HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-2006 Board of Adjustment
AGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
THURSDA ~ Apri/13, 2006 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the March 8, 2006 Minutes
D. Special Exceptions
1. EXC06-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Viktor Tichy for a
special exception to the establishment of a daycare center serving up to 30
children and to reduce the minimum 5-foot setback requirement for parking in the
side yard along the alley for property located in the Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) zone at 1020 Kirkwood Avenue.
2. APL06-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by S&J Development for
an appeal of the City's determination of a stream corridor on property located in
the Rural Residential (RR1) zone and Interim Development Single Family
Residential (IDRS) zone west of Rohret Road and north of Slothower Avenue.
3. EXC06-00003: Discussion of a request to reconsider an application submitted by
First Presbyterian Church for a special exception to permit installation of a
columbarium, a structure containing niches for storage of cremated remains, for
use by the church members for property located in the Low Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2701 Rochester Avenue.
E. Other
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjournment
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -May 10, 2006
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EX06-0000S 1020 Kirkwood Ave.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Applicable Code requirements:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: April 13, 2006
Viktor Tichy
1203 Sheridan Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa
Phone: 319-3S4-299S
Approval of a special exception to
permit a daycare center in the Low-
Density Single Family (RS-S) Zone
and to reduce the S foot minimum
side setback requirement for a
parking area in a residential zone.
To allow establishment of a
daycare center in a single family
home at 1020 Kirkwood Avenue.
1020 Kirkwood Avenue
.1 acre (12,000 square feet)
Single-family residential; RS-S
North:
South:
East:
West:
Residential; RS-S
Residential; RS-S
Residential; RS-S
Residential; RS-S
Residential
14-2A-2, Daycare centers permitted
by special exception in the RS-5
zone; 14-4B-4D-6, approval criteria
for daycare uses; 14-2B-6C,
Location and Design Standards for
Surface Parking; 14-5A-4 Minimum
Parking Requirements and 14-5A-
S, Parking Construction and Design
Standards; 14-4B-3, general
standards for special exceptions.
File Date:
March 1S, 200S
BACKGROUND:
Iowa's City's Zoning Ordinance allows the location of daycare facilities within residential
zones in two ways. First, as an accessory use called childcare homes. A childcare
home is a facility in which childcare is provided within the owner/operator's primary
residence. Thus the childcare business is accessory to the primary use of the property
as a residence. Childcare homes may serve up to 1S children and are permitted in all
residential zones without a special exception.
The second option is a childcare center. In this situation childcare is the principal use
for the property in that the owner/operator does not live on site. Childcare centers .
provide supervision for 12 or more children and are permitted in all residential zones by
special exception.
By allowing daycare facilities to locate throughout the city and in a variety of zones our
community encourages diverse, affordable and accessible childcare.
Both childcare homes and childcare centers must meet certain standards spelled out in
the Zoning Code. Above and beyond the requirements of the Zoning Code, childcare
facilities must also meet additional requirements set by the state.
To be granted a special exception, Childcare Centers must meet a set of general criteria,
which are required for all special exceptions, as well as additional requirements set forth
in the specific approval criteria for Daycare Centers.
The original application submitted by Mr. Tichy was for a childcare center serving up to
48 children. Staff reviewed that application and raised concerns about the intensity of
use-that is the number of children appropriate for this site. In response to those
concerns as well as significant concern among the neighbors, Staff encouraged the
applicant to scale back his plan for the childcare center.
The application now before the Board seeks approval for a special exception to allow
establishment of a daycare center serving up to 30 children in the Low-Density Single
Family (RS-S) Zone with an additional special exception to reduce the side setback
requirement from S feet to 3 feet for parking areas located in a residential zone.
The proposed childcare center would operate only on weekdays, Monday through
Friday, from 7 AM until S:30 PM.
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 14-4B-4D-S, pertaining
to Daycare Uses, and the general standards for special exceptions as set forth in
Section14-4B-3.
Specific Standards: 14-48-40-6 (page 195), Special Exceptions: Oaycare Uses. This
section of the Zoning Code specifies that childcare centers must contain at least 3S square
feet of usable interior floor space per child, excluding reception areas, kitchens, storage
areas, offices, bathrooms, hallways, etc. A center for 30 children would require a minimum
of 10S0 square feet. The applicant's proposed site plan provides more than 1300 square
feet.
In addition, the childcare facility must provide a fenced outdoor play area of not less than
100 square feet per child based on the maximum number of children who will be using the
play area at any given time. The proposed site plan provides approximately 1S00 square
feet of outdoor play area, enough for 1S children to play at any given time. In addition,
outdoor play areas must be completely enclosed by a 4-foot high fence. The applicant's
site proposal includes a 4-foot picket fence at the north and west boundaries.as well as a
6-foot solid wood fence along the shared property line on the east side.
The specific criteria for childcare centers also indicate that facilities serving more than 16
children have access to a street with paving wider than 28 feet. Kirkwood Avenue is an
arterial street and thus exceeds the 28-foot minimum.
In addition, the drop off/pick up area for the use must be designed to allow for sufficient
stacking spaces located in proximity to the main entrance. To promote safe vehicular
circulation, one-way drives are encouraged. Access to this site would be provided along
an 18-foot wide right-of-way (existing gravel alley is narrower) that connects Kirkwood
Avenue to Walnut Street. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to pave and
maintain the entire length of the north-south alley. This would include providing snow
removal. The proposed site plan indicates 6 parking spaces along this alley and a two
stacking spaces to allow for drop off and pick up for parents and children. These meet the
minimum parking requirements indicated in the Code.
Because the proposed child care center is located in the RS-S zone it is subject to the
multi-family site development standards. Those standards indicate that parking areas may
not be provided within the side setback. In the RS-S zone "other uses" require a side
setback of S feet. All parking for the proposed center will be located on the west side of the
property, adjacent to the north-south alley. The site plan shows only a three-foot side
setback. Based on the Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, 14-SA-SE-2 (page 244),
a 5-foot side setback is required in order to allow space for screening abutting properties
from parking areas. Because the side yard of this property abuts the alley rather than an
adjacent property, Staff believes the reduction in the side setback for parking is
reasonable.
Pedestrian access must be constructed to connect the main entrance of the center to the
adjacent right-of-way and pedestrian access must be clearly separated or distinguished
from vehicle areas. The site plan shows a pedestrian connection from Kirkwood Avenue
to the main entrance, on the west side of the building.
General Standards: 14-48-3, 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 exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The applicant has made a
significant effort to preserve the residential character of the property, including
preservation of the existing trees along the alley and has designed the childcare site in
order to he visually compatible with the neighborhood. Only one of the trees along the
alley would be removed to accommodate stacking spaces for pick up and drop off.
Screening and fencing around the outdoor play areas should provide a buffer from the
increased noise generated by the outdoor play area. Improvements made to the alley
will accommodate vehicle circulation and minimize dust. The applicant meets the
minimum requirements for staff parking and client loading and unloading.
However, Staff remains concerned about the affect that intensity of use-that is the
capacity of the childcare center-will have on the alley. The applicant has not provided
information regarding the demand for parking or loading/unloading or how the childcare
center might impact traffic on Kirkwood Avenue or circulation on the alley. Information
from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual indicates that an
average daycare center generates 4.5 vehicle trips per day per child. For a daycare
center serving 30 children that is 135 trips per day.
There is no parking allowed along Kirkwood Avenue and Summit Street, which means
most clients will access the site via the alley. Most of the daycare traffic will occur in the
early morning and late afternoon, coinciding with peak traffic on Kirkwood and Summit.
Because Kirkwood is an arterial street, cars waiting to exit onto Kirkwood may create
congestion on the alley, which has limited turn-around potential. Congestion along the
alley may alter the private character of the established residential neighborhood.
Congestion will also have some effect on neighboring residents. The alley provides the
only access to garages and parking areas for residents of neighboring properties along
Kirkwood and Summit.
Moreover, the applicant has proposed a daycare that encourages parents to attend with
children and participate as or with staff. The applicant has not provided information on
how this aspect of the daycare would affect parking demand or the number of vehicle
trips to the site per day.
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 Zoning Code supports the location
of childcare facilities within residential zones. The applicant has not provided information
to substantiate claims that the proposed childcare center will enhance livability of the
neighborhood.
The noise generated by a childcare facility may potentially affect neighboring properties.
These negative affects are mitigated by screening and fencing around the outdoor play
area. Because the daycare center operates only during weekdays during working hours,
it is less likely to be to be detrimental to the enjoyment of neighboring properties. To
assure the appearance of the property remains compatible with the surrounding
residential neighborhood. staff recommends that the building be required to retain its
residential exterior appearance.
c. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The surrounding residential
properties are already fully developed, therefore this special exception will not be
contrary to this standard.
d. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided. Adequate utilities, access and drainage are in place to
serve a childcare facility at this site. Staff has recommended and the applicant has
agreed to pave the entire length of the north-south alley that will provide access to the
proposed child care center.
e. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The applicant has
made a substantial effort to design the childcare center in order to have minimal impact
on the neighborhood. Improvements made to the alley will be adequate to support
vehicle circulation, staff parking, and client unloading and will provide safe access to the
site. Because there are alternative routes to the site, via Summit and Walnut, staff does
not feel that the level of additional traffic traveling to this site will over-burden Kirkwood
Avenue. However, Staff remains concerned about the effect that this level of traffic will
have on the alley. While reaching the site via the alley from Walnut Street is preferred,
vehicles will have limited ability to turn and vehicles waiting to exit the alley onto
Kirkwood may create congestion in the alley at peak times. Given the concerns about
traffic in the alley, staff recommends limiting the scale of the daycare center in order to
limit the number of required employees. This will free up the planned employee parking
spaces on site for vehicle loading and unloading and should help to minimize congestion
and illegal parking in the alley. The applicant will be required to construct additional
parking as spec1fied in his site plan.
f. 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.
With the exception of the side setback requirement for parking, the proposed childcare
center complies with all other dimensional requirements for daycare facilities located in
residential zones. Because the side setback requirement for parking areas in residential
zones is intended to buffer abutting properties from paved parking areas, and the
proposed parking areas abutthe alley, Staff believes this reduction is a reasonable
request.
g. The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan
of the City. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically refer to childcare
facilities, it does encourage the location of some commercial amenities as well as schools
and other institutional uses that provide social services in residential zones. Staff believes
that the location of daycare facilities of the appropriate scale in residential zones is
consistent with this goal.
SUMMARY
While the zoning code supports the location of childcare facilities within residential zones,
the establishment of any such facility must be done with careful consideration in order to
preserve the integrity and character of the existing neighborhood. The property at 1020
Kirkwood Avenue meets the spatial and access requirements for a childcare center.
However, because there is no history of a daycare at this location, and because the
applicant does not have prior experience running a daycare facility, it is difficult to predict
the exact effects that the daycare will have on traffic circulation in the alley. Due to the lack
of parking on Kirkwood Avenue and Summit Streets and the traffic situation on Kirkwood,
we therefore assume that vehicles will collect in the alley during a one hour period in the
morning. This will affect neighbors whose sole vehicle access to their property is via the
alley.
For this reasons, Staff recommends a more limited size for the childcare center, with a
maximum of 24 children. In addition, required childcare staff is based on the ages of the
children served by the center. Limiting the size of the staff to S, will free up parking spaces
proposed in the current site plan for parents to load and unload. This would reduce the
likelihood of cars parking illegally in the alley and overall congestion around the daycare
center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC06-0000S, an application for a special exception to allow a
childcare center in the Low-Density Single- Family (RS-S) zone at 1020 Kirkwood
Avenue and to reduce the side setback requirement for the parking area from 5 feet to 3
feet, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site plan submitted by the applicant.
2. The childcare center will be limited to serve a maximum of 24 children. Hours of
operation will be limited to weekdays from 7:00 AM until 6:00 pm.
3. The applicant will pave and maintain the entire length of the alley (16-foot wide)
from Walnut Street to Kirkwood Avenue. The applicant will provide snow removal
for the entire length of the alley.
4. The applicant will make no external modifications to the house which alter its
residential character.
S. The applicant will minimize the impact of paving on established trees along the
alley by consulting with a certified arborist prior to paving.
6. The applicant must secure state licensing as a daycare provider.
A IT ACHMENTS:
1. Location maps
2. Photos of site
3. Application
4. Correspondence
Approved by:
~...~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community
Development
I
11
CITY OF IOWA CITY ~
I
--
-
-
-
-
r
I~....'
/ I
/
/
-> .
rrrr
t
rV1
[
c--j
~
- -
-
- -
f
--\
\
l
-
-,
r
f--
j
j
-
~
~
~
~
J
EXC06-00005
020 Kirkwood Ave
View of the alley looking north toward Walnut Street.
View of the alley looking south toward Kirkwood Avenue.
View of the property from Kirkwood Avenue.
View of the rear yard of the property.
View of the east west alley from Clark Street.
'-.
...
Ei<..c.(fXp - ~5
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE: 3-10-'06
PROPERTY PARCEL NO. \ 0 14 z.~ bOO '1
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1020 ~1.~Jzwa:::>b AVE-^-l/.1E. / IOWA. City
PROPERTY ZONE: R - E;, PROPERTY LOT SIZE: "15>< I bO
APPLICANT: Name: VI~ llCJ-t I.(
Address: 1'2-0~ fl1 E1<, I r>A;N ~"E:
Phone: ~\~- 354- z.,qq;;
CONTACT PERSON: Name: JE"fF ebJ3...E eG , CbLDWE.LL (3l"N\:;.~R...
-
(if other than applicant) Address: 44 SilAe61::S <::"'~JJf.e.. t:::>~\\/e.. , I ,('.
Phone: '31~ - 3SI- 3~5E7
~( t)
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: ~
(if other than applicant) 0 <-
Address: ----~ ;
..-. I ..
.,:-......... fn
Phone: 6 ~
~ "-
....
r-.:3
(,~;,
=
0"""
-n
(]'I
~
:3..
fTl
---,
u
U1
N
Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter:
A.PfL'(fN4 ~ A S:f'EClkL f;XCt-{ljl ON 17) AJLaJ t>Aye.A:l2.t {,( s.e- IN . (.25.- 5: 2.OiJe.
Purpose for special exception: ~f'fk)N{,. '1'"0 Oft-/J A. M'1~ r~l-lrl1 AI .
10zo k::.!t.lCoJOOD A~~"Hte , TOW~ C 11'1
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: ON -:l~NlAf\e:..'1 I~ ,"l~ ANI> W(\tf~lJt..1,
'-..--
-2-
Please see 14-8C-2 in the Code for more detailed information on special exception
application and approval procedures. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with
questions about the application process or regulations and standards in the Zoning Code.
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Legal descriDtion of property (attach separate sheet if necessary):
z.~"S -9 <;:tAt-1Mlr HilL A\)()tIlON ) f"LAT or: P"A.R..T of= BL loT ~
B. *Plot clan drawn to scale showing:
1. Lot with dimensions;
2. North point and scale;
3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines;
4. Abutting streets and alleys;
5. Surrounding land uses, including the location and record owner of each
property opposite or abutting the property in question;
6. Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed.
*Submission of an 8 Yz" x 11" plot plan is preferred.
C. Review: The Board of Adjustment is empowered to grant special exceptions to the
provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code only in circumstances specifically
enumerated within the Code. To ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is observed
and substantial justice done, no special exception shall be granted by the Board
unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the specific and general approval
criteria are met, as described below.
Soecific Aooroval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find
that the requested special exception meets the specific approval criteria set forth
within the zoning code with respect to the proposed exception. In the space
provided below or on an attached sheet, address the areas of Board review that
apply to the specific requested special exception. The applicant is required to
present specific infonnation, not just opinions, that demonstrate that the requested
special exception meets each of the specific approval criteria listed in the Zoning
Code. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions in the base zone are
set forth in 14-48-4 of the Zoning Code. For other types of special exceptions - modifications
to setbacks, parking requirements, etc. - refer to the relevant approval criteria listed in the
Code. Planning staff is available to assist you in finding the relevant approval criteria for
your requested exception.) Attach additional sheet if necessary.
'5 e e'" p,,\ 6-E- ,&. '\f7>. U:-I E b. ,
l"o.'
0 =>
C":)
C....,.
~O :::&;:
):> -..; )::... 11
--,< :;;0
0
--! C 0"\ !
.:< 1"--' f11
m ::l> ~~
5 ::0 ::!t "-..-I
^ -
<" -
4tt.::>
j> Con
N
C', "::>f"~C,l=-\c.. AfPeovA(.. C~ITte.IA
~~ IOWA CITY ZON'lVc, CODE: E'FFt::c-Tlvi
?t.~" DN "1-4 b
, ,~.\'f'~A-~~ l..j~es
,...,>
=
c=::>
('~
DEc.'2B J ~s
o
..,--
::2:()
.J>=:j
-~,.....
o "
-,,1 e)
~~~
, ) _'c,
.;.:- ./'-
~
0"1
il
r-
ill
1-1
I.,.J
::Do
:11:
c:?J' .j2..~Q till ee-b IrV'rf=f..1 cOile. ACTI V ITI1 A J2 EA~ :
THE: Ex.I'3rll,.J4 1-10111'::>1:. CoN'IA\1V5 11?T~l or= ZhD16 "SF. OF
$F^~E. It-J FI12~\ FLoOQ AN]:) F/tvlSt::;t> Ba...se-MC~TI wf1(t.-f-(
WILL ~E t1~ Aect~(bLE BY A ~~ f;Ro"'"IH~ QATS1D,E1
A""\ 40 Sf/CK!LO (IAJ.lDt!~ 2..) ft:*.- t14\Y-IMIAM. 0,2 4E ef1(t-v~;,0
f
IT Lfkllc-s 6SZ Sf' rDl2.. KITCHEN) ~Tt\-~OMS) :.sLJ::~.VIC~, A-t--Jl::>
CrR.el,4L.A-TlqJ, Sfc-clf1=\c. ,'j:.r:'.s161v TO ''"fEEl TI1c ~ILDIN4
<""0 D t WI U. ~ t. €-)l.~(..o\ n..~~ I./! fOtJ Aweo\/A:\-o f- 1l'f'~ "SPeer K.
~'1 e.!-.Pn .:>(t J'-,PFL\ e c. II Ol',J
(J1
N
b.! ovrCOo~ -NEAS f?t':Ne& ro~ CHIL-b ~-.JS ACTWC,'1 CotJTAltJ
\800 <;;F, or- S'P~E, ~E.~VI"-l~ ot-Jt! i1tH<.D o~ \1t-e CHILD R~
A-r A.. TIM~ 11t~~ OF-Fe-R- \\'2 J ~ Si; af t7't11:>oo,z.. 'SpAce
,
PEe.. (! 11 (CD PLvt ~ Tor~ OF 2..b4 -:;r-. Cf s.c~~""N't.b ft/Re.H.
IOD~F\ Pe~ CH'IL,,t) I S ~&lA IR-C::=t> ~lf \\{e CD hi: .
(\) A/.,L f-LA 'f 4 (2..0 IA fVD f C:X IAllf> M I.:"\IJT iN \ u., ~ t I J Tt1 e J!;..Ac" I.f ~ D
~c f'-CeY\J-C:D Feof\ mE: ~1~~tvOOb AI}e'p.J\.{~ (by -p+e
:J)IA ILj) \l',J~ I ff!OM ~ A.lLE:'1 Of-J WesT ..sll>~ b'i f11C
W f'r: ~<HJ 4 4 PMfrf.., A,J ~ f(u)h 11fe Ar;LEtf otJ ;zrt't'
~)o(<.r1-\ A "J~ f1e.ol'\ l1-fe Etl ST ~ \ b ~ ~J e-( 61-< ~o e t3> Y
A 6\ H14H- SOL-lt> /,AJooD FetJe:,::, .
(2) THE. ~\IE f"LA.."'-l CALL~ f'D~ A -4 Fr flc-\:::,:,-r F~--rJCE
1\(201AND A~L lH'c OiATDoO~ P\K.e-AS; wHIcH ~llL !:.c=-
0\,t13:.<?i\rVfTet:. 13:.'( A ~f1 WOO~ Fe,J6€. IN 1T1t V'~rNITY
e;f "Tl1& PLAY4 ~OV1N'.b E:~IA l i> HY01;
C. ThE (W<'OSEj> ""''''fER.. ~ 4s G(ILC>I'-~ WI/;(. Be A<'<'e:ss6':>
rWM 1<..1~~OO-b AveJJ\1e: J WI1IC.H ~ k) II)E~ TRA-rJ 28 FeEi,
C\, '1'<1" oR-oj> OF,/, f I ~I!.~.. -AREA I'; !P<A,IE,). /:1F'r "f1/e ALLEy, N
?IR.~ ~\(., M '''1 OF THE ee.,J-rE. f2... tIJ-r~ C-c ,
e. \N ...o..t:>\T10N '10 e.~ICSTlt-J4 WA.U:.J.Jl\V f A-N ~,til.t.-~ K.tdAP
tv\i..t ~e: CoN S~It\~,...e~ I AI;, CA; lLt-b b'1 /11 ~ ~ I~ PC.~N I
f. ~l ?t>..~\L'Nq. ANC::. STA.c~,1'I c.\ SrACCs Aa Peces..,S.\&LE ~~~n'1
~fCoM. IHE '51f>f A~j:::) ~~ A\U'fS. A 12.,S""" rr ~Ffl:~ IS Peo\Jl1[>cD
o~ 'T11 E wt"'7:>'f ~ IC>C I
'--
-3-
D. General Aooroval Criteria: The Board must also find that the requested special
exception meets the following general approval criteria or that the following
criteria do not apply. In the space provided below, or on an attached sheet,
provide soeciflc Information. not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific
requested special exception meets the general approval criteria listed below or
that the approval criteria are not relevant In your particular case.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
IHe t:::Fftt:, Dt-J me TRA f"'Fic OJV ~~lCWOO b Ave- l"VILL Bl:-
t~ll"""MAL. I e:.&Att.s.~ Vt-t-\\ClALA-e ACCess (5, F./20M nJo A\):1~("c-vr
ALLC'(S. \1{E tJO\S,L "V\LL g...e etONTA,~ 16..., -rwe=- 4t<~6-E
h~1\ I L D,rJ6 A"Jf> SOLID W (Job reN~ ,ARtO'-I~D Tflc (J(,Aff61.-0/sft.Jj)
t~\.1I?Mt::IJT, THEI2.t.. iN/LA..!bE IVo D/~~r ~C!.~S I='reOM-n1~
Pl-AY A I:tA fD ~c. f;7I..t~'i 1<:I~W,oOP AVE. THe CEJJTl"-t<- (,V1LL-
~ {}fe--v otJL-'1 otJ W~bA,YS ~n 7 AM WS ~~o PM; WI1W
HO?~ EZe-s.l t> ~ I-S' Olz 171(; A.t>-::T I\<:..EN THO 11. ~ ES A flt ,.+'1 w"R/f.( I
2. The specific proposed exception will not be Injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not
substantially diminish and impair property values In the neighborhood.
,He c.t:^.JTrR WILL EMt AA>~c 1",1 VI~, (.,(T'f of mf- AU-A pf2-<;v'If)/lJtl
"1?ii~- HI4H~r CHILD. CAe~ IN ""'He A~f:-A. OC.Cl1~/eD <'10:s.ll'1
'$'"( f'R..Ofc'S'S \0 "'A.L~ . I, IS coHfl\ \li?lc- LJ,,..-v{ RS-5 2o,vJt.J~
Pr2oVlC>~ Sf~-C(K C-11,et:fOTtotJ I
3.
Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal
and orderly development and Improvement of the surrounding property f(jlt
uses permitted In the district in which such property is located. 0 ~
::2: () :::J:
'1> --j ~
.... J ~:J
0-<"
_I () CT\
.::~< r"""--'
CO J>
r~ _}J 3::
'-' -.....-..
~ ..."- -
)>
me :S1I1f_e.o U NDI~ Ae,eA" I!; ft.-tU\1 ~'E:1If1.:oPE:.b \
Il
fTl
.-----,
\......J
U1
N
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
\<::'l~oo~ AVCkJ\.-tc I~ WIJ::>Cl2.. 'THAtJ 2.8 reEl-,
'--
-4-
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
ALL vt"IiI(!~L.....-f.2... "ece--.s.$ \s ~ 'TWo A~:Jl\Cx"'-NT hLLf"($,
u "
WH Ie-" 4/e:-u 1716 c ~ 'TE~\ O..J "fDf!.. c'1o.5 IrJq Irt IS S 'I~.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in .all other
respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in
which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception
requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant
will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a
particular use as provided in the City Code section 14-48 as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone' and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).]
l1-lf:. Z::OI\JINq gt5'Q() re.e;,. OVE f'Af2I::./NQ. SP~c.c Ft'lt ""~14. c.l-H!I2...
AtJ j:) \ "":;fl\C.\::-IN"Cl <;,.fACE ~ 2.0 cH (Lb eEN. nt~ M ( ;::rlAet
Dt'Z. 0-2 '1~OLi>s. / '2-~ '16{i"12. Ot..-t:>S I A+-,I) ~~ 'teA-ii!... oLbs
~ATIS.fft::..<;:' THe ,ee:G:t""t<cne:LJr~ '
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
T+-1t CO(0~n,JH~vJIV& PVtlJ Pf.,OI--,vrc"S l/A'fc.A-a l(~f /Ai f(ESfOev171rL
"Z ONES.
~
Q c:::)
<=
c:r"
:2:0 ~
__'hioo
)>=::1 :Z;lffllI. il
) ...v
() --<..;---
=j r""', 0'\ r-
I.. I
.::-.... r- :=0- m
m r-,
--- -rJ :1:: \.......1
o~.
<;: /, -
..
>: c...n
w
-5-
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
S'fr ~tAl""'F~- cor'1 ATTACH c:-))
ADDRESS
l"'-3
0 =
=
C"""
:?= (") =z
):; ~ > 11
) :;;:0
0 -< ,
-j C', m r-
i
.,:--, I m
m > '---'
,..., :JJ ::31: \-/
'-' ....-
-s /, -
)> ..
c.n
w
'--
-6-
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing,
construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls,
improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum
yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C4, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date the written decision Is filed with the City Clerk,
unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to
establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and
for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order
without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application.
(Section 14-8C-1E, City Code).
Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved
by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any
taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of
record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision
is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section
14-8C-1F, 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: 3-/0
2000
4'c-J ~
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Date:
,20_
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdadmin\application-boase.doc
l"...:l
0 =
C'.:::)
~q =,
::lI:
:n... Il
-;1 :::0
C) -<..... r'-
...-. C." en I
;< f-'~ l~n
m > :~
7'- ::0 :Jr.;
~:::) -- '--...I
<;: /,
:<'-
::t> CJ1
w
1020 Kirkwood Avenue, Iowa City
Viktor Tichy 319-354-2995 319-330-0735
MAllen1215@aol.com
Genius
in Diapers
"Daycare designed to stimulate kids'
minds"
CITY CLERI<
IOWA CiTt, IO'vVA
2006 ~iAR
FILE[)
6
AM
I:
53
)
Genius in Diapers is a child development center utilizing recent research in infant development
in order to foster children's intelligence and talent. According to Einstein, every child is born
a genius. Yet until now genius in any given person developed only coincidentally and later
was attributed to innate giftedness. My center will focus on nurturing every child's genius
from before birth through school age facilitating stimulation, exposure, and support of early
independence. The center will attract three types of parents: those who want to maximize their
child's talent, those who need quality child care to work in their profession, and those who
choose to be with their child while making money, acquiring expertise, and possibly preparing
to open their own franchise. I will offer seminars to future parents in nurturing their genius in
diapers at home. The participants may enroll their babies and even join the staff.
CITY CLERK
IOWA CITY, IOvVA
2006 MAR
F
6
r::D
._L_ _
AM
53
-~~E:.I,-
CAr..-n~P-l.A'f:-
~1)fr14
~
~~-::z.:.'f6-.
r1-
U11~__
~c-_:
~;:F~Jl:V~~~C -
II tr---~lL.oa>ifQi:.e>"'~t>J:q::~A~-:
,----------------- --
I
I
I
I
I
-!---~ ------."--- -- ~
~c~
f-.nrc,-
Cl"I,.I-nJI1:r:;.-
=V.L-:r:SI":
r:~~T4iU: -- -,
~c:c-- I
I I
I I
l-_-'-----L
J2&"",lWc."nA~
k:ftoJl!! -PLAY
~.:1\Kr.-_~':::~T
_:1::],,,9<::71;::;;- PL. At-.l-
==- 'AaU-.. -,I_aU"
:.:$<!lA!;.J' _n..U'1oe -
:A;N"""PO"lT!:''''';''<:
laN!U$INI:>I....~~ -..,.;:J:;;NA!?""".....Nce-..Q'l~:
IZ;BJl.'Oo--c~e;\"o~~ce."r:r:S\R.. _- <SO; 411 \"'DR~
_:~:>ZC-'!.JO:1e.KwaQP:A'ff..t-lUe:, 10000000C\fiL , '11i:::f~1:i'~'t'_'eli'E t,.<;,4.:2."l91i
\
\\
\\
\\
\1
,ji~
.1 .
i~
jl ~,
;
.O.b.
CJ
~.
)[
.OL
~,
I.~-"'--:'20.~~"
.~I'
s
)-
ll.I
nlY
/
50'
~
I
....0.... ....0
....0....
co <Xl ~ '" 0
o ~N
~5' '-J 17
50' 50' 50'
~ RoosevelT9 St~~et"
~ cr, 10 "'(12.. "'tog
-;; (]1 _ 12~ -4 50' 50' 50' "fo
o q O~N -4
~ GIf(M-rt!llf.. TC. -4 -4 <0
.... I I
-(]1 -4 ~O 0
b q -009 VI .0 0
'\' '-J VI
Ol
7 ' 65'
~ B;> (X)
~ 0.... I
~ () Ol 0
~ .+. q 0
o CO
o
o
{:
Ptl
6
tv -....J
0' ~
Ol
q
f7
-....J
- "!
o
- ....
o
~ q,
(]1
o q,
-
- -S
'11.2- y'f&'
~'+Lt ~'-I-O
65' 45' 50' 50' 8.3 4'
'-J 0> ....' , >1
-oc 0 0
00 0.... Sit ~""
I I I q,0 00
0 0 0 , .... 0> 01q, iij'~
0 0 Ol fA- .
'-J 0 0 0 q
0> 01 ..fl.
<......
10-15-15
Summlr-streef-
SI&
o. f?;)> 111.2' (J
I
o
o
'-J
\
/
~
i~
c
130
-003
14.0'
-002
71'
~'-J
l
~ ..
-l/)
! 0\
< fTl /.-;;---
r::O :x
~ 1-&3'
~31
U1
.::-
80'
&23
0:
,
o
o
(X)
~-
, 0
o
-4
960' "------.
0)
00 ~-4 _. 0 Ol 00 <n
- ,1 ~ t:45'l-' c..{'"" 1 ~
140 71.1S' c.:
(]1
o
20' .
CI ark Street
221'
"lOE
-4 I so'
.... I IN
o 0
q,~
o.
?;2.'+
"10C
99.6'
....b~
tfoV
"..fl..
,
o
o
0>
,e...So'
17S'
,
o
o
<0
14~'
6 ~' E>o> (J1 ~
J .... , ,
O~ 0 0
00 0 0
. " 0>
(X)
60' 60' 60'
I
I
!
,@J
80
-4 -.a.
"'=-4
~33> \)2.5 8".2..1
Roosevelt st
-(]1 -4
to -010 ~ 61.5'
l" .
-4
;;(]1 -4 .'-J .
-.... ,.. ....
1<5'
~
~
~
g
Q.
j!J
, '
Iowa City Assessor
'-
borne I parCel$earCh I re$identiaL$aJe$earcb I cqmmerciaL$ale
$earch
Pin 1014266009
Deed BREESE, DONALD
Contract
1020 KIRKWOOD AVE
Address IOWA CITY IA 52240-0000
Class
Map
Area
RESIDENTIAL
21800-Res
Plat Map 10-14-28
Legal
2665--9 SUMMIT HILL ADDITION, PLAT OF
PART OF BL LOT 9
Land Value
41,310
Current Value Information
Dwelling Value Improvement Value
135,190
o
Total Value
176,500
Occupancy
Qjn~~faroiIYJ9wn~r Oc~ed
Residential Building Information
Style Year Built
1 Story Frame 1941
Total Living Area
2,143
Lot
Land Front Foot Information
Front Rear
75.00 75.00
Side 1
160.00
Side 2
160.00
Main Lot
Iowa City Assessor - General Parcel Info
Page 2 of2
lSFFlOP 1979
[100]
lSFFI
20 [540]
27
36
24 26 IS 8 A FFI (MAIN)
[1034] 30
IS FFI SCRNP 11
[2641 14
5 10 1 12
Related Information Links
Tax Information
Map~
Assessor Reports
~
..
-<
I'>
=
=
Cf"'o
:x
>
:;:.:0
11
-
0"\
,< "f--
!:r:r1
q
'.
;z::..
3:
c.rtJ..r",":"~'-I.:.'" \
&'"
SINGLE FAMILY I ACREAGE AGENT REPORT
'!'r - MLS #: 20060925
), Ownership Type: Single Family
Address: 1020 KIRKWOOD AVE
City,State,Zip: Iowa City , IA S2240
Area: Iowa City DOM:
List Price: $199,SOO Original Price: $211,000
Owner Name (L,F,MI): DONALD BREESE ESTATE
List Agent!: KEVIN HANICK
List Broker1: LEPIC-KROEGER, REALTORS
List Agent2:
List Broker2:
Listing Date: 2/8/2006
County: Johnson
Subdivision:
Builder:
Zoning:
Lot Dim:
Acreage:
SqFt Above:
Fin SqFt Lower:
Tax lO:
Grss Tx (Cnty/City):
Tax Year Report:
Annual Assoc Fee:
Year Built:
New Construction:
RSS
7SX160
0.27
2143
o
1014266009
2961.00
2006
0.00
1941
No
# Fireplaces: 1
Mstr BR Level: Upper
living Rm Level: Main
Dining Rm Level: Main
Kitchen Level: Main
Family Rm Level: Main
Garage Size: 50 X 24
# BR FBath 3/4Bath
Upper 2 0 0
Main 1 1 0
Lower 0 0 1
otal 3 1 1
Buyers Name:
Selling Agent 1:
Selling Office 1:
Pending Date: Sold Price:
Closing Date: Sales Term:
AM!:NITIES: Sidewalks, Street Lights
INTERIOR: Carpet, Tile, Wood Floors
ROOMS: Family Room
KITCHEN BREAKFAST: Breakfast Area
EQUIPMENT: Cook Top Separate, Dishwasher, Disposal, Wall Oven, Refrigerator
FEE INCLUDES:
BASEMENT: Full
LAUNDRY TYPE: Laundry Closet
FIREPLACE TYPE: Gas
HEATING: Radiant, Steam/Hotwtr
ENERGY RELATE: Water Heater-Gas
CONSTRUCTION: Wood Siding
STORIES/STYLE: 1.5 Stories
LOT DESCRIPTION: Less than .5 Acre
POSSIBLE FINANCE: Cash, Conventional
lOX: No
SHOWING INSTRUCTIONS: Appt Office, Lockbox
Directions: KIRKWOOD AVE BETWEEN SUMMIT AND CLARK STREET
Status: Active
30
(319) 248-0SSS
Off (319) 351-8811
Expiration Date: 7/8/2006
Assoc Doc 0
Variable Rate: No
Size: 16 X 9 Comm. to SB ($/%): 3%
Size: 12 X 20 T-Val:
Size: 10 X 12 Lease Value:
Size: 11 X 18
Size: 14 X 19
Virtual Tour:
HBaths
1 Elementary School: Longfellow
o Jr./Middle School:
o High School:
1 Internet:
Southeast
City
Y~ ,.......,
=
~ en
~O :Jl:
"t". ~-; >
~ ......j :::0 II
,~ -<""
- -' - -
--C) 0"'\ r-
::J,-:- I
~_ ...... f m
m >
-:0 :x 0
0-- -
~^ -
..
)> CJ1
.r:- .
PARKING: 3+ Cars
LAUNDRY LOCATION: Main
FIREPLACE LOCATION: In Great/Family Room
COOLING: Window/Wall Units
WATER/SEWER: City Sewer, City Water
EXTERIOR: Screen Porch
ROOF TYPE: Composition
PHOTO CODE: Broker Loaded
OWNERSHIP:
POSSESSION: Negotiable
Remarks: GREAT 11/2 STORY, ONE OWNER HOME. OAK HARDWOOD FLOORING, 3 CAR GARAGE + SHOP, SPACIOUS 24' X 11'
SCREENED PORCH AND A SEMI-FINISHED BASEMENT.
Addendum:
This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.
Sarah Walz
.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Meredithe Mullen [premienurse@mchsLcom]
Friday, April 07,20069:20 AM
Sarah Walz
Proposed daycare on Kirkwood Avenue
I wish to state my opposition to this plan.I have owned my property for over 15 years and
live at 9 Kirkwood Circle.Just a few steps away is the existing Kirkwood Daycare. I have
seen this property deteriorate each year which I am certain affects the value of my
property. This used to be a majestic private property similar to the Kirkwood Avenue
property. I never would have imagined how much this property could have become trashed
out.
Do I want another property near me to become the same ? NO ! The traffic this daycare
brings to my neighborhood is difficult at times. The parents sometimes sit in their cars
and honk to notify of their arrival. Children are occasionally seen alone outside the
front of this house. The amount of junk that has accumulated on this property is a
horrible. Now, I love hearing the sounds of happy children playing. I work with children
every day and feel they are our future. If I were a parent I would not want my child to
attend a daycare on an extremely busy street.
Our lovely neighborhood is already bordered by 2 adult book stores, Sycamore Mall, Kirkwood
Daycare, Deluxe Bakery,Lensing Funeral Home. We are lucky to have mature
trees, lawns, gardens, and the luxury of living away from the hustle/bustle of the work day.
Please do not allow another business to enter our midst.
Sincerely,
Meredithe Mullen
(319) 339-1452 (home)
1
Sarah Walz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
david-jepsen@uiowa.edu
Tuesday, March 28,20069:15 PM
sarah-walz@iowa-city.org
Application from V. Tichy re: daycare
Mar. 28, 2006
Members of the Board of Adjustment:
We write this letter to express our concerns about the application submitted by Victor
Tichy to establish a daycare center for up to 48 children at 1020 Kirkwood Ave. We spoke
with Sarah Walz on Mar. 28, 06 - she was most courteous and helpful in explaining how we
could share our thoughts with you.
We do not think a family neighborhood is an appropriate setting for a daycare business of
that size either esthetically or in regards to traffic safety issues.
We have been residents of Iowa City since 1970. We lived on Summit St. for 14 years and
have lived at 1014 Marcy St. for 14 years. We chose to live in this neighborhood for the
past 28 years because we value the traditions of the area and the big trees. We value the
homes of historic import to Iowa City. We also value our property and fear that the
inclusion of a business in our neighborhood will change the personality of the area. Home
owners on Summit, Kirkwood and Marcy have been improving their properties - which
preserves the history of the area, and increases property values. A business would detract
from these efforts.
Forty-eight cars, plus the eight or more cars driven by employees of the business, will
add to the already heavy traffic on Summit and Kirkwood. At eight in the morning it often
takes us five or more minutes to enter Kirkwood from Marcy and then gain access to Summit
from Kirkwood. The reverse is true at five pm. These are the precise times parents and
employees would be adding to the congestion.
.We wish Mr. Tichy well - at a more appropriate location.
Sincerely,
David and Mary Jepsen
1014 Marcy St.
338-6160
1
\: 7
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington St
Iowa City IA 52240
March 30, 2006
Sarah Wa1z,
I am writing in regards to the mailing we received regarding Exception (EXC06-00005).
My husband and I are very opposed to a business being approved in our residential
neighborhood. We have lived in this neighborhood for almost 6 years and have put lots
of time, effort, and money into rehabilitating our home. The approval of this exception
would most certainly decrease the value of our home not only from the perspective of a
potential buyer but also, and probably more importantly, in our eyes. We purposefully
chose a neighborhood that is child-friendly, where the owners take pride in keeping their
property well maintained, and where we feel safe in raising our family. We have
concerns regarding the volume of traffic, limited access to the house in question, parking
issues, and number of children this exception proposes to care for.
Access to the property in question is only granted via the alleyway. There are a total of 3
alley entryways and exits combined- one on Kirkwood, one on Walnut, and one on Clark.
There are three houses (out of five) on our block that exclusively access their garages via
this alley. We do not have the option of accessing our garage any other way. This means
that when we are leaving for and returning from work we would be encountering multiple
cars utilizing this same alley to either drop off or pick up their children. The alley only
has room for one car at a time and this would not only cause an inconvenience but
increase the possibility of accidents happening with the increased usage. In addition to
the three homes that have garages there is a duplex behind our house that only has access
to their parking via the same alley so the tenants of this duplex would experience the
same.
In addition, I am very concerned about the safety of my three children should there be 30
children being dropped off and picked up throughout the day at this property. Our
children range from 2 years old to 9 years old and, as you can imagine, I would prefer to
have the least amount of strangers in our neighborhood. We have taken precautions
(such as installing a fence) to assist with keeping our children safe from any dangers the
alley might bring. At this time the alley is typically only used by those of us who have to
access it for the reasons noted above. There are occasionally others who use the alleyway
but those are far and few between. Should this exception be approved we would have
people using our alley who have no vested interest in our neighborhood, our homes, our
property, or our children. This is very concerning to me. In addition, these alleys have
not been maintained by the City in the time that we have lived in our home. This
includes adding gravel during spring or summer or plowing snow during the winter.
I am also concerned with the limited number of parking spaces that are available at this
property. In my assessment there is room for a total of 3 cars at any given time. When
all three spots are taken I can all but guarantee that others will be parking in front of our
garages, on the side of the alley, in the tenant parking of the duplex behind us, etc. This,
again, will cause us undo inconvenience.
I am also concerned with the proposed number of children, at this time 30, that would be
housed in this property. When the children are outside playing I can only imagine that
the noise level would sound.. ..like a daycare. That is certainly not my expectation of
how living in a residential neighborhood would be. My husband works odd hours and is
home during the day at least two days during the week. He would be disturbed by the
noise, as would most people, who are trying to rest during the day.
We love this neighborhood and are eager to continue raising our children in a great
community and surrounded by supporting and thoughtful neighbors, not inter-mingled
with business, commerce, traffic, and congestion. In conclusion, we live in a residential
neighborhood and want it to remain that way. Please listen to the needs of those who
already have time, energy, memories, and money invested in the homes we live in. We
strongly encourage the Board of Adjustment to deny this exception.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
/}
JAOvUAWn
::I;tRJ
Maureen Brookhart
910 S Summit St
Iowa City IA 52240
I respectfully request that the members of the Iowa City Board of Adjustment
vote No on Mr. Tichy's request for a special exception to the zoning code for property
located at 1020 Kirkwood Ave to establish a child development center.
Thank you in advance for consideration of my neighbors' objections and mine.
Sincerely,
~.;:(L
William L. Iverson
Page 1 of 1
Sarah Walz
From: henry madden [madden428@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 200610:17 AM
To: sarah-walz@iowa-city.org
We recently moved into 1020 Marcy Street and have found it almost impossible to get out to
Kirkwood or Summit from the intersection of Marcy and Kirkwood. The wait, especially during the
busy hours when people are going to or leaving work, can run as high as 5 minutes.
It would appear that the proposed pre-school on Kirkwood would only enhance this problem. We
would like you to share our concerns with the members of the Board of Adjustment.
Sincerely,
Mary Anne & Hank Madden
3/30/2006
To: The Board of Adjustment, City ofIowa City
From, Todd Knoop, resident of 1004 Kirkwood Ave (east of 1020 Kirkwood).
RE: Special Exception EXC06-00005)
I write in vehement opposition to the special exception permit applied for by Viktor
Tichy. There are a large number of reasons to oppose this permit. I am not going to deal
with one of the most obvious reasons to oppose this permit, which is that the size of the
property and the structures on it are in no way sufficient to provide daycare services to 48
children. Instead, I want to focus on four major problems that will severely impact the
neighborhood's residents and other residents that drive through and use our
neighborhood.
The first reason this permit should be denied is that the alley which services this property
is in no way sufficient to support any sort of business. There is no access to this property
on Kirkwood itself because this street is too busy. The only way to get to the property is
through an alley to the west of the property that is not maintained by the city. This alley
is not wide enough for two-lane traffic. Currently, it is barely serviceable to provide
garage access for residences such as ours that use it as such. In fact, if 30-40 cars a day
drive down this alley every morning and every evening, each of them stopping in the
alley to drop off children, I think it would be very difficult for us and other residents to
even use our garages.
This leads to the second problem. There is no parking available for this property. There
is no parking on Kirkwood in front of the property or room to park in the alley. At the
most there would be five parking spots in front of the garage on this property-not nearly
enough to service 48 children and workers. The only on-street parking would be across
Kirkwood on Howell St. However, given all of the traffic on Kirkwood and the fact that
many people are making turns onto Kirkwood from Summit right near Howell, it is
simply too dangerous for a large number of pedestrians, particularly small children, to be
crossing Kirkwood multiple times a day.
The third problem with this permit is that it will increase traffic on Kirkwood Ave which
is already congested. Kirkwood is a heavily traveled east-west thoroughfare with no stop
sign within the vicinity of 1020 Kirkwood. In addition, a large number of cars turn from
Summit onto Kirkwood just one block west of this property, increasing the general
congestion and traffic danger in the area. If even 25 additional cars a day (a conservative
estimate) are turning into and leaving the alley that services this property every morning
and evening, there is sure to be an incredible increase in congestion and, even worse,
more accidents involving both cars and pedestrians.
The final problem with this permit is related to the third problem. As congestion
increases on Kirkwood, motorists will try to avoid this area. This will lead many
motorists, including those who are trying to gain access to the 1020 Kirkwood property,
to use Clark Street more heavily. Clark Street is not designed for large amounts of
traffic. It is narrow. It is "L" shaped with a blind right turn without a stop sign,
increasing the danger to other motorists, pedestrians, and homeowners. There are also no
sidewalks on sections of the street, forcing pedestrians to walk out onto the street.
Finally, there are a number of children who live on this street, often riding their bike on
or near it. More traffic on this street, which is sure to result from the approval of this
permit, will assuredly lead to more accidents and property damage.
Placing a daycare at 1020 Kirkwood is an astoundingly bad idea. It will lead to more
congestion, more accidents, inconvenience and declines in property values for local
residents, and a generally poor living environment both for those who live near this
daycare and for those who would be using its services. The response from those who
have heard about this permit has been universal: incredulity at the fact that the city could
even consider approving such a proposal.
I write this letter as someone who generally believes in neighborhood development.
Neighborhoods should not be universally residential. Residents deserve the right to have
local businesses that are close to them, particularly daycares. In fact, we use the
Kirkwood School daycare on Kirkwood Ct. for our own children. (Kirkwood School is
one block off of Kirkwood Ave. where there is little local traffic, sufficient parking in
front of the building, and significantly less than 48 children.) I encourage the city to
promote the formation of small, in-home daycares in Iowa City. But not at a location that
is dangerous, congested, and without the facilities to support the pedestrian and motor
traffic that will come with such a daycare. For that reason, the only reasonable response
by your board is to deny this permit.
April 4, 2006
rr:~,- -- ~ ~ r1\~\iLI~- ~ '1-:
'I il LSU \..1 '---I \
U) ,----- .-- ----~ ' \
In II APA - 5 2006
Ul
I
Dear Board.Members,
1-
My wife and I reside at 922 S Summit St. This is directly to the west of the property in
question for the special exception, 1020 Kirkwood Avenue. We have several concerns
regarding the approval of this special exception.
First of all, our garage opens into the alley, which is shared by the garage of 1020
Kirkwood Ave as well as by many other neighbors on our block. For most of us, this is
our only ingress and egress to the main street. The alley itself is very narrow and non-
paved. It opens only onto Kirkwood Ave and Walnut St. In addition, this section of
Walnut exits only onto Summit St. or the small section of Clark, which opens onto
Kirkwood. Both ofthese streets are extremely busy and hard to exit onto or from as it is
right now. The congestion is noticeable without the addition of more traffic. It is my
understanding that the current stop signs at Keokuk and Dodge were requested
specifically by the neighborhood association to increase congestion on Kirkwood to
decrease speed and traffic. While this may have seemed a good idea then, the congestion
is difficult to navigate for homeowners living here 10 years later. The addition of a
business at 1020 Kirkwood would only further increase congestion on and off of
Kirkwood. Also the alley is so narrow that only one car can pass at a time. If one of our
neighbors is exiting the alley, we must wait to enter. The addition ofthe alley being a
drop off/pick up point for 30+ children in a day care with no places to park would make
the access to our residences almost impossible. The house at 1020 Kirkwood does have a
small paved area in front ofthe garage allowing perhaps 1-2 cars to park parallel and the
applicant's current plan would not seem to have a very good remedy for this. We don't
see how this location for drop off and pick up of small children is safe for them and it is
definitely not fair to the other residents who use the alley to access their homes. The
alley as mentioned above is non-paved and it is not cleared by the city during the winter.
Consequently, the alley can be covered in ice and snow. Quite often, this makes safe
access under the best conditions problematic.
We bought our house one year ago. We chose our house for its location and its
neighborhood. Weare afraid that allowing this business will decrease our property value.
We certainly would not have chosen to purchase our house next door to an auto-
dominated business if we were given the choice. Maybe if Mr. Tichy lived in the
neighborhood, he would understand why Don Breese made this his neighborhood his
home for over 50 years, as we, and our neighbors likewise call it home.
The Board is charged specifically to judge the special exception on criteria
contained in seven questions in the applicant request. Let me briefly touch on them
because they go to the heart of our neighborhoods objections.
#1 The proposed exception will affect neighborhood safety and comfort in a negative
manner. I addressed these concerns in my first two paragraphs.
#2 The exception if approved will be injurious to and will drastically alter the neighbor's
enjoyment of their environment. You cannot add an intrusion of a child development
center with 30 children and not impact the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, Mr.
Tichy's invitation to the neighborhood for an open house states, "my center will focus on
nurturing every child's genius from before birth to preschool age...". Not to sound
disrespectful, but are the pregnant mom's counted in the 30 children to be served by this
center? Mr. Tichy goes on to say, "the center will attract three types of parents; those who
want to maximize their child's talent, those who need quality child care to work in their
profession, and those who choose to be with their child while making money, acquiring
expertise and possibly preparing to open their own franchise. 1 will offer seminars to
future parents in nurturing their genius in diapers at home. The participants may enroll
their children and even join the staff." The following are intended actions, which cause
me additional concern, grave concern on how it will impact my neighborhood; (from
sentence # I) ".. . and those who chose to be with their child while making money,
acquiring expertise and possibly preparing to open their own franchise"; (sentences #2-3)
"I will offer seminars to future parents in nurturing their genius in diapers at home. The
participants may enroll their children and even join the staff."
1 respectfully disagree with Mr. Tichy. He is not preparing a childcare facility for
30 children; he is preparing a franchise, training and certification center; a facility to
present seminars in which parents, children and staffwill participate. He is proposing a
major expansion of the guidelines covered under "child care facility". For what his plans
are, according to the signed invitation (see attached copy) to the neighbors, he does NOT
qualify under city code for a special exception to the zoning code for a childcare facility.
His request should be denied.
#4 As stated above, there is a major concern for access to the alley, which is already
congested and thus difficult for travel. The additional traffic would only make this worse.
The fact that it is unpaved and wide enough for only one car would not qualify it as an
adequate access road.
#5 As mentioned above, the ingress and egress of the said property with additional traffic
would only increase congestion. We can see no other measures offered by the applicant,
which could possibly minimize the traffic congestion and ease the access of already
congested streets.
#6 see No 2 above.
#7, the Comprehensive Plan of the City lists this neighborhood as residential. It is zoned
RS5, which is the lowest residential zone the city has. Granted, there are provisions for a
special exception to the zoning ordinance if certain conditions are met. Because of
particular circumstances unique to the property, the surrounding neighborhood and streets
and alleys, it is an impossible task for these conditions to be met.
- Renaissance Child
in Diapers
Genius
designed
1020 Kirkwood Avenue, Iowa City ViktorTichy 319-354-2995 MAllenl215@aol.com
nds
Disapprove?
.
1
m
,
kids
mulate
s ti
to
Approve?
daycare
A
8,2006, from 3:00 to 5:00 PM. The
Genius in Diapers will be a center uti-
Dear Neighbor,
You are invited to an open house meeting at 1020 Kirkwood Avenue on Saturday, April
occasion is to discuss the opening of a unique child development center at that location.
tizing recent research in infant development to foster children's intelligence and talent.
According to Einstein, every child is born a genius. Yet until now genius in any given person developed only coincidentally and
later was attributed to innate giftedness. My center will focus on nurturing every child's genius from before birth through pre-
school age, facilitating Stimulation, Exposure, and Encouragement of early independence (SEE~ [ih~ center will attract three
types of parents: those who want to maximize their child's talent, those who need quality child care to work in their profession,
and those who choose to be with their child while making money, acquiring expertise, and possibly preparing to open their own
franchise. I will offer seminars to future parents in nurturing their genius in diapers at home. The participants may enroll their
:ffJ ,..,.
children and even join the s~
area? Please come and express
in your
The traffic
How will the center effect your neighborhood? The value of your home?
your input and concerns. Refreshments will be provided.
April 5, 2006
Janet Dvorsky
Administrative Secretary
Department of Planning and Community Development
Dear Ms. Dvorsky:
I am writing to oppose Viktor TIchy's request for a special exception (EXC06-00005)
for the property at 1020 Kirkwood Avenue. It is my belief that the addition of a
daycare business to this residential neighborhood will decrease the value of my
property. In addition I believe there will be increased traffic flow and street parking
on Walnut and Clark streets close to where I reside causing an inconvenience to me.
and guests of my home.
I hope you will take these issues into consideration when making your decision.
John Werner
1028 Walnut St
Iowa City
1029 KIRKWOOD AVENUE
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
319-354-3970
JESSICA A. KARDON
KIMBERLY A. PAINTER
April 5, 2006
City of Iowa City
Board of Adjustment
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Members of the Board:
This letter concerns our objections to the special exception request EXC06-00005. The
requested exception would permit the use of a single family dwelling at 1020 Kirkwood
Ave. in Iowa City for a daycare center.
Our opposition to granting this exception is 'based on many issues. Our primary
objection, however, is that such an exception would create acute concerns over child
safety. Kirkwood Ave., as you know, is moving a huge level of traffic now, at a high rate
of speed relative to most residential areas. The prospective addition of this site as a daily
destination for at least 30 parents and their children - along with staff and any vehicles
operated by the facility - gravely concerns us.
Apart from traffic flow and the increase of congestion along Kirkwood Ave. during peak
hours, the neighborhood also abuts a steep ravine leading down to multiple sets of
railway tracks (the area beneath the Summit St. Bridge). This ravine, juxtaposed with
Kirkwood Ave., surely makes this one of the most hazardous imaginable places in which
to locate a child care facility.
There are options for accessing the home at 1020 apart from Kirkwood Ave., including
an alleyway to the north. This is accessed by turning off Summit St. onto Walnut St., and
from there into the alleyway. This also gives rise to many concerns. Family homes with
driveways on Walnut fear double-parked parents dropping off and picking up children
will block their driveways. Given the congestion in the area at the beginning of any
given workday, this fear seems likely to be realized. In winter weather, conditions on
both Walnut and the alleyway are often hazardous. Granting the exception for this
facility would only increase those hazards.
Finally, the long-time character of the neighborhood is at risk if this exception is granted.
This area is full of family homes. Our own home is situated next to a historic registry
home on the east, once a residence of Samuel Kirkwood. To the west, our neighbors are
engaged in a level of restoration that has qualified them for a historic preservation award.
Other area families, a number of whom have small children, share our concern that a
business facility of this sort will diminish the quality of life and family sensibility of the
area - with no gain in return. The neighborhood in no way benefits from having such a
facility open in what has always been a family dwelling, so these parents are also
opposed to this exception.
In tandem with the above, concern runs deep that property values will decrease if the
perceived character of the area slips from residential to commercial. To date, this
concern has not affected our neighborhood. We hope the city considers carefully and
denies any special exception that would create such a concern.
It is our understanding that Mr. Tichy has been denied grant-based funding for a center in
the downtown area already. Whatever concerns led to that denial, placing his facility in a
neighborhood of single-family homes cannot be the best answer. We ask for you to deny
the exception, and look forward to speaking to you at the upcoming meeting on April 13
at 5 :00 p.m. in City Council chambers.
Sincerely,
Jessica A. Kardon
Kimberly A. Painter
Sarah Walz
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Karin Franklin
Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:05 PM
'Melissa Jensen'
Sarah Walz
RE: P & Z Issue
Melissa: Thank you for your comments, I am forwarding them to Sarah Walz, the staff
person for the Board of Adjustment. She will include your comments in the written record.
I would also encourage you to attend the Board of Adjustment meeting and provide verbal
input to the Board, if you feel comfortable doing that.
Karin
-----Original Message-----
From: Melissa Jensen [mailto:melissa.jensen@mercyic.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 4:14 PM
To: karin-franklin@iowa-city.org
Subject: P & Z Issue
Hi Karen. I'm writing to express my opposition to a proposed zoning change for the
property at 1020 Kirkwood Avenue. The property is currently zoned residential and the
change is to permit a day care to
operate at this location. I live at 1033 Howell St, two houses away
from the above mentioned property.
My concerns are this:
1. This is a residential neighborhood. Owners of the day care will not be living on site
- not an owner occupied business.
2. The possibility of future expansion.
3. This is currently a nice private home.
3. Lack of parking for both day care staff, and children being picked
up and dropped off.
4. High volume traffic on Kirkwood.
5. Access to private drives off the alley which border the property on
the west.
6. Intersection of Summit & Kirkwood one house away.
7. Emergency vehicle access.
8. Those with children in the neighborhood have expressed they do not
want the day care.
Thank you for allowing my to share my concerns. If you have questions about any of the
above you may contact me at Work 688-7149 or Home 354-5047.
Melissa Jensen
1
In Summary: Locating a daycare at 1020 Kirkwood will depress property values, increase noise and traffic,
diminish the sense of neighborhood, and compromise the safety of children in and about its precincts. In concert
with the majority of our neighbors, we strongly oppose such an intrusion.
Sincerely,
~
Johna Leddy
Malcolm H. Yeh
~~-~ ,-, ~ ~--_.. - --J
'~ ,fU--'1 ~ ~ [g U VI ~Jf~ I
III I!
. APR - 5 2006 li:U I
P 1
1
_J
905 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240-3339
319-335-1720 OR 319-354-8782
JOHNA-LEDDY@UlOWA.EDU
5 April 2006
City of Iowa City
Department of Planning and Community Development
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
www.icgov.org
Re: EXC06-00005
To the Members of the Committee:
We write regarding application EXC06-00005, request for an exception to allow establishment of a daycare at
1020 Kirkwood Avenue. The proposed daycare would house 30 or more children and requires an exception as the
proposed site is located in a low density single family residential (RS-5) zone.
We strongly object to this proposal. Our objection is based on issues of safety, property values and expectations
of homeowners in RS-5 zones, and intrusion into a cohesive and improving neighborhood environment.
Safety: A daycare operating at 1020 Kirkwood Avenue will introduce several safety issues.
1. Kirkwood Avenue is one of the main east-west arteries in Iowa City. South Summit Street, one of the main
north-south arteries, terminates at Kirkwood; this intersection is very busy, particularly near start and close
of business and the noon hour. There is no on-street parking on either Kirkwood or Summit in this area. The
proposed daycare fronts on Kirkwood, one house down from this intersection. It is proposed that the day care
house 30 or more children. This will generate substantial traffic; this traffic will be most intense at start and
close of business and the noon hour.
a. Children arriving and departing by car will be introduced into a busy traffic environment.
i. Even if arrangements can be made to deliver children to the back of the property, there will be many
vehicles in a small area. This is an additional vehicular hazard.
b. The majority of children arriving and departing on foot will be walking along either Kirkwood or Kirk-
wood and Summit. Daily travel along these routes, especially at the intersection of Summit and Kirk-
wood, increases children's exposure to danger from traffic.
c. Once the children are on-site, there will be a constant concern that the children are confined on the
property.
2. The site for the proposed daycare is in an older home.
a. Safety issues arise from lead paint, antiquated wiring, lead pipes, and stairs.
b. Accommodations will be needed to make the building handicap assessable.
Property Values and Expectations of Homeowners in RS-5 Zones: Homeowners in this neighborhood pur-
chased their homes based on the expectation that this is a residential area. Introduction of a business, especially
one likely to increase traffic and noise levels substantially, violates the homeowners' legitimate expectations of a
residence in a neighborhood of single family dwellings. Several aspects of the proposed daycare are distressing.
1. The proposed site is the middle house of three houses in a block on Kirkwood. The City's website lists the
assessed value of this property as $176,500.
a. The homes on either side have assessed values 21 and 3.0-% higher than this. These homes are very well
maintained and are an asset to the neighborhood. Introduction of a day care between them will decrease
the property values for these two homes and all the surrounding homes.
b. All the homes across Kirkwood have higher assessed value than the proposed site. A day care will
negatively impact property values in the neighborhood.
2. The traffic generated by 30 or more children being delivered and collected each day will generate substantial
traffic.
a. Allow a parking space is 10 feet wide and 20 feet deep. The dimensions of the lot not covered by the house
are about 70 x 70 ft2 in the back and 20 x 70 ft2 in the front. Even if only 10 parking spaces are provided,
the modifications to the property will be substantial. Seven spaces maximum can be accommodated in
the front; entering and then backing directly onto Kirkwood would be daunting. The 70 x 70 ft2 area
in the back will accommodate about 11 to 14 spaces. Parking is less attractive than lawn and is a very
different environment than that of a strictly residential area.
b. The burden of the traffic introduced into the back of the lot will be born by the neighboring properties.
The traffic will be substantial.
c. Ifno parking is provided on the property, all ofthis traffic and the parking to sustain it will be forced onto
the neighboring streets.
3. Some portion of the property will have to be fenced to provide a safe play area for the children. If the back
is used for parking (the only practical choice because of entering and exiting directly on Kirkwood), a fence
will necessarily protrude into the front yard. No front yard fences are observed up and down Kirkwood for
many blocks; no front yard fences are observed any where along Summit. The lack of fences enhances the
sense of neighborhood. No fences is consistent with an established and friendly neighborhood. To install
a obtrusive fence is to diminish property values and the sense of neighborhood. It negatively impacts the
aesthetics of the neighborhood.
4. The proposed daycare is a business proposition pure and simple.
a. The original proposal was for a daycare to house 48 children in a building with a foot print of35 x 50
ft2. A significant fraction of this space will not be available as living space because of walls, halls, and
utilities. But even if all of this space is usable, this allows each child a box 6 ft on a side. Given the
location, safety was clearly not a concern. These were decisions made in the context of business, not the
care of children.
b. The proposal does not acknowledge the neighborhood environment in any way. The property values of
the entire neighborhood will be negatively affected by introducing such a business.
Intrusion into a Cohesive and Improving Neighborhood Environment: The neighborhood about Summit
Street between the railroad and Kirkwood has experienced a remarkable Renaissance in the last several years.
When the bridge over the railroad was replaced, several things were accomplished. The bridge design brought
to light the proud history of the railroad in the development of Iowa City. The bridge introduced an observation
platform over the railroad that serves as a nucleation site for interactions between the neighbors. Ten years ago,
the majority of properties along Summit near Kirkwood were rental properties. In the last five years, almost all of
these properties have been purchased by individuals who use the former rentals as their principal residence. That
is an amazing transformation. Along with this transition to homeowners' residences has come a very strong sense
of neighborhood. It is a neighborhood whose identity is closely tied to its residential nature, a residential nature
that is reinforced by home ownership. The recent history of the area has been to eliminate the business of rental
properties and to reclaim private homes.
The proposed introduction of a day care is an intrusion on this hard-won sense of neighborhood; the introduction
of a day care of the proposed size is an assault on the neighborhood and its residents. It goes against the trend of
what has been remarkable progress to a strong neighborhood with a growing sense of identity.
Page 1 of 1
Sarah Walz
From: Ruth Hesseltine [ruthanne@avalon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:07 PM
To: sarah-walz@iowa-city.org
Subject: special exception (EXC06-00005)
Dear Sarah,
My name is Ruth Hesseltine and I live at 904 Clark Street. This email is to express my opposition to the special exception
permit for a daycare center at 1020 Kirkwood A venue.
Having lived in this neighborhood for ten years and knowing Mr. Breese and his property on Kirkwood A venue, I am
surprised that the City would even consider issuing this permit. To me, it isn't reasonable to consider using this property for
the proposed day care center.
Kirkwood Avenue and Summit Street already carry a large amount of traffic. Especially with all the cars coming from
Kirkwood Community College and Sycamore Mall. There is no parking on Summit or Kirkwood. The alley adjacent to the
. property is an unpaved access to garages of people living within the square block. It doesn't seem appropriate that it should
be used by parents dropping off children at a daycare center. I'm very concerned about the congestion of cars in the
neighborhood during peak drop-off and pick-up times.
I have seen Mr. Tichy's plan for the property at 1020 Kirkwood A venue. As a pediatric nurse, child advocate, and former
daycare provider, I have strong reservations about this becoming the proper location for Mr. Tichy's business.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ruth Hesseltine
338-8851
4/5/2006
Page 1 of 1
Sarah Walz
From: Christopher Conrad [Christopher_Conrad@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 20066:52 AM
To: sarah-walz@iowa-city.org
Subject: EXC06-00005: 1020 Kirkwood Avenue
---- To: Department of Planning and Community Development
From: Chris Conrad & Pam Stek, 1026 Kirkwood Avenue
Re: Proposed Daycare at 1020 Kirkwood Avenue
I am very concerned about the possibility of a daycare facility opening next door to me.
1.) There is little available parking in the area. There is no parking on either Kirkwood or
Summit, and motorists can only park on one side of Walnut or Clark. Many current residents
already park on these streets, leaving no more than a handful of available spaces. Parking on
Howell would require patrons with children to cross Kirkwood where there is no
crosswalk. Parking in the un-maintained alley next to the property in question would block
access to the garages of those who live on Summit.
2.) There would be a significant increase in the amount of traffic in the neighborhood. Kirkwood
is already heavily traveled. Another concern is that customers of the proposed daycare who are
attempting to turn left from eastbound Kirkwood into the alley adjacent the property in question
could cause traffic to back up.
3.) I feel that living next door to a daycare facility would seriously decrease my enjoyment of my
property due to the increased traffic, noise, and lack of privacy. Currently, neighborhood children
can ride their bikes in the alleys, as they are not heavily used.
4.) Finally, I am concerned that having a daycare facility next door would significantly diminish
the value of my property. When we purchased this property, we moved in next to a neighbor,
not a business. We don't want to live next to a business.
Chris Conrad and Pam Stek
4/6/2006
April 6, 2006
Department of Planning and Community Development
RE: Special Exception EXC06-00005
We are writing to express opposition to the city's consideration of Viktor
Tichy's request for a special exception (EXC06-00005) to establish a daycare
center at 1020 Kirkwood Avenue. We do not see any benefits to our
residential neighborhood but can find many potential problems arising from
the addition of this business. Below are reasons why I would like the council
to deny this request.
Traffic Concerns:
· Access to the proposed business is currently a rock alley that is not wide
enough for 2-way traffic. This alley opens on a busy street (Kirkwood)
and a dead end street (Walnut) so access to and traffic flow through
this alley will become congested and dangerous.
· Currently this alley serves as the only access to garages/parking for 5
homes in the immediate area. Many other homes rely on street parking
on Walnut and Clark. The addition of a daycare business will greatly
decrease convenient access to the current property owner's garages
and/or parking lots and crowd street parking so that home owners and
their guests may need to find less convenient parking options.
· Although we do not have a garage on the alley, we do have a patio in
our backyard that we enjoy both privately and for entertaining family
and friends. We have also put considerable time, effort, and money into
landscaping along the alley to beautify our neighborhood. Increased
traffic on this rock alley will create more dust and noise interfering with
our enjoyment of our patio and backyard (a retreat from the busy, noisy
traffic on Summit Street). We are also concerned that daycare patrons
will not use care in respecting our property and that plants may
become damaged as cars, not finding adequate parking or driving
room, will linger onto our property along the alley.
· When traveling east on Kirkwood Avenue access to the proposed
daycare business (i.e., the alley) is a left hand turn. As it is now, traffic
flow from Summit Street onto Kirkwood during peak travel hours can get
congested at the T-intersection. If traffic were to get backed up on
Kirkwood behind a car waiting to make that left-hand turn into the
alley, traffic flow would get even more congested and become
potentially dangerous.
· We have lived in our current home since August 1992 (with the
exception of 2 years that we lived abroad). We have 4 young children
that have grown accustomed to the low-traffic level in the alley. They
spend the majority of their outside playtime in our back yard and, at
times, riding bikes in the alley. To date we feel comfortable letting our
children play freely in our back yard and along the alley (not so for our
front yard along the busier Summit Street). The addition of the proposed
daycare business would increase traffic in the alley and we would have
increased fear of our children becoming injured due to reckless drivers
without regard for neighborhood families.
Quality of Life/Property Value Concerns:
· It is our opinion that the property value of our home would significantly
decrease with the addition of the proposed daycare business across
our back yard alley. In 2003 we struggled to decide whether or not to
renovate our then income property duplex (was 916 and 918 S. Summit)
into a single family home. A key factor in our decision was that income
property to the north of us was now owner occupied and the owners
were committed to an eventual conversion themselves. Because we
love the historic Summit Street and beautiful neighborhood, and
because we saw a trend toward fewer rental properties and more
single family home owners, we decided to move forward with the
renovation. It saddens us now to learn that a business may be allowed
to move into this residential neighborhood. We are also concerned that
our neighbors to the north, once committed to a conversion
themselves, are now prepared to reconsider should the exception be
granted. Unfortunately our decision can not be reversed and therefore
we may find ourselves living next door to a non-owner occupied rental
duplex- and all the problems that come with that-once again.
· As mentioned before, our back yard is a critical part of our home. Our 4
children play in our back yard; we entertain friends and family in our
back yard; we enjoy quiet, serene moments lounging on our hammock
in our back yard; we invest money and hard work landscaping our
back yard to continually improve the aesthetic value in the
neighborhood. The addition of the proposed daycare business would
greatly reduce the pleasures we enjoy from using our back yard. We
anticipate interruptions from increased noise and traffic. We have
anxieties thinking about an increase number of strangers in our back
yard restricting our comfort and usage. We certainly would experience
a decrease in our quality of life as we know it today.
We have a lot invested in our home as do others in this neighborhood. We
do not see any potential benefit other than a financial one for Mr. Tichy. He
has many real estate options to pursue his daycare dream. Our dreams are
already in place but can easily be disrupted. For this we implore you to deny
this special exception for the benefit of all the families already established in
this wonderful neighborhood.
Sincerely,
cY'~ ~
Jeanne and Anthony Thompson
Isaac, Harris, Stella and Rex
91 6 S. Summit Street
Iowa City
341-8683/330-4067
To: Boord of Adjustment
from: Neighbors of 1020 Kirkwood Avenue
Re Proposed special exception from zoning laws to enable a day care center at 1020
Kirkwood Avenue
We all have concern about this proposal. Here are our issues:
1. If this exception is granted, other similar businesses may see potential in the area
for location, so we fear gradual encroachment of commercial establishments.
2. Parking is difficult in the area. It would be greatly exacerbated by the addition of
30 parents, teachers, and administration.
3. There is not much parking on Howell, but if one does park on Howell there is no
crosswalk on Kirkwood. Crossing Kirkwood on foot is di~ for adults and during rush
hour with a child would be downright risky. Is a stop sign or light planned? We Stre.1y
do not want this. The failed 3 way stop formerly at Summit and Kirkwood shows what
confusion this causes.
4. Any arranged parking plan will be thwarted by parents late to work or distracted.
Say what you will, those in a hurry will park anywhere QVQilable., including stopping on
Kirkwood, using nearby private drives, or blocking garages in the alley --it's only for a
second,. being the reason. We confess - we all do it.
5. Traffic on Kirkwood, one of only two East-West throughways in this area, is now
problematic. It is particularly bad during rush hours, due. to large employers to the
East. Documentation of fender benders at the intersection of Summit and Kirkwood
one house away should be QVQilable. This issue ct1III:tIi'I'IS IIfJf Just the l'J(Iit1hbDrhtJtItl
but tI~ wIlD driwts fill Kirkw<<1d. We do not think a drop off space for two cars
will be sufficient to clear Kirkwood. We anticipate blockage of Kirkwood, neighbor
drives, and garages in the alley.
6. If this exception is to be granted as a service to the residents of this area,
Kirkwood School for Children is about a block away for area residents needing child
care. There are also two day care centers by Sycamore Mall. We think we're cowre.d.
7. -Genius in Diapers's. plan to enclose the lovely screen porch, remove a large tree,
and place a sign in the front yard are three. significant blows to the physical appearance
of the neighborhood. The planned addition makes one wonder if more children are
planned.
8. We are all concerned this commercializing of the neighborhood will reduce the value
of our homes. Marry of us have. been here over a decade, investing much money, love,
and labor in our homes. We want to preserve an area which will protect our
architecture, privacy, and investment.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Sara Henryson and Gordon Goldsmith
1023 Kirkwood Avenue
Chris Conrad and Pam Stet<
1026 Kirkwood Avenue
Jessica Kordon, Kim Painter, and Tim Maicher
1029 Kirkwood Avenue .
Melissa Jensen
1033 Howell Street
Maureen Brookhart and Steven Connell, Jr.
910 S. Summit Street
Todd Knoop and Deb Delaet
1004 Kirkwood Avenue
Mary Margaret Hogan and Bill Wilder
1032 Howell Street
Chuck and Pat Johnston
1015 Kirkwood Avenue
Meredithe Mullen
9 Kirkwood Circle
Bonnie and Broce Sneed
1019 Howell
Jamie Sharp
7 Kirkwood Circle
1023 Kirkwood Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Apri15,200S
Board of Adjustment
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
Regarding: Special Exception for property at 1020 Kirkwood Avenue
\
Dear Board Members:
We own the house at 1023 Kirkwood Avenue, directJy across the street from 1020 Kirkwood. Kirkwood is a
very busy thoroughfare, especially morning and evening rush hours. Flow of traffic is frequently slow and
intersections of HowelllKirkwood and SummitlKirkwood are diffICUlt to negotiate due to congestion. An increase
in traffic for a day care center would aggravate an already bad situation. Particularly, eastbound traffic turning
left into the proposed day care would increase dangers at these intersections. A back up at the drop off/pick
up location will stop traffic dead on Kirkwood itself, going East or West, for as long as it takes those at the drop
off site to unload the little one, get her inside and settled (unwrapped in winter), say goodbye, and retum to and
move their car, so those in the street can pull in the alley.
Parking is very limited in the neighborhood. We don't believe the proposed day care plan allows for adequate
parking for employees and clients. Street parking spaces are frequently filled at present without further
pressure being placed on them. Any arranged parking plan will be thwarted by parents late to work or
distracted. Say what you will, those in a hurry will park anywhere available, using nearby private drives or
blocking garages in the alley -"it's only for a second: being the reason.
There is not much parking on Howell, but if one does park on Howell there is no crosswalk on Kirkwood.
Crossing Kirkwood on foot is dicey for adults and during rush hour with a child would be downright risky. Is a
stop sign or light planned? We surely do not want this. The failed 3 way stop formerly at Summit and
Kirkwood shows what confusion this causes.
Lastly, is the issue of property value:
We are sinking $120,000 in maintenancelimprovements directly across the street. (And have already been
selected for an award from the Friends of Historic Preservation after completion next year.) We paid $200,000
for our home 11 years ago, but question whether anyone would reimburse us $300,000 for a home across the
street from a day care center.
There is only one privacy fence in the neighborhood, that being one next to an apartment building. Although
they are tacky, we'd add one across the street to insure our privacy.
We really don't want to see a residential character-diminishing commercial sign from our front door.
Th,/t 't.~r ~ur time and consideration,
~.J~
Sara Henryson & Gordon Goldsmith
(319)354-5305
1"\
J
\
~
[>
l
~~
f)
~ / //
//
//
/
l
'.1.0:.
' ,
:00
In=I '. -.- ----
I --
I _______.
, i
l
/~
-L_
1S 1 ~]J\3S~O~ I
I : i.j
, . I _
l-
n:-:
61
/u
L KIRKWOOD
~
tj
~
S2
~
~
tj
r
~
~
lS AJtJ\fV'l
,
L{)
o
o
o
o
I
(0
o
o
X
W
(])
>
<(
"0
o
o
$
~
~
~
o
C\J
o
T"""
. .
Z
o
)0??oo4
}-4
~
U
o
~
~
}-4
)0??oo4
r:J)
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington St
Iowa City la 52240
I ~ opposed to the approval of exce tion EX .
Adjustment to decline this exception.P C06-00005 and wIsh for the Board of
))~CUW
~(AUve-en orGQ~haY+
CD L1' D ~ SU m rn I + S+
({NJ [1 CI1LJ \A sad. yO
c\Oi b"?:;~ osLJL.
..3 J-€.-Ve...- e-DVl rt..v/I ::r r .'
jb eR eft jJ;
~/rJ $.su~rV'+ -s-b
:s; , c-. r~~;) 21ft:?
(:;, ~J 53f _o~'1J..
. @ ~~4/ fVJ. n iL-
(IJv1 /6tilvtv'C)A4N& L"II'\t1uL ~~~
/7: -r' 102..1 VJa\Y\.lA.;-t sA
,J.Jv" Cf-) J-~ fJ..JJfP \ awL( tl~ 1..4 ~dOYD
1/f 11r Jt':tD '3\Cf-lo2..\-\2~4
fY\ &: '-I 5sA :rEtJsw
@ 1 D~~3 l-\o~Ul- s~
Io ~A Q.. f1"'( \ Ii\.
5~9.YD
31 q- 6s4~ 5041
@ ?eJJ/u. f,J,)
tf ...,1 ~"'l ~/.Jbi A.J
@s~~
c:......~ ~U;:L;4'-i-
) 0 Z ~ k-':'k..~ ~..
~~ LV~t:>. :r..J-
6'2...~""\Q
@) C \-.".~ C. f[) '^ ~4J
, () '2 b \<', \" tc \.AID D) A'lI.f.
::t t) IN '" G". 'LJ) J v4
6- 22.. ~J
i)k ~f)~
~bfVL L_ ~ '-4-r T
I DOY :Ie: ~jcw-~ Av'"1: ~
~ ~ 1N-~ c;'~:eft 6- :;'
C :\ ~y{)
3l!i.) 3s-t - ~ 2()/
~
-(i>J.J... \l ^ 0 O{J
IDOL{ ~'f\~u.,C?~ Ave.
A~~ ~
o jOI-f"vA LE''bnir
'i oS- s Su",",...' '\ ~.,-
@ ~~ ~,f-
\ ~ t A >"2-'2-1.t:o
@ [';4,/ !>RetYUVt
1tJ 8 t /7J/2-e SI.
J~ca;~ 5J-~
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City,IA 52240
I am opposed to the approval of exception EXC06-00005 and wish for the Board of Adjustment
to decline this exception.
G t2rJ,~~ 90lf C1~ SI-. 332-~gSI
.
!iti1tLcfaoMMMr 10,;)1 t ",!d~,;f ~U -r;,;U~
@<. ~ Z
~ !~ b"7'f. -
I am opposed to the approval of exception EXC06-0000S and wish for the Board of Adj t
to ge. cline this e5;ption.
A~i-i-{lAowt~ cUb ~^ ?u.-_J 3'il-~(g~3
@ J~tVt; (t+uVVlfS610 9j(J> ~- SJmmJT 31(--f()~'Os
L ~e LaA~ (PJ s. S~ ~1: 33'6 dSyf" r~
@ LorCllhe LAw-tOYl C( \3 S SL{\'hvr\A-t 33~q~~
~ .0. <~S4--24-&[) l
@ -I ~V-("SA St'j lvc ~ L\vbu(vD _.~cl-l4'YdZ--:f<-
@ Deb 6aJJQn4 i~ f!:/2fJ I&~\ WQ~. \ C
f{37 f0R~W()t)7) T C-- ,~
<1{Q (~~ (.( ./(.\
- S' Si,{ (.1{ ""';+ .st .
I~:J-B uJo/;ud- Ie. /~ 5r99?0 k)1
ItJerMr-
I ?43 5?- ,...1 51 ~ Cn
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City,IA S2240
@t.
_ 8-11 / 8 '-f 3 S v~rYl-rrn' t 5-t. r Co J54C
q2-~ 1.J4n.vt- 'I;. G. .:O't-
-p /t:Jg17 tV,J"..d ~-I
'u'F h/~vf ~-I fc~ I~
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
;;\)1 a
V .?Jt1t. E:tP'~
I am opposed to the approval of exception EXC06-00005 and wish for the Board of Adjustment
to. d..ec. ~nethis~cePt~ ,
..(4J.Ut ~ ///J> {l;~ ~_
. I
l~b'1 kVJwrod {tv-€-
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City,lA 52240
I am opposed to the approval of exception EXC06-00005 and wish for the Board of Adjustment
to decline this exception.
cY WTl-CT/>rv'I.J J<::4~ JV6zSt);"\/ ?2.2...5. SV/"7/""Cl'( 5/: ~/4
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: APLOS-00002 Country Club Estates
Stream Corridor
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: April 13, 200S
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
S & J Development
1157 Flagstaff Drive
Iowa City, IA 5224S
Contact Person:
Duane Musser
1917 Gilbert Street
319-351-8282
Property Owner:
S & J Development
1157 Flagstaff Drive
Appeal of the determination that a
stream corridor exists on this site.
Requested Action:
Location:
North of Rohret Road west of
Phoenix Drive.
Size:
82.3 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
RR1 and IDRS
North: residential (RS-5)
South: residential (County)
East: residential (RR-1 and RS-5)
West: agricultural (County)
Applicable code sections:
Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Stream
Corridor Definition 14-51-2B-2
File Date:
March 1S, 200S
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant S&J Development is the owner and developer of Country Club Estates Subdivision
in southwest Iowa City. Country Club Estates, Part 1 and 2, were approved by the City in 1999
and 2005. In September of 2005 the applicant submitted a preliminary plat application for
Country Club Estates, Part 3 to 7.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) map (copy attached) illustrates a blue line, which indicates
the presence of a stream or drainageway that crosses near the center of the property from east
to west. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance regulates blue lines as stream corridors and requires
that natural buffers be maintained or enhanced between development activity and stream
corridors. Due to siltation that has occurred in the stream/drainageway represented by this blue
2
line, the applicant contends that staff is mistaken in applying the stream corridor regulations of
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to this property and is appealing staff's determination to the
Board.
ANAL YSIS:
Iowa City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance regulates a number of sensitive features, including stream
corridors. Stream Corridors are defined in the Zoning Code section 14-SI-2B-2 (page 311) as
a. Floodways designated on either the current Federal Emergency Management Agency flood
boundary and floodways maps for Iowa City and Johnson County or the Iowa City flood
boundary and floodways map.
b. A river, stream, or drainaaewav shown in blue (the blue line) on the most current U.S.
Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps. In cases where no floodway is delineated, the blue line
will serve as the center line within a 30-foot wide stream corridor. (emphasis added)
In short, the presence of a blue line on the USGS topographic map is the trigger for the steam
corridor regulations of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The USGS topographic map is a standard
tool for engineering, energy exploration, natural resource conservation, environmental
management, public works design, and commercial and residential planning. At the time the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance was written in 1995, the USGS map was chosen by the City as the
means to identify streams and drainageways that are subject to regulation since the USGS maps
are a widely accepted tool for such delineation. .
The purpose of regulating development in and around stream corridors is outlined in section 14-
SI-7A (page 319):
1. Preserve the value of stream corridors in providing floodwater conveyance and storage;
2. Promote filtration of storm water runoff;
3. Reduce Stream bank erosion; and
4. Protect and enhance wildlife habitat
Thus the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance with regard to stream corridors is to not simply
restrict development, but to encourage development to work with the natural drainage that
already exists as part of the landscape.
The Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is
error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the City Manager or
designee in the enforcement of the Zoning Code. (14-8C-3A, page 367)
The question before the Board is not whether the USGS made an error or whether the map
should be changed based on changes in the quality or hydrology of this stream over time. The
question before the board is whether Staff made an error in applying the regulations according to
the blue line on the USGS map at this location.
If there is a blue line on the USGS map, the City is legally required to regulate it asa stream
corridor according to the provisions of the Zoning Code. Staff does not have the authority to
substitute its judgment or interpretation, or that of anyone else, for that of the USGS. The Code
clearly states that if a blue line is present the regulations are to be imposed. The drainageway
indicated for this property has appeared as a blue line on the USGS map as early as 1938 and
was reconfirmed through aerial photography and field studies in 1965 and 1992.
3
Clearly, the blue line is there. Staff has noted this and communicated this in writing to the
developer's engineering firm and land planners since 1998, when planning for the first phase of
Country Club Estates began. In addition, the developers own wetland delineation and mitigation
plan (excerpt attached) refers to the site's "well developed drainage networks and an unnamed
USGS blue-line tributary to Phebe Creek" and provides detail of the USGS map with a blue line
as figure 1.
Like Staff, the Board does not have the authority to substitute its judgment or interpretation for
that of the USGS. Nor does the Board have the authority to rewrite the ordinance. If a blue line
exists within the area of the proposed subdivision on the USGS topographic map, it is clear that
the City has not made an error in applying the ordinance.
The applicant has indicated, and is supported by a letter (attached to the applicant's appeal) from
Lon Drake, a geologist who consults on wetland preservation and restoration, that the area in
question is not a "stream". However, as noted above, the Sensitive Areas Ordinance regulations
for "stream corridors" affect not only streams, but also drainageways. In conferring with Liz Maas,
an environmental biologist, staff has confirmed that the area designated as a blue line on the
USGS topographic map is a functioning drainageway. Even though the stream/drainageway on
this property has been greatly altered by farming practices and development in the surrounding
area, in the view of our consultant, it still conveys storm water drainage from a large area and
there are environmental benefits to regulating it as specified in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
SUMMARY:
The USGS map clearly shows a blue line crossing this property and therefore Staff did not make
a mistake in applying the stream corridor regulations to this property. Although portions of the
stream first identified on the 1938 USGS map may have silted in, this blue line still functions as a
drainageway and therefore it is regulated by section 14-SI-7 Stream Corridors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that APLOS-00002, an appeal of the City's determination of a stream corridor
on property located north of Rohret Road be denied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. USGS Map
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Executive summary of the wetland delineation plan
S. Appeal
Approved by: ~~'
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~\
{
(
l"
t:
tj
~
~
~
t:
tj
. .
z
o
l-of
E-i
..(
---I U
o
~
~
E-i
l-of
fJ)
---
C\J
o
o
o
o
I
CD
o
-'
D-
c::(
en
Q)
Cti
of-'
en
UJ
..0
:J
()
~
l....
of-'
C
:J
o
()
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
~pr~~f '=t'1'- '~.-.~ '~I~
~ ~ I~ ~ ~o
~ 0'~y Country Club Estates ~ ~ '-", P" 1:\'
~ ~f ~,=//~(~~~ ~~~~
[tl~~~~.\f ~'\,;. '\.Ll~ l'1~t
~F> 'rPf~! I(~' ,-"''''''''" '-; ~-.,-",= ,~U'c90 '
~. ~~ .!;:, ~.j f~f~~'jiJ=
I ~.., < V-? .. '.V :.:-. ~'"'" ~ ._''...~, "
. ~. ~-:;n\)~/,';"~131\ ?}%T-Ir;'~~~:;~
~)l-'r((~~~~;~~ \i '~~~ld
M ) Y ~f,?i ~ ~.... I ~ '}\ ~ · \
, " . r;:;-r 1111Y? .,
I (, \ ~C-/i..r..-1~K\ '\! ^~ ~~~~/:: I~\,l · -.
~~~ ) ~~j'~)) <c Ri; 1[/ "_V~",::1~8 ~j\~~
.., :/.:jjj ~... If':f. J#~ , _C:L ~ ........~ J~
I ~((.-- 'J}I -....-- 7F(' 'w ~.h..Q"~ .--
Jl\b'/1JY))~C:~C:~~' .~~ ~~~~.~
v ".liR ,,-/r- ~~: ;i;,. - ~c-..: . ~
I 0 (, Illl/,,\ ) ~ :r( "S.\ ~ · .. ~'S.L. . L
~ ~I; I - ! Ii':- )}-17/'/7: ~;ZS' ~"::--.;:-. ~~~~~i"
~ (/, %l~";~~ 'W ~ ~J~~~5?)?':~ -~ -<
jJ 'I d,-9~ f(l s: ~ :\ ~ ~""\' ""'~ -'"'- ~
,,'- ":/.:..... ~ "-..: . ...... "" \.I
l\~~~::: >c.... .....,,,,)) " ~ .~~ ~w<.t",
J ---'~ '-(:7I~ f\ - ~ . '-J r:.
Jl .' ( ,\ (-..::::/~ .. .
( , , ~ V -/ ~->- ~ v-..>' ~ · 8:\;
~ })'E~- '-~P ~6\9"~.1 ~
)\ :;)\~ '" 1_ Lo.. ,,- r
-'I -"1 \\ ..... -1Zf ~\ I. V \. -::: v ~"I.:/-- r" r.:r
. ~~~t~~:~~;_~h ~ ltJ~ ~~I (
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
1917 South Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
MMS Project #: 4179-011
Figure 1
Country Club Estates (3rd_7th)
USGS topographical map
Johnson County, IA
L
r" ,:
J ..--:
,1 ~.~
i!'" <
~p '~,>)
: / "."',..".."
...../ :~......
PRELIMINARY PLAT
r:: COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES THIRD,
. ;FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH & SEVENTH ADDITION
\ IOWA CITY, IOWA
~=-:a!-:!-~~-:.t:t'...y ~& ~Io'. ==-=-
____..."'18'1I..... ...___.. ____ __WIUIlUI~
......___.18'1I18-10 ..arr.-.... ...~.... ...CIIY,-.....
..arr,.......
='..:t'~' _-.:If
..= -
- ""'-'_..u~
--
~-
'~
=- -
-....."'....
..--
,~-
+
~
--..
,..
~_.. I
'~ ~.~~~
IIII ~- I
..=
- ,
--
_.....'Illl.-M.
-=BW,fip.l!lF=-
',Ifi;lf-
- PREUMINARY PLAT I MIlS CotISIlLTAII1S. 11fC.
.......~ cwa aTl1'D1III:D, rotIImL PWTR. 1III'II,l1lVDl'lll ADOttIOtI M _ =-_..... ~-- .
IOWA CITY. 10" . ~=::-~:-.
-:-!I-=-~=--==-
.. .. p""'"....
i i :::-=---
'i . .___
-L-L:-="-
. ~ :~-=-
:=--=--=-
.....-
:::::J :=:=
~-:==:.~
o ._-~
. ----
PI.lT/PIAN APPIOVID
.,...
City .f Iowa City
.,.",.,--.------...
===::.~-~==-.=
~
c::>
~
c:.n
Ct)
f"'I'1
-0
JJ
r-
m
o
UI
"
:x
N
..
N
LOCAlIPUAP
l
WETLAND DELINEATION AND MITIGATION PLAN
1
I
COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, 3RD, 4m, 5TH, 6m, & 7m ADDITIONS
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
'"
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MMS Consultants, Inc. contracted by S & J Development, LLP, delineated wetlands in
the southeastern quarter of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa. The site map in Figure 1 shows the location of the property and
the area investigated for potential wetlands. The property was delineated by Mike Barker
ofMMS Consultants, Inc. on November 23,2005.
1
The property features well developed drainage networks and an unnamed USGS blue-line
tributary to Phebe Creek. A total of2.83 acres of palustrine, emergent, narrow-leaved
non-persistent wetlands were delineated. A separate 0.45 acre area to the south, which
was identified as wetland, is believed to be an isolated wetland, thus not considered
waters of the United States. This leaves 2.38 acres of corps jurisdictional wetland on the
property. Methodology outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(January 1987) was used to delineate the wetlands. Five transects were made across the
wetland areas featuring one wetland and two upland sampling points. Sampling data was
collected in selected points in the: cropland areas as well. Data sheets summarizing these
points are found in Appendix C of this report. Figure 3 illustrates the delineated wetland
areas. Also, included in Appendix A, are site photographs taken during the delineation to
show the current ground status of various areas of the property.
u
1
The objective of the project is to create a residential subdivision in the western part of
Iowa City. The project involves the creation of 173 lots, 10 new public streets, and 3
public street extensions. Since the wetland area is associated with the main drainage
way, which divides the property, wetland impacts are unavoidable. Road construction
will cross the upper end of the main drainage way and associated wetlands, while the
remaining construction activities will be designed around the wetland areas.
Mitigation for the impacts to wetlands on Country Club Estates will involve creating 2.32
acres of emergent wetland, 0.88 acres wetland enhancement, and 4.88 acres of upland
buffer; for a total mitigation site area of8.08 acres. The goal of the mitigation project is
to enhance the functions and values that were lost from impacting the low quality, low
diversity drainage way wetland by creating a diverse wetland plant and habitat
community that will increase wildlife use and buffer water runoff from the developing
community to the downstream resources.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Soils
According to the Soil Survey of Johnson County, Iowa (July, 1977), a variety of soils
exist on the Country Club Estates property. In general, the upland soils are silty in
nature, while the wetland soils are loamy with hydric features. Upland soils include
Fayette silty clay loam sloping 14-18% (163E3), Clinton silt loam sloping 9-14% (80D3),
and Ladoga silt loam sloping 5-9% (76C2). Soils with hydric inclusions on the property
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPEAL
DATE: 03/21/06 PROPERTY PARCEL NO.1113426005. 1113451002. 11241126001
PROPERTY ADDRESS: West Rohret Road
PROPERTY ZONE: RR1. IDRS PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 82.3 acres
APPLICANT:
Name: S & J Development
Address: 1157 Flaastaff Drive
Phone:
CONTACT PERSON: (if other than applicant)
Name: Duane Musser
Address: 1917 S. Gilbert St.
Phone: 319-351-8282
J " -
PROPERTY OWNER: (if other than applicant)
The Board of Adjustment is empowered to hear and decide appeals where it is
alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made
by the City Manager or designee in the enforcement of the Zoning Code or of any
ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
Please see 14-8C-3 in the Zoning Code for detailed information on the appeal
procedure. Planning staff are available to assist applicants with questions about the
appeal process or regulations and standards in the code.
Decision being appealed: The applicant alleges that an error has been made by the
following administrative official (list title) Julie Tallman/Developmental Reaulation
Specialist on (date) February 2nd in enforcing the Zoning Ordinance in relation to the
property listed above . Please indicate the section of the Zoning Ordinance cited in the
official's decision:
Sensitive Land and Features14-51-7. Stream Corridors
Purpose of the Appeal: The applicant wishes to challenge the above decision
based on the interpretation of the following section(s) of the Iowa City Zoning
Ordinance. (This section of the code mayor may not be different from the section
cited in the decision being challenged.)
The purpose of this application is to dispute the city staff's determination that the
stream corridor exists on this site. The attached material and third party
statements are supportinq information that this site. does not contain a stream
corridor by definition
Summary: In the space provided below, or on a separate sheet, summarize the
basis for your appeal referring to the code sections listed above and providing
sound reason(s) for overturning the decision. (Provide evidence demonstrating
that the decision was based on an improper or erronequs interpretation of the
Zoning Code).
Please see attached Packet.
Remedy desired:
ppdadmin\appeal-boase. doc'
March 13, 2006
Julie Tallman
Housing - City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
'""
0 =
=
c:r>
~ 0 :JJ!:
)> ~::t'" !l
:;0
-.-
c: 0"'\
,.-- fTl
,
rn -0
0 --;-1 -..it.... r'''~
...."...1 \...)
<:::" /" N
~
)>
-.I
Ms. Tallman,
Ron Amelon from MMS requested that I investigate the stream/blueline situation at the
proposed Country Club Estates addition. Having done so, permit me to offer the
following summary:
Field Observations
The watershed of the drainageway in question has suffered the same fate as almost every
other one in Iowa. Under agriculture, both runoff rates and soil loss rates have greatly
increased. The sediment accumulates in the drainageway and the rapid flow of dirty
water erodes a channel through it. The old grade control structure at this site was built to
try to control this downcutting. A pair of tile lines were also installed, which discharge
through the base of the grade control structure.
At a location about 100 feet east of the concrete structure, I dug a pit where the
accumulated sediment should be thick, but still located far enough away from the
structure to be outside of its construction zone. The modem accumulated sediment was
found to be 49 inches thick here, resting on top of the original topsoil. About half way
down in this soil profile, pieces of very rusty wire were encountered, again demonstrating
the modem origins of this sediment.
The vegetation also demonstrates this change in conditions. Our original little
intermittent streams in Eastern Iowa were places of steady groundwater discharge, and
the constant seepage not only supported a regular trickle of water, at least in spring and
autumn, but also a permanent wetland containing a great diversity of wetland species.
Most of these are shallow-rooted, having no need to go deep for water. The rapid
accumulation of agricultural sediment smothers most of these species while the tile lines
lower the water table and places it beyond reach of those few which can keep ahead of
the sedimentation. Since the 1950's, herbicide application has eliminated the few
stragglers. Today, at this site, not even cattails survive and the drainageway is a
monoculture of reed canary grass, one species which is tolerant of rapid sedimentation,
agricultural chemicals and a lowering water table..
Aerial Photography
Existing aerial photographs were studied stereoscopically and they provide snapshots of
moments in the evolution of this drainageway. In the 1937 photos, the drainageway is
narrow, well defined and incised several feet deep. There is no sign of the grade control
structure.
In the 1951 photos the drainageway is still narrow and incised, with no grade control.
Photography from 1956 shows a widened floodplain developing in several segments in
the valley bottom, including sediment forming a delta against the west fence. There is no
evidence of the concrete control structure.
In the 1963 photography, most of the valley bottom now has a widened floodplain,
reflecting more sediment accumulation. The construction zone for the concrete grade
control structure stands out very clearly, indicating that activity within the previous year
or so. A dark rectangle is either the concrete slab itself or possibly forms being prepared
to pour the concrete.
By the time of the 1970 photography, the width of the new floodplain has become
difficult to discern because agriculture now extends down the slopes and out onto the
floodplain. The tile has done its job of draining down the water table and making it
suitable for agriculture.
The Soil Survey of Johnson County, issued in 1983, represents field work done in the
mid-1970's. In this document (photo sheet #53) the drainageway is mapped as an
intermittent steam not crossable with tillage equipment, meaning that a gully still ran
through the artificial floodplain. Today, even that gully is now mostly filled in with
sediment.
My interpretation from the aerial photographs is that the valley bottom contained a
degraded but biologically functional intermittent stream through 1951. By 1956 it had
begun to seriously silt in. Construction of the grade control structure around 1963, plus
tiling below, was the hydrologic death knell for this intermittent stream, helping to first
convert it to a gullied grassed waterway and finally to just a grassed waterway in an
artificial floodplain. Today we no longer have the hydrology, soils and flora that
characterized the original. Most of the original fauna has also vanished, although the
occasional crayfish or frog might still be found.
o
~O
p-
0'-::
1'0.)
<=
<=
<::r-
:::JC
::;...
;::0
11
r-
fll
o
:=! ()
:-<. l-
-m
O::Q
<:::' A
~
0'\
-0
:3:
r:-?
......
Topo Map Bluelines
The 1938 USGS topographic map portrays an intermittent blueline stream in this
drainageway. The map represents many days of field effort in 1931 and 1934 and should
be viewed as an accurate portrayal of what those people actually observed.
The topography for the 1965 edition was obtained from air photos, and field checking
appears to be limited mostly to new features that could be easily spotted on the photos,
such as new roads, river meanders which have migrated, new ponds, new orchards, etc.
While the blueline intermittent stream designation was dutifully copied onto this edition,
I'm not sure that anyone actually field checked it.
The 1983 edition bears the legends "photorevised 1983" and "field checked 1965",
making it clear that the streams and intermittent streams were simply transferred from the
1965 edition, unless there was some major shift in location visible on the air photos.
The 1994 edition was revised from 1990 photographs and "field checked 1992". Across
this entire quadrangle map, all of the 1965 intermittent blueline steams have been
converted to solid blueline streams in exactly the same locations. There are no longer
any intermittent streams portrayed anywhere on the quadrangle map and it clearly
represents a policy change to no longer distinguish intermittent streams here. I cannot
believe that anyone actually field checked the Country Club site in 1992. A genuine
permanent steam, which is what the solid blue line was supposed to represent, has a
variety of distinctive features including a channel, banks, sometimes meanders, often
little fish, etc. The present valley bottom under consideration has none of these and the
1994 solid blue line designation is totally in error. The USGS of course knows what a
stream is, and this situation simply reflects budgets inadequate to keep up with
documenting a rapidly changing world.
A few photos are attached.
Sincerely
Lon D. Drake
Professor of Geoscience
r--:>
0 <:=>
=
-s: Cl'"
,,--0 ::x:
).>~ :1'>
-< :;;0 -/1
(j
::::;0 en f-
-/ r-- !Tl
- "-
f-n -0
6:JJ 3: r--,
;€:^ N \......I
..
)>
-.J
'--'"
v
'-..-.
v
11
r-
m
f);' u
-.J
v
o
-
C)::;!
-
,::< P
o!B
~~
::s
~
~
;:;;:
J::a,;
::0
/J
~
[g
-
0'\
~
--..
~
'.
-
'J
Stream - Wikipedia, the free encyclonedia
. \'
: \..J
Stream
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A stream or creek, is a body of water with a detectable current,
confined within a bed and banks. Stream is also an umbrella
tenn used in the scientific community for all flowing natural
waters, regardless of size.
An analogy is often drawn between time and a stream; see
timestream.
The study of streams and waterways in general is known as
surface hydrology and is important in environmental geography
or environmental geology.
River
A large natural stream, which may be a waterway.
Creek (North America and Australia)
A small natural stream. Rarely navigable by motor craft and may be
intermittent. Often pronounced "crick".
Creek (UK and India)
A tidal inlet, typically in a saltmarsh or mangrove swamp. Alternatively,
between enclosed and drained, fonner saltmarshes or swamps. In these
cases, the stream is the tidal stream, the course of the sea-water through
the creek channel on each of the flood and ebb.
Tributary
A contributory stream, or a stream that does not reach the sea but joins
another river (a parent river). Sometimes also called a branch or fork.
Brook
A stream smaller than a creek, especially one that is fed by a spring or seep. It is usually small and easily forded.
Contents
. 1 Types of water streams
. 2 Other names for streams
. 3 Parts of a stream
. 4 Characteristics of streams
. 5 Intennittent and ephemeral streams
. 6 Watersheds
. 7 See also
Types of water streams
An Australian creek.
Page I of5
.~
A running stream.
o
~o
o=<
-10
.:-<.
m
-:JJ
0;;;:;:
~
'"
<::::)
<::::)
0"
:::r.:
;no.
:::0
11
I
m
o
0'"'1
-0
::n:
N
..
co
Other names for streams
In the United Kingdom, there are several regional names for a stream:
http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream
3/16/2006
Stream - Wikipedia, the free encyclonedia
Page 2 of5
A rocky stream in Hawaii
. Beck is used in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria.
. Brook is used in the Midlands.
. Burn is used in Scotland and North East England.
. Stream is limited to Southern England.
In North America:
. Kill in New York and New Jersey comes from a Dutch
language word, as in Peekskill (Peek's Kill), Fishkill (Fish
Kill), and Fresh Kills.
. Branch,jork, or prong can refer to tributaries that share
the same name as the main stream.
Parts of a stream
Yellow River in rural Indiana, USA.
Rivers of this size are often referred
to as a "creek."
I'.)
0 c:::::>
c:::::>
C7"'
:2:0 :::J.t:
)>=<! :J> 11
:::0
0 .-
-10 0"\ I
.:-< r -0 m
m 0
-:rJ ::r
O- N
~^ ..
)>
OJ
A brook in the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia
Confluence
The point at which the two streams merge. If the two
tributaries are of approximately equal size, the confluence may be called a fork.
Run
http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream
3/16/2006
Stre~ - Wikipedia, the free encyclonedia
A:'fairly smooth flowing segmeJh:Jithe stream.
Pool
Page 3 of5
'--..-I
A segment where the water is deeper and slower moving.
Riffle
A segment where the flow is shallower and more turbulent.
Source
The spring from which the stream originates or other point of origin of a stream.
Headwater
The part of a stream or river close to its source. The word is commonly used in the plural where there is ~ single
point source. 9 ~
Channel ~ 0 ~
A depression created by constant erosion, that carries the stream's flow. ~ ::::0
Floodplain 0
Flatlands on either side of the stream that are subject to seasonal flooding. ;< p en
m -0
-:JJ ::1::
The bottom of the stream. ~ ^ N
Mouth ~ ..
The point at which the stream discharges, possibly via an estuary or delta, into a static body of~ater su<dbas a lake
or ocean.
Thalweg
The river's longitudinal section, or the line joining the deepest point in the channel at each stage from source to
mouth.
Wetted perimeter
The line on which the stream's surface meets the channel walls.
Spring
The point at which a stream emerges from an underground course through unconsolidated sediments or through
caves. A stream can, especially with caves, flow aboveground for part of its course, and underground for part of its
course.
Waterfall or cascade
The fall of water where the stream goes over a sudden drop called a nickpoint; some nickpoints are formed by
erosion when water flows over an especially resistant stratum, followed by one less so. The stream expends kinetic
energy in "trying" to eliminate the nickpoint.
Bed
Characteristics of streams
11
I
m
o
Ranking
Streams in geographic terms are awarded order designations. A
stream of the first order is a blue-line stream which does not have
any other blue-line stream feeding into it. A stream of the second
order is one which is formed by the joining of two or more blue-
line streams. A third-order stream is one below the confluence of
two or more second-order streams; a fourth-order stream is formed
by the confluence of at least two third-order streams, and so forth.
Gradient
The gradient of a stream is a critical factor in determining its
character, and is entirely determined by its base level of erosion.
The base level of erosion is the point at which the stream either
enters the ocean, a lake or pond, or enters a stretch in which it has a
much lower gradient, and may be specifically applied to any
particular stretch of a stream.
In geologic terms, the stream will erode down through its bed to achieve the base level of erosion throughout its
course. Ifthis base level is low, then the stream will rapidly cut through underlying strata and have a steep gradient,
and if the base level is relatively high, then the stream will form a flood plain and meanders.
Low Australian Creek
Meander
Meanders are looping changes of direction of a stream caused by the erosion
http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream
3/16/2006
Stream - Wikipedia, the free encyclonedia Page 4 of 5
and de~osition of bank material~~-..hese may be somewhat sine-wave in form;-J
Typically, over time, the meanders don't disappear but gradually migrate
downstream.
If some resistant material slows or stops the downstream movement of a
meander, a stream may erode through the neck between two legs of a meander
to become temporarily straighter, leaving behind an arc-shaped body of water
termed an oxbow lake or bayou. A flood may also result in a meander being cut
through in this way.
Profile Stream in North Bay, Canada
Typically, streams are said to have a particular profile, beginning with steep
gradients, no flood plain, and little shifting of channels, eventually evolving
into streams with low gradients, wide flood plains, and extensive meanders. The initial stage is sometimes termed a
"young" stream, and the later state a "mature" or "old" stream. However, a stream may meander for some distance
before falling into a "young" stream condition.
Intermittent and ephemeral streams
In the United States, an intermittent stream is one that only flows for part
of the year and is marked on topographic maps with a line of blue dashes
and dots. A wash or desert wash is normally a dry streambed in the
deserts of the American Southwest which flows only after significant
rainfall. Washes can fill up quickly during rains, and there may be a
sudden torrent of water after a thunderstorm begins upstream, such as
during monsoonal conditions. These flash floods often catch travellers by
surprise. An intermittent stream can also be called an arroyo in Latin
America, or a wadi in the Arabic-speaking world.
A blue-line stream is one which flows for most or all of the year and is
marked on topographic maps with a solid blue line. In Australia, an
intermittent stream is usually called a creek, and marked on topographic
maps with a solid blue line.
Generally, streams that form only during and immediately after
precipitation are termed ephemeral.
Watersheds
An Australian creek, low in the dry season,
carrying little water. The energetic flow of the
stream had, in spate, moved finer sediment
further downstream. There is a pool to lower
right and a riffle to upper left of the
photograph.
The entire basin drained by the stream is termed the watershed. Every watershed is made up of smaller watersheds, while
most watersheds are parts of larger watersheds. For instance, the Continental Divide in North America divides the Atlantic
Ocean watershed from the Pacific Ocean watershed, but the Atlantic Ocean watershed may be first divided into the
Atlantic Ocean drainage and the Gulf of Mexico drainage. This delineation within the United States is termed the Eastern
Continental Divide. The Gulf of Mexico watershed may be divided into Mississippi River basin and a number of smaller
watersheds, such as the Tombigbee River watershed.
The Mississippi River watershed includes the Ohio River watershed, which in turn includes the Kentucky River
watershed, and so forth.
See also
. Chalk stream
. Lake
. Marsh
http://en. wiki pedia. org/wiki/Stream
0 '"
=
=
~O c:r.
::1il:
)>~ ;x:...
::0 T1
0
-0 0"\ r
,:;! r m
m ""
-:0 :x r<
0- ~ "-iI
~,A.
):>
0)3116/2006
Stre~ - Wikipedia, the free encyclonedia
. Ocean ~
. . Swamp
Page 5 of 5
,
~
Retrieved from ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream''
Categories: Water streams I Sustainability I Rivers
. This page was last modified 06:04, 13 March 2006.
. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
License (see Copyrights for details).
Wikipedia@ is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc.
. Privacy policy
. About Wikipedia
. Disclaimers
0 ~
=
<::::>
~O 0"\
~
O~ :::0 17
;<0 -
0\ r
, r-
_fT1 ~ m
0:0 0
s"""'- i5?
i>
0;)
http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream
3/16/2006
L
~
J
2006 HAR / 6 PH /2: I 8
CITY CLERf<
>-
1'0
3:
I
<JJ .
01~
:g<JJ
.- C.
~e
"Oc.
C <JJ
-- ..c
1'0...
E..c\D
<JJ 01 0
..c::J-""
...o~
I.I-L..-....
0..c(V')
"'0
"OVl
C C C
<JJ::J<JJ
... L.. ~
Vl~ 19
rn~o
<JJ -- ...
..c10
...<JJ..c
::Jo..
E.o
0:::
.t:<JJ
..c
~...
<JJ<JJ
3: L..
<JJ
01 ..c
-~ 3:
~
o
o
.....J
.... T"-l
U Q) T"-l
~~09
.. ~ v- 0'\
(/) ".II N '"
I-~NT"-l
ZQ)Lf'lv-
<:(.0<(..
~=~=l:1:
:...J 19 "-I-'
::> ..c .c. u
(/) ... .- Q)
Z ::J U -0'
OOI'OL..
U(/}3:o..
,^ '" 0 (/)
'" I T"-l ~ ::E
::EO'\ '<:'"
::ET"-l '"
~
J
2006 HI R /6 ~~12: I
~ Q)
Q) L...
,'-\( C~I<
. : Jf.~ TthVA
L... '0'
"OL...
Q)O-
.cQ)1.O
ol-I.co
~ol-I-'
o~oo
o
EO-.
OL...M
:j::l.2:l0
o C C
.oQ)Q)
u~
Q)Q)m
.c ol-I
ol-I.c 0
ol-Iol-I
E C 0
0'- .c
J:: ~ c..
ol-IQ)
V)ol-I
Q) m
~.~
OlX
C e
.- 0-
"50-
om
.....J
. ol-I ......
U Q) ......
zQ)oo
_L... I
..~ V m
U) v, N ....
I-tN~
ZQ)LI'lv
<:(.0<(..
~=-::t:t:
.....J 19 ..
:::> .c .?;- t)
U) ol-I .- Q)
Z ::J U "0'
OOmL...
UU}~o..
U)","OU)
::E~-::E
::E...... ::E
~
~
Q) E
.ectl
....~
.~ ti
"-
~O~
Q) ~ g
c..uCX)
0.!20
L...Q)-'"
c...e M
Q)....O
.eQ)C
....UQ)
"- .- ~
O....ctl
0....
OJ Z 0
.... ....
C . 0
Q) >-.e
Uctlc..
;:
Q) Q) .
5 Cl ~
ctl.-
Ecti
0.- .-
J::~OJ
....-Oij
U) Q) ctl
Q).e L...
;: .... ctl
.e
Cl "- U
C 0
32E
00
O:j:j
...Jo
..0
u.... ..-l
Q) ..-l
zQ)oo
_L... I
..;';::: .q- 0"
!J') \.II N .....
~-t=N~
ZQ)LJ"l.q-
<(..0< ..
~=-:ij:
:...J 19 ..
:::> .e ~ ij
If) .... .- Q)
Z :J U .0'
OOctlL...
ulf);:c..
If)f''...0lf)
::E~-::E
::E..-l ::E
'-----'
'-..---'
2006 MAR I M ~: ~8
roL...
CITY ( L -Rl~-@
. Y ICl/~
Cl_
roo
.~ .b
roe
L...O\O
"'CUo
w w-oo
..c ....
....wo
\l-L..._
OUM
eo
"'Coe
e U
wro~
....L...ro
~w""
~~.8
w .. 0
:5 ~B:
....w
roe.
....0
Vl L...
we.
~ w
Cl:5
.~ Vl
~~
ox
ow
...J
..... ...-l
U W ...-l
zWoo
_L... I
.. V).... ...r 0"
V) N",
I--eN...-l
Zwl./')...r
c:( ..0 <( ..
~=-:t:t:
...J 19 ..
~..c~1j
V) .... .- w
Z ::J U '0'
OOroL...
uV)~c..
V)"'OV)
...-l-:E
:EO" "'='"
:E...-l ..::..
'-----'
-....J
QJ
I~I~
co
11<~2
~~
I....~
0..0
QJVlI.C)
.!: .!d 0
.......... --
c .!!l CX)
O[;~
>.tJM
CO coO
:> I.... C
:>COQJ
QJ.!:~
OlUCO
COQJ.....
c>o
.- CO .....
~.!:O
"'OQJ.!:
QJS:c..
fiQJ
~I....
OQJ
VII
c .
0.....
.- VI
:!:QJ
"'Os:
C
o
U
. ..... ..-l
U QJ ..-l
ZQJOO
1-41.... I
.. Vi ""'" 0'\
~ gj~
Z~Lt'I""'"
c:(.c<(..
1--==1-4:t:1::
:...J l!) ..
::J .!: ~ tJ
U') ..... .- QJ
Z :J U '0'
00 CO I....
UU')s:c..
U')i'0U')
..-l1-4::E
::EO'\ 00:-
::E..-l '"
\.J
J
200& t1AR I 6 PH 12: I 8
CITY CLERI\
L.. C
Q) 0
+-' .-
ro +-'
3:.19
E..c c
ro en Q)
Q).- E
L.. ..c .-
+-' ':>."0
VlL.Q)
EroVl
c-'"
0.- c
"0"00
C L.. .-
roo~
L.. .. L..
ro -E Q)
EroE
o.c 0
J::"OJ::
c
Vl ro c
U 0
p"OP
VlQ)ro
.C .c Q)
2"0 en
UQ)Q)
roc>
L..(i=
~Q)'O
U"OQ)
E .. U
enc
ro.~ Q)
Q)L..Vl
L..Q).c
+-'"Oro
(J) c ..
ro..::.!.
Q) L..
E ro
E
u+-' T"-i
Z Q) T"-i
_Q)oo
L.. I
.. +-' ~ 0"\
(J)(J)Nr-..
~~NT"-i
ZQ)Lrl~
~::9<("
r: .- - :ij:
:...J ~ ..
:::> ..c ~"tj
(J) +-' .- Q)
Z ::J U .0'
OOroL..
u(J)3:o..
(J)r-..O(J)
::E~-::E
::ET"-i ::E
Message
Page 1 of 1
Michael F. Barker
From: Jesse Henneman
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:50 AM
To: Michael F. Barker; Ronald L. Amelon
Subject: FW: Country Club Estates (ATTN: Mike Barker and Ron Amelon)
-----Original Message-----
From: Walsh, Eugene W MVR [mailto:Eugene.W.Walsh@mvr02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, January 30,20067:36 AM
To: julie-tallman@iowa-city.org; mms@mmsconsultants.net
Subject: Country Club Estates (ATTN: Mike Barker and Ron Amelon)
Good Morning Julie,
On January 26,2006, I met onsite at Country Club Estates with Mike Barker and Ron Amelon of MMS Consultants. I
inspected the waterways on the property to determine if and how they would be regulated under Section 404 the Clean
Water Act (CWA). While one drainageway is identified as a blue line stream on the USGS topo map, it lacks the typical
physical features of a stream channel (defined bed and bank, ordinary high water mark, shelving, sediment transport, etc.)
to be classified an ephemeral or intermittent stream for the purposes of the CWA. However, the Corps will regulate this
reed canary grass waterway as an emergent wetland.
As a side note, the waterway does exhibit the physical characteristics of a stream below the grade control structure on the
west side of the property, but I understand this segment of the waterway is outside the project limits, and therefore, it will
not be altered/impacted by the proposed development.
Should you have any questions, please write or call me at 309/794-5674.
Gene
Gene Walsh
Project Manager
Enforcement Section
r-..)
() c..-,
<::::;)
._- 0'"'
"'~:::: 0 :x
..J> --, :r~ T1
-<~ :::0
C) 0"\ r--
(-~ (Tl
rn -0
-- :rJ :x 1---'
0...- N U
~'^' ..
)>
-.J
3/16/2006
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
2701 ROCHESTER AVENUE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245-3418
PH 319'351'2660
FAX 319'351'2901
fpcchurch@mchsi.com
www:firstpresiowadty.oro
w
6im
City oflowa City
Robert Mikio, Senior Planner
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
March 10, 2006
City of Iowa City Board of Adjustment
Special exception-EX C 06-0003
We at First Presbyterian Chruch request another hearing on our request to install a columbarium.
We have additional information to answer some of your questions and concerns. We also request the
entire board be present.
Thank you for this consideration.
Sincerely,
~~E~:::
~61~
Richard Brown,
Building and Grounds
"Lift High the Cross, the Love of Christ Proclaim"
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MARCH 8, 2006
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Leigh
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Dick Brown, Mary Lee Dixon, Nestor Lobodiak
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice-chairperson Alexander called the meeting to order at 5:02
CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 8.2006 MINUTES
MOTION: Shelangouski moved to approve the February 8 minutes as submitted. Wright seconded
the motion.
The motion passed 4:0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
EXC06-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by First Presbyterian Church for a special exception
to permit installation of a columbarium, a structure containing niches for storage of cremated remains, for
use by the church members for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
zone at 2701 Rochester Avenue.
Walz said that religious institutions require a special exception in the RS-5 zone. She said that any
expansion of the existing church on this property also requires approval of a special exception.
She noted the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance was updated in 2005, and Columbaria are listed as an
accessory use, by special exception, for religious facilities. Walz said that while the prior special exception
is due to be challenged in district court, the church has chosen to avoid the delay of a trial and has
reapplied for a special exception under the provisions of the new Zoning Ordinance.
She noted that it is required that religious institutions have access to a collector or an arterial street and
have a minimum front and side setbacks of 20 feet and a minimum rear setback of 50 feet. She noted that
the existing church with the proposed columbarium will meet or exceed all of these requirements.
Walz said the standards also indicate that proposed religious use should be designed to compatible to
adjacent uses. The proposed columbarium is located away from direct view from residential properties
and is small in comparison to the church building; it measures 5 feet high and has a diameter of 7-10 feet.
In addition, she said that to the wide setback, existing trees and shrubs provide screening along
Rochester Avenue. She noted that the church anticipates no significant increase in traffic and therefore
proposes no additional parking to accommodate the columbarium. Walz said that in Staffs view, the
columbarium will have no significant adverse affects of the livability of nearby residential uses due to
noise, glare from lights, late-night operations, odors, or litter.
Talking about the general standards requirements Walz said that the specific proposed exception will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Walz said
there is an existing church on this property. In Staffs view the expansion of this religious institution to
include a columbarium will have no foreseeable effect on public health, safety, comfort or welfare. She
said the proposed columbarium is relatively small in scale (5 feet high and a radius of 7-10 feet) when
compared to the existing church building. Walz noted the columbarium will be located at least 50 feet
away from Rochester Avenue and will not be highly visible from adjacent residential properties. She said
although the columbarium may generate occasional visitors, traffic associated with its presence is not
expected to increase significantly from traffic already generated by the existing church services. Walz said
the church has indicated that the proposed columbarium will not change the intensity of use of the
property by its members and does not anticipate any need for additional parking.
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
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 8, 2006
Page 2
neighborhood. Walz said the columbarium will not be highly visible from the street or neighboring
properties. She noted the church property and the proposed location for the columbarium are screened
by established trees and bushes along Rochester Avenue, and the front setback is more than the
required 20-foot minimum setback. Walz noted that the traffic generated by the columbarium should not
exceed the type of traffic that is generated for memorial or funeral services, which are already a part of
church's function. She added that the applicant has provided information on property values of homes
located next to cemeteries and supporting statements from other churches that have established
columbaria. Walz said that even though cemeteries are more intense uses than columbarium, the
information submitted by the applicant indicates that the presence of a cemetery in a residential
neighborhood in the Iowa City area has not had a diminishing affect on property values.
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. Walz said the surrounding residential properties are already fully
developed.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. Walz noted that adequate utilities, access and drainage are in place to serve the existing
church on this property, and the columbarium will not increase demand on these facilities.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Church, Walz said, has two driveways onto Mt.
Vernon Drive and one onto Rochester Avenue. She noted the proposed columbarium would be located to
the west of the driveway onto Rochester Avenue. She noted the traffic associated with the columbarium
should be negligible.
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. Walz said the proposed addition complies with the
dimensional requirements for religious institutions in the RS-5 zone. She noted that minimum 20-foot front
and side setbacks and the 50-foot rear setback are met or exceeded by both the church building and the
proposed columbarium.
The proposed use will be consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan of the City. Walz
noted the Northeast District Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this area as
appropriate for institutional uses, which would include religious institutions.
Staff recommends that EXC06-00003, an application for a special exception to allow a columbarium
addition to a religious institution in the Low-Density Single- Family zone at 2701 Rochester Avenue be
approved, subject to general compliance with the plans submitted with the application.
Shelangouski asked if the church is currently setback 50 feet. Walz said the setback for church building is
well over 50 feet, and the columbarium itself will be setback about 50 feet.
Alexander asked if the placement of statuary or monument would require a special exception. Miklo said
the building official would determine if the monument would be an accessory use. Holecek said she does
not believe the placement of statuary requires a building permit.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Brown. 2905 Saddle Club Road, NE, said he would be happy to answer any questions the Board might
have.
Alexander asked if the memorial for the remains be at the church. Brown said the funeral ceremony would
be at the church anyway.
Wright asked if the columbarium will be constructed and the containers filled will the church consider the
expansion of the columbarium. Brown said that expansion would be a possibility, but the church would
have to reapply for a special exception.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 8, 2006
Page 3
Shelangouski asked if the church has any plans for landscaping around the columbarium. Brown said
there plan on having a garden, but nothing concrete had yet been decided. Shelangouski said the foliage
along Rochester Street is bare during winter, and asked if the church has plans of planting some
evergreen bushes. Brown said there will be a memorial garden around the columbarium.
Dixon, 241GreenMountain Drive, said that she has been a realtor in the Iowa City area for over 25 years.
She added that she worked with many buyers and sellers and has done hundreds of presentation to
homeowners in regard to establishing the market value or property value of their homes. Dixon said that
in order to approve the request for a special exception it must be shown that its existence will not impair
property values in the neighborhood. She said the question is how to find out if the columbarium will have
an impact. She said there is a standard method used in both appraisal practice and real estate practice
which looks at property adjacent to cemeteries and compare them with similar properties not adjacent to
cemeteries. Dixon said that the data submitted does not have comparable properties or control group
valuations to ascertain if indeed there is an impact on property values.
Dixon noted that information regarding the 704 Reno Street was submitted. She added the property is
located near Oakland cemetery. She said the property sold in November 1977 for $214,000. She added
that it sold again in October 2003 for $190,000, and sold again on the same day in October for $185,957.
Dixon said these sale figures show a decrease in value.
Dixon said the property at 1026 St Clements Street was also submitted. She noted the property is
adjacent to St Joseph cemetery. She said the property was listed for $250,000 was sold with $205,000.
Dixon said that statistics compiled by the local board of realtors show that property in the area sell for
97%-100% of their listed price. She noted that the St Clements property was sold for 82% of the listed
price, value far below the local averages. She said that statements have been made that the columbarium
will not diminish property values in the neighborhood; however the methods used to support the
statement were incorrect and not reliable. Dixon said she discussed with the local real estate appraisal
and an individual from a Chicago area firm whose main duty is to research property values throughout the
United States. She noted that both agreed that values of existing property located near cemeteries must
be compared with similar properties not located near a cemetery before making a statement in reference
to the effect the cemetery or a columbarium has on property value. She requested that the application be
denied until further research is done.
Lobodiak, 229 Green Mountain Drive, said the methodology used for determining the impact on property
values is not correct. He said that Brown has looked at properties adjacent to cemeteries and indicate
whether they increased in value. He said that as indicated by Dixon values of existing property located
near cemeteries must be compared with similar properties not located near a cemetery.
Lobodiak said that a second issue refers to multiple columbaria. He said that at the hearing in 2004 there
was some discussion about the intent of placing multiple columbaria on the north side of the church, and
moving towards south when the north side fills up.
Lobodiak said that a third issue is that there are two special exceptions from the church on the same
issue. He noted that the special exception approved 4: 1 in 2004 is currently pending in District Court, and
will go to trial in October. He said that he looked at the Code annotated trying to find a case where a
Court has addressed the issue of multiple special exceptions, but could not find any because the Board of
Adjustment applications are not multiple.
Holecek said that the current application is materially different since the law has changed. She said the
prior application was under the interpretation that a columbarium could be a facility related to the use of a
religious institution. She added that currently the zoning code has changed such that columbarium is
specifically addressed in the code, and allowed as accessory use to a religious institution by special
exception.
Brown said he talked with appraisals in Iowa City if there is a difference in property values located by
cemeteries, and determined there is no difference. He added he provided information about houses
located on Catskill Court, which are directly abutting a cemetery, and all increased in value when sold.
Wright asked if there is another church in Iowa City with a columbarium. Brown said there is one, but is
not located in a residential area.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 8, 2006
Page 4
Wood asked Dixon to re-explain the situation of property located at 1026 St Clements Street. Dixon said
that the property was listed for sale for $250,000 but was sold with $205,000. Dixon said that statistics
compiled by the local board of realtors show that property in the area sell for 97%-100% of their listed
price. She noted that the St Clements property was sold for 82% of the listed price, a value far below the
local averages.
Miklo said he has information about the 1026 St Clements Street property. He said the property was
marketed as a development site but the property has restrictions in terms of sewer and street access and
it was not likely to be redeveloped unless considerable amount of money were spent on updating the
infrastructure.
Wright asked if the decrease in property value for the property located at 704 Reno Street was due to
decline in condition of the property. Dixon said she hasn't had the opportunity to see the home until 1997
when it was in nice condition.
Brown said that the house on Reno Street was sold at share sale which indicates that the seller did not
have the property on the market to the point he could put a price on it and try to get it. He said that the
houses on Conklin Lane have seen an increased in sale price.
Dixon said that the methodology used to say there is no negative impact on property values was
incorrect, invalid and unreliable.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Alexander said that she does not know how valid it is to make comparison with properties bordering
cemeteries versus properties that border a church that has a columbarium.
Holecek said there is a letter from a church that has a columbarium and no impact on property values.
Shelangouski said the letter is from Des Moines which is growing similarly to Iowa City in terms of
property values. Shelangouski said she can see the comparison with a cemetery. Alexander said a
columbarium seems like a different type of use. Wright said that cemeteries are usually huge as
compared to the columbarium.
MOTION: Wright moved that EXC06-00003, an application for a special exception to allow a
columbarium addition to a religious institution in the Low-Density Single- Family zone at 2701
Rochester Avenue be approved, subject to general compliance with the plans submitted with the
application. Wood seconded the motion.
Shelangouski will vote against the application. She said most of the burden has been met; it will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safe~y, comfort or general welfare. She said the surrounding
properties are fully developed so the proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property. She said there are adequate utilities, egress
and ingress are appropriate, however, there is no proof that it will not substantially diminish or impair
property values. She said she would like to see a comparison between property values and not just what
have sold in the area.
Wright said that he was the dissenting vote at the last meeting, however due to changes in the zoning
code will vote in favor of the application. He said that the application had met the specific standards in
terms of access to an arterial street and setback requirements. He said that it should not be detrimental to
or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, and the proposed exception should not
be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially
diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. He said the key word is substantially. He said that
given the evidences provided from Des Moines showing no negative effect he judges the columbarium
will not substantially diminish the property values. Wright said the surrounding properties are fully
developed so the proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property. He added that utilities are in place, adequate ingress and
egress are appropriate and the application is in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
Alexander will vote in favor of the application. She said the key piece to address is the substantial effect
on property values. She added that she does not believe columbarium is equivalent to a cemetery. She
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 8, 2006
Page 5
said there is no comparable situation in Iowa City, and the only evidence that could be used is the one
provided from Des Moines.
Wood will vote against the application. He said he believes the property values will be affected by the
columbarium. He noted all other standards are met, but he is not convinced the property values will not
be affected.
Motion fails 2:2, Shelangouski and Wood opposed.
Holecek said that one member of the board is absent and the applicant has the option of taking the matter
in front of the entire board. The applicant would need to ask for reconsideration in front of the entire
board, and someone from the opposed side would make a motion to reconsider the application.
OTHER
Miklo said they have passed out a new zoning map and a blow-up of the central area around downtown.
Alexander asked what level of evidence is needed for Board's decisions. Holecek said that this is
something they are trying to find out through the appeal made to the Iowa Supreme Court in the Shelter
House case.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION
NONE
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM.
s:/pcd/minuteslboel200603-OB-06.doc
.,
c"C
CI) r...
E 0
.,u
tn CI)
::so::
:s'CI)U)
.."UO
~co
~caN
O"C
"CC
r... CI)
cat::
~<(
00 ~
~ >< >< >< ><
M 0
0
00
0 >< >< >< >< ><
---
C"ol
0
-
- >< >< >< >< ><
---
-
0
en r--. 00 0'1 0 -
e .~ ~ ~ 0 - -
--- --- ---
- - - - -
a.> >:: ~ 0 ~ ~ 0
--- ---
f-<~ - - - - -
0 0 0 0 0
... .... ~
~
"0 .cl l;I)
.cl 1:1 It :=
It ~ ... ~
~ ~ "0
~ ~ = 1:1
~ < ~
- = -
~ ~ ~
a.> 1:1 - ~ .cl
~ e e .cl "0 00.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Z ~ U Z
"0
a.>
en
B gf
>:: .....
j:.Ll~
EE"+:la.>
a.> a.> ~::::E
fa en en 0
~<<Z
II II II II
~ ~::::E
~><ooz