HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-2008 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 — 5:00 PM
Emma J. Harvat Hall
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the July 9, 2008 minutes
D. Special Exception Items
EXC08-00014: An application submitted by ALPLA for a special exception to
reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces for property located in the
I I zone at 2309 and 2278 Heinz Road.
E. Other
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjournment
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING — September 10, 2008
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Doug Ongie, Planning Intern
Item: EXC08-00014 Date: August 13, 2008
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: ALPLA, INC.
2258 Heinz Road
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person: Melissa Gillund
Shive-Hattery
2834 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: (319) 354-3040
Requested Action: Special exception for a reduction in the number of
required off-street parking spaces
Location: 2309 & 2278 Heinz Road
Size: 19.08 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: General Industrial (1-1)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential (RS-5 and OPD-5)
South: Industrial (1-1)
East: Industrial and Residential (1-1 and OPD-5)
West: Industrial (1-1)
Applicable Zoning Code Sections: Off-street parking and loading standards,
14-5A-4F-5; General criteria for special exceptions,
14-4B-3.
Comprehensive Plan: Industrial
File Date: July 10, 2008
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The subject property is located in the 1-1 zone at 2309 & 2278 Heinz Road. The Iowa Interstate
Railroad runs along the north boundary of the subject property and all other surrounding property
is zoned 1-1.
The applicant, ALPLA, Inc., proposes to construct two warehouses and a production facility at
2278 & 2309 Heinz Road. The zoning code standards for off-street parking require the applicant
to provide 119 parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a special exception for a 29%
reduction in the number of parking spaces required from 119 to 84. The site plan for the subject
2
property indicates where additional parking could be added if the number of on site employees
increased in the future.
Currently, one of the two proposed warehouses has been constructed. The proposed production
area and second proposed warehouse are currently under construction. The constructed
warehouse is located in the northeast corner of the subject property.
There is temporary parking located along the drive in front of the newly constructed warehouse in
the northeast corner of the subject property. The applicant has agreed to eliminate the temporary
parking as soon as site improvements are complete.
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 14-5A-4F-5 pertaining to parking reduction for
unique circumstances in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set
forth in Section 14-413-3A.
Specific approval for a reduction in reauired Darkina. 14-5A-4F-5 (Dade 5A-1 U
Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that
the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive, the Board of
Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or
stacking spaces up to 50%.
Based on the square footage of the subject property's warehouse, office and production areas'
staff has established that a total of 119 parking spaces are required in order to meet the
parking standards in the City code. The applicant has indicated that activity at the site is
divided into three shifts with peak parking demand occurring during the transition from first shift
(8 a.m. to 4 p.m.) to second shift (4 p.m. to 12 a.m.). During peak parking demand, a total of
66 spaces are necessary to accommodate all employees: 14 spaces for office employees, 26
spaces for first shift workers leaving the site, and 26 spaces for second shift workers arriving at
the site. During the second and third shifts, parking for office staff is not needed. Providing a
total of 84 spaces will leave an extra 18 spaces for visitor parking. Based on the above
information about the proposed operations and staffing levels, staff finds that the required
number of parking spaces is excessive.
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.
' For warehouse uses 25,000 sq. ft. or greater, 5 parking spaces plus 1 space for each 5,000 sq. ft. above 25,000 sq. are required.
Office and production uses require one space per every 750 sq. ft.
3
Because the proposed reduction will retain sufficient parking spaces for the applicant's
employees and visitors, staff finds that a 29% reduction in required parking spaces will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
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.
In general, the zoning code discourages the development of excessive parking and large
expanses of paved surfaces. The reduction in parking spaces will retain adequate space for
employees and visitors and allow for more open space. For these reasons, staff finds that a
reduction in parking 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.
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.
Staff believes that a reduction in parking will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the area. Adequate setbacks,
landscaping, and screening have been illustrated on the site plan. If the applicant should expand
the plant, their application for a new building permit would trigger a review of the parking situation.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
Adequate utilities, access roads, and drainage have been addressed for the subject property.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Transportation planning staff have received complaints of parking along Heinz Road. If the
subject property were to ever expand or increase its number of employees, the applicant has
agreed to install more parking spaces to adequately serve the property.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
The applicant has demonstrated compliance with all other applicable regulations during the site
plan and building permit approval process.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for industrial uses. The plan also
emphasizes methods for dealing with storm water run-off. By reducing the amount of paved
surface on the site and retaining permeable surfaces, the reduction in parking is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends EXC08-00014, an application for a special exception to reduce the number of
4
required parking spaces within an 1-1 zone from 119 spaces to 84 spaces, located at 2309 & 2278
Heinz Road, be approved subject to a requirement that if the applicant increases the number of
on site employees by 20% or more, the required number of parking spaces will be provided.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Plan or plat
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
S:\PCD\Board of Adjustment\Case File\EXCOB-00014 ALPLA INC.doc
XReference Files: XR-BASE-01 > P:\PROJECTS\107195-0\DWG\XR-BASE-Ol.Dwg I TP-81-01 > P:\PROJECTS\107195-0\DWG\TP-B1-01.0wg I XR-TITLE > P:\PROJECTS\107195-0\DWG\XR-TIT
MAGILLU P:\Projects\107195-0\dwg\CD-CO-OI.DWG I DATE: 07/28/2008 1 Time: 10:45
Tt
� z
ALPLA, INC.
APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - SPECIAL EXCEPTION
IOWA CITY, IA
DATE 07-10-08 SCALE AS SHOWN
DRAWN MAG FIELD BOOK
APPROVED JSL I REVISION
u o
0
SHIVE 411ATTERY
Ceder Rapids, IA , Iowa City, IA Des Moines, IA
Moline, IL � Bloomington, IL Chicago, IL
II //www. shive-hallery.com
ILLINOIS FIRM NUMBER: 184-000214
EXuw - Q1M ) +
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: July 9, 2008 PROPERTY PARCEL NO.: 1024130001
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2309 Heinz Road & 2278 Heinz Road
PROPERTY ZONE: I1
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 19.08 Acres
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Burghard Shoenfeld
ALPLA, Inc.
2258 Heinz Road
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 337-8059, (404) 944-9386 cell
CONTACT PERSON:
(if other than
Name:
Melissa Gillund
applicant)
Shive-Hattery
Address:
2834 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, 1A 52240
r
Phone:
(319) 354-3040
_
PROPERTY
7 77
.._
OWNER: (if other
Name:
-G
<
CD
than applicant)
- fist
Address:
D
t�
Phone:
W
Specific Requested Special Exception: 14-5A-4F-5, Parking Reduction for Other Unique
Circumstances
Rio
Purpose for special exception: Reduce the required number of parking spaces on site based on actual
maximum number of employees on site.
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: N/A
A. Legal Description:
Lot 4 of B.D.I. Second Addition to Iowa City and Lot 1 of B.D.I. Fifth Addition
to Iowa City.
B. Plot Plan/Site Plan
The site plan is included with the application. The shaded areas on the plan are A ,>
previously approved parking spaces designed to meet the City Code that Skill be
omitted during construction.
C. Specific Approval Criteria: N/A ,
D. General Approval Criteria: 5
1. The parking reduction will not be detrimental to or endanger public health, w
safety, comfort or general welfare. All parking spaces are contained on the
ALPLA site, provide sufficient parking for the employees and do not require
the use of any street parking. The proposed number of spaces provides
parking on site for the first shift (8am-4pm) and office employees (40) in
addition to the second shift (4pm-12am) and the night shift (12am-8am)
employees (30 each shift) for a total of 70 spaces. An additional 20% has
been added for visitors and maintenance parking needs for a total of 84 spaces
on site. Per code, parking areas meet or exceed the required 10' setback from
front and side yards. There are no residential zones within 50' of the property.
The parking areas, loading areas and drives are screened to the S2 standard
along arterial streets and right-of-way. The site layout and screening has
previously been approved by the Building Department as designed with the
appropriate number of parking stalls required by code.
2. The reduced parking 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 reduced parking will not
detract from the uses of the neighboring properties, and the existing entrance
and exit points are not changing, therefore will not impose any restrictions on
the neighboring properties' traffic patterns. The reduction of parking reduces
the amount of pavement on the site, creating additional areas for open space
and landscaping. The proposed parking layout spreads the parking out in
smaller areas across the site rather than in one large concentrated area adjacent
to the Heinz Road right-of-way.
3. The parking reduction will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the area.
Adjacent properties and Heinz Boulevard will be sheltered from any possible
negative consequences of the parking area by the approved setbacks,
landscaping and screening.
4. All necessary facilities have been provided for the parking area. This includes
but is not limited to landscape screening, adequate drainage, lighting and
signage.
5. The existing ingress and egress points along Heinz Road are not changing,
and therefore will not impose any restrictions or additional congestion on the
neighboring properties' traffic patterns.
6. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with all other City of Iowa City
codes and any conditional zoning agreements during the time of site plan and
building permit approval.
7. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of
Iowa City. The reduction in parking spaces achieves an environmental goal of
the City as well by reducing the amount of paving on site while still
adequately providing for the industrial goals of the owner. As demonstrated
on the site plan, the adequate number of parking spaces per code have been
designed and approved for construction. If the needs of the owner change in
the future, the site will provide for additional parking spaces.
0
a
c=
Y
w
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction
commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic
circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum yard requirements,
parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement
which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions
are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City
Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six
(6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the
applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or
construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by
obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of
the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the
expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original
appeal or application. (Section 14-8C-1E, City Code).
Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by
any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or
any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for
writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in
part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C-1F, City Code). Such
petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the
decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Date: to 0
20
Date:
120
"o-ANato jwelyreLD
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Signature(s) of Property Owner)
if Different than Applicant(s) _t
`'�
pJ
D
try
w
1Ah a
LA
QUALl TA TS-VL"-FiPACK UNOE'N
Plant Engineering USA
City of Iowa City
By email as attachment
To Whom It May Concern:
These are the points we need to confirm:
ALPLA INC.
2258 Heinz Road
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - USA
Telephone: +1- 319-337-8040
Fax: +1-319-337-2366
burg ard.schoenfeld@alpla.
com
1. A statement outlining the number of employees per shift, noting the maximum number of
employees potentially on site at a single time during shift changes.
2. A statement agreeing to improve parking counts if the reduced parking does not adequately
serve the property, or if ALPLA expands the number of employees on site in the future.
3. Confirmation that the temporary construction parking in front of the new EMB warehouse will
be removed once site improvements are complete.
To 1.the number of employees that are working on the production floor
and in the Quality Lab etc. will be 26 persons per shift.
During the day time there will be 14 persons administrative staffing.
That includes the number of persons that are corporate (plant
engineering and HR).
When the shifts are changing we need at the most 66 parking places.
We plan to build 84 parking places.That leaves 18 places in reserve.
To 2.We agree to install more parking places if these 84 places do not
adequately serve the property or if we expand the number of employees.
To 3.The temporary parking in front of the new EBM warehouse (yellow
Glued lines) will be eliminated as soon as site improvements are
complete.
Regten
lA
S c helWd
RAplant engineering\1 Plants General\Iowa\IOwa PET plant\xPET Expansion production\Iowa City reduced
parking 20080731.doc Heike Kirkley Page 1 8/4/2008
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 9, 2008 — 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
Members Present: Karen Leigh, Michelle Payne, Caroline Sheerin, Ned Wood
Members Excused: Edgar Thornton
Staff Present: Karen Howard, Sarah Holocek, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen
Others Present: Robin Chambers, Mark McCallum. Bu Wilson, Esther Baker, Michelle
Campo, Hillary Sale
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chair Ned Wood at 5:03 p.m.
An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the
procedures governing the proceedings.
ROLL CALL: Leigh, Payne, Sheerin and Wood were present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 11, 2008:
Sheerin motioned to accept the June 11, 2008 minutes with corrections noted for the record.
Payne seconded. The motion carried 4-0 (Thornton absent).
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
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.
Karen Howard noted that the property in question had not been surveyed and as a result Staff
wished to adjust the principal setback so that it was not so specific. The agenda item will be
changed to read "from approximately 21 feet to approximately 14 feet" where it currently reads
"21 feet 6 inches to 14 feet 10 inches."
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 2
Sheerin and Wood noted that the agenda and staff documents list the property as being in an RS-
8 zone, when in fact it is in and RS-5 zone. Howard noted this error, and confirmed that the
property is in an RS-5 zone.
Howard explained that the request is for a reduction in the front setback from the current City
requirement of 15 feet to allow the applicant to replace the existing front deck with a front porch.
Howard said that one of the requirements for a setback reduction is that the situation be peculiar
to the property. In this case, Howard said, the property is smaller in size than many of properties
in the neighborhood and is not as deep, leaving less room for open space to the rear of the house.
The homeowners would like to create a porch in place of the deck to provide a semi -private
space for outdoor recreation.
There is some practical difficulty here, Howard noted, due to the size and configuration of the
lot. In this case setback averaging applies, and along the street -frontage all of the properties are
set back five feet further than the required setback. Because there are only three properties along
this frontage and the other homes are setback further than the required setback, this property
actually has a required setback of approximately 20 feet. Replacing the existing deck with a
porch would require the setback to be reduced to 14 feet.
Howard stated that granting this special exception would not be contrary to the purpose of the
setback regulations, which help to maintain privacy between neighbors, and to maintain light and
air separation. Staff does not feel that any of the stated purposes of the setback regulations
would be affected by this setback reduction. Open air porches are intended to provide a
transition from the public street to the private realm of the residence. They provide a semi-
private function and are very common features in residential areas.
According to the specific approval criteria, any potential negative effects resulting from the
setback reduction are to be mitigated to the extent practical. In this case, the applicant has
agreed to build an open-air porch and has agreed not to enclose the porch over time. Staff is
recommending that this agreement be a condition of approval.
Howard noted that the porch could really enhance the appearance of this particular dwelling.
Howard said that it is a more common feature to have a front porch rather than a front deck.
This improvement could encourage other improvements or reinvestment in the neighborhood.
Staff recommends that EXC08-00012, an application for a reduction in the front principal
setback to fourteen feet to allow construction of a front porch, be approved subject to the porch
being constructed and maintained as an open-air porch.
Sheerin stated that she was a little confused on the front setback requirement as to whether it was
15 feet or 20 feet for this property. Howard stated that the code requirement for the RS-5 zone is
15 feet; however, because properties have already developed at a greater distance than the
standard requirement, setback averaging is applied in order to keep a general building line on a
given street. The averaging provision in the City code uses the established setback of the closest
building to the street right, which in this case is approximately 21 feet. The reduction is to
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 3
accommodate the footprint of the existing uncovered deck, which is allowed to be in the setback
and is set approximately 14 feet from the front property line. Howard reiterated that
approximations must be used because the property has not been surveyed.
Wood noted that, in effect, all the applicant wishes to do is put a roof on the existing deck.
Howard said that this was correct. Once you put a roof over something then it becomes part of
the principal structure and is thus subject to the principal setback requirement. In this case,
Howard explained, the deck, though attached to the principal structure is not subject to the
setback requirement; a porch with a roof is.
Wood asked if there were other questions for Staff. Payne had a question regarding item #6 in
the General Standards. The Staff statement read "Other than and front setback, the existing
house ..." Payne asked what this statement was supposed to mean. Howard explained that she
believed it was a typographical error and should instead read "Other than the existing ..."
There were no further questions for Staff, and Wood invited the applicant to address the Board.
Robin Chambers, the applicant, stated that she and her husband had purchased the home in
1984, and that from the moment they laid eyes on the property they knew that it needed a front
porch to appear complete. Chambers said that the front deck was built two years ago with the
hope of eventually putting a roof on it. The deck is not being replaced other than the posts which
will be changed out for longer and heavier porch posts. Chambers offered to answer any
questions the Board might have. There were none.
There was no one else who wished to speak in favor of or against the proposed application, and
the public meeting was closed by Wood.
Leigh made a motion 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.
Sheerin seconded the motion.
Howard noted that Staff recommended the wording "to approximately 14 feet" be added to the
motion so that the property record is clear. Wood, Leigh and Sheerin agreed to this amendment.
Wood invited discussion from the Board.
Leigh stated that she had driven by the applicant's property and noted that the shape of the
applicant's lot is peculiar, being nearly square.
Chambers explained that her lot had originally been part of a larger lot that had been divided in
half. Chambers agreed that it is a small lot that is nearly square. Chambers said that the back
yard is slightly larger than the front yard, but that is nearly unusable, and that they are "front yard
people" anyway. The new deck and patio have already made a tremendous difference to their
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 4
sense of place, Chambers said, and the open-air front porch is something they are very much
looking forward to.
Leigh said that she absolutely agrees with Staff s assessment, and feels that it looks like a more
suitable place for the Chambers to enjoy their yard and their property. Given the shallowness of
the lot, Leigh said, the front porch addition makes all the sense in the world as an outdoor space.
Leigh said that she also agreed that the front porch will maintain light, air and separation for fire
protection.
In terms of the general standards, Leigh said that the extra wide right of way is not going to
reduce visibility for anyone. Fire protection will not be an issue. Leigh said that in general it
appears that the rest of the standards are not particularly applicable.
Payne noted that she agrees with the Staff report which states that the porch will not be out of
scale with the neighborhood and will be compatible with the neighborhood. These two attributes
meet the criterion that the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations. The porch addition will not infringe on the side or rear property lines, and the
required three-foot distance from those property lines will be maintained. The property is in an
already developed area in an RS-5 zone, so the exception will not substantially diminish or
impair property values in the neighborhood. Payne said that she agreed with the staff report that
the porch will enhance the appearance of this dwelling, and could potentially encourage other
improvements in the neighborhood. This porch, Payne said, will not stand out as something that
is out of place in the neighborhood. Because of the wide right of way, the porch will not impede
traffic on the public street. The house appears to meet all of the other zoning requirements, and
the Comprehensive Plan encourages this type of preservation and reinvestment in existing
neighborhoods.
Sheerin said that she agreed with everything that had been said. She added that, personally, she
had jogged past this property a number of times and had noted that the house seemed to need a
porch on the front. Sheerin said that she definitely believed that the porch would improve on the
appearance of the house. She said that she thought the Chambers currently had a great deck and
that they would have an even better porch. This addition could encourage other improvement
and reinvestment in the neighborhood, Sheerin said. Sheerin agreed that there would be no
resulting reduction in light or air for neighboring properties and stated that she would be voting
in favor of the application.
Wood stated that he felt that all of the specific criteria and general standards had been addressed
clearly by his colleagues. He added that he thought this was an unusual property in an unusual
neighborhood and that he thought this porch would be a wonderful addition.
Motion passed on a 4-0 vote (Thornton absent).
Wood declared the motion approved and stated that anyone wishing to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 5
Wood noted that the next item on the agenda was one involving a property down the street from
his residence. As a result, Wood recused himself to avoid any conflict of interest.
Michelle Payne took over the role of Chair for the Board.
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.
Howard noted that prior to the meeting she had distributed a letter from Jim and Ann Estin. The
letter was received by Staff after the Board's packets had been prepared.
Howard explained that this special exception is a new special exception in the zoning code,
added in 2005. Howard stated that non -conforming uses are created when a zoning designation
is changed or when zoning regulations themselves are changed such that an existing lawful
established use no longer complies with the zoning code. The exception is intended to provide
some flexibility for properties and buildings that were not built for uses that are currently
allowed. This exception allows a non -conforming use to change to another non -conforming use
in a different category, as long as it is the same or lesser intensity of use. The Board of
Adjustment has the chance to weigh in on that relative intensity according to the code.
Howard stated that the approval criteria for this exception are based on the idea that 1) there is a
building that is designed for a use no longer permitted in the zone, 2) the City wants it to be
reused over time and some flexibility is needed in order to do that.
In this case, Howard said, the applicant, Mark McCallum, is requesting a special exception to
convert an existing rooming house located 932 East 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. Currently, Howard explained, this property is legally established as a
rooming house, allowing a maximum of 13 persons. The proposal maintains the maximum
occupancy at 13 persons.
Howard said that it should be noted that there have been a number of variance requests
associated with this property relating to its use and occupancy. In 1997, Howard stated, a
variance was granted to allow the property up to 30 roomers subject to compliance with the
principles of what was called the "Leighton House Business Plan." Because the property is not
currently operating under that plan, it reverts back to what the legal occupancy was prior to that
variance, which is 13 persons. There have been other variance requests over the last several years
and an appeal of the City's decision to limit the occupancy of the building to 13 based on the fact
that the 1997 conditions were not being fulfilled. In 2007, the Board upheld the building
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 6
inspector's denial of a rental permit due to over -occupancy. Those matters all concern the
history of this building.
However, the question before the Board today, Howard stated, is for this particular special
exception. The specific standards in the zoning ordinance are for a special exception, not a
variance, and, therefore, are not as high a hurdle as a variance would be.
The first specific criterion for this exception states that "the proposed use will be located in a
structure that was designed for a use that is not currently allowed in the zone." This building
was originally built as a sorority house, a use categorized as fraternal group living which is no
longer allowed in the RNS-12 zone.
The second criterion requires that "the proposed use is of the same or lesser level of intensity and
impact than the existing use." Staff believes that this standard is met because: 1) the proposal is
to limit the occupancy of the building to the same number of people currently allowed, 13; 2) 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; and, 3) 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. While Staff
does note that parking is a problem for the neighborhood in general, Staff does not believe that
this particular special exception will increase that problem.
The third criterion is that "the proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site."
Howard stated that the building was built for numerous occupants, and that changing it from a
rooming house to an apartment building is not going to change the exterior of the building.
The final specific criterion is that "the structure will not be structurally altered or enlarged in
such a way as to enlarge the non -conforming use." Howard reiterated that the alterations will
take place in the interior of the building, not the exterior.
Howard stated that Staff s findings for the general standards are described in the staff report.
Staff does not feel that the proposed exception will be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Because the occupancy would continue to be 13, the
conversion of the house is not expected to generate any additional traffic. Additionally, because
the existing common areas will be substantially reduced, nuisance effects may actually be
lessened.
The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood. The same reasons previously stated by Staff apply to this standard as well,
Howard said.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 7
The 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. The
surrounding neighborhood, Howard said, is already fully developed. The RNS-12 zone is
intended for a mix of residential uses, but is intended to preserve the single-family character of
the neighborhood. Howard noted that this area has been designated a Historic Conservation
District and that by rehabilitating and maintaining this property with a viable use, a historic
structure will be preserved.
There will be no change to the utilities, access roads, drainage or necessary facilities, and all are
deemed adequate.
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, Howard said. However, because there will be no changes to the exterior of
the structure, there will be no change to the setbacks.
Howard noted that the parking is a bit complicated for this property. The concept of "ghost
parking", a provision under the code, is applicable in this instance. This provision gives a
property credit for the parking that would be required if the use was established under the current
regulations. In this case, the property would get credit for ten spaces, even though there are
actually only two spaces provided on the property. With the change to a multi -family use, the
parking requirement would go up to 13. However, Howard said, because the apartments will
each be limited to one person, Staff feels that it is reasonable to keep the required parking spaces
to 10. The applicant has proposed to make additional parking spaces available to his tenants at
932 East College at a property he owns one block to the west at 811/819 East College, where
there is surplus parking. If the Board decides to require these additional off-street parking
spaces as a condition of approval of the special exception, Staff recommends that the Board then
require the applicant to execute a covenant reserving that parking on the other property.
Staff feels that 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. In Staff s opinion, the proposed
exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
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 East College Street.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 8
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 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 dedicating two to three parking spaces on the
property located at 811/819 East College Street prior to establishing the conversion of the
subject property.
Howard asked if there were questions from the Board.
Leigh asked how one occupant per unit would be enforced. Howard stated that it would be on
the rental permit and that the units would be inspected just like every other rental property in the
city.
Leigh asked if it had been established by Staff that there was surplus parking at 811/819 East
College Street, and that providing those additional spaces would not cause any zoning violations
on that end. Howard replied Staff had established the adequacy of the parking at 811/819 East
College Street.
Payne asked about the parking requirements. As she understood it, 13 spaces would be required,
the property gets credit for ten spaces, and it has two spaces. Howard stated that the zoning
requirement is to provide additional parking spaces above and beyond the ones that are there
currently. As a result, the multi -family use will require 13; they get credit for ten; they already
have two; but they would actually need three more spaces. The two spaces do not count toward
the total because they were pre-existing.
Payne asked about the covenant portion of the recommendation, asking exactly what a covenant
means for the property owner. Holecek explained that a covenant is a document that is recorded
and would basically state that the designated parking spaces at 811/819 East College Street
would be dedicated to this particular use. This would allow those spaces to be counted for
required parking for the 932 East College Street property, rather than at 811/819 East College
Street. The covenant would state that there could not be any change in the terms of that parking
arrangement without the participation and agreement of the City. The parking would be
essentially dedicated to 932 East College Street.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 9
Sheerin asked if her understanding was correct that if the property at 811/819 East College was
sold at a later date with a covenant in place, the parking spaces would continue to "belong" to
932 East College even with a change of ownership. Holocek stated that this was correct. The
covenant would come up in the property's abstract and in the title opinion until and unless it was
released by the City or some other material change happened. Sheerin asked if this was routinely
done. Holocek stated that it pertained to everything from shared access drives to off -site parking
arrangements and was not uncommon.
Sheerin noted that there was a request in the letter from Jim and Ann Estin to somehow avoid
having motor -bikes parked on the lawn. Sheerin asked if there was a remedy for that problem.
Holocek stated that the Board was being asked to require that bikes and motorcycles be parked at
the rear of the property. Howard stated that there was no City requirement for any other property
in the neighborhood for bikes to be located in the back. Howard said she felt it would be unusual
to require only one property to park their bikes in the back. Sheerin stated that she believed that
the concern was that there will be so many more people living at this property than at most others
in the neighborhood. Howard said she believed that, technically, parking a motorbike in the
front yard would not be allowed under code. Sheerin said she had driven past the property and
found the front yard very crowded with bikes and scooters.
Payne asked if there were further questions for Staff. As there were none, she invited the
applicant to address the Board.
Mark McCallum, the applicant, said that he has lived in Iowa City for some time. He said that
he created the Brown Street Inn (a bed and breakfast), and that he later sold the Inn to buy the
property at 811/819 East College Street, where he currently resides. McCallum said that he is
very attracted to buildings that are adapted for re -use, and that he does not fit the typical landlord
mold in Iowa City. By this he meant that he was attracted to hardwood floors, and other old,
unique features in buildings.
McCallum said that he had actually reduced his parking at 811/819 East College Street to
provide additional green space. He stated that there continues to be a surplus of six parking
spaces at that property. McCallum said that he is creating bike racks at 811/819 East College
Street in the rear of the building, and that that would also be what he would do for 932 East
College Street. He said that he too dislikes what is presently seen at the front of the subject
house.
McCallum said that he is worried about the implications of having covenants on the 811/819
College Street property. This is a project that McCallum would have to leverage, and part of the
value in that property is its potential for redevelopment, perhaps as condominiums. McCallum
said that his property is actually under-utilized and that most of his one and two bedroom units
are occupied by single individuals. While he is comfortable with that model, he understands that
not all landlords would be. McCallum said that when he bought 811 East College, it was a
building that had a good reputation and was occupied by mostly graduate students. McCallum
said that those types of small living spaces tend to attract a certain type of person, versus a
rooming house which attracts a different type. McCallum stated that he has no interest in
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 10
owning a rooming house. McCallum said that the parking at 811/819 East College would be
available to the 932 East College Street residents for as long as he owned it, but that he was not
comfortable with the idea of a covenant between the two properties. McCallum said that he is a
realtor as well as landlord and that in this situation, he would advise a client that such a covenant
would adversely affect the value of 811/819 East College.
McCallum said that it is his intention to own both the property at 811/819 East College and the
property at 932 East College, as they are a good fit together and are in close proximity to one
another. McCallum typically rents to graduate students and some working professionals, as well
as to some very quiet undergraduates. In his rental contracts he forbids smoking in the building
and has a no keg policy. He also informs potential tenants that the landlord lives on site, which,
serves as its own kind of filtering mechanism. McCallum said that he plans on maintaining a
presence in both buildings, keeping a unit at both 932 and 811 for himself. He said that anyone
who knows him is aware that he is a very active landlord and runs a very different type of
operation. That said, if McCallum runs out of money —as sometimes happens in redevelopment
projects —he may want to consider selling 811/819 East College Street in order to finish the
project at 932 East College Street. McCallum said that one of the things that is attractive to him
about the property at 932 East College Street is that there is significantly less snow removal to
contend with; as he does his own snow removal, this is something he thinks about as he ages.
McCallum said that his plans are to recreate the space while maintaining the integrity of the
building. There will still be the very attractive front parlor at the entrance to the building. In
redesigning the second and third floor units, McCallum plans to combine two rooming units,
putting a bathroom and kitchen on one side and then attaching them to another room. This
would result in units of approximately 400-450 square feet with 3-4 "rooms," with each
delineated living space being called a "room." McCallum said that his target rent is $600 per
month with the heat, water and electric paid by the landlord, a rent he feels is affordable in this
marketplace. He said that he did not believe he would have to separately meter each unit.
McCallum already plans to address the issues that are currently a problem in the front yard, such
as the bicycle and motorbike parking and the wading pool. The vision that he has for the
property includes a wrought iron fence around the front to discourage parking of any kind, and a
bicycle rack on the east side of the property, out of sight from the front view. McCallum said
that although it is perhaps not the most convenient mode of parking, he did believe there may be
an opportunity to do one more stacked space to the north of the building. He said he would be
happy to look at reconfiguring other spaces such as the dumpster location if it would help
address the Board's concerns.
The marketing plan for this building is to try to do an academic -term lease, and to attempt to
increase the number of international students and others who do not bring cars. He is, however,
doing the leasing for the property right now as a rooming house, a process which he said has
been interesting. McCallum said that if he already had 13 studio apartments he believes he
would have signed 13 leases last week. However, McCallum said that rooming units are not
something that people want, and that those who do want rooming units are not necessarily the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 11
people you would want to have as your neighbors. McCallum reiterated that he is not interested
in owning a rooming house. While he believes the property has wonderful potential, his interest
in it will wane if the building cannot be changed from a rooming house to apartments.
McCallum stated that the challenge with this property is that the property taxes are over $20,000
per year. With so few occupants, McCallum asked, how does one pay for all of that square
footage with heating, water and electric and still manage to pay the bills? He said that he does
not believe that it would be possible to do with 13 rooming units. Again, McCallum stated, that
there is very little demand for rooming units, whereas there is a very high demand for studio
units. He noted that the zoning code does not seem to encourage the development of small units,
and that this helps to ensure a healthy market for him. McCallum stated that he had eight
vacancies at 811 East College this year and that they were all filled between March lst and April
I to
McCallum asked the Board if they had specific questions or concerns
Leigh asked about the potential for a third parking space that McCallum had mentioned. He
replied that the area was currently unpaved and leads up to the back door, and that he believes he
can pave to his lot line. Leigh asked if space was on the alley -side of the property. McCallum
replied that it was on the north side of the building where the existing parking is, which, he
believes to be a shared driveway rather than an alley. Leigh asked if it would be possible for
McCallum to include in his lease agreements that any motorized vehicles be parked in the back.
McCallum said he fully agrees with that idea. Leigh said she hated the idea of stacked parking
because then someone will be unable to easily get out of their parking space. She did, however,
like the idea of reserving that space for mopeds, scooters and motorcycles. McCallum noted that
he has found scooters to be more of an undergraduate phenomenon, whereas the graduate
students at his units seem more likely to have bicycles. He said that the Board could be
confident that the scooter issue will go away August lst. McCallum said that bicyclists seem to
want to park their bicycles where they can get easy access to them, and that space in the rear of
the building would be made available for bicycles.
McCallum said that he did have a contract with the current owner to buy the property subject to a
number of provisions, one of which is that the current owner secure a rental permit. McCallum
said that it was his understanding that the current owner had issues with the rental department
and that he did not wish to inherit any portion of that problem. McCallum said that he had
wanted the current owner to secure a rental permit prior to closing on the property, and he asked
if this was inconsistent with Staff s recommendation to have the applicant apply for a rental
permit in order to establish the conversion.
Holecek said that there is currently pending litigation regarding whether or not the current owner
is in compliance and if a rental permit can be issued. Holecek stated that if McCallum applied
for a rental permit for 13 occupants the issue could be resolved.
Howard clarified that the special exception would be in effect when the property was converted,
even if only partially converted. Holecek said that the way the recommendation is structured the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 12
conversion process would begin upon McCallum's application for a rental permit. The building
permit, which McCallum would get prior to beginning interior renovations, would extinguish the
other remaining issues, including the variance for the higher density and the rooming house re-
establishment. McCallum said that it would take at least a year to complete the conversion and
that during that time it would be sort of a hybrid house. Holecek said that this would not be an
issue so long as McCallum's occupancy was limited to 13 persons. McCallum said that his plan
is to sign short-term rooming leases while the building is converted, leaving one side of the
building unoccupied in order to facilitate construction. As the rooming leases expire and the
studio apartments are finished, there will be a time period during which the house is occupied by
both roomers and studio dwellers.
Sheerin disclosed that she believed that McCallum had been the realtor that had represented the
buyer for her house. McCallum said that he had indeed been the realtor for the purchaser, but
that this was the first time he had met Sheerin as she had not been at the closing when it
happened the week prior. Sheerin stated that she did not feel a conflict of interest in continuing
to participate in this decision.
Payne asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor of this special exception.
As no one came forward, Payne invited those wishing to speak against this exception to come
forward.
Bu Wilson stated that she and her husband purchased their home at 1110 East College four years
prior. Wilson said that this was the fourth time in four years that she had had to attend a Board
of Adjustment meeting concerning the property at 932 East College Street. Wilson said that it
was something of a nuisance that the residents of the neighborhood had to attend yearly Board
meetings to defend the rights given to them by the City's zoning codes. Wilson said that it is
also a nuisance to have a property in the neighborhood that is so poorly maintained that it has
turned into an unrestrained party house on more than one occasion. Wilson said that it was quite
a nuisance that the City took five years to legally establish that the Leighton House was not in
compliance with the 1997 variance. Everyone in the neighborhood, Wilson said, was fully aware
of that fact.
Wilson said that the current owner has two appeals of the Board's decisions in the courts at
present. She said that she supposed that that was a nuisance for the City, and that it was certainly
not how she would care to have her tax money spent.
Wilson stated that she considered this property and its current owner to be nothing but a
nuisance. She acknowledged that the building has been such a nuisance that any halfway
reasonable proposal for a change of ownership was likely to look like manna from heaven.
Wilson said that this proposal may turn out to be halfway reasonable. She said that based on the
written documentation and the testimony given by McCallum, the proposal has a lot better than a
halfway chance. The application, Wilson said, attempts to outline point by point the proposed
usage in such a way as to meet the legal minimum requirements for an exception. However,
Wilson stated, only a handful of sentences within the document suggest why a change of usage
would be desirable and in the public interest. Wilson read from the application a sentence stating
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 13
that the change in usage would "offer an affordable alternative to some more expensive extended
stay facilities." Wilson said that this may or may not turn out to be true, and that while
McCallum has had that experience with another property, one must keep in mind that the
Leighton House developers believed there was a market for an upscale women's dormitory, and
that their expectations were not realized. Wilson continued, "The proposed use is a logical fit for
this building." Wilson asked what this phrase actually meant, as it invokes certain ideas in her
mind, but may invoke entirely different ideas in McCallum's mind. Wilson said that while
McCallum has elaborated on his ideas before the Board, she wishes to see those elaborations
documented for the record. "The new model would better utilize the building space and reduce
structural non -conformity," Wilson read. Wilson stated that she was not sure how relevant this
argument was as whoever owns the building has considerable latitude to reconfigure the interior
space with or without a change of usage, so long as the basic minimums of the assigned usage
are met. "The proposed use will eliminate issues associated with group living or rooming
houses," Wilson read. Wilson stated that McCallum does not say in his documentation precisely
what those "issues" are, although his oral remarks have been slightly more forthcoming. Wilson
said that McCallum emphasizes his track record of being a good neighbor in his application
documents. She said that a good neighbor at this property sounds like manna from heaven to
her, but it does not sound like a good reason for the Board to grant a special exception. Wilson
reminded the Board that the exception will be granted to the property and not the person, and that
the next owner of the property might be another neighborhood nuisance. Wilson stated that she
wanted documentation of McCallum's intentions.
Wilson said that she was sure everyone in the room had their own ideas regarding what those
rooming house issues are and how this proposal might reduce or eliminate them. However,
Wilson said, ideas do not go into the record unless they are expressed in words or through
documentation. This applicant, Wilson went on, has not provided enough words. She said that
the minimalist floor plans offered in the application raise more questions than they answer about
the functionality and social engineering of the spatial reconfiguration.
Wilson stated that she could understand why McCallum was hesitant to expand his cryptic
remarks in written form. Apparently, Wilson said, he is still negotiating the purchase of the
property with the current owner, and because of this, may prudently be avoiding criticizing the
current owner. Nonetheless, Wilson said, the applicant has not provided sufficient explicit
explanation and specific information to make his intent clear and give the Board an adequate
justification for granting this exception.
The staff report, Wilson stated, makes assumptions about the restructuring of the building and
how its usage might be in the public interest. The staff report, she contended, practically puts
words in the applicant's mouth. As a resident of the neighborhood, Wilson wants the record to
show what the prospective owner intends, not what the City's staff hopes he means. Wilson said
that she understands why the staff might be tempted by this manna from heaven, saying that she
is sure preparations for these meetings require a lot of frustrating time and effort. Despite Staff s
best efforts, there are lawsuits that result from the Board's decisions, such as the two lawsuits
pending regarding the Leighton House decisions. If this Board accepts the staff
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 14
recommendations, the City will not have to go to court to defend the decisions of previous
boards, Wilson said. Wilson said that even if Staff did not have a problem with this apparent
conflict of interest, she did.
This property, Wilson stated, is in a Neighborhood Stabilization Zone. As the owner -occupant
of a single-family house in the neighborhood, Wilson said that she believes this proposal is
detrimental to her interests unless it is more fully documented that it will make an improvement
to the neighborhood.
Wilson urged the Board to deny the applicant's request or to table it until such time as the
applicant is willing and able to provide adequate documentation of his assertions and intentions.
Wilson thanked the Board for their time and consideration.
Leigh asked exactly what kind of documentation Wilson was hoping to see. Wilson replied that
what she is really concerned about is not McCallum, but the next owner. Wilson said that she
would like to be sure that there is a clear benefit to the neighborhood if the Board rules in favor
of this exception. Wilson said that in looking at the documentation it reads as if there is no
problem with the current situation and as if a "swap -out" of a rooming house for a studio
apartment building would be all that is taking place. Wilson said that she is very much more
reassured by the oral arguments presented by the applicant than she was in looking at the
documentation only.
Wilson said that what she is worried about is that if the owner keeps the building for quite some
time as he has indicated he wishes to, no one will be around to explain in the far-off future what
was intended by the Board in granting this application. The only things that will be left to
explain are words on a piece of paper or blips on a computer disk; the record of these
proceedings may be the only thing that constrains the next owner.
Holecek said that she could address this concern. She stated that the decision of the Board is
recorded and becomes part of the abstract for this property. As such, it would very clear to any
purchaser or potential purchaser that this property is subject to a maximum occupancy of 13
persons. The City, Holecek stated, has tools to enforce those occupancy caps, as well as any
other conditions outlined. Wilson said that in having seen the City's tools in action, she was not
comforted by this explanation.
Payne stated that one of the staff recommendations was to add a condition stating that in the
future no one could take any steps to re-establish a rooming house at the property. Wilson
replied that she rather wondered what would happen if it gets converted to condominiums. She
said that she believed that the proposal was such a welcome one that it was perhaps not looked at
with a sufficiently critical eye as to what may happen to the property beyond this owner.
Payne responded that she did not wish to seem argumentative, but that she believed that the same
was true of any property in any neighborhood. One never knows what will happen at a given
property. Wilson agreed that this was true, and acknowledged that she certainly did not want the
current owner of the property to maintain ownership. Payne said that given the property's recent
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 15
history she certainly understood Wilson's hesitation to accept a proposal without question,
adding that she believed she had been present for three of Wilson's last trips to the Board
regarding variances for this property. Wilson said that part of the reason her statement was so
strongly worded was because she felt it might be the only way that she could get some of those
issues into the record. Payne asked if Wilson had any experience with the other property on
College Street owned by McCallum. Wilson replied that she walks past it every week day and
that McCallum seems to have made wonderful improvements on the property and that it seems
very well -managed. Wilson said that this is the man she wants to own College Hill House, but
that his application was not sufficiently documented. Wilson repeated the point that if the
exception was granted by the Board, her statement may be the only way that some of these issues
enter the record. Payne clarified that all of McCallum's statements are as much a part of the
record as anyone else's comments made at the meeting, and that although some of the things
discussed are not in McCallum's written application, they are nonetheless a part of the official
record by virtue of McCallum's having said them on the record. Wilson said that she believed
that a number of things had been clarified for her.
Esther Baker said that she believed that part of Wilson's concern was not just that some of the
issues discussed be a part of the record, but that they be a part of the motion. Baker stated that
some of the things that had been verbalized by McCallum —things that the neighbors very much
approve of— do not appear on the written application. Baker said that while she was not
wishing any ill on McCallum, it was possible that he could be "run over by a bus" immediately
after the special exception was approved. If that were to happen, the special exception would
now be a part of the property and would match what was written in the application and the way
the Board's motion was framed, but would not match the way that McCallum had explained his
plans for the property tonight. Baker advised the Board to be very careful to use language in
their motion that includes some of the things that do not appear in the application but were
verbalized by McCallum at the meeting. One example of this would be the fact that McCallum
had expressed his desire to remove the concrete area in the front of the building to discourage
parking. Baker wanted to ensure that the language of the motion conveyed the notion that
whether it is McCallum who completes the project or someone else, that these things are a part of
it and have been made a condition of approval.
Baker said that she wished to express that she likes this proposal, and likes the fact that it limits
occupancy to 13 residents. McCallum has been a responsible member of the community and the
neighborhood. As a member of the Historic Preservation Committee, Baker said that she
appreciated McCallum's experience with historic preservation, and has faith that he will respect
the historic integrity of the building.
That aside, Baker said that she and her neighbors do have concerns. Baker noted that the
application is for 13 studio or efficiency apartments, single occupancy units. The staff report
added the idea that it could also be 11-unit studio/efficiency apartments and one 2-bedroom
apartment. Baker said that a unit with two bedrooms invites over -occupancy. Baker said the
applicant only asked for 13 studio efficiencies, a good model for this property, and she does not
understand why Staff would make this suggestion for an alternative. Baker said that she has
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 16
concerns that this alternate option changes the model a little bit. Baker asked what would
happen if the building were converted to condominiums; even if it began as owner -occupied,
they could then turn around and rent them out and over -occupancy would again be an issue.
Baker said she did not know if there was any way of addressing that issue in this exception, but
that it was a concern.
Baker said that parking has been discussed each time this property has come before the Board.
Baker said that while she understands that a covenant on McCallum's other property makes
resale a little difficult, failing to require a covenant makes the parking issue the neighborhood's
problem. The three additional parking spaces needed for this project will have to be absorbed by
a neighborhood that already has serious parking shortages. Requiring the covenant as part of the
Board's motion would be a great relief to neighborhood property owners. Baker reiterated that
she is not against this proposal in principal, but that she just thinks that there are some things that
need to be addressed in the way the Board moves to approve it.
Sheerin noted that both Baker and Wilson had mentioned things that had been verbalized in the
Board meeting but were not included in the staff recommendation. Some of the things
mentioned were swimming pools as a nuisance in the front yard and a desire for moped parking
in the back. Sheerin asked if there was anything else the neighborhood residents had heard in the
meeting that they felt needed to be included. Baker said she would push very strongly for the
parking covenant. Sheerin stated that covenant was already a part of Staff recommendations.
Baker replied that as a member of the Historic Preservation Commission she knew that Staff
recommendations were not always followed to the letter. Baker said that McCallum's idea of
having a wrought iron fence would be both beautiful and a good preventative for parking on the
front lawn. Baker said that while she did not know if it was possible to require a wrought iron
fence as a stipulation for approval, it was her feeling that if the owner intended to put one in
anyway, the condition should be added as a way of preventing some of the problems that have
occurred at this property in the past.
Payne noted that in the staff recommendations it stated that in order to establish the conversion
the applicant must apply for a rental permit. Payne explained that in order for any of this to
happen it is McCallum who must apply for the rental permit. If indeed McCallum is hit by a bus
immediately after the Board approves his exception, Payne explained, any new owner of the
property would have to begin the process all over again. Baker thanked Payne for this
clarification.
Jokingly, Leigh advised McCallum to look out for buses with all of this talk of his potential
untimely demise. Leigh pointed out that the first condition of approval in the Staff
recommendations reads, "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 East College Street." Leigh asked if this reassured the neighbors regarding fears
of over -occupancy. Baker said that she understood that 13 would be the maximum allowed, but
said that in her neighborhood they know from experience that over -occupancy happens. Baker
pointed out that Leigh had asked the question earlier of how to enforce such a limit. Baker said
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 17
the answer given was through inspections. She said that there are ways of fudging on
inspections and that if rooms are larger or if apartments have multiple bedrooms it is really easy
to sneak additional residents in illegally.
McCallum explained that the 2-bedroom discussed in the staff report had been the owner's
quarters under Leighton House, and is a very nice apartment. McCallum said that while he did
not ask for that configuration (11-studios and one 2-bedroom), he had thought that it would make
an excellent owner -occupied apartment. McCallum said that the 2-bedroom would be the last
thing he would be converting and could be made into two really nice studio apartments.
McCallum admitted that he could not predict what a future owner might do, but he reiterated that
he has a track record as a property owner and that he does go the extra mile to create
aesthetically pleasing properties. He noted that he does all of his bicycle parking in the rear, that
he creates green space, and that he has gone to considerable expense to improve his properties,
spending $50,000 on landscaping alone. McCallum said that he had not fully decided to buy the
property when he put the application together and that if the current owner had not kept dropping
the price, he would probably have stayed quite happily in his current arrangement. Leigh
recalled McCallum's own words in which he stated that properties have reputations, and then
advised him that 932 East College Street had one.
McCallum stated that he wished to change that reputation, and said that he is asking the Board to
consider the reputation of the buildings that he has already redeveloped. McCallum said that he
is a neighbor of this property, too. He is a part of the neighborhood, and he is trying to do the
best he can under the circumstances. McCallum said that his intentions are good and that he
does not have to take on this project. From a typical landlord standpoint, McCallum said, a lot of
the things that he has done with his properties do not make any sense at all; at the end of the day
he is almost like a non-profit, putting any excess money he makes back into the properties.
However, McCallum said, if the exception is denied, he will quite happily go back to working on
the grotto he is creating in the back of his property at 811/819 East College Street.
Michelle Campo said that she has been a resident of East College Street since shortly after it
was rezoned to RNS-12, a rezoning which was a strong incentive for her family to move into the
neighborhood. Campo stated that many would agree with her when she says that McCallum is
loved by his neighbors for what he has done to neighborhood buildings. Any negative things she
might have to say about the application are in no way intended to convey a lack of trust in
McCallum as a neighbor. Campo said that she agreed with Wilson and Baker in their emphasis
on the fact that this would be a variance to the land and not to the person owning the land. The
current variance on this property was issued to the LLC, not the land, Campo said. Campo said
that even if McCallum was not hit by a bus tomorrow, he could incur financial difficulty or have
some other cause to sell this property, and Campo said that she wished to emphasize that
eventually someone else will own the building, and as a result, the more specific the Board can
be in their motion, the happier the neighborhood will be.
Campo said that she wished to note that the staff report stated that three additional parking
spaces would be needed for this property; however the staff recommendations say two to three
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 18
parking spaces are needed. Campo said that even if the covenants are put in place — a move she
strongly endorses —the property will still be in reality eight parking spaces short of the
occupancy of 13. Campo pointed out that the neighborhood will still be taking on that parking
burden. Even if McCallum's renters do not own cars, Campo said, their visitors may own cars;
the tenants living there under the next owner may own cars.
Campo said that she also believed that a 2-bedroom unit option, which was not a part of the
original request, invites the opportunity for over -occupancy. Campo said that she wished to
express her frustration with this property and with the number of times the neighbors have had to
come before the Board. Every time a bad business decision has been made on this property, or a
landlord has not properly maintained the property, Campo said, it is the neighborhood that has
had to pay the price. Campo's concern is not with the proposed buyer, she repeated, but for the
long-term implications for the property.
Hillary Sale said that she was happy to get to speak with McCallum this evening. Sale was
personally pleased to hear that McCallum was interested in buying and operating this particular
property. The news that McCallum would be involved gave Sale confidence that whatever was
executed on the property would be well done, as he has a great reputation. Sale said that she
personally would like to see McCallum own and develop this property.
Sale said that she is on the side of the opposition to this project because she has questions and
clarifications that she hopes the Board will take into consideration if they are inclined to grant
this special exception. Sale said she began coming to Board of Adjustment meetings concerning
this property in 1997. Sale said she believed it was fair to say that all of the proposals to which
neighbors have objected have been due to the Leighton House's bad business judgment. The
current proposal is a refreshing change from that because it is an attempt to use the property at
the allowed density, and to try to be consistent with the building as it exists. The proposal does
not promise any grand scheme that cannot be fulfilled, which Sale finds encouraging for the
stability of the neighborhood. It is important to Sale that the record reflects that if this particular
building plan turns out to be a non -starter, the neighborhood should not have to pay the price
with additional variances or special exceptions to try to somehow make this plan work.
The staff report, Sale said, refers repeatedly to the fraternity/sorority building. Although this
building was originally designed and used as a fraternity/sorority house, that has not been a legal
conforming or non -conforming use for a very long time, Sale said. When the variance of 1997
was granted, the property was not a legal fraternity or sorority house under the code operating at
that time.
Sale wished to clarify what she sees as the standard for the special exception, which as she
understands it has a lower threshold than that of a variance. Sale said she has concerns about the
staff proposal, not so much the applicant's. Sale said that the first thing she wanted to mention
was the 11-2 configuration mentioned in the staff report, as opposed to the 13 single -occupancy
units proposed by the applicant. Sale said that regardless of the overall density, the impact on
the neighborhood is not the same with these two configurations. In the neighborhood, Sale said,
there is a house with a legal occupancy limit of three people that last year had seven people
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 19
living in it; the house had seven rooms, so seven people occupied it. Sale said that it is not that
the City staff are not responsive, but that it is a lot of work to deal with over -occupancy
situations and are very hard for the City to prosecute and prove when mattresses go out the back
door as inspectors come in the front door. Sale said that because of this, she personally has a
strong preference for 13 single units on the theory that they are less likely to be over -occupied.
Sale stated that a lot has been learned from the Leighton House experience about use and
enforceability. It was originally approved as a women's dormitory. It then became a fraternity
house, which was of course an illegal use. After that, it became a group house for the men's
track team, also, presumably, an illegal use given the number of people living in the unit.
Currently, Sale said, it is operating as what appears to be a party house. Sale noted that Friday
morning not only were there a lot of beer bottles and broken furniture in the front yard, but that
the special exception sign had been severely damaged. Sale said that despite the fact that there
were all of these concerns, Staff really did not or could not deal with the over -occupancy until
2006-2007.
Sale said that this property has been down -zoned, and the 13 single -occupancy units would help
protect the stability of the neighborhood, while allowing the property to continue in a non-
conforming use.
Sale urged the Board to adopt the parking covenant recommended by Staff if the Board chooses
to grant the special exception. Parking is a consistent issue. The tenants in the house over the
last few years have repeatedly parked on the lawn, which is a tricky issue to enforce. Sale urged
the Board to include McCallum's idea of putting up a wrought iron fence as a condition of the
special exception because she thinks it would eliminate the problem of parking on the lawn.
Sale said that she felt it was important to clarify that any special exception granted be solely for
an apartment building, and would not carry over for another change in multi -family use such as a
condominium conversion. Sale said this was a very important clarification because if condos are
owner -occupied they are, like single-family homes, not subject to occupancy limits. If the
exception was granted only for an apartment building, the rental permits would delineate the
occupancy limits.
The concrete slab in the front yard which has served as a basketball court, a swimming pool pad,
and a parking lot, was to be removed in 1997 as a condition of the variance, Sale said. Sale said
that she would encourage the Board to include the removal of this concrete as a condition for the
special exception. The concrete encourages all kinds of degradation of the property, Sale said,
and is a relatively easy way to try to preserve the character of the property. Sale added that
McCallum is obviously great with gardens as his other building is spectacularly beautiful.
Sale stated that it was not clear to her, based on the Board's discussions of the staff report, when
the rights to the rooming house would actually disappear. Sale said that she had read the staff
report as saying that if McCallum applied for a building permit, the rooming house rights would
disappear. However, Sale said, McCallum has stated tonight that he wishes to operate the
building in a sort of transitional state —part rooming house, part studio apartments —while he
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 20
converts the property. Sale said she could understand the need for that, but that she believed if
the special exception was granted, there would need to be a very clear delineation as to when the
rights to the rooming house would go away permanently and the building would become solely a
13-person studio apartment building.
In summary, Sale provided a list for what she deemed to be ideal conditions for any special
exception granted: 1) 13 single occupancy units, 2) a covenant for parking spaces at 811/819
East College Street, 3) a requirement that all motorbikes and bicycles be parked at the rear of the
property, 4) a fence around the front of the property to ensure that there is no parking on the
lawn, 5) the rooming house provision goes away at some reasonable point that would allow for
the development of the studio units with a clear sunset provision, 6) removal of the cement pad
in the front yard, 7) a clarification that any special. exception is for single occupant apartments
only, and 8) the elimination of any common space in the building other than hallways and the
front parlor.
Sale thanked the Board for their time, stating that the neighborhood appreciated it.
Sheerin disclosed for the record that she works with Hillary Sale, but that no conflict existed
because of this.
Wilson wished to clarify something that she had said earlier regarding the staff report. Wilson
said that she found some of the diagrams troubling because the diagrams looked a lot like flats to
her. Wilson said that she is willing to accept that the applicant knows how to manage this sort of
property because he is doing it now, and doing it very well. She said that she would not want the
applicant tied to the specific diagrams that he proposed. Wilson said that she thinks that he
knows from experience how spaces work, and she thinks the record should show that. She does
not think the record accurately reflected the applicant's experience in managing this sort of
property. That being said, Wilson continued, neighbors don't always agree. Wilson said that she
disagreed with Sale about eradicating common spaces because she thinks the common spaces in
the house are very nice. Wilson said that everyone has their own opinion and now it was up to
the Board.
McCallum clarified that there would be a common laundry room and a separate common room
off of it for folding laundry. The rooms he intends for this purpose have nice historic features
which he wishes to preserve. There will be nonetheless a considerable reduction in the common
space from what is there now.
Payne invited any other speakers wishing to speak for or against the special exception to come
forward. As no one did, the public hearing was closed.
Howard offered some clarification on how this particular special exception works as far as a
timeline. There is a provision in the zoning code that says that a use is deemed converted when
an existing non -conforming use is terminated and a new use commences and continues for seven
consecutive days. In other words, Howard said, if McCallum was converting it, that portion of
the code gives some direction on when the rooming unit was changed over to an apartment.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 21
Once the rental permit for an apartment is in place, it could not be converted back to a rooming
unit. Howard said that she believed that code did allow some provision for McCallum to change
the rooming units over time, and there is a provision in the zoning code that says once it is
converted for more than seven days it cannot be converted back. Howard said there is also a
provision in the housing code that specifies what needs to be included to consider a unit an
apartment.
Howard said that because she was not the staff person who wrote the report and met with
McCallum she was not exactly sure why the alternative option of allowing 11 studios and 1 two -
bedroom unit was put in the staff report and suggested that perhaps the applicant could enlighten
the Board on conversations he may have had with Staff regarding this option. McCallum said
that in looking at his budget he does not know that restricting it to 13 studio apartments was
necessarily going to cause any issues. McCallum said he would probably stick with the 13 units,
unless something unexpected came up and he was forced to sell 811/819 East College. He said
that he tries to focus on the most pressing issues at hand; for example, he did not do the
gardening at 811 until he had all of his units remodeled and rented. McCallum said that he was
walking away from this meeting wondering what to focus on first. McCallum asked why any
landlord would want to convert back to a rooming house once the conversion to apartments had
been made. Rooming units, in his opinion, are un-rentable.
McCallum stated that he was likely to live on the property and while he was currently single, that
the 2-bedroom unit could be a nice option if he were to marry. He said that he tended to live in
his rental properties but that he had never before had two buildings. At some point, McCallum
said, he might sell 811 College, and at that point the owner's quarters at 932 East College would
be a very attractive place for him to live. However, McCallum said, if he gets two apartments
out of it, then that would also fit with his business plan; either way the issue is not a major one
for him.
What would be a deal breaker for him, McCallum said, would be a covenant for parking tying
932 E. College and 811 E. College together because it really skews the value of 811 East
College and he is not sure his bank would like that. To him, the covenant would not be logical,
nor a good investment. He said he would work very hard to meet the standard for parking but
that he simply could not tie the two properties together in that way. He said he would, however,
be happy to work with the Board on all of the other issues.
Leigh asked McCallum if he had any other options for resolving his parking issue. The parking
situation in this town and in this neighborhood is exquisitely sensitive, she said. McCallum said
that he understood that the issue was sensitive, but noted that any other applicant would not
necessarily have another property in the same neighborhood and would therefore not be asked to
execute a covenant for it. He acknowledged that he had in a way touted owning the property and
brought it up himself, but he really felt that such a covenant would be severely detrimental to the
value of 811/819 East College Street. He said he would happily make it available to tenants of
932 for parking, but that he just could not go along with a covenant. He reiterated that it is his
intention to own both properties for as long as possible, but said that in the event things did not
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 22
go as he planned, he may need to be able to sell one to keep the other. He said that he did not
want to do anything that would limit the salability of 811 East College.
Payne asked if McCallum intended to rent the parking spaces to his tenants at 932 East College
or to simply include the option of parking at 811 as part of the rental package. McCallum said
that he did not rent parking spaces to his tenants, but that parking as a feature of a rental is a
value in this town. Payne said that even if McCallum had a covenant that said there were three
spaces available at 811/819 East College Street, it does not mean that the tenants will necessarily
park there. The tenants could still choose to park on the street rather than walk the extra distance
from the parking lot. Payne said that if tenants rented the parking space they may be more apt to
park there. McCallum agreed and said that the fact that the building will have six parking spaces
in one form or another will make his units easier to rent. McCallum said that it was his
understanding that it was technically against the code to rent parking spaces. He said that his
intention was to rent to a clientele that tended not to have cars, but that he could not say that
none of his tenants would have cars. McCallum pointed out that the impact, parking -wise, that
his tenants would be making would certainly not be any worse than the situation is currently.
McCallum noted that there was a misconception about the number of bedrooms the house has;
the staff report says there are 15 bedrooms, but there are actually 17. McCallum said that by
bringing the building into structural compliance the opportunity to over -occupy will be reduced
significantly.
Sheerin said that she understood that McCallum did not wish to legally dedicate parking spaces
from 811/819 East College to 932 East College. She asked if the three spaces being discussed at
the property were currently in use by tenants of 811/819 East College Street. McCallum said
that they were used by tenants and visitors and that he had several vans parked on the property.
He said his actual need at 811/819 East College was for 17 spaces and he has 24 spaces. Sheerin
asked how McCallum would enforce that the three parking spaces would be only for the
residents of 932 East College Street. McCallum said that he did not currently assign parking in
his lot, although he did take down license numbers when completing rental agreements with
tenants. Visitors are allowed to use the lot, McCallum said, but he asks that they use a visitor
pass to identify themselves. He said that he gets to know which cars belong and which ones do
not over the course of the year because he lives on site. Sheerin asked if he would identify three
spaces as being only for residents of 932 East College. She said that her concern was that there
would not in actuality be parking available if there were 17 people plus their boyfriends and
girlfriends parking in his lot. McCallum said that this was not a practice he currently engages in,
in part because the parking spaces are not delineated by lines.
Payne asked for McCallum's opinion on the feasibility of the building being converted to
condominiums if he were to sell it at a later date. McCallum said that he has been watching the
condo -conversion of a building on Dubuque Street. That building has had only one sale,
McCallum said, and the units are over -priced. McCallum said that once he has converted 932
East College to 13 units, it would be unlikely for someone then to come in and reconvert the
units to condominiums. It could be physically done, McCallum said, but the financial cost to do
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 23
something like that would be great. McCallum said the condos on Dubuque Street are going to
run $400,000-$500,000 each, and while that market may be there, he did not believe it was there
for this area of town. If he thought that market was there, McCallum said, a better place to have
done that would have been 811 East College. McCallum repeated that he thought it was
fundamentally unwise to tie together two properties a city block apart with a covenant.
In regard to the condominium issue, Holecek said she has serious trouble finding a nexus for the
special exception to say that a form of ownership is something that the City can legally impose
upon this property. In granting a special exception, Holecek reminded, the issue is never about
"whom" but is always about "what." If the land use is appropriate in this particular place,
Holecek said, then the form of ownership does not matter regardless of whether it is owner -
occupied by a condominium regime, or whether it is a rental.
McCallum said that there is a disincentive to convert to condominiums in that each unit would
have to be separately metered and have separate cooling and heating units. As a result,
McCallum said, the financial path to condominium development is very high, which is one
reason that he is not pursuing that. McCallum noted that his property taxes would drop by half if
the units were condominiums rather than apartments because there would be a residential
rollback and the property would not be commercially taxed. The costs to make those changes,
however, would be astronomical, McCallum said.
Payne said that her question about the feasibility of creating condos in the property was intended
to address concerns some of the neighbors had raised. McCallum said that he did not believe it
was feasible. Holocek asked if he believed it was not feasible even once the units were
converted into 13 separate studio apartments to make it into a horizontal property regime.
Holecek clarified that she believed the concern of the neighbors was that the 13 separate units
would be turned into small condominiums. Payne asked if the units would be fire -walled.
McCallum replied that the existing walls would be used. The only walls he intends to build are
those necessary to create the bathrooms. Payne asked if it would not still take a huge amount of
money to convert the units to condominiums and redo the wiring and plumbing that would be
necessary for separate meters. McCallum agreed that it would, and said that he did not know if it
would even be possible to put 13 separate furnaces in these units. Holecek stated that she did not
know if it would be necessary for each unit to have its own physical power plant, but she said
that she did know that to do an apartment to condominium conversion one must bring the
property up to the current building code standards. McCallum said that the current building code
standard would include all of those things. Holecek said that she had not been into the building
code that deeply, but that she knew that bringing things up to current code standards has served
as a disincentive for apartment to condo conversions.
Howard stated that there is no distinction in the zoning ordinance between a multi -family
dwelling unit and a condominium unit. Howard said that the only difference between the two
concerns ownership and the zoning ordinance does not speak to ownership. If there is more than
one condominium unit in a given building then it is considered a multi -family building. Holocek
said that this was consistent with the principal of land use being about "what" not "who." Payne
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 24
clarified that she was not really considering putting restrictions on ownership as a condition for
the special exception; rather she was investigating the feasibility of the neighbors' concerns
about condominium conversion coming true.
Howard stated that her understanding of the neighbors' concerns was not whether the property
was owner -occupied or renter occupied, rather that it could become over -occupied. Given that,
Howard asked Holecek if a covenant could be recorded on the property, not just on the rental
permit, that limited occupancy to 13. Holocek said that the special exception would become part
of the abstract, and therefore would be recorded on the property as well as the rental permit.
Howard said that this being the case, even if it was feasible for the units to be converted to
condominiums, the occupancy still would not be able to be higher than 13. Holocek said that
this was correct. Holecek said that she believed the neighborhood's concern with a
condominium regime versus a rental regime is that with a rental regime there is a rental permit,
and with it, an ability to enforce based on periodic inspections. Holecek said that if there is any
reasonable belief that there is over -occupancy, even if it was in a condominium regime, the City
could get a search warrant to make an investigation into the over -occupancy. Leigh clarified that
regardless of the status of this property, whether it is owner or renter occupied, there would be a
limit of 13 occupants. Holecek stated that this was correct.
Leigh told Sale that her wish list was incredible, and that she has wish -lists like that in her own
neighborhood. Leigh said that she just was not sure that once a person has purchased a property
that the Board could dictate that a person must remove a concrete pad, and must have a fence.
Holecek stated that a requirement for a fence could be made, but that a wrought iron fence in
particular could probably not be required. Leigh asked Holecek about the 11-2 versus 13 issue.
Holecek said that she thought the Board could require 13 single -occupant units, and
acknowledge that McCallum would be going through a transition and try to put a date -certain for
the end of the transition. Payne asked if they could explicitly state that the applicant had two
years to accomplish the transition, not 20 years. Holecek said that the Board could do this.
Sheerin asked about the bicycle parking in the back. Her understanding of the discussions was
that this could not be required. Holecek said that she believed it would be fine to require that.
McCallum said that he would do that regardless.
Leigh asked McCallum if it was the case that of all the issues discussed by the neighbors the only
issue he truly could not support would be the covenant. McCallum said that this was the case.
He said that he would have no interest in owning the property if the covenant was required.
Sheerin said that her understanding was that McCallum was opposed to the covenant, but that he
would still provide the parking. McCallum said that this was exactly correct. McCallum said
that he simply could not impose on a future owner this relationship with a house down the street.
As a realtor, he would never advise a client to do that, McCallum said. McCallum said that he
had a list of properties for sale that had such covenants on them and that it made things very
complicated and difficult to enforce. Leigh agreed that enforcement was an issue. McCallum
said that such a covenant would be a potential conflict and could inhibit a buyer from purchasing
811 East College Street. He added that he did not intend to sell the property and that he intended
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 25
to die there, joking that this was in part to avoid the capital gains tax. Sheerin noted that there
had been a great deal of discussion about McCallum's mortality during the course of the
meeting. McCallum added that other than the covenant, the issues mentioned were matters that
he intended to do anyway and that he had demonstrated a willingness to do with his other
properties.
Payne stated that the public hearing had already been closed, and thanked McCallum for his
additional comments.
Payne invited discussion from the Board. Holecek noted that there was no motion on the floor.
Leigh asked if the proper procedure would be to make a motion that includes a wish list. Payne
said that they could if that was what they wanted. Sheerin clarified that they would discuss first
and then make a motion.
Sheerin said that she understood the neighbors' concerns about a covenant, but that it did not
sound like the covenant would necessarily mean anything even if there was one, as there is no
way to enforce it to make sure that people are indeed parking in those spaces. Payne said that the
parking situation was kind of a free-for-all. Leigh said that the tenants would know who has a
parking space and who does not, and the enforcement could be up to them. Payne said that the
only reason for a parking covenant is to alleviate congestion on the street, not to make certain a
given tenant has a place to park; it is not intended as a convenience for the person renting the
apartment, but as a convenience for the neighborhood. Leigh maintained that in not insisting on
a parking covenant the Board would be adding to the congestion on the street. Payne maintained
that by requiring the covenant they are also not guaranteeing that those tenants will not park on
the street. Leigh said that failing to require the covenant would be taking parking away from the
neighborhood. Sheerin said that even with a limit of 13 residents, there could be more than 13
cars if some of them had more than one. Payne said that when she read this application, the first
thing she thought of was that this was a street that was already congested with parking and she
thought about what would be the right thing to do for the parking issue. Payne said that she did
not think that putting a covenant on another property would necessarily fix the problem. Sheerin
noted that the covenant could in fact make 811 East College Street a problem if a covenant
would make it undesirable for purchase. Payne agreed that a covenant could be a detriment to
the other property. Payne said that the variance that was done in 1997 seemed like it was done
for the right reasons, but in the wrong way, and that she did not want to make that same mistake.
Leigh said that it sounded to her as though the Board was talking about "who" rather than
"what"; that this seemed like the right plan and the right man for the plan but that the issue is one
of place. Leigh said that to say that the Board would allow for 13 dwelling places but only three
parking spots was really problematic for her. Sheerin said she had the same problem with this
plan. Payne pointed out that currently 13 people can live in the building and there are only two
parking spots; the same problem is going on there already. Sheerin said that it would be an
ongoing problem. Holecek reminded the Board that they had previously made a determination
that the building is actually over -occupied and that there are more than 13 people living there.
Payne said that the Board knowingly has a situation with more than 13 people live on the
property and there is nothing done about the parking.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 26
Howard noted that Staff had contended that there would be no increase in parking congestion
with this plan because there would not be an increase in the number of people allowed to live in
this building. The special exception is to allow conversion from one non -conforming situation to
another non -conforming situation that is of the same or lesser intensity. The staff report
acknowledged that this neighborhood like many other neighborhoods is congested with parking
because there are many buildings that were constructed at a time when there were many fewer
cars. The question, Howard said, is whether the parking congestion with the proposed use would
be the same or lesser intensity than the current situation. Staff s recommendations were based
not on creating something new, but rather that the proposed conversion would not increase the
demand for parking and therefore would not increase the intensity of the use. Sheerin said that if
there were a better plan, she did not know what it would be; it is not as though the Board can
create a parking lot, she said. Payne joked that they could require McCallum to build a parking
ramp. Leigh asked if there was any way to require that future owners provide three additional
parking spaces. Sheerin said that she believed this would create the same problem that a
covenant would place on 811 East College. Holecek said that the property is currently laboring
under a scheme of unenforceable conditions, which goes to Sheerin's question of what to do with
this building. Payne said that she believed the Board should go back to the Staff
recommendation that the proposed use is of the same or lesser intensity. Sheerin said that that is
the bottom line for her; at least it will be better. Payne reiterated that the intensity is not any
worse. Payne read from the staff analysis, "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."
Payne said that what seems to be going on in the building now is intruding on the adjacent
properties. Payne asked if by putting a covenant on another property the Board would also be
intruding upon an adjacent property. Leigh said that this was true of any covenant that exists,
and that there are many of them in the city. Leigh said that she knew of properties on the north
side of town that have off -site parking established through covenants.
Sheerin asked how the other Board members felt about the I I -studio apartments and one 2-
bedroom apartment configuration versus the 13 studio apartments. Payne said that the
applicant's plan was for the 13 studios so she felt that was the way to go.
Sheerin asked if the motion should include the moped parking in back, the fence, and other items
mentioned in the public hearing. The Board discussed that the recommendation by neighbors to
prohibit condominiums in the future was not possible or necessary. Payne asked Holecek if the
Board could make the removal of the concrete pad a condition of approval. Holocek said she
believed the Board could because it tied in with requiring all parking to be in the rear and
removal of the concrete was removal of an attractive parking spot. Payne recommended that the
language for "rear" be changed to "north" to make it clear what side they intended.
Leigh asked McCallum if the entryway he wished to preserve would be adequately described as
a parlor, if the language was crafted in such a way as to eliminate all common areas except the
hallways, laundry and parlor area.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 27
Payne said that 13 single -occupancy units could be added to the first staff recommendation.
Holecek and Howard advised that if the Board was trying to eliminate the alternative
configuration which includes a 2-bedroom unit, they could simply leave out the second half of
that sentence.
Leigh made a motion 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 East College Street.
2. The converted use shall consist of 13 single -occupant multi -family dwelling units.
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. The conversion shall be
completed within three years of application for the building permit.
6. The application is also contingent upon:
A) All parking of motorized or non -motorized vehicles will be to the rear, the
rear being the north side of the building.
B) A fence will be erected in the front, the front being the south side of the
building, to ensure that that area of the yard is not used for parking.
C) The cement pad in the front of the building will be eliminated.
D) All common space with the exception of the front entryway, front parlor,
laundry facilities and hallways will be eliminated.
Sheerin seconded the motion.
Payne began the findings of fact with Specific Standards (144E-513-2).
A. The proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is
not currently allowed in the zone.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 28
Payne stated that as rooming houses and fraternity/sorority uses are not allowed in the
RS-12 zone, the uses for which this structure was originally designed and subsequently
modified are not currently allowed in the zone. Thus, Specific Standard A is met.
B. The proposed use is of the same or lesser level of intensity and impact than the
existing use.
Payne stated that through the Board's discussions, they have found the plan for 13 single -
occupancy studio apartments to be of equal or lesser impact than the 13 unit rooming
house for the following reasons:
1. 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.
2. 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 and
overflowing garbage resulting from house parties or other large communal gatherings
that are often associated with rooming houses that feature large common areas.
3. Since the proposed use will not increase the occupancy beyond what is currently
allowed it seems unlikely that the new use will increase parking congestion in the
neighborhood.
C. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site.
Payne said that the building has more than 8,700 square feet of floor area, so it is clearly
suitable for the proposed use. Establishing a maximum occupancy of 13 studio
apartments will ensure that the new use will not increase the intensity of use.
D. The structure will not be structurally altered or enlarged in such a way as to enlarge
the non -conforming use.
Payne stated that a number of interior renovations will be completed in order to
accommodate 13 studio apartments. These alterations will not enlarge the building's
non -conforming use and will not alter the building's exterior.
Payne continued with the 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.
Payne stated that this conversion is not expected to generate any additional traffic beyond
what would be expected of the 13-resident rooming house.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 29
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.
Payne said that incorporating much of the existing common area into separate apartments
will reduce the likelihood of nuisance activities that are typically associated with similar
properties featuring large amounts of shared space, such as parties, excessive noise,
overflowing garbage, etc. These measures will help counteract the poor reputation that
the house has under its current use, which will in turn help the surrounding neighborhood
to better enjoy their property.
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.
Payne stated that 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 predominately 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. The applicant is attempting to
do that by maintaining this historical building in this neighborhood, and by not over-
populating the lot that it is on or the building that it is in. The applicant would not be
changing the exterior in order to do that, so it will not impede the surrounding property
for uses in the zone.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
Payne noted that all necessary utilities and drainage are already 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 or egress.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone on which it is to be located.
Payne stated that the building itself is non -conforming in terms of required setbacks for
multi -family uses in this zone, however there is no proposed change to the exterior of the
building so there is no enlargement of the non -conformity.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
July 9, 2008
Page 30
Payne noted that 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. By preserving this structure in this neighborhood, this proposal seems to
be consistent with what the Comprehensive Plan intends.
Sheerin wished to add to the findings of fact that by requiring all parking to be in the rear and
removing the concrete pad in the front of the building, McCallum would be improving the
aesthetics of the building, thereby improving the neighborhood in general. Hopefully, Sheerin
added, the same would be true of the common space: its removal would reduce the likelihood of
over -crowding in the building.
Leigh said that she wished to reiterate that in light of the specific standards, the general
standards, and zoning in general, a compromise had to be made somewhere. Leigh remarked
that this is a big building and something has to be done with it; it has to have a use. Because the
application proposes a use that is of the same or lesser intensity as the current use it is not going
to add congestion. The alterations to the interior are not going to enlarge the non -conformity.
Leigh stated that she believed the compromise on the parking issue was necessary.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-0 (Wood recused, Thornton absent).
Payne declared the motion approved and stated that anyone wishing to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within thirty days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's
Office.
OTHER:
There was none.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
There was none.
ADJOURNMENT:
Leigh motioned to adjourn the meeting. Sheerin seconded. All voted in favor of adjournment,
3-0 (Thornton and Wood absent).
The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
O
O
al
O
N
r
N
e-
co
O
O
Cl*
Z
co
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
K
CC
X
LU
K
X
X
O
le
X
x
x
X
0
X
X
x
x
M
M
Z
x
X
x
K
N
�
(7)
i
r
Z
i
Z
Z
Z
Z
U)
p
O
e-
N
N
C a
O
O
O
O
O
O
X
LL1
O
O
O
O
O
O
co
N
m
Q i
Gi
0
Z
,C3 Q
0)
�.
N
Iry U
J
O
H
�
�
>
c�a COOo
> U o
Y
Z4,
a
W
N
L
X
C
E
W
%P
N
Q
Q
O
Z
o
Z
X
O
UJ
o
Z
i
w
1