HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-2003 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2003 — 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CIVIC CENTER
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Election of new Board Chairperson
D. Consider the December 11, 2002 Board Minutes
E. Special Exceptions
1. EXCO2-00024 —Public hearing regarding an application submitted by John and
Kris Rutherford for a special exception to reduce the side yard setback from five
(5) feet to two (2') feet to allow the addition of a garage in the Low -Density,
Single -Family (RS-5) zone at 1717 East College Street.
F. Other
G. Board of Adjustment Information
H. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING — February 12, 2003
agenda 2002.01.08
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Prepared by: John Adam
Item: EXCO2-00024, 1717 East College Street. Date: January 8, 2003
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: John & Kris Rutherford
Requested Action: Reduction of required side yard setback from five
feet to two feet for a house in a Low -Density
Single -Family (RS-5) zone.
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Applicable code sections:
File Date:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
To allow the addition of a single -car garage to an
existing house.
1717 East College Street.
0.17 acres.
Single-family residence, RS-5.
North: Low -density, single-family residential, RS-5
South: Low -density, single-family residential, RS-5
East: Low -density, single-family residential, RS-5
West: Low -density, single-family residential, RS-5
14-6Q-4B, Exceptions to Established Setbacks; 14-
6W-2B, Special Exception Review Requirements
12 December 2002
The applicants wish to add on to their 1965 house. The addition will roughly double the
footprint of the house; the garage will comprise approximately one-third of the addition. In
order to fit the garage on the lot without having the house partially eclipse the entrance to it, a
reduction of the side setback from five feet to two feet would be needed. The lot exceeds the
required minimum width of 60 feet and frontage of 35 feet, but at 7,680 square feet is below
the 8,000-square-foot minimum lot size requirement.
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 relief from the requirements of the Zoning Chapter through a special exception if
N
the action is considered to serve the public interest and is consistent with the intent of the
Zoning Chapter.
Specific Standard: 14-6Q-4B, Exceptions to Established Setbacks
Subsection 6Q-4B of the Zoning Chapter states that a special exception may be granted by the
Board of Adjustment modifying yard requirements when the owner or lawful occupant of
property demonstrates that such person's situation is peculiar to the property in question, that
there is a practical difficulty in complying with the dimensional requirements of this Chapter and
that conditions of Article W of the Zoning Chapter can be met.
Unique Situation. The existing house is situated on the lot such that a garage could not be
attached to the side of the house without removing some of its east side. The width of the
house plus the two side yard setbacks leaves about eight feet in which to build. Other houses in
the neighborhood have garages set well back on their respective lots, but the applicants' lot has
a peculiar shape: it tapers at about a 30-degree angle and would cause any structure built
towards the back to intrude awkwardly into the usable yard area.
The backyards of the properties to the east (201 and 203 Lowell Street) abut the applicants'
side yard where the garage would be built. The existing structures on these two properties are
more than fifty feet from the applicants' property line. In this particular situation, the impact of
the proposed garage and the types of activities associated with it should have minimal effect on
the neighbors. Staff concludes that the proposed garage will not diminish the use and enjoyment
of the adjoining properties, nor impede development on them. If peculiar shape of the lot was
its only unique quality, staff would hesitate recommending the reduction, but the absence of
impact from the reduction of the setback requirement in this case diminishes that hesitance.
Practical Difficulty. Redesigning the addition so the garage is partially eclipsed by the existing
house is possible, but the resultant jutting corner would create an obstacle for a car backing
out of the garage. The applicant has the option of building elsewhere on the property, though
as described above, the unique shape of the lot makes it an unattractive option. The applicants'
yard area is substandard for the RS-5 zone, making the maximal preservation of a usable back
yard important.
Setback Review Standards. In addition to determining whether the situation is unique and if
there is a practical difficulty, the Board has typically used the following standards to judge the
merits of requests for yard reductions.
I. How substantial is the exception in relation to the requirement? Approximately 15 percent
of the required side yard would be covered by the garage. Relative to the neighboring yards —
which have their rear twenty -foot setbacks abutting the applicants' property —the effect will be
minor. However, accessory structures, such as garages or toolsheds, may be built in the
neighbors' setbacks and may be constructed as close as seven feet from the proposed addition.
2. Will the specific proposed exception, if granted, increase the population density or affect the
use of municipal facilities? No.
3. Will a substantial change or detriment to the neighborhood be produced by the exception?
No. The provision of housing for the applicants' automobile could be a visual improvement to
the neighborhood. The massing and design of the addition should fit in well with the
neighboring houses, which range from small to medium structures. The applicants could have
designed the garage to fit on the side of the existing house and requested the same setback
reduction, but by pushing it back the garage is de-emphasized and therefore more characteristic
of other neighborhood garages.
4. Is there some feasible alternative for the applicant in lieu of the exception? The applicants
have no access to an alley. They investigated the possibility of purchasing the necessary width of
property from the neighbors, but those lots are also substandard in area and the non-
conformity of a lot may not be increased. Staff also feels that the proposed addition would be
architecturally suitable in the neighborhood. If the design were contorted to allow an angled
garage entryway or pushed the garage out into the backyard to avoid intrusion into the setback,
the addition could appear bulky or awkward in relation to the other houses in the
neighborhood.
5. In view of the manner in which it arose and in consideration of the above criteria, would the
interests of justice be served by granting the yard modification request? The difficulty in
deciding what is just in this circumstance is the seemingly minor amount of intrusion into a
required setback. The applicants discovered after the plans had been drawn that their addition
would violate the side setback. Fire safety, ventilation, light and privacy are often cited among
the purposes of setbacks in many zoning ordinances. Because the lot to the east is a corner lot
with its front facing eastward, any house built on the neighboring property would have to be set
back twenty feet from the applicants' lot line —fifteen feet greater than it would be if the side
lot lines abutted. Staff feels the intent of the setback requirement would be preserved if the
special exception were granted given these particular circumstances.
General Standards: 14-6W-2B, Special Exception Review Requirements
The applicants' statements regarding each of the seven general standards are included within
the attached application. Staff comments regarding the special exception application were
covered above. Staff believes that the reduction of setback would not substantially affect the
neighborhood or, more especially, the integrity of the neighboring properties. The reduction is
not the only option available to the applicants, but none of the others would result in a
satisfactory building arrangement or backyard configuration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXCO2-00024, an application for a special exception to reduce the
required side setback from five feet to two feet for a single-family home in the Low -Density
Single -Family (RS-5) zone be approved provided the reduction applies only to the footprint of
the garage as shown in the applicants' site plan file -dated 12 December 2002 by the City Clerk's
Office.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Location map
2. Proposed Site Plan
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
4
1: t
CITY OF IOXA CITY NO
3
RO
3
ROAD T
o
w
Q
z
z
w
w
cn
MORNINGSIDE
I..LJLILCV
CITY HIGH SCHOOL
HOOVER
SCHOOL
COURT ST
rn 77n rn rn F---� F—� I I
SITE LOCATIOI�T: 17 East College Street EXCO2-00024
NORTH ELEVATION
5CALE: X" _ V-0°
EAST ELEVATION
J
j F-J71 1
UA1\
/,.,
N
GO
N
CO
I
1'7
to
0
N
N
lf�
Q
O
t-
U
Q
O
♦-
In
H
D'
W
m
_J
0
to
O)
/ / PROPRIETOR: JOHN RUTHERFORD /
/ SURVEY REQUESTED BY: JOHN RUTHERFORD I
r-Q1_ _
-- ___ _ _ _ DATE OF SURVEY: 6 11-2002
-- FOUNO
I
FOUND
1" PIPE `_ --_ FOUND
1" PIPE I
FOUND r \
5/8" PIN
\ LOT I _ �.
LOT' 2 � ' j�
\ LIP6UK-
I�FOUND
1'P ADDITION \
A5 W RAT N o
\ 6(JGK 2, PAGE 71, REGORPS
GF C0 4TY, IOWA Q ^�h ` \ .
f �0 0.17 ACRES
FOUND 2 \ (�\ (\
(( (k 1/2" PIPE 1 FOUND
//��,,\ \ /
VJ' FOUND t" 1" PIPE \ 7
/ A 7. 5/8" PIN'P' e, l
e'l
tf�� •\ /�\ ' 1 vJ
/ V / FOUND ti� 4.9• "/-
�,� ID / 1 /2" P
VO
\ /
J�,H e a
ONGCf151i1Y� An;
I I 1
Revision No. do Date
0 5 25 50 zU. 00
GRAPHIC SCALE 1N FEET ro Y w
1.-50, I u
�,� / / °, �o� /4 So• LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT CURVE SEGMENT TABLE 00 .� /3 T 1 AND 22 BLOCK 3 MORNINGSIDE
CURVE
RADIUS
LENGTH
CHORD
BEARING
DELTA
C-1
842.23'
50.08
50.07
N70'2857 W
03'24 24'
C-2
842.23'
127.59
127.47
N76'31 32"W
08-40 47
C-3
842.23
146.22'
146.04'
N85'50 20 W
09'S6'49.
LEGEND AND NOTES
A
- CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND
®
- CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, REESTABLISHED
0
- CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, RECORDED LOCATION
•
- PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND (as noted)
O
- PROPERTY CORNERS SET
(5/8' Iron Pin w/ yellow, plastic LS Cap
enbossed with 'MMS' )
- PROPERTY L/or BOUNDARY LINES
— —
- CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES
— - - - — - - - —
- - - — - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES
—
- CENTER LINES
- LOT LINES, INTERNAL
- LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED
— — — — —
— — — - EASEMENT LINES, VI➢TH 6 PURPOSE NOTED
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED
(R)
- RECORDED DIMENSIONS
(ro
C22-1
- MEASURED DIMENSIONS
- CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS
ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS THAN 1 FOOT IN 20,000 FEET
Z- FOUND /
� �s �' s/B• PIN
\ ` 1"
FOUND
\,O'\ / /• 5/8• PIN
➢1D11111i1ii"jii .,
/ i,
'��ri
GLEN D.
0 IV°iE1SNER �
8165
w�.e t ♦♦ C
`q.
LO S 2 ,
ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, IOWA, AS RECORDED
IN BOOK 2, PAGE 71, JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE.
1 hereby certify that this land surveying document was prepared and
the related survey work was performed by me or under my direct
personal supervision and that I am a duly licensed Lord Surveyor
under the lows of the Slate of Iowa.
4 L_ n. rn -I L- 20G ti
GLEN D. MEISNER, P.E. & L. . lowo Lic. No. 8165
My license renewal dote is December 31, 20 P-3.
Pages or sheets covered by this seal:
—lut/
E-"
z
d
c
V) 3 a
o 0
U w �
U �
v
c O
-+ o -2' U
0
z
0
E
7
� a d
.D O
co z
Z
E—
o F
W ci d
W tYi O
rd� srn O
u F+ r y E-
C,
E-r
i= CNT7 i=
d
t N
� o
a F
Dote:
6-12-02
Field Book No:
638
Scale:
1'=50'
Sheet j
of
1 Sheets
Project Number:
6552001
U
Q
,,D
6
Cu
0
0
N
CO
O
0
3
Q
O
O
Cd
tin
In
�D
O
O
In
�D
•
"*�o SETBACK
0,11 ACRES
co
to `
LU
CD
NEW
DECK
........ . .....
...........
EXISTING PROPERTY
LINE ...........
.. ............. 1,
. ......... .... .. ........
.. .......
NEW 4" CONC,
.......... .......
DRIYEWAY 0 u
.... ......
rl)
........ ......
EX15TING �� fiS /
. . . ......
DRIYEWAY .. ...
/ w
Q1
w
C41R
C41r
10
51TE PLAN
01
5CALEX2o" - 1'-0"
'Al
i
i
i
i
i
AC
UNIT
r.............. ........ ..... ..... ..... ..... ........... ..... .... ..................... ......... ...... ..... ..... ..... .....
...:
L------------------------------
FIRSTFLOOi� FLANu° SCALE: Y° : V-O"
EXC a)L -gym 214
APPEAL TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
------- SPECIAL EXCEPTION-------
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W
DATE: December 12, 2002
PROPERTY PARCEL NO.1011455002
APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1717 East College Street
APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: RS5
APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 7,680 SF
APPLICANT: Name: John and Kris Rutherford
Address: 1717 East College Street
Phone: 384-0793 (days) 341-8458 (evenings) j22`
CONTACT PERSON: Name:
same as above
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER: Name:
John Rutherford
--
Address:
1717 East College Street
Phone:
384-0793 (days) 341-8458 (evenings)
Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter.
2-foot east side yard; 14-6D-2-E, 14-6Q-4-B
Purpose for special exception:
Construction of a single -car garage at the end of existing driveway as part of an addition project.
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: n/a
-2-
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Legal description of property:
Lots 21 and 22, Block 3, Morningside Addition to Iowa City, as recorded in Book 2,
Page 71, Johnson County Recorder's Office
B. *Plot plan drawn to scale showing:
1. Lot with dimensions;
2. North point and scale;
3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines;
4. Abutting streets and alleys;
5. Surrounding land uses, including the location and record owner of each
property opposite or abutting the property in question;
6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed.
[*Submission of an 8.5" x 11 " bold print plot plan is preferred.]
C. Review. The Board shall review all applicable evidence regarding the site, existing and
proposed structures, neighboring uses, parking areas, driveway locations, highway
and street access, traffic generation and circulation, drainage, sanitary sewer and
water systems, the operation of the specific proposed exception and such other evidence
as deemed appropriate. (Section 14-6W-2131, City Code).
In the space provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board s
review which apply to the requested special exception. In this narrative staib47ent,
set forth the grounds offered as support for the special exception.
See attached sheet. - -,
, s s
D. The applicant is required to present specific information, not just opinions, that the
„general standards for the granting of a special exception (Section 14-6W-2132, City
Code), enumerated below, will be met:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
The proposed exception would not be detrimental or endangering of the
neighborhood. The two -foot side yard that we are requesting is the only deviation
from the current building code. No existing structures would be adversely
affected.
-3-
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 proposed exception would not diminish or impair property values. A
garage would add value to our property as well as providing an enclosed
space for storage of our car. The project as a whole represents an
investment in the older neighborhood.
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.
The project would not impede the development and improvement of the
surrounding properties. The portion of the east side yard addressed in
this exception is adjacent to the backyards of two neighbors who are
prohibited from significant construction in this space by the 20-foot
backyard clearance requirement.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been
or are being provided.
Utilities, access and drainage would be unaffected. There is no need for
additional utilities. Access would remain as before. With respect to
drainage, the dominant slope of the neighborhood is from east to west and
our lot is lower than the properties referenced earlier.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
The garage would be placed at the end of the existing driveway. There
would be no change to the curb cut.
ii Y
-4-
E.
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. [Depending on the type of 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 City
Code Section 14-6L-1, Special Exception Enumerated Requirements; Section
14-6N-1, Off -Street Parking Requirements; Sect;(, n 14-6Q, Dimensional
Requirements, or Section 14-6R, Tree Regulations, as appropriate.]
This lot, and many of the other lots, in this RS-5 neighborhood are smaller
than the required minimum lot area. The plats were completed in 1924
before the current standards were created. The lot has no alley access for
a garage and alternative locations have been eliminated because of the
lot's size and shape. The proposed one-story, single -car garage would
begin at the rear of the existing house. It would blend in with the home
and not be a dominant feature.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan
of the City.
This is a diverse older neighborhood with a mixture of housing and
schools within it. The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan (1997) calls for
attention to such neighborhoods to protect their stability. The larger
overall project would permit us to continue to grow as a family at this
location while also improving the value and street appeal of the property.
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
Please see the attached listing of property owners as provided by the Johnson
County Auditor's Office.
-5-
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
14-6W-2133, 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 14-6W-3E, 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 14-6W-7, 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: .�-erR.vv�- yC.h.. i 2 , 200-Z
Date:
,200
S ture(s) of Applican (s)
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
Response to item C. Review from page 2:
The proposed one-story, single -car attached garage is part of a two-story addition project. The
garage placement would be at the end of the existing driveway and would leave two feet of
east side yard. This east side yard is adjacent to two backyards with 54 feet and 64 feet
respectively separating the back of these neighboring houses and the shared lot line.
There is no other location available for a garage. The property has no alley access. The
angles of the property lines relative to the existing house prohibit placing the garage further
back in the yard because of the limited maneuverability. Placement further back would also
disrupt the backyard.
Parking, driveway location, street access, traffic generation and circulation, drainage; sanitary
sewer and water systems would be unaffected by the special exception.
The Morningside Addition was established in 1924 prior to current zoning requirements. Our
lot and those of our neighbors are below the required minimum lot area. We are working
within these limitations in a manner that would increase the value of the property. The project
would pose no risk to the neighbors' property and would enhance the value of this older
neighborhood.
We want to undertake this project so that we may stay at this location and remain within
walking distance of our four year -old daughter's day care and future schools, nearby parks and
downtown.
C
a
�r