Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2007 Board of Adjustment 2MINUTES PRELIMINARY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER loth, 2007 — 5:00 PM EMMA J HARVAT HALL — IOWA CITY/CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: Carol Alexander called the meeting to order at 5:15 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Edgar Thornton MEMBERS ABSENT: Michele Payne, Ned Wood STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Shelly McCafferty, Frank Wagner RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (becomes effective only after separate Council action): CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 8, 2007 MINUTES: Alexander asked if there were any editorial changes to the August 8, 2007 minutes. She also noted that she thought the minutes were done very well and were very clear. MOTION: Wright moved to approve the August 8, 2007 minutes as presented. Thornton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXC07-00007: An application submitted by Frank and Theresa Wagner for a special exception to reduce the required front and side setbacks to allow construction of an addition and an uncovered deck for property located in the Medium Density, Single -Family (RS-8) zone at 1104 Muscatine Avenue. Walz began with the Staff Report by stating that she has two letters to share with Members, which arrived late, from neighbors of the Wagner's that pertain to this exception. Walz stated that this property is in the RS-8 zone, and that the Board would be considering two special exceptions — the first being a special exception to reduce the required front setback for the house itself, from 15 feet to 11 feet, and from 5 feet to 3 feet for the side setback; and a special exception for the uncovered deck, from the required 10 feet front setback to 4 feet, and the required side setback of 5 feet to 3 feet. Walz stated that this property is surrounded by other RS-8's. Walz then proceeded to show the Members the layout of this property, noting that it is triangular, corner lot. The Board of Adjustment October 10, 2007 Page 2 current zoning states that if a lot fronts on two or more streets — which this property does on Muscatine and Washington — it must have the minimum setback, equal to the required front setback, on all streets. Walz continued, stating that this property is a nonconforming one for several reasons. Minimum lot size is 3,400 square feet, and the standards today say the lot must be 5,000 square feet. She noted the 15-foot setback requirement for the front yard, noting that on this property, the side that fronts Muscatine has a porch that is within this setback and a portion of the northwest corner of the house and the mudroom are already within the rear setback on the Washington Street side. Walz said that the applicants have removed an existing mudroom that measured 9 X 5 feet, and they would like to put in a kitchen extension in its place that measures 14 X 4 feet, which will be within the required 15-foot setback. This new addition would also extend into the side setback, which Walz pointed out to the Board. Walz stated that the applicants are.proposing to build an uncovered deck, and the required setback for this accessory structure is 10 feet. Walz then explained the requirements for the setback regulation. The situation must be peculiar to the property — Walz noted that staff finds the situation at 1104 Muscatine as such, as it is a triangular lot and fronts on two streets, it is significantly smaller than current minimum lot sizes, and the topography of the site is quite sloped and making the rear yard difficult to use and access. Walz stated next that there would be difficulty complying with the setback standards. She further noted that the applicants are proposing to construct the uncovered deck along the rear side of the house, in order to create some usable, private backyard space, as the topography is so difficult to work with. Walz stated that the applicants are attempting to create more space on the first floor of the home, in order to get the laundry facilities upstairs, a feature that is becoming more common in houses. Walz stated that granting the Special Exception would not be "contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations." She said that staff does not feel this will be an issue, as they would not go beyond the minimum 3 foot setback on the side. Walz said that the house next door is set back even further off its side lot line — more than the required 5 feet — and that there is access to light and air because of the way the lot is situated on a corner. "To provide opportunity between dwellings" is another reason for the setback regulations, stated Walz, and she said that staff believes that the setback reductions for the house will not diminish privacy for the neighbor. She explained how the deck will have some screening with trees, and that the rear of the adjacent house is set somewhat forward from the deck location, and therefore, the deck won't be in direct view from the neighboring house itself. The requested reduction "reflects the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods" — Walz stated that there are a number of older homes in this area that are in this type of unusual situation — either triangular -shaped or other odd shaped lots or lots that front on two streets — and that it is not unusual to have a portion of the house or accessory structure sitting within the required setback. She said that given the nature in this part of town, staff does not feel this will be out of character with the general placement of buildings. Board of Adjustment October 10, 2007 Page 3 Walz said there was some concern about the deck, as it will sit up somewhat higher. Staff is recommending that the reduction be to 5 feet, and not 4 feet, to allow adequate space for vegetation to grow, whether bushes or lawn. Walz said there is currently a privacy fence along the top of the retaining wall, which intrudes into the space of the sidewalk. Staff felt that if that privacy fencing were removed, it would giveoffer more of a transition from the sidewalk to the property. "Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences" is another staff -agreed exception. Walz stated that for the reasons already given, and the fact that the neighborhood is fully developed, this will not create a difficult situation. Walz then discussed the General Standards — will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or welfare — Walz stated that reducing the setback for the house itself for the kitchen addition will not have any negative effects; that removal of the fence above the retaining wall, requiring some space for vegetation between the retaining wall and the deck, and then have the underside of the deck be covered will minimize any potential negative effect. She further stated that the specific proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of 1104 Muscatine, and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Walz said that this house was not maintained very well over the years, and the applicants are in the process of reinvesting in the home and updating both the home and yard to make it more liveable, which will in turn increase the property value for not only this home, but for the neighborhood in general. Continuing, this proposal will "not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in this zone," "adequate utilities are provided," "adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress or egress" — Walz stated that this has no impact on this proposal. Walz further stated that this proposal meets all other applicable regulations; however, it does still have to go through final site review to get the Building Permit. The proposed use will also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, which calls for maintaining and improving the safety and conformity of all housing, and promotes the integrity of exiting single-family housing. Walz stated that in this case they have a somewhat historic house that is being restored in a sensitive manner. In summary, staff recommends Special Exception EXC07-00007 and application for Special Exception to reduce the required principal building setback from 15 feet to 11 feet on the front, and from 5 feet to 3 feet along the side property line, be granted subject to compliance with the site plan submitted. Staff also recommends that a Special Exception to reduce the required setbacks for the accessory structure, the uncovered deck, from 10 feet to 5 feet (front), and from 5 feet to 3 feet on the side, for the same property be approved, subject to removal of the existing 4-foot privacy fence, providing landscape space between the retaining wall and screening the underside of the deck. Alexander asked the Board if they had any questions for Walz. Wright asked if the deck screening would be a part of the site review, to which Walz stated that it could be part of that. Thornton asked Walz to explain her remark about a particular picture where she was explaining the existing fencing. Walz stated that one concern staff has is that Board of Adjustment October 10, 2007 Page 4 currently when you walk along the sidewalk you have a wall effect on one side, almost as if the setback were zero. By granting the special exception, that would give the opportunity to get rid of this wall and open up more space in this area. It would be preferable to what is currently in place, and she stated that staff felt it would improve the area overall. Wright asked Walz how far off the ground the deck will be. Walz stated that she believes when you are standing at this sidewalk, the deck will be at 6 to 8 feet above you. Public Hearing Open Alexander asked if the applicant would like to address the Board. Shelley McCafferty, architect on the proposed project, addressed the Board concerning the exceptions. She asked that the Board approve the staff s recommendations, as explained by Walz, noting that the owner has agreed to comply with the recommendations of the City — increasing the setback from 4 to 5 feet during the landscaping and removal of the wall. McCafferty stated that she would address any questions the board members may have. Wright asked about the deck's height. McCafferty stated that from the sidewalk level, it would be about 8 feet. She further explained the landscaping that is proposed. Thornton asked if there will still be some type of wall, and McCafferty stated that the existing retaining wall would most likely stay in place. She said there would be some buildup of the topography from the sidewalk to the house. Alexander asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the application. Frank Wagner, the owner of the home, spoke to the Board next. He gave the Board further explanation of the topography, and how the area around the home and deck will work. Wagner stated that one noteworthy item is from a neighbor across the street who said they turned their porch swing around, to watch the progress on the Wagner's home, after turning the swing the opposite direction about 25 years ago due to the deterioration of the home. He said the neighbors are excited about the plans. Thornton asked Wagner how old the house is, and Wagner stated it was built in 1910. Thornton asked what the home was like in the beginning for the Wagners, and Wagner stated, "I shouldn't have bought it!" He said it was in bad shape and had been unoccupied for about a year, after being a rental property for approximately 35 years. He said once he and his wife are done, almost every inch of the home will be restored, not renovated. They plan to live in the home — he and his wife and four children — once the home is finished. He said all of his neighbors have been very positive about the proposed plan. Alexander asked if anyone else wanted to speak to the application. Thornton asked if they could have an explanation as to why they had one letter against this proposal. He said the complaint was about the sidewalk, and the citizen thought it would interfere with walking down the street. Wagner stated that he briefly read the letter, but that he was surprised by it. He said if they left the wall and vines there as they currently are, that this makes the sidewalk harder to use than if they proceed with the proposed plan. He questioned whether the person was aware of the proposed plan. Public Hearing Closed Board of Adjustment October 10, 2007 Page 5 Alexander closed the Public Hearing, and asked Holecek for clarification on whether these exceptions should be done individually or as one. Holecek stated that they should do their motion from the staff recommendation. Wright asked about the contingency on the fence, asking if the Special Exception would keep a fence from being added later. He stated that he would like to add this to the Exception. MOTION: Wright moved that EXC07-00007 application for Special Exception to reduce the required principal building setback from 15 to 11 feet (front), from 5 feet to 3 feet (side), for property located at 1104 Muscatine Avenue be granted, subject to compliance with the site plan submitted, with the Special Exception be approved subject to the removal of the existing privacy fence and providing landscaped space between the retaining wall and a screened area beneath the deck. Thornton seconded the motion. Walz noted that on the first part of the principal setback there was a typo — it should be 5 feet to 3 feet side along the Washington Street frontage. Thornton stated that the request from the Wagners for a Special Exception to reduce the required front setback for principal building from 15 to 11 feet has gone before staff for recommendation, and is now before the Board. He continued, stating that in looking at the analysis and the situation is peculiar and there is practical difficulty with compliance. Thornton stated that in looking at the general standards, the property is not an endangerment to public health, safety, and welfare. In terms of making general improvements to the property, the applicants have talked about removing some areas that were of concern —the fencing. In looking at the specific issues and how they impact neighbors, once again, Thornton stated that the applicants are making overall improvements to the property. Utilities are not going to be impacted, and it is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Thornton stated that he is in favor of this proposal. Wright said that when he looks at the specific standards, he agrees the situation is peculiar to the property given the lot size, peculiar shape, and sharp grade of the lot. He said it also makes it difficult to comply with the setback standards. Wright voiced his concern over the scale of the deck in terms of the rest of the neighborhood, and stated that he went and looked at the current situation. He does feel that with the clearing of the fence and the landscaping around the deck that it will not "loom" as he had feared. He continued, stating that by requiring removal of the fence, the setback will give more space on the sidewalk. He does not feel the Special Exception will be injurious to surrounding properties. He does feel it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as well, noting that one aspect of the Comprehensive Plan is to make properties more livable. With the inability to provide a fence along the setback in the future, Wright feels this will be a much more friendly approach to this side of the home, and that he is in favor of it. Board of Adjustment October 10, 2007 Page 6 Alexander stated that she too, for all of the reason stated, feels this will be an improvement for the neighborhood, and that she will vote in favor, as well. The motion was approved 3:0. APPEAL: APL07-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Leighton House for an appeal on a decision not to renew a rental permit for property at 923 East College Street. Holecek explained to the Board that the appellant asked that this be deferred until such time as the maximum number of Board Members could hear their appeal. Holecek stated that one of the Board Members would not be able to sit on this appeal, and the other was ill this evening. They have specifically asked that this be deferred to November 14, 2007, which is the next regular Board of Adjustment meeting. MOTION: Wright moved deferment of APL07-00002 to the November 14, 2007 Board of Adjustment meeting. Thornton seconded. The motion was approved 3:0. VARIANCE: VAR07-00003: An application submitted by Corridor State Bank for a variance to allow an animated, freestanding sign in the Central Business Service (CB-2) zone located at 202 North Linn Street. Holecek stated that the same issue is relevant here — a different Board Member will be conflicted on this application, and so again, the maximum number of Members to hear this variance application will be four total, and the applicant has also asked for deferment to enable them to present their case to the maximum number of Board Members. Walz added that she had a brief discussion with the Bank and noted that the November 14 meeting would most likely be when the variance is heard. MOTION: Thornton moved deferment of Variance VAR07-00003 to the November 14, 2007 Board of Adjustment meeting. Wright seconded. The motion was approved 3:0. OTHER: Alexander asked that Board Members remember that they need to be present for items which they are not recusing themselves. Walz asked if everyone present is able to make the next meeting, to which Members all stated they could. Holecek asked that Members let staff know as soon as possible if they are unable to attend meetings. Members Board of Adjustment October 10, 2007 Page 7 discussed having a meal at this next meeting, due to the expected length of the upcoming agenda. Walz agreed to provide food for the board. Holecek reminded the Members that once the applicant has made their case to the Board, the Board does not have to render its decision immediately at that meeting, that they can decide to defer their deliberations to a later meeting, especially if there is a lot of information to digest or the meeting runs late. Alexander asked about the Appeal process, asking Holecek for clarification on the decision -making. Holecek stated that the Members step into the decision making role, that this decision being appealed was in error, and the Board can reverse in whole or in part; they can modify the decision; or they can uphold the decision, either in part or in whole. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Holecek stated there is nothing new on Shelter House, and that the expected opinions are out on Thursday mornings. ADJOURNMENT: Alexander adjourned the meeting at 5:45 PM. Board of Adjustment Attendance Record 2007 NAME TERM EXP. 1/10 3/28 4/11 4/28 5/9 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 Carol Alexander 01/01/08 X X O/E X X NM X X NM X Michael Wright 01/01/09 X X X X X NM X X NM X Ned Wood 01/01/10 X X X X X NM O/E X NM O/E Michelle Payne 01/01/11 X X X X X NM X X NM O/E Edgar Thornton 01/01/12 X X X X X NM O/E X NM X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting --- = Not a Member