HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 Board of Adjustment DecisionsFt -
Prepared by Sarah Wa1z, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-523911111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Doc ID: 026235010005 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
DECISION Recorded: 03/08/2016 at 10:30:28 AM
Fee Amt27Pa
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Johnson'CountOyOIowae 1 of 5
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2016 Kim Painter county Recorder
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL BK5480 PG310-314
MEMBERS PRESENT: Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel, Connie Goeb, T. Gene Chrischilles
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Baker
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Ross Nusser, Mike Pugh, Mitch King, Casey Cook, Roger Goedken,
Steve Myoffer
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC15-000016: A public hearing regarding an application submitted by Mitch King for a historic
preservation waiver to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements for a property
located in the High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) zone at 716 North Dubuque Street.
Based on the findings below, the Board concludes that the parking requirement for the use may
prevent its use or occupancy.
The Board finds that the property is non -conforming with regard to parking. The Board finds that
the current use of the property is an Assisted Group Living use with 21 roomers. The Board
finds that the current use requires 9 parking spaces: 1 parking space for every 3 roomers plus 1
parking space for each employee based on the maximum number of staff who will be present at
one time.
The Board finds that property is able to provide only two (2) conforming parking spaces though
it has the potential to stack and additional 2 cars. The Board finds that the minimum parking
requirement for a fraternal group living use is 0.75 spaces per roomer, or 16 spaces. The Board
finds that the regulations for non -conforming parking for residential uses (Code Section 14-4E-
86-2) provide that in situations such as this, where the number of required spaces for a
proposed new use is more than what was required for the established use, only the number of
spaces beyond what was required for the established use need to be provided. The Board finds
that the applicant has attempted to secure off-site parking within the neighborhood but that such
parking must be provided within the multi -family zone in order to be in conformance with the
parking standards and thus the applicant has not been able to secure off-site parking.
The Board concludes that the requested modification or waiver will help preserve the
historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property based on the following firunngs:
• The building was originally constructed and designed to serve as a fraternity house. The
structure has a large amount of living area and contains all of the necessary faci)ities to,
serve a group living use (fraternal or rooming house), including 21 bedrooms. I_ -
• The property served as a fraternity until the late 1990s when it was converted, to the '
present Assisted Group Living use.
The applicant has committed to making a number of repairs necessary to restore the
exterior of the building. These include repairing stucco, repainting the exterior, re-
roofing, repair to the exterior fire escape, and removal of the deck on the north side of
the building. The applicant has also indicated that work to secure the foundation of the
structure is needed and he would plan to do this before the building is occupied. The
cost estimates provided by the applicant for exterior work are $138,000-$154,000.
The applicant has submitted additional information on costs to bring the interior of the
property up to market standard and to install a sprinkler system. The applicant's
estimates for renovations to bring the interior of the building into market rate condition
total $224,000-$253,000.
Given the floor area of the building and the extent of the repairs and maintenance
necessary for the historic structure, some flexibility may be necessary to allow for a
sufficient return on investment such that the property can be kept in good condition
and that the historic aspects of the structure are maintained.
Information provided by an appraiser testifying on behalf of the applicant indicated
that the property could make an adequate income with 18 roomers, however this
would be a small number for a fraternity house and thus make potentially make it
harder to retain a fraternal use.
The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the historic preservation
commission in order for the special exception to be valid. The Board concludes that the property
is eligible for Historic Landmark designation based on the following findings:
• The property is considered eligible to be designated an Iowa City Historic Landmark and
is located along a portion of North Dubuque Street where several other active fraternity
houses are located.
• A historic survey of the North Dubuque Street area found the property to be historic,
describing it as follows: "The house retains a high level of integrity. It may be individually
eligible with further research, and is definitely a contributing structure in the North
Dubuque Conservation District."
• The Historic Preservation Commission has recommended that the property be
designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. The Landmark application is now being
considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The Board concludes that a reduction in parking does not present a safety concern or a threat to
the public welfare, however, the modification does allow an increase in density over what would
otherwise be allowed by code. Approval of the historic preservation waiver is subject to
installation of an interior fire sprinkler system. The Board finds that the installation of a sprinkler
system will make the building safer for residents and will help reduce the risk of the, historic
structure being destroyed by fire.
The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings:
-n
• While the additional parking demand generated by the residential density of=the use
being proposed may not, on its own, have a significant impact on property values, if
does contribute to a situation that can diminish the quality of life of the neighborhood—
especially for long-term residents and owner occupants for whom this is not a temporary
Ll
situation. However, the Board finds that the following conditions will help to reduce the
parking demand of the use and thereby minimize the impact to the neighborhood:
o The applicant will remove the wooden deck outside the first floor and install
up to 10 moped parking spaces. This must be done in accord with historic
preservation guidelines.
o The applicant will provide interior parking for up to 21 bicycles—one for each
roomer. Bike parking would enter from the north side of the building at ground
level to make access easy and efficient.
o The Board received just one letter from the neighborhood expressing concern
about the application.
o Because the parking demand generated by the use may be higher due to the
social aspects of fraternal living, the fraternity must hold all regular meetings
at an off-site location and more than three convictions for disorderly house in
an 18 -month period, the special exception would be revoked.
The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings:
• Fraternal group living is an allowed use in the RM -44 zone.
• Several properties in the immediate vicinity are operating as fraternities.
• The neighborhood is a walkable distance from campus, in an area that provides ready
access to both Cambus and Iowa City Transit service.
• Conditions imposed by the board (listed above) should help to reduce the parking
demand generated by the use and control other externalities associated with the
fraternal group living use.
The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities
have been or are being provided for the site based on the finding that all necessary utilities and
drainage are in place for the property.
The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or
egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets, based on the following
findings:
• Dubuque Street is an arterial street and the applicant has shown that vehicle counts
along the street are on a downward trend over the past decade.
• While alley access is somewhat constrained, conditions imposed by the Board are
intended to reduce vehicle traffic to the property.
• The property is located on a route served by Cambus and Iowa City Transit.
The Board concludes that, 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 -based ah the
following findings:
• Fraternal living is an allowed use in the zone. The RM -44 zone allows a fraternal qde of
up to 21 roomers based on lot area and square footage of the building so long as
parking is provided.
The Board concludes that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as
amended based on the following findings:
• The Central District Plan calls attention to the complexity of the housing market in the
near -campus neighborhoods, north and east of the Downtown. The plan notes the on-
going challenge of maintaining a healthy balance of housing types, and mix of
residents—homeowners and short and long-term renters.
• Goal 2, in the Housing and Quality of Life section of the plan, focuses on "achieving a
healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in the district's older
neighborhoods to promote long-term investment, affordable housing opportunities, and
preservation of historic homes and neighborhoods." This includes working to bring over -
occupied properties into compliance with current zoning requirement, revisiting
occupancy rules and encouraging preservation of historic homes.
• "Since there is more demand for on -street parking than space available in the
neighborhoods, residents are sometimes unable to park in front of their houses or even
on the same block. This is typical in many cities that have residential neighborhoods
near colleges, hospitals, and high schools. Restricting where and when parking is
allowed are tools that can be used to control parking congestion. If a majority of a
neighborhood requests it, City transportation planning staff can evaluate various options
for establishing parking restrictions.... One possible solution in the most congested
areas would be to establish a residential on -street parking permit system. Under this
type of system, residents would be sold parking permits that would allow them to park on
the street."
The Historic Preservation Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan. It encourages the
conservation of many buildings constructed in the late 1g`h and early 201h century for use
by fraternities and sororities as important artifacts in the history of the development of
the University of Iowa.
Disposition: By a vote of 3-1 the Board approves a special exception for a historic
preservation waiver to allow up to 21 residents of a group living use, subject to the following
conditions:
• The applicant must secure a Local Historic Landmark Designation from the City of Iowa
City.
• All changes to the property's exterior must meet Historic Preservation guidelines;
• The applicant must make those repairs and renovations to the exterior and fou`ation of
the structure as listed in the application (see attachment #7 to the application} for the
special exception) as well as any repairs deemed necessary by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
• All aspects of the interior must meet code standards. Shared bathrooms mast use
materials and fixtures of an institutional grade.
• In the area where there is currently a deck, the applicant must install moped parking
stalls equal to at least one-half of the residential occupancy of the building. Design and
installation of moped parking must be approved by the Historic Preservation Specialist.
• The applicant must install interior bike storage on the ground floor level of the building
sufficient to store one bike per resident based on the maximum number of residents
allowed by the special exception. Staff will review proposed bike rack/storage and
access to the ground floor to ensure bike storage is easily accessible.
• All chapter meetings held by the fraternity must held at an off-site location.
• Three convictions and/or findings or pleas of guilt and/or civil jud6rr164 for a' disorderly
house within an 18 -month period will result in the loss of the special exception at which
point the orooertv will revert to 12 residents maximum.
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall
expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall
have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement
authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C-1 E, City of Iowa
City, Iowa.
Approved by:
Becky Soglin, Acting Chairperson `\.
City Attorney's Office
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 17th day of February 2016, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this _ ``{ day of'tea C( -k _, 201 U
Maria . Karr, City Clerk
CORPORATE SEAL
t
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5239
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2016
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Becky Soglin, T. Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Larry Baker, and Tim
Weitzel.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek and Sarah Walz,
OTHERS PRESENT: Brett Mitchell
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
I IIII III IIIIII III VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
Doc ID: 026251650004 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 03/30/2016 at 12:51:22 PM
Fee Amt: $22.00 Page 1 of 4
Johnson County Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
BK5487 PG102-105
W
1. EXC16-00001 public hearing regarding an application by Verizon Wireless to allow
installation of a privately -owned communication transmission facility in the Community
Commercial (CC -2) zone at 845 Pepperwood Lane, subject to the following conditions:
The Board finds that a law recently adopted by the State of Iowa regarding the approval of cell
tower facilities, precludes local authorities from evaluating cell tower applications based on the
availability of other potential locations for the placement or construction of a tower or
transmission equipment. The laws also precludes local authorities from requiring an applicant to
establish other options for collocation instead of the construction of a new tower.
The Board concludes that the proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will
camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area based on the
following findings:
• At the request of the property owner, the proposed tower is designed to be similar in
appearance to a modern church bell tower.
• The applicant has provided a simulation of the how the tower would appear in the
proposed location.
• The antennas will be mounted at 57 feet and would be surrounded by a decorative
screen to reflect the religious use of the property. The antennas will not be visible from
the street.
a The structure will not have guywires or support trusses.
• If strobe lighting is required by the FAA it would be a flashing white light during the day
changing to a red light at night. The change minimizes disturbance to the surrounding
neighborhood.
The Board concludes that the proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide the
service intended based on the following findings: o
a.
■ The applicant has stated that the monopole height of 62 feet is the mire_ uEn rv�essag'
to provide the increased coverage. — ---
✓" p11
0
1` p
'r
• The applicant has provided maps illustrating coverage before installation that indicate
existing gaps in coverage and improvements in coverage created by the proposed
tower.
The Board concludes that the proposed tower will be set back at least a distance equal to the
height of the tower from any residential zone, ID -RS zone, and ID -RM zone based on the
following findings:
• The height of the proposed tower will be 62 feet.
• The pole is set back just over 63 feet from the nearest residential zone, which begins at
the centerline of Cross Park Avenue.
The Board concludes that equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in an
equipment shed, cabinet, or building, which must be adequately screened from view of the public
right of way and any adjacent residential or commercial property based on the following findings:
The applicant has proposed a shelter to store ground equipment that will be located
within a 7 to 8 foot high block wall enclosure. The enclosure will match the color of the
church building.
Landscaping as recommended by staff must be provided to the south side of the
enclosure to reduce the appearance of the blank wall along the street frontage.
The Board concludes that the proposed tower will not utilize a backup generator as a principal
power source. Backup generators may only be used in the event of a power outage.
The Board concludes that is unlikely that an additional provider will be able to co -locate on the
tower given its limited height and that additional user would require additional ground space,
which may reduce the amount of parking available on the site. Limiting the parking has the
potential to detract from the continued use of the property. Given the limited size of the property
and its proximity to a residential zone, the Board concludes that there is a greater benefit in
keeping the tower at the proposed height.
The Board concludes that, if use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the operator, or the owner of the
property within one year of discontinuance of use and the land graded and replanted to prevent
erosion. The Board concludes that an abandonment letter be provided as part of the building
permit application in order to verify that the applicant is committed to removing the tower if its use
is discontinued. In addition, the Board concludes that the tower be designed so that if at some
future date the property is no longer occupied by a church, the decorative screens can be
changed out to reflect the change in use. The screens may not be used for commercial signage
as the height and size would violate the City's sign ordinance.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger -
the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare and the specific proposed exceptiortwill not—.
be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity-andnwill not—
substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood based on tt)o following_,,,
findings: -
• The structure must meet all applicable building, mechanical and fire codes, ir-ludingl`'
wind and ice loading requirements for the structure. = o
• Ground equipment will be housed in a shed surrounded by an enclosure and screened
from view of other properties. The enclosure will match the color of the building.
• The pole is located more than 60 feet from the adjacent residential zone, which is
located at the centerline of Cross Park Avenue.
The Board concludes that the 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 based on the following findings:
• The use meets all required setbacks for the zone.
The church more than meets its parking requirement and thus the amount of parking
displaced by the enclosure does not impede the normal use of the property.
The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities
have been or are being provided. The Board finds that the proposed use does not generate
vehicle traffic and concludes it will have no impact on ingress or egress from the church
property onto Cross Park Avenue.
The Board concludes that, except for the speck regulations and standards applicable to the
exception being considered, the speck proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to
the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located based on the
following findings:
• All other aspects of the site must be in compliance with the zoning code. The applicant
must secure a building permit before constructing the tower. All other applicable zoning
code standards must be in compliance.
• The church more than meets its parking requirement and thus the amount of parking
displaced by the enclosure does not impede the normal use of the property.
• The rear parking area currently lacks required landscape screening. Required S2
screening must be provided along the parking area and enclosure.
The Board concludes that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as
amended, based on the findings above and the improvement of telecommunication coverage to
neighborhoods in the area around the proposed tower site.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves the special exception EXC16-00001, to
allow installation of a privately -owned communication transmission facility in the Community
Commercial (CC -2) zone at 845 Pepperwood Lane, subject to the following conditions:
• The applicant must submit a letter, at the time of application for a building permit,
indicating that all equipment will be removed if the use is discontinued.
• Substantial compliance of the submitted site plan and elevations.
• The tower structure must be designed so that if at some future date the prop" is no
longer occupied by a house of worship, the decorative screens can be -changes out to
reflect the change in use. The screens may not be used for commercial signage.
• Installation of required S2 landscape screening along the south side ofA(.parklftg area
and enclosure. µ-
• A generator may not be used as the principal power source.
0
Any illumination of the bell tower structure must meet the City's lighting standards.
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall
expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall
have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement
authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C-1 E, City of Iowa
City, Iowa.
Approved by:
Larry Baker, C
City Attorney's Office
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 9th day of March, 2016, as the same
appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this -Z9 day of , 20-4�,
Marian K. Darr, City Clerk
COR OAT[ [A�
Doc ID: 026340830006 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 06/20/2016 at 02:08:27 PM
Prepared b Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa Ci IA 52240; Fee Amt: $32.00 Page I of 6
P Y 9 City, Johnson County Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
DECISION BK5522 PG726-731
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2016
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, T. Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Tim Weitzel o
G.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Becky Soglin
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Sarah Walz d�
OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Flynn, Pat Barton, Aaron Doubet
_ w
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC16-00002: Discussion of an application for a special exception submitted on behalf of Joe's
Place to allow a Rooftop Service Area for property located in the Central Business District (CB -
10) zone at 115 and 117 Iowa Avenue.
The Board concludes that the Rooftop Service Area (RSA) will meet all building and fire code
requirements and be ADA compliant based on the following findings:
• The proposed plan for the RSA is designed to be ADA compliant with elevator access
and accessible restrooms.
• The site plan provided by the applicant indicates two means of access to the service
area—an interior stairwell and elevator. An accessible route between the first floor front
entrance and the elevator must be verified through the building permit and inspection
process. Likewise an accessible route from the elevator to second floor restrooms and
bar will be required.
The exterior staircase, located at the back of the building, is intended for emergency
egress only. The exterior staircase exits at the ground level just outside the fenced beer
garden, behind the ground floor level of 119 Iowa Avenue. The plan indicates a gated
door with crash bar for exit only.
• An additional stairway access from the enclosed area at the northwest side of 115 Iowa
Avenue—will be secured and is for access to the business office, which is located at the
front of the second story portion of the building overlooking Iowa Avenue. This stairwell
could be used as additional emergency egress.
The Board concludes that the RSA shall be designed in an attractive manner that will not detract
from adjacent uses, and will prevent nuisance and safety issues based on the following findings:
The site plan provided by the applicant shows the layout of the proposed RSA to be
located atop a wooden deck on the rooftop of the 1 -story portion of the buildings at 115
and 117 Iowa Avenue.
The outdoor seating area will be set back more than 45 feet from the front of the building
(on Iowa Avenue) and partially screened by existing or proposed extensions of the
second floor structure that houses the restrooms and stairwell.
Along the remaining portion of the north perimeter and the east perimeter, the outdoor
service area will be screened by 5 -foot high solid panels mounted to the top of a low
parapet wall (approx.1.5 feet in height). Along the south perimeter a 10 -foot portion of
the RSA is screened by the elevator shaft. Along the west perimeter the RSA faces a
solid masonry wall.
• Along the remaining perimeter area, railings 4 feet in height will prevent customers from
falling or entering onto other rooftop areas or adjacent structures.
• The site plan indicates a "canopy' covering a portion of the seating area. The structure is
precluded by code from having a solid rooftop—as that would be considered a horizontal
expansion of the non -conforming Drinking Establishment. The applicant has indicated
that he is contemplating a pergola type, open roof structure.
The Board concludes that the RSA will be located directly above the use to which it is
accessory and there are no other uses located on floors in between the RSA and the use to
which it is accessory based on the following findings:
• As shown in the site plan, the second floor interior floor area will be used for bathrooms,
elevator and stairwell, and the bar service area only.
• All customer areas are exterior to the second story structure. No solid roof may be
permitted above the bar area as this would constitute a horizontal expansion.
The Board concludes that the RSA will be set back from adjacent upper floor uses and the edge
of the roof and screened and completely enclosed within a decorative fence or wall built of high
quality, durable materials based on the following findings:
The proposed RSA is set back more than 40 feet from the front of the building and
screened from view of Iowa Avenue by the existing second story structure and 5 -foot
perforated metal panels.
The nearest second story use is located approximately 21'5" east of the RSA (the Basta
building at 121 Iowa Avenue). Panels, 5 -feet in height, will be mounted atop a 1.5 foot
parapet wall to screen views to the apartment windows. To the west, the RSA faces a
solid brick wall on the nearest second story of an adjacent building.
• The portion of the outdoor seating area located above 115 Iowa Avenue is set back
approximately 30 feet from the rear of the building, which faces onto a private alley.
The Board finds that a lighting plan has not been submitted, but is a required element of for the
building permit and must be reviewed and approved as part of the building permit process. In
order to meet the City's lighting standard, any lights must be downcast and shielded so that light
is only directed into the RSA and not outward toward adjacent properties and the lights must be
turned off when the RSA is not in operation.
The Board finds that no signs are being proposed for the RSA and thus none are permitted
The Board concludes that there is a management plan in place. The Board finds_ that the
applicant's submitted management plan indicates the following:
Hours of operation from 3 PM to 2 AM with no amplified sound after midnight. (The
applicant indicated verbally, that the RSA may occasionally open early for events such
as football Saturdays and the Board was agreeable to this.)
• All customers will be carded at entry into the bar.
• All customers will only be able to access the roof area from the interior stair for elevator].
• At least two to eight employees will staff the upper bar at all times.
• A floating crowd control manager will be monitoring entire bar.
To ensure the RSA is managed appropriately over time the Board concluded that it was
appropriate to reiterate, as a condition of approval, the criterion language from Zoning Code
language condition that states "if nuisance or safety issues arise, the City may require
immediate changes to the management plan and/or the number of monitors to remedy the
situation and reserves the right to suspend or revoke the [O]SA permit." This makes clear to
the applicant and any future owner, that if the OSA is not managed in an appropriate
manner that changes may be required, up to and including revocation of the OSA permit
allowing the use.
The Board finds that the property does not abut any residential property or any property that
includes residential uses on the second floor and there is no public alley adjacent to the
property. The Board finds that the subject property is not located within 300 feet of a residential
zone—the nearest residential zone being located east of Jefferson Street, approximately 500
feet away.
The Board finds that food service is provided as described in the management plan. Food
service will be concession style; there is no kitchen indicated in the plans, and a kitchen is not
required for the food being served.
The Board concludes that the design of the RSA will minimize the carry of noise across property
boundaries based on the following findings:
• As noted above, portions of the north and east perimeters of the RSA are screened from
adjacent second floor uses by portions of the second floor structure or 5 -foot high
panels.
The applicant has provided a Sound Mitigation Plan indicating the locations at which
speakers will be installed. Speakers will be angled downward and directed away from
nearby second floor uses to minimize sound escape. The sound system will not have
any subwoofers and will be on an automated system that adjusts automatically and turns
off at midnight.
• As noted in the Sound Mitigation Plan, the speaker system will need to be adapted to the
building materials used --in this case the metal panel screens and open ceiling (no solid
roof). The applicant has indicated willingness to provide additional acoustical materials
behind the screen wall if necessary.
• Live entertainment using amplified sound is prohibited..
The Board finds that amplified sound is permitted by an annual temporary use permit. A
temporary use permit may be denied or rescinded at the discretion of the City if noise becomes
a nuisance or terms of the temporary use permit or the special exception conditions are
violated. Live entertainment using amplified sound is prohibited.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to, gr endanger
the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings:
—9—
• The RSA must meet all building and fire code requirements and be ADA compliant.
• As shown in the site plan, the RSA will be setback more than 40 feet from the street. The
outdoor area will be surrounded by a combination of the 5 -foot high metal panels or 4 -
foot high railing to prevent occupants from accessing other rooftop areas.
• Access to the rooftop is from an interior stairwell and elevator. All customers must
present ID before entering the bar. The exterior stairwell at the rear of the RSA is for
emergency exit only and is secured to allow exit only.
• The applicant has provided a management plan that indicates that 2-8 staff will be
present on the rooftop at a time. Additional support will be provided by a floating crowd
control manager who oversees the entire bar.
• While staff is not aware of any proposed heat sources being proposed at this time, heat
sources will be required to meet Fire Code and Building Code, and will be inspected.
The Board concludes that 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 based on the following findings:
• The site plan provided by the applicant shows the service area set back more than 40
feet from the front of the building (on Iowa Avenue) and partially screened by existing or
proposed extensions of the second floor structure that houses the restrooms and
stairwell. Where not screened by the building itself, the RSA will be screened by 5 -foot
high perforated metal panels.
• Along the east side of the outdoor service area, 5 -foot high perforated metal panels
mounted to the top of a low parapet wall (approx.1.5 feet in height) will screen the use
from nearby second story uses at 121 Iowa Avenue.. Along its south end, a portion of
the RSA it is screened by the elevator shaft. Along the west side the property the RSA is
screened by a solid brick wall—there are no upper story windows on the building to the
west.
• Railings 4 feet in height will prevent occupants from entering onto portions of a lower
rooftop that includes HVAC equipment.
• Amplified sound is allowed by temporary use permit only and may not extend beyond
midnight. Live entertainment using amplified sound is prohibited.
The Board concludes that the 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 based on the following findings:
• The subject property is located in the Downtown District and is zoned Central Business
District (CB -10) zoning, which is intended to allow for a high density mixed use
development and entertainment area in Iowa City.
Rooftop Service Areas were added as an allowed use in the zone in ordw to create
more diverse seasonal opportunities, similar to sidewalk cafes. Q
The Board concludes that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan', "as
amended based on the following findings:
• The Downtown District and CB -10 zone are intended to provide high-density, cx ho6ct
development with a mix of uses. One goal of the Comprehensive Plan is t, &maintain a
strong and accessible Downtown with a strong and distinctive cultural, commercial, and
residential character.
• The Comprehensive Plan encourages investment in the Downtown to ensure its place
as the center of arts, culture, entertainment, commercial and civic activity for the city and
the metro area.
• The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan calls for maintaining Downtown Iowa City as the
focal point of the region, encouraging a variety of uses and activities within the
Downtown core.
• As Iowa City's population grows along with the University population, new or unique
entertainment venues help to maintain Downtown Iowa City as a center of
entertainment.
• The recent success of rooftop areas, such as that at 30 -Hop in Coralville's Iowa River
Landing, demonstrate that RSAs, much like sidewalk cafes, can add vibrancy to a mixed
use area.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 3-1 (Chrischilles voting no; Soglin absent) the Board approved
EXC16-00002, a special exception to allow at Rooftop Service Area in the Central Business
(CB -10) zone located above 115 and 117 Iowa Avenue subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted.
• No solid roof shall be constructed over any portion of the outdoor service area.
• Amplified sound is allowed by temporary use permit only.
• A lighting plan must be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and approved by the
Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit.
• Handicapped accessible routes must be maintained between the front entrance and
elevator, between the elevator and second floor restrooms, and between the elevator
and the RSA.
• Substantial compliance with the management plan, requiring no fewer than 2 employees
present on the rooftop at all times, and one crowd control manager for the entire
bar/business.
• If nuisance or safety issues arise, the City may require immediate changes to the
management plan and/or the number of monitors to remedy the situation and may
suspend or revoke the Outdoor Service Area permit.
• Food service must be provided during all hours of operation.
0
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall
expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall
have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement
authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C-1 E, City of Iowa
City, Iowa.
Larry Baker,Cha ''ers
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
Approved by:
sws�- t G -e �-
City Attorney's Office
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 13'h day of April, 2016, as the same
appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this ho day of j � , 20LLS
Mar1an K. Karr, City Clerk
N
O
Q�
C
Cn
Prepared by Sarah Watz, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington, low a City, to 52240; 3191356-5230
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2016 g, -� Phi 3 31
WEDNESDAY, June 15, 2016
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Becky Soglin, Connie Goeb, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Gene Chrischilles
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas McInerney, Justin Matiyabo, Katie Sturgell, Sue Benton,
Mike Benton, Binua Matiyabo, Anthony Smith
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
1. EXC16-00003: Discussion of an application for a special exception submitted on behalf of
the King of Glory Church to allow expansion of an existing daycare center located in the Low
Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 2024 G Street and 931 Third Avenue to allow up to 64
children.
The Board primarily concluded that the applicant had not satisfied general criterion #2 that
the proposed exception to increase the number of children served by the daycare to 64
would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
based on testimony from 3 neighborhood residents and one letter from a neighboring
property owner that the noise associated with the current play area had diminished their
enjoyment and would increase substantially with the proposed expansion. The Board found
that the constrained size of the site and the arrangement of buildings and parking area,
limited the opportunity for the applicant to operate a daycare for more than 60 children in a
manner that would not detract from the single-family zone in which the property is located.
The Board additionally concluded that the applicant had not satisfied general criterion #1
that the proposed increase in children served at the site would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, and general welfare based on the location of the proposed outdoor
play area along Muscatine Avenue, a busy arterial street, which raised safety concerns that
were underscored by the testimony of one of the neighbors regarding lack of supervision of
the existing play area.
DISPOSITION:
By a vote of 0-4 (Chrischilles absent) the Board denied the EXC16-00004, a special exception
submitted on behalf of the King of Glory Church to allow expansion of an existing daycare
center located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 2024 G Street and 931 Third
Avenue to allow up to 64 children.
2. EXC16-00004: Discussion of an application submitted on behalf of Little Creations Academy
to allow the establishment of a daycare center for up to 42 children in the Low Density
Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 2929 East Court Street.
The Board finds that the proposed daycare will be located at the lower level of the Ft t
church building with an at -grade entrance from the parking area on Raven Street. The
I IIIIIII IIIIII III VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
Doc ID: 026368140004 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 07/12/2016 at 09:09:01 AM
Fee Amt: $22.00 Paqe 1 of 4
Johnson County Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
BK5534 PG255-258
Board finds that a daycare center for 42 children requires a minimum floor area of 1,470
square feet—based on the submitted floor plan, the interior area proposed for the
daycare consists of more than 2,000 square feet.
The Board finds that the proposed outdoor play area is located on the southeast of the
church building and consists of approximately 3,000 square feet of outdoor play space,
which is adequate space to allow up to 30 children to use the play area at a given time.
The Board concludes that the daycare use will provide a drop off/pick up area in a
location that is convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance to the facility
and that traffic will not stack into adjacent streets or other public rights-of-way based on
the following findings:
• Vehicle access to the parking area is provided via 2 existing curb cuts from Raven
Street.
• The State of Iowa requires daycare operators to provide a minimum number of
caregivers based on the ages of the children in its care. The proposed daycare will
provide services for infants and children up to five years of age. With 42 children, the
daycare would be required to provide no more than 15 parking spaces + 3 stacking
spaces.
• The parking area provides more than 40 parking spaces with additional space for
cars to stack along the aisle.
• Given the size and configuration of the lot, cars are unlikely to back into the street
and there is adequate space to turn around in the parking area.
• Two sidewalks connect the main entrance to the daycare center to the adjacent
public right-of-way.
The Board finds that because the proposed use is located in a Residential Zone it
therefore must comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards as set forth in
Section 14-26-6, which require a 10 -foot setback be provided from the property line and
landscape screening between the parking area and the street and along any portion of
the lot that faces a residential property line. The Board finds that the existing parking lot
is established facing onto Raven Street. Setbacks between the parking lot and the street
right-of-way are approximately 5 feet—less than the 10 -foot requirement.
The Board concludes that, because the daycare will generate additional use of the non-
conforming parking area throughout the week (more cars and more parking), that the
following improvements to the parking area will bring the property into closer compliance
with the zoning code:
• Expanding the current setback from the public sidewalk to 10 -feet and installing low
landscape screening (S2) between the sidewalk and the parking area as required by
code.
• Installing 2 to 3 small trees in the area along the west side of the parking area will
screen parking area from adjacent residential properties to the west.
• Providing the minimum bicycle parking required.
Based on the findings above regarding pedestrian access and vehicle parking and
circulation the Board concludes that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity; will not substantially diminish
or impair property values in the neighborhood; and that establi6h;ment 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 based on the findings above regarding the setback and screening of
the parking area and subject to locating the play area 15-20 feet south of the adjacent
residential dwelling and providing a 6 -foot privacy fence along the north and east sides
of the play area. The Board concludes that screening and setbacks will reduce views of
the parking area and the privacy fence and bushes along the play area will create a
buffer between the active outdoor area and the adjacent residential properties to the
east. In addition, by limiting the hours of operation to 6:30 AM — 6:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, the Board concludes that the property will operate in a manner that is not
out of character with the residential zone in which it is located.
The Board finds that all utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are in place
to serve this property.
The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide
ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based
on the following findings:
• Access to the parking area is via two curb cuts onto Raven Street, a low-volume
residential street.
• The minimum parking requirement for daycare for 42 children will be no more than
15 spaces. The church parking area provides more than 40 spaces with ample space
to stack along the parking aisles.
• Given the size and configuration of the parking area, vehicles should be able to
circulate within the lot without creating congestion on the public street.
The Board concludes that, 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.
• As noted above, the parking area does not comply with the code requirement for
setbacks and screening. Requiring the standard 10 -foot setback and screening along
Raven Street and planting 2-3 low trees along the west border of the parking area
will bring the parking area closer to compliance with the zoning standard. Additional
parking spaces may be created by restriping to establish compact spaces.
The Board finds that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which
encourages the location of civic uses such as churches, daycares, and schools within
residential neighborhoods. The Central District Plan encourages the development of
businesses, institutions, and public entities that provide services and amenities that
support healthy neighborhoods.
DISPOSITION:
By a vote of 4-0 (Chrischilles absent) the Board approved EXC16-00004, a special
exception to allow the establishment of a daycare center for up to 42 children on property
location in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 2929 E. Court Street subject to
the following conditions:
• Substantial compliancewith the site plan submi66with someimodifioation to the
play area location, shifting the northern boundary south 15-20 feet to allow greater
separation between the daycare use and the adjacent residence to the east.
• Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:30 AM until 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
• Retain the shrubs along the east side of the outdoor play area and install a 6 -foot
solid fence along the north and east side of the play area.
• Establish the required 10 -foot setback between the parking area and sidewalk on
Raven Street and install low (S2) shrub screening as required by code.
• Install 2-3 small trees along the west side of the parking lot to serve as screening for
the parking area.
• Establish required bicycle parking.
• A building permit is required in order to establish the use.
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6)
months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall haw taken action
within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of
the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-6C-1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Approved by:
arty Baker irp rson��
City Attorney's Office
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 15th day of June, 2016, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, �
this day of 20 /G
< � e • til]
Marl -an K. Karr
-� Doc ID: 026396030003 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 08/04/2016 at 02:48:33 PM
Fee Amt: $17.00 Page 1 of 3
Johnson County Iowa
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 3191356-5230 Kim Painter County Recorder
13K5545 PG621-623
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, JULY13, 2016
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Becky Soglin, Connie Goeb, T. Gene Chrischilles, Tim Weitzel, and
Larry Baker
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT:Sue Dulek, Karen Howard
OTHERS PRESENT: Pat McArtor
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC16-000005: A public hearing regarding a special exception submitted by Pat McArtor to
allow a reduction in the required rear principal building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to allow a
one-story, 20' x 10' foot home addition for property located at 1031 East Market Street.
The Board concludes that the situation is peculiar to the property and there is practical difficulty
complying with the setback requirements, based on the following findings:
• The subject property is a small, nearly square corner lot 65' x 70' (4,550 square feet).
• The existing house is set to the back of the lot, close to both interior (side and rear)
lot lines, with a deeper front setback than most homes in the neighborhood.
• Because the property is located on a corner, the "rear" property line serves as the
side lot line for the adjacent property to the south (121 Clapp Street).
The Board concludes that the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the
setback regulations, based on the following findings:
• The proposed addition would maintain a 10 -foot rear setback from the abutting
property to the south. The principal building on the adjacent property to the south (at
121 Clapp Street) is set approximately 9 feet from shared property line. The
minimum side setback requirement is 5 feet and so this preserves adequate space
for fire separation and firefighting.
• A condition that only clerestory windows will be used on the south wall of the addition
in order to preserve the privacy of the adjacent property.
• Properties on the Clapp Street frontage are characterized by small lots and most
have non -conforming setbacks.
• Likewise, within the neighborhood, homes fronting on the north -south side'streets
tend to be located on small lots and many have non-standard setbacks. -
I
The Board concludes that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception -
are mitigated to the extent practical based on the following findings: _
R
• Clerestory windows will be used on the south wall of the addition, which will help to
preserve privacy on the adjacent lot and its rear yard.
• A condition that no other structures, besides the garage, will be located within the
rear yard and no additional paving will be permitted between the house and the rear
property line, will preserve permeable open space on the property. This will require
removal of a wooden deck and a shed that is located in the southwest corner of the
property. The existing brick patio between the house and the garage could remain
along with a privacy fence located at or near the property line. With the removal of the
shed and the deck there will be no net loss in permeable yard space when the
addition is built.
• The proposed addition will be located 13 feet from the west property line (this area
requires a minimum 5 -foot side setback) and 10 feet from the south property line.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger
the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the findings above with regard to
meeting the purpose of the building setback requirements. The proposed addition will meet all
other requirements of the zone, so will not endanger the health, safety, comfort, or general
welfare.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity; will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood; and 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 based on the following findings:
• The proposed addition will not prevent use or enjoyment of the adjacent properties as
the clerestory windows and privacy fence will preserve privacy between the small
yard spaces generally present in this neighborhood.
• The small one-story addition will replace an existing portion of the home, so will not
add significantly to the building size.
• With the condition that the the deck and the storage shed will be removed, , there will
be no net loss in permeable yard space.
• The neighborhood is fully built out in a traditional urban neighborhood pattern, with
homes closely spaced on relatively small lots. This small addition will be an
improvement to the subject home, adding dining room space, and will not prevent
investment or improvement to other homes in the neighborhood.
The Board concludes that all utilities, access roads, drainage and facilities are established for
this neighborhood.
The Board concludes that, 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 based pn the
following findings:
• The proposed addition will be in compliance with the required side setback of 5 feet from
the west property line.
0 It will comply with all other standards in the zoning code
The Board concludes that, while the Comprehensive Plan does not speak directly to this
situation, the plan does encourage reinvestment in existing housing stock.
Disoostion: By a vote of 3-2 the Board approves the special exception to allow a reduction in the
required rear principal building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to allow a one-story, 20' x 10' foot
home addition for property located at 1031 East Market Street, subject to the following
conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted.
• Only clerestory windows are allowed on the south -facing wall of the addition.
• No other structures may be located within the rear yard except for the privacy fence and
existing garage. The existing deck and storage shed must be removed.
• No additional paving or impervious surface may be established between the house and
the rear property line. (The existing patio between the house and garage may remain in
its current location as shown on the site plan.)
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire
six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have
taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized
under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-6G1 E City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Approved by:
a Baker, Chair
City Attorney's Office
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
I, Marian Kan-, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 130' day of July, as the same
appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this day of 20_ZI,:---
0
o,
Mahan K. Karr, City Clerk
Rp,�E SEA
COLPO
fNlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Doc ID: 026415910003 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
' Recorded: 08/24/2016 at 03:01:25 PM
Fee Amt: 517.00 Page 1 of 3
Johnson County Iowa
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 Kim Painter County Recorder
aK5553 Pe985-987
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, August 10, 2016 (r9�
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Becky Soglin, T. Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Tim Wietzel, Larry
Baker
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Sarah Walz,
OTHERS PRESENT: Adam Pretorious, Jessica Kinney, Corey Wilson
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC16-00006: Discussion of an application for a special exception submitted by Adam
Pretorius to allow an eating establishment to be located in the Planned Development Overlay,
Low Density Single -Family Residential (OPD -5) zone at 1040 Martin St.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger
the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following findings:
• The subject unit is small in size, 766 square feet of "shop" space with an additional 377
feet (in the rear garage space) to be used as backroom storage space.
• Given the remote location of the neighborhood, limited size of the space, and constraints
on seating, it is likely that the use will rely primarily on customers that are already within
the neighborhood—residents or people traveling to the dog park or along bike trails. The
use is not anticipated to generate heavy traffic or parking demand.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity; will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood; and 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 based on the following findings:
• The Peninsula development plan has always included opportunity for commercial uses
in particular locations around the park and the building was designed and built for
commercial use on the ground level.
• The applicant has indicated that additional parking will be constructed along the street
adjacent to the park.
• The building meets the design standards that are part of the Peninsula reguytioac. This q^�
use is in keeping with the vision for the development of the neighborhood;, t ---
• Activities associated with the proposed use are mostly indoors, with soma., doeNlo
seating on private property, the potential for noise or other externalities tt til,''igjreat� i
a disturbance for neighboring residential uses is minimal. r` i
• The building meets the design standards of the Peninsula neighborhood. r
rJ
• Staff has observed that there appears to be sufficient on -street parking to serve the use.
• City code prohibits the use of signs with interior illumination; signage and lighting must
comply with the regulations for the Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed Use zones,
which are designed to be compatible with neighboring residential uses and must be
approved by the Peninsula Neighborhood Architectural Review Board.
• Similar to the adjacent restaurant, conditions to limit hours of operation, seating capacity,
and use of sound on the exterior of the building. City code limits loading and unloading
activities to no earlier than 6:00 AM.
• The proposed use is limited to the first floor of the building and that the customer area
may not extend into the rear of the building (377 square feet) where backroom storage is
indicated on the submitted site plan.
The Board finds that all access roads are in place for the development. On site drainage is
provided. The area directly behind the property is reserved for stormwater detention. No
additional facilities are required.
The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or
egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on the following
findings:
• There is no off-street parking required or provided for the commercial use, therefore
there is no ingress or egress from the site itself.
• The use will be limited in the customers it can draw due to its small size and remote
location within the Iowa City community.
The Board concludes that all other aspects of the proposed use not discussed will be reviewed
for compliance with the specific standards in the Peninsula Codeg., lighting, signage, etc.
Serving of alcohol at the sidewalk seating is allowed by temporary use permit only by way of the
Outdoor Service Area requirements.
DISPOSTION: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves a special exception to allow an eating
establishment to be located at 1040 Martin Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Hours of operation are limited to 10 PM weeknights; 11 PM on Fridays and Saturdays.
2. Amplified sound on the exterior of the building is prohibited.
3. Outdoor alcohol service requires an OSA permit.
4. All aspects of the commercial establishment are limited to the first floor of the buiang:
766 feet of commercial space for customer access and operations for the eating o
establishment; 377 square feet to be used as backroom storage only. a
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action;';sh::"
expire six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applica 1 shall
have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement
authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C-1 E, City of Iowa
City, Iowa.
Larry Baker, Chairperson
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
Approved by:
as
City Attorney's Office
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 10th day of August, 2016, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this 0V 40( day of 20 /6 -
6
Maridh-K. Karr, City Clerk
s."
(ORMAR S9I
a
WRITTEN DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Becky Soglin, T
Goeb (recused)
MEMBERS ABSENT: none
`v 11111111 111111 III 1 1 1 1 11111 I I I I I I I I I I 11111111111 VIII 1111111111 I Ilii I IIII 11111111
Doc ID: 026470370002 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 10/19/2016 at 11:22:32 AM
Fee Amt: $12.00 Pape 1 of 2
* -- Johnson County Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
BK5576 PG978-979
2016 07
Gene_Chrischilles, Tim Weitzel, Connie
STAFF PRESENT: Mark Parmenter, Lederer Weston Craig, PLC (Independent Counsel for the
Board), Sarah Walz (Board Secretary)
OTHERS PRESENT: James Larew, Brian Boelk, Dennis Befeler, Jiyun Park, Bill Ackerman,
Chris Rossi, Craig Syrop, Frank Weirich, Dina Janzen, Patricia Koza, Catherine Erickson, Chris
Rossi, Joanne Madsen, Anne Lahey, Karin Southard, Brian Fagan, Reed Carlson, Sandy
Carlson, Gary Klinefelter, Doug Boothroy, Susan Dulek, Brian Greer, Jason Havel, Tim,
Hennes, John Yapp
APPEAL
APL16-00001: An appeal of a decision by Development Services to issue a building
permit for construction of a single family home on property located in the Low Density
Single-family (RS -5) zone at 101 Lusk Avenue, alleging an error in the classification of
the property as a residential use, wrongful approval of a site plan, and other zoning
code errors.
The Board began its review of the appeal at a public meeting on September 14, 2016.
One board member recused herself due to a conflict of interest; consideration
proceeded with the remaining four board members. After six hours of testimony the
Board voted to continue the public meeting on September 21, 2016 to allow more
testimony. On September 21, 2016, the Board heard several hours of additional
testimony. At the end of the public hearing, the Board voted to schedule another
meeting for September 30, 2016 at which time the Board members would discuss their
findings and vote on the appeal. Over the course of the first two meetings, the Board
received approximately 400 pages of evidence and statements on behalf of the
Appellant, Neighbors of Manville Heights Association, et al., the City, and the owners of
101 Lusk Avenue (hereinafter "Property Owners').
On the morning of September 30, 2016 a legal brief on behalf of the Property Owners
was submitted to the Board along with responses from the attorney for the City of Iowa
City and the attorney for the Appellant.
The Board met at 6:30 PM on September 30, 2016 at the Environmental Education
Center, 2401 Scott Blvd. SE, Iowa City, Iowa. Weitzel moved to grant the requested
appeal finding the City Neighborhood Development Services erred when it classified the
proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue as a single-family residential structure.
Chrischilles seconded the motion. Each Board member read a statement summarizing
his/her findings with regard to the appeal.
A roll call vote was taken, and the motion failed on a 2-2 vote. Pursuant to the Iowa City
Board of Adjustment Procedural Rules, three affirmative votes are necessary to grant
an appeal. Iowa City Board of Adjustment, Procedural Rules, Article VI, Section 11.
Due to the tie vote, the motion to uphold the Appeal failed and there is no prevailing
opinion. The Board members have submitted their statements, which constitute their
individual findings of fact and conclusions of law. Their statements are now part of the
public record, but do not constitute majority findings of this Board of Appeals.
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 30th day of September, 2016, as
the same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this
u-
C:)
CD
P
N
day of 0c_.hnt,.`n r , 20t L o
40�G� /e • 7CRiyl/
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Co�rViSf11 C A
Masan Karr
From:
Sarah Walz
Sent:
Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:38 PM
To:
Marian Karr
Subject:
Statements from the Board of Adjustment
Attachments:
Soglin Statement 9.30.2016.pdf; Weitzel Statement 9.30.2016.pdf; Chrischilles statement
9.30.2016.pdf; Baker statement 9.30.2016.pdf
Marian,
I have scanned in the 4 statements from the BOA regarding the Lusk Avenue appeal. These are for the public record.
Sarah Walz
CITY OF IOWA CITY and
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF JOHNSON COUNTY
410 East Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-356-5239
N
O
CD
O
--fC')N
r
m
c.
Introduction to Becky Soglin's Statement Notes for the Sept. 30, 2016, Meeting of the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
Introduction by Becky Soglin 10/7/2016
The following four-page document includes my notes on the crux of the appeal and my
major findings and considerations of the evidence and testimony presented in the
original board packet, during the public hearings, and sent by email to all parties. My
statement notes also consider the guidance provided Mr. Parmenter, the attorney
assigned to the Board of Adjustment (BOA).
I prepared my notes over the week prior to the BOA meeting on Sept. 30, 2016, and
these notes were the basis of my oral statement at the actual meeting. (I used
shorthand spelling to make it easier for me to reference while speaking. I apologize if
this makes for any reading difficulties or for any actual typos.)
On page 3, 1 added handwritten notes regarding the sensitive areas ordinance (SAO)
issue a few hours before the final meeting on Friday evening, Sept. 30. That was my first
opportunity to read and consider the SAO -related documents sent that day.
As I stated in my remarks at the final meeting, I recognize, as did my fellow board
members, that this was a complex appeal, and I did not take the responsibility of
arriving at a decision lightly.
N
Q
CIP
�
N
yua
C-)
-f C'?
FYI
V
FV
a-
i
APPELLANT CLAIM
1. Unlawful bldg misclassification (res v. commercial is a false choice;
we need only say It isn't a 5F, not what it is.)
2. Unlawful site plan : It is not required for SF dwelling
3. Unlawful omission of sanitary sewer
4. Misinterpretation of fire code
5. Unlawful and inadequate water flow
OUR ATTY SAYS WE CAN CONSIDER
1. Classification of the proposed structure as a SF dwlg;
2. Issuance of bldg permit for the proposed single-family dwelling
1. CLASSIFICATION AS SF DWELLING
Title 14-2A-2 and Table 2A-1
(a) Household living uses are considered residential uses and include (b) detached
single-family dwellings.
(a) Each dwelling unit contains its own facilities for Living, sleeping, cooking and
eating meals. They will be doing all of these activities Yes there is a lot of
entertainment opportunities but those are allowed as accessory uses and
they are not charging for it so it is aform of living. I do not agree that the
residential is accessory to entertainment (Trish Koza). Tailgating, in particular,
is allowed.
Re the presentations by Mr. Befeler
• The assessmt on percentages of use are not based on an architect'I
standard or code and are too speculative.
• Moreovr "entertainmt" is smthg occupants can do
• Assumption that this already is a nuisance and it is not.
Kathryn Erickson cited existing safety concerns with lost drivers. And it is
concerning that police did not ticket and tow a vehicle parked in front of a
hydrant. But these are enforcement issues and not smthg we can attempt
to regulate.
Tailgating allows for parking on unimproved surfaces only on the day of
the event. The Carlson should not allow an guests to park for days in a
row on grass or for nontaiigating events. Its 6 or 7x a yr.
(b) It is a detached single-family dwelling.
• Not the design or facade many of us would chose for a house but still
a dwelling.
• Architect Ms. Park suggested features signal it is not a family
dwelling. But majority of features she cited as problematic can be
found albeit individually in homes
Cited lack of eastern facing windows. SF Homes built since 80s
have no windows on one side even when rm for them.
— Bathroom is within four feet of the front door
— Lockers removed; but Old gym lockers sold by companies
Facade -could by controld Historic district or overlay
— Railroad apts (all rooms off a hallway)
S o U I- I r�
Joanne Madsen mentioned a case where someone wanted a pole bldg for wd-
wkg. Scale and design issues. It's an accessory structure. Again, scale +design
possibly could be controlled by historic overlay.
Boothroy pts 1-6 in memo Sept. B: (1) zone class, (2) overlay (none); (3) use
permitted principal IS a home (the THING, not the activity)
(4) use class "most closely describes nature ofprimary use"
(5) home—stated on permit (wld have to assume Carlson's are lying)
(6) lot size, setbks, coverage; ht [needs new res bldg or infill standards]
2. BLDG PERMIT
Must meet the rqmts of IC Code of Ord and the International Res Code
Definitions (p. 3 of Parmenter last letter)
Large proposed structure. In sq ftge could be larger than two structures that
would have been part of the subdivision that briefly considrd in 2015.
But city code clearly allows the city to have different requmts of a property owner
when subdivision is pursued. Thus, I find that arguments made by Mr. Rossi and
other re fire, water supply, sewer are not applicable.
BUT one concern re Sewer based on Residential Code. Hse is supposed to ha
its own. Larew said you can't grant yourself an easement. So property never
Bally had a private sewer. Was Boothroy supposed to consider this?
ow complicated by fact neighbors filed legal paperwk to remove easemen .
In addition re fire control:
I personally would want a home with more egresses, and it was surprising that
regulations do not call for more. I also appreciate the visual demonstration made
by Ms. Koza and M.s Jensen of Lusk Ave – it is a tight fit for fire vehicles on the
street. But Fire experts have stated it is the hose length that matters, sufficiently
addressed water supply, based on their track record do not put IC reds at risk.
Mr. Boothroy's Sept 20 memo to the BOA cites Section B105 and Section C202 of
2015 Intl Fire Code.
• The driveway oversight is a slip. But in of itself not unjust.
• That Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Lahey and Syrops were not given information
about the sewer that seemed pertinent generally .p1 cs.r,»160.kcltowLr•'r{kdi�N/l
• SEWER o P4 C<Arw aril sF11 G!E�r {,_ Ck 14-U
• SAO is weak. Mr. Weirich has diff Interp than City (and HBK �ori m ° {"Q .F r"Dµ`r` J
r . s m SLc "_(�per,.: j ( SFQ�� to
BOOTHROY: Did not survey slope. To consider slope the property affects c ldtcs� a. r. kr s a x
would be a completely new interpretation. ar o„►x sae 6a, 8,,,
ENFORCEMENT IS A CONCERN. �?
c> l
Said police come; do not ticket. Urge meeting with the police about this.
Carisons - r --'Changed the bathroom design and increased the playroom.
*Ensure visitors and guests do not violate parking rules. n)
c.
SF homes that are
• Extremely large
• With a highly unusual design
• Arguably unattractive facade
• With large amenities
• Owned by out-of-towners
• Used for entertaining along
with Ivg, slpg, cook, eting
This would be controlled or not by
• In -fill reg as Mr. Boothroy cited or overlay
• Historic or other dist for ext features but not int
• There are allowed if no charge
• While the comp plan refers to citizens of IC,
residents need to be treated justly
• It's not retail
Possible future nuisance control depends on
enforcement. This can wk better in theory than
practice but . Not sure how can control gawker!
The structure is not an ideal fit for the neighborhood but still a SF home.
Individually all the features of the home are allowed.
This is a situat;n where whole can feel greater than the sum of its parts.
But the structure follows classifictin as SF home
1 cannot disagree with the findings presented by Mr. Boothroy in his memo of
9/8/2016 on items 1 through 8 and at the public hearing.
The Carlsons' attrry noted that enforcing the zoning regs is not the proper place to
impose additional restrictions not made explicit in the code.
See why the neighborhood do not feel this the type of home in their
neighborhood but it is like asking the bldg official
And thus this Board to do the heavy lifting of
A historic or other district designation which could ilmit size
Infill developmt standards
Stricter residential standards
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
U Heights info is not compelling.
The sens areas/slopes was used to determine in that case.
There was not a thorough accounting for the classification
And even if there were it is a different jurisdiction
Architectural analysis by Ms. Park
Mr Befeler thorough but highly speculative. criteria are not part City Code or
residential code.
Hoekten involvmt does not seem to be an issue given timing factors cited.
City should have shared sewer cindition info w/Mr. Ackerman and others.
m
Practically speaking, it seems there should be different measures and
rv��
requirements in place when a SF home is so large, probably larger than two
homes. This gets at the possibility of eventual infill standards.
r --t
•1' 01
ra
_✓
r .)
Decision of Brd should serve public interest, meet intent of the title and be
consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city
Public Interest: This is not the same as majority interest. The concerns are
understandable. But there also is a public interest in abiding by the code and not
making up restrictions up to fit the situation. Public interest of concern re this
type of house can be best served by infill development standards possible use of
historic or other overlay, res bldg standards.
Comp Plan — livable and compatibility, but the restrictions must be set out in the
code; and some tools might have aided, like a historic overlay
Intent of the Title these are the things that are regulatory.
rpp
N
C�
C1
n
711
N
i.�
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
Decision
APL 16-00001
An appeal of a decision by Neighborhood Development Services to issue a building permit for a
residential use on property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS -5) zone at 101 Lusk Avenue:
alleging an error in the classification of the property as a residential use, wrongful approval of a site
plan, and other Zoning Code errors.
Authorities
The Iowa City Board of Adjustment consists of five members, one of whom is recused for this matter,
who serve voluntarily and without compensation. The Iowa City Board of Adjustment, the Board, derives
its powers from Iowa Code Chapter 414 City Zoning and by extension the enabling ordinance under the
Code of Iowa City at Title 14 Zoning Code (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005 and the pursuant ordinances cited
within Title 14 Zoning Code). Reference is also made to the 2015 International Residential Code, a
section of the International Building Code. These are the authorities consulted in this matter along with
the testimony given during the public hearing.
Regarding appeals to the Board of Adjustment, Iowa Code Chapter 414 City Zoning states the following
under Chapter 414.12 Powers.
The board of adjustment shall have the following powers:
1. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order,
requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in
the enforcement of this chapter or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
2. To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which
such board is required to pass under such ordinance.
3. To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the
ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special
conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in
unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed
and substantial justice done.
Iowa CodeA14.12_
The Iowa City Zoning Code further states: _
The Board of Adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this title or
ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify,
wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and
may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made and
to that end, shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is made.
Iowa City Code 14 -SC -3(B)(3)
Iowa Code indicates the authority to create zones within cities rests with the City Council of the specific
city based on recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Input from the public
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Decision, APL 16-00001
(Chapter 414). In practicality and experientially, this means staff will contribute expert advice to the
process and have done so in the recent past of the City of Iowa City, but zoning is a process somewhat
distinct from issuing building permits made under the zoning regulations adopted in the Zoning Code.
Despite limited discretionary powers assigned to the Zoning Enforcement Official, or Building Official as
in the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance, the final power to zone or enforce the Iowa City Zoning Code of any
city in Iowa rests with the City Council, who may create, alter and change zones and enforce the Iowa
City Zoning Code and so on through legislative action, based on the authorities cited. It is presumable
and logical that it is the duty of the Building Official to execute faithfully the legislation dictated by the
zoning process and the code adopted by the City Council (Chapter 414) and there is limited discretion
for the Building Official to deny a permit, provided the base level of requirements are met in the zoning
and building codes (2015 International Residential Code). This is not to say there are no additional
inspections, including for example, rough out inspection and final inspection, before the occupancy
certificate is granted to newly constructed buildings, as we heard during the hearing. Additionally,
permits for sewer tap and water tap are required, per testimony in the hearing. One could go on to add
other utilities must be connected as well, such as electricity, but those involve a process that is distinct
from the building permit process, based on the hearing.
Issues Appealed
The issues appealed to the Board are the following:
(1) The classification of the proposed structure as a single family dwelling or residence;
(2) Approval of the site plan for the proposed structure; and
(3) Approval of the building permit
Additionally, objection has been raised regarding the sewer connection and fire department response
abilities. Although those issues fall outside of the Iowa City Zoning Code, the appellants have related
them to their appeal in that they stated a building permit should not be granted for a property that does
not meet these criteria. Further, a significant amount of discussion involved objection by the appellants
of the stated Intent to conduct tailgating at 101 Lusk Avenue. The issue of sensitive areas review was
also raised first by a public comment but then adopted as part of the appellants' case after the start of
the public hearing.
Responding to the three issues raised, Consideration was given first to the classification of the bujlding
and whether or not it was properly made and whether an error was made in the classification of -'the .
building as a single family residence. Without an error being found, a permit cannot be denied and the
Board of Adjustment would have no power to make changes to the building permit issued by the,
Building Official (Iowa Code Chapter 414.12 and the Iowa City Zoning Code 14 -8C -3(B)(3)).
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Decision, APL 16-00001
DECISION
A single-family use is permitted by right in the Low Density Single Family (RS -5) Zone and that there was
no error in the classification of the building as a single-family dwelling. Occupancy cannot be established
without a Certificate of Occupancy. There is no design review of buildings a 101 Lusk Avenue. There are
no sensitive areas on the subject property. The discretionary power of the building official does not
allow denial of a permit in this matter.
AFFIRM the decision of the Building Official.
Findings
The classification of the or000sed structure as a single family dwelling or residence
The building determination made by the Building Official conforms to what is provided in the Iowa City
Zoning Code. The building classification matches that of a single family dwelling for the following
reasons.
(1) The subject property, Iowa City Manville Addition Block 14, Lot 1, known also as 101 Lusk Avenue,
is located in a Low Density Single Family (RS -5) Zone.
• The Iowa City Zoning Code provides a Low Density Single Family (RS -5) Zone. Iowa City Code 14-
2A -1B
• The Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone is Intended primarily for housing opportunities for
individual households.
• The property owners of 101 Lusk Avenue submitted plans for a building showing a single
residential household unit in that there were not separate entrances, party walls, or other
divisions for a second household unit or any of the other usual indicators that there were two or
more units in the proposed building. These plans were submitted to the Board of Adjustment
during the hearing.
• The Building Official required both a statement of use and an affidavit signed by the owners to
indicate that they, the owners, know and understand the relevant Iowa City ordinance and that
they intend to follow the Iowa City ordinance regulations for their property at 101 Lusk Avenue
based on testimony during the hearing.
(2) The use characteristics of a single-family residence use classification are met.
• The building plans indicate a single family dwelling use.
• The Zoning Ordinance states the definition of a dwelling is a building wholly or partially used or
intended to be used for residential occupancy, Iowa City Code 14-9A-1, which is to say, the
building does not, for example, serve a public use, private institutional use, commercial,Ve or
industrial use.
t HT1
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Decision, APL 16-00001 4
• A detached, single family dwelling is a single-family use that is not attached to any other
dwelling unit. Iowa City Code 14-9A-1
• Per the Iowa City Zoning Code, a household living use has the following characteristics: It is a
residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a single household or group household; Each
dwelling unit contains its own facilities for living, sleeping, cooking, and eating meals. Iowa City
Code 14-0A-3
• A single-family use is provided as an example of a household living use. The use is a household
living use where there is no more than one principle dwelling unit per lot. Iowa City Code 14-
4A-3(A)(1)(b)
• The Iowa City Zoning Code indicates a Single Family house as an example of a detached single-
family dwelling. Iowa City Code 14-4A-3(A)(1)(b)(1)
• Occupancy cannot be established without a Certificate of Occupancy, per testimony in the
hearing.
• The building plans submitted and testimony during the hearing state that the proposed building
has living and sleeping spaces, a place to prepare and eat meals and additionally sanitation
facilities.
• Detached Single Family Dwellings are permitted without exception in the Low Density Single
Family (RS -5) Zone.
(3) A private recreational use is not restricted by the Iowa City Zoning Code, and constitutes an
accessory use.
• A private recreational use is an accessory use. Iowa City Code 14 -4A -3(A)(3).
• The Iowa City Zoning Code enacted by the City Council of Iowa City places no constraint on such
space.
• The lack of a restriction indicates owners are allowed to have property and enjoy it and are not
further constrained in this zone for this use so long as their use of the property does not create
a nuisance.
• Tailgating is defined as "A home football game day informal social gathering that is
noncommercial and may include eating and drinking beverages (alcoholic or nonalcoholic) as
part of the activities. Temporary parking on unimproved surfaces located on private property is
allowed during tailgate events. No alcohol is sold at a tailgate, nor is any admission fee charged,
goods sold or given away, nor services provided for a fee." Iowa City Zoning Code 14-9A-1.
• Tailgating is specifically allowed without permit. Iowa City Code 14-4D-3.
(4) The building dimensions indicted on the plans submitted match the requirements in the LOW
Density Single Family (RS -5) zone based on testimony in the hearing and the information provided
in the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance, that is to say, the height and all setback requirements are met.
• The Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone requires the building to be below 35 feet in height, to
be set back 15 feet from the front lot line, is to be set back 5 feet from the side lot lines for the
first two stories, and 20 feet from the rear lot line.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Decision, APL 16-00001
• The building meets the above requirements. The building height is maximally two stories that
terminate below 35 feet in height, the front set back is 15 feet, the minimum side lot set back is
5 feet and the rear lot setback is 41 feet per building plans and the plot plan submitted during
the hearing.
(5) There are no overlay zones or other qualifications indicated that would allow for design review or
otherwise prohibit a building of any given appearance.
• Some of the Appellants stated during the hearing that they did not question the appearance of
the design of the building, while others did raise the design as an issue.
• An overlay zone is a set of zoning requirements imposed in addition to those of the underlying
base zone, which here is the Low Density Single Family (R-5) zone and under which design
review may be required. Iowa City Code 14-9A-1.
• City Staff stated during the hearing that the building is not located in an overlay zone or planned
development. The building is indicated as a single-family home.
• Without design review, the appearance and form of the building cannot be further regulated
beyond what is required by the base zone of Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone.
• The Iowa City Zoning Code describes what zones there are. Iowa City Code Title 14
• The building code adopted by ordinance by the City Council of Iowa City states that a permit
shall be issued if the requirements of the proposed building and its uses are met. International
Residential Code R105.3.1
• One might speculate on whether or not this process should be reviewed to prevent designs that
are inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. However, the only current power to
review design for single family uses by the Building Official, or the City as a whole, rests in
certain requirements in the Zoning Code that do not apply in this situation.
(6) The sensitive areas requirements in the Iowa City Zoning Code do not apply to the subject property.
• The subject property is an existing lot on an existing street, based on testimony at the hearing.
• The subject property is not being subdivided and consists of a single lot based on testimony and
the plot plan submitted during the hearing.
• There is a railroad grade on an adjacent but separate property that has existed for along time
based on testimony during the hearing.
• Expert testimony agrees there is no designated sensitive area in the subject property based on
the hearing testimony. The disagreement appears to be among the public comment and the
expert testimony of the appellants and the Building Official, specifically whether or not a
sensitive area buffer is required on one property for a sensitive feature that exists on another
property owned separately by a railroad and a private owner. This appears to have no
precedent, based on hearing testimony.
• The proposed activity, construction of a single family dwelling with no sensitive areas, is
otherwise exempt from the sensitive areas review. Iowa City Zoning Code 14-51-2(C)(3)
I would like to start by commending both attorneys, the city staff, and the Carlsons on their
presentations regarding this appeal. They provided many excellent points of consideration in this matter
and made coming to a decision a difficult one. I have spent many hours in deliberation coming to my
own conclusion.
When I received my packet of information, I was immediately aware of the complexity of this appeal
due to the sheer size of the packet. It was an issue that was unlike any I had seen while on this board,
and very likely was one of a kind to this date. I was on alert that open-minded thinking and close
scrutiny would be required to reach a decision.
When I looked at the floor plan of the structure, my first thought was that I had never seen a residence
laid out in this manner. The arrangement of space and the amount of space allocated to uses other than
clearly residential (which would include a single family living, sleeping, cooking, and eating meals) made
me think hard about the intended principal use. While the structure does fit some of the criteria that
would qualify its designation as a single family residence, was that the principal use of the structure? 1
carefully listened to all arguments from both sides, and I kept coming back to intent of use as the most
important factor. 1 believe this is what ultimately determines the principal vs. accessory uses of a
structure. In this case, the arrangement of space and the amount of space allocated to uses other than
clearly residential led to my opinion that residential use is not the principal use of the structure. It
therefore must be an accessory use and the structure is misclassified.
The principal use determines the use classification. If not residential, what is the intended principal use
of this building? I think it lies in an as yet to be created category. I would best describe it as an
entertainment oriented use, but that needs to be determined and added to the zoning code. Since this
new use classification Is currently not listed in the zoning code, It cannot be a permitted use in a RS-5
zone. Therefore, the building permit for this structure in a RS-5 zone cannot be issued. "( :; ; _lea
Larry Baker
Board of Adjustment item EXC 16-00001
9/30/16
Overview and Parameters
This issue pits two documents, the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, which
ought to be compatible and mutually reinforcing, into conflict with each other. In its
simplest terms, this is a conflict between what the City should do, and what the City
can do.
In this appeal, the City maintains that the Comp Plan is merely aspirational while the
Zoning Code is regulatory. Indeed, the City's position is that not only does the
Zoning Code dictate what it can do, but also what it must do.
When an individual or group disagrees with a City decision and subsequently
appeals it, the role of the Board of Adjustment is to consider the facts involved, the
relevant regulations, and how the City processed those facts and regulations in its
effort to reach a decision that is consistent with the law, the Zoning Code, and the
Comp Plan. As the Board considers those issues, our counsel also gives us the legal
parameters in which we must operate.
First let me quote page 23 of the Comp Plan, LAND USE/Vision section:
Iowa City guides development and growth in order to make wise
and efficient use of land and infrastructure. In order to create a
quality living environment for all area residents, the City will protect
and promote the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods,
while encouraging new development that is designed in a manner
that is efficient and sustainable, compatible with and connected to
surrounding development, and sensitive to its environmental
context. Future development should adhere to the City's
neighborhood principles for compact and contiguous development.
Let me suggest that similar passages in other sections of the Plan would reflect the
same values and aspirations.
In his memo dated 9/12/16, Board counsel cited Iowa Code 414.10 (B -Purpose);,"
'The decisions of the Board should serve the public interest, meet the o
intent of the title, and be consistent with the comprehensive plan of ---
v
the city, as amended."
-
- C'J -
Also, quoting from the 1C Code of Ordinances, 14 -BC -3(B) (3):
'the board of adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of
this title or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon
finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order,
requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make
such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be
made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the office from
whom the appeal is taken!
Counsel was specifically asked if "error" included "error of judgment." Counsel, in
my view, seemed to grant the Board some latitude in that area, but only in the
context of fact We cannot simply say we disagree. We must convincingly argue that
the "facts" would lead us to a different conclusion; that is, the City made its decision
in error by a misinterpretation or misuse of the relevant facts.
Thus, the dilemma for this Board is established. We an assume "all the powers of
the office from whom the appeal is taken." But it is the Cityrs position that it has no
powers (through the Zoning Code) in certain areas of this issue, and therefore the
Board cannot assume those powers for itself. In the ase of single-family residences,
the City claims no power to mandate sanitary sewer re -alignments, no power to
force a turnaround to be constructed at the end of Lusk Avenue, no power to
influence site plans (which are themselves not required for single-family
development) adjacent to wetlands or sensitive areas.
The City asserts that, regardless of clearly demonstrable problems associated with
each of those three areas in relation to the construction of this structure, the City
has no power; therefore, neither does the Board.
Issues Not Relevant to the Decision
Let me cite those issues or "facts" which will not Influence my decision.
A) First any information or fact that was not available to the City before it made its
decisions. Some of those will be discussed later in a different context but as a rule,
they cannot be used to justify or explain our rejection or acceptance of the
Appellant's argument
B) Second, the design of the building. Without the guidelines or protection of an in=,
fill overlay zone or a historic district designation, the Applicant can, if within the
dimension limitations and other applicable restrictions of the Code, build a scaled
down Taj Mahal or a tiny Trump Tower. (Assuming, of course, according to the Cltyi j__
the structure has one bedroom, one kitchen, one bathroom, and one living area.)
-r
Do I find the design offensive? Absolutely. 1 also find it unimaginative. But the City
has no power to legislate good taste. My aesthetic sensitivities, along with those of
the neighbors, are irrelevant If someone wants to live in a replica of a Burger King
in Manville Heights, the law allows it.
That design, however, that size on that lot in that neighborhood with its perceived
"use" history, has led to an understandable public outcry. A concept spawned in
another community has gestated into a .- something ... that is looking for a new
home in Iowa City.
I am confident that if a poll were taken of every homeowner In Iowa City, the result
would be almost unanimous, and for the same reasons. This structure is out of place,
inconsistent with ".._the character and integrity of my existing neighborhood, not
compatible with and connected to surrounding development, and it is insensitive
to the surrounding natural environment." Yes, with minor word changes I have
made here, they would articulate their own understanding of the Comp Plan even
though almost none of them had read it
This proposed structure is so disturbing that even the City Director of Neighborhood
Development Services has stated that he understands the neighbor's concerns on
this issue and would not himself want this structure in his neighborhood.
But he approved the building permit He did what he understood the rules of his job
required him to do, regardless of his personal feelings.
On this issue of design, one last observation. Imagine the following scenario: The
Applicant resolves to build this same structure in his own neighborhood. He has the
resources and the regulations, he believes, on his side. How would his neighbors
respond? Would they be at his front door everyday, pleading with him to not do that
to their neighborhood? Would they tell him how it would diminish the quality of life
in their neighborhood, perhaps even diminish the value of their own property if they
wanted to sell and move? Would not such a structure in his own neighborhood
poison relations between him and his neighbors? In his testimony before the Board,
the Applicant seemed like a good and decent man. I am sure he is. But we are not
judging his character, merely the effects of his decision. indeed, how would he feel if
someone else were to construct a comparable structure neat door to his current
home? Would he feel violated? Would he feel betrayed by his own city government?
Would he appeal that city's decision?
This issue might well be decided in subsequent legal arenas. If the Applicant -is
eventually successful in building this structure in this Iowa City neighborhood,
unfortunately, he will have pre-emptively poisoned the chance for any good will
between himself and the neighbors around him. The Applicant may well achieve his
goal, but it will be a pyrrhic victory. He will have a structure where he can entertain
friends and family, but he will never have a true home in Iowa City.
The previous two paragraphs, as harsh and damning as they might sound, can raise
legitimate social concerns, but for this Board, under our rules, they are irrelevant ....
except as to how they illustrate the concept of "public interest"
The exterior design is, however, tangentially relevant in the larger issue of "use."
The design implicitly validates the public concern about the intended use.
C) The Appellant quotes public statements from other sources that describe the
proposed use as "commercial." Such a designation has never been established, is
speculation, and should be ignored by the Board in its review.
D) The Appellant cites a statement from a social media source that is meant to
illustrate the intent and consequence of the proposed structure. Such a source,
unless from the Applicant himself, is irrelevant and should be ignored by this Board.
E) Also irrelevant In my mind is the prior legal history of a comparable project in
University Heights. Different city, different design, different rules. Their denial, for
their reasons, is irrelevant to Iowa City.
However, the City has acknowledged that the public discussion of the original plan
in UH established the context for its own review process. As the City said,
paraphrasing, "We knew it was going to be controversial. We wanted to take our
time and get it right Dot all the is and cross all the L's, exercise all due diligence."
The structure under consideration by Iowa City is connected to the original concept
in another City. Past concept and current structure have a long seamless history.
Thus the City had foreknowledge of how rigorous and correct their review should
be.
F) The Appellant asserts that the City review was guilty of allowing the
participation of staff members with a conflict of interest regarding this issue. In
particular, the roles of a building inspector and assistant city attorney are in
question. Notwithstanding the 9/14/16 memo from the City Attorney, the concern
of the Appellant has merit The participation of those two individuals in any
discussion of this Issue, at any phase of the review before, during, or after, is
problematic and could have been avoided. However, it was not, and it is very
understandable that the Appellant feels that the review process Is suspect But, for
me, as much as I agree that the process was tainted in the public mind by the
inclusion of those two individuals, the process was not corrupted. It is not a factor in
my decision.
G) The Applicants statement on ABC News about his desire to have a place where
he can tailgate is irrelevant. It understandably inflamed the issue, but the City
asserts that the use classification was done prior to that statement. I see no evidence
to the contrary. However, I am sure the Appellant could document how, using public
records and media publications, a comparable structure from the same Applicant
came to be perceived as an entertainment, rather than residential, venue long before
the ABC story and before it reached this City.
H) The City's use of a Letter of Intent (April 22) and AJf"idavit of Use (May 11) is at
best confusing; at worst, contradictory.
In the initial staff report of 9/14, those documents are used by the City to validate
the use designation. In Its own response, page 4, it asserts "If the use of a proposed
structure is in question, staff will request additional information regarding the use
and will sometimes seek an affidavit of use to clarify and confirm the permitted uses
for the current owner and future owners of the property." In its conclusion (page
13), to summarize its rationale for the use classification, the City states, "The
property owner has affirmed in three documents (permit application, an email, and
in an Affidavit of Use) that the intent is to use the structure as a single-family home."
Questions were raised by the Board at that time regarding the role of those
documents in the classification process. Basically, were the documents used to
inform the decision or to validate the decision?
Any reasonable person would be justified in coming away from that 9/14/16
meeting with the impression that: 1) before the said documents were requested, the
use was "still in question' and the documents would be part of the review process to
resolve those questions; 2) the City used those documents as additional evidence to
justify the final use designation. ("Due diligence") That, in and of itself, is a
questionable use of the documents by the City. Asking the Applicant to define
and/or confirm the use is illogical as a basis for the final decision.
Such was the impression created by the first meeting, but in the meeting of 9/21/16,
upon further questioning the City clarified that the use designation had already
been determined by staff and that the Letter of Intent and Affidavit of Use were
requested only for the benefit of the Applicant, to avoid confusion on his part and
any possible future owner of the property.
In either case, the documents are irrelevant to the issues before this Board, and
should be ignored. Indeed, the Board is hampered in its deliberative process if the
facts have to be re -argued by either side because the first presentation was not
precise, or was potentially misleading.
I am also puzzled by the seeming absence of any enabling or definitional language in
the Zoning Code regarding the so-called Letter of Intent and Affidavit of Use. The
City can request such documentation, but can it require the Applicant to provide
such documentation? If the documents are not mandated by the Zoning Code, is
there any evaluative relevance in the use classification process? An obvious
question arises: Would a refusal to provide those documents be grounds for
withholding a final use classification? How would the Zoning Code offer guidance in
that situation? Why does the City assume the obligation to make sure the Applicant
is not confused about his own development? The City wants to insure that the future
use of the property is understood by the current and any future owner. Why isn't
that clarity assumed in the initial review process and decision? Why would any
subsequent owner be confused about the use unless the property design itself was
ambiguous?
Regardless of the eventual disposition of this case, the City would be well advised to
study how it wants to use such documents in the future.
Questions of Judgment
If the Board is allowed some latitude to question the judgment of the City, several
examples illustrate a range of possibilities.
A) For example, at the first meeting the City was specifically asked if, in its review
process, it had to consider any plan that included multiple toilets, urinals, locker
storage, designated men's and women's restrooms. The question was asked by the
Board in response to the public perception of the structure that was generated in its
earliest manifestation in University Heights. The question was intentionally asked to
give the City a chance to differentiate its review process from that of the earlier
proposal in UH, to establish that the structure under review was, indeed, not the
structure the public assumed it was. It was a softball question. The City answered in
the negative. It did not consider or approve any of those items.
At the 9/21/16 meeting, the Board sought clarification about that original
statement In particular, it sought clarification about which building design was part
of the original review process and original approval. Two designs were included In
the original staff report of 9/14/16. It was determined that the plan which showed:
1) a female bathroom with two toilets enclosed by stall walls and provided with
swinging doors for privacy, and what seemed to be some sort of storage cubicles or
lockers; and 2) a male bathroom with two urinals and storage space. Asked to
clarify, the City official responded to the effect that he did not remember seeing
those plans.
Such an exchange does not instill confidence in the Board that the City did, indeed,
exercise "due diligence."
B) Even more troubling is the history of the first building permit The City took
longer than usual to review and approve the permit Again, an emphasis on i -dotting
and t -crossing and due diligence. Plans were submitted on April 11 and a permit
was issued on May 25. On June 14, that permit was suspended 'due to the
recognition that the proposed driveway did not connect to Lusk Avenue and Lusk
Avenue was not being extended." (page 3 of staff report of 9/14/16) The approval of
the revised building permit on June 28 'showed the drive access on the north side of
the lot"
That is an astonishing admission of error. It was not a minor error arising from an
obscure detail. It was a fundamentally significant error. An outside observer would
be justified in asking, even if only ironically, "Did anyone from the City actually go
out and look at the property before they approved that first layout?"
That fundamental error in ... judgment ... opens the door to consideration of other
possible errors in judgment
The Building Permit Issue
Of the two issues before the Board, let me begin with the second, the validity of the
building permit issued. 1 start with this issue because it offers more opportunity to
evaluate demonstrable facts.
A) In their testimony to the Board, the Appellants provided documentation that was
not provided to the Board in the original staff report of 9/14/16. Requests for
information about sanitary sewer issues seem to have been answered with
misleading information from the City. Internal memos which provided more
information about staff concerns relative to this issue were part of the Appellant
presentation, not the City presentation. Even though those comments were more
directed to a prior discussion of a possible lot split on that property, the information
was clearly relevant to the Board's review.
B) In testimony and in documentation provided, the City itself has acknowledged
factual problems with development on this site. Those problems were illustrated in
the earlier review of a possible lot -split by a different property owner. Although the
City was subsequently faced with a different development proposal by a different
owner, seemingly governed by different regulatory guidelines, those factual
problems did not disappear.
Quoting a 5/6/15 memo from jann Ream to Mike Oliveira, discussing the status of
the proposed lot -split:
"in terms of zoning for lot size, configuration and frontage, Doug feels
this plat is compliant and therefore approvable for a split However,
he does see the sewer, water and turn -around size issues that have
been discussed previously and that Jason brought up in his email
concerning this configuration. Doug will not sign off on the plat until
these issues have been resolved." (my italics)
Clearly, there is a factual problem with the sanitary sewer connections associated
with this property. Under the rules of a lot -split, the City not only would have the
right, but also the obligation to mitigate those problems.
In a 9/14/16 memo from the City Engineer to the NDS Director:
"in my opinion, the existing sanitary service can be reused by the
proposed new single-family home because it is an existing permitted
sanitary sewer service that ties into the public sanitary sewer system,
and the proposed use is replacing the previous similar use." (my
italics)
And that is the crux of the City's argument in more than one instance. A single-family
home existed previously on the same lot; a single-family home is proposed to
replace it A sub -division request, and the regulatory latitude it provides the City, is
based on an assumed increased intensity of use. Another house equals more water
and sewer use, more storm -water run-off, more demand on city services such as fire
and police.
It is the City's position that since the proposed structure has at least one bedroom,
one bathroom, one kitchen, and one living area .... it is a similar use. There is no
change in the intensity of use. It is the essence of tunnel vision. It ignores reality and
common sense. But, is it legally binding?
The City's perspective is best summed up by Julie Tallman in her 6/22/16 memo to
John Yapp, regarding the Lusk development:
"So I was looking through the single-family development standards
and noticed that the purpose statements for minimum lot
requirements and building bulk standards are uniform in that the
seek to 'ensure consistency and compatibility between new and
existing development,' and 'discourage new buildings that dominate
existing buildings'
........I assume that the proposed building meets all height, setback, and
other dimensional requirements in our code that are intended to
further the stated purposes. So maybe it's our code that fails to achieve
the purpose statement; and it's not a reason to deny the building"
permit." (my italics)
Again, regardless of the eventual disposition of this case, the City is on notice that
the Zoning Code does not give the City the language or leverage it needs to best
serve the public interest
The proposed structure will occupy the same ground space as two houses on a split
lot There is even a possibility that the current lot could be split three ways. But
those three houses would still be limited to occupying the same overall space as the
Applicant's proposed similar use by itself. Even with three houses, it is likely that the
proposed project by itself would have a comparable, albeit lesser, number of
bedrooms. Most importantly, the design of this structure is obviously intended to
accommodate large numbers of people at one time, for very intense use in a short
period. The existing sanitary sewer arrangement is clearly inadequate in design or
capacity to handle the intensified peak usage that is almost explicit in its design.
The City asserts that its hands are tied by the Zoning Code. The proposed structure
is a single -family residence of similar use to that which existed before.
Was any effort made to negotiate this issue with the Applicant? Regardless of
perceived legal limitations, was the City obligated to at least attempt to mitigate the
negative impacts of this 'development" in an effort to also achieve the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan? I can recall no testimony to that effect If, indeed, the City is
constrained by law to impose changes, limited in its ability to mandate
changes ... what it can do... there is no limitation on what it should try to do.
For example, a re-design of the front bathroom was done for the second building
permit It is my understanding that the staff did not initiate that change. It is
certainly an improvement, and it dims, but does not erase, the perception that the
front restrooms were designed for public, not private, use. Thus, the Applicant
seemed willing to modify his plans, a disposition that the City did not cultivate.
The impression created by the City reports and testimony is that, once it determined
the usage classification, it did little to shape the subsequent development That is
disappointing, but it seems to adhere to the letter of the law.
Two analogies, neither of them legally binding, seem relevant here. Over and over,
the impression created by the City review process is that of six blindfolded men
each assessing one of six appendages of an elephant: four legs, a trunk, and a taiL
From that limited perspective, each defines the overall animal from a single part
But none of them perceive the totality of the beast. But, to be fair to the City, that
blindfold might be the Zoning Code.
From my perspective on the Board, this analogy of being blindfolded is the essence
of the Citys position.
From the perspective of the Appellant, I would suggest that another analogy is more
apt. A doctor named Frankenstein collects human body parts (a bedroom, bath,
kitchen, and living space) in an effort to create new life. But the result of his creation
using individual human body parts is itself not human. It is a monster.
From the perspective of the first analogy, the Cit/,s final interpretation might be
wrong, but not illegal. From the perspective of the second analogy, the City's final
creation was not only wrong, but socially irresponsible. The "monster" itself is, at
best, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; at worst, It is a violation of, an
assault on, the Comp Plan.
The sanitary sewer issue is now complicated by a right of easement being contested
by the neighbors. Their action was subsequent to the issuance of the first building
permit, so it cannot be part of the Board's evaluation of that permit Regardless of
this Board's decision now or any future court's resolution of the two main
issues... classification and building permit validity.-the Applicant would be well
advised to upgrade and provide his own sanitary sewer connection to the City that
did not rely on the previous easement now in legal limbo.
Complicating the Board's review power is the position of the City that "The
adequacy of the sewer service is not part of the Zoning Code, and is therefore not
something that can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment" (page 28) That is an
opinion cited by the City to most of the Appellant's objections. It is a position with
which the Board Counsel agrees.
Thus, for this appeal, the sanitary sewer problem is not a basis to overturn the
building permit decision by the City. The absence of authority to mandate the
upgrade trumps the common-sense need that it be done. Although the City might
have such authority in other sections of the Zoning Code, the Code specifically
applicable to single -family residential use is more restrictive of the City's review
power.
Regardless, the sanitary sewer configuration remains a problem in fact, if not law.
C) More problematic is the issue of the turn-around and the associated fire-related
public safety concerns.
The City maintains that it can do nothing, even though it wishes it could. Here again,
the position of the City is marked by the conflict between language from one source
that says a turnaround is required at a certain length, a requirement that the City
would be much more likely to satisfy if the issue was part of a lot-spilt
I f a
Quoting the Roger Jensen memo of 9/21/16, in response to the Appellants
assertion that there is inadequate access for fire apparatus:
The adopted fire code requires (my emphasis) "approved" turn
around for access roads longer than150 feet The International Fire
Code and Commentary clarifies the purpose of apparatus turnarounds
by stating, "In consideration of the hazards inherent (my italics) in
attempting to back emergency vehicles, especially larger ones such as
tower ladders, out of a dead-end roadway, this section intends to
create a safer situation (my italics) by requiring that dead-end roads
over 150 feet long be equipped with an approved turnaround
designed for the largest anticipated emergency response vehicles."
The Iowa City Fire Department has not applied this code section to
existing dead-end streets where in -fill development occurs. Apparatus
turnarounds are not germane to life safety concerns (my italics);
therefore, to require them on existing streets is believed to be
impractical and excessive and has not been pursued.
The City's own words are troubling.
In its judgment regarding in -fill development, it is not required to do what the Fire
Code requires. In its judgment, Apparatus turnarounds are notgermone to life safety
concerns. It has thus re -defined "hazards inherent" and "safer situation" to justify
removing this issue as a factor in the Lusk Avenue development
Perhaps the City might be right that "to require them on existing streets is believed
to be impractical and excessive.." Engineering and cost considerations are always
factors in development But that is a subjective response on a case by case basis. Not
all in -fill developments are the same. In some cases, such a turnaround might be
"Impractical and excessive."
The problem here is not the subjective discretion of the City, but rather the
underlying over -simplification of the original classification... the over -reliance on
the rationalization similar use.
Set aside sanitary sewer and environmental Impact problems; set aside the tunnel -
visioned acceptance of a structure having a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living
space and therefore automatically qualifying as a single-family residence. A
reasonable person can still Justifiably argue that, especially in terms of fire and
other public safety concerns, this structure is not a similar use, nor can it be
compared to previous in -fill development. The building size, exterior design and
interior design clearly show an intended entertainment identity and use. It Is
capable of hosting very large crowds for social gatherings in short periods of time
which will also generate even more cars in an area with parking availability already
strained to capacity. Thus, imagine a major fire at this location, in that structure, at
the end of that narrow street, on game day. Notwithstanding the history of proven
superior performance by the Iowa City Fire Department the City is setting itself up
for a public safety nightmare. Its refusal or inability to anticipate and mitigate that
scenario, to consider "an approved turnaround designed for the largest anticipated
emergency response vehicles" is almost the definition of negligence.
Regardless of how this issue was to be resolved, whether by the City negotiating
with the Applicant, or by the City exercising its powers of eminent domain and
assuming full financial and engineering responsibility, this building permit, for this
site and structure, should not have been issued without a specific plan for that
turnaround being installed. The City looked at the facts and decided it was not
necessary, or they looked at the codes and decided that, even if necessary, they did
not have the power to mandate the turnaround.
On this question, I support the Appellant position by sentiment and common sense,
but the City appears to have followed the letter of the law. Still, I also see this issue
leading to a different final resolution if vigorously pursued on appeal.
D) In my opinion, the most fascinating discussion, and disagreement, before this
Board revolves around the environmental impact of the proposed structure. My first
impression of the site when 1 visually inspected it a month ago was, "My God, how
are they going to fit that building on this lot And how are they going to keep it from
sliding down that damn hill when it rains?" Admittedly, that is the subjective
response of a person with no expertise in engineering.
I cite my own experience only to highlight what should have been very obvious to
the City in its review process. This is not a typical in -fill property. But, as cited
earlier, the City s approval of the faulty first building permit does not give me
confidence that, for this issue in particular, the obvious is always apparent
The City's abdication of review authority has been consistently grounded in the
regulatory language of the Zoning Code; in particular, the rules governing single-
family residential use. The letter of the law. Of the many Appellant issues to which
the City responded in its report of 9/14/16, the closest to the question of
environmental impact might be its response on page 28 regarding Storm Water
drainage. First, the City dismisses the Board's authority to rule on it because it is
.not regulated by the Zoning Code." As I recall, in subsequent testimony, the City
asserted that storm water drainage problems can only accurately be assessed after
construction has occurred. If they exist, the City can then order the owner ,to
mitigate/solve the problem.
At the 9/21/16 Board meeting, Appellant asserted that the Zoning Code did, indeed,
require some action by the City to address sensitive areas issues.
Cited was Article 1, page 310, "Sensitive lands and Features," of the Zoning Code.
Two points of Section 14-51-1 ("Purpose") seem especially relevant to the Board's
consideration:
A. Implement the environmental policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
as amended.
F. Provide for the mitigation of disturbances of environmentally
sensitive features and natural resources by requiring and
implementing mitigation plans, as needed.
Appellant then cited the exemption guidelines, page 311(3-C):
Construction of Single Family or Two Family Residential Uses:
Grading, clearing or development activities on a tract of land for the
purpose of construction, landscaping or associated improvements for
one Single Family Use or one Two Family Use are exempt from the
requirements of this Article, provided the development activities do
not exceed a maximum total of 20,000 square feet in area and
provided there is no encroachment by said activities into a jurisdictional
wetland, a designated sensitive areas conservation tract or protected
sensitive area.
1 have italicized the last section because that is what the Appellant is using as one
basis of its appeal. The Appellant insists that this is a requirement for this
development and such a mitigation plan should have been included before the
building permit was issued. The Applicant attorney was asked if he agreed with that
interpretation. He did not. The City was asked if it agreed The response was, closely
paraphrased, "That is not how we have done it in the past."
None of the Board members is an attorney, engineer, or planning professional. On
this particular issue, we are being asked to evaluate the "interpretations" of
professionals more competent in their individual fields. The discussion was brief,
and hardly definitive, but the Appellant, in my opinion, made a more compelling
case. Using the existing Zoning Code language as a guide, if the Appellant is correct, a
mitigation plan should have been required before the issuance of the building
permit (My Section -D was based on testimony and information as of 9/21/16.)
Addendum: Now, at the proverbial eleventh hour on 9/30/16, Applicant has submitted
a more detailed rebuttal to the Appellant's interpretation, as has the City, with another
subsequent response from the Appellant These new exchanges raise more issues that
will be resolved in subsequent litigation, but they have not altered the geographic and
geological facts associated with this project
Classification of Use
I have discussed the building permit issue first simply to establish a series of facts as
I understand them. in truth, any problems with the building permit become moot if
they proceed from an incorrect classification of use. If the use classification of
single-family is wrong, all bets are off.
After six hours of testimony at the 9/14/16 meeting, and five hours of discussion at
the 9/21/16 meeting, the City's rationale for the residential classification was
revealed to be quite simple. If anything meets the minimum requirement of one
bedroom, one kitchen, one bathroom, and a living space, it is a residence. With those
minimums establisbed, the circular logic arising out of the definitional guidelines of
the Zoning Code are then cited:
PRINCIPAL USE: The primary use of land or a structure as
distinguished from an accessory use, e.g., a dwelling is a principal use
on a lot in a residential zone, while a garage or pool is an accessory
use.
DWELLING: A building wholly or partially used or intended to be used
for residential occupancy.
The proposed structure at 101 is clearly a building at least "partially" used for a
residential occupancy, albeit on an absentee basis. It seems superficially logical that
it is therefore the primary use of land in that zone.
For the City, all other uses—entertainment, recreational, social activities... are
accessory as long as they fit the definitions in the Zoning Code.
That seems simple, so why is this issue so complicated and contested?
The Board repeatedly asked the City if there was any limit to the logic upon which
their decision rested. How about a structure with ten bedrooms in an RS -5 zone? No
limit? A structure with ten bathrooms? Two or more basketball courts? An elevated
stage built in a giant courtyard? Only one bedroom but ten bathrooms? The list of
variations is only constrained by the size of the lot Could the City imagine any
design, even though it included one bedroom, one bathroom, one kitchen, and a
living area ... any design or configuration that would cause it to question the structure
classification as a residential dwelling?
A reasonable person could look at the design of the front restrooms and see them
clearly designed for a public use rather than private convenience. A reasonable
person could look at the spatial configuration of the structure and see its primary
No
use as an entertainment or recreational venue, with residence as a secondary use.
The City's response? In so many words ... not according to the Code.
A reasonable person would consider the sanitary sewer connection, the adjacent
slope protection, and the potential public safety issue of a necessary turnaround as
problems to be addressed by the City. The City's response? In so many words ... not
according to the Code.
Carried to its logical extreme, the City is admitting that it has no power to stop this
structure at this site, nor any power to prevent even worse abominations in any
other residential zone in Iowa City. If the City`s decision is upheld, not one single
neighborhood in this community is safe from such development
I will admit that my previous few paragraphs might be rhetorically unfair to the City.
I have chosen the most inflammatory language I could muster. But the tone of my
language does not contradict my conclusion. If the City's decision is upheld, not one
single neighborhood in this community is safe from such development
But the City has a compelling rebuttal to my conclusion. They are following the letter
of the law. As they understand the law, they must approve this development Indeed,
those who oppose this development must also demand that the City obey the law in
all issues before it, not just the one that affects them directly.
I suspect that the final interpretation of the law is not in the hands of this Board. It
will be adjudicated elsewhere. The City insists that it has obeyed the law. Others will
resolve that
Decision
I return to the language of the law as it relates to our role as a Board of Adjustment
Iowa Code 414.10 (B -Purpose): "The decisions of the Board should
serve the public interest, meet the intent of the title, and be consistent
with the comprehensive plan of the city, as amended.'
Thus, any decision by the Board, by law, must evaluate the 'public interest" and
should be "consistent with the comprehensive plan."
Having established as much factual context as I can for this issue, I now note the
language of the Comprehensive Plan, but separated here for individual
consideration:
M&i
Iowa City guides development and growth In order to make
wise and efficient use of land and infrastructure.
Evaluation: This development, in my opinion based on the facts as
known, does not reflect wise and efficient use of land and
infrastructure.
In order to create a quality living environment for all area
residents,
Evaluation: This development will diminish the quality of life for
neighboring residents.
the City will protect and promote the character and integrity of
existing neighborhoods,
Evaluation: this development is clearly out of character with the
surrounding neighborhood and threatens the long-time stability and
integrity of the adjoining property owners.
compatible with and connected to surrounding development,
Evaluation: This development is clearly inconsistent with that goal.
and sensitive to its environmental context.
Evaluation: This development is clearly inconsistent with that goal.
Therefore, as I understand the letter of the law which mandates the obligation of the
Board of Adjustment to render decisions which "should serve the public interest,
meet the intent of the title, and be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the
city," I side with the Appellants and, being compelled by the language of the law that
established the Board of Adjustment, I judge the classification of this development
as single-family residential to be overwhelmingly inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and clearly not in the public interest To reach that conclusion
but rule against the Appellant is incompatible with the legal mandate of this Board.
And we are back where we began. What the City should do, can do, and must do will
not be resolved here. The Appellant has the weight of logic and common sense on its
side, as well as the moral authority of the public interest. This Board itself can make
no decision that is not in the public interest, nor can it make a decision that is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Regardless of the final adjudicated
outcome, the City is now obligated in the future to make sure the letter of the law is
amended to more clearly serve the public interest better than it has in this case.
5
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2016
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel, Connie Goeb, T. Gene Chrischille$DLarry
Baker m
". -7-
MEMBERS
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.=
J
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sue Dulek
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Bulecheck, Duane Musser, Rick Streb c. w
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: n
1. EXC16-00007: A public hearing regarding an application submitted by Mark Bulechek
for a special exception to reduce the front principal building setback for property
located in the Low -Density Single -Family (RS -6) zone at 9 Forest Glen.
The Board concludes that the situation is peculiar to the property and there is practical
difficulty complying with the setback requirements based on the following findings:
• The subject house is set at a slight angle to the front property line: the south end of the
house is set nearest to the front property line at 22.59 feet; the north end of the house is
set at 24.74 feet.
• The existing back-to-back bathrooms are located at the front of the house. This presents
some challenges to making them handicapped accessible given the existing floor plan,
internal plumbing, and topography of the lot.
• This property is established along a curved cul-de-sac, approximately 450 feet in length.
All properties along the street are developed. There is not a consistent setback along
this frontage.
• Houses set on the abutting lots are set at a more severe angle to the street, with
garages set to the front of the house.
The Board concludes that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose
of the setback regulations, based on the following findings:
• The proposed setback reduction is at the front of the house and thus will not reduce
light, air, or separation for fire protection or access for fire fighting between buildings and
will not reduce setbacks or privacy between dwellings.
• There is no uniform setback along this street; and many houses along the frontage,
including the subject house, are at a lower elevation than the street.
• It is unlikely that sidewalks will be established along this street; however, reducing the
setback to 14 feet for the proposed addition would preserve adequate space for privacy
from the street.
The Board concludes that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback
exception are mitigated to the extent practical based on the following finding:
I IIII II IIIIII III VII I VIII VIII VIII VII I VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII III
Doc ID: 026563920005 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 11/10/2016 at 11:39:34 AM
Fee Amt: $27.00 Page 1 of 5
Johnson County Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
BK5585 PG716-720
• The applicant has agreed to include windows along the front face of the addition in order
to reflect the traditional house style along its street -facing fagade.
The Board finds that there will be no change to the side setback and thus concludes that the
subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property.
Based on the findings above, the Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; will
not reduce light, air, or separation for fire protection or access for fire fighting between
buildings; 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 neighgorho¢' and
will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of thd,surrounnding'"i-i
property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located.
The Board finds that all utilities and drainage for the property are already proJ0e� wit} the
exception of public sidewalk. However, given the curved, cul-de-sac street desi`9*404 twffic tll
volume, lack of sidewalks on adjacent properties, and topography of the area,-sidewalks"�R
should be required at this time. " {
The Board concludes that the proposed addition will not generate additional traffic ands Pus
will not impact ingress or egress from the site.
The Board concludes that all other aspects of the proposed addition not specifically
reviewed as part of this application conforms with the zoning code.
The Board concludes that the Comprehensive Plan does not address this issue other than
to encourage re -investment in existing homes and neighborhoods.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 5-0, the Board approved EXC16-00007, a special exception
seeking to reduce the front principal setback to yellow a 10 x 17 foot home addition for property
located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 9 Forest Glen, subject to the following
conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the floor plan submitted.
• Inclusion of windows on the front face of the home addition—one per bathroom.
2. EXC16-00009: A public hearing regarding an application submitted by Tom Streb for a
special exception to allow expansion of an existing Quick Vehicle Servicing Use
located in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone located at 2221 Rochester
Avenue.
The Board concludes that all vehicular use areas, including parking and stacking spaces,
drives, aisles, and service lanes, will be screened from the public right of way to the S2
standard and to the S3 standard along any side or rear lot line that abuts a residential zone
boundary based on the following findings:
• The subject property does not abut a residential zone.
• The submitted site plan indicates new landscaping between the parking and service
areas and Rochester Avenue, on the north side of the lot.
• A detailed landscaping plan will be reviewed by staff to determine compliance with the
S2 screening standard.
The Board finds that there is adequate space on the private lot and between pumping
stations and the public street for vehicles to stack along the shared private drive and within
the private parking area.
The Board finds that the unenclosed canopy and gas pump islands are set back more than
10 feet from the nearest street right-of-way, which is Rochester Avenue, and more than 100
feet from the nearest residentially zoned properties.
The Board finds that a lighting plan must be reviewed as part of the building permit process
and must meet Zoning Code standards.
The Board concludes that the proposed use will be designed and developed with adequate
separation and screening between vehicular use areas and adjacent residential zones
based on the submitted site plan, which indicates landscape screening between the parking
area and the Rochester Avenue right-of-way. The parking and service areas are set back
more than 30 feet from the public sidewalk on Rochester Avenue.
The Board finds that no carwash is proposed as part of this application.
The Board finds that a lighting plan must be reviewed as part of the building permit process
and all lighting must meet current code standards.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following
findings:
• The pumps exceed the minimum setbacks from residential zones.
• Pedestrian access is provided to the convenience store and does not cross the vehicle
service area.
• Bicycle parking is located to the north of the building so that bicycles do not come into
conflict with the vehicle service area.
• Vehicle parking within the private lot meets the zoning code requirements for terminal
islands at the end of the parking rows (this includes the triangular raised planter at the
front of the building).
However, the Board finds that the existing monument sign along Rochester Avenue blocks
views of the sidewalk for exiting vehicles. Because the expansion of the quick vehicle
servicing use will likely attract additional customers, the Board concludes the sign should be
relocated so as not to impede views of the sidewalk, which will help ensure the safety of
pedestrians crossing the driveway.
The Board conciudes that the specific proposed exception will not he 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 and 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 based on the findings above regarding setbacks and
screening.
The Board finds that all utilities, access roads, drainage, etc. are being provided for the site.
J
The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provideMgress
or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public street., #-,_ e&.on tha
amount of stacking space on the private lot and the use of shared drn/es wk@n therl
commercial site. `-'-<
r— M
The Board concludes that, except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to
the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception will, in all other respects,
conform to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located
based on the findings above in addition to the following:
• The gas station/convenience store was established prior to the current CN -1
development standards. Because the building on the site is not being modified, it is not
practical to come into full compliance with the current requirements for the CN -1 zone.
• The proposed site plan shows landscape screening in compliance with the zoning code
requirements.
• Bicycle parking has been relocated to a more convenient location that is not in conflict
with the vehicle use area.
• All other elements of the parking area are in compliance with the code standard.
• The applicant has agreed to provide S2 landscape screening in the area between the
pump islands and the shared private drive, as recommended by staff. This will better
define the drive minimize the appearance of the large parking area, which is a goal of
the CN -1 zone.
The Board finds that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this location as appropriate for
Neighborhood Commercial uses.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 4-1 (Soglin voting no), the Board approved EXC16-00009, a
special exception to allow the expansion of the Quick Vehicle Servicing Use in the
Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone at 2221 Rochester Avenue, subject to the following
conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with the following alterations:
Staff approval of a detailed S2 landscaping plan for areas to the north and west
of the parking and vehicle fueling areas.
If the monument sign is determined to be non -conforming, it must be relocated
so as not to impede views of the sidewalk.
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6)
months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have taken action
within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of
the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C-1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Approved by:
Larry Baker, Chairperson
STATE OF IOWA
ca
O
m
1
City Attorney's Office-;',.
rn
JOHNSON COUNTY )
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 9th day of October, 2016, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this -7 day of � Jo , 20L19
Maria . Karr, City Clem
MARSfAI
d
Doc ID: 026591450006 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION -
Recorded: 12/14/2016 at 10:53•_29 An
Fee Amt: $32.00 Paqe 1 of 6
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 3191356-5230 Johnson County Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
DECISION BK5597 PG842-847
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, November 9, 2016
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Becky Soglin, T. Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Lary Baker, Tim
Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Sarah Walz, Chris O'Brien
OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Monson, Alicia Trimble, Nancy Bird
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
1. EXC16-00008: Discussion of an application submitted on behalf of Monark LLC, for a
special exception to allow a 100% reduction in the off-street parking requirement for a
proposed mixed use building to be constructed in the Central Business District (CB -10) zone
at 7 South Linn Street.
The Board finds that the subject property at 7 South Linn Street falls within the Downtown
Parking District and that the property has been vacant since 2011.
The Board concludes that uses, elements, or features of the proposal will further housing,
economic development, or other goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Downtown
and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, based on the following findings:
• The proposed building provides commercial space on the first floor.
• The applicant's intent is that the housing units will meet the guidelines for the State of
Iowa Workforce Housing Tax Credit program and that the building will be designed to
LEED standards.
• The building will provide a unique type of housing (efficiency and one -bedroom
apartments) that may appeal to the non -student rental market.
The Board concludes that it is not feasible to provide at least 50% of the required parking on
site due to specific qualifying site constraints based on the following findings:
• The subject lot width is only 41 feet wide.
• The subject lot is located midblock and does not have sufficient alley access to
accommodate vehicles.
The Board concludes that the proposed project will be designed in a manner that is §Wsitive
and complementary to the adjacent property designated as an Iowa City landmark b5ied on
the following findings: o -
• The proposed new structure is set back from the south (side) propertvjnl� to'arovide :�
separation from the historic structure.
(n
r\)
• The contemporary design of the new building serves to differentiate the new
development from the historic property.
• A lower scale building and Design Review Committee approval will ensure that the
proposed building creates a harmonious transition between the modem building
proposed and the abutting historic structure and will reflect the horizontal alignment in
the comer building, horizontal architectural elements—similar to those used on the Vogel
House Building.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare; and ingress or egress from
the site will not create congestion in the public right -of way based on the following findings:
• There is no vehicular access to the property
• The Director of Transportation and Resource Management has indicated that loading
zones may be provided on a temporary basis during peak moving times by covering
parking meters adjacent to the property.
• The applicant's intent to provide secure access to the rear of the building by installing a
gate or other appropriate means may be ensured through the Design Review process.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity; will not substantially diminish or
impair property values in the neighborhood; and 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 based on the following findings:
• The proposed reduction in parking and payment of fees in lieu of will not impact property
in the immediate vicinity and because the building is in general conformance with the
requirements of the CB -10 zone.
• Granting the exception will allow a property that is currently vacant to redevelop, which
will be beneficial to the downtown area.
• The proposed development does not preclude abutting properties from being
redeveloped at a similar scale to the subject property.
• The Director of Transportation and Resource Management has indicated that there will
be adequate space in the Downtown parking facilities to absorb the demand.
The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities
have been or are being provided, based on the following finding:
• The Director of Parking and Resource Management has indicated that, while demand for
permits is high and the adjacent Tower Place facility is near capacity, parking is
available and additional capacity will open up with a new parking facility currentlyunder
construction on Harrison Street. This will allow for shifting parking demand and.,permits
to other parking structures.
The Board concludes that, except for the speck regulations and standa64:�ippAcable to
the exception being considered, the speck proposed exception, in all -other respects,
conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located
based on the following findings:
,,n
• The submitted elevations and site plan show general conformance with the basic
required first -floor elements—front setback, storefront windows, entry at grade, etc.
• Balconies that extend from the east face of the building over the City right-of-way will
require the purchase of air rights from the City.
• A more detailed plan submitted as part of the building permit process and Design
Review will ensure compliance with other aspects not reviewed as part of the special
exception.
The Board concludes that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
as amended based on the following findings:
The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan contains goals and objectives for
preservation and redevelopment in the Downtown. Two of the Master Plan objectives most
relevant to this case include protecting the character of downtown, key historic buildings,
and promoting quality infill and redevelopment. To this end, the Strategic Infill Section of the
Master Plan provides the following guidelines:
• New development should be located on sites that do not contain historic buildings.
• Active uses, such as ground floor retail (and not blank walls), should front on to the street frontages
and the City Plaza [Ped Mall].
• Upper floors should contain office, commercial, and residential uses.
• Buildings should be built to the property line.
• Comer locations should be reserved for taller buildings, creating a block structure with taller buildings
on the comers and lower scale historic buildings between them.
• The taller buildings on the comer should have a lower base consistent with adjacent historic buildings
to make them 'feel' contextual' with the rest of the Downtown, while also limiting the perceived height
of the towers.
• Parking should be located both on -street and behind storefronts in parking structures.
While the proposed 14 -story building in this application meets many of the goals and
objectives, the Board concludes that a [ower scale building (the second option proposed by
the applicant) seems more compatible and harmonious with the location, in the heart of the
Downtown, and with the historic property on the abutting property to the south.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approved a parking waiver for up to 18 spaces to
allow a lower scale building with up to 36 dwelling units, one bedroom or efficiency units,
subject to Design Review Committee approval to ensure that the new building is designed in
a manner that is complementary and harmonious with the abutting historic landmark building
including horizontal architectural elements, that align with elements on the adjacent historic
building.
2. EXC16-00010 – Public hearing regarding an application submitted on behalf o0A&W
Properties, 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 to another non -conforming use for
property located in the High Density Multi -Family (RM -44) zone at 518 Bowery Street..
The Board concludes that the proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed
for a use that is currently not allowed in the zone; the proposed use is of the same or lesser
intensity and impact than the existing use; and the proposed use is suitable for the subject
structure and site based on the following findings:
• The subject building was originally constructed as a grocery store and continued to serve
commercial uses until the early 1980s and was recently granted a special exception
(2011) (special exception number EXC12-00010, recorded October 24, 2012 in Book
4997, Pages 304-309) to operate as retail sales use.
• The property is not designed for a use that is currently allowed in the RM -44 zone.
• The first floor interior of the building is still arranged with the open floor plan—it is one
large room with a half bathroom at the back. The large, front windows are the only
windows on the first floor other than a small window on the west side of the building. The
building is set at the front property line, as is typical of older commercial buildings, and
just inches off the east property line (public alley).
• Due to the extremely limited size of the property and structure, the property is not
adaptable as a multi -family residential use.
• Re -use of the property is severely limited by the size of the lot. The lot provides minimal
opportunity for parking—only two parking spaces. On -street parking along this portion of
Bowery Street is prohibited during daytime business hours. Moreover the high demand
for on–street parking in the surrounding neighborhood makes on -street parking practically
unavailable. Given the very significant constraints on the property, any difference in
intensity among the proposed list of uses will be very limited.
• The surrounding High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) zone represents the
highest intensity residential use allowed outside the Downtown and PRM zone.
• Due to the constraints of the site, the commercial uses proposed by the applicant must
rely on pedestrian traffic from the surrounding neighborhood or that require minimal
customer/client visits.
• Conditions adopted with the special exception are intended to effectively control the
intensity of the use and limit externalities that might negatively affect the surrounding
residential uses. The conditions tied to approval apply to all future owners/users of the
property and may not be altered or removed without another special exception.
• The site can provide 2 off-street parking spaces, which satisfies the minimum
requirement for the proposed uses.
The Board concludes that the structure will not be structurally enlarged in such a way as to
enlarge the non -conforming use based on the following finding:
• The building may not be enlarged without approval of the Historic Preservation
Commission.
• The size of the building and its non -conforming setbacks and limited space for parking
practically eliminate any enlargement of the structure and impose considerable
constraints upon its use.
Based on the following findings the Board concludes that the specific proposed exception
will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare;
will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicii4y; will
not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood; establishmebt 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: and adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or
egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based'on the -
following findings:
• The conditions tied to approval apply to all future owners/users of the property and may
not be altered or removed without another special exception.
• The limited size of the lot and structure along with the restrictions placed on it due to its
Landmark status, effectively limit the intensity of any use on the property.
• The two off-street parking spaces can be provided with access from the public alley.
• On -street parking is prohibited along Bowery Street until after 5:00 PM.
• Given the constraints on the property, a business would likely rely on customers coming
on foot or bike from within the surrounding neighborhood or will generate very limited
customer visits.
• The conditions for approval restrict use of the public alley for drive -up service.
The Board concludes that 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 based on the
finding provided above and the following finding:
• Due to the non -conforming status of the lot and building, which do not meet minimum
size and setback requirements, the building cannot be further expanded.
The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary
facilities have been or are being provided based on the following finding:
• This neighborhood is fully developed with all roads and drainage—Bowery Street is
adequate to serve a small-scale retail use.
The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended based on
the following finding:
• The Comprehensive Plan encourages the re -use of existing buildings so long as their use
does not interfere with the function and character of the neighborhood in which they are
located and encourages the preservation of historic buildings.
Disposition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves EXC16-00010 a special exception, to allow
general office and commercial retail (sales -oriented and personal -service oriented) uses to be
located in a structure designed for a use that is not allowed in the zone in the High Density
Multi -Family (RM -44) zone at 518 Bowery Street subject to the following conditions:
• The property shall maintain two -off street parking spaces at the rear of the building in
accordance with the off-street parking requirements in the Zoning Code.
• Hours of operation are limited to 6 AM to 10 PM weekdays Sunday -Thursday and 6 AM
to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.
• Outdoor seating and display of products within the public right-of-way are prohibited
unless a temporary use permit is granted.
• Signage should be limited to a fascia or awning sign in compliance with the zoning code
standard for non-residential uses located in residential zones and in compliance with
Iowa City's Historic Preservation Guidelines.
• All outdoor lighting should comply with the zoning code standards for residential zones
and with the Historic Preservation Guidelines.
• The sale of tobacco or alcohol on the property is prohibited.
• Food preparation and sales on the site are limited per the definition in the code, which
allows cottage industry component:
A firm that manufactures and/or assembles goods that are intended for retail sale to the general
public. The goods may also be sold at wholesale to other outlets or firms, but retail sales is a
significant component of the operation. The manufacturing component for such a firm is small in
scale. Size limitations may apply to such uses in commercial zones to keep the uses in scale and
character with surrounding land uses.
• The alley may not be used for drive up or drive through or parking.
• No amplified sound is permitted on the exterior of the building.
• The building may not be expanded without a special exception.
• Any alterations to the exterior of the building must comply with the Historic Preservation
Guidelines.
• Repeal special exception number EXC12-00010, recorded October 24, 2012 in Book
4997, Pages 304-309.
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire
six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have
taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized
under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14 -8C -1I_ City of Iowa City, Iowa.
I Approved by:
ry Baker, hairs
City Attorney's Office
STATE OF IOWA J
JOHNSON COUNTY
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 9th day of November 2016, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this 91- day of :Zwwc J , 20 14
��,g t/ %�• Q.�� Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
co it�fNl