HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-25 Info Packet1
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org October 25, 2012
IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
MISCELLANEOUS
IP2 Copy of notice from Neighborhood Coordinator: Neighborhood Meeting for the Rocky
Shore Drive Pump Station and Flood Gate Project
IP3 Copy of letter from Asst. Transportation Planner: Court Street Traffic Calming
I134 Civil Service Entrance Examination — Maintenance Worker I Streets
DRAFT MINUTES FROM CITY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
IP5 Board of Adjustment: October 10
IN
-�– -r City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
October 25, 2012
•a.aa._
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Date
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Time M
5:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
7:OOPM
Special Formal Meeting
�IIII 9k!
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
7:OOPM
Special Formal Meeting
TBD
Work Session Meeting
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
7:OOPM
Special Formal Meeting
Subject to change
Location
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 4, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J Harvat Hall
IP2
COPY
TO: Manville Heights Neighborhood
FROM: Iowa City — Marcia Bollinger
RE: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FOR THE ROCKY SHORE DRIVE PUMP STATION AND
FLOOD GATE PROJECT
[If you know of a neighbor who is not on email, please share this. Also feel free
to forward it to anyone it may be of interest to. Thank you!]
An open house meeting for the Rocky Shore Drive Pump Station and Flood Gate Project will be held
from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 29-h.2012 in the Media Center at Lincoln
Elementary School, 300 Teeters Court, Iowa City, Iowa. The purpose of the open house meeting is
to share information about the project. The general public is welcome to attend.
The project is part of Iowa City's flood recovery effort and is intended to reduce impacts of future
floods on nearby properties and infrastructure along Highway 6 near the intersection of Rocky Shore
Drive. It will involve the installation of permanent, automatic pumps to an existing stormwater
structure. The project will also include the installation of a floodwall and flood gate system across
the Rocky Shore Drive viaduct.
Funding for this project was received through an Iowa Department of Economic Development
(IDED), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The legislation providing the disaster
recovery funding is the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations
Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 110 -329).
Parking is available in the lower parking lot off of River Street. Residents needing special accommodation or
translation services should contact Ben Clark at (319) 356 -5436.
October 4, 2012
Re: Court Street Traffic Calming
1 r
�A~ - IP3
'
A51
` w��-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa 52240 -1826
(3 19) 356 -5000
(3 19) 356 -SO09 FAX
Dear Resident, www.icgov.org
At the request of the neighborhood, the City has been working on designs for a set of traffic
calming solutions to help calm traffic on Court Street between Muscatine Avenue and Summit
Street. The neighborhood qualifies to participate in the City's adopted traffic calming program
as the measured 85th percentile speeds on Court Street exceed 5mph over the posted speed
limit of 25mph.
The preliminary design (located on the back side of this letter) is for a series of 3 chokers to be
constructed on the north side of Court Street. The design is based on feedback received at a
preliminary neighborhood traffic calming meeting held in October 2011 and a second meeting
held in July 2012. The intent of the chokers is to effectively narrow the travel lanes and thereby
calm traffic. The preliminary design also shows the use of rain gardens constructed within the
chokers. The City believes that the use of rain gardens will be visually appealing to residents
and also help manage storm water on this segment of Court Street. Major maintenance
activities associated with the rain gardens will be conducted by the City. Per the neighborhoods
request, I have attached several photos of what the proposed rain gardens may look like.
These are photos of typical rain gardens, the actual proposed gardens installed will differ based
on input received from professional landscape contractors at which time the gardens are
installed.
We would like to determine your household's level of support for the installation of the proposed
chokers on Court Street. Please fill out the enclosed postage -paid survey card and return by
November 9, 2012. Each household receives one vote. The neighborhood survey must
indicate that at least 60% of the responding households are in favor of the proposed traffic
calming for the issue to be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration. The intent of the
City's traffic calming program is to install traffic calming measures only if desired by the
neighborhood. You will receive the results of the survey by mail. If approved by the City Council,
the chokers would be installed in summer 2013.
To assist with your deliberations, City staff will paint the locations of the proposed chokers on
the pavement on or before November 1. Please take the opportunity to view the locations and
return the postage -paid survey card no later than November 9, 2012. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me at kent- ralstonCcD-iowa- city.orq or 319 - 356 -5253.
Sincerely,
Kent Ralston
Assistant Transportation Planner
cc: Tom Markus; City Manager
John Yapp; Transportation Planner
Jeff Davidson; Director, Planning and Community Development
Jason Havel; Civil Engineer
Ron Knoche; City Engineer
i
'.
CO
W 11 r
LU
CO
(r
U/
0
it
a
LU
i Ir
p z
LU
Ir w s.
U C)
tf
(J,
ti
� LL
w
z z f' ,psis T.i U
w
O cr
Z P NO a
O �
a QZ ,Y i�M CL 0
W a id . i. :.D (!) S F n s u_ ai^ .'i•.'
S*� r ® 0 1•,,1d"a a x,01 i {
W=. .FS 377 x. l
OC
aw — =trg'
J IIKAy�
ENE
LLJ
RIO
e ^:
2 \ tf e LS LIWiYQS k�7
in
¢ R�
D
C-)
z
Z
Mtl ZE�60AI ZIOZ /6101 '6np'P�4+oV46eN \ASnW a111wwn6 6epu� �Ule�l l6 LnmJ�]Liitllll \(f✓J \9N31�6
October 15, 2012
RE: Court Street Traffic Calming Q & A
Dear resident,
� r
�III�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa S2240 -1826
(319) 3S6 -5000
(319) 3S6 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
At the request of several of your neighbors, we have attempted to answer several of the most
commonly asked questions —with regards to the proposed traffic calming project described in the
attached materials. While this list is not exhaustive, it may be helpful to answer some questions you
have regarding the proposed project.
Question: Who will maintain the landscaping associated with the chokers?
Answer: The City (or City's contractor) will perform general maintenance of the landscaping at no
cost to the homeowner.
Question: What is the expectation of reduced traffic speeds with the installation of the
chokers?
Answer: The City anticipates that vehicle speeds will be reduced no more than 5mph. The goal of
the proposed traffic calming is to bring traffic speeds closer to 25mph (the posted speed limit). The
goal is not to reduce vehicle speeds to less than 25mph.
Question: How will the rain gardens perform during heavy rain events?
Answer: The rain gardens will be designed to 'catch' storm water during normal rain events and
allow the water to be naturally absorbed back into the soil. However, the rain gardens will not be as
effective during heavy rain events and a majority of the storm water will be captured in the existing
storm sewer intakes on Court Street similar to existing conditions.
Question: Who is responsible for maintaining the curb related to the choker(s)?
Answer: The City is responsible for curb maintenance.
Question: What is the cost of the installation of the chokers?
Answer: Engineer cost estimates show that the chokers and rain gardens will cost approximately
$40,000. These funds will come from the City's traffic calming budget and storm water budget.
Question: Will the proposed chokers negatively affect emergency vehicles or City service
vehicles?
Answer: Staff has solicited comments from these departments and there is no indication that these
functions will be negatively affected.
Question: Why are the chokers only proposed on the north side of the corridor?
Answer: Installing chokers on the north side of the street will likely produce the desired calming
effect on traffic without the need for chokers on the south side of the corridor. Providing chokers
on both sides of the corridor would likely divert traffic away from the corridor which would
increase neighborhood cut - through traffic on adjacent local streets – creating new unintended
traffic hazards.
Question: What will be the width of the travel lanes on Court Street adjacent to the
proposed Chokers?
Answer: The chokers will narrow the travel lanes to approximately 1 0' wide.
October 4, 2012
Dear Resident,
®pit
-•a.a�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa 52240 -1826
(319)356 -5000
(3 19) 356 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
At the neighborhoods request, I have included several photos of what the proposed rain
gardens may look like should the neighborhood wish to move forward with the proposed traffic
calming project explained in the attached materials. These are photos of typical rain gardens,
the actual gardens installed will differ based on input received from professional landscape
contractors at which time the gardens are installed.
These photographs are intended to provide you with an idea of how other communities have
utilized a combination of chokers and rain gardens to slow traffic, reduce storm water, and
maintain a visually appealing streetscape.
From:Ul HR EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
13193350202 10/19/2012 09:03 #018 P.002/002
r 1 IP4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa S2240 -1826
(3 19) 356 -5000
(319) 3S6 -S009 FAX
www.tcgov.org
October 19, 2012
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — MAINTENANCE WORKER I — STREETS
Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Maintenance Worker
— Streets.
Brandon Speers
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Lyr W. Dickerson, Chair
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OCTOBER 10, 2012 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Z
PRELIMINARY
Larry Baker, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings
T. Gene Crischilles, Caroline Sheerin,
Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek
Terri Larson, Michelle Wiegand, Mary Bennettt, Thomas
Fast
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Crischilles and Sheerin absent.
A brief opening statement was read by the Vice -Chair Grenis outlining the role and purpose of
the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 MEETING MINUTES:
Jennings moved to approve the minutes with minor corrections for September 12th,
2012.
Baker seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS
EXC12- 00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Michelle Wiegand for a special
exception to allow conversion of a non - conforming use located in a structure designed for a use
that is prohibited in the zone; and a Historic Preservation Exception to modify the site
development standards (a reduction in required parking) for property located in the High Density
Multi - Family (RM -44) zone at 518 Bowery Street.
Walz pointed out on a map the location of the subject property on Bowery Street. She said the
property is an interesting relic of Iowa City history and dates back probably to the 1850s.She
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 2 of 13
said up until the 1970s it served consistently as a grocery store; the last grocery store located
there was the first New Pioneer Co -op. She said subsequently it was a retail establishment and
then a school. Later it was converted to a single family use—a rental. Walz explained that
single - family is not allowed in an RM-44 zone. She said the conversion was done without
permits.
Walz said the applicant bought this property thinking she could use it as single - family residential
and then found out that was not the case. Walz said that recently the City Council designated
this property as an historic landmark, which among other things indicates that the City wants to
preserve this site. She said that puts some restrictions on how the building can be modified. She
said the garage at the rear is not an historic building, and the owner intends to remove that to
create parking.
Walz said initially the applicant was seeking a range of uses from office to retail to restaurant.
She said staff felt strongly that they needed to narrow that down. She said the owner was now
seeking a retail use, and the sub - categories they are seeking would be sales- oriented, personal
service oriented, or repair. She said staff is recommending only sales- oriented use, which is
likely the most intensive of the three categories.
She said the first standard the Board has to look at is whether the use will be located in a
structure that was designed for use that is not currently allowed in the zone. She said there
really isn't a use for this property right now. She said there hasn't been much done to the first
floor layout, and the second floor modifications were all done illegally and don't meet building
code for ceiling height.
Walz said the major issue with this nonconforming request is that the use be of the same or
lesser intensity than the existing use. She said in this case the previous existing use not only
was not legally established but it wasn't allowed in the zone. Furthermore, it made use of a part
of the building that isn't considered habitable space. Walz said due to the size of the property it
isn't adaptable as a multi - family residential use, and it doesn't have a clear history. She said any
rights to the retail use went away more than 25 years ago. She said along this portion of Bowery
Street, on- street parking is prohibited during regular business hours. In the view of staff, the lack
of available parking along with the size of the lot and structure puts limitations on what can exist
on this property. She said there isn't a lot of room for inventory and there isn't a basement. She
said it is staff's opinion that the only reasonable use of the property is as a single - family
residential dwelling (efficiency unit) or a limited commercial use. She said in this case because
the City has conferred historic landmark status on the property, which preserves the commercial
look of the building, it seems reasonable to try and find an appropriate commercial use.
Walz said the surrounding RM -44 zone is the highest intensity residential use in Iowa City
outside of the Downtown or PRM zone. She said to control that intensity of the use, staff
proposed a series of conditions for approval to control those aspects of a commercial use that
might detract for neighboring residential properties.
Walz said the next criteria for granting this special exception is whether the proposed use is
suitable for the subject structure and site. She said given the design of the structure as
described in the report, staff feels a small retail sales use is appropriate; again, knowing the site
itself is going to place some limits on it that will control the intensity of the use.
Walz said that the last of the specific criteria is that the structure will not be enlarged. The
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 3 of 13
Zoning Code and Historic Preservation guidelines prevent the structure from expanding in any
way. In regard to the first general standard regarding health, safety or general welfare, the staff
is most concerned with traffic and parking. She said that the spaced needed for the two required
off - street parking spaces is available at the rear of the building. The next criteria requires that
the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment in the immediate vicinity. She said this is
where staff wants the Board to consider hours of operation, lighting, glare, noise and particularly
that alcohol sales not be allowed. She said establishment of the specific special exception will
not impede the normal and orderly development. She said Bowery Street is well developed and
staff believes the property can safely accommodate a small retail use.
Walz said staff wanted to focus on the retail sales use of the three retail uses the applicant put
forward— retail sales is the most intense of the options. She said the property can meet the
parking requirements, which are based on square footage of the building. She said allowing two
or three uses that can change back and forth over time makes it more difficult for staff to enforce
conditions. She said that in staffs view, allowing multiple uses also makes it confusing for the
potential users or owners of the property to understand what they are allowed to do with the
property. Therefore staff is recommending only the sales- oriented use be approved. Walz said
it's also important to note that if somewhere in the future an unauthorized conversion didn't take
place, the rights granted through this special exception may be lost. She said once granted, the
special exception is a recorded document so any future land owner can find out about this
special exception through the abstract.
Jennings asked about the parking issue. Walz explained that the property is required to provide
two parking spaces and they have proposed to do that by removing the garage.
Baker asked what it means by saying that it's harder for the staff to enforce if you grant them
more options. Walz said if they are allowed to move back and forth between a series of uses,
it's harder for staff to know when there is a change of use on the property.
Baker asked if the use was approved beforehand, what would be the enforcement issue. Walz
said it becomes more difficult because it becomes confusing to potential users of the property
and they don't know the Zoning Code well enough to know when they are treading outside the
given use.
Baker asked if the Board approves the three possible uses, is it then incumbent on the property
owner to utilize the property. Walz said typically the way this works is that the special exception
has been granted, and the way that the language reads in the exception is that the Board is
approving a use. She said the Board could approve to have the three different uses and then
once a use was established, that would become the "current use." Any other use would then
require a special exception. For example, she said, they could find a repair, but because a
repair use is the least intense use, it would be more difficult for them to go backward to a
different use, since the other retail uses are typically more intense. She said the special
exception is really about approving a single use, not a range of uses.
Baker said that even in that one use, if it was retail, there's a range of uses that you could do in
that one category. Walz said within the retail use there are different examples of operations that
are defined as retail uses.
Baker asked if the staff is recommending that they start at the most intense use instead of
starting at the least intense and working up to an exception. Walz said if they start with a less
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 4 of 13
intense use, then it may not possible for them to get a more intense use. She said the way the
language reads is "a structure not designed for use allowed in the zone can be converted to
another non - conforming use in a different use category or sub - group." She said staff is
recommending defining it at the subgroup level.
Baker said what if they had a retail use but then they decide that a hair style salon is actually
good as a use. Walz said they would have to get a special exception to do that. Baker said that
because personal service uses are less intense anyway, it seems like they are setting up
unnecessary roadblocks. He said he thinks staff are being too cautious in just restricting this to
retail.
Holecek said the way the non - conforming special exception is envisioned, you start with the
highest intensity use and then as you move from one non - conforming use to another, you have
to decrease in intensity. She said if they want to step down, they can, but they have to come
back to the Board. She said this also creates a very good track record. Problems start when the
history of a property is murky —this makes it very difficult for members of the Board to say if this
is less intensity than what we've seen before.
Baker asked if they had a retail use but were also approved for a personal service use and went
into the tanning hair salon option, would the tanning salon itself require certain licenses and
approvals. Holecek said not from the City. Walz said unless they had to change something
about the building, say electrical or something structural, it doesn't require permits from the City.
Jennings asked if things like food preparation would fall under the purview of other regulatory
organizations. Walz said health codes are regulated by other government entities. The retail
sales use does allow for some food preparation.
Baker admitted he is having trouble understanding why, at this point, they are restricted to one
use only. Holecek said if the Board has a wide number of uses it's approving, it makes it more
difficult for the Board to actually say they find that this is an appropriate use because it's harder
for the Board to articulate what the externalities they are addressing are.
Baker said they have guidelines in place for each one of those categories so each category is
already limited by existing criteria. Holecek said that in the Zoning Code that is correct.
Jennings said because this property was being used one way and then informally changed to
another way, there's no history on the record for how the building was used and what its
intensity was. He said if the Board approves the most intense retail use and later a less intense
use is proposed, then that conversion will be on record as a new special exception. He says it's
while it is likely that the Board would approve such a special exception, the fact that the process
must be repeated makes the change part of the public record —this, to him, is a better way of
managing or tracking the use of the property over time. Jennings asked how the term "cottage
industry" is being defined here. Walz said two examples of food preparation that fall under
cottage industries are bakeries or confectionaries. She said food sales would be accessory if
you were selling food that was already prepared off -site or food that only requires some minimal
assembly. Most likely you would not have a full - fledged kitchen except in the case of a bakery.
Jennings asked if "cottage" is not being used in terms of similar size structures. Walz said there
are cottage industries like an upholsterer or an artist studio. Walz said cottage industries
typically have some sort of retail sales on site, but they are not exclusively for on -site sales and
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 5 of 13
or consumption.
Jennings asked if when they said retail they mean on -site retail as opposed to internet retail.
Walz said that was correct.
Grenis opened the public hearing.
Michelle Wiegand, owner of the property, said she is eager to preserve this building. She said
the neighborhood has really deteriorated and having some sort of small retail sales building
would add to the neighborhood. She said there's plenty of foot traffic: it's on two bus lines and
she could see people stopping in for coffee. She thinks it's an exciting use for the building and
she would like to see that happen rather than have it torn down and made into apartments.
Baker asked if, when she bought the property, it was a direct sale with no agent involved.
Wiegand said that was true. She said she bought the property in good faith because her son
rented it, and she wanted him to be able to continue to live there. She said she didn't consider
selling it until she was told that her son living there was not a possibility.
Baker asked what she was originally asking the staff for and what is her opinion of the staff
recommendation now to restrict it to retail sales only. Wiegand said her first priority was to save
the building, which is why they designated it a landmark. She said she wanted to get some sort
of exception to the zoning that would allow a range of uses. She said she has a buyer who is
interested in putting some sort of small business in there, like a coffee shop. She said she's
concerned about limiting it too much because it would be good to keep as broad an exception
as possible just because you don't know what's going to happen down the road.
Grenis asked if she felt this proposal limits how you could sell it or whether the potential buyer
would be satisfied with this proposal and still purchase this property. Wiegand said if it is just
going to be designated retail she thinks there's the option of going back and having another
exception if they need to change. She said if they have a retail store in there and go down to a
bicycle shop they can never again have retail. She says that does limit it somewhat. She said
she doesn't know that it will ruin the sale of the property She said she is willing to accept what
staff has recommended, but if she could get a broader exception that would be good.
Holecek stated that it's not so much the function of the exception, it's the function of the statue
or the ordinance that says if you're going from one non - conforming use to another it has to be of
the same or lesser intensity.
Baker asked if the Board approved all three and if they wanted to change, would they be going
to a lesser intense use at their own discretion. Holecek said the way they have proposed it is, if
at their own discretion they decide to go to a lesser intense use they are going to be fully
informed in making that step because they will have to come back to the Board. She said it will
have to be a very conscientious and voluntary change to go down. She said anyone who would
follow after the applicant's buyer will be taking those steps of their own volition.
Baker asked if they approved all retail sales, personal services, and repair- oriented uses, and
they started out with retail sales and another owner wanted to go down to the personal services,
and then years in the future, another owner wanted to go back to retail sales, would that future
owner be able to go back. Walz said it may be that a future Board decision would view personal
service and retail as equal intensity. She said the difference between retail and repair- oriented
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 6 of 13
seems more clear because there is a difference in parking requirements.
Holecek said it depends upon how one crafts the special exception, so if you would find that the
three sub - categories are of equal intensity so that someone could move between them, and not
require that movement between those require any special exception, then what Baker says
would potentially be true.
Baker said there might be a specific use in one of those categories in the future where the
specific guidelines for that use would require coming back for that particular use within the
category.
Jennings asked if the point of clarification is that if the use stepped down and an exception is
applied for to step down, could they step back up through a variance. Walz said the code does
not allow a use variance. She clarified that a special exception is required, however the Board
does not have to see the conversion as necessarily stepping down the intensity. She said
someone could apply for something completely different than a retail use - -what they need to
show that it is the same or lesser intensity. She said they could transfer into a new use category
or a different sub -group with the same intensity. However, she said that because that step has
to go through a process, it becomes recognized that a change is taking place and it gives the
Board the opportunity to review the level of intensity and any conditions that should be in place.
Baker asked if each one of these categories is an acceptable category by itself within the
process under discussion. Walz said staff believes that to be so.
Baker then asked if it is acceptable to have the three together as an option. Walz said staff is
recommending just one use category.
Holecek said is an unusual application because typically you have an actual proposed use. She
said here you have an unknown, and to try and decide how it's going to operate or what that use
is going to be is the reason staff has made the recommendation for the one retail use category.
Walz said what the proposed users expectations for how the property might be used something
they don't have right now.
Baker asked if within the one retail use you could have different kinds of retail use. Walz said
that was true and pointed to the examples outlined in the code.
Baker said that because retail use is applicable for that location then personal services would be
applicable to that property. Walz said that is something the Board has to decide. She said if the
Board can do findings, it is the Board's decision, but staff is recommending one use sub-
category.
Jennings said he appreciates the narrative that Wiegand provided the Board about the history of
becoming connected with the property and how she became aware of some of the issues. He
said she is trying both to preserve the historic property and find a use that would benefit the
neighborhood.
Terri Larson, of Lepic Kroeger, said she is the listing agent for Wiegand's property. She said
originally they were listing it as a residential unit. She invited Stan Laverman from the Building
Department to talk to them about why it could not be a rental. That's when she discovered the
condition of the property and position it was in, which was difficult, because you couldn't get a
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 7 of 13
rental permit unless it was an efficiency permit. She said the only people interested in buying it
were people who wanted it as an investment property and wanted to rent it out.
She said at that point she wrote to Tom Markus and asked what they could do with this
property. She said one of the first questions in real estate is "what is the best use of this
property ?" She said it had always been a grocery store and it never looked like a residence on
the interior. She said when Wiegand bought it, she assumed she had a rental agreement in
place. She said work is now in place to make it an historic landmark. She said the Planning and
Zoning Commission was excited about the project and wanted to find out how they could make
it benefit the neighborhood. She said she thinks it will make the neighborhood more sellable in
terms of rent with a convenience store or a coffee house that is attractive, because many
students in the neighborhood don't have cars. She said the potential buyer is not interested in a
high intensity restaurant and, as an historic landmark, that is unlikely since you would have to
break through the outside of the building to put in ventilation systems. She appreciates that
Baker is asking why they are trying to control it so much when all of this is already defined. She
said if all of the uses are acceptable, why can't they give them the variety of uses. She said they
agree with the recommendation of retail sales because that's the broadest definition and the
most intense use.
Mary Bennett of 1107 Muscatine Avenue said she is associated with the State Historical Society
and has been involved in this project as a private citizen. She thanked Walz for all the behind
the scenes work she has done to sort this out. She said she is here primarily to advocate for the
property, a charming building that is a reminder of what Iowa City was in the past, and she
thinks it's important that they remain flexible in its approach to it. She said when they talk about
historic preservation they often talk about adaptive uses, and she thinks that they shouldn't be
putting such a tight leash on the potential owners of this building. She said because the
economy is unstable, who knows if a restaurant or cafe are viable. She said all kinds of people
could find that an enjoyable space for their business or personal service. She said a lawyer or
accountant could have an office there. She said making this retail sales limits the longevity of
the building because if there's no success of that, they have a complicated bureaucratic process
to go through. She said while she appreciates the legal concerns,. she doesn't consider the
building's history murky. She said it has documented it. She said she knows that none of the
owners were corresponding with the City's codes and requirements. She wants to ensure the
building's future for the long term. She said she has faith in the potential buyers being dedicated
to this building and preserving it and she thinks that no one has the intent to disturb the
neighbors. She said they actually want to enhance the neighborhood and the entire Iowa City
experience. She said she encourages the Board to vote for these exceptions.
Holecek asked the Board if they wanted to close the public hearing, or keep it open and defer
until there is a full panel. Jennings asked if they could keep the public hearing open but take the
temperature of the Board.
Walz said staff has no reason to doubt the people who are before the Board now want
something good for that neighborhood. However, what the Board is responsible allows the use
of the property in perpetuity. As owners and users change over time, expectations change and
that is really where staff is coming from in the recommendations they made to the board
Baker said he is willing to support the staff recommendation of limiting this to retail use only, but
he would prefer if the rest of the Board agrees that they expand those categories to allow them
greater use of the property. He said that each category by itself is applicable so the range of
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 8 of 13
possibilities in that small area, even though it might change ownership in the future, will make
that building a more viable piece of property and maintain it better in the long run. He said he is
willing to vote for the staff recommendation but he is hoping that the rest of the Board would
consider expanding the categories.
Grenis said he too is comfortable in exploring more than retail sales, but he understands the
intent and reasoning behind the one use as proposed by staff.
Jennings said the rub for him is the long -term implications of such a decision and the
uniqueness of the property and the integrity of maintaining the property. He said this is not a
comment on the intentions of the applicant —he takes everything from the discussion in good
faith and trusts what has been said. But, he is aware that uses, especially in areas that are
dominated by highly transient populations, have a way of starting out one way and ending up
entirely different. He said that is sort of witnessed by what happened here on this property. It
had been turned into a living space illegally and wasn't part of the official record. He said
although he doesn't foresee that happening here, a lot of back and forth switching between uses
extracts a remarkable wear and tear on a structure. He said he is a bit concerned by having this
so broad that it is beyond the Board's ability to say what does or doesn't fit the goal of both
preserving the property and serving the neighborhood.
Baker asked if the fact that it's in a historic zone doesn't already protects the exterior?
Jennings said part of the issue about the charm of this property is not just the exterior fagade.
He said they have been talking about the unique limitations of the interior, which guide it
towards certain uses. Historic preservation and doesn't limit what you can do to the interior.
Baker said that's the trade -off that a city makes in regulating properties and that the historic
aspect is the exterior. He said he thinks that if you go into the interior of many of the protected
buildings in the city you would not recognize them as historic.
Jennings said they have seen many badly done interiors, but that's different from a commercial
use. He said some commercial uses are very compatible and want to draw upon the unique
character or the interior of a space, not just the exterior fagade. He said that tanning beds,
however, are an acceptable use then that's going to require much the same kind of change as if
you put in a full scale restaurant that may require changes to the exterior of the building. He said
he's thinking of the in perpetuity aspect and how it would best serve the building, the
neighborhood, and allow the property owners the greatest latitude in terms of their right to sell
the property and extract the necessary value from it.
Baker asked if it would make a difference if they had talked about just two of the uses rather
than three. Baker said he thinks the first two uses are completely compatible and workable for
this property.
Jennings said it's really easy to visualize a quaint baker or cafe or a lawyer's office or something
that fits both the categories of retail and personal service. Walz interrupted to explain that a cafe
or a lawyer's office are not retail -sales uses. She said staffs concern with having a broad list of
uses is the clarity of expectations for how the property can be used.
Jennings said he understands, but the point he was trying to make was that in the future those
uses may generate or create impacts that they don't foresee. He said if they did repair oriented,
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 9 of 13
it could eventually have excess parts stored outside, or other unsightly conditions. He asked if
that is part of what staff's concern is regarding in perpetuity. Walz said in some part it was.
Jennings asked if the attempt to limit is not an attempt to infringe upon the property owners or
overall restrict the potential use in the future but lacking a specific proposal, the best approach
at this point is to limit, and the most beneficial way to limit that in the interest of both the property
and the property is to take the broadest category first. Walz said yes, emphasizing that staff was
recommending the most intense of the proposed uses.
Jennings asked if a motion were to be put forward would the motion be to approve staff's
recommendation for approval under sales only, or would the Board amend that to say a
proposal to include approval of sales and personal service but not excluding another, or if the
Board thinks it would benefit to have a full Board here, because it's going to take all three voting
yes.
Baker reiterated that he was willing to support the staff recommendation but if the other two
members want to not expand the category, he is fine with voting for that. He thought they would
need a larger body present to discuss the fact of expanding the uses.
Grenis said he thought it would be better to have more Board members present to discuss it.
Walz asked the applicant if she preferred to wait or would she prefer to go through with a vote
on the staff recommendation.
Wiegand said she would like to have it settled rather than defer it.
Grenis said although he would like to have more flexibility and options, he would definitely
support the staff recommendation.
Walz explained to the applicant how the process worked if this were to be approved.
Jennings said he is comfortable with the staff recommendation although he would be more
comfortable with the expansion of the second if there was more input from the Board and if he
had a clearer understanding of what falls within the range of personal services and what staffs
concerns are about inclusion of that.
Wiegand said whatever the use is, the City is looking at it with one perspective, but whoever
goes into this facility is going to look at it from a totally different perspective. She said they will
have to cover rent and property taxes and make ends meet. She said the person going in isn't
going to set themselves up for failure so there isn't going to be someone going into the facility
who needs to rely on car traffic to support it or it isn't in the right location for the clientele they
are trying to cater to. She said that the structure itself limits what it's going to be there because
no business owner will set themselves up for failure. She asked Walz if a coffee shop, or a small
convenience store would count as retail sales uses. Walz affirmed that those were retail sales
uses. She said the concern was really with regard to when food sales become more of an eating
establishment use, and that's when food preparation becomes clearly the principal use of the
property.
Larson said she had asked a local bakery owner to assess the use of this property. She said he
had gone by the property three times to get a feel for the pedestrian traffic, and he said he
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 10 of 13
thought this would be a cold spot, meaning a situation where food is prepared somewhere else
and brought to this site to be served and sold. Walz said that the space itself is going to self -
restricting as to what it can be.
Larson said she could see someone who's already a business owner in Iowa City opening up a
satellite site here.
Grenis closed public hearing.
Baker moved to approve EXC12 -00010 with the following conditions:
I. The special exception is limited to a sales oriented retail use only.
2. Any change or conversion from the granted retail sales use must be approved
through another special exception.
3. A building permit is required in order to establish the approved retail sales
oriented use.
4. The property shall provide and maintain two off - street parking spaces at the rear
of the building in accordance with the off - street parking requirements in the
Zoning Code.
5. Hours of operation for the use are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. weekdays
and 6:00 a.m. to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.
6. Outdoor seating and display of products within the public right of way are
prohibited unless a temporary use permit is granted by the City.
7. Signage shall be limited to a fascia or awning sign in compliance with the zoning
code standard for non - residential uses located in a residential zone and in
compliance with Iowa City's Historic Preservation Guidelines.
8. All outdoor lighting should comply with the lighting standards for residential
zones and with the Historic Preservation Guidelines.
9. Sale of tobacco on the property is prohibited.
10. The sale and use of alcohol on the property is prohibited.
11. Food preparation /sales on the site are limited per the definition of retail sales
which allows a cottage industry component.
12. The public alley shall not be used for drive -up or drive - through service or for
parking for the use.
13. No amplified sound is permitted outside the building.
14. The building may not be expanded without a special exception.
15. Any alterations to the exterior of the building must comply with the Historic
Preservation Guidelines.
Jennings seconded the motion.
Baker said regarding item EXC12 -00010 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report
of October 10, 2012, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless
amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommends that the Board adopt the
findings in the staff report as Board findings for the acceptance of this proposal.
Grenis and Jennings concurred with Baker's statement in support of the findings listed in the
staff report.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0.
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 11 of 13
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
EXC12- 00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Thomas Fast for a reduction in the
front setback requirement to allow an expanded front porch for property located in the Medium -
Density Single- family (RS -8) zone at 1118 Fairchild Street.
Walz showed the Board a location map and a photograph of the house. She said there was a
porch on the front of the house that had been recently removed. She said the applicant would
like to replace the porch, which was failing and probably not original to the house. She said
Fairchild Street has an extra wide right -of -way. She said the property line is actually 5 feet
inside the sidewalk, so even though the applicant is asking for a reduced setback of just under
10 feet, it is not going to put his porch close to the street or sidewalk. She said it will have the
appearance of a 14 -foot setback; a 15 -foot setback is the requirement for the property.
Walz said that although the house in not in a historic district and has no historic designation, the
applicant agreed to meet with the historic preservation specialist. She recommended that
applicant not do a wraparound porch as the house as this would not be historically appropriate
to this house. Walz said the applicant is now proposing a front porch without the wraparound
section. The porch would be approximately 23 feet wide and 8 feet in depth at its deepest point.
This would reduce the setback to 9 feet, 9 inches. She said staff feels this is a reasonable
request given the unusually wide right -of -way and the varied setbacks on the frontage.
Baker asked if the staff recommendation for an open -air porch precludes the future use of
windows. Walz said screens would be allowed but not windows, as an enclosed porch tends to
become part of the house. This application is for an open air porch. She advised the Board that
if they make a recommendation to approve that they specify that the footprint of the porch is
eight feet by twenty -three feet.
Baker asked about the historic standards. Walz explained that this house is not held to historic
standards because it is not in a historic district and has no historic designation.
Grenis invited the applicant to speak.
Thomas Fast of 1118 Fairchild Street said his proposed porch is basically the depth of the porch
he just removed but then comes out to the edges of the house. He said staff has been helpful to
him in choosing what would be most appropriate design for this house.
Grenis closed the public hearing.
Jennings moved to approve EXC12 -00011 for a reduction in the front principal building
setback from fifteen feet to nine feet, nine inches in order to allow the construction of an
8 -foot by 23 -foot open air porch at 1118 Fairchild Street subject to the following
conditions:
1. The porch will be constructed and maintained as an open air porch
2. The Planning and Zoning staff will have final approval of the sketches in order to
ensure that the final design is compatible in general style in proportion to the
house.
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2012
Page 12 of 13
Baker seconded.
Grenis invited discussion on the motion.
Baker said regarding agenda item EXC12 -00011 he concurs with the findings set forth in the
staff report of October 10, 2012, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are
satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommends that the
Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal.
Grenis and Jennings concurred.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0.
Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to
appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with
the City Clerk's Office.
Walz thanked the applicant for patiently waiting through the hearing for the previous application
and for being open to the recommendations of the historic preservationist. She said both the
applicant and she herself had learned some interesting things about the history of his house.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
There was none.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jennings moved to adjourn.
Grenis seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 3 -0 vote.
w
�v
owl
QzN
0 Q
Z
Q �
co
E
O
N
N o
Mz —
XCD.O
C
ate. N N
�. N N
o N
N .O Q Z O
a Q II II Z
II II w � I1
x002 i
w
Y
Xxpxp
w
w
o
N
oxxxx
xxxox
Zxxxox
o)
o
x
x
x
x
x
U)
xx
;
ox
Go
N
x
xx
M
co
w
o
xx
;
xo
N
r
xx
;
ox
N
fl-
coIT
U')M
�w
V-
O
��T
O
O
-
O
T-
O
w
NC-4
N
N
N
Nx
w
O
Cl
0
0
0
N
L
�
Mn
'i_
Qi
a�
c
a)
w
m
Y
N
.0
0
i
Q
co
0
Z
m�
-�iU
E
O
N
N o
Mz —
XCD.O
C
ate. N N
�. N N
o N
N .O Q Z O
a Q II II Z
II II w � I1
x002 i
w
Y