HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2007 Board of AdjustmentCITY OF IOWA CITY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
5:00 P.M.
Emma J. Harvat Hall
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Department of Planning
& Community Development
AGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, October 10, 2007 — 5:00 PM
Emma J. Harvat Hall
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the August 8 Minutes
D. Special Exception:
EXC07-00007: An application submitted by Frank and Teresa 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.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. Other
H. Board of Adjustment Information
I. Adjournment
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING — November 14, 2007
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: EXC07-00007 Date: October 10, 2007
1104 Muscatine Avenue
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Frank and Theresa Wagner
1104 Muscatine Avenue
319-321-7910
Contact: Shelley McCafferty
228 S. Summit Street
319-541-4047
Requested Action: A special exception to reduce the required front
setback for a principal building from 15 feet to 11
feet and the required side setback for a principal
building from 5 feet to 3 feet.
A special exception to reduce the required front
setback for an accessory structure from 10 feet to
4 feet and the required side setback for an
accessory structure from 5 feet to 3 feet.
Purpose: To allow an addition to the house and construction
of a deck along the Washington Street frontage.
Location: 1104 Muscatine Avenue
Size: . 3,400 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Single-family Residential, RS-8
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Single -Family Residential, RS-8
South: Single -Family Residential, RS-8
East: Single -Family Residential, RS-8
West: Single -Family Residential, RS-8
Applicable code sections: 14-2A-4B, minimum setback requirements for
principal buildings;14-2A-4B-5 adjustments to
principal building setback requirements; 14-2A-4B-
1, purpose of the minimum setback requirements;
14-4C-23 accessory uses and buildings —decks and
patios; 14-4C-3B-4, adjustments to setback
requirements for accessory structures.
File Date: September 13, 2007
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The subject property is located on a triangular, corner lot in the single-family, medium density
residential (RS-8) zone. The setback standards for the RS-8 zone (section 14-2Z-4B-3b-2) state
that "If a lot fronting on two or more streets is required to have a front setback, a minimum
setback equal to the required front setback must be provided along all streets and such setback
will be considered a front setback for purposes of this Title." In this instance, the property is
required to provide a front setback of 15 feet along both the Muscatine Avenue (front) and
Washington Street (rear).
The subject property is non -conforming for a number of reasons:
1. The minimum lot size for detached, single-family housing in the RS-8 zone is 5,000 square
feet —the subject lot is 3,400 square feet.
2. The dimensional standards for the RS-8 zone require a front principal building setback of 15
feet along both street frontages (Muscatine Avenue and Washington Street) and a 5-foot
setback along the side property line (adjacent to 1106 Muscatine Avenue). The northwest
corner of the established house as well as the northwest corner of the existing mudroom are
both located within the required front setback along Washington Street. The front porch is
set entirely within the required front setback along Muscatine Avenue. The east side of the
house is set within the required 5-foot side setback.
Principal building: The applicants are proposing to remove the existing, non -conforming
mudroom (9' x 5� and replace it with a kitchen extension (14' x 4D that would be set less than
the required 5 feet from the side lot line and 11 feet from the front lot line along Washington
Street (see illustration). They are seeking a special exception to reduce the front principal
building setback from 15 feet to 11 feet and to reduce the side setback from 5 feet to 3 feet.
Accessory structure. The applicants are also proposing to build an uncovered deck on the same
side (Washington Street) of the house. The zoning code requires that uncovered decks be setback
10 feet from the front lot line and 5 feet from any side lot line. The applicants are seeking a
second special exception to reduce the required front setback for an accessory structure from
10 feet to 4 feet and the required side setback for an accessory structure from 5 feet to 3 feet.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the
most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and
enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board
may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance
with the regulations found in Section 14-2A-4B-5, pertaining to setback adjustments and the
general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3.
Specific Standards: Section 14-2A-4B-5, Adjustments to the Principal Setback
Requirements
The applicants' comments regarding each of the specific standards are included on the attached
application form. Staff Comments related to the general approval criteria are set forth below.
1. The situation is peculiar to the property: Staff finds that the situation at 1104
Muscatine Avenue is peculiar for three reasons:
9 The lot is triangular in shape, fronting on two streets.
• The lot is significantly smaller than the minimum required lot size for detached single-
family houses in the RS-8 zone (the lot is 3,400 square feet —the minimum lot size is
5,000 square feet).
• The topography of the site, with its steep grade sloping down toward Washington
Street, make the available rear yard difficult to use and inconvenient to access from
the ground level of the house, which is elevated 6 feet above the yard.
2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback standards: The
applicants are proposing to construct an uncovered deck along the rear of the house in
order to provide usable and easily accessible outdoor recreation space. As indicated in
the application (and in item 1 above), the size and shape of the subject lot limit the
amount of space available for private outdoor space. In addition the topography of the
site makes what little yard that is available difficult to use and inconvenient to access
from the ground level of the house, which 6 feet above the yard.
The existing mudroom is in poor condition and not a functional part of the ground floor
living space and blocks visual access to the rear yard from the kitchen. Also, there is
currently no laundry room on the first floor. As illustrated in the applicants' proposed
floor plan, the existing non -conforming mudroom would be replaced with a modest
extension to the existing kitchen. The proposed change improves the function of the
first floor, by allowing space for a laundry room and creating visual access to the "rear"
yard on the Washington Street side, while retaining the historic layout of the house.
3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the
setback regulations.
a. Maintain light, a1rseparation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting.
The proposed kitchen addition, as well as the proposed deck, will extend straight back
in line with the existing house, which is already established slightly within the required
5-foot side setback. Because the house is set at a slight angle with the side property
line, the principal building and deck intrude further into the required setback as you
move toward Washington Street along the side lot line. No portion of the house or
deck will extend beyond the minimum allowed 3 feet from the side lot line. Moreover,
the adjacent house at 1106 Muscatine Avenue is set 17 feet off the shared side lot line
and set slightly further back from the Washington Street frontage. Staff believes the
3-foot setback and the arrangement of the two houses on their lots will allow
adequate space to maintain light, air, and separation for fire protection and access for
fire fighting.
b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings. Staff believes the requested
setback reductions for the principal structure and deck will not diminish the
opportunity for privacy between dwellings for the following reasons: As indicated in
the application, the addition to the house is modest and will not extend beyond the
current side wall of the house. Moreover, the adjacent house at 1106 Muscatine
Avenue is set approximately 17 feet from the shared side lot line and more than the
required 15 feet from the Washington Street right-of-way. The staggered position of
the two houses along with the existing trees provide some sense of separation and
will screen a portion of the deck from view of the neighboring residence to the east.
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's
neighborhoods. There are a number of triangular and double —fronting lots along
Muscatine Avenue, between Iowa Avenue and Burlington Street. Like the property at
1104, nearly all are small lots with primary structures and accessory structures set
within the current required setbacks. Houses along the same frontage on Muscatine
Avenue are nearly all set within the required front setback, and the three nearest
houses on the opposite side of Washington Street are set closer to the front properly
line than the required 15 feet. The addition to the house increases the area of
principal building within the required setback by just 4.18 square feet. Given the
shape of the lot, this small accommodation reducing the setback from 15 feet to 11
feet seems reasonable and not out of character for the neighborhood.
The deck will be set significantly closer to the right-of-way than are any other
structures along this portion of Washington Street and will be elevated approximately
8 feet above sidewalk level. In the opinion of staff, reducing the setback to 4 feet
without some conditions to create some transition from the sidewalk, the new deck
will create a wall effect that would be out of scale with the neighborhood. At this time
a 2 1/2-foot retaining wall sits at the property line and is topped by a 3- to 4- foot
privacy fence. Staff would recommend reducing the required setback from 10 feet to 5
feet subject to removal of the privacy fence and use of open fencing or railing along
the deck and some screening of the space under the deck (i.e. lattice). Maintaining 5
feet of open space between the retaining wall and the deck, would allow adequate
space and light for establishing some landscape cover to absorb run-off. Removing the
existing fence would make the remaining portion of front setback visible and provide
some transition between the sidewalk and the elevated height of the deck.
d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between
residences. For the reasons stated in purposes "a" and "b" above, Staff believes that
the requested setback reductions would promote a reasonable relationship between
the subject property and the adjacent house lot at 1106 Muscatine .
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in vicinity. For
the reasons given above and because the neighborhood is already fully developed, the
requested setback reductions would not be incompatible with buildings in this vicinity.
General Standards: 14-4B-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. Because the request to reduce the principal
building setbacks is not contrary to the purpose of the setback requirements as described
above, and because the increase in the area of house within the setback is modest and does
not create a situation that is out of character with other houses in the immediate vicinity, Staff
believes the proposed exception will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, or general welfare.
Staff finds that reducing the setback for the uncovered deck from 10 feet to 4 feet as requested
has the potential to create a wall effect along the public sidewalk, which may be detrimental to
the public comfort. Requiring the applicant to remove the existing privacy fence will create
some open space and a sense of transition between the sidewalk and the deck. Staff
recommends setting the deck back slightly further than the requested 4 feet to 5 feet. This will
allow adequate opportunity for light and space to establish landscaping to absorb run-off and to
screen the deck footings. A measure of 5 feet is standard for in the code for spaces to establish
buffers and screening and seems appropriate in this situation.
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. As explained above, the subject lot is peculiar and
presents unique challenges, such as the lack of private yard space, that may deter reinvestment
in the property. The applicants purchased the property and are in the process of rehabilitating
the single-family home that was previously in somewhat poor condition. By providing some
reduction in the setbacks to allow a modest addition and more accessible and usable outdoor
space, staff finds they are improving property values in the neighborhood. Because the subject
property shares only one property line with another residential use, and because the
arrangement of those houses on their respective lots are staggered and screened by existing
trees, the proposed exception should not be injurious to use enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the zone in which such property is located. For the reasons given above,
and because the house is in a neighborhood that is fully developed, Staff finds that the special
exception to reduce the setbacks will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding areas.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been
or are being provided. All utilities, access, and drainage are being provided.
S. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The special exception
requested will have no impact on ingress or egress.
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.
All other aspects pertaining to the special exception appear to conform to the regulations in the
code. At the time that a building permit is issued, the applicant will need to demonstrate full
compliance with all other code requirements.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages maintaining and improving the safety and conformity of all
housing and promotes the preservation and integrity of existing single family housing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC07-00007, an application for a special exception to reduce the
required principal building setback from 15 feet to 11 feet (front) and from 5 feet to 3 feet
(rear) along the Washington Street frontage for property located at 1104 Muscatine be granted
subject to compliance with the site plan submitted.
Staff recommends that a special exception to reduce the required setbacks for an
accessory structure (uncovered deck) from 10 feet to 5 feet (front) and from 5 feet to 3
feet (side) for the same property be approved subject to removal of the existing privacy
fence, providing landscaped space between the retaining wall and screening the area
beneath the deck.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Proposed Site Plan
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
V,
W
Z
W
Q
W
Z
F
Q
U
5
S
c
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
-- SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: '/ PROPERTY PARCEL NO. /n l
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SIZE:
APPLICANT: Name: i"-hG/7 Cy' /
Address: //D 4
Phone: 3�9---3- / "
CONTACT PERSON: Name: /Lea
(if other than applicant) ,&l
Address:
Phone:
i
PROPERTY OWNER: Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address: U —
Phone:' 3 2 /— Z�/'
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(jowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception: 2e
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: - -
Application for Special Exception for 1104 Muscatine Avenue
Legal Description
CLARK & BORLANDS ADDI TION COM 46' W OF NE CORNER LOT 5 BLK 2 CLARK & BORLAND
ADDITION; W 115'; SE ALONG E LINE OF MUSCATINE AVE 88.7'; NE 78.2' TO BEGINNING
Specific Requested Special Exception:
14-2A-4B Minimum Setback requirements for Principal Buildings
14-2A-4B-5 Adjustments to Principal Building Setback Requirements
14-4C-2J Decks and Patios, Uncovered (Accessory Uses and Buildings)
14-4C-3B-4 Adjustments to Setback Requirements
Purpose of the Special Exception:
The property under consideration is located in an established neighborhood on a 3,400 square
foot triangular -shaped, double -fronting lot.
The property owner requests the reduction in the front setback for primary buildings from 15 feet
to 11 feet along the Washington Street frontage and from 5 feet to 3 feet for the side setback to
allow for the construction of a 56 square foot addition. To allow for the construction of an
uncovered deck, which will be more than 2 feet above grade, a reduction in the front setback
along Washington Street for an accessory structure from 10 feet to 4 feet and the reduction of
the side setback from 5 feet to 3 feet are requested. These setback reductions are requested
for the rear yard only.
The owners of this property, Frank and Teresa Wagner, are currently rehabilitating this former
rental property for use as an owner -occupied, single-family home. Approval of this special
exception would fulfill three of their goals for this property.
1.) Have reasonable use of the semi -private backyard through the construction of a deck
to provide a play area for their young children.
2.) Have a kitchen from which the Wagners have clear visibility of and access to the
backyard deck so they may supervise their children.
3.) Have a laundry on the main floor.
With the setbacks required by code, only 60 square feet (including the mudroom addition) of the
rear yard is buildable. In addition to its peculiar shape, the property slopes approximately 8 feet
from Muscatine Street to Washington Street. This makes accessing the modest rear yard
difficult. Furthermore, because the rear yard is about six feet below the first floor level, there is
no visual connection between the primary living area and the rear yard. However, this is the
only portion of the yard that could reasonably be developed to meet the goals of the Wagners.
The kitchen is located in the eastern quadrant of the house. The back door is located in the
kitchen and opens into a mudroom. The mudroom is unheated, uninsulated and the original
structural columns and foundation piers are severely deteriorated. The Wagners would like to
demolish this 9'-0" x 5'-0" structure and replace it with a 14'-0" x 4'-0" addition. The existing
mudroom is set two feet from the southeast side wall. The new addition would be flush with the
side wall. An additional 3 feet would be added in the northwest direction. This would increase
the area of the addition over the existing mudroom by only 11 square feet. The area that
encroaches into a setback would increase by only 4.18 square feet. However, by modern
standards, this modest increase would significantly improve the function of the house for this
family of six. Furthermore, most modern houses are designed with the kitchen, laundry room
and backyard configured like the Wagners are planning. Based on the experience of their
consultant with historic preservation, these are also alterations that are commonly made to older
homes in Iowa City. Therefore, their request is neither unusual nor unreasonable.
Specific Approval Criteria
1. The situation is peculiar to the property in questions.
Located in an older area of town, the shape and size of this property is peculiar and would
not be allowed under today's standards. The way the house is situated on the lot, results
in a small backyard, which is difficult to access. With the setbacks of the current code, 77
square feet of the existing house is located in the Washington Street setback, 15 square
feet is in the side setback and 195 square feet, including the porch, is located in the
Muscatine Avenue setback. As a double -fronting lot, no other part of the property provides
any reasonable opportunity for more private outdoor space, which is desirable since the
house will be owner -occupied. Likewise, the mudroom is structurally unsound and
requires demolition. The brick foundation piers are sinking, the columns have rotted and
been chewed on by large rodents. Any reasonable reconstruction of this modest room
would encroach into the rear and/or side setback.
2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements.
As the property currently exists, the location of the house does not comply with the
setback requirements. Any structure that would allow the reasonable use of the modest
rear yard would need to encroach into the Washington Street and side setbacks.
Furthermore, even if the mudroom were to be reconstructed in the same location and size,
it would still extend into the rear setback.
3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations.
The purpose of the setback regulations for principal buildings is:
a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting;
The distance between the houses at 1104 and 1106 Muscatine Avenue will not
change. There will be no impact on fire protection or fire fighting access.
b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings;
Privacy between the buildings will be maintained due to the location of the new
structure relative to the adjacent structure. In addition, the existing trees between the
properties will be retained.
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structure in the City's
neighborhoods,
The scale and placement of the proposed structures will not be contrary to this
purpose. They will be appropriate to the neighborhood.
d. Promote reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between
residences;
The physical relationship between the two properties will not change.
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the
vicinity.
The primary building is existing. The requested setback reduction will provide
additional flexibility which will allow the property to be more conducive for owner -
occupancy and more consistent with the use of houses in the neighborhood.
Physically, the property is compatible with the neighborhood and the proposed
alterations will not compromise its compatibility.
In addition, development standards for accessory uses and buildings "help to ensure that
accessory structures and buildings remain secondary to the principal uses and buildings;
provide for necessary access around structures, help maintain privacy to abutting lots, and
maintain open front setback area."
The accessory uncovered deck will be secondary to the primary use and building. The
addition of a deck will better provide for access of the rear yard. The privacy between the
abutting lots will be maintained and there will be no encroachment into the established
front setback area.
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to
the extent practical.
Because this house is located closer to Washington Street than the adjacent house, the
proposed structures will be next to the driveway and not the house. The existing trees will
remain and will help to screen the new deck from 1106 Muscatine. The new structures will
not encroach on the privacy of the neighbor.
5. The accessory use, building or structure 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.
This special exception will comply with this criterion.
General Approval Criteria
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
Nothing about this special exception is contrary to this criterion.
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 alignment of 1104 Muscatine with the adjacent house is such that the deck and
addition will not encroach on the privacy of the adjacent property. The property has been
substantially improved, including the replacement of the asbestos siding with fiber cement
board. All alterations have been and, if approved, will be appropriate to the historic
character of the house and neighborhood. These improvements will likely have a positive
effect on property values in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the occupancy of this house
by a family will help to stabilize the neighborhood and encourage the conversion of homes
from renter -occupied to owner -occupied.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district in which such property is located.
This historic neighborhood is well established. Although unlikely, if properties would be
redeveloped in this neighborhood the requested special exception would not have any
effect.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
There will not be alteration roads, drainage or other necessary facilities.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
There will be no change in vehicular circulation.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects
conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be
located. [Depending on the type of special exception requested, certain specific
conditions may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance with the
specific conditions required for a particular use as provided in the City Code
section 14-413 as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay
zone and applicable site development standards (14-5A through K) j
Yes.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The Comprehensive Plans supports the preservation and improvement of older houses
and neighborhoods.
2
W
-
� �
w
doW
I p Q
`
Oo¢ Flo
K¢ y ¢ w o w
4
4
,Z SL
I
— —
--
-- Novens o3anoid
\
\
I
z
\
Z)i
SI
oI0
\
3J
p
I
add,\
I
\ IN
ysb
la, x 12 ki ��"'
41,
Structure below mudroom — north corner
Stair & mudroom structure
East corner below mudroom
Mudroom interior
Northeast Elevation
Northwest Elevation
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: 2 October 2007
To: Joint Staff
From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
RE: APL07-00002 Leighton House, 932 East College Street
BACKGROUND
The property at 932 E. College Street is nonconforming in terms of density, building bulk
and parking spaces. As a non -conforming use in its current configuration it is allowed 13
roomers. In September, 1997, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance for 932 East
College Street allowing a rooming house for up to 30 residents subject to a number of
conditions, the first of which stated that the "variance being conferred specifically to
Leighton House, L.C., which will provide resident management of the rooming house
consistent with the principles outlined in the business plan for Leighton House, L.C. dated
July 1997".
The Leighton House business plan (see attachment A) spells out the owner/applicants'
intentions to provide a living environment "with the same, or greater, comfort, privacy,
security, academic support and dining facilities normally offered only by nationally affiliated
sororities." The plan indicates that the "residence hall" facility will be "staffed on a 24
hour/day basis for the purpose of monitoring safety and security." The owners proposed
themselves as resident managers citing their professional training and experience in
education, human resources, and law enforcement. The plan lays out a list of services to be
provided including professionally prepared meals, a formal business office, housekeeping
services, academic support, and transportation provided on an as -needed basis that
differentiates Leighton house from a standard rooming house. The plan also indicates that
"every effort will be made to find more secure -off-street parking when desirable."
In its findings of fact (see attachment B), the Board of Adjustment cited the "upscale,
controlled business operation" as being in the public interest of the neighborhood along with
"the van service and provision of off -site parking proposed by the applicants."
In April 2006, Todd Linden met with City staff to discuss a concept for housing the men's
track team at the subject property. The Iowa Track House plan (see attachment C) was
submitted to staff for evaluation to see if it could stand in place of the Leighton House Plan
to permit twenty roomers for the property. Under the plan, resident supervision for the
house would be provided by Davis Linden, the proposed owner's son and member of the
team, with input from an advisory council made up of other residents who would be
assigned responsibilities for various aspects of running the house. Staff responded to the
proposal in a letter (see attachment D) dated May 3, 2006, providing a list of reasons that
the Iowa Track House Plan could not be substituted for the Leighton House Plan. Staff
advised Mr. Linden that he could apply for a new variance for the property.
October 5, 2007
Page 2
The rental permit for the property at 932 East College Street expired on August 31, 2006,
and was being reviewed by the Housing Inspection Department for renewal (ALL rental
permits in Iowa City must be renewed every 2 years for multi -family structures). An
inspector had visited the property and determined that the structure was in compliance with
the requirements of the Iowa City Housing Code. However, before the permit was issued,
the department was notified by a neighboring property owner of an article that appeared in
the Daily Iowan on September 20, 2006 (see attachment E). The article consisted of an
interview with Davis Linden, a resident of the property and included information suggesting
that the Leighton House was not operating under the terms of the 1997 variance. Namely
that there was no professional resident management nor any meal service for the facility.
After reviewing the article, the senior housing official, determined that the rental permit
should be withheld as the inspector had found no indication that the house was operating
according to the terms of the variance.
In October 2006, a variance was applied for to allow up to 20 roomers with none of the
conditions of the 1997 "Leighton House" variance. Staff was invited to tour the house with
the applicants and a resident of the house. On that visit, staff did not see any evidence that
the house was being operated under the terms of the variance, nor did the applicants or
residents at any time during the variance process make any suggestion that the house was
being operated in any manner other than as an "intentional community" for the Iowa Men's
Track Team as described in the plan proposed to staff in April. On the contrary, the
applicants and residents represented the living arrangement at the house to be a co-
operative one, but an arrangement that would not be permitted under the terms of the 1997
variance. After conferring with staff, the housing inspector informed the owner that the
property was considered to be over -occupied. In absence of the variance, the property may
house up to 13 roomers. A letter notifying the property owner that the property was over -
occupied was sent on November 8, 2006.
The 2006 variance application was ultimately denied by the Board of Adjustment in
November. During the hearing, evidence was received, both orally and in writing, from the
applicants and the current residents of 932 College that defined their living arrangement as
an "intentional community", without professional supervision, transportation and off -site
parking, meal plans, or other conditions of the 1997 variance. Copies of letters received
from the residents of the house as well as oral statements made by one of the applicants
and representatives of the house taken from the hearing transcript are attached
(attachments F and G). In both their letters and statements the residents argued that
without the new variance eliminating the conditions of the business plan, the 20 residents
could not all continue to live in the house. We believe this testimony is consistent with what
was observed by staff prior to the building inspector's determination and is relevant to
whether or not the house is being managed according to the conditions of the variance.
In their application appealing of the decision of the building inspector to deny the rental
permit, the applicant has offered no evidence that the property is being managed in
accordance with the business plan.
October 5, 2007
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Leighton House Business Plan
B. Board of Adjustment Decision for the 1997 variance
C. Iowa Track House Plan dated April 2006
D. Staff letter regarding Track House Plan dated May, 2006
E. Daily Iowan article dated September 20, 2006
F. Excerpts from the transcript for the November, 2006, Board of Adjustment
G. Correspondence submitted at the November, 2006, Board of Adjustment
Application for the appeal
Correspondence submitted regarding the appeal
Approved by:
pert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
N
O
O
O
O
O
J
0-
Em
s } „
160ton J�ougt jousutgq; vian
94b1t of contmtg
General Business Description
II. The Company
III. The Market
IV. Market Research/Analysis
V. The Facilities and Services
VI. Financial Data
VII. Appendix
Itighton Juno, 'L.(C.
*Ummarp Nuo uto ip [an
GENERAL BUSINESS DESCRIPTION:
This proposed business will provide a distinctive, safe and supportive residential option
for female students attending the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa. The
business/facility will be named "Leighton House" and will be structured as a limited
corporation under the statutes of the State of Iowa.
Leighton House will be located in an existing facility at 932 E. College Street (currently a
vacant building that was most recently occupied by Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity.
The idea for this project grew out of the fact that the University of Iowa currently
provides no dormitory facilities exclusively for women. Additionally, the individuals
proposing this business have personal knowledge and experience of unacceptable housing
conditions and situations in Iowa City for the targeted female student population. There
is clearly a demonstrated need for this type of facility in the community.
The specific concept and operational plans for Leighton House are patterned after Hardin
House, a very successful, half a century old, business in Austin, Texas.
The managing partner and Director of Leighton House will be Diana Kay Leighton
Phipps. Mrs. Phipps will be assisted by her husband, John W. Phipps and will have
additional support and assistance from professional advisors and other private investors
in the project.
Itirmton gouge Joullutog JPIan (con inab...)
THE COMPANY:
Strategy: Leighton House will, primarily, meet the needs of first and second year female
students at the University of Iowa. These students would typically be of somewhat
affluent families and would, possibly, pledge a sorority during their first year of college.
It is expected that these individuals would desire to move into their respective sorority
houses beginning with their second year at U of I, if space allows. For those not
interested in joining a sorority, Leighton House will provide a similar environment with
the same, or greater, comfort, privacy, security, academic support and dining facilities
normally offered only by nationally affiliated sororities.
In so doing, Leighton House will fill an evident void in the housing options available to
female students attending the University of Iowa and will be a most attractive option to
many parents, as well as students.
Mission: Leighton House will provide, for students and families who are willing and
able to pay for premium housing: privacy, security, safety and quality dining services in
tastefully elegant surroundings and a supportive environment.
Management: Leighton House will provide on -site resident managers with 24 hour/day
staffing. The managing partners, Mr. and Mrs. Phipps, will reside in living quarters on
the first floor of the building.
Diana Kay Leighton Phipps has a Bachelors Degree and significant graduate credits in
Education. Diana has been a classroom teacher for twenty-five years. She has served on,
and taken leadership roles on, numerous committees and projects during her teaching
career. Most significantly, for this project, Diana has served as cooperating teacher or
mentor for, at least, thirty education students and student teachers. Many of these
individuals have gone on to successful teaching careers and still maintain contact with
Diana, and continue to express their appreciation for her early support and "coaching".
Diana is experienced and talented in communicating with, and positively affecting
college aged students.
John W. Phipps has a Bachelors Degree and significant graduate credits in Business
Administration. John has nearly twenty-nine years of professional experience, beginning
with over seven years in law enforcement. The balance of his experience has been in
various aspects of business with the past nineteen years focused on Human Resource
Management. John is professionally certified as a Senior Professional in Human
Resources (SPHR) and is past president of the Eastern Iowa Human Resource
Association. John has also served as Chairman of the Iowa City Area Chamber of
Uffbton joouot joullws; jPCan (routinutb... )
Commerce Human Resources Committee and was instrumental in establishing a
Supported Employment Sub -Committee in the Chamber. John is also an eighteen year
veteran leader in the Boy Scouts of America and, in that role has successfully coached
and counseled numerous teenagers into their college years and beyond.
John and Diana have reared two children, both of whom attended the University of Iowa
and personally experienced the various trials and tribulations of student housing.
Additional management support will be sought from successful entrepreneurs and
professionals in various fields, some of who may be investors and silent partners in this
business.
Itighton J�ougt joulOntog fun (touttnutb... )
THE MARKET:
The Primary Market: Residency at Leighton House will be most attractive to first year
female students attending the University of Iowa who expect to participate in sorority
rush and to pledge a sorority. These same students will probably wish to move to their
sorority house, if space is available, after their first year of college. According the
Admissions office at the University approximately 1,947 females will enroll in the fall of
1997 as freshmen. This number will increase to 2001 in 1998, 2,060 in 1999, and 2,082
in 2000. Typically 28-30% participate in the sorority rush with 20% actually pledging.
These numbers indicate those primary prospective residents for Leighton House will
number 565 in 1997, 580 in 1998, 597 in 1999, and 604 in 2000.
Because of the close proximity of the proposed Leighton House property to nine of the
largest sororities on campus, and the similarity of the residential environment, Leighton
House will present a very attractive housing option to these first year students.
The Extended Market: There is also a large extended market for the services and
facilities that will be offered by Leighton House. These include:
• Those students who did not pledge a sorority as planned.
• Those who chose not to go through rush but desire the sorority house atmosphere
without the sorority affiliation.
• Those who did pledge a sorority but were unable to move into the sorority house
because of space limitations.
• Those who pledged a sorority but who choose to live at Leighton House rather than
their sorority house.
• Other students who choose Leighton House over other housing options because of the
quality and environment.
• Summer session students will provide another source of revenue.
• Housing for special sessions and events such as Writers' Workshop, Artists in
Residence, visiting lecturers, etc. may provide yet another source of revenue during
summer months, or in the event that vacancies occur during the school year.
Itiojton *oust Jougintgg jpun (continutb...)
MARKET RESEARCH/ANALYSIS:
Research for this projectibusiness has consisted of interviews with a former, and a
current, resident of Hardin House in Austin, Texas, as well as interviews with their
parents. The Hardin House property was toured and visited several times. In addition,
officials at the University of Iowa were interviewed and relevant demographic data was
obtained about the student population. Other individuals having knowledge of and/or
experience with university housing and sorority/fraternity houses were also contacted for
input and information.
Appropriate City offices were contacted for relevant information and the properties were
inspected by a reputable general contractor and an architect for structural integrity,
historical significance and estimates for rehabilitating the properties for this use.
Naturally, the cost of residing at Leighton House will exceed the cost of University
Housing, as well as the cost of most sorority houses. This is not a concern, however, as
research has indicated a strong desire and need for this kind of facility near the University
of Iowa campus. The sixty years of experience of Hardin House demonstrates that many
parents are willing and able to pay for the peace of mind a facility like this provides them
as their daughters leave home for college. One Hardin House parent said that money is
not a concern when it comes to their daughters' comfort and security.
Itiobton J00ot Ougintog Sian (tontinutb... )
THE FACILITIES AND SERVICES:
Facilities: The floor plan of Leighton House will be professionally designed and the
construction will be completed by a skilled and reputable Iowa City construction
company. The interior design, decoration, and furnishings will be assigned to a
professional and reputable Iowa City interior designer. Emphasis will consistently be on
quality, durability, flexibility, and aesthetics. Particular attention will also be paid to
preserving the historical integrity of the buildings and restoring them to their original
appearances.
Living spaces will consist, primarily, of suites, which will include two rooms, each
housing two students with a bathroom between the rooms.
Meals will be professionally prepared and served on -site in the kitchen and dining room
located on the lower level of the residence hall. Facilities will also be provided for
students to store and prepare their own meals and snacks whenever they so desire.
Common areas will be provided for socializing, studying and welcoming guests.
The on -site managing partners/Director of Leighton House will reside in an apartment on
the first floor of the building.
A formal office will be located on the first floor of the residence hall for conducting
business, greeting visitors and for meetings. An administrative office will be located on
the lower level of the facility for the purposes of supplies storage, record files, office
machines and equipment, and work space.
The residence hall will be alarmed for smoke, fire, and unauthorized access
Services: The service to be provided by Leighton House, as detailed in previous sections
of this business plan, is to fill a void in the student housing options in Iowa City by
providing an "upscale" residence hall for female students at the University of Iowa. The
specific benefits that will be realized by Leighton House residents include:
• Privacy - rules will be strictly enforced restricting visitors and activities in the
residence hall, and particularly in the living areas of the building.
160ton ; not JIuSinto; Van (tontinutb ... )
• Security - The residence hall will be alarmed as described previously and the facility
will be staffed on a 24 hour/day basis for purposes of monitoring security and safety.
To further enhance the safety of the residents, transportation will be available on an
"as needed" basis for such things as attending night classes or for residents who may
find themselves at a party or downtown at night without safe transportation home.
Academic Support - The Director will provide coaching and counseling for residents
needing assistance with academic planning and tutoring will be arranged at an
additional cost for residents needing help with individual classes. In addition,
evening discussions and lectures will be arranged periodically on topics of interest to
the residents. A Leadership Development course will be offered to residents in
cooperation with the University.
Dining Services - A full -service, professional kitchen will be installed in the lower
level of the residence hall and meals will be prepared and served daily in the dining
room. The dining room will also be located on the lower level of the residence hall
and will be equipped and furnished to allow for buffet service, table service and self-
service. The room will be nicely decorated and furnished to provide comfortable and
enjoyable dining.
• Housekeeping Services - Common areas of the building will be cleaned daily. The
residents' bathrooms will be thoroughly cleaned weekly and the bedrooms also will
be vacuumed, dusted, etc. weekly. More frequent or thorough cleaning of the rooms
and/or laundry services can be arranged at additional costs.
Parking - Limited street parking is available for residents who bring a car to college.
Every effort will be made to find more secure off -site parking when desirable and of
course transportation will be provided to take residents to and from their vehicles.
Because of the proximity to campus and downtown, the lack of available parking on
and around campus, and the fact that the facility is located on the City bus route,
residents will not, generally, find it necessary or desirable to have a car.
• Health and Fitness - An area will be provided in the lower level of the residence hall
for exercise. Some equipment will be provided and residents will be able to provide
their own equipment, aerobic workouts, etc.. A sauna will also be available in this
area of the building.
• Quiet Environment - The environment at Leighton House will be conducive to
studying, relaxing and staying rested, all of which are necessary for good academic
performance and health. Rules will be strictly enforced restricting loud music, noisy
activities, and visitors.
160ton ; ouv jSuStnto; pun (conttnutb... )
• Fun, etc. - Although there will be rules to allow Leighton House to deliver on the
promise of safety, security, privacy, etc., undoubtedly the social and fun aspects of
college life are of significant importance. Residents will be allowed to host social
activities with agreement from the other residents and the approval of the Director.
Occasional activities such as cookouts, holiday parties, sorority officer receptions,
etc. will be planned by the staff.
While all, or some, of these features may be offered by the University, other private
facilities, and certainly to a greater extent by sororities, Leighton House will maintain
higher standards and offer more comprehensive services to it's residents.
'fit dton JDougt JOugintoo PCan (tontinutb... )
FINANCIAL DATA:
This project, as currently planned, will require $670,000.00 of capital investment before
the facility can be occupied and any revenues generated.
The capital will be raised from a combination of private investors and bank loans and will
be used to purchase the property, rehabilitate and remodel the building for the intended
use, purchase furnishings, and to landscape the property.
Annual receipts from operations are projected to be $294,000.00 with annual operating
costs of $238,300.00.
Net Profits (before taxes) are projected to be approximately $55,700.00.
See Appendix for details.
C` ffOl -2007
J
Attachment B
2
Disposition: By a vote of 0-4 on an affirmative motion, the Board denied EXC97-
0021, a special exception to reduce the rear yard setback requirement for a detached,
accessory building from three feet to four inches for the ten -foot, eight -inch length of
the storage shed for property located in the RNC-12 zone at 119 N. Governor Street.
VARIANCE ITEM:
1. VAR97-0004. Public hearing on an application submitted by John and Diana Phipps,
on behalf of property owner Gamma Omicron House Corporation of Sigma Alpha Mu,
for a density variance to permit a fraternity house to be converted into a rooming
house for 30 residents for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation
Residential (RNC-20) zone at 932 E. College Street.
Findings of Fact:
Public Interest Elements: The Board finds that the applicants' concept for renovating
and using the existing building for a rooming house for women college students
pursuant to their business plan will be less disruptive for and more compatible with
the neighborhood than replacing the building with a new structure, having the building
continue to be used as a fraternity, and/or used as an "unsupervised" rental property
for a permitted use, such as a rooming house for 13 residents or a four-plex with up
to 20 residents. The Board finds that the applicants' renovation and maintenance of
the existing, possibly key historic 1924 brick structure will meet the intent of the
RNC-20 zone to "preserve the character of the neighborhood." The applicants are
seeking to upgrade the property and to make it an attractive anchor for the
neighborhood. The proposed, extensive renovation of the structure and the
supervised living arrangement will also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
guidelines that encourage "higher density development and reinvestment in the near
downtown neighborhoods that preserves desirable neighborhood characteristics" and
creates a "desirable living environment." The upscale, controlled business operation
with resident managers will create fewer impacts on neighboring properties, such as
noise from loud parties, and is more in keeping with the spirit of the law for a
neighborhood conservation zone than potential permitted uses, which could be much
more damaging to the neighborhood and the existing historical structure. The van
service and provision of off -site parking proposed by the applicants will alleviate
parking congestion created by a 30-resident rooming house.
Tests of Unnecessary Hardship:
1. Reasonable Rate of Return. The Board finds that the applicants have
demonstrated that a density variance to permit a 30-resident rooming house is
warranted in that a lower level of density would not yield a reasonable rate of
return given the facts of the situation. The extensive renovations required to
restore the historic integrity of the structure and bring it into compliance with
city codes will require a substantial up -front captial investment. Further, the
proposed business plan, including quality, supervised housing with an
educational component and security, cleaning and cooking staff will be more
expensive to implement than standard rental housing. The proposed
"business plan" is not akin to rental housing, and justifiably requires a higher
BOOK2349PACE 195
> r
l7 - LI
3
c,-
rate of return for successful implementation. Additionally, the fraternity *use
has been vacant for over a year, and if the property could have made a
reasonable return under permitted uses, it is likely that would have already
occurred.
2. Uniqueness. The property is unique not only due to having a large building on
a relatively small lot, but also because the 1924 brick building is a contributing
structure within an older neighborhood; it is a historic structure that the
neighborhood wants to see maintained, not destroyed through disuse or razing.
The business plan proposed by the applicants provides a unique solution for
adaptive reuse of the large, older residence.
3. Landowner's Own Making. The changes in dimensional, density and parking
requirements over the years as the zoning ordinance has been amended were
not caused by the property owner or by a predecessor in title. The density
level of 30 residents will be less than the prevailing number of residents who
lived in the structure over the past seven decades as part of a sorority or a
fraternity; that is, without a variance, a fraternity or sorority could potentially
continue as a legal, nonconforming use with a prevailing density of 35-40
residents.
Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that the applicants meet the public interest
elements and have met the tests of hardship for granting a variance, in accordance
with City Code subsection 14-46-4C.
Disposition: By a vote of 3-1 with Brandt voting no, the Board approved VAR97-
0004, a variance to exceed the maximum density permitted for a rooming house in
the RNC-20 zone in order to allow the establishment of a rooming house for 30
residents for property located at 932 E. College Street, subject to 1) the variance
being conferred specifically to Leighton House, L.C., which will provide resident
management of the rooming house consistent with the principles outlined in the
business plan for Leighton House, L.C. dated July 1997; the density variance is not
applicable to any successors in title to the 932 E. College Street property, 2) any
exterior change to the residential structure requiring a city building permit requiring
approval by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, and 3) the removal of the
concrete basketball court located in front of the residence, and the installation of
landscaping in its stead.
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall
expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant
shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improve-
ment authorized under the terms of the Board's order of decision. City Code Section 14-46-
5E, City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Patricia Eckhardt, Chairperson
BCOK2349PACE 196
4
STATE OF IOWA )
1
JOHNSON COUNTY )
I, Marian K. Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of
Adjustment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the
Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 10th day of
September, 1997, as the same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this day of , 1997.
Mari K. Karr, City Clerk
Colo �=p
ppdadmin\boa9-10.doc 6
_
G1
1'
(A
'C.)
BDOK 2348PAGE 197
APR-11-2006 09:47 LEFF LAW FIRM LLP 12
Attachment C
IOWA TRACK HOUSE (Leighton House, LLQ
932 E. College Street
Iowa City, Iowa
Concept and Business Plan
April 2006
General Description and Concept:] z.�t+nq►-
In the same manner as the Leighton House, the Iowa Track House will provide a
distinctive, safe and supportive residential option for university students, howev for
members of the University of Iowa Men's Track Team. The goal is to provide an
alternative to other housing options where a large number of track team members can live
in a structured group environment, where a sense of pride and accountability will build
character and leadership skills for the occupants. A formal advisory board or "council"
(as described more fully below) will be formed to provide structure and a sense of
ownership for the men. Although not formally tied to the University, the "team" concept
will offer occupants a key affinity to one another and thus create the opportunity for a
tradition of pride, responsibility and continuity from class to class.
The lease agreement will be very detailed and comprehensive to set the stage from the
beginning for a structured living environment. Included in the lease will be a formal set
of rules (including a crime free addendum) which will be strictly adhered to and enforced,
Further, the advisory council will establish additional house rules and self -governance
that will foster the accountability necessary for the Iowa Track House to be successful.
Parents will be required to sign an addendum, accepting responsibility for their son's
adherence to the lease agreement.
The owner (Todd Linden) of the facility is in his eighteenth year as a hospital chief
executive officer and is a graduate of the University of Iowa, as was his father (Charles R.
Linden). The owner is a member of the Advisory Board for the University of Iowa's
College of Public Health, was recognized with the College's "Outstanding Alumni
Award" in 2004 and is an adjunct faculty member. He has also established a scholarship
fund for the College's Department of Health Management and Policy to honor his father,
The owner currently lives in Coralville with his wife Kellie and two children (Coco and
Grant), The Linden's eldest son (Davis Linden) represents a third generation of
University of Iowa attendees and is a member of the Iowa Track and Field Team. He will
be the live-in manager of the facility and will be appointed president of the advisory
council. He will be ultimately responsible for the day-to-day management the Iowa
Track House.
_ &'V
APR-11-2006 09:47 LEFF LAW FIRM LLP 319 338 6902 P.03
Unlike the Leighton House, the plan will be to provide the occupants primarily single
occupant rooms. Only one double is currently planned. W,Nineteen student athletes will be
the inaugural occupants of the facility. Meals will be provided in a group setting at least
7 four evenings per week. Facilities will also be available for occupants to prepare their
own meals (primarily breakfast), Most of the occupants have meal plans at the
�n University for lunch.
Common areas will be provided for socializing, studying, and welcoming guests. The
building will be secured 24 hours per day and the building is protected with a centrally
alarmed smoke and fire detection system. The building and grounds will be maintained
as a "tobacco free" environment. As student athletes, the occupants have access to the
University's exercise facilities. Space will also be provided on -site for fitness activities.
The occupants also have access to the student athlete academic support services provided
at the Leavitt Center of the University, and the students will be encouraged to utilize
? these services. In addition upper Glassman will be available to provide support to
. � younger occupants. Few of the occupants have automobiles which will facilitate the
r1� W relatively restrictive on -site parking available.
Included in the responsibilities of the advisory council will be to: plan social events,
parent's weekends and community service projects. Further, the council will elect
leadership to manage the meal plan and utility budget, enforce rules, and facilitate the
cleaning schedules. ,Again, the goal of this structure is to provide an opportunity to learn
leadership skills and an overall sense of accountability, pride and ownership.
The budget for the Iowa Track House is set up to be a low -margin, essentially breakeven
operation. Because most members of the track and field team are not on scholarship, yet
train and compete virtually the entire academic year (thus minimizing the ability for part-
time jobs), the goal is to provide a low-cost housing option to these highly price -sensitive
students. The key to success is a very low vacancy rate, perpetuated through maximizing
the "team" effect.
Leadership Approach:
Each occupant serves as a director on the Iowa Track House Counsel and is paid a
annual stipend. The Council elects a vice president (responsible for managing the food
and cleaning service), a treasurer (responsible for collecting rent and managing the
utilities budget), and two sergeants at arms (responsible for enforcing house
rules/cleaning schedule). The owner appoints a president (responsible for paying bills
and overall management responsibilities), Ile president shall be entitled to a
management fee and each officer shall be provided an annual stipend for their services.
The Council is responsible for proposing house rules to the owner, planning social
functions and community service projects, discipline for rules violations, and planning
parent's weekend, etc. Activities surrounding the Council would be suitable for resume
building for students and are intended to build accountability and pride into the project.
1
APR-11-2006 09:48
LEFF LAW FIRM LLP
319 338 6902
P.04
Conclusion:
77
The key to this project is "Inc team effect ! All aspects of this new chapter U1 the
Leighton House are intended to mirror the aspects of the original business plan, with the
exception of it being a women's dorm. Particular emphasis will be put on building and
maintaining a reputation as a wonderful neighborhood partner.
TOTAL P.04
FILE COPY
May 3, 2006
Mark Danielson
222 S Linn Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: 932 E. College St.
Dear Mark:
Attachment D
MJM p �
.as._
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.lcgov.org
Presented below are our interpretations of the Iowa Track House as it relates to the
Leighton House business plan.. We have concluded, based upon the differences in the
two plans, that the Iowa Track House cannot just step into the Leighton House variance
and establish itself at 932 E. College Street. Iowa Track House can pursue a variance
before the Board of Adjustment to enable its use of the property.
Basic differences between the Leighton House Business Plan and the Iowa Track Team
Business Plan:
Leighton House provided for on -site adult live-in management. Track House does not.
Instead it will have a governing board made up of residents with a resident student
acting as house manager. The Leighton House plan emphasized the credentials of the
live-in managers citing their years of experience in management, enforcement and
education. The Track House plan emphasizes the credentials of the proposed owner
which are considerable; however, this person will not be living at the house.
The targeted market is very different between the two plans. Leighton House was to be
a very upscale women's dormitory and the Iowa Track House is meant to be affordable
housing for members of the men's track team at the U of I. The distinction between
men and women cannot be a legal consideration of the Board and does not impact our
determination. Likewise, the cost difference is not key to our determination. However,
the organizational structure implied by a dormitory model does contrast with the less
structured model of a team living together as the model for co -habitation and presents a
distinct and material difference between the two plans.
The Leighton House provided a full meal plan for its residents. The Iowa Track House
plan is a little vague. It states at least 4 meals will be provided during the week but it
doesn't say by whom. Presumably the residents would share responsibility for meal
preparation. Again, this component emphasizes the less structured environment that
the Track House would have in comparison to the Leighton House.
Leighton House addressed the parking issue by stating that transportation would be
provided on an "as needed" basis. They would transport students back from parties or
from downtown and would try to find other off street parking facilities for residents with
May 3, 2006
Page 2
cars. The Track House plan just says that few occupants will have cars. That is not
quantifiable and does not address the issue of parking.
The Leighton House plan stated that academic support would be provided for its
residents. While the Track House plan delineates its emphasis on cultivating leadership
skills, it does not address academic support except that it is provided by the University
generally to student athletes.
Leighton House provided housekeeping services whereas in the Track House plan
there seems to be no provision for such.
Rules enforcement is very lightly mentioned in the Track House plan. Leighton House
emphasized that rules would be strictly enforced. Evidently, the owner of the Iowa Track
House has addressed rules and violation procedures in his lease agreement; however
this lease is not included as part of the plan.
We hope this provides you with some guidance as to our determination. Please feel
free to contact us if you have any questions or wish to discuss this further.
Sincerel*Karn
in
Director, Planning
ann Ream
Code Enforcement
S—arah Holecek
First Asst. City Attorney
Home cooking bonds Hawk runners - Sports
Page 2 of 5
Home > Sports
Home cooking bonds Hawk runners
Alex Johnson - The Daily Iowan
Attachment E
Issue date: 9/20/06 Section: Sports
Knowing chemistry is important. Don't mix baking soda and vinegar, or it will bubble all over the place.
But mix some sodium and chloride, and the solution is a success.
OK, so Iowa men's cross-country isn't table salt, but its chemistry is equally effective.
The team atmosphere, as coach Larry Wieczorek puts it, is one of its best-selling points for recruiting.
But how do the Hawkeyes develop that climate?
Look at the northwest corner of Summit and College Streets. That's the cross-country team's version of a
laboratory. It's the perfect place for the team to mix and bond.
Inside the house is more than just a building with a patio covered in mopeds and a few grills. It's a home.
With 12 cross-country team members, four more tracksters, and three more to fill the rooms, the vibe is
relaxing, and truly emanates the team's atmosphere.
A pool table sits right in the main room, along with a nicely sized television and sofas.
As house president Davis Linden said, you can hear pool balls from 5 in the morning until well after
midnight. He also said a pool tournament is in the works - brackets and everything.
The top two floors hold most of the rooms, all singles - save one double. There's also a set of suites on
the main floor.
Head downstairs, and there's one of the most important rooms in the house, the dining area.
"We're actually organizing house dinners [every Thursday]," Linden said. "Guys who aren't doing
anything will come back and make pots of pasta and hang out downstairs."
It only makes sense the team members eat together, given that they do everything else the same way.
"We're up at 6 o'clock running together on morning runs, every day," Linden said. "We go to practice
together, every day."
But like all good science, the team - and the house - need to be organized.
"We set up our own system of government. We have a president, vice president, and speaker of the
house," Linden said. "We have monthly house meetings where we talk about house issues."
He may not run on the cross-country team, but he's a part of the track squad, and at Iowa, they're almost
one in the same, at least to the housemates.
http://media.www. dailyiowan. comlmedialstoragelpaper599/newsl2006/09/20/SportsIHome... 9/ 14/2007
Home cooking bonds Hawk runners - Sports Page 3 of 5
"I run with the guys every day," he said. "I just don't run meets."
It only makes sense he'd be the president. After the last few house situations fell through, he turned the
idea of a group house into a reality.
"After that, I wanted to get more people in a house," Linden said. "So, I started looking around at a little
bit bigger houses ... and then we ran into this, and we instantly fell in love with the place."
Everything fell into place.
"We got everybody over here, and they all liked it, so one thing led to another," he said. "And we got
everything set up, and we've been here since Aug. 1, and we're working on buying it, right now."
The team's housing is unique. Just ask him.
"We tried to ask as many other cross-country teams and other teams if they have anything like this," he
said. "And as far as we can figure, we're the only team in the nation that has something like this for any
sport."
With a house that feels like a fraternity, no wonder there's good chemistry.
E-mail DI reporter Alex Johnson at:
alexander-j-johnson@uiowa.edu
Further reading:
The men's cross-country lineup s set at the top but click here to see why there's a battle brewing lust below the elite three.
Page 1 of 1
Article Tools
Share:
. Facebook
. Blogger
. del.icio.us
. newsvine
Subscribe:
. My Yahoo!
. Goo le
Be the first to comment on this story
. Name: (required)
http://media.www.dailyiowan.comlmedialstoragelpaper599/newsl2006/09l20/Sports/Home... 9/ 14/2007
Attachment F
J
been a sorority, a fraternity, and a private dormitory. Regardless of ownership, the form and function of the
home has been consistent. In an attempt to control density and congestion, the current zoning legislation
uses an arbitrary mathematical formula based upon lot size. That is a rational and highly effective method
to determine occupancy rates for new construction. That formula, however, is grossly unfair when used to
calculate the occupancy rates for existing buildings. New construction can be built to control the costs in
relation to occupancy permit. Existing buildings do not have that opportunity. Many communities use
square footage of living area to determine the fair occupancy rate for existing buildings. Calculating living
area for buildings that the staff selected for comparatives, you see immediately that 932 East College Street
provides succ significantly more living space per occupant, even with 20 tenants. Notice also that when
parity is applied, 932 East College Street is never below 24 occupants and can go as high as 41. That's
more than double the number we're requesting. If we look at every rooming house in the City, the picture
is much the same. Only a small minority of these 65 rooming houses offers more square footage per
occupant. I'll give you an opportunity to look at those.
Sandra Hudson: This demonstrates that 932 East College Street faces hardship, not only in relation to
similar properties in the neighborhood but in relation to similar properties City wide. When you reduce the
number of occupants for an existing building, an immediate hardship results, because it's impossible for the
owner to correspondingly reduce the size of the existing structure. The size of the structure carries with it
inherent costs of operation. I'm going to spend some considerable time talking about the costs of
operations. There's a reason Gillette gives away razors. They make money selling blades. Your
significant costs are for operations. Hewlett-Packard printers are relatively cheap. They make money
selling ink cartridges. Again, your significant costs are for operations. Several years ago, we were given
the opportunity to buy the Body by Fisher summer estate in New Hampshire, with a picture postcard view
of Mount Washington for only $250,000. When we examined the financials, we didn't buy. The cost of
operations was more annually than the purchase price. In each of these examples, I've tried to demonstrate
the difference between purchase price and the cost of operations. The purchase price is one-time cost.
Operations are on -going month after month. Every building has costs of operation that do not adjust with
occupancy rates. The maintenance of the building's envelope, the electrical and plumbing systems, and
insurance are some examples. When an existing building has fewer occupants than it was designed to
serve, it is certain that the owners will face financial hardship. The owner does not have the option of
cutting the existing building down to size. It is important for neighbors to realize they will share in this
hardship. With inadequate income for operations, maintenance will be deferred. This property is already
beginning to show some deferred maintenance, and it has recently been renovated. Responsible tenants are
less likely to rent properties that are not well maintained. Less responsible tenants move in. This
frequently causes problems in the neighborhood. The property owner is not likely to be responsive to
neighborhood concerns. He will not evict the tenant; he cannot afford the loss of rent. This scenario
should sound familiar. I'm suggesting there was a direct correlation between the prior condition of 932
East College Street and the problems the neighborhood experienced. If an occupancy rate of 13 is
implemented, the majority of the line items associated with operations will not change, but the income will
be reduced by 35%. That clearly creates financial hardship. No property can be expected to yield
reasonable rate of return with a one-third reduction of the income it was built to generate. Pre -renovation
floor plans of this building indicate the building was built with 22 bedrooms. At that point of time and in
history, double occupancy was common. I have floor plans for you to inspect if you desire. An occupancy
rate of 20 is lower than the occupancy rate the building was built to serve, lower than what it's been
throughout most of its history and lower than every comparable property in the City. Allowing pre-existing
pattern to continue will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Failing to do so, however, is
very likely to cause a downward spiral for this property and have long-term negative impact on the
essential character of the neighborhood. This property cannot yield a reasonable turn if zoning codes are
applied retroactively, which reduced the number of occupants this building was built to serve.
Sandra Hudson: This entire discussion demonstrates the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself,
specifically the formula used to calculate occupancy rate. Staff report states although it is true that changes
in the dimensional, density and parking requirements were not caused by the property owner or a
predecessor in title, the current owners' decision to invest in the property based on the 1997 business plan
was of their own making. The inequities that have impact this property are the result of zoning. They have
nothing to do with any action or inaction of private, prior owners. The portion of the statement, which I
have underlined, supports our position. We are pleased staff agrees. The Board of Adjustment in 1997 also
agreed. Quote, the changes in dimensional, density, and parking requirements over the dears as the zoning
ordinance has been amended, were not caused by the property owner or by the predecessor in title, end of
quote. The staff report states the applicant's property is located in a part of the City where there are an
average, where there is an evident shortage of both on and off-street parking. The property may be used to
house up to 13 roomers, yet provided only two off-street parking spaces. The applicants have made no
provision to address the additional parking demands created by additional roomers. In 1997, the Board of
Adjustment granted the current variance for 30 occupants for a building on the condition a shuttle be
provided. That service is now being provided by the City. The downtown shuttle comes within two blocks
of the property. There is also bus service. The Seventh Avenue and Westport bus comes to the corner of
East College Street and Summit Street, where this building is located. The increased number of
automobiles in the neighborhood has not been caused by past or present owners of the building. The
automobile is a societal problem. The increased number of automobiles in the neighborhood is primarily
the result of increased use of automobiles since 1924, especially in the past 30 years, an increased number
of automobiles due to the increase in the number of dwelling units that are the result of single-family
conversions to multi -family units, and the construction of apartment buildings. We have shown that 932
East College Street has maintained its original form and function since it was built in 1924, and therefore,
is far less of a contributing factor to the parking problem than the majority of its neighbors. This large
building, with its small lot, predated all zoning and the preponderance of automobiles. It is physically
impossible to retroactively meet current codes. The neighborhood has not enacted all of the collective
options available to address the parking problem. We mentioned two, not for debate, but to illustrate that
there are at least two more equitable ways to solve the problem, residence stickers for cars belonging to
residents in the neighborhood, with temporary dashboard permits for guests. Selected streets made one-
way, allowing parking on both sides of the street, thereby increasing the number of parking spaces
available in the neighborhood.
Sandra Hudson: The 19 members of The University of Iowa track team who occupy the building have only
six cars. We do not assume that this will necessarily be true in the future. However, we do believe an
intentional community will be more likely to share automobiles and therefore result in fewer automobiles
than the 13 -independent residents. In closing, when we first looked at 932 East College Street, it was for
the purpose of converting the building to condominiums. We did not know at that time the building was in
a historic conservation district. We changed our minds when we discovered the building was exceptionally
well designed as an intentional community residence and had been recently renovated. We pointed out
earlier that intentional community residences that have significant square footage devoted to communal
area are no longer being built. The number of existing buildings of this type are rare, and in this condition,
even rarer. We also discovered it was the home of a number of University of Iowa track team members.
They are excellent stewards of the building, as those of you who attended the open house can attest to that.
They are goal setters and highly motivated to achieve in both sports and academics. We want to provide a
living environment that will help them be the best they can be. This group of young men provides the
neighborhood with an excellent opportunity to gain added vitality. If we are wel, if they are welcomed as
neighbors, those who remain in Iowa City follow graduation may want to stay in the neighborhood and buy
a multi -family home and return it to an owner -occupied single. We have shown 13 occupants will result in
an underfunded, an underfunding for 932 East College Street and place the building and the neighborhood
on a downward spiral. Tonight there is an opportunity to encourage stabilization for the neighborhood and
the building by supporting a variance for 20 occupants and becoming proactive to ensure the members of
the UI track team want to remain as your long-term neighbors. The community has been given a gift. It's
time to say thank you by providing the variance created and create a healthy future for both the building
and the neighborhood. And I want to repeat, I will appreciate if you will look at my application, my
documents, and not be confused by previous documents that have nothing to do with what I am saying.
Thank you.
John Hudson: I'm John Hudson, a co -applicant. I'd like to read into the record two letters from people
who are unable to be here tonight. One is from Patricia Eckhardt, a PhD architectural historian who at one
time was the chair of this Board of Adjustment. And she addresses it to the Board of Adjustment. Dear
members, John and Sandra Hudson would like to purchase the property at 932 East College Street. They
need your help to do so. This property was granted a temporary zoning adjustment in 1997 to allow a
Wright: I would move a five-minute recess.
Alexander: Second.
Leigh: All in favor, aye.
Leigh: Resuming the the meeting, is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this variance? All
right.
Davis Lyndon: Hello, my name is Davis Lyndon, and I am the current contracted manager of the 932 East
College Street house. I am 21 years of age and by all definitions a legal adult in this country. I currently,
I'm currently a junior in The University of Iowa, attending the Tippe College of Business. I am majoring
in management. And I'm the fourth generation Hawkeye. I love The University of Iowa. I love the City
of Iowa City. I like to do anything that I can to help support it. Upon graduation from the Tippe College of
Business, I will be applying to the MHA program, which is the masters of hospital administration. I would
be the third generation of my family to be the students of the MHA program. My father and my
grandfather were both graduates of the program, and I think it's a wonderful thing for this community to
have.
Davis Lyndon: To first address the issue of live-in management, this is an excerpt from my letter that I
saved from the house guys that had written a letter. I will address this issue real quick. To me this is a very
hurtful argument. How can we how can a group of guys not manage themselves. There are seven of us
that will be 21 by December 31' of this year. Everyone living in the house is above the age of 19. One of
us has been called up to for active service to serve his country in Iraq in March. Sixteen of us are on The
University of Iowa's track and field team and cross country teams. The track, the cross country team has
the highest GPA of male athletics organizations on campus. I tried to get that information available to you
but with our athletic advisor, the University and NCAA has certain guidelines that they will not allow us to
divulge divulge that information, but we have been told that from our athletic advisor. One of us has
returned from China in August after representing our country in the junior world championships, where he
placed fourth in the world. One of us is an All -American in the in the 10,000 meter race. With all this
information, how can a group of young men who are being called up for active service, among the top
athletes not only in the nation but in the world and a part of the Big Ten athletics organization, not find a
way to govern ourselves in a way that co -exists with the established neighborhood.
Davis Lyndon: We have an established house government with three positions: the president, the vice
president, and speaker of the house that serve every function that we have come acrossed. We are currently
organizing an advisory council to ease the concerns of this matter with the self -run government. A person
from every age group in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s will be compiled to meet and help with house
meetings and help resolve any issues that might arise.
Davis Lyndon: When I was looking for a place for us to live last year after living on Iowa Avenue for the
year, my goal was establish a place that we could run that we could live and establish the life of a student
athlete, specifically the life of a runner, which is one of our favorite, our coach's favorite quotes that he has.
And I thought this really came together this past weekend when our house qualified for the NCAA national
cross country meet this past weekend. We will be our house will be representing The University of Iowa
and the community of Iowa City next Monday at the NCAA national cross country meet. I am extremely
proud of my housemates. I think we're off to a great start: athletically, academically and neighborly.
Academically like I said before we have one of the highest continually highest GPAs on campus of male
student athletes. Athletically, as I said before, we just qualified for the NCAA national cross country meet,
which is a huge step for our organization. We've qualified for the past three of, four of the past five years
and the last three years consecutively. And also neighborly, we've tried to reach out to the community.
We don't wanna shut ourselves off from the community. We tried to reach out, had an open house. I've
gone around personally three times to let people know who we are, what our mission is, to get to know the
community and bring them in, and basically embrace and become a part of the existing neighborhood.
With that said, I'm asking you to please support our variance request so that we can continue to establish a
Attachment G
To whom it may concern,
My name is Davis Linden and I may have the most understanding of our house's current
situation. I have had several conversations and meetings with all sides involved. I would like to
first state that there are neighbors that have been kind to us. Although it may seem like it not
everyone in the neighborhood is against our living here. There have been a limited amount of
houses in the neighborhood who have taken the time to talk with us and do support what we are
trying to accomplish. With that said I would like to address the three biggest concerns that have
been expressed to me time and time again from the neighbors.
1.) Parking - The issue of parking seems to be the biggest concern of the neighborhood. Several
solutions have been brought up to which neither side can come to common ground. Currently we
have 6 vehicles. We car pool almost everywhere that we go. Because the majority (16/19) of us
are on the track team this is very convenient. Also we have 5 mopeds that we use in place of a car
that would otherwise be parked on the street. The neighborhood has brought the issue up that
there is an over crowding of the streets and that there are never any open spots to park. I would
like to address this in two ways. First, there has been very few occasions, football Saturdays
mostly, that we cannot find a place to park within one block in any direction. Second, if there are
a limited number of places to park how can the street be overcrowded? Living so close to a major
Big Ten university that recently had its largest ever freshman class it is to be expected that where
there is a place to park some one will park there.
2.) Transportation - Personally this holds no barring to anyone living in the house. We never
expected for there to be a van to transport us around campus. We have enough cars for us to get
to class, practice and occasionally the grocery run. If it would please the neighbors we can park a
rusty old van in our on site parking and never drive it. However that would add to the issue of on
street parking.
3.) Live in management - This to me is a very hurtful argument. For the neighbors who have
issues with us living here, who have not once made an effort to get to know us, who did not
attend our open house, who have ignored my repeated attempts to answer any question about us,
this is an invalid argument. How can we not manage our selves? Seven of us will be 21 by
December 31 of this year. Everyone living in the house is above the age of 18.One of us has
been called up to serve this country in Iraq in March. Sixteen of us are on the University of
Iowa's Track and Field team. Who by the way has the highest GPA of male athletes on campus.
One of us returned from China in August after representing our country in the Junior World
Championships, where he placed fourth in the world. And one of use is an All -American in the
10,000 meter race. How can a group of young men who are being called up for active service,
among the top athletes not in the nation but the world, and apart of a Big Ten athletics
organization not find a way to govern themselves in a way that co -exists with the established
neighborhood? We have an established house government with 3 positions that serve every
function that we have come across. We are currently organizing an advisory counsel to ease the
concerns with this matter. A person from every age group, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 years of age
will be compiled to meet with us and help the house with any and all matters that might arise.
I have been very patient with the neighborhood and the issues that they have brought forth. I
understand where they are coming from with prior groups that have lived here I would act the
same way. However, the neighborhood has discriminated against us since we moved in. Very
little effort has been given to getting to know us and how we can help the neighborhood. I
believe that the stigma of us being a fraternity has scared some people. This is and should not be
an issue. We are not a fraternity in the literal since. We are however a group of young men who
share a common goal and purpose. We strive every day to accomplish our goals and dreams. We
rely on our brothers to help us and support us. The neighbor's who have spoken out against us
have repeated time and time again that they understand and believe we are a good group of men.
And that it is not us they are fighting but the house. How can they not be fighting us? If we are
such good neighbors who have not caused any problems then how are we a nuisance to the
neighborhood? Personally I would want such "great neighbors" as we have been called to live
next to me.
Please give sincere effort in deciding on where the 19 men of 932 E. College Street will live not
only next year but for the remaining part of this. It would be a tragedy for 6 of us to have to move
out by December 31'. This late in the year it would be impossible for adequate housing to be
found. The unnecessary stress that this has caused is unexplainable.
Sincerely,
(J) CV4
Davis Linden
To whom it may concern,
Hello, my name is Daniel Peoples and I am a resident of 932 E. College St. This
letter is in regards to the up coming meeting about our application for a variance. As a
house we have tried to reach out to the neighborhood and in most cases have received the
negative a negative response. We have gone out and tried to meet the neighbors but most
were unwilling to even talk to us. Recently we held an open house so that the
neighborhood could come and meet us and see our living situation. The neighborhood
responded by not turning out.
Personally I have herd many complaints from the neighborhood. One of there
complaints is that we are fraternity like. Our house is far from that. We are a group of
guys who have similar life styles working together to have the best living situation
possible. We do not have large parties or require are residents to perform idiotic acts to
live here. We are a group of responsible student athletes working towards athletic and
Academic success. Also to make that claim that we refer to ourselves as "Fraternity like"
would me that the neighbors have met us and that is not the case. Another claim that the
neighborhood has made is that we are taking up to much parking. I personally find that
claim false, because I drive almost daily, and never have trouble finding parking within
one block of my residency. We have nineteen residents and six cars, two of which park
in our driveway. There are other houses in our neighborhood that have more residents or
close the same number of residents. The Alpha Phi house just down the street has a
parking lot but I consistently see five to ten of there cars parked on the street. Most of
our residents ride scooters or bikes, all of which are parked on our property.
This situation has been very stressful to my housemates and me. We have caused
no trouble in the neighborhood and have tried to be friendly, respectful neighbors. We
our very happy with our living situation and it has had a positive effect on our growth as
a team. This living situation helps us to hold each other accountable for what we need to
accomplish and that is academic and athletic success. We our not normal college
students, our lives do not revolve around going to the bars and throwing house parties. I
feel like the neighborhood is judging us on past experience. This is not fair to us, we
made every effort to become part of the neighborhood, but have not been given the
chance to become part of the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Daniel Peoples
To Whom It May Concern:
I request your immediate attention in regards to the variance applied for by the owner of
the dwelling at 932 East College Street. As one of the 19 residents of this dwelling, I feel that it
would be a great disservice to the neighborhood surrounding College and Summit Streets to deny
a variance for us fine young adults to live there.
As you may know, most of the residents of the 932 College Leighton House are members
of the University of Iowa Track and Field team. As members of the team, our responsibilities
stretch much further than those of a regular student at the University. As dedicated student -
athletes, we have achieved the highest honors available to our sport- bids to the NCAA
Championships- in three consecutive years.
I tell you of our success not to ask for your congratulation, but rather your understanding.
Without extreme dedication in both the classroom and on the roads, we would not have been
successful over the last three years like we were. The dedication I speak of pertains, mostly, to
the fact that we do not live the lives of regular college students. While 80 percent of the
University of Iowa is stumbling downtown on Friday and Saturday evenings, the residents of 932
East College are nowhere to be seen- they're either on the road representing the University (and
city of Iowa City) at an athletic competition, or inside their beautiful house cramming for exams
in majors ranging from accounting to medicine.
If denied the opportunity to live in this neighborhood, the residents at our dwelling would
be forced to split up all over Iowa City and it would be a travesty to see such an amazing house
go empty because of some angry, spiteful residents of a few houses. The reasons presented as to
why not to accept a variance at our residence are sketchy at best- we have tried our best to not
only please the neighbors, but rather to go beyond and above their expectations as neighbors.
They want nothing to do with us. If this small area is representative of the entire residency of
Iowa City (which I believe, and hope, to be untrue) I would think twice about living here
following the culmination of my education. I always pictured Iowa City as a great place to raise a
family- but if residents who just want a place to live are treated with such blatant discrimination,
what can I expect for my future family years down the road?
The residents at 932 East College are not a nuisance to the community- rather, we have
done our best to be an asset that makes this area of Iowa City a very desirable place to live. As a
team, we have done numerous community service projects; ranging from building playground
equipment for children to painting halfway -houses. We represent this community, this school,
and this state the only way we know how- with pride and honor.
Please look past the resident's obvious hatred and bias against college students and
realize that, regardless of what they say, we are adults. We have hosted open houses to try and
get to know our neighbors, only to be completely ignored. There is nothing else short of moving
out that we can do to please them; so please, do not make us take that route. We will continue,
regardless of the outcome of your upcoming recommendation, to be great neighbors and great
citizens of Iowa City. It would be a shame to make us go to other places within the city when you
have a goldmine of amazing young men asking to be part of this small neighborhood.
Thank you for your time,
Michael Stout
Dear Board of Adjustments,
I am writing in regard to the pending variance revision of 932 East College Street. The
Leighton House creates an atmosphere with opportunities that enhance its residents' pursuit of
excellence in their academic and athletic pursuits. The current residents of the Leighton House
are confident that they have lived in a manner that is in no way detrimental to the neighborhood
and are confident that they will not waiver in continuing to do so.
The Leighton House enables several members of the Iowa track and field team to live
together. This enhances the team dynamics and makes transportation to practices much easier.
Several residents have found the downstairs common area an excellent area for quite study. The
opportunity to live with fellow student -athletes working toward academic and athletic success is
a great opportunity that will increase our ability to contribute positively to the University.
I also believe that our presence being construed a disturbance to the neighborhood seems
unjust. The Leighton House is in an area with several apartments. I do not believe that the
majority of the residents of the various apartments are waking up at 6 a.m. to practice. Nor are
they making the many social sacrifices that student -athletes are forced to make to compete.
While many typical college students spend their Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights out late
downtown or partying at their residence, student athletes spend many of these same nights on the
road preparing for competition. If there is a concern that Leighton House residences will create
inappropriate noise or behavior in the neighborhood, then there should be equal concern for the
college -aged residents of the many apartments in the area.
I also believe that the neighborhood has no right to restrict Rob Phips, in trying to
become a successful landlord. This house was not created to have 13 residences in it. Under the
current variance to make a financial gain as a landlord is almost impossible.
The alternative residents for the Leighton House may not be as agreeable and
accommodating as the current ones. Leighton House has housed Greek Life systems in the past.
In which many more residents lived here. There are many other athletic teams at the University
of Iowa who have much longer off seasons and would be much more tempted to indulge in
disruptive activities.
I have also heard of little if any receptive gestures by the neighborhood toward the
Leighton House. Perhaps, the negative expectations of our inhabitance of the Leighton House
have not provided an objective view on the situation. I believe that we have conducted ourselves
in a way that is proof that we can be a positive contributor to this neighborhood and deserve the
opportunity to receive a variance that will allow us to continue to live in an environment that will
allow us to develop into successful men.
Sincerely,
Andrew Napier
To Whom It May Concern:
Let me begin with, living in this house has truly been a blessing to my teammates
and I this past year. Not only has it provided a place to live but also a place to thrive. It
has also been a blessing I know to the non -runners who live with us as it provides them
with the same atmosphere. Living all together has been extremely helpful because of the
similar lifestyles we all share as teammates. Everyday we are up around 6am and meeting
our coach for our morning workouts. Not having to deal with noise from neighbors the
night before has helped exponentially and the study environment has helped our team
establish the highest team GPA on campus. In addition, all living together has provided
us the ability to carpool together to the practice facility everyday. The environment in the
house is amazing as we are able to have team dinners and really establish a team
chemistry that is truly unique as described in the Daily Iowan's article on this house. It
has also been a blessing I know, to the non -runners who live with us, as it provides them
with the same atmosphere. Namely David Knowles who also has to be up early working
for the hospital, going to school, and fulfilling his duty to the army before he is going to
be deployed in Iraq this coming March. All of us on the team come from different parts
of the country and different homes yet we come together and so I thought if we could
come together we most surely could fit in with the neighborhood.
Initially upon moving in I thought our team would really fit in well with the
neighborhood. For reasons such as our atmospheres are very similar in that we do not
want to be disturbed by a loud and wild house next door. Also, parking would not be an
issue as only 6 of us have cars so open spaces would be easy to find around the house. As
of this point, we have not had one noise violation or disturbance call and parking has not
been a problem except on days when there are Iowa football games in which it is to be
expected. Although, however respectful we have been and how hard we have tried to
reach out to our neighbors we have only been given the cold shoulder. We have been
yelled at by our neighbor John Morrison for things that we cannot control such as the
time our garbage is picked up. It was truly astonishing though to see how the neighbors
responded to us going around and knocking on their doors to invite them to our open
house to get to know them better. Esther Baker stood in the glass doorway and would not
even open her door to us to speak to us. Numerous instances occurred such as this one
where they would look through their windows and not even open their doors to us. We
have done nothing to warrant this behavior but reach out a kind hand to them. I find this
extremely frustrating as I feel like we are not accepted for reasons we can not control. It
has been extremely stressful as I now have to try to find a place to live among studying
for my finals, and getting ready to compete in the biggest competition of the year for our
team at nationals this coming Monday.
I only ask that the petty neighborhood differences and politics with our past
landlord whatever they may be, be put aside when making your decision and you look at
our record as how respectable, polite, and how hard we have tried to reach out to the
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
A-4� W-A
Alex Webster
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to ask that you approve the new variance that has been proposed for
932 E College Street. As you probably know, the residents of the house are primarily
part of the University of Iowa Track and Cross Country team and this house provides the
team the unique opportunity to live together. I am one of the few that live in the house
that are not a part of the team, this gives me an outside perspective on the many benefits
that a housing opportunity like this provide to the team. During the seasons that Track
and Cross Country runners compete in (which is almost the entire school year), the team
pledges to be dry. The house at 932 E College Street allows the team to make sure that
members are holding up to this agreement. Last year I also lived with some of the older
Cross Country runners and they were always worried that the underclassmen were not
living a lifestyle that is conducive to a college athlete. This year there is little in question,
all of the runners in the house have held up their end of the agreement and I believe that
this has helped spark a great season out of the team.
It has come to my attention that some of the neighbors might be weary of the
approval of the new variance, stating that we may be a nuisance to the neighborhood, and
I find this very surprising considering that we live in an area that is comprised mostly of
college apartments that are at times extremely loud. Since I moved in last August, I have
not been aware of a single complaint from anyone in the neighborhood directed towards
the house. I believe that most of the opposition that is being met has to do with people
thinking that we are no different than a fraternity moving in next door, but this fear is
extremely unwarranted. Last week we held an open house so that the neighborhood
could come and see the house, talk to us about any issue they might have, and learn about
the lifestyle that the tenants of the house take part in. Unfortunately, very few felt the
need to attend. To me, this shows an unwillingness to even consider our entry to the
neighborhood, a feeling that was most likely present well before we even moved in.
I hope that you will strongly consider approving the variance for 932 E College
Street. Members of the house have proven over the course of the fall semester that they
are not a nuisance to the neighborhood, and I have no reason to think that this will ever
change given that they are part of an athletic team that takes pride in a healthy and safe
lifestyle. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Copek
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Andy Novak, one of the residents of 932 E. College St. I have been living
here since the beginning of the semester and it has been a great experience. It has helped
me make new friendships as well as strengthen others.
Also, just about all of us are on the Iowa cross-country and track teams. It has been great
to have teammates around whenever you need them. Also having the majority of the
team all in one house has eased some of the stress for coaches about picking up guys on
the weekends for meets and other things.
Recently we have begun to try to get a variance for our house but the neighbors have
been anything but pleasant about it. They refuse to believe that we can be civilized with
19 or more people living in our house but I have little reason to believe that we can't be.
We are not a fraternity but are being treated as one just because of the number of people
in our house. We are just a bunch of runners that keep to ourselves and that saw this as a
good opportunity to strengthen friendships, bonds between teammates, and as a way to
start a good tradition for future Iowa runners.
Since living here we have had no noise complaints, tried to reach out to the neighbors by
introducing ourselves and also recently held an open house for people to see our house
and meet the people who live here, to which a total of 4 people showed up.
We would all really appreciate it if you could take this into consideration when
evaluating us for a variance. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Andy Novak
Mail :: Inbox: house variance
https://webmail.uiol'--' du/imp/message.php?actionlD—print_message..
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:32:36-0600111:32:36 AM CST]
From: bschlotz@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
To: davis-brown-linden@uiowa.edu
Subject: house variance
To whom it may concern:
I find it difficult to fathom that the living accommodations of the 19 gentlemen
residing at 932 East College Street are up for debate. It should not even be an issue
especially when one considers the positive make-up of the group. The majority of the
household participates on The University of Iowa track and field team and as part of
being a Division I student athlete live by strict training and academic regimens that
make it impossible to cause any trouble in the neighborhood. The whole idea behind the
house in the first place was to create a positive environment for the team so they
wouldn't have to deal with all the typical college antics that are seen so often
downtown and in the dorms. In this sense, if it is a fraternity atmosphere that those
who are trying to evict us are concerned about than they simply haven't taken the
opportunity to see what we're all about. Unfortunately, the only occasions that we've
been able to meet with these people is when they come knocking at our door to let us
know that they want us gone because of circumstances that we have no control. In
particular I'm referencing a situation in which a neighbor confronted me at about 7:00
am to blame the members of the house for. the garbage men waking him up. Not only was
the man inconsiderate, but he was also ven more disturbingly unbudging and
incomprehensible in his reasoning. Even after politely explaining to him that we have
no control of the the trash pick up times, he still wouldn't deviate from his idea that
it was still somehow our fault, and he left with the threat that he would make sure our
variance didn't pass. Based off of this confrontation and after hearing some of the
other arguments against our variance it seems that some had already made up their minds
before we even moved in that they didn't want us here. I don't think these petty
prejudices should prevent the members of 932 from having a place to lay their heads,
especially when exams and the National Cross Country Meet are around the corner.
Although it may appear that I'm simply venting my frustrations, (which is not
completely misguided) I am more importantly trying to get our side of the of the
situation heard, and I hope what I have to say is taken into account when deciding if
we receive our variance.
Sincerely,
Blake Schlotzhauer
1 of 1 11 / 16/2006 3 :03
CD APL
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPEAL
DATE: August 20, 2007 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1010480014
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 932 E. College Street (the "Property")
PROPERTY ZONE: INS - 2 0 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: Approx . 7, 3 8 0 SF
APPLICANT: Name: Leighton House, L.C.
Address: 932 E. College St., Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: (319) 337-2020 X. 1
CONTACT PERSON: Name: Paul Burns
(if other than applicant) Bradley & Riley PC
Address: One S. Gilbert St., Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: (319) 4 6 6 -1511
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Same as applicant.
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
1
The Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is
error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the City Manager or
designee in the enforcement of the Zoning Code or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
Please see 14-8C-3 in the Zoning Code for detailed information on the appeal procedure.
Planning staff are available to assist applicants with questions about the appeal process or
regulations and standards in the code.
Decision being appealed: The applicant alleges that an error has been made by the following
administrative official (list title) Norm Cate, senior Housing Inspector on (date) May 23, 2007
in enforcing the Zoning Ordinance in relation to the property listed above . Please indicate the
section of the Zoning Ordinance cited in the official's decision:
See attachment.
Purpose of the Appeal: The applicant wishes to challenge the above decision based on the
interpretation of the following section(s) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. (This section of the
code may or may not be different from the section cited in the decision being challenged.)
Applicant challenges the decision based on the terms of VAR 97-0004 and Zoning Ordinance Section
14-4B-2 regarding variances, Article 14-2B regarding multi -family residential zones, and any
other Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding multi -family use in the RNS-20 zone.
Summary: In the space provided below, or on a separate sheet, summarize the basis for your
appeal referring to the code sections listed above and providing sound reason(s) for overturning
the decision. (Provide evidence demonstrating that the decision was based on an improper or
erroneous interpretation of the Zoning Code).
See attachment.
Remedy desired:
Issuance of rental permit for thirty (30) roomers for 932 E.
College Street.
ppdadmhapp eakboase.doc
C
2� `�
Leishton House, L.C.
Application to the Board of Adiustment
Rewarding 932 East College Street
Decision Being Appealed: The Department of Housing and Inspection Services ("Department")
failed to renew the rental permit for the Property. The Department's decision is set forth in two
letters written by Mr. Norm Cate. The first of Mr. Cate's letters was written on November 8,
2006, and is attached to this Application as Exhibit "A"; the second letter was written on May
23, 2007, and is attached to this Application as Exhibit `B". Neither of Mr. Cate's letters
identifies any specific section of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance"). The
letters simply claim that the Property is not operating pursuant to the terms of a variance granted
to Applicant in 1997 ("VAR 97-0004") and, as a result, is not in compliance with occupancy
limits set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
Summary: In the Fall of 2006, the Property passed inspection by the Department for thirty (30)
roomers. Representatives of the Department assured Applicant that the renewed rental permit
would be forthcoming. Subsequently, however, the Department sent Exhibit "A" to Applicant,
containing a vague allegation suggesting that the property was not "operating under the
conditions of the 1997 variance [VAR 97-0004]." Mr. Cate, acting on behalf of the Department
and in response to a request for further information, issued Exhibit `B" alleging that since the
Property is not operating in compliance with VAR 97-0004, it does not comply with occupancy
limits pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. In Exhibit "B", Mr. Cate alleges that Applicant has
failed to comply with VAR 97-0004 by failing to have professional on site adult live in
management, a full on site meal plan, transportation/shuttle service, and reserved off street
parking.
Applicant is in fact operating the Property pursuant to the terms of VAR 97-0004 and is,
therefore, entitled to a rental permit for up to thirty (30) roomers. In Exhibit "B", Mr. Cate
claims that "the Zoning Official has determined that the owners of 932 E. College Street are not
operating under the condition of the 1997 Variance." Mr. Cate fails to identify either the Zoning
Official or the proceedings during which the Zoning Official determined that Applicant is not
operating pursuant to VAR 97-0004. Additionally, Mr. Cate in his capacity as a Senior Housing
Inspector does not have authority to determine whether or not Applicant is operating the Property
pursuant to the terms of VAR 97-0004.
Appeal of this matter to the Board of Adjustment is proper pursuant to Iowa Code § 414.10 and
414.12 and Zoning Ordinance § 14-7A-2C 1.
{00470108.DOC}
EXHIBIT "A"
November 8, 2006
Leighton House LC
c/o Michael Pugh
932 College St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re; occupancy standards at 932 College Street
Dear Mr. Pugh;
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa city, Iowa S2240- 1 826
(319) 356-S000
(319) 3S6-5009 FAX
www. icgov.org
It has come to the City's attention that the building at 932 College St. is not operating under the
conditions of the 1997 variance. Therefore, under the current zoning ordinance, this structure's use
reverts to a legal, non -conforming rooming house with a maximum of 13 roomers.
With the understanding that the semester's end is nearing, the current occupancy of 19 residents at 932
College Street can continue through December 31, 2006. However, the occupancy must be reduced to 13
roomers after that date or the city will initiate legal action.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
4e_9,l.lJ` rn4t,
Norm Cate
senior housing inspector
City of Iowa City
Cc; Rob Phipps
932 College St. tenants
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF IO WA CITY Department of Housing and Inspection Services 410 Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240
May 23, 2007
Ms. Nancy A. Wood
Mr. Michael J. Pugh
Bradley & Riley, P.C.
Tower Place
One S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: 932 College St.: Rental Permit
Dear Ms. Wood and Mr. Pugh:
As you know, in 1997 the Iowa City Board of Adjustment granted a density variance to Leighton House, L.L.C. to permit a
fraternity house to be converted to a rooming house for up to thirty (30) roomers at 932 College Street provided the rooming
house operated pursuant to the specific terms of the Leighton House Business Plan. As communicated to you in my
correspondence of November 8, 2006, the Zoning Official has determined that the owners of 932 College St are not operating
under the condition of the 1997 variance. This includes, but is not limited to, the failure to have professional on -site adult live-
in management, a full on -site meal plan, a transportation/shuttle service and reserved off-street parking. Therefore, the
occupancy that was granted under that 1997 variance no longer applies. Consequently, the structure's occupancy reverts to that
allowed under the current applicable zoning code, which allows a maximum of 13 roomers.
Pursuant to the City of Iowa City housing code section 17-5-16(c), a rental permit is a document indicating compliance with
section 17-5-19 of Chapter 5 at the time of issuance. Section 17-5-19(X)(1), "OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS", states that a
dwelling unit shall not be occupied by a number of persons greater than allowed by the Iowa City zoning ordinance. Therefore,
a rental permit for 932 College St. will not be renewed until compliance with the City of Iowa City housing code, section 17-5-
19(X)(1) OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS, is achieved by complying with the terms of the variance or reducing the
structure's current occupancy of 19 roomers to the maximum occupancy limit of 13 roomers.
Failure to comply with the occupancy limits under the zoning ordinance may result in further legal action. As this is a
determination of occupancy under the zoning code, if you feel this determination to be in error, you may appeal the
determination of the Zoning Official to the Iowa City Board of Adjustment. Appeal forms can be obtained online at
www.icaov.org or from the City Clerk's Office, 410 Washington St. Any appeal must be received in the office of the City Clerk
within a reasonable time period, not to exceed ninety (90) calendar days of your receipt of this notice. Failure to request an
appeal shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing.
Sincer
Norm Cate
City of Iowa City Senior Housing Inspector
Cc: Doug Boothroy, Director, HIS
Sarah Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney
Karin Franklin, Director, PCD
Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
.�u
I F .
Board of Adjustment --
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
1110 E. College St.
OCT - 2 2007 Iowa City, IA 52240
September 30, 2007
I am writing in support of the HIS denial of a rental permit to 932 College
Street. Although I believe that there are many areas in which the Leighton house
might not operating under the conditions of the 1997 variance, I will be restricting
my remarks to a single, complex condition that was not specifically addressed in
the HIS letter. I apologize that I'm not able to address this issue more concisely.
Since purchasing our house in 2004, my husband and I have attended
three Board meetings concerning variance applications for 932 College. At one of
those meetings, someone commented that Leighton House LC wasn't in
compliance with the variance because it was renting to men. The LC
representative hotly offered his opinion that renting to women only would be
illegal now. The commenter conceded that was probably so. The issue wasn't
pertinent to the question before the Board (which was an entirely new variance),
and discussion soon moved on to other issues. The exchange struck me as odd,
because it seemed as though the question had not arisen previously.
When I learned of this appeal, I again became intrigued with that "probably
illegal" provision in the Business Plan.
I don't have legal training, but it's clear enough to me that the
consequences of laws depend not merely on whatever goals and principles a
specific law is intended to embody, but upon the particular language of each law,
the legal jurisdiction, precedents, procedural rules and other variables that often
baffle laypersons such as myself.
The situation of the LC Business Plan and the zoning variance appears to
be an unusually complex one legally, if one is correct in concluding that women -
only dormitories would be illegal under current law.
Obviously, it would have been in the LC's own best interests to seek
official clarification when the law went into effect, to determine how the it could
comply with the law without endangering its Business Plan and risking the 1997
variance. It appears unlikely that the LC did so. My research suggests:
1. The specific law prohibiting a single -sex dormitory or rooming house
appears to be the Iowa City Ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of sex, that went into effect in 1999.
2. It seems unlikely that the Leighton House made any effort to protect its
Business Plan during the ordinance drafting process.
3. 1 was unable to find any records suggesting that, following the
enactment of the law, the Leighton House sought clarification from the
city, concerning how it might modify its Business Plan to comply with
law without losing the variance.
4. The Leighton House apparently did not give up its women -only policy
until sometimes after 2003, over three years after the ordinance was
enacted.
All of which suggests that the Leighton House has not been anxious to comply
with fair housing law. Testimony that has been previously presented suggests
that the Business Plan is a financial failure, and that the decision to rent to men
was a business, and not a legal, consideration. This interpretation is furthered by
the financial projections included in the Business Plan, since long-time residents
have testified that the house was never occupied at the density considered
necessary to realize a profit.
BACKGROUND
The female -only provisions were obviously considered legal in 1997, when
the variance was granted. Furthermore, the Women -only provision was
extremely important to all parties:
• It was central to the Business Plan that Leighton House would be a
women -only facility. It wouldn't be going too far to call that provision the
raison d'etre of the Plan.
o The GENERAL BUSINESS DESCRIPTION in the summary of the
Plan states:
"The idea for this project grew out of the fact that the University of
Iowa currently provides no dormitory facilities exclusively for
women. Additionally, the individuals proposing the business have
personal knowledge and experience of unacceptable housing
conditions and situations in Iowa City for the targeted female
student population."
o The section describing THE COMPANY starts with this sentence:
"Strategy: Leighton House will, primarily, meet the needs of first
and second year female students at the University of Iowa.
o The PRIMARY MARKET was described as young women who
aspire to join a sorority or who have joined a sorority but are not yet
able to live in the sorority house. The Plan does not exclude other
women, but the entire scope of operations center upon serving the
primary market.
o Financially, the corporation anticipated that it would be successful
because this specific population would be willing to pay above -
market rates for Leighton House facilities and services.
"MARKET RESEACH/ANALYSIS ... Naturally, the cost of residing at
Leighton House will exceed the cost of University Housing, as well as
the cost of most sorority houses. This is not a concern, however, as
research has indicated a strong desire and need for this kind of facility
near the University of Iowa campus. The sixty years of experience of
Hardin House demonstrates that many parents are willing and able to
pay for the peace of mind a facility like this provides them when their
daughters leave home for college."
• The fact that Leighton House was intended to be a facility for women was
also a persuasive point in winning the variance, since it was perceived that
women residents might be less problematic tenants than the fraternity that
had previously occupied the building
00tC d
It may be important to er that the Leighton House Business Plan
repeatedly compared the facility to a sorority. It was designed to provide more
than mere accommodations. It proposed to provide a range of services and
amenities more extensive than that of any housing in the city, including sororities.
It is conceivable that the Business Plan, if fully implemented, might have
been provided grounds to claim a full or partial exception from the fair housing
prohibitions on sexual discrimination. I'm not aware of any evidence that the LC
ever sought to defend the Business Plan on these grounds, or even consulted
with officials authorized to create, interpret and enforce the law.
I'd like to focus the remainder of my remarks on two broad questions. To
some extent, the answers might lie beyond the Board's purview. I don't know.
Certainly the Board would have an easier task if these questions had been
addressed earlier; but at the least, an examination of the question should help
throw light on the LC's disregard and negligence of it's own Business Plan.
1. Did the Leighton house voluntarily cease be a women -only facility, or
did it have no other legal recourse?
2. If women -only dormitories or rooming houses are illegal within Iowa
City, what affect does that have on the Leighton House Business Plan,
and subsequently what affect does it have on the variance, which is
contingent on the Plan?
1. Did the Leighton house voluntarily cease be a women -only facility, or did
it have no other legal recourse? Individuals and corporate bodies are the final
arbiters of the legality of their own actions only if those actions are not contested.
This facility was controversial from the start. The city does not appear to
have taken action against Leighton House's women -only policy. That's not
surprising — the city legal department has a lot on its plate. What is more
surprising is that Leighton House made no efforts to establish that it departed
from its Business Plan only because it was legally obliged to avoid discriminatory
rental practices. If it was profitable, the LC would have had a lot at stake, and it
would have been prudent to proceed cautiously.
It seems to me that there is reason to doubt that the LC is, or has been,
unwillingly forced to abandon its Business Plan, on the grounds that a women -
only facility is illegal. Since I don't have legal training, I looked instead for
examples of how such facilities are treated in other localities.
• A quick web search showed that single -sex dormitories and rooming
houses are an allowed exception from the Fair Housing laws in many
states, leading me to conclude that such facilities are a permissible
exception under federal law.
It also appears that some single -sex accommodations are allowable under
Iowa law.
o The University of Iowa does not have single -sex dorms, but Iowa
State and UNI do.
o The Ames city code (Chapter 14, sec 14.12 (6)) allows an
exception for "Discrimination on the basis of sex involving the
rental, leasing, or subleasing of a dwelling within which residents of
both sexes would be forced to share a common living area. {State
Law Ref. Iowa Code Sec. 216.12A} Ord. 3377, 3-5-96]" Apparently,
the Leighton House Business Plan would be legal in Ames.
My research suggests that single -sex dormitories and boarding houses
are probably illegal within the jurisdiction of the Iowa City code. I assume
that they were legal in 1997 when the variance was granted. There
appears to have been a revision of the code in October of 1999, since I
found references to Ordinance 99-3905, (10-12-1999). This raises
additional questions:
o Could the LC have reasonably been expected to know that
revisions in city ordinances would affect their operations, as
outlined in the Business Plan? Wouldn't that have been public
record? Isn't it incumbent upon businesses to stay informed about
code revisions that might adversely affect their business?
o Was the LC given the opportunity to state any concerns over how
the proposed ordinance would affect its operations? Surely the
answer is yes. Can the LC claim to have been forced to depart
from its Business Plan in order to comply with the ordinance, if it
failed to participate in the decision -making process or failed to bring
its concerns to the attention of city in a timely manner?
In 2003, a complaint was filed with the city that the Leighton house was
being occupied by men and had no resident director. The HIS investigated. The
LC representative saw fit to deny both charges. Apparently, the LC
representative had no reluctance about portraying the facility as a women -only
residence and was unconcerned that doing so might show that it was in violation
of the fair housing laws.
The Leighton House LC appears to be unprofitable, and property has
been on the market since at least 2005. 1 walk by the building almost daily, and it
appeared to me that there were male residents during the summer before the
2005 Board hearing on a new variance (not the same residents as currently).
2. If women -only dormitories or rooming houses are illegal within Iowa City,
what affect does that have on the Leighton House Business Plan, and
subsequently what affect does it have upon the variance that is contingent
upon the Plan?
At the board meeting that broached the legality of the women -only provision, the
Leighton House representative proceeded to argue on the assumption that the
women -only provision could be dropped without affecting the remainder of the
Business Plan or the variance. No one was prepared to argue otherwise,
possibly because the issue wasn't relevant to question before the Board at that
time.
It is more directly relevant to this appeal. Thus far, the Leighton House LC
has managed to frame the debate to its own advantage. The HIS appears to
have acquiesced to the Leighton House interpretation by citing other particulars
of the Business Plan in showing that the LC is not conforming to the variance.
However, the HIS has limited jurisdiction and permits are issued with standard
language to that effect that the permit should not be considered all-inclusive.
"CAUTION: This Permit certifies that this structure was in compliance with the
requirements of Section 14-5E-19 of the Iowa City Housing Code at time of
issuance. This does not imply that the property is in compliance with the Iowa
City Zoning ordinance, State of Iowa Fire Code, or current Building Codes."
(Permit # REN00496 issued to 932 College St on 12/21/04 valid through
08/31 /2006)
It appears that two legal principles or entities are in conflict. It does not
appear that any effort has been made to make sure that this conflict is resolved
correctly, under the law. Again the situation raises more questions than answers.
• Is it possible to voluntarily or involuntarily eliminate the central tenet of a
Plan, and then assume that it is the same "concept plan" as it was before?
That's illogical, but it legal or illegal with regard to 932 College Street?
Who is authorized to decide?
• Is it possible that a legal variance may be attached to the LC on condition
that it adheres to a stated Business Plan, when that Business Plan is
substantively illegal? Neither the variance nor the Business Plan makes
any provisions for modification. Indeed, the variance is applicable only to a
corporation providing
"resident management of rooming house consistent with the principles
outlined in its Business Plan for Leighton House, L.C. dated July 1997"
The minute of the 1997 variance are clear concerning what should happen
if the Business Plan fails:
"...Brant said that it is the general idea that if this concept fails, the issue
is back to square one. Bender said she thought it was really beyond the
jurisdiction of the Board. She said if it does not succeed, it is the
applicants' problem"
The point was made in reference to the financial viability of the Plan, but
should one assume that the answer would be any different if the Plan
failed for other reasons?
• If the corporation's Business Plan was shown to be illegal, why should one
assume that the variance is still valid? Wouldn't it make as much, or more
sense to assume that the variance is void and the LC should revise the
Business Plan and apply for a new variance? Are there any precedents or
procedures to clarify the situation?
CONCLUSION
The 1997 variance was an unusual, compassionate and complex
adjustment of the application of zoning ordinances to 932 College Street. It
seems to me that the 1999 fair housing ordinance probably applies to Leighton
House LLC, but it is unclear to me how that would affect the variance if tested.
The purpose of this letter is to draw the Board's attention to the complexity
of the situation, and to point out that the Leighton House LC appears to have
done nothing to seek clarification of the legal status of their Business Plan or of
the status of the variance conditional on it. On the contrary, the LC has muddied
the waters with procedural neglect and unwarranted assumptions.
urge the Board to use extreme caution in considering this appeal, since
there appears to have been no official review of the legality of the Leighton
House Business Plan and the validity of the 1997 variance, following the
enactment of the 1999 fair housing ordinance. Further, I urge the board to seek
legal council concerning the extent of their authority to decide this appeal,
specifically because the Board's ruling may unintentionally validate the
assumption that the variance is unaffected by whatever modifications in the
Business Plan might necessitated by compliance with the fair housing laws.
Thank you for your consideration.
15a V�&r-71
Bu Wilson
1110 E. College Street
( OCT 3 2007 Iowa City, IA 52240
October 2, 2007
Ms Sarah Holecek,
City Attorney Office
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: 932 E. College
I spoke Monday with Sarah Walz, who tried to explain to me that she had
received legal advisement to focus on particular issues in the Leighton House
Business Plan. She gave me the impression that she thought other arguments
might be disregarded on legal grounds.
I'm sorry I can't give more particulars, but I didn't take notes. Quite
frankly, my attention was a bit distracted by my own interior mental
arguments, which her words were provoking. Basically, to summarize in my
own words, she evidently was limited to considering only those aspects of the
Leighton House Business Plan that are currently legal and have high public
accountability (without requiring inquiry into actions that occur largely within
the premises).
I strongly object to the legal advisement given to the staff researching
the appeal at 932 College Street. In effect, those instructions modify the
Business Plan by assuming that illegal provisions are void. Illegal provisions are
illegal, not void.
If left unchallenged, such an advisement would preclude any due process
through which an illegal provision might be properly rendered void. It also
amounts to an unwarranted intrusion into business on the part of the
government, beyond any that the LC may have implicitly waived as privileged
when the LC agreed to have their requested variance attached to the LC rather
than the property.
The city has a duty to enforce the fair housing ordinance. It does so by
imposing penalties on businesses that act in violation the law. It does not do so
by explicitly or implicitly taking over the management of those businesses.
The government has no right to reformulate or modify the Business Plans of
non -governmental corporations.
• The city may require certain documentation about businesses that may
or may not have been properly updated in this instance.
• The city may monitor the operation of businesses to see that they
comply with the laws, including the fair housing laws and zoning.
• The city may not make assumptions about what options a business might
choose to exercise in its internal processes of updating its documents or
practices, even if revision or clarification appears needed in order to
comply with the law.
The Leighton House LC appears to have modified its business practices
without modifying its documentation. In the cases of most business that would
a trivial matter, and I'm sure there's a lot of out-of-date documentation in the
city files. In the case of Leighton House LC, that neglect affects the zoning in
my neighborhood, and I object to the misapplication of government authority
to obscure the fact that the Leighton House Business Plan contains illegal
provisions and encompasses many other provisions and services that are no
longer in effect.
Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, some establishments chose
to close their businesses rather than conform to the Act. They had that right.
Others choose to contest the applicability of the law to their enterprises, with
mixed results. That was also their right. Some businesses modified their
practices to comply to the most limited extent possible, while others
voluntarily embraced the underlying principles and modified their practices far
beyond what was required by law. Only the businesses have the right to decide
which internal adjustments they are willing to make, in order to avoid violating
the law.
The Leighton House LC has the right to modify some or all provisions of
its Business Plan, as the LC deems best according to its own principles and
interests. It may be obliged to do so to meet some requirements of law, but I
don't believe that it's choices and actions can properly be presumed by a legal
advisement. If there has already been a revision of the LC Business Plan, upon
which your advisement is based, please let me know how I can obtain a copy.
I hope to speak with you shortly, to ascertain that I have not
misrepresented the legal advisement you gave to the Planning staff, before I
submit this letter to your office.
I urge you to reconsider that advisement, and I hope you will do so even
though there is little time remaining before the Board is scheduled to hear this
appeal. In any case, I think that the Board should know that the staff
recommendations were drawn up under a considerable handicap.
Sincerely,
Z)a `vn
Bu Wilson
cc: Board of Adjustment
October 3, 2007
Ms Holecek has been ill, and I have been unable to meet with her
yesterday and today.
I will trust that my memory is correct about Ms Walz's explaination that
the staff could focus only on issues specifically mentioned in the letter denying
a rental permit, especially parking and the lack of a resident manager.
Bu Wilson
October 2, 2007
Board of Adjustment
Attn: Sarah Walz
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Board Members and Ms. Walz:
I am writing to oppose the Leighton House LLC's appeal of the city's denial of their rental permit
for the property at 932 East College Street, based on its failure to comply with the terms of the 1997
variance. The owner of the property is implying that the denial was in error. However, the actions
of Leighton House LLC over the past ten years make clearly demonstrate that the rental permit
denial is appropriate under the provisions of Iowa City zoning code.
In 1997, the Iowa Board of Adjustments granted a temporary density variance to Leighton House,
L.L.C. to permit a conversion of the building to a rooming house for up to 30 roomers. Under the
variance, the submitted business plan included a professional on -site adult live-in management, full
meal plan, and transportation/shuttle service provided to reserved off-street parking. That was ten
years ago, and Leighton House LLC has yet to comply with its own business plan. On May 23, 2007,
that variance was, appropriately, revoked. I strongly believe that the appeal should be denied, as
there is no clear evidence that the variance was revoked in error.
Leighton House LLC has not ever been in compliance with the provisions of the variance that was
granted in 1997 to allow for 30-tenant occupancy, and the neighborhood has suffered as a result.
Increased traffic and parking in the area has been an issue, including parking on the front lawn of the
property on multiple occasions, despite the provision for transportation to reserved, off-street
parking that was part of the 1997 variance. Even if off -site parking was made available, there is no
way to enforce that tenants use it, and there is little incentive for renters to use that option rather
than parking on the street in closer proximity to the building. It was also my understanding that the
concrete pad/basketball court on the front lawn was supposed to be removed, yet it is still there and
recently held a metal swimming pool that was left open and unprotected by fencing, posing a safety
hazard to children living in the neighborhood.
The current appeal, if approved, would lead to an increase in occupancy from 13 to 30 tenants. This
is in opposition to the Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zoning of this neighborhood, and
would be contrary to the public interest. This rezoning was intended "to stabilize existing residential
neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these
neighborhoods and preventing existing multi -family uses in these neighborhoods from becoming
nonconforming (Ord. 94-3608, 2-1-1994)." As was pointed out at previous meetings regarding this
property, the zoning ordinance is intended to establish maximum densities to reduce overcrowding
and strain on public and private utilities and facilities necessary to preserve a residential
neighborhood. With the increase in noise, the number of people requiring on -site parking,
disruption, traffic, and neighborhood destabilization that would go with a permanent increase in
density should the appeal be approved, I and the value of my home at 1022 E. College Street will be
directly affected. Again, I strongly urge the Board of Adjustment to deny this appeal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Esther M. Baker
1022 E. College Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
October 2, 2007 -
OCT - 2 2007
Board of Adjustment
Attn: Sarah Walz
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Board Members and Ms. Walz:
In 1997, the Iowa Board of Adjustments granted a density variance to Leighton House,
L.L.C. to permit a conversion of the building to a rooming house for up to 30 roomers.
Under the variance, the submitted business plan included a professional on -site adult
live-in management, full meal plan, and transportation/shuttle service provided to
reserved off-street parking. On May 23, 2007, that variance was revoked due to lack of
compliance with the business plan conditions. I feel very strongly that the appeal should
be denied. In the nearly five years that I have lived in our owner -occupied home on
College Street less than 1 block from this building, there has been no evidence that
the owners have complied with this business plan- no provision of off street parking,
no business plan, and no indication that anyone was living there other than the adult
residents except for a short period when a prospective buyer moved in and then was
asked to vacate by the current owners after a purchase agreement was not reached.
This followed a request to transfer the variance to a new owner. The current owner of
the property was allowed a temporary variance to increase capacity in order to pay for
the renovation of this building. That was 10 years ago. At an average of $200/per
person/per month of extra income times the 17 extra occupants over the 10 years
of the "temporary" variance, the net result is more than $400,000 of extra income.
That should be plenty to pay for the owner's renovation expenses. Even if it is
not, the neighborhood should not be asked to incur the expense of a poor
business decision on the part of the Leighton House, L.L.C.
In the years we have lived in our home, the multiple variance requests have come
before the city to request the variance be transferred in some form to prospective
buyers. In all cases they have been denied. All requests, including this one, involve a
substantial increase in capacity to a neighborhood building that has no on -site parking
(except 1 parking space). Even if offsite parking and a shuttle service were provided, it
leaves little incentive for renters to choose that option over trying to park in closer
proximity. In fact, there have been multiple occasions over those 5 years when cars
were parked on the lawn. Even if few of the residents own vehicles, there is no
guarantee that pattern will continue. The current appeal would increase the number
of tenants from 13 to 30. This is not an insignificant increase, and is in opposition
to the Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zoning of this neighborhood.
This is a mixed -use neighborhood that is a historic district. We homeowners in the
neighborhood do not want this turned into a non -owner -occupied dominant
neighborhood. We decided to buy a house in this neighborhood in 2002 because we
loved the house, wanted to live in a historic district, and we believed that the down
zoning of this neighborhood in 2002 to RNC-12 would protect our investment. This
rezoning was intended "to stabilize existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the
predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods and
preventing existing multi -family uses in these neighborhoods from becoming
nonconforming (Ord. 94-3608, 2-1-1994)." We are committed to preserving the integrity
of the neighborhood. Therefore, we are committed to not increasing the noise, number
of people requiring on -site parking, increased disruption, traffic, etc., that goes with
increased density and that will contribute to the destabilization of the neighborhood. In
addition, the owners have failed to meet the conditions of the original variance. As the
owner of the home at 1022 E. College Street, I will be directly affected by these
problems should the appeal be approved. Again, I strongly urge the Board of
Adjustment to deny the appeal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michelle L. Campo
1022 E. College Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Ann Laquer Estin
1039 East College Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Attn: Sarah Walz
October 4, 2007
RE: 932 East College Street Rental Permit
Dear Board Members:
I am writing as one of the neighbors of this property to ask that the Board uphold
the determination made by the City's zoning and housing departments to deny a rental
permit for this property until it comes into compliance with the Iowa City ordinances.
Specifically, if the property owners are not willing or able to adhere to the terms of the
variance they obtained in 1997, I believe that the Board should not allow occupancy any
greater than the maximum of 13 roomers allowed under the applicable zoning law.
Although I would like to be present at your meeting next week to address this matter, I
have other obligations in the community during that time. Please accept this letter in the
place of my spoken comments at the meeting.
As you are no doubt aware, the owners of this property have made repeated
attempts to weaken or evade the conditions of the variance that they requested in 1997.
As neighbors, we have been forced to appear repeatedly before the Board to respond to
their efforts to convert the property to some high -occupancy non-comforming use that is
inconsistent with the zoning and the character of the present neighborhood. Beyond our
annual appearances before the Board, we live every day with the side effects of their
cavalier attitude toward the property and the neighborhood, including serious parking
problems that are exacerbated by their failure to provide the off -site parking required by
the variance. In last year's go -round, you heard testimony about nuisances including
loud parties and naked running down College Street at night. It was also clear at that
time that the managing partners were not in fact residing on the premises, as required in
the Leighton House Business Plan incorporated into the 1997 variance.
My husband and I purchased our home at 1039 East College Street in 2005, and
invested in a substantial renovation to finish converting the house from a duplex back
into a single-family residence. Many other houses on the block have also had significant
improvements in recent years. We made our decision to purchase and invest in this
property in reliance on the measures the City has taken to stabilize and protect the
neighborhood, such as the down -zoning and the traffic circles. We enjoy the energy and
diversity of the neighborhood, and would not have chosen to move across town to this
area if we objected to having students as our neighbors. But we believe that maintaining
the integrity of this mixed neighborhood is a delicate balancing act, and we depend on
enforcement of the city's zoning and housing ordinances to keep us from reaching a
tipping point where families are no longer willing to invest in and remain in the
neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please deny the appeal of the
Zoning Office determination.
Sincerely,
Ann Laquer Estin
Hillary A. Sale
1016 East College Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
October 5, 2007
Board of Adjustment
Attn: Sarah Walz
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Board Members:
I write to oppose the appeal of the denial of a rental permit for 30 persons at 932 E.
College Street (known as the Leighton House) and in support of the staff
recommendation against the appeal. I urge the Board to support the determination of
the rental housing staff that the Leighton House LC is in violation of the 1997 variance,
and has been in violation of it for many years, and therefore is not entitled to a permit for
more than 13 persons. I apologize for not appearing in person. Unfortunately, this
meeting was scheduled for a date when I will be out of town.
The current owner of this property, the Leighton House LC, was granted a variance for
30 tenants in 1997. When the Board granted the 1997 Variance, it relied on various
promises from the applicant. One key commitment was to provide on -site resident
management, with the managing partners of the Leighton House as the designated
managers. The current lack of qualifying on -site management is part of the reason that
the City has determined that the Leighton House is not in compliance with the terms of
the 1997 Variance. It has been at least five years since the Leighton House has been in
compliance with this provision.
Importantly, the on -site management to be provided by the Leighton House was part of
what persuaded the Board to grant the 1997 Variance. In1997, the applicants argued
that their presence in the building would help to prevent problems in the neighborhood
and would diminish the possibility of a threat to the neighborhood's integrity. Since the
Leighton House managing partners moved out, the neighborhood has experienced
problems with Leighton House tenants including, for example:
- tenants hooting and hollering at young women who are jogging through the
neighborhood;
- tenants playing frisbee in the streets after midnight;
- tenants running through the neighborhood naked;
- tenants partying at the house and leaving beer bottles and garbage outside; and
- tenants parking on the lawn.
In fact, just two weeks ago, the tenants filled a big swimming pool on the front lawn,
creating a frat-like atmosphere. And, in 2003, the Leighton House moved a fraternity
into the building — in defiance of both the variance and the zoning code. These
examples listed above all violate both the letter and the spirit of the business plan.
I am attaching to this letter a picture from a couple of weeks ago of a car parked on the
lawn of the Leighton House property. This has been a repeated occurrence on the
property. Of course, parking cars on the lawn is illegal. That is not the point. The point
is that the terms of the variance also require the owners to provide transportation to
prevent just such this type of problem. The transportation and offsite-parking provisions
of the variance were important, because the variance allowed an occupancy level
significantly exceeding the allowed occupancy under the code. Thus, the parking
provisions were required specifically to try to decrease the impact of the increased
occupancy on the neighborhood. Leighton House, does not, however, provide the
transportation or any offsite parking. The picture also reveals that the front lawn of the
building acts as a parking lot for various motor bikes, many of which are parked on the
concrete basketball court that the owners committed to removing, but did not.
The appeal now before the Board of Adjustment is simply one more example of the
unfortunate business decision made by the owners of the Leighton House, LC. It is true
that the Leighton House spent a substantial amount to renovate the facility. It is also
true that the 1997 Board of Adjustment stressed that if the Leighton House's business
decision turned out to be a bad one, the Leighton House was assuming the risk.
Instead, on a regular basis, the neighbors have been asked to "subsidize the investment"
by accepting revisions to the variance or new owners who are not committed to the very
plan that made the variance acceptable to the 1997 Board of Adjustment. The Board
has repeatedly rejected those requests. Unfortunately, each time, and recently on an
annual basis, the neighbors are forced to come before the Board to revisit the business
decision of these owners. The neighborhood is not responsible for those decisions
should not be held accountable for those of the applicant. Granting the appeal, however,
will effectively shift the costs to the neighbors.
In the past, the Leighton House, LC has attempted to provide testimony that the variance
should not be interpreted as written. The Board should disregard any such attempt.
First, any opportunity to appeal the variance or its terms has long since expired.
Second, the record, the business plan, and the Board's own minutes, as approved by the
1997 Board members, speak for themselves. The variance is indeed restrictive. It is
restrictive for a reason. The variance occupancy far exceeds the code -allowed
occupancy; thus the restrictions were adopted help to alleviate the problems associated
with that increase. The increase is not an entitlement. It is an exception. The Leighton
House may have made an unfortunate business decision, but the neighbors are not, and
should not be, responsible for those choices — directly or indirectly.
The Leighton House has repeatedly asserted that it cannot run the house with 13 roomers and
breakeven, let alone make a profit. Although that is the Leighton House's concern and not the Board's, it
The current property owners and tenants in the neighborhood and those in the
neighborhood in 1997 relied on the representations of the Leighton House that it would
conduct itself in accord with a business plan designed to diminish any negative impacts
on the neighborhood. It has not done so. Additionally, the neighbors have made new -
ownership and continued ownership decisions based, in part, on the zoning of the
neighborhood. This neighborhood was rezoned to RNC-12 to protect and stabilize its
character, and the City has repeatedly expressed its intention to stabilize both this
neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhood.2 Granting the appeal will defeat both
the terms of the variance and the reasonable expectations of the neighbors and the
stabilization purposes of the zoning code.
In sum, I respectfully urge the members of the Board of Adjustment to support the staff
determination and to vote against the appeal.
Very truly yours
Hillary A. ale
1016 East College Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
is worth noting that two years ago the River City Cooperative offered to buy the property from the Leighton
House and run it as a 13-person rooming house, i.e. without any need for a variance. The Leighton House
declined that offer even though the price then offered exceeded the price under discussion with the
proposed owners when the Leighton House came before the Board in November of 2006 once again
asking for changes in the variance.
2 On earlier occasions, the Leighton House, LC has asserted that the property was "involuntarily"
downzoned. In fact, Leighton House LC members were present at City Hall during the hearings and did
not speak.
WL
MA.
iros,16
a •, 1Y k,
«
i e M
� Y . � 'row �,. � �� � ` r M•N* i "�'� a
� � y AAY f 9 r4 r . N . �1• '*� u,,� �'d a �y'. �, � � � . £ .aw Y'" w'0w
r 94 EE
R,o
e
m
J
v
P a
i
9 IL
R
a
r
3
n � ,
L
0 Y'. OL .,
i"-
v
' � p
e
k -le
Y .
ro • "� r
is
16
P:s
w•, �^14
A. 1 k �R g
%.rro � ' R fi •• 1�y�i �.
STAFF REPORT
To: The Board of Adjustment Prepared by Sarah Walz
Item: VAR07-00003 Date: October 10, 2007
202 North Linn Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Corridor State Bank
Contact: Jeff Peters
202 North Linn Street
Iowa City, IA
Tel. (319) 631-1867
Sign Productions
Contact: Andrew Meyer
1010 First Street, NW
Cedar Rapids, IA 52405
319-364-6697
Requested Action: Variance from the Sign
Standards in the Central Business Service
(CB-2) zone prohibiting freestanding
signs, and the restriction on animated
signs in all zones.
Purpose: To allow the establishment of an
animated, freestanding sign in the CB-2
zone.
Location: 202 North Linn Street.
Size: 4,550 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial, CB-2
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: commercial (CB-2)
South: commercial (CB-5)
East: commercial (CB-2)
West: commercial (CB-2)
Applicable code sections: Section 14-5B-8E, Sign standards in the
CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 zones; 14-4E-8C,
Regulation of non -conforming signs.
File Date: September 13, 2007
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The property at 202 North Linn Street is located in the Central Business Service (CB-2) zone.
Under the previous zoning code, freestanding signs were permitted in the zone, however under
the new zoning code, which was adopted in December 2005, freestanding signs are no longer
permitted in any of the Central Business zones (CB-2, CB-5, or CB-10). Under both the previous
and current zoning code, animated signs are not permitted in any zone in Iowa City.
The property served formerly as a video rental store (That's Rentertainment) and before that as
a long-established neighborhood pharmacy (Pearson's Drugstore). The previous occupant of the
building relocated sometime in fall 2006, and removed the face of the freestanding sign. The
applicant proposes to re-establish the non -conforming freestanding sign, which has been out of
use for nearly 12 months, and to restore its rotating function, which has not been operational
for several years.
The code regulations for non -conforming development state that "upon conversion to a new
use, any lot that contains non -conforming development must be brought into compliance with
the base zone and site development standards" (14-4E-8A-2). The previous occupant was
classified as a sales -oriented retail use (video rental). The applicant's business, a bank, is
classified as a personal services -oriented retail use, which constitutes a change of use.
Under the current zoning code, businesses in the Central Business zones (including CB-2) are
allowed to display more than a dozen sign types (see attached table 5B-4 and sign definitions),
including facia, canopy, monument, awning, and time and temperature signs.
ANALYSIS:
1. Not contrary to the Public Interest:
a. The proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor have a
substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties in the area
adjacent to the property included in the variance. Staff finds that the proposed
variance meets this standard. However, while a freestanding sign may not adversely
affect the use or value of other properties in the area, the applicants' statements with
regard to this criteria include a number of inaccuracies:
The applicant has not proposed to restore the "'historic look" of the property nor is
the sign in question a "landmark" by zoning standards. There is a provision in the
non -conforming sign regulations for a special exception to allow changes to non-
conforming signs for purposes of historic preservation, and staff has informed the
applicant of this option.
There are only two properties in this Northside Marketplace district where
freestanding signage exists: the gas station on the corner of Market and Dubuque
and the adjacent Dairy Queen/Sunshine Laundromat (in the CB-5 zone). Moreover,
in the entire Central Business district, only three other properties have freestanding
signs: the Sheraton has a small freestanding directional sign along Burlington
Street, the L&M Might Shop on Van Buren and Burlington, and Hanson Auto on
Burlington Street. The Robert A. Lee Recreation Center (which is just outside the
CB-10 zone) has a sign at the corner of Burlington and Gilbert. Again, all are
M
considered non -conforming signs. There are no animated signs, except for barber
poles, anywhere in the Downtown Area.
b. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the Zoning Chapter and will not contravene the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Staff finds that the application does not meet
this standard. The purpose of the sign regulations in full as stated in the code are: "to
enhance and protect the physical appearance and safety of the community, to protect
property values and preserve Iowa City's areas of natural historic and scenic beauty.
These regulations are also intended to reduce distractions and obstructions contributing
to traffic accidents, reduces hazards caused by signs projecting over the public right -of -
wax, provide reasonable opportunity for allow sign users to display sings without
interference from other signage to provide fair and equitable treatment for all sign
users and to establish a reasonable period of time for the elimination of nonconforming
signs "
With regard to property values, the applicant argues that an animated, freestanding sign
will call more attention to the bank property. However there is no evidence that the
absence of an animated, freestanding sign on this property would diminish the value of
property in the district in which it is located. Moreover, to grant the property a privilege
that is not enjoyed by other property owners in the district contradicts the intent of the
zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan.
As described in the zoning code and in the Comprehensive Plan, the Central Business
zones and the downtown district are characterized by its compact, high density,
pedestrian orientation, with most buildings built up to the sidewalk. Freestanding signs
are considered incompatible in these areas where so many businesses are competing for
visible signage space along with traffic and other informational signage. Freestanding
signs are permitted in other commercial zones. Freestanding signs are permitted in
commercial zones, where the pattern of development is auto -oriented —where lots are
typically larger, and buildings are set back from the street, leaving more space so that
signs are not competing for visibility (one sign is not blocking the next). Except for
barber poles, the zoning code strictly prohibits the use of animated signs (i.e. rotating
signs) in all zones because they are considered a distraction.
Exceptions to these restrictions are allowed for truly historic signs through the special
exception process, which ensures that such signs are historically significant (with the
recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission) and that they are restored in
a historically appropriate manner.
The code regulations for non -conforming development state that "upon conversion to a
new use, any lot that contains non -conforming development must be brought into
compliance with the base zone and site development standards" (14-4E-8A-2). The
previous occupant at 202 North Linn Street was classified as a sales -oriented retail use
(video rental). The applicant's business, a bank, is classified as a personal service -
oriented retail use, which constitutes a change of use. The intent of the non -conforming
sign regulations is ensure that "non -conforming signs be eliminated over time."
2. Unnecessary Hardship: The test for unnecessary hardship consists of three prongs, each
of which must be proven by the applicant for the Board to legally grant a variance:
4
a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located. Staff finds that
the application does not meet this test. While a freestanding, animated sign may
attract additional attention to the business or property, the applicant has failed to
offer evidence that the absence of such a sign creates a situation in which the
property cannot yield a reasonable return.
As mentioned above, more than a dozen types of signs are allowed in the CB zones,
and businesses may display multiple signs. The visibility for the subject property is
no different than for surrounding businesses, which have no such signs.
b. The owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question, and
the situation is not shared with other landowners in the area nor due to
general conditions in the neighborhood. In staffs view, there is nothing
peculiar about the owner's situation. This property is allowed the same signage as all
other businesses in the area and is no less visible to pedestrians or motorists. In
fact, the diagonal canopy on the building seems to create more visibility for the
subject property than other properties in the immediate vicinity (see attached
photos).
c. The hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of
a predecessor in title. In staffs view the restrictions on animated and
freestanding signs do not create a hardship for the subject property. As stated
above, the property is allowed to display a dozen other sign types the same as
surrounding properties in the district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that VAR07-00002, an application submitted by Corridor State Bank for a
variance from the zoning ordinance to allow an animated, freestanding sign in the CB-2 zone at
202 North Linn Street be denied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Photos
3. Sign regulations for the CB zones
4. Sign Definitions
5. Application materials
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
;ram
View of 202 North Linn Street.
Another view, looking north from Linn Street. The bank property is the gray building on the right
side of the photo.
I
View looking West from the right lane on Market Street midway between Gilbert
and Linn Streets.
Another view looking west, this time from the right lane on Market Street
midway between Gilbert and Linn Streets.
View of other commercial property along the 200 block of North Linn (east side of street).
View of the other commercial property along the 200 block of North Linn Street (west side of street).
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
14-SB
Sign Regulations
total area of 50 sq. ft. way.
Maximum diameter: 9 inches
Barber Poles — Maximum length: 3 ft
Identification & Up to one of these signs is allowed per building.
Integral signs 2 sq, ft, — No permit is required,
One private flag may be displayed in conjunction with public
Flags — -- flags,
No permit is required.
Quick Vehicle _ — Allowed for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses.
Servicing Signs No permit is required.
E. Sign Standards in the CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones
1. All signs in the CB-2, C13-5 and CB-10 Zones are subject to the standards specified in
Table 513-4.
2. Other than for monument signs, storefront projecting signs, and portable signs, any
number of signs may be installed, provided the maximum sign area for each type of
sign is not exceeded and the provisions specified in Table 56-4 are met. The number
of monument signs, projecting signs, and portable signs is specified in Table 56-4.
3. Signage for residential uses must comply with the requirements for residential uses in
the RM zones as stated in Table 513-1.
Facia signs
15% of sign wall area
—
Canopy signs
12 sq. ft per sign
Top of first story
—
Up to one canopy roof sign is allowed per storefront.
The bottom edge of the sign must be located no more
than 4 inches above the canopy.
Storefronts up to 39 ft. in
For storefronts up to 39 ft. in length:
length:15 sq. ft.
. Maximum height of copy: 13'
Storefronts between 40
• Maximum thickness: 6'
Canopy roof signs
and 59 ft in length: 25
Top of first story
For storefronts between 40 and 59 ft in length:
sq. ft.
Maximum height of copy: 20'
Storefronts >60 ft in
• Maximum thickness: 8'
length: 35 sq. ft.
For storefronts >60 ft in length:
• Maximum height of copy: 30'
• Maximum thickness:10"
267 12/28/05
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-5B
Sign Regulations
�
a n
Only one monument sign is allowed per lot or tract.
24 sq.ft. per sign face.
5 ft
When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a common
Monument sign
May be double-faced fora
monument sign may be installed. A common monument
total area of 48 sq. ft.
sign may identify up to 4 uses per sign face,
Awning signs are only allowed if the business does not
Awning signs
25% of awning surface
Top of first story
have a projecting sign.
Window signs
25% of window area
—
—
Up to one projecting sign is allowed per storefront.
Projecting signs are not permitted if the business has an
awning sign, canopy sign or canopy roof sign.
The sign may not project more than 5 ft. from the
building wall.
The sign may not be illuminated.
Storefront projecting
6 sq. ft.
May be double faced fora
12 ft.
The sign must be affixed to the building wall or to a pole
g
that is mounted on the building, so that the sign is
sign
total area of 12 sq. ft.
perpendicular to the building wall.
The sign may not swing or be easily moved by wind.
A business wishing to install a projecting sign must show
proof of liability insurance.
Sign permits are be subject to Design Review according
to the procedures specified in Chapter 8 of this Title.
Up to one non -illuminated portable sign is allowed per
storefront.
The sign must be placed on private property or within a
designated sidewalk cafe area.
6 sq. ft. per sign face.
The sign may not block access to any doorway.
Portable sign
May be double-faced for a
6 ft
The sign must be moved inside the business when the
total area of 12 sq ft.
business is closed.
The sign must be weighted at the base to provide
stability as approved by the Building Official or designee.
A maximum of 2 sign faces are allowed per sign.
Time &
25 sq, ft. per sign face.
Signs must not project more than 6 ft. into the public
Temperature signs
May be double-faced for a
total area of 50 sq. ft.
—
right-of-way
Maximum diameter: 9 inches
Barber Poles
—
—
Maximum length: 3 ft
3 sq, ft, per sign face
Directional signs
May be double-faced for
—
—
total area of 6 sq. ft.
Identification &
Up to one of these signs is allowed per building.
Integral signs
2 sq. ft.
No permit is required.
One private flag may be displayed in conjunction with
Flags
--
public flags.
No permit is required.
Quick Vehicle
—
Allowed for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses.
Servicing Signs
—
No permit is required.
268 12/28/05
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-9C
Sign Definitions
Article C. Sign Definitions
As used in Article 14-56, Sign Regulations, the following definitions shall apply. The General
Definitions, contained in Article A of this Chapter, shall apply to all terms used in Article 14-513
that are not defined below.
ADVERTISING SIGN: A sign displaying the type or name of a product, good or service
sold either on or off the premises on which the sign is located.
ANIMATED SIGN: Any sign or part of a sign which, through the use
of moving structural elements, flashing or sequential lights,
lighting elements, or other automated method, results in
movement, or the appearance of movement.
AWNING SIGN: A building sign placed on the surface of an awning.
BALLOON: An inflatable bag filled with gas or hot air and displayed in
such a way as to attract attention to the premises on which it is
located.
BANNER: A strip of flexible material, such as cloth, paper or plastic,
securely fastened on all corners to a building or structure and used to advertise a
special event.
BILLBOARD: An off -premises sign on which poster panels or bulletins are mounted. For
purposes of this Title, billboard signs are not considered freestanding signs or
monument signs.
BUILDING SIGN: Any sign attached to a building or to an appurtenance of a building in
any way.
CANOPY SIGN: A building sign attached to or in any way
incorporated with the face or underside of a canopy,
marquee or any other similar building projection and
which does not extend beyond the projection by more
than 6 inches.
CHANGEABLE COPY/CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: A sign, or
part of a sign, such as a
CANOPY ROOF SIGN: A building sign attached to or
incorporated with the roof of a canopy, marquee, or any
other similar building projection.
CHANGEABLE COPY/CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: A sign, or part of a sign, such as a
reader board, where the copy is easily changed manually or by electronic means as
specified in Article 14-513, Sign Regulations.
COMMON SIGN: A sign that serves 2 or more uses.
CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A sign identifying the architects, engineers, contractors and
other individuals involved in the construction of a building or announcing the future
use of the building.
414 12/28/05
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
14-9C
Sign Definitions
DEVELOPMENT SIGN: A sign designating the name of a development or subdivision
consisting of 2 acres or more.
DIRECTIONAL SIGN: A sign designed to guide or direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic
and containing no advertising message.
DRIVE -THROUGH RESTAURANT MENU SIGN: A sign displaying a menu or similar
advertising for the purpose of allowing patrons of a restaurant to
order food at a drive -through facility.
ELECTRONIC SIGN: A sign that displays a changing message
through the use of an electronically controlled and illuminated
medium. An electronic sign is considered an animated sign.
FACIA SIGN: A single -faced building sign parallel to or at an angle of
not more than 450 from the wall of the building on which it is mounted.
Such signs do not extend more than one foot out from vertical walls nor
more than one foot out at the sign's closest point from non -vertical walls.
FLAG, PRIVATE: Any flag displaying the name, insignia, logo or emblem of
an individual or a profit -making entity.
FLAG, PUBLIC: Any flag displaying the name, insignia, emblem or logo of the
United States, the State of Iowa, the City, any other nation, state, or city,
or a nonprofit organization or institution.
FREESTANDING SIGN: A sign supported by one or more uprights or braces
firmly and permanently anchored in or on the ground and not attached to
any building or wall.
FREESTANDING, WIDE -BASE SIGN: A freestanding sign in which the
uprights or braces are clad in a permanent material such that the entire
base has a monolithic or columnar line that maintains essentially the
same contour.
GOING -OUT -OF -BUSINESS SIGN: A sign announcing a sale resulting from
the termination of a business on the premises.
GRAND OPENING SIGN: See Special Events Sign.
HAZARDOUS SIGN: A sign which, because of its construction or state of
disrepair, may fall or cause possible injury to passersby, as determined
by the City; a sign which, because of its location, color, illumination or
animation, interferes with, obstructs the view of or is confused with any
authorized traffic sign, signal or device; or a sign which makes use of
the words "stop", "go slow", "caution", "drive in", "danger" or any other
word, phrase, symbol or character in such a way as to interfere with,
mislead or confuse traffic.
IDENTIFICATION BANNER: A sign of canvas, nylon, or other durable
material that is permanently affixed to a light pole by structural
members on the top and bottom of the sign (or two opposite sides).
FRE53TANDING
SIGN
M
415 12/28/05
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-9C
Sign Definitions
Identification banner signs may contain the name and logo of a shopping or business
center, or contain a seasonal or non-profit community event message. Identification
banner signs may not contain advertising or business -related event messages.
IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A sign displaying the name, address, crest, insignia or
trademark, occupation or profession of an occupant of a building or the name of any
building on the premises.
ILLUMINATED SIGN: Any sign in which a source of light is used to make the message
readable. An illuminated sign need not be an electronic sign.
INTEGRAL SIGN: A sign carved into stone, concrete or other building material or made
of bronze, aluminum or other permanent type of construction and made a part of the
building to which it is attached.
MARQUEE SIGN: See Canopy Sign.
MASONRY WALL SIGN: An identification sign mounted on the face or inset into a fence
or wall constructed of masonry materials. Such identification sign or set of two signs
shall identify one entity or one group of entities, such as identifying an office
research park or industrial park.
MONUMENT SIGN: A permanent sign, not attached to a
NUMENT
building, which is mounted low to the ground and does not MON M
exceed 5 feet in height. _
NONCONFORMING SIGN: A sign, other than a prohibited sign,
that does not comply with the regulations of the zone in which it is located by reason
of these or any other regulations adopted after the installation of the sign.
OBSOLETE SIGN: A sign or any portion of a support for that sign that advertises an
activity, business, product or service no longer conducted.
OFF -PREMISES SIGN: A sign that directs attention to a use conducted off the lot on
which the sign is located.
ON -PREMISES SIGN: A sign with the primary purpose of identifying or directing
attention to the lot on which the sign is located.
PAINTED WALL SIGN: A sign painted directly on an exterior surface of a building other
than the windows.
PARAPET SIGN: A fascia sign installed on a parapet or a parapet wall.
PERMITTED SIGN: A sign allowed in the zone in which it is listed, subject to compliance
with the requirements of the sign regulations.
POLITICAL SIGN: A temporary sign promoting candidates seeking
public office, a political issue or containing other election
information, such as "vote today". "Political signs" shall not be PORTABLE
SIGN
considered off -premises signs.
PORTABLE SIGN: A sign not firmly and permanently anchored or
secured to either a building or the ground and not expressly
permitted in Chapter 5, Article B, Sign Regulations.
416 12/28/05
14-9C
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code
Sign Definitions
POSTER: A temporary sign on a card or sheet of paper, plastic or other similar material
intended to advertise or publicize a product or event.
PROHIBITED SIGN: A sign, other than a nonconforming sign, not permitted by this
Titlp_
PROJECTING SIGN: A building sign extending
more than one foot out from the wall of the 1N=
slow
building on which it is mounted.
PUBLIC ART: Any work of art exposed to public
view from any street right of way which does
not contain any advertising, commercial
symbolism, such as logos and trademarks, or
any representation of a product.
PUBLIC PLACE: Any public street, way, place, alley, sidewalk, square, plaza, or City
owned right-of-way, or any other public property owned or controlled by the City and
dedicated for public use.
PUBLIC SIGN: A noncommercial sign installed by or on the order or authorization of the
City or other public agency in the public interest. Such signs include, but are not
limited to, safety signs, zoning signs, memorial plaques, signs for structures or sites
of historical interest and all similar signs.
QUICK VEHICLE SERVICING SIGNS: Signage which generally appears as an integral
part of the equipment accessory to automotive service stations and other
establishments engaged in the dispensing of motor vehicle fuel or oil, including but
not limited to gasoline pumps, oil display racks and
portable tare racks. Roo,,
AI
REAL ESTATE SIGN: A sign which advertises the sale, rental
or lease of the premises or part of the premises on which
the sign is located, including open house directional signs.
ROOF SIGN: A sign installed on or above a roof of a building
and affixed to the roof.
SEASONAL DECORATION: A display, which does not constitute a sign, pertaining to
recognized national, state or local holidays and observances.
SIGN: Any structure or medium, including its component parts, visible to the public from a
street or public right of way and used or intended to be used to direct attention to a
business, product, service, subject, idea, premises or thing. Signs shall not include
buildings or landscaping. The term "sign" includes, but is not limited to, all reading
matter, letters, numerals, pictorial representations, emblems, trademarks, inscriptions
and patterns, whether affixed to a building or separate from a building. This
definition does not include public art, seasonal decorations and directional symbols on
paved surfaces.
SIGN FACE: The surface of the sign on which reading material, letters, numerals, pictorial
representations, emblems, trademarks, inscription or patterns are affixed.
SIGN WALL: The wall of a building on which a sign is mounted, including elements of the
wall or any member or group of members which defines the exterior boundaries of
417 12/28/05
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-9C
Sign Definitions
the side of the building on which the sign is mounted and which has a slope of 450 or
greater with the horizontal plane.
SPECIAL EVENTS SIGN: A sign announcing grand openings, philanthropic events,
events of nonprofit organizations or events of civic interest.
SPINNER: A device shaped like a propeller and designed to rotate in the wind to attract
attention to the premises on which it is located.
STOREFRONT PROJECTING SIGN: A building sign extending more than one foot out
from the wall of the ground -level floor of the storefront on which it is mounted that
functions as an identification sign.
SWINGING SIGN: A sign that, because of its design, construction, suspension or
attachment, is free to swing or move noticeably because of pressure from the wind.
TEMPORARY SIGN: A yard sale sign, temporary identification
sign or political sign constructed of temporary materials, such
as cardboard, wallboard or plywood, with or without a
structural frame, intended for a temporary period of display, Q
but excluding banners.
TIME AND TEMPERATURE SIGN: A projecting, identification of
sign that shows the current time and temperature in an OF
electronic changeable copy format in a manner similar to the
illustration at right.
WINDOW SIGN: A building sign permanently affixed to a
window, embedded in a window or hanging adjacent to a window and obviously
intended to be viewed by the public through the window. This definition does not
include merchandise or product displays, posters, signs painted on windows and
temporary signs.
YARD SALE SIGN: A temporary sign advertising a yard sale or a garage sale.
418 12/28/05
i► ri`� Ire
APPLICATION TO THE ,00-6
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT +�YCL C')��
VARIANCE -y
DATE: PROPERTY PARCEL NO. IOID�OtCVI
APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: �a Oft Ll hV1 S+e+
APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: _a APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE:
co-- C'0W(dor S +� ���
APPLICANT: Name: Jtr-lp Pepe +-S
+alb >n� ct Address:
C�
Phone: -316'1 I
S(yn Pknd UCfiC1viS
CONTACT PERSON: Name: .f odu YYlev( er
S+
Address: �b(0 /S+ NIN �f(Gtd �ctplG/S
I
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: cbrl�dcr 'Sk4e &nK
Address:
Phone:
f
4
i
ci _.
Specific reqquested van ce; applicable section(s) of the oning Chapter:
c�S1 t ) r �e IS ►'L9 V�or�c�v� rvhiv�oj-Ay e-
6-ee- ` kR►`cilt St �s W04 allow -eel lki
e(-(St7K Viort CUrTfOW1 Yrq Si ns CO k 1 I764 a�-�er�vl der ! -- Lt-c:— 2C
Reason for variance request:
����« of e��s-h��r �dn C�rt�►.,�-{�e� S-�r.�r��n� sr�r� �r6+ a(lQr��l .
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: �''4
Andrew Meyer
General Manager
-
.Ar
1010 FIRST ST• NW
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52405
PH; 319-364-6697
TOLL FREE: 800-475-7446
FAX.319-363-8034
_. _.rn.mneroducUons. com
A. Legal description of property:
S �,s . '-i s" o-F W —I od (mot � B I K G k
B. *Plot Ilan 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. Land uses on and property owners of abutting lots; and
6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed.
[*Submission of an 8" x 11 " bold print plot plan is preferred.]
C. List of property owners within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this
appeal:
NAME
See- 04( k-,� d
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION:
ADDRESS
C�J
Section 14-7A-2 of the Iowa City Zoning Chapter gives the Board of Adjustment power to
authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the terms of the Zoning Chapter as
will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of
the provisions of the Zoning Chapter will result in unnecessary hardship and so the spirit of the
ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. No variance to the strict application
of any provision of the Zoning Chapter shall be granted by the Board unless the applicant
demonstrates that all of the following elements are present: (emphasis added)
Oa
(Please respond specifically to each of the following, explaining your answers.)
Not contrary to the public interest.
a. Explain why the proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, or
have a substantially adverse effect on the use or value of other properties in the
area adjacent to the property included in the variance.
5e e- a �qJ cl
b. Explain why the proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the Zoning Chapter, and not contravene the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Unnecessary hardship.
a. Explain why the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only
for a purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located.
a44Mck�GI
b. Explain how the owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question,
and the situation not shared with other landowners in the area or due to general
conditions in the neighborhood.
C. Explain how the hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or
that of a predecessor in title.
C as
3
OES/ONERS 6 BUILDERS OF CUSTOM SONS
ANM
w w
Application to the Board of Adjustment — Variance
Corridor State Bank, 202 N Linn Street
App/icanMF Justification;
Not contrary to the oubiic interest.
a. Explain why the proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood
integrity, or have a substantially adverse effect on the use or value of
other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the
variance.
The proposed variance involves restoring the historic look and aesthetic appeal of
this property by simply refurbishing the existing sign structure which has been in
the same location for many years. This is obviously a retail district where signage
of this size and type are quite common. Other businesses in the neighborhood
include a bar next door, a book store, a few restaurants, numerous retail stores,
as well as business offices.
Refurbishing the existing sign would actually improve the integrity of the
neighborhood and likely improve the value of adjacent properties in the area.
This sign is unique in its architecture given the way it protrudes through the
existing canopy structure and it is one of the very few, tin , Signs in the City.
Restoring this existing sign to its original functionality would likely result in an
increase in customers drawn to this neighborhood. This corner is one of the most
visible and prominent ones in this businesses neighborhood, so restoring this
landmark sign to its original state for what will be a very attractive branch bank
would clearly be a benefit to the district and to the City. The tenant acquired this
property with the motivation of locating in a historically significant location, and in
doing so, desire to return the original appearance to the building and
neighborhood. We are confident that other businesses in this area would be
highly supportive of having a high -profile bank establish an attractive business in
their neighborhood, particularly if the bank is willing to preserve and enhance the
original architecture of this long-standing business structure while maintaining the
historic appearance of the neighborhood.
b. Explain why they proposed variance will be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter, and not contravene the
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
9010 FIRST ST. NW • CEDAR RAP/OS, IOWA SR405 • 399-364-5697 • FAX 319-363-9034
Page 2 of 3
Section 14-5B-1 of the Sign Regulations (Article B) starts out by stating that "The
purpose of this Article is to enhance and protect the physical appearance and
safety of the community. Refurbishing an historic landmark sign which has fallen
into disrepair will certainly will help to enhance the physical appearance of the
community.
That same sentence in the "Purpose" section of the sign regulations goes on to
say that the Article purpose of the regulations should be to "protect property
values and to preserve Iowa City's areas of natural, historic and scenic beauty".
As noted in our response to section "a" above, this sign is unique in its
architecture given the way it protrudes through the existing canopy structure and
it is one of the very few rotating signs in the City. Restoring this existing sign to
its original functionality would clearly enhance property values in this area while
preserving a piece of the City's historic beauty. Other possible signage options
offer a more generic look and would not allow the signage to tie into the look of
the neighborhood.
That same section of Article B further states that the purpose of the Article is "to
provide fair and equitable treatment for all sign users". Based on the architectural
structure of the existing building at 202 North Linn Street, the location of the
building on the property at that address and the sign regulations the City has
enacted, there is not a reasonable opportunity for someone moving a business
into this location to have a fair and equitable amount of signage. Although the
code would allow for a monument sign, the vision triangle would necessarily put
that monument sign in a location where it would not be visible. Putting channel
letters on the top of the canopy would be allowed, but the code would only allow
17-1/2 square feet of signage on each side (a total of 35 square feet) on the
canopy, which would look ridiculously small for a business with a name such as
"Corridor State Bank" (approximately 1 square foot per letter is too small for this
location).
Unnecessary hardship.
a. Explain why the properly in question cannot yield a reasonable, return if
used only for a purpose allowed in the zone where the pooerty� is
located.
The architectural elements, including the sign structure, are great asss'not only
to this property, but to the neighborhood as well. The bank (prospective tempt)
was drawn to this property for a variety of reasons, one of which was the existing
free-standing sign structure on a corner lot. When looking at other sign options
for this property, it has been determined by both the tenant and sign company,
there are no other options that give the business this kind of visibility. East
1010 FIRST ST. NW • CEDAR RAP/OS, IOWA 52405 • 319-354-5597 • FAX 319-363-8034
Page 3 of 3
Market Street is a one-way to the west. A sign at any other location, whether it is
free-standing or a building sign, would not be seen by passing traffic until it is too
late, if they see the sign at all. The cost associated with removing the existing
canopy structure, in addition to fabricating and installing new building signs,
would be quite significant. It is difficult to justify spending that kind of money
when the result is less visibility, which ultimately means less business. It would be
detrimental for any business at this location to not have the existing signage at
this corner.
As noted in our response to section '"b" above, the architectural structure of the
existing building at 202 North Linn Street, the location of the building on the
property at that address and the sign regulations the City has enacted does not
afford a reasonable opportunity for someone moving a business into this location
to have sufficient signage. Although the code would allow for a monument sign,
the vision triangle would necessarily put that monument sign in a location where it
would not be visible. Putting channel letters on the top of the canopy would be
allowed, but the code would only allow 17-1/2 square feet of signage on each side
(a total of 35 square feet) on the canopy, which would look ridiculously small for a
business with a name such as "Corridor State Bank" (approximately 1 square foot
per letter is too small for this location).
b. Explain how the owners situation is unique or peculiar to the property
in question, and the situation not shared with other landowners in the
area or due to general conditions in the neighborhood.
This property is very unique compared to others in this neighborhood and within
the city. It is a corner lot, located at the corner of North Linn Street and East
Market Street. The building is positioned so that customers are able to drive into
the parking lot from North Linn Street and exit onto East Market Street.
Unfortunately, since the building is set back from East Market Street and situated
on the northern half of the lot, a building sign would not be sufficient. East
Market Street is a one-way to the west and building signs would be able to be
viewed by this traffic. The current sign structure location is the most appropriate
and allows for greatest traffic visibility. -_
C. Explain how the hardship is not of the landowners or applicants own
making or that of a predecessor in title.
Neither the applicant nor any predecessor in title has done anything to #gate this
situation. The hardship is the result of the new zoning code which do(,�not a[f�_w
for free-standing signs in CB-2 zones, nor does it allow refacing exist hg
nonconforming signs. The existing traffic patterns (determination of one-way
streets, etc.) are under the control of the City, not the applicant in this case.
1010 P/RST ST. NW - CEOAR RAP/OS, IOWA SR4OS • 319-364-6697 • FAX 319-363-8034
H?/13/2UU'//'THU UU : 4'i AM GURR111'f l2 STATE BANK � L N o, l fth2U` u
?, UU3/UU2
NOTE: Cnnditions_, In permitting a variance, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and
safeguards, including but not limited to plantind screens, fencing, construction
commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, Improved traffic
circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, Increased minimum yard
requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or
any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances,
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter. (Section .14-8C 2C4, City Code).
Ordersunless 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 vAthout further public hearing on the merits of the original
appeal or application. (Section 14-BC-1 B, City Code)
potitlon for writ of certia 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 oertlorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or In part, and
Specifying the grounds of the Illegality. (Section 14-BC-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: Xf _
Date:.20.d -
ppdadHdXPpltCd-400ave -&0
r
Lid &:� I __
Jeff Peters
y,.o_aiaatisr-,.b', EO. Corridor S.ta.f:e.-Bank
Signature(s) Of Applicant($)
Jeff Peters, Owners Representative
Signature(s) of Property Owners)
if Different than Applicarit(s)
21a1oa
`r
4
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 8TH, 2007 — 5:00 PM
EMMA J HARVAT HALL — IOWA CITY/CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER: Carol Alexander called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Michele Payne, Ned
Wood, Edgar Thornton
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Digman
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (becomes effective only after separate
Council action):
None.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 11, 2007 MINUTES:
Wright stated that on page 1, five lines up from the bottom of the first paragraph, where it
states, "...where the current drive entrance now sites." It should be "sits." Payne noted
that in the next paragraph, fourth line up from the bottom, where it states, "...why a curb
cut would be aloud..." — this should be "allowed." She then said that two lines up from
this, where it states, "Neighbors wondered why so the location is so far..." — the first "so"
should be deleted to make it read better. Payne also noted that in the same line as the
"aloud" change, it states "Rohret" and this should probably be "Rohret Road." Payne
then stated that on the top of page 2, where it says, "...drivers are attempting to pull off
into driveway." There should be the word "a" before driveway. Wright noted that since
these minutes are legal records, he feels they should be cleaned up as best they can. He
then noted that on the bottom of page 2, very last line where it states, "Schaeffer said that
it's important that the 18-month extension is important..." — one of the words
"important" needs to be eliminated. He suggested keeping "...the 18-month extension is
important for the church." Wright then asked Holecek about the Motion at the bottom of
page 3, "Also, Wright moved..." — and if this was okay as typed. Holecek stated it was.
MOTION: Wright moved to approve the July 11, 2007 minutes as amended. Payne
seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5:0
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2007
Page 2
Alexander began by reading an opening statement for the Iowa City Board of
Adjustment.
EXC07-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Hieronymus Square
Associates for a special exception to allow private, underground off-street parking
in the CB-10 zone for property located at 314 and 328 South Clinton Street.
Miklo stated that with the Board's permission, he would give an abbreviated staff report
on this application, as the applicants are the only ones present at the meeting, and the
Board Members have all had time to review the application. The Board agreed to an
abbreviated report. Miklo began by showing those present the exact map location of this
project. He stated that the first floor of the building is L-shaped, and then there is a
passageway that allows vehicles to enter the parking area, a valet drop-off or delivery
area, and other short-term loading spots. The parking would be totally underground, with
Burlington Street to the north and Clinton Street to the west. The entrance to the parking
lot would be from the Court Street Transportation Center, so there will not be an actual
physical entrance to this underground parking from the streets that border this property.
Motorists will have to enter the Transportation Center from Dubuque Street. Miklo
showed various depictions of this. He further stated that this parking area would be for
residents who have purchased or leased a dwelling on the upper floors.
Miklo then showed the Board an illustration of what the building will look like from
Burlington and Clinton Streets. He stated that the first several floors of this building will
be commercial, with the upper levels being residential. He noted that there is a vehicle
entrance from Clinton Street that will allow the delivery and drop-off areas, in the center
of the block. Payne asked for clarification on the "split" area of this building. Miklo
further explained the layout and the areas in question. He further stated that a possible
tenant in this building would be a hotel.
In terms of the reasons why this exception is in front of the Board, Miklo stated that the
Zoning Code specifies in CB-10, downtown district, that private parking be given a lot of
scrutiny. He further explained the reasons behind this. He stated that it is the policy of
the City to provide public parking downtown in order to be able to direct traffic, not
interfering with pedestrian mobility downtown, and also allows control of the supply of
parking. However, Miklo stated that the Code does allow an exception for this. The
criteria for this exception is that the applicant must demonstrate that there is a need for
this parking, which Miklo stated the applicant has done. He stated that most of the
development in the CB-10 zone is for commercial properties, with residential slowly
being brought in. The nature of residential parking, therefore, is different than
commercial needs, Miklo stated. He further stated that this long-term parking is more
difficult for the City to accommodate, which he stated is why the staff and Council agree
that this development should have private parking with it. He stated that this would be
beneficial to both the public and the developer. Miklo stated that this application
certainly meets that test.
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2007
Page 3
The other standards have to do more with the aesthetics of the parking, given that this
will be completely underground and not visible to the public. Another concern is that
parking not displace active retail, commercial uses, and again, he stated that since this is
underground parking, it is not taking up land that could have otherwise been devoted to
other uses. Miklo stated that staff believes this clearly meets the specific tests that the
City looks for when considering private parking downtown. Also, as outlined in the staff
report, Miklo states that it also meets the general test that is looked at for Special
Exceptions. He stated that if the Members have any questions, he would be happy to try
and answer them.
Payne stated that on page 3, where it talks about number of parking spots per unit, she
noticed that it states 3-bedroom units — 1 parking space, and she wondered if this
shouldn't be 2. Miklo agreed, stating that this was an error. Payne further asked if there
is an exact formula for the 200 parking spaces or more, to which Miklo stated that they
do not know this yet as they do not know the exact number of units yet.
Wood asked about the "tandem" parking spaces. Miklo explained that these are spaces
one in front of another, and he pointed these out on a diagram for the Members. Payne
asked if the tandem spots count as regular parking. Miklo stated they do not — that the
developer does not get any credit for these spots being regular parking spaces. Thornton
asked about spaces for disabled, and also the total number of spaces. He questioned if 80
parking spaces will be enough. Miklo stated that this is all that can be provided
physically on this site, and that the other spaces will be via residents acquiring parking
spaces in the Court Street Transportation Center next door. Payne asked how many
parking spaces are available in the Transportation Center. Miklo stated that he believes
there are 500 to 600 spaces in this deck.
Payne asked if the CB-10 zone has a parking requirement, to which Miklo stated it does
not. The Code currently states that CB-10 zoning does not require parking, and you are
not allowed to provide parking, unless the Board of Adjustment approves this. He further
stated that when this property was rezoned from CB-5 to CB-10, the Council, on
recommendation from Planning and Zoning and staff, did require that some parking must
be provided on the site, and also have to pay in to the Parking Impact Fee Fund, which is
a geographic area south of Burlington Street. The City has been collecting funds from
developers in these areas. The fee is for spaces that are not provided, for which the City
provides public parking. Payne asked further about these requirements, stating that if the
developer were building this directly north of where they are now, they would not have
any of these requirements. Miklo gave further examples of the parking fund/fee and CB-
10 zones, stating that this project did need to address the residential parking demand in
this area, otherwise it would not work out well for parking demand. Payne asked if there
was consideration given to the fact that at least 80 more vehicles will be driving through
the Transportation Center in order to access this underground parking. She noted that the
wear and tear would be higher with the increased traffic. Miklo stated that this area of
the Transportation Center's ramp is an area that is less used, and that the City did build
this ramp to promote development in the area. Wood asked if this is the only entrance, to
which Miklo stated there is also an entrance on Court Street.
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2007
Page 4
Thornton asked if thought has been given to further development in this particular area,
with similar properties. Miklo stated that Planning and Zoning recently looked at the
property directly to the east, and that this property is much narrower than the Hieronymus
Square project. He showed the Members this area on a diagram, further stating that this
narrower area is not able to accommodate any parking. The recommendation will be for
this developer to pay into the parking impact fee for 100% of the parking they would
have had to provide under the CB-5 zoning. Miklo stated that the last parking study done
encouraged a parking structure in this area, and the City continues to collect fees for this.
Alexander asked that either Miklo or Holecek clarify for the Board what decisions have
already been made on this project by Planning and Zoning and the Council, and what is
truly before the Board of Adjustment. Miklo stated that the decision has been made to
rezone this area to CB-10, and have also amended the Comprehensive Plan to talk
generally about the block between Burlington and Court Street, roughly from Clinton
back to Gilbert Street, as having the potential for further CB-10 zoning, provided issues
such as parking, pedestrian, aesthetics are addressed. He stated that this is not a "done
deal," but if an applicant can demonstrate a way of addressing those concerns, such as
paying into the parking impact fund or providing parking on site, and the building design
is such that it contributes to the downtown, then it is likely that further properties will
also be rezoned CB-10. This property, however, will be CB-10, and that it is required to
provide 80 parking spaces on site, and also required to pay into the parking impact fee for
any of the bedrooms that would have had required parking under CB-10. As for the
Board of Adjustment's charge, they need to determine whether the layout configuration
of this parking facility meets the criteria of the Code, which are mostly aesthetics and
mostly about not displacing commercial development. The other question is whether
there is a demand for this parking, that it will not compete with public facilities. Miklo
further stated that if the Board feels there is not enough evidence here, that this parking
will be competing with public facilities, and that aesthetically it does not meet the Code,
then the Board could vote to not approve this exception. However, Miklo stated that staff
feels it is clear that it does meet the criteria. Miklo ended by stating that staff
recommends that EXC07-00006, an application for private, off-street parking in the
Central Business (CB10) zone at 314 & 328 S. Clinton Street be approved subject to
general compliance with the application submitted.
Alexander asked if anyone had any questions for the applicant. Wood asked if they had
any idea how many people might be living in these residences. Alexander asked that the
applicant come forward to the microphone to address this question. Digman stated that
the high -end condos will probably have two people, which would be around 170 people,
and then the 80 plus hotel rooms, which could be around 140 people on a full night, and
then there are two floors of office space, with the first floor being retail, and a restaurant
on the 7`h floor. He stated that this building alone would need approximately 500 parking
stalls on a busy weekend. Miklo stated that one of the theories the City has used is this is
the type of place someone could live without a vehicle. Alexander asked if there were
any more questions before she closed the Public Hearing. Payne asked about the 80
parking spaces, and if they would be used for the hotel occupants or the office or retail
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2007
Page 5
units. Digman stated that these would be for residents who live in the building. He
further stated that the area of the parking ramp where residents will access this
underground parking is a small area with only 20 spaces or so. He further explained how
this underground area would be a secure area for the condo residents. Thornton stated
that he is unable to understand how you enter the Transportation Center and then enter
this proposed parking. Digman further explained how this will look, and how residents
will have the only access to this. Payne stated that she still feels 80 spaces is not enough.
Digman reiterated that this is the maximum amount they can fit underground.
Public Hearing Closed
MOTION: Wood moved that EXC07-00006, an application for private, off-street
parking in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 314 & 328 S. Clinton Street be
approved, subject to general compliance with the application submitted. Wright
seconded the motion.
Wood stated that there is obviously a demand for parking, and that it cannot be satisfied
through the public parking system, therefore, this criteria is met. He continued, stating
that the design must not detract from, or prevent, active building uses on the ground level
floor of the building, and that it appears that even with the 3-foot rise, it should not
detract from or prevent active building uses on the ground floor level. He further stated
that the parking will not interfere with the ground floor uses of the building. Under
General Standards, it will not be detrimental nor danger the public health, safety,
comfort, or general welfare. The access to the parking is through the Court Street
Transportation Center, and is off of a street that does not have a high volume of traffic.
Wood continued, stating that this exception would not injurious to the use and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor will it diminish or impair property values
in the neighborhood. This is an area that has been commercially developed, and Wood
stated that this should be a nice addition to the area. The parking area will be
undetectable from other properties in the vicinity, and it will alleviate the demand for
parking from the public parking facility next door. It will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property, and it will conserve
spaces in the Court Street Transportation Center. Wood further stated that it will make
commercial use available on the ground floor; and all necessary facilities have been
provided for. Ingress and egress, through the Court Street Transportation Center, have
been addressed, as well. This exception is also consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. Wood concluded that he is inclined to support this exception.
Thornton stated that first of all, he applauds the designers for meeting all of the standards
of the Code. He further stated that he believes, as Wood stated, that it does meet the
standards as set forth, and should not have a negative impact on the community.
However, he stated he does have some reservations about the number of spaces being
made available. He noted his concerns about traffic increases, and that he has some
reservations about the plan. Thornton stated that he will vote in favor of the exception.
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2007
Page 6
Payne stated that she totally agrees with Thornton that, as the criteria is set forth, this
exception does meet the criteria. However, she also feels there will be a strain on the
parking downtown, especially during the school year. She feels this will add to the
already existing problem, and will continue to grow until the parking problem is
addressed. She, too, will vote for this exception as it meets all the criteria, but she does
have serious concerns about parking in the downtown • area. Wright stated that this
clearly pokes at an issue in the Zoning Code that could use some refining. However, he
also feels this exception meets the criteria, and states that the 80 plus spaces definitely
addresses the criteria. He will also vote in favor. Alexander stated that she too would
vote in favor.
The motion was approved 5:0
OTHER:
Miklo addressed the concerns of the entering and exiting, and stated that this is a
legitimate concern for the Board to address. He stated that staff feels this will be a safe
situation. Wright noted that he feels convenience is more of an issue, but that this is not
for the Board to consider. Miklo stated that he feels the Board has raised some good
concerns about the CB 10 zone and parking downtown. He further stated that Planning
and Zoning instructed the staff to reexamine the CB 10 zone downtown, and that they will
be doing this. Parking is a top concern for P&Z. Miklo stated that they may contact the
Board of Adjustment for their ideas on this issue, or perhaps they may want to serve on a
committee that would address the parking issues. Thornton asked about long-term ideas,
and how long does Miklo think the City will uphold its monopoly on parking. Miklo
stated that this policy has been in place since the mid- 1970's, when they started the urban
renewal process. Miklo further stated that as the downtown moves further south, they
would have to address this issue further. Payne asked Miklo further questions about the
rezoning of this area.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Holecek stated that there is nothing to report on Shelter House yet.
Miklo stated that Members will be contacted if there is to be no meeting next month.
ADJOURNMENT:
Alexander adjourned the meeting at 5:53 PM.
N
N
O
O
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
x
X
X
x
X
00
x
x
X
x
X
Q
00
N
>C
X
M
0
X
x
x
x
oo
O�
O
N
--
—�
.-r
k.0
O
O
O
O
wo
0
0
0
0
z�
el
Cd
"Cy
a¢¢zz
�o
oz '