HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2012 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 — 5:15 PM
City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
C. Consider the September 12, 2012 Minutes
D. Special Exception Items
1. EXC12-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Michelle Wiegand for a special
exception to allow conversion of a non -conforming use located in a structure designed for a use
that is prohibited in the zone; and a Historic Preservation Exception to modify the site
development standards (a reduction in required parking) for property located in the High
Density Multi -Family (RM-44) zone at 518 Bowery Street.
2. EXC12-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Thomas Fast for a reduction in the
front setback requirement to allow an expanded front porch for property located in the Medium -
Density Single-family (RS-8) zone at 1118 Fairchild Street.
E. Board of Adjustment Information
F. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: November 14, 2012
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC12-00010
518 Bowery Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
STAFF REPORT
Michelle L. Wiegand
1408 Buresh Avenue
Iowa City
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: October 10. 2012
Requested Action: A special exception for a non -conforming use that
is located in a structure designed for a use that is
prohibited in the zone to allow conversion to
another non -conforming use of the same or lesser
intensity; and a Historic Preservation Exception to
modify the site development standards (parking) to
allow re -use of the property.
Purpose:
Location:
S ize:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Applicable code sections:
File Date:
BACKGROUND:
To establish an eating establishment or commercial
office use on property located in the RM-44 zone.
518 Bowery Street
1,470 square feet
Historic District Overlay Zone, high -density multi-
family residential (OHD-RM-44); vacant
North: Residential (RM-44)
South: Residential (RM-44)
East: Residential (RM-44)
West: Residential (RM-44)
14-4E-5B-1, specific criteria for change to a non-
conforming use, 14-2B-8A Historic Preservation
Exception criteria;14-4B-3A, general criteria for
special exceptions.
September 10, 2012
The property at 518 East Bowery Street is an isolated remnant of Iowa City history dating back
to at least the 1860s. The existing 720-foot building was originally used as a grocery store, and
historic records show continued use as a grocery from 1895 until the early 1970s when it served
as the first home of the New Pioneer Cooperative Society. A retail establishment, the House of
Jade, moved in when the New Pioneer moved out in 1975. Records show a brief tenancy by
Helen Caldicott Community School in 1983. Since then the use of the building has been
unrecorded, though in recent years it was illegally used as rental housing.
The applicant purchased the property believing it could be used as a single family dwelling; she
later discovered that single-family uses are not allowed in the zone. Moreover, alterations to the
building that created a second floor bedroom and bathroom were done without permits and the
second floor space is considered uninhabitable due to minimum ceiling height requirements. The
second floor also lacks required egress windows.
On September 18 the City Council approved a Historic Landmark designation for the property
establishing a Historic District Overlay Zone for the property, the underlying zoning for which is
High -Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-44). The historic designation protects the building
from demolition as well as exterior modification that would diminish its historic integrity. The
designation also makes the property eligible for certain exceptions and zoning waivers to allow
the continued use of the property.
RM-44 zoning provides areas for development of high -density, multi -family dwellings and group
living quarters but does not allow single-family or duplex dwellings. The zone allows, as a
provisional use, hospitality -oriented retail (hotels, guest houses, meeting or event facilities), but
does not allow any other retail or commercial uses. The minimum lot requirement for a non-
residential use in RM-44 zoning is 5,000 square feet; minimum frontage is 35 feet; front setback is
20 feet; the required side setback is 5 feet. The property does not meet any of these minimum
dimensional standards.
The zoning code includes a provision under the Non -Conforming Use Regulations (Chapter E)
that allows a building constructed for a use no longer permitted in the zone to be converted to
another non -conforming use in a different use category or subgroup so long as the new use is of
the same or lesser intensity as the existing use, provided that certain conditions are met.
The Board of Adjustment may also grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional
or site development standards that would prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as
an Iowa City Landmark so long as the modification or waiver helps to preserve the historic,
aesthetic, or cultural attributes of a property, and obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
The original application requested a set of possible uses ranging from commercial office to retail
sales to a restaurant. Staff expressed serious concern about such a broad request. After a
meeting on Thursday, October 4, the applicant narrowed her request to allow the property to be
used for commercial retail use —sales, personal service, or repair. The applicant does not have a
specific tenant for the site at this time, but would like to be able market the building with retail as an
allowed use.
The Use Classification section in the code (14-4A-41-1) provides the following set of examples for
the proposed retail uses:
Sales -oriented: Stores selling, leasing, or renting consumer, home, and business goods,
including but not limited to antiques, appliances, art, art supplies, bicycles, carpeting,
clothing, dry goods, electronic equipment, fabric, flowers, furniture, garden supplies, gifts,
groceries, hardware, household products, jewelry, pets, pet food, pharmaceuticals, plants,
printed material, stationary, videos, Also includes retail establishments that have a cottage
industry component, such as bakeries, confectioneries, upholsterer, artist/artisans studios,
and similar.
Personal Service -Oriented: Establishments engaged in providing retail services and
services related to the care of a person or a person's apparel, such as retail banking
establishments, laundromats, catering services, dry cleaners, tailors, shoe repair,
photographic studios, beauty salons, tanning salons, therapeutic massage establishments,
taxidermists, mortuaries, funeral homes, and crematoriums.
Repair -oriented: Repair of consumer goods such as electronics, bicycles, office
equipment; appliances.
The zoning code requires one parking space per 300 square feet of floor area for retail sales and
personal service -oriented uses and 1 space per 500 square feet for repair uses. The applicant
intends to remove the garage (not historic) at the rear of the property in order to provide two off-
street parking spaces. On -street parking is prohibited on Bowery Street during most of the
business day.
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 in 14-4E-513 pertaining to the conversion of non -conforming uses
and 14-26-8A-1 in relation to a waiver of the site development standard for required parking in
addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in 14-413-3A.
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included oft
the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria
are set forth below.
Specific Standards (14-E-5B)
The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a nonconforming use that is
located in a structure not designed for a use allowed in the zone to be converted to another non-
conforming use in a different use category or subgroup that is of the same or lesser intensity as
the existing use, provided the following conditions are met:
a. The proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is
currently not allowed in the zone, for example a storefront commercial building located in
a single-family residential zone.
FINDINGS:
The subject building was originally constructed as a grocery store and continued to
serve commercial uses until the early 1980s. At some point after 1983 the structure
was illegally modified to serve as a single-family residential use, which is prohibited in
the RM-44 zone.
• The first floor interior of the building is still arranged with the open floor plan —it is one
large room with a half bathroom at the back. The large, front windows are the only
windows on the first floor other than a small window on the west side of the building.
The building is set at the front property line, as is typical of older commercial buildings,
and just inches off the east property line (public alley).
• The structure was illegally modified (without a building permit) to create a bedroom
and bathroom on the second floor. The second floor does not meet minimum ceiling
height requirements for habitable space and does not have egress windows as
required by code. Re -adapting the second floor to serve as habitable space would
require considerable expense and may diminish the historic character of the structure.
Given the size of the property and structure, it is not possible for the property to be re-
adapted for a multi -family use, though it could be adapted for a small single-family use.
In terms of rental property, this would only allow an efficiency apartment.
b. The proposed use is of the same or lesser intensity and impact than the existing use.
The Board of Adjustment will make a determination regarding the relative intensity of the
proposed use by weighing evidence presented by the applicant with regard to such
factors as anticipated traffic generation, parking demand, hours of operation, residential
occupancy, noise, dust, and customer and/resident activity. The Board of Adjustment may
also consider qualitative factors such as whether a proposed use will serve an identified
need in the surrounding neighborhood.
Given the history and nature of the site, the very limited size of the property and structure, and
limited opportunity for parking —Staff believes it is appropriate to consider the following:
FINDINGS:
• As stated above, it is clear that the property is not designed for a use that is currently
allowed in the RM-44 zone.
• Due to the extremely limited size of the property and structure, the property is not
adaptable as a multi -family residential use.
• The building does not have a clear history of use after 1983. While the building is
designed for a commercial use, we know that the most recent retail use was abandoned
more than 25 years ago. Thus, the rights to a retail use no longer exist. At the same time,
the residential use that did exist was established illegally and made use of space that was
illegally modified is not considered habitable under the current building code.
• Re -use of the property is severely limited by the size of the lot. The lot provides minimal
opportunity for parking —only two parking spaces. On -street parking along this portion of
Bowery Street is prohibited during daytime business hours. Moreover the high demand
for on —street parking in the surrounding neighborhood makes on -street parking practically
unavailable. Given these significant constraints any proposed use must, by necessity, be
limited in intensity and should not rely on significant vehicle access or parking.
• It is staff's opinion, the only reasonable use of the property is a single-family residential
dwelling (an efficiency unit), a limited commercial use that relies on pedestrian traffic from
the surrounding neighborhood, or a use that does not require regular customer/client
visits.
• The surrounding High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-44) zone represents the
highest intensity residential use allowed outside the Downtown and FIRM zone. The
neighborhood is dominated by high -density rental housing.
• Staff recommends a number of conditions that control the intensity of the use on the site,
including a prohibition on alcohol and tobacco, restricting hours of operation; and limiting
lighting and signage to the standards for non-residential uses in residential zones. These
recommended conditions are explained under the general criteria below.
It should be emphasized that granting this special exception will establish a baseline against
which any future use will be measured. Furthermore, any rights granted by the special exception
run with the property: these rights are not limited to the current applicants but extend to all future
owners of the property. Similarly, any conditions or restrictions tied to approval apply to all future
owners/users of the property and may not be altered or removed without another special
exception.
c. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site.
FINDINGS:
• The structure was originally designed as a grocery store (retail sales use) and its
interior floor plan remains almost unchanged —the first floor is one large room with a
half bath. The building abuts the Bowery Street right-of-way and has large front
windows giving it the appearance of a retail use.
• The limited size of the property (less than 1,500 square feet) and the building (720
square feet) place significant constraints upon the potential re -use of the building such
that the market for the property is quite limited. A small-scale retail business seems
appropriate for the structure.
The site can provide 2 off-street parking spaces, which satisfies the minimum
requirement for a retail use.
d. The structure will not be structurally enlarged in such a way as to enlarge the non-
conforming use. Ordinary repair and maintenance and installation or relocation of walls,
partitions, fixtures, wiring, and plumbing is allowed as long as the use is not enlarged.
FINDING:
The building may not be enlarged without approval of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Moreover the size of the building and its non -conforming setbacks and limited space for
parking practically eliminate any enlargement of the structure and impose considerable
constraints upon its use.
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.
FINDINGS:
• The limited size of the lot and structure along with the restrictions placed on it due to its
Landmark status, effectively limit the intensity of any use on the property.
• Two off-street parking spaces can be provided with access from the public alley.
• A building permit will be required in order to establish the new use.
• Certain aspects of the building may need to be brought up to date to meet current
building code and should be addressed in order to ensure the safe use of the property.
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.
FINDING: The proposed retail use of the property should be limited in scale due to the size of
the lot and building and the minimal availability of parking. Staff recommends the following
conditions to further ensure that the use does not negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood.
• Limited hours of operation: 6 AM to 10 PM weekdays, 6 AM to 12 AM Friday and
Saturday.
• Outdoor storage or display and outdoor seating are prohibited without a temporary use
permit.
• Signage should be limited to a fascia or awning sign in compliance with the zoning code
standard for non-residential uses located in residential zone and in compliance with Iowa
City's Historic Preservation Guidelines.
• All outdoor lighting should comply with the zoning code standards for residential zones
and with Historic Preservation Guidelines.
• Sale of alcohol or tobacco products of any kind is prohibited on this property.
• The alley will not be used for drive up or drive through service.
• No amplified sound is permitted on the exterior of the building.
• Food preparation/sales on the site is limited according to the definition of retail sales in
the code, which allows cottage industry component.
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.
FINDING:
Again, a retail use may include aspects that have the potential to detract from the surrounding
residential neighborhood. The conditions outlined regarding the sale of alcohol and tobacco
products and outdoor display will help to ensure the safety and aesthetics of the site. This
along with the recommended conditions for limited hours of operation, signs, outdoor seating,
and lighting will reduce the potential for conflicts with the residential neighborhood.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDING:
This neighborhood is fully developed with all roads and drainage —Bowery Street is adequate
to serve a small-scale retail use.
5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
• Constraints on the site due to the size of the lot and building would seem to deter
uses that rely on significant vehicle traffic.
• The property can provide the two required off-street parking spaces with access from
the alley.
• On -street parking is prohibited along Bowery Street until after 5:00 PM.
• By necessity a business would likely rely on customers coming on foot or bike from
within the surrounding neighborhood or will generate very limit customer visits.
• The conditions for approval restrict use of the public alley for drive -up service.
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.
FINDINGS:
• Very little about this property conforms to the zoning code. The lot does not meet the
minimum lot size for the zone (the minimum lot size is 5,000 feet) or the frontage
requirement (35 feet), nor does it meet the minimum front setback standard (20 feet),
or the minimum side setback (5 feet).
• The parking requirements, building coverage and setback standards, and historic
preservation guidelines prohibit the building from expanding in any manner.
• The proposed use would allow the property to be used in a limited way with the
potential to serve the surrounding neighborhood.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the re -use of existing buildings so long as their use does
not interfere with the function and character of the neighborhood in which they are located.
The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the preservation of historic buildings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The original application requested a set of possible uses ranging from commercial office to retail
sales to a restaurant. After discussion with staff, the applicant narrowed her request to allow the
property to be used for commercial retail use —sales, personal service, or repair. There has not
been time to allow full staff review of the amended application. Staff intends to have a
recommendation to the Board at its meeting on Wednesday, October 10.
With regard to EXC12-000010, a special exception to allow the non -conforming use that is
located in a structure designed for a use that is not allowed in the zone to convert to another
non -conforming use —a retail sales use —for property located in the High Density Multi -Family
(RM-44) zone at 518 Bowery Street, staff will likely recommend the following conditions:
• The special exception is for retail use only and is limited to sales -oriented, personal -
service -oriented, or repair -oriented businesses only. Any change from the permitted use
must be approved through a special exception.
• A building permit is required in order to establish the use.
• The use shall provide two off-street parking spaces at the rear of the property.
• Hours of operation are limited to 6 AM to 10 PM weekdays and 6 AM to midnight on
Fridays and Saturdays.
• Outdoor seating and display of products within the public right-of-way are prohibited
unless a temporary use permit is granted.
• Signage should be limited to a facia or awning sign in compliance with the zoning code
standard for non-residential uses located in residential zones and in compliance with
Iowa City's Historic Preservation Guidelines.
• All outdoor lighting should comply with the zoning code standards for residential zones
and with the Historic Preservation Guidelines.
• The sale tobacco or alcohol on the property is prohibited.
• Food preparation and sales on the site are limited per the definition in the code, which
allows cottage industry component.
• The alley may not be used for drive up or drive through or parking.
• No amplified sound is permitted on the exterior of the building.
• The building may not be expanded without a special exception.
• Any alterations to the exterior of the building must comply with the Historic Preservation
Guidelines,
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Aerial views of the site
3. Photos of the site
4. Application materials
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
IL
1S 39400 S
1S NOSNHOf
1S Nl�NB NVA
i
Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs
State Historical Society of Iowa Site Number 52-00675
Iowa Site Inventory Form Related District Number 52008
Continuation Sheet
Haas John M. Grocery Store
Johnson
Name of Property
County
518E Bowery
Iowa City
Address
City
Figure 1: The false front of 518 I. Bowery creates the illusion of a larger store, while hiding the gable
roof line. The curved style of the fagade is similar to the curvature another building from the period,
Holub's Grocery on the northeast corner Fast Bloomington and Linn Streets in Iowa City. Large plate
glass display windows facing the street would have showcased groceries and products for sale, enticing
potential customers into the store. Photograph taken May 2012. Digital file available on CD 285: 52-
00675-010.
DATE: �C (Acm b c r- 1 G PROPERTY PARCEL NO. E Ca 15 t d4 020
PROPERTY ADDRESS: it �j we-r i S - i�e4Lt lti_
PROPERTY ZONE:P_1 Wj"k Inc. l PROPERTY LOT SIZE:
APPLICANT:
Name: 1�io11c11�,
)- 44 t t�ancl.
Address:
-T-7o> r, C014
Phone:
Lcr_ii }
CONTACT PERSON:
Name.
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTYOWNER:
Name:
(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 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walzoowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception: n CA110Lc� F-o v- Cno-}�rnerua � Lt c S ��c I ckllncj
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
Application to the board of Adjustment
Special Exception
Property Address: 518 'Bowery Street, Iowa City, IA
A. Legal Description
East 21 ft. of south 70 ft. of Lot 15, Block 6, Lyons 2nd Addition, Iowa City, Johnson County,
Iowa.
Parcel Number: 1015129030
B. Plot Plan/Site Plan
See attached
C. Specific Approval Criteria
When the garage and patio area are removed, there will be space For two parking spots. I am
seeking a reduction in the parking requirement which, based on the property size, is probably
four. I am proposing that the building be used as an office or small eating establishment to
accommodate walk-in customers.
D. General Approval Criteria:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort, or general welfare.
The location of a small commercial property at this location will most likely enhance the
neighborhood.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property
values in the neighborhood.
The potential uses of this building as a commercial establishment have been outlined by a
developer who wishes to purchase the property and secure historic tax credits to rehabilitate the
structure. The property has been determined to be eligible For the National Register oFHistoric
Places, although the finalization of that process will not occur until February 2013.`Evidence
suggests this building was one of the earliest grocery stores ever built in Iowa City] datingback
to about 1857. The property has also been given local landmark status by the Historic
Preservation Commission.
The developer plans to work with the Historic Commission and remodel the exterior in keeping
with historic parameters. They understand they will have to remodel the interior to meet ADA
2
requirements, and eventually hope to lease the space to a commercial enterprise. Their ideal
tenant would be a small sandwich, lunch, bagel, donut, or coffee house which would cater to all
the foot traffic living in the immediate area. They would not seek nor be in favor of a business
serving or selling alcohol or tobacco products.
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.
The location of a small commercial property at this location will most likely enhance the
neighborhood. The intention is to lease the space to tenants who will maintain a store, cafe or
professional office on the premises. Should either of the first two uses prevail, we are ethically
disposed to lease to businesses which would not sell cigarettes or alcohol.
To that end, the developer plans to remove the existing garage structure and fences at the rear of
the property (which date from approximately 1994 and have no historic significance) in order to
provide two parking spaces for the business (one of which would be handicapped -accessible).
Further, we anticipate restoring the Bowery Street fagade with historically -correct front door and
transom flanked by shop windows. On the alley fagade they plan to restore to operation the
original side door (which has been blocked from the inside) to provide access to storage in the
upper floor. On the rear fagade they plan to replace the existing entry door with another which is
wider (36" as opposed to 32" to facilitate handicapped access) in a style appropriate to the period
of the building. They also plan to restore the existing roof, which is sound but beginning to rust,
with a new finish coating.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are
being provided.
At present, there is adequate city infrastructure in terms of sanitary sewer, water, fire protection,
and public utilities. The area has good access to public transit routes as it is located close to the
bus route and a free bus shuttle, and a great deal of foot traffic passes by daily. Bowery St. is a
busy arterial street and public parking is available in front of the building after 5:00 p.m.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
The property will be modified to create additional parking spaces on the north -end of -the lot,
The garage is a non-contributing structure in terms of the National Register of Historic: Places so
it can be torn down. The patio area and fencing will also be eliminated. The buildingwool d have
to be brought up to code and exceptions would have to be granted to accommodate theF setback of
the building, parking, and other considerations.
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).]
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The proposed use for the property at 518 East Bowery would be compatible with the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan, provided certain exceptions are granted to make the property commercially
viable. This is a visually compelling building that enhances the surrounding streetscape and
reminds residents of the former character of the neighborhood. The preservation of existing
buildings in the Central Planning district has been a priority, despite the encroachment of nearby
apartment buildings. Allowing for commercial use may help revitalize the neighborhood and
help assure the long term stability of this structure.
E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located within
300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal:
North side of Bowery:
532 S. Van Buren St. (PIN 1015129025) Owner: XN LLC (class: residential)
Owner:
XN LLC, P.O. 3049 IC 52244
504 Bowery St.
(PIN 1015129033) Owner: ZJ-19 LLC (class: residential)
Owner:
7.T-19 LLC, P.O. 3049 TC 52244
510 Bowery St.
(PIN 1015129032) Owner: ZJ28 LLC (class: residential)
Owner:
ZJ28 LLC, P.O. 3049 IC 52244
516 Bowery St.
(PIN 1015129031) Owner: ZJ29 LLC (class: residential)
Owner:
ZJ29 LLC, P.O. 3049 IC 52244
520 Bowery St.
(PIN 1015140001) Owner: XY LLC (class: residential)
Owner:
XY LLC, P.O. 3049 TC 52244
535 S. Johnson
St. (PIN t015129027) Owner: XJ-22LLC (class: residential)
Owner:
XJ-22LLC, P.O. 3049 IC 52244
4
South side of Bowery:
501 Bowery St. (PIN 1015136006) Owner: Bowery House Inc. (class: commercial)
Owner: Owner: Bowery House Inc., 905 Bluffwood Dr. Iowa City, 52245
507 Bowery St. (PIN 1015136005) Owner: XM LLC (class: commercial)
Owner: XM LLC, P.O. Box 3049 IC 52244
513 Bowery St. (PIN 1015143001) Owner: QV LLC (class: residential)
Owner: QV LLC, P.O. Box 3049 IC 52244
521 Bowery St. (PIN 1015136002) Owner: Michael T. McLaughlin (class: commercial)
Owner: Michael T. McLaughlin 614 Pine Ridge Road, Coralville, 52241
607 S. Johnson St. (PIN 1015136001) Owner: Michael T. McLaughlin (class: residential)
Owner: Michael T. McLaughlin 614 Pine Ridge Road, Coralville, 52241
Keith Barton & Steven Rosenberg 10. September, 2012
675 61st Street
Oakland, CA 94609
51.0-595-7360 C'n1ct,L `. S Rv3cn, Oercq C, COG S, o V-
J
Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, Board of Adjustment
Urban Planning Division
Planning & Community Development Department
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re; 518 East Bowery Street Board of Adjustment October hearing
Dear Ms. Walz,
As the prospective new owners of 518 East Bowery, we would like to say thank you
for your work to date toward the goal of securing historic designation for this piece
of Iowa City's history. The Planning and Zoning commissioners' enthusiasm for the
project at last month's hearing was very gratifying.
We are writing today in regard to the next hurdle in the process, the hearing before
the Board of Adjustment on October 10, 2012.
Our intention is to lease the space to tenants who will maintain a store, caf6 or
professional office on the premises. Should either of the first two uses prevail, we
are ethically disposed to lease to businesses which would not sell cigarettes or
alcohol.
To that end, we plan to remove the existing garage structure and fences at the rear
of the property (which date from approximately 1994 and have no historic
significance) in order to provide two parking spaces for the business (one of which
would be handicapped -accessible). Further, we anticipate restoring the Bowery
Street facade with historically -correct front door and transom flanked by shop
windows. On the alley facade we plan to restore to operation the original side door
(which has been blocked from the inside) to provide access to storage in the upper
floor. On the rear facade we plan to replace the existing entry door with another
which is wider (36" as opposed to 32" to facilitate handicapped access) in a style
appropriate to the period of the building. We plan to restore the existing roof, which
is sound but beginning to rust, with a new finish coating.
Area and conceptual site plans are attached to illustrate the disposition of existing
and proposed structures. As you can see, there are non -conforming setbacks on all
sides of the property which we presume will be grandfathered in. By removing the
garage and fences we actually will make the rearyard more open, albeit using it for
parking.
We understand and value the importance of maintaining the building in a manner
which reinforces its original esthetic and will work with local and state historical
resources to do so. Mary Bennett and Mickie Wiegand have already identified some
of those people and archives to us and we are beginning to acquaint ourselves with
them.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Keith Barton and Steven Rosenberg
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC12-00011
1118 Fairchild Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Applicable code sections:
File Date:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: October 10, 2012
Thomas Fast
1118 Fairchild Street
Iowa City, Iowa
Adjustment to the principal building
setback requirement.
To reduce the front setback requirement
from 15 feet to 9 feet 9 inches inches in
order to allow a front porch.
1118 Fairchild Street
60 x 150 square feet
Residential, Medium Density, Single -
Family (RS-8) zone
North: Residential (RS-8)
South: Residential (RS-8)
East: Residential (RS-8)
West: Residential (RS-8)
Specific criteria for adjustments
to the principal building setback
requirements, 14-2A-4B-5; Purpose of the
minimum setback requirement, 14-2A-4B-
1; General criteria for special exceptions,
14-4B-3
September 11, 2012
The subject property is located at 1118 Fairchild Street in the Medium Density Single -Family
(RS-8) zone. The required front principal building setback in the zone is 15 feet. A recently
removed porch had a setback of 10 feet 7 inches. The applicant wishes to construct a new
porch with a setback of 9 feet 9 inches. The proposed new porch will extend along the entire
front of the house and wrap along the west side adjacent to the driveway.
Fairchild Street is an 80-foot right-of-way, much wider than the current residential street
standard of 60 feet. The front property line is located 5 feet back from the sidewalk. Because of
the wide right-of-way, the reduced setback will still allow the porch to be set more than 14 feet
from the public sidewalk and nearly 35 feet from the paved street. (See the attached site plan.)
While the house is historically significant and could qualify for landmark status, it does not have
a historic designation and is not located in a historic district at this time. Therefore it is not
subject to Historic Preservation Guidelines.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to
conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Zoning Chapter to permit the full use and enjoyment
of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board of Adjustment
may grant relief from the requirements of the Zoning Chapter through a special exception if the
action is considered to serve the public interest and is consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Chapter.
Specific approval criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements
(14-2A-413-5).
1. The situation is peculiar to the property.
FINDINGS: Until recently the subject property had a small front porch (10' x T). The previous
porch was set back approximately 10'/z feet from the front property line. The applicant
wishes to construct a new porch, but the 15-foot setback requirement precludes him from
building a porch more than 3 feet in depth. This historic style of home often features a porch
along the front of the house and there are several examples of similar homes in the
neighborhood that have front porches, though none have wrapping porches.
2, There is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements.
Staff believes that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback. The applicant would
like to replace a porch that has failed and would like to create a porch that is more attractive
and functional. The setback would allow a porch only 3 feet in depth.
3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations.
The purpose of the setback regulations is to
a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection and access for fire fighting,
b. To provide opportunities for privacy between buildings;
c. To reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in Iowa City's
neighborhoods;
d. To promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences.
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
FINDINGS: Because the reduction requested is for the front setback only, it will not
reduce the space for light, air, and separation for fire protection and access between
adjacent buildings.
The setback reduction is for an open-air front porch, rather than an enclosed expansion of
the house itself. An open air structure will help to preserve the sense of light, air, and
separation between the home and the street.
Given the wide right-of-way and the varying setbacks of adjacent properties on this block,
staff believes the requested reduction in the front setback to allow the construction of an
open-air porch will not create an unreasonable physical relationship between buildings.
The porch will be set back nearly 14 feet from the sidewalk and nearly 35 feet from the
paved street.
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to
the extent practical.
FINDING: This application is to allow for an open-air porch, which will retain the appearance
of greater separation for light and air along the street frontage.
While the applicant has provided elevations of the proposed porch, he has not decided on a
final porch design and the sketches provided are not architecturally accurate. For this
reason, staff recommends the setback reduction be subject to planning staff approval of final
sketches to ensure that certain elements of the porch —the posts and roofline—are
compatible in general style and proportion to the house.
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.
FINDING: The proposed special exception will not intrude into the required side setbacks.
The proposed porch would be set back more than 20 feet from the west property line and will
maintain the minimum 5-foot setback from the east property line.
General Standards: 14-413-3, Special Exception Review Requirements
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDING: The requested setback reduction is for an open-air porch that faces onto an extra -
wide right-of-way. The porch will be located more than 14 feet from the sidewalk and nearly
35 feet from the street pavement. There is more than 20 feet separating the subject structure
from the property line to the west and the porch will retain the required 5-foot setback from
the east property line.
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.
FINDINGS: Because the setback reduction is for an open air porch it will not detract from the
sense of openness, light, and air along the street frontage. The findings above under general
criterion 1 also support this criterion.
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.
FINDINGS: This property is in a fully developed neighborhood. For the reasons cited in 1
and 2 above, staff believes the application satisfies this criterion.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS: All necessary utilities and facilities are already in place for this property and the
neighborhood.
5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS: Because the porch will be set back more than 14 feet from the sidewalk and over
30 feet from the street, it will not impede views for motorists or pedestrians. The proposed
change to the property will not generate additional traffic along the street.
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.
FINDINGS: The existing house and proposed porch appear to meet all other zoning
requirements. The applicant must apply for a building permit from the Housing and
Inspection Services Department to ensure compliance with all other City codes.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
FINDING: The Comprehensive Plan encourages preservation and reinvestment in existing
neighborhoods.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC12-00011, an application for a reduction in the front principal
building setback from 15 feet to 9 feet 9 inches in order to allow construction of an open-air front
porch, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The porch shall be constructed and maintained as an open-air porch.
2. Planning staff shall have final approval of sketches in order to ensure that the final
design is compatible in general style and proportion to the house.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Photos
3. Illustration of existing setbacks
4. Application
Approved by: / g( �c/.�b�''
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
4M
c
i
I �
PM
L-_ --
cn � -
�IUm
= -
1S ON3d
cn
Lij
o - -
- ---
a �I
1S 2DA30
u
L
fu
00
r-I
r-I
r-I
It
Im
TIME-, IV 4
GARAGE
15' setback line
Propo:
Property line is 5 feet in from the sidewalk 2
N
F '
6
back for remainder of
porch is 11'9"
I
! PROPERTY / Right-of-way LINE
SIDEWALK
Property line is 25 feet from the paved street.
FAIRCHILD STREET PAVEMENT
rkc /01- D' co II
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DATE:
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
PROPERTY PARCEL NO. Jv 1 12S 3c-Y-'58
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PROPERTY ZONE: \5` PROPERTY LOT SIZE: (7ry f S c+
I APPLICANT:
CONTACT PERSON:
(if other than applicant)
PROPERTY OWNER:
(if other than applicant)
Name:
Address: I I l F cz i rclti i S�.
Phone:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Name:
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 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowacity.org.
Purpose for special exception: �C'''} `2i„ �i [ r LA --;t vj.w,t-L
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
We are requesting an adjustment to the principal building setback in order to
rebuild and add onto an existing front porch.
1) The situation is peculiar to the property in question. The property is located
in a neighborhood where the vast majority of the houses are not set back
the distance required by current code.
2) There is a practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements.
The location of the house on the property would not allow for the existence
of a porch at all were we required to comply with the current setback
requirements.
3) Granting the exception with not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations; and Granting the special exception in this case is in keeping
with the purpose of the minimum setback requirements in that it would
reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the
Goosetown neighborhood, and would make it more compatible with
buildings in the vicinity.
4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are
mitigated to the extent practical. There are no anticipated potential
negative effects from the setback exception.
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-
wav or permanent open space. Since the footprint of the house as a whole
would not be changed and the house is over 9 feet from the side property
line and over 50 feet from the rear property line this will not be an issue.
I
C. Specific Approval Criteria
The currently existing porch consists of a 10 foot wide by 7 foot 2 inch porch
with a concrete slab floor with a gable type roof over it sloping to the east and
west sides. The concrete slab has significant cracks in it such that the two posts
supporting the outer, southernmost part of the porch are significantly out of
plum. The two posts have been repaired in the past by patching at the bases but
are rotting once again. In addition the roof is leaking and is in need of complete
replacement.
We are proposing to replace the existing porch with a tastefull replacement
and improvement. We propose to begin with complete removal of the existing
concrete porch floor in the same general footprint (8' x 10') and then adding on to
the sides of this base with porch to the east and west sides at a 6 foot depth from
the house. It would run to the end of the house on the east side. It would run to
the west past the southwest corner and wrap around the house and continue at a
4 foot depth to the house for 10 feet. (See included drawings)
It is our hope to improve the appearance of the house while remaining true to
the general architecture of the original house and other houses like it in the
neighborhood.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Gene Crischilles, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings, Caroline
Sheerin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Baker
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Ginalie Swaim, Justin Mulford, Lucie Laurian, Martha
Wicherts, Judith Pascoe
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: All 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 11TH MEETING MINUTES:
Crischilles moved to approve the minutes with minor corrections for July 11th, 2012.
Grenis seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
APPEAL ITEM
APL12-00002: Discussion of an appeal submitted by Justin Mulford to overturn a decision made
by Iowa City's Historic Preservation Commission that denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for
the demolition of 111 & 115 S. Governor Street in the College Hill Conservation District.
Walz explained that there is a three prong test to determine whether it is appropriate to remove
structures. She said the building must be found structurally unsound and irretrievable, and if the
building is found to be both, the replacement building must meet historic design guidelines. She
said a consulting home inspector and architect were brought in and said while their were defects
in the clay tile foundations, this is not uncommon in older homes, they were not irreparable. She
Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2012
Page 2 of 8
said these findings did not meet the irretrievable standard and so the application was denied by
the Historic Preservation Commission. Walz said the applicant, now the appellant, did not
provide any evidence or dispute that the buildings were retrievable. She said his argument was
that a new building would last longer than the current buildings. She said what the Board of
Adjustment is deciding is whether the Historic Preservation Commission applied their guidelines
incorrectly and were they arbitrary or capricious in the way they applied them.
Sheerin asked if she was correct in assuming that the Board is not doing its own independent
assessment of the properties.
Walz explained that the Board is reviewing whether the Historic Preservation Commission
followed their guidelines.
Jennings asked if the assertions in the engineer's report are indications that the buildings are
unsound.
Walz said the question is whether the buildings are irretrievable. She said the report indicated
that the foundations are failing.
Ginalie Swaim, the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, said the engineering report
from VJ Engineering that Jennings referred to is the one the appellant brought to the Historic
Preservation Commission. She said the home and building inspection report is from Steven
Burns, who the City hired. She said the Commission also based their decision on the consultant
Chery Peterson, who is a trained architect with expertise in structural engineering, and on the
two Commission members who are an architect and a building contractor. She said that while
the Commission said there were some structural issues, it never said that the building was
unsound, although the VJ Engineering report may say that.
Jennings said there is a slight difference in language in the two reports, and he wonders if the
reports are filed with intent to assert a certain thing. He said that the VJ Engineering report does
not address the issue of whether the buildings are irretrievable. He asked if it is in the Board's
purview to examine the way in which the decision was made. He wants to know if both reports
are saying that there are structural issues but that the buildings are not irretrievable.
Walz said VJ Engineering never addressed the irretrievable aspect but everyone acknowledged
that there were problems with the foundations.
Jennings said it was not his job to reconcile these different reports in rendering a decision but it
is his purview to understand how those were reconciled.
Holecek said if he would look at the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness and read the
language that was crafted by the Historic Preservation Commission it says "there are some
features of the buildings that need to be repaired however, based on a report by City staff and a
visit to the buildings and a consulting house inspection, the buildings are repairable."
Grenis asked if the guidelines stated in the staff memo "A Certificate of Appropriateness for
the demolition of any primary building on a contributing property within a conservation or
historic district, or any landmark, will be denied unless the applicant can demonstrate that the
building is structurally unsound and irretrievable." and "Before a Certificate of
Appropriateness for demolition will be approved for a primary building, the Iowa City Historic
Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2012
Page 3 of 8
Preservation Commission must approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the building that
will replace the one being demolished." are the only guidelines for which that determination
was made in the three prong test.
Walz said that is correct.
Sheerin opened public hearing.
Justin Mulford, the appellant, said the first prong of the test is if the buildings are structurally
unsound, and he said everyone has determined in one way or the other that they are. He said
what he is appealing is the second prong of the test, which is the irretrievability of the buildings.
He said he has a lot of experience in the construction industry. He said when you get into
foundation work and clay tile ultimately the best repair for that is to jack the houses up and put
new foundations in. He said to do that would be a complete gut of the lower level. He said there
are other ways to put bandages on the foundation but that only lasts for so long and would cost
$5,000 each time you had to repair it. He said regarding the irretrievable aspect, he agreed that
everything can be fixed but to what cost and to what gain until the next time the foundation fails.
He said in the meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission, one member had started to
make a notion to pass his application pending the third prong of the test, He said that member
was interrupted by another member who stated that the application didn't meet the second
prong of the test because the buildings are repairable and retrievable.
Sheerin asked if his argument is that it's repairable but the expense would outweigh anyone
ever repairing it.
Mulford said that everything is repairable but there comes the time when the repairs outweigh
the cost of the building or making it fiscally possible to keep them as rentals and keep them
functioning in a profitable or break-even manner. He said the costs would continue to accrue
with the repairing of the foundations and keeping them structurally sound. He the word
irretrievable is open to interpretation and the way that some people view irretrievable is different.
Grenis asked if Mulford owned the buildings
Mulford said he did.
Grenis asked if he was saying that he's not going to repair them because of the cost involved
Mulford said that continually putting bandages on the foundations becomes a huge cost. He
said elevating the buildings would require a huge amount of money and time and then there
would be the lost rent. He said either solution would not make them profitable as rental
properties.
Grenis asked if he had submitted any plans for the design of the fraternity house
Mulford said he had.
Walz said those had not been submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission. She said if
the Board feels that an error has been made, she recommends that the appellant send those
plans back to the Historic Preservation Commission.
Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2012
Page 4 of 8
Sheerin asked if there was any case law in what irretrievable means.
Holecek said the question is whether or not the definition as reached by the Historic
Preservation Commission is in error.
Sheerin said it seems to her that this whole case turns on what irretrievable means. She asked
if it means it can never be repaired or if it can only be repaired at such great cost that it's not
worth it.
Jennings said what the Board has to work on are the reports that are in the packet that were
submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission. He said all agreed that there are problems
with structural instability, and in some cases the buildings were referred to as unsound. He said
there is not a report that says clearly and definitively that the structures are beyond the point of
repair or irretrievable. He said in the report from Steven R. Burns it says that, "Nevertheless, a
clay tile foundation is not inherently deficient and can serve indefinitely with proper care and
maintenance." He said there seems to be adequate notifications where there are faults in the
structure and places where the building is structurally problematic but there is no conclusion
anywhere saying that it's irretrievable.
Holecek said the Board's charge is to determine whether the Historic Preservation Commission
acted arbitrarily and capriciously. She said she had not researched the definition of irretrievable.
Sheerin said in order to determine whether they acted arbitrarily and capriciously it would be
helpful to know what irretrievable means.
Walz said that with applications to the Historic Preservation Commission, similar to applications
to the Board of Adjustment, the burden of proof is that of the applicant.
Sheerin said that what the appellant has said in his appeal is that his interpretation of
irretrievable is different.
Holecek said that irretrievability is a regulation, and it could be a taking if it so diminishes the
property value of the appellant by virtue of applying this regulation then that in itself lends itself
to what irretrievable means.
Jennings asked if when the appellant had referred in his previous statements to an interaction
that had occurred at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting did he mean that a formal
motion was underway and the motion was interrupted.
Mulford said that's what he meant
Jennings asked where that is reflected in the minutes.
Mulford said the Commissioner had started talking and after about 20 seconds was interrupted
by the person who did make the motion for denial.
None of the Board members could find anything in the minutes about this interruption.
Mulford asked that based on the definition of irretrievability, could someone have acted
arbitrarily not knowing the full definition of irretrievability and irretrievable, but at what cost.
Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2012
Page 5 of 8
Swaim said the appellant said that everyone more or less agreed that it was unsound in some
way. She said that was not correct. She said that Steven Burns said the buildings are generally
stable, functional and overall repairable and that foundations in both houses are generally intact
and stable. She said Esther Baker began her comments regarding whether the buildings are
unsound and said there are clearly some things that need to be repaired.
Lucie Laurian, 918 E. Washington Street, said she was the Historic Preservation Commission
meeting, and she doesn't remember any interruptions. She said she's not hearing that the
buildings are unsound, because if they are, the buildings should not be occupied. She said at
the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, someone said there were nine tenants
and were over -rented because the buildings were grandfathered in at a higher occupancy rate
than would be currently allowed. She said if they were unsound, you wouldn't want even more
individuals renting than would be normally allowed. She said she had previously lived in a
building from 1916 with mud tile, so it's not the case that repairs using this kind of material
would be short term. She said she doesn't think that the $5,000 that the appellant had said it
would cost to fix the foundations doesn't seem unreasonable, especially when you have a
rooming house with maximum tenants and are probably getting a high return on these
properties. She said she doesn't think they are unsound or irretrievable, even when money
comes into the picture. She said she is actually worried about demolition by abandonment
because she hearing a landlord who is hesitant to make repairs because he thinks they cost too
much. She said she doesn't want to see the properties get so run down that in five years they
have to be demolished.
Walz said the Historic Preservation Commission did address that issue, and demolition by
neglect is not allowed.
Martha Wicherts of 816 E. College Street said she grew up on College Street and owned one
next door. She said everything goes back to the definition of the word irretrievable. She said it's
hard not to get into whether we want it demolished or not. She said if someone acted arbitrarily
it's only because there is not a definition. She said she thinks they need a cost analysis to
decide whether it is cost effective to demolish the houses and build new ones or to repair them.
She asked if that wouldn't decide the definition of irretrievable in this case.
Holecek said what they had discussed before was the touchstone for a regulatory taking is if the
value is so diminished as a result of the regulation that it eviscerates the value of the building.
She said it was incumbent on the applicant to present evidence to show that it would be
irretrievable.
Wicherts said she is all for historic, and she has two historic homes. She said those two houses
are awful where they are. She said for her to make a good decision, being completely neutral,
she needs to know if the numbers do come out, if it is more expensive to repair those homes
than it would be to build a new home that fits the architecture of that neighborhood. She asked if
those numbers are ever going to come out.
Sheerin stated that the Board is only reviewing the record before them.
Judith Pascoe of 317 Fairchild Street said she would be very sorry if the sole determination of
how the Board made their decision was on cost effectiveness. She said anybody who had lived
in an old house knows there is nothing cost effective about them, and in her mind, these houses
Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2012
Page 6 of 8
don't owe anyone a living. She said owners of old houses know they are money pits, and she
doesn't think it's any City board's responsibility to ensure someone a maximum profit on their
rental property. She said she was at the original meeting of the Historic Preservation
Commission, and she doesn't remember any member leaning toward asking for blue prints and
wanting to discuss a plan for a new building. She said she has lived in houses with foundation
problems, and there are things you can do that aren't the same as lifting up the entire house
and doing a major repair. She said if you buy a house in a conservation district, you know it's
the City's priority to try and maintain the look of the neighborhood and try to maintain these old
houses. She said she thinks these houses are quite beautiful and with care could be show
pieces.
Sheerin closed public hearing.
Grenis moved to approve the appeal submitted by Justin Mulford to overturn a decision
made by Iowa City's Historic Preservation Commission that denied a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the demolition of 111 and 115 South Governor Street in the College
Hill Conservation District.
Jennings seconded.
Sheerin invited discussion on the motion
Crischilles said he thinks it's pretty clear that Mr. Mulford himself admitted in his application that
the damage to the buildings was fixable, and they are retrievable, so that fails the second prong
of the test. He said the fact that weren't any plans submitted at the Historic Preservation
Commission meeting fails the third prong of the test. He said he thinks the decision was
appropriate and was not capricious and was by the book.
Grenis said he thought the decision was sound. He said from what the Board could review there
was some disagreement as to the overall soundness of the building, but he said there was
enough evidence to show that their decision was justified.
Jennings said that working with the materials in front of the Board, which are the same materials
that the Historic Preservation Commission had to work from he is in concurrence with the
opinions of the other members of the Board. He said he doesn't see capriciousness or
arbitrariness reflected in the minutes and because he wasn't at the meeting, he can't judge
whether someone was interrupted or interrupted a motion. He said as to the larger issue of
where and how irretrievability is a function of available construction methods or cost benefit
analysis he thinks that they would likely run into the same situation of people giving cost
estimates or the best practice to deal with this that will vary widely. He said a dollar figure or
ratio is not represented in their materials, and he said to address it would be to buy into a either
or fallacy, and what seems to be in the ruling of the Historic Preservation Commission is that it
is not an either or situation in terms of conditions of the homes but that the application does fail
to meet the three prong test.
Sheerin concurred with what has been said. She said the bottom line is even if there was a
question about what irretrievability means, there is no evidence in the record that this would be
fiscally impossible to fix the homes. She said there is nothing in the record saying that it's
impossible or irretrievable or that the cost does outweigh the benefit of having an historic home
or that it would be a taking. She said she sees nothing in the record to indicate that the Historic
Board of Adjustment
September 13, 2012
Page 7 of 8
Preservation Commission was acting capriciously or arbitrarily.
A vote was taken and the appeal failed 0-4.
Sheerin declared the motion denied, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
There was none.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jennings moved to adjourn.
Grenis seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote.
w�
g0
v> w
o LU
U
QZN
LL Q
Op
❑ Z
ly UJ
Q F-
in
oQ
i
N
IW
�oxxxx
nxxxox
M
xxxox
0
0
x
x
xrx�x
Lxox
N
x
x
i
x
x
M
W
N
xx
i
xo
W
xxj;
ox
covu7(Y)I
I
�W
joo
000'
W a
F x
O
O
O
O
O
u!
L
C
�co
�U
CD
W
m
U
c
O
_�
Q
Z
N
O`
6
U
co
E
`o
D
N _Z
U m E
UJ
4� N N
C �
ID W
N _a O
� Q Z o
Q II II Z
II W_ II
x 0 0 z
r
W
Y