Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-2003 Board of Adjustment AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2003 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CIVIC CENTER A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Election of new Board Chairperson D. Consider the December 11, 2002 Board Minutes E. Special Exceptions 1. EXC02-00024 - Public hearing' regarding an application submitted by John and Kris Rutherford for a special exception to reduce the side yard setback from five (5') feet to two (2') feet to allow the addition of a garage in the Low-Density, Single-Family (RS-5) zone at 1717 East College Street. F. Other G. Board of Adjustment Information H. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -- February 12, 2003 agenda 2002.01.08 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: John Adam Item: EXC02-00024, 1717 East College Street. Date: January 8, 2003 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: John & Kris Rutherford Requested Action: Reduction of required side yard setback from five feet to two feet for a house in a Low-Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone. Purpose: To allow the addition of a single-car garage to an existing house. Location: 1717 East College Street. Size: 0.17 acres. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Single-family residence, RS-5. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Low-density, single-family residential, RS-5 South: Low-density, single-family residential, RS-5 East: Low-density, single-family residential, RS-5 West: Low-density, single-family residential, RS-5 Applicable code sections: 14-6Q-4B, Exceptions to Established Setbacks; 14- 6W-2B, Special Exception Review Requirements File Date: 12 December 2002 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicants wish to add on to their 1965 house. The addition will roughly double the footprint of the house; the garage will comprise approximately one-third of the addition. In order to fit the garage on the lot without having the house partially eclipse the entrance to it, a reduction of the side setback from five feet to two feet would be needed. The lot exceeds the required minimum width of 60 feet and frontage of 35 feet, but at 7,680 square feet is below the 8,000-square-foot minimum lot size requirement. 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 relief from the requirements of the Zoning Chapter through a special exception if tee action is considered to serve the public interest and is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Chapter. Specific Standard: 14-6Q-4B, Exceptions to Established Setbacks Subsection 6Q-4B of the Zoning Chapter states that a special exception may be granted by the Board of Adjustment modifying yard requirements when the owner or lawful occupant of property demonstrates that such person's situation is peculiar to the property in question, that there is a practical difficulty in complying with the dimensional requirements of this Chapter and that conditions of Article W of the Zoning Chapter can be met. Unique Situation. The existing house is situated on the lot such that a garage could not be attached to the side of the house without removing some of its east side. The width of the house plus the two side yard setbacks leaves about eight feet in which to build. Other houses in the neighborhood have garages set well back on their respective lots, but the applicants' lot has a peculiar shape: it tapers at about a 30-degree angle and would cause any structure built towards the back to intrude awkwardly into the usable yard area. The back. yards of the properties to the east (201 and 203 Lowell Street) abut the applicants' side yard where the garage would be built. The existing structures on these two properties are more than fifty feet from the applicants' property line. In this particular situation, the impact of the proposed garage and the types of activities associated with it should have minimal effect on the neighbors. Staff concludes that the proposed garage will not diminish the use and enjoyment of the adjoining properties, nor impede development on them. If peculiar shape of the lot was its only unique quality, staff would hesitate recommending the reduction, but the absence of impact from the reduction of the setback requirement in this case diminishes that hesitance. Practical Difficulty. Redesigning the addition so the garage is partially eclipsed by the existing house is possible, but the resultant jutting corner would create an obstacle for a car backing out of the garage. The applicant has the option of building elsewhere on the property, though as described above, the unique shape of the lot makes it an unattractive option. The applicants' yard area is substandard for the RS-5 zone, making the maximal preservation of a usable back yard important. Setback Review Standards. In addition to determining whether the situation is unique and if there is a practical difficulty, the Board has typically used the following standards to judge the merits of requests for yard reductions. I. How substantial is the exception in relation to the requirement? Approximately 15 percent of the required side yard would be covered by the garage. Relative to the neighboring yards-- which have their rear twenty-foot setbacks abutting the applicants' property--the effect will be minor. However, accessory structures, such as garages or toolsheds, may be built in the neighbors' setbacks and may be constructed as close as seven feet from the proposed addition. 2. Will the specific proposed exception, if granted, increase the population density or affect the use of municipal facilities? No. 3. Will a substantial change or detriment to the neighborhood be produced by the exception? No. The provision of housing for the applicants' automobile could be a visual improvement to the neighborhood. The massing and design of the addition should fit in well with the neighboring houses, which range from small to medium structures. The applicants could have designed the garage to fit on the side of the existing house and requested the same setback reduction, but by pushing it back the garage is de-emphasized and therefore more characteristic of other neighborhood garages. 4. Is there some feasible alternative for the applicant in lieu of the exception? The applicants have no access to an alley. They investigated the possibility of purchasing the necessary width of property from the neighbors, but those lots are also substandard in area and the non- conformity of a lot may not be increased. Staff also feels that the proposed addition would be architecturally suitable in the neighborhood. If the design were contorted to allow an angled garage entryway or pushed the garage out into the backyard to avoid intrusion into the setback, the addition could appear bulky or awkward in relation to the other houses in the neighborhood. 5. In view of the manner in which it arose and in consideration of the above criteria, would the interests of justice be served by granting the yard modification request? The difficulty in deciding what is just in this circumstance is the seemingly minor amount of intrusion into a required setback. The applicants discovered after the plans had been drawn that their addition would violate the side setback. Fire safety, ventilation, light and privacy are often cited among the purposes of setbacks in many zoning ordinances. Because the lot to the east is a corner lot with its front facing eastward, any house built on the neighboring property would have to be set back twenty feet from the applicants' lot line., fifteen feet greater than it would be if the s/de lot lines abutted. Staff feels the intent of the setback requirement would be preserved if the special exception were granted given these particular circumstances. General Standards: 14-6W-2B, Special Exception Review Requirements The applicants' statements regarding each of the seven general standards are included within the attached application. Staff comments regarding the special exception application were covered above. Staff believes that the reduction of setback would not substantially affect the neighborhood or, more especially, the integrity of the neighboring properties. The reduction is not the only option available to the applicants, but none of the others would result in a satisfactory building arrangement or backyard configuration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC02-00024, an application for a special exception to reduce the required side setback from five feet to two feet for a single-family home in the Low-Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone be approved provided the reduction applies only to the footprint of the garage as shown in the applicants' site plan file-dated 12 December 2002 by the City Clerk's Office. ATTACHMENTS: I. Location map 2. Proposed Site Plan Approved by: ~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ! ii . ii ~) 0.I~ ~C~E / DECK EXISTING PROPERTY LINE NE~4"CONC. ,/ ' DRIVEWAY FUTURE ~ 5TUDT 5~OP ) FIRST FLOOR PLaN SCALE.. ~"-- ILO'' APPEAL TO TH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT · ....... SPECIAL EXCEPTION ....... TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W DATE: December 12, 2002 PROPERTY PARCEL NO.1011455002 APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1717 East College Street APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE' RS5 APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 7,680 SF APPLICANT: Name: John and Kris Rutherford Address: 1717 East College Street Phone: 384-0793 (days) 341-8458 (evenings) CONTACT PERSON- Name: same as above Address: :? ..... ~.~ PROPERTY OWNER: Name: John Ruthe~ord Address: ~7~7 fiast Collo~o Stroot ~hone: 384-0703 {days) 34~-8458 Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: 2-foot east side yard; 14-6D-2-E, 14-6Q-4-B Purpose for special exception: Construction of a single-car garage at the end of existing driveway as part of an addition project. Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: n/a INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Leqal description of property: Lots 21 and 22, Block 3, Morningside Addition to Iowa City, as recorded in Book 2, Page 71, Johnson County Recorder's Office B. *Pict plan drawn to scale showing: 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 the location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. [*Submission of an 8. 5" x 11" bold print plot plan is preferred.] C. Review.. The Board shall review all applicable evidence regarding the site, existing and proposed structures, neighboring uses, parking areas, driveway locations, highway and street access, traffic generation and circulation, drainage, sanitary sewer and water systems, the operation of the specific proposed exception and such other evidence as deemed appropriate. (Section 14-6W-2131, City Code). In the space provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of_Board review which apply to the requested special exception. In this narrative sta~ent, set forth the grounds offered as support for the special exception. ;~ © See attached sheet. :-'"-::-.-:... D. The applicant is required to present specific information, not just opinions, that the general standards forthe granting of a special exception (Section 14-6W-2132, City Code), enumerated below, will be met: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The proposed exception would not be detrimental or endangering of the neighborhood. The two-foot side yard that we are requesting is the only deviation from the current building code. No existing structures would be adversely affected. -3- 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. The proposed exception would not diminish or impair property values. A garage would add value to our property as well as providing an enclosed space for storage of our car. The project as a whole represents an investment in the older 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. The project would not impede the development and improvement of the surrounding properties. The portion of the east side yard addressed in this exception is adjacent to the backyards of two neighbors who are prohibited from significant construction in this space by the 20-foot backyard clearance requirement. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Utilities, access and drainage would be unaffected. There is no need for additional utilities. Access would remain as before. With respect to drainage, the dominant slope of the neighborhood is from east to west and our lot is lower than the properties referenced earlier. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on pubfic streets. The garage would be placed at the end of the existing driveway. There would be no change to the curb cut. :L,;:, ;~ ........... 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 appficable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of 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 City Code Section 14-6L-1, Special Exception Enumerated Requirements; Section 14-6N-1, Off-Street Parking Requirements; Sect;(,n 14-6Q, Dimensional Requirements, or Section 14-6R, Tree Regulations, as appropriate.] This lot, and many of the other lots, in this RS-5 neighborhood are smaller than the required minimum lot area. The plats were completed in 1924 before the current standards were created. The lot has no alley access for a garage and alternative locations have been eliminated because of the lot's size and shape. The proposed one-story, single-car garage would begin at the rear of the existing house. It would blend in with the home and not be a dominant feature. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan of the City. This is a diverse older neighborhood with a mixture of housing and schools within it. The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan (1997) calls for attention to such neighborhoods to protect their stability. The larger overall project would permit us to continue to grow as a family at this location while also improving the value and street appeal of the property. E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal: NAME ADDRESS Please see the attached listing of property owners as provided by the Johnson County Auditor's Office. 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 14-6W-2133, 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 shaft 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 14-6W-3E, 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 14-6W-7, 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. of App% Date: ,200 Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) Response to item C. Review from page 2: The proposed one-stow, single-car attached garage is part of a two-stow addition project. The garage placement would be at the end of the existing driveway and would leave two feet of east side yard. This east side yard is adjacent to two backyards with 54 feet and 64 feet respectively separating the back of these neighboring houses and the shared lot line. There is no other location available for a garage. The property has no alley access. The angles of the property lines relative to the existing house prohibit placing the garage further back in the yard because of the limited maneuverability. Placement further back would also disrupt the backyard. Parking, driveway location, street access, traffic generation and circulation, drainage; sanitary sewer and water systems would be unaffected by the special exception. The Morningside Addition was established in 1924 prior to current zoning requirements. Our lot and those of our neighbors are below the required minimum lot area. We are working within these limitations in a manner that would increase the value of the property. The project would pose no risk to the neighbors' property and would enhance the value of this older neighborhood. We want to undertake this project so that we may stay at this location and remain within walking distance of our four year-old daughter's day care and future schools, nearby parks and downtown.