HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-2015 Board of AdjustmentCITY OF IOWA CITY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 10, 2015
5: 15 P.M.
Emma Harvat Hall
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Department of Neighborhood & Development Services
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, June 10, 2015 — 5:15 PM
City Hall — Emma Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the May 13, 2015 Minutes
D. Special Exception Items
1. EXC15-00009: An application submitted by Mitch King to allow a non -conforming
rooming house to be converted to another non -conforming use of less intensity for
property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone at 332
Ellis Avenue.
2. EXC15-00010: An application submitted by Chad Crigger to allow a reduction in the
principal building setback for the installation of a 6 foot privacy fence in the Low Density
Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2525 Princeton Road.
E. Other
A request by Noah Kemp to extend the term of a special exception to allow a drive -through
facility to be located in the Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront Subdistrict (RFC-WR)
zone at 708 South Riverside Drive. (Exception was approved in January, 2015.)
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: July 8, 2015
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: EXC15-00009 Date: June 10, 2015
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Mitch King
1545 McKinley Place
Iowa City, IA
319-775-7910
Contact:
Brian Boelk
HBK Engineering
509 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA
319-338-7557
Owner:
Oxford Properties LLC
PO Box 816
Iowa City, IA 52244
319-338-3935
Requested Action:
Special Exception to allow a non-
conforming use located in a structure not
designed for a use allowed in the zone, to
be converted to a different use category or
subgroup that is the same or lesser in
intensity than the existing use.
Purpose:
To allow the present non -conforming
rooming house (25 bedrooms) to be
converted to a multi -family use with 11
units (apartments) with a total of 14
bedrooms.
Location:
332 Ellis Avenue
Size:
.35 acres (15,145 square feet)
Current Land Use and Zoning:
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential
(RNS-20)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential, RNS-20
East: Residential, RNS-20
South: Residential, RNS-20
West: Residential, RNS-20
Applicable code sections: Regulations regarding the conversion of
nonconforming uses, 14-4E-5B-2; general
criteria for special exceptions, 14-413-3
File Date: May 13, 2010
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Nonconforming uses are created when a zoning designation for an area is changed or when the
zoning regulations themselves are changed such that an existing lawfully established use no
longer complies with the zoning code. The zoning code provides a special exception to allow "a
non -conforming use, which is located in a structure not designed for a use allowed in the zone,
to be converted to a non -conforming use in a different use category or subgroup that is of the
same or lesser in intensity than the existing use," provided that certain conditions are met. This
provision is intended to facilitate reuse of older buildings while decreasing any associated
negative effects of the nonconforming use overtime.
The property at 332 Ellis Avenue is zoned Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20).
The property is currently a rooming house —classified in the zoning code as "independent group
living." Because rooming houses are not permitted in the RNS-20 zone, the existing use is
considered non -conforming. The property is also non -conforming with regard to parking. A
rooming house with 25 rooms is required to provide 19 parking spaces. The parking areas are
also non -conforming with regard to design —spaces back into a public street and lack striping
and appropriate setbacks, screening, surface, etc.
The applicant, Mitch King, is requesting a special exception to convert the existing rooming
house with 25 bedrooms, to a multi -family use with 11 units (apartments) with a total of 15
bedrooms. He proposes to remodel the interior, eliminating the dining, and bathroom areas.
These areas will be incorporated into the new apartments, each of which will have its own
bathroom, kitchen, living room. The proposal results in one efficiency, 7 one -bedroom units, 2
two -bedroom units, and one three bedroom unit. Floors 1-3, will have three apartments per
floor. The basement level will have 2 one -bedroom units.
The zoning code groups land uses into categories and subgroups. A rooming house falls under
the Independent Group Living category; apartments are classified as Multi -Family. Multi -family
Uses are permitted in the RNS-20 zone at a density of one unit per 1,800 square feet of lot
area. Thus the zoning code would allow up to 8 two -bedroom apartments (a total of 16
bedrooms) based on the size of the subject lot, provided the applicant can provide the required
onsite parking. Because the property is in the University Impact Zone, the parking requirement
is one space per bedroom.
The applicant's request is to allow the conversion of the rooming house to an apartment building
with more than the allowed number of units, but with fewer bedrooms than what currently exists
on the property.
The surrounding properties are all zoned RNS-20 and include a mix of multi -family buildings and
fraternity houses. The subject lot fronts on rwo streets —Ellis Avenue on the west, and
Ridgeland Avenue on the east. Parking is currently provided from two non -conforming parking
areas —one located directly adjacent to Ridgeland Avenue, the other located along alley that
runs between Ridgeland and Ellis Avenues. The property also has vehicle access from a
driveway on its north property line, which also runs between Ridgeland and Ellis Avenues.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to
conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Zoning Chapter to permit the full use and enjoyment
of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board of Adjustment
may grant relief from the requirements of the Zoning Chapter through a special exception if the
action is considered to serve the public interest and is consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Chapter.
The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in
accordance with the regulations of the Section 14-4E-5B-2 pertaining to the conversion of one
non -conforming use to another non. -conforming use in addition to the general approval criteria
for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-413-3A.
The applicant's responses to the specific and general criteria are provided on the attached
application.
Specific Standards (14-4E-5B-2)
The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a non -conforming use
located in a structure not designed for a use allowed in the zone to be converted to a
nonconforming use in a different use category or subgroup that is the same of lesser
intensity than the existing use, provided the following conditions are met:
a. The proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is not
currently allowed in the zone.
FINDING:
• The subject building was designed for a group living use —provided shared kitchen and
bathroom facilities. Rooming houses are not permitted in the RNS-20 zone. While
fraternity uses are a permitted in the zone —no fraternity has been present on the
property for several decades.
b. The proposed use is of the same or lesser level of intensity and impact than the
existing use. The Board of Adjustment will make a determination regarding the relative
intensity of the proposed use by weighing evidence presented by the applicant with
regard to such factors as anticipated traffic generation, parking demand, hours of
operation, residential occupancy, noise, dust, and customer andfor residential activity.
The Board of Adjustment will also consider qualitative factors such as whether a
proposed use will serve an identified need in the surrounding neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
• The proposal would result in a substantial reduction of occupants. The 11 apartments
would provide a total of 15 bedrooms; the rooming house currently provides 25
bedrooms.
• By reducing the number of bedrooms the use will reduce opportunities for the sort of
externalities associated with a larger resident population, such as traffic, noise,
parking congestion, etc.
o To ensure that the proposed use results in an actual reduction in intensity,
staff recommends imposing a condition that the occupancy not exceed the
total number of bedrooms provided.
4
• A reduction in the number of residents should reduce traffic generation and the
demand for parking.
c. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site.
FINDINGS:
• The applicant's draft plans show one -bedroom units at approximately 500 square feet
and two -bedroom units at approximately 690 square feet.
Special attention has been given to the apartment units proposed at the basement level.
The applicant has proposed tiling to direct water away from the basement level and to
waterproof these units. If necessary a sump pump will be installed.
o To ensure the quality of apartments at the basement level, staff recommends that
waterproofing and tiling be a condition of the special exception.
d. The structure will not be structurally altered or enlarged in such a way as to enlarge
the non -conforming use. Ordinary repair and maintenance and installation or
relocation of walls, partitions, fixtures, wiring, and plumbing is allowed so long as the
use is not enlarged.
FINDINGS:
• As stated above, the applicant proposes a number of interior renovations in order to
accommodate 11 apartments. These alterations will not enlarge the building the footprint
of the building or the livable area within. The proposed conversion will substantially
reduce the number bedrooms and thus the number of occupants on the property will be
reduced.
General Standards: 14-4B-3, Special Exception Review Requirements
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDINGS:
• The reduction in bedrooms would be expected to generate less traffic and parking than
the 25-resident rooming house.
• By re -opening the front (main) entrance to the property, the building itself will comply
with the multi -family standards and be able to provide an ADA accessible entrance as
required in the zoning code.
• Proposed modifications to the parking area to bring it closer to conformance with the
code standard should improve 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.
For the same reasons stated under specific criteria 1 and 3 above, staff believes the
application to convert the property meets this test.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in
the zone in which such property is located.
FINDINGS:
• The surrounding neighborhood is fully developed. The Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-
20) zone acknowledges the mix of residential uses. The purpose of the zone is to
"stabilize and preserve the character of older neighborhoods that contain a mix of single-
family housing, duplexes, single-family structures that have been converted to multi-
family housing, and properties that have been developed with multi -family housing."
Most RNS-2 properties are multi -family or fraternity uses.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
All necessary utilities and drainage are in place for the property.
There are no sidewalks along Ridgeland Avenue, however this right-of-way functions
more like an alley than a street.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed exception will not result in an increase in traffic.
As noted in the background information the property has vehicle access from both Ellis
and Ridgeland Avenues in addition to shared access drive on the north side of the
property.
The applicant is required to pave the parking area off the alley to the south of the
building and provide the setback and screening required. This will better define the area
for ingress and egress.
S. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
FINDINGS:
• Presently the building lacks a street facing entrance, which is required in the multi -family
standards in the Zoning Code. The door that appears to be on the front is actually
b`:ocked by an interior wall. This proposal will bring the structure into compliance with the
multi -family standards. The applicant will amend the first floor plan to allow a main
entrance from the Ellis Street side of the building —provide a three bedroom unit and an
efficiency apartment along the front of the building in order to provide space for a front
entrance and hallway to connect with the central corridor.
• The parking areas that serve this property are non -conforming with regard to number of
spaces provided, paving, setbacks, screening, and pedestrian access. The applicant has
provided a plan for showing 14 spaces an additional space will be required to
accommodate the change in the first floor bedroom from a 2 bedroom to a 3-bedroom.
• The applicant's design re -adapts the existing paved and graveled areas that currently
serve the site. The plan shows 8 parking spaces at the rear of the building along
Ridgeland Avenue and 6 spaces located south of the building, which area accessed
from a public alley.
The zoning code requires that all parking areas be set back and screened from adjacent
properties and adjacent rights of way. The code also says that no parking area shall be
designed in such a matter that exiting a parking area would require backing into a street.
The property was established with two street frontages (east and west) with a deep
(approx. 50 feet) setback from the Ellis Avenue right-of-way line. This makes full
compliance with the parking area standards impractical.
The applicant's site plan shows a parking area along the south side of the building so
that parking is set back even with the front fagade of the building. Given the constra'nts
on the property due to the deep front setback, the additional space may for the 3-
bedroom apartment can be accommodated in this area through a Minor Modification.
The submitted site plan shows the required screening provided along the west edge of
the parking area well as a sidewalk connection from the side entrance. This should also
be aligned with the sidewalk that connects to the front entrance.
At the east end of this parking area a ten -foot setback is required. The proposed site
plan should be modified to shown the landscaped area extended in 10-feet from the
property line. This is similar to what has been provided on other properties along
Ridgeland. S2 screening will be required in this area on the private property.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The
Comprehensive Plan encourages the adaptive re -use and preservation of structures so long as
the use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In staffs opinion, the proposed plan
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it substantially reduces the number of
residents on the property (comparable to the number of bedrooms permitted on a property of
this size).
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking to convert a 25-bedroom rooming house to a multi -family
use with 11 dwelling units, bringing the density closer to compliance with the zoning code for the
RNS-20 zone. The total number of bedrooms will be reduced to 15.bedrooms. The result will
likely reduce the number of residents on the property. This can be assured by limiting the
occupancy to the number of bedrooms as recommended by staff. The building will be brought
into closer compliance with the code by re-establishing a front entrance from Ellis Avenue —front
entrances are a requirement for multi -family development. The applicant will also bring the
parking areas into closer to code compliance. Full compliance is impractical due to the deep
front setback from Ellis Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC15-00009, an application to
allow conversion of a non -conforming Independent Group Living Use to a non -conforming Multi -
Family Use located at 232 Ellis Avenue in the RNS-20 zone subject to the following conditions:
1. The occupancy of the converted use, specifically a Multi -Family Use, may not exceed
the number of bedrooms provided (15).
2. The converted use shall consist of 11 dwelling units: 1 efficiency, 7 one -bedroom units, 2
two -bedroom units, and 1 three -bedroom unit.
3. Substantial compliance with the floorp€an submitted, with the adjustments to the first
floor units to be approved by the Building Official.
4. Waterproofing and tile of the basement level to ensure a healthy living environment
7
5. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with modifications to the parking
areas as indicated by staff.
6. In order to establish the conversion, the applicant must apply for a rental permit.
7. Upon steps being taken to establish the conversion —issuance of a building permit and
commencing of renovations —any right to re-establish a rooming house on the property
shall be extinguished.
a
1.
Location map
Z
Aerial view
3.
Photos
4.
Site plan
5.
Floor plans
6.
Application materials
Approved by: :7 ✓" " / •9ri'r
John Yapp, Development Servi6es Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
httpJ/www.icgov.org/site/CMSv2/File/plann inglurbanfZoni ngMap. pdf
City of Iowa City e
EXC15-00009 332 Ellis Avenue
Feet
6 190 380
�' • +� .. �. 1' �• .'ter • - • •
r
I
i A i ! ` -' ... • .fly i c-i
• .. . �-r � -�±' ' Ali. � t�. _ �a�
r r
Prepared by Katie Gandhi
Date Prepared: May 18. 2015
mm
0
gas
S W /W
W W 4 Y
T8w,
W W W W
W W W W W
332
1
27.5'
. `•.
� -ram.
T
37.5't
W ,,L
>/ / )R>OI
130 t
L)
7YGR15TAL20'
> S?
_:
> g
AF — )—
WI'Yv
WW
.w
bedroom
KM
mech
/boiler
on
laundry
1Ello
L7 m0,,A
office
lKitchan-
APPLICATION TO TF-PLED
BOARD OF ADJ USTMENT, �, 08
SPECIAL EXCEPTI�fr--
A GiTX, io„'A
DATE: May 13, 2015
PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1 009107002
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 332 Ellis Avenue
PROPERTYZONE: RNS`20
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 15' 145 at (.348 acres)
APPLICANT: Name: Mitch King
Address: 1545 McKinley Place, IC
Phone: $Ja'91-775-7910
CONTACT PERSON: Name: Brian Boelk (HBK Engineering)
(if other than applicant) Address: 509 S. Gilbert Street
Phone: 319-338-7557
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Oxford Properties, LLC
(if other than applicant) Address: PO BOX 816, IC 52244
Phone: 319-338-3935
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 email sarah-walz@jowa-cify.org.
The farmer IIIis cunenlly a eoncaoforming reoming house Mfli 25 rooms anc inadequate parking_
Purpose for special exception:
Applica.^t pmpoaes dsoreaslrp density to a1i one bedrooms and Aree11a ada,aus pkri 111-1 allowsaIola,neigh[dwelling unite I,lh 16 bedoams.
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
t
Attaulme nt ca the Board of Adjustment Appllca on
332Ellis Avenue
The building at 332 Ell is Avenue is a former fraternity converted to 25 rooming unite nuPnber cF
rl
units is considered a non -conforming use in the RNS-20 zone. Rooming houses are erRtted 4n�
t
this zone. The parking area is also non -conforming and does not provide the requi 4�� pacing s e�
spaces required for 25 roomers. x
The applicant is seeking a special exception to allow 11 dwelling units as a multi -family builMg. The
RNS-20 zone allows Multi -family uses. Atotal of 8 dwelling units may be permitted with a maximum of
16 bedrooms based on the lot area of 15,145 sf. The proposed plan would decrease the total number
of bedrooms on site from 25 bedrooms to 14 bedrooms and provide the required 14 parking spaces.
The interior of the building will be greatly improved by removing the walls and installing all new
electrical and plumbing, including new kitchens and bathrooms. A sprinkler system will be installed
throughout the structure to improve fire safety.
The lower level will be drastically improved by waterproofing the interior walls, adding a tiling system,
grading away from the foundation and installing a sump pump, if necessary.
The current parking area consists of an unsightly gravel area along the entire southern edge of the
property and a black top area behind the building with no demarcation of parking space's. The parking
area will be greatly improved by having an adequate number of spots and demarking 14 spaces. The
parking in the front southern portion of the yard will be removed and grass, trees and bushes will be
added to create to the required screening for the parking. In addition, grass islands will be added in the
back parking on the northeast and southeast corners to identify the parking area.
The City Code specifies that cars cannot back in to a City street from a parking lot. The current parking
area consists of unmarked spaces that back on to Ridgeland Avenue. Ridgeland acts more like an alley
than a City street. Ridgeland Avenue has a 15' wide travel lane within a 30' ROW. The Applicant
proposes to demarcate the back parking area with eight spots, a five foot sidewalk behind the building
and two grass islands on the northeast and southeast portions of the parking area. The alternative is
to provide angled parking spots in the back parking lot with a separation between the lot and
Ridgeland Avenue. However, in order to create the 14 required spaces the southern portion of the
front yard from Ellis Avenue to Ridgeland Avenue would have to be paved.
The surrounding neighborhood will benefit by the improvements to the interior and exterior because
of the 44% reduction in density, provision of adequate parking and the addition of grass, trees and
bushes where gravel and black top parking currently exists. Also, there will now be clear separation
between the south parking area and the unimproved severely eroded gravel City alley. The new
residents will benefit by having completely renovated units with new electrical, plumbing, kitchens and
bathrooms, a safe dry lower level and a fire sprinkler system.
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: EXC15-00010 Date: June 10, 2015
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Chad and Janet Crigger
2525 Princeton Road
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-330-7448
319-330-8338
Requested Action: Front principal building setback reduction
Purpose: To allow a 6-foot fence to be located 10 feet from
the streetside property line along Mount Vernon
Drive.
Location: 2525 Princeton Road
Size: .412 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential, RS-5
South: Residential, RS-5
East: Residential, RS-5
West: Residential, RS-5
Applicable code sections: 14-48-3A, (General Criteria), 14-2B-4B-5,
Adjustments to the principal building setback
File Date: May 14, 2015
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on a corner lot in the low -density single-family (RS-5) zone at
2525 Princeton Road. Corner lots are required by code to provide a front principal building
setback along both street frontages. Corner lots are typically platted slightly larger than required
in order to accommodate the required setback. The subject lot is over 17,000 square feet (8,000
square feet is the minimum lot size in the RS-5 zone.)
Fences more than 4 feet in height (48-inches) are not allowed to be located within the front
principal building setback, but may be located at the required setback line. The property at 2525
Princeton is located along a frontage on which setbacks are deeper than the standard 15 feet
required in the RS-5 zone. Due to setback averaging the front principal building setback along
Mt. Vernon Drive is determined to be approximately 26 feet.
The applicant is seeking to reduce the setback to allow a 6-foot high fence to be located within
the setback along the Mt. Vernon Street frontage-10 feet from the property line. The'property
includes a backyard swimming pool. City code requires that swimming pools be surrounded by
a fence 4 feet (48 inches in height) —this is a standard minimum height recommended by many
safety organizations, including the Consumer Products Safety Commission.
The applicant has stated that their insurance company requires a 6-foot high fence around the
pool. Currently the pool has a chain link fence that surrounds only the pool area and deck. The
applicant would like to include a larger area of yard within the tall fence.
Mt. Vernon Drive functions as low volume street. It is served by Iowa City transit from 6:30 AM
until 6:30 PM, with buses running on the half hour during peak times and hourly for the
remainder of the day.
ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and
general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to
encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full
use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The
Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in
accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-213-413-5 pertaining to principal
building setbacks 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 approval criteria for adjustments to the principal building setback requirements
(14-2A-4B-5).
A special exception may be granted to reduce the setback if the applicant demonstrates that the
general approval criteria and the following specific approval criteria have been satisfied.
1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question.
FINDINGS:
■ Corner lots are common throughout the City, and are typically platted at a larger size
to accommodate the required front yard setback along both street frontages. The
subject lot is more than 17,000 square feet. The minimum lot size in the RS-5 zone is
8,000 square feet.
• The front principal building setbacks in this neighborhood are determined through
setback averaging to be 26 feet. In the RS-5 zone, the minimum front building setback
is 15 feet.
• The property does have a swimming pool, which sets it apart from other properties in
the immediate neighborhood. The swimming pool on this property was established in
the early 1970s.
• Other properties on corner lots with swimming pools in east Iowa City —examples may
be found at 14 Heather Drive, 1807 and 1812 Ouincent Ct., and 804 Cyprus Court —
provide the required front yard setback for fencing.
2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements.
FINDINGS:
• The Iowa City zoning code requires a 48-inch (4 feet) high fence for all swimming
pools.
• Fences up to 4 feet are permitted in the front principal building setback.
= Fences over 4 feet in height may not be located within the front principal building
setback. The zoning code restricts the height of fences along street frontages for both
aesthetic and safety purposes —to preserve the safety of public streets by creating a
relationship between residential properties and the street to allow some degree of
visibility that is not possible when a street is wailed off by privacy fences. The
permitted 4-foot fence allows a degree of privacy as well as safety for the private
property owner without compromising the safety for pedestrians and others who use
the public right-of-way.
The applicants wish to provide a fenced yard for the safety of her children. She would
like to include as much of the yard within the fenced area as possible. While the
setback requirement does not preclude this, the applicant has indicated that their
options are to provide one 6-foot fence around the yard and pool or two separate
fences —a 6-foot fence for the pool and a 4-foot fence in the front yard setback.
Placing the 6-foot fence at the setback line would leave approximately 26 feet
between the fence and the sidewalk.
3. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations.
The minimum setback regulations are intended to:
a. Maintain light, air, separation for file protection, and access for firefighting.
b. Provide opportunity for privacy between dwellings.
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's
neighborhoods;
d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences;
and
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with other buildings.
FINDINGS:
• Because the setback reduction is for a fence and not a building, a reduction in the
setback will not be counter to the purposes outlined above a, b, d, and e.
This particular neighborhood has developed with deeper than the standard setbacks,
and few properties (even corner properties) have any fence. This proposal may be
interpreted as counter to purpose"c."
Staff believes that reducing the setback to 15, which is the standard requirement in the
RS-5 zone in combination with an appropriate fence and/or landscaping it may be
possible to preserve the sense of openness that is in character with the surrounding
neighborhood. Staff recommends considering an open pattern fence or, if the board
believes a solid fence is appropriate, that the applicant be required to plant a mix of small
trees and shrubs between the sidewalk and fence to minimize the appearance of fence.
4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the
extent practical.
See criterion #3 above.
5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line,
unless the side or rear property line abuts the public right of way or permanent open space.
Not applicable.
General Standards: 14-4B-3, Special Exception Review Requirements
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDINGS:
The purpose of the height limitation for fences in the front yard is to preserve the
safety, both actual and perceived, along the public right-of-way and to preserve the
aesthetic quaiity of local, residential streetscapes.
Reducing the setback to 15 feet, the standard minimum setback in the code, will
preserve space along the frontage in keeping with the intent of the fence regulations.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood.
FINDING:
• There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed fence would substantially diminish
or impair property value 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 zone in which such property is located.
FINDING:
• The surrounding neighborhood is fully developed.
• There is no evidence the specific proposed exception would impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for single-family uses.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
Not applicable.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDING:
The proposed setback reduction has no impact on ingress or egress from the site —it
will not generate additional traffic nor will impede views of the street or sidewalk.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception
being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to
the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
FINDINGS:
• The subject property is in compliance with all other setback regulations of the zone.
• An accessory structure (a shed) is located within the required principal building
setback along Mt Vernon Drive. The zoning code requires that detached accessory
structures must comply with the principal building setback requirements for the zone
in which they are located. The accessory building must be located behind the front
fagade of the house.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
T he Comprehensive Plan does not speak to this particular situation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a reduction in the front principal
building setback requirement to 15 feet along the Mt. Vernon Drive Street right-of-way line,
subject to the conditions listed below:
■ The shed currently located in the front setback must be relocated behind the front fagade
of the house.
■ The 6-foot fence must either be an open pattern fence or, if the board believes a solid
fence is appropriate, that the applicant be required to plant a mix of small trees and
shrubs along the length of the fence.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map.
2. Aerial views of the location.
3. Other views of the property and frontage
4. Application materials.
Approved by: 7 � / z7✓'—'
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
City of Iowa City
EXC15-00010 2525 Princeton Road
Prepared by: Katie Gandhi
Feet Date Prepared: May 18,2015
0 250 500
fjr N.
r -
RIC
i i
'. .-
r•
� a
AProposed
. L
�.���,'• , — ,. a i, ' �r
http://w .iegov.org/site/CMSv27Filelplanning/urban/ZoningMap.pdf
_
.ti
_ - .. •,I Ate'' - � . -, .,:'!i - .�
f
2519
Leng3h
t*r ol'Alto Vmaj
MID Alto
i
r-ev1joVe-jj
P r,
bao6dir 323.2
_€5 it
12 v nft
1 c
Y�
i
shed �ereK4uVd�
Lu-i',OM: 1 ,
00j -
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
--SPECIAL EXCEPTION -----
DATE: �i 3 �� PROPE.R Y PARC,EL HO. 07V Z0 /
PROPERTY.. ADDRESS: 2 Jz� ioMa i/
PROPS ,TY ZOiyE: PROPER-fff LOT SIZE: 0, q1 Z a U^e.5
711
Specific Requestad Spocial E:,cepdon; pleas=a ilsi the description and section number in
the zoning cods that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot rind this Information or do m ?mow which secelon of the code to loot; in, please
contact Sarah rltralz at 35"-5239 or e m rl Sarah walz ow/a-ci e
XedUcyG ,.,�f s t- ac fryer' �'
i r rv/.r f/ QGUf�ii 0J7 / C YrG.7 /. (1p ro.
Pur ose for special �•-Section: $ W
�i � i��iCe et7L/!l5//7G/ C�'Q C✓i Lra ,i�i Y�Fi iii`�''is..., ..,.�.,�, x _..__
V. ,-'1. vc.J.v/Ir _ //IM/07/LC f0nt711efl, 114cr S,eCUI-e P/VC %
Date os previous applica4ion or appeal Fled, if any:
n4, 4r16/A, .ifi�rh�r� �iv%J rl�41 014a4m,
IN
-3-
Q. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criierla addressed in
"C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the
following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In
the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific Information,
not just opinions, that demonstrate That the specific requested special exception
meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are
not relevani in your particular cave.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general wel re
ri v rs of f Ae inkrserhm Cf ' . Uemoo and pn)VAo
oct will have a>7 4cvlc An�eUI / u170t; lrn4ckel VjeW for
Safe dri✓In�rJ h'aff'Ie Alas O f fl)—show> ivne uf-styhfi
t��nap) hOd bee, API(
Y(Sekt�
-For 3d mg ( ow re Uu� 1 l Gi t�Ver2 �los Gsed 65t7 �hGe
4i-)(rl nosec�se.+ Y*2- r,�.Y+cd `tuber &VJ vup
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not
substanilally diminish and Impair property values in the neighborhood.
N off- r-eie van-- -h PAr' icL-kictr COSe-
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.
1 t relet ewe- A, pevl7aflar ease
.�
C71 <
r
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
n,14,r rr/e1&tn1- /V 1rarhrulaf dqst7
IIs
5. Adequate measuras have been or will be taken to provide Ingress or egress
designed to minima-e ire is congestion on public streets.
tilt t" re levant -h, pv,11LGilaY ( ase
6. E::cept 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 '.he City Code section 144B as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through It).]
Not- v-60q✓ F 1-o parrh'�(aV caae
;cM U7
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Compreherr ve Fi9i; of the
City.
P,21 04- CWY�PYVh lv —)Ve Owl ril Wle
5hrnIiu�i s,c�acks cornbmed 1,vI narrrj.jev,
sfir�ef (aUverne�f wad+hS, ereern0�-P I rat
�e
��edesir�a�—Scr�l e PLnW(L Space. Q/oy l
whit-, QncMvn ,p waflbn� CWd suci�tl ,n�t�-ztc%'
(7 c7uLl 'v �l �haY ru i2t�k1 , WQ,
p; s Sit ��54,°el Ih `�-: y IQ ,5
�Y
VIGtUi rl�x Vl'ltl 10010 d,,
aV,� t� , ns e �4it�s ?n/�t
�n d � �- 'l' r� � w✓j� J L
ct L i , VJ Gt h d
S�7DECIF! CAPPROVa: CWTER!A
1. We believe this situation to be e�culiar to the property in question as we were unable
to identify another home situated on a corner with a pool in the Washington Park
Subdivision located in Iowa City. Additionally, our home is located on a bus route
exposing the pool and our children to a higher volume of traffic than "usual'.
2.
A) As homeowners, we are allowed to enclose our "front yard" with a fence. B) As
pool owners, we are required to enclose our pool with a 6 foot fence by our
insurance company. One practical difficulty in complying with the setback
requirements would be the cost of having two fenced in areas versus one that could
fulfill both A and B.
As homeowners, we chose a house with a large backyard (unbeknownst to us a
portion of our backyard is defined by the city as a second front yard) because we
have active children who play outside including baseball and basketball. We feel
that maximizing the enclosed space of our front yard on iivit. Vernon drive is the
safest option for our children (without the risk or' chasing balls in the street) due to
the higher volume of traffic Mt. Vernon Rd. experiences due to it being on the bus
route. This decision would be useful or appropriate, not just fashionable An
additional practical difficulty in complying with the setback would be not making a
sensible decision or choice to have our children play in our yard while minimizing
risk of harm.
3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations:
a) The fence will maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for
firefighting.
b) The fence will provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings.
c) The fence will reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the
city's neighborhoods; on corners where 6 foot fences are reduced to 4 feet tomeet the
setback regulation, homeowners plant trees 6 ft+for privacy creating@_sirrd vis--u�al
dimensions as our proposed fence (example found at 6 Mt Vernon Dr,• a y Ct ner td
our home). The arborvitae plants present on the property for 30+ye eyn0f lar��r
dimension of the proposed fence and narrowed the setback more than pt osEM
cap?
N
fence. In terms of generality of building scale and placement of structures, the majority
of residents (within and out of our neighborhood) we spoke to regarding the setback
regulation, were surprised to learn that our yard is defined as having two front yards.
They assumed (as we did) that the area along Nit. Vernon Rd. behind our home was
indeed out back yard. Therefore, the perception of the majority of individuals we spoke
to would not believe a 6 foot fence in a "backyard" to reflect anything other than the
general building scale and placement of structures.
d) The fence will promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and
between residents.
e) The fence will not be in contrary to public interest. Actually, removing the arborvitae
as we have, has improved accessibility on the sidewalk for the public.
4. We do not believe there to be any negative effects from the setback exception, but are
willing to mitigate any perceived effects to the extent practical. If the sidewalk was thought to
be "walled off', we have left ample space between the sidewalk and the proposed fence to
plant shrubbery or small trees for a more inviting aesthetic.
5. The subject building will be located no closer than three feet to a side or rear property line,
unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right of way or permanent open space.
6
Q
,,,^C-)
w
G)�
.i'
.<,M
M
Qi-O
r�
51
CO
iV
X,
Analytics Online
http://pictomerry.johnson-county.com/efs/php/print.php?title—road&d. .
road
Print Date: 05/12/2015
Image Date:11/1612012
Level: Neighborhood
ry
Q
3a=a
-t
CT7
3 "
Y ^ !
�t
�
p+-
w
N
C-
I of 1 5/12/2015 2:53 PM
C�.i.}i� ` i+� S jj�Q i�jR� �'ti .qr � r''• - .
r7 2012 PlctcJrlletrv,
r
i'C �4 ! rt �9F "��� J � �1•T
art s it a �`E �..���� �� . �. • - ,s� / / `��� �.
d a
Y
y
je
^.: Y
ti"�`.. fir; _ =� � •�>"z�
-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.
,^�j
A. Legal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary): %�' #6 Ch eof
You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing a parcel
search for your address on the Assessor's website at www.iowacityiowaassessors.com/
or by calling 319-356-6066.
B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information: a �j� • /_Qd
1. Lot with dimensions; ,r �'r
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 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@lowa-
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.
w'r�
E.
i
-5-
List the namas and rnalling ac!dresse5 of the record owner or all propyrt`y located
within 300 I e4 -raciFosoe;yeior iinvolved in ihis 2ppeai•
ADDRESS
�; ry GJ
c'ofF�srct�7, �'�o���rf C
r, N Asa y pr7 gCk1vm Ad.
5' LMmse v
W rCrvT�st? ��zi Scc,/red frr7ee b Al
c�L4(4 4,C17C aS( ll�ad
45, %r' /1 02 57iv Qr 7 %(
DAu1s k0b, `.T fi / U r
lLlcDawe(//ce ,,d G y Ir`7` Voles P�
t- UwW fig.
,01-e eya& vunm p'
O�Jlr�si 1 S �47-, VnQJ(,nryn7(/r�l ii�
eour,Ofilo�, Vacole !t I' ,
cn
r
m
3'
N
F
In
MOTE: 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-2C4, City Code).
Quinn. Unless oihe:wise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk,
unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to
establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and
for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order
without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application.
(Section 14-8C iE, City Code).
Petition for writ of certiorariAny 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 e
Date: � /fall /2 20 I`J
Date:
ppdafthapplimtion-boar AOC
20
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
0
S)
F
_ rat
t3
0
�'
00
N
lit
'lZ:8 IV All ow, Sin
Sarah Walz
From:
Noah Kemp <nwk@kctc.net>
Sent:
Monday, June 01, 2015 9:16 PM
To:
Sarah Walz
Subject:
Extension on Special Exception
To City of Iowa City Staff:
I am requesting an extension on the special exception for a drive-11iru at 708 South Riverside Drive to the spring
of 2016, specifically April 30, 2016. Brueggers is being very slow on the creation of a proper lease.
I would like this project to get started this year, but the April 30, 2016 date will insure that I would not be
forced to build during the winter months.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Noah Kemp
for 2708 LLC
2140 Hwy 22
Kalona, IA 52247
319-936-2534
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MAY 13, 2015 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock Grenis,
Becky Soglin,
u�Fgki= 41-W" 'llagV
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Susan Dulek
OTHERS PRESENT: Pat McArtor, Brian Boelk, John Roffman
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 the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 8, 2015 MEETING MINUTES:
Baker moved to approve the minutes.
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00006:
Discussion of an application submitted by Pat McArtor to reduce the required front building
setback for a garage to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone
located at 1031 E. Market St.
Walz presented the staff report, showing an aerial map of the area, located on the corner of
Clapp Street and Market Street, which are both one-way streets. Walz explained that this is a
small lot, 4550 square feet, 5000 is the minimum that is allowed in that zone today. This is a
corner lot, and on corner lots property has to provide two front setbacks. In the case of an
accessory structure such as a garage, it has to meet the principal building setback to allow for a
pattern on the street so that buildings are located at different setbacks along the street frontage.
The buildings along the Clapp Street frontage are much closer to the street. Walz showed a
rendering of what the applicant is asking to do, he would like to put the garage over into the side
yard because there is very little rear yard that is private from the street. The applicant could put
the garage close to house, but would lose the private yard space for the house. The applicant is
seeking to reduce the setback from the required 10 feet to 3 feet (8 feet from the sidewalk vs. 15
feet from the sidewalk). He would rely on the existing curb cut and then curve the new driveway
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2015
Page 2 of 9
over to garage. The current parking pad in front of the house is no longer allowed in code, and
with this proposal the applicant will be removing some of that parking pad. The new driveway
would be 10 feet wide that will slowly widen to 16 feet at the entrance to the garage, and is about
15 feet from the house which preserves the existing patio/backyard space.
Walz did not review all the criteria listed in the staff report, but stated that this application doesn't
change the way the cars will come into the site, and are eliminating some of the temptation to park
in the front yard, and the existing hedge provides some screening.
Staff recommends approval of special exception EXC15-00006, to reduce the required front
setback along the Clapp Street frontage from 10 feet to 3 feet for property located at 1031 East
Market Street, subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted.
• Substantial compliance with the elevation proposed, with the garage being sided with a
similar size/width lap as the house.
• Removal of paving between the driveway and walkway leading to the house as
proposed by staff.
• The applicant will secure a minor modification to establish the curb cut on Market Street
as a legally approved curb cut.
Walz explained that the last condition was based on the current regulations which were not in
place at the time the home was originally built. Since this home is not located on an arterial
street and there are no traffic concerns, this is just a formality to make this a legal curb cut.
Baker asked Walz to review the discussion about the amount of concrete to be removed. Walz
explained that the 4 foot sidewalk would remain, and the driveway would be 10 feet wide that
slowly tapers out to 16 feet for the entrance of the garage. The building official will work with the
applicant to determine where the driveway will begin to taper wider. Walz showed again the
aerial map of the area with the new paved area drawn in.
Goeb asked if the driveway would be gravel and Walz stated is has to be concrete.
Baker asked if there were any response from neighbors on the notification of this application.
Walz said she did have neighbors stop in to ask about it, but once she explained what was
happening the neighbors did not have any objections.
Goeb asked if this home was owner -occupied and Walz confirmed it is.
Grenis invited the applicant to come forward to address the Board.
Pat McArtor (1031 E. Market Street) is the owner of the property and was ready to address any
questions the Board might have of him. He explained that he looked at many options for the
garage, it is a high density area with no alley and wanted to construct a garage without losing
his backyard privacy.
The Board had no additional questions for the applicant.
Grenis opened the public hearing.
Hearing none, Grenis closed the public hearing.
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2015
Page 3 of 9
Baker moved to approve special exception EXC15-00006, submitted by Pat McArtor to
reduce the required front building setback for a garage to be located in the
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone located at 1031 E. Market St.,
subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted.
• Substantial compliance with the elevation proposed, with the garage being sided
with a similar sizetwidth lap as the house.
• Removal of paving between the driveway and walkway leading to the house
as proposed by staff.
• The applicant will secure a minor modification to establish the curb cut on Market
Street as a legally approved curb cut.
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
Baker stated that regarding EXC15-00006 he concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff
report of May 13 and conclude that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless
amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the
findings in the staff report for the approval of this application.
Grenis concurs with Baker.
Chrischilles concurs.
Soglin concurs
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00007:
Discussion of an application submitted by John Roffman to reduce principal building setbacks
for property located in the General Industrial (1-1) zone at 2264 S. Riverside Drive.
Walz showed the location of the property on the zoning map, it is at the corner of McCollister
Boulevard and South Riverside Drive. The property is next to OPRS-12, manufactured housing
park and is across the street from another set of 1-1 properties as well as public property such
as wetlands and floodplain and right-of-ways. The applicant is asking for two different setback
reductions, the ability to reduce the 100 foot setback that is required for principle buildings in the
industrial zone from residential properties as well as to reduce the requirement of the adjacent
residential zone along the street front of 40 feet. In the Staff report, Walz explains that in the 1-1
zone there are a number of different uses allowed that are less than compatible with residential
zones. In Iowa City there are not the real heavy industries with smoke stacks and such, but
there are light manufacturing uses which can be noisy or have a lot of outdoor storage. Of all
the uses allowed in this zone self -storage is probably the most benign because there is very
little activity happening in the buildings other than when people are moving items in and out.
Walz explained that the buildings would screen the residential properties from the active areas
of the site, as all the buildings open to the interior of the site. Additionally the applicant has
proposed to not illuminate the backside of the buildings facing the residential areas.
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2015
Page 4 of 9
Walz discussed the findings of the specific criteria. The situation is peculiar to the property in
question in this case because it is unusual for an industrial area to about a residential zone and
in this case it abuts it on two property lines, so it reduces the amount of property that can be
used for active building space. The setback from McCollister Boulevard is along the widest part
of McCollister Boulevard and the City Engineer has reviewed the area and has said there is no
need for an additional right-of-way and that setback requirement is really for the protection of
residential properties. Therefore the practical difficulty for complying with the setback
requirements is it will drastically reduce the amount of space they can use on the property.
Within the purpose of the setback regulation, in terms of reflecting the building scale, the
general character of the area, the opportunities for light, air and fire protection, these buildings
that are proposed closest to the manufactured housing site are one-story buildings that are 20
feet or lower. A 20 foot setback is a standard rear yard setback is required in residential zones
so it would not be out of character, and even within the manufactured housing the setback area
between units is very small.
Self -storage units are not characterized by frequent activity or heavy use and don't generate
normal issues as with other industrial uses that are unpleasant to be near (noise, odor, glare,
truck traffic, outdoor storage, etc.). Walz did note in the staff report that it has been noted in
some of the self -storage facilities in the County there are some that are used for things like
workshops, so Staff has placed a condition on this exception that cannot happen at this facility.
It is illegal within Iowa City, but Staff felt it was important to add that condition. All storage will
be indoors, there is not outdoor storage onsite. The 40 foot setback required along McCollister
Boulevard is really intended for residential uses to protect them from noise and glare.
With regard to any potential negative effect resulting from the setback reductions, Walz
explained that having the buildings located along the property line will actually serve to screen
and buffer the adjacent residential zone from the activity that takes place along the drives in the
self -storage facility. Walz also noted that the applicant has indicated that the fencing around the
property will control access to the property, the only access is from Riverside Drive, and it is a
controlled access. The lighting is under the eaves and there will be no lighting on the backside
of buildings along the residential zone. The required S3 screening around the site will also
break up the long fagade of the buildings. Staff did note that given how close the proposed
development will be to the residential structures in the manufacture housing park that is might
be best to have screening that minimizes the industrial effect of the site so two of the things
Staff is recommending are some variation in the S3 screening, which the applicant does show in
their proposed site plan, and that the fencing be black chain link fencing so that is has less of an
industrial feel.
Walz did not review all the general standards listed in the Staff report but did mention she
handed out a memo to the Board regarding that there had been some concern about the
stormwater drainage from the site, the City Engineer had requested some additional information
and that was provided by the applicant last week but didn't have time to review it prior to the
Staff report being issued, but noted that the concept for draining stormwater across the site was
workable. Walz also noted that a site of this size will need to go through site plan review and
the applicant will have to provide more detailed information at the time they apply for the site
plan. Staff has added that as a condition to clarify that they are not approving the drainage plan
with this exception that would be approved by the City Engineer with the site plan is approved.
Walz also noted the other general criteria she wanted to highlight is that the proposed use will
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. The Comprehensive Plan doesn't
address this issue of setback reduction in particular but it does very clearly indicate that this
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2015
Page 5 of 9
property should be kept as industrial property and as other quasi -industrial uses from other
areas look to relocate this general area is a logical site. Walz also mentioned that this property
is in the South Central Plan and the South District Plan, which is adjacent, is going through an
updating process and one of the things that update calls attention, to is entrance ways and
McCollister is an entrance way to the South District and for the properties to look pleasant and
attractive. Staff believes that with the design the applicant has proposed will comply.
Staff is recommending recommend approval of the requested reduction for the principal building
setback requirement from residential zones from 100 feet to 20 feet along the north and east
property lines; and a reduction of the 40-foot arterial street setback to 20-feet for the proposed
corner building subject to the following conditions;
• A final site plan with the details of the stormwater drainage must be approved prior to
development activity on the site.
• Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted.
• Buildings located along the north and east property lines shall be one story in height (20
feet maximum).
• Perimeter landscaping will be a mix of shade and evergreen trees and shrubs to be
approved by the City Forester.
• Perimeter fencing will be black chain link.
• Lighting within the 100-foot setback must be located under the soffits to minimize light
trespass to adjacent properties.
• The property may be used for self -storage only -no workshops, assembly, or other active
uses of the site will be permitted.
• No outdoor storage is permitted on the property.
• Access to the site is limited to Riverside Drive and shall be controlled by a security
system 24 hours/day.
Goeb asked about an adjacent property and if there would be any more residential buildings in
the area in addition to the manufactured housing. Walz said that the mobile home park is
planning to expand onto that adjacent property.
Goeb also questioned the structure of the storage facility, in the rendering it appears as if some
of the buildings will be more than one story. Walz said those will be taller and the applicant can
speak about the building sizes.
Goeb asked about the zoning, and if the manufactured housing was there before the industrial
zoning adjacent, or has the zoning always been this way. Walz was unsure when the zoning
was put in place, but it has been that way for a long time, more than 20 years.
Soglin stated she understands this application is about reducing the setbacks, but did note a
concern about the 100 year floodplain and why would someone want to build a storage facility
on a floodplain. Walz explained that the property is not in the 100 year floodplain, it is in the 100
year storm event area which is with regards to drainage and the applicant can provide more
details.
Soglin questioned also the use of some other self -storage facilities as mechanical shops or
other activities and what the policing of that is to prevent that from happening. Walz stated that
if the City were to get a complaint they would act. Dulek stated that the City would issue a letter
asking for the use to cease and if it does not a civil ticket for violation would be issued. The first
violation is $250 and that can be issued every day until the violator complies, so it could get
pricey.
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2015
Page 6 of 9
Baker asked for clarification of the special exception being based upon the property, and the
exception will stay with the property in the future. Walz confirmed that the exception stays with
the property for this particular use, the exceptions are for self -storage use only on this property.
If the use changes, the exceptions are no longer valid.
Grenis asked the applicant to come forward to address the Board.
Brian Boelk (509 South Governor Street) of HBK Engineering began by addressing Soglin's
questions regarding the floodplain and confirmed the property is outside the 100 year floodplain.
The 100 year drainage means they have to show they can handle the 100 year isolated rain
event to shed through the property. Currently the property is sloped and there is an overland
drainage area so the 100 year event goes over the top of the land. When building upon that
they must show that they can convey that 100 year event through the property rather than
having the water trapped on the property. So they will have the surface water flowing from the
north through a pipe and over the pavement and out to the south to the storm sewer system
already in place, and that was the calculations they provided to the City Engineer. Boeik noted
that part of stormwater requirements with this property is the proximity to the Iowa River and
they can drain directly to the river.
John Roffman (1314 Burry Drive) is the applicant and he commented on the height of the
buildings. All the buildings will be one-story, however the building on the comer is wider than
the other buildings so the roof peak will be higher but the wall height is the same on all
buildings. Also, with regards to the residential houses to the north of the property, are part of
the manufactured housing park's ownership and will remain as theirs. He noted there is a little
house on his property that they will remove when they develop the property. Finally, Roffman
reiterated that they will have a controlled gate for the property and also TV cameras and
recording devices so that the property is monitored 24 hours so they will be able to know what is
going on in the facility.
Grenis asked about what appears to be a ditch between the property and the mobile home park,
and questioned who owned that property. Roffman said it was part of his property. Grenis
asked about the elevation difference from the ditch on the east side will disappear when the site
is developed. Roffman said the property elevation would change a bit still allow the proper
water runoff.
Chrischilles asked where the back edge of the buildings would be with regards to the distance to
the mobile homes. Boelk replied that the distance would be about 30 feet.
Chrischilles asked also about the elevation difference between the storage buildings and the
mobile homes, fearing there could be a potential for a trap of water if the elevation is not leveled
out. Boelk said that is the area where the pipe will run through to carry the water from the
property to the storm sewer. Chrischilles asked about the water that will fall directly into the
ditch area, and Boelk said that would remain as it is now, which is not a problem for the mobile
home park. Roffman said he has owned the property for 15 years and the ditch has always
been there. Walz noted that the questions about the stormwater drainage and elevations were
why the City Engineer requested more information, to clarify the situation. Boelk said they have
worked with the adjacent property owner and he is on board with all they are doing and is not
concerned it will cause any issues for his property.
Grenis noted he trusts what the City Engineer says needs to be done, and agrees with their
approval.
Board of Ad;ustment
May 13, 2015
Page 7 of 9
Soglin asked if after the fact it turns out there are water problems, who is obligated to remedy it.
Boeik said they will go through the full site plan approval process and will show construction
documents with all the stormwater calculations. Dulek said the approval is based on
calculations that are approved by the City Engineers, if something happens in the future, you
cannot hold the applicant responsible.
Soglin asked if the inside of the storage units have electrical outlets in them. Roffman said they
are not providing electricity.
Grenis opened the public hearing.
Hearing none, Grenis closed the public hearing.
Soglin stated one concern regarding the landscaping, noting it is good to require landscaping
but what happens if some of the landscaping dies, is the applicant required to replace the
landscaping. Walz said they are required to maintain the landscaping. Dulek added that if the
owner doesn't maintain the landscaping again a civil ticket can be issued, or the City could go in
and plant trees and add the cost to the owner's property taxes.
Chrischilles made a comment regarding the perimeter landscaping, questioning why they would
want a mixture, some of the trees will lose their leaves in the winter and there will be gaps in the
screening. If it were all evergreens it would be continuous all year around. Walz replied that
Staff felt it would be more pleasant than a solid wall of evergreens, given the buildings
themselves are a solid wall, having the mixture will be more aesthetic and the indigenous trees
come on more quickly and provide a better breakup in terms of height and shade.
Baker moved to approve special exception EXC75-00007 the requested reduction for the
principal building setback requirement from residential zones from 100 feet to 20 feet
along the north and east property lines; and a reduction of the 40-foot arterial street
setback to 20-feet for the proposed corner building subject to the following conditions:
• A final site plan with the details of the stormwater drainage must be approved
prior to development activity on the site.
Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted.
• Buildings located along the north and east property lines shall be one story in
height (20 feet maximum).
• Perimeter landscaping will be a mix of shade and evergreen trees and shrubs to
be approved by the City Forester.
• Perimeter fencing will be black chain link.
• Lighting within the 100-foot setback must be located under the soffits to minimize
light trespass to adjacent properties.
• The property may be used for self -storage only -no workshops, assembly, or
other active uses of the site will be permitted.
• No outdoor storage is permitted on the property.
• Access to the site is limited to Riverside Drive and shall be controlled by a
security system 24 hours/day.
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
Soglin noted that regarding specifics in standard three, this type of use does not the heavy use
that creates noise, dust or odors and feels that is a very important factor. In regard to general
standard four and drainage, with the additional information and the City Engineer's review of this
show good intent on behalf of the applicant.
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2015
Page 8 of 9
Grenis agreed and noted the fact that no comments or opposition were received from the
neighbors in the residential areas supports the fact that this is not an impediment to the
neighborhood.
Baker stated that regarding EXC15-00007 he concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff
report of May 13 and conclude that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless
amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the
findings in the staff report for the approval of this application.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Loeb had left the meeting).
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz shared with the Board that City Hall would be undergoing renovations over the next few
months and upcoming meetings will need to be held at another site, likely in the Robert A. Lee
Recreation Center.
ADJOURNMENT:
Soglin moved to adjourn, Baker seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014 - 2016
NAME
TERM EXP.
9/10
1018
11112
1114
2/11
418
5/13
BAKER, LARRY
1/1/2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GOER, CONNIE
1/1/2020
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GRENIS, BROCK
1/1/2016
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE
1/1/2019
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
SOGLIN, BECKY
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member