The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-11-2008 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 5:00 PM Emma). Harvat Hall A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the May 14, 2008 minutes D. Special Exception Items I . EXC08-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Royce Chestnut for a special exception to reduce the required front principal building setback for property located in the RS-8 zone at 425 Clark Street. 2. EXC08-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Tammy Kramer for a special exception to reduce the required front principal building setback for property located in the RS-5 zone at 300 Kimball Road. 3. EXC08-0001 I: Discussion of an application submitted by Bethel AME Church for a special exception to allow for the expansion of a church facility and a historic preservation exception to modify the site development and dimensional standards related to setbacks and parking for property located in the RNS-12 zone at 411 and 425 S. Governor Street. E. Other F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING — July 9, 2008 MINUTES OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 14, 2008 — 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL IOWA CITY BOARD Members Present: Michelle Payne, Caroline Sheerin, Ned Wood, Edgar Thornton Members Excused: Karen Leigh Staff Present: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holocek Others Present: Shawn Leuth of Shive-Hattery Engineers, Charles Huffeger with BCM Architects CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:05 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: Wood, Sheerin and Payne were present at the time of roll call. CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 9, 2008: Payne motioned to accept the April 9, 2008, minutes. Sheerin seconded. The motion carried 3-0 (Thornton not present for this vote). SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC08-00007: Discussion of an application from Hoover Heights Investors for a special exception for a drive -through facility in the CC-2 zone on Lot 49 of Olde Towne Village. Walz stated that the property now known as Olde Town Village was annexed into Iowa City in 2001. At that time it was zoned partially CC-2. A conditional zoning agreement was attached to this which required that that commercial area fit into a town square/neighborhood design, something which was part of the Northeast District Plan. A pedestrian orientation and emphasis was preeminent to this plan. In 2006, the Board of Adjustment considered a special exception for a drive -through bank facility on the corner of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. The Board approved that application subject to substantial landscaping, especially on the residential zone on the opposite side of Scott Boulevard. Walz explained that the current applicant is proposing a drive -through coffee and ice cream restaurant for the northwest portion of Plat 49. The drive -through lane is along Rochester Avenue which is a public street. Access to this particular lot is along Eastbury Drive and Westbury Drive, which are private streets within the commercial development. The applicant has proposed a one -lane drive -through which is approximately 15 feet wide at its widest point in Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 14, 2008 Page 2 the northwest section of the lot. Walz stated that Staff had encouraged the applicant to locate the proposed drive -through in this area because with the conditional zoning agreement, it was not desirable to see a sort of frontage road running along the development. It was Staff s desire to have the drive -through hidden back away from the pedestrian areas. Walz said that the specific approval criteria for drive-throughs in a CC-2 zone is that the number of drive -through lanes and stacking spaces are appropriate for the area. The stacking space, Walz explained, are the spaces where cars wait to get either to the order board or the service window. In this application, there are two stacking spaces at the service window, and three at the order board. Staff believes that this is appropriate for this use. Any additional stacking that may need to take place would do so in private parking areas. Staff finds that the proposed drive - through is appropriately located and is the appropriate size for the use. Walz stated that another thing to keep in mind is that the undeveloped land north of Rochester Avenue is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan as future residential property. While there has been some discussion that that land may be preserved in its undeveloped state, there is no contractual conservation agreement in place for that land, therefore Staff must go forward presuming the future use of that land to be residential. As a result, the drive -through should be designed with that use in mind. Walz said the applicant has provided all of the required S-2 landscape screening, the low, shrub landscape screening, to screen the entire parking lot area from Rochester Avenue and along the drive -through lane as well. Walz points out that there is also a significant change in grade from Rochester Avenue to the property which further screens the drive -through lane. Staff believes that the transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use in addition to its current uses. Transportation planners who have looked at the plan believe it is designed appropriately and will not pose safety, traffic, or pedestrian travel problems. Walz said that Staff does believe a sign at the end of the drive -through would be helpful in preventing traffic from entering in the wrong direction. Walz stated that the drive -through must be set back at least ten feet from the property line and that the site plan does show that to be the case. Because the drive -through is adjacent to a residential zone, the zoning code requires an S-3 landscape screening, which is a taller kind of screening; however, Staff feels that because of the significant change in grade, the S-2 landscape screening is sufficient. Lighting for the drive -through must comply with the outdoor lighting standards in the zoning code, and the applicant will have to have all lighting reviewed by the Building Department as part of their application for the building permit. Walz stated that the general criteria for a special exception are as follows: the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental, or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Walz stated that because of the additional set -back from the road, the additional distance from the residential zone across the street, the changing grade and the landscape screening, Staff believes that this is appropriate and that it is a safe use. Those same issues come into play when looking at the second criteria of the proposed exception which is that the proposed exception will not being injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values, Walz said. The normal development and improvement of surrounding property will not be impeded by this Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 14, 2008 Page 3 proposed exception because of the set -back and the screening, and because the adjacent property will back up against the drive -through. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or other facilities have been or are being provided, according to Walz. Adequate measures have or will be taken to provide ingress or egress to minimize traffic congestion. Staff does not anticipate a problem as all traffic will be going in and out on private roads, nor does it anticipate stacking beyond the parking area. The site plan is in compliance with the conditional zoning agreement, Walz said, and will be reviewed again by the Building Department when the final plans are submitted. The proposed use, Walz said, will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. Walz reiterated that the entire commercial zone for that area is subject to a conditional zoning agreement to ensure that it does meet the standards of the Comprehensive Plan and the concept of the neighborhood/pedestrian-friendly commercial development. For the reasons stated, Walz said, Staff recommends that the special exception and application for a drive -through restaurant on Lot 49, Olde Towne Village, be approved subject to substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, and limiting the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Walz added that the reason for the limitation on hours of operation is because of its adjacency to residential zones. Walz asked if the Board had any questions. Payne asked if the ten -foot landscape screening buffer was intended to be along both the north and the west property line. Walz replied that it was. Wood posed a question as to whether the pedestrian aspect of the conditional zoning agreement was consistent with the idea of this drive -through. Walz replied that Staff felt it was consistent in the sense that the design of the buildings, the way that they front onto the street and the additional depth of the sidewalks running along those streets are pedestrian oriented. Staff s view was that the conditional zoning was not intended to be restrictive against all uses that involved automobiles, but that the limiting of the drive -through to one lane was significant in approving this plan. Walz noted that requests for additional drive-throughs in that area may require further consideration before being approved. Wood and Payne inquired about the small lot to the west of the proposed lot. Payne asked what could be built on this small lot, and if it would be something that someone may be walking from that lot to the proposed lot. Walz replied that the original plan had hoped for a daycare center and outdoor play center at that lot. While she did not know if that was the current plan for the lot, she said that the space was appropriate for a retail use. Walz pointed out that the side facing the drive -through would be the back side of the building and that all of the entrances would be on the east side. There would be no doors, other than perhaps a service door, that opened out onto the drive -through side. Woods invited the applicant to speak. Shawn Leuth with Shive-Hattery Engineers, representing Hoover Heights Investors, offered to answer any questions the Board may have. Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 14, 2008 Page 4 Wood asked about the hours of operation, 6:00 a.m. to midnight, and if they would be appropriate limits for the business. Leuth replied that based on the owners intention of having the business be more of a coffee -shop type facility in the morning and in the afternoon a deli - shop or Dairy Queen, the limits do seem appropriate. Sheerin asked if it would be only a drive -through facility. Leuth replied that there would also be seating in the establishment. Wood asked if there were other parties wishing to speak in favor of the application. No one came forward. Wood asked if anyone wished to speak against the application. No one came forward. Wood closed the public hearing. Thornton offered his apologies to the Board for being late to the meeting. Payne motioned to accept an application for a drive -through restaurant on Lot 49 of Olde Towne Village subject to substantial compliance with the site plan submitted and limiting the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Thornton seconded the motion. Woods asked for Board discussion on the issue. There was none. Payne offered the following findings of fact for the general approval criteria: this will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or interrupt pedestrian circulation due to the fact that it does not connect directly to the two major streets (Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue) but has the two private streets; the transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use because of the two access points from Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue; the two stacking spaces at the service window and the three stacking spaces at the order board will also prevent any additional back-up of the traffic; the set -back is at least ten feet from the adjacent lots and the public rights of way, and will be screened to the S-2 standard on both the north and west property lines; the lighting will comply with the outdoor lighting standards in the code and will be designed to minimize glare onto the neighboring residential properties. Payne stated that the special exception requirements were met in the following ways: this proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because of everything addressed in the specific exceptions and also the location of the drive -through is to the rear of the building and has the additional set -back from Rochester Avenue along with the S-2 screening that separates the drive -through from the adjacent lots. It 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 as long as the hours of operation for the drive -through are no later than midnight. It will not impede the orderly development or improvement of surrounding properties due to the way they've designed stacking spaces and if they use directional signage within the lot. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 14, 2008 Page 5 necessary facilities will be addressed with the commercial development of the lot. They have taken adequate measures to address traffic congestion on the public streets by the way they've designed the drive -through to avoid stacking onto the streets. The applicable regulations or standards of the zone will be complied with in the final site plan. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended, and meets the more specific goals of the Northeast District Plan; specifically, by placing the drive -through to the rear of the building and screening its view, it will not detract from the surrounding uses. For all of these reasons, Payne said, she believes that the applicant is in compliance and she will vote for accepting their special exception. Thornton stated that as a resident of the community he can see that this particular application is consistent with the type of development that is going on in the community. He likes the fact that the applicant has taken measures to be consistent with the development going on in the area, and in light of the fact that the bank drive -through had previously been approved, he believes approving this drive -through would be consistent for the Board. Because the drive -through is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will not impact traffic congestion, has shown substantial efforts to provide visual screening, and the stacking issues have been addressed, Thornton stated that he would vote in favor of the special exception. Sheerin stated that according to the staff report and the testimony, the facilities seem to comply with the plan for the area, the pedestrian nature of the building area, the required lighting and visual screening, and the appropriate traffic flow requirements. Sheerin said she believed the application was consistent with all requirements and she would vote in favor of it. Wood stated that he thought the drive -through looked like a very good plan and that the area would be lucky to have an establishment like this. He likes the idea of this area as a pedestrian — oriented development zone. For this reason, he said, he would be voting against the Special Exception, as he feels a drive -through works against that pedestrian aspect of the area. He thinks this pedestrian -modeled development will be a very exciting one for the community, and that a drive -through is inconsistent with the pedestrian nature of the area. All that his colleagues had said, Wood acknowledged, was true; however, it is also true that the drive -through is inconsistent with the conditional zoning agreement in his opinion. A vote was taken. The motion passed 3-1 (Wood voting no). Wood advised that anyone wishing to appeal this decision may do so in a court of record within thirty days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office. EXEC08-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Parkview Church for a special exception for an addition to a church in the RS-5 zone at 15 Foster Road. Walz stated that Parkview Church is a large church located at the entryway to the city along Dubuque Street. Walz said that when the application first came forward it was going to be a two-part application for a special exception and a variance. The variance application is still Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 14, 2008 Page 6 being completed, Walz explained, but it is being completed for a portion of the building that is adjacent to the addition and does not have any impact on the addition whatsoever. The variance will be considered at the next Board of Adjustment meeting. The proposed addition is 12,825 square feet. Any additions or establishments of churches within residential zones always have to come before the Board of Adjustment as special exceptions. The specific criteria include that the church must have access to roads that are 28- feet or greater. In this instance, traffic circulates primarily to and from the church on Dubuque Street and Foster Road, both wider than 28-feet. The minimum setback for religious uses in the RS-5 zone is 20-feet, and this church does maintain those setbacks on all three streets on which it fronts. A 50-feet setback is required for the church building itself and in this case, that is exceeded. The proposed use will be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The Board of Adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed uses such as: the site size and the types and amounts of paved areas. The Board may deny use, or require additional measures to mitigate uses that it deems out of scale, incompatible or out of character with surrounding residential areas. Walz stated that the addition will consume up to 25 parking spaces from the parking lot. In terms of compatibility, the addition will meet the maximum height standards for a residential zone of 35-feet. With this addition, the church would be required to provide the low S-2 screening between their parking lot and Foster Road, as well as meeting that same standard by filling in gaps along the street nearest Idyllwild. Parking and traffic flow are generally the two biggest issues considered by the neighborhood in church expansions, and the fact that this expansion will not require additional parking makes it a little bit easier to recommend. The proposed use will not have significant effects on the livability of the nearby areas due to noise, glare from lights, hours of operation, odors or litter that will not be mitigated by the required S-2 screening. If the proposed use is in a residential zone, it must comply with the multi -family site development standards as set forth in section 14-2-b-6. Those standards deal with the portion of the church facing the street, which in this case, is more than 200 feet long. The standards are set up to avoid long, blank facades facing streets. Projections, recesses, changes in the roofline and changes in the materials are built into the design to comply with this requirement. Walz then discussed the general standards, stating that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. This is true because the site will not initiate any additional traffic or require additional ingress or egress. The proposed exception will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of the immediate property in the vicinity or substantially diminish or impair property values because it is not changing the traffic flow and because of the additional view screening going in around the church parking lot. The exception will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for the same reasons previously stated. Adequate utilities and access are being provided. Drainage issues will be addressed as part of the permitting process and the church is Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 14, 2008 Page 7 aware and has agreed to that. Measures do not need to be taken to provide ingress or egress as no additional traffic is being generated by this proposed addition. Walz reiterated that the screening will have to come into compliance and all other aspects of the proposed addition will be reviewed as part of site -plan review to make sure they comply with all other code requirements. Walz felt she should mention, because of that variance coming up next month with regard to the flood -plain regulations, that this addition will meet all of the standards of the flood -plain regulations. Walz stated that of primary concern was that the addition be built to one foot above the one -hundred year flood elevation level. Walz stated that the Comprehensive Plan calls for uses such as this in residential neighborhoods so long as they meet the criteria of the zoning code and complement rather than detract from the neighborhood. Walz stated that Staff recommends that EXC08-00008, an application for a special exception to allow the 12,825 square foot addition to the church building for classroom and related uses be approved subject to submittal of a landscaping plan to bring the non -conforming parking area into compliance with current perimeter screening requirements, and subject to improvements to the drainage system for the southeast portion of the parking area. Walz stated that a number of things have to fall in place in order for the church to build this addition, so they are asking for an extension from the normal 6-month period to an 18-month period. This is often done for churches and school sites, Walz said, as they typically require more coordination and work. Staff recommends approval of this extension as well, Walz said. Wood asked for clarification on the variance the church would be requesting and whether or not it would be for flood plain regulations. Walz replied that the variance will be for interior portions of the existing building which is contiguous with this addition. This addition does not depend on that variance. This addition will be built to all current flood regulations. Thornton asked for clarification on the parking spaces that would be lost to the church in creating this addition. Walz replied that the addition will not generate any additional need for parking because they are not expanding the large, Sunday service spaces, rather rooms that are used for other things not necessarily concurrent with the Sunday services. Walz said the applicant may be better equipped to expand on that. Thornton said he just was wondering if losing the spaces and it having no impact on parking needs was realistic because it is such a large congregation. Sheerin asked how many parking spaces the church had. Walz said she believed they had approximately 500 spaces. Sheerin asked if an e-mail submitted to the Board earlier by Walz from a concerned resident in the area had anything to do with the parking issues they were currently discussing. Walz replied that it did not and that she had included it tonight because in addition to the writer's concern about the variance the church would be requesting, the writer was also concerned about parking and so Walz felt she should include it with the evening's materials. Walz said that she had explained to the e-mail's author that the church would be required to provide additional screening. Sheerin asked if the writer's concern about lost green space did not then speak to this issue. Walz said that it could be considered, but that she was not Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 14, 2008 Page 8 sure that this is what the author was talking about. Sheerin said that she had visited the site and it did seem as though the addition would bump right up against Taft Speedway. Walz and Payne pointed out that the 23-foot setback would still be maintained, and the screening would be between the parking area and Taft, not between the building and Taft. Wood stated that he was concerned about all of the traffic to and from the Peninsula Development and on Foster Road. Walz stated that the traffic signals that had recently been installed on Foster Road were intended to address these concerns and according to traffic planners, are accomplishing their goals. Wood invited the applicant to speak. Charles Huffeger with BCM Architects spoke on behalf of Parkview Church. He stated that Parkview Church has been going through a lot of master planning over the last two or three years to try to look at the long-term vision of the church. Through this process, Parkview has identified three different phases of building. The current application is for the designed development of Phase 1, which consists of the addition and remodel being discussed. The long- term vision is to potentially expand the worship space up to a 1,500-2,000 seat sanctuary, provide new atrium and social gathering spaces, expand the daycare, and provide some youth ministry accommodations. Right now, the church is in the process of designing Phase 1. If the special exception is approved by the Board, Parkview will then go to the congregation and explain where they are in the process and do fund raising. Parkview has been working with the City for a couple of years to determine exactly what requirements they need to meet. Currently there are about 500 parking spaces provided, which is more than adequate for current worship services. Although Parkview feels that in doing their parking lot and previous addition back in 2000 they did a good job of providing landscape screening, additional green screening would be provided to fill in gaps with this addition. Parkview's master plan includes the current proposed addition and renovation. Additionally, there is a Phase 2 which is the early childhood/daycare facilities they are looking to expand. Phase 3 is going to be the widened sanctuary space. There is no current timeline on Phases 2 & 3. For the current project, to allow Parkview to build to the south would require basically re- working the interior of the adjacent area, which is what the variance that will be put forth in next month's meeting concerns. The new addition will comply with all of the flood planning requirements. The current building was 18-inches above the current hundred -year flood level. Recent changes have basically raised the floodplain so that the current building is approximately 6 inches above the floodplain, although the new addition will be the full 18 inches above floodplain. Two larger auditorium spaces and a cluster of about five new classrooms will be added in the proposed addition. Parkview is trying to match the context of the addition with the present church, and to break up the mass of the long wall to add elements of interest and break up the big -box sort of appearance that could otherwise result. Thornton noted in their recommendations that most of the services would take place on the weekend and so building the addition would not necessarily add to activity on church grounds. He pointed out, however, that there already have been some congestion problems in the past. He Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 14, 2008 Page 9 wondered if there would be additional activity going on in the addition during the week that might cause concerns for traffic congestion. BCM Architects replied that they are not anticipating additional traffic flow as far as the Sunday services go, but that the addition would provide additional break-out spaces for meetings and things of that nature to take place. During the week, there could be a larger flow of traffic, but it would not be in conjunction with a larger service that would take place. He pointed out that one of the advantages of this site is that it is close to Dubuque and Foster so you are not really driving through residential areas, but on collectors and arterials. The spaces are for youth services, youth ministry and some adult services so it is really kind of an extension of current activities. Wood asked what activities that take place in the week would not involve a lot of people. The response was that the larger auditorium seats around 250 people, but that does not necessarily mean it would direct 250 people there each time. It would most likely be used in the evening for the most part. Wood stated that the goal was to accommodate 1,500-2,000 people in the future. He asked how many people were church members presently. The answer given was that that number is after the phase 3 additions were completed, and that there are presently about 1,314 members. Walz clarified that each additional phase of building or any portion thereof would require additional special exceptions. Wood invited anyone else with comments for or against the special exception to address the Board. There were no comments in either case. Wood closed the public hearing. Payne motioned to approve an application for a special exception to allow a 12, 825 square foot addition for a church building and related classrooms to be approved subject to submittal of a landscaping plan to bring the non -conforming parking area into compliance with current perimeter screening requirements, and subject to improvements to the drainage system for the southeast portion of the parking area. She noted that this was exception EXC08-00008, and that she would like to add to that that the Board give them an extension of 18-months to apply for their permit. Sheerin seconded the motion. Wood invited discussion by the Board. Thornton asked when the last time such an extension was granted by the Board. Walz replied that she believed that it was in the case of a Korean Methodist church about a year ago. She noted that the Board often gives such exceptions in the case of private schools and churches; the reason being that frequently the group must do fund-raising. In this case, there is a lot of engineering and permits that have to be taken into account in regard to the floodplain, and it just Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 14, 2008 Page 10 allows some additional time to have that work done. Walz said that it is very common with churches to grant that extension. Thornton offered the following findings of fact: the general standards are met in that the proposed project will not endanger the public health, safety, and comfort; it does not appear to have an impact on traffic; the church will comply with the multiple family design standards; the church is making additional efforts to come into compliance with the landscaping screening requirements in the area; adequate utilities, access roads and drainage are available in the area; adequate measures have been take to provide ingress and egress design to minimize traffic congestion; unique drainage, open space and landscaping issues will be addressed by the church; and the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Payne addressed the specific criteria. Both Dubuque Street and Foster Road meet or exceed the 28-foot width requirement for a road. The church also meets the 20-foot setback from all sides, and will continue to even with the new addition. The addition is designed to complement the existing architecture of the building, and the church has addressed concerns with the south side of the facade by breaking up the large mass with recesses and projections. The church has proposed to provide the required S-2 screening. There are no additional parking spaces required for the addition, and the loss of the 25 parking spaces will not affect member parking. The proposed addition will not have significant adverse affects on nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late -night operations or odors because the addition will not greatly increase traffic in the area or have any other significant adverse affects on the neighborhood. The proposed addition does comply with the multi -family site development standards by dividing the facade into smaller sections with variations. Sheerin stated that based on the evidence presented she finds that the proposal has adequate setbacks, adequate parking, and does not seem to disrupt the other buildings in the area in terms of light or noise or odors. The facade has been addressed by breaking it up. There are adequate utilities, and there does not seem to be an issue with traffic. Wood stated that he agrees with the statements of his colleagues. He believes the general standards have been met. He will be very happy to see the drainage issues resolved as he was out there recently and everything was flooded. He worries a little bit about the size and mass of the building in this area, but because it is on the edge of a residential area he thinks it might be acceptable there. He did not believe that traffic would be impacted as no real growth was involved in the current expansion. He stated that he would vote in favor of the exception. A vote was taken and the motion was declared approved, 4-0. Wood 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. Wood asked if there was other business to address. Walz extended an invitation to the Board to attend a public reception to meet the new City Manager. Iowa City Board of Adjustment May 14, 2008 Page 11 Walz also checked in with Board members concerning availability for the June 1 lth meeting. Walz asked the Board to let her know as soon as possible if there were conflicts with their schedules that would preclude them from attending the meeting, so that she could keep applicants advised. Holocek pointed out that sometimes applicants are hesitant to go before a meeting with only three Board members present as it does take three members to approve an application. Holocek updated Board Members on pending litigation, and advised them that she would be contacting them for their schedules in order to complete depositions. Thornton asked for an update on recent training completed by Wood, and was advised by Walz that she would keep him apprised of further training opportunities. Walz reminded Board Members that their role is as interpreters of zoning codes and they should be comfortable voting their consciences when their own findings of fact do not necessarily agree with the assessment given by Staff, just as they are comfortable when agreeing with staff assessment. She pointed to Wood's vote on the drive -through exception as an example of this. The Board and Staff held further discussions regarding various scenarios in which disagreements between the Board and Staff based on findings of fact would be justified. Payne motioned to adjourn the meeting. Thornton seconded. All voted in favor of adjournment, 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m. w I E 0 N N O O O� M cc O% 0 Z x lu x x x ' x x x x W o M x LU x x x M � ' � x x x x N a Z ; z z z z c C L 00 M O, O — N ai ao 0 0 0 0 Co X W Cl 0 0 0 0 0 O C L O O CNNt °°b°�V a L O z `^ �=-a, �0 'a s t � o L. .°c L. � O y _v to W > z -0 L N � 7 X • E w 1i c C � Q N E 4, O O CL Q Q z Z II II II II II To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC08-00009 425 Clark Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: 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: June 11, 2008 Royce Chestnut 425 Clark Street 319-530-6826 Adjustment to the principle building setback requirement To reduce the front setback requirement from 15 feet to 7 feet in order to allow a front porch. 425 Clark Street 33 x 135 square feet Residential (RS-8) zone Clark Street Historic Conservation District North: Residential (RS-8) South: Residential (RS-8) East: Residential (RS-8) 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 May 14, 2008 The subject property is located in the Clark Street Historic Conservation District. Originally built ca. 1890-1900, the house at 425 Clark Street is one of the oldest on the street frontage. Historical documents show that the structure once included a front porch, which was later removed. The same is true of the adjacent house at 427 Clark, which was built during the same period. Both houses are set 13 feet from the street right-of-way line. In 2007, the owner of 425 Clark Street applied to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to allow construction of a front porch. The HPC approved the application, however upon applying for a building permit it was discovered that the existing house is already located within the required 15-foot front setback. 2 The zoning code requires covered porches and covered decks that are attached to the house must comply with the principal building setbacks of the base zone. The setback for houses in the RS-8 zone is 15 feet, thus a special exception reducing the required front setback to 7 feet is required in order to allow construction of the proposed front porch. The applicant is proposing to build a porch identical to the design approved by HPC with one small modification. The porch approved by the HPC was 8 feet deep. In light of the setback issue, the applicant is now proposing a porch that is 6 feet deep. ANALYSIS: 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-65-b). The applicant's 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. There are a number of peculiarities associated with the property at 425 Clark Street. The first being that the historic architecture of the house would normally feature a front porch. The front door of the house is set approximately 2 feet above grade and is currently accessed via a concrete stoop. The stoop is so small that that opening the front door requires one to back off the stoop. Until recently there was a substantial awning that hung out over the front door. This was removed in anticipation of the porch's construction, before the building permit was denied on the basis of setback consideration. While awning are permitted to extend up to 6 feet into the front setback, it is the opinion of staff, and of the HPC, that a front porch for the property is more appropriate for both aesthetic and functional purposes. While the required setback in the RS-8 zone is 15 feet, a number of houses on the frontage are set closer to the street: • 435 Clark is set 11 feet, • 431 Clark is set 6 feet, • 427 Clark is set at 13 feet, and • 1029 Court is set at 8 feet. With the exception of 431 Clark Street, all these houses were constructed at or before the turn of the 20'h century. At the southern end of the block along the same frontage, houses constructed in the 1920's through the 1940s were built with more substantial setbacks —most greater than 20 feet. The street frontage (the continuous block length between Court and Bowery) measures more than 900 feet long —more than twice the normal block length. Often in older neighborhoods staff is able to use setback averaging', which bases the front setback on the placement of existing buildings. However, averaging cannot provide relief for the house at 425 Clark in part ' Where at least 50 percent of the lots along a frontage are occupied by principal buildings that are located closer to the street than the required front setback, the front setback may be reduced to the average of the respective setbacks on the abutting lots. Only setbacks on the lots that abut each side of the subject property along the same street may be used to calculate the average. because the frontage encompasses so many different setbacks, and because the abutting house at 415 Clark Street (built in 1939) is set back approximately 27 feet from the street right-of-way line. (Setback averaging bases a new setback on the average of the setbacks on the two abutting properties —in this case 13 feet and 27 feet.) It is clear that most of the houses along the northern two thirds of the block, which are also the oldest houses on the block, have significantly smaller setbacks than the houses on the northern third of the block. The houses on the northern half of the block, with the exception of the house at 415 Clark, all have setbacks less than the required 15 feet. Looking south from the subject property it is apparent that 431, 427, and 425 Clark were all at one time set at approximately 6 feet from the street right-of-way line. While 431 Clark remains set at 6 feet, it has a front porch while the porches for 427 and 425 have been removed. 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements. Staff believes that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirement in that the house currently has an unsheltered entrance and a front fagade that is out of character with its historic architecture and the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Most other houses along the street either have full front porches or covered entries. While it would be possible for the applicant to reinstall an awning over the front door and construct a larger deck to serve the front door, staff believes that this would not be in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood or the house. At 33 feet, the subject property is also an unusually narrow lot. The minimum lot width for detached single family dwellings in the RS-8 zone is 40 feet if vehicle access is restricted to an alley or private rear lane. Because vehicle access to the property is provided via a driveway from Clark Street, it is not practically possible for the applicant to reorient the entrance to the side of the house. 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 reduction in the front setback requirement is not counter to the purpose of the regulations. Because the reduction requested is for the front setback it will not reduce the space for light, air, and separation for fire protection and access along Clark Street, which is a 60-foot right-of-way. Moreover, because the reduction is to allow an open air front porch, rather than an enclosed addition, the structure has a lesser effect on the sense of separation for light and air. For this same reason the reduction will not diminish the opportunity for privacy between buildings as it does not encroach on properties to either side and is separated from neighboring properties across the street by more than 60 feet. Given the setbacks of other nearby properties along the northern end of the block, staff believes the reduction in the front setback to allow the construction of the new porch will not create an unreasonable physical relationship between buildings and reflect the general building scale and placements of structures in this portion of the historic neighborhood. Considering in particular the properties at 431, 427, and 425 Clark Street, it would seem that 4 the restoration of the front porch would help to restore the historic and aesthetic character of this property without upsetting the relationship with the placement of other buildings neighborhood. In staff's view the house at 425 Clark Street is an aesthetic oddity along a street where the vast majority of homes maintain their historic styles. Staff believes the restoration of a historically appropriate porch to this property will improve its relationship with the historic neighborhood and potentially encourage improvements or reinvestment in some of the neighboring properties that are not well maintained. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. The applicant has proposed a historically appropriate porch that was approved by HPC. By reducing the depth of the porch from 8 feet to 6 feet, the applicant will have a covered, functional entrance to the house that does not encroach any further into the front setback than is necessary. 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. Not applicable. General Standards: 14-413-3, Special Exception Review Requirements The applicant's 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 specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Because the reduction in the front setback does not reduce space or access for fire protection or fire fighting and because it will not obstruct views of the sidewalk from the driveway, staff believes that 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. For the reasons stated above, and because the porch will restore the functionality and aesthetic character of the historic house, staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion. Staff believes the restoration of a historically appropriate porch to this property will improve its relationship with the surrounding historic neighborhood and potentially encourage 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. Because the neighborhood is already fully developed for uses permitted in the zone, staff believes this exception will not impede the normal and orderly development of the neighborhood. Further, staff believes that the improvement of the historic character of the house through the restoration of the front porch may encourage further re -investment in surrounding properties. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities, access roads, drainage, etc., are already provided. 5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The reduction in the setback will not impede views of drivers backing onto Clark Street. Thus ingress and egress from the property is unaffected by the setback. 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 application has been reviewed by the building department and meets all regulations and standards of the zone. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the restoration of historic structures in Iowa City's neighborhoods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC08-00009, an application for a reduction in the front principal building setback from 15 feet to 7 feet to allow construction of a open air front porch, be approved subject to compliance with the elevations and site plan submitted and as approved by HPC. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Application material 3. Site plan and elevations 4. HPC Certificate of Appropriateness 5. Photos 6. Correspondence 7. Aerial view of existing setbacks Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development � ~ ° ] / ~11 /l | /////"I'/'//'/ ,/ /l�> APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: ,y`� PROPERTY PARCEL NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS: PROPERTY ZONE: /'�J PROPERTY LOT SIZE: -' APPLICANT: CONTACT PERSON: (if other than applicant) IPROPERTY OWNER: (if other than applicant) Name: Address: Phone: ` 1 f S 30 6 �` 6-� Name: Address: Phone: Name: Address: Phone: N n X �- � cp N 0-- 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 366-5239 or email sarah-walz@iowa-city.org. / 1-/ - 211 -- '--/ - i'l /3r � r.r' S > �'ti zPr � 'it, & e 1' 1' r C i r7 % t HI, E� -/ ke Purpose for special exception: It G't //cLi, e-i el. r-va /its'i,' 4 Date of of previous application or appeal filed, if any: t�;�r,�1` t If 1 61 A. Legal Description of Property PIN:1014228001 Deed: Chestnut, Royce and Betsy Address: 425 Clark Street, Iowa City Class: Residential Map Area: 21300- RES Plat Map: 10-14-2N r--J E3 Legal: 2668 Summit Hill Addition, Subdivision of lot N 35' of lot D & also part of NW SEC 14-1(6 T Summit B. Plot Plan/Site Plan n Please see enclosed drawing. O7, q0 C. Specific Approval Criteria D 1V 0% 1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question; The existing house is set at 13' from the property line. In the RS-8 zone, the requirement is 15'. In addition, the property currently has a 6' by 12' concrete patio and concrete steps in the front yard. At 33 feet, the subject lot is unusually narrow. The minimum lot width allowed for Single Family dwellings in the RS-8 zone is 40 feet. At approximately 900 feet, the Clark Street frontage on which the lot is situated is unusually long. This is double the normal block length for Iowa City. While houses at the South half of the block are set more than 20 feet from the property line, the houses on the North half of the block are, with the exception of one house at 415 Clark, set closer that within the required 15 feet- most are set more than 10 feet from the property line. The house on the corner of Clark and Court is set 8 feet from the property line and the house at 431 Clark is set 6 feet from the property line. The property owner was granted approval by the Historical Preservation Board in 2007 for the installation of a front porch. The property owner found evidence after removing the aluminum siding to restore the original wood siding that there was at on time in the history of the house an existing front porch likely similar to the current proposal. It is the intention of the property owner to install a new front porch that will mimic aspects of other porches on the same block and add to the entire historic restoration of the house. Included are pictures showing evidence of a prior front porch as well as pictures of other houses with porches along the West side of Clark Street. 2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements; The current entrance to the front of the house is inconvenient as opening the screen door pushes guests back off of the small concrete landing. The proposed porch will allow a person to step to the side as the screen door opens accommodating building entrance. 3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the set back regulations; a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting; The proposed porch will be no longer than the existing concrete patio. The open design will not obstruct light anywhere but directly below the roof or air as the porch will be open and exposed other than a spindled railing. Fire protection and fighting will not be restricted by the addition of the porch to any other surrounding properties and may possibly improve accessibility to the house itself as entrance to the house will be more convenient. b. Provide opportunities for privacy between buildings; Porch design will not take away privacy between buildings as the proposed structure is similar in size to the current patio. c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods; Several houses close to 425 Clark have structures extending farther than the proposed porch installation. Included are pictures to show placement of new porch relative to neighboring houses. Installation of the proposed porch will continue a line of sight with neighboring houses. d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences; The design and installation of the new front porch will help the facade of the house relate better to the other houses on the street contrary to its current state. Included are pictures showing houses with porches on the same street. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. There are no obvious, potential negative effects from the setback exception. The new porch will only beautify an area the same size as the old concrete patio and provide better access to the house. O 5. N/A z (� D. General Approved Criteria 0 1. the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the publicth, safety comfort, or general welfare; O X � * A OO Installation of proposed porch will only assist possible fire access. Visibility ofja tV pedestrians from the driveway will not be diminished as the design incorporates open railings. Proposed 0` porch will still be set back over 11 feet from the sidewalk (current patio is the same), therefore not imposing on pedestrians. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and employment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood; New porch will not affect other properties in the area other than potentially increasing nearby property values as the proposed porch will greatly increase appearance and value of its own house. 3. Establishment of the specified 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; Specified neighborhood is fully developed. Installation of porch will greatly aid the restoration and integration of the house within its neighborhood. 4. N/A 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets; Proposed porch will not affect traffic or visibility in or out of lot's driveway due to the location of sidewalk and street and the open design as stated earlier. 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. Porch design was approved by the Historical Preservation Board in 2007. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City; Proposed design meets requirements set by the Historic Preservation Board and will only improve overall appearance of the neighborhood. The installation of a front porch will add character and style to a currently bland fagade as well as help revitalize a "sore thumb" of the neighborhood. E. List the names and mailine addresses of the record owners of all property located within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal: 415 Clark William Dostal 427 Clark Cody Fuortes 431 Clark IC Rentals 435 Clark IC Rentals 439 Clark Ruadhri Brown 410 Clark Steven Miller 418 Clark Timothy Dunbar 424 Clark Gary Lawrenson 428 Clark Maeve Clark 438 Clark David Lohman 1027 Court Dale Dye 1029 Court James Ehrhardt 404 Summit Francoise Violette Blanc 406 Summit Fredrick Goodman 412 Summit Stephen Bloom 416 Summit Stephen Bloom 424 Summit Victoria Mayne _ O N a� 7 -G ..... G r: M CJ D tJ ON 0 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 14-8C-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: S - 20 0 K �.r Date: ppdadmi n\a pplication- boase. doc 20 _ Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) Q —t C1- � 00 D N a A.t T ,� , ".�° � "t� C� ` 1 �1 S Cam, ';.�` � kf L m�. 4 w N, 'y�e� `�� ,.Y I, � o... ' ,` �� ti� i s �, 1 a �.__��.�7 !t` -- � } ,n � jtk {[ ;. ;� � _ �, � � � ,{ ',�` : ;ram. r y� ._ _ _ __ ....� ..! �t _... } 7d a r� �^ �� "'� _� �� __ � � __ _ _ � (� .1�w14— � , R7 � _ _ __ �' N o� �'rr __ __ ... , �,_. ._ r � ,. Y a,, � _ Y' . �..�__. ..,.. ._. �� --- �'� � .. _ . _..._._... . _..... i .. �. .�. o 2 � I { - ��:. 4,4 Iowa C:ify Historic Preservation Commission City 1 fall, 410 1 Washington Street, ]c,wa City. 1_1. 52240 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 425 Clark Street A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held at the City Hall on April 12, 2007, at 6.00 p.m. The following members were present: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, John McCormally, James Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Toomey, Alicia Trimble and Tim Weitzel. By a vote of 8-0, the Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed project involving alterations and a new addition at 425 Clark Street, which is a contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District. The Commission approved the replacement of an existing standing -seam metal roof with an asphalt shingle roof. The Commission found that the metal roof had significantly deteriorated over time. The Commission also approved the removal of the existing front porch canopy and concrete steps to replace with a new full -width porch. The Commission found the proposed porch to be more compatible to the original design of the structure. Refer to the sketches attached. By a vote of 8-0, the Commission further approved the demolition of an existing garage and construction of new garage. The Commission found that the existing garage lacks architectural significance, and is in a state of poor integrity. The Commission approved the plans for a new one -car garage as per the application subject to the relocation of the entry door as required for structural integrity to meet code. Refer to the sketches attached. The project, as presented in the application and with conditions as stated above, is approved as provided in City Code Section 14-8E-2. Any additional work that falls under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission that is not specified in this certificate will need a separate review. cs� l; " C u�LUI LL 0 Tim Weitzel, Chair Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Iowa City Pl nning & Community Development e �) -� Date Nc FP I r I i2� fp (4 030 (vrD NorP a; �`� cl 01) I — tf1 FP ici35 FP ci w j ft3Ci0 i 0 rP r I I — Ism —�o / Zi /Oq 0 FP (c4 v e reci i►� STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC08-00010 300 Kimball Road GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Property Owner: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: Prepared by: Date: June 11, 2008 Tammy Kramer 2 Woodland Heights 358-9449 Brian O'Meara 632 Kimball Road 400-1432 Adjustment to the front setback requirement (14-2A-4B-5) To reduced the required front setback in order to provide required parking. 300 Kimball Road 33 x 135 feet Single-family residential (RS-5) North: Residential (RS-5) South: Residential (RS-5) East: Residential (RS-5) West: Residential (RS-5) Specific criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements, 14-2A4B-5; purpose of the minimum setback requirements, 14-2A-4B-1; Parking Location Standards for Single-family sites, 14-2A-6C; General Approval Criteria for Special Exceptions, 14- 4B-3. File Date: May 14, 2008 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant is part-owner of the house a 300 Kimball Road. Under previous ownership, the house was illegally converted into a duplex. 1 The applicant became aware that the duplex use was prohibited only after purchasing the property. She is in the process of converting the additional dwelling unit to an accessory apartment. Accessory apartments are permitted in the RS-5 zone in owner -occupied, detached single family dwellings provided that certain conditions with regard to owner -occupancy, design requirements, off-street parking, and the size of the apartment in relationship to the principal dwelling unit are met (see section 14-4C-2A attached). The Single Family Site Development Standards in the code specify that only one required parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback. The applicant is required to provide two spaces —one to serve the principal dwelling and one to serve the accessory apartment. The purpose of the site development standard restricting the location of required parking in the front setback prevents vehicles from blocking sidewalks and ensures that front setback areas remain free of large parking areas that detract from the residential character of the neighborhood and to enhance the pedestrian -oriented character of the neighborhood (see section 14-2A-6C attached). A standard parking space is 9 x 18 feet. The subject property has two existing off-street parking pads: a 2-car space to the west of the house (measuring approx. 19' x 22� and a larger space (approximately 14' x 42� to the east of the house. All existing parking spaces are located within the required front setback. Due to setback averaging, the required front setback on this property is 20 feet.2 The applicant has the right to maintain both parking areas and cars are allowed to park there as they always have. However, because these spaces are located within the 20-foot required front setback they do not count toward the required parking. In other words, while the code does not prohibit parking in the front setback for occasional or additional (non -required) parking, it requires that a certain amount of parking space be provided in the side or rear yard in order to minimize the amount of actual that occurs in the front setback. The subject property backs up to a steep ravine such that there is very little level ground in the side yard and no level rear yard. Because the applicant wishes to preserve the small amount of side yard remaining to the west of the house, and because constructing an additional parking space beyond the 20-foot setback may require removal of a mature tree, the applicant is seeking a special exception to reduce the front setback from 20 feet to zero in order to provide both required parking spaces on the existing pads. Due to the steep grade and narrow 20-foot road, on -street parking is prohibited along this portion of Kimball Road. In 2007 residents along Kimball Road applied to Iowa City's traffic calming program, which assesses residential and collector streets where traffic volumes or speeding has become a problem. After studying speed levels along Kimball, speed humps were installed along this portion of Kimball Road in order to slow driver speeds. This portion of Kimball Road will be reassessed in the fall to determine whether the traffic humps have effectively slowed speeds. Duplexes are provisional uses in the RS-5 zone and allowed on corner lots only. The subject property is not a corner lot. z Setback averaging is used in neighborhoods than were developed prior to current setback standards. The setback for the property is determined by looking at the existing setbacks such that if a majority of established setbacks are more than 5 feet from the current standard setback, the required setback is adjusted according to the average of the setbacks on the two abutting properties (see attached). ANALYSIS: 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 (I4-2A-B5-b). The applicant's 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 believes that the situation is peculiar due to the topography of the subject property and the general parking conditions along Kimball Road. The property at 300 Kimball Road is sloped such that parking in the rear or side yard is not possible on the east side of the house and would consume a large portion of the level side yard on the west side of the house. Moreover much of the level portion of the yard that exists is already consumed by the two existing parking pads. The situation is made more peculiar by the restriction on on - street parking along Kimball Road. Because no parking is allowed along this portion of Kimball Road, all visitors, deliveries, service vehicles, etc., must find parking on the private property. For this reason, staff believes it is desirable for the applicant to maintain both parking areas but expanding either pad seems impractical. 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements. Staff believes that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirement in that the topography of the applicant's property is so steeply sloped that locating the parking outside the front setback on the west side of the house is impossible and on the east side of the house may require installation of a retaining wall, removal of a mature tree and would further consume the limited amount of level yard space available. 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 reduction in the front setback requirement is not counter to the purpose of the regulations. Because the reduction requested is solely for the purpose of allowing the required parking spaces to be located in the front setback, it will not reduce space for light, air, and separation for fire protection and access along Kimball Road, which is a 60-foot right-of-way. For this same reason, and because the slopes on the opposite side 4 of the road are undevelopable, the setback reduction will not diminish the opportunity for privacy between buildings. The requested setback reduction is to accommodate the required parking only —rather than to extend a structure or build an addition. Because of the topography of the neighborhood along this portion of Kimball Road forces all development to remain close to the road (back yards are not generally developable along portions of this frontage), and because parking is restricted along Kimball Road, most parking occurs in the front setback. For these reasons staff believes that the setback reduction will not diminish the reasonable physical relationship between buildings and will reflect the general building scale and placements of structures in this neighborhood. For this same reason the setback reduction for the parking will not reduce opportunities to site other buildings in the area. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. The applicant is requesting to use the existing parking area to satisfy the requirement for 2 parking spaces. She does not propose to remove or alter any of the parking spaces and thus there are no changes proposed. 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. Not applicable. 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 existing parking areas have been established for some time, and because the setback reduction is only for the purpose of meeting the required parking standard, staff believes the application satisfies this criterion. There is good visibility along this portion of Kimball Road such that staff does not believe that the existing parking areas pose any safety concern. 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. For the reasons cited above, and especially because of the limitations due to steep topography and the parking restriction along the subject portion of Kimball Road, staff does not believe that the reduction in the required setback to accommodate required parking will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values. 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 is fully developed and there is relatively little level area that is not occupied by structures or parking such that staff believes this accommodation will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are already in place. S. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Visibility along this portion of Kimball Road is good and no changes are proposed for ingress or egress from the site. 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 curb cut for the larger parking pad to the east of the house exceeds the maximum curb cut width of 42 feet. This is an existing non -conforming situation that will not change with the approval of this application. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. While the Comprehensive Plan encourages pedestrian oriented development and focuses on reducing the domination of cars along the streetscape, the North District Plan acknowledges the constraints on development in this area of the district due to the steep topography. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC08-00010, an application for a special exception to reduce the required front principal building setback from 20 feet to 0 feet for property located at Kimball Road, be approved with the condition that the setback reduction be for the purpose of accommodating required parking only. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Photos 3. Proposed Site Plan Approved by: Robert Miklo, §enior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: !li�A� (`� o PROPERTY PARCEL NO. I oc PROPERTY ADDRESS: f-%IM`h�A L_Lr- go A 0 PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 112— UC re I�Fr�x APPLICANT: Name: v"'`Crcv►Ne/ Address: �- �� (�r� H4 Phone: CONTACT PERSON: Name: _ (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: Name: 1�0M� (if other than applicant) Address: (,32 Phone: Lluo ' ly 32_ _n w 0% 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 356-6239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org. LJ- ias-Am vxA Ao -ice Lu'.W 12 Y'e Purpose for special exception: To r eet" u --tip ire ; iVt ov-Aer Ao groilirck Yquivild DaAlcucj n11 4'W 514e- Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: -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. Please contact Sarah Walz at 356-6239 or email sarah-walz(jowa-city.org. 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: F3 B. C. 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. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing ail 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.) Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria.* On a separate sheet, address each of the criteria specific to the special exception being sought. Your responses should not be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met. *These criteria are not listed on this form but are provided within the Zoning Code. If you are not familiar with the Zoning Code or if you do not know where to find the criteria specific to your request, please contact Sarah Walz at 356.6239 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. o ¢ m 0 ox ON -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. vc:jv;nc Gas ak' c'- S e4". A t A(C- I 5. 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. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede torrdt and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding pr40rty fur uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. a ow► �' Grv� .YW� 6�Ski�� l G. ulna.-�q� j�S� �f��-,�- -�v v►'�a>..�c.in W 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary, facilities have been or are being provided. ��C -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 144B as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).] 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. n -1 :ZZ m ©� D a 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 C4�Jt i�r�w� bGfy1 iw�lY.1Ssy''1 ,� Ca Wye, l.) �M1� ��-✓� _ JQ�tYCei Lr1(_ t , W; a; s" n �a4'n¢. � Liy 3c- Ck- \tS Chc�—�_hevi 'J VYI� r� 1aSiY+in� U�IIt3 CI �YX ADDRESS '31(, 93 '3ox 2A_ 302- Rj . yiy fYlafK.e.l- C16A 0. 6r 1 :2 st, K; m5 03 . 14i Li "This information is available from the Johnson County Assessor's Office. 0 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 14-8C-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: 5 l 200 �S J Si ture(s) of Applicant(s) Date: (� U , 20 _ ppdadmhapplication-boase.doc Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) 0� t-w, :, > O ;0 b � v Answers to approval criteria 300 Kimball Rd It would be extremely difficult to add an extra parking pad/space due to the large, old trees, and sloped backyard. It would also disrupt the beauty of the lot. 2. Large trees and sloped backyard creates practical difficulty in complying with _setback requirements. 3. See attachment B. -- 4. I don't see any negative effects, as this parking has always existed in this way, and is a common look to the neighborhood. 5. N/A n < a w v STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC08-00011 411 & 415 S. Governor St. Bethel AME Church GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: June 11, 2008 Bethel A.M. E. Church 411 S. Governor St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-338-7876 Melvin O. Shaw, Trustee 4715 White Oak Ave., SE Iowa City, IA 52240 319-430-3434 Special Exception for the expansion of a religious/private group assembly use in the RNS-12 zone; a special exception for modifications to dimensional and site development standards that would prevent use or occupancy of a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places; a special exception to allow a parking reduction for unique circumstances. To allow expansion of the existing Church building, a reduction in the principal building setback requirements, and a reduction in the minimum parking requirements. 411 & 415 S. Governor Street 105 x 150 feet (approx.) Religious/private group assembly; Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) North: Residential (RNS-12) South Residential (RS-8) East: Residential (RNS-12 and RS-8) West: Residential; (RNS-12) 2 Applicable code sections: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Specific criteria for religious/private group assembly in the RNS-12 zone (14-46-4D-14); specific requirements for adjustments to principle setback requirements 14- 2A-4B-5b; Purpose of the minimum setback requirements 14-2A-4B-1; Dimensional Requirements in the RNS-12 zone, 14-2A-2; Minimum parking requirements, 14-5A-4B; Historic preservation exception for dimensional standards, 14-2A-7B-1; Parking Reduction for Unique Circumstances, 14-5A-4F-5; Historic Conservation District Overlay, 14- 36-2; Multi -family site development standards, 14-213-6. May 15, 2008 The Bethel AME Church is proposing to build an addition to its existing church at 411 S. Governor Street to accommodate future growth of its congregation. The subject property is located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) Zone' and is also within the Lucas -Governor Historic Conservation District Overlay2. The existing church building measures a little more than 20 feet wide and 30 feet deep. The proposed addition measures 45 feet wide and would increase the depth of the church by 79 feet. The addition will increase the occupancy load of the building from its current capacity of 40 in the original sanctuary to approximately 150 persons in the new. The addition will include a lower level social hall and kitchen. A special exception is required to establish or expand a Religious/Private Group Assembly Use in the RNS-12 Zone. The Bethel AME Church is one of Iowa City's significant historic buildings and its only historic black church. Built in the latter part of the 1860s, the existing church building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is one of the few remaining structures of its kind in the state of Iowa. A modest one-story, simple gabled structure with little exterior ornamentation, the building has had no substantial alteration in more than 50 years. The existing church building is a legally nonconforming structure and, until recently, was also a legally nonconforming lot. In 2006 the church pursued a special exception for a slightly narrower addition. At that time the church's lot was just 39 feet wide (the minimum lot size in the zone is 45 feet), and thus would have required substantial reductions in all required setbacks, could provide little or no parking on site, and posed a number of challenges related to building coverage and drainage issues. Staff recommended denial of the special exception, and the church deferred its application in order to reconsider their plans for the site. In fall of 2007, the church acquired the abutting lot ( 65 x 150 feet) to the south, which allowed the church to more than double its lot size —under the zoning regulations for non -conforming lots, these two lots are now considered one. The Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS-12) is described in Section 14-2A-I E (page 5):. The Conservation District Overlay is described in Section 14-313-2 (page 128-129) e adoption of zoning laws and s not The church building was established prior to It has been allowed to continue asaa legally en It expanded or changed use since it was built. nonconformities nonconforming situation. The existing offollows: front setback and the 20-foot side The existing building is within the required 20 fo (north) setback; At this time the church does not provide any off-street parking; the minimum parking requirement is equal to 1/6 the occupant load of the building; Because of these non -conformities and the fact that the requested addition increases or extends the nonconformities with regard to parking and setbacks, the proposed expansion would not be allowed under normal circumstances. However, the zoning code contains a special provision that allows flexibility in applying dimensional and site development standards in order to protect and preserve significant historic properties as well as the use or occupancy of such buildings. The applicable provision is the Historic Preservation Exception per paragraph 14-2A-7B-1 of the code, which states: The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-413 of this Title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in 14-46, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. As a condition of the Historic Preservation Exception, the applicant has applied for and been granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for the design of the addition by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC has also granted permission for the house at 415 S. Governor, which is considered a non -historic structure, to be demolished 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 applicant's comments regarding the standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the approval criteria are set forth below. The Board may grant a special exception to allow establishment or expansion of a religious/private group assembly use in the RNS-12 only if the application meets all of the specific criteria listed in Section 14-4134D-14 as well as all of the general criteria in 14-46, which apply to all special exceptions. Because the church is a National Register site, the Board may also waive or modify dimensional or site development standards according to the Historic Preservation Exception provision 14-2A-7B-1 listed above. The limited size of the lot and the location of the existing church building make it difficult to construct an addition that meets all of the setback requirements and provide space for off-street parking. Therefore the applicant is requesting a modification for the rear and north side setback requirements as well as the minimum parking requirements through the Historic Preservation Exception described in 14-2A-7B-1 (above). The Board must balance the church's request to preserve the historic use of the building with the issues of neighborhood compatibility, which are 4 expressed through both the zoning requirements and the descriptions provided for the RNS-12 zone and the historic conservation overlay provided in the code. As mentioned above, the applicant has applied for and been granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission for the design of the addition. Creating an appropriate addition for what is a small, simple structure presents a number of challenges, including designing addition with a roofline and materials that would not overwhelm or compete with the original structure. The church proposes to attach the new addition to the original structure via an 8-foot breezeway. The addition will have a slightly lower roofline and use materials that complement the original white, clapboard church. Specific Criteria for Religious Private Group Assembly in the RNS-12 zone, Section 14- 4B-4D-14 a. Vehicular Access to the proposed use is limited to streets with pavement width greater than 28 feet. Access to the church would be provided along South Governor Street, an arterial street which exceeds the 28-foot standard. b. Minimum Setbacks: front, 20 feet; side, 20 feet ; rear, 50 feet. The existing church building, which was built before any other structure along this frontage, is set back approximately 12 feet from the street right-of-way line. There are no changes proposed to the front entry and thus the established front setback will remain the same. The proposed church addition will meet the front and south side setbacks. However, the addition shows a 10 foot setback along the north side property line (20 feet is required) and a 27-foot setback to the rear (50 feet is required). Iowa City's zoning code provides for the location of churches and other civic uses in appropriate locations within residential neighborhoods. However because these uses tend to have larger buildings and attract more people and traffic than the surrounding residential uses, the Code requires deeper setbacks. These larger setbacks are one way to ensure that the use is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and that any negative externalities created by the use —the additional traffic and noise that are associated with any large assembly use or the larger building scale or mass often associated with the facilities— are mitigated to the extent practical. Because the church wishes to maintain its east -west orientation and is required to preserve and restore the original building as the main feature of the church, meeting the 20 foot north side setback is difficult. The original church building is set approximately 5 feet from the north side property line; the proposed addition shows a setback of 10 feet on the north side and is located 50 feet from the south property line. The church has designed an addition with its main entrance facing south. The site plan uses the additional setback space on this side of the church to accommodate both its main entrance and rear entrance, as well as all pedestrian and vehicle access to the new addition. This will direct activity away from the north property line where the setback is reduced to 10 feet. The church has also used only small, clear story windows on the north side to preserve the sense of privacy for the adjacent residential property. The required rear setback for churches in the zone is 50 feet. The proposed addition would reduce the rear setback to 27 feet. Because the rear of the property faces onto the public alley, and because residential properties to the west of the church (404, 410, and 415 Lucas Street) are deep lots (150 feet) and the two lots directly behind the proposed rear structure do not rely on the rear alley for vehicle access, staff believes the impacts of the reduced setback are minimal. In this particular situation, staff believes the setback reductions are an appropriate accommodation to help preserve the cultural history of the property as a religious use as well as its historic congregation. In the opinion of staff, the proposed design and layout of the site is balanced with the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed use will be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The Board of Adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed use, such as the site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building scale, setbacks, landscaping, and location and amount of paved areas. The Board of Adjustment may deny the use or aspects of the use that are deemed out of scale, incompatible, or out of character with the surrounding residential uses, or may require additional measures to mitigate these differences. Additional requirements may include but are not limited to, additional screening, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, setbacks, location and design of parking facilities, and location and design of buildings. In designing a site plan that is compatible with the neighborhood, the church faces a number of unique challenges: ■ Creating an addition that expands the capacity of the church while not overwhelming or competing with the modest historic structure; ■ Providing some parking on the small property while meeting the multi -family standards, which restrict parking to those areas behind the building; ■ Arranging the larger structure on a relatively small property in a manner that does not detract from the surrounding residential uses. The church has taken a number of steps to make the new addition and expanded use compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. As stated above, staff believes that the proposed plan mitigates the reduced setback along the north property line by facing the new entrance to the church toward the south, where the building is set back 50 feet from the property line. In this way the property to the north will be separated from the most active area of the facility. By holding the height of the addition to 24 feet (the maximum height allowed is 35 feet in the RNS-12 zone), the church will better reflect the scale and mass of the neighborhood. The site plan shows that the addition retains some limited space behind the church for 8 parking spaces. By providing a one-way access drive from Governor Street the church will direct vehicle traffic on a small portion of the unpaved rear alley to the west. A 10-foot wide S2 landscaped buffer is required between the single -lane drive and the adjacent residential property to the south (an apartment building with entrances and windows facing toward the church). The proposed 10-foot landscaped buffer and additional building setback area along the south side of the building will help to provide separation between the residential use and the church and will screen the noise and glare associated with the additional traffic along the driveway and drop off area as well as the additional activity at the entrance of the church. In order to insure an appropriate level of year-round screening, staff recommends that the buffer also include some evergreen trees and shrubs. The church should submit a final, more detailed landscape plan to staff for review. 3 The S2 standards is a buffering treatment that uses distance and low-level screening to separate uses from the public right-of- way, from other zones, to define edges and separate vehicular use areas from pedestrians. The standard is applied where moderate screening is necessary to soften the impact of uses or paved areas, but where some visibility between areas is more desirable that a total visual screen. The S2 standard requires enough shrubs to form a landscape screen ranging from between 2 and 4 feet in height. At least a third of the shrubs must grow to no more than 4 feet in height. Staff is concerned about the size of the proposed drop-off area. The site plan shows the width as 18 feet, which is the equivalent of 2 standard parking spaces. The additional paving poses concerns with regard to drainage (see more on this below) as well as neighborhood aesthetics. Because the criteria for the special exception discourage excessive paving, particularly in areas not screened by the building, staff recommends that the drop off area be narrowed to twelve feet in width. d. Given that large parking lots can seriously erode the single family residential character of these zones, the Board of Adjustment will carefully review any requests for parking spaces beyond the minimum required. The Board may limit the number of parking spaces and the size and location of parking lots, taking into account the availability of on -street parking, the estimated parking demand, and opportunities for shared parking with other non-residential uses in the vicinity of the use. The church is unable to meet the minimum parking requirement. Based on the square footage of the building, the occupancy load of the existing church is approximately 40. (Because the current church does not have fixed seating, this calculation is based on square footage). The zoning code dictates that the minimum off-street parking (1/6 the occupancy load) for a church with this capacity is or 7 spaces. The church does not currently provide any off-street parking —all parking is provided on the street. The church has an arrangement with the City to allow a limited amount of on -street parking along the west side of South Governor Street for Sunday services —the equivalent of 11 spaces. Parking is prohibited along the west side of the street on all other days of the week. The arrangement to reserve on -street parking during Sunday services may be extended to more of Governor Street to accommodate more cars subject to a traffic study and approval of the City Council. The applicant proposes to expand the church to accommodate approximately 150 members as shown in their fixed seating. The increase in occupancy would require the church to provide 17- 18 off-street parking spaces. The site plan shows 8 off-street spaces to the rear of the church addition —this includes 2 handicapped spaces. While it is possible for the space designated for trash pick up lane to be used as a ninth parking space, it does not count toward the minimum parking requirement. The applicant proposes that all other parking be provided on -street. When considering the capacity of the street to handle all or most of the parking demand for the church, we must consider not only the required off-street parking but also the existing additional on -street parking generated by the expanded church. The church has indicated that they currently park 10-15 on the street. A fourfold increase in the occupancy of the church would suggest the need for as many as 60 parking spaces. With a maximum of 9 spaces provided on site, there would be demand for 51 spaces on the street. The west side of SouthGovernor between the Burlington and Bowery provides approximately 1000 feet of parking space (the length of the block minus driveways and restricted areas near the Bowery and Burlington intersections). Approximately 47 cars could be parked along the entire western length of the South Governor Street frontage assuming a standard 20 to 22 feet of space per vehicle. Capacity is also available on the east side of the street, however because this parking is not reserved for the church they will compete for spaces with other users in the neighborhood. It should be noted that the permit to allow parking along the west side of South Governor Street is for Sunday services only. The applicant has not addressed how parking will be provided for any expanded activities that are associated with a larger church use. Presumably these vehicles would compete for space with all other cars parking in the area. The applicant has indicated that most church activities will take place in off-peak hours when on - street parking tends to be more available. A reduction in the parking requirement may be granted through the Historic Preservation Exception, which allows a waiver or modification of site development standards and thus the church seeks to reduce their required off-street parking from 18 spaces to 8. Staff believes that a modification of the required minimum parking is in order to allow the historic church congregation to continue use of the property. e. The proposed use will not have adverse effects on the livability of nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late -night operations, odors and litter. Staff does not anticipate substantial adverse effects from noise, glare, litter, etc. as described here. As mentioned above, the church has oriented its main entrance away from the reduced north side setback and will provide a 10-foot landscaped buffer along the south property line to buffer the adjacent residential use from the additional traffic along the drive and drop-off area. The current site plan indicates a buffer of prairie grasses. Staff recommends that the church submit a final, more detailed landscape plan for the indicating a mix of evergreen trees and shrubs and prairie grasses and the plan be reviewed by staff to insure an appropriate level of year-round screening. f. Not applicable. g. Because the proposed use is in a residential zone and in the Central Planning District it must comply with the Multi -Family site development standards as set forth in Section 14-213-6 (see attached). The site plan meets the applicable multi -family standards: • The street -facing fagade of the building will be less than 50 feet and thus will not require additional measures to break up the mass of the building. ■ The building is constructed of materials and in a style appropriate for its historic architectural style and has received HPC approval. ■ All parking is shown to the rear of the building. ■ A 10-foot buffer area is shown between the parking area and the property to the south. In lieu of the 10-foot buffer on the north side, the applicant has proposed to continue the retaining wall and screen that surrounds the waste bin at the northwest corner of the building. 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. In the opinion of Staff, the lack of sufficient drainage on the site may is a concern for the public safety, comfort and welfare for the surrounding properties and the Governor Street and rear alley public rights -of -way and has provided recommendations to address this situation (see general standard #4 below). 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. The church has mitigated the impact of the side setback reduction by using only small, clear story windows on the south side to preserve the sense of privacy for the adjacent residential property. Moreover, the church has placed both its main entrance and rear entrance, as well as all pedestrian access to the new addition, along the south side of the building, which will direct activity away from the north property line where the setback is reduced to 10 feet. In staff's view there are two main concerns with the proposed expansion of the church: storm water drainage in the rear alley and the lack of off-street parking. The Public Works Department is aware of the poor condition of the rear alley and that its deterioration has taken place over time with the increase in density of the neighborhood. Given the large number of cars that already use the alley, the impact of 8 to 9 more cars for in conjunction with church services is unlikely to make a significant difference in the overall condition of the alley. At some point in the future, it may become necessary to pave this alley and install storm sewer. As additional redevelopment occurs, there will not be a clearly defined tipping point at which this will be necessary. For this reason, staff recommends that the church sign a waiver indicating that it will not protest any future assessment for the improvement of the alley. In the meantime, staff believes that the church must do all that it can to minimize the amount of water that drains onto the rear alley (see #4 below). The increase in parking is not likely to take place immediately. It will take time for church membership to grow and the lack of on -site parking may be an obstacle for the church to overcome such that they provide other means of transporting members to the site. In the interim the church will rely primarily on the west side of Governor Street for Sunday parking and will seek available on -street parking for other events. While this is not the most desirable parking arrangement, similar situations exist for other older established churches in the central district and near downtown area (i.e. St. Wenceslaus church on Fairchild Street and the Christian Science Church on College Street). Staff has observed that there is available parking capacity in the neighborhood, particularly at the south end of the block. Because it is not possible to provide all the required parking on the site and because there is existing capacity for on -street parking, Staff believes that the reduction is appropriate in order to preserve the historic use. 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. While the surrounding properties are fully developed, the intent of the RNS-12 down -zoning of the neighborhood, which took place in 2000, was to encourage the preservation of existing single-family homes and to foster improvement to properties in the neighborhood. In staff's view the down -zoning has worked as a number of properties have converted back to single-family use and restoration and general upkeep of residential structures in the neighborhood has increased. As a result a large portion of the neighborhood along South Governor, south of the Bethel AME property, was further down -zoned to RS-8 zone in 2007. With the proposed site plan and design of the church addition, staff believes opportunity to expand and preserve the church will help to continue this trend of reinvestment in the neighborhood. A potential lack of adequate drainage from the site (see #4 below) may affect the rear alley as well as adjacent properties to the west and should be addressed to the extent possible. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff from the City Engineer's Office have reviewed the site and proposal. They have noted that with the expansion of the building and proposed parking and paved areas, much of the lot would become impervious surfaces —unable to absorb rainfall. Currently, stormwater that is not saturated directly into the ground flows southwesterly across the back side of the adjacent property to the south to a low point in the alley, and westerly across the alley and onto private property on Lucas Street. There is no storm sewer system in the alley, which is unimproved (unpaved). The nearest storm sewer intake is located on Lucas Street, north and west of Bethel Church (in front of 324 Lucas). Once the stormwater reaches the alley it will drain onto private properties to the west. The issue of stormwater management must address impacts to adjacent properties. The site plan design standards in the City Code state that "the design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream property so that the proposed development will not substantially and materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent downstream property." The proposed site plan shows that the church has attempted to address this issue through the use of pervious pavement and rain gardens. However staff remains somewhat concerned about the issue of drainage. While pervious pavement will allow some stormwater to infiltrate the site, over time these pavements tend to become clogged with sand and silt and become less penetrable. Furthermore, the location of the rain gardens, between the parking and the alley, is not appropriate. Staff recommends eliminating the rain gardens at the rear of the site and using this as additional green space between the rear of the church addition and the rear sidewalk. Staff also recommends that the church propose a system to drain as mush of the roof as possible toward the front of the property so as to minimize the amount of water draining toward the alley, where no storm sewer is provided. This may be accomplished through sloping the gutter system on the roof or through underground tiling. Likewise the drive should be constructed to drain as much water as is practical onto Governor Street and the open space on the church property. It may be possible to locate a rain garden near the rear of the open space area between the drive and the church, however a soil assessment would be needed to show if a rain garden could function there. Staff recommends that the church investigate the potential for a rain garden in this location. Staff also recommends minimizing the width of the drop-off area, or installing a landscaped island between the drop-off and the drive in order to minimize the amount of paving on the site. All other utilities and access are provided. 5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The single -lane drive proposed should function so as to allow cars to enter from South Governor and to exit via the rear alley, which curves back toward Governor Street. While the church will need to apply for a curb cut permit to install the new driveway access, staff have reviewed the location of the drive and believe it is appropriate and safe. 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. Again providing appropriate drainage for the site continues to be a critical issue for the expansion and is a requirement of the code. Staff believes that by using the pervious pavement and by directing roof run-off toward Governor Street to the extent practical that the church will minimize run-off from the site. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. As stated above, the Comprehensive Plan allows for the location of religious/private group assembly within residential neighborhoods where appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends the preservation of historic properties and landmarks. However, the Comprehensive Plan balances these worthy goals within the context of the neighborhood character and the zoning regulations that apply. In staffs view, based on the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, the proposed addition will result in the preservation of this important historic building as well as its historic use. Staff also believes the proposed site plan and design of the church balances the goal of historic preservation with the interests of the residential neighborhood as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. n SUMMARY Despite its humble design and small size, the Bethel AME Church is a significant historic building. Its preservation is worthy of careful consideration. Added to its architectural and aesthetic attributes is the fact that for all of its nearly 140 years, and despite the significant changes to the surrounding residential neighborhood, the property has been home to one congregation —The African Methodist Episcopal Church, a church that has made its own unique and rich contribution to American history and thus the cultural value to the site. The zoning code takes into consideration the National Register status of the property provides flexibility in applying the dimensional and site design standards in order to help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property. Were it not for its historic significance, no such waivers could be applied to this property. The church is requesting reductions for the south side and rear setbacks as well as the minimum parking requirements to allow the use to continue on the site. Staff supports these modifications as necessary in order to preserve the historic building and use. Staff believes that the church has proposed an addition and site design that preserves the historic value of the property and one that is compatible with the surrounding historic residential neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC08-00011, an application for a special exception to allow expansion of a religious/private group assembly in the RNS-12 zone and to allow a historic preservation waiver to: reduce the setbacks and minimum parking requirements at 411 and 425 South Governor be approved on the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of a system for draining as much of the roof as is practically possible away from the alley and toward Governor Street where storm sewer service is available. 2. Investigation by Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District for potential rain garden in the open space area between the church and the driveway. 3. The driveway should be designed to maximize drainage toward Governor Street. 4. Paving in the drop-off area to be reduced to a maximum width of 12 feet. 5. Submission of a final landscape plan for the 10-foot buffer area to the south of the church drive showing a combination of evergreen trees and shrubs and grasses to provide a year-round S2 screening. Final design to be approved by staff. 6. The applicant must sign an agreement to waive any protest for future assessments to improve the alley to the rear of the property. 7. Restoration of the exterior of the original church structure. 8. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Photos 3. Proposed Site Plan 4. Multi -family Standards 5. Historic Preservation Staff Report and Certificate of Appropriateness 6. Application Materials Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PAGE 26-14 14-2B Multi -Family Residential Zones Table 28-2. pirnslo'ha'I R'Ire RsdentalZones INtnifnuir► Lbt l;equiromfta" " Minimum"Satbaak Building Bulk " Max Lot Coverage Total " Areal width ' Min ";. Front' ". y Side Rear " Nt. Min. Total Front zone/ Use Area Unit, () Frorrta a g (4.) K) N 00 Building Building Setback ls.r l' t f tff) width Coverage Coverage lots must be 28 feet wide. 7If the Single Family Density Bonus Options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly (See Section 14-2B4A, Minimum Lot Regluirements). BAdditional height restrictions may apply on properties adjacent to Single Family Zones or Single Family Uses (See Subsection 14-2BAC, Building Bulk Regulations). ' 9See the Special Provisions of this Article regarding minimum lot area per unit requirements in the RNS-20 Zone. 14-213-5 Maximum Occupancy The residential occupancy of a Household Living Use is limited to one "household" per dwelling unit, as this term is defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions. 14-213-6 Multi -Family Site Development Standards A. Purpose The Multi -Family Site Development Standards promote safe, attractive, pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods by preventing expanses of concrete, blank walls and parking lots along street frontages; controlling the building bulk; screening unsightly features; ensuring that pedestrian entrances are visible and clearly identifiable from the street; and minimizing potential conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles. B. Applicability 1. The standards of this Section apply to all Multi -Family Uses, Group Living Uses, and Institutional/Civic Uses located in Residential Zones and in the Central Planning District (See Central Planning District Map, below). 2. Single Family Uses and Two Family Uses located in a Multi -Family Zone must comply with the Single Family Site Development Standards specified in Article 14-2A, Single Family Residential Zones. Two Family Uses located in the Central Planning District must also comply with the provisions of subsection 14-213-6I, Additional Standards in the Central Planning District, which will be administered through the Design Review process, as set forth in Article 14-86, Administrative Approval Procedures. 3. For properties located in the RM-12, RNS-20, RM-20, and RM-44 Zones outside the Central Planning District, the standards in this Section will be administered through the Site Plan Review Process, as set forth in Title 18. For properties located in the Central Planning District and the PRM Zone the regulations of this section will be administered through the Design Review process as set forth in Article 14-813, Administrative Approval Procedures. 4. For properties located in a Historic or Conservation District Overlay Zone, the standards of this Section will be administered concurrently with review of the proposed development by the Historic Preservation Commission. If the provisions of the Historic or Conservation District Overlay Zone conflict with the provisions of this Section, the provisions of the Historic or Conservation District Overlay Zone will supercede the provisions of this Section. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2B-15 14-2B Multi -Family Residential Zones Central Planning District Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2B-16 14-2B Multi -Family Residential Zones C. Location and Design Standards for Surface Parking and Detached Garages 1. Location Surface parking, parking within accessory structures, and loading areas must be located behind principal building(s) and concealed from view of fronting streets. Parking and loading areas may not be located directly between a principal building and the street or within the required side setback area. Any portion of a parking or loading area that is not completely concealed from view of a fronting street must be screened to the S2 standard (See Figure 26.4 and 213.5, below). Figure 26.4 - Location of surface parking for properties with a single building Street Unacceptable Acceptable S2 Street Acceptable Acceptable Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 213-17 14-2B Multi -Family Residential Zones Figure 28.5 - Location of parkIng for properties with multiple buildings Street Acceptable Street Acceptable Street Unacceptable i Cn 2. Aisles and Drives Drives that are internal to a parking area, including drives that provide circulation around the perimeter of the parking area are considered part of the parking area and must meet the location standards for parking areas as stated in paragraph 1, above, and the landscape buffering standard as stated in paragraph 3, below. A non -hard Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2B-18 14-2B Multi -Family Residential Zones surfaced drive or aisle that is external to a parking area may not be located closer than 3 feet to a lot line, except at the point of access with a street, alley, or private rear lane. Hard -surfaced drives that are external to a parking area most be set back at least 3 feet from any side or rear lot line, except under the following circumstances: a. The drives and aisles are pitched or curbed and drained to prevent the flow of water onto adjoining property; or b. A drainage course has been established along lot lines to handle storm water runoff; or C. Any specific location along a side or rear lot line where a drive is shared with an abutting lot; or d. At the point of access with an alley or private rear lane. 3. Landscape buffering a. A buffer area at least 10 feet in width and landscaped to at least the S2 standard must be provided between any parking area and adjacent properties and between any parking area and street rights -of -way (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). The City may exempt from this requirement any specific location along a side or rear lot line where a parking area, aisle or drive is shared with an abutting lot. The City may also waive the landscape screening requirement where the view from adjacent properties is or will be locked by a significant change in grade or by natural or human -made features, such that the screening is effectively provided and the intent of the standard is met, as determined by the Building Official. b. A buffer area at least 5 feet in width and landscaped to the S1 standard must be provided between any parking area containing more than 8 parking spaces and an adjacent alley. C. No parking area or drive shall be closer than 10 feet to any portion of a building other than a garage entrance or loading area apron. This 10-foot area must be used for walkways and landscaping consisting of at least 50 percent vegetative coverage. If parking spaces are located where headlights of vehicles shine onto a wall containing ground level windows, said parking spaces must be screened from view of the windows to at least the S2 standard. D. Building entrances for Multi -Family and Group Living Uses 1. For Residential Uses, buildings must have at least one door on the exterior of the building that provides pedestrian access to dwelling units within the building. Access to dwelling units must not be solely through a parking garage. 2. When a lot contains one principal building, the building must be oriented such that at least one facade faces a public or private street. The street -facing facade must have at least one main entrance to the building, or may contain separate main entrances to ground level dwelling units. If the building is located on a corner lot, only one wall must meet this requirement. 3. When a lot contains two or more principal buildings, the buildings must be oriented towards a public street, private street, or interior courtyard. Any building with a Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2B-19 14-2B Multi -Family Residential Zones street -facing fagade must have at least one main entrance oriented toward the street. Buildings located interior to a lot must have main entrances that are clearly visible from interior private streets/drives or surface parking areas. 4. Main entrances to a building, including main entrances to ground level individual dwelling units must be clearly demarcated by one of the following means (See Figure 2B.6, below): a. Covered porch or canopy; b. Transom and sidelight windows; C. Pilasters and pediment; d. Other significant architectural treatment that emphasizes main entrances. Simple trim around the doorway does not meet this standard. Figure 2B.6 - Main Entrances a. Canopy a. Porch b. Transom & c. Pilasters & sidelight windows pediment 5. Patio -style doors, such as sliding glass doors, may not be used for main entrance doors. 6. To provide for the safety of residents, access to entrance doors of any individual dwellings units located above the ground level must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairway. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairways may not be used as the primary means of access to dwelling units located above the ground level floor of the building. This provision does not preclude the use of fire egress structures. 7. A pedestrian circulation system must be provided that connects residential entrances to adjacent public rights -of -way, and to parking areas and other on -site facilities. E. Building scale 1. In the RM-12, RM-20, RNS-201 RM-44, and PRM tones outside the Central Planning District Street -facing walls that are greater than 50 feet in length must be articulated with bays, projections, or recesses (See Figure 2B.7, below) according to the following standards: a. Bays and projections must be at least 6 feet in width and at least 16 inches, but not more than 6 feet in depth. Recesses must be at least 6 feet in width and have a depth of at least 16 inches. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2B-20 14-2B Multi -Family Residential Zones b. The bays, projections, and recesses must have corresponding changes in the roofline or, alternatively, must be distinguished by a corresponding change in some other architectural element(s) of the building, such as a change in exterior wall materials, a change in window pattern, the addition of balconies, variation in the building and/or parapet height; or variation in architectural details, such as decorative banding, reveals, stone or tile accents. Figure 28.7 - Building Articulation Unacceptable TaIII,il ; ; Acceptable ■ ■ r Acceptable M11MW 171% - Acceptable 2. In the Central Planning District The width of the front facade of new buildings must be no more than 40 feet. Buildings may exceed this limitation if the horizontal plane of any street -facing facade of the building is broken into modules that give the appearance of smaller, individual buildings (See Figure 2B.8, below). Each module must meet the following standards: a. Each module must be no greater than 30 feet and no less than 10 feet in width and must be distinguished from adjacent modules by a variation in the wall plane of at least 16 inches in depth. For buildings that are 3 or more stories in height, the width of the module may be increased to 40 feet. b. Each module must have a corresponding change in the roofline. C. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent module by at least one of the following means: (1) Variation in material colors, types or textures; (2) Variation in the building and/or parapet height; (3) Variation in the architectural details such as decorative banding, reveals, stone, or tile accents; (4) Variation in window pattern. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2B-21 14-2B Multi -Family Residential Zones (5) Variation in the use of balconies and recesses. Figure 2B.8 - Building modules that break up the horizontal plane Module Module-- �— Module Module Existing I New MF Building Existing F. Balconies and exterior stairways, corridors and lifts For purposes of this subsection the term, "exterior stairways," refers to stairways that lead to floors of a building that are above the first or ground -level floor of a building. "Exterior corridors" refers to unenclosed corridors located above the first or ground -level floor of a building. Balconies and exterior stairways, exterior corridors and exterior lifts must comply with the following standards: 1. Exterior stairways, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are prohibited in the PRM Zone; however, the City may allow exterior fire egress structures on existing buildings that cannot otherwise reasonable meet code requirements, provided the fire egress structure is not located on a wall of a building that faces a street. In other zones, exterior stairways, exterior lifts and exterior corridors must be covered with a roof similar in design and materials to the roof over the rest of the structure. Said roof should be incorporated into the overall roof plan of the structure. Alternatively, such features may be recessed into the fagade of the building. Exterior corridors may not be located on a street -facing wall of the building or within 20-feet of a street - facing wall. 2. Unenclosed or partially enclosed stairways may not be used as the primary means of access to dwelling units located above the ground -level floor of the building (see 14- 2B-6D-6). 3. Balconies, exterior stairways, exterior lifts and exterior corridors may not be located on any side of a building that is adjacent to a property that is zoned Single Family Residential or that contains an existing Single Family Use. Buildings that are set back at least 40 feet from any such property are exempt from this standard. 4. The design of any balcony, exterior stairway, exterior lift or exterior corridor must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and railings that are designed and constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to the design and materials used for the rest of the building. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2B-22 14-2B Multi-Fgmily Residential Zones Figure 28.9 - Balconies, exterior corridors , mm L " L-i ES -=- L-fFEP Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable G. Building materials 1. In the Central Planning District, the exterior wall material of a building must consist of clapboard -style siding, wall shingles, brick, stone, or stucco. 2. In the PRM Zone, the exterior walls of the ground level floor of a building must be constructed with a masonry finish, such as fired brick, stone, or similar material, not including concrete blocks and undressed poured concrete. Masonry may include stucco or like material when used in combination with other masonry finish. 3. In the Central Planning District and in the PRM Zone, buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco, must have the following trim elements incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building. a. Window and door trim that is not less than 3 inches wide. b. Corner boards that are not less than 3 inches wide, unless wood clapboards are used and mitered at the corners. C. Frieze boards, not less than 5 inches wide, located below the eaves. Figure 28.10 - Building Materials Frieze board- Comer board Window trim Masonry bese� - Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2B-23 14-2B Multi -Family Residential Zones 4. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be constructed using similar materials and design as the front fa5ade. 5. Exterior walls of buildings that are not predominantly masonry or stucco, must have a durable base consisting of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete that extends at least 2-feet in height above grade. If the base consists of concrete, it must have a decorative face. 6. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any fagade that faces a street -side lot line. 7. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the change must occur on an inside corner of the building. 8. For buildings where the exterior wall material used on the side of a building is a different material than what is used on the street -facing wall, the street -facing wall material must wrap around the corners to the sides of the building for at least 3 feet. 9. Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band board or other trim to provide a transition from one material to the other. Figure 58.11 - Changes in exterior wall materials band C ti r4 hqll� p/8n� � Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable H. Mechanical Equipment/Utility Meters In no case shall mechanical equipment or utility meters be located along the street side of a building. Mechanical structures must be set back and screened according to the applicable provisions set forth in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. I. Additional Standards in the Central Planning District 1. Front Setbacks The front setback for new buildings must not deviate more than 5 feet from the average setback of existing principal buildings along the same frontage. A new building may not be located closer to the street than the existing principal building that is closest to the street along the same frontage. This setback standard supercedes the setback standards of the base zone. 2. Windows and Fenestration Individual window units that are visible from a public or private street and that are Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 PAGE 2B-24 14-2B Multi -Family Residential Zones located in primary living spaces, such as living rooms, dining areas, and bedrooms, must have a height that is at least 1.5 times greater than the width of the window unit. Individual window units may be located side -by -side in a wider window opening. Bathroom, kitchen, skylights, and decorative windows, such as stained-glass and ocular windows, are not required to meet this standard. Figure 29.12 - Windows 3. Architectural style The purpose of requiring an architectural style is to ensure that the mass, roof form, window style and configuration, and the basic architectural details of a building are generally compatible with the historic character of the Central Planning District. New buildings should appear similar to a large house or a small historic apartment building. a. Any building elevation that is within public view (See definition of PUBLIC VIEW, WITHIN), must be designed in a manner that is consistent with a historic architectural style typical of residential buildings in the Central Planning District. However, building facades that are visible only from public alleys are not subject to these standards. The applicable architectural styles are as follows: Italianate; Queen Anne; Colonial Revival; Craftsman; Craftsman Bungalow; American Foursquare; Prairie School; Period Revival; and Eclectic. The applicant must indicate in detail how each of the following architectural elements in the proposed building are consistent with one of these architectural styles as described in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, as amended. (1) Form and mass of the building; (2) Roof configuration and pitch; (3) Style and placement of windows and doors; (4) Window and door trim, eave boards, frieze boards, and other trim; (5) Porch and entrance features; (6) Building details and ornamentation. b. Detailed information regarding historic residential building styles is available in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. The Design Review Committee and the Historic Preservation Commission will use this information as a means to evaluate new buildings in the Central Planning District. C. Alternative designs that have been prepared by a licensed architect may be acceptable and will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 2-20-07 Historic Preservation Commission CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 411 S. Governor Street A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held at the City Hall on April 10, 2008 at 6.00 p.m. The following members were present: Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Pamela Michaud, James Ponto, Timothy Toomey, and Alicia Trimble. By a vote of 6-0, the Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed project involving demolition and new construction at 411 South Governor Street, which is a key -contributing property in the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. The Commission approved the demolition of an enclosed front porch (on the east facade) and an entry canopy (on the south fagade) on the existing structure. The replacement of the door on the south fagade with a window was also approved. The Commission also approved the construction of a new wood stoop and stair with latticework to the front of the existing structure. The latticework detail is subject to staff approval. All handrails must be compatible with 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines and are subject to staff approval. The Commission also approved the proposed construction of an addition to the rear of the existing church building with following conditions: 1) The use of fiber -cement board siding of the same profile as the original church. 2) The use of solid wood or metal -clad wood windows. 3) The use of wood or fiber -cement board soffits. 4) All handrails must be compatible with 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines and are subject to staff approval. 5) The restoration of the interior of the historic church for use as exhibit, meeting, or office space, such that it can be easily recognized and reused as the original sanctuary of the building. 6) All window and door specifications and materials are subject to staff approval. The project, as presented in the application and with conditions as stated above, is approved as provided in City Code Section 14-8E-2. Any additional work that falls under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission that is not specified in this certificate will need a separate review. - Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Vice -Chair Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner Iowa City Planning & Community Development �`1• lb • � Date Staff Report Historic Review for 411 Governor Street April 4, 2008 District: Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Key -Contributing, Local Landmark On behalf of the Bethel A.M.E. Church, the applicants, Rev. Dial and Melvin Shaw, are requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 411 South Governor Street, which is a contributing property in the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. It is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The applicants intend to construct an addition measuring approximately 45 feet x 75 feet at the rear of the existing church. The proposed structure will be approximately 23 feet in height. The applicants also intend to 1) alter the existing front porch by removing the existing partial enclosure, 2) replacing the front steps with wood stairs (with lattice work) and reorienting 90 degrees toward the south, and 3) close the existing exterior entryway to the basement, replace the door with a window, and remove the shelter for the entryway. For the addition, the applicants propose to use brick veneered foundation, fiber cement board siding, aluminum -clad wood windows, aluminum gutters and downspouts, and cement board soffits. The entry on the addition will be cement board siding with some limestone detailing. In December 2006, the Commission reviewed and approved an alternate addition. However, due to the property's status as a National Register site the plans were forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office. Comments from Jack Porter, the SHPO Preservation Consultant, were received after the Commission's decision. Mr. Porter raised concerns about the addition's effect on the property's National Register status. Because of these concerns, the applicant decided to change the proposed addition and is seeking approval from the Commission. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Secretary oflnten'or's Standards for the Treatment of Histode Properties Staff Comments The original church was built in 1868 and according to the Iowa Site Inventory Form; it is one of the few remaining structures of its kind in the state of Iowa. It is a modest one story, simple -gabled roof frame structure with little exterior ornamentation. Its size, scale, proportions, and fenestration are more similar to a domestic structure than that of a religious structure. This was one of the earliest buildings (can be seen on an 1868 Iowa City map) built in this area sometimes mentioned as Charles H. Berryhill's Second Addition to Iowa City. In September 2000, this property was listed on the National Register for Historic Places. The National Register Nomination provides a comprehensive account of the Church, how it has survived over 138 years, and continues to serve its members as a social and religious institution. In 1868, James Howard purchased the land where that church stands today, from Charles Berryhill. After ten years, he sold the southern half of lot to the trustees of the `First African Methodist Episcopal Church'. Howard founded the Church and was one of three trustees of the church. It appears that the original lot purchased by Howard was 80 feet wide. A parsonage building, built in 1893, existed behind the church until 1988 and was used as the residence of the pastor. In the early 1920s, the foundation walls of the church were raised to build a basement. Page 1 of 4 The property is located in a residential neighborhood, and is zoned as Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS-12). Religious/Private Group Assembly uses are allowed in RNS-12 only after a special exception approval from the Board of Adjustment (BOA). This is also applicable to the expansion of an existing religious use. Due to the site constraints, it would not be possible to meet the setback and parking requirements for the resulting use with the proposed addition. Therefore, the applicants are seeking approval for a special exception from the BOA as per 14-2A-7 Special Provisions B. 1. Historic Preservation Exceptions of the zoning code. This provision allows for waiver or modification of any dimensional or site developmental standards that would prevent use or occupancy of a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The section states: The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this Article or in Chapter 14-5 or any approval criteria listed in Article 14-4B of this Title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article 14-4B, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicants must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. One of the special exception approval criteria is obtaining a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. Another criterion that must be met is that the waiver or modification will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property. Therefore, the Commission is charged with the duty to consider this proposal and find whether the addition would be compatible with the existing historic structure, surrounding properties and the neighborhood, while considering the need to expand the structure. As the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines do not clearly address rehabilitation of non- residential buildings, the project should be reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The applicable standards are: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. In this case, to allow for an expanded congregation the proposed changes are not minimal. Although the property itself would be used for its historic purpose, the sanctuary would not. However, the applicants do propose for the original sanctuary to be restored to its historic interior and used for exhibit, meeting, and office space. In Staffs opinion, as discussed in more detail below, under standard number 9, the scale and design of the proposed addition would change the defusing characteristics of the building and Page 2 of 4 its site and environment. However, the proposed addition does not diminish the importance of the historic structure . 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. See comments under standard number 1 above. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings shall not be undertaken. The applicants do not propose any major changes to the historic structure. The two entry shelters that are to be removed are not original to the church. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings -New Additions published by the National Park Services provide further guidance on this issue. The guidelines encourage exploring all the options for incorporating the new use by altering the non -character -defining interior spaces of the existing structure. Staff recognizes that the applicants would not be able to meet the space needs of a growing congregation in the existing structure. In such instance, the guidelines state that the additions are acceptable if they are designed and built so that the character -defusing features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of rehabilitation. Staff believes that the most significant and character -defining feature of this building is its modest Mid-19th Century architecture. Therefore, primary design consideration should address the massing, size, scale issues. The placement of the proposed buildings on site is also an important factor that would affect the existing structure. The guidelines recommend locating the addition at the rear or inconspicuous side of the historic building and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building. The proposed building is at the rear of the existing church. The proposed addition would measure approximately 79 feet in length, 45 feet in width, and 23 feet in height. The existing structure measures approximately 30 feet in length, 21 feet in width and 24 feet in height. The structure is located on a lot measuring approximately 40 feet in width and 150 feet in length. It would occupy a much larger percentage of its lot than the existing church or the residential buildings in this neighborhood. However, the applicants have acquired the adjacent parcel at 415 S. Governor Street and are proposing to demolish the existing non-contributing building on that parcel. This provides a larger lot for the expansion of the church. Page 3 of 4 The existing building will be connected with the proposed addition with a `breezeway', which would be 8 feet long. The breezeway would serve as a distinguishing separation between the old and new church. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. In staffs opinion, the proposed addition would allow for the expansion of the church congregation. Because of the desire to restore the existing sanctuary to its historic interior, the original church would not be a secondary structure to the addition. Although the original church would no longer be used as the sanctuary, it would still retain its historic integrity and serve as an important space in the church. Staff believes that the proposed addition to the church would honor and maintain the historic character of the church. Although a much larger footprint, the addition is compatible with the scale of the existing structure and does not overwhelm the historic church. The additionis slightly subordinate in height to the historic structure. The connection between the exiting and proposed building is of adequate depth to achieve a separation between the old and new structures. The integrity of the existing sanctuary is maintained to the extent possible and any future uses will reflect the existence of the sanctuary. Staff has met with the applicants and made suggestions on several aspects of the design. The applicants have made changes and been cooperative in the application process. It is the desire of the applicants to achieve a compatible addition that would not diminish the historic nature of the existing church. Staff recommends approval of the addition at 411 S. Governor St, Bethel A.M.E. Church, as presented in the application subject to the following changes/conditions: • Use of fiber -cement -board siding of the same profile as the original church. • Use of aluminum -clad, wood windows in the addition and in the new window proposed for the foundation of the existing church. • Use of wood or fiber -cement -board soffits • The front stairs replaced with wood stairs with latticework. • The handrails being compatible with 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines • The restoration of the interior of the historic church for use as exhibit, meeting, or office space, such that it can be easily recognized and reused as the original sanctuary of the building. Page 4 of 4 KC o S— coo f I I FILED APPLICATION T07T3 HIA5 ,„,,:29 BOARD OF ADJUST �K -SPECIAL EXCEPTIONW��W- DATE: MaY 15, 2008 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 105102005; 1015102008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 411 S. Governor Street; 415 S. Governor Street, Iowa City PROPERTY ZONE: RNS-12 PROPERTY LOT SIZE:149.89 x 39.80 149.89 x 65.0 APPLICANT: Name: Bethel A.M.E. Church Address:411 S. Governor St. Iowa city,52240 Phone: (319) 338-7876 CONTACT PERSON: Name: Melvin 0. Shaw, Steward; Rev. 0. Ray (if other than applicant) Address: P.O. Box 1426, Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 337-7429; (319) 230-2077 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: 1,Pastor 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 e-mail sarah-waiz p&owa-city.org. See Attached Application Purpose for special exception: Permit the alteration and construction of an addi tion to Bethel A.M.E. Church, Iowa City Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: 10/10/06 (withdrawn) ; 1 /l gf 006 (withdrawn) 4- 131.L� -�� w b;,M j w ��Vt, �. . ►�v3 ,(aitcc " Cf�ck Nv. li 1058 : ��i 4AnQk fit; 1.�� v aSJv►r+►� gnu .,� p�cr� w. tN'P W ��c�rau�� , Application to the Board of Adjustment —Special Exception Applicable Code Sections • Specific criteria for religious/'private group assembly in the RNS-12 Zone (144B-413- 14); • Specific requirements for adjustments to setback requirements 14-2A-4B-5b; • Purpose of the minimum setback requirements 14-2A-4B-1; • Dimensional Requirements in the RNS-12 zone, 14-2A-2; • Minimum parking requirements, 14-5A-4B; • Historic preservation exception for dimensional standards, 14-2A-7B-1; 0 • Multi -family site development standards, 14-2B-6 A. Legal Description S %2 Lot 19, Block 1 C.H. Berryhill's 2"d Addition (415 S. Governor) =` m ,,, M The North 65 feet of Lot Eighteen (18) in Block One (1) in Berryhill's Secoi iddit on 0 _ (411 S. Governor) ^ 77 B. Plot Plan: > w Plot Plan: A Retracement Plat, dated August 18, 2006, recorded in Book 51, Page 53, `4 records of the Recorder of Johnson County, is attached to this application. C. Specific Criteria Section 14-4B-4D-14 a. Vehicular Access to the proposed use is limited to streets with pavement width greater than 28 feet. Access to Bethel A.M.E. Church ("Bethel A.M.E." or "church") is provided along S. Governor Street, an arterial street that exceeds the 28-foot standard. b. Minimum Setbacks: front, 20 feet; side, 20 feet; rear, 50 feet. Bethel A.M.E. Church (the "church") was built circa 1865, prior to the adoption of zoning laws. This church has not changed its use since the church was constructed. The church continues to be used as a legally nonconforming structure for religious assembly. The existing nonconformities are: • The existing structure is not within the front or side setback requirements for religious/private group assembly in the RNS-12 base zone. • The church does not meet the minimum off-street parking requirements • The configuration of the lot does not meet the dimensional minimum lot width standards in 14-2A-4 c. Front setback: The church is approximately 12 feet from the street right-of-way line. The setback requirement for non-residential structures in the RNS-12 zone is 20 feet. d. Side setbacks: The church lot is 39.80 feet wide and therefore cannot meet the 20-foot side setback requirement. e. Rear setback: The existing rear setback exceeds 100 feet. The setback requirement for religious/private use assembly in the RNS-12 zone is 50 feet. Applicanon to the Board of Adjustment —Special Exception Bethel A.M.E. Church, Iowa City Page 2 of 6 Application of Specific Criteria _ N Criteria for religious/private group assembly in the RNS-12 Zone 14-4BQ14. Under the standards set forth in the code for setbacks, the existing church is a legally.> ::� "n nonconforming structure and renovations to the structure may be permitted where a @6ial — exception to waive zoning requirements is granted by the Board of Adjustment (the ird'r M The Board may grant a special exception to deviate from the zoning requirements w'&the= subject property has historic value. Bethel A.M.E. Church has been a place of wors inca--he late 1800s and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the State Reg, er of w Historic Places. According to some historians and persons familiar with the history of the Al church, Bethel A.M.E. is one of the few remaining structures of its type in the state of Iowa. The church is located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) Zone as described in Section 14-2A-1 E and is located within the Lucas -Governor Historic Conservation District Overlay, set forth in Section 14-313-2. The use of the location as a church in a single-family residence zone is subject to special exception under Section 14-2A-2. Historic preservation exception under 14-2A-7B-1. Because of the structure and lot are nonconforming, any expansion or modification of the existing structure would not be permitted under the current zoning code without a historic preservation exception. Under the Historic Preservation Exception under Section 14-2A-7B-1 of the code, the Board may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in Article 14-413 that would prevent the use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In order for the Board to grant a special exception under 14-413, the applicant must show (a) the modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; and (b) the applicant must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. On April 10, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project involving demolition and new construction at 411 S. Governor Street. The property to be demolished is 415 S. Governor Street, which is a non- contributing property in the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. This property is south and immediately adjacent to Bethel A.M.E. Church and is the lot on which a portion of the proposed addition would be located. The demolition was approved subject to the Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition at 411 S. Governor Street through the approval of the Historic Preservation Special Exception by the Board for the addition at this same location. The Commission also conditioned the approval of the construction of the addition subject to the use of certain building materials for the addition. Copies of the Certificates are attached. The proposed building is located at the rear of the existing church and would measure approximately 79 feet in length, 45 feet in width, and 23 feet in height. The existing structure measures approximately 30 feet in length, 21 feet in width, and 24 feet in height. Since 2006, the members of Bethel A.M.E. Church have worked to design an addition that meets the existing and anticipated needs of the current and future members. The members have worked with Planning and Development staff to design an addition that addresses the setback requirements and is in Application to the Board of Adjustment —Special Exception Bethel A.M.E. Church, Iowa City Page 3 of 6 balance with the surrounding residential neighborhood. As part of the discussions with the staff and in order to meet the needs of the church, Bethel A.M.E. acquired the parcel at 415 S. Governor Street because the acquisition of this lot, when combined with the adjacent parcel at 411 S. Governor Street, provides a larger lot for the expansion of the church. Setbacks Front setbacks. The historic church is setback approximately 12 feet from the street right-of-way line. The setback requirement for religious private group assembly for structures in the RNS-12 zone is 20 feet. In order to preserve the historic integrity of the current structure, the front of this structure will not be altered in a way that either enlarges or reduces the existing nonconformity. The entrances to the addition would be located at the ground level of the east side, with the main entrance located on the south side of the addition. The existing east entrance would remain accessible for ingress and egress but such a use would likely be limited. Side setbacks. The lot at 415 is 65 feet wide and 150 feet in length. The lot at 411 S. Governor is 39.80 feet wide and 150 in length. As noted above, it is literally impossible for the existing structure to meet the 20-foot side setback requirement on the north side because the existing church is approximately 5 feet from the north side of the property line. However, the proposed design for the addition is 10 feet from the north side of the property line, and provides an 8 foot setback on the south side of the property line of Lot 18. Rear setback. The existing rear setback is approximately 100 feet. The setback requirement for the structures in the RNS-12 zone is 50 feet. The proposed addition would be located across Lots 17 and 18 and would result in a setback of approximately 36 feet. Purpose of setback requirements set forth in Dimensional Requirements, Section 14-2A-4B. While the proposed addition is not completely within the setback requirements, the proposed addition has been designed to closely comply with the purpose of the setback requirements, as stated in 14-2A-4B and which include (a) maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting; (b) provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings; (c) reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods; (d) promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and (e) compatibility with buildings in the vicinity. The proposed addition provides for screening and landscaping to minimize the effect of the south setback and the design of the addition provides significant room to manage storm water runoff. The proposed addition, at a height of 24 feet, reflects the general building scale of similar structures in this neighborhood. The proposed addition is modest in mass and scale in comparison to other structures in along Governor Street, as adjudged by the Historic Preservation Commission and staff. The new building ai8 will l constructed of materials that reflect the period in which the church was built and is environmentally designed to use passive solar heating, and cooling through the use (;r ecidUy 71 designed windows and awnings. 0 r` M ©M 0 _D w .c Application to the Board of Adjustment —Special Exception Bethel A.M.E. Church, Iowa City Page 4 of 6 Minimum parking requirements, 14-5A-4B O Based on the square footage of the existing building, the occupancy load is a -e P Y ppa_ 6 at4y �.-. 40 persons. Under 14-5A-4B, the minimum off-street parking for this church is 1/6 the, 0 occupancy load or 7 spaces. Bethel A.M.E. does not provide off-street parking along (aviVbrno.;rr. Street, a one-way street. Parking is permitted on the east side of Governor Street daily out restriction. The City of Iowa City has long allowed the church on -street parking, equat ,,,,� approximately 11 spaces along the west side of Governor Street for Sunday services. Parking iS� ,�, prohibited at other times. 4 Based on the occupancy load of the proposed structure, the church is required to provide approximately 25 parking on -site parking spaces. The proposed plans provide 8 parking spaces at the rear of the addition, leaving an on -site parking requirement of 17 vehicles. An arrangement to reserve on -street parking along the west side of Governor during Sunday services may be extended to permit more cars, subject to the approval of the City Council. The west side of Governor between Burlington and Bowery streets provides approximately 1,000 feet of parking space, according to staff. Approximately 45 cars could be parking along the entire western length of Governor Street, assuming a standard of 20 to 22 feet of space per vehicle, according to staff. An increase of 17 cars along the street is within the capacity of the west side of the street, according to staff. Because the church will be used on Wednesdays and occasionally other days of the week, parking would include the parkable area along Governor Street. It is noted that worshippers to the church park more than 100 feet away from the current church entrance. The church continues to develop alternatives to off-street parking along Governor Street, including a possible acquisition of land north of the church. It should be noted that the church will largely be used during off-peak traffic period when parking is more readily available along Governor Street. Multi -family Site Development Standards, 14-2B-6. The proposed site plan is consistent with the standards of this section. General Approval Criteria, 1 4-2A-4 The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The proposed addition permits emergency service vehicles with adequate access to the structure along the south and west borders of the Lots 17 and 18. The manner in which the proposed addition will be used is for religious worship and does not affect the safety of property owners, residents or others. The presence of a vibrant church in this community may well improve the comfort and general welfare of the public insofar as the church will hold worship services and outreach programs for the public. 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. Courtesy letters were mailed to property owners regarding this project in 2006 and will be mailed within a reasonable period from the date of this application. At the Historic Preservation Commission hearing in 2006, the church received the Application to the Board of Adjustment —Special Exception Bethel A.M.E. Church, Iowa City Page 5 of 6 written and public support from a number of homeowners in the Lucas -Governor Historic Conservation District. Other nearby property owners in this district have contributed financially to the church's fund-raising project to build the addition. Bethel has been and will continue to support the improvement of this neighborhood through free programs, community service projects and worship services. The establishment of the specific 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. Bethel A.M.E. Church has existed at its current location for over 135 years. The addition to the church may well encourage further development and improvement of existing properties in this neighborhood. The rezoning of this zone to RNS-12 was intended to foster the preservation of single-family homes and improvement to property. It is common knowledge that churches are the cornerstones of communities and are a central part of the fabric of a city. The mass of the proposed addition is consistent with the aesthetics of the neighborhood and the addition will be compatible with the historical church. Vehicular access along Governor Street will continue abated by the addition since the church will primarily be used during off-peak hours, adequate buffering between abutting properties has been provided under the proposed design, a pervious surface will be constructed along the south of the church to address drainage, and a reduction to the setbacks is limited by the addition. Adequate utilities, access road, drainage, and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. A pervious surface measuring approximately 10 feet in width will allow for the saturation of stormwater directly into the ground and away from the nearby properties. Electrical, gas, and communications utilities will service the church, and access to the church is afforded by Governor Street and an alley west of the church. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The church has taken substantial steps to address the issue of parking. The church has provided 8 on -site parking spaces and must use either side of Governor Street for off-street parking, as has been the case for a number of years. Other churches in the downtown Iowa City, area whose congregations are significantly larger than that of the church utilize off-street parking along one-way streets on Saturdays and Sundays. A grant of extended on -street parking privileges would be consistent with a grant of parking privileges to churches along Jefferson Street and those situated along other nearby one-way streets. The church continues to look for additional parking along Governor Street. The specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards in the zone in which it is to be located. The proposed addition melstg the building height and width standards of the zoning code. The proposed addition woug�e wAin the 40% maximum lot coverage standard set forth in 14-2A-2. The church has obtawci a c -n Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission for the rd Kation of the historic church, subject to the approval Board of Adjustment to waive the zonin 0 requirements discussed above. Ir<'_ o� D D w Application to the Board of Adjustment—Speeml Exception Bethel A.M.E. Church, Iowa City Page 6 of 6 The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan allows for the location of religious/private group assembly in residential neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of historic landmarks and properties. The proposed addition is properly balanced with respect to the historic nature of the existing structure and the neighborhood, as determined by the Historic Preservation Commission and staff recommendation for an approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. O 0 7n -10 tr r _ r- M m 0 b tin 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 14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk. Date: 20 O `k' JUvv, 0. J i vj Date: ppdadmiMapplication- boase.doc 20 Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) C7 -i Ci to f D April 7, 2008 Meenakshi Gigi & Frank Durham 409 S. Summit St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Meenakshi Gigi & Frank Durham: FLED ?CBS MAY 15 AMI l t 3 3 CITY CLERK IOWA CITY, IOWA As a record owner of property within 300 feet of Bethel A.M.E., you are receiving this courtesy notification about our efforts to expand and renovate the church facility located at 411 S. Governor Street, Iowa City, Iowa. A similar notice was sent to you in March 2006. On April 10, 2008, The City of Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission will revie` an application by Bethel to renovate the existing facility. In either May or June 2008, Bethel intends to present an application to the Iowa City Board of Adjustment for a Special Exception so that the new facility can be built. The enclosed drawings show the buildings, each of which will be distinctive for historic purposes. The design concept represents a renovation of the existing building to its look circa 1865 and is designed to meet the needs of the congregation, comply with local and state historic landmark standards, and to ensure the new building is compatible with the properties in the neighborhood. The design and features of the new building includes a modest sanctuary, meeting rooms, and modest amenities not present in the existing facility. To accommodate the building project, Bethel purchased 415 S. Governor last year, which is the lot immediately south of Bethel and which is the site of a portion of the new structure. Because the church facility is primarily used during off-peak traffic hours, we do not anticipate any adverse impact to the flow of traffic along Governor Street or create other disturbances. 1 While notice to property owners is not required, we invite you to provide us with specific comments about whether you believe the renovation and expansion project will either interfere with your enjoyment of your property or otherwise affect the aesthetics of the neighborhood. V*e are hopeful that you will support the efforts of Bethel A.M.E. in this project. If you have questions or concerns, please contact the church at (319) 338-7876. I Sincerely, dada R? DW Orlando R. Dial, Pastor FNAME LNAME ADDRESS CITY STATE Nancy Van Alstine 419 S. Governor St Iowa City IA Don C. Van Dyke 415 S. Summit St. Iowa City IA Lary P. & Jeanette Waters 1538 Rochester Ave Iowa City IA Jay & Theresa Semel 331 S. Summit St Iowa City IA John Shaw 314 Scott Ct Iowa City IA Michael & Kelley Mclaughlin 614 Pine Ridge Drive Iowa City IA Grotto Bill, LLC 520 S. Governor St Iowa City IA Tracy J. Jackson 2427 Hwy 6 NW Tiffin IA Randolph Loan 2080 Rohret RD SW Oxford IA Joseph Christner 412 S. Governor St Iowa City IA Paul Ruppert 347 Koser Ave. Iowa City IA David Greenhoe 426 S. Governor St. Iowa City IA Pohl Family Properties P.O. Box 1264 Iowa City IA Shelly Evangelou 2024 Pinehurst Dr. Ames IA Margaret Frueholz 781 Linder Rd NE Iowa City IA Debra Kendall 803 College St. Iowa City IA Greg & Linda Allen 2427 Hwy 6 NW Tiffin IA Mary Russell 431 S. Governor St. Iowa City IA Richard Miller 105 Taft Speedway Iowa City IA James & Becky Buxton 1811 Muscatine Ave. Iowa City IA John & Debra Brandt 1900 N. Dubuque St. Iowa City IA Richard & Golden Haendel 402 Mclean St. Iowa City IA Mark & Kathryn Collins 3722 Chatsworth Rd. Fayettevill<AR Daniel & Julie Hayes 3021 Waps! Ave NE Iowa City IA Robert Miller 324 Koser Ave Iowa City IA Meenakshi Gig! & Frank Durham 409 S. Summit St. Iowa City IA Jim Brenneman, C/O L 2346 Morman Trek Blv. Iowa City IA Janet Maurer 426 3rd Avenue Iowa City IA Jill Armstrong 620 Camp Cardinal Rd Iowa City IA Wanda Walker 828 N. Gilbert St. Iowa City IA Sandersfeld Properties, LLC 715 38th Avenue Amana IA Clark & Laurence McFerren 415 S. Lucas St. Iowa City IA Julie & Gary Hodge, and Kathryn J. Ya 711 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City IA Kappa Alpha Theta Bldg Corp 2084 Vista Cir NW Cedar Rap IA Dan Willis P.O. Box 663 Iowa City IA Fran Albrecht 5770 NE Morse Rd Solon IA City of Iowa City 410 Washington St. Iowa City IA Randall & Eleni Jensen 3095 Prairie Du Chien I Iowa City IA ZIP PARCEL # JOINT NAMES 52240 1 52240 2 52240 3 Larry and Jeanette 52240 4 Jay and Theresa 52245 5,43 52241 6,46 Michael & Kelley 52240 7 Grotto Bill, LLC 52340 8 52340 9 52240 10 52246 11 Paul 52240 12 52240 13 50014 14 52240 15 52240 16 Debra 52340 17,30 Greg & Linda 52240 18 Mary 52240 19,40 52240 20,29,37 James & Becky 52245 21 John & Debra 52246 Richard & Golden 72701 23 Mark & Kathryn 52240 24,31,48,5 Daniel & Julie 52246 25 52240 26 Meenkakshi & Frank 52246 Jim 52240 32 52246 33 52245 34 52203 35 52245 36 52245 38 Julie, Gary, and Kathryn 52404 39 M. Estle 52240 41 52333 42 52240 47 Administrator 52240 49 (Page 1 of 1) g � ca C^ w N E �• "g as o og cr NO p1 a'VI ed pOaV. a � s 0�9pp5 c N� 0`mwJi o q v rn :ss u� C J voR 8 w_pcc ,Q$g]n4s§ p•p C �40 ap+u,C N O O t iSSH�u p � G• 10 _C.V O Q] i a � CL 00 0 Ol r U 6 O O ® Otis •_• Vtp Urnr;� M Z v•. ,5 p urn O�'CN ,�,.�� ` T'•1 � N W� C C O � 4 i OJT ti• M uy n m• c W rL w S'y3911 T W mp'o O 0 n O Z. z •y0 L.L� U Z'_ N 0 J '1S HON83A00 'S g �....__ CL a a (.0s'sti) T— 6 ;0 1019 � r•s c W F I F M W = N< N � m N .L'OZ �F 1 I 0 0060O �c 6� Job Z/ �N o 00 m ^ j Zii s V I I w O I (,0910) Z I Qp� 0_0 in N O. O. (,09'6£) 3d00,00.00N 6upoaq pewnesyA37V ' 0 ro zi tT'!