HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2006 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
WEDNESDAY, February 8, 2006 — 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the January 11, 2006 Minutes
D. Special Exception:
EXC06-00001 Discussion of an application submitted by Willowwind School for a
special exception for a school of generalized instruction and a reduction of the rear
yard setback from 50 feet to 38 feet for property located in the High Density Single -
Family Residential (RS-12) zone at 950 Dover Street.
E. Other:
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjournment
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING —March 8, 2006
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC06-00001, 950 Dover St.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact person:
Owner:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan:
Applicable code sections:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: February 8, 2006
Willowwind School
226 South Johnson St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-338-6061
Tim Terry
319-364-2945 / 319-339-4884
Iowa City Lodge Loyal Order of Moose
3151 Hwy 6 E
Iowa City, IA 5224
319-356-6921
Approval of a special exception to allow a general
education facility in the RS-12 zone.
Approval of a special exception to allow a reduction
in the rear setback requirement for a general
education facility in the RS-12 zone.
To allow the Willowwind School to relocate to the
former Moose Lodge building at 950 Dover Street.
950 Dover Street
2.24 acres
Residential, RS-12
The building is currently used as a church and was
previously a Moose Lodge.
North:
Residential, RS-5
South:
Residential, RS-5
East:
Residential, RS-5
West:
Residential, RS-12
Residential, 2-8 units per acre.
Section 14-46-9, specific standards for General
Education Facilities in the RS-12 Zone; Section 14-
2A-5b, adjustment to Principal Building Setback
Requirements.
File Date: January 12, 2006
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Willowwind School, is requesting a special
exception to allow a general educational facility in a High Density Single -Family Residential
(RS-12) zone. In addition, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the rear setback
requirement for general education facilities in the RS-12 zone from 50 feet to 38 feet.
The building, originally constructed in 1960 as a church, was later used as a Moose Lodge. A
portion of the building is now rented by the Moose to Faith Holiness Apostolic Church. In 2000,
the Board of Adjustment granted two special exceptions for. the property to allow the building to
be used as a church (EX00-00012) and full-time daycare facility (EXC00-0001) for
approximately 35 children. At the time of these special exceptions were reviewed, neighborhood
residents expressed concern about the lack of sidewalks connecting Muscatine Avenue directly
to the property as well as traffic safety issues along Dover Street and Muscatine Avenue.
Both special exceptions were granted subject to screening requirements for the parking lot and
construction of a sidewalk along the Dover Street right-of-way from Muscatine to the property
entrance. While a religious group has rented space in the building for the past five years, the
daycare center was never developed at this site and the required modifications were never
installed.
The current applicant, Willowwind School, was established in 1972. The school, now located at
226 S. Johnson Street, has an enrollment of 36 students ages 4 to 14. The Willowwind School
is in regular operation 160 days per year, the same as the Iowa City Community School District
year, and includes afterschool programming until 5:30 PM. Willowwind anticipates expanding its
enrollment at the new location to accept 60-80 students and may provide some summer
programming.
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 of
Adjustment may grant the requested special exception to allow a school in the RS-12 zone if the
requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations of the Sections 14-4B-4D-9
(page 196) as well as and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section
14-46-3A (page 170). The Board may grant a reduction in the rear setback requirement if the
applicant demonstrates that the approval criteria in 14-2A-4B-5b (page11) have been satisfied.
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan encourages neighborhoods with a mix of housing and
supportive land uses as well as open space and recreational facilities. The Comprehensive Plan
encourages the location of educational facilities and other institutional uses within
neighborhoods provided that traffic circulation and pedestrian safety are ensured and adequate
measures are taken to buffer neighboring property owners from the negative effects of parking
and increased noise. Given the large area of open space and the access to an arterial street,
Staff believes the use of the property as a school complies with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Specific Standards Regarding Educational Uses in the RS-12 zone-14-46-413-9 (page
196)
The proposed special exception to allow a change in use for a general education facility must
meet certain specific regulations spelled out in Section 14-413 4D-9 of the Zoning Chapter.
In the Staff's view, the proposed use will not have significant adverse affects on the livability of
nearby residential uses. Willowwind School operates on a similar schedule to the Iowa City public
schools —Monday through Friday, from 8 AM until 3:00 PM (approximately), with more limited
afterschool programming until 5:30 PM. The building at 950 Dover has always been used for
institutional purposes —originally as a church, then as a Moose Lodge, and currently as a
church once more. The transition to an educational use will not result in any change to the
building's scale or mass or any expansion of the parking lot as it is has been established.
In the previous special exception granted for this property, neighbors raised concern over the
safety of children walking to the site. While there are sidewalks across the street from the property
on the west side of Dover, the sidewalk on the east side ends 100 feet before reaching the site
entrance/driveway and so there is no direct sidewalk connection linking the neighborhood to the
site. There also is no direct sidewalk connection from Muscatine Avenue on the east side of the
street. A sidewalk on the east side of Dover Street connecting the property to Muscatine is
warranted in this situation and was a requirement for the granting of the previous special
exception. While a majority of children who attend Willowwind may travel with their parents by car,
there may be others who travel by bike, walk, or use City Transit to get to and from the school.
Some students may travel between Willowwind and Lucas School or Mercer Recreational Center
for afterschool or extra -curricular programs. A sidewalk directly linking the school property to
Muscatine Avenue and the neighborhood provides the safest access for children not traveling by
car. Staff recommends that the applicant construct a sidewalk along the east side of Dover Street,
from Muscatine Avenue to connect with the current sidewalk, which ends approximately 100 feet
north of the property entrance. Note: While the sidewalk itself would be constructed in the public
right-of-way, due to slope and drainage issues retaining walls to support the sidewalk may need to
be constructed on neighboring property.
Vehicular access to the school will be along a collector street, Dover, and an arterial, Muscatine,
which both meet the minimum requirement of 28 feet specified in the code (Dover is 28 ft.,
Muscatine 31 ft.). With the previous special exception, neighbors expressed some concern
regarding the volume of traffic on Muscatine Avenue and the limited visibility on Dover Street
due to the curve north of the driveway/entrance to the property. On -street parking has been
restricted along Dover Street in order to maximize visibility at this location. The existing traffic
control at the Dover/Muscatine intersection has been evaluated by traffic engineers and has
been determined to be appropriate.
Excessively large parking lots in residential zones are strongly discouraged because they tend
to erode the residential character of a neighborhood. On this property a large parking lot
(approximately 26,000 square feet of paving, 70-75 parking spaces), well in excess of what
would be required for a school of this size, is already established. Because the proposed use is
located in a residential zone, it is required to comply with the Multi -family Site Development
Standards, 14-213-6 (page 37), to the extent that is practical. These site development standards
specify that any portion of a parking area that is not completely concealed from view of a
fronting street must be screened to the S2 standard. The intent of the S2 standard, Section 14-
5F-6B (page 295), is to provide moderate screening in order to soften the effect of uses or
paved areas. While the current parking lot is adequately screened with arbor vitae and fencing
along its Western boundary where the property abuts neighboring single-family lots, the visual
appearance of the parking lot from its Dover street frontage should be minimized through the
use of landscape screening as specified in the code. Tree islands will also need to be created
in the parking lot as specified in the code.
Adjustments to Principal Building Setbacks —Section 14-2A-4B-5b (page 11)
The minimum setback requirements are exceeded on all sides of the building with the exception
of the rear setback, which is approximately 40 feet —a 50 foot setback is required. The Board of
Adjustment may adjust setback requirements if the owner or lawful occupant of the property
demonstrates that certain specific approval criteria are met. In this case, a change in the
required rear setback affecting religious, educational, and other uses, has created a non-
conforming building.
The intent of the setback requirement is to provide space in order to buffer adjacent property
from the more intensive use that such facilities generate. The new zoning code requires that
new structures intended for such uses provide off-street parking at the rear, and this is in part
what the increased rear setback is intended to address. On this property, however, the parking
is already established (as a nonconforming accessory use) in front of the principal building. The
back fagade of the building is blank, and Willowwind has indicated that this portion of the
property will be used only as an emergency exit and will not serve as a designated play area for
the students. In addition, the topography of the site, with its steep slope at the rear, combined
with the existing privacy fence along the property line, provides an adequate buffer, screening
these properties from the additional noise and traffic generated by the school.
General Standards: 14-46-3A (page 171), Special Exception Review Requirements
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. There is adequate vehicular access and parking
necessary to support the proposed use. Subject to the applicant constructing a direct sidewalk
connection from the property entrance to Muscatine Avenue along the east side of Dover Street,
Staff finds that the proposed special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood. Given the long history of institutional uses at this location, the
change to an educational use with limited student enrollment should have minimal effect on
surrounding properties. The school operates during the weekdays from 8 AM to 5:30 PM, and
thus traffic and noise generated by the school will be limited. Existing screening along the rear
of the lot and between the parking lot and adjacent property should provide adequate buffer for
the neighboring residential uses. The establishment of landscape islands with trees within the
parking lot and additional landscape screening as spelled out in the multi -family site
development standards will minimize the visual effect of the large parking lot and bring the site
closer to conforming to the current regulations in the zoning code. The presence of screening
and the blank fagade at the rear of the building should provide the privacy and buffer that is the
intended goal of the rear setback requirement.
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 surrounding properties are already
developed. (See above)
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided. Vehicular access to the property via a collector (Dover Street) and an
arterial street (Muscatine Avenue) meets the requirements for educational uses established in
the RS-12 zone. The construction of a sidewalk as specified above will ensure safe pedestrian
access to the property. A fire lane will need to be identified along the building to provide access
for emergency vehicles.
S. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. On -street parking has been restricted
along Dover Street in order to maximize visibility at this location. The existing traffic control at
the Dover/Muscatine intersection has been evaluated by traffic engineers and has been
determined to be appropriate.
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. With the
addition of sidewalk access to Muscatine, and appropriate screening of the parking lot, the
property as it exists is appropriate for this use. The applicant is required to submit a site plan to
the building official for review and will be subject to all other requirements of the Zoning Code.
The site plan must meet the Construction and Design Standards for off-street parking, including
proposed traffic circulation on the site, designation of an emergency vehicle/fire lane along the
building, and parking layout and landscaping requirements.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The
Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of educational facilities and other institutional
uses within neighborhoods provided that traffic circulation and pedestrian safety are ensured
and adequate measures are taken to buffer neighboring property owners from the negative
impacts of parking and increased noise. The use of the property as a school complies with the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC06-00001, an application for a special exception allowing a general
educational facility in the High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone and a special
exception allowing a reduction in the rear setback requirement for a general educational facility
in the RS-12 zone be granted subject to submittal of a site plan demonstrates sidewalk
construction along the east side of Dover Street connecting the current sidewalk to Muscatine;
landscape screening along the front of the parking lot on Dover Street; and proposed parking
layout, traffic circulation, and landscaping on the site, including identification of a designated fire
lane.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Photos of site
3. Application materials
Approved by: do!n `—
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
20 T
o
O
O
Oz J
w
Q
NMV-1 HlnoS w
0
z
o Q
O U
cn
°
0 LS �J3noa
C� 10 -I-IlAsivo
fn
l� -11N iV3 L-
(D
O
r)
O
LO
O
r ••
z
5O
0 o
E-1
o
0
�..�
— W-
V
ON
scale V=50
6
Views of parking lot from Dover Street.
View of rear setback from west side of building.
WILLOWWIND SCHOOL
226 South Johnson Street 0 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 • (319) 338-6061
25 January 2006
Sarah Walz
Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development
City of Iowa City
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: Parcel 91013288001, Appeal to Board of Adjustments, Special Exception (Title XIV,
Chapter 6, Article W) Appeal Dated January 11, 2006
I am writing at this time in regards to the special exception appeal filed on behalf of Willowwind.
I respectfully request that you amend the application filed on January 11, 2006 to add an
additional special exception pertaining to the rear setback. We are requesting this exception
under zoning code 14-2A-5b. We request an additional special exception based upon the
following:
Currently the property appears to have a rear setback of the building is 40 feet m/l. It
appears the property is fully developed and the properties impacted by the 40-foot
setback have been long established.
2. It would not be practical to comply with the setback requirements as the building
already exists on a current site and there is no practical way of conforming the
building to the 50-foot setback requirement.
The granting of the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulation.
4. There will not be negative effects resulting from the setback exception. Any potential
negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent
practical. Willowwind does not contemplate specifically the rear area of the building
will be utilized for any purpose other than an emergency exit. As such it will not
create any traffic pattern issues. In addition the school will maintain a buffer area
near property lines. The area in the back is not at all practical to be used as a play
space, in fact, the school would want that to be an open area since it would be
potentially concealed. Furthermore, the building sits higher than the adjacent
properties. In addition, the property slopes and the depth of the side and the front
setbacks provide more than adequate area for the school's outside activities.
City of Iowa City
Sarah Walz
25 January 2006
Page 2
Finally, there is no plan of expansion of the current building facility. Any appendages would be
simply modifications of existing entrance or exit for safety purposes.
The undersigned on behalf of Willowwind School respectfully request consideration of the
special exception incorporating this amendment.
Very truly yours,
Timothy F. Terry
President
Willowwind School Board
TFT/rjk
APPEAL TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
TITLE 74, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W
DATE: %�/o(0 PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: °I S-y ('�*Q -r- 2
APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: Q 5 1 APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: a -ay
APPLICANT: Name: W \CL(AP�' i%QC� Sc\A'00
Address: d alo 'S �o +sow s
Phone: 3 \ ci • 3 S Z • (o O ko i _
CONTACT PERSON: Name:
Address: f
Phone: 3 kc{ 3 3 3• b'j b l T?
XOw,A C k-r'A LtODbE
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: L-uu 46 2 2 M ,n �
Address: S k S i IAw� �' £
Phone: 3 \ °l ' --:� S to ° b 9 0�
1113
Cn
N
Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter:
9 6r��� EQQCAPr,uwyAt.- FAC-kLvr►fs I w 2s- k a 7-u
Purpose for special exception: 70 A LLu w v Is -'KU M'iv -r—
W\LWww►wO 'SCw00'-- _-ru T-wks 1/vCA,--1VN
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: N/ ►4
-2-
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Legal description of property:
ry
71
B. Plot
plan drawn to scale showing:
�-j
_ _
1.
Lot with dimensions;
<
171
2.
North point and scale;
0 j
3.
Existing and proposed structures with distances from propertyes;
�n
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.
rSubmission of an 8 V 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). O-t _ylg- 3
In the space provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board
review which apply to the requested special exception. In this narrative statement,
set forth the grounds offered as support for the special exception.
't'`lA SG.IAC000- �fsttx�uSH ►`i��� %5 CU2Q<<*'V " XT
S,OQWV�som A 2wet-t-Orrw s-PI.4E-T• -cam 5c,Wao(- Has cvaa -nsc oC
S1, 4Wr), X"-r%<kkVAV19S {v"< 0, (Do -8<) 4T Q N4-v+ lucAZ�Uw
-TV6� cQ QL'¢6 r. ` - P4c.\ L' f\Ss fit (sJaT f o* (AQfem -W rlhs47V `j-Y
<_)jvA,S,oY' -vi 1-%A :5ze r) sT&jzA -Tv wiLt- r2*-gv%¢f 314Cn.IrC\Cw,r< MUO%C%C4-"
uQ- } goo-Olv'(o. .SNJ AOD,'"o— , =N- 15 LO.Cr'-M0 -7., -a l-V16 k T+2Opgp ,C
fir\ 6oek-N&(.-wu) \a, %s A cQrvcEYtw P--Yz zrrih Ei—1 CiIE QWE,L ST¢s�c-t
L-OCVN Qr- OC-Pic2i (� 5+4z=42 ) C.tSs ifK+vk w"\ Ptw- I% --W-fhdOL
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-2B2, 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.
6X\srII�,(-, ScHoot.S
W" If- vsE �-kw."TiO
� f 4 Q-, W" \-K.4 0
+tWA -T'T
-VU Sc octi u �-S
Vu % LL
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.
4>2s�'?f e -vu, I RS A (- t�v 0 -rW-J V se- As Pe- a:"6T kTu-n �. .
es T P}s N CW'J 2C 14 ) -t-- "c� A F2AZ£ ate . LvobiS- (moose,;)
A+jt> GV2Q..EwTl,1} As A C1.J2C44y `l.'VS VS- AS Aw
l�Vc„4`Y� oti+ 1k` ZY�S T�'�vT' 1�1r� 'VU \ LL ZVNjV 0 L V-t Lr\ V1 1-,41D
b�vv 2S OAy L'i
jZ,4at OG<r\SIDw A-` VSE otiv vd��K£1uQS
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.
iP,t24,4p:�
cn
tv
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
,aw
-T -T\ \s cLase 70 rz�A` �2v4D
cVQ2�r✓� �,n,b nor
U� W\LLOww,�„p 1�N� 1S QEAD'-t �S�}P�LIS1-lED .
A-f- t _V400L A-+-'t"\c- VWX-`C.S NO
or' 'Y1 e"J L i p ► * O , ST 15 f3Yv'S ►� 1 P�}1�
. �%-e cWpfN e-S W k L L P-Itr^ M A 0(- -tv Irl*t- ZV--Xr,c 21 U 2 • •1a
£s t Lis W c L wSG A-N n Awz^i\ v\, c, AR- q,; �,
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
-A R4 "Lk <---x N ST► N G
-4- _
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; Section
14-6Q, Dimensional Requirements, or Section 14-6R, Tree Regulations, as
appropriate.]
-�- - Az�-C a.T-� \ s 2 S - Ia .
,p„� .�� �c,r� 2�C�,v►ee,vw•ts�5� P2+c�,NG Utz, �.2
'flti1� A2.s� ✓-1
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
-T41•jr'' 01-'*- A 5c19��yZ 1 N A 245� Db�v Y'+tr �(L4 .
`C,OK C.ocA-rT owl
4 r.) V Z VjV_ —i-o4 5c. k*M (�_
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
_� C-) ry �
TD cn
N
-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: /��� 20 0(0
'P2x�m�w1
�
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Date: , 20 _
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdadmin\a ppboasepckt. pdf
r.7
O
i-
71
y Cn
N
-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-2B3, 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: z % 20 0(,o
Date: V/ a,
ppd admin\appboasepckt. pdf
20 04
w '
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
�errw I —PAW cYe4�
Signatures) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
h t S X R 34r4 ,l 9�
ate„' Fltb+-
+
4
qf141
�� _ d4 4u t'wd, • R-�.��, . K4 q�t ,,A, h An V � ''� y a ai% y, � � 4 I�. Fr
`� ,row a .t e„a {,><+a. 7a�id „W:'; rri 4if .,r, d 1 r Mc a �".i$X s l ✓ � ,�,� 8 1
�'� �,:t' t � p � i +. is 'k.µ^b,� t �.'.k ,�rtlr 11�:w^{ �; � ;t ,��.y "� .BR.;,�!•� t. a�i r f q.
�,r a�A
r'E''& �r;�.
lip
I
N fA
Wt (�
6 €
vkAti"r'°°3r
�, ' n:. n a•wt'YS.MiK. $ x sr v aelrf�4414
z
wa. ti
d y A '9g �7 kz 6 T
F
�39rY4,p1 '!✓� f t �a�i 4` ; � fdi 4 °' '': �i.� •
Y 5 �a1 � L.ib1 � r t vA �• r $ 794 '� � K. k
t, xM� M f( 3 A J� L' °�`- 4tifrz; rP • k" t
d�
ee • *J
r It'll
d r� � avC7df'r�
s� , `Y� '
d.1t
a�4
#
fsuy� 5 9°f R +� �; �� `, r •. d� � M i
�}.:, o-tzr,��i;Y �ixU` i ..Y`' ;. S a'd4/i1xi Yf✓ .�, # ,y, 6 {,;
K
}oia}sia loo4os AijunwwoC)
AJQ DMOI
,0
ILA
S),SL'£LS
(s),ZL`btI
co
00 t
(J �`
J ,909 um D1 q j no J
Cliff
b!�
IY- S
Si-
4 oh
,OL
OL
SF
,SF
,OL
LF'6F ,LL'F£
LZ'OL
�� 6
b 1,6 bZb
ro�
'SS FL
,6L'L£ ,SZ'S£
,•b0'tiL
to
co
I
I
I
I I g
I Inpl
N
O
06
of
C
O
IN
I
N
N
cLO coo ! N
co N
o !
N
V
N
N
£L
,£L
N
,FL
N
,FL
w
N V
08
,tiZ'L6£
ail
ti, O ;'y;
O
e.,
0
I.°� ''
00 OI
•fix 112.69,
k
O
o
LO
Q
,OOZ
N
O
66
W
o
W
4
,O6
O Lo
O
,Z'L6
r
e�
yo O _inn ! 1�� _0O u�
0)LO 2-96 6S-
o O•0�zF �� LO `�9 LO
O
O I 4� N=
ao tiZ'06Z 006co !�O
8lFO9 M
6 67.16' £8'89 I e-e
IS
TT."( O67.0O)O to L0 O O cc,_ N o m�V
nItN LO � OrdN N NaiN N df N rNd
e-dO �O c O OcoO O pdT �O p p 4
O O
N
S'bS —,L9 e- L9 99 OF'— a
O O w i
,LL'8•0 ,ZL ,ZL ,ZL tg'SL LL'ti
Qi .� � oc � M ,4'+ '�'��•• �' fJ .� ;.: MW Cf• 1% sl „"`'° � O _
N .� a- <r t' c6 Off•- 0
ri d' to (0 f� 00 (O
N Odf O o cc ?)6 i qm d-- .-oif.- a d' Lf� rn '_°ii` ''r. O
0 0 0 0 '� O O BR O p o .-die- d 0 O N I I
�2 0 0
I ri N e- O I I C) � r
4rn
N Zc N N N.4 N at NF£ ss's e- Sot s �•- oot
I J6 90L 9*76 ,Z8'99L CO 00
o �
LO
�iO 4
�OjN N 9.
H
cv- N� OO
OQ
^� N 14 N� N O) ,
�L SL SL LS'69 ` "
0
!9 co w
co co -
O `O a ' i_ -
G •sue 00 ,gL SL OL to
/
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JANUARY 11, 2006
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL — IOWA CITY, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael
Wright.
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek, Doug Boothroy
OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Drea, Lillian Davis,
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:02
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
MOTION: Wright moved to nominate Leigh as chairperson. Alexander seconded the motion.
The motion passed with a 5:0 vote.
MOTION: Leigh moved to nominate Alexander as vice -chairperson. Wood seconded the motion.
The motion passed with a 5:0 vote.
CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 14 2005 MINUTES
Wright noted that Denis Keitel was mistakenly added to the list of members present. Instead of Denis
Keitel it should have been Ned Wood.
MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the minutes with the proposed correction. Wright
seconded the motion.
The motion passed with a 5:0 vote.
APPEAL:
AP05:00001: Discussion of an appeal submitted by David Drea of a decision of the building official that a
corner lot requires two front yards.
Walz made a correction to the memorandum submitted. On page 2, under the application of lot and yard
lines, second paragraph, second line, instead of front yard line it should be front lot line.
Walz said that the appeal is considered under the old zoning code. She said the regulations being
challenged reads: "If lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a
front yard shall be provided along all streets." (14-6Q-2B) She noted that in applying the front yard
regulations a first relevant question is if the lot fronts in two streets. She said that in this particular case
the lot fronts on two streets. Next question is if the applicant's property is required to have a front yard.
She said that all lots in the RS-8 zone are required to provide a front yard of 20 feet, and therefore this lot
is required to provide a front yard on both streets.
Walz noted that the applicant's attorney has used the definition of front lot line to make an argument that
on any lot there can be only one front yard. She said that this argument substitutes the definition for the
regulation.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 2, 2006
Page 2
Walz said that a front lot line is the first line of reference on any lot. All other lines and boundaries are
derived from the front lot line. The front lot line determines the rear lot line, which is set opposite to it. The
definitions do not take the case any further than this. She said that yard lines can not be drawn or
determined from the definitions alone, and that regulations need to be used. Walz noted that yard lines
are derived from lot lines, but they do not establish yards. She mentioned that yards may only be
determined by referring to the code. She exemplified by saying that in the downtown district, and some
commercial areas there are no requirements for rear or side yards.
She said the regulations for the RS-8 zone state that the front and rear yard requirements are 20 feet,
and the side yard requirements are 5 feet. She noted the specific property is located on a corner. She
added that the general requirements dictate that if lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are
required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets (14-6Q-213). Therefore,
she said that the property in discussion needs to have a front yard on both streets. She added that the
yard line on Walnut Street steps back to 20 feet. Walz said that the requirement for front yard along the
second street does not change the designated front lot line because there can only be one front lot line.
She said that it dictates that the yard requirements for the front yard, which is 20 feet in the RS-8 zone, be
met along both streets.
Walz said that the applicant would argue. that the provisions must be construed if possible so that effect is
giving to all provisions. She said that one code provision should not be interpreted in such a way that it
renders other provisions meaningless. Walz added that in the case of ambiguous or conflicting provisions,
the most specific rule prevails. She said that the appellant argues that the definitions in the code are more
specific than the regulations. She said that the definitions are the general, and yard is establishment only
takes the shape and size through the specific requirement in the code. Walz said that in this specific case
the requirements are those for a corner lot in the RS-8 zone. She said that the requirement for two front
yards for corner lots had been applied throughout Iowa City for more than forty (40) years. She said that
the regulations had consistently held that where a front yard is required, corner lots or lots fronting on two
(2) or more streets must provide a front yard along both streets.
Walz stated that the staff believes that the building official's interpretation that the zoning code requires a
front yard along both Walnut Street and Webster Street is correct and should stand, and the appeal
submitted by Mr. Drea be denied.
Miklo said that the Doub Boothroy, the Building Official, was also present to address the Board.
Doug Booth1w, the Building Official, said that the decision the Board would make as to whether or not an
error was made when the code was enforced regarding the specific property. He said that he does not
consider it an error for several reasons: 1) The City of Iowa City had consistently, by practice and
enforcement, applied this particular standard requirement. He noted that over the past forty (40) years the
standard had always been applied. He added that the situation is not in any way specific to the property in
discussion, but is a common issue within neighborhoods. 2) Over the years there have been many cases
brought in front of the Board of Adjustment to provide relief from the two (2) front yard requirement, but
the Board had never called the regulation into question. 3) He noted that he was a co-author of the code
being discussed, and as a result of his experience serving as the Secretary of the Board of Adjustment
between 1975-1983, he believes that the special exception should be used to alleviate some
circumstances, where it can be shown that a reduction of the front yard is warranted.
Public Hearing Opened
Lillian Davis, 920 South Dubuque Street, attorney representing Mr. Drea, distributed handouts and
pictures in support of her presentation. Davis said that the building official mentioned that he had first-
hand knowledge regarding the legislative intent of the code, and he indicated that he has first-hand
knowledge regarding the legislative intent regarding the special exception process, and the option for the
City of Iowa City. She said that the Board is confronted with an appeal. Davis said that for the Board of
Adjustment there are application forms available online, none of which is for an appeal. She noted that
this might be the reason why Mr. Drea was handed an application for a special exception, when he was
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 2, 2006
Page 3
actually filing an appeal. She added that it is clear from Mr. Boothroy's presentation that the City of Iowa
City had always done it "this way", however, the City's own definitions produce the results that will be
presented. Davis said that the City had recently changed its definitions as part of the new Zoning Code,
and the new definitions are more likely to result in the position argued. However, she said, the old
definitions do not. She noted that the issue raised is an appeal, and not a special exception, therefore the
Board needs to determine if there was a mistake on the part of Building Official, and not if all the
standards for a special exception are met.
Davis said that there might have not been any appeals filed on this matter for several reasons: it is
expensive ($300) to file an application, and it is also expensive to hire someone to do the analysis and
present the argument in front of the Board.
She noted that the issue being presented is narrow and not a request to decide how the term frontage is
going to be limited, or that the definition of double frontage line precludes a corner lot from having two lot
frontages. The issue simply regards whether or not there was an error. Davis said that the first point to be
considered is whether or not the area in discussion is a front lot. She said that where Walnut Street
comes east, immediately north to the specific property it takes a little jag and narrows. She said that the
building was constructed in 1900 and predates the zoning code. She said that when the street went
through it took up the yard for the house. She said that it is a peculiar lot, non -conforming use that was
grandfathered in. She said that "all conforming and non -conforming uses/ structures shall be treated as
though they were established on a conforming lot. Davis said that in the general description of the
property, the view from Webster Street shows a fairly sizable front yard. She added that where the street
came through, what should have been the side yard was truncated dramatically.
She said that they agreed that the provisions of the zoning code prior to December 2005 applied to this
matter. Davis said that they generally agree on the rules of construction, as to what rules apply when
there is confusion. She said that there is an order on how the rules should apply. She noted that the front
lot line determines the rear lot line, and all other lot lines are determined in relations to those. She
mentioned that this can only be achieved by applying the definitions and the specific directions in the
definitions. She said that the disagreement regards the fact that the specific definitions are general
statements. She added that the section of the code requiring that if lots fronting on two (2) or more
streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets (14-6Q-213)
is listed under General Yard Requirements, and therefore is a general rule informed by the details set up
in the definitions. Davis said that it was suggested that the definitions were taken out of the context, but
she noted she was very methodical in determining the lines, following the step-by-step requirements of
the definitions. She said that at the beginning of the definitions section it is noted that "as used in this
chapter the following definitions shall apply." She added that the word "shall" is used, and according
to the rules of word construction the word "shall" is always mandatory, and therefore we are required to
use the definitions set up in that section of the code.
Davis said that when there appears to be a conflict the board needs to determine whether there is a way
to reconcile both of those provisions so that meaning is given to both. She mentioned that the statement
that there have to be two (2) front yards applies when there is a double frontage lot. She said that the
authors of the code might have meant something else, but they did not write something else. She asked
the city staff to restate the City's position regarding the statutory construction.
Holecek said that the city's position is that they are reconciled by applying the 14-6Q-213 to require front
yards along both streets frontages. Davis asked if there is a conflict would it be appropriate to apply the
first test that the two could be reconciled before deciding there is an ambiguity. Holecek said that the
City's position is clear that the definitions are not necessarily the regulations. Holocek added that while
the definitions give meaning and body to the regulations, the specific regulation requiring a front yard set-
back along all streets is the most specific, and that is how all the issues are reconciled.
Davis asked if there is agreement on the order in which the different rules of statutory construction are to
be applied. Davis said that the first rule is if there seems to be a conflict it should be seen if there are
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 2, 2006
Page 4
ways to give effect to both that does not render either one meaningless. She noted that the next, more
specific rule takes effect as an exception of the general rule.
Davis said that several definitions were changed through the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. She
said that the definition for a front line lot is the same as used before with the addition of "on double
frontage lots there are two front lot lines", which in itself supports Mr. Drea's position. She added that that
there is an option given for the owner to choose which line is to be the front lot line. She said that lot line
side and street side are new provisions. She noted that there is no definition for "yard", but instead for
"setback areas". She mentioned the City had changed the Code to make it very clear, and with examples.
Davis said that the pictures taken from the Webster Street showing the backyard shows the limited space
between the house and the street. She noted that it defies logic to suggest that the paved area is the front
yard of the property. She added that the fact that the code has the provision that non -conforming uses
should be grandfathered in, the board would have to take the north line of the house to determine what
the yard is on that side of the house. She added that more than half of the area is not paved. She said
that if the entire front yard would be taken into consideration Mr. Drea does not have more than 50%
pavement. Davis said that no credit was given for the area of the front yard beyond the 20 foot front line,
which is not paved. She said that the ratio of paved area is 15%, far from the 50% maximum.
Davis said that Mr. Drea was cited for having more than 50% paving. She stated that there is an
exception for side yard limitations, for parking for two family dwellings, which exist on the specific
property. She added that there are no limitations providing parking in the rear yard.
Davis said that even if the Board agrees that it is a front yard, it defies logic, for the code to not treat it as
a non -conforming use. She noted that the house should not be considered as paved area, and credit
should be given for what is not paved. She said that the City was not happy regarding the pavement of
right-of-way, and that matter is not being appealed. She said that there were people testifying at the
October meeting that putting the pavement in was definitely an improvement. Davis said that looking at
the City regulations it should be clear that there is a front yard on Webster Street.
Miklo said that the applicant contends that this is a nonconforming use on a nonconforming lot. He said
that the lot conforms to the dimensional requirements in the RS-8 zone, and that it is a conforming use
since duplexes are allowed in the area. He said that it is a non -conforming structure which violates the 20
foot set -back because it was built before there were any setback requirements, and that non -conforming
structures cannot be expanded to increase their non -conformity. He said that treating the two front yards
separately, the paved area would go over the 50% accepted paving.
Davis said that she meant to say that it was a non -conforming structure, and not a non -conforming use.
Public hearing closed
Wright said that he read the documents, the appeal, the staff memo, and the City Code and the statement
that if lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall
be provided along all streets seems clear. He added that the lot requirement in the RS-8 zone minimum
yard front is 20 feet, that it is a corner lot has been established and that if a lot fronts on two or more
streets it is required to have two front yards, is again a clear statement showing the intent of the code.
Wright added that he agrees with the logic exercised by the Building Official. He said that there is no
misinterpretation in applying the code as is written.
Alexander said that she agrees with Wright's statement. She added that Miss Davis had done an
admirable job in trying to find a way for this to fit for her client, but the code provisions seem to be very
clear.
Leigh said that the interpretation of the Code that the specific property is a corner lot, and it has to provide
two front yards cannot be contested. She added that the property lists two addresses, one on each street.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
February 2, 2006
Page 5
Wood noted that it is a corner lot, and by 14-6Q-2B lots fronting on two streets have two front yards. He
said that he will support this position.
Shelangouski will also support this position. She noted that the Building Official did apply the code
correctly as is written.
MOTION: Alexander made a motion regarding AP05:00001: an appeal submitted by David Drea of
a decision of the building official that a corner lot requires two front yards, that the building
official's decision be uphold. Wright seconded the motion.
The motion passed with a 5:0 vote.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC05-00016 Reconsideration of an application submitted by David Drea for a special exception to
reduce the front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet to allow paving a greater area than normally permitted in the
Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone at 920 Webster Street/ 601 Walnut Street.
Miklo said that the code requires that no more than 50% of the front yard be impervious surface. He
added that the applicant was cited for paving more than 50% of the front yard adjacent to Walnut Street,
as well as the City property contained in the right-of-way. He said that the Board had granted a special
exception to the applicant at the October 2005 meeting, to allow more than 50% of the yard to be paved,
but required that paving within the visual triangle and the right-of-way be removed, leaving approximately
55% of the yard still paved. Miklo stated that the applicant is required to remove the paving from the right-
of-way regardlessof the Board's decision.
Miklo said that the applicant wants the Board to reconsider the provision that paving be removed from the
vision triangle. He noted that the vision triangle is an area free from structures meant to allow clear site
distance near an intersection of two traveled ways. Another concern regarding the vision triangle refers to
the demarcation of the street from the private property; as a result of the paving is not very clear where
the street ends, especially at different times of the day due to lighting.
Miklo said that there are also aesthetic concerns regarding the appearance of the residential
neighborhood, and concerns regarding the provision of permeable areas where rain water can be
absorbed.
Staff recommends that the previous decision of the Board to allow some reduction in the front yard, but
requiring the pavement within the vision triangle be removed be uphold.
Davis said that they withdraw the request for reconsideration.
OTHER:
Miklo said that the commissioners have been provided with a new copy of the Zoning Code which would
be used for further meetings.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 6:25 P.M.
s:/pcd/minutes/boa/2006/01-11-06. doc
a�
C
C
N
N
oco
0 CD
N
m C'
U Mw
ti a
0
x
x
x
�s1.00000
k
W
0
0
0
0
0
zU
z:
coo