HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-2005 Board of Adjustment
....m...__~,____~
'"'-~.._~..~,-~. ~ ~-=-,. ..... ,,,""- "- ,-,~'" ~" .__~...~.._.._...~.~~~~,='" 'M"M"."· =A",""",,"'~" ""Wt,,,,,: """'<,,,'g:':JC"'''' """",,,~/,,,,,W'( ""'"''''''''''
"
AGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
WEDNESDAY, August 10,2005 - 5:00 PM
,
EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the July 13, 2005 Minutes
D. Special Exception:
EXC05-00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Uptown Properties for a
special exception to allow off-street parking for property at 320-322 S. Johnson St.
on a separate lot at 317 S. Dodge St. in order to allow additional roomers in the
Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-20) zone at 320-322 S. Johnson
Street. '
E. Other:
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjournment
,
,
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING September 14, 2005
;'
- __ _n__n__n_______ __...m_.___...._,_~~,_"",",_...~.WN_~. M~" ,,,n....... "."""""""., 'M . ",," "~~ '1"- , .:
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Prepared by: Jeffrey Banks, Planning Intern
Item: EXC05-00014, 320-322 S.Johnson
317 S. Dodge
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Date: August 10, 2005
Applicant:
Uptown Properties
318 % E. Burlington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-7676
Contact Person:
Jeff Clark
Requested Action:
Special Exception to allow off-street parking for
duplex located at 320-322 S. Johnson Street
on a separate location located at 317 S. Dodge
Street.
Purpose:
To increase number of occupants in each
duplex from 4 to 5 persons.
Location:
320-322 S. Johnson St. - 317 S. Dodge St.
4,050 square feet at 320-322 S. Johnson and
6,140 square feet at 317 S. Dodge.
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Duplex residence at 320-322 S. Johnson and
single family residence at 317 S. Dodge, both
properties in the Neighborhood Conservation
Residential Zone (RNC-20).
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Residential, RNC-20
Residential, RNC-20
Residential, RNC-20
Residential, RNC-20
Comprehensive Plan:
Residential 8-16 dwelling units per acre on S.
Dodge Street and 25+ dwelling units per acre
on S. Johnson Street.
File Date:
July 14, 2005
Applicable Zoning Ordinance Sections:
14-6D-9C, Provisional uses in RNC-20 zone
14-6N-1C, Drives/parking areas on a separate
lot
14-6N-1 C-2-A, Required proximity of parking
on a separate lot
14-6N-1D, Screening requirements
,
._~. , _~,,~____,_......_~__~~_~''''''''''~w__''''
""'., mE .-
'" ",
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Mr. Clark owns the building at 320-322 S. Johnson, which is a duplex on a 4,050 square foot lot
located in the RNC-20 zone. Currently the duplex is non-conforming in that it provides no off-
street parking spaces, does not have the required 5000 square feet of lot area and exceeds the
maximum building coverage. Mr. Clark is seeking a special exception to allow off-street parking
for 320-322 S. Johnson Street on a separate lot at 317 S. Dodge Street in order to allow
additional roomers at 320-322 S. Johnson. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that, in the RNC-20
zone, 3 roomers are allowed in each duplex in addition to the 2 initial occupants, but that off-street
parking spaces must be provided at a rate of 112 space per roomer (14-6D-9C-1). With 5
occupants, the required off-street parking for 320 S. Johnson would include 2 required spaces per
duplex plus 112 space for each of 3 roomers for a total of 3 parking spaces (the number of spaces
for roomers is rounded down). The same parking requirements apply to the other half of the
duplex at 322 S. Johnson Street. This results in a total of 6 parking space being required for the
10 occupants proposed for the total property.
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 the action is
considered to serve the public interest and is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Chapter.
Specific Standards: 14-6N-1 C, Off-Street Parking and Drives Located on a Separate Lot.
Subsection 6N-1 C-7 of the Zoning Chapter states that a special exception to allow for shared
driveways and parking areas may be granted 'by the Board of Adjustment. In addition to the
general standards for exceptions, the applicant must also meet the following specific standards
before the Board can grant an exception.
1. 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. Two site plans have been submitted which show the proposed off-street
parking to be shared by the proposed lots. However the proposed parking plan does not meet
the minimum dimension requirements for a parking area as detailed below in under General
Standards, item F. As discussed below under item 5., a draft legal document regarding
ownership and rights and responsibilities for the shared parking and drive areas has not been
submitted.
2. Off·street parking shall be located as follows:
a. In Rand 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. Although 317 S. Dodge Street is 110 feet east of 320-322 S. Johnson
Street, there is an intervening property. Because there is no easement over the
intervening property connecting the two properties in this application, residents of the
duplex would have to follow the pUblic sidewalk south to Court Street and around to the
other side of the block, a distance of approximately 650 feet. Because of the walking
distance engendered by the proposed location, the proposed off-street parking for
occupants of 320-322 S. Johnson Street will, in staff's opinion, invite trespassing across
the backyards of neighboring properties. A retaining wall located along the east side of
the Johnson Street property will also hinder the tenants most direct path between their
..~-~_._-..~"."-~~..~ --_.
_ w'"
, -.' " .".~ ,~^", ~"~"^""",," """""",""- "
3
residence and the proposed parking area. Another likely result will be that the additional
tenants will park on the streets in this already congested neighborhood.
b. In the same zone as the principal use. The two lots are both in the RNC-20 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. In this case
the single-family residence at 317 S. Dodge is required to have 3 spaces. If the duplex is to
have a total of 10 occupants (5 per unit), 6 spaces area required. The minimum number of
spaces required for both properties would be 9. Currently, there are 3 off-street parking
spaces at 317 S. Dodge, so additional paving is necessary to provide the required 9 spaces.
As discussed below under General Standàrds, item F., the applicant's plan does not
demonstrate that 9 spaces can be built in compliance with the dimensional requirements of
the zoning code.
4. Not applicable.
5. A written agreement, properly executed by the owners within the area of the special
location plan, assuring the retention of the parking and stacking spaces, aisles and
drives and binding upon their successors and assigns, shall be submitted with the
special location plan as a covenant running with the land. The applicant has not
submitted a legal document specifying that the proposed off-street parking spaces at 317 S.
Dodge shall be reserved for the occupants of 320-322 S. Johnson Street in perpetuity. This
document is required to assure that if the properties come under separate ownership, the
occupants of 320-322 S. Johnson Street will have access to the parking area at 317 S. Dodge
Street.
6. Not applicable.
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 effects on adjacent property; the appearance of the streets cape
as a consequence of the off·street parking; and in the case of non-required parking, the
need for additional off-street parking. Because it is behind the building at 317 S. Dodge,
the proposed off-street parking, does not involve any construction or design changes which
would affect the appearance of the streetscape. It will result in an increase in the amount of
traffic entering and exiting the narrow driveway located at 317 S. Dodge Street. It will also
result in much of the current green space located behind 317 S. Dodge Street being paved. In
staffs opinion, other detrimental effects to adjacent properties can be expected in the form of
trespassing, given the significantly longer distance of the legitimate route between the
proposed parking and the duplex, compared to the shorter route across the neighboring
backyards. There is also the possibility of demand for additional on street parking from the
additional tenants of 320-322 S. Johnson Street.
General Standards: 14-6W-2B, Special Exception Review Standards
In addition to the specific standards mentioned above, the Board must find that the applicant
meets several general standards spelled out in chapter 14-6W-2-B. Staff's findings are below.
A. The specific exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare. As noted, the location of the parking may result in trespassing
on a· neighbors' property or greater demand for on-street parking in this already congested
area.
B. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
---~~ ~
,,"'"",.. .... ··..""M.. ... ,;",~,,,,..
4
,
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood. The proposed off-street parking requires persons to walk
approximately 650 feet to and from the separate lot and therefore will, in staffs opinion, invite
trespassing across the backyards of neighboring properties. The proposed parking will
consume green space, which is already scarce in this neighborhood, and in staff's opinion
have negative visual effects (headlights, pavement) on properties abutting the backyard of this
property.
C. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted
in the zone in which such property is located. Staff finds that this project will not impede
further development or redevelopment of surrounding property.
D. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are
being provided. All necessary utilities and facilities currently exist. The applicant will need to
pave the exiting gravel driveway at 317 S. Dodge if it is to provide access to the additional
spaces.
E. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The proposed additional tenants
will not likely add significantly to traffic congestion in this area. In staffs opinion the proposed
additional tenants are more likely to seek on-street parking rather than walk the 650 feet
(approximately equivalent to two blocks) to the proposed parking area. Staffs has inventoried
on-street parking in this general area and found that very little is available. Parking is likely to
be even in shorter supply when the University is in session.
F. Except for the specific regulation 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. In
accordance with the City Code. when a parking lot serves 4 or more vehicles it must comply
with dimensional requirements for parking areas. Therefore the code requires a minimum a
22 foot wide aisle and 18 foot long stalls for at least 50% of the parking spaces (14-6N-1B).
Half of the parking stalls may be compact spaces, which are only 15 feet in length. The site
plan submitted by the applicant does not show compliance with the dimensional requirements
for a parking area.
G. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as
amended. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as being appropriate for residential
. development at 6 to 16 dwelling units per acre on S. Dodge Street and 25+ dwelling units per
acre on S. Johnson Street.
,,-.-
SUMMARY:
The proposed special exception would allow the applicant to place required parking for the
property at 320-322 S. Johnson Street on the property at 317 S. Dodge Street. This would allow
the applicant to increase the occupancy of the duplex on Johnson Street. Providing additional
parking in this congested neighborhood would seem like a good idea, but due to the location of
the proposed parking, staff believes that the additional tenants will seek on-street parking or will
trespass on adjacent properties rather than travel the long distance between the duplex and the
proposed parking. The applicant has not submitted a site plan or legal documents necessary to
demonstrate that the proposed parking complies with requirements of the Zoning Code. The
application does not appear to meet the specific standards for parking on a separate lot or
general standards A, B, E or F required for all special exceptions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC05-00014, a special exception to allow off-street parking on a
separate lot for two parcels in the RNC-20 zone at 320-322 S. Johnson Street 317 S. Dodge
Street be denied.
.._-~- T
5
A IT ACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Arial photograph
3. Site Plan
4. Application Documents
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Dep~rtment of Planning and Community Development
.
S:\PCD\Staff Reports
.
c
"" ,,'
y~",~,<
~ ~,
W "_7
---1 ..........
' '" ",'
, ---1
, 0
ü "I:t
,
, ..-
c
0
I )N~3^O~ - 0
<
0
1- ,<' , I
I.()
u ~I 0
I 0
,,' '
><
Z 1-
W
,
, c
I- I
-
5 5YJnl
I- --
(f) Q)
z CD
..~
..., 0
c CIJ
I- ,
- c..') CD
~ z
Q)
-
---1 "C
~ e::: , c
, C 0
tj ::J
C
m
- .
L5 3ÐOOO CIJ
, :::::>
, ......
~
..-
~
~ c: I- " --
'" ......
(f) CD
Q)
, (J)
I-
Q) '-
e::: ......
L.. CIJ
::J
~ Q ^ 0
c:
, ü
0
,
fJ)
N05NHOr c:
..c:
c 0
^
~
"""')
\.3
., .
en
c
C\I
C\I
(W')
I
0
C\I
(W')
. c ..
15 - Z
,,'" i n N3~n8 NY
- ---
~-- - - - - 0
-- \
_.....,' --
V '"
, 10004
, " H
,
...
, .,. Ù
-
0
...
~ ...
~ ... ~
1-fJ1 ~
t:
,nO , 1.S 1~38l!~
00
0'1J
-'"
-
1:;!iJ
~õ
oS
:::!'"
~f1
, " " "
I
,¡
'1J
OÕ
~.g
];>-
~!
!J,1"T!
!I
..
~
o
--h
p)
I ..
c-+
PJ
II
:J
ø
o
I»
-
(þ
.....
-
-
II
~
m__m.__~~.___.___..___ ~"
"~"m
...." .. ="... '""
,
," ,
"..
,
""'0""'M'
""~~/
-
E )(C- 0 ~ - 000£4
QD
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W
DATE:
PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
/0/04./'30 It{
ç..+.
APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: .~~ ~?iJ;l S. .jO'v\V\~O~
APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE:
APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 50 t 70 <f- .5 X It 0
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address: Yz..
Phone: ~S 1- .,,,, "
..
. "
CONTACT PERSON:
Name: :r..E.F c..~\I:.
Address: 3\ e..
Phone: 319- Cø~ \... ~-;¡. -"
PROPERTY OWNER:
Name:
Address:
.sJ..
Phone: 3þl....~ "Tc.
Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter:
Purpose for special exception:
.."..~- '
,.
. ,,-,
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
(",
, ,
'~<,",,"
",,,,-,,,,..
..,
''<'.,.. ~.'''.
"-,---"- r -.."
..,,<',::~ \" .,)
, '.- ~~~
""-^,,,-, "-",
,,,- ,
';~" : ,"
i;;;.j¡
r
"..",
~..~" , ;
,
(,,,.,,,,,~
"-"'~' ... ..
;",,::::::-
"""'--""""'~'
.
i ,
" . j
"""--"'v,,,
, '''~'-
,
- -
-.
-. ,-
. "..' "
"", ".
"W,
-"""'"
,,: "-,,,,'
-,"-- ., '"'..
"',~ '
,
-
""'1"'"
"""
i J'-
::"::::..., ~"',,,,,,,
, -\ " " '<-"
\ c """",,- _-).t,'
""~'"''; .."-,-,,,- ...~.._. ....,
"":'-"'''- ".-""
"." ",,' .~
,,"-,~,-"*'"
,;"
<{oJ:;:¡..
--",
~"''''-
-''''''''
, ~"~"
, k'
'-'''''''''''h,
,
t P''";.
·~,,"'..;t
. .
'~,,.,,.d/
-,
,~,,,,
C'(J
" ~ "
"""
~:-'''''''-'
j ,
.i (
~,,,--,-,, ,¡
, ..,'~,,'
-'-"''''''''''''
, ~
~
.~,,/
" ,/
",~jA'I.
·2-
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
, ~ 1; ;;
A.
E. 1..10' 0-1- fAI no' OF N £..
I OS' 0 (' W 10 I
ðF S. t OS' J. N £ S' Of ~
B. *Plot Rial? 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 "hit x 11" bold print plot plan is preferred.]
C. Revie".". 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.
A,"«.~.uJ
D. The applicant is required to present ~eç,i"ç iflfor,t;I:1.a,ÿoll, not just opinions, that the
g"eneral s'andards for the 9.raJ1'~ng Qf.~ .sDecia' exçeR~ion (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. '1t>
.~...~
"
/'~'
! "
. ,
.. ,
'~-~.
.
, ,,'"'
';"'-"" ,~'
M,,""'~
"C,-,,;"" ,"'"'"""'
"<> -< ~;
.
<:/"þ
,
,_ 'n " '''~''
,r
,
"::"-..,,
. '
""
."'"
,. -., -
,
. ,
-, '..,
i""" ~
, ,..'"
.
-""'''i>
,
-.""", ". "
" "" """',
, ;
1-
'=-
" ,'----
,
".-, '"
"""". I,
",,,, '~ '''''' '
, " !
, , .-'-
. h '''''__' '
"'-,,,,~- "'''-- -".'
"'''-'',_'h> ',".~.
"-'.., ,.;e'\.
"'''''''"' .'.
'.
""r,^"~"
-~;;..
,~
"""-,,,"-
""""''''''
''"'-''/''''-'
'%"i-",,-
--,.~
.- ",,"--
, .. "'t
, .- "
,. ß j
""- ¡;
.- ''''''%--
.- ~"
,
-tr_
"'¡,~)
. ,
. .
-''''....","/''
-
~>i,..
,,"eo,,,
. ~~,
'-v
.._"",
,
"..~"-"
',-,,~,/
o
-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. Y.¿$
.
.
,
,
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. 4 t,$
.' ,
<"
4.
_",.c,"""'
,,~,'-", <,~::,:,
,. "
, , 1
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary fâ~l¡ities ~~ve
been or are being provided. '-t<.s.~':" ." ·
w",,,,,,-,,,
'" j .,~,,,..
'. ' 1'__'''''"
,~..-~~, "", .. ..-4.'"
..
,""""'--
--''« ¡ ,--
,--'
n""__
, ,
1 "
-,-,.""-'"
'--' ",,~~~
------.-,.,"
,
.
,
t" _
,
¡ "
'~f''''t:l~ ;_"~'"
~""
,w_"
". /
.".",,,-
,.--~._.
,"""''''' --
.¡ ..~ ','"
.-
-, ,.' ...
""",,., ,O'~
,,__~_<.r --
"'~,-~,-
,,'~'"
:::;::-
~;>
t""\
~"_~",,.J
. .
,--
"""""
t-,"'""
_....,,,.,J
,
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. tf -cS
-,,~,,'
"
,
""=",/
/
"-"iÞi'-'0'.
-4-
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.] \..f ..e.-S
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive
Plan of the City. y..Ô
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
1
C,,,_,, <'~,
<,"'"""'",
, ,
"_.."I
"J",'~~
-'-"""""
""'''~'''''' ë~"~".
~""'. ,I 1-
''''', '
, ,
"
'---""
~"
'I'-"m
. :Œ,,~:'~
, ',,"'
,
--, ,
!,-:""',
1"" ,,'
>~"',! '1
'''''' ,
,'-'''''-',- '",,'''
\,' .-
,~'
.~- ".
',,-..,
""-..--,,,
i '""
'M
~-
""",:' "
f" ,
"--, .
!i"'>-","
"<,'1""'-
..~ "-
'" ~
.
".,,,,
" "1
, ,.
..,"""..,., ::,,,,'
,"'''~' !
t "" ,
, ~ ~,'
"c... ,t. '",
....,~.' -,."" '«
"'i'~'~'" ",:'..'
"~, - ,
"",..,-,«
~~,-"""
Þ.
.~
~,~, t-
'"',"'
'i<,,,
.- ,
~..
.,,;h,<T!I
""~~ !',.w
-';:<--:",
Ji"""',,"-
"%-
îh
""""',J
__0'
.^'"
:,- "~''!
} ¡
, ,
","~ "
'-,,,
"'C''',
;'~'-"'''''''.
w~
"
" .
.- ! {
-- > i
"""'"
,
.
_",,,-J'
..nn.nmn mmm_m_m____m.__m_____ _
,
,
""" /
", ·c
"Ä¥'
'''"-,,~.,,,
·5·
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 fulfin the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chaptèr. (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).
Pe~ition 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.
,
20 o.s
Date: 1...' Y
.
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Date:
J';
,20
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdadmin\appboasepckt.pdf
'-.''''''
''''''-''4
" 'I,
,
, '
"'"",,/
I''',
"H~~-«~'
-'..
^!,..,,)~ ,~,~~
". J' "
~,.,~; \
" '
'- "..,,'
.""..~--~ '>-"'''' ,
'..
t'''..
,.'"
",~,.,;' 'f
" --"...,.'
,
("" '.-
!f"'
""'-'""0"
'-"'".'
,
.
...",--".
~
'4~_,,,,,,
] ""',¡
;; f
, '
''';,,,- jj
'h ,,--,,g,~,,,
;'4'",'W
, "'.,.
""'"'''':'/'''''''''''
~~,w,,~ __ '"
',. '
<.. ,
("''''"
.f'''!,.",-
""~''''
"'. ','
~~'" "~
? """';' ,".
, (t ',,"";~ i
., . ',"
%~" --~ ,<"
~",'"'''''' >,"',
-"'~ ."..,.c \.
"'''~,.."
<~~
..l;;,.
k.,,,
;'""",
""",,~!:t
.'''''
;::,,,"
"""~"""
,'-"-'·:t"'~·';'
.' i' j
, ~ >
.",. il
.' ""'''-''',",,,
.
" .-
·-'.~."..,.",t
W"~'
~""" :;
'~",9·
h
'l~
~~'""
1""'".;,,\
:!;",I,",*
To The Board of Adjustment - Special Exception (Off-Site Parking),
The property located at 320 - 322 S. Johnson St. is a duplex dJat Wis been limited to 4 occupants per side.
This duplex Wis 4 levels and over 2000 sq/ft per side. To increase the number of occupants to 5 per side,
additional parking is needed. I would like to place 6 additional parking spaces on a property we own
located to the rear of this property (approximately 75 ft away) at 317 S. Dodge St. This duplex essentially
has 5 bedrooms per side and by granting this special exception would relieve many possible future over-
occupancy problems. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeff Clark
""~.,,,-
"
!
.".--......,
,
'",,'., ''''''''''''''"''
i¡,",,,,,~
'·¿'c~
-", ,.
'_... -,,"
,,~.,'~~
~';,,~.,.~
~...,,;~..w'
"
~",.:~'«""
i'
.-~
" ,.....,~
"'., "
".t"..."
" "
h~
~,+"".
"""¥-""
t,*,,,,,W
~--~
---.'-"
SFi)
¡
I
I
¡
I
!
"
,
,
,
,
,
\) I ,I
, j
~I
"
k-oO(Y1 ¡'''j
\tì. (j V ~,
P(b ~
p'
tr1
, .~~-,,,
._-~ .-
~
,
,
a
5/ "
1-
"I
"'j;i;,,".
~ I'
t'i(
/' .1
,
''i
,
SFD
,
'I .:,
,
II: ~
,
,
,i ,
,
,
,
¿ ,
,
,
,
,
'\ ,
"
;
,
,
,
.
, ð
: 50--
'~~"''''~'''''''-~."'''''--"'''''''''-'''''.''''''.,'''-''''''''''---...........
, ~\
v
-
.-
'"
\0-
~~~
"""),,ç ,
,
~
!
,
!
1
!
I
I
I
I
~'
,
¡
I
,
,
,
"
It:.-
t;. -;?
I
+~------_."'....-~.--......-.- ,.",.".... ,..
, ..._----.-~~"-..,. ,...",
,,,.-. ,
','
,...
"
17
5:)"
32.-0 -32-'2,. S,.)o 'hv.-~v""
_~"'~"'__""""'''~''"'''~''_''''''''~."'"~"'"''~'''~~_'''~''''''''"''ffl."",
.. . ."""",_,_",,,,,"~,,,,--,-,,"~.,,,",,,.~,.w,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,:,",,.,,.,...,..,,~,,,,.'\>"""'>"!''''_''''''":'''""''''~I''''''_''V<~'''i<..,,",~·''''·'·'.··'',~,~~.,..,,·o.._," ,«__..____,_
,.. .,. "C .....~:.,.... ".'~""="""~'""".~.~".':"'"''''''''''''''..'~...,,"'"'='.",".,,,,,,,~,,,,,-=,->..._~-
5,
Dh v-'LS 0 '^
"'"~"'--
,-"".
(' \
'e, .J:.
",,,,,,,.~.
""",..
,
,.....¿:"',
"'.-'"
,,,,,,:.:,,;.:,~,
-'"
...."'...,
\ ",.""''''
'.....' '-.,
..- '. .?
"",~ ~.
",.,.,._.,",~
--,..-."
"'~"''''.-
'",'''
;)7>
SFD
<>
70-
('. "
St·
---
~
.-
'._"'"
.þ;iiÞ
"';"~"#'
".".-'
".,.,-
T
",)
'\,,,);.-,,,'
~.·v
~
'¡p'
"",,,,
1;.,p~;
,
,
ì
}
I
,
,
,
,
I
I
,
,
i
,
i
I
¡
,
I
,
,
I
,
I
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
~
\-'j
,
,
,
,
\
I
"
,
,
"h.,
,
,
,
,
,
"
,
-"
...::.
\:J
,
,
¡
1:
i
,
,
I
(
.'¡
,
;¡
"
"
j
I
j
.
,
',I
,
I
,
,
,
,
-llJ
,
,
,
,
)
j
I
,
,
,I
"
,
I
,
j
I
,
í
,
,
,
,
}
j
,
,
,
,>
,
:j
j
I
,
s Ù6a~t.- S1',
,q~
_......._,.....___~.""-I' 1 .... ..""'.
DI
')"
'"
{¡
"
d.-0-
~
~ ,
.~ ()f
§2
$-'
°1
~
, ~.
¡ I 7 <:-
I
1
,
,
0/
N
" 1)
13;..-0'
j :
I
"> /
'\) I
f¡
" ¡
! \
"
¡ þ
¡
I
¡ I
"
'!
¡
'I
¡ ,
')
J
I
.........-,-,; ,
.
:'<!
.
I '
.%'
-,~,,'
. .t''''I .
'A":: ,Ii" t..
'? ,.. .....J.......................___M.........
,J.è ~ I 01
'1f r;¡-i "-
Q '7 ('<J
"---.,-1
'i
..... ";.,, v' .,,"'.,""_"
.
à-.í-
! ~ ~J
! ~I.O
¡ ~(D'i..~....f')
\ -I
I 'X'" "!I <Ii'
î ""Jf1; f/J
1 ()' '>f:".f"
! 1)'>-;:;0'
, 0'
U
I
-'
I .
¡
1.
1
~
<;
__n--'" '"
.
\0
~j
~
,
--. " .-
3 '10..-
"
,
lo-{ rl
311 S'
'1
'.\
,
,
.
"\
."
___nn_____.___.___ ~___~= "',"",,,--
,
"
/
e~'"''
,
'\
."
/'
"
,
'.
.,'\
", "
/' ~^ò "
.,
~))»
/;) /;. / " (¡'\; .
. />,' \':::>~~"
,/,/ ,«~~:::~
," " /' '\'\~'.)'
(' V'¿>/ '" ij
"'.(/ /i \
"....." '0,,,, ¡L_.,,,-'~
''\^ '''''''-" c:::;:;;·"·h~·''''' "\;,,,~.,
" / ,,,,,:%,,,,,
" 9' ", "~',,-".','".'
, '-- '" '."", ".
" c .,,~~'/'\.\
" <Z.~ '> /- "'""j '\.
\ v,{' \// ) I ./
'-;., V -"/./ //./
" " ,.)' ".
"'\-, /' /' //./';//
" ./' ./
, <' -",'
"'. '." ,
'" "f" ./-'
\,"" r.<" .". .,,'
.... ,,{,. ,/'/
-\ "~""/'.¡.-"
,... ',p/ ,';
~ /
'c
." j'/
., -r"
"'./
c- I .
)(þ.~. ,
1\
I
2_0
1 ,.
"
Af Pt.1'£;'ÞIr-3l". :s <..1: ç C 1",I\\l k~
r 0 ?. ç ?E'CJ'A L e \:'c ~ pr",;r.o I\J
__ .m__.,,_,~___,_.~~_____.__,__~_ = ~. _. )', '" M' _., '
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 13, 2005
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL-IOWA CITY CITY HALL
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Vincent Maurer, Ned Wood, Michael Wright
(arrived at 5:07)
MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Mitch Behr, Jeffrey Banks (planning intern)
OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Kalb, Gayle King Zeithamel
CALL TO ORDER:
,
Chairperson Maurer called the meeting to order at 5:03 pm.
.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 8, 2005 BOARD MINUTES
MOTION: Wright moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Leigh seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5:0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC05-00010 Discussion of an application submitted by Paul Kalb for a special exception to allow
reduction of the required 20-foot rear yard to 5.4 feet to allow an addition to an existing single-family
house located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 1012 Hudson Avenue.
Miklo said that the discussion regarding this application was deferred at the last meeting and the
applicant was required to submit a site plan and elevation drawings for the proposed changes. Miklo said
that the site plan shows the area where the addition will further encroach into the required 20 foot rear
yard. He mentioned that there are other additions to the property that do not need special exception. He
presented photographs illustrating the current conditions. He also presented the proposed site plan and
elevation drawings.
Public H~aring Openeg
Paul Kalb, 1012 Hudson Avenue, said that he plans on pursuing an extensive renovation. He mentioned
that he would like to put on a new roof and would like to add to the corner of his house, and this addition
required the special exception.
He said that he lived in the property for 12 years, and moved to Dubuque, and in the past 6 years rented
the 1012 Hudson Avenue property. However, he said that he had unfortunate tenants, and that explains
the condition of the property. He said that he would like to renovate it and make it more attractive with the
goal of getting better tenants.
Maurer asked what the estimated cost of the project would be. Kalb said that the budget is between
$30,000 and $40,000.
Wright asked if the entrance to the garage will be from the same driveway that currently exists. Kalb said
that the same driveway will be used. However, he said that the garage will be facing south, so the garage
door will not be facing the street.
Wood asked if the planned roof will be for the entire structure. Kalb said that he plans on replacing the
entire roof surface. Kalb said that the property had passed a rental inspection in 1996. He added that the
last inspection was last spring, and at that point the roof was leaking due to the fact that there are too
many valleys to the roof because of different additions made to the house at different points in time.
Wood asked if the vinyl siding proposed in the site plan will be used for the entire house. Kalb said that
the house currently has wood siding, and that he plans on replacing it with vinyl siding all over.
..........._--~~_..~~~---
-=" .....",,,.
"'"'' ~
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 13, 2005
Page 2
Gayle Zeitham,el, 429 Douglass Court, said that last time she was in front of the commission she
submitted pictures taken from her property to prove that her privacy will be invaded if the addition to the
existing property at 1012 Hudson Avenue is approved. She mentioned that a 6-foot fence equals exactly
6 feet of privacy. Zeithamel added that the structure arises approximately 3 times higher than the fence
due primarily to the proximity of the structure to the property line. She said that no one would like to live 5
feet from the property when the regulations require a setback of 20 feet from the fence.
Zeithamel said that the existing situation of the roof does not exist entirely due to the valleys that exist in
the roof, but to the fact that the entire structure of the roof had not been kept up. She said that there are
pictures showing garbage bags hanging from the smoke stacks from previous leaks. .
/
She said that a great improvement would be to knock off the back of the structure and bring it up to code.
She said that she does not believe that the extension of the building would be an improvement. She
mentioned that she does not believe that the tenants are responsible for the general maintenance of the
building.
She said that she strongly objects to the application, and that its approval would be a violation, and that
the application does not fulfill the criteria necessary for approval. She said that the approval would cause
emotional, mental injury, as well as a loss of enjoyment of the quality of her property. She said that it
would not be advantageous to any neighbor or neighborhood to give special treatment to a property
owner that has not shown any consideration or concern for his neighbors or property.
Kalb said that the house at 1012 Hudson Avenue was built in 1935, 21 years before the house at 429
Douglass Court was built, and 43 years before the current owner of 429 Douglass Court moved in. He
said that to say to pick up the house and just move it would not be a feasible option for him. He said that
in the long run, the changes made at the property would be an advantage to the entire neighborhood.
Alexander asked if the Board would have to decide only regarding the addition to the back of the house.
Miklo said that only the addition to the back is the object of discussion. He added that the portion that the
proposed addition would be attached to is nonconforming to the current regulations, and the code does
not allow expansion of a nonconformity. He said that the only way of making the attachment would be by
special exception reducing the yard for the existing portions of the building that are located in the required
rear yard, as well as the proposed addition.
Alexander said that the Board's job is not making the existing non"conforming property conform. Miklo
said that the Board could not tell someone to replace the portion that is non-conforming. However, he
said that the regulations say that there should be nothing done to prolong the life of the existing non-
conformity. He added that this would be a factor that the Board should consider.
Zeithamel said that nobody asked the owner to pack up and move his house. She said that she sees
enough of the property in the back, and would not like to see any additions to the back.
Public Hearing Closed
,
MOTION: Alexander made a motion that EXC05~90010 an application submitted by Paul Kalb for a
special exception to allow reduction of the required 20-foot rear yard to 5.4 feet to allow an
addition to an existing single-family house located in the Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) zone at 1012 Hudson Avenue be approved subject to conformance to the
submitted site plan. Leigh seconded the motion.
Alexander would vote in favor of the application. She said that it is a peculiar situation. She mentioned
that the house sits in a very odd spot on the lot. She said there is some practical difficulty involved in
terms of trying to make the proposed improvements. .
She said that it will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
She said that the extensiveness of the renovations planned will improve the property. The proposed
exception would 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. She said that she
understands the concerns presented, but does believe that squaring the back of the house would make it
a more enjoyable place. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly
__mm_______"'~,,__.__._._~,,___..._____...._.. _
_,====, ,...~~""'''n''""",,,,,, "=,~=-~"__, _..."",...' '.,',,,,, '_-"
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 13, 2005
Page 3
,
development and improvement of the surrounding properties. She said that she hopes that the aesthetics
of the home would improve, and increase the neighbors' enjoyment of the area. She mentioned that there
is no change in egress or ingress. She said that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Maurer would vote in favor. He said that the application meets the general standards, and the
improvements would make things better.
Wood would also vote in favor. He said that it would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare, and would 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.
He said that he believes that the improvements would make the structure more sound, and it would be a
vast improvement. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties. He said that there would be no impact on
ingress and egress and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Leigh would also vote in favor of the application for the reasons already mentioned. She stated the extent
to which the structure is already in violation of the codes would not go away. She said that the addition
would make the area much more enjoyable and attractive.
Wright would vote in favor. He said that the corner being squared off would not encroach any further
towards the fences. He said that this is a peculiar situation, and that the neighborhood is fully developed.
He said that he would vote in favor for the reasons already stated.
Motion passed 5:0.
Zeithamel said that she does not understand why a way of providing privacy for her property was not
discussed. She mentioned that it is clear from her arguments and the picture presented that the 6-foot
fence does not provide enough privacy, and wonders why the owner was not asked to do something
about it, like plant some trees.
Behr said that with the matter having been closed, and the applicant having left the room, the Board
should not add anything to the discussion.
EXC05-00013 Discussion of an ~pplication submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a special exception for a
reduction of the front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow front yard parking. within 50 feet of a residential
zone for property located in Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 850 Orchard Street.
Presenting the staff report Banks said that originally the applicant requested a 15-foot reduction in the
set-back, but he changed it into the minimum reduction necessary to accommodate the parking lot. He
presented images of the location, and revised drawings. He said that the parking lot would provide
parking spaces for the surrounding businesses.
Discussing the general standards Banks said that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said that initially the plan submitted had
two curb cuts. Staff had recommended that the applicant revise the plan with only one curb cut along
Orchard Street. Banks added that the new drawings present only one curb cut. Additionally, he said that
the proposed use, while not conforming to the dimensional requirements for a 20-foot setback in the CC-2
zone, does provide sufficient landscaping with a row of arborvitae and shade trees to provide a buffer.
Next he said that 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. Banks said that the landscaping with a row of arborvitae and shade trees will provide a
buffer between parking and the street and residential area. Additionally, he said that the parking lot has
the potential to reduce the spillover parking from commercial uses.
Banks continued by saying that the establishment of the specific proposed exception should 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. He said that staff does not believe that the proposed use
would have a significant impact on the development of the surrounding properties.
· __. _m.___~._...m__~~m"~..~.__~"_~~= "., ~,... ...,,, '"_,,. '''" 'M ..
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 13, 2005
Page 4
He said that adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize
traffic congestion on public streets. He noted that traffic is not expected to change. He added that the
initial two curb points presented would have created some conflict, however that issue was corrected.
He stated that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or
standards of the zone in which it is located. He mentioned that because the zoning boundary runs down
the center of the right-of-way, the requested reduction in the front yard setback would place parking within
50 feet of the residential zone. He said that staff does not see alternate space for commercial parking
which is needed in the area.
The proposed use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. He said that the
Southwest District Plan indicates the area as potential as a mixed use area. The proposed reduction, he
said, would benefit the existing commercial uses in the area and therefore appears to be conforming to
the Comprehensive Plan.
Banks said that pedestrian access is one priority not addressed in the proposed parking lot and staff
recommends that the applicant make provisions for a continuation of the sidewalk which runs north/south
along the west side of the Orchard Street and currently terminates at the property in question.
Staff recommends that EXC05-00013 an application submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a special exception
for a reduction of the front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow front yard parking within 50 feet of a
residential zone for property located in Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 850 Orchard Street be
approved subject to the condition that they specify the variety of shade trees to be planted on the
property.
Publ.ic Hearing Opened
NONE
Public Hearing Closed
MOTION: Wright moved that EXC05..0Q013 an application submitted by Gerry Ambrose for a
special exception for a reduction of the front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow front yard parking
within 50 feet of a residential zone for property located in Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at
850 Orchard Street be approved sUbject general conformance to the site plan, and that they
specify the variety of shade trees to be planted on the property. Alexander seconded the motion.
Maurer would vote in favor of the application. He said that the general standards have been met, and it
would be an improvement.
Wright would vote in favor. He said that it meets the general standards. He said that it should not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety; comfort or general welfare, and should improve those
factors. The proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The
landscaping and the addition of the sidewalk will make the area more pleasant. The speciftc proposed
exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding
properties. He added that the area is fully developed and the effect should be minimal. He said that it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. He said that it is across the street from a residential
neighborhood, but there is no place for parking in the area. The addition of the landscaping and sidewalk
would offer a substantial buffer between the commercial and the residential area.
Alexander would also vote in favor of the application for the reason stated. She said that the paving and
the landscaping will be an improvement over the current conditions.
Leigh would vote in favor for the reasons already stated.
Wood would vote in favor. He said that the pavement, the landscaping, and the fact that it would provide
more parking space would be a great benefit to the area. He added that it will be consistent to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 13. 2005
Page 5
OTHER
NONE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION
NONE
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Leigh moved to adjourn. Alexander seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at
5:55.
s:/pcd/mlnutesfB0Al200Sf07·13..QS.doc