Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-2012 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, January 11, 2012 — 5:15 PM City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the December 14, 2011 Minutes D. Special Exception EXC11-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Bruegger's Enterprises, Inc., for a special exception to allow up to three parking spaces for residential uses at 225 Iowa Avenue to be located on a separate lot in a municipal parking facility in the Central Business (CB-10) zone. E. Board of Adjustment Information F. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: February 8, 2012 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz Item: EXC11-00011 Date: January 11, 2012 225 Iowa Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Bruegger's Enterprises, Inc. 159 Bank Street Burlington, VT 05401 802-652-9284 Contact Person: David Ports Architects, Inc. 3554 Brecksville Rd. Suite 500 Richfield, OH 44286 Requested Action: A special exception to provide required parking off site. Purpose: To allow up to 3 required parking spaces for a residential use in the CB-10 zone to be provided in a municipal parking ramp Location: 225 Iowa Avenue Size: 4,300 square feet (50 x 86) Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial, CB-10 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: University (P-2) South: Mixed use Commercial (CB-10) East: Mixed use Commercial (CB-10) West: Mixed use Commercial (CB-10) Applicable code sections: Minimum Parking Requirements (14-5A-4); Alternative to Minimum Parking Requirements: Off -Site Parking (14-5A-4F-1); Maximum Parking allowed in the CB-10 zone (14-5A-3D; General Criteria for Special Exceptions (14-413-3). File Date: December 14, 2011 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In September, 2011, the subject property was destroyed by a fire. At the time the ground floor of the two-story building served as a commercial use (Bruegger's Bagels) while the second floor housed three apartments (two 1-bedroom units and one 2-bedroom unit). The applicant is proposing to re- build a similar mixed -use building with commercial space on the ground floor with similar residential units above (two 1-bedroom units and one 2-bedroom unit). The original dwelling units were established prior to 2009, when there were no parking requirements for residential uses in the CB- 10 zone. The destruction of the building by fire eliminated rights to dwelling units unless the current minimum parking requirements are met. The property does not have access to the rear alley, which would be necessary to create underground parking on site. The applicant is requesting up to 3 parking spaces in the municipally owned Tower Place parking facility located a half block to the east on Iowa Avenue. Three parking spaces would allow construction of the three proposed apartment units to replace those lost in the fire. Minimum Parking Requirements (Table 5A-1) In the CB-10 zone: Efficiency and 1-bedroom apartments require 0.5 parking spaces 2-bedroom units require 1 parking space. 3-bedroom units require 2 parking spaces. The Tower Place Parking Facility provides a total of 511 parking spaces. There are currently 320 permits for spaces in the ramp. Thirty (30) spaces that are allotted to those businesses that own space within the surrounding facility; these spaces stay with ownership of the property and transfer with ownership. In addition, the facility reserves 50 spaces open until 11:00 am per an agreement with the Senior Center. After 11 a.m. these are opened up and anyone can park there. The zoning code was amended in December 2008 to establish minimum parking requirements for residential uses. The goal of the code amendments was to ensure that adequate parking be provided as new dwelling units are built. Where it is not possible to provide the required parking spaces on site, the code allows that parking spaces may be provided off -site by special exception. In the CB-10 zoning district, the zoning code allows up to 100% of parking to be located in municipal parking structures provided that the Director of Planning and Community Development, in consultation with the Director of Transportation Services and the City Manager, substantiates that the requested parking spaces can be accommodated without exceeding the facility's capacity. Requests to meet minimum parking requirements for residential uses may only be approved by special exception and only if there is capacity in the subject facility for long-term parking and leases have been or will be secured from the City. 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 of Adjustment may grant the requested special exception to allow establishment of the off -site parking in the CB-10 zone and above -ground on -site parking if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations of the Sections 14-5A-4F-1 and Section 14-5A-3D-5e as well as and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-46-3A. Specific Standards: Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements (14-5A-4F-1) Off-street parking may be located on a separate lot from the use served according to the following rules. When the proposed off -site parking is located in a residential zone or in the CB-10 zone or intended for a use in the CB-10 zone, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception for the proposed parking, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs a through g are met. a. Special Location Plan A special location plan must be submitted with the application for off -site parking. The location plan must include a map indicating the proposed location of the off -site parking, the location of the use or uses served by the parking, and the distance and proposed walking route between the parking and the use(s) served. The map must be drawn to scale and include property boundaries of any intervening properties. In addition, documentation must be submitted providing evidence deemed necessary to comply with the requirements herein. Staff believes that the applicant has satisfied the criterion based on the following finding: • The applicant has submitted site plan showing the location of 225 Iowa Avenue in relation to the Tower Place Ramp. The ramp entrance is located approximately 223 feet from the entrance to the proposed building. b. Location of Off -site Parking In Residential and Commercial Zones, no off -site parking may be located more than 300 feet from an entrance of the use served, except as allowed in subparagraph e, below, for parking in a municipal parking facility. Staff finds that this criterion is satisfied based on the following: • The proposed off -site parking is located within 223 feet from the subject property c. Zoning Off -site parking spaces must be located in the same zone as the principal use(s) served, or alternatively, off-street parking may be provided on a separate lot within the parameters of the following pairings. Staff finds that the criterion is satisfied based on the following: • The subject property and the proposed parking facility are located within the same CB-10 zone. d. Shared Use of Off -Site Parking Staff finds that the criterion is satisfied based on the following. • The applicant is not proposing to "share" parking with any other use. e. Off -Site Parking Located in a Municipally -Owned Parking Facility In instances where a use is within 600 feet of a City -owned parking area, up to 50 percent of the required parking spaces may be provided in the parking facility. When a use abuts a City -owned parking area, up to 100% of the required number of parking spaces may be provided in the parking facility. In the CB-10 Zone up to 100 percent of the required parking number of parking spaces may be provided in a Cityowned parking facility regardless of the distance between the use and the parking facility. When an applicant requests to provide off-street parking in a City - owned parking facility, the Director of Planning and Community Development in consultation with the Director of Transportation Services and the City Manager or designee must substantiate that with the addition of the requested number parking spaces the capacity of the parking facility will not be exceeded. In the CB-10 Zone, said parking requested to meet minimum parking requirements for residential uses may only be approved by special exception and only if there is capacity. Staff believes the applicant has satisfied this requirement based on the following. • The subject use is located in the CB-10 zone. • The applicant has requested up to three (3) spaces for long-term rental. The Tower Place Parking Facility provides a total of 511 parking spaces. There are currently 320 permits for spaces in the ramp. Nearly all regular permits expire annually and the number available for renewal or sale is based on an analysis by the Director of Transportation Services. The Director of Transportation Services has indicated that there is available capacity in the ramp to absorb the 3 spaces. The Director of Planning and Community Development and the City Manager agree. f. Approval Criteria In assessing a special location plan for off -site parking, the Board of Adjustment or Director of Planning and Community Development, as applicable, will consider the desirability of the location of off-street parking and stacking spaces on a lot separate from the use served in terms of pedestrian and vehicular safety; any detrimental effects of adjacent property; the appearance of the streetscape as a consequence of the off-street parking; and in the case of non -required parking, the need for additional off -site parking. Staff believes that the proposed location for off -site parking is appropriate based on the following: • The zoning code allows that for properties located in the CB-10 zone, up to 100% of parking may be provided in a municipal ramp regardless of its location. The Tower Place ramp is approximately 223 feet from the proposed dwelling units 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. Ingress, and egress from the ramp are designed with good visibility. • The ramp is already constructed so there will be no change to the surrounding area. g. Covenant for Off -Site Parking A written agreement between the owners of the parking and owners of the property for which the parking will serve must be submitted with the application for off -site parking. The agreement must assure the retention of the parking and stacking spaces, aisles, and drives and be properly executed, binding upon their successors and assigns, and must be recorded as a covenant running with the land. The agreement must provide that it cannot be released, and its terms and conditions cannot be modified in any manner whatsoever, without prior written consent and approval from the City. The written agreement must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Because the off -site location being requested is a City -owned facility, the parking agreement is subject to approval of the special exception. 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 the agreement indicate that the parking permits shall only be offered to residents of 225 Iowa Avenue and shall be offered at a rate not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of leasing. Staff recommends the agreement require the property manager provide the Director of Transportation Services with the name, license plate number, and address of all permit holders; and that permits be granted only to residents with the primary address of 225 Iowa Avenue. In addition, because future demand for parking will likely change and the Tower Place ramp may not always be the most suitable location to accommodate the requested parking, staff recommends the agreement allow the Director of Transportation Services to relocate the 3 permits to any other downtown municipal ramp on an annual basis. General Standards:14-4B-3, Special Exception Review Requirements 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff believes the following findings support this criterion: • The Tower Place parking facility is approximately 223 feet from the residential use. Pedestrian access (sidewalk) is already established between the two sites and the crossing at Iowa and Linn Streets is a controlled intersection. Ingress and egress from the parking ramp is designed to be safe and has good visibility to and from adjacent streets. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. In these circumstances, when the City is granting the permanent use of the public parking for the benefit of a private use, Staff believes it is appropriate for the Board to consider a condition requiring the proposed development be submitted to the Design Review process. This ensures that the proposed building is compatible with the downtown streetscape, and to appropriate design of entrances for the residential uses within the proposed building. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Staff believes that this criterion is met for the off -site parking based on the following. The Director of Transportation Services has reviewed the application and has indicated to staff that presently there is adequate capacity in the Tower Place Ramp to provide the requested 3 spaces. However, as future parking needs in the Central Business District change, the Chauncey Swan ramp may not always be able to accommodate the 3 spaces. Therefore, staff recommends the special exception include a provision to allow the Director of Transportation Services relocate the 3 permits to other downtown municipal parking facilities as needed on an annual basis. • A condition that the final building plan be submitted for Design Review, would ensure that the building is compatible with the surrounding property 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. • All utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are in place to serve the parking facility and the development of the proposed building. 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 that the criterion is satisfied for the off -site parking based on following reason: • All municipal parking facilities are designed to provide safe ingress and egress to adjacent public streets and to minimize congestion of public streets. 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. • Municipal parking facilities are designed to meet all applicable standards in the zoning code and are designed to provide safe and accessible parking. • All aspects of the residential development will be reviewed by the Building Official as part of the building permit process and by Design Review in order to ensure that all aspects of the code not specifically considered here are in compliance with the zoning code. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan, drafted in 1997, has the following to say about residential parking demand in the downtown: "Higher density housing in and around the downtown is an issue to be addressed in this district. The logic of promoting higher density residential development in the Downtown Planning District rests in the concept that people who live in and near downtown will walk to work (or classes in the case of University students), will patronize downtown businesses, will add to after hours vitality, and create a sense of safety in the downtown. Higher density development in the downtown also reduces pressure on the less dense older neighborhoods surrounding the downtown. However, some downtown merchants and business owners feel the residential population burdens the parking system in the district to the detriment of the businesses. The issue will need to be debated and resolved, setting a clear policy for housing, parking, and redevelopment in the Downtown Planning District." Prior to 2009, residential uses in the CB-10 zone were not required to provide parking. In response to concerns regarding the growing competition for parking in the Central Business District, the City Council approved the current minimum parking requirements in the zoning code, including the present special exception criteria to allow off —site parking in a municipal ramp. At this time the Director of Transportation Services has determined that there is adequate capacity within the Tower Place Ramp to provide the requested 3 spaces. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC11-00011, an application submitted by Bruegger's Enterprises, Inc. for a special exception to allow up to 3 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 Iowa Avenue, subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must submit the required agreement for off -site parking prior to securing a building permit. The agreement shall include the following conditions: o The permits shall only be available to residents of 225 Iowa Avenue at a cost not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of leasing. o The property manager must provide the Director of Transportation the name, license plate number, and address of all permit holders. Permits will only be granted to residents with the primary address of 328 East Washington. o The Director of Transportation Services may relocate the permits to another downtown municipal parking facility on an annual basis as necessary to accommodate demand for municipal parking facilities. The final building plan be approved by the Staff Design Review Committee. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Aerial view of the location 3. Location plan supplied by the applicant 4. Application materials Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development r 0 L 0 W 1S NNI� cn LLJO o O Q r CD z Q O — Q a� c a� Q ru 0 is inoneno Ln N E Z � `O r U L � O W t; m IL vmol'.'Llo vmol L ; 2 I '3AV VMOI 9ZZ 4 4 : 101 L APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT *�` � 9�9I -SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: 12-13-11 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1010312001 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 225 Iowa Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 PROPERTY ZONE: CB -10 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 5 0 ' x8 6 ' APPLICANT: Name: Bruegger's Enterprises, Inc. Address: 159 Bank Street Burlington, VT 05401 Phone: 802-652-9284 CONTACT PERSON: Name: David Ports Architect, Inc. (if other than applicant) Address: 3554 Brecksville Rd. , Suite 500 Richfield, OH 44286 Phone: 330-659-4420 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Net Lease Funding 2005 LP (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please contact Sarah Walz at 366-6239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org. Purpose for special exception: c-7 Relief from parking requirements in Table 5A1. a Date of previous application or p pp appeal filed, if any: None p 0 -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.iowacityiowaassessors.com/ or by calling 319-356-6066. B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information: 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. 7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking spaces, etc.) C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-413-4 of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are listed elsewhere in the Code.) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail Sarah-walz@iowa- city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment. Per Section 14-5A-4, Item F the Applicant requests off street parking be located on a separate lot. Up to 3 spaces will be required for residential parking required by Table 5A k. DO c, , -3- D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in "C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information, not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are not relevant in your particular case. 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. No impact on public. Proposed exception is requested as provided with Iowa City Zoning Code 14-5A-4, Item F. 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. No impact on use and enjoyment of property in immediate vicinity. Proposed exception is requested as provided in Iowa City Zoning Code 14-5A-4, Item F. 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. No impact on development and improvement of surrounding property. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessaryJacilities hju been or are being provided. Fri s M Not applicable. CT -4- 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Yes. Parking is requested off site so no impact on traffic. 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 Yes. Exception is for requirements of Iowa City Zoning Code Section 14-5A-4, Item F. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Yes. r., r- . � y ~Yi E LE 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 14-8C-1 E, City Code). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C4F, 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: �.&eywte!/l 20 k W..-,) *of". . ignature s) of Applicant(s) Date: ppdad minlapplication-boase.doc 20 Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) r.� CD r t S u I Ey '� MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 14, 2011 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Adam Plagge, Caroline Sheerin, Will Jennings MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Eckstein STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holocek OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Hanick, Judith Pasco, Michael Lensing, Mark Pries, Carolyn Gross, Crissy Canganelli, Clark Spencer, John Thomas RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Grenis, Sheerin, and Plagge, Jennings 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 AUGUST 17 & SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 MEETING MINUTES: Jennings moved to approve the minutes for August 17, 2011. Grenis seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein excused). Jennings moved to approve the minutes for September 14, 2011. Plagge seconded. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 2 of 9 A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein excused). OTHER: A request submitted by Steve Streb to extend the term of a special exception (EXC11- 00007) to allow a wet -batch concrete manufacturing plant in the General Industrial (1-1) zone on Independence Road, north of 4201h Street and south of Liberty Drive. Walz stated that the applicant was not present at the meeting. The issue is that there has been a filing on the case and the applicant is asking that until the litigation is settled that he can have that time plus some additional time to secure financing and to get the plant ordered. Sheerin opened public hearing. Sheerin closed public hearing. Plagge stated that this seems like a reasonable request. Jennings noted that there were a couple of typos that needed to be corrected. Jennings moved to extend the term of the special exception EXC11-00007 for 12 months. Grenis seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein excused). VARIANCE: VAR11-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a variance from the minimum lot area requirement for a duplex use in the RNS-12 zone located at 331 N Gilbert Street. Jennings read a statement recusing himself for VAR11-00001: "1 recuse myself from all discussion, deliberation, decisions, votes and any other parliamentary procedures concerning VAR11-00011. 1 recuse myself from these matters before the Board of Adjustment regarding this variance request on the grounds that my primary residence is within 300 feet of the property in question; that I have had prior relationship with the property owner by donating time and professional services for fundraising on multiple occasions and done so at the direc invitation of the applicant, Kevin Hanick. The deliberations, discussion, and decisions of the BOA in this matter should not be liable to question or grounds for appeal due to appearance of any possible conflict of interest. I do not consider this recusal precedent in regards to any and all future applications for exceptions or variances soley upon the grounds of 300 fott proximity to my primary residence. Walz submitted correspondence from a neighboring property owner Dr. John Kammeyer, 404 East Bloomington. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 3 of 9 Walz explained the difference between a variance and a special exception. A variance considers the burden placed upon a property by the zoning and whether the property can achieve a reasonable rate of return if forced to comply with the zoning requirements. Walz stated that her comments would focus on whether the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent with the zoning chapter and the Comprehensive Plan. Walz stated that the RNS-12 zone was set up to address issues in certain single family zones in the older neighborhoods near downtown and campus. Over time as the University grew there was more demand for rental units near campus and single-family homes started to be converted into duplex and multi -family uses. This caused issues with the alleys becoming run down, parking issues, and aesthetic issues. The City rezoned to RNS-12 neighborhoods that still had a single-family character in terms of lot size and housing style. That zone allows uses that were in compliance with the previous RM-12 to have their rights grandfathered in as compliant. Under both zones, RM-12 and RNS-12, a duplex use requires a 6,000 square feet of lot area. Walz stated that the applicant provided an aerial analysis that discussed properties within 300 feet. The applicant stated for such a large house on a small lot made it was unreasonable to be converted into a single-family use. Staff looked at the lots within the RNS-12 zone that were within 300 square feet that were less than the 6,000 square feet and how the lots were being used. Walz pointed out on a map the lots that were being used for more than one unit, the properties that do not have a rental permit, and the single-family units that have rental permits. Of the 21 lots that are nonconforming with regard to lot size, 11 function as single-family units that meet the current occupancy standard. In staff's view it is not unreasonable to for the property to be used for single-family and there are houses that are functioning that way with a large house being on a small lot. Walz stated that the applicant indicated that the Shelter House building is in need of substantial renovation. The property served as a shelter for over 25 years and allowed up to 29 roomers. The property is not otherwise unique and it is not untypical to have large houses on small lots in the Northside Neighborhood. Staff's view is that hardship is of the owners own making. Walz reminded the Board that the variance is not about whether the property should remain a shelter or duplex it is whether the zoning so restricts the property that it cannot be reasonably used as single-family. On this property staff has to think if it is reasonable to expect a single- family rental or owner occupied use on a 4,000 square foot lot in a house that is a little over 2,000 square feet. Staff feels that the zoning analysis indicates that it is not unreasonable. The condition of the house is of the owners own making. Staff believes that granting the variance would be counter to the general purpose to the RNS-12 zone and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that granting special rights to one property based on characteristics shared by others would under mind the intent of the RNS-12 zone. This then may lead to other special requests for special treatment. Staff is recommending denial. Grenis asked if there was a historic district in the vicinity. Walz stated that there was and pointed it out on the map. She stated that it would only affect the exterior changes. Walz confirmed that the property is located within the historic district. Plagge asked when the RNS-12 zone was put in place. Walz stated it was in the early 1990's. Plagge asked when the Shelter House tried to build a new facility. Holecek stated that it was in 2004. Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 4 of 9 Sheerin asked if it was staff's position that it does not practically destroy the value of the property. Walz stated that any diminishment in the value of the property is based on the condition of the house rather than the zoning of the property. There has been interest on the structure but the renovations that are needed are quite substantial. Grenis asked that if the size of the house in relation to the other houses is average or slightly above. Walz stated that quite a few of the houses are in the 1700 to 2000 square foot range. She thought that it was probably in the upper end of the size range but that there are other large houses in the area. Grenis asked why this house wasn't included in the UniverCity program. Walz stated that the UniverCity program did consider the house and it would have required too much renovation for the asking price. Sheerin asked if the applicant would like to speak. Kevin Hanick, 88 Hickory Heights Lane, Iowa City, IA stated that he is the applicant and the real-estate broker for the property. He corrected the report stating that the house went up for sale on January 7, 2011 and the original listing price was $200,000. Hanick stated that they have reduced the price to $169,000. There has been one offer that went to City staff in the request of the same thing in allowing more than three unrelated persons to live on the property. Since that discussion with the staff the offer has been dropped. Hanick stated that before the property was a shelter it was used as multi -family. The house was a heavily as a shelter. There has been a new Shelter House created in Iowa City and the question is now what to do with the old shelter property. Hanick stated that they have put in a legitimate open marketing effort for a year. Due to the limitation of the use there have not been any results in finding a buyer. Hanick discussed the pros of the house and stated that most of the work that does need to be done is cosmetic. Hanick stated that out of the 40 properties in the area there are only 4 that are single-family homes. The proposed duplex use will not change the look of the property. There is adequate off-street parking available. The house has a front and back stairwell so the converting would be a simple manor. This area is a heavy student area being that it is so close to campus. Hanick pointed out that this property is not a conversion from a single-family house and hasn't been a single-family use for about 50 years. Sheerin asked about the Shelter House possibly moving back to the property. Hanick stated it is because they need to do something with the property. He stated that the property would be an addition to the new Shelter House. Sheerin asked if the Shelter House considered doing any of the cosmetic renovations to the house. Hanick stated that there was talk but not really because there is unknown what it would be used for in the future. Grenis asked if Hanick believed that the majority of people that look at the place decide to not buy it because they cannot use it for more than a three -person household. Hanick confirmed that was correct. Grenis asked if any of the potential buyers were talking about tearing down the house and using the property for something else. Hanick stated he has never heard that. Plagge asked if during the years of litigation regarding the new Shelter whether the subject property had depreciated and if repairs or improvements had been put off in expectation of the new building. Hanick stated that he didn't know on that. There could have been up to 40 people living in the house for a night and over years of that the house has been used. He stated that it would be nice to have someone come in a buy it and make it into a duplex that can Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 5 of 9 be used. Sheerin asked if it was Hanick's opinion that if the variance was not granted it would destroy the value of the property. Hanick stated that he was not sure what the bottom is and they are currently at $40,000 below the assessed value. Grenis asked what the assessed value of the land itself is. Hanick stated that the total assessment is $200,430, of that the land value is $60,000 and the dwelling $140,430. Grenis asked if there have been any appraisals done on the property. Hanick stated that there has not been any done. Walz stated that there was a statement made about their only being 4 conforming single-family uses in the area. She clarified that that statement was incorrect in the zoning analysis there are items that are in peach and orange that are conforming. Walz clarified that a single-family use is one dwelling unit. There are a number of single-family uses in the neighborhood and this would include rentals and owner -occupied properties so long as the property is used as one dwelling unit. Sheerin opened the public hearing. Michael Lensing, 411 Fairchild Street, Iowa City, IA, stated he was involved with the Shelter House. He stated that the City has a great opportunity to take this house and make it an amazing single-family property. Lensing stated that it would be good for the UniverCity program. The house could be purchased by young professionals. There was discussion on whether there could be a restriction so the property could only be owner -occupied not rented and whether it could be rented to non -students. Holecek clarified that there could not be a restriction on who could rent the property. Mark Pries, 1128 Danbigh, Iowa City, IA, stated that he was the pastor at Zion Lutheran Church and that the Church owned two rental properties. Pries stated that he is on the Shelter House board. He stated that it was a puzzle as to what to do with the house. He stated he was hoping that the Board could come up with an answer. Carolyn Gross, lives outside Iowa City, stated that they used to own a home two blocks from the Shelter House. She reminded everyone that before dorms were built students lived all over town. Gross feels that making it a duplex would not be taking it out of the historic realm as some buildings in these areas were built as duplexes. Chrissy Canganelli stated that the use of this property as a shelter was not for the owner's benefit but it was for the community and the City, so the situation was not "of the owner's own making." If the variance is denied there are no other options other than leaving the property vacant. There is a need for additional shelter space, including a wet shelter. Grenis asked whether the right to use the property as a shelter would go away based on the 12- month vacancy. Chrissy Canganelli stated that they have in writing from City staff stating that they would be able to use the property after the year expiration as a shelter. Holecek stated that she was unaware of what Canganelli had in writing but that there is a larger analysis to the zoning code regulations. Judith Pasco, 317 Fairchild Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she lives within the block of the property. She stated she is against the application. Pasco talked about the character of the Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 6 of 9 neighborhood. She stated that she has no problem with students living around her house. The Northside Neighborhood has been a good area for the Shelter House. Pasco stated that the housing market has been bad lately and so houses sit on the market. She told how her house was a rooming house when they purchased it and they voluntarily changed the zoning to be a single-family house so that in the future it would stay as it is. Clair Sponsler, 413 N Gilbert Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she lived one block north of the Shelter House. She feels that there is a market for that house. She stated that there is a need to maintain the stability of the neighborhood and that it is very important along the borders of the neighborhood. She stated she speaks against granting the variance. John Thomas, 509 Brown Street, Iowa City, IA, stated he was against the application. He agrees with the statement that staff believes granting special rights to one property based on characteristics that are shared by other properties in the neighborhood and would undermine the intent of the RNS-12 zone and may lead to further requests for special treatment. This variance would be a step in the wrong direction. Lensing responded to some of the commenters. He stated that a duplex is permitted within the zone and is harmonious with RNS-12 except for the lot size. Walz referred to the analysis and stated that on the adjacent corners the houses are single- family uses. She wanted to clarify the statement that the situation is of the owners own making doesn't mean that the owners of the property were somehow negligent or otherwise poor property managers. The house served a good use as a Shelter for many years and the City did indeed approve the Shelter House and was involved by supporting its funding. However, the use was an intense use for such the structure and over time took a toll on the house and that has diminished the rate of return that can be earned in selling the property. Nonetheless, the house should revert to a use that is allowed in the zone. Sheerin closed public hearing. Plagge stated that he is a resident of Northside Neighborhood. The City has financially supported the Shelter House. This is not a private property owner trying to convert the property back to a nonconforming use. The property was affiliated with the City and it was for a good cause and that needed to be taken into consideration. Grenis stated that this is a complex issue, it is unique in that the shelter use was a help to the community. However, he noted that the RNS-12 zone was developed to target these types of neighborhoods. Sheerin stated that this case is very difficult. This is an unusual property because of the way it was used and how it benefitted the entire community. Sheerin stated that nothing that she has heard in the testimony makes her believe that it will destroy the value of the property. It is the job of the Board of Adjustment to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan is followed and this application doesn't seem to follow it. Sheerin stated that it is important to think about what will happen if the house doesn't sell and the impact to the neighborhood if it is to be used as a shelter again. Plagge move to approve VAR11-00001 application for a variance of minimum lot size Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 7 of 9 requirement for duplex use in the RNS-12 zone located at 331 North Gilbert Street. Grenis seconded. Plagge stated that in his view it would not being contrary to the public interest and the proposed variance will not threaten the neighborhood integrity nor will it have a substantial adverse effect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. He believes the proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning chapter. It will not contravene with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as amended. Sheerin asked that the members provide findings of fact. She stated her own findings that the proposed variance will in fact threaten the neighborhoods integrity and will substantially have an adverse effect on the user values of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance, because this could set the stage for similar requests from other properties that could have a higher value if allowed rights to a duplex or to a multi -family use. The proposed variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning chapter and will contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as amended because it would set the stage for similar requests of the property. The goals of the Central District Plan include objectives focusing on achieving a healthy balance of rental and owner occupied housing in the districts of the older neighborhood. Sheerin stated her finding that allowing this variance would be in contravention to the plan. She did not agree that the property in question could not yield a reasonable return, because any diminishment in value of the property is tied to the condition of the house which is in need of substantial renovation and not its RNS-12 zoning. The legal standard is that not granting the variance would practically destroy the value of the property. Sheerin stated that she has not heard any testimony supporting the conclusion that not granting this variance would practically destroy the value of the property. The house could be sold for a reasonable value. The owner's situation is not unique or particular to the property in question and the situation is shared with other land owners in the area. Twenty-one properties have lot areas of less than 6,000 square feet and of these ten properties contain more than one dwelling unit; eleven are single unit properties with maximum unrelated occupancy of three persons. Having zoning of this property as a single-family dwelling owner occupied or rental would not be unusual in the neighborhood as more than half the lots less than 6,000 square feet comply with the zoning code in this regard. The hardship is of the land owner or applicant's own making or that of a predecessor and title because even though the use was of a benefit to the community the reality is that having 29 roomers in the property over the course of 25 years has likely altered or degraded the house to such an extent that its sale price as a single-family property has been substantially reduced. Grenis concurred with Sheerin's findings. Plagge stated that in regards to whether the variance is contrary to public interest, he believed the variance would move the neighborhood towards significant compliance and that the situation is not similar to other properties within the area and the duplex would not be harmful in any way shape or form. With the neighborhood integrity he stated that conformity would be furthered by occupancy dropping by approximately 20 persons. With regard to unnecessary hardship, the conversion of the house from a 29 person rooming house and dropping it down to a three person residency would significantly destroy the property value. The owner's situation is unique to the property, and it existed with the City's participation. He did not believe there were similar Board of Adjustment December 14, 2011 Page 8 of 9 situations in the area and thus it would not perpetuate further requests for variances. The hardship is not the land owners or applicant's own making or that it is of a predecessor in title. The City contributed to the situation and the law suit has created undue delay on the sale and the renovation of the house. Because it was serving the public good in serving the homeless that it is more of a societal problem than that the City should be part of solving the situation. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 1-2 (Sheerin, Grenis against). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Grenis moved to adjourn. Plagge seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 3-0 vote (Jennings recused, Eckstein excused). W � U N W G W Q Z N LL Op a W mQ N-- X X X X X X X X X w 0 X 0 X X XXwXX CO) X X X X X M X X X X X N X X X i X N w r1 (D U-) N CM -r-��r- O O O O O wa N N N N N w o 0 0 0 0 C c W N W � •� cu CU(D ca c Lu U = E O Q -0 L iu O L (Q -0 L (a Z com§QU } w Y