HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-2006SpecialMtg
AGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, November 27, 2008 - 5:00 PM
Meeting Room A
Iowa City Public Library
123 S. Linn Street
Iowa City, IA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Variance:
VAR06-00001 Consideration 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.
D. Other
E. Board of Adjustment Information
F. Adjournment
CITY OF IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING: VAR06-00001
November 16, 2006
Remarks by Sandra Hudson, Applicant
Discussion Points
The Staff report states RNC- 1 2 is intended to "stabilize existing residential neighborhoods by
preserving the predominately single-family residential character o.fthese neighborhoods and
preventing existing multi-family uses in these neighborhoods from becoming non-conforming. "
(Ord.94-3608. 2-1-1994) (p2~4)
I. Map # I is printed from Johnson County GIS Online.
~ Johnson County GIS Online
An lnteml!t Mapping Applk:iltion of 1M' Johnson County, Iowa GIS
-
'Mntel
'1';IIq~I~I,~~tol""'FI t;:1"lat:!J!ll~tol
1r:.r1l' I '",...f' . \.- ~ ~
~'~""'IU' .....,..a tut14i".,. :~s ~~;". "t~1\~.
I ,....u.V tt1UMC1t '.)01 "ltt." ~
"":t~"1a, f1J-, llU \.'1~ to". ''''Ia~~f'1-C,,,''t1I ....._"' I.
111".. 1111 !..~~ ~'nG OD ."vn
... r'\,'n,1:
f. y\.~:>tl,,(~~m '"
'-i.r'it'-';;:';~ ..r;;;- 1111 1C1~ '; ttm
1r1r.u.r.a' ....0I:1D4 -- HIlL '."N.... ,.,. 1l:laNl'tt "Iel ...y:.......~
In 1l:tC"'ee.t ......lliN" I 11J'l"'''.J ut':I~. '1.-;1 ..("..;
lI':in"II'IM IC1UNH3 r 'V'''I..... . .......01:11 '-,
tel ... )' :5 t 1!!i HIt tlll'" I 11t:'.
S ,lItC_H "Z, =.-=-' ~~~~
~ .ra tt.I'::"'~Jltc~ l~t~~~u ~Jri
~ I)"~' ' . 1ell6 '):} -'n'J 1'01111eQH, 1
i." t ...;;i\A_t...... 1"'U"''''''~ .....''''htl1 ~ftVl .....~~~:~
::: ~Q1--:r.....u UI1tDIfAj NI'tJ1tlOl .O'l~..~.' .......
_ ~ lI.J.1" ~ ..............L...-...a......;,.;;.~
E. eel I FoAF :.
I - :=r<"~f1..,j ,tl,..l
1o.MilDJ.,. ~01')Ga.. '''']l~.J.. .::'-"t1~Ht4 H'
to'. IMI'!'" . ,,"'IIIA ~ 1rl 1M', u," tn,..",,,,. '..117 1ft
~.."1.,."::--!ln ~~:I t) GtJJa:_ t,.~ ,~G'lIJfr
, ......1111.. ....~':.'Mt1 Ill':, l'l 'I" ~
... __..,.1 <:. ,.. · ;", ,..., . '"
'O"<)U101a ')2) _.:, _ fUIHI. tI,'1IO'" 't...t'''"'~
....1J'l' H;1li..,I:1L. '" -. te11>>J, _T Ult'ln .'ll',. "1.
IItf' .........ten. 'if'" . ICt. I ~1'It~ r'):'''O''UGG'. ,
t1C 'III.....~.12 t::~~ ,.... ltt....t~~
Buffer
LAYERS
1.:..JSex Offender
:.J AdminiJt'mion
CJVoti...
CJPubI;c <Mod_
CJT~
CJZoning
CJAerioI Photov<aphy
:::.i ....nd Rea>rd.
..C ( Subdivisions
..C <: Subd'MsionPd('fEIoIl
..C(P...a!_
..f~ <: P...a! UIes
..C <: P...a!1Jnos TEMP
..il'. _..Homos
..C (' P...a! nMP T"" v....-...d
..C (. P...a! TEMP De<d_
..C (~p~ TEMP PflN5
..C (' P...al TEMP Kouso Nu.....
..C (' P...a! TEMP ""'-"
..C (' P...a! T..... V....-...d
..1:: (;. P...a! De<d Heider>
..~(~P~WNs
..Iii: (' P...a! Hoose Numben
..~'.pMml~s
~AulllR_
Holp
::J... t-.I..., tb. ~...
".,J,_____ ..........~_
2. This represents property owners that were notified by the City of this public hearing. When
we speak of neighborhood, we are speaking of this shaded oval.
3. Map #2 enlarges all 41 parcels (see next page).
4. The pink parcel is the subject property: 932 E. College Street.
5. The blue parcel indicates a condominium building.
6. Green dots indicate owner occupied homes.
7. Red dots indicate rental properties.
8. Blue dots indicate apartment buildings.
9. The four shaded plots indicate rooming houses.
V AR06-0000 1
Remarks by Sandra Hudson
11/16/06
Page 1 of9
-- -- -- ~~. "./~
e e ~ . ~
J . 935,
I 923 I 7T
903 911 921 '/
'-'
'..I!
t r- <
+ ----t
22f e ",
f
~ "
J910 920
r. i f
,
I
. Ie e.e e
919 j 923
. -; ~
II 911 915 ~ --'--
1 _ -----L- ~
922
906
e
i
e Owner occupied homcs
e Rental properties
e Apartment huildings
ee
9251 I 109
115_
r~
'- 1
/:'38. 1002. 1012
'ee e
_ ',,\;:It~..., 'c..r~'" ."" ..
'j"
_ 1\
:,1
1025 ~
)(
1
c'
C
.~
-.
\.
j0!2
,
I J,!I18. I
Ie
I
.
I
102.2
:.... _.._-!_-~ .,~ -...
F;~-
1- 1io
IOWA' CITY
"i .
"-T .
.1
I ..
1009
) I
1
21.
1
'....
II:l
~ ~1012
- .
.
i
~-
e
1
()27 I
.
~
.-.J'L..
Pink parcel: 932 E College Street
Blue parcel: condominium building
Four Sh:Hied plots: rooming houses
10. Thirty-three of the 41 buildings were built prior to 1930.
11. Eighteen of the 41 buildings continue serve the purposes for which they were built.
a) Sixteen properties still function as single-family homes; 12 are owner occupied.
b) One - 218 S. Summit - still functions as an apartment building (now condominium
ownership ).
c) The subject property, 932 E. College Street, still functions as a student residence. It
is important to recognize the significance of this building. It belongs to a category of
housing that is diminishing. We were surprised at the staff report suggested
alternative uses of this property. That most certainly does not comply with official
Standards for Historic Preservation. The College Hill Historic Conservation District
will be undermined if this building's social and historical context is not preserved.
i. Less than one-fifth-of-one-percent of our city's housing stock consists of
buildings that have been architecturally designed to function as intentional
communities.
11. Nearly all of these residences were built in the 1920s.
111. Many of you live in older homes and understand the economics of
maintaining 80-year-old buildings. In the coming decade more and more of
these buildings will be lost by demolition or adaptive reuse, as demonstrated
in an earlier hearing this evening.
IV. More than one quarter of932 E College Street is allocated to communal use.
v. Today's construction costs make that type of set-aside prohibitive to
reproduce. New ones will not be built.
12. Of the neighborhood's 41 properties, a little more than half of them are conversions and
new construction which have caused destabilization and increased congestion for the
neighborhood.
a) Eleven historic single-family homes have been cut up to create 35 dwelling units,
housing 71 occupants.
b) Three historic single-family homes have been converted to rooming houses with 48
occupants.
c) One historic single-family home as been converted to a sorority house with 20
occupants.
d) Seven historic homes have been demolished. They have been replaced with 87
apartments with 364 occupants.
13. What this demonstrates is this neighborhood is not predominately single-family homes. On
the contrary, multiple dwelling units make up 61 % of this neighborhood.
14. It also demonstrates that although 932 College Street has never changed, the
neighborhood around it has changed a great deal.
The Staff Report states that there must be evidence that "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. " (p4~8).
15. Since the building's construction in 1924, its dimensions, footprint, and use have never
changed.
16. Its living area of 8,752 square feet has always been greater than the lot size of 7,440 square
feet.
17. That situation is indeed unique and peculiar to this property.
V AR06-0000 1
Remarks by Sandra Hudson
11/16/06
Page 3 of9
18. Table #1 shows the lot size / living area ratio for the neighborhood.
#
932
219
728
802
935
200
922
928
831
Street
E. College
S. Summit
E. College
E. Washington
E. College
S. Summit
E. Washington
E. Burlington
E. College
Lot I LA
0.84
1.67
2.16
2.60
2.93
3.03
3.60
3.83
4.10
Sq Ft Lot
7,320
3,450
3,510
8,888
7,590
17,433
12,000
5,310
12,880
Sq Ft LA
8,752
2,060
1,628
3,418
2,593
5,748
3,337
1,388
3,143
Function
Intentional Community
Rooming House
Rooming House
Intentional Community
Intentional Community
Intentional Community
Rooming House
Rooming House
Rooming House
19. From the first zoning legislation in the mid-twentieth century, the ratio between the lot size
and the building size has been a problem for 932 E. College Street.
20. Each down zoning has placed the property more and more out of conformity.
The staff report states, "Under the current code, the maximum density in RM-20 zone, which
allows rooming houses, would allow 1 roomer per 550 square feet of lot area (7440 square feet
/ 550=13.53), thatis 13 roomers. (p3~1)
21. I intend to show that the above formula is unreasonable in relation to this property.
22. The building was designed and built to be used as a residence for college students.
23. In the 84 years of its existence, college students have made the building their home. At
different points in time, it has served as a sorority, a fraternity, and a private dormitory.
24. Regardless of ownership, the form and function of the home has been consistent.
25. In an attempt to control density and congestion, the current zoning legislation uses an
arbitrary mathematical formula based upon lot size. That is a rational and highly effective
method to determine the occupancy rate for new construction.
26. That formula, however, is grossly unfair when used to calculate the occupancy rates for an
existing building.
27. New construction can be built to control the costs in relation to the occupancy permitted.
28. Existing buildings do not have that opportunity.
29. Many communities use the square footage of "living area" to determine a fair occupancy
rate for existing buildings.
30. Calculating living areas for the buildings that staff selected for comparatives, you see
immediately that 932 E College Street provides significantly more living space per
occupant even with 20 tenants.
# Street
200 S. Summit
831 E. College
802 E. Washington
935 E. College
932 E. College
932 E. College
V AR06-00001
Remarks by Sandra Hudson
11116/06
Oce
16
13
10
12
13
20
Sq Ft LA
5,748
3,143
3,418
2,593
8,752
8,752
932 parity LA
24
36
26
41
LA / Oce
359
242
342
216
673
438
Page4of9
31. Notice also that when parity is applied, 932 E College Street is never below 24 occupants -
and can go as high as 41 occupants. That's more than double the number we are requesting.
32. If we look at every rooming house in the city, the picture is much the same.
33. Only a small minority of these 65 rooming houses offers more square footage per occupant.
# Street Occ Living Area LA / Occ Parity
1131 3rd Ave 16 2451 153 12
414 Brown 23 9330 406 4
214 Church 8 4512 564 3
219 Church 14 3916 280 6
228 Church 5 2337 467 4
209 E Bloomington 4 1800 450 4
215 E Bloomington 4 1582 396 5
905 E Burlington 8 2198 275 7
928 E Burlington 5 1,388 278 6
728 E College 6 1628 271 7
831 E College 13 3,143 242 7
932 E College 13 8,752 673 3
932 E College 20 8,752 438 4
935 E College 12 2,593 216 8
613 E Cou rt 6 1,352 225 8
223 E Davenport 7 1,970 281 6
112 E Davenport 8 1,320 165 11
214 E Davenport 6 2,016 336 5
319 E Davenport 6 2,024 337 5
328 E Jefferson 4 3,068 767 2
727 E Jefferson 5 1,673 335 5
427 E Market 6 2,126 354 5
802 E Washington 10 3,418 342 5
922 E Washington 13 3,337 257 7
332 Ellis 34 1,984 58 31
802 E Washington 10 3,418 342 5
702 Iowa Ave 8 1,674 209 9
703 Iowa Ave 7 1,948 278 6
124 N Clinton 18 4312 240 8
410 N Clinton 20 3,433 172 10
21 N Dodge 10 2,119 212 8
230 N Dubuque 7 1,691 242 7
716 N Dubuque 21 1,743 83 22
119 N Gilbert 5 1,370 274 7
115 N Gilbert 5 2,340 468 4
10 N Johnson 7 2,840 406 4
14 N Johnson 14 2,702 193 9
403 N Linn 10 3,430 343 5
411 N Linn 7 2,460 351 5
V AR06-00001 Page5of9
Remarks by Sandra Hudson
11/16/06
121 N Van Buren 13 2,311 178 10
702 N. Van Buren 7 1,943 278 6
125 River 12 1,706 142 13
311 Ronalds 6 2,082 347 5
518 S Capital 10 2,008 201 9
520 S Capital 5 1,940 388 5
416 S Dodge 9 3,045 338 5
17 S Governor 11 2,831 257 7
111 S Governor 9 1,954 217 8
115 S Governor 7 2,225 318 6
314 S Governor 9 2,324 258 7
333 S Governor 7 1,428 204 9
335 S Johnson 10 1,666 167 11
5 S Lucas 6 2,151 359 5
221 S Lucas 8 3,229 404 4
222 S Lucas 8 2,432 304 6
325 S Lucas 4 1,576 394 5
424 S Lucas 9 1,860 207 9
518 S Lucas 6 1,942 324 6
200 S Summit 16 5,748 359 5
219 S Summit 4 2,060 515 3
34. This demonstrates that 932 E College Street faces hardship not only in relation to
similar properties in the neighborhood, but also in relation to similar properties
citywide.
35. When you reduce the number of occupants for an existing building, an immediate hardship
results, because it is impossible for an owner to correspondingly reduce the size of the
existing structure.
36. The size of a structure carries with it inherent "costs of operations. "
37. I am going to spend considerable time talking about "costs of operations."
38. There's a reason Gillette gives away razors. They make money selling you blades. Your
significant costs are for operations.
39. Hewlett Packard printers are relatively cheap. They make money selling you ink cartridges.
Again, your significant costs are for operations.
40. Several years ago we were given the opportunity to buy the "Body By Fisher" Summer
estate in New Hampshire with a postcard-perfect view of Mount Washington for only
$250,000. When we examined the financials, we didn't buy. The cost for operations was
more annually than the purchase price.
41. In each of the above examples, I have tried to demonstrate the difference between purchase
price and the costs of operations.
42. The purchase price is a one-time cost.
43. Operations are an on-going cost month after month.
44. Every building has certain costs of operation that do not adjust with occupancy rates. The
maintenance of the building's envelope, the electrical and plumbing systems, and insurance
are some examples.
V AR06-0000 1
Remarks by Sandra Hudson
11/16/06
Page 6 of9
45. When an existing building has fewer occupants than it was designed to serve, it is certain
that the owner will face a financial hardship.
46. The owner does not have the option of cutting the existing building down to size.
47. It is important for neighbors to realize they will share this hardship. With inadequate
income for operations, maintenance will be deferred. This property is already beginning to
show some deferred maintenance.
48. Responsible tenants are less likely to rent properties that are not well maintained.
49. Less responsible tenants move in.
50. This frequently causes problems for the neighborhood.
51. The property owner is not likely to be responsive to neighborhood concerns. He will not
evict the tenant. He cannot afford the loss of rent.
52. This scenario should sound familiar.
53. I'm suggesting there was a direct correlation between the prior condition of932 E. College
Street and the problems the neighborhood experienced.
54. If an occupancy rate of 13 is implemented, the majority of the line items associated with
operations will not change, but the income would be reduced by 35 %. That clearly creates
a financial hardship.
55. No property can be expected to yield a reasonable rate of return with a 1/3 reduction
of the income it was built to generate.
56. Pre-renovation floor plans of this building indicate the building was built with 22
bedrooms.
57. At that point, in history, double occupancy was common.
58. I have floor plans here for you to inspect, if desired.
59. An occupancy rate of20 is lower than the occupancy rate the building was built to serve,
lower than it was throughout most of its history, and lower than every comparable property
in the City.
60. Allowing a pre-existing pattern to continue will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
61. Failing to do so, however, is very likely to cause a downward spiral for the property and
have a long-term negative impact on the essential character of the neighborhood.
62. This property cannot yield a reasonable rate of return ifzoning codes are applied
retroactively which reduces the number of occupants this building was built to serve.
63. This entire discussion demonstrates the "unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance
itself," specifically the formula used to calculate occupancy rate.
The Staff Report states "Although it is true that chanfles in dimensional. density. and varkinfl
requirements were not caused bv the vroperty 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" (p5~c)
64. The inequities that have impacted this property are the result of zoning. They have nothing
to do with any action or inaction of prior owners.
65. The portion of the statement which I underlined supports our position. We are pleased staff
agrees.
66. The Board of Adjustment in 1997 also agreed, "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)
V AR06-00001
Remarks by Sandra Hudson
11/16/06
Page 7 of9
The Staff Report states, "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 provided only 2 off-street parking spaces. The applicants have made no
provision to address the additional parking demands created by additional roomers. " (p3~la)
67. In 1997, the Board of Adjustment granted the current variance for 30 occupants for this
building on the condition a shuttle be provided.
68. That service is now being provided by the City. The Downtown Shuttle comes within two
blocks of the property.
69. There is also bus service. The 7th Avenue and Westport bus comes to the comer of
E. College Street and Summit Street where the building is located.
70. The increased number of automobiles in the neighborhood has not been caused by past or
present owners of the building. The automobile is a societal problem
71. The increased number of automobiles in the neighborhood is primarily the result of
a) Increased use of automobiles since 1924, especially in the past 30 years,
b) Increased number of automobiles due to the increase in the number of dwelling units
that are the result of single-family conversions to multiple-unit dwellings, and the
construction of apartment buildings.
72. We have shown that 932 E College Street has maintained its original form and function
since it was built in 1924, and therefore is far less of a contributing factor to the parking
problem than the majority of its neighbors.
73. This large building with its small lot pre-dated all zoning and the preponderance of
automobiles. It is physically impossible to retroactively meet current codes.
74. The neighborhood has not enacted all the collective options available to address the parking
problem We mention two, not for debate, but to illustrate there are at least two more
equitable ways to solve the problem:
a) Resident stickers for cars belonging to residents of the neighborhood, with
temporary dashboard permits for guests,
b) Selected streets made one-way, allowing parking on both sides of the street, thereby
increasing the number of parking spaces available in the neighborhood.
75. The 19 members of the ill track team have only six cars. We do not assume that will
necessarily be true in the future.
76. However, we believe an intentional community will be more likely to share automobiles,
and therefore result in fewer automobiles than 13 independent residents.
CLOSING
77. When we first looked at 932 E College Street, it was for the purpose of converting the
building to condominiums.
78. We did not know at that time the building was in a Historic Conservation District.
79. We changed our minds when we discovered the building was exceptionally well designed
as an intentional community residence and had been recently renovated.
80. We pointed out earlier that intentional community residences that have significant square
footage devoted to communal area are no longer being built.
81. The numbers of exiting buildings of this type are rare and in this condition even rarer.
V AR06-0000 1
Remarks by Sandra Hudson
11/16/06
Page 8 of9
82. We also discovered it was the home for members of the University ofIowa Track team.
They are excellent stewards of the building. Those of you who attended their open house
can attest to that.
83. They are goal setters and highly motivated to achieve in both sports and academics. We
want to provide a living environment that will help them to be the best they can be.
84. This group of young men provides the neighborhood with an excellent opportunity to gain
additional vitality. If they are welcomed as neighbors, those who remain in Iowa City
following graduation may want to stay in the neighborhood and buy a multi-family home
and return it to an owner-occupied single.
85. We have shown 13 occupants will result in the under-funding of932 E. College Street and
place the building and the neighborhood on a downward spiral.
86. Tonight there is an opportunity to encourage stabilization for the neighborhood and the
building, by supporting a variance for 20 occupants, and becoming pro-active to ensure the
members of the VI track team want to remain as your long-term neighbors.
87. The community has been given a gift. It's time to say thank you, by providing a variance to
create a healthy future for the building and the neighborhood.
THANK YOu.
V AR06-00001
Remarks by Sandra Hudson
11116/06
Page 9 of9
1
Re: 932 East College Street
Summary prepared by Greg Downes SRPA, real estate appraiser
Dated: 11/15/2006
At the direction of Attorney Mike Pugh and owner Rob Phipps I have been asked
to quantify any affect on value to the property at 932 East College Street for a
possible reduction from a maximum occupancy of 20 persons versus a maximum
occupancy of 13 persons.
~he current rental permit lists the property as an owners apartment unit with 2
bedrooms and 13 rooms with a total occupancy of 30 persons. The permit is
dated 12/21/2004 expiring 8/31/2006. The owner reports that the property has
been inspected repairs, completed and reinspected. He is currently waiting for
his permit.
The property is currently leased under a master agreement to a group made up
of members of the University of Iowa Track Team. Additionally there are
individual agreements for 19 members to occupy the property. The leases are
annual leases and vary slightly in rate but average approximately $372 monthly
per person. The tenants pay all utilities. The landlord pays taxes, insurance,
general repairs and inspections and maintenance on the fire alarm system.
I have, in recent years appraised this property twice. Once when the remodeling
was done in 1998. This appraisal was before the remodeling but subject to
completion of the remodeling as per plans and specifications. At that time we
reviewed the business plan. The concept was as a full service rooming facility
with some meals and management living on site. The concept was new to the
community and unproven at that time. It is my understanding that attracting
clients was difficult and expenses proved to be too great for the limited demand.
At the time the owner reported to me hata they purchased the existing property
for $240,000 and spent approximately $410,000 remodeling and refurbishing the
property.
In 2005 I completed an appraisal for mortgage financing purposes for a
prospective sale. This sale was not consummated and the property was put
back on the market. The property has been listed for sale for $595,000.
In my earlier report I tallied the property at 1 single room, 13 double rooms and
one 2 bedroom apartment. In my opinion, double occupancy of the rooms is not
probable. Few prospects will wish to share this space in my opinion. Most
probable occupancy is 16 to 18 persons in my opinion. My financial analysis was
based upon this in my appraisal report. I estimated gross income at
approximately $79,000 and expenses without consideration of depreciation or
debt service at $29,000. In my scenario the tenant assumed responsibility for all
expenses outside of insurance and taxes. Since that time taxes have increased
from $19,479 to $24,254.
2
The current monthly rent is $7,050 or $84,260 per year. After a normal discount
for long term vacancy and credit loss of 5% the effective gross income is
estimated at $80,370. I project the following stabilized expense estimates, Taxes
at $24,254, Insurance $3,300, management and leasing expense at 6% or
$4,822, minimal maintenance at $4,000 and alarm and fire system maintenance
at $1,800. Additional charge for reserves for replacement of long term items
such as heating plants, roofs, windows etc. is estimated at 2% or $1,608. The
total expenses are therefore estimated at $39,784 and the net operating income
is estimated at $40,586.
Actual contract rent is slightly higher, at $84,600, than ,I projected at the time of
my last appraisal but taxes are $5,000 higher as well.
Capitalization rates in the market are estimated to be in the range of 8 to 8.5%.
Using the formula of income divided by rate for direct capitalization the indicated
value at 8% is $507,325.
If one estimated a sale price of $525,000 with a 75% loan at 7.25% for 20 years
the mortgage amount would be $393,750 and the down payment would be
$131,250. The monthly payment would be $3,112.11 or $37,345 annually. The
cash on cash return on the down payment is $3,241 or 2.47% annually.
Additional benefits would be depreciation for tax purposes and principle reduction
on the mortgage. Possible appreciation in value is another anticipated but not
guaranteed benefit.
What happens if the occupancy is reduced to 13 roomers. The current average
occupant pays about $375. After pondering the question I believe the current
rent is reflective of market rent for the property. While one would believe that
reducing the occupancy may create higher per occupant rent I don't believe that
will be the case. The expenses, namely utilities will not vary considerably with
the load. Water may, to a small extent, be less but heated space does not
change and lighting expense on the unused space would not be significant in my
opinion. The higher expense load per person will offset the potential for
increased rent from lower occupancy.
Assuming 13 persons occupy the property and pay on the average $375 per
person. The gross potential income is $4,875 per month or $58,500 per year.
Effective gross income after vacancy and credit loss is estimated at $55,575.
Assuming we can get the assessed value reduced 35% to $428,000 the taxes
would go down to $16,300 at current millage rates. This is difficult to predict but
is possible in my opinion. The insurance will not change since it is based upon
replacement cost. I will reduce the maintenance and reserve charge since they
are percentage based. The alarm and fire system expense is not variable in my
opinion. The expenses are Taxes $16,300, insurance $3,300, management at
5% or $2,779, alarm system at $1,800 and reserves for replacement at 2% or
3
$1 ,115. The operating expenses are estimated at $25,294 and the net operating
income is estimated at $30,281. Using the 8% overall capitalization rate we did
in the example above the estimated value is $378,512 (occupancy limited to 13
persons).
If one estimated the value at $380,000 and assumed a 75% loan to value ratio at
7.25% for a 20 year amortization the monthly payment would be $2,252.57 on a
mortgage of $285,000. The annual cash on cash return on the down payment
would be $3,250 or 3.4% on $95,000.
Reducing the occupancy in these examples reduces the estimated value from
approximately $507,300 based upon current income to approximately $378,500
based upon occupancy of 13 persons. The reduction in value is $128,800 or
slightly more than 25%.
The valuation of rental properties is highly dependant upon the net income
produced. I do not see any feasible alternate use of this property. It is too large
and too expensive to heat and maintain to consider conversion to a single family
dwelling. It is not financially feasible to convert this to a multiple family dwelling.
The costs would be excessive in my opinion. There is no reasonable alternate
use to the current use as a rooming house.
I do not feel that the current permitted occupancy of 30 persons is realistic in the
marketplace but a reduction to 13 from the current occupancy of 19 persons will
materially affect the value and marketability of the property. A limit of 20 persons
is a more reasonable cap from a practical and financial perspective.
The property currently pays $24,254 in annual property taxes. This dwelling is
treated as a commercial property for tax purposes and pays taxes on 99% of the
assessed value. Residential properties are 1-2 family dwellings. Residential
properties receive a rollback to approximately 46% of the assessed value.
Without consideration of the homestead exemption a home of $175,000
assessed value would pay taxes of approximately $3,059 per year based upon a
46% rollback and current millage rates for Iowa City. A $200,000 house would
pay taxes of approximately $3,500 with the same considerations. This property
pays taxes equal to 7 or 8 single family residences.
Fraternities and sororities are treated as residential properties. For comparison
purposes I pulled the tax record for the Sigma Nu fraternity house at 630 N.
Dubuque Street. It has an assessed value of $613,620, very similar to the
subject property with an assessed value of $639,940. This property enjoys the
residential rollback so the taxable value is $282,241 and the annual property
taxes are $10,788 as compared to the taxes on 932 E. College Street at $24,254.
The owners original investment of $650,000 exceeds the estimated value even if
the occupancy is capped at 20 persons in my opinion. If occupancy is capped at
4
20 the value is estimated to be in the range of $520,000 to $540,000. If reduced
to 13 the value drops to approximately $380,000 in my opinion.
I have appraised many of fraternities and sororities in Iowa City in the course of
my carreer, some multiple times. I am always amazed at the wear and tear
these properties are subjected to. They generally receive very heavy use and
new decor can look very dated in as little as a year. In 2005 I reinspected this
property for my appraisal assignment at that time. I was pleasantly surprised that
the interior was in much better condition than I was used to experiencing in my
Greek House inspections. It was obvious that the level of care was good.
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER
Greg Downes SRP A
Downes & Associates, Inc.
725 South Clinton Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
For several years I have been engaged in the real estate appraisal field in Iowa
City and the surrounding area. I have been actively involved in general real estate
practice since 1973, with experience in residential, multifamily, vacant land, commercial
and farm properties.
Since 1975 I have done appraisal work on a fee basis. I have worked for lenders,
builders, property owners, taxing authorities, municipalities, engineering companies and
attorneys.
I have testified in several district courts in eastern Iowa, Federal Court in Cedar
Rapids and Davenport, and before assessor boards of review and several compensation
panels in condemnation proceedings.
I am a member of the Iowa City Area Association of Realtors, the Iowa
Association of Realtors and the National Association of Realtors. I am also a member of
the Appraisal Institute.
In 2000 I served as the President of the Iowa City Area Association of Realtors.
In 1994 I was the president of the Iowa Chapter of the Appraisal Institute. I currently
serve the Appraisal Institute as the regional representative of the Iowa Chapter. I served
on the appraisal committee for the Iowa Association of Realtors for approximately 10
years.
In 1994 I was the recipient of the "Distinguished Service Award" of the Iowa City
area Association of Realtors.
I served on the Board of Directors ofthe Cedar Valley Chapter 146 of the Society
of Real Estate Appraisers from 1983 through 1990.
From 1982 through 1988 I served on the Iowa Board of Review with
responsibility for equalizing tax assessments by raising or lowering individual
assessments under appeal by taxpayers. I served as chairman of this board in 1986.
I served on the Board of Directors of the Iowa City Jaycees and the Old Capital
Kiwanis Club ofIowa City. I served as President of the Old Capital Kiwanis Club of
Iowa City. I served as President of the Old Capital Kiwanis Club in 1988-89 (60 member
service club).
I have completed the following courses by the American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers:
1 A Fundamentals of Real Estate Appraisal
IB Capitalization of Income Producing Properties
VIII Appraisal of Residential Real Estate
2-1 Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation
2-2 Valuation Analysis and Report Writing
2-3 Standards of Professional Practice
3 Rural Valuation
6 Introduction to Investment Analysis
I have completed the following exams by the society of Real Estate Appraisers:
20 I The Principles of Income Property Appraising
202 Applied Income Property Valuation
In February of 1991 I attended the Appraisal Institute courses of Case Studies and
Income Capitalization Part IB on an audit basis.
In February of 1991 successfully completed the comprehensive examination for the MAl
designation awarded by the Appraisal Institute.
In April of 1991 I attended seminars by the Appraisal Institute for State Licensed and
State Certified Appraisal Review.
In November of 1991 I successfully completed the examination and complied with the
requirements of the Iowa Real Estate Appraiser Examining Board as a Certified General
Real Estate Appraiser.
I am currently certified under the continuing education requirements of the Appraisal
Institute through 2005.
I have been involved as a developer in the subdivision of a small tract of land
construction of a number of duplexes. I have acted as the general contractor on the
construction of single family residences, duplexes, apartments and commercial buildings.
I am actively involved in management of a portfolio of apartments and commercial
suites. I live on and operate a farm consisting of row crop and beef production.
In an effort to be well informed and abreast of the real estate industry I have attended the
following seminars related to real estate appraisal:
9/84 Federal Income Tax and Real Estate
4/85 Regulation 41 B, Standards for Appraisal for the Federal
Bd.
7/85 Evaluation residential Construction
3/86 Highest and Best Use
3/86 Evaluation Leasehold Estates
3/86 Hotel and Motel Valuation
3/86 Real Estate Risk Analysis
3/86 Regulation 41B FHLBB
3/86 Estimating Cash Equivalency
12/87 Cash Equivalency
Home Loan Bank
1/88 Standards of Professional Practice Update
5/88 Leasehold and Leased Fee Estates
9/92 Appraising the Tough Ones
11/92 Economic Trends and Forecasts
2/93 Environmental Management in real Estate Transactions
5/93 Federal Housing Administration valuation Training
5/93 Marshall and Swift Commercial Cost Seminar
6/93 Maximizing the Value of an Appraisal Practice
6/93 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
7/93 Current Standards of Professional Practice
7/93 Americans with Disabilities Act
9/93 Reviewing Appraisals
11/93 ADA Seminar and Workshop
2/94 Appraising from Blueprints
7/94 International Valuations and Investing
9/94 Standards of Professional Practice Parts A & B
9/94 Rural Residence and Farmstead Appraisal
10/94 Professional Standards A & B
11/94 Economic Update and forecast
5/96 Fair Lending and the Appraiser
5/97 Small Hotel-Motel Appraisal
9/97 Internet and Appraising
10/97 Standards Part C
2/99 Current Real Estate Issues
10/99 The Business of Appraising
10/99 Appraising Local Retail Properties
2/00 USP AP Update
6/00 Residential Report Writing
8/00 Case Studies in Highest and Best Use
10/00 Regression Analysis in Appraisal Practice
11/00 Appraising Manufactured Housing
3/01 Appraising Atypical Properties
4/01 Attacking and Defending an Appraisal in Litigation
9/01 Real Estate Disclosure
1 % 1 Standards of Prof., Practice Part C
11/01 GLB Act of 1999 and 4 Articles ofTAJ
12/01 Committee CE Credit-Regional
11/02 Economy Ethics
12/02 Committee CE Credit-Chapter Level
3/03 Land Valuation
5/03 USP AP Update
6/03 Appraisal Consulting
9/03 Rates and Ratios
11/03 Property Tax-Forms
11/03 Mark to Market
10/03 Argus
9/04 Real Estate Finance, Value and Investment
11104 Current Issues and Misconceptions
RENTAL PERMIT
City of Iowa City
I J
~s::..!.;B
t~.'."'.j!ii . ....
~..... &..
~C,!, ore
~c\
Permit # :
REN00496
Permit Issued On :
12/21/2004
Permit Valid Through:
08/31/2006
Premises Address:
932 COLLEGE ST
Owner Information:
LEIGHTON HOUSE L C
932 COLLEGE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
Phone 1 : 337-2020 x1
Phone 2: 631-2618 (M)
Type/Use of Structure:
13 Rooming Unites) 1 Dwelling Unites)
CAUTION: This Permit certifies that this structure was in compliance with the requirements of Section 14-5E-19 of
the Iowa City Housing Code at time of issuance. This does not imply that the property is in compliance with the
Iowa City Zoning ordinance, State of Iowa Fire Code, or current Building Codes.
Unit Specific Information:
I Unit # II Accessible II Bedrooms I Max. Unrelated
Occupancy
I OWNER II N II 2 II I
I RU'S II N II 13 II 30 I
Data current as of: 11/16/2006
"
<I"l!'!:!!!
Welcome to Housing & Inspection Services Online Services
Home Status Parcel Comment
Apply
Help
View Case Status
The information below summarizes the case you selected.
INFORMATION ON CASE REN00496
Status :
Name:
Address:
Application Date:
Parcel:
B (click for Status definition)
LEIGHTON HOUSE L C
932 COLLEGE ST (click for map)
11/17/1995
1010480014
Description: Three story wood frame structure with
brick veneer containing 13 rooming units and one
dwelling unit. Basement has kitchen, dining room,
exercise room, mechanical room, laundry/Vending room,
office/maintenance room and a bath. Main floor has
(click for parcel details)common living room and a two bedroom dwelling unit.
Second floor has seven rooming units, one small bath
and one large bath. Third floor has six rooming units, one
small bath, one large bath and a computer room.
Staff: JGS
Notes:
ACTIVITIES
(F) Send renewal letter
Status: DONE
Date:
Licensing inspection
Staff: ARA Status: FAIL Date: 8/28/2000
Notes: Conducted inspection w/ John Phipps and all violations have been noted.
Notice of Violation sent
Staff: ARA Status: Date :
Notes: Sent letter regular mail to Leighton House L C c/o John Phipps.
Re-inspection
Staff: ARA Status: XTND Date: 10/5/2000
Notes: 30 day Went to property for reinspection and no one showed.
Re-inspection
Staff: ARA Status: XTND Date :'11/7/2000
Notes: 45 day Went to property for reinspection and owner did not show and work was not
completed. Will extend 30 days from original reinspection date.
Staff: ARA
Re-inspection
Status: XTND
Date : 11/20/2000
Notes: final reinspection Conducted reinspection and some violations remain.
ZOOZ/f;/O ~ : alea
aN.LX : snlelS
u ojload su !-a~
~8N : ,ijelS
"a6aIl0~ Z€6 'Jalar uOJeLlS 01 SdSn : saloN
: alea 3NOa : snlelS ~8N : ,ijelS
luas UO!leIO!^ jO aO!loN
'Jallal paLl:>ene uo palou SUO!lelol^ "Jalar uOJeljS/M papadsul : saloN
I
ZOOZILZ/S : alea 11'v':I : snlelS ~8N : ,ijelS
UO!lOadsu! 6u!suao!1
: alea 3NOa : snlelS
JanalleMaUaJ puas (::I)
: saloN
s~r : ,ijelS
: alea
3Noa : snlelS
l!WJad Maua~ (::I)
: saloN
s~r : ,ijelS
: alea 3NOa : snlelS
UO!leo!ldde l!wJad lU!Jda~ (::I)
: saloN
s~r : ,ijelS
(3~3110~ Z€6 O.L .LN3S - a3S01~ X08 ~NIA'v'S
11'v'itIl 3H.L NI a3N~n.L3~ S'v'M.L1 aN'v' SIH X08 a'v'H I NI'v'~'v' .LN3S3~) ~OOZ/SH ~ 'A'v'd O.L
3~I.LON A'v'a 0 ~ H.LIM NOI.L 'v'~l1dd'v' 1'v' .LN3~ .LN3S3~ - al'v'd N338 .LON a'v'H S33:1 .L'v'H.L
a3~I.LON a3nSSI N338 .LON a'v'H .LlitIl~3d AHM 33S O.L 311:1 ~NIM31^3~ ~3.L:I'v' : saloN
: alea 3NOa : snlelS s~r : ,ijelS
UO!leo!ldde l!wJad lU!Jda~ (::I)
: ale a
SS'v'd : snlelS
l!WJad lelUaJ aseala~
: saloN
'v'~'v' : ,ijelS
'a:>!lOU aSOI:> II!M "Jawwns S!L11
lU!ed 01 sueld sell JaUMO 'papaJJo:> uaaq aAeLl 6u!luled JOpalXa awos lda:>xa suollelo!A lie pue
sddlLld UljOr 1M uOlpadsu!aJ papnpuo~ uOlpadsUlaJ IEUY alnpalj:>s 01 auoljd 6ull:>adxa : saloN
~OOZ/H/~ : alea SS'v'd : snlelS 'v'~'v' : ,ijElS
UO!lOadsu!-a~
'alnpalj:>saJ 01 >I:>eq lie:> II!M alj PUE palaldwo::l S! >IJOM aLlllle 10U
lELll aw pawJoJu! pue uOlpadsu!aJ aljl aJoJaq JnoLl Jlelj e pallE:> JaUMO uOll:>adsu!aJ IEUY : saloN
OOOZHZ/Z~ : alE a aN.LX : snlE1S 'v'~'v' : ,ijelS
UO!lOadsu!-a~
Notes: Reinspected w/Jim Molini and Sharon Jeter. All violations corrected. Waiting for test and
maintenance form report to be ok'ed from Roger Jensen.
Miscellaneous action
Staff: NBC Status: DONE Date:
Notes: Received fire alarm certification/released by fire dept.
Staff: NBC
Notes:
Release rental permit
Status :
Date:
(F) Reprint permit application
Staff: KLJ Status: DONE Date:
Notes: Resent rental application with 10 day notice to pay.
Staff: KLJ
Notes :
(F) Renew permit
Status: DONE
Date:
Telephone call
Staff: NBC Status: DONE Date:
Notes: Hillary Sale wanted to state for the record that when the City High girls xcountry team ran
past 932 College St, men outside the building were overheard asking the girls to come back later
that night to a fraternity party they were having there.
Telephone call
Staff: J B Status: Date :
Notes: Neighbor reported that Frat Boys from the Leighton House were driving down Summit
Street with one person on the hood of the car. She reported to the police who were unable to take
any action because of the lack of identification of car or persons.
Staff: JGS
Notes:
(F) Send renewal letter
S~~s:DONE Da~:
Licensing inspection
Staff: RES Status: FAIL
Notes: Inspected with Sharon Jeter. Violations noted.
Date: 8/26/2004
Notice of Violation sent
Staff: RES Status: DONE
Notes: USPS to The Leighton House.
Date:
Staff: RES
Re-inspection
Status : PASS
Date: 10/8/2004
Notes: All violations corrected.
Staff: RES
Miscellaneous action
Status: DONE
Date:
Notes: Received Fire Alarm inspection and testing form.
Release rental permit
Staff: RES Status: DONE Date:
Notes:
(F) Renew permit
Staff: JGS Status: DONE Date:
Notes:
(F) Send renewal letter
Staff: SSD Status: DONE Date:
Notes:
Licensing inspection
Staff: ARA Status: FAIL Date: 9/5/2006
Notes: Conducted inspection w/ Rob Phipps and violations noted were the need for a fire
extinguisher in the kitchen, holes in wall and ceiling in mechanical room, emergency light
inoperable in landing of front stairway, all unit doors need to be self latching, door knob loose on
entry door to unit #201, extension cords in use in units 200 & 301 and need fire alarm system
needs to tested & cert.
Notice of Violation sent
Staff: GAK Status: Date :
Notes: FIRE SAFETY inspection letter sent to Mike Posnick, Mike Jacobs, and Jeremy Melnick.
Re-inspection
Staff: GAK Status :
Notes: "Proposal" letter submittal date.
Date: 2/11/1992
Meeting
Staff: GAK Status : Date :
Notes: Mike Posnick met with Andy Rocca and myself concerning the FIRE SAFETY NOTICE OF
VIOLATION issued for Sigma Alpha Mu. We discussed details of the letter and implementation.
Miscellaneous action
Staff: GAK Status: Date :
Notes: Sent letter dated 4-21-92 to Mike Posnick regarding the removal of the exterior fire escape
unit.
Correspondence
Staff: GAK Status: Date :
Notes: Letter dated 6-15-92 sent to Mike Posnick about submitting a "proposal" for correction of
FIRE SAFETY violations.
Meeting
Staff: GAK Status: Date :
Notes: Met with Bob Statlander at the property to discuss the FIRE SAFETY letter. Some minor
progress has been made but Bob is primarily cleaning and repairing.
Telephone call
Staff: GAK Status: Date :
Notes: Called Mike Posnick today to discuss the fact that the alarm system is inoperable at the
Sammy House. We also discussed the FIRE SAFETY letter. He said the alarm would be repaired
promptly.
Telephone call
Staff: GAK Status : Date :
Notes: Called Mike Posnick today about the alarm system and the solution for lack of smoke
detectors on the second and third floor corridors.
Emergency order issued
Staff: GAK Status: FAIL Date: 10/13/1992
Notes: Responding to complaint from neighbor about trash visited the property and verified trash
problem. Issued Order to Correct to Jeremy Melnick to clean-up mess. Will call Bob Statlander
and Mike Posnick. Took photos. Went to property today, some trash remains. Took photos and
called Bob Stadtlander today.
Emergency order issued
Staff: GAK Status: PASS Date: 10/13/1992
Notes: Issued Order to Correct to Jeremy Melnick to repair dumpster enclosure and adjacent
landscaping. Took photos. Will call Bob Statlander and Mike Posnick. Dumpster enclosure has
been repaired, trash has been picked up.
Staff: JS
Notes :
(F) Send renewal letter
Status: Date: 10/30/1992
Licensing inspection
Staff: SF Status: FAIL Date: 10/30/1992
Notes: Conducted inspection with Jeremy Melnick and Dale Miller. Cited violations on 60 day
notice sent tape to D.S.
Change expiration/status
Staff: JS Status: Date:
Notes: The inspection year was changed on this due to switching months around on fraternities,
trying to equal out the number done in a month. Done per Gary Klinefelter request.
Re-inspection
Staff: SF Status: XTND Date: 12/2/1992
Notes: 60 day notice due. Conducted inspection with Greg King. Most violations are corrected.
Extend 15 days to complete interior repairs.
Notice of Violation sent
Staff: SF Status: Date :
Notes: Delivered 60 day notice to Jeremy Melnick.
Re-inspection
Staff: SF Status: XTND Date: 2/4/1993
Notes: 15 day notice due. Conducted inspection with Sean Uhrich. Some violations are corrected.
Extend notice until Friday, Feb.19, 1993.
Re-inspection
Staff: SF Status: XTND Date: 2/18/1993
Notes: Inspection due for interior. Interior inspection completed with Greg King. Bob Standtlander
is preparing letter of extension on fire doors,winsows and fire escape.
Meeting
Staff: SF Status: Date:
Notes: Met with Bob Statlander. Discussed current violations still remaining on violation list.
Requested that he write a letter of extension on Fire door hardware,removal of existing fire escape
and windows. He said Mike Posnick would write letter concerning time. Need request in by March
12,1993.
Telephone call
Staff: GAK Status: Date :
Notes: Received a call from Sam Einhorn (parent rep.) concerning the lack of progress in
correcting FIRE SAFETY deficiencies. I FAXED him a copy of the violation letter (708-761-6166).
Frat/Soro-Fire Safety Insp
Staff: GAK Status: FAIL Date:
Notes: Inspected with Jason Goldberg today. Numerous violations noted. FIRE SAFETY
deficiencies noted from inspection november 13,1991 not corrected yet. Took Dept Director Doug
Boothroy for a look at the "house". I can't think of any reason to not initiate legal action. This place
is barely habitable.
Correspondence
Staff: GAK Status: Date :
Notes: FAXED letter dated 12-15-93 to Mike Posnick and Sam Einhorn concerning correction of
FIRE SAFETY deficiencies. Copies also to Andy Rocca and Jason Goldberg.
Notice of Violation sent
Staff: GAK Status: Date :
Notes: Letter sent to Mike Posnick, Bob Stadtlander, Jim Gordon, Jason Goldberg, and FAXED to
Sam Einhorn. ".
Re-inspection
Staff: GAK Status: FAIL Date: 12/20/1993
Notes: 30 day reinspection due. Reinspected today with Jason Goldberg, very few violations
corrected. Fire alarm system is inoperable. Trash is such a mess that I issued a citation (00930).
Met with contractor Lee Eno, he is to begin work next Tuesday. Spoke to Bill Freeman from
Freeman Alarm and he is going to do the fire alarm inspection Tuesday. This property has serious
problems.
Complaint/Request inspection
Staff: JB Status: FAIL Date: 5/3/1994
Notes: Complaint that trash enclosure doors are off the hinges. South door completely off - North
door not secure.
Emergency order issued
Staff: J B Status: F AI L Date : 5/4/1994
Notes: Trash enclosure doors in disrepair. Trash enclosure doors not repaired, there is also trash
on the ground. CITATION #0954 ISSUED TO SIGMA ALPHA MU FOR GARBAGE ENCLOSURE
IN DISREPAIR.
Telephone call
Staff: J B Status: Date :
Notes: Mr. Posnick ask why we gave no warning. I explained about the warnings and about the
chronic nature of this problem. TWICE! He kept asking. I said that if he would make his request in
writing I would respond the same and there would be no further misunderstanding. He said have a
nice day in court because none of them were going to be there. He will "contact city authorities".
Correspondence
Staff: J B Status : Date :
Notes: Rec'd fax from Mike Posnick requesting information about the warnings and the citation for
the garbage enclosure.
Telephone call
Staff: GAK Status : Date :
Notes: Called Mike Posnick today told him that after reviewing the property history and discussing
this matter with Andy Rocca and Doug Boothroy we were disinclined to back off of the threat to
vacate the building after Aug. 8, 1994.
Licensing inspection
Staff: GAK Status: FAIL Date: 9/28/1994
Notes: John Bovey and I inspected with Jason Goldberg (Pres. Sigma Alpha Mu), violations noted
(numerous). Work is in progress to replace all doors. Fire alarm system inoperable, numerous
electrical deficiencies, numerous other maintenance and fire safety deficiencies.
Change expiration/status
Staff: JS Status: Date:
Notes: I HAD TO CHANGE THE EXPIRATION DATE ON THIS PROPRTY TO BRING IT UP
FOR THE 1994 LICENSING INSPECTION.
Staff: JS
Notes:
(F) Send renewal letter
Status:
Date : 9/28/1994
Notice of Violation sent
Staff: GAK Status : Date :
Notes: Letter sent to Mike Posnick.
Re-inspection
Staff: JB Status: FAIL Date: 11/18/1994
Notes: Compliance with Court Order met today? NO!
Complaint/Request inspection
Staff: GAK Status: FAIL Date: 12/8/1994
Notes: Went to the property wint Paul Bowers at the request of Acme Electric and met Dan Voss
(electrician). We observed several defeciencies to the electrical system which were noted.
Correspondence
Staff: GAK Status: Date :
Notes: Letter signed by Paul Bowers was sent to Michael Posnick regarding the need to replace
the electrical service. Copies were also made available to Lee Eno, Mary Peterson, Jason
Goldberg, and Acme Electric.
Correspondence
Staff: GAK Status : Date :
Notes: Sent letter to Mike Posnick in response to a meeting 3-10-92. Letter suggested a priority
list for correcting fire safety deficiencies.
Meeting
Staff: GAK Status: Date:
Notes: John Bovey and f met with Lee Eno and Bob Kuncl (Acme Electic) to look at electrical
deficiencies at the house yet to be completed. Exit signs, emergency lighting, fire alarm system,
fire doors, and basement NW room egress window have been installed. Several electrical
deficiencies remain in the second and third floor rooms.
Re-inspection
Staff: JB Status: FAIL Date: 2/15/1995
Notes: Reinspection w\ Lee Eno for his final - all items not complete, a punch list will follow.
Staff: JB
Notes: Punch list to Lee Eno
Correspondence
Status:
Date:
Re-inspection
Staff: JB Status: FAIL Date: 2/16/1995
Notes: Reinspected w\Lee Eno, most items related to his work seem to be complete - Noticed
that boiler was burning incorrectly (soot, orange flames) BREESE CO. called, they will replace
boiler - combustion air will be completed at that time.
Staff: JB
Re-inspection
Status : F AI L
Date: 3/8/1995
Notes: Reinspected w\ Lee Eno - new boiler and combustion air are complete. The building was a
mess insde and out.
Correspondence
Staff: J B Status : Date :
Notes: Sammy.ltr re:Designated Agent & cleaning and painting us po to; Michael A. Levine corp.
agent cc:Gamma Omicron House Corp., Michael Posnick, Sam Einhorn, James Gordon, Dan
Orenstein, Mary Peterson.
Staff: SRB
Notes: With Kerry Bowen.
Frat/Soro-Fire Safety Insp
Status: FAIL Date:
Staff: SRB
Notes: usps
Notice of Violation sent
Status : Date :
Re-inspection
Staff: SRB Status: PASS Date: 12/15/1995
Notes: 1-24; With Kerry Bowen; need follow up on alarm form, key box. 4-25; ok.
Citation Issued
Staff: J B Status: Date :
Notes: Citation #00748 -lack of valid rental permit.
Re-inspection
Staff: JB Status: FAIL Date: 6/5/1995
Notes: Reinspection w\ Kerry Bowen - no keys - no entry.
Re-inspection
Staff: JB Status: PASS Date: 6/9/1995
Notes: Reinspected w\ Kerry Bowen - substantially complete.
Release rental permit
Staff: JB Status: Date:
Notes: All ok - check fees and reinspections.
Designated Agent
Staff: GAK Status : Date :
Notes: Kerry Bowen has requested that she be removed as D.A. for Sigma Alpha Mu.
Staff: JS
Notes:
(F) Renew permit
Status:
Date:
Staff: GAK
Notes :
(F) Send renewal letter
Status:
Date : 8/26/1998
(F) Renew permit
Staff: JS Status: Date:
Notes: BUILDING FINAL PASSED PER DAVE CAMPBELL 12/2/98 - COMPLIANCE AND
RENTAL PERMIT ISSUED.
Item
RENTAL PERMIT FEE *
RENTAL PERMIT FEE *
RENTAL PERMIT FEE *
RENTAL PERMIT FEE.S
RENTAL PERMIT FEE.S
RENTAL PERMIT FEE *
RENTAL PERMIT FEE.S
FIRE SAFETY FEE
FEES
Fee Amount
434.00
395.00
280.25
256.00
200.00
198.00
198.00
40.00
Fee Remaining
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Title
10
CONDITIONS
Tag
Status
What would you like to do next?
Back to Search
Help
Top of Page
Use this page to view the details of the selected case.
· If your jurisdiction allows you to attach new files to a case, you can click Upload new document.
· To pay fees for this case, click Pay Fees.
· If your jurisdiction allows you to view parcel information as a map, click View GIS.
Version: 3.5.1.20051221.03
Copyright @ 2005 by Accela, Inc.
To comment on this page, send email to webmaster@iowa-city.org
To whom it may concern,
Hello, my name is Daniel Peoples and I am a resident of932 E. College St. This
letter is in regards to the up coming meeting about our application for a variance. As a
house we have tried to reach out to the neighborhood and in most cases have received the
negative a negative response. We have gone out and tried to meet the neighbors but most
were unwilling to even talk to us. Recently we held an open house so that the
neighborhood could come and meet us and see our living situation. The neighborhood
responded by not turning out.
Personally I have herd many complaints from the neighborhood. One of there
complaints is that we are fraternity like. Our house is far from that. Weare a group of
guys who have similar life styles working together to have the best living situation
possible. We do not have large parties or require are residents to perform idiotic acts to
live here. Weare a group of responsible student athletes working towards athletic and
Academic success. Also to make that claim that we refer to ourselves as "Fraternity like"
would me that the neighbors have met us and that is not the case. Another claim that the
neighborhood has made is that we are taking up to much parking. I personally find that
claim false, because I drive almost daily, and never have trouble finding parking within
one block of my residency. We have nineteen residents and six cars, two of which park
in our driveway. There are other houses in our neighborhood that have more residents or
close the same number of residents. The Alpha Phi house just down the street has a
parking lot but I consistently see five to ten of there cars parked on the street. Most of
our residents ride scooters or bikes, all of which are parked on our property.
This situation has been very stressful to my housemates and me. We have caused
no trouble in the neighborhood and have tried to be friendly, respectful neighbors. We
our very happy with our living situation and it has had a positive effect on our growth as
a team. This living situation helps us to hold each other accountable for what we need to
accomplish and that is academic and athletic success. We our not normal college
students, our lives do not revolve around going to the bars and throwing house parties. I
feel like the neighborhood is judging us on past experience. This is not fair to us, we
made every effort to become part of the neighborhood, but have not been given the
chance to become part of the neighborhood.
Thank you,
~~\
To Whom It May Concern:
I request your immediate attention in regards to the variance applied for by the owner of
the dwelling at 932 East College Street. As one of the 19 residents of this dwelling, I feel that it
would be a great disservice to the neighborhood surrounding College and Summit Streets to deny
a variance for us fine young adults to live there.
As you may know, most of the residents of the 932 College Leighton House are members
of the University of Iowa Track and Field team. As members of the team, our responsibilities
stretch much further than those of a regular student at the University. As dedicated student-
athletes, we have achieved the highest honors available to our sport- bids to the NCAA
Championships- in three consecutive years.
I tell you of our success not to ask for your congratulation, but rather your understanding.
Without extreme dedication in both the classroom and on the roads, we would not have been
successful over the last three years like we were. The dedication I speak of pertains, mostly, to
the fact that we do not live the lives of regular college students. While 80 percent of the
University oflowa is stumbling downtown on Friday and Saturday evenings, the residents of 932
East College are nowhere to be seen- they're either on the road representing the University (and
city of Iowa City) at an athletic competition, or inside their beautiful house cramming for exams
in majors ranging from accounting to medicine.
If denied the opportunity to live in this neighborhood, the residents at our dwelling would
be forced to split up all over Iowa City and it would be a travesty to see such an amazing house
go empty because of some angry, spiteful residents of a few houses. The reasons presented as to
why not to accept a variance at our residence are sketchy at best- we have tried our best to not
only please the neighbors, but rather to go beyond and above their expectations as neighbors.
They want nothing to do with us. If this small area is representative of the entire residency of
Iowa City (which I believe, and hope, to be untrue) I would think twice about living here
following the culmination of my education. I always pictured Iowa City as a great place to raise a
family- but if residents who just want a place to live are treated with such blatant discrimination,
what can I expect for my future family years down the road?
The residents at 932 East College are not a nuisance to the community- rather, we have
done our best to be an asset that makes this area of Iowa City a very desirable place to live. As a
team, we have done numerous community service projects; ranging from building playground
equipment for children to painting halfway-houses. We represent this community, this school,
and this state the only way we know how- with pride and honor.
Please look past the resident's obvious hatred and bias against college students and
realize that, regardless of what they say, we are adults. We have hosted open houses to try and
get to know our neighbors, only to be completely ignored. There is nothing else short of moving
out that we can do to please them; so please, do not make us take that route. We will continue,
regardless of the outcome of your upcoming recommendation, to be great neighbors and great
citizens oflowa City. It would be a shame to make us go to other places within the city when you
have a goldmine of amazing young men asking to be part of this small neighborhood.
Thank you for your time,
Michael Stout
~hcd.di;j-
Dear Board of Adjustments,
I am writing in regard to the pending variance revision of 932 East College Street. The
Leighton House creates an atmosphere with opportunities that enhance its residents' pursuit of
excellence in their academic and athletic pursuits. The current residents of the Leighton House
are confident that they have lived in a manner that is in no way detrimental to the neighborhood
and are confident that they will not waiver in continuing to do so.
The Leighton House enables several members of the Iowa track and field team to live
together. This enhances the team dynamics and makes transportation to practices much easier.
Several residents have found the downstairs common area an excellent area for quite study. The
opportunity to live with fellow student-athletes working toward academic and athletic success is
a great opportunity that will increase our ability to contribute positively to the University.
I also believe that our presence being construed a disturbance to the neighborhood seems
unjust. The Leighton House is in an area with several apartments. I do not believe that the
majority of the residents of the various apartments are waking up at 6 a.m. to practice. Nor are
they making the many social sacrifices that student-athletes are forced to make to compete.
While many typical college students spend their Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights out late
downtown or partying at their residence, student athletes spend many of these same nights on the
road preparing for competition. If there is a concern that Leighton House residences will create
inappropriate noise or behavior in the neighborhood, then there should be equal concern for the
college-aged residents of the many apartments in the area.
I also believe that the neighborhood has no right to restrict Rob Phips, in trying to
become a successful landlord. This house was not created to have 13 residences in it. Under the
current variance to make a financial gain as a landlord is almost impossible.
The alternative residents for the Leighton House may not be as agreeable and
accommodating as the current ones. Leighton House has housed Greek Life systems in the past.
In which many more residents lived here. There are many other athletic teams at the University
of Iowa who have much longer off seasons and would be much more tempted to indulge in
disruptive activities.
I have also heard of little if any receptive gestures by the neighborhood toward the
Leighton House. Perhaps, the negative expectations of our inhabitance of the Leighton House
have not provided an objective view on the situation. I believe that we have conducted ourselves
in a way that is proof that we can be a positive contributor to this neighborhood and deserve the
opportunity to receive a variance that will allow us to continue to live in an environment that will
allow us to develop into successful men.
Sincerely,
Andrew Napier
To Whom It May Concern:
Let me begin with, living in this house has truly been a blessing to my teammates
and I this past year. Not only has it provided a place to live but also a place to thrive. It
has also been a blessing I know to the non-runners who live with us as it provides them
with the same atmosphere. Living all together has been extremely helpful because of the
similar lifestyles we all share as teammates. Everyday we are up around 6am and meeting
our coach for our morning workouts. Not having to deal with noise from neighbors the
night before has helped exponentially and the study environment has helped our team
establish the highest team GP A on campus. In addition, all living together has provided
us the ability to carpool together to the practice facility everyday. The environment in the
house is amazing as we are able to have team dinners and really establish a team
chemistry that is truly unique as described in the Daily Iowan's article on this house. It
has also been a blessing I know, to the non-runners who live with us, as it provides them
with the same atmosphere. Namely David Knowles who also has to be up early working
for the hospital, going to school, and fulfilling his duty to the army before he is going to
be deployed in Iraq this coming March. All of us on the team come from different parts
of the country and different homes yet we come together and so I thought if we could
come together we most surely could fit in with the neighborhood.
Initially upon moving in I thought our team would really fit in well with the
neighborhood. For reasons such as our atmospheres are very similar in that we do not
want to be disturbed by a loud and wild house next door. Also, parking would not be an
issue as only 6 of us have cars so open spaces would be easy to find around the house. As
of this point, we have not had one noise violation or disturbance call and parking has not
been a problem except on days when there are Iowa football games in which it is to be
expected. Although, however respectful we have been and how hard we have tried to
reach out to our neighbors we have only been given the cold shoulder. We have been
yelled at by our neighbor John Morrison for things that we cannot control such as the
time our garbage is picked up. It was truly astonishing though to see how the neighbors
responded to us going around and knocking on their doors to invite them to our open
house to get to know them better. Esther Baker stood in the glass doorway and would not
even open her door to us to speak to us. Numerous instances occurred such as this one
where they would look through their windows and not even open their doors to us. We
have done nothing to warrant this behavior but reach out a kind hand to them. I find this
extremely frustrating as I feel like we are not accepted for reasons we can not control. It
has been extremely stressful as I now have to try to find a place to live among studying
for my finals, and getting ready to compete in the biggest competition of the year for our
team at nationals this coming Monday.
I only ask that the petty neighborhood differences and politics with our past
landlord whatever they may be, be put aside when making your decision and you look at
our record as how respectable, polite, and how hard we have tried to reach out to the
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
~tJ~
Alex Webster
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to ask that you approve the new variance that has been proposed for
932 E College Street. As you probably know, the residents of the house are primarily
part of the University of Iowa Track and Cross Country team and this house provides the
team the unique opportunity to live together. I am one ofthe few that live in the house
that are not a part of the team, this gives me an outside perspective on the many benefits
that a housing opportunity like this provide to the team. During the seasons that Track
and Cross Country runners compete in (which is almost the entire school year), the team
pledges to be dry. The house at 932 E College Street allows the team to make sure that
members are holding up to this agreement. Last year I also lived with some of the older
Cross Country runners and they were always worried that the underclassmen were not
living a lifestyle that is conducive to a college athlete. This year there is little in question,
all of the runners in the house have held up their end of the agreement and I believe that
this has helped spark a great season out of the team.
It has come to my attention that some of the neighbors might be weary of the
approval of the new variance, stating that we may be a nuisance to the neighborhood, and
I find this very surprising considering that we live in an area that is comprised mostly of
college apartments that are at times extremely loud. Since I moved in last August, I have
not been aware of a single complaint from anyone in the neighborhood directed towards
the house. I believe that most ofthe opposition that is being met has to do with people
thinking that we are no different than a fraternity moving in next door, but this fear is
extremely unwarranted. Last week we held an open house so that the neighborhood
could come and see the house, talk to us about any issue they might have, and learn about
the lifestyle that the tenants of the house take part in. Unfortunately, very few felt the
need to attend. To me, this shows an unwillingness to even consider our entry to the
neighborhood, a feeling that was most likely present well before we even moved in.
I hope that you will strongly consider approving the variance for 932 E College
Street. Members of the house have proven over the course of the fall semester that they
are not a nuisance to the neighborhood, and I have no reason to think that this will ever
change given that they are part of an athletic team that takes pride in a healthy and safe
lifestyle. Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~ ~~/.-
Stephen Copek
To whom it may concern,
My name is Davis Linden and I may have the most understanding of our house's current
situation. I have had several conversations and meetings with all sides involved. I would like to
first state that there are neighbors that have been kind to us. Although it may seem like it not
everyone in the neighborhood is against our living here. There have been a limited amount of
houses in the neighborhood who have taken the time to talk with us and do support what we are
trying to accomplish. With that said I would like to address the three biggest concerns that have
been expressed to me time and time again from the neighbors.
1.) Parking - The issue of parking seems to be the biggest concern of the neighborhood. Several
solutions have been brought up to which neither side can come to common ground. Currently we
have 6 vehicles. We car pool almost everywhere that we go. Because the majority (16/19) of us
are on the track team this is very convenient. Also we have 5 mopeds that we use in place of a car
that would otherwise be parked on the street. The neighborhood has brought the issue up that
there is an over crowding of the streets and that there are never any open spots to park. I would
like to address this in two ways. First, there has been very few occasions, football Saturdays
mostly, that we cannot find a place to park within one block in any direction. Second, if there are
a limited number of places to park how can the street be overcrowded? Living so close to a major
Big Ten university that recently had its largest ever freshman class it is to be expected that where
there is a place to park some one will park there.
2.) Transportation - Personally this holds no barring to anyone living in the house. We never
expected for there to be a van to transport us around campus. We have enough cars for us to get
to class, practice and occasionally the grocery fUll. If it would please the neighbors we can park a
rusty old van in our on site parking and never drive it. However that would add to the issue of on
street parking.
3.) Live in management - This to me is a very hurtful argument. For the neighbors who have
issues with us living here, who have not once made an effort to get to know us, who did not
attend our open house, who have ignored my repeated attempts to answer any question about us,
this is an invalid argument. How can we not manage our selves? Seven of us will be 21 by
December 31 of this year. Everyone living in the house is above the age of 18. One of us has
been called up to serve this country in Iraq in March. Sixteen of us are on the University of
Iowa's Track and Field team. Who by the way has the highest GPA of male athletes on campus.
One of us returned from China in August after representing our country in the Junior World
Championships, where he placed fourth in the world. And one of use is an All-American in the
10,000 meter race. How can a group of young men who are being called up for active service,
among the top athletes not in the nation but the world, and apart of a Big Ten athletics
organization not find a way to govern themselves in a way that co-exists with the established
neighborhood? We have an established house government with 3 positions that serve every
function that we have come across. Weare currently organizing an advisory counsel to ease the
concerns with this matter. A person from every age group, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 years of age
will be compiled to meet with us and help the house with any and all matters that might arise.
I have been very patient with the neighborhood and the issues that they have brought forth. I
understand where they are coming from with prior groups that have lived here I would act the
same way. However, the neighborhood has discriminated against us since we moved in. Very
little effort has been given to getting to know us and how we can help the neighborhood. I
believe that the stigma of us being a fraternity has scared some people. This is and should not be
an issue. Weare not a fraternity in the literal since. Weare however a group of young men who
share a common goal and purpose. We strive every day to accomplish our goals and dreams. We
rely on our brothers to help us and support us. The neighbor's who have spoken out against us
have repeated time and time again that they understand and believe we are a good group of men.
And that it is not us they are fighting but the house. How can they not be fighting us? If we are
such good neighbors who have not caused any problems then how are we a nuisance to the
neighborhood? Personally I would want such "great neighbors" as we have been called to live
next to me.
Please give sincere effort in deciding on where the 19 men of 932 E. College Street will live not
only next year but for the remaining part of this. It would be a tragedy for 6 of us to have to move
out by December 31 st. This late in the year it would be impossible for adequate housing to be
found. The unnecessary stress that this has caused is unexplainable.
Sincerely,
c;hCvv1
d
Davis Linden
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Andy Novak, one of the residents of 932 E. College St. I have been living
here since the beginning of the semester and it has been a great experience. It has helped
me make new friendships as well as strengthen others.
Also, just about all of us are on the Iowa cross-country and track teams. It has been great
to have teammates around whenever you need them. Also having the m~ority of the
team all in one house has eased some of the stress for coaches about picking up guys on
the weekends for meets and other things.
Recently we have begun to try to get a variance for our house but the neighbors have
been anything but pleasant about it. They refuse to believe that we can be civilized with
19 or more people living in our house but I have little reason to believe that we can't be.
Weare not a fraternity but are being treated as one just because of the number of people
in our house. Weare just a bunch of runners that keep to ourselves and that saw this as a
good opportunity to strengthen friendships, bonds between teammates, and as a way to
start a good tradition for future Iowa runners.
Since living here we have had no noise complaints, tried to reach out to the neighbors by
introducing ourselves and also recently held an open house for people to see our house
and meet the people who live here, to which a total of 4 people showed up.
We would all really appreciate it if you could take this into consideration when
evaluating us for a variance. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Andy Novak
Mail :: Inbox: house variance
https://webmail.uiowa.edu/imp/message.php?actionID=print_ message..
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 200611 :32:36 -0600 [11:32:36 AM CST]
From: bschlotz@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
To: davis-brown-linden@uiowa.edu
Subject: house variance
To whom it may concern:
I find it difficult to fathom that the living accommodations of the 19 gentlemen
residing at 932 East College Street are up for debate. It should not even be an issue
especially when one considers the positive make-up of the group. The majority of the
household participates on The University of Iowa track and field team and as part of
being a Division I student athlete live by strict training and academic regimens that
make it impossible to cause any trouble in the neighborhood. The whole idea behind the
house in the first place was to create a positive environment for the team so they
wouldn't have to deal with all the typical college antics that are seen so often
downtown and in the dorms. In this sense, if it is a fraternity atmosphere that those
who are trying to evict us are concerned about than they simply haven't taken the
opportunity to see what we're all about. Unfortunately, the only occasions that we've
been able to meet with these people is when they come knocking at our door to let us
know that they want us gone because of circumstances that we have no control. In
particular I'm referencing a situation in which a neighbor confronted me at about 7:00
am to blame the members of the house for the garbage men waking him up. Not only was
the man inconsiderate, but he was also even more disturbingly unbudging and
incomprehensible in his reasoning. Even after politely explaining to him that we have
no control of the the trash pick up times, he still wouldn't deviate from his idea that
it was still somehow our fault, and he left with the threat that he would make sure our
variance didn't pass. Based off of this confrontation and after hearing some of the
other arguments against our variance it seems that some had already made up their minds
before we even moved in that they didn't want us here. I don't think these petty
prejudices should prevent the members of 932 from having a place to lay their heads,
especially when exams and the National Cross Country Meet are around the corner.
Although it may appear that I'm simply venting my frustrations, (which is not
completely misguided) I am more importantly trying to get our side of the of the
situation heard, and I hope what I have to say is taken into account when deciding if
we receive our variance.
Sincerely,
Blake Schlotzhauer
1 of 1
11/16/2006 3 :03 PM
Hillary A. Sale
1016 East College Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
November 15, 2006
Board of Adjustment
Attn: Sarah Walz
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Board Members:
I write to oppose the variance request for the property at 932 E. College Street (known
as the Leighton House) requesting an increase in the building's occupancy to 20 and in
support of the staff recommendation against the request. I urge the Board to deny the
variance application. I apologize for not appearing in person. Unfortunately, this
meeting was scheduled for a date when I will be out of town.
As many members of the Board will recall, the current owner of this property, the
Leighton House LC, was granted a variance for 30 tenants in 1997. The Board that
granted the variance in 1997 (the "1997 Variance") appropriate attached several
conditions to it, including provisions 'requiring offsite parking and alternative
transportation, residential supervision to be provided by the managing partners of ttie
Leighton House, removal of the concrete basketball court, and others. The Leighton
House has not complied with these provisions, and the neighborhood has suffered.
Moreover, at one point, the Leighton House rented the facility to a fraternity - a use that
is not allowed under the zoning code. It revised the plan only when forced to do so by
the City.
Presumably, the non-compliance issues account for the statement in the staff report that
terms of the 1997 Variance have been "violated" so to speak, and, therefore, the
variance is no longer valid. As a result, as I read the staff report, the current allowed
occupancy in the building ,is 13, and the building is over-occupied. Thus, the application
before you is for an increase in the allowed occupancy, not for a decrease.
This is the second time in a year the Leighton House has attempted to sell the property
to another potential owner with a variance proposal. In both cases, the Leighton House
and the applicant have argued that because the Leighton House spent a substantial
amount to renovate the facility, the neighborhood should "subsidize the investment" by
accepting an increased occupancy request. The neighborhood is not responsible for the
business decisions of the current owner and should not be held accountable for those of
the applicant.
Last year, the Board rejected the proposed variance because the applicant had not met
the standards for a variance. This applicant has not done so either. Before granting a
1
variance request, the Board must make several findings, the first of which is that the
variance would not be contrary to the public interest. To determine whether the variance
meets this test, the Board must evaluate two things. First, the Board must determine
whether the variance will threaten neighborhood integrity or have a substantially adverse
affect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property. This
proposal fails to meet this test for several reasons. For example, the neighborhood was
downzoned in 2000for stabilization purposes and to prevent overcrowding.
Overcrowding strains public and private utilities. This neighborhood suffers from a
shortage of parking. This property has only two, off-street parking spaces. The variance
would both increase traffic and demand for parking.
In addition, the proposed variance fails to contain provisions to protect the neighborhood
or to mitigate its impact. When the Board granted the 1997 Variance, it relied on the
applicant's promises to have on-site resident management, with the managing partners
of the Leighton House as the designated managers. Presumably, the lack of qualifying
on-site management is part of the reason that the City has determined that the Leighton
House no longer qualifies for the 1997 Variance. More importantly, the on-site
management provided by the Leighton House proponents was part of what persuaded
the Board to grant the 1997 Variance. The 1997 applicants argued that their actual
presence in the building would help to prevent problems in the neighborhood and would
diminish the possibility of a threat to the neighborhood's integrity. Since the Leighton
House managing partners moved out, the neighborhood has experienced problems with
various tenants including, for example, tenants hollering at young women; tenants
playing frisbee in the streets after midnight; and tenants parking on the lawn of the
house.
Second, the Board must find that the proposed variance will be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter and will not contravene the objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan. The application does not meet this test. This neighborhood
has been rezoned to RNC-12 to protect and stabilize its character. Further, the City has
repeatedly expressed its intention to stabilize both this neighborhood and the
surrounding neighborhood. Allowing an increase in the roomers is inconsistent with both
the City's overall goals and the specific stabilization zoning of this property.1 The result,
increased roomers, is, simply, more noise, more congestion, and more parking
problems.
The final thing that the Board must find is unnecessary hardship. Under this test, the
property is eligible for a variance if it cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located and if the owner's situation is
unique or peculiar to the property in question, and the situation is not shared with other
.Iandowners in the area nor due to general conditions in the neighborhood. The
application does not meet this test. Although the application provides data to support a
20-roomer variance and financing for the applicant's proposal, there is no rnformation to
indicate that a different plan with 13 roomers would not yield a reasonable return. In
I The applicant asserts that the property was "involuntarily" downzoned. In fact, Leighton House LC members were
present at City Hall during the hearings and did not speak.
2
fact, at the 2005 Board hearing, there was testimony from a potential purchaser of the
property, indicating a willingness to buy the property and run it as a 13-person rooming
house, with a reasonable rate of return. Further, when the Board approved the 1997
Variance, the members specifically indicated their skepticism that the Leighton House
LC would be able to recoup its investment. The neighborhood should not have to
subsidize what have turned out to be bad business decisions.
Further, although the zoning laws may not allow Leighton House LC to sell the property
for as much as it would like, the laws do not destroy the value of the property. Thus, the
proposed variance is not necessary to prevent the effect of the zoning laws from being
confiscatory. The testimony from the 2005 hearing indicates as much. And, this
property does not warrant special privileges denied to other properties in the area,
including, as noted in the staff report, other rooming houses with similar floor space, but
fewer tenants. '
Finally, although the applicants and the team members who currently reside in the
building appear to be reasonable, well-intentioned people, their decency does not justify
granting the variance. First, both the applicants and the current tenants are temporary.
The application, however, is for a permanent variance, which will, as discussed above,
negatively impact the neighborhood and its stabilization. The neighbors should not have
to wonder and worry whether the future owners or tenants will be the same or different,
whether they will be respectful of the nature of the neighborhood or not. As noted
above, the respect of various tenants has varied over the years.
Both the current property owners and tenants in the neighborhood and those in the
neighborhood in 1997 relied on the representations of the Leighton House LC that it
would conduct itself in accord with a business plan designed to diminish any negative
impacts on the neighborhood. It has not done so. Additionally, the neighbors have
made new-ownership and continued ownership decisions based, in part, on the zoning
of the neighborhood. The RNC-12 rezoning was specifically 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)."
Granting the variance will defeat both the reasonable expectations of the neighbors and
the stabilization purposes of the zoning code.
In sum, I respectfully urge the members of the Board of Adjustment to support the staff
recommendation and to vote against the variance.
Very truly yours,
Hillary A. Sale
1016 East College Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
3
November 14, 2006
Board of Adjustment
Attn: Sarah Walz
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Board Members and Ms. Walz:
I am writing in regard to the request by John and Sandra Hudson for a variance in the
density requirements for the property at 932 E. College Street (known as the Leighton
House) in order to increase the building's occupancy 13 to 20. This is not an insignificant
increase, and is in opposition to the Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zoning of this
neighborhood. I support the staff finding that the application does not meet the tests for
variances as put forth in the zoning ordinance, and urge the Board of Adjustment to deny
the variance application.
The current owner of the property was allowed a temporary variance to increase
capacity in order to pay for the renovation of this building. Because of his poor
investment decisions, he now wants to charge a higher price to sell the building in order
to pay for the renovation of the building. This seems like double dipping. The current
owner needs to lower his price so that prospective buyers will get mortgage approval for
a maximum occupancy of 13 (current variance). It is not up to the neighborhood to pay
for the current owner's profits or bad business decisions.
In their application, the Hudsons present this as a "reduction" in density based on the
variance granted to the current owner in 1997 allowing 30 occupants. However, given
that: a) the 1997 variance does not convey with the property to a new owner; b)
occupancy has never reached the maximum allowed under the 1997 variance; and c)
the property is not being operated under the conditions of the 1997 variance and
therefore the rights of that variance no longer exist, this request in reality represents an
increase in density of more than 50%.
The Hudsons and the University of Iowa Men's track team members who currently reside
in the building seem like reasonable, upstanding people with good intentions. However,
they are temporary, and the variance is a permanent one that will have a significant
impact on the stabilization of the neighborhood. There is no guarantee that the next
owners or the next tenants will be equally neighborhood-minded. In addition, while the
Hudsons indicate they have every intention of being good landlords who will rent to
reasonable tenants, they are also in this for profit. If they can't find those tenants and it is
a choice between questionable tenants or not filling to capacity, they will likely choose
the money. And, again, even if they do the right thing, the next landlords may not.
This is a mixed-use neighborhood that is a historic district. We homeowners in the
neighborhood do not want this turned into a non-owner-occupied dominant
neighborhood. We decided to buy a house in this neighborhood in 2002 because we
loved the house, wanted to live in a historic district, and we believed that the down
zoning of this neighborhood in 2002 to RNC-12 would protect our investment. This
rezoning was 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)." We are committed to preserving the integrity of the neighborhood.
Therefore, we are committed to not increasing the noise, number of people requiring on-
site parking, increased disruption, traffic, etc., that goes with increased density and that
will contribute to the destabilization of the neighborhood. As the owner of the home at
1022 E. College Street, I will be directly affected by these problems should the variance
application be approved. Again, I strongly urge the Board of Adjustment to deny the
variance application. '
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michelle L. Campo
1022 E. College Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Sarah Walz
Planning and Zoning
City of Iowa City
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Ms Walz,
I am writing to express my opposition to the request by the prospective buyers of
Leighton House to increase the number of residents. My concern is that this increase will
exacerbate the considerable parking problems our neighborhood already deals with. It has
become quite common for people to park their cars on lawns, or blocking sidewalks at the
ends of the street. There is also someone who works for a cab company who parks cabs
and sometimes a limo on College or Washington streets. I know this is legal, but when
students have to compete with a business for parking places, in addition to landlords in
the neighborhood who don't provide enough parking for the number of tenants. . . it all
adds up. This neighborhood cannot hold any more cars! After it snows, or when parking
spots are reserved for public events like the Homecoming Parade or tree trimming by the
power company, many students have a very difficult time finding alternative parking
spots. The alleys are just as crowded. It is very bad on weekends when cars are allowed
to park on both sides of the street. Visibility is terrible at the College/Summit intersection
(don't even think about removing the calming circle, it works very well) and at several
other intersections in the neighborhood because people try to squeeze in too many cars. I
enjoy living in a mixed neighborhood, but we simply have no room for any more cars.
Christine Walters
1033 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment,
I write to you in the matter of the variance application for the building located at 932 E. College Street
(V AR06-00001). I am unable to appear before you today, prevented by a busy schedule. My interest
in this application may not be readily apparent, so I will disclose it immediately. I lived on the east
side of Iowa City for 18 years. From March, 2005 to March, 2006 I also represented The University of
Iowa student body as the President of The University of Iowa Student Government. Because of my
intimate relationship with the Iowa City community and UI students I spent a lot of time studying and
working on community-student issues. I was made aware of the variance application by applicants
John and Sandra Hudson, whom I have known for a number of years. Since that time I have met with
the applicants, the current occupants (members of the UI Track Team), and various neighbors. I have
read the application and the staff report, and toured the building. I hope that you will consider my
views on the matter as you deliberate over the application.
I will start by addressing the general situation, discuss the concerns expressed by some
neighbors and those present within the staff report, and will conclude with a few thoughts. The
primary issue raised by the staff report and neighbors is one of parking. Parking in Iowa City is a
serious issue, as anyone-who-Ieaves-their-downtown-meter-empty-for-ten-minutes' pocketbook can
attest. I argue that denying the variance could actually increase the parking problems in the
neighborhood. The other concern expressed most often is the potential for disorderly conduct by future
occupants of the building. I argue that denying the variance will make such conduct more likely, not
less.
The current tenants, organized members of the UI Track Team, have been described as exemplary. No
problems or complaints have been associated with them. As one neighbor put it, "If all occupants were
like them, we wouldn't have a problem." I believe that students can be model members ofthe
residential community in Iowa City. One great way to move us in that direction is through organized,
intentional communities with active involvement from the owners. That is exactly what will happen if
you grant this variance. It could easily become a model of what an engaged group living in the
community can be. To deny the variance application means to end the occupancy ofthe building by
these responsible students, and prevent ownership by a couple that intends to continue the tradition
started by the UI Track Team.
PARKING
Ofthe 19 team members in the building only six possess vehicles. Thus they can hardly b~
considered to be a serious strain on parking in the area. Should the variance be denied, and the students
ousted, the building will most likely be utilized by individuals rather than an intentional community.
This could easily lead to an increase in the number of vehicles in the neighborhood, despite the lower
occupancy, as a higher percentage of individuals would likely possess more vehicles. Occupancy
numbers don't tell a parking story very well. You must examine the facts.
.....-.~
FUTURE OCCUPANTS
I know that these students, model members of the UI Track Team, would like to continue
occupying this space. I have also known John and Sandra Hudson for years. I know their opinions in
regard to student engagement in a residential community. They intend to continue the tradition started
by these students and maintain responsible, intentional communities in the building. They will succeed
at that, as they have in so many of their endeavors. If you deny the variance, these responsible students
will be forced to vacate and the Hudsons' will not be the owners ofthe building. Another owner,
forced to make tougher decisions about lower profits due to the lower occupancy, will not consider the
occupants of the building as carefully. By granting the variance you ensure that an intentional
community, which has the accolades of many neighbors, remains in place at the building and transfer
ownership to a couple that will continue that tradition.
I would like to reiterate that it is possible for students and the community to each benefit from
increasing positive interaction. The members of the UI Track Team and many of their neighbors have
gained from this application already, by meeting each other and hearing various points of view.
Unfortunately I feel that these younger members of our community are sometimes denied that fair
hearing. At a neighborhood gathering earlier this week to discuss the variance application, to which a
representative of the Track Team was given an invitation, they were asked to leave before the meeting
and prevented from discussing the issues at stake. I fear that some members of our community
automatically discriminate against the youthful nature and reputation of students in general, without
considering the real facts of the group and owners before you today.
This is a group that has been described by neighbors as 'exemplary', with a low ratio of
vehicles to occupants alleviating part of the parking problem in Iowa City. They are owners that will
continue a tradition of responsible, intentional communities in this building, a tradition started by
members of the UI Track Team. I hope you give these community members a fair hearing in
deliberating over the variance application today. I hope you grant them that variance and move this
community forward together.
Sincerely,
Mark Kresowik
President, University of Iowa Student Government 2005-2006
2 Crestwood Circle
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-621-7393
ECKHARDT ~ ~1<. ~ RESEARCH
514 N. LiNN STREET U IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245 U 319-338-3386
November 16, 2006
To the Board of Adjustment, City of Iowa City
Fax # 356-5217
Dear Members,
John and Sandra Hudson would like to purchase the property at 932 E. College Street and
need your help to do so. This property was granted a temporary zoning adjustment in 1997
to allow a resident density of 30 persons. This was thought necessary by the purchasers,
Leighton House L. C., to make their use of the property financially feasible.
I was a member of the Board of Adjustment at that time, and what I and other members of
the board wanted was to preserve this historic building and to keep it from becoming a run
down rooming house. Our hopes have been realized as indicated by the fine condition of
the building today.
The variance for 932 E College Street in 1997 was applied only to the Leighton House L. C.
and did not run with the land. I did not foresee, and I do not think any of the members of
the Board of Adjustment foresaw, that a variance applied to only one property owner might
lead to problems in the future. If the property is sold, the current zoning requirements for
density will apply. This low density of thirteen people can not come near to providing the
amount of income needed to justify the investment in a property assessed at $639,940 and
maintain its structure and integrity. The present owner is having trouble finding a buyer
for the property because of this problem.
College Hill House is not a house, but a building constructed for group living. It has 8752
square feet of living space. An attempt to remodel the building into apartments would not
only be very expensive, but it would go against one of the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Historic Preservation, to preserve the original property use. While the
lowering of residential density is usually associated with an improved neighborhood
environment, it is ironic that in this case, a higher density would benefit this building and
this neighborhood more than a lower one.
In my opinion the city, the neighborhood and Historic Preservation would best be served by
granting the zoning variance request to increase the building density from 13 to 20
persons.
Sincerely,
Patricia Eckhardt, Ph.D., Architectural Historian
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 19
their willingness, she would urge that it be included as a condition if the Board finds itself inclined
to grant any variance.
~ Sale said the most important condition to her is the condition to which Mr. Phipps is opposed. She
said she actually read the staff .r~commendation differently than she thought he did, so she might
not be clear on how that condition would operate. Sale said she understood from Mr. Phipps a
concer~ that he would never be able to transfer title to the property without losing the variance.
She said she read the staff recommendation to say that the variance would be granted to a
~orporation, Leight?~ House. Sale said it is not that no one else.could ever own that property, it is
Just that the conditions have to go with the property. She said that would mean that if the
corporation changes hands, but the corporation operates consistent with this business plan, there
would not be a problem with the variance, and there would only be a problem if the plan changed.
Sale said the assumption would be that the variance was being granted because there was an
understanding about the use for the property. She said she felt very strongly about that. Sale said
she would hate to see a variance granted, and if the Phipps were unfortunate enough not to be
able to make a go of it in a few years, to have them be able to sell the property to someone who
wants to do something else with the property and who gets the benefit a variance which was
granted for another purpose. Sale said she does not oppose the purpose at all. She said she had
not spoken to anyone who thinks the concept is a bad idea, but it is the practice of the idea she is
concerned about. Sale said that because of the way it is written, she feels she has to stand up on
the opposition side.
Sale said she is not a businessperson, but she did attempt to interpret the business plan and
raised concerns for herself similar to. those Brandt has raised, which are whether or not they could
make a go of it and receive a reasonable return with fewer people. Sale said as she understood
the law, that is one of the applicants' obligations, and it is not clear to her that they could not in
fact make a reasonable return with fewer residents, which would solve, in part, a parking problem
and also decrease the proposed density. She said she understood the 8-10% rate of return
number from this report to come from what is apparently the average rate of return that people
received when they buy property and use it for rental or other purposes. Sale said it actually did
not sound to her to be unreasonable.
Sale said she would urge the Board, if it was going to consider granting the variance, to condition
that variance on the specific use of this property so the neighbors do not get sandbagged down
the road if something else happens. She said the condition that is of most concern to her is the
one that limits the possible use of this property to this business plan, which requires the managers
to live in-house and allows them to run certain special programs that seem as if they would be
excellent programs.
Brandt asked Holecek what the intent was of the condition regarding transfer of the corporation as
opposed to individuals. Holecek said she believed it read that it is a corporation that operat~s
pursuant to the business plan as it has been outlined. She said you can have changes In
individuals who are members of a corporation, but as long as the corporation is the entity that
owns that property, you are still going to have consistency. Holecek said she believes that is the
intent of this condition.
Meg Baron. 115 South Summit, said she owns the property right in back of the house in question
at 117 South Summit and also owns the house she lives in at 115 South Summit. She said the
parking is awful there. Baron said she is not really objecting to the Phipps' plan, she thinks it is a
good plan. She said something has to be done with this property. She added that it is a big place
and is standing vacant and getting nothing but worse. Baron said she is concerned about having
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 18
H~user said one of the things he thought needed to be addressed is the concept the Phipps are
trying ~o do. They are not trying to make it into an apartment house or an unsupervised area, but
are trying to preserve the building and put it back to what it was originally built for. Houser said the
property co~ld be made into a four-plex without anyone doing anything special to it. He said they
could leave It dumpy; they can do whatever they want to make it into a four-plex right now. Houser
said the Phipps are trying to restore it and all they have to do is stay within the boundaries of the
insid~ of the building. He said if they don't change the building, they do not have to meet parking
reqUirements - they can have 20 people plus 20-something who are also going to live there, but
may not be on a lease, such as a boyfriend or girlfriend or whatever, if it is a student-oriented
place.
Houser said he had been around the fraternity for pretty much the last year. He said there is an
apartment house across the way. Houser said the biggest complaint of the people that owned the
House that the Phipps tried to buy next door was the basketball court noise, due to apartment
people coming over and playing on it. He said the neighbor had less problems in regard to the
fraternity being there than she did with the apartment, because at least it was more supervised.
Houser said if you get into a situation that goes into 20 unsupervised people, you are probably
going to have a lot more chaos. He said he owns a number of rental properties in both Iowa City
and Coralville, and when you are not there, there is no way to gov~rn it. Houser said he might get
a call at midnight about a party or something, and all he can do is call the police and have them
come three or four times. He said at least if you are there and you have rules and regulations, you
have a lot better control over the situation.
Houser said right now the building is not under any jurisdiction of historic preservation. He said if
the Phipps agree to go to that, it would be good, but right now it is not part of that. Houser said
there are a lot of fraternities, some of which are growing and some of which are dying, and there
are going to be a lot of these issues in regard to buildings around town. He said this happened on
Dubuque Street and some of the other fraternities have been restored over by Hancher. Houser
said we ought to look at what they are trying to do in saving a building instead of having it tom
down or converted into a four-plex.
Hillary Sale. 1016 East College Street, said that although she was speaking in opposition, she
was speaking in opposition to the proposal the way it exists. She said she actually finds the staff
recommendations fairly acceptable, but she would be opposed to the granting of this variance if
there were not conditions placed on it. Sale said she would oppose that for a variety of reasons.
Sale said she was concerned about the parking problem, not just because of the number of
residents who would be living in this house under the proposed variance, but also because of the
staff and the Phipps themselves. Sale said she is concerned not just about parking, but also the
number of people who would be added to the neighborhood. She said she did not live in the
neighborhood when the fraternity house was occupied, but she thought 30 new people in the
neighborhood is a lot of new people in what is already a crowded neighborhood. She said she
appreciated the Phipps' attempts to come up with some parking solutions and suggested that it is
not inappropriate to condition any variance on actual parking solutions: on the location of off-site
parking spaces or even on a business plan which does not allow residents to bring cars or only
allows for a certain number of cars.
Sale stated that she appreciates the Phipps' willingness to remove the basketball court and to
have their exterior changes approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, which she thought
was an excellent suggestion to maintain the integrity of that property. She said although she trusts
~
"~
Board of Adjustment
~er10, 1997
~
John Phipps said they have. a plan to address the parking and will come up with as many plans as
~~eded ~o ad?ress th.e parkl~g. He said the obvious solution is to provide off-site parking; whether
It IS provided In the City parking ramps or provided someplace else, that has to be the solution. He
said he would like to think that some of the other multi-tenant housing units in that area would
consi.der the sa~e things if they could. He said something has to be done~ Phipps said he is not
creating the parking problem and none of the people at the meeting created the parking problem.
He said the City of Iowa City created the parking problem in that area by allowing people to
convert single-family residences to multi-tenant usage. without any consideration for where people
would park. John Phipps said the City of Iowa City has an obligation to do something to help
alleviate the parking problem. He said a good start would be to give him some parking permits so
that they can encourage their residents to park in the ramp. He said they at least would not
contribute greatly to the parking situation. He said the City could perhaps offer the same situation
to other housing units in that area. He said they may be setting a precedent and the City may not
like it, but he would be glad to set the precedent. He said he is willing to pay the money to give his
people somewhere to park.
John Phipps read a letter from Sue Licht, a preservation architect in Iowa City. He read, "I am
writing this letter to encourage you to work with John and Diana Phipps in their request for a
variance on this property. I am not an expert in dealing with Iowa City's parking issues, but I am a
proponent of creative, adaptive reuse of historic structures. Many cities allow some parking
easements in relationship to existing historic structures and adaptive reuse. This neighborhood
has been hit hard this past year with the demolition of a significant historic building replaced with
an eyesore of a six-plex. Please consider, that with the current zoning, the same thing could
happen again with this property. It is not protected by the historic district, but does directly affect
the historic character of the neighborhood."
John Phipps said he appreciated Sale's comments. He said 8-12 % is what rental property owners
say is a reasonable rate of return on their cash investment on a rental property. He said that is
considering only a rental property where people live there and pay rent and you pay the bills on
the building and try to maintain it. John Phipps said that does not take into consideration the return
that is necessary to operate a building that includes a food service component, an educational
component, an academic support component, and a career counseling component. He said all
these things are part of the plan that costs money and have to have a return. He said 8-12% just
does not cover it, and you can't start a business with those kinds of figures. Brandt asked if those
figures are included in the operating expenses, and John Phipps said that was correct.
John Phipps said, as far as the conditions on the variance, Sales may be right. John Phipps said
he is not opposed to some sort of a contingency like that. He said he would not want to see the
business destroyed if they decide to retire in 20 years and sell the business or perhaps one of
their kids would want to take it over. John Phipps said he would not want them to change the
concept. He said he had no problem with the variance staying with the business or the business
concept. He said ~e read that where it says "the density variance not being applicable to any
successors in title," that successors in title meant whoever bought the property from him would not
get the variance. John Phipps said if it needs to be reworded so that he is happier with it, that
would be fine, but if the idea is that the successive owner of the business who continues to
operate the business in the same manner keeps the variance, then he has no problem with that.
Holecek said one could transfer the corporate entity that operates under the same structure and
not lose the variance. John Phipps asked what the case woOld be if the name of the corporation is
changed. Holecek asked why you would ch~nge the name. John Phipps said suppose someone
with a business called Smith House did kind of the same thing and bought the business. Holecek
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 1997
Page 22
said it would be a subsidiary then that. could be owned by a larger corporate structure and still
maintain its character.
Br~ndt. asked the ~hipps if anything. less than 30 residents is unacceptable to them. John Phipps
said without the higher numbers, this plan does not have enough return to interest investors and
said that comes from the investors themselves. He said they had to rework the numbers over and
over again just to get to the point where people would say now it could be worth doing.
Public hearing closed.
Bender thanked the neighbors for coming and said it helps the Board a lot. She said it was her
opinion after touring the facility, hearing from the neighbors, reading the materials, and much
thought and deliberation that she would support this with conditions. Bender said she thinks the
tests of unnecessary hardship have been met. She stated that she thinks the uniqueness test has
been met in that this is a very unique neighborhood and a very unique structure, and she thought
that because of its historic worthiness that it is also unique and she heard people in the
neighborhood saying they don't want to see this destroyed.
Bender said obviously this is not anything of the landowner's own making - the zoning require-
ments in effect were not in effect at the time this house was erected in 1923. She said she did not
have a problem either with the business plan or the statistics. Being a long-time Iowa City resident
herself and owning rental properties, Bender said there is a difference between owning a duplex
or a rental property and the amount of return expected on that investment and owning a business.
She said they are two totally separate things. Bender said one only has to look at the professional
advisors and contractors that are involved in this business concept to see that they are long-
standing, well-respected members of the community, so she trusted the facts and figures and the
advice that the applicants have been getting, be it accounting, legal, architectural, construction, or
renovation. Bender said these are all very well-respected, very long-term upstanding business
people in this community so she had no reason to mistrust their advice and, in turn, the Leighton
House projections. She said she also did not have a problem with the reasonable rate of return
test. She thought that was met.
Bender said the plan itself encourages reinvestment in the near downtown neighborhood. She
said that is what the Comprehensive. Plan asks for, and she thought that is what this applicant is
trying to do. Bender said she did not see any use of this grand old home that could be any finer
than the one that is presented to the Board. She said that the potential uses of this property aside
from Leighton House would be much more harmful to this neighborhood. Bender said a case in
point is the current owner and previous tenants of this building. She said they all saw the house
and went through it, and it was absolutely disgusting. Bender said she could not imagine living in
that neighborhood and wanting to have anything similar to that take place on that site again. She
said she was concerned that it could if the Board does not allow this plan to go forward, and the
applicant pointed that out succinctly also. Bender said if someone wants to convert this to a multi-
family or quad-plex or whatever they want to call it and have 26 people living there unsupervised
or 24 or whatever the number and not even appear before the Board, that frightens her a great
deal for that wonderful old neighborhood.
Bender said she was concerned about the parking, but did not think the parking issue outweighs
the good that this type of well-thought out plan and supervised living arrangement could bring.
She said she felt really strongly about this. Bender said being the mbther of a college-aged
student and going through dorm life and the options available makes her have another view of it.
She said she thought this whole business concept is a wonderful addition to the community and to
Board of Adjustment
~.s bar 10, 1997
C~
~randt stated that he had experience in going to that Commission and watching it work. He said it
IS an extremely helpful group, and, even though it is regulatory, it serves almost more in an
~dviso':Y capacity., Brandt said the~ give good suggestions and good ideas and work with people
In makIng sure things are appropriate. He said they rarely deny anything and in fact he did not
know if they had ever denied anything. Holecek said the Commission is also consulted by persons
who are not necessarily under its regulatory auspices, but are consulted just because their advice
is helpful and respected. Corcoran said she just wanted to make sure the Phipps understand what
they are agreeing to.
Bender asked if the Board could add some language about parking. She said she did not know
how it would be done because of enforcement, but she wondered if, as the resident management
of the home is part of the business plan and as this provision of off-street parking is part of the
business plan, the Board could include some language about having the variance being conferred
specifically to Leighton House, L.C., which will provide resident management of the rooming
house and off-site parking, or something to that effect. Holecek said the Board needed to then ask
the question, if the applicants are unable to secure off-site parking, did the Board want the
variance to be null and void. She said the entirety of the plan and all its parts could then hinge on
that one provision, She stated that the Board could add some looser language that may not be as
binding - something to the effect of Leighton House, L.C. making good faith efforts to provide off-
site parking. Holecek said that would not be as binding, but would give the intent that the Board is
trying to address that issue. Brandt said he did not know why the binding language would be
unreasonable since the Board has received very strong commitments, and it is very firmly stated
in the business plan that that will be done. Bender said the Board does not know what kind of
compliance they will get.
Bender said she would like to see language about a good faith effort because the parking is such
an issue for so many people. She said it is not the fault of the applicant. She said, in effect, this
plan is going to lower the density from 1923 and. from 1996. Bender said the net effect may be a
wash. She said she did sense a great deal of concern about the parking issue. Eckhardt said if the
preservation issue is going to be in because the Board made a big point of it, then the parking
issue should be in because the Board made a big -point of it. Holecek said part of the analysis
though, and one of the points of contention between Board members, was indeed the impact on
the neighborhood with one member finding the impact to be unreasonable and other members
finding it not to be unreasonable. Holecek stated that whether or not that is included is not the
same analysis as leaving in the historic preservation issue in order to meet the uniqueness test.
Brandt said he took Holecek's advice, which he did not agree with, to mean it should be left alone.
Holecek said she thought the best that could be done would be to include a good faith clause, but
the reality of the situation may not lend itself to compliance. Bender said she trusted that the good
~ faith effort would be there.
4 Eckhardt said a more serious issue would be what happens if the Leighton House fails. She asked
if it should then be canceled or a time limit should be put on it. Brandt said it is the general idea
that if this concept fails, the issue is back to square one. Bender said she thought that was really
beyond the jurisdiction of the Board. She said if it does not succeed, it is the applicants' problem.
She said the people who would then want to buy the property would have to come and get
approval for what they would want to do. Holecek said that was correct. She said one could buy
the limited corporation, but would have to continue to operate under that concept plan. Brandt
asked if the business plan concept has to be consistent, not just the title that belonged to Leighton
House, but the business of Leighton House. Holecek said that was correct, that it must be
operated as stated in the business plan. Brandt said that if Leighton House decided to change to a
Board of Adjustment
September 1 a, 1997
Page 27
20-bed four-plex, then the deal would be off. Holecek confirmed this and said or a 30-bed four-
plex, because the discussion was for a 30-person variance.
. John Phipps said regarding Historic Preservation Commission approval, he would prefer to have it
worded to ''the exterior structure of the building" and not just the exterior of the building altogether.
He said that could give the Historic Preservation Commission control over what kinds of plants are
planted and where a bench, planter, or tree might be place. John Phipps said anything done to the
exterior of the property would have to go to the Commission for approval. He said it would
probably not be a problem except for the delays, although he said he was a little concerned that
Dr. Gersh is on the Historic Preservation Commission and if the Board approves this against his
wishes, he may be a thorn in the Phipps' side. Holecek proposed the wording "exterior change to
the residential structure". Rockwell said in the past, Historic Preservation Commission approval
was required only if a building permit was required.
John Phipps said regarding the removal of the concrete basketball court, they had talked about
leaving one or two squares of concrete in corners to make a patio seating area or a place for
planters or a garden bench. He said he thought if the middle of the court were destroyed so it
could not be used for basketball, they would have then removed the basketball court, but they
may want to leave a square or two of concrete so they do not have to go back in and redo it.
Holecek said a square or two of concrete is not necessarily a basketball. court. Bender said that
was reasonable.
Holecek asked if there were a consensus on the Board to rephrase condition number three.
Bender proposed it read that any change to the exterior residential structure requiring a City
building permit requires approval of the Historic Preservation Commission.
MOTION: Bender moved that VAR97-0004, a variance to exceed the maximum density
permitted for a rooming house in the RNC-20 zone in order to allow the establishment of a
rooming house for 30 residents for property located at 932 East College be approved with
the following conditions: 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 its business plan for Leighton House, L.C. dated July 1997; the
density variance is not applicable to any successors in title to the 932 East College Street
property, 2) any change to the exterior of the residential structure requiring a building
permit will require approval by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, and 3) the
removal of the concrete basketball court located in the front of the residence and the
installation of landscaping in its stead. Corcoran seconded the motion.
Brandt said he wanted to restate his previous concerns for the record and said he appreciated all
his colleagues' comments. Holecek said that for clarification of the record, it is accurate to state
that all of the analysis the. Board has gone through extensively prior to the motion is now adopted
for the basis of the motion and the vote.
The motion carried on a vote of 3-1. with Brandt voting no.
OTHER:
Holecek said she appreciates the Board going through an analysis, looking at the tests and
articulating the reasons for the vote. She said the Board is doing a good job of this.
ADJOURNMENT:
lLetgbton T!)oUSt, lL.~.
Jiusintss ~ tan
Jut!' 1997
932 E. College Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
'ltigbton ~OU~t .u~tnt~~ J Ian
~alJ It of (:ontmt~
I. General Business Description
II. The Company
III. The Market
IV. Market Research! Analysis
V. The Facilities and Services
VI. Financial Data
VII. Appendix
t.ttgbton .OU~t, t..e:.
j;ummaTP .u~tnt~~ t!!n
GENERAL BUSINESS DESCRIPTION:
This proposed business will provide a distinctive, safe and supportive residential option
for female students attending the University ofIowa in Iowa City, Iowa. The
business/facility will be named "Leighton House" and will be structured as a limited
corporation under the statutes of the State ofIowa.
Leighton House will be located in an existing facility at 932 E. College Street (currently a
vacant building that was most recently occupied by Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity.
The idea for this project grew out of the fact that the University ofIowa currently
provides no dormitory facilities exclusively for women. Additionally, the individuals
proposing this business have personal knowledge and experience of unacceptable housing
conditions and situations in Iowa City for the targeted female student population. There
is clearly a demonstrated need for this type of facility in the community.
The specific concept and operational plans for Leighton House are patterned after Hardin
House, a very successful, half a century old, business in Austin, Texas.
The managing partner and Director of Leighton House will be Diana Kay Leighton
Phipps. Mrs. Phipps will be assisted by her husband, John W. Phipps and will have
additional support and assistance from professional advisors and other private investors
in the project.
l.dgbton .OU~t .u'in~' Jtan (tontinutb...'
THE COMPANY:
Strategy: Leighton House will, primarily, meet the needs of first and second year female
students at the University of Iowa. These students would typically be of somewhat
affiuent families and would, possibly, pledge a sorority during their first year of college.
It is expected that these individuals would desire to move into their respective sorority
houses beginning with their second year at U of I, if space allows. For those not
interested in joining a sorority, Leighton House will provide a similar environment with
the same, or greater, comfort, privacy, security, academic support and dining facilities
normally offered only by nationally affiliated sororities.
In so doing, Leighton House will fill an evident void in the housing options available to
female students attending the University ofIowa and will be a most attractive option to
many parents, as well as students.
Mission: Leighton House will provide, for students and families who are willing and
able to pay for premium housing: privacy, security, safety and quality dining services in
tastefully elegant surroundings and a supportive environment.
Management: Leighton House will provide on-site resident managers with 24 hour/day
staffing. The managing partners, Mr. and Mrs. Phipps, will reside in living quarters on
the first floor of the building.
Diana Kay Leighton Phipps has a Bachelors Degree and significant graduate credits in
Education. Diana has been a classroom teacher for twenty-five years. She has served on,
and taken leadership roles on, numerous committees and projects during her teaching
career. Most significantly, for this project, Diana has served as cooperating teacher or
mentor for, at least, thirty education students and student teachers. Many of these
individuals have gone on to successful teaching careers and still maintain contact with
Diana, and continue to express their appreciation for her early support and "coaching".
Diana is experienced and talented in communicating with, and positively affecting
college aged students.
John W. Phipps has a Bachelors Degree and significant graduate credits in Business
Administration. John has nearly twenty-nine years of professional experience, beginning
with over seven years in law enforcement. The balance of his experience has been in
various aspects of business with the past nineteen years focused on Human Resource
Management. John is professionally certified as a Senior Professional in Human
Resources (SPHR) and is past president of the Eastern Iowa Human Resource
Association. John has also served as Chairman of the Iowa City Area Chamber of
l.ttgIJton JOOU~t .u~tn~~ tllan (tonttnutb...)
Commerce Human Resources Committee and was instrumental in establishing a
Supported Employment Sub-Committee in the Chamber. John is also an eighteen year
veteran leader in the Boy Scouts of America and, in that role has successfully coached
and counseled numerous teenagers into their college years and beyond.
John and Diana have reared two children, both of whom attended the University ofIowa
and personally experienced the various trials and tribulations of student housing.
Additional management support will be sought from successful entrepreneurs and
professionals in various fields, some of who may be investors arid silent partners in this
business.
l.ttgfJton ~OU~t .u~tn~~ JIan (conttnutb...)
THE MARKET:
The Primary Market: Residency at Leighton House will be most attractive to first year
female students attending the University of Iowa who expect to participate in sorority
rush and to pledge a sorority. These same students will probably wish to move to their
sorority house, if space is available, after their first year of college. According the
Admissions office at the University approximately 1,947 females will enroll in the fall of
1997 as freshmen. This number will increase to 2001 in 1998,2,060 in 1999, and 2,082
in 2000. Typically 28-30% participate in the sorority rush with 20% actually pledging.
These numbers indicate those primary prospective residents for Leighton House will
number 565 in 1997, 580 in 1998, 597 in 1999, and 604 in 2000.
Because of the close proximity of the proposed Leighton House property to nine of the
largest sororities on campus, and the similarity of the residential environment, Leighton
House will present a very attractive housing option to these first year students.
The Extended Market: There is also a large extended market for the services and
facilities that will be offered by Leighton House. These include:
· Those students who did not pledge a sorority as planned.
· Those who chose not to go through rush but desire the sorority house atmosphere
without the sorority affiliation.
· Those who did pledge a sorority but were unable to move into the sorority house
because of space limitations.
· Those who pledged a sorority but who choose to live at Leighton House rather than
their sorority house.
· Other students who choose Leighton House over other housing options because of the
quality and environment.
· Summer session students will provide another source of revenue.
· Housing for special sessions and events such as Writers' Workshop, Artists in
Residence, visiting lecturers, etc. may provide yet another source of revenue during
summer months, or in the event that vacancies occur during the school year.
l.dgIJton .OU't .u'tnt" Jlan (conttnutb...)
MARKET RESEARCH/ANALYSIS:
Research for this projectlbusiness has consisted of interviews with a former, and a
current, resident of Hardin House in Austin, Texas, as well as interviews with their
parents. The Hardin House property was toured and visited several times. In addition,
officials at the University ofIowa were interviewed and relevant demographic data was
obtained about the student population. Other individuals having knowledge of and/or
experience with university housing and sorority/fraternity houses were also contacted for
input and information.
Appropriate City offices were contacted for relevant information and the properties were
inspected by a reputable general contractor and an architect for structural integrity,
historical significance and estimates for rehabilitating the properties for this use.
Naturally, the cost of residing at Leighton House will exceed the cost of University
Housing, as well as the cost of most sorority houses. This is not a concern, however, as
research has indicated a strong desire and need for this kind of facility near the University
of Iowa campus. The sixty years of experience of Hardin House demonstrates that many
parents are willing and able to pay for the peace of mind a facility like this provides them
as their daughters leave home for college. One Hardin House parent said that money is
not a concern when it comes to their daughters' comfort and security.
'ltllJbton ~OU't Jlu'tnt" JUan (conttnutb...)
THE FACILITIES AND SERVICES:
Facilities: The floor plan of Leighton House will be professionally designed and the
construction will be completed by a skilled and reputable Iowa City construction
company. The interior design, decoration, and furnishings will be assigned to a
professional and reputable Iowa City interior designer. Emphasis will consistently be on
quality, durability, flexibility, and aesthetics. Particular attention will also be paid to
preserving the historical integrity of the buildings and restoring them to their original
appearances.
Living spaces will consist, primarily, of suites, which will include two rooms, each
housing two students with a bathroom between the rooms.
Meals will be professionally prepared and served on-site in the kitchen and dining room
located on the lower level of the residence hall. Facilities will also be provided for
students to store and prepare their own meals and snacks whenever they so desire.
Common areas will be provided for socializing, studying and welcoming guests.
The on-site managing partnerslDirector of Leighton House will reside in an apartment on
the first floor of the building.
A formal office will be located on the first floor ofthe residence hall for conducting
business, greeting visitors and for meetings. An administrative office will be located on
the lower level of the facility for the purposes of supplies storage, record files, office
machines and equipment, and work space.
The residence hall will be alarmed for smoke, fire, and unauthorized access.
Services: The service to be provided by Leighton House, as detailed in previous sections
of this business plan, is to fill a void in the student housing options in Iowa City by
providing an "upscale" residence hall for female students at the University of Iowa. The
specific benefits that will be realized by Leighton House residents include:
· Privacy - rules will be strictly enforced restricting visitors and activities in the
residence hall, and particularly in the living areas of the building.
l.dglJton Jj ou~t .u~int~~ J Ian (continueb...)
· Security - The residence hall will be alarmed as described previously and the facility
will be staffed on a 24 hour/day basis for purposes of monitoring security and safety.
To further enhance the safety of the residents, transportation will be available on an
"as needed" basis for such things as attending night classes or for residents who may
find themselves at a party or downtown at night without safe transportation home.
· Academic Support - The Director will provide coaching and counseling for residents
needing assistance with academic planning and tutoring will be arranged at an
additional cost for residents needing help with individual classes. In addition,
evening discussions and lectures will be arranged periodically on topics of interest to
the residents. A Leadership Development course will be offered to residents in
cooperation with the University.
· Dining Services - A full-service, professional kitchen will be installed in the lower
level of the residence hall and meals will be prepared and served daily in the dining
room. The dining room will also be located on the lower level of the residence hall
and will be equipped and furnished to allow for buffet service, table service and self-
service. The room will be nicely decorated and furnished to provide comfortable and
enjoyable dining.
· Housekeeping Services - Common areas of the building will be cleaned daily. The
residents' bathrooms will be thoroughly cleaned weekly and the bedrooms also will
be vacuumed, dusted, etc. weekly. More frequent or thorough cleaning of the rooms
and/or laundry services can be arranged at additional costs.
· Parking - Limited street parking is available for residents who bring a car to college.
Every effort will be made to find more secure off-site parking when desirable and of
course transportation will be provided to take residents to and from their vehicles.
Because of the proximity to campus and downtown, the lack of available parking on
and around campus, and the fact that the facility is located on the City bus route,
residents will not, generally, find it necessary or desirable to have a car.
· Health and Fitness - An area will be provided in the lower level of the residence hall
for exercise. Some equipment will be provided and residents will be able to provide
their own equipment, aerobic workouts, etc.. A sauna will also be available in this
area ofthe building.
· Quiet Environment - The environment at Leighton House will be conducive to
studying, relaxing and staying rested, all of which are necessary for good academic
performance and health. Rules will be strictly enforced restricting loud music, noisy
activities, and visitors.
l.ttgIJton JlOU~t .u~int~~ ~nan (continutb...)
· Fun, etc. - Although there will be rules to allow Leighton House to deliver on the
promise of safety, security, privacy, etc., undoubtedly the social and fun aspects of
college life are of significant importance. Residents will be allowed to host social
activities with agreement from the other residents and the approval of the Director.
Occasional activities such as cookouts, holiday parties, sorority officer receptions,
etc. will be planned by the staff
While all, or some, of these features may be offered by the University, other private
facilities, and certainly to a greater extent by sororities, Leighton House will maintain
higher standards and offer more comprehensive services to it's residents.
l.ttgbton ~ou't .u.tnt" JIan (conttnutb...)
FINANCIAL DATA:
This project, as currently planned, will require $670,000.00 of capital investment before
the facility can be occupied and any revenues generated.
The capital will be raised from a combination of private investors and bank loans and will
be used to purchase the property, rehabilitate and remodel the building for the intended
use, purchase furnishings, and to landscape the property.
Annual receipts from operations are projected to be $294,000.00 with annual operating
costs of $238,300.00.
Net Profits (before taxes) are projected to be approximately $55,700.00.
See Appendix for details.