The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-10-2013 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, July 10, 2013 — 5:15 PM City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the June 12, 2013 Minutes D. Special Exception Items: 1. EXC13-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Mark McCallum for a special exception in the Low Density Multi -family Residential (RM-12) zone at 113 S. Johnson Street. 2. EXC13-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Faith Academy for a special exception to allow a General Education. Facility on property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1030 Cross Park Avenue. E. Appeal Item: APL13-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Sandy Beck appealing a decision made by Iowa City's Senior Building Inspector to deny a permit for 24 x 48 foot accessory building to be constructed at 2230 Russell Drive. F. Other G. Board of Adjustment Information H. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: August 14, 2013 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC13-00010 113 S. Johnson Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: July 10, 2013 Mark McCallum 1610 Crescent Street Iowa City, IA 319-430-1461 Property Owner: Byron Burford Estate (Kevin Burford) 528 College Street Iowa City, IA 319-594-6083 Requested Action: Special exception to allow a Bed and Breakfast Inn Location: 113 South Johnson Street Size: 75 x 80 (6,000 square feet) Existing Land Use and Zoning: Low Density Multi -family Residential (RM-12) zone, single-family house. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Low Density Multi -family Residential (RM- 12) zone, single-family house South: Low Density Multi -family Residential (RM- 12) zone, single-family house East: Public (P-1) zone, College Green Park West: Neighbonccod Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone Applicable code sections: 14-413-3A, General Criteria; 14-4C-2E, Specific Criteria for Bed and Breakfast Inns File Date: June 10, 2013 BACKGROUND: The subject property consists of a 3,628 square foot single-family house on a 5,998 square foot lot. The property has vehicle access from a driveway on South Johnson Street in addition to access from the public alley to the north. The home was built in 1895. The property is located in a transitional area, with commercial zones (CB-5 and CB-2) a half block to the north and west and higher density residential zones (RNS-20) to the west and south. All but one of the properties surrounding the College Green Park are zoned RM-12, the lowest density multi -family housing designation. The purpose of the RM-12 zone is to provide for the development of high density single-family and low density multi -family housing. The zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options. The property is also within an Historic Overlay, which required Historic Preservation approval for modifications to the exterior of the building. 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 14-4C-2E pertaining to Bed and Breakfast Inns 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 (14-4C-2E).Bed and Breakfast Inns are governed by the Accessory Use section in the Zoning Code and are allowed special exception in owner -occupied Detached Single -Family Dwellings provided that the following conditions are met: 1. The principal use of the property must be an owner -occupied detached single-family dwelling. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the folllowing findings: • The applicant, Mark McCallum has indicated that he will establish the property as his principal residence. • At such time as the applicant seeks a rental permit for the property to establish the use, he will be required to provide evidence that this is his principal residence. 2. No more than 5 bedrooms are provided to guests who stay for periods of time not to exceed 14 consecutive days. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: The home currently has 5 bedrooms.Though the applicant plans to modify the interior of the house to create suites, he has indicated that he will provide not more than 5 bedrooms or suites for use by guests. 3. A minimum of 3 off-street parking spaces must be provided in addition to the parking spaces required for the dwelling. Parking spaces may be located one behind the other. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings • The site plan provided with the application shows the opportunity to provide up to 4 parking spaces from the driveway access from S. Johnson Street in addition to at least one conforming parking space oft the alley. 4. Nonresident employees are prohibited, except as approved by the Building Official as a Minor Modification, according to the procedures and approval criteria for Minor Modifications as set forth in Article 14-46. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The applicant does not propose to have any non-resident employees at this time. 5. If a dwelling contains rooming units for permanent roomers, the number of permitted bedrooms for a Bed and Breakfast Inn is reduced by the number of roomers. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The applicant does not propose to have any roomers at this time and is subject to this regulation. If at some point in the future a room is rented on a more long-term or permanent basis, the applicant or owner will be required to reduce the number of rooms allowed for short-term rental to comply with the occupancy requirements in the code. 6. Fire protection equipment must be installed and maintained according to the currently adopted International Residential Code. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The applicant agrees to install the fire protection required by code, including hard wired smoke detectors in each guest room, exit signage, and a fire extinguisher on each floor. • Installation of the appropriate fire protection is reviewed as part of the building permit and rental permitting processes. 7. Signage identifying the Bed and Breakfast Inn is limited to one non -illuminating sign not to exceed 2 square feet in area. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: The applicant agrees to comply by the sign regulations for the proposed use. 8. Every two years, the operator must obtain a rental permit authorizing this use from the City after establishing compliance with City ordinances. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The applicant agrees to comply by the rental permit regulations. General Standards (14-4B-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding: • The applicant has agreed to comply with all required standards with regard to fire protection and must apply for a rental permit in order to operate the proposed Bed and Breakfast Inn. An inspection is conducted as part of the rental permit process. 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 that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The subject property is in a transitional area —a residential zone adjacent to commercially zoned property and property zoned for multi-famiiy uses. Staff believes that the proposed owner -occupied use will not distract from these surrounding uses. • The proposed site plan shows room for the minimum required parking for the use and is within one block of a municipal parking structure. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings provided above with regard to the property's adjacency to commercial zones and the opportunity to provide the required parking on site. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Alf utilities, access roads, and drainage or other facilities are already provided for 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. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following finding: • The proposed Bed and Breakfast Inn may provide only 5 guest rooms and thus is not anticipated to 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 finding: • The applicant must apply for a rental permit to establish the use and a sing permit for any signage. Any zoning issues not reviewed as part of this application will be addressed at that time. 7. 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 investment in the neighborhoods and the preservation and re -use of historic properties. Any modification to the exterior of the structure must comply with the Historic Preservation Standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC13-00010, a special exception to allow a Bed and Breakfast Inn at property in the RM-12 zone at 113 South Johnson Street, subject to substantial compliance with the submitted site plan. A building permit is required in order to establish the use. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Site plan 3. Application materials Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development N1 =11M co 0 CD - •• W iS NlmO NV 1S NOSNHOr �bs.:j; .� 1. r! �� ram'•-r�i !y LU AESi I Il-J 5- ,6"&y3Q 7 STREiL{ E)oC13- 8wto APRUCAT;CNI TO THE BOAR© OF ADJUSTMENT ----SPECiAL EXCEP11ON----- DATE: I I PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1010454010 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 113 South Johnson Street, Iowa City, Iowa [_J PROPERTY ZONE: - RM 72 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 75X80= 6,000 SQ. FT. APPLICANT/ NAME: Mark McCallum CONTACT PERSON ADDRESS: 1610 Crescent Street, Iowa City, Iowa PHONE: 1-319-430-1461 PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: Byron Burford Estate (Kevin Burford) ADDRESS: 528 College Street, Iowa City, Iowa PHONE: 1-319- 594-6083 Specific Requested Special Exception: Applicable sections of the zoning chapter: Chapter 4. Use Regulations. Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings. Section E. Bed and Breakfast Inn allowing for five guest rooms. Purpose for special exception: As allowed in Section E. Applicant is requesting to operate as a five room Irm. Date of pr�x!ious application or a �peai filed, if any: None filed- Not applicable. A. Legal description: Parcel Number 1010454010. Map Area: 20400-RES, Sec- Twp-Rng: 10-79-6. IOWA CITY (ORIGINAL TOWN) N 75' LOT 8 BLK 41 B. Plot Plan/Site Plan: See Attached Parking Plan A. C. Specific Approval Criteria: As provided for in Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings. Section E. Bed and Breakfast Inns. Applicant proposes to develop an Inn Operation (BurFords on the Park) according to the following conditions of section E. D. The principal use of the property will be an owner -occupied Detached Single Family Dwelling. E. Applicant will provide no more than 5 bedrooms (or guest suites) to guests who stay for periods not to exceed 14 consecutive days. F. Applicant proposes to provide minimum of three off-street parking spaces in addition to the parking spaces required for the dwelling. Parking may be located one behind the other. G. Nonresident employees are prohibited, except as approved by the Building Official as a Minor Modification, according to the procedures and approval criteria for Minor Modifications as set forth in Article 14-413. No non-resident employees are anticipated at this time. H. If dwelling contain rooming units for permanent roomers, the number of bedrooms for a Bed and Breakfast Inn is reduced by the number of rooming units. I. Applicant agrees to install Fire protection equipment according to the currently adopted International Residential Code. ( Hard wire smokes in each guest room, exit signage, Fire extinguisher on each Poor) J. Applicant agrees to comply with signage rules -limiting sign to one non - illuminated sign not to exceed two square feet in area. K. Applicant agrees to: Every two years, the operator must obtain a rental permit authorizing this use from the City after establishing compliance with City ordinances. GENERAL APPROVAL CRiTERW (D.): The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental I o cr endanger the pubic health safety, comfcrre, or general welfare: Applicant proposes to develop 113 South Johnson Street into an owner occupied Bed and Breakfast Inn featuring guest rooms and suite with private bathrooms. Applicant, specifically proposes to remodel the house to the following configuration: Third Floor, Attic Suite w/ Private Bath. Second Floor, 2 Guest Rooms with Private Bath and One Suite w/ Private Bath. Main Floor, remodel main floor addition to a guest room with private bath. Remodel half bath and laundry/Porch area to a full bath ( for owner) and laundry. Main floor parlors would be maintained. Lower level would be developed into owners quarters.( Office, Bedroom, Living Room, Bathroom) The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and wil not substantially diminish and impair property valves in the neighborhood: Applicant proposes to replace Bed and Breakfast Guest Rooms lost to the recent redevelopment of properties in the 500 block of Washington Street. Applicant proposes to add value to a potential landmark property in a neighborhood that has recently suffered from a lot of redevelopment pressures. 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: With the recent redevelopment projects in the 500 and 600 blocks of Washington Street., applicant would suggest that most if not surrounding properties are already developed at their maximum use per the current zoning code guidelines. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/ or necessary facilit;es have been or are being provided: Property has access to paved service alley on north side of property: With in the past 6 years, 113 South Johnson Street, has had a new sewer line upgrade and water line replacement. r�� Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets: Property is on west side of College Green Park and shares the street with only two other properties. Paved alley on north side of property provides additional access to surrounding properties. Property has driveway on left side of house that currently has two parking spaces. There are also two parking spaces off the alley on the north side of the house. Applicant proposes to redo /extend driveway to west end of lot line to get the required 3 parking spaces. Special_ note: 113 South Johnson Street is located one block from a 24 hour parking ramp. Except for the specific regulatiores' and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, the specific proposed except;ons in ail other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located: Applicant proposed to comply- with all the items outlined in Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings. Section E. Bed and Breakfast Inns. Applicant agrees to comply with any other reasonable request the city may make. The proposed use will be consistent with she Comprehensive Plan of the City: The property is located in the College Green Historic District on the western edge of the Central Planning District. The property abuts the Downtown Planning District. Property is former home of local artist Byron Burford. Burfords work is displayed in art galleries regionally and nationally. Much if not most of Burford's work was created at 10 South Johnson Street. Burfords association with renowned artist Grant Wood is of special note. Applicant believes that property could qualify to be on the National Register of Historic Places. Applicant believes any uses that would preserve the association of Mr. Burford's association with the property and maintain the property as a key structure in the College Hill Historic District would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all properly Iscaed within 306 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this parcel: See attachment B. Note: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards , including but not limited to panting screens, fencing, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway restricVoi1s, increased minimum yard requirements, panting requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfrili the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 1&M-2C-4, City Code) Order. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Boarard's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-8C-1E, City Code). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or:" any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ or certiorari duly verified, settling forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C-1 F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk. Date: G 4 7-60 2013 &,k-geca, Signature of the Applicant Dare: 3 2013 Signatu e of the Property Owner if Different than Applicants STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC13-00011 Faith Academy GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern Date: July 10, 2013 Applicant: Faith Academy 1030 Cross Park Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-321-7613 Contact: Steve Kohli 3129 Dubuque Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-936-6880 Property Owner: Southgate Companies 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-337-4195 Requested Action: Special Exception Purpose: Allow a General Education Facility in a CC-2 zone Location: 1030 Cross Park Avenue Size: 0.2 acres (8,772 square feet) Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial Recreational, CC-2 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Pepperwood Plaza, commercial (CC-2) South: residential and public (RM-12, P-1, RS-5) East: residential (RM-12, RM-44) West: commercial (CC-2, CO-1) Applicable code sections: File Date: BACKGROUND: 14-4B-3A (General Criteria); 14-4B-4D-8 (Specific Criteria) June 11. 2013 The applicant, Faith Academy, has requested a Special Exception to allow a General Educational Facility in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone located on 8,772 square feet of land at 1030 Cross Park Avenue. The applicant currently operates an after school drop -in program, classified as a Commercial Recreational use, at the site. The applicant would like to change the use into a private school for K-151 grade. The space for the proposed school features a gymnasium, kitchen, restrooms, three classrooms and a commons space. The change in use would be accompanied by a remodeling project that would add space to one of the classrooms. After remodeling, two of the classrooms would be 582 square feet each and the other would be 256 square feet. The applicant has indicated that the classrooms would serve 25 students with five staff, with anticipated future enrollment to reach a maximum of 30 students. The proposed school would occupy space in a portion of the south side of a larger commercial building. The north side of the building contains commercial storefronts with retail uses, including Slumberiand Furniture and Stuff Etc., and a large parking lot that serves Pepperwood Plaza. The south side of the building contains mostly unoccupied commercial, warehouse, or office space (the former Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program office, which provided support to at -risk youth and adults with disabilities, was formerly located adjacent to the proposed school site). The site faces onto a residential neighborhood, and draws much less traffic than uses on the north side of the building. The proposed school would be separated from the higher -volume, traffic generating commercial uses that operate from the north side of the building. Vehicular access to the subject property would be provided from Cross Park Avenue. The parking area that serves the proposed school site is connected by a driveway to a series of parking and loading areas that serve other portions of the larger commercial development. At present, the zoning code does not allow General Educational Facilities in the CC-2 zone. However, a Code amendment now before the City Council recognizes that, in some cases, General Educational Facilities may be compatible with development in CC-2 zone. The Special Exception allows for a case -by -case review, with approval criteria based on factors such as traffic patterns and safe pedestrian access. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the amendment. City Council is scheduled to consider the amendment on July 23. Approval of a Special Exception for this property should therefore be subject to City Council approval of the zoning code amendment. 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 14-4B-4D-8 pertaining to General Educational Facilities in CC-2 zones 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 (14-413-41D-8) 1. The use will be functionally compatible with surrounding uses and will not inhibit retail and service uses for which the zone is primarily intended. The Board may consider such factors as site layout, size and scale of the development, and traffic circulation. Staff believes the use will be functionally compatible with surrounding uses due to the combination of the following factors: There are multi -family buildings located immediately to the east and south of the subject property, which transition into a mostly single-family neighborhood. There is also a major commercial center located to the north. The proposed school would be located in a space facing the residential area to the south and would be separated from the more -intensive and large -traffic generating commercial uses to the north. These barriers included the 96,835 square -foot building at 925 Highway 6 (adjacent to the east of the subject property) and the 122,402 square - foot building at 959 Highway 6 (the proposed school would be located at the south end of this building). • The layout of the building (L-shaped) and the uneven front setback of structures on this block, in combination with the landscaping between the subject property and Broadway Street, provide separation between the subject property from surrounding uses. • The south side of the building at 959 Highway 6 contains mostly unoccupied office, commercial, or warehouse space. • A portion of the parking lot that would be used by the proposed school serves as a loading dock for another use within the commercial development. The applicant has provided an illustration showing the configuration of the parking lot where traffic would enter from Cross Park Avenue, loop around to the entrance of the school, and exit on Cross Park Avenue. Such a pattern of traffic circulation does not conflict with the loading zone, since the loading zone is recessed into the adjacent building and away from the flow of traffic. • The applicant has indicated that the school would serve 25 students with five staff members, with enrollment potentially growing to a maximum of 30 students. The maximum number of students is small enough that traffic generated by the school would not interfere with the surrounding commercial uses. However, should enrollment grow significantly in the future, the proposed school might no longer be compatible with surrounding uses. Therefore, Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant be required to apply for a new Special Exception if enrollment exceeds 50 students or if the use expands by more than 500 square feet. • The applicant has stated that the hours of operations would be from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Staff believes these hours of operation are compatible with surrounding commercial uses, in that the specified hours, especially pick-up/drop-off time, are not during peak commercial time. 2. The use must provide a drop-off/pick-up area in a location that is convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance of the facility. The drop-off/pick-up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces andfor parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent streets or other public right-of-way. Staff believes the use will provide a convenient location for a drop-off/pick-up area be functionally compatible with surrounding uses due to the combination of the following factors: • The applicant has provided a site plan showing the proposed configuration of the parking lot where traffic would enter from Cross Park Avenue, loop around to the entrance of the school, and exit on Cross Park Avenue. The pick-upidrop-off area would be located at the main entrance of the proposed school, which would be convenient for students. The subject property's front setback is approximately 200 feet from the Cross Park Avenue right-of-way. The large front setback, along with the small enrollment, provides ample stacking space for loading and unloading students. The circulation pattern of the parking lot would allow room for approximately 10 cars to stack in front of the pick-up/drop-off location and approximately 10 more cars ahead of the pick-up/drop-off location. In addition, the parking lot includes approximately 29 parking spaces, which, combined with the stacking spaces, should accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed school. 3. The site must be designed to promote safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation to the school according to the standards set forth in sub- section 14-2C-6F, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation. Pedestrian walkways must be established connecting the main entrance(s) of the school to adjacent public sidewalks and trails. Staff believes that changes are necessary in order to promote safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation based on the following factors: • There are sidewalks on both sides of Broadway Street and Cross Park Avenue. However, there are no clearly demarcated pedestrian walkways from the adjacent public sidewalks to the main entrance of the proposed school. From Broadway Street, there is landscaping and a drive between the sidewalk and the subject building. From Cross Park Avenue, there is nearly 200 feet of parking lot between the sidewalk and the building's entrance, but there is also a 14,000 square -foot green space in front of the building can accommodate a pedestrian access route and bicycle parking. The Zoning Code requires that pedestrian routes be provided on -site to connect parking areas to building entrances, and that these areas be identified on the site plan. Therefore, as a condition of approval, applicant must Provide the required pedestrian routes. • On commercial sites with multiple buildings, sidewalks or other approved pedestrian routes must be provided between the principal buildings on the site. The City may exempt this requirement where pedestrian traffic between buildings is rare or unlikely. Pedestrian traffic between buildings seems unlikely in this case and therefore staff recommends that these routes not be required. • Bicycle parking facilities must be located in areas convenient to building entrances, but must be located so as not to impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The site plan does not show the location of bicycle parking facilities, but must do so as a condition of approval. • The applicant has indicated that most of the potential students for this school reside to the south of the proposed site. Low -traffic counts from the residential neighborhoods to the south and provision of sidewalks on both sides of the street in these neighborhoods should ensure safe'pedestrian access from the south. However, pedestrian access from the north, given the high4raffic volume from Highway 6, could be an issue for students crossing Highway 6 on foot or bike. General Standards (14-4B-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Specific criteria 1-3 address the public health, safety, and welfare concerns associated this special exception request. In addition, staff believes that the proposed outdoor play area poses safety con -rem: The site plan submitted by the applicant shows approximately 14,000 square feet of green space in front of the proposed school to be used as an outdoor recreation area for students. However, the site plan does not show any fencing or additional landscaping around this area. For safety reasons, the Zoning Code requires completely enclosed fencing at a minimum height of four feet surrounding the outdoor recreation area. z. 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 based on the findings in specific criterion #1 and the following factor. • Given the small size of enrollment and the setback from adjacent residential property, staff does not anticipate that the school would have any negative impact on surrounding commercial or residential property. 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 based on the findings outlined under specific criterion #1 and the following factors: • The nature of the existing after school drop -in program and the proposed general education use would not be significantly different, apart from the hours of operation. Hours of operation of the proposed school (7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.) do not conflict with commercial business hours. Establishment of the General Educational Facility use could lead to re -use and improvements to the subject property and surrounding property. The proposed school would also improve the traffic circulation of the parking lot area to the south of the proposed school site and pedestrian access to the subject property. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the following finding, provided that the required pedestrian route is provided: • All necessary facilities and access for the property are already provided for this commercial area. 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 the application satisfies this based on the findings in specific criterion #2 and #3. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the following findings: • The applicant will need to apply for a building permit to establish and must m meet all Building Code standards specific to schools as well as requirements for pedestrian access and bicycle parking. • The Zoning Code, at present, does not allow General Educational Facilities in the CC-2 zone. A Code amendment now before the City Council recognizes that, in some cases, General Educational Facilities and uses typically found in CC-2 zones may be compatible. Approval this special exception is subject to the adoption of the zoning code amendment by City Council. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. • The South District Plan depicts the subject property as appropriate for General Commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan does not explicitly address this property or the proposed use, apart from encouraging the City to work with educational institutions to further the mission of human development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends EXC13-00011, a Special Exception to allow a General Educational Facility for up to 50 students in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone located at 1030 Cross Park Avenue, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) City Council approval of a zoning code amendment establishing a special exception to allow General Education Facilities in the CC-2 zone. 2) Enclosure of the outdoor recreation area by fencing of a minimum height of 4 feet to be approved by staff. 3) Establishment of pedestrian routes to school entrances and bicycle parking, the site plan to be approved by staff. 4) An enrollment more than 50 students or an addition of more 500 square feet of floor area will be considered an expansion of the use that requires a new special exception. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map. 2. Aerial views of the proposed location. 3. Specific Criteria for the proposed special exception. 4. Site Plan. 5. Project summary and floor plan. 6. Application materials. Approved by: AWA Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development inn R 31 L d0 Z 133H5 nw•Ewdurw J N I u `.3 A N 11) h.Id Mdld 2116 Kos-sm-w �lI mw-j 30Y'Id OOOVMOI'AdLO" YMOI pfl 'AMPHoeRWP V5500IJI4 IDMU /AW3aNOV H11Yd -3dOH 71 IEm SA W JIB Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 313356-5240 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW SCHOOLS OF GENERALIZED INSTRUCTION BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE. WHEREAS, General Educational Facilities are currently not permitted in the CC-2 zone; and WHEREAS, the intent of the CC-2 zone is to provide for major business districts serving a significant segment of the total community population with large traffic -generating uses; and WHEREAS, CC-2 zones serve primarily as retail centers, but in some locations educational facilities could be a compatible use; and WHEREAS, allowing General Educational Facilities in the CC-2 zone by Special Exception will provide for review by the Board of Adjustment to consider the compatibility of the use for the specific commercial location, based on factors such as traffic patterns and provision of safe pedestrian access to the school; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the ordinance and recommended that the proposal be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Amend Table 2C-1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, by labeling Educational Facilities, General as "S" in the column for the CC-2 Zone. B. Insert a new paragraph 8 within Subsection 14-4B-4D as follows, and re -number subsequent paragraphs accordingly: B. General Education Facilities in the CC-2 Zone: a. The use will be functionally compatible with surrounding uses and will not inhibit retail and service uses for which the zone is primarily intended. The Board may consider such factors as site layout, size and scale of the development, and traffic circulation. b. The use must provide a drop-off/pick-up area in a location that is convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance to the facility. The drop-off/pick-up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces and/or parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent streets or other public rights -of -way. c. The site must be designed to promote safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation to the school according to the standards set forth in subsection 14-2C-6F, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation. Pedestrian walkways must be established connecting the main entrance(s) of the school to adjacent public sidewalks and trails. SECTION 11. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 111. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this — day of , 2013. zd0IOHs w,.p •w "�NI 3HNI`.� dj M31h321 3a0.7 ? 1300h4Mi WINM NI y /-� /A� r uolslnai b'd3. '.l ' b'MOI OSI 416 'PAY AgtlPN OXL icT` ' 0 f1 3'JVId OOO Ymol dq" `A21Vd 550?JO 1 atop Jlr n iian�� AW3aVo'd HINtl -3dOH 01 1"4 A 4 IWMHd dSA s M x w y z m w yv�y� w'g rc zv�ip o w o �Fao W� � n= apM w wp a m zp �a u y op 00'IS ¢y�Um n loo ozv_r do o Z z U p6 jn m J E p-per 6 Q I j. KJ N N6W '= m j pm UN N J WUaK, Z6pUU - 'y Z N 56N v WNW d V~i zzx 11 z it 3Nz mgm "� } a N p� maaao mod' m .. N zw z ® x xw r O�pG g 0oz �a zz�U wnw w m r a� fxz n '5 �m Q m3 rc a��w p q� z4 wj o zzdw nppp � U aF �p�� ww� Ci � z zm 4 i &rc SO � xo xr�x oo JQ F w m 7Q. WZ %nz3s � p 7� � S arc O��.i VI ap U wmWQ 3 ZZKZ WZ p j NW wJOzp Q xti.� U c> [wi\ > > W wo r'^p� w ttmo mo U s3 ¢ War z � 3 ONF G a .�vQiQ m wly o>nzi�� m�+ 'a a m <w mocwi `x'a 3 ioi <rc�rc w ��? 00 i in 20 oi�o w m 60 u o �w �CQ p Iwo 3�5m mo pN 'o EOU o owo p o000 a �Y�ao z i .fir ioir coi NniiO ¢¢u o o a o zI. a ee` €ge S a;- E��S y i Lw n 82_555_ 4i S=' Y ohm $ c y k ,aumi x m. APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -SPECIAL EXCEPTION - DATE: //�/> PROPERTY PARCEL NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS: (s,Ans PROPERTY ZONE: C_ (,— 7 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: tiCf2t;—S APPLICANT: Name: e rg 6 t Address: (6-,'p Phone: a CONTACT PERSON: Name: � '_ �•t� t �� -r^*.r�'�yE.,,1 (if other than applicant) P- Address: �S(1 �c1l�Y'�f fit."�L�e•-' Phone: e.5 r PROPERTY OWNER: Name: (if other than applicant) Address:7_5'�" 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@iowa-city.org. Purpose for special exception: 0 CC_— Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: '00A26- D. General Aimproval Criteria 1. The proposed exception will not be detrimental to the public health.safty, comfort, or general welfare; in fact the primary purpose of establishing Faith Academy in the Cross Park neighborhood is to significantly improve the educational opportunities of the children in the general area, hence improving the general welfare. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to adjoining property or reduce their property values. The proposed site is immediately adjacent to the former Mayor' Youth employment Program location, it's self a type of educational opportunity program. By its very nature educational facilities are held in high regard and are esteemed in generally providing greater opportunities for community enjoyment and improve property values in there are. Consider properties immediately adjacent to the Uof I facilities. 3. The specific exception is for the back of Pepperwood Place Mall. This area has long been fully developed, and is in keeping with improvements proposed by the property owner. 4. As the property has already been fully developed all necessary infrastructure has long been provided. S. The facility faces a far more than adequate paved parking area contiguous with the building. This area is easily amenable to student friendly drop off and pick up zones. Additionally, this building was specifically chosen for it's proximity to the targeted neighborhood, to facilitate walk-in traffic. All of witch will minimize traffic congestion on adjoining city streets. 6. The applicant will conform with all standards as required as a condition of this exemption. All applicable standards and conditions as required under the current zoning have been met by the original developer. 7. As the zoning code was recently amended to allow General Education in the CC-2 zone as an exception, the granting of this exception will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Sarah E. Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney DATE: July 3, 2013 RE: Appeal of a decision by the Building Official to deny a building permit for an accessory structure in the RS-5 zone at 2230 Russell Drive. The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the rules that govern your consideration of the above -referenced appeal. in deciding the appeal you must first determine: 1. Whether the Building Official exercised his powers and followed the regulations established in the Zoning Code with regard to accessory uses and structures; and Whether the Building Official's action was patently arbitrary or capricious. You will receive a memo from Planning Staff on the background of the appeal, the record produced by the Building Official, and the zoning code regulations that apply to accessory uses and structures. Element No. 1 above requires you to determine whether the Building Official properly followed (used/relied on) the zoning regulations. Element No. 2 requires you to determine whether the Building Official's decision to deny the application was patently arbitrary and capricious. A decision is "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it is made without regard to the law or the underlying facts of the case. Arora v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, 564 N.W. 2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1997). A decision is also "arbitrary" or "capricious' when it involves an "abuse of discretion". An "abuse of discretion" occurs when the action rests on grounds or reasons clearly untenable, unreasonable, or lacking rationality in light of the actors' authority. O Inc. v. Iowa Employment Appeal Bd., 576 N.W.2d 352, 355, (Iowa 1998). The above -stated "standard of review" is a narrow one. The Board is not entitled to simply substitute its own judgment for that of the Building Official. In other words, you may not reverse the Official's decision merely because you disagree with it. Rather, if you find that the Building Official exercised his powers and followed the guidelines established by law, and that its decision was not patently arbitrary or capricious then you must affirm the Building Official's decision. If you find that the Building Official did not exercise his powers and follow the regulations established by law, abused his discretion, or acted patently arbitrarily and capriciously you may, in conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Code, affirm (for a different reason), wholly or partly; reverse, wholly or partly; or, modify the decision of the Building Official to deny the application. in other words, you will stand in the shoes of the Building Official and make such decision as ought to have been made based on the regulations with regards to the approval of an accessory structure. July 3, 2013 Page 2 The motion to decide the appeal will be in the form of a motion to affirm the appeal to overturn the decision of the Building Official. Again, in making your decision, you step into the shoes of and have all the powers of the Building Official. The reasons for your decision must be clearly articulated based on the regulations in the zoning code. If you have any questions, please contact me. cc: Jeff Davidson Sarah Walz Bob Miklo r CITY n OF IOWA CITYORANDUM lk Date: July 10, 2013 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner Re: Appeal of a decision by the Building Official to deny a building permit for an accessory structure in the RS-5 zone at 2230 Russell Drive. BACKGROUND: The appellant, Sandy Beck, is appealing the denial of a building permit for an accessory structure to be located on property in the Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone at 2235 Russell Drive. The applicant proposed to build a 1,152 sq. foot (24 x 48) foot pole building to house a garage and woodworking shop at the rear of the property. The proposed uses fail under the classification of "accessory storage." The subject lot is 9,975 square feet (133 x 75). The footprint of the house is approximately 26 x 42. According to the building permit application, the house has a total interior square footage of 1,760 square feet. (The City Assessor's website indicates 1,092 square feet of livable space.) The attached garage, which is also considered an accessory use and structure, occupies an additional 528 square feet (22 x 24). The appellant proposes to open up the rear wall of the attached garage, continuing the driveway back to the proposed structure at the rear of the lot. (There is no alley access to the rear of the property.) On May 23, 2013, the Building Department issued a letter explaining the denial of the building permit for the proposed accessory structure in the Low Density Single-family zone at 2230 Russell Drive (see attached). A similar structure with two additional overhead doors was denied in October, 2012. SCOPE OF REVIEW: Iowa Code gives the Board authority to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any decision made by the zoning official. To that end, the Board may reverse or affirm the official's decision, in whole or in part, or may modify the decision and may make such decision as ought to be made, and thus has all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal was made. In the case of a five -member board, the concurring vote of three members is required to reverse any decision of the zoning official. Iowa Code §§414.12(1), 414.13, 414.14. ANALYSIS: The decision to deny a building permit for the proposed building, as put forth in the attached letter from the Building Official, hinges on the phrase "customarily incidental to and commonly associated with a permitted use," which the definition of accessory use set forth in the zoning code. The regulations specific to accessoy/ uses are set forth in Article C: "Accessory Uses and Buildings," which begins as follows (14-4C-1): "Accessory uses, buildings, or other structures customarily incidental to and commonly associated with a permitted use, provisional use, or special exception are permitted, provided they are operated and maintained according to the following standards: A. The accessory use is subordinate to the principal use of the property and contributes to the comfort, convenience, or necessity of occupants, customers, or employees of the principal use, July 3, 2013 Page 2 B. The accessory use, building, or structure is under the same ownership as the principal use or uses on the property; C. The accessory use, building or structure does not include structures, structural features, or activities inconsistent with the uses to which they are accessory; D. Except for off-street parking located on a separate lot as approved according to the provisions set forth in section 14-5A-4F, Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements, the accessory use, building, or structure is located on the same lot as the principal use or uses to which it is accessory, and E. The accessory use, building, or structure conforms to the applicable base zone regulations and to the specific approval criteria and development standards contained in this Article. The Building Official's letter (attached) cites the large size of the structure in the rear yard as not a customary and out of "character, scale, and the pattern of development" with the applicant's neighborhood it is therefore not "customarily incidental and commonly associated with low density single-family development." The Zoning Code regulates accessory structures and uses in the residential zones to help assure that they are compatible in scale and use in a residential setting. Excessively large accessory structures may be out of character with single-family homes and may invite non - compatible uses, such as commercial activity or warehousing. The applicant's appeal (attached) sites 132 Dartmouth Street as an example of a large garage/workshop that was approved as an accessory structure similar to what she is proposing. The Building Official has indicated that the permit for that building was issued in error. The resulting building is not customary or incidental to single family residences throughout the city. Is the proposed use or structure customarily incidental to and commonly associated with single-family residential uses? Accessory storage, including detached garages and workshops, are commonly associated with low density, single-family housing. Such structures are typical in all single-family residential zones throughout the community. However, the Building Official contends that in this case the large size of the proposed storage building 24 x 48 feet (1,152 square feet) in addition to the existing attached garage and associate driveway and proposed driveway extension, goes beyond what may be reasonably considered customary incidental and commonly associated with single-family housing. Moreover, the Building Official contends that the scale and design of the structure, a pole buiiding, is not typical in residential neighborhoods and therefore detracts from surrounding residential development. The Building Official will be present at the hearing to answer the Board's questions and to support the decision to deny the permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information presented in the appellant's statement, staff does not believe there are ground to overturn the denial of a building permit. Staff recommends denial of the appeal on the grounds that the proposed structure, a 1,152 sq. foot (24 x 48) foot pole building, when considered in combination with the existing development on the property, does not constitute a use that is customarily incidental to and commonly associated with a single-family residential use. July 3, 2013 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of denial by the Building Official. 2. Location map. 3. Aerial view of the property. 4. Exiting house footprint. 5. Building elevations. 6. Explanation of appeal from Sandy Beck. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development } k j 111 a May 23, 2013 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Wsshington Strect Mr. Randy Kurk to+va city, Iowa 52240-I826 2230 Russell Dr. 3t9) 356-5000 Iowa City, IA 52240 Q 19) 356.5009 FAX wrvu�.icgov. org Re: Building Permit Application for 48' x 24' Accessory Building Dear Mr. Kurk: The Building Permit Application for the 24' x 48' detached pole building to be located in the rear yard at 2230 Russell Dr. is denied because it doesn't meet the General Approval Criteria identified in Title 14 of the City of Iowa City Zoning Code, Chapter 4, "Use and Regulations", Article C, "Accessory Uses and Buildings", Section 1, "General Approval Criteria" (14-4C-1), which states as follows: Accessory uses, buildings or other structures customarily incidental to and commonly associated with a permitted use, provisional use or special exception are permitted, provided they are operated and maintained according to [the five enumerated standards, A-E]. It is our determination that the proposed building is not customarily incidental to and commonly associated with low density detached single family housing for the following reasons: a. The large size (24 x 48, 1,152 square feet) building with the associated drive area for the proposed detached pole building to be located in the rear yard is not a use "commonly", "habitually" and by "long practice" established in your neighborhood as being a reasonably associated accessory building expected with low density single family development. b. The proposed 1,152 square feef detached pole building is out of character, scale and the pattern of development in the neighborhood and therefore cannot qualify as being "customarily incidental to and commonly associated with" low density single family uses, c. The proposed intensity of the use of your property is uncommon and inconsistent with the character, scale, pattern of the existing residential development and is therefore not "customarily incidental to and commonly associated with" low density single family development. Sincerely, Tim Hennes Senior Building Inspector Cc: Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development Bob Miklo, Senior Planner Douglas Boothroy, Director of Housing and Inspection Services Sarah Holecek, 1'Assistant City Attorney Mc IL v LJJ 'o al .bl f. 1A-cl •j! 4 N\1 col el 110, ji APPLICATION 1-0 THE E BOARD OF ADJUS i MENIT APPEAL. DATE: (".P{b (13 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 10A3 $ Qt) [ 0 PROPERTY ADDRESS: Q2L:14 PROPERTY ZONE: PROPERTY LOT SIZE: �'' �J� 14 APPLICANT: Name: �SCit3Fr' Address: Aft RuA<o>a Phone: B (q- - ii'3( ..( C)'gao-q�� 4 CONTACT PERSON: Name: y c k (if other than applicant) Address: a1311 (QV6&--1k ( Phone: Lq-q c ) — 03&L PROPERTY OWNER: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: 1 The Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the City Manager or designee in the enforcement of the Zoning Code or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. Please see 14-8C-3 in the Zoning Code for detailed information on the appeal procedure. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with questions about the appeal process or regulations and standards in the code. Decision being appealed: The applicant alleges that an error has been made by the following administrative official (list title) ] r �ai We nea ger4ry on (date) � Ii'� in enforcing the Zoning Ordinance in relation to he-hroperty listed above . Please indicate the section of the Zoning Ordinance cited in the official's decision: Tflta, lLl "I.- 7,—"- 1�_.➢ r L —I.__ ci Ub" v IV 'tan 1r S&AGere'i-ed 0rPQ[-ocJ c6Aexici. `` t�4�yG-i�(;v �� )1 Purpose of the Appeal: The applicant wishes to challenge the above decision based on the interpretation of the following section(s) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. (This section of the code may or may not be different from the section cited in the decision being challenged.) Summary: In the space provided below, or on a separate' sheet, summarize the basis for your appeal referring to the code sections listed above and providing sound reason(s) for overturning the decision. (Provide evidence demonstrating that the decision was based on an improper or erroneous interpretation of the Zoning Code). Remedy desired: / ter rail'' -`rkP, ger cr, r -1 ppd admirkappeal-boase.doc If this were to be viewed from an absolutely objective stand point, this would very clear cut. The proposed building per Jann Ream complies with City Code; size of building is less than 15% of the lot size. Height and setback restrictions were met. Unfortunately, the City Code is not being applied uniformly throughout the city, but rather randomly and arbitrarily throughout the various neighborhoods. The most obvious example of this is accountant and city landlord, Jim Buxton. His property is at 1811 Muscatine Ave, where he was allowed to build a 2952 sq. ft. 82 x 36 garage, which is used to store and work on multiple vehicles. Tim Hennes told us this was not allowed in Iowa City in regards to our building. Now, I would like to focus on a similar neighborhood as ours. 132 Dartmouth has a 28 x 50 garage, on a smaller property lot than ours (9,360 sf. vs. 9,975 sf.). Our building is modeled after the Dartmouth building (2 stall garage and workshop). Theirs was allowed. Yet, it is a larger building on a smaller property with a smaller house, and there are no similar structures anywhere in the area. But if you look at the two neighborhoods, they are comparable with regards to property values, income levels and general neighborhood structure. The structure at 132 Dartmouth is the only one of its kind in the neighborhood, as with all the buildings that we located throughout the City. So being "customarily incidental" to a single family neighborhood was not an issue as the. Building Permit Department contends with our structure. This is an obvious disparity in the interpretation of the code on their part. We have at least a dozen more examples, including photos and are willing to submit these at a later date, if called for. But what we see within the City is an arbitrary allowance for garages/buildings within the city limits. We followed the City Code with our structure in order to be granted a permit. But when the City itself does not apply this same code with all residents equally it puts the citizen at an unfair disadvantage. We have lived in this same neighborhood for over 10 years and have contributed to the well- being of our neighbors and the neighborhood itself. We care for the elder neighbors and look out for the welfare of our neighborhood. This building is for our enjoyment in life and in our coming retirement years. I wanted a woodworking shop for when I retire as a hobby. I don't believe I should be forced to move out of town in order to enjoy my golden years and use my own property responsibly. That's just not right or fair to someone who has contributed productively to the city their entire life. MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 12, 2013 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Andrew Bassman, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Pugh, Dick Noble, Nate van der Weide RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF May 8, 2013 MEETING MINUTES Baker moved to approve the minutes. Soglin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS EXC13-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction, Inc., for a special exception to reduce the rear setback requirement for property located in the OPD-5 zone at 826 Sugar Loaf Circle. Bassman said the reduced rear setback would be from twenty feet to fourteen feet and would allow for construction of a twelve foot by twelve foot screened in porch extending from the rear of the second story of the house as well as a covered deck extending below the porch at the first floor level. He explained that a covered porch is not allowed by Code to extend into the rear setback. He said the applicant has already built the screened in porch and the covered deck Board of Adjustment June 12, 2013 Page 2 of 9 although he did not have a building permit to do so. He said the subject lot is relatively shallow and relatively small. He said there is a relatively steep slope at the back of the property, which limits private yard space. He said the main issue of the special exception is whether it conflicts with the purposes of the minimum setback requirements as listed in the staff report. He said staff has found that granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations because: • Allowing a modest setback reduction of six feet along the rear of the property, abutting permanent open space, would not alter the character of the street or neighborhood. • The porch must remain unenclosed as a condition of approval of this special exception, so it would not restrict access to light and air or separation for fire protection, encroach on the privacy between dwellings, or promote an unreasonable physical relationship between residences. • The houses to the east and southeast of the subject property also have rear porches. Thus, the proposed porch would not be out of scale or inconsistent with the rest of the structures in the neighborhood, as long as the porch remains unenclosed. Therefore, staff believes that the proposal does not conflict with the purpose of the setback requirements and recommends approval of the application with conditions stated in the staff report. Baker asked if the house is occupied now. Walz said she did not know. Baker asked how this came to happen. Walz said she thought it was an accident. Walz suggested that the Board review the application as if the porch were not already constructed. Baker said his concern is with people not understanding the rules and then coming to the Board to have the rules adjusted to allow something they've already done. Walz said the Board's job is to review it as if it doesn't exist. Soglin asked about the property zone listed on the applicant's form. Walz explained that SAOis an old zoning code designation pertaining to planned development for a sensitive area. In this case the developer set aside open space to preserve certain natural features and in exchange this allowed the developer to make some lots smaller than the minimum required in the RS-5 zone. Under the current code this would be labeled OPD for Planned Development Overlay Soglin asked if it would set precedent if the Board approved this application. Walz said that no special exception or variance is precedent setting for another. She said the Board must consider each individual application based on its own merits. Chrischilles said it forces the Board's hand in that it is already built. Walz said it does not. She said the Board needs to be concerned with the findings of fact. She said it's being already built does not make it meet the standards. Baker said he wants to know who's responsible, not just in this case, for knowing the Code before something gets built. Holecek said the builder submits plans, which are approved, and then the builder does the building according to those plans. Chrischilles said a formal precedent wouldn't be set, but an informal one would be set because it would let other people in the area know that something got built incorrectly so they can just ask for forgiveness later. Walz said that many of the factors in this case would not apply to other Board of Adjustment June 12, 2013 Page 3 of 9 properties in the vicinity. Walz said again that the Board needs to review the request based on the criteria for the special exception. Grenis asked if the applicant had any penalty charged to them by the Building Department. Walz said that's a question best put to the applicant. Baker asked if it was the Building Department in the permitting process that discovered the error. Hoiecek said she guessed that when they applied for an occupancy permit a final inspection was done, and it was determined that this was not built according to the plans, and that it encroached into the rear setback. She said this was also a question best answered by the applicant. Mike Pugh, the representative for Prime Ventures Construction, explained that when the building permit was applied for, the plan was for a patio on the first floor and an uncovered deck above. He said that during the course of construction, they discovered that the slope in the back of the house was not conducive to laying cement for a patio. He said there was a miscommunication between people in the builder's office where each thought the other was going to get an amendment to the building permit. He said he didn't believe that they ever thought they would need a special exception. He said during the final inspection it came up that they would need a special exception, which is not something they would need in North Liberty or Coralville. Pugh said the topography of the lot makes it difficult to use the backyard. He noted that beyond the woods at the back of the backyard is an outlot that is subject to a drainage easement and is reserved for open space so that will never get built on. He said the screened in porch is built on the westerly part of the lot, and there isn't a neighbor who is immediately to the west of or behind them. He said were this to happen on another lot, it would be determined on a case by case basis, and they feel that a special exception would be warranted in this case if you look at the special and general conditions. He said they do adopt the information and arguments that were presented by staff in their report, and the applicant is in agreement with the conditions recommended by staff. Baker asked if they approached this special exception based on these facts only, and the addition was not already built, the special exception would most probably be approved. He said what if a property owner did the same thing, but it's found when they come before the Board that they don't deserve a special exception, and it goes to court and the judge upholds the City's ruling. He then asked if the owner has any vested right to continue because the addition exists now. He said they have these applications come before the Board in which people said they just didn't know what the rules were. He said he anticipates where eventually they well have a case come before the Board where the Board will want what's been done to be undone. Walz said that has happened before. Holecek told Baker that vested rights really pertain to you having the ability to rely on a lawfully issued permit, and if the law changes during your reliance on that permit, your vested rights give you the right to continue construction under the permit that has been issued. She said vested rights do not pertain in this case. Walz said special exceptions are written into the Code because there are circumstances in which it is reasonable to be flexible, but not in every situation. The zoning code gives the Board a set of criteria specific to setback reductions and allows them to judge whether that flexibility is Board of Adjustment June 12, 2013 Page 4 of 9 warranted on a case -by -case basis. She said in this case staff looked at what the purpose of the setback regulations are and whether the building meets all the other standards. Given that this is a rear setback request and there is no private development on the other side of the property line and, given the other criteria, it seemed that this request was in keeping with the intent of the setback regulations. Soglin asked if this home is for sale. Pugh said it is. Soglin asked whether their sales document include information explaining the situation. Pugh said there will be an obligation on the part of the person listing the property to inform buyers of that issue. Grenis asked if they had an occupancy permit. Pugh said they did. Grenis opened public hearing. Grenis closed public hearing. Baker repeated that his concern is not so much with this particular application but with the process the Boards goes through in comparable cases coming in the future. Soglin said she thinks something should be stated in the sales documents for the purchaser of this home that it could never have walls built around it or windows installed. Holecek said the special exception will get recorded, which will attach to the abstract, which will then be noted by the attorney who does the title opinion at closing. Soglin said she would like it noted on the seller's disclosure. She said her concern is that someone could think they could make it a three season porch, and then it's even further away from what it originally was. Pugh said that would be recorded in the records of the Johnson County Recorder, and his expectation is that whoever is looking at the title for the buyer would report that in that opinion to the prospective buyer. Soglin clarified that she thinks it should be explicit on the seller's disclosure that first time that it's sold and thereafter. Walz said that it would be possible to ask the current seller to do that, but she's not sure there is any way to enforce putting in disclosures thereafter. Pugh agreed with Walz. Soglin asked if it could be clearly stated on the first disclosure statement and not just in the title opinion. Pugh said he's sure that will be done. Walz said that the Board could recommend that it be disclosed that it's a screened porch and deck that may not be enclosed. Baker moved to approve EXC13-00008, a special exception to reduce the rear principal building setback from 20 feet to 14 feet in order to allow a 12-foot by 12-foot screened -in porch for properly located at 826 Sugar Loaf Circle, subject to the following conditions: Board of Adjustment June 12, 2013 Page 5 of 9 The applicant must secure a building permit for the 12 x 12-foot porch and covered deck. 2. Both the first floor deck and the second floor screened porch must be un-enclosed. The installation of windows or solid walls on either level would constitute an extension of the principal structure, which would not be permitted. This restriction should be included with the seller's disclosure for the first sale of the house. Chrischilles seconded the motion. Chrischilles said regarding EXC13-00008 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of June 1P and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommended that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this proposal. The other Board members concurred with those findings. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. 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. EXC13-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by the University of Iowa Community Credit Union for a special exception to allow a drive -through use for property located in the CO-1 zone at the southwest corner of N. Dodge St. and Scott Blvd. Walz said the subject property was rezoned from Research Development Park (RDP) to Office Commercial (CO-1) in November, 2008. A special exception was approved for a similar three - lane drive through facility at that time, but because the banking facility was not constructed within the six-month term of the special exception, the exception is considered expired. The applicant is now Going forward with plans to construct a much smaller facility at the site, a bank branch. (The proposed building and parking area are significantly smaller than the original proposal.) Walz said one of main issues with drive-throughs is ensuring that it's safe for pedestrians moving across the site. She explained how signage will be used on site to that end. She showed where staff is recommending that the applicant add landscaping. She said there is more than adequate stacking space on this site. She showed photos of the intersection and where the drives to the credit union will be located. She said the turning situation had been reviewed at the tlme of the special exception in 2008 by the Fire Department on the opposite corner, and was reviewed again for the current, special exception, and they have no issues with it or trouble with turns onto their site. She said the Transportation Planners feel that it's a safe situation. She said staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions. She provided the board with a memo with additional information from the Transportation Planners regarding the design of the road and the anticipated impact of the drive -through. Sogiin asked if a special exception would be needed if there were no drive -through attached. Walz said no exception would be required. She explained that for a long time this site has been zoned for office type uses. She said that only banking facilities are allowed to have drive- throughs in the CO-1 zone. Board of Adjustment June 12, 2013 Page 6 of 9 Grenis asked if the bank owned the who!e lot so that further development would be theirs. Walz said if they were to develop it with a building at some point they would have to amend the original rezoning. Soglin asked about the lights. Walz explained where there was already well established vegetation to the west of the parking area, and the one area staff thought should have additional vegetation shown on the site plan was at the end of the north/south driveway for the bank parking area. Grenis invited the applicant to speak. Dick Noble of the University of Iowa Community Credit Union said he was present with their architects to answer any questions. Grenis said the application is now for a branch bank now and asked what the difference is between that and the 2008 application. Noble said they realized that with their growth, the administrative portion of the building was not going to be big enough. Soglin said the staff report indicates that the credit union expects one -thousand vehicles per day entering and exiting the proposed bank because the drive-throughs are over time being used less. She asked what would happen to the drive -through in ten or fifteen years. Noble said this drive -through will have two instead of the three lanes at all their other branches, and he expects less than one -thousand vehicles a day at this branch. Grenis opened public hearing. Nate van der Weide of 15 Hickory Heights Lane said he's concerned about the additional traffic and the turning lane off Dodge Street onto Scott Street that some drivers use as a passing lane. He said he was also concerned about the vegetation being put up along the sidewalk. Walz said there is nearly enough room for a car pull all the way across the sidewalk to wait for traffic. She said the vegetation the applicant is required to put in is on the credit union's property so it's in from the sidewalk. She said it is low vegetation and is intended to block headlights and shouldn't create a visibility issue for a vehicle exiting across the extra wide sidewalk. Van der Weide said he's concerned about how much backed -up traffic there will be once the renovation on Dubuque Street begins, because Scott and Dodge will be used for detours. Walz said that at particular times of day, the traffic does back up there, but the Transportation Planners do not feel that this drive -through will contribute significantly to congestion or that it's a safety concern. Van der Weide said there are lots of other sites along North Dodge that would be bigger, and he doesn't like seeing the proposed building stuck on this corner. He said if there turns out to be lots accidents, what is the recourse. Walz said they don't anticipate having a crash problem here, but if there was, the Transportation Planners would look at ways of to improve traffic safety whether at the Dodge/Scott intersection or elsewhere along the road. Grenis closed public hearing Board of Adjustment June 12, 2013 Page 7 of 9 Soglin stated that she appreciates the neighbor's observation and concerns, and she has also seen drivers use the southbound left lane as a passing lane at high rates of speed. She said she'd like the Transportation Planners to be seriously aware of watching what happens. Baker asked about widening a lane or a street if there proves to eventually be a traffic problem here. Walz said she can't specifically say what they would do, but if over time there is more development in the area such that traffic potentially exceeds the capacity of the street, would trigger the City to widen the road or modify traffic controls. She pointed out Sycamore Mall area along Kirkwood as a place where the road is being modified in order to accommodate traffic concerns. Baker asked who would acquire the land to expand. Walz said this is a newer arterial road which is wider to accommodate additional growth. Soglin moved to approve EXC13-00009, a special exception to allow a three -lane drive - through banking facility in the CO-1 zone, located south of Dodge Street and west of Scott Boulevard subject to the following condition: • Substantial compliance with the submitted site plan, with the addition of traffic signage and required pavement markings for the pedestrian crossings in the area of the drive -through and bank entrance and additional S2 landscape screening to be added to the south end of the north -south driveway. Baker seconded the motion. Baker said that regarding EXC13-00009 a special exception to allow a three -lane drivethrough banking facility in the CO-1 zone he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of June 12`h and concluded that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommended that the Board adopt the findings of the staff report as their findings for the approval of this proposal. He said he would to emphasize that this is an area where traffic patterns should be monitored regularly and at the first sign of a substantial increase in accidents or other safety issues the City seek some sort of mitigation for any problems that might be created in the long term. Grenis said he agreed with Larry and added that for Criteria B regarding that the transportation system be capable it's not perfect, but based on the information the Board has in the staff report, based on the Traffic Engineer recommendations that it's adequate. Soglin agreed that this is adequate but there needs to be monitoring once it's constructed A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. 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. OTHER: Board of Adjustment June 12, 2013 Page 8 of 9 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: ADJOURNMENT: Baker moved to adjourn. Soglin seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote. L L) fn LU M lti N a U , LL Q r O ® cm Z �LLI a � o a m Ir— N x x x x fD co X i X I X X j x ' I o x X X X X Cl) w I x x( X ; x P7 co ( x x o x x N I x x x x i N N x x x x x j X X X x X c x x LU x o j N W O x x X X j i X X X o x M x xfx o X(j I a x LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lu F i ui Z Lu W O Z � 1F� U ' uj O y Y I J 7 a W Q U j 0o ! C m f C y l U Z Z 1 D II Iz w 0 Z m U U 9 W f6 a m N y X a C C C wyn.� a¢¢z u u u n XOWI 0 w Y