Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout 10-10-2008 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 5:00 PM Emma J. Harvat Hall A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the August 13, 2008 minutes D. Special Exception Items EXC08-00015: An application submitted by Harriet Gooding requesting a special exception to reduce the required front principal building setback from 25 feet to 20 feet for property located in the RS-5 (Low Density, Single Family) zone at 2402 Lakeside Drive. E. Other Discussion of the Central District Plan. F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING — October 8, 2008 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 13, 2008 — 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY Members Present: Karen Leigh, Michelle Payne, Caroline Sheerin, Edgar Thornton, Ned Wood Members Excused: None Staff Present: Sarah Walz, Doug Ongie, Sara Greenwood-Hektoen Others Present: Melissa Gillund, Burghend Shoenfeld RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: NONE. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ned Wood at 5:06 p.m. An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. ROLL CALL: Leigh, Payne, Sheerin, Thornton and Wood were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 9, 2008: Payne motioned to accept the July 9, 2008 minutes with corrections noted for the record. Leigh seconded. The motion carried 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC08-00014: Discussion of an application submitted by ALPA for a special exception to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces for property located in the I1 zone at 2309 and 2278 Heinz Road. Sarah Walz introduced Doug Ongie, an intern in the Planning Department, to the Board. Ongie had prepared the staff report for this special exception and presented it to the Board. Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 13, 2008 Page 2 Ongie called the Board's attention to a letter he had distributed from Tru Art that supported the special exception applied for by ALPA. Ongie noted that his office had also received a call from Lyle Miller in support of this application. Ongie said that the applicant is proposing to construct two warehouses and a production facility at 2278 and 2309 Heinz Road. To do this, the zoning code would require ALPA to provide 119 parking spaces. ALPA would like to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 119 to 84. The area for the additional 35 parking spaces required by code would be left as open, green space in the event that parking spaces were needed in the future. Ongie said that one warehouse has been completed, and the second warehouse and production facility are currently under construction. During this period of construction, ALPA has been parking temporarily on the drive, something which is not allowed. Ongie said that the applicant has agreed to eliminate the temporary parking as soon as the improvements are complete. Ongie stated that the specific approval criterion for this special exception is as follows (14-5A- 417-5): Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking spaces up to 50%. Ongie stated that the applicant has provided Staff with an analysis of their parking needs, which shows the greatest need for parking taking place during the transition from first to second shift at 4:00 p.m. At that time, Ongie said, a total of 66 spaces are necessary for all employees: 14 spaces for office employees, 26 spaces for first shift workers leaving the site, and 26 spaces for second shift workers arriving at the site. If the parking requirement was reduced to 84, this would leave an additional 18 spaces for visitor parking. Ongie outlined the General Standards (14-413-3, Special Exception Review Requirements) as they pertained to this application. The site plan has been approved, Ongie said, so all utilities, setbacks, drainage issues access roads, etc., have been taken care of. The applicant has shown that the number of parking spaces required by code is excessive in this case and will not endanger the public or adversely affect the property values of neighboring properties. Ongie said that it should also be noted that transportation staff has received complaints of off- street parking off of Heinz Road. Staff is aware that there have been issues with semi -trucks parked somewhere near the Heinz Road, Scott Boulevard and Highway 6 intersections, but did not witness this when Staff was on site. The parking issues are not related to ALPLA. Ongie said the applicant has agreed to provide additional parking if the site or the number of employees were ever expanded. Ongie stated that Staff finds the parking requirement to be excessive in this case and recommends approval of this special exception. Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 13, 2008 Page 3 Wood asked if there were any questions from the Board. Payne said that she had a question on the specific approval criteria. She questioned what exactly the term "unique" was intended to mean in this situation. Walz replied that the parking requirement is set using transportation models for what the norm is for a factory. Individual factories will differ from that norm. In this case, the number of employees per square foot of factory space is substantially less than that predicted by the transportation model. To a certain extent, Walz said, the applicant is "on their honor" in reporting their true parking needs. Walz noted that it would not serve the applicant well to create a situation for themselves in which they did not have enough parking. If the applicant's employment numbers ever go beyond a certain ratio of their current stated need, Walz explained, the City would require them to put in additional parking. Payne noted that a special exception is granted to a specific property, not to the owner of a property. Payne asked what would happen if ALPA was no longer there in ten years and the company to follow them had a much larger number of employees. Payne said that the way the special exception was written, it seemed as though the exception was being granted to the applicant rather than the property. Walz said that this exception would be tied to this specific use by their circumstances. She said that if another factory were to come in that employed greater numbers of employees, that factory would be required to provide more parking. Payne asked if instead of using the word "applicant," the language could be broadened to more clearly apply to the use of the property rather than the user. Walz agreed that this would be best. Thornton asked for clarification on the traffic complaints that Ongie had mentioned, and asked if the complaints were related to the temporary parking in the applicant's driveway. Walz clarified that the parking complaints were not related to ALPA at all. Staff merely felt the Board should be aware of the situation and know that Staff was monitoring it. Thornton asked if there would be further communication between the City and the applicant if the special exception was granted. Specifically, if the applicant did greatly increase its employment numbers such that the additional parking requirements kicked in, how would the City know that? Walz said that the process would most likely be complaint -driven. If there came a time when cars were parked along the roadside and a complaint was received, Staff would investigate ALPA's staffing levels. Additionally, Walz said, if ALPA did anything on - site requiring a building permit, then parking requirements would automatically be reviewed as a part of that process. Thornton asked if there was no process in place for regular follow-up communication on such matters. Walz said that there is not. She again noted that it would not be in the applicant's best interest not to provide enough parking for its staff when the space was there and available. Sheerin asked how Staff would know that the problem was indeed one caused by ALPA if Staff was acting only on complaints. Walz replied that a staff member would be sent out to observe and establish if those parking cars were then going to the ALPA Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 13, 2008 Page 4 property or another property in the area. Payne observed that enforcement of the exception would be "reactive" in nature, rather than proactive. Walz agreed that this was the case. Payne asked Ongie if it was the small lot or the big lot depicted on the site plan that was being discussed. Ongie replied that it was the bigger lot. Wood asked to return to Payne's point in which she discussed tying the exception to the property rather than the applicant. Walz said that the special exception, as written, would be granted at a certain employment level and that it would be perfectly acceptable for the Board to tie that employment level in as a condition of the exception. The employment level would then apply to anyone using that property, not just this applicant. Walz said that this is how Staff interprets the current language, adding that if it makes the Board more comfortable to provide specific staffing levels in the exception then they should do that. Walz said her reading of the existing language is that the exception would be granted at a given staffing level and if that staffing level changed, then the unique characteristic upon which the exception had been based would no longer exist. Walz asked for Greenwood-Hektoen's comments on the matter. Greenwood-Hektoen said that she believed it would be better to more broadly state the exception and reference it to the staffing levels rather than leaving the language tied specifically to the applicant. Thornton asked if it would be improper for the Board to recommend to the City that it create some sort of business -friendly process for following up on special exceptions such as this and inquiring once -yearly if their parking needs have changed. Greenwood-Hektoen said that the process would be more of a complaint -driven one, as the City probably did not have the resources to monitor these types of situations. Greenwood-Hektoen said that a lot of the City's responses from department to department are complaint -based, and that this is out of necessity. Walz added that with any special exception there is a certain amount of self -enforcement in which the City assumes the applicant has enforced their end of the bargain until and unless it receives a complaint stating otherwise. Walz noted that special exceptions are often passed that require a certain level of landscaping. A few years after the exception has been granted, either a new property owner or the one granted the exception could remove that very landscape. The way Staff would know about this is if Staff happened by the property and noticed, if someone complained about the removal of the landscaping, or if the owner came in and applied for a building permit on the property. Walz said this is something that occurs once in awhile: either someone forgets or a new owner is unaware of the requirement and either a complaint or a permit application reveals the non-compliance. Leigh stated that she is all in favor of green space and believes that if something does not have to be paved, then it is good to leave it unpaved. That said, she also wanted a little more direction on how to word the special exception so that it applies regardless of the owner. Walz said she believed this could be done by basing the special exception on the current staffing levels presented by the applicant. Greenwood-Hektoen suggested spelling out what the current staffing levels are. Walz said that it could be stated such that if staffing levels went up by more than 20% the parking requirement would revert back to code. Greenwood-Hektoen suggested Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 13, 2008 Page 5 that the word "applicant" could be replaced with "owner, occupant, or successors in interest." Walz said that the applicant is presenting 66 as the maximum number of employees that would be at the site at one time. Payne said that she was uncomfortable with that because 20% of 66 is 13; if 13 people were added and scattered over three shifts it would not affect parking because they would only need three more spaces per shift. On the other hand, Payne noted, if the applicant added 13 people on one shift and none on the others, it would have a large impact on the parking situation. She said this did not seem fair to the applicant, as they already have 18 extra parking spaces. Payne explained that this formula would unduly and unnecessarily limit the applicant's ability to even nominally expand their employee numbers. After some discussion, Walz and Payne agreed that what they both had intended to express was that if there was an increase in anticipated use of more than 20% of the current use at peak shift -change times, then the parking requirements would revert back to those of the code. Walz said she would advise the Board to include at least four parking spaces for visitors or additional users, limiting the total number of possible employees at that peak time to 80. Thornton asked if the Board was potentially boxing itself in by setting a specific percentage for the applicant. Thornton suggested that perhaps Counsel and Staff might look at this in terms of what would be equitable for business as a whole. Thornton questioned whether or not the Board might be inadvertently creating a "20% rule" to be concerned about with future applicants. Walz assured Thornton that the Board is in no way bound by past decisions, and need not be concerned that this decision will set a precedent. Each case is unique and individual as viewed by the Board of Adjustment. Requirements are outlined in the code, which is what sets the "precedents." The Board of Adjustment, Walz said, has a role of granting relief (or not) for that requirement. Walz said that the Board is not setting a new standard requirement; rather it is granting relief from the requirement while acknowledging that there is some threshold at which the applicant must comply with the standard requirement in the code. Wood invited the applicant to address the Board. Melissa Gillund of Shive-Hattery spoke on behalf of ALPA. Gillund said that for the past year ALPA has been working with Staff on the site improvements. She said they had gone over parking requirements for the property and designed the grading, drainage, utilities for the property for the required 119 spaces. Those plans have been approved, and now ALPA is asking for a reduction in the number of required spaces. Gillund said that she believed they had fairly shown that if a need for the additional parking arises in the future, ALPA can pull out the existing plans and very easily implement them. ALPA would prefer to see green space out there if they do not need that parking. ALPA is also very willing to work with the City if employee numbers change. Gillund asked if the Board had any questions. Sheerin asked if the green space will be set aside for the purpose of parking should the need arise. Sheerin said that while that has been stated by the applicant, there is nothing in the application or the conditions discussed that specifically requires ALPA to set aside that parcel of land. Walz confirmed that there is nothing outlining that this particular space need be reserved for future parking. She stated that if ALPA came in for a building permit for that area, Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 13, 2008 Page 6 the expansion would trigger a reexamination of the parking issue, in which case ALPA would need to either set aside parking for that area or find another suitable area on the property for additional parking. Payne pointed out that if ALPA wished to build another warehouse, then a new parking requirement would be implemented for ALPA, and if ALPA wished to have that requirement reduced, they would need to return to the Board of Adjustment. Walz stated that this was correct. She noted that the same would be true if the Board placed a condition on the number of employees as it pertains to the parking, if ALPA's employee numbers grew and they wished not to raise the parking to the full 119, that too would have to come before the Board for a special exception. Thornton asked if the discrepancy between projected parking needs for a factory of this size as compared to the real parking needs was a result of technology, improved operations, or business climate. He asked because he wondered if the Board would be seeing ALPA back again next year if the business climate improved and resulted in a need for more parking. Burghard Shoenfeld, the owner's representative, stated that ALPA currently has too many parking spaces and that other than the area in the front, most of the spaces are never occupied. Schoenfeld said that if ALPA adds more machines, it does not necessarily mean that they need more employees. Schoenfeld noted that ALPA actually runs four shifts, and that even if 16 workers were added, only eight additional spaces would be needed. Schoenfeld added that those eight spaces could easily be covered with the surplus parking in their current 84 spaces. Wood stated that he wished to clarify that he believed everyone was happy not to have too much pavement in the area; however, he said, the concern is that if the property changes hands the Board wishes to ensure adequate parking is available for the next use. Schoenfeld pointed out that if the property changed hands the new owner would definitely be applying for a new building permit. Schoenfeld explained that even if the property was purchased by someone in the same industry, the set-up would have to be entirely different. Further, Schoenfeld said, in the almost 60-year history of the company, it has never sold one of its 120 sites. Wood said that he understood that, and that the Board simply wants to make sure it is consistent in what it does. Wood invited further questions. There were none. As there was no one else present, the public hearing was closed. Wood invited discussion from the Board. Payne said that she had come up with some wording she wished to share with the Board. She said that the exception could be granted "subject to the requirement that if the maximum number of parking spaces needed during a shift change exceeded 80 spaces, the number of spaces required by the zoning code will be provided." Walz read the wording back to Payne to make sure she had it correctly. Leigh pointed out that the code requires 119 spaces and that this was potentially much more than the applicant might need. Walz said that the applicant could request another special exception at that time if that was the case. Leigh asked if language requiring the "applicant or successor in interest" would also be included in the special exception. Payne said that it would not be necessary with her wording because the special exception is tied to 80 spaces, not the applicant. Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 13, 2008 Page 7 Payne moved that EXC08-00014, an application submitted by ALPA for a special exception to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces for property located in the I1 zone at 2309 and 2278 Heinz Road, be approved subject to the requirement that if the maximum number of parking spaces needed during a shift change exceeds 80 spaces, the number of spaces required by the zoning code will be provided. Sheerin seconded the motion. Wood invited findings of fact. Greenwood-Hektoen said that she had not heard Payne specify that the parking reduction was from 119 required parking spaces to 84. Payne noted that that language was not in the description on the agenda so she had mistakenly skipped over it. Payne stated that she wished to amend her motion to say: an application submitted by ALPA for a special exception to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from 119 to 84 for property located in the I1 zone at 2309 and 2278 Heinz Road, be approved subject to the requirement that if the maximum number of parking spaces needed during a shift change exceeds 80 spaces, the number of spaces required by the zoning code will be provided. Sheerin seconded the amended motion. Wood invited findings of fact. Sheerin outlined the specific approval criteria for this special exception (14-5A-4F-5). Sheerin stated that for special exception EXC08-00014 the findings are that it can be demonstrated that specific use has unique characteristics such that the Board may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces up to 50% because during the peak parking period for this property there are a total of 66 spaces necessary to accommodate employees. Providing a total of 84 spaces leaves 18 spaces for visitor parking. Because of this, the required number of parking spaces is excessive. Sheerin went on to address the General Standards (14-4B-3). 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Sheerin said that the health, safety and welfare of the general public are not endangered by this special exception because the reduction would still provide an adequate number of parking spaces for employees and visitors. 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. Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 13, 2008 Page 8 Sheerin maintained that the use would not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of the property in the neighborhood because allowing for a parking reduction still retains an adequate number of parking spaces for employees and visitors. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The special exception will not impede development in the surrounding area because there are adequate setbacks, landscaping and screening, as illustrated on the site -plan, said Sheerin. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Sheerin noted that there are already adequate utilities, access roads and drainage for the subject property. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Sheerin said that there is no issue with ingress or egress on the property because if the property was to expand or the number of employees was to increase in the future, the owner of the property will install additional parking spaces for the property. 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 on which it is to be located. Sheerin said that all other applicable regulations have been complied with. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Sheerin explained, because the Plan does emphasize methods for dealing with storm -water runoff, and by reducing the amount of paved surfaces and maintaining permeable surfaces, the reduction is consistent with the stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan. Sheerin said that she would vote in favor of the special exception as stated in the wording provided by Payne. Payne said that she would add to the findings of fact that traffic is not changing on the lot so there will be no changes to ingress and egress. Payne said that if lot -traffic changes in the future, the owner at that time will have to deal with changes of ingress and egress. Payne said that she too intended to vote for the motion. Iowa City Board of Adjustment August 13, 2008 Page 9 Leigh stated that the general and specific standards had been well -covered by her colleagues, and that she too intended to vote in favor of the motion. Thornton said that he agreed that the issues have been well -covered and he intended to vote in favor of the motion. Wood said he would vote in favor of the motion and that the findings of fact had been very thoroughly covered. Wood called for a vote. The motion carried 5-0. Wood declared the motion approved and stated that anyone wishing to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within thirty days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office. OTHER: None. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Walz noted that Michelle Payne would be leaving her position with the Board of Adjustment and would be filling a seat on the Planning and Zoning Commission beginning August 18, 2008. Walz thanked Payne for her exemplary and thoughtful performance as a Board member. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn the meeting. Leigh seconded. The motion to adjourn carried on a 5-0 vote. The meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m. 00 O O T N T N T T T co O T O T CD M X X X X X co CD X X X X w O X X X X O O X X X X X X X X O X X X X CV)0 M X X X X N O r Z i Z Z Z Z N O c'M O O � N C L L O ` O r r CD r O r O r O [� O O X W O O O O O O •1� 0 ca E O O (D ri U Z a m o a� r O a)s0s cz cc O m — toO CV .O ' f0) O J O O O O O N V U •� i O U -a t C O� C> O 4 > >C)oY�Z ��QW N L X C E W N N co -0 Q O m O a. Q Q Z Z n n n LIJ u n X O O z Y To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC08-00015 2402 Lakeside Drive GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: September 10, 2008 Harriet Gooding 2402 Lakeside Drive Iowa City Chelsea Homes Remodeling 319-248-2096 Adjustment to the front principal building setback requirement. To reduce the front setback requirement from 25 feet to 20 feet in order to allow an open air front porch. 2402 Lakeside Drive 23 acres Residential (RS-5) zone North: Residential (RS-5 and RM-44) South: Residential (RS-5 and RS-8) East: Residential (RM-44) West: Residential (RS-5) Specific criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements, 14-2A-4B-5; Purpose of the minimum setback requirement, 14-2A-4B- 1; General criteria for special exceptions, 14-4B-3 August 14, 2008 This subject property is located on the northeast corner of Lakeside Drive and Nevada Avenue, with its front entrance facing onto Lakeside Drive. Because the property is a corner lot, it is required to provide a front setback along both streets. While the zoning for the property is Low Density Single -Family (RS-5), the property abuts a High Density Multi -family Residential (RM- 44) zone to the east (along Lakeside Drive). The required front principal building setback in the RS-5 zone is 15 feet. In the RM-44 zone, the required front principal building setback is 20 feet. Along the Lakeside frontage, there are only two principal structures: the subject property, which is currently set back 27 feet, and a multi- family building with a setback of 25 feet. In this situation, setback averaging determines the required front setback to be 25 feet. The applicant would like to construct a 15- foot (w) x 7-foot (d) open air porch at the front entrance to the house, thereby reducing the front principal building setback to 20 feet. Covered porches ar subject to the City principal building setback requirements. Requests to reduce the principal building setback requirements may be granted by the Board of Adjustment if it can be demonstrated that the specific and general approval criteria listed in the code are met. ANALYSIS: View of the house from Lakeside Drive. The property owner proposes to construct and open air porch at the front entrance of the house. If constructed, the porch would be set back 20 feet from the property line. The purpose of the Zoning Chapter 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 Zoning Chapter to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board of Adjustment may grant relief from the requirements of the Zoning Chapter through a special exception if the action is considered to serve the public interest and is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Chapter. Specific approval criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements (14-2A-4B-5). 1. The situation is peculiar to the property. The situation is peculiar in that only two principal structures are located along this frontage and those buildings are in different zones (RS-5 and RM-44) with principal structures separated by a distance of more than 100 feet. While the entrance to the subject house faces directly onto Lakeside Drive, the multi -family building, which is a set back 25 feet, is turned at an angle from the street and faces its entrance onto a private drive and parking area to its east. 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements. Staff believes that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirement due to the shallow depth of this parcel. The parcel is 82 feet deep with the rear yard facing into the shallow side yard of the single-family property to the north. Given the deep setback at the front (south) side of the subject lot, there is little private open space in the rear yard. A driveway entrance and garage occupy the entirety of the side yard to the east of the house making expansion into the side yard impractical. Setback Averaging (section 14-2A-413): Where at least 50 percent of the lots along a frontage have been developed and all of these developed lots are occupied by principal buildings that are located at least 5 feet further from the street than the required front setback, the required front setback along the frontage is increased to the equivalent of the setback of the building closest to the street. 3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The purpose of the setback regulations is to a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protections and access for fire fighting; b. To provide opportunities for privacy between buildings; c. To reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in Iowa City's neighborhoods; d. To promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences. e. Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. Staff believes that the reducing the front principal setback requirement is not counter to the purpose of the setback regulations for the following reasons. • Because the reduction requested is for the front (streetside) setback and because the resulting setback will be 20 feet (5 feet more than the RS-5 requirement) the exception will not reduce the space for light, air, and separation for fire protection and access along Lakeside Drive. • Because the reduction will allow for an open-air front porch, rather than an enclosed addition, the structure has less effect on the sense of separation for light and air. • The proposed setback reduction does not encroach on properties to either side. Because the resulting front setback remains 5 feet more than is required in the zone and is separated from neighboring properties across the street by the 66-foot Lakeside Drive right-of-way, it will not diminish the opportunity for privacy between buildings. • Because the only other residence along the frontage is the multi -family building to the east, which is located more than 100 feet from the subject house, and because the building is turned at an angle to face a private drive rather than the street, staff believes the reduction in the front setback will not create an unreasonable physical relationship between buildings and will reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the neighborhood. The setback requirements for the two zones indicate a difference of 5 feet between the setbacks for principal structures (15 feet in the RS-5 and 20 feet in the RM-44) . If this exception is granted, the resulting difference in setbacks would continue to be 5 feet, with both buildings located 5 feet further back from the street right-of-way line than required by code. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. This request is to reduce the setback to allow for an open-air porch at the front entrance of the house. For all the reasons provided above, and because the proposed addition is an open air porch, rather than an enclosed structure, it will be less intrusive and will give the appearance of greater separation for light and air and present a more attractive face to the street. 5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. The proposed special exception will not alter the current side setbacks. 4 General Standards: 14-413-3, 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 resulting front setback remains 5 feet deeper more than the standard requirement in the RS-5 zone (15 feet), the proposed porch will not intrude upon the right-of-way and will not reduce visibility for traffic or access for fire protection, the proposed exception satisfies this standard. 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, Staff believes that a 20-foot setback will retain adequate separation between the subject property and the street. The arrangement of the subject house on its lot in relation to the only other structure along this frontage is such that the reduction does not contradict the purpose of the setback requirements as explained above. Thus the setback reduction will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity and will not diminish the use and enjoyment or value of other properties in the area. Additionally, a porch could enhance the appearance of the dwelling on this property and could potentially encourage other improvements or reinvestment in the neighborhood. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The neighborhood in which the subject property is located is already fully developed. Given the separation between principal structures along this frontage and between the subject property and the street, this exception will not impede improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All public utilities, access roads, and other facilities are already provided. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Vehicle access to the property is provided via a driveway to the east of the house. Because the reduction will maintain a setback of 20 feet, 5 more than what is required in the RS-5 zone, and because the garage is set back more than the 25 feet required in the code2, this exception will not impede views or access for motorists for pedestrians. 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. The existing house and proposed porch appear to meet all other zoning requirements. This application will be reviewed by the Housing and Inspection Services Department to ensure compliance with all other City codes. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan encourages preservation and reinvestment in existing neighborhoods. 2 The minimum setback for garages is 25 feet in all zones. The purpose of the greater setback for garages is to minimize the amount of parking that occurs in the front setback and to provide visibility along the right-of-way and safety for ingress, and egress. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC08-00015, an application for a reduction in the front principal building setback from 25 feet to 20 feet to allow construction of a porch for property located in the RS-5 zone at 2402 Lakeside Drive, be approved subject to the porch being constructed and maintained as an open-air porch. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Aerial photo 3. Site plan 4. Application Approved by. _ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development 6 The aerial view above show the subject property in relation to the condominium property to the east. The house at 2402 Lakeside Drive is located more than 100 feet from the condominium building. This view also shows the relatively small size of the rear yard and it relationship to the single-family house to the north. 0 kv v L APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: a -/Lz - G, 6-- PROPERTY PARCEL NO. / PROPERTY ADDRESS: _ �, Lf D o2. a P 5'/'�/& PROPERTY ZONE: ALS 5 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 3 APPLICANT: Name:,� Address: ,Z6`1Z R ICA A! d Phone: CONTACT PERSON: Name: (if other than applicant) n �. Address: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: 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 a -mall sarah-walz@iowa-city.org. Purpose for special exception: ��lisfiti er - w'c","f- �co� u �` 1}e ` c- ,r -wz—TG`C' h�'01" - i �f/ 5tro t� S� Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: noA r -2- In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide responses to all of the information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date for your application. A pre -application consultation with Planning staff is STRONGLY recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria. As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official statement, you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Legal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary): You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing a parcel search for your address on the Assessor's website at www.iowacity.iowaassessors.com/ or by calling 319-356-6066. B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information: 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees- existing and proposed. 7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking spaces, etc.) C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code. in the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-413-4 of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are listed elsewhere in the Code.) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa- city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment. 5 xl PAGE 2A-9 14-2A Single Family Residential Zones (1) The situation is peculiar to the property in question; (2) There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements; (3) Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations; and (4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. (5) The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of- way or permanent open space. C. Building Bulk Standards 1. Maximum Height a. Purpose The height regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. b. Standards Generally, the maximum height standards for structures in Single Family Residential Zones are stated in Table 2A-2. This table is located at the end of this Section. Height standards for accessory buildings are addressed in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. C. Exemptions If allowed in the subject zone, the following structures or parts thereof are exempt from the height limitations set forth in the zones indicated, provided an increase in height does not conflict with Chapter 14-6, Airport Zoning. (1) Chimneys or flues. (2) Spires on religious or other institutional buildings. (3) Cupolas, domes, skylights and other similar roof protrusions not used for the purpose of obtaining habitable floor space. (4) Farm structures, including barns, silos, storage bins and similar structures when accessory to an allowed Agriculture Use. (5) Flagpoles that extend not more than 10 feet above the height limit or not more than 5 feet above the highest point of the roof, whichever is less. (6) Parapet or fire walls extending not more than 3 feet above the limiting height of the building. (7) Poles, towers and other structures accessory to a Basic Ublity qse, s th as street lights and utility poles. > =j (8) If allowed in the subject zone, Basic Utilities and Co"mmunica` gg Transmission Facilities are exempt from the base zone theigh t: f andards, FTJ but are subject to any limitations placed by the Board of AdNstmen a o. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 -3- D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in "C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information, not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are not relevant in your particular case. 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. ,Ale, ry e, awe. loo,�iny a A- 41apj .cow 7`hp�fX / �An ,,, 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. r45 w: // A e X #fie l'relerfy u /v � 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal,.) and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property foie uses permitted in the district in which such property is located.- ...� c-) -� — -- Vn . Y �-n o, 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. l [l -4- 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. 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 14-46 as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards (14-5A through K) j 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. -; A � o- E. -5- List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal: NAME ADDRESS 7-hLo i 5 ccrz a D v W NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-8C-1 E, City Code). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C4 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: 41 ^ / V , 20 Z- Date: , 20 ppdadmin\application-boase.doc Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) D �n o U L � O Kai ON d 11 0 M 6 b t 7 v � � 0 0 0 ... o y l 1 0 Uzi 410 E. Washington Street BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Iowa City, 52240 (319)356-515120 fax (319) 341-4020 CITY OFIOWA CITY • Site Address: 2ya? 4e a/e,4� Date: 8- OR • Lot & Subdivision: • Owner/Tenant: 4- Address: -26e4:2 Gaxp sr;�Zio City: le cvQ e%` Ay State f Zip Phone: Email: • General Contractor: /loAdert, Address: CAx 2./ 2 City: Cf. gzg 4/r State /— Zip S-10 a 2 Daytime Phone: ,&f �yg ?_ �,Q��' Other Phone: Subcontractors: • Plumber: • Mechanical: • Fire Sprinkler Installer: • Project Description: tot,& Te-, ,,,,p A Electrician: Sewer/Water: Fire Alarm Installer: • Total Value of .Project: $_ (Exclude cost of land) • Permit Value of Project: $ (Exclude cost of plumb., meth., elec., fire alarm, fire sprinkler & land) Contact Person Name: . vss Phone: 9 z D 1��a Is project subject to: Yes No Iowa Architectural law? ........................ d d Formal site plan review? ...................... a d Plot plan review? ................................. d [� Energy Code review? ........................... d d Historic preservation review? ............... a d Flood plain regulations? ................... ❑ d TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: Site Zone: Lot Area: `` Fees/Escrows Required: > - �a Other: -- f 5 V Staff Initials: Hisbldglbldgprmapp.doc 7/16/07 Johnson County GIS Online Page 1 of 1 ' Y\'n50Y W\ cp,� T DlV -fit- `Z o� beau WA1 Z http:llwww.i ohnson-county.comiservleticom.esri.esriman.EsrimaD?ServiceName=i cmaDO... 8/14/2008 - aiy�4 . . �G- t e 't k i• 't, _ _. _ -- 1soj�<li4'+. .,"`6 +'.��'. T 9.,:. £ ii - -. t..y.Q �J _ _ � - r;' a_i {� _ -. +Y•r,..�+.e-••ra•-o: 7 -- 'f _.i :�; , iK a' - _ � z'� - r _ - ' -:m - _ �. .. - a -�t•e 2 - �:� a +f� 1y,e •� Y y y e OW ALa:, a ` '� - i' w T, :%' 1" - c� } zrs 1•c :�- . � �y' +ti. '�5. � i y�` . a ,y �xT � _ '-`�- + _ _.�. ,I-�c.e.r'4@°�sf...r � '�'$"T F. ,K '�5'L��.�"� � �'•,��-c #�fy -t_. � y,R.:. � ACE � 0..Yt �rr,� �-K � } s r' ._ •� � ' �$ , �' •i 1 d£ -i j����f`•�� IftT: _. _�= 7` 4 •.J:it-=Ty � �4'.�y dµ w.ct u�.. `��:. ��,' P "'i'� '! •.`•i 1 a" i`y��� ',•' }' ��. #Fr `$: ..t ,.eta--,e .41 .E' !i y - j �'� •Mr- ��+-'� of � V-: = r.. C•s�-x.+.�,� + - _-� P '4 r. 4 - '" ���i Y+- �-... �_ FP � ems.:: e".�• :-- .F6 : � z • �'4. -} ire � '�' { y - � �r,'gi �i.�•-r'' e��� �� � E �. al- f �t t Y.- �• r r z _ 4 t. r I ` ¢\;4`74 is . i, } �'i- j l ��..K - �� < - S"t `)._tAny<__ !. !-t� �,- ?„}4.T ='�4; Y"'r-.7� - � � - •O? t - '� i1=-.'�u'r�•�I'a. JL -� ' ,w�, �: � A. f _ Y t h' . - i F "1� �A �µ� - - : ti-• •.•_ � � ant • �x•?v : e -�-� < K - - •, ; , 4.F_-.{ !r_,i`-.#•..TF �`.h ~°.t.-r.y:.=rt ''+e i �e.- <'� _-. ,j JV �. r �. -. , «srA::.�P � �, �� � A �':�?� . i ` ♦ i � {d { -'i �• " ?fd a ." VAft �"F ' s _ r _ jam-=.� � ! �-'�- -, -• �` >� - i '� �' -. �i • ?rl� tip- r �._ •• � �' - _�, < - � ^ �. ti jig �•. �• l... ti' � � 5r` ' ,•'F;•q�, - .L �� Syr'= .. > '`.