HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.10.2020 Agenda PacketIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Electronic Meeting – 5:15 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Special Exception Item
a. EXC20-05: An application submitted by Southside Developers, LC requesting a
special exception to allow a Community Service - Long Term Housing use in an
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone that is adjacent to a single-family residential zone at
Parcel 1022133012 on Southgate Avenue.
b. EXC20-06: An application submitted by The Englert Theatre requesting a special
exception to allow changes to a nonconforming sign at 221 E. Washington Street.
4. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 27, 2020
5. Adjournment
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by
going to: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJIvd--
trDouGdLPnKBX7_3Yi5rqZ_-abg3Y to visit the Zoom meeting’s registration
page and submitting the required information. Once approved, you will
receive an email message with a link to join the meeting. If you are asked for
a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID number found in the email. If you have
no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you can
call in by phone by dialing (312) 626-6799 and entering the meeting ID 962
0652 1436 when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option.
June 10, 2020
Board of Adjustment Meeting
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Kirk Lehmann, Urban Planning at 319-356-5230 or at kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org. Early
requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings
Formal: July 8 / August 12 / September 9
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC20-05
Parcel Number: 1022133012
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: June 5, 2020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Southside Developers, LC
711 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person: Kirsten Frey
327 Second Street, Suite 300
Coralville, Iowa 52241
319-731-2415
khf@shuttleworthlaw.com
Property Owner(s): Southside Developers, LC
711 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action: Special exception for a Community Service – Long Term
Housing Use in a CI-1 Zone that is adjacent to a single-
family residential zone (RS-12)
Purpose: To provide long term, permanent supportive housing for
persons with disabilities operated by a nonprofit entity
Location: Parcel #1022133012 (not assigned but identified as 501
Southgate Avenue, Iowa City)
Location Map:
2
Size: 0.744 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant (parking lot); Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Commercial, Institutional, and Residential;
Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
East: Commercial; Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
South: Residential; High Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-12) with Planned Development
Overlay (OPD)
West: Institutional; Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria
14-4B-4D-6: Community Service - Long Term Housing
File Date: May 8, 2020
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Southside Developers, LC, owns Parcel No. 1022133012 on Southgate Avenue and
has applied to establish a permanent supportive housing facility for persons with disabilities who
are identified as chronically homeless. Iowa City’s Code classifies this as a Community Service -
Long Term Housing use. Generally, community service uses provide local, ongoing services of a
public, nonprofit, or charitable nature to the community. The specific Long Term Housing use
subcategory provides long-term housing for persons with disabilities operated by a public or
nonprofit agency. The only other facility in Iowa City that has this designation is Cross Park Place,
located at 820 Cross Park Avenue.
On the subject property, Southside Developer’s management plan (addendum 2 of the application)
notes that it will partner with Shelter House Community Shelter and Transition Services, a nonprofit
501(c)(3) entity, to operate the facility. Shelter House owns and operates Cross Park Place and the
adjacent property to the west which has a shelter for persons experiencing homelessness that also
provides other onsite case management and drop-in services. Because the subject property is
adjacent to a single-family zone to the south, a special exception is required to establish a
Community Service - Long Term Housing use. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special
exception if the criteria discussed in this staff report are met.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare;
to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city; and to encourage the most
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of
property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the
requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific
criteria included in Section 14-4B-4D-6, pertaining to special exceptions to allow a Community
Service – Long Term Housing use in a CI-1 zone that is adjacent to a single-family residential zone,
as well as the general approval criteria in Section 14-4B-3A.
For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, each of the following criterion
below must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each
criterion may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are
set below.
3
Specific Standards: 14-4B-4D-6: Community Service - Long Term Housing
a. Maximum Density:
(1) In the CO-1, CI-1 and CC-2 zones: A minimum of nine hundred (900) square
feet of lot area per dwelling unit is required. Dwelling units must be efficiency
and/or one bedroom units.
(2) In the CB-2 and CB-5 zones: Density standards for multi-family dwellings in
commercial zones in chapter 2, article C of this title.
FINDINGS:
• The property is 32,420 square feet and is in an Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone.
Up to 36 efficiency or one-bedroom dwelling units may be built on the site.
• The proposed design complies by including 36 one-bedroom dwelling units.
b. Management Plan Required: The applicant must submit a site plan and a
management plan that addresses potential nuisances such as loitering, noise,
lighting, late night operations, odors, outdoor storage and litter. The management
plan must include plans for controlling litter, loitering and noise; provisions for 24/7
on site management and/or security, and a conflict resolution procedure to resolve
nuisances if they occur. The site plan and management plan must be submitted
concurrently to the city, or if permitted as a special exception said plans must be
submitted with the special exception application:
FINDINGS:
• A site plan and management plan are included in the application.
• The management plan contains provisions to address potential nuisances
including the following:
o Loitering. Shelter House staff shall request individuals without a lease who
are not welcomed as a visitor of a current tenant, volunteer, or partnering
service provider to leave the premises, with the support of the Iowa City
Police Department where necessary.
o Noise. Tenants shall be notified of Iowa City’s Noise Ordinance with the
expectation that they comply so as not to disrupt the enjoyment of other
tenants and surrounding property owners. In addition, staff recommends a
condition that the management plan be revised to require that tenants are
also provided the Disorderly House provision (Section 8-5-5).
o Exterior lighting. Exterior lights will be provided at the front and rear of the
property in compliance with existing code requirements to minimize glare.
o Odors. Shelter House shall provide for regular solid waste removal, litter
control, janitorial services, and onsite facilities.
o Outdoor storage. The trash and recycling enclosure shall be located at the
rear of the property and shall comply with screening requirements of the
underlying zone.
o Litter. Shelter House staff and/or a professional janitorial service shall
survey exterior grounds, including the outdoor enclosed smoking area, and
shall remove any litter daily.
• The management plan includes provisions for 24/7 onsite management and for the
training of staff by Shelter House to maintain a safe work environment and a safe
living environment for tenants.
4
• The management plan includes conflict resolution procedures for staff to resolve
disputes or other nuisances should they occur, including provisions for ongoing
communication and cooperation with the Iowa City Police Department.
c. Special Exception Required: A special exception is required if the proposed use is
in a CO-1, CI-1 or CC-2 zone and is across the street from or adjacent to a single-
family residential zone.
FINDINGS:
• The application was submitted because the property is adjacent to a property
zoned as high density single-family residential (RS-12).
d. Neighborhood Meeting Required: Prior to a building permit being issued, the owner
or operator of the community service - long term housing use must hold a
neighborhood meeting inviting all property owners within two hundred feet (200') of
the proposed use. At the neighborhood meeting, the owner or operator must
provide copies of the management plan, and contact information for the
management team of the proposed use.
FINDINGS:
• Staff will work with the owner to ensure a neighborhood meeting is held prior to
issuance of a building permit. If an in-person meeting is impossible or impractical
to hold due to health and safety concerns presented by COVID-19, staff will work
with the applicant to conduct a virtual meeting. In the case of a virtual meeting, the
applicant will deliver or mail the required materials to the neighbors.
e. Site and Building Development Standards:
(1) If the proposed use is located in the central planning district, it must comply
with the multi-family site development standards as set forth in section 14-
2B-6 of this title.
(2) In the CB-2 and CB-5 zones, community service - long term housing uses
must be located above the street level floor of a building.
(3) The proposed facility must comply with the minimum standards as specified
in the Iowa City housing code, as amended, and maintain a rental permit.
(4) In the CO-1, CI-1, and CC-2 zones up to fifty percent (50%) of the first floor of
the building may be occupied by residential uses.
FINDINGS:
• Staff will work with the owner to ensure the proposed facility meets the
requirements of the City’s housing code and the minimum standards necessary to
maintain a rental permit.
• The proposed design has less than fifty percent (50%) of the first floor of the
building occupied by residential uses.
General Standards: 14-4B-3: Special Exception Review Requirements:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDINGS:
5
• The proposed exception is an allowable use in the zone and compliments other
uses that exist nearby including residential uses and those operated by nonprofit
and public agencies.
• The proposed facility will be operated by Shelter House, a nonprofit that has
experience providing permanent supportive housing in a housing first model for
persons with disabilities who are identified as chronically homeless. The agency
has partnerships with local health providers, law enforcement, and other heal th
and safety officials.
• Shelter House staff will provide regular, onsite supportive services to tenants.
• Security and management will be provided on a 24-hour basis.
• The City’s other Community Service - Long Term Housing use at Cross Park Place
(820 Cross Park Avenue) generated 118 total “quality of life”1 calls for service in
2019. This amounts to 4.9 calls per unit, a number that generally decreased over
time. Other multifamily properties near Cross Park Place generated between 3.7
and 17.9 calls for service per unit in 2019. Other commercial uses in the area that
are allowable in a CI-1 zone generated between 74 and 169 calls for service.
Overall, this land use generates calls for service within the range of other similar
and/or allowable uses in the area.
• Permanent supportive housing is a proven intervention that is beneficial for general
public health.
2. 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.
FINDINGS:
• Tenants began moving into Cross Park Place in January 2019. Prior to its opening,
properties within 1/8 mile experienced 40 “quality of life” calls for service in 2017
and 33 in 2018. After Cross Park Place’s open, these properties (excluding Cross
Park Place) experienced 46 “quality of life” calls for service in 2019. Meanwhile,
the broader neighborhood (properties within 1/2 mile) experienced 195 such calls
in 2017, 205 in 2018, and 266 in 2019. Overall, this Community Service - Long
Term Housing use has not affected quality of life calls in its immediate vicinity
compared to the surrounding neighborhood.
• Properties within 300 feet of Cross Park Place have not been reassessed since
that property was fully leased, but the most recent Iowa City assessment data
indicates that nearby property values have increased or remained stable while
details about that project were public.
• The proposed use is similar to those found at nearby properties, including
residential and institutional uses, and is of a similar scale to nearby buildings.
3. 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 district in which such property is located.
1 “Quality of Life” calls for service are defined as calls to the Iowa City Police Department that impact the
neighborhood and community. They include four main categories (crimes against persons, nuisance
crimes, property crimes, and suspicious/unknown calls). See the attached memo “Analysis of Calls for
Service at 820 Cross Park Avenue” dated June 4, 2020.
6
FINDINGS:
• The proposed project will not affect the development and/or improvement of
surrounding properties for uses permitted in the district.
• Other properties near the proposed use that are within the same zoning district
contain institutional uses where nonprofits provide housing and/or services .
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
• Surrounding properties are already developed with utilities, access roads,
drainage, and necessary facilities established. Pedestrian and transit access are
available near the proposed facility.
• The proposed facility will need to comply with all relevant City codes, including
codes pertaining to utility hook ups, access, and site drainage.
• Staff will work with the owner to ensure the proposed facility meets all relevant City
codes prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
• Vehicle ownership for the target population of the development is lower than
average. Current street access is adequate to carry additional traffic. The site plan
indicates adequate parking spaces for the use and underlying zone.
• The proposed project is served by both pedestrian and nearby transit facilities.
• The proposed facility will need to comply with all relevant City codes, including
codes pertaining to ingress and egress.
• Staff will work with the owner to ensure the proposed facility meets all relevant City
codes prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. 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.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed facility will need to comply with all relevant City codes, including
codes pertaining to zoning setbacks and other site development standards.
• Staff will work with the owner to ensure the proposed facility meets all relevant City
codes prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
as amended.
FINDINGS:
• The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
Intensive Commercial. The Future Land Use Map of the South District Plan
designates this area for Commercial. The Zoning Code includes this as an
appropriate use within commercial zones. The South District Plan specifies that
7
there is an opportunity in commercial areas to “explore the potential for mixed
use[,] residential or institutional uses” as long as it “contributes to the overall health
of the surrounding neighborhood” (p.51).
• The Comprehensive Plan’s vision supports Compatible Infill Development, a
Diversity of Housing Types, and Affordable Housing (p. 21). The Plan also contains
strategies ensuring “that infill development is compatible and complementary to
the surrounding neighborhood” (p. 24) and supporting “infill development…in
areas where services and infrastructure are already in place” (p. 28).
• The Comprehensive Plan contains a goal to “Encourage a diversity of housing
options in all neighborhoods” by ensuring “a mix of housing types within each
neighborhood” (p.28). Narrative throughout clarifies that “By allowing for a mix of
housing types, moderately priced housing can be incorporated into a
neighborhood, rather than segregated in one or two areas of the community”
(p.21). Narrative in the South District Plan notes that the high demand for
affordable housing has led to “a concentration of poverty that has implications for
the community as a whole as well as the school district” (p. 16). To help address
these goals, the City adopted an Affordable Housing Location Model which guides
City assistance for affordable housing away from “neighborhoods and elementary
schools that already have…a concentration of poverty.” Exemptions are granted
for projects that provide housing for persons with disabilities.
• This proposed project is consistent with Iowa City’s Comprehensive Plan and
complies with relevant policies that help address its goals and strategies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC20-05, to allow the establishment of a Community Service –
Long Term Housing use in a CI-1 Zone that is adjacent to a single-family residential zone at Parcel
1022133012, subject to the following conditions:
1. If the tenant, not the owner, is the operator of the community service - long term housing
use, there must be a written lease between the owner and tenant, and a copy must be
made available to the City upon request;
2. The final site plan must substantially comply with the submitted site plan, or any changes
to it must comply with the site development standards and other applicable requirements
of the City Code.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the management plan must be revised to require
that tenants are provided a copy of the Disorderly House Ordinance (Iowa City Code
Section 8-5-5) in addition to the Noise Control Ordinance (Iowa City Code Section 6 -4)
and be signed by the operator.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Memo: Analysis of Calls for Service at 820 Cross Park Avenue, dated June 4, 2020
4. Assessor Message and Data
5. Application Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
CARRIAGE RDMAIN ST KEOKUK STPEPPERWOOD LN
CROSS PARK AVE
4TH AVE
C ST
3RD AVEBOYRUM STOLYMPIC CT
B S T
A STWATERFRONT DR1ST AVE
SOUTHGATE AVE
2ND AVE
SGI
LBERTSTEXC20-05S of Southgate Dr and E of Waterfront Drµ
0 0.055 0.110.0275 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: May 2020
An application submitted by Southside Developers, LC for a special exception allowing a community service long term housing use for 0.744 acres of property located south of Southgate Dr and east of Waterfront Dr.
CARRIAGE RDMAIN ST KEOKUK STPEPPERWOOD LN
CROSS PARK AVE
4TH AVE
C ST
3RD AVEBOYRUM STOLYMPIC CT
B S T
A STWATERFRONT DR1ST AVE
SOUTHGATE AVE
2ND AVE
SGI
LBERTSCC2
RS5
CC2
RS12
I1
CI1
CI1
CI1
CC2
CC2
CI1
CI1
CI1
CC2
CI1 CC2
RS5
CO1
ID-RM
RM12
CI1
CI1
CC2
CC2
CI1
RM12
EXC20-05S of Southgate Dr and E of Waterfront Drµ
0 0.055 0.110.0275 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: May 2020
An application submitted by Southside Developers, LC for a special exception allowing a community service long term housing use for 0.744 acres of property located south of Southgate Dr and east of Waterfront Dr.
Date: June 4, 2020
To: City of Iowa City Board of Adjustment
From: David Schwindt, Police Officer
Re: Analysis of Calls for Service at 820 Cross Park Avenue
Introduction:
In January 2019, Shelter House opened Cross Park Place at 820 Cross Park Avenue in Iowa
City. Cross Park Place contains 24 one-bedroom apartments which house chronically homeless
individuals who are frequent users of high cost public services. This memo analyzes public safety
calls for service at Cross Park Place and the surrounding area, including police, fire, and
ambulance activity. The agencies responsible for these services are the Iowa City Police
Department (ICPD), Iowa City Fire Department (ICFD), and the Johnson County Ambulance
Service (JCAS). The goal is to identify any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood
that can be attributed to the introduction of this housing model. The analysis explores the amount
and types of calls for service, and how calls for service have changed in the neighborhood bot h
prior to its opening and for its first year of operation.
Overall, this analysis finds that public safety calls for service at Cross Park Place were comparable
other commercial and multi-residential properties in the neighborhood. Further, after comparing
three years of data, the increase in calls was comparable to the surrounding area which suggests
Cross Park Place had little or no negative impact on the surrounding properties.
Service Call Volume:
During 2019, a total of 266 calls for service were generated for Cross Park Place (see Figure 1).
The type of call influences which agencies respond. For example, a medical emergency may
include a police, fire, and ambulance response. Each such event accounts for one (1) of the 266
calls for service. While the sirens of responding public safety vehicles can have a negative impact,
neighborhood quality of life is most negatively impacted by nuisance, property, and violent crimes.
These are issues handled by ICPD, not fire or ambulance services. Since fire and ambulance
calls for service are overwhelmingly due to physical health issues, the main focus of this analysis
is on police department calls for service.
When analyzing calls for service at Cross Park Place across all departments, one trend is
consistent: the number of calls has trended downward. For example, fire and ambulance services
experienced a 27.9% decrease in calls at Cross Park Place during the 2nd half of 2019. This is
likely attributable to several factors, including on-site medical services, on-site case management,
and connecting residents with more appropriate and coordinated care.
ICDP generated 232 calls for service at Cross Park Place in 2019. Prior to COVID -19,
departmental policy required officers to respond to the physical location of a call for service, in
most instances, even for routine questions. Officers were also encouraged to engage in
community policing activities, which includes visiting businesses and other locations to buil d a
relationship with staff, residents, and citizens. Each of these activities, whether reactive or
proactive, generated a call for service. As with medical calls, administrative and community
policing calls for service are not considered when analyzing any negative impact on the
neighborhood.
June 4, 2020
Page 2
JCAS responded to 74 calls for service at Cross Park Place in 2019. The JCAS records indicate
the ambulance responded with sirens on all 74 calls. There may have been instances where the
ambulance downgraded their response before arriving, which would include disabling the siren,
but that information was not available for this analysis.
ICFD responded to 74 calls for service at Cross Park Place in 2019. Of these, approximately 40
involved a response that likely included the use of sirens when they arrived.
Figure 1: 2019 Monthly Calls for Service at Cross Park Place by Department
NOTE: One (1) police call for service at Cross Park Place was removed from this visualization. It occurred on 01/29/2019, the first day
of services, and unfairly shifted the trend line for police services. This call will be included in the remaining analysis.
Types of Calls for Service:
To focus on quality of life issues around Cross Park Place that could impact the neighborhood
and community, ICPD calls for service were isolated and administrative and community policing
calls were removed (see Figure 2). These calls are further broken down into four main
categories:
• Crimes against persons (calls related to assault, domestic abuse, threats, and weapons)
• Nuisance crimes (calls related to animals, disturbances, harassment, intoxication, and
trespass)
• Property crimes (calls related to burglary, criminal mischief, fraud, and theft)
• Suspicious/unknown (calls substance abuse and suspicious activity)
June 4, 2020
Page 3
Figure 2: 2019 Monthly Quality of Life Calls for Service at Cross Park Place by Category
Another indicator of how calls for service can affect quality of life is by examining the outcome.
During 2019, 12 calls for service resulted in the arrest of an individual. The arrested person may
or may not have been a resident of Cross Park Place; there were some instances where
individuals would come to Cross Park Place to see someone, whether invited or not, and
commit a crime while at the property. Generally, this suggests only a small number of calls for
service at Cross Park Place involved a crime requiring a mandatory arrest or an individual that
responding officers felt was a threat to public safety, if they were not immediately taken into
custody.
Figure 3: 2019 Calls for Service Outcomes at Cross Park Place
Change in Calls for Service:
The following pages map three years of police quality of life calls for service in the neighborhood
surrounding Cross Park Place (Figures 4-5). Calls for Cross Park Place specifically are
excluded from these maps to allow the reader to see potential effects on other properties.
Generally, no patterns emerge that suggest Cross Park Place has generated a substantially
larger number of quality of life calls for service at surrounding properties (within 1/8 mile or 660
feet) than have occurred prior to its opening or than occurred within the broader neighborhood
(within 1/2 mile or 2,640 feet).
June 4, 2020
Page 4
Figure 4: ICPD Quality of Life Calls for Service Map (1/8-mile radius)
2017 - 40 Calls for Service
2018 - 33 Calls for Service
2019 - 46 Calls for Service
June 4, 2020
Page 5
Figure 5: ICPD Quality of Life Calls for Service Map (1/2-mile radius)
2017 - 195 Calls for Service
2018 - 205 Calls for Service
2019 - 266 Calls for Service
June 4, 2020
Page 6
Calls for Service Compared to Other Comparable/Allowable Uses:
For comparison, the following map shows the number of quality of life calls for service in 2019 at
various locations (Figure 6). Both multi-family housing complexes, which are a comparable use,
and commercial uses, which would be allowed on the site as zoned, are included. These
locations were chosen because of their proximity to Cross Park Place and the number of calls
for service at their location. Overall, these sites appear to have similar levels of quality of life
calls for service activity as Cross Park Place, which suggests that Cross Park Place does not
create a disproportionately negative impact on surrounding properties compared to other
comparable properties or allowable uses within its zone.
Figure 6: 2019 Quality of Life Calls for Service at Nearby Locations
Conclusion:
Based on this review of call for service data:
• One-half of the calls for service at Cross Park Place were for administrative purposes,
which should not affect quality of life.
• Less than 11% of quality of life calls for service resulted in an arrest.
• The increase in quality of life calls for service from 2017 to 2019 was comparable to the
surrounding area which suggests Cross Park Place had little or no negative impact on
the surrounding properties.
• Cross Park Place generated a comparable number of quality of life calls for service to
other similar (multi-family) and allowable (commercial) uses.
Parcel Number Property Address 2018 Total Value 2019 Total Value 2020 Total Value 2018‐2019 % Change2019‐2020 % ChangeNotes1022101009 817 PEPPERWOOD LN $ 905,590 $ 974,160 $ 974,160 7.6% 0.0%Cross Park Place New Construction10221010102030 KEOKUK ST $ 282,970 $ 297,100 $ 297,100 5.0% 0.0%1022101011 2040 KEOKUK ST $ 374,850 $ 396,000 $ 396,000 5.6%0.0%1022101013820 CROSS PARK AVE $ 87,330 $ 1,950,890 $ 2,045,030 2133.9% 4.8%1022101016 845 PEPPERWOOD LN $ 1,653,280 $ 1,817,220 $ 1,817,220 9.9% 0.0%1022101020 2010 KEOKUK ST $ 458,120 $ 484,940 $ 484,940 5.9% 0.0%1022105003 2001 KEOKUK ST APT 1 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%1022105004 2001 KEOKUK ST APT 2 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8%0.0%10221050052001 KEOKUK ST APT 3 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105006 2001 KEOKUK ST APT 4 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105007 2001 KEOKUK ST APT 5 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105008 2001 KEOKUK ST APT 6 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%1022105009 2001 KEOKUK ST APT 7 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8%0.0%10221050102001 KEOKUK ST APT 8 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105011 2001 KEOKUK ST APT 9 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105012 2001 KEOKUK ST APT 10 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105013 2001 KEOKUK ST APT 11 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8%0.0%10221050142001 KEOKUK ST APT 12 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8% 0.0%1022105015 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 1 $ 65,950 $ 71,090 $ 71,090 7.8% 0.0%1022105016 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 2 $ 52,180 $ 56,340 $ 56,340 8.0% 0.0%1022105017 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 3 $ 52,180 $ 56,340 $ 56,340 8.0%0.0%10221050182017 KEOKUK ST APT 4 $ 65,540 $ 70,660 $ 70,660 7.8% 0.0%1022105019 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 5 $ 52,180 $ 56,340 $ 56,340 8.0% 0.0%1022105020 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 6 $ 52,180 $ 56,340 $ 56,340 8.0% 0.0%1022105021 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 7 $ 52,180 $ 56,340 $ 56,340 8.0% 0.0%1022105022 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 8 $ 65,960 $ 71,120 $ 71,120 7.8%0.0%10221050232017 KEOKUK ST APT 9 $ 52,700 $ 56,910 $ 56,910 8.0% 0.0%1022105024 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 10 $ 52,700 $ 56,910 $ 56,910 8.0% 0.0%1022105025 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 11 $ 66,390 $ 71,590 $ 71,590 7.8% 0.0%1022105026 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 12 $ 52,700 $ 56,910 $ 56,910 8.0%0.0%10221050272017 KEOKUK ST APT 13 $ 52,700 $ 56,910 $ 56,910 8.0% 0.0%1022105028 2017 KEOKUK ST APT 14 $ 65,960 $ 71,120 $ 71,120 7.8% 0.0%1022105029 2033 KEOKUK ST APT 1 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%1022105030 2033 KEOKUK ST APT 2 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%10221050312033 KEOKUK ST APT 3 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%Iowa City Assessor Data, dated May 4, 2020
1022105032 2033 KEOKUK ST APT 4 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105033 2033 KEOKUK ST APT 5 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105034 2033 KEOKUK ST APT 6 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%1022105035 2033 KEOKUK ST APT 7 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8% 0.0%1022105036 2033 KEOKUK ST APT 8 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8%0.0%10221050372033 KEOKUK ST APT 9 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105038 2033 KEOKUK ST APT 10 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105039 2033 KEOKUK ST APT 11 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105040 2033 KEOKUK ST APT 12 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8%0.0%10221050412103 KEOKUK ST APT 1 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%1022105042 2103 KEOKUK ST APT 2 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105043 2103 KEOKUK ST APT 3 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105044 2103 KEOKUK ST APT 4 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105045 2103 KEOKUK ST APT 5 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8%0.0%10221050462103 KEOKUK ST APT 6 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%1022105047 2103 KEOKUK ST APT 7 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8% 0.0%1022105048 2103 KEOKUK ST APT 8 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105049 2103 KEOKUK ST APT 9 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8%0.0%10221050502103 KEOKUK ST APT 10 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105051 2103 KEOKUK ST APT 11 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105052 2103 KEOKUK ST APT 12 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8% 0.0%1022105053 2119 KEOKUK ST APT 1 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%10221050542119 KEOKUK ST APT 2 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105055 2119 KEOKUK ST APT 3 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105056 2119 KEOKUK ST APT 4 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105057 2119 KEOKUK ST APT 5 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105058 2119 KEOKUK ST APT 6 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8%0.0%10221050592119 KEOKUK ST APT 7 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8% 0.0%1022105060 2119 KEOKUK ST APT 8 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105061 2119 KEOKUK ST APT 9 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105062 2119 KEOKUK ST APT 10 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8%0.0%10221050632119 KEOKUK ST APT 11 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105064 2119 KEOKUK ST APT 12 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8% 0.0%1022105065 2135 KEOKUK ST APT 1 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%1022105066 2135 KEOKUK ST APT 2 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105067 2135 KEOKUK ST APT 3 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8%0.0%10221050682135 KEOKUK ST APT 4 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%Iowa City Assessor Data, dated May 4, 2020
1022105069 2135 KEOKUK ST APT 5 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105070 2135 KEOKUK ST APT 6 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%1022105071 2135 KEOKUK ST APT 7 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8% 0.0%1022105072 2135 KEOKUK ST APT 8 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105073 2135 KEOKUK ST APT 9 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8%0.0%10221050742135 KEOKUK ST APT 10 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105075 2135 KEOKUK ST APT 11 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105076 2135 KEOKUK ST APT 12 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8% 0.0%1022105077 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 1 $ 65,940 $ 70,560 $ 70,560 7.0%0.0%10221050782151 KEOKUK ST APT 2 $ 52,180 $ 56,340 $ 56,340 8.0% 0.0%1022105079 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 3 $ 52,180 $ 56,340 $ 56,340 8.0% 0.0%1022105080 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 4 $ 65,540 $ 70,660 $ 70,660 7.8% 0.0%1022105081 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 5 $ 52,180 $ 56,340 $ 56,340 8.0% 0.0%1022105082 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 6 $ 52,180 $ 56,340 $ 56,340 8.0%0.0%10221050832151 KEOKUK ST APT 7 $ 52,180 $ 56,340 $ 56,340 8.0% 0.0%1022105084 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 8 $ 65,960 $ 71,120 $ 71,120 7.8% 0.0%1022105085 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 9 $ 52,700 $ 56,910 $ 56,910 8.0% 0.0%1022105086 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 10 $ 52,700 $ 56,910 $ 56,910 8.0%0.0%10221050872151 KEOKUK ST APT 11 $ 66,390 $ 71,590 $ 71,590 7.8% 0.0%1022105088 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 12 $ 52,700 $ 56,910 $ 56,910 8.0% 0.0%1022105089 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 13 $ 52,700 $ 56,910 $ 56,910 8.0% 0.0%1022105090 2151 KEOKUK ST APT 14 $ 65,960 $ 71,120 $ 71,120 7.8% 0.0%10221050912167 KEOKUK ST APT 1 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%1022105092 2167 KEOKUK ST APT 2 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105093 2167 KEOKUK ST APT 3 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105094 2167 KEOKUK ST APT 4 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8% 0.0%1022105095 2167 KEOKUK ST APT 5 $ 65,260 $ 70,370 $ 70,370 7.8%0.0%10221050962167 KEOKUK ST APT 6 $ 64,790 $ 69,850 $ 69,850 7.8% 0.0%1022105097 2167 KEOKUK ST APT 7 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8% 0.0%1022105098 2167 KEOKUK ST APT 8 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105099 2167 KEOKUK ST APT 9 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8%0.0%10221051002167 KEOKUK ST APT 10 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105101 2167 KEOKUK ST APT 11 $ 65,770 $ 70,930 $ 70,930 7.8% 0.0%1022105102 2167 KEOKUK ST APT 12 $ 65,530 $ 70,650 $ 70,650 7.8% 0.0%1022105103 2001 KEOKUK ST $ 149,120 $ 152,140 $ 152,140 2.0% 0.0%1022106001 861 CROSS PARK AVE #1053 $ 2,488,800 $ 2,798,930 $ 2,798,930 12.5%0.0%1022107001801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%Iowa City Assessor Data, dated May 4, 2020
1022107002 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B $ 64,100 $ 69,130 $ 69,130 7.8% 0.0%1022107003 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C $ 64,100 $ 69,130 $ 69,130 7.8% 0.0%1022107004 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107005 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107006 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107007 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107008 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107009 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107010 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107011 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107012 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107013 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107014 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B $ 64,100 $ 69,130 $ 69,130 7.8% 0.0%1022107015 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C $ 64,100 $ 69,130 $ 69,130 7.8% 0.0%1022107016 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107017 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107018 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107019 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107020 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107021 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107022 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107023 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107024 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107025 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107026 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B $ 64,100 $ 69,130 $ 69,130 7.8% 0.0%1022107027 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C $ 64,100 $ 69,130 $ 69,130 7.8% 0.0%1022107028 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107029 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107030 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107031 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107032 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107033 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107034 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107035 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107036 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107037 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107038 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B $ 64,100 $ 69,130 $ 69,130 7.8% 0.0%Iowa City Assessor Data, dated May 4, 2020
1022107039 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C $ 64,100 $ 69,130 $ 69,130 7.8% 0.0%1022107040 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107041 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107042 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107043 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107044 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107045 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022107046 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107047 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C $ 64,720 $ 69,790 $ 69,790 7.8% 0.0%1022107048 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D $ 63,950 $ 68,960 $ 68,960 7.8% 0.0%1022108008 $ 46,490 $ 46,490 $ 46,490 0.0% 0.0%1022108009 $ 217,310 $ 229,300 $ 229,300 5.5% 0.0%1022108010 925 HIGHWAY 6 E $ 2,434,520 $ 2,577,270 $ 2,577,270 5.9% 0.0%1022108011 $ 80,840 $ 83,660 $ 83,660 3.5%0.0%1022108012 $ 1,926,050 $ 1,977,030 $ 1,977,030 2.6% 0.0%1022109001 2048 KEOKUK ST $ 101,550 $ 100,700 $ 100,700 ‐0.8%0.0%Downward Correction made to the square footage per Iowa City Assessor on May 4, 20201022109002 2050 KEOKUK ST $ 163,540 $ 166,990 $ 166,990 2.1% 0.0%1022109003 800 CROSS PARK AVE $ 112,400 $ 119,630 $ 119,630 6.4%0.0%1022109004 802 CROSS PARK AVE $ 112,400 $ 119,630 $ 119,630 6.4% 0.0%1022109005 804 CROSS PARK AVE $ 112,400 $ 119,630 $ 119,630 6.4% 0.0%1022109006 806 CROSS PARK AVE $ 112,400 $ 119,630 $ 119,630 6.4% 0.0%1022110001 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 101 $ 1,661,610 $ 2,586,400 $ 2,751,520 55.7% 6.4%1022110002 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 102 $ 747,540 $ 1,361,780 $ 1,361,780 82.2%0.0%1022110003 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 103 $ 793,660 $ 1,412,240 $ 1,435,170 77.9% 1.6%Iowa City Assessor Data, dated May 4, 2020
1
Kirk Lehmann
From:City Assessor <cityassr@co.johnson.ia.us>
Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 4:40 PM
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:RE: [External Email] Cross Park Place
This message was sent securely using Zix®
Kirk,
There was a correction made to the square footage of the unit at 2048 Keokuk. The change did not have anything to do
with surrounding property. We have not done a market revaluation of that area since 820 Cross Park was built and
occupied. Generally our market analysis is done on the odd‐numbered years. Most property values did not change for
2020 unless there was new construction or corrections made.
Brad Comer
Iowa City Assessor
Johnson County Administration Building
913 S. Dubuque St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319)356-6066
bcomer@co.johnson.ia.us
iowacity.iowaassessors.com
From: Kirk Lehmann <Kirk‐Lehmann@iowa‐city.org>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 4:20 PM
To: City Assessor <cityassr@co.johnson.ia.us>
Subject: RE: [External Email] Cross Park Place
One property (2048 Keokuk St) had falling values. Do you have any insight as to what caused that property’s value to
fall?
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC20-06
Parcel Number: 1010377004
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: June 5, 2020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: The Englert Theatre
221 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-594-9135
andre@englert.org
Contact Person: Josh Moe
24 1/2 S Clinton St
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-383-3099
jmoe@opnarchitects.com
Property Owner(s): The Englert Theatre
221 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-594-9135
andre@englert.org
Requested Action: Special exception to allow changes to a non-conforming sign
Purpose: To rehabilitate the Englert Theatre’s marquee
Location: 221 E Washington St
Location Map:
2
Size: 9,450 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial; Central Business (CB-10)
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: North: Commercial/Residential; Central Business (CB-10)
East: Commercial/Residential; Central Business (CB-10)
South: Institutional; Central Business (CB-10) and
Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1)
West: Commercial; Central Business (CB-10) with Historic
Overlay District (OHD)
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria
14-4E-8C-4: Changes to Nonconforming Signs
File Date: May 8, 2020
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, the Englert Theatre, has a marquee that is an existing noncompliant sign. Originally
constructed in 1912, the theater is in downtown Iowa City and is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places. The marquee was constructed in 1958 and, according to its National Register of
Historic Places Registration Form, is “an outstanding mid-century marquee with high integrity.” The
applicant wishes to repair and improve aspects of its marquee, including replacing deteriorated
components, improving the stormwater drainage system, and updating the sign’s electrical
components.
The proposed actions constitute changing or altering the sign in a way that is beyond routine
maintenance, which typically requires that the sign be brought into compliance with the City’s sign
regulations. However, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception for a legally
nonconforming sign if it is deemed “historic” and meets specific standards which protect the historic
nature of any such signs.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare;
to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city; and to encourage the most
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of
property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the
requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific
criteria included in Section 14-4E-8C-4, pertaining to special exceptions to allow changes to
nonconforming signs, as well as the general approval criteria in Section 14-4B-3A.
For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, each of the following criterion
below must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each
criterion may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are
set below.
Specific Standards: 14-4E-8C-4: The board of adjustment may grant a special exception
to allow changes to a nonconforming sign, provided the following conditions are met:
a. The sign must be located on a property designated as a historic landmark, a
property registered on the national register of historic places, or on a property listed
3
as a key or contributing property in a historic preservation or historic conservation
overlay zone.
FINDINGS:
• The Englert Theater is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, National
Register Information System Identification number 1000911.
b. The sign must fall into one of the following categories:
(1) The sign is in keeping with the architectural character of a historic structure
and is appropriate to a particular period in the structure's history; or
(2) The sign is an integral part of a property's historic identity; or
(3) The sign makes a significant artistic or historic contribution to the
community or neighborhood in which the sign is located.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed rehabilitation involves appropriate repair to elements of the sign that
maintains its architectural character.
• The marquee is identified as a key historical feature and was installed between
1950 and 1958, within the period of significance identified in the Englert’s National
Register of Historic Places Registration Form.
c. At the time of application for the special exception, changes to the subject sign must
be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission through a certificate of
appropriateness. If the Board of Adjustment grants a special exception for the sign,
any subsequent changes to the sign do not have to be approved by the Board of
Adjustment, but do require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic
Preservation Commission.
FINDINGS:
• The Historic Preservation Commission granted a certificate of appropriateness at
their meeting on May 14, 2020 with the condition that a special exception must be
granted by the Board of Adjustment.
General Standards: 14-4B-3: Special Exception Review Requirements:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDINGS:
• The Englert’s existing marquee is a noncompliant sign that will be rehabilitated to
replace deteriorated and outdated parts and improve the roof drainage system.
• The plans for the sign include repair of parts that have been damaged or have
deteriorated over the years, which will improve public safety for pedestrians
walking under the sign.
2. 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.
FINDINGS:
4
• The proposed rehabilitation will maintain the approximate size, shape, color, and
illumination of the existing marquee.
• The proposed exception will not affect the use and enjoyment of surrounding
properties, nor will it diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
3. 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 district in which such property is located.
FINDINGS:
• The marquee will project over the public sidewalk on the south side of East
Washington Street.
• The surrounding area is fully developed with a mix of commercial, residential, and
institutional uses.
• The proposed rehabilitation will not impact future development.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
• The subject property is already developed, and all utilities, access roads, drainage
and necessary facilities are established for this area.
• Rehabilitation will reduce electrical consumption with the use of more energy-
efficient technologies.
• Rehabilitation will improve storm water drainage by adding a secondary overflow
drain to reduce the risk of a stopped drain.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
• No changes are being proposed to ingress or egress.
• The use and intensity of the property will remain the same.
• Temporary measures will affect pedestrian circulation on the sidewalk below the
marquee during construction, but the project will have no long-term effects.
6. 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.
FINDINGS:
• The Englert marquee is a nonconforming sign because it is not an allowed sign
type, it exceeds illumination requirements, it exceeds the allowed distance a sign
can project, and it exceeds the maximum sign area for all types of allowed signs
in this zone. Because it is “historic”, this is allowable with a special exception and
a certificate of appropriateness.
• Staff will work with the applicant to ensure that all work conforms with other
standards of this zone, including compliance with plans as approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission.
5
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
as amended.
FINDINGS:
• The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designated this area for General
Commercial. The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings District Master Plan
identifies the Englert Theatre as a Key Historic Building and notes that “the City
should take measures to preserve and actively protect these buildings” (p.55).
• The Comprehensive Plan’s vision includes to “Preserve Historic Resources…”
(p.21) to be carried out by supporting the goals of the Historic Preservation
Commission” (p.29).
• The Historic Preservation Commission has approved a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the project, subject to approval of a special exception.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC20-06, to allow the proposed changes to the nonconforming
sign at the property located at 221 East Washington Street.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Certificate of Appropriateness
4. Application Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
S LINN STS DUBUQUE STN VAN BUREN STN CLINTON STE WASHINGTON STN DUBUQUE STE W A S H IN G T O N S TN GILBERT STE COLLEGE ST
E BURLINGTON STS CAPITOL STE IOWA AVE
S GILBERT STS VAN BUREN STS CLINTON STE IOWA AVE
S DUBUQUE STEXC20-06Englert Civic Theatreµ
0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: May 2020
An application submitted by The Englert Theatre for a special exception allowing rehabilitation of the marquee for 9,450 square-feet of property located at 221 East Washingtion Street.
S LINN STS DUBUQUE STN VAN BUREN STN CLINTON STE WASHINGTON STN DUBUQUE STE W A S H IN G T O N S TN GILBERT STE COLLEGE ST
E BURLINGTON STS CAPITOL STE IOWA AVE
S GILBERT STSVANBURENSTS CLINTON STE IOWA AVE
S DUBUQUE STEMU
EMU
CB5
P1
CB10
CB10
RNS20CB10
P2
EMU
CB10
CB10
P1
EMU
P1 CB5
P2
P1
CB10
P1
EMU
CB5
CB10
CB10
EMU
P2
CB10
CB10
P2
P2/CB10
CB10
CB10
P1
P2
CB10
P1
EMU
P2
RNS20
CB10
P1
CB10
P1
EXC20-06Englert Civic Theatreµ
0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: May 2020
An application submitted by The Englert Theatre for a special exception allowing rehabilitation of the marquee for 9,450 square-feet of property located at 221 East Washingtion Street.
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
221 East Washington Street, Englert Theatre
A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held as an electronic meeting, due to
concerns arising from COVID-19, on May 14, 2020. The following members were present: Thomas Agran,
Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, Lyndi Kiple, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen,
Jordan Sellergren and Austin Wu.
By a vote of 10-0, the Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a sign repair project at 221
East Washington Street, a historic property in the Downtown District. The property is not locally designated.
The project was reviewed as part of a code requirement for a non-conforming sign on a historic property.
The Englert Theatre is listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
The project is the removal and repair or replacement of the neon lighting except for the horizontal line of
neon below the message board. This line will be replaced by a non-electric metal tube. The project also
includes the replacement of the electrical infrastructure, replacement of the incandescent bulbs with look-
alike LED bulbs, cleaning and repainting of the metal elements and cabinet, replacement of the roof
membrane, and improvements to the roof slope and drainage. Project drawings are attached.
The application is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the Special Exception is granted by the Board of Adjustment
The project is approved subject to the conditions specified in this certificate, notations in the application, and
the discussion by the Commission as provided in City Code Section 14-8E-2. All work is to meet the
specifications of the guidelines unless otherwise noted. Any additional work that falls under the purview of
the Historic Preservation Commission that is not specified in this certificate will need a separate review.
Approval by the Historic Preservation Commission does not constitute final approval for a project. Contact
the Building Department to acquire a building permit before beginning the project. The Historic
Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with zoning ordinance and building
code.
__________________________________
Kevin Boyd, Chair
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
___________________________________
Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Department of Development Services
___________________6/1/2020________
Date
1(217233(5
0,;('0(',$%2'<
5(029(/226(3$,17$1'5867)5200(7$/&+$11(//(77(55(3$,17%/8((;7(5,25$1':+,7(,17(5,256&2/256720$7&++,6725,&3+2726&2175$&72572$1/$<,=(3$,17$1'0$7&++,6725,&5()85%,6+'28%/(/,1(5('1(21,16,'(&+$11(//(77(5/(77(5672%(:+,7(:+(15(67,1*$1'5(':+(1(/(&75,),('5(029(/226(3$,17$1'5867)5200(7$/7233(5%$&.*5281'5(3$,17%/8(&2/256720$7&++,6725,&3+2726&2175$&72572$1/$<,=(3$,17$1'0$7&++,6725,&5(029(/226(3$,17$1'5867)5200(7$/%$1'5(3$,17:+,7(&2/256720$7&++,6725,&3+2726&2175$&72572$1/$<,=(3$,17$1'0$7&++,6725,&3529,'(1(:62&.(76$1'&/($5/('&+$6(5%8/%6&+$6(027,2172%(;21:,7+;2))5(3/$&(%$&./,7<(//2:$&5</,&3$1(/(;,67,1* 75$16/8&(175('',0(16,21$/ '((3 $&5</,&/(77(5672%(5(752),77(':,7+($6<&/,36<67(05(3/$&(,//80,18$7,21628&(:,7+/('5(029(/226(3$,17$1'5867)5205('%25'(55(3$,175('&2/256720$7&++,6725,&3+2726&2175$&72572$1/$<,=(3$,17$1'0$7&++,6725,&5()85%,6+5('&21)(77,1(21/(77(5672%(:+,7(:+(15(67,1*$1'5(':+(1(/(&75,),('5(029(/226(3$,17$1'5867)5205('%25'(55(3$,175('&2/256720$7&++,6725,&3+2726&2175$&72572$1/$<,=(3$,17$1'0$7&++,6725,&0,66,1*5('1(21,167$//1(:78%(68332576'21275(3/$&(1(215(%85%,6+%/8(1(21/,1(6/(77(5672%(:+,7(:+(15(67,1*$1'%/8(:+(1(/(&75,),('0,66,1*5('&21)(77,1(215(3/$&(,1.,1'0,66,1*5('1(213529,'(5('1(21/,1(6/(77(5672%(:+,7(:+(15(67,1*$1'5(':+(1(/(&75,),('6$
5(029(/226(3$,17$1'5867)5200(7$/&+$11(//(77(55(3$,17%/8((;7(5,25$1':+,7(,17(5,256&2/256720$7&++,6725,&3+2726&2175$&72572$1/$<,=(3$,17$1'0$7&++,6725,&5(%85%,6+%/8(1(21/,1(6/(77(5672%(:+,7(:+(15(67,1*$1'%/8(:+(1(/(&75,),('5(029(/226(3$,17$1'5867)5200(7$/%$1'5(3$,17:+,7(&2/256720$7&++,6725,&3+2726&2175$&72572$1/$<,=(3$,17$1'0$7&++,6725,&3529,'(1(:62&.(76$1'&/($5/('&+$6(5%8/%6&+$6(027,2172%(;21:,7+;2))5(029(/226(3$,17$1'5867)5205('%25'(55(3$,175('&2/256720$7&++,6725,&3+2726&2175$&72572$1/$<,=(3$,17$1'0$7&++,6725,&5()85%,6+5('&21)(77,1(21/(77(5672%(:+,7(:+(15(67,1*$1'5(':+(1(/(&75,),('$1*/(' ($67 :(67 $1*/('&/($5&+$6,1*%8/%6029($%/(7<3(%52.(11(216((0$548((($67$($:$16$
5(3/$&(0$548((522)0(0%5$1(6/23(72'5$,15(3/$&((;,67,1*522)'5$,1:,7+1(:522)'5$,1:,7+29(5)/2:522)'5$,16((0(3$1'6758&785$/'5$:,1*65(3$,5$5($62)5867('0(7$/'(&.1(:522)6<67(0:6/23(',168/$7,210,1
0(0%5$1(83:$//)8//<$'+(5(72(;7(5,25*5$'(3/<:22'7(50,1$7,21%$53529,'(35,0$5<$1'6(&21'$5<522)'5$,16((0(33$,17%$&.6,'(2)0$548((:,7++,*+3(5)250$1&(3$,17&2/25720$7&+522)0(0%5$1($$$($:$16$3529,'(1(:62&.(76$1'&/($5/('%8/%65(3/$&()/22'/,*+7:,7+1(:62&.(76$1'&/($5/('%8/%6720$7&+$'-$&(17%$6()/$6+,1*522)0(0%5$1((;7(5,253/<:22'6(&85(/<)$67(1('720$548((:$//3529,'(60227+68%675$7()25522),1*0(0%5$1(0(0%5$1(83(;,67,1*3$5$3(70$548((0(7$/&$%,1(76/23(72372,17(5,25 0,16($/$17$7723$1')$67(1(56(;3$1',1*6+$1.)$67(1(56&2035(66,%/(6($/$177$3(3,(&(685)$&(02817('5(*/(7 &2817(5)/$6+,1*&29(5%2$5'32/<,62,168/$7,2172&5($7(6/23(127+(50$/5(6,67$1&(9$/8(5(48,5('&217,182869$325%$55,(55(3/$&('$0$*('0(7$/'(&.$65(48,5('*<3%$55,(5%2$5'
522)&2175$&725&225',1$7(:KǁŶĞƌůůƌĞƉŽƌƚƐ͕ƉůĂŶƐ͕ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĐŽŵƉƵƚĞƌĨŝůĞƐ͕ĨŝĞůĚĚĂƚĂ͕ŶŽƚĞƐĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďLJKWEƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ͕/ŶĐ͘ĂƐŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐŚĂůůƌĞŵĂŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽĨKWEƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ͕/ŶĐ͘KWEƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ͕/ŶĐ͘ƐŚĂůůƌĞƚĂŝŶĂůůĐŽŵŵŽŶůĂǁ͕ƐƚĂƚƵƚŽƌLJĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚƌŝŐŚƚƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽƉLJƌŝŐŚƚƚŚĞƌĞƚŽ͘ΞϮϬϮϬKWEƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ͕/ŶĐ͘Raker Rhodes EngineeringϭϭϮ ͘tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ^ƚ͕͘^ƵŝƚĞ/ŽǁĂŝƚLJ͕/ϱϮϮϰϬW͘ϯϭϵͲϯϯϯͲϳϴϱϬϭϵϭϴϭϳϭϲϭϱϭϰϭϯϭϮϭϭϭϬϵϴϳϲϱϰ &',:<>DEWYϮϬ ϮϭWƌŽũĞĐƚ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ^ŚĞĞƚEĂŵĞ<ĞLJWůĂŶDesign EngineersϴϴϬϭWƌĂŝƌŝĞsŝĞǁ>Ŷ͘^t͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϬϬĞĚĂƌZĂƉŝĚƐ͕/ϱϮϰϬϰW͘ϯϭϵͲϴϰϭͲϭϵϰϰDĞĐŚĂŶŝĐĂů ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌDesign EngineersϴϴϬϭWƌĂŝƌŝĞsŝĞǁ>Ŷ͘^t͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϬϬĞĚĂƌZĂƉŝĚƐ͕/ϱϮϰϬϰW͘ϯϭϵͲϴϰϭͲϭϵϰϰ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐĂů ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌϮϰϭͬϮ^ůŝŶƚŽŶ^ƚ͕͘^ƵŝƚĞϭ/ŽǁĂŝƚLJ͕/ϱϮϮϰϬW͗ϯϭϵͲϮϰϴͲϱϲϲϳǁǁǁ͘ŽƉŶĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐ͘ĐŽŵϯϮϭϭϵϭϴϭϳϭϲϭϱϭϰϭϯϭϮϭϭϭϬϵϴϳϲϱϰϮϬ ϮϭϯϮϭ^ŚĞĞƚEƵŵďĞƌ^ŚĞĞƚ/ƐƐƵĞĂƚĞKWEWƌŽũĞĐƚEŽ͘ϯϬϯDZYh d/>^d, E'> Zdd, dZ Z ,/>/dd/KEΘZ ^dKZd/KEϮϮϭ tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ^ƚ͘/ŽǁĂŝƚLJ͕/ϱϮϮϰϬϭϳϰϭϯϬϬϬd, E'> Zdd, dZ ϮϮϭ tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ^ƚ͘/ŽǁĂŝƚLJ͕/ϱϮϮϰϬKE^dZhd/KEKhD Ed^ϬϮͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϬ
(0$548((($67
10$548((1257+
:0$548((:(67
30$548((3/$1
60$548((6(&7,21352-(&75(48,5(0(1765(6725( 5(+$%,/,7$7( 1275(3/$&( :+(13266,%/(5(7$,1$608&+0(7$/$63266,%/(6&5$3($1'5(3$,176(( )253$,17&2$7,1*1(:(/(&7521,&65(3/,&$7(0(&+$1,&$/&+$6(5:,7+62/,'67$7((/(&7521,&61(:62&.(76$1'/('%8/%6 &/($5:),/$0(17/22. 62)),7$1'&+$6,1*6,'(65()85%,6+1(21:+(13266,%/(5(3/$&(,1.,1' 7<3 5(522)$1'1(:'5$,1,1&/8'(',1522),1*6&23(2):25. 3$5$3(768%675$7(%<6,*1$*(&2175$&725329(5$//(;,67,1*3+,6725,&31257+(;,67,1*3($67 1257+(;,67,1*3522)(;,67,1*
50$548((62)),7 5&3
0$548((522),1*'(7$,/ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ ĂƚĞ
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
INFORMAL MEETING
MAY 27, 2020 – 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Ernie Cox, Zephan Hazell, Bryce Parker, Amy
Pretorius
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
Roll call was taken and Lehmann noted this meeting is training for members of the Board of
Adjustment on their rule and procedures.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TRAINING:
Lehmann noted this meeting is to review the Board of Adjustment process, to share some
sample language that can be used, to discuss what to do and what not to do, and then to share
some sample cases. At the end there’s time for members to ask questions.
To begin the Board of Adjustment is a five-member resident panel appointed by City Council.
The laws that guide the Board of Adjustment is laid out in Iowa Code chapter 414 and mandated
by State law. The Board is a quasi-judicial panel, basically a jury of peers, and the Board makes
binding decisions. Cases can come before the Board for many reasons, sometimes relief from
things in the zoning code, through special exception or variance, or if there are disagreements
with administrative zoning decisions, the Board acts as the jury and that's the appeal process.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible
or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission
members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
Board of Adjustment
May 27, 2020
Page 2 of 9
Because you are a quasi-judicial, you are independent, and the decisions aren't reviewed by
Council. It also means that the decisions made aren't quite as subjective as a body like Planning
and Zoning, where there's a lot of flexibility in how they make decisions. Instead, the Board’s
decisions are based on specific criteria that's in the City Code. Similarly, if the decision is
appealed, it goes to a district court. The chair of the Board presides over the meetings, and staff
assist by providing background, applicable standards for each case and a staff analysis to help
the Board navigate some of the finer nuances of the Code.
Lehmann next discussed the different applications that come before the Board. First is the
special exception, which is explicitly listed in the Zoning Ordinance and requires that seven
general criteria and some specific standards must be met for that to be approved. There are two
different kinds, one is for land uses, that certain land uses in certain zones are permitted by
special exception. That allows a case by case analysis to make sure the special exception
doesn't negatively affect surrounding properties. There are also adjustments to setbacks or
various other requirements that are in the Zoning Code with some specific standards to help
mitigate those negative consequences as well. Variances are rarer because they are basically
allow forgiveness from the Zoning Code, a legal deviation, and it's something that is not
explicitly allowed by special exception. It must meet a higher standard and the applicant has to
show a necessary and unique hardship that cannot be caused by the owner. Finally is the
appeal, which is a slightly different process. As noted before, it is when someone wants to
question the interpretation of the City as it administers the zoning code. Overall, special
exceptions are by far the most common.
Next Lehmann went over the overall process, it starts with the City receiving an application.
Depending on the date it comes in, it's got a certain review by date, which determines when it
goes to the Board of Adjustment. Staff begins their review once the application is confirmed
complete. The date that the application is complete is when staff decides which meeting of the
Board the application ends up on. Public input is an important part of the process so staff puts a
sign on the property as soon as they have the Board date set. Staff also sends letters to nearby
property owners at least seven days before the meeting and puts a public hearing notice in the
newspaper at that time. There is a time period to allow an opportunity for public comment which
gives surrounding property owners or the general public who might have an interest in that
specific case some time. Similarly, during the Board hearing there is an opportunity for public to
speak in every Board action, but if the public is unable to attend the hearing they can submit
written comments to staff to include in the agenda packet or to be provided to the Board just
before the meeting. Board hearings are informal, so it is a non-adversarial opportunity to gather
evidence and hear from the community. Depending on who is appointed to the Board, one may
be a lawyer, but really the Board is just members of the community. It's a different level of
formality than say, sitting in front of a judge. Following the hearing there's an opportunity for the
Board’s to discus and make a decision which is basically the ruling. The options for the board’s
decision are to approve the application, approve it with conditions, or deny it based on whether
the applicable criteria are met. Approval always requires minimum of three votes, so even when
there's only a quorum of three, all three would have to vote in the affirmative to approve an
application. There is an opportunity for an applicant to appeal the Board decision but it doesn't
go to City Council it goes directly into the judicial system.
Board of Adjustment
May 27, 2020
Page 3 of 9
Dulek shared the general order of events for Board hearings. The chair will begin by
announcing the item as it appears on the agenda and next very importantly open the public
hearing because that's the purpose and the time for the Board to gather the information that's
provided to them in the agenda packet, from staff, written comments from the public and also
whoever appears in person to provide information. Again, the purpose is for the Board to get as
much information as available in order to make the decision. Staff starts by giving their report
and then makes a recommendation based how staff sees the situation. The applicant will next
speak then usually followed up with people who are in favor of or against the application. The
Board can ask questions of staff or the applicant or any of the people against the application.
Again this is all so the Board gets all the information they can. If there is a case where the Board
wants more information, for example a traffic study, and the applicant is willing, the Board can
continue the public hearing until another meeting, be that the next month or it can even
schedule it for two days later so long as there is 24 hours’ notice of the meeting, it's important
for the Board to be comfortable that they have all the information and that the public hearing not
be closed until the Board has all the information they need to make a decision. Once the public
hearing is closed the Board is only able to speak among themselves, no more questions can be
asked of the public or staff.
Chrischilles asked if there is any way to reopen the public hearing. Dulek said there is no way
to reopen it. If the Board really wanted more information or had more questions they could vote
to defeat the application and have them reapply. Dulek reminded them that an item can be
deferred and the public hearing would remain open. She noted sometimes at a City Council
meeting they'll continue the public hearing until the next meeting and defer a decision on a
matter because they're looking for more information, generally from the applicant, the
developer, members of the public, or staff.
Moving on, under Board bylaws the chair cannot make a motion or second the motion to
approve. The motion for the special exception or the variance or the appeal is made by
someone other than the chair and then must be seconded. All motions must be in the
affirmative, and that doesn't mean you agree with it or that you're going to vote in favor of it, it
just allows under Robert's Rules that the matter can be discussed, it is called putting it on the
table. The Board then can discuss the application among themselves and then take a vote or it
can be deferred. A vote can be deferred to the next meeting even if the public hearing is closed,
the Board should never feel pressured to make a decision. A vote deferral usually only occurs
in a few situations where there's a lot of information or a lot of new information provided at the
public hearing. Again, the follow-up meeting can happen the next month or as soon as two
days later, so long as the agenda is posted 24 hours in advance. And as mentioned earlier, the
Board can approve it with or without conditions, the Board can add conditions, they can take
away conditions that staff suggested, or they can deny the application.
Lehmann asked if someone is the acting chair, if the chair is absent and someone else is acting
as the chair, are they able to make motions and seconds. Dulek stated she was unsure but
would look into that answer. She noted they will provide Board members with cheat sheets with
items they think will be helpful to Board members. One of the items will be how to state the
findings of fact, or if you want to add another fact or change a fact. For example, stating you
Board of Adjustment
May 27, 2020
Page 4 of 9
concur with the findings of fact in the staff report except for perhaps one that you feel there is
just not enough to evidence to support it. Or you could recommend the Board adopt the findings
of fact, with the following change such as adding or deleting a condition. If at least two other
members agree with the findings of fact then the Board can vote.
Moving on to what to do, Lehmann reiterated the Board should follow procedures as much as
possible, it can be tricky and complicated, and you are not expected to be perfect but to the
extent possible, everyone has to be able to follow those procedures because that can invalidate
one of your decisions in court, if something were to get appealed to a district court. The Board
should also obviously be professional and courteous and avoid conflicts of interest. If a member
of the Board has any kind of financial interest in a project, direct or indirect, it is important to
declare that. A Board member can ask questions to those speaking but be prepared to stay on
track and redirect back to the topic if necessary. Because the Board is quasi-judicial, hearings
are based on specific standards that you're judging against. Sometimes conversations stray,
especially if emotions are high, so always be prepared to redirect them back and staff will help
with that too. It is important to have that in mind during the public hearing, keep it on track to
identify the facts relevant to the application. After the public hearing is closed and a motion has
been made the Board may discuss findings and evidence, that's when you have an opportunity
to discuss with each other and say what you're thinking. It is also important to apply the facts of
the case to the City Code of Ordinances to determine if a proposed request complies.
Moving on about what not to do, Lehmann noted it is important to be careful about major
procedural errors such as failing to open and close a hearing, not stating findings of fact,
because again all those things can invalidate a decision. Also try not to say things you wouldn’t
want to say in the courtroom, everything becomes public record and sometimes emotions can
get heated and people say things they wouldn’t normally. Also, the Board should not engage
individuals during their public comments. If someone says something and you disagree with it,
your job isn't to tell them they are wrong. You can ask for clarification but you're not there to
change their mind, you're there to hear the facts and try to decide what's relevant. It is during
the Board discussion period where you can say you don't think something was relevant or it
doesn't really apply. Again, try not to stray too far from the issue at hand in the proposed
request, and try to stick to the Code as much as possible. You also need to watch your personal
opinions to the extent that you can, the Board is not there to judge the applicant or the idea in
the application. It is important when making a decision to note what the standards say and how
the application meets or doesn’t meet the standards. As a Board member you don’t have to
agree with the standards, just to follow them. It is Council's role to make those decisions of
what the standards are, and the Board is there to make rulings on the standards that exist.
Chrischilles asked for clarification about how the Board is not there to judge the standards, but
to interpret the standards that are set by City Council and the Board does not have the power or
the ability to make suggestions as to what the City Council might look to change in the Code.
When the Board dealt with the Kinnick stadium house dilemma it didn’t feel as though the City
Code addressed that particular type of dwelling or building and he brought up the fact that they
needed to perhaps look at the City Code and decide if a new category might be created, in case
something like that came up in the future, and nothing ever became of that.
Board of Adjustment
May 27, 2020
Page 5 of 9
Dulek replied that certainly a Board member can make a recommendation individually or as a
group. She gave an example of a special exception on South Gilbert Street that was in the flood
zone and the tenants were on the second floor. Obviously they weren't going to be flooded, but
their access to their unit might be affected and there was nothing in the standards that
addressed that. The Board made a recommendation to Council that on the disclosure form that
all tenants receive about some basic information such as when your garbage is picked up and
where to find the Iowa Code and so on and so forth, Council added to that disclosure info on
how one can find out whether their apartment is in the floodplain and Council made the Code
change based on the Board's recommendation. Council hears from all the boards and
commissions and receives a variety of recommendations. Council acts on some of them but not
all of them just like when staff makes recommendations Council doesn't act on all of them. In
terms of the Kinnick house, she is guessing there wasn't four votes to put that forward.
Russett noted they looked into that situation at the staff level and there was no other way to
categorize the use that exists there besides it being a single family dwelling and didn't feel it
was appropriate to create a new use.
Lehmann added the Board or a member can make recommendations but the important thing is
that when the Board is making a decision, they have to follow the criteria that exists, so even if
they recommend there should be a change, they cannot judge the current case on what that
change may or may not be. The decision and the findings of fact are based on current Code.
Dulek next provided the Board with a couple of real cases that went up to both the Iowa
Supreme Court and the Iowa Court of Appeals. In other words, these were decisions of the Iowa
City Board of Adjustment that went to the local district court and that court made a decision and
it was appealed all the way up to the either the Court of Appeals or the Iowa Supreme Court.
The first example was a special exception Prybil Family Investments versus the Board to allow
construction of a concrete manufacturing plant in a general industrial zone west of town. The
Board approved the special exception and the adjacent property owner appealed. The adjacent
property owner argued that there is a general standard that the proposed use cannot injure the
use and enjoyment of nearby properties and it can't substantially impair the property values of
the neighborhood. The Iowa Court of Appeals looked at this and noted substantial evidence
exists when a reasonable mind could accept evidence as adequate to reach the findings. Dulek
added that's what a court is always going to do, they're going to look to see if there was enough
evidence before the Board so that the Board could have made the decision it did. Additionally,
the Court said the absence of expert testimony is not fatal to the determination of substantial
evidence of the Board's findings and the Board is permitted to rely on commonsense inferences
as well as anecdotal evidence. Dulek noted that's one of the differences between a court of law
and a quasi-judicial board made up of residents is that the courts are going to give deference to
the Board as long as there's enough evidence to show how they made their decision. And the
court concluded while they may disagree with the Board, they are not allowed to substitute their
opinion for the Board's decision. The Board is given a tremendous amount of deference, but the
key is explaining how it is that you reach that decision, because that's what the court is going to
look at. The next case was Bontrager Auto Services versus the Board to allow construction of
Board of Adjustment
May 27, 2020
Page 6 of 9
transient housing in a commercial district. The Board approved the special exception and there
was a tremendous amount of opposition and feedback and 5 businesses and 15 neighbors sued
and filed the appeal. Again one of the issues was whether the standard was met, that it would
substantially impair property values and the Board concluded it would not substantially impair
property values. The Iowa Supreme Court said that while the issue is close, they concluded
there was substantial evidence to support the Board's decision. Expert testimony concerning the
valuation of the property is not required by our cases or by the Iowa City Code. Again, this
reflects the deference given to a quasi-judicial board. As long as there's substantial evidence for
the court when reviewing the transcript and reading the decision to determine how the Board
reached its decision. The Court went on to say they think this evidence considered collectively is
adequate to support the Board's conclusion that the proposed special exception would not
substantially diminish or impair the value of neighboring properties. Although there was
evidence to the contrary, the reasonableness of the Board's decision is open to a fair difference
of opinion and therefore the Board's decision should be affirmed on that basis. Again, the Court
will not substitute its own decision, if they can find how you reached that decision, why you
reached a decision and if it's in the realm of reasonableness, they will uphold the decision.
Dulek also noted there have been cases where it doesn't go as well, there was a case in Des
Moines where everybody there agreed, but both parties were talking to Board members before
the public hearing in what is called ex-parte communication and the Court of Appeals stated the
parties whose rights are involved are entitled to the same fairness, impartiality and
independence of judgment as expected in a court of law. Although procedures and rules are
less rigid in quasi-judicial bodies than the courts, there can be no difference under our concept
of justice between the two proposals in respect to these fundamental requirements. The court
went on to say they determined that there are compelling considerations, including the basic
consideration of fairness, which demand ex-parte communications between County boards (this
happened to be a county rather than a city Board of Adjustment) who are exercising their
adjudicatory functions and interested parties should not occur. So it is important that if someone
comes up and says, “hey I know on your agenda next Wednesday, you're talking about this and
I want to talk to you about it”, that person should come to the hearing, or write to the Board. It's
very important that the Board members not discuss the application with each other or anybody
else. Board members can drive by the site, individually, but that's different. There was another
case where the Board did not make the necessary findings. It was a variance and the Board
approved the variance. The opposing side, the party appealing, said there wasn't the evidence
on the unnecessary hardship. The Court first defined what unnecessary hardship is and then
concluded that the Board did not require that the applicant meet those requirements. The
Board's granting of the variance was thus illegal. The Board needs to make sure that there are
enough facts to support or deny the application.
Chrischilles asked what happened in that case, where does it fall if the Board's job is not to
ensure that somebody has a reasonable return on investment. If a person’s piece of property
won't make much money if there's just a single-family dwelling on it and they're looking to make
it a duplex, is that evidence enough. He noted it is not the Board’s job to make sure that a
person is able to make money off this property. Dulek replied it's one of the standards to grant
the variance and applicant must show they can't make any money due to the zoning
Board of Adjustment
May 27, 2020
Page 7 of 9
requirement. They have to prove that in order to get the variance and what the Court said here
is the Board didn't make the applicant jump through those hoops.
Lehmann added the applicant cannot have caused the issue themselves, such as if a person
bought land and built a house someplace where they are not supposed to, without looking it up,
and now they want a variance. That is the person's fault for not checking first. Chrischilles noted
what comes to his mind is if the property was in a certain category, and they knew that when
they invested in it, that's tough luck they should have checked it out and made sure a single
dwelling could make money there before they even invested.
Dulek noted one can serve easily five years on the Board of Adjustment never have a variance,
because it's so difficult to meet that hardly no one even applies. It's just a very, very difficult
standard to meet and the unnecessary hardship is just one of the standards, there are others.
Chrischilles noted an unnecessary hardship could be that the zoning got changed after the
person bought the property, the Board had a case like that once and they were disputing that
fact that they bought the property under those circumstances and now the circumstances have
changed.
Lehmann asked if any commissioners had additional questions.
Chrischilles asked what's the best time to request an extension of a public hearing or to end it.
Dulek stated it depends on whether the Board wants more information or just simply more time
to consider. If the Board needs more information, they want to make sure that that gets done
before the public hearing is closed. If it's just a matter of additional time to think through and
take it all in, then an item can be deferred after the public hearing is closed. Dulek noted it is
okay for the Board to take a temperature check before to see how members are feeling before
the chair closes the hearing.
Hazell asked if they simply want more time, do they have to make a motion to do that and vote
on a motion to defer consideration. Dulek confirmed that is correct.
Pretorius noted she has on her cheat sheet that before she closes the public hearing she asks if
there are there any other issues on which the Board wishes to have more clarity or any final
questions before the public hearing is closed. Pretorius noted that is the opportunity for the
Board members to say if they are not comfortable closing the public hearing if it seems like
there're missing a lot of information.
Cox stated this has been helpful and it was nice to look at some case history. One thing really
highlighted here was the commonsense approach and the anecdotal approach. The role of the
expert is helpful, but it should not necessarily be the thing that would persuade us if we as a
Board didn't think that something was matching up with the Code. Dulek noted in that Bontrager
case there were 37 people spoke at that public hearing. Cox noted that even with that degree of
public disagreement, the Board had enough fact that they felt comfortable proceeding and the
Court upheld that decision. Just because there is a lot of disagreement if it isn’t based on the
Board of Adjustment
May 27, 2020
Page 8 of 9
ordinance it can’t sway the Board. It is encouraging that if Board follows the facts and make a
deliberative decision, even if it's not popular, it might be the right choice.
Lehmann noted that at any time a Board member has other questions they can always send
staff the questions such as “my neighbor is the person that's the applicant. Is that a problem?”.
If the question is on a specific case staff may not answer as they wrote the staff report to
contain staff’s opinion and they don't want to be swaying the Board one way or the other.
Pretorius noted it will be helpful to have those cheat sheets that Lehmann talked about.
Lehmann noted in the future, staff will regularly do this training closer to when new people are
appointed so they’re not just thrown into the shark tank and have an opportunity to be better
prepared.
CONSIDER THE MAY 13, 2020 MINUTES:
Chrischilles moved to approve the minutes of May 13, 2020. Parker seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chrischilles moved to adjourn this meeting, Parker seconded, a vote was taken and all
approved.
Board of Adjustment
May 27, 2020
Page 9 of 9
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020
NAME
TERM
EXP.
1/8 2/12 4/8 5/13 5/27
CHRISCHILLES, GENE 12/31/2022 X X X X X
COX, ERNIE 12/31/2020 X O/E X X X
HAZELL, ZEPHAN 12/31/2021 X O/E X X X
PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 0/E X X X X
PRETORIUS, AMY 12/31/2023 X X X X X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member