The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-16-2006 Board of Adjustment AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the October 4, 2006 Minutes D. Special Exceptions: 1. EXC06-00022 Discussion of an application submitted by First American Bank for a special exception to allow a bank drive-through for property located in the Community Commercial (CC2) zone at Hawk Ridge Drive and Highway 1. 2. EXC06-00023 Discussion of an application submitted by USCOC of Greater Iowa Inc. for a special exception to allow the construction and operation of a communications transmission facility in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone at 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard. 3. EXC06-00025 Discussion of an application submitted by Frantz Construction Co. for a special exception to allow a reduction in the required front yard setback from 7 feet to 0 feet in the High Density Multi-Family (RM44) zone at 724 N. Dubuque Street. E. Appeal: APL06-0004 Discussion of an application from John Roffman for an appeal of the decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue. F. Variance: VAR06-00001 Discussion of an application from John and Sandra Hudson for a variance from the zoning requirements to allow up to twenty (20) residents for a rooming house located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 932 E. College Street. G. Other H. Board of Adjustment Information I. Adjournment NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -December 13, 2006 Preliminary MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 4,2006 - 5:00 P.M. ROOM G1, MEZZANINE 2 - IOWA CITY/JOHNSON SENIOR CENTER CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Alexander STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: John Menninger, Sarah Hanley, Johannes Ledolter, Anna Quant, Marilyin Rosenquist, Alison Abreu, Randy Fieselman, Joyce Summerville, Malcom Rohrbough, Jose Fernandez, Jose Abreu, Romy Bolton RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): None CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 13. 2006 MINUTES MOTION: Wood moved to approve the September 13, 2006 minutes as submitted. Shelangouski seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:0. APPEAL APL06-00003: Discussion of an application from J. Alberto Abreu, John and Trisha Koza, Erik and Marilyn Rosenquist, Joe and Lynn Cannon, Frieda Rummelhart, Joyce and Dick Summerwill, John and Randee Fieselman, Linda Mordaunt, Aileen Leichty, Marge Hoppin, George and Miriam Bedell, Anna and Lenny Kangas, Jose Fernandez, Ann Clark, Wayne Balmer, Lance Lichtor, Sarah Hanley, Malcolm Rohrbough, Eddie Rosenquist, Marlene Weaver, Bruce and Mary Gantz, Patricia Meier, Benjamin Chaukley, Bernardine Knight, and Naftaly Stramer for an appeal of the Building Official's decision pertaining to the regulation of accessory apartments. Walz said that she submitted to the Board two emails received on the day of the meeting. Walz noted that she will present the staff report in a different order than initially planned because she believes there is misunderstanding in regard to what can be appealed before the board and the particulars of accessory apartments. She said that some of the communication received from the public asked why accessory apartments are allowed in the neighborhood. Walz said accessory apartments are not a new idea, and they have been allowed as accessory uses to single family dwellings in Iowa City since 1987. She noted that the initial ordinance required the apartment to be located within the principal structure. The property had to be owner-occupied and at least one person living on the property had to be elderly or disabled. In 1998, she said, prompted by a request from a private citizen, the ordinance was changed to allow accessory apartments within detached accessory buildings, such as a garage. The most recent changes to the accessory apartment regulations occurred during the zoning code rewrite project, a three-year, public process that was completed in December of 2005 when the City Council cast its final vote to adopt the code. Based on input from a consultant who was hired to analyze Iowa City's zoning code and make recommendations for improvements, several changes were made to the regulations for accessory apartments. Walz said that these proposed changes included clarifications regarding the maximum occupancy of a property with an accessory apartment, an increase in the rate of Board of Adjustment OctoQer 4, 2006 Page 2 inspections, and deletion of the requirement that at least one person on the property has to be elderly or disabled. In addition, Walz said, the final changes restricted the number of bedrooms within accessory apartment to just one, reduced the maximum size of accessory apartments located within principal dwelling units from 800 to 650 sq. feet or 30 % of the total floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less, and an expansion in the maximum size limits for those in accessory buildings. Walz said the changes to the accessory apartment regulations were first proposed in a preliminary draft to the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2003, and were made with considerable deliberation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. A public review draft of the Zoning Code was presented to the public in early March 2005. To make it easier for the public to understand the changes being proposed in this admittedly large document, a reviewer's guide accompanied the draft. She added that in this reviewer's guide, the changes to the accessory apartment regulations were specifically called out and explained in detail. In addition, she said, there were three public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission, where additional public input was gathered and proposed amendments to the draft were debated, including a request by the Longfellow Neighborhood Association to change the proposed accessory apartment regulations the Longfellow amendment would have disallowed accessory apartments in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones and required some additional restrictions on site standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Longfellow request and decided against it, stating that they would like to see how the new changes and enforcement mechanisms work before making further revisions to the code. Walz said the question before the board is whether the new Zoning Ordinance permits Accessory dwelling units in single family zones and whether those accessory apartments may be rented to individuals who have no specific relationship with the owner. She said that while the appellant and others may disagree with certain regulations in the Zoning Code with regard to accessory apartments, the issue before the Board is the legislative intent of the code as it was adopted in December 2005. She stated that the Board has no authority to change the Zoning Code nor to decide that the regulations contained in the code are themselves in error. Walz explained that to determine what is an appropriate use in a residential zone, staff would first look to the Residential Use Categories in the code. This section provides descriptions of the various Principal Household Living Uses, including single family, two family, multi-family and group living uses. Uses that have been determined to be appropriate accessory uses to the principal household living use are listed below and included here one can see that accessory dwelling units are listed as an accessory use to the principal household use. Walz stated that to find more specific information about accessory uses, one would look to the Accessory Uses and Buildings section in the code, beginning with the general approval criteria. There the code states that accessory uses, buildings and structures must meet the following standards: A. The accessory use is subordinate to the principal use of the property and contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of the occupants, customers, or employees of the principal use. B. is under the same ownership as the principal use or uses on the property. C. does not include structures, structural features, or activities inconsistent to with the uses to which they are accessory. D. ... is located on the same lot as the principal use or uses to which it is accessory. E. ... Conforms to the applicable base zone regulations and to the specific approval criteria and development standards in this Article. Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 3 Walz explained that the specific approval criteria for each accessory is listed just below, beginning with the provisions for accessory apartments. The code states that "Accessory Apartments are permitted in the RS-5, RS-B, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, and RNS-20 zones in owner occupied Detached Single Family Dwellings and Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings and in buildings accessory to these same dwelling types, provided the following conditions are met": Walz said that some of the specific conditions relate back to the general criteria that apply to all accessory uses: whether the use is subordinate, whether it is under the same ownership as the principal use, whether the structure itself is consistent with the use to which it is accessory, and whether it conforms to the base zone regulations. According to the Code, the conditions listed for accessory apartments include those relating to ownership and occupancy. A. The owner of the property on which an accessory apartment is located must occupy at least one of the dwelling units on the premises as the permanent legal resident. That is, the owner may live in the principal building-the house-or in the accessory dwelling unit. B. The accessory apartment and the principal dwelling must be under the same ownership. C. On properties that contain an accessory dwelling unit, the owner of the property must be a permanent resident of one of the dwelling units, and the total number of people residing on a property containing an accessory dwelling unit may not exceed the total number allowed for one household, as the term id defined in the zoning district in which the property is located. Walz read the general definition for "household" based on the single family zone: "one person; or 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 1 unrelated person, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or a group of not more than 3 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; a group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household. Wlz said that group household did not apply in this situation. Walz stated that on a lot containing an accessory apartment the Ordinance would require that between the principal building, the house, and the accessory dwelling unit, the apartment, there could be no more than the number of people allowed in a single household. That is, 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 1 unrelated person or a no more than 3 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption. Walz explained that she believed the logic here to be straightforward, stating that while the accessory apartment is designed to function independently from the principal dwelling unit, the number of people living on the lot could not exceed that of a single-family household. She said you have two separate housekeeping units restricted by the number in the household definition. Walz stated that here is no requirement in the current code, nor was there a requirement in the previous code, that the relationship between the occupant of the accessory unit and the principal unit be anything more than a tenant-landlord relationship. The previous code required the owner to submit a notarized affidavit verifying that one of the occupants-either in the owner's dwelling or the renter's dwelling-is an elder or a person with disabilities. There was no stipulation that there be any caretaker relationship nor any familial relationship. The new code, adopted in December of last year, removed this requirement. Walz stated that the appellants had interpreted the terms "comfort, convenience, and necessity" to exclude arrangements that might be purely for the financial benefit of the homeowner. She said that the appellants had asserted that the code does not expressly allow accessory uses for financial gain or contributing to the household budget. Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 4 Walz said this interpretation is incorrect, explaining that among the accessory household uses expressly allowed in single-family residential zones are childcare homes, home occupations, and some bed and breakfasts. Walz said that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council approved the Code, including those changes pertaining to accessory apartments after a 3-year public planning process. That process included public discussion and attention to the specific regulations being discussed as part of this appeal. She said that the 20-year history of accessory apartments in Iowa City is summarized in the staff report. The most recent changes to the accessory apartment regulations occurred during the zoning code rewrite project, a 3-year, which is also summarized in the staff report. The period of public review lasted nine months, from March until December of 2005. During this time, planning staff met with the Neighborhood Council on several occasions and all neighborhood representatives, including the representative for Manville Heights, were notified of available avenues for public input. Walz said other single family neighborhoods had responded to the proposed changes. The Longfellow Neighborhood Association to change the proposed accessory apartment regulations-the Longfellow amendment would have disallowed accessory apartments in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones and required some additional restrictions on site standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Longfellow request and decided against it, stating that they would like to see how the new changes and enforcement mechanisms work before making further revisions to the code. Walz sated that it was unfortunate that the appellants were surprised by these changes in the Code, there clearly was no hidden agenda on the part of the City and no lack of public notice or public discussion. Walz said that Staff finds that the legislative intent regarding accessory apartments is clear and that there has been no error in categorizing accessory apartments as accessory uses allowed in single family zones, nor did the city make an error in interpreting the regulations regarding the allowed occupancy on a property that contains an accessory apartment for the following reasons: Accessory apartments are specifically listed in the zoning code as an example of accessory uses typically associated with household living uses. Single family dwellings are specifically listed as household living uses. She added that accessory apartments are permitted in the RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, and RNS-20 zones in owner occupied detached single family dwellings and detached zero lot line dwellings and in buildings accessory to these same dwelling types. Walz said the occupancy standard for accessory apartments is specifically provided for in the zoning code. The limit on the number of unrelated persons allowed on a property is the same regardless of whether or not the property contains an accessory apartment. Accessory uses often contribute to the financial benefit of owner-occupants of the property. She said that there are many examples of accessory uses allowed in the Zoning Code in single family homes that are more clearly related to financial gain than accessory apartments, such as daycare uses, bed and breakfast inns, and home occupations. She noted the financial benefit provided by accessory uses is compatible with the requirement that the accessory use contribute to the comfort, convenience, or necessity of the principal use. Walz said, Staff recommends that AP06-00003, an application submitted by Jose Abreu, et ai, appealing this interpretation be denied. Public Hearino Opened John Menninaer, 130 Ferson Avenue, asked how is accessory use of an apartment defined as a subordinate to the principal use. Walz said the accessory apartment is subordinate in size and would not be a major income generator. She said the discussion is not similar to establishing an apartment complex or a duplex. Walz said it is not inconsistent with the code that Accessory may be income generators. She added that there are accessory uses allowed in the single family zone that are purely financial and do not compete with the principal use. Board of Adjustment October 4,2006 Page 5 Holececk said the accessory apartment is subordinate in size and can not be bigger than 650 feet and 1 bedroom. She added that if the principal use is single family home you can have unlimited family members living in the house and only one in the accessory apartment. Walz said that renting a room in a single family house is not accessory apartment, that is called a roomer. Walz said that there can be 3 unrelated people on a single family property. She added that even if an accessory apartment is located on a lot there can still only be 3 unrelated people on the property. Howard said that in the case of accessory apartments the property owner is living on the property, as opposed to renting when the owner does not live on the property. Sarah Hanlev, 422 Lee Street, asked if the Board has thought not just in terms of people but that once you have the accessory apartment you increase the number of cars on the property which results in the neighborhood turning into a parking lot. Walz said that is the reason why there is a limit to 3 people for a single family lot. In addition, Walz noted that the Board of Adjustment has no power to change the Zoning Ordinance, and it can only interpret the existing laws. Hanley said that if two people reside in the single family house and 1 in the accessory apartment there will be 3 cars instead of 2, and there are not enough garages which results in more cars on driveways and streets. Holececk said that a household can have as many cars as they want and can afford. Hanley said that accessory apartments will add up to the number of cars in the neighborhood. Johannes Ledolter. Highwood Street, said he is quoting from a letter received from the Cate family. He read that "in the future as we enter into retirement and our income shrinks we hope the carriage house will help us generate extra income to help set the property's fixed costs. This is a wonderful concept that provides an affordable living situation." Ledolter said that the accessory apartment was built solely with the financial interest in mind. He added that the city should recheck the rental permit. He said the city should be aware of the danger caused. He said the houses in Manville Heights are expensive and people will build accessory apartments to offset the cost and the neighborhood will look different in the future. Anna Quant. 1010 Highwood Street, said that she grew up in Iowa City, moved away and came back after 40 years. She added she grew up in a large house on top of West Benton Street with a 17 acre apple orchard around it. She said that since than the area has turn into not very attractive apartments. She said that Manville Heights is one of the only intact beautiful neighborhoods and the residents fear that it will turn into apartments. She added that 40 years ago students lived only in the dorms, and there were no apartments all over the town. Quant said they are concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood and want to preserve the character of Manville Heights. She added that there are already plenty of apartment type neighborhoods in Iowa City. Marilvin Rosenauist. 323 Mollen Avenue, said she lives across the street from the property in discussion. She said that as trees were cut out and hills dug up in the neighborhood the residents were calling the zoning office asking what was going on and what was being built. She added that thy got different stories from different people. She said they were told to come before the Board as a first step for asking for an appeal of the interpretation of the zoning code because the neighbors are not aware that low density, single family residents are allowed accessory apartments in their yard. Rosenquist noted they all live in large non-conforming lots, and the apartment violates the spirit of life. She noted the apartment is high up above the garage looking into the bedroom of one house and in the living room of another, without bothering the owner. Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 6 Rosenquist said that the Manville Heights neighborhood association is not formalized. She said that currently one mother of 3 kids accepts the emails from the City. She said that cannot be the source for the neighborhood to receive information. She showed a meeting flyer received in mail, asking people to meet and create the Meanville association, to prove that the association is not formalized. Rosenquist said that it would have been nice when this was proposed that the RS-5 zone property owners were informed. Rosenquist said the scale of apartment should fit into the scale of the neighborhood, which is a requirement for RS-5 neighborhoods. Alison Abreu, 1000 River Street, said she lived in Manville Heights on and off since 1981 and feels very connected to the neighborhood. She said her daughter graduated from West High, the same high school that she graduated from with the same principal. She added that her son goes to Lincoln as did her brother. Abreu said she also lived in New York City, Boston and Paris and never had a problem with someone's window facing her bathroom. Abreu said she has a hard time understanding what accessory apartments mean since they have their own mailbox, driveway, address and garbage collection separate from the original house. Walz said that the lot has two front sides and the different address occurs to provide easy access for emergency services. She added that this is not always the case as most houses do not face on two streets. Walz said the accessory apartments are limited to two containers for garbage collection as all other residents. Abreu said that does not seem an accessory use. Leigh asked if the case could be made that since there are two addresses these are 2 separate residences. Holececk said that could not happened since there is only one lot and there is a principal use and an accessory use by definition. Howard said the owner needs to sign an affidavit when applying for rental permit that the apartment can not be considered a duplex. Rosenquist asked when the city decreased the size of the lot to 8,000 square feet. Howard said that happened in 1983 and there are no plans to lower it again. Holececk said that the owner could split the lot without a subdivision but it would have to comply with the minimum lot size requirement. Rosenquist said there is one accessory apartment on Park Street, but it looks beautiful. She said there is enough space on the lot and is not near the neighbors' houses. She added the houses in the neighborhood have large lots because of big slopes. She said they are now finding that accessory apartments could be put in there which result in increasing the number of residents in the low density single family zone. Randv Fieselman, Highwood Street, said the focus seems to be that accessory apartments are allowed and perfectly acceptable, but that is not alright. She said that for 20 years the code had the notion of disabled integrated and therefore the intent was to not open it up for someone that was not close to the family. She said that's why these apartments are known as carriage houses. She noted the definition that a group of not more than 3 persons unrelated by blood marriage, or adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization is a very important point. She asked what it means to be a single housekeeping organization. Howard said that definition does not apply to accessory apartments because there is a more specific definition in that case. She added the zoning ordinance anticipates the fact that this will be a separate unit. Howard added the owner must live on the property and the number of people that reside on the lot cannot be higher than that of single family lots. Fieselman asked if the single housekeeping organization is applicable only when residing in the same house but not if rented separately. Howard said the design requirements for accessory apartments require that the apartment function as a separate unit. Fieselman said the intent of zoning for single family had something to do with making a close connection between family, caretakers and disabled. Holececk said the single housekeeping organization does not relate to the accessory apartments issue. Walz said the old code required that one person that lived on the lot had to be disabled and that this did not necessarily refer to the person in the accessory apartment. Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 7 Jovce Summerville. Highwood Street asked what was the original intent of accessory apartments and changing the code, and what is the intent of having accessory apartments in Iowa City. Howard said there are a number of reasons for having accessory apartments. She noted that she was not working for the city in 1986, but she assumed some of the reasons where to create opportunities for a variety of people to live in the neighborhood, for a variety of people at different life stages to live in the neighborhood. She said the code language asks for a variety of households to live together and realize the benefits of living together. Howard said that even though accessory apartments are permitted only a handful have been built in Iowa City because they are very expensive to build and are highly regulated. Summerville said that at the same time the new zoning code went through it offered the ability for duplexes to go on corner lots. Wright said the discussion about duplexes is not pertinent to the subject. Walz said that at any point if a neighborhood wants to discuss zoning issues the staff is willing to have a meeting with them. Malcom RohrbouQh, Lee Street, said the law is what it is, but the issue is not the law but an appeal proposed to be denied. Walz said the appeal was whether accessory apartments are permitted in single family zones and if they can be rented commercially. Walz noted that her response is based solely on what is written in the zoning code. Rohrbough said that the right to appeal is a very basic American right that is 400 years old. Holececk said the neighbors are getting the due process and the right to an appeal, but the board, a quasi judicial body, has the obligation to enforce the laws that are currently on the books. She noted that if they want the law changed that needs to be done through the legislative process. She said the appeal to the legislators and changing the law are different matters that those discussed in the meeting which are whether accessory apartments are permitted in single family zones and if they can be rented commercially. Jose Fernandez. said that allowing subordinate accessory structures will change. the character of the neighborhood. He said that in his mind accessory apartments are not subordinate. He said the accessory apartment in discussion represents a brand new house, which sits on the front yard of the lot. Fernandez said there are a lot of lots in the neighborhood that front on two streets and could easily accommodate accessory apartments. Fernandez added that with accessory apartments there will be a lot more density and more trees will be torn down. He said that one can make larger houses that have the same impact, but putting multiple large structures will have a devastating effect on the character and nature of the neighborhood. Fernandez said that accessory apartments are clearly not subordinate to the single family house but equal. He said this situation creates multiple houses on a single lot which will damage the neighborhood. Jose Abreu, 1000 River Street said, asked who makes up the Planning and Zoning Commission and who is involved in terms of making changes to the zoning code, specifically, he asked what part of the City is involved. Howard said that all City Departments were involved. She added that updating the zoning ordinance was a three year process. She said that the Planning and Zoning commission met 30 times, there were 10 public hearings, 3 public workshops advertised on television, radio and newspaper. Abreu said he moved to the neighborhood 14 years ago and has 3 kids. He said that after the accessory apartment was built he has someone able to look from the bathroom into Abreu's bedroom. Abreu asked who enforces issues like number of people renting to make sure the person next door is compliant with the law. Holececk said that a lot of regulations are complaint driven. Abreu said he has a copy of the renting permit issued for the accessory apartments which reads that "this does not imply that the property is in compliance with the Iowa City zoning ordinance, State of Iowa code or other pertinent codes." Howard said the rental permit covers only the renting portion, and nothing else is checked. However, she said that when issuing the building permit conformance with all regulations is required. . Howard answered a question posted by Abreu saying that the size of the accessory apartment can be 30% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling unit, but it can not exceed 650 square feet. Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 8 Public Hearina Closed MOTION: Wood moved that AP06-00003, an application submitted by Jose Abreu, et ai, appealing the Building Official's decision pertaining to the regulation of accessory apartments be approved. Shelangouski seconded the motion. Wright said that this is a hot button issue for several people but the Board of Adjustment has a very limited purview and can not go beyond interpreting the law presented in the zoning code. He said the intent of the law is clear. Wright said the planning process leading into the zoning code made the possibility of such a change very clear. He said that other neighborhoods were aware of this and some thought it was not a very good idea but the Planning and Zonning Commission and the City Council approved this as part of the code. He said because accessory apartments are specifically listed in the zoning code as an approved accessory use in the single family residential, RS-5 and RS-8 zone, and because the occupancy standards are specifically listed and enforced, the intent .of the zoning code is clear to allow accessory apartments with the restrictions presented. He said that whether the accessory apartments provide financial benefit is not pertinent to the discussion. Therefore, he said that he will vote against the appeal. Shelangouski said that Manville Heights is a very nice neighborhood, and the only way she could afford to live there would be in an accessory apartment. She said that there already is an accessory se apartment in the neighborhood. However, she said that the Board can only vote on what the City has interpreted. She said that she agrees that there has not been any misinterpretation, and it is very clear what the intent is, and that the code was applied appropriately. She said she will vote against the appeal. Wood said he admires the neighborhood concern and the spirit in raising the concern and bringing it before the board. He said that he agrees with his colleagues that the boards role is to interpret whether the zoning code was misinterpreted or misapplied and does not see where that happened in this situation. Therefore he said he will vote against the appeal. Leigh said she too admires the concern raised by the neighborhood and the preservation of the neighborhood. She said that as the code stands, even without accessory apartments they would have had the same issues if for example there was a large family with lots of cars. She added the old house could have been demolished and a new one could have been put up also looking into the bedroom and bathroom windows. She said that as the zoning ordinance stands she can not see that the city has made an error in its interpretation. Leigh will vote against for the reasons already stated. Motion was denied 4:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS EXC06-00021 Discussion of an application submitted by Romy Bolton and Julia Moffitt for a special exception to allow a reduction of the required front yard setback for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS-5) zone at 302 W. Park Rd. Walz said the property at issue is located in the RS-5 zone at the corner of W. Park Road and Beldon Avenue. As a corner lot, the property is required to provide a minimum 15-foot front setback along both the Beldon Avenue and Park Road frontages. She noted the existing house is located just 2 feet from the property line along the Beldon Avenue right-of-way, making it a nonconforming structure. According to the Iowa City Zoning Code, Walz said, a nonconforming structure may be enlarged, provided the enlargement does not increase the nonconformity. The applicants are proposing to tear down the portion of the house that sits within the setback along the Beldon frontage--east of the original Cape Cod roof line. This includes a carport (at the front) and garage that was converted into part of the house. Walz said the applicants would then replace this non-conforming portion of the house with a new one-story addition. The proposed new addition would be set back 6 feet from the Beldon right-of-way line- 4 feet further than the current non-conforming structure, but still within the required 15 foot minimum setback. Walz said that because the applicants have proposed tearing down the current non-conforming structure and replacing it with another non-conforming structure, and because the new addition will require new Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 9 footings, the Building Official has determined that the proposed new addition requires a special exception. While the new addition would be set back 4 feet further from the property line than the current structure, the proposed site plan shows that the addition will also extend 2 feet further north from the current footprint of the house. Walz said the applicants have proposed to remove the driveway access at the front of the property (entering just 10 feet off the intersection of Park Road and Beldon Avenue), and a garage will be built at the back of the lot with a driveway off Beldon Avenue. As indicated in their application, the applicants originally sought to locate the new garage closer than the 25-foot minimum required by the code for garages that face onto a street. However, she added, while the code allows a special exception to reduce the garage setback, there is no provision to reduce the 25-foot driveway requirement in the code. The applicants are now considering turning the garage to face the rear of the property, which would require only a 15-foot setback, and having a curved driveway off Beldon. Walz stated that the applicant could add on to another part of the house or could simply make improvements within the current non-conforming portion of the house; however neither of these options would require them to remove the old non-conforming portion of the house. Instead, she said, the applicant has proposed to create a new structural addition within the basic footprint of the existing structure and enlarge the established setback from 2 to 6 feet. While the present site plan shows the house extending two feet further to the north, within the setback, Staff believes that the net effect reduces the overall non-conformance of the property. Walz said this situation is somewhat unusual because the request to reduce the required setback from 15 feet to 6 feet will have the actual effect of increasing the established setback from 2 feet to 6 feet. Staff recommends that EXC06-00021, an application to allow a reduction of the required principal building setback for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS-5) zone at 302 W. Park Road from 15 feet to 6 feet be approved subject to general conformity with the submitted site plan and removal of the driveway access at the front of the property. Shelangouski asked if the current addition is located within the street right-of-way. Walz said the garage is not in the street right-of-way, but within the required setback. Public Hearinq Opened Romv Bolton, 302 W. Park Road said they bought the house in December. She said the driveway is particularly unsafe. She added there are no sidewalks on either side of the road and in the morning on top of all the street traffic there are school children riding bikes and walking in the street because there are no sidewalks and therefore no other option for pedestrians and bikers. Bolton said they are proposing to build the garage in the back and turn this into living area. She said there are currently 20 feet of green space and by giving back the 4 feet there will be 24 feet of green space in that side of the house. She added that this would comply with everything the setback is intended to do. She said they are trying to improve the look of their house and improve their safety and the safety of the neighborhood. Public Hearina Closed MOTION: Shelangouski moved that EXC06-00021, an application to allow a reduction of the required principal building setback for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS-5) zone at 302 W. Park Road from 15 feet to 6 feet be approved subject to general conformity with the submitted site plan and removal of the driveway access at the front of the property. Wood seconded the motion. Wood said this seems to be a good compromise. He said that as far as the specific standards are concerned, it will not increase or extend the nonconformity that already exists, the situation is peculiar to the property as the house is currently situated. He said it will be practically difficult to bring the house in compliance with the code requirements. Wood added that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of setback regulations. Wood said that it will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, it will not be injurious to the use and enjoinment of the Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 10 properties in immediate vicinity, it will reduce the overall nonconformity, and improve the aesthetics of the house. Wood said he will vote in favor of the application. Wright said the application meets specific and general standards. He said the situation is peculiar to the property. He added that the proposal will mitigate the effects. Wright said the aesthetics will look better and there will be safety improvements. He will vote in favor of the application. Shelangouski said that she will vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated. She said the nonconformity will be reduced. She said there will be no safety issues for still being non-conformity. Leigh will vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated. The motion approved 4:0. EXC06-00022 Discussion of an application submitted by First American Bank for a special exception to allow a bank drive-through for property located in the Community Commercial (CC2) zone at Hawk Ridge Drive and Highway 1. Walz said the applicant, First American Bank, is requesting a special exception for a proposed drive-up facility. The property is located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone which allows drive-up facilities only by way of special exception. The subject property was platted in 2003 as part of the development of the Lodge and is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). Walz stated the CZA identifies several restrictions agreed upon by the City, Subdivider, and Owner of the property in 2002 and is attached to the property and consequently must be adhered to by the applicant. Most of the requirements of the CZA apply to the residential portion of the Lodge development. However, the CZA does include a 15 foot wide pedestrian walkway easement from the property's northwestern boundary generally southward to connect with the street to provide public access to Highway 1. The intent is to allow for future pedestrian access from the Highway 1/Lodge area to Benton Hill Park. Walz said 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. Staff recommends approval of EXC06-00022, a special exception to allow a drive-through facility in a CC- 2 zone, located at Hawk Ridge Drive and Highway 1 subject to substantial compliance with the submitted site plan. Wood asked if the applicant owns the neighboring property. Walz said the applicant does not own the lot, but the developer the bank is working with owns the lot. Shelangouski asked if the driveway goes along the neighboring property. Walz said the pedestrian walkway goes through the adjacent property. In addition, Walz said the developer is putting in the private driveway. Leigh asked if there is another egress except the way used for ingress. Walz said they have to go around the bank and go out the way they came in. Shelangouski said she is concerned about the competing traffic from the bank with that from the Lodge which will result in long lines of traffic. Walz said the traffic engineers looked at the plan and did not . foresee a traffic issue with this development. Shelangouski said that at certain times of day people exiting the bank will have to wait for 10 minutes because there is so much traffic coming from the Lodge. She said the bank traffic can not go on Hawkridge Drive because the Lodge traffic does not have a stop sign. Shelangouski noted this would be a similar traffic issue to that created on Kirkwood Avenue due to the Community College classes. Wright said he believes the traffic will be scattered due to the fact that the University Of Iowa offers classes at different times of the day. Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 11 Shelangouski asked what an underground storm water retention tank is. Walz said that underground storm water retention tanks fill out to a certain point and then release into a drainage channel, and is used due to the limited space on the property. MOTION: Shelangouski moved to defer the discussion of the application to obtain additional information from traffic engineers about circulation of the private driveway and cueing on Hawkridge Drive. Wood seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:0. OTHER NONE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION Shelangouski and Wright will not attend the November meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:22 P.M. s/pcd/mins/boa/2006/10-4-06.doc ..., c"C CI> ~ E 0 ...,u rn CI) ~a:= '- CI) (0 "Cuo <Cco 't-nsN O"C "Cc ~ CI) ns= ~<C ~ ~ 0 >< >< >< >< -... 0 0 ...... l"""l ...... >< >< >< >< >< -... 0\ 0 0\ ~ ~ >< >< >< >< 00 0 0 N ~ ...... >< >< >< >< -... t'-- 0 0 ~ ~ ...... >< >< >< >< -... I.C 0 0 0 ...... >< >< >< >< >< -... V) 0 l"""l ...... >< >< >< >< >< -... ~ 0 00 ~ 0 >< >< >< >< -... l"""l 0 0 00 0 >< >< >< >< >< -... N 0 ...... ...... >< >< >< >< >< -... ...... 0 Vl t'-- 00 0\ 0 ...... E .~ 0 0 0 ...... ...... -... -... -... -... -... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... Q) 0.. ~ 0 0 0 0 E--~ -... -... -... -... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 0 0 0 0 0 ... ..... :r2 ~ ~ "0 ~ = =' ~ Co": 'C ~ ..... ~ ~ "0 = ~ ~ = ~ < - = Co": ~ - ~ ~ Q) = - Co": .Cl ~ ~ = .Cl r:F.l ... ... (,I "0 :2 Co": ~ ~ ~ Z U Z "'C) Q) Vl ;::l 01) ~ ~ tg'-fl ~ Q) ~~~::E Vl Q)..o 0 ~~<:z ~ <: II II ~II II~::E ~><OOZ 1 ~ 1 _r-= -~ !~ai~tt ~ ..aa.~ :; . - :!."i11l1 ~- CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 11, 2006 To: From: Iowa City Board of Adjustment Anissa Williams, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner rI Re: Special Exception EXC06-00022, First American Bank At your October 4 meeting you deferred this application for a special exception subject to review of traffic queuing along the private drive leading to Hawk Ridge Road. A traffic study was performed by Arc Design Consultants for the development of Lot 2 Ruppert Hills, which includes First American Bank. Current traffic from the Lodge was measured and traffic from the proposed development of Lot 2 was estimated. The resulting traffic conditions were modeled for the Iowa Highway 1/Ruppert Road/Hawk Ridge Road intersection. There is approximately 175 feet of length available for queuing between the Iowa Highway 1 traffic signal and the driveway/frontage road to the proposed bank. This is approximately the length of seven vehicles. This will accommodate the projected traffic volume from Lot 2 of Ruppert Hills along with the exiting traffic from the Lodge. There should not be any significant queuing issues at the driveway/frontage road to the bank. We also have the option of manipulating the Iowa Highway 1 traffic signal should that become necessary. Let me know if you have any questions. jccogtp/mem/exc06-00022.doc STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern Item: EXC06-00022 Date: October 4, 2006 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: First American Bank 12333 University Ave. Des Moines, IA 50325 Phone: ( 515)226-9998 Contact Person: Angie Solberg, Simonson & Associates 2420 128th Street Urbandale, IA 50323 Phone: ( 515)440-5626 Requested Action: Special Exception for a proposed drive-through bank facility Location: Hawk Ridge Drive and Highway 1 Size: 3.38 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Community Commercial (CC-2) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Sensitive Area Low Density Multi-Family (OSA/RM20) Applicable Zoning Code Sections: 14-48-4, (Accessory Uses, Drive-Through Facilities) Comprehensive Plan: General Commercial File Date: September 14, 2006 45 Day Limitation Period: October 29,2006 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, First American Bank, is requesting a special exception for a proposed drive-up facility. The property is located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone which allows drive-up facilities only by way of special exception. The subject property was platted in 2003 as part of the development of the Lodge and is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). . The CZA identifies several restrictions agreed upon by the City, Subdivider, and Owner of the property in 2002 and is attached to the property and consequently must be adhered to by the 2 applicant. Most of the requirements of the CZA apply to the residential portion of the Lodge development. However, the CZA does include a 15 foot wide pedestrian walkway easement from the property's northwestern boundary generally southward to connect with the street to provide public access to Highway 1. The intent is to allow for future pedestrian access from the Highway 1/Lodge area to Benton Hill Park. 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 specific criteria included for Section 14-4C-2K (p. 210, attached) pertaining to drive- through facilities and the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A (page 171). The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below. Specific approval criteria for drive-through facilities in the CC-2 zone, 14-4C-2K-2 (page 210) A. The number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved area necessary for the drive-through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from the pedestrian or commercial character of the area. Staff finds that the drive-through facility will not be detrimental to the adjacent residential properties for the following reasons: The applicant proposes two customer service drive- through lanes, one A TM service lane, and one bypass lane. The proposed drive-through lanes allow up to four stacking spaces each before congestion would become an issue. The adjacent property to the east contains CC-2 uses that will not be adversely affected by additional traffic generated by the proposed development. Development of the property to the north, undeveloped RS-8 property which is significantly higher than the subject property, would not be hindered by this special exception from lighting, noise, or other possible negative consequences due to the topography and site location of the drive-through facilities. A landscaped buffer required by the code between commercial and residential uses is illustrated on the applicant's site plan. B. The transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use in addition to the existing uses in the area. The transportation system illustrated in the site plan is designed to support the level of traffic generated by the banking facility and other commercial uses. Traffic entering and exiting the commercial development is limited to one access point from Hawk Ridge Drive, a private street with a signalize intersection with Highway 1. Staff finds that this will provide safe and efficient access to this property. C. The drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and public rights-of-way and screened from view of all non-residential property to the 52 standard. The property must screen to the 53 standard from residential property. 3 The drive-through lanes are set back from the adjacent lot lines and public rights-of-way more than the required 10-feet. Drive-through facilities within commercial zones require S2 screening, which is defined as a landscaped screen ranging between 2 and 4 feet in height, with a third of the shrubs growing to no less than 4 feet (see page 297) from public rights-of- way and abutting properties. S3 screening will be employed between the subject property and residential property to the north. S3 is a dense landscape screening which provides a visual and physical separation between uses and zones. It is defined as enough shrubs and small evergreens to form a continuous screen or hedge at least 5 feet to 6 feet in height and more than 50 percent solid year round. Other materials that may be used include a berm and hedge at least 6 feet in height or a masonry wall of 5 to 6 feet in height. D. Lighting for the drive-through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards and must prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties. The applicant has indicated that lighting for the facility will comply with the outdoor lighting standard in the code and will be designed to minimize glare onto neighboring residential properties. All outdoor lighting for the commercial development will be reviewed by the Building Official for compliance with the Code. General Criteria for Grantina Special Exceptions: 14-4B-3 (page 171) provides the general criteria which must be met before the Board may grant any special exception. The applicant bears the burden of proof. The general criteria are: The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Staff finds that it will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The site plan illustrates proper screening from adjacent properties, adequate traffic design to minimize congestion, and safe pedestrian walkways to and from the proposed bank. The proposed addition 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. Staff finds that it 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. The applicant has indicated plans to use an underground stormwater detention system. This detention system will protect adjacent property to the east from increased runoff resulting from increased impervious surfaces. In Staff's opinion, this system will provide adequate protection for surrounding properties. Surrounding uses are compatible with the proposed development and will not be affected by the drive-through service. The commercial nature of the proposed use also enhances the commercial character of the area and would provide useful services to businesses and residents in the area. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impeded the normal and orderly development and improvement for the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. Adjacent property to the east and west are developed and will not be adversely affected by the proposed special exception. Undeveloped residential property to the north will be sheltered from the negative consequences of the drive- through facility by the significant grade change and the landscaped buffer (S3 standard) required by the code. 4 Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are designed or are being designed to meet City standards. As previously stated, the applicant intends to use an underground stormwater detention facility to address drainage issues. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion. There is one access point from the intersection of Hawk Ridge Drive and Highway 1. This is-a signalized intersection with adequate turn lanes capable of supporting increased traffic to the site. An internal drive then provides access through the site to the drive-through. Staff feels this is satisfactory. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with all other City codes at the time of site plan and building permit approval. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. The Southwest District Plan identifies this area as a commercial zone. In Staffs opinion, this development and subsequently this special exception, is consistent with the Southwest District Plan and offers the Miller-Orchard area important neighborhood services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC06-00022, a special exception to allow a drive-through facility in a CC-2 zone, located at Hawk Ridge Drive and Highway 1 subject to substantial compliance with the submitted site plan. ATIACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Application Materials Approved by: /~~ - Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadminlBoard of Adjustment\case filesIEXC06-00022 VJ ~ I I I I ~ _'J t'r1 x ~ I ::c , 0 0 1J \~ () ~n~~ > en ~ ~ 1/ C 0 )> II~"" Z .............. ~ 00 I \~ ~ :D - BENTON DR ~ \ s: CD :.L. I'T1 A z . r -I ::D (5) 0 -. I\) z Q. (/) co 0 0 I -I CD 0 - Q ., .....&. I\):IJ ~ ~ Os ~ I HAWK ( - t-.. ~ ::r ~ . ~ U~ ...J. '@ ~ '\ // ~ ~ ""~ =r: ~ClJ Q J :D --([) ~ ~ I -Dr-t-- en Q () if (X) *~... n ,-;,,;-r,., AVE ~ ~ m I---- x ~. ~ 1'"\[ 0 .---- UDSON AVE 0 [ (j) I 0 L--.J 0 ~\ 1 I 1 0 I\:) I\:) =(m_ I-- I r-- 1 f--- t::..XCCl::0 - OXZXD~ 'd- APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: 9/14/06 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS: Hawk Ridge Drive and Highway 1 PROPERTY ZONE: cc-2 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 3.38 AC APPLICANT: Name: First American Bank D Address: 12333 University Ave. Des Moines, IA 50325 D Phone: 515-226-9998 D CONTACT PERSON: Name: Simonson & Associates (Angie Solberg) D (if other than applicant) Address: 2420 128th Street Urbandale, IA 50323 D Phone: 515-440-5626 ~ -- C) ",,- ~.- "'~ ~~ . -. PROPERTY OWNER: Name: ......... '. I (if other than applicant) -..... -.,' ' Address: ~:::: ~j-- '- :>: Phone: ~,::~ ):; '"71 !-r, 4..~'" r'"J I I , --, \..........) c..) W Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: Drive-up use in CC2 zone (14-4B-4) Purpose for special exception: Proposed drive-up use in the cc2 zone requires special exception Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: none -3- D. General Approval 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 specific 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. First American Bank proposes to construct a new branch facility at the subject location. Inclusion of a bank drive-up use at this proposed bank will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood. The proposed drive-up use 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. Development of the subject site is expected to enhance the enjoyment and property values in the neighborhood. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. The proposed drive-up facility will be wholey within the confines of the subject lot and will therefore not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The attached site plan shows adequate access, ingress, and egress for bank and drive-up facility users. Adequate storm sewer, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electricity, telephone, and CATV are available to the site to serve the bank and the proposed drive-up facility. -4- 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The attached site plan shows the proposed ingress and egress to the site. The access to the subject site is as far as possible from Highway 1 West to minimize traffic congestion. A traffic signal also exists at this intersection, which will further minimize traffic congestion. 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).] The proposed bank facility will be subjected to rigorous and comprehensive review by city staff to ensure that all applicable city code requirements are met. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The proposed bank facility use is consistent with the City comprehensive plan. -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 ADDRESS see attached. M M ~ (") =2 F ~ Cl Z tT'I tT'I :>;:I VJ t'""' ~ tJ VJ ~ tT'I -< o :>;:I VJ t'""' ~ tJ "0 t'""' ~ tT'I :>;:I VJ t'""' ~ VJ 8 tT'I ~ ::c: ::J tT'I (") ..., VJ tT'I Z <: ~ z ~ z ..., F: VJ "0 tT'I (") ~ Ell ..., VJ MMS CON ULTANTS, INC. I lOW A CITY IOWA OFFICE: 319-351-8282 CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA OFFICE: 319-841-5188 Specific Approval Criteria Application for a Special Exception to Allow a "Drive-through" Facility First American Bank Lot 2, Ruppert Hills The Iowa City Zoning Code specifies four approval criteria for "drive-through" facilities. The criteria are outlined in Section 14-4C.2K and are lettered a through d. The following will address these specific criteria and how they will be addressed with the proposed plan. a. There will be two drive through lanes with one lane for a drive up ATM. There is enough stacking space for four cars in each of the drive through lanes without blocking the through traffic around the building. The drive thru lanes will be on the side of the building that is adjacent to adjoining commercial uses. The parking lot is laid out such that there can be two way traffic in the parking areas so that vehicles do not need to use the drive thru area to exit the parking lot. Arrows have been shown on the site plan to show the intended traffic circulation. b. The property is accessed by existing Hawk Ridge Drive, which then accesses Highway 1, which the lot has frontage on to. The drive through lanes will not at any point be in danger of backing up on to Hawk Ridge Drive or Highway 1. There would need to be more than five vehicles at each drive through lane in order for on site traffic circulation to be affected. It is not anticipated that there will be this level of demand for drive through lanes at this location. c. The drive through lanes are set back more than 10 feet from all lot lines and the public right of way. The south and east sides of the drive through lanes will be screened to the S2 standard and the north side will be screened to the S3 standard. d. The lighting for the site will be designed in accordance with Iowa City regulations and will prevent light trespass and glare on to adjacent residential properties. All fixtures will be fully shielded and comply with all Iowa City regulations with regard to height, light output and light trespass. Please review the above responses and we trust this along with the material attached hereon and previously submitted will be sufficient for forwarding to the Board of Adjustment. Please contact us with any questions. Scott B. Pottorff MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET' IOWA CITY . IOWA 52240 WEBSITE: WWW.MMSCONSULTANTS.NETEMAlL:MMS@MMSCONSULTANTS.NET ~ ~ · i . .. ~-- ~ I ~ ~ ~ .1 +n . lfl ......... ......... ......., ::r:: ~ro ~~ C Q).......... ~ ~- 0..02' 2 ;:ju .""""'~ ro m ;s: ~o C\1.......... ~ o ~ 8lill!:l~1 ~~~~ [i_ III ~!:;]~~ ~!~i ~!~I a ~ "'!!l ~,," I "~" ~ c.. ~ =i! ~a E ~~ ~[i"s;l-! i "'~ u:S~I!l!i! ~ :!i15 I~I z ~ l1. W I- 1ii ihih "'''' ~:!3 1Xiu:i gi~~~ = ~~ ~~ """ g e ti~3. "'''' 00 ~~ gg ~ "'''' i!li!Ii!llI;i!I " Ww b1l1i~ ww Uu ww ~~ << ~~~~~ uu ~~~ a. a. << a. a. "'''' a. a. "'''' rel!:l:g "'~ ~ oj ~~~ "'''' ~1Xia) -- "'m + 9b~ I I < I < ili ~66 '" < < ~ ~~~ w < ~~~ ~i:5~ 88 ~>- ~~<~~ ,,<r< '" <>:0 ~~!i < 9 ~~l5 z<", '" ~~ "tj i5~u "u "u trQw g~~~~ ..JZC;: ~"' z", w<r ~"'<r z"' ~~~ <DiS <I'iiS <>:a. <~ <DO N U U on 00 co "'[;::8 UJ ~<tO Ct: "',..< n ~!:~ Ol ufQ-: I~~~ N ~ .<=>0 If) ...",:1 fQgj", W r;:~~ N I") N ~ Ol ~, co '... VJ .. 0>'- ,.. ~ on < '" 0. gj ~u III ~2: : ti~U !fJ~r5-c ~~~~ ~~~~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \~r \ \ IIG ~ocpUYH -+ _1,__ --r---+-, \ \ "'~~\ ~ ~ i ~ ll;.~ ~ ~ 8: ~ ~ ~.s~~~.~ g~ 0 g ~ ..2 GJ UI uim ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~o8cog ~ "'" ..2 (()'O::,..; 2 ~Q,!<( ~: ts ~ r- ~~8i~ Q; l:: U Q) ~~ ~:: 2 -e O::v.r: o+-' 0 1::1 O..J u u :8~~:g-~ .3~:5Vlcno v--."-Y'Y~ I . ~y 279.83' 'i~ ~ ,," ~ '~J--- '~i'-~"""- I ,_u_ ~L- - - ~l~.. ~ UI~* I L- ==r7 111111)I~LYOL/ r" '-= I I I I I Illll WD- ~ ! I I I I _ I ~ I 3..6l,L ,Li9e; ~ '. ; " ~ If) l---:r..::.::;:---=-- /N \,,;~- _____ (\\~/<::: ~://----:~f-- o:J (f) Ct: i ! N 9 ~ a u ~z G~ ~Z~ ~1b ~ o '" ~ ~~ ",w I- Q,g: '" =>", => 0 '" wu ~ ~ffi ::! ~~ :3 :::l~ 'h <w ~5 ~~ Zcr <~ ~ ~8 ~ci ::!~ ~g ~5 lIlw ~V1 ~~ ~j ~2 w <D ~ o Z >- < '" ~ <r ~ CL:ili 8; ~j!: ~<r ~ ~'i! x51 wI " ~ z g +! I I t \ 1111.t.00 \ vi o1d~ --'''' Zw :2Q;" -=> ~~ :5 ~~ ~o ~~ ~~ zU WI "'~ 5;0 "'~ w f5~ OlD tn~ Bti ~~ f3i 58 ..; .. 180 0 "to ~ \ "'\"" \ \ us LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1E Lot 2, Ruppert Hills, Iowa City, Iowa, as recorded in Book 46, at Page 47, in the Johnson County Recorder's Office. Said Lot 2 contains 3.38 acres, and is sub ject to easements and restrictions of record. ~ ~ o 10 25 50 75 100 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1" =100' "'~ 'v ~"?- ,0 ~ -J"v ~"?- CC2 ~~ ~~ ,,?-'S ~ ~. ~~ ",<<; C, RS8 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ;.... Ol N co N PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ~ ,,?-q 0<0 q c,. fV o ~"l' c5 ~~ 0: <Q (Tt w 0, 90, 4' 1Il1"'1 ex N piii -...J 0-1 10 ZZ CC2 co ClCl V!. CC2 "\ ~"?- ~ y v"l' ' ~ ~ 4,70' '49"W 228.40' 582-52 N8S'29'S6"W 3.32.60' STATE HIGHWAY 11 ~ ~ CI1 Designed by: %ole: CMS 1"=100' Drown by: Dote. lis 09-13-06 c.hec.ked by: ProJec.t No. CMS IC 7539001 SITE EXHIBIT FIRST AMERICAN BANK IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. I Dote IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52404 (319) 841-5188 www.mmsconsultants.net I Revision ~.\"7<;nn\"7<;-.;ann'\7"'-.;cnn7V' nw~ o/,-.;/?nn", .,."'Ij7...." PU rC:T STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern Item: EXC06-00023 Date: November 16,2006 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc. 4201 River Center Ct. NE Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Phone: (319)560-3944 Contact Person: Tim Lynch PO Box 263 Delhi, IA 52223 Phone: (319)337-4195 Requested Action: Special Exception to locate a cell phone tower in a neighborhood commercial zone location: 755 Mormon Trek Blvd Iowa City, IA 52246 Size: 1.25 acres Existing land Use and Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Surrounding land Use and Zoning: North: Low Density Multi-Family (RM-12) South: Planned Development Overlay I High Density Single-Family (OPD/RS-12) East: Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) West: Low Density Multi-Family (RM-12) 14-4B-3A, (General Criteria) 14-4B-4E-5 (Specific Criteria for Communication Transmission Facilities in Commercial Zones) Applicable Zoning Code Sections: File Date: Neighborhood Commercial Center September 14th, 2006 Comprehensive Plan: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, USCOC of Greater Iowa, is requesting a special exception to locate a cell phone tower in the CN-1 zone at 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard. The subject property is the site of Walden Square, a neighborhood commercial center established in the 1993 and home to a number of services including banking, eating and drinking, grocery shopping, and entertainment. The applicant proposes to house the cell phone tower within a structural addition to one of the commercial buildings. The addition would be designed as a clock tower and would also house an 2 existing lift for disabled persons. 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 specific criteria included for Section 14-4B-4E-5 (p. 200, attached) pertaining to communication transmission facilities in a commercial zone and the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A (page 171). The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below. b(1). If the proposed tower will be located in an ID-C Zone that is intended for a future Neighborhood Commercial Zone according to the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, then it must comply with any specific standards listed below for CN-1 Zones. Not applicable. The proposed location is within a CN-1 zone. b(2). The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area. The applicant must document attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, or industrial properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower. The area to be served by the proposed tower is located in a valley. The applicant has indicated that it is difficult to provide service to the area because the surrounding ridges block the signals. The applicant has provided a coverage map showing the level of transmission currently provided within the coverage area and the change in those services with the proposed tower. (Note: On the coverage map, the yellow reflects a coverage signal that is generally strong enough to allow a wireless phone call while riding in a vehicle. The green reflects a coverage signal that is generally strong enough to allow a wireless phone call while located in a building in a suburban area. The applicant has indicated that the interference caused by the building and surrounding structures is the reason that a stronger signal is needed.) The applicant has indicated that no existing towers or industrial properties are located in this area and, according to the applicant, none of the commercial structures are tall enough to mount an antenna that would provide service to the entire area. The applicant has indicated that it is necessary for the tower to be approximately 56 feet high in order to provide service to the general area. b(3). The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. Examples of camouflage design include towers camouflaged as flag poles, monuments, steeples, or the integration of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water towers, etc. Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in with the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower structures must be of similar height and appearance as other such poles. The applicant is proposing to construct a clock tower that will contain the communication equipment. The clock tower will be an addition to the side of one of the commercial buildings 3 and will house the antenna as well as an existing handicap lift on the south side of the building. A functional clock will face to the east over the commercial center. The applicant has not indicated how to address the blank sides of the tower. The applicant has provided a visual concept plan for the clock tower and proposes an open archway entrance at the front and back (east and west) sides of the tower. This will maintain access to the sidewalk that connects the Walden Square commercial center to the adjacent residential neighborhood to the west. The open passage will also maintain access to the handicap lift and should have no negative affect on the safety or operation of the lift. Staff has some concerns about the design of the proposed tower. First, while the proposed design includes a passageway for the pedestrian access to the residential property to the west of the building, the passageway is enclosed in a way that makes it unsafe. Staff recommends maintaining an open structured access on the first level. Second, the proposed 56-foot tower is considerably taller than the 35-foot building to which it will be attached. The tower should be designed in a way that will minimize that height difference and will complement the surrounding architecture. Staff is concerned that the current the blank fayade of the second and third levels increase the visual mass and height of the tower and do not relate to the commercial building to which it is attached. Staff recommends using of some architectural detail and/or variation in materials to break the tower into distinct sections that reflect the adjacent two-story building and providing a roof design with some overhang to match the adjacent roofline. Since the tower will have a clock only on its eastern face, staff recommends addressing the blank sides of the tower through the use of false window, louvers, or some other architectural feature. Staff has provided a sketch of a tower design that would address all of these issues. b(4). The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide the service intended. In the CN-1 zone, communications towers must comply with the same height standards that would apply to the type of structure to which they are attached. It must be designed to be similar height and appearance to other similar or typical structures. If the tower is camouflaged as a chimney or other similar rooftop structure, the Board may exempt it from the base zone height standards if it is designed as if it were an integral part of the building and is not out of scale or proportion to other similar rooftop structures. The applicant has indicated that the desired tower height proposed by their engineer is 60 feet. The applicant is proposing to mount their antenna at 50 and that 56 feet is the lowest the structure can be to provide adequate service to a sufficient area. According to the applicant a chimney structure was proposed to the property owner, however the owner preferred the clock tower type structure. Staff feels that given the height necessary to provide service, a clock tower is aesthetically preferable. b(5). The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-RM Zone. The proposed tower would be approximately 56 feet in height. The communications tower would be set back well beyond this distance from the nearest residential zone to the west. b(6). Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in an equipment shed or building, which must be adequately screened from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent residential or commercial property. All equipment associated with the communications facility will be housed in a garage, which will be added to a strip of existing garages behind the building and will be identical to those buildings. The applicant has proposed a clock tower with a passageway to allow pedestrians to 4 pass through via the existing sidewalks. b(7). The proposed tower will not utilize a back-up generator as a principal power source. Back-up generators may only be used in the event of a power outage. The applicant will comply with this standard and has proposed a back up generator only. b(8). In the CN-1 and CQ-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. The applicant has indicated that no strobe lighting will be used. b(9). The proposed tower may be designed and constructed to accommodate up to two additional users, provided this additional capacity does not prevent the applicant from adequately screening or camouflaging the use While the tower can accommodate additional users, the applicant has indicated that additional users of the tower would have limited service area coverage due to the proposed height of the structure. The tower will have two to three antennae mounted at a height of 50 feet. Additional users can be added depending on frequency and desired service area. Users with frequencies similar to the USCOC frequency, must mount their antennae a greater distance from the applicant's to minimize signal overlap. In this case, additional users would only be able to mount their antennae below 50 feet, which would create a smaller service area. b(10.) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower or the owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of use. The applicant indicates that this is possible but notes that since this new structure is intended to be an integral part of the original building, it would not be prudent to do so. In Staff's opinion, this is correct in that the clock tower and garage should remain; however, equipment pertaining to the functioning of the communications facilities within the clock tower and storage garage would need to be removed. General Criteria for Grantina Special Exceptions: 14-4B-3 (page 171) provides the general criteria which must be met before the Board may grant any special exception. The applicant bears the burden of proof. The general criteria are: The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. The proposed exception meets the specific criteria, which was established to allow such communications facilities while still maintaining a safe and healthy environment. Additionally, the tower will provide needed improved cellular service to the area. The Code requires (14-2C-7H, p. 70) that pedestrian access is provided to all adjacent residential areas via connected sidewalks. Staff recommended that the passageway under the tower be an open structure to improve perceived and actual safety. The 'applicant will maintain the sidewalk around the garage that houses the additional cell equipment at the rear of the property. The proposed addition 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. 5 The proposed tower will increase the level of cellular service for residents of the area thereby improving the use and enjoyment of the surrounding property. In Staff's opinion, an appropriately designed structure will not impair or diminish surrounding property values. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impeded the normal and orderly development and improvement for the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. The surrounding property is developed generally as low density multi-family. In Staff's opinion, this addition will not impede future improvements to these facilities, nor any redevelopment of the commercial center. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Additional electricity and phone utilities are required and will be provided by the applicant. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion. Walden Square has two vehicular access points: one from Mormon Trek to the east, and one off of Westwinds Drive to the south. The tower will not increase traffic to the site, therefore congestion is not an issue. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The proposed exception is for approval of a cellular tower. Development of this structure must meet all other requirement of the City Code. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. The proposed structure will not detract from the neighborhood commercial center at this location contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that EXC06-00023, a special exception requested by U.S.C.O.C. to erect a communications tower in a CN-1 zone, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Maintaining continuous pedestrian sidewalk access to Walden Square from the west and ramp access to the handicap lift. 2. The applicant must provide a contractual agreement to insure maintenance of the clock and tower including a provision for such maintenance if the applicant, U.S.C.O.C., discontinues the use. 3. Staff approval of the tower design in general compliance with the design submitted by staff. 4. The applicant must agree to remove all equipment from the tower and garage if the applicant's use of the site is discontinued. 6 ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Photos of the site 2. Location Map 3. Application Materials 4. Correspondence Approved by: r--t... /. ~~. Karin Franklin, ~ Department of Planning and Community Development 7 View of the clock tower location looking west from Walden Square. The shaft for handicap lift is visible on the outside of the main building, adjacent to the sidewalk. \l!~" ~~I 4 '. ,. r J~ """'I ~ ~,~~!t ':~~, View of the clock tower location looking east from behind Walden Square. The ramp to handicap lift is visible on the left side of the picture. 8 "l! View looking east along the sidewalk access to Walden Square. View of the garages behind Walden Square. The applicant is proposing to build an additional garage, identical to the existing garages visible in this picture, in order to house equipment associated with the tower. StAFf P~~ED A'- Te ~ NA,,'VE frontview "-' ,,'~_- ".;,;~:, }'.:;r ,rearview Possible Alternative for the Cell Tower (f'J ~ ~ t"l1 ~ o (J >- ~ ~ o z . . ) ~~ , li) ~;s~ o ~ In OSr---t- ---- . -c .....L ;:u o CD fTI ;:u -i Ul oJ, \ ~~'. ~ ) \~, ~ .:t7 ~ \~ l: 10 IZ I.....L MORMON TREK BLVD m >< o o m I o o o I\) (J.) r-/ ~~" ~/ ~i /C ::: /1 ) 01 il/ 0.:0/ / 0;,-tO'l ~ '\ :;/ .-/ - .-/ [JJJ o ;0 oQ~ a CD :::::::: '1 CD 0 ::>\::>\~ ~s -C ') ::::::: .....L ::>\ a Q ~ I\:::) ~ I~ ~ Q ~ ~ Tim Lynch P.o. Box 263 Delhi, IA 52223 (319) 551-3090 Email: othytiml@yahoo.com October 18,2006 Sarah Walz Planning & Community Development City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Sara: Enclosed with this letter is a hard copy of the photo simulation that I emailed to you this afternoon. If you need any additional information or have any additional thoughts, please let me know. Thank you. Sincerely, t:s Tim Lynch 4~il ~''\ ( l, t ,~3Ji, v ~;'^ ~ ~ _~;1 tl 1;" -- \1 " L ! / I \ ' Y , 1 Ii f t / I , 'r if / Yi :;;)\ f:~& ,-~';>" J,' ~, ~ IL..... . , I , .~ ' , , I ' . f: . , . r ' I f J I .~ ~ :I 11ft :J t . --. .~ ~~ ~ ...-:-.::;::;;-::::; ~ :--- .-- . a E)(CClXp .- fl)flXZ);).,3 APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROPERTY PARCEL No...LQJ'7 d..~5 00 ( MorWto/t.lr( Ie (!,\-;J PROPERTY LOT SIZE: I, 1. 5 ~ (r-L c; DATE: ~ II <f ( 047 PROPERTY ADDRESS: --,55 PROPERTY ZONE: CN~ I APPLICANT: Name: OSCOL () F (rr uJ/:< r::oltJ~ f../I c . I Address: '-(101 f(IIlH (,,,TaCt. Nt) G{(IId fU.y:Js} fA n'-f ;z., Phone: h 14 ) 5 6D ~ ~ q L(lf ,-' L('I C ~ S? CONTACT PERSON: Name: ll~'" (if other than applicant) ::: , rD, (Sell<- ;lob] D~\~; 'If! -::: Address: 5 1. "la, 3 <" j ;" '--~ (sI1\ ,,'< , Phone: ~ ) 55/./5090 .:<~ ."....._\ , --.-"~ e, , --;> Name: WAl!til\. $1-y(!,'r(/ hwsr~,y..t<, ; LL ~, PROPERTY OWNER: )> (if other than applicant) Address: 155 MO<Mfftlt ifJc E\vJ LVI" c:t.-, 1-A 51. '-( I . ,7 Phone: (3 I Cf) 3?- 7 - L{ i q 5 Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: iL{-YB-Lff-5 . Purpose for special exception: T~ Co",s+-rvc+ an) OfLJc,f-e. t{ COWlM VIlICGfl/rVl S f(aJ15Wl/~5IJl--'\ {;c:l:+t; ,.1 fA. c.oW1M.;1I'c-\~1 {AlV\v_ . Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: -",'( I I .J,::"' I ,------, ',,-,_~I' f'-) CO) o b i -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. Leaal description of property (attach separate sheet if necessary): $z.e. S" ile ?\qVl B. *Plot olan 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 information, 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 1448-4 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. S~ ~ -\t "' C ~W\J..;ct- ...- ""Tl r:5 ---1 ". "J""') (::) o -3- D. General Approval 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 specific 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. SVl.-- A#",(,~~ 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. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property.fQr uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. :~; t~;'''. -'.'1 -~"".1 ............~...i r-v o o 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. -4- 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. 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).] 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C) t'f) ....- f'0 )> c:::>> -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 5~ Y1+t", cl ~+, ADDRESS r -ry rJ r'0 a -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-2C-4, 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. l' II "L. 2D () b I US coe of Great,.-- row~ 1::"\<-. ) Date: 12' Si Date: ~ ;''1 ( 20 O~ 1_ c Si na u (s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) ppdadmin\application-boase.doc ..j:"" -;-1 s:; f)? a C. Responses to Specific Approval Criteria The requested special exception meets the specific approval criteria set forth within the zoning code. Section 14-4B-4E-5 provides for communication transmission facilities in commercial zones. Subsection (b) allows communications towers by special exception in CN-l zones when the following relevant criteria are met: Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(2) requires that the proposed tower serve an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area. Response: The goal of this tower is to provide improved wireless phone coverage to an area that is approximately bordered by Melrose A venue on the north, Walden Road on the south and is generally centered on Mormon Trek Boulevard. The neighborhood described above sits in a valley that is surrounded by ridges. The ridges prevent the wireless signals from the surrounding towers from reaching into the valley. So, the only way to provide reliable service to the homes and businesses in the valley is to locate a site within the valley or on one of the ridges looking into the valley. Unfortunately, there are no existing towers or industrial properties located in the area of need. And the commercial buildings in the area are not, by themselves, of sufficient height to mount the antennas directly to the buildings. We, therefore, have proposed a rooftop extension that will allow improved coverage within the neighborhood with minimal visual impact to the surrounding area. Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(3) requires that the proposed tower is constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. In the case of rooftop towers, it requires that the tower use materials similar to or that blend in with the structure to which it is attached. Response: The proposed addition is designed as an extension of an existing handicap lift on the south end of the building. The extension is further being incorporated into the building by the addition of a clock so that the extension serves as a clock tower. The antennas will be housed within the clock tower and will not be visible. The materials used for the addition will look similar to the existing building so that the additioif)lends in with the existing building. -:' ,."" -~ f --:j r".""i ...., Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(4) requires that the proposed tower is no taller=~ ~- necessary to provide the service intended. The subsection further states that if thcftp,wer -n .fl is camouflaged as a rooftop structure, it may be exempted from the base zone he1]ht;: :..: _j standard if it is designed as if it is an integral part of the building and is not out QfSCci1e dr"? proportion to other similar rooftop structures. ..J.-'" ae Response: The proposed rooftop addition will have a maximum height of approximately 56 feet. The rooftop addition allows for the attachment of antennas within the addition at a centerline of approximately 50 feet. The height is lower than the optimal height for the antennas but it is tall enough to clear most obstructions and will greatly improve the wireless coverage within the valley. However, if the antennas are lowered any further, the performance would be substantially diminished due to the interference caused by obstructions such as buildings, trees and terrain. Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(5) requires that the proposed tower is set back the height of the tower from any residential zone. Response: Because this is a rooftop addition to an existing building, it is unclear if this requirement is applicable. But, in any case, the proposed rooftop addition meets this requirement. The proposed rooftop addition has a maximum height of approximately 56 feet. The closest residential property line (RM-12) is approximately 129 feet. Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(6) requires that any equipment associated with the tower will be enclosed in an equipment shed or building, which must be adequately screened from view of the public right of way and any adjacent residential or commercial property . Response: The equipment will be housed in an addition that will be added to the south end of the existing line of garages that sit behind the existing strip center. The addition will be built to match the existing stalls. As such, it does not seem that any additional screening, beyond the design of the addition to match the existing garage stalls, will be necessary . Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(7) requires that the proposed tower will not utilize a back-up generator as a principal power source. Response: The approval criteria will be satisfied. The tower will not use a generator as a principal power source. Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(8) prohibits strobe lighting. Response: The approval criteria will be satisfied. The tower will not use strobe lighting. Criteria: Section 14-4B-4E-5(b)(9) requires that the tower is designed and constructed to accommodate up to 2 additional users, provided that the additional capacity does not prevent the applicant from adequately camouflaging the use. Response: It is possible to accommodate additional users within the tower but due to the compromises made to camouflage the tower structure (such as building a shorter tower than is otherwise optimal), the ability to accommodate additional users will be limited. Criteria: Secti~n 14-4B:4E-5(b)(1O) requires that i~~e of the tower i.s disc~n~.u ueeld, t~ tower and asSOCIated equipment must be removed Within one year of dlscontm~ of en use. :'=_:;: -'-~ t;; ~' ,.---., --il \ I + i-Tl N o Response: Removal of the tower and associated equipment is certainly possible but in light of the fact that the tower will become an integral part of the building that will also serve as a clock tower and the equipment room will be an addition to the garage that will match the garage, it may not make sense to remove these improvements when their use as a tower and equipment room are discontinued. D. Responses to General Approval Criteria 1. The proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. In fact, the addition of the rooftop tower will benefit the safety and general welfare of the surrounding community by providing improved wireless coverage in the area and providing for more reliable service in the event that there is a need to make emergency calls from the area. 2. The proposed exception will not be injurious to the use of other property in the immediate vicinity. When completed, the improvements will look like a clock tower on the south end of the building and the addition of a garage stall to the row of garages behind the building. None of the improvements will be out of character for the neighborhood. Likewise, because the improvements fit in with the character of the neighborhood, there will be no impact on the property values in the neighborhood. 3. The rooftop addition and additional garage stall will have no impact on the development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The proposed rooftop addition will fit in with and become part of the character of the neighborhood. 4. Adequate facilities will be provided. The facilities will require electricity and phone service. No new access roads or sewers will be necessary. 5. The existing ingress and egress will be used. Little additional traffic will be generated. Once construction is complete, traffic to the site will largely be limited to a technician visiting the site a few times a month. 6. The exception will satisfy all applicable regulations and standards. 7. The proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City. The comprehensive plan contemplates communications transmission facilities such as this proposal, particularly where, as here, the facility is designed to fit the character of the neighborhood as part of an existing building. -ll ..&:- """,>- ';-1 ' , ,--,\ ~;~ .....> j> N .. Q z c: "'CJm- 0 en _. )( 0 < 0 D 0 o -. ~ CD 3 !!. _tlJm - C" C CII -. 0 CD ii' _. ::s CC CC -- .., . < rn ::s ~ N ... (lC) v om N CD II c:: ::r 0" m 3C o::s v n (lC) c mea ::s N CII CII 5' ar Q. a- v m - > CD II &>> .. CD 3 ::s CD .., . ::s S' (Q (lC) CC ea Q. - m ::I" 3 G~HJV.JlV S3-l dO\) ~ 0'" UJ ~ ~S z c: "'0"'0- _. ... 0 0 en 0 0 oo:E < n CD - "C S>> 3 !!. ~~O CT C- CD Dr . < v en CCCD~ "'" co :Sa. ~ "'" ~ CD II c: !!. 3C om :r CT v n- co c: o ~ ~ fA fA m(Q ~ CD a. a- )> - S- v CD I>> ... CD II 3 ~ CD CD . :s "'" CQ CC S. co a. - (Q OJ ::T 3 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Johnathan Gajdos [j@gajdos.com] Friday, November 03, 2006 1 :34 PM Sarah Walz Statement to Board of Adjustment re: Walden Square Communications Tower Special Exception Application To the Board of Adjustment: I am writing to you today in reference to the application for a special exception to construct a communications tower at Walden Square on Mormon Trek Boulevard. Both as a property-owner and as a resident there are some aspects of the application that concern me. Under section 14-4B-5B-2 of the Iowa City Zoning Code, "the applicant must document attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, or industrial properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower". I am unaware of such documentation having been provided. For example, the Christ the King Lutheran Church at 325 Mormon Trek Boulevard would seem to be in this half-mile radius and it would seem appropriate to investigate the use of that structure. Due to the ability to provide greater benefit to the citizens of the City of Iowa City and to reduce the need for the construction of future communications towers in the area, I am pleased that the proposed plans include space for one additional user, though, given the number of communications providers operating in our area, I would appreciate the provision of space for the two users allowed under 14-4b-5b-9. The number of special exception communication towers should be, in my opinion, kept as low as possible. I am concerned about the location of the proposed tower for two reasons: 1) The tower design shows the tower standing over the existing sidewalk. It is my hope that the Board will accept the staff's recommendations of ways to mitigate the impact of the structure on the use of the sidewalk. 2) The proposed tower would be extremely close to the existing Fareway building; this limited distance should be considered in the Board's approval process In summary, I believe that there are a number of factors which make this proposed communications tower less than ideal and I would ask that these factors be taken into account as the Board determines whether or not the "proposed exception will [...J be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare" (Zoning Code 14-4B-3A-1) and decides what, if any, modifications to the petitioner's proposal should be required. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Johnathan L. W. Gajdos 808 Westwinds Dr. #1 Iowa City, IA 52246 Phone (319)358-9780' E-mail j@gajdos.com 1 Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Johnathan Gajdos D@gajdos.com] Friday, November 03, 2006 1 :34 PM Sarah Walz Statement to Board of Adjustment re: Walden Square Communications Tower Special Exception Application To the Board of Adjustment: I am writing to you today in reference to the application for a special exception to construct a communications tower at Walden Square on Mormon Trek Boulevard. Both as a property-owner and as a resident there are some aspects of the application that concern me. Under section 14-4B-5B-2 of the Iowa City Zoning Code, "the applicant must document attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, or industrial properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower". I am unaware of such documentation having been provided. For example, the Christ the King Lutheran Church at 325 Mormon Trek Boulevard would seem to be in this half-mile radius and it would seem appropriate to investigate the use of that structure. Due to the ability to provide greater benefit to the citizens of the City of Iowa City and to reduce the need for the construction of future communications towers in the area, I am pleased that the proposed plans include space for one additional user, though, given the number of communications providers operating in our area, I would appreciate the provision of space for the two users allowed under 14-4b-5b-9. The number of special exception communication towers should be, in my opinion, kept as low as possible. I am concerned about the location of the proposed tower for two reasons: 1) The tower design shows the tower standing over the existing sidewalk. It is my hope that the Board will accept the staff's recommendations of ways to mitigate the impact of the structure on the use of the sidewalk. 2) The proposed tower would be extremely close to the existing Fareway building; this limited distance should be considered in the Board's approval process In summary, I believe that there are a number of factors which make this proposed communications tower less than ideal and I would ask that these factors be taken into account as the Board determines whether or not the "proposed exception will [...J be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare" (Zoning Code 14-4B-3A-1) and decides what, if any, modifications to the petitioner's proposal should be required. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Johnathan L. W. Gajdos 808 Westwinds Dr. #1 Iowa City, IA 52246 Phone (319)358-9780 E-mail j@gajdos.com 1 To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC06-00025 724 Dubuque St. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Property Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Applicable Code Requirements: File Date: 5T AFF REPORT Prepared by: Karen Howard Date: November 16,2006 Frantz Construction Co, Inc. 1119 Shirken Dr. Iowa City, Iowa 319-338-7923 Bill Frantz (same) Approval of a special exception to reduce the front yard from 13.5 feet to 0 feet along the Brown Street frontage. To allow construction of balconies along the Brown Street frontage. 724 N. Dubuque St. 80 feet x 100 feet; 8,000 square feet Fraternal Group Living; RM-44 North: South: East: West: multi-family; RM-44 multi-family; RM-44 single family residential; RS-8 fraternal group living; RM-44 High Density Multi-family Residential; 25+ dwelling units per acre Table 2B-2, Dimensional Requirements for MF Zones 14-2B-4B-3e(2), Setback Averaging 14-2B-4B-4, Building Features Permitted within the Required Setback Area; 14-2B-4B-5, Adjustments to Principal Building Setback Requirements 14-4B-3A, Approval Criteria for Special Exceptions October 11 , 2006 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Frantz Construction Co., Inc, has purchased the former Alpha Tau Omega fraternity at 724 N. Dubuque Street. The applicant intends to convert the former fraternity into three condominium units. To create some usable outdoor space for future residents, the applicant would like to construct balconies that extend approximately 5 feet from the north side of the existing building along the Brown Street frontage. According to the established setback requirements outlined in the Zoning Code (Table 2B-2 and 14-2B-4B-3e(2)), the building must be set back 13.5 feet from the front property line along Brown Street. The existing building is located 5.77 feet from the Brown Street lot line and, therefore, is already nonconforming with regard to the front setback requirement of 13.5 feet. The applicant is requesting a special exception to reduce the front setback from 13.5 feet to 0 feet. The Brown Street Right-of Way is 80 feet wide. If this special exception is granted, the building, including the balconies, will be located approximately 20 feet from the public sidewalk. ANAL YSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Chapter 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 Zoning Chapter to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board of Adjustment may grant relief from the requirements of the Zoning Chapter through a special exception if the action is considered to serve the public interest and is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Chapter. Specific Standard: 14-6Q-4B, Exceptions to Established Setbacks Paragraph 14-2B-4B-5 of the Zoning Code states that a special exception may be granted by the Board of Adjustment modifying yard requirements when the owner or lawful occupant of property demonstrates that the general special exception approval criteria set forth in Article 14-4B and the following specific approval criteria have been satisfied: 1) The situation is peculiar to the property in Question Paragraph 14-2B-4B-3e(2), Setback Averaging, states that "where at least 50% of the lots along a frontage are occupied by principal buildings that are located closer to the street than the required front setback, the front setback may be reduced to the average of the respective setbacks on the abutting lots. The required front setback in the RM-44 Zone is 20 feet. However, since all of the buildings along this block of Brown Street are located closer to the street than this required front setback, the setback for the subject building is subject to this averaging provision. Since the subject property is a corner lot, the setback is determined by averaging the existing setback of the dwelling on the abutting property to the east and the required setback in the RM-44 Zone, which is 20 feet. The dwelling on the abutting property is set back approximately 7 feet from the front property line, so setback averaging results in a required front setback of 13.5 feet for the subject property. The peculiar situation in this case is that even with this reduced setback, the building would still be required to be set back further from the street than the other buildings along the frontage. Because this building is located on a corner lot, it does not receive the full benefit of the setback 3 averaging that might otherwise result if it was located between the other buildings along this frontage. All of the other buildings along this frontage are located between zero and 7 feet from the Brown Street right-of-way. In fact, the existing structure is set back 5.77 feet from the property line, which is more in line with the other buildings along the frontage than what would result from setback averaging. In addition, these narrow setbacks are not visually apparent, because the Brown Street right-of- way is 80 feet wide, significantly wider than the current local street standard of 50 feet. So while the setbacks from front property lines are small, the existing buildings along this frontage are set back 24 to 31 feet from the edge of the street pavement, a generous amount of space to provide privacy to residents within the dwellings and ample space for pedestrians to comfortably walk along the public sidewalk. 2) There is practical difficultv in complvino with the setback reauirements The zoning code allows certain building features to extend into setbacks, including uncovered balconies. Covered balconies are required to comply with the setback standards (See 14-2B-4B- 4, Building Features Permitted within the Required Setback Area). The building currently contains a metal fire egress structure that, while functional, generally detracts from the appearance of the building. The applicant is proposing to replace this fire escape with balconies that are more consistent with the architecture and that will be wide enough to be usable by the residents of the new condominium units. The existing property contains very little parking. In order to provide a minimum amount of parking for the residents, the applicant is proposing to excavate the hillside along Brown Street and construct parking spaces within the basement of the existing building. The proposed first and second floor balconies would extend over and thus de-emphasize the new garage entrances. A setback reduction is required to allow these balconies. A balcony is also proposed for the third floor, replacing the existing fire egress structure. However, this balcony will be located on the roof of the building and will not extend beyond the wall of the existing building. While the applicant can convert the existing structure to condominiums without constructing balconies, staff finds that the proposed balconies serve several worthy goals: to replace an existing fire egress structure that detracts from the appearance of the building; to provide usable outdoor space for the residents; and to de-emphasize garage entrances that might otherwise be more visually apparent and detract from the Brown street frontage. The setback requirements present a practical difficulty to meeting these objectives, and as described below granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. 3) Grantino the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback reoulations The City's setback requirements are intended to: . Maintain light and air for the dwelling and provide separation and access for fire protection; . Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings; . Reflect the general building scale and placement of houses in the city's neighborhoods; . Promote a reasonable physical relationship between residences; and . Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. While the reducing setbacks to zero is a significant reduction and is typically not recommended, in this instance staff finds that the proposed setback reduction will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback requirements. Constructing balconies will not reduce the light and air to the residents 4 of the building, nor will it reduce fire access. With regard to privacy, it is true that constructing open air balconies will invite increased outdoor activity on the property. Staff would have a concern if the request was to reduce the setback to construct balconies for a fraternity, sorority or rooming house. Due to the communal nature of these types of uses, balconies might regularly invite considerable outdoor activity for larger groups of people. However, if the building is converted to three separate multi-family units, the residents of which do not share living quarters with each other, activity on each of these balconies is likely to be less intense. A second factor is that the single family property to the east is located at a higher elevation than the subject building and separated by mature trees and landscaping, so the balconies will not overhang this property or reduce the privacy of their yard. Given the wide right-of-way, the front edge of the balconies will be located approximately 20 feet from the public sidewalk along Brown Street and 80 feet from the property across Brown Street, a distance similar to what would result if the right-of-way width was 50 feet. Similarly, these balconies will have no effect on the privacy, air or light along Dubuque Street. In addition, given that the balconies will be located a considerable height above the public right-of-way, the privacy of the residents within the building will not be compromised by allowing this setback reduction. If conditions are imposed to limit the extent of this setback reduction, staff finds that the special exception will not detract from the general placement of buildings along Brown Street. It is already the case that all of the buildings along this street frontage are located closer to the street right-of-way than the required setback. Since the request for a setback reduction is to allow construction of open balconies, the placement of the main structure of the building will remain the same. In order to ensure that the main portion of the structure remains at the current setback, staff recommends that a special exception be granted to reduce the front setback to zero only for the first and second levels, where the balconies will be located, and a setback reduction from 13.5 feet to 5 feet be granted for the third level of the building and the lower garage level of the building to bring the existing structure into conformance with the code. Staff also recommends that the setback reduction be granted only for the length of the structure along Brown Street as proposed by the applicant. 4) Any potential neqative effects resultinq from the setback exception are mitiqated to the extent practical. One of the reasons that uncovered balconies are allowed to extend into required setbacks, while covered balconies and porches are not, is that over time, property owners may more easily enclose covered balconies or porches. Once these structures are enclosed, they in effect become part of the bulk of the building and result in a building that appears closer to the street and out of line with other buildings along the street. To prevent this from happening over time, staff suggests that a condition be placed on the special exception that the balconies may not be enclosed. In addition, as stated above, staff has a concern about reducing the setback to allow construction of balconies for a Group Living Use, such as a rooming house, fraternity or sorority, because of the potential for balconies for such uses becoming an attractive nuisance. Therefore, staff recommends that the setback reduction only be granted if the building is converted from a Group Living Use to a Multi-Family Use. 5) The subiect buildinq will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line. unless the side or rear property line abuts a public riqht-of-way or permanent open space. This standard is not applicable because the request is for a reduction of the front setback. 5 General Standards: 14-4B-3A, General Special Exception Approval Criteria The applicants' statements regarding each of the seven general standards are included within the attached application. Staff comments on these standards are set forth below and correspond to the standards as lettered in subsection 14-6W-2B of the City Code. 1. In staff's view, as long as the setback reduction is limited as stated above and meets all other code requirements, granting this special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare, because reducing the front setback in this case does not run counter to the purposes of the setback requirements as stated, in 3, above. 2. It is unlikely that the use of other properties in the immediate vicinity will be negatively affected by a conditional reduction of the front setback for the reasons stated in 3, above. The building including the proposed balconies will be located the same approximate distance from the sidewalk as are the other buildings along the street. Due to the wide right-of-way along Brown Street, the balconies will not overhang the sidewalk and if the conditions mentioned previously in this report are put into place will not reduce the privacy of surrounding properties. 3. Reducing the front setback will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the RM-44 zone. The proposed exception will not cause crowding on the lot such that surrounding property owners are prevented from developing or improving their property for uses permitted in this zone. The special exception will not prevent the building from being located in concert with the general placement of buildings along the Brown Street frontage. 4.& 5. The proposed setback reduction will not affect utilities, access, ingress or egress from the property. The applicant intends to modify the existing access point to allow new parking garages within the basement of the existing building. The proposed exception will allow construction of balconies that will overhang these ground level garages and reduce their visual impact on the streetscape. 6. The special exception is for a setback reduction along the Brown Street frontage. The applicant will be required to meet all other requirements of the City Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve EXC06-00025, a special exception to reduce the front setback along the Brown Street frontage of property located in the RM-44 zone at 724 N. Dubuque Street, according to the following conditions: . The setback reduction will only apply if the property is converted from a Group Living Use to a Multi-Family Use. To that end, this special exception will become effective upon issuance of a building permit to convert the building from a Group Living Use to a Multi- Family Use; . The front setback along Brown Street is reduced from 13.5 feet to 0 feet for the first and second levels of the building expressly for the purpose of constructing balconies in general conformance with the design proposed by the applicant; . The front setback along Brown Street is reduced from 13.5 feet to 5 feet for the third level of the building and for the lower garage level of the building; 6 . The front setback reductions are approved only for the length of the building along the Brown Street frontage as proposed by the applicant; and . A covenant is recorded with the property that the subject balconies may not be enclosed. Evidence of such recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Application with attachments ~~ Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development -....J I\) .J;:::. z o c 0- c .0 C CD (J) ~ (fJ ~ ~ m ~ o n > ~ ~ o z . . -c I\) m >< o o (j) I o o o I\) 01 LI N N .s.i............:...... '.' . DUBUQUE 5T . . "----.-------!-.." '. . . . Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ GllBERT'ST' '.' ....... ......... ..... ... ~ () I C :::D () I - . . . . .-' . .-- . . ----- . . . . .~.,---~;------=- E"KC.,CZ)(P - axtfD;)...5 APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION I DATE: October 6, 2006 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1010204005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 724 N. Dubuque St. PROPERTY ZONE: RM44 PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 80 X 10Q. APPLICANT: Name: Frantz Cons!-.rllrt ion ('(). . Tnr. Address: 1119 Shirken Dr. Iowa r. i !-. Y Phone: 319 338-7923 CONTACT PERSON: Name: Bill Frantz (if other than applicant) Address: 1119 Shirken Dr. Iowa City Phone: 319 338-7923 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Frantz Construction Co. , Inc. (if other than applicant) Address: 1119 Shirken Dr. Iowa City Phone: 319 338-7923 Specific Requested Special Exception; Applicable Section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: Purpose for special exception: to reduce the fr:ont set back to zero. 1'"'-.: Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: (~-'. '.... .,J- ; , ,"'--.... ~ ,1._ _ ..~: /-~, :.> f- a -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 hi the Zoning Code. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: A. Legal description of property (attach separate sheet if necessary): 2063-73-4 original Town of Iowa City N 100' Lot 4 BLK 73 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 8 112" 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. Specific Approval 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 information, 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. See attached sheet 1. This situation is peculiar to this property because of the comer lot location and lack of an adjoining property to be affected. 2. It is impossible to add a balcony that would offer owner enjoyment, architectural character and another means of egress without extending it 6' 8" to the property line. 3. Approval of this application would not have a negative affect on the purpose of the setback requirements. Privacy, light, air, access for fire fighting and the distance between buildings all would remain the same for the neighbor's enjoyment. 4. There are no negative effects. 5. The proposed addition is on the side of the structure which abuts a public right of way. (Brown Street) The property to the east of the subject property has an approximate front setback of 7' and the next property has a front setback of l' to 2' setback. I -3- D. General Approval 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 specific 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. The 6'8" projection of the balconies will not have a negative impact to the general nublic and is in the communities best interest to ~reserve the beaut~ful architecture which will"be enhanced by its compllmentary balcony design. 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. This approval will enhance the north elevation and be consistent with the Colonial design without any harmful impact on adjacent property owners. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will riot impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. This minor change will have no effect to neighboring properties. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. All are existing. -4- ! 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Ingress and egress will be substaniallt improved with only three residential units offered for sale compared to the 38 student that previously resided there. 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).] The applicant will comform to applicable codes, r~quiremenes,and regulations. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Yes -n "'-'J ._"':.,~ -rJ .........h,. -n ! '''-~'', \,J ..... ~ o -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 ADDRESS of T. r. 7?q T.; nn c;t- ??R Brown c;t- 222 Brown St. Phi Delta Theta Housing ~ssoc. Raymond ~ Shirley Hendrickson Alan ~ Barbara Smart JLZB LLC 21, Brown c;t- Phi Delta Theta Housing ~ssoc. of T.r. 7?q N Dllnlll11P C;t. Charmaine Linda Svoboda 707 N. Dubuque St. Successful Livinq Suoportive, HOllsing Progrr:lm 716 N Dllbuque St. H ~ E LLC 720 N. Dubuqlle St. 804 N DllnlHlllP st- Harry Hincl<:lev Eiqht Sixteen N. Dubuque St. Corp.- R1h N Dllnlll11P c::t- o .,.-- j; - --rl , . " - j L- a -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: /Il-// Date: ,20_ Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) If Different than Applicant(s) ppdadmin\application-boase.doc <:;:2 ~: .)~~'-" _..; --n -~ ::) =--j ( \J -:,,.- '") ~~-:: 5> - - C> [Q)lUJ ~ lUJ(Q) ILJJlE ~1J~ [E[E1J ~ ll' '" o. ll' ~ "'" ti;-z Rlg "'z ?co EXISTING 4' SIDEWALK PATIO ,rj,Dl ~~ 5gj ~tj ,VZ'J>L ,va', ,la'Ol .. "' co. ,Le, ,10'll ,6.'Ol r'1 IS Vl () ::l C z .... en >{ ...... Q in .... ~ > F ;-..., 00 'C "z 'tio r'1_ ~ '" N .... '" N .... "'"" x CD z Rlg "'z ?co Vl <5 r'1 ~ > !i< 19]J dQJ (g' ~ ~ WJ ={j dQJ lfiiiI lfiiiI ={j I;J 3:: ~~~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ I ; ~ 3:: ~1J1 15 .. en >< ~~ ~ ~co Ih~~ I I ("') - 0 l>Z CJ~ i o 8 Q:::: z en (') C I coo ~:;!oo 0- en z::;!oz (;)P>:-4 :J ~~_Q c: - g- --en ~ coo- !:j (') C ,!So=: --=:{i; nlnUl~~ ..... )> g m OJ 'f~oo 6l" !ll>m 0 z ~IJ1C a- ~~:!l w -~ Z - In '" ~ .. ~~ ::l Sl~!!l ..... ::;! en -t &l 0 !Po '" . I Z 0 -I OJ ("') ni ~ I ~ o~ [ .P: t ~ ~...J" .. 0<1 ~;:" ;c: S.l en if en [ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. r ,r "'~ ~ ~R . G:\Ol00\0108129TOP01.dwg 10/.31/2006 .3:49:40 PM CST IJ 1 , it II,; r I .~ f ~. ,,:" I't f\ \; f i' i " , , .~ II \1 / 1/ c_ I (-" <_.1 LLi _-i LL :: i; ~ -, ~ ..,...~ ,/'::e> ccQ LU -;.-) >-- ( ,~- .......* !.._-- ~ , :>_ \.__J !..._<( C) :;?~ 6 :It: 0-. I-- C~ C::l \."..=:> c=.:. f-""~ '~..1 I' :tZ .!() '0 .~,I!- A ~~ I --, IlL ~IV'l ';',1' '~;;.ji~"'(l ',II;t; :':I!P' (\:I~ ho :l;~ <: .\\ >} ,> ( ~ .. ,. ... .;", \ t ;~ "" :\. i ---~ I I i t~~~~~=[-":~H,J-r'11 !-.-'G<Jj!;1 ;ii:' .' -.'. _ :1,' ',::1' '~: ~. [;i ::,.',r'l :",',1",', :;j-T: :, ,__~=~~.i:.J!~:~ :: -~ :; \' , - - '-~tl. ":'I.;~..:.;~~~::i~l'}' ~i' - ,.-=--='U ii'- 3ll', -:,:'cUII fl :i.-~;',. 11 I -- * 1 'I llll ,.-,,-.....,... i'l' - ,-- -' ,,-.' -, ~- - II ! t. ii~I.~~ i L- ':! I f ::I:~! :. ~f,~~ I :,:'mll'~'=' ~~ - ! \.L~.- .-\ ~ ~~~ II rl iil i fd~~ _ ' 1 '\' -~1 I) ,'.: '. ','I' ' 'J - ' " '~ -1 I ! ;;,:t ~' ~ i i ;i, \ '..~\~ ,I ---==1 ';'Ii~,~j~, , : I "~' I ',\ i ;-, i i !'i-"r! I \:!~ "! ~-~~':~~ , .' =-;-~----, I I 'I,,-=-= i 1 ill j I ,,~:~ : :ll'~ __':__ ;":.., -',,: "I~i II ,;i =-_~ 'I <1 I' iil ~"~'~'\---'T'r"'i1~f :.k:::~...:L~:-=-__ ~:::..:::.- -........ -I t' 1:: ..~~ _~~<Ji"'\~l\ ::; \l ,!\~ :iu J\--~ ,---- ~--"-"I' I "\I~-~' . - iI. ' ._,d)"," ..." :,,:iE~~r.: -, ,~,~\ I i!:li ~----~~' ..~ :~; ::;,:-U~;f-,-.-,:! L1[' fd.:-__~z~-_- -'-. ~= I I I 11 ~_ -':=-=J '1- Ili i ; ,/f./;.'6. '," ~='~..~ ' , 'ljI.~_= - " 11: ;1 1 . d J P a----::::-:;I i :'1 rL ~" il: ; i ,~.o:.~,~ jll ',: ~ f 111'1'--'::::'_-- e 1I1I ~ ' "j, ~ /l 'i! \==~ ' ,i !'r-~-= ~ I:: j / / ,x 'II "= I "II' c=-~,' f' 'I, " .. cI Ii ~il d:---~~~" I' ~~l!;===- ~ - 111, ~ :1 1/ I //~ 'lit- 'fl I,'lli=,'~;"~,~l""\" 11',1." 11l,J ,-."ii T' ~ I: If-'~'o 'I f Ij: " 1/4 : ., I Ii';: ~ ::--.~! - - - 'I i;1 =:.:~::~. ,. \ il'l! ~ , it' 'i:~~" r,j iJ:I:~:;;- -::-'l -- -. -- I, :!l '-~:=-':;;: !. aH::.-::::.::;; i If1,..----.=m I '1c:-=-=--,-:~=-==j1lj I Ii'!' I I liW'.--rtl;.- rL~~--! -,.~~ I ~ ~--~--+~-=~_........2.lti-J--4J~1 I ' ~-'~~- : ~ I I _Lf'o' , . ; ~ j -.-'- :..-."",,-,J..: -. .{] r .":'-"11 ! ~I i . -I ;: ..___, _."r.-~=,,:..~,-_JI..!: N;:-, ", ~:-, ,. I ~:=~.-.j ": i ,: I ..;"j ,'! -.....~~-.......~."t-:".....- -...:.....-. ...... . . ".' ~.-......-....--~~,--~-.,...,. .--- . v-~~~ t , , :: 11 ii :1 :j " ,i I ~ ~ i! !: !: iI 11 'I n . ~ ~ ............ I " -/ }\ > II i I -O:J ~OJJ.:;rl(j.tS~jO:~ Z.1f,~~'f~j:1 :~(.q ~'. . '__.'___-. I- ~ y_"'__ w . w 0 S I Z ci . . . . ~ . ~; ". Z . < U </' I . . . 0' D.' I 0 r ~ I.;' Q . 0 I , ~~ " ~ . 0 vt~l)! ~,A1j:) 'iFiAC}; .:in {( J'l ':~,~ , '-....,-~.../ v____. ,,~.... ~:':'-';~-::-, :.-;::.'::..... .t't I:~, ,;;;:.:... ~..;~, ii if Yi 0.... \'. if r {I~ . .:JlIJ U \~~ ~:~ U u t~ ,. ::;:',. {::::r. i: 'I' ,j I; :, i, ~ ti d ~.I ~~Ll "r-,. ii, ,\~ il \"; t! \., ...1\,;.... .. ..":::~;'7 .' .+ '~l ;:Ci /t=:> W1"lJ 3.US SH;jI':'Sl)(:;'l '_.__.~rl - . ~l ~. :: --'j ~ ! l-,-:~__~Ig ~ B ~ I,i, .". ,,'I ,;t,~, ()' ' . ~ ,~ i ~'1 PI' ,I~' :r~ ~ ~ U j t ~ <: ; , ': I~ -1_ "J ~ ! J',-l, ~ J, ~" r,---'o 'Ij~ri ~ ;1 ~~~, ' I !'" I"~ ~~JI :,'-' I ~ '! ;:( , f -c~ 't;~~ ; '~I, \ 1, ~'I: jl",: ,-L-___----1.:-.J .; ~ ~ : . j':-,--,,-- " : 1 7":: -1 ~; I I . ~L 3'.~ __, ! ~I r'" I,': . ;'f': i :; ; : i ' ~-.-~-..---J . I ", ," I.,"I"~"~II ! ;,{ b ! Ii: ~O.i: . I" ; :1 . ,',,!h,~!'.' . . ,~< 'i1 i Ii r~' ~J v ,~~ ' , ,\'~ I I: J"" ',~,'-') --I i /' 'J ~11 I : ! ~... ." P~L. " r;-- I, " I,t'''~' F ,. ii ~~' ,c_'-"'y ,,; , }! Ii ~ [i- -.' i~ . tl l,',':,,' PI . .-:-!~ " I. I i" =-l:c::=:.- ,'~-~--:-:_:::~j ,. \1~,'jL:--"~' r0:._~:; :;'_..__ -~.-t i:~c: .~ IK''<:,. - . >; 1 ~ '~. <; ! ,. ':'~-"5:':"'::\\',~.::~,.j:,.,'.', ,;,~_."':" ~~!T \ \'- ~.. , ~~.::~ ~ . ._...~r~.~.. r;~r'-----:----~~c-'" '~ ~ . ., "". . - ~ :~.::-_-=-- . ~._~.;:;...--::..:..~~~_.:_~--~:~--=..:..:). -..--. iii J! }) I: :1 ::1 1):" fli " 11 II ~(- " I., :i ;.! f it i-[ ,\'- ~i ~ q ~,4 i i J 1 I: ,~) ,i .~ I~ ~ ii ~~.6. J !& .(1 '" ~,.- '.,j i --'{-- p I: I.: Ii .(\ !.I i,i Ii l: t. .; -il __7.-i .[J .~ j ,J , j .1 -r-- " "f. .:.) -:;:-:-:-::=.=,:-=-.-==-~; j. :~~ ,,1: \.1 "':"", t __ '~,'.' '.~ <t- ...., ..~ -.--.'ll Clao~;;_; Ll i; 'r '~ .., " .J I, .~1h '. (iH!J -""- ./ ~ ~ .~ ~, 1J-)!sc-. ~.--::-_,,~---: ----~ .-. '(~,\ \ ..; " ! :\ : i ~ ';'i~'! ! , , ! -i , , , --I l' ! r~ ~<:., 0,,\, ~~ ';)t 'J J.: '--"--J~; I- "l~ "l- <;?'S. '" .. \.,;, ~i o 5r) :r-; =-~ C) -:~ =1(-) ~r- - 'r: 05c:: ~' .1 ~. '" :;/; t " \ I I! V I .,,' !' <xih. .1,....... u:~~'~.: W~;j !::~ ~ \'f)ft ~ C) ;,.:-~ -;:: ~..:" , fl".' ~; "'(,, /'1 r-..;> C:-':l (:.=J c.... o <) -I II r- ill I I -, \.J -0 :::i: ~ a I f ~ (~'J Ur ~ "-------'. ---,-~ . ,J~mY'r------ ----------- ~f---.., ,-.,----~ ~-~_...:.--- ---- ----------~ -------.,-. f~ I " ::: I' I' I /' ~~ ',,- ' ',,- ' "- .'...., " -""... a ..::r- ,." ~ "":?'-. '/ .-:> ,"-, ;-yo L_' l.....:- -...:.- liJ a.... UJ __.1 >-:- _J i I ..~..... C - ( ) U_ >- '-.-'/ f- U <-( a () $: 'Q c:::> 0 = c---.J i t.4. --\"'- ~~" 1,f ;~f : ';t.: :l~!~ :t .~,~':\ ! },~ '. , ,. " p ...~,~.;_ Ii ~..:' ~.. ;, -,t,:,',':~,,JI, -- :t~, +. ~ " :I:~ it " i ~;. { - ~ ~'rs'C ~- -- - ~ --------- 1fj~~ h-- /" ': I'[~ ! ..J =-,=~-~_--- -~=~=~T~=-- I'-=::':'_-~~:=-==~~=[-~=-'----L==~ -"=:_.-~:~-=~=-=~ i i; I ' i I -,\-,,-----.- \ ~ ~' '. :} l!~ il~ II ::.'l :1)": tli~ r: i!..s-. l'fIl'C( .'-. ';} ~,I:~'\ :.\"';i~,'.' 'j. \ I: rli ~. :i c:. oj ' i.i~ !' ~ lltt H.K'J 11? h ~_ I: tit II"}" , .~ f.~i\ "."r. i~'(f\ ~. Z L 1- e_ ,------- - _u__ -..--..... '-;-( ~ if; , I ._nu ':" '__ .~-~~--'---1'r- ;',1 ~~ lj i'r , ; H ! I , I I! I ! I i ! , ~I: '.~' ).... -. ~ {~-- t __.'1, _"___1 - ~-' ---to. ~~: l~ ! -<0 .~:.~ ;. j :. ~ : F~; 1 t~i '( =- U..I Ll :['1:.:'" Ii') :i21 ;!. ill . II f.J . )1 '$'!j{; r- I .;1 i\:i tfft ,.:/ . -.Ii' -f'." ! I ft'. . "'II ~~ " . '~-!ll. D.. 'j' \): ~.,!~ \ ~;; ) ~f it' , H1i i; I~'" q, II ~.,~ i1 . r-, ,,_f r" - ,...._.~_..n__....-, .'" I ! I - ~_: ~~, /,' .. -- -----; ~ ~:\ci. '.. iJ ~f !":.'t.~ .~~ ".~ 'il.~ ?:'l.. .~:I ~~f 1 \ ~.~ -1" ~ - I]' 'i.' kl f, .'. ;.=. \,.;1 s.~.ft '-'- ---n ,!~ I i ll~k ~-","" ~ II ......~ ,.,,! I fJ f.t,.. ~'7? --~- ___~~_~_. _ -.."".:~:1 ,~ C> ..:r ~ './5: ceO ~u ..J >.:- ()!-- C') ?- -' =<.r L; '.-:::::; :> o :::c 0... l-- C) a ~ C~ (:..:,) ('." ; I J> ,.'J ==4 J~ ===-"'----'-1 _~! i i I I : ~ '.'.'0>. . . . " -. ',. ~ ~Cfj" -.~ i'O: r --'- , '/ \ i;.~ '. t t,:.....,i,.~.l~.~...<.:.~ *~.' f~, "' "i~ "--:'I 'n " , ",'......"}!t,, CC".nn ::",,' ~.~, :: .cc,,::.,.,::.~,,'~: I '~'=-';==.-'-.."'-'- . _..c..__.~ ..' ~ ,".:t. .. -- '-----,. ---'71-. .1 Iii" . i{; . " . ~~. i Ir - - -- -;: - ~ -, ~i i . : - '~'7-~." I I i--~- ---, --:.. I I ' i I I~j: .'''C..~..!. 'I . F."II II : ~:< f.~.:,:~.;:.!:.~.:' I II" ; ~: I 'I: r 'I 1.1,i: , ." ~ I ;1' I .. ~. '" l---id ~',~,,~;:tl(-?'~"! ! ", I \). .--.--...;-....-r-~..--...._~.._..I..H ~d~d c{-:; ; I' i .~' , . i '.IJ .~I;-':,>l, 'ii.'> ::. i 1'111 ".- . j . I . 1:.;'1 j"" "J .1. ',; _, ,~' ---i=;~-- tJ: I~ ~._-- ;-- - t41 ..g.~,~.:._';~-.(:.......~~?t-,. ~,f.!:~ / :111' i; ;: , '. "', '-. - ;J r-; ",1. I '1 ~~ ~:~if:) :' "";;1'" -..~ i:fj '1'1: > '~~ ,=Z" "'y,:" 11;, ~ IJ..:::l?~ J ~~~,@ ?€ L~.LI : !~! 0 i....l--:, - }. " \4,1- ~.. 1>.'- . ,. . l' I i trl>:; ~.~ ;~ :. 'I i, i. \ 1. ~ - ""- "tJ h.,..._ tIt : t.. ~ ~ I:.:.....;...~..' -, ',' Z fl.l ~ , : I' :'j~.-; '. ~- ;;g~? - t. {j. i,,^ - ~~1 . ~fHr-;:, ; II .;-', II i I j ~t UFri . f : /""11 ; ~.~ ! .. i ~tt j' J' I ! ~ ,,:'1 ,ri~ tF~3l i~ ';"-. :.'.~'~:>J '.LO"'"l- ----"1 ~~~ 'Ii _U:~;: ;: II ~.~:. ~, ~'1?;l l' ,I - ~ ,I ~ ! 1 ~ :i~~; \ , f ~ ~ J ~: ':,3 ,. -,....;: I i I .: . i" f":l~ - r--- _.::.: i .l~__ . __________.: ~-I'~-'~:,~=pl '[-..-:.:-----------.:-:.-0;--1 F;~:) I ^:..' '1'1 .... ~~ i ~~; ~5 :~,'f._.; ,I.. .t--..: -v ! 1 . i -~-p-r- n .. ~,t' f' bl i.1 ' '-2""-;j;,.~i <- /~";, 'I: I;'~_.;. ;~~- 0.~"x.}. I~ -.~ n ,;~I; , M ~i! ~,-~,- '" ,;~i';' I i I'i: .!\: li:\~ III ~ \(':~' ~=?'i~,," .;~,-', ..~~~~.. " ~l "~~~~\i !>, : :':i: ~.~< ! ..1 ,h >~3 I ~ 'iM~ : :,::11: G~. ! ,~.J'1--" t'.~. 11 t' I j' ~= ~.~"'~.~."~~,' ;.;.:~ '~1 ~-!, I -- :::ij 'f" t' c} T. . ::. " :! It' F-'-'-~ - !~~ ,1 ,.'- i'I .'>l\ I." ,-t . U/ . 1<..1 '-- I !-.J ':.. r..__~!L_~:~:__.________..J --'k:.~::--~~ '.. -: ~:~~j:=~-:~.1} j~-' l.___.....1 -------1-....----.-----....'.-.. -. I. ';'.:'1 :f I I i it I 1 I 1 1 ..___~_____~7.~\ , '. 't ~ 'l"';~ (l ;~io\1 ?(~,~~. .. ';-. ~.. F":.'-' ~~. ~ ;~': ~'- . --c,: I I "'- i r --- 1 ,: ,> \( (. ,~ r ~t" --r '-J .-~... - ,.-- _... .. ----~~.--,...-__"____ _".'-'-'.A. ~ ..;-- ;; 1 i: I. " " ;; J ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i; .~ .{ I I ": \,.' I ~ ;'7:~ .~"' %'~i~ -';-~" ~ t", ~t~ r~~ ~ l~.\~ ,::U ;\ }~, .f . i .1 :j : ~ 'I 1~, 11"~ I !-.. ;;~~ l:z;.. ;;l ~J c; (, :i~ '~ll~ .,-' r'l!~ 'S';' '?'l ,~~i-;11 ~M- ."~ ~ .t<<l' , ~l~.l~ s L. '9~ ~: I~ ~; ;'~ -'\";1 i f'~ H" ;\ V> J("'-" :t"'. 11'.~ 1- ,',J '0"1 .~w'., '... ~. -') ;:.; ~.. (~J ~:7.. f7'J ':.._, ~'~c. ;:0 ,,~ ',~ ..... ~-l (..-,: 1___) LLi -J LL .s 1-: ; ,:1 . '~, '" ili ! ~:) ;i ~ \.. ~~ ~ r( . ::1 >>:- ' ~.l \!\'..}~r -< -[.: o - iL r :\ ;i :1 :1 n 'I .! :1 i ,,.... 0:: ~ ',/ :S: i'r':-:C uJ~ _J >-' C) l- e '\ ~: ,:~ -.-- ~ (J< (5 \,~ :i ~, >,~ ;J,'0 S\,.. ,~ ~, ~ t" :. " i \ i . , r. i I~ L.J I ! ,- I i_ I ~, -C[ l- 1 .~ . ~Qil~ ~, 1: ,~.,~\ ~ ~j~~~~i r~liJ~-.~:~.'~~ " ~ l" ~ 'r ll,~'\:: I r ""'.'"" f r. L ' :'J. W. ~ { ! :: I r I 1'1 I ~ : Ll! ~ .. i I."" ~ I J '-1 I~'r-:=i-' i I i 1 I i iTL;.- !!l ~ i Ii '~I:.:;r..';.,~. .,\ ~. "'...1 F Ih~ tt~.~.:t : ! ~ :.' t': '., .~'- : I ,( t fJ t' 80' J ~ 2, :'.~ ~.-. .\ ..;..... . '."',_., ~1~ ~ 'd ;;I 2- .: !I ! "j~\~ I" I ,,1 · -); :1 . i 1t f H " 1"iH ~-1:-1i~:'~~-___J-~E::CL ~ : l h 1-- 1--1 Il~ ' ~;; r ,- fi- '0 ,~LJ ~: }Jf:0i~-C-T '; t2:\:~ :.~ ,q~hrl ~ ~'I' ~:~l!.l: :,.F': ~~'I -.' ill i t., " ~E~~ . ~l'..1 I' ~<1' ~ ," _ ~ " I, I . , .' ._ ~ ""':i' ~"'~M';i .:' ---' " ~~ i I I, ''--.J f: ; !'k ~ f:< -, \~dJ ~~ :~' , I t ~~I~~ :'~ ;~~~:~\ rj~ ~[ " '1 ~- iJ, ,ii n~ 10 ~ Dn~ ~~,.~\r ~\ I jfrT=r:~, "~ !~i II ~--TJ' iP;I.';: '"t,"" " ,y j . \ '. ., I f._ 'i I I<: ,__ !~"'.'. .f.OI. i!d1'!' ,:": -- w. - . ::---- ---L~2JC"....J.-,;:~~-=-~ -.:-'" . _1 ti~'~' , , lJ'-' . -( ~(.1 L r~.,..' _m~ --- - . I,:lj !~,.n ", : : l, .' 1- __ :_ 'c- _: . ; , / · ~ I .J.'......:.:..;...,---.-. . "~l }.' ~ ; ,', ,,,1- ;:~I '\ ~ ~r::;:~:.~,~~~~j~'.~~....~--,'-.... -"~'~.'T"" ;\ t ~T4 ' ;: ~ l.,.'_~2r.;_: 1:1 " ~ ~ d ..r ~ ; :! ! ~ ~ :(C ,.. '" ~,"" .s ') ;~I "~ : 'Ii ~,,\~.i:.~~ ~ ~ ,-1 'I ,;--f ", , ~'X\:i~':1_._\)_ ., ,II ~!;I~' _)"....,.'..:..1J, ~.~....".:".,1:.:. f,~! ~..:,' ~ {----' i(~7;~~.'.--.-~~~- '...?. i: " _ \ :: ' , .I,..~~.', h! ',-,=-,-=.d '''.I\.. ~~ . "I u. t''-.,/.,'tl-----'. "',-;-,,. . iJI, :.:~_.J I , ...' i ~ t' :t' - I...... =01. i.<i:.,'.".o ~.'_:"",~.,,.'-".~". . . 'j ~"' 1.=: . --- ~.t-_J \.;..;>_ _ ! ~'.. f.,,,,.... ;\ I,:',.',., ., ~_. d ::~/ Ie -Ji"" -{ II f;" ~. ,:~ -T . r: {e ,X ,I \i,' ,~ :.'.:~l. l'ti_-_'~_-'_._I.,I'.~.:.-,'j--J:~-----' :i'::J ''-''~,. -111ii'I.~! ._____t- ."--.----.,1' rl I !;~ .:~ ~i, I II! 'en' :Il-Ij I i., I,lL. ~.'.; L--_. ~~~ I I I ~, --~-.~_)i! "~ . L".,,>>t&:'';:'-~~;::F,:~.h-;2i:_,~ ,_---.J I .., ...;,.. --------- ~--:...J. ___.__ '--.--..!...----1 ~ ,---.--.-- ._--.-,---, . r-' ----.---..----..,~-- -j~--' -.- .'. t1.T'--:1 . .=l.r'}.l.'-~!~~~~:.--~~~.."[i-;;:::'::.:=thj. I =1'[ :l;~~ t l.~:~ '>~:. ~.).~'.~J-l- "..~ ~._ III ."\. ~ ..' '>" ""/ ",~.--..--,- '-I. . . -- ~ I I ! : W:./"f" !;~ , "- ,;,;lIT!, ~ ,..-- :::; It' I I 1- ,; ~! x:,~ ",- [Ii':. do ~ (: C" ". __ ~ III , .\f" ',," ~~, t.lj",l.. ., 1 JJ- ~ ~/: f- . i '~';\'-;:'~ l~; i i 1'11! i'L~_" ,I I , I jl I . , (', I,R! _u--'.. ,.'c! i '~ Ir-\' .("', I / !y--,. " \ ; " I]. [_~~~~~?I~~ffiJ:_..__I=:~~~~~.~"L~::~,lF~~~~~~___ ;1 :'; ,\ ~~ 'C~ L:~ 11];::::3c~:r E:;;:: "3,:'c "orl .1 ~ m j:: i -M :-- w a '-0 <.::::> = ,......: ~-'O ~~:~ ;-<,,- , >''0. '\ ~ . , :j . l 1 r:--- 'lr-"__~ ~ i ~ I ..~.;:. ~\ > ;. i ~i 10. '\ .... , , , (, #. ,'" ~) . ll~ " (<..~ ! r "'. I' , . , , .".....\ "', 'I 1'-. : \ II .\~L -+--,1 : " ...n'''il '! .01 i : ., J; i.~. . '.. ,1;1 ~t: t!\ ~. ~ I".' '--' LL N ir"\' ~." 0~) ii'\' '^" lIt- .-..... ~!:,. !lf~ tj-j) ;/l3 :;.Z :;,; ',:':' ~n ". i~:l..f ,..~~ ,',::,~ ~~~ C) t'" '~~~ ~ :t;;~f~t- /'=:, ?? Ii ii'l-t ~: :: ~'~~E(~.: .~: ~~f~ (~" ..() ~) <f i.-.~ ;:; :2~ iir" , ,h',;"'..il r::; :.., L: ~ t:- "..,1 !!~~ \. "(.:. ,,\-I .:1 ~~ ;~i-; ;; oJ! Ri r', 1-_) lJ_,' __J C> ..:t' ~ vS LrO W- ;--:1 .">.-> ,_-, J-- -, '. ('\ ~ ~) -'.:J- ()~ 6 .....-. --- a... 1- U o '-':l = ~:::::, C"--..: d'~(:': .\ -- ~ ~ \ ~.'<: 1- ~, ~\' '1'- 1:J :;: f "::f ~ '. t ~ ~ .~ \~ ~~ 5 :[.'b,-l'. ~ t"~ l/'\ 'H;; ,'> ~ ~ ~ -I' ~ ~ ~\,>;J r :~ ,~s: ~. :)' ~ ~ ,1 " ~ I ~ '~ \' I- r.{. t' ~~. ~:J~' :'.~~.' ~ \" ,. ..,."'" . -- 1._ I I " ". r' . i ~~T'~': L! " '0' ~~-::.~-.--:' y ~~ !11~ I,! r" i" ~J:,~=-+::'~:,~::::i,F~-~~--=--::'!! ",ii 1"'4 III ; I!i i r~H /:. I I:i I ~i~j I.i: I' " ! 'j r---~'~-L-" . ' r ":r;.={c- ;1 :i ~I;O ~!!~1 : I ,71 : I Iii , I I-~: I 1--'-------1 I I L, : "'I Ii :;; ! I" :7i4 ,)\1 i~~I~j~ f. tt- ~;, ,,-,--,~' ~~ iI'; '11,2 lit I j b' W bi 'ii,f i' ! Ii i " I '" f i__. rl I~ " ~ .,' I' ' ! j 1'1: ,',<> I," ----.: I f i' wd I ___ i., ----Ji \ i , I -~ IE",",':';" ' df; -.~,~T:' ,. -1_1;.1 ,,!-~l cLJ :~r rl ;1;;''-' '~2:'ccT ~ ~ ,i't { ,~ Fl ~ \' I ! ,<~ '1-:, n~ ;'.rr.1 .<{' . (IL. .~.r{li .". ' ;C!'C:'1....'.!~~.'~t.~~-;lll; ,_J,o",::.::::? 'i;,', ~~,.':~':t.,~ I ,+ ,,'~; I' ,j! ;., : ", " i: Ii';; __ ~ ' I, ','I"'~:' il' i "', I "d"'" 'I" ' i:,;<'/!IC:!"Ai~il l,f' n-:l i i I '(-~-y._,:,:,+~~',J_ ! rl i~~I' i :)--u 'rT ,. ,--UI,,: ~~,' ~ : l r r:-' :hIIL~ t'~' ~ I' ; ,~",: ' 1'.1 ' I; -, -: r:y-:--~ =:- ' ; ., "J ,i , - ,( ) 'I . - - ' ." .,,,' , I" '. I;l ~ \ 1, ~_' ,-~.,'~ _,:,:.,1_.1_' ~ft:' " ' :L5,. ' -, "" . ~_~~.,,;~ .~ I -:-~'= -::---------" l" J' il" 1 ~ " ;1--'-'" .2 , I . . . " ' ~.,;", j " i, ,', ,/. j. ~, ... _ i.'l' '" :'""-,,.,. 'i ,~}~ ~\ ,C" r >;t' ~ I 'n "i,~---i.'r~ :, : ,\~~ f-~, ~f", i' ~ ,; "(j' pI'" '\i,1 I'" II ,i.:.;I:i":.~......~',",,. I.:: ~.l;:----,-..::j ,i. ii I 1'( ;.: .', ,',-.:-' , ~'\f ::' I l ,',~ ,--- ,,' ' L, ,,',,,\ceJ Ii' ' i l' .' ' i+ ", "C' 'j,', "l< " ,'I, ,':~1,,~ . , ' :1 ' ,,' "",." , : L" i ! ,e'''' >!:': ,'," Iic.~) ~ i I ,- ~,~ ,8,., LL:=J L ;-L :i,~~"j! i I I~ "I ;1 ' ,I,J.,,~:lo'll: --, -I"'I~I--=~'(l_~~:,,'I,.,........JI' _~L>:,:",,:.:.::.,:~.jlJLI'fil .. :S' I';;~ f --;~ 1:,111 "'.___e" -'1; t21';~; "11"'1 f~ " '. I,:., \~, 'j i~' .' ,,-Ii! :-, r' h,"1 90, ~===;I, ! :. I .f>' ,If; I ;l~~' );, ~, f 'I, I /'--1 ,i ~ 5 I j " ,.,' ,,:,. .<::.: " . I,,, , ~ .' I' ,[i ~ I :; I' ~':C-:=,,,!= "., T-~':'c" '- ' :. ~"U -'~C::::,j~-=-'j' ' ~:H~J i -~- ...".. -.ft.-- r' . . :--..1 I I ' L-J_f -j CL '. ,. II . 11.._\ it ;f-':''"- f~ . il (1;'4 ~~ .110 71 '''~''r (.!) ~ !Il m .~, N\~ - -. ;\~f !:,_~llit: '''C' , ., ~',:"n f I~~.~~ S -, 1', 'i'" ,<J . ~Iii-, ;.J I!l~ Ij:..~ i! j-\'r ill:; Ilt:-:- , ;1 :! ;1 ii i! i! ;! F.. ;:'i') .j " :1 -..;", i"J1 ,; :j l'= ~.=-.~ Ij ~ .-~~ ~ ~~ ,~ J\ " ,~ ,,==> <::::> = ""-J a ..,--~ <:( ;::;; ~--..,. ,-,-0 LiJ- ;:--1 ;:>_' ,~) :-- ;-:, ':..~- \,,-~, .,.- Q: f- W a ~~. "':'1- \~::::;: .;::,. Q ; .~ ~.._-~--=---=---~ -~. -~'::--= '::~-:_:.--:'-'-.-_::':":'-,:,:- ...-_. I: r- l~;E-~:i! : I ".~~' t-. \ .., ..t;T I.; !:~ r----;;:--+ \~\"l~r' i!~ c,',~..; it;. -~l \f'.' ~ r~~' Hi I" r)t>:, . {,,;i~' f,:i~-' O':'~()-'~--~I;;i"", /,>:,,~,''i. ':~i,r ;p.. . ~!;r~ i ~ r i...-, ~.~'h-- : J:. ~~, I_!~'.;: ~1~ ;}'! ~l _{. ' ;;\": \ ['~\_L ['h/I': IF' :+?- --7/,.1.' ~fi ~!."J ,/~~/!: ,I":: "I.~ ..:.,' ;,.~ ~.~.: ;i I ~ti' !-> :1 ~:f._ !. '\ i ......) i ,,--......- !p~ ,:. i', " '1'"'" 1;':'''-, I,b : -'::'~ ~.;\~. . : ;1' I: , ;. !. 'i :1: ", ~::~ i ::." ~ j--~-- --- -,-"~t . -~:-- - " . - ''I, I :'" I_=--..l._.~ r'--, I ~.~ -T~'I r--- ---'11 I (~ ' ,,,, I ,'I i ~;:. ... ; i Ii f! ~~' UI~ ~ !]~~I!j ~,!:-I =_cL It: liiA I I: "Fj:;2 I' , f!'~=~==:1 f~;~' [----1'::::-.--."1 <-" 'I._..~l_, :.>', I'.,.':." .;, , 'I ~ ',_I < : :~)' :II_~, ~. ,t\~~ ' :,: '.;.:.' . L..-r--i=.="""",,,,=. -''11 .i ~ 1~'q:G-" i',i: I ill 11 , Ili_ - -J&i4~ (~~t17~ "=~c=,L~.cc=J~f ; ~ ~' i I . ~ .ffi'0 i~~' '1 ~ : G;-:'~J-- '\ iH }. I;; ~i';..II'" " :.~l \'i '._lu'v h-':~~ ._...~__l,\_/II _~ \ _I).' 7"'!1 '\'+,'" '- ._-- t' ,,' -of '~;.__ ..__. _-'. 1 ' , : 11:.1 ~. :. ! \1 ~.'. " :......:-: "~".! i.... ." ..' 'Ii ~ ".- -1 I ~ i.i...l,., -- 111 '\:~~i I 'I- ... ~.-c ~.t. "~~.11"-' '__' ~ i ~~~ ~ J' 1. ~tf--'-: ,:'!~ J=-J r--'l r :T: t~ i' ~ ; II n ) I I H1f:}rdA 'Ii 'j -- i I "1 il L'--~-1C'.":;-~"",,.7j-;~~:::[~r=L_,-,.~ 1<'1 _~, I..J ll!'i__~ '6 : .. -.. "'1 I....'.~ill.-r, ---1.1: . - .\1 , : , ~ :~~~-.' n::'''--.-4--.' . .::; i l-'I " ~ r- . _IL . .. -: H 'i ! ':':~'-;~:"'~'~;L t ' I ,.' '-.'----=' I' j , ; _-':"_J ~__.J :! :,. f i j~ f'::~-: I ; 1---------- , I ~, I.:."'......(.-.~).:....L .J ; ~l:i: -,~ ~.:..::c.;..,. I , . ,.^. If I!jl H~ id'r n~~; I~i : II 1~~. ; ;.~ t:;~ !AJ L!.I ,. ;..,;.... i....:.-.... 1 "'" '.,. . :'L- ',' ia, !'..l~--- --"'. I: i --'-,~~,,~'-::l i:.:,~ ~ Ii i ! .~ '," :1 'r~. '1 : ! ; i:~.!.,~ \'\ L~~:~! ' , i Ii "~-: . tJ i I I, L_;~i; j----\__ .-:'-..-'-:-:t i., ~ j }~~~L ..2:.=--==_L_-, ________.______._.__._1 1--.-C- '----- . ., ;;~~) "1 k::; i ""','" i I f ~ i: (i '- 'i ,'" .. <.,. " ,. i-.._' _!:=2.:~-="",_-'11 -- r-'-~:'" ..1. ~~ , " _r- , ~ ~I ,<~i~ j.., '....'; ,.:;.;. i " I~ ;.:.'!i .,"- ~'::'i. . -'''~ ) /~.~ ,. :~ :1 i: I' ,: II " ii \1 ~ ! ~ ! ~ R r: i:' '" ~. .'\. ii .. I [: :., ~~ -- City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: November 6,2006 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: APL06-00004, An appeal of a decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located at 923 Iowa Avenue. At it's September 28, 2006 meeting, the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) voted to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building at 923 Iowa Avenue. The original building at this site was severely damaged in the April 2006 tornado and subsequently demolished.1 The appellant, John Roffman, was proposing a new building to replace the original building on the site. Though the Commission denied the Certificate of Appropriateness citing the mass and scale of the proposed structure, the appellant believes that the denial was actually based on the density of the proposed building. The original building on this property had 9 one-bedroom units. The applicant was proposing a new apartment building with 6 three-bedroom unit apartments. The HPC design guidelines that apply to the proposal for 923 Iowa Avenue may be found in section 10.0 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook (beginning on page 38). I have provided a copy of the handbook for your reference. It should be noted that the proposed building meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, including the density of the underlying zone. It should also be noted that the Commission has no authority to regulate density-density is regulated exclusively through the Zoning Code. The only criteria cited in the denial were scale and mass; all other criteria for the building design met with approval. The Commission's (HPC) discussions regarding the proposed structure occurred over the course of two meetings, September 14 and September 28 (minutes and transcripts for both meetings are attached). At its September 14th meeting, the Commission discussed whether the neighborhood district guidelines (section 8.2 of the handbook) regarding specific size limitations for the front elevation would apply to the proposed building. The Commission voted to defer the application to its · I Section 7.0 (page 32) of the HPC guidelines state in order to demolish a principal building in a conservation or historic district, the property owner/applicant must secure a Certificate of Appropriateness t demolish. However, before the certificate to demolish is approved, the Commission must approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the building that will replace the one being demolished. In the aftermath 0 the April tornado, the Commission waived this requirement and approved demolition prior to the applicant submitting an application for a new building. November 7,2006 Page 2 September 28 meeting and requested a Zoning Interpretation Panel (ZIP) decision to determine whether those restrictions applied. The ZIP decision indicated that the specific limitations imposed under section 8.2 apply only to single family buildings and duplexes and not to the multi-family building under consideration. In the interim, the applicant revised his plans, and provided final sketches of a slightly smaller building at the September 28 meeting-the final sketches were never reviewed by staff. The final sketches are included for your review. The subject property is located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) Zone. A lot of this size in the RNS-20 zone is allowed up to 7 units, and each unit is allowed a maximum of 4 bedrooms. (This number may be limited by the amount of off- street parking that the owner is required to provide.) The property is also located within the College Hill Conservation District. As explained on page 4 of the handbook: "Conservation districts are neighborhoods that appear similar to historic districts in character. However, because they have fewer properties that retain a high degree of historic integrity or contribute to a distinct sense of time and place within the neighborhood, they do not qualify as historic districts based on State Code. Because they are still considered worthy of protection, City Council may designate these neighborhoods for historic conservation." The original building at 923 Iowa Avenue had at one time been a single-family home, however, in more recent years it had operated as a 9-unit, 9-bedroom apartment. Over the years, the original building (as it existed just prior to the tornado) had been adapted such that it was designated a non-contributing structure-a structure that is not considered an integral part of the historic context or character of the district. The final proposal submitted by the applicant at the September 28 meeting showed a building measuring 52 feet wide by 69 feet deep, with a roofline just under 28 feet. The original 3-story building being replaced had a footprint of 42 by 40 feet and a roofline of 38 feet and 10 inches. Two of the illustrations provided with the final proposal submitted by the applicant show the size of the original building as a dotted line. Two aerial illustrations show the layout and relative size of other buildings in the immediate vicinity. Along with the application for this appeal and the minutes and transcripts from both HPC meetings, I have included all of the documents reviewed by the Commission: · Site location maps (zoning and aerial views) . Application for the appeal · Staff memo for the September 28 HPC meeting · Application for Historic Review of 923 Iowa Avenue, including all final sketches . Correspondence from neighboring property owners I have also included new correspondence from Frank Gersh, a resident in the district, regarding the appeal. Once again, the authority of the HPC extends only to the overall compatibility of that design with the surrounding neighborhood and district as described in section 10.0 of the handbook. The issues of scale and mass require interpretation based on the facts November 7, 2006 Page 3 specific to the application under consideration. You, as the Board, must decide the following. 1. Were the criteria regarding scale and mass applied appropriately in this case? 2. As explained in the City Attorney's memo (attached), if you should decide that the Commission acted in error, you may overturn the decision or, by acting in the role of the Commission, you may render a new decision based on the facts presented in the attached documents or any additional testimony given at this meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo from the City Attorney 2. Location map 3. Application for appeal 4. Correspondence regarding the appeal 5. HPC Staff Report on 923 Iowa Ave, including Multi-family site standards 6. Memo to HPC regarding section 8.2 of the preservation manual 7. Aerial views of the subject property 8. Final HPC application materials for 923 Iowa Avenue including sketches 9. Correspondence regarding the HPC application 10. Minutes and transcripts of the Sept. 14 and Sept. 28 HPC meetings 11. Iowa City Historic Preservation Ha book Approved b . Kari Franklin, Director Department of Planning and Community Development City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Board of Adjustment Sarah E. Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney November 6, 2006 Appeal from Historic Preservation Commission's denial of application for Certificate of Appropriateness; 923 Iowa Avenue (John Roffman) The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the rules that govern your consideration of the above-referenced appeal. In deciding the appeal you must first determine: 1. Whether the Commission exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law and the Historic Preservation regulations of the City Code; and 2. Whether the Commission's action was patently arbitrary or capricious. You will receive a memo from Planning staff on the background of the appeal, the record produced by the Historic. Preservation Commission (HPC), and outlining the applicable guidelines that govern the HPC's decision. Element No. 1 above requires you to determine whether the Commission properly followed (used/relied on) the relevant guidelines (specifically, 10.1). Element No. 2 requires you to determine whether the Commission's decision to deny the application was patently arbitrary and capricious. A decision is "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it is made without regard to the law or the underlying facts of the case. Arora v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, 564 N.W. 2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1997). A decision is also "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it involves an "abuse of discretion". An "abuse of discretion" occurs when the action rests on grounds or reasons clearly untenable, unreasonable, or lacking rationality in light of the actors' authority. Dico, Inc. v. Iowa Emplovment Appeal Bd., 576 N.W.2d 352,355, (Iowa 1998). The above-stated "standard of review" is a narrow one. The Board is not entitled to simply substitute its judgment for that of the Commission. In other words, you may not reverse the Commission's decision merely because you disagree with it. Rather, if you find that the Commission exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law, and that its decision was not patently arbitrary or capricious then you must affirm the Commission's decision. If you find that the Commission did not exercise its powers and follow the guidelines established by law, abused its discretion or acted patently arbitrarily and capriciously you may, in conformity with the provisions of the Historic Preservation regulations, affirm (for a different reason), wholly or partly; reverse, wholly Of partly; Of, modify the decision of the Commission to deny the application. You may make such decision as ought to have been made, and to that end you will have the powers of the Commission. In other words, you will stand in the shoes of the Commission and are bound by all the guidelines and rules that govern the Commission's decisions on applications for certificates of appropriateness and may make a decision in accordance with those guidelines and rules. November 6, 2006 Page 2 With respect to your deliberations in connection with the above, it is essential that you read the entire record of the proceedings before the Commission and all information submitted to you as part of the public hearing process. You are required to decide the appeal within a "reasonable time." If, during Wednesday's meeting, you are in need of any additional information in order to make a decision, then you may defer your decision. The agenda is only intended to give notice that a motion to decide the appeal may be made. The substance of that motion is, of course, unknown at this point. If, on Wednesday night, you decide that you have all the information you need and no further time for deliberation is necessary you should close the public hearing and decide the appeal. The motion to decide the appeal will be in the form of a motion to affirm or reverse, wholly or partly, or modify the decision of the Commission concerning the application. Again, in making your decision, you step into the shoes of and have all the powers of the Historic Preservation Commission. The reasons for your decision must be clearly articulated. If you believe it necessary, the Board could divide its deliberations into two separate motions and votes. The first motion could be framed to answer the question of whether the Commission's action was pretextual, arbitrary or capricious. If the Commission's action is deemed arbitrary or capricious, a second motion could be framed to address the appropriate relief (i.e. reverse the Commission's decision in its entirety and issue a certificate of appropriateness for the building as proposed, or partly reverse the Commission's decision and issue a certificate of appropriateness with modifications to the proposed building design). Lastly, I note that the applicant has also asserted that the Commission's failure to file its Resolution of Denial within five (5) days under section 2.7 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook requires the Board of overturn the Commission's decision and issue the Certificate of Appropriateness. While section 2.7 does state that a Resolution of Denial will be filed with the City Clerk within five (5) days of the decision, the guideline does not provide that failure to meet this filing deadline automatically requires issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Rather, the guideline provides that an appeal must be filed within ten days of the filed denial. This provision essentially provides timing mechanisms for perfecting and appeal. Given that the applicant and his counsel were present when the Commission's decision was announced and given that the appeal was filed within the ten day timeframe, the applicant has not been prejudiced or suffered injury as a result of the Commission's failure to meet the five day timeframe and this failure should not automatically result in the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. If you have any questions, please contact me. cc: Sunil Terdalkar Karin Franklin Sarah Walz Bob Miklo Steve Atkins -.. VJ *~ _m s.u t""4 :J 0 o.n ~ > ., ~ ^~ -0 z . . :..:. ~....~',,:"~':"I~ / / Vr%./f ~'1V / / \ ~,. -- ,-.- . ....~..... .. L;L.~ 1/7/ / / / \ . ~. ......ll'...~..ca... . .' ......... V ~~W;: \ .... uT- ::'~ODG~\lNi:.< I~~(~/ / /~ -~~ ~ , . '. . . . . . . .' .' .... / /./"' '/ 1/1/ ~r j'" / / / / ~.... ::+L:I)77/~~/) ~~~~~- I~~I- ..::J%~~~ ~~~ .... ~ :,::':'''-:'>f:..~ijl~~'~//// v~I~~r/ //~; J r-~ ---- ~ tv ...........v{0Az'Q"l ///7/////0/// / .-. ~.:L~~,3>Y v// 0/ ~~ / ~/ v- i1 ~ PJ"It:~.~>> /. /:: ~/~~r/I/ / J c. S) ~::~.::;-'l~~~ ~l~~' · =- ~ ~ ::i=:;\']~2~~7 ~ u0~v~ ~ -1- = ':.GQVERMnc<" ./:/ / / / /. ..< /. / ./ / ~ .......... ........ .:'.. hjk~4Yj /~~//I/h~1 ::. /1/ ~/. // %// /7 / ~ 3.:*' ~;;lZ / /1/ //1;;;0' ~ to////7~~~ ;~~V}, Q ~/ /N~ / ~v / r/~ 7/kL;~ - U1 ::J //// / /1 A / / // //~ / /~ /~, = -4 --k< ~ " ~~I,~~~.~f:f~V:~:"ST - ~:-- ~:-:__-~~.& /',~~~- ~ //ZJ~::::::>::,\ ~-- - .' ~~-~-~--;I I/~' . .' r.o \., .' .' .' . .' ........ .. / . . .. ,.' '1' o' ............ \ - -- -, , . '. . '. . '. . / ~ ". ...... .' G'I-..... . . \ I 'C.:.... (~..~..>~~ V ~ ;....:.-:'J.A...': '. '-. ":":'r~'.l:":"":":"":":"":'-:" .:. ; J - '.I~=' - ... "-'''';-' /~7 1.----..... . .~. z' f ~""'--"-.:"-'-:-' ... '. ..;.:.....;,....... - - ........ . .......,......j................................ CLAPP ~ .~....., - - ........ '. .]'0 ............. ~ ~ ... ~.s..:..~ -- I............. ........\......l......~E. .~.. ..'-c'-~r~~'" r ....:. . '. I I'. . '. . '. . '. . 1. . '. . '. . '. . '. .' . r '1.. LI"- -.- / f- I~.~ - -.-..., 'j . . . .'. - - ~ '.~ ...... ......-:. . - - -i - --"II...... ..........................J.......I.~..~ '.. ..' ....;;... I . '. ". ._' '. .,' ,,:2:)> _.--J L -'-..__~____ :.. ~_.J. '. . '. . '. . '. . . . o . -.- "Y" r. . . J. . . . . . o ........... -~- I (..........................1................... -- ---~ o ' . . --\ ~- ~-- --I' . . . 1 . . . . o .... /./1~ z..................~.-::/~:<.. ----- ..j::=. .' ... . ,_ ~ ___~'_' __ . . '. .... .... / * ... .... . . . . .. . -<. ___~' _. __._ ::r:: '.. .. . ~- - - - 0 / / . / . 8 " , - ---- -~~ L. Lr- __ III "1 .. >-, ~~~ (J) ~. ~ ~~ \,1- J - r- {:JpL of,- QuOU L\. APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. APPEAL DATE: October 12. 2006 . PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1010416002 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 92] IowR Avenup, TOWR r.iry, TA PROPERTY ZONE: RNS- 20 jOCD PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 80 x 170 APPLICANT: Name: John Roffman Address: 1314 Burry Drive, IOVla City, IA Phone: (319) 631-1808 CONTACT PERSON: Name: John E. Beasley (if other than applicant) PO Box 2150, IOVla City, IA 52244-L Address: Phone: (319) 354-1104 PROPERTY OWNER: Name: John Roffman (if other than applicant) 1314 Burry Drive, IOVla City, IA Address: Phone: (319) 631-1808 , 50 C2 ....~, .,;:- '-.- ',,~ C," I'v '1_.,",~; c:> C'f) 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) Historic Preservation Cornn. on (date) 09-28-2006 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: Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook Section 10 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.) 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 erroneous interpretation of the Zoning Code). See attached Appeal which is incorporated by reference. f'""",,) .;;::-) "-- f_.- c:;:,;"'" ~~?: ( ~ y', ......-~.~-'_.- N :-t'-:~ \~~-__. , -.....,... '""-\"'\ ,.-) ::,:~:,-'::- ".. ..,0 /"'" -0 : ,: ~ r - o 6\ Remedy desired: Overturn the decision of the Historic Preservation Ccmnission denying John Roffman's request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 923 Iowa Avenue and require the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. ppdadmirl.app eal-boase.doc 2 APPEAL - 923 IOWA AVENUE On September 28, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) denied John Roffman's Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a proposed building at 923 Iowa Avenue. The claimed basis for the denial was the increase in the depth of the proposed building and resulting increase in mass of the sides of the building relative to the pre-existing building. It is Roffman's position that the HPC denial was arbitrary and capricious and was based on the increased occupancy of the proposed building. Back2round The pre-existing building at 923 Iowa Avenue was damaged beyond reasonable repair by a tornado on April 13, 2006. Mr. Roffman requested and was granted by the HPC a demolition permit and the pre-existing structure was demolished. The property is now vacant. The pre-existing building was classified as non-contributing to the character of the College Hill Conservation District. The property is zoned RNS-20 with a conservation district overlay. The proposed building is in compliance with the occupancy restrictions of the applicable zoning classification. At the September 28, 2006 HPC meeting, many of the comments in opposition to the proposed building were directed at the occupancy of the proposed building. It is Roffman's position that the HPC's denial of his request for a COA based on depth and resulting mass, was a pretext for occupancy concerns. Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. Section 2.7 Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, Section 2.7 (Appeals) states that applicants may appeal decisions of the HPC to the Board of Adjustment for properties located in conservation districts. Section 2.7 also provides that the Resolution of Denial, which states the reason of the decision, will be filed with the City Clerk within five days of the decision. The decision from which Mr. Roffman appeals was made September 28, 2006. The Resolution of Denial was not filed within five days as required by Section 2.7. Therefott; the Board of Adjustment is required to overturn the HPC's decision to deny the COA @ reqUt1e the . -...::...,. ,,--,\ Issuance of the requested COA. ~:r:::' '-' -'~ ,," l \ Arbitrarv and Capricious 1'...) The HPC's decision was arbitrary and capricious for the following reasons: ~--2 .!:- ....,-;-, .. :::-.:.- C':l 1. Authority. The HPC authority, as established by the overlay zod; ordin~-te, extends to the architectural character and design of the exterior building. The occupancy density of a property is controlled by the base zone ordinance. The HPC has no authority on occupancy issues and it is inappropriate for the HPC to deny the requested COA based on building depth as a pretext for limiting occupancy. 2. Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook (the "Handbook") Section 10 ("Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Buildings"). HPC's claimed basis for denying the COA at issue is the depth of the proposed building and the mass of the sides of the proposed building. The Handbook, Section 10.1 states in part "Compliance with the following design standards must be demonstrated prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness: ...". "Building Height/Mass. Measures should be incorporated into the design of a new building that help to reduce its 'visual mass' and overall height". The Handbook, Section 1 0.2, provides a point system for determining compliance with design options. The proposed building satisfied the point requirements of Section 1 0.2 Neither Section 10.1 nor 10.2 permit the HPC to deny a COA based on concerns of occupancy, building depth and resulting mass. These guidelines provide that the proposed building have design measures that help reduce its "visual mass" and height. The proposed building has design measures that reduce its visual mass and height and is therefore, in compliance with Section 10.1. Furthermore, the Handbook does not have any prOVIsIons that limit the depth, and resulting mass increase, of any building in the College Hill Conservation District. Only the Summit Street Historic District has limits for the depth of a proposed building or addition. It has never been the intent nor the practice of the HPC to limit the depth, and a resulting increase in mass of the sides of a building, in the College Hill Conservation District. 3. Inconsistent with Precedent The HPC has established a precedent of allowing additions or new construction that substantially increase the depth, and resulting mass increase, of the pre-existing buildings. This is consistent with the Handbook. (The only guidelines that limit the depth for the construction of new buildings or additions pertain only to property on Summit Street in the Summit Street Historic District.) Since 1998, the HPC has issued COAs for additions to and construction of buildings located in historic and conservation districts that substantially increase the depth and resulting mass of pre-existing buildings. Moreover, there are a number of historic buildings in the College Hill Conservation District and neighborhood that have a depth and mass similar to the proposed building. Thus, the approval of a COA for 923 Iowa Avenue woul4-:=~e con~gtent with previous decisions ofthe HPC and the character of the College Hill Neighborl~~J ccn J;> ~~_... !'-) o 0', -2- The following are specific properties in which the HPC approved a COA and the building depth and mass was increased: Address Existing Depth % Depth Height Dwelling HPC Depth w/Addition Increase Increase Unit Approval Date Increase 1 621 Summit St 36 ft 86 ft 239% Oft 0 06/22/1998 2 6 Bella Vista 46 ft 74 ft 160% Oft 0 09/14/2000 3 521 S Lucas St 34 ft 65 ft 191% Oft 1 10/23/2003 4 14 S Dodge St 22 ft 34 ft 155% 20 ft 2 04/1 0/2003 5 542 Clark St 24 ft 40 ft 167% Oft 0 08/26/2004 6 1201 Seymour 28 ft 51 ft 182% Oft 0 01/19/2006 CONCLUSION The decision of the Historic Preservation Commission must be overturned and the requested Certificate of Appropriateness issued as the City of Iowa City failed to meet its deadline for filings its Resolution of Denial and the Historical Preservation Commission's denial was arbitrary and capricious. It is simply inappropriate for the Commission to determine it does not want to increase the occupancy of a specific property and then deny the application based on depth of a proposed building and the mass of its sides. 10-/2 -- O~ . Beasley AN, TUCKER, MULLEN, 1\LKER, TUCKER & GELMAN LLP E. Market Street, P.O. Box 2150 Iowa City, IA 52244-2150 Phone: (319) 354-1104 Fax: (319) 354-6962 E-mail: beaslev@otmlaw.com ATTORNEY FOR JOHN ROFFMAN Date r-.,....l r o 0\ -3- Ir)\va City Historic Preservation Commission City lbll, 410 F Washington Strl'd, Iowa City. L\. 52240 RESOLUTION DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 923 Iowa Avenue A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held at the City Hall on September 28, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Tim Toomey, and Tim Weitzel. By a vote of 1-6 the Commission denied a Certificate of Appropriateness, for the proposed new construction project at 923 Iowa Avenue, which was a non-contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. In a previous meeting the Commission had conditionally approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the storm-damaged structure on this property. The Commission denied the Certificate for the proposed new construction of a 52 feet wide, 72 feet long and 32 feet tall building to replace the storm- damaged 42 feet wide, 40 feet long and 36 feet tall building. The Commission found that the proposed building does not meet the Mandatory Compliance Items listed under the Design Guidelines for Multi- Family Buildings of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines. The 'Building Height/Mass' item in the guidelines requires incorporating measures into the design of a new building to help reduce the visual mass and overall height. The Commission found that the measures incorporated into the design of the new building to help reduce its "visual mass" were insufficient, and that the overall architectural mass of the proposed building was significantly larger than the demolished building on the property as well as other houses in the district. The Commission therefore found that the proposed project is not consistent with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines. The decision may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment, who will consider whether the Historic Preservation Commission has exercised its powers, and followed the guidelines established according to this Title [Title 14 of Iowa City Zoning Code], and whether the Commission's action was patently arbitrary or capricious (Iowa City Zoning Code, Article 14-8E-2D). To appeal, a written letter requesting the appeal must be f1led with the City Clerk no later than 10 business days after the date of this resolution. ~~im Weitz,~ Chatt Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission ('"-" L,....~~1 ..t7_ oi4:.:l.. <( -~ <- >/~ -;:.:;.... ~=S~ ~-~':j >~: ...~._) t~ __:_C) Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner lanning & Community Development Ii. L..:..-;: 0-1 ll- ~- C.J c:J '---':? (:-'~:) (.:.:J ,~~-~l .:.....-- .<.~'->.. C):~ c..:> '(ill f/6D I r Date Sarah Walz From: Sent: To: Subject: Frank Gersh [frank_gersh@hotmail.com] Sunday, October 22, 2006 9:43 AM Sarah Walz proposed apartment building at 923 Iowa Avenue Dear Ms. Walz and members of the Board of Adjustment: I am writing as a concerned neighbor and former member of the Historic Preservation Commission to express my support for their decision to deny a building pemit for the proposed apartment building at 923 Iowa Avenue. I agree with the Commission's decision because the mass of the proposed building is so much greater than that of all the other buildings on the block except the tan brick apartment building. The footprint of the building and its height are greater than any of the other houses. The mass of a building is certainly something that is within the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation Commission. I recently have reviewed new plans for this building, and the architect proposes buillding back into the lot further. This addition would dominate the back yards of the adjacent house and the first house up Governor Street from Iowa Avenue on the east side, and take away any sense of openness to the sky and sun and other backyards that these houses now have. By doing this, it is contrary to the idea of neighborhood and community. I was hoping that the tornado last spring would give Iowa City a chance to renew the historic value of the neighborhoods that were most damaged, especially this last block of Iowa Avenue. By renew I mean make the buildings more like they were at the begining of the 19th century, or before, when many of them were built, The proposed new buidling would never have been built in these times and is a travesty to anyone with a sense of archtectural history. Respectfully yours, Frank S. Gersh 1041 Woodlawn Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more...then map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001 1 Staff Report Historic Review for 923 Iowa Avenue Classification: Noncontributing District: College Hill Conservation District The applicant, John Roffman, is requesting approval of the design of new 6-unit, 18-bedroom apartment building to replace a 9-unit, 9-bedroom, building that was severely damaged in the April tornado. The Commission approved the demolition of the damaged building at an earlier meeting. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 10.0 Design Guidelines fro Multi-Family Buildings and Multi-Family Site Development Standards of the Zoning Code (copy attached). The Design Guidelines and zoning code contain mandatory requirements that all projects must meet. Unless otherwise noted below the applicant's proposal appears to meet the mandatory requirements. Staff comments pertain to requirements where there is a need for more information or there is a question regarding compliance. Lighting The plan does not include information regarding exterior lighting. The guidelines require lighting to be designed to provide for safety yet be non-obtrusive to neighboring properties. The zoning code also contains lighting requirements that must be met. A lighting plan should be submitted prior to approval. Parking Landscaped screening consisting of densely planted evergreen shrubs, a hedge, a combination of evergreen and deciduous shrubs, or a decorative masonry wall in combination with landscaping must be used to screen the parking lot from adjacent properties. The zoning code requires that this landscape bed be at least 10 feet wide. The current plan depicts some landscaping along the west property line but the size and species of the proposed trees and shrubs are not identified. The width of the landscape beds on the east and south sides of the parking area are less then 10 feet. The plan should be revised to illustrate the minimum 10 foot wide landscaping bed on each side of the property and the size and species of trees and shrubs should be labeled. A 10 foot setback is required between the paring area and the building. At least 50% of this area must contain landscaping. The plan currently does not comply with this requirement. It appears that the plan will need to be redesigned to meet the parking area setback and landscaping requirements or that fewer parking spaces will be possible on this property. If 12 parking spaces can not be fit onto the site in conformance with the site development standards, the number of proposed dwelling units or bedrooms will need to be decreased. Height The zoning code requires that any portion of a multi-family building that is located within 15 feet of lot containing a single-family use, be limited to 2-1/2 stories. A small portion of the proposed building is located only 14 feet from the property shared with the adjacent single family use. The building will need to be set back an additional foot or reduced in height. Building Materials The zoning code requires that the concrete base of a multi-family building in the Central Planning District be fInished with masonry, stucco or dressed concrete with a decorative face. The plan indicates that the base of the building will be concrete but does not describe the finish. The plan should include details regarding the proposed finish. . Design Point Items In addition to meeting the mandatory requirements not above multi-family building must also achieve a minimum of 20 points from the design options contained in the guidelines. It appears that these points can be achieved from the Porch (0 to 10 points), Architectural Details (0 tol0 points) and Building Materials (3-7 points). Staff recommends that this project be revised to show compliance with all of the mandatory requirements of the Preservation Handbook and the zoning code. This requires the submittal of more detailed information regarding lighting, landscaping and the finish of the concrete base. The parking lot also needs to be redesigned and this may result in fewer parking spaces fitting onto the property. Title J 4: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones lots must be 28 feet wide. 71f the Single Family Density Bonus Options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced accordingly (See Section 14-2B-4A, Minimum Lot Requirements). 8Additional height restrictions may apply on properties adjacent to Single Family Zones or Single Family Uses (See Subsection 14-2B-4C, Building Bulk Regulations). 9See the Special Provisions of this Article regarding minimum lot area per unit requlremen's in the RNS-20 Zone. 14-28-5 Maximum Occupancy for Household Livin Uses The residential occupancy of a Household living Use is limited to one "household" per dwelling unit, as this term is defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions. 14-28-6 Multi-Family Site Development Standards A. Purpose The Multi-Family Site Development Standards promote safe, attractive, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods by preventing expanses of concrE;!te, blank walls and parking lots along street frontages; controlling the building bulk; screening unsightly features; ensuring that pedestrian entrances are visible and clearly identifiable from the street; and minimizing potential conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles. B. Applicability 1. The standards of this Section apply to all Multi-Family Uses, Group Living Uses, and Institutional/Civic Uses located in Residential Zones and in the Central Planning District (See Central Planning District Map, below). 2. Single Family Uses and Two Family Uses located in a Multi-Family Zone must comply with the Single Family Site Development Standards specified in Article 14-2A, Single Family Residential Zones. Two Family Uses located in the Central Planning District must also comply with the provisions of subsection 14-26-61, Additional Standards in the Central Planning District, which will be administered through the Design Review process, as set forth in Article 14-86, Administrative Approval Procedures. 3. For properties located in the RM-12, RNS-20, RM-20, and RM-44 Zones outside the Central Planning District, the standards in this Section will be administered through the Site Plan Review Process, as set forth in. Title 18. For properties located in the Central Planning District and the PRM Zone the regulations of this section will be administered through the Design Review process as set forth in Article 14-86, Administrative Approval Procedures. 4. For properties located in a Historic or Conservation District Overlay Zone, the standards of this Section will be administered concurrently with review of the proposed development by the Historic Preservation Commission. If the provisions of the Historic or Conservation District Overlay Zone conflict with the provisions of this Section, the provisions of the Historic or Conservation District Overlay Zone will supercede the provisions of this Section. 35 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones ) C. Location and Design Standards for Surface Parking and Detached Garages 1. Location Surface parking, parking within accessory structures, and loading areas must be located behind principal bulldlng(s) and concealed from view of fronting streets. . Parking and loading areas may not be located directly between a principal building and the street or within the requIred side setback area. Any portion of a parking or loading area that Is not completely concealed from view of a fronting street must be screened to the 52 standard (See Figure 26.4 and 26.5, below). Figure 28.4 - Location of surface parking for properties with a single building Street Unacceptable Street Acceptable left.nlng I Street Acceptable Street Acceptable Figure 28.5 - Location of parking for properties with multiple buildings Street i Cii Acceptable Acceptable . Street Unacceptable Street 37 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones 2. Aisles and Drives A non-hard surfaced drive or aisle may not be located closer than 3 feet to a lot line, except at the point of access with a street, alley, or private rear lane: Hard-surfaced drives must be set back at least 3 feet from any side or rear lot line, except under the following circumstances: a. The drives and aisles are pitched or curbed and drained to prevent the flow of water onto adjoining property; or b. A drainage course has been established along lot lines to handle storm water runoff; or c. Any specific location along a side or rear lot line where a drive is shared with an abutting lot; or d. At the point of access with an alley or private rear lane. 3. Landscape buffering a. A buffer area at least 10 feet in width and landscaped to at least the 52 standard must be provided between any parking area and adjacent properties and between any parking area and street rights-of-way (See Article 14-SF, Screening and Buffering Standards). The City may exempt from this landscaping requirement any specific locations along a side or rear lot line where a parking area, aisle or drive is shared with an abutting lot. b. A buffer area at least 5 feet in width and landscaped to the 51 standard must be provided between any parking area containing more than 8 parking spaces and an adjacent alley. c. No parking area or drive shall be closer than 10 feet to any portion of a building other than a garage entrance or loading area apron. This lO-foot area must be used for walkways and landscaping consisting of at least 50 percent vegetative coverage. If parking spaces are located where headlights of vehicles shine onto a wall containing ground level windows, said parking spaces must be screened from view of the windows to at least the 52 standard. D. Building entrances for Multi-Family and Group Living Uses 1. For Residential Uses, buildings must have at least one door on the exterior of the building that provides pedestrian access to dwelling units within the building. Access to dwelling units must not be solely through a parking garage. 2. When a lot contains one principal building, the building must be oriented such that at least one fa~ade faces a public or private street. The street-facing facade must have at least one main entrance to the building, or may contain separate main entrances to ground level dwelling units. If the building is located on a corner lot, only one wall must meet this requirement. 3. . When a lot contains two or more principal buildings, the buildings must be oriented towards a public street, private street, or interior courtyard. Any building with a street-facing fa~ade must have at least one main entrance oriented toward the street. Buildings located interior to a lot must have main entrances that are clearly visible from interior private streets/drives or surface parking areas. 38 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones ) i 4. Main entrances to a building', including main entrances to ground level individual dwelling units must be clearly demarcated by one of the following means (See Figure 26.6, below): . a. Covered porch or canopy; b. Transom and sidelight windows; c. Pilasters and pediment; d. Other significant architectural treatment that emphasizes main entrances. Simple trim around the doorway does not meet this standard. Figure 28.6 - Main Entrances a. Canopy a. Porch b. Transom & sidelight windows c. Pilasters & pediment 5. Patio-style doors, such as sliding glass doors, may not be used for main entrance doors. ~ 6. To provide for the safety of residents, access to entrance doors of any individual .dwellings units located above the ground level must be provided from an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairwell. Unenclosed or partially enclosed exterior stairwells may not be used as the primary means of access to upper level units. This provision does not preclude the use of fire escapes~ 7. A pedestrian circulation system must be provided that connects residential entrances to adjacent public rights-of-way, and to parking areas and other on-site facilities. E. Building scale 1.' .In the RM-12, RM-20, RNS-20,RM-44, and PRM Zones outside the Central Planning District Street-facing walls that are greater than 50 feet in length must be articulated with bays, projections, or recesses (See Figure2B.7, below) according to the following standards: a. Bays and projections must be at least 6 feet in width and at least 16 inches, but not more than 6 feet In depth. Recesses must be at least 6 feet in width and have a depth of at least 16 Inches. b. The bays, projections, and receSSes must have corresponding changes in the roofline or, alternatively, must be distinguished by a corresponding change in some other architectural element(s) of the building, such as a change in exterior wall materials, a change In window pattern, the addition of balconies, variation in the building and/or parapet height; or variation In architectural details, such , I as decorative banding, reveals, stone or tile accents. . 39 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones \ Figure 28.7 - Building Articulation 888888888 8888 8888 Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable 2. In the Central Planning District The width of the front facade of new buildings must be no more than 40 feet. Buildings may exceed this limitation if the street-facing plane of the building is broken into horizontal modul~s that give the appearance of smaller, individual buildings (See Figure 28.8, below) Each module must meet the following standards: a. Each module must be no greater than 30 feet and no less than 10 feet in width and must be distinguished from adjacent modules by a variation in the wall plane of at least 16 inches in depth. For buildings that are 3 or more stories in height, the width ofthe module may be increased to 40 feet. b. Each module must have a corresponding change in the roofline. c. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent module by at least one of the following means: (1) Variation in material colors, types or textures; (2) Variation in the building and/or parapet height; (3) Variation in the architectural details such as decorative banding, reveals, stone, or tile accents; (4) Variation in window pattern. (5) Variation in the use of balconies and recesses. 40 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-28 Multi-Family Residential Zones ') Figure 28.8 - Horizontal Modules I--Module--l !--Existing---1 ~MOdUI.~ I-MOdUI.~ New MF Building ~Module--1 \-- Existing--l F. Balconies and exterior stairways, corridors and lifts Balconies and exterior stairwells, exterior corridors and exterior lifts must comply with the following standards: 1. Exterior stairwells, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are prohibited In the PRM Zone. In other zones, exterior stairwells, lifts and corridors must be covered with a roof similar in design and materials to the roof over the rest of the structure. Said roof should be incorporated into the overall roof plan of the structure. Altematively, such features may be recessed into the fa~ade of the building. Exterior corridors may not be located on a street-facing wall of the building or within 20 feet of a street- facing wall. 2. Balconies, exterior stairwells, lifts and corridors may not be located on any side of a building that is adjacent to a property that Is zoned Single Family Residential or that contains an existing Single Family Use. Buildings that are set back at least 40 feet from any such property are exempt from this standard. 3. The design of any balcor:1Y, exterior stairwell, 11ft or corridor must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and railings that are designed and constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to the design and materials used for the rest of the building. Figure 28.9 - Balconies, exterior corridors Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable 41 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones G. Building materials 1. In the Central Planning District, the exterior wall material of a building must consist of clapboard-style siding, wall shingles, brick, stone, or stucco. 2. In the PRM Zone, the exterior walls of the ground level floor of a building must be constructed with a masonry finish, such as fired brick, stone, or similar material, not including concrete blocks and undressed poured concrete. Masonry may include stucco or like material when used in combination with other masonry finish. 3. In the Central Planning District and in the PRM Zone, buildings not constructed of masonry or stucco, must have the following trim elements incorporated into the exterior design and construction of the building. a. Window and door trim that is not less than 3 inches wide. b. Comer boards that are not less than 3 inches wide, unless wood clapboards are used and mitered at the comers. c. Frieze boards, not less than 5 inches wide, located below the eaves. Figure 28.10 - Building Materials Masonry bese Frieze board- Comer board Window trim-./' - 4. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must be constructed using similar materials and design as the front fa~ade. S. Exterior walls of buildings that are not predominantly masonry orstucco, must have a durable base consisting of masonry, stucco, or dressed concrete that extends at least 2-feet in height above grade. If the base consists of concrete, it must have a decorative face. 6. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any fa~ade that faces a street-side lot line. 7. Where an exterior wall material changes along the horizontal plane of a building, the change must occur on an inside corner of the building. 8. For buildings where the exterior wall material used on the side of a building is a different material than what is used on the street-facing wall, the street-facing wall material must wrap around the comers to the sides of the building for at least 3 feet., 42 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones 9. Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane of the building, the materials must be separated by a horizontal band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band board or other trim to provide a transition from one material to the other. Figure 58.11 - Changes in exterior wall materials Horizontal band Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable H. Mechanical Equipment/Utility Meters In no case shall mechanical equipment or utility meters be located along the street side of a building. Mechanical structures must be set back and screened according to the applicable provisions set forth in Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. I. Additional Standards in the Central Planning District 1. Front Setbacks The front setback for new buildings must not deviate more than 5 feet from the average setback of existing principal buildings along the same frontage. A new building may not be located closer to the street than the existing principal building that is closest to the street along the same frontage. This setback standard supercedes the setback standards of the base zone. 2. Windows and Fenestration Individual window units that are visible from a public or private street and that are located in primary living spaces, such as living rooms, dining areas, and bedrooms, must have a height that is at least 1.5 times greater than the width of the window unit. Individual window units may be located side-by-slde In a wider window opening. Bathroom, kitchen, skylights, and decorative windows, such as stained-glass and ocular windows, are not required to meet this standard. Figure 28.12 - Windows width tl 'i >< It! .... 43 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones 3. Architectural style The purpose of requiring an architectural style is to ensure that the mass, roof form, window style and configuration, and the basic architectural details of a building are generally compatible with the historic character of the Central Planning District. From the street, new buildings should appear similar to a large house or a small historic apartment building. a. The following architectural elements must be consistent with a historic architectural style typical of residential buildings in the Central Planning District. (1) Form and mass of the building; (2) Roof configuration and pitch; (3) Window style and pattem; (4) Window and door trim, eave boards, frieze boards, and other trim; (5) Porch and entrance features; (6) Building details and ornamentation. b. Detailed information regarding historic residential building styles is available in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. The Design Review Committee and the Historic Preservation Commission will use this information as a means to evaluate new buildings in the Central Planning District. c. Alternative designs that have been prepared by a licensed architect may be acceptable and will be reviewed on acase-by-case basis. J. Minor Modifications A minor modification to adjust or waive specific provisions of this Section may be requested in either of the qualifying situations listed in the paragraphs below. Such requests will be reviewed jointly by the Design Review Committee, the Director of Planning and Community Development, and the Building Official according to the procedures for Minor Modifications as set forth in Article 14-8B and must meet the following approval criteria. The following approval criteria are to be applied in lieu of the general approval criteria listed in Section 14-4B-1, Minor Modifications. 1. Qualifying Situation: The configuration of the lot or other existing physical condition of the lot makes the application of a specific standard impractical. In such a case, the applicant must demonstrate that the following approval criteria are met: a. The applicant must provide evidence that the configuration of the lot, the topography, or other physical characteristic of the property makes the application of a specific standard of this section Impractical. Examples of situations that may qualify include double-fronting lots, triangular shaped lots, and steeply sloping lots. b. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed alternative design is not contrary to the intent of the Multi-Family Site Development Standards. c. The applicant must propose an alternative site or building design that best meets the intent of the specific standard being modified or waived. 44 12/28/05 Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code 14-2B Multi-Family Residential Zones ) d. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be Injurious to other property or Improvements In the vicinity and In the zone In which the property Is located. e. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property. f. The requested modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations. 2. Qualifying Situation: The proposed site or building is uniquely designed to fit the site and the surrounding neighborhood. In such a situation, the applicant must demonstrate that the following approval criteria are met: a. The applicant proposes an alternative design solution that equally or better meets the Intent of the specific standard being modified or waived. b. The proposed site and building design Is uniquely designed to fit the characteristics of the site and the surrounding neighborhood ~uch that it equally or better meets the purpose of the Multi-Family Site Development Standards. c. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be Injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located. d. The requested modification does not allow a use or activ.ity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property. e. The requested modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations. 14-2B-7 PRM Zone Bonus Provisions A. Purpose The PRM Zone Bonus Provisions provide an incentive for developments to Incorporate features that provide a public benefit and also encourage excellence in architectural design. B. Application The bonus provisions will be administered through the Design Review Process as set forth in Article 14-8B, Administrative Approval Procedures. Bonuses include allowance of dwelling units in excess of the density otherwise achievable under the provisions of the base zone, additional building bulk, and/or reductions of the required setback area. Bonuses are based on a point system. Points may be awarded for public benefit features that the Design Review Committee determines are appropriate In design and location. Bonuses will not be granted for site development features or standards already required by this Title. Decisions of the Committee may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. The number of points allowed for public benefit features and the number of points required per bonus item are set forth below: 1. Public Benefit Features a. Materials Masonry finish on all non-fenestrated areas of walls visible from a public street. 45 12/28/05 - Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City 11alL -\10 I.: \\;I,hlll,l!.I<l1l SUCCI, I"wa Cill'o 1.\. ';22.\0 MEMORANDUM Date: September 28, 2006 To: The Historic Preservation Commission From: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Re: September 28 Meeting Agenda Items 805 E. Washington Street This application was tabled at the September 14 meeting to allow the applicant to reconsider the garage design. The applicant has agreed to revise the garage design and incorporate some of the original stylistic features of the original garage. The applicant has also agreed to provide a revised sketch prior to the meeting. . ,) 923 Iowa Avenue The Commission directed staff to seek a legal opinion whether the College Hill Neighborhood District Guidelines can be applied to the new multi-family structures. The Zoning Interpretation Panel (ZIP) has reviewed this matter and determined that there is ambiguity in the manner in which the College Hill Neighborhood Guidelines are written. Although it may have been the intent to apply them to multi-family structures, the second sentence of the guidelines that refers to them applying to single-family and duplex buildings, appears to limit their application to single-family and duplex structures. For this reason the panel determined that the guidelines in Section 8.2 do not apply to multi-family building. However the ZIP indicated that the Building Height/Mass standard under Section 10.1: the Mandatory Compliance Items implicitly serves the same purpose as the Site and Scale Guidelines under the Neighborhood District Guidelines do, to maintain the building scale and the character of the neighborhood. Building Height/Mass standard requires that measures should be incorporated into the new building design to reduce the 'visual mass' and overall height and provides examples of such measures. One such measure suggested is to reduce the height of a taller building down to two stories at ends adjacent to existing buildings that are two-stories or lower in height. The Commission may consider other measures to achieve a smaller visual mass and overall height. Prevention of Demolition by Neglect-17 South Governor Street ) Please refer to an email from the building 'official regarding the measures taken to prevent further damage. Page 1 0 Sunil Terdalkar From: Jann Ream Sent: Thursday, September 21,2006 11 :33 AM To: Sunil Terdalkar Subject: 17 S. Governor Sunil _ Doug received the memo from HPC and asked that I let you know what the plan of action is at 17 S. Governor. After October 13, I will be able to require that the building be registered as a vacant building. They will have 30 days to register. If they don't, I can issue a citation for not registering and ask the court for a court order to require that the rest of the 2nd floor windows be boarded up. If they still don't do it, then we can get the courts permission to go on the property and do it ourselves with costs assessed to the owner. If they do register the building, then we would also require that the windows be boarded up. The vacant building ordinance just gives us a little more clout. So I am fairly confident that we will be able to get all the windows boarded up before winter. That's about as far as we will be able to go. As a vacant building, we would inspect it to make sure that it stays secure and that it is not a nuisance (weeds, garbage etc. - essentially what I am doing now). If it is registered and stays secure and does not become a nuisance or, for some reason, declared a dangerous building, it can remain in that status indefinitely until other factors could be proven to be causing demolition by neglect. .. J 9/21/2006 o ;? ~~ 30 :g !!t " .. ~Q c c ~j -0 oiS ~g ~fj a~ ~~ if o -- r-+ '< o --n - o ~ ~ o -- r-+ '< ~ ~ -0 -0 -- ::J (Q (fl () Q) 7~ ..... 8 ~-~ ~Pl I JrU rt [!Il ( ,J I I Governor 8t. 1 /'"17 -c: "~ ~ ,... ....-- [ ~ 0 ~O _0 J L...- W - --' [ JIl "'" ..... - ~~-' ] CJ J --. '1 r 0 I ,,0 Dnl: ...v (0 9 [ .2J I ~ [ - 0 t J ? n I D r I I J --- I Ir I I r-- -- I 0 n r - Q-EJ- D I -.., D l-] 0 rC r~ [] l~ ......... I ---", D~R ~ )~~ 1;1 CJ o ~I\ ~~ (V 7 l 1 ;:;; iV....l? S I 1 ~'""~~-Q;0 I D ~tr~ n I D ~ 0\J. . I .~ W I D 0 I \ I - I I U I (:J I I Q I I U I G I I I I II (l-,., I !\ A! \ o ~ "'0 &:~ ~~ [0 ..,15 g~ -6'~ o~ ;t~ i~ ~~ o -- ..-+ '< o --n - o ~ ro o -- ..-+ '< ~ ro -0 -0 -- ::J CO rJ) o Cl ;~ -" 8 Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Attn: Sunil Terdalkar City Hall, 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 September 20, 2006 Re: 923 Iowa Avenue Dear Commissioners: As residents of the "Governor's Square" area, we are writing to express our concern about the structure proposed to replace the demolished apartment building at 923 Iowa Avenue. Several of us attended your meeting last Thursday night and our concerns were expressed by one property owner (P. Lutgendorf), but others were unable to attend because of other commitments. We would like our views to be taken into account by the Commission when it next meets to consider this proposal. Weare seriously concerned about the scale and mass of the proposed apartment building, which considerably exceeds that of the structure it is to replace. This increased size is to enable the property owner to double the number of tenants, and although this last point is not within your purview, we trust that you will understand our further concern about this. The 900 block of Iowa A venue has become dominated by student renters, and the few remaining single family home owners feel increasingly embattled and isolated. We understand the aesthetic and architectural guidelines of Historic Preservation and Conservation to ultimately be in the service of quality of life, and also intended to help stabilize neighborhoods that contain mixed owner-occupied homes and rental properties. We consider the massive building proposed for 923 Iowa to violate the spirit of these principles, and we hope that you will seriously consider the intent of Section 8 of the Guidelines. We urge you not to approve the current proposal, and instead to request a revised design that does not exceed the size of the demolished structure. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, /' " Q':' <,-0--.,-A ..../\ . \\ '. r j / ,,.f rI~.. i . ~- -! <i', ". J '.:1u.~c<,-v'- 1'1. ..A X -&to Pf1 ;/I{' .(; 'S'tAS4'1 L" -lye" J;) ('f 0(1 T.:;V\!c, AVE:. i -, ,. /., C oj . , . . b 1tu11<r/f,c:L /L'Cl'rlka/ /c05 v1t\VSc4')~\eJilvt.~~ f( I cJ\6rd c:rco k- r ) it..:!.:.. '\ " 11l<t~, fJ/JAJ! q '1' ~~J (lAC. . I.' )"'o(.~ '''/1CS- 9'13 SI.>v^"; Avo:, (f'{ ~ I (;'f'\j.., ~ (' \Vl..I~V (' , ,"..~ f e s , < ,- v Co .. ,'VI,. {<e ~t: III S. ~er()or.s+. Sunil Terdalkar From: Sent: To: Subject: Frank Gersh [frank_gersh@hotmail.com] Thursday, September 28,200612:29 PM Sunil Terdalkar new building at 923 Iowa Avenue Dear Mr. Terdalkar: As a concerned neighbor and former historic preservation commissioner, I am writing regarding the proposed new building at 923 Iowa Avenue. While the building looks good, I am concerned about its increased size not fitting in with the remainder of the block, which is primarily single family dwellings, duplexes and other similar sized rental units. At least part of the mandate of the Historic Preservation Commission is to preserve historic neighborhoods. To allow this building to be built would, in my opinion, initiate a change in the neighborhood that violates its historic character. I say this because of the size of the building. Although this is not ostensibly the business of the Commission, I also am concerned about the increased noise and number of people on the block that such a building would bring. This should be of concern to the Commission because part of the character of a nighborhood is its density, its quietude or lack thereof, and other such less tangible, non- architectural features. I see the tornado as providng the city with an opportunity to improve the eastern-most block of Iowa Avenue, and make it more like it was in the period in which most of the buildings were built. To allow this building to be build would violate this spirit. I trust that you will see that this letter gets to the members of the Historic Preservation Commission. Sincerely yours, Frank S. Gersh 1041 Woodlawn Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 The next generation of Search--say hello! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG 1 Application for Historic Review Applicatiqn for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or proper- ties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at www. icgov.orgIHPhandbook. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Monday the week prior to the meeting. ~:t:t~~b~~ed ..../!j../..~/.~r!2........... 1:1 Certificate of No Material Effect ~ C~ficate of Appropriateness \Zf Major review 1:1 Intermediate review 1:1 Minor review Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) 1:1 Owner JdJ/J....b[fll'JiLt.-,............................ Phone...........~3/~/!J.t).S............................................. Address ....../.$/i:..gp~..,P.aw~............... ....................h'Va.uit.....jA.....5~;l~...... email.........................l...............~..r/'.................................. 1:1 Contractor ....J~hn.../...~1:1:In'd1.A.................... Address ...... ...... .... ............ .... ... .... ..... ..... ... .......... ... .......... ............... ......................................................................................................... Phone ... ........................ .......... .......... ....... ...... ... ....... ......... ................ CJ ~::~~;:~;3k)"i:~~:..::..: Add"" .....~,.:S'.....~.ii;:n1....... ...................P..~4..U~...../4....S;~~.. Phone..........3/?:..5.fI.......tPt.Z................................. ....... :............ .~.I.:.......I.l............. .....:;JJj.....4-a::.....r;.;..~......... ema,I.............;:21.2411A1.tl6..J.:..~h....'..r./.n.............. Application Requirements Attached are the following items: 14 Site plan 1ZI Floor plans }! Building elevations 1:1 Photographs 1:1 Product information o Other ................................................................... ........... If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs. If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure, please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently de- scribe the scope of the project. Provide a written description of the proposed project on the second page of this application. Property Information Address of property .......~~.3.....pI.UL................................. ~~~..~;.~;~~~.~~::::..::;r;~~~;;;;i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Date constructed (if known).......d""2........................................ Historic Designation 1:1 This property is a local historic landmark OR ~ This property is located in the: o Brown Street Historic District o College Green Historic District 1:1 East College Street Historic District o Longfellow Historic District o Summit Street Historic District 1:1 Woodlawn Historic District o Clark Street Conservation District rtf College Hill Conservation District o Dearborn Street Conservation District o Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District Within the district, this property is classified as: 1:1 Contributing Jl Noncontributing 1:1 Nonhistoric Project Type o Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) o Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps) 1:1 Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch, chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar) ~ Construction of new building 1:1 Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not. change its appearance o Other .............................. .............. .................................................. .I Project description .Cm~?J;~A<IIf...hH()...J.."'I7L.t...4IlAd-?nf:'{t.d..I/~r.m...." ../1.K.~..#.u..jUt/.!.Itr.k~rt!.ri..'Jf./4f>>"2i/J.I.::tUDI'J.'G.-m... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................;......................................................................................................... .............................................................t.............................................................,...................................................................................................................... .. . .. . .. .. ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . ~ . . .. . .. . ... ........ .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . , .. ... . . .. .. . . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. . . , . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. ... . . . .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................1'................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... Materials to be used ...$~t......da~/.IJf."S........................................................................................................................................................................................ .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Exterior app'earance changes . ....5~(......Jalt?,q."'....=:.............................................................................................................................................................................. ::::7IIh~~;h:::::/k::::::;~Jj;;;;;::;jj::::~::::::~.....;;;z.;;;.1:;;;...~~;;;;;Jl............. .~h;J?!JI:....f4J,i/l.....k.....1t/>~....8.....;;d...../7!.5s:,..,t3.".d,,/t1r../.~................... .....J~~/~~.J.....h.....~#L..b~.......fft......~;;PAz....r~:I~....~..b/2...he-................... ../Rrjb....,ilrd./.,:tt:...,..rt:!.M"I.4.....al...<<"k..ttd//...H,I,./.:...k................ ...:~~~~i......~~~~..~~.:.....................................................:.:.......:.:.......:....::.:: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ppdadm/HP HandbookJApp.p65 SHELLEY MCCAffERTY Residential Architecture 228 S. Summit Street #D4 Historic Preservation Iowa City. IA 52240 Urban Planning 319.541.4041 shellmac@att.net HE" 0 To: From: Date: RE: Historic Preservation Commission Shelley McCafferty September II. 2006 923 Iowa Avenue Please find attached a site plan revised per the Staff Report provided in your packet. Revi- sions to the site plan are as follows: Lighting: The site plan indicates the concept for exterior lighting. Prior to application for a building permit the fixtures and photometrics will be specified as required. To the extent possible, the lighting has been located on the building. A pole light in compliance with the zoning code will be located towards the rear of the lot to reduce light glare in adjacent build- ings. If required to meet photometries, an additional pole will be added on the west side of the parking lot. Parking: The parking lot has been redesigned to provide for the required landscape buffers. Existing trees along the west lot line will be preserved to the extent possible. Exact species will be specified as required by code prior to application of a building permit. Height: The building width has been reduced by one foot, thus providing for a 15 foot set- back along the west property line. Building Materials: Given that the site slopes and the front will be landscaped with shrubs, little of the raised foundation will be visible. Therefore. the applicant proposed to paint the foundation rather than use a masonry or dressed finish. If the Commission chooses to prohibit this treatment of the foundation, the applicant will back plaster/stucco the foundation. The applicant requests that the Commission approve the revised site and building plans sub- ject to the approval of the landscaping and photometries by the building department. As noted in the memo submitted with this application, if once the site survey has been com- pleted and if significant changes are required in the site plan. the applicant will resubmit the plan for Historic Review. ~ /)' 7' o ,:1'~J' o ~ 0) )> < CD ~ 71 ~', " '5 -: 2~ '-' I,\\)j \ "\, , ...f) , I ii~ , , II I I 35'-10' PREVo '''. , \, ''1:, , I ./ , ....... ~ ~~~~~ "~~?ipl ~.""~ :C')> ""')>--i --i~~~2 ?i",--i )> l=~ ~ ~ ~ /'........ ' .,,\ \' GJ, I ft;/ ;!'; ,-\ " ,q, L; /-0 'iU ~ ~ II \ -.jl \ II \ II \ II \ II \ II > II / II / II / II / II! -11 II / ;lJI \ () 2' ,,' I PROP. r~ ~I'-O" PREVo , , I i II i i ~-- \~~:~'~l~-:~ - en ,. m ~. ~ !I I e:;; ~! = ~. en [fil' L__:_.. ~_..- ._~. '::'~, '; ! r'l ' '.... --~-~-~. --- ./ '-" '-../ I- I I I I I I '" ~ , q <:::,. <::::" --- -"- ':::::::, ~ """ ~~ > -' ~~, q " \. "5 o -'\ -D t\ \3", U' -! , q r \ ~ I I I I . -.-.--.... \' -..--.--. -----'1; I I I ., en I. m (~ I I -0 I I "" 1J1I~ I 00 t==l I I '" r? I I = I = 1"1. en r"'; I J ,I I!': , I -'II '-'" .... .<> ,- ~ I I I I I I I ! i; II~ ! !~ i #~ '-II' -~~ "-I!' -~ <-0' ~ II ! ! i II i I u; ~ <5 ,- "l. t- .... ,- "l. Ii :ii ,- ~ I I ~ffi I I :g ~ ii i i ,j ~ @!! "il! II i ~ i .i ; , i : 'I ' I : :I:!:: '; I I I . II!':" , II II i i i i i i i i rJr I ~ ,!(: i oore 8l d3~ M I <\ II "~:~J~f"" <-="; \ n i "'-" '---'" ......... [ I 1 II~ I I i I I II I I II I 1 II I I II I I II I I II 1 I II I I II I I II I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I II~ II~ I II~ II~ I ~I-Ia' -tt- ~I-la' -t1 ~'_O' -t I I I I I II I I I I I I II I I I I "-" ~::~8~ d~~~ ,[I -:117\ n ~l ~.-'1 =-,' in I \ _. L.__. . I , I MINUTES APPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 - 6:00 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Michael Gunn, John McCornally, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Carlson, Tim Toomey STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Guy from Sears Home Improvement, Ben Lewis, Philip Lutgendorf, Shelley McCafferty, John Roffman, Rebecca Routh, Terry Stumpf, Tim Taffe RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): None ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Terdalkar suggested that the election be deferred until later in the meeting. MOTION: Ponto moved to defer the election of officers until later. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificate of Aoorooriateness. 923 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar said that this property recently received a certificate of appropriateness for demolition from the. Commission, without a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction of the proposed building on the site. He said the Commission is now reviewing the proposal for the new structure on the site. Terdalkar said the applicant is proposing a six-unit, 18-bedroom apartment building to replace the storm- damaged nine-unit, nine-bedroom rooming house. He said that the staff report is based on the Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Buildings, (Section 10) which require certain criteria to be demonstrated before a certificate of appropriateness is issued for the project. Terdalkar said that staff has asked the applicant to revise the drawings to comply with all the guidelines and regulations. McCafferty, the consultant for this project, distributed a revised site plan. She said that the only changes to the building that are not reflected in the Commission's packet are that there will be 18 inches taken out of the depth, the length of the building. McCafferty said that the side elevations would therefore not be changed. 1. HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 2 McCafferty provided an elevation to show that the building would comply with the front setback requirements and where the building sits in relationship to the other properties on the block. She said the building should therefore comply with the multi-family guidelines in the historic preservation handbook. McCafferty said there was a lot of discussion in the staff report about site issues. She said that the owner would like to request approval of the architecture at this time, as well as the site plan as it is right now. McCafferty said the site plan is still somewhat of a concept, because the owner did not yet have the site engineering. McCafferty said the owner did not want to engineer the site around a building that may not be approved by the Commission. McCafferty said the owner would therefore like to have approval of the building. She said that, when the application gets to the additional stages of site engineering and there is a possibility of a sensitive areas rezoning, this would come back to the Commission for an amendment. McCafferty said that the owner would, however, like to have the confidence to proceed with the engineering of this building at this time. Weitzel asked for clarification that McCafferty is therefore asking for approval of the architectural plan at this point and the concept for the site plan, which the Commission would then review at a later date. McCafferty said that if there are significant changes, it could be reviewed again. She said that if the site can be engineered pretty much to be exactly what is shown, she would leave it to staff and request that it not have to go before the Commission again. McCafferty said there will probably be retaining walls and other things like that that are not yet resolved, and they may be of' a height and such that this needs to come back. McCafferty pointed out that she tried to design this so that it complies with the guidelines. She pointed out the front elevation and the drawing that shows how this would compare to the outline of the previous building. McCafferty said the goal of the elevation was to lower the overall eave height and put living units more under the roof, so that there are three stories but with a lower eave line. McCafferty said that the building is much more articulated than what was there previously. She added that it is a little wider than the original building, but her intent in designing it was to design it so it looks more like a large duplex. McCafferty said there are two front fac;ades essentially connected by a stairway. She said she lowered the eave line where the stair is to accentuate the fact that it is more of a link that is pushed back. McCafferty said the intent is to maximize the look of this as a duplex as opposed to an apartment block. Swaim asked how much wider this would be than the original building. Terdalkar said that the original building was 42 feet wide, and the new building would be 58 feet wide. McCafferty said that with the side bay, which is back away from the front fac;ade, it would be 58 feet, and without the side bays, it would be 52 feet. She said the perception of the building from the front is going to be that it is ten feet wider. McCafferty said that the site plan shows a darker outline showing the relative difference in the footprint of the old versus the new. She added that she broke up the pitch and articulation of the roof and some articulation to the front surface by using the two different siding materials. McCafferty stated that it would all be done out of fiber cement board, with a concrete base. McCafferty said that, given the slope of the site, not a lot of the bottom foundation would be visible. She said that with the ramp, there will probably be some landscaping to deal with that, so that one would not really see any of the foundation. McCafferty said that at this point, she is proposing to just paint the foundation. Michaud asked what the difference is between the sidewalk elevation and the plateau. McCafferty said that it goes up approximately nine feet within 15 feet of length, which is about a 60% slope. She said that, with that slope, in order to get the ramp, there will probably have to be an easement on the adjacent property, and there is a verbal agreement to do that. McCafferty stated that the slope will have to be 2 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 3 softened somewhat on the side next to the large apartment building on the east side in order to have ramp accessibility from the front. Ponto said that staff had discussed the issue of lighting in his staff report. McCafferty said that on the revised site plan, she did indicate some lighting. She said that typically, a civil engineer will do a light plan to guarantee downcast, shielded lights with appropriate lumens and so forth. McCafferty said that this plan is not at that step yet, so she is basically proposing a concept. She said there would be lights underneath the porch, on the back of the building, underneath the roof over the rear stairway, and there will probably have to be a pole or two in the back. McCafferty said she is trying to push them as far back as possible so as not to add glare to the single-family house. She said that there are buffering requirements, and there is already a natural tree line, and she is showing some supplement of that. Phillip Lutgendorf requested permission to address the Commission as a neighboring property owner. He said that he has lived at and owned the adjacent property, 911 Iowa Avenue, for 21 years. He said the Commission is mostly concerned with how things look, but he has other concerns as a neighborhood resident, and he wanted to at least express them. Lutgendorf said the building that was at 923 Iowa Avenue was a remarkably good neighbor in that he has never had a complaint toward that building. He said that in terms of noise, a major issue on that block, he has never had a problem with that building. Lutgendorf said he suspects that the reason for that is that there were one-bedroom apartments and only nine people living there, and they tended to be quiet students. Lutgendorf said that his biggest concern about this plan, apart from the sheer size of the building, is the fact that it would double the density of people living at that site. He said that he also feels that three- bedroom apartments will attract a different kind of clientele - people living with their friends and having parties. Lutgendorf said that the reality is that what is driving single families off that block on Iowa Avenue is the noise from parties. He said that the police have been called many, many times, mostly because of houses on the north side of Iowa Avenue. Lutgendorf said that the thought of having that now come in right next door is really troubling to him. He said that if the goal it to stabilize that block as mixed, single-family and rental, this is a step backward, not forward. Weitzel said that the Commission has had direction from the City Council that if it does not take neighborhood concerns into consideration when discussing historic preservation, then it is not doing its job either. Weitzel said the Commission, however, is primarily looking at architectural, aesthetics and historic character issues. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 923 Iowa Avenue, with the stipulation that things may changed based on the site plan. Ponto seconded the motion. Michaud said that she thinks the design looks like a historic duplex. She asked if there would be retaining walls, as one can't really put grass there. McCafferty said that would be part of the next step, the engineering process. She said that she would like to minimize the amount of retaining wall required, but that will be dependent on working out the plan. Roffman said that what is helping a lot is that the Clarks to the east have verbally agreed to let him extend his ramp over the front of their property, which is the lower part of the slope. He said that will then be blended in to work with the topography. Roffman said he would then share access to the ramp with the neighbors. 3 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14, 2006 Page 4 McCafferty said that one of the other issues is working with the City. She said that at this point, the slope of the hill starts right at the sidewalk, which is within the City right-of-way. McCafferty said if she has to cut back to the property line and then back an additional 42 inches, that is where there would be the most retaining wall. She said that if she can work with the Engineering Department to start the sidewalk and ramp right at the City sidewalk, that would help reduce that. McCafferty said that is still in negotiation. She said that the ramp access has to be in the front of the building. Weitzel asked Terdalkar if the Commission has any purview over the type of material used for the retaining wall. Terdalkar said it would have purview if a permit is required. Michaud said that this plan conforms with the density the City allows there; however, it would double the number of tenants. She said that perhaps there could be some stipulation in the leases to restrict times that parties can be held. Swaim said that she likes the look of the proposed building but agreed that it is a substantial increase in the number of tenants. McCafferty said that when this conservation district was rezoned, the Commission specifically responded to concerns of landlords that if in fact a building was destroyed, that it would not be a down zoning and the owner would not be unable to reconstruct to the same size. She said that is the reason there is not a fa~ade limit on multi-family. Gunn said that in this conservation district, the size limitations are fairly clearly spelled out. Weitzel confirmed that there are site and scale guidelines. Terdalkar said the guidelines state that the Neighborhood District Guidelines apply to single-family and duplex units. Weitzel said there was a lot of opposition from those owning larger buildings who were concerned that if the building was destroyed in its entirety that there would be a lowering of their potential. Weitzel said that it is a neighborhood conservation zone. Terdalkar said that a neighborhood conservation zone is intended to stabilize the neighborhood with lower density. McCafferty stated that under the current RNS zoning, seven units would be allowed, and Roffman previously had nine units. Terdalkar said that seven units would be allowed if one only considers the land, without parking requirements. McCafferty agreed but said that with what is allowed just basically by doing the numbers in that particular zone, the owner could not go back and build nine units, but the bedrooms under density are not specified, so that is where the density is increased. Weitzel said he assumes this plan reflects the required parking spaces. McCafferty confirmed that it reflects required parking and the required buffering necessary per the zoning code. Gunn asked McCafferty if she thinks the fa~ade area requirement does not apply here. McCafferty said that when the conservation district was designated, the concern was that if a building was destroyed and the existing fa~ade square footage was X amount, would the owner then have to go down to Y amount, based upon the neighborhood guidelines, and the owners considered that a down zoning. She said that is her recollection of why the area requirement does not apply to the multi-family, because it would be a de facto down zoning. Weitzel asked Terdalkar if that fa~ade area requirement would apply, because the guidelines don't allow that. Terdalkar replied that staff feels that the standard as written does not apply; because the introduction states that it applies to single-family and duplex. He said he thought, however, one could say that it does not state that they do not apply to multi-family. McCafferty said that this is an aO-foot lot. She said that legally, based on the zoning, this could be divided into two 40-foot lots. McCafferty said the building proposed is approximately 2,170 square feet, and that is including the roof, which slopes back. She said that the previous building was approximately 1,600 square feet. McCafferty said there are two ways it could be done. She said that forced with this limitation, 4 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 5 one could do a 1,600 square foot building on an 80-foot lot or do two three-unit buildings of a 1,200 square foot facade and get exactly what is proposed. Terdalkar said he had some reservations about whether that could be done. He said that if a building is within 15 feet of a single-family zone, the height of the structure is limited to two and one-half stories per the zoning requirements. Terdalkar said that if one splits the lot and builds a three-unit building on each lot adjacent to a single-family structure, the zoning code limits height of the structure to two and one-half stories. He said that McCafferty is not presenting complete information when she says that one could build two separate buildings by dividing the lot into two small lots McCafferty said that even if there were two single-family houses, there would still be less aggregate square footage in this particular proposal than there would be with two single-family houses. Terdalkar said the intent of the neighborhood guidelines is to limit the size of the front elevation to 1,200 square feet. He said it the guidelines do allow two buildings with 1,200 square feet, as other existing buildings in the area have similar elevation sizes. He said that it is not appropriate to say that the proposed building would be smaller than two separate buildings combined into 2,400 square feet, the overall size of one building should matter. McCafferty said she is just using this as an example to gauge the size of what is being proposed versus what could be done with two single-family houses. She said this is something that would be of a scale of the smaller sorority houses in the neighborhood so that the scale of the proposed building is not unusual to the College Hill area. Brennan agreed that the scale of the building is similar to other large buildings scattered throughout the neighborhood, some of which are old but most of which are newer. Gunn stated that the guidelines are perfectly clear. He said there was a lengthy discussion when the guidelines were being drafted, and the argument was that because the predominant facade size of a structure in the district is only 1,200 feet, if one has a large apartment building and it burns down, can it be rebuilt. Gunn said the answer is yes, and that is why it says, "and if the structure has a street elevation surface area of 1,200 feet or greater, it may be reconstructed, provided the street area does not exceed the area of the pre-existing primary structure." He said he reads this to say that one can build a building back as big as it was but cannot built it back bigger than it was. Gunn said that to say this whole thing doesn't apply because this is a multi-family building is a stretch that would come from a contorted view of what the guideline is. McCafferty pointed out that the architectural features have been added to this to reduce the perceived scale of this building overall. She said that if one is discussing just the technical square footage, a large portion of it will be such that it is not going to be seen in the same way that one sees a big, flat surface, for instance, with the bays in back receding quite a bit. Weitzel said this building does borrow architectural elements from buildings in the near vicinity. He said one question would be if there are any examples of duplexes. McCafferty pointed out that there are some duplexes around town with a similar concept as that proposed. Weitzel said that the examples show peaked gables facing out and a single roof behind that, cross- gabled, so it is the same design. He said there are architectural elements from the neighborhood and a style that is prevalent in Iowa City. Weitzel asked Terdalkar whether the Commission has any purview over the neighborhood issues. Terdalkar said that if the Commission members feel there is an issue that affects the character of the conservation district, the Commission may consider it. Weitzel said the Commission can therefore talk about the neighborhood issue to a certain extent, but the reasoning has to be made clear when voting. 5 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 6 Swaim said that, in terms of the neighborhood and the number of tenants, she did not know about the other houses and how many bedrooms are in their units. McCafferty said she believes the Clark apartments have one and two-bedroom units. Michaud said that there are three to five-bedroom houses across the street. Swaim said that this is an attractive building that in some ways will fit better into the neighborhood than the very big, three-story building did. She said she is empathetic with the issue of noise. Swaim said it is an issue that a lot of older neighborhoods have to stay on top of and find some good solutions. She said she did not want to single this out as not being a workable project because of the increased number of tenants. Swaim said she would rather find better ways to address the noise issue. Michaud said that, as a landlord, if she puts some restrictions such as quiet hours on her tenants, she has very cooperative tenants. McCafferty said that she feels that better maintained buildings tend to have better, quieter tenants. Roffman discussed the appearance of the building prior to the storm; he said he has always tried to maintain the building and increase the street appeal. Gunn said that in his tenure on the Commission, a lot of times a project has come in and everyone says it is big and really out of scale with the neighborhood, but there is never anything in the guidelines to prevent it from going up. He said that here, it is very clear in the guidelines. Gunn said that this building was big for the neighborhood, and if the new building is constructed, it's going to be bigger. He said that the whole point of controlling the scale is to control the size of the building, and the only way the Commission thought it could be done legally was to define it as front elevation. Gunn said that if this project is to be 1,600 square feet in its front elevation, as defined in the guidelines, then it's a wonderful building. He said, however, that if it is 2,000 or 2,400, he thinks it is clearly way too big and would vote against it. McCafferty read from the guidelines, "The College Hill Neighborhood District guidelines apply to the College Green Historic District, East College Street District, College Hill Conservation District. They apply to single family and duplex buildings in these neighborhoods." She said she would like to get clarification, as it seems rather clear that it does not apply to multi-family dwellings. McCormally said that there is another large, blue apartment building near the corner of Iowa Avenue and Dodge Street that is still in the same district. He said that the building replaced many smaller buildings, and it is gigantic and has an enormous frontage. Weitzel said that building was constructed well before this was a conservation district. McCafferty agreed and said that regulations have been changed because of that building. Gunn said that there are several apartment buildings within the district larger than the 1,200 square feet, but they all existed prior to the conservation district being established. Weitzel asked Gunn if he would be okay with the building if it were reduced in size. Gunn confirmed this. He said that the original building was big, and this would be bigger. Gunn said he doesn't buy the argument that somehow if one builds a big enough building, the scale doesn't apply, because the lot is big enough. He said that the whole point of the guidelines was not to allow this to happen. Swaim asked clarification about the issue of and the demolished square footage of the front fayade. Terdalkar said that the front fayade of the original building is estimated to be about 1,600 square feet. He said the footprint was about 42 feet wide, and the height is about 35 feet. Gunn said that 1,632 would be one thing, but 2,200 square feet is hard to ignore. He said it is a nice looking building, but it's not small, no matter how many bump outs there are on it. Swaim asked about the 2,100 square feet figure and if it comes from not only the front forward fayade but also anything that is facing north. Gunn confirmed this and said that the roof would also be included. 6 HPCminutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 7 McCafferty said that another option is to make this narrower, but one ends up filling all the recessed areas and ending up with basically one large roofline that will look much more boxy. She said that the plan is for a wider building so that it would fit in the neighborhood. Gunn said this is just flat out making this a whole lot bigger than it was, which absolutely flies in the face of the guidelines. He said that if the Commission approves this, it is saying that the scale doesn't matter. Brennan asked if this was originally two lots that had been joined. Weitzel said it was not; he said it was part of the Governor's Square and was subdivided into this size lot. Brennan said the owner could split this into two lots and put up two 1,200 square foot facades that would be bigger than this. Terdalkar said that the lots can be split, but new buildings would need to comply with all the site requirements and design guidelines. Terdalkar said that from his perspective, the guidelines intend to achieve compatibility. He said that one can certainly build six units, by reducing the number of bedrooms, and reduce the size of the structure which will reduce the number of parking spaces required. Terdalkar said that from his perspective, the scale standard is not limiting anything to add more units than what was there before. He said it is certainly possible. Terdalkar said the question is if it is appropriate to build the maximum possible or something that is compatible with the whole neighborhood. Brennan stated that he thinks this is consistent with other buildings that already exist throughout the entire district as a whole, and that is what the Commission has to look at is the district as a whole. He said the Commission can't just isolate a block here or there, or it makes the meaning of the district disappear. Brennan said that given the consistency, the size, and styling, and that the owner could split this into two lots and have larger massing than what is proposed, he would be inclined to vote in favor of the proposal. Michaud said she respected Gunn's opinion about the building. She said that McCafferty has done a great job with the blueprints. Michaud proposed that there be some kind of compromise. She said there is one more indentation than seems necessary, and it might look more convincing to do away with the some areas, such as the dining room windows. Michaud said that one of the things that contributes to parties, in her experience, is having a big living room area with a connected dining room and kitchen. Ponto said he likes the looks of this and thinks that from the street this will not have the appearance of the mass that the big box did. He said, however, that he did not think the Commission could go against the guidelines. Ponto pointed out that Section 3.6 has alternative design criteria to allow the Commission to deviate from the guidelines in exceptional circumstance, but he is not convinced that this is an exceptional circumstance. McCafferty said that if the Commission is basing its decision on the 1,600/1,200 square feet issue, she would request an opinion from the legai department on whether this applies to a multi-family building. Weitzel asked if the owner would agree to have the Commission table this issue at this time and have that issue investigated. He said that the Commission could have two meetings this month to reconsider this issue at the second meeting. Roffman said yes. Gunn said he was okay with tabling the proposal. He said that he might be unable to attend the next meeting but added that he would be amazed if the legal opinion is that the guidelines don't allow the control of a new structure in the place of one that was destroyed. Gunn said that would be a ridiculous contortion of the guidelines. Weitzel said that it is important to find out what the Commission's latitude is with these sorts of issues. MOTION: Ponto moved to table consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 923 Iowa Avenue. Gunn seconded the motion. 7 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 14,2006 Page 8 Terdalkar asked if this is the first time such an issue has come up. Weitzel said the Commission considered this with regard to Brad Houser's house on Dodge Street. Weitzel said that the Commission did hold Houser to the height requirements. Terdalkar said that if the intent of the guidelines is to not allow large buildings, then the language should be clarified to reflect that. He said the guidelines should say that it applies to single-family, duplexes or multi-family buildings. The motion to table carried on a vote of 8-0. 726 Iowa Avenue. Terdalkar stated that the applicant for this proposal requested deferral of the item at a previous Commission meeting. He said that the application is for the review of windows on a carriage house garage at the back of the property. Terdalkar stated that this is an Iowa City landmark property and part of a conservation district. He said that the windows that were used as replacements are vinyl windows. Terry Stumpf of Stumpf Construction introduced himself and Tim Taffe, the owner of the house. Stumpf said that he was the contractor for this project. He said he was at the house for another project, but Taffe had told him that the windows didn't open and could not be cleaned. Stumpf said he looked across the alley and saw a new structure with vinyl windows, and he didn't give it a thought. Stumpf said that he just left the existing frames outside and nothing would change; he put the vinyl sash in to have a functional window with the least amount of money spent. He said he did not think about the house being in a historic district. Stumpf said he has never put vinyl windows in a new structure but does think there is a place for them, and he just didn't think about putting this in a garage. He said the windows are all up high, and all the original trim and wood jambs are left. Stumpf said he believes that the garage was built in the 1970s, based on the material and subflooring, on the existing foundation where an old garage used to be. He said the windows apparently came from an old house. Stumpf said this is in the back alley where no one can see it. He said there is also a vinyl window on the south end of the house. Taffe said that his house is the prettiest house on Iowa Avenue. He said that the last two owners haven't cared about the house. Taffe said that when he bought the house, it had a sagging front porch with rotten pillars and beams. He said that Stumpf has put the porch back together with new concrete, and now it is level. Taffe said that all of the tongue and groove is exactly the same dimension as it was before. Taffe said that on the roof, the bottoms of the dormers were all rotten, and he had Stumpf fix that and replace the trim where it was missing. Taffe said the house is a gem, and he is making it a lot better than it was before. Taffe said that the garage in the back is not a gem and is not a carriage house. He said that it is a two-car rollup door garage. Taffe said he loves the house, but the garage is not the house. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of vinyl windows at 726 Iowa Avenue, as proposed, because the garage was built in the 1970s and is on the back alley. Michaud seconded the motion. Gunn asked how the Commission would know that this is a 1970s garage. Terdalkar responded that the contractor can tell the best by the kind of materials used. He said that it cannot be determined by the exterior appearance. Terdalkar said he checked the Sanborn maps, and there appears to be a similar footprint on the site after 1930, so if this is a new structure it may have been built upon an older foundation. He stated that the site inventory form for the landmark designation does not mention any of the outbuildings on the site. Weitzel said that he is familiar with Stumpfs work and is prepared to accept what he says as legitimate and right on target. 8 HPC minutes: 9/14/2006 APPROVED MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 - 6:00 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Tim Toomey, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Gunn, John McCormally, Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Joseph Codr, Ann Estin, James Estin, Alison Ames Galstad, Susan Lutgendorf, Shelly McCafferty, Beth Rapson, John Roffman, Mike Waltz RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): None ELECTION OF OFFICERS: The election of officers was deferred until later in the meeting by consensus of the Commission. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificates of Appropriateness: 923 Iowa Avenue. MOTION: Ponto moved to take consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for 923 Iowa Avenue up from the table. Brennan seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Terdalkar referred to the memorandum, issued at the request of the Commission, in the packet containing an opinion from the Zoning Interpretation Panel regarding the guidelines. He said that the Panel has basically said that the guideline in Section 8.2 is not applicable to this project. Terdalkar said the Panel rendered that opinion because there is a particular section for multi-family buildings and their design in the guidelines and also because there is a sentence in the guidelines in Section 8.2 that says that those guidelines refer to single-family and duplex buildings. However, he said that the design guidelines for multi-family buildings do address the issues of scale, mass, and height of the proposed building, so the Commission may choose to apply those guidelines in this case. Weitzel re-stated, for clarification, that Section 8.2 is from the College Hill Neighborhood Guidelines, which do not apply, according to the Panel. He said, however, that Section 10, Design Guidelines for Multi-Family buildings, does allow the Commission to consider the effect on the neighborhood. 't HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 10 Weitzel said that correspondence was received from Frank Gersh and Susan Lutgendorf. He said the Commission also received a petition stating that the undersigned had concerns that the scale and mass of the proposed apartment building will enable the property owners to double the number of tenants and that Iowa Avenue has become dominated by student renters and that the few remaining single-family homeowners feel increasingly embattled and isolated. Weitzel said the petitioners argue that the aesthetic architectural guidelines for historic preservation and conservation should ultimately be in the service of quality of life and also intend to help stabilize neighborhoods that contain mixed owner-occupied homes and rental properties. He said the petitioners state that they consider the mass of the building proposed for 923 Iowa to violate the spirit of these principles and hope the Commission will seriously consider the spirit of Section 8 of the guidelines. Weitzel said there is also a proposal by Susan Lutgendorf that the Commission defer consideration of this item, based on the number of people who may be absent from the meeting. Public Comment: Susan Lutgendorf stated that she wanted to underscore some of the things written in the letter. She said that she has always considered the 900 block of Iowa Avenue to be an ideal place to live. Lutgendorf said it is easy to bike and walk to downtown, and this is an ideal block for families to live on. Lutgendorf said it is real important to her to preserve the quality of life on that block and to stabilize the neighborhood. She said she was glad to see that there is a provision in the guidelines that does relate to mass and size of building, because her concern is that the massive structure that is proposed, something about the sheer size of it and the fact that it is going to be substantially larger than the building that was previously there, really changes the character of that neighborhood. Lutgendorf said it introduces a larger apartment building, and she feels that it really does further destabilize the neighborhood. Lutgendorf said her great concern is that the Commission has made its own guidelines for stabilization of neighborhoods, and she did not see anything in this matter so urgent as to cause the Commission to renege on the guidelines that it has made. Lutgendorf said she understands that the owner of the property is allowed to replace the number of units that he previously had, and that is his economic prerogative. She said, however, that if there were nine people there before, why could there not be three apartment units of three people each or six apartment units of two people each. Lutgendorf said that just because there is a certain number of bedrooms, that does not mean there will only be one person residing in that bedroom. Lutgendorf said that the amount to which the population density will be increased could be quite massive. She strongly requested that the Commission honor its own guidelines regarding the character of the building and the character of the neighborhood. Alison Ames Galstad said that she has lived on this block for about 14 years. She said she chose this area, because it is a mixed neighborhood and because it is walking distance from downtown. Galstad said that as a property owner, she respects what the City is trying to do in terms of historic preservation. She said she is disappointed to see people stepping away from the intent of those guidelines. Galstad said that in the case of her neighborhood, she hoped that the Commission would stand up for the intent of the guidelines. She said that it is of great concern to see the population density here increase so drastically. Shelly McCafferty, the consultant for the applicant, provided some revised handouts for the Commission. She reminded the Commission that its purview is the architecture, and the scale, design, and mass of the 10 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28,2006 Page 11 architecture. McCafferty said it is not the Commission's purview to look at the underlying zoning code or the housing code. McCafferty said that this neighborhood is not all single-family houses or all smaller scale houses. She showed some photographs of other buildings and said that as one stands at the end of Iowa Avenue, there are a couple of large buildings in view that are substantially larger than what the applicant proposes. McCafferty said that Washington Street has additional large buildings, varying from 50 to 75 feet in width. She stated that a larger scale building is not necessarily out of place in this neighborhood. McCafferty said she has been working on revising this building to make it smaller, based on previous public comments. She showed an illustration of the proposed building surrounded by blue lines to represent the previous proposal. McCafferty said the width of just the front fayade without the bays would be 46 feet; the original building at the front was 42 feet. McCafferty also showed an illustration of how the proposed building relates to the previous building, represented by red lines. She stated that the front elevation area of the proposed building would be 1,656, and her best estimate of the front elevation area of the original building is 1,646. McCafferty said that the front wall area, which excludes the roof, would now be within 50 square feet of what it was previously. She said that the typical eave height would actually be three feet lower than that of the previous building. McCafferty said that the roof height as the Building Department would measure it would be four feet lower than the previous building. She said the only dimension that is not less than what the previous building had is the width; the new building would be just four feet wider than what the previous building was, excluding the base. McCafferty showed the side elevation of the building. She showed the base laid out in the lighter lines on the left and right of the building and on the side elevation. McCafferty showed examples of bays on buildings in Iowa City. She showed the bays from the side and showed how from the front, they are essentially not visible and do not contribute to the perceived mass of the buildings. McCafferty said that to look at the straight elevation and measure it is not really an accurate portrayal of what the perception of the scale of the building will be from the street. McCafferty showed what the building would look like in three dimensions. She said that mostly what one would see is the porch and the front projecting gables. McCafferty showed examples of flat elevations of various buildings. She said that seen in three dimensions, the sense of scale of the buildings is significantly different. McCafferty said this proposal is for a building that is not a solid mass, as the previous building was. She said that it is a little bit wider but is more articulated, however. McCafferty said that one's perception of the building as seen from the street is actually going to appear smaller than what it was previously. She said that is what should be discussed: the scale, the perception of scale, and how it relates to the neighborhood. Lutgendorf asked if she had a side elevation for the side of the building would look like as compared to the previous building. McCafferty said that she did not have photographs of the side of the previous building. Lutgendorf said that she will be experiencing the building from the side, not from the street. McCafferty said that the previous building would probably have gone back to the middle of the large center bay. She said the exterior back wall was previously about at the middle of the center bay. McCafferty said the depth would increase from 40 feet to 69 feet. McCafferty said that there are screening requirements to mitigate having multi-family next to single-family. She said there is a required setback of 15 feet from the side property line, but this will actually be at 21 feet at the base and 24 feet at the largest mass of the building. 11 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 12 McCafferty said there is a screening requirement for parking, but she also put in screening along the property line where the building is. She showed another larger, over story tree that she said will further diminish the appearance of the back of the building from the street. Beth Rapson asked how the placement of the building on the lot would relate to the building that was there before. She said she is the person who will be most impacted by this building, as it will take away light and privacy and will add noise and a structure where there was open space before. McCafferty said she did not know exactly where that building was before, as she did not have exact dimensions. She said that it would go back a little bit further and would be a little bit closer, maybe three or four feet. John Roffman, the owner of the property, said that the west line would not be a whole lot different than it was on the previous building. He said there was an addition on the east with that offset, and there was still side yard beyond that. Roffman said there is only a seven-foot side yard over there now, and to that front porch there would have been about ten, so it would be about three feet less there, so it might be a foot closer. Michaud asked if the space where the rear shed was located would be used. Roffman responded that it was part of the building; it was not a shed. He said he would be using that space and then perhaps another foot to the right. Michaud asked if it would be one foot closer for the most extreme bay on the west side. Roffman replied that that would be his best guess. Regarding light and so forth, McCafferty said that at the portion of the building adjacent to the single- family house, there should actually be more light. She said that it will not be as tall of a building overall, and it is also going to have a slope on it. McCafferty agreed that there will be more length. Michaud asked if going from nine efficiency units or single-bedrooms to three-bedroom units has all been cleared with the zoning plan. McCafferty said that it all within the zoning code. Weitzel said that it is Neighborhood Stabilization 20. McCafferty said this is allowed under the baseline zoning, and what the Commission is looking at here is really the mass and scale of the building. Michaud asked if the footprint is then not relevant. Weitzel said that under Section 10, the Commission can look at front setback; lighting; parking; parking below buildings; garages; building orientation; pedestrian access; balconies and decks; building height; mass; roofline; building modulation, which is the street elevation setback; window fenestration and architectural style. He said there is also a series of building point items to be awarded to a multi-family building. Terdalkar said that the building has already been determined to qualify for the required minimum points. Carlson asked if there is anything in the Commission's purview that would relate to building depth. Weitzel said the Commission never has traditionally been able to do that, except for in the Summit Street District where it is specified in the guidelines. Terdalkar said the Commission can consider the mass of the building, which is the overall size of the building-all about the height, scale, and depth of the building. Michaud said that square footage is therefore relevant. Terdalkar read from the Building Mass/Height item of the Design Guidelines for Multi- Family Buildings, "Measures should be incorporated into the design of a new building that help to reduce its visual mass and overall height. Examples include 1) holding the height of the eave line down by making the upper floor of a building a half story and utilizing dormers to accommodate the use of the floor area, 2) stepping the height of the taller building down to two stories at ends adjacent to existing buildings that are two stories or lower in height, 3) providing significant variations in the roofline and front building plane which help to reduce the scale of the building along the streetscape." Terdalkar said these measures can be incorporated into the design, and this is not an exhaustive list of what can be done to reduce the building mass and height or the perception. 12 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 13 McCafferty stated that although application of the 1,600 square foot front elevation language in the preservation handbook may not have been correct in terms of saying it only applies to single-family and duplex buildings, the reason it dealt with the square footage of the front facade and not with anything dealing with depth was to ensure that a multi-family property that was destroyed could be reconstructed and that the depth was something that was specifically not addressed. She said that the specific intent was to only deal with the square footage of the front facade, and this proposal is within that, regardless of whether it would be applicable here or not. Weitzel said that this [application] was tabled to get a clarification of whether the facade square footage guideline applied here. He said that it does not, but the building height and mass standard section 10.1 can be applied. Weitzel said the Commission is charged with whether or not this building and this design meet these guidelines. Lutgendorf asked, with respect to the mass issues, if there is any way that the mass consideration can be thought of with respect to the depth and if the architectural design issue can be applied with respect to the depth to make it a less massive building from the side. She said that Section 10 of the guidelines has to do with ways to make a building more architecturally appealing. Terdalkar said it doesn't just limit the Commission to review the architectural features. He said the section states that one way to reduce the overall height is to step down a building that is adjacent to a lower building, so that does address the overall mass. Lutgendorf said that, as someone who is going to be impacted by the mass of this building, if one just considers how big this is going to be, she would ask the Commission to consider whether there is any way to scale this back. Regarding the dimensions of the building, Terdalkar said the dimensions for the front elevation, as shown on the drawings distributed today, do not include the overall width of the building. He said the dimensions do not include the projections [referred as bays by the applicant], and for the sake of clarification, the guidelines define the area of the elevation as the entire front elevation shown on a drawing, so the faded lines should be included in the elevation. Roffman's attorney asked if there was an updated staff report since the last meeting. Terdalkar said the memorandum with the opinion of the Zoning Interpretation Panel was included in the packet. Regarding the revised proposal, he said that he just received it as the commission members, so that he was not able to comment on the new plan. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the revised plan for the building at 923 Iowa Avenue, as presented. Brennan seconded the motion. Ponto said he likes what McCafferty has done to minimize the visual mass from the street. He said he remains concerned about the length of this. Ponto said his personal interpretation of mass would include three dimensional, so that the lengtl'l of this is still a concern. Ponto said this is a real exceptional case, because, in general, the guidelines do not allow a demolition permit until the Commission has first approved the replacement building. He said that because of the tornado damage, the Commission deemed this an exceptional case and went ahead and approved the demolition permit before there was a plan. Ponto said that if he had seen this plan before the demolition permit was approved, he does not think he would have voted for it, because he would have thought this is much bigger than the previous building, and he would have wanted to see something more in the three- dimensional mass of the previous building. 13 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 14 Baker asked if, in Section 10.1 under building height and mass where it says, "Design of the new building to help reduce its visual mass," visual mass includes the side view. Weitzel said that Terdalkar's opinion is that architectural mass is the 360 degree view. Weitzel said that as McCafferty pointed out earlier, when the Commission looked at these guidelines, there was discussion about limiting buildings and their size, and that is not specifically in these district guidelines. McCafferty said her recollection is that depth is not one of the dimensions that the Commission was going to enforce in a conservation district; it was the front dimension that was of primary concern. Toomey stated that this is a big increase in density. He said that comes with the accompanying baggage of having to supply parking, and that impacts the neighborhood too when there is not a yard but a concrete pad. Toomey said this would have a major impact on the neighborhood. Ponto said that a counterargument would be that the Commission has always allowed additions on to the back, many of which have had additions a third as large as the house. He said that if there was a request to add a third again addition to the back of the original building, that would approximate this. Ponto said, however, that most additions would not have the same height, would have a somewhat smaller scale, and would probably be set back as well. Toomey asked if this was built as a single-family house. Carlson stated that the core of this structure was built as a single-family house, but it was expanded to a fraternity in the 1920s, and that is when the third and one-half story was added. Brennan said that the neighborhood, as defined in the district, runs along Iowa and Washington from Johnson to Muscatine, on College from Governor to Summit, and on Burlington from Summit to Muscatine. He said that is the neighborhood this concerns, and one shouldn't focus just on a little block, because the City has defined this neighborhood as that area. Brennan said the neighborhood is sprinkled with very large buildings, as shown in the photographs provided by McCafferty. Brennan said that the proposed building exceeds side setback requirements, has a sloped roof, and the fayade is certainly no greater than that of the buildings the Commission was shown photographs of, and they are fairly liberally sprinkled around the entire neighborhood. Carlson stated that he agrees with Ponto in that he has to view the depth as part of the mass of the building. He said he likes the fact that this was scaled back quite a bit from the original proposal, but it still is much bigger than what was there before, and what was there before was already bigger than most things in this neighborhood. Carlson said that at this point, he did not think he could vote for approval of this plan. Michau.d said she lives on College Green Park and is sensitive to the neighborhood concerns. She said that if this was being built next to her property, she would be ambivalent, because the owner is making an attempt to do landscaping and ameliorative things. Michaud said she would not have any problem agreeing to the height and width of this if it were for two-bedroom units with the same original footprint. Carlson said that the fayade is bigger than what was there but is within reason: He said the Commission shouldn't be taking landscaping into consideration when considering the mass of the building, because it is not known whether the landscaping will always be there. Carlson said the issue is really what one can see based on the buildings around this right now, and it will clearly be a very deep building from the street. He said that if there was some way of reducing setting back the back of the building in some way - making it shorter or pulling it in - that could reduce the scale enough to make it within the guidelines in his opinion. Carlson said that as it is now, he does not think it is within the guidelines. 14 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 Historic Preservation Commission September 28, 2006 Page 15 Weitzel said that this is a tough case, because it concerns landowner rights as well as the rights of the neighbors. He asked what historic preservation is if it isn't taking into account what something does to the community. Weitzel said the Commission can't always make everybody happy. He said he did not remember ever having this much opposition to a project in recent times from the neighborhood, so he would have to vote against this. The motion failed on a vote of 1-6. with Brennan votina in favor. Weitzel suggested the applicant work on another design or consider the appeal process, which determines whether the Commission has been arbitrary or capricious in its decision. 805 East Washinaton. MOTION: Ponto moved to take consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for 805 East Washington Street up from the table. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Terdalkar stated that this item was deferred at the last meeting, because the applicant could not attend the meeting. Terdalkar said he suggested that the design of the new garage should be somewhat compatible with what was demolished. He showed sketches that he had discussed with the applicant. Terdalkar said the applicant was going to determine the cost of the brick needed for the project. Terdalkar said he suggested that if there is not enough original brick salvaged from the original structure, the owner can probably use face brick to match the portions of the brick, and use stucco as it was on the original structure. Terdalkar said he also asked the owner if he could install a window on the south fayade to match the original. Terdalkar said if that is a concern, with regard to a nearby parking lot, the owner could build a recess in the stucco, which would give a break in the mass on the side and give the impression of a window. Terdalkar said that instead of the addition that was done to accommodate a larger car, he suggested just installing the roofline on the front of the building, which will somewhat replicate the front elevation, which will be similar to this. Joseph Codr, the owner of the building, said that he likes Terdalkar's proposal. Codr said that Terdalkar gave him six to eight ideas, and he thought they were all right on. Codr said he wants this to look as much like the original as possible. He said he has no problems with anything proposed by Terdalkar. Michaud asked about the depth of the gable part. Terdalkar said that the eaves on the house are very deep. He said it could be about the same depth as the eaves on the house, about one foot or so. Terdalkar said the garage will be 18 feet, to accommodate a modern car. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 805 East Washington Street in accordance with the drawings provided at this night's meetings. Baker seconded the motion. Terdalkar said the wall will be constructed with concrete block, which will not make it easy to build the step down from one end to another. He said it will have a shed roof, as it did before, which will drain toward the east side. Weitzel said the building was demolished as a safety issue, because the north wall was pretty much gone after the tornado. Codr said he has to use block, because the north wall is against the steps of the house, 15 HPC minutes: 9/28/2006 TRANSCRIPTS TRANSCRIPTION HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 Weitzel: Okay, seeing none, we will move on to item four, items of consideration, beginning with the certificates of appropriateness. We've had a request to move 923 Iowa Avenue to the beginning of the meeting. Is there anybody that has an objection to that? Seeing none, we will do that, so under B, item seven, we will begin with 923 Iowa Avenue. Weitzel: Staff report Terdalkar: 923 Iowa Avenue. This project was recent was approved for a demolition permit recently by the Commission without a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction.. . can't hear.. . prub?... of the proposed building on the site. So we are reviewing right now is a proposal for the new structure on the site. The applicant is proposing a six-unit, I8-bedroom apartment structure to replace the storm-damaged nine-unit, nine-bedroom apartment or rooming unit, because it was damaged and followed of the demolition. Terdalkar: Staff has provided the staff report based on the guidelines, design guidelines for multi-family buildings, Section 10, which require certain items that have to be that have to be demonstrated before the certificate ... can't hear. .. is issued for the project. We have requested the applicant to revise these drawings to comply with all the regulations or all the guidelines and the regulations thereof to to allow them to redesign the structure to comply with all these requirements. Terdalkar: I believe the applicant has some new drawings and... McCafferty: Here is a revised site plan that I'll pass around. The only changes to the building that which are not reflect in what's in your packet is there's gonna be 18 inches taken out of the depth the length of the building. So probly about six inches in two bedrooms and maybe another six inches in the living room. So the the side elevations as you see them in your packet are not going to change significantly. McCafferty: This is another site... can't hear. .. review? ...issue just for your to demonstrate that this does comply with the front setback requirements and show where the building sits in relationship to the other properties on on the...can't hear... So this should all comply with the multi-family guidelines in the historic preservation handbook. McCafferty: I guess the other thing I'd just like to note relative to the site issues is, there was quite a few issues in the staff report about that, is we would like to request approval of the architecture at this time and the site plan as it is right now. Now the site plan is still somewhat of a concept because we have not yet engineered the site. We didn't wanna engineer the site around a building which may not be approved by the Commission. So we would like to have approval of the of the building. If, when we get to the additional stages of the site engineering, there is a possibility of a sensitive areas rezoning here, we will come back to the Commission for an amendment, but we do want to have the confidence to proceed with the engineering of this building at this time. Weitzel: Okay. Just to reiterate then, you are asking for approval of the architectural design at this point and the concept, basically, for the site plan, which we would then come back and review? McCafferty: Well, if there are significant changes, I would say, according to staff, we would ask, you know, we will come back and review it. Ifwe fmd that we can engineer it pretty much to be exactly what you have, we would leave it up to staff, ask request that it not have to go back through the Commission. Weitzel: Okay. McCafferty: There will be probly retaining walls and things like that that are not yet resolved, and they may be of a height and such that we will need to come back. HPC: 9/14/2006 1 Weitzel: Okay then our our, when we make a motion that would need to reflect that then. Point that out. Anything else? McCafferty: Well, everything's I I pretty I think you could.. .can't hear. ..of the building. Ponto: Yeah. Weitzel: Hmm mmm. McCafferty: I guess I'll just proceed with pointing out some of the design ideas within the building and how we tried to design this such that it complies with the guidelines. This front elevation drawing that you have here in your in your drawing, I have shown here basically how this compares to the outline of the previous building. The goal in doing this elevation was one, to lower the overall eave height and so generally the the mass, appearance of the mass right, what it was previously was pretty much one big block. Ponto: Right. McCafferty: So we've lowered the eave height. We've put actually living units sort of more under the roof so we get the three stories where we actually have a lower eave line. We also have the building much more articulated than what was there previously. It's a little wider than what was there, but the my intent in designing it was to do it so it looked more like a duplex. So you've got the two front faces essentially connected by a stairway and then a porch here. I lowered the eave line here where the stair is to sort of accentuate the fact that that's more ofa link that's pushed back from the main plane planing. So again, the the intent is to try to maximize the look of this as a duplex as opposed to an apartment block. Swaim: Shelly, how much wider is it than the original? McCafferty: The original, let's see it's... Terdalkar: The original structure was 42 feet wide, and now it is 58 feet wide. McCafferty: 58? No. Oh, okay, it depends It is with the side bays here which are are back away from the front fa9ade a little bit, with those side bays, it would be 58. Without those side bays.... Terdalkar: 54. McCafferty: It is 52. So sort of the the perception of the building from the front, which is really these front projecting gables is going to be that it's ten feet wider. Swaim: Okay. McCafferty: Okay. You know, we went ahead, you know, added some dormers and articulation along the side to deal with the head room but then also to you know so you don't have the perception along the side of this being a railroad car kind of thing going back along this skinny building. Weitzel: Other questions? McCafferty: So then here's sort of the effect that we to to break up the side, particularly on the side where you have a single-family house adjacent. That was a concern. If you do look at that site plan again, it shows you, oops not this one, this one right here, there's a darker outline that shows you the relative difference in the footprint of the old versus the new. McCafferty: But we really broke up the lot the the pitch of the roof, the articulation of the roof, with the steeper pitch, which is more prevalent within that neighborhood. Gives some articulation to the front the surface by using the two different materials, the siding materials. It'll all be done out of fiber cement HPC: 9/14/2006 2 board, with a concrete base. We have noted that the base will be cast concrete. There's not going to be a lot of that bottom foundation which is visible given the slope of the site. And with this ramp and so forth, it'll probly be you know some landscaping here to deal with that. So you're really not gonna see any of the foundation. So at this point we're proposing if you would just allow us to paint the foundation and not, you know, do a decorative masonry or plaster or anything like that. You know, it's gonna be on a hill. Those you look up from the street you you will see it given.. .can't hear.. . site lines. Weitzel: Questions for the applicant and consultant. McCafferty: This is, I I I'm just talking this some to John here, but this is a some more of a three- dimensional look of it. I added the shadows so you get a better sense of the articulation of the building. Weitzel: Are there further...? Yeah, go ahead. Michaud: Is it, what is the difference between the sidewalk elevation and the and the plateau? McCafferty: It goes up approximately nine feet within 15 feet of length, which is about a 60% slope. What we're doing with that slope is in order to get the ramp, we're probly have to have an get an easement from the adjacent property, and we have a verbal agreement that that'll be okay. And that slope is gonna have to be softened somewhat on the side next to the large apartment building on the east side so that we can get the ramp up. HIS, Housing Inspection is telling us that we have to have accessibility from the front. And the, you know, the other option would be to basically cut a trench going back to the building and having an elevator, which would be not, well an eyesore but also quite expensive. Weitzel: What's, what's the height of the hill itself? McCafferty: It's about it's nine feet up to the top of the stairs. Weitzel: Oh okay. McCafferty: And then it continues to slope back up. Weitzel: Right, right. Okay. McCafferty: I estimate Weitzel: But it's... McCafferty: probly about Weitzel: Okay, okay. McCafferty: five or six feet you know back to the lot line. But that's... Michaud: Where's like Washington Street, Washington and Van Buren, they do have that, what looks like it's now a tunnel going into the basement. McCafferty: Yeah, now that would have been the other option... Michaud: Vb huh. McCafferty: Or or to have a little tower sitting out front. Michaud: Vb huh. HPC: 9/14/2006 3 McCafferty: But you know we don't know, there's no definition ofthat in the zoning code, so we don't know where we could even put it. Michaud: Right. I think this the duplex looks good, and as a pedestrian who walks her dog in that neighborhood, I think that the ramp is gonna be more prominent than anything. Weitzel: Okay, we need to, we need to at this point, we need to concentrate on questions and after that we need a motion so we can then go into discussion. Michaud: can't hear. .. Sidebars? McCafferty: Oh yeah, yeah never mind. Weitzel: Yeah, we need questions or so we can go into a motion. Ponto: One of Sunil's points was regarding lighting. McCafferty: Hmm hmm. On this revised site plan, I did indicate some lighting on here. Now what typically happens is that that the civil engineer will take and do a light plan for us that that guarantees that we have you know downcast shielded... Ponto: Hmm hmm. McCafferty: ... the appropriate lumens and so forth. Well, at this point, we're not at that really step yet. So what I am proposing here is basically a concept. We've got some lights underneath the porch... Ponto: Hmm hmm. Hmm hmm. McCafferty: Some lights on the back of the building, underneath the the the roof over the rear stairway, and then we'll probly have to have a few a polo or two in the back. Ponto: Hmm hmm. McCafferty: And where I'm showing them is trying to push them as far back as I can so that they... Ponto: Hmm hmm. McCafferty: don't add glare to the the single family house. There are you know these buffering requirements that. .. Ponto: Right. McCafferty: we're showing on here. And it is already a natural tree line here and I'm showing, you know, some supplement of that so there's a buffer between the single family and... Ponto: Hmm hmm. McCafferty: and this property. Weitzel: Further questions, or can we have a motion so we can begin our discussion? What? Terdalkar: There's some public member that we can... we have to... McCafferty: Oh, public comment? HPC: 9/14/2006 4 Weitzel: Okay, then it, okay, staffis pointing out that ifthere is anybody from the public wants to comment on this that you should do it at this time. Lutgendorf: My name is Philip Lutgendorf, and my wife, Susan, and I own the building directly adjacent to this, which is 911 Iowa, which is being repaired after extensive tornado damage, being restored really nicely. And I guess, you folks are mostly only concerned with how things look, but as a neighborhood resident, I have other concerns that I want to bring up. And maybe they're not relevant, but anyway I just want to at least express them. Lutgendorf: We've lived there for 21 years, and the building that was there, 923, was a remarkably good neighbor to us over that time in that we've never to my recollection had a complaint towards that building, except one about drainage, which Mr. Roffman very kindly dealt with right away. Lutgendorf: But in terms of noise, which is a major issue on that block, we never had a problem in that building. And I think the reason was because it had one-bedroom apartments in it and only nine people living there, and they tended to be quiet students. And so my, our biggest concern about this, this plan, apart from sort of the sheer size of the building, which is gonna kind of really dominate the side of our garden, but is the fact that it's going to, it's doubling the density of of people living at that at that site. And it's going to three-bedroom apartments, which it seems to me are gonna attract a very different kind of clientele. You'll have people living in with their friends and you know, having parties. And I mean, I the the reality is that what's driving single families off that block on Iowa Avenue is the noise from parties, at least that's my perception. And we've had to call the police many, many times because of houses on mostly the other side of the street, the north side ofIowa Avenue. Lutgendorf: So the thought of having that now come in right next door is really troubling to us. And I don't know that this commission can say anything about that or not, but that's that's my biggest concern. think the design is attractive, you know, for a new building. I can see that a lot of effort has gone into trying to make it fit, and I I certainly appreciate that, but going from nine to 18, with parking and and three- bedroom apartments is really a big change for the neighborhood. And if the goal is to sort of stabilize that block as mixed single-family and rental, I just seems to me like this is a step backward, rather than than forward. Thanks. Weitzel: I'm not sure we can specifically address those questions or not, but I do know that we've had direction from Council that if we do not take neighborhood concerns under issue when we're discussing historic preservation, then we're not doing our job either. So we are primarily looking at architectural aesthetics and historic preservation, you know, historic issues. Anybody else who would like to speak from the public? If not, I would like to hear a motion, so we can begin our discussion. Swaim: I move we begin discussion. Weitzel: You actually have to... Swaim: Oh, what am I doing? Weitzel: .. . make a motion about the project. Swaim: Oh, I move we begin discussion on 923. Weitzel: You have to be... Swaim: to say... Baker: You have to move approval. Swaim: I move that we... HPC: 9/14/2006 5 Weitzel: You have to speak the terms for approving this project. Swaim: Oh, I didn't know we were at that point, frankly. Weitzel: Right. Legally, we're supposed to... Swaim: Oh, in order to discuss it we have, I move... Weitzel: ... we have to have a motion on the table so we can have discussion. Swaim: Okay, I move that we approve this project, 923 Iowa A venue, with the stipulation that things may change, based on the engineering, do we need that at this point? Weitzel: For the site plan, yeah. Swaim: For the site plan. How'd we do? Weitzel: I think that's acceptable. Second? Ponto: I'll second. Weitzel: Okay. Moved by Swaim, seconded by Ponto. Is everybody clear of that motion? Then we have discussion. Pam, would you like to resume where I cut you off earlier? Michaud: Well, I did start out with a question and that was how.. . Weitzel: Yes. Michaud: what the difference is Weitzel: But I felt the segueway... Michaud: Yeah, yeah, right. So yeah, I guess as a pedestrian, yeah, it would be great to have something that looks like a historic duplex. However, would you would you have like retaining walls? You can't really put grass in there. McCafferty: That's going to be part of the of the whole next step of the engineering process is, and as I would like to direct them, and I think from a cost point too is to try to minimize the amount of retaining wall and so forth that we have so we don't have this big base of stone there. But part of that will be dependent on on working with all of this whole thing out. I would say, you know, we want to minimize it, but I I can't tell you at this point how much retaining wall is going to be there on the front fa9ade. Michaud: Vh huh. Right, because of course then the neighbors, are, it's going to suddenly be.. . Roffman: What is helping us a lot is the Clarks to the east have verbally agreed to allow us to extend our ramp over front of their property, which is the lower part of the slope, and so we kind of blend that in, and as it goes west, it gets a steeper slope, so we can kind of, like I say, work with the topography and that, just within our own... Michaud: And then will you share access to the ramp then, with them? Roffman: Hmm hmm. Michaud: So they can use it for their.. . Roffman: Correct. HPC: 9/14/2006 6 Michaud: Yeah, that makes sense. So maybe there could be some ameliorative consideration with the other neighbors, I don't know, it, with the planting or something. McCafferty: Yeah, the Clarks have been very, they've been very cooperative. One of the other issues is is working with the City, because at this point, the slope of the of the hill starts right at the sidewalk, which is within the City right-of-way. Ponto: Hmmmm. McCafferty: So if we have to cut back to the property line, then back an additional 42 inches, that's probly where we would have the most retaining wall. Ifwe could work with the util, the the engineering department and allow us to start our sidewalk and our ramp right at the City sidewalk, that would help reduce that. But that is in negotiation. We still have to pursue that. Weitzel: Would we have any purview over the type of material used in the retaining wall? Terdalkar: If it requires a permit, yes we... Weitzel: If it requires a permit, we could, we could come back then and discuss the type of material. . . can't hear. . . at that time. In fact, we'd have to, unless we wanted to specify it tonight. McCafferty: Somehow we have to get handicapped accessibility. Swaim: Have to what? McCafferty: We have to get the handicapped... Weitzel: They don't allow that from the rear? McCafferty: No, they do not. Weitzel: It has to be from the street. McCafferty: Their interpretation of accessibility from the public way is from the the street on the front of the building, not from a public easement or a public alley. Weitzel: Because the alley doesn't have... Terdalkar: There is no alley. Weitzel: There's no alley. Oh. Terdalkar: It's a private drive. McCafferty: Yeah, even ifit was an alley, they won't accept it. Weitzel: Well, sidewalk, it's not...can't hear...fake?... McCafferty: Yeah, it has to be from the front. Weitzel: It's not accessible. McCafferty: Yeah, it has to be if you're a pedestrian walking down, you can get to the building. Weitzel: Okay. Further comments, questions. HPC: 9/14/2006 7 Michaud: Yeah, this, I do. This has to do with the Lutgendorfs concern, and I guess, because I was a few minutes late, this is according to the density that the City has established for that block. However, it is doubling so, you know, I live downtown, I know how this is with parties, and maybe there could be some consideration given and some stipulation in the leases like mine that there are various restrictions on party times. This is possible. I think it's a civilized way to do it. You could say in your lease that, you know, parties should be quiet after 11. I don't know. There are reasons to be good neighbors. I'll just throw that out there. It has nothing to do with historic preservation except for the historic neighborhood. McCafferty: Sure, sure. Swaim: Well, I I guess the fact that Mr. Roffinan has been responsive to concerns is a plus that the neighbors aren't having a lot of complaints, that you would have some leverage with your tenants to squash that. Roffinan: Right, we're a mom and pop operation. It's managed by ourselves so, you know, we do have a lot of direct involvement, we all, completely involved, I guess you could say, in leasing and management, maintenance. Swaim: Because that is a substantial...I like the look of the building. It is a substantial increase in tenants. McCafferty: I guess I would I would... Ponto: Well, and as it's point out, a different clientele, it, one-bedroom versus three-bedrooms tend to attract different people. McCafferty: I guess the one thing I would just pointed out is when this the conservation district here was rezoned is that the Commission specifically responded to concerns of landlords that there was a concern that if in fact their building was destroyed, that it would not be a downzoning and they would not be able to reconstruct to the same size of what they had previously. Now this, you know, I certainly, I I understand the concerns of the neighbor and so forth, but you know that's the reason why we don't have the fayade limit on multi-family specifically.. .can 't hear... trails off.. .only applies to... can't hear... Right? Gunn: Well, I was, goes to my question. I, well, probably the first time in however many years don't have my guidelines in front of me. But it seems to me like they have scale guidelines, and there's all sorts of zoning things that we don't know about. But in this conservation district don't we have... Terdalkar: Section Eight. Gunn: Isn't it fairly clearly spelled out about the size limitations? Weitzel: Site and scale guidelines, Section... Terdalkar: The reason that that caught my mind when I was looking reviewing this project, the reason I did not think that out in the staff report is because the guidelines start with saying that these guidelines apply to single-family and duplex units. It doesn't say it applies to only single-family and duplex, so one would say that it should apply to the multi-family guide buildings. Weitzel: But we did specify that they don't. So... Terdalkar: Well, it doesn't, one one way to see it is that it one could have said specifically that it it specifically applies to single family and duplex. Weitzel: It does. They apply to single-family and duplex in these neighborhood districts. Terdalkar: Right. And, I I'm not sure why the language is that way. I wasn't here, so... HPC: 9/14/2006 8 Weitzel: Well, I think what Shelly said was we'd been had a lot of opposition on people that owned larger buildings, and they did have a concern that if a building was destroyed in its entirety that there would be a de facto lowering of their potential. On the other hand, it's a neighborhood conservation zone, so I don't know what that zone means either. Terdalkar: Neighborhood conservation and stabilization zone means that to encourage stabilizing the the neighborhood with lower density. Weitzel: And did that zoning... Terdalkar: And that, that would encourage... Weitzel: Was that downzoning already reflected when they created that zone, or was that an assumption that there were non-conforming buildings that would not be allowed? Terdalkar: I think there was notice.. McCafferty: Under the current.. Terdalkar: ... from that time for that... McCafferty: .. .RNS zoning, seven units would be allowed. And Mr. Roffman previously had nine units. Terdalkar: I think there should be a correction there. Seven units, just if you only consider the land, period. McCafferty: Right. Exactly. Terdalkar: You have to provide the parking that's required. McCafferty: Right and that's why.. . Terdalkar: Will that allow you the seven density? McCafferty:... we can't get seven units on. I'm, but I'm, I'm... Terdalkar: So, to present it as you are gaining seven units is not right, I think. It's not complete information. McCafferty: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying what is allowed just basically by doing the numbers in that particular zone. He could not go back and build nine units, but the bedrooms under density is not specified, whether it's a one-unit or... Weitzel: Yeah, I was gonna point that out... McCafferty: ...or a three-unit,... Weitzel: ..that we don't do that. McCafferty: ... three one-bedroom unit or a three-bedroom unit, so that's where the density is increased is with the number of bedrooms, not sort of a base, underlying zoning density.. . Weitzel: So, so we assume that your plan does reflect the number of parking spaces you're allowed. McCafferty: . It does reflect with all the required buffering that is necessary per the zoning code. HPC: 9/14/2006 9 Gunn: You you think that the fayade area does not apply here? McCafferty: I, when we did the conservation district, there was, Brad Houser, I remember specifically, and I and cup and one or two others that... Weitzel: Jim Clark. McCafferty: Was Jim Clark one of them? Was he? Okay. Where the concern was, and, you know, who would have thought a tornado would come through, you know, you sort of think this is a long that something is gonna be completely destroyed, particularly with... Weitzel: Clark's example was part of his building burned, would he have to tear down his whole building and build a historic structure. McCafferty: Well, it was, the the concern was if, you know, if you had, you know, for instance like a sorority a sorority-house sized building and it burned down, and your existing fayade square footage was X amount, would you then have to go down to, you know, Y amount, based upon these the neighborhood guidelines. And that they were considering a downzoning. And I think what we were and so that that is my recollection of why the multi-family fayade, the area does not apply to the multi-family unit is we didn't want to do a de fact downzoning. Gunn: Right. And that and that.. . Weitzel: Let me ask... Gunn: That discussion did... Weitzel: Let me ask Sunil if that fayade area, does that apply. I mean, do you, to your understanding, cuz our guidelines don't allow that. Terdalkar: One could, the staff felt that one could make that that interpretation ofthe guideline that it applies to, because it doesn't specify that it is only for single-family and duplex, it may apply here. But we thought that it was it was not in the guidelines stated particularly that it will it will also apply to the multi- family we thought that we may we should not probably bring that in here. McCafferty: What I I would say is that this is an SO-foot lot, and legally, based upon the zoning, this could be subdivided into two 40-foot lots. The building that we are showing is, I believe it's approximately 21 square feet, and that is including the roof, you know, and of course the roof slopes back. This building here was approximately 1,600 square feet. So if you, you know, there's there's two ways that it could, you could do it. You could say I'm gonna do, but we're gonna force this limitation like you do a building which is 1,600 square foot on an SO-foot lot or we could do three, two, three bed, three-unit buildings of 1,200 square foot fayade and get exactly what we're proposing. Terdalkar: Again, I have some reservation about getting that. We, if you are within 15 feet ofa multi, ofa single-family zone, you have to reduce your, limit your height ofthe structure to two and a half stories. That's a zoning requirement, so you will have to reduce, at least if you'll split the lot and you build a three- unit building, which is a multi-family building, on the lot which is adjacent a single-family structure, you will have to reduce the height of the structure, limit the height of the structure to two and a half stories. So, we do not believe that you will be able to get as many units as you want. McCafferty: Yeah let me, let me just clarify one, and I.. . we.. . T erdalkar: So that's... McCafferty: But two and a half stories would be what the front fayade of this building is, correct? HPC: 9/14/2006 10 Terdalkar: Or is it? We do not have a definition. We haven't discussed that because that's not on the... McCafferty: Okay, so let's not go there at this point. But there is, you know... Terdalkar: You wanted to go there. McCafferty: Even ifit was two single-family houses, you know, we would still have less aggregate square footage in this particular proposal than what we would have with two single-family houses. Terdalkar: I guess that's not the point. From where I'm reading the guidelines, it is to limit the size of the the unit by limiting this front elevation square footage to 1,200 square feet. You were there when the guidelines were written so you mi, you may know more about the intent of that guideline than me, but that says you can have two individual units with 1,200 square feet, but you cannot combine them into 12 2,400 square feet. That's what the intent is. McCafferty: But I'm just using this as an example. I'm not saying that legally you can combine. I'm kind of using this as an example of where, how, of sort of gauging the size of what we're proposing... Terdalkar: But I think that... McCafferty: ... versus what we could do with two single-family houses... Terdalkar: that comparison. I'm sorry. McCafferty: So, let's not, I mean that's that's what I'm trying to say is that this is well, we'll just leave it at that. But what you have here is basically something which would be of a scale of some of the more, the smaller sorority houses in in the neighborhood. So it's not unusual to, the scale of this building is certainly not unusual to the College Hill Neighborhood. Gunn: The discussion that. . . Brennan: That was gonna be my comment is that the scale of the building is similar to other buildings scattered throughout the neighborhood that are there. Some of them are old. Most of them are newer. A thumbnail sketch, I've got about 1,700 square feet offa9ade, not counting the top part of the gables. Do you know? Terdalkar: For the purpose of calculation, everything that you see in the elevation will be calculated. Brennan: Right. McCafferty: Where' s the elevation that the the. . . Brennan: So... McCafferty: ... I passed around. Did I pass that around? Gunn: It's in the packet, or there's something in the packet here. McCafferty: No, there was an elevation to show the shadows. Can I see that please? Gunn: But here's one that shows the old. McCafferty: Right, that's the previous, uh huh. Gunn: But isn't that what we're talking about? HPC: 9/1412006 11 McCafferty: Yes. Gunn: So, what, I would like to address the discussion that led to these guidelines and point out that I think the guidelines are perfectly clear. Shelly's right. There was that discussion, and it was a lengthy one, and the argument was, just because the predominant structure or the predominant size of the structures in the district is only 1,200 feet, if I have an apartment, a large apartment building and it bums down, can I rebuild it? And the answer is yes, and that's why it says, and if the structure has a street elevation surface area of 1,200 feet or greater, it may be reconstructed provided the street area does not exceed the area of the pre-existing primary structure. McCafferty: Hmm mmm. Gunn: So, I read this as being you absolutely can build, can build it back as big as it was. McCafferty: Hmm mmm. Gunn: I also read it that you can't build it back bigger than it was. So I mean I don't know that, I'm not confused about this issue, but whether to say this whole thing doesn't apply because it's a multi-family I I think is a stretch that that I I don't know where that would come from other than a really contorted view of what this guideline is. So, I mean if the old one is 1,600 square feet, then I then I don't have any problem saying 1,600 square feet for a new one is fine. The 1,200 doesn't, doesn't apply if you don't want it to. Two 1,200 square feet properties side by side would fit into the district. McCafferty: Hmm mmm. Gunn: But the issue is putting something, I mean, that's a big building for the district. Now you're proposing what looks like a little bit bigger one but it certainly can be a big one back. McCafferty: Yeah I mean I I guess what I would also like to point out is the the the architectural devices we've added to this to reduce the perceived scale of this building overall. A portion of this square footage, if you take just the technical square footage, a large portion of of it will be such that it's not going to, the bays in back here, for instance the top of the roof, that is all receding quite a bit in so you're not, it's not gonna be, you're not gonna see it in the same way that you see a big flat surface like you have right here. Weitzel: The original was a large flat fayade. Ponto: Yeah. Roffman: Square box. McCafferty: Square box. Ponto: Yeah. McCafferty: Right. Weitzel: But the that techni-thing you're talking about, we had a flat canyon wall, originally, now it's sloping back. It's a hillside. McCafferty: Yeah, yeah. I mean that's would be one way to, you know, but we had a building like this and now we're having something more, you know, it's gonna be perceived more like this in terms of the area. Weitzel: I think it does borrow architectural elements from buildings in the neighborhood, the near vicinity. The one question would be do we have any examples as duplexes, well we didn't build duplexes, HPC: 9/14/2006 12 so now we have to, you know, it's that whole thing. They didn't do duplexes, so, in Iowa City much, so what do we do about that. McCafferty: So do you, you're talking about..J would just go back to, there is a duplex, which is sort ofa similar concept to what we have right here. This one happens to be on the north side. If you look to the back of your packet. I specifically I specifically put some duplexes in here that you don't really notice around town, but they are there Weitzel: This one's on Church Street. McCafferty: Where's another one? Gunn: Do I have it here? McCafferty: If you look at page 43... Weitzel: This one's on Melrose. McCafferty: This one is sort of similar, but actually our fa~ade is gonna be much more articulated than this that we've done. It isn't gonna look quite as as tall. And this is a two and a half story structure that you have here on the front, which is similar to what we have. You know there's.. . Weitzel: And and and what we see in these is that we see peaked gables facing out and a single roof behind that cross-gabled. Same design. And I guess just also larger apartment buildings too. McCafferty: For instance here we do have some dormers at the top, which we could have designed this such that we had the side wall being flat beside the side wall, which technically would have reduced that square ...can't hear... as it's defined in terms of its measurement in the packet here. But we chose to bump that bay out so that you wouldn't have this giant flat wall along this side, that it would be more articulated. Weitzel: Okay, so we have we have architectural elements from the neighborhood and we have a style that's actually prevalent in Iowa City. What else do we want to say about the architecture? While you're thinking about what you want to talk about with architecture, I want to confirm, do we have any purview over the neighborhood issues? Can we actually talk about.. . Terdalkar: If you if you feel that it is issue, an issue which is about the conservation district, you have... Weitzel: We did that last meeting. We did talk about allowing changes to a building that we normally wouldn't allow because of the presence of an apartment building. Terdalkar: Yes, you sure do have a purview over the overlay zone, because you you have jurisdiction over that. Weitzel: And that's part of the reason why we have historic preservation ordinance. So we can talk about that to a certain extent, I think. But your reasoning has to be clear when you make your vote. Swaim: Well I guess in, in terms of the neighborhood and the number of tenants, I don't know the the in terms of the other houses, how many bedrooms are in units. I would expect there are more than one- bedroom units, but I don't know that. McCafferty: In this proposal? Swaim: No, the other ones on Iowa Avenue. McCafferty: Okay, yeah, yeah. HPC: 9/14/2006 13 Michaud: The Clark apartments, for instance, are they one bedroom or? McCafferty: I think they're one and two bedrooms. I don't think there's any three bedrooms, but I could be wrong. Swaim: Okay. McCafferty: I looked briefly at the plans, but Michaud: And there are three to five-bedroom houses probly across the street that you have trouble with. Swaim: I guess, I think this is an attractive building that in some ways will fit better into the neighborhood than this very big three-story building has. I'm empathetic with the issue of noise, because I've lived down the street from there. I think it's an issue that a lot of older neighborhoods have to stay on top of and find some good solutions. And I guess I don't want to single this one out as not being a workable project because of increasing the number oftenants. I'd rather we we found ways, and it may not be our purview, but to make the the noise issue and being good neighbors an easier thing to accomplish. Michaud: Well, as a landlord, I I fmd that if! put some restrictions on my renters, they lap it up. I've got graduate students. They don't destroy the walls. And so people welcome that it's gonna have quiet hours. I have quiet hours, and I get very cooperative tenants, and they don't destroy the building. So if you've got a brand new building, I'd say, you know, you can do that, you could leverage that. McCafferty: I would be, and this is just one of my theories, I mean just, I'd be very curious to see if there was any, if you could get any data that basically says, if you have a building that's well-maintained, it's well kept for responsible landlord, that looks like a ni, you know, a place you'd want to live, I would tend to think that you you would have better tenants than if you have a dumpy building like you have across the street, it's not necessarily maintained, that isn't, you know, where it's already so damaged that, who cares if you party and you damage it more? Weitzel: I think that's... McCafferty: I wish we had, I'd be curious... Weitzel: I don't have hard data, but I have anecdotal evidence that that's true in Iowa City. You look at the buildings. The ones that are in good shape and have interesting architectural have. . . Ponto: Mark McCallum has said things along those lines. Weitzel: Yes, yes, he's, I guess he's noticed that in his building, and that's actually a good, pretty good example. Anecdotal still but. .. McCafferty: But he may not have the.. .can't hear. Weitzel: Yeah, we don't have hard facts, but we have pretty good notion that that may be the case. Michaud: I think it starts working against the landlord when they have hundreds of units to fill, then they can be less, pro, selective of their renters. If you have less than a hundred units, maybe you can be more selective about your renters. Roffman: Well, I think, you know, the appearance of that building there is pre to the storm, and you know, I was happy the way it looked, and you know, we did go through and added multiple colors and do things to, you know, try to to increase the street appeal, I guess you would say. You know, so I guess that is the best representation that you're gonna have of what we try to do. HPC: 9/14/2006 14 Weitzel: Yeah just just to point out, I mean I think everybody's in agreement the way this original building was managed was acceptable to everybody. And the tenants, I ran into a tenant the day after the storm who said that she was really sorry to see that building go down. She'd lived there and really, really liked it. It was so quiet she said, it was just a responsible household. So we can, we can hope that goes forward from here. And I guess all I can say is ifit doesn't it'll be an example to the the contrary, but sounds like we have our discussion wrapping up here. Are we ready to vote? Gunn: Are we gonna say why we're gonna vote the way we vote, or are we just gonna vote? Well, I'm free to say whatever I want I guess, as far as a vote. Weitzel: Go ahead. Get started. Go ahead. Gunn: You know I've been on this Commission a lot of times where the project comes in and everyone says, oh this is big, this is really out of scale with the neighborhood, and we never have anything in the guidelines thats prevents it from going up. Well, here it seems like it's very clear in the guidelines that if it exceeds the, this building is big for the neighborhood. McCafferty: Hmm mmm. Gunn: Now it's gonna, if if this is done, it's gonna get bigger. So the whole point ofcontrolIing the scale is to control the size of the building. And the only way we thought we could do it legally was to define it as front elevation. So if this project is 1,600 square feet in its front elevation as defined in the guidelines, then then I think it's a wonderful building. But if it's 2,000 or 2,400, I think it's way too big, so I'm gonna vote against it. It's just, it's clearly too big. McCafferty: I guess, I just wannajust read briefly from the guidelines, if that's allowed. Weitzel: Yeah, sure. McCafferty: And that is, that the College Hill Neighborhood District Guidelines apply to the College Green Historic District, East College Street District, College Hill Conservation District. They apply to single-family and duplex buildings in these neighborhoods. McComally: May I ask a question at this point? McCafferty: So, I would like to get some clarification if they apply, you know, it seems rather clear there that it does not apply to multi-family. Weitzel: Well, that's what I was reading earlier, and that's where I was in doubt about that phrase, whether that applied to these or not. Your question. McComally: There is another large apartment building on the comer of, I believe it's Iowa and Dodge, the large blue apartment building there that was, does everyone know the building I'm talking about? Weitzel: Iowa and Dodge. It's actually not on the comer. It's... McComally: It's set in a couple houses but that's still in the same... Weitzel: The vinyl sided building used to be several small buildings, correct? McComally: Yes. That's still in the same district, is it not? That's still in the College... McCafferty: That's, yeah it is. Unless we, we... Gunn: There are several apartment buildings... HPC: 9/14/2006 15 Weitzel: ...1 just can't remember now... McCornally: Well, no, I guess what I'm saying is that particular building replaced many smaller buildings, and it is gigantic. My question is if a building of that size was allowed to go up in in this neighborhood, and I'm unclear as to the this frontage issue, but that building seems to me to be have an enormous frontage, how is that different? Swaim: Was that, was that before this was a conservation district? Weitzel: It was well before. McCafferty: And there are also some additional regulations that have changed that allowed the parking underneath, and the stilts and the berms and there were regulations changed because of that building, actually, as I understand it. Weitzel: Yeah, I don't think that building is a good example of anything... McCornally: Okay, I just wanted to know why why that building was different, because that building to me seems to be very out of character with that neighborhood. Gunn: Right. All the buildings that are... Weitzel: In fact it it it caused, its reaction was to have more preservation in town, I believe. That was one of the things that people will cite. Gunn: There are several apartment buildings in within the district larger than the 12, 1,200 square feet certainly. But they all existed prior to the conservation district being established. Weitzel: So if this building was reduced in size, then, then you'd be okay. Gunn: Sure. Weitzel: Okay. Gunn: But it's, it's,... Weitzel: Yeah. Gunn: That, that's big, this is bigger. I mean it, I I think there's no getting around that. Weitzel: Well, I think this is... Gunn: And either we're gonna say the scale, you can, you can try that maneuvering if you were in, in the, you know sitting down at this end of the table, you wouldn't buy that argument, I don't think, and I'm not gonna buy that argument, that somehow if you build it big enough it doesn't apply, the scales don't apply here, because you can, I don't know, because you've got a lot big enough. I mean that was the whole point of the guidelines was not to allow this to happen, so... Swaim: I need to understand this issue better. The original, this house, we're talking about the square footage of the front fayade, correct? And this house was... Terdalkar: About 1,600. Swaim: 1,600. Terdalkar: If you were to see this in the format that you have, the elevation there... HPC: 9/14/2006 16 Swaim: The new one. Terdalkar: This house. Swaim: Yes, yes. Terdalkar: If you were to see the elevation of this drawing, what is the square footage that you calculate on this the elevation, that is considered for this standard here. Swaim: Okay, and so... Gunn: And and how do we, do we have dimensions of it or, I mean is it about 1,600, is it 1,650, is it... McCafferty: That was my loose calculations. We don't have, I don't have frontal dimensions, I just guessed by floors. Terdalkar: We are cal, we are calculating it by guess, and which is counting the the stories and so we are thinking that the height of the original structure was about 39,37 feet plus. Gunn: So are we, I mean are we pretty satisfied with 1,600 as being representative of what it was. Terdalkar: can't hear.. . applicant provided us. Roffman: can't hear.. .on the east end. McCafferty: Oh no, that doesn't included that bumpout there. I mean I guess... Weitzel: Well, what is, what is your estimate? Terdalkar: About? Weitzel: Your informed estimate of what the building front was. Terdalkar: I think I would, the the footprint is 42 feet wide, and looking at the structure, it looks like it is almost about 35 plus feet high. So that is about the number that she is putting. Weitzel: Okay, so we're, I think we're agreed on 1,600 as the original, unless there is anybody who wants to disagree with that strongly. Gunn: You know, if we're talking about the new one is 1,632, and we're at 1,600, and you know that's one thing, but 23 or whatever you 2,100. . . Terdalkar: 2,117 Gunn: 2,100, I mean that's not, I mean that's that's hard to ignore that. And it's it's just not, it's it's nice, it's a nice duplex, or a looking building. I don't have, you know, this isn't architecture at all, I think it's a fine plan architecturally, but it's not small. I don't care what it, how many bumpouts you can put on it, it is still big. Swaim: So when we're talking about this 2,100, if that's the figure, we're getting that from, not only these, which are the most front forward, but also these recessed. McCafferty: The recessed.. .can't hear. Swaim: Anything that's facing north, is that correct? HPC: 9/14/2006 17 Gunn: And the roof. Swaim: And the roofs. McCafferty: And the bays, I'm assuming, that are recessed back. I mean our other option in looking at this is that we can make this narrower, but what we end up is is we end up filling all this in and ending up with basically one large roofline across there, that's going to look much more boxy and look, you know, we can do a roofline like this. I haven't done a study yet to see exactly how many bedrooms we could get in there, but the reason that we was to let it go a little bit wider as opposed to making it narrow and more boxy like this is to make it fit in the neighborhood as before. Gunn: So if it were smaller it just couldn't fit in the neighborhood? McCafferty: Well, ...can't hear...smaller we fill in this whole central area and we... Gunn: It's either oversized and attractive or or in in size and ugly. Is that it? McCafferty: Can't hear...everyone talking. Gunn: You know, it's just flat out making it a whole lot bigger than it was, and that's an absolutely flies in the face of the guidelines. You know, it can, everything you can accomplish except the square footage by making it smaller. It can stiIllook the same, you can cut in instead of out, I mean there's all kinds of ways you can do things. But, you know, it's just, you know, if if we approve it we're saying the scale doesn't matter. Brennan: Was this originally two lots that have been joined at some point? Terdalkar: No. Brennan: But it can be split into two lots. Weitzel: It's part of the Governor's Square and was subdivided into this size lot, I'm pretty sure, on this street. Brennan: So... Weitzel: It was a large square that for a long time was one big large lot intended for the governor's mansion. Brennan: So they could split it into two lots and put up two 1,200 square foot fayades that would be bigger than this. Terdalkar: Sure. Gunn: Absolutely. Terdalkar: Perfectly all right. Provided all the parking requirements, can't hear.. . accessibility. Weitzel: Provided all the site requirements are met. Terdalkar: From my perspective it is to provide lesser density. You can certainly provide six units, reduce the number of bedrooms. You can reduce the number of parking spaces, you can reduce the size of the structure. So it's not limiting anything to, from my perspective, to gain more than what was there before. It is certainly possible. The way, is it the maximum you want or is it the that is it something which is HPC: 9/14/2006 18 compatible with the whole neighborhood is what is wanted. That's the question. Nothing is limiting what can be done on the site. Weitzel: I think what Mike started is a good thing. Let's, let's go around and express our opinions. It doesn't mean you have to agree with him. Gunn: Yeah, I just happen to have a very definite opinion. Weitzel: I think it's important we have our discussion so our reasoning is there when we vote. Brennan: Say, I think it's consistent with other buildings that already exist throughout the entire district as a whole, and I think that's what we have to look at is the district as a whole. We can't just isolate a block here or a block there, or it makes the meaning of the district disappear. It's, given the consistency in its size and styling, that they could split it into two buildings and have larger massing than what's here, I would be inclined to vote in favor of the proposal. Weitzel: Okay. Michaud: I I guess I, I respect Mike's opinion about it, and Shelly's done a great job with the illustra, the blueprints. I'm just proposing some kind of compromise that there's one more indentation than seems necessary and it might look more convincing even to do away with the little.. . Weitzel: Those secondary...? Michaud: I don't know if you can just take that that area out and then have these two, instead of having little dining room windows, for instance. McCafferty: Hmm mmm. Michaud: I think one of the things that contributes to parties, in my experience, is a large living room, a big living room and dining room, a kitchen area, one big space, that's great for a family with two teenagers in the suburbs, but if you have a big living room and dining connected kitchen, I think you're asking for parties, and so that might accomplish both things. I don't know how feasible it is with your design with all the stairways. Ponto: I really like the looks of this, and I think that from the street, this will have the appearance of not the mass that that big box did. But I I don't know how we can go against our guidelines. There, 3.6 does have alternative design criteria where we can deviate from the guidelines in exceptional circumstances, but I'm not yet convinced this is an exceptional circumstance. McCafferty: I guess what I would like to request of staff is to get an, if we're basing our decision here, on the 1,600, 1,200 square foot, I guess I would request that we get an opinion from the legal department on whether this would apply to a multi-family building, because it seems to be that it doesn't. Weitzel: This this is where I was in doubt and I was gonna suggest a similar thing if we got to this point. Are you acceptable with letting us table this for tonight, letting us go from our requirement to vote it up or down tonight, and we can table it and have that investigated. McCafferty: When will your next, will you be meeting at the second meeting, on the fourth? We have two meetings this month or just this one? Weitzel: We certainly could. Terdalkar: Yeah, if that's a request, we can do it. Michaud: Fourth Thursday? HPC: 9/14/2006 19 McCafferty: The fourth Thursday, yeah. I don't know what that date is. Ponto: I'll be here. Weitzel: I think there's a good chance, we'll probably have more projects by then anyway, so... Terdalkar: Certainly. Weitzel: So certainly we can meet on the fourth Thursday, right? Is people, needing a quorum? Ponto: Hmm mmm, I'll be here. Swaim: I will probly not be here. Weitzel: You will not be here. Pam, can you be here? Michaud: I should be here yeah. Hmm mmm. Weitzel: Jim? Ponto: Hmm mmm. Baker: Yeah. Gunn: I think it's parent teacher conference night, so I won't be here. Weitzel: Okay so Mike's not. Okay. Terdalkar: And we have to find out if Tim can make it, Tim Toomey. Weitzel: And Richard Carlson? Terdalkar: Doubt it. Weitzel: Doubt it? Terdalkar: He has told me when he'll.. ...can't hear. Swaim: What is the date of the fourth Thursday? Brennan: 28th. Swaim: I'm pretty sure I'll be gone. Weitzel: Are you comfortable, Mike, with letting us table it and then moving to a time when you might not be able to attend. Gunn: Well, that's not my, you know you have to call a meeting, but, I would be amazed if... Terdalkar: 28th. Gunn: .. .if if the legal opinion would be that our guidelines don't allow the control of a new structure in the place of one that's you know that was destroyed, already being built bigger. It would be a ridiculous contortion of the guidelines and just the fact that you've decide to build something great big and call an apartment means the guidelines don't apply, I just don't buy it. But if that's what legal says, then, then, HPC: 9/14/2006 20 then you can toss the scale out the window, and we'll forget about it. But if that's what legal says, then then that's what they say. Weitzel: I think it's important to find out what what our latitude is with these sorts of issues, and if people are in agreement I would entertain a motion to table. Ponto: I'll move to table. Gunn: I'll second. Weitzel: Moved and seconded. Terdalkar: Is this the first time we are apply applying this sort of guideline or have we done it in the past? Weitzel: Did we did we not do that on Brad Houser's house on Dodge? McCafferty: That would be on Dodge Street, yeah, that was a multi- I Weitzel: We did hold him to the height ofthe existing buildings there though. He increased the size by... McCafferty: Right, he had a full three-story. I mean, I'd be curious to go back and measure that. I I don't have, it's in the file. Gunn: He replaced a very small, right? We're talking about, very small. So... McCafferty: It was very small, yeah. On a very small site, I mean it was a , and it was four, three four- bedroom units that they put in there. ***Tape speeding up here; can't hear most*** Weitzel: I think, yeah. Someone: But it's not very big...can't hear...in the demolition. McCafferty: No, it was a big box, but it's... Terdalkar: As Mike is saying, if the intent of the guidelines is to not allow large structures, then it should reflect them in the guidelines the way they are written. And that is why I said, it doesn't say it only applies to single family. McCafferty: It does though. Woman: The word only isn't there. McCafferty: It's not only. Okay, never mind, okay. Terdalkar: All right...can't hear...that's what I'm saying. Weitzel: Exactly my ambiguity there. Further discussion on the motion, which is to table. Ifnot, those in favor of tabling say aye. All: Aye. Weitzel: Opposed, same sign. Wow, I guess the certificate is tabled. Gunn: ... tabling the motion. HPC: 9/14/2006 21 Weitzel: We're tabling the motion basically. We're tabling, and we can come back, and we'd have to pick up where that motion was, so when we come back to the table, so, remember that. Terdalkar: Okay. Weitzel: Thank you very much for coming. Roffman: Thank you. HPC: 9/14/2006 22 TRANSCRIPTION HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 Weitzel: Items for consideration, certificates of appropriateness. We first need to take up deferred applications, and I believe actually 923 was tabled before 805, so we should decide whether we're gonna take that up first or not. Before we deliberate, do we have, what's the order, do we take that up and then we have people present or... Terdalkar: I, yeah, we need to have the dis, item was tabled so we can discuss it. Weitzel: So we need a motion to... Ponto: I move we bring 923 Iowa up from the table. Weitzel: And a second? Ponto: up to the table, whatever. Brennan: Second. Weitzel: All in favor. All: Aye. Weitzel: All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. So we can now consider 923 Iowa Avenue. At this time, does the staff wish to add anything to the staff report? I believe there's a memo in our packet. Terdalkar: Yes. The Commission had asked staff to find out the interpretation, if the interpretation of the guidelines... this particular project, and I have included those opinions from the Zoning Interpretation Panel, and they have basically said that. . . Woman: Sunil, could you speak up, because it's hard for people who are here to hear. Terdalkar: Sure, yes. The Zoning Interpretation Panel has rendered an opinion that this particular guideline in mentioned in Section 8.2 is not applicable in this for this project, so the reason they they came to that conclusion was there are specific guidelines for the, the reason the the Zoning Interpretation Panel rendered that opinion because the there is a particular section for multi-family design, multi-family buildings and the design for that in the guidelines. And for that reason and also the fact that there is a sentence in the guidelines in the section 8.2 that refers that those guidelines apply to single-family and duplex buildings. However, the design guidelines for multi-family buildings do address the issue of scale, mass, and height of the the proposed building, so the Commission may choose to apply those in this case. Weitzel: So 8.2 is the College Hill Neighborhood guidelines, which do not apply, according to the panel, but the section 10 under design guidelines for multi-family buildings does allow us to consider effect on the neighborhood. That's the short version of that. We have, also we have correspondence, correct? Terdalkar: Yes. Weitzel: I believe everybody has a copy of correspondence. Toomey: Gersh? Frank Gersh? Weitzel: Frank Gersh and also Susan Lutgendorf. Terdalkar: .. .can't hear.... HPC: 9/28/2006 23 Weitzel: Oh, that's just me? Terdalkar: Hmm mmm. Weitzel: Okay, we'll take that up in a second. And we have a petition as well. And the petition basically states that the undersigned are concerned at the scale and mass of the proposed apartment building, increased size will enable the property owners to double the number of tenants and that Iowa Avenue has become dominated by student renters and few remaining single-family homeowners feel increasingly embattled and isolated. So they argue that we understand the aesthetic architectural guidelines historic preservation and conservation should ultimately be in the service of quality oflife and also intend to help stabilize neighborhoods that contain mixed owner-occupied homes and rental properties. We consider the massive building proposed for 923 Iowa to violate the spirit of these principles. We hope that you will seriously consider the intent of Section 8 of the guidelines, which we can't do, but we can do Section 10. And that is, that is the undersigned. Weitzel: We also have a proposal by Susan Lutgendorfthat we actually not consider this tonight, but, based on the number of people that would be absent from the meeting. That's a, that's a request. Brennan: Were there actual names on this letter? Carlson: That's what's being passed around here. Weitzel: On the petition? Yes. Weitzel: I guess at this time does anybody from the public have anything to say? Lutgendorf: Yeah, I'd like to say something. Weitzel: Sure. Lutgendorf: My husband is one of the people who is out of town tonight and can't be here, among other people who were not able to come tonight. What I'd like to say is to underscore some of the things in the letter that were written. We have always considered the 900 block ofIowa A venue to be an ideal place to live, and it has been very easy for us to bicycle to the University, for our kids to walk to the library, to go downtown, to ride their bikes to school, etc. And and it is to us it's an ideal block for families to live on as well as, even though there are student renters. And I I know there are a number of other families that live on the block. It's real important to us to preserve the quality of life on that block and to stabilize the neighborhood. And and I was glad to see that there is a provision in the historic code that does relate to mass and size of buildings, because frankly, our concern is that the massive structure that is proposed, we, we really appreciate Shelly's efforts to make it historic looking, but something about the sheer size of it and the fact that it is going to be so much substantially larger than the building that was previously there really changes the character of that neighborhood. What it does is it introduces a large apartment building, and our feeling is that it really does further destabilize the neighborhood. Lutgendorf: My great concern is that this body has made its own guidelines for stabilization of neighborhoods, and frankly, I don't see anything in this matter which is so urgent as to cause you to renege on the guidelines that you yourselves have made for stabilization of neighborhoods. I don't really see any reason why this couldn't be a, you know, I understand that that the owner of the building is allowed to replace the number of units that he he previously had and, you know, that's his economic prerogative. On the other hand, if there were nine people there before, why couldn't there be three apartment units of three people, six apartment units of two people, you know, just because you have two, a a certain number of bedrooms doesn't mean that you're gonna have one person living in those bedrooms. You could have two people living in those bedrooms. So, you know, the amount to which the the population density is gonna be increased could really be quite massive. And and that's of great concern to us. So we we request HPC: 9/28/2006 24 strongly that this Commission honors its own guidelines and not sway from them in considering the character of the building and the character of the neighborhood. Thanks. Weitzel: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak in favor of the project? Any other speakers, at all? Okay. Go ahead. Galstad: I've also lived on the block for a long time. I I relocated there about 14 years ago and raised my kids there or am raising my kids there. And again, I, like the Lutgendorfs, I chose chose that neighborhood because it's a mixed neighborhood, because it's walking distance from downtown. It's, I guess I'mjust disappointed, I I think we're all, you know, as property owners, as citizens that respect what Iowa City's trying to do in terms of historic preservation, I guess I'm disappointed to see people stepping away from the intent of those guidelines in in in the case of of our neighborhood. I would hope that as a commission you would stand up for for the intent of of the guidelines and, you know, those of us that live there, we know what the population density already is. And it's of great concern to see this increase so drastically. Weitzel: Thank you. McCafferty: We do have additional information to present as well. Weitzel: Okay. We will... McCafferty: Okay. Weitzel: We will give you ample opportunity. McCafferty: Okay. Weitzel: Is there anybody else that'd like to speak? Or should we move into the consultant and applicant's portion of this? Okay, go ahead. McCafferty: Well, I'm a little concerned, I don't know why this is not coming up in proportion, so, given that we're talking about scale and proportion, try to make the adjustments. Here are some additional revised handouts for you. What I do wanna remind you of, you know, particularly since we've heard from from other people in the audience here, is that what your purview is is the architecture, and the scale, the mass, the design of the architecture. It's not your purview to look at the underlying zoning code or the housing code, for that matter. But we're here to look at specifically is is the architecture and what we, what we're gonna replace this particular building with that has been destroyed. McCafferty: Wow, the proportion is...Anyway, first of all, what I, I wanna remind you of is that this is not a neighborhood that's all single-family houses, original single-family houses, or smaller scale houses. That indeed as you're standing at the end ofIowa Avenue, we actually have a couple quite large buildings within view which are substantially larger than what we're proposing. Likewise, within the neighborhood, just up the block on Iowa, that's Washington, excuse me, we have additional large buildings. These vary from, you know, 50 to 75 feet in width. So a larger scale building is not necessarily out of place within this neighborhood. But what I also want to show you is that we have been working quite a bit in trying to revise this building and make it smaller based upon what we heard from the public previously, and so I've done a lot of, it's been sort of a Chinese puzzle getting it smaller. So what this illustrates is, if you look at the blue lines, that is where we were at the last proposal that we showed you. Now the drawing behind the blue lines, or in front of the blue lines, is actually where we're at now. So if you look at the width of just the front fayade without the bays, okay, we're at 40, 46 feet right now. The original building at the front was 42 feet. So we're now within four feet. McCafferty: And this is how it relates to the previous building. The red line indicates the building that was destroyed. If you look at your handouts, let's see, I we we I don't know what's wrong with this view here, but if you look at your handouts, I give the statistics of where we're at in terms of the size on this building. We're now at a front elevation area of 1,656. From my best estimates, the original building was 1,646, so HPC: 9/28/2006 25 that means we're now within ten square feet of this front surface, front elevation dimension of the previous building. So with that being the fact at this point, I think the discussion last week regarding the size of the faryade is actually a moot point, regardless of whether it should have applied to this or not. McCafferty: The front wall area, which excludes the roof, we're now within 50 square feet of what what it was previously. Our typical eave height is actually three feet lower than what the previous building was. The roof height, as the building department would measure it, we're now within four feet, we're four feet lower. The only dimension which is not less than what the previous building is is the width. Woman: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear. McCafferty: I, if there are any left over, I don't know ifany... Woman: Could you, Shelly, could you please say what you said the last sentence? I couldn't hear you. Michaud: The last sentence. McCafferty: Oh, the last sentence. We're now, the only dimension which is not less than what the previous building was is the width. So we're now four, we're just four feet wider than what the previous building width was. And that's excluding the bays. And I'll get into the bays here. Woman: So the depth of the building is the same? McCafferty: No, but we're talking about here is the front scale of the building on the front elevation. Woman: But not the depth. McCafferty: But not the depth. Okay, this would be the side elevation. If you have, what what you see here the bays. They're in the lighter lines, what you see on the left and right of the building, and here they are on the side elevation. Now, here's what I want to illustrate. This is a, I've got some examples here. This is a bay on a building. These are very common in Iowa City if you look at the buildings of this vintage. Here is the bay if you look at it from the side, from the front it's essentially not visible, it doesn't contribute to the mass of the building, the perceived mass of the building. Here's another example. You see part of the roof, but generally speaking, you you don't see a lot ofit. It's, doesn't really contribute to the mass because it's far enough back. Here's another one. This is a building that's on the street. If you look over on the right, you can just see the very comer of the bay. And this is the bay from the other side. And also if you look at the the top peak of the roof, you can see how that disappears in perspective. Okay. And here it is from across the street. You begin to see a little bit more of it. So to actually look at the straight elevation, as we were doing last week, and measure that up, that's not really very accurate portrayal of what the perception of this is gonna be, the scale of this building is gonna be from the street. McCafferty: Here I'm trying to illustrate what it's gonna look like a little bit in three dimensions, given the shadow line. I I don't have the 3D software to, you know, to do this, so I'm gonna give you some examples of, so you can better understand what's gonna happen in three dimension, and the devices that we've incorporated into this buil, building to reduce the scale of it. Mostly what you're gonna see is the porch and the front projecting gables. Here is an elevation of a building, I wanna use an example, a flat elevation. It looks like a big massive building. But if we look at it in 3D, you can see how this, the sense of scale of this building is significantly different. You know, essentially all the area up on the top that's no longer solid, it's sky. If this were a solid building, pardon my little photoshop here, you could see that without those projections and without the recessed U in there, it is, would look like a significantly larger building. From the side, from the, as you approach the building, here it looks again like two, sort of like two buildings as opposed to one big building. You're gonna see a similar effect with the one that we're proposing, except you'll have the porch in front, so it will connect the two. Here's what it would look like if it was one big solid mass. HPC: 9/28/2006 26 McCafferty: So what we are proposing is a building which is not a solid mass, like the previous building was. It's a little bit wider, it's more articulated however, so your perception of the building as you experience from the street is actually going to appear smaller than what it was previously. And that's what we're here to to talk about is really the scale, the perception of scale, and how it relates to the neighborhood. Lutgendorf: I have a question I'd like to ask you. McCafferty: Yes. Lutgendorf: Do you have a side overlay of what the side of the building is gonna look like as oh compared to the previous building? McCafferty: You know, I don't have photographs of the previous building on the side. So... Lutgendorf: No, but even a design of how far back would the previous building... McCafferty: Okay. Lutgendorf: ... have gone. Because I'm gonna be experiencing the building from the side, not from the street. McCafferty: Right. It would probably go back, probly towards the middle of that mid, of that the large bay. Okay, so this is about, we're... Lutgendorf: So... McCafferty: Let's see. What we're at, 69 minus 40. Roffman: Actually you've got that 19... can't hear. . . McCafferty: Yeah, about the middle of the center bay is where the exterior wall was previously, the back wall. Lutgendorf: So it's almost doubling the length of the building? McCafferty: We're going from 40 feet to 69 feet. Lutgendorf: Okay, so it's increasing it at least by a third. McCafferty: Yeah, that's prob, yeah. There are screening requirements to mitigate having multi-family next to single-family. We've got a wider setback, we've a ~quired setback of 15 feet, what we're actually going to be at however is wider than that. We're gonna be at 21 feet at the bays, 24 feet at the the largest mass of the building. I propose, you know, we have a a required screening requirement, we've been showing along the bottom property line. It's actually not required for where the building portion is, but I went ahead and put that in. It's only required where the parking is. And then I'm also showing another larger, overstory tree, which is going to further sort of diminish the appearance of the back of the building from the street. Rapson: I have, I had a question, ifI may. The, you said the setback you've got at 15 feet, even though it's not... McCafferty: It's required to be 15 feet. We're actually at 21 feet at the bay and 25 feet at the main mass of the building. So we've exceeded... Rapson: From the side property line? HPC: 9/28/2006 27 McCafferty: From the side property line. Rapson: And where, and how does that relate to the structure that was there before, in terms of its placement on the lot? Is it gonna be closer to Philip and Susan's house? Is it, is it, the structure actually going to be farther away. .. ? McCafferty: Well, this... Rapson: ... from Philip and Susan's house. I mean, they're the, they're people that are gonna be most impacted by this building. It's taking away light, it's taking away privacy, it's adding noise, it's adding structure where there was open space before, so I was wondering how it relates.. .can't hear... property. McCafferty: I don't know exactly where that building was, and I haven't looked at that since they revised it. Right now, my estimate is that it's probably gonna be more than.. .can't hear.. . closer, but I don't have exact dimensions of where that building was originally, but my my estimate is that it's, it's no more than... Woman: can't hear...it'll go back further... McCafferty: It'll go back further, and it'll be a little bit closer. Michaud: Is it gonna two feet closer, because it's four feet wider, and it's gonna be centered on the previous structure's... McCafferty: Well, here's.. Michaud: ... foundation or not. McCafferty: I don't know where, here, here's the thing is, and I don't know if you have more information. This is what I have in terms of trying to locate exactly where that building was from, with relative to the lots lines. This isn't correct, okay, as I I've looked at it. From my estimate, just looking at it, you know, going up there and visualizing where the building was, this one, you know, it'll be maybe four feet closer, three, four feet. Roffman: Ifwe're only four foot wider, I don't think it is, cuz if you look up there now, that back portion there was a bumpout addition there. They had an offset about, I don't know, five, six feet, and we still had our side yard beyond that. So, I don't see the west lot line being a whole lot different than it was in the previous building. And I. .. McCafferty: Yeah. Roffman: ...don't know that exactly. And there's probably not a thing out there you can identify with, but I say, if you look at that photo there, and and there was a bedroom kitchen apartment added on the side there on the east with that offset, you would still had side yard beyond that. Was, cuz we only got seven foot side yard over there now, and to that front porch, I would say there'd probly been about ten. So it'd be about three foot less there, so we you might be a foot closer, but I mean, here again that's... Michaud: So you're gonna be using the space that where that rear shed is sticking out. Roffman: That was part of the building. That was not a shed. Michaud: Well whatever that little first floor, level. Roffman: It was an appendage added on to it. HPC: 9/28/2006 28 Michaud: So you're gonna be using that space and then maybe one or two feet to the right of this previous.. . Roffman: About one foot, I would guess. Michaud: One foot. Roffman: If you look at the west wall there now in relationship to where it's gonna be, it's probly bout a foot difference, if we're only four foot wider, cuz we will be closer to the east than we were with the previous building, except for where that added on was. Michaud: So one foot foot closer of the most extreme bay on the west side. Roffman: That would be my best guess. McCafferty: In terms of light and so forth, at the portion of the building which is gonna be basically adjacent to, to your house, there should actually be more light. It's it's not gonna be as tall a building overall. And it's also going to be, have a a slope on it. It's not gonna be a big block. Woman: But it will be more building, cuz it goes way back. McCafferty: It'll be more length. It's the length. Yeah. There'll be more length. Weitzel: This is our traditional time to ask questions ofthe applicant. Are there more questions? Michaud: I I I don't understand what's, how they go from nine efficiencies or single bedrooms to three- bedroom units. Is that, that was all cleared with the zoning, planning? McCafferty: That's all within the zoning code. Michaud: The density was allowed for... Weitzel: It's it's it's neighborhood stabilization 20. Michaud: 20 for? Weitzel: The the number is 20, which I believe is, I don't know the exact number... McCafferty: It's all legal within the zoning code. It's allowed under the baseline zoning, so I guess again I'd just like to to remind you that what we're looking at here is really the mass and the scale of the building. Michaud: And so the footprint is not relevant. The previous footprint's not relevant because you're going deeper. McCafferty: What we're doing right now proposing... Toomey: The mass is... McCafferty: ... is legal under the baseline zoning. Weitzel: Section 10 is what we can consider. McCafferty: What you, yeah, look at Section 10, that's that's your purview. Weitzel: So we can look at... HPC: 9/28/2006 29 Michaud: But I'm just saying that that was all clear. McCafferty: Yeah. Weitzel: We can look at front setback, lighting, which is an artificial lighting, parking, parking below buildings, garages, building orientation, pedestrian access, balconies and decks, building height, mass, roofline, building modulation, which is the street elevation setback, window fenestration and architectural style. And then there is a series of building point items that can be awarded to a multi-family building and, do we technically, do we need to go through and award these points? Terdalkar: In the staff report I did last time, we we did say that it will qualify for the required minimum points. Weitzel: It makes the points. Terdalkar: Yeah. Weitzel: Okay. So we don't need to do that. Man (Applicant's attorney?): What, what did you say? I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. Weitzel: There's there's a point system for multi-family buildings, and this building does require, it does, it meets the minimum requirements. Man: Okay. Great. Carlson: And, and so there's nothing in our purview that would talk about building depth. We have no say over that whatsoever? Weitzel: We've never traditionally been able to do that. Carlson: Okay. Terdalkar: But I think that will be part of... McCafferty: Except for in the Summit Street District. Carlson: Right. McCafferty: Right. Carlson: Where it's specified... McCafferty: .. .can't hear.. ..everyone talking... Weitzel: It is specified in the guidelines there. Carlson: Right. Weitzel: Not here. Terdalkar: If it is not... I'm sorry. If it is not about the the depth of the building, you can consider the mass. That that is part of, mass is is all about height, scale, and and how deep it is, how tall it is. It's it's going to consider all those aspects, and you can consider that. Michaud: So square footage is relevant. HPC: 9/28/2006 30 Toomey: Cubic footage. Terdalkar: Sort of. In in a way. I can I can read you the the building mass section here. Measures incorporated, measures should be incorporated into the design of the new building that helps reduce the visual mass and overall height. Examples, and these are just examples, examples include holding the height of the eaves, eave line down to, down by making the upper floor of a building a half story and utilizing dormers to accommodate the use of the floor area. That's fIrst one. Second is, stepping the height of the taller building down to two stories at ends adjacent to existing buildings that are two stories or lower in height. Providing signifIcant variations in the roofline and front plane, building plane, which helps to reduce the scale of the building along the streetscape. So these are the measures, examples of the measures you can incorporate in the design. And it's not an exhaustive list of what can be done. McCafferty: The, I realize that you've got a lot of new commissioner members since when we did the conservation district, designated the district. And although the six, the the the application of the 1,600 square foot front elevation, the language that got into the the preservation handbook may not have been, may not have been correct in terms of the, of of the saying it only applies to single and the duplex buildings, but the reason that it dealt with the square footage of the front far,:ade and not with anything dealing with depth is was to ensure that multi-family properties that if they were destroyed in this instance, could be reconstructed and that the depth was something that was specifIcally not addressed. I think we could probly pull up the minutes and fInd that, but I'mjust wanted to, for those of you who remember that designation, remind you of of that. We only, we, there's a specifIc intent to only deal with the square footage of the front far,:ade. Weitzel: We discussed this last meeting too. McCafferty: So, and we're within that, regardless of whether that would be applicable, you know... Weitzel: I guess just as a reminder, we tabled to get a specifIc clarifIcation of whether or not we could discuss, I'm gonna refer to the memo. Whether the history guidelines could be applied or not, and as as we found it, those could not be but that the, the building height, mass, standard section or 10-1 can be considered. So that's sort of where we're at in the debate I guess at this point, where we left off. We were wondering if we could do that or not. So I guess what we are charged with at this point is determining whether or not this building and this design meets these guidelines. That's really what we're looking at. Lutgendorf: I have a question. With respect to the mass issues, is there any way that the mass consideration can be thought of with respect to the depth and architectural design issues be applied with respect to the depth to make it a less massive building from the side, or a building that would block our light less from the side? I mean, what what is all in the 10-1 section of the guidelines has to do with ways to make it more architecturally appealing. So is there any way to do that with respect to depth? Terdalkar: I don't think it just limits the the Commission to look at the architectural features. It it says that one of the ways to reduce the overall height is to step down the building which is adjacent to a lower building. So that is talking about the mass. Lutgendorf: Okay, well if somebody is gonna be impacted by an increased mass of building, if you just consider how big it's going to be, I would ask the Commission to consider, is there any way they can scale it back? Ponto: Why don't I go ahead and make a motion that we approve this newest plan so that ifit gets seconded, we can discuss it. Weitzel: Okay. At at that point then, when it becomes a motion for the Commission it sort of closes the public hearing aspect. HPC: 9/28/2006 31 Ponto: Right, so I don't wanna do that prematurely, but I'm ready to if we're kind of winding down public discussion. Weitzel: We could have a, if we're, if we're uncertain whether or not we're ready to do that, we could have a motion to end debate. Woman: Can I just ask for a clarification? You're talking about the plan that.. .can't hear...showed us that is 46. Ponto: Tonight. Yeah. Woman: Okay. Terdalkar: Just a clarification about how these dimensions are put here. They are, the dimensions are about, for the front elevation, that do not include the overall width of the building. McCafferty: Right. Terdalkar: They do not include the bays, and when, for the sake of clarification, in the guidelines we have elevation which is shown exactly on these. So these faded lines should be included in the elevation. That's, that's for our clarification in the guidelines. McCafferty: And would, right. And I I just wanted to illustrate to you... Terdalkar: So this is, this is sort of... McCafferty: ... what. .. Terdalkar: .. .information that is incomplete. Weitzel: At any rate, Jim, making a motion is something that we have to take in in course, if you make the motion so... Ponto: Anybody else out there want to say anything before I make a motion? Man (Roffman's attorney?): Just one question. Was there an updated staff report since your last meeting? Ponto: Yeah. Terdalkar: In fact, the included memo in the packet is is what I, the question I asked to the staff about clarification on the guidelines, and that was, that's what I have ...can't hear. Weitzel: It hasn't really changed the staff report. It's just a memorandum allowing us to find out what they decided on the on the Zoning Interpretation Panel. Terdalkar: I'm just getting this right now, so I I cannot comment on what is exactly in the being proposed here. Ponto: Well, just to, for us to be able to discuss it, I'll make a motion that we approve this project as presented tonight. Weitzel: All motions in the affirmative. We have a motion, is there a second? Brennan: Second. Weitzel: Moved and seconded. Discussion. HPC: 9/28/2006 32 Ponto: Well, fIrst I wanna say that I I really like what Shelly's done to minimize the visual mass from the the front elevation or the from the the street. I remain concerned though about the length of it. My personal interpretation of mass would include three-dimensional, and so the the length of it is still a concern. This, in my mind, is is a real exceptional case because, in general, our guidelines do not allow a demolition permit until we fIrst approved the replacement. And because of the tornado damage, we deemed that to be an exceptional case and went ahead and and did the demolition prior to seeing this. If I had seen this before we had the demolition permit, I don't think I would have approved it, because I would have thought that it's much bigger than existing, And I would have wanted to seen something more in the three-dimensional mass of the existing. Weitzel: Thank you. Other discussion. Baker: In in 10-1, under building height and mass, where it says design of the new building to help reduce its visual mass, does visual mass include the side view? Weitzel: Our staff... Baker: Or does it only. .. Weitzel: Staffs interpretation is yes. Baker: It does include the side view. Weitzel: He says that in his opinion, architectural mass is the... Baker: Okay. Weitzel: ...360 view. Baker: Okay. McCafferty: Whose opinion was that, excuse me? Weitzel: Sunil's. As as Shelly did point out earlier, when we looked at these guidelines, there was discussion about limiting buildings and their size, and that's not specifIcally in these district guidelines. McCafferty: My... Weitzel: So... McCafferty: My recollection is that depth was not one of the dimensions that the Commission was going to enforce in the conservation district. It was the front dimension that was of the primary concern. Weitzel: I, yeah. I cannot confIrm or deny that. I don't remember the discussion or the debate. I remember there was. . . debate.. . McCafferty: That's why... can't hear.. . someone.. . is here, because he has a good memory. Woman: I thought this was internal discussion of the committee and not people outside the committee. Toomey: You know, I I think that it's a big increase in density. I mean, it's a, just it is. It's just no difference if you increase the distance to it, you've increased the mass to it. And and it comes, that comes with an accompanying baggage, that you have to supply all the parking with it, and that has an impact on the neighborhood too, when your whole yard is a concr, is, is you're you don't have a, the neighbors have yards. This is a concrete pad. That's what, that's what the yard becomes. So this is major impact in, in HPC: 9/28/2006 33 that neighborhood. Even the sorority that, it's a, they're they're facing that same problem, was because now the the codes require parking for all these places, and and and so that's my my impression of it at this point. Weitzel: Thank you. Ponto: In all fairness, I guess a counterargument would be that we've always allowed additions into the back, and many homes or whatever have had additions that have been a third a big as as large. So if we would have had that original building and then had that request to add a third again as big addition on the back" that would approximate this. However, most additions would not be at the same height but would have somewhat smaller scale to it. So... Carlson: And it would probably be set back as well. Ponto: Yeah, and and the setback as well. So, I'm I'm not sure that that would be a valid argument either. I just trying to look at all points. Toomey: Well this building might have been a a rooming house and everything, but it wasn't built as a rooming house. It was built as a family, single-family, I would imagine. Carlson: Actually, I think this, the core of it was a single-family, but it was expanded to a fraternity in the 1920s, and that's when the third story was added, or third and, third and a half. So... Weitzel: Other discussion. Brennan: Well, the neighborhood, as defined in the district, runs along Iowa and Washington from Johnson to Muscatine, from College, on College from Governor to Summit, and on Burlington from Summit to Muscatine. So that's the neighborhood we're talking about. I don't think we can focus just on a little block and say this block, because the City has dermed this neighborhood as that area, and it's sprinkled with very large buildings that Shelly showed a number of pictures of. The one that she photoshopped in, 228 South Summit, is immediately next door to a single-family residence to the south, and it's four, four floors tall without a a gabled roof The proposed building exceeds side setback requirements, it has a sloped roof, the fayade is certainly no greater than any of the buildings we saw photos of, and they are fairly liberally sprinkled around the entire neighborhood. Weitzel: Other discussion. Carlson: I guess I I have to agree with Jim. I can't, I have to view the depth as part of the mass of the building, and Sunil I guess too. And I really, I mean I like the fact that it was scaled back quite a bit from what it was the last time, but it still is much bigger than what was there before, and what was there before was already bigger than most things in this neighborhood. So I, at this point, I don't think I can approve what's the the the current plan. Michaud: This might not be too relevant, but since I live on College Green Park itself and have a sorority annex right next to me, I'm sensitive to the neighborhood concerns. If it was going in right next to me, I'd, I'd feel clearly ambivalent, because you are making the effort to do landscaping, and things like that will soften it. As far as shade goes, we lost a lot of big trees, and shade in the summer is not necessarily a bad thing. So that's some ameliorative things. I wouldn't have any problem agreeing to the height and the width of this right now, ifit was two-bedroom apartments and the same original footprint. But that's in an ideal world, and I don't know if that's relevant, but going to three bedrooms makes a difference. And then you'd have twelve occupants, up from nine, instead of 18. Carlson: And again if the, the fayade is bigger than what was there, but it's still, it's it's within reason. Ponto: Yeah. Absolutely. HPC: 9/28/2006 34 Carlson: If it, it would, I mean, coming at it from the sides, I mean, we shouldn't be taking landscaping into consideration when we, when we consider the mass of the building, because we don't know that that landscaping is always going to be there. So it really is what what you can see based on the buildings around it right now, and you could, I mean there will will clearly be a very deep building from the street. Now if there was some way of reducing setting back the back of the building in some way, and making it shorter, pulling it in, that could reduce the scale enough to make it within the guidelines, in my opinion. But as it is now, I don't think it is, so... that's my opinion. Weitzel: Okay. Several people have had a chance to speak a couple times. Does anybody else want to speak at all? I think this this one is a really, one of our tough cases that we sometimes run against. It has everything involved here. It has landowner rights. It has the rights of the neighbors. Well, what is historic preservation ifit isn't taking into account what it does to the community. It's tough, and I don't think, you know, we can't always make everybody happy, so but I don't remember when we've every had this much opposition in recent times to a project from the neighborhood, so I'm gonna have to vote against it. So... Toomey: So are we at voting? Weitzel: I think it's time to call the vote. Toomey: Okay. Weitzel: All in favor say aye. Brennan: Aye. Weitzel: Those opposed, same sign. All but Brennan: Aye. Weitzel: Motion is defeated, six to one. I guess at this point, we would encourage you to work on another design. McCafferty: We're, also familiar with the appeal process as well, so that would be another option. Weitzel: That is, no yeah, that's absolutely, you are, you are allowed to appeal. And the appeal process is to determine whether or not we've been arbitrary or capricious in our decision. Roffman: Thank you. Toomey: Nice building, wrong place, you know. Weitzel: Well, I think there's no doubt that this design.. .can't hear.. .did a lot of work. Toomey: Nice building, yeah. Ponto: My my only concern was the depth of it. HPC: 9/28/2006 35 5T AFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz Item: VAR06-00001, 932 E. College GENERAL INFORMATION: Date: November 16, 2006 Applicant: John and Sandra Hudson 782 Wests ide Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 319-341-7166 Requested Action: Variance from the permitted number of roomers (13) to allow 20 roomers. Location: 932 E. College Street Size: 0.17 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Residential, RNC-12 Conservation overlay zoning The building is a contributing historic structure to the College Hill Conservation District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: East: South: West: Residential, RNS-12 Residential, RNS-12 Residential, RNS-12 Residential, RNS-12 Comprehensive Plan: The site is located within a conservation overlay zone (OCD). Applicable Code Requirements: 14-4B-2, approval criteria for the granting of variances; 14-4B-4A-9, density and occupancy standards for independent group living. File Date: October 12, 2006 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicants, John and Sandra Hudson, are requesting a variance to allow up to 20 roomers to occupy the building located at 932 E. College Street in the Neighborhood Conservation (RNC-12) zone. In 1997 a variance was granted to allow a rooming house for up to 30 residents subject to: 1) the variance being conferred specifically to Leighton House, L.C., which will provide resident management of the rooming house consistent with the principles outlined in the business plan for Leighton House, L.C. dated July 1997; the density variance is not applicable to any successors in title to the property, 2) any exterior change to the structure requiring a building permit requiring approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, and 3) the removal of the concrete basketball court located in front of the residence, and the installation of landscaping in its stead. 2 Because of the first condition, the rights of the variance may not be transferred with the sale of the property and therefore the current applicant is seeking a new variance. It should be noted that the variance would be transferable to a buyer who purchases the property with the Leighton House LC and operates the rooming house in accordance with the principles in the Leighton House business plan. The 1997 variance was granted against the staff recommendation. The building, which had most recently been used as a fraternity, had fallen in to a state of disrepair. The Board cited in its findings a concern that the historic building would be demolished and that the professionally supervised private women's dorm, proposed in the Leighton House plan, would be preferable to other options that could potentially affect the property-demolition or replacement with an "unsupervised" rental property. The business plan on which the Board of Adjustment based its 1997 decision relied on the then applicants' particular educational background and expertise, plans to provide twenty-four hour on-site resident management by an experienced educator, academic support, professionally prepared meals, housekeeping, transportation, offsite parking, security and plans to renovate the building. In particular, the applicant had indicated that parking would be addressed through leased spaces in the Chauncey Swan public parking ramp and that transportation would be provided to and from the ramp. In 2000, the property was rezoned from Neighborhood Conservation Residential Zone RNC-20 (a multi-family designation) to RNC-12, which is intended to "stabilize existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of these neighborhoods and preventing existing multi-family uses in these neighborhoods from becoming nonconforming (Ord. 94-3608, 2-1-1994)." Specifically, the previous RNC-20 zoning permitted rooming houses and fraternity/sorority houses as provisional uses. The RNC-12 zoning does not allow rooming houses or fraternity/sorority houses. Under the new code RNC- 12 is renamed Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zone and has the same restriction on rooming houses. As noted below, even before the re-zoning this property was non-conforming with regards to the parking requirements. A variance was again applied for in 2005 to allow 30 roomers in order to continue the Leighton House business plan under new ownership. That variance was denied. In its decision, the Board cited that allowing 30 roomers would result in additional traffic and demand for on-street parking and that the increase in occupancy would be contrary to the intent of the RNC-12 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The Board also indicated that the applicants lacked the skills and experience necessary to run a private dormitory according to the details of the Leighton House, and had provided no evidence of economic hardship. Finally, the Board concluded that there was nothing unique about the property that warranted special privileges beyond those permitted to other rental properties in the neighborhood. In the absence of a variance the property is permitted as a rooming house with a maximum occupancy of 13 roomers. The property may also be used for other uses permitted in the RNC- 12 zone, including a single-family home, a duplex or family care facility if 4 parking spaces could be provided. Through the special exception process, the building could be converted from its present non-conforming use to another non-conforming use of equal or lesser intensity (section 14-4E-5B). For example a potential use would be an apartment building with up to 5 two-bedroom units depending upon Board approval. The property has been non-conforming since at least 1983 and continues to be non-conforming today for two reasons: (1) rooming houses are not an allowed use in the RNS-12 zone; and (2) the property does not provide the required minimum parking. Under the zoning regulations that were in effect at the time the building was a conforming rooming or fraternity/sorority house (ca. 3 1962-1976), the property was permitted 13 roomers. Therefore, under the Zoning Ordinance the rooming house is a legal, non-conforming use that is grandfathered in with 13 allowed roomers. Under the current code, the maximum density in the RM-20 zone, which allows rooming houses, would allow 1 roomer per 550 square feet of lot area (7440 sq. feet! 550= 13.53), that is 13 roomers. The building at 932 College Street continues to operate as a rooming house-a legal, nonconforming use allowing up to 13 roomers. Because the rooming house does not operate under the conditions of the 1997 variance, including professional live-in supervision and shuttle service to discourage on street parking, the rights of the variance do not exist at this time. The applicants, John and Sandra Hudson, are requesting a variance from the density requirements to allow up to 20 roomers. ANAL YSIS: GENERAL STANDARDS: 14-4B-2, POWERS OF THE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN VARIANCE APPLICATIONS 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 variance to allow 20 roomers only if the requested relief is found to meet all of the tests for variances as set forth in Section 14-4B-2. The burden of proof in these tests rests with the applicant. No variance to the strict application of any provision of the Zoning Chapter may be legally granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following elements are present: 1. Not contrary to the Public Interest: a. The proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor have a substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. Staff finds that the application does not meet this test. The maximum occupancy is in place to guard against overcrowding, and strain on public and private utilities and facilities necessary to serve a residential neighborhood. The applicant's property is located in a part of the city where there is an evident shortage of both on- and off-street parking. The property may be used to house up to 13 roomers yet provides only 2 off-street parking spaces. The applicants have made no provision to address the additional parking demands created by seven additional roomers. In staff's opinion allowing an additional 7 roomers has the potential create to additional traffic and demand for on-street parking. Granting the applicant special privileges not enjoyed by neighbors, will add to the parking congestion in this neighborhood. In 1997 and again in 2005, Staff had recommended that the variance be denied based on similar concerns and our opinion that the application did not meet the legal test for a variance. The applicants have proposed the property as an "intentional community" but have provided no evidence to demonstrate how such a living arrangement functions differently, in practical terms, from other co-op or group living situations. In addition, the definition of "intentional 4 community" provided by the applicant is not practically enforceable. Moreover, the proposed variance would be a permanent variance, transferable with change of ownership. In 1997 the then applicant had indicated the parking would be addressed through leased spaces in the Chauncey Swan public parking ramp and that transportation would be provided between the ramp and 932 East College Street. The City's Parking Division noted that in 1997 two spaces were leased for a period of three months. After the initial three month lease expired, it was not renewed. The current applicant has not addressed how they would provide parking. b. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter and will not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Staff finds that the application does not meet this test. For a number of years the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map have reflected the City's intention to "stabilize" this and surrounding neighborhoods. The rationale provided during the neighborhood's down-zoning (in 2000) was to prevent demolition of single family homes, and the primary justification for this decision was the preservation of the historic character of the neighborhood. Although it would be appropriate to allow the 932 E. College property to continue housing students - consistent with its historic use - it would be inappropriate to increase occupancy from 13 to 20. Additional occupancy will increase congestion, noise, and neighborhood-wide parking problems. The consequences of increased occupancy are contrary to efforts to stabilize and preserve the character of the neighborhood. 2. Unnecessary Hardship: The test for unnecessary hardship consists of three prongs, each of which must be proven by the applicant for the Board to legally grant a variance: a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located. Staff finds that the application does not meet this test. The applicants have submitted financial information that shows that based upon the current sale price for this property it could not yield a reasonable return if used for a rooming house for 13 occupants and that a minimum of 17 -18 roomers are necessary to make any return on investment if the property is sold at the current price. However, even if the applicant is able to show that the application of the zoning law to his property resulted in a diminishment of value, Iowa courts have found that in order to justify a variance, it must be proven that the strict application of the zoning law practically destroys the value of the property. The ordinance must operate so as to be in effect confiscatory. Mere diminishment of profit is not sufficient to satisfy the test of inability to yield a reasonable return necessary to legally allow the Board to grant a variance (Deardorf v. Board of Adiustment of the Plannina and Zonina Commission. 118 N.W. 2"tl78 (Iowa 1962). b. The owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question, and the situation is not shared with other landowners in the area nor due to general conditions in the neighborhood. Staff finds that the application does not meet this test. Granting a variance to allow 7 additional occupants for this property would convey a special privilege to the applicant that would not be afforded other property owners who are in similar situations. There is nothing special about the physical characteristics of the property that warrants special privileges to this property that other rental properties in this neighborhood do not enjoy. 5 For comparison purposes, staff identified four similar rooming house properties (3 historic buildings and 1 non-historic building) in the neighborhood. With 13 occupants the property at 932 E. College currently is allowed the highest density of all of these properties (1.8 persons per 1000 square feet). If the variance is granted the property would have 2.7 persons per 1000 square. Table 1. Comparison of occupancy and parking Parking Lot Area Occupantsl Spacesl Location Occupant (sq. ft.) 1000 sq. ft. Parking sp. Occupant s 200 S. Summit 16 17,433 .9 13 0.81 831 E. College 13 12,880 1.0 4 0.31 802 E. Washington 10 8,888 1.1 3 0.30 935 E. College 12 7,590 1.6 2 0.17 932 E. College 13 7,320 1.8 2 0.15 932 E. College w/variance 20 7,320 2.7 2 0.1 c. The hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of a predecessor in title. Staff finds that the application does not meet this test. Although it is true that changes in dimensional, density, and parking requirements were not caused by the property owner or a predecessor in title, the current owners' decision to invest in the property based on the 1997 business plan was of their own making. In absence of the variance the then applicant (Phipps) was aware that the property was limited to 13 roomers. They were aware that the Board placed very specific conditions on the variance in an attempt to address concerns raised by staff and neighborhood property owners. They were also aware that the variance was not transferable through the sale of the property. The current owner of the property chose to invest in the property subject to these conditions. Because the application does not met any of the tests necessary for the granting of a variance, the Board cannot legally approve this application for a variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: . Staff recommends that VAR06-00001 J an application submitted by Sandra and John Hudson for a variance from the zoning ordinance to allow 20 roomers in a Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) zone at 932 E. College Street be denied. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Application Approved by: ~~ . Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ~~ 'I ~ltJ.:.'.,'. 5. 0 . . .... . .' . .1. 3 (j m > ~ ~ 3~ o Z . . CD UJ I\) m () o CD co CD (J) r-+ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ < )> :D o 0') I o o o o ~ . . . . -- ..;~----.--~. ..... ..~ .....................~j1 VA R01o- (/;fJl[f){ APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE DATE: October 12, 2006 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1010480014 APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 932 E. College Street APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: APPLICANT: Name: John and Sandra Hudson Address: 782 Westside Drive, Iowa City 52246 Phone: 341-7166 CONTACT PERSON: Name' John or Sandra Hudson Address: 782 Westside Drive, Iowa City 52246 Phone: 341-7166 ...~"'- C~ <' ) .., . - I PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Leighton House L.C. ....., - --~. Address: 932 E. College Street -"--- "- Phone: 466-1511 (Atty. Michael Pugh) / )> f',") """-.,..", ."....-.. en -..J Specific requested variance; applicable section(s) of the Zoning Chapter: Request variance for reduction by 1/3 to 20 residents, said variance to run with the land. Reason for variance request: Unnecessary hardship, not contrary to the public interest. Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: INFORMATION TO BF PROVIDED BY APPliCANT A. leaal descriotion of property: 932 E. College Street, Iowa City IA Parcel # 1010480014 Commencing at a point on the south line of outlot 3 in Iowa City, Iowa, according to the recorded plat thereof, 325 feet east of the southwest corner thereof, thence north 120 feet, thence east 60.2 feet, more or less, to the east line of said outlot 3, thence south along the east line of said outlot 3, to the southeast corner thereof, thence west along the south line of said outlot 3, 61.7 feet, more or less, to the place of beginning. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. B. *Plot olan 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. land uses on and property owners of abutting lots; and See attachment page 2 6. Parking spaces and trees- existing and proposed. [*Submission of an 8" x 11" bold print plot plan is preferred.) C. List of property owners within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal: NAME ADDRESS Assessors information for name and address of property owners appear on r~oA~ ~ thrnlloh R ('If thA ~tt~~hmAnt~ 300 feet determined by Johnson County GIS Online. " ) '.. c', - " ......... --il r'J C'") ....... Ul _...1 APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION: Section 14-7A-2 of the Iowa City Zoning Chapter gives the Board of Adjustment power to authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the terms of the Zoning Chapter as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Chapter will result in unnecessary hardship and so the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. No variance to the strict application of any provision of the Zoning Chapter shall be granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following elements are present: (emphasis added) 2 (Please respond specifically to each of the following, explaining your answers.) Not contrarY to the oublic interest. a. Explain why the proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, or have a substantially adverse effect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. See page 7 of the attachments. b. Explain why the proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter, and not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. See page 7 through 9 of the attachments. 2. UnnecessarY hardshio. a. Explain why the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located. See page 9 and 10 of the attachments. b. Explain how the owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question, and the situation not shared with other landowners in the area or due to ge~ral conditions in the neighborhood. . See page 10 of the attachments. !:-) I...:'~ -- -11 ,'.) :"':ilII \../ c. Explain how the hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's o,j;( makin~1r that of a predecessor in title. See pages 10 through 12 of the attachments. 3 NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a variance, 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-1 E, City Code) Date: 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-1 F, 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. , ",) /',. October 11 ,20~ c,.-;1/h/"2~~ ~~~~L~~:Y4r~~./ Signature(s) of App icant(s) Sandra L. Hudson Date: October 11 2006 '- ppdadminlapplicatiorl-boavar, doc By: Signature(s) of Prop rty 0 n if Different than Applicant(s) Michael J. Pugh, a t to:Ii~&=Y c:) -n r-:, ... .--~~..~ 1'0 4 ".,j )> C., -.I GENERAL EXPLANATION OF VARIANCES A variance is a legal right granted to a property owner to use property in a manner prohibited by the Zoning Code. It has been said that a variance is an "escape valve" from the literal terms of the ordinance which, if strictly applied to a property owner, would deny all beneficial use of his land and thus amount to a confiscation. A variance is not a personal license to the property owner. It is a right that runs with the land. Under Iowa law, the Board of Adjustment, which has power to grant variances, is an independent, quasi-judicial body. That means that while the Board members are appointed by the City Council, they are not subordinate to the Council. Their actions are reviewable only by the courts. The Board conducts a hearing with respect to each variance application, after notices are posted on the property and mailed to owners of other properties within 200 feet r:J the property for which the variance is sought. That hearing will normally be relatively informal, but the Board will hear testimony and review documentary evidence in a manner similar to a court of law. The City's Department of Planning and Community Development assists the Board of Adjustment by reviewing variance applications and preparing a report which is sent to the Board members shortly before the hearing. The primary purpose of that report is to provide background information to members of the Board, and to inform them generally of the nature of the request for a variance. In preparing the report, the Department will use information provided in the application for a variance, and may, but is not required to, contact the applicant for further details. However, applicants should be aware that under Iowa law, they, not the City, are responsible for demonstrating that they are entitled to the variance. The Iowa Supreme Court has rendered several decisions involving variances, including the following: Deardorf v Board of Adiustment of Fort Dodge, 254 Iowa 380, 8 N.W.2d 78 (962). Board of Adiustment v. Ruble, 93 N.W.2d 497 (Iowa 974). Graciano v Board of Adiustment City of Des Moines, 323 N.W.2d 233 (Iowa 982). Greenwalt v. Board of Adiustment. City of Davenoort. 345 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 984). Those cases give meaning to the requirement of the Iowa statute (Code Sec. 44.2(3)) that variances be granted only where unnecessary hardship will result. The Court has said unnecessary hardship is shown by establishing all of the following elements: 1. The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone in which it is located. 2. The plight of the owner is not due to general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself, and 3. The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Questions regarding variance applications should be directed to the Department ot)?lanning$nd Community Development (356-5230), or the City Attorney's Office (356-5030). S,2 :.:,~ "'-~'._'.. ---\-1 r0 -'~ I 5 ~.." , /-, ......1 <. )> ()l -.J .~~.~ \.1" U' .,/7 :;r ":2 S :;;:. ~~ 0.- ~-' ~ ~ ~, :";,;..1./':.'. ~ r ~' - ~~ & "'-...L. -'. ~..- ." '..-- _C:> -.-:S. ---1 ~ r- (J\ ~- ,_.-.. . .-:. :'~....... C) - \. "- I " ~ \4 () r{ " Attachment - Page 1 932 E. College Street ~ '-J ,I ~ ~~l s.T)r1C- E:>lAl Ln, ,.JL.. (i) .(p &3 I- ~ ......~ N.. ~ 3?' ~S-1::/:' , II -.;.. (j - ~ , I 8 6J N Sc.~L.t : yj, ...=- /. Ex IS/} r/.- 8'JRl:.~S : .J ..:z - ~ Lf I I - WIA In:- A.,.h' A-sL1 PrS1 - L\N~\i"'....J s: - {)ouc..~ s.. r!r }l I- iI U} -" I I N ( ,-, -.l Iowa City Assessor home I parcel search' advanced parcel search I residential sale search I commercial sale search Pin 1010480014 Deed LEIGHTON HOUSE L C Contract Add 932 E COLLEGE ST ress IOWA CITY Class COMMERCIAL Map 20400-Com Area Plat Map 10-10-4S Legal 1331--3 IOWA CITY OUTLOTS S 120' OF E 62' OUTLOT 3 Current value as of January 01,2006 - Taxes payable September 2007 and March 2008 Land Value Dwelling Value Improvement Value Total Value 56,430 0 583,510 639,940 Year 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Land Value 56,430 56,430 56,430 56,430 56,430 56,430 56,430 Occupancy Rooming House Main Lot Lot Prior Year Value Information Dwelling Value Improvement Value o 583,510 o 583,510 o 469,660 o 469,660 o 427,410 o 427,410 o 427,410 Total Value 639,940 639,940 526,090 526,090 483,840 483,840 483,840 -1.1 r r'<) Residential Building Information Style Year Built Unique 1900 ., \ i "'!i'>_'!'i'I Total Li~~i~re~:.:) )> en 2,349 -~/.hz Land Front Foot Information Front Rear Side 1 120.00 Side 2 120.00 62.00 60.00 Attachment page 1Q. ATTACHMENT: APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT-VARIANCE Property Parcel No. 1010480014 932 E. College Street, Iowa City, IA October 12,2006 1. Not contrary to the public interest. a. Explain why the proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, or have a substantially adverse effect on the use or value of the other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. V AR97-0004, filed with the City Clerk on September 26, 1997, was intended to save this historic, architecturally significant building considered to have importance for the integrity of the neighborhood. The property is located in a neighborhood with several other properties which have multi-family uses. To make restoration financially feasible a variance in density for 30 residents was granted. After a substantial financial investment by the property owner the building is now in near original condition. The assessed tax value before the variance was $305,420; todav the assessed valuation is $639,940. The prospective buyers, John and Sandra Hudson, seek a permanent variance that will reduce by 1/3rd the number of residents allowed by the current variance. The lower density should have a positive impact in terms of less congestion and fewer automobiles. The Hudson's intend the building to function as an intentional community residence in a fiscally sound manner. The house is ideal for a group with a common vision that desires to strive together. The physical layout enhances the opportunity for fellowship, group decision making, shared responsibilities and resources, dividing work equitably, and members sharing the value of cooperation. Intentional communities, of which there are several in the vicinity, generally make positive contributions to their neighborhoods. The current occupants, members of the University of Iowa Men's Track Team, are one such example of an intentional community. b. Explain why the proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter, and not contravene the objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan. The current property owner, Leighton House L.c., adhered to the Comprehensive Plan guidelines that encourage "higher density development and reinvestment in the near downtown neighborhoods that preserves desirable neighborhood characteristics" and creates a "desirable living environment." For over eight decades, "intentional communities" have occupied the building, such as sororities, fraternities, and other communities of interest. That was the purpose of the building when it was built, and the purpose for which it was recently renovated. The Hudson's believe that is still the highest and best use for the building. They,,>) believe that 20 residents in the building with 8,752 square feet of living area may ~ the ;; : lowest density in the building's operating history. <":,: c . ~". ."~.., 7 f"..) Attachment Application to the Board of Adjustment-Variance Property Parcel No. 1010480014 tn October~il~2b06 C3 932 E. College Street, Io~ City, ~ 00 Responses to the specific provisions of the Zoning Code, City ofIowa City, www.icgov.org): PURPOSE: ZONING CODE, CITY OF IOWA CITY A. Generally: The provisions of this title are intended to implement the city of Iowa City's comprehensive plan in a manner that promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City. B. Specifically: The provisions of this title are specifically intended to: 1 . Conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city; . Granting the variance will help to preserve the value of the subject property by providing an adequate return of investment (ROI) to enable keeping the structure in good repair, so that the building will continue its historical use. The reduction in density will lessen congestion and therefore benefit the neighborhood; 2. Encourage the most appropriate use of land and foster convenient, compatible and efficient relationship among land uses; . Granting the variance will continue the historic character of the property which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and maintain the historic social fabric of the neighborhood; 3. Provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types to meet the needs of the city's population; . Granting the variance will continue an intentional community residence, thus providing variety in the housing types in the neighborhood, while meeting the needs of the young adult population; 4. Promote the economic stability of existing and future land uses that are consistent with the comprehensive plan and protect them from intrusions by incompatible land uses; · Granting the variance will continue the existing historic use of the building, thus lending stability to the historical trajectory of the building in its neighborhood context, at the same time supp~ing it~;"~ economic stability; :2: - ".:... 8 , , f"") ) '. Attachment Application to the Board of Adjustment-Variance Property Parcel No. 1010480014 Octoberi!; 2006!;~ 932 E. College Street, I~~City,2ij. ~,.. .... );.~ Ul co 5. Lessen congestion in the streets and promote safe and effective access to property; . Granting the variance will reduce the density of 30 residents by 1/3rd, thus lessening congestion; 6. Prevent the overcrowding of land; . Promoting higher density development near downtown reduces urban sprawl; . Granting the variance will not change the existing building footprint on the land; 7. Avoid undue concentration of population; . Granting the variance will reduce the concentration of population on the lot by 1/3rd; 8. Conserve open space and protect natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Ord. 05-4186,12-15-2005) . Granting the variance will make no change with respect to conserving open space, but will help to maintain the historic character of the neighborhood. 2. Unnecessary hardshio. 3. Explain why the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for 3 purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located. A lower level of density of 13 roomers will not yield a reasonable rate of return based on the previous financial investment made in the property. In recent years a conflict between the goals of zoning and the goals of historic preservation have surfaced in relation to this property. V AR97-0004 decided that conflict in the favor of historic preservation. The result is a highly improved intentional community residence. Leighton House L.C. did not act unilaterally in making these improvements. They acted with the knowledge, input, and consent of the Board of Adjustment. In good faith, they invested significant capital to restore a historic building. Thus, in the current marketplace it is not financially feasible for the Hudson's, or any other buyer, to take a mint condition intentional community residence and incur significant costs to remodel it as a single family hQ.I!1e, a duplex, or four-pi ex. Such action would also undermine the College Hill Historic ~? ~ 9 ", ,......- -,1 -n Attachment Application to the Board of Adjustment-Variance Property Parcel No. 1010480014 0""--" .. i =:i ,.-. f\,.) October 14, 2006 932 E. College Street, I~~~~ity,~ ~,'~ ;;-.~ C5 ""l.~ )> c.n 0::> Conservation district as it would destroy the true historical intent of the building, and its historical social context in the neighborhood. The Hudson's seek a winning solution for all parties. That will require compromise from everyone. The property owner is willing to accept a significant financial loss. The prospective buyer is willing to accept a modest return on investment. We ask the Board of Adjustment and the neighborhood to balance fairness with rights, and accept a compromise in density of 20 residents. That is the figure that staff recommended in 1997. That is the figure where bank financing can be secured. That is the figure where the conflict between zoning and historic preservation of this property can be put to rest. (See the attached financial spreadsheet.) b. Explain how the owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question, and the situation not shared with other landowners in the area or due to general conditions in the neighborhood. As the current variance states, "The property is unique not only due to having a large building on a relatively small lot, but also because the 1923 brick building is a contributing structure within an older neighborhood; it is a historic structure that the neighborhood wants to see maintained, not destroyed through disuse or razing." Furthermore, the current owners, Leighton House L.C., are in a unique and peculiar situation not shared with other landowners in the area, inasmuch as their current variance states, ". .. the density variance is not applicable to any successors in title to the 932 E. College Street property." They believe no other landowners in the area are encumbered by such a restriction. This restriction is also inconsistent with the statement, "A variance is not a personal license to the property owner. It is a right that runs with the land." (Department of Planning and Community Development, "General Explanation of Variances" which appears on the City's "Application to the Board of Adjustment-Variance", p. 5, taken from www.icgov.org) This follows a widely accepted principle of zoning law that "a variance granted becomes attached to the land and is not a mere personal right" (Eugene McQuillan The Law of Municipal Corporations S25.163 (3d ed. 1991). "The case law throughout the country... recognizes that variances run with the land and that their benefit is available to the applicant's successors in title." Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. vs. Bd. of Adiustment of Springfield 744 A.2d 1169 (NJ 2000). Granting variances that are personal to the property owner lends itself to decisions that are arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. {00379273.DOC} 1 0 o ~~ em" )> en co October 12, 2006 932 E. College Street, Iowa City, IA -n C~, f"0 0' j Attachment Application to the Board of Adjustment-Variance Property Parcel No. 1010480014 c. Explain how the hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of a predecessor in title. The application for variance states a justification of hardship requires either "how the hardship is not of the landowner's... own making" OR "applicant's own making" OR "that of a predecessor in title." Since the operative word here is "or" - not "and" - only one of these three conditions need apply. Thus the Board of Adjustment need only accept one of the following hardships to meet this test. Predecessors in title: "The changes in dimensional, density and parking requirements over the years as the zoning ordinance has been amended were not caused by the property owner or by a predecessor in title." (V AR97-0004) Current landowner: A hardship being born by the current landowner is the proven difficulty and potential inability to sell the property. Leighton House, L.C. has lost three prior potential buyers for the property as a result of the unorthodox variance. This hardship is not ofthe landowner's own making alone; it is a shared responsibility. The intent of the earlier Board of Adjustment was to save a building deemed important to the integrity of the neighborhood. They acted jointly with the current landowner to create a property that cannot be supported by income derived from 13 residents. The taxable value of the real estate is assessed at $639,940. According to the applicant's calculations, 13 residents can only support a purchase price of $290,800, holding constant Return On Investment (ROI) (see attached financial analysis). This value is substantially less than the capital expenditures invested into the property by the landowner. When the original variance was granted, the property was zoned RNC-20. This allowed the property owner to sell the property without the variance (thus, eliminating the tie to Leighton House, L.C.) and still receive a reasonable rate of return on its capital investment. The property was involuntarily rezoned in 2000 to RNC-12 which necessitates some reasonable solution like what is proposed by the Hudson's, in order to alleviate a financial hardship for the property owner. The Applicant: The hardship is not of the applicant's own making, since the applicant was not associated with the property prior to making the current offer to purchase. The hardship that would be born by the applicants, John and Sandra Hudson, would be the loss of the opportunity to buy 932 East College Street, since no bank will make a loan on a property that does not provide a reasonable rate of return, and a reasonable rate of return is not possible with less than 20 residents (see financial analysis attached). ,,-) {00379273.DOC} 11 en 00 October 12, 2006 932 E. College Street, Iowa City, IA ~2/., ).> ~".- .../ c:) Attachment Application to the Board of Adjustment-Variance Property Parcel No. 1010480014 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE COLLEGE HILL HOUSE 932 East College Street Iowa City, Iowa College Hill House, 932 E. College Street, has served as an intentional community since being built in 1923. At various times it has been a sorority, a fraternity, a dormitory. The physical layout has extensive common areas that provide the opportunity for a large group to gather in fellowship and to share goals, group decision making, responsibilities, and resources. When members divide work equitably, they share the value of cooperation for the betterment of their personal lives, their neighborhood, and their community at large. Intentional communities, of which there are several in the vicinity, generally make positive contributions to their neighborhoods. College Hill House is a recently renovated three and a half story brick building located at 932 East College Street. The building was extensively renovated in 1998 by Mitchell-Phipps Contractors. The historical integrity of the building is intact; its appearance is near original. The building anchors the northwest comer of the intersection of East College and Summit Streets and is an important contributing structure in connecting the north and south sections of the College Hill Historic Conservation District. The building has 8,752 square feet of living space, which includes: . a two-bedroom apartment . 13 furnished private or shared bedrooms . more than a quarter of the building is devoted to common area o large multi-purpose room that accommodates all residents at one time; it can serve as a dining room, meeting room, group study area, or informal gathering place o furnished living room I entertainment center o reception room I office, with desk and files o commercial kitchen is adequate to serve all residents at a single sitting o laundry with table, chairs, and adequate study space College Hill House is currently the home of members of the University ofIowa Men's Track Team. It is our current intention for them to continue to reside at College Hill House. 13 -'.","-1 I I "-.) Statement of Purpose: College Hill House 1 0/12/2006 ~~\ 5 ' Cl This Statement of Purpose accurately expresses our intentions as of this date. This State~t ofpuffiose may change as our thinking evolves, as our experience with the property increases, or as external 0; conditions change. - John and Sandra Hudson Broad Outline of Responsibilities (as we currently envision them) Responsibilities of the building owners: 1. Maintain the building. 2. Provide adequate common areas that will help facilitate an intentional community. 3. Provide space for privacy. 4. Respond promptly when notified of a physical problem with the building structure or its systems. 5. File appropriate annual documents with the City of Iowa City. Responsibilities of the intentional community: 1. Comply with all City of Iowa City codes and ordinances. 2. In conjunction with the building owner, create a set of guidelines for making positive contributions to the neighborhood. 3. Abide by the master lease and individual resident sub-leases. 4. In conjunction with the building owner, create a formal set of rules, regulations, and sanctions for the resident governance of College Hill House. 5. Enforce resident compliance with those rules, regulations, and sanctions. 6. In conjunction with the building owner, create a schedule of housekeeping tasks to ensure proper care of College Hill House and its furnishings. 7. Enforce resident compliance with the housekeeping schedule. 8. In conjunction with the building owner, create a schedule for maintaining the cleanliness of the grounds to ensure that yard work, trash removal, and snow removal occur in a timely manner. 9. Enforce resident compliance with the schedule for maintaining the grounds. 10. Notify the building owner promptly of all problems associated with the building, its systems, its furnishings, or the yard. 14 l'..) Statement of Purpose: College Hill House 10/12/2006 This Statement of Purpose accurately expresses our intentions as of this date. This Statement of Purpose may change as our thinking evolves, as our experience with the property increases, or as external conditions change. - John and Sandra Hudson C!'1 co John and Sandra Hudson Financial Anasysis 932 E. College Street 1 0/12/06 A B C 0 E F G H I J K 1 Property I tenants Purchase Down Down Mortgage % interest Mort.Prnt/m Mort PmtlYr NOI ROI 2 932 East College 20 550,000 110,000 20.0% 440,000 7.00% 2,927 35,128 43,382 7.50% 3 932 East Colleae 15 550,000 110,000 20.0% 440,000 7.00% 2,927 35,128 31,574 -3.23% 4 932 East College 13 550,000 110,000 20.0% 440,000 7.00% 2,927 35,128 22,934 -11.09% 5 Adiusted price 6 932 East College 13 290,800 58,160 20.0% 232,640 7.00% 1,548 18,573 22,934 7.50% 7 Continued -~ 8 9 Property Exp/m Exp/Yr Total costlm Total cost/Yr Rent Adj Rent Cash flow Cash/m OCR 10 932 East Colleae 20 2,913 34,954 5,840 70,082 81,600 78,336 8,254 688 1.23 11 932 East College 15 2,913 34,954 5,840 70,082 69,300 66,528 (3,554' (296) 0.90 12 932 East Colleae 13 2,913 34,954 5,840 70,082 60,300 57,888 (12,194 (1,016) 0.65 13 Adjusted price 14 932 East College 13 2,913 34,954 4,461 53,527 60,300 57,888 4,361 363 1.23 15 16 NOI - Net Operating Income = Income - Expenses 17 ROI - Return On Investment - Cash Flow I Down payment 18 OCR = Debt Coverage Ratio = NOlI Mortaaae payment (banks require 1.15) 19 Adjusted rent allows for a 4% vacancy rate. I 20 Adiusted price calculated to generate ROI similar to 20 residents. 21 I 22 F10 = 13 residents @ 375 1 resident @ 425, 6 residents @ 250 23 F11 = 12 @ 375, 3 residents @ 425 24 F12 - 10 residents @375, 3 residents @ 425 25 F14 = 10 residents @ 375,3 residents @ 425 26 G9 - 4% vacancy rate Attachment, p. 12 Application to the Board of Adjustment--Variance Property Parcel # 1010480014 C,~i' -, '-'n f"0 ~":t r-~-".i \---.-) C) U1 C)