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