Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2010 Board of AdjustmentAGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, September 8, 2010 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL — EMMA J. HARVAT HALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the August 11, 2010 Board Minutes D. Special Exceptions: EXC10-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Marty Roth on behalf of First Mennonite Church for a special exception to allow expansion of a church facility located in a Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone at 405 Myrtle Avenue. EXC10-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Steven Breaux for a special exception to allow a reduction to principal building setback (front) for property located at 1122 E. Washington Street, a Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone. E. Board of Adjustment Information F. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: October 13, 2010 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz Item: EXC10-00007 Date: September 8, 2010 405 Myrtle Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Marty Roth 134 12th Avenue Iowa City, IA Contact: Diane Funk 520 Kimball Road Iowa City, IA Property Owner: First Mennonite Church 405 Myrtle Avenue Iowa City, IA Requested Action: Expansion of a Religious Assembly facility in the RS-8 zone. Purpose: To allow a1,600-square-foot addition to an existing church facility. Location: 405 Myrtle Avenue Size: 3.07 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Church/Daycare facility, Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential (RS-5 and P) South: Residential (RM-20) East: Residential (RS-8) West: Residential (RS-8), Park (P1) Applicable code sections: Specific Criteria for Religious/Private Group Assembly in Residential Zones, 14-4134D-14; General Criteria for Special Exceptions, 14-413-3. File Date: August 11, 2010 BACKGROUND The First Mennonite Church is seeking a special exception to allow a structural addition to their existing facility at 405 Myrtle Avenue. The property is located in the Medium Density, Single -Family (RS-8) zone. Churches are classified as Religious Assembly uses and are allowed in residential zones by special exception. The church was built in 1963 and received a special exception to allow a classroom and office addition in 1994. Since 1995, the church property has also housed the Home Ties daycare center (also approved by special exception). The daycare was granted a special exception to create a 1,640 square foot addition to building in 2009. The daycare, which operates independently from the church, is considered as a second principal use on the property (and is considered separate building under the City's building code). The special exception to allow the daycare addition was reviewed according to the standards for daycare uses as well as the religious assembly use criteria. As part of the special exception all parking areas were brought into compliance with the zoning code requirements by establishing pedestrian routes from the parking areas and sidewalks to the building entrances and by providing additional landscape screening along the north and east sides of both parking areas. The church is now proposing a 1,600 square foot addition to the west side of the building in order to provide more functional space for gatherings and activities. The one-story addition extends the lower level of the building out approximately 20 feet from the existing building fagade and has a roof height of less than 13 feet. The elevations provided with the application show the addition finished in concrete block and stone facing to match the existing fagade. The addition does not expand the sanctuary area for the church; no additional parking is required, and no changes are proposed to the parking area. All parking is located to the rear (southeast side) of the building with the exception of a small, 6-car parking area at the front of the church on Myrtle Avenue. Vehicle access to the site is provided along two collector streets, Myrtle and Greenwood Avenues. Both streets are 25 feet in width and parking is prohibited along both. Presently, two drive entrances provide access to the main (rear) parking area. In order to accommodate the addition on the property, a portion the drive located nearest to the Myrtle -Greenwood intersection will be removed. This drive will no longer provide access to the parking area but will continue to serve as a loading and unloading (drop-off) area. The portion of the drive to be removed will be re -landscaped. ANALYSIS The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations of Section 14-4B-4D-14 pertaining to the specific standards for Religious/Private Group Assembly (see attached) uses in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A. Specific Criteria a. Vehicle access standards for churches in the RS-8 zone: Vehicle access to the proposed use is limited to collector streets, arterials streets, or streets with a pavement width greater than 28 feet. For expansions of existing uses that are nonconforming with this provision, access to streets with pavement width 28 feet or narrower will be considered based on traffic capacity of the subject street and the projected traffic generated by the proposed expansion. If the proposed expansion will cause an increase in the amount of traffic, a plan must be submitted illustrating how traffic to and from the facility will be accommodated during peak periods. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • Though less than 28 feet in width, Greenwood and Myrtle Avenues are both collector streets. On -street parking is prohibited on both streets. • The proposed church addition does not expand the assembly/sanctuary area of the church and is not anticipated to generate additional traffic to the facility. No additional parking is required or proposed as part of the expansion. (For these reasons a traffic plan is not required.) b. The following minimum setbacks are required in lieu of setbacks specified in the base zone: 1. Front: 20 feet 2. Side: 20 feet 3. Rear: 50 feet Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The site plan for the addition shows that the established church and addition meet the necessary setback requirements (east side setback is approximately 22 feet, all other setbacks are more than 10 feet in excess of the requirement). As explained above, the proposed addition will be located at the rear of the existing church building. Neighborhood compatibility: The following four criteria (c, d, e, and g) overlap in their consideration of the impacts of the facility on the adjacent neighborhood. Criterion f. is not applicable to this special exception. c. The proposed use must be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The Board of Adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed use, such as the site size, types of accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building scale, setbacks, landscaping, and location of paved areas. The Board of Adjustment may deny the use or aspects of the use that are deemed out of scale, incompatible, or out of character with surrounding residential uses, or may require additional measures to mitigate these differences. Additional requirements may include, but are not limited to, additional screening, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, setbacks, location and design of parking facilities, and location and design of buildings. d. Given that large parking lots can seriously erode the single family residential character of these zones, the Board of Adjustment will carefully review any requests for additional parking beyond the minimum required.... (see full criteria description attached) e. The proposed use will not have significant adverse effects on the livability of nearby residential uses due to noise glare from lights, late -night operations, odors and litter. g. If the proposed use in located in a residential zone or in the Central Planning District, it must comply with the Multi -family Site Development Standards (section 142E-6). The Multi -family Site Development Standards promote safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods by preventing expanses of concrete, blank walls and parking lots along street frontages; controlling the building bulk; screening unsightly features; ensuring that pedestrian entrances are visible and clearly identifiable form the street; and minimizing potential conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles. Staff believes the application satisfies these criteria based on the following findings: • The proposed addition is a one-story, 1,600-square-foot addition to the lower level of the church. Due to the topography of the site, the addition is not highly visible from the street or adjacent properties. • The addition is designed to complement the established church building and will be finished in with materials that match the church's present exterior materials. • Because the proposed addition will not expand the occupant load of the facility, no additional parking is required and no changes to the parking area are proposed. 4 • All parking, with the exception of a 6-stall parking area on Myrtle Street, is located away from the street, to the southeast side of the building. • All parking to the rear of the building is set back more than 150 feet from Greenwood Avenue. A railroad embankment, and mature trees provide screening from properties to the south. • Established landscaping is provided along the north and east sides of both parking areas to screen the view from adjacent residential uses and from the Myrtle Street right-of-way. • Under the previous special exception the church brought all aspects of the parking area into compliance with the requirements of the zoning code, including location and marking of pedestrian areas. • Most activities associated with the church take place indoors and late -night activities are not associated with the church or daycare. General Standards (14-413-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The proposed church addition does not expand the assembly/sanctuary area of the church and thus will not generate additional traffic to the facility. No additional parking is required or proposed as part of the expansion. For these reasons a traffic plan is not required. • Though less than 28 feet in width, Greenwood and Myrtle Avenues are collector streets with on -street parking prohibited along both streets. • Parking areas have been brought into compliance with the requirements of the zoning code for screening and location and marking of pedestrian areas and routes. The Fire Department has reviewed the site plan and finds that a single access drive to the rear parking area is acceptable for fire access. However the Fire Department recommends that the remaining driveway access to the rear parking area be marked as a fire lane in order to preserve access for fire fighting vehicles. Designating a fire lane will ensure that the church sites functions in a way that will not endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The proposed addition is modest in scale (1600 square feet) and is designed to complement the existing church building. • The principal parking area is located to the rear of the building and is set back more than 150 feet from the Greenwood Avenue right-of-way. • All required screening for the parking areas is in place. • Most activities associated with the church take place indoors. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings listed above under general criteria 1 and 2. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding. • The neighborhood in which the church is located is already fully developed. All utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are already provided for this neighborhood. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding. - Transportation planners have reviewed the site plan and believe that the remaining access drive is appropriate to serve this use. Moreover, by reducing the number of access points near the intersection of Greenwood and Myrtle Avenues, the new configuration will help to reduce conflicts, making navigation for motorist's easier. 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 the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • Under the previous special exception the church brought the parking areas into compliance with the requirements of the zoning code, including location and marking of pedestrian areas and routes. • In order to secure a building permit the site plan and building designs must be reviewed by the building department. This review will ensure compliance with all other standards in the code not specifically reviewed in this report. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. • The Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of institutional uses, such as churches, within residential neighborhoods so long as they meet the requirements of the zoning code and are designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00007 a special exception to allow a 1,600-square-foot addition to a religious facility in the Medium Density, Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 405 Myrtle Avenue subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted with this application. • The remaining drive providing access to the rear parking area must be assigned as a fire lane. b ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Aerial view of the property 3. Photos of the existing building 4. Specific criteria 5. Site plan and elevations 6. Application materials Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development �- 9 AVMH01H *s*n V W � w (N C O U) 95, Lb JAI IU �� NI181 10 Nd Nb0 cmt 3AV 83111w ,P z r o 0 View of the church property. This photo was taken prior to the daycare addition approved in 2009. Note that the drive nearest the Myrtle and Greenwood Avenue intersection will no longer provide access to the rear parking area, but will serve as a loading unloading area. PAGE 4B-33 ..; Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses 13. Parks and Open Space a. Any new cemetery use must be located on a site containing at least 5 acres. Other shared private open space uses are exempt from the minimum lot requirements of the base zone in which they are located. b. The following uses and facilities are regulated as accessory uses and are subject to the regulations of Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings: (1) Accessory uses within shared private open space areas. Swimming pools, tennis courts, boat ramps, and other recreational facilities. These are recreational facilities that are shared among residents of the surrounding properties and are maintained and operated by a common homeowners' or residents' association. Recreational, sports, or athletic clubs operated as a commercial business and open to the general public to join are classified as Commercial Recreational Facilities and are regulated as a principal use. (2) Accessory uses within cemeteries. Mausoleums, chapels, and similar accessory facilities associated with funerals or burial. (3) Accessory uses within golf courses. Clubhouses and driving ranges. 14. Religious/Private Group Assembly in the ID-RM, ID-C, RR-1, RM-12, RM- 20, RNS-20, RM-44, PRM, MU, and CO-1 Zones a. Vehicular access to the proposed use is limited to collector streets, arterial streets, or streets with pavement width greater than 28 feet. For expansions of existing uses that are nonconforming with this provision, access to streets with pavement width 28 feet or narrower will be considered based on the traffic capacity of the subject street and the projected traffic generated by the proposed expansion. If the proposed expansion will cause an increase in the amount of traffic, a plan must be submitted illustrating how traffic to and from the facility will be accommodated during peak periods. Estimates of vehicle trips to the site during peak periods must be submitted with the circulation plan. This plan must be reviewed by the City's traffic engineering planner and approved by the City. b. Religious Institutions in existence prior to 1963 that are located in the RM-12, RM-20, RNS-20, RM-44, PRM, MU, and CO-1 are exempt from and may expand without compliance with the required number of parking spaces. C. Religious Institutions located in the PRM Zone that have parking areas that existed prior to March 1, 1992 and if such parking areas are within 300 feet of a Commercial Zone, the Religious Institution may lease up to and including 2/3 of the required parking spaces within said parking areas to other users. d. The number of off-street parking spaces provided may not exceed one and one- half (1.5) times the minimum number of spaces required, unless granted a special exception to do so. The Board of Adjustment will carefully review any requests for parking spaces beyond the maximum allowed, particularly in areas where large parking lots will erode the residential character of the neighborhood. The Board may limit the number of parking spaces and the size and location of parking lots, taking into account the availability of on -street Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 7-13-10 PAGE 4B-35 144B Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses e. The proposed use will not have significant adverse affects on the livability of nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late -night operations, odors, and litter. f. The Building Official may grant approval for the following modifications to a Religious/Private Group Assembly Use, without approval from the Board of Adjustment, upon written findings that the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located. (1) An accessory storage building less than 500 square feet in size. (2) A building addition of less than 500 square feet, provided the addition does not increase the occupancy load of the building. g. If the proposed use is located in a Residential Zone or in the Central Planning District, it must comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards as set forth in Section 14-2B-6. E. Other Uses 1. Animal -Related Agriculture in the ID Zones a. Livestock feedlots must be located no closer than 1/4 mile from any Residential Zone boundary. b. Confinement feeding operations are prohibited. 2. Extraction a. Extraction is not permitted within 1,000 feet of a Residential Zone. b. Proof of compliance with all State requirements, including all approvals and licenses referenced in subparagraphs c. through e. must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencing extraction operations. C. Approval for the withdrawal of water must be obtained from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, or its successor. d. Approval for operation in a floodplain must be obtained from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, or its successor. e. A license to operate the Extraction use must be obtained from the Iowa Department of Agricultural and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation, or its successor. Failure to maintain said license shall constitute abandonment. 3. Helicopter Landing Facilities in the I-1, I-2, RDP, and ORP Zones a. The proposed landing facility must be located at least 1,000 feet from any Residential Zone. b. The landing facility must meet all applicable federal regulations. Documentation of compliance with federal regulations must be submitted to the Board of Adjustment with the application for a special exception. 4. Communication Transmission Facilities in Residential Zones and in the ID- RS and ID-RM Zones a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Residential Zones and in the ID- RS and ID-RM Zones, provided the following conditions are met: Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 7-13-10 ® 0 EMI rn Am mm io ADDITIONS AND REMODELING TO FIRST MENNONITE CHURCH 405 MYRTLE AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IOWA i f l D— n _ _ o u CD b r = i � �� � ✓ I M e rn -Q g (t f ierl RST MENNONITE CHURCH YRTLE AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IOWA X 0N�� APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: A/ il 2e)l D PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1014183 oa 2% PROPERTY ADDRESS: g%,S M yrAle Ave- . PROPERTY ZONE: S-8 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 3.07 a.c ves APPLICANT: Name: k.4�k�,-F U Address: r 3 4y"o 2 ? ci 7_ Phone: 319 `71:co CONTACT PERSON: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: 5-Zy 4r yi i94A rd T G> Phone: �3 r — 052:7 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: f"'i2s 7- (if other than applicant) Address: 4fQS" Phone: 3 IT 5',�i� � icy 2 AUG 11 2010 City C;lcr Co4aaf�^;•, locka 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(jowa-city.org. Purpose for special exception:_Axp"Sio-A 01r6&' hsseh4�y 10m t Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: 12./ Z 001 Q w.i Cart t ac par.,.. S i �t �o Application to the Board of Adjustment- Special Exception I J_' E' D 2.GO �,M, A. Legal Description: AUG 11 2010 2582 SPERRY'S SUBDIVISION LOT 15 & W 20' OF LOTS 14 & 9 CAY Cicrk B. Plot Plan/Site Plan- see drawings submitted C. Specific Approval Criteria: 415 The proposed project will add an approximately 1600 square foot addition onto the west side of the existing lower level fellowship hall of First Mennonite Church. The purpose of the addition is to provide improved and more functional space for church gatherings and activities. The addition will allow the kitchen to be relocated to a more centralized position. This will allow for a more functional and updated kitchen and an outside entrance to the kitchen. Bathrooms will also be relocated and ADA compliant. The addition will also allow for more contiguous seating space. This project will facilitate upgrades to acoustic and aesthetics, improving the atmosphere and comfort for those using the space. Much needed storage space will also increase slightly. a. We do not anticipate an increase in traffic due to this project. While the project includes a 1600 square foot addition, as much as 600 square feet of the addition will be used to relocate the kitchen and bathrooms. The additional square footage will be used to allow for more contiguous seating than is currently possible. The addition will not increase the number of people using the space or the frequency with which it is used. b. The project meets all setback requirements. c. The project is compatible with adjacent uses. The addition is small and appropriately scaled to the rest of the building. Exterior finishes will complement the existing structure. The addition is setback from the street and not visible to neighbors on the east and south property lines and only partially visible from the north and west property lines. The upper driveway (nearest the addition) would be removed and improvements made to the existing lower driveway. As the number of people using the building and the number of cars accessing the church are not anticipated to increase, the existing paved areas will remain the same. d. The proposed addition will not increase the need for parking. e. The proposed project will not have adverse affects on the livability of residential neighbors. The purpose of the addition is to provide improved and more functional space for church gatherings and activities. These activities include meetings, fellowship meals, receptions and other similar church functions. The addition will not increase the number of people using the space or the frequency with which it is used. The addition is located away from and out of sight of most neighbors. They should not see much variation in building use or impact on the neighborhood as a result of this addition. f. NA g. Site elevation drawings have been provided. D. General Approval Criteria: We understand that the application for the special exception will be evaluated on the ability to meet the requirements and considerations outlined in #1-7. E. Names and Address of neighboring property owners: see attached. ' _ft , _ `g; q'rn' au(; 11 2010 City Clerk jowa Cit`; ; to°wa M NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-80-1 E, City Code). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk. Date:i } / 20 Date: ppdadminlapplication-boase.doc 20 Mgnatur6(s) of Applicant(s) Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) AUG 1:1 �!?10 city clerk io,va Ck"", Iowa STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC10-00008 1122 East Washington Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Steven Breaux 1302 Lakeside Court Port Byron, IL 61275 309-235-7479 Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: September 8, 2010 Contact: Kristen Breaux 1122 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52245 309-738-4841 Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Applicable code sections: File Date: BACKGROUND: Adjustment to the principal setback requirement. To reduce the front setback to allow for a new roof line on an existing, non -conforming porch. 1122 East Washington Street. 60' x 147' Single-family residential (RS-8) North: Residential (RS-8) South: Residential (RS-8) East: Residential (RS-8) West: Residential (RS-8) 14-413-3A, (General Criteria) August 12, 2010 The subject property is located in the Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone at 1122 East Washington Street. The required front setback for the structures in the zone is 15 feet. The original house, which was constructed some considerable time before current zoning regulations, is set just 8 feet from the street right-of-way line. Because of this situation the house is considered a non- conforming structure. The zoning code regulations for non -conforming structures (14-4E-6) state that "A nonconforming structure may be structurally altered or enlarged, provided it is structurally altered or enlarged in a way that will not increase or extend its non -conformity." The front porch is in failing condition and requires some reconstruction. In order to provide better drainage (the current porch features a minimally sloped shed roof), the applicant has proposed altering the roof to create a gable. The porch is approximately 8 feet in height; the applicant has proposed a gable that would reach approximately 13 feet at its apex. Because the porch located within the required front setback, a change in the roof height is considered an increase in the non- conformity. Therefore, in order to change the roof height, the applicant is seeking a setback reduction. The proposed setback reduction is to allow for alteration of the front porch roof only; the applicant does not seek to expand the structure further into the setback. Half of the properties along the same frontage are set back fewer than 15 feet from the street right- of-way line —a similar pattern exists along frontages on Pearl and Muscatine Street as well. Along frontages where there is an established pattern (50% of developed lots) that deviate from the required setback by five feet or more, the zoning code provides some relief through setback averaging (section 14-2A-413-3e). However, because the subject property is abutted by properties that meet or exceed the 15-foot standard, setback averaging does not apply. The required setback remains 15 feet. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-2A-4B-5b pertaining to Adjustments to Principal Setback Requirements in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-46-3A. 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 (14-2A-413-51b). 1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The subject building is already established with the required 15-foot front setback. While other properties along the same frontage are also set back less than 15-feet from the right- of-way line, the required setback for this particular property may not be adjusted through setback averaging because the immediately adjacent properties meet or exceed the required 15-foot standard. • While changing the roof angle on the porch will not extend the house any further into the setback, such a change is considered an enlargement of the non -conformity and is thus would not be allowed without a setback reduction. 2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The subject building is already established with the required 15-foot front setback, and the applicant is not proposing to extend the structure further into the setback. • The existing roof is leaking. The situation could be improved by creating a more steeply pitched roof. • Raising the roof angle is considered an enlargement of the non -conforming structure and is therefore prohibited. • Reducing the setback from 15 feet to 8 feet would make the structure conforming and thereby allow the applicant to modify the roof. 3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The minimum setback requirements are intended to: a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting. b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings. Staff believes the application satisfies these criteria based on the following finding: • The proposed setback reduction is for the roofline only and will not bring the structure any closer to the street or to neighboring properties. c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods; d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. Staff believes the application satisfies these three criteria based on the following findings • Several other homes along the same frontage and within the neighborhood also are set back less than 15 feet from the street right-of-way line. The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of modifying the roof only; the building itself will not expand further toward the street or toward neighboring properties. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding: • The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of modifying the roof only; the building itself will not expand further toward the street or toward neighboring properties. Sketches showing the roof at various heights and slopes are attached. To ensure adequate drainage, staff recommends that the slope of the roof be no less than 3:12. For aesthetic reasons, staff recommends that the final plan for the roof have the eaves of the porch at a height level with those of the house (see sketches provided by staff). 5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. The porch is setback more than 3 feet from the side and rear property lines. 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 the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings : • The proposed setback reduction will not bring the structure any closer to the street and will not reduce the amount of separation between the subject house and adjacent properties. • The setback exception will only allow the applicant to change the porch roof, and will not reduce light, air, separation for fire protection, or access for fire fighting. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding: • The proposed setback reduction will not reduce the space separation between the subject house and adjacent properties. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding: • The proposed setback reduction will not reduce the space separation between the subject house and adjacent properties. • The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of changing the porch roof only. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding: • The neighborhood in which the subject property is located is fully developed —all utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities are already in place to serve this neighborhood. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The proposed setback reduction will have no impact on ingress or egress from the site. • The subject property is a single-family home on a low -volume residential street —traffic congestion would not be anticipated in association with this use in this location. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The applicant must submit a final drawing to the Building Department in order for to obtain a building permit. The plan will be reviewed to ensure that all other aspects of the proposed construction conform to the regulations or standards of the zone. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive plan does not address this issue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00008, an application to reduce the required front principal building setback from 15 feet to 8 feet for property located in the Medium Density, Single -Family (RS- 8) zone at 1122 East Washington Street subject to the following conditions: • The setback reduction be for the purpose of altering the roof of the existing porch only —no other portion of the existing porch should be enlarged; • The proposed gabled roof will be no taller than 13 feet at its apex; • The proposed gable will have a minimal 3:12 slope to ensure proper drainage. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Views of the house at 1122 East Washington St. 3. Specific criteria 4. Sketches of various roof heights provided by staff 5. Application materials Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development The house at 1122 East Washington. Note the gradual sloping shed roof. View of 1122 E. Washington looking East from Muscatine Ave. View of 1122 East Washington from adjacent property. PAGE 2A-9 14-2A Single Family Residential Zones attached to an accessory building must comply with the standards for accessory buildings as specified in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. C. Fire escapes may extend into any setback, provided they do not extend more than 3 feet into any side setback. d. Stairways that function as the principal means of access to dwelling units located above the ground or first floor of a building may not extend into any required setback. e. Stoops and wheelchair ramps that function as a means of access to the ground or first floor of a building may extend into the rear setback, up to 8 feet into the required front setback, and into the side setback, provided they are setback at least 3 feet from any side lot line. In cases where due to topography or other site characteristics, a wheelchair ramp cannot meet this standard, a Minor Modification may be requested according to the approval criteria and procedures for Minor Modifications contained in Article 14-4B. S. Adjustments to Principal Building Setback Requirements a. A Minor Modification to reduce principal building setback requirements may be requested according to the approval criteria and procedures for Minor Modifications contained in Article 14-4B. b. A Special Exception may be requested to reduce principal building setback requirements beyond what is allowed by Minor Modification. The Board of Adjustment may adjust setback requirements if the owner or lawful occupant of a property demonstrates that the general special exception approval criteria and the following specific approval criteria have been satisfied: (1) The situation is peculiar to the property in question; (2) There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements; (3) Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations; and (4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. (5) The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of- way or permanent open space. C. Building Bulk Standards 1. Maximum Height a. Purpose The height regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. b. Standards Generally, the maximum height standards for structures in Single Family Residential Zones are stated in Table 2A-2. This table is located at the end of this Section. Height standards for accessory buildings are addressed in Article Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 12-01-09 PAGE 2A-5 14-2A Single Family Residential Zones 10. Flood Plain Management Standards See Article 14-53. 11. Neighborhood Open Space Requirements See Article 14-5K. ,14-2A-4 Dimensional Requirements The dimensional requirements for the Single Family Residential Zones are stated in Table 2A-2, located at the end of this Section. Each of the following subsections describes in more detail the regulations for each of the dimensional requirements listed in the table. Provisional Uses and uses allowed by Special Exception may have specific dimensional requirements not specified in Table 2A-2. Approval criteria for these uses are addressed in Article 14-413. Dimensional requirements may be waived or modified for developments approved through the Planned Development (See Article 14-3A, Planned Development Overlay) or through the Historic Preservation Exception as outlined in the Special Provisions Section at the end of this Article. A. Minimum Lot Requirements 1. Purpose The minimum lot area and width requirements are intended to ensure that a lot is of a size, width, and frontage that is appropriate for the uses permitted in the subject zone and will ensure, in most cases, that the other site development standards of this Title can be met. The lot area per dwelling unit standards control the intensity of use on a lot to ensure consistency and compatibility of new dwellings with the surrounding development. 2. Standards Generally, the minimum lot area and width standards for the various Single Family Residential Zones and for specific residential uses are stated in Table 2A-2, located at the end of this Section. 3. Minimum Lot Sizes for Specific Land Uses. a. Provisional Uses and uses allowed by Special Exception may have specific lot size requirements not specified in Table 2A-2. Approval criteria for these uses are addressed in Article 14-413, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses. b. If a minimum lot size is specified within a Zone for a particular land use or dwelling type, whether Permitted, Provisional or a Special Exception, that use or dwelling type may not be established on a smaller lot, even if smaller lots are permitted in the subject base zone, except as permitted under Article 14-4E, Nonconforming Situations. B. Minimum Setback Requirements for Principal Buildings 1. Purpose The minimum setback requirements are intended to: a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting; b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings; C. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods; Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 07-06-09 PAGE 2A-6 14-2A Single Family Residential Zones d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. 2. General Setback Requirements Generally, the minimum required setbacks for principal buildings in residential zones are stated in Table 2A-2, below. The minimum setbacks for principal buildings create required setback areas within which principal buildings are not allowed, except for certain building features as specified in this subsection. 3. Specific Setback Requirements The following subparagraphs contain setback requirements that apply in specific situations. a. Setbacks Along Arterial Streets (i) On lots platted after December 31, 1983, a minimum 40-foot front setback is required along any lot line that abuts an arterial street or future arterial street as shown on the Iowa City Arterial Street Map, located in Article 14- 5C, Access Management Standards. (2) If a lot is located along an arterial street that is substandard with regard to the width of the public right-of-way as specified in Title 15, Subdivisions, then the minimum 40-foot front setback along said street is increased by the number of additional feet that will be required for future upgrade of said street to City standards. Lots platted prior to December 31, 1983 are exempt from this requirement. In addition, setback averaging may apply in certain circumstances (See subparagraph e., below). b. Lots with Multiple Frontages (1) On corner lots, no building, structure or planting, unless specifically exempted, may be located within the Vision Triangle, as set forth in Article 14-5D, Intersection Visibility Standards. (2) If a lot fronting on two or more streets is required to have a front setback, a minimum setback equal to the required front setback must be provided along all streets and such setback will be considered a front setback for purposes of this Title. C. Lots with Multiple Buildings The principal buildings on the lot must be separated by a horizontal distance of at least 10 feet. Proximity of building walls will be subject to all current Building Code fire protection requirements. d. Overlay Zones and Special Districts If specific setbacks have been established in a Historic or Conservation District, a Planned Development, or in the Central Planning District, those setbacks supercede the setback requirements of the base zone. For properties located in a Historic or Conservation District refer to Article 14-3B and also the applicable setback provisions in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. For a property located in a Planned Development Overlay Zone refer to the approved Planned Development Overlay Plan for the subject property. For Two Family Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 07-06-09 M, oq tJ 0-6 00 14 w V) n4 ty f1� 0 rLKC 1oC)I,-o Pc_z BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION // 4 5 Ann sr-- AUG 12 2010 DATE: L i l`• PROPERTY PARCEL NO. t::ity 0.eTk Iowa tit . PROPERTY ADDRESS: ZIL��` �►-t� r� j , PROPERTY ZONE: i-16 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: APPLICANT: CONTACT PERSON: (if other than applicant) PROPERTY OWNER: (if other than applicant) Name: Address: L��i& Phone: Name: Address: Phone:)�� Name: Address: Phone: UJ jj 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-mairs-a--r-a-h-4vaiz@iowa-city.org. Purpose for special exception: Li i-jC-SCE)L��n�C��;�vv►� �,. k Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: /�l��j-it S�"G�•i� 7 �O � }''16?C: i�C� ��Z i ��i�-y -z- In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide responses to all of the information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date for your application. A pre -application consultation with Planning staff is STRONGLY recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria. As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official statement, you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Legal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary): You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing a parcel search for your address on the Assessor's website at www.iowacity.iowaassessors.com/ or by calling 319-356-6066. B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information: FILE I/ zJ S Al S{ 1. Lot with dimensions; AUG 12 2010 2. North point and scale" U 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; lG%Nacil,:, lua 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees- existing and proposed, 7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking spaces, etc.) C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that WL ,0A apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just , 0, 5. be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are Lot being met. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-4B-4 t of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are L listed elsewhere in the Code.) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa- city.org. city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application .J and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment. " c.� G c FILED AUG 12 2010 _3_ C ily chxA D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in "C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information, not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are not relevant in your particular case. 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. In 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. N)C 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, rainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided{. l { �;__ fI T 9 V:' I LL 9-4, I%: 4r, Alin -SF AUG 12 2010 Ca G"rL -4- ic,v.: CitIowa 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use as provided in the City Code section 14-413 as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards (14-5A through K) j 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. AUG 12 2010 Adjustments to Principal Building Setback Cu. r ,-1-1k 1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question. `'`r` The porch has existed in its current location for more than 50 years. Only the design of the roof is changed in the proposed plan in order to avoid further damage to the existing house. The base structure of the porch will remain unchanged. (Please see attached diagrams) 2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements. The only proposed change to the structure is the roof design in order to improve drainage. The existing porch is located within the setback and any change in the roof design would take place within that setback. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting There is no request to change the side setbacks, only the front. Changing the front setback does not interfere with any of the above. Also, the porch has existed in its location without affected any of the above. b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings. Again, there is no request to change the side setbacks, only the front. Changing the front setback will not affect privacy between dwellings. c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods Many of the houses in Iowa City are set close to the sidewalk. The porch has always been in the current location and does reflect the placement of several structures within the surrounding neighborhoods. d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences. Changing the front setback only would not reduce the physical relationship between buildings to an unreasonable distance, since the nearest dwelling in the front is across a street e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. By changing the roof structure, and therefore the front setback, the overall character of the neighborhood will be maintained and may even improve the surrounding property resale values. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. There would be no negative effects from changing the front setback. Better drainage by changing the roof structure and better resale value for the surrounding properties are both positive effects. 5. N/A F, Jr) AUG 12 2010 �i Ci�%. owa k4;, -- Am AUG 12 ?010 rt V QL.) W -1 Q oi- 0 0 F- CL p� r 4 E-+ 4 XQfD � om Rw ZZ W �a w a o " (d i-) Lli r- r a' LO 2 �* m ap � o ` III% 0. L W 1 U U) Z O W z a� a� _ -- 4 >- I uj vi a - w 3 W 4L a �i u z D O 4. � vQ4 g� O irzw �WLn r.3�zN N Ln Wi-)o° ,99*9bL 3„6L,OL.00N b In W ,99'`tt, L 0 o � o M 0 n r 00 V Do O 0V) I I I I I I ME � "' ON NON Ku�iap �tO C W<m c r, L� F Z Z C) Cn CV �pp o �� •- •- c Ei `�' cti c�a W a m� u) < �� J '�- CDZ � O) C, iS 8 v o j tt V Z Q0 ra— J v rn¢ �3 E O E u) mQ U �--' �ff -oZQ _� = R-,0 U a m a E 08- 0 - µy z F Z U U Q mV O1-1 M EE E-, z- z Cat z T E Q Z% z< 0 Ol z0 ° �<- 1--I C/) o �~ 6Y N w aZ1"ooz ?7L O E-yyZ I� woXp or Q��,,11, /�� � W � I •Vm10 �y U O WQ xp aIN N NN�gO 0 0 I I I E I I r n I V1 I I I I O i C rk 1 V 1 I €I nil I - lop W N � �m N N e W 0 z Q Q 0 <V n o O U z . mwc oa �CJwi n =z oaa W W�LLWo��{+Ip =o zVl U10 U����;� mNj ZL��Zloll (hZ z ZaZaa$oa'sz'g OOODU -0fp3w tl7 pp0 mzz 6 $$�a �$$=z�� hN. �u Z�i ma �ii���'6rc12a l®Q•O ® III ��ttgN � v U III I.. ��`►;., III _ OdUi Z I , n AUG 12 C).N Ck2cinor-f Ck�nrlof-t 5H 13 Z3 P03 ( nIZ5 Pin,���2C� Iz 2C)-f- (,�j )G i (J�A I'tcy Ckrlw CA, ID le c C.- Ge��hc�fd Ck :pIv ITIU-� I'M t e pn-� n, MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 11, 2010 — 5:15 PM — FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson MEMBERS ABSENT: Will Jennings STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Robin Chambers, Tracy Barkalow, Alicia Trimble, RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Anderson, Tyson, Eckstein, Sheerin were present. A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 14, 2010 MEETING MINUTES: Sheerin noted a typographical error. Tyson motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Anderson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Jennings excused). SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXC10-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Richard and Robin Chambers for a reduction in the principal building setback requirements for property located in the RS-5 zone at 907 Fifth Avenue. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 2 of 8 Walz explained that the applicants have converted their attached garage into living space, and wish to build a new attached garage at the rear of the property. Walz said that the applicants have the right to build a 21x 21 foot detached garage that could be located as close as three feet from the property line. Walz said that because detached garages are separate from the primary living space, they are classified as accessory structures and are subject to different standards than the principal building. Walz said that accessory buildings are generally smaller than the principal structure and therefore have different setback requirements than attached garages, which are considered a part of the principal structure. Walz noted that this property is somewhat different than the surrounding properties, which consist of long lots. The subject lot is the smallest lot size allowable in the RS-5 zone. Under current zoning if the lot was being built on today, it would be required to have vehicle access provided from the alley. Walz said that what makes this particular situation so peculiar is that the attached garage would actually provide a greater setback from the neighbor than the detached garage could. Walz said that most of the houses in the neighborhood have vehicle access off the alley. Walz said that given the arrangement and size of the lot it seems reasonable to grant a setback reduction allowing the attached garage. Walz said that staff recommends approval of this application subject to the height of the structure being limited to the standards for detached accessory structures and the setback reduction applying only to the 21-foot depth of the garage. Eckstein said that the written staff report seems to recommend only that the standards be adhered to, whereas the oral report seemed to indicate that staff favored a single -story structure. Walz said what she had meant was that the structure would be held to the height standards of a detached garage, as recommended in the staff report. Eckstein said there could be some concern about the mass of the building on the site if the decision was to make the garage more than one story. She asked if that was something the Board could or should consider. Walz said that the Board could consider that, but that they should keep in mind that a detached garage is allowed to be up to 20-feet tall. Eckstein asked if that would be true of an attached garage if the application was approved as staff had presented it. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that if the garage was attached, the garage was allowed to be as tall as the house, which is less than the 20-feet being discussed. Robin Chambers, 907 Fifth Avenue, said that she wished to clarify that the original attached garage has not yet been converted to living space, though that is the plan. She said that no conversion would begin until the Board made their decision on the new garage. She offered to answer any questions the Board might have. Eckstein said that she understood it to be the case that the proposed garage and its driveway would not be directly across the alley from the neighbor's driveway. The applicant said that was correct. Anderson moved to approve EXC10-00006, a special exception to reduce the setback requirement for principal buildings from 20 feet to 10 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1) The height of the garage will be limited according to the standards for detached accessory structures; 2) The setback reduction is for the 21-foot depth of the proposed garage only. Tyson seconded. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 3 of 8 Sheerin invited discussion from the Board. Anderson said that upon initial review of the application he was concerned about the amount of buildup on the lot, with particular concern for the amount of open space that would be left on the site. He said that concern had been removed because of the fact that attaching the garage actually leaves more open space. He said that the staff recommendation to limit the height of the garage was a good idea. Sheerin said she too had originally had concerns about the mass of structures on the site. Sheerin invited the findings of fact. Eckstein said that this special exception poses no threat to the public safety and does not increase traffic congestion because of the way the garage is situated on the alley. She said that there are no structural changes that would impede emergency vehicles. Sheerin said that this situation is peculiar to the property because the lot is smaller than other lots in the area, and is the minimum size allowed in the zone at 6,000 square feet. Sheerin said that there is very little room behind the house to situate a garage off the alley. Sheerin said that another peculiarity of the property is that it actually provides for a larger setback with an attached garage than it could have for a detached. Sheerin said it meets the specific criteria as there is a practical difficulty with the setback requirement due to the shallow depth of the parcel and the small size of the lot. Sheerin said that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback requirement because it actually provides more space between the garage and the adjacent property than would a detached garage in this case. Sheerin said that the height limitation will reduce the appearance of massing large structures on the small property. She stated that any potential negative effects resulting from the proposed setback would be mitigated to the extent possible because the proposal actually results in more space on site. Sheerin said that the proposed garage is set back ten feet from the rear property line. Sheerin said that all necessary utilities and facilities are in place and the proposed setback will not diminish the capacity for the installation of sidewalks in the future, nor does it have any effect on motorists or pedestrians on the streets. She said the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which provides incentives for the use of alleys. Anderson noted that the staff report indicates that sidewalks are not present but that sufficient right of way exists for their future construction. Eckstein said that she concurs with the staff recommendation that the height of the garage be limited to the standards used for detached garages. Sheerin closed the public hearing. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Jennings excused). Sheerin declared the motion approved, stating that anyone wishing to appeal the decision may do so within 30 days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 4 of 8 APPEAL: Discussion of an appeal filed by Tracy Barkalow to overturn a decision of the Historic Preservation Commission denying a Certificate of Appropriateness for a property located at 837 Maggard Street. Tyson recused herself from consideration of this case as she is associated with the appellants. Walz noted that the appellant has the option of deferring on the matter for another month, as a vote to approve the appeal requires three affirmative votes. The appellant indicated a desire to proceed. Eckstein said that she had another commitment, so if the discussions ran past 6:35 p.m. she would have to leave. Walz said that at that point the Board would have to defer if the matter had not been resolved. Walz explained that at the May 27th meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) the Commission voted to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow vinyl siding for a non- contributing structure located at 837 Maggard Street. The subject property is located in the Clark Street Conservation District. The appellant has requested an appeal to the Board of Adjustment for the denial of the HPC decision citing the following grounds: 1) The decision was unfair because adjacent properties in the neighborhood are sided in vinyl siding, and the Board approved the vinyl siding on the adjacent properties (also owned by the appellant) at the very same meeting; 2) A member of the Commission made statements prior to and during the meeting indicating bias against the appellant, and 3) The cement -board siding approved by the Commission is too expensive. Walz noted that the Board has been provided with the transcript and minutes from the May 27th meeting. She said that staff believes that HPC was not arbitrary or capricious in its decision, which is the standard for granting an appeal. Walz said that the transcript shows that the Commission cited the property's non-contributing status. Walz said that staff finds it is reasonable that the two properties owned by the appellant were treated differently by HPC because the property that was allowed to have vinyl siding was non -historic, whereas the property that was denied vinyl siding was cited as non-contributing. Walz said that the non- contributing status indicates that the property is of historic value but the property has been altered in such a way that it no longer contributes to the historic nature of the neighborhood. Staff finds that the bias indicated by the appellant is not evident, and that even if it was, such bias did not taint HPC's decision as both the vote to approve vinyl siding on one property and deny vinyl siding on the subject property were unanimous votes. She said that Commissioners had cited appropriate reasons for their votes. Walz noted that the Board does not have the authority in this context to grant relief based on economic hardship, which is the third ground the appellant lists as a reason for appeal. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the standard the Board is to consider is whether the HPC was arbitrary and capricious in making their decision. She said that this is not a re -hearing of the merits of the case; Board members are not meant to decide what they themselves would have done if they had been on HPC. Greenwood Hektoen said that the decision as to whether the Commission had behaved arbitrarily or capriciously should be based on the record provided to the Board and the testimony at this evening's meeting. Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 5 of 8 Eckstein asked if there is any economic apparatus in place to help building owners in historic districts meet the standards required by the code. Walz said that in this particular context there is not. Greenwood Hektoen said that in some cases an application for economic hardship can be filed separately from the appeal process. Eckstein asked if that meant that a homeowner would not have to comply with certain aspects of the historic preservation regulations if they were found to be suffering economic hardship. Greenwood Hektoen said that there is an avenue available for that in the general sense, but that has not been requested in this case and is not part of what the Board is to consider in this case. Sheerin asked if it was correct to say that 837 Maggard Street was considered non-contributing because it was a historical home that had undergone changes that had detracted from its historic character. Staff said that was correct. Sheerin invited the appellant to speak. Tracy Barkalow, 916 North Gilbert Street, said that in the past year several thousand dollars had been spent on a new roof for the subject property. He said that they had worked with HPC to put a small, new deck on the front of the building; Barkalow said that the deck should have cost a couple thousand dollars but actually cost about $8,000 to build to historic code. Barkalow said that they wished to put vinyl siding on the property for a better long-term appearance. He noted that Housing inspection Services (HIS) requirements required only a weekend's worth of work on the porch and a few hundred dollars in paint. Instead of meeting the bare minimum requirements, Barkalow said, it was his desire to improve the property and the general neighborhood by replacing the siding. Barkalow explained that the street dead -ends into a cul-de-sac and railroad tracks. He said that the apartment complex at the end of the street has vinyl siding on it; 831 Maggard has vinyl siding on it; 841 will have vinyl siding on it; several other properties on the street have vinyl siding. Barkalow said he understands the value of historic neighborhoods as he owns a real estate company in town and lives in a historic district himself. He said that he just does not understand the historic value of this particular duplex at the end of a cul-de-sac that has been a rental property for over a decade. Barkalow said Pam Michaud of the HPC came into his real estate office and badgered his staff for about a half an hour the week before the HPC meeting was to take place. He said Michaud told his staff that Barkalow could afford to side the building in cement -board and that Barkalow should stop putting bad tenants in historic neighborhoods. He said she asked how he had made all of his money, and in response to his claims that cement -board siding was not economically feasible for this particular home, she inappropriately suggested at the meeting that he should take money from other income properties and invest it in this one. He said that this particular property generates about $900 per year, and it would take about 15 years to pay the difference between vinyl and cement -board siding. Barkalow said that Michaud's behavior had been totally inappropriate and that Mayor Matt Hayek and City Planner Christina Kuecker had both personally apologized for Michaud's behavior and acknowledged its inappropriateness. Barkalow said that he did not feel he had gotten a fair shake at that meeting, and that he had found the whole thing disturbing. Barkalow said he just wanted to get the property sided and cleaned up, and that if he is unable to do that then he will simply paint it and leave it as an ugly house in the neighborhood. Alicia Trimble, 2232 California Avenue, introduced herself as the current chair of HPC. She said Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 6 of 8 that to her knowledge, the HPC has never approved vinyl siding on a contributing structure, or a structure that could be contributing if it was restored. Trimble said that the property next door to the subject property was built in the 1980's, so HPC did not have any guidelines that would prevent vinyl siding from going on that structure. Trimble also noted that the Commission cannot take cost into consideration when making their decisions. Eckstein motioned to grant the appeal to overturn the decision of the HPC to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a property located at 837 Maggard Street. Anderson seconded. Anderson thanked Kuecker, Barkalow and Trimble for attending this meeting, saying he knew that historic preservation can be a contentious issue. He said that while actions or statement s of certain Commission members may or may not have been appropriate, ultimately, the decisions rendered were appropriate based on the criteria governing the Commission's decision. He said that for him it is a fairly straight -forward issue. Sheerin said that she agreed with Anderson that there was nothing in the record to demonstrate that the Commission had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Sheerin did note that if the Commission was not allowed to consider economic hardship as a factor in their decisions then they certainly should not be considering a perceived ability of the applicant to pay for requirements. She said that while those comments may not have been appropriate, they also were not allowed to influence the decision. Sheerin said that while it is frustrating that two adjacent properties are governed by different rules that is a function of the historic preservation code. She said she did not see how the Board could overturn the decision of HPC based on what was before them. Eckstein said that she agreed with what her colleagues had said. She said that the distinction between non -historic and non-contributing is clear in the code, and that the Commission has voted consistently based on that distinction. Eckstein said that the double -balcony mystifies her; she said she cannot understand how that structure went through the HPC and was approved. Eckstein said that the whole issue of contributing and non-contributing is based in the potential of the property to go back to its role as reflecting a historic presence in the neighborhood. Eckstein said that she understands perfectly why the two homes had different findings from the Commission regarding vinyl siding; although, how the double balcony was ever approved through HPC is another question altogether. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board should consider the balcony's role in the structure's historical conformity as no evidence had been presented on that. Eckstein said she was merely making a comment. She said she agreed with her colleagues; she would not know how to question the decision given the clarity of the distinctions. Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited further findings of fact. Eckstein said that a non -historic property like 841/845 Maggard is outside the historic purview of HPC; therefore, rules such as whether or not vinyl siding can be used simply do not apply to those properties. For a property that is within the Commission's historic frame, those rules do apply. Sheerin said that HPC had made a clear distinction between the two properties based on the code and made it clear that the subject property did not fall within the exception for non- Board of Adjustment August 11, 2010 Page 7 of 8 contributing property to have vinyl siding. Sheerin said that while the comments of Michaud may have been inappropriate, the Commission did not form their decision based upon them and in fact made it clear that those comments were irrelevant to the matter before them. She pointed out that a simple majority was needed, and the Commission had voted unanimously in the matter. She said that cost just is not an issue because it cannot be considered. Anderson said that he could understand an allegation of bias if the Commission had made a practice of approving vinyl siding for non-contributing structures in the past; however, HPC has been very consistent in not allowing vinyl siding for properties that can be moved toward contributing status. Walz reminded the Board that a "yes" vote meant that they were overturning the HPC decision; a "no" vote means that the HPC decision is affirmed. A vote was taken and the motion failed 3-0 (Tyson recused; Jennings excused). Sheerin declared the motion approved, stating that anyone wishing to appeal the decision may do so within 30 days of the decision being filed within the City Clerk's Office. Walz noted that the next meeting would take place September 8`h and that there would be at least two applications. Walz said she would not be present for the meeting as she would be in Des Moines; however, she will inform the Board ahead of time of which staff member will be there instead. ADJOURNMENT: Tyson motioned to adjourn. Anderson seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote (Jennings excused) at 6:02 PM. 0 N L t O N O M O co O LU x x O x x O x x x o o x x x x x LU "_ x x x x o IT x x x x x x x x x x LU x x x o x N ' ;Lu x o x x x V1 N V' �fl M —_ E L �- Z O O O O O W O O O O O c C 0 .� L 1. aLA 0 to a E Cui y C Z Q C H � •O ded= C OTC m U .0 a 4-0 C O a a cd C a a a 4J O C cd L L O L (d a a .0 �L a C bQ y L u L a t 'a L a �C G a � a L a N � V C � a � C cd Z II II II II II w Y