Loading...
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