HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2007 Board of Adjustment
AGENDA
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 5:00 PM
Emma J. Harvat Hall
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the May 9, 2007 Minutes
D. Special Exception:
EXC07 -00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Korean United
Methodist Church, Inc. for a special exception to allow construction of a new
sanctuary and parking lot for property in the Low Density Single Family Residential
(RS-5) zone at 4032 Rohret Road.
E. Variance:
VAR07-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for property at
24 North Governor Street requesting a variance from the zoning requirement that
duplexes on lots less than 80 feet in width in the Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS-12) zone have private or rear alley access.
F. Other
G. Board of Adjustment Information
H. Adjournment
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - August 8, 2007
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC07-00005
4032 Rohret Road
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Applicable code sections:
File Date:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: July 11, 2007
Korean United Methodist Church
4032 Rohret Road
Iowa City
Greg Shaeffer
418 Kimball Road
319-321-5045
Expansion of a facility for
religious/private group assembly in
the RS-5 Zone.
To construct a new sanctuary
addition for the church building and
expansion of the parking area.
4032 Rohret Road
1. 96 acres
Religious/Private Group Assembly
Low Density Single Family
Residential (RS-5) Zone
North: Undeveloped (RS-5)
South: Residential (OPD-5)
East: Residential (RS-5)
West: Residential (RS-5 and RR-1)
Specific criteria for religious/private
group assembly in the RS-5zone
(14-4B-4D-14); Multi-family site
development standards (14-2B-6);
Off-Street Parking and Loading
Standards (14-5A); Screening and
Buffering Standards (14-5F).
June 8, 2007
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, the Korean United Methodist Church, is seeking to expand their facility in order
to build a new, larger sanctuary-the current sanctuary to be converted into a reception hall
and gathering space-and to expand their parking area. The church is located in the RS-5 zone
at the corner of Rohret Road and Phoenix Drive. The church property extends north to Tucson
Place, however the church is in the process of selling off the northern one third (approx.) of the
property .
The proposed new sanctuary will be connected to the old via an enclosed breezeway/corridor.
The church proposes to enlarge and reconfigure its parking area to accommodate 55 spaces;
the existing parking has space for approximately 40-45 cars. The church will close off the
existing entrance from Phoenix Drive and create a new entrance from Rohret Road. In addition,
the applicant would like to create a small unloading area behind (north) of the existing church
buildings. This area would be separate from the parking area and would serve strictly as a
loading space for food deliveries and garbage collection. Access to the loading area would be
established through a new entrance point from Phoenix Drive.
Special exceptions are valid for a period of six months. The applicant is requesting an extension
of 18 months to allow time for the church to raise funds for the expansion.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and
general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city,
and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance
to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude
upon adjacent property.
The Board of Adjustment may grant the requested special exception to allow a expansion of a
church in the RNS-12 zone if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the
regulations of the Sections 14-4B-4D-14 as well as and the general standards for special
exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A.
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan encourages neighborhoods with a mix of housing and
supportive land uses as well as open space and recreational facilities. The Comprehensive Plan
encourages the location of religious facilities and other institutional uses within neighborhoods
provided that traffic circulation and pedestrian safety are ensured and adequate measures are
taken to buffer neighboring property owners from any negative effects of parking and increased
traffic.
Specific Standards Regarding Educational Uses in the RS-S zone-14-4B-4D-14
The proposed special exception to allow expansion of a religious institution in a
residential zone must meet certain specific regulations spelled out in Section 14-4B-
4D-14 of the Zoning Chapter (see attached).
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific standards are included on the attached
application form. Staff comments related to the general approval criteria are set forth below.
a. Vehicular Access: The church site meets the requirement for street access with its primary
entrance off Rohret Road, an arterial street. This new access drive will prevent traffic waiting to
enter Rohret Road from backing up along Phoenix Drive, which is a collector street.
3
b. Setbacks. The established church buildings and the proposed addition meet or exceed the
required setbacks for religious/private group assembly uses located in the RS-5 zone:
Minimum setback Actual Setback
Front (east 20' 25'
Side (north 20' 42'
Side (south 20' 67'
Rear (west) 50' 100'+
c,d and g. Compatibility, parking, and the multi-family design standards: The existing church
facility was constructed in 1987 and is considered nonconforming by current code standards
regarding the location, design, and screening of parking areas. The current zoning code, which
was adopted in December 2005, requires religious/private group assembly uses in residential
zones to comply with the Multi-family Site Development Standards (14-2B-6). The multi-family
design standards require all surface parking to be located behind the principal building and that
those parking areas that are not completely concealed from view of fronting streets must be
screened to the S2 standard. In addition, a landscaped buffer of a least 10 feet in width is
required between parking areas and any adjacent properties (14-2B-3). These standards are
intended to ensure compatibility by promoting safe, attractive, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods
and by preventing large expanses of concrete, blank walls, and parking lots along street
frontages.
The existing sanctuary is approximately 36' x 72' with a height of 22'. The existing church also
includes a 48' x 58' wing with a kitchen, office, and meeting space. The proposed new
sanctuary building measures approximately 85' x 55' and 27 feet in height; building heights are
limited to 35 feet in the RS-5 zone. The current sanctuary will be converted to provide space for
a reception hall for the congregation, which gathers for a meal following regular Sunday
service. The existing parking lot for the church is located in front of the church building along
Rohret Road and provides none of the required design features (terminal islands, marked
spaces, shade trees, etc.) or landscape screening. The zoning code requires that when a use
located on a property that is non-conforming with regard to off-street parking standards is
enlarged by 50 percent or more the property must be brought into full compliance with the all
the zoning requirements for parking location, design, and landscape screening (14-4E-8B-5).
The proposed addition to the church represents an increase of more than 50%, thus the church
property must come into conformance with the zoning requirements for parking.
Because the church is located on a corner lot it is not possible to screen the parking area
completely behind church buildings, however the proposed addition to the church will conceal
the parking area from Phoenix Drive. Along Rohret Road, the parking area is set back even with
the new building as required by code, and the site plan shows all sides of the parking lot with
the required S2 screening of low shrubs. Some additional trees will be required to bring the
parking area into compliance with the landscaping standards in the zoning code.1
The specific criteria for the special exception calls for careful consideration of large parking
areas. The church is proposing a lot with 55 spaces. While the church has not set plans for the
fixed seating in the sanctuary, based on the size of the proposed sanctuary staff estimates a
1 14-SA-SI-2 Landscaping and Tree Requirements within Parking Areas a. Trees must be planted or
preserved on the site so that every parking space or portion thereof is within fort feet (40') of a small tree or within
sixty feet (60') of a large tree. Also, e. Coniferous trees may not be used to satisfy parking lot coverage
requirements.
4
maximum occupant load or 2502. Thus the estimated minimum parking requirement would be
40 spaces. Staff believes the expansion of the parking lot is appropriate for the size of the
expanded facility.
As part of the proposed redesign, the drive entrance to the parking area will be relocated to the
southwest corner of the lot to provide direct access to and from Rohret Road (an arterial
street). This will prevent church traffic from backing up on Phoenix Drive. The applicant is
proposing a small, rear loading area, located on the north side of the existing building, which
would have direct access from Phoenix Drive. This loading area is intended for delivery of food
to the kitchen and reception areas of the church facility. This will also be the location of the
dumpster, which must be screened according to the S3 standard. Staff recommends that the
dumpster be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line and be surrounded by a
privacy fence and in addition be screened with additional S3 landscaping to conceal the view of
the dumpster area from the adjacent property. Because the loading area is small and is not
connected to the main parking area, it will not generate the kind of traffic that would be
incompatible with the any residential uses that may develop on the property to the north.
e. Potential adverse effects: The church holds regular services at 11 a.m. on Sundays and at
7:30 p.m. on Wednesdays. Prayer meetings are held daily at 6 a.m. and at 9 p.m. Friday. Youth
Bible study is held at 6 p.m. Friday. The church does not currently plan to expand its uses of
the property beyond these customary functions, thus noise, late-night operations, odor and
litter should not be an issue. In addition, the redesign of the parking area with the required
landscape screening will minimize the impact of car lights and soften the general noise
associated with parking areas for surrounding residential uses. Because the new parking area
and access drive are oriented in closer proximity to the residential use to the west (see photos),
additional screening an along the backyard of the adjacent property will help to screen the
property from the increased traffic generated along the drive. Staff recommends planting 5-6
evergreen trees similar to those already established along the property line near Rohret Road
along the 120-foot (approx.) strip where the drive comes to within 25 feet of the adjacent
property line to screen the backyard of the residential property.
General Standards: 14-4B-3, Special Exception Review Requirements
The applicant's comments regarding each of the general standards are included on the attached
application form. Staff comments related to the general approval criteria are set forth below.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff finds that the proposed expansion of the
church, including the expansion and redesign of the parking area will not be detrimental or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. As explained above, the
proposed addition to the church exceeds all of the setback requirements in the code. With the
new addition, the applicant is required to bring the parking area into conformity with current
zoning regulations including the location, design and required landscape screening and lighting.
The setbacks and the required landscape screening will provide a buffer, to soften the view of
the parking area and helping to mitigate any noise, light glare, or other disturbance associated
with activity on the site.
2 The sanctuary actually measures approximately 42 x 72, excluding the entranceway and other bays surrounding the
altar. The parking estimate was calculated by estimating the size of the seating area (nave) minus aisles at 1800 sq.
feet.
5
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood. For the reasons listed above, Staff finds that the
expansion of the church facility will not be injurious to the other property in the vicinity, nor will
it substantially diminish or impair property values. In order to expand the church, the property
must be brought into compliance with the current zoning regulations, most significantly the
requirements with regard to parking area location, design, and screening. The proposed site
plan shows compliance with these requirements. Moreover, by relocating the driveway
entrance, any traffic waiting to enter onto Rohret Road will back up on church property rather
than on the public street. Because the new parking area and access drive are located closer to
the residential property to the west, Staff recommends additional screening an along the
backyard of the adjacent property as described above.
By creating the small loading area to the back of the church property, the applicant will relocate
the dumpster to a more discrete and appropriate location on the site. The applicant is required
to provide S3 or S4 screening of the dumpster so that the dumpster is entirely screened from
view of the adjacent properties. The applicant has proposed to enclose the dumpster in a
privacy fence. Staff recommends that the fence be a minimum of 5 feet in height and that the
proposed landscaping shown on the site plan be grouped around the fence.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the zone in which such property is located. All surrounding properties are
developed with the exception of the vacant lot to the north, which is currently owned by the
church. New residential development is anticipated along Rohret Road west of the existing
neighborhood, bringing more traffic to the area. By coming into compliance with the code
requirements for parking and screening, and by creating a new access for the parking area from
Rohret Roard, the special exception will contribute to the orderly development and
improvement of surrounding property.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been
or are being provided. All necessary utilities and access roads are in place. All changes to the
area, including the establishment of the new parking area, will be reviewed by the building
official as part of the site review process to insure adequate drainage.
S. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. As explained above,
Staff finds that the relocation of the access drive to Rohret Road will improve ingress and
egress from the site, as traffic waiting to enter onto Rohret Road will line up on private church
property rather than the on the public street (Phoenix Drive). The proposed loading area to the
north of the church building is limited in size so that it will not attract significant traffic other
than deliveries and garbage pick-up.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception
being conSidered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to
the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The
proposed church addition meets the requirements for the use in the RS-5 zone. The applicant is
required to submit a final site plan for review by the building official and will be subject to all
other requirements of the Zoning Code, including regulations related to stormwater
management. The entrances to the drives shown on the proposed site plan do not meet code
standards-they exceed the maximum width (maximum is 34 feet at the sidewalk and 42 feet
6
at the curb). The applicant's final site plan will need to demonstrate compliance with the
standard in order for a building permit to be issued. The applicant must apply for a curb cut
permit from the Public Works Department in order to establish this second access point to the
property .
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of churches within residential neighborhoods
so long as they meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as described above.
SUMMARY
The proposed expansion to the church at 4032 Rohret Road meets all of the setback
requirements for the expansion of religious/private group assembly uses in the RS-5 zone. In
order to expand the church must also bring the parking area into conformance with the zoning
code requirements for the location, design, and screening of the parking area. The proposed site
plan shows substantial compliance with these requirements-the only exception being the
required number of shade trees for the lot. With the changes to parking lot, including the direct
access to Rohret Road, the parking area will be designed to minimize any negative effects to the
neighborhood. Additionally, the dumpster will be moved to a more discrete loading area behind
the church building with access for deliveries and garbage pick-up from Phoenix Drive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC07-00005, an application for the expansion of a facility for
religious/group assembly in the RS-5 zone located at 4032 Rohret Road, be approved subject to
substantial compliance with the site plan submitted and the following conditions:
1. The privacy fence around the dumpster be a minimum of 5 feet in height and be
surrounded by S3 landscaping (this may be achieved by grouping the landscaping
shown on the site plan around the dumpster area).
2. A final site plan demonstrating the appropriate (non-coniferous) shade trees for the
parking lot as required by code and additional evergreen screening (6 evergreen
trees minimum) along a 120-foot section of the drive abutting the residential use to
the west.
Staff recommends the special exception be granted an extension of up to 18 months.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Aerial view of the property
3. Proposed site plan
4. Application materials
Approved by: M~ ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
It')
o
o...~
"'
o
-.
j-D--
j~
.0
IU
>-
I-
U
<(
:s:
o
La
o
o
o
o
I
f'-..
o
<-)
><
W
~.
--
~
'0
~
\ 0
\ a:
+-'
0 Q)
'"
'" l0-
w ..c
-'
(f) 0
(f)
w
'" a:
C\J
C')
0
-.:::t
. .
Z
0
J-004
~
U
0
~
,... ~
a: f-l
a: J-004
- en
8
Aerial view of the site. The northern portion of the property is for sale and is not included in the proposed
site plan for the church expansion.
9
Southwest view of the Church from Rorhet Road.
View of adjacent residential property from proposed entry drive location.
10
View of back yard of adjacent residential property.
Looking out from church property toward Rohret Road.
Note dumpster location at the front of parking area.
Cry
to ~
(C)
I
<:(
-".
<-
.-""
Q
1
U
'is
Cl)
I
~ ,5
<5 .,
~ "8
:::E'i!5
"='o~
'~~.:cl
= !-< =
;:J -a ,$3
[ij ~ IS
e<'l~
~^~~
~
z
g
I
tS
,:S
i3
o
..c:
~
j
I
~
~
I'-
6 g
'';:_ N
~~ori
m ~I ~
. ....;... I-)
I:lI) ,^ , ^
'~~ ~
cs~8
'56
!:I 'a
..c:~
UCl)
1:lI)~
'~ -S
'>( 6
~rrJ
'56
!:I 'a
..c:~
UCl)
1:lI)~
,S ..c
t;+:>
'>( 6
~rrJ
I, i I, i
1'1, i I
1'1 I
'I I, c::J
I 1'1
11'1,
I, '1'1
'11'1,
I, i III c::J
' I ,
I, '1'1
'11'1
I, i I I
i I II i c::J
11'1,
I,j 1'1
'I, 'I,
'1'1111,---.,
, I , '~
'1'11'1
'I, jl
1'1 I
'I I,
I 11'1 c::J
II, i I i
'11'1,
I, i 1'1
j
~ I
~
z
'5=
!:I ,$3
..c:~
u&;
1:lI)_
,s~
t;....
'>( [{j
~~
=
.... 0
.g'~
'5 >
o..9:l
U~
~~
z~
Cl)
13
i:
8
p"
1i
o
rrJ
. ), '5
i If~~
/
/
/
. \ 1111.
/ :; , <,
<-
'-..... '::1\
-......
..s= t)
~ Q)
;::l .~
..s= 8
u ~
1n bI}
.- s:::
"'d . _
o -
..s= .g
1)..... 0
~ ~ e
~ 0 Q)
"'dO::: 0:::
Q) ...... -y
.t:: Q) ""Q
8~g
a 0::: . fij
Q) N 5
~8~
~-.::t~
Q)
~
z
t)
Q)
.~
8
~
~
b
5
v
~
f
j
\7~
V z
IJQ-I
I~
I.
I~
k.Il';
I .
@
@
,(l',
.,~
I
@
~
:!:
.~
"'
\ II"/.
;" ~=
........................."""1 \ ~
-......,
-......
'-......
'-......
@
)
"
<J~
I
G
z
t-
o
o
]o~
~lr)lr)
o II ~
- - ;::l
~;........
I
I ,,()-,L9 ! @
~~~. .: @j
.~~j ~
~
~
z
f 1
"' J:
R ]
J: ~ J
I j j
_@c
. ~
bI) . ~
s:::
.- Q)
> - Q)
~~~
l-<u,....,
OCZl~
I I
@
c{]
.....
. I 8'991=l{:)
-<~
~ ~
o
M
'"'"'"
M 0
0.....
g~
r-- --
-:tN
~(:l..
~:::::
- ~
d
("J
in
CO
I
f.'....,.,
(1)
~
......
~
d
o
tI.l
U
:::I
f--4
o
o
G
~
~
\0
['--.
ItL'LIZ
189'ZtZ
~ J"9LD
~ ro
+-'
d
(1)
"'0
.....
tI.l
(1)
~
11 !;.08 .18'8t
Q)
O\~
g~
r--d
r--Q{)
D (0 gJ
"a
.....
~
(1)
"'0
.....
tI.l
(1)
~
C"l
-
-
o
o
C"l
~
G
"a
.....
~
(1)
"'0
.....
tI.l
~
8
0
0
'"'"'"
II
::
Z '"'"'"
Q)
"a
u
00
DO
-5 t
!3 Q)
.l:1 '8'
u (:l..
~ Q{)
:.a .S
.s :g
Q) "0 0
::;s~s
"O~Q)
Q) ~
.~ t) ~
~.Er::
o 0
a~'iil
~ C"l 5
.~ 8 ><
.....-:t~
Q)
~
Z
t
Q)
'8'
(:l..
......
ro
.....
~
(1)
"'0
.....
tI.l
(1)
~
r--
o
ao~
s:: ~ on~
~ II Q)
~~]
Q{)
r::
.:; Q) Q)
~ea.....
I-< 0 ~
ClooCl
<~XLCD7 -~S
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE:
0/1/07
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PROPERTY ZONE: (( S -5
4032
PROPERTY PARCEL NO. I
RDt:r/{(~'- f?C>tfD
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: ) I \/
<I/ 7 c,
.' I I i
APPLICANT:
Name: l(o~fA-)J (j AJ (T(J) 1L1t'TlloDIS I
c::....HVRC.I-I
Address: 'ft> 5 2. If ~/.fIfElF RDII-D
Phone:
CONTACT PERSON:
(if other than applicant)
Name: C-RrLG Stl/l-EFP~R
Address: if I r lc '1/lA-1 B 1+ Lc Rb,
Phone: 311- 32( -,5() LtC;;-
Phone:
I
co
PROPERTY OWNER: Name:
(if other than applicant)
Address:
-
..
U1
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section numbefin
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception:
tv i lit I~ .1l~
a C (, f571A.() kef f e
(_(1urct. r
q rtrv 0-5 11 f:cJ; s
,{ I S --!
IV fE (vlfM0<{U;tJ-l2 V
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any:
GENERAL EXPLANATION:
This application for permission to build a new sanctuary is the logical extension
of our attempts to meet the existing needs of our church. These needs mostly concern:
A. Mother's with infants
B. Growing need for educational space (Sunday School)
C. Communal meal
D. Kitchen access
E. Growing membership
A. Many of our members are students: Many single individuals but also young families
with infant children. Presently we have a room on the side of our sanctuary with a
window. It gives young mothers a place to be with their infants and their emerging
needs but it affords only a partial view of the services. Also it is somewhat lacking in
soundproofing. In our new sanctuary, the infant room would be located opposite the
altar and somewhat elevated. This gives a full view of the services. Sound would be
piped in and baby sound contained with better soundproofing. Most important it will
help the mothers feel included.
B. We have a lot of young children and have simply outgrown our existing Sunday
School space. The new sanctuary allows this function to expand into the old one.
C. It is our custom to share a meal after every Sunday Church service. It is a fine thing
for people who worship together to share a meal together. For us, however, this
practice has additional significance. It is the one time in a week when we can relax
into our Korean roots: eat Korean comfort food, speak Korean, catch up with Korean
friends, hear news of the homeland and of course gossip. Many of us spend most of
our week in English only environments. We function somehow or we wouldn't be
here, but some of us are still struggling with just the basics of the language. The small
talk and the humor goes right by. If anyone reading this has lived abroad for any
length of time they will have no difficulty understanding how this meal functions and
how important this meal is to us. At the present time, we are very crowded in our
eating space. We hope to expand our eating space into part of the old sanctuary.
D. Because of the weekly use we give to our kitchen, many foodstuffs must be hand
carried from the existing parking lot: more than 50 yards. Because meal preparation
begins well before services begin, this task usually falls to the cooks themselves.
(Usually women who are grandmothers.) Our new plan provides delivery access to
the kitchen and allows us to put the dumpster in a much more convenient location.
E. We do not expect a sudden surge in our membership but we do expect our
membership to continue to grow over time. Since we have concluded that we can
address some of our needs by building a new sanctuary, of course we want to allq\y
for future growth as well. . --
Cf~J
""""'r''t
en
N
Section C:
a. Vehicular access to the parking lot would be reoriented to the arterial street Rohret
Road, Kitchen deliveries and trash removal would be the only traffic that would enter
by Phoenix Drive. At the present time all traffic enters the premises from Phoenix
Drive. Both streets meet the minimum requirement width of28'.
b. As indicated on the plot plan submitted with this application all required setbacks are
observed.
c. Our proposed improvement has already been relocated and redesigned to be in
accordance with the latest zoning requirements. The function and activities of the
church will continue to operate as it has for the last twenty years. By relocating our
vehicle access to Rohret Road traffic flow which has never been much of an issue
should have an even lesser impact on the neighborhood.
d. It is our desire to create a facility that is self contained. We request additional parking
to achieve that goal. Our primary use will be on Sunday mornings. During the week
there is choir practice in the evenings. Occasionally there are various committee
meetings also in the evening.
e. As mentioned above, use of our facility will continue as before. With the exception of
small meetings most of our traffic will be in daylight hours.
C)
;2: c)
J:> :=:;
I
()")
-
.,
j;
en
N
Section D:
1. By this expansion and improvement we will definitely be improving the
neighborhood. We will be upgrading our existing twenty year-old facility and by
building our new sanctuary, reconfiguring our footprint so that our appearance
and traffic flow align with the most recent zoning requirements. We will take care
to plant the shrubbery indicated by the plan for the purpose of screening the
parking lot from the view of our neighbors. It is our intention to make the impact
of our additional new parking as minimal as possible.
The recent tornado damage in Iowa City as well as that in Greensburg, Kansas has
made us aware of the vulnerability of our woodframe, slab-on-grade buildings.
We also hope that by building a substantial new sanctuary with concrete walls, we
will be providing a safer shelter for our members in the event of severe weather.
2. When our church was built, the land around us was in agricultural production
(cornfields). Since that time residences have sprung up all around us. Our church
and our new neighbors have co-existed harmoniously through the last two
decades. We believe this will continue as before. At 27' our new sanctuary will be
only slightly higher (5') than our existing building and the only view that it would
obstruct would be that of our parking lot from our neighbors on Phoenix Drive.
3. With the exception of the lot to our north which is owned by (and for sale by) us.
All property around us has been developed. Presently auto traffic enters our
premises from Phoenix Drive, a residential street. Our new plan would remove
that traffic to Rohret Road, an arterial street. In the case of a traffic surge any back
up that would occur would be in our parking lot -not on Phoenix Drive!
4. Access from Rohret Road would be established early in the building project. We
believe all other utilities are in place.
5. By establishing the new access from Rohret Road and the new delivery access
from Phoenix Drive we believe we are improving the flow of traffic and
minimizing its effect on the neighborhood.
6. We have tried to comply with the Zoning regulations to the best of our ability.
7. It is our understanding that the "Comprehensive Plan" encourages churches to be
located in residential neighborhoods provided they take appropriate measures to
minimize impact on the surrounding residences. We intend to do this by the
restructuring of our traffic flow and performing the landscaping as indicated in
our plan.
o
;f()
.:t> -.,;-;
.........J
..~........
f
0:)
~
()'1
rv
-2-
In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide responses to all of the
information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the hearing date
for your application. A pre-application consultation with Planning staff is strongly
recommended to ensure that your appllication addresses all of the required criteria. Please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city,org.
As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be
granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official
statement, you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner.
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Legal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary):
You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing a parcel
search for your address on the Assessor's website at www.iowacity.iowaassessors.com/
or by calling 319-356-6066.
B. Plot Plan/Site.Plan drawn to scale showing all of the following information:
1. Lot with dimensions;
2, North point and scale;
3, Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines;
4, Abutting streets and alleys;
5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property
opposite or abutting the property in question;
6, Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed.
7, Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your
special exception (Le" some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking
spaces, etc,)
C. Soecific Aooroval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find
that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria,* On a
separate sheet, address each of the criteria specific to the special exception being sought.
Your responses should not be opinions, but should provide specific information
demonstrating that the criteria are being met.
*These criteria are not listed on this form but are provided within the Zoning Code, If you
are not familiar with the Zoning Code or if you do not know where to find the criteria
specific to your request, please contact Sarah Walz at 356.0239 or e-mail sarah-
walz@iowa-city.org, Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete
application and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of
Adjustment.
f',-.J
::.=:::1
(-~,:;.;)
--..l
o
-So
~....
1">-,
/ -.........1
--(",
-...or,
I
G)
<'J1
-3-
D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in
"C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the
following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In
the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information,
not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception
meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are
not relevant in your particular case.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not
substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for
uses permitted in the district in which such property is located.
9
--:::-
~-...
}i.>
c_
I
0:;"
.....,
(.J1
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
-4-
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other
respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in
which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception
requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant
will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a
particular use as provided in the City Code section 14-48 as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).]
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
o
5~
L
C-)
I
t'""."
-'-'
(J1
N
-5-
E. List the names and mailing addresses of the record owners of all property located
within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this appeal*:
NAME
ADDRESS
o
...--
<
~'r:.::....
I
r,-
"~"',)
01
N
*This information is available from the Johnson County Assessor's Office,
-6-
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing,
construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls,
improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum
yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C4, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk,
unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to
establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and
for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order
without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application.
(Section 14-8C-1E, City Code).
Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved
by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any
taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of
record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision
is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section
14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Date:
/
b--)-- 07
20
WON tN, 2~f
M- 1,'
. /'1.. vJt ~
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
f'-"_,)
Date:
,20_
S~J ._._. l~~;'
""-.,.".,.1
~:: ~~ ) c~__
..x:> =_~~)
;
Jr-'., '""<
"'..-! I
Signature(s) of Proper:~pwn6(-s)
if Different than Appli~~~(s)
~~ ~::~; -
)> (~l
N
ppdadminlapplication- boase .doc
,() I 'H W<e [;J ouiD "J 5 D [I~
wJR ~~s ,:~rb~CaC{tl6:ei {if M0b1ft{5rb~rC"
to \E' CJ lJ '€ '3 \ Lr L . f fJ t6 (' u). J( trttA 5 1 ~
U I ( r? e/v L1/l I -r, tY- u {
. (; vbvilY1) V
~.~f. .1 ctr'()kS, -n;Cf-/~1~YD0
~/.' 1"{Ct ~f~ ( crM5,Jl.-e/v
({ Or I
-6-
NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate
conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing,
construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls,
improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum
yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership
or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code).
Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall
expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk,
unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to
establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the
Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to
completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and
for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order
without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application.
(Section 14-8C-1E, City Code).
Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved
by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any
taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of
record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision
is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section
14-8C-1F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Date:
, 20
Dale: ro; I ~
,200;
ppdadminlapplication-boase,doc
STAFF REPORT
To: The Board of Adjustment
Prepared by Sarah Walz
Item: VAR07-00001
24 N. Governor Street
Date: July 11, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Jeff Clark
414 E. Market Street
Iowa City, IA
Tel. (319) 631-1867
Requested Action:
Variance from the access provisions for
Two-Family Uses in the Residential
Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12)
zone.
Purpose:
To allow a front access drive from a public
street.
Location:
24 North Governor Street.
Size:
9,500 sq. feet (approx.)
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Residential, RNS-12
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: residential, RNS-12
South: residential, RNS-20
East: residential, RNS-12
West: residential, RM-44
Applicable code sections:
Section 14-4B-4A-5f-2 Access
management standards for two family
uses in the RNS-12 zone, review
standards for the granting of variances
(14-4B-2)
File Date:
June 4, 2007
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant requests a variance to allow driveway access directly from North Governor Street
for a duplex located at 24 North Governor. The original single-family house at this address was
destroyed in the tornado of April 2006. The applicant purchased the property (a 55-65 x 158-
foot lot) in order to build a duplex. The City issued a building permit for construction of a duplex
based on the rear alley access. Subsequent to building the duplex, the applicant was preparing
2
to pave a portion of the alley behind his property-City code requires all private drives to be
hard surfaced-when the neighbors informed the City and the applicant that the rear access
was not a public (City-owned) right-of-way and of their belief that the applicant's rights to the
alley access were in question. The applicant is requesting relief from the rear access
requirement for duplexes on lots less than 80 feet in width in the RNS-12. In lieu of rear alley
access, the applicant proposes to use the existing single-family drive from North Governor
Street. All parking would remain behind the building as required by the zoning code.
ANALYSIS:
Duplexes are permitted as a provisional use in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-
12) zone, however the access standards for duplexes in the zone require that lots less than 80
feet in width must provide vehicular access via an alley or private rear lane. Only corner lots
and double frontage lots are exempt from this standard.
An unimproved (gravel) alley runs north-south from Jefferson Street to the property at 24 S.
Governor Street. At the time the applicant applied for his building permit, all reasonably
available County and City records indicated this alley as a public right-of-way. Because the
proposed duplex met all other requirements of the zoning code, the Building Official issued a
permit on February 5, 2007, for construction of a duplex.
Neighbors whose properties abut the alley became aware of the applicant's intent to use and
pave the alley only after the duplex was already constructed, when the applicant was preparing
to pave the alley. It was at this point that the adjacent property owners provided the County
Auditor's office with a court decision and decree from 1996 that divided ownership of the alley
between all the abutting property owners, including the previous owner at 24 North Governor.
Though the 1996 decision had never been filed with the County, the Auditor notified the
Building Official that the alley was not public right-of-way, and, in tracing the plat back to 1912,
could find no evidence to clearly indicate that the alley ever had been City property.
After receiving a copy of the court decision, the City Attorney's office researched the area and
found that it was originally an outlot of Original Town that was subdivided into lots sometime in
the early 1900's. That is when the alley first started showing up on plats-probably as a way to
provide rear access to those new lots. While the alley is now private property-a private rear
lane-the City Attorney also noted that the court decision ordered that "all of the plaintiffs, their
respective heirs, successors in interest, assigns and grantees shall continue to have a right of
ingress and egress over the entire tract."
In light of the court order, the applicant met with the neighbors to negotiate a method of
improving and maintaining his portion of the private alley/drive that would be agreeable to
everyone. The neighbors indicated that they are prepared to go to court to prevent the
applicant from using or paving the alley access for the duplex. The neighbors contend that the
intensity of the use has changed from a single-family use to a two-family use subsequent to the
court decree; and also that, even though the court order allows for ingress and egress, it does
not in their opinion allow changes to their property such as gravel or asphalt.
The applicant and his attorney believe firmly that the property at 24 N. Governor Street has the
right to use the rear access drive. However, at this point that right is in dispute and may need
to be decided by the court. Because these sorts of cases are given low priority it may take more
3
than two years for the case to be heard before a judge, and the outcome is uncertain.
Therefore, the applicant is seeking relief from the zoning regulation pertaining to rear access.
The applicant currently has access to his property from N. Governor Street via the existing
single-family access drive. Rights to this access point would ordinarily go away with the change
to a two family use. The applicant proposes to maintain his parking at the rear of the property
as required by code, so the only change would be to how that parking is accessed. While there
are some f100dway issues with the driveway, which is located on the south side of the house,
the Building Official has indicated that it is possible to build the driveway to the required
engineered elevations so that the f100dway is not affected.
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and
general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City,
and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance
to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude
upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested variance to allow
access to Governor Street only if the requested relief is found to meet all of the tests
for variances as set forth in Section 14-4B-2A. The burden of proof for each of these
tests rests with the applicant.
No variance to the strict application of any provision of the Zoning Chapter may be legally
granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following elements are
present:
1. Not contrary to the Public Interest:
a. The proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor have a
substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties in the area
adjacent to the property included in the variance. Staff finds that the application
meets this test. Duplexes are permitted in the RNS-12 zone and in all the zones
surrounding the subject property so long as they meet the standards in the code, which
regulate architectural design and style; building scale and materials; drive access,
parking, and garage location. As stated above, the applicant's property meets all of the
zoning requirements with the possible exception of the rear access requirement. The
building official issued the building permit based on the available public information,
showing that rear alley could be provided along a public right-of-way to the rear of the
property. The applicant subsequently planned and built a duplex based on the
expectation that he would have the opportunity to improve the rear alley. However,
because the neighbors object to paving the alley-as well as the increased traffic
generated by the two-family use-the applicant proposes to maintain the existing single
family access on the south side of the property, which will direct all traffic for the
property away from the neighboring single-family uses. Staff believes that this is a safe
and appropriate access point for the use.
b. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the Zoning Chapter and will not contravene the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Staff finds that the application meets the test
provided that some landscaping is provided to minimize the impacts of the paving on the
south side of the building. The rear access requirement for two-family uses on narrow
lots has three main purposes: 1. to avoid the excessive paving in the front yard that is
often associated with duplexes; 2. to minimize the opportunity for cars to be parked in
the front yards; and 3. to avoid the predominance of garage doors on narrow lots. The
4
applicant's proposed site plan shows all parking (4 spaces) to be maintained at the rear
of the property, behind the building. The proposed access drive will be 10 feet wide and
is located on the south side of the building, away from the adjacent single family
property. Ideally, the narrow width of the drive should make it inconvenient for
residents to park in the front yard since that would completely block access to the rear
parking area and the ingress and egress of other vehicles.
However, constructing the drive on the south side of the house calls for far more paving
on the lot than would otherwise be necessary and on a side of the building that is highly
visible from Governor Street. Moreover the topography of the side yard with its steeply
sloped stream bank, make the area potentially susceptible to erosion and more difficult
to maintain. The paved drive itself will take up a large portion of the side yard above the
streambank, leaving only a small area for landscaping on either side-between the drive
and the building and between the drive and the slope. Therefore, staff recommends that
the applicant provide a landscaping plan designed to prevent parking along the drive
and to insure the maintenance of the small area of permeable level surface along the
drive on this highly visible side of the house. This could be accomplished through the
use of low shrubs between the drive and the building and a tree in the front and rear
yards. Such landscaping would discourage parking, require minimal maintenance (esp.
mowing), and soften the appearance of the long drive. Staff recommends that areas
graded or disturbed by construction of the drive, between the 658 and 662 foot
elevation line, be replanted with native grasses rather than lawn grass, in order to
reduce the potential for erosion of the streambank due to water running off the drive.
It appears that the use of the front drive would satisfy the neighbors concerns about the
use and paving in the rear alley. Because the parking area will remain at the rear of the
property, the emphasis of garage doors are not at issue.
While the Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of rear alleys for the development of
narrow lots, it also indicates that where alleys are not possible, having narrow driveways
along the side and rear of houses will reduce the amount of paving in the front yard and
the emphasis of garage doors along the street.
2. Unnecessary Hardship: The test for unnecessary hardship consists of three prongs, each
of which must be proven by the applicant for the Board to legally grant a variance:
a. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located. Staff finds that
the application meets this test. The applicant indicates an investment price of
$247,500 to purchase the property and construct the building. Because the building
was designed and built as a duplex the floor plans are not conducive for a single
family use and the cost of converting the building to a single family use would be
prohibitive, The applicant has provided financial data to support a claim that strict
application of the requirement for rear access would severely diminish the rate of
return for the property as a rental. Information provided by the applicant shows that
if the property is restricted to a single family rental use, even with a monthly rent of
$1500 there would be a negative return on investment of $512.00. The rents
provided by the applicant appear to be in line with other information available on
rental costs in Iowa City. The Press Citizen provides a cost of living index for Iowa
City showing the average rent for three bedroom apartment in Iowa City of $795
/month. Housing information provided by the University of Iowa estimates rent for a
5
three bedroom unit (unspecified) at $1024/month. An informal search of recent
listings for 3-bedroom duplexes in Iowa City indicated monthly rents ranging form
$900 to $1300. The same web site showed rents for 3-bedroom houses range from
$900-$1400, with most houses renting at rates between $1100 and $1200.
b. The owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question, and
the situation is not shared with other landowners in the area nor due to
general conditions in the neighborhood. Staff finds that the application meets
this test. Had the applicant or the City known of the unrecorded agreement
regarding ownership and use of the alley, the question of whether the subject
property has the right to improve the alley, and thus the opportunity to build a
duplex on the lot, would have been settled prior to construction. However, all
reasonable due diligence on the part of the applicant and the City indicated that the
property did have rear access via a public alley. While it has yet to be determined
that the property does not have the right to pave the alley, the applicant would have
to go forward with paving his portion of the alley and force the neighbors to apply
for an injunction. Again, the case would likely wait two years or more to be heard by
a judge. Therefore, in the interest of neighborhood relations and to protect his
investment in the duplex, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow the access
directly from North Governor Street.
c. The hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of
a predecessor in title. Staff finds that the application meets the test. At the time
the applicant applied for a building permit for the duplex, all information available to
the City and the applicant indicated that the property had rear alley access. Had the
applicant or the City known of the unrecorded agreement regarding ownership of the
alley, the question of whether the subject property has access rights -and thus the
opportunity to build a duplex on the lot-would have been settled prior to
construction. It was only after the construction of the duplex, when the applicant
was preparing to pave the alley, that the neighbors became aware of the situation
and informed the City and the applicant of the private ownership agreement
affecting the rear alley/drive,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that VAR07-00001, an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a variance from
the zoning ordinance to allow access to North Governor Street for a two-family use in the RNS-
12 zone be granted subject to a landscaping plan to prevent parking in the front yard, to help
stabilize the streambank and to buffer the appearance of the additional paving.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Photos
3. Site plan
4. Application
Approved by: /~ ..
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
//i/(~t I
~..~O' EO 7~~
~ I J I 1 / , 11- ~ -0 /[ ; ;/7,1=
~ =lJ1i 1 U\SN\I^7"'----, 7iv /'[ ;~7':. 1~.4~
- u-: r----v A" /i -:....y ~
'...~ \ ~~?} L /f/~;C/ y~'/~:~V: ~
~ ,~' ~ / / /~ : I.l / v /
:::; l:::=-'.' I- V) ~ /-;/
jj.[-~., Ul - - r;7, LLI;/
- ~ Z < /. 7 '= /
- ~- 0 L- '~7 / / /1
· ~ ~'~-q ) ,.. L [/ / L"1--
~ .' t 1 1- IIIII /. J/: i / I /~ / /~ /-'-l.<:INd:
6 I. ]j "5 LI - lliU / V / y~ >.~' :; ;v/ l(}:r
1- - J r _ _, I" -'-,/ 7 /,;. .tl/":~v/<~.; {;/i/n
~ - I I /~IZ"~r ,~'., 1 /7 ,r-c
~ Iii -, h/''77'7 / / U5
~ 1- 1 . - ~ , _ /0~/~ V g
~
Q)
>
o
CJ
z
o:::t
C\J
. .
:= f~ =Sr\= N /~_/ IV :/:j/i Ll tl ~
r .... - ~. '\ .J'~'" /;:z / _I lS J:JO~ t;;
I I~t I ~YC' V~ /~fJ\ ~' NI Q) u
~ r I - / / ""'1""1171 · _ C}) c: 0
,-, ,~" If" i',..... .- ~ ... Q) Q) ...:i
~ - .. I'" N- ,. I~ ~ ~ /~/til :::::::: ClJ ~
- c .T_ - -c.... ~/ ~ G G ~
1-- - ,- .: .~f .... I
- .. . ~1 I / LL1L::LL I_I
LID I -m / /'c-7 ,L~ /
I l~
-
Department of Planning and Community Development
View of the private rear lane (alley) looking I outh from Jefferson Street.
View of the private rear lane (alley) looking north from 24 N. Governor Street.
View of the streetscape looking south on Golernor Street.
(,,:".1
,~
en
LLI
o
I--
Ul
~
Ci
1-"
Z
"S:
Ci 1--
OW
LlJ
wcr:
1-- f-
ZUl
w 01
. . :L t--.- ("("".I
cr: f- LLJ QJ
wcr:Vj
Z << cr: ,=:r
3:tl<CUl
O<CL:0!
ct:
o
Z
cr:
w<c
',> 3:
~o
o~
LJ
T>
- f-
I--~
cr:u
o
L <<
'7
-~
IJI\IV:-I
o
7'
<( <C
CJ 3:
>-7"0
m~~
z
I"~ ),
",.-, L CO
LLJ <C I-- Lrl
c~ _J U (\J
<l. 0_ CD
CL <C I
wm~CD
cr: _J [] (Y)
CLU~(YI
--.,
- 00[S \
,
\
,
\
.
"-TO
\ (u~
\
,
,
'$\
Q,
LO'
\'1-"\
,
\
\
\
,
\
.
,
\
,
,
\
.
,
\
,
,
8\
t--;),
lO '\
l"- ,
\
,
,
\
,
,
-_J
----
I
,
.
I
,
.
I
.
.
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
.
" Q- --"61'---1
.0 _
,~
.
.
I
.
.
I
,
.
I
,
,
L_~
~
o
N
0J
------,
is)
;/;1r~~\ f-- :_
'f /;/ U_ -"
~ /' ,h,_"
I :/ L_.1._ W
~, , "7'1 0 _I
'~ 1--- " <<
t ~[/</ ---;;7 U
'--~ >-" ~
-----~ (J)
ml
t;J1 x
lSJ,
!j w
b -.J
, Co CL
, r-... =:J
I 0
.
.
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
to .
w
>
ct
o
~
>nVMJOIS
W~J__
CJ~
Qd
0:::.<::
mr!::
r-----
1S
.:::JO
C:JLJ
wO:)'!\J811oy-aA!4S'MMMj / :dll4
11 'o6""!4::l ' 11 'UOI6uIWOOI8 ' 11 'eUIIOv-l '-.
i~O~;;H~SV
m:-"l
NOIS,^3~
>1008 al3l.;! Slr
31VJS Lo/rl/tO
NMOLNMOO SLN31^W::lVdV
80N83^OE:> HmON VG
Aoms NOIL03S S8080
m^OCldd'V
NMVClO
31\;'0
,-
o
ul w
z
'" ~
~
zo <
ww
'0
- oZ ~
00 ~
~ g~ ~
a ~~ ~ r
... w a
Wr 0 m -'
0 ~w -'
0 ~ + c::
00 a
z zw
0 ~~
c- c c-
W ~ 1'[ 0 =>
W ~ U
"- Z <~ 5 ::5
~ ~ ~ ~.~ is
~ r~ " "'
~3 0 <<
'::: < ~ -' (Y)
~ ow
<( ww w <(
U " ~~ " z
(f) a Z
2 ~ ;=
55 ~ 0
:~ I
z (f) i=
(f)
a , a (.)
0 "'
u U
0 W ~
0 ~
~ ~"'"'''''''' (J) II
,..\\''''<;\KEER ""'" a -
z
~""'''~~.. '.~~'" ."\ '" ... a <0 '"
:g <0 <0 :2 <D (Y)
~~.. ........., . \ <0 <0 <0
g~:' ~ ~;:: ":.&-! t5
:~, ......;:;:; '" ,I: z
w "'
;~'. tt~- .:-1 0 0
a u
\cro;..""':l en _ " ...l OW ~g
"'"/~~8N"i.j\i' \,\,..'...... Wo
8~ Wz-'
'",....""" (La ~oCIJ
o=' 3:~(9
"'::> ::>Uz
co ~3~
c-",x
0 ~
z
g N
S ,
co c-
o a "-
Wo 0 '"
z ~~
;=W <D na
~g a;!t5 " 6 II II
~ c- -'
::>-'
uC::
"-
0
is ~ (\J
;= <(
<< z
> 0 z
d ;=
~ 0
a (f)
0 I i=
~ ::;:
~ (.)
u W 'f:l
8 (J) II
0 -
Z
<Xl ... 0 <0 N
<0 <0 <0 <D :2 (\J
\ <0 <0 <0 <0
W
Ow
00
Wo
OW
00
'"-'
COQJ
00
I Wz
\ I 8F
u I n.~
"' I ox
"- 0 I ",w
0 C <>t II
Z es
0",
;=w z
uZ "'
w"' 0
"0 u
au
"' 0
n.o
\ w"J "J
(f)QJ co (:)
;Eo ~ 0
::>z --'
~~ ii' OJ
0
c-x 0 <D
~,- +
0
z
Z 0
;=
<( ~
..J W (f)
0.. a ~
z II <( ,...
"'
0 wo -'
>- ;= a -' Z
<( <(a c::
~ "'w "'
C 0'" 0
a a
~1111130iS ;):ld :t lSIX3 :::> W C-(L ,..
~a i=
'0 a x", ::>
I- a w (L U
N ~ 0 (.)
(J) II z
- W ~
~ (J) II
_ __,__}J~(Yl~t\j!:~i _ ~ a 0 '-
",,-.---..,-- - ~ - ~ - --- 0 z
"H,~5J~>jU.~ ~g10)u:JItlj)~11H()I~')! co .,. a <0 N +
0
<0 <0 <0 U) U) ,...
<0 <0 <0 <0 <0
I rHI :owlJ: I LOOG/tO/IO :]lVO I ~MO'SNOllJ]S ~ON~];\W\OMPVOMPOOlj )S JOUJO^Oo\ZlI3mS J,:m\pOJOuS\:d l'OJjSlr I
\\^~ 0\.... OOQC) \
-\}-- \'"
"",,<,U
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE
DATE: {IJ - L\ - 0 '1- PROPERTY PARCEL NO. t n I 0 L( 0 ~ 019
APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~LI N. (J()"t\{"'NJ'i' <;t .
APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: .......'2 APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 55-(,15 X ISg
~
APPLICANT: Name:~fr (___I b.. v It.
Address: ..J:J.1g 1::. M(1d<e.t St-
Phone: 3 \'(- cP3 i-\~ (o~
C
CONTACT PERSON: Name: : ' .
-'
Address: (-,
"'-i -
,
Phone:
, -
/
.-L-'.
PROPERTY OWNER: Name: That.- bo.y'S \J~\J.I ~j.s
Address: 414 ~ MfiV.kt t <.;.t
Phone: ?> \q - (P3 i -I ~ '~;1"
Specific requested variance; applicable section(s) of the Zoning Chapter:
/ '-I ,- L/ i3 - t..jA. S. +-. (2)
'r--.......)
-.,
,
:r--
-
--"
I I
'-
'-
:~
-:--J
,----r
,
-..,~'
...L.'7""
w
Reason for variance request: --r2J uP1ply Iw,Jrfl1 '{f; d ~ViSI"h r cJf: Z.. hu-t,{'( dAJdtL/..)J'
"
CUIle! -m 0.((.111/ ~ f1~wJtr [~",Slvvci>tJ rJ...~df/~ {-b {,~ {xZy>>-'rtf
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: WOlVe
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT:
A. Legal descriotion of property:
B, *Plot plan drawn to scale showing:
1. Lot with dimensions;
2, . North point and scale;
3, Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines;
4, Abutting streets and alleys;
5. Land uses on and property owners of abutting lots; and
6, Parking spaces and trees - existing and proposed.
[*Submission of an 8" x 11" bold print plot plan is preferred,]
C, List of property owners within 300 feet of the exterior limits of the property involved in this
appeal:
NAME
SC!~ ('.&-tt6'-~.tJ .s\.,-t'~.t
ADDRESS
(.0:)
~.~
~....;
-....
r
c.::=
, '
I
.r.-
-n
I... ~ . '
. ""-...,
"-:-.,
r J
~'-""'1
"..... ;
.,..-:--.- /' '.~
).:::
..c-
",-_/
w
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION:
Section 14-7A-2 of the Iowa City Zoning Chapter gives the Board of Adjustment power to
authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the terms of the Zoning Chapter as
will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of
the provisions of the Zoning Chapter will result in unnecessary hardship and so the spirit of the
ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, No variance to the strict application
of any provision of the Zoning Chapter shall be granted by the Board unless the applicant
demonstrates that all of the following elements are present: (emphasis added)
2
(Please respond specifically to each of the following, explaining your answers.)
Not contrary to the DubUc interest.
a, Explain why the proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, or
have a substantially adverse effect on the use or value of other properties in the
area adjacent to the property included in the variance.
The.. nlw dnve.wlJ.'f wO\,l\d b~ US.I'f\~ 0. porh~n Qnd f\.u upp("vadr)
of ~. lL~V\j dy\"~, wt- vJCl~l\d ",ot h~ dlS~UV~V"lJ ~v-
pvtl~{'t--\1..(. ') 1V'\ {~ a. ~ i c.. . .~. _'-'.
, f
\ 1
I
.......
--~~)
...~-1
O.
b, Explain why the proposed variance will be in harmony with the gene~F purpose-
and intent of the Zoning Chapter, and not contravene the objecti~~ of t~
Comprehensive Plan, ~ c..,)
A Dupu-,;. wc'-',,~ b-y\j .\~ (,,\\ovJdlt'\ 1"\'\\\ z.on,~. (Av\c;\ 01/\ .-th~~
1'vt(>lV"""1 .D\).-t. -\t> -t\ol.(. u.",\LII\OWY' <;\\u.~-hOll\ ~~ '"\Vu ~\k., b(.\~
"p't'\.\fl.<\< aV"\JC, -\\i\~ fV\6.'i ~tA"'c. c ,^",V\~(.J i~ c."'f\tt~'vCiJ-\\o~, o~
-t\tu f>V?'~-tv'+<-t I 1o\A+- (.\ d'1'u'i wou\A S\\\\ V\c.\lc. ~V'\ o.l\o-..0!t\.
2, Unnecessary hardshiD.
a, Explain why the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only
for a purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located,
Th-t.. pwr<"~ ~I\\ L ,,j\l..s+ 'o~<GtIc. ~...J~V\ If l+- 0, S V'U\Hc;\ (). S
a. C.L....pl.JK. 1:.( i} WCA-> 'f"t'(Jv..r<.J +0 b.t. L\. SFDj +h.L.
C<.'s+-> WOlA\J \o~ --tWo -hvnd ~ n",t" tlil~s prop<vJ w{,lvdJ bY/VI, iVl.
La.,,~ -\-o.'MS WCu\~ b!.. \/e.v'1 "'\j~ dw -\0 ~ ill<.'~t'\' ~~V"Y'(. ~'(e.+,
b, Explain how the owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question,
and the situation not shared with other landowners in the area or due to general
conditions in the neighborhood.
Dv.c..+O -t'hL 4-13 'oCo -rev l""J.c, -th'~s pvDf>iv, w..~ dl~hV'1~' 1"""'- n"(,~~L\ofW1Mt
v.Jcd.. 1o~~tJ Oh (:t)..tn\1t (knd c..~ ftlovrh i tht.St bt.\~3 'lV'L.d..-,ut. O\he.'t'" ..
~L~~'oO..-s o.'Ct.. ~ \-t'&~(.,\q>\\f\<<j ~;I( ~~V'~-<S GlV\A ''e-N...J-f~t iw...((. IS
{\ot lb') ClH.tt ~t.~(V\d ~iV' "~,,u-ht..
c, Explain how the hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or
that of a predecessor in title,
ThL (o<..tttht (It.;-d.,t(" S howtd ~ C\+rt c.dt-ly \tH~,,,,Jt1niS p~<v+tj .TMUvcU
~ lLlf\A o~ ~ lO\'lshu<..-tlOI1, 1+ wG-t$ +c~\o\cl ~ '0.(. (.tV\ UIIW"((,,,-,(.(<I
rr\~,~ O'rl\J'{ \ot.~1 VIA -{""IS 'P'<f.(rly .
3
NOTE: Conditions, In permitting a variance, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and
safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction
commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic
circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum yard
requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or
any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances,
upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Chapter, (Section 14-8C-2C4, City Code),
Orders, Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire
six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the
applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or
construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by
obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of
the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the
expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original
appeal or application, (Section 14-8C-1 E, City Code)
Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any
decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter or any taxpayer or any
officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ
of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and
specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C-1F, City Code.) Such petition shall
be presented to the court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office
of the City Clerk,
Date .I\.\M lj ,20.rr 9'i1 (L..f-.-
Signature(s) of Applicant(s)
Date:
,20_
Signature(s) of Property Owner(s)
if Different than Applicant(s)
ppdadminlapplicatiorrboavar.doc
?=7
'--)
...;:::--
.J.-"'" -_
c.)
4
2/9/06
"-.J
,
.r--
--i~1
, :
-1"'1
HOLLAND & ANDERSON LLP
123 N. Linn St., Suite 300
P.O. Box 2820
Iowa City, IA 52244-2820
Phone: (319) 354-0331
Fax: (319) 354-0559
C. Joseph Holland
jholland@icialaw,com
Lars G. Anderson
landerson@icialaw,com
Tarek A. Khowassah
tkhowassah@icialaw,com
June 21, 2007
JUN 2 8 2007
Sarah Walz
Associate Planner
Department of Planning & Community Development
Civic Center
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: 24 N. Governor
Dear Ms. Walz:
I am writing to you at the request of Jeff Clark regarding the variance
requested by Three Guys Holdings to allow a driveway access off Governor Street
for a duplex at 24 N. Governor Street. That structure is nearing completion for
occupancy as soon as access issues can be resolved.
This property was the site of a structure, originally constructed as a single
family residence, which was damaged beyond repair in the tornado of April, 2006.
Three Guys Holdings purchased this property in October of 2006.
There is a physical access to this property from Jefferson Street. That consists
of a tract 17' in width in an east-west dimension and 170' long (more or less) in a
north-south dimension. My client designed and has constructed the structure based
upon use of that access to the property.
Other property owners and users of that tract have objected to my client's
attempts to make use of and to surface that access. One went so far as to block the
access with a vehicle. The change in use of my clients property from a single family
structure to a duplex appears to be an issue for the other property owners along the
tract.
Page 2 of 3
The Ordinances of the City of Iowa City require that all private drives be hard
surfaced. There are many drives in Iowa City which are not hard surfaced and
enforcement typically comes up as part of the building permit process, as it did in
this instance.
My client has a right of access over that tract. That arises out of a lawsuit, a
Quiet Title Action, and the Decree in that case on December la, 1996. I have
enclosed a copy of the court's Judgment and Decree in that action, and a copy of the
Petition to help understand the Decree.
In the first full paragraph on Page 6 of the Judgment and Decree the court
ordered:
Further, by virtue of agreement of the Plaintiffs, it is further ordered,
adjudged and decreed that all of the Plaintiffs, their respective heirs,
successors in interest, assigns and grantees shall continue to have a
right of ingress and egress over the entire tract which is the subject of
this action.
(Jerry Wear was one of the Plaintiffs in that case and the person who sold the
property to Three Guys Holdings. Thus, Three Guys Holdings succeeded to all of
his rights of access over that tract.)
What the court's Decree does not state is who maintains that access and how
it is surfaced, and if and how a change in use of any of the properties affects the
rights of access As I said, my client tried to pave the alley, but one of the abutting
owners objected and my client could not complete the paving.
Because the 1996 court's Judgment and Decree is vague, it appears we may
have to take all of the current property owners to court to address the surfacing and
maintenance issue. I expect that the other owners will claim that the rights granted
in favor of my client's property were for a single family structure only. We will have
to ask the Court to resolve that issue
Civil litigation of this nature receives the lowest priority from the court, below
criminal cases and domestic relation cases, which make up something like 85% of
the court's docket. That means that it could be two years before we have this
resolved through the court system. We hope to prevail, but the outcome of any case
this is always uncertain.
It would work a great hardship upon my client if they were not able to use
Page 3 of 3
this property because of lack of sufficient access. We have prepared a projected
monthly income statement for the property which shows that it makes little money
when used as a duplex, and shows a net loss every month when operated as a single
family residence.
The grant of a variance to allow the duplex to access off Governor Street is a
far better solution than operating this property as a single family residence, where
an access off Governor Street is permitted without a variance.
I would be happy to provide further information if I can be of assistance.
Very truly yours,
CJH:ses
Enc.
cc: Jeff Clark
Equity No.
COUNTY () ~
~0 //
. <-&, <', ^
'(i~'!'t>' /04y(:;'()
.~ /.'." "1-,
~/..t '''-,f. /' ~_ I:-~,
. (}, ..,<~;~ .:~,... '../
,-/.'1 /,-,/,i ~<.~ ..0
"//"",/-.,;,- r..r
/,J.. /J,-,{t,}
, /' -.~//o ,y
.. /.......' --7',),.
'/?'~ .,-
a;tJ()5f~O
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF IOWA IN AND FOR JOHNSON
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JESSIE BOWEN: WILLIAM JESSIE BLAIR', )
LEONARD BLAIR ~ MARY ANN HOWELL ,v' )
ELIZA BOWEN CADWALLADER~ GEORGE )
CADWALLADER f ELLEN ZERILDA BEACH. )
a/k/a ELLEN ZERILDA WOODSTOCK( )
ABEL BEACH ,./ S. E. WOODSTOCK ,f )
JESSIE M. STERLING / JAMES W. STERLING, .. )
EMMA HORTENSE TILL PENDLETON,/ )
BRADFORD H. PENDLETON( HORTENSE E. )
PENDLETON~ EMERY WESCOTT/AND )
E. HORTENSE T. PENDLETON, and Their )
Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, )
Assignees, Successors in Interest )
and Their Unknown Spouses, and the )
Unknown Claimants of the following )
described real estate situated in )
Johnson County, Iowa, to wit: )
commencing at the northwest corner )
of Outlot 4 in Iowa City, Iowa, )
according to the recorded plat thereof, )
thence east 150 feet along the north )
line of said Outlot to the point of )
beginning, thence east 17 feet along )
the north line of said Outlot, thence )
south to the center of Ralston Creek, )
thence southwesterly along the center )
of said Ralston Creek to a point due )
south of the point of beginning, )
thence north to the point of )
beginning, )
)
)
STEPHEN R. CAMPION, KRISTINE L.
CAMPION, WILLIAM JOHN O'HARRA,
SOFIE o 'HARRA , WILLIAM C. HOPP,
KAREN MAE HOPP and JERRY WEAR,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendants.
PETITION IN EQUITY
TO QUIET TITLE
Plaintiffs, for cause of action against the Defendants, state:
1. Plaintiffs are the absolute owners in fee of the
,following described real estate situated in Johnson County, Iowa,
to wit:
Commencing at the northwest corner of Outlot 4
in Iowa city, Iowa, according to the recorded
plat thereof, thence east 150 feet along the
north line of said Outlot to the point of
beginning, thence east 17 feet along the north
line of said Outlot, thence south to the
center of Ralston Creek, thence southwesterly
along the center of said Ralston Creek to a
point due south of the point of beginning,
thence north to the point of beginning,
and that the Plaintiffs and their Grantors, have had the actual,
open, notorious, continual, exclusive, hostile and adverse
possession of said real estate under claim of right and color of
title for more than ten (10) years past.
2. That the Defendants, or some of them, as Plaintiffs are
creditably informed and believe, make some claim to the said
property, or some interest therein, adverse to the title of these
Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs allege that any right, title or interest
that the said Defendants, or any of them, may ever have had in and
to said real estate is junior and inferior to the title of these
Plaintiffs.
3. Plaintiffs allege that any right, title or interest that
the said Defendants, or any of them, may ever have had in or to
said real estate, or any part thereof, is now barred by statute of
limitations.
4. Plaintiffs are creditably informed and believe that
various and numerous unknown persons claim to have some interest in
said real estate or parts thereof, adverse to these Plaintiffs, and
that said unknown persons are made party defendant h~reto under the
designation of Unknown Claimants.
That Plaintiffs have used all
2
available means to ascertain what claims are made and by whom, but
that these Plaintiffs are unable to more definitively state the
interests or interest of the said Unknown Claimants claim to have
otherwise than as set forth in this Petition, and Plaintiffs allege
that any right, title or interest that they or any of them may ever
have had or may claim to have in said real estate would be as the
surviving spouse, heirs, devisees, legatees, mortgagees, grantees,
assignees or representatives of the remote grantors of these
Plaintiffs, or any of the Defendants named in the caption of this
Petition, or as the successors in interest to some of the classes
or persons herein mentioned.
4. Plaintiffs allege that the names and residences of the
Unknown Claimants, and each and all of them, are unknown to these
Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have sought diligently to learn the
names of same and have been unable to do so.
5. Plaintiffs allege that none of said Defendants, nor any
of them, and none of said Unknown Claimants have, in fact, any
right, title or interest in and to said real estate or any part
thereof.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that title to the real estate
described in the caption and in paragraph 1 hereof be established
in Plaintiffs against the adverse claims of the Defendants, and
that each and all of them, and all persons claiming by, through or
under them, or any of them, be forever barred and estopped from
having or claiming to have any right, title or interest in and to
said real estate adverse to these Plaintiffs, and that these
3
Plaintiffs be decreed to be the absolute owners in fee simple of
the above-described real estate and be entitled to the quiet and
peaceful possession thereof, and that said title be forever quieted
in said Plaintiffs as against all claims of the Defendants, and
each and all of them, and for such other and further relief as the
Court may deem equitable in the premises.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
STATE OF IOWA
ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY
9_0J1,~2 7 ~3
~~~ 2: T}
;~ ~ ~::~ I
-:; =; ~"' 0 I
~ ~~ ~; 2::
- --<~
t-{._ ~~.:: :3
~~ ~~~ ~~
-:.;... :;=; :::.:
!n
.-.
~. i
.-....
C:)
I, Kristine L. campion, being duly sworn, do state that I am
one of the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled cause; that I have read
the foregoing Petition and have knowledge of the facts contained
therein; and that the allegations therein set forth are true as I
verily believe.
.
~JLWU_w i L~OJYLfil(mJ
Kristine L. Cam ion
STATE OF IOWA
ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this J~~ day of June, 1996, before me, a Notary PUblic,
personally a~peared Stephen R. Campion, to me known to be the
person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and
deed.
4
State
05/1712007 11:05.FAX 3193566086
JOHNSON COl~ AUDITOR
141 001
"
" '
.'\
....
,/a, I ,',..")
IN THE: DISTRICT COURT OF IOWA. IN AND FOR JpHNSOl!,.P~;t.J~!Y ".-.. .,
STEPHEN R. CAMPION, KRISTINE L.
CAMPION, WILLIAM JOHN O'HARRA,
SOFIE O'HARRA, WILLIAM C. HOPP,
KAREN MAE HOPP and JERRY WEAR,
Plaintiffs,
Fax II
vs.
)
~ESSIE BOWEN, WILLIAM JESSIE BLAIR, )
LEONARD BLAIR, MARY ANN HOWELL, )
ELIZA BOWEN CADWALLADER, GEORGE )
CADWALLADER, ELLEN ZERILDA BEACH )
a/k/a ELLEN ZERILDA WOODSTOCK, )
ABEL BEACH, S. E. WOODSTOCK, )
JESSIE M. STERLING, JAMES W. STERLING, )
EMMA HORTENSE TILL PENDLETON, )
BRADFORD H. PENDLETON, HORTENSE E. )
PENDLETON, EMERY WESCOTT AND )
E. HORTENSE T. PENDLETON, and Their )
Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, )
Assignees, 'Successors in Interest )
and Their Unkno~n Spouses, and the )
Unknown Claimants of the following )
described real estate situated in )
Johnson County, Iowa, to wit: )
Commencing at the northwest corner )
of outlot 4 in Iowa city, Iowa, )
according to the recorded plat thereof, )
thence east 150. feet along the north )
line of said Outlot to the point of )
beginning, thence east 17 feet along )
the north line of said Outlot, thence )
south to the center of Ralston Creek, )
thence southwesterly along the cent~r )
of said Ralston Creek to a point due )
south of the point of beginning, )
thence north to the point of )
beginning, )
)
Defendants. )
STATE OF IOWA
S5:
Fax II
Equity No. 057360
JUOGMENT AND DECREE
~
I" If Co
~
\ .r'~, "\
eJV '6
~I,)' ~ ~
\()
,0
JOHNSON COUNTY'
And now on this /t? day of December, 1996, it being later
than the date fixed in the Original Notices for the appearance of
the defendants herein, this matter comes on for hearing before the
~5/17'/2007 11: 05 ,FAX 3193566086
JOHNSON COl~ AUDITOR
141 002
court I the plaintiffs appean.ng by their Attorney, Douglas D.
Ruppert, and no appearance having been made for the defendants or
any of them, the Court no~ examines the original Notices in said
actions and the returns of service thereon, and finds that due,
legal and timely service of notice of the pendency of this action
has peen given to each and all of the defendants herein, both kno~n
and unknown, at least twenty (20) days prior to the date fixed ln
the original Notices for the appearances of the defendants. An
original Notice was filed with the petition in said cause, with the
endorse:ment of the plaintiff's attorney thereon, selecting the Iowa
City press cith;en of Iow-a city, Iowa as the newspaper in which
said notice should be published as required by law, once each ~eek
for three consecutive weeks, the last of which pUblications was
made on the 2nd day of August,' 1996 and that due and legal service
or original Notices on all said defendants, known or unknown, was
completed more than 20 days prior to the date of this decree.
The Court further finds that a legal and sufficient affidavit
was filed in this action as required by law,' that all of the
defendants are non-residents of the state of Iowa or that their
residence. is unknown and that personal service of the original
Notice in said action cannot and could not be made upon them within
the State of Iowa.
The Court further finds that it has jurisdiction of all of the
parties to this action and of the subject matter thereof.
The Court further finds that by an Order of this Court herein
before entered, c. Peter Hayek, a regular practicing Attorney
2
05/17/2007 11:05.FAX 3193566086
JOHNSON COlmTY AlIDITOR
~003
practicing in Iowa city, Iowa, was appointed Guardian ad Litem for
any and all of the defendants in this action, known or. unknown, who
may be minors, or may be confined in a penitentiary, reformatory,
state mental hospital or other institution, or who may have been
judicially adjudged incompetentt or who may be other legal
disability, and that said Guardian ad Litem has appeared and filed
answer to petition on behalf of his wards.
The Court further finds that by an Order of this Court, herein
before made, said c. Peter Hayek has also been appointed as
attorney for any defendants in said action, who may be in the
military or naval services of the United States, including any and
all other persons in any branch of the armed services of the United
States as defined by the Federal statutes of the United states, or
who may have been in such service and discharged within six ~onths
before the commencement of this action and that said attorney has
appeared and filed Answer on behalf of said defendants.
The Court further finds that no appearances have been made for
any of the defendants in this action except-for those whom Answers
have been filed as herein before set out and that the default of
all such defendants should be entered of record.
It is therefore now ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court
that the said defendants, known and unknown, excepting those for
whom Answers have been filed, and each and all of them, are hereby
adjUdged to be in default for want of appearance, and the default
of each and all of the defendants, excepting only those for whom
Answers have been filed, is accordingly entered.
3
05/17/2007 11:05.FAX 3193566086
JOHNSON COlThITY AlIDITOR
~004
;
And said cause now coming on for hearing upon the default as
herein entered, and the Answers filed as above, and the Court
having read the pleadings he4ein, and having heard the evidence and
the arguments of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises,
finds that the allegations of plaintiff's Petition are true, and
that the equities of said cause are with the plaintiffs and that
plaintiffs are entitled to the relief de~anded.
The cour.t speci fically find that the plaintiffs are the
absolute owners in fee of all of the real estate referred to in
plaintiff's Petition and hereinafter specifically described, and
that said defendants, in each and all of them, have no right, title
or interest in or lien upon said real estate, or any part thereof;
that any right, title or interes~ that any of said defendants may
ever have had in and to said premises, or. any part thereof, is
junior and inferior to the title of these plaintiffs; that the
pla.intiffs and their grantors have had open, notorious, continuous,
exclusive, hostile and adverse possession of said real estate and
every part thereof, under claim of right and color of title, for
more than 10 year last past.
The Court further finds and it is ordered, adjudged and
decreed that any lien, claims or interest that said defendants or
any of them, may ever have had in and to said real estate, or any
part thereor, are now.barred by the statute of Limitations.
The Court further finds that the names and residences of each
and all of the unknown defendants are unknown to plaintiffS and
4
?,5/17/2007 11:06.FAX 3193566086
JOHNSON C01~ A1IDITOR
141 005
that plaintiffs have made diligent search and inquiry to learn the
same, but have been unable to do so-
It is th.refor~ ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court
that the plaintiffs are the absolute and unqualified owners in fee
simple, free and clear of all liens, and claims of the defendants
situated in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, to wit:
and each and all of them, of the following described real estate,
To Stephen R. campion and Kristine L. Campion:
Commencing at the northwest corner of Outlot 4
in Iowa city, Iowa, according to the recorded
plat thereof, thence east 150 feet along the IV
north line of said outlot to the point of
beginning, thence east 8 1/2 feet along the
north line of said Outlot, thence south 70
feet, thence west 8 1/2 feet, thence north to
the point of beginning.
To William John O'Harra and Sofie Q'Harra:
commencing at the northwest corner of Outlot 4
in Iowa citYf Iowa, according to the recorded
plat thereof, thence east 150 feet along the
north line of said Outlot, thence east 8 1/2
feet along the north line of said Outlot to
the point of beginning, thence east 8 1/2 feet
along the north lin~ of said Outlot, thence
south to the center of Ralston Creek, thence
southwesterly along the center of said Ralston
Creek to a point due south of the point of
beginning, thence north to the point of
beginning.
To William C. Hopp and Karen Mae Hopp:
Commencing at the northwest corner of outlot 4
in Iowa city, Iowa, according to the recorded
plat thereof, thence east 150 feet along the
north line. of said outlot, thence south 70
teet to the point of beginning, thence
east 8 1/2 feet, thence south 70 feet, thence
west 8 1/2 feet, . thence north to the point of
beginning.
5
L~
. i
V- II
t r ! '~.
~ >:... : ~~
.
':< ,.
..
\.1 l-
e ~.) ~
.-
.J
05/17/2007 11:06 FAX 3193566086
.
JOHNSON COUNTY AlIDITOR
~006
To Jerry Wear:
Commencing at the northwest corner of Outlot 4
in Iowa city, Iowa, according to the recorded
plat thereof, thence east 150 feet along the
north line of said outlot, thence south 140
feet to the point of beginning, thence
east 8 1/2 feet, thence south to the center of
Ralston Creek, thence southwesterly along the
center of said Ralston Creek to a point due
south of the point of beginning, thence north
to the point of beginning.
Further, by virtue of agreement of the plaintiffs, it 1.5
further o~dered, adjudged and decreed that all of the plaintiffs,
their respective heirs, successors in interest, assigns and
grantees shall continue to have a right of ingress and egress over
the entire tract which is the subject of this action.
It is further ordered, adjUQged and decreed that said
defendants, known and unknown, and each and all of them, are
forever barred and estopped from having or claiming any right,
title or interest in and to said real estate, or any part thereof,
or any lien thereon, adverse to the title of plaintiffs he~ein and
that the title of the plaintiffs are hereby foreve};" quieted as
against all adverse claims of said defendants, or any of them, and
,. I'~~
':..., ;.....:. , , , ""
the said defendants are forever enjoined and re5traine~frpm ~ a~
, , ,". :. . " . I
',,::'1.. ':' ~:-)
manner from interfering with plaintiff in their quiet an9:,~p.e.aeeabIe
~:.' .... :::) ,
possession thereof; and that the costs of this actm~.be..tax~d
.__: ~~ :.'. ",':: . I :
against the plaintiffs.
~~ :;~~ ~ ;:.~
.--
.....
So ordered at Iowa City, Iowa.
the Sixth JUdicial Oistrict
6
,";' ~.~.'. ::..; :-~~ ,..;:!.ll".ll':;';'" !~"'.
....- .. " . ,,",..... ,., ~.. 'i. l
/:.:J ~ \..;,;: .:~Y _. _ ~ _,..
~':"" " ," "';.': '......I.~.... '\.'l ~7'.!~
wO",(Janol.l-a^!l.lS'MMM/ / :dUl.l
11 'oC8ONO ' 11 \Jo~IB '11 'OUIIOt'l t
VI 'I8UI0\'l 8lIQ , VI '.Iir.) lIMOl ' VI 'IPJdIll JIP8:)
A.1:I3.LLVH'3AlHS
NOlS~3t1 8sr 03l\OYddV
~f6 )l()()B 0131.:1 ssr NM'itiO ~ 9
.09-.\ 31'1:)5 90/a./9 3J.'iO ti:J;
VMOI'A1NnOO NOSNHOr 'AlIO VMOI ~i!l
AlIO VMOI :lO NM01 '911l0 '7 1011110 .:10 11lVd If-
800900~ 130klVd S.I:1011OnV
g,-
...C\i
~CD
3c-~J en
LlJ
U " '"
:;; ] ,5 >'-ill ,S
a:: i
~.~n.:D UJ i ji-
FJ cn~ ..t; ,g _0
~ Z5 ~~ '" " :i~
00 0 j " ~ '0
c...-=::I .... t3 >, 8'U ....l :3 ~ ~
~ .... wi:: 3 ;; " il 0
a.u 00 0 8 6 '"
:z:: en", -'" " " "
~ ::l ~s ~~ .~ " :S S~ ~
...., ollQ 'g :;;;z ,g
~ CJ- ~15 '0 '0 8 u
o u ] " " "
z . " b ...c :!;
(3~ (Ii .2'" ~ " ~- ;.;
c '" :5;'0 "
::J ,;.,~ c ! m .~u')
0 ~c: .. ~ _ .c 8
J: U& 11 ~ .~ il ~ 00'"
Z oU " " .54)~~
.h . '" .....
0 .c " Ii &.- '" ~o\l")
Ii: '6 .c :2 .... fl~1
o~ oo o..!! il ~ 15
~ i~ z go Ii oo,!! 0.. "0 ~~;1; ,......"',.,....,.,'"",,
" 0 ,g~
,s '6 15 ~~ ,.. :r:z(J1"J .-- ""......~.. .. '. ....
,f!" " ].~ ~ ~""c(7;' I~," ".<<\
,s " " -i( i1~ '" ~~~C
'6_ .!! .!! ::J ~ 0lI. J -' s
8~ '"
.ic " 8 .!! -E : co: Ii..... .s
u 0 ~ ;:, i:l ~ : I'
~;;; ~ ... ~ 2 ~~ iil-
"" .!! ~ :::..!! \'3i'.,.. "...;
~ -'"
:5g i .. .. i~ " ,,"+./........ /
_0.. '0 ~ ~i
0 ~ ... "."",~!t~...,""',\:
....: c '8 8'" txi z
~J '&. '8 b :8 S:3 ~~ '" co
0 No. p,," N N'" I!! ..
g.~ g p...- "N
3:2 .. ~l! ga '" -Nm
Coo ... ~81O~
0 z.5: ~
_0.. oo ~i ~ ~:2", ,s .s i1j:~
O.1i .. .. oJ 0 15'~
i"ll ~ 6 JI_ Zil JI z il_ z;; i~~;
" 0 "" " ,,_ 0 ,,0 ~
-u E 6i UIi ~ UO....l uU
~ Ii- Ij,,- Ii" '" ~~c.
~~I!l :S~ SJ!c5 ~6 ::J
~'" V1
-= E
;;~~
iiii!!l"~
Iif!!I ! S ~ ~L
~...~'S 0
1:1"-" \:0
l!lI!IlI~iI!..a;co
~..!So~>
_:le!:....~ ~
g8~8:;8
&!I 83; h
lilii!!a .. u..
- oi;;~~........
1!I"l;:l~...1O
~~,8J:~~ _ ifi
(Q
(Q
o
8 ~
o ~-
C\I ....(,) ~
...I I- ~ z
W9Q6
() B15 (,)
C[lL~~
<OoZ
a..~I-~
Y> Q.~ ~
C[ <~(,)
~ Q~
- Q
C
::)
<
~
i
~
5.
~
<
1
/:0
o
g
!II
l!i
~
~
;
~
~
~
5
~
!
If
-~
r---------
~! (-----------
~~ ,WI
-~t~-~---------i-
~ ~ ~I~ ~ z
~~~ ~' ~~ ~
lJj;!~ r \ ili~ .
I 1___vr:______S-
1:0 \ <eCo
l'Z~ ~.J cs~
.oo,~o,o\s '" 5 a
, '", \!s
\-.$9> ~ t-
o i 0 ~I,~~- -~ Tall' - - --
~ go ",\ \4 a:: .
I : ,;~ ~! \~y~ ~~
tlJ8~8 "" ~
l!5 Q 0.. LJiil,' l!5g
p ~V) a: w ~ ~ ~l' w w
g ~g8 t:j~ ~\"1: 1;J~
'gZN tn~:
< P b <e' I ...-'
. 0"'" a::ll 1"""'---
'. z::: f I
, I
,-:
...
c-
o:
8
'"
~
~ Q;
~ ~
i5...z c
~
~
g;
'"
Z
::1
ti
- - -~--~
8
'N
g"sj
"'::
0-
W
W
go
II>
Z
~
e:i
.....
.....
~
'"
oIj.
2:il :
b 9
,..:
:!!
N
'"
o..~
15<
:1:0..
... .
~~
~~
",m
~
~t='
onffi
~~
....'"
,,/
133~lS ~ON~3/lO~
o
~
w
::J
Z
~
c(
~
51
8
'"
~
~
on
o
z
~
'"
~
~
...
e:
'" ;;
'"
~
<
Pl f;l
0
ygU
I ,t :80 :.W!l I 900Z/6Z/90 :3JVO I ~,\\O'10-IB-dV\5Mp\0-9,Z901\'PofoJd\:d I .,!oq.' I
I 6~f1.QnIIJ.\fW-\l":l~).I"Nn'<;:''d).l-711':l)l1C::\ t)Mn\n-tn7QOI\<;:I~1f"f"\).I"'\ :... < Qnl11 'dW-\l':l':l~"Nf"\IC::1'd).l-711':1).lIC:: :S;II~ il:>U;J;li>~'t
('I: ;1:0 l: eJ5'E!dl
Three Guys Holdings
24 N, Governor
Estimated Income Statement
Cost of Structure $195,000.00
Cost of Land $52,500,00
TOTAL $247,500.00
Monthly Income Statement
Duplex Single Family
Dwelling
Estimated Land Taxes $383.33 $266.67
Maintenance $83.33 83.33
Management Fee $150.00 $75,00
Rental Permit $8,33 $4,16
Rent 2,700.00 1,500.00
Principal & Interest* $1,500.00 1,500,00
Income $575.00 ($512.50)
*based on 7.25% loan, 75% Loan to Value Ratio amortized over 20 years
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MAY 9,2007 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J HARVAT HALL - IOWA CITY/CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER:
Carol Alexander called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michael Wright, Ned Wood, Michelle Payne, Edgar Thornton
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: Steven Ramirez, Tim Lynch, Randy Stevens
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action):
None
CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 28TH, 2007 AND APRIL 11TH, 2007 MINUTES
Wright noted that the Board is called the Iowa City Board of Adjustment, not "Adjustments". Wright noted
that the word "Hutchison" should be spelled Hutchinson. Wright said that on page four, second
paragraph, the measurement "1700 fi" should read 1700 sq. feet. Wright said on page 8 and 9, the name
"Bus" should be spelled "Buss."
Payne said on page 1, second to last paragraph, the phrase "an addition" should read "an additional
property." She said on page 1 0, fourth paragraph, there is a run-on sentence that can be corrected with
the phrase "the issue of."
Wood said that on first page, last paragraph, the phrase "every want" should read "ever want." Wood said
that in the same paragraph, the word "at" is missing from the fragment "there is a garage and carport the
rear."
MOTION: Payne moved to approve the March 28th, 2007 minutes as amended. Thornton seconded
the motion.
The motion was approved 5:0
Wood said that his name is spelled incorrectly as "Woods" in the April 11th, 2007 minutes. Wright noted
that the Board is called the Board of Adjustment and not "Adjustments." Wright said that "Izaak Walton
Road" is incorrectly referred to as "Izaak Walton League" on page 2 of the minutes.
MOTION: Wright moved to approve the April 11th, 2007 minutes as amended. Wood seconded the
motion.
The motion was approved 5:0
EXC07 -00004 Discussion of an application submitted by USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc. for a special
exception to allow location of a cell phone tower for property located in the Intensive Commercial
(C1-1) zone at 612 Olympic Court.
Walz said that the property is in CI-1 zone as shown on the map. Walz showed that while the property is
a bit "set off' from general public view, it is visible from Keokuk Street. Walz said that the nearest
residential zones are more than 400 feet away. Walz showed an aerial view of the property and the
amount of open space between Keokuk Street and the property. Walz said that one of the specific criteria
is that the proposed tower cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating
antennae on existing structures in the area. Walz said there are no appropriate structures in the area for
Board of Adjustment
May 9, 2007
Page 2
the applicant to "co-locate" on. Walz said the proposed tower would be camouflaged in order to reduce
visual impact.
Walz said that a few months ago the board had considered another application in a CC-2 zone. That
tower was to be disguised as a clock tower. Staff felt that in this location, the tower should be discrete but
not necessarily disguised as something other than what it is. Staff felt that this current design does not
call attention to itself-no strobe lighting, guy wires or trusses. Walz said that the overall structure
wouldn't stand out or detract from the zone.
Walz said that when the applicant first came in, they proposed a shorter tower, at a fifty-foot height. This
height, Walz noted, would not accommodate co-location, which is something that is encouraged in the
code. Staff felt that an increase to 60 feet would be appropriate to allow for future co-location. That way
more antennae could be served by fewer towers. Walz said the proposed tower would be set back at
least a distance equal to the height of the tower. Walz said that equipment would be stored away in a
shed with a PVC fence around it, which will adequately screen the shed from public view. Walz said the
tower would not utilize a back-up generator. Walz said that with the increased height, the tower could
accommodate up to 2 additional users. Walz said that the applicant has agreed to remove the tower or
any associated equipment should the tower be discontinued.
Walz summarized the general standards and codes. She said that Staff's biggest concern with the
proposed tower was the detraction it would have from neighboring uses but being that it is in the CI-1
zone, Staff did not feel that this design was inappropriate. Staff did not feel that this tower would generate
additional traffic in the area, save for maintenance of the tower. Walz said that Staff believed this design
met the general criteria.
Payne asked about the sketch of the design as provided by applicant and whether it showed the fence
screening. Walz pointed out the sketch, which was included in the packet.
Public Hearina Open
Tim Lynch, U.S. Cellular of Greater Iowa, Inc., said that he would answer the questions of the Board and
highlight a couple of things. Lynch said the fence would be bone colored. He said that they used PVC
because it requires less maintenance and lasts longer. Lynch said that the area has some cell phone
coverage already. However, he said that there is a depression in the geography of the area and the
problem is a matter of reliability. Lynch said that while there is some signal strength, his company is trying
to provide more reliable service. Lynch said that there is not a strong signal currently. Lynch asked for
questions.
Payne asked about the light fixture. Lynch said that his company is amenable to any light fixture the
Board prefers. Lynch said he could go with the "shoe box" type, although they had proposed the other
type, as illustrated in one of the sketches. Wright asked if the box style light would cause less light
pollution. Lynch said he didn't know if it would have any bearing. Walz said that in either case, the lights
have to meet the standards in the code, which deal with brightness and light trespass. Lynch said that the
tower would look like what was being shown in the photo simulation. Lynch said that the "shroud" that
covers the actual antennae would extend further down then as illustrated on the photo simulation.
Thornton asked whether the "shroud" would have to be removed if other companies choose to use the
tower. Lynch said no, not permanently. The shroud would be lifted of during installation and then
replaced. Payne asked if the tower shed was large enough for other users. Lynch said probably, but that
there would most likely be other sheds built for storage, depending on the company. Lynch said the size
of the fenced enclosure is 30 x 30 feet.
Randy Stevens, 1929 Keokuk, noted his property on the overhead projection. He asked why this tower
needed to go in that particular location. He said when he bought the property in 1983, the area was land
locked and the view with a fifty-foot tower is not very pleasing. Stevens asked why the tower has to be in
an area that is already developed. Stevens said that there is undeveloped land along Southgate and why
can't the tower go there? Stevens said that the tenants and customers of his building would be affected
by such a tower.
Board of Adjustment
May 9, 2007
Page 3
Lynch said that the tower needs to be constructed in the proposed area. Lynch said that if the tower were
moved towards Southgate, the tower would be closer to residential areas. Lynch said that because of the
airport runways, they were limited as to where they could build the tower. They are also limited by the
location of the ridgeline in the area. Lynch said that of the locations they looked at it, they felt this was one
of the best locations. Lynch said that they have tried to design it with careful regard to the surrounding
properties. He said he understood Mr. Stevens concerns about having to look at a tower, but that he felt
the company had come up with the most appropriate design for this location. Lynch said that all of these
factors went into the decision of choosing the current proposed location. Lynch said that he feels like U.S.
Cellular has struck a good compromise in terms of location and design.
Stevens said that the tower looks like it's being hidden, however, as an owner, he doesn't want to walk
out of his office and see a sixty-foot tower. Stevens said that he's thinking there are other areas in that
immediate area where there is no construction yet and why can't the tower go there? Stevens said that if
there had been a tower back 1983, he'd have reconsidered his purchase. Stevens said there are 3
businesses that would be affected.
Thornton asked Stevens to expand upon why he feels this tower would have an impact on his business.
Stevens said that this tower will not affect State Farm Insurance, which is his business, but it is an
aesthetic issue.
Public Hearinq Closed
MOTION: Payne moved that EXC07-00004, an application submitted by USCOC of Greater Iowa,
Inc. for a special exception to allow location of a cell phone tower for property located in the
Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone at 612 Olympic Court, be approved. Wood seconded the motion.
Wright said that the proposed tower would be erected in an area with limited signal reliability. Wright said
that the tower would be filling a gap in that particular coverage area. Wright said that the tower would be
constructed to be as inconspicuous as a cell phone tower can be. Wright said the proposed height of 60
feet does at least mitigate the effect of a bunch of different antennae sticking out all over the place. Wright
said that if the tower were in an undeveloped area, it would stick out like a sore thumb. Wright said that
the design is as unobtrusive as you're going to get. Wright said that it won't' be taller than necessary.
Wright said the tower is set back well within the confines of the required height of such towers. Wright
said that the fence around the property is adequate and the tower will not use a back-up generator.
Wright said that the tower is being designed to accommodate additional users as well as it is
camouflaged from public view. Wright noted that if the use of the tower were discontinued, it would be
removed. Wright said that this exception would not be a danger to public welfare. It meets federal
standards. Wright said that the tower could withstand 75-mile an hour winds as well as the presence of
ice. Wright said that should the tower collapse, it would not cause damage to close-by structures. Wright
said that it will not be injurious to existing surrounding property and will not diminish property values in the
neighborhood. Wright reiterated that this design is as inconspicuous as it's going to get. Wright said the
design and height are appropriate for where it sits. Wright said that establishment of this tower will not
impede normal development in the zone nor will it impede future projects. Wright said the road is
adequate for the traffic traveling to maintain the tower. Wright said that adequate measure for ingress and
egress has been taken with regards to the construction of this tower. Wright said the lighting would meet
all applicable standards of lighting codes. Wright said that the proposed structure would not detract from
commercial uses of this location. Wright said that for all these reasons, he would be voting in favor.
Wood said that he has no concerns except for those brought up by Randy Stevens. Wood said that it will
not be injurious to use and enjoyment of surrounding property. He will be voting in favor.
Thornton said that he understands the tower is not the greatest looking thing in the world, but the set back
fits within the existing buildings. Thornton said it blends in and it meets the future communication needs of
that particular part of the city. Thornton said that he would be voting in favor.
Payne said that she'd like to clarify that part of the antennae, the lightning rod, will stick out of the shroud.
Other than that, Payne said, she agrees with her colleagues. She will vote in favor.
Board of Adjustment
May 9, 2007
Page 4
Alexander said she too would vote in favor.
The motion is approved 5:0
OTHER
None
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting is adjourned at 5:45 pm
s/pcd/mins/boa/2007/5-9-07. doc
...
==~
~ ...
e 0
... ~
<IJ ~
=~
:O~t--
~~=
......===
,-=M
O~
~ ==
... ~
=:t:
0<
=
~ >< >< >< >< ><
In
QC)
~ >< >< >< >< ><
'o:t'
~ ~
~ >< >< >< ><
- 0
'o:t'
QC)
~ >< >< >< >< ><
l"'l
0
- >< >< >< >< ><
-
-
en 00 0\ 0 - N
S .g S2 0 - - -
- - - -
- - - - -
Q) ~ 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - -
~i:IJ - - - - -
0 0 0 0 0
- ... :!2 ==
~
~ ..c:l <IJ 0
~ = ...
== .... 0 ==
Q) = - -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
~ 0 == ..c:l
< = E-
Z - 0 -
~ ~ ~
- = ..c:l ...
0 ..c:l 00 =
... ~ ~ ~
= .... ~ ~ ~
U ~ Z ~
~
~ ~
g on "8
><.5 Q)
i::.....~~:;E
Q) ~ ~ ~ ~
en en en !:< .....
~~,.o ozo
p..,........<e:z
II II II II II
~O~~
><
~