Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 Board of Adjustment DecisionsI r �a-, Prepared by Sarah Walz, Planning Associate, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ��)) WEDNESDAY, January 10, 20X7 Iiif EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Doc 1 4 002VD: EN Recorded: 02/O6/200770at T 10:21:18 AM Fee Amt: $12.00 Paoe 1 of 2 Johnson Countv Iowa Kim Painter Count, Recorder 9K4126 P0777-778 res MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Edgar Thornton, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: John Beasley, Shelley McCafferty, Jim Enloe, Jim Estin, Tim Weitzel APPEALS: APL06-00004 Reconsideration of an application submitted by John Roffman appealing the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue. Findings of Fact: By a vote of 3-2, the Board finds that the subject property is located in the College Hill Conservation District and that the proposed building is subject to the Design Guidelines for Multi -Family Buildings listed in section 10.1 of the Historic Preservation Handbook. The Board finds that, in denying the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed building, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) cited the increase in physical mass of the new building, primarily focusing on the increase in depth. The board also finds that the relevant guidelines in section 10.1 of the Historic Preservation handbook state that "measures should be incorporated into the design of a new building that help to reduce its 'visual mass' and overall height." The Board finds that the HPC has no authority to regulate the density or occupancy of a proposed building and that density is governed and regulated by the base zone and other site development standards of the Zoning Code. Based on statements in the transcripts of the HPC meetings, the Board finds that while the Commission did mention visual mass in its deliberations and conclusion, in its discussion prior to voting numerous commissioners consistently cited density, number of occupants, building size, physical mass and neighborhood concerns as the pervasive reason for denying a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed building at 923 Iowa Avenue. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that it reviews decisions of the Historic Preservation Commission to determine whether the Commission exercised its powers and followed the Historic Preservation guidelines and regulations established by law or whether the Commission's action was made without regard to the law or the underlying facts of the case and is thereby patently arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion or pretextual. The Board concludes that in its consistent citing of density, occupancy, physical mass and neighborhood concerns prior to denying the certificate of appropriateness, the HPC misapplied its guidelines and acted outside of its authority. The Board concludes that the resulting decision by HPC to deny a certificate of appropriateness based on density, occupancy, physical mass and neighborhood concerns exceeded the Commission's authority and was patently arbitrary and capricious. Having made this determination, the Board must now make such decision as ought to have been made, and to that end has all the powers of the Commission and is bound by the same guidelines and rules governing the Commission's decision in deciding the merits of the pending application. Board Discussion on Disposition of Application for Certificate of Appropriateness: The Board finds that while the applicant has incorporated measures into the design of the new building to help reduce the "visual mass" and overall height of the building, there is concern that the rear 14 feet of the side elevation is lacking in architectural features that reduce its visual impact to neighboring properties. The Board finds that a board and batten treatment, similar to that used on the large bay, will effectively break up the visual mass of the rear 14 feet of the side elevation. Disposition: By a vote of 3-2, finding that the Commission's decision exceeded its authority and was arbitrary and capricious, the Board approves APL06-00004, an application submitted by John Roffman, appealing the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed building to be located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone and Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone at 923 Iowa Avenue. By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed building at 923 Iowa Avenue based on the submitted plans and subject to the additional requirement that the architect to use board and batten treatment on the rear 14 feet of the side elevation to reduce the visual mass of the building. 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 't ,Iowa. J,� A wed Carol Alexander, hair person City Ata ey STATE OF IOWA ) �,L0L'1M912[Ko DIVA 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 January, 2007, as the - same appears of record in my Office. - r. — .r _l Dated at Iowa City, this day of u 12007 ��crti(l,vt] Y� �Ct�tii� Marlen K. Karr, City Clerk CORPORATE SEAL coubobylE 2Evr r e 1. EXC07-00001: a public hearing regarding an application submitted by Bryan Svoboda for a special exception to allow a reduction in the required front yard setback for property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 526 West Park Road. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the subject property is located on a corner lot and is therefore required to provide a front yard setback along both the Hutchison Avenue and West Park Road frontages. The Board finds that Hutchison Avenue dead ends at the rear of the property where the topography drops off. The Board finds that, while this portion of the street right-of-way provides frontage for a portion of the property located at 524 West Park Road, due to the steep topography it is highly unlikely that Hutchison Avenue would ever be extended beyond its current terminus. The Board finds that this portion of Hutchison Avenue is not constructed to public street standards in terms of paving, street width, curb and gutter, and sidewalks and that the street is maintained by the property owners at 526 and 604 West Park Road. In all practical sense, this portion of right-of-way serves as private access to the adjacent properties. The Board finds that there is no parking along West Park Road and that all parking is provided along a non -conforming parking area to the rear of the house. The Board finds that the property at 526 West Park Road already includes a non -conforming kitchen addition, which is established 5 feet from the property line. The Board finds that applicant proposes to create a kitchen addition to the non -conforming portion of the building in order to provide a direct connection between the kitchen and family room on the ground floor of the house as well as a more accessible entrance to the house from the Hutchison Avenue side of the house. The Board finds that the addition proposed by the applicant will close off access to a non -conforming garage and carport, which are located 15 feet from the street right-of-way line. Conclusions of Law: Because Hutchison Avenue is not built to street standards and because in all practical sense it functions as a private drive for the adjacent property owners at 526 and 604 West Park Road, the Board concludes that the situation is peculiar to the property. Because of the separation between properties created by the existing right-of-way the Board concludes that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The Board concludes that given the configuration of this dead-end section of Hutchison Avenue, the requested reduction in the setback will not alter the general building scale of placement of the buildings along the frontage nor will it be Doc 11111111114 VDe: GEN Recorded; 05/14/20070atT03:13 20 PM Prepared by Sarah Walz, Planning Associate, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 JFee ohnson Amt: Count001 of 4 Iowa Kim Painter Countv Recorder DECISION SK 4159 P�43 46 IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Edgar Thornton, Michelle Shelangouskr-Ned Wood, Michael Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE — o STAFF PRESENT: Eric Goers, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Bryan Svoboda, Glenn Siders, Anna Bus, David Fry, Jerry AnZMony n' SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: _ 1. EXC07-00001: a public hearing regarding an application submitted by Bryan Svoboda for a special exception to allow a reduction in the required front yard setback for property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 526 West Park Road. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the subject property is located on a corner lot and is therefore required to provide a front yard setback along both the Hutchison Avenue and West Park Road frontages. The Board finds that Hutchison Avenue dead ends at the rear of the property where the topography drops off. The Board finds that, while this portion of the street right-of-way provides frontage for a portion of the property located at 524 West Park Road, due to the steep topography it is highly unlikely that Hutchison Avenue would ever be extended beyond its current terminus. The Board finds that this portion of Hutchison Avenue is not constructed to public street standards in terms of paving, street width, curb and gutter, and sidewalks and that the street is maintained by the property owners at 526 and 604 West Park Road. In all practical sense, this portion of right-of-way serves as private access to the adjacent properties. The Board finds that there is no parking along West Park Road and that all parking is provided along a non -conforming parking area to the rear of the house. The Board finds that the property at 526 West Park Road already includes a non -conforming kitchen addition, which is established 5 feet from the property line. The Board finds that applicant proposes to create a kitchen addition to the non -conforming portion of the building in order to provide a direct connection between the kitchen and family room on the ground floor of the house as well as a more accessible entrance to the house from the Hutchison Avenue side of the house. The Board finds that the addition proposed by the applicant will close off access to a non -conforming garage and carport, which are located 15 feet from the street right-of-way line. Conclusions of Law: Because Hutchison Avenue is not built to street standards and because in all practical sense it functions as a private drive for the adjacent property owners at 526 and 604 West Park Road, the Board concludes that the situation is peculiar to the property. Because of the separation between properties created by the existing right-of-way the Board concludes that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The Board concludes that given the configuration of this dead-end section of Hutchison Avenue, the requested reduction in the setback will not alter the general building scale of placement of the buildings along the frontage nor will it be incompatible with other buildings in the vicinity. The Board concludes that any negative impacts of the reduction in the setback are mitigated by the closing off of the non- conforming garage and carport. The Board concludes that the proposed special 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 the property in the vicinity, and will not diminish property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that the establishment of the proposed special exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property and adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities are being provided. The Board concludes that the reduction in the setback along Hutchison will have no impact on ingress and egress from the site and that in all other respects the special exception conforms with the code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Disposition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves EXC07-00001, an application submitted by Bryan Svoboda for a special exception allowing a reduction in the required front yard setback for property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 526 West Park Road from 15 feet to 5 feet subject to general conformity with the submitted site plan. 2. EXC07-00002: a public hearing regarding an application submitted by Nordstrom Oil for a special exception to allow a drive-in restaurant with a drive up window for property located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 1902 Broadway Street and 1906 Broadway Street. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the subject property is located in a CC -2 zone at the corner of Highway 6 and Broadway Street and that drive-through facilities are allowed by special exception in the zone. The Board finds that the subject lot is adjacent to a residential zone to its south and that an undeveloped CO -1 lot is situated between the subject property and another residential zone to the east. The Board finds that the property is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that includes requirements for additional screening and architectural design elements to mitigate effects on the adjacent residential neighborhood and that the proposed site plan includes all of the required elements, including a 5 -foot masonry wall with a one foot berm as part of the screening along the south property line. The Board finds that the site plan shows all screening required by code and by the CZA with the exception of the required S2 screening between the dumpster enclosure and the adjacent CO -1 property, which must be added before the issuance of any permit. The Board finds that the drive-through window for the facility is located on the northwest side of the building, away from the residential zone. The Board finds that the facility includes two drive-in canopies located on the east side of the building. The Board finds that the applicant has proposed hours of operation from 6:30 am until midnight. The Board finds that all customer activity on the site will occur outside the building at the canopies, drive-through window and outdoor patio seating. The Board finds that the applicant has submitted information indicating that the intercom system will not be audible at the distance of the neighboring residential property and that the applicant has indicated that upon complaint,_ the restaurant is able to adjust the volume of the system. r� T _- J The Board finds that traffic will enter the site from Broadway Street at the south end of the property via a two-way access drive shared with the adjacent CO -1 property. The Board finds that the sidewalk along Broadway Street is a pedestrian route used by children going to and from school. The Board finds that traffic will circulate through the lot via a 1 -way drive. The Board finds that the drive through window lane provides 3 stacking spaces and the order board provides two stacking spaces. The Board finds that all lighting on the site is in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards in the zoning code. The Board finds that the site plan includes a dumpster enclosure, which the applicant stated will be constructed to match the building. Conclusions of Law: Because of the careful attention to architectural design of the facility and additional screening stipulated in the CZA, the Board concludes that the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding property. The Board concludes that by limiting the hours of operation on the easternmost canopy to 10 pm Sunday —Thursday and 11:00 pm Friday and Saturday, and by requiring that when not in use that all canopy lighting, including the patio lighting, be dimmed to 50%, the use will not be detrimental to the surrounding property. The Board concludes that a litter control plan, including proposed placement of trash bins, is necessary to insure that the use is not injurious to the use and enjoyment of property in the immediate vicinity. With these additional conditions, the Board concludes that the proposed special 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. The Board concludes that the transportation system along Broadway Street and Highway 6 is capable of safely supporting the use. The Board concludes that installation of pedestrian signage at the exit drive from the site and limiting the height of vegetation directly adjacent to the entrance/exit portion of the drive will insure pedestrian safety. Therefore, 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 district. Further, the Board concludes that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and or necessary facilities are being provided and adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Finally, the Board concludes that based on the design and screening proposed for the site, that the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Disposition: By a vote of 3-2 (Wright and Wood voting in the negative) the Board approves EXC07-00002, a special exception to allow a drive-through facility in a CC -2 zone, located at the corner of Highway 6 and Broadway Street subject to compliance with the submitted site plan and elevations, all conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement for the property, and the following additional conditions: The east drive-in canopy hours will be limited to 10 pm Sunday-Thursdayaand 11,pm Friday -Saturday and all canopy lighting, including lighting in the outdoorseating area, will be dimmed to 50% when not in operation. Canopies will comply with the CZA for the property and be constructed of material and j color subject to staff approval. - N The dumpster located along the CO -1 property line at the northeast section of the lot - must be in an enclosure and screened from the CO -1 property to the S2 standard. .—' 4. Vegetation directly adjacent to the drive entrance/exit from Broadway Street will be held to a maximum height of 3 feet. 5. All illuminated signage is limited to the west and north sides of the building. 6. The applicant will provide a litter control plan, including the location of trash bins to control litter in the public right-of-way and on adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject lot. 7. The applicant will install pedestrian crossing signage or a stop sign adjacent to the sidewalk at the exiting drive onto Broadway Street. 8. That all other aspects of the site design will be subject to substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. 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 Ci Iowa. Carol Alexander, Chairperson STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY . A r�y. 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 28th day of March, 2007, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this day of 1?22e4-- , 2007 Marilan K. Karr, City Clerk CORPORATE SEAL =^ _: !' . �- � /000 45z&Dn ALU IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Doc ID: 020849810002 Tvoe: GEN Recorded: 05/14/2007 at 03:11:51 PM Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319!356-5230 Fee Amt: $12.00 Pace 1 of 2 Johnson Countv Iowa Kim Painter Countv Recorder DECISIO IOWA CITTYtBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT B 4142 K4159 P° WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Payne, Edgar Thornton, Ned Wood, Michael Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Alexander STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Sarah Walz o OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Stephan, Mike Wolf Flo SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: D` - 1. EXC07-�-00003: a public hearing regarding an application submitted by CMC -West Lucas LLC for a special exception to allow a 50% reduction in the parking requirement from 76 parking spaces to 38 spaces for a proposed manufacturing plant located on property in the Heavy Industrial (1-2) zone north of Izaak Walton Road. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the proposed use is located in the heavy industrial zone and that the applicant is in the process of rezoning the property to General Industrial (I- 1). The Board finds that the development proposed manufacturing facility will impact wetlands in the area, and that the applicant is going through the Sensitive Areas Development Plan review process as part of the rezoning. The Board finds that the property is adjacent to the Izaak Walton League property, which is considered a recreation area/open space. The Board finds that the parking requirement, based on the square footage of the building, is 76 spaces and that the applicant has asserted that no more than 25 employees are required to run the plant, which is highly automated. The Board finds that the zoning code discourages the development of excessive parking. The Board finds that access to the property, including the parking area, will be provided from Izaak Walton Road and that the County Engineer has determined that the road is adequate to serve this use. Conclusions of Law: Based on information provided by the applicant, the Board concludes that the requirement for 76 parking spaces is excessive and that a 50% reduction will provide adequate parking for the proposed use. Due to the potentially negative aesthetic and environmental impacts associated with large impervious surfaces, the Board concludes that the reduction in parking will not be detrimental to 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 diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that a reduction in the required parking will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement for the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. Disposition: By a vote of 4-0 the Board approves EXC07-00003, a special exception submitted by CMC -West Lucas, to reduce the number of required parking spaces within the 1-2 and/or 1-1 zone from 76 to 38 spaces, for property located along Izaak Walton Road, subject to submittal and approval of a site plan demonstrating compliance with all design and screening requirements for off-street parking in Industrial Zones. 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. n 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 11th day of April, 2007, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this / O� day of 2007 721 4. gz?,� Marilan K. Karr, City Clerk CORPORATE SEAL .ill!""l;% ..d i;r190 ROV a U /boo A1,5 Zoon Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 3191356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michelle Payne, Edgar Thornton, Ned Wood, Michael Wright mm�uun ninm nninni nui mumm�m nni nni nninm mime (t& MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Lynch, Randy Stevens SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS Doc ID: 020870330002 Tvoe: GEN Recorded: 06/05/2007 at 12:29:27 PM Fee Amt: $12.00 Paqe 1 of 2 Johnson Countv Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder BK4168 PG236-237 160 1. EXC07-00004 . a public hearing regarding an application submitted by USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc., for a special exception to allow location of a cell phone tower for property located in the Intensive Commercial (C101) zone at 612 Olympic Court. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the proposed tower is located in the CIA zone and that it serves an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area. The Board finds that the proposed tower, which does not use trusses or guy wires or strobe lighting, is inconspicuous in design and appropriate given the surrounding development in the CIA area. The Board finds that the lighting on the proposed tower will provide some public safety benefit to the area. The Board finds that the proposed tower height of 60 feet will provide improved service coverage in the area and allow space for additional co -location of up to 2 more sets of antenna and that the proposed location is 500 feet from the nearest residential zone. The Board finds that all equipment associated with the tower will be housed in a utility shed that is screened from view by a 6 -foot high PVC fence and that the tower will not use a back-up generator as its principal power source. The Board finds that the applicant has agreed to remove the tower and associated equipment within one year if use is discontinued as required in the zoning code. The Board finds that the tower is designed to withstand 75 mph winds and '/z inch radial ice and that, in !h: event o: coii.,iPce, the. tornor !s o ms:gned tofcld :r t hal: at the 30 foot level. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that due to the distance location and the design of the proposed tower, the special exception will not be detrimental 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 or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The Board concludes that establishment of the proposed exception will not impede the normal or orderly development or improvement of the surrounding CI -1 and CC - 2 properties. The Board concludes that adequate utilities are in place and that the proposed exception will have no impact on ingress or egress from the property. The Board concludes that the proposed special exception complies with all other regulations in the zoning code and the proposed lighting on the tower will be reviewed to ensure compliance with the lighting standards in the code. The Board concludes that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. a Disposition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves EXC07-0000+ an application for a communications transmission facility in the CI -1 zone located at 612 Olympic Court subject to compliance with the site plan and specification regarding the tower design submitted. 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 -BC -1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. rounder, ai person STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY Approved 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 May, 2007, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this % day of 2007 CORP ORATE SEAL Marian K-. Karr, City Clerk 11 0p02 s� -000/ 1CC IIIIIIIIIIIIII III VIIIVIII VIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIII VIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIII Doc ID: 020948280004 Tvoe: GEN Recorded: 08/14/2007 at 11:21:00 AM Fee Amt: 522.00 Pace 1 of 4 Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 31 913 56-523 0 Johnson county Iowa Kim Painter Countv Recorder DECISION 6K4203 PG982-985 IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, July 11, 2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michelle Payne, Michael Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: Edgar Thornton, Ned Wood, STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Sarah Walz _ O OTHERS PRESENT: Steven Ramirez, Greg Schaeffer, Dr. Jae -On Kim, Gordon D: (, -Nancy Hitchon, Jeff Clark, John Englebrecht, Sheila Knoplah-Odole, Karen Hopp j SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: T j 1. EXCO 00005 A public hearing regarding an application submitted by the Kotebri--Unit_eft Methodist Church, Inc., for a special exception to allow construction of a new sbctuary_and parking lot for property in the Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 4032- Rohret 032Rohret Road. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the church is located in the RS -5 zone along Rohret Road. The Board finds that the church's proposed expansion will increase the size of the facility by 50% and therefore the property must come into compliance with code regulations with regard to the design and location of the parking area. The Board finds the applicant proposes to locate the new sanctuary directly south of the established sanctuary and to connect the two buildings via a breezeway. The Board finds that the proposed parking area will be located to the west of the new sanctuary and that the new sanctuary will fully screen the parking area from Phoenix Drive. The Board finds that the applicant has proposed to surround the remainder of the new parking area with S2 screening as required by code. The Board finds that the proposed site plan includes an entrance/exit drive along the west side of the lot from Rohret Road, an arterial street, as well as a rear loading area to the north of the church building with access to and from Phoenix Drive. The Board finds that the proposed site plan exceeds all setback requirements for religious facilities located in the RS -5 zone. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that the setbacks and required landscaping of the parking area meet the code requirements and will improve the site by screening the parking area and drive and by creating separation and screening from adjacent residential uses. The Board finds that additional evergreen screening along the westerly 120 -foot section of the property abutting residential property will buffer the abutting residential use from the traffic along the entry/exit drive. The Board finds that the establishment of the rear loading area and the relocation of the dumpster from the front of the lot will improve the appearance of the site, and that the recommended screening of the dumpster from the public street and adjacent residential property will prevent the new dumpster location from creating a negative impact on surrounding property. The board finds the entry/exit drive will improve ingress and egress from the site as traffic waiting to enter onto Rohret Road will back up on the private drive rather than on a public street. Thus, given these general improvements over the existing site, including coming into compliance with current zoning regulations, the 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. By coming into compliance with existing zoning regulations and relocating the access point, the special exception will contribute to the orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. All necessary utilities and infrastructure are in place to support the expansion and adequate measures have been taken to provide access that minimizes congestion in public streets. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the proposed exception will conform to applicable regulations or standards for the RS -5 zone and, as the Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of churches in residential neighborhoods, the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board approves EXC07-pb0005, an application submitted by the Korean United Methodist church, Inc. for a special exception to allow construction of a new sanctuary and parking lot for property in the Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 4032 Rohret Road, subject to substantial compliance with the proposed site plan and the following conditions: 1. The privacy fence around the dumpster be a minimum of 5 ft in height and be surrounded by S3 landscaping. 2. A final site plan demonstrating the appropriate shade trees for the parking lot as required by code and additional evergreen screening along a 120 -foot section of the drive abutting the residential use to the west. Further, the Board approves the applicant's request that the period of the special exception be extended to 18 months. _- ci a T1 VARIANCE ITEMS: JJ CO 1. VAR07-00001: A public hearing regarding an application submitted by Jeff Clad for property at 24 North Governor Street requesting a variance from the zoning requirement that duplexes on lots less than 80 feet in width in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone have rear private or alley access. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the in order to grant a variance the applicant must satisfy all five tests defined in the code. The Board finds that the subject property is located in the RNS-12 zone and that duplexes are allowed in the zone as a provisional use. The Board finds that the subject lot is less than 80 feet in width, and therefore the code requires that to build a duplex, the property must provide rear alley or drive access to its required parking area. The Board finds that the original single family residence on the property was destroyed by the April 2006 tornado. The Board finds that at the time the property was purchased and at the time a building permit was applied for, reasonable due diligence based on available public records showed that the property had access to a public rear alley and that the applicant intended to pave the alley as required by code. The Board finds that all duplexes in the Central Planning District must meet architecture and design guidelines described in the code, and that the applicants building satisfied these and all other code requirements for the duplex use. Thus, the City issued a building permit for the duplex. The Board finds that, after construction of the duplex was completed and the owner prepared to pave the access, neighboring property owners informed the applicant and the ,City that under an unrecorded order by the Johnson County District Court ownership of the rear drive was divided among those properties that abut it. Although the Court order specifically provides for continued communal access along the drive, the neighbors indicated their belief that the agreement did not allow improvements to the alley nor the intensification of its use as access for the two-family use (as contrasted with the original single family use). Moreover, it appears that litigation will be necessary to resolve the scope of this property's access rights, which may take several years with an uncertain outcome. The Board finds that without rear access the property may be used as a single- family use only. The Board finds that the applicant has presented financial information indicating the cost of construction and maintenance for the property and the potential rental income as a duplex and single-family and notes that conversion of the duplex to a single family use is likely cost prohibitive. The Board finds that the zoning code requires rear access for duplexes on narrow lots in order to minimize excessive paving and parking in the front yard as well as to avoid the predominance of garage doors along street fronts. The Board finds that the proposed access drive from Governor Street will utilize the existing single-family drive, be ten feet wide and run along the south side of the building, away from the adjacent single-family uses to the north. Additionally, the drive will be separated by the creek from residential uses to the south. The Board finds that while the Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of rear alleys for development of narrow lots, it also allows for narrow driveways with parking to the rear of a structure in those situations where rear access is not possible. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that because the duplex constructed by the applicant meets all other code requirements for duplexes located in the RNS-12 zone and in the Central Planning District, and because the proposed 10 -foot wide drive utilizes the existing single-family drive and is located along the side of the house away from the neighboring single-family properties, the variance will not threaten neighborhopj. integrN nor have a substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties Lathe area adjacent to it. ' c i The Board concludes that, with appropriate landscaping to screen the drive and,tb'deten parking along the drive, the proposed variance will be in harmony with the genel-al,purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter and will not contravene the objectives of the0 Comprehensive Plan. The Board concludes that the narrow drive and recom ended landscaping will reduce the likelihood of parking along the drive and will helpeomaintain the unpaved areas along the side yard, which is highly visible from Governor Street. The Board concludes that, based on financial information provided by the applicant, which appears to be consistent with local rental rates, the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a single family use. Further, a strict application of the rear access requirement would severely diminish the rate of return for the property as a rental. Moreover, conversion of the duplex to a single family use is likely cost prohibitive with a questionable market due to its original duplex floor plan and occupancy restrictions. The Board concludes that the situation is unique and peculiar to the property in question and the situation is not shared by other landowners in the area nor due to general conditions in the neighborhood for two reasons: 1. The Johnson County District Court Order addressing legal ownership of the rear alley was unrecorded and not reasonably available to the owner/applicant nor the City or County prior to issuance of the building permit and construction of the duplex; and 2. The neighbors' interpretation of the District Court Order to preclude the applicant's paving and use of the alley for the duplex was unknown prior to issuance of the building permit and construction of the duplex, and lengthy litigation likely will be necessary to resolve the dispute concerning the scope of this property's access rights. The Board concludes that because the applicant invested in the property with the reasonable expectation that the property could meet all code requirements for a duplex use —an expectation that was supported by a reasonable review of available public records as well as the City's issuance of a building permit—the hardship is not of the landowner/applicant's own making or that of a predecessor in title. Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board approves VAR07-00001, an application submitted by the Jeff Clark for a variance from the zoning ordinance to allow access to north Governor Street for a two-family use in the RNS-12 zone, subject to a landscaping plan to prevent parking in the front yard, stabilize the streambank, and buffer the appearance of the additional paving. 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. j C-) xa _ T v7 � 1 Appro ed b Carol Alexandeir, Chairperson a Cityttornej!s�lle��_o 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 11th day of July, 2007, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this day of AJ.,2007 Marian K. Karr, City Clerk CORPORATE SEAL �n r Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Tc< I IIIIII IIII I III I IIII III VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII Doc ID: 020999670002 Tvoe: GEN Recorded: 10/15/2007 at 10:59:00 AM Fee Amt: $12.00 Paae 1 of 2 Johnson county Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder BK4225 PG916.917 MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michelle Payne, Edgar Thornton, Michael Wright STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Bob Miklo, OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Digman SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: N N Moo(gand Cit N n G� N W 0 1. EXC07-00008: A public hearing regarding an application submitted by Hieronymus Square Associates for a special exception to allow private, off-street parking in the CB -10 zone for property located at 314 and 328 South Clinton Street. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that the subject property is located in the CB -10 zone and that the Zoning Code has no parking requirement for residential uses in the zone and strictly limits the amount of land devoted to off-street parking in the zone. The Board finds that in situations where off-street parking is proposed within the CB -10 zone, the special exception criteria encourage underground parking in order preserve ground level space for commercial uses. The Board finds that, per the required parking demand analysis, the development proposed for this location will include as many as 170 residential units, and that the commercial component of this development, along with other residential development planned for the surrounding area, will place additional demand for parking on the current public parking system. The Board finds that the conditional zoning agreement (CZA) for the property requires that a minimum of 80 spaces be provided in a below grade parking facility in order to serve the residential units in the development. The Board finds that the ceiling height of the underground parking will extend no further than one foot above grade. The Board finds that the sole vehicular access to the underground parking facility will be provided via the Dubuque Street entrance to the Court Street Transportation Center (CSTC). Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes that due to the nature of the development and the number of residential units included, the proposed development will generate high demand for long-term parking that cannot be served solely through the present public parking system. The Board concludes that because the CZA allows the parking structure to extend no further than one foot above grade, and the only vehicular access to the facility will be through the Dubuque Street entrance to the Court Street Transportation Center, the parking structure will not interfere with the ground floor uses of the building nor will it detract from the safety of the pedestrian areas around the building. Thus, the Board concludes that the proposal meets the specific criteria for the provision of parking in the CB -10 zone. Moreover, for the above reasons, the Board concludes that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; it will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity; it will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood; it 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 utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities are being provided. Because ingress and egress for the facility will be provided via the Dubuque Street entrance to the CSTC, thereby avoiding any mid -block entry point along Burlington or Clinton Street where pedestrian and vehicle traffic are most concentrated, the Board concludes that potential traffic congestion and conflicts will be minimized. Because the underground parking structure preserves ground floor space for more intense commercial uses, the Board concludes that the special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages re -investment in the downtown and promotes growth in the Near Southside area. Disposition: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves a special exception to allow private, off- street parking in the Central Business (CB -10) zone at 314 and 328 S. Clinton Street, subject to general compliance with the application submitted. 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. Carol Alexander, Chairperson 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 8th day of August, 2007, as the same appears of record in my Office. Datecpt lowaRity, this dayof �d�e _,2007 N C W v� J N LL Q Maria K. Karr, City Clerk C5 a O CORPORATE SEAL cobbOPIE 2Edr cm-5vx-cml t« Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL IIIIIIIIII VIII VIII IIIVIIIVIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Doc ID: 021024100003 Tvoe: GEN Recorded: 11/19/2007 at 12:37:04 PM Fee Amt: $17.00 Pace 1 of 3 Johnson Countv Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Edgar Thornton, and Michael Wright STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Shelly McCafferty, Frank Wagner SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 4236 PG741-743 O 0 o o C= Conclusions of Law: Because of the irregular shape and non -conforming size of the lot, the board concludes that the situation is peculiar to the property and that the topography and small size of the backyard create practical difficulty in complying with the setbacks as there is little possibility for useable outdoor private space on the property. Based on the arrangement of the adjacent house, which is set back more than 10 feet from the property line and set slightly forward of the subject property's rear yard, the reduction in the setback is not contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations with regard to maintaining light, air, and separation or opportunities for privacy. Because several properties in the immediate vicinity, especially along Muscatine Avenue, are set closer to the right-of-way than the present setback regulations require, the board concludes that the reduction in the setback will reflect the general placement of structures in the area. The board concludes that recommendations of staff for the removal of the existing privacy fence, the addition of five feet of landscaped space between the property line and the deck, as well as screening of the area under the deck will create an improved relationship between the property and the public sidewalk and will mitigate the height of the deck from street level by creating space for transition between the sidewalk and the deck. Because the requested special exception is not contrary to the purpose of the setback requirements and for other reasons stated above, the board concludes that granting the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare; nor will it 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 for the reasons listed above and because the area is fully developed, the special exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone. The board concludes that the proposed special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which promotes the preservation and integrity of existing single family housing. Disposition: By a vote of 3-0 the Board approves a special exception to reduce the required principal building setback from 15 feet to 11 feet (front setback) and 5 feet to 3 feet (side setback) subject to general compliance with the application submitted; and to reduce the setbacks for an accessory structure (uncovered deck) from 10 feet to 5 feet (front setback) and 5 feet to 3 feet (side setback) subject to removal of the existing privacy fence, providing five feet of landscaped space between the retaining wall and the deck, screening the area beneath the deck, and no re -installation of a fence between the deck and the right of way. 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 AJicant sfRall have taken action within such time period to establish the use or construct the improGement authorized under the terms of the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C-1 E, City of-low�a'_ City, Iowa 06,� Carol Alexander, Chairperson 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 October, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this day of , 2007 Marian -K. Karr, City Clerk 3ORPORATE SEAL N O_ o ti Cn Tj 1 D' cn CcoCsh-OS°l G Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 DECISION IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2007 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Alexander, Michelle Payne, Edgar Thornton, and Michael Wright. (Ned Wood recused due to conflict of interest.) �« MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Norm Cate OUTSIDE COUNSEL: Scott Peterson b Doc ID: 021035160003 TVDe: GEN Recorded: 12/06/2007 at 10:57:41 AM Fee Amt: $17.00 Paoe 1 of 3 Johnson Countv Iowa Kim Painter Countv Recorder BK4241 PG471-473 OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Younkers, Rob Phipps, Bu Wilson, Meg Baron, John Morrison, Esther Baker, James, Jim Walters, Brian Mitchell SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: 1. APL07-00002 public hearing regarding an application submitted by Leighton House for an appeal of a decision by the Building Official not to renew a rental permit for property at 923 East College Street. Findings of Fact: The Board finds that in a letter dated May 23, 2007, the building official outlined for the property owner the terms of the variance under which the subject property was not operating, including the failure to have "professional on-site adult live-in management, a full on-site meal plan, a transportation shuttle service and reserved off- street parking". The board finds that the business plan for Leighton House, the principles of which were the conditions of the variance, described the live-in management position as one of professional academic support and that the plan described the business concept was to provide an upscale, supervised living arrangement similar in management style, security, and service to a dormitory or sorority. The board finds that the permitted occupancy limit above 13 is based on these conditions. Based on statements made by the appellant's attorney, the board finds that the current director is a twenty-one-year-old University student, that there is currently no meal service offered, there are currently 18-19 residents, and that there are two off-street parking spaces provided on site and two parking spaces reserved in a public ramp. The board finds that applicant has provided no evidence that housekeeping is provided. The board finds that prior to sending his November 8, 2006 letter to the property owner, the building official consulted with staff who confirmed that that the residents of 932 College Street were not living according to the terms of the variance. The board finds that during the November 2006 variance hearing, residents of 932 College Street provided statements, both orally and in writing, that indicated they were not living according to the terms of the 1997 variance. The board finds that the 1997 board decision granting the variance was based in part on the costs of the proposed upscale housing and that the decision indicates that this housing is distinct from other rental housing. The Board finds that the purpose of the board is to provide an appeal of decisions made by staff with regard to zoning issues when an error is alleged. The board finds that the building department has the authority to interpret the zoning code and that the Board has the right to review that decision upon appeal. Conclusions of Law: The Board concludes the term "professional" as used in the Building Official's May 23 letter stands in place of the substantive description of the company and its management contained in the Leighton House business plan and that paid management is not a substitute for that principle in the plan. The board concludes that based on evidence of the lack of off-street parking provided by the owner, the lack of an on-site meal plan, and the lack of professional on-site resident management, the subject property is not operating according to the principles or the spirit of the Leighton House business plan and therefore the housing official was correct in his interpretation and in his decision not to renew the rental permit due to over -occupancy. The Board concludes that the Board of Adjustment hearing constitutes an evidentiary hearing as it is an opportunity to consider evidence from staff and from the appellant with regard to whether there is compliance with the terms of the variance and whether the building official's determination was in error. The Board concludes that the appellant had adequate notice of the hearing and the underlying issues and, further, that the appellant had an adequate opportunity to present its position and evidence in support of its position. The Board therefore concludes that the appeal process provides due process. Disposition: By a vote of 0-4 (Wood recused) the Board denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the building official to deny a rental permit based on over -occupancy for property located at 932 East College Street. 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 -1E, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Chairperson STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY Approved by: Scott Peterson, Outside Counsel 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 14th day of November, 2007, as the same appears of record in my Office. Dated at Iowa City, this J q�i" day of 2007 Manbrn K. Karr, City Clerk CORPORATE SEAL