HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2010 Board of AdjustmentCITY OF IOWA CITY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
5: 15 P.M.
Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA &
STAFF REPORTS
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Department of Planning
& Community Development
AGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL — EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the April 14, 2010 Board Minutes
D. Special Exception:
EXC10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Nila Haug and Dennis Nowotny for a special
exception to allow a bed and breakfast inn to operate in the Central Business Service (CB-2) zone at
511 E. Washington Street.
E. Board of Adjustment Information
F. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: June 9, 2010
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC10-00004
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Requested Action:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Applicable code sections:
File date:
BACKGROUND:
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: May 12, 2010
Nila Haug & Dennis Nowotny
517 Washington
Iowa City, IA
319-354-4284
Special exception to allow a Bed and Breakfast
Inn to be located in the Central Business Service
(CB-2) zone.
511 East Washington Street
12,000 Sq. feet (approx.)
Residential (CB-2)
North: Commercial (CB-2 and CB-5)
South: Commercial (CB-2)
and Residential (RNS-20)
East: Commercial (CB-2)
West: Commercial (CB-2)
14-4C-2E, specific criteria for Bed and Breakfast
Inns; 14-413-3A, General Criteria for all special
exceptions
April 15, 2010
The zoning code allows two types of Bed and Breakfasts:
1. A Bed and Breakfast Homestay is defined as an accessory use within an owner -
occupied single-family or duplex unit, in which no more than 3 bedrooms are provided
to guests who stay for periods not to exceed 14 days. A Homestay is a provisional
use —it is reviewed administratively.
2. A Bed and Breakfast Inn is an accessory use within an owner occupied single-family
or duplex dwelling unit with a maximum of five bedrooms provided to guests who stay
for periods not to exceed 14 consecutive days. A Bed and Breakfast Inn requires a
special exception.
The subject property, 511 East Washington Street, is located in the Central Business
Service (CB-2) zone. The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a Bed and
2
Breakfast Inn. The applicant has operated a Bed and Breakfast Inn at the adjacent property
(517 East Washington) since 1990. In 2009, the applicant was issued a citation by the
Building Official for renting rooms at the subject property (51 1) without a rental permit.
Upon inspection it was discovered that rooms had been created without a building permit.
This includes the addition of at least one bedroom, a kitchen, and a number of bathrooms.
There are presently five bedrooms in the subject house. The Building Official provided the
applicant with a list of items that must be brought into compliance with the building code;
a new inspection is scheduled for May 24.
By order of the court, the applicant is currently allowed to rent no more than three
bedrooms at 511 East Washington under the provisions of the Bed and Breakfast
Homestay use. The applicant is requesting a special exception for a Bed and Breakfast Inn
in order to increase the number of rooms available for rent from three to five.
ANAL YS/S.
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to
encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the
full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent
property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is
found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-4C-2E
pertaining to Bed and Breakfast Inns in addition to the general approval criteria for special
exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A.
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included
on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general
approval criteria are set forth below.
Specific Standards (14-4B-4E-5).
Bed and Breakfast Inns are allowed in owner -occupied detached, single-family dwellings,
subject to approval of a special exception by the Board of Adjustment and provided that the
following criteria area met:
1 . The principal use of the property must be an owner -occupied single family dwelling.
City housing code defines owner occupancy as "an owner who is physically present
in the dwelling and is engaged in activities of daily living, including but not limited to
sleeping, cooking, eating, sanitation at least 90 days in a calendar year." Principal
Use is defined in the zoning code as "the primary use of land or a structure as
distinguished from an accessory use, e.g., a dwelling is a principal use on a lot in a
residential zone, while a garage or pool is an accessory use." Accessory Use is
defined in the zoning code as "a use that is subordinate to the principal use of the
property and contributes to the comfort, convenience, or necessity of the
occupants, customers, or employees of the principal use."
The applicants indicate that the principal use of the property is an owner -occupied,
single-family dwelling but have provided no evidence to support this. The property at
511 East Washington has five bedrooms, and the applicants wish to make all five
bedrooms available for rent. Staff believes that the application cannot satisfy the
requirement that the principal use of the property is an owner -occupied single family
dwelling if all five bedrooms in the home are available for rent. By making all five
bedrooms available for rent, staff believes the owner -occupied, single family use
would be subordinate to the rental use.
2. No more than five (5) bedrooms are provided to guests who stay for periods not to
exceed 14 consecutive days. The subject property currently has five bedrooms. The
applicants wish to make all five bedrooms available for rent, and have indicated in
their application that guests will not stay in excess of 14 days.
3. A minimum of three off-street parking spaces must be provided in addition to the
parking spaces required for the dwelling. Parking spaces may be located one behind
the other. A total of four spaces are required. The property provides seven parking
spaces off the rear alley. This is more than what is required for the proposed Bed
and Breakfast Inn.
4. Non-resident employees are prohibited, except as provided by the building official as
a Minor Modification, according to the procedures and approval criteria for the Minor
Modification as set forth in 14-4B'. The applicants have indicated that no non-
residents will be employed at the proposed Bed and Breakfast Inn. If the applicants
choose to have a non-resident employee in the future, they are required to secure a
minor modification.
5. ff dwellings contain rooming units from permanent roomers, the number of permitted
bedrooms for a Bed and Breakfast Inn is reduced by the number of rooming units.
The application indicates that the applicant is aware of this requirement and if there
are permanent roomers the number of bedrooms used for the bed and breakfast are
reduced.
6. Fire protection equipment must be installed and maintained according to the
currently adopted International Residential Code. An inspection of the property
conducted on April 6, 2010, found that one smoke alarm was not functioning. The
applicants have indicated that this has been corrected. The property is scheduled for
re -inspection on May 24.
7. Signage identifying the Bed and Breakfast Inn is limited to one non -illuminated sign
not exceeding two square feet in area. There is no sign in place for the Bed and
Breakfast at 511 E. Washington. A two foot square, non -illuminated sign is allowed
without a permit. No other signs are allowed on the property.
8. Every two years, the operator must obtain a rental permit authorizing this use from
the City after establishing compliance with City ordinances. The applicants have
applied for a rental permit and an initial inspection has taken place (see attached
notice of violation). The applicants must bring all items into compliance with building
code requirements in order to secure a rental permit. A re -inspection is scheduled for
May 24. In addition, the notice from the building inspector indicates that a building
permit and inspection are required for an attic room and plumbing that were added
without a permit. The attic room is one of the five rooms that the applicants wish to
make available for rent.
Through a Minor Modification, a Bed and Breakfast Inn may employ up to one non-resident employee.
General Standards (14-48-3)
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff believes this criterion cannot be satisfied until the
Building Official has inspected the property to ensure that all items meet code standard,
including a building permit and inspection for renovations to the attic and plumbing fixtures
installed.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of commercial
and residential uses. If the home is brought into compliance with all building code
requirements as described above, Staff believes this would be an appropriate location for a
Bed and Breakfast Inn.
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. See criterion 2 above.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are
being provided. The subject property is located in a neighborhood that is fully developed.
All utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are in place to serve the 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. The subject property provides
adequate parking for the use. Ingress and egress from the public alley are sufficient to
serve a use of this size and intensity.
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. Staff believes
this criterion cannot be satisfied until the Building Official has inspected the property to
ensure that all items meet code standard, including a building permit and inspection for
renovations to the attic and plumbing fixtures installed. If all five bedrooms are made
available for rent, staff believes that the application cannot satisfy the code requirement that
the principal use of the property is owner -occupied single family.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The
Comprehensive Plan does not address the issue of Bed and Breakfast Inns directly.
However, the code does encourage a diversity of businesses and uses that serve the
community. The zoning code supports this through its provisions to allow Bed and
Breakfast Inns and other accessory uses in owner -occupied, single-family dwellings.
The Plan does address public safety directly and includes goals to "continue to maintain
the prevention of fire as the primary objective of the fire department" and to "actively
participate in the enforcement of building and fire codes." The Building Inspector has
notified the applicants of violations with regard to fire protection, electrical wiring and gas
piping. Until the Building Inspector can verify that these items are in compliance with the
building code, Staff believes the proposed exception is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Summary
Staff finds that although this location may be appropriate for a Bed and Breakfast Inn, the
current status of the property is in violation of the building code. Staff suggested that the
applicant defer consideration of this special exception until these violations have been
resolved. The applicant has chosen to proceed at this time.
Given that the property contains 5 bedrooms and the application requests that all 5 bedrooms
be permitted for use in the Bed and Breakfast Inn raises questions as to whether the principle
use is an owner occupied dwelling. Staff believes that by making all five bedrooms available
for rent, the owner -occupied, single family use would be subordinate to the rental use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC 10-00004, an application for a special exception to establish a
Bed and Breakfast Inn in at 511 East Washington Street be denied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Aerial views of the proposed location.
2. Location map
3. Notice of violation from the City Housing inspection Dept.
4. Application materials
Approved by:
A��-
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
April 7, 2010
The Department of Housing and Inspection Services inspected the property listed below on April 6, 2010. The following items
have been determined as violations of Title 17, Chapter 5; the Iowa City Housing Code and are hereby brought to your
attention for correction:
OWNER/AGENT:
Nila Haug
517 E Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
511 E Washington Street
INSPECTED WITH: Dennis Novotny
Attic Area:
19-I: ELECTRICAL: North bath area electrical outlet under window not grounded. See handouts for wiring options.
19-Q: FIRE PROTECTION: Smoke alarm is not functioning.
2`d Floor:
19-I: ELECTRICAL: South East side outlets not grounded. See handouts for wiring options.
Basement Area:
19-I: ELECTRICAL: Breaker box on east side missing breaker knock -outs.
194 PLUMBING: Water heater relief valve piping is not sized correctly.
19-K: GAS PIPING & APPLIANCES:
Gas piping to water heaters does not meet code.
Verify that flue for water heaters in sized correctly.
Exterior:
19-G: EXITING: Landings are missing from sliding glass doors on south side of dwelling.
14-7C-3A2 & 17-1-1 permit required: Attic renovations appear to be completed without a permit. Multiple plumbing fixtures
added without permit. Apply for required building permits.
REINSPECTION: May 24th @ 11:00 a.m.
BY: Stan Laverman, 356-5135, stan-laverman@iowa-city.org
This reinspection will be carried out to determine code compliance. No fee will be assessed for the initial reinspection and for one reinspection of exterior
work that has been granted an extension to complete. A $60 fee will be assessed for each additional reinspection which must be scheduled. A $50 "no
show" fee will be assessed for each reinspection at which the owner/agent fails to appear in order to provide interior access.
FAILURE TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN ISSUANCE OF A CITATION AND FURTHER LEGAL ACTION
BEING TAKEN. Should you wish to contest this order, Appeal Request forms can be obtained at the Housing Inspection office, 410 E. Washington Street. Any
appeal must be received in the office of the City Clerk within ten (10) days of your receipt of this notice. Failure to request an appeal shall constitute a waiver of the
right to a hearing and this notice shall become a final determination and order. When all applicable provisions of the Housing code of the City of Iowa City have been
complied with, the Department of Housing and Inspection Services will issue a Certificate of Structure compliance and/or Rental Permit. If seasonal weather or
extraordinary circumstances prevent compliance, an extension of time may be requested in writing from your inspector.
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 • (319)356-5000 • FAX (319)341-4020
fP_A-pPLICATION TO THE
2010FPRgOk#ftD OF ADJUSTMENT
-I U VA C �kV�ECIAL EXCEPTION -
DATE: "7 /'Z/-" 16) PROPERTY PARCEL NO. /0/ 0 15—
PROPERTY ADDRESS: yr// �,i Sf� i/-�� -16 ZJ
PROPERTY ZONE: i 6 -- 3__
PROPERTY LOT SIZE:-/ v f�
APPLICANT: Name: / tl 1 k /A- /� �i G� L_,,UQj -s 106
Address: .7`
Phone•
CONTACT PERSON:
Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER:
Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
6T/jx
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception: 1 O �J� ✓n 7� v� Ll,�j/ 4 %� G� ��
3 4-y d 6 /, Lr$/,� i= 4 s r
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
-2-
In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide responses to all of the
information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date
for your application. A pre -application consultation with Planning staff is STRONGLY
recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria.
As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be
granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official
statement, you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner.
A. Legal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary):
You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing a parcel
search for your address on the Assessor's website at www.iowacity.iowaassessors.com/
or by calling 319-356-6066.
B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information: a�
�1. Lot with dimensions;
--2. North point and scale;
`- 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines;
v 4. Abutting streets and alleys;
I-15. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property
opposite or abutting the property in question;
,z 6. Parking spaces and trees- existing and proposed.
Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your
special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking
spaces, etc.)
Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that
the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the
Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that
apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just
be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are
being met. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described ir1 14-4B-4
of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are
listed elsewhere in the Code.)
7f( _��
IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE
ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-
city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application
and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment.
Q
tom.
Pa:�'B:a
<
s
w
`C-0
W
Legal Description for 511 Washington:
Parcel Number 101045005
Corn 15' W of NE Co r Lot 3 B i k 41, W 80',
S 1501
, E 761/2, N 10', E 3 1/2', N 1401
Q
C
d
2.0
f_S •.
a r-.
Cn
r
-
�n
CIO
<a)
Id:
�, -114 .
011
0&�:VIV14. UG
Alf 4
tv Apra'
I `�
S fl LLG(
A /for" n/u
b W k) �% k,
'15
C=
C-j
CA
ri
m
7j
CO
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
for property at 511 Washington
N
A. Legal description is attached.
B. Plat plan/Site plan showing points 1-7 is attached.
C. Specific Approval Criteria:
Specific Approval Criteria as requested on the form I was
given and listed in 14-413-4 of the Zoning Code refers to
the specifications of the building. I believe this building,
constructed in approximately 1915, is in compliance.
Specific approval criteria for uses listed for the special
exception I am requesting are found in 14-4C-E of the
Zoning Code. (Copy of this code is attached)
1. The principal use of the property is an owner occupied
detached single-family dwelling.
2. No more than five (5) bedrooms are provided to
guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen
(14) consecutive days.
3. A minimum of three (3) off street parking spaces must
2::,
be provided in addition to the parking�§OM%A Pft&ed for
the dwelling. There are seven (7) parkiAft ,111,
"MOV1
provided.
4. There are no nonresident employees.
5. If there are permanent roomers, the number of
permitted bedrooms for bed and breakfast use is reduced
by the number of roomers.
6. Fire protection equipment - smoke detectors in each
bedroom and fire extinguisher installed in view on each
floor -as required by the international residential code.
7. There is no sign.
8. A bed and breakfast rental permit has been paid for
and the house has been inspected. The inspector
indicated several infractions which have been corrected.
We have not yet received the written report.
This house is identified as a single family building. It
currently is in the process of permit application for use as
a bed and breakfast. It is located in a CB-2 zone. Bed
and breakfast homestays of three units or bed and
breakfast inns of five units are a permitted use in this
zone by special exception. I am requesting the special
exception for five units (See 14-4C-E). There is adequate
parking on the premises for parking of seven vehicles -
3
four at 9' wide and three at 8' wide bi��.i Pig, is 33
CITY C1 ER4
I have very successfully owned and op���t (i AP ed and
Breakfast The Golden Haug at 517 Washington for twenty
years. I have purchased, updated and saved three side -
by -side historic homes which significantly enhance the
neighborhood. The property taxes I pay in addition to the
12% hotel and sales tax which I must collect enriches the
budget coffers of Iowa City. If you visit Trip Advisor on the
internet, you can read many excellent reviews of the
visitors who have stayed with us which illustrates the
positive effect our operation has on the neighborhood and
the City of Iowa City.
D. General Approval Criteria:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental
to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or
general welfare of the neighborhood or the general public
passing through the neighborhood. Having lived in the
neighborhood the past 20 + years, I believe the care I give
to the maintenance inside and outside of the dwellings I
own demonstrates the positive effect on the surroundings
and gives guests and people walking and driving by a
1
pleasurable experience. 2010 APR 15 PH 1; 33
2. As pointed out previously, t�` WeNi �'Rc proposed
exception for a bed and breakfast inn has not been and
will not now be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity, and in fact, rather
than diminish will substantially improve the property
values in the neighborhood not only for the properties I
own, but those owned by my neighbors as well.
3. Establishment of a bed and breakfast inn will not
impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district in which this property is located
and hopefully will be an encouragement to my neighbors
to "keep up with the Haugs" in taking care of their own
properties.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and/or
necessary facilities have been provided by the previous
owners. Additionally, the parking spaces have been hard
surfaced to provide proper drainage.
5. Adequate measures have been taken to provide
5
ingress and egress to the required parking spaces which
are accessible from the alley. This parking design
minimizes traffic congestion on the public street.
6. The type of exception I am requesting for a bed and
breakfast inn requires a special rental permit which I have
already paid for and for which I have had an inspection.
The specific items needing correction that were found on
the walk through have been corrected, i.e., smoke alarm
not working, an electric outlet missing a ground, a GFI
fixed, relief valve pipe on water replaced and we are
creating the new step configuration from the rear
entrances although we have not yet received a written
report.
a
7. The proposed use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City. _ �'
a --0
According to the Zoning Code 14-1-3: PURPOSE:
A. Generally: The provisions of this title are intended to
implement the city of Iowa City's comprehensive plan in a
manner that promotes the health, safety, order,
convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the
6
citizens of Iowa City. MI APR 15 PPI I
CITY -1111
B. Specifically: The provisions of this tijam S " cifically
intended to:
1. Conserve and protect the value of property through the
city; (and specifically to my neighborhood)
2. Encourage the most appropriate use of land and foster
convenient, compatible and efficient relationship among
land uses; (especially appropriate for an economically
obsolescent residence in a commercially zoned
neighborhood)
3. Provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types
to meet the needs of the city's population: (and
specifically providing the opportunity for a family
consisting of Mom Kate, age 89, brother Gary, age 50,
son Kirk, age 40, my husband Den, age 60, and myself,
age 68, to live and work together in a viable business, in a
very efficient manner and affordable way especially in this
recessed economic era)
4. Promote the economic stability of existing and future
rl
N=�
",,APR/
,, APB
land uses that are consistent with the com r Jvep �`3
e
f0[ �� a
plan and protect them from intrusions by inc omtafF�
land uses; (thus protecting the neighbors from the
sprawling apartments which bring noise, congestion from
cars, and the squalor of student living)
5. Lessen congestion in the streets and promote safe and
effective access to property; (which our limited number of
guest rooms and provided parking promote along with the
wonderful landscape lighting which we provide for the
safety of our guests. Additionally, because we operate a
business, we faithfully keep our city sidewalks free from
ice and snow in the winter for which we have been
thanked numerous times by the people on foot.)
6. Prevent the overcrowding of land; (by limiting the
number of guests we accommodate in contrast to
multiple unit apartments housing many people)
7. Avoid undue concentration of population; (few guests
and plenty of green space)
8. Conserve open space and protect natural, scenic, and
historic resources. (We have provided beautiful fragrant
gardens, protected the natural flowers, and saved a
historic house which may have been demolished for
another use).
'tit,
C.;, Cj,
Q
W
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 14, 2010 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings,
Caroline Sheerin, Leanne Tyson,
MEMBERS EXCUSED: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark, Geoff Franzenburg, Yasser Gaber,
Mohamed Hassanein
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:17 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: Anderson, Eckstein, Jennings, Sheerin (Tyson not present at time of roll call).
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 10T" 2010:
Jennings offered three typographical changes to the minutes. Eckstein noted that the minutes
were extraordinarily detailed and accurate; Sheerin concurred.
Anderson motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Eckstein seconded.
The motion carried 4-0 (Tyson not present at time of vote).
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 2 of 22
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC10-00001: An application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to allow off -
site parking in a municipal parking facility to satisfy the minimum parking requirements
for a mixed use building to be constructed in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 225
South Gilbert Street.
Walz pointed out the location of the property on an overhead map, noting that it was the former
site of Happy Joe's, which was destroyed a few years ago by a tornado. The applicant is
proposing a five story mixed -use building with commercial uses on the ground floor and
residential uses above. Walz said that off-street parking is now required for residential uses
located in the CB-10 zone. The residential use will consist of sixteen apartments. Based on the
number of bedrooms per apartment, the minimum required parking for the project is 24 spaces.
Walz explained that the applicant has proposed eight parking spaces on -site. She said there
are restrictions on where those spaces can be located within the structure; generally, they are
underground or at the back of the building. The applicant has requested permission to provide
the other sixteen required parking spaces in the Chauncey -Swan public parking ramp. This
ramp is located about 500 feet from the subject property. Walz said there are approximately
475 spaces in the Chauncey -Swan ramp, 400 of which have had permits issued for them,
leaving 75 spaces open for spontaneous public use. Walz noted that not all permits are used
regularly, and usually there are more than 75 spaces available. She said that the ramp is rarely
at capacity except for occasionally during a Farmers' Market (which takes place on the ground
floor of the ramp) or other large events downtown.
Walz stated that prior to 2009, there were no parking requirements for residential uses in the
CB-10 zone. In fact, she said, if a developer wished to provide parking on -site they had to seek
a special exception to do so. Part of the reason for this was to restrict the amount of land
devoted to parking in the Downtown in order to encourage better land use, and that parking
downtown should be primarily for commercial purposes and be provided in the ramps. Walz
said that at the time the old code was written there was not a lot of demand for residential uses
in the downtown area. She said that as demand for residential units downtown began to grow,
the City realized that there was an imbalance, and that needed parking was not being provided
because the code actually discouraged it.
As a result, and at the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the
code was rewritten to ensure that an adequate number of parking spaces were being provided
for residential units downtown. Provisions were made within the code to allow developers to
provide parking spaces off -site through the special exception process; 100% of the spaces
could potentially be provided off -site; however, each case is reviewed individually. Walz said
that staff believes the requirements for the special exception have been satisfied because:
1) The subject use is in the CB-10 zone;
2) Although the 600 foot requirement does not apply in this case, the subject property is
located 500 feet from the ramp;
3) The applicant has requested 16 spaces for long-term rental and the Director of
Transportation Services has indicated in writing that these spaces are available, and the
capacity of the ramp will not be exceeded by granting them;
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 3 of 22
4) There are 475 spaces at the ramp and the permits that are assigned there are reviewed and
adjusted annually;
5) The location of the off-street parking is appropriate because the locations of the property
and the parking are in close proximity to each other, with safe and controlled sidewalk and
intersection access between the two;
6) The proposed site is in a municipal parking ramp which is designed to provide safe
vehicular access, and ingress and egress from the ramp are designed with good visibility;
7) The ramp is already constructed so there will be no changes to the area that result from
granting this special exception.
Walz said that with regard to the requirement for a written agreement, the applicant has
provided a letter from the Director of Transportation Services indicating that the 16 spaces are
available for use on a long-term basis. She said that the because the off -site location being
requested is a City -owned facility, staff recommends that the applicant submit the required
written agreement as part of the building permit application based on the number of spaces
approved by the Board. Staff also recommends that any agreement provide that the parking
permits must be offered to residents of the subject property at a rate not to exceed that
determined by the Director of Transportation Services; that rate will be based on the market ate
at the time of leasing. Walz said that there is nothing in the code that necessarily ties those
spaces to the residents of the building, as the residents may not even want or need parking.
Walz said that it is nonetheless staff's belief that the spaces should be offered to residents prior
to being offered to anyone else.
Walz said she would not go over the general standard but would let the Board ask her questions
if they have any.
Sheerin invited the Board to ask questions of staff.
Jennings said that he understood that 16 spaces will be allocated whether or not the tenants in
the subject property decide they want to use them. He asked if it was correct that the spaces
would remain allocated regardless of whether they were actually used. Walz said that was
correct. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the spaces would not be assigned; there would be
no particular set of spaces that were reserved just for this property. Rather, the residents would
have a permit with which to find a space somewhere in the ramp. Sheerin asked if a member of
the public could park in that space. Walz said that a member of the public could park in any
space as residents will not have specific parking spots reserved, nor will they necessarily be
guaranteed a space on a given day. The permit system operates on a first-come/first-serve
basis.
Jennings said that he was attempting to ascertain whether the Board was discussing actual
parking spaces or simply permits. Walz said the issue at hand involved permits, which grant the
right to park when space is available at no additional hourly charge. Jennings asked how the
number of required parking spaces was calculated. Walz said the figure is drawn from the
number of residential units and the number of bedrooms per unit. She said the parking
requirements are different for a two -bedroom apartment and a three -bedroom apartment.
Jennings pointed out that the parking requirement is for actual space, not the prospect of space.
Walz said that the intent of the code is for the space to be provided. Walz said that any three -
bedroom unit in Iowa City has a parking requirement of two spaces. Jennings said that the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 4 of 22
physical space that is being required by the code is not actually being provided; a permit is
being provided. Walz said that the Transportation Services Director evaluates whether there is
a reasonable expectation that a space could be found in the ramp on a regular basis. Walz
noted that she did not believe that spaces would be allocated in a ramp that was regularly over-
capacity. Greenwood Hektoen stated that it is in the City's interest to allow multiple people to
use a given space. She said the parking director has analyzed the matter and has expressed a
preference that such spaces not be assigned. Jennings said that his issue is that under the
findings it says that the applicant has requested 16 spaces for long-term use, not 16 permits.
He said the applicant has requested actual space, not the possibility of space. Sheerin said this
might then be a question for the applicant. Walz said she thought it had more to do with what
the City Council had legislated as the appropriate means for providing parking spaces. She
said the idea was to manage demand, and City Council had specifically determined that
demand could be managed by providing parking permits at a municipal ramp. She said she did
understand, however, Jennings' concern with the terminology of spaces versus permits.
Jennings said that he is concerned about the language. He said if the intent of the requirement
is that for so many occupants there must be a certain number of parking spaces provided, then
that would mean that actual space, not just a permit, should be provided. Sheerin asked if he
would be more comfortable if the language used the term "permit" as opposed to "spaces".
Jennings said that he also has concerns with the implications of language like "in perpetuity"
and "long-term." He said that he was concerned that a whole system of phantom parking
spaces was being created, where the City was leasing spaces in perpetuity to developers
providing parking for residential units, when, in fact, the "spaces" were not really there.
Greenwood Hektoen said that Chris Obrien has provided a letter to the Board stating that in his
analysis as Director of Transportation Services the spaces are there and are available. She
said that Obrien uses a very complicated system to make that determination and that the Board
probably either needs to trust that analysis, or call Obrien before the Board to answer any
questions they might have about that decision.
Jennings said that it is not that he does not trust the analysis; rather, for him, the question is one
of using the term "space" in conjunction with terms like "in perpetuity" and "long term." Walz
explained that Obrien has indicated that there are 400 permits currently held in the Chauncey
Swan ramp. By the time the proposed building is constructed, all of those permits will have
come up for renewal. She said her understanding is that the idea is to keep 75 spaces open
and available for public use, so the current permit holders would be reduced by the number
necessary to accommodate the proposed use (16 spaces). She said that it is true that this is
not a guaranteed, 24/7 parking space for the residents of the subject property; rather, the idea is
to provide a likelihood that on most occasions there will be a spot available to them. Jennings
said that his sense of the code is that occupancy of a building is tied to available parking
spaces. He asked what would happen if the parking spaces were no longer available; if
demand increased to such an extent that the 16 spaces that had been promised "in perpetuity"
could no longer be granted to the developer. The City could not then go back and prohibit the
apartments from being occupied. Walz stated that as demand for permits increases, current
permit -holders could be shifted to other facilities, or more parking ramps could be built to
accommodate increased demand. Walz said the idea is to manage downtown parking
demand. She said this demand will continue to increase because most of the lots downtown
are too small for developers to provide on -site parking. She said the idea is to put those permits
into the ramps; this has been the plan since the change to the zoning code requiring residential
parking was made. Tyson asked if it was correct that if these particular 16 spaces were granted
in Chauncey Swan ramp, then they would forever be at that ramp. Walz said she believed that
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 5 of 22
was the case. She noted that the Director of Transportation Services would set it up at the
outset so that the spaces could be transferrable to another ramp if he foresaw that as an issue.
Sheerin asked how the City would account for unforeseen demand increases that might make it
so that in the future the 16 spaces were no longer readily available to residents. Walz said that
if demand increased to that extent the City would build more ramps. She noted that at some
point someone will make a request for off -site parking that will exceed current capacity. Sheerin
noted that off -site parking requests are a variable the City can control for; however, the City
cannot control the demand by the general public. Walz said the parking director regularly
reviews demand and capacity issues, and when he finds that ramp capacity is frequently being
reached, he will recommend that a new ramp is built. Jennings asked if he could have a more
specific working definition of what "long-term" or "in perpetuity" means in this case. Greenwood
Hektoen said that it means in perpetuity; for as long as the subject property is used for its
intended purposes, the developer would have to rent 16 spaces in a municipal ramp and the
City will guarantee that those permits are available. Jennings said it is not his intent to come off
as being against this request; rather, he is simply concerned about the language of "space"
versus "permit". He said that space is either literal or pretend, and as he lives in a
neighborhood in which there is plenty of "pretend" space for parking, he understands that what
might be technically true in terms of parking availability, may not be literally true. He said that
he wonders about the allocation ratios of bedrooms to parking spaces and whether they are
adequate or realistic; though he realizes such concerns are outside the purview of considering
this particular application. Greenwood Hektoen said that while she thinks those are important
things to be considered, the ratios are a matter for City Council consideration as the Council is
the legislative body and the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial board. Jennings said he
understood this, however, when the matter comes before the Board, he has to wonder how the
whole system of consideration was engineered. Walz said that it truly is a legislative issue and
that the City Council had itself gone back and forth with this issue. She said that the Council
had specifically wanted the code change to allow a reasonable amount of parking in the ramp.
The previous code required no parking whatsoever for residential units in the downtown area.
As a result, there was no tracking or true management of demand. She said that City Council
had decided that if there is going to be residential demand downtown, then the City needs to
build enough ramps or other facilities to account for those apartments. Jennings noted that
there might be greater competition for parking spaces when there are downtown events such as
The Farmers' Market. He asked if such events presented egress/ingress concerns. Walz said
that access from the Washington Street side of Chauncey Swan is limited during Farmers'
Markets; however, the College Street entrance is still available.
There were no further questions for staff, and Sheerin invited the applicant to address the
Board.
Jeff Clark, 414 East Market Street, said that he did not have much to say about the application.
He noted that in order to build this project downtown he needed to meet the requirements of the
zoning code. He said that parking requirements did change in 2009, and he had attended every
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in regard to that change.
He said that he had not really fought the measure, and that he had agreed that parking in the
downtown area was getting more difficult, and there was some need for management of it. He
said that he believes the code offers a good solution to the problem. He said he had spoken
with Obrien, and believed that he was on top of the issue and would be able to issue the permits
that Clark needs to move forward with the project. He said that the tenants in the subject
building will not necessarily use the parking spaces made available in Chauncey Swan, as he
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 6 of 22
has other parking spaces in the downtown area whose availability varies from year to year.
Clark said that on average the 16 spaces will be used by someone in his tenancy. He said that
parking demand does vary from year to year for his tenants.
Clark said he understood Jennings concerns about whether a "permit" actually equals a parking
"space". He said that he could only address those concerns by stating that these were the
provisions of the zoning ordinance, and the assumption of the code is that most often the tenant
will be able to find a parking space. Clark said he hopes that the zoning changes work as
intended. He said that he believes this is one of the first residential buildings to request parking
spaces since the code was changed. Clark asked if he was correct in his understanding that he
could lease the spaces out to other people if the building residents did not wish to rent them.
Greenwood Hektoen said that as Clark would be the lessee, what he did with them was his
prerogative so long as he followed the requirement of first making them available to his tenants
at the same rate he is leasing them from the City. Clark said as they own multiple downtown
properties, it may make sense for them to lease the spaces to tenants of buildings that are
closer to the ramp, and make other spaces available to the tenants at the former Happy Joe's
site. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned that Clark would not be able to use those spaces to meet
his parking requirements for other buildings. Clark said that he understood that; he was simply
talking about the most efficient way to manage his parking spaces for multiple residential
properties. Greenwood Hektoen said that his name would be on the permit so he could manage
the spaces as he saw fit, so long as he fulfilled the requirements of the code. Clark said he
would be happy to answer any questions from the Board, and that he hoped they chose to
approve the special exception.
Tyson said she understood Clark to have said that he had other "options" for parking. Clark
said that he did not necessarily have extra spaces to meet the parking requirements; rather,
from year to year the locations where he might have parking available can change.
Eckstein asked how the parking in the lower level of the building would be assigned. She noted
that that part of Gilbert Street is often congested and heavily traveled. She asked if those
spaces would be open to anyone living in the building, or if they would be assigned to particular
units. Clark said the spaces in the building would be assigned to a particular vehicle; it will not
be open parking so there would be no trolling for spaces.
Sheerin opened the public hearing.
There were no other speakers on the topic, so Sheerin invited a motion.
Anderson motioned to approve EXC10-00001, an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a
special exception to allow up to 16 parking spaces in a municipal parking facility to
satisfy the minimum parking requirements for a mixed use building to be constructed in
the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 225 South Gilbert Street, subject to the following
conditions:
1. All approved spaces will be provided in the Chauncey Swan Ramp according to
the terms set by the Director of Transportation Services; and
2. The applicant must submit the required covenant for off -site parking prior to
securing a building permit. The covenant shall include a stipulation that the off -
site parking be made available to residents of the subject property at a cost not to
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 7 of 22
exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at
the time of leasing.
Tyson seconded.
Sheerin invited discussion. There was none.
Sheerin closed the public hearing.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that Walz had reformatted the staff report to assist with the findings
of fact.
Findings of Fact: Specific Standards (14-5A-41):
Eckstein stated that the applicant has submitted an aerial photograph showing that the subject
property is within 500 feet of the Chauncey Swan parking ramp. Eckstein said that the
requirement was for the ramp to be within 600 feet of the off -site parking if that parking is not
housed within a municipal ramp.
Eckstein stated that as the proposed parking is located in a municipal ramp, the applicant must
meet only the minimum parking requirements. These requirements have been met because:
1) The subject use is located in the CB-10 zone;
2) The Director of Transportation Services has indicated in writing that the 16 spaces are
available for long-term use and the capacity of the ramp will not be exceeded if the
special exception is granted;
3) There are 475 spaces in the Chauncey Swan ramp; 400 permits are issued and 75
spaces remain open for use. Not all permitted spaces are regularly used, and the
Director of Transportation Services analyzes the use and demand for parking in this and
other ramps annually.
Jennings said that the ramp is in close proximity to the residential use (approximately 500 feet
walking distance) with sidewalks and a controlled intersection connecting the two sites; the
proposed site is in a municipal ramp in which the parking is designed to provide safe vehicle
access, and ingress and egress for the ramp are designed with good visibility. The ramp is
already constructed so there will be no change to the area.
Findings of Fact: General Standards (14-413-3):
Jennings stated that the Director of Transportation Services has reviewed the request and has
indicated that there is more than adequate capacity in the Chauncey Swan ramp to
accommodate the request without compromising the space available for shoppers and other
downtown visitors.
All utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are in place to serve the parking facility
and the development of the proposed building.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 8 of 22
Jennings reiterated that the municipal facility in which the off -site parking is being requested has
safe ingress and egress to adjacent public streets and is designed to minimize congestion of
public streets.
Eckstein added that the Board understands that the building will actually require 24 spaces, and
that eight of those spaces will be on -site.
Jennings noted that the eight on -site parking spaces are not open, but will be assigned to a
specific vehicle. The 16 permit spaces will be made available to tenants upon leasing.
Anderson said he would like to reiterate that the Director of Transportation Services submitted a
letter stating that there is available space at this facility, and that makes this a very reasonable
exception to grant.
Sheerin said she agrees with the findings and she too would like to note the letter from the
Director of Transportation Services.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that one of the criteria is that there is a covenant, and she asked the
Board to address that in their findings.
Tyson said that the applicant must submit a written agreement as part of the building permit
application based on the number of spaces approved by the Board; the agreement shall state
that the parking will be made available to residents of the subject property at a cost not to
exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that at this point the applicant did not technically meet the
requirement for a covenant; however, it is a condition of approval. The Board indicated
agreement with this statement.
A vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0.
Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that any party desiring to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
EXC10-00002: An application submitted by Quality Associates for a special exception to
reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements for a business located in the
General Industrial (1-1) zone at 2630 Independence Road.
Walz explained that the subject property was in an area designed for industrial uses. She noted
that Quality Associates is a packaging company that works with Proctor & Gamble. Currently
the site is set up around warehouse uses and has a lot of space devoted to trucking and
docking. Walz said that the proposed use would designate approximately one-third of the
building to packaging services, one-third of the building to Quality Associates' warehousing
needs, and one-third of the building to Proctor & Gamble warehouse space. She said the
warehouse facilities would not have many employees present at a given time.
Walz explained that parking requirements are based on square -footage. She said that this
sometimes becomes complicated when considering warehouse facilities, as there is a lower
parking requirement for general warehouse uses than there is for warehouse uses that have a
production element to them. Walz noted that a breakdown of this distinction can be found in the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 9 of 22
staff report. She noted that the applicant did have the space available to provide all 211 of the
required parking spaces, though it would require some redesign of the paved areas. Walz said
that the applicant has explained that at peak capacity the maximum number of employees that
will be on -site would be 95. She said that shifts are staggered to provide a half-hour lapse. The
applicant is asking for their parking requirement to be reduced to 142 spaces. Walz said that
the zoning code allows the Board to grant reductions in parking requirements where it can be
demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking
spaces required is excessive.
Walz said that staff feels the applicant has demonstrated that the parking requirements for their
particular uses are excessive. Even with the reduction, the applicant is providing nearly 50%
more spaces than they will actually need at any given time. The warehouse uses have only a
minimal number of employees present on an occasional basis.
Staff believes that the proposed reduction would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare; will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity, and will not diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood; nor will it
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for
uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The following reasons are given
for these conclusions:
1) The proposed reduction will provide nearly 50% more spaces than the maximum number
of employees anticipated during a single shift, and the shifts are staggered by one-half
hour to minimize overcapacity on the site;
2) There is sufficient space on site to construct all required parking should the use expand
in the future.
Walz noted that when an applicant puts forth a statement regarding the number of employees
they will have, the applicant's estimates are generally accepted; in this case, the facility is in an
1-1 zone where there are no parking issues at present. She said if there are complaints or
observations to the contrary made at a later date, the City would investigate.
Staff recommends land -banking the extra space that would normally have been dedicated to
parking, setting it aside so that no additional structures can be built on it. If in the future it is
determined that more parking is needed, this set -aside can be used to meet the requirements.
Walz said that all access roads, utilities and other facilities are already established to serve this
industrial area. The area is designed for industrial vehicles and industrial levels of traffic.
Walz noted that the proposed parking area has not yet been reviewed by the Building Official to
verify that the proposed 142-space parking area is in compliance with all requirements of the
code. Approval of the final site plan is required in order for the applicant to receive an
occupancy permit for the building. Staff recommends that approval of the final site plan is a
condition of the special exception.
Walz stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area is appropriate and desirable
for industrial uses because it provides good access to the highway and railroad. However, the
Comprehensive Plan does not directly address the issue of parking requirements or reductions
to those requirements.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 10 of 22
Walz concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of EXC10-00002, an application by
Quality Associates, located at 2630 Independence Road, for a special exception to reduce the
number of required parking spaces within the 1-1 zone from 211 spaces to 142 spaces subject
to the following conditions:
1) The applicant must land -bank an area sufficient to provide the additional 60 spaces that
would ordinarily be required. This area should be indicated on the final site plan;
2) Final site approval by the Building Official for the proposed 142-space parking area;
3) The parking reduction is limited to Quality Associates and the proposed use of the
property as described in this application.
Sheerin asked if there were any questions for staff.
Eckstein asked if the applicant would be required to report changes in maximum occupancy that
might affect the parking needs. Walz noted that if the applicant wished to expand their facility
they would have to come to the City for a building permit, and at that time the parking would be
reviewed again. Eckstein asked what would happen if the facility expanded its operations but
not its building. Greenwood Hektoen said she was not sure how to answer that question. She
said that if the applicant needed additional parking she believed they would need to come back
before the Board so that the Board could readdress whether it was necessary for them to come
into compliance with parking lot standards. Sheerin asked if language could be added to the
special exception requiring that the company come back before the Board if the number of
employees increases. Walz said that they could make that a requirement. Tyson asked if the
Board would do that by specifying a percentage or specific number of an increase in employees
that would trigger a return to the Board. Greenwood Hektoen said staff had had quite a bit of
discussion about this, and that the Board may want to discuss that with the applicant. She said
the applicant is providing parking spaces in excess of the number of employees that will be on -
site. She said that even if the applicant hired, for example, 15 more employees, they would still
have sufficient parking space even at the level of the requirement reduction. Tyson asked how
that would be monitored. Walz said an investigation would be triggered by complaint or
observation of a problem. Walz noted that there is an inherent incentive for the applicant to
provide the appropriate number of parking spaces, in that failure to do so would make it more
difficult for their own employees to report to work on time.
Sheerin invited the applicant to address the Board.
Geoff Franzenburg, 3500 J Street SW, Cedar Rapids, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He
said that he is a representative of Septagon Construction, the general contractor for the project.
He said he would be happy to answer any questions the Board might have.
Anderson asked if there was any possibility that overtime for the first shift workers would cause
strain on the parking facilities if the requirement was reduced to the level requested by the
applicant. Franzenburg said that the calculations for the number of spaces needed by the
company were based on the potential need for shift overlap as demonstrated at other facilities
owned by the applicant. He said the applicant has six facilities throughout the United States.
He said that the applicant has found that with this type of production there are a number of
employees who carpool, walk to work, or take public transit. Franzenburg said that the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 11 of 22
company had studied the parking lot usage for similar facilities and used those numbers to
calculate the need for this facility. He noted that multiple shifting is set up to try to avoid the
expense of overtime. He added that if need be, the applicant would go to a third shift to meet
production demands.
Tyson asked if it was the case that Franzenburg's firm had looked at other sites in this area.
Franzenburg said that was correct; they had evaluated nearby competitors with similar facilities
and production needs.
Jennings asked how the shift -change calculations were determined, through observation or
conjecture. Franzenburg said that the calculations were made by observation of their own
facilities in other locations. He said that the additional 50 spaces beyond the observed need
was intended to leave room for flexibility or change in parking needs.
Franzenburg noted that he understood the land bank issue in staff's recommendation.
However, he wanted to ensure that language was added to clarify that the land will only be
banked for the duration of Quality Associates' lease. Walz clarified that the entire special
exception will be null and void when and if Quality Associates leaves the property. Franzenburg
said everything else looked good to him.
Sheerin opened the issue for public discussion.
There were no additional comments from the public, staff or Board on the matter, and the public
hearing was closed.
Sheerin invited a motion.
Tyson moved to approve EXC10-00002, an application by Quality Associates for a special
exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces within an 1-1 zone from 211
spaces to 142 spaces, located at 2630 Independence Road, subject to the following
conditions:
1) The applicant must land bank an area sufficient to provide the additional 69
spaces that would ordinarily be required. This area should be indicated on the
final site plan.
2) Final site plan approval by the Building Official for the proposed 142-space
parking area.
3) The parking reduction is limited to Quality Associates and the proposed use of the
property as described in this application.
Jennings seconded.
Sheerin asked for findings of fact.
Findings of Fact: Specific Standards (14-SA-4F-5)•
Eckstein stated that the applicant has provided a statement indicating that at peak capacity, the
packaging facility will rely on two shifts of employees, with 95 workers on first shift and 85
workers on second shift, and a one-half hour offset between shifts to control congestion. She
said that the applicant has indicated that Proctor & Gamble's space is for inventory only and
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 12 of 22
therefore has a limited number of employees present in the facility, and even that is only on an
occasional basis. Eckstein said that this indicates that the proposed 142 parking spaces should
be sufficient for the proposed use of the property, rather than the 211 spaces that would
normally be required.
Findings of Fact: General Standards (14-46-3)•
Jennings found that because the proposed parking plan provides approximately 50% more
spaces than the maximum number of employees anticipated during a single shift; work shifts
are staggered by one-half hour to minimize overcapacity on the site; and there is sufficient
space on -site to construct all required parking should the use expand in the future, the specific
exception is appropriate.
He noted that the applicant will be required to land -bank additional space, setting it aside
without constructing structures on it, so that it is available in the future if the demand for parking
increases. Jennings pointed out that the land -banked space would not have to be paved,
striped or landscaped, and as a result the applicant would be saving the expense of actually
constructing the additional parking.
Eckstein stated that the final site plan has not yet been reviewed by the Building Official to
ensure that the parking proposal is in compliance with all other requirements of the zoning code.
She stated that approval of the site plan is required in order for the applicant to secure a
certificate of occupancy.
Tyson found that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as
amended because the plan identifies that area as appropriate for industrial uses. However, the
plan does not specifically address parking requirements or reductions.
Sheerin added that all necessary access roads, utilities and drainage are already in place to
serve the industrial area. Independence Road is designed for industrial use and provides
access to Highway 6 via a signalized intersection. All access drives for the site are signed to
support this level of traffic, so adequate measures have been taken to provide proper egress
and ingress.
There were no other findings and a vote was called for.
The motion carried on a 5-0 vote.
Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that any party desiring to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
EXC10-00003: An application submitted by Yasser Gabor for a special exception to allow
a Vehicle Repair Use to be located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1911
Keokuk Street.
Walz pointed out the location on an overhead map. She noted that all abutting properties are
also zoned CC-2, with the exception of the properties to the south and west which are zoned
CI-1.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 13 of 22
Walz explained that the CC-2 zone is designed to support uses that generate a lot of traffic.
She said that vehicle repair uses are allowed in this zone by special exception for properties
that are located more than 100 feet from a residential zone. Walz noted that this particular
property is located more than 600 feet from the nearest residential zone, which is to the south of
Southgate Avenue. Walz said that the specific criteria for this special exception focus on
screening vehicle use and vehicle storage areas from surrounding properties, the public view,
and rights -of -way.
Walz pointed out that there are some other uses being established on the property that are not
within the purview of the special exception. She noted the uses in order to inform the Board of
what was going on with the site plan. She said there is a car sales facility on the lot as well as a
small convenience -type grocery store. The vehicle repair use and the vehicle storage area will
be at the back of the property behind a wing of the building.
Walz noted that because there is a change in use for the property, the entire property must be
brought into compliance with current zoning code. Tyson asked Walz to clarify on the overhead
map where specific uses will be occurring on -site, and Walz did so.
Walz said the specific criteria for the vehicle repair use have to do with screening. The vehicle
storage area is screened by the building from the Keokuk Street right-of-way, as it will be in the
rear of the building. She noted that there is a parking area adjacent to the vehicle repair use
that will have the required S-2 landscaping, though the vehicle repair use may be visible from
the trail and the frontage road. Because of this, staff recommends that the screening
requirement along the northwest property line be changed to S-3, tall dense landscape
screening.
Walz said that another specific requirement is that other vehicle use areas such as parking
drives, stacking spaces, etc., be set back at least ten feet from the public right-of-way. She said
that the site plan shows that the applicant is doing this, and that they are providing the required
S-1 and S-2 landscape screening.
Where the outdoor storage areas abut other properties, the applicant is required to provide S-5
screening (opaque solid fencing), in addition to S-3 tall landscape screening. Walz explained
that the Board of Adjustment may waive the requirement for the landscape screening if the
planted screening cannot be expected to thrive due to site characteristics. Walz said that City
staff has recommended that the required landscape screening not be required because it would
interfere with a 10-foot easement for a sewer line. Staff suggests that the applicant provide the
required S-5 fencing along the vehicle storage area; however, the area is paved almost directly
up to the easement line. Therefore, placing the fence outside of the sewer easement would
require the applicant to remove some of the pavement in that area. Alternatively, the applicant
might choose to locate the solid fencing inside of the easement; in which case the City would
require the applicant to sign an agreement stating that the City is not liable for any damage to
the fence incurred as a result of working on the sewer line in the easement area.
Anderson asked Walz to further clarify that statement. Walz stated that staff is asking the
applicant to either place the fence 10-feet in from the property line, or to sign an agreement that
the City will not be held responsible for the repair or replacement of the fence if it is damaged or
removed in the event that the City must repair the sewer. Greenwood Hektoen said that the
agreement simply reiterates that if a property owner puts something in the City's easement
area, it is the property owner that assumes the risk.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 14 of 22
Walz noted that staff recommends waiving the S-3 screening requirement in a small area along
the south side. She explained that given the layout of the property, landscape screening in that
particular area would likely serve little purpose and would not likely be properly maintained.
Walz briefly went over the General Criteria for the Board. She said that the proposed exception
would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare
because the property would be brought into compliance with all requirements of the zoning
code, including all of the setbacks, screening and design of the vehicle use areas. This will
separate vehicle use areas from pedestrian areas and the -right-of-way, thereby making the
property safer.
Staff believes that the submitted site plan shows compliance with nearly all of the areas of the
zoning code, but the final review of the Building Official will ensure that all areas of the site are
in compliance with code requirements. Staff recommends that approval of the final site plan be
a condition of the special exception.
Walz said that the 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 provided that the applicant provides the recommended S-3 screening. She said
that when that is done, the applicant will have satisfied these criteria because:
1) The vehicle storage area is located to the rear of the site and behind the building,
effectively screening it from the Keokuk Street right-of-way;
2) The submitted site plan shows the required S-5 opaque fencing necessary to screen the
vehicle storage area from adjacent properties to the west and south. Staff recommends
that the fence be a minimum of six feet in height;
3) By providing the recommended S-3 landscape screening along the parking area located
on the north side of the vehicle storage area, the applicant can effectively screen the use
from the adjacent property and from the Highway 6 right-of-way;
4) In order to establish the change of use on the property, the final site plan must be
reviewed by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with all elements of the zoning
code. Bringing the property into compliance with code requirements will help to make
the site safer and more attractive.
Walz noted that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are
already in place to serve the entire commercial area.
Staff believes that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress. The
transportation planners have reviewed the site and have verified that there are no traffic
concerns associated with this site. The site plan shows that the entrance drive will be in
compliance with the maximum curb cut standards, and there is adequate space for vehicles to
stack when exiting the site.
Walz said that staff is asking for a condition requiring final site plan approval and the waiver of
the S-3 landscape screening along the rear property line. Other than that, the proposed
exception seems to conform to the applicable regulations and standards of the zone in which it
is to be located.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 15 of 22
Walz said that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. The
Future Land Use Scenarios for the South District Plan show this and surrounding properties as
General Commercial and do not anticipate major changes to the area. The zoning code allows
flexibility in the types of commercial uses allowed in this zone based on the specific criteria,
which are focused on screening outdoor storage areas from surrounding properties.
Walz concluded that staff recommends approval of EXC10-00003 subject to:
1) The applicant securing a building permit to establish the change of use on the property;
2) Approval of the final site plan by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with all
requirements of the zoning code;
3) The required S-5 opaque fence or wall along the west and south side of the vehicle
storage area should be a minimum of six feet in height to screen the vehicle storage
area;
4) S-3 landscape screening shall be provided along the property line north of the vehicle
storage area, between the parking and the adjacent commercial property, in order to
screen the use from the Highway 6 right-of-way;
5) If fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the applicant must
provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for repairing or
replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City maintains or repairs the
sewer. The agreement must be on file prior to the City issuing a certificate of
occupancy.
Staff further recommends waiving the requirement for the S-3 landscape screening in the area
of the sanitary sewer easement, based on the City's need to maintain access to this area.
Sheerin asked if there were questions for staff.
Eckstein asked if the code addressed the issue of water retention in areas such as this where
there is a great deal of pavement. Walz said that part of the code requirement is that all areas
that are not required for drives or parking have to be landscaping, or something other than
pavement. Walz acknowledged that there is a lot of pavement used on commercial sites. She
said that water retention requirements do not generally come into play for individual properties;
rather they are generally put into place at the time of larger subdivision development. Walz said
she did not know if water retention requirements were in effect with this particular property
because it was developed quite a long time ago. She noted that narrowing drives and not
occupying excessive amounts of the property with pavement will be addressed in the site plan
approval process. She said that setback areas and the landscaping required there also serve
as a means of water absorption. Eckstein said it sounds as though the code does not allow a
retrospective approach to fixing things that had been done wrong initially. Walz said that if this
were a larger -scale redevelopment of the whole area that might be addressed.
Eckstein noted that the options listed for opaque fencing materials included mortar, and she
wondered if this would include concrete block. Eckstein said she assumed that it did, unless the
Board specified that they wished to prohibit that material. Eckstein asked if the provision
whereby cars could not be stored on the lot for more than 45 days needed to be spelled out as a
condition of approval. Walz said it is a requirement and therefore does not need to be
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 16 of 22
specifically included as a condition. Greenwood Hektoen said that it is one of the requirements
that the applicant must satisfy. Tyson asked if this too was enforced only on the basis of
complaints or observation, and Walz said that was correct.
Anderson asked if there was room to put the fence on the applicant's property, or if doing so
would impede on the operations of the applicant. Walz said there is adequate space.
Tyson asked if the applicant determines what type of materials the fencing will be made of.
Walz said that it would be up to the applicant unless the Board could find a reason to
recommend a specific material. Tyson noted that the Board had been down the path of
"opaque" materials before. Walz noted that the last time the Board was waiving the solid
fencing requirement, whereas this special exception does not have a provision whereby the
fencing requirement could be waived. Tyson asked if the Board could require that the fence be
made of brick, for example. Walz said that if the Board had a reasonable reason for doing so it
could. Sheerin asked if aesthetics would be considered a reason. Walz said that if the area was
highly visible it might be a good reason. In this case, the fence is not particularly visible, and the
Board would want to consider whether or not that material would be reasonable. Walz said that
it is typical of a CC-2 zone to have parking in the front of the building. Tyson said her concern is
that if the applicant chooses to use wood instead of brick, then maintenance might become an
issue. Walz said that the applicant would have to maintain the fence so that it provided the
required screening.
There were no further questions for staff and Sheerin invited the applicant to speak.
Yasser Gaber, 3410 Shamrock Drive, said he wanted to thank Walz for her assistance on this
matter. He said he would be happy to answer any questions from the Board.
Anderson asked Gaber if he felt it was possible to put the fence inside his property line. Gaber
said that at first he did not want to sign such an agreement, but once he understood the rules
and saw how hard Walz was working on the case he agreed to sign a document releasing the
City from liability if the fence needed repairs or replacement due to City maintenance of the
sewer line. He said he would prefer not to have a fence at all and to just do S-3 landscaping;
however, if it is required they will do it. Walz clarified that the applicant has the option of putting
the fence outside of the easement area; in that case, no agreement will be required. An
agreement releasing the City from liability is only necessary if the applicant locates the fence
inside the easement area. Anderson said he was not certain how a financial agreement of this
nature was related to granting a special exception for this land use. He said that it seemed as
though the City was requiring the applicant to accept terms that were somewhat unrelated to the
case before the Board. Walz said that typically property owners are not allowed to construct
anything of any kind in a sewer easement. In this case, the fencing is required. She said the
agreement is a way of offering the applicant flexibility. The City could instead say that the
applicant could not provide the screening in the easement at all. Allowing them to put the fence
in the easement and waive the City's liability for damages is intended to benefit the applicant in
terms of offering them more options than would typically be available to them. Jennings asked if
it was the applicant's preference to build the fence outside of the easement, thus making the
agreement unnecessary, or to build in the easement and to enter an agreement with the City.
Gaber said that he would like to see as much of the land as possible used by his vehicles. He
said he would prefer to sign the agreement and put the fence in the sewer easement and simply
hope that nothing happens. He said the best option would be to make a deal with his neighbor
to renew the neighbor's existing fence which is outside the sewer easement. Greenwood
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 17 of 22
Hektoen said that the Board did not have jurisdiction to impose requirements on the neighboring
property or the authority to waive the fencing requirement for this property. Because the
neighboring property is not a part of this application, the Board cannot impose a regulation on
that property. Gaber said that is unfortunate because if the City could be somewhat flexible,
that arrangement would be beneficial to all parties. Walz said that Greenwood Hektoen was
saying that the City does not have legal authority to be flexible in this respect. Anderson asked
if the applicant would like to withdraw this application and come back with a separate request for
an exception on that side of the property, and to submit a letter from with the neighboring
property expressing willingness to participate in that plan. Walz said that Greenwood Hektoen
is saying that that could not be allowed —there is no such relief available in the code. Gaber
thanked Anderson for trying to accommodate the request. Walz explained that the requirement
is for Gaber's property and the City cannot encumber the other property with a requirement that
is for Gaber's property. Anderson said he understood that; he was just wondering if there was
a way for the applicant to ask for a special exception on that side of the property. Walz said that
there is not a way for that to happen.
Tyson asked about the condition the cars in the vehicle storage area would be in. She noted
that the applicant has a cab business as well as an auto sales business on -site. Gaber said that
he had owned a used -car dealership, and that unfortunately he has some inventory remaining
from that. Additionally, on the auto -repair side of the business, sometimes people do not have
the funds necessary to pay for their repairs and get in a position of having to leave their car
there for a couple of weeks. Gaber said that their goal is not to store cars for more than a few
days. He noted that the requirement says cars cannot be stored for more than 45 days, but that
45 days is much longer than they wish to store any car. He said the cars will be fully functioning
cars. Tyson asked if in addition to cars on -site for repairs there would be cars being bought and
sold on the lot. Gaber said that the present use is for auto repair. He said that in the future he
would like to have a dealership, but that was not presently part of this application. Walz noted
that there is a requirement that no car can be stored in the vehicle storage area for more than
45 days, regardless of why the car is on -site.
Mohamed Hassanein, 738 13th Avenue, asked if the 45-day restriction applied to only the
vehicle storage area or if it applied to the front of the lot as well. Walz said it only applied to the
vehicle storage area. She noted, however, that they could not store vehicles waiting to be
repaired at the front of their lot. Hassanein said that his concern was in regard to a car that they
might be trying to sell. Walz said that was different, and would not fall under the 45-day
requirement.
There was no one else who wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing was closed.
Tyson motioned to approve EXC10-00003, a special request submitted by Yasser Gaber
to allow a Vehicle Repair Use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1911 Keokuk
Street subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicant must secure a building permit to establish the change of use on the
property;
2) Approval of the final site plan by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with
all requirements in the zoning code;
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 18 of 22
3) The required S-5 opaque fence or wall along the west and south side of the
vehicle storage area should be a minimum of six feet in height to screen the
vehicle storage area;
4) S-3 (tall) landscape screening shall be provided along the property line north of
the vehicle storage area, between the parking and the adjacent commercial
property, in order to screen the use from the Highway 6 right-of-way;
5) If fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the applicant must
provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for
repairing or replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City
maintains or repairs the sewer. The agreement must be on file prior to the City
issuing a certificate of occupancy.
Eckstein seconded.
Sheerin excused herself per prior arrangements and left the meeting. Eckstein, as Vice -Chair,
assumed the duties of the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.
Eckstein invited discussion on the matter.
Anderson said that his sole complaint about this application is the fact that the City is requiring
the applicant to install a fence along the west side of the property while simultaneously requiring
them to sign a waiver of financial liability. He said he found this unpalatable, although he
understood that the applicant was willing to accept this condition. Tyson said she disagreed;
the rules are the rules, and the City does not allow fencing in easements anywhere else so they
should not in this case either. Walz clarified that the City is not requiring the applicant to put
their fence in the easement; the location is the applicant's choice. Anderson said that he
understood that. Tyson said she would like to require that the fence be on the applicant's
property and outside of the easement. Greenwood Hektoen said that the City had contemplated
making that a requirement; however, they recognized the applicant's concern that placing the
fence outside the easement would essentially require them to abandon a portion of their land.
Walz said that Public Works had wanted the fence outside the easement. The Building Official
raised the concern that when a portion of property is fenced off, the fence becomes the
assumed property line over time and causes confusion as to ownership and maintenance. She
said that in offering the agreement, the City was attempting to find a way not to require the
applicant to make ten feet of their property essentially inaccessible. Tyson said she was
concerned that the City would make an exception for one property owner, allowing them to build
in an easement. Greenwood Hektoen said that this is a position the City takes in easement
agreements frequently: building in an easement is not allowed, and doing so is done at the risk
of the property owner. She said she has not been able to determine the exact language or
origin of this easement agreement, and it is possible that the City is already covered. She said
that language contemplating this type of eventuality is typical in current easement agreements.
Anderson said that he understands the issue; however, his objection is that the easement
agreement is being required as a condition of the special exception. He said he believed the
issue of the easement and the issue of the special exception should be separate issues.
Greenwood Hektoen said that the City already has rights established on that property, and is
simply trying to protect its property interests. She said that she would be more inclined to agree
with Anderson's perspective if the City were simply requiring an agreement. However, the
applicant retains the option not to impede the City's property rights, and can avoid the
agreement altogether simply by building outside of the easement. Anderson said that he
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 19 of 22
understands the City's position, but he, as a Board member, is not the City; it is not his interest
to protect. Walz said that the agreement is in the public interest and the taxpayer's interest —
the taxpayers would pay the cost if the fence needs to be removed and is damaged in the
process. Anderson said he could accept that reasoning. Jennings said that any business
owner engages in all manner of risks and one of the risks being acknowledged here is that if the
property owner opts to retain maximum use of their property by putting a fence in the easement,
then there is a liability and a risk in that. Jennings said that the applicant is being provided with
a choice of gaining maximum use of their land or assuming a certain amount of risk by building
in an easement. He said that given the different interests at play, this provides about as much
flexibility and choice as possible while protecting the various property interests. Eckstein noted
that the fencing will have very little visibility to anyone. Tyson said she would like to see a
material sturdier than wood for the opaque fencing material. She said she could easily see the
fence getting backed into with all of the comings and goings on the property. Anderson asked if
it was possible to add something to the motion stating that the fencing material is subject to staff
approval. Walz said the fence would have to meet the solid fencing standards. Tyson asked if
the Board could ask that the fence not be made of wood. Walz said that she thought if the
Board could do appropriate findings to indicate why the material should be other than wood they
could make that specification. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board should probably discuss
the matter further given the fact that the fence will likely be in an easement area and may be
subject to removal. Eckstein asked if it is normal procedure for the City Engineer to discuss with
the applicant where and how the fence is built in an easement area. Walz said that she
believed that if the fence is built in an easement the City would likely favor a material that could
be somewhat easily removed, replaced, and repaired. She said there is a slight change in
grade where the pavement ends on the property and her sense is that the fence will not be
subject to being regularly bumped into by cars. Greenwood Hektoen said that one of the
conditions of the motion is that the final site plan is approved by the Building Inspector. She
noted that the Building Inspector will review the fencing materials and will determine if further
discussion on the fencing is warranted at that point. Eckstein said that there is both the issue of
the potential need for removal and of the weight of certain fencing materials. Jennings said a
fence would be considered a permanent fixture, and as such the property owner would be
charged with its upkeep and maintenance regardless of the material chosen. Therefore, if a
wooden fence is bumped into or broken, the property owner would still have to maintain and
repair that screening. Jennings said that this fence may be built on a particular type of
easement there may be structural elements that dictate that some materials are more
appropriate than others. Jennings noted that some plans for the fence would have to be
proposed, and at that time the fencing materials would be subject to approval. Walz noted that
typically the zoning code considers certain types of screening differently depending on where it
is located. Walz said that screening in view of the public right-of-way is considered more strictly
than that which is less visible.
There was no further discussion on the matter and Eckstein invited the findings of fact.
Findings of Fact: Specific Standards (14-4B-4E-5):
Anderson found that the property is a sufficient distance from the nearest residential zone, and
that the applicant has indicated that the vehicles will not be stored for longer than 45 days. The
vehicle repair use area is to the rear of the property, which mitigates the view from public streets
and rights -of -way. Walz noted that this was in regard to the Keokuk Street right-of-way.
Anderson noted that the vehicle storage area is in view of the Highway 6 right-of-way, and that
parked cars are not always present to provide the sense of separation of screening between the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 20 of 22
storage area and the adjacent property and Highway 6. He stated that the required 10-foot
setback from the public right-of-way on both sides of the entryway drive is present. The
applicant has acknowledged the City's desire to have a waiver of liability signed in the event that
the applicant chooses to build the required fence in the sanitary sewer easement. Anderson
found that the submitted site plan shows the required S-5 fence/wall screening along the vehicle
storage area where it abuts the neighboring properties, and that S-3 (tall) landscape screening
along the parking stalls to the north of the vehicle storage area will provide effective screening
from the neighboring property and right-of-way.
Findings of Fact: General Standards (14-46-3):
Anderson said that he acknowledged that the applicant is required to bring all areas of the site
into compliance with the zoning code, including the landscaped 10-foot setbacks to separate the
vehicle use and display areas from the public right-of-way; design of drive aisles, and required
parking; pedestrian access from the public right-of-way, and curb cuts for the vehicle entrance
to the site. The purpose of these requirements is, in part, to ensure the safe movement of
vehicles and pedestrians on and across the site.
Anderson noted that the final site plan will be approved prior to the special exception being
granted.
Anderson stated that the vehicle storage area is located to the rear of the site and behind the
building, effectively screening it from the Keokuk right-of-way, and that the submitted site plan
shows the required S-5 opaque fencing necessary to screen the vehicle storage area from
adjacent properties to the west and south. Staff recommends that the fence be a minimum of
six feet in height.
Anderson found that the applicant has satisfied the requirement such that there will be no
impediment to the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding
property and that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are
already in place.
Anderson stated that transportation planners have reviewed the site and found no traffic
problems associated with it.
He stated that the Future Land Use Scenario for the South District Plan shows this and
surrounding properties as General Commercial and does not anticipate major changes to the
area.
Tyson added that vehicles could not be stored on the property for more than 45 continuous days
and the storage area must be setback at least 20 feet from any public right-of-way including
public trails and open space, and must be screened to the S-3 standard. Tyson stated that the
applicant must secure a building permit to establish the change of use. She noted that the
Board is waiving the requirement for the S-3 landscape screening in the area of the sanitary
sewer easement based on the City's need to maintain access to the area.
Jennings noted that if the fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the
applicant must provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for
repairing or replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City maintains or
repairs the sewer. This agreement must be on file prior to the City issuing a certificate of
occupancy.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 21 of 22
Eckstein stated that she found the waiver of the landscape requirement on the south corner to
be reasonable. Greenwood Hektoen said she believed that was covered by the waiver of the
landscape requirement in the sanitary sewer easement. Walz said that that particular corner is
not in the easement and would have to be reached by going through other people's property.
Greenwood Hektoen acknowledged that this should in fact be a separate waiver. Eckstein said
she would like to support that waiver.
Tyson said that she really appreciated that the applicant is trying to improve this area and she
hopes that they make every effort to make it attractive.
Eckstein called for a vote.
The motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin absent at time of vote).
Walz stated that the motion had been approved, and noted that any party wishing to appeal this
decision to a court of record could do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City
Clerk's Office.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz said she was going through the orientation packet to try to provide updated and more
thorough information. She provided Board members with a fresh copy of some of the pertinent
documents.
Tyson said she had received a letter in the mail regarding Leighton House from Sarah Holocek.
She asked if this letter was strictly informational. Walz said that it is, as no current Board
members were on the Board at the time of the original application. She noted that this issue is
not to be discussed by and between Board members.
Walz said she felt like progress was being made on doing the findings of fact and she thought
the Board was doing a great job. She reminded Board members that if they have different
observations, opinions, or conclusions than those outlined in the staff report, that is absolutely
fine; they simply must be able to do findings of fact for those conclusions.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jennings motioned to adjourn.
Tyson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin not present at time of vote_.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
0
N
E
4J
N
Q
0
co
L
s
O
co
N
O
M
O
co
O
O
co
O
O
N
Ln
Z
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
M
x
x
x
0
x
N
LU
M
x
x
x
x
0
N
M-
M
—
E i
�a
o
0
0
0
Cox
f"
W
O
O
O
O
o
C
C
C
d
H
C
u
=
`�
C
vOi
Z
a
C
t
co
GEC
m
V
J
X O