P&Z information packet for November 6 meeting. 8. Items reviewed by the Building Official as part of the building permit process. 9. Location map. 10. Application appealing the issuance of the building permit. 11. Correspondance. 1 Attachment 1 <fA Prepared by Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, JULY 14 — 5 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Keitel. N Vincent Maurer and MichaerA ight STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Robert Miklo and Tokey Boswell ry SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: y I. EXC04-00014 Public hearing on an application submitted by Englert Civic Theatre, Inc. for a special exception to permit a historic sign that does not conform to the sign code (an animated lighted sign that also exceeds size limits) in the Central Business (CB-10) zone located at 221 E. Washington Street. Findings of Fact: The Board finds the Englert Theater is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and therefore the Englert sign is considered a historic sign. The Board finds that the Englert sign in non -conforming: it is an animated lighted sign that also exceeds current size limits. The Board finds that the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed restoration of the Englert sign and the Commission has found that the sign is in keeping with the architectural character of the structure and is appropriate to a particular period of the Englert's history and is an integral part of its identity. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes the standards necessary for continuation of historic signs have been met. The Englert sign is not. detrimental to nor will it endanger public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The sign will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity. The Board concludes that given its location on a one-way street where traffic moves slowly, distraction to motorists will be minimal. The Board concludes that restoration of the Englert sign will contribute to the economic vitality of downtown Iowa City. Addtionally, Restoration of the sign is consistent with the comprehensive plan goals for the preservation of the city's historic buildings. Disposition: By a vote of 4-0 the Board approves EXC04-00014, an application for a special exception to permit a historic Englert Theater sign, which is a nonconforming sign, be approved subject to issuance of a license agreement for temporary use of the right-of-way by the City Engineer. 2. EXC04-00016 Public hearing on an application submitted by Shelter House for a special exception to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the CI-1 zone requires 200 square feet of lot area per temporary resident and that the property at 429 Southgate Avenue contains 29,000 square feet more than enough lot area to allow the 70 temporary residents proposed by Shelter p. House. The Board finds that the site plan submitted by Shelter House provides for evergreen landscaping on the Shelter House property to buffer the occupants of Shelter House from potentially intensive commercial uses that may locate on the adjacent property as permitted uses in the CI-1 zone. The Board finds that the 30-foot set back from the south property line and an 8-foot tall privacy fence will provide a transition from the proposed two- story Shelter House to the one-story manufactured housing units located to the south. The Board finds that the site plan demonstrates compliance with parking requirements, dimensional standards and other zoning codes. The Board finds that other human service agencies are located in to the west and north of the Shelter House property and therefore this is an appropriate, supportive location. Further, the Comprehensive Plan's social services vision statement recognizes the community need to support human services such as Shelter House, The Board finds that the overall public health, safety and welfare are at greater risk when the community fails to provide necessary services when the need for such services has been demonstrated. Conclusions of Law: Based on the evidence presented, the Board concludes that Shelter House meets the specific zoning requirements for transient housing in the CI-1 zone. The Board concludes that the location is appropriate, as other human service agencies located in the area are compatible with and complimentary to the services provided by Shelter House. The Board concludes that the property has adequate drainage, utilities,, public transportation and streets necessary for transient housing. The Board concludes that developing the Shelter House at this location will not be detrimental overall to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The Board concludes that Shelter House will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties and will not interfere with normal orderly development and improvement of surrounding property in the area. Disposition: By a vote of 3-1 (Maurer voting no) the Board approves EXC04-00016 an application submitted by Shelter House for a special exception to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone located at 429 Southgate Avenue subject to general compliance with the submitted site plan including a landscape buffer being provided along the east property line, an 8-foot tall privacy fence being provided along the south property line and compliance with the exterior stairwell guidelines. 3. EXC04-00017 Public hearing on an application submitted by Cynthia. Parsons for a special exception to reduce the front yards from 20 feet to 17 feet, and to allow a common driveway to be located partially on a separate lot for properties located in the Medium Density Single - Family (RS-8) zone located at 1128 and 1130 E. Washington Street. CZ1Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the requested front setback is cons' e t wRIPthe neighborhood average, and that there is a unique situation that justifies`�f_0 re4 Iced setback. The Board finds that the shared driveway is justified by the neighbgrflood design." The Board finds that the exceptions granted are minimal in proportion=;to-) thk;Varj--- requirements, and that the final drawings and site plan include provisions to*nimq the 1-1 scale and coverage of the development to minimize neighborhood impact. fir;, _-Z --, r� N Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that the property at 1128 and 1136 East Washington Street meets the zoning requirements for duplexes in the RS-8 zone© The Board concludes that both a unique situation and a practical difficulty do exist for the property in question. The Board concludes that the development will not be detrimental overall to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, nor be 'injurious to the use t' F and enjoyment of other properties, nor interfere with orderly development and improvement of properties in the area. Disposition: By a vote of 4-0, the Board approves EXC04-00017 an application submitted by Cynthia Parsons for a special exception to reduce the front yards from 20 feet to 17 feet, and to allow a common driveway to be located partially on a separate lot for properties located in the Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone located at 1128 and 1130 E. Washington Street, subject to 1) submission to and approval by the City Attorney, of a covenant providing for the perpetual maintenance of the shared driveway; and 2) submission of and approval by the Director of Planning, an elevation drawing and site plan which indicate the nature of exterior elements of the proposed buildings and the design of the parking areas, and general adherence to these documents during construction. The Board conditionally approves this item for one year. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized rder the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-413-5E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Vincent'Maurer, Vice STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY Approved b4y'si : n ity Atto I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 14th day of July, 2004, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this day of c 2004 Co i m: Cl; �j j Maria . Karr, City Clerk c� MR, IN HAWKEYE COUNTRY Ow K AUTO SALES . ......... AUTO REPAIR SHOP ,\�� f a. �� '��' 'k �`OFFICE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING MICHAEL MCNIEL MID -EASTERN COUNCIL MID -EASTERN COUNCIL ON CHEMICAL ABUSE ON CHEMICAL ABUSE KT, k"S & Qn, "S AWN."v IBM Vft..��,404 >,, Avenue W Ai. 0%, 1, FRI.: R 'pl?. PNW�2.322 1 MINEc. All I'M 'Ir A.,.Y�.i• .a� N" ss �,O gg. WON! W—I! '°S.' `L'. :?;-2"'i%,V`JM })} <- ,\Nam All ,,.\.^,..,\ ,VL'.• :.? , 3! h,4�st,v RJR ....... ...... 7:111 W10 MOW" 17 Ok" oil LANDSCAPE BO FFE 1 a Mg out X TAT 'R 0 LOT Ill 1 WIN ---"PA, Pg_ GATE g -.0 S UUM HH g I WPMENT CC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1­0 11 S, 1_1 A PER 12MIXI- p 17: ��F . ... r jr p "041 RAW jxQ to . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . to ANN mom War, 0 _kJ 0 Z. R.. OR' I R , -M V Zli 4" Rh WINVY . . . . . . . . . . . : NQ Puts WANSK: ................................... ............... ........ ............ I .................... .... .. Shelter House NEUMANN MONSON Site Plan A R C_ H I T F C I PAGE 5A-8 Attachment 2 Off -Street Parking and USE CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS Perking Reclu%rement KIe e Ranking Institutional And Civic Uses " Basic Utilities No minimum requirement None required Colleges and Universities Public Based on parking demand analysis7demand 25% Private Per special exception review based on p25% analysis Community Service General Community Service 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area 10% Community Service - Shelter 0.1 space per temporary resident based on the maximum number of temporary residents staying at the shelter at 25% any one time plus 1 space per employee based on the maximum number of employees at the site at any one time. Daycare 1 space per employee based on the maximum number of employees at the site at any one time plus one parking 10%0 space for each 10 children or clients served, based on the maximum number of children present on the site at any one time, plus one slacking space for each 20 children or clients served, based on the maximum number of clients or children present on the site at any one time. Additional parking spaces at a ratio of 1/20 clients or children served may be substituted for the stacking spaces, if the City determines that such an arrangement will not cause traffic to stack into adjacent streets or public rights -of -way, Detention Facilities No minimum requirement None required Educational Facilities Elementary, middle, junior high 2 spaces per classroom schools, and Specialized Educational 25% Facilities High schools 10 spaces per classroom 25% Hospitals 1.75 spaces per hospital bed None required Parks and Open Space No minimum requirement, except for recreational uses within private open spaces areas as follows; 5% For golf courses, 3 spaces for each green (hole). For other recreational or public assembly -type uses, parking is required at half the minimum amount required for the most similar commercial recreational use. Religious/Private Group Parking spaces equal to 116 the occupant load of the Assembly main auditorium or the largest room in the building, 5% whichever is greater. Other Uses Agriculture Plant -related No minimum requirement None required Animal -related No minimum requirement None required Aviation -related Uses Airports No minimum requirement None required Helicopter Landing Facilities No minimum requirement None required Extraction No minimum requirement None required Communication No minimum requirement None Transmission Facilities required Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 Attachment 3 August 4, 2004 Crissy Canganelli Shelter House 331 N. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Re: 1,:LC:04-00016 — 429 Soutligarc .\N,enue Dear Ms Canganelli, I r I � �r CITY OF IOWA CITY Enclosed please find a copy of the written decision of the Iowa City Board of Adjustment for its July 14 meeting, at which your application for a special exception was considered. The decision was filed with the City Clerk on August 3, 2004. Any decision of the Board may be appealed to District Court within thirty (30) days of the date it is filed. The order of the Board is valid for a period of six months. Within this time period you should establish the use approved, apply for a building permit for construction, or request an extension from the Board. Failure to take some action within the six months will result in the necessity of a new application and a new hearing. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (319) 356- 5240 or e-mail bob-miklo@iowa-city.org. Sincerely, Robert Miklo Senior Planner Enc. c. Decision — Iowa City Board of Adjustment Cc Dwight Dobberstein 410 East Washington Street • Iowa City, Iowa 52240 • (319) 356-5000 • Fax (319) 356-5009 j Prepared by Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2005 — 5 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Ned Wood MEMBERS ABSENT: Vincent Maurer, Karen Leigh STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Robert Miklo IIIIIIIIII��IIIII .. ,Attachment 4 Doc ID: Recordec- a� va:YM:Vl Fee Amt: $17.00Paae i of 3 Johnson Countv Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder BK3855 PG519-521 OTHERS PRESENT: Allan Berger, Tim Krumm ,, SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: i `=" 1. EXC05-00002 An application submitted by Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the operation of a small animal veterinary clinic on property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 3030 Northgate Drive. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the proposed small animal clinic will be located at least 200 feet from any residential property. The Board also finds that the proposed building will be located in the center of the property. This will assure that there are sufficient buffers between the clinic and surrounding properties so that noise and odors should not be discernible across any lot line. The Board finds that the clinic would be conducted completely indoors and at the time of the building permit the applicant will need to demonstrate to the Building Official that the building is sound proof. The Board finds that adequate streets and utilities are in place to serve this lot. Conclusions of Law: Based on the findings above, the Board concludes that all general and specific standards have been met or will be met. The Board concludes that the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The Board further concludes that the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the CO-1 zone, and that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The Board concludes that adequate measures will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Board concludes that the special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board approves EXC05-00002 an application submitted by Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the operation of a small animal veterinary clinic on property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 3030 Northgate Drive provided that prior to the issuance of the building permit the applicant demonstrates to the building official that the portion of the building containing the clinic will be soundproofed. PM C 2. EXC05-00001 An application submitted by Craig Fairlinger for a special the separation of two non conforming Low Density Single -Family Residential (RSe5) zone at 1518 ls into two residential lots for property Gated tion to allow n the Findings of Fact: The Board finds that this propertyconsists Crescent Street. that are each 10 feet deficient in required lot width and 1750 feet deficient sists of two 50-foot wide lots of record properties surrounding this property are currently developed with single-family homes are similar in size to the proposed house. The Board also finds t ent in lot area. The building will similar to the existing one-story houses in the neds that the and most these lots have access to an alley, which will het minimize that the height of the proposed p nimize congestion on Crescent Stroard eets that Conclusions of Law: Based on the findings above, the Board concludes t specific standards have been met or will be met. The Board concludes that exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public heal that all general and welfare. The Board further concludes that comfort the special use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate v' th, safety, comfort or general the proposed exception will not be injurious to the or impair property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that establishment vicinity and will not substantially diminish specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and order) development improvement of the surrounding of the adequate utilities, access roads, drainage yand/or necessary facilitiesuses permitted in have ve b noare that Provided. The Board concludes that adequate measures will be taken to provide ress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets,have been or are being special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan oftheThe Board oncludesg that the Disposition: g City. y a vote of 3-0 the Board a Craig Fairlinger for a special exception to allow for the separation of two non con approves EXC05-00001 an application submitted by into two residential lots for property located in the Low Density Single-FamilyResidential zone at 1518 Crescent Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) the single-family g parcels constructed on the vacant lot shall substantially conform to the tans sidential (RS-5) and 2) the vehicular access to the two lots shall be restricted to the alley dwelling either lot shall is permitted onto Crescent Street. p provided by the applicant, and no driveway fiom 7:7- 3. EXC04-00016 An extension for the expiration date of the previous) exception to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commerci f ` southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue z aone located at th al (CI-1) pprDyed: aIt4he l _ and Waterfront D zDrive. rin --g s of Fact: The Board finds that the decision of the Board w -- I - The Board also finds that the applicant could not reasonablyas filed on Au use 3, 2Qt34. facility because of litigation that is currentl y pending, pursue the constr�e�ion of��e Conclusions Qf Law: The Board concludes that due to circumstances beyond t applicant, it was not reasonably able to begin construction of the previous) approved housing. The Board concludes that the applicant has shown good Y he control of the exception expiration Y pt d t transient period to a date six (6) months after the cause litigation hand special n I associated appeals are finally concluded. Y Disp— o�mn: By a vote of 3-0 the Board of Adjustment extends the special exception period for EXC04-00016 to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Ave expiration a date six 6 g (CI-1) D zone ()months after the current litigation and any associatedda Waterfront Drive to concluded. appeals are finally c,_ , -.,. _ .r. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-46-5E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. . Chairperson Care l STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 9th day of February, 2005, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this day of 21:� 2005 Mar n K. Karr, City Clerk CoopOMTESFAI Attachment 5 Approved Site Plan f SnN S1DfWgLK �``` 30.00• I 2z.00. r �\ r�I � — E— c �' X a E C •� S NG SlDEW E ZG 10.00. zI 7H.00' I ' .90'Lf o 56.49' N f' I I 1 N � I 1 I 1 I 1 L I C / N I(V//f1J1 OI 67.33' CR I / I N I G�/ n f? I 58'50' 1 22.00' u u U I YYu SIDEWALK rl m �0' . I II O�.pq f \ g 10.00' � � N r yC © 8 i AUPIrOR'S PARGF—L $ I I NO. 200311� LOT I'RMAN 6 0 R, A m ro N AdpirioN 1 FOWA CITY, IOWA FLAT PACE I Attachment 6 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2008 — 7:30 PM — FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel, MEMBERS EXCUSED: Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Murray, Mark Hamer, Jim Greazel, Don Flannery, Noel Bree, Craig Dahlen, Tom Huber, Isabella Vine, Greg Redlin, Lori Dahlen, Bart Cramer, Janet Dahlen, Gregg Geerdes, Tim Krumm, Joyce Barker RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ANNEXATION / REZONING ITEM: ANN08-00001/REZ08-00009/ANN07-00001/REZ07-00006: Discussion of applications from the Veronica Prybil Trust and the Iowa Interstate Railway for annexation and rezoning from County Residential (R) to Interim Development Industrial (ID-1) for approximately 179 acres of property located adjacent to 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue, and for the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of- way between Industrial Park Road and Taft Avenue. Busard announced before discussions began that he had worked with the property in question in his professional role in the Planning and Zoning Department for Johnson County. As a result, he excused himself from discussions and abstained from considering the matter. Howard shared a graphic outlining the properties in question. The property is located near Scott Boulevard, Taft Avenue, 420th Street and Highway 6. Howard stated that the City is in the process of purchasing the land owned by the Veronica Prybil Trust. She stated that there are three considerations for annexing property into the City. The first consideration is whether the area falls within the adopted long-range growth boundary of the City. The property in question is within the city -growth limit that can be served by City water and sanitary sewer, an area generally determined by watershed. Howard said that because this land is so close to the growth area limit, Staff had the City Engineer look at this property Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 2 and its topography in detail to make sure it all can be sewered and the City Engineer has confirmed that it can be. Howard said that the City's intention is to purchase this property from the Veronica Prybil Trust with the goal of bringing it into the industrial tax -base for the city. Currently, Iowa City has a lack of industrial land, particularly large parcels. Howard said that recent requests from large industries wishing to locate in Iowa City had to basically be turned away for lack of an industrial parcel large enough to accommodate their needs. Howard said that with that in mind the City Council and the City Manager saw this purchase as an opportunity to acquire some land to increase industrial land in the area. In this way, the second consideration for annexing land — fulfilling an identified need for the City --- has been met. The third consideration for annexing land is whether control of the development is in the City's best interest. The parcel falls within the long-range planning boundary of the City, fulfills an indentified need for industrial land, has access to rail service (which is important for industrial development), and is located near arterial streets. Staff feels that this annexation and rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, as it is in the Southeast District of the City and is identified in the plan as an area of potential industrial growth. Howard said that the City has plans in its Capital Improvement Program to improve 420th Street between Highway 6 and Taft Avenue in the near future (FY09/10). Water service will be extended along 420th Street when the street improvements are made, and sanitary sewer service can be extended from a branch from the Scott Boulevard Trunk Sewer. The sensitive areas map indicates that there are some hydric soils in the area that will have to be taken into account prior to future development. Staff recommends that the Veronica Prybil Trust land be annexed and rezoned to Interim Development (ID-1) and the Iowa Interstate Railway land be annexed and rezoned to General Industrial (11). Howard offered to answer questions from the Commission. Eastham asked if Staff had any comments on the rationale for including the area south of 420th Street in this industrial zone. Eastham noted that there was a not a detailed District Plan for this area yet, and said that he wondered if in the future there would be an interest in commercial or residential zoning in that triangular parcel of land sandwiched between 420th Street and Highway 6. Howard said that given the small size of the area it would not be appropriate for residential as a buffer zone would be required between industrial development and residential development. Howard noted that that piece of property was not actually under consideration at the present, but that its zoning would be consistent with industrial zoning already in the area. Miklo added that the pattern has been that anything west of Scott Boulevard and north of Highway 6 is zoned industrial. Miklo noted that the land is also relatively flat, which is desirable for industrial development. The Commission had no further questions for Staff. Freerks opened the public hearing. Mark Hamer, 4569 Jenn Lane NE, Iowa City, identified himself as an attorney for Meardon, Sueppel & Downer, and a representative of E&L Prybil Partnership. Hamer noted that E&L Prybil was not the applicant. Hamer distributed maps to the Commission for consideration which showed an 80-foot tract of land running through the Veronica Prybil property. On April 3, 2008, the E&L Prybil Partnership entered into a purchase agreement with the Veronica Prybil Trust to purchase the 80-foot tract of land. The purchase was subject to court approval, which was granted on August 7, 2008. Hamer said that his client has an interest in that parcel. The purchase was also subject to an easement agreement, which the purchase agreement required to be submitted within twenty days from April 3, 2008. Hamer said that the easement agreement was submitted in the timeframe required by the purchase agreement. Hamer said the easement was left with the Prybil Trust for review and consideration, and nothing more was heard until October 27, 2008 — a date after the application for annexation and rezoning was filed. Hamer said Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 3 that his office and client have not had ample time to assess the impact of the revisions set forth by the Trust. Hamer said he wished to make clear that at the time of the purchase agreement his client agreed to be a cooperative co -applicant in the annexation/rezoning process; Hamer said that the fact that his client is not listed on the application must have been an oversight. Hamer said that their easement speaks in terms of the usage of this parcel, part of which may be impacted with the railroad crossing over it. Hamer said that he fully anticipates agreeing to this annexation and rezoning, and to being a co - applicant in the matter; however, given that his office has not had adequate time to assess the changes made to the easement and how the annexation process might affect it, he asked that the Commission defer the matter until their next meeting. Hamer noted that there is a court hearing set on the approval of this sale on the 19th of November, and that the next Commission meeting is November 20th. Hamer said he believed it would be appropriate for this matter to be deferred, and said that he would be happy to take any questions. Freerks asked if Staff was aware of the complication referenced by Hamer. Howard said that Staff and the City were aware of these issues, and that the purchase agreement between the Veronica Prybil Trust and the City was contingent on the 80-foot parcel (E&L Prybil Partnership's interest) also be annexed at the same time. Howard said that the City has also been in conversations with E&L Prybil over the last two years about annexing their property. However, Howard said that in the last 6 months the City has had to turn away several interested industrial developments due to lack of available land. While the City is interested in working with the E&L Prybil to annex their property, the City Manager and City Council decided to move forward to pursue this opportunity to acquire land to meet the current need for industrial land rather than wait until E&L Prybil were ready to annex. Howard emphasized that the City continues to be interested in negotiating with them to annex their larger piece of property. Eastham asked what larger piece of property Howard was referring to. Miklo said that E&L Prybil owned property to the north and west of the Veronica Prybil Trust property, as well as property to the north of 429th Street. Miklo said that he believed that one of the reasons E&L Prybil wanted to buy this piece of property was to provide access to both sides of the railroad track. Hamer explained that E&L Prybil has maintained an easement for many years with regard to the fields to the north and access to the south. Hamer said that through discussions over time with the Prybil Trust an agreement was made to purchase this 80-foot strip and provide an access easement back to the Trust. Hamer said that he wished to reiterate that they fully anticipate cooperating and being a co -applicant with this annexation, but that the problem was that they had not received the revised easement language until October 27th. Hamer said the deferral request is to give them time to sort out the changes made to the language since the document was drafted six months ago, particularly with regard to when any type of utilities might be added, the timing of crops, etc. Hamer said the request is simply for a deferral until the Commission's next meeting. Freerks asked Staff if there was any limitation date for the annexation. Howard replied that there is not. Plahutnik noted that the applicant was the Prybil Trust who was asking the City to annex the property. He asked if outside concerns such as the purchase, the courts, and the easement agreement are entirely outside of the Commission's purview, or if it can be taken into consideration. Howard said that it is certainly within the Commission's purview to defer the matter; however, whether or not the issues mentioned are pertinent to the Commission's decision may be another matter. Howard said it certainly would not be unusual for the Commission to take two meetings to consider the annexation. Don Flannery, 2909 Gilmore Avenue, Des Moines, spoke on behalf of his mother who is the property owner directly north of the Prybil Estate, from Taft Avenue west on the northern fence -line. Flannery said that they stand opposed to the annexation and rezoning. Flannery said that the City did not disclose that the proposed rezoning was inconsistent with the Johnson County -Iowa City Fringe Agreement, the Johnson County Land Use Plan and the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. Flannery said that these plans make provisions for land east of Scott Boulevard and south of the railroad tracks as industrial zones; all areas north of the railroad tracks are designated as low to medium density esidential. Flannery said that Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 4 if the City is changing the Comprehensive Plan and wants the Prybil property zoned industrial, then he questions how other adjacent properties would be used in future zoning. Flannery said that he respectfully asks the Commission to be cautious in considering this rezoning to industrial as it sets a precedent counter to decades of prior zoning. He said that for decades, the railroad tracks have served as a logical buffer zone between the industrial in the south and the residential in the north. Flannery said the railroad tracks can be followed west from Scott Boulevard and all of the industrial uses will be found on the south side of the tracks; north of the tracks is all residential. Flannery said that they are very concerned that the development of the Prybil property will negatively affect their farm's productivity. Specifically, Flannery said, drainage, run-off, disruption of existing tile lines and the natural flow of surface drainage are all concerns that he and his family have. Jim Greazel, 4898 420th Street, said that he had two concerns. His first concern was that in today's world with its rising food costs, the land in question is very productive local farmland. His second concern was that industry likes to have access to interstates more so than railroad tracks. Greazel said that Iowa City has the luxury of good interstates in the area and that there is ample ground near those highways that would be suitable for industry. Greazel said that this land is a good distance from the interstate and that traffic is already bad in the area. Greazel said this decision would run counter to the City's long-range plan of promoting good quality of life. He noted that if 420th Street were improved to provide good access to Interstate 80 for the industrial area, then it would wind up running right through a recently built, major residential area. There was no one else who wished to speak on this issue and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to defer the item until the Commission's next scheduled meeting, November 20, 2008. Weitzel seconded. Eastham said he would like to have Staff comment at the next meeting on its views as to the natural demarcation between this industrial zone and residential development to the north served by the railroad. Plahutnik said he would also like Staff to review for the Commission the Fringe Agreement that was pointed out by Flannery. Howard said that Staff has a meeting with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors next week to discuss this issue. Weitzel asked if Staff could also address at that time transportation issues that had been brought up. A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 4-0 (Busard abstained; Koppes and Payne absent). SITE PLAN REVIEW: Review of a major site plan for Shelter House, 429 Southgate Avenue. Miklo noted that before Staff went into a detailed review of the site plan, the Assistant City Attorney, Greenwood-Hektoen, wished to clarify the scope of the Commission's considerations, and how it relates to the Board of Adjustments. Miklo referred Commissioners to a memo prepared by Greenwood-Hektoen on the topic. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 5 Greenwood-Hektoen said that the scope of what the Commission is being asked to do in the site plan review is pretty limited. Greenwood-Hektoen said that Commissioners were to examine the proposed site plan and determine if it complied with the standards set forth in Iowa City Ordinance 18-3-2. Greenwood- Hektoen said that she had listed out exactly what those standards are in her memo. Greenwood-Hektoen said the Commission did not need to consider whether any special exceptions granted by the Board of Adjustment had expired. Greenwood-Hektoen advised Commissioners to assume that the special exception still exists and complies with standards set forth in that special exception. She said that if a building permit is granted and that decision is appealed, the decision will return to the Board of Adjustment who will then decide whether the special exception which they had granted continues to exist. Greenwood-Hektoen said that if the Board of Adjustment decides that its special exception no longer exists, then the Commission's approval of the plan will have no effect. She explained that the special exception does not allow standards set below the minimum required by the code. Freerks asked for clarification as to whether or not Greenwood-Hektoen was talking about things like the landscape buffer that had been required. Greenwood-Hektoen said that this was correct, and would include screening and parking requirements. Greenwood-Hektoen acknowledged that there had been a lot of collateral issues with this case, such as a boundary dispute, but advised the Commission that these were not things they needed to consider when it came to determining whether this site plan complies with requirements of the code. She said that such issues were private matters for the parties involved to work out on their own. Freerks asked if that would be the same in any case and Greenwood-Hektoen replied that it would. She said that the Commission's job is not to determine ownership of the land. Greenwood-Hektoen advised that all comments from the Commission and the public should be limited to the site plan review standards. The Commission's job is not to determine whether the use is appropriate for this particular parcel, or whether or not the zoning is appropriate, Greenwood-Hektoen said. The sole question is whether or not the site plan complies with standards. Greenwood-Hektoen said there had been a question raised as to whether or not Commission member Charlie Eastham had been conflicted out of consideration for this case. Greenwood-Hektoen advised that it was the City Attorney's legal opinion that he does not have a conflict in this case. She noted that in the July 14, 2004, Board of Adjustment meeting when they were considering whether to grant the special exception, Eastham made a statement in support of the application. Greenwood- Hektoen said that the issue before the Commission is totally separate from whether or not the special exception is appropriate. She said that the issue is solely whether or not the site plan proposed meets the City's design standards. She said that her understanding is that Eastham has no direct personal stake in the outcome of the application, does not serve on the Shelter House Board, and does not feel personally biased one way or the other in this matter. Eastham said he did not serve on any Shelter House Board or committee. He acknowledged making a statement at the 2004 Board of Adjustment meeting, but said that it was a long time ago and had to do with the appropriate use of this parcel for the purpose of a homeless shelter. He said that it is his understanding that the matter before the Commission was simply one of compliance with site plan review standards. Greenwood-Hektoen asked if Eastham felt he could be unbiased and impartial. He replied that he could be as unbiased and impartial in this matter as he is with anything else. Miklo briefed the Commission on the site plan review. He explained that the site plan standards are in the city code and are what Staff uses to determine whether or not any site plan should be approved. In this case, Miklo explained, the Commission is being asked to serve in that administrative role and make that determination. Miklo said that there are 13 items in question. Miklo said Staff had received a site plan on November 5th that addressed the number of parking spaces, a major concern that had come up. The plan has been revised to allow for four additional parking spaces, three on the west side of the driveway and one on the north. Miklo pointed out that there are two parking spaces internal to the building. Based on the newest site plan, Housing Inspection Services (HIS) has verified that the site plan does meet minimum parking requirements. Miklo noted that the memo before the Commission lists the 13 items or areas that are outlined in more detail in the code and are used to review site plan. Miklo noted a memo Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 6 from the City Engineer's office in Public Works which finds the site plan in compliance with drainage and utility connection standards. A memo from the Fire Marshall indicates that the site plan complies with fire safety codes. Issues of erosion and sediment control, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, screening of the outdoor dumpster area, exterior lighting, screening of equipment, screening of storage areas and general parking areas, are all confirmed to be in compliance with the standards by Julie Tallman of HIS. The removal of trees from the southern part of the property had been questioned by some as to whether or not their removal complied with landscape preservation codes. Miklo explained that the trees were in the drainage way easement on the southern side of the property and in an area identified in the concept plan as a play area; at that time they were identified for removal so that the play area and fence -line could be developed. Miklo said that normally when Staff reviews a site plan they point out any trees that can be saved and still allow for development. Miklo said that Staff does not feel that trees were needlessly removed in this case. Miklo said that there are no issues concerning the sensitive areas ordinance as there are no sensitive areas involved with this property. Miklo said that the final item for site plan review is that the development complies with all other city, state and federal regulations. Miklo noted that in this case, this would include whatever requirements the Board of Adjustment had imposed. Miklo stated that all elements were in compliance. Miklo said that Staff has determined that if they were in the role of reviewing this site plan they would find that it now meets site plan requirements. Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Freerks asked if it was typical for Staff to include the two spaces internal to the building as parking spaces. Miklo said that it is not unusual, and that the parking requirement is for a total number of spaces, not for surface parking. Eastham asked about the exterior lighting standards. Eastham asked if Staff felt that the outside lighting met the applicable standards and would not give off excessive light in neighboring properties. Miklo said that Julie Tallman in HIS has expertise in lighting and reviews the lighting plans for all site plans, looking at the wattage, the height, the amount, and other features of the lighting. She has determined that the lighting plan meets the City's requirements. Plahutnik said that generally the City's preferences for design have been a building near the street with the parking lot screened by the building or behind it. He noted that this design standard does not seem to be inn play here and wondered why. Miklo responded that the design preference to which Plahutnik spoke is a requirement in some of the commercial zones and in the multi -family zones. It is not a requirement or a stated preference in the CI-1 Intensive Commercial zone, the CC-2 zone, or the CO-1 zone, and as a result does not apply to this property. Eastham stated that he received a call from the director of the Shelter House prior to the November 3`d informal meeting. He said that the call discussed what procedures would be followed as it pertains to the application, that there would be a public hearing and an open forum. Plahutnik asked if Staff had reviewed the correspondence from Gregg Geerdes that had been received November 5th. Miklo said that they had, and that they believed the City Attorney memo addresses those issues. Plahutnik asked if the requirement for a management plan had been fulfilled. Greenwood- Hektoen stated that a management plan is required at the stage that an applicant is requesting a special exception. Because this applicant had already received a special exception prior to that requirement being added to the code, they were grandfathered in and, thus, no management plan was required of them. There were no further questions from the Commission and the public hearing was opened. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 7 Freerks asked that those who comment keep their comments focused on things which the Commission can address. She noted that the Commission cannot address the appropriateness of the proposed use and so this would not be the forum to make those arguments. She said that if the public had comments within the scope of the items that the Commission would be considering, then they would love to hear them. Scott Murray, 605 Everett, Kansas City, Kansas, shared a power point presentation with the Commission. Murray noted that the site plan that he had been working off of did not have enough parking to meet the requirements, as it had only 18 of the 21 spots. He noted that the parking inside the building would be occupied by Shelter House vans used to transport children to and from school. As a result, Murray said, they should not be considered employee parking as there will be no employee cars in those spots. Murray asked if the buffering rules and setback requirements were still being met with the new parking spaces that had been added. He noted that there is no off-street parking on either of the two streets in question. Murray said that they disagree that the parking issue has been resolved, and see it as still a problem. Murray said that he disagrees that the site management plan should be grandfathered in. He said that it is a very, very important component of the site plan approval process. Murray said that according to the City's nuisance code, the site management plan actually consists of four sub -plans: 1) litter control plan, 2) loitering control plan, 3) a plan for on -site security, and 4) a conflict resolution procedure. In his presentation, Murray noted a wide area beyond the boundaries of the Shelter House property to which he believed a site management plan should apply. He also proposed a large security fence to keep Shelter House residents from infiltrating nearby homes and businesses. Murray said that a site management plan is crucial to the success or failure of Shelter House. Murray said that his plan also proposes security lighting, not just parking lot lighting, all around the site and possibly in the entryway to the trailer park. He said that he would like to discuss the issue of installing security cameras to monitor who came and left the facility as a way of helping to protect mobile home park residents. Murray said that residents are very concerned about their safety and security and that they believe a site management plan is crucial to helping to protect them. Without a site management plan, Murray said, the City could be asking for trouble. Murray said that it may even be necessary to have security guards or hired police in the area, especially on weekends. Murray said that Shelter House documents say that there will be at least 70 people in the shelter at any one time, with enough square footage to hold 150. Murray said that on cold, rainy nights it is possible that over -occupancy could lead some clients to search for other places in the neighborhood to sleep. Murray asked what the plan was for holidays and Sundays when no bus service is available. Murray said he had a petition signed by 92 people who are very concerned about the site management plan and the safety and security of the area. He said they are concerned about people walking up and down the area and about vandalism, petty thefts, break-ins and large thefts. Murray said neighbors are concerned about the kind of people who sometimes inhabit shelter houses. Murray noted that the parking requirements are being set at current standards and so, he contended, should be the site management requirement; it should not be grandfathered in. Murray said that the neighborhood would like to come with a workable agreement for a site management plan before they considered moving on with the project. Murray explained the boundary -line dispute mentioned by Greenwood-Hektoen. He said that the situation is one in which the term "adverse possession" is more applicable. At the southern boundary of the property, there are three mobile homes encroaching on Shelter House land. Those buildings have been there since the 1960's and 1970's. For dozens of years, the owners of Hilltop Mobile Homes have been taking care of that property. Currently, Murray said, there is a 30-foot drainage channel easement. Adverse possession would seek to move the property line, which in turn would move the drainage easement, shrinking it to less than the 30-foot drainage setback requested by the Board of Adjustment. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 8 Murray contended that the building would have to be either moved forward or shrunk to provide the proper setback, and that would in turn change the current site plan. Murray noted that at one point the engineering report mentioned that there could be as many as 20 employees, something not noted anywhere else. He also asked if an FAA approval was required; a question put to city engineers for which he had received no response. Murray also noted that it had been hoped that the landscape preservation ordinance would help to save the trees that had been cut back on the south end of the property. Murray said that in light of the adverse possession situation, a matter in which he will be filing a law -suit, he had really hoped those trees would not be removed. Murray said that there are serious issues involved in this application that are just not quite straight. He said that he asked that there could be a time where everyone got together and came up with a more workable solution. Murray asked that the Commission delay its decision making until some of the issues regarding site plan, parking, and adverse possession are resolved. Gregg Geerdes, 105 Iowa Avenue, #234, said that he is a lawyer representing the Dahlen family, who are the adjacent property owners. He said that it was clear to him that the Commission is in a difficult spot. On the one hand, Geerdes said, the Commission has the City and Shelter House telling them that everything is fine; and on the other hand, the Commission is about to hear from a number of people telling them that indeed things are not fine and that there are a lot of problems with the site plan that need accommodations. Geerdes read from city code regarding the Commission's charge in this matter (18.1.1a): "to promote the most beneficial relation between present and proposed uses of land." Geerdes said that this required the Commission's site plan review to accommodate existing uses as well as the proposed uses. Geerdes said that this brings the issue of the facility's management plan which is lacking from the site plan. Geerdes said that he adamantly disagrees with the representation made to the Commission that a site management plan is somehow not applicable in this case. City code says that the Commission is to "ensure compliance with this code as amended." Geerdes said that the flip side of this is that the applicant wishes to use the current code for its parking standards but the previous code when it comes to the site management plan requirement. Geerdes said that he knows of no other use in city code which contemplates a site management plan other than a shelter. He said there is nothing else in the code that talks about proactively addressing the concerns of littering, loitering, security and conflict resolution. Geerdes said the code recognizes problems and concerns that need to be addressed as part of the site management plan. Geerdes said that the code requires a site management plan to accompany the application and to be submitted as a part of the site plan process. This, Geerdes said, has not been done. Geerdes said that he very much agrees with the analysis given to the Commission regarding the boundary line dispute. Geerdes said that one of the things that the Commission is supposed to look at is whether or not the requirements of the Board of Adjustment's special exception have been satisfied. Geerdes said that he respectfully suggests that there is no possible way that they can be satisfied under the current scenario. The Board of Adjustment instructed and ordered a wooden boundary fence constructed along the south border of the property: an instruction which if fulfilled would put the fence right through the heart of the three encroaching mobile homes. The Board of Adjustment also required the 30-foot setback for the good reason of providing buffer for the mobile homes from the shelter. Geerdes said that because of the adverse possession factor, that 30-foot requirement can no longer exist. Geerdes asked the Commission to apply good old-fashioned horse sense to the situation. He asked if the Commission really wished to approve a site plan in which other people's homes were sitting right on top of the project. He said that it would make no sense, and it is an invitation to a dispute that can be resolved only through litigation. Freerks asked if Geerdes had any proof that the land is owned by the mobile home residents. Geerdes explained that the concept of adverse possession means that if a person openly and exclusively uses property as their own for a ten-year period, it then belongs to them; acquiring ownership from your neighbor through use. Geerdes said that for at least the last 35 years Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 9 there have been mobile homes encroaching on the original property line. Greenwood-Hektoen interjected that the boundary issue was a private matter with which the City did not need to get involved. Freerks stated that it was not part of what the Commission needed to discuss in its site plan review. Geerdes said that it should be, and that he respectfully disagrees with the direction she and other Commissioners had been given in what they could and could not consider. He said that City staff and the applicant have vested interest in the outcome, and the Commission is playing the role of the judge. Freerks said that it is pretty clearly defined and that the Commission is not a judicial body. Geerdes responded that it is the Commission that needs to make a determination as to whether the site plan is in compliance. Freerks asked Geerdes to continue with his comments. Geerdes said that the parking issue had been discussed, but that the issue of where people coming to the center for day -services would park had not yet been addressed. Geerdes said there are a lot of people who use the Shelter House's drop -in services for laundry, mail, counseling, etc., and that no provisions had been made for them to park. Geerdes said that Shelter House says there will be up to 20 employees, a direct contradiction to the maximum number of 14 that had been given to the Commission. If there are 20 employees and 70 overnight residents, Geerdes stated, then the code requires 27 parking spots. Geerdes suggested that the Commission defer the matter until some of these concerns were addressed. Geerdes said that the Commission was apparently presented with a site plan that he has not seen or had a chance to review. As a result, he and his clients have not had a chance to review the parking provisions and determine if they are adequate. Tim Krumm, 4186 Prairie Meadow Court NE, identified himself as the attorney for Shelter House. He said that he strongly agrees with the opinion of the Assistant City Attorney regarding the scope of the review. Krumm said that the task of the Commission is to stand in the shoes of Staff and determine whether the requirements for site plan approval have been met. Krumm said that he believes the requirements have been met and will therefore not spend time going over that, but would like to primarily make himself available for any questions. He introduced Tom Werderitsch from Selzer-Werderitsch Associates as the construction manager on the project, Christie Canganelli, Executive Director of Shelter House, and Dwight Doberstein, design professional, as being present to make themselves available to any questions. Krumm said that Shelter House strenuously resists the notion that there should be a deferral on the matter. Krumm said the construction of this shelter has already been deferred for about four and a half years. He noted that many of the same issues brought before the Commission were the same questions raised four and a half years ago. Krumm said there is clearly a desire for communication, and he said that the shelter is ready and willing to communicate with its neighbors. However, he said that he did not believe that that had anything to do with what the Commission was charged to do in this matter. Krumm said that parking issues are clearly a proper subject for a site plan review, but that the parking requirements have been met and there is not much more to say on the subject. Krumm noted that the old parking standards actually required fewer spaces than the newer regulations, contrary to what Geerdes had implied. Krumm said there will not be 20 employees in the building at any one time, and the maximum number of staff present at any one time will be 14. Regarding the site management plan that had been discussed, Krumm said that at the time that the special exception was granted four and a half years ago there was absolutely no requirement that a site management plan be submitted. Krumm said Shelter House was granted its special exception under the rules in effect at that time and has spent the last four years in litigation trying to preserve that special exception. Krumm said that the suggestion that Shelter House would be required to comply with new requirements for what it takes to get a special exception is completely specious. Krumm said he did not want the Commission to think anyone was trying to pull a fast one on them, or that they were missing some requirement. Krumm said he understands that neighbors are concerned and he expressed his desire to keep the communication with neighbors open, however, he said that imposing requirements like Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 10 security lighting, guards and cameras that neighbors would like to see is not something that code would permit the Commission to do. In regards to the boundary dispute, Krumm said he was not sure if one actually existed. Shelter House surveyed the property in preparation for construction and discovered encroachment. Krumm noted that just because the Board of Adjustment said there had to be a fence, does not mean that that fence has to go directly up to the property line. Krumm said that if Shelter House does not prevail on the boundary issue, then they will simply build the fence farther from the property line. Krumm also noted that there is not a 30-foot setback requirement; rather there is a 30-foot drainage way easement. Krumm said that the building would obviously not be constructed in the drainage way easement, and that it will be preserved. Krumm stated that any boundary issues were private matters that hopefully could be resolved outside of court, but that regardless, it was beyond the scope of the Commission's consideration. Joyce Barker, 2018 Waterfront Drive #128, said that if Shelter House is acknowledging the current code, then she believes that they should be held to that code. She said that they had had time enough to redraw and resubmit plans for the extra parking spaces, so they should similarly be required to submit a site management plan. Submitting a site management plan is not optional, Barker contended, but is a requirement. Barker said she and her neighbors are extremely disappointed that Shelter House and city staff did not even attempt to comply with this requirement. Barker said that her mobile home park has 80-100 children in it. She said that her neighbors and neighboring businesses take the issues of crime, vagrancy and loitering very seriously. As a resident of the proposed neighborhood, Barker said, she has a right to expect the requirements of the nuisance code to be followed. She said they have a right to learn how Shelter House expects to address loitering, noise, conflict issues, and the flow of traffic. Further, Barker asked how Shelter House intended to deal with those they turned away due to failure to treat their mental illnesses or abstain from drugs and alcohol. Barker asked what the Shelter House's on -site security plan was. Barker said that the neighborhood which Shelter House intends to be a part of should have input on any nuisance plan developed. Barker asked how the Commission could be expected to approve a site plan that may have to be redesigned when the adverse possession issue is ruled on. Barker said she believes it makes sense to postpone approval until outstanding issues are taken care of. Noel Bree, 1321 North Seventh, stated that he did not believe the Commission knew what it was getting in to. He said that he worked at a homeless shelter for four years, starting off in security and moving up to assistant case manager. He said that when he hears the word homeless shelter he thinks about the homeless person; when he thinks about the homeless person he thinks about people who are dealing with substance abuse problems, bi-polar disorder, people who are unpredictable. He said that the current plan seems to be just to release 70 of these people into the community. He said that he just did not think this was right. Bree said that it is a fact that homeless shelters bring about more loitering, more pan- handling, more drug -use, more public intoxication and more prostitution. Freerks asked Bree to keep his discussion to the issues that the Commission could rule on. Bree said that it seemed to him that there should be some way to decrease the impact that this homeless shelter will have on the safety and security of the community. He said that at 7:00 a.m. the "convicts" were going to be released into the community with homes and businesses all around the shelter. Plahutnik interjected that he lives across the street from a homeless shelter and he can assure Bree that at 7:00 a.m. his neighborhood is fine. He added that the issues Bree was bringing up were not germane to the site plan review before the Commission. Bree asked how the public was supposed to handle these concerns for neighborhood safety and security. Plahutnik said he would like to handle a lot of issues regarding safety and security in Iowa City but that they are outside his purview as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner. Bree said that he just wished to reiterate that he did not believe the Commission knew what it was getting into it. Craig Dahlen identified himself as one of the managers of the mobile home park. He stated that one of his biggest concerns are the homeless camps in the woods and parks surrounding the mobile home park. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 11 He said there are certain areas where the homeless do congregate, and that it was his wish to see a site management plan that would address how such camps would be dealt with. He said that the camps would only get bigger with a homeless shelter so nearby. He said that some of the camps are in wooded areas near the river and in Napoleon Park and that he has several times had to remove homeless persons from his property. The new shelter will increase the size of the camps due to its proximity. When clients leave the shelter, Dahlen said, they will be going to those camps. A site management plan is needed to address this issue. Freerks asked Greenwood-Hektoen to take a moment to talk about the reason that parking standards must meet the current code but the site management plan aspect of the current code is inapplicable. Greenwood-Hektoen said she believed Krumm did a good job explaining that distinction. Greenwood- Hektoen explained that a shelter site management plan is required at the time that a special exception is applied for. Shelter House did not submit a site management plan at the time of its application because such a requirement did not exist at that time. Because the Commission is not deciding whether or not to grant a special exception, the new law is not applicable. Shelter House has essentially been grandfathered in because their special exception was granted at a time prior to the new requirement. Freerks clarified that the distinction lies in the requirements of a special exception versus requirements of the basic code. Freerks said that comparing the parking code requirements and the site management plan requirements is not really comparing apples to apples. Howard noted that when an application for a special exception is made before the Boardof Adjustment a specific site plan is not generally drawn up because they are getting early approval for a specific use on the property. The Board does not look at very specific details of the site because they have not yet been determined. Howard explained that special exceptions require that at the time the building permit is issued, current code requirements will have to be met. Howard said Shelter House is at that point now: having to meet current code requirements with regard to parking, setbacks, screenings, etc. The Shelter House has already met all of the approval criteria required by the Board of Adjustment to determine whether a specific use is allowed. Therefore, Howard said, those criteria are not applicable at this time. Tom Huber identified himself as an employee at Hilltop Mobile Home Park. Huber said that the park is a clean one and that a lot of work has been done to make positive changes there. Huber said the park has a mail -house in which many grade school kids wait for the buses between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. Huber noted that fences can be climbed. Huber said that he had twice fixed a concrete post on the property that the homeless had ripped right out of the ground. He said that he believed it was very poor judgment to put too many kids and too many people just getting out of prison in such a close proximity. Freerks asked Huber to direct his comments to the issues of site plan review. Huber said he understood that, but did not understand to whom he should direct his concerns. Isabella Vine, 2018 Waterfront Drive, pointed out her home as one of the structures encroaching on the Shelter House site. Vine questioned the logic of the Commission not being able to consider the boundary issue as a factor in approving the plan. Vine said that the Commission cannot approve a plan that sits on someone's home. She said there are issues to resolve first. Vine said she was present when Tom Werderitsch came and began chopping down all of the trees. She said that the original plan for Shelter House had retained the trees as abuffer in addition to the privacy fence. Vine said her mother asked Werderitsch why he was cutting down the trees at the time, and he replied that he had been ordered to by the courts. Vine said that this was not true. Vine said that Werderitsch had actually petitioned the courts for permission to cut down the trees. Vine said Christie Canganelli said that she did not know what was going on with the trees. The person they spoke with at the City also did not know what was going on with the trees. Vine asked who did know what was going on with this project, and accused Werderitsch of not being honest about the trees. Vine asked why it was not important that her house was sitting on that property line. She asked Commissioners how they thought they could approve a plan that was to be built on top of her house. Vine said she and her mother asked on a Friday if Werderitsch would refrain from cutting down any more trees. The following Monday Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 12 they received a letter informing them that they had until December 315t to cease encroaching on Shelter House property. Vine said that such behavior was not respectful. Freerks said that she knew it was an emotional subject but that she needed to ask that the tone of Vine's comments remain civil. Vine reiterated that the plan must be adjusted so that it is not sitting on her house prior to approval by the Commission; to fail to do so would be wrong and irrational. Freerks asked if Greenwood-Hektoen would like to talk a little bit more about the scope of the Commission. Greenwood-Hektoen said she believed it had been adequately addressed. Freerks asked her to restate the issue. Greenwood-Hektoen said that title to land is not examined in site plan reviews. Freerks added that anyone has the right to remove trees on their property. During redevelopment, Freerks said, there are some issues when a stand of trees meets the definition of a grove. Miklo stated that as long as the trees are not protected by the sensitive areas ordinance the property owner has the right to remove them, so far as Staff is aware. Tom Werderitsch, 3 Evergreen Place, said that he is sorry Vine thinks that he is a liar because he is not. He said that he had never gone to any court to ask permission to remove trees, so he is not sure where that idea came from. What he said to her when asked why he was removing the trees was that he believed that in order to follow the letter of the law allowing Shelter House to proceed with construction, he had to put the fence within three feet of the property line. To do that, the boundary line had to be established and the trees had to be removed. It was his interpretation of the drawing from which he was working that he did not have a choice in the matter. Werderitsch reiterated that the trees had to be removes as a part of the process for establishing the lawful property line. Werderitsch stated that the homes in question are actually encroaching on a city easement, not the lawful property line. He said he just wished to clarify so that people understood that he did not lie. Gregg Redlin, 2950 East Washington Street, said that he has a business at 515 Southgate Avenue. Redlin has been in business since 1977, and built his building on Southgate Avenue in 1982. In 1983 he purchased 505 Southgate, which is very near Shelter House. Redlin expressed his primary concern as being what he would need to do to help his renters secure their businesses to ensure that they are not broken into or vandalized. Redlin pointed out that at the Shelter House's current location at 331 North Gilbert Street there is a neighborhood watching things at all times. Redlin said that when he leaves his business at 7:00 p.m. and does not return until 7:00 a.m. the next morning, there is no one in the area to keep an eye on things. He has had no problems in the area up until this point, but wants to know what he is to tell those renting from him about the neighborhood's future. He is concerned that businesses in the area will have to go to additional expense to secure their properties. Lori Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, said she was thinking about the site management plan that they had all believed was a required part of the process. She said that she had spoken with a resident of the mobile home park whose daughter had worked at the HACAP Headstart which was behind the current shelter house. The woman said there was a fence surrounding the preschool, but that people had jumped the fence and that many mornings teachers had to pick up glass and beer cans from the play area; she also said there were problems with people wandering in to the daycare. Dahlen said that her concern was that if those things could happen there, what was preventing similar things from happening at Hilltop. Dahlen said that as a manager at Hilltop she has worked with Werderitsch on the trees somewhat and that she has found him to be nice. However, she said that the original proposal for the project stated that the fence in combination with existing trees would provide the transition and buffer between the two-story Shelter House and the one-story residences. Dahlen read a letter from a resident of Hilltop Mobile Home Park who could not be present at the meeting. The letter -writer identified herself as a mother of three children whose concern about the Shelter House being located next door were: 1) how will Shelter House ensure that Hilltop residents are not harassed in any way by shelter clients, 2) how will loitering be ensured against, 3) how will vandalism and theft be prevented. The letter -writer said there are many concerns but that safety is the first issue. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 13 Dahlen asked that the Commission hold off on approving the site plan until Hilltop, its residents and its representation had a chance to look at the newest version of the site plan with its parking revisions. Bart Cramer, 513 Center Street, Lone Tree, said that he was present as an observer. He directed his question to Greenwood-Hektoen, asking if in the absence of a site management plan all of the nuisances that are likely to occur will have to be dealt with ex post facto by residents seeking remedies after the shelter is built. Greenwood-Hektoen acknowledged that this was the case. Janet Dahlen, 4815 Southeast Sand Road, introduced herself as owning the Hilltop Mobile home park in conjunction with her husband for 23 years. Dahlen said that she has a responsibility to the people who live there and who have put their trust in Hilltop to provide them with a safe and secure place in which to raise their families. Dahlen said it is her responsibility to provide residents with continued safety and security. She said she is greatly concerned with the impact the shelter will have on Hilltop. She asked where people will go once they leave the shelter or are turned away from the shelter for being sex offenders, drug addicts, and drunkards. Da'hlen said there are 152 families living at Hilltop and approximately 80-100 children. Dahlen said there is a daycare immediately across the street from the shelter. Dahlen said she has never been able to get her concerns across to anybody, but that she is very, very concerned. She thanked the Commission for listening. Geerdes stated that the code section for site plan review is Chapter 18 of the code. The code states: "The following factors shall be considered in arriving at a conclusion concerning proposed development and property: zoning regulation at the time of the proposal." Geerdes said that he could not state the matter any more clearly than that. Geerdes said that in regard to the boundary dispute, the Commission would essentially be taking property that rightfully belonged to Hilltop and incorporating it into someone else's project; a violation both of state law and of constitutional rights. No further members of the public came forward and the public hearing was closed. Freerks stated that the Commission had four options: 1) approve the site plan, 2) review and approve it with conditions, 3) defer the matter, or 4) vote the measure down. Miklo explained that the 20-day period for site plan review expires on November 13, 2008. As a result, the Commission could only defer to the next scheduled meeting on November 20th with the permission of the applicant, or if they held a special session prior to the expiration date. Eastham motioned to approve the site plan submitted by Shelter House as of November 6, 2008. Plahutnik seconded the motion. Freerks invited discussion from the Commission. Eastham said he was going to vote in favor of the motion. He stated that it was his understanding that the scope of review is strictly limited to elements of site plan review and the provisions of the zoning code. Eastham said it was his opinion that requirements have been met. Specifically, parking requirements are set not for the total number of employees, but for the maximum number of employees present on -site at a given time; those requirements have been met. Eastham said that he did not believe he had any authority to add requirements at this point that went above and beyond those in the code and the special exception. Plahutnik said he also is in support of approval. Plahutnik said that the Commission had been advised by counsel not to take these other matters into consideration, and based solely on the site plan before the Commission the requirements have been met. Plahutnik said he assumed there would be continued attempts to stall this project in court, but that the process the speakers seemed to want the Commission to revisit was the original zoning process and the special exception. Plahutnik said the Commission is not there to reopen that process. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 14 Weitzel stated that it is his understanding that the Commission's role was to take on the duties of Staff in reviewing an application that was made in 2004. Weitzel said that there are 13 specific criteria for the Commission to look at. Having looked at the site plan, the memos from the various departments stating that the site plan meets requirements, and heard the testimony of the public, Weitzel said he believed all criteria have been met. Busard said that whether or not he is in favor of Shelter House is irrelevant. The time to debate the zoning and use of the property was in the zoning and special exception phase. The site plan, Busard said is in compliance. Freerks said the Commission's focus was narrowed to the 13 items addressing site plan review. Freerks said she allowed some conversation that given the narrow scope of the matter before the Commission she might not normally allow; however, she said it is important that people feel they have a voice in these things. She said conversation can be very helpful, and she hopes that people can be good neighbors to one another. She said the Commission is not a judicial body and has very specific things that they can look at in this matter, and that she feels the Commission has served its purpose. She said she has a feeling this issue will probably continue on in other ways, but that Shelter House had to be treated just as any other applicant would and so she must vote in favor. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Koppes and Payne absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: October 13 & October 16, 2008: Busard motioned to accept the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The minutes were approved on a vote of 5-0 (Koppes and Payne absent). OTHER: Freerks noted that there was an article in the newspaper about the County's justice center, and the possible site locations. She asked if Staff had had any conversations about that. Miklo said there have been discussions with the County Attorney's Office and the facility planners for the new addition. Miklo said that it was Staff's understanding that the court house would be retained and used as court rooms but that a new building would be built to the south of that. Miklo said the County is acquiring some property from the City for that purpose. It has been expressed by Staff and City Council that there is a plan in place for that area and that there are some design concerns. As a part of the purchase agreement, there will be provisions for the County to make a good faith effort to follow those design plans and build an attractive building that fits in with the streetscape concepts for the Near-Southside Plan. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Busard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote (Koppes and Payne absent) at 9:22 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2008 - Formal Page 15 City of Iowa City Attachment 7 MEMORANDUM Date: October 31, 2008 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: Site Plan Review — Shelter House, 429 Southgate Avenue BACKGROUND Shelter House Community, owners of property at 429 Southgate Avenue, submitted a site plan and applied for a building permit on August 27, 2008 to develop a Community Service Shelter Use (transient housing) on the subject property. Under normal circumstances, review and approval of site plans is handled administratively by staff. The purpose of this review is to ensure that proposed developments are in compliance with all City Code requirements, conditional zoning agreements (CZAs), subdivision agreements, and any conditions or requirements associated with special exceptions for a specific property or use. Site plans are submitted to the Department of Housing and Inspection (HIS) for initial review and then routed to Fire, Public Works, and Planning Departments for additional review and comment. Any items needing correction or modification are identified and referred back to the applicant to be addressed before a permit can be issued. Upon final approval of the site plan, a building permit may be issued. For major site plans, HIS or owners of 20 percent or more of the property location within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed development site may request a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission in lieu of staff review. When such a request is received, the Commission may review and approve, review and approve with conditions, or deny the plan within 20 working days of receipt of the written request. The Commission's scope of review is the same as that of the Building Official and the Department of Housing and Inspection Services. PETITION On October 16, 2008, owners of more than 20 percent of the property located within 200 feet of the property owned by Shelter House at 429 Southgate Avenue submitted a request for review by the Commission. The petition raises the following three issues in objection to the proposed site plan: 1. The petitioner asserts that the site plan does not show compliance with parking requirements; 2. The petitioner asserts that the time limitation associated with the special exception for the property has expired. 3. There is an apparent dispute regarding the boundary line between the Shelter House property and the adjacent mobile home park. PARKING STANDARDS The minimum off-street parking is calculated according to the formula provided in Table 5A-2 located in Section 14-5A-4 of the Zoning Code. The shelter is classified as a Community Service -Shelter. The parking requirement for this use is listed in Table 5A-2 (see page 5A-8) as: 0.1 space per temporary resident based on the maximum number of residents staying at the shelter at any one time plus 1 space per employee based on the maximum number of employees at the site at any one time. The minimum parking requirement for Shelter House is 7 spaces required for residents (0.1 x 70) plus one additional space for each employee based on the maximum number of employees who will be at October 31, 2008 Page 2 the site at any given time. Shelter House indicated that a maximum of 14 employees would be at the site at one time, and thus a total of 21 spaces are required. The proposed parking area provides 18 spaces total (note space #16 is located to the west of the building and spaces #17 and #18 will be located within the building). At this time the site plan is deficient and the applicant is working to provide the additional 3 spaces. SPECIAL EXCEPTION The Board of Adjustment granted Shelter House a special exception to establish transient housing in the CI-1 zone after a public hearing on July 14, 2004. This decision was timely challenged by persons in the neighborhood and, after trial, the district court overturned the Board of Adjustment's decision by a ruling filed in June 2005. The Board of Adjustment and Shelter House appealed this ruling and on March 7, 2008 the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and affirmed the Board of Adjustment decision granting the special exception. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied, and the Supreme Court entered its final order on April 9, 2008. By operation of local ordinance, Board of Adjustment decisions expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the board's decision, such as obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Shelter House was informed of the terms of limitation in a letter dated August 4, 2004 (see attached). Upon written request and for good cause shown, the board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. During the pending litigation, and within the six month time frame, the Board received a request for the extension of the expiration of the six (6) month period. In February, 2005 the board granted an extension from the date of the written decision to a period six (6) months after the final conclusion of litigation and associated appeals. In this instance, Shelter House submitted a site plan for review on August 27, 2008. Staff performed a review of the plans and conveyed comments on September 9, 2008, noting that revised plans incorporating the comments should not be submitted until public works and the water division conveyed their comments so they could be incorporated into the revised plans. Public Works and the Water Division submitted their comments and revised plans were received from Shelter House on September 17, 2008. Shelter House submitted an application for a building permit and detailed building plans on September 26. In reviewing the building plans and the revised site plan it was noted that a major site plan was necessary because the floor area in the proposed building would exceed 10,000 square feet. On October 1, 2008, a revised site plan was submitted based on submittal requirements for a major site plan and on October 2 the site was posted to notify the public of a pending major site plan review. Between September 29 and October 3, there was significant correspondence and communication between City staff and Shelter House regarding the site plan. On October 10, staff received a revised major site plan with corrections made based on staff comments. Review of the site plan has been ongoing, and staff anticipates a new site plan to be submitted prior to the Commission's next meeting on November 6. Since Shelter House made its application for a building permit and site plan review within the six month time frame from the date of the conclusion of the subject litigation and responded to numerous comments and made multiple plan revisions within that time period, the applicant has clearly taken substantial material action toward establishing the use prior to the expiration of the six-month period. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that the special exception has not expired. BOUNDARY DISPUTE Another contention of the petition is that, due to a boundary dispute between the mobile home park and the Shelter House site, a new site plan that does not contemplate construction on the disputed property must be submitted. This contention is incorrect, as the issue of property ownership is not reviewed or determined by the City when approving a site plan. When reviewing a proposed site October 31, 2008 Page 3 plan the City simply reviews the plan for compliance with the applicable site plan development standards given the surveyed property lines as depicted and described on the site plan. If there is a dispute regarding property ownership, it is a private matter to be resolved between the parties, without involvement by the City. A site plan can be approved and a building permit issued on a given site plan notwithstanding potential property line disputes. In fact, the issue may not be recognized until construction begins under the approved site plan and building permit, which will then require the parties to resolve the matter. SITE PLAN REVIEW Shelter House submitted a site plan for review August 27, 2008 and has responded to all staff requests for revisions. To secure its building permit, Shelter House must show that the submitted site plan meets the specific standards for the special exception that were in place at the time that the application was approved. The requirements of the special exception granted in July 2004 are: 1. A minimum of 200 square feet of lot area is required per temporary resident and a minimum of 300 square feet of lot area is required per permanent resident; ■ Maximum of 70 temporary residents are proposed; there will be no permanent residents 2. General compliance with the site plan submitted with the special exception, including ■ an evergreen landscape buffer along the east property line; ■ An approximate 30-foot rear building setback; ■ An 8-foot high privacy fence installed along the south property line; ■ Compliance with the exterior stairwell guidelines. All other aspects of the site plan must meet site development standards of the current code, including parking standards, landscape screening, street trees, outdoor lighting, etc. Staff was in the process of reviewing the Shelter House site plan when the request for Planning and Zoning Commission review was submitted. Notes compiled by HIS from the staff review process are attached. These notes include various requests for clarification and correction on the site plan during various stages of review. Note that when issues were resolved, an "OK" notation was marked next to the comment. The most recent site plan submitted by the applicant is attached for your review. Staff finds that this submittal dated October 29, 2008 meets all the requirements and conditions of the special exception (granted on July 14, 2004) and all standards in the current zoning code, with the exception of the minimum parking requirement of 21 spaces. The applicant has indicated that a new site plan showing the 21 required spaces will be submitted pr to the November 6 Commission meeting. Approved by: ,Karen Howard, Actinb Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Attachments/enclosures 1. Petition requesting Planning and Zoning Commission Review and subsequent additional letter from petitioner 2. Board of Adjustment decision and preliminary site plan submitted with the special exception 3. Title 18: Site Plan Review Standards 4. Commercial Site Development standards 5. Off-street Parking Standards 6. Staff site plan review comments 7. Most recent Major Site Plan dated October 29,2008 and proposed building elevation GREGG GEERDES Attorney at Law Dey Building 105 Iowa Avenue, Suite 234 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 341-3304 Telephone (319) 341-3306 Fax October 16, 2008 City of Iowa City Building Department Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Shelter House Major Site Plan Review Dear Sir/Madam: EUE I V E I'llspoD HOUSING & INSPECTION SERVICES IOWA CITY, IOWA Attached is a request by property owners requesting a review of the major site plan which has been submitted by Shelter House. I represent these neighboring property owners. We are requesting, pursuant to Section 18-2-3 of the City Code that the Planning and Zoning Commission review the site plan. We note from our initial review that the proposed project (1) does not provide for the amount of parking required by City Code; and (2) that the project requires a special exception, that Shelter House's special exception has expired and that a new special exception therefore needs to be applied for and granted before the site plan can be approved. We request an opportunity to be heard at the meeting of the commission when this plan is reviewed so that we can provide additional grounds for the commission to consider. Please notify me when this review will occur. Please also call with questions. Sincerely, Gregg Geerdes CC: Lori Dahlen GG/se Enc. REQUEST FOR REVIEW Re: Shelter House Proposed Facility Planning and Zoning Commission The undersigned owners of property located within 200 feet of thite proposed by Shelter House for its new facility hereby request that the Iowa Cityreview the site plan which has been submitted by Shelter House to the City of Iowa City. Signature of Property Owner �c Print Name of Property OwneA c-6ce( Daklet, Q n o -t V-\ Mailing Address of Property Owner '8l S— <5- IS-Q lr\( (k©q4 U . Address of Property Owned / Adjacent to Shelter House ZO� �rr^^✓✓a�N Signature of Property Owner �� ✓ `� Print Name of Property Owner l#e,�de-[A /rl C AI' I e Mailing Address of Property Owner / 1:1 'b L? /; Address of Property Owned Adjacent to Shelter House Signature of Property Owner Print Name of Property Owner ,/ C>g ` r 1 , Mailing Address of Property Owner Address of Property Owned ,r 0 Adjacent to Shelter House iJ/� C(%t �j bit �- Signature of Property Ova Print Name of Property C Mailing Address of Prope Address of Property Own Adjacent to Shelter Hous Signature of Property VYIIVI Print Name of Property Owner Mailing Address of Property Owner Address of Property Owned Adjacent to Shelter House . Signature of Property Owner Print Name of Property Owner Mailing Address of Property Owner Address of Property Owned Adjacent to Shelter House _ Signature of Property Owner Print Name of Property Owner Mailing Address of Property Owner Address of Property Ownerd Adjacent to Shelter House _ GREGG GEERDES Attorney at Law Dey Building 105 Iowa Avenue, Suite 234 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 341-3304 Telephone (319) 341-3306 Fax October 24, 2008 City of Iowa City Building Department Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Shelter House Major Site Plan Review Dear Sir/Madam: RECEIVE OCT 2 4 2008 DD HOUSING & INSPECTION SERVICES IOWA CITY, IOWA I am writing with a supplement to my letter of October 16, 2008. First, I am enclosing a map prepared by the Johnson County Auditor. I believe that the signature of the Dahlens, who are the owners of the parcel at 2018 Waterfront, and Mike McNiel, who is the owner of 1949 Waterfront, satisfy the 20% requirement. Regarding, the parking issue, the site plan submitted does not show compliance with parking requirements. Based upon the combined number of staff and residents, which is 85, 22 spaces are necessary. If residents only are counted, 18 spaces would be necessary. The site plan shows 15 spaces. We contend that 22 spaces are necessary but the site plan fails to even include 15. The applicant will also need to obtain a new special exception to build on the proposed site. On February 9, 2005 the Board of Adjustment extended the expiration date of the Shelter House application "to a date six (6) months after the current litigation and any associated appeals are finally concluded". The Shelter House litigation concluded on April 9, 2008 when the Iowa Supreme Court issued its Procendo Order. I am enclosing documents which show the expiration of the current special exception. Until a new special exception is obtained Shelter House is not in compliance with zoning requirements and the site plan cannot be approved. Because Shelter House has obviously failed to get either a building permit on an extension of its special exception, it will need to start the special exception process anew. Without a valid special exception the use proposed by Shelter House violates city zoning law. You should also be aware that there is an apparent boundary dispute between the mobile home park and the Shelter House site, with Shelter House apparently claiming ownership of a portion of property which for many years has been used by the mobile home park. The site plan apparently contemplates construction on the disputed property. Also, the setbacks will need to be calculated based upon the undisputed boundary line. A new site plan is therefore needed. As indicated previously, please notify us so that we can participate in the planning and zoning commission meeting which will review this matter. Please also contact me with questions. Sincerely, Gregg Geerdes CC: Lori Dahlen GG/se Johnson County UIS Online Page 1 of 1 D OCT 2 4 2008 HOUSING &INSPECTION SERVICES IOWA'CITY, IbWA ittp://www.johnson-county.com/servlet/com.esri.esrhnap. Esrimap?S erviceNamejcmapOv&ClientVers... 10/20/2008 VfOI Prepared by Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. W"hington, lows City, lA 52240; 310W5230 DECIISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2005 — 5 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Ned Wood MEMBERS ABSENT: Vincent Maurer, Karen Leigh STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Robert Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Allan Berger, Tim Krumm 4"nson County Iowa KIM. Painter county I 3855 pQ5 WPM Tong Iyypa: a at Ois4oil tors corder i� L9.52 , SPECOL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 1. EXC06-0000An application submitted by Alan Berger for a. special exception to allow the operation of a small animal. veterinary clinic on property located in the Commercial Office zone at 3030 Northgate Drive. Eindirxrs of Fact: The Board finds that the proposed small animal clinic will be located 'at least. 200 feet from any. residential property. The.Board also finds that the proposed building will be located in the center of the property. This will assure that there are sufflcient buffers between the clinic and. surrounding properties so that noise and odors should not be discernible across any lot line. The Board finds that the clinic would be: conducted completely indoors. and at the time of the building permit the applicant will need to demonstrate to the Building Official that the building is sound proof. The Board finds that adequate streets and utilities are In place to sere this lot.. Conclusions of Law: Based on the findings above, the Board concludes that all general and specific standards have been met or will be met.. The Board concludes that the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the. public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The Board further .concludes that the proposed exception will not be injurious to .the ube and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially, diminish or Impair property values In the neighborhood. The Board concludes that establishment of.the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and Improvement, of the surrounding property for uses permitted In the CO-1 zone, and that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities -have been or are being provided. The Board concludes that adequate measures will. be taken to provide. ingress or egress designed . minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Board conciudes.thlttt the special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Man of the City. Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board approves EX SS-00002 an application submitted by Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the operation. of a small animal veterinary clinic on property located In the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 3030 Northgate Drive provided that prior to the issuance of the. building permit the applicant demonstrates to the building official that the portion of the building containing the clinic will be soundp D E N E OCT 2 4 2008 HOUSING & INSPECTION SERVICES IOWA CITY IOWA Sr.- ..�rw. �_., �1�CITY, IOWALow Density Single -Family Resident a - ZFindlnos of FaotTFie Board finds that this property consists3 0 060 de lots of record nt In lot pros. The that are- esch .10 feet deficient in require lot, developed Width and. withf sing o- meet olly homes and most properties surrounding this property'are Yeight of the proosed are similar in size to the proposed houseT Boardhe the no ghborhoalso finds that odh The Board finds that building will similar to the existing owstory houses these lots have access to. an alley, which will help minimize congestion on Crescent Street. (' : Based on the findings above, the Board concludes that . all general and 1g S of Law Board specifio standards have been met or will be mete . Thehealth,, safetye comfort oe general exception will not be detrimental to or endangerpublic welfare: The. Board further concludes that . . lidihe ate vicinity and wiltion l not substantially ially diminish use shd enjoyment of other property in or impair property values in the neighborhood. The Board, concludes that establishment of the. specific proposed exception will not impede the normal uses permitted�in theorderly RS-5ezone and that improvement of the surrounding property for adequate utilities, access roads,. drainage and/omeaa res willabettakenat0 peoevide .ingr ssi o� provided. The Board concludes that _adequate ion on public streets. The Board concludes that the egress designed to minimize traffic congest special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. i B a vote of 3-0 the Board applfoves EXC05.004iZ an application submitted by D1920 i O: y 0061.8 . Craig Feininger for a special exception to > Ii herLow Density Single -Family Residential (RS . into two residential lots for property locate th, zone at '1518 Crescent Street, subject to thel'olicaonf rm =adhg°��ans provided by thei apphcantg, constructed an the vacant lot shall substantially,' and 2) the vehicular access to the two lots shall be restricted to the,alley and no dd ayd om �r EA either lot shall be permitted onto Crescent Street. iration date of the previously appfR a sPfal 3. EXC64-00016 An extension _for the ex P In IIntensive Commercial (CI-1) zone e�l exception to permit transient- housing in the southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive. rd finds that the decision of the Board was filed on Au _ n, 2164. The Boa the constn�lon of�e The Board also finds that , the applicant could not reasonably pursue facility because of litigation thafle currently pending. a : The Board concludes that due to circumstances �ou on approved transientcontrolof ` applicant, It was not reasonably able to begin construction of the s Y housing. The Board concludes: that the .applicant has shown good cause to extend the special exception expiration period to a date six (6) - months after the current litigation . and any associated appeals are finally concluded, Disuo�jtt4p; By a vote of 3-0 the Board of Adjustment extends the special exception expiration CI-1) zone period for � 04_00. 01B to per►nit transient housing SouthgateIn the tensive Commercial Avenue and Waterfront Drive to iccated at the southeast corner of the intersection o. a date six (6) ' months after the current litigation and any associated appeals are finally, concluded. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, -shall expire six (6) months from the date they were flied with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have taken action within such time period to establish the uss or construct the Improvement authorized under the -terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-4B-5E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. ak Ap IAN M, nt-Maarer, Chairperson Carol Wlezoder, /fc.ti' City Atto e s STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) I, Mach' n,Karr, City Clerk of the City, of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein. is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of. Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 9th day of February, 2005, as the same appears of record In my Office: Dated at Iowa City, this . day of , 2005 CENE Martan K: Karr, City Clerk D OCT 2 4 2008 ID CORpoRATE SEAL r. 0 R HOUSING & INSPECTION SERVICES IOWA. CITY, IOWA � �? i Prepared by Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, JULY 14 — 5 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Keitel. 0 _-- Vincent Maurer and Michae ht' I ` ---�--� 1 r n .�. STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Robert Miklo and Tokey Boswell SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: :tea CD 1. EXC04-00014 Public hearing on an application submitted by Englert Civic Theatre, Inc. for a special exception to permit a historic sign that does not conform to the sign code (an animated lighted sign that also exceeds size limits) in the Central Business (CB-10) zone located at 221 E. Washington Street. Findings of Fact: The Board finds the Englert Theater is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and therefore the Englert sign is considered a historic sign. The Board finds . 9 that the Englert sign in non -conforming: it is an animated lighted sign that also exceeds current size limits. The Board finds that the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed restoration of the Englert sign and the Commission has found that the sin is g in keeping with the architectural character of the structure and is appropriate to a particular period of the Englert's history and lis an integral part of its identity. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes the standards necessaryfor continuation of historic signs have been met. The Englert sign is not detrimental to nor will it endanger public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The sign will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity. The Board concludes that given its location on a one-way street where traffic moves slowly, distraction to motorists will be minimal. The Board concludes that restoration of the Englert sign will contribute to the economic vitality of downtown Iowa City. Addtionally, Restoration of the sign is consistent with the comprehensive plan goals for the preservation of the city's historic buildings. Disposition: By a vote of 4-0 the Board approves EXC04-00014, an application for a special exception to permit a historic Englert Theater sign, which is a nonconforming sign, be approved subject to issuance of a license agreement for temporary use of the right-of-way by the City Engineer. 2. EXC04-00016 Public hearing on an application submitted by Shelter House for a special exception to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (Cl-1) zone located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the CI-1 zone requires 200 square feet of lot area per temporary resident and that the property at 429 Southgate Avenue contains 29,000 square feet more than enough lot area to allow the 70 temporary residents proposed by Shelter House. The Board finds that the site plan submitted by Shelter House provides for evergreen landscaping on the Shelter House property to buffer the occupants of Shelter House from potentially intensive commercial uses that may locate on the adjacent property as permitted uses in the CI-1 zone. The Board finds that the 30-foot set back from the south property line and an 8-foot tall privacy fence will provide a transition from the proposed two- story Shelter House to the one-story manufactured housing units located to the south. The Board finds that the site plan demonstrates compliance with parking requirements, dimensional standards and other zoning codes. The Board finds that other human service agencies are located in to the west and north of the Shelter House property and therefore this is an appropriate, supportive location. Further, the Comprehensive Plan's social services vision statement recognizes the community need to support human services such as Shelter House. The Board finds that the overall public health, safety and welfare are at greater risk when the community fails to provide necessary services when the need for such services has been demonstrated. Conclusions of Law: Based on. the evidence presented, the Board concludes that Shelter House meets the specific zoning requirements for transient housing in the CI-1 zone: The Board concludes that the location is appropriate, as other human service agencies located in the area are compatible with and complimentary to the services provided by Shelter House. The Board concludes that the property has adequate drainage, utilities, public transportation and streets necessary for transient housing. The Board concludes that developing the Shelter House at this location will not be detrimental overall to the public health, safety; comfort or general welfare. The Board concludes that Shelter House will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties and will not interfere with normal orderly development and improvement of surrounding property in the area. Disposition: By a vote of 3-1 (Maurer voting no) the Board approves EXC04-00016 an application submitted by Shelter House for a special exception to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone located at 429 Southgate Avenue subject to general compliance with the submitted site plan including a landscape buffer being provided along the east property line, an 8-foot tall privacy fence being provided along the south property line and compliance with the exterior stairwell guidelines. 3. EXC04-00017 Public hearing on an application submitted by Cynthia Parsons for a special exception to reduce the front yards from 20 feet to 17 feet, and to allow a common driveway to be located partially on a separate lot for properties located in the Medium Density Single - Family (RS-8) zone located at 1128 and 1130 E. Washington Street. h� Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the requested front setback is conse� wi0the neighborhood average, and that there is a unique situation that justifies,_ re0ced setback. The Board finds that the shared driveway is justified by the neighbgr�hooid dRign.--n The Board finds that the exceptions granted are minimal in proportion-itp� th&_dar1�__ requirements, and that the final drawings and site plan include provisions tb* inimiq the-rl scale and coverage of the development to minimize neighborhood impact. � —w ''• ru L .✓ Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that the property at 1128 &N 1136) East Washington Street meets the zoning requirements for duplexes in the RS-8 zoneF) The Board concludes that both a unique situation and a practical difficulty do exist for the property in question. The Board concludes that the development will not be detrimental overall to .the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, nor be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties, nor interfere with orderly development and improvement of properties in the area. Disposition: By a vote of 4-0, the Board approves EXC04-00017 an application submitted by Cynthia Parsons for a special exception to reduce the front yards from 20 feet to 17 feet, and to allow a common driveway to be located partially on a separate lot for properties located in the Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone located at 1128 and 1130 E. Washington Street, subject to 1) submission to and approval by the City Attorney, of a covenant providing for the perpetual maintenance of the shared driveway; and 2) submission of and approval by the Director of Planning, an elevation drawing and site plan which indicate the nature of exterior elements of the proposed buildings and the design of the parking areas, and general adherence to these documents during construction. The Board conditionally approves this item for one year. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized r9der the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-4B-5E, City of Iowa City, Iowa.11 1 Vincent'Maurer, Vi ec Ch STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 14th day of July, 2004, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this ._3 day of 2004 .. , LIJ - tl_. ar- LLJ -_ J cry U _ Ma�a�K. arr,City Clerk LL c; Cyr,) C� -- ..HACAP FAMILY SERVICES ANN MURRAY Shelter House .S...ite Ptah �Cp� C�,�-i � �a�ti S v� M�I�e.�i. W �k� s Pew e y„c�p,4�k �9n ........................................................................................................ NEUMANN MONSON .A R-:c 1-1 1 T E -*%r.--- T -S' �6& Prepared by Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2005 — 5 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Ned Wood MEMBERS ABSENT: Vincent Maurer, Karen Leigh STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Robert Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Allan Berger, Tim Krumm SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: I IIIII II UIIII I II IIIII NIN lull alll pNl IIIII INII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII IIII IIII Recorded: 03/23/20050atT01e49Q01 PM Fee Amt: 517.00 Paoe i of 3 Johnson Countv Iowa Kim Painter Countv Recorder 18K3855 PG519-521 1. EXC05-00002 An application submitted by Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the operation of a small animal veterinary clinic on property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 3030 Northgate Drive. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the proposed small animal clinic will be located at least 200 feet from any residential property. The Board also finds that the proposed building will be located in the center of the property. This will assure that there are sufficient buffers between the clinic and surrounding properties so that noise and odors should not be discernible across any lot line. The Board finds that the clinic would be conducted completely indoors and at the time of the building permit the applicant will need to demonstrate to the Building Official that the building is sound proof. The Board finds that adequate streets and utilities are in place to serve this lot. Conclusions of Law: Based on the findings above, the Board concludes that all general and specific standards have been met or will be met. The Board concludes that the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The Board further concludes that the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the CO-1 zone, and that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The Board concludes that adequate measures will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Board concludes that the special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board approves EXC05-00002 an application submitted by Alan Berger for a special exception to allow the operation of a small animal veterinary clinic on property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 3030 Northgate Drive provided that prior to the issuance of the building permit the applicant demonstrates to the building official that the portion of the building containing the clinic will be soundproofed. 2. EXC05-00001 An application submitted by Craig Fairlinger for a special exception to allow for the separation of two non conforming parcels into two residential lots for property located in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 1518 Crescent Street. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that this property consists of two 50-foot wide lots of record that are each 10 feet deficient in required lot width and 1750 feet deficient in lot area. The properties surrounding this property are currently developed with single-family homes and most are similar in size to the proposed house. The Board also finds that the height of the proposed building will similar to the existing one-story houses in the neighborhood. The Board finds that these lots have access to an alley, which will help minimize congestion on Crescent Street. Conclusions of Law: Based on the findings above, the Board concludes that all general and specific standards have been met or will be met. The Board concludes that the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The Board further concludes that the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the RS-5 zone, and that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The Board concludes that adequate measures will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Board concludes that the special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board approves EXC05-00001 an application submitted by Craig Fairlinger for a special exception to allow for the separation of two non conforming parcels into two residential lots for property located in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 1518 Crescent Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) the single-family dwelling constructed on the vacant lot shall substantially conform to the plans provided by the applicant, and 2) the vehicular access to the two lots shall be restricted to the alley and no drivewaysTfrom either lot shall be permitted onto Crescent Street. 3. EXC04-00016 An extension for the expiration date of the previously approved spial exception to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone looted i the southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the decision of the Board was filed on Au6_U 3', 2W4. The Board also finds that the applicant could not reasonably pursue the constrLoion of e facility because of litigation that is currently pending. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, it was not reasonably able to begin construction of the previously approved transient housing. The Board concludes that the applicant has shown good cause to extend the special exception expiration period to a date six (6) months after the current litigation and any associated appeals are finally concluded. Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board of Adjustment extends the special exception expiration period for EXC04-00016 to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive to a date six (6) months after the current litigation and any associated appeals are finally concluded. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-413-5E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Vimcentftmr-er, Chairperson Caro / tjle, �a�,e!, /�c t7n1- STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 9th day of February, 2005, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this -2— day of ' , 2005 7-1,1�-7� - -;e - 12e� Marlan K. Karr, City Clerk CORPORATE SEAL f _ F - ro - ITI TITLE 18 SITE PLAN REVIEW Subject Chapter Intent And Applicability ...................... 1 Procedures And Submittal Requirements ......... 2 Site Plan Design Standards ................... 3 Enforcement And Penalties ................... 4 Iowa City 18-1-1 CHAPTERI INTENT AND APPLICABILITY SECTION: 18-1-1: Purpose. 18-1-2: Applicability 18-1-1 18-1-1: PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this title to establish a procedure which will enable the city to review certain proposed improvements of property within the city in order to ensure the orderly and harmonious development of property in a manner that will: A. Promote the most beneficial relation between present and proposed uses of land. B. Allow development of property commensurate with the present and foreseeable availability and capacity of city facilities and services. The following factors shall be considered in arriving at a conclusion concerning proposed development of property: 1. The projected population of the proposed development or the proposed intensity of use and the effect the proposal will have on the capacity of existing water and sanitary sewer lines to avoid overloading existing systems; 2. Zoning regulations at the time of the proposal; 3. The city's comprehensive plan, as amended, and other specific community plans; 4. The city's plans for future construction and provision for public facilities and services; and 5. The existing and planned city facilities and services for the area which will be affected by the proposed site use. Iowa City 18-1-1 18-1-2 C. Ensure compliance with this code, as amended, including applicable zoning regulations, approved subdivision plats, public works standards, and public safety standards. D. Encourage adequate provision of surface and subsurface storm water drainage in order to assure .that future development and other properties in the city will not be adversely affected. E. Provide screening of parking, truck loading, solid waste disposal and outdoor storage areas from adjacent properties. F. Provide for orderly, safe, and efficient circulation of traffic in the development and throughout the city. G. Minimize adverse environmental impacts on the developing property. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 18-1-2: APPLICABILITY: A. Site Plan Review Required: 1. The standards in this title are in addition to those required by the building code, as amended, and apply to commercial, industrial, and multi -unit residential development. 2. Site plans must be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the city according to the provisions of this title prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development on any "lot", "tract" or "parcel of land" as those terms are defined in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code, except as exempted in subsection B of this section. B. Exemptions: Site plan review is not required for the development of one single-family dwelling or one two-family dwelling or related accessory structures in any zoning district. However, such uses and structures are not exempt from other applicable provisions of this code, including requirements of the building code, as amended. C. Major Site Plans: Major site plans are required for all of the following types of development: 1. Construction of over twelve (12) units residential development and any additions or alterations to existing development containing over twelve (12) units residential; or Iowa City 18-1-2 18-1-2 2. Over ten thousand (10,000) square feet of nonresidential floor area. D. Minor Site Plans: Minor site plans are required for all development that does not require a major site plan, except as exempted in subsection B, "Exemptions", of this section. E. Sensitive Areas Development Plan: A sensitive areas development plan may be required for properties containing environmentally sensitive features as set forth in title 14, chapter 5, article I, "Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code. The requirements and exemptions for regulated sensitive features are set forth in title 14, chapter 5, article I, "Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code. Level I sensitive areas review shall be in accordance with the all procedures and approval processes set forth in chapter 2 of this title, except for section 18-2-2, "Submittal Requirements". Submittal requirements for level I sensitive areas review are set forth in title 14, chapter 5, article I of this code, based on the type of regulated feature(s) that exist on the subject property. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) Iowa City 18-2-1 CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURES AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SECTION: 18-2-1: General Procedures 18-2-2: Submittal Requirements 18-2-3: Approval/Denial Process 18-2-4: Effective Period Of Plan Approval 18-2-5: Amendments To Approved Site Plans 18-2-2 18-2-1: GENERAL PROCEDURES: An application for site plan approval for all development shall be submitted to the city and shall meet the following requirements: A. A minimum of two (2) copies of minor site plans and four (4) copies of major site plans containing all required information. B. The required review fee, as established by resolution of the city council, shall accompany the application for site plan approval. C. Within twenty four (24) hours of submitting an application for major site plan approval, the applicant shall post notice of intent to develop on the site. The notice to be posted will be provided by the city and shall be posted as directed by the city. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 18-2-2: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: A. Minor Site Plans: Minor site plans submitted for approval must include the following information: 1. Date of preparation and north arrow. 2. A scale no smaller than one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100'). Iowa City 18-2-2 18-2-2 3. Legal description or street address of the property. 4. Name and address of the owner of record of the property, the applicant and the person(s) preparing the site plan, and the name and address of the applicant's attorney, if any. 5. Property lines with dimensions to the nearest one -tenth of a foot ('/,o') and total square footage or acreage of the site. 6. Total number and types of dwelling units proposed, proposed uses for all building, total floor area of each building and any other information which may be necessary to determine the number of off street parking and loading spaces required by title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. 7. Location and exterior dimensions of all existing and proposed structures or additions, including setback distance from property boundary lines and distance between structures. 8. Location, grade and dimension of all existing and proposed paved surfaces, including parking and loading areas, entrance and exit drives, pedestrian walkways, bicycle storage areas, dividers, curbs, islands and other similar permanent improvements. 9. Location of all existing and proposed outdoor recycling, trash, solid waste, and dumpster areas and methods of screening such areas. 10. Location and type of all existing and proposed signs. Proposed signs may require a separate sign permit. (See title 14, chapter 5, article B, "Sign Regulations", of this code.) 11. Plans and proposed methods for the prevention and control of soil erosion for the development. 12. A landscaping plot plan is required indicating all existing trees eight inches (8") or larger in diameter measured at a point six inches (6") above the ground level. In addition, the plot plan must distinguish the existing or proposed trees or landscaping intended to satisfy tree requirements or screening requirements of this code. (See subsection 14-5A-51, "Landscaping And Tree Requirements Within Parking Areas", and title 14, chapter 5, article E, "Landscaping And Tree Standards", of this code, and any other applicable screening required according to title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code.) Iowa City 18-2-2 18-2-2 13. Location of the following features of the site: a. Streams and other water bodies, including wetlands. b. Areas subject to flooding from a 100-year event. 14. Location, amount and type of proposed lighting, fences, walls or other screening. 15. A detailed lighting plan and photometrics layout which shows the location, type, height, and intensity of all existing and proposed exterior lighting on the property. The photometrics layout must show the foot-candles generated by all lights on the property and provide the total outdoor light output as measured in initial lumens from all bulbs used in outdoor light fixtures. The lighting plan and photometrics layout must comply with the standards specified in title 14, chapter 5, article G, "Outdoor Lighting Standards", of this code. 16. Location and specifications for any existing or proposed aboveground or belowground storage facilities for any chemical, salts, flammable materials or hazardous materials. 17. Other data and information as may be reasonably required by the building official. B. Major Site Plans: Submittal information for major site plans must include all the information contained in subsection A of this section, plus the following additional information: 1. Existing and proposed contours at intervals not to exceed five feet (5'), provided at least two (2) contours are shown. Contours of neighboring properties must be provided when deemed necessary by the city. . 2. When deemed necessary by the city, a complete storm water runoff plan, including grades and/or elevations of storm sewer systems, direction of surface flow, detention areas, outlet control structures and devices and storm water calculations. (See title 16, chapter 3, article G, "Storm Water Collection, Discharge, And Runoff", of this code.) 3. Location and size of existing and proposed utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, gas, electrical telephone, cable TV, plus all existing or proposed fire hydrants. Iowa City 18-2-2 18-2-3 4. A typical cross section of all proposed streets, alleys and parking areas showing roadway location, type of curb and gutter, paving and sidewalks to be installed. 5. A complete traffic circulation and parking plan. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 18-2-3: APPROVAL/DENIAL PROCESS: A. The city shall review and approve, review and approve with conditions, or review and deny all site plans submitted under this title within twenty one (21) working days after application, without requiring submission of the plan to the planning and zoning commission. B. Upon submission of a major site plan, the building official shall promptly convey a copy of the major site plan to the department of public works and the department of planning and community development for their review and comments. The departments of planning and community development, public works, and housing and inspection services shall review the site plan to determine if the design conforms to the standards set forth in this title. The departments of planning and community development and public works shall forward their recommendations to the department of housing and inspection services within ten (10) working days after date of submission of a major site plan to the city. C. For major .site plans, the department of housing and inspection services or those owners of twenty percent (20%) or more of the property located within two hundred feet (200') of the exterior boundaries of the proposed development site may request a review by the planning and zoning commission. The request must be in writing and must be filed with the building official within twenty (20) days of submission of the original application or within twenty (20) days of the posting requirements set forth in section 18-2-1 of this chapter, whichever is later. When such a request is received, the planning and zoning commission may review and approve, review and approve with conditions, or review and deny said plan within twenty (20) working days of receipt of the written request for planning and zoning commission review. The commission's scope of review shall be the same as that of the building official and the department of housing and inspection services. Iowa City 18-2-3 18-2-5 D. Upon site plan approval by the building official or the planning and zoning commission, a building permit may be issued. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 18-2-4: EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF PLAN APPROVAL: The approval of any site plan shall remain valid for one year after the date of approval. The approved site plan shall be null and void if a building permit has not been issued within one year of the site pan approval or if actual construction has not commenced within eighteen (18) months of the site plan approval. "Actual construction" shall mean that the permanent placement of construction materials has started and is proceeding without undue delay. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 18-2-5: AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS: Any approved site plan may be amended in accordance with the standards and procedures established herein. However, the building official may waive such procedures and fees in the event the building official determines that the proposed amendment involves only a minor change in the approved site plan and is in compliance with the site plan review standards. For the purposes of this section, minor changes may include, but are not limited to, the following: A. A change to move building walls within the confines of the smallest rectangle that would have enclosed each originally approved building, to relocate building entrances or exits or to shorten building canopies. B. A change to a more restrictive use, provided there is no change in the amount of off street parking as originally approved. C. A change in angle of parking or a parking aisle width, provided there is no reduction in the amount of off street parking as originally approved. D. A change in location of the ingress and egress drives of not more than one hundred feet (100'), provided such change is approved by the city and is in compliance with the provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this code. E. A substitution of plant species, provided the substituted species is similar in nature and in screening effects and is otherwise in compliance with requirements of this code. Iowa City 18-2-5 18-2-5 F. A change in type and design of lighting fixture, provided there will be no change in the intensity of light at the property boundary and the proposed fixture is in compliance with the applicable provisions of title 14, chapter 6, article G, "Outdoor Lighting Standards", of this code. G. A change to increase peripheral yards. H. The replacement of paved areas with landscaping, provided adequate parking facilities are retained. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) Iowa City 18-3-1 CHAPTER SITE PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION: 18-3-1: Compliance Required 18-3-2: Design Standards 18-3-2 18-3-1: COMPLIANCE REQUIRED: All site plans submitted for city approval must comply with the following design standards. These standards are the minimum standards necessary to safeguard the public health, safety, aesthetics and general welfare of the city and are necessary to fulfill the intent of the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive plan, as amended, and other specific community plans. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 18-3-2: DESIGN STANDARDS: A. Drainage: The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream property so that the proposed development will not substantially and materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent downstream property. B. Utility Connections: The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for connection to water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electrical and other public utility lines within the capacity limits of those utility lines. C. Fire Safety: The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for fire protection and for building placement, acceptable location of flammable materials and other measures to ensure fire safety. Iowa City 18-3-2 18-3-2 D. Erosion And Sedimentation Control: The design of the proposed development shall comply with the standards for erosion and sedimentation control established in the city design standards in order to protect adjoining or surrounding property. The development plan shall consider the topography and soils of the site to achieve the lowest potential for erosion. E. Landscape Preservation: So far as practical, the landscape shall be preserved in its natural state by minimizing tree and soil removal and by topographic modifications which result in maximum harmony with adjacent areas. Structures and other site improvements shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees are preserved on the site. The development plan shall identify existing trees to be preserved and trees to be removed and shall specify measures to be utilized to protect trees during construction. To the extent reasonably feasible, all wetlands shall be retained in their natural state or consistent with their functions and values or be replaced with a wetland of equal or greater value. F. Vehicle And Pedestrian Circulation: The design of vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall be provided for safe and convenient flow of vehicles and movement' of pedestrians and shall, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, prevent hazards to adjacent streets or property. The city may limit entrances and exits upon adjacent streets in order to prevent congestion on adjacent or surrounding streets and in order to provide for safe and orderly vehicle movement. The city may limit street access according to the provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this code. G. Outdoor Dumpster Areas: Outdoor recycling, trash, solid waste, and dumpster areas shall be in compliance with the city's solid waste regulations and in compliance with screening requirements contained in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. (See subsection 14-4C-2Q, "Outdoor Dumpster Areas", of this code.) H. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in order to maintain adequate security while preventing a nuisance or hardship to adjacent properties or streets. All exterior lighting must comply with the provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article G, "Outdoor Lighting Standards", of this code. Screening Of Equipment: All ground level mechanical and utility equipment shall be screened from public view according to the Iowa City 18-3-2 18-3-2 provisions of title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. (See subsection 14-4C-2N, "Mechanical Structures", of this code.) J. Screening Of Storage And Loading Areas: If allowed, all outdoor storage areas must be located and screened according to the applicable base zone provisions of title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. All outdoor storage areas and loading/unloading service areas with delivery facilities, including bay doors or docks, which face or are visible from residential district and the Iowa River shall be screened to a height of no less than six feet (6) and must meet all screening standards specified in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code, for outdoor storage and loading areas. K. Parking Areas: Any parking areas or vehicle storage area designed or intended for use by more than four (4) vehicles located adjacent to any street shall be separated and screened from such street by a curbed, planted area as specified in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. L. Sensitive Areas: All sensitive areas development plans must comply with the applicable provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article I, "Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code. M. Compliance With City, State, And Federal Regulations: Site plans shall comply with all applicable city, state, and federal regulations. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) Iowa City PAGE 2C-5 14-2C Commercial Zones 3. Temporary Uses See Article 14-41). 4. Nonconforming Situations See Article 14-4E. C. Site Development Standards 1. Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards See Article 14-5A. 2. Sign Regulations See Article 14-56. 3. Access Management Standards See Article 14-5C. 4. Intersection Visibility Standards See Article 14-51). 5. Landscaping and Tree Standards See Article 14-5E. 6. Screening and Buffering Standards See Article 14-5F. 7. Outdoor Lighting Standards See Article 14-5G. S. Performance Standards See Article 14-5H. 9. Sensitive Lands and Features See Article 14-5I. 10. Flood Plain Management Standards See Article 14-51. 11. Neighborhood Open Space Requirements See Article 14-5K. 14-2C-4 Dimensional Requirements The dimensional requirements for the Commercial Zones are stated in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C- 2(b), located at the end of this Section. The following subsections describe in more detail the regulations for each of the dimensional requirements listed in the table. Provisional Uses and uses allowed by Special Exception may have specific dimensional requirements not specified in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b). Approval criteria for these uses are addressed in Article 14-46. Dimensional requirements may be waived or modified for developments approved through the Planned Development process (See Article 14-3A, Planned Development Overlay) or through the Historic Preservation Exception as outlined in the Special Provisions Section at the end of this Article. A. Minimum Lot Requirements 1. Purpose The minimum lot area and width requirements are intended to ensure that a lot is of a size, width, and frontage that is appropriate for the uses permitted in the subject zone and will ensure, in most cases, that the other site development standards of this Title can be met. The lot area per dwelling unit standards control the intensity of use Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-6 14-2C Commercial Zones on a lot to ensure consistency and compatibility of new dwellings with the surrounding development. 2. Standards Generally, the minimum lot area and width standards for the various Commercial Zones are stated in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b), located at the end of this Section. Most commercial zones do not have minimum lot size or width requirements. However, for mixed commercial/residential buildings, the number of dwelling units allowed is based on the size of the lot. In the CO-1 and CC-2 zones, the maximum residential density in mixed -use buildings is similar to the residential density of multi- family buildings in the RM-12 zone. In the CN-1 and MU Zones, the maximum residential density is similar to the residential density of multi -family buildings in the RM-20 Zone. In the C13-2 Zone the maximum residential density is similar to the residential density of multi -family buildings in the PRM Zone, but is also limited by the maximum FAR. The maximum residential density in the C13-5 and CB-10 zone is limited only by the maximum FAR. 3. Minimum Lot Sizes for Specific Land Uses. a. Provisional Uses and uses allowed by Special Exception may have specific lot size requirements not specified in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b). Approval criteria for these uses are addressed in Article 14-413, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses. b. If a minimum lot size is specified within a zone for a particular land use or dwelling type, whether Permitted, Provisional or a Special Exception, that use or dwelling type may not be established on a smaller lot, even if smaller lots are permitted in the subject base zone, except as permitted under Article 14-4E, Nonconforming Situations. B. Minimum Setback Requirements for Principal Buildings 1. Purpose The minimum setback requirements are intended to: a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting; b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings; C. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods and commercial areas; d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. 2. General Setback Requirements Generally, the minimum required setbacks for principal buildings in commercial zones are stated in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b), below. The minimum setbacks for principal buildings create required setback areas within which principal buildings are not allowed, except for certain building features as specified in this subsection. 3. Specific Setback Requirements The following subparagraphs contain setback requirements that apply in specific situations. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-7 14-2C Commercial Zones a. Side and Rear Setbacks In all Commercial Zones, if a side or rear setback is provided where not required, the side or rear setback must be at least 5 feet. Additional setbacks may apply if the property is in proximity to a Residential Zone. See subparagraph d, below. b. Lots with Multiple Frontages (1) On corner lots, no building, structure or planting, unless specifically exempted, may be located within the Vision Triangle, as set forth in Article 14-51), Intersection Visibility Standards. (2) If a lot fronting on two or more streets is required to have a front setback, a minimum setback equal to the required front setback must be provided along all streets and such setback will be considered a front setback for purposes of this Title. C. Lots with Multiple Buildings The principal buildings on a lot must be separated by a horizontal distance of at least 10 feet. Buildings containing residential uses must be designed to preserve privacy. This can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into the windows of adjacent residential dwelling units. In addition, balconies and air conditioning units may not be located along a building wall that is within 20 feet of a building wall of an adjacent principal building on the same lot, if the wall of the adjacent building contains window or door openings into dwelling units. Proximity of building walls will be subject to all current Building Code fire protection requirements. d. Lots Adjacent to a Residential Zone Where a side or rear lot line for a lot in a Commercial Zone abuts a Residential Zone, a setback at least equal to the required setback in the abutting Residential Zone must be provided along the Residential Zone boundary. e. Overlay Zones and Special Districts If specific setbacks have been established in a Historic or Cqnservation District, a Planned Development, or in the Central Planning District, those setbacks supercede the setback requirements of the base zone. For properties located in a Historic or Conservation District refer to Article 14-3B and also the applicable setback provisions in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. For a property located in a Planned Development Overlay Zone refer to the approved Planned Development Overlay Plan for the subject property. For Two Family Uses, Multi -Family Uses, Group Living Uses, and Institutional/Civic Uses located on property in the Central Planning District, refer to the applicable setback provisions in Section 14-2B-6, Multi -Family Site Development Standards. f. Setback Averaging Where at least 50 percent of the lots along a frontage are occupied by principal buildings that are located at least 5 feet closer to the street than the required front setback, the front setback may be reduced to the average of the respective setbacks on the abutting lots. Only the setbacks on the lots that abut each side of the subject property along the same street may be used to calculate the average. Setbacks across the street or along a,different street Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-8 14-2C Commercial Zones frontage may not be used. When one abutting lot is vacant or if the lot is a corner lot, then the average is based on the setback of the principal building on the non -vacant lot and the required front setback for the zone in which the lot is located (See Figure 2C.1). Figure 2C.1 -Setback Averaging I I I F-17� l �I G T-H I(Average of I IExisting Setback of Lot G and I pRequired Setback 10' Setback 15' Required STREET Front Setback w w CO D � E F_ F cad I Nstirp &&adc olld l) nd fawn for Lot E L4_ ur 1%ft& 4. Building Features Permitted Within the Required Setback Area The following building features may extend into the required principal building setback area, subject to the conditions indicated and provided that location of such a feature does not violate the provisions of Article 14-51), Intersection Visibility Standards. The setback regulations for detached accessory structures and structures not considered part of the principal building are addressed in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. a. Awnings, uncovered balconies, bay windows, belt courses, buttresses, canopies, chimneys, cornices, sills, and other similar features that extend beyond the wall of a principal building may project up to 6 feet into the required front or rear Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-9 14-2C Commercial Zones setbacks. Except for balconies, bay windows, and chimneys, all such projecting building features may extend up to 3 feet into the required side setback. Balconies and bay windows may not extend into the required side setback. Chimneys may extend up to 2 feet into the required side setback. Projections from the principal building must in all cases be at least 2 feet from any side lot line. b. Covered porches, covered decks, and covered patios that are attached to the principal building must comply with the principal building setbacks of the base zone. The standards for uncovered decks and patios are specified in Article 14- 4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. Covered porches, covered decks, and covered patios that are attached to an accessory building must comply with the standards for accessory buildings as specified in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. C. Fire escapes may extend into any setback, provided they do not extend more than 3-1/2 feet into any side setback. d. Stairways that function as the principal means of access to dwelling units located above the ground or first floor of a building may not extend into any required setback. e. Stoops and wheelchair ramps that function as a means of access to the ground or first floor of a dwelling unit may extend into the rear setback, up to 8 feet into the required front setback, and into the side setback, provided they are setback at least 3 feet from any side lot line. In cases where due to topography or other site characteristics, a wheelchair ramp cannot meet this standard, a -- Minor Modification may be requested according to the approval criteria and procedures for Minor Modifications contained in Article 14-46. S. Adjustments to Principal Building Setback Requirements a. A Minor Modification to reduce principal building setback requirements may be requested according to the approval criteria and procedures for Minor Modifications contained in Article 14-46. b. A Special Exception may be requested to reduce principal building setback requirements beyond what is allowed by Minor Modification. The Board of Adjustment may adjust setback requirements If the owner or lawful occupant of a property demonstrates that the general special exception approval criteria and the following specific approval criteria have been satisfied: (1) The situation is peculiar to the property in question; (2) There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements; (3) Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations; and (4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. (5) The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of- way or permanent open space. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-10 14-2C Commercial Zones C. Building Bulk Standards 1. Height Standards a. Purpose The height regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. In the Central Business Zones, there is a minimum height standard that ensures that buildings are compatible in scale and that land is used efficiently. b. Standards Generally, the maximum and minimum height standards for principal structures in Commercial Zones are stated in Tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b). This table is located at the end of this Section. Height standards for accessory buildings are addressed in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. C. Exemptions If allowed in the subject zone, the following structures or parts thereof are exempt from the maximum height standards, provided an increase in height does not conflict with Chapter 14-6, Airport Zoning. (1) Chimneys or flues. (2) Spires on religious or other institutional buildings. (3) Cupolas, domes, skylights and other similar roof protrusions not used for the purpose of obtaining habitable floor space. (4) Farm structures, including barns, silos, storage bins and similar structures when accessory to an allowed Agriculture Use. (5) Flagpoles that extend not more than 10 feet above the height limit or not more than 5 feet above the highest point of the roof, whichever is less. (6) Grain elevators. (7) Parapet or fire walls. (8) Poles, towers and other structures accessory to a Basic Utility Use, such as street lights and utility poles. (9) If allowed in the subject zone, Basic Utilities and Communication Transmission Facilities are exempt from the base zone height standards, but are subject to any limitations set forth in Article 14-4B, Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions. (10) Roof structures, including elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. (11) Stacks. (12) Storage tanks and water towers. (13) Television antennae and similar apparatus. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-11 14-2C Commercial Zones d. Adjustment of Maximum Height Standards (1) The maximum height for a principal building may be increased, provided that for each foot of height increase above the height standard, the front, side, and rear setbacks are each increased by an additional 2 feet, and provided that an increase in height does not conflict with the provisions of Chapter 14-6, Airport Zoning. (2) In the CO-1 Zone, principal buildings on lots across the street from RM, C, or I Zones may be increased in height according to (1), above, except that an additional front setback need not be provided. The requirement for additional side and rear setbacks apply. However, the minimum separation between the building and the front lot line of the lot across the street must be two feet for each foot of height. (3) A Minor Modification may also be requested to adjust the maximum height for a particular building or property according to the procedures and approval criteria for Minor Modifications contained in Article 14-4B. 2. Maximum Floor Area Ratio a. Purpose The floor area ratio or FAR regulates how intensely a site may be used. The FAR provides a means to match the potential amount of use with the desired character of the area and the provision of public services. The FAR, along with the height and setback standards, control the overall bulk of development on a site. b. Standards The Floor Area Ratio or FAR listed in Tables 2C-2(a) is the amount of floor area within the building or buildings on a lot in relation to the amount of lot area, expressed in square feet. For example, if the maximum FAR is 2, then a lot may contain up to two square feet of building floor area for every one square foot of lot area. Basement and cellar floor area is not included in this calculation. D. Maximum Lot Coverage Standards 1. Total Building Coverage a. Purpose The total building coverage standard helps to define the character of the Mixed Use Zone by limiting the land area that can be covered by buildings. These standards work in conjunction with the minimum lot requirements and building bulk standards to determine how built-up a neighborhood appears. b. Standard The total building coverage standard for the MU Zone is stated in Table 2C-2(b), located at the end of this Section. The maximum building coverage standard establishes the percentage of the total area of a lot that can be covered by buildings. The total building area of all buildings on the property, including both principal and accessory buildings, is used. to calculate the building coverage. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-12 14-2C Commercial Zones 2. Front Setback Coverage a. Purpose The front setback coverage standard ensures that a certain portion of the front setback remains free of impervious surface, which helps to maintain a consistent and pleasant environment along neighborhood streets. These standards increase public safety by preventing excessive front yard paving and vehicular storage that may obscure the principal dwelling and the main entrance from view of the street. In addition, this standard helps to prevent neighborhood streets that are dominated by front yard pavement, particularly along frontages with narrow residential lots. b. Standard The maximum front setback coverage standard for the Mixed Use Zone is stated in Table 2C-2(b), located at the end of this Section. The standard applies only to residential uses in the MU Zone. The table lists the maximum percentage of the required front setback that may be covered by impervious surface, including driveways, patios, decks, and other paved areas. Front setback coverage may not exceed the percentage indicated in Table 2C-2(b). C. Exception. A Special Exception may be requested to increase the allowed front setback coverage. The Board of Adjustment may adjust the front setback coverage standard if the owner or lawful occupant of a property demonstrates that the general special exception approval criteria and the following specific approval criteria have been satisfied: (1) The lot is of an irregular shape or contains severe topography, such that there is practical difficulty meeting the front setback coverage standard. (2) The applicant has demonstrated that every effort has been made to design buildings, paved areas, and vehicular use areas to meet the front setback coverage standard. Such efforts include reducing the width of driveways, reducing paved areas and size of garages and providing alternative means of vehicular access to the property. If vehicular access to an alley or private rear lane is available, the front setback coverage standard may not be increased. (3) Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the front setback coverage regulations. (4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the exception are mitigated to the extent practical. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-13 14-2C Commercial Zones Table 2C-2(a): plmsnslonal RegUlr'Ots for all Commercial.Zonefsi�aktspt the MU zone Maximum �Ilnimumn L tRequirements Minimum Setbacks 'SatbaAS Building Bulk Zone Total dwe& > Wldth" Fr�►ntagg Front . Slde MtearFront Max Min Ht. FAR Area unit . (tt.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) (ft) Ht. (ft.) (61) tft? M CO-1 none 2,725 none none 10 0' 01 none 251 none 1 or33 CN-1 none 1,800 none none 5 01 01 See Section 14-2C-7E 22 or 352 18 1 CH-1 I none nla 100 none 10 01 01 none none none 1 CI-1 none nla none none 10 0' 01 none 35 none 1 CC-2 none 2,725 none none 10 0' 01 none 35 none 2 CB-2 none 875 none none 0 0' 01 none 45 none 2 CB-5 none none none none 0 or 104 0' 01 12, 75 25 36 CB-10 none none I none none 0 or 104 01 01 12 none 25 106 Notes: nla = not applicable A side setback or rear setback is not required where the side lot line or rear lot line abuts a nonresidential zone. However, where a side lot line or rear lot line abuts a Residential Zone, a setback at least equal to the required setback in the abutting Residential Zone must be provided along the Residential Zone boundary. Y Maximum height is 22 feet for one-story buildings, with the following exception. One-story buildings may exceed 22 feet in height if there are clerestory windows facing the street that give the appearance of second floor space. The maximum height for all other buildings is 35 feet. 3 Maximum FAR is 1, except for lots across the street from RM, C, or I Zones. The maximum FAR is 3 for lots across the street from RM, C, or I Zones. 4 A front setback is not required, except for buildings that front on Burlington Street. Buildings must be set back at least 10 feet from the Burlington Street right-of-way. Building columns supporting upper stories may be located within this 10-foot setback provided an adequate pedestrian passageway is maintained. 6 Maximum FAR is 3, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 5. 6 Maximum FAR is 10, except for lots with an approved FAR bonus. For lots with approved FAR bonuses, the FAR may be increased up to a maximum of 12. 7 Additional height is allowed under certain circumstances. See Section 14-2C4C-1d(2). Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-14 14-2C Commercial Zones Minimum LotRequltemen#e ; ,Ml�iim.6eacks .;�, 1E(i11t0fl1� ;Bulk zone/ Total A a1 Width Min: trront Side' Rear = Total i ront Use Area Unit (1t.) Frontage (ft,) � � (ft.) s� (ft.) flt �, O 8utliiing Setback (41) ($J.) (g) , .Coverage Coverage , MU Detached SF and Detached 3,000 3,000 30 20 5/156 5+22 20 35 50% 50% Zero Lot Line Two Family 31600 1,800 45 20 5/156 5+22 20 355 50% 50% (Duplex) Attached SF 1,800 1,800 20/284 20 5/156 0/103 20 35 50% 50% Multi -Family 5,000 1,800 45 20 5/156 5+22 5+22 355 50% 50% Group living 5,000 A B 45 20 51156 5+22 5+22 355 50°� 50% Non-residential' none n/a none 20 5/156 1 5+22 1 5+22 1 355 50% n/a Notes: n/a = not applicable 'Non-residential uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in 14-4B, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses. 2 Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story. For Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings, see applicable setback regulations in 144B. 3 See applicable setback requirements in Article 144B, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses. 4 Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only two units are attached, lots must be 28 feet wide. 5 Maximum height is 35 feet. However, if any portion of a Two Family Use, Multi -Family Use, Group Living Use, or a Non-residential Use is located within 15 feet of a property that contains an existing Single Family Use or within 15 feet of a Single Family Zone boundary, then the portion of the building located within 15 feet of said property or boundary may not exceed 2-1/2 stories in height. 6 Minimum principal building setback is 5 feet. Maximum principal building setback is 15 feet. See 14-2C-9D, Maximum Setbacks. 14-2C-5 Maximum Occupancy for• • • Living Uses The residential occupancy of a Household Living Use is limited to one "household" per dwelling unit, as this term is defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions. CommercialDevelopment •. • A. Purpose The Commercial Site Development Standards ensure that commercial development is compatible in scale and intensity to the surrounding development, unsightly elements are screened from public view, and that safe pedestrian and vehicular circulation is established. B. Applicability 1. The standards of this Section apply to all development in the CO-1, CC-2, CI-1, CH-1, and CB-2 Zones, unless specifically exempted. 2. Development in the CN-1 Zone is subject to the CN-1 Site Development Standards specified in Section 14-2C-7. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-15 14-2C Commercial Zones 3. Development in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones is subject to the CB-5 and CB-10 Site Development Standards specified in Section 14-2C-8. 4. Development in the MU Zone is subject to the MU Zone Site Development Standards specified in Section 14-2C-9. C. Site Plan Review Procedure Review for compliance with the standards and requirements of this Section will occur as a part of the site plan review process (See Title 18 of the City Code). D. Surface Parking Lot Setback Requirements 1. Front setback requirements Parking and loading areas must be set back at least 10 feet from any front and street -side lot lines. However, any loading area, parking spaces or aisles located within 50 feet of a Residential Zone boundary must be set back at least 20 feet from the front or street -side lot line. 2. Side and rear setback requirements Parking and loading areas must be setback at least 5 feet from any (non -street -side) side or rear lot line. However, parking and loading areas must be set back at least 10 feet from any side or rear lot line that abuts a property zoned Residential. The City may exempt from these setback regulations any specific locations along a lot line where a parking area, aisle or drive is shared with an abutting lot. 3. Drives a. Drives that are internal to a parking area, including drives that provide circulation around the perimeter of a parking area are considered part of the parking area and must meet the setback standards as specified above. Drives that are external to a parking area must be set back at least 3 feet from any abutting property that is zoned non-residential, unless the drive is pitched or curbed and drained to prevent the flow of water onto adjoining property or unless a drainage course has been established along lot lines to handle storm water run-off. Any specific locations along a side or rear lot line where a drive is shared with an abutting lot may be exempted from these standards. b. Drives that are external to a parking area must be set back at least 10 feet from any abutting property that is zoned Residential. E. Drive -Through Facilities Drive -through facilities are regulated as an accessory use and are only, allowed in certain zones according to the provisions specified for drive -through facilities in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. F. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation The site must be designed to promote safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation according to the following standards: 1. Pedestrian walkways must be provided between principal buildings and abutting rights of way. The walkways provided on -site must connect to adjacent public sidewalks and trails. 2. On commercial sites with multiple buildings, sidewalks or other approved pedestrian routes must be provided between the principal buildings on the site. The City may Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-16 14-2C Commercial Zones exempt commercial sites where pedestrian traffic between buildings is rare or unlikely. 3. Pedestrian routes must be provided on -site that connect parking areas to building entrances. Pedestrian routes from and through parking areas to principal building entrances must be identified on the site plan and integrated into the parking lot design. 4. Pedestrian routes must be continuous, clear of obstructions, and easily identifiable as protected pedestrian routes. Landscaping, curbing, raised paving, bollards, distinctive paving materials, and other similar means may be used to separate and protect pedestrian routes from vehicular traffic. 5. Bicycle parking facilities must be located in areas convenient to building entrances, but must be located so as not to impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. G. Landscaping and Screening 1. All areas of the site that are not used for buildings, parking, vehicular and pedestrian use areas, sidewalk cafes and plazas, must be landscaped with trees and/or plant materials. A landscaping plan must be submitted for site plan review. 2. Surface parking areas, loading areas, and drives must be screened from view of public rights -of -way to at least the S2 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). 3. Surface parking areas, loading areas, and drives must be screened from view of abutting properties to at least the S2 standard. Additional screening is required for properties that abut properties zoned Residential. Parking areas, loading areas, and drives must be screened from view of any abutting property zoned Residential to at least the S3 standard. The City may exempt from this landscaping requirement any specific locations along a side or rear lot line where a parking or loading area, aisle or drive is shared with an abutting lot. 4. Where a lot occupied by a Commercial or Industrial Use abuts or is across a street or railroad right-of-way from a Residential Zone, Daycare Use, Educational Facility, Parks and Open Space Use, or the Iowa River, any parking and loading areas and outdoor work and storage areas must be located behind buildings or screened from view of said uses and zones to at least the S3 standard. 5. Screening may be waived by the Building Official where the view is or will be blocked by a significant change in grade or by natural or human -made features, such that the screening is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is met, as determined by the Building Official. H. Mechanical Structures All mechanical structures must be set back and screened from public view according to the applicable provisions set forth in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. I. Outdoor Storage and Display 1. In the C0-1, CC-2, and CS-2 Zones Outdoor storage and display of materials is not permitted in the CO-1, CC-2, or CB-2 Zones, except for the following: Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-17 14-2C Commercial Zones a. Outdoor display of merchandise for immediate sale is permitted in areas immediately adjacent to a principal building. However, the display area may not be located along any building wall that is within 20 feet of a'public street and may not be located in a manner that obstructs building entrances and exits, sidewalks, bicycle parking areas, pedestrian routes, or vehicular use areas. b. An approved Temporary Use. A temporary use permit is required (See Article 14-4D). C. In the CC-2 Zone, an approved Outdoor Storage and Display -Oriented Retail Use. 2. In the CH-1 and CI-1 Zones a. Outdoor storage of materials in the CH-1 and CI-1 Zones is permitted, provided it is concealed from public view to the extent possible. If it is not feasible to conceal the storage areas behind buildings, the storage areas must be setback at least 20 feet from any public right-of-way, including public trails and open space, and screened from view to at least the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). If a fence is built around the storage area, the required screening must be located between the fence and the public right- of-way. b. All outdoor storage areas that are located along a side or rear lot line that does not abut a public right-of-way must be setback at least 10 feet from said lot line and screened from view of the adjacent property to at least the S3 standard. If a fence is built around the storage area, the required screening must be located between the fence and the adjacent property. C. The landscape screening requirement for outdoor storage areas may be waived by the Building Official upon presentation of convincing evidence that a planting screen cannot be expected to thrive because of intense shade, soil conditions, or other site characteristics. The presence of existing pavement, by itself, shall not constitute convincing evidence. If the landscape screening requirement is waived by the Building Official, a fence built to the S5 standard must be substituted for the landscape screening. d. Outdoor display of merchandise for immediate sale is permitted in the CH-1 and CI-1 Zones, provided it is set back at least 10 feet from public rights -of -way and landscaped to at least the S1 standard. e. Any outdoor display area located along a side or rear lot line that does not abut a public right-of-way must be set back at least 10 feet from said lot line and screened from view of abutting properties to at least the S2 standard. If the display area is adjacent to a Residential Zone boundary it has to be screened to the S3 standard. f. The landscape screening requirement for outdoor display may be waived by the Building Official upon presentation of convincing evidence that a planting screen cannot be expected to thrive because of intense shade, soil conditions, or other site characteristics. The presence of existing pavement, by itself, shall not constitute convincing evidence. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-18 14-2C Commercial Zones g. Screening for outdoor storage and display areas may be waived by the Building Official where the view is or will be blocked by a significant change in grade or by natural or human -made features, such that screening is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is met, as determined by the Building Official. 3. In all Commercial Zones The storage of combustible or flammable materials or liquids is strictly regulated according to the provisions of Article 14-51-1, Performance Standards and according to the International Fire Code, as amended. J. Balconies 1, Balconies may not be located on any side of a building that is adjacent to a property that is zoned Single Family Residential. 2. The outer edge of a balcony shall not be closer than 4 feet from a side lot line. 3. The design of any balcony must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and railings that are designed and constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to the design and materials used for the rest of the building. Unpainted and unstained lumber is not permitted. K. Standards for Large Retail Uses 1. Applicability The provisions of this subsection apply to retail uses over 50,000 square feet in size. The intent of these standards is to facilitate adaptive reuse of large retail commercial structures, to moderate scale of large buildings, and to ensure consistent appearance with other shopping center developments. 2. Facades and Exterior Walls a. Facades over 100 feet in length that are visible from public streets and/or include public entrances shall incorporate wall projections or recesses a minimum of 3 feet in depth for a minimum of 20 contiguous feet within each 100 feet of fagade length. Such recesses and/or projections shall extend over a minimum of 20 percent of the length of the facade and no uninterrupted facade may exceed 100 feet in length. b. For facades that face public streets or include public entrances, features that provide visual interest such as arcades, storefront windows that allow views into the interior of the building, display windows that are set into the building wall, entry areas, awnings or similar features must be incorporated along at least 60 percent of the facade. 3. Building Details Buildings must include details and features that provide visual interest, reduce the perception of the mass of the building, and provide a cohesive pattern to the building. Any building facade that faces a public street or includes a public entrance shall include no less than three of the elements listed below. At least one of these elements shall occur along the vertical plane of the building. An dxample of a change that occurs on the vertical plane would be a change from stone on the lower portion of the building to stucco on the upper portion. All elements that occur along the horizontal plane of the building shall repeat at intervals of no more than 50 feet. These visual patterns must be cohesive with the articulation of the facade. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-19 14-2C Commercial Zones a. Color change ' b. Texture change C. Material module change d. Expression of an architectural or structural baythrough a change in plane no less than 12 inches in width, such as an offset, reveal or projection. 4. Roof Details a. Flat roofs must incorporate parapets that conceal rooftop equipment such as HVAC units from public view. The average height of such parapets shall not exceed 15 percent of the height of the supporting wall and at no point shall exceed 1/3 of the height of the supporting wall. Such parapets shall feature a three-dimensional cornice treatment. b. Sloping roofs must not exceed the average height of the supporting walls and must include overhanging eaves that extend no less than three feet past the supporting walls. C. The roof of the building must be designed with three or. more roof slope planes. It is encouraged that changes in the roof correspond with articulation of the building fagade. 5. Building Materials a. The building materials shall be predominantly quality exterior building materials, including brick, masonry, stone, stucco, or textured concrete masonry units. Concrete panels with a veneer of brick or masonry may be approved provided the material gives the appearance of one or more of the high quality building materials listed above. Stamped concrete panels will only be considered if they are finished with patterns and colors such that they appear to be brick or masonry. Predominantly is defined as at least 75 percent of the exterior of the entire building, but not necessarily of each building wall. For example, use of such materials may be concentrated along building walls that are visible from public streets, or that contain public entrances. b. Use of smooth -faced concrete block, unadorned tilt -up concrete panels, prefabricated steel or vinyl panels or sheets should be minimized. If used, these materials may cover no more than 25 percent of the exterior of the entire building and should be reserved for building walls that are less visible to the public. 6. Entryways Each principal building shall have a clearly defined, highly visible customer entrance with no less than three of the features listed below. Where additional stores are located within the principal building, each store shall have at least one exterior customer entrance with no less than three of the following features: a. Canopy or portico; b. Overhang; C. Recess/projection; d. Arcade; Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2C-20 14-2C Commercial Zones e. Raised cornice parapet over the door; L Archway; g. Outdoor patio; h. Display windows; i. Storefront windows that allow views into the interior of the store; j. Tile work and moldings that are integrated into the building structure and design; k. Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaped areas and/or places for sitting. 14-2C-7 CN-1 Zone Site Development Standards A. Purpose The CN-1 Zone Site Development Standards ensure that commercial development is compatible in scale and intensity to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. These standards also ensure that neighborhood commercial areas are carefully designed to be inviting for pedestrians by requiring buildings to be located close to and oriented toward streets or pedestrian plazas; ensuring that pedestrian routes are clearly separated from driveways and parking areas; requiring that buildings be constructed with street -level storefront windows and clearly demarcated pedestrian entrances; and by requiring that parking be located away from the street in well -landscaped areas. B. Applicability 1. The standards of this Section apply to all new development in a CN-1 Zone. 2. Exceptions to the standards and requirements of this section may be approved during the site plan review process in CN-1 Zones that were in existence and at least partially developed by June 7, 2002, if the City determines that compliance with the subject standard or requirement is not feasible. However, all proposed development must meet the standards of this Section to the extent possible. 3. Alternative design solutions may be approved during the site plan review process if it is demonstrated that the alternative design solution meets the intent of this Section. C. CN-1 Site Plan Review Procedure 1. Prior to submitting a request for site plan review, the developer must participate in a pre -application conference with the Director of Planning and Community Development or designee to discuss the application of the CN-1 Zone Site Development Standards to the subject property. 2. Review for compliance with the standards and requirements of this Section will occur concurrently and as a part of the site plan review process. D. Rezoning to CN-1 1. A CN-1 Zoning District may not exceed 10 acres in size. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 5A-3 14-5A Off -Street Parking. and Loading Standards e. Where parking is located within the exterior walls of a building, the following standards apply: (1) The proposed structured parking will not detract from or prevent ground floor storefront uses. Structured parking may be permitted on the ground - level floor of a building, provided that a substantial portion of the ground level floor of the building is reserved for and built to accommodate storefront uses. Parking is not allowed within the first 50 feet of lot depth as measured from the front building line. (2) Vehicular access to parking within buildings must be from a rear alley or private rear lane, whenever feasible. Garage openings along the primary street frontage are not permitted if access is feasible from another street or from a rear alley, private street or private rear lane. If there is no other feasible alternative, a garage opening may be allowed along the primary street frontage, if the Board determines that the opening(s) will not detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian flow along the street. Garage openings shall be built to the minimum width necessary for access. (3) Any exterior walls of a parking facility that are visible from a public or private street must appear to be a component of the fagade of the building through the use of building materials, window openings and fagade detailing that is similar or complementary to the design of the building. (4) Each entrance and exit to the parking area must be constructed so that vehicles entering or leaving the parking area are clearly visible to a pedestrian on any abutting sidewalk at a distance of not less than 10 feet. Stop signs and appropriate pedestrian warning signs may be required. E. Near Southside Parking Facility District In the Near Southside Parking Facility District, a parking facility impact fee may be required in lieu of providing all or a portion of on -site parking (See Article 14-7B, Development Fees). 14-SA-4 Minimum Parking Requirements A. Purpose The minimum parking requirements are intended to ensure that enough off-street parking is provided to accommodate most of the demand for parking generated by the range of uses that might locate at a site over time, particularly in areas where sufficient on -street parking in not available. The minimum parking requirements are also intended to ensure that enough parking is provided on a site to prevent parking for non-residential uses from encroaching into adjacent residential neighborhoods. B. Minimum Requirements 1. Table 5A-2 lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle parking requirements for the land use or uses on properties in all zones except the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones. For some land uses, the minimum parking requirements differ based on the zone in which the property is located. Title 14: Iowa City.Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 5A-4 14-5A Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards 2. In the CB-5 Zone, parking is not required for any land use, except for Multi -Family Uses, as specified in Table 5A-1, below. 3. In the CB-10 Zone, parking is not required for any land use. C. Parking for Persons with Disabilities Where a use is required to provide accessibility for persons with disabilities, the number and design of such parking spaces must be in accordance with State of Iowa Administrative Code, 661 IAC 18, Parking for Persons With Disabilities, as amended. D. Rules for Computing Minimum Parking Requirements 1. Where a fractional space results, the number of parking and stacking spaces required is the closest whole number. A half space will be rounded down. 2. Any use that is nonconforming with regard to the number of required parking spaces is subject to the applicable provisions of Article 14-4E, Nonconforming Situations. 3. In the case of mixed uses, the number of parking and stacking spaces required is equal to the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately, except for shopping centers, as specified in Table 5A-2, and for reductions allowed under the subsection entitled "Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements," below. E. Rules for Computing Bicycle Parking Requirements 1. In Tables 5A-1 and 5A-2, the minimum bicycle parking requirements are expressed as a certain number of spaces per dwelling unit or as a percentage of the required number of vehicle parking spaces. 2. In all cases where bicycle parking is required, a minimum of 4 spaces shall be provided. 3. After the first 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, additional spaces are required at 50 percent of the number required by this Section. 4. Where the expected need for bicycle parking for a particular use is uncertain due to unknown or unusual operating characteristics of the use or due to a location that is difficult to access by bicycle, the Building Official may authorize that the construction of up to 50 percent of the required bicycle parking spaces be deferred. The land area required for the deferred bicycle parking spaces must be maintained in reserve. If an enforcement official of the City determines at some point in the future that the additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner will be required to install the parking in the reserved area. The owner of the property on which the bicycle parking area is reserved must properly execute, sign, and record a written agreement that is binding upon their successors and assigns as a covenant running with the land that assures the installation of bicycle parking within the reserved area by the owner if so ordered by an enforcement official of the City. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 5A-5 14-5A Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards Table"SA-1: Minimum'Park ri �:R „ u rementsTin U5E SUBGROUPS Parkin tiirement Bicycle CATEGORIES g Parking ' Res den a Uses Household Living Multi -family C13-5 Zone Efficiency,1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units:1 space per dwelling unit. Uses Dwellings 3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1.0 per Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit d.u. Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units, Table,,SA4 : Mrntm`km Parkin :Re 'uiremeriti° orsilkzanes, axes t fhe;C8-5 and CB-tO.Zones, USE CATEGORIES 5UBGROUPS- Parking RequirkMont' Bicycle Parkin asides al, Used ,,�; Household Living Single Family Uses 1 space per dwelling. However, for a SF use that contains a household with more than 2 unrelated persons, 1 additional parking space is required for each additional unrelated person in excess of two. For None required example, if a Single Family Use contains 4 unrelated persons, then 3 parking spaces must be provided. Two Family Uses 1 space per dwelling unit. For a Two Family dwelling unit that contains a household with more than 2 unrelated persons,1 additional parking space is required for each additional unrelated person in excess None required of two. Group Households 3 spaces None required Multi- All zones, except PRM Efficiency & 1-bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit 05 per d.u. family Dwellings 2-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1,0 per d.u. 1.5 per d.u. 4-bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit 1,5 per d.u. 5-bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit 1.5 per d.u. PRM Zone Efficiency, 1- & 2- bedroom units:1 space per dwelling 1,0 per d.u. unit 3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit Elder Apartments 1 space per dwelling unit for independent living units and 1 space for every 2 dwelling units for assisted living units, except in the PRM and CB-2 Zones. 5% In the PRM and C13-2 Zones, I space for every 2 dwelling units. Group Living Assisted Group Living 1 space for every 3 beds plus 1 space for each staff None member determined by the maximum number of staff required present at any one time. Independent Group Living 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per resident, whichever is less. 25% Fraternal Group Living 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per resident, whichever is less. 25% Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 5A-6 14-5A Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards USE CATEGORIES SUBGRQUPS Perklin ltequir�pntient tl 46icycle Commercial Uses Adult Business Uses Retail -type 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area 15% Entertainment/night club -type Parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant Joad of the 10% largest assembly space or seating area in the building. Animal -related General 1 space for each office, examining room, and None Commercial treatment/grooming room, but not less than 3 spaces, required Intensive 3 spaces None required Commercial Recreational Outdoor Spectator -type Parking spaces equal to 1/4 the occupant load of the 10% Uses (major event facilities, seating area. such as arenas, stadiums, etc.) Participatory -type (tennis Parking spaces equal to 2/3 the maximum number of 10% courts, swimming pools, participants likely at any one time. archery ranges, sports fields, etc.) Indoor Parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant load of the 10% area used for the participatory activity, Commercial Parking Not applicable None required Eating and Drinking 1 space per 150 sq. ft. of floor area, or parking spaces Establishments equal to 1/3 the occupant load of the seating area, 10% whichever is less. Carry-out/delivery restaurants that do not have a seating area must provide at least 4 spaces. Quick Vehicle Servicing For gas stations, 1 stacking space is required for every service stall or pump station. None For car washes, 4 stacking spaces are required for required each wash rack, bay, or tunnel. Parking for convenience retail must be calculated separately. Parking spaces must be provided in lieu of stacking spaces in instances where egress from a facility would require moving a motor vehicle waiting for entry. Office Uses General Office 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area. 15% In the MU and CB-2 Zones, no additional parking is required for that floor area exceeding 8,000 square feet. Medical/Dental Office 1.5 spaces for each office, examining room and treatment room, provided however, there shall not be . 15% less than 5 spaces. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 5A-7 14-5A Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards USE..C!>tTEGORIES .SUBGROUPS :' Rdrldng Requirement '. , Bicyde i!siidn Retail Shopping centers, where a mix of uses, such as retail, office, 1 space per 250 sq. ft. of floor area. Spaces for residential uses must be calculated separately and 15% restaurants, theaters, commercial must be provided in addition to the parking spaces for recreational uses, etc., share the the commercial uses, same parking area. This parking minimum may be used as an optional altemative to calculating the parking for each of the uses separately. Sales -Oriented 1 space per 300 sq, ft. of floor area 15% Personal Service -Oriented 1 space per 300 sq, ft. of floor area. 15% Repair -Oriented 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of floor area None required Hospitality -Oriented For hotels and motels,1 space per guest room. For guest houses, as defined in this Title, 0.75 spaces None required per guest room. For meeting facilities and similar, spaces equal to 114 the occupant load of the meeting area or 114 the occupant load of the seating area, whichever is most applicable to the use. Outdoor Storage and Display- 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of floor area 10% Oriented Surface Passenger Services No minimum requirement None required Vehicle Repair 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area. None required tndustHai Uses Industrial Service 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required Manufacturing and Production TechnicalA fight Manufacturing 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required General Manufacturing 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required Heavy Manufacturing 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required Salvage Operations 1 space per 750 sq. ft, of floor area None required Self -Service Storage 2 spaces per leasing office plus 1 space per 100 leasable storage spaces, None required Warehouse and Freight Movement For warehouses up to 25,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq, ft. of floor area up to a maximum of 5 spaces, None required For warehouses 25,000 sq. ft. or greater 5 spaces plus 1 space for each 5,000 sq. ft. above 25,000 sq. ft. None required Waste -Related Uses 1 space per 750 sq. ft. of floor area None required Wholesale Sales 1 space per 750 sq, ft. of floor area None required Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 5A-8 14-5A Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards USE CATEGORIES 5UBGROUi►S PaCrkin Re uiremen# 8 RsirkTng -; InWtutlonai And � ivic Uses < ` Basic Utilities No minimum requirement None required Colleges and Universities Public Based on parking demand analysis 25% Private Per special exception review based on parking demand 25% analysis Community Service General Community Service 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area 10% Community Service - Shelter 0.1 space per temporary resident based on the maximum number of temporary residents staying at the shelter at 25% any one time plus 1 space per employee based on the maximum number of employees at the site at any one time. Daycare 1 space per employee based on the maximum number of employees at the site at any one time plus one parking 10% space for each 10 children or clients served, based on the maximum number of children present on the site at any one time, plus one stacking space for each 20 children or clients served, based on the maximum number of clients or children present on the site at any one time. Additional parking spaces at a ratio of 1120 clients or children served may be substituted for the stacking spaces, if the City determines that such an arrangement will not cause traffic to stack into adjacent streets or public rights -of -way. Detention Facilities No minimum requirement None required Educational Facilities Elementary, middle, junior high 2 spaces per classroom 25% schools, and Specialized Educational Facilities High schools 10 spaces per classroom 25% Hospitals 1,75 spaces per hospital bed None required Parks and Open Space No minimum requirement, except for recreational uses within private open spaces areas as follows; 5% For golf courses, 3 spaces for each green (hole). For other recreational or public assembly -type uses, parking is required at haK the minimum amount required for the most similar commercial recreational use. Religious/Private Group Parking spaces equal to 116 the occupant load of the Assembly main auditorium or the largest room in the building, 5% whichever is greater. Agriculture Plant -related No minimum requirement None required Animal -related No minimum requirement None required Aviation -related Uses Airports No minimum requirement None required Helicopter Landing Facilities No minimum requirement None required Extraction No minimum requirement None required Communication No minimum requirement _ None required Transmission Facilities Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 5A-9 14-5A Of -Street Parking and Loading Standards F. Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements 1. Off -Site Parking Off-street parking may be located on a separate lot from the use•served according to the following rules. When the proposed off -site parking is located in a Residential Zone, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception for the proposed parking, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs a. through g. are met. When the proposed off -site parking is located in a Commercial, Industrial, or Research Zone, the Director of Planning and Community Development may approve the proposed parking, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs a. through g. are met. a. Special Location Plan A special location plan must be submitted with the application for off -site parking. The location plan must include a map indicating the proposed location of the off -site parking, the location of the use or uses served by the parking, and the distance and proposed walking route between the parking and the use(s) served. The map must be drawn to scale and include property boundaries, including boundaries of any intervening properties. In addition, documentation must be submitted providing evidence deemed necessary to comply with the requirements herein. b. Location of Off -site Parking (1) In Residential and Commercial Zones, no off -site parking space may be located more than 300 feet from an entrance of the use served. (2) In Industrial and Research Zones, no off -site parking space may be located more than 600 feet from an entrance of the use served. C. Zoning Off -site parking spaces must be located in the same zone as the principal use(s) served, or alternatively, off-street parking may be provided on a separate lot within the parameters of the following pairings: (1) Parking in a Multi -Family Zone serving a use located in a different Multi - Family Zone or In the MU Zone or vice versa. (2) Parking in a Commercial Zone serving a use located in a different Commercial zone. (3) Parking in an Industrial Zone serving a use located in a different Industrial Zone. (4) Parking in a Commercial Zone serving a use located in an Industrial Zone or vice versa. d. Shared Use of Off -Site Parking Where two or more uses will jointly use the proposed off -site parking, the number of parking spaces shall equal the sum total of off-street parking spaces required, as indidated in Tables 5A-1 and 5A-2, except for reductions approved under the provisions of paragraph 2, below, Allowed Reductions for Shared Parking. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PACE 5A-10 14-5A Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards e. Off -Site Parking Located in a Municipally -Owned Parking Facility In instances where a use is within 600 feet of a City -owned parking area, up to 50 percent of the required number of parking spaces may be provided in the parking facility. When a use abuts a City -owned parking area, up to 100 percent of the required number of parking spaces may be provided in the parking facility. When an applicant requests to provide off-street parking in a City -owned parking facility, the City Manager or designee must substantiate that with the addition of the requested number of parking spaces the capacity of the parking facility will not be exceeded. f. Approval Criteria In assessing a special location plan for off -site parking, the Board of Adjustment or Director of Planning and Community Development, as applicable, will consider the desirability of the location of off-street parking and stacking spaces on a lot separate from the use served in terms of pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety; any detrimental effects on adjacent property; the appearance of the streetscape as a consequence of the off-street parking; and in the case of non -required parking, the need for additional off-street parking. g. Covenant for Off -Site Parking A written agreement between the owners of the parking and the owners of the property for which the parking will serve must be submitted with the application for off -site parking. The agreement must assure the retention of the parking and stacking spaces, aisles and drives and be properly executed, binding upon their successors and assigns, and must be recorded as a covenant running with the land. The agreement must provide that it cannot be released, and its terms and conditions cannot be modified in any manner whatsoever, without prior written consent and approval from the City. The written agreement must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 2. Allowed Reductions for Shared Parking The Building Official in consultation with the Director of Planning and Community Development may approve a minor modification as specified in'Section 14-413-1 to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up to 50 percent, if the uses sharing the parking are not normally open, used, or operated during the same hours. However, this reduction is not allowed for Residential Uses. To qualify for a reduction under this provision, a parking demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the amount of parking proposed for the shared parking area will be sufficient to meet the parking demand. 3. Landbanked Parking in the CN-1 Zone The Director of Planning and Community Development may reduce the minimum parking requirements in the CN-1 Zone as follows, if it is determined that the proposed reduction will further the intent of the CN-1 zone. To accommodate future changes in land use, changes in ownership, and shifts in shared parking demand, up to 30 percent of the land area that would otherwise be needed to provide the required amount of parking may be landbanked or set aside on the site to provide for the future construction of a parking area. If an enforcement official of the City determines at some point in the future that additional parking spaces are needed, the. property owner will be required to construct parking on the landbanked area. A written agreement between the property.owner and the City must be properly Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 HIS review notes: Floodplain does not encroach into this lot. FAA Notice to Construct is required. Site is shielded by topographic features (trees along Iowa River bank); Paul Anderson may provide an exhibit but the FAA determination of no hazard will likely be received before a building permit is issued. ok Site Plan Submittal Requirements 18-2-2 1. Add the street address to the plan - 429 Southgate Avenue. 2. Braverman Center preceded NPDES permit requirements, so an NPDES/CSR permit is not required. However, plans and proposed methods for the control of erosion during construction are still required as part of the site plan. Provide details on how erosion will be prevented and sediment controlled during development. silt fence shown; ok 3. Need a lighting plan, and since there is an R zone to the south, a photometric will be necessary. Photometric received 10/3; ok NEED CUT SHEETS ok 4. Will this building be required to be sprinklered? Domestic and fire services will have to be separated outside the building, if sprinklering is required. There are no hydrants shown - are there any hydrants in the area? Fire to review. ok 5. Provide an accessible pedestrian route from the public sidewalk. The route must be separated from vehicular traffic areas. The bike rack appears to be in a good location, but will parking for only four bikes be enough? another rack added 10/15 ok Accessible pedestrian route provided from Waterfront; ok Zoning: CIA Transient housing is considered "Community Service - Shelter" and requires a special exception from the Board of Adjustment. See EXC (below) for conditions of decision EXC04-00016 1. BOA application was for a maximum 70 residents are proposed. 2. A minimum of 200 sq. feet of lot area per temporary resident is required. Since this is transient housing, all residents are temporary. Lot is over 29,000 sq. feet. (29,134/200 => 145 residents, max. OK 3. BOA decision specifies an evergreen landscaped buffer along the east property line. The buffer is illustrated running along the entire east lot line. OK 4. BOA decision specifies an eight -foot -tall privacy fence along the south property line. OK 5. Exterior stairwells must meet guidelines. All stairwells enclosed. OK. Commercial Site Development Standards 14-2C-6 1. Parking must be set back 10 feet from front lot lines. Add measurements from Southgate or Waterfront ROWs. OK 2. Aisle to the rear of parking area must be 22 feet. OK Minimum Off-street Parking 14-5A 1. Required parking is based on the maximum number of temporary residents staying at the shelter at any one time (0.1 per resident) plus one space per employee, based on the maximum number of employees at the site at any one time. 21 parking spaces are required for 14 staff and 70 residents. Site plan illustrates 18 parking spaces. 3 additional spaces are required. Landscaping and Trees 14-5E 1. Corner lots require one street frontage tree for every 60 linear feet.. 336/60 = 6 trees. OK 2. Parking lots with 18 or fewer trees don't require parking lot coverage trees. OK 3. Parking and loading areas must be screened to the S2 standard. OK Public Works Comments Called Denny Gannon to see if he wanted to review plan - there is a new sanitary sewer as well as two curb cuts: one on Waterfront and one on Southgate. Denny wants to review the plan - copy sent up to him 9/8. 9/9 - emailed Duane and Tom. Denny's marked -up comments are in HIS for pick up. 9/241 reviewed the revised site plan for the Shelter House. I found no problems with it. 10/8 Marked -up plans available for pick-up. 10/14 Water main extension fee is due. $395 x 0.67 = $264.65. Add a note regarding the water main extension fee to Sheet 1. Submit computations for minimum low opening and note minimum low opening elevation on Sheet 1. Invert commas on the specification for dead-end hydrants on Sheet 1 (there are 7 high -lighted). Other Planning Comments The site plan shows only 4 bike spaces. This does not seem sufficient for the needs of the Shelter's,clients. I suggest an additional rack on the east side of the property or an interior storage space for bikes. Additonal rack added. OK How will the dumpster be screened? Enclosure shown. OK Compliance with Board of Adjustment requirements looks OK Fire Comments Current location of hydrants on Waterfront and Southgate should provide sufficient water supply. FDC location needs to move to the address side. Moved from west building face to north building face. OK Knox box location needs to be approved by fire department. (Usually near main entrance) OK Fire access lane off Southgate needs to be 7"PCC. Note: parking spaces themselves can be less than 7" but drive on Southgate, and aisle adjacent to Southgate need to be 7" PCC or the equivalent in weight -bearing capacity. OK (see detail and legend) CI CITY Site Address: OR • Lot & Subdivisi Attachment 8 410 E. Washington Street BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5120 fax (319) 341-4020 • Owner/Tenant: IS Address: l I� E✓ �/ S$ City: State Zip SZZ v, Phone: Email: • Ca -era _ Gp Address: ZZZZ %NZ �or1�7 City; s,t State —=.,iqc Daytime Phone: 01 zip 5Z� �/— 3 3�;.. ,3�0�0� Other Phone: Subcontractors: �ia gob+�� • Plumber: Electrician: • Mechanical: Sewer/Water: • Fire Sprinkler Installer: Fire Alarm Installer: • Project Description: • Total Value of Project: kL_AL;iuue cost of land) • Permit Value of Project: $ r %5 2 ( 4Q (Exclude cost of plumb., mech., elec., fire alarm, fire sprinkler &land) Contact Person Name: _ ���� ����„�+ Phone: ', 9.33'- 66 Is project subject to: Yes Iowa Architectural law? ....................... (� Formal site plan review? ...................... [� Plot plan review? ................ Energy Code review? ........................... Historic preservation review? ............... d Flood plain regulations? [� Hisbldglbldgprrnapp.doc TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: No Site Zone: — / d Lot Area: [� Fees/Escrows Required: Other: a Staff Initials: a 7n 6/07 Permit # Issued Applicant Name: Job Address Parcel # Zone : Project Name: --------------------------------------- SHELTER HOUSE C/O CHRISSY CANGANELLI PO BOX 3146 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-3146 BUILDING PERMIT City of Iowa City BLD08-00633 11 /26/2008 SHELTER HOUSE 429 SOUTHGATE AVE 1022133010 SHELTER HOUSE Applicant CITY OF IOWA CITY ------------------- ---------------- Contractor SELZER-WERDERITSCH ASSOC. 2222 HEINZ RD IOWA CITY, IA 52240 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBDIVISION: BRAVERMAN CENTER BLOCK: 7 LOT: 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2 STORY MIXED USE SHELTER HOUSE/COUNSELING BUILDING TYPE OF USE: MIX BEDROOMS: LOT ------------------------------------------ DWELL UNITS: DIM.: IRREGULAR TYPE OF IMPR : NEW STRUCTURE--------------------------- AREA: 29,134.00 sf FRAME TYPE: WOOD DIM: 67.33 X 130.00 SETBACKS (ft)----------------------- OCC GROUP: MIX AREA: 16,592.00 sf FR : 54.38 RE : 37.83 TYPE CONST : GARAGE-------------------------------- LT : 12.36 RT : 33.51 BASEMENT?: N DIM: CONT PRICE: $2,362,360 STORIES : 2.00 AREA: sf ZONING DISTRICT: CI-1 FIRE SPKLRS REQ'D? : Y TREE ORD APPLIC? : Y OVERLAY ZONE: FIRE EXTING REQ'D? : Y HANDICAP REQ APPLIC? : Y REQ'D PARKING: AIRPORT ZONE: N ST ENER CODE APPLIC? : Y FIRE DETECT REQ'D?: Y FLOODPLAIN : N CERT OF OCC REQ'D? : Y NOTICE: Separate permits are required for building, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or signs. This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days, or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this work must be complied with whether specified herein or not. This permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction. Sigiiature 6f Applicant Date Signature of Building Official 1 -Original bld pnnt.mt 2 - Inspector 3 - Office 4 - Customer SITE PLAN APPLICATION CITY OFIOWA CITY Application Date 0 1. Site Address: 4�- q OR Lot & Subdivision: 2. Applicant: N �r�.2 t-1 y � �hM.� .)� pp aJ Address: �. o. G x k 3 `1 (a City: ��7�-9' 4 C State 4 Zip 2, /Z/& Work Phone: Home Phone: 3. Contractor:x5"%. /�,Lt Address: City: State Zip Work Phone: Home Phone: Email: 4. Project Description I n15 r ��� + 1-t. j n,oa O R� Z � f1t N �� �Sd1k ft Contact Person: �''''� �� l ° ° Pp pcq rn (� Hisbidglapplicsite.doc 7116/07 r� U) p COMcheck Software Version 3.5.2 Envelope Compliance Certificate 2006 IECC Report Date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Section 1: Project Information Project Type: New Construction Project Title : Shelter House Community Construction Site: Owner/Agent: Designer/Contractor: 429 Southgate Ave. Iowa City, IA Selzer Werderitsch Associates 2222 Heinz Road Iowa City, IA 52240 Section 2: General Information Building Location (for weather data): Iowa City, Iowa Climate Zone: 5a Heating Degree Days (base 65 degrees F): 6227 Cooling Degree Days (base 50 degrees F): 3434 Activity TypeU Office Dormitory SectionRequirements Envelope TBD: No envelope assemblies specified Climate -Specific Requirements: Floor Area L 8264 8254 Component Name/Description Gross Area Cavity Cont. Proposed Budget or Perimeter R-Value R-Value U-Factor 1-1-Factor (a) Budget U-factors are used for software baseline calculations ONLY, and are not code requirements. Air Leakage, Component Certification, and Vapor Retarder Requirements: Lj 1. All joints and penetrations are caulked, gasketed or covered with a moisture vapor -permeable wrapping material installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions. 2. Windows, doors, and skylights certified as meeting leakage requirements. 3. Component R-values & U-factors labeled as certified. I] 4. Insulation installed according to manufacturer's instructions, in substantial contact with the surface being insulated, and in a manner that achieves the rated R-value without compressing the insulation. Ll 5. No roof insulation is installed on a suspended ceiling with removable ceiling panels. Lj 6. Stair, elevator shaft vents, and other outdoor air intake and exhaust openings in the building envelope are equipped with motorized dampers. ❑ 7. Cargo doors and loading dock doors are weather sealed. Lj 8. Recessed lighting fixtures are: (1) Type IC rated and sealed or gasketed; or (ii) installed inside an appropriate air -tight assembly with a 0.5 inch clearance from combustible materials and with 3 inches clearance from insulation material. Lj 9. Building entrance doors have a vestibule and equipped with closing devices. Exceptions: Building entrances with revolving doors. Project Title: Shelter House Community Report date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Page 1 of 11 Doors that open directly from a space less than 3000 sq. ft. in area. ❑ 10.Vapor retarder installed. Project Title: Shelter House Community Report date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Page 2 of 11 COMcheck Software Version 3.5.2 Interior Lighting Compliance Certificate 2006 IECC Report Date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Section 1: Project Information Project Type: New Construction Project Title: Shelter House Community Construction Site: Owner/Agent: Designer/Contractor: 429 Southgate Ave. Iowa Iowa City, IA Selzer Werderitsch Associates 2222 Heinz Road Iowa City, IA 52240 Section 2: General Information Building Use Description by: Activity Type Activity Type(s) Floor Area Office 8264 Dormitory 8254 Section 3: Requirements Checklist Interior Lighting: 1. Total proposed watts must be less than or equal to total allowed wafts. Allowed Watts Proposed Watts Complies 16518 14096 YES C ntrols, Switching, and Wiring: Independent controls for each space (switch/occupancy sensor). Exceptions: Areas designated as security or emergency areas that must be continuously illuminated. Lighting in stairways or corridors that are elements of the means of egress. Lj 3. Master switch at entry to hotel/motel guest room. Afj 4 ndividual dwelling units separately metered.1{/114 Each space provided with a manual control to provide uniform light reduction by at least 50%. Exceptions: Only one luminaire in space; An occupant -sensing device controls the area; The area is a corridor, storeroom, restroom, public lobby or sleeping unit. Areas that use less than 0.6 Watts/sq.ft. Lj 6. Automatic lighting shutoff control in buildings larger than 5 000 sq.ft. Exceptions: D GC ✓/�� 1� �tomatic eeping un' , patient care areas; and spaces wh a shutoff would endanger safety or security. Pho oce astronomical time switch on exterior lights. Exceptions: Lighting intended for 24 hour use. Tandem wired one -lamp and three -lamp ballasted luminaires (No single -lamp ballasts). Project Title: Shelter House Community Report date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Page 3 of 11 Exceptions: Electronic high -frequency ballasts; Luminaires on emergency circuits or with no available pair. Section 4: Compliance Statement Compliance Statement: The proposed lighting design represented in this document is and other calculations submitted with this permit ap tion..�ie prop anos d lighting sy: requirements in COMcheck Version 3.; d � )W �41 `Zn t ry uire Name - Title Ji14El1 P Si rn w A b1i' �Istent with the building plans, specifications has been designed to meet the 2006 IECC in the Requirements Checklist. 1l -/?'UF Date ` OOB Project Title: Shelter House Community Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Report date: 09/18/08 Page 4 of 11 COMcheck Software Version 3.5.2 Interior Lighting Application Worksheet 2006 IECC Report Date: Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Section 1: Allowed Lighting Power Calculation A B C D Area Category Floor Area Allowed Allowed Watts (tit) Watts / ft2 (B x C) Office 8264 1 8264 Dormitory 8254 1 8254 Total Allowed Watts = 16518 Section 2: Proposed Lighting Power Calculation A Fixture ID : Description / Lamp / Wattage Per Lamp / Ballast B C D E Lamps/ # of Fixture (C X D) Fixture Fixtures Watt. Office (8264 sq.ft.) Linear Fluorescent 1: FA: 2x4 recessed troffer, 2 lamp / 48" T8 32W / Electronic 2 78 64 4992 Compact Fluorescent 1: FC: Recessed downlight / Twin Tube 18W / Electronic 2 22 40 880 Linear Fluorescent 2: FD: Fluorescent strip, 2 lamp / 48" T8 32W / Electronic 2 9 64 576 Linear Fluorescent 3: FE: Wall Mount Fluorescent, up/down / 48" T8 32W / 2 8 64 512 Electronic Compact Fluorescent 2: FH: Recessed downlight, shower / Twin Tube 18W / 1 14 20 280 Electronic Dormitory (8254 sq.ft.) Linear Fluorescent 4: FA: 2x4 recessed troffer, 2 lamp / 48" T8 32W / Electronic 2 44 64 2816 Compact Fluorescent 3: FC: Recessed downlight / Twin Tube 18W / Electronic 2 70 40 2800 Linear Fluorescent 5: FD: Fluorescent strip, 2 lamp / 48" T8 32W / Electronic 2 2 64 128 Linear Fluorescent 6: FE: Wall Mount Fluorescent, up/down / 48" T8 32W / 2 13 64 832 Electronic Compact Fluorescent 4: FH: Recessed downlight, shower / Twin Tube 18W / 1 14 20 280 Electronic Total Proposed Watts = 14096 Section 3: Compliance Calculation If the Total Allowed Watts minus the Total Proposed Watts is greater than or equal to zero, the building complies. Total Allowed Watts = 16518 Total Proposed Watts = 14096 Project Compliance = 2422 ECE s { — (� S EP 2 2 2008 HOUSING !NSPFCT1f Project Title: Shelter House Community^^'"" Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Report date: 09/18/08 Page 5 of 11 AIL COMcheck Software Version 3.5.2 Exterior Lighting Compliance Certificate's_- r-- 2006 IECC . Report Date: 09/18/08 I i Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House cck 2 ` Section 1: Project Information Project Type: New Construction Project Title : Shelter House Community - Construction Site: Owner/Agent: Designer/Contractor: 429 Southgate Ave. Selzer Werderitsch Associates Iowa City, IA 2222 Heinz Road Iowa City, IA 52240 Section 2: Exterior Lighting Area/Surface Power Calculation A B C D E F Exterior Area/Surface Quantity Allowed Tradable Allowed Proposed Watts Wattage Watts Watts I Unit (C x D) Driveway 2100 ft2 0.15 Yes 315 600 Main entry/exit 3 ft of door width 30 Yes 90 40 Other entry/exit 15 ft of door width 20 Yes 300 160 Walkway < 10 feet wide 35 ft of walkway length 1 Yes 35 40 Walkway— 10 feet wide 1300 ft2 0.2 Yes 260 120 Parking area(s) 6500 ft2 0.15 Yes 975 900 Total Tradable Watts* = 1975 1860 Total Allowed Watts = 1975 Total Allowed Supplemental Watts** = 99 * Wattage tradeoffs are only allowed between tradable areas/surfaces. ** A supplemental allowance equal to 5% of total allowed wattage may be applied toward compliance of both non -tradable and tradable areas/surfaces. Section 3: Exterior Lighting Fixture Schedule A Fixture ID : Description I Lamp I Wattage Per Lamp / Ballast B Lamps/ Fixture C # of Fixtures D Fixture Watt. E (C X D) Driveway (2100 ft2): Tradable Wattage HID 1: HA: pole mounted, 25 foot pole / Metal Halide 250W / Electronic 1 2 300 600 Main entry/exit (3 ft of door width): Tradable Wattage Incandescent 1: LA: LED wall sconce / Incandescent 30W 1 2 20 40 Other entry/exit (15 it of door width): Tradable Wattage Incandescent 2: LA: LED wall sconce / Incandescent 20W 1 8 20 160 Walkway < 10 feet wide (35 ft of walkway length): Tradable Wattage Incandescent 3: LA: LED wall sconce / Incandescent 20W 1 2 20 40 Walkway — 10 feet wide (1300 ft2): Tradable Wattage- Incandescent 4: LA: LED wall sconce / Incandescent 20W 1 6 20 120 Parking area(s) (6500 11:2): Tradable Wattage HID 2: HA: pole mounted, 25 foot pole / Metal Halide 250W / Electronic 1 3 300 900 Total Tradable Proposed Watts = 1860 Project Title: Shelter House Community Report date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Page 6 of 11 Section 4: Requirements Checklist Lfi ting Wattage: V W thin each non -tradable area/surface, total proposed watts must be less than or equal to total allowed wafts. Across all tradable areas/surfaces, total proposed wafts must be less than or equal to total allowed wafts. Compliance: Passes. Controls, Switching, and Wiring: , / LJ 2. exemption claims are associated with fixtures that have a control device independent of the control of the nonexempt lighting. /y//� 1�16All nonexempt lighting fixtures shall be controlled by a photosensor or astronomical time switch that is capable of automatically turning off the fixture when sifficient daylight is available or the lighting is not required. Exierfor Lighting Efficacy: ® 44.. All exterior building grounds luminaires that operate at greater than 100W have minimum efficacy of 60 lumen/watt.. Exceptions: Controlled by motion sensor or exempt from consideration under the provisions of Section 505.6.2. Exterior Lighting PASSES. Design W"4, hetter than code. Section 5: Compliance Statement Compliance Statement: The proposed exterior lighting design represented in this document is consistent with the building plans, specifications and other calculations submitted with this permit application. The proposed lighting system,Fl;s been designed to meet the 2006 IECC requirements �in COMchec Version 3.5.2 and to comp) with the m Name - Title Seca, 22 v. the Requirements Checklist. Date I Elf V E: �� F P 2 2 2008 ' e HOUSING & INSPECTION SERVI` 17 x�. IOWA CITY, IOWA m... _,- Project Title: Shelter House Community Report date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Page 7 of 11 COMcheck Software Version 3.5.2 Mechanical Compliance Certificate 2006IECc Report Date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck II r i r � QQ I JI a 1 i' 2 2 L Section 1: Project Information Project Type: New Construction Project Title : Shelter House Community 7ira Construction Site: Owner/Agent: DesigneNContractoi , n.' r,f_ 429 Southgate Ave. Selzer Werderitsch Associates Iowa City, IA 2222 Heinz Road Iowa City, IA 52240 Section 2: General Information Building Location (for weather data): Iowa City, Iowa Climate Zone: 5a Heating Degree Days (base 65 degrees F): 6227 Cooling Degree Days (base 50 degrees F): 3434 Section 3: Mechanical Systems List uant System Type 8 Description 20 HVAC System 1: Other Heat Pump, Cooling Capacity <54 kBtu/h, Groundwater Coupled Condenser / Single Zone Instantaneous Water Heater 2: Service Water Heater Instantaneous Water Heater, Capacity: 60 gallons, Input. Rating: 75000 Btu/h w/ Circulation Pump Section 4: Requirements Checklist quirements Specific To: HVAC System 10/ 0 : 2 cc� .�^ 1. Equipment minimum efficiency: Heat pump: . �j� ( GO PI 7• G QC� L• �' C/'±C' 20 Table - 1 2. Heat pump thermostat required when supplemental electric resistance heat is installed 503, 2. 3 (z) taroJnd %%Xce' Requirements Specific To: Instantaneous Water Heater 2: -Fyp Hot water system sized per manufacturer's sizing guide 2. Unknown hot water system type. Efficiency requirements can not be determined. �3. All piping in circulating system insulated L FZ4. Hot water storage temperature adjustable down to 120 degrees F or lower Olt. Automatic time control of heat tapes and recirculating systems present �. Controls will shut off operation of circulating pump between water heater/boiler and storage tanks within 5 minutes after end of heating cycle Generic Requirements: Must be met by all systems to which the requirement is applicable: 0101. Load calculations per 2001 ASHRAE Fundamentals p"2. Plant equipment and system capacity no greater than needed to meet loads Exception: Standby equipment automatically off when primary system is operating Exception: Multiple units controlled to sequence operation as a function of load 1pel. Minimum one temperature control device per system Project Title: Shelter House Community Report date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Page 8 of 11 Z4.inimum one humidity control device per installed humidification/dehumidification system 5. Automatic Controls: Setback to 55 degrees F (heat) and 85 degrees F (cool); 7-day clock, 2-hour occupant override, 10-hour backup Exception: Continuously operating zones o &e u P l e-4 ZT ! 7 - Exception: 2 kW demand or less, submit calculations �. Outside -air source for ventilation; system capable of reducing OSA to required minimum ,f,7. R-5 supply and return air duct insulation in unconditioned spaces R-8 supply and return air duct insulation outside the building R-8 ��++`" insulation between ducts and the building exterior when ducts are part of a building assembly - Exception: Ducts located within equipment - Exception: Ducts with interior and exterior temperature difference not exceeding 15 degrees F. - Exception: Continuously welded and locking -type longitudinal joints and seams on ducts operating at static pressures less than 2 inches w.g. pressure classification �. Mechanical fasteners and sealants used to connect ducts and air distribution equipment ram. Ducts sealed - longitudinal seams on rigid ducts; transverse seams on all ducts; UL 181A or 181 B tapes and mastics rylO.Operation and maintenance manual provided to building owner Y�JA 1. Balancing devices provided in accordance with IMC 603.15 12. Piping, insulated to 1/2 in. if nominal diameter of pipe is <1.5 in.; Larger pipe insulated to 1 in. thickness '3. Lavatory faucet outlet temperatures in public restrooms limited to 110 degrees F (43 degrees C) Y4. Motorized, automatic shutoff dampers required on exhaust and outdoor air supply openings - Exception: Gravity dampers acceptable in buildings <3 stories - Exception: Gravity dampers acceptable in systems with outside or exhaust air flow rates less than 300 cfm where dampers are interlocked with fan IZ 15. Stair and elevator shaft vents are equipped with motorized dampers Section 5: Compliance Statement Compliance Statement. The proposed mechanical design represented in this document is consistent with the building plans, specifications and other calculations submitted with this permit application. The proposed mechanical systems have been designed to meet the 2006 IECC requirements in COMcheck Version 3.5.2 and to comply with the mandatory requirements in the R uirements Checklist. V t Lro YL L) E> o S1e2 ZJ '' D Name - Title j. ( Signature Date je a'ct�e ' VICTOR 6 w : AMOROSO JR. F.E.: iz r v ' FE 10536 ` . EL Eff 2 2008 a Ll 3 F;7i3SING & INSPECTION STET 1! {O.NA CITY; IQ"` Project Title: Shelter House Community Report date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Page 9 of 11 COMcheck Software Version 3.5.2 Mechanical Requirem HVLEC Description 2006 IECC �, , 2 2 ?008 Report Date: Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck The following list provides more detailed descriptions of the requirements in Section 4 of the Mechanicai bbmliliahce ' Certificate. Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 1 1. The specified heating and/or cooling equipment is covered by the ASHRAE 90.1 Code and must meet the following minimum efficiency: Heat pump: 3.6 COP, 16.2 EER 2. Heat pumps having supplementary electric resistance heat must have controls that, except during defrost, prevent supplementary heat operation when the heat pump can meet the heating load. Requirements Specific To: Instantaneous Water Heater 2: 1. Service water heating system design loads for the purpose of sizing systems and equipment must be determined in accordance with manufacturers' published sizing guidelines. 2. Service water heating equipment used solely for heating potable water, pool heaters, and hot water storage tanks must meet the following miniumum efficiency: Unknown hot water system type. Efficiency requirements can not be determined. 3. Insulation must be provided for recirculating system piping, including the supply and return piping of a circulating tank type water heater. 4. Temperature controls must be provided that allow for storage temperature adjustment from 120 degrees F or lower to a maximum temperature compatible with the intended use except when the manufacturer's installation instructions specify a higher minimum thermostat setting to minimize condensation and resulting corrosion. Documentation of the installation instructions must be provided to be exempted from this requirement. 5. Systems designed to maintain usage temperatures in hot water pipes, such as recirculating hot water systems or heat trace, must be equipped with automatic time switches or other controls that can be set to switch off the temperature maintenance system during extended periods when hot water is not required. 6. When used to maintain storage tank water temperature, recirculating pumps must be equipped with controls limiting operation to the start of the heating cycle to a maximum of 5 minutes after the end of the heating cycle. Generic Requirements: Must be met by all systems to which the requirement is applicable: 1. Design heating and cooling loads for the building must be determined using procedures in the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals or an approved equivalent calculation procedure. 2. All equipment and systems must be sized to be no greater than needed to meet calculated loads. A single piece of equipment providing both heating and cooling must satisfy this provision for one function with the capacity for the other function as small as possible, within available equipment options. - Exception: The equipment and/or system capacity maybe greater than calculated loads for standby purposes. Standby equipment must be automatically controlled to be off when the primary equipment and/or system is operating. - Exception: Multiple units of the same equipment type whose combined capacities exceed the calculated load are allowed if they are provided with controls to sequence operation of the units as the load increases or decreases. 3. Each heating or cooling system serving a single zone must have its own temperature control device. 4. Each humidification system must have its own humidity control device. 5. The system or zone control must be a programmable thermostat or other automatic control meeting the following criteria:a) capable of setting back temperature to 55 degrees F during heating and setting up to 85 degrees F during coolingb) capable of automatically setting back or shutting down systems during unoccupied hours using 7 different day schedulesc) have an accessible 2-hour occupant overrided) have a battery back-up capable of maintaining programmed settings for at least 10 hours without power. - Exception: A setback or shutoff control is not required on thermostats that control systems serving areas that operate continuously. - Exception: A setback or shutoff control is not required on systems with total energy demand of 2 kW (6,826 Btu/h) or less. 6. The system must supply outside ventilation air as required by Chapter 4 of the International Mechanical Code. If the ventilation system is designed to supply outdoor -air quantities exceeding minimum required levels, the system must be capable of reducing outdoor -air flow to the minimum required levels. 7. Air ducts must be insulated to the following levels:a) Supply and return air ducts for conditioned air located in unconditioned spaces (spaces neither heated nor cooled) must be insulated with a minimum of R-5. Unconditioned spaces include attics, crawl spaces, unheated basements, and unheated garages.b) Supply and return air ducts and plenums must be insulated to a minimum of R-8 when Project Title: Shelter House Community Report date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Page 10 of 11 located outside the building.c) When ducts are located within exterior components (e.g., floors or roofs), minimum R-8 insulation is required only between the duct and the building exterior. Exception: Duct insulation is not required on ducts located within equipment. Exception: Duct insulation is not required when the design temperature difference between the interior and exterior of the duct or plenum does not exceed 15 degrees F. Exception: Continuously welded and locking -type longitudinal joints and seams on ducts operating at static pressures less than 2 inches w.g. pressure classification. 8. Mechanical fasteners and seals, mastics, or gaskets must be used when connecting ducts to fans and other air distribution equipment, including multiple -zone terminal units. 9. All joints, longitudinal and transverse seams, and connections in ductwork must be securely sealed using weldments; mechanical fasteners with seals, gaskets, or mastics; mesh and mastic sealing systems; or tapes. Tapes and mastics must be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 181A and shall be marked '181 A-P'for pressure sensitive tape,'181A-M' for mastic or'181A-H' for heat -sensitive tape. Tapes and mastics used to seal flexible air ductsand flexible air connectors shall comply with UL 181 B and shall be marked '181 B-FX' for pressure -sensitive tape or'181 B-M' for mastic. Unlisted duct tape is not permitted as a sealant on any metal ducts. 10. Operation and maintenance documentation must be provided to the owner that includes at least the following information:a) equipment capacity (input and output) and required maintenance actionsb) equipment operation and maintenance manualsc) HVAC system control maintenance and calibration information; including wiring diagrams, schematics, and control sequence descriptions; desired or field -determined set points must be permanently recorded on control drawings, at control devices, or, for digital control systems, in programming commentsd) complete narrative of how each system is intended to operate. 11. Each supply air outlet or diffuser and each zone terminal device (such as VAV or mixing box) must have its own balancing device. Acceptable balancing devices include adjustable dampers located within the ductwork, terminal devices, and supply air diffusers. 12. Service hot water piping, where required, must be insulated to 1/2 in. if pipe less than 1.5 in. nominal diameter. Larger pipe must be insulated to 1 in.. Pipe insulation will have a conductivity of less than 0.28 Btu.in/(h-ft2-degrees F). 13. Temperature controlling means must be provided to limit the maximum temperature of water delivered from lavatory faucets in public facility restrooms to 110 degrees F. 14. Outdoor air supply and exhaust systems must have motorized dampers that automatically shut when the systems or spaces served are not in use. Dampers must be capable of automatically shutting off during preoccupancy building warm-up, cool -down, and setback, except when ventilation reduces energy costs (e.g., night purge) or when ventilation must be supplied to meet code requirements. Both outdoor air supply and exhaust air dampers must have a maximum leakage rate of 3 cfm/ft2 at 1.0 in w.g. when tested in accordance with AMCA Standard 500. - Exception: Gravity (non -motorized) dampers are acceptable in buildings less than three stories in height. - Exception: Systems with a design outside air intake or exhaust capacity of 300 cfm (140 Us) or less that are equipped with motor operated dampers that open and close when the unit is energized and de -energized, respectively. 15. Stair and elevator shaft vents must be equipped with motorized dampers capable of being automatically closed during normal building operation and interlocked to open as required by fire and smoke detection systems. All gravity outdoor air supply and exhaust hoods, vents, and ventilators must be equipped with motorized dampers that will automatically shut when the spaces served are not in use. Exceptions: - Gravity (non -motorized) dampers are acceptable in buildings less than three stories in height above grade. - Ventilation systems serving unconditioned spaces. Project Title: Shelter House Community Report date: 09/18/08 Data filename: Z:\Projects\SWA Shelter House 200843.00\ComCheck\200843 Shelter House.cck Page 11 of 11 A ++ n.- k ryl An n t Cl Y cj 11 ems? d3Almiss � serc t i wu � OZ F �$ Q a y h � ODOR U � p Id, P, y ,1111\, ' M■� 1-1VMS CL'111 11110 ■ n 1 I ♦ �� •P�Ii'a I oi•l ,■ Ili i Oi' . ;y I�i lFilaF� •13♦•Il Y o Hgacdxaggo� o a a 1'Eq�i Q Q g w aia r 9 a ]] t E Ro oe�eooe 000� me°� o a�� Sao ado r? W � N H e M. u a 20 C/] Ito �oE?a co z o z Z Q , S _ egg d = m ® S C(1Z �y III e EEC! PlAlago .o ��■�■■■cam ®� ��'6�'�� R. ��■�c■�c■ u llSiirli w�■a� oz��i�l / YfYis��a=Y�Hilc����' j1 • ■■fiiGr"i■■rl■I■■fiiifi: �J • ■■rr■�■■■i��■■r�■r� ■c��:� ■■i►M■■�w, ■■r�smom ii■ r�.rri ■r�� w/, d � 05 � `R III! o��� � o E `en giEF�EIF4 �z � U o � ss 44 LU «< no' 00 on EEO©00000 ©0000000000Do 0000 O 0 Woo rW R �yyu�So �4x� O — EW Cf) o� C Sa2 i 6e 3lT'd 'G WJA7 1V-N vprn 'un vvm a Naaiaa. uv'aaINW nrorvaaovaa L V-9 i \ R MOM ON T47a+d s.wAlav la It q �E � y8 9 B �!R III I 'oil � ��4���99a�� yas6Fais9y�E�il��i aanaxs O g U gag zco N W FN gi R U� � g3as rQ a,;p n DOER S4 1 p I PaA oil $$�$ epP 3 P $ 2y ygy pp S I�ec B$A�y sppa°a yy �s (M(.Q Q � i AB R5$�� $ 4 I § 1 4$ 91 1i g a6 I m i ZO W] A m E Fg�b lu� R J Q Z W F0o- S `� 3333 `333 SSSoS � y N y F Will y.. sex kf.eaaaaasks z \ m \ \ - o co /$ z d 7 / : \ /( ,. [D \ . `|( ! § § ) ! q £ ! a{ \! ' �' —) .! ,a,.# u - y 2 CO A; e;!a o ! |t \ | ; §§ |r §E! ! � § � � ! @ . j( ) ) ^� L) IL! N 2^ O&E 2����� �f��� �Q����� Z u o Z_ L. li, LA I 6co $ < e e g n n G I I r JJe Aa a a5 �P � i lj iy j a DO �D}a 21 fillR 8 R R 7J as ml za3l II lit I i=v i TT Vm i 1. 6I y S� ■d �f Z I g J 1 w I I I IY 1 1 R 1 �p6 1 r�I y I q 8L 91pi 11yy N t 1 � I I r'i I— I I �� • 2tly C! _ __ __ �.� V� n2 ' Yst —i L td N: 1----------� I{� CO ' J� '1 1 L ® II h I - � I �� • I i,� -1 ! �• I I I _ till i i gr Nil' I Scd I I S ri S al I � ��¢ S8!—I r r' —�� ; ; �• n I i I :y$III R I^ p 1 �=d 3 I • g ti co 1 i � ; 1 Y�� 2�6'1 •' Y i I" � � I I I� I I I I p XXXXXX ZZ Zxxxxxx Y V Y O Y< • k it i @ed ! Y f � laid � i ; @id i � �F3F38cic`4 j I L- -- -- -�-- I , 1• b b b b < 0 jLn z u o ! | § |L | | \ _Lu ` co AI /\ ; \ 0 R,tm �•d„ ! 1.... -------------- ! . | ! � . �!|! ---------- | - ---------- . co � o V � O :J o w . Z — _ all (n - o a 3 sC' �I�� o z w W x tW�� pp g aCl)— �:_ oP�S g8d og ,� QI S \ CO )]11 | z e o } r \ !` | O � Q f - \ (D \ \ !! 4!) $e\\\ � i _ - . ■ m / \ §\ :J!! « !3 £ [,k: Cl.,| .? •;k|!2 \ t ( ! o m 0 . J R! /.1,4 ! e \ ` �• \ . _ � § . 2 �- / { (/ j/ w z 3 'S - , z ® \ ;� . |\N\§§) IQ : ��� ! ! 3L _!e• -_ „ ` Ea-o ; > ( w| / \| \ §) ee,77 !m! ' { , -- : -- } ,EOD — } � I - _ re |§m|',s • §| e CID )°•" mx ) e i §| §� , . � - Q | EQ § � \ ^ ƒ \ \ ƒ w O z � O z � W Y (7 c o p w z N U A' � � �+�' pz ¢ 'a � r � cd IL.P �• m g�6Y4p � Z $ k 3 s W a b b a w to z ��q,� N liull n i O Aco Bggg��@ �aell F X—j b wW fi Y O D 0 0 0 ea 0 k' 6 DI4 2 E o-- O o0 O r IIIIIIIII IIII-II'I � I�IIIIIIII�III t . O III IIII� I IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIIIIII'i�li o©a 1� V''°01"^� I�IIIIIIIIIIII O 0o w I n Z= Z J e�s S gte�!q Z z a f CO o a d a 6 3 a . aeg,�t �c v O S m S Z co RZ Z Q Q O VJ 8g_ NAWQ 6i i O < ° b m I a t O 1 E w Z Q W p s (n S CO rl & L `_ :; IF ® c3 �p� t �Q J Hai§i Z Q R 9 COr' �- `.. e._ W •^ _ d a 6 _ ®e N (11 Lr) co T ;rc_7� 0 p� s o Z= Q U fo «. L u Jr� 8yJl° �.FE 0 CO 80 :89iffcd I� z 4Ci �o� _zzzzzzzz .......... z z_ z_ z_ z aa _zzzzzzzzzzzzz F Sa ry N N i O Q S 7 2 F' � ;;; 3 3 3 3;; 31; oo oo GGCC Coo W J a W n n•nnn n n awn nnnnn17 1 1_ Ow o^ o o'i o`1 `oo`oo o'''r o o`0 0 o o `i F $ u,��mm��mw$ons:.ihlonlao�rv.,. �a.� 0 e R Z z u w z -j Cd t2l i 0 cf) 0 MY 0 C) . . . . . . . . . . . min MINE 91 El Z Z I Eb, 91 2 1 a t 41- M I § HtRIwcn M ca w U) 11 Z. 0 r- 0 Attachment 10 APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL DATE: / ZZ o S PROPERTY PARCEL NO. /0 2 Z / 3 3 0/ o PROPERTY ADDRESS: Y?- f .roc.�'� f'rf * X &r. `.., r' ,y PROPERTY ZONE: -'t�• �� ��^�'�'•• G/ PROPERTY LOT SIZE: Zq� /1 y r '� APPLICANT: Name: ^46el -7--~ lic�lc'ry Address: `�v 6,-eff /Os- xos.. iAw. Z T f, f tv,. , C.. ri = SLi V6 Phone: 3 y/.7 3 OY CONTACT PERSON: Name: G^'S f 6&&Iccrf (if other than applicant) Address: fP c" c S'd yr Phone: 1P� c - o v,o PROPERTY OWNER: (if other than applicant) Name: S/ �/,e,- Address: yZ y fv�/�fc.F Phone: 4,^ t v owl 1 saa W IV The Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the City Manager or designee in the enforcement of the Zoning Code or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Please see 14-8C-3 in the Zoning Code for detailed information on the appeal procedure. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with questions about the appeal process or regulations and standards in the code. Decision being appealed: The applicant alleges that an fror has been made by the following administrative official (list title) a-L-a--- a "O<-C c/ir on (date) i,/a G/n q in enforcing the Zoning Ordinance in relation to the property listed above . Please indicate the section of the Zoning Ordinance cited in the official's decision: pm, e, 114,Ve CJ.L/0-p - f s f � � / !%Pr.. , T S44./9;f 114 i 14 t /.irc, Olet/. Purpose of the Appeal: The applicant wishes to challenge the above decision based on the interpretation of the following section(s) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. (This section of the code may or may not be different from the section cited in the decision being challenged.) �S-r- z �) (co (s-�) /Y=s4-y Summary: In the space provided below, or on a separate sheet, summarize the basis for your appeal referring to the code sections iisted above and providing sound reason(s) for overturning the decision. (Provide evidence demonstrating that the decision was based on an improper or erroneous interpretation of the Zoning Code). Se,P cfEcrzdc Remedy desired: r/ .f4�irr //Ek•tP_ ppdadmidappeakboase.doc 7 I.a i� Summary Re: Shelter House Building Permit Appeal I. Underneath Iowa City ordinance 18-1-2(A), a building permit cannot be issued until a proper site plan has been submitted and approved. The following ordinances have not been complied with: A. 14-4(B)-4(d)(5)(b) requires a shelter management plan, which has not been provided. B. The parking requirements of Code 14-5A-4 have not been complied with. C. The site plan which was approved was not submitted by or approved by Michael or Janet Dahlen, the owner of a substantial portion of land included within the site plan. D. The site plan which was approved was not the site plan which was submitted by the applicant and was not made available to the present appellants for their review. II. Underneath ordinance 14-2C-1, the use proposed by Shelter House requires a special exception. Although Shelter House received a special exception in 2004, this special exception had expired by October of 2008 and a new special exception is therefore necessary. ^4 c� Permit # Issued : Applicant Name Job Address Parcel # Zone Project Name: SHELTER HOUSE C/O CHRISSY CANGANELLI PO BOX 3146 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-3146 BUILDIN"" PERMIT City of Iowa City BLD08-00633 11 /26/2008 SHELTER HOUSE 429 SOUTHGATE AVE 1022133010 SHELTER HOUSE Applicant CITY OF IOWA CITY ------------ ---- ---------- Contractor — — ----- — — — — SELZER-WERDERITSCHASSOC. 2222 HEINZ RD IOWA CITY, IA 52240 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBDIVISION: BRAVERMAN CENTER BLOCK: 7 LOT: 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2 STORY MIXED USE SHELTER HOUSE/COUNSELING BUILDING TYPE OF USE: MIX BEDROOMS: LOT ---- -----------_--_—_— DWELL UNITS: DIM.: IRREGULAR TYPE OF IMPR : NEW STRUCTURE--------------------- AREA: 29,134.00 sf FRAME TYPE: WOOD DIM: 67.33 X 130.00 SETBACKS (ft)----------------------- OCC GROUP: MIX AREA: 16,592.00 sf FR : 54.38 RE : 37.83 TYPE CONST : GARAGE------------ ------------ LT: 12.36 RT : 33.51 BASEMENT?: N DIM: CONT PRICE: $2,362,360 STORIES: 2.00 AREA: sf ZONING DISTRICT: CI-1 FIRE SPKLRS REQ'D? : Y TREE ORD APPLIC? : Y OVERLAY ZONE: FIRE EXTING REQ'D? : Y HANDICAP REQ APPLIC? : Y REQ'D PARKING: AIRPORT ZONE: N ST ENER CODE APPLIC? : Y FIRE DETECT REQ'D?: Y FLOODPLAIN : N CERT OF OCC REQ'D? : Y NOTICE: Separate permits are required for building, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, or signs. This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days, or If construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this work must be compiled with whether specified herein or not. This permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction. X Sigliature 6f'Applicant Date Signature of Building Official I - Original :> .. 2 - Inspector 3 - Office 4 - Customer bid pnnt.rpt Attachment 11 MEARDON, SUEPPEL & DOWNER P.L.C. LAWYERS ROBERT N. DOWNER JAMES D. McCARRAGHER 1 22 SOUTH LINN STREET MARK T. HAMER IOWA CTTY, IOWA 52240 -1 802 THOMAS D. HOBART DOUGLAS D. RUPPERT 2431 CORAL COURT, SURE 5 TIMOTHY J. KRUMM CORALVILLE, I0WA52241-2838 WILLIAM J. SUEPPEL CHARLES A. MEARDON DENNIS J. MITCHELL DAVID J. BRIGHT PETER J. GARDNER ANNE E. DANIELS ANDREW J. HOSMANEK PATRICIA G. KROPF CARRIE L, LATHROP January 9, 2009 Iowa City Board of Adjustment 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: 429 Southgate Avenue, Iowa City Shelter House Building Permit Appeal Filed by Michael and Janet Dahlen Ladies and Gentlemen: TELEPHONE: (3 1 9) 3315-9222 IowA ary FAx: (3 1 9) 338-7250 coRALVILLE FAX: (3 1 9) 545-4055 WW W. MEARDONLAW. COM WILLIAM L. MEARDON (1 9 1 9-1 997) OF COUNSEL: WILLIAM F. SUEPPEL MARGARETT. LAINSON JEAN BARTLEY I am writing to you in my capacity as attorney for Shelter House. As you know, Shelter House owns property located at 429 Southgate Avenue in Iowa City. This property is the planned location of a new shelter and transition services facility. The City has issued a building permit for the facility, which the Dahlens now challenge. Background The Board of Adjustment granted Shelter House a special exception to establish a transient housing facility in a CI-1 zone following a public hearing on July 14, 2004. Litigation was commenced by various neighbors, including the Dahlens (Hilltop Mobile Home Court). Ultimately, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Adjustment's grant of the special exception. On November 6, 2008, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission considered and approved Shelter House's Major Site Plan for the property (typically, site plans are reviewed and approved by staff; however, the Commission considered this site plan at the request of the Dahlens). Following site plan approval, a building permit was issued on November 26, 2008, which the Dahlens now challenge. In their Appeal, the Dahlens list several arguments for why they believe the building permit should be cancelled. Set forth below is a brief response to each of the Dahlens' enumerated objections: Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 9, 2009 Page 2 1. "Underneath Iowa City Ordinance 18-1-2(A), a building permit cannot be issued until a proper site plan has been submitted and approved." TRUE. As stated above, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Shelter House Major Site Plan on November 6, 2008. Prior to that meeting, Shelter House submitted its original site plan (August 27, 2008) and worked with staff to meet various site plan requirements. The property was posted on October 2, 2008 to notify the public of a pending Major Site Plan Review. Further corrections were made based on staff comments to obtain staff support and Commission approval at the November 6 meeting. 2. "144(B)4(D)(5)(b) requires a shelter management plan, which has not been provided." NOT TRUE - A SHELTER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS NOT REQUIRED. This Code provision relates to specific approval criteria for provisional uses and special exceptions and, specifically, sets forth certain criteria for shelter facilities in obtaining a special exception. Under the current Code, an applicant must submit a site plan and a shelter management plan with its request for a sl2ecial exception. This requirement did not exist in 2004 when Shelter House was granted its special exception by the Board of Adjustment. Shelter House complied with all requirements in place in 2004 and the Supreme Court has upheld the Board's grant of a special exception. Shelter House should not now be required to comply with special exception requirements that did not exist at the time the special exception was granted. A shelter management plan is not a precondition to site plan approval or to the issuance of a building permit. 3. "Parking requirements of Code 14-5A-4 have not been complied with." NOT TRUE. Pursuant to Code section 14-5A-4 (table 5A-2), the minimum off-street parking requirement for a "Community Service -Shelter" is as follows: .01 space per temporary resident based on the minimum number of residents staying at the shelter at any one time plus one space per employee based on the maximum number of employees at the site at any one time. The maximum number of residents staying at the shelter at any one time is 70 (70 x .01= 7 spaces). The maximum number of employees at the site at any one time is 14 (14 x 1=14 Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 9, 2009 Page 3 spaces). Seven spaces plus 14 spaces equals 21 spaces. The site plan approved by the Commission provides for 21 spaces. At the Commission hearing, the Dahlens' counsel asserted that Shelter House would have 20 employees. However, the Ordinance clearly contemplates the maximum number of employees at the site at any one time. That number is 14. 4. "The site plan which was approved was not submitted by or approved by Michael or Janet Dahlen, the owners of a substantial portion of land included within the site plan." NOT TRUE - THE DAHLENS ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF ANY PORTION OF THE LAND WITHIN THE SITE PLAN. The subject property has been surveyed by MMS Consultants to establish the true boundary lines. Unfortunately, this survey shows that two of the mobile homes located on the Dahlens' property encroach onto the Shelter House property (see attached). The Dahlens contend that they own some portion of the property to which Shelter House has apparent record title. At this point, the extent of the property in which Dahlens claim an interest is not clear, nor is it known under what legal theory this interest is claimed. Assuming this is a legitimate dispute, it is a private matter to be resolved between adjoining land owners and has no impact on the issuance of a building permit. By way of additional background, the south 30 feet of the Shelter House property is a drainage easement. The location of the facility more than 30 feet from the boundary is not due to any setback requirement, but rather the requirement that no permanent improvements be placed within the City easement. The two mobile homes encroach onto the City easement. A requirement of the special exception was that an eight -foot tall privacy fence be installed along the south property line. 5. "The site plan which was approved was not the site plan which was submitted by the applicant and was not made available to the present appellants for their review." NOT TRUE. The approved site plan was submitted by the applicant, Tom Werderitsch, on behalf of Shelter House. The site was timely posted to notify the public of a pending Major Site Plan Review. The Dahlens received the notice and information to which they were entitled. Presumably, the Dahlens object to the fact that the site plan was revised or corrected between the posting of the site and the approval of the plan by the Commission. This practice is typical, and not inconsistent with any provision of the City Code. The final corrected version of the site plan was displayed and discussed at the Commission hearing. The Dahlens and their counsel were in attendance. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 9, 2009 Page 4 6. "Although Shelter House received a special exception in 2004, this special exception had expired by October of 2008 and a new special exception is therefore necessary." NOT TRUE. According to the Board's 2004 Decision, Shelter Houses special exception would expire six months from the date the Decision was filed with the City Clerk, unless Shelter House "shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use ..." Prior to the expiration of six months, but following the commencement of litigation by the Dahlens and others, the Board extended the special exception expiration period "to a date six (6) months after the current litigation and any associated appeals are finally concluded." The Dahlens contend that litigation and appeals finally concluded on April 9, 2008, the date the Supreme Court issued its Procedendo. Accepting that date, Shelter House had six months - or until October 9, 2008 - to "take action" to "establish the use." Shelter House made substantial efforts to "establish the use" within six months. Shelter House filed its site plan on August 27. Thereafter, Shelter House worked diligently with various City officials and submitted revised plans on September 17. Shelter House submitted an application for a building permit and detailed building plans on September 26. Following further City comment, a major site plan was submitted on October 1 and public notice was posted on October 2. Notes and records maintained by the City amply document that Shelter House took action to "establish the use." In a Memorandum to the Commission dated October 31, 2008, Associate Planner Sarah Walz summarized these activities and stated that Shelter House had "clearly taken substantial material action toward establishing the use prior to the expiration of the six-month period." The Dahlens appear to believe that Shelter House must have obtained a building permit within the six month time period to preserve its special exception. As indicated above, this position is inconsistent with the Decision granting the special exception. Further, it does not appear to be supported by any provision of the City Code and is inconsistent with City practice. In fact, when Shelter House was informed by the City of the original Board Decision, it was told that it must apply for a building permit within six months, not that it must obtain a permit (see letter of Senior Planner Robert Miklo dated August 4, 2004, attached). Shelter House did apply for the permit before six months expired. However, even the lack of an application within six months would not be fatal, provided "some action" was taken to "establish the use." Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 9, 2009 Page 5 Finally, it is noteworthy that a very recent opinion (December 31, 2008) of the Iowa Court of Appeals, involving a decision of the Johnson County Board of Adjustment, strongly supports the position taken by Shelter House and City staff. See Buser v. Tohnson Coun (2008 WL 5412222 Iowa App.). In the Buser case, the Johnson County Board was faced with an argument similar to the Dahlens - that a conditional use permit had expired because the permit holder had not obtained a building permit within the proscribed time period. The County Board, interpreting its ordinance, determined that the issuance of a building permit was not necessary to establish a use. Although a building permit had not been obtained, the court cited substantial evidence that steps were being taken to comply with the conditions of the permit and determined that the Board had acted properly in denying the appeal of interested property owners. For the reasons stated, Shelter House respectfully requests that the Dahlens' Appeal be denied. Very truly yours, Timothy J. Krumm timk@meardonlaw.com TJK:ksn Enclosures cc: Shelter House Gregg Geerdes