HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-2011 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, July 13, 2011 - 5:15 PM
City Hall - Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the June 8, 2011 Board Minutes
D. Special Exception
EXC11- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Lee Eno for a special exception to allow
a reduction in the rear principal building setback requirement for property located in the Medium -
Density Single - Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 1026 Fairchild Street.
E. Other
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: August 10, 2011
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC11 -00004
1026 Fairchild Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: July 13, 2011
Applicant: Lee Eno
Creative Improvements
1629 Esther Street
Iowa City IA
319 - 337 -2898
Owner:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Lot Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Kirk and Wim Murray
1026 Fairchild Street
A reduction in the rear principal building setback
requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet.
To allow a second floor addition.
1025 Fairchild Street
70 x 70 (4,900 sq. feet)
Medium - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -8)
North: Residential (RS -8)
South: Residential (RS -8)
East: Residential (RS -8)
West: Residential (RS -8)
Applicable code sections: Specific criteria for adjustments to the principal building
setback requirements, 14- 2A -4B -5; purpose of the
minimum setback requirement, 14- 2A -4B -1; general
criteria for special exceptions, 14 -46 -3
File Date: June 16, 2011
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located in the RS -8 zone at the corner of Fairchild and Center Streets. The lot is
considered non - conforming because it is smaller than the minimum size currently allowed in the zone.
The established lot is 4,900 square feet; the minimum lot size for detached housing the RS -8 zone is
5,000 square feet.
Because the property is a corner lot, it is required to provide front setbacks from both the Center and
Fairchild Streets. The property exceeds the standard 15 -foot front setback requirement from both
streets, providing a 17.5 -foot setback from Fairchild St. and a 39 -foot setback from Center St. The
property meets the 5 -foot side setback requirement from the west property line, however, the current
building is set just 12 feet from the rear (north) property line'. In the RS -8 zone, a 20 -foot rear setback is
required. The rear side of the subject lot abuts the side of the adjacent lot to the north.
The footprint of the house is just under 1,000 square feet —the existing first and second floor together
provide approximately 1,500 square feet of living space. The applicants would like to construct a second
floor addition in order to add a 3rd bedroom to the home. The interior of the bedroom would be
approximately 143 square feet. The addition would cantilever out 2 feet beyond the existing first floor
building wall (see illustration #1). Because the established first floor of the house is already within the
required setback, any addition to this portion of the house, even a second floor addition, is considered
an encroachment into the required 20 -foot rear setback and requires a special exception.
An accessory structure (a shed), is currently located to the rear of the property.
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- 46 -4E -5 pertaining to principal building setbacks in addition to the general approval criteria
for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14- 46 -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.
Specific approval criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements (14- 2A- 46 -5).
1. The situation is peculiar to the property.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings:
As a square corner lot, either property line may be designated as the rear lot line, however,
because the existing house is set so deeply into the lot that property is unable to provide a
20 -foot rear setback from either property line. The setback from Center Street is 39 feet,
more than 2 times the standard 15 -foot setback requirement.
The existing first -floor of the house is already established 12 feet from the rear property
line, within the required 20 -foot rear setback. Any addition above this portion of the lot
requires a special exception.
The property is smaller than the typical lot in the zone —the minimum lot size allowed under
the current zoning code is 5,000 square feet; the subject lot is 4,900 square feet.
The zoning code defines a rear property line as "the lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line." On corner lots,
the front lot line is the shortest street dimension, unless the lot is square or almost square, in which case the front lot line may
be along either street. In this case, the property is a perfect square. Because the property does not meet the rear setback
requirement along either the north or west side of the house, it made sense to designate the front and rear property lines
based on the side of the property that comes closest to satisfying the rear setback requirement. Thus the front property line
was determined to be along Fairchild and the rear line is the north property line.
2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the facts provided under criterion 1 and
the following findings:
• The established house is set back deep into the lot (exceeding the minimum front setback
requirement from both Center and Fairchild Streets) such that the property does not provide
a conforming rear setback from either the north or west property line. This places some
practical limitation on where an addition might be constructed.
A logical location for an addition would be above the existing first floor of the structure,
however this portion of the structure is located within the required rear setback.
2. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations,
which are:
a. To maintain light, air, separation for fire protections and access for fire fighting.
b. Provide opportunities from privacy between dwellings;
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in Iowa City neighborhoods;
d. To promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences: and
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
Staff believes the application is not contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations based on the
following findings:
• Because the subject lot is square and a reversed corner lot, in a practical sense its rear
setback functions more like a side setback —it abuts the side of the adjacent property rather
than the rear. (The minimum side setback requirement is 5 feet.)
• The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by small lots with densely built housing —it
is not unusual for homes in the immediate area to have side setbacks of 10 feet or less.
• The house currently provides a 12 -foot setback from the north property line.
• The proposed addition is located above the existing first floor of the house and cantilevers
out 2 feet beyond the existing north wall of the house.
• The house is modest in size and the proposed addition would add just 143 square feet of
living area.
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 facts provided under criterion 1 and
the following finding:
The sketches submitted with the application show an addition that is designed to
complement the architecture of the original house, matching the existing roofline and pitch
and using wood siding.
S. 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.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the facts provided under criterion 1 and
the following finding:
The proposed addition would be located 10 feet from the rear (north) property line and 5 feet
from the side (west) property line.
General Standards: 14 -46 -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; and
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; and
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.
• Given the square shape of the subject lot and its relation to the adjacent property to the
north, the rear setback functions practically as a side setback.
• The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by small lots with densely built housing —it is
not unusual for homes in this neighborhood to have a side setback of 10 feet or less.
• The property will retain a 10 -foot rear setback from the north property line and a 5 -foot side
setback from the west property line.
• A 10 -foot setback provides adequate space for fire separation and fire fighting access.
• The house is modest in size and the proposed addition will increase the living space by just
143 square feet and would be located above the existing first floor of the house.
• The proposed addition is set back 39 feet from the streetside lot line such that the addition
will not interfere with visibility along the street right -of -way.
3. 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 subject neighborhood is fully developed with all necessary utilities, access roads,
drainage and other facilities in place.
S. 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 finding:
• The proposed rear setback reduction will not bring the structure any closer to the street and
therefore it will have no effect on visibility for motorists or pedestrians and will not
contribute to traffic congestion along public streets.
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.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding:
In order to secure a building permit, the applicant must submit a site plan to the building
official at which time the plan will be reviewed to ensure conformance with all other zoning
requirements.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Comprehensive Plan does not address this situation directly but does encourage re- investment in
Iowa City's established neighborhoods.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC11- 00004, a special exception to
reduce the rear setback requirement for the principal structure from 20 feet to 10 feet, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The setback reduction applies to the proposed addition only; and
2. Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted by the contractor.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Aerial views of the proposed location.
2. Location map
3. Proposed site plan and elevations submitted by the contractor
4. Application materials
Approved by: A", /;0"h ,
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
6
The established rear setback of the existing house is just 12 feet; 20 feet is the minimum required rear
setback in the RS -8 zone. Any addition to this portion of the house requires a special exception to reduce
the setback. The proposed addition to the second floor would cantilever out 2 feet beyond the wall of the
existing first floor such that the building would be set just 10 feet from the rear property line.
The property at 1026 Fairchild is a reversed corner lot: the rear of the subject lot abuts the side of the adjacent lot.
mo
� �a
o �
0
� � o
� o
0
cl, W
T
a
U' - _ �-
o _ CK-
o
CL
� U
r"K W
O �
Q Q
° 'iS �Jl1N30
cn
v
N
O
p
w
0
H
M
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: b PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 161125 �61 t3
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PROPERTY ZONE: $ PROPERTY OT SIZE:�U
APPLICANT: Name: L?-K, 8.5\16 J60, Cr iy p� Irn PYo'm PJS
Address: C \ r St, Er
Phone: S 19 -13q - Z <' 9 h
CONTACT PERSON: Name: E3
(if other than applicant)
Address:.
Phone:
u
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: v-L 0A I �'r� U�'�° 'kf
(if other than applicant) �Z� f C %1
Address:
Phone: 31 I - �Sz - I sb�
N
O
rn
-o M
0
-j
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 email sarah- walz@iowa- city.org.
Purpose for special exception:
4 L.Ufrg"d`iEu 11 Q5 P bkri(r)Ms . �Ms 2 ►
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
�
by, ZQ U1[S d.
,� if
E
In
E
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 -2C -4, 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-1 E, 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 -1 F, 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: ^1 1 u 12-uN 1 20_
Date: bh 10 ( 26 11 , 20_
ppdad min\application- boase.d oc
W-PQ � �* \
o �r
Signature(s) of A plicant(s)
1
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ra
c�
Cr)
3
.._
"
_C
CM
r
M
""0
@ * L
:'
&--J
.'
O
-J
Iowa City Assessor - General Parcel Info Page 1 of 3
Iowa City Assessor
Pin 1011254010
Deed MURRAY, KIRK S
MURRAY, WIM ROWLEY
Contract
Property 1026 FAIRCHILD ST
Address IOWA CITY Man this Address
Class RESIDENTIAL
Map Area 20400 -Res ev
P F Name Residential 0 •
Legal WOODS ADDITION E 10' OF S 70' LOT 4 & S 70' LOT 5 BLK 5 t-i c
ection,
Township, 11 79 6 `O
Range, Lot, & in
Block p-
rim
Property Card
Reports � ACE version PDF version
Current value as of January 01, 2011 - Taxes payable September 2012 and March 2013 CD
Land Value Dwelling Value Improvement Value
Total al Value
50,650 115,880 0 166,530
Occupancy
Single- Family / Owner Occuoied
Lot Front
Main Lot
Residential Building Information
Style
2 Story Frame
Land Front Foot Information
Rear
70.00
70.00
Sale Information
Sale Date Amount NUTC
9/20/2001 91,000 000 Normal Arms- Length Transaction
Sketch
Year Built
1914
Side 1
70.00
Total Value
166,530
163,400
163,400
163,400
163,400
145,320
145,320
120,190
120,190
109,520
109,520
100,560
Total Living Area
_ 1,511
Side 2
70.00
Recording
3141 -229
http:// www. iowacity. iowaassessors .com /parcel.php ?gid =35992 6/15/2011
Prior. Year Value Information
Year
Land Value
Dwelling Value Improvement Value
2011
50,650
115,880 0
2010
50,650
112,750 0
2009
50,650
112,750 0
2008
50,650
112,750 0
2007
50,650
112,750 0
2006
42,210
103,110 0
2005
42,210
103,110 0
2004
42,210
77,980 0
2003
42,210
77,980 0
2002
42,210
67,310 0
2001
42,210
67,310 0
2000
19,930
80,630 0
Occupancy
Single- Family / Owner Occuoied
Lot Front
Main Lot
Residential Building Information
Style
2 Story Frame
Land Front Foot Information
Rear
70.00
70.00
Sale Information
Sale Date Amount NUTC
9/20/2001 91,000 000 Normal Arms- Length Transaction
Sketch
Year Built
1914
Side 1
70.00
Total Value
166,530
163,400
163,400
163,400
163,400
145,320
145,320
120,190
120,190
109,520
109,520
100,560
Total Living Area
_ 1,511
Side 2
70.00
Recording
3141 -229
http:// www. iowacity. iowaassessors .com /parcel.php ?gid =35992 6/15/2011
F 1 ED
2011 JUN 10" Pig ": Q
Ci il' Ctr��k
10
L
r
5
J
d
C'
�CJ
on
0211
5
4 ��
s
I�
OW
s
v
FIB ED
201 1 JUIw 16 Pty 0C
IOVI,f S CITY, 10', e
F1
Q
-75
ijr
K,
11
201
0
N
0
l
8,
r
v
�S
a
FILED
2011,
to
D 1
J)
B
LP
s
0
v
5
Rk
�-'l L E D
,
I L
2011 JUN 16 Pill 1,: 08
CITY CLERK
10'I'M CITY,
a
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JUNE 8,2011 -5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Eckstein, Brock Grenis, Caroline Sheerin, Adam
Plagge
MEMBERS ABSENT: Will Jennings
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holocek, Nick Benson
OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Hiserote, Brian Dobrian
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Eckstein, Grenis, Jennings, Sheerin and Plagge 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 APRIL 13. 2011 MEETING MINUTES:
Eckstein offered corrections to the minutes.
Eckstein moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Plagge seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC11 -0002: Discussion of an application submitted by Dan Hiserote for a special
exception to allow a drive - through facility in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at
Board of Adjustment
June S, 2011
Page 2 of 11
1015 Highway 1 West.
Walz pointed out the CC -2 zone on an overhead map, identifying it as the Westport Auto Car
Wash and the Wal -Mart Supercenter. Surrounding and adjacent to the area are CI -1 zones and
the public land owned by the airport. Walz explained that the applicant's plans are contingent
upon the old Wal -Mart building being torn down. Walz said that staff will recommend giving the
applicant a six -month extension if the special exception is granted in order to make sure all of
the details of the site can be taken care of. The area to the southwest of the facility handles
the stormwater retention for the entire shopping center. Vehicles entering the site will come in
off of Highway 1 onto a private drive serving the entire shopping center. Walz noted that there is
a drive that circulates around the entire lot and provides access to the subject lot.
In considering whether a drive - through facility is appropriate for a given site, the primary issues
are whether the level of expected traffic can be handled by that site, whether or not there is
enough space for the stacking of vehicles, and whether or not the public right -of -way is
interfered with. Walz said that the potential disturbance of activities on adjacent sites is also a
factor that must be considered. Staff looks to ensure that there is appropriate separation
between adjacent uses, and to ensure that on -site circulation is safe for vehicles and
pedestrians.
Walz pointed out that the drive - through facility on this site is behind the building and separate
from the other vehicle areas on the lot. Pedestrian access from the sidewalk will have to be
clearly marked as a part of the site development standards. Walz noted that the parking area
will be shared by two businesses, though the nature of the second business has not yet been
determined. She also noted that there are two access points to the property, with cross access
to auxiliary parking.
Walz said that the CC -2 zone anticipates high intensity retail uses and eating and drinking
establishments, which are meant to serve the entire community. She said that this is the
appropriate type of zone for a drive - through to be in, and the highway access present for this
site is the appropriate transportation system to support a drive - through facility. Walz said that
there is no potential issue for stacking up to the highway, therefore the public right -of -way will
not be impeded by such activity. Walz said that the site plan shows three stacking spaces, as
well as a one - direction drive - through lane that includes pavement markings and signage.
The site plan shows that all required setbacks and perimeter landscaping will be provided,
except for the area that abuts the stormwater retention facility. Walz said that zoning code does
allow the Board to waive the screening requirement in that particular area and staff feels that is
a reasonable thing to do in this case. Walz noted that there is a 60 -foot separation, and Wal-
Mart is required to install trees in that area, so the issue of light confusion is not at play. She
said that the only relief the applicant is asking for involves this screening requirement.
Staff recommends approval of the special exception subject to substantial compliance with the
site plan submitted, including the signage and pavement markings indicating the one -way
circulation of the drive and the one -way pedestrian areas, installation of landscaping along the
adjacent stormwater facility as specified in the Wal -Mart site plan, and approval by the Building
Official of the lighting plan and signage for the site.
Eckstein said she did not understand how the screening requirements from the Wal -Mart
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 3 of 11
rezoning came into play for this applicant and asked staff for further clarification. Walz explained
that the purpose for the setback and screening is to provide separation between the drive -
through and adjacent uses. Walz said that the screening is intended to clearly demarcate where
the drive - through is, and will help with potential confusion from headlights as well as any
potential nuisances resulting from the drive - through such as noise from the idling vehicles. She
said that typically a ten -foot setback would be required. Walz explained that the stormwater
retention area is a 60 -foot area that will never be developed beyond that use. She said that it is
staff's view that the stormwater retention area already fulfills the separation function that the
required screening would be intended to fulfill as there is already 60 feet of separation between
the drive - through and the property line of the next adjacent use. Normally, low shrubs would be
required as screening to demarcate the area and prevent light trespass. Staff feels it is
reasonable to waive that requirement, but it is up to the Board to do the findings to decide if they
think so to.
Eckstein asked if the water retention area had been found to have any species, particularly
species of frogs, that were of any significance. Walz explained that the water retention facility
was built long before the development of the current Wal -Mart site, and was entirely man -made.
She said that if species have come along to live in that area, they have moved into a stormwater
retention facility. Eckstein asked if it was correct that even if significant species did live in the
area they would not be protected by virtue of the fact that they had moved into a man -made
space. Walz pointed out that the stormwater retention facility is not changing in any way, and
the City zoning code would only look at a sensitive area that existed in a natural state. Walz said
that if this were a natural creek it would have a 100 -foot buffer area on either side.
There were no further questions for staff and Sheering invited the applicant to speak.
Dan Hiserote, Sargent Bluff, Iowa, said that he has worked closely with City staff to come up
with a good plan that will fit the area well.
Sheerin invited Board discussion and findings of fact.
Grenis outlined the specific standards. Grenis said that 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 interrupt pedestrian circulation or the
commercial character of the area where it is located. Grenis noted that the Board may impose
restrictions including but not limited to restricting the location of the drive - through, requiring
directional signage, limiting the number of lanes and /or amount of paving, and limiting or
prohibiting the use of loudspeaker systems. Grenis said that the site plan shows the ability for
the drive - through to accommodate up to seven cars at once. The drive - through is located on the
rear side of the building, and vehicle circulation is separated by traffic entering or exiting the
site. The proposed drive - through is unlikely to have an impact on any public rights of way. Drive -
through circulation is directed behind the building and is not readily visible from any residential
zones. The plan shows pavement along the drive - through that will be marked with directional
arrows, as well as "Do Not Enter" messages on the pavement and signage. The proposed site
plan shows that pedestrian connections from the shopping center and across Lot 3 are located
away from the drive - through. Pavement marking will be required in this area as part of the site
plan approval.
Grenis said that the second specific standard deals with street capacity, level, or service, effects
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 4 of 11
on traffic circulation. Grenis said there are an adequate number of stacking spaces as the site
plan shows that the property is accessed from a private drive. The drive - through is located to
the rear of Lot 3 and there is ample space for vehicles to stack before reaching the shopping
center drive. The drive - through circulation is not in conflict with pedestrian access to the
restaurant or access from the sidewalk to the outdoor seating area at the front of the restaurant.
The third specific standard states that the drive - through must be set back 10 -feet from lot lines
and public rights -of -way and screened from view to the S2 standard. Grenis said that this is
satisfied because the drive - through meets the required setback standards on the north, west
and east ends of the property, and the S2 perimeter screening will match the landscaping
throughout the shopping center. On the south side, which runs the length of the drive - through
lane, there is no setback provided. However, this side of the lot abuts a required stormwater
drainage area that serves the shopping center and provides more than 50 feet of separation
between the drive - through and the adjacent commercial property. Therefore it is reasonable to
reduce the required setback for the south side of the drive - through from 10 feet to zero.
The fourth standard deals with the lighting, and requires that it be designed to prevent light
trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties. The property lighting will be
reviewed by the Building Official as part of the permitting process. The drive - through area
location and traffic circulation for the drive - through are directed behind the building and away
from view of the nearby residential zones.
Grenis also reviewed the general standards. The first general standard requires that the
proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or
general welfare. This is satisfied because Highway 1 and the private drive entrance to the
shopping center are designed to accommodate the levels of traffic generated by CC -2 uses.
The drive - through lane is located more than 600 feet from the entrance to the shopping center
and is set to the rear of Lot 3, such that drive - through traffic will not back up onto public roads.
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 proposed drive - through facility is located at the rear of the building and is
bordered by 50 feet of stormwater detention facility and another commercial (CI -1) property.
Views of the drive - through are limited, due to its location and screening provided along the
stormwater facility in addition to perimeter screening around the site.
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 for
the reasons already given.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and /or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. All necessary utilities are available at the site. The private drive for the shopping
center is designed to support the levels of traffic that will be generated by the commercial
shopping center and the proposed use. The Building Official will review the site plan. All
drainage for the shopping center is directed to the stormwater facility along the east and south
sides of the shopping center.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed is as to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Traffic from the drive - through will not stack onto
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 5 of 11
the public streets or neighboring properties
Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered,
the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or
standards of the zone in which it is to be located. This is satisfied because the site plan will be
reviewed by the Building Official to ensure compliance.
The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Southwest District Plan
identifies this area as appropriate for Highway- oriented commercial development.
Eckstein said that on the second specific standard, which addresses the adequacy of the
transportation system, it has occurred to her that the nearby car wash sometimes garners quite
a line of cars. With that in mind, she wondered if staff had discussed with the applicant the
possibility that lines of cars from the car wash and the Dairy Queen might at some point meet at
the private drive. Walz said that the issue staff had addressed was whether or not the cars
stacked at the Dairy Queen could be accommodated on private property. Walz said she did not
think that cars accessing the drive - through would be in conflict with cars accessing the car
wash. She said that the general issue of cars from the car wash conflicting with traffic entering
and exiting from the Wal -Mart site was a different matter.
Eckstein said that she also had a question about the fourth general standard, which concerns
drainage. She said that while she understands that the facility is meant to act as a receptacle for
water coming off of this large, paved area, she is wondering what the drainage situation is
generally in that low -lying area. Walz said that the stormwater facility only deals with rain
water. Walz said that the reference to drainage in the general requirements refers to situations
where drainage from one property could wind up causing problems for another property. She
said that the drainage for this property is self- contained, and this was part of the original
agreement for allowing that area to be developed. Eckstein said she was asking because of the
increased rain events and water levels that are being seen in the present day as opposed to
levels that may have been normal at the time the site was originally designed. She wondered
what would happen if the water was in excess of the stormwater detention facility's ability to
handle it. Walz said that she could not say what would happen in an extreme event. Holocek
noted that there is a great deal of impermeable surface area on the site presently and this
particular proposal does not seem to be significantly increasing that. Eckstein agreed.
Sheerin invited a motion.
Plagge moved to approve EXC11 -0002, a special exception to allow a drive - through
facility in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone, at 1015 Highway 1 West, including a
reduction in the setback from 10 feet to 0 feet and S2 screening requirements along the
south property line, and to allow for a six month extension for a total of 12- months in
which the special exception is authorized subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including signage and
pavement markings indicating the one -way circulation of the drive and marking of
the pedestrian areas;
• Installation of landscaping along the adjacent stormwater facility as specified in
the Wal -Mart site plan.
• Approval by the Building Official.
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 6 of 11
Eckstein seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Jennings excused).
Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
EM 1 -0003: Discussion of an application submitted by Joseph Dobrian for a special
exception for a reduction of the front setback requirement to allow construction of a deck
at 1015 Second Avenue.
Nick Benson, intern in the Planning Department presented the staff report for this application.
The property is in an RS -5 zone. Second Avenue is a fairly short street that dead -ends
approximately two blocks past the subject property. The Second Avenue right -of -way is fairly
large for a residential street of this length and traffic volume, measuring 75 -feet. The standard
width for a residential street is 60 feet. In this case, the right -of -way actually extends 8 feet
beyond the sidewalk. The property is about 4,000 square feet, which is approximately 2,000 feet
smaller than the current minimum size required for the RS -5 zone. Currently there is a small
front stoop at the front of the house which is in disrepair. The property is currently in compliance
with the principal building setback requirements for the area. Under the code, uncovered decks
are subject to a 10 -foot setback requirement in residential zones. The applicant wants to
construct an 8x26 foot uncovered deck to replace the front stoop. The east and south sides of
the deck would each have an entrance. Because of the front -deck setback requirements, the
proposed deck will extend six feet into the required 10 -foot deck setback requirement. The
applicant is seeking a reduction in the front setback requirement from 10 feet to 4 feet.
The code's primary concern with setback requirements is the encroachment of buildings on
public areas, as well as to maintain proper scale and physical relationship between the
buildings. Staff does not believe the encroachment on the right -of -way is really a concern here
due to the extremely large right -of -way; the deck will still be 12 feet from the sidewalk, and will
not extend the house any farther on the sides of the property.
Staff had some concerns with the proposed design as it was more in character with a back deck
rather than a front porch. Benson noted that the house is not in a historic preservation district,
but the proposed deck is not really in keeping with the size and character of the house. Staff
recommends that the width of the deck be reduced from 26 feet to 16 feet to accommodate
these scale and character concerns. It is important that the deck design is consistent with the
character of the subject property and surrounding properties. Staff suggests that if the applicant
has handrails on the deck the color and design be approved by City staff.
Staff recommends approval of the application to reduce the front setback from 10 feet to 4 feet
to allow for construction of an uncovered deck at property located in the Low - density Single -
Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 1015 Second Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
• The proposed deck width shall be no larger than 16 feet.
• The deck design must complement the architectural style of the house complying with
the following requirements:
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 7 of 11
o If the deck is to be constructed more than 1 foot off the ground, screening along
the base of the structure should be provided.
o If handrails are included, the handrails and balusters must be the same color as
the house or a color approved by City planning staff. Balusters must tie into the
top and bottom rails, as shown in the deck design insert provided by the
applicant.
Final deck design is subject to staff approval.
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.
Eckstein asked why the sidewalk ends where it does. Walz said that there are some unusual
situations in town where sidewalks are not installed. She said that while sidewalks are in the
public right -of -way, they are actually installed by the property owner. The City does not
retroactively require the installation of sidewalks, so until those property owners make site
changes that would require installation or choose to install, there will be no sidewalk there.
Plagge asked how high the porch railings are supposed to go up and Benson said that current
design standards have the bottom of the deck 28 inches off of the grade. Sheerin asked if there
were any conceptual drawings of the deck per staff recommendations. Benson said that there
are none in part to allow the applicant the freedom to design the deck as he sees fit within the
16 foot limit.
Grenis asked if staff still believed the scale of the deck should be reduced if the applicant did not
choose to install railings. Walz said that the concern was in part visual, but also that such a
large gathering space was probably more appropriate to the private areas at the rear of the
house. She said that she thought the size limitation would be appropriate regardless of the
railing issue. Grenis asked if the steps are a part of the consideration with the setback
requirements. Walz explained that the steps can intrude on the setback area. Grenis asked if
the block as shown in the aerial photographs was representative of the neighborhood as a
whole. Benson said that it was a fairly small lot for an RS -5 but not inconsistent with older
neighborhoods at the end of a block. Walz said the house itself was fairly typical for the area.
Joseph Dobrian, 1015 Second Avenue, said that he feels that this project would be much more
palatable if the handrails and balusters were left off entirely. He said that plantings with urns and
flowers would provide better eye appeal and would not obscure the view of the house. He said
he does not want the deck to overwhelm the house and is amenable to scaling back the width of
the deck somewhat. Dobrian suggested that a four foot reduction of the width to approximately
22 feet would be sufficient, though he felt the 16 foot width was somewhat limiting. He said that
the back of his house is extremely sunny and is not good for sitting outside. Dobrian said that he
envisions the deck holding a table and a couple of chairs, and would not want them to feel
cramped. He said he is amenable to screening along the bottom of the deck.
Sheerin asked if Dobrian's proposal is that the deck would be no more than 22 feet, and he said
that was correct. Grenis asked if the deck would still be centered on the house. Dobrian said
that he would prefer that the stairs be flush with the house on the left side and on the right side
the deck be flush with the house.
Sheerin opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and Sheerin invited
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 8 of 11
Staff /Commission comments.
Eckstein said that the house is quite an attractive house and that the design elements being
questioned are all intended to keep the house attractive.
Sheerin asked how staff felt about the applicant's proposed 22 foot width. Walz said that she
thinks the Board is capable of determining what is reasonable based on the information
provided by the applicant and staff. She said that Dobrian's suggestion is not unreasonable.
Sheerin invited discussion.
Eckstein said that given the specific factors of the neighborhood, she is willing to allow the
special exception for the depth of the deck. As to the particulars of the width and the design, she
would be happy to see that would be worked out between the applicant and staff. She said she
certainly has no problem waiving the setback.
Sheerin said she too is fine with waiving the setback, though she has concerns about the width
of the deck. As proposed, Sheerin said, the deck does overwhelm the house and looks like it
should be on the back of a home. She said she would prefer the staff recommendation of a 16
foot width but at the very least would not want it to extend beyond 22 feet wide. She said she
does not have any big opinions on the railings or planters.
Grenis said he could support a 22 foot width, though he would be more comfortable if it did not
have railings as they add a lot of bulk to it.
Plagge said that for him the decision is an aesthetic one, but he does not think the applicant's
request is excessive.
Eckstein said she would be most comfortable leaving the design details to staff. Sheerin said
the question she has is what kind of motion the Board wants to make because she would vote
against the kind of motion Eckstein is suggesting. Grenis asked staff's opinion on that kind of
motion. Walz said that in terms of the width it would be helpful to staff if the Board set a
maximum width.
Dobrian proposed that the deck would have no railings other than on the steps and the width
would not exceed 22 feet.
Eckstein said that when she looks at the house and the criteria of the front structure
complementing the home and the neighborhood, she does not think a 22 foot platform with no
railings compliments the architecture of the house. Walz said that staff approval is just part of
the building permit process; it is not something staff reviews for days.
Eckstein suggested a motion to approve the special exception subject to the width of the deck
being no more than 22 feet, with final design being approved by planning staff. Grenis said he
would like to specify no hand railings. Eckstein said she did not want to exclude hand railings.
Sheerin said she could support 22 -feet and no handrails, and it sounded like there were two
other votes as well.
Eckstein suggested changing the wording of the staff recommendations so that it simply read
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 9 of 11
"deck design must complement the architectural style of the house," rather than specifying deck
design elements to be included. Sheerin said that some of the Board members wanted to be
specific about handrail design.
Plagge moved to approve EXC11 -0003, a special exception to reduce the front setback
from 10 feet to 4 feet to allow for construction of an uncovered deck at property located
at 1015 Second Avenue:
• The width of the deck shall be restricted to 22 feet to keep it compatible with the
architectural aesthetics of the neighborhood and minimize its impact on the public
property facing it.
• That the deck design complement the architectural style of the house and have no
rails with the exception of the staircases
• Final deck design is subject to staff approval
• 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.
Grenis seconded.
Sheerin found that the situation is peculiar to the property in question because the Second
Avenue right -of -way is unusually wide at 75 feet. Even with the deck constructed there will still
be 12 feet between the deck and the sidewalk. The property is smaller than is traditionally found
in the RS -5 zone.
There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements because the property is
so small, which would limit the space for outdoor seating. Granting the exception would not be
contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations because the purpose of the proposed setback
reduction is for an uncovered deck only and will not bring the principal building closer to the
street. It will have side setbacks that exceed the five feet required by the code. This is an
unusually large right —of -way, providing additional space for buildings on the opposite side of the
street. There will be 12 feet between the front edge of the proposed deck and the sidewalk.
If the deck width is diminished to 22 -feet, it will still comport with the other houses in the
neighborhood and therefore the scale of the proposed deck will be compatible with the
neighborhood. This same reasoning can be applied to satisfy the fourth specific criteria, which is
that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the
extent practical.
The subject building will be located no closer than three feet to the side or rear because the
setback will be more than the required feet from the side and rear property lines.
Sheerin also covered the general standards. The first general standard is met because the
proposed excerption will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or
general welfare because it will not obstruct the view of vehicles driving from the alley to the
north of the property. The second general standard is met because it will not be injurious to the
use or enjoyment of other property or diminish or impair property values because the house
itself will not expand any further toward the property and other principal buildings along the
frontage have a similar setback. The third general standard is met because the right -of -way is
unusually wide and will not impede the normal and orderly improvement of the surrounding
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 10 of 11
properties. The fifth general requirement is satisfied because the exception does not affect
ingress or egress, nor does it obscure visibility to vehicles accessing the alley from the north,
nor does it generate significant traffic. The special exception conforms to the applicable
standards and regulations of the zone in which it is to be located, and it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan which encourages reinvestment in older neighborhoods like that in which
the subject property is located.
Eckstein found that the motion as stated is still not satisfying the third specific criteria, parts c, d
& e, and too much ties the City's hands in terms of negotiating what complies with the
neighborhood and the building.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -1 (Eckstein against; Jennings excused).
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz said that the issue of doing the findings of fact has grown increasingly complicated over
the years. She said that when she joined the staff five years ago there had been a number of
contentious special exceptions that were litigated which caused staff to get rather particular
about the way findings were done. She said that it is fine to summarize and every point written
by staff in the.staff report does not have to be covered by the Board. She said that it can be
used as a checklist for things with which they agree, disagree, or found something different.
Holocek said that being very specific is more critical when staff and the applicant are
disagreeing or when the case is particularly contentious. Walz said she tells applicants to focus
on the site plan and specific criteria and those will ensure the general standards are also met.
ADJOURNMENT:
Grenis moved to adjourn.
Plagge seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 4 -0 vote (Jennings absent).
Z
W
V
U) w
w
Q Z N
LL
Op
0
w
Q �
mQ
E
O
-0d
O
Z
X C
X
� N
C �
C E
o
N
N
a <z O
CL Q II II Z
II II w II
XOOZ '
w
Y
co
XX
-
XX
Cl)
T"
X
X
X
X
X
4
C)
M
X
X
X
X
X
0)
X
X
X
i
X
N
W
�(DLONCO
W
--TI-
0
0
0
T--�
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
w
00000
C
.Qi
C:
L
C/)
cn
CO
N
O
N
W
•E
CU
(n
al
C
d
c
u
U
E
O
L
O
=
(�
L
Z
m
m
Q
U
E
O
-0d
O
Z
X C
X
� N
C �
C E
o
N
N
a <z O
CL Q II II Z
II II w II
XOOZ '
w
Y