HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 Board of Adjustment DecisionsPrepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 3191356-5230
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2010
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
Doc ID: 021760200004 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 03/05/2010 at 12:36:03 PM
Fee Amt: $24.00 Pane 1 of 4
Johnson County Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
13K4562 PG765-768
MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, William Jennings, Robert Anderson,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Eckstein.
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Judy O'Donnell, Pete McNally, Doug Paul, Don Hilsman, Jason Assman
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC09-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Judy O'Donnell for a special exception
to allow a specialized education facility to operate at 415 Highland Avenue, in an Intensive
Commercial (CI -1) zone.
Findinqs of Fact: The Board finds that the neighborhood in which the proposed fencing school
would be located is zoned CIA and includes a mix of uses, which are low in intensity and take
place primarily indoors. The Board finds that the specific use, a fencing school, requires a large
amount of interior space to serve relatively few clients; the applicant anticipates no more than
30 people will be on the site at one time. The Board finds that activities associated with the
school will take place indoors and occur primarily during the evening and on weekends. The
Board finds that the fencing school will have two classrooms, that minimum off-street parking
requirements can be provided within the existing parking area, and that additional on -street
parking is available in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the parking area was recently
updated to comply with zoning code requirements, and that the site has vehicle access from
South Gilbert Street and Highway 6 via Highland Avenue. The Board finds that a new building
permit is required in order to establish the change in use for the property.
Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that the fencing school will be compatible with
adjacent uses for the following reasons:
e The proposed use takes place indoors and operates outside of normal working hours
(primarily evenings and weekends);
e The surrounding neighborhood consists of a mix of relatively low intensity uses, which
are also conducted primarily indoors and do not generate excessive, noise, dust, or vibrations
that may pose a health or safety risk to clients or students;
e The site provides more than the required parking for the use, and on -street parking is
also available; and
e The site has good access from South Gilbert Street and Highway 6 along Maiden Lane.
For these same reasons, the Board finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare; will not be injurious to the use or
enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity or substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood; and will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding area for uses allowed in the zone.
0
0
C -)
LeAR
Le
0
s
Tyson
^�
r
M
oM
a
D
OTHERS PRESENT: Judy O'Donnell, Pete McNally, Doug Paul, Don Hilsman, Jason Assman
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC09-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Judy O'Donnell for a special exception
to allow a specialized education facility to operate at 415 Highland Avenue, in an Intensive
Commercial (CI -1) zone.
Findinqs of Fact: The Board finds that the neighborhood in which the proposed fencing school
would be located is zoned CIA and includes a mix of uses, which are low in intensity and take
place primarily indoors. The Board finds that the specific use, a fencing school, requires a large
amount of interior space to serve relatively few clients; the applicant anticipates no more than
30 people will be on the site at one time. The Board finds that activities associated with the
school will take place indoors and occur primarily during the evening and on weekends. The
Board finds that the fencing school will have two classrooms, that minimum off-street parking
requirements can be provided within the existing parking area, and that additional on -street
parking is available in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the parking area was recently
updated to comply with zoning code requirements, and that the site has vehicle access from
South Gilbert Street and Highway 6 via Highland Avenue. The Board finds that a new building
permit is required in order to establish the change in use for the property.
Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that the fencing school will be compatible with
adjacent uses for the following reasons:
e The proposed use takes place indoors and operates outside of normal working hours
(primarily evenings and weekends);
e The surrounding neighborhood consists of a mix of relatively low intensity uses, which
are also conducted primarily indoors and do not generate excessive, noise, dust, or vibrations
that may pose a health or safety risk to clients or students;
e The site provides more than the required parking for the use, and on -street parking is
also available; and
e The site has good access from South Gilbert Street and Highway 6 along Maiden Lane.
For these same reasons, the Board finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare; will not be injurious to the use or
enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity or substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood; and will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding area for uses allowed in the zone.
Based on the available access from South Gilbert and Highway 6 and recent updates to the
parking area and entrance drives, the Board concludes that adequate ingress and egress are
provided for the use. The Board concludes that all other aspects of the use will be reviewed for
compliance with the zoning requirements by the Building Department as a building permit is
required in order to establish the use. For all the reasons noted above, and because the Central
District Plan designates this area as appropriate of Intensive Commercial uses, the Board
concludes that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Disposition: By a vote of 4-0 the Board approves EXC09-00008, an application submitted by
Judy O'Donnell for a special exception to allow a specialized educational facility to operate in
the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone at 415 Highland Avenue subject to an application for a
building permit to establish the change in use and that the special exception be limited to a
fencing school.
EXC09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a
special exception to construct a communications transmission facility in an Interim Development
- Single Family Residential (ID -RS) zone at 3106 Rochester Avenue.
Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the applicant has provided a summary of the efforts made
to locate a tower to serve the area and that there is not an existing tower for co-locatim within a
half mile of the proposed site. The Board finds that the applicant explored fiveaher laxations
(the commercial area at intersection of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenuoffib cdEmercQ
area at the intersection of First Avenue and Rochester Avenue, Lemme Elem Ihool-ft
nursing home at 3661 Rochester Avenue, and The First Presbyterian Church j401cRochister
Avenue) to place a new tower or to mount antennas to existing structures, but tI3Knoag of M
these sites provided adequate space or sufficient height to provide the desirec j3ouera-& for
area. The Board finds that the applicant's coverage maps show that the area tcEb sewed by'
the proposed 80 -foot tower has inadequate coverage for I -Wireless at this time o
The Board finds that the applicant has proposed a monopole tower with flush mounted
antennas. The Board finds that the proposed site is located within an established grove of trees,
is set back approximately 110 feet from the property line along Rochester Avenue, and all
associated equipment will be stored in a shed. The Board finds that the proposed tower will not
rely on a back-up generator as its main power source and will not have lighting, trusses, or guy
wires of any kind. The Board finds that Staff has recommended burying power lines that serve
the facility in order to make the tower site less conspicuous.
The Board finds that the applicant has indicated that the I -Wireless antennas will require
approximately 20 feet of space on the tower. The Board finds that the applicant must submit
construction information as part of the building permit process to show that the tower design is
structurally sound, and that a site plan will be reviewed by the Building Inspector to ensure
compliance with all other aspects of the zoning code. The Board finds that the applicant is
providing an improved driveway for the site and that all utilities, access roads, and drainage are
already present to serve this property. The Board finds that the applicant has not provided the
required certification from an engineer to verify that the monopole structure can accommodate
and additional set of antennas but rather has requested to provide the certification at the time a
building permit application is submitted. The Board finds that the applicant has provided
documentation showing that if the communications use is discontinued, the tower and all
equipment would be removed within 90 days.
Conclusions of Law: Based on the evidence submitted by the applicant as described above, the
Board concludes that there are no existing towers within a half mile of the proposed site that
provide opportunity for co-locations nor are there adequate sites within the area for a new tower
or structures on which antennas can be mounted in order to serve the intended coverage area.
The Board concludes that the proposed tower will have minimal visual impact for the following
reasons:
• The proposed tower is a monopole with flush mounted antennas;
• The monopole structure will have no lighting, guy wires, or trusses of any kind;
• The proposed tower is located within a grove of mature trees; and
• Power lines to serve the site will be buried underground.
Based on coverage maps provided by the applicant, the Board concludes that the proposed 80-
foot tower is the minimum height needed to provide the desired coverage. Based on these same
coverage maps and statements made by the applicant regarding the amount of space required
for I-Wireless antennas, the Board concludes that a 100-foot tower would be appropriate at this
site in order to allow opportunity for viable co-location by another wireless service.
Because the proposed tower is set back more than 100 feet from the public right-of-way, and
because the applicant must submit information to the Building Department to show that the
tower design is structurally sound, the Board finds that the proposed exception will not be
detrimental to 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 and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in Ve
neighborhood for the following reasons: o
• the proposed tower is a monopole design with flush mounted antennas does notAff
lighting, trusses, or guy wires; D=� _
• the proposed tower would be located in a grove of mature trees to scre iev&of tr—
equipment area; �rn
• all equipment associated with the tower will be stored in a shed; o _
• the facility will not rely on a back-up generator as its main power souroo and ••
• the tower will improve cell coverage for the surrounding area. o
For all the reasons listed above, the Board concludes that the proposed exception will not
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for
uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located. Because the proposed site plan
shows an improved driveway for the property, and because the use will not generate additional
traffic to the site, the Board concludes that adequate utilities, drainage, ingress and egress are
being provided. Because the tower is designed to be inconspicuous, the Board concludes that
the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Northeast District
Plan's goal to maintain the scenic vistas in this area by controlling signage and lighting in the
area.
Disposition: By a vote of 4-0 the Board approves the application for a Communications
Transmission Facility in the Interim Development Single -Family (ID-RS) zone at 3106 Rochester
Avenue subject to the following conditions:
• The monopole tower be constructed to a height of 100 feet to allow potential co-
location;
0 No lighting of any kind is permitted on the cell tower;
• Electrical distribution lines serving the facility must be buried underground;
At the time of site plan review, the applicant shall provide a certification by a professional
engineer licensed in the state of Iowa indicating that the tower is designed to accommodate
an second antenna system of comparable size to be added above or immediately below the
original antenna system;
• Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted as part of this
application.
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. /
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
Approved by: o a
/011 i
City Attorney's Office ,��
rnC=)
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 13th day of January, 2010, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this day of 120 10
Ma�K. Karr, City Clerk
CORPORATE SEAL
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 3191356-523
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2010
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Eckstein, William Jennings,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Caroline Sheerin.
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Streb
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
I IIIIIII IIIIII III VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
Doc ID: 021766520003 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 03/15/2010 at 01:48:03 PM
Fee Amt: $19.00 Paoe 1 of 3
Johnson Countv Iowa
Kim Painter Countv Recorder
SK4565 PG423-425
N
O
Le Ann Tyson, Robgrut Anderson
vC
.<r
M
1. EXC09-00010: A public hearing regarding an application submitted by Regina Catholic
Education Center for a special exception to allow the expansion of a General Education
Facility in the Low Density, Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 2150 Rochester
Avenue.
Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the applicant is proposing to build a 2 -story, 16 x 22
'/2 foot accessory structure to replace an existing smaller structure adjacent to the baseball
complex. The Board finds that the existing structure is set approximately 80-90 feet from the
adjacent residential property, and that it was built some years ago, without a building permit
or special exception. The Board finds that the existing structure has operated as a press box
for some time without issue, and that the new structure will not alter the use of the baseball
facility. The Board finds that accessory structures of this sort are commonly associated with
high school properties and athletic facilities. The Board finds that the proposed new
structure will be set in the same location as the existing structure and will face away from the
residential property.
The Board finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities are
already in place to serve the Regina campus. The Board finds that staff has noted traffic
issues associated with the Regina property at peak travel hours (the beginning and end of
the school day), and that a secondary access point may be required as part of any future
addition that would increase the capacity of the school. The Board finds that that the
proposed structure does not add to the capacity of the school property and thus will not
generate significant additional traffic to the site.
The Board finds that the applicant is required to submit an application for a building permit
for the structure, and that all aspects of the proposed structure will be reviewed by the
Building Department for compliance with the zoning code at that time. The Board finds that
the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as an institutional use based on Regina's
long-term use of the property.
Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that the proposed use is compatible with
surrounding uses and will not have significant adverse effects on the livability of the nearby
residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late-night operations, odors, and litter for the
following reasons:
• the proposed structure is replacing an existing press box, which has functioned on the
property for some time without apparent issue;
• the proposed use of the structure as a press box is common to general educational uses
and will not alter the sound or lighting for the baseball field;
• the proposed structure is modest in size (16 x 22'/� feet, 2 story) and will be set back a
minimum of 70 feet from adjacent residential uses and will face away from the adjacent
residential neighborhood; and
• the proposed structure will not generate significant additional traffic to the site nor alter
the use of the site.
For the same reasons given above, and because adequate ingress and egress for the
proposed use is currently provided, the Board concludes that the proposed use 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 vicinity, and will not
substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. For these same
reasons, the Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the zone in which such property is located.
The Board concludes that because the proposed structure will not alter the use of the
existing site and will not significantly increase traffic to the site that the existing ingress and
egress from the school site are adequate to minimize congestion on the public streets. The
Board concludes that all other aspects of the proposal will be reviewed by the building
department for compliance with the code as part of the building permit process.
Disposition: By a vote of 4-0 the Board approves EXC09-00010, a special exception for the
expansion of a general educational facility to construct a two-story 16 x 22 '/z foot accessory
building in the Low -Density, Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 2150 Rochester
Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the plans and elevations submitted with this applicatim;
0
• A minimum 70 -foot setback from adjacent residential properties.c > a
X1.
�n N
rn�
TIME LIMITATIONS: '<^� -v
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shad pire six (6)�
months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have taken aFVgn
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:
Barbara Eckstein, Acting Chairperson
IL/A w -� f, rLkLHILYGi Nf�(�L�
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 10th day of February, 2010, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this
CORPORATE SEAL
day of r/ , 20 la
Marian -t. Karr, City Clerk
N
O
O
n
>�
O
A
O��
N
O
f�bo 457
I*
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Doc ID: 021840120003 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 06/02/2010 at 10:41:50 AM
Fee Amt: $19.00 Paas 1 of 3
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA Johnson county Iowa
319/356-5230 52240 Kim Painter Countv Recorder
DECISION BK4596 PG930-932
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, March 10, 2010
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Barbara Eckstein, William Jennings, Robert Anderson
Le Ann Tyson
N
MEMBERS ABSENT: None. o
0 0
a
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Sarah Walz A=
_
n� N
OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Hilsman, Scott Ritter a'
�� -0
M
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: o! _
E
1. EXC09-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amgNd a
previously approved special exception for a salvage yard in the Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone
located at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid fence requirement
along the north, south, and east sides of the property.
Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the subject property is located in the Heavy Industrial
(12) zone, and that salvage uses are permitted in this zone by special exception. The Board
finds that the properties to the north and south are both zoned for industrial uses: a salvage
yard is located to the north and vacant industrial property is located to the south. The Board
finds that public property located to the east of the subject salvage yard is closed to the
public due to hazardous conditions associated with its former use as a landfill. The Board
also finds that the area is relatively flat.
The Board finds that the subject salvage yard is set back a considerable distance (more
than 300 feet) from the public right-of-way. The Board finds that the salvage yard is currently
surrounded by a 6 -foot high chain link fence -with vinyl slats, which does not comply with the
requirement for solid fencing. The Board finds that the applicant is required to provide an 8 -
foot high solid fence screening along the front (west side) of the salvage yard. The Board
finds that the applicant has installed the required tall, evergreen landscaping along the west
side of the salvage bard and has constructed a berm and identical landscaping along the
southwest side of the salvage yard. The Board further finds that the applicant has
constructed an 8 -foot high wall of concrete blocks along a portion of the yard's south side.
The Board finds that the right-of-way is set at a higher elevation than the salvage yard and
that portions of the site are visible over the top of the fence when approaching the site from
the south. The Board finds that the South Central District Plan recognizes South Riverside
Drive as an entranceway to the city and encourages aesthetic improvements along this
corridor, including effective screening of the salvage yards. The Board finds that the Plan
also indicates that this area is appropriate for industrial uses. The Board finds that adequate
utilities, drainage, and access roads are already established to serve the use.
Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that the criteria for a waiver from the solid fence
requirement is appropriate along the north side of the property are met because this area of
IW
the site is not in view of the public right-of-way and because the adjacent property is zoned
for industrial use and contains a salvage yard. The Board concludes that the criteria for a
waiver from the solid fence requirement is appropriate along the east side of the property
are met because this area of the salvage yard is not in view of the public or the Iowa River
and because the adjacent public land is closed due to hazardous conditions associated with
its former use as a landfill.
Though portions of the salvage yard are visible from the public right-of-way along the south
side of the site, the Board concludes that this is due to the higher elevation of the road and
that a solid fence would not provide additional screening benefit. The Board concludes that
the desired level of screening intended by the zoning requirement and in the district plan will
be effectively provided by the combination of distance (the 300 foot setback) along with the
berm and S3 evergreen landscaping provided on the southwest side of the site.
The Board concludes that the proposed exception to waive the solid fence screening
requirement will not endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare because
the existing chain link fencing on the north side of the property along with additional fencing
to be installed on the south side of the creek will prevent salvage from blocking the creek.
The Board concludes that the 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
for the reasons cited above and because the South Central District Plan envisions this area
as appropriate for industrial uses.
Because the property is set back more than 300 feet from the public right-of-way, the Board
concludes that the waiver of the solid fence requirement will have no impact on ingress or
egress from the site. The Board concludes that because the applicant must provide a final
site plan showing compliance with all elements of the Conditional Zoning Agreement (2005)
prior to securing a occupancy permit for a new building, that the Building Official will review
the plan in addition to all improvements already installed on the site in order to ensure full
compliance with all other standards and requirements of the zoning code. Because the
South Central District Plan states that industrial uses are appropriate for this area and
because the aesthetic improvements for Riverside Drive envisioned by the plan are
effectively addressed by the berm, S3 evergreen landscaping, and the solid fence along the
west side of the property as described above, the Board concludes that waiving the solid
fence requirements along the south, east, and north sides of the property will be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Disposition: By a vote of 3-2 (Anderson and Tyson dissenting) the Board approves a waiver
of the solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property,
subject to the following conditions:
All landscaping required as a condition of the previous special exception, as well as the
8 -foot wall of concrete blocks installed along the southeast portion of the salvE* yard
shall be maintained; o
An 8 -foot, solid fence must be installed from the southwest corner of thp` opeX to
southern wall of the new office/warehouse-service building, must be approved bK I'
planning staff and must comply with the terms and conditions of the oripeociial
exception (EXC06-0008) not herein modified.; o�=
X, o
0
3. When construction is finished on the office/warehouse-service building, and prior to a
certificate of occupancy, matching 8 -foot solid fencing must be continued from the
northern wall of the new building north to the existing tear -down warehouse;
4. In order to prevent salvage from obstructing the drainage way at the northeast corner of
the property, a 4 -foot chain link fence must be installed and maintained south of the
drainage way as shown the original site plan approved with EXC06-00008;
5. The 6 -foot chain link fence with vinyl slats currently installed to the north of the drainage
way shall remain in place and be maintained in good repair to provide separation from
the adjacent property;
6. No occupancy permit for the new office/warehouse-service building shall be issued until
all required fencing is installed;
7. Salvage may not be stacked higher than 6 feet;
8. All other conditions related to the original special exception (EXCO6-00008) not
specifically amended in this application shall remain in effect.
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board that 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 to of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C-1 E, City of Iowa
City, Iowa.
Approved by:
Caroline Sheerin, C airperson ,
City Attorney's Office S-17-4110
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 10`" day of March 2010, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this day of 20 /e
QJ
0AClip
l�tirJF.
CORPORATE SEAL
i
Maritin K. Karr, City Cla0
:!E_
a
a
'j j
c's-C
rn
.<n
M
C)
0
a.
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA
319-356-5230 52240
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
'Tee.
I IIIIIII IIIIII III VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII III I
Doc ID: 021857900006 Tvoe: GEN
Recorded: 06/16/2010 at 02:46:26 PM
Fee Amt: $34.00 Paas 1 of 6
Johnson Countv Iowa
Kim Painter Countv Recorder
MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings,
Le Ann Tyson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Greenwood, Sarah Walz,
4604 PG971-976
N
D
o
RoUn
AFAersop"
c) -G — P—
= i c� cn
:<rm
M =
�^ N
� ca
r
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark, Geoff Franzenburg, Yasser Gaber, Mohamed Hassanein
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
1. EXC10-00001: An application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to allow off-
site parking in a municipal parking facility to satisfy the minimum parking requirements for a
mixed use building to be constructed in the Central Business (CB -10) zone at 225 South
Gilbert Street.
Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the subject use is located in the Central Business
(CB -10) zone. The Board finds that the proposed residential apartments require 24 parking
spaces, and that the applicant will provide 8 spaces on site with the remaining 16 spaces to
be provided in the Chauncey Swan public parking ramp located on College Street. The
Board finds that the 8 on-site parking spaces will be reserved for specific tenants, while the
16 off-site spaces are not reserved but exist as permits to park in the ramp on a first-come
first-served basis.
The Board finds that the applicant has submitted an aerial photograph showing that the
subject property is within 500 feet of the Chauncey Swan municipal parking ramp, and that
the code has no maximum distance restrictions for off-site parking if it is provided in a
municipal ramp. The Board finds that the pedestrian route from the proposed apartment
building to the municipal ramp is along the public sidewalk and includes a controlled
intersection at the intersection of Gilbert and College Streets.
The Board finds that the Director of Transportation Services has indicated in writing that the
16 spaces requested by the applicant are available in the form of 16 parking permits for
long-term use. The Board finds that there are 475 spaces in the Chauncey Swan ramp: 400
permits are issued on annually; 75 spaces remain open for general use. The Board finds
that the Director of Transportation Services has indicated that the ramp is rarely at capacity
and that parking demand and permit requests for this and other ramps are evaluated
annually. The Board finds that the required written agreement between the applicant and
the City regarding the long-term retention of the off -parking has not been submitted.
The Board finds that all utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are already in
place for the parking facility as well as the proposed mixed use building.
Conclusions of Law: Because the proposed apartments are located in the CB -10 zone, the
Board concludes that up to 100% of the required parking spaces may be provided in a
municipal ramp. Because the proposed off-site parking is provided in a municipal parking
ramp, the Board concludes that the parking is not subject to the location (14-5A-4F(b)),
zoning (14-5A-4F(c)), or shared use (14-5A-4F(d)) criteria for the special exception.
The Board concludes that[rTs21 the proposed off-site parking location is appropriate because
the pedestrian route from the apartments to the ramp is along the public sidewalk and
because there is a controlled crossing at the intersection of Gilbert and College Streets.
Because the ramp is already established, the Board concludes that the proposed off-site
parking will have no impact on the streetscape or neighboring property; will not bonjurious
to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity; and will not o
substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. For dis e
reasons and because there is adequate space available in the ramp, the &NiJ concludas..
that the special exception will not impede the normal and orderly developrffbt'ff arm r
improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the CB -10 zoneFor these sM
reasons, and because the public ramp is designed specifically for high-voUi>� patting, ttie
Board concludes that safe ingress and egress are provided and that the soo'al exception
will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, orgeneraj,gvelfare.
For these same reasons, the Board concludes that the proposed exception conforms to all
other applicable regulation or standards of the CB -10 zone.
The Board concludes that in order to satisfy the code requirement regarding the covenant
for off-site parking, the applicant must submit a written agreement with the City for the long-
term lease of 16 parking permits for Chauncey Swan as part of the building permit
application. The terms of the covenant must make it clear that residents of the subject
property have priority in obtaining the parking permits and that the applicant should not mark
up the price of said permits.
Disposition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves EXC10-00001, an application submitted by
Jeff Clark for a special exception to allow up to 16 parking spaces in a municipal parking
facility to satisfy the minimum parking requirements for a mixed use building to be
constructed in the Centra[ Business (CB -10) zone at 225 South Gilbert Street, subject to the
following conditions:
• All approved spaces will be provided in the Chauncey Swan Ramp according to the
terms set by the Director of Transportation Services; and
The applicant must submit the required covenant for off-site parking prior to securing a
building permit. Such covenant shall run with the land and bind Applicant's successor in
interest and be recorded with the Johnson County Recorder at applicant's expense. It shall
require applicant to give priority to residents of the subject property when subleasing or
distributing the parking permits. It shall also prohibit applicant from subleasing the permits to
tenants or other third parties at a rate in excess of that which the applicant pays to [ease the
permits from the City.
2. EXC10-00002 —Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Quality Associates for
a special exception to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements for a business
located in the General Industrial (I-1) zone at 2630 Independence Road.
Findings of Fact: The Board finds the applicant has provided a statement indicating that at
peak capacity, the packaging facility will rely on two shifts of employees: 95 workers on first
shift and 85 workers on second shift, with a one-half hour offset between shifts to control
congestion at the facility. The Board finds that the warehouse space allocated to Proctor &
Gamble is for inventory only and therefore has only a limited number of employees present
in the facility on an occasional basis. The Board finds that there is sufficient space on-site to
construct all the required parking spaces should the use expand in the future and that the
Applicant has agreed to reserve such space for future parking, should the need arise. The
Board finds that the final site plan has not yet been reviewed by the Building Official to
ensure that the parking proposal is in compliance with all other requirements of the zoning
code, and that approval of the site plan is required in order for the applicant to secure a
certificate of occupancy for the building.
The Board finds that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area of the City as appropriate
for industrial uses. The Board finds that all necessary access roads, utilities and drainage
are already in place to serve the industrial area in which the proposed use is located. The
Board finds that Independence Road is designed for industrial use and provides access to
Highway 6 via a signalized intersection, and that all access drives for the site are signed to
support this level of traffic.
Conclusions of Law: Because Independence Road is designed for industrial uses and
provides access to Highway vialiTsal a signalized intersection and because all access drives
for the site are designed to support the proposed level of industrial traffic, the Board
concludes that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Based on the number of employees anticipated for the two shifts (95 max.), the Board
concludes that the use has unique characteristics such that 211 required parking spaces
required is excessive. For the reasons cited above and because the applicant proposes to
build 142 spaces and reserve space to allow construction of an additional 69 spaces (total
211 spaces) if needed, 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 vicinity; and will not
substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. For these same
reasons the Board concludes that granting the parking reduction 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.
Disposition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves the requested parking reduction, subject to
the following conditions:
• The applicant must land bank an area sufficient to provide the additional 69 spaces that
would ordinarily be required. This area should be indicated on the final site plan.
• Final site plan approval by the Building Official for the proposed 142 -space par,KCgig area
0
• The parking reduction is limited to Quality Associates and the proposeedse Allis
property as described in this application. Z c_s c
C
r
r7l_
m
z=-' N
W
F
3. EXC10-00003: An application submitted by Yaser Gaber for a special exception to allow the
establishment of a vehicle repair use in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 1911
Keokuk Street.
Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the subject property is located in the CC -2 zone, more
than 600 feet from the nearest residential zone. The Board finds that the vehicle repair use
area is to be located at the rear (west side) of the property, with the vehicle storage area
behind the building, and that the applicant has indicated that the vehicles will not be stored
on the property for more than 45 days. The Board finds that the proposed vehicle storage
area is visible from the adjacent commercial property to the north and the Highway 6 right-
of-way.
The Board finds that the South District Plan shows this and surrounding properties as
General Commercial and does not anticipate major changes to the area. The Board finds
that adequate access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities are already in place to
surround this commercial area and that the proposed site plan shows compliance with the
maximum curb cut standards and that transportation planners have reviewed the site and
found no traffic problems associated with it.
N
O
The Board finds that the change of use proposed for the property requiresae app -Scant to
bring the site into compliance with the zoning code with regard to the desi (Uf pacing
areas, drives, and landscape screening. The Board finds that the applicar�}oposed s 0.
plan shows the required 10 -foot setback from the public right-of-way on b ide6;Df thf"
entry drive with required S2 low landscape screening on the east and norlksidesig the��
parking areas. The Board finds that the west property line is within a saniewer
easement, and the submitted site plan shows the required S-5 fence screening I=ated - {
within the easement area. The Board finds that the City has recommended that M
landscape screening be planted in the easement area as it may need to be removed in
order to conduct maintenance and repairs to the sewer line. The Board finds that the
Building Official has not approved the final site plan and that an approved site plan is
required in order for the applicant to secure an occupancy permit for the building.
Conclusions of Law: Because the proposed vehicle storage area is located behind the
building, the Board concludes that the use will be concealed from public view along the
Keokuk Street right-of-way. Because the vehicle storage is in view of the Highway 6 right-of-
way and the adjacent commercial property to the north, the Board concludes that S3 tall
landscape screening is required along the property line to the north of the vehicle storage
area. Based on the submitted site plan showing all other required screening for the site, the
Board concludes that the proposed vehicle use areas that abut the public right-of-way will be
set back at least 10 feet from the public right-of-way and landscaped according to the S2
standard.
Because the west property line is located within a sanitary sewer easement, which muchprs41
be maintained by the City, the Board concludes that the required S3 landscaping along the
west site of the vehicle storage area cannot be expected to thrive, and therefore this
requirement should be waived and instead the screening requirement can adequately be
met instead by the installation and maintenance of a 6 -foot high (S5) solid fence. The Board
concludes that the small amount of required landscaping along the south property line
cannot be expected to thrive due to the layout of the building on the site, which limits access
to this portion of the property, and therefore the screening requirement in this area should
be waived. Because the applicant has indicated his preference to place the required fencing
within the sanitary sewer easement, the Board concludes that the applicant should sign an
agreement indicating that the City will not be held responsible for repairing or replacing the
fence if it is damaged in the process of maintaining or repairing the sanitary sewer line.
Because the applicant is required to bring the site into compliance with the zoning code,
including improvements to the parking areas, drives, pedestrian ways, and entrances to the
site, the Board concludes that the proposed use will not be detrimental or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Based on the location of the vehicle
storage area behind the building along with the required screening proposed by the
applicant and additional screening recommended by staff as described above, 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.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 4-0 (Sheerin absent) the board approved the application to
allow the vehicle repair use and waived the requirement for S3 landscape screening
standards on the west and south sides of the vehicle storage area subject to the following
conditions:
• The applicant must secure a building permit to establish the change of use on the
property;
• Approval of a final site plan by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with all
requirements in the zoning code; o
• The required S5 opaque fence or wall along the west and south side oftetbicl"tora994
area should be a minimum of 6 feet in height to screen the Vehicle Storaggara;_ ' 11
• S3 (tall) landscape screening shall be provided along the property line-"lih dVthe r�
vehicle storage area, between the parking area and the adjacent commeri F ro.Trty, M
order to screen the use from the Highway 6 right-of-way; `' D -y
N
If fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the applicantc,Dust
provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for repaiffng or
replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City maintains or repairs the
sewer. The agreement must be on file prior to the City issuing a certificate of occupancy.
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 teats of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14 -8C -1E, City of Iowa
City�Jowa. /% /�
^Z7 Appro ed bypprssi
ity 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 _L,�__th day of , 2010, as
the same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this 4n day of 3Ly=C2 —,20 /o
Maria <. Karr, City Clerk
N
O
CORPORATE SEAL
Z� c-,
Cn
�-
M
o
i
W
ICCO 45PczOy3'oa0
Doc ID: 021950830003 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 Recorded:$19 00/2010 2010 at
to013 5.09 PM
Johnson Countv Iowa
DECISION Kim Painter County Recorder
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SK4647 P0260-262
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2010
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
N
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson _ o
0 0
MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings. pE?
n� j
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Karen Howard, �r
MM
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Walz, Del Stevens. o-_��- N
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
1. EXC10-00005 a public hearing regarding an application submitted by the Extend the Dream
Foundation for a special exception to allow a General Community Service Use in the
Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone and a Reduction in Parking for Unique Circumstances for
the property located at 730 South Dubuque Street.
Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the proposed social services use, which assists
persons with disabilities to operate small businesses and serves as a meeting location for
Alcoholics Anonymous, is classified as a General Community Service Use. The Board finds
that the previous tenant at this location was also a General Community Service Use. The
Board finds that activities associated with the site will be alcohol free, and many visitors to
the site will be arriving by foot, bike or public transportation. The Board finds that a bike rack
should be provided. The Board finds that the Extend the Dream Foundation previously
operated from a commercial site at the corner of Court and Gilbert Streets, which had no off-
street parking.
The Board finds that the surrounding properties are a mix of commercial, public, quasi
industrial, and non -conforming residential uses and that the Central District Plan encourages
redevelopment of the area to create a pedestrian -oriented, mixed use neighborhood. The
Board finds that this location is centrally located among other businesses serving its
clientele. The Board finds that the proposed site provides 16 off-street parking spaces total
with the spaces shared equally between the two users of the building—PAN and Extend
the Dream. The Board finds that there is some on -street parking available in the
neighborhood and that spaces in the adjacent University lot and the County parking
structure are available after 5:00 p.m. when the subject site will host special events. The
Board also finds that the on-site parking will be designed to accommodate the loading of a
SEATS bus.
The Board finds that the proposed site plan shows a reconfigured parking area on Dubuque
Street with a narrower drive entrance and landscaping to provide separation between the
vehicle areas and the sidewalk. The Board finds that the new parking area can
accommodate three cars, including one handicap space. The Board finds that the applicant
must submit a final site plan to the building department at which time all other aspects of the
code will be reviewed to ensure compliance with the zoning code.
r
Conclusions of Law: Based on the proposed use of the site as well as the mix of uses
already present in the neighborhood, the Board concludes that the use will not significantly
alter the overall character of the zone. Because the Central District Plan proposes
redevelopment for this area toward a more pedestrian -oriented, mixed use neighborhood,
the Board concludes that the proposed exceptions will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property.
Based on the specific character of the proposed use and its programs for the disabled and
for Alcoholics Anonymous, the Board concludes that most clientele and employees will not
travel to the site by car and therefore the minimum parking and stacking spaces required are
excessive. The Board concludes that it is in the interest of pedestrian safety for the parking
area to be brought into closer compliance with the zoning code requirements for parking
area design, which will reduce the amount of the parking available on the site.
Based on the character of the neighborhood and the proposed redesign of the parking area
to more closely comply with the zoning code standards, the Board concludes that the
proposed exceptions will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, or general welfare. For these same reasons, the Board concludes that the special
exceptions 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.
The Board concludes that the proposed redesign of the parking area will provide ingress
and egress so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets and safer access to and
from the site for pedestrians and vehicles.
Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board approves the special exception to allow a General
Community Service Use in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone and for a reduction in the
required parking for unique circumstances for property located at 730 South Dubuque Street
subject to the conditions:
1) Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including a concrete pad for a
bicycle rack, the location of which will be determined by the City;
2) The special exception for a community service use in the CI -1 Zone at 730 South Gilbert
Street is limited to the Extend the Dream Foundation;
3) The special exception for a reduction in the parking requirement from 8 spaces to 6
spaces is limited to the Extend the Dream Foundation. Because there is no change of
use, the entire property will remain grandfathered at 15 required spaces, but this
requirement will be reduced to 13 while Extend the Dream Foundation is occulMng the
building. o 0
M
cc
TIME LIMITATIONS: rte- M
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shell ex
six (6) months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shq!bhave
taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement a6fit orized
under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C-1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Cha rperson
cz roll oe Sl+�ei�n,
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
Approved by: 7 `I
'—J" " Ilr ! :s �nnny 1 K a"
City Attorney's Office q ('7 Ila
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 nth day of Qmf,
, 2010, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this T day of AW&20 /V
Ma6sn K. Karr, City Clerk
CORPORATE SEAL
N
O
*c-
'M
B i
C�
0
.�+
N
O
O
Fe
Doc ID: 022007820005 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 11/02/2010 at 11:23:30 AM
Fes Amt: $29.00 Pace 1 of 5
Johnson Countv Iowa
Kim Painter Countv Recorder
BK4675 PG352-356
Prepared by Sarah waiz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
N
MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, William Jennings, Barbara Eckstein, @9d Robert
Anderson !7S 1 ;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Le Ann Tyson C1 r B
r
M
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Greenwood Hektoen, Karen Howard - I
F_
_ o
OTHERS PRESENT: Kristin Breaux, Marty Roth, Jean Walker o
N
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC10-00007: A public hearing regarding an application submitted by Marty Roth on behalf
of First Mennonite Church for a special exception to allow expansion of a church facility
located in the Medium Density, Single -Family (RS -8) zone at 405 Myrtle Avenue.
The Board concludes that the application satisfies the street access standards in the zoning
code based on the following findings:
• Though less than 28 feet in width, Greenwood and Myrtle Avenues are both collector
streets. On -street parking is prohibited on both streets.
• The proposed church addition does not expand the assembly/sanctuary area of the
church and is not anticipated to generate additional traffic to the facility.
The Board finds that site plan for the addition shows that the established church and
addition meet all the necessary setback requirements.
The Board concludes that the proposed addition is designed to be compatible with adjacent
uses and will not have significant adverse affects on the livability of nearby residential uses
based on the following findings:
• The proposed addition is a one-story, 1,600 -square -foot addition to the lower level of
the church. Due to the topography of the site, the addition is not highly visible from
the street or adjacent properties.
• The addition is designed to complement the established church building and will be
finished with materials that match the church's present exterior materials.
• RPrRimp the Dr000sed addition will not expand the occupant load of the facility, no
intersection of Greenwood and Myrtle is either eliminated or connected to the parking area
on Myrtle, based on the above facts and the following findings:
• Designating a fire lane along the remaining drive entrance to the rear parking area
will ensure that there is safe access for the provision of emergency services.
• The drop-off near the intersection of Greenwood and Myrtle, as proposed in the site
plan, is unsafe because it does not provide a turn around and thus encourages
vehicles to back into the street. However, eliminating this entrance altogether or
connecting it with the parking area on Myrtle to create a one-way, U-shaped drive
would minimize vehicle conflicts in this area and create safe ingress and egress for
vehicles accessing the church property.
For these same reasons, 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 all the facts provided above, 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; and
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.
The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary
facilities have been or are being provided based on the following finding:
• The neighborhood in which the church is located is already fully developed. All
utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are provided 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 on the following findings:.
• The church has brought all parking areas into compliance with the requirements of the
zoning code, including location, screening, and marking of pedestrian areas and routes.
• In order to secure a building permit the site plan and building designs must be
reviewed by the building department. This review will ensure compliance with all
other standards in the code not specifically reviewed in this report.
The Board concludes that the proposed exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
which encourages the location of institutional uses, such as churches, within residential
neighborhoods so long as they meet the requirements of the zoning code and are des4med to be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. o
c s o "b
The Board concludes that subject to the closing or redesign of the drop-off area,�heN -
intersection of Greenwood and Myrtle Avenues as mentioned above, the propawd�exaeption�`
satisfies all the specific and general criteria for the exception.
Fri
0
ry
Disposition: By a vote of 4-0 (Tyson absent) the Board approved EXC10-00007, a special
exception for a 1,600 square foot church addition to the religious facility located in the
Medium Density, Single -Family (RS -8) zone at 405 Myrtle Avenue, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with this application;
2. The remaining drive providing access to the rear parking area must be signed as a fire
lane;
3. Northwest entrance (Greenwood) be either closed or connected to the handicapped
parking lot off Myrtle Avenue according to the recommendation of transportation
planning staff.
EXC10-00008 - A public hearing regarding an application submitted by Steven Breaux for a
special exception to allow a reduction in the principal building setback (front) to allow the
roof on an existing porch to be modified for property located in the Medium Density, Single -
Family (RS -8) zone at 1122 East Washington Street.
The Board concludes that the situation is peculiar to the property in question based on the
following findings:
• The subject porch is already established with the required 15 -foot front setback. While
other properties along the same frontage are also set back less than 15 -feet from the
right-of-way line, the required setback for this particular property does not benefit from
setback averaging because the immediately adjacent properties meet or exceed the
required 15 -foot standard.
• While changing the roof angle on the porch will not extend the porch any further toward
the street, such a change is considered an enlargement of the non -conformity and thus
would not be allowed without a setback reduction.
The Board concludes that there is practical difficulty in complying with the setback
requirements based on the following findings:
• The subject porch is already established with the required 15 -foot front setback, and the
applicant is not proposing to extend the structure further into the setback.
• The existing porch roof is leaking. The condition of the structure could be improved by
changing the pitch of the roof.
• Raising the roof angle is considered an enlargement of the non -conforming structure.
The Board concludes that granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the
setback regulations based on the facts listed above and on following findings:
• The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of modifying the porch roofamly; the
structure itself will not expand further toward the street or toward neigh6bring QTperties:
Cn n -
• By limiting the height of the new roof, the special exception will not resp degeas '
light, air, or views for the adjacent properties. Y ,,
-�r1i Q 1
77
p
fv
The Board concludes that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback
exception are mitigated to the extent practical based on the facts provided above and the
following findings:
• A proposed roof slope of 3/12 will ensure adequate drainage.
• The height of the eaves on the new porch roof will match the original portion of the
house and the porch roof will appear aesthetically appropriate.
• The roof alteration will be designed such that it will not increase the rate of drainage to
adjacent properties.
• The applicant is addressing drainage through the use of tiling and gutters to carry water
to the ravine at the rear of the property.
The Board concludes that the subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or
rear property line, based on the following finding:
• The porch is set back more than 3 feet from the side and rear property lines.
Based on the findings provided above, the Board concludes that the specific proposed
exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general
welfare; and will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate
vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
For these same reasons, the Board concludes that 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.
The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities
have been or are being provided based on the following finding:
• The neighborhood in which the subject property is located is fully developed—all utilities,
access roads, drainage, and other facilities are already in place to serve this
neighborhood.
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:
• The proposed setback reduction will have no impact on ingress or egress from the
single-family site.
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 on the
following finding:
• The applicant must submit a final drawing to the Department of Housing and Inspection
Services in order for to obtain a building permit. The plan will be reviewed to ensure that
the rate of drainage to adjacent properties is not increased and that all other aspects of,
the proposed construction conform to the regulations or standards of the zone.
C_
The Board concludes that the Comprehensive Plan does not address this iss
Disposition: By a vote of 4-0 (Tyson absent) the Board granted the special exception EXC10-
0000$ for a reduction in the principal building setback requirement (front) from 15 feet to 8 feet,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The setback reduction be for the purpose of altering the roof of the existing porch only—
no other portion of the existing porch should be enlarged;
2. The proposed gable will have a 3:12 slope to ensure proper drainage and the eaves of
the porch must match the height of the eaves of the house; and
3. The new roof shall be designed so that it does not increase drainage to the neighboring
property, which must be demonstrated on the final plans submitted to the prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
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.
L=1 -
Caroline
Sheerin, hairperson
App ved by:
G cct.
City Attorney's Office !o fl -410
N
O
STATE OF IOWA ) o CD
CD
JOHNSON COUNTY ) C—' --4
..o §'
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Boi roof Adjustmetlii
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 8th day of September, 20,1D, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this ?_I day of 1��,��1� , 20 /O
Maria . Karr, City Clerk
CORPORATE SEAL
a,t -k U� �L
�3�p2°
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2010
EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL
No
MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, William Jennings, Barbara Eckstein, Robert Andersorl�nd Le
Ann Tyson
o
_ m
C-)
.h
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Sarah Walz
CD .-
=
OTHERS PRESENT: None
ori
0
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
p
EXC10-00009: A public hearing regarding an application submitted by Theresa Tranmer for a special
exception to reduce the required front setback from 10' to 5.5' for an uncovered deck located in the
Medium -Density, Single -Family (RS -8) zone at 1610 Center Avenue.
The Board concludes that the situation is peculiar to the property in question based on the following
findings:
• The subject lot is about half the size of most lots in the surrounding neighborhood and
smaller than the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet allowed by code;
• The subject house is set 10 feet from the street right-of-way line with the front door several
feet above grade, making a raised structure (stoop or deck) necessary for access;
• The Center Avenue right-of-way is 75 feet wide, which is unusually wide for a residential
street of its length and traffic volume.
The Board concludes that there is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements
based on the following findings:
• The existing stoop, which is approximately 3 feet deep, is failing, provides awkward access to
the house, and has no railing;
• The property is small in comparison with most other in the neighborhood, and much smaller
than what would be allowed under the current zoning ordinance.
The Board concludes that granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback
regulations based on the facts listed above and on following findings:
• The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of an uncovered front deck only and will
not bring the principal building (the house itself) any closer to the street or to other
properties.
• The proposed uncovered deck will have side setbacks that exceed the 5 feet required by the
zoning code.
• The Center Avenue right-of-way is unusually wide for a residential street. This provides
additional space between buildings that are on the opposite side of the street, as well as
space between the buildings and the street. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Doc ID: 022049230003 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 12/13/2010 at 12:20:4a PM
Fs9 Amt: $19.00 Pace 1 of 3
Johnson countv Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
4695 PG700-702
5010 DEC 10 111 S: 20
• Other homes along this frontage are set 10 feet or less from the right-of-way line, which is
located 4 feet inside the sidewalk.
• At least two other houses along this same portion of Center Avenue have retaining walls
established within the right-of-way.
• Most houses that front Center Avenue are set close to the street, many having setbackof
less than 10 feet. Z
0
0
• The proposed deck will satisfy the 5 -foot side setback requirement.
m
C
• The abuts an alley to the east, and is screened from the neighboring`
r
property partially
property to the west by the garage entrance and its shed roof.°
o tJ
N
0
The Board concludes that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception asi
mitigated to the extent practical based on the facts provided above and the following findings: o
• The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of constructing an uncovered deck only.
• The final design of the deck must be reviewed by Historic Preservation staff to ensure it is
compatible with the historic conservation zone in which it is located.
• The proposed 4 1/2' x 10' deck will extend approximately 1.5 feet further out toward the right-
of-way line than the existing 3' x 3' stoop.
The Board concludes that the subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear
property line, based on the following finding:
• The deck will be set back more than the required 5 feet from the side and rear property lines
Based on the findings provided above, the Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; and will not
be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not
substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
For these same reasons, the Board concludes that 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.
The Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided based on the following finding:
• The neighborhood in which the subject property is located is fully developed—all utilities,
access roads, drainage, and other facilities are already in place to serve this neighborhood.
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:
• The proposed deck will be located more than 91/2 feet back from the sidewalk and will not
obscure the visibility for vehicles accessing the alley to the east.
• The subject property is a single-family residence and does not generate significant traffic.
The proposed deck will not increase vehicle trips to the area and thus will have no impact on
ingress or egress to the area.
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
-a't r, _••u`t'W.��r Cllr •�� y F y
+; -''� t .y �, ••may 4 � ,c• � •� �,
�§',r .. .1•i'. , �t. ,td A 1yk = St .f'. Li• Fy��^lrrt y.� i ��'4-.. ti
F iZ��fl,l1_•Z-e'�fY•1�4J.1� li♦ �� tVN\}�i iblfi,`'`iy � �'
\ T�• a yt
�s�'4`C' -)Pim' 7-t,t`�e"'!iG! I`A,•#,/dfiki.yy��,l;
a r a f Z�17 S I ..{' xJYa tZ?� "� ° ! '�•,a'J / t ' 'i• {fK�? a9 'i r rT?y1aP•' )tti d
�� r ! t•y'f{� t�<YT ¢� M11 C,�-Y-�1�7asSYt�x�"� � f�a�l �Y�- .. iso `t�t{ :.'t1 Iarn F�S �y�.ty_.: M F ei .<
OT.••�,'.�,
� � -, h :e+ i l il'r:.:}..; , a '} I '�'Y`.�`+%♦•JT���'t S\�ia t ° f �i"^.
lax
10
it
� A'O t ts"j. )'iCtiy.'i:TT. F .. -. ' } • L_ N 0 ,-1
r� �f, wi 3 Gk w r".. I .i.. ,� "h�'tx�':iS }a 'Lw+': i-�k } i \irL♦ fi3i��[4�r`fr� .� „�S . i. :1
11
. �-;i(. I � g;�,,, � - ";'CEfrr, r.'«r. `, 1 e � '�'. '.h+� '.�'.�. 'R , t „•.4�r+ w,' �
-t..T,. '.'•' k �`.,< nrJ�?fY. u - +'qq +tea y s �S^t •. ! � '
y fii•;i.:UJl,�)Y ifs.
St., f l Y!sf?
,VJ
iP �s' v�Y`.Ea -t •i:' ... .' t C rY. �9si�ig'iYt' ''��'a'��r r� a f
FY-ry"r , I@ 7!t,�l�rw �J d.f �<'sS�k"�f" •�c ��' r a' ,� :� � ,,�a
Y
g
�f Y ! e ,. 4'd i , J as: ' ' I !"'"`oi�tY •' $ w p_� 4" '-`.
ti r
-:;1 -n '#. :,.,,>nf a.. tAT. 4 >.lZt �— A \I� � +}•ssv�
- �' � ' rai'_ ..� ....�'� .-a. S.♦t,4 -.,y�3�� u i. >r �,. : ' S .� t* Ahs � Y uW.'T"... � ,t W�>• " ` �4 _
r
ri
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located based on the following
finding:
• The applicant must submit a final drawing to be reviewed by the staff Historic Preservationist
showing compliance with preservation guidelines. The applicant must also submit a final
plan to be reviewed by the Building Official to ensure compliance with any aspects of the
zoning code not specifically addressed in this report.
The Board finds that the Comprehensive Plan encourages re -investment in older neighborhoods.
Disposition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board granted the special exception EXC10-00009 a reduction in
the front setback from 10 feet to 5.5 feet in order to allow construction of an uncovered deck at
property located in the Medium Density (RS -8) zone at 1610 Center Avenue, subject to the following
conditions:
• Compliance with the site plan submitted—the deck shall not exceed 4 feet, 5 inches in depth
and 10 feet in width.
• The applicant must get staff approval for the final design of the deck in accordance with the
Historic Preservation Commission decision.
• The underside of the deck must be screened with lattice or other material to be approved by
historic preservation staff.
• The setback reduction is for the purpose of an uncovered deck only. The deck may not be
covered or enclosed at any time in the future without an additional special exception.
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
therms of the Boar 's decision. City Code Section 14 -8C -1E, City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Approved by:
Caroline Sheerin,40hairperson
City Attorney's Office III j>f Ip
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
N
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of AdjustmEW
as
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of c CZ)
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 8th day of September, 2010, as r"
same appears of record in my Office.
o^ r
0
Dated at Iowa City, this 11!9 �i day of 20-eZ o
�\ N o
a
Marian Karr, City Clerk p
CORPORATE SEAL
;, r