HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2013 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, September 18, 2013 — 5:15 PM
City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the August 21, 2013 Minutes
D. Special Exception Items:
1. APL13-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by TSB Holdings LLC appealing a decision
made by City of Iowa City's Development and Regulations Specialist for denial of a site plan at 902
& 908 N. Dodge Street & 911 N. Governor Street.
2. EXC13-00013: Discussion of an application submitted by Mike Hartley for a special exception to
allow a dental laboratory, a non -conforming use, that has been destroyed to be rebuilt in the
Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone at 1515 Jackson Street.
3. EXC13-00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction LLC for a
special exception to allow reduction in minimum rear set back requirement for a principal building in
the Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to accommodate screened in porch at 838 Sugar Loaf
Circle.
E. Other
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: October 9, 2013
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 18, 2013
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
RE: An appeal of the denial of a building permit for property at 902 and 906 North
Dodge Street and 911 North Governor Street.
At its August 21 meeting, the Board of Adjustment deferred the public hearing and its
decision regarding API-13-00001. In this packet you will find the identical report and
supporting materials that were submitted to you last month. I have also attached the
meeting minutes and copies of all documents submitted at the meeting by the appellant, Mr.
Barkalow. I have also provided a timeline of the pertinent events and submissions leading
up to the rezoning or referred to in the discussions at the August meeting. [See attachment
A]
BACKGROUND: On May 24, the appellant submitted an appeal of the denial of a site plan
submitted on April 18 and denied on April 29th. At the August 21 meeting, the appellant
indicated that he was actually appealing an earlier site plan submitted at the beginning of
January 2013, prior to a moratorium issued by the City Council. The City has record of two
site plans submitted prior to the moratorium: one on January 3 and another on January 10.
Both site plans were reviewed under the R3B and CO-1 zoning that was in place at the time
of submission. Notes provided by Ms. Tallman [See attachment B] indicate that the January
3 site plan showing two 24-unit buildings was denied for a number of reasons, including that
the plan did not provide the required site review information such as utility connections and
other infrastructure. Also, the site review fee had not been paid. The site plan submitted on
January 10 showing one 30-unit building also lacked the required information and was not in
compliance with the 1977 (R3B) setback requirement or parking requirement. ( Mr.
Barkalow's attorney had requested that the plan be reviewed under the code in place in
1977).
The Information required for site review is specified on the site review form and in title 18 of
the code. [See attachments C and D.]
The Approval/Denial Process in Title 18 of the City Code states the following:
"The city shall review and approve, review and approve with conditions, or
review and deny all site plans under this title within twenty-one (21) working
days after the application, without requiring the submission of the plan to the
planning and zoning commission." (18-2-3A)
No plan submitted prior to the moratorium was ever approved or approved with conditions —
both were clearly denied. The applicant never indicated that he disputed the reasons for
denial or formally appealed the reasons for denial to the Board.
September 13, 2013
Page 2
At the August 21 BOA meeting, the applicant seemed to suggest that since the site plan
review was initiated before the moratorium, his development plans should proceed to
approval (and later be issued a building permit) without regard to'he moratorium. This is nol
supported by code section 14-8D-5H, which governs the effect of a moratorium on
development activity [See attachment E]. This section provides that once a public hearing is
set by the City Council all development activty not in compliance with the proposed change,
including activity that may have been authorized under existing building permits, is halted
unless there has already been substantial progress made on the permitted development
activity.
The code goes further to state that once the council enacts a proposed rezoning:
"this title, as amended, shall apply. Any permit or license for a use or
development activity counter to or prohibited by such amendment shall not be
issued, or if already issued, sha:1 be revoked, provided no substantial part of the
permitted development activity has begun. Any required permit or license for a
previously unregulated use or development activity must be obtained prior to
continuation."
(18-8D-5H-3a)
In short, regardless of which site plan the Board chooses to review for this appeal, all plans
and permits, whether under review or approved, would be subject to the moratorium and the
City Council's March 28 rezoning.
With regard to the re -zoning, the attached memo to the City Council from Assistant City
Attorney Sara Hektoen indicates the council was aware of the "complicated zoning history"
for the property and the Supreme Court decision. [See attachement F.] The Council chose
to move forward with the rezoning. The applicant is now challenging the legality of the
rezoning and the impact of the prior court decision regarding the property in court.
Ms. Tallman referred to the moratorium and proposed change in the zoning in her denial of
the January 25 site plan. That site plan was rejected (February 7) as it did not comply with
the proposed RS-12 rezoning due to the presence of multi -family structures, which are not
permitted in the IRS-12 zone.
Excluding the issue of whether Mr. Barkalow's appeal is timely, the substantive question
before the Board is whether Ms. Tallman made an error in applying the zoning code
requirements to his submittals. The burden of proof is an Mr. Barkalow to show that the
denial of his site plans was in error, The Board's decision does not involve the legality or
wisdom of the City Council's actions in rezoning the property, as the Board has no authority
over the legislative process. Ms. Tallman will be present at your meeting to answer
questions regarding this matter.
Development activity is defined in the Zoning Code as "Any human -made change to improved or unimproved
property, including but not limited to, placement of manufactured housing, buildings or other structures,
construction demolition, clearing, mining, dredging, fiiiing, grading, paving, excavating, or drilling. Development
activity does not include transfer of ownership."
Attachment A
O
a v 0 z
A Y °
�� �
o c a
Y O
O
00
4y z
U
to
wo U
ba Y
F U M b9
O N
O ,b O" 0
O.co U1
U p a o "u to 3 0
a°i Z
°
3 0 0 U cn
73
by O O N Q ��y q
O
a'xi O U sU. � '�3�' W^ cC ,n y �' . p p N 'O . C• � 'Y^� rn'i,
O C) V] N CJ U bi)
f4 U N Z �. u O 'O Fi z 0 4Oy
0 c~d :• U , k ' N p '•� 00 q C� V] U C1 O y �p+ s. bA
q y
j F V Q
oz
d p d ? q
Y y P n N N
�+
bA '
O O O 4, F.
1 by
y O o P7 O U ai C4 C4 �' CL
N O �O' ti N bp9 .p. y N O O N
Q' Q R U N F U V] P u 'm Vi Vl 7 Ln J V
N
N O M M M
I N M M C)
Cl O C CDN N N .N- N W N ~O ,N N O
i--I O
p'a U Y
H o ¢ 0
.-r y
o c
Eli
O R • cG
A
� n4
bq
❑ P.
�
by
O
411
NN00
p
•C
0.1 vtb
y
�
•
N
m
b
��,',
�
W
to
o
b
a
p
•p
o
coo
N
v
a
•3
an F• �
o
�3
•�
0
`�
�
o
a co
3
3
3
.� o
P N
o
d
p
U
O
03
W w
Y
cn
iy
y
is
Y
S+.
M
M
M
M
M
O
N
N
N
N
Cl
N
O
N
O
N
M
cc
�
N
Attachment B
1/3/13
Application and site plan received (note: the checks by required information were made by Tracy
Barkalow; highlighting by Tallman)
811'F_ PLAN
Datu of Subminal: Ir"Q M
Site Addressor Legal D ription: Cti--2
1�
C' awl
..x<... CITY 4F1OWA CITY
- � � r area c^� z. us.
Applicanf t' .'_ _. _ �.x tl.. -fSL— Iti' t'y�.).,aa teK �j>z'j <i
Name Addre -r re y ,-_
Telephones Cell Phone Entail ... A' x.'v x..c •r!
Site Plan Prepared By:
Nam. Agency and Address
Talephorse m Cell Phone 3r'9 -"'..5 1 - b,> '�_ Email
Projets Descripu.n _(.P A. ;a't W.4 i /tc..c.c Cxz:,p1:v t r/5"�-•:N.h'+:. 'T /i ']C_:.vs�:-le.=.p.b..-
➢snulopaeanY afmure Yhnn 12 rraatrmasair more fhId,dddsquarefee!ofnon-residenrla!ffoar area
reguPras u $250ISa appflcaeton fee ar the Yinre nyslse pfan subnriani.
A sale plarr wlshouf fire "enstrod ihJarrtrarlon ap 11 be Y'etfsrnl!d to the applu:ant nr apFftea t',
represrnrafive--fthhs 48 hours ai 'submitu'l and wit[ not hr row nlr to other City deparYmenYs
for "Vie rS.
Ree aired lnformadon includes:
�'j Date arprep.rad.. and north arrow
0 gale no smaller than I-- 100'
Legaldasoripdon or street address
Z3 Natnea and addresses of property owner, plan
pFepar.q applicant. and applicant's attorney
IUD property lines and arrow of the sim
[D%I'ytal dwelling units and bedrooms per unit
Q Tr.tal .ommen nd floor area and type of uses
La `%termer dlnssr.i.., of Stnlcmir.
12"Sctback distances from property boundary lines
.�^�'�Dianu.cee between strnentms
E'fDimenslons of parking arms and walkways
M Loeation nfnurd.or dumpmers and recycling
etv-sa
El Materials andmethods proposed to prevent sail
erosion from nc. sonsnuol. w'tivity
0 Landsmpiag plan that shows existing and
proposed trees, and vegerati''e screening
S��.ta
0 Locution and size nf..isd.g and proposed
utilities, including fire hydrants
0 Complete trafrrc circulation and parking plan
0 Locatiuns of rivers, riec ama, wetlands, and flood
hazard ..as
The City may requYre addirlaaal lnlbrmad.nr
0 Locations and types of proposed lighting
0 Details of f nces and retaining walls
0 Detail of landscape or structural screening far
..W..r parkingand storage as
ED Locations and specifleatipns for storage ai
flammable, cermsiye, .r hazard... rnatenals
0 Existing and proposed eonta.rs
0 L..aci.n and rype ofsigns
0 A stnmr water, runoff,dan
Q Typical cross seetion.fproposed streets, alleys
and parking arena
F'ar complete nttotmaaon an submittal
requrremanrs urai design. sear darcls. see nd. 18 ref
l.wa Cary Cade.
":i_1 Q' h-- +J v,.n .,..`rc.� rG [. Ge�.c;r c•:,nr.,.l.
1/4/13 Tallman notes on site plan submittal:
None of the required information is provided (see application)
Combination of zoning districts, including CO-1, which does not permit duplexes. Also, multi -family
dwellings must be above the ground floor of a building. Also, review fee not submitted.
not routed to Water —service details not provided
not routed to Public Works — public utility information not provided
not routed to Planning because of insufficient submittal
not routed to fire because of insufficient submittal
1/4/13 [Site Plan Denied]
called Tracy Barkalow, who said that his attorney (Chuck Meardon) advised him to submit the plan to be
reviewed under the 1978 code. I informed Mr. Barkalow that the 1978 review procedures would
require Council approval, and that we had new procedures in 2013. Barkalow said he would have
someone from Meardon's office come down and pick up the denied plan.
1/10/13
Revised plans received
project changed to one, 30-unit building
1/14/13
site plan comments forwarded to Legal after review with Doug Boothroy - see below
Site Plan Review Checklist
For Applicant and/or Applicant's Design Professional
Project Address: unknown
Date: 14 January 2013
Reviewed with Doug Boothroy 14 January 2013
Submittal Requirements 18-2-2
Please provide the following information:
1. The address on the plan is for existing buildings. Provide a legal description for the
parcel upon which the 30-unit building is located. Denny Gannon will assign a street
address.
2. What is the distance between 906 N. Dodge and the 30-unit building?
3. Call out width of sidewalk around proposed building.
4. It looks like a new stormwater inlet is proposed. How will pollutants be kept out of the
inlet? What tracking controls will be utilized?
5. Identify services to be abandoned.
6. Call out sizes of new services (water, sewer).
7. Will the electrical service be abandoned? Is that underground?
8. Are you proposing an access easement from N. Governor?
9. Will there be any new light fixtures in the parking lot?
Zoning 8.10 from 1977 code of ordinances See 77-2864 (9/6/77)
1. 8.10.23B.8: When there are two or more buildings on a lot, the required yards must be
maintained around the group of buildings. Buildings shall be separated by a horizontal
distance equal to the height of the tallest building.
a. Front, side, and rear yards appear to be provided (20', 5', and 25' respectively).
b. Call out distance between 906 N. Dodge and the south lot line.
c. Call outdistance between 906 N. Dodge and proposed 30-unit building.
2. 8.10.25: in the R3B zone, there is a required minimum frontage along a public street of
35 feet. It appears that this is met, with the frontage on 906 N. Dodge. The lots will have
to be combined into one parcel to keep the necessary frontage. This will change the area
of the site and total dwelling units in the notes.
Court case documents
I. Page 7,402 N.W.2d 393, *401; 1987 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1112, **21 Last paragraph,
column one, to top of column two: "...we hold that ordinances numbered 78-2901
through 78-2906 may apply to the Kempf property, provided, however, that Kempf shall
be permitted to proceed with the development of apartment buildings, as shown by the
record in this case, to the extent that such buildings confirm to the ordinances in effect
prior to the 1978 rezoning, with the exception of the controversial LSRD ordinance,
which we hold inapplicable in this situation. The city shall be enjoined from prohibiting
this use of the property by Kempf. Further development or redevelopment of the
property beyond that contemplated by Kempf as shown by this record and noted in
this opinion, whether carried out by Kempf or future owners, will be subject to the
amended ordinances above designated." Does this mean that TSB is subject to
ordinances 78-2901 through 78-2906 as amended; i.e., to the zoning ordinance currently
in effect?
2. Page 2, Supplementary Orders on Remand, No. 43611, Iowa District Court In and For
Johnson County First paragraph after legal descriptions: "The owner or owners of said
properties, and their successors and assigns, shall be permitted to develop those
properties with multiple dwellings (apartments) in accordance with the provisions
applicable to the R3B zone in effect on May 30,1978..." Provisions specifically
applicable to the R313 zone include area regulations, yard regulations, height regulations,
and use regulations. Not specific to R313 include parking regulations that are attached to
uses, not zones; and tree regulations and lighting standards. To compare:
a. 8.10.25A: 1.5 spaces are required per dwelling unit. (Any units less than 300 sf in
size require 1.25 parking spaces). Assuming that all the units are 300 sf or larger,
45 parking spaces are required. Only 40 are shown. Need to provide 45 parking
spaces. 14-5A4: University Impact Area requires one space per bedroom (66
bedrooms require 66 parking spaces).
b. 8.10.25C: If the parking area is visible from a right-of-way, it needs to have
adequate screening: either evergreens or a 6' tall solid fence. 14-5A-5: Parking
spaces need to be within 60 feet of a large tree or within 40 feet of a small tree.
Parking areas must be set back and screened from view of adjacent properties
according to multi -family site development standards.
c. 8.10.40: in 1976, Sections 1., 2., 3. provided Title, Intent, and Necessity of
planting trees. However, it wasn't until 1979 that Applicability, Site Plan, Street
Right-of-way, Residential coverage, Installation, and Maintenance sections were
adopted. Therefore, tree requirements for residential coverage and right-of-way
do not apply. Or do they? 14-5E requires one tree for every 550 sf of footprint.
The building has a 10,730 sf footprint, requiring 19 trees.
Other
1. We will require an easement agreement and plat for the access from North Governor.
2. Non -conforming development on the tract (i.e., 906 N. Dodge) will have to be
remedied at up to 10% of the project value associated with the new 30-unit building.
1/14/13
1/16/13
not routed to Water - service details (sizes, connection) not provided on revised plan
routed to Public Works for address only -
routed to Planning for preliminary review
routed to Fire for access review
1/17/13
Met with Legal to go over comments to -date. Conclusion was that most recent plan could not be
approved because it does not comply with 1977 setback requirement (front 35') or parking
requirements (45 parking spaces required and 40 provided). Also, plan does not provide enough
information for Water to review, or for Public Works to review, with respect to public utilities.
1/22/13
Fire comments:
1. Access road to be 7" PCC.(IFC 503.2.9)
2. Access road does not extend to 150' of all portions of the building (IFC 503.1.1).
3. Place hydrant on same side of road as FDC. Current location would require hose placement across
fire department access road.
1/25/13
Alternate proposal submitted 1/23/13. See SPD13-00002.
SPD13-00002
1/24 application received
1/25
plan does not comply with existing or proposed zoning. CO-1 only allows residential above a
commercial use, and RS-12 does not allow multi -family residential.
site plan not routed to water
site plan not routed to public works
site plan not routed to planning
Barkalow dropped off another site plan yesterday. Completely different proposal from the earlier
version. Includes the CO-1 zoned property and consists of three 24-unit apartment buildings.
1/25/13
Plan denied
1/31/13
Revised plan submitted
2/7/13
Site plan does not comply with existing or proposed zoning. CO-1 does not allow multi -family dwellings
unless they are above a non-residential use; RS-12 does not allow multi -family dwellings.
_ta �
Fobrvfary F, 201v
CITY OF IUWA CITY
al4w
Li�_q. `vn a.nn exc
YSH Nmd p LLG
PO Bawl,
Ana
Ibwp Iowa
G/. I
Oewr Mr. Bwrkabw
Thw IDlle plan br 1Yvaa. 2d-unR [wlltllr�ga
on pfopeNy bm[wwnn NOM Dwtl9a anJ Nartlt fbvelnpf
.1-m hm c..n eanlae.
rhm rmeon Icr tlenlel mth w<mN(i-w�nily e•nwlnn^es am tmt anowmm In clmef me avicanq romne
m
1M propoeatl q, Taw epMlp C0.1 � tlpef nut Nlmy muM-/wmNy Jawlllnua unlefe
they w # a0evm a cummar w uy.
Thq pfopoo®tl RS-12 idw Eue. nut pllOw m It4lamlly
Jwellinga.
Rwmpeetlully.
1L ..
Julh Tallmnn, CFM. C1E9C
bmvnlopmmn[ RuquluLane Spedullst
319/C5p-9133
St9/drl-zast.
IenadaumanWlawa-any e�9
c: 9urw crcanwrooa-Nwhfy.n
Attachment C
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
Date of Submittal: ❑ MAJOR ❑ minor
Site Address or Legal Description:
Applicant:
Name
Telephone or Cell Phone
Site Plan Prepared By:
Name
Telephone or Cell Phone
Project
Address
Email
Agency and Address
Email
Development of more than 12 residential units or more than 10,000 square feet of nor -residential floor area
requires a $250 application fee at the time of site plan submittal.
A site plan without the required information will be returned to the applicant or applicant's
representative within 48 hours of submittal and will not be routed to other City departments
for review.
Required information includes: ❑ Location and size of existing and proposed
utilities, including fire hydrants
❑ Date of preparation and north arrow
❑ Scale no smaller than 1" = 100'
❑ Legal description or street address
❑ Names and addresses of property owner, plan
preparer, applicant, and applicant's attorney
❑ Property lines and area of the site
❑ Total dwelling units and bedrooms per unit
❑ Total commercial floor area and type of uses
❑ Exterior dimensions of structures
❑ Setback distances from property boundary lines
❑ Distances between structures
❑ Dimensions of parking areas and walkways
❑ Location of outdoor dumpsters and recycling
areas
❑ Materials and methods proposed to prevent soil
erosion from the construction activity
❑ Landscaping plan that shows existing and
proposed trees, and vegetative screening
❑ Complete traffic circulation and parking plan
❑ Locations of rivers, streams, wetlands, and flood
hazard areas
The City may require additional information:
❑ Locations and types of proposed lighting
❑ Details of fences and retaining walls
❑ Detail of landscape or structural screening for
outdoor parking and storage areas
❑ Locations and specifications for storage of
flammable, corrosive, or hazardous materials
❑ Existing and proposed contours
❑ Location and type of signs
❑ A storm water runoff plan
❑ Typical cross section of proposed streets, alleys
and parking areas
For complete information on submittal
requirements and design standards, see Title 18 of
Iowa City Code.
18-1-1
SECTION:
18-1-1
CHAPTER 1 Attachment D
INTENT AND APPLICABILITY
18-1-1: Purpose.
18-1-2: Applicability
181-1: PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this title to establish a
procedure which will enable the city to review certain
proposed improvements of property within the city in order to ensure the
orderly and harmonious development of property in a manner that will:
A. Promote the most beneficial relation between present and proposed
uses of land.
B. Allow development of property commensurate with the present and
foreseeable availability and capacity of city facilities and services.
The following factors shall be considered in arriving at a conclusion
concerning proposed development of property:
1. The projected population of the proposed development or the
proposed intensity of use and the effect the proposal will have on the
capacity of existing water and sanitary sewer, lines to avoid
overloading existing systems;
2. Zoning regulations at the time of the proposal;
3. The city's comprehensive plan, as amended, and other specific
community plans;
4. The city's plans for future construction and provision for public
facilities and services; and
5. The existing and planned city facilities and services for the area
which will be affected by the proposed site use.
Iowa City
18-1-1
18-1-2
C. Ensure compliance with this code, as amended, including applicable
zoning regulations, approved subdivision plats, public works
standards, and public safety standards.
D. Encourage adequate provision of surface and subsurface storm
water drainage in order to assure that future development and other
properties in the city will not be adversely affected.
E. Provide screening of parking, truck loading, solid waste disposal and
outdoor storage areas from adjacent properties.
F. Provide for orderly, safe, and efficient circulation of traffic in the
development and throughout the city.
G. Minimize adverse environmental impacts on the developing property.
(Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
18-1-2: APPLICABILITY:
A. Site Plan Review Required:
1. The standards in this title are in addition to those required by the
building code, as amended, and apply to commercial, industrial, and
multi -unit residential development.
2. Site plans must be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the city
according to the provisions of this title prior to the issuance of a
building permit for any development on any "lot", "tract" or "parcel of
land" as those terms are defined in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this
code, except as exempted in subsection B of this section.
B. Exemptions: Site plan review is not required for the development of
one single-family dwelling or one two-family dwelling or related
accessory structures in any zoning district. However, such uses and
structures are not exempt from other applicable provisions of this
code, including requirements of the building code, as amended.
C. Major Site Plans: Major site plans are required for all of the following
types of development:
1. Construction of over twelve (12) units residential development and
any additions or alterations to existing development containing over
twelve (12) units residential; or
Iowa city
18-1-2
18-1-2
2. Over ten thousand (10,000) square feet of nonresidential floor
area.
D. Minor Site Plans: Minor site plans are required for all development
that does not require a major site plan, except as exempted in
subsection B, "Exemptions", of this section.
E. Sensitive Areas Development Plan: A sensitive areas development
plan may be required for properties containing environmentally
sensitive .features as set forth in title 14, chapter 5, article I,
"Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code. The requirements and
exemptions for regulated sensitive features are set forth in title 14,
chapter 5, article I, "Sensitive Lands And Features', of this code.
Level I sensitive areas review shall be in accordance with the all
procedures and approval processes set forth in chapter 2 of this title,
except for section 18-2-2, "Submittal Requirements". Submittal
requirements for level I sensitive areas review are set forth in title
14, chapter 5, article I of this code, based on the type of regulated
feature(s) that exist on the subject property. (Ord. 05-4186,
12-15-2005)
Iowa City
18-2-1
CHAPTER 2
PROCEDURES AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
SECTION:
18-2-1:
General Procedures
18-2-2:
Submittal Requirements
18-2-0:
Approval/Denial Process
18-2-4:
Effective Period Of Plan Approval
18-2-5:
Amendments To Approved Site Plans
18-2-2
18-2-1: GENERAL PROCEDURES: An application for site plan
approval for all development shall be submitted to the city and
shall meet the following requirements:
A. A minimum of two (2) copies of minor site plans and four (4) copies
of major site plans containing all required information.
B. The required review fee, as established by resolution of the city
council, shall accompany the application for site plan approval.
C. Within twenty four (24) hours of submitting an application for major
site plan approval, the applicant shall post notice of intent to develop
on the site. The notice to be posted will be provided by the city and
shall be posted as directed by the city. (Ord. 05-4166, 12-15-2005)
18-2-2: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
A. Minor Site Plans: Minor site plans submitted for approval must
include the following information:
1. Date of preparation and north arrow.
2. A scale no smaller than one inch equals one hundred feet
(1" = 100').
Iowa City
18-2-2
18-2-2
3. Legal description or street address of the property.
4. Name and address of the owner of record of the property, the
applicant and the person(s) preparing the site plan, and the name
and address of the applicant's attorney, if any.
5. Property lines with dimensions to the nearest one -tenth of a foot
(1/10') and total square footage or acreage of the site.
6. Total number and types of dwelling units proposed, proposed uses
for all building, total floor area of each building and any other
information which may be necessary to determine the number of off
street parking and loading spaces required by title 14, "Zoning
Code", of this code.
7. Location and exterior dimensions of all existing and proposed
structures or additions, including setback distance from property
boundary lines and distance between structures.
8. Location, grade and dimension of all existing and proposed paved
surfaces, including parking and loading areas, entrance and exit
drives, pedestrian walkways, bicycle storage areas, dividers, curbs,
islands and other similar permanent improvements.
9. Location of all existing and proposed outdoor recycling, trash,
solid waste, and dumpster areas and methods of screening such
areas.
10. Location and type of all existing and proposed signs. Proposed
signs may require a separate sign permit. (See title 14, chapter 5,
article B, "Sign Regulations°, of this code.)
11. Plans and proposed methods for the prevention and control of
soil erosion for the development.
12. A landscaping plot plan is required indicating all existing trees
eight inches (8") or larger, in diameter measured at a point six inches
(60) above the ground level. In addition, the plot plan must
distinguish the existing or proposed trees or landscaping intended to
satisfy tree requirements or screening requirements of this code.
(See subsection 14-5A-51, 'Landscaping And Tree Requirements
Within Parking Areas", and title 14, chapter 5, article E,
"Landscaping And Tree Standards", of this code, and any other
applicable screening required according to title 14, "Zoning Code", of
this code.)
Iowa City
18-2-2
18-2-2
13. Location of the following features of the site:
a. Streams and other water bodies, including wetlands.
b. Areas subject to flooding from a 100-year event.
14. Location, amount and type of proposed lighting, fences, walls or
other screening.
15. A detailed lighting plan and photometrics layout which shows the
location, type, height, and intensity of all existing and proposed
exterior lighting on the property. The photometrics layout must show
the foot-candles generated by all lights on the property and provide
the total outdoor light output as measured in initial lumens from all
bulbs used in outdoor light fixtures. The lighting plan and
photometrics layout must comply with the standards specified in title
14, chapter 5, article G, "Outdoor Lighting Standards", of this code.
16. Location and specifications for any existing or proposed
aboveground or belowground storage facilities for any chemical,
salts, flammable materials or hazardous materials.
17. Other data and information as may be reasonably required by
the building official.
B. Major Site Plans: Submittal information for major site plans must
include all the information contained in subsection A of this section,
plus the following additional information:
1. Existing and proposed contours at intervals not to exceed five feet
(5'), provided at least two (2) contours are shown. Contours of
neighboring properties must be provided when deemed necessary by
the city.
2. When deemed necessary by the city, a complete storm water
runoff plan, including grades and/or elevations of storm sewer
systems, direction of surface flow, detention areas, outlet control
structures and devices and storm water calculations. (See title 16,
chapter 3, article G, "Storm Water Collection, Discharge, And
Runoff", of this code.)
3. Location and size of existing and proposed utilities, including
water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, gas, electrical telephone, cable
TV, plus all existing or proposed fire hydrants.
Iowa City
18-2-2 18-2-3
4. A typical cross section of all proposed streets, alleys and parking
areas showing roadway location, type of curb and gutter, paving and
sidewalks to be installed.
5. A complete traffic circulation and parking plan. (Ord. 05-4186,
12-15-2005)
18-2-3: APPROVALMENIAL PROCESS:
A. The city shall review and approve, review and approve with
conditions, or review and deny all site plans submitted under this title
within twenty one (21) working days after application, without
requiring submission of the plan to the planning and zoning
commission.
B. Upon submission of a major site plan, the building official shall
promptly convey a copy of the major site plan to the department of
public works and the department of planning and community
development for their review and comments. The departments of
planning and community development, public works, and housing
and inspection services shall review the site plan to determine if the
design conforms to the standards set forth in this title. The
departments of planning and community development and public
works shall forward their recommendations to the department of
housing and inspection services within ten (10) working days after
date of submission of a major site plan to the city.
C. For major ,site plans, the department of housing and inspection
services or those owners of twenty percent (20%) or more of the
property located within two hundred feet (200) of the exterior
boundaries of the proposed development site may request a review
by the planning and zoning commission. The request must be in
writing and must be filed with the building official within twenty (20)
days of submission of the original application or within twenty (20)
days of the posting requirements set forth in section 18-2-1 of this
chapter, whichever is later. When such a request is received, the
planning and zoning commission may review and approve, review
and approve with conditions, or review and deny said plan within
twenty (20) working days of receipt of the written request for
planning and zoning commission review. The commission's scope of
reviewshallbe the same as that of the building official and the
department of housing and inspection services.
Iowa City
18-2-3
18-2-5
D. Upon site plan approval by the building official or the planning and
zoning commission, a building permit may be issued. (Ord. 05-4186,
12-15-2005)
18-2-4: EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF PLAN APPROVAL: The approval
of any site plan shall remain valid for one year after the date
of approval. The approved site plan shall be null and void if a building
permit has not been issued within one year of the site pan approval or if
actual construction has not commenced within eighteen (18) months of the
site plan approval. "Actual construction" shall mean that the permanent
placement of construction materials has started and is proceeding without
undue delay. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
18-2-5: AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS: Any approved
site plan may be amended in accordance with the standards
and procedures established herein. However, the building official may waive
such procedures and fees in the event the building official determines that
the proposed amendment involves only a minor change in the approved site
plan and is in compliance with the site plan review standards. For the
purposes of this section, minor changes may include, but are not limited to,
the following:
A. A change to move building walls within the confines of the smallest
rectangle that would have enclosed each originally approved
building, to relocate building entrances or exits or to shorten building
canopies.
B. A change to a more restrictive use, provided there is no change in
the amount of off street parking as originally approved.
C. A change in angle of parking or a parking aisle width, provided there
is no reduction in the amount of off street parking as originally
approved.
D. A change in location of the ingress and egress drives of not more
than one hundred feet (100'), provided such change is approved by
the city and is in compliance with the provisions of title 14, chapter
5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of this code.
E. A substitution of plant species, provided the substituted species is
similar in nature and in screening effects and is otherwise in
compliance with requirements of this code.
Iowa City
18-2-5
18-2-5
F. A change in type and design of lighting fixture, provided there will be
no change in the intensity of light at the property boundary and the
proposed fixture is in compliance with the applicable provisions of
title 14, chapter 6, article G, 'Outdoor Lighting Standards", of this
code.
G. A change to increase peripheral yards.
H. The replacement of paved areas with landscaping, provided
adequate parking facilities are retained. (Ord, 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
Ionia City
18-3-1
CHAPTER 3
SITE PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS
SECTION:
18-3-1: Compliance Required
18-3-2: Design Standards
18-3-2
18 3 1: COMPLIANCE REQUIRED: All site plans submitted for city
approval must comply with the following design standards.
These standards are the minimum standards necessary to safeguard the
public health, safety, aesthetics and general welfare of the city and are
necessary to fulfill the intent of the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive
plan, as amended, and other specific community plans. (Ord. 05-4186,
12-15-2005)
18-3-2: DESIGN STANDARDS:
A. Drainage: The design of the proposed development shall make
adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the
rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream
property so that the proposed development will not substantially and
materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent downstream
property.
B. Utility Connections: The design of the proposed development shall
make adequate provision for connection to water, sanitary sewer,
storm sewer, electrical and other public utility lines within the
capacity limits of those utility lines.
C. Fire Safety: The design of the proposed development shall make
adequate provision for fire protection and for building placement,
acceptable location of flammable materials and other measures to
ensure fire safety.
Iowa City
18-3-2
18-3-2
D. Erosion And Sedimentation Control: The design of the proposed
development shall comply with the standards for erosion and
sedimentation control established in the city design standards in
order to protect adjoining or surrounding property. The development
plan shall consider the topography and soils of the site to achieve
the lowest potential for erosion.
E. Landscape Preservation: So far as practical, the landscape shall be
preserved in its natural state by minimizing tree and soil removal and
by topographic modifications which result in maximum harmony with
adjacent areas. Structures and other site improvements shall be
located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees are
preserved on the site. The development plan shall identify existing
trees to be preserved and trees to be removed and shall specify
measures to be utilized to protect trees during construction. To the
extent reasonably feasible, all wetlands shall be retained in their
natural state or consistent with their functions and values or be
replaced with a wetland of equal or greater value.
F. Vehicle And Pedestrian Circulation: The design of vehicle and
pedestrian circulation shall be provided for safe and convenient flow
of vehicles and movement of pedestrians and shall, to the greatest
extent reasonably possible, prevent hazards to adjacent streets or
property. The city may limit entrances and exits upon adjacent
streets in order to prevent congestion on adjacent or surrounding
streets and in order to provide for safe and orderly vehicle
movement. The city may limit street access according to the
provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article C, "Access Management
Standards", of this code.
G. Outdoor Dumpster Areas: Outdoor recycling, trash, solid waste, and
dumpster areas shall be in compliance with the city's solid waste
regulations and in compliance with screening requirements contained
in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. (See subsection 14-4C-2Q,
"Outdoor Dumpster Areas", of this code.)
H. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting shall . relate to the scale and
location of the development in order to maintain adequate security
while preventing a nuisance or hardship to adjacent properties or
streets. All exterior lighting must comply with the provisions of title
14, chapter 5, article G, "Outdoor Lighting Standards", of this code.
Screening Of Equipment: All ground level mechanical and utility
equipment shall be screened from public view according to the
Iowa City
18-3-2
18-3-2
provisions of title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code. (See subsection
14-4C-2N, 'Mechanical Structures', of this code.)
J. Screening Of Storage And Loading Areas: If allowed, all outdoor
storage areas must be located and screened according to the
applicable base zone provisions of title 14, 'Zoning Code", of this
code. All outdoor storage areas and loading/unloading service areas
with delivery facilities, including bay doors or docks, which face or
are visible from residential district and the Iowa River shall be
screened to a height of no less than six feet (6') and must meet all
screening standards specified in title 14, "Zoning Code", of this code,
for outdoor storage and loading areas.
K. Parking Areas: Any parking areas or vehicle storage area designed
or intended for use by more than four (4) vehicles located adjacent
to any street shall be separated and screened from such street by a
curbed, planted area as specified in title 14, 'Zoning Code", of this
code.
L. Sensitive Areas: All sensitive areas development plans must comply
with the applicable provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article I,
"Sensitive Lands And Features", of this code.
M. Compliance With City, State, And Federal Regulations: Site plans
shall comply with all applicable city, state, and federal regulations.
(Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
Iowa City
H.
PAGE8D-8 Attachment E
Planning and Zoning Commission
Effect on Development Activity Approval Procedures
1. Regulated Development Activity
When a proposed text or map amendment to this Title would prohibit or be counter
to a use, building, structure, portion of a building or structure, attachment to a
building or structure, demolition of a building or structure or portion thereof, or any
other type of development activity for which a permit or license is currently required,
the setting of a City Council public hearing on the amendment shall suspend the
hollowing for 60 days:
a. Issuance of a permit or license for the establishment, conversion, or
enlargement of any use that would be counter to or prohibited by the existing
code or by the proposed amendment; and
b. Issuance of a permit or license for any land clearing, grading, construction,
demolition, or other development activity that would be counter to or prohibited
by the existing code or by the proposed amendment; and
C. Any issued permit or license for the establishment, conversion, or enlargement
of any use, or for any land clearing, grading, construction, demolition, or other
development activity that would be counter to or prohibited by the proposed
amendment, if no substantial part of the permitted or licensed use or
development activity has begun.
2. Currently Unregulated Development Activity
When a proposed text or map amendment to this Tide would prohibit or regulate a
use, building, structure, portion of a building or structure, attachment to a building or
structure, demolition of a building or structure or portion thereof, or any other type of
development activity for which a permit Is not currently required, the official
publication of a notice of public hearing on the proposed amendment shall suspend
for 60 days the establishment, conversion or enlargement of any use, or
commencement of any land clearing, grading, construction, demolition, or other
development activity that would be counter to or prohibited by the proposed
amendment, provided no substantial portion of the previously unregulated
development activity has begun.
3. Subsequent to City Council Action
a. If, within the 60-day period, the City Council enacts the proposed amendment,
this Title, as amended, shall apply. Any permit or license for a use or
development activity counter to or prohibited by such amendment shall not be
Issued, or if already issued, shall be revoked, provided no substantial part of the
permitted development activity has begun. Any required permit or license for a
previously unregulated use or development activity must be obtained prior to
continuation.
b. If, at any time in the 60-day period, the City Council rejects the proposed
amendment or if by the end of the 60-day period has not enacted or has
rejected the proposed amendment, the suspension shall be terminated. Review
of any suspended applications for a permit under the current Title shall resume,
uses or development activity may proceed under permits or licenses that have
already been Issued, and unregulated uses or development activity may
proceed.
Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 1-5-12
Attachment F
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 22, 2013 FILE COPY
To: City Council
CC: Tom Markus, City Manager
Geoff Frum, Assistant City Manager
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Jeff Davidson, Planning and Community Development Director
Doug Boothroy, Dousing and Inspection Services Director
From: Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney
Re: City -initiated Rezoning Northside- Motion Setting a Public Hearing to rezone certain
properties along North Dodge and North Governor
On Thursday, January 17, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a
recommendation to Council to approve rezoning certain properties, including 906
and 902 North Dodge and 911 North Governor, consistent with Stars
recommendation. You will not have the meeting minutes prior to your consideration
of this motion to set a public hearing on the rezoning, so I thought I'd provide you
with additional information.
Power to Rezone:
In 1978, City Council approved a rezoning for this land, which resulted in litigation
that made its way to the Iowa Supreme Court. T.Atimately, in 1987, the Court ruled
that the owner had vested rights in a site plan showing development that would not
have been allowed under the 1978 rezoning, and therefore the rezoning was
arbitrary and capricious as to certain properties. The Court came to this conclusion
based upon the owner's significant site improvements that had been .made in
reliance on a site plan that had been approved prior to the 1978 rezoning. In issuing
its ruling, however, the Iowa Supreme Court noted that "existing zoning restrictions
are `subject to reasonable revisions with changing community conditions and needs
as they appear"'. In the 35 years since the previous rezoning, community conditions
have changed and the comprehensive plan has changed accordingly. Therefore,
notwithstanding the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling, it is within your power to set the
public hearing and consider rezoning these properties.
Moratorium:
As noted in the Agenda comment, setting the public hearing establishes a 60 day
moratorium on the issuance of any building permits for projects that would
contravene the proposed rezoning. In particular, no permit or license could be
issued a) for the enlargement of any use that could be counter to the proposed
rezoning or b) for any land clearing, grading, construction, demolition or other
development activity that would be counter to the proposed amendment.
On January 10, 2013, a site plan was submitted to HIS for further development on
the properties locally known as 902 and 906 North Dodge. There are two existing
apartment buildings on these lots- one is 12 units, the other is 29 units. The site
January 22, 2013
Page 2
plan proposes construction of a third 30-unit apartment building on the site, with
access from North Governor. This density would exceed the density contemplated by
the proposed rezoning, and thus the moratorium would prevent the issuance of any
permits for the work shown on the site plan.
In any event, HIS has reviewed the January 10 submission and determined that it
is an incomplete submission. Staff has provided to the applicant, TSB Holdings,
LLC, its initial comments identifying the deficiencies. To date, no permits have been
issued for the work that would be necessary to construct the proposed building and
no work has been done in anticipation thereof.
Attachment G
Tracy Barkalow
250 12th Avenue, Ste. 150
Coralville, Iowa 52241
DELIVERED VIA EMAIL
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Re: North Dodge and North Governor Properties
Dear Tracy,
► r
T 0k
CITY OF IOWA CITY
City Attorney's Office
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 356-5030
(319) 356-5008 FAX
www.icgov.org
I am writing to you in response to your inquiries regarding your legal rights for development of real
estate located on or around 911 North Governor Street and 902 and 906 North Dodge Street.
As you are aware, these properties have a complicated zoning history. I understand that you are
exploring your options for redevelopment of this land. It is in your interest to consult a private
attorney for a title opinion and analysis of what the current zoning would allow you to do. Without
advising you of your rights, I am attaching a map shoving the City's determination of the current
zoning designations for the relevant properties.
In denying a 2011 rezoning application for 911 N. Governor, City Council asked Staff to examine the
comprehensive plan and zoning for this area. Staff is currently following up on this request, and
intends to recommend that the comprehensive plan be amended to show single family and duplex
development is appropriate for 911 N. Governor. Staff also intends to recommend that 911 N.
Govemor be rezoned RS-12 and that the parcels currently zoned R3B be rezoned to RM-20 (which
is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan recommendation for these properties).
Lastly, with regard to your question of access via Lucas Street, I will draw your attention back to the
email you received from Bob Miklo on January 17, 2012, to which he attached the 1945 City
ordinance approving the vacation of Lucas Street north of Brown Street. This vacated right-of-way
has been improved and integrated into Happy Hallow Park for several decades prior to your
acquisition of any property rights in the adjacent real estate. The City does not intend to re -dedicate
this land back to right-of-way.
Sincerely,
Sara Greenwood Hektoen
Assistant City Attorney
Attachment
cc: Tom Markus, City Manager
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Sarah Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney
Sue Oulek, Assistant City Attorney
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Doug Boothroy, HIS Director
Jann Ream, HIS Code Enforcement Assistant
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC13-00013
Hartley Dental Lab
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Bailee McClellan, Planning Intern
Date: September 18, 2013
Applicant: Mike Hartley
1126 Sheridan Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa
Contact:
319-337-2763 (home), 319-621-3320 (cell)
Requested Action: A special exception to rebuild a nonconforming or
non -permitted use that has been destroyed or
damaged by more than 75% of its assessed value.
Purpose: To re-establish a small-scale commercial use on a
property located in the Medium Density Single -
Family (RS-8) zone.
Location: 1515 Jackson Avenue
Lot Size: 57' x 130' (7,410 square feet)
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8),
Overlay Conservation District (OCD)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential (RS-8)
South: Residential (RS-8)
East: Residential (RS-8)
West: Residential (RS-8)
Applicable code sections: 14-413-3A, (General Criteria)
14-4E-5E, specific criteria to re-establish and non-
conforming or unpermitted use that has been
destroyed by an act of God or public enemy
File Date: August 12, 2013
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located in the Medium Density Single-family (RS-8) zone at 1515
Jackson Street. The applicant's family has operated a small-scale dental lab on the property
since the early 1980s. The original building, which was constructed in the 1920s, was designed
for a commercial use. An accessory apartment was later established to the rear of the building.
On January 22, 2013, the building was destroyed by fire. The damages were too extensive for any
of the previous structure, including the foundaiMn, to be reclaimed. Regulations in the zoning
code prohibited the re-establishment of non -conforming uses that had been destroyed to more
than 75% of their assessed value.
After the fire, the Hartley's requested that the City consider an amendment to the Zoning Code to
allow some discretion to re-establish uses that may have functioned without issue in
neighborhood despite their non -conformity. Staff drafted a proposed special exception that was
recently approved by the City Council. The new regulation states that a structure mousing a
nonconforming or unpermitted use that has been in existence for over 25 years and has been
damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, an act of God, or by public enemy to the extent of more
than 75 percent of the value of the structure may be rebuilt provided that it meets certain
conditions and is approved by special exception. The applicant is now seeking to rebuild and
continue the operation of the dental lab as a nonconforming use at the 1515 Jackson Street.
The property is in the Longfellow Neighborhood and the Dearborn Street Conservation District.
The applicant is required to secure a Cerificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission in order to show compatibility with the historic character of the neighborhood.
The applicant is now seeking to re-establish the dental lab as a non -conforming use in the RS-8
zone. The dental lab makes dentures and other dental items and delivers its products to
approximately 25 local dental offices and the University of Iowa College of Dentistry. The lab has
four to six employees and expects an average of one visitor per month. Operating hours are from
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. The lab emits steam from the building for
approximately one hour per day during operating hours. All production waste, mainly plaster is
stored in.. the interior of the building and transported by the employees to the landfill on a regular
basis.
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 cr feria included for Section 14-4134E-6 pertaining to damage and destruction in
addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-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 (14-4B-4E-5).
An application for the special exception to restore the use rnust be filed with the City
within one year of the date the structure was destroyed or damaged.
• As noted above, the property was destroyed by fire in January of this 2013.
The restored structure for the use may be redesigned or located on the property in order
to increase the compatibility with the surrounding uses, but neither the structure nor use
may be enlarged beyond what existed before such damage or destruction occurred.
• The size of the building that was destroyed by fire was approximately 4,058 square feet
between the basement and ground floor.
• The reestablished dental lab can be no larger than the square footage occupied by the
dental lab before it was destroyed. Staff will confirm this prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
• The applicant has provided a building design that looks like a residential use. Staff
recommends that as a condition of approval the appl�cant provide a plan showing how
the interior of the building could be converted to a residential use.
• The applicant has submitted the plan to the Historic Preservation Commission for
approval. (Because it is in a conservation district any building on this property is subject
I
o HPC approval.) On September 12, the Commission reviewed the plan and
conditionally approved it subject to a more detailed plan being approved by the staff and
Historic Preservation: Commission Chair.
Prior to the damage or destruction, the intensity of the use and the activities, operations,
buildings, and other aspects of the use were generally compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood/
• Prior to the damages, the nonconforming use appears to have been compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. Operations were contained to the interior of the building and
did not detrimentally impact the surrounding neighborhood.
• The dental lab is a small-scale use that operated in the neighborhood for 25 years
without any record of complaint.
• The use has a limited number of employees and does not generate customer traffic,
parking, noise, or other externalities that might detract from its residential setting.
• The applicant has indicated that the use emits some steam, but no odors or dust. No
materials that pose a risk to the neighborhood are stored on the site.
• The hours of operation for the business are regular weekday business hours 18:00 AM to
5:00 PM weekdays).
• The use generates a minimal amount of traffic comparable to a single family residence.
The proposal for the restored use will be equally or more compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood as was the use prior to the damage or construction. The
Board of Adjustment may consider such factors as traffic generation, parking, hours of
operation, noise, dust, aesthetics, screening, amount of customer traffic; number of
employees, residents, or occupants of a building or business; and any other factors that
relate to the compatibility of the nonconforming or previously established use with the
surrounding neighborhood and uses.
• As noted, the building's exterior is designed to look like a residential structure, and staff
recommends that the applicant produce a plan showing how the interior layout will allow
it to be converted to a single-family residence.
0 The applicant will not re-establish the accessory apartment
• The use creates plaster, wax, and stone waste, which will be stored in the interior of the
building and transported by the owners. No production waste will be stored on the exterior
of the structure.
• The use employs 4-6 people. Staff believes it is appropriate to pave parking to the rear
of the building to provide the minimum off-street parking required by code for light
manufacturing, the use category most sirnilar to the activity proposed within the building.
In this case 4 to 5 parking spaces will be required depending on the final configuration of
the building.
Once restored/rebuilt, the nonconforming or previously established unpermitted use will
retain or be conferred nonconforming status. The Board of Adjustment may impose
additional conditions such that the conference if non -conforming status is limited.
• The nonconforming use will retain its nonconforming status. If the dental lab ceases to
use the building for the specific nonconforming use of the light manufacturing of dental
components with no on -site sales, the building can serve as a single-family dwelling
which is a permitted use in the 4S-8 zone. A different use would require approval of a
special exception by the Board of Adjustment.
General Standards (14-4B-3)
t. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. .
• The dental lab emits steam from the building for approximately one hour per day
during working hours from a small electric tank on the interior of the building. There are
no harmful emissions from the process.
• The new structure will meet all building code standards with regard to fire safety.
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.
• The proposed one-story, single-family residential design of the new structure will be
compatible with the surrounding single-family residences in the neighborhood.
• The applicant will obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission to ensure that the design of the rew structure is compatible with the
character of the Longfellow Neighborticiod and the Dearborn Conservation District.
• The dental lab's hours of operation are from 8 AIJ, to 5 PM on weekdays.
• The dental lab expects an average of one visitor to their operation per month; the amount
of traffic generated by the use is not significant.
• The use does not generate noise or odors and does not rely on materials that pose a
danger to neighboring properties.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properly for uses permitted in the zone
in which such property is located.
• The replacement structure will be developed or, a property in an existing historic
neighborhood with minimal prospects of future development.
• The single-family dwelling exterior design of the building will not detract from the
surrounding residential neighborhood. The interior should be designed to allow it to be
converted to a single-family residence.
• The use will be required to meet all setback and other standards for the residential zone in
which it is located.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
• The neighborhood in which the property is located is fully developed with all utilities,
roads, drainage, and necessary facilities established.
5. Adequate measures have been or wlll betaken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
• All required parking will be located to the rear of the building with access from the alley
• The use generates traffic comparable to a single family residence.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
• The property is currently zoned for IUedium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8)
with an Overiay Conservation District (OCD). Appropriate uses in this zone are sing!e-
family dweiiings. The design of the proposed structure would be that of a single-family
dwelling.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
• The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that small and independently owned local
businesses are integral to Iowa City's sense of identity and supports development that
provides opportunities for workers to live close to their place of employment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a special exception designation for the property located at 1515
Jackson Street currently zoned for Medium Density Single-family Residential (RS-8) with an
Overlay Conservation District (OCD) to allow for the restoration of the nonconforming use of the
dental lab subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted.
• A Certificate of Appropriateness from Historic Preservation.
• The applicant wci provide a Ecor planning showing how the interior of the building could
be converted to a single family residence.
• The building floor area will not exceed the floor are of the dental lab that previously
existed on the property.
• The use will provide all required off-street parking in a garage or paved are to be located
to the rear of the building. Four spaces are to be located in the garage and on the paved
drive.
• The property will meet all dimensional and residential site design standards in the
Zoning Code and all building code standards.
Change from the specific use of light manufacturing of dental components with no on -
site sales will require a special exception otherwise the building must convert to a
conforming use for the RS-8 zone.
• Normal hours of operation will be limited to 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
ATfAC64MEN i S:
1. Location map
2. Site plan and building designs
3. Application materials
4. Correspondence
Approved by: Z4�4014.
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
CZ
V-
y — y w
1S 730Nm3 T
1S 1NV210
I I
J_
3AV ONV-DiVO
I_L�
T
11
Maw
it
Jm
\{
A
/
}
{
!v
\>�
�|
9
7
P
-j
\}
i •.
en3r1�
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: 10 ArOCi 201PROPERTY PARCEL NO,
PROPERTY ADDRESS: (Ei g s-�6h-<k10 AAJ�
PROPERTYZONE:
PROPERTY LOT SIZE:
APPLICANT: Name: _ M I K-r
Address:-�{�
Phone: 3(q 3�7 - Z 17y 3 An*'
319 (7�2.1-33710 Get t
CONTACT PERSON: Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: _
(if other than applicant)
Address:
Phone:
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception:
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
-2-
In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide responses to all of the
information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date
for your application. A pre -application consultation with Planning staff is STRONGLY
recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria.
As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be
granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official
statement, you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner.
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Leaal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary):
You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing a parcel
search for your address on the Assessor's website at wwwfowacity.iowaassessors.corrd
or by calling 319-356-6066.
B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information:
1. Lot with dimensions;
2. North point and scale;
3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines;
4. Abutting streets and alleys;
5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property
opposite or abutting the property in question;
6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed.
7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your
special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking
spaces, etc.)
C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that
the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the
Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that
apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just
be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are
being met. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14413-4
of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are
listed elsewhere in the Code.)
IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE
ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail sarah-walz&owa-
city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application
and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjwstmerfg
M
N
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. See attached
B. See attached
C. The specific criteria that has been written and approved by the Zoning and
Planning Committee and the City Council is as follows:
a. An application for the special exception to restore the use must be filed with the
City within one year of the date the structure was destroyed or damaged; and
b. The restored structure for the use may be redesigned or located on the property in
order to increase the compatibility with surrounding uses, but neither the structure
nor use may be enlarged beyond what existed before such damage or destruction
occurred; and
c. Prior to the damage or destruction, the intensity of the use and the activities,
operations, buildings and other aspects of the use were generally compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood; and
d. The proposal for the restored use will be equally or more compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood as was the use prior to the damage or destruction. The
Board of Adjustment may consider such factors as traffic generation, parking,
hours of operation, noise, dust, aesthetics, screening, amount of customer traffic;
number of employees, residents, or occupants of a building or business; and any
other factors that relate to the compatibility of the nonconforming or previously
established use with the surrounding neighborhood and uses; and
e. Once restored/rebuilt, the nonconforming or previously established ua erm%1
znc
,
rmt
use will retain or be conferred nonconforming status. The Board of
may impose additional conditions such that the conference of non-cQ�yf'—Amlm
r—
status is limited.
ft1
_rn
D. r a .aC
building indirag
1. The Dental Lab will satisfy all commercial requirements,
specific setbacks, fire extinguishers etc. complying with city code. The hours of'
operation will generally be 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Occasionally it might be necessary
to work additional hours during a particularly busy season but there is no excessive
noise generated from the business. Please see attached letter from the Johnson
County Health Department written in our behalf.
2. The new building will be designed as a single family dwelling, so it will blend in
easily with the existing neighborhood. The Dental Lab does not generate loud
noise or smeLs_ The Dental Lab will not have a dumpster for waste. The
majority of the waste produced is plaster, stone and wax. These are stored in
large drums, placed in an enclosed truck bed and taken to the Landfill as
necessary. The -property will be landscaped and grounds will be maintained.
3. We have 4 to.6 employees, most of whom walk or ride bikes to work. There will
be ample parking in the back of the building for cars. The Dental Lab goes to the
Dental offices to pickup and deliver their product. Occasionally, a Salesman or
Dentist may come to the business, but not a regular daily basis.
4. Adequate utilities, drainage and/or necessary facilities are in place or will be
provided for.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. See attached diagram
and refer to item 3.
6. The new Dental Lab building will be designed as a one story Single Family
Dwelling. Should The Dental Lab cease to occupy the building it will conform to
a Single Family dwelling. We recognize that Jackson Ave. is located in the
Longfellow Historical Preservation area. We are working with Chery Peterson
and Bob N iklo to confirm the design complies with all requirements.
7. Both the Zoning and Planning Committee and City Council have agreed that
rebuilding the Dental Lab with the current design submitted that it can be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
n
00
D=a
�:.
C-) -<
N
M
�3.
N
a
'PP
c-n
__j
The Dental Lab, Inc. serves Dentists in Iowa City and surrounding communities. Mostly
in Iowa City (25 consistently and the Dental College). TDL owns a car for pick-ups and
deliveries. We have two employees besides Brian and myself (Mike). Brian and I live
within blocks of 1515 Jackson Ave and have walked to work for many years. One of our
employees has ridden his bike to work for the last 4 years.
My father-in-law bought this property in the early 1980's. I bought the business from
him when he retired in 1989. In the 70's the lab was in his basement. Small footprint
then. We don't want public visibility since it is against Iowa law to advertise and serve
the general public. Jackson Avenue has worked fine for us, off the beaten path. Small
footprint now.
We work from 8 to 5 M-F. We have a very low noise level, my home with 7 kids is
much noisier. We boil water (electrically) in a small tank (less than 18" square) to cook
Dentures in the final process. There is a vent hood to release this steam from the
building. It runs during working hours aboirt one hour a day. I suppose a furnace in the
winter emits more toxic steam. Our waste is plaster and stone. It sets in the lab until we
load it in a truck and haul it to the landfill ourselves, about once every 2 months for
$15.00.
Our neighbors stop in to visit us regularly. Often the mailman will stop in for a drink of
water and to use the restroom. We have many neighborhood friends.
We invite passers by in to see our operation when their curiosity is peaked.
There have been Longfellow class tours of our operation.
Occasionally a Dentist may stop in to talk about a specialized case, usually a 5 minute
visit, maybe on average once a month if that. Otherwise we don't need any more parking
than a normal residential home in the area. We had a 3 car slab in the back of the lab
where we could park cars but seldom used it.
In short, we want this to appear to be a single family dwelling (we had an adjacent
apartment that we are giving up - lost income) on the exterior to fit historical zone codes
in function and appearance. We want set backs and codes adhered to in the rebuilding. In
the future should we decide we can move the lab or get out of the business we want to
have marketable property without having to go through major changes.
We have had great support and encouragement from our immediate neighbors andue
Longfellow Neighborhood Association. The only concerns that have com haNbee
the apartment and what the new building would look like. We had adequat P4ddFVsed n
those issues on our own before we began pursuing the possibility to rebuild'v+(h Q
Officials.
.<r .M
rn
'� CA
M
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing,
construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls,
improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum
yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-BC-2C-4, City Code).
Orders, Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk,
unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to
establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the terns 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 of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision
is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section
14-8C4 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: 12013
Date: 120
ppdadminlapphi tion-bome.doc
Signature(s) of
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicangs)
CD m.
Y-e
�.
C)Ln
N
J
Memorandum
To: Planning and Zoning Commission, Iowa City
From: Chris and Kathleen Paterson
851 Dearborn St., Iowa City
Date: June 17, 2013
Re: Consideration of Mike Hartley request for zoning code amendment
Commissioners,
We are writing in support of Mike Hartley and his request for an amendment to the City's
Zoning Code that will enable him to rebuild at 1515 Jackson Avenue. Like so many in the
neighborhood, we were shocked and devastated the evening that his building burned to the
ground. Following that sad event, we were concerned that Mr. Hartley might not rebuild and
instead relocate to some other location. We were gratified to hear that it was his and his
family's desire to rebuild and return.
Like so many who move to the Longfellow neighborhood, we appreciate and support
maintaining the historical and neighborhood character of this place. Part of that is influenced
by the character of the buildings and structures; an equal or greater part of that is determined
by the character of the people and the quality of the interactions among neighbors. Since we
moved to 851 Dearborn Street nearly two years ago, Mr. Hartley and those who work with
and for him at his family business across the street have been very considerate neighbors. We
would be very disappointed to see them go.
And while the building in which their dental lab business had vestiges of the historical role
it played in the neighborhood, we never presumed that it ever would or should be returned
to some "former state". From our conversations with Mr. Hartley, we understand he will
rebuild at the 1515 Jackson St. location a structure that is compatible with the size and style of
surrounding structures, that will enable him to continue to operate his family business, but also
will be designed and built in a manner so that eventually it can be converted easily to a single
family residence in character with the neighborhood.
With all this in mind, we encourage you to support the proposed amendment to the zoning
code (Subsection 14-4E-5E) and move forward with the process required for approval. Thank
you for your consideration.
tgCo 8
Fwd: Letter of Support for Bartley Dental Lab at 1515 Jackson Street
Peter Yohe <peter.yche@gmail.com>
To: Brian Hartley <brhartley@gmail.com>
Hi Brian,
Here is the message I sent to the Planning and Zoning office.
Regards,
Peter
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peter Yohe <peter.yohe@gmail.com>
Date: May30, 2013 2:26:07 PM CDT
To: planningzoning@iowa-city.org
Subject: Letter of Supportfor Hartley Dental Lab at 1515 Jackson Street
Dear Members of Iowa City Planning and Zoning,
Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:31 PM
0
cl- C N
Irn
Sip
As president of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association, I welcome the City's consideration of the
Hartley family's request to return their business, The Dental Lab, to its former site at 1515 Jackson
Avenue for several reasons. First and foremost, the Hartleys are part of the Longfellow
neighborhood - they and their business have been good neighbors. The impact on the neighborhood
should be minimal as The Dental Lab was the kind of business that did not generate a lot of walk-in
or vehicle traffic, so the business fits well with the neighborhood. The building on Jackson, Avenue
that The Dental Lab occupied prior to the fire had a long history as part of the Iowa City business
community before the Longfellow Neighborhood grew up around it. Finally, it would be good for
members of the Longfellow community to have an opportunity to provide their input about the return
of The Dental Lab to Jackson Avenue.
Respectfully,
Peter Yohe
President, Longfellow Neighborhood Association, Iowa City, IA
907 Rundell Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
319-594-6454
PUBLIC HEALTH
Promoting Health. Preventing Harm
January 29, 2013
Michial Hartley
1126 Sheridan Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: 1515 Jackson Avenue, Iowa City
Dear Mr. Hartley:
Douglas Beardsley, MPH
Director
N
n
ca-t
'—
CM
s
I enjoyed our discussion over the weekend in which you shared your thoughts about your current situation
and possible plans for the future of your business. Let me first extend my sympathies for the loss of your
business due to the fire. I am relieved that there were no injuries and, if anything good can be gleaned, that
the smoke alarms were in good working order and alerted the occupants of the living area as they were
intended to do.
You had questions about the possibility of being able to rebuild your business in its current location. While I
do not have all of the detailed specifics of your plans or your business, I think I can provide some general
thoughts from a public health perspective.
Zoning regulations have existed for many years as a tool for communities to plan the growth and living
design of their respective jurisdictions. Models for what and how zoning should be. organized have evolved
over the years and continue to do so. One of the primary purposes of zoning regulations is to preserve the
safety and nature of residential areas. Concerns about noise, traffic, and the look of residential areas have
been some of the key foundations of these regulations.
As concerns about air quality, physical activity and creating opportunities for the general population to be
active and healthy as part of their normal routine have been brought to the forefront, some of the effects of
zoning regulations deserve further study. If major concerns of traffic, noise and aesthetics in residential
neighborhoods can be satisfied, allowing some exceptions to the zoning regulations which address the
evolving concerns about air quality and personal health would certainly be in order. Your situation is a case
in point. The ability to work near your residence in what could be considered a cottage industry has some
very real public health advantages. The close proximity of home and work affords the opportunity to
realistically walk to work. This bosh increases physical activity as part of a normal routine (contributing to
individual health) and at the same time reduces emissions which degrade air quality (contributing to a
healthy environment).
The overall health of the population and the environment is becoming more important as municipalities
address development. It is forcing us to rethink and be creative in how we approach allowed uses of
property. I certainly feel that a mixed use of property for a type of activity as you described your business
should be given serious consideration. Segregating work areas at distances from residents which compel
increased commutes by more and more people can no longer be the norm. Creative mixed use which allows
855 S. DUBUQUE STREET, SUITE 217 ♦ IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 ♦ PHONE: (319) 356-6040 ♦ FAX: (319) 356-6044
limited commercial use of property while preserving the residential nature of neighborhoods, thus allowing
people to work closer to where they live, has significant potential to promote the public's health and preserve
the environment. I would encourage you to pursue options with the City of Iowa City as you move forward
to rebuilding your business.
My comments, above, have been purposefully general in nature and are an endorsement of some general
concepts and not a specific proposal. I would be happy to meet with you and City officials to discuss these
ideas in more detail if needed. Thank you, again, for your questions. I wish you the best of success in your
future endeavors.
Sincelly,
Douglas'E. eardsley, MP
Director
s
ab
LO
4
1 ..
�ri
855 S. DU13UQUE STREET, SUITE 217 4 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 ♦ PHONE: (319) 356-6040 4 FAX: (319) 356-6044
T 1
IF, rr,,, G'ip i !1 W
http:llgroups.google.com/group/LNA-iowa-dty
�IPIwn) It f KODn T10+ Vrl�PY�L F�rTr
Iowa City, Iowa April 2013
HARM iLAH TO RMILD ArTin rin MUM DrHTAL LAD
As most Longfellow neighbors know, on the evening -
of Tuesday, January 22, as the LNA Annual Meeting was
coming to a close, a fire began at the dental laboratory at
1515JacksonAvenue.Thef rev earlydestroyedthebuilding,
owned by the Mike Hartley family. As arxious neighbors
gathered, they learned that the fire had started just
after 7:30 p.m. in the kitchen of the apartment adjacent
to the lab. Luckily, the resident of the apartment escaped
unharmed, alerted by a smoke alarm thathad passed city
inspectionjust a fewdays before. The interior ofthefirst
floor was completely engulfed, and firelighters were on
the scene for the next several hours. A demolition crew
has begun dismantling the structure and will determine
how much of the building is salvageable.
During an interview, Mike Hartley and his son Brian
expressed tremendous gratitude for the compassion
and support shown by neighbors who came forward in
the hours and days after the fire. "I wish we could have
sent out thank -you cards to all the neighbors who have
supported us," said Brian, who is assuming more of the
Firefighters battled the 2 alarm blaze that destroyed the dental lab at 15I5 Jack-
son Avenue duringfriid temperatures on the night of]an. 22.(Photo Brian Ray/
The Gazette-KCRG
day to -day responsibilities of the business, temporarily
relocated to Pepperwood Place.
"We're in the midst of an ongoing process to rebuild,"
said Mike Hartley, "and would like to rebuild in the
same location, depending on the city regulations." Iowa
City zoning ordinances will allow them to keep their
grandfathered status as a business within a residential
district if they can rebuild for 75% ofthe assessed pre -fire
value of the property. If the basement Wd first flooring
are intact this could be possible and d5family remains
hopeful. Z5 To
The dental laboratory was foY Zr,,[lycMe �ittreli
Palmer Hatcherv. which ran as iaQ hI itr ZvIatc iery from
1908 until it closed in 1986, the 1 - mabu'ng Ma City
chicken hatchery and well-kno,
P1 cn
HAVE YOU CHECKED YOUR SMOKE ALARMS LATELY? —1
The unfortunate fire that claimed the Hartley's business could have been trulytragic if a functional smoke alarm had
not alerted the apartment residents, giving them time to escape with their lives. Test your smoke alarms regularly
and replace batteries when needed. When in doubt about a.unit, replace it. They are not that expensive when you
consider what they save!
Sarah Walz
From: Isham, Susan C <susan-isham@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:53 PM
To: Sarah Walz
Subject: Mike Hartley special exception application
Dear Sarah,
We are writing to support Mike Hartley's application for a special exception to allow him to rebuild his dental lab at 1515
Jackson Street. He has been an excellent neighbor for the 27 years we have lived on Dearborn Street, and we hope he
will be able to rebuild.
Sincerely,
Mark and Susan Isham
838 Dearborn Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: EXC13-00014 Date: September 18, 2013
838 Sugar Loaf Circle
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
580 Madiscn Avenue, Unit 3
North Liberty, Iowa 52317
319-665-9200
Contact: Michael Pugh
Bradley & Riley, PC
One South Gllbert Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
319-358-5562
Requested Action: Reduction in minimum rear setback for a principal
structure
Purpose: To reduce the required rear setback from 20 feet to
12 feet to allow for a screened porch.
Location: 838 Sugar Loaf Circle
Size: 7,329 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Residential (OPD-5)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: residential (OPD-5)
South: residential (OPD-5)
East: residential (OPD-5)
West: residential and Iowa River (OPD-5)
Applicable code sections: 14-2A-5b, Specific Criteria for adjustment to
principal setback; 14-4B-3A, General Criteria for all
special exceptions
File Date: August 13, 2013
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Prime Ventures Construction, has requested a reduction in the rear setback
requirement, from 20 feet to 12 feet, for a single-family residence located at 838 Sugar Loaf
Circle. The reduced rear setback would allow for construction of a 12-foot by 12-foot screened -in
porch extending from the rear of the second stay of the house. Uncovered decks are allowed to
extend into the rear setback, however the construction of a roof constitutes an extension of the
principal structure (Section 14-2A-4B-4).
The subject lot is approximately 110 feet deep. The rear setback requirement is 20 feet; the front
setback required for the attached garage is 25 feet. The property backs up to Outlot B of
Mackinaw Village Part Four subdivision, which contains a wooded ravine that has been set aside
as permanent open space. Outlot B also covers ;and adjacent to the west of the subject property,
which is also a sanitary sewer easement for the subdivision.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to
conserve and protect the vaiue 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 orcperly. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the
requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-2A-6b
pertaining to reduction of prircipal building setback requirements in addition to the general approval
criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A.
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standa. ds are included on the
attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and gereral approval criteria are set forth
below.
Specific Standards (14-2A-5b)
1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question.
Staff believes the situation is peculiar due to the combination of the following factors:
The house is constructed on a relatively small lot (7,329 square feet).The minimum lot size
in the RS-5 zone is 8,000 square feet. Smaller lot sizes were permitted in this subdivision
as part of the Planned Development in order to preserve sensitive open space and reduce
disturbance to the wooded areas and sensitive slopes, which are preserved as permanent
open space.
• The subject lot is relatively shallow: side lot lines measure 110.3 and 108.19 feet.
2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements.
Staff believes that there is practical difficulty based on the following findings:
The lot is relatively shallow (110 feet), allowing limited space to create a porch. In order to
comply with the rear setback requirement the applicant may have a screened porch only 6
feet in depth.
Due to the slope of the property the rear yard is practically unusable. The construction of
the screened porch allows the occupants more opportunity to enjoy the backyard private
space.
3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations.
The minimum principal buiiding setback requirement is irter<ded to:
1) Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fore fighting
2) Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings.
3) Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in neighborhoods.
4) Promote a reasonable physical relationship between residences.
5) Provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with nearby buildings.
Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following f.ndings:
• While consistent placement of homes is ore purpose of the setback regulations
that helps to define the character of a neighborhood, allowing a setback
reduction at the rear of the property, in an area that abuts permanent open
space, will not alter the character of the street or neighborhood.
• Because the setback reduction would be to the rear of the house, the ravine land
will not be developed in the future, the porch will not restrict access to light and air
or separation for fire protection. it has no impact on the privacy between
dwellings, or promote an unreasonable physical relationship between residences.
• Other homes in the neighborhood have rear decks and porches of similar size,
and 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.
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the
extent practical.
Staff believes that the application satisfies this based on the following findings. -
Since adjacent property to the rear will not be developed and is held as private open
space, there are no negative effects from the reduced setback.
• Staff recommends that a condition of approval be that the porch and covered deck
beneath are not enclosed to create a three -season porch. This prevents the enclosed
portion of the house (the principal structure) from moving closer to the rear property line
and setting precedent for other houses in the neighborhood to expand.
5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to aside or rear property line,
unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space.
• The proposed porch and covered deck maintain the required 5-foot side setback.
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.
Because the setback reduction requested is not contrary to the purpose of the minimum
setback requirements, as explained under specific criterion #.3 above, staff believes it
complies with this standard.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will rot substantlally diminish or Impair property
values in the neighborhood.
Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the findings under specific criterion #3 above
and the following findings:
• Requiring as a condition of approval that the proposed porch and covered deck remain
unenclosed will ensure that the principal structure does not encroach further to the rear
property line, and is consistent with porches on other homes in the neighborhood.
• The porch and covered deck do not extend further toward neighboring homes or the
public right-of-way.
The reduction in the setback requirement affects only the setback from the outlot, which
is permanent open space and may not be developed. The outlot is not intended as
active recreation space, but is intended to preserve woodland and slopes.
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 ?ocated.
Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the findings provided above under the
specific criteria. In addition, by placing a condition on the special exception that prohibits the
porch or the deck below from being enclosed with glass windows or solid walls, the property
owner is aware that the principal structure may not be further extended into the rear
setback.
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:
• All necessary utilities and facilities are already in place for this property and the
subdivision in which it is located.
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 following findings:
• The requested rear setback reduction does not interfere with or alter vehicular access
and will not impact ingress or egress from the property.
• The subject property is a single-family house and 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 the application satisfies this based on the following finding:
• The applicant is required to secure a buMina permit for the existing porch and covered
deck. Ail other aspects of the house and property have been reviewed for compliance.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
Staff believes the application satisfies this based on the following finding:
While the Comprehensive Plan does not address this issue precisely, it does encourage
policies that preserve and enhance the character of neighborhoods. The plan also
encourages small lot developmment for the efficient use of land. Staff believes that the
setback reduction is a reasonable accommodation to make a smali lot with limited private
open space more enjoyable for its occupants and in a manner that is consistent with other
development in the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC13-00014, 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
property located at 838 Sugar Loaf Circle, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must secure a building permit for the 12 x 12-foot screened porch.
2. The 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.
3. The applicant must disclose the restrictions on enclosing the porch in materials provided to
the homebuyer.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map.
2. Aerial view,
3. Plat of the subdivision.
4. Site plan..
5. Application materials.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
cl)
�
MACKINAW DR
-
:3
U)
co
m
0.0
z
0
P
6
0
.j
LU
MACKIi�AW DR
-iMIL MMEL.-I
I +
v ,
31�2iID 3b'0, ;qvo s
4i �j S- � a' -•.yam
! fl A,WrR4 wam "IC #LAi 110i FL,li IN
N Pu.M r Irk
T ilir .f itl M [, �[7(w Ir FMl '•`c [`'• ��
/ iT. PdC'I r
CtC4cii
f ! ``•"\`1 I Y
wJr tt• !. V RF%K -P 116E:P:N
- R [ 1 1L4BL 11-i ,.4.fr
a �• t.•r � u Ii > Y ft::i .& R. a JC1.tL AI
�y ._i..
..
l�. � �• 3++ Iry
£
u7• �
I�V�I4 I F
P.
I
i I
n93
3.t
E
r...,. W"....,-4 F.;/ly.
* )_.-.
0
G
4
N
The final Plat for Mackinaw Village part 4 shows the subject Property (Lot 97). Property to the north is part of an outiot that is
permanently preserved as open space. The space between lots 96 and 97 is also part of the outiot and is a sanitary sewer ease-
ment.
1
l
� 1
1
`� 11�10 if
7
o
r
�
o
c,
APPLICATION TO TH,
BOARD OF ADJUSTIVIE
---- SPECIAL EXCEPTION
crt
LO
DATE: August 13, 2013
PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY ADDRESS; 838Sugar Loaf 1004284004
Iowa City, Iowa
PROPERTYZONE: SAo/RS-5
'— PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 77,3— 9
APPLICANT:
Name: Prime ventures construction,
580 Madison Ave Inc.
Address: Unit 3
Nort Liberty r
A 52317
Phone: (319) 665-9200
CONTACT PERSON:
(if other than applicant) Name: Michael J. Pugh, Bradley &
Y Riley, PC
Address: One South Gilbert St,
Iowa City. IA
Phone; (319) 358-5562
PROPERTY OWNER: Name:
(if other than applicant) —
Address:
Phone:
Specific Requested Special Exception; list the please
the zoning code that addresses the description and section number in
specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot Find this information or do not contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 ore know which section of the code to look in,
snail sash-walz(a)jowa-city.org, please
Purpose for special exce tion:
p Reduction in minimum rea
r set back principal buildin
g requirement for
in RS-5 zone r., �____
Date of previous application or a —'
Ppeal filed, if any: N/A
-2-
In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide responses to all of the
information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date
for your application. A pre -application consultation with Planning staff Is STRONGLY
recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria.
As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be
granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official
statement, you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner.
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Legal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary):
You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing a parcel
search for your address on the Assessor's website at wwwiowacity.iowaassessors.corW
or by calling 319-356-6066.
B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information:
1. Lot with dimensions;
2. North point and scale;
3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines;
4. Abutting streets and alleys;
5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property
opposite or abutting the property in question;
6. Parking spaces and trees- existing and proposed.
7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your
special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking
spaces, etc.)
C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that
the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the
Zoning Code. in the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that
apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just
be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are
being met (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-4B-4
of the Zoning Cade. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are
listed elsewhere in the Code.)
IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE
ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail saran-walz@iowa-
city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an Incomplete application
and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment:
1
=�
Q
w
UI
lD
C=
Q
o w
a� �
C") _
D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval crite,�giPdre ed iA'
"C", the Board must also find that the requested special exceph'ttmmeals thM
following general approval criteria or that the following criteria dW appfly. 1g
the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide a fo atior0
not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested s eclal eaoeption
meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval cr11&1a are
not relevant in your particular case.
t. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
Applicant would like to construct a single family dwelling with a screened
porch that will encroach 7.01 feet into the 20 foot minimum rear setback
requirement for a principal building in a RS-5 zone. Applicant is seeking a
special exception to reduce the required minimum rear setback to 12.00 feet
for the screen porch only. The rear of the property abuts permanent open space
and the location of the porch is screened from adjacent property such that a
reduction in the minimum setback would not affect the surrounding areas.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property In the immediate vicinity and will not
substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood.
A reduction in the rear setback requirement affects only the setback from
Outlot "B", which is permanent open space. The screened porch and covered
deck will not extend further toward neighboring homes or the public right of
way. In addition, the proposed porch is consistent with porches of other homes
in the 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 district In which such property is located.
The screened porch will not impede the normal and orderly development of
surrounding property. The subject property is abutted to the north and the
east by Outlot "B". Outlot "B" is permanent open space. The parch is
located near the easterly boundary of the subject property and away from the
home located on Lot 95. Outlot "B" is dedicated open space and buffers the
subject property from Lot 97 to the east.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
Yes, the subject property is located in a City subdivision, which has been
constructed in accordance with City standards.
-4-
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Ingress and egress to and from the subject property is provided by Sugar Loaf
Circle, a public right of way.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other
respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone In
which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception
requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant
will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a
particular use as provided in the City Code section 144E as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K)J
The subject property is otherwise compliant with its designated SAO/RS-5
zoning.
T. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
The Comprehensive Plan does not address this issue specifically, however, it
does encourage policies that enhance the character of neighborhoods. The
plan also encourages small lot development for the efficient use of land. A
setback reduction to the rear of property abutted by permanent open space
will allow occupants to utilize the limited outdoor space available at the
subject property.
o
_
{�
CC=
—iC]
CA
Tr
lO
Special Approval Criteria (14-2A-4(B)(5)(b))
(1) The situation is peculiar to the property in question.
The residential home will be constructed on a relatively small lot (7,329 square feet).
The lot is relatively shallow as side lot lines measure 105.02 feet. The slope of the
property makes the private yard space practically unusable. The addition of the proposed
porch would encourage use of the limited private yard space.
(2) There is practical difficulty in complying with the set back requirements.
The porch will measure 12 feet from the rear of the principal building, or 7.01 feet
into the rear setback. A 4.99 foot porch within the setback area is not practical. The
subject property is located at the curve of Sugar Loaf Circle which results in a narrow
buildable lot configuration. In addition, due to the topography of the subject
property, the rear yard is practically unusable. The construction of a screened porch
and covered deck would allow the occupants more opportunity to enjoy the private yard
s ace.
( Granting the exception will not 6e contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations.
Outlet "B" of Mackinaw Village - Part Two, is dedicated open space and surrounds the subject property to the
north and east. The area is wooded which provides a natural buffer between properties. Allowing a modest
setback reduction of 8 feet along the rear of the property abutting permanent open space would not alter the
character of the neighborhood. Because the land adjacent to the rear to the building will not be developed in
the future, and the porch will remain nenclosed, it will not restrict access to light and air, encroach on
the privacy between dwellings, or promote unreasonable physical relationships between residences.
Furthermore, other houses in the area have porches similar to the one at issue here. Therefore, the proposed
porch would not be out of scale or inconsistent with the rest of the structures in the neighborhood.
(4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to
the extent practical.
Please see response to (3) above. The applicant does not believe 8.00 toot reduction to
the minimum setback requirement will have any negative effect on adjoining properties-
(5) The subject building will be located no closer than three feet (3') 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 proposed porch and covered deck maintain the rewired 5-foot side setback.
E;
*:n
C
'"
M
C)—C
-in
W
-fir
rn
'4
A -
Cn
w
(0140872tDOCX)
-5-
E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owner: of all property located
within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the
property involved in this appeal:
NAME
ADDRESS
Mackinaw Village Homeowners Association,
Inc.✓ 969 Manitou Tr1,
Iowa
City
Mackinaw Village, LC
Manitou Trl, Iowa City
Caleb J. and Jayne Ryder
784 Mission Point
Rd, Iowa City
Kyle A. and Melissa A. Mattes -
1864 Mackinaw Dr,
Iowa
City
Stephen M. Prideaux& Leslie L. Jensen 1846 Mackinaw Dr,
Iowa
City
Juan Isaza and Vanessa Ortiz
1830 Mackinaw Dr,
Iowa
City
Austin N. Chamberlain
1814 Mackinaw Dr,
Iowa
City
Stephanie Steuben
1753 Mackinaw Dr,
Iowa
City
Naomi Novick ✓
1771 Mackinaw Dr,
Iowa
City
Evan J_ andJessicaDwyer
1801 Mackinaw Dr,
Iowa
City
Susan Duffy ,/
Julie A. Kruger & Heather A. Davis'
Julie K. Wardenburg I
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction,. Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
Prime Ventures Construction, Inc.
1813 Mackinaw Dr, Iowa City
1828 Mackinaw Dr, Iowa City
800 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
808 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
B16 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
826 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
838 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
948 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
856 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
864 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
872 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
879 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
B69 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
861 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
853 Sugar. Loaf Cir, Iowa City
831 Sugar Loaf Cir, Iowa City
ry
0
Cq
t a
--1CZ
W
Y
r
M
O
MC
C:)
In
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing,
construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls,
improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum
yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk,
unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to
establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and
for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order
without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application.
(Section 114.8C-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 of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision
is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the Illegality. (Section
14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Date: August 13 , 20 13
Date:
ppdadmirA pplication-boase.doc
20
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
nJ
O
C�
c.'+
�-4
G)
n
W
C')
<
'U
C).r
3>
p
O
Inc.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 96, Mackinaw Village — Part Four, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the Final Plat thereof
recorded in Book 56, at Page 231, of the Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa
a
ttr
�
>
o
C4
101490509.DOCX}
Prepared by: Michael 1. Pugh One Swffi Gilbert Street (319) 46&1511
Bradley & Rdey PC Iowa City, fA 52240-3914 FAX(319)358-5560
AFFIIDAVI'T
RE: 826 Sugar Loaf Circle, Iowa City,1A 52245
STATE OF IOWA )
) SS:
COUNTY OF JOHNSON )
I, Michael Van Dyke, being first duly swum, do upon oath depose and state as
follows:
That 1 am a realtor licensed in the State of Iowa.
2. That I represented Prime Ventures Construction, Inc. (the "Seller") in the sale
of 826 Sugar Loaf Circle, Iowa City, TA 52245 (the "Property") to Stephen Sprouse and
Laurie Gutmann (the "Buyers').
3. That prior to the sale, an application for a special exception to reduce the rear
setback of the Property was submitted by the Seller and approved by the Iowa City Board of
Adjustment.
4. That approval of the special exception was conditioned on both the first floor
deck and second floor screened porch remaining un-enclosed.
5. That prior to the sale of the Property, I communicated this condition to the
Buyers' realtor, Sean McIntyre, and provided Mr. McIntyre with a copy of the City's staff
report.
6. That Sean McIntyre has acknowledged this communication as evidenced in
his email response, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
That this Affidavit is made pursuant to the personal knowledge of the
undersigned.
Dated this Y` day of �, 2013. !
- �G .
Michael Van Dyke
101537494.00C)
STATE OF IOWA )
) SS:
COUNT,' OF JOHNSON )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this3dt day of -&^Jxo t113
by Michael Van Dyke.
JOSEPHINE B. HOI MES
Commission Number224542
o�. MyC mission Expires
R.eiJ-e,Cy�Ltir�I & kt re/Ytz
tart' bhc in and for the State of Iowa
(01537494.DOC)2
EXHIBIT "A"
Cc: Gary Watts; mike@primeventuresonline.com
Subject: Fwd: 826 Sugar Loaf Circle
Mike:
Is this sufficient disclosure from the City's standpoint? See E-Mail trail below.
Thank you,
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sean McIntyre <seanna-,seanrealtor.com>
Bate: August 26, 2013, 12:29:13 PM CDT
To: Mike Van Dyke <rndvand yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: 826 Sugar Loaf Circle
Yes we discussed it early on. They are aware and it is not a problem.
On Aug 26, 2013 11:20 AM, "Mike Van Dyke" <mdvand gyahoo.com> wrote:
Sean:
Could you confirm you received this and that buyer was made aware of the fact
that the city will not allow for the screen porch to be enclosed? The City of Iowa
City is asking us to confirm that we notified the buyer.
Thank you,
Mike Van Dyke
Broker Associate, CSP
Lepic Kroeger Realtors
Office: 319-248-0532
Cell: 319-631-2659
Email: MikeagMikeVanDyke.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Make Van Dyke <mdvandP_vahoo com>
To: "sean@seanrealtor.com" <seanCdseanrealtor.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2C13 5:53 PM
Subject: Fw: 826 Sugar Loaf Circle
Sean:
Here is more on the special exception. If you look at page 7 you will see the
recommendation from staff consistent with what we have been talking about.
Thank you,
Mike Van Dyke
Broker Associate, CSP
Lepic Kroeger Realtors
Office: 319-248-0532
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 21, 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
OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy Barkalow, Jennifer Baum
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 JULY 10, 2013 MEETING MINUTES
Baker moved to approve the minutes with one correction.
Soglin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS
APL13-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by TSB Holdings LLC appealing a
decision made by City of Iowa City's Development and Regulations Specialist for denial
of a site plan at 902 & 906 N. Dodge Street & 911 N. Governor Street.
Walz said that the City Attorney has indicated in her, nemo in the packet that due to the pending
litigation with regard to the rezoning of the property, her office, which includes all legal
representation from the City, has a conflict of interest and cannot be here to offer legal advice or
answer questions as an impartial representative. She said the City Attorney's office has left it to
the Board to decide that if they want legal advice, they should defer the application until the
Board of Adjustment
August 21, 2013
Page 2 of 8
September meeting, and outside legal counsel can be hired. She said if not, the Board can
proceed with this meeting tonight.
Baker asked if the issues they are ruling on are the timing of an appeal and whether or not the
application would be legal under the zoning in place. Walz said those are the issues on which
the Board has the authority to review.
There was discussion among the board members whether to wait until after staff report to
decide to defer the application. The Board agreed to hear the staff report before deciding on the
need for legal counsel.
Walz showed a location map with its current zoning designations. She said the grey areas
indicate the properties affected. She explained that it is the practice of the City when an
application is denied that the applicant has thirty days to file an appeal. She said if an applicant
resubmits an application that doesn't correct the issue for which the application was denied the
City considers it to be no material change. She said to do otherwise is to allow someone to
continually reset the clock on an appeal. She said for that reason, staff thinks this doesn't meet
the timeliness standard.
Walz said that in the materials submitted to the Board by the appellant they indicate that the
subject property is zoned R3-B. She said the appellant seeks a remedy that would have the
Board reinstate a zoning designation that was explicitly removed by the City Council when it
rezoned the property RS-12 and a smaller portion RM-20. She said the City Council was aware
of the three decades old legal decision referenced by the appellant. She said the Council
discussed the court order at length and proceeded with a discussion to rezone the property,
knowing that their decision would likely be challenged in court. The applicant has filed an appeal
with the court.
Walz said the appellant's argument is that City staff or the Board of Adjustment should ignore
the legislative act that rezoned the property and honor the 1978 court order. She said it is not in
the City's view that this Board has the authority to undo a legislative decision made by the City
Council. She said the Board's authority extends only to administration decisions, in this case if
Julie Tallman's determination that multifamily uses are not allowed in the RS-12 zone is correct
or not.
Chrischilles asked if the rezoning issue is in the court system, what it is that the Board has to
add. He said they are appeasing the fact that the zoning should be R3-B and nothing about the
timeliness. Walz admitted she didn't think of that, and the Board could render a decision on
whether they should even be hearing this. Chrischliles said the appeal is that thirty years ago
the Supreme Court said this should be and will be in the future an R3-B zone.
Baker asked what the consequences are the Board agrees with the applicant. Walz said that
would be for the City Attorney's office to say. Baker said he thinks Chrischilles has a valid point
in that the Board has really no standing in this case.
Walz said there are two separate issues for this property — the rezoning itself and the decision
made by Tallman, the Regulation Specialist. Chrischilles said the Board making a decision on
Tallman's decision is meaningless. He said it's clearly spelled out that there is no multifamily in
RS-12.
Board of Adjustment
August 21, 2013
Page 3 of 8
Baker said litigating the zoning change can be done in court, but it can't be done here. He said
the other issue, the timing, is a moot point. He said he doesn't see why they are hearing the
case, because the application doesn't address anything the Board is able to do.
Chrischilles said if all four members of Board voted against the appeal that would still not have
any bearing if the court case decides otherwise. Walz said the Board is raising an issue of
whether they should even be hearing the case, whether it should decide on the case before
them, which is an error made by the specialist, and the timeliness.
Baker said he would like to hear from the applicant and find out what the applicant expects to be
decided at this level. He asked if in regard to the timeliness issue the phrase "it is the practice of
Council and staff' is written In the Code. Walz said she doesn't know whether the "no material
change" policy is in the Code, however, the thirty day rule for an appeal of an administrative
decision is written in the Code.
Baker asked if there have been other comparable appeals based upon timing issues. Walz said
she recalls one. Baker asked if Walz knows of a case where the City has extended that thirty -
day deadline. Walz said not in her memory.
Chrischilles asked if the thirty day standard is written in stone. Walz said it is in the code.
Grenis invited the applicant to speak.
Tracy Barkalow, the applicant, said if the Board were to determine that the site plan TSB
Holdings LLC submitted was within the R3-B zone, then the court litigation would stop. He said
that's why he's here tonight, at his attorney's instruction. He said the attorney told him they had
to go through the municipal process.
Walz asked if he is exhausting all remedies prior to litigation. Barkalow said he doesn't want to
go to litigation, that it's been tried twice and the City of Iowa City has lost both times, and they
are setting this up now for a regulatory taking and an inverse condemnation. He read a letter
written to the Board from his attorney that explained the concepts and regulations of inverse
condemnation and regulatory taking. He said in this case the City has directly limited the use
and taken the value of the property by going against the Iowa Supreme Court findings. He said
the reason they hadn't developed the property before this was that they were in the process of
planning the project.
Barkalow said while he was arranging financing to purchase the property, he met with Bob Miklo
of the Planning and Zoning Departrnent in 20G8 and asked if this property could be developed at
R3-B. He said Wkio told him repeatedly that R3-B would allow fifty-eight units per acre to be
built. He said he again talked to Miklo in 2010 after the Comprehensive P€an was approved and
was told that R3-B could be built on this property. He said an appraisal of the R3-B zone was
almost one and one-half mi€lion dollars. He said reappraised as RS-12, the appraised value is
$140,000. He said there has clearly been a taking of value in excess of one million dollars. He
said that is why they are litigating, which will be a burden � and cost to the citizens of Iowa City if
they win. He said they don't want that. He said they want to build the development they were
told they could build at the density they were told.
Chrischilles asked if there was similar density to what Barkalow wants to build in that same
area. Barkalow said the density on the rest of the property they own on the RM-20 is at the R3-
Board of Adjustment
August 21, 2013
Page 4 of 8
B zoning right now. Chrischilles asked why the City told him they wanted to rezone this and they
didn't want to have such density. Barkalow said they said the City Council had directed them
after an applicant placed an application for townhomes adjacent to Barkaiow's land. He said that
application went ail through the process and was recommended for approval by the Planning &
Zoning Commission and the first Council reading and then the people in attendance tonight
objected to it, and it was shot down.
Barkalow handed out a copy of the Iowa Supreme Court decision to the Commission. He said
the judge ruled that there is no feasible way for land between 911 N. Governor and beside the
twenty-nine unit building already constructed to be built out as single family or duplexes. He said
but now the City is saying that those are the only things it warts to see there. Chrischilles asked
why It can't be built that way. Barkalow said the biggest issue, as the court sald, is that due to
the terrain the property is riot conducive for single family properties. He said they submitted a
duplex plan to the City and were told that due to the terrain they couidn't do that site plan. He
said they have probably submitted a dozen or more site plans. He said the first denial said that
with the moratorium in place the existing and proposed zoning did not meet the site plan. He
said it did because it was R3-B because of the court order. He said an appraiser told Bob Miklo
that the court order supersedes the City's zoning authority.
Chrischilles asked how the !and is appropriate for an apartment building, as Barkalow claims.
Barkalow said with a single-family home you'll need more space for approach, driveways, and
yard. He said up to the time they started to improve the property in order to build the apartment
building, the City was telling him that he could build to an R3-B standard, and then rushed in to
rezone the property.
Baker asked if Barkaiows's attorney James Affeldt is advising Barkalow to file an appeal through
this Board to overturn a decision of the City Council. Barkalow said Affeldt told him that the
Board had the legal authority to approve the site plan that was submitted, and that's why he's
here tonight. He said in Affeldt's opinion R3-B zoning is still on the site.
Baker said nothing the Board has the power to do allows them to agree with Barkalow, because
it would require the Board to redefine the Zoning Code as passed by the Council. Barkalow said
he is here asking the Board to correct the interference of the site plan being denied in the first
place.
Chrischilles asked if the Board makes a judgment here, would the litigation cease. Barkalow
said if the Board decides that the R3B is in effect and the site plan they submitted is approved,
TSB would stop the litigation process. He said ;hey would be asking for over one million dollars
if the litigation goes forward.
Chrischilles said he thought they might need legal help with the very last paragraph of the
Supreme Court's decision, which Barkalow had not highlighted and says "once a use has been
developed or established on any of the above described properties, further development or
redevelopment of that property shall be subject to zoning ordinances in effect at the time such
further development or redevelopment is undertaken." He said to him that means if you take
everything that Barkalow has highlighted it would mean that something was twenty-five years
ago, it could never be rezoned again. He said that the "further development or redevelopment of
that property shall be subject to zoning ordinances in effect at the time development or
redevelopment is undertaken" is now and is the new zoning, so that makes it not R3B.
Board of Adjustment
August 21, 2013
Page 5 of 8
Barkalow showed the site plan where the new buildings are laid out on individual lots, and said
there's nothing established on those Icts, so that's why it's still R313. He claimed that Bob Miklo
verified that.
Chrischilles said he thinks the whole argument is in that last paragraph, and that's what will be
decided in the court. Barkalow said both his attorney and the City Attorney have agreed that
there is no use and nothing has been established on the property. Chrischilles asked Walz for
her opinion.
Walz said that it is not pertinent to what the Board of Adjustment has the authority to review.
She said Barkalow has already stated that his Intent is to exhaust all legal remedies.
Barkalow handed cut a Fetter from the attorney who handled the case for the City to Doug
Boothroy, Director of Housing and Inspection Services, dated 1987 in which he that attorney
noted that it would be good to keep codes of the 1978 ordinances in the property file when
development plans are submitted. He said in 1987 this attorney for the City told Boothroy that
this property will be developed at R3B in the future.
Baker said he doesn't think the Board has the legal right to do what Barkalow is asking them to
do. He said he is more convinced now that they need some legal advice just on the powers of
the Board. He said he hasn't heard a compelling reason why the Board can overturn a zoning
decision by the City Council.
Chrischilles asked if any of the existing apartment buildings are within the gray areas on the
location map. Barkalow said they were not. He said there is part of a parking lot on it, but the
rest is undeveloped.
Chrischilles said he agrees with Baker that this is something that's going to have to be settled in
the courts because the Board doesn't have the legal expertise.
Barkalow showed the Board a site plan that was approved in 1988 for forty-eight more units. He
said that in the court order the judge defines five buildings as being on the property.
Soglin asked Walz to repeat the Board's authority relative to the legislateve actions of the City.
Walz said the Board has the authority to hear appeals on administrative actions taken by the
City Manager or his designee, which would be City Staff —that is any staff person's
administrative decisions, or decisions of the Historic Dreservation Commission. She also said
that the Board cannot overturn an ordinance that the Council puts into effect.
Baker said the Board's hesitation is not a comment on Barkalow's case, but rather with the
Board's power. He said he doesn't see that the Board has the authority that Barkalow's attorney
sees them having to overturn a City Council legislative decision.
Soglin said she understands that in terms of procedure Baraka!ow is probably required to
exhaust all remedies, and that's why he's here. She said, though, that doesn't allow the Board
anymore purview over what he is asking.
Baker said the appeiiant wants the Board to act on a court order that the City itself has
superseded, but the Board is working with what City Council has done and allows the Board to
comment on.
Board of Adjustment
August 21, 2013
Page 6 of 8
Chrischilles said it's not a reflection on whether or not the Board thinks these apartments should
be built at this time, but it's the fact that the Supreme Court ruled the property would remain
R3B, then the Council rezoned the property, and that is the conflict, and that is not a conflict the
Board feels comfortable in making a ruling on.
Barkalow urged the Board to defer this until September and get a legal opinion outside of the
City Staff before they make a decision to just throw this out.
Baker said that's not the question the Board has to answer. He said the question is what are
their rights and responsibilities as a Board.
Baker asked the appellant if his first application came after the moratorium was established.
There was much confusion about when the appellant's site plans and revised site plans had
been submitted. Barkalow presented papers regardiny, the site plan and claimed that he had
submitted plans before the moratorium on January 10 ".
Soglin said they had not been given that information. She said she is concerned about delving
into some of these process details when the Board doesn't have the other side of the story and
they need to go back to the issue of if they feel they need to focus on this as a procedural issue
and that they don't have the authority to judge the content of the appeal.
Baker said they need to hear from Julie Tallman abcut the dates on the denials of the
Barkalow's site plans, and he said he's getting to a point where he wants an attorney.
Chrischilles said the attorney can't tell them that the Supreme Court decision was incorrect, and
that is the basis of Barkalow's appeal.
Baker said he thought the basis of the appeal is that Barkalow claims the application process
began January 10`" and not January 23rd. Soglin said if they are going to get into that, they
absolutely need staff of interpretation because one plan shows one building and the other site
plan shows three, which is suggestive of material difference.
Grenis says he is of the opinion that he would not want to make any decisions without a legal
opinion and staff.
Baker said they need to make sure they have the correct dates and information.
Walz recommended that they keep the public meeting open if they defer this application.
Chrischilles asked if Barkalow is saying that he had the plans submitted in a timely manner,
which would have allowed the property to be considered R3B. Barkalow said yes, to be
developed at the R3B level before the moratorium.
Soglin stated that's not part of his appeal. She said it's moot what happened before January 22
for the Board's purposes. Chrischilles said the appeal is based on the Supreme Court's ruling to
maintain the property at R3B ad infinitum. Soglin said she thinks the appeal is based on the
timing issue.
Board of Adjustment
August 21, 2023
Page 7 of 8
Walz said that if what the Board questioning is whether the appeal is based on timing, then they
need to have Tallman and the City's Attorney here to give the City's account of what happened.
Chrischilles said it would be very helpful to have a timeline in a table.
Barkaiow asked for a deferral.
Baker cautioned that this is deferral in no way means that they necessarily agree with the
appellant. Barkalow said he understands.
Chrischilles moved to defer the appeal until September 1'hh
Bakerseconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
Walz cautioned that there will be no discussion about the continuing hearing. She instructed the
board not to speak with anyone for or against the appeal nor with staff nor with the media.
Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street asked if the neighbors could get notice of the next meeting
more than five days in advance. Walz confirmed that notice would be sent earlier.
OTHER:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
ADJOURNMENT:
Chrischilles moved to adjourn.
Baker seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote.
W 0'
F- U
N LU M
� O
'O Lu N
LL r
NO p N
1L uj
0 H
O Q
T
N
x
x
x
x
0
x
x
x
x
e`
K
T
x
x
x
X
°D
x
x
x
x
x
o
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
O
x
X
0
X
X
x
X
X
X
K
N
x
x
x
x
T
a
T
x
x
x
x
T
LU
c
X
X
O
X
i
T
T
LU
x
x
x
Oi
O
x
n
co
v
Un
co
�
o
0
0
0
0
Lr
N
N
N
N
N
LU
{
LU
LU
� I
�
~
J
o
LU
J
w
C6
L)LLI
y
z
x
w
w
z
Z
m
U
a
W
1c