HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 Board of Adjustment Decisions" � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Doc ID: 025243560003 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 01/30014 at 02:02:30 PN
Fee Amt: $17.0/2
0 Pape 1 of 3
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 Johnson County Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
DECISION BK5202 P062-64
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014
Pt,
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin, T.
Gene Chrischilles, Connie G`%b, Larry
Baker
DC-) z
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
c-)-<_"� T"
' m
�r
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Sarah Walz,
_
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas McInerney
Y w
0
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
1. EXC13-00016: A public hearing regarding an application
submitted by King of Glory
International Church to allow a Daycare Center for up to 16 children at 2024 G Street
and for a parking reduction to allow shared parking
with the adjacent church property
at 921 Third Avenue.
The Board finds that a daycare center for 16 children requires a minimum floor area of 560
square feet. The Board finds that the daycare will be situated in the existing rear addition to
the house, which is approximately 896 square feet. The Board finds that the applicant is in
the process of modifying the first floor of the house to serve the daycare and is required to
apply for a building permit to establish the use. The actual square footage for the daycare will
be confirmed as part of the permitting process.
The Board finds that the proposed outdoor play area is located to the rear of the daycare.
The submitted site plan shows that the area consists of approximately 1,600 square feet,
and that the play area as shown in the site plan is to be surrounded by a chain link fence, 4
feet in height. The Board finds that the applicant has indicated that no play equipment will be
located within the required 5 -foot side setback.
The Board concludes that the daycare will provide a drop off/pick up area in a location that is
convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance to the facility and that it
provides adequate parking and stacking space based on the following findings:
• In order to serve 16 children, the daycare is required to have a minimum of 4-6 parking
spaces based on the age of the children in its care, plus one stacking space.
• The parking area provides 20 parking spaces and more than 70 feet of stacking space
along the west side of the parking area.
• Given the size and configuration of the lot, no cars will be required to back into the street
and there is adequate space to turn around within the parking area.
• The site plan shows a 5 -foot wide pedestrian route from the sidewalk on G Street to the
main entrance of the daycare.
• The sidewalk will have distinctive paving (the site plan shows brick pavers) to distinguish
it from the adjacent parking area.
• Pedestrians using the route are not required to cross drives or aisles in order to access
the daycare entrance.
Based on the findings provided above, the Board also concludes that the specific proposed
exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general
welfare; will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate
vicinity; and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. For
these same reasons, the Board concludes that adequate measures have been taken to
provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
The Board finds that the property that comprises the church and daycare site is somewhat
constrained as the church property was established on a parcel that fronts on three streets:
G Street, Muscatine Avenue, and Third Avenue. The Board finds that, while the Multi -family
Site Development Standards require parking areas to be located behind the building and set
back from the property line, there is limited space to reconfigure the existing parking area in
a way that accommodates both the required number of parking spaces for the uses in
addition to the required setbacks and screening.
The Board therefore concludes that, while it may be desirable for the parking area to be
brought closer into compliance with the code requirements for screening and setbacks, it
would not be reasonable to require the parking area to come into conformance with the
setback and screening areas at this time for the following reasons:
• The proposed daycare is limited in size—it does not exceed the size of an in-home
daycare, which is allowed to provide care for up to 16 children.
• The applicant is not proposing an addition to the daycare building as part of this
proposal.
0
regWred to
:to
th We
N...
to e
tW of M
0 6i
w
0
• In order to expand the operation to more than 16 children, the church
seek a new special exception and at that time the board should give c
consideration to requiring the parking area to come closer into compli
setback and screening standards in the code.
The Board concludes that the specific uses have characteristics such that tIg
parking spaces required is excessive based on the following findings:
• The church and the daycare are under the same ownership.
• The parking area covers portions of both lots such that it functions as a shared parking
area.
• In order to serve 16 children, the daycare is required to provide a minimum of 4-6
parking spaces in addition to the 20 required for the church.
• The parking area provides 20 parking spaces in addition to 70 feet of stacking space
along the west side of the parking area.
• The two uses (church and daycare) do not operate during the same hours: the daycare
will operate weekdays only, from 7 Am until 6 PM; the church is used mainly on
weekends, though some weeknight activities are possible.
The Board finds that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of civic uses such as
churches, daycares, and schools within neighborhoods; the Central District Plan encourages
the development of businesses, institutions, and public entities that provide services and
amenities that support healthy neighborhoods.
DISPOSITION
By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves a daycare use for property located in the Low Density
Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 2024 G Street subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted.
2. The size of the daycare may not exceed 16 children. To increase the number of
children to more than 16 will require a new special exception.
The Board approves a reduction in the total number of required parking spaces to serve the
church and daycare from 26 to 20 total spaces to be shared by both uses.
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.
7
Brock Grenis, 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 January, 2014, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this o7990L-1 day of , 20
E SEA
+�7C A Gf'►L Mar K. Karr, City Clerk
CORPORAT
N
O
C)
r
9
x"411
J,
i
ss
�D
rn
p T
.od
O
Page 1 of 7
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, !A 52240; 319/356-5230
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Larry Baker, Becky Soglin,,+ Gene CIhlIriipscpphillpllpelIls, Connie
Goeb. �Illl�l����ul�l�l�lll�u�lllll�llll�lllll�u�l��lll��lll���llllll��ll��
MEMBERS ABSENT: None. Doc ID: 025343950007 Type; GEN
Kind: DECISION
FeeoAmt: $37.00/Page 014 at I of2733:54 PM
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Sarah Walz, Johnson county Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
OTHERS PRESENT: EK5234 Pc298-304
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: o
1. EXC14-00005: Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Rim di;Xrett�
a special exception to reduce the rear setback requirement to allow iiii5nn"ciditidrf
for property in the Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RSZY'zor at
Brown Street.
r -
m ,xi
The Board concludes that the situation is peculiar to the property in questio baseiEpn tHeD
following findings:
• Most homes along Brown Street are set close to the street right-of-way line. However,
the three homes located along this particular Brown Street frontage (two of which are in
the RS -5 zone) are all set back well in excess of the standard minimum 15 feet required
in the RS -8 zone and further back from the street than the subject house. For this
reason, the property is subject to a deeper front setback requirement from Brown Street
(setback averaging).
• The subject property (6,000 square feet) is significantly smaller than the two other lots
along the Brown Street frontage. The other lots along the frontage are 18,700 square
feet and 23,300 square feet.
• While a lot of 6,000 square feet is not unusual in this neighborhood, the deep front
setback (32 feet) on a lot that is just 100 feet in depth is unusual.
The Board concludes that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback
requirements based on the following findings:
• The deep (32 feet) front setback from Brown Street reduces the opportunity for
additional development without encroaching into the rear setback.
• As a corner lot, the property must provide 2 setbacks: one along Brown and the other
along N. Dodge Street.
The Board concludes that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of
the setback regulations; that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception
are mitigated to the extent practical; and that the setback reduction exception will not be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not
substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood based based on the
following findings:
I
Book: 5234 Page: 298 Seq: 1
Page 2 of 7
• The Brown Street neighborhood was established long before current zoning standards
and is characterized by small lots with minimal setbacks. With the exception of the 400
block of Brown Street frontage, most properties in the immediate area, including those
along the Dodge Street frontage, have setbacks that do not conform to current minimum
standards.
• Because this is a corner lot, the rear setback functions similar to a side setback in terms
of its relationship to the adjacent property to the north. The minimum side setback in the
RS -8 zone is 5 feet.
• The property to the north is set at a higher elevation, preserving privacy of the adjacent
residential use.
• The proposed addition would be located 11' 5° from the rear (north) property line.
• The sketches submitted with the application show an addition that is designed to
complement the architecture of the original, historic house and will require approval
from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
• The proposed addition is limited to one story.
While the findings above support the conclusion that setback reductions will not be detrimental
to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, the Board concludes that
the rear setback reduction may present safety issues along the Dodge Street frontage due to
the placement of the basement level garage. The Board believes a wider driveway will improve
visibility for cars backing out of the property and may provide opportunity for a car to turn around
before entering traffic. To ensure adequate separation from the sidewalk and improved entry
and exit from the street, The Board concludes that it is appropriate to impose a condition
widening to 10 feet the portion of the drive between the sidewalk and the curb (currently T) with
16 feet at the curb. This will allow more room for cars to maneuver as they enter and exit the
property. Modifying the paved area serving the new garage entrance to create a gap between
the driveway and the sidewalk will help reduce the opportunity for parked cars to overhang the
sidewalk.
The Board concludes that the reduced setback will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted_in the 23he in
which such property is located based on the findings provided above in additi¢ ,� oo th?ollowing
findings: -i�,_,{ 2,<- —n
• In this case, the rear setback functions practically as a side setbacerlerrm of itZ+
relationship to the abutting property to the north. -Er--
• The property will retain an 11' 5" rear setback from the north propeine��
• The proposed addition meets the required front setback from the Wopert cine on
North Dodge Street. ry
The Board finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
The Board concludes that the reduced rear setback will not bring the structure any closer to the
street, and will not contribute to traffic congestion along the public street as a single-family
residential property does not generate a significant level of traffic.
The Board concludes that, except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, will conform
Book. 5234 Page. 298 Seq:2
Page 3 of 7
to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located, based on the
following findings:
• In order to secure a building permit, the applicant must submit a site plan to the
building official at which time the plan will be reviewed to ensure conformance with all
other zoning requirements not specifically reviewed here.
• In order to build the addition being proposed, the applicant must secure a minor
modification to reduce the required driveway length in addition to a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission.
The Board concludes that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as
amended. The Comprehensive Plan does not address this situation directly but does encourage
re -investment in Iowa City's established neighborhoods.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves EXC14-00005, a special exception to
reduce the rear setback requirement for the principal structure at 632 Brown Street from 20 feet
to 11 feet 5 inches, subject to the following conditions:
• The setback reduction applies to the proposed one-story addition only;
• The applicant must secure a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
• The applicant must secure a minor modification for a reduction in the drive -way length;
the driveway design should be in substantial compliance with the drawing
_propod by
staff. o�
r
in
2. EXC14-00003 – Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Pegmsula
Development Company, LLC, to allow an eating establishment (coffee sMSf) tAe
located in the Planned Development Overlay, Low Density Single-FamiF_� k6jgntiaO
(OPD -5) zone at 2280 Willenbrock Circle. —
ry
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following
findings:
• The subject unit is small in size, 460 square feet, with limited seating capacity.
• Given the remote location, limited size of the space, and constraints on seating, it is
likely that the use will rely on customers that are already within the neighborhood—
residents or people traveling to the dog park or along bike trails.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish
or impair property values in the neighborhood.
• Because the space can provide only limited seating it is likely that most purchases will
be carry-outs—in this way the use will function more like a traditional retail store.
• There appears to be sufficient on -street parking to serve the use.
• The proposed building must meet the design standards of the Peninsula neighborhood.
Book: 5234 Page: 298 Seq: 3
Page 4 of 7
• City code prohibits the use of signs with interior illumination; signage and lighting must
comply with the regulations for the Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed Use zones,
which are designed to be compatible with neighboring residential uses and must be
approved by the Peninsula Neighborhood Architectural Review Board.
• The Peninsula Homeowners Association has some ability to address neighborhood
concerns that may arise with respect to the commercial use.
• Because activities associated with the proposed use are mostly indoors, save for limited
outdoor seating, the potential for noise or other externalities that might create a
disturbance for neighboring residential uses is minimal.
• Because the use is located in a residential zone, alcohol is prohibited in the outdoor
service area.
• The neighborhood expressed support for the application.
The Board concludes that the following conditions are necessary to address other potential
sources of disturbance to neighboring residential properties:
o Prohibit amplified sound (e.g. music) on the exterior of the building, including
the courtyard.
o Limit the hours of operation to 10 PM on weeknights and 11 PM on Friday and
Saturday nights.
The Board concludes that the establishment of the specific proposed exception willapt
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding Wperty
for uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located based on the-fieng§vboveY7
in addition to the following: c-)
• The Peninsula development plan has always included opportunity for c' er%al usCs�
in locations around the park. o -v � M
• The building must meet the design standards that are part of the Peniti9A re ulatio�D
The Board finds that access roads are in place for the development. On site drairwge must
be provided and will be reviewed as part of the building permit process for the overall
development of the site. The area directly behind the property is reserved for stormwater
detention. The Board finds that nearly all parking (save for one loading and unloading
space) will be provided on -street, therefore ingress or egress from the site itself is minimal.
The Board concludes that, except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to
the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects,
conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located
based on the following finding:
• As part of the building permit process, a site plan will be reviewed for compliance with
all other requirements of the zoning code.
The Board concludes that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
as amended based on the following finding:
• The Peninsula development plan has always included opportunity for limited
commercial uses in locations around the park.
Book: 5234 Page: 298 Seq:4
Page 5 of 7
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 5-0, the Board approves EXC14-00003, to allow an eating
establishment at 2280 Willenbrock (unit 4) subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; and
• The establishment shall not exceed 500 sq. feet of gross floor area;
• Hours of operation are limited to 10 PM weeknights and 11 PM on Friday and Saturday;
• Amplified sound on the exterior of the building is prohibited.
3. EXC14-00004–Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Peninsula
Development Company, LLC, to allow an eating establishment (restaurant) to be
located in the Planned Development Overlay, Low Density Single -Family Residential
(OPD -5) zone at 1010 Martin Street.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the following
findings:
• The restaurant space is relatively small in size, 900 square feet of indoor seating area
with a total maximum occupancy of 49-60 (indoor and outdoor).
• Given its size and remote location within the larger community, it is somewhat unlikely
that the use will draw significant traffic from outside the Peninsula area on a daily basis.
• There appears to be sufficient on -street parking to serve the use.
N
O
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be injuli sato tie use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not sub 110iminisG�
or impair property values in the neighborhood based on the following findingsK —
—01
• The proposed building must meet the design standards of the Peninsu�eighborhpA.
• City code prohibits the use of signs with interior illumination; signage mdlig & g must
comply with the regulations for the Neighborhood Commercial and M@eedZJse•zones,
which are designed to be compatible with neighboring residential uses and nji st be
approved by the Peninsula Neighborhood Architectural Review Board.
• The Peninsula Homeowners Association has some ability to address neighborhood
concerns that may arise with respect to the commercial use.
• Because activities associated with the proposed use are mostly indoors, save for limited
outdoor seating, the potential for noise or other externalities that might create a
disturbance for neighboring residential uses is minimal.
• Because the use is located in a residential zone, alcohol is prohibited in the outdoor
seating areas.
• The neighborhood expressed support for the application.
The Board concludes that the following conditions are necessary to reduce other potential
sources of disturbance to neighboring residential properties:
o No amplified sound (e.g. music) should be allowed on the exterior of the building,
including the courtyard.
Book: 5234 Page: 298 Seq; 5
Page 6 of 7
o Limit the hours of operation to no later than 10 PM on weeknights and 11 PM Friday
and Saturday.
o Limit maximum combined indoor/outdoor occupancy load to 60, in conformance with
the building code, to control the intensity of the use.
o The kitchen vent location should conform with a forthcoming ordinance intended to
limited noise disturbance to neighboring residential uses.
The Board concludes that the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property
for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located based on the findings above
and the following:
• The Peninsula development plan has always included opportunity for limited
commercial uses in locations around the park.
• The building must meet the design standards that are part of the Peninsula regulations.
The Board finds that all access roads are in place for the development. On site drainage
must be provided and will be reviewed as part of the building permit process for the overall
development of the site. The area directly behind the property is reserved for stormwater
detention. No additional facilities are required. The Board finds that all parking will be
provided on -street, therefore there is no ingress or egress from the site.
The Board concludes that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms
to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located, based on
the following finding:
• As part of the building permit process a site plan will be reviewed for compliance with all
other requirements of the zoning code.
The Board concludes that proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as
amended.
• The Peninsula development plan has always included opportunities for limited{'
commercial uses in locations around the park. o r
v�
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 4-0 [Baker absent] the Board approves EXC14;qt)04ya speeial
exception to allow an eating establishment at 2280 Willenbrock (unit 3) su§jecbto Otte
following conditions: =gym
Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted;
' o
• The establishment shall not exceed a combined indoor -outdoor oc�apanclUoad of
60; ^'
• Hours of operation are limited to 10 PM weeknights and 11 PM on Friday and
Saturday;
• Amplified sound on the exterior of the building is prohibited;
• The commercial kitchen hood vent shall conform with a proposed ordinance now
under consideration by the City Council (Ordinance 14-4582).
Book; 5234 Page: 298 Seq; 6
Page 7 of 7
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.
r
rz �"'�� Approved �IE /by:>��
Brock Grenis, Chairperson G'L.
City Attorney's Office
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 9th day of April, 2014, as the same
appears of record in my Office.
;.way
Dated at Iowa City, this day of 20 -Ll—
i, = ....,.Nye �•'I
TE �+C AL Marian K Karr, City Clerk
cononoO �7Gf1 .........:. ,
"• ,, :� —
N
O
O
:*n
r
a
D -t
-1 C:
�
:G�
M
w
_
N
Book: 5234 Page: 298 Seq:7
Doc ID: 025374780004 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 06/20/2014 at 03:34:16 PM
Fee Amt: $22.00 Pape 1 of 4
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 3191356-5230 JohKimnPainter son nCounty ty aRecorder
DECISION BK 5245 pa962-965
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, May 14, 2014
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Becky Soglin, Larry Baker, T.
Gene Chrischilles, Connie Ga,
Brock
Grenis
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
c -)-G
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Sarah Walz:<r -
s
rn
o�
OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Fern
ca
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
.n
1. EXC14-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Faith Academy to allow an
expansion of 5,000 square feet to an established School of General Instruction located in
the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 1030 Cross Park Avenue.
The Board concludes that the proposed expansion of the existing school will be functionally
compatible with surrounding uses and will not inhibit retail and service uses for which the
zone is primarily intended, based on the following findings:
The school is located away from the active commercial side of the property, including
the customer parking area.
• The school entrance and playground face toward multi -family buildings located
immediately to the east and south of the subject property.
• While the parking area that is used by the school for student pick-up and drop-off is
adjacent to a loading dock for one of the larger commercial uses in the shopping
center, the applicant has provided an illustration showing how traffic circulates
through this portion of property. This circulation does not conflict with the loading
zone, since the loading dock is recessed into the adjacent building and away from
the flow of school traffic. The applicant stated that there is typically one truck in the
loading dock each day and that the truck usually arrives and departs before students
arrive at the school.
The school serves students in the immediate neighborhood and most students are
transported to school by van.
The typical hours of operations are from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. These hours of
operation are compatible with surrounding commercial uses, in that the specified
hours, especially picX-up/drop-off time, are not during peak commercial time.
The Board concludes that the proposed expansion will provide a drop-off/pick-up area in a
location that is convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance of the facility
and provides sufficient stacking spaces and/or parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not
stack into adjacent streets or other public right-of-way based on the following findings:
• For those students who travel by car, the school will continue to rely on the loading
and unloading area to the south of the building and on the circulation pattern shown
on the site plan, which was approved with the establishment of the school.
• The circulation pattern of the parking lot allows room for approximately 10 cars to
stack in front of the pick-up/drop-off location and approximately 10 more cars ahead
of the pick-up/drop-off location. In addition, the parking lot includes approximately 29
parking spaces, which, combined with the stacking spaces, should accommodate the
traffic generated by the proposed expanded school.
• The main entrance has been relocated and is now directly adjacent to the
playground. The school provides a sidewalk connection between Cross Park Avenue
to the entrance along west side of the playground.
N
O
• The Board will require the school to fill in a missing section of sidew" that Dans from
the new entrance along the east side of the playground to Cross Par%kvenf�t to
allow for additional pedestrian access to the school entrance. This sk%; alkWll
provide greater separation between students and the vehicle area tQ-Xbrviathe ('—
adjacent commercial uses. arm a
The Board concludes that the site is designed to promote safe and convenieK�edea rian,
bicycle, and vehicular circulation to the school according to the standards set forth %sub-
section 14 -2C -6F, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation based on following
findings:
• There are sidewalks on both sides of Broadway Street and Cross Park Avenue. As
part of the previous special exception the applicant constructed a sidewalk between
the entrance and Cross Park Ave. A sidewalk is proposed on the site plan to connect
the drop-off area to the new entrance.
• As a condition of the special exception, the applicant will complete a sidewalk
connection on the east side of the playground out to Cross Park Avenue.
• Low -traffic counts from the residential neighborhoods to the south and provision of
sidewalks on both sides of the street in these neighborhoods should ensure safe
pedestrian access from the south.
The Board concludes that the speck proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare based on the findings
provided above regarding vehicle and pedestrian circulation and the following findings:
• The school provides a 3,500 square foot fenced play area.
• The existing sidewalk from Cross Park Avenue provides a direct route to the school
entrance that does not conflict with commercial traffic.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish
or impair property values in the neighborhood based on the findings provided above
regarding the location of the school on the back side of the commercial center and the
following finding:
• Given the limited enrollment, hours of operation, and the location of the school
entrance with regard to the other commercial uses in the shopping center, the school
is unlikely to have a negative impact on surrounding commercial uses.
The Board concludes that the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property
for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located based on the findings noted
above regarding hours of operation and the relocation of the school entrance to an area
further away from the loading doc.
The Board finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities
have been or are being provided for the commercial center.
The Board concludes that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress
or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets based on findings above
regarding the circulation and access to the drop-off area and the amount of parking and
stacking space in the drop-off area.
The Board concludes that, except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to
the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects,
conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
The applicant shall provide additional bicycle parking as required by the Zoning Code. The
location for bicycle parking must be approved by the Building Official and installed prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit.
The Board concludes that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
as amended based on the following finding:
• The South District Plan depicts the subject property as appropriate for General
Commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan does not explicitly address this property
or the proposed use, apart from encouraging the City to consider institutional uses
such as schools, daycares, and churches, as important assets for establishing stable
and thriving neighborhoods.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approved the special exception to allow the
expansion of a General Educational Facility for up to 105 students in a Community
Commercial (CC-?_) zone located at 1030 Cross Park Avenue, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
• Completion of a sidewalk connection along the east side of the playground between
Cross Park Avenue and the school entrance.
An enrollment of more than 105 students or an addition of more 500 square het of
floor area will be considered an expansion of the use that requires a new sp€dal
Q S
exception. =,�
—t ca
r
a
M
-:1710"
W
0
TIME LIMITATIONS:
All orders of the Board, which do not set a specific time limitation on Applicant action, shall expire six (6)
months from the date they were filed with the City Clerk, unless the Applicant shall have taken action
within such time period to establish the use or construct the improvement authorized under the terms of
the Board's decision. City Code Section 14-8C-1 E, City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Yom_ � Approved by:
Brock Grenis, Chairperson Ee,
�7
City Attorney's Office
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
I, Marian Karr, City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, do hereby certify that the Board of Adjustment
Decision herein is a true and correct copy of the Decision that was passed by the Board of
Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa, at its regular meeting on the 14`" day of May, 2014, as the same
appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this // day of 20
Marian�K. Karr, City Clerk
`,,ORPp G
N
O
O
r -
L
—!C7
.<1
m
a
s
w
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240, 319/356-5230
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
iee
Doc ID: 025673620003 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 10/27/2014 at 09:10:52 AM
Fee Amt: $17.00 Pape 1 of 3
Johnson County Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
BK5296 PG272-274
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Larry Baker, Becky Soglin, T. Gene Chrischilles, Connie
Goeb
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Sarah Walz
71t
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike ApplegarthC:)r.
* - --t
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: �� I")
1. EXC14-00009 public hearing regarding a special exception to build an accessDiy burlcling
exceeding 500 square feet for a religious institution located in the Low Density$ingla-Family-
(RS-5) zone at 2301 East Court Street.
The Board finds that vehicular access to the church meets the 28 -foot pavement standard as
Court Street is 31 feet wide and First Avenue is 33 feet wide adjacent to this property. The Board
finds that the proposed accessory building is 864 square feet (24 feet by 36 feet).
The Board concludes that because the proposed structure is not attached to the principal
building (the church), it is subject to development standards set for accessory structures in
residential zones, which require side and rear setbacks of 5 feet. The proposed structure will be
located 15.4 feet from the south (side) property line and more than 33.6 feet from the east (rear)
property line.
The Board concludes that the proposed building is designed to be compatible with adjacent
residential buildings and will not have significant adverse effects on the livability of nearby
residential uses because the building looks like a typical garage and will be located such that it
will provide additional screening of the parking lot for adjacent residential uses. The Board
concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare; will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity; will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood; and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the
surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located, based on
the following findings:
• The accessory structure does not generate additional traffic to the site,
• There is adequate space for the proposed structure to be located outside the sanitary
sewer easement that runs along the east side of the property,
• The structure is screened from surrounding residential properties;
• The location of the structure exceeds the minimum setback requirements.
Based on the findings above, and because the accessory structure is in effect a large garage,
the Board finds that the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the zone in which such property is located.
The Board finds that all adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities
have been or are being provided in this neighborhood.
The Board finds that the establishment of the proposed building will have not impact on ingress
or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets and that the proposal
conforms to all other applicable regulations of the RS -5 zone, including setbacks, height
limitations, and building coverage.
The Board concludes that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
which shows this property to be semi-public or institutional, reflecting its current use as a
Church.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 5-0 the Board approves the application submitted by Our Redeemer
Lutheran Church to build a 24' x 36' utility shed on the southeast corner of the property located in
the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone located at 2301 E. Court Street, subject to
the following conditions:
The structure should be located in the south end of the parking area but outside the
sanitary sewer easement,
2. Landscape screening in this area should be preserved, and
r
3. Substantial compliance with the elevations submitted.
C7 �f
N
e.e
TIME LIMITATIONS:Gr
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 AppliAant 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.
C 9� Approved by:
Brock Grenis, Chairperson
a (O- t�-3
City Attorney's Office
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
2
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 September, 2014, as
the same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this _--) day of 20�
Maria ) -r -K. Karr, City Clerk
040"'
CORPORATE SEAL ' �RN
-
il.�� uw a
N
O
EJ
C7
r
F-3)
_y^�
Y_q
—4
Sa
M
r
cn
M
4
M
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240: 3191356-5230
DECISION N
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2014
Doc
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Kind ID DECISION92410005 Type: GEN
Recorded: 11/18/2014 at 11:16:29 AM
FeeAmt: $27.00 Pape 1 of 5
MEMBERS PRESENT: Becky Soglin, Connie Goeb, Larry Baker Johnson Countv Iowa
Kim Painter County Recorder
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Gene Chrischilles, Brock Grenis BK5303 PG385-389
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Sarah Walz, John Yapp
OTHERS PRESENT: Erica Damman, Casey Boyd
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC14-00010: a public hearing regarding a special exception to reduce the front principal
building setback from
The Board concludes that the situation is peculiar to the property based on the following
findings:
The historic architecture of the house would normally feature a front porch.
• The subject property had a porch at one time, but it was removed.
• While the required setback in the RS -8 zone is 15 feet, a number of houses on the
frontage are set closer to the street:
0 435 Clark is set at 11 feet,
0 431 Clark is set at 6 feet,
0 425 Clark is set at 7 feet, and
0 1029 Court is set at 8 feet.
• With the exception of 431 Clark Street, all of the houses listed above were
constructed at or before the turn of the 20th century.
• The street frontage measures more than 900 feet long—more than twice the normal
block length in this part of Iowa City. Homes at the southern end of the block were
built with more substantial setbacks—most greater than 20 feet.
• Setback averaging cannot be used to reduce the setback.
The Board concludes that there is practical difficulty complying with the setback requirements
based on the following findings:
• The house currently has an unsheltered entrance and a front faoade that is out of
character with its historic architecture and the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. =
• Most other houses along the street either have full front porches orcavered- ntries"v
The Board concludes that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpbs
of the setback regulations, based on the following findings:
• The setback reduction requested is for the front setback and thus will not reduce the
space for light, air, and separation for fire protection and access along Clark Street,
which is a 60 -foot right-of-way.
• The reduction is to allow an open-air front porch, rather than an enclosed addition.
The structure has a lesser effect on the sense of separation for light and air and will
not diminish the opportunity for privacy between buildings as it does not encroach on
properties to either side and is separated from neighboring properties across the
street by more than 60 feet.
• Given the setbacks of other nearby properties along the northern end of the block, the
reduction in the front setback will not create an unreasonable physical relationship
between buildings and will reflect the general building scale and placements of
structures in this portion of the historic neighborhood.
• Restoration of the front porch would help to restore the historic and aesthetic
character of this property without upsetting the relationship with the placement of
other buildings in the neighborhood and will improve its relationship with the historic
neighborhood.
The Board concludes that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception
are mitigated to the extent practical based on the following findings:
• The Historic Preservation Commission must review the applicant's plan for the porch
to ensure a historically appropriate design that will be in character with the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Board finds that the subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear
property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent
open space.
The Board finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities
have been or are being provided for this neighborhood, which is fully developed.
The Board finds that the setback reduction will have no impact on ingress or egress from the
site.
The Board finds that the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located and that the
application has been reviewed by the building department and meets all regulations and
standards of the zone.
Based on the findings listed above, the Board concludes that the specific proposed exception
will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare;
will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediat"cinity; will
not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood; and willIm�ot impede
the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surroundirr-Rps3y for uses
permitted in the zone in which such property is located.
The Board concludes that the proposed use will be consistent with the CeMprehensive Plan,
which encourages the restoration of historic structures in Iowa City's neigtiti6thoo8G.
DISPOSTION: By a vote of 3-0 (Chrischilles and Grenis absent) the Board approves EXC14-
00010, an application for a reduction in the front principal building setback from 15 feet to 7 feet
to allow construction of an open-air front porch, for property located in the Med"arm Density
Single-family (RS -8) zone at 427 Clark Street, subject to the following conditions.
• The applicant will secure a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Hiatori, P�et ery M&i
Commission, and r
• The constructed porch will remain open and may not be enclosed wi'tfj-golidwalls or
windows.
VARIANCE ITEMS
VAR14-00001: a public hearing regarding an application submitted by Greg Sirowy for a
variance from City Code 1446-4A (5f(2)), requiring alley or rear lane access for two-
family structures on lots less than 80 feet in width for properties located in the High
Density Single-family zone located at 1243 and 1253 North Dodge Court.
The Board concludes that the proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor
have a substantially adverse effect on the use or value of other properties in the area
adjacent to the property included in the variance based the following findings:
• The subject lots were intended for duplex construction when platted in 1996,
• Duplexes have been constructed on the other lots in the subdivision;
• Duplexes are not out of character for the south side of North Dodge Court.
The Board concludes that the proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the Zoning Chapter and will not contravene the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, as amended, based on the following findings:
• The Comprehensive Plan supports a diversity of housing types within neighborhoods
— this neighborhood contains single-family structures, duplexes, and a multi -family
project was recently approved for the north side of North Dodge Court.
• The Comprehensive Plan also supports compatible infill development — as noted
above, the other lots on the south side of North Dodge Court (as part of the 1996
subdivision) also contain duplexes.
• The RS -12 Zone allows duplexes, but has a
narrower than 80 feet access must be from
were rezoned to RS -12 in 2005. the intent
these lots.
provisional use requirement that for lots
an alley or rear lane. When these lots
was to continue to permit duplexes on
• Another requirement in the Zoning Code is for Design Review Committee review of
two-family uses in the Central Planning District (these properties are in the Central
Planning District), and that length of any garage wall not exceed 60% of the total
length of the building fagade. The applicant has submitted a design which meets this
requirement — the Design Review Committee will review the building plans prior to a
building permit being issued.
The Board concludes that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used
only for a purpose allowed in the zone where the property is located based on the following
findings:
• The lots were platted and intended for duplex construction, rezoned in 2005 to allow
for duplex construction, and purchased as duplex lots.
• No rear lane or alley was required when the property was subdivided, and it is
prohibitive to require a rear lane or alley at this stage due to lot size, and the
ownership and land use of surrounding property.
• The other duplex lots on North Dodge Court do not have rear access.
• Foundations have been installed for duplex construction on these lots.
• It would be financially and logistically unreasonable to require a rear lane or alley for
the two subject lots, or to require the lots be occupied with single-family residences.
The intent of the City -initiated rezoning in 2005 was to allow duplex construction.
The Board finds that the owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question,
and the situation is not shared with other landowners in the area nor due to general
conditions in the neighborhood based on the following findings:
• The property was subdivided in 1996 prior to the access requirement for alley or rear
lane access for duplexes on lots less than 80 feet in width.
• The Zoning Code was amended in 2005 to no longer allow duplexes on interior lots,
which resulted in a City -initiated rezoning of the lots to RS -12 with the intent of
allowing duplexes to be constructed on the subject lots. The rezoning in 2005 failed to
account for the fact that these lots did not have rear access.
Requiring rear lane access for these two lots would be peculiar and unique; the other
duplexes along this frontage of North Dodge Court do not provide rear access.
The Board finds that the hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that
of a predecessor in title based on the following findings:
• The 2005 Zoning Code amendment to require rear -lane access for lots less than 80
feet in width is not of the landowner's making.
• The lots were platted for duplex development prior to this requirement being enacted.
• The City -initiated rezoning in 2005 to RS -12 was not of the landowner's making, and,
as shown in the public record, was intended to continue to allow duplex structures on
these lots.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 3-0 (Chrischilles and Grenis absent), the Board approves VAR14-
00001, a variance from City Code 14-4134A (5f(2)), which requires alley or rear lane access for
two-family structures on lots less than 80 feet in width, be approved for Lots 1 and 2 of Jacob
Ricord's Subdivision—the properties at 1243 and 1253 North Dodge Court.
N
O
v i!
Z:i C --y
J
1
=ern
r,
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
�Lce
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
Approved by:
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 8th day of October, 2014, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa City, this 17 day of 4@�, 20/�/
Marian—IC Karr, City Clerk
CORPORATE SEAL
N
O
G'
"� �
-
ZO
C-)-<
—J
-4n
<r
M
m
w
FJ
Doc ID: 025826670003 Type: GEN
Kind: DECISION
Recorded: 12/16/2014 at 11:32:49 AM
Fee Amt: $17.00 Paga 1 of 3
Johnson County Iowa
KIM Painter County Recorder
Prepared by Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5230 aK 5313 PG942-944
DECISION
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2014 Y
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin, Larry Baker, T. Gene Chrischilles, Connie
Goeb
The Board finds that the applicant has met the special exception general and speck criteria
under Sections 14-413-3A and 14 -5A -4F respectively by a preponderance of evidence as set
forth below.
The Board finds that that the applicant has submitted the required location plan showing two
stacked parking spaces intended to serve 318 North Linn located approximately 93 feet from the
back door of the house on the adjacent property at 311 Davenport, which is located in the same
RNS-12 zone as the property for which parking will be provided. The Board finds that the zoning
code allows required parking spaces for single- and two-family uses to be stacked.
The Board concludes that the off-site parking locations are sufficiently convenient and
accessible because the two properties are abutting, and parking is located along the rear alley
that serves both properties.
The Board finds that providing the parking for 318 Linn off-site will allow the applicant to
preserve the minimal amount of rear yard space that is available for the enjoyment of the
residents and will reduce the additional amount of paving necessary to meet the parking
requirement.
The Board finds that the applicant must submit the required parking covenant as a condition of
approval of the special exception. The covenant must be approved by the City Attorney. The
agreement must assure the retention of the parking and stacking spaces, aisles and drives, and
be properly executed, binding upon their successors and assigns, and must be recorded as a
covenant running with the land. The agreement must provide that it cannot be released, and its
terms and conditions may not be modified in any manner whatsoever, without prior written
consent and approval from the City. The written agreement must be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.
N
O
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
L
c'
m
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Sarah Walz —t
C -i
C-)-<
—
r ---
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim McCarragher, Dwight Dobberstein ':iM
M
cn
m
it
M
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM:
EXC14-00011: A public hearing regarding an application submitted by Dwight Dobberstoo to
allow off-site parking for property in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone
at 318 N. Linn Street.
The Board finds that the applicant has met the special exception general and speck criteria
under Sections 14-413-3A and 14 -5A -4F respectively by a preponderance of evidence as set
forth below.
The Board finds that that the applicant has submitted the required location plan showing two
stacked parking spaces intended to serve 318 North Linn located approximately 93 feet from the
back door of the house on the adjacent property at 311 Davenport, which is located in the same
RNS-12 zone as the property for which parking will be provided. The Board finds that the zoning
code allows required parking spaces for single- and two-family uses to be stacked.
The Board concludes that the off-site parking locations are sufficiently convenient and
accessible because the two properties are abutting, and parking is located along the rear alley
that serves both properties.
The Board finds that providing the parking for 318 Linn off-site will allow the applicant to
preserve the minimal amount of rear yard space that is available for the enjoyment of the
residents and will reduce the additional amount of paving necessary to meet the parking
requirement.
The Board finds that the applicant must submit the required parking covenant as a condition of
approval of the special exception. The covenant must be approved by the City Attorney. The
agreement must assure the retention of the parking and stacking spaces, aisles and drives, and
be properly executed, binding upon their successors and assigns, and must be recorded as a
covenant running with the land. The agreement must provide that it cannot be released, and its
terms and conditions may not be modified in any manner whatsoever, without prior written
consent and approval from the City. The written agreement must be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.
The Board concludes that the speck proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger
the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, based on the following findings: The off-site
parking spaces are provided on the abutting property along the alley that serves both properties.
• Residents will access parking from the alley, which is considered safe for pedestrians
and vehicles, and similar to how other residents in the neighborhood access their
parking.
• The proposed arrangement provides assigned parking for the residents and will address
this property's demand for on -street parking.
• No neighbors came forward to object to the off-site parking arrangement.
The Board concludes that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood based on the findings listed above and the following
additional findings:
• Parking is already established along the alley, and the property at 311/313 Davenport
has more parking than is required to serve the duplex located on the site.
• The proposed off-site parking arrangement preserves the limited private open space on
the subject property, which is a benefit to the residents of the single-family use and the
neighborhood in general as it has the potential to minimize paving in a very densely built
neighborhood.
Based on the facts listed above, the Board concludes that the establishment of the'Vecific
proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improveixient of
the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is locate
M : JNu
The Board finds that all roads and other facilities for this neighborhood are"atr ady being—
provided. —'
— c-� ii
The Board finds that the number of cars parking along the alley does not pr6i4nt a concefF,
with regard to congestion on public streets.
The Board finds that the special exception will bring the property into compliance wit"urrent
off-street parking requirements. The Board finds that the Director of Neighborhood and
Development Services has indicated that the parking area conforms to all other applicable
regulations and standards.
The Board concludes that the special exception complies with the Central District Plan, which
encourages a healthier balance of owner -occupied and rental housing and for bringing
properties into compliance with current code requirements:
• The subject property has adequate space in the rear yard to provide two required
parking spaces on site.
• By providing the required parking on the adjacent lot, the applicant will preserve the back
yard of 318 Linn, which would likely be paved if the special exception is denied.
• Requiring the applicant to post a sign indicating the off-site parking will help ensure that
residents and owners of both properties are aware of the off-site parking agreement, and
will allow Rental Inspectors to readily verify that required parking is in place. This will
help to ensure compliance over time as owners and residents of the two properties
change.
DISPOSITION: By a vote of 3-2 (Baker and Goeb voting no) the Board approves EXC14-00011,
an application submitted by Dwight Dobberstein to allow off-site parking for property in the
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 318 N. Linn Street subject to:
• City Attorney approval and filing of the covenant for off-site parking; and
• The subject off-site parking spaces should be posted with a sign indicating the spaces
assigned to residents of 318 North Linn Street. The sign to be approved by the Senior
Housing Inspector.
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.
G
Brock Grenis, Chairperson
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
Approved by:
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 12th day of November, 2014, as the
same appears of record in my Office.
Dated at Iowa Ci 4
City, this lJ� day Of 20-kel
Marian . Karr, City Clerk
N
O
t
ter,
orn
g"3
y-
r
C') <
—
$—
�C-)
cn
I-
M
r
x.
a
N