Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-2005 Board of Adjustment AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, December 14,2005 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARV A THALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the October 12, 2005 Minutes D. Special Exception: EXC05-00016 Discussion of a request to reconsider 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. E. Other: F. Board of Adjustment Information G. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -January 11, 2005 ,~ 1 ..-~= -.... .......-_........ ~~(2SJ~~ '"--:' -'11II" --.. - CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: December 8, 2005 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah E. Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney ~ Re: EXC05-00016 Attached is a letter to the Iowa City Board of Adjustment from Lillian Lyons Davis, attorney for David Drea. At your October 12 meeting, on a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a special exception application for a reduction of the front yard from twenty (20) feet to zero (0) feet to allow paving in a front yard greater than the fifty percent (50%) permitted in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 920 Webster Street/601 Walnut Street. As you may recall, Mr. Drea had installed paving within the right-of-way of Walnut Street and on his private property abutting Walnut Street which exceeded the fifty percent (50%) limitation for front yards. Due to significant visibility and safety concerns for vehicular traffic on Walnut Street and the rear alley, as well as concerns about impervious surface and neighborhood character, the Board approved the special exception subject to Mr. Drea removing the paving within the visual triangle from the joint of the newly installed paving. I have attached a copy of the original staff report and the Board's decision to refresh your recollection of this matter. The applicant is requesting that the Board reconsider the condition of pavement removal in the visual triangle as imposed under its October 12 decision to grant the special exception. The applicant also requests the Board reconsider the zoning official's interpretation of whether or not the area in question (property abutting Walnut Street) is a "front yard". However, the Board did not consider the issue of whether or not the portion of the property abutting Walnut Street is a 'front yard' , the staff report did not address or analyze this issue and there is no record on the matter. Therefore, the "front yard" issue is a matter of code interpretation separate from the Board's decision conditionally granting Mr. Drea's special exception. Thus, the Board can reconsider the condition(s) placed on the grant of the special exception, but if Mr. Drea wishes to challenge the zoning official's interpretation of ''front yard", it appears a separate appeal is necessary to allow for the zoning official's determination to be analyzed and a record made on the issue. At your December 14 meeting, you may vote whether to reconsider your decision of October 12 and place it on the January meeting agenda. However, the Board should refrain from discussing the merits or substance of Mr. Drea's application due to public notice and open meetings requirements. Your discussion should be strictly limited to whether you wish to reconsider your October 12 grant of Mr. Drea's special exception and the scope of such reconsideration at the January meeting. The motion to reconsider must come from the 'prevailing side' of the October 12 vote, and as the vote was unanimous, any of the Board members may make the motion to reconsider. A majority of those present is necessary to pass the motion. If no such motion is made or passed, the Board will not reconsider the application and the prior decision will stand. If a Board member moves to reconsider this special exception application, I request that t~e moving member articulate the scope of the reconsideration (Le. whether the reconsideration is limited to the condition(s) placed on the special exception or encompasses the zoning official's interpretation of "front yard"). Any reconsideration will occur at the January 11 meeting, and staff will notify all property owners within 300 feet and publish notice of the application as per normal notification procedures. Cc: Lillian Lyons Davis, Attorney for David Drea Sarah Walz, Planner, PCD Doug Boothroy, Director, HIS Jann Ream, Code Enforcement Asst., HIS KENNEDY, CRUISE, FREY & BRISCOE, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW r.Bb~M"IJ~. ~/'JI 920 S. DUBUQUE STREET - P.O. BOX 2000 MICHAEL W. KENNEDY KIRSTEN H. FREY KANDIE K. BRISCOE' IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 TELEPHONE (319) 351-8161 FAX (319) 351-0605 OF COUNSEL: ..JOHN D. CRUISE LILLIAN LYONS DAVIS MARY KATE PILCHER" *ALSO CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT "SE HABLA ESPA"'OL November 23, 2005 VIA FAX TRANSMISSION AND ORDINARY MAIL 356-5008 NOV 2 8 2005 City of Iowa City Board of Adjustment Members c/o Sarah Holocek City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Board's Decision on David Drea's Application for a Special Exception (EXC05-00016), Heard on October 12, 2005 Dear Board Members: My client, David Drea, and I have met with Sarah Holocek and other Iowa City staff regarding this matter. As a result of those discussions, Ms. Holocek recommended that Mr. Drea ask the Iowa City Board of Adjustment to reconsider its October 12,2005 decision regarding his property . In our. discussions, Ms. Holocek had suggested that the issue of whether the area in question was actually a "front yard" should be discussed more thoroughly than it was at the October 12th hearing. My client therefore requests that the Board, pursuant to Robert's Rules, entertain, at the Board's December 2005 hearing, a motion to reconsider its October 12,2005 decision on Mr. Drea's application. Very truly yours, ~ ~~,J~_ Lillian Lyons Davis Attorney for David Drea LLD/sh cc: David Drea Ld7\169a5312 Prepared by Sarah WalzAssociate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5231 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2005 - 5 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Karen Leigh, Vincent Maurer, Ned Wood and Michael Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Robert Miklo, Kristopher Ackerson OTHERS PRESENT: .Dave Drea, Bruel Weins, Darren Spenler, Kathleen Nicholson SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 1. EXCOQ-00016 public hearing regarding an application submitted by Dave Drea for a special exception to reduce the front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet to allow paving in a front yard greater than the fifty percent (50%) normally permitted in the Low Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 920 Webster Street /601Walnut Street. Findinas of Fact: The Board finds that the corner property at 920 Webster StreeV601 Walnut Street is a nonconforming property because the current building has a setback (approximately 3.62 feet) along Walnut Streetthat is less than the 20-foot front-yard setback required in the RS-8 zone. The Board finds that the property in question is a corner lot, and therefore must satisfy the front yard requirements along all streets as specified in the Zoning Ordinance (14-6Q-2B). This is consistent with other corner properties in the neighborhood. The Board finds that in the RS-8 zone (14-6N-1(B)(3)(b)(3), up to two (2) required parking spaces may be provided in the front yard, provided that not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front yard remains open space, free of impervious surface. The Board finds that the current paving in the front yard, which was installed by the applicant prior to applying for this special exception, creates an area Qf paving in the front yard exceeding more than 50% impervious surface, which does not allow storm water to absorb into the soil or area for landscaping. The Board finds that prior to paving the additional area the. property contained at least 5 parking spaces, which meets the parking requirements for a duplex in an RS-8 zone. The Board finds that the applicant also paved the City right-of-way between the property line and the curb, and thatthe applicant will be required to remove paving in the right-of-way regardless of whether a special exception is granted. As provided under the provisions of 14-60-4B, the Board may grant a special exception modifying yard requirements when the owner demonstrates that the property is peculiar and there is practical difficulty in complying with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code. The Board finds that the property is peculiar due to the non-conforming set back and the L-shaped configuration of Walnut Street at the intersection with the alley directly adjacent to the property. However, the Board finds that the current pavement has made the yard indistinguishable from the street so as to increase opportunities for vehicles to accidentally drive onto the yard, creating a safety hazard. The Board also finds that the current paving up to the curb invites .parking close to the intersection, which will obstruct visibility and create a safety hazard for vehicles traveling on Walnut Street and on the alley adjacent to the property. The Board finds that removal of the pavement within the visual triangle (between the intersection of the alley and Walnut Street) would result in greater visibility for drivers and that landscaping within the visual triangle will provide an improved visual cue indicating the bend in Walnut Street adjacent to the property. The Board finds that removal of paving within the visual triangle is a significant safety issue as described above, and will also allow for more pervious surface for storm water runoff. Conclusions of law: The Board concludes that unless pavement is removed from the visual triangle, the proposed special exception will be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The Board concludes that unless pavement in the visual triangle is removed, the proposed paving will adversely affect traffic circulation and create a safety hazard. The Board concludes that removal of an area of pavement equivalent to that in the visual triangle (see Exhibit "An attached hereto), while leaving less than 50% pervious surface in the front yard as required in the zoning code, is acceptable given the narrow, non- conforming set-back and thus would not affect the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties nor diminish the property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that the proposal will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uSes permitted within the zone in which the property is located. The board finds that removal of pavement in the visual triangle will provide an area for landscaping and make this property more consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood and the Comprehensive Plan. Disposition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves EXC05-00016, 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 of the front yard than normally permitted in the Low Density Single- Family (RS-5) zone at 920 Webster Street/601 Walnut Street, subject to removal of paving within the visual triangle, which starts with the newly added pavement as illustrated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 2. EXC05-00017 - Public hearing regarding an application submitted by TO Builders for three special exceptions: (1) to expand the 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. at an auto repair garage in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1010 South Orchard Street and the immediately abutting property to the south. Findinasof Fact: The Board finds that the properties at 1010 Orchard Street and the immediately abutting property to the south are currently in use as a vehicle repair and service station, which is allowed by special exception in CC-2 zones. The Board finds the current use was established prior to current zoning regulations requiring a special exception for this use and, therefore, the owner never applied for a special exception for this use and therefore some aspects of the property do not comply with the zoning code. The Board finds that the proposed vehicle sales use is consistent with auto- and truck-oriented uses. The Board finds the existing use is required to provide eleven parking spaces. The proposed building addition will increase the parking requirements to thirteen spaces, and if the existing warehouse structure on the property immediately abutting to the south is converted to vehicle repair use the properties will be required to provide a total of fifteen parking spaces. The Board finds that parking is proposed within 50 ft. of the residential (RS- 8) zone across Orchard Street. The Board find's the site is peculiar, as the width of the right- of-way (65 ft.) and shallow depth of the properties present practical difficulties in meeting the parking requirements. The Board finds that nearby commercial properties were granted special exceptions to reduce front yard setbacks with the condition that sidewalks and landscaping be provided along the right-of-way. The Board finds that Applicant submitted a site plan showing the proposed locations of required off-street parking, sidewalks and street trees along the right-of-way, and vegetated screening between the commercial use and neighboring residential zone. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes the three proposed special exceptions will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare~ The Board concludes the proposed changes are relatively small and will not affect the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties nor diminish property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes the proposed building addition, display and sale of up to two vehicles, and reduction of the front yard to allow parking will not change the current use of the property and consequently will not have significant effect on the development of surrounding properties. The Board concludes the proposal will not significantly increase traffic congestion and will not affect ingress or egress, which are currently adequate. The Board concludes that the proposal conforms to the applicable regulations and standards of the CC- 2 zone. The Board concludes the proposed use is consistent with the commercial character of the area as acknowledged in the Southwest District portion of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. DisDosition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves EXC05-000H, an application submitted by TO Builders for special exceptions to expand the existing auto- and truck-oriented use to allow construction of an addition, to allow for the display and sale of up to two vehicles, and to reduce the front yard from 20 ft. to 5 ft. at 1010 Orchard Street and the abutting property immediately to the south in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone, subject to approval of 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. TIME LIMITATIONS: All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-4B-5E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Vincent Maurer, Chairperson STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of AdjUstment Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 12th day of October, 2005, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this day of ,2005 Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~ ~.~ B (I) T" I I I I I 0) C -- Q.. Q.. co ~ ..--. co ~ ~c>ci- Ecoo .5 ex> ; Q) ttS L() :; 0: 0.. N :.:~ ....- .... - .. '. ~. ~ +-' ...-- iii() ..~ CO U.I ~ o ~E ttSo ~~ .> C> cC "0 .- '-~~ So.~ +-,col 0.>15 COOl OEE ~ ~.C> '- --- '+- .0 C -- () ~ en ...... ::J. C (ij ~ 'Ii .IN i ~ ~ ~ J~ --- - '18 J81sqaM -.-...-_c 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 teet 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-ot-way) which is less than the 20-foot tront 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 14-60-4B, 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-48 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 (14-60-4B). 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 14-60-2B 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 not 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-28, 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: ~p~' Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development S:\PCDlStaff Reports ~ L is S\fJnl .. .- 1 .- I I I I r- CO -I ,.... - a a L- a w~S I ~ llO~>-i dJ-' 10 a () > I ~ - <( - - - '-- 0 0 ,......... - - 0 - 5 - ..-J ~ - cr:: - . .. ~ - ~ I - - 1 r' .., r\ r1 r\ r1 I 11- .........:JJ\.J - t3 .-1- vU r - U) I - ~ - l- I Q) => is .....L- I ~ ~ z \" VN'v'IU en ~ - L... I I 1 +-' <( ::s '-- c: ~ ~5 - - ~ - I - - - ~ I ~I ~r - ,.... I I r -, 0- g I ~~ ~ t3 Q) --' Q) 0 L- is tl31S83M -- ,... +-' en I I I L- L- .m CJ) - .0 ~ a - C\I I - m .. N3t1n8 ..... - Z I " I \ I' I I I I ~V7\ 0 1 ~ - ~ - I- - U - - ~ 0 I I - ~ I I ~ I I- I .... - f-I ~ 00 - z CX) o w --' u: eN 2: a- . ~, '~ 0 \. ~ ., 1::: ~7 t .; Il' I I I ~ ..,. +- - ~ ~ ~ IIbpn ~ i:. Q IQ~ ~ I \S ) IU ~ /6t \is ~ >< iIJ.,1 U) I ~:> - 11 ~I - - - - ! ~ --1- - - - ,. - - -' ~ p ~ i" _ \n ..A.III'/~ ....,..1t7/ff/8.1?:;a2 I ,,- . '-------4 - ~; '."1. ~ .../.11"1"'h1 ' . .,p~1i d ~'> j. '. '. .' 10'. ~ I ~'. ;'.7 ~ J . '" ~ V) " .. . _ -", : -- ~" .. - "'T- - )-. ~ ~ I~ i . . .s:J-"", ~ ~ ..i) '-0 , ~~ ~ v ,I,.ih II.'. LJ -., Z'-,p; tlZ. , . . .;Jr?P/"1 -;"'7 . ? f ~ '!:'...{ S) .. ~ c::s-- ~~: ~ S rJ..../ C) t" -/ +~r ~.?..t.~t)p/'t .3 - { t,. '___ - \Is ~ - . ",. .<t\" " . ( , "~I . t i~ (1'\' : .,.. ': \J '\), ,~ ~~ Wl ~ . '.~ .. (.",,J; w-R.?J!) "~-11 1 b L 'I ( );' ~. { .~ ~ q ~ ~ ~'1:t ~'-9 -< ... . . - . . MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Vincent Maurer, Dennis Keitel, Karen Leigh, Michael Wright. STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Kristopher Ackerson (Planning Intern), Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Drea, Bruel Weins, Darren Spenler, Kathleen Nicholson CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maurer called the meeting to order at 5:07. CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 14. 2005 MINUTES Wright said that on page 6 the address for Holly Hotchkiss is wrong. MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the minutes from July 14. Leigh seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 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 (RS-8) zone at 920 Webster Street/601 Walnut Street. Miklo said that the property contains two buildings, one of which is a duplex residence and the other a garage. He noted that since it is a corner lot, this property has two front yards-one on Webster Street and one on Walnut Street. Miklo said that the property is already nonconforming because the current setback is less than the 20-foot front yard setback required for the RS-8 zone. He said that the applicant recently paved the north-facing portion of his front yard along Walnut Street so that there is no green space between the curb and the property line. He noted that building inspectors discovered that the yard had been paved and notified the property owner of the violation. Miklo said that the applicant is 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. He noted that 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. He said that the area paved represents a total of 1040 square feet. The front yard area is 1409 square feet. Accordingly, 50% of the area is 709 square feet, so there is approximately 330 square feet above and beyond what is legally allowed to be paved. The provision allowing only 50% to be paved exists to allow open areas for landscaping and pervious surface to absorb storm water. It also assures visibility and safety for motorists. He noted that 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 exception can be met. He said that the specific proposed special exception should 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. Moreover, the paved area is 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. Miklo pointed out the location of a vision triangle on the display map and said that cars parked in this area would block view of vehicles on Walnut Street. Removal of at least the paving from the vision triangle would less the possibility of traffic conflicts. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 2 The specific 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. Miklo said that allowing for more than 50% of this front yard to be paved detracts from the residential appearance of the neighborhood and results in less pervious surface to absorb storm water. The specific proposed exception should not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Miklo said approval of special exception will result in the property having a substantial amount of paving, which conflicts with the character of the residential neighborhood. Adequate measures should be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Miklo stated that the proposed paved area will likely result in parking within the front yard adjacent to Walnut Street and therefore reduces visibility for vehicular traffic. The specific proposed exception, in all other respects, should conform to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. He noted the property is non-conforming in terms of the building setback, but this is grandfathered and is considered legally non-conforming. The proposed special exception should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Staff finds the plan in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving existing residential areas. Staff recommends that EXC05-00016 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 (RS-5) zone at 920 Webster Street be denied. Maurer asked whether the Board has anything to do with the issue of removing the pavement from the street. Miklo said that the Board has nothing to do with the removal of the pavement from the right of way which is city property. The City Engineer has determined that this paving must be removed. Alexander asked if the removal of the paving within the visual triangle would come close to the 50% requirement. Miklo said they would be pretty close, but that he did not have calculations. Wood asked if there is a driveway coming off on Walnut Street. Miklo said there is a driveway on that side that was installed with the paving. Wright asked whether the staff had discussed with the owners about the issue of vision triangle. Miklo said they did not cover that issue. Public Hearina Opened David Drea. 601 Walnut Street, said that he created the paving due to the issue of runoff. He said that the yard looks like dirt. He noted he had a garden there at one time, and a flower box, but cars kept running them down and destroying them. Drea noted that they will not park in the vision triangle. He said that the reason for having the flower box there was so that no one would run into the house. Drea said that another issue for paving was the parking issue; he wanted to provide more parking for the tenants of the duplex. Maurer asked how much traffic there is along the street, noting that the area does not look like a high traffic zone. Drea said there is a lot of traffic because people use the street as a shortcut to avoid all the stop signs on Kirkwood Avenue. Maurer asked where Drea would remove the paving if he was required to remove it. Drea said that he discussed sawing the paving to allow easy access if the City would ever need to work there. He noted that he would have a hard time growing the grass there again. Wood asked for more detail of the idea of sawing the pavement. Drea said they would make cuts in the pavement to create blocks that would be easily removed. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 3 Wright asked if they tend to park on the area paved. Drea said they did not park there. He said that a lot of drivers would cut the corner and drive onto the yard. Leigh asked if there was adequate parking prior to paving the area. Miklo said that the existing situation would not meet the parking requirements set by the code. Miklo said that a duplex is required to have four off-street parking spaces and that it appeared that there was one space in the garage and at four spaces in the driveway prior to the addition of more paving. Brad Weins. 921 Webster Street, said that he is a former tenant of 920 Webster Street. He said there is not enough on-street parking in the area. He said that Drea allowed him to park his own car on the driveway when he could not find a place on the street. He said that aesthetically it looks fine. He noted the road curves like an S, and if there were cars coming from both sides, one of them would have to be in the left lane to hit another, because they are all suppose to stay on the right side of the road. He said he is in support of the application. Public HearinQ Closed MOTION: Alexander made a motion that EXC05-00016 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 (RS-5) zone at 920 Webster Street be approved subject to removal of the paving of the vision triangle starting with the newly adding pavement. Wright seconded the motion. Alexander said that she drove by the property and understands the safety concern, the concern of being detrimental to or endangering the public health, safety, comfort or welfare. She said that she finds this to be a peculiar property, and understands the issues due to the curve. She said that since it would come close to meeting the 50% requirement of the code and the vision triangle is taken care of she will vote in favor of the motion. Wood will vote in favor of the motion. He said that there is a lot of paving for a residential area. He said that his vision was really blocked because there was a truck parked there, and the vision corner is a legitimate concern. Maurer would also vote in favor because it enhances the overall situation. He said that he would prefer to keep the entire pavement, but that is not allowed. Leigh would vote in favor. She said she thought it was a massive amount of concrete for a residential area. She said that it is a very unusual site. Wright would vote in favor. He said that the safety and ingress and egress issue were of concern to him. He noted that driving by the property he was lacking a visual cue that there was a curve in the road due to the amount of paving. He noted that he could envision how a parked car in the vision corner could be problematic for motorists. Motion passed 5:0. EXC05-00017 Discussion of an application submitted by TO Builders for a special exception to allow the expansion of an auto-and-truck-oriented use, a repair garage and car sales of up to 2 cars, 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. Kristopher Ackerson said that 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 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. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 4 Ackerson said that 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. He noted that 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 the Applicant does not provide adequate screening between the commercial use and nearby residences. Staff has prepared a concept plan 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. Talking about the general standards, Ackerson said that the specific exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He said that pedestrian access is a key priority for residents of the Southwest District and staff recommends pedestrian walkways be provided. By providing a sidewalk the applicant will extend the planned sidewalk underway along this entire block. 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. He said that 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. 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 provided adequate parking and landscaping are provided. Ackerson said that 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. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. He noted that the special exception will not change the current number of ingress egress points, nor will it significantly affect congestion on Orchard Street. Except for the specific regulation and standards applicable to the exception being considered, in all other respects the specific proposed exception conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Ackerson noted that the Code states that commercial uses must be screened from view from residential areas located across the street. 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 use area and will prevent parked cars from overhanging onto sidewalk areas. He noted that 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. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. Ackerson said that to comply with goals, 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. Staff recommends that EXC05-00017. an application submitted by TO Builders for a special exception to allow the expansion of an auto-and-truck-oriented use, a repair garage and car sales of up to 2 cars, and Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 5 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 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. Miklo said that he looked over the site plan submitted and that conceptually it seems to meet the requirements. However, before the building permit is issued city staff will have to determine that the plan is in compliance with the requirements. Public Hearina Opened Darren Spenler, 3129 Deerfield Drive, Swisher Iowa, said that the business had evolved over time. He noted that the owner want to improve the lot and make it more aesthetically pleasant. He noted that it is difficult to push the cars into the bay because the driveway is very tight. Spenler said that they would like to make it as easy for the clients as possible. Wood asked if they see any increase in the traffic due to the proposed changes. Spenler said they do not expect a traffic increase. Kathleen Nicholson. 3122 Maplewood Lane, said that she and her husband both own the company. She said that they have done numerous improvements to make the property look better. Nicholson said that they do not like having the customer park on the gravel, especially when it gets muddy. She noted that they paved up to 20 feet, and planned on paving a little bit at a time as they could afford to in order to get it all accomplished. She noted they put barrels up to help them understand the requirements for parking, and found that the door to the office opens out, limiting the amount of space available there and that pushing the vehicle in at an angle to get them through the bay was problematic. She asked if there is anything that can be done to avoid using so much space for sidewalk and landscaping. She noted that it would not affect anyone negatively, and would not make it aesthetically worse, but would affect the business they would do. Miklo said that the only way of reducing the right of way would be if the city would vacate a portion of the right of way to allow more private use. Alexander noted that deciding that would not be within the Boards' powers. Miklo said that through the special exception there will be a reduction of front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to allow for parking spaces. Public Hearina Closed MOTION: Leigh made a motion that EXC05-00017, an application submitted by TO Builders for a special exception to allow the expansion of an auto-and-truck-oriented use, a repair garage and car sales of up to 2 cars, 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 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. Wood seconded the motion. Wright would vote in favor of the special exception. He said that it meets all general standards. He said he appreciates that the site plan takes into account the issues of public health, safety and general welfare in terms of the sidewalk. He noted that it will not be injurious to the use of other properties in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. He noted that there is a fairly attractive plan that should alleviate any aesthetic concerns regarding the work done on the property. He said that the proposal could have some negative impacts, however the screening solves that issue. The specific proposed exception would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Adequate measures would be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. He said that the proposal conforms with all other regulations and requirements, and is in accordance with the Southwest District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan of Iowa City. ,.."" Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 6 Leigh would also vote in favor. She said that it meets the general standards. Maurer would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Alexander would vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Wood will vote in favor for the reasons already stated. Motion passed 5-0. OTHER: Alexander announced that she will not be able to attend the November meeting. Miklo introduced Sarah Walz who will join the planning department, and will represent the staff for the Board of Adjustment meetings. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:22PM. s:lpcdlminuteslboa1200511 0-12-05 .doc ..... c"C ~ "'" .s B ~~ :.o~lr) <~g c....~M Q"C "C C "'" ~ ~;: ~< ~ 'P"'I - N 'P"'I ~ ~ 'P"'I 'P"'I N 'P"'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - = 'P"'I ~ 'P"'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ = = e3 'P"'I ~ ~ ~ ~ - QO 0 = M 'P"'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - l' = QO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --= = 'P"'I 'P"'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - an = M ::E ::E ::E ::E ~ 'P"'I - ~ Z Z Z Z = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M = ~ e3 e3 ~ ~ ~ ~ N 0 0 = N I 'P"'I ~ I ~ ~ ~ - I 'P"'I = I ~ 00 0 t'-- \0 0\ S .~ 0 - 0 0 S2 - - - - - - - - - Q) ~ 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - ~1:I.:l - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... - ~ ~ .c ~ ... ~ = .c = = ]j = ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ - ~ -< = - - ~ = ~ Q) - = ~ = ~ = ~ y .c ... ~ ... = y = ~ = .... i z u Z :::ld :> "0 Q) I-l ~ Q) ;:j OJ),.o ~.s S 1:I.:l~Q) "d"d'+::sQ)::E ~Q)~::Et'd ~ ~ 0 ...... J:<<zz II II II II II >.. w~ I Q) c::::: I ~~oo I