Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-2003 Board of Adjustment AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2003- 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CIVIC CENTER A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the January 8, 2003 Board Minutes D. Special Exceptions 1. EXC03-00001 - Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Progressive Care for a special exception to share parking between two lots in the Medium-Density, Multi-Family (RM-20) zone at 603 Greenwood Drive. 2. EXC02-00022 - Public hearing regarding a correction of fact for a special exception that was decided by the Board at its December 11, 2002 meeting. E. Other F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -- March 12, 2003 agenda 2003.02.12 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: John Adam Item: EXC03-00001, 603 Greenwood Drive Date: 12 February 2003 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Progressive Care Contact person: Jerry Nichols 603 Greenwood Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Ph. 354-9013 Requested Action: To permit off-street parking on a lot separate from the use served. Purpose: To obtain the right to share parking before dividing the property, which will locate lot lines through one of the parking areas. Location: 603-605 Greenwood Drive. Size: 3.85 acres. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Nursing Home/Child Day Care; RM-20. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential, RS-8 South: Residential, RS-8 East: Religious Institution, RS-8; Multi-family Residential, RM-20 West: Public School, P Applicable code sections: 14-6N-lC, Off-Street Parking Located on a Separate Lot; 14-6W-2B, General Special Exception Review Requirements File Date: 16 January 2003 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This property, a single lot at the intersection of the Iowa Interstate Railway and Greenwood Drive, contains two structures and two parking lots connected by a common drive. The southern building at 605 Greenwood Drive was built in 1963 asa nursing home; the northern building at 603 was built in 1983 as a supplementary structure. The property owner intends to subdivide the property and sell the resultant northern parcel with its structure. In order to comply with frontage standards, the planned lot lines will pass through the parking lot of the property intended for sale. However, this will create the need for a special exception, since aisles, drives and parking spaces will be split by the subdivision. The southern building will continue to operate as a nursing home and the plan for the northern building is to use it as a child daycare. 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 regulations of the RM-20 zone, the standards for permitting parking on a separate lot as set forth in Section 14-6N- I C, and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-6W-2B. Specific Standards: 14-6N-lC, Off-Street Parking Located on a Separate Lot. The Board may grant a special exception for off-street parking and stacking spaces, aisles, and drives, to be located on a separate lot when two or more uses share the same off-street parking and stacking spaces, aisles and drives. That is currently the situation; the only proposed change will be the division of this lot into two lots. There are also seven conditions the applicant must meet in order for the Board to grant the exception. Condition numbers (2b), (4) and (6) have no applicability to this request and are therefore left out of the analysis. A copy of 14-6N-lC is provided at the end of this report. I. A special location plan shall be filed with the Board by the owners of the entire land area to be included within the special location plan and shall contain such information deemed necessary to comply with the requirements herein. Evidence of ownership shall be provided. A location plan has been provided that shows the portions of drives, aisles and parking to be shared following subdivision. 2. Off-street parking shall be located as follows: a. In R and C zones, the nearest point of the parking area to the nearest point of the building that the parking area is required to serve shall not be greater than three hundred feet. The shared parking, as indicated in the plan submitted with the application, is well within 300 feet of both buildings. c. In the same zone as the principal use. The two uses and, subsequently, two lots, are located in the same zone. 3. Where two (2) or more uses jointly use off-street parking, the number of parking spaces shall equal the sum total of off-street parking spaces required for each use. Greenwood Manor, the nursing home, requires 29 spaces (one space for every three beds; there are 87 beds). The daycare's requirements depend on the number of children it plans to care for. With the ten spaces currently available, they can have up to 60 children. 5. A written a~reemenc, properly executed by the owners within the area of the special exception plan, assuring the retention of the parking and stacking spaces, aisles and drives and binding upon their successors and assigns, shall be submi~ed with the special location plan as a covenant running wid~ d~e land. A written a§reement for the sharing of drives, aisles and parking has been promised by the applicant. If it is not provided and assessed by starf before the hearing on this application, the Board cannot approve the special exception. 7. In assessing an application for a special exception, the Board shall consider the desirability of the location of off-street parking and stacking spaces, aisles and drives on a lot separate from the use served in terms of pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety; any detrimental eft=ecl= on adjacent property; the appearance of the streecscape as a consequence of the off- street parking; and in the case of non-required parking, the need for additional off-street parking. From a pedestrian safety viewpoint--not to mention convenience a connecting sidewalk should be provided between the lots. The driveway is too narrow to safely accommodate both cars and pedestrians. General Standards: 14-6W-2B, Special Exception Review Requirements. Each of the general criteria are not covered in great detail because the requested exception, if granted, would allow the current configuration of drives and parking to remain intact following 'the division of this lot into two parcels. Provided an easement agreement can be produced, starf believes the proposed exception will have no more effect on the use, enjoyment, value, development potential, or improvement of surrounding prope~y than the property does now. Nor should it, following the same reasoning, have a deleterious effect on the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. There will be more activity in this tract once the daycare opens and there will be some increase in existing ingress and egress. The applicant must be in compliance with the regulations and standards of its zone (14-6W-2B- 2f). The two lots are currently non-compliant in three areas: Greenwood Manor has a gravel parking lot behind the building in the southwest corner; both buildings have dumpsters that are not enclosed; and the front building (603 Greenwood) lacks required right-of-way trees. The gravel parking may be dealt with in two different ways: it would have to be paved or its use discontinued. The applicant has proposed discontinuing its use by extending the curb in front of the Greenwood Manor building over to the west property line. In addition to the curb or in lieu of the curb, starf recommends that a fence or similar barrier be extended across this access to prevent informal use of the gravel lot. Greenwood Manor has two dumpsters in its service and loading area off of Miller Avenue and 603 Greenwood Drive has one at the south end of its parking lot. These three dumpsters shall require enclosures. The resulting frontage of 603 Greenwood Drive will be approximately 130 feet. At the rate of one tree per forty (40') lineal feet, three right-of-way trees will be required for this lot. The resulting frontage of 605 Greenwood Drive (Greenwood Manor) will be mostly driveway and it would be impossible to site right-of-way trees there without possibly compromising sight distances for exiting traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC03-00001, an application for a special exception to permit off-street parking on a lot separate from the use served be approved subject to the following provisions: I. A sidewalk shall be constructed safely connecting the parking lot at 603 Greenwood Drive to the parking lot at 605 Greenwood Drive; 2. The use of the gravel parking lot in the back of Greenwood Manor shall be discontinued unless and until the parking lot is paved to comply with the City Code; 3. A fence, wall or similar solid barrier shall built to prevent access to the gravel parking lot unless and until the parking lot is paved; 4. The dumpsters on the tract shall be enclosed; and, 5. Right-of-way trees shall be provided. ATTACHMENTS: I. Copy of 14-6N-IC 2. Location map 3. Proposed Site Plan Approved by: ~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ZONED: RS-8 CHURCH 1 -STORY BUILDING PROPOSED SHARED ACCESS & DRI~ ~4' ED LOT 60' 50' ~ RESIDEN~AL ZONED: P m ROOSEVELT SCHOOL EXISTING ONE STORY BUILDING 364.55' N 89'20'00" ZONED: RS-8 RESIDENTIAL SUR~"Y ,E~.~ JERRY NICHOLS BY.' HOLDER: ~ GOVERNMENT CORNER mEET OPROPERPfCO~NEEFOUND .ll~: LOT LINE EXHIBIT M: MM$ CONSULTANTS, INC? · 5/8' x a0' w/LC C^P srr..=c~ ~ I o w a C it y. I o w a --.--.--E~S~,¢ ~CE UNE ~ GREENWOOD MANOR PRm[~W UNE O ID IOWA CITY, IOWA ~ 3~9--35~--8282 ' ~ ~ DAM ~ GD~ g d~ ~ ~-~6-03 ~"=100' ~ - - ~-00~ APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT · , SPECIAL EXCEPTION - TITLE 14,' CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W DATE: January 15, 2003 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. ~O{~f/~Oo{ APPEAL PROPERTYADDRESS: 603 Greenwood Drlve APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: RM- 20 APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 365' x 4. 25' APPLICANT: Name: Progressive Care. Address: 603 Greenwood Drive, Iowa Cit! 5-m~_~ Phone: 354-9013 CONTACT PERSON: Name: Jerry Nicholls Address: 603 Greenwood Drive, Iowa._Cit .~-.,.. Phone: 3 5 4. - 9 013 .-'.;~ Cb r~<~'~ .~. t ~ -.~ PROPER~ OWNER:Name: Progressive Care Address: 603 Greenwood Dr., Iowa ~ty Phono: 354-9013 Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: 14-6N-1-C Purpose for special exception- Off Street Parking, aisle and drive located on a separate lot. Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Legal description of property: BEG 1567.8' W & 670' N OF E 1/4 COR 16-79-6 W 365' TO E LINE OF ST N TO S LINEOF GREENWOOD DR -- Iowa C~ty, Iowa NELYTOCRI&PRY&SE ....... ~_ _.,,~ B. *PI0t plan drawn to scale showing: .~-~ _.~. :~.~: ~-~ 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from propert~,~ines; .. 4. Abutting streets and alleys; ~ ~_~ 5. Surrounding land uses, including the location and record owner 0'7' each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. [*Submission of an 82" 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-2B1, 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 statement, set forth the grounds offered as support for the special exception. The applicant is attempting to divide and sell the fr~t building. In order to meet frontage requirements and utilize the existing access, they will need. to share the parking and access. D. The applicant is required to present specific information, not just opinions, that the _cleneral standards for the granting of a special exception (Section 14-6W-2B2, 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 project will use the vacate buildlng and utilize the existing parking and access and will not be detrimental or endanger the phblic health safety, comfort or general welfare. 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. Th~. entire area is fully developed in residential uses. The 'proposed shared drive and parking will not adversely-- effect neighboring properties. 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 exception is requesting to share the exiSting drive and parking and will not impede the surrounding, property. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads,' drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All improvements, utilities and structures are existing and ad. equate. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Access to Greenwood. Drive is existing and adequate to __ handle ~trafflc patterns Cf>~:-:~'~:':'~ 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. [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; Section 14-6Q, Dimensional Requirements, or Section 14-6R, Tree Regulations, as appropriate.] The shared Drive and parking is an allowed use under the parking requirements with special exception approgal. This is a hardship based on zoning ordinance, not the applicant. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan of the City. The proposed use is consistent with the short range compreh, ensive plan. 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 (See Attached List) 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 th'e 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-2B3, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted 'under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 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. Date: ,20 Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Date: ,20 Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) ppdadmin\appboase.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM To: Board of Adjustment From: John Adam, Associate Planner Date: 12 February 2003 Re: EXC02-00022, II 20 N. Dodge Street, Correction of Fact Amendment of Decision At its II December 2002 meeting the Board granted David and Nancy Thompson a special exception to permit dwelling units above the ground floor of a commercial use in the Community Commercial zone at II 20 North Dodge Street. The Board concluded that a hedge for screening and buffering should be placed outside a future utility easement to ensure uninterrupted growth. The applicant has asked to have the Board reconsider its decision for two reasons: I. There was an error of fact made by staff in referencing a "ten-foot easement;" the easement will, in fact, be only five (5) feet wide; and, 2. The applicant would like to provide a handicapped parking space in front of the entrance for the convenience of his clientele, but cannot both provide the space and conform with the condition that the screening shrubs be kept out of the utility easement--the width between the house and utility easement is too small for both a 12'-by-18' parking space and a five-foot-wide planting bed. The applicant is requesting that the Board amend its prior decision to allow plantings within the easement area following the planned improvements to North Dodge Street. The applicant is prepared to sign a performance guarantee/escrow agreement with the City to ensure compliance following completion of the street improvements. A proposed site plan is attached showing the location of the landscaping buffer to be planted on the easement. Staff feels the proposed compromise is acceptable. The applicant does not need to provide the handicapped space since the parking lot is not very large, but given the nature of the business and its clientele, the space would be beneficial. The terms of the easement agreement and the performance guarantee will insure that the buffer will be continually maintained despite any possible future disturbances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the II December 2003 decision regarding EXC02-00022, a request for a special exception to allow dwelling units above a groundfloor commercial use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at II 20 N. Dodge Street be amended as follows: I. Amend "10-foot-wide permanent utility easement" reference to read "5-foot-wide permanent utility easement;" 2. Amend the provision placing the buffer outside the utility easement to read: "...the provision of a five-foot-wide area planted with shrubs spaced no less than four feet on center and attaining a mature height of no less than three feet between the parking lot and the 5-foot-wide utility easement, except for the area directly in front of the house, where the buffer may be planted on top of the utility easement;" 3. Add the following provision: "The buffer on top of the utility easement shall be installed within six (6) months following the acceptance of improvements to North Dodge Street and shall be secured by an escrow/performance guarantee agreement to be signed by the applicant prior to approval of a site plan." ATTACHMENTS: I. Proposed Site Plan 2. Statement by Applicant 3. Staff Report dated II December 2003 ^ rov d Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development February 4, 2003 To: Iowa City Board of Adjustment From: David C Thompson At the December 11, 2002 meeting I was granted a special exception. I am asking you to re-examine the placement of the required screening along the North side of the property. This property is being renovated for use as a limb prosthetics facility. For many of the potential customers access to parking close to the entrance is critical. I am trying to maintain space for parking on the North side of the house near the front entrance. I have determined that there is room for a 12-foot-6-inch-wide space between a porch and the future easement area. This space would not be designated as handicapped because it would not meet the Iowa City code requirements (16-feet-wide). This space would however meet the needs of my customers and since I am not required to have a handicapped space it would also meet my needs. The problem is that including this space and adding the screening shrubs requires planting the shrubs in the future easement area. Allowing the easement area to serve as the five-foot-buffer and plant the required shrubs in the easement would require an adjustment of your decision from December 11. I am asking you to modify your original decision and allow the required shrubs to be placed in the easement area for the following reasons. 1. A parking space with extra room close to the front entrance of this home is a critical need in the development of this property for this use. 2. This easement area has not been purchased. Plans for this parking space were submitted to the city months before any information concerning the planed easement was available. 3. Planting shrubs of this type in the easement area will be permitted after the easement has been purchased. 4. The only advantage of setting the shrubs an additional 5-feet away from the easement is the shrubs will not be disturbed during the upcoming N Dodge construction. The problem is that the setback required on December 11 would permanently deny me the needed parking space near the front entrance. 5. The agreement to escrow funds and plant the shrubs after completing the N Dodge construction avoids any potential problems of disturbing the shrubs during construction and ensures that the required screening will be installed. Sincerely, c~'Thompson lIB - 4 2 03 David STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: John Adam Item: EX002-00022, II 20 N. Dodge St. Date: 11 December 2002 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: David C. Thompson 827 Brown Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Ph. 338-8713 Contact person: Same as applicant. Requested Action: Special Exception to allow dwelling units above a commercial use in a Community Commercial (CC- 2) zone. Purpose: To allow a second-floor dwelling unit in a mixed- use structure. Location: The southwest corner of N. Dodge and St. Matthais Alley, across from Robert's Dairy and Hilltop Sinclair. Size: 13,500 square feet. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Office and Residential, CC-2. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Commercial Dairy Processing, CC-2 South: Cemetery, RM-12 East: Cemetery, RM-12 and CC-2 West: Single-family residential, CC-2 Applicable code sections: 14-6W-2B, Special Exception Review Requirements; 14-6E-5D-4, Dwellings located above or below the ground floor of another principal use. File Date: 14 November 2002 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant wishes to expand the dwelling space on the second story of what was formerly a ~ingle-family house with frontage on North Dodge Street. The house currently contains office space on the ground floor and a dwelling unit on the second floor. Expansion of the dwelling unit requires that the owner obtain a special exception to bring the use into compliance with the Zoning Code; in the CC-2 zone, dwelling units above or below a principal ground-floor use are permitted only by special exception. The applicant commenced construction before obtaining site plan approval, but has discontinued construction because of a Stop-Work Order issued by Housing & Inspection Services. Approval of the applicant's minor site plan is pending Board approval of the special exception. 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 regulations of the CC-2 zone, including the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-6W-2B, and the specific requirements for dwelling units in the zone set forth in Section 16-6E-5. Specific Standards: 14-6E-5, Requirements for Dwelling Units in the CC-2 zone The requirements for dwelling units in the Community Commercial zone state that the density of dwelling units in this zone may not exceed one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area and the density may not exceed three (3) roomers per dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing to build two one-bedroom dwelling units above the first floor. The lot area is 13,500 square feet. The proposed exception complies with the specific standards. General Standards: 14-6W-2B, Special Exception Review Requirements · I. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. In examining the proposed use, staff considered the possible impact of increasing the floor area of an existing apartment and determined that the change will not be substantial. The initial application was for the expansion of a single two-bedroom unit; the amended application is for the construction of two one-bedroom units with a resultant extension of the building's footprint southward. The dwelling units will be confined to the second floor and the first-story extension will be for the office use. The only substantive change to the property will be the addition of a parking lot near the frontage on the west side of the building and mitigation of its effects are dealt with below. 2. and 3. 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 and 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. Because the proposed parking lot introduces a lot of paving into the front yard and will substantially change the character of the property, staff feels that the value and integrity of the neighboring property should be protected as well. The property owner has indicated on the site plan that landscaping will be provided along the west property line; staff recommends including its provision as a condition of approval. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The existing structure is served by utilities. The property has access to North Dodge available via St. Matthais Alley. Existing drainage ways should not be affected by the addition of a small parking area. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The applicant will likely make use of St. Matthais Alley, which is adjacent to the east side of the property, for both customer and tenant parking access. The alley is also used by St. Joseph's Cemetery maintenance. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows a driveway opening onto N. Dodge: the provision of a curb cut is being reviewed by Public Works and the State Department of Transportation. Since the criteria used for granting curb cuts are not contained in the Zoning Ordinance, the Board is not the appellate body for reviewing the feasibility of a curb cut permit. In the event that the curb cut permit is not approved, staff has prepared a rough plan showing the location of the parking lot edge relative to the lot lines, street and structure as it might be with access off the alley and with staff's recommendations in place. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The residential tree planting requirements contained in 14-6R-8 would necessitate planting two new trees in the yard. This is requirement is triggered by an expansion that increases overall floor area by more than 10 percent. The applicant has indicated an intention to plant a new tree at the southwest corner of the parking lot. An existing tree stands between the house and St. Matthais Alley. If it is retained and a new tree at the southwest corner of the parking area is provided, the requirements of 14-6R-8 will be satisfied. Right-of-way trees will also be required: either two (2) large trees or three (3) small trees along the N. Dodge frontage. The final determination will be made at the time of final site plan review and will take into account the upcoming improvements in the North Dodge Corridor. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The North District Plan advocates street design that encourages pedestrian activity and enhanced landscaping in entrance corridors to the City. The Plan further supports the creation of attractive development at the entryways to the City as these are the areas that make first impressions on visitors. Staff recommends that a row of shrubs, spaced four feet on center in a five-foot-wide area in front of the new parking lot, reaching a mature height of no less than three feet, and set behind (i.e., south of) the 10-foot-wide future temporary construction easement and permanent utility easement along North Dodge, should be provided to soften the' effects of the new parking lot. When North Dodge Street is widened there will be less buffer than there is now, less distance between the edge of the parking area and the edges of the sidewalk and street. The applicant's site plan shows a parking space in front of the porch; once Dodge Street is improved, the space will have to be moved because it will no longer comply with the minimum five-foot spacing and landscaping requirement (14-5H-5K) between sidewalks and parking areas. Rather than approve a site plan that will make the parking lot nonconforming, staff reiterates its recommendation that the parking be allowed no closer than five feet from the southern edge of the construction easement. This will maintain compliance and provide protection for shrub plantings whether or not a curb cut onto North Dodge is established and retained by the applicant. Use of this property for dwelling units seems appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan provided the conditions for expansion are met. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC02-00022, an application for a special exception to allow two dwelling units above the ground floor of a principal use in the Community Commercial zone be approved subject to the provision of landscaping On the west property line along the parking lot, the provision of a five-foot-wide area planted with shrubs spaced no less than four feet on center and attaining a mature height of no less than three feet between the parking lot and the 10-foot-wide permanent utility easement, and the planting of at least one more tree in the vicinity of the south side of the new paving, provided the existing tree off the northeast corner of the building is retained, otherwise to be replaced by another tree in the yard. ATTACHMENTS: I. Location map 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Example layout including staff's recommendations Approved by: Robert Miklo, Semor Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .;~ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2003- 5:00 P.M. CiViC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, Dennis Keitel, Vince Maurer, Carol Alexander MEMBERS ABSENT: Eric Gidal STAFF PRESENT: John Adam, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: John Rutherford, Kris Rutherford, Sue Dulek, Peg Raab, Sharon Satterquist CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Mike Paul called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Keitel, Paul, Maurer, Alexander present. ELECTION OF NEW BOARD CHAIRPERSON: Keitel nominated Mike Paul as the new Board Chairperson. Maurer moved that nominations cease. Keitel seconded. The motion passed 4-0. Maurer nominated Dennis Keitel as the new Board Vice-Chairperson. Alexander seconded. The motion passed 4-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 11,2002 BOARD MINUTES: Motion: Keitel moved to approve the December 11, 2002 minutes. Maurer seconded. Motion carried 4-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 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. Adam stated that the applicants wish to add onto their existing house, and they need a reduction of side setback from 5 feet to 2 feet. He said that the Zoning Ordinance intends to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property, and that the Board 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. Adam said that, in staff's opinion, the unique situation here is that the existing house is situated on the lot such that the garage cannot be attached to the side of the house without removing some of the east side. He said that other houses in the neighborhood have garages set well back on their lots, but the applicants' lot has a peculiar shape that tapers at about a 30° angle towards the back and would cause any structure built there to intrude awkwardly into the backyard space. He said that, in this situation, the impact on the proposed garage and the types of activities associated with it should have a minimal effect on the neighbors. He said that the adjacent back yards touch this lot and the closest any house could come would be 22 feet. He said the existing separation between the buildings is far greater than you would encounter on some other lots. Adam said that if the lot's peculiar shape was it's only unique quality, staff would hesitate to recommend the reduction. However, the lack of impact from reducing the setback requirement, in this case, diminishes that hesitance. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes ~ ,.,, ...... ... "'~'" :~- ...... ';' ~; ¢'~';.-"-:,~,,.~ ,,.~,~:~' ~ '';' ~' January 8, 2003 ~ ~'..,~,.-~ · ~',-, , .......... ,~ , ~ Page 2 ~ ..... '"'~"' ~'' ~~ Adam said that the practical difficulty in this case is that redesigning the addition so that the garage is partially eclipsed by the existing house, offsetting it behind the house, could cause contact with the back corner of the house when backing out. Adam said the unique shape of the lot makes building elsewhere on the lot an unattractive option. He said that the yard area is substandard to the RS-5 zone, making the maximal preservation of the useable back yard important in this case. Adam stated that approximately 15% of the required side yard would be covered by the garage footprint. Adam said the effect would be minor relative to the neighboring yards. He said this is a fairly large intrusion, but the neighboring properties are not going to be building anywhere near there, unless it would be an accessory structure. Adam said that this use would not increase the population density or affect the use of municipal facilities. He said that staff does not believe there would be a substantial change or detriment to the neighborhood as a result of the exception. He said that the provision of housing for the applicants' automobile could be a visual improvement to the area, and the applicants appear to have made an attempt to de-emphasize the garage by setting it well back on the lot and making it fit in better with the character of the neighborhood. Adam stated that the applicants have no access to an alley. He said they did investigate the possibility of purchasing land from adjoining properties, but those properties are also substandard in size for this zone, so it is not possible for them to increase the non-conformity of those lots. Adam said that fire safety, ventilation, light and privacy are some of the reasons for having setbacks. He said that, 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 at least 20 feet from the applicants' lot line. Staff feels that the intent of the setback requirement would be preserved if the special exception were granted. Adam reiterated that staff feels that the reduction of setback would not substantially affect the neighborhood. Therefore, 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 zone, provided the reduction applies only to the footprint of the garage as shown in the applicants' site plan file-dated December 12, 2002 by the City Clerk's Office. Public Hearing Opened John Rutherford identified himself as the applicant and presented himself for questions. Keitel advised that he noticed a grade separation between the property and the lots that back up to it, and asked if Rutherford was planning to install a concrete wall or something. Rutherford said that it has not yet been addressed because he believes the garage is set back almost to the point where the grade levels off, but if it was necessary they would be willing to take care of it. Paul clarified that this issue would come up in the site plan review process. Kris Rutherford identified herself as the applicant. Sue Dulek, 201 Lowell Street, said she lives in one of the properties adjacent to the applicant's property. She said she is in favor of this application and hopes the Board approves. Peg Raab, 203 Lowell Street, said she lives in an adjacent property, and is in favor of the special exception. She said that they had earlier been in favor of selling three feet of their property to the applicant to help them comply, but due to restrictions in their lot could not go through with that. Sharon Satterquist said she lives directly across from the applicant, and is in favor of this exception. She said she feels it will add to the property value. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Maurer moved to approve 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 Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes ,' , '" January 8, 2003 , "~ Single-Family (RS-5) zone, provided the reduction applies only to the footprint of shown in the applicants' site plan file-dated December 12, 2002 by the City Clerk's Office. The motion was seconded by Keitel. Findings of Fact Keitel said that it appears the interests of justice would be served and all of the other points the Board needs to consider have been satisfied, so he will vote in favor. Paul said he will vote in favor. He said it has been demonstrated that the applicants have met the specific standards for reducing established setbacks. He said that it is a unique situation with practical difficulty, and it is not substantial in relation to the requirement. He stated it will not increase the population density or affect use of municipal facilities, and won't be a substantial change or detriment to the neighborhood. He said there does not seem to be a feasible practical alternative. Paul said that the exception would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfod or general welfare; would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properly or impair property values; and will not impede the normal orderly development of the surrounding properties. He said that ingress and egress items have been met, and there are obviously adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities. Maurer said he will vote in favor, and stated it is good to see something practical being applied here. Alexander said she would vote in favor for the reasons stated and based on the statements of the neighbors. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. OTHER Holecek said that the special exception by David Thompson which was approved on December 11,2002, across from the Hy-Vee store on Nodh Dodge, contained issues with regard to screening and the widening of North Dodge as a planned project. She said that there may have been a mistake of fact with regard to the width of the easement, and that may affect the setback or location of the screening as required in the Board's decision. Holecek said staff met with Mr. Thompson, and would like the Board to make a motion to reconsider so that this item can be placed on the next agenda; if necessary, to consider correction or reconsideration of the decision from 12/11/02. Keitel moved to reconsider the decision made by the Board of Adjustment on December 12, 2002, regarding an application brought by David Thompson. Paul seconded. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION None. ADJOURNMENT Maurer moved to adjourn, seconded by Keitel. The meeting adjourned at 5:22 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes Submitted By Neana Saylor shared on cityntlpcdlminuteslboa/boaOl-O8-O3.doc