HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-2010 Board of Adjustment
AGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, November 10,2010 - 5:15 PM
Robert A Lee Community Recreation Center
220 S. Gilbert Street
Meeting Room B
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
c. Consider the October 13,2010 Board Minutes
D. Special Exceptions:
1. EXC10-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Reif Oil Company for a
special exception to allow a drive-through facility located in the Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone at 2580 Naples Avenue.
2. EXC1 0-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Kristen Breaux for a
special exception to reduce the front principal building setback requirement to
allow reconstruction of a porch on property located in the RS-8 zone at 1122 E.
Washington Street.
E. Board of Adjustment Information
F. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: December 8,2010
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC10-000l0
2580 Naples Avenue
Prepared by: Lorin Ditzler, Intern
Date: November 10, 2010
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Reif Oil Company
801 North 3rd Street SE
Burlington, IA 52601
319- 725-9809
Contact:
Duane Musser
MMS Consultants
1917 South Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
351-8282
Requested Action:
Special Exception to allow a drive-through facility in
the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone.
Purpose:
To allow establishment of a drive-through restaurant.
Location:
2580 Naples Avenue
Size:
1.84 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Undeveloped Commercial (CC-2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Undeveloped Commercial (CC-2)
South: State Highway 1
East: State Highway 1 and Interstate 1-80
West: Intensive Commercial (CI-l)
Applicable code sections:
14-4B-3A (General Criteria), 14-4C-2K (Drive-through
criteria)
File Date:
September 16, 2010
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Reif Oil Company, is proposing to build a convenience store with a drive-through
facility for a fast food restaurant. The subject property is located in the CC-2 zone on Naples Avenue,
across the street from the new Menards store. The CC-2 zone is intended to provide for major
business districts to serve a significant segment of the community population. These centers often
include retail services and large traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares.
Drive-through uses are permitted by special exception only. Drive-through facilities associated with
restaurants are allowed only in the CC-2, Commercial Highway (CH-l)Central Business Services (CB-
2) zones.
2
The subject site will have visibility along State Highway 1, however, due to the topography, the drive-
through lane will be set lower than the right-of-way. The site plan shows a 6,132 square foot building
with 31 parking spaces. The subject property is surrounded on all sides by commercial development
or highway such that it is not visible from any residential zones.
The applicant has shown that there is space for up to six cars to stack along the drive-through lane.
The site plan also shows a required sidewalk along Naples Avenue right-of-way; a pedestrian
walkway from the parking spaces on the south end of the lot to the building; and pavement markings
indicating the one-way circulation along the drive behind the building.
It is in the City's future plans to include a sidewalk/trail extension to the Naples/HWY 1 intersection,
at which point a signalized pedestrian crossing would be installed.
The City Engineer will review the median markings adjacent to the entrance of this property and the
Menard's entrance. If warranted, these markings will be changed to allow a turn lane.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to
conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of
property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the
requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific
criteria included for Section 14-4G-2K pertaining to Drive-Through Facilities, in addition to the
general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A.
The applicant's comments regarding each of the general standards are included on the attached
application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth
below.
Specific Standards (14-4G-2K)
1. The number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces and paved area necessary for the drive-
through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or
unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area where it is
located. To promote compatibility with surrounding development, safe pedestrian access,
and efficient and safe vehicular circulation on the site, the Board of Adjustment may require
certain conditions, including, but not limited to, restricting the location of the drive-through to
rear or side access, requiring directional signage, limiting the number of lanes and/or
amount of paving, and limiting or prohibiting the use of loudspeaker systems.
Staff believes the application satisfies these criteria based on the following findings:
. The proposed site plan shows space for up to six cars to access the drive-through at
one time before stacking onto the parking aisle for the convenience store.
. Given its location to the rear of the site, the drive-through circulation will not conflict
with public drives.
. The subject property is surrounded on all sides by commercial development or highway
such that it is not visible from any residential zones.
. The proposed site plan shows a sidewalk along Naples and a pedestrian walkway from
the parking spaces on the south end of the lot to the building.
3
. It is in the City's future plans to include a sidewalk/trail extension to the Naples/HWY 1
intersection, at which point a signalized pedestrian crossing would be installed.
Staff recommends that exiting portion of the rear drive be marked with an exit only sign to
indicate that all traffic circulates one way around the building.
2. The transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use in addition to the
. existing uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level or service,
effects on traffic circulation, access requirements, and pedestrian safety. An adequate
number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure that traffic safety is not
compromised.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. Naples Avenue is designed to support the level of commercial development in the area.
. Traffic from the drive-through will not stack onto publiC streets or neighboring
properties. Since the drive-through is located to the rear of the site, there is ample
space for vehicles to stack before reaching other active areas of the commercial use
(such as gas pumps) or the publiC street.
3. The drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and publiC
rights-of-way and screened from view to the S2 standard. If the drive-through is located
adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be screened from view of
these properties to at least the S3 standard. The Board of Adjustment may increase or
reduce these standards according to the specific circumstances affecting the site.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. The drive-through lane meets the required set back standards.
. The subject property is surrounded by other properties zoned for commercial uses.
The screening requirement along Highway 1 has been partially waived by City Building Official,
due to the steep embankment between the property and the highway. While the embankment
limits views of the drive-through from adjacent roads, the Board should consider whether this is
sufficient screening for the use proposed. The zoning code states that the S2 screening
standard is applied moderate screening is necessary to soften the impact of uses or paved
areas, but where some visibility between areas is more desirable than a total visual screen.
4. Lighting for the drive-through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards set
forth in Article 14-5G and must be designed to prevent light trespass and glare onto
neighboring residential properties.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. The property lighting has been reviewed by the building department as part of the
permitting process. All standards must be met in order for an occupancy permit to be
issued.
. The subject property is surrounded on all sides by commercial development or highway
such that it is not visible from any residential zones.
4
General Standards (14-4B-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare.
Staff believes the application satisfies these criteria based on the following findings:
. Public roads that provide access to the property are designed to accommodate the
levels of traffic generated by CC-2 uses.
. The drive-through is located to the rear of the site; therefore back-up into public roads
should not be an issue.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values
in the neighborhood.
In addition to the findings provided under general standard 1, staff believes the application
satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. The subject property is surrounded by commercial uses
. The drive-through is set to the back of the site, away from adjacent uses;
. Views of the drive-though are limited, due to natural screening provided by the
topography of the site, the gas station canopy and the commercial building.
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 provided above under general standards 1 and 2, staff believes the
application satisfies this criterion.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. All necessary utilities are available at this site.
. Naples Avenue is designed to support the levels of traffic that will be generated by the
commercial use proposed.
. The building official, in consultation with the City Engineer, has reviewed the plan and
determined that all required drainage is provided.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as
to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. Traffic from the drive-through will not stack onto publiC streets or neighboring
properties. Since the drive-through is located to the rear of the rear of the site, with
traffic circulating behind the commercial building, there is ample space for vehicles to
5
stack before reaching other active areas of the commercial use (such as gas pumps) or
the public street.
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.
An application has been submitted for final site plan review and building permit. The
building official has reviewed the plan to determine that all applicable zoning requirements
not reviewed here are satisfied. All applicable zoning requirements must be met in order for
an occupancy permit to be issued.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
. The Southwest District Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Highway-oriented
commercial development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00010, a special exception to allow a drive-through facility in
the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 2580 Naples Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; and
. The exit end of the rear drive should be marked with "exit only" signage to indicate the
one-way circulation of the drive.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Aerial view of the proposed location.
3. Proposed site plan
4. Application materials
Approved by: ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
,..
-
o
,..
-
o
~
C
0..
o
,..
-
o
- -
o
o
~
II
I .+
I........
...
...
"
.
.
.-
. L...
. i
..~ I
.~
+.~v
..:{
.~
..cr
.cCf
. ,j
... J"'''''''"~'^
r
1""""
L
.....-I
. .
~
G
U)
o
~
o
o
o
I
o
'I"'""'l
U
><
~
(I)
=
Cl
(I)
<
UJ
~
~
~
Z
o
00
U")
N
z
o
10-1
~
U
o
~
~
t::
rn
o
.~
o
o
o
I
o
~
U
~
~
CI)
::s
d
CI)
<
C/)
CI)
i
z
o
00
LI')
N
z
o
""""'
~
U
o
~
~
~
""""'
rJ)
AMENDED MINOR SITE PLAN
BREAK CONVENIENCE
2580 NAPLES AVENUE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
QmR.
REIF OIL COMPANY
801 NORTH 3rd STREET
BURLINGTON, IOWA 52601
FAST
,
I
+
....
fI...._ ""'W
. . ~
GRAPIIIC SC.IlI IN_
1".>1/
r--__ / /
: ----f--__ ..
/ ! I
, "
, "
, "
/ ! I
; !:'
L--------i____;
/ ./
/ .I
I
I
i
I
!
I
!
i
!
1/
!
I
I
\
\
\
\
STC
PLAT PREPARED BY :
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 SOUTH GILBERT ST.
IOWA CITY, IOWA, 52240
OWNER'S ATTORNEY:
STEVEN P. SWANSON
100 VALLEY STREET
BURLINGTON, IA 52601
!
i
I
!
.I
i
I
I
i
: I IOICHl1ARK
Tt1ARROW SOLT
I ON H'l'ORANT
If7....., ;Y_
t---+- _ _ - ':1:.1,
r-r7 r!lI?
/ : i r 15 00' PANA1E 'TOR" ",;t';j.
I ; ~ ..... .....ENT ~t;fl'
L-L _____ "'''NO C,,""ON + ~
-----7 ACCl!:SS [ASQ,l[NT ;r
\ \
\ '.
\
13
6-9'2'12-
R_UI7..50'
L-JO.12'
T_l5.09'
C--JO.OS'
CS_NOO'20'36.W
/
/
~... /
/
#~ /
~~
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
fjMp'~X-Aroo ('se\ -('00- ('ge\r se\:~
~!2!2li lii~1;j ~ o~m i :z: ~LU cj 0 16 ~ ~
I~~II 0 <~ ~ "7"~ J'
~~~ ~!;!~ ~ l!!",u; i= en ~~
5LO,.l. ~ W~ ~~
'" ~~ lll~"'.e CIl~~ a... l- t
'" u.J e::::LU ~ :z O>:l! 0 j
~ll.g; fu :10,""3 ;=0," ~ ~ c...:> ~ }
0-- en CIl-~ a:l~ z Ol
~ ~ rn ~ =l ui~!2. 8 ~ctir1 ~1- ::l
~ ~ 0
CIlC LU 0 :::l :;: J!1 :;: 8
u ~~I ~o ~ ~~ --I co '-Z ~z en ~c3 <
<C_ :z r -:;l
~~ E c...:> :r: ~~ i3g 0 1 ~ ~'"
I Q ~ r;;~ 0 (..') ~ ~c:o
~ ~ u.J>< <z< en - & ~
C ;=:x:;=
w 35w u.8 000 ~ ~ ~
0 -'"')- !t:2
+..J
.,..-l Q)
...o~
.,..-l 0
..o+->
~U)
i:J;:lQ)
C) cd
~ ~ ~
0'''-< 0
.,..-l ~..........
+..JQ)-
0-;>>'
Q)~~
o8u
~~cd
i:J;:l cd ~
Q)...s
....-l~
roo:!
.,..-l
o+->
Q) rt.l
0-; cd
lf1~
11;1
~ 8~
~.~:;~
i U
o~o
~a.
:;n.
02~!f
~:~~
~7j,5~
;2il:~~
! ~~~~
'S::=&: c
o. ~
c 8b U
~5~fi
ih~
.... om.
.35.5 :5
.s.'li
,;1l~ :;1.
o~ ..:H
;~i ~.!~
0..... ~ Ii .... .....
;~2 si~
j.cl~ "O'"'~
~;.5l ~ j~
~~~ ~ ! ~!
(\,1:5 &D:: ~ i-g
15:5 0 >to b 0
~'iD.. i: ....~l!
.f81::~ ~gi
~ -;;5;1;-~ ~--:i
6 ~h~ ~~;
~I!
!i1!S
0" -
<.>;.:;20
=Ii:~
&jo:~
~~g",
~
'11 ,,~
tR i
,;
:::::::::--
,at_ J,,/X",lll.tOtII
-----~--
-"'-
-~------
,
-- I r --'_
---------+---~-~----- !
'-
---~----
~
filh 8 U
ili g ~ III !I!
J~G:ll tl fil~Pi
z~~-. ~t3 ~a:::)
IJ) ~1i111!1f -K ,.z ,.Ir"-
...il t~!1i::l 1D~l:! 15 V>
W 151515":;lln If~ i5F!iZU>U>1D ~
~ ~~~iffi}~ ~~~ ~~~~~~i i
o U~~ ~!i ~<i~i~~~i~ni i
Z mm~~ ~H ~ *::ll:!l:!ffiu~~lll ~
!3!3!3U~.8~~ "'~~~i3~~~~ .,
o ~~~l!:l!:e~al!:~~~gg~~l;1",a ~
Z IIII I IIIIII11 II I g
<t II : i
I I' ~
o ! I i €~a I
I ~
II : ~
o
Z <fI~<1. 0
W
(')
W
-1
--
--
~
"'~
~
~
,
~
~
1'"
~~
'So
~"
--
~h~Ji
iB~J
--
----.
Ex~ I ([) - 000 I (jJ r
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: S~~--\~~'f\"D.:s' \~(~Q:,\~ PROPERTY PARCEL NO. \ad-,CYoc:.)'",5Q>C) '7
PROPERTY ADDRESS: d 5'6~ ~\e 'S l\\l12
PROPERTY ZONE: ~ c.:~
PROPERTY LOT SIZE:
\\1S~
"
APPLICANT: Name: - ~\\' ~'l\.. ~C""?1"'cl
Address:%~\. ~'~n ~~ C?~~"-
"'B ~(' \.. \,<~-\..c:,V\~"""J::" f\ S~Ga(
Phone: - (
~ \9. -'~ 'd..~:;; -q~ '-':I <=t
CONTACT PERSON: Name: ~ "-'\ ~ C~!::)\f\st...) '--\...~V\\.s /'(')\)G.'O'.'" 1'-\.'-.)$- ~
(if other than applicant) I
Address: \C\ \ 't ~ (};,\ ~~.<'-\. ~ ~l
~-....:.~ ~t\~i-+-~ S~ 'cl-. ~c:,
Phone:~\ q - ~5 \ .~~-q
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: "'" )
(if other than applicant) ~ -...., ---
_.~
Address: :..:: .-)
.~;
Phone: . -
-. , .
,~,-
~~ " . -I,;
".
v'
C,"-J - '--'-'-
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and seC:Jion number in"
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seekirig. If you
cannot find this i.nformation or do not know which section of the code to look 'in', please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special excePtio~:\J'f'\\)~ D~ \'\l\'ndCl\~ \
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
M
M
~
("l
=2
p
tTJ
Z
Cl
Z
tTJ
tTJ
::0
C/)
l"
>-
Z
o
C/)
C
::0
<:
tTJ
>-<
o
::0
C/)
l"
>-
Z
o
'"0
l"
>-
Z
Z
tTJ
::0
C/)
l"
>-
Z
o
C/)
("l
>-
'"0
tTJ
>-
::0
("l
::r:
~
("l
>-l
C/)
tTJ
Z
<:
;a
o
z
;:::
tTJ
Z
~
l"
C/)
;g
("l
:;
l"
Ci:i
>-l
C/)
M. MS CONC'TJLTANTS I...N. C..
. m ......... . .. .... .....,
I
lOW A CITY lOW A
OFFICE: 319-351-8282
CEDAR RAPIDS lOW A
OFFICE: 319-841-5188
September 16, 2010
City of Iowa City Application to the Board of Adjustment - Special Exception
Re: 2580 Naples Ave - a.k.a. Lot 14 of MWD Davis Addition & Auditor's Parcel 2009070
1. Reif Oil proposed to construct a new convenience store with a leased space for a fast-food
restaurant at the above listed location. Inclusion of drive-up window at this proposed fast
-food restaurant will not be detrimental to or endanger the health, safety, comfort or
general welfare of the public.
2. The proposed drive-up will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in
the neighborhood. Development of the subject site is expected to enhance the enjoyment
and property values in the neighborhood.
3. The proposed drive-up facility will be completely within the confines of the subject lot
and will therefore not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
surrounding properties.
4. The attached site plan shows adequate access, ingress and egress for restaurant and drive
up facility users. Adequate storm sewer, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electricity,
telephone, and CATV are available to the site to serve the restaurant and the proposed
drive-up facility.
5. The attached site plan shows the proposed ingress and egress to the site. The access to
the subject site is located directly across from the access for 2605 Naples Ave (Menards)
to minimize continuous deceleration and acceleration due to turning traffic along Naples.
6. The proposed restaurant facility will be subjected to rigorous and comprehensive review
by the City staff to ensure that all applicable City Code requirements are met.
7. The proposed fast-food restaurant facility use is consistent with the city comprehensive
plan.
Sandra Steil
MMS Consultants Inc.
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
s.steil@mmsconsultants.net
c_:~, ~
Cli
x\>>
...-.........
.~,_u.J
f{
-6-
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing,
construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls,
improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum
yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C4, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk,.
unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to
establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and
for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order
without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application.
(Section 14-SC-1E, City Code).
Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved
by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any
taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of
record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision
is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section
14-SC-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Date:
, 20
Date:
,20_
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdadmin\application- boase.doc
;"~"1
~~
CP_-:j
;(
I-I
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC10-0000ll
1122 East Washington Street
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: November 10, 2010
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Kristen Breaux
1122 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52245
309-738-4841
Contact:
Steven Breaux
1302 Lakeside Court
Port Byron, IL 61275
309-235- 7479
Requested Action:
Adjustment to the principal setback requirement.
Purpose:
To reduce the front setback in order to allow the
construction of a new open-air porch to replace the
existing enclosed porch.
Location:
1122 East Washington Street.
Size:
60' x 147'
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Single-family residential (RS-8)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Residential (RS-8)
South: Residential (RS-8)
East: Residential (RS-8)
West: Residential (RS-8)
Applicable code sections:
14-4B-3A, (General Criteria);
14-4E-6 Non-conforming Structures;
14-2A-4B-5b; Adjustments to the Principal Building
Setback Requirements
File Date:
October 12, 2010
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located in the Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 1122 East
Washington Street. The required front principal building setback for structures in the zone is 15 feet.
The original house, which was established before current zoning regulations, has its front porch set
just 8 feet from the street right-of-way line. Because of this situation the structure is considered non-
conforming.
2
The applicant previously applied for and was granted a special exception to alter the roof in order to
provide improved drainage for the existing porch (September 2010). In the staff report for that
special exception it was noted that the front porch would require some reconstruction, however the
applicant believed the existing structure could be repaired and thus requested an exception for the
purpose of the roof alteration only, stating "The base structure of the porch will remain unchanged.
. . . The only proposed change to the structure is the roof design."
Subsequently, an inspection of the porch found that the porch structure is failing completely,
requiring new footings and new walls. While "incidental and routine maintenance of a non-
conforming structure" is allowed by code, total replacement of a non-conforming structure is
prohibited. The applicant is therefore requesting a special exception in order to reduce the setback
requirement for the purpose replacing the front porch.
The applicant proposes to replace the existing enclosed front porch with an open air porch. An open
air porch is one that has only partial walls and is not further enclosed by windows. The proposed
porch would sit within the footprint of the existing porch and match its size (9.6 feet deep and 19.6
feet wide). It would also conform to the height and slope constraints of the previous special
exception (a 3:12 slope with eaves of the porch matching those of the existing house).
By right, the applicant could rebuild a front porch with a depth of up to 2.6 feet-this would meet the
15-foot setback requirement. Another option that would meet the zoning code would be to provide a
front stoop with an awning that could extend up to 6 feet into the required front principal building
setback. The existing front porch is original to the house, though it was originally constructed as an
open air porch and later enclosed with windows.
Most of the other houses along this frontage have open air front porches. Half of the properties
along the same frontage are set back fewer than 15 feet from the street right-of-way line-a similar
pattern exists along frontages on Pearl Street and Muscatine Avenue as well. Along frontages where
there is an established pattern (50% of developed lots) that deviate from the required setback by
five feet or more, the zoning code provides some relief through setback averaging (section 14-2A-4B-
3e). However, because the subject property is abutted by properties that meet or exceed the 15-foot
standard, setback averaging does not provide any benefit-the required setback remains 15 feet.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the pUblic health, safety and general welfare, to
conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of
property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the
requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific
criteria included for Section 14-2A-4B-5b pertaining to Adjustments to Principal Setback
Requirements in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in
Section 14-4B-3A.
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the
attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set
forth below.
3
Specific Standards (14-2A-4B-5b).
1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. The existing porch is original to the house and is established within what is now the current
required front setback. While half of the properties along the same frontage are also set
back less than 15-feet from the right-of-way line this property does not benefit from setback
averaging because the immediately adjacent properties meet or exceed the required 15-foot
standard.
. Though the proposed porch replacement would not extend the house any further toward the
street right-of-way line than the existing porch, such replacement is prohibited by the
regulations for non-conforming structures.
2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. The current porch, which is original to the house, is failing completely and may not be
reconstructed without a special exception to reduce the front setback requirement.
. While it would be allowable for the applicant to replace the existing porch with an awning and
front stoop to serve as a covered front entrance, this would not be in keeping with the
historic character of the neighborhood or the character of the original portion of the house.
Most other houses along this frontage, and in the surrounding neighborhood, have front
porches.
3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations.
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.
Staff believes the application satisfies these criteria based on the following finding:
. The proposed porch would be limited to the footprint, depth, and width of the existing porch
and would not bring the structure any closer to the street or reduce separation from the
adjacent properties.
. An open air front porch would provide a greater sense of openness, light and air than the
existing enclosed porch.
. An open air porch is distinct and separate from the house and would not appear as an
extension of the living portion of the house.
. Most homes along this frontage and within the surrounding neighborhood feature open air
porches.
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods;
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.
Staff believes the application satisfies these three criteria based on the following findings:
. Most other homes along the same street frontage and within the neighborhood are set back
less than 15 feet from the street right-of-way line.
4
. Most other homes along this frontage and within the immediate vicinity have open air front
porches.
. The proposed porch will maintain the footprint, depth, and width of the existing porch.
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent
practical.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
. The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of replacing the existing enclosed porch
with an open air porch. An open air porch is readily distinguishable from the living (enclosed)
portion of the home, and will better preserve light and air and the sense of separation from
adjacent properties. All but two of the homes along this frontage have open air porches.
. The proposed open air porch will be constructed within the footprint of the existing porch and
would be no wider or deeper than the existing porch.
. The roof of the proposed porch would have a 3:12 slope, the minimal slope necessary to
provide adequate drainage, and the eaves of the porch would be at a height level with those
of the house (see sketches provided by the applicant).
Because the porch will extend significantly further forward than the adjacent house to the east, it will
be highly visible along the street. In order to ensure that the porch design is aesthetically and
historically appropriate for the neighborhood, it is recommended that approval of the setback
reduction be subject to a condition that the final design of the porch being approved by staff.
The following suggestions are made by staff in order to guide the applicant in creating an appropriate
porch design:
. A railing wall being no higher than 36" and being of a spindle railing design, similar to
others along the frontage or a paneled design as shown in the attached drawing
provided by staff..
. A cornice board/beam being placed below the gable.
. Decorative columns that match the architectural style of the house. (The column style
shown would be appropriate or another design to be approved by staff).
. The columns being of a dimension that is appropriate for the size of the porch. (A
column that is too thin would give the porch a feeling of unstableness, a column that is
too large would give the porch too much bulk.)
. Trim being placed below the gable rake, minimum of 4 inches.
Because porches are often enclosed over time, staff recommends that approval of the special
exception include a condition prohibiting enclosing the porch with windows or walls.
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.
The porch is setback more than 3 feet from the side and rear property lines.
General Standards (14-48-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
5
· The proposed setback reduction will not bring the structure any closer to the street and will
not reduce the amount of separation between the subject porch and adjacent properties.
. The setback exception will not reduce light, air, separation for fire protection, or access for
fire fighting.
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.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
· The proposed setback reduction will not reduce the space separation between the subject
house and adjacent properties.
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.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
. The proposed setback reduction will not reduce the space separation between the subject
house and adjacent properties.
· The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of an open air porch only.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
· The neighborhood in which the subject property is located is fully developed-all utilities,
access roads, drainage, and other facilities are already in place to serve this neighborhood.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
· The proposed setback reduction will have no impact on ingress or egress from the site.
· The subject property is a single-family home on a low-volume residential street-traffic
congestion would not be anticipated in association with this use in this location.
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 applicant must submit a final drawing to the Building Department in order to obtain a building
permit. The plan will be reviewed to ensure that all other aspects of the proposed construction
conform to the regulations or standards of the zone.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Comprehensive Plan does not address this issue, however reinvestment in properties is
encouraged by the plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00011, an application to reduce the required front principal
building setback from 15 feet to 8 feet for property located in the Medium Density, Single-Family (RS-
8) zone at 1122 East Washington Street subject to the following conditions:
6
. The setback reduction be for the purpose of constructing an open air porch to replace the
existing porch;
. The new porch will fall within the footprint of the existing porch and its dimensions shall be
no larger than 9.6 feet deep x 19.6 feet wide;
. The new porch will have a gabled roof with a 3:12 slope, and the eaves of the porch must
match the eaves of the existing house;
. The roof shall be designed so that it does not increase drainage onto neighboring properties,
which must be demonstrated on the final plan submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit; and
. At no time in the future may the porch enclosed with windows or walls without an additional
special exception.
. Final porch design to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development
prior to issuance of a building permit. .
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Photos
3. Elevation provided by the applicant
4. Staff sketch of porch with recommended elements
5. Application materials
Approved by: ~ ~
.
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
7
The house at 1122 East Washington.
View of 1122 E. Washington looking east from Muscatine.
Cornice
board/beam
Decorative
columns,
minimum
diameter?
8
Wall no taller
than 36".
Panel wall
shown.
~ D
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
mO ~
o
CJ
....._.~~D
n~~O
lS l~V]d
0: CJ
"'--"","'."'-- .,..-
C\I
Cii CJo
..-Z.~_......._._-_..~
a:CJ
D
m cJ
DC
DO
~
~
o
o
o
I
o
~
U
><
~
..
z
o
~
~
u
o
~
~
F-c
~
00
,a, I 8 II
~~"h
_. .. '... c'
-+'" -......
c'
'~""'-"
~'''''-'''';
'-..> i'c",
--\
c:.::)
;j id
t'v
-'+~'_\'!
": .'. ~ 1
Cornice
board/beam
Decorative
columns,
minimum
8
Wall no taller
than 36".
Panel wall
shown.
f'.
fro, \V#I
PCb
EXt 10- 00011
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: _I () .- \'2.- 10
PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1\ '- L c.. \ OC\~'I (\~;-rX'\. 5+.
PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SIZE:
APPLICANT: Name: ~\iS+e(\ 'ak: (A\) "-
Address:\\?-7- ( .l\)abh''"'J-hY\ frl-. '.:U:>u.:n ('it-[) ~
Phone: 30Q.- 13R-L\@~\
.---. ("')
CONTACT PERSON: Name: ''>\E~x=:..~ \;')'R~A"~ .~
",
(if other than applicant) \'~\:) ~ Lc....\<<t~~ \:.~. ~M\~"o~~~~\~ ,
Address: "
'. ~,~-.... -J
(~~'\ J . ....~.
Phone: ~S'?1 - '3~S--~ C-~ ",.' 1--
1 ~' 1-,)
/f
..
".-" In.
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: ....' -. .;
-..
(if other than applicant) . :r -~
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-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception: '+-0 n\\Ou.:> 0 (~duC:hc:.n-tn 'prlnCl?C\.\
b\.Jl\ din) SQ:tbocC- (~I\\'J
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
~-IL- \0
-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.
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Leaal descriotion of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary):
B.
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.iowacityiowaassessors.com/
or by calling 319-356-6066. ~
,c::~t
Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following informatio&i::;",
, ,
..... ,-t',...~
;,'~,..... ......
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Lot with dimensions;
North point and scale;
Existing and proposed structures with distances from property line~.
Abutting streets and alleys;
Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of. each j;;lr<ilperty
opposite or abutting the property in question;
Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed.
Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your
special exception (Le., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking
spaces, etc.)
C)
,.J
:i ~ ~
C. Soecific Aooroval 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 14-48-4
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-wa/z@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.
S du c.:ti en IS ''D<:' C l.) h ~r +-Ot--\"\e,?'(t) p e..r+'-I ',.'\ C\ \.) Q ec:.", -CX"\ .
I,' , ,- ~hct5 Q~'~~ \(\ f+5. Currel'\-\ \ DCe-'t1C\r'\ -+0\ C'Y'-c><Q..+Y'\a.,: 50
I\IE::. ~ me 5e\-bo.~ c~n"o+- 'OQ. e-d )u~'Qd :+llY\:)u,~~ Sl>fbQC-~
'\ e.o: . . b C O\)~.Q ~ d LUel \\V"\?\s o~ e \~Q~ ~\d,<- ('(\ ee~ o~
O\lQ,( C\~\('\~(\ ~red 1':J-..fo01- setbo,c:. \C. ~-tond C\rd I --me. ('e.-pCt\ced ?OY'ch
!.C}Cc.eea ~'-t u' . .' . .
lDOlJ \d be \den-\ic.o.\ \("\ ~\-te. .-\-0 ~V'\Q. ~')l '~-\\{'\.~ ?0'-~~ Ls.O,NU-
~D--r-?rin+).
.l. '1\\~.:re \~ rd'CXc\"ica\ A\-\~tD\+'t '\("\ CO\'\1?\'t\"o, 'urt-\'"'\---Th12 sclbCtQt
requ\(Q.yV\en~s" "-
Ih~ pore'n o..\'\eoo\{ e"K:i51-5 w~\('\ -the. '0?ql)\(Qd s~Q(:". There..
)'5>> no 'rro~o~Qd c'nar\~ --\0 -t\1\.Q.. ~\:t~ c*-tYr cc s-n-u~Q...., ,~ w\\
\'101' e)(~~nd o..YI,\ .f2ur-+YVc_~ )rrtc -+Y1~ ~€-;-ba.c.~. \2.educ-\C"\Cj-\ne...
Setba..~~ l)..)oc>\O a\\~ u<2:>-\-o V-e~~\r ~~ C~rr\- <2::,~enx~.
3. ~"'~'01\0~y-\-Y)e ~c.e.0'(.x, ~\\\ ~ot b~ ~o~Q.~ -\0 -\-\,,~~l..J\?~~ eJ-
--tr"e '5<2-1 bOCh 'f€[j'0 \C.-k CY\s, ~
...1. . \~1 Q\C'"' se':pOJcrl\C:.t"\ ~\'""".f<<'e. ~nYtediC:Y"\"" ..
0, fY")all'/\ ().\n "3' 1.... ., . . .
There. \'::> no leqo\.>5--t '-\0 e-:\,~r-~e.. -t-v'1Q s\ck~. S~a.C-t-SI Dn\~
-the. f-tb{'("T t Q.hoJ\<j\f\<J ~Q~,,~ e,<2:t"b o..CX:... dO~5 r'\ o~
,n~e(".{2'e. c. e. ~ \+\-1 o..r:'i 0+- -t-\, e o.\oo-"")Q. ..,.-rn~ ~ ,ex- cY\ h Q. ~ .
0\00 ~"(\c:::...ted \c-"\"t \"1-S cLrTe,,-r lD ccd-i c..n ~\~OU+ Ct~('\j
OYl'i of ..-\-v)Q 6.'=o..J e .
b..P (\)\fId e c?? ~"11'(?~ --fa-c ?ll\lo..c:''-I betuJ~en d,-\,)~\ \"" ~.. J
R~CAt('\"' YJD n?q\:les+ --h:> d,o.~<\~~e ~(de se:+t:>~~.
Cnon~)'\ "'<0 "",-Y"W ~()~. ~-\-b a.~~ u..)\\\ nc:>-T- Q-P:f'ec\ t'r:-'''-l0-t-'i:--n--<
to'(Ch os ,:c-e v.J\ \\ () o-t c.hou"'cr- (1)1' be. a.h'-f C-\o~er -to~
~e.e+ O'f 01-ne.r ?rl>?~ l.S
c. ~e-Me.ct --t'hQ.. ~era.\. 0 unci\":) => e..~\ <C C\YlC ~'a.C'em..eY"\+ .. "v
H Cln'-f h 0 \.,) se ~ H"""\ '-Iou...) 0.. C-\-k.j O~ ~ u..J i-+-y",, <"' ~e &eTbOC\L J
~ ~OCCh. ,-e...f-\ec+-=., ?\Cl.c.e..~l-t C)-f. 5-e~ Qro..\/,"",:> eitruct-tre ~
W H-\-l\("\ ~ ,::>u, Du.......d,"'~ '(Ie "b\\ \oO\~~:?d~:;:
.. ..- ,.... : "') e...
d. ?(bn')o1"e f"eD.5Cr\ob\e ?'n'f'5\Co..\ "Q\a+\cr.6\J~:~~e..-en:. v .
On\~ IOb"-'C\) -to o,o.n~ ~ -from .5~C~';
e. ?rovl6Q + \e)<\D\ "-ht 10 5\"""l~ 0.. blJ'\d'''5 ~ ~-)"c:x-t ~..~: \ s.. ~ .
Se\) era \ ~ ~r ~o~~..s.t>-.J\Th. \r') ~e. .V'\e \~~'bc)t;''hco d. ~Q...'
o.\~O sQ.-r bClCX-. \ t"sS -T-v\ell \ ~-f>€e--t ~m ~ Sl"\Qe:t.
""TYu< P Ybtp C)<'"'.:::> ~~ f'O'l~""'\ eo -\-Y\.J ~-\-vc ~ u..J \ \' 'nc-\\./ e. Q..Y\
'\ de-) -h e-a.\ -(b D+ rp'ri 0+ +0 ~ ex \ OS> -\\ '\'lG 'VCX CX\. Or'"\ d.
w\\ \ h 0+ ~)( "?o..y-,o ~ e.r ~ \.A:)C'-A reI ~ SiT.e.~-\-
ex Y1<c'~n'oCAir'\~ Y~~f"T\e~.
i-\. ~'1 ,?o-\en-n u \ v: e<jo..n~e. eR-f~cl~ re.s.u M-\'i'j ~\'Y\ -\-'r& SR:to o..Ct. ......
1l1e. 'p ffipDS'<:'C\ '?~ w\l \ '(\ at ex.pC\\"'\d on') -fUr-~-v"'!r -tou::>c.rd
-jY) e s\l e e -\- c::x- Vl e. \ 5"" bcx1." C\ '\> Th'P~~ e S. . --rn e.r..e o.re ~ c
tJe..~~-n~Q. ~f~ec-\-s.. ?OS\~~ ~~~ ~Inc.\uct~ 0.. sCt~er
~Ch ~ net 0.1\ 01 0\"'\ d 00Y'\. \ IYY\, ~ v <z-d 0. ~ -s-th e--hc, .
'5 . I'..J I Pr
-3-
D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in
"C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the
following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In
the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information,
not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception
meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are
not relevant in your particular case.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
~~ '"pl\)'tJosec\ fed uc:.A--\'CX""'\ v...J\ \ \ n 0+ bnr-~0~ ~c:ru-e,
on'l c..\05€r -\-0 -\--ne S1-'ie.€.:t 0'(" ne\sh'oCXih~yn.?,e.A-it'S ~
--The "Pro posed pcxch \A.J( \ \ \'I D-\- \ ncxea.~ \ .'""'\ 5\ ~ e
and \...D) \ \ na.u.Q. ~ s u.\'Y\JL -toO+-t>nn4- o...s -tvuL
Q"J. ,s1i (") -5 -pox-c.h.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not
substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood.
The rxxch LU"\ \ ,'"'.o-t- be. .~" ex- e C( sed ,,, ::^n~ u...:o.~..
~ YQ~ o\red ?c>rCh LU\ \ \ O-~-tva.\\.~ W,c'("eC(~.e..-
?Npe~ vO\\..)Q~ i\"'- ~~ ne \5,,",b~ood.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for
uses permitted in the district in which such property is located.
~ ~ko (ACt- r-e.d uc*' cn L0 \ \ \ n Dtf ~ d 0~ ~t>Ctc. Q...
betu.J<< e Y\ --tYu- ?<X c..h 0. n 0( o.c\ )o...C~~t 1?~ -peth Q ~ ..
~ -foo+-?nn+ u...)\'" {'o.X"Ylo.\~ ~.e ~~t\.~. ":
0'."..',.......... . ""'.J
::"'(".... r---'
... ."'1
("j,
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
0- \ \ 0 ~ '1-v\.Q Clba..J<2 a. yea. \ .. each. t \ r-.. p \ oce .
-4-
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
~ COe.-tbactL (e..a OC-T\ c.x'\ Wil \ \\ exue. \'"'\0 \CY\~C1C+
<?' .-\-n9.. a. '=>OV.Q ~ '-ThQ... 'P ex c..k t..0\' \ \ n 0+ \ ~ Q.,.Q Cl ~
l r"\ ~\ -::e.Q.... ~
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other
respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in
which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception
requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant
will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a
particular use as provided in the City Code section 1448 as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).]
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
r.',
\"-.-~)
~,~:~)'
1/;:::>
'-.""J
,~,....,:~
f.'
~"~':'"
Ie .1.'
t '" .;
r ,-;
-5-
E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located
within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal:
NAME
ADDRESS
Z 1'1 € ase USe.- -t-no.
0. '? 'Y h c..~ ';"Y c:.x'l ..
\ \So\- 0+ ('\e.\5V\'oC'.)/5 -A--om ~ 'P1C2.U~
.......,
1'2.:':')
C)
=
o
~ ~:~ t-J
..:,;;" -- ~ -,--.j
u"<.
,.,......,.
-'( -ry~ '~
... ~'f
,"J
~.: -~1C1-
(,'t
(f'''~
r :
-6-
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing,
construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls,
improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum
yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C4, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk,
unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to
establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and
for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order
without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application.
(Section 14-8C-1E, City Code).
Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved
by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any
taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of
record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision
is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section
14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Date:
ID-J'2.-
20~
Date:
,20_
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdadmin\application- boase.doc
CJ
c:;;)
:''':::~':
~~' .",.
-.-
." .'
r---,,)
..."<;"
~ [-.
t"-.'___....,
f.........
, .
'" (Jl
Board of Adjustment - Special Exception
To whom it may concern:
I approached this committee last month to request a setback reduction in order to correct a
roofing issue that had caused water damage to my existing front porch. The change made was to the
roof in order to better drain rainwater away from the interior of the existing porch. This change was
accepted by this commission for which I thank you.
When it came to the actual construction project, I was informed that the existing foundation
was unsuitable. This was discussed in detail with the building inspector's department. Since the porch
was partially in the setback, I could either replace the existing foundation using the old porch frame or
replace the frame onto the old foundation. I was told I could not both because of the setback.
I therefore have returned the committee to request a setback reduction for the porch itself.
After viewing similar porches along my street as well as adjacent streets, I would like to build a simple
open designed porch with half walls. (See drawings included). The overall size of this structure would be
identical to the existing porch (same footprint). This change was prompted partially by the current
setback rules but also to conform to other similar porches in my neighborhood. The half wall design was
to maintain some degree of privacy for which the current porch has afforded me for the past 2 years.
Since the remainder of the application is the same as the previous application, I would hope you
can use the list of neighbors to fulfill that requirement of this current application.
'--'
l~
=
c::>
,1''"''-'..
oJ .J
Kristen Breaux (owner)
........':'> -,,-'I
1:,")-
hJ
jA IWro-~~ O~
( r"l
'~_..-' \
1122 E. Washington Street
10/12/10
'me ~equeeA- fur ~ 5~ boclL re.chJc...--n 0Cl is won-\-ed \f"'\ Older -iD repo'"c
.' _t- --r \A)o..S O-d ",\s~d --to sObml+ 'D1a.nS for on
~e e~ 1'01i(l~':VOY-(,J "\ 1/ ~ , . r , .........l
. ,,' 1 "'-.......i. CC'. '00+ UJo\J\O \ \ ~e. ~ d \<5 C-tJ e:.S ~:n en~\~l.":Ll
ooen 'POl" .\1'1 V-IC\~"'\ . ..J..1,,',
T des\' h o.~ we\\c> t--.l~ L)T~dersTancll~q O~ tGw,,",'J. ./VI.\~
~~~ o.d'J ~ecl (l'1 o.\"~+ i~ I irYllted , Q~l""C\o.\Ij ccnslden~
Y'lev\OD5 dectlilljO LDI+n -h'le Board o~d c..\-+~.
~,\:) ~~
--)
c/
t
19'8"
8'9"
Porch
~~\~\-\~j
-S '" J' \j ~ ~ I\..Q....
2' 3"
House
~.,
C...:J
'".'"0-" --"-
~::=} c::::;
~
",~"...
" -
...-'""-" -.,. -~..-..!
(,-) .....~~ -
r'J
... '0 ~.,,, \
c~"
r't""\
~ "''''' ~ ~ 0 " \11'''' ~<.\" <<- ~ ~,,"'<... ~)<. ,-s ~5 ~ ~ --.'l "'(,~ ,c V"\
<:... s ~c.N'-~\ I J' ~~ ~ .;" "'~ ,--'^" ,^Sl~.,<.J_ "'i ('\ "" t^ ''"'''~ ~"'~~ S J
\l'Q\, \l ,\0 ~ "" 1\ ~ C '3, '\.S>. ~ V'-{\ \ ~" <;::'Sl N\~ ~ ,\M'>^^ JJ\CV'\S ·
~"'->(\o-.'-S- $.,Qd -\",c,~ \ \",,,r '<:,m'i)'V1\ ~,~ Cjo-..\o\<<-0 V'<:::>t,-t:.
A\\ ~~~s '-'-"<:;~\~ o...~~'<.. \-'" A.J'~\~ \:.. ~
~ \'~\\\'J~ ,---(J~<:l. <0\ ~o~c-. CAr ) .J~u~c~
~ ~\..~Y\ \~ - L-\. \:: ~ ~V'\::)~~ \ ~- '--\~ C, ..
,~r~~~\ Q~ , ' "
\. ~ ~ cc 0V'.,s \; 11''-.) ~ \ ,(\{\ '-'-' \ \ \ ~ ~~ ~'" I<JV\ \ \;y\ r~"\\-
+-:, ~Q \{'..c,'V'> ~ ~ ~~~ "~;j ~.s: '<- · )
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OCTOBER 13, 2010 - 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings,
Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Anderson, Sheerin, Jennings, Tyson and Eckstein were present.
A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 MEETING MINUTES:
Sheerin offered a correction to a pitch measurement that was incorrectly written throughout the
minutes.
Eckstein offered a correction concerning the word "amount" on page four.
Walz noted that she had changed the word "motioned" to "moved" throughout the document.
Tyson moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Anderson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
Board of Adjustment
October 13, 2010
Page 2 of6
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC10-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Theresa Tranmer for a special
exception to reduce the required front setback for an uncovered deck located in the
Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 1610 Center Avenue.
Walz explained that the home is located in the historic Longfellow District. Center Avenue is a
residential street that is approximately four blocks long with a right-of-way of width of 75 feet.
Walz said that the standard right-of-way for a street with this traffic volume would be 60 feet if it
were built today. Walz noted that the sidewalks are set back fairly far from the street along
Center Avenue. Walz said that it is typical for homes along this portion of Center Avenue to
have shallow setbacks along the frontage. She said that the subject property is set back 10
feet, which is the required setback for the property.
Walz said that front decks are considered accessory uses and have separate setback
requirements. The applicant is requesting to replace her current front stoop with a deck. Walz
explained that anything that is larger than what is required to provide access to a home is
considered a deck rather than a stoop. She said that the current stoop is roughly 3x3 feet, and
the applicant desires to replace it with an uncovered deck that is roughly 4.5x1 0 feet, and would
allow room for seating and potted plants. The steps would come down directly from the front of
the deck, whereas in their present configuration, the steps come off the side of the stoop and
then angle back toward the front of the property. Walz note that the property is a small, only
3,150 square feet; current zoning requires a lot size of at least 5,000 square feet.
The applicant has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) for construction of a deck, subject to approval of a final design. Walz said
that if the Board of Adjustment were to approve this special exception, the applicant would have
to go back before Historic Preservation with their final plans.
Walz said that given the size of the lot, the large width of the Center Avenue right-of-way, and
the character and building placement along the street, staff believes a small deck is a
reasonable request. Staff recommends approval of the request to reduce the setback from ten
feet to five-and-a-half feet for the purpose of an uncovered deck subject to the following
conditions:
1) Compliance with the submitted site plan;
2) The deck shall not exceed 4.5 feet;
3) The applicant must get approval for the final design of the deck in accordance with HPC
recommendation;
4) The underside of the deck should be screened with lattice or other material as approved
by H PC staff;
5) The setback reduction is for the purpose of an uncovered deck only, and the deck may
not be covered or enclosed at any time in the future without an additional special
exception.
Jennings asked if the deck design would be required to have a railing, and Walz replied that she
believed that would be required by building code given the height of the structure. Jennings
asked if "coverings" would prohibit a retractable awning, and Walz said she did not believe an
awning would be excluded. She said that she thought a "covering" pertained to something
Board of Adjustment
October 13, 2010
Page 3 of 6
permanently installed. Jennings noted that when Walz described the property as "small" she
was speaking about the lot, not necessarily the structure; Walz indicated that was correct.
Eckstein asked if it was correct to say that it was irrelevant to Board considerations whether or
not the property was owner or tenant occupied. Greenwood Hektoen advised that it was indeed
irrelevant.
Sheerin opened the public hearing; no members of the public were present and the public
hearing was closed.
Tyson moved to approve EXC10-00009, an application to reduce the front setback
required for an uncovered patio or deck in the RS-8 zone from 10 feet to 5.5. feet for the
property located at 1610 Center Avenue subject to the following conditions:
1) The owner shall comply with the site plan submitted - the deck shall not exceed 4
feet, 6 inches in depth, or 10 feet in width;
2) The applicant must get staff approval for the final design of the deck in
accordance with the Historic Preservation Commission decision;
3) The underside of the deck must be screened with lattice or other materials to be
approved by historic preservation staff;
4) The setback reduction is for the purpose of an uncovered deck only and the deck
may not be covered or enclosed at any time in the future without an additional
special exception.
Jennings seconded.
Jennings said that this is the first time in his experience that an applicant for a special exception
is not present at the meeting. He asked if this was common, and Walz said that it was not.
Walz said that sometimes these processes are difficult for people to understand and she did not
think the applicant had intentionally made herself unavailable for questions. Jennings said he
had not taken any affront; he was just trying to establish how common that was and if it was
appropriate to direct questions to staff that one might have for the applicant. Walz said she
would certainly supply whatever information she had based on the information provided by the
applicant. Sheerin noted that if there was an occasion where the applicant was not present and
board members had questions, the matter can always be deferred until the applicant could be
present.
Jennings said that he was ready to proceed with the findings of fact.
Greenwood Hektoen suggested that Jennings include a finding regarding temporary coverings if
he had a position on their appropriateness for this application. Jennings said that he did not
know what fell under the realm of historic preservation, and that he did not necessarily have an
opinion one way or the other. Tyson asked if anything attached to the structure would be
considered permanent and Walz replied that she believed that a "permanent" structure would be
anything that required a building permit. Eckstein said that she lives in a historic district and has
canvas awnings on some of her doorways, which did not present any historic preservation
issues. Walz said that the prohibition on "covering" the porch stems from the fact that it is not
unusual for a covered porch to be converted to an enclosed porch; and often times that is done
without a building permits. Walz said that explicitly prohibiting the covering and enclosure of a
porch when granting a special exception gives the City an additional tool for requiring removal of
Board of Adjustment
October 13, 2010
Page 4 of 6
illegally converted porches.
Eckstein reviewed the Specific Standards.
Eckstein stated that the situation is peculiar to this property, as is required by the Specific
Standards. The lot size is unusually small, and the grade of the property requires a raised
structure of some kind for access. Eckstein noted that Center Avenue is much wider than is
currently required for a street of its traffic volume and as such has a greater distance from
properties on the other side of the street than is standard.
Eckstein said that there is practical difficulty in complying with the 10-foot setback requirement.
The existing stoop is 1.5 feet narrower than the proposed deck, but is failing, and requires
awkward, sideways access to the house. It also presents safety concerns as it has no railing.
Eckstein found that granting the exception is not contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations, because the proposed deck will not impede the sharing of light, air or necessary fire
protection lanes, and maintains the opportunity for privacy between dwellings. Eckstein pointed
out that the house itself will not be any closer to the street or the neighbors. Eckstein said that
the proposed deck will actually have larger side setbacks than is required by the zoning code.
She noted again that the street is particularly wide and allows for ample separation from
neighbors.
Eckstein stated that the proposed building scale and placement reflects that of the
neighborhood in which it is located. She noted that a number of homes in the neighborhood
have structures within the setback area.
The proposal promotes a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences
and provides flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible. Eckstein noted that the
neighborhood is already fully developed and its character is set and maintained as a densely
built neighborhood. The proposed setback is for the purpose only of providing access to the
house in the form of an uncovered deck, not as a covered porch or an addition to the house.
The proposed deck will satisfy the 5-foot side setback requirement, and the property abuts an
alley to the east.
Eckstein said that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are
mitigated to the extent practical in that the final design of the deck must be approved historic
preservation staff to ensure the compatibility of its rails, dimensions and designs. Eckstein
explained that the deck will only extend an additional foot-and-a -half into the right-of-way as
does the existing stoop.
The house will be located no closer than three feet to a side or rear property line. The deck will
be set back more than the required five feet.
Jennings reviewed the General Standards.
Jennings said that the proposed deck will be more than 9.5 feet back from the sidewalk and will
not obscure the visibility of vehicles accessing the alley to the east.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
Board of Adjustment
October 13, 2010
Page 50f6
provided because the neighborhood is fully developed with all necessary access roads,
drainage and other necessary facilities, including sidewalks and alleys that are already in place.
Jennings said that the subject property is a single-family residence and does not generate
significant traffic. The proposed deck will not increase vehicle trips to the area, and thus will
have no impact on ingress or egress.
Jennings said that the applicant will submit a plan to be reviewed by historic preservationists
showing compliance with preservation guidelines. The applicant must also submit a final plan to
be reviewed by the Building Official to ensure compliance with any aspects of the code not
specifically addressed here.
Jennings stated that the Comprehensive Plan encourages reinvestment in older neighborhoods,
and this would be considered an improvement to an older home in an older neighborhood.
Sheerin invited other findings.
Tyson, Sheerin and Anderson concurred with the findings of Jennings and Eckstein.
Jennings clarified that the street is not actually 75 feet wide; rather the right-of-way is 75 feet
wide.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
The motion was declared approved. Sheerin advised that anyone wishing to appeal the
decision to a court of record could do so within 30 days of the decision being filed with the City
Clerk's Office.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz announced that there would be two applications before the Board in November. Walz said
that one of them will be a revisiting of an application that came before the Board in September.
ADJOURNMENT:
Anderson moved to adjourn.
Tyson seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote.
o
-
o
f't
1: I
Q,) "'C
E ~
t; 0
j U
'- cu
~a::
.. cu
o U
"a t:
; <<t
o "'C
I:C t:
cu
-601
-601
<(
L.
cu
.c
...,
0
co
-
N
-
0
-
-
-
-
M
- )( )( >< >< )(
-
C)
-
CO )( )( >< >< W
C) -
- 0
0-
- >< >< W )( ><
- -
- 0
co
"II' )( W W )( )(
- - -
- 0 0
....
0- >< )( >< )( ><
-
-0
N )( >< >< W ><
- -
- 0
loft
"II' >< )( >< >< ><
-
-
"II'
0 >< >< >< >< ><
-
-
M
C) >< )( >< W )(
- -
- 0
N
M >< W >< )( )(
- -
- 0
-
III N "<t' IJ'l I""l -
E ~ - - - - -
- - - - -
L. .- - - - - -
cu C- O 0 0 0 0
~ >< - - - - -
- - - - -
w 0 0 0 0 0
e e e
0 'cu 'i:
III
L. ..., cu
cu cu III III cu e
E "g ~ t)O .c 0
e v .5 VI ~
lIS <t w e
Z lIS cu t-
e .5
~ L. cu e
cu lIS - e e
.Q
.Q L. ~ ct
0 lIS lIS cu
ex: CD U ...I
..-
"'0
Q.l
+-'
c:
"0
0-
0-
"'
c:
Q.l
Q.l
.D
+-'
Q.l
>-
+-'
0
c:
"'0
"'
.L:
.......
.D
.......
l...
0
~
"'
Q.l
>-
Q.l
.L:
+-'
b()
c:
"C
:J
"'0
"'0
Q.l
c:
b()
"iij
Q.l
l...
.......
"'
.......
l...
Q.l
.L:
+-'
"(j)
l...
Q.l
.D
E
Q.l
I:
"'0 --
Q.l l...
III Q.l
:J b() .D
U E
dj c:
"P Q.l
+-' ~ Q.l I:
c: +-' Q.l
Q.l c: c: E "'
Q.l Q.l
III III III +-'
Q.l .D .D 0 0
l...
a... <( <( Z Z
II II II II II
w I:
X -
0 0 Z
-;:.
w
~