HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-2006 Board of Adjustment
AGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, December 13,2006 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the November 16,2006 and November 27,2006 Minutes
D. Appeal:
APL06-0004 Discussion of an application from John Roffman for an appeal of the
decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of
Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood
Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD)
zone at 923 Iowa Avenue.
E. Other
F. Board of Adjustment Information
G. Adjournment
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -January 10, 2007
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 8,2006
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
RE: December Board of Adjustment
The only item on our agenda for the December meeting is a request by John Roffman for
reconsideration of his appeal for the property located at 923 Iowa Avenue. A letter from
Mr. Roffman's attorney is attached.
You will recall that the Board considered this appeal of a Historic Preservation
Commission decision at its November meeting. The appeal was denied by a 2-2 vote-
one member of the Board being absent. A motion to reconsider must be made by one of
the board members who voted against the appeal-Wright or Leigh.
This memo is to remind you that what we will consider at our December meeting is
limited to the request for reconsideration. Any actual reconsideration of the case would
take place at the January Board of Adjustment Hearing.
321 East Market
PHELAN TUCKER
WALKER TUCKER
MULLEN
GELMAN LLP
A T TOR N E Y S
A T
LAW
Post Office Box 2150
Iowa City, Iowa
52244-2150
Phone: (319) 354-1104
Fax: (319) 354-6962 November 28, 2006
E-mail addresses:
attorney's last name
@ptmlaw.com
www.ptmlaw.com
William V. Phelan
Sarah Walz
City of Iowa City - Associate Planner
Planning & Community Development
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Bruce L. Walker Re: John Roffman
Parcel No. 1010416002
Richard M. Tucker 923 Iowa Avenue
Iowa City, IA
Thomas H. Gelman
Gary J. Schmit
Margaret P. Winegarden
John E. Beasley
Dean D. Carrington
Susan J. Frye
Pope S. Yamada
Daniel W. Boyle
William M. Tucker
[1922-2003]
Charles A. Mullen
[1937-2001]
Dear Sarah:
The purpose of this letter is to request a rehearing on Mr. Roffman's appeal
from the Historic Preservation Commission's denial of Mr. Roffman's request
for Certificate of Appropriateness. The basis for this request is that just
moments before the public hearing on November 16, 2006, one Board
Member excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Roffman should have the
opportunity to have this appeal heard and considered by the entire Board of
Adjustment.
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOVEMBER 16, 2006 - 5:00 P.M.
EMMA J HARVAT HALL -IOWA CITY/CITY HALL
Preliminary
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright, Carol Alexander
MEMBERS ABSENT: none
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek, Karen Howard
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Raines, Tim Lynch, Glen Siders, Bill Franz, John Beasley, Jim Menloe, John
Esten, Ann Esten, Tobu Wilson, Mike Cervantes, Susan Lutgendorf, Phillip Lutgendorf, Nancy Carlson,
Tim Weitzel, John Hudson, Sandra Hudson, Mike Pug he, Michael Zimmer, Lisa Ann Johnson, Meg
Barron, Tom Bender, Susan Bender, Esther Baker, David Lyndon, Todd Lyndon, Greg Downs, Daniel
Peoples, Rob Phipps
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action):
None
CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 4. 2006 MINUTES
Wright said that on page 4, 3rd paragraph, there was a missing word between "association" and the
phrase "to change". He said that the omission was insignificant but he just wanted to point that out. Wright
said that on page 5, last paragraph, the word "Mollen" should be "Mullin". Wright said that on page 6, 1st
paragraph, there is a misspelling of "Manville Association". Wright said that on page 7, 1st paragraph, the
surname of a speaker was incorrectly written as "Summerville" instead of "Summerwill". Wright said that
on page 8, 3rd paragraph, there were "random letters" after the word "accessory". Wright said these are all
small things that do not change the context of the October 4th, 2006 minutes, but he just wanted to point
them out.
MOTION: Leigh moved to approve the October 4th, 2006 minutes as submitted. Wright seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5:0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
EXC06-00022 Discussion of an application submitted by First American Bank requesting a special
exception for a proposed bank drive-through for property located in the Community Commercial
(CC-2) zone at Hawk Ridge and Highway 1.
Walz said that the board discussed this at its October meeting and requested additional information with
regard to queuing in the access drive where Hawkridge goes into Highway 1. Walz referred to a memo to
the board from Anissa Williams, a City traffic engineer, saying that there has been a traffic study
conducted and traffic engineers say they do not anticipate a problem, and if there is a problem they have
the ability to change a traffic signal. Walz said that while some queuing could take place on the drive, this
would only slow traffic on the private drive and not Highway 1 or Hawk Ridge. Angie Solberg,
representing the applicant, wrote that they anticipated 25-50 transactions a day. She doesn't anticipate it
will significantly increase above that.
Jeff Raines of Simonson and Associates said that he could answer any questions. There were no
questions from the board.
Public Hearino Closed
MOTION: Wright moved that EXC06-00022, an application submitted by First American Bank
requesting a special exception for a proposed bank drive-through for property located in the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 2 of 23
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at Hawk Ridge and Highway 1, be approved subject to
substantial compliance with site plan. Alexander seconded the motion.
Wright said board largely discussed this last month. This has to meet specific criteria for special exception
and it does. Wright said it appears there will be enough stacking space. There's undeveloped property to
west and north and that S3 landscaping should mitigate effects on residential area. Pedestrian area has
been accounted for in the site plan. Wright said that transportation facilities can support proposed use.
Drive-through lanes will be set back more than 10 feet and landscaped to the S3 standard. Rest of facility
screened to S2 level is sufficient. Lighting must comply with standards in the code, which will minimize
glare. The exception will not be detrimental to public welfare. It should not be injurious to other property
and property values. The underground storm water system should protect properties to east. Surrounding
uses are compatible with this proposal. This will not impede normal development. Adequate utilities and
drainage will be in place. Wright said that this proposal meets the regulations and standards applicable to
the special exception.
Wood said the letter from the City regarding traffic satisfies his concerns. He is voting in favor as well.
Shelangouski says she is still concerned about traffic but she said that a drive-thru isn't really the problem
with what she would perceive as a traffic issue. Alexander has read the minutes and despite her absence
last month, she feels comfortable in also voting in favor of the application. Leigh has nothing to add to the
discussion.
Motion was approved: 5:0
EXC06-00023 Discussion of an application submitted by USCOC of Greater Iowa for a special
exception to allow the construction and operation of a communications transmission facility in
the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone at 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard.
Walz said she received an email from Lawrence and Julie Lynch of 711 Elliot Court and submitted the
letter to the board. Walz said the applicant, USCOC of Greater Iowa, is requesting a special exception to
locate a cell phone tower in the CN-1 zone at 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard. The applicant, Walz said,
proposed to house the cell phone tower within a structural addition to one of the commercial buildings.
The proposed addition would be a clock tower, which would surround an existing lift for disabled persons.
The property surrounding Walden square is zoned residential-both single and multi-family.
Walz said that the tower meets the criteria that do apply. Walz then read the criteria: The proposed tower
must serve an area that cannot be served by an existing tower. Walz referred to the color-coded
coverage map provided by the applicant. The yellow, Walz said, showed the area of adequate reception if
in a car. The green showed the improvement of reception with the new tower. Walz noted that the area is
in a valley. Walz said the tower would need to be 56 feet high and none of the commercial structures are
tall enough to house the structure. A Lutheran Church, which is nearby, is not located in the valley, so the
applicant did not propose to house the structure on that church.
Walz read that the proposed tower must be constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure
and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. Walz referred to the map showing the Fareway
store (on-screen) as well as the Mr. Movies building. The artist's rendering illustrated what the clock tower
would look like. It will be on the side of Mr. Movies. A functional clock face will be on the side facing the
shopping center. Walz pointed to an archway that ran through the bottom of the structure for passage.
Walz mentioned that staff had some concerns. Walz said that there are safety issues with the one-entry
way archway and that it should be an open walkway so to provide safety at night. Walz said the other
issue is that the 56 foot tower is higher than the 35 foot building to which it will be attached.
Staff suggested that the tower's design should attempt to minimize the height difference and a provided a
sketch showing the elements that would help minimize the height and complement the surrounding
commercial architecture. She noted the roof line, variation in building materials and details that match the
existing building, and breaking the clock tower into distinct sections to reduce the height. Walz said that
the design should also address blank sides of the tower where there isn't a clock. Walz suggested that
applicant break up the blank sides with windows or louvers.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 3 of 23
Walz read that the proposed tower must be no taller than is necessary to provide the service intended.
Walz said that the applicant considered other designs but they weren't satisfactory, and the clock tower
was the solution preferred by the property owner. The cell phone engineer, Walz said, lists 60 feet as the
desired height but the applicant scaled it back to 56 feet to better match the surrounding building heights.
Antennae will be mounted at 50 feet within the tower.
Walz read that the proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the height of the tower from
a Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone and ID-RM Zone.
Walz read that any equipment associated with the tower facility must be enclosed in equipment shed or
building, which must adequately be screened from view and any adjacent residential or commercial
property. Walz pointed to row of existing garages behind commercial building. Walz said that applicant
proposed to add an identical. garage, which would house the equipment. Walz read that the proposed
tower would not need a back-up generator as a principal power source. Walz said the back-up generator
is only for emergencies and there would be no strobe lighting.
Walz read that the proposed tower should be designed and constructed to accommodate up to two
additional users, provided this additional capacity does not prevent the applicant from adequately
camouflaging the use. The proposed tower has adequate space to house another use, but due to
frequency conflicts and the limited height of the tower, the capacity for another user is limited.
Walz read that if the tower is discontinued, all communications equipment must be removed by the owner
of the tower or the owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of use. She said that the
applicant would remove all equipment from the inside. Staff requests that the applicant must make
arrangements for the maintenance of the tower if the should discontinue use.
Walz said that the staff recommended approval of the application subject to the following conditions:
1.) Maintaining continuous pedestrian sidewalk access to Walden Square from the west and ramp
access to the handicap lift.
2.) The applicant must provide a contractual agreement to insure maintenance of the clock and tower
including a provision for such maintenance if the applicant discontinues the use.
3.) Staff approval of the tower design in general compliance with the design submitted by staff.
4.) The applicant must agree to remove all equipment form the tower and garage if the applicant's use of
the site is discontinued.
Walz asked for any questions. Alexander asked if the tower design would include the open passage way
that Walz had mentioned. Walz said yes. Wright asked about the distance between Fareway and the
other building. Walz doesn't have exact measurement but estimates 20 feet. Walz said that the tower
would be within the required setback. Shelangouski asked if the storm or drainage sewer is on Fareway's
property. Walz said applicant would address such setback issues in the building permit process but for
now, Walz said they can build right up to the property line because the setback is O. Leigh asked for those
speaking in favor of application.
Public Hearinq Opened.
Tim Lynch. U.S. Cellular said that he is present with his engineers. Lynch expounded upon a few items.
Co-location, Lynch said yes, there's room for other users to use the tower. However, he said, there is a
necessary separation between antennae that may impede co-locators because of the small area that they
have to work with. Said the towers are capable of co-location but the small area may cause issues.
Lutheran Church, Lynch said it is outside the valley so it doesn't work very well from a coverage
standpoint. Said that because cellular is line of sight technology, the structure is not tall enough. to see
over the houses by the Lutheran Church. Plus, it's against residential district code, which limits to two
antennae. U.S. Cellular uses 3 antennas. Traffic issue, Lynch said a technician will visit the structure a
couple times a month, but no regular traffic. He is willing to comply with all recommendation of staff,
including a design that will satisfy concerns.
Leigh asked how close to the property line the tower will be built. Lynch said that the sidewalk will remain
the same, 20 feet between buildings, 15 feet from edge of sidewalk to Fareway. Lynch referred to
correspondence from another Lynch, joked that there's no relation. Wright wanted a sense of how wide
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 4 of 23
the structure will be. Lynch asks Kevin, his engineer. Lynch said that because of the city's request, they
are going to have to put on some sort of "skin" to achieve different colors, but he can't tell you the exact
size of it. It is going to come out over the sidewalk. Leigh asked about the reason why the antenna is not
being built to the desired height of 60 feet. Lynch said that if it was brought down to a lower height, it
would look better aesthetically. Lynch said he's going to lose some coverage area, but it still allows
coverage. It's not optimum, but it's better than what they have today. Walz said that if the tower gets too
high, the camouflage is lost.
Glen Siders. Southaate Development Services. owner of the property in auestion. He wanted to clear up
any questions. Siders said Fareway Foods is right on the property line but the drainage will be altered
very little. Said he worked with the "tower people" for months and went through several scenarios of
design, including a "sign structure". When they decided on the clock tower, they went through many
potential issues and the cellular company was very considerate with each one. Siders said that he would
appreciate approval so he could have better cell phone reception.
Leigh asked if anyone wished to speak against the application.
Public Hearina Closed.
MOTION: Alexander moved that EXC06-00023, discussion of an application submitted by USCOC
of Greater Iowa, requesting a special exception to locate a cell phone tower in the CN-1 zone at
755 Mormon Trek Boulevard, be approved subject to the following conditions:
. Maintaining continuous pedestrian sidewalk access to Walden Square from the west
and ramp access to the handicap lift.
. The applicant must provide a contractual agreement to insure maintenance of the clock
and tower including a provision for such maintenance if the applicant discontinues the
use.
. Staff approval of the tower design in general compliance with the design submitted by
staff.
. The applicant must agree to remove all equipment form the tower and garage if the
applicant's use of the site is discontinued.
Wright seconded the motion.
Alexander said she accepts cell phone needs and has one herself. She's impressed with the design,
considerations, architectural changes, and walk through changes of the application. She would vote in
favor because there was been good evidence of the peculiar situation of the valley. She commended the
camouflage and the staff recommendations. Alexander said that the height restrictions are being met.
Sure, she said, it's a bit shorter than their optimal hope but its better than what exists now. Alexander said
that the setbacks are sufficient and appreciated that the equipment would be housed in a garage.
Alexander was happy that there would be no strobe lighting. She was impressed with passageway and
said the tower would not be detrimental to public health, nor would it be injurious to other properties.
Alexander said the design should make it a perfectly fine addition. She reiterated that the phone and
electrical additions will be provided by applicant and that because there would be no traffic congestion
worries, they wouldn't have to deal with ingress and egress issues.
Wright agreed with Alexander and would vote in favor. Shelangouski agreed and called the tower a "great
way to hide a necessity." Wood agreed with Alexander and indicated he would vote in favor. Leigh
expressed her appreciation for the amount of effort that went in to this by both the cellular company and
Southgate. Leigh would also vote in favor.
Motion was approved: 5:0
EXC06-00025 Discussion of an application submitted by Frantz Construction Co. for a special
exception to allow a reduction in the required front yard setback from 13.5 feet to 0 feet in the high
density, multi-family (RM-44) zone at 724 N. Dubuque Street.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 5 of 23
Karen Howard said the applicant had purchased the former Alpha Tau Omega fraternity house and
intends to convert it into three condominium units. Howard said that the applicant would like to construct
balconies that extend approximately 5 feet from the north side of the existing building along the Brown
Street frontage. Howard said that the applicant would like to take off the existing fire egress structure,
which is outdated, and replace it with balconies. Howard referred to an illustration of the proposed
structure. Howard said it has to do with the setback requirement, which, according to the RM-44 Zone, is
20 feet. Howard said the zoning code allows for setback averaging since all of the buildings along this
block of Brown Street are located closer to the street than the required front setback. Howard said the
existing structure has been surveyed and the building already sits closer than 20 feet to the property line,
similar to the other buildings. It is 5.77 feet from the property line. Because this is a corner lot, the setback
is determined by averaging the existing setback of the dwelling on the abutting property to the east and
required setback in the RM-44 Zone, which is 20 feet. Howard said the applicant is requesting not only a
setback reduction for the balconies but an acknowledgement of the existing setback of this building so
they can do some construction. Howard said that there are certain criteria that an applicant must meet:
1.) The situation is peculiar to the property in question.
2.) There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements.
3.) Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations.
4.) Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent
practical.
5.) The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the
side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space.
In regards to number 2 of the criteria, Howard said that the existing property lines contain very little
parking. Thus, the applicant is proposing to excavate the hillside along Brown Street and construct
parking spaces within the basement of the existing building. Howard said that a balcony is also proposed
for the third floor, replacing the existing fire egress structure. Howard said the setback requirements are
intended to:
1.) Maintain light and air for the dwelling and provide separation and access for fire protection
2.) Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings
3.) Reflect the general building scale and placement of the houses in the city's neighborhoods
4.) Promote a reasonable physical relationship between residences
5.) Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity
Howard said reducing setbacks is typically not recommended. But in this case, it will not detract from any
of the stated purposes of setback requirements. Howard said that staff would have a concern if the
balconies were being constructed for a fraternity or sorority house. Balconies, Howard said, invite outdoor
activity. If the building is converted into 3 multi-family units, staff feels they won't be sharing living quarters
with as many people as a fraternity. Howard said the staff also feels that adding balconies will not detract
from privacy of the abutting property. Howard said staff also feels balconies will not detract privacy from
buildings across the street because of the wide right-of-way.
Howard said staff also wants board to consider that added balconies often become closed in over time.
That could mean building becomes larger. Staff requests that balconies do not become closed in over
time. Howard said that the driveway will be expanded and the existing access will stay as is. There will be
some new paving for cars to turn around. Howard said that applicant wanted an underground garage but
it was impossible because electrical problems and underground drainage. Howard said the screening
standard was similar to a three-car garage. Howard said garage level is not extending to the street.
Howard said the garage is flush with the other two. Howard stated staff recommendation and said their
have been revisions to the conditions listed in the original staff report:
1.) The setback reduction will only apply if the property is converted from a Group Living Use to a Multi-
Family Use. To that end, this special exception will become effective upon issuance of a building
permit to convert the building from a Group Living Use to a Multi-Family Use.
2.) The front setback along Brown Street is reduced from 13.5 feet to 0 feet for the first and second
levels of the building expressly for the purpose of constructing balconies in general conformance with
the design proposed by the applicant
3.) The front setback along Brown Street is reduced form 13.5 feet to 5 feet for the third level of the
building and for the lower garage level of the building
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 6 of 23
4.) The front setback reductions are approved only for the length of the building along the Brown street
frontage as proposed by the applicant
5.) A convent is recorded with the property that the subject balconies may not be enclosed. Evidence of
such recording must be submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Leigh asked if there is any additional parking. Howard said no, but converting form a fraternity, it'sa more
limited parking demand. Howard said that within the RM44 zone, there can be up to five unrelated
persons in each condominium dwelling. Howard said the applicant can address who their intending to rent
the condominiums to.
Public Hearinq Open
Bill Franz of Franz Construction, the applicant, said he can answer any questions. He said he will have 3
condominium units for sale. He will be providing 3 single car garage units and 3 outdoor spaces. Franz
said that the first and second floors are each 2,300 square feet. The third is 1,446 sq. feet. He said that
they will be, in Alexander's words, upscale condominiums.
Sarah Holecek said that the City doesn't have the ability to regulate whether the condos would be owner-
occupied or not. The purchaser could use it as a rental property as long as they obtained a renters permit
form the City.
Public Hearinq Closed
MOTION: Shelangouski moved that EXC06-00025, submitted by Frantz Construction Co. for
special exception to allow a reduction in the required front yard setback from 13.5 feet to 0 feet in
the high density, multi-family RM-44 Zone at 724 N. Dubuque Street, be approved according to the
staff conditions listed above. Wood seconded the motion.
Wood said the standard is peculiar to the property in question and the right-of-way is unusually wide. He
doesn't have concerns. Wood said there is practical difficulty in compliance with setback requirements
and it will provide some relief for parking. He said it will remove fire escapes that are "somewhat of an
eyesore". Wood said that it won't impact privacy of dwellings in that area. Wood is happy with the
requirement to keep the balconies open. Wood said that the special exception will not be detrimental to
public health, nor are other properties affected. Wood said that it will not impede normal and orderly
development in surrounding property. Wood said it will not affect ingress or egress. He will vote in
support.
Alexander agreed with Wood and would vote in favor. Shelangouski agreed with both Wood and
Alexander for reasons stated. She would vote in favor. Wright agreed with the Wood, Shelangouski and
Alexander. He called it an "attractive re-use of a building with potential". Leigh agreed with board.
Motion was approved: 5:0
Wood excused himself because he had somewhere to be at 7 pm. He said he didn't want to have to leave
in the middle of discussion of the next case.
APL04-0004 Discussion of an application from John Roffman for an appeal of the decision made
by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed
building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and
Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue.
Walz said this is somewhat of an unusual case for the board and appreciated everyone's preparation as
the reading materials were lengthy. Walz said that at its September 28, 2006 meeting, the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building at 923
Iowa Avenue. She said the original building was destroyed in the April 2006 tornado. Walz said the
appellant, John Roffman, was proposing a new building to replace the original building on the site.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 7 of 23
Walz said the HPC denied the Certificate of Appropriateness citing the mass and scale of the proposed
structure. Walz said the applicant believed the denial was actually based on the density of the proposed
building. Walz said that the new apartment building would include 6 three-bedroom unite apartments,
different from the original, which had 9 one-bedroom units. Walz said that the HPC guidelines that apply
to the proposal for 923 Iowa Avenue may be found in section 10.0 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Handbook. Walz said that at an earlier meeting, the HPC had requested a clarification from the Zoning
Interpretation Panel (ZIP). Walz said that the ZIP decision indicated that the specific limitations imposed
under section 8.2 apply only to single family buildings and duplexes and not to the multi-family building
under consideration. Walz said that the applicant revised his plans and provided final sketches of a
slightly smaller building.
Walz said the revisions meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Code. Walz said that the HPC has no
authority to regulate density of the underlying zone. Density, Walz said, is regulated exclusively through
the Zoning Code. Walz said that whatever people may wish for that sight in terms of density is done
through the Zoning Code. The only criteria in question were scale and mass. All other aspects met with
approval. Walz said the issue was, when the Historic Preservation Commission denied the Certificate,
was their decision based on scale and mass or was it based on what we consider density.
Walz referred to the original building (on screen) and said that the applicant's final proposal at the
September 28th meeting showed a building that was 52 feet wide by 69 feet deep. Walz said she made a
mistake on the memo. Instead of the roofline being just less than 28 feet, the new proposal's roofline was
in fact less than 34.9 feet. Walz said that the original 3-story building being replaced had a footprint of 42
by 50 feet and a roofline of 38 feet and ten inches. The roofline, Walz said, of the new proposed building
is about 4 feet shorter than the older building. Walz said that the authority of the HPC extends only to the
overall compatibility of that design with the surrounding neighborhood and district as described in section
10.0 of the handbook. Walz said the issues of scale and mass require interpretation based on the facts
specific to the application under consideration.
Walz said that she wanted to mention a couple of things she failed to note earlier. There is a page in the
appeal application showing other projects that have been approved by the HPC. The table focuses on the
change in depth that came with addition to various applications to the HPC. Walz said that a change in
depth is not necessarily a change in scale and mass. Walz said, for example a deep one story addition
may not be perceived in the same way in terms of scale and mass as if you are extending the entire
building. Mass and scale need to be applied in context. Walz pointed out an error in the percentage
increases indicated in the applicants table-those percentages are inflated. Walz said she is confident
that this was just a mistake. For example, one lists an increase of 239 percent. Walz said it's an increase
of a factor of 2.3 but that's a 139 percent increase.
Walz said that the board must decide based on the following:
1.) Were the criteria regarding scale and mass applied appropriately in this case?
2.) If you should decide that the Historic Preservation Commission acted in error, you may overturn the
decision or, by acting in the role of the Historic Preservation Commission, you may render a new
decision based on the facts presented in the attached documents or any additional testimony given at
this meeting
Walz said that the drawing before the board showed the front of the old building in bold line. The "ghosted
out" gray lines are setback 20 feet out but the building does come out a bit wider. But the front fac;:ade
doesn't represent the width of the whole building. Walz proceeded to show the rest of the slides. Walz
said that the illustrations showed the newly proposed building and the outlines of the buildings
surrounding the property.
Holecek said that in deciding this appeal, the board "steps into the shoes of the Historic Preservation
Commission", examines their decision and decides whether there were any underlying issues of arbitrary
or capricious pretext. Once you decide that initial inquiry, Holecek said, the second issue is how you are
going to decide: you can affirm or modify the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. Holecek
suggests the board splits it into two votes, as listed above. Holecek said that a modification might mean
the board says a dimension needs to be scaled back, for example.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 8 of 23
Alexander said she wanted clarification as to what kind of group the Historic Preservation Commission is.
Holecek said the Historic Preservation Commission has two functions: studies and recommendations for
the implementation of conservation districts within the city. Then they become quasi-judicial to give out
Certificates of Appropriateness. Holecek said that the Historic Preservation Commission is both legislative
and quasi-judicial. Holecek said that this issue is in the realm of quasi-judicial. Holecek said that the
board was provided with the minutes of the previous Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Holecek
said that the Historic Preservation Commission is empowered to address historic issues that relate to
design, architecture, and aesthetics.
Walz said that there is no staff report interpreting the Historic Preservation Commission meeting because
the evidence is in the minutes and transcripts.
Public Hearinq Open
John Beaslev, attorney speakinq on behalf of John Roffman in support of his appeal. Beasley said that he
brought some "school supplies", referring to his notebooks for the board. Beasley said that the
photographs at the Historic Preservation Commission presentation were shown via computer projection
and he felt these were not an accurate portrayal of "what was occurring out there". He felt his notebooks
were better. Beasley said his notebooks show 6 exhibits. The first is a representation of what Roffman
hopes to construct. The second, Beasley said, shows the West elevation. He did not include the east
because the Historic Preservation Commission concerns came from the west primarily. Beasley
requested an easel for his visual aides. Beasley said that exhibit two shows that they took an outline of
the proposed construction and took a dark line and superimposed what was there before the demolition.
This was done for both north and west elevations.
Leigh said that her understanding that on the sides, the proposed building goes out to the darker lines
drawn on Beasley's illustrations. Walz said that the lines represent the top roofline of the bay but yes, the
side of the building does come out to the darker lines. Walz urged Beasley to speak into the microphone
because the recording was not picking him up.
Beasley said that the third photograph shows a bird's eye view to show the relationship between the
building footprints. Beasley said the last depiction showed an expanded view to include the property
adjacent and the two properties to the west. The dark line, he said, would represent the previous footprint.
The light blue line would represent the proposed structure. Beasley said the photographs purpose were to
give the board another view of this mass-depth discussion.
Beasley said that exhibit 5's aerial views show the relationship between property to the west and multi-
family properties to the east. Beasley said he also included some photographs of some of the larger multi-
family structures not only adjacent to the property but in the nearby area as well. Beasley said the last
exhibit is a depiction of various other projects that increased the depth footprint in resulting mass of
various projects that have been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Beasley said he
attached the actual Certificate of Appropriateness that go along with the various projects. The point of the
Certificates, Beasley said, is to demonstrate that the Historic Preservation Commission has approved
similar requests in the past.
Beasley pointed the board's attention to a staff report pertaining to Roffman's proposal before the first
Historic Preservation Commission meeting, September 14, 2006. Beasley said this staff report discusses
the appropriate guidelines in relation to Roffman's proposal, in particular 10.0. Beasley said lighting,
parking, height, and building materials were all concerns of the staff. It indicates that this proposal
satisfies minimum point requirements for approval. There is no mention of depth, mass concerns, Beasley
said. Beasley said Roffman's architect sent a memo before September 14th meeting that responds to
concerns, also in board's packet. Beasley said that the concerns of the September 14th meeting,
according to minutes, are whether guideline 8.2 applies to a multi-family unit. Beasley said one reading
only 8.2 applies to multi-family and duplexes. Beasley said the Historic Preservation Commission
requested a deferment so Holecek's department can render a legal opinion. Beasley there was not
discussion about depth of west elevation. Beasley said that 8.2 doesn't apply, which was discussed at
September 28th meeting. Beasley said that the primary concerns is that the new building is going to have
6 units with 3 bedrooms a piece, which will result in a different clientele. Beasley said that the depth and
mass only become an issue at the September 28th meeting. Beasley's position was that zoning, not
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 9 of 23
Historic Preservation Commission, controls the density. The Historic Preservation Commission translated
concerns about the inside of the building and used the argument of depth and mass as a pretext.
Beasley said he looked at the guidelines and the one that was relied on by the Historic Preservation
Commission was building height/mass. Nothing else, he said, appeared to be an issue. Beasley said that
the history of the Historic Preservation Commission shows that when depth and mass has been
increased, they have not denied applications for Certificates of Appropriateness. Beasley read some of
the transcripts of the September 28th Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Beasley focused on
Carlson's quote, "There is nothing in our purview that reflects building depth. We have no say over that
whatsoever." Beasley said he doesn't believe the Historic Preservation Commission has the authority to
deny a certificate based on depth, regarding guideline 10.0. Beasley said there have been design
features put into West elevations to reduce visual mass. Beasley said that this project meets the minimum
point requirements. Beasley said that his view is that you need to read 10.1 and 10.2 together. Beasley
said that 10.1 offers subjective material but 10.2 is an effort to bring some objectivity to some of the
criteria that are outlined in 10.1. Beasley said that staff's position is that minimum point requirements
have been satisfied. Beasley said that the September 28th meeting brou~ht new concerns to Roffman that
were not staff concerns as presented in the previous September 14t meeting. Beasley said that the
Historic Preservation Commission's decision was a result of neighbor complaints, and this is not a basis
to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Historic Preservation Commission made a decision outside
of their purview, Beasley said.
Beasley said that there is a timeline to follow when submitting a Certificate of Denial, which the Historic
Preservation Commission did .not follow. Beasley said these are grounds for the board to issue a
Certificate of Appropriateness. Beasley asked the board if he could have "a couple minutes" to address
any concerns that the public may raise.
Jim Enloe, Colleqe Street. former Historic Preservation Commission board member. He asked for
clarification on Beasley's illustrations. Enloe requested to see the slide that showed the front elevation.
He said that the illustrations show a significant increase in the visual mass of the building. He said he
wanted to clarify that. He said he didn't take part in any of the Historic Preservation Commission's
deliberations on this issue. He said that the Historic Preservation Commission's function is to protect the
historic nature of architecture in a conservation district to make compatible decisions. Enloe said that
scale and mass are with the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission. Enloe said that the Historic
Preservation Commission hasn't approved all applications, as Beasley said. Enloe said the Historic
Preservation Commission has a considerable amount of expertise and this decision was not made to
stymie a developmental project. He said it was egregious to say this decision was a pretext. Enloe said
that the judgments of the Historic Preservation Commission should not be second-guessed by the BOA.
Ann Estin, Colleqe Street. She wanted to say she supports the Historic Preservation Commission. It is
important to her to preserve the historic values. She is concerned with the new evidence of the applicant.
Esten said that it seems to her the issue is whether the Historic Preservation Commission acted in an
arbitrary and capricious manner. Esten said that she attended the September 14th meeting and she heard
a lot of discussion of scale and mass. Esten said she thinks it's unfair to assess the Historic Preservation
Commission's findings based on Beasley's arguments that the neighbors' complaints influenced the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Phillip Lutqendorf. 911 Iowa Ave. Lutgendorf said that his house was also badly damaged in the tornado
and reconstruction has been a meticulous process. Lutgendorf was at both of the past Historic
Preservation Commission meetings-September 14th and 28th-and he said that scale and mass were
indeed discussed at both meetings. Lutgendorf said he brought them up. Lutgendorf said that the way the
overlays are put up now is more representative of a building that is 10 feet wider and 29 feet longer,
which is a significant increase. Lutgendorf said this is supposed to be a neighborhood of mixed-owner
occupied dwellings and in the last 20 years, the neighborhood has seen a transition to increased rental
properties. Lutgendorf said that families are moving out of the block because of the rental buildings.
Bu Wilson. Colleqe Street. Wilson agreed with previous speaker. His neighborhood is becoming an
increasingly irresponsible form of rental properties. Wilson said that Iowa Avenue is a historic street
because it was designed to have the Capitol on one end and the Governor's mansion on the other. He
said that the building at 932 Iowa was always out of scale but it was there. But to replace it with
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 10 of 23
something that was even more massive, Wilson said, is absurd. He said that the Historic Preservation
Commission deserves to be given its purview. It is wishes to take a broad view of its mandate, take the
broad view. He said history is not a matter of adding up points.
Mike Cervantes. 918 E. Washinqton Street. Cervantes said that he knows it's a mixed neighborhood. He
said he's 12 feet away from his neighbor on one side, to add 10 more feet would make it difficult. He said
12 feet would have a big impact on the neighborhood. He said he's not criticizing the design. He's
concerned about the increase in mass.
Susan Lutqendorf. 911 Iowa Ave. Lutgendorf read a letter from Wanda, a neighbor who had to leave the
meeting. The letter asked the board to respect the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Lutgendorf said that the comments of Roffman's attorney, calling the Historic Preservation Commission's
decision capricious, were not correct. Lutgendorf referred to the minutes of the September 14th Historic
Preservation Commission meeting. She read a comment made by her husband, which brought up scale
and mass. Lutgendorf said that the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission was well
considered. Lutgendorf said that she is spending a huge amount of money to reconstruct her own house.
The idea of a neighbor encroaching on the side and back, she said, changes the appearance and
devalues her property.
Nancv Carlson. 1002 E. Jefferson. Carlson referred to Beasley's comments that the Historic Preservation
Commission had approved numerous other additions and so they should approve Roffman's design.
Carlson said that she believed each case brought to the Historic Preservation Commission should be
treated independent of any other site's case. Carlson said that the people who have spoken here have
spoken because they have an investment in the neighborhood as neighbors. There is no monetary
investment. They want to protect the area they live in, Carlson said, and they are grateful for the help
from the City. Carlson said that in 2000 the city said they wanted mixed neighborhoods. Carlson said that
if we cannot work out a way where owner-occupied people can feel safe in their neighborhoods, then why
does the city continue to talk about mixed neighborhoods?
Tim Weitzel. Chair of Historic Preservation Commission. Weitzel said he wanted to make some
clarifications. Weitzel said that it was presented to the Historic Preservation Commission that the building
was beyond repair. Weitzel said that as far as new construction, there is a building on Dodge Street that
was allowed an increase in mass. However, he said, the building that replaced it stayed within
compatibility of scale and mass. Weitzel read various Historic Preservation Commission guidelines in
addition to 10.1. Weitzel read guideline 2.0 in its entirety. Weitzel read guideline 3.4 as his "fallback
position". Weitzel referred to guideline 8.2 and said that the Historic Preservation Commission initially
deferred the decision to seek legal advice in regards to their purview. Weitzel referred to guideline 9.0,
item 9, and read it in its entirety. Weitzel said that Historic Preservation Commission discussed scale and
mass in both meetings. He pointed out that both meetings should not be looked at as separate meetings.
The second was a continuation of the first meeting. Weitzel said that the original dimensions of the
building were 42x40x39 and the proposal would increase them to 46x69x36. Weitzel said that the
footprint went from 1680 to 3174, the frontage went from 1646 to 1656, and the total mass went from
65,520 cubic feet to 111,090 cubic feet. Weitzel said the Historic Preservation Commission needs some
latitude and it will not work if you make it a "flow chart process".
Alexander asked Holecek about the BOA's responsibility in this matter. Holecek said all commissions
have to apply the guidelines before them 'and it is the BOA's responsibility to decide whether the Historic
Preservation Commission followed such guidelines. Holecek said that while additional evidence can be
submitted to clarify things, all decision must come back to the guidelines. Holecek said that intent doesn't
get you far, you have to look at the law. Holecek reiterated that intent doesn't get you to the standard you
are applying. It sets out a goal, but not the law. Holecek said that it is the BOA's responsibility to look at
the evidence as objectively as possible, and apply the relevant guideline, 10.1, and find whether that was
appropriately applied by the Historic Preservation Commission in denying the Certificate of
Appropriateness.
John Beaslev. attornev soeakinq on behalf of John Roffman. Beasley said that this is not a historic
neighborhood, it's a conservation neighborhood. Beasley said that in exhibit 2, the difference of 10 feet
from the street is irrelevant because in the guideline that deal with issues of mass calculations are
inapplicable to multi-family. Beasley said that he's seen it all but he's never seen a person who is
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 11 of 23
supposed to be unbiased, impartial commission member come to an appeal and advocate on behalf on
one side or another, referring to Weitzel.
Jim Enloe. Colleqe Street. former Historic Preservation Commission board member. Menloe said the
issue of mass is not defined by the surface area of the fa9ade, but instead by the volumetric calculation of
width depths, and height, and it is in the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission. Alexander
asked for Enloe's view on "visual mass" and Enloe said he won't speak for the Historic Preservation
Commission but his view is that "visual mass" has to do with shape and size. Enloe said that, in this case,
visual mass is a large. increase. Enloe said that the Historic Preservation Commission has granted
increases in depth, but they have also denied increases in depth. Mass and scale, Enloe said, have
always played a part in any Historic Preservation Commission decision. Enloe said he does not believe
the Historic Preservation Commission acted capriciously.
Public Hearinq Closed
MOTION: Wright moved that APL04-0004 , an application from John Roffman for an appeal of the
decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness
for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone
and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue, be denied. Leigh seconded the
motion.
Wright said that the building in question will loom over the neighborhood even more than the original
building. Wright said the Historic Preservation Commission has a very difficult decision before them. he
issues that the Historic Preservation Commission had to take into account were multi-faceted. Wright said
that the Historic Preservation Commission acted within their purview. Wright said that there were larger
issues, such as the fact that the other residential properties are a good deal smaller than the proposed
structure, which, according to Wright, is a mass argument that the Historic Preservation Commission had
to take into account. Wright said it is a significant lot on Iowa Avenue. Wright said they did not act
capriciously or arbitrarily in their decision.
Alexander said that she is troubled with the findings. Alexander said that they need to base their decision
on the record and not on new evidence. Holecek said that the district court will allow additional evidence
in cases when a commission's decision is appealed. Alexander said she is sensitive to this topic because
the BOA has been appealed before. Alexander said she's sensitive to stated findings. Alexander said if
findings are not clearly stated, it puts the board in the position of "mind reading". Alexander said she's
concerned about the lack of finding of fact in the records she was provided. Alexander said that she's not
finding a lot of evidence in the record. Alexander said that there are things where one will talk about
density and neighborhood concerns, but when she's referred to 10.1, she doesn't know how to take such
new evidence into account. Alexander said that she doesn't know how to determine the intent of the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Wright said he is troubled as well. Wright said that guideline 10.1 is not a clear help. The transcripts are
"mixed" and he said that the question that BOA is being asked to respond is quite limited. Holecek
clarified that the board's job is to affirm whether the Historic Preservation Commission's decision was
based on 10.1? Or, Holecek said, another way to look at it is whether someone exceed their jurisdiction?
Alexander would like to send this back to commission and have them do it in a way to make it clearer. But
she said that she knows that is not in the board's jurisdiction. Alexander said that she doesn't like
meddling in the business of other commissions.
Shelangouski said that she agrees with Alexander's confusion. She said that she doesn't understand the
intention based on the Historic Preservation Commission based on the evidence provided.
Shelangouski voted against Wright's motion. She said that after reading through the material, it seemed
to her that when people gave their reasons, they always went back to something they weren't supposed
to consider. She said that she would vote against Wright's motion because of this. Alexander agreed with
Shelangouski's reasoning. Alexander said that she hopes there are lessons learned in terms of how
findings are stated by a commission. Alexander also voted against Wright's motion.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 12 of 23
Leigh voted in favor of Wright's motion. She agreed with his reasoning.
The motion fails: 2:2
Beasley asked about the issue regarding the HPC's failure to meet the time constraints in submitting their
denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Holecek said that it's the mere filing of the decision outside the
five-day limitation and she doesn't find any prejudice and it's not contained in the guidelines or the
ordinance to say that failure to meet the five-day time limit automatically results in a approval. Holecek
said, "Especially since it's already been on record." Alexander asked if they should make a separate
motion. Holecek said yes and Alexander requested Holecek to give them the appropriate language to do
so. Holecek offered the correct wording: "The motion to deny the appeal based on the HPC's failure to file
their decision denying their Certificate of Appropriateness within 5 days of the meeting."
MOTION: Shelangouski motioned that the appeal based on the Historic Preservation
Commission's failure to file their decision denying their Certificate of Appropriateness within 5
days of the meeting be denied. Alexander seconded the motion.
Leigh asked Holecek for clarification. Alexander said she will base her vote on Holecek's lack of damage
to the appellant. Shelangouski said that since nothing "spells out" that such a failure results in automatic
approval she will be voting for the denial. Leigh agreed. Wright also agreed with this.
The motion is approved: 4:0
VAR06-00001 Discussion of an application from John and Sandra Hudson for a variance from the
zoning requirements to allow up to twenty (20) residents for a rooming house located in the
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 932 E. College Street.
Walz noted that she had distributed correspondence to everyone. Some of which, she said, they had
received the previous day. She said there were letters from Hillary Sale, Christine Walters, Michelle
Campo, Matt Kressewick, and Pat Eckhardt. Walz said that Eckhardt's letter mentions she was on the
Board of Adjustment when the original variance was granted. However, Walz said, Eckhardt's letter is on
behalf of herself.
Walz said that the applicants, John and Sandra Hudson, are requesting a variance to allow up to 20
roomers to occupy the building located at 932 E. College Street in the Neighborhood Conservation (RNC-
12) Zone. Walz said that in 1997 a variance was granted to allow a rooming house for up to 30 residents
subject to three 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 outlines in the business plan for
Leighton House, L.C. dated July 1997: the density variance is not applicable to any successor in title
to the property.
2.) Any exterior change to the structure requiring a building permit requiring approval by the Historic
Preservation Commission
3.) The removal of the concrete basketball court located in front of the residence, and the installation of
landscaping instead.
Walz said that because of the first condition, the rights of the variance may not be transferred with the
sale of the property and therefore the current applicant is seeking a new variance. Walz noted that the
variance would be transferable to a buyer who purchases the property with the Leighton House LC and
operates the rooming house in accordance with the principles in the Leighton House business plan. Walz
said that in 1997, a variance was granted against the staff recommendation. Walz said the building had
fallen into a state of considerable disrepair, and the Board had cited a concern that the historic building
would be demolished and that the professionally supervised private women's dorm would be preferable to
the options that could potentially affect the property.
Walz said that the business plan on which the Board of Adjustment based its 1997 decision relied on the
then applicants' educational background, plans to provide twenty-four hour on-site management,
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 13 of 23
academic support, professionally prepared meals, housekeeping, transportation, offsite parking, security
and plans to renovate the building. Walz said that parking would be addressed through leased spaces in
the Chauncey Swan public parking ramp and that transportation would be provided to and from that ramp.
Walz said that in 2000, the property was rezoned from RNC-20 to RNC-12, which is intended to "stabilize
existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family residential character of
these neighborhoods and preventing existing multi-family uses in these neighborhoods from becoming
nonconforming (Ord. 94-3608, 2-1-1994)." Walz said that the RNC-12 zoning does not allow rooming
houses or fraternity/sorority houses. Walz said that under the new code RNC-12 is renamed
Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zone and has the same restriction on rooming houses.
Walz said that a variance was again applied for in 2005 to allow 30 roomers in order to continue the
Leighton House business plan under new ownership. The variance was denied. Walz said the Board cited
that such an increase would be contrary to the intent of the RNC-12 zoning and Comprehensive Plan.
Walz noted that the Board indicated that the applicants lacked the skills and experience necessary to run
a private dormitory and has provided no evidence of economic hardship. Walz said that in the absence of
a variance, the property is permitted as a rooming house with a maximum occupancy of 13 roomers. Walz
said that the property may also be used for other uses in the RNC-12 zone, including a single-family
home, a duplex or family care facility if 4 parking spaces could be provided. Walz said that through
special exception process, the building could be converted from its present non-conforming use to
another non-conforming use of equal or lesser intensity (section 14-4E-5B). Walz said this option is new
under new Zoning Code.
Walz said that the property has been non-conforming since 1983 and continues to be non-conforming
today for these two reasons:
1.) rooming house are not an allowed use in the RNS-12 zone
2.) the property does not provide the required minimum parking.
Walz said under zoning code regulations that were in effect at the time the building was a conforming
rooming or fraternity /sorority house, the property was permitted 13 roomers. Walz said under current
code, the maximum density in the RM-20 zone, which allows rooming houses, would allow 1 roomer per
550 square feet of lot area, that is 13 roomers. Walz said that the building at 932 College Street continues
to operate as a rooming house-a legal, nonconforming use allowing up to 13 roomers. Walz said
because the rooming house does not operate under the conditions of the 1997 variance, the rights of the
variance do not exist at this time.
Walz said that no variance to the strict application of any provision of the Zoning Chapter may be legally
granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following elements are present:
1.) Not contrary to the Public Interest
a. the proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor have a substantially adverse
affect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the
variance. Walz said that staff finds that the application does not meet this test. The property is
unable to provide adequate parking and the applicants have not addressed how to deal with the
additional demand for parking. In staff's opinion, the additional 7 roomers have the potential to
create additional demands for parking. Walz said that the applicants have proposed the property
as an intentional community but have not demonstrated that such a community functions any
differently than a rooming house. In addition, she said, such a use was not enforceable. Walz
said that in the 1997 variance the applicant had proposed to provide alternatives to on-street
parking but had not fulfilled that obligation.
b. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning
Chapter and will not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Walz
said that staff finds that this application does not meet this test either. Walz said that the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning map reflect the intention of the City to stabilize the surrounding
single-family neighborhood. Although it would be appropriate to allow the building to continue to
serve as a rooming house it would be contrary to the zoning to allow 7 additional roomers.
2.) Unnecessary Hardship. Walz noted that the test for this element consists of three prongs, each of
which must be proven by the applicant for the Board to legally grant a variance:
a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in
the zone where the property is located. Walz said that staff finds that the application does not
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 14 of 23
meet this test. The applicants have submitted financial information that shows that a rooming
house with 13 occupants cannot yield a reasonable rate of return based upon the current price of
the property. Walz said that the financial information shows that at least 17-18 roomers are
needed based on the current selling price. However, she said, the applicant must show more than
a diminishment of value. Diminishment of value is not sufficient to satisfy the test of inability to
yield a reasonable rate of return.
b. The owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question, and the situation is not
shared with other landowners in the area nor due to general conditions in the neighborhood. Walz
said that the staff finds that the application does not meet this test. Walz said there is nothing
special about the physical characteristics of the property that warrant special privileges to this
property that other rental properties in this neighborhood do not enjoy. Walz noted a comparison
chart of several other historic and non-historic rooming houses in the neighborhood.
c. The hardship is not of the landowner's or applicants own making or that of a predecessor in title.
Walz said that staff finds that application does not meet this test. She said that although changes
to zoning requirements were not caused by the property owner, the current owner's decision to
invest in the property based on the business plan was of their own making. The owner was aware
that the variance would not be transferable without the conditions of the business plan. Walz
referred to the letter submitted by Pat Eckhardt, who raised these issues. Eckhardt, who was a
member of the Board when the variance was granted, stated that the board members did not
understand how their decision would impact this property if the business failed.
Walz said it was important to be clear about the granting of the prior variance. She was providing some
excerpts from the minutes from the 1997 meeting in which the variance was granted. Walz said that,
according to the minutes of the public hearing, Hillary Sale, a member of the public, responded to a
question raised by the applicant Phipps. Sale stated that it is not that no one else could ever own that
property, it is just that the conditions have to go with the property. Sale also 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. Walz
then directed everyone's attention to page 21 of the 1997 minutes. 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. Phipps 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. Phipps said he
would not want them to change the concept. Phipps said he had no problem with the variance staying
with the business or the business concept. 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.
According to the minutes, Holecek said one could transfer the corporate entity that operates under the
same structure and not lose the variance.
Walz directed everyone's attention to page 26 of the 1997 minutes and quoted Pat Eckhardt. 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, a Board member, said it is the general idea that if
this concept fails, the issue is back to square one. Bender, also a Board member, said she though that
was really beyond the jurisdiction of the Board. She said if it does not succeed, it is the applicant's
problem. Bender 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. According to the minutes, Holecek said that was correct. She
said one could buy the limited corporation, but would have to continue to operate under that concept plan.
Walz said that the 1997 minutes make clear that it was discussed at the meeting that this very-detailed
business plan was what that earlier variance was subject to. It was the supervision of the building-the
Phipps plan to live in and run the building. Walz said that, as the Board had indicated at the time, we are
back to square one. Walz said that because the application does not meet any of the tests necessary for
the granting of a variance, the Board cannot legally approve this applicant for a variance. Therefore, Walz
said, staff recommends that VAR06-00001, an application submitted by Sandra and John Hudson for a
variance from the zoning ordinance to allow 20 roomers in a Neighborhood Conservation Residential
(RNC-12) zone at 932 E. College St. be denied.
Public Hearinq Open
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16,2006
Page 15 of 23
Sandra Hudson, co-applicant of VAR06-0001 referred to Walz's report as a livery interesting history" but
went on to clarify that it was based on someone else's application and not hers. She said she would
appreciate if Board pays attention to her application and her points. She has read the past minutes and
she will not repeat any of those points. She said that she wants to respond to the arguments that staff has
made. Staff reports state that RNC-12 is intended to stabilize existing residential neighborhoods by
preserving the predominantly single-family character and preventing multi-family uses from becoming
non-conforming. Hudson submitted a document to the Board and referred to the color-coded map on the
first page. The color pink is the subject property, 932 E. College St. The blue parcel indicates a
condominium. Green dots indicate owner-occupied homes. Red dots are rental properties. Blue dots
represent apartment buildings. The four shaded plots indicate rooming houses. Hudson said 33 of the 41
buildings were built prior to 1930. Hudson said that makes them historical. 18 of the 41 continue to serve
the purpose. 16 are still single-family homes. 12 are owner occupied. 218 S. Summit St. still functions as
an apartment building. 932 E. College still functions as student housing. Hudson said she was surprised
at suggestions of alternative uses for this property. Hudson said this does not comply with standards with
historic preservation. Hudson said less than one-fifth of one percent of the city's housing stock consists of
buildings that have been designed to function as intentional communities. Hudson said in the coming
decade more and more of these buildings will be lost to demolition or adaptive re-use. Hudson said more
than one-quarter of 932 E. College is allocated to communal use. Hudson said that of the neighbors 41
properties, a little more than half of them are conversions and new construction, which have caused de-
stabilization. 11 have become 35 dwelling units, housing 71 occupants. 3 historic single-family homes
have been converted to rooming houses. 1 has been converted to a sorority house with 20 occupants. 7
have been demolished and replaced with 87 apartments, with 364 occupants. Hudson said this
demonstrates this neighborhood is not predominantly single-family homes.
Hudson said it also demonstrates the neighborhood has changed more than the 932 E. College St.
property. Hudson said since the buildings construction in 1924, the building's dimensions and use have
never changed. Hudson said the living area of 8752 sq. feet has always been greater than the lot size of
7,440 sq. feet. Hudson said this makes the building peculiar and unique. Hudson said since the first
zoning legislation in the mid-20th century, the ratio between the lot size and building size has been a
problem. Each down-zoning has placed the property more and more out of conformity. Hudson said she
intends to show that staff reports formula of 1 roomer per 550 sq. feet is unreasonable. Hudson said the
building was designed to house college students. Regardless of ownership, Hudson said, the function has
been consistent. Hudson said the staff uses "arbitrary formula" based upon lot size, which is rational for
new construction but grossly unfair when calculating occupancy rates for existing buildings. Hudson said
that 932 E. College St. provides more living space for each occupant, even with 20 tenants. Hudson said
that property is never below 20 occupants, when it can go up to 41
Hudson said the property faces hardship. When you reduce the number of occupants, it is impossible for
an owner to adjust since it's impossible for an owner to reduce the size of an existing structure. Hudson
said the size of the structure carries an inherent cost of operation. Hudson used Gillette razors and
Hewlett-Packard printers as analogies to her point that the real cost comes in the upkeep of something,
whether it be a product or a property. Hudson said that she'd been offered property in the past for a low
price but after examining the financials, she did not buy because the cost of operation was more annually
than the purchase price. Hudson said she wants to demonstrate the difference between purchase price
and cost of operations, which do not adjust with occupancy rates. Hudson said when an existing building
has fewer occupants than it was designed to serve, the owner will face difficult financial hardships.
Hudson said this property is already beginning to show deferred maintenance. Hudson said this trend will
affect the neighborhood. Hudson said that a property that suffers from deferred maintenance will attract
less-responsible tenants and this will affect the neighborhood. Hudson said the property owner will not be
responsive to neighborhood concerns. She said that this example was the reason for past problems that
the neighborhood experienced with tenants of 932 E. College St. Hudson said if an occupancy rate of 13
is implanted, the income will be reduced by 35 percent, which creates financial hardship. Hudson said
pre-renovation floor plans indicate this building was built with 22 bedrooms. Hudson said an occupancy'
rate of 20 is therefore lower than what the building was built to maintain. Hudson said that allowing pre-
existing occupancy to continue will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Hudson said this property
cannot yield a reasonable turn if zoning codes are applied retroactively.
Hudson said this entire discussion demonstrates the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance,
specifically the formula used to calculate occupancy rates. Hudson said that staff reports say that the
inequities that have resulted from this property are a result of zoning. They have nothing to do with any
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 16 of 23
action or inaction of private prior owners. Hudson said this supports her position. Hudson said the Board
of 1997 also agreed. Hudson said the staff reports the applicant's property is in the part of a city that has
limited parking and the applicants have made no provisions to address the additional parking demands
created by additional roomers. Hudson said in 1997 the Board granted a variance on the condition a
shuttle be provided. That service is provided by the city, Hudson said. Hudson said increased traffic is not
the owner's doing-it's societal. Hudson reiterated that the building has maintained its original form and
function since 1924. Therefore, Hudson said, it's far less a contributing factor to the parking problem than
the majority of its neighbors. Hudson said this property pre-dated all zoning and preponderance of
automobiles. Hudson said it is physically impossible to meet current zoning codes. Hudson listed two
alternative ways to solve the parking problem: resident stickers and selected streets made one-way.
Hudson said the nineteen members of the UI track team, who occupy the property, only have 6 cars.
While she doesn't assume this number will stay the same, she does say that an intentional community will
most likely share automobiles. Hudson said that intentional communal residences are no longer being
built, making the 932 E. College property rare. Hudson said the current tenants are responsible young
men. Hudson said 13 occupants will result in an under-funding for 932 E. College St., which will cause the
neighborhood to fall into a downward spiral. Hudson said a variance will provide a healthy future for both
the building and the neighborhood. Hudson asked Board to look at her application and no one else's.
John Hudson. co-applicant of VAR06-00001. Hudson said he is going to read two letters, the first being
from Patricia Eckhardt, former chair of Board. The letter stated that the variance for 932 E. College St. in
1997 was applied only to the Leighton House L.C. and did not run with the land. Eckhardt did not foresee
that a variance applied to only one property owner might lead to problems in the future. Eckhardt wrote
that a low density of 13 people cannot 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. Eckhardt wrote
that the College Hill House is a building constructed for group living. She wrote 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. Eckhardt wrote that a higher density would ironically
benefit this building and this neighborhood.
Hudson said he would like to read a second letter written by Mark Kresowik, President of University of
Iowa Student Government. Kresowik wrote a primary issue is parking and denying the variance will
increase the parking problem. As far as conduct, Kresowik argued that denying the variance will increase
disorderly conduct. Kresowik wrote that the current tenants, members of the UI track team, are
exemplary. Kresowik wrote that the tenants only own 6 vehicles and if the variance is denied, single
tenants will come with more vehicles. As far as future occupants, Kresowik wrote that if the Board denies
the variance, these responsible students will be forced to vacate and the Hudson's will no longer own the
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. Kresowik wrote that he feels these
younger members of our community are sometimes denied that fair hearing. Kresowik wrote that at a
neighborhood gathering to discuss the variance application, to which a representative of the UI track team
was given an invitation, they were asked to leave before the meeting and prevented from discussing the
issues at stake. Kresowik wrote that some members of the 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. Kresowik wrote that the Hudsons 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 them the variance, Kresowik wrote, and move this community forward together. Hudson said Sarah
has both of these letters and he hopes they will become part of the record.
Rob Phipps. one of the owners of 932 E. ColleQe St. Phipps said when he bought it in 1998, he bought it
for $248,000. Phipps said he spent $400,000 on the building to turn it into a private woman's dormitory.
After three years, Phipps said, it became evident that it wasn't working. Phipps said he tried alternative
ways, which were not successful. Phipps said that last year, they tried to run the building as a 13-person
rooming house and described it as "the worst year ever". It wasn't an intentional living situation, Phipps
said, and there were all sorts of problems and he doesn't want the building to go through that again.
Phipps reiterated S. Hudson's point that the Board should consider her application and not his. Phipps
called the building a wonderful historic building for student housing since 1924.
Daniel Peoples, UI Track Team member. 932 E. College Street. Peoples said he has a group of letters
from the residents, similar to the letter he would like to read aloud. Peoples said as a house, they have
tried to reach out to the neighborhood. They have received a negative response. Most are unwilling to talk
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 17 of 23
to them. They held an open house and no one showed up. Peoples said he has heard many complaints
from the neighborhood, calling the house "fraternity-like". Peoples said the house is far from that. Peoples
said he does not have large parties. We are a group of responsible student athletes. Peoples said that the
parking claim is false because he drives daily and never has trouble finding parking. Peoples said that
there are 19 residents and only 6 vehicles. Peoples said that the Alpha Phi house has a parking lot but he
always sees their cars on his street. Peoples said his housemates have caused no problems and the
living situation has had a positive effect on their growth as at team. We are not normal college students.
Their lives do not revolve around going to the bars and having house parties. Peoples said he feels that
the neighbors have unfairly judged them. Peoples said they have not been given the chance to become
part of the neighborhood.
Greq Downs. real estate appraiser. Downs said he's been asked to quantify the effective value of the
property for possible reduction in the maximum occupancy. He said he used 20 persons as his business
model. His concern was the question, how does the property operate at 20 persons as opposed to 13.
Downs said the current rental permit lists the property as an owner's apartment unit with a total
occupancy of 30 persons. The property is currently leased under a master agreement with a group of the
UI Track Team. The leases are annual leases and the average rate is $372 per month, per person.
Downs said that the tenants also pay utilities. The landlord pays all of the repairs, inspections, and
maintenance. Downs said he has appraised this property twice. In 1998, this full-service rooming facility
was new to the community and attracting clients was difficult. Downs said that expenses proved to be to
great for the limited demand. The owner reported that they had purchased the property for $240,000 and
had invested $400,000 dollars. In his 2005 appraisal, Downs said that the property was listed for sale at
$595,000. Downs said in his opinion double occupancy rooms is not probable. The most probable
occupancy is 16-18 persons. His financial analysis estimates the gross income at $79,000 and expenses
at $29,000. Downs said that taxes have increased about $5,000. Current monthly rent is $7,050 or
$84,260 per year. We consider a discount for vacancy and credit loss at 5 percent, so the effective gross
income, Downs said, is $80,370. Downs projected the following expenses:
1.) Taxes - $24,254
2.) Insurance - $3,300
3.) Management and Leasing - 6 percent, or $4,822
4.) Maintenance - $4,000
5.) Alarm and fire systems - $1,800
6.) Additional charge for replacing long term items - 2 percent, or $1,608
Downs said that the total expenses are therefore at $39,784 or a net operating income at $40,586.
Capitalization rates are estimated at 18.5 percent and using the formula for income over rate for direct
capitalization the indicated value at 8 percent is $507,325 dollars. Downs said if one estimated a value of
the property to be $525,000 with a 75 percent loan at 7.25 percent for twenty years, the mortgage amount
would be $393,750, the down payment at $131,250, and the monthly payment would be $3,112. The
cash on cash return of the down payment is 2.7 percent annually. Down said if the occupancy was
reduced to 13 roomers, expenses would not vary to a great extent. Assuming 13 persons are in
occupancy, Downs said, paying $375 dollars a month each, the gross potential income is $58,500 per
year. Effective gross income after vacancy and credit loss is $55,575. Downs said that the taxes would go
down to $16,000. Insurance would not change, but he would reduce the maintenance charge. Downs said
with such reductions, the operating expenses would remain at $25,294 dollars and the net operating
income is at $30,281. Using 8 percent overall capitalization rate, the property value is estimated at
$378,512. If one estimated the value at $380,000 and assumed a 75 percent loan to value ratio for 7.25
percent mortgage, the monthly payment would be $2,252.57 on a mortgage of $285,000. Downs said
reducing the occupancies reduces the value from $507,300 to $378,000, based on occupancy of 13
persons. Downs said that rental properties are based on the net income produced. Downs said such a
reduction is not financially feasible to convert this to a multi-family dwelling. Downs does not feel that
occupancy of 30 persons is realistic but a reduction to 13 will materially affect the value of the property.
Downs said occupancy of 20 is feasible from a financial and practical point of view. The property currently
pays $24,254 in property taxes. Downs said that residential properties are one to two family dwellings and
receive a rollback to approximately 46 percent. A home of $175,000 pays taxes of $3,059 per year.
Downs said a property worth $200,000 pays taxes of $3,500 dollars and this property pays taxes
equivalent to 7 or 8 single-family residences. Downs said that fraternities and sororities are treated as
residential properties. Downs used the Sigma Nu fraternity as an example, which enjoys a residential
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 18 of 23
rollback. Downs said in his opinions the owners investment of $650,000 exceeds the estimated value
even if the property is capped at 20 persons. Downs said that if the occupancy was capped at 20, the
property value would be estimated at $520-540,000, in his opinion.
Downs said he is amazed at the wear and tear of the fraternities and sororities he has appraised, unlike
the property at 932 E. College Street, which appears to him to be in very good shape.
Mike Puqh. council for Leiqhton House L.C. Pugh said his purpose is to show that the applicants show
unnecessary hardship in connection with the request for their variance. Pugh said that the Iowa Code
provides BOA authority to grant variances as long as they are consistent with public interest. So that the
spirit of the ordinance be observed and justice done, Pugh said that the city code requires the Board to
find that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if required to comply with the
requirements and standards specified in the zoning code, this is also known as the reasonable rate of
return requirement. Pugh said the Iowa Supreme court stated that in claiming unnecessary hardship, the
applicant must show each of the following:
1.) the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose allowed in that zone
2.) the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not conditions of the neighborhood
3.) the use will not alter the central character of the neighborhood
Pugh said that Iowa courts have found that in order to justify a variance it must be proven that the strict
application of the city law practically destroys the value of the property. Pugh said the Iowa Supreme
court, in defining unnecessary hardship in a Deardorf case, cited the following definition: by way of
guiding principal it may be said that a variance should be granted where the application of a regulation of
a particular property greatly decreases or destroys its value for use. Pugh said the granting is appropriate
even in situations where some value remains in the property. Pugh said that if you apply a very strict
interpretation of the Supreme Courts definition in which a variance cannot be granted unless property
value is destroyed, a Board of Adjustment would serve no practical purpose in approving or denying
variances. Peot said this was not the intent of the legislator. Instead, Pugh said, the Board should focus
their attention on the Supreme Court standard on whether or not the application is able to show a strict
application of the zoning ordinance greatly decreases the value of the property. Pugh said that in 1997,
the Board of Adjustment found that to restore the historic integrity of this structure will require some up
front capital investment. Pugh said that capital investment has been made, in an amount exceeding
$400,000. Pugh said previous testimonies have illustrated a reasonable return could not be realized with
permitted use of 13 roomers. Pugh said that Downs said using the property as a single-family home,
duplex, or family care facility would require a significant additional capital investment. This, Pugh said, is
not practical. Pugh said that in the owner's original investment with Leighton House, even if Leighton
House failed, the owner had the safety of falling back on a twenty-person occupancy building or as a
fraternity or a sorority house. The downsizing, Pugh said, occurred in 2000 when the owner was still
trying to make the property profitable.
The granting of variances is necessary to diffuse certain situations that may give rise to constitutional
challenges if zoning ordinances is strictly applied. Pugh said that the variance is a "legal safety valve."
Pugh said that what is before the Board is a request to strike a balance between the property owner and
the neighborhood. Pugh said that the property owner is coming to the Board with a suggestion that it
would agree to a variance of 20 roomers, which would in actuality be 10 less than what is permitted by an
original variance. Pugh said the property is not located in a single-family area. Pugh said there are only
12 out of 41 residences that are single-family residences. Pugh said 13 roomers would be the lowest
occupancy that this building has ever experienced. Pugh referenced the decision of the 1997 Board
decision, which stated "there is no other viable economic use for the property other than as a student
rooming house." Pugh said that they consider the application to be a compromise variance; it reduces the
current variance from 30 to 20 roomers. Pugh said it is good for the property owner. Pugh said this
variance is good for the city because it recognizes the significant investment this owner has made into a
historic property. Pugh said that when the staff says they can't legally grant a variance, it's a loaded
recommendation that the staff is not qualified to make. Pugh requested a copy of the letters and excerpts
of minutes from the 1997 Board of Adjustment meeting.
Davis Lvndon. current contractinq manaqer of the 932 E. Colleqe buildinq. Lyndon said he is 21 years old
and a junior at the University of Iowa. Lyndon said that seven of the 19 tenants will be 21 by December of
2006 and everyone in the house is above the age 19. Lyndon said the cross country team has the highest
grade point average among the athletic programs at the university. Lyndon said that they have an
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 19 of 23
established house government. Lyndon said they have an advisory council to deal with this issue. Lyndon
said he is extremely proud of his housemates. Lyndon said they have tried to reach out to the community
with their open house and he is asking the Board to grant the variance so they may continue their
tradition of excellence both on and off the field. Wright asked if his position as manager is a paid position.
Lyndon said yes, he receives $500 a month.
Susan Bender, former Board of Adiustment member. Bender said she served on the Board when the
original variance was granted. Bender said she would like to make four points. Bender said she is the
only person who toured the extremely run-down fraternity building. Bender said it was the filthiest house
she'd ever seen. Bender said the inside was destroyed and the neighbors she had spoken to were
relieved about the plan to restore the house by Phipps. Bender said she understands what a thankless
job this can be. Bender said it was the city staff liaison, Melanie Rockwell, who left department after her
five year term, who said it was the Board's job to provide a system of checks and balances. Bender said
that there are exemplary people here, referring to the Hudsons, who are trying to make this a win-win
situation for everyone. Bender said this is not contrary to the public's interest but is in fact keeping to the
down zoning in 2000 where the primary justification was the preservation of the historic character of the
neighborhood. Bender said it's also in keeping with the zoning ordinance to permit the full use and
enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. Bender said she hopes
the Board is not confused by the assertion of the staff that the Hudsons are requesting additional 7
residents. Bender said the applicants are willing to accept 20 tenants, which is 10 less than the original
variance. Bender alluded to the previous testimonies of Downs and Peot. Bender said that she concurs
with Pat Eckhardt when she writes that the Board had no idea what a hardship this condition would place
on the owners of this historic property. Bender said she never had city planning staff offer rebuttal as part
of their report. She found this disturbing. Bender hoped that the Board will learn from her mistake. Bender
said mistakes are to be expected because "we are community volunteers, we are not professionals". She
believed that the 1997 Board made a mistake in tying the variance so specifically to a business plan.
Bender said she found in interesting that a reduction in parking was grandfathered in for the other
fraternity that the Board talked about tonight and she found this "curious".
Tom Bender. husband of Susan Bender. Bender said he is here in support of the Hudson's variance
request. Bender said that he has been involved in real estate and insurance, where he worked with small
business people. Bender said that what he finds most disturbing is that they took a business plan and
misused it by tying it to the property, which is a gross misuse of what a business plan is supposed to do.
Bender said that he has never been associated with a business plan that didn't have to change. Bender
said when they tied the variance to a business plan, they "hard wired" Leighton House to fail. Benders
said that Phipps has to sell his property for an amount considerably less than what he spent. Bender said
that right thing to happen is to cut Phipps "a little slack" and "stem the bleeding". Bender said that S.
Hudson knows what she's doing and she will make this a success. Bender said he hopes something like
this will never, ever happen again.
Todd Lvndon, father of Davis Lvndon. Lyndon said that last year he looked for a bigger house to buy with
the notion they would pull a group of guys that had an affinity for one another. Lyndon said that there are
precious few facilities left in Iowa City and he was happy when they toured the 932 E. College building.
He offered to buy the building and encountered a lot of concern about his intentions. Lyndon said that he
is proud of the tenants and their goal is to create a tradition where the place would not be occupied by
transients. Lyndon said the he is trying to establish an intentional community. Lyndon said he can't
guarantee that the kinds of people that live in the building will always be exemplary. Lyndon said that the
notion is how we need to work together with the neighborhood to create a model that could work. Lyndon
said neighborhoods are optimal when they are diverse. Lyndon said that the building was designed for
student housing and a team like the track team would create a sense of diversity. Lyndon said that the
Board's decision might have the same effect as the tornado that came through the city in April. Lyndon
said that a building occupancy of 13 is not financially feasible and it won't work. Lyndon asked the Board
to endorse the variance and he said that he would love to work with the neighborhoods. Lyndon said that
he empathizes with neighborhood concerns but they need to sit down and talk about what they need to
do to make this a success.
Jim Estin, Colleae Street. Esten said what happens to this facility deeply matters to neighbors. Estin said
that some of the neighbors really need to look to the Board for some clarity as to what this is about. Estin
said the Board should oppose this variance request. Estin bought a house about a year ago and put in a
lot of money into converting it into a single-family house. Estin said that the stabilized zoning affected his
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 20 of 23
decision to invest money into the house. Estin is relying on the city's down zoning the neighborhood and
goal of stabilizing and preserving the character of the neighborhood. Estin said it is clear that the decision
of the 1997 Board to tie it to a business plan was not made by the Board but they merely approved what
was submitted by the owner. Estin said that this request is not to reduce the occupancy from 30 to 20
because the occupancy at the moment is 13. So the request does represent an increase. Estin said
parking is a problem. Estin there are consistently illegally parked cars in the alley, which is some sign that
parking is problematic. Estin said he has to call the police and this puts him in an uncomfortable situation.
This is not a win-win situation. Estin said that to increase the occupancy in the neighborhood is to
increase problems in parking. Estin said this proposal undermines the stabilization goals of the
neighborhood. Estin said it's not just neighbors that have been misled, but the current tenants as well.
Estin said the decision of the Board has very long lasting results that cannot be predicted. Estin said
current zoning does not allow for fraternities and the Daily Iowan for today stated that the building "feels
like a fraternity". Estin agreed with this statement.
Meq Barron. lives in back of the Leiqhton House. Barron said she's lived there for thirty years and she's
seen people come and go. Barron commended the tenants but said they will leave like the rest of them
and the variance will stay, which might bring in tenants who are not so commendable.
Bu Wilson, 1110 E. Colleqe St. Wilson said she will look at the financial issue from various aspects.
Wilson commended the current tenants. Wilson said that she would like to start with the possibility that
the tenants have been mislead. She referenced the Daily Iowan article on 9-20-06 that stated the building
occupancy must be reduced from 20 to 13. Wilson quoted a letter addressed to Mr. Pugh that stated that
the building's occupancy can only remain until December 31, 2006 but if the occupancy is not reduced to
13 after that, legal action will be taken. Wilson said she feels for these young men because they were
mislead and now they're being evicted. Wilson said she would like to speak of the hardship in question.
Wilson said she didn't know anything about the open house. Wilson said it was the current owner's
decision to put all of his eggs in one basket. Wilson said it is unfortunate that he going to lose money on
it, but it's the result of business decisions, not zoning. Wilson heard that the owner was present at the
2000 zoning hearings but did not speak to the issue. Wilson said 942 Iowa Ave has some similarities to
the Leighton House. The building is an 8-rooming unit. They don't have a kitchen or dining room that can
seat 30 and they don't have an exercise room. Wilson said the roomers don't have a large living room
with a fire place. The residents of this building pay 380 dollars a month, which is less than some of the
current tenants of Leighton House and they are living in smaller spaces. Wilson was bothered by the fact
that variance would be tied to the property. As a property owner, this bothered Wilson. Wilson bought a
house for more money because it was located in a historic district. Wilson said it was money well spent,
as long as the zoning laws are strictly enforced. Wilson said the Leighton house was a result of unwise
business decisions and her property values should not devalue because of them.
Jim Enloe. Colleqe Street. Enloe said he was not aware of the open house. Enloe said he wanted to
reiterate what Bu had said regarding business decisions to restore the Leighton House to much better
condition. It was a business decision, Enloe said, that was not predicated upon having to have a specific
zoning protection forever and ever because the money has already been spent. It may not have been a
wise decision. Who knows what the future may bring, Enloe said, and they want to try to tie this to the
property and hope that the building is always occupied by affinity groups but there's no guarantee. Enloe
said he's tied to this community in a very long term way and the zoning is there to protect those who live
in these neighborhoods. Enloe said the Board has a duty to protect the residents of Iowa City, and they
don't know what the future is going to hold. Enloe said if they are currently in violation of a zoning
ordinance that is a result of bad business decisions. We shouldn't have to pay for this. Enloe said the
business plan that was originally for the first variance granted in 1997 was not to protect the owner; it was
a condition to gain the variance. Enloe said the business plan was not very "long followed". Enloe cited
the parking trouble and it's quite contentious at times, particular game weekends. Such problems would
be exacerbated if the variance was granted.
Esther Baker, 1022 E. Colleqe St. Baker said granting this variance gives these property owners a
privilege that other business people are not allowed. Baker said she's concerned that this variance will set
a precedent in which other businesses will come to the Board for similar requests and this will lead to
destabilization. Baker commended the tenants but said they're graduating soon and who's to say the
track team will carryon the tradition? Baker said there are no insurances that exemplary tenants will
always occupy the Leighton House. Baker she likes the idea of such an "utopia" but in the long term, the
tenants and the owners are temporary and the variance is permanent. Baker said she bought her house 4
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 21 of 23
years ago and down zoning was the reason she invested in the neighborhood. Baker said this variance
would create a "slipper-slope" for other similar variances.
John Morrison, 115 S. Summit. Morrison said that this variance lasts as long as they have it. The track
team doesn't guarantee anything. Morrison feared another fraternity, with tenants who weren't even
"house broken". Morrison said he's concerned what will happen if things don't work out.
Lisa Ann Johnson, President of River City Housino Cooperative. Johnson said the RCHC is placed in a
difficult position of speaking to the matter, as they are an intentional committee with members who are
predominantly students. Johnson said her group has also been held to unfair stereotypes, similar to the
tenants of the Leighton House. Johnson said she has to speak to what her members decided at a recent
Board meeting. Johnson said the RCHC has supported organizations and individuals who wish to
establish an intentional community in Iowa City. Johnson said the RCHC has strong concerns about the
variance being requested. Johnson said the Hudsons have not stated a clear plan for future oversight nor
have they stated a plan for accountability. Within the past 3 months, Johnson's members have found that
the current Leighton House tenants' "naked run" was not appreciated by come neighbors. Johnson said
that noise in the late evenings coming from the tenants have been disruptive. Johnson wanted to note it's
not about the current members, who are commendable. Johnson said there are creative solutions out
there for running a housing system for 13 tenants. Johnson said members said granting this variance will
change the dynamics of the neighborhood. Johnson said she's asking the Board to deny the variance.
Alexander asked Johnson to define "intentional community". Johnson said there are various definitions.
Johnson said there are "non-profit" collectives, in which the Hudsons do not fall under this category.
Johnson said there are "work collective" communities and some can be as simple as saying "we're just a
bunch of people who want to live together." So there isn't a clear definition, Johnson said.
Michael Zimmer. treasurer of the River City Housinq Cooperative. Zimmer said he is worried about their
finances. Zimmer said the Hudsons are trying to establish hardship. Zimmer said he can only have 12
people in his house and they are able to make a profit because they demand a rate of return. Zimmer
said he doesn't understand how the Hudsons can't make a return. Also, Zimmer said, the noise is also a
problem. Zimmer mentioned parties at the Leighton House and he said the naked run concerns him
because there are "young females who are impressionable".
Ann Esten, College Street. Esten said she supports the comments that were made in favor of denying the
application for variance. Esten said 20 is an extraordinary number of people.
Susan Lutoendorf. 911 Iowa Ave. Lutgendorf said College St. is a street where people care about a
single-family neighborhood. Lutgendorf appreciates the concerns of the Hudsons to keep up the
neighborhood, she is concerned about the permanence of such a variance.
Mike Puoh, council for Leiohton House L.C. Pugh said he wanted to introduce the rental permit for the
property into the record. It rebuts that the property is only allowed for 13 roomers. Pugh said the rental
permit allows 30 roomers. Peot said the variance will be in existence as long as the business plan is
followed. Pugh said they're asking for a reduction to 20. Pugh said complaints about properties are
reported to the city and the properties report has a very clean record. Pugh said in his guess if you look at
other rooming houses, the complaints will be very high.
Alexander asked for clarification from the city regarding the conflicting testimony regarding the legal
occupancy of the Leighton House. Pugh said that, with the down zoning, the property occupancy is for 13
roomers. But, Pugh said, with the variance, the occupancy is increased to 30, if you follow this business
plan. Walz said that is correct. She said the difference is that the current situation is not in compliance
with the business plan so the rights to the variance do not exist Pugh said the variance always exists.
Pugh said he finds it curious that one letter, he can't remember, is dated November 8th and it's no finding
of fact. Pugh said the Board has opportunity to strike a reasonable compromise with the owners and the
neighborhoods. Pugh said the property cannot be used as a fraternity or sorority.
Susan Hudson. co-applicant of VAR06-00001. Hudson said she was talking about the physical structure
of the building and what it would take for anyone to operate the building. Hudson wanted to point out that
Zimmer's comments about how he runs a house with 12 tenants is unrealistic to her property. Hudson
said Zimmer's property is 2,593 sq. feet, Yi the size of the building they are talking about-8,752 sq. feet.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 16, 2006
Page 22 of 23
Hudson said look at the physical structure of the building and what it costs to maintain it. It cannot be
maintained, Hudson said, with 13 people. Hudson said this is why she needs the variance. Hudson said
the building cannot be treated as a new construction. It cannot be made to size. An existing building,
Hudson said, is there and you cannot simply cut off 1/3 of the building. Hudson said what she's been
talking about is running and operating the Leighton House. Hudson said with 13 people, the building
cannot survive.
Public Hearinq Closed
MOTION: Alexander moved to defer judgment because she said there has been so much
additional information rendered on this case that she doesn't feel like she can provide an
intelligent opinion after 6 hours. Wright seconded the motion.
Shelangouski and Leigh both agreed with the motion.
The motion passed: 4:0
Sandra Hudson objected to the Board's deferment, stating that she's been sitting for 5 hours and she
understands everyone is tired, but the next Board meeting, December 13th, 2006, is not going to work for
her. Alexander reiterated her point about the additional evidence and the fact that they have had nO time
to review such evidence. Hudson said this is already a delayed meeting. S. Hudson said there she is
working under time constraints.
Holecek asked Sandra Hudson to come to the microphone. Hudson said there is a situation where her
financing will nO longer be in place if she has to wait until the middle of January. Hudson said she needs a
decision before the first week of December. Holecek asked if the Board would like to schedule a special
meeting. Shelangouski asked if they did hold another meeting, would the applicants be able to hold an
appeal during the same meeting, given the Hudsons' time constraints. John Hudson said, "Point of order"
and then clarified that they did not say they were going to appeal. Shelangouski said she's not saying it's
them or anyone else.
John Hudson said all of his other contingencies for purchase-home inspection, appraisal by the bank-
have been delayed so they can hear a decision, which has to occur before the closing. Hudson said he's
in a bind and he would request a special meeting.
Alexander said she's not trying to delay anything but she would like to make a wise decision. Walz
mentioned Sandra Hudson's concerns that the Board was reviewing someone else's application and so
she said it might be to their advantage if the Board has more time to read over the new evidence. Holecek
reminded the Board that they should avoid communications with people for or against this application.
Walz said that no one should contact the Board and if they do the Board should just refer them to her
(Walz) and submit their comments to her.
Bu Wilson asked if she might be able to speak again at the next meeting in opposition of the variance.
Holecek said it's up to the Board. Walz said that any substantive new evidence should be submitted
ahead of time, for future reference. Alexander said hearing it read out loud is not the same as having time
to review it.
Other
None
Board of Adjustment Information
None
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11 :35 pm
Shared/pcd/mins/boa/2006/11-16-06.doc
....."C
C ...
0) 0
E u
.....0)
fno::
~
'- 0) U)
"CuO
<Cco
~CON
O"C
"Cc
... 0)
CO.....
0.....
m<C
\0
- >< >< >< >< ><
---
-
-
"<t ~
0 >< >< >< ><
---
0 0
-
M
- >< >< >< >< ><
---
0'1
0
0'1 ~
0 >< >< >< ><
---
00 0
0
N ~
- >< >< >< ><
---
r- 0
0
"<t ~
- >< >< >< ><
---
\0 0
0
0
- >< >< >< >< ><
---
lr)
0
M
- >< >< >< >< ><
---
"<t
0
00 ~
0 >< >< >< ><
---
M 0
0
00
0 >< >< >< >< ><
---
N
0
-
- >< >< >< >< ><
---
-
0
<ZI r- OO 0'1 0 -
S .~ 0 0 0 - -
--- --- --- --- ---
- - - - -
V 0.. 0 0 0 0 0
t-<~ --- --- --- --- ---
- - - - -
0 0 0 0 0
-. ..... ::2
~
"0 "5i '"
= =:I
"5i '... 0
~ -.
~ :s "0 ~
.... =
~ ~ 0
~ - ~
-< - 0
~ -
:s ~
V = - ~ ..=
~ ~ 0 ..= 00.
-. -. CJ "0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Z ~ U Z
'1j
V
<ZI
;:j OJ)
~ Q
~'i3
Q V
~~v::E
~ V $ 0
~15-<z
p.. -< II II
~II II~::E
~><OOZ
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 27,2006
MEETING ROOM A- IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY
Preliminary
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh, Michelle Shelangouski, Michael Wright, Carol Alexander
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ned Wood was absent due to a "conflict of interest".
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action):
None
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.
MOTION: Carol Alexander moved that 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, be denied. Wright seconded the motion.
Shelangouski said that she wasn't sure why the occupancy was established at 13 back during the 1997
variance. Walz said that this number was based on lot size and square footage. Shelangouski said that
she didn't understand why the variance was tied to the business plan. Holecek said that the 1997
variance was granted to LLC because of the conditions that they had listed in their business plan.
Because the conditions strictly belonged to LLC, Holecek said, and because the variance was granted
based on the conditions, the variance was tied to the LLC business plan.
Shelangouski said she has concerns. She said that she is concerned about the parking, or lack thereof.
She said that hardship may be experienced by the present owner, but hardship may not necessarily carry
over to the future owner.
Alexander said that people on both sides of this issues were good people, however a variance must have
high standards and if a variance is going to be granted, all of the conditions of a variance must be met-
no exceptions. Alexander said that obtaining a variance is not supposed to be easy. Alexander stressed
that if an applicant fails to meet even one condition, then the variance must be denied.
Alexander said that the 1997 variance was a noble experiment and that simply didn't work. Alexander
said that she is sure of the quality of the current tenants but the UI Track team is not buying the house.
Alexander said that there are no guarantees that men like the current tenants will always occupy the
house.
The entire Board agreed with this statement.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
November 27, 2006
Page 2
Wright said that the variance has high standards and he listed the conditions of the variance.
1.) Not contrary to the Public Interest
The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter and
will not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
2.) Unnecessary Hardship
The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone
where the property is located.
The owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question
The hardship is not of the landowner's or applicants own making or that of a predecessor in title.
Wright said that the applicants' request does not meet the first requirement. Wright said this is a large
building on a small lot and cannot possibly accommodate more than the two off-street parking spaces it
now has. He said that parking would be a serious issue if the variance was granted. Wright said that there
an intentional community was no different from any other rooming use. Wright restated what Alexander
had said about the tenants being exemplary but there are no guarantees that the tenants will always be
like this. Wright also said that although the tenants have 6 cars right now, there are no guarantees that a
potential 20 tenants will always only have 6 cars. Wright said that he believes the parking issue has not
been adequately addressed. Wright said that the variance would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan
and the intent of the 2000 down-zoning.
Wright then said that this variance will also go against the second requirement for granting a variance.
Wright said that it is difficult to calculate but whether or not denying the variance will reduce the property
value depends upon the business plan and "folks" involved. Reasonable return in this case was tied to the
purchase price. Wright said he did not believe that limit on roomers removed all potential for the property.
Wright said he doesn't believe the owners' situation is unique. Wright said that the hardships in question
are a direct result of unwise choices made in the past. Wright said he will vote to deny the request.
Alexander said that while there may be some financial hardship, she couldn't get passed the public
interest concerns. Alexander agreed with Wright and said she has concerns about over-crowding,
including parking. Alexander said granting a variance that creates a business advantage is very risky.
Alexander said that down-zoning happened for a reason in the area and therefore she will also vote to
deny the request.
Shelangouski agreed with both Wright and Alexander. She would vote to deny the request. Leigh also
agreed with the Board and also indicated that she would vote to deny the request.
The motion is approved: 4:0
OTHER
Wright "moved to congratulate" Leigh on a job well done and said that this is her last Board of Adjustment
meeting as chairperson. Wright thanked Leigh for all of her time and expertise. Shelangouski and
Alexander both seconded the motion.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting Adjourned at 5:30 pm
s/pcd/minutes/BON11-27 -De.doc
....
c"'C
Q) ~
E 0
.... u
t/) Q)
:::sO:::
'- Q) U)
"'Cuo
<Cco
'l-CON
O"'C
"'C C
~ Q)
co....
0....
m<C
t"- ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
...... 0
......
\0 ~
...... ~ ~ ~ ~
........
...... 0
......
'<:t ~
0 ~ ~ ~ ~
........
0 0
......
~
...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
........
0"-
0
0"- ~
0 ~ ~ ~ ~
........
00 0
0
C"l ~
...... ~ ~ ~ ~
........
t"- O
0
'<:t ~
...... ~ ~ ~ ~
........
\0 0
0
0
...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
........
tr)
0
~
...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
........
'<:t
0
00 ~
0 ~ ~ ~ ~
........
~ 0
0
00
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
........
C"l
0
......
...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
........
......
0
VJ t"- OO 0"- 0 ......
s .~ 0 0 0 ...... ......
........ ........ ........ ........ ........
...... ...... ...... ...... ......
~ 0.. 0 0 0 0 0
f-< ><: ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
~ ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
0 0 0 0 0
"" - ~
~
"0 ~ '"
= =
ft .... ~
~ ""
.... ~ ~ "0
~ ~ = =
..:l < - = ~
~ -
~ ~
~ = - ~ .Cl
~ ~ = .Cl 00
"" "" ~ "0
~ ~ .... ~ ~
z ~ u ~ z
"'0
~
VJ
;:::l OJ)
~ ~
~ .~
~ ~
i::i::~~
~~15o
~15<z
p... < II II
~ II II ~ ~
~~OOZ