The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-09-2008 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, July 9, 2008 - 5:00 PM Emma J. Harvat Hall A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the June 11, 2008 minutes D. Special Exception Items I. EXC08-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Richard and Robin Chambers for a special exception to reduce the required front principal building setback from 21 feet 6 inches to 14 feet 10 inches for property located in the RS-8 zone at 907 Fifth Avenue. 2. EXC08-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Mark McCallum for a special exception to allow a change of use under the non -conforming use regulations in order to convert a non -conforming rooming house to a 13-unit apartment building for property located in the RNS-12 zone at 932 East College Street. E. Other F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING —August 13, 2008 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 11, 2008 — 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Members Present: Members Excused: Staff Present: Others Present: CALL TO ORDER: Karen Leigh, Caroline Sheerin, Edgar Thornton, Michelle Payne Ned Wood Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek Royce Chestnut, Tammy Kramer, Reverend Orlando Dial The meeting was called to order by Karen Leigh at 5:00 p.m. An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. ROLL CALL: Leigh, Sheerin and Thornton were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE MAY 14, 2008 MINUTES: Thornton motioned to accept the May 14, 2008, minutes. Sheerin seconded. The motion carried 3-0 (Payne and Wood absent). SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 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 at RS-8 zone at 425 Clark Street. Walz explained that the subject property is located in the Clark Street Historic Preservation District. Last year, the applicant proposed a front porch design to the Historic Preservation Committee and was approved for a porch addition. However, when the applicant applied for a building permit he discovered that the house was already within the required front setback and as a result needs a special exception to proceed with the project. The zoning code sets out criteria for what should be looked at when considering a setback reduction. The first criterion is that the situation must be peculiar to the property, a criterion which this property meets in a number of ways. The historic architecture of the house would normally feature a front porch, and historic documents confirm that at one time there was indeed a front porch on the house. Currently there is no covered front entry to the house, an awning having been removed from the area some time ago, and the stoop is so small that one must step off of it in order to fully open the door. Typically, awnings are allowed to be in the front setback but covered porches are not because there is a possibility over time that a porch may be enclosed and become part of the building proper. The required setback in the zone is 15 feet. Often times in historic neighborhoods something called "setback averaging" is implemented due to established setbacks that may fall much closer to or further away from the street right-of-way line than current zoning allows. Walz said that this particular block of Clark Street has an exceptionally long frontage that encompasses a wide range of housing styles, and that the north end of the street has houses set much closer to the street than those on the south end. Because of the great variety in styles and setback variations, setback averaging is not applicable for this situation. In looking at the homes closest to the applicant's, however, a number of them are set closer to the street than the currently required 15 feet. Walz said that when a closer look was taken at the site in question, it appears that the houses in the nearest proximity probably were set back at the same distance at one time. Because this is a conservation district and a great number of the homes are maintained in their historic character, Staff thinks it is preferable to restore a historically sensitive porch to this home. The practical difficulty in complying with the setback is the unsheltered fagade on the front of the property, which is out of character with the historical home and unprotected from the elements. The lot is very narrow and the driveway access is just to the south of the house, which would make it very difficult to reorient the front door to the side to allow for the 15 foot setback while providing a covered entrance. Granting this special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The special exception would apply to an open air porch only, which does not have the same affect on light, privacy, and air issues that an enclosed structure would. Because this is in the front setback and there is an extra wide right of way on Clark Street, there is still plenty of separation from the houses on the other side of the street. Further, because of the other properties nearby with similar setbacks, the proposed setback is in character with the other properties and does not promote an impractical relationship between the properties. Walz showed a photo of the setbacks along the street. Any potential negative affects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. The applicant has proposed a historically appropriate porch, which has been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Staff feels that the proposed exception improves the character of the house. The final criterion for setback reductions is not applicable in this case: the no -closer -than -three - feet rule. Walz advised the Board that they had copies of the general standards in their Staff Report. One letter from a neighbor in support of the change was received by Staff and included in Board Member packets. A small section of the block in which the property resides contains houses that have not been brought up to historical standards, and Staff felt that this change could help encourage nearby property owners to restore their houses. Staff recommends that the application for reduction in the front principal building setback from 15 feet to 7 feet to allow construction of an open air front porch be approved subject to compliance with the elevations and site plan submitted as approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Walz added the comment that there is always a concern that a front porch may be enclosed at a later date. In this situation, Walz said, the fact that the Board will have stated the approval as explicitly for an "open air porch" is one protection that will help maintain the intent of the special exception. With that wording, Walz maintained, you could not get a building permit to enclose the porch. Additionally, any alterations to the exterior of the house — because it is in a historic district — have to be approved by HPC, which would be unlikely to approve such an enclosure. Leigh asked if there were questions for Staff from the Board. Sheerin asked if a building permit would be required to enclose the porch if the current owner sold the property in the future. Walz replied that a building permit would be required to enclose. While there is always a chance that someone would enclose without a building permit, Walz said, they would be required to remove the addition when it was discovered. Leigh invited anyone present wishing to speak in favor of the application to approach the podium. Royce Chestnut, the applicant, said that he had owned the house for two years. The house had aluminum siding at the time of purchase, which does not comply with historical conservation regulations. Chestnut is restoring the siding to its original wood form. Chestnut has also put in a new driveway and a new garage, both of which met the standards of the HPC. Chestnut said that his house and three very nearby are kind of the eyesores of the street, and that his main goal is really to improve the integrity of the house in hopes that the three next to him will follow suit, making the street a cohesive, beautiful street for everyone. No further speakers on the proposed exception, either for or against, came forward and the public discussion was closed. Thornton made a motion to approve EXC08-00009, an application for the reduction of the front principal setback from 15 feet to 7 feet to allow construction of an open-air front porch, subject to compliance with the elevations and site plan previously submitted. Sheerin seconded the motion. Leigh invited discussion among Board Members. There was none. Sheerin presented the findings of fact, going through the specific approval criteria for adjustments for the principal building setback requirements pursuant to 14-2a-B5-b. First, the situation is peculiar to the property because the architecture of the house would normally feature a front porch. The house has a stoop that -is so small that one must back off of it in order to open the front door. While an awning would be permitted, given the aesthetics and functionality, a porch would be more appropriate to the property. Additionally, a number of houses in the area are set closer to the street, and averaging on this particular street cannot provide relief for this particular house due to the length of the street and the wide range in setbacks. On the northern end of the street, where this house is located, there are significantly smaller setbacks. Secondly, there is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements because the house currently has an unsheltered entrance and a front fagade that is not in character with the historic character and architecture of the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the subject property is an unusually narrow lot at 33 feet across. Thirdly, granting the special exception would not be contrary to the setback regulations because the reduction will not reduce the space for light, air and separation from other neighborhood homes because the addition is for an open-air porch, not an enclosure. Fire protection and access along Clark Street will not be impacted because it is a large, 60-foot right of way. No privacy between properties is diminished by this exception. Restoring this property in a historically appropriate way will improve its relationship to other houses in the neighborhood, and possibly encourage other houses in the neighborhood to improve their maintenance standards. Fourth, any potential negative affects resulting from the setback extension are mitigated to the extent practical, because this porch was approved by the HPC and does not encroach into the setback any further than is absolutely necessary. The fifth specific criterion for granting an exception to setbacks is not applicable in this case. Thornton said that in looking at the general criteria, this particular project should not be detrimental to the public health and safety because the reduced front setback does not reduce space or access to fire protection. In terms of the general criteria related to injury to enjoyment of the property, Thornton said that the improvement is not out of character with the historic nature of the community or the neighborhood. The property has access to roads, drainage, and all utilities. The exception would not impinge on driver's access to Clark Street in any way. The application seems to meet all required standards, and to comply with the Comprehensive Plan's encouragement of further restoration of properties in the historic neighborhood. Because of these things, Thornton stated that he would most likely support the special exception. Leigh invited further discussion. There was none, and a vote was taken. The application was approved on a vote of 3-0 (Payne and Wood absent). Leigh declared the motion approved and stated 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. Because the setback reduction is for the parking and not for building expansion, the light and air separation requirement and the opportunity for fire protection are not affected. The opportunities for privacy between buildings are not intruded upon by this exception. Given the topography of this portion of Kimball Road and the prohibition on on -street parking, most parking already happens in the front yard as the topography dictates it. Staff believes this exception will promote a reasonable, physical relationship between buildings because it is not a building, it is just parking. Any potential negative affects due to the setback are mitigated to the extent practical, as the applicant is requesting simply to use the existing parking to satisfy the parking requirement. She does not wish to remove or alter any of the parking spaces and thus no changes are proposed. The final specific criterion is not applicable to this case. Walz addressed the general requirements for the special exception. Walz said that there are some issues regarding speed along Kimball Road. The neighborhood has applied for and been approved for traffic calming in the form of speed humps along this portion of Kimball Road. This particular property has good visibility such that the pulling in and out of the driveway is not an issue. The requirement for compliance or the granting of the special exceptionis not going to affect ingress or egress. It will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other properties in the neighborhood because, again, most properties provide their pakring in the front setback. The exception will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone. Again, Walz stated, there is no building involved. Regarding the other general criteria, Walz said that the only thing that does not comply is that the large parking area has a wider curb cut than the required 42-feet. However, this is an existing non -conformity, and since she will not be altering the parking area, it will not be required to come into compliance. Staff recommends that EXC08-00010, an application to reduce the required front principal building setback from 20-feet to 0-feet for property located at 300 Kimball Road be approved with the condition that the setback reduction be for the specific purpose of accommodating required parking only. Leigh invited questions for Staff. Thornton asked if he understood correctly that it was common for residents of Kimball to park on their lawns. Walz stated that it was common for them to park within their front setback areas. Walz explained that this did not mean that people could not park in the setback area, but there is a requirement to provide at least some of the parking in another area in order to minimize the amount of parking that occurs in the front setback. In a neighborhood like this, where there is no on -street parking and the topography is such that garages or parking cannot be set very far back in the side or back yards, there will be a certain amount of parking in the front setback. Leigh asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application. Tammy Kramer, the applicant, stated that what she is asking for is simply to keep the parking the way it is. What would be required if she did not get the special exception would be to add a parking pad space. There are many reasons she cannot do this, including the fact there are many big old trees on this heavily sloped lot, and to put a pad in that area she would have to build a retaining wall and remove some of the trees. There is also a city utility grate in that area that would make it difficult to put concrete on. Aesthetically, adding more concrete is also undesirable. Kramer said she is planning on living in the upper level of her dream home, and that she is renovating it. She said she is applying to put in an accessory apartment in the lower level which will limit her to two people at the most living down below. At the most, there would be two cars ever parked in the spots, and occasional guests would still have adequate parking options. Kramer asks simply to be able to leave things as they are without having to upset the topography. She added that it is very typical of the neighborhood to have parking in the setback as the primary parking. Sheerin asked if adding more concrete would affect drainage issues. Kramer said that she did not know. She said that the only place that was really practical to put an additional pad off of the setback was a spot where two big trees would need to be taken out, a retaining wall would have to be built, and a utility grate would also have to be dealt with. Walz said that she checked with Public Works and they said that the utility grate is not a public utility. She is not sure what it is exactly. There was no one else present who wished to speak for or against the application. Public discussion was closed. Sheerin stated for the record that she actually knows the applicant, and is in a contractual relationship with her employer. Sheerin said that she is not in any kind of contractual relationship with the applicant herself and does not believe there is a conflict of interest in any way shape or form, but that she wanted to state that for the record. She stated that she would be voting on the matter. Leigh asked Holecek if there were any issues with this disclosure that the Board should consider. Holecek replied that there were none. She stated that Sheerin had no direct contract with the applicant and that Sheerin has represented that she can make a decision based on the facts presented in the hearing with an open mind and no bias. Sheerin added that she had had no conversations with the applicant regarding this issue. Leigh said the matter was duly noted. Sheerin motioned to approve the application EXC08-00010 for a special exception to reduce the required front principal setback from 20-feet to 0-feet at 300 Kimball Road, with the condition that the setback reduction be for the purpose of accommodating required parking only. Thornton seconded. Thornton discussed the specific criteria. He noted the particular and unique nature of the property, and that the topography is really impacting the applicant's ability to make improvements to the parking. Much of the existing level property already has two existing parking pads. The practical difficulties lie within the topography of the property and the steep nature of the sloping. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purposes of the setback because the owner is not adding additional parking, so there is no impact on lights, air, or the separation of homes. In looking at the potential negative effects because of the setback and mitigating the extent of the impact, Thornton said that the existing parking requires two spaces and she is actually willing to give up some of her spaces so that virtually there is no net loss of parking spaces at the property. Walz clarified that the applicant does not have to give up any of the parking spaces; it is just a matter that she does not have to provide additional parking outside of the setback. Regardless of whether the special exception is granted or not, people are allowed to park on the existing spaces, Walz said, it is just that the zoning code would require her to have an additional space that is outside of her setback. Her use of the existing spaces would not be restricted in any way regardless of whether the exception was approved. Sheerin went over the findings for the general standards. First, the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental or endanger public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because these parking spaces have existed for some time, there is good visibility along this portion of the road, and there are no safety concerns. Second, the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood, for the reasons stated by Mr. Thornton, particularly because of the steep topography, and because the parking is restricted along that portion of the road so that other homes in the area have similar parking arrangements. Third, the establishment of this proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located because the neighborhood is fully developed and there is really very little area in the neighborhood that isn't already occupied. Furthermore, there are already adequate utilities, access roads and drainage in place. Adequate measures have been taken or will be taken to provide ingress or egress so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Traffic congestion is not a concern because visibility on this portion of Kimball Road is good and there are going to be no changes for proposed ingress or egress. While the curb cut for the larger parking pad east of the house does exceed maximum curb cut, it is an existing non -conforming situation and as a result does not have an effect on this application. Therefore, the application does meet the standard requiring that the exception conform to the applicable regulation or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. This proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because of the nature of the steep topography of the area. Leigh stated that she had nothing to add and that she agreed with the specific criteria and the general standards that had been well covered. Leigh put the matter to a vote. The application was approved on a vote of 3-0 (Payne and Wood absent). Leigh declared the motion approved and stated 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. Walz stated that the Board was waiting for a fourth member of the Board to arrive to take part in the next application, and so Walz recommended a ten minute break to wait for her. At 5:57 p.m., the meeting was resumed with Board Member Michelle Payne present. Karen Leigh continued chairing the meeting. EXC08-00011: 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. Walz described the Bethel AME as one of Iowa City's significant historic buildings and its only historic Black church. Built in the latter part of the 1860's, the 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. Walz said that the church's modest size and modest architecture do not hint at the importance that it plays in the history of this community. What is even more valuable, Walz continued, is that it has had little exterior ornamentation and the building has had no substantial alterations in more than fifty years. Walz said that the two nonconformities associated with the existing property are: 1) the church does not meet the setback requirements, and 2) the church has been unable to provide any off-street parking, and the parking requirement is equal to one - sixth the occupant load. What makes this special exception different than others the Board has looked at, and slightly more complicated, Walz said, is that a very important historic structure is being dealt with. Were it not for the National Register status of the structure, the property would have to meet all of those dimensional standards that are looked at in approving churches in a residential zone. However, Walz said, because of the historic preservation guidelines through which the special exception has come, the Board has an option to provide a modification or waiver that will help preserve the historic aesthetic or cultural attributes of the property. Walz stated that this very old historic church with its historic congregation in tact is seeking to expand on their site. If there are dimensional standards or site development standards that can be waived that the Board feels are appropriate but will still maintain the other more subjective aspects of the special exception (compatibility with the neighborhood, etc.), the Board has the opportunity to do that. Walz noted page three of the staff report in which she offered the correction that the wording should read "However, because the church is a National Registry site, the Board may also waive or modify dimensional standards." Normally what is required of a church in a residential zone is to have 20-foot front and side setbacks. The existing church is in the front setback, but the addition will be setback according to the requirements. In order to meet historic preservation guidelines, the church needed to find a way to put an addition on the church that still allows that very small, modest structure to be the principal view on the site. They designed an addition that kept the roofline low, with materials that match the existing structure, and a connection to the original structure in a way that stepped the addition back. The church has had a number of issues to deal with in the design of this addition, and they are now asking the Board to waive the 20-foot side setback along the north side of the church. The church has provided a 10-foot setback steps in from the established 5- foot setback, Walz said. That limitation of having an addition that steps back and does not stand out in front of, over, or in a way that detracts from the primary structure is very complicated. On the north side where the setback is reduced, they have put in only clear story windows as a way of preserving the privacy for the residential property just to the north. The entrance that will be used is located behind the historic structure and facing south, where they have 50-feet of setback, an additional 30 feet above what is required. As a result, all of the pedestrian and vehicle activity are focused away from that reduced setback area. The other setback that they are asking to be waived is in the rear setback, where they are providing some additional parking. Here the building is setback about 27 feet from the property line. The properties that are to the west of the alley have deep lots and do not use the alley for their principal parking access. One issue that often concerns neighbors of churches in residential areas is the size of the parking area. The church has a one-way, one -lane access drive coming off of Governor Street that has access to eight parking spots. With the addition, the church would be required to provide 18 parking spots. The church has a long-standing relationship with the City (not unlike other older churches close in to the downtown where churches are unable to provide all of the required off- street parking) where parking on the west side of Governor Street is provided to Bethel AME on Sundays. The church has only been using a small portion of the capacity on that side of the street. There is space for about 45 parking spaces. Like any other church in the Central Business District, they will be competing for parking beyond that, but there is some capacity there. Another special exception criterion is that the proposed use will not have adverse affects on the livability of nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late -night operations, noise, odors and litter. Staff does not anticipate that this would be a problem here. The applicant is required to provide a 10-foot buffer along the drive to protect from noise and glare, and the applicant and Staff have discussed the use of prairie grasses and shrubs for year-round screening. In terms of the general standards, Walz said, she believes the church has done a good job in mitigating that reduced setback. The areas of greatest concern are that the church cannot provide the minimum parking on the site and that due to a lot of activity on a small site, drainage could be an issue. The alley is an unimproved alley, and the City could do some improvement with grading and gravel to even things out. The Public Works Director, in investigating the alley, did not feel that the additional 8 or 9 parking spaces was going to be enough to have a negative impact on the surface of the alley. however, Walz said that Staff has asked that the church waive any future right to object to any later assessments due to alley improvements. The alley can service those 8 spaces, but the drainage onto the alley is of concern to Staff. As a result, they have requested the church look into the feasibility of rain gardens on the site. Most of the drainage for the roof should be directed onto Governor Street through the roof gutters. The drainage and the parking are the real issues to grapple with. The main concern of Staff is maximizing the amount of drainage that runs toward Governor Street where there is storm sewer service or if there is any opportunity for that to be absorbed in the green spaces that area available on the site. Walz stated that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. It will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The church has mitigated the reduction in side setback by using only the small clear story windows to preserve privacy for neighboring property owners. They have placed their main entrance nearest the south setback which is larger than what is required. The increase in parking is not going to take place immediately. It will take time for membership to grow and in the meantime there is capacity on the street. Staff feels that the lack of parking may be an impediment to the church's growth and they may find that they need to mitigate that in other ways. The situation in which a church finds itself needing to provide parking on the street is not unusual for the Central Planning District, and many churches in the older neighborhoods find themselves competing with neighbors for parking on the street. For these reasons, Staff feels that a reduction is appropriate in order to preserve the historic use. In this case, there is just no way for the church to provide all the required off-street parking spaces. The establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for purposes permitted for the zone in which the property is located. The surrounding neighborhood is fully developed; however, it is a neighborhood in transition. Walz noted in the report that about a year ago a portion of the same block further to the south was down -zoned to an RS-8. What were formerly homes that had been divided into apartments have been brought into single-family usage, whether renter or owner - occupied. There has been more attention to historic preservation in the neighborhood, and it seems to be a neighborhood achieving better balance between rental property and owner - occupied property. Staff believes that the preservation of this historic church in this historic neighborhood will contribute to that. Adequate utilities, access roads, and other utilities have been provided. Drainage is an issue here, and Staff believes that if the church can direct a fair amount of that roof drainage to Governor Street and green spaces on the property drainage can be dealt with. There are rain gardens proposed at the rear of the parking lot on the site plan; however, those could not function in that area. Staff has recommended an alternate location which will also help to provide screening. All other utilities and access are provided. Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress or egress so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Walz stated that the narrow drive should help with that, in its use as a one-way drive. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as stated. The Comprehensive Plan allows for the location of religious private group uses within residential neighborhoods where appropriate and where they can blend in with the neighborhood. It also recommends the preservation of historic properties and landmarks. In Staff s view, based on the recommendation of the HPC the proposed addition will result in the preservation of an important historic building as well as its historic use. Staff believes the proposed site plan and design of the church balances those goals with the interests of the residential neighborhood as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that an application for a special exception to allow for the expansion of a religious private group assembly use in the RNS-12 zone, and to allow the 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 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 a potential rain garden in one of the open space areas 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 should be reduced to a maximum width of 12- feet, 5) submission of a final landscape plan for a 10-foot buffer area to the south of the church drive to provide year-round S-2 screening, the final design to be approved by Staff, 6) the applicant must sign an agreement to waive any protest for future assessments to approve the alley to the rear of the property, 7) the restoration of the exterior of the original church structure, and 8) substantial compliance with the site plan. Leigh asked if the Board had any questions for Staff. Thornton asked if Staff had a picture of how drainage is currently being handled on the site, because he is trying to understand why it is such a major issue. Walz replied that the slope on the north side of the existing church slopes backward toward the alley. Walz said that it should be possible to simply run the gutters forward to the front of the property. The south side of the building is more complicated because of the entrance with the gable, and any means of getting some of that to drain toward the Governor Street side would be helpful, although it could require some creativity. Payne had a question about parking spaces. The desire, she said, was for the church to accommodate about 150 members, and the parking requirement calls for providing one -sixth of that, which does not equal 18. Walz said that there is something in Planning referred to as ghost parking; because it is an existing non -conforming use they are granted credit for what the already have. Because they came in non -conforming they only have to provide parking for the addition. Their current capacity is 40, and they have never provided parking for that. Under the zoning code what they have to provide parking for is what comes in addition to that. Thornton asked if that took into account the 45 parking spaces in the street afforded the congregation by the City. Walz explained how it did not. Leigh asked if the west side of Governor Street that was opened for parking on Sundays was only for the church or if it was opened to anyone. Walz said that it was technically just for the church but there was no enforcement. Payne noted that the drive was a drop-off drive and that it was possible there would be 75 cars driving through that alley every week. Walz pointed out that when weighed against a multi- family residential use, the trips through the alley for a church were significantly less, since their major activity is once a week. Sheerin asked if the intention of the drive was to be used for handicapped parking and the eight spaces out back. Walz replied that the intention of the drive would also be to be used for drop off traffic. Thornton commented that since the side of the church was to be the main entrance, the drive could not just be for handicapped drop-offs. Walz agreed, and acknowledged that the print does just say "Handicapped Drop -Off," somewhat confusing the issue. Thornton asked why Staff did not talk to the church about improving and paving the alley at least adjacent to the church, rather than waiting for a time down the road when improvements were initiated by the City. Walz said that they did talk about that, but the Public Works Director did not want to advise that since the church's portion would not likely match up with what the City needed to do with an overall alley improvement. His feeling was that it would be better to leave it gravel as it is. The alley is not in ideal condition, but it is not in that condition solely because of the church so it seemed unfair to burden them with its paving. Payne asked if the application was then not meeting the specific criterion that says "vehicular access to the proposed use is limited to streets with a pavement width of greater than 28 feet." The church will be using the alley as access, Payne noted. Walz said that she believed what the criteria was getting at was that the primary access in terms of delivering people to the property is along Governor Street, and the drive would be secondary. Walz asked Holecek for her comments on that. Holecek said that what she believed was being discussed was how you are getting to the actual use. Parking is on Governor, which is an arterial and is what is generally looked at, rather than the internal secondary circulation. What is being looked at, according to Holecek, is a church in a neighborhood and whether the streets in that neighborhood are adequate to carry traffic to the site. Thornton asked if the Public Works Director gave any indications as to when the City might take on the project of improving the alley. Walz said no timeline was given, but that she believed Public Works is looking at alleys in that portion of the city more carefully. Payne said that alleys would likely get on a list individually on an "as needed" basis. Sheerin asked if there had been any traffic or parking evaluation done on this dramatic increase in on -street parking for the area. Walz said that the church will request that the amount of parking reserved for them on Sundays on Governor Street be expanded, and that request will go through City Council. Traffic planners, Walz noted, did not think there would be any problem expanding parking on the west side of Governor Street. Payne commented that the idea of a traffic study being done at this time would be difficult. Sheerin said she was wondering if the ratio of on -street parking was similar to that for other churches for which on -street parking had been approved. Walz said that it might be close to the Christian Science Church which provides just a handful of parking spaces and has an occupancy of less than 100, but that there are a large number of churches in the area downtown that used on -street or ramp parking as their primary parking. Leigh asked if there were further questions for Staff. There were none. Leigh asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in favor of the application. Reverend Orlando Dial, the pastor of Bethel AME Church, explained that on any given Sunday, his congregation of 60 included only about 16-20 cars that would be parked on Governor Street. He said that when you looked at there being 45 available spaces, they had quite a bit of growth to get to before they would use those. Regarding the handicapped drop-off, Dial said that ideally church people follow the rules a little better and would stick with the idea of reserving the alley spaces for those who are elderly or disabled. Regarding the drainage issues, Dial said that as they remove the grass behind the church at the current location, 411 Governor Street, they are finding that about two- thirds of that lot is just an open grass lot. Their architect believes that much of the drainage issues have been caused by that circumstance. Dial said that they too do not want a water problem in the alley as it would also limit their access to the parking area, and that they will make every effort to address the issue. Their wish is to add to the quality of life in the neighborhood. Dial said that there was one negative letter that had been brought to his attention that he wished to address. The writer's concern was that they did not understand the design plan and they believed the parking area was just going to be a concrete slab. Dial said that you could see from the design plan that it is not a slab but a grassy, well landscaped area with pervious concrete for additional drainage properties. The other objections expressed in the letter was that with the entrance being in the rear rather than in the historic part of the building it would leave the historic part vulnerable to being carved up into cubicles. Dial clarified that this was not the case and that it is their wish to preserve and honor the historic part of the church. Dial said that he has appreciated Staff s input and that the congregation has been working for almost two years going back and forth to make sure that they are not just airing the issues but trying to address them in a way that is beneficial for everybody. Dial said that he hoped that in the future Bethel AME could be pointed to as a way to meet your goals and work well with Historic Preservation and Planning staff. As a church, he said it was important to model the right way to do things rather than the most expedient, even if it takes longer and costs more. Walz noted that the letter referred to by Reverend Dial was a letter from John Shaw, an owner of two properties in the neighborhood. The letter had been distributed by Walz to Board Members prior to the meeting. Sheerin asked Dial if the church had a lot of parking needs during the weekdays. Dial said that there are activities on Sunday evenings and Wednesday evenings and that at those times there are enough parking spaces available on the east side of Governor to meet their needs. They are sensitive to the needs and schedules of the residents nearby, and try to absorb the unused spaces even if they may be farther away. Dial said that in the eleven years he has been pastor there may have been three parking issues. He said that anytime there is an issue brought to his attention it is addressed because their goal is to be good neighbors. Thornton asked what the church's current relationship with its neighbors is, given that the letter is from a neighbor. Dial said that the church has excellent relations with the neighbor directly to the north. He said that he had never met the person who wrote the letter and that he did not believe that person lives on Governor Street. Dial said that it is his understanding with the other single family residences in the area that they are pleased to have the opportunity to watch the church grow, and that the landlord he has spoken to says that having a church as a neighbor improves the quality of his tenants. Walz added that the applicant has had a series of events in which they have invited the neighbors to discuss their plans. Dial said that they have had a number of open houses and events inviting people into the building as a way of being neighborly. Leigh asked how old Bethel AME is. Dial replied that it was established in 1868. Leigh invited anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this application to come forward. Melvin Shaw, a steward and member of Bethel AME Church, spoke on behalf of the fundraising committee to ask the Board to consider and approve the recommendation of the Staff to grant the special exceptions. Shaw reiterated that the church is a good neighbor to the neighborhood and that they have taken a lot of pains over the last two years to address the issues of making the addition to the church historically compatible with the existing structure. They worked for over a year and a half before being awarded the Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historical Preservation Commission and have been very sensitive to their neighbors' concerns. Shaw said that they have also been working on a plan with city staff to address not only aesthetic concerns but also those aspects relating to parking and drainage and setbacks. Shaw listed off a number of examples of very supportive neighbors, and stated that the letter from Mr. Shaw was the first time in two years that anyone has ever expressed a concern. Shaw said that they believed they were good neighbors and that the plan that has been proposed is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, has addressed issues of setbacks, parking, and drainage. They have consciously chosen to remain in this historic location despite the difficulties it presented in designing an addition and it is their desire to build a structure that will serve other students and members of the Iowa City community as they have since 1868. Thornton stated for the record that Mr. Shaw is involved in a Chamber of Commerce leadership program with him. Thornton said that it had no impact on the issue at hand but that he wanted to disclose it. Leigh invited others to speak in favor of the application. Seeing none, she invited those wishing to speak against the application to come forward. There were none. The public discussion was closed. Payne noted that usually churches ask for an 18-month extension rather than the customary 6- months given by the Board and that Bethel AME had not requested that extension. Walz said they have not requested the extension. Thornton moved that the Board recommend and accept this application, EXC08-00011, an application for a special exception to allow an expansion of a religious private group facility assembly in the RNS-12 zone to allow a historic preservation waiver that would reduce the setbacks and the minimum parking requirements at 411 and 425 S. Governor Street with the approval of the following conditions: 1) Staff approval of a system for draining as much of the roof as 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 a potential rain garden in one of the open space areas 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 should be reduced to a maximum width of 12-feet, 5) submission of a final landscape plan for a 10-foot buffer area to the south of the church drive to provide year-round S- 2 screening, the final design to be approved by Staff, 6) the applicant must sign an agreement to waive any protest for future assessments to approve the alley to the rear of the property, 7) the restoration of the exterior of the original church structure, and 8) substantial compliance with the site plan. Payne asked for a clarification on condition #4) paving in the drop off area should be reduced to a maximum width of 12-feet. Walz clarified that that was a 10-foot drive with an additional 12- foot drop-off area. Payne seconded the motion. Leigh invited discussion and findings. Payne said she would like to discuss her concern that the addition is not supposed to compete with or overwhelm the existing structure, and that when she looks at the south side of the building she sees the new addition, not the historic structure. And while she thinks the addition is quite beautiful, she does think it overwhelms the historic structure. Walz replied that the addition will be of the same siding as the front, and that the main thing the Historic Preservation Commission is focused on in that requirement is the street view. Walz said that the primary things that Historic Preservation was concerned with is that the roofline not be higher and that the materials were of a similar nature. Walz said that she should also keep in mind that the view shown will actually be hindered from the street by surrounding properties. Holecek said that what Historic Preservation looks at are materials, compatibility and scale. Holecek said that given that HPC has passed on a Certificate of Appropriateness finding that this addition will not destroy, damage or otherwise deteriorate the integrity of the historic structure, may go a long way in ameliorating the Board's concerns about whether or not this is compatible. Sheerin asked if the HPC standards were stricter, and Holecek said that she believed they were much more so. Walz said that this was really a very interesting exercise in historic preservation because there is a very simple, modest structure to which you are adding a much larger structure. Sheerin asked if there was no way for it to go straight back and make it less visible. Walz reiterated that her sense was that the addition will not be as visible as it is on the drawing because you have buildings and trees blocking the view. Payne said that there was something she had read that explicitly said that the new addition could not be the focal point and that the historic structure had to be the focal point. Walz said she did not have the HPC guidelines. Payne said that it was somewhere in the staff report. Walz said that she would have been paraphrasing there and that she didn't know that those were the exact words of the HPC standards. Holecek found the wording on page four of the staff report to which Payne had been referring and which stated that "creating an appropriate addition to what is a small simple structure presents a number of challenges, including designing an addition with a roofline and materials that would not overwhelm or compete with the original structure." After some discussion, it was agreed to move on from this issue. Walz added that she had included the materials from the HPC, and that on page three of four the wording in their standards is more clearly laid out, and that if the word "focal point" was used it was her own error. Leigh commented that the standards said that if the "modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic or cultural attributes if the property" it could be granted. She said that she certainly thinks that this modification to this church does all three of those things. The congregation is a living organism and the church has been a living organism in this community since 1868 and anything that preserves its function on its site deserves to be supported. Payne proceeded with the findings of fact. For specific criteria, vehicular access to the church will be provided along south Governor Street, which is an arterial street and exceeds the 28-foot standard. The minimum setbacks to the rear it will not be met, and would be reduced to 27 feet; for the front it will not be met by the current structure but will be met by the new addition; to the south it will be met, and to the north it would be reduced from 20-feet to 10-feet. The proposed use will be compatible with adjacent uses. It is in the residential neighborhood and the church has taken steps to make the addition compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It does not overwhelm the existing building on the site and they have taken steps to make sure it is not as tall or as wide as the current structure, and it will not detract from the main view as you look at it from Governor Street. There is limited parking space on the site itself but they are providing 8 spots, and an additional spot if you count where the trash receptacle will be, and additional parking is available on the street. The proposed use will not have adverse affects on the livability of nearby residential uses due to noise glare from lights, late -night operations, odors or litter. The church will put their buffer of landscaping to the south. In the area to the north were the setback is reduced they have used a different kind of window and placed them up high to increase privacy to the neighbors to the north. Because the proposed use is in residential zone and in a central planning district, it must comply with the multi -family site development standards. The street facing side will be less than 50 feet and will not require additional measures to break up the mass of the building. The building is constructed in materials and a style appropriate for the historic architectural style and has received HPC approval. Parking is shown at the rear as it is supposed to be, and there is the buffer area shown between the parking area and the property to the south. The general standards were also discussed by Payne. It will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, though the drainage toward the alley should be mentioned and they should comply with the conditions and drain toward Governor Street which has a storm -sewer access. This exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. The church has placed its main entrance away from where they would be infringing on the north property line, which will give further privacy to the neighbors to the north who are so close. As stated in the conditions, the church must sign the waiver for improvements to the alley when they do come. The proposed exception will not impede on the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. Payne said she believed the improvement to this property and the property to the south will help to continue this trend of reinvestment in the neighborhood and the trend toward historic preservation. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities will be provided. Those are already in place. Once again, Payne mentioned the drainage issues to be directed toward Governor Street and the rain gardens that are to be put in if possible. Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion. The ingress to the property will be a one-way from Governor Street so it should minimize congestion and it should exit through the alley. Payne stated that except for the specific regulations applicable to the exception being considered, in all other respects it conforms to the regulations or standards of the zone. This is true, she said, other than the items she had mentioned so far. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for the location of private religious group assemblies in residential neighborhoods and recommends preservation of historic properties and landmarks. Keeping this church in this neighborhood on this site is consistent with the Plan. All that being said, Payne stated, in her mind all of the criteria are met as required and she would vote in favor of this exception. Sheerin stated her agreement. Thornton stated his agreement with all of the findings stated by Payne. He wanted to state once again that he believes this is a major improvement to the community and that a church with such a rich history in the community should be allowed to expand and grow. Thornton said he too would probably vote in favor of the exception. Leigh said she had nothing to add and they were ready for a vote. The exception was approved by a vote of 4-0 (Wood absent). Walz stated that it had been a long process for Bethel AME and that she wished to thank the church for its patience in working through so many issues on the site. Leigh declared the motion approved and stated anyone wishing to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within thirty days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office. OTHER: Walz stated that it is possible that some special exception requests could arise as a result of the flood, as they did when there was a tornado a few years ago. Many things may need to come into conformance as a result of this "act of God," as is required by the code. A question was asked as to why Parkview was not on the agenda for its special exception that evening, and Walz stated that it was because they had not yet received their letter from the Department of Natural Resources. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Holecek introduced Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney, who would be transitioning into taking over as advisor to the Board at some time in the future ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn the meeting. Sheerin seconded. All voted in favor of adjournment, 4- 0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. o_ N O O O M O O� x x 0 x x x LU 'o x x x N x x xLU x o X x x X n M I I x x x x 04 E � Z Is i Z Z Z Z 00 M O% O - N CD O O O CD X W O O O O O O C c O E cad �t0 N O -d0ao.0 v CL L O Z � c;= c v J 3 O O t=d O a s 'o t i >U o a!Z x W W To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC08-00012 907 Fifth Ave 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: Adam Ralston Date: June 23, 2008 Richard and Robin Chambers 907 Fifth Ave 319-688-2789 Adjustment to the principle building setback requirement To reduce the front setback requirement from 21 feet 6 inches to 14 feet 10 inches in order to allow a front porch. 907 Fifth Ave 75 x 80 square feet Residential (RS-5) zone 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, 14-2A-4B-5; Purpose of the minimum setback requirement, 14-2A-4B- 1; General criteria for special exceptions, 14-4B-3 June 11, 2008 This residence is located along 5th Ave in Iowa City in an RS-5 zone. The property is roughly square (75'x80'), leaving shallow front and rear setbacks. The street right-of-way along 5th Ave is extra -wide at 75 feet. Most homes in the area are oriented in a north -south direction; however, due to the location of this property on the short side of a block, this dwelling faces east towards 5th Ave. The applicant wishes to construct a porch over an existing front deck. A front porch is subject to the City's standard setback requirements. The usual front setback for residential structures in the RS-5 zone is 15 feet. However, in this case due to setback averaging', the required front setback for this property is 21'6". The front setback of the proposed porch would be 14'10". The setback of the proposed porch will be smaller than the setbacks of the neighboring properties. Due to setback averaging, the proposed porch requires a special exception to be constructed. 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-4B-5). 1. The situation is peculiar to the property. This lot is smaller in size than many other lots within the neighborhood. It has a shallow back yard (28'10"), and side yards (154" and 72"), leaving the front yard as a likely place for outdoor activity. The street fronting the property has an extra -wide right-of-way of 75 feet (50 to 60 feet is the typical right-of-way in many residential neighborhoods). In staff's opinion the additional right-of-way leads to the perception of this property having a larger front yard than it actually has. This property is unique in that it faces the short side of a block. There are only three homes on this block. The home to the north faces the same direction (east) as the subject property; however, the home to the south faces south. 2. There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements. Staff believes that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirement due to the shallow depth of this parcel. The parcel is 75 feet wide and 80 feet deep, whereas typical lots are generally over 100 feet deep. With a shallow backyard (28'10" deep), it is likely that the front of the property would be a desirable place for outdoor recreation in order to maximize use of the lot. 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. Setback Averaging (section 14-2A-413): Where at least 50 percent of the lots along a frontage have been developed and all of these developed lots are occupied by principal buildings that are located at least 5 feet further from the street than the required front setback, the required front setback along the frontage is increased to the equivalent of the setback of the building closest to the street. 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 Fifth Avenue. Furthermore, because the reduction will allow for 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 an extra -wide right-of-way. Given the setbacks of other nearby properties on this 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. The exception will also not lead to the home being of a scale that does not relate to other homes in the area. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. This application is to allow for an open-air porch. By not allowing an enclosed structure, the porch will be less intrusive and will give the appearance of greater separation for light and air. 5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. The proposed special exception will not affect the side setbacks. The existing house and proposed porch are at least 7 feet from the south property line, which abuts an alley, and 15 feet from the north property line. General Standards: 14-4B-3, Special Exception Review Requirements 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff believes that, because the reduction of the front setback on an extra -wide right-of-way does not reduce visibility for traffic or access for fire protection, the proposed exception satisfies this standard. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff believes that there will be adequate separation between neighboring properties so as to not diminish other properties use or value. There is more than 15 feet separating the subject structure from the property line to the north. An alley abuts the property to the south. The distance between the subject structure and the principal structure to the south is 100 feet. Additionally, a porch could enhance the appearance of the dwelling on this property and could potentially encourage other improvements or reinvestment in the neighborhood. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. This property is in a previously developed neighborhood. The addition of a porch will not stand out in this neighborhood in that other homes also have porches. Given the separation between principal structures along this frontage, this exception will not impede improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. With the exception of a sidewalk along the street, all necessary utilities and facilities are already in place. This exception will not lead to any additional use of utilities or facilities in the area. The other properties on this block are also missing sidewalks. There is sufficient right-of-way so the setback reduction will not diminish the possibility of the installation of a sidewalk in the future. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Automobile access is provided by way of a driveway between the adjacent alley and a garage. This exception will not impede views for motorists for pedestrians. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Other than and front setback the existing house and proposed porch appear to meet all other zoning requirements. This application will be reviewed by the Housing and Inspection Services Department to ensure compliance with other City codes. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan encourages preservation and reinvestment in existing neighborhoods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC08-00012, an application for a reduction in the front principal building setback to allow construction of a front porch, be approved subject to the porch being constructed and maintained as an open-air porch. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Illustration of existing setbacks 3. Application Approved by: �*44 Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development 0 0 0 ]AV HIJIJ -InH M YIq EXu) � -czou) i 2. APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL, EXCEPTION DATE: I1 June 20 68 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1014 16 Z 0 d 2 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 907 F l F Ttl AVENUE PROPERTY ZONE: S 5 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: -7 5 'X 90 APPLICANT: Name: R I ctl4 k-D c R08 IN Ct-L B Address: 907 R F=T ti N U e Phone: 319 " 688 - 2 78 9 CONTACT PERSON: Name: S R til E- (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: Name: SAME (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please contact Sarah Walz at 366-5239 or e-mail Sarah-walz@iowa-city.org. 14- 2A 4 n1U.164 T lb PRINc.IPAL SET 16ACK Purpose for special exception: 1-0 A-L-Lb W PO Cti R,O0 F TO BE BUILT Nek P LSTDNC7 becK. Sce A TTA0,J44EN7- - Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: NON E -2- In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide responses to all of the information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date for your application. A pre -application consultation with Planning staff is STRONGLY recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria. As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official statement, you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner. 5oUT{i 75 ' o F L-oT -1., A. Legal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary): WOGk 42 or- ThtE EAST IOWA GTY ADDIT1ObJ 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.lowacity.iowaassessors.com/ or by calling 319-356-6066. ' B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. See ATT,4CAWN75 *17z ?-*3 Lot with dimensions; North point and scale; Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; Abutting streets and alleys; Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; Parking spaces and trees- existing and proposed. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking spaces, etc.) C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-46-4 of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are listed elsewhere in the Code.) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa- city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment. _ ra C. P 4 -CIr" y . -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. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. This exception will not block the view for traffic, nor will it create a fire hazard. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. The exception will enhance the appearance and enjoyment of this property, thereby benefiting the neighborhood at large.- � v7 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normaJf and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. This neighborhood is developed with single-family homes, many of which have front porches. This porch addition will enhance the appearance of the property, and will in no way detract from the appearance or function of the neighborhood. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All utilities and necessary facilities are already in place, and will not be affected by the porch addition. 10 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Access to this property is a driveway from the alley to a two -car attached garage. This exception will not affect access. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use as provided in the City Code section 14.48 as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards (14-5A through K) j The homeowners will work with the Iowa City Building Department to meet all codes. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The city's comprehensive plan calls for the preservation of existing neighborhoods. This special exception will be an improvement to the neighborhood, and may encourage further investment and improvement of property. —i 71 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 SEE ATIAC-HMENT ADDRESS h 1� 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: /I MO Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Date: 'Tw Vt 2 , 2009 `1`cJ' `C 6; J3��W ppd admin\application-boase.doc Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) 723 —t i).., T� E5 D to Attachment # 1 Purpose for special exception: 14-2A-4B-3e(1), which deals with setback averaging, requires a 25' setback. Table 2A-2 lists a minimum setback of 15' if the surrounding properties were undeveloped. The homeowners request a special exception of the setback average to allow construction of a roof over an existing deck, which is built at a 17' setback. Accompanying drawings show the plan for the roof, which is consistent in design with other properties in this neighborhood. o r-., rJ Yy_`' `" LL to =r Lr\ < u J Lill C7) C-� ts Iva TTACIIMEN T I -Tt -"ITT 43 FL z 5 5 m 17 -7 70 �i • x� �� Y`o os�5 a-�-�ac-fin e4 +0 d P,c- dam a., Pry lo.x to `' d. e.Gk ems- s • � x � " h ea.d er _ r, • �xh� raf-�rS� ax(o„r��m board lac ed -I-a hod s e. J o 15 h a,ng �5, w i n d .c�► Pg � �� exst'e.�r5 • Over ►,a�� ,��es �o ma�-�, �-«?f- '�' • � " � S`I3 -For s h h i n q h n�l 4-o rnafch proof 20� in ; c iL Cam —ors - 90 F� Tt h A-v eA of) l STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz Item: EXC08-00013 Date: July 9, 2008 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Mark McCallum DBA Brick House Community 811 East College Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319-430-1461 Contact: Robert R. Phipps 321 Kirkwood Avenue Iowa City 319-351-6832 Owner: Leighton House, L.C. 321 Kirkwood Avenue 319-351-6832 Requested Action: Special Exception (14-5E-5B-2) for a change of use from one non -conforming use to another non -conforming use in a different use category or subgroup. Purpose: To allow the present non -conforming rooming house with a maximum occupancy of 13 to be converted to a studio apartment building with a maximum total occupancy of 13 residents. Location: 932 East College Street Size: 62 x 120 = 7,440 square feet Current Land Use and Zoning: Residential, RNS-12 (Neighborhood Stabilization Zone) In addition, the building is a contributing structure to the College Hill Conservation District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential, RNS-12 East: Residential, RNS-12 South: Residential, RNS-12 West: Residential, RNS-12 Comprehensive Plan: Stabilization zoning intended to maintain neighborhood integrity in older neighborhoods. The property is located within a conservation overlay zone (OCD), which is intended to conserve the unique characteristics of older neighborhoods and resources and encourage the retention, rehabilitation and appropriate maintenance of existing buildings, structure and sites in older neighborhoods. Applicable code sections: Regulations regarding the conversion of nonconforming uses, 14-4E-5B-2; general criteria for special exceptions, 14-413-3 File Date: June 11, 2008 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Nonconforming uses are created when a zoning designation is changed or when the zoning regulations themselves are changed such that an existing lawfully established use no longer complies with the zoning code. The zoning code provides a special exception to allow "a non- conforming use, which is located in a structure not designed for a use allowed in the zone, to be converted to a non -conforming use in a different use category or subgroup that is of the same or lesser in intensity than the existing use," provided that certain conditions are met.' This provision is intended to facilitate reuse of older buildings while gradually decreasing any negative effects of nonconforming uses over time. The property at 932 E. College Street is zoned Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12). The property is currently a rooming house. Because rooming houses are not permitted in the RNS- 12 zone and because the existing use was nonconforming at the time the property was rezoned to RNS-12, the existing use is considered a legal, non -conforming use. The maximum occupancy of this rooming house is 13 bused on density and occupancy standards in the zoning ordinance. The applicant, Mark McCallum, is requesting a special exception to convert the existing rooming house located at 932 E. College Street to a studio apartment building. He proposes to remodel the interior and eliminate common living, dining, and bathroom areas. These areas will be incorporated into new efficiency apartments that each has its own bathroom and kitchen. The small sleeping rooms will be combined to create more livable spaces within each efficiency apartment. The proposal is to keep the maximum total occupancy at 13 persons. In the zoning code, land uses are grouped into land use categories and subgroups. A rooming house is classified as Independent Group Living. Apartments are classified as Multi -Family Uses. New Multi -family Uses are not allowed in the RNS-12 Zone. Therefore, the applicant's request is for a special exception to convert an existing nonconforming use to a nonconforming use in a different use category. The building at 932 E. College Street was originally designed and built for a Fraternal Group Living Use (a sorority), which is also a use not allowed in the RNS-12 Zone. It should be noted that there have been a number of variance requests associated with this property relating to the use and occupancy. In 1997 a variance was granted to allow the property up to 30 roomers subject to compliance with the principles of the "Leighton House Business Plan," one of the elements of which provided professional resident management of the rooming house similar in character to a sorority house. By an additional condition, the variance These conditions are described in the zoning code (section 14-4E-5B-2) and in the analysis section of this report. is not applicable to any successors in title to the property. Prior to the 1997 variance, the building had been used as a fraternity house, and had fallen in to a state of disrepair. In 1997, the Board cited in its findings a concern that the historic building would be demolished and that the professionally supervised, private women's dorm, proposed in the Leighton House plane, would be preferable to other options that could potentially affect the property—e.g. demolition or replacement with an "unsupervised" rental property. As part of a larger neighborhood rezoning in 2000, the property was rezoned from Neighborhood Conservation Residential Zone RNC-20 (a multi -family designation) to RNC-12 (a single-family designation), which is intended to "stabilize existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods and preventing existing multi -family uses in these neighborhoods from becoming nonconforming (Ord. 94-3608, 2-1-1994)." Specifically, the previous RNC-20 zoning permitted rooming houses and fraternity/sorority houses as provisional uses, whereas the RNC-12 prohibits establishment of new multi -family or group living uses, such as fraternities/sororities and rooming houses. Under the zoning code adopted in 2005, the RNC-12 zone was renamed the Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zone and has the same restrictions on fraternities/sororities and rooming houses. A variance was applied for in 2005 to allow 30 roomers in order to continue the Leighton House business plan under new ownership without any connection to Leighton House L.C.. That variance application was denied. In its decision, the Board cited that allowing 30 roomers would result in additional traffic and demand for on -street parking and that the increase in occupancy would be contrary to the intent of the RNC-12 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The Board also indicated that the applicants failed to prove they had the skills and experience necessary to run a private dormitory according to the details of the Leighton House business plan, and that the applicants had provided no evidence of economic hardship. A second variance was applied for in 2006 to allow up to 20 roomers without the conditions of ownership or the principles described in the Leighton House Plan. The Board of Adjustment denied the variance, expressing concern for the potential impact to the public interest and neighborhood integrity due in part to additional demands on parking as well as the lack of supervision or professional management intended to mitigate issues such as noise that are often associated with rooming houses. The building at 932 College Street continues to operate as a rooming house —a nonconforming use allowing an occupancy of up to 13 roomers. Because the rooming house does not operate under the conditions of the 1997 variance, including professional live-in supervision and shuttle service to discourage on street parking, the right to 30 occupants granted under the 1997 variance does not apply at this time. In 2007, the Board upheld the Housing Inspector's denial of the property's rental permit due to over -occupancy. The owner is now in the process of appealing the denial of the rental permit in district court. Z The business plan upon which the Board of Adjustment based its 1997 decision relied on the then applicants' plans to provide twenty-four hour on -site resident management by an experienced educator, academic support, professionally prepared meals, housekeeping, transportation, offsite parking, security and plans to renovate the building. The applicant had indicated that parking would be addressed through leased spaces in the Chauncey Swan public parking ramp and that transportation would be provided to and from the ramp. Under the conditions of the occupancy variance, the rights to 30 roomers would not be transferable with sale of the land. Rather the rights to more than 13 roomers were tied to the conditions of the business plan. 3 The zoning code defines the Neighborhood Residential Zone (RNS-12) as follows: "The purpose of the RNS-12 zone is to stabilize certain existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family character of these neighborhoods. Provisions in this zone prevent the conversion or redevelopment of single family uses to multi -family uses. However, existing conforming uses retain their conforming status when rezoned to RNS-12." 4 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. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations of the Section 14-4E-5B-2 pertaining to the conversion of one non -conforming use to another non -conforming use in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-413-3A. The applicant's responses to the specific and general criteria are provided on the attached application. Specific Standards (14-4E-SB-2) The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a non -conforming use, which is located in a structure not designed for a use allowed in the zone, to be converted to a nonconforming use in a different use category or subgroup that is the same of lesser intensity than the existing use, provided the following conditions are met: a. The proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is not currently allowed in the zone. The subject building consists of more than 8,700 square feet of living space and was originally designed to serve as a sorority house. As mentioned above, sorority houses are not an allowed use in the RNS-12 zone. In 1997 a variance was granted to allow a rooming house with up to 30 roomers provided that the property was owned by Leighton House L.C. and operated in accordance with the principles of the Leighton House business plan. Subsequently, interior renovations were made to the house such that it now provides 13 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms on the upper floors; an apartment with 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom on the first floor; and a basement level with full kitchen, office, laundry, storage, bathroom faci'�lities, and an open dining and multi -purpose room. As rooming houses and fraternity/sorority uses are not allowed in the RNS-12 zone, the uses for which this structure was originally designed and subsequently modified are not currently allowed in the zone. b. The proposed use is of the same or lesser level of intensity and impact than the existing use. The Board of Adjustment will make a determination regarding the relative intensity of the proposed use by weighing evidence presented by the applicant with regard to such factors as anticipated traffic generation, parking demand, hours of operation, residential occupancy, noise, dust, and customer and/or residential activity. The Board of Adjustment will also consider qualitative factors such as whether a proposed use will serve an identified need in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff considers the proposed use as a 13-resident studio/efficiency apartment building to be of an equal or lesser level of intensity and impact than the 13-unit rooming house for the following reasons: ■ The proposal is to limit the occupancy of the building to the same number of persons as permitted under the current non -conforming use-13 residents. By reducing the large common areas and combining additional bedrooms and space into single apartment units, the change in use will discourage over -occupancy and will reduce opportunities for nuisance activities, such as excessive noise, parking congestion, and overflowing garbage resulting from house parties or other large communal gatherings that are often associated with fraternities, sororities, and rooming houses that feature large common areas. ■ Since the proposed use will not increase the occupancy beyond what is currently allowed, staff finds that it is unlikely that the new use will increase parking congestion in the neighborhood. c. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site. For its entire history the building has served as either a sorority/fraternity house or rooming house serving 13 or more residents depending on the zoning code provisions of the time. With more than 8,700 square feet of floor area, the building is suitable for the use proposed. Staff recommends that the Board establish a maximum occupancy limit of 13 residents to ensure that the new use will not increase the intensity of the use. d. The structure will not be structurally altered or enlarged in such a way as to enlarge the non -conforming use. Ordinary repair and maintenance and installation or relocation of walls, partitions, fixtures, wiring, and plumbing is allowed so long as the use is not enlarged. As stated above, the applicant proposes a number of interior renovations in order to accommodate 13 studio apartments. These alterations will not enlarge the non -conforming use and will not alter the building's exterior. 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. Staff believes that the conversion from a 13- resident rooming house to a studio apartment building with a total maximum occupancy of 13 residents meets this test. The conversion of the house is not expected to generate any additional traffic beyond what would be expected of the 13-resident rooming house. Moreover, incorporating much of the existing common area into the separate apartment units will reduce the likelihood of nuisance activities that have been associated with this and other similar properties that feature large amounts of shared common space. 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 same reasons stated under criteria 1 and 3, staff believes the application to convert the property meets this test. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The surrounding neighborhood is fully developed. The Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) Zone acknowledges the mix of residential uses in the neighborhood, but is intended to preserve the predominantly single-family residential character of the neighborhood. This area has also been designated a Conservation District, which is intended to encourage the retention, rehabilitation and appropriate maintenance of existing buildings, particularly those that contribute to the historical, architectural, and aesthetic qualities of the neighborhood. As stated previously, by maintaining the current occupancy of 13, while reducing the common space and number of sleeping rooms, the proposed conversion will reduce opportunities for nuisance activities and reduce the intensity of the use of the property. In addition, by allowing this large building, which was originally designed as a sorority and which 6 architecturally contributes to the character of this neighborhood, to be preserved, the proposed conversion will further the intent of the stabilization zone and the conservation district overlay zone. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All necessary utilities and drainage are in place. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The proposed exception will not result in changes to ingress and egress. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The building itself is non -conforming in terms of required setbacks for multi -family uses in the RNS-12 zone, however there is no proposed change to the exterior of the building and thus no enlargement of the non -conformity. With regard to parking, the structure has served as a fraternity/sorority or rooming house use for all of its history and therefore is grandfathered in with the two off-street parking spaces provided on the property. Additional parking is not required unless there is a change of use and then only if the new use requires more parking than what would have been required for the rooming house. The following zoning rule applies in this case: 14-4E-8B.6 - A use that is nonconforming with regard to the required number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces may be converted to a use in another use category or subgroup without full compliance with the number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces, according to the following rules: a. If the number of required spaces for the converted use is more than what was required for the established use, only the number of spaces beyond what was required for the established use need to be provided. These spaces are in addition to any spaces already in existence on the site. b. In addition to any additional spaces required in subparagraph a., as many spaces as the lot will accommodate must be provided, up to the number needed to fully comply with the standard. This rule is often called the "ghost parking" provision, because it gives a property credit for the parking that would be required if the use was established under the current regulations. Under the current zoning rules, a rooming house is required to provide 1 parking space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per resident, whichever is less. So for 13 roomers, 10 parking spaces would be required, so under the "ghost parking" provision the property at 932 College Street gets credit for 10 parking spaces. If the use is converted to efficiency apartments, the parking requirement is 13. Therefore, with credit for 10 parking spaces, an additional 3 off- street parking spaces would be required. However, as stated above, staff does not believe that this conversion will create additional parking demand or congestion if the occupancy is restricted to no more than what is currently allowed, 13 persons. The applicant has proposed to make additional parking spaces available to the tenants of the new apartments on property he owns located 1 block to the west at 811/819 East College Street, which has surplus parking. Staff agrees that additional parking spaces would be desirable given that there is considerable demand for the on -street parking spaces in this neighborhood. If the Board decides to require these additional off-street spaces as a condition of approval, staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to execute a covenant reserving the designated parking spaces on the property located at 811/819 East College Street prior to establishing the conversion of the subject property. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The subject property is a contributing structure to the College Hill Conservation District. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the adaptive re -use and preservation of such structures so long as the use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Thus, in staff's opinion, the proposed exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC08-00013, an application to allow conversion of a non -conforming Independent Group Living Use to a non -conforming Multi -Family Use located at 932 East College Street be approved subject to: 1. The converted use, specifically a Multi -Family Use, may not exceed a maximum total occupancy of 13 residents and said occupancy limit will be recorded on the rental permit for 932 E. College Street. 2. The converted use shall consist of 13 single -occupant multi -family dwelling units or alternatively, 11 single -occupant multi -family dwelling units and one 2-bedroom, double occupant multi -family dwelling unit. 3. In order to establish the conversion, the applicant must apply for a rental permit. 4. Upon the applicant applying for a building permit to establish the conversion, variance VAR97-00004 shall be extinguished and no rights shall continue to exist thereunder. 5. Additionally, upon steps being taken to establish the conversion, any right to re-establish a rooming house on the property shall be extinguished. 6. If the Board decides that additional off-street spaces are necessary to satisfy parking demand or to preserve neighborhood integrity, staff would recommend that the Board require the applicant to execute a covenant for the dedication of 2-3 parking spaces on the property located at 811/819 East College Street prior to establishing the conversion of the subject property. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Application materials Approved by: � Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE: MAY 1IT, 2008 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1010480014 APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 932 EAST COLLEGE STREET APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE 7,320 APPLICANT: MARK MCCALLUM DBA BRICK HOUSE COMMUNITY 811 EAST COLLEGE STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA , 52240 TELEPHONE 319-430-1461 CONTACT PERSON: ROBERT R. PHIPPS 321 KIRKWOOD AVENUE (319) 351-6832 PROPERTY OWNER: LEIGHTON HOUSE L.C. 321 KIRKWOOD AVENUE (319) 351-6832 SPECIFIC REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION: 14-4E-5 SECTION B: Change of Use 1. A nonconforming use may be converted only to another use in the same use category and subgroup or to a conforming use, except as provided in paragraph 2, below. 2. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a nonconforming use, which is located in a structure not designed for a use allowed in the zone, to be converted to a nonconforming use in a different use category or subgroup that is the same or lessor in intensity than the existing use , provided the following conditions are met: a. The proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is currently not allowed in the zone, for example a storefront commercial building located in a single family residential zone. b. The proposed use is of the same or lessor level of intensity and impact than the existing use. The Board of Adjustment will make a determination regarding the relative intensity of the proposed use by weighing evidence presented by the applicant with regard to such factors as anticipated traffic generation, parking demand, hours of operation, residential occupancy, noise, dust, and customer and /or resident activity. The Board of Adjustment may also consider qualitative factors such as whether a proposed use will serve an identified need in the surrounding neighborhood. c. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site. d. The structure will not be structurally altered or enlarged in such a way as to enlarge the nonconforming use. Ordinary repair and maintenance and installation or relocation of walls, partitions, fixtures, wiring, and plumbing is allowed, as long as the use is not enlarged. 3. Once a nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use, it may not be converted back to a nonconforming use. 4. Once a nonconforming use is converted to a less intensive nonconforming use in accordance with paragraph 2, above, it may not be converted back to the prior nonconforming use. 5. A use is deemed " converted" when an existing nonconforming use is terminated and a new use commences and continues for a period of seven consecutive days. PURPOSE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION: Conversion of Private Womens Dorm / Rooming House to 13 Studio Apartments . Business Model will target Visiting faculity, International Students and Visitors, Contract Workers for American College Testing and NCS/Pearson. Visitors to the Summer Writers Workshop Program, and others. Academic Terms Leases. School Year (Aug -May) Fall (Aug -December) Spring(January- May) Summer (June -July) Monthly (30 Day short term leases. DATE OF PREVIOUS APPLICATION OR APPEAL FILED, IF ANY: A. Legal Description: 1331 3 IOWA CITY OUTLOTS S 120'OF E 62' OUTLOT 3 B. PLOT PLAN: C. SPECIFIC APPROVAL CRITERIA: 14-4E-5 REGULATION OF NON CONFORMING USES. B. CHANGE OF USE: 1. A nonconforming use may be converted only to another use in the same use category and subgroup or to a conforming use, except as provided in paragraph 2 below. 2. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a nonconforming use, which is located in a structure not designed for a used allowed in the zone, to be converted to a nonconforming use in a different use category or subgroup that is the same or lesser in intensity than the existing use, provided the following conditions are met: a. The proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is currently no allowed in the zone , for example a storefront commercial building located in a single family residential zone. ( Building was originally built as a sorority house for the Delta Gamma Sorority- Fraternal Structures are no longer allowed in the RNS-12 Zone.) b. The proposed use is of the same or lesser level of intensity and impact than the existing use. The Board of Adjustment will make a determination regarding the relative intensity of the proposed use by weighing evidence presented by the applicant with regards to such factors as anticipated traffic generation, parking demand, hours or operation, residential occupancy, noise , dust, and customer and /or resident activity.(The proposed use is essentially a European apartment/ hotel residential model. Impact of most of these factors are anticipated to be the same or less than the current rooming house use. Some of the targeted clients ..visiting internationals may actually reduce the need for parking) The Boards of Adjustment may also consider qualitative factors such as whether a proposed use will serve an identified need in the surrounding neighborhood. ( The proposed use will offer an "affordable " alternative to some of the other extended stay facilies in the downtown area. Ie. Plaza ($1,500-$2,000 per month) Vogel House ($975.00- $1,500.00 per month) Bostick Guest House ($800.00-$1,200.00 per month) c. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site: ( Built originally as a sorority house .....the proposed use is a logical " fit" for this building. Proposed use will maintain archetichally integrity of the building. No changes are proposed for the exterior of the building. D. GENERAL APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. HISTORICALLY, THE BUILDING WAS BUILT TO HOUSE 30 PEOPLE. UNDER THE LEIGHTON HOUSE VARIANCE OCCUPANCY WAS LIMITED TO 32. CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY HAS AN OCCUPANCY LOAD OF 13. APPLICANT IS ASKING TO CONVERT FROM ROOMING UNITS WITH AN OVERALL OCCUPANCY LOAD OF 13 TO 13 STUDIO UNITS WITH AND OVERALL OCCUPANCY LOAD OF 13. NEW MODEL WILL BETTER UTILIZED BUILDING SPACE AND REDUCE THE STRUCTURAL NON CONFORMORITY OF THE BUILDING. (BUILDING ACTUALLY HAS 17 BEDROOMS) 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. PROPOSED USE WILL ELIMINATE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH GROUP LIVING OR ROOMING HOUSES. TENANTS WILL HAVE OWN BATHROOMS AND KITCHENS. COMMON AREAS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY LANDLORD. APPLICANT HAS TRACK RECORD AS BEING A " GOOD NEIGHBOR" IE BROWN STREET INN (1994-2001) AND BRICK HOUSE APARTMENTS @81 t EAST COLLEGE STREET (2001-PRESENT) APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED PRESERVATION AWARDS FOR RESTORATION WORK DONE ON THE BROWN STREET INN AND BRICK HOUSE APARTMENTS. APPLICANT IS A FORMER MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. PROPOSED USE IS THE SAME OR LESSOR LEVEL OF INTENSITY THEN THE EXISTING USE. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/ or necessary facilities have been or being provided. PROPOSED USE IS THE SAME OR LESSOR LEVEL OF INTENSITY THEN THE EXISITING USE. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. PROPOSED USE IS THE SAME OR LESSOR LEVEL OF INTENSISTY THAN THE EXISITNG USE. 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. 7. The proposed us will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. IN AS SO MUCH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENCOURAGES PRESERVATION AND UTILIZATION OF UNIQUE HISTORIC STRUTURES IN BOTH OUR CONSERVATION AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS. THE PROPOSED USE IS AN ADDATATIVE REUSE OF A BUILDING TYPE THAT IS CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED IN THE RNS-12 ZONE. E. LIST THE NAMES AND MAILING ADDRESSES OF THE RECORD OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE EXTERIOR LIMITS OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. RECEIVED SEP 08 199 Y P.C.D. DEPARTMENT (! (Arrem LIVING AREA 2347 sq ft v v-J -k v- V - 101 4' k-z'-� r] E El: EE w RECEIVED SEP 08 1997 P.C.D. DEPARTMENT 1T6 c —UP—d 15'S 4'3 2'4ri 0 0 0 \ O 0 0/ • O UmommWEET c 0 1r7 4'3 bo w 1r7 15'8 o 15'"ao P bo RECEIVED Cup✓L�+ f loom ctv, SEP 08 1997 ,S'ec-o vN 1 ► DEPARTMENT 0 0 0 0 0 o / O O O I 1T7 1T7 1T9 4'3 � 74 �I r 41 11'10 N Qt 0 bb 15'Si 0 (:D bi SEP 0 8 19F ' DFPARTMFNT a z "' v y�"'z O r W 8�°co W. e nx •pr' _ .E m n $ Ip rn R < Fri YYYLLL '� r z I :. 'ari i y.,., PU�1wKi AND OESM LC rn `7tii 2M EE T AND 73ro"m 5 De v:vi T 08UWA " InW/, 4TlAf JOHN PHIPPS IOWA CITY. IOWA ME S�6 G, x< � M.0 -�m lull -;.o 2r>-y14 K,00 "14>2 > r 01 m o Py-. .. to !j. Sc U) (n > r 0 to 0 ;D �--7. 4-- _ram ....... — IS 1/4'- 8 q l I z a C! I , .z PANTRY f N T 1 PLAMMM AND DESM LC MITCHELL-PHIPPS-MOLINI ism irw.l&-rI-ZiK 6W w1dk-Imn luw 0 1."" INK wt � N- IOWA CITY. IOWA EA ST 339"I'M Mo AENTON 2T. IOWA CITY. IOWA 322, .ft 31 LIS, 01- ai 1 PIPE CHASE -0 r- r) M > >0 G) M 0 fir U) RI n 0 (1z 0 N 0 0 ;D z PLANMW AND DESM IX IN" 13 33--Z ,.:AZT IOWAST' WWA CITY. IOWA 52242 1-9- 0- ........ MIT CHELL-P HIP P S - MO L I NI IOWA crry. IOWA 39, 0* 0 0 m r rri MM ron 0 ;D 1h V r > 6 >ZOM r 20 >r r 39, ---------- 17-5- ..................... .. ............................ .... II ...................... ............ .......................... oI ........ . ................. io T < Ila ct PIPE CHASE k'S) m ............. . . . . . . .. ........ ... ...N ........... ' 1 o 3' 7 1/2' . ............ ot .................... ....... 1. 1/2 ------- ............................... J4 lt-t . .... ...................a..........,; .... In---19' 4 It �_ 1 pMw==m=mw- --' MITCLELL-PHIPPS-M OLIN, I PLMAM6 AM DEMN LC 1 ;56- p"M S--.5 IOWA CITY. IOWA Off r7mj - 7A EASMIN. ST. t -5p IOWA CITY. IOWA 5=42