Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-2012 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, November 14, 2012 - 5:15 PM City Hall - Emma J. Harvat Hall AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the October 10, 2012 Minutes D. Special Exception Item EXC12-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Dudley Brothers Cc for a reduction in the front setback requirement to allow the expansion of the front porch for property located in the Low -Density Single-family (RS-5) zone at 1613 Spruce Court. E. Board of Adjustment Information F. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: December 12, 2012 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC12-00012 1613 Spruce Court GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern Date: November 14, 2012 Applicant: Dudley Brothers Co. 3576 Dolphin Drive SE Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Contact: Lorin Dudley 3576 Dolphin Drive SE Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-337-9193 Property Owner: Steve and Jan Birney 2547 Anchorage Road Solon, Iowa 52333 Requested Action: Special exception: front setback reduction Purpose: Allow the applicant to extend the front roof to cover the front deck, which would place the house over the minimum front setback line Location: 1613 Spruce Court Size: .173 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Single-family residence, (RS-5) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential (RS-5) South: Residential (RS-5) East: Commercial Office (CO-1), Community Commercial (CC-2), Residential (RS-12) West: Residential (RS-5), Public (P-1) Applicable code sections: File Date: BACKGROUND: 14-4B-3A, (General Criteria); 14-2A-4B-5b (Specific Criteria) October 4. 2012 The applicant, Dudley Brothers Company, has requested a Special Exception to reduce the minimum front setback requirement at 1613 Spruce Court. Based on the setback averaging provision of the Zoning Code (14-2A-413-3e) the required front setback along this portion of Spruce Court is approximately 20 feet.' (The standard front building setback in RS-5 zones is 15 feet.) The applicant is seeking a reduction to approximately 16 feet in order to create a front porch. The home currently has a front deck; the dimensions of the deck are 4' x 17' with a height of 15 inches. A roof overhang covers 1.5 to 2 feet of the deck. The applicant proposes extending the roof another 2 or 2.5 feet to completely cover the deck, creating an open air porch. The applicant has already started construction on the roof extension. A number of neighboring houses on the south side of Spruce Court have uncovered front decks. The minimum set back requirement for uncovered patios and decks is 10 feet. The proposal to cover the deck with a roof makes the deck part of the principal structure, and therefore the principal building setback requirement applies. With the open-air porch, the new front setback on the subject property would be approximately 16.5 feet. The Minor Modifications section of the Zoning Code allows for reduction of front setbacks up to 15% of the required setback, which in this case would be about 3 feet. The applicant has requested a Special Exception to reduce the setback requirement just beyond what is allowed by a minor modification. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-413-313-41b pertaining to Adjustments to Setback Requirements in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-413-3A. The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below. Specific Standards (14-413 4E-5). The situation is peculiar to the property in question. Staff believes the situation is peculiar based on the following finding: Spruce Court and streets in the surrounding area feature fairly uniform 20 foot front setbacks. Most of the houses in this area are simple ranch -style structures and lack articulation or detail on front entryways and facades. The situation is peculiar in that these uniform setbacks prevent property owners from building common features such as front porches that may improve the appearance and functionality of their homes and provide a more pleasant street frontage. Articulated front entrances, including front porches, are highly desirable residential features, and are encouraged in the zoning code. ' Setback averaging applies when all of the developed lots along a frontage are located at least 5 feet further from the street than the required front setback. The required front setback along the frontage increases to the equivalent of the setback of the building closest to the street. There is a practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • While the property at 1613 Spruce Court is in compliance with the required setback, the applicant wishes to build a modest front porch in order to improve the function and appearance of the house. Due to the 20-foot setback requirement a front porch is not allowed without a setback reduction. 3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The minimum principal building setback requirement is intended to: 1) Maintain access to light and air. 2) Allow for separation for fire protection. 3) Allow privacy between dwellings. 4) Reflect general building scale and placement of structures in neighborhoods. 5) Promote a reasonable physical relationship between residences. 6) Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with nearby buildings. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • While consistent placement of homes is one purpose of the setback regulation that helps to define the character of a neighborhood, allowing a modest setback reduction of five feet or less would not alter the character of the street or neighborhood. • Other properties on the south side of Spruce Court have uncovered front porches extending closer to the street than the applicant proposes extending the roof. • The principal structure would remain more than 15 feet from the sidewalk and would maintain the required side setbacks. • The application is for an open air porch only, and would not bring the enclosed portion of the home closer to the street. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the findings from #3 above and the following findings: The size of the deck (4 feet x 17 feet) is small relative to the width of the house (51 feet) and the lot width (65 feet). The proposed porch would add articulation to the entryway and fagade, which is considered desirable for residential architecture. 5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. The subject house satisfies the side setback requirements for the zone in which it is located. The porch is centered on the front of the house and does not alter the side setbacks. 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. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based the findings under Specific Criteria #3 and the following: • The addition will not exceed the standard 15-foot setback required in RS-5 zones. • The addition does not encroach into the required side setbacks. • The addition does not encroach on the sidewalk or block the view from the driveway. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The proposed setback reduction is solely for the purpose of allowing an open air front porch. The enclosed structure does not expand further toward neighboring properties or toward the street right-of-way. • The subject property satisfies all other building setback requirements for the RS-5 zone. • Front decks are common in the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings /listed under #2 above. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The neighborhood is fully developed and already has adequate utilities, roads, drainage, sidewalks and other necessary facilities. 5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The subject property is a single-family residence and thus does not generate significant traffic. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The applicant is required to secure a building permit for the front porch, including the existing deck. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. • While the Comprehensive Plan does not address this issue directly, it does encourage reinvestment in Iowa City's established neighborhoods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC12-00012, a special exception to reduce the front principal building setback from 20 feet to 16 feet in order to allow the applicant to construct an open-air front porch requirement for property located at 1613 Spruce Court, subject to the following conditions: The applicant must secure a building permit. The structure must be constructed and maintained as an open-air porch. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map. 2. Photos 3. Application materials Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development N V V 3�oWd��s— T I TT I - Tam v If fig 1. ti y �'' ov. __ .'r. � _.rvr ✓ 3 10 �# jr 41 r . oil r F L� SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: PROPERTY PARCn. ma PROPERTY ADDRESS: PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SUE: APPUCANT: Name: Address: -2c Phone: 3 5;7 IZ2 CONTACTPERSON: (if other than applicant) Name: 4-6 Address:, Phone: PROPERTY OWNM Name:5/el/eg'-]�-q�z (if other than applicant) Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the descripCon 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 Purpose for special exception: Ay� 5e-4-'xl) t 'rIA0n 7L-d 8 Cy 41 e4&"�e Jm Date of prevgous applicatimlor appeal filed, if any: JA66f Ck V e- R . Sftw aide "ficom 89 my. on pft*w PA 4. Shoes kcation of mommmy bulWftg-Rp R€ 5. IWANO" 04 all 9e 8 maw mvtw MM �d- D. General Approval Critgria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in "C" she 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 providers" below, or on alp 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. 9. The specific proposed exception wRi not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or ganerai wels`are, %Bl sl 0 ut� i it "7zwc' e C" 2. The specific proposed exception will not be inju0ous to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impale property values in the neighborhood. & P 61 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception well 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. A I e� 11 1611t l 7 1. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage andfor necessary faclHU6,9 have., been or are being provided. B _- -4- 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestlon on public streets. e- 5. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, the specific proposed exceptaom in all other respects conforms to the applicaWe regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception requested, certain sloer:ific 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 E4-413 as well as regaairernents lasted in the Fuse zone or applicable overlay zone and ap lica/ble site//development standards (14-5A through K .1 f�-L'GtiV1.�.% LlJ/<��f% e �Q C /n y C� ��ld c� f5 C. n �Ao l a. The proposed use wW be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. �e 5 -11 -6- NOTE: igi n in permitting a special exception, tte Board way impose appr©taroats conditions and safeguards, ine;luding but not tiaxe'strerp to planting screens, fencing, conseruction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum yard requirements, parking Requirements, limitatlons on the duration of a use or ownership or any ether requirement which the hoard deems ap3pmpriate under the cl,curnstan6oes upon a finding thax the conditions are newssary to fulfill the purpose end intent of the Zoning Chapter, (Section I"C-2", City Code). 47,��6, Unless otheawlse determined by the Board, all orders of t o Board shall expire six (6) months Cram the date the writfeat decision is tiled with the City Cla7k, 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 declsuen, such as by ohtafning a building p€rns'it and Proceeding to completion in accordance Vdith the terms of the permit. Upon writtan request, and for good cause shutvn, the Board may extend thw expiration date of any order without ffurthev public hearing on the merits of the ovionsal appaai OF application, (Section 14-6C-1E, City Code). Peti4i®n for cn:fie call ax;vtlaxar6. Any parson or p es sane, 4ointiy sr sev°eaaily, aggriereec; by any declsucn of the Board under the provisions c;f the Zoning Chapter, OR any taxpayer or any of er, department or hoard of tfite City may prevent ter a court of record a petition for buret of car farad only va Mad, setting forth that s�Idch decision is Illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the HiMality. (Section 14-80-9F, City Cods). Such petition shall Gsa presented to the courtcjithin th`M (30) days after Via filing of the decision in the office of the City Clark. Signature(a) of Applicant(s) rgn refs))O of ropeetyr ($anteae s) if Different than Applicant(s) poadnWapp$iWion-b ase.doc MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 10, 2012 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PRELIMINARY Larry Baker, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings T. Gene Crischilles, Caroline Sheerin, Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek Terri Larson, Michelle Wiegand, Mary Bennettt, Thomas Fast RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Crischilles and Sheerin absent. A brief opening statement was read by the Vice -Chair Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 MEETING MINUTES: Jennings moved to approve the minutes with minor corrections for September 12th, 2012. Bakerseconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS 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. Walz pointed out on a map the location of the subject property on Bowery Street. She said the property is an interesting relic of Iowa City history and dates back probably to the 1850s.She Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 2 of 13 said up until the 1970s it served consistently as a grocery store; the last grocery store located there was the first New Pioneer Co-op. She said subsequently it was a retail establishment and then a school. Later it was converted to a single family use —a rental. Walz explained that single-family is not allowed in an RM-44 zone. She said the conversion was done without permits. Walz said the applicant bought this property thinking she could use it as single-family residential and then found out that was not the case. Walz said that recently the City Council designated this property as an historic landmark, which among other things indicates that the City wants to preserve this site. She said that puts some restrictions on how the building can be modified. She said the garage at the rear is not an historic building, and the owner intends to remove that to create parking. Walz said initially the applicant was seeking a range of uses from office to retail to restaurant. She said staff felt strongly that they needed to narrow that down. She said the owner was now seeking a retail use, and the sub -categories they are seeking would be sales -oriented, personal service oriented, or repair. She said staff is recommending only sales -oriented use, which is likely the most intensive of the three categories. She said the first standard the Board has to look at is whether the use will be located in a structure that was designed for use that is not currently allowed in the zone. She said there really isn't a use for this property right now. She said there hasn't been much done to the first floor layout, and the second floor modifications were all done illegally and don't meet building code for ceiling height. Walz said the major issue with this nonconforming request is that the use be of the same or lesser intensity than the existing use. She said in this case the previous existing use not only was not legally established but it wasn't allowed in the zone. Furthermore, it made use of a part of the building that isn't considered habitable space. Walz said due to the size of the property it isn't adaptable as a multi -family residential use, and it doesn't have a clear history. She said any rights to the retail use went away more than 25 years ago. She said along this portion of Bowery Street, on -street parking is prohibited during regular business hours. In the view of staff, the lack of available parking along with the size of the lot and structure puts limitations on what can exist on this property. She said there isn't a lot of room for inventory and there isn't a basement. She said it is staffs opinion that the only reasonable use of the property is as a single-family residential dwelling (efficiency unit) or a limited commercial use. She said in this case because the City has conferred historic landmark status on the property, which preserves the commercial look of the building, it seems reasonable to try and find an appropriate commercial use. Walz said the surrounding RM-44 zone is the highest intensity residential use in Iowa City outside of the Downtown or PRIM zone. She said to control that intensity of the use, staff proposed a series of conditions for approval to control those aspects of a commercial use that might detract for neighboring residential properties. Walz said the next criteria for granting this special exception is whether the proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site. She said given the design of the structure as described in the report, staff feels a small retail sales use is appropriate; again, knowing the site itself is going to place some limits on it that will control the intensity of the use. Walz said that the last of the specific criteria is that the structure will not be enlarged. The Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 3 of 13 Zoning Code and Historic Preservation guidelines prevent the structure from expanding in any way. In regard to the first general standard regarding health, safety or general welfare, the staff is most concerned with traffic and parking. She said that the spaced needed for the two required off-street parking spaces is available at the rear of the building. The next criteria requires that the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment in the immediate vicinity. She said this is where staff wants the Board to consider hours of operation, lighting, glare, noise and particularly that alcohol sales not be allowed. She said establishment of the specific special exception will not impede the normal and orderly development. She said Bowery Street is well developed and staff believes the property can safely accommodate a small retail use. Walz said staff wanted to focus on the retail sales use of the three retail uses the applicant put forward —retail sales is the most intense of the options. She said the property can meet the parking requirements, which are based on square footage of the building. She said allowing two or three uses that can change back and forth over time makes it more difficult for staff to enforce conditions. She said that in staff's view, allowing multiple uses also makes it confusing for the potential users or owners of the property to understand what they are allowed to do with the property. Therefore staff is recommending only the sales -oriented use be approved. Walz said it's also important to note that if somewhere in the future an unauthorized conversion didn't take place, the rights granted through this special exception may be lost. She said once granted, the special exception is a recorded document so any future land owner can find out about this special exception through the abstract. Jennings asked about the parking issue. Walz explained that the property is required to provide two parking spaces and they have proposed to do that by removing the garage. Baker asked what it means by saying that it's harder for the staff to enforce if you grant them more options. Walz said if they are allowed to move back and forth between a series of uses, it's harder for staff to know when there is a change of use on the property. Baker asked if the use was approved beforehand, what would be the enforcement issue. Walz said it becomes more difficult because it becomes confusing to potential users of the property and they don't know the Zoning Code well enough to know when they are treading outside the given use. Baker asked if the Board approves the three possible uses, is it then incumbent on the property owner to utilize the property. Walz said typically the way this works is that the special exception has been granted, and the way that the language reads in the exception is that the Board is approving a use. She said the Board could approve to have the three different uses and then once a use was established, that would become the "current use." Any other use would then require a special exception. For example, she said, they could find a repair, but because a repair use is the least intense use, it would be more difficult for them to go backward to a different use, since the other retail uses are typically more intense. She said the special exception is really about approving a single use, not a range of uses. Baker said that even in that one use, if it was retail, there's a range of uses that you could do in that one category. Walz said within the retail use there are different examples of operations that are defined as retail uses. Baker asked if the staff is recommending that they start at the most intense use instead of starting at the least intense and working up to an exception. Walz said if they start with a less Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 4 of 13 intense use, then it may not possible for them to get a more intense use. She said the way the language reads is "a structure not designed for use allowed in the zone can be converted to another non -conforming use in a different use category or sub -group." She said staff is recommending defining it at the subgroup level. Baker said what if they had a retail use but then they decide that a hair style salon is actually good as a use. Walz said they would have to get a special exception to do that. Baker said that because personal service uses are less intense anyway, it seems like they are setting up unnecessary roadblocks. He said he thinks staff are being too cautious in just restricting this to retail. Holecek said the way the non -conforming special exception is envisioned, you start with the highest intensity use and then as you move from one non -conforming use to another, you have to decrease in intensity. She said if they want to step down, they can, but they have to come back to the Board. She said this also creates a very good track record. Problems start when the history of a property is murky —this makes it very difficult for members of the Board to say if this is less intensity than what we've seen before. Baker asked if they had a retail use but were also approved for a personal service use and went into the tanning hair salon option, would the tanning salon itself require certain licenses and approvals. Holecek said not from the City. Walz said unless they had to change something about the building, say electrical or something structural, it doesn't require permits from the City. Jennings asked if things like food preparation would fall under the purview of other regulatory organizations. Walz said health codes are regulated by other government entities. The retail sales use does allow for some food preparation. Baker admitted he is having trouble understanding why, at this point, they are restricted to one use only. Holecek said if the Board has a wide number of uses it's approving, it makes it more difficult for the Board to actually say they find that this is an appropriate use because it's harder for the Board to articulate what the externalities they are addressing are. Baker said they have guidelines in place for each one of those categories so each category is already limited by existing criteria. Holecek said that in the Zoning Code that is correct. Jennings said because this property was being used one way and then informally changed to another way, there's no history on the record for how the building was used and what its intensity was. He said if the Board approves the most intense retail use and later a less intense use is proposed, then that conversion will be on record as a new special exception. He says it's while it is likely that the Board would approve such a special exception, the fact that the process must be repeated makes the change part of the public record —this, to him, is a better way of managing or tracking the use of the property over time. Jennings asked how the term "cottage industry" is being defined here. Walz said two examples of food preparation that fall under cottage industries are bakeries or confectionaries. She said food sales would be accessory if you were selling food that was already prepared off -site or food that only requires some minimal assembly. Most likely you would not have a full-fledged kitchen except in the case of a bakery. Jennings asked if "cottage" is not being used in terms of similar size structures. Walz said there are cottage industries like an upholsterer or an artist studio. Walz said cottage industries typically have some sort of retail sales on site, but they are not exclusively for on -site sales and Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 5 of 13 or consumption. Jennings asked if when they said retail they mean on -site retail as opposed to internet retail. Walz said that was correct. Grenis opened the public hearing Michelle Wiegand, owner of the property, said she is eager to preserve this building. She said the neighborhood has really deteriorated and having some sort of small retail sales building would add to the neighborhood. She said there's plenty of foot traffic: it's on two bus lines and she could see people stopping in for coffee. She thinks it's an exciting use for the building and she would like to see that happen rather than have it torn down and made into apartments. Baker asked if, when she bought the property, it was a direct sale with no agent involved. Wiegand said that was true. She said she bought the property in good faith because her son rented it, and she wanted him to be able to continue to live there. She said she didn't consider selling it until she was told that her son living there was not a possibility. Baker asked what she was originally asking the staff for and what is her opinion of the staff recommendation now to restrict it to retail sales only. Wiegand said her first priority was to save the building, which is why they designated it a landmark. She said she wanted to get some sort of exception to the zoning that would allow a range of uses. She said she has a buyer who is interested in putting some sort of small business in there, like a coffee shop. She said she's concerned about limiting it too much because it would be good to keep as broad an exception as possible just because you don't know what's going to happen down the road. Grenis asked if she felt this proposal limits how you could sell it or whether the potential buyer would be satisfied with this proposal and still purchase this property. Wiegand said if it is just going to be designated retail she thinks there's the option of going back and having another exception if they need to change. She said if they have a retail store in there and go down to a bicycle shop they can never again have retail. She says that does limit it somewhat. She said she doesn't know that it will ruin the sale of the property She said she is willing to accept what staff has recommended, but if she could get a broader exception that would be good. Holecek stated that it's not so much the function of the exception, it's the function of the statue or the ordinance that says if you're going from one non -conforming use to another it has to be of the same or lesser intensity. Baker asked if the Board approved all three and if they wanted to change, would they be going to a lesser intense use at their own discretion. Holecek said the way they have proposed it is, if at their own discretion they decide to go to a lesser intense use they are going to be fully informed in making that step because they will have to come back to the Board. She said it will have to be a very conscientious and voluntary change to go down. She said anyone who would follow after the applicant's buyer will be taking those steps of their own volition. Baker asked if they approved all retail sales, personal services, and repair -oriented uses, and they started out with retail sales and another owner wanted to go down to the personal services, and then years in the future, another owner wanted to go back to retail sales, would that future owner be able to go back. Walz said it may be that a future Board decision would view personal service and retail as equal intensity. She said the difference between retail and repair -oriented Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 6 of 13 seems more clear because there is a difference in parking requirements Holecek said it depends upon how one crafts the special exception, so if you would find that the three sub -categories are of equal intensity so that someone could move between them, and not require that movement between those require any special exception, then what Baker says would potentially be true. Baker said there might be a specific use in one of those categories in the future where the specific guidelines for that use would require coming back for that particular use within the category. Jennings asked if the point of clarification is that if the use stepped down and an exception is applied for to step down, could they step back up through a variance. Walz said the code does not allow a use variance. She clarified that a special exception is required, however the Board does not have to see the conversion as necessarily stepping down the intensity. She said someone could apply for something completely different than a retail use --what they need to show that it is the same or lesser intensity. She said they could transfer into a new use category or a different sub -group with the same intensity. However, she said that because that step has to go through a process, it becomes recognized that a change is taking place and it gives the Board the opportunity to review the level of intensity and any conditions that should be in place. Baker asked if each one of these categories is an acceptable category by itself within the process under discussion. Walz said staff believes that to be so. Baker then asked if it is acceptable to have the three together as an option. Walz said staff is recommending just one use category. Holecek said is an unusual application because typically you have an actual proposed use. She said here you have an unknown, and to try and decide how it's going to operate or what that use is going to be is the reason staff has made the recommendation for the one retail use category. Walz said what the proposed users expectations for how the property might be used something they don't have right now. Baker asked if within the one retail use you could have different kinds of retail use. Walz said that was true and pointed to the examples outlined in the code. Baker said that because retail use is applicable for that location then personal services would be applicable to that property. Walz said that is something the Board has to decide. She said if the Board can do findings, it is the Board's decision, but staff is recommending one use sub- category. Jennings said he appreciates the narrative that Wiegand provided the Board about the history of becoming connected with the property and how she became aware of some of the issues. He said she is trying both to preserve the historic property and find a use that would benefit the neighborhood. Terri Larson, of Lepic Kroeger, said she is the listing agent for Wiegand's property. She said originally they were listing it as a residential unit. She invited Stan Laverman from the Building Department to talk to them about why it could not be a rental. That's when she discovered the condition of the property and position it was in, which was difficult, because you couldn't get a Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 7 of 13 rental permit unless it was an efficiency permit. She said the only people interested in buying it were people who wanted it as an investment property and wanted to rent it out. She said at that point she wrote to Tom Markus and asked what they could do with this property. She said one of the first questions in real estate is "what is the best use of this property?" She said it had always been a grocery store and it never looked like a residence on the interior. She said when Wiegand bought it, she assumed she had a rental agreement in place. She said work is now in place to make it an historic landmark. She said the Planning and Zoning Commission was excited about the project and wanted to find out how they could make it benefit the neighborhood. She said she thinks it will make the neighborhood more sellable in terms of rent with a convenience store or a coffee house that is attractive, because many students in the neighborhood don't have cars. She said the potential buyer is not interested in a high intensity restaurant and, as an historic landmark, that is unlikely since you would have to break through the outside of the building to put in ventilation systems. She appreciates that Baker is asking why they are trying to control it so much when all of this is already defined. She said if all of the uses are acceptable, why can't they give them the variety of uses. She said they agree with the recommendation of retail sales because that's the broadest definition and the most intense use. Mary Bennett of 1107 Muscatine Avenue said she is associated with the State Historical Society and has been involved in this project as a private citizen. She thanked Walz for all the behind the scenes work she has done to sort this out. She said she is here primarily to advocate for the property, a charming building that is a reminder of what Iowa City was in the past, and she thinks it's important that they remain flexible in its approach to it. She said when they talk about historic preservation they often talk about adaptive uses, and she thinks that they shouldn't be putting such a tight leash on the potential owners of this building. She said because the economy is unstable, who knows if a restaurant or cafe are viable. She said all kinds of people could find that an enjoyable space for their business or personal service. She said a lawyer or accountant could have an office there. She said making this retail sales limits the longevity of the building because if there's no success of that, they have a complicated bureaucratic process to go through. She said while she appreciates the legal concerns, she doesn't consider the building's history murky. She said it has documented it. She said she knows that none of the owners were corresponding with the City's codes and requirements. She wants to ensure the building's future for the long term. She said she has faith in the potential buyers being dedicated to this building and preserving it and she thinks that no one has the intent to disturb the neighbors. She said they actually want to enhance the neighborhood and the entire Iowa City experience. She said she encourages the Board to vote for these exceptions. Holecek asked the Board if they wanted to close the public hearing, or keep it open and defer until there is a full panel. Jennings asked if they could keep the public hearing open but take the temperature of the Board. Walz said staff has no reason to doubt the people who are before the Board now want something good for that neighborhood. However, what the Board is responsible allows the use of the property in perpetuity. As owners and users change over time, expectations change and that is really where staff is coming from in the recommendations they made to the board Baker said he is willing to support the staff recommendation of limiting this to retail use only, but he would prefer if the rest of the Board agrees that they expand those categories to allow them greater use of the property. He said that each category by itself is applicable so the range of Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 8 of 13 possibilities in that small area, even though it might change ownership in the future, will make that building a more viable piece of property and maintain it better in the long run. He said he is willing to vote for the staff recommendation but he is hoping that the rest of the Board would consider expanding the categories. Grenis said he too is comfortable in exploring more than retail sales, but he understands the intent and reasoning behind the one use as proposed by staff. Jennings said the rub for him is the long-term implications of such a decision and the uniqueness of the property and the integrity of maintaining the property. He said this is not a comment on the intentions of the applicant —he takes everything from the discussion in good faith and trusts what has been said. But, he is aware that uses, especially in areas that are dominated by highly transient populations, have a way of starting out one way and ending up entirely different. He said that is sort of witnessed by what happened here on this property. It had been turned into a living space illegally and wasn't part of the official record. He said although he doesn't foresee that happening here, a lot of back and forth switching between uses extracts a remarkable wear and tear on a structure. He said he is a bit concerned by having this so broad that it is beyond the Board's ability to say what does or doesn't fit the goal of both preserving the property and serving the neighborhood. Baker asked if the fact that it's in a historic zone doesn't already protects the exterior? Jennings said part of the issue about the charm of this property is not just the exterior fagade He said they have been talking about the unique limitations of the interior, which guide it towards certain uses. Historic preservation and doesn't limit what you can do to the interior. Baker said that's the trade-off that a city makes in regulating properties and that the historic aspect is the exterior. He said he thinks that if you go into the interior of many of the protected buildings in the city you would not recognize them as historic. Jennings said they have seen many badly done interiors, but that's different from a commercial use. He said some commercial uses are very compatible and want to draw upon the unique character or the interior of a space, not just the exterior fagade. He said that tanning beds, however, are an acceptable use then that's going to require much the same kind of change as if you put in a full scale restaurant that may require changes to the exterior of the building. He said he's thinking of the in perpetuity aspect and how it would best serve the building, the neighborhood, and allow the property owners the greatest latitude in terms of their right to sell the property and extract the necessary value from it. Baker asked if it would make a difference if they had talked about just two of the uses rather than three. Baker said he thinks the first two uses are completely compatible and workable for this property. Jennings said it's really easy to visualize a quaint baker or cafe or a lawyer's office or something that fits both the categories of retail and personal service. Walz interrupted to explain that a cafe or a lawyer's office are not retail sales uses. She said staffs concern with having a broad list of uses is the clarity of expectations for how the property can be used. Jennings said he understands, but the point he was trying to make was that in the future those uses may generate or create impacts that they don't foresee. He said if they did repair oriented, Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 9 of 13 it could eventually have excess parts stored outside, or other unsightly conditions. He asked if that is part of what staff's concern is regarding in perpetuity. Walz said in some part it was. Jennings asked if the attempt to limit is not an attempt to infringe upon the property owners or overall restrict the potential use in the future but lacking a specific proposal, the best approach at this point is to limit, and the most beneficial way to limit that in the interest of both the property and the property is to take the broadest category first. Walz said yes, emphasizing that staff was recommending the most intense of the proposed uses. Jennings asked if a motion were to be put forward would the motion be to approve staff's recommendation for approval under sales only, or would the Board amend that to say a proposal to include approval of sales and personal service but not excluding another, or if the Board thinks it would benefit to have a full Board here, because it's going to take all three voting yes. Baker reiterated that he was willing to support the staff recommendation but if the other two members want to not expand the category, he is fine with voting for that. He thought they would need a larger body present to discuss the fact of expanding the uses. Grenis said he thought it would be better to have more Board members present to discuss it. Walz asked the applicant if she preferred to wait or would she prefer to go through with a vote on the staff recommendation. Wiegand said she would like to have it settled rather than defer it. Grenis said although he would like to have more flexibility and options, he would definitely support the staff recommendation. Walz explained to the applicant how the process worked if this were to be approved. Jennings said he is comfortable with the staff recommendation although he would be more comfortable with the expansion of the second if there was more input from the Board and if he had a clearer understanding of what falls within the range of personal services and what staff's concerns are about inclusion of that. Wiegand said whatever the use is, the City is looking at it with one perspective, but whoever goes into this facility is going to look at it from a totally different perspective. She said they will have to cover rent and property taxes and make ends meet. She said the person going in isn't going to set themselves up for failure so there isn't going to be someone going into the facility who needs to rely on car traffic to support it or it isn't in the right location for the clientele they are trying to cater to. She said that the structure itself limits what it's going to be there because no business owner will set themselves up for failure. She asked Walz if a coffee shop, or a small convenience store would count as retail sales uses. Walz affirmed that those were retail sales uses. She said the concern was really with regard to when food sales become more of an eating establishment use, and that's when food preparation becomes clearly the principal use of the property. Larson said she had asked a local bakery owner to assess the use of this property. She said he had gone by the property three times to get a feel for the pedestrian traffic, and he said he Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 10 of 13 thought this would be a cold spot, meaning a situation where food is prepared somewhere else and brought to this site to be served and sold. Walz said that the space itself is going to self - restricting as to what it can be. Larson said she could see someone who's already a business owner in Iowa City opening up a satellite site here. Grenis closed public hearing. Baker moved to approve EXC12-00010 with the following conditions: 1. The special exception is limited to a sales oriented retail use only. 2. Any change or conversion from the granted retail sales use must be approved through another special exception. 3. A building permit is required in order to establish the approved retail sales oriented use. 4. The property shall provide and maintain two off-street parking spaces at the rear of the building in accordance with the off-street parking requirements in the Zoning Code. 5. Hours of operation for the use are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 6:00 a.m. to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. 6. Outdoor seating and display of products within the public right of way are prohibited unless a temporary use permit is granted by the City. 7. Signage shall be limited to a fascia or awning sign in compliance with the zoning code standard for non-residential uses located in a residential zone and in compliance with Iowa City's Historic Preservation Guidelines. 8. All outdoor lighting should comply with the lighting standards for residential zones and with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. 9. Sale of tobacco on the property is prohibited. 10. The sale and use of alcohol on the property is prohibited. 11. Food preparation/sales on the site are limited per the definition of retail sales which allows a cottage industry component. 12. The public alley shall not be used for drive -up or drive -through service or for parking for the use. 13. No amplified sound is permitted outside the building. 14. The building may not be expanded without a special exception. 15. Any alterations to the exterior of the building must comply with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Jennings seconded the motion. Baker said regarding item EXC12-00010 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of October 10, 2012, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as Board findings for the acceptance of this proposal. Grenis and Jennings concurred with Baker's statement in support of the findings listed in the staff report. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0. Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 11 of 13 Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, 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. 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. Walz showed the Board a location map and a photograph of the house. She said there was a porch on the front of the house that had been recently removed. She said the applicant would like to replace the porch, which was failing and probably not original to the house. She said Fairchild Street has an extra wide right-of-way. She said the property line is actually 5 feet inside the sidewalk, so even though the applicant is asking for a reduced setback of just under 10 feet, it is not going to put his porch close to the street or sidewalk. She said it will have the appearance of a 14-foot setback; a 15-foot setback is the requirement for the property. Walz said that although the house in not in a historic district and has no historic designation, the applicant agreed to meet with the historic preservation specialist. She recommended that applicant not do a wraparound porch as the house as this would not be historically appropriate to this house. Walz said the applicant is now proposing a front porch without the wraparound section. The porch would be approximately 23 feet wide and 8 feet in depth at its deepest point. This would reduce the setback to 9 feet, 9 inches. She said staff feels this is a reasonable request given the unusually wide right-of-way and the varied setbacks on the frontage. Baker asked if the staff recommendation for an open-air porch precludes the future use of windows. Walz said screens would be allowed but not windows, as an enclosed porch tends to become part of the house. This application is for an open air porch. She advised the Board that if they make a recommendation to approve that they specify that the footprint of the porch is eight feet by twenty-three feet. Baker asked about the historic standards. Walz explained that this house is not held to historic standards because it is not in a historic district and has no historic designation. Grenis invited the applicant to speak. Thomas Fast of 1118 Fairchild Street said his proposed porch is basically the depth of the porch he just removed but then comes out to the edges of the house. He said staff has been helpful to him in choosing what would be most appropriate design for this house. Grenis closed the public hearing. Jennings moved to approve EXC12-00011 for a reduction in the front principal building setback from fifteen feet to nine feet, nine inches in order to allow the construction of an 8-foot by 23-foot open air porch at 1118 Fairchild Street subject to the following conditions: 1. The porch will be constructed and maintained as an open air porch 2. The Planning and Zoning staff will have final approval of the sketches in order to ensure that the final design is compatible in general style in proportion to the house. Board of Adjustment October 10, 2012 Page 12 of 13 Bakerseconded. Grenis invited discussion on the motion. Baker said regarding agenda item EXC12-00011 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of October 10, 2012, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal. Grenis and Jennings concurred. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0. Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, 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. Walz thanked the applicant for patiently waiting through the hearing for the previous application and for being open to the recommendations of the historic preservationist. She said both the applicant and she herself had learned some interesting things about the history of his house. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: There was none. ADJOURNMENT: Jennings moved to adjourn. Grenis seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 3-0 vote. r z w m H to 0 a LL O 0 O CO 0 O U W w W Uo ZN 0 z W F- a c x X 0 X0 r X X X X X X X- X n X X X - x m xxXxx LO xx ox 00 N X X I X X M X X 1 x .O_ N LU XX 1 -x N r (O V N C7 WW W f 0 0 0 0 0 W d N N N N N F- K W 0 0 0 0 0 N C ID ' Y L) cn (D w C c z NCO U r w Y