Coralville Board of Adjustment

City of Coralville Board of Adjustment Meeting October 15, 2012 Staff: Jim Kessler, Building & Zoning Official Dee Marshek, Administrative Assistant Item #1: Meeting called to order 6:00 PM Item #2: Member present: Wells, Rice, Szczech, and Nicola. Absent: Shannon Item #3: Minutes from August 20, 2012 meeting approved. Motion by: Nicola 2nd by: Szcech Motion carried: 4-0 Kessler, the Building and Zoning Official announces an Amendment to the Agenda. Item #4: Public Hearing request by the City Council, City of Coralville, IA for the Board of Adjustment to review the original granting of a variance requested by Kum & Go, LC for a Variance Permit to Section 165.35(11K) Parking Standards, allowing for a reduction to the required parking spaces for a proposed Convenience Store located at 205 2nd St. a) Consider motion to amend original decision. Kessler, shares with the Board that Kum & Go, LC has dismissed or withdrawn the purchase offer at 205 2nd Street in Coralville, therefore rescinding the request of the previous meeting. Motion to amend Item #4, Public Notice of this Agenda: Nicola 2nd by: Szczech Motion carried: 4-0 Kessler addresses the Board of Adjustment stating that the Council has the right to review / revisit any decision presented to them, and Council questioned how this variance had been granted. Council recommended that Kessler review the criteria of the Code of Ordinances, and refresh the members of their responsibilities. Kessler again states that just prior to this meeting, the previous request by Kum & Go, LC had been rescinded. Kessler read and reviewed Section 165.54 Variances: Item # 5 Variance Findings: No variance to the strict application of any provision of this chapter shall be granted by the Board of Adjustment unless the property owner demonstrates that all of the following elements are present. A. Not contrary to the public interest: (1) The proposed variance will not threaten neighbor integrity or have a substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance. (2) The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter, and will not contravene the objective of the Community Plan. B. Unnecessary hardship: (1) The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless the requested variances is allowed; and (2) The owner’s situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question; it is not shared with other landowners in the area nor due to general conditions in the neighborhood; and (3) The hardship is not of the landowner’s own making or of a predecessor in title. Kessler and members discussed the limited access points onto Hwy 6, being contrary to the public and adjacent properties. That this was to be new construction, a hardship only of the owner’s making, and continued conversation of the previous request for reduction of parking. Staff and Council felt that the previous variance was in contradiction and against or not compliant to the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. Other examples of previous variances were also discussed. Kessler, the Building and Zoning Official shared that the Applicant and the Board had to be very specific on variances, and that it should be especially hard to grant approval for new construction. Kessler expressed the importance, the consistency, and the consequences of following or not following the rules of City Codes. Motion toAdjourn. Motion by: Wells 2nd by: Szczech Meeting Adjourned: 6:25 PM Respectfully submitted, Dee Marshek