Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-2006 Board of Adjustment AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, January 11, 2006 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the December 14, 2005 Minutes D. Appeal: AP05-00001: Discussion of an appeal submitted by David Drea of a decision of the building official that a corner lot requires two front yards. E. Special Exception: EXC05-00016: Reconsideration 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 Medium Density Single-Family residential (RS-8) zone at 920 Webster Street /601 Walnut Street. F. Other: G. Board of Adjustment Information H. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -February 8, 2006 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 6, 2005 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: AP05-0001-An appeal submitted by David Drea of a decision of the building official that a corner lot requires two front yards. The applicant, David Drea, has filed an appeal of the Building Official's application of the front yard requirements in the zoning code as they relate to corner lots. Please note that subsequent to the December Board of Adjustment Meeting, the City of Iowa City adopted a new Zoning Ordinance. Because the Board agreed to consider an appeal prior to the enactment of the new Zoning Code, we will refer to the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance in use at that. A reconsideration of the prior decision for a special exception (EXC05-00016) is also on the Board agenda and will be considered separately. The Front Yard Regulation The Zoning Code, under which this application for was originally filed, was adopted in 1983. Under that code, the requirement for two front yards on corner lots as well as double frontage lots is clearly spelled out in the Dimensional Requirements section of the code. . In applying the Dimensional Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the code clearly states that: "The following dimensional requirements shall be applicable in all zones or in zones indicated." (14-60-1) . Immediately following this provision, in the subsection on General Yard Requirements, the code addresses the specific of lots fronting on 2 or more streets (this includes corner lots as well as double frontage lots) "If lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets." (14-60-2B) . In the RS-8 zone, the code requires a front yard of 20 feet. (14-6D-3E-4a) The requirement for two front yards on corner lots appears as part of the General Yard Requirements or Yard Regulations in every Iowa City zoning ordinance dating back to at least 1962. The regulation has consistently held that where a front yard is required, corner lots must provide a front yard along both streets. All corner lots constructed or improved throughout Iowa City have been required to comply with this provision since 1962. This is the first appeal of application of this requirement that staff is aware of. The Appeal The appellant's attorney attempts to use the definitions section of the code to make an argument that corner lots do not require two front yards. The applicant has also taken the distinction between double-frontage lots and corner lots out of their context within the code to imply a meaning and purpose never intended in the code. In appealing the decision of the Building Official, the applicant has taken general definitions related to the front yard, and applied them to a property without regard to the regulations as written. The appellant's attorney makes several critical errors in reading and applying the January 6, 2006 Page 2 regulations and definitions in the Zoning Code. These errors lead to a conclusion that is counter to how the regulations have been applied for the past forty years. The appellant's interpretation of various definitions regulations in the code are irrelevant to the matter at hand. The matters at hand are the front yard requirement on corner lots in the RS-8 zone and the requirement that when providing parking in the front yard, not less than fifty (50%) of the front yard area shall remain open space free of impervious surface. The Application of Lot and Yard Lines The definitions that appear in the zoning chapter provide general meanings of terms as they are most commonly used. These definitions do not supersede (nor do they substitute for) any other requirements specified within the code. Specific requirements placed on properties based on their zone, use and/or location are found within the succeeding articles of the code. To put this more simply: the definitions are not the regulations. The appellant's argument rests on the definition of "front lot line." All lots, including corner lots, have a single front lot line. In this case, the front yard line is along Webster Street. The sole purpose of the front lot line is to determine the rear lot line and then the side lot lines. Once all four lot lines are established, required yards can be set, and from there the buildable area of the property is located on the lot. To determine the yard REQUIREMENTS on a lot in the RS-8 zone, one must look to the Dimensional Requirements for that zone (14-6D-3E-4). In the RS-8 zone, front yards must be 20 feet, the side yards must be 5 feet, and the rear yard line set at 20 feet. Immediately following from the dimensional requirements, the code reads: "All principal and accessory uses permitted in this Zone are subject to the requirements of Articles L through U of this chapter." This leads to the application of Article Q. Article Q, Dimensional Requirements (14-6Q-2B) explicitly states: "If lots fronting on two or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets." Because the applicant's lot is located in the RS-8 zone the applicant is required to have a 20-foot front yard. The applicant's lot is located on two street frontages (Walnut and Webster).Therefore, the applicant must meet the front yard requirement along both streets. Determining Setbacks on Double-Frontage Lots and Corner Lots The appellant has argued that the section 14-6Q-4A of the zoning code determines the setbacks for all lots in the city (interior, corner, and double frontage lots). The appellant further contends that the separate treatment of corner lot and double-frontage lot in this section limits the term "frontage" such that a lot may be said to front on two streets only if those streets are parallel. These arguments are incorrect. In section 14-6Q-4A, the distinction between corner lots and double frontages to which the appellant refers, is applied in one situation only: along frontages "where at least 50% of the lots are occupied by buildings that deviate more than five feet from the required front yard." This subsection has nothing to do with how front yard setbacks are determined generally. City staff informally refers to this section as the "setback averaging" provision because the setback for a new building on such a frontage (block) would be determined in some cases by averaging the setbacks of the existing buildings on abutting lots. The goal is to establish some uniformity between the deviating setbacks of already established buildings along a frontage. January 6, 2006 Page 3 In this particular circumstance, a double-frontage lot will refer to buildings on abutting lots along both frontages (the two parallel streets on which it fronts) in order to establish appropriate front yards along both streets. Here, double-frontage lots are different from corner lots because they have two abutting lots along both frontages. Because corner lots have only one abutting property along a given frontage, they are not allowed to average, but must comply with the current setback front yard setback requirement. Thus, even if this section of Webster Street were determined to be such a frontage, paragraph 14-6Q- 4A-3b (corner lots), makes it clear that on corner lots the setback is never "averaged." It states, "Corner lots: The minimum front yard on a corner lot shall be the front yard required for the zone in which it is located." Lot Frontage This leads to another error in the appellant's argument: whether a corner lot has frontage on two or more streets? The appellant argues that the definition of "double-frontage lot" as a lot that has frontage along two parallel or approximately parallel streets precludes a corner lot from having two lot frontages. The factor that distinguishes a double-frontage lot from a corner lot is NOT the number of frontages, it is whether the frontages are along parallel streets or whether the frontages are along intersecting streets. A corner lot will ALWAYS have at least two frontages because it is located at the intersection of two streets. A double-frontage lot will also ALWAYS have at least two frontages, because it has frontage on two parallel streets. It is also possible to have a lot that fronts on three or more streets. This would be considered both a double-frontage lot and a corner lot. This is why 14-6Q-2B is written: "If lots fronting on TWO (2) OR MORE streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along ALL STREETS' (emphasis mine). Statutory Construction The appellant is correct that provisions must be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to all provisions. In other words, code provisions should not be interpreted in a way that renders other provisions meaningless. If we were to accept the appellant's argument that corner lots have only one frontage, it would render meaningless numerous provisions of the Zoning Code. The reason that corner lots are called out specifically in so many instances throughout the zoning code is that corner lots have more than one frontage. Provisions that determine the number of street trees, the number of signs allowed, the number and location of driveways, etc., would all be rendered meaningless, ambiguous, or conflicting if the City were to adopt the appellant's interpretation that corner lots have only one frontage. In a case of ambiguous or conflicting provisions, the more specific rule prevails. The appellant argues that the definitions are the more specific provisions in this case. This is highly disputable. The definitions are NOT regulations. They are intended and should be used to help understand and interpret regulations, but in and of themselves the definitions do not constitute a regulation or requirement. The front yard is established only through the requirements specified within the code. The regulations relevant to this case are as stated previously: The minimum front yard setback requirement of the base zone (in this case RS-B). Because this is a specific case of a lot that fronts more than one street, the more specific yard requirement (14-6Q-2B) applies. January 6, 2006 Page 4 Purpose of Front Yard To erroneously apply the definitions out of context as proposed by the appellant's attorney would negate a significant regulation that has been applied to corner lots throughout Iowa City since at least 1962. Perhaps the most important purpose of the front yard requirement (in addition to the protection it affords to property values and aesthetic character) is safety. Front yard setbacks along streets help maintain clear visibility both for motorists and pedestrians. In 2005, the Board of Adjustment was presented with a similar case involving a property at the corner of Kirkwood Avenue and Maiden Lane (EXC05-00004). In that case, the applicant, Iowa City Tire and Service, sought a special exception to reduce the front yard setback requirement in order to build into the front yard along Maiden Lane. The applicant argued that front yard requirements along both streets created a peculiar situation. Though the applicant in this prior case was located in a commercial zone, the argument against reducing the front yard was the same as in the present case: to maintain the safety, aesthetic character, and to provide adequate permeable surface for stormwater infiltration. In its argument against granting the special exception, Staff explained the purpose of the front yard setback requirement: "The requirement for a minimum front yard is intended to provide open space, visibility and a degree of consistency within a neighborhood or a commercial district. Visibility is important for motorists and pedestrians. . . . Open space is important for the general aesthetic character of the neighborhood and provides an area for landscaping." (Minutes, BOA March 9, 2005) In rendering its decision for that case, the BOA findings of fact included that "the front yard requirement applied to the applicant's property" and that "corner lots are subject to front yard setback requirements", and in the Conclusions of Law" that other corner lots are required to meet these standards." The Board found that that the requirement for front yard setbacks along both streets on a corner lot was not a peculiar situation. (Decision, BOA March 9, 2005) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As outlined above, it is staffs position that the Building Official's interpretation that the zoning code requires a front yard along both Walnut and Webster Streets is correct and should be upheld. Staff recommends that AP05-0001, an application submitted by David Drea appealing the Building Official's decision that two front yards are required for the lot located in the RS8 zone at the southeast corner of Walnut and Webster streets be denied. ATTACHMENT: Appeal form Approved by: ~~. Robert Mlklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W APPEAL DATE: December 28,2005 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1015162001 APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 920 Webster St. /601 Walnut St. APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: 21800 APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: l00X60 APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON/PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: David Drea "'" 0 c.:..") = ~O r;;;:..... '- }>-J ".. 11 -.""," ~ C)~.... I 1- 3C?, .:;:- - .' -u rTI rr: ,--. 0-') ::l: U s^ - .. S> CJ W ADDRESS: 601 Walnut St. PHONE: 319-351-0580 Specific Requested Appeal; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: 14-6N-l B 3-B(2) Not more than 50% of the required front yard shall be impervious surface. Purpose for Appeal: The area in question is not the "front yard" of the property. Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: September 14, 2005; see also December 14, 2005 Board of Adjustment Meeting minutes. In the Application for Special Exception filed by David Drea on September 14, 2005, a copy of which is attached, marked Exhibit" A," is included information which is applicable to this Appeal, including a legal description, plat plan drawn to scale, etc. However, this document is an Appeal of the Notice of Violation, dated June 27,2005, attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B," specifically, the actions described as a violation of public City Code Section 14-6N-l, B 3-b(2), that "not more than 50 % of the required front yard shall be a impervious surface." This appeal does not address the Board of Adjustment's denial of the applicant's request regarding the right -of-way. LD7/099a1367 The citation issued to the owner of this property references two sections of the Iowa City Code. The first is Chapter 6, Zoning, Article N, "Off Street Parking Requirement Sub- Section B, Construction, Design and Location Requirements, sub-section 3, (Location: Par,ki,ng c::,) Spaces, Aisles and Drives shall be located as follows), sub-section b, (Front YardQ~-p~ ~-- J;;U graph 2, as follows: F =; :z O. I =i c) r /~. .-......, --"' - C~~ ::1': b~:l ...,:;...0:7". - -.., .. ~ !l For detached single-family dwellings in the R zones, one of the required parking spaces may be provided in the front yard on a regularly constructed aisle, provided not less than fifty percent (50 %) of the front yard area shall remain open space free of im- pervious surface. i \11 o c:> (.0) In the staff report relating to this matter prepared by the Iowa City staff, the City of Iowa City Code, Chapter 6, Zoning, section l4-6Q-2, General Yard Requirements, sub-para- graph B is cited, as follows: If lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets. In its report, the City of Iowa City (hereafter "City") correctly identifies the property in question as a corner lot. The applicant agrees it is a corner lot. However, the City asserts the lot is required to have two front yards, citing City Code~ I4-6Q-2, above. The applicant as- serts that the property has one front yard fronting on Webster Street. The property owner further asserts that the front yard is identified by applying the provisions of the Iowa City Code. In addition, the City's framework for categorizing lots, for the purpose of establishing setbacks, as set out in section 14-6Q-4, generally provides three categories of lots. As set out in section A, sub-section 3 of Iowa City Code Chapter 6, 14-6Q-4, there are interior lots, dou- ble frontage lots, and corner lots. (emphasis added) For the purpose of determining a setback, the rule for interior and double frontage lots is set out in sub-section (a) and the rule for corner lots is set out in sub-section (b). The City's own ordinances, then, define and treat corner lots differently from double frontage lots. The Iowa City Code defines a double frontage lot, or "LOT, DOUBLE FRONTAGE" as, "a lot having frontage on two (2) parallel or approximately parallel streets." By definition, a double frontage lot would have frontage on both parallel streets, and therefore, would be re- quired to have a front yard on both parallel streets. Note that by the terms of the City's defi- nition, those streets must be parallel, and therefore, this definition cannot encompass a lot, such as the property which is the subject of this appeal, which has a front yard with an alley to the rear of the property. Therefore, the applicant's property cannot be a double frontage lot. The Iowa City Code definitions for Chapter 6, Zoning, are set out in section 14-6B-2: Definitions. A copy of the definitions for the terms used in this appeal is attached, marked r....~ - = Exhibit "C." These definitions are shown on page 2 of Exhibit C and were copi~direct~ ....-Q ...... from the Iowa City Code, as set out in the official website of the City of Iowa Citf, Q.p. D@::: 11 C; - I cember 28, 2005. -I S~~ .::- in , ":-<1 _" -0 ' The Iowa City Code defines a corner lot, or "LOT, CORNER" as, "a lot ~~d af1he 0 < ... intersection of two (2) or more streets." The definition for a front lot line, or "LO);:LINEe .::- FRONT" specifically states that, "...On comer lots, the front lot line is the shortest street di- mension, unless the lot is square or almost square, having dimensions at a ratio between three to two (3:2) and three to three (3:3). In that case, the front lot line may be along either street. " The applicant's property is not square or almost square, according to this definition. Its di- mensions, according to the Iowa City Assessor's records, are 100' by 60'. In order for this lot to meet the definition for a lot that is "square or almost square," the width of this lot would have to be at least 66'8" wide. Because the lot is less than 66'8" wide, the front lot line is the shortest street dimension, which is on Webster. Having established the front lot line as the line separating this lot from East Webster Street, we can then establish the rear lot line. Working off the definition in this part of the code for "LOT LINE, REAR" that is, "The lot line opposite and most distant from thefront lot line...," the rear lot line is established as the easternmost boundary of the lot. See the at- tached Exhibit "D," not to scale, showing the relative location of the lot lines, yard lines, yards, etc. Having established the front and rear lot lines, the side lot lines can then be established, by referring to the definition for a side lot line, or "LOT LINE, SIDE" as, "any lot line which meets the end of a front lot line, or any lot line which is not a front lot line or rear lot line. " Having established the side lot lines, one can then establish the side yard line, or "YARD 2 LINE, SIDE" as, "a line parallel to the side lot line and as far from the side lot line as re- quired by this chapter." See Exhibit D. The next step is to establish the front and rear yard lines. The front yard line, orr-' c:~ _ c:l "YARD LINE, FRONT" is, "a line from one side lot line to another side lot li~,;ealfi/;.to the street and as far back from the street as required in this chapter. .. 'p ::i '7 n The next step establishes the rear yard line, or "YARD LINE, REAR" as,~jfne -: - r11, ~ parallel to the rear lot line as far forward from the rear lot line as required by thiS?Jj!7fizter--:: (See definition of Lot Line, Rear.)" ~ ~ Having established the rear, side and front yard lines, one can now establish the rear, side and front yards. The rear yard encompasses the area bounded by the side lot lines, rear yard line and rear lot line. The side yard, the "YARD, SIDE" is defined as, "the required area from the front yard line to the rear yard line and from the side yard line to the side lot line." The side yard is shown on the attached Exhibit "D," and is bounded by the front yard lines, rear yard lines and side yard and side lot lines. Finally, the front yard, or "YARD, FRONT" is defined as, "the required area across a lot between the front yard line and the street (right of way line)." Applying this defmition to the property in question shows that the front yard for this lot is located between the front yard line and Webster Street and bounded by the side lot lines. Quite clearly, both the details and definitions, as applied to this property, show that the paved area to the east of the residence on this lot is not the front yard of this property and therefore, is not subject to the requirement that no more than 50% of the area be covered with an impervious surface. In addition, the other sections quoted, including the definition of a double frontage lot, make it clear that the City Code anticipated there would be some lots with front yards on parallel streets, defmed as double frontage lots, not corner lots. The Code's overall categories for setback requirements for interior, double frontage and corner lots, make it clear that the paved area to the east of the residence is not the front yard of this property. Ii - c-- hl '0 In addition, an application of the general rules of construction to these facts shows that the applicant's property has one front yard on Webster Street. The very first sentence of 14- 6B-2: DEFINITIONS, reads "As used in this chapter, the following defmitions shall apply:"fIowa Courts apply the general rules of statutory construction in cases involving municipal or- 3 dinances. Lauridsen v. City of Okoboji Bd. of Adjustment 554 N.W.2d 541 (1996),543 - 544 (Iowa,1996), citing 1A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction ~ 30.06, at 526 (Singer 5th ed. 1993). In Lauridsen, the court stated: Controlling rules of construction are well settled. "Ordinarily, whel!>the legislature defines its own terms and meanings in a statute, the common la'J6lig dictionary defmitions which may not coincide with the legislative defmition1niiSt yield to the language of the legislature." State v. Steenhoek, 182 N.W.2d 3fj}" () 379 (Iowa 1970); see also Henrich v. Lorenz, 448 N.W.2d 327,332 (Iowa c-<lfD ~ 1989) ("The legislature may act as its own lexicographer. "). We have used d'19~ tionary definitions to interpret terms in zoning ordinances. See, e.g., City of:Z. Denison v. Clabaugh, 306 N.W.2d 748, 752 (Iowa 1981) (using dictionary )>' definition of "destroy" and *544 "remodel" to interpret zoning ordinance). The dictionary is consulted to give words their plain and ordinary meaning in the ab- sence of a legislative definition...... we think the dispute is controlled by the or- dinance's own definitions. Id., at 543 - 544 (emphasis added) N = ,;> d' <- :2: ~- \ ;;:- 11 - - , -....., :...:...., '".../ - .' c:> ;;:- In this case, also, the city's own definitions clearly require a finding that this property has one front yard which borders Webster Street. However, if, for the sake of argument, one were to conclude that the city's definitions are ambiguous, other rules of statutory construction are to be used. DeMore v. Dieters, 334 N.W.2d 734,737 (Iowa 1983). If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provi- sion, they shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both provisions. [d.; see also State v. Luppes, 358 N.W.2d 322 (Iowa App.1984). It is possible to give effect to all the sections of the Iowa City Code cited in this appeal. The first, cited by the City of Iowa City staff, is 14-6Q-2 (b), GENERAL YARD REQUIRE- MENTS, which states: ...B. If lots fronting on two (2) or more streets are required to have a front yard, a front yard shall be provided along all streets. Other ordinances cited by the applicant include the definition of a lot with double frontage as "A lot having frontage on two (2) parallel or approximately parallel streets." See Section14- 6B-2: DEFINITIONS. In addition, Section 14-6Q-4, REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS FOR ESTABLISHED SETBACKS, illustrates the city's framework for categories oflots by 4 setting out one set of rules for interior and double frontage lots and a different set of rules for corner lots. Thus, the rule requiring that front yards are to be provided "along all streets" ap- plies to double frontage lots, not corner lots. Because it is possible to give effect to all the ordinances cited, it is not necessary to ap- ply the rule that the more specific rule prevails as an exception to the general rule. See Goodenow v. City Council of Maquoketa, Iowa, 574 N.W.2d 18 (Iowa 1998). In Goodenow, the court rejected the property owner's position that the general statute that burdened the City with the obligation to mow weeds on the City's right-of-way was irreconcilable with the city's ordinance that placed the duty of mowing from the curb line to the property line on the prop- erty owner. The Court pointed out that the more specific statute which "expressly authorizes a city, through an ordinance, to impose a duty on the abutting property owner to maintain all property from the owner's property line to the curb line upon the public streets" prevails over the general statute which placed the burden of mowing the City's right-of-way on the City. Id., at 26-27. However, for the sake of argument, even if the city ordinances cited were deemed ir- reconcilable, the specific ordinances regarding the definitions of a corner lot, lot lines, and yards would take effect as an exception to the general rule of Section 4-6Q-2 (b), GENERAL YARD REQUIREMENTS, which requires "lots fronting on two (2) or more streets" to have a front yard along all streets. In summary, the city's ordinances are not ambiguous, and the city's own definitions clearly show that this property has one front yard, bordering on Webster Street. If there were ambiguity in the city's ordinances, the statutory construction rules apply; with the result that it is possible to give effect to both ordinances. Alternatively, the rule that a specific rule is given effect as an exception to the general rule applies. Application of either statutory construction rule results in the conclusion that this property has one front yard, bordering on Webster Street. C5 '" "" = ~() .'.;;r. ):- . '- "'- -,.1 "'" () -c; =-= 2J ~C) I ~ ~ -"'< r-. , , rTl ;j] rTj o -'"J ::.:':.:, 0 ~/\. - 5 ;p " 0 ~ Because the paved area east of the residence is not in the front yard of this lot, the June 27,2005 citation regarding the fifty percent (50%) limitation on the impervious surface in the required front yard is in error. In summary, the applicant, David Drea, owner of the property at 920 Webster Street, with a mailing address of 601 Walnut Street, Iowa City, Iowa requests that the Board of Ad- justment find that the paved area to the east of the building on the property in question is not within the front yard of the property, and further that the City Manager's designee was in error when he issued the June 27,2005 Notice of Violation relating to Iowa Code Sections 14-6N-l and 14-6B-3-b(2) regarding the 50% limitation of an impervious surface on the required front yard. The applicant further requests that the Board of Adjustment notify the City of Iowa City of its findings that the issuance of this citation was in error. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~~ Lillian Lyons Davis, Attorney for David Drea, Applicant, Contact Person and Property Owner LD7/099a1369 ....., 0 = =, ~O "" <- )>=1 ",.. ....~~ 11 0"< I -I~) ..,- ~ I .:-< r-- fT) rT! -0 0=0 ::=: ...-, I..J ~^ - .. )> 0 ..,- 6 ,/ APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE W DATE: 09/'1( PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1015162001 APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 920 Webster St/601 WIIlnIll SL APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: 21800 APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 100X60 APPUCANT: Name: DlIVid DretI Address: 601 WIIlnIll $t. Phone: JI9-35M/580 CONTACT PERSON: Name: SlIIIIe as IIbove 0 Address: :~( ) )>, Phone: CJ =j -<' 1-- -, Name: Same as IIbove --.7"C] PROPERTY OWNER: ~- Address: Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Sectlon(s) of the Zoning Chapter: U-6N-l B 3-B(2) Not more th/Jlf 50% of the required from yard shall 6e impe",ious sllrftM:e. Purpose for special exception: 1'''' II1Wl ill qlleStio" is "ot the "front yard" of the property. Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: 0--> = C;:) .,... <- ::;,,'- Z , , I .t:" -\ J. /'. -u ::J: lTXHIBIT-- A PAGE I 11 I ill ,--, , . IJ - .. C> .t:" -2- INFORMAnON TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Leaal descrlDtlon of property: 910 Webster SI./601 Wtl/nllt St., [_ City, fA 51140, Lot 11, Block 3, PIIge'. A.ddltlon, IIcr:oriling to tke recorded pltII tkeretJf, '"bJect to euements IInd restrictions olrecord. 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 abuttlng the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed. rSubmlssion of an 8 %" x 11" bold print plot plan Is preferred.] C. Review. The Board shall review all applicable evidence regarding the site, ex/sting 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 1~-2B1, City CQde). ~ o ~~ ~- In the space provided below or on an attached sheet, address the are~a~ review which apply to the requested special exception. In this narrative ~~ set forth the grounds offered as support for the special exceptlon.=~ , ~ r -'\'..1 See "tttoched sheet. c< F-':1 -0 ~~.~ = )> 11 \ll ~ '0 o r D. 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The extrtI off-street parking will help relieve the Pllrklng .hortage p,oblems 01 both Wainut and Webster St It will oiso help the solety isSlles usocitlled with the ntllTOw street in fuestion. Webste, Street is only 15' witk in front 01 tke property and Wainut Street is only 10' wide on the Nortf! side olthe p,operty. A.s no ptI,klng is ailowed on the North side olthe house on Wtl/nut St, IInd tke only penonoi ptlfklng 10' ou, te1ltl1lts is on the front .ide olthe house on Webste, St, the extrtI drivewtIy [ h/lVe lidded will help oileoIitIte this ptlrking probkm. i. ~:~~lr~~~1 1___=:::::/1___ -3- 2. The 8peclflc prop08ed exception will not be InJurfou8 to the use and enjoyment of other property In the Immediate vicinity and will not 8ubstantlally diminish and Impair property values In the neighborhood. Ths addsd t/rh1eway will IIdp aJ/sv/ats tlls ovsrcrowdsd on-8tr_ parking. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed except/on will not Impede the nonnal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses pennltfed 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 "" <= G= cr- <- ~ 11 I r- oC" i-n -.:J :x \-.J C) J;:"" o :2:0 J>=~ 0-< =:jC ~r' n'"j -~J 0:;:;';-.- <::/' J3; 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed 80 as to minimize traffic congest/on on public streets. Ths addsd drlvsway wI/Ilmprovs trIljJic flow on lIle narrow strsets (Wlllnilt and Wsbster Sirsels) 6y reducing Ills number of cars parksd on Ills strset. ( Wsbstsr Street is cu"ently Ills only sirest aUowsd on-strset parking) 11~~1~1>~:~~ I .....1 / -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 locatad. [Depending on the type of exception requestsd, certain specific conditions may need to be met The applicant will demonstrats compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use, as provided In City Code Section 14-8L-1, Special Exception Enumeratad Requirements; Section 14-8N.1, Off-strset Parking Requirements; Section 14-6Q, Dimensional Requirements, or Section 14-8R, Tree Regulations, as approprlata.) ~ 9 ~ Yes, this wiU help 10m the off street parking. ;~ 0 )>-1 -/ O' --,{', -")... .J 0-<..[- . nl O::J ^ ..;;; >: 7. The proposed use will be conslstant 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 607 Walnut St Ia.City, Ia. 52240 608 Walnut St 910 WebsterSt 9/3 WebsterSt 921 Webster St 925 Webster St 926 Webster St 909 WebsterSt 932 Webster St TIm Schumacher Ken Beidler Gary Jondle Allen Boettcher Brad We/nard Gary Dunne Duane Anderson Jack Bennett Gary Meyers Debra Semler 610 Walnut St EXHIE!T '- S; -n I ,.- .s:- , -U \Tl ::;;: 0 - .. 0 .s:- ~-- -. Lj f -5- NOTE: Conditions. In pennlttlng 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 14-8W-2B3, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise detennined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (8) months from the date the written decision Is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (8) month period to establish the use or construct the building pennltted under the tenns of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building pennlt and proceeding to completion In accordance with the terms of the pennlt. 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, deparbnent 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 ~~-IJ ~A- 2005 , - Slgnature(s) of Appllcant(s) Date: 09/14 chAAn:f)~OA- 2005 . - Slgnature(s) of Property Owner(s) If Different than Appllcant(s) ppdadmlnlappboasepckt.pdf '" 0 "-" C.:> :>0 "" <- :1>=> .:> z C) -,- I =-~ CJ +:- :<r fTl -0 b:o :JI: ^ - ~ .. );> 0 .t::" IJ iT) --, U .-....----.-..-J 1',oX"'O!' A l_ ill:.Jil !nt\('r: m___ r .'.'."'.:::'::?-:- Addendum to Letter C of Appeal: In the summer of 2004, I decided to expand my driveway. Two reasons for th~ 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 streer 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-unn 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 cny Assessor, as well as with our local zoning and planning department. As a property ownllr 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 Iookild at section (105.2.1 (6) Work Exempt from Permi~ 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: salt/sand and snow during the winter B: alley traffic that cut the comer short C: the occasional street traffic failing to make the curve of the street causing them to drive across the grass. '" 0 C~ = ->0 =- <- S>:'-:j ,.,.. 11 z ,-..., .....0(, " J I ,.'- =:j C'-~; .&- ~r'" '11 n-i -0 r-. ~:r.; :Ji: <-.J 1..-,-"- ~'" - .. )> Cl .&- ~~- [', /.J./).._ ~ \ t' \\ , ,\. , . ~, I. it I - . . 4!!'.. ... ~. ~ .. . .~ .~ - ~ e. V48.sr4',z oS?:" T /'. ';s l:> ,....as't~~ -Ill <K /" . L:;ra~f ~. e-'e. V"'~ - 676"" 4J't" ~- o--..G:, ~ "'-!.j- ~..L.._ , ~:~~~ . '~I ,;, ,'< J1 ~:J .1,;. t ". l "",..A-.'" I ........ . . t----.. . I '" r.~!'~~~~=i-~~?! "l . ! 0"" ',' e", 'ex ~ iot , ~ i' 'fO'Ir' ~ ~ ---< \i'.~ t ..,() , A>""i- ( ~ ~ n; " ;;:; ('Y 7"" b "'-&Colt ;Zo' 64'/1"_ ~") . '." .\.~.,.. ". ~ ,.1\:::r. ..~. I J ~ J ~ . z Z4' <<..sa:: G"- ~ ~ '" '.. 1\ I: ~~ ( '61 -, _. ~.' 1 C'l . (,) ~. ~ ~ I ", < ~ "f "' .... ... ." ~ ." :x - " o ~ I , I 11 1- rTl r-. v lL__ 1- / NOTICE OF VIOLATION ~ CITY OF IOWA CITY DATE: June 27, 2005 DAVID BDREA 601 WALNUT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 Case #: COM05-00770 Location of Violation: 601 WALNUT ST Dear Property Owner. According 10 the records of the tax assessor, you are the owner of the above-referenced properly. On 6/7/2005, I observed an apparent violation of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City on your property. Type of Violation: 14-6N-1 B 3-b(2) Not more than 50% of the required front yard shall be a impervious surface. Iowa City Interim Municipal Design Standards Section 5.17 B In residential areas, the parkway shall be grassed. CorlllctlveAdion Required: REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN REQUIRED FRONT YARD TO NOT MORE THAN 50''10 ,REMOVE CONCRETE FROM CITY RIGHT OF WAY AND INSTALL GRASS IN RIGHT OF WAY VIOLATION MUST BEABAlED ON OR BEFORE: 7/1412005 ff you believe that you are not in violation of the CRy Code, please contact this office to review the sRuation. If you Intend to bring the property into compliance with the Code, but cannot meet the stated deadline, please contact this office and we will attempt to work wRh . you on a short extension. If}Ou do not take the requested action or make other arrangements with this offICe by the specified date. we will begin formal enforoement action. You will not receive an additional warning before we begin formal enforcement action. Enforcement action may indude CiVU penalties, administrative remedies such as denial or revocation of City pennltsand licenses, criminal murt proceedings, andlor acUon for an Injunction or other court order directing elimination of the violation, If you wish to discuss any aspect of this order, please call me at 319-356-5124. ~ce~l.y, ~ ~3 Building Inspector ....., = = "'" o <:;r-. ""-'--' J>_........; C) -< =iO ~:-<..: r-'"- r-I r,:J:] '-"7: ;2: )> L ,.,.. :z I .s:- il " :JI:: iT] ---, '--1 o .s:- EXHIBIT \3 PAGE \ com viol:rpt ARTICLE B. ZONING DEFINITIONS 14-68-1: RULES OF WORD CONSTRUCTION: A. Words in the present tense include the future tense; the singular number includes the plural, and the plural number includes the singular. B. The word "shall" is always mandatory; the word "may" is permissive. C. Terms not defined shall have the meanings customarily assigned to them as defined in Webster's new collegiate dictionary, as amended. Uses not defined or listed shall have the meanings as defined in or categorized according to the standard industrial classification (SIC) manual, superintendent of documents, U.S. government printing office, as amended. (1978 Code ~36-4) 0 ......, <:::> = ~o "'"' k -I 0-< :;e JJ ,=<!P I .&:- r-- n-I ~ iTI -:0 O~. ,--., $/'- - \..J ~ " <::> .&:- I EXH'B'T'-C3 ~GE~__L_ ----.-.---- 14-68-2: DEFINITIONS: As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: LOT, DOUBLE FRONTAGE: A lot having frontage on two (2) parallel or approximately parallel streets. LOT, CORNER: A lot located at the intersection of two (2) or more streets. LOT LINE: A line oriented by stable points of reference which establishes one boundary of a lot. (1) LOT LINE, FRONT: A lot line separating the lot from the street. On corner lots, the front lot line is the shortest street dimension, unless the lot is square or almost square, having dimensions at a ratio between three to two (3:2) and three to three (3:3). In that case, the front lot line may be along either street. (2) LOT LINE, REAR: The lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line. In the case of a triangular shaped lot, it is an imaginary line within the lot, ten feet (10') in length, parallel to and farthest from the front lot line. (3) LOT LINE, SIDE: Any lot line which meets the end of a front lot line, or any lot line which is not a front lot line or rear lot line. (4) YARD LINE, SIDE: A line parallel to the side lot line and as far from the side lot line as required by this chapter. ~ Q "'" "'" ~q <- :;>-.l ~ II -, - _/ I r- Oc:, s;- hl -2>' , -0 ,-1 . ill :J: '-...1 --::0 0-- - ~/' ., C> :P (.)'\ (5) YARD LINE, FRONT: A line from one side lot line to another side lot line, parallel to the street and as far back from the street as required in this chapter. (6) YARD LINE, REAR: A line parallel to the rear lot line as far forward from the rear lot line as required by this chapter. (See definition of Lot Line, Rear.) (7) YARD, REAR: The required area from one side lot line to another side lot line and between the rear yard line and the rear lot line. (8) YARD, SIDE: The required area from the front yard line to the rear yard line and from the side yard line to the side lot line. (9) YARD, FRONT: The required area across a lot between the front yard line and the street (right of way line). EXHIBIT C' PAGE p... ... >;;l z ~ : 2) REAR LOT LINE I I 7) REAR YARD 6) REAR YARD LINE 8) SIDE YARD 8) SIDE YARD foil ~ ~ ~ as .... ,.;j ,.;j ~ ~ ,.;j ... ... 0 0 ,.;j ,.;j foil foil foil f;I;l I:l I:l I:l I:l .... .... .... .... 00 00 00 00 --- --- --- --- '" ..". ..". '" . 5) FRONT YARD LINE 0 ....., = = ~O "'" <- ".. O~ :z 9) FRONT YARD I ......,c... or:- ;:<r' , rTi -0 --p :r , C)-J ;x: ~ - .. 0 (JJ 1) FRONT LOT LINE TI r- m ,--, u WEBSTER EXHIBIT~ 1 PAGE ~_ LD7/099a 1368 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 6, 2006 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: EXC05-00016: Reconsideration of an application submitted for 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 Medium Density Single-Family residential (RS-8) zone at 920 Webster Street/601 Walnut Street. In the reconsideration of EXC05-00016, staff stands behind its original report (attached). The concerns related to allowing the applicant to pave more than 50% of the required front yard setback remain traffic visibility and safety, the aesthetic character of the neighborhood, and the elimination of pervious surface. Attachments 1. Staff Report 2. Minutes of the October 12 meeting 3. Decision 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 StreeU920 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: 14-6Q-2B, front yard setback requirements; 14-6Q- 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. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the regulations 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 staff's 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 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-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 apriority. 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: ~~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development S:\PCDlStaff Reports ~ 1~ SVJ nl I - <0 or- 0 0 0 w 1S I ~ llO~>-I'n 1.0 0 > ~ <( 0 I. a L- a 3: III ~ 0::: ." ~ ~ 1(" ~~- -;::; ~ I- _ -= --:::JVD v '-l if) L +-' ~ I- ~ => is VN'IU ~ z --.J +-' <( ~ ~ 3: c: ~ ~ or- ~ . 0 0 <0 ~ -- ~ tj Q) Q) 0 .... l- is H31S83M ,.. Ci5 .... .e en ..c ~ 0 C\J 0) .. N3dn8 ,..y f\ f-- Z 0 ~ B ~ 0 ~ ~ E-c ~ 00 L " , "'~I (. , ,~ 1'\' .,.. \ " ~, , ~ ~.. -1 ~ I I \ 00 N x: Q.. o W -I [L . ',...' '\. "" ~. .~ 0 " ~ i 1::: ~' t I .- IO~ \i -- A.l I I.!\ ~ ) IO'c . (s,-.J; w~?J~ ~?9-1l C( b L " t }.- ~ "h.oh ~ 4. Q ~ <\ ~ ~ ~'" q)~ :< t- ~ "J' I I , OJ ><a, '~' ~::> . 11-;1 .1, ~C> t I . in $-';;;'.dt';";";e;,;~ J ...::, I I . ':------i :-'" '. u . ..J.?o'lll.vn ' . ...~Ii'" ~> J ~. ~ f (0' "/." > : '" "" \t'\ . ~ _~ I _ , !" .;,. :. 0"_'" "_~~I"_' -, ~\- ."~ -.' . ..... ~ <f R:() wt>bsf'l1f' 'or; . ).. ~ I~ ..J i ,jS -'J"" ~ ....f) '" ,. ...., ;,Mh ,."" LJ I" /I '1~ :s V . . -~ ..... .. t ~ '-D ~-'P' "2 , - . - .;tr?~/"f -;""7 ..; .f 3~...( 9 ~JJ'!:>'" 5> . "-S> "" ~. ~. -I- .2S' 2/ .i1.J.!"f/; /1 .3 - . '" '" ( ~ 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 Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 2 Walnut Street. Removal of at least the paving from the vision triangle would less the possibility of traffic conflicts. 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. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 3 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. 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 comer 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 Hearina 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 TD 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. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 4 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. 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. Prepared by Sarah Walz Associate 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. EXCOO-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 Medium Density Single-Family (RS-B) zone at 920 Webster Street /601Walnut Street. Findinas of Fact: The Board finds that the corner property at 920 Webster Street/601 Walnut Street is a nonconforming property because the current building has a setback (approximately 3.62 feet) along Walnut Street that is less than the 20-foot front-yard setback required in the RS-B 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 (14-60-2B). This is consistent with other corner properties in the neighborhood. The Board finds that in the RS-B 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 of 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-B zone. The Board finds that the applicant also paved the City right-of-way between the property line and the curb, and that the 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 14-6Q-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 "A" 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 constwction ilta 15 ft. by 40 ft. addition onto the south face of the existing structure; (2) to allow @~e g display and sale of up to two vehicles; and (3) to reduce the required front yard ~ _ ck ~m 11 20 ft. to 5 ft. at an auto repair garage in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zon 016::- South Orchard Street and the immediately abutting property to the south. ~ p -: t;:; Findinas of Fact: The Board finds that the properties at 1010 Orchard Street an~~ :x 0 immediately abutting property to the south are currently in use as a vehicle repa~rfcl -:; service station, which is allowed by special exception in CC-2 zones. The Board :ftnds th~ 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 finds 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 propo.sed 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 ofthe 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. Disposition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves EXC05-000H, an application submitted by TD 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, :;;5 provides street trees along the right-of-way, provides a sidewalk and illustrates::cPmpliaa&e with off-street parking requirements. ~Q f?, ~--\ n 0-< ===i0 .;:- .-<.- -0 TIME LIMITATIONS: -93 3: 0:;>;: _ All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant actio~hall Z:, expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant strall have taken a ion within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized u er the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-4B-5E, City of Iowa City, Iowa -n - hi o 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 It! day of -'?Nd/uJ./L,...) ,2005 ~~~J ~. %NJ Maria Karr, City Clerk ......, 0 = = ~O <:.n <::J )>~ ...., 11 ::J ./ n l ' I -0 +" ::2r- m m '"U -:0 :x 0 O^ -s: - )3: .. w c..v ~ ~i 1il ~ (J) c -- Q. Q. cu ~ :c~ r: +-' -- !::o ID % CU ~ $ a .:t= ID . rr 6g>w, E-- co '. > La ., ID.... .., 'v N o. n: D... __;:: ~~ ~ ~:., ). ""~ :~;~~ - ~E ~.g ~(J) .- c .....- >. . "DiUro .... 0.. 5 o I -+-ID-+- 0.>9 IDO...... oE-5, x ID__ w........ - "f- a ~ +-' - ...... en ...... :J C en S -- o hH Ii H ~ I~ .. ..'.!"~-/,. .--T----." . . I I I I I I I l:: -- 'lS J8lsq8M o F: "" ===\ " -n -< - r- -' ~ 'm (~, -~~ ::g 0 :JJ 7' -:: -- w ~ MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 14, 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, Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Drea, Lillian Davis CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maurer called the meeting to order at 5:00 CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 14. 2005 MINUTES MOTION: Alexander moved to approve the minutes from October 12. Wright seconded the motion. Motion passed 5:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 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 Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8 ) zone at 920 Webster Street/601 Walnut Street. Holecek said that at the October 12'" meeting the Board approved, on a 5:0 vote, a special exception to reduce the front yard from 20 to 0 feet to allow paving in a front yard greater than the fifty percent permitted. Holecek noted that 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 limitation for front yards. She added that due to significant visibility and safety concerns for vehicular traffic, as well as concerns about impervious surface and neighborhood character, the Board approved the special exception subject to removing the paving within the visual triangle of the newly installed pavement. Holecek said that the applicant is requesting that the Board reconsider the condition of pavement removal in the visual triangle as required under the October 12'" decision. In addition, the applicant also requests the Board reconsider the zoning official's interpretation of whether or not the area in question is a "front yard." She noted that this issue was not really discussed or analyzed by the Board at its October 12 meeting, and therefore would be difficult to reconsider something that was not considered. Holecek said that the staff report did not address or analyze the issue and there is no record on the matter. Therefore, she said, the Board can reconsider the conditions placed on the grant of the special exception, but if Mr. Drea wishes to challenge the zoning official's interpretation of "front yard", a separate appeal would be necessary to allow for the zoning official's determination to be analyzed and a record made on the issue. She said that since it was a 5:0 vote, any of the two board members could make a motion to reconsider, and a simple majority is necessary to pass it. Lillian Davis. 920 South Dubuque Street, said she is representing David Drea. She said that the issue of whether it was a front yard or not was not discussed. She noted that the Board is considering a motion to reconsider the application. Davis said there are two issues, the parkway, and the paving of the yard area, and whether it is a front yard or not. Drea said that after reviewing several documents including the Zoning Ordinance it is her strong understanding that the area in discussion is not a front yard. Holecek said that in the letter submitted to the Board, Davis requested to be allowed to keep the paving in the right of way. However, she noted that the Board has no discretion in deciding over whether or not the right of way paving can be kept. She said that the right of way is public property, and the City Engineer can make such decisions. Holecek said that the Board could decide how much paving could be allowed on the private property. She noted that the issue in front of the Board is whether it wishes to reconsider its October 12 decision, and if so what would be the scope of reconsideration; would it be limited to the conditional approval, the removal of the paving in the visual triangle, or explore the issue of whether or not it is a front yard. Iowa City Board Of Adjustment Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 2 Alexander said that they would have to consider two items on the next agenda, reconsideration of a special exception and an appeal. Holecek said that depending on what the Board decides to reconsider Mr. Drea might file an appeal, and therefore the Board would have two separate items, one reconsideration of the special exception and an appeal regarding the issue of whether or not the area in discussion is a front yard or not. Holecek said that it is hard to reconsider something that was never considered. She added that at the last meeting there was no record regarding the issue of whether or not it is a front yard. She noted that it would require a separate staff report with a separate analysis, and is rightly the subject to a different appeal, although the Board has discretion. Miklo said that there are three types of applications that the Code provides for the Board to consider, variance, special exception, and appeal of the Building Official. The applicant submitted a special exception application for reduction of the front yard, and in the application cited his view that it was not a front yard. However, the applicant had not submitted a lelter requesting an appeal to the Building Official's decision. Davis pointed out that when approaching the City for advice that is what Mr. Drea was told to file. Miklo said that he was the one to present the options available for the remedy needed by Mr. Drea. Miklo advised him that the Board could consider an application to reduce the front yard. Miklo noted that the appeal could be considered at the January meeting, and an additional fee would not be required. Alexander moved to reconsider the conditions placed on the special exception granted to Mr. Drea at the October 12th meeting. Leigh seconded the motion. Motion passed 4: 1, with Wright being opposed. OTHER: NONE ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 5:28 PM. s:lpcdlminutes/B0Al200SJ12-14-05.doc .... ='0 ~ .. E Q .... y ~~ '-' I() 'O~o <1:!o ....~N Q'O '0 = .. ~ ~;: Q< = <= se <= <= ." .... >< >< >< >< >< - M .... M .... >< >< >< >< >< - <= .... ." .... >< >< >< >< >< - ~ <= <= ~ .... >< >< >< >< - QC 0 <= ...., .... >< >< >< >< >< - r-- <= QC se >< >< >< >< >< ~ <= .... .... >< >< >< >< >< in <= ...., :::E ~ :::E ~ ~ .... ~ Z Z <= ~ se >< >< >< >< >< ...., <= ~ ~ ~ se >< >< >< M 0 <= M , .... >< , >< >< >< - .... 0 <= 0 '" 00 0 r-- \0 '" 8.~ 0 - 0 >::2 0 - - - - - - - - - >::2 0 >::2 0 >::2 ~&:i - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 .. .. ... .. 'l:I f:: -= :I -= :l I~ a ] ~ 'l:I ~ ~ Q .. :;;: Q o-l ... - ~ :I .. ~ ~ .. e .. -= g .. 'l:I .S .. ~ .. ~ i z u z :> "" <1.l .... '" <1.l 8 Ol)~ >(.5 e ~~llJ ==~~:::E l1) Q) <IJ ~ ~ ~~~~~ II II II II ~ ~:::E I ~><OOZI City of Iowa City Board of Adjustment 2006 Application Deadline Aoolication Deadlines Formal Meetina (Noon - City Clerk's Office) December 15, 2005 January 11, 2006 January 12, 2006 February 8, 2006 February 9, 2006 March 8, 2006 March 16,2006 April 12, 2006 April 13, 2006 May 10,2006 May 18, 2006 June 14, 2006 June 15, 2006 July 12, 2006 July 13, 2006 August 9, 2006 August 17, 2006 September 13, 2006 September 14, 2006 October 11, 2006 October 12, 2006 November 8, 2006 November 16, 2006 December 13, 2006 December 14, 2006 January 10, 2007 January 18, 2007 February 14,2007 February 15,2007 March 14,2007