HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-2005 Board of Adjustment
AGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
WEDNESDAY, October 12, 2005 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARV A THALL
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the September 14,2005 Minutes
D. Special Exceptions:
1. EXC05-00016 Discussion of an application submitted by David Drea for a special
exception to reduce the front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet to allow paving a greater
area than normally permitted in the Low Density Single-Family residential (RS-5)
zone at 920 Webster Street/601 Walnut Street.
2. EXC05-00017 Discussion of an application submitted by TD Builders for a
special exception to allow the expansion of an auto-and-truck-oriented use, a
repair garage and car sales, and to reduce the required 20 foot front yard to 5
feet to allow parking spaces to be located within 50 feet of a residential zone for
property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1010 Orchard
Street.
E. Other:
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjournment
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -November 9, 2005
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Prepared by: Jeffrey Banks, Planning Intern
Item: EX05-00016. 601 Walnut Street&
920 Webster Street
Date: October 12, 2005
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
David Drea
601 Walnut Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person:
David Drea
Phone:
(319) 351-0580
Requested Action:
Approval of a special exception to allow a reduction
in the front yard requirement from 20 feet to 0 feet.
Purpose:
In order to allow paving of more than 50% of the
front yard in an R zone.
location:
601 Walnut Street/920 Webster Street
Size:
6,000 square feet
Existing land Use and Zoning:
Residential (RS-8)
Surrounding land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Residential, RS-8
Residential; RS-8
Residential; RS-8
Residential; RS-8
Comprehensive Plan:
Central District
Applicable Code requirements:
14-60-2B, front yard setback requirements; 14-60-
4B, modification of yard requirements; 14-6W-2B,
general standards for special exceptions.
File Date:
September 14, 2005
BACKGROUND:
The property is located at the corner of Walnut Street and Webster Street. The property
contains two buildings, one of which is a duplex residence and the other a garage. Because it is
a corner lot this property has two front yards - one on Webster Street and one on Walnut Street.
The property is already nonconforming because the current building has a setback
(approximately 3.62 feet from the Walnut Street right-of-way) which is less than the 20-foot front
yard setback required for the RS-8 zone.
The applicant recently paved the north-facing portion of his front yard along Walnut Street, a
portion which lies east of the house. The applicant also paved the right-of-way of Walnut Street
so that there is no green space between the curb and the property line. Building inspectors
discovered that the yard had been paved and notified the property owner of the violation.
The applicant is now seeking a special exception to allow a reduction in the front yard setback
requirement from 20 feet to 0 feet in order to allow the paving of more than 50% of his yard to
continue to exist. Without the special exception, the applicant will have to remove the portion of
the paving that is located within 10 feet of the property line. Regardless of the Boards' decision,
the applicant will have to remove the paving that he put in the right-of-way.
ANAL YSIS:
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 found in Section 14-6Q-4B, pertaining to modification of yard requirements and
the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-6W-2B.
Specific Standards: Section 14-6Q-4B Modifications of Yard Requirements
A special exception to modify yard requirements may be granted when the owner demonstrates
the situation is peculiar to the property in question, there is practical difficulty in complying with the
dimensional requirements of the zoning code, and the general standards for special exceptions
can be met (14-6Q-4B).
In other cases, where the Board has found that the property in question had some peculiar
situation which prevented it from developing in a manner similar to other properties in the zone,
the Board has found a special exception justifiable. In staffs view, there is not a peculiar situation
in this case that warrants special treatment for this property. Granting a special exception may
have negative consequences for adjacent properties and the general public.
The applicant indicates that, as this is a corner property, the front yard for this property is not
along Walnut Street, therefore the front yard setback requirement ought not apply, but according
to section 14-6Q-2B of the Zoning Ordinance, properties on corner lots must satisfy front yard
requirements along all streets. Other corner lots in this neighborhood are required to have two
front yards.
The applicant is requesting a 20-foot reduction in the required 20-foot front yard setback for a
residence in the RS-8 zone, effectively reducing the setback to 0 feet from the property line.
The applicant states that the paved parking area, which covers more than 50% of the front yard
along Walnut Street, will provide additional parking for residents of the property, which will in
turn alleviate pressure on public streets and thereby minimize problems of traffic congestion.
One of the reasons for preserving 50% of the front yard without paving is to provide
opportunities for landscaping, which may contribute to the general aesthetic character of the
neighborhood. The other reason is visibility: paving all the way to the curb invites parking which
may obstruct visibility for cars turning onto Walnut Street from the alley. Allowing this paving to
continue to exist will prevent opportunities for landscaping and potentially obstruct visibility.
The applicant, before paving, had 4 parking spaces which was adequate for this duplex property
in the RS-8 zone, but limited the occupancy to 4 persons (2 per unit). Though additional
parking spaces will allow the applicant to increases the occupancy of the property to it's
maximum of 3 persons per unit, the applicant is apparently using the parking area for storage of
recreational equipment.
Even without the additional paving the applicant has a 24X24 garage (576 square feet) and
approximatley1200 square feet of paved surface on his property. This is comparable to the
amount of area devoted to 4 off street parking spaces found on a typical duplex lot. Therefore
this lot is peculiar and there does not seem to be a practical difficulty the prevents the property
owner from using the property as a duplex.
General Standards: 14-6W-2B, Special Exception Review Requirements. The applicant's
statements regarding each of the general standards are attached. Staff comments are offered
as needed and correspond to the standards as enumerated in the Zoning Ordinance.
a. The specific proposed special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort or welfare. Staff finds that the proposed special exception
will diminish opportunities for landscaping in this residential area of the city. The paved area is
also likely to reduce visibility for vehicles turning onto Walnut Street from the alley, as it will
allow parking on this property to occur closer to the intersection of the alley and Walnut Street.
b. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance in requiring a
20-foot front yard setback in residential zones is to provide areas for lawns and landscaping.
Additionally, open space provides pervious surfaces for rainwater to seep into the ground,
thereby diminishing large quantities of runoff which result from impervious surfaces.
Allowing more than 50% of this front yard to be paved detracts from the residential
appearance of the neighborhood and results in less impervious surface to absorb storm
water.
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. Approval of this special
exception will result in the property having a substantial amount of paving, which conflicts
with the character of this residential neighborhood.
d. 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 exception for a
reduction in the front yard setback would allow a paved parking area which currently has two
curb cuts, one on Walnut Street and one onto the alley. The proposed paved area will likely
result in parking within the front yard adjacent to Walnut Street and therefore reduces
visibility for vehicular traffic.
e. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The
property is non-conforming in terms of the building setback, but this is grandfathered an is
considered legally non-conforming.
f. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The
Central District Plan indicates that preservation of the neighborhood character within
residential neighborhoods is a priority. Staff finds that this plan appears to conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC05-00016, an application for a Special Exception to allow a
reduction in the 20-foot front yard requirement in order to allow a paved parking area in the
Medium Density Single-Family zone at 920 Webster Street be denied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Proposed Site Plan
3. Aerial photo
Approved by:
~ÞßvL'
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community
Development
S:\PCDlStaff Reports
~
-L
1
I
-
~
-
-
-
-
L--
-
I I
1
f-
U)
f-
=:)
Z
~
«
~
~ I
tj
~
~
~
~
tjl
I
I
-
-
L
I
I ~I .
~ ~~
is
I I
r- <0 I
T-
o
o
o
I
10
o
Ü
~
is ·SVJnl
1 I 1
I
I¡-
-
L I
W J-S IIp(j~V~
> 1
«-
-
-
o L-
a
a
~
~
cr::
~
--
r L-
Î
r ."
....-.
1(" ""'r'\rlr'\rl
'- 10\.JVu-a
II
-~
~
I
is _ v~'v'm
1 I I .
I
ï
-
-
-
-
--'
o
o
,...
-
t131S83M
I r \ ,-
I -
I
N3t1na ...... -
I ~ 1\ , I
I T \ II v 1\ -
1 -
-
-
-
- ø
I I I I -
I -
I I I
-
~ -
-!~
-
.....
Q)
Q)
....
.....
en
.....
::J
c:
~
T-
o
<0
~
Q)
Q)
....
.....
en
....
Q)
.....
en
.0
~
o
C\I
m
Ž
o
.....
~
u
o
~
~
~
.....
rJ:J
-
b'fCt1Y5 - (/x/XIJ J ~
APPEAL TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W
DATE: 09 Ill..{ PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1015162001
APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 920 Webster St./601 Walnut St.
APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: 21800
APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 100X60
APPLICANT: Name: David Drea
Address: 601 Walnut St.
Phone: 319-351-0580
CONTACT PERSON: Name: Same as above
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Same as above
Address:
Phone:
Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter:
14-6N-1 B 3-B(2) Not more than 50% of the required front yard shall be impervious surface.
Purpose for special exception: The area in question is not the "front yard" of the property.
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
r--..>
0 =
c:;:>
..-.-- CJ"I
<0 ('/)
:t:~ -1 1'1
C-<· ." 11
) . -
tC"') .ç:- !
:-<:r- m
ITl ."
O:D :J:: 0
<",x f>J
~
-'
-2-
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. legal descriDtion of property:
910 Webster St./601 Walnut St, Iowa City, IA 51140:
Lot 11, Block 3, Page's Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, subject to easements and restrictions
of record.
B. *Plot Dlan 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.
rSubmission of an 8 %" 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.
See atttached sheet.
D. The applicant is required to present sDecific information, not just opinions, that the
general standards for the granting of a sDecial exceDtion (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 extra off-street parking will help relieve the parking shortage problems of both Walnut and
Webster St. It will also help the safety issues associated with the narrow street in question.
Webster Street is only 15' wide in front of the property and Walnut Street is only 10' wide on the
North side of the property. As no parking is allowed on the North side of the house on Walnut
St., and the only personal parking for our tenants is on the front side of the house on Webster
St., the extra driveway I have added will help alleviate this parking problem.
o
~O
»:::4
C)-<
=j()
_rr"-
- "rn
;;::::; :0
'-'^
~
"'->
c:::>
=
CJ1
U')
rr1
-0
-n
r
m
o
.s:-
-0
:x
I'>J
.....J
-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 added driveway will help alleviate the overcrowded on-street parking.
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.
N/A
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
N/A
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 added driveway will improve trafjicflow on the narrow streets (Walnut and Webster streets) by
reducing the number of cars parked on the street ( Webster Street is currently the only street allowed
on-street parking)
,....,
~O =
c::::o
c.n
(/)
).> -j f"I1 ""TI
-0
-< -
o· 1-
;¿p .Ç:"
-0 m
rfl lJ
-:0 :x
0" r:-:
~
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.]
Yes, this will help will the off street parking.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
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
Tim Schumacher 607 Walnut St. la.City, la. 52240
Ken Beidler 608 Walnut St. r-.;¡
9 =
~
910 Webster St. c.n
Gary Jondle ~>O en
):;. lif 11
Allen Boettcher 913 Webster St. , -U
fC)-<
Brad Weinard 921 Webster St. =:¡C) .ç:- ¡-
r":r m
nl -0
Gary Dunne 925 Webster St O~ :x ¡"'"ï
\...J
Duane Anderson 926 Webster St. ~ ~
Jack Bennett 909 Webster St. CO
Gary Meyers 932 Webster St.
Debra Semler 610 Walnut St.
-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 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: 09/14
20 05
:~9~~ \j:}~
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Date: 09/14
,20 05
0& /:vu(:j)~
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdadminlappboasepckt.pdf
0 f'o.;I
c::::>
=
~O c:.n
en
-:j m
-0 TI
c)'
=-1() .... f-
_-<:r fTl
rn -p
O:JJ :x 0
;E^ N
..
»
CX)
Addendum to Letter C of Appeal:
In the summer of 2004, I decided to expand my driveway. Two reasons for this were
A: so that I would have additional, off-street parking for my tenants; and
B: as a property owner, I am required to have off street parking in an area that has
"on street" parking shortages.
The section of Walnut Street that runs next to my property (the North side of the property) is only
20' wide and allows no on street parking on either side. Webster Street that runs in front of my
property is only 25' wide (Per city code 14-6N-1 B 5) and allows on street parking only on one side
of the street, and for only % of my lot. Since a majority of the houses in the vicinity of my property
are rentals and multi-unit houses, on street parking is scarce.
The physical address of my property is 920 Webster St., which would mean that the "front yard" of
my property is located in front of this address. You can find this physical address located on my
abstract and also logged with the Johnson County Assessor, the Iowa City Assessor, as well as
with our local zoning and planning department. As a property owner I had never heard of the 50%
front yard rule (as you will note I have stated above) where I performed the work to my driveway
was not in my "front yard." I looked at section (105.2.1 (6) Work Exempt from Permit; Sidewalks
and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade and not over any basement or story
below and which are not part of an accessible route.) before I started the work, and I didn't feel that
it applied to my situation.
The main reasons I pushed the driveway to the curb were;
A: the parking issues I discussed above and
B: in the 15 years I have lived here I have never been able to get grass to grow well in the small
section that was there.
Some factors that have affected the grass growth were:
A: salUsand and snow during the winter
B: alley traffic that cut the corner short
C: the occasional street traffic failing to make the curve of the street causing them to drive across
the grass.
/"0.)
0 =
=
c.n
;E. 0 en
);. =1 fT1 -n
-< -0
(') r-
=<! () ç- I
.:1 -0 f11
nl 0
-::r;¡ ::a:
~:A ~
»
0)
·f
'.,0;;.
~' :~ I
f'o\,
_,'t
,C
\)~
'\),
, ~
~~
~
z
\
!\
~ "
CD
N
:c
Q..
o
W
-.J
-
LL
. -"
,<,.¡.\
\,
".
~.
Q
\,
;
I
..
'\1
~
1::\¡'t
(.",,.,1; n--R,,?J~
If '» IJ1 « ¡, L
II (
IO~
\¡
~
~
~
l--- i;;
~ "hP-h
~
'.C:.
~
~
~
'"
~ q
-s§ ........
-< ~~
~~
~'-9
-<
t= (-
"'-
~
...
~
~
'"
1
.J1
)
I
I
,
I 6\
0'>>< ~
1./';:>
II -+1 il ¡"... 0 1 ','
--. ----I- . - - ~
. \n $.JM"/:l "''''~'ls;.,,-~aJ
-.: ' ,- - - - - ~
' 1þ~"tJ~': ", L
Q jll'"
. -~ . --
:.. -."0' -= "';'~_I'-:_' -.
,..::. '_ _,~ ,'}1~1 !.
'10'
# ,-J1J""""/YI '
"', 10'
·':1.
-
\./'j
~
I
s-_ ~
... b... ¿) "-0
;I'rzh - ~
I,~L'
.
. .
4
. .
,
~~
~
V
"'-
\II
t ?-...9
'-.9 ~
~.;p "z
~
~
.;tr?P,/1 -;"',; .?
-
-
.I :S!7--( <)
~~; J S ~-.J C)
t'I\ ,/
..
~
~
);"
~.
-
..
'" ,I
~
+ ..:L..>" 2/ ~"¿~f/? /f -:3
"=20'
scale 1
n
I
a
I
a
o
o
I
PhQtography Flight
Date Aprlt2001
Paroe! Data Courtesy
of Johnson County
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Prepared by: Kristopher Ackerson, Planning
Intern
Item: EXC05-00017, 1010 Orchard St. and
abutting property to the south
Date: October 12, 2005
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
TD Builders
3129 Deerfield Dr. NE
Swisher, IA 52338
(319) 631-5550 (mobile)
Contact Person:
Darren Spenler
Requested Action:
Special Exception auto and truck oriented uses
(Section 14-6E-5 D.1) and reduction of front
yard (Section 14-6Q-4 B)
Purpose:
To allow for expansion auto- and truck-
oriented use, to reduce the front yard setback,
and to allow automobile sales.
Location:
1010 Orchard St. and abutting property to the
south
Size:
6,000 sq. ft. at 1010 Orchard Street and 5,985
sq. ft. at property to the south (11,985 sq. ft.
total)
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Automobile repair garage; Community
Commercial, CC-2.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Community Commercial, CC-2
Community Commercial, CC-2
Community Commercial, CC-2
Residential, RS-8
Comprehensive Plan:
Mixed-use
File Date:
September 15, 2005
Applicable Zoning Ordinance Sections:
Section 14-6E-5 D.1, special exceptions in the
CC-2 zone; Section 14-60-4 B, modification of
yard requirements; Section 14-6R-7, planting
of trees on private property for parking areas;
Section 14-6S-11 (A and B), location and type
of screening materials; Section 14-6W-2B,
review standards for the granting of special
exceptions.
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The owner of 1010 Orchard Street and the adjoining property to the south operates an automobile
repair business on these properties, which are across the street from a Medium Density Single-
Family (RS-8) zone. The properties are zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and currently
contain an automobileltruck repair shop and warehouse. The existing repair shop was established
prior to the requirement for a special exception for auto and truck oriented uses. Some aspects of
the property currently do not conform to zoning regulations. The property does not provide
adequate off-street parking spaces, a side walk or required street trees.
The applicant requests three special exceptions: (1) the expansion of an auto- and truck-oriented
use to allow construction of a 15 ft. by 40 ft. addition onto the south face of the existing structure;
(2) to allow for the display and sale of up to two vehicles; and (3) to reduce the required front yard
setback from 20 ft. to 5 ft. The addition will provide expanded bathroom and office space;
currently, the footprint for the addition is used as a fenced storage area.
The application was initially submitted only to allow the expansion of the office area of the auto
. repair shop. Upon review of the application, staff and the property owner agreed that the
application should include future improvements to both lots containing the auto repair business.
The applicant submitted a site plan on September 20, 2005 that addresses the north property
only. In order to comply with zoning and site plan regulations the application needs to address:
· Construction of an addition to the existing auto repair garage
· Reduction of the front yard to allow parking within 50 feet of a residential zone
· Installation of sidewalks on both properties
· Paving of parking areas and driveways
· Installation of vegetated screening (at least 3 feet high) on both properties
· Planting of three street trees
ANAL YSIS:
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. As a special exception use,
auto- and truck-oriented uses in CC-2 zones must meet the specific requirements for CC-2 zones
(Section 14-6E-5) as well the general standards for special exception review. 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:
14-6E-5D, Special Exceptions - Auto- and truck-oriented uses in the Community
Commercial Zone
The CC-2 Zone permits auto- and truck-oriented uses by special exception, but provides no
additional criteria or standards by which to review the location of such facilities. The requirement
for a special exception was likely incorporated into the CC-2 regulations due to potential concerns
regarding compatibility of the uses with adjacent properties, potential traffic and circulation
problems, and aesthetic concerns with this type of use.
Auto and truck-oriented uses are intended to provide services related to the sale, servicing, or
repair of vehicles, including automobile service stations and garages (Section 14-6B-2). In
general, the proposed building addition and converting the existing warehouse into a vehicle
3
repair area are consistent with automotive- and truck-oriented uses, which are allowed by special
exception in CC-2 zones. The applicant wishes to begin selling vehicles on a limited basis (no
more than two for-sale vehicles at one time). Vehicle sales are permitted by special exception in
the CC-2 zone. The immediate area currently contains other auto-oriented establishments - a car
rental business and an automobile repair establishment. Allowing automobile sales at 1010
Orchard will be consistent with services already offered in this commercial area. In fact, the
nearby car rental business was granted a similar special exception to sell vehicles. Adequate
parking and landscaping, however, must be provided (see discussion below) to prevent negative
effects on adjacent properties.
14-6Q-4B, Modifications of Yard Requirements
Parking for commercial uses is not permitted in front yards if the vehicles are less than 50 feet
from a residential zone (Section 14-6N-1-3b). The reasoning behind this prohibition is to limit
conflicts with nearby residences due to traffic noise, parking lot lights, and car headlights.
However, a special exception to modify yard requirements may be granted when the owner
demonstrates that a situation, "peculiar to the property in question," presents a practical difficulty
in complying with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code.
Since the residential zoning boundary runs along the centerline of Orchard Street, which has a 65-
foot right-of-way, the requested special exception would allow parking within 37.5 feet of a
residential zone. The applicant seeks to reduce the front yard setback by 15 feet (from 20 feet to 5
feet) for a parking lot because the wide right-of-way width combined with the shallow depth of the
properties leaves few options other than parking in the front yard. Based on these circumstances
it appears parking in within 50 feet of a residential zone may be necessary to prevent overflow
parking issues. Concerns regarding the potential negative effects of allowing commercial parking
near a residential zone should be addressed through screening requirements as discussed below.
The current auto repair garage contains approximately 2,947 sq. ft. of automobile service area
and 1,248 sq. ft. of warehouse space. Auto- and truck-oriented uses shall provide one parking
space per 300 sq. ft of floor area and one space per 1,000 sq. ft. of warehouse area (Section
14-6N-1), thus this use is currently required to provide 11 parking spaces. The proposed
addition will increase the floor area of the auto- and truck-oriented use to 4,795 sq. ft., which will
require a total of 13 spaces, and further conversion of the warehouse to auto-oriented use
would increase parking requirements to 15 spaces. The original site plan submitted by Applicant
does not provide adequate screening between the commercial use and nearby residences. Staff
has prepared a concept plan (Exhibit A) showing how the property could be configured to comply
with pertinent site plan and zoning regulations, including street trees and screening of the
commercial use. Prior to receiving a building permit the applicant will need to demonstrate that
the required number of parking spaces will be provided on the site.
General Standards:
14-6W-28, Special Exception Review Standards
In addition to the specific standards mentioned above, the Board must find that the applicant
meets the following general standards spelled out in chapter 14-6W-2-B. Applicant's statements
regarding each of the general standards are attached. Staff's findings are offered below:
A. The specific exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare. Pedestrian access is a key priority for residents of the Southwest
District (Southwest District Plan, p. 20). To assure pedestrian safety and improve the
aesthetics of this proposal and to meet the requirements of the site plan regulations, staff
recommends pedestrian walkways be provided. By providing a sidewalk the applicant will
extend the planned sidewalk underway along this entire block. In a similar situation, a special
4
exception was granted for 850 Orchard contingent upon the provision of sidewalks (EXC05-
00013). Staff finds that the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health safety, comfort or general welfare if sidewalks are installed in the right-of-way along
Orchard Street as illustrated in the site plan.
B. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood. The proposal reduction of the front yard to allow parking within
50 feet of a residential zone will have potential negative effects on the neighboring residences.
To be consistent with neighboring properties and to reduce negative effects of the proposed
exception, staff recommends that landscaping be provided as discussed in paragraph F.
below. If this issue is addressed, staff finds that the proposal will not be injurious to the use or
enjoyment of other properties in the immediate area.
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. The area located east of Orchard Street
contains a variety of commercial uses including other auto and truck oriented uses. The area
to the west contains single-family homes. Staff finds that this project will not impede further
development or redevelopment of surrounding property provided adequate parking and
landscaping are provided.
D. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are
being provided. Adequate public utilities are in place to serve the existing use of this property
and the proposed expansion.
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 sale of vehicles on
the properties may increase traffic turning into and out of the subject properties because
prospective buyers will visit the site to view used cars. Orchard Street is a collector street with
sufficient capacity to accommodate the minimal increase in traffic that may be generated by
the expanded office use and car sales. Staff finds that the special exception will not change
the current number of ingresslegress points, nor will it significantly affect congestion on
Orchard Street.
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. The Code
states that commercial uses must be screened from view from residential areas located
across the street. To achieve this aim, a planting screen of pyramidal arbor vitae at least 3 feet
high and spaced 4 feet on center may be used. The planting bed shall have a minimum
dimension of five feet, be free of any impervious surface, and be separated from streets,
drives, parking areas by an insurmountable curb or barrier in such a manner that sand and
saltwater runoff will not damage the screening (Section 14-6S-11 B). Exhibit A shows how
this requirement can be addressed on this property.
In addition to providing a buffer between the auto and truck oriented use and a residential
neighborhood, the effect of this vegetated screen will be to visually separate the vehicle use
area from pedestrian the use area and prevent parked cars from overhanging onto sidewalk
areas. Other special exceptions in the South Riverside District have been granted on the
condition that landscaping and safety improvements be made including AutoSmart (EXC01-
00017), which required an 8-foot landscaping strip, Hartwig Properties (EXC99-0001), and
McDonald's (EXC98-0018). Additionally, many businesses have voluntarily improved the
landscaping around their properties including Enterprise Rent-a-Car (EXC98-0004), Tuffy Auto
5
Service Center, The Ground Round, and Mobil 1 Auto Lube.
Section 14-6R-6B, requires that trees be planted adjacent to the street right-of-way in
commercial zones. The 1010 Orchard property has approximately 100 feet of lot frontage and
no street trees, and the adjacent property has approximately 75 feet and no street trees. Tree
regulations require that lots contain street trees at a frequency of one for every 40 feet of lot
frontage for large trees or one for every 30 feet of lot frontage for small trees. By planting three
large street trees, as illustrated in Exhibit A, the applicant will partially mitigate the aesthetic
effects of a parking lot in sight of a residential neighborhood.
Public sidewalks are required within the street right-of-way. These must be installed prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit for the proposed expansion.
As noted above, depending on the configuration of square footage, this auto and truck
oriented use will be required to provide between 11 and 15 parking spaces. Prior to
issuance of a building permit the applicant will need to demonstrate to the Building Official
that the required parking spaces will be provide on this property.
G. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as
amended. The subject properties are commercial uses located across the street from
residential development (RS-8). During development of the Southwest District Plan, citizens of
the District expressed support for attractive, well-designed commercial areas that serve the
daily needs of the surrounding residents. Improved access for pedestrians and bicyclists and
improved aesthetic appeal in the area by way of landscaping are among the priorities of the
Comprehensive Plan. According the Southwest Planning District section of the
Comprehensive Plan, the redevelopment of properties like 1010 Orchard offers opportunities
to minimize existing aesthetic and traffic related concerns within the district's commercial
areas (Comprehensive Plan, p. 111). To comply with goals, including aesthetic improvement
in the area, set forth in the Southwest District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, landscaping
should be incorporated in the design before the granting of a special exception.
SUMMARY:
The proposed special exception would allow the Applicant to expand the existing auto repair
garage, display two vehicles for sale, and provide parking within 50 feet of a residential zone at
1010 Orchard Street and the adjacent property to the south. The building addition and car sales
components of the proposal meet the criteria for auto- and truck-oriented uses. Provided that
sufficient park spaces and trees and landscaping and a sidewalk are provided adjacent to the
street the right-of-way, the application appears to meet the specific standards for modifications to
yard requirements and appears to meet general standards A, B, C, D, E, F and G required for all
special exceptions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC05-00017, a special exception to allow construction of an addition to
an existing auto and truck oriented use including, sales of up to two vehicles, and reduction of the
required front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow parking within 50 feet of a residential zone for
property located in the CC-2 zone at 1010 Orchard Street and the neighboring property to the
south, be approved subject to a site plan that sufficiently screens the commercial use from
neighboring residences, provides street trees along the right-of-way, provides a sidewalk and
illustrates compliance with off-street parking requirements
6
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Application materials
3. Exhibit A - staff prepared site plan
4. Arial photograph
Approved by:
~fUù
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
S\
3^I~O 30IS~3^1~ HlnOS
~ID
tj
~
~
~
~
tj
...--
>-
«
3
::r
()
::r
w
I-
«
l-
V)
I-
U
(f)
(f)
«
-.J
G
:J
o
o
[
N
o
o
J'...
T-
o
o
o
I
10
o
~
w
ã>
Q)
....
.....
en
"0
....
to
.s::::
o
....
o
o
T-
O
T-
ž
o
Þ-4
5
o
~
~
t=
rJ:J
'Pc.. 0
EXL05- OOD, Î
APPEAL TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W
DATE: '1 '* " () i}'
PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS:
10/0 Ol'a-;AP--D S Tí2-ìæÍ
APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE:
.::.'-'1...
APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: i () 17 X hr?
APPLICANT:
Name:
'''- D ~\L.r~s.
( DI¥L~~)
DCL N£"" J SWt }i~ / lA-
,.....,
=
=
U'
c/>
rrI
-u
)~ p:} 2
Address: 3l 2."1 D~@..,Q
Phone: (rY\) b~1 - 5"5""50
'-
-n
-
r-
U'I \
fT1
'"'¡
u
::D"
-,..
_)oj...
PROPERTY OWNER:
Name: _ÞA142-fÑ ~~t.e-a.,
Address: ¥M't1e- ~ ~
Phone: ~-:?\ - S'i?,?O
~ -"1(,
Name: N 1 c,¡...{OLSoN * .soN~ LG.
Address: '?11.:'l.. M ~DO\) t..~ , \()w Ûí'{) (.4
.. ëS
"
CONTACT PERSON:
C.,
I..D
Phone:
Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter:
\4-- ,- ~e - 5 0, \ Avra f Tfl.V(lt.. Ot'LftWlcÞÛ {)Ç.e:$
Purpose for special exception: AL.t..ow fè'YZ \:?"'X'[7,<}N & ¡Of of (3ð...íl-Í'~ 4
oñQw çf:'A-tE ~ A~-re ,óUTð1Vtt1Ttve:"
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
-2-
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Leaal description of property:
~. 4-r-rAa-{ø)
.. Wh(?-(!../¥fÝ D~11 WIíH
VeSt~-l~íi~¡J
B.
*Plot 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.
rSubmission of an 8 %" x 11 II 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.
D. The applicant is required to present specific information, not just opinions, that the
aeneral standards for the QrantinQ 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.
õ
;?Eo
:i>~
''''''-'i
:boo
~
9'
w
1.0
_......
,.....-,\
'_J
~
Þ
"'-J
~
C'c;;,
c:.r,
(/)
r-"I
~·t)
I¡
"-
r-
""'-7
í I
(",
i.......I
-
<.J'
-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.
11ie-F1'ZopO$$ SPA<::.t Fó,z.. íf-{~ AwITIa-J IS c..u 2lZG\)fL t
uSe{) M A F'eNk-V S-ror2A9e= Ae.eA.. T ..hS. Ao )ITi~
WOUlfi) Ia.-IM INA-r~ i1{e fÐ0CêP STorZ,oG¡~ MLET-\,
""-Af\tUL1 ·nt~ Lðí Mol2£"" Af~IN9'
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.
111 \;:. AVÞI TIO,.J
$AJ~~OtN~
\tJu... Nor v'v'\f~ o¡..J AN,
P~~-rf" ..
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
VP-Þ IN ~(, rz
UNíH.¡W4~
of ~í2~Lt::
By,t1-(L5
WA--r~ W{LL
p~Jez::r
BE"
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
-n-{~
kND
~~ñ~
j./'\.A ¡^-.J O~I~A'f ~lLL. KJur ü-lA/IJ 4E""
~ ,(\DO( Té~ \¡f lLL Nr:sl lµ qzt=:.A~
"1'b
'U{~
.ßA)I\....PI"-l ~
õ ~
I::::)
=
;;~O CJ"¡
þ-'-' en
--,-~ fT1
C) --..:;'".... -0 II
-
---I (J r-
~-< fT1
0 ;c..
:Jr: ;-ì
:¿; ë3 u
Þ ..
.s::-
o
-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.]
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
S'Hov; S
-rH¡S iJ(lL,~ ~
c~ r11 ~ [/tL
Vl.\.l,>( d'.) LJ~
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
?~ A-r""ft:1cH~ "l~\JI;4:...~ ~UL-rS ~t U.H-tld-\
lAS, ~(.2.(2.00ND \N(;., Pt2.0(?læ\(\ð (~?<1~)
f..;)
Q c::=>
c::;)
c.n
-->0 (/)
<........_-
» __,I rr¡ 11
..,," -0
CJ -'.,
:::-.J C'~ U1 r-
":;"~"'" l 111
111 ~ í"""I
O;!2 ñ '-.J
-:;:^
:t; .c-
o
\f\
?\ ~
~I
\,,:- ¡ C} -
~\~
~
ç:
a \--
~ ~
~
~
~
D
<f -~
o
""2.
~
~
~'3i ~
~ I vi \= \c- ,¡:¡
~I~ ~ \f) LD
¿\\.~~ ~ ~
~......, 'i ~ ~
..Æ. ...., '\::L "I "-
-, :J¡ ~ -ù .)
~.j~c:£t
~C)'4:0
&':I J-
J~~Ç)~
~2~S¿~
¡{) ~
~ S\ù .""
r-- '>11 - "t;:¡ '\
>- ¡¡:. - F~' '
~ ~ ~ ~ ~l ,\,,\.\,::
-'K ¡.. '..'\' ' ',¡ ~
..:..r~' ,'" r"'-.'-._~: r.. <,/
L,' I-m ~,
I/_'~_.' l) ,
I I ' ...:;,- "..~ -T \1\ I ..
II ,J ~I Ë\'.. 1\ ~ ~ ï j
/~ \fa\~ >~D~~J
, 1\ -k .. x Ik ~J"
, ,/ 'I _ to ",'-'\:I::
, / ,'_ '" æ:."
~
~ -~ ~ ..~..~.,
~
~
~
!
'f?-
\ÍJ
\.l\
IJ
~
s
"2
;s,
~
() ~., 1\ _
\)L ....,.... -~ 0
~.J -s:-0
:u\ 'r - -"
\\-- j J
~ sJ. y\.
J Os{ L\J
~ ~ ~ ~
,4.: Q 0 V)
- .
Jt--~
__~I
I
I
¡
I
- --'
-...
~
r - -
I
I
I
L
,x
\j
i-
¡- -
I
I
.L
\.-.
J
-~
~~
Si.-
~~
~!rl
\)
~\}
:2.
...J
.!Y
':2
9
-
I I
I
1- _ _ _ ~
I
f
~
~
1
r -
I - ' -
IS' 'x ó:) L
- .)-1\..'
-1 I ~.A I
'I-- ~,~::,L--'
! _ _ _.¿.':!J
, ~~----
):) -::::-
~ ~
~t $,
-z J-~ *
~ \1) ~ ~
Ì)l ~oJ ~
\11 ,,~-
, J.-\ N ~
~
~
f~ ~I t 1-Q
~_ ~I t t &:
3 ~ ,~¡ ~ - y..
~I .J\
I
~
~\\
....
~
I
¡
¡
/
.. ,+
---J
@==:~~
Cb!!:!J -,
~ 8
= C'oI!
-
(!¿b!] C'J
t:3 1::\ (),
~ I....!,\
u";
ß::!:Id]
~
I
f
!
i
I
I
I
!
WI ~
~ i
> I
met II
55
_0
1--
0>'
wI-
a...-
(/)ü
z~
«so
<9-
z
ë7.i
:J
-0
:J:
0"\
C'?
" ª
1.-_' ::t:
l.l. J oq:
-1 L/')
CL
~
V)
LI":)
=
=
~
~
~\\
\Î)
~
'........ ::s;.
1:-0
0- ~.
-_.>..Jç' ,
...." "',
...",' -=-
>-- (j -,~t:.
ð:$ í'.---/- (- .......
~ / ~~
º / ç:~
i r~
~n -- ~-}--__~'k-_nu- - ---. .----, \rl
- I' 11' - ~
I / -~ ã ~ ~
1/ - 0 \ - J.
I ~ / - -"l-~- ~
------_.'------_._-.-,--
~-~~
~
\=
a ~ ~(:)
~ <f -~
~ 1\
~ C> ->: ~ 0
~J 'r ...y 0
~\-;s: .-
~ '.1. J
~ ~ \})
=> û ~ ~
~ \) t J
D
s
1
D
.J
<s -
iì (J
~
x
J..
TO
Dß
I
-3 -
~ ~
~ì
'/..
LU
~~
D
I
d..
--:s:-o 8
-P
I
-:rsL
0°
8
-(8
r\} '-
~ UI
"'2
.J
J
/
.I
j
I
I
lu
-::2.
.J
'--
~
~
~
o
f' ~
d
-f--- .~
C'i
-1 / }2
rt i..¡\
1/' t§
¡ .j)
1 ~
~
~~
.¿ ">::Í..
~ .D
-c:L
8
I
I
\~
~
o~
'Vi.
<t
~
o
r-4=OO
[J)~
I .->
! '? ''',,; \},)
~\ 1. ~,
-J <¥
L ~<:l.2 .~~ .3- '~:J ~,.~\.__ G \'-~\~
ìl!
------;:::3 )
~~-f.'
.q
...
I
\.¡,
/0.' _
,~ ::> <:r-
r t¡ M
:r.
I- \\I 'f..
VI Ci ~
[;¡ ~ ~
-.>
r--:---,
I - ;"-~' I>. t ,.. q.; I
I I
«
I-
ea
I
><
W
-
tn
~
.....,
'^.
"
\11
.~ 1=
~ ?: ,'lI /-\-
~~~
x ~ -"-____
Ju:i. //~ "\
( \
(
f
o
Z\-
\~ S} ~
_. ,_ T
., ë; 'j.
~( ~ -~
-~"--l~
·"ì.__~.J-
I
,
c::,w
u, j¡
~\~\
~ ~ r-~-'~
_~ "" ? 1-'>-<>':; 1).. (.i/- 'QL~ J
) 'iT, . _',,; ,
~ c.._~ -"" !:!- .:: ~~) )i.r.---:ll r
\ ,-~ ~~J
J~JJ" II
" J '3
~ ~ ~
~ 0
~ ~~\111
5u~ddBV\I Á¡~8 BMOI !O Á¡!8
~,--...~>._<-,--...,.__..
"~_.'''''''''----''-~'''.''
-,,,- .~--"..~,-"".,~.,"._-_._-----
--------l
I
i
I
!
\1)
-3
WI-
>w
I-w
o~
~I-
Oø 0
1-0 I;>:¡
::>~ "
«« 0
WI :r
1-0
~~ J)
""2 Hl
::>0 ëi I
0° -I I
o'r" ~ L_ _ .J
«~ cO -
UJ
"'2
J
.!)
z
¡-
VI
'y
¡-
'It.
'"
C-
o
Oot.-
C+-
~
I.
-.¡ --'"
9~-o
:81!1 deV\l
"
'=T"-
"
~'
~
-I
"-
N\
~
~
1-
\I;
"
~
"
D-
~/
\.¡¡
~cL
·-::t:.w'·Y
-". , , /'-.,. "2:>,/
~- '. ~.....' '.,( " (~~¡
~i ----=--"'-.~J->~~~,~> \;;,/::". . '®/
~ _____ It: -~-:;'
f..!) ( -.(r
c£> $' ~
~ ~- ~
~ . i\ ,;
<.) ,.,~~ '/.' fQ'"
~ ~., '--)f'I\' ~-
~~. \ · l'· //-.... \\
. "'::-...... \\
< ~~5~
ç:c:
:::>
/
::r
í
j
"l
~
V)
a
e:::
"
:r
<.)
'"'
Q
r-
<-
~
f
Cl
C\
l
!
í
i
(
I
[
~.)
~
,
I
"
í
!
i
i
if,
"""
:J'«
~
tv
..J
¡f:
J
¡::
~
ÑlJI'1O:) UOSutjOr O
Asapno::> BIB() roJBd
œ="L :e e:>s
wœ 1!Jd\f alBa
14fi!H A\jdsJOOI04d
~
I
I
I
¡
=30'
I
1
scale
n
.
a
.
a
o
o
I
Photography Flight
Date April 2001
Parcel Data Courtesy
of Johnson County
f
I
i
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL-IOWA CITY, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Vincent Maurer, Michael Wright, Ned Wood
MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Sarah Swartzendruber, Rob Phipps, Jim Enloe, Meg Baron, Holly Hotchkiss,
Shelly McCafferty, B. Wilson, Kyle Kwaise, Laura Parker, Helen Burford,
Jim Easton, Esther Baker, Janet Ranbadonski, Michel Maharry, Hillary Sale,
Ryan O'Leary, John Morrison
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Maurer called the meeting to order at 5:02 pm.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 13. 2005 BOARD MINUTES
MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Wright seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5:0.
MOTION: Leigh moved to take the items out of order. Wood seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5:0
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC05-00015 Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa City Ready Mix for a special exception to
allow additions to a cement plant located in the General Industrial (1-1) zone at 1854 South Riverside
Drive.
Miklo said that cement plants are allowed by special exception within the General Industrial (1-1) zone. He
said that the current use, Iowa City Ready Mix, was established prior to this requirement in the zoning
ordinance and consequently was never required to go through a special exception process. He noted that
the owners wish to build a covered structure which will roof the 5 material hoppers and 4 dump trucks to
be parked in that location. He said that approval of the special exception for the proposed structure and
the existing use of the property will in effect legitimize the entire cement plant.
Miklo presented pictures with the location, the area, and existing facility. He said that there are 7 general
tests that need to be met.
Miklo said that the specific proposed exception should not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare, He mentioned that the staff is
not aware of issues related to traffic or safety concerns. He noted that it is adjacent to the Iowa River, but
is outside of the 100-year flood plain, so the staff does not anticipate problems related to flooding for the
property.
Miklo stated that the proposed exception should 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 the proposed changes are relatively small and are not expected, in staff's
view, to affect enjoyment of surrounding properties nor to diminish property values.
Miklo 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 the proposed addition will not change the current
use of the property and consequently is not expected to have a significant effect on the development of
the surrounding properties.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 14, 2005
Page 2
Miklo said that adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize
traffic congestion on public streets. He added that the proposed covered structure is located away from
entry and exit points on the property and will not affect the ingress or ingress which are currently
adequate.
Miklo said 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 according to the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, a natural buffer of 50 feet is required between the Iowa River and any development activity.
The proposed sheltered structure lies partially within 50 feet of the river. However, it is allowed for the
buffer to be reduced by up to 50% if certain circumstances exist. He added that the area does not contain
any significant native trees or prairie remnants. If the buffer is to be reduced, the ordinance states that
enhanced vegetative cover shall be provided in the remaining buffer area. He added that the river bank
contains extensive vegetation and it is steep, and it does not appear that it would be possible to plant
additional trees.
Next, Miklo said that the proposed use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. He
said that the South Central District portion of the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the commercial and
industrial character of the area. The proposed changes are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Miklo said that staff recommends that EXC05-00015 an application submitted by Iowa City Ready Mix for
a special exception to allow additions to a cement plant located in the General Industrial (1-1) zone at
1854 South Riverside Drive be approved.
Wright said that the applicant is willing to address any lack of vegetation, and he asked if it is too steep
how they would address that. Miklo said that there is no lack of vegetation. He added that the code allows
the buffer to be reduced by up to 50% if additional vegetation is provided.
Holecek said that they are not proposing that the buffer will be reduced with 50%, but are making sure
that they will not reduce the buffer unless necessary to accommodate the new addition.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NONE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Leigh wanted to make sure that there will not be any further excavations in the Iowa River buffer area.
Miklo said that they will not do any excavations; the addition will be just above the existing structure.
MOTION: Alexander moved that EXC05-00015 an application submitted by Iowa City Ready Mix for
a special exception to allow additions to a cement plant located in the General Industrial (1-1) zone
at 1854 South Riverside Drive be approved subject to the 50-foot buffer be reduced only as
necessary to accommodate the proposed structure. Leigh seconded the motion.
Alexander will vote in favor of the application, She said that the specific proposed exception should not be
åetrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. She said that it appears
not to 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 noted that the changes are
relatively small, and consistent with the land uses surrounding the cement plant. Alexander said that it
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. She said that no effects on ingress or
egress exist now, and the addition should not make any changes. In terms of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, it appears that the proposed sheltered structure will partially encroach within 50feet of the
river, but there are several provisions that are met. The proposed addition will not affect the buffer
between the cement plant and Iowa River, is not an area that has significant native trees or prairie
remnants, nor does it contains sensitive areas subject to the requirements of the sensitive areas
ordinance. She added that the proposed use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 14, 2005
Page 3
Wood will vote in favor. He said that there is nothing to indicate that it will be detrimental or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said that it will be a minor change to the property. He
noted that it will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and
will not affect the traffic around the property. He said that there is concern about the natural buffer, but is
being addressed. He added that the proposed use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of
the City.
Leigh will vote in favor for the reasons already stated. She added that her biggest concern was the
proximity to the river and the issues involved, but those had been adequately addressed.
Wright will also vote in favor. He said that for the reasons already stated it does appear to meet all
general standards, He added that the property lies outside the rivers flood plain which should be a great
consideration, and the cement plant has not been detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort or
general welfare, and is not expected to change that.
Maurer will vote in favor for the reasons already stated.
Motion passed 5:0.
VARIANCE
VAR05-00001 Discussion of an application submitted by Keming Zeng and Jie Zhou for a variance to
permit up to 30 roomers for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12)
zone at 932 East College Street.
Wood excused himself due to conflict of interest.
Miklo said that the application is to allow up to 30 roomers to occupy the building at 932 East College
Street. He said that the property is non-conforming in terms of lot area, and parking. In absence of a
variance the property is permitted to be used for a non-conforming rooming house with a maximum
occupancy of 13 roomers. He said that the proposal is to increase from 13 to 30 the num ber of roomers
allowed.
Miklo stated that in 1997 a variance was granted to allow up to 30 occupants on the property. However,
the Board at that time placed a number of conditions on that decision. He mentioned that one condition
states that the variance is specifically to Leighton House LC, which will provide resident management of
the rooming house consistent with the principles outlined in the business plan dated July 1997; the
density variance is not applicable to any successors in title to the property. Miklo said that due to this very
specific condition placed on the previous variance it is not transferable, someone who buys the property
cannot have 30 occupants. Therefore the owners are applying for a new variance to allow up to 30
occupants.
Miklo said that the Iowa State Code, case law and the Iowa City Zoning Code contain a number of
requirements that the Board must find in order to grant variance. Miklo said that the Board must find that
the proposed variance is not contrary to the public interest; it will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor
is going to have an adverse effect on the use of other properties in the area. In staff's opinion the
applicant does not meet this test. The zoning ordinance, he said, establishes maximum densities to guard
against overcrowding, and strain on public and private utilities and facilities necessary to preserve a
residential neighborhood. The applicant's property is located in a part of the city where there is an evident
shortage of both on- and off-street parking. Unless operated under the existing variance, the property
may be used to house up to 13 roomers yet provides only 2 off-street parking spaces. In staff's opinion,
allowing a total of 30 roomers, will likely result in additional traffic and demand for on-street parking.
Granting the applicant special privileges not enjoyed by neighbors, will add to the parking congestion in
the neighborhood.
Miklo said that the business plan on which the Board of Adjustment based its 1997 decision relied on the
then applicants' educational background and expertise, plans to provide twenty-four hour on-site resident
management by an experienced educator, academic support, professionally prepared meals,
housekeeping, transportation, offsite parking, security and plans to renovate the building. He noted that
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 14, 2005
Page 4
the current applicant has provided no information regarding their educational credentials or management
skills, or specifics on how they would implement the business plan.
Miklo noted that in 1997 the then applicant had indicated the parking would be addressed through leased
spaces in the Chauncey Swan public parking ramp and that transportation would be provided between
the ramp and 932 College Street. The City's Parking Division indicates that in 1997 two parking spaces
were leased for a period of three months, and the lease was not renewed. He added that the current
applicant has not addressed how they would provide parking.
Miklo said that the second criteria is that the proposed variance will be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter and will not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. Miklo said that the staff finds that the application does not meet this test. He added that for a
number of years the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map have reflected the City's intention to stabilize
this and surrounding neighborhoods, and allowing 30 roomers will not be consistent with the intent of the
City. More than doubling occupancy will increase congestion, noise, and neighborhood-wide parking
problems.
Finally, Miklo said, there is the test for unnecessary hardship which consists of three prongs. The property
in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone where the
property is located. Miklo said that staff finds that the application does not meet this test. He added that
the apþlicants have not submitted any financial information that would allow the Board to conclude that
this property can not yield a reasonable return if used for a rooming house for 13 occupants. He said that
the application refers to the 1997 business plan as evidence that the property can not yield a reasonable
return, however the plan is out of date and does not reflect the current conditions, nor does it adequately
justify the need for more roomers.
Miklo said that even if the applicant was able to show that the application of the zoning law to his property
resulted in a diminishment of value, Iowa courts have found that in order to justify a variance, it must be
proven that the strict application of the zoning law practically destroys the value of the property.
Miklo said that the owner's situation has to be unique or peculiar to the property in question, and the
situation is not shared with other landowners in the area nor due to general conditions in the
neighborhood. He noted that staff finds that the application does not meet this requirement. He referred to
a table in the staff report that shows there are several other rooming houses in this neighborhood that
operate at a lower density than the 13 roomers currently permitted for 932 College Street. He added that
granting the variance to allow 17 additional roomers for the property would convey a special privilege to
the applicant that would not be afforded to other property owners in similar situations. He said that there
is nothing special about the physical characteristics of the property that warrants special privileges to this
property that other rental properties in this neighborhood do not enjoy.
Finally, Miklo said that the hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of a
predecessor in title. He noted that staff finds that the application does not meet this test. Although it is
true that changes in dimensional, density, and parking requirements were not caused by the property
owner or a predecessor in title, the applicant has not submitted any recent data to show that application
of these standards to this property has resulted in an unnecessary hardship,
The current owner's decision to invest in the property based on the 1997 business plan knowing that the
Board restricted the variance to Leighton House LC, was of their own making.
Staff recommends that VAR05-00001 an application submitted by Keming Zeng and Jie Zhou for a
variance to permit up to 30 roomers for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential
(RNC-12) zone at 932 East College Street be denied.
Maurer asked when was the zoning change, and if the prior zoning ordinance allowed for something
different. Miklo said that the building was built in 1920's, and Iowa City adopted zoning in 1927, and
would classify the building as residential, but there were no specific requirements for parking, or
occupancy at that time. He said in 2000 the property was rezoned from RNC-20 to RNC-12. He said the
property was nonconforming with both the RNC-20 and RNC-12 zone in terms of density and parking.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 14, 2005
Page 5
Maurer asked what is the history in terms of number of occupants in the building. He asked if there were
ever 30 occupants. Miklo said that they do not if the number ever was up to 30 roomers, or if it exceeded
it. Miklo said that the building contains at the ground level two-bedroom apartment, and on the upper
floors 13 individual rooming units.
Alexander asked if fraternities or sororities are in a different category within the zoning code. Miklo
answered that it is true, and it is different than a rooming house.
Maurer asked what was the classification of Leighton House. Miklo said that it was a rooming house for
zoning purposes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Sarah Swartzendruber, 1 South Gilbert Street, presented herself as the Leighton House attorney. She
said the applicants were not able to attend the meeting. She said that they require a variance to increase
the density from 13 roomers to 30 roomers, She noted that the reason of the application is due to a
technicality. She said that the property is currently operated in accordance with what is requested.
Swartzendruber said that in 1997 when the variance was granted, it was granted with three conditions,
that there will be limited to female roomers, limited to the current owner Leighton House LC, and that it
will operate in accordance to the business plan. She said that they are asking that a new variance is
granted without the condition of having just female roomers, and without the limitation that Leighton
House LC has to be the owner of the property. She said that the legality of both conditions is debatable,
and she would be concerned about the City's decision to limit the occupancy to one gender over another,
and also limiting the conditions of the property to a specific ownership. Se noted that variances usually
run with the land and are not specific to an individual owner, being based on the use of the property not
the ownership of the property. She said that she does not believe that the City or the Board are qualified
to determine who is qualified to operate a particular property.
Swartzendruber said that both owners will be required to operate the property in accordance with the
business plan. She said that if they qo not operate the property under those conditions the Board has the
authority to revoke the variance. She added that it will not be appropriate to limit it to one particular owner
over the other.
She said that it is very seldom that the Board is able to see how the decisions are going to affect the use
and operation of the property. She said that in this particular case the property will be operated in the
same way it has been operated for the past 8 years. She said that there has not been any evidence that
parking had been a problem, or that this had a negative effect on the neighborhood, or that is detrimental
at all. Swartzendruber said that the Board has the information going forward in determining whether this
would be an appropriate use for the property. She added that a Board already looked at the requirements
and determine that they are met, there is unnecessary hardship, it will not be detrimental to the
neighborhood, and is in accordance to the Comprehensive Plan,
She said that denying the variance due to a change in ownership is not appropriate. She added that the
denial of variance based on a new owner when everything else remains the same could be considered an
arbitrary and capricious decision.
She added that one issue raised in the City staff report is the character of the neighborhood. She noted
that it is not a primary single-family neighborhood. She said that they are not requesting a high density in
a middle of predominantly single-family units. She said that they are requesting the property to continue
to be used the way it was used for the past 8 years. She noted that the property will continue to be used
under the terms requested.
Maurer asked how many residents are currently in the house,
Phipps. 4226 Westridge Court, said that there are currently 8, and there has been between 15 and 23 in
the past. Maurer asked if the property has been operated according to the variance granted in 1997.
Phipps said that it was operated according to the variance.
Wright asked if they ever had 30 roomers, Phipps said they never had 30 people.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 14, 2005
Page 6
Maurer asked if the residents are all females. Phipps said that it hasn't been all females for the last three
years. He added that they operated with males in the past two years.
Maurer asked if they operate primarily as a rooming house. Phipps said that it is student housing mostly
for undergraduates.
Wright asked if the property had been operated outside the requirements of the variance. Phipps said that
they operated with males instead of females.
Alexander asked if it was single gender housing. Phipps said that they had single gender roomers.
Maurer asked who decides that the variance is not transmissible to any successor. Holecek said that was
decided by the Board of Adjustment in 1997, and the Board wanted to make the decision applicable
based on the specific business plan, and based on the qualifications of the applicant. Holecek said the
City acknowledges that the operator should not be restricted to leasing rooms based on gender.
Wright asked if based on the low occupancy existing in the past, was the return of the investment for
those years adequate to pay for the expenses. Phipps said that the building needs 30 occupants.
James Enloe. 1106 East College Street, said that he would like to address two issues. He said that the
owners are not currently operating in compliance with the business plan, in terms of parking
requirements. He said that he lived in the neighborhood since before the variance was granted and had
seen the parking density increase, and quality of life degrade as a consequence of that. He said that he is
not in favor of granting the variance to new owners, which will negatively impact on property values. He
noted that they live in a historic district, and are already regulated by conditions of what can and can not
be done to the houses, He said that he is particularly concerned about the increase density in traffic, and
congestion and parking that will impinge upon the quality of life and safety of the children.
Maurer asked f the detrimental effect had taken place during the past eight years. Enloe said that he lived
there before the current variance was granted and noticed an increase in density of parking since the
variance was granted,
Meq Baron. 115 South Summit Street, said that they live directly north of the property in question. She
said that traffic in the neighborhood is outrageous. She added that finding a place to park on the street is
almost impossible. Baron said that she does not believe that the Leighton House had any off-street
parking. She noted that the neighborhood is very congested. She said that if the variance is allowed,
maybe she should turn her house into a big rooming house and get the same benefits. She said she is
very much against the application, and would hope the Board will vote against it.
Holly Hotchkiss. 2325 Summit Street, said that she had been in the neighborhood for 14 years and the
parking has always been a challenge. She noted that more cars will negatively affect the quality of life,
and is opposed to it.
Shelly McCafferty. 228 South Summit Street, said that she did some quick calculations and determine
that within one block area of the property in question there are currently 53 units that have no or very little
parking space. She noted that there is a shortage of about 50 parking spaces. She said that she owns
one apartment that does not have parking, and the addition of potential 17 units would create a shortage
of 66 parking spaces within a 1 block area. She said that she is concerned about the value of her
property. If there was a provision showing that there will be no parking associated with the use proposed,
and would be enforced than she would be ok with the variance.
B. Wilson. 1110 East College Street, said that she lived near downtown Iowa City for over 25 years. She
noted that she is not against students, or renters, but she is against density, She said that the current 13
roomers is reasonable, and gives each person a room. She said that she sees no reason for a variance.
She said that the previous plan included management and educational components which are not being
continued.
Kyle Kwaise, 935 East College Street, said that he is a former Board member of River City Housing
Collective. He said that they were able to operate three houses with one person per room and are
financially stable. He noted that there are about 10 people in his house with 3 cars and 2 parking spots,
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 14, 2005
Page 7
He said that the number of cars could fluctuate from year to year regardless of whether or not Leighton
House puts more than one person per room. He said that his roommates, especially those that own the
cars are opposed to the idea of competing more for parking spots.
Laura Parker. 200 South Summit, said that she is the current president of River City Housing Collective.
She said that it is not in their best interest for the variance to be granted mainly for the parking issue. She
stated that having parking available for their members is very important to be able to sustain the
membership. She added that all their houses are run with one person per room, which worked fine for the
financial situation.
Helen Burford, 528 East College Street, said she is representing herself and her in-laws. She added that
her in-laws have lived in the neighborhood for over 36 years. She said that there are considerable efforts
by the City to downzone the area and to revive the residential nature of the area. Burford said that
recently there have been some major restorations in the area. These are investments of the people in the
community to make it a residential area. She said that College Street has always had rooming houses,
but it has been a mixed neighborhood, and by increasing the density of the area is contrary to the plans of
the City. She said that there are big parking problems, there are issues with visibility on corners because
people park closer to the corners, and accidents due to these issues.
Jim Easton, 1039 East College Street, said that they are in the process of moving into their house. He
added that the appeal of the neighborhood for them was that it is a very pleasant historic residential
neighborhood close to downtown. He noted that they once had a yard with 6 different types of grass in it,
and he had a hard time keeping them separated because different people had grown different types of
lawns at different types. He said that it was impossible to do that. He said that they are in the next zoning
area from the Leighton House, but the carryover is high, both in terms of parking, or character and value
of properties.
Esther Baker. 1022 East College Street, said that she is concerned about density and the changing
character of the neighborhood, She noted that it is not an anti student issue, but she is concerned about
the slippery slope effect of this. She added that if a variance is allowed here who can stop other people
from requesting the same consideration. She said that the business plan is old, and there is evidence that
it will be detrimental. She said there are people talking about the parking, and there had been times with
so much competition for parking, and people try to squeeze their cars in very small places, and her
driveway was blocked several times by a car trying desperately to fit in. She added that even is spaces
are rented else where, out of convenience people are going to stay in the neighborhood and try to find a
spot there.
Janet Rasbadonski, 925 East Washington Street, said that they are new to the community. She said that
while they have parking spaces for themselves, when they have relatives visiting it is really difficult for
them to find parking. She said that another concern is about property values, noise, parking issues, and
quality of life. She noted that currently the neighborhood offers a great quality of life and would not want
to see that degraded,
Michael Maharry. 903 East College Street, said that he is opposed to the variance, and concerned about
the parking issue and the detrimental effect on the neighborhood. He noted that the owners of the
Leighton House are currently in violation of the existing variance, and would ask city staff to investigate
the issue.
Hillary Sale. 1016 East College Street, said that she opposes the request for variance. She noted that
there were a lot of testimonies from people in the neighborhood about the impact on parking, density, and
other concerns. She said that the neighborhood is very congested, and it has been more congested since
1997 when the Leighton House went in. She said that she attended that hearing, and there were all kinds
of promises made by the Leighton House, which have not been kept. She said that she would also echo
the call for city staff to investigate the current variance. She noted that the business plan said that the
management of the Leighton House would be in residence, and the managing partners have not been in
the house for years. She said that it has been at a point a fraternity. She said that they cannot legally be a
fraternity. She said that the activity of the fraternity had been disruptive of the neighborhood, She said
that there has been no evidence of transportation being provided to the residents of Leighton House She
said that at a point they had a fraternity against the provisions of the business plan, She said that it is not
a technicality; they did not present a business plan.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 14, 2005
Page 8
Rvan O'Leary. 1924 Muscatine Avenue, said that there were a lot of things idealized in the 1997 business
plan for Leighton House, and one of those was a resident manager being present. He noted that Diane
Phipps left the property after finding out she had cancer. He said that as a real estate agent that
represents the buyer and the seller of the property, as a life time resident in Iowa City he has all kinds of
thoughts about it. He noted that he is in support of the buyer being able to operate the house as the
previous owners could. He said that for the benefit of the buyer they ask to manage the property in
accordance to the business plan. They know that the economic hardship has been proven, and by
changing the use of the property would mean confiscating the real value of the property and eliminating
the ability for reasonable return. He said that no resident had requested parking spaces. He said that the
property is marketed for students who do not have furniture who can come and have a furnished room,
with food, and a place to learn.
Phipps said that they always had a resident manager. They also had a van parked in the driveway. He
noted that there has not been police calls regarding any parties, and people that lived there said that it is
a quiet house
Swartzendruber said that the property had been operated in these terms for eight years, and still people
moved in the neighborhood, and no diminishing in properties exists. She added that one neighbor said
that the quality of the neighborhood is currently good, and she said that they request that the
neighborhood stays the same as it currently is, but with a different owner. She said that the multitude of
parking issues can not be blamed on Leighton House. She said that there are relatively high density
buildings in the neighborhood that all contributed to the issue. She said that there was an argument about
the slippery slope effect, but it is not relevant because the house has unique characteristics. She added
that the owners had made efforts to create a beautiful structure, and to manage it in the best ways
possible.
John Morrison. 115 South Summit Street, said that the reason there is no parking problem currently is
because the Leighton house has only 8 renters. He said that 13 makes it crowded and 30 makes it
impossible. He said that they put a lot of money in the house, but they did not stick to the plan, did not
work in keeping the tenants in. He said they do not currently have enough people in to make a problem of
the parking.
Swartzendruber said that there were members of a fraternity renting at some point, but there were also
residents that were not members in the fraternity.
O'Leary, said that one important concern is the usefulness of the property and people need to understand
that if you put 30 people in the house is not the same nature of occupancy, or marketing. He said that the
proof of the hardship is in the spreadsheet. He said that the rooming units are generally rented to lower
income students, to students with special needs on a limited budget.
Burford said that it appears that there is no continuance of the previous variance and the property is
currently nonconforming and the City had down zoned the area, having 13 occupants is already higher
than other buildings in the area, She said that the buyer is not buying the business plan. She noted that
the community should have some input in what is done.
Ranbadonski said that the property recently purchased by her family has to be maintained as an owner
occupied property. She said that Leighton House made investments in their property knowing that the
variance could not be continued with the property. The fact that they could not get at least 13 residents
should not be held upon the rest of community. They made the decision knowing that the variance will not
be transferred to the new owner.
Hotchkiss said that the housing market has changed. She said that there are more comfortable student
housing units near downtown area, and a definite trend for single bedroom apartments, She noted that it
is less likely that the Leighton house will fill up with responsible tenants at double occupancy with fewer
restrictions. She said that if they make poor business decisions the City and the neighborhood are not
obliged to pay for the mistakes.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 14, 2005
Page 9
Parker said that River City Housing Collective houses are able to run with 10 to 16 occupants, with
average rent of $250, and total bills being paid for an average $400. She noted that worked fine for them,
and were even able to purchase a new house,
Anonymous said that they are trying to increase the number of people, when they did not honor the old
variance
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION: Leigh moved that VAR05-00001 Discussion of an application submitted by Keming Zeng
and Jie Zhou for a variance to permit up to 30 roomers for property located in the Neighborhood
Conservation Residential (RNC-12) zone at 932 East College Street be approved. Alexander
seconded the motion.
Wright will vote against the application. He said that it has to meet the standards for a variance of not
being contrary to the public interest, and proving a unnecessary hardship. He noted that it has to meet
both standards and the application does not. He said that the first standard states that the proposed
variance is not contrary to the public interest; it will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor is going to
have an adverse effect on the use of other properties in the area. He said that continuing the variance will
continue degradation of properties in the area and will prove detrimental to values of the properties. He
said that parking is a serious issue. He said that the variance is not in compliance with the intent of the
Zoning Code. He said that the second criterion is that the neighborhood was down zoned to protect the
residential character, and existing properties. He said that it would be appropriate for the property to be
rented at a level of 13, but inappropriate at the level of 30. Wright said that the proposed variance will not
be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter and will contravene the
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Wright said that there was no proof showing that not extending the
variance will cause unnecessary hardship. There was no financial information. He said that the owner
situation is not particular unique. He said that there was no information showing that the standards cause
hardship to the owners, They made the improvements knowing that the subsequent owners will be limited
to 13 roomers.
Leigh will vote against the application. She said that the previous Board limited the variance to just
Leighton House, and made it not applicable to any successors because it was granted under so many
special considerations. She said that the other rooming houses and buildings that are operating at half of
the proposal occupancy, and allowing the Leighton house to operate at full capacity would give them a
special consideration.
Alexander will vote against the application. She said that they are asked to apply very specific sets of
criteria to a very specific question. Given that, she said, the variance was specifically non-transferable.
She said that they are asked to look at a new variance, and given that the applicant has to meet all the
criteria. She said that the down zoning that occurred is a significant aspect, and the situation is not
peculiar to this property.
Maurer said he would like to allow the property to continue as before but that the applicant had not made
a case to do so. He asked if there is any change in the variance if the property is not sold. Holecek said
that the owners who received the variance in 1997 can continue to use it according to the variance. She
said that a new buyer could buy the LC, Maurer said that it is the structure of the corporation that makes it
an LC. He said that the variance does not go with the property but it goes with the LC. Maurer said that
the property will continue the way it has been, and the situation with parking will not change. He said that
parking will not change if the property will not be sold. He said that there is not enough that says to go in
favor of the variance, even though there are points that would persuade in that direction. He said the
application did not demonstrate that the test for a variance had been met.
Motion failed 0:4.
OTHER
NONE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 14, 2005
Page 10
NONE
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Alexander moved to adjourn. Leigh seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at
7PM.
s: /pcd/mi nutes/BON2005/09-14-05, doc
.....
="C
~ I.
! B
~ ~
=~
:.o~tn
<~g
c....~M
O"C
"C =
I. ~
~t:
~<
~
.....
.......
M
.....
~
se
.....
.....
M
.....
.......
=
.....
~
..... >< >< >< >< ><
.......
~
=
= ~
..... >< >< >< ><
.......
QC 0
=
r'ì
..... >< >< >< >< ><
.......
r--
=
QC
se >< >< >< >< ><
~
=
.....
..... >< >< >< >< ><
.......
an
=
r'ì ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.....
.......
~ Z Z Z Z Z
=
~
se >< >< >< >< ><
r'ì
=
~ ~ ~
= >< >< ><
.......
M 0 0
=
M I
..... >< I >< >< ><
....... I
.....
= I
en 00 0 r--- 1.0 0\
ã .§ 0 ...... 0 0 0
....... ....... ....... ....... .......
...... ...... ...... ...... ......
(1) p.. 0 0 0 0 0
r-o ~ ....... ....... ....... -- --
~ ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
0 0 0 0 0
¡" ¡" -
~
"'0 ~ -=
¡" ~
= -= =
= ~ = ¡"
~ "'0 ~ ~
~ ~ ~
;;: ~ ,...;¡ - -
~ = ~
(1) - = ~ =
~ ~ ~ (oJ -=
¡" "'0 ¡" = (oJ
= ~ = ;; ~
z u z ~
"C
(1) I-<
en (1)
;:j bJJ..c
~.S S
~~~]~
(1) (1) (1) ~ ro
£~~z~
II II II II
~ ~~
~><ooz